Blundering Pols Find Their Oops On Endless Loop Of Internet Sites

Perhaps the most powerful demonstration of online video was supplied by supporters of Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont of Connecticut. To underscore Lamont's claim that the incumbent Lieberman was too closely allied with President Bush, his campaign posted a brief clip of Bush kissing Lieberman before this year's State of the Union speech. Another clip showed Lieberman jumping up to lead a standing ovation for the president during the same speech. In all, dozens of pro-Lamont/anti-Lieberman videos flooded the Internet during the primary campaign, which Lamont won in an upset in August.

What's changed, too, is the speed with which the public can view this kind of footage. When Burns commented during his 2000 reelection campaign that some Montanans were without health care coverage because they "choose not to be insured," his opponent, Brian Schweitzer, used the comment in a TV ad that aired three days later. Nowadays, such video likely would be posted in a few hours.

Unlike a "negative" campaign commercial, online video is typically cheap to produce and distribute. Video clips also aren't subject to campaign finance limits or Federal Election Commission disclosure requirements (the ubiquitous "My name is [blank] and I approve this message"). Since YouTube allows users to post videos under aliases, it can be nearly impossible to tell exactly who is disseminating a particular clip.

Even so, political professionals say online video isn't a substitute for traditional forms of communication, such as advertising and news coverage. The difference is sheer numbers: A 30-second TV spot for a candidate can reach hundreds of thousands of would-be voters at once, as can a newspaper story or an evening news report.

The Internet, though, has become a part of the media mix. Many campaigns upload their TV commercials to file-sharing sites.

Footage of Kerry making his "stuck in Iraq" comment was viewed about 35,000 times in the first 24 hours after being posted on YouTube. That is a modest figure, at least compared with the potential audience that saw it on news channels.

But until last year, it would have been impossible to see Kerry on YouTube at all. The company, based in San Mateo, Calif., didn't exist until February 2005, and didn't have measurable traffic until the middle of that year. Since then, it has vaulted into the ranks of Internet superstars. According to the Internet tracking firm comScore Media Metrix, the site had 16 million unique U.S. visitors in July, making it one of the Web's 40 most visited sites. Google Inc. agreed to buy YouTube last month for $1.65 billion.

Video file-sharing "completes the technological infrastructure for personal video," says Michael Cornfield, an adjunct professor at George Washington University who studies technology and politics. "Before, everyone had cellphones and video cameras and broadband, but no way to share what they shot. YouTube is the keystone in the bridge."

What this means, he says, is that "every [politician] now has to check YouTube in addition to monitoring Google and Wikipedia."

Warns Cornfield: "They better be prepared to live with it."