Lisa Vorderbrueggen has an article in today’s Contra Costa Times, titled, Bloggers take Tauscher to task. The article has a number of huge problems, let me list some of mine and I’m sure others will chime in with their complaints.

First off, I don’t see how this story could be written without mentioning that the exact same thing happened to Congressman Jeffery Cohelan in the next district over. OK, maybe not the exact same thing because Cohelan went into his unsuccessful 1970 primary with strong labor support. But the complete lack of historical perspective does damage to the analysis.

But not as much damage as this:

Yes, Tauscher voted to allow President Bush to start the Iraq war. But so did every other Democrat in the nation except one.

That is a lie. A lie in the pages of the Contra Costa Times. In reality, Tauscher was one of only two Bay Area Democrats to support the unnecessary, unilateral, invasion of Iraq with the vast majority opposed. In all, only 81 Democrats voted the wrong way on the biggest issue of our time with 126 voting no, meaning 60% of house Democrats were opposed.

This failure to understand even the most basic dynamics and history means this isn’t the type of article I would recommend people reading.

Yes, she nominated Lieberman for vice president at the 2000 Democratic National Convention. But that was before the Iraq war, and many Democrats supported his candidacy.

Of course, Vorderbrueggen fails to mention Tauscher’s continuing support for Lieberman after the start of the war. It would have made sense to point out that Tauscher was of his few and biggest supporters during his flop of a 2004 Presidential campaign.

Yes, she voted with Republicans for the bankruptcy bill and has supported global trade deals that progressives deplore. But Tauscher’s record on key Democratic priorities — environment, abortion rights, gun control, unions, same-sex marriage — is identical to those of her more liberal neighbors, Rep. George Miller of Martinez and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

Tauscher votes with corporations against people on the major economic issues and Vorderbrueggen thinks that her record on unions is the same as Miller and Pelosi? Uh, no. But more importantly this district was designed for a Democrat who is strong on both economic and social issues and there is no reason for the voters to keep getting (literally) short-changed on economic issues.

And despite past clashes with party leaders over ideology and district boundaries, there’s no sign that top Democrats share the bloggers’ hostility.

I’m going to call bullshit. In fact, during Tauscher’s battle with John Burton I believe the exact phrase he told Roll Call about Tauscher was, “full of s-.” OK, maybe that wasn’t the exact phrase, but that is how it was printed. Tauscher hurts the Democratic Party and “top Democrats” realize this, but there is a lot of personal history. Notice the absense of support from “top Democrats” like Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer. It was Barbara Boxer who once said of Tauscher shivving Pelosi, “Her doing this says to me she is a very bitter person.” These weren’t just battles about “ideology and district boundaries” but were instead intense personal battles.

The bloggers say Tauscher tried to mask her moderate roots when her staff scrubbed a couple of Lieberman photos from her Web site. (Two photos remain, however, and her staff said this was a routine site update.)

The only routine thing involved was Tauscher’s staff telling Vorderbrueggen something and her believing it instead of investigating.

But ignore the netroots and grass roots at your peril, Leach warns. These are the same folks who helped funnel the Bay Area progressive army into the campaign of McNerney, the underdog who defeated seven-term incumbent Richard Pombo in November.

This might have been a nice point in the story for Vorderbrueggen to point out that McNerney first stomped Tauscher’s candidate in the primary despite a huge financial disadvantage.

So, does Tauscher have a problem, or have cocky bloggers overstated their powers as kingmaker, or in this case, queenmaker?

No one knows.

Actually, lots of people know. But they wouldn’t know it from reading the Contra Costa Times.

Crossposted from Reelpolitik.

Today’s announcement by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson continued the trend of 2008 presidential contenders kicking off their campaigns accompanied by an online video. Like former Governor Tom Vilsack, former Senator John Edwards, and Senators Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton; Richardson addressed supporters, skeptics and the world through the blossoming medium of political web videos.

The contenders’ videos show differences in rhetoric – to be sure. I’ll leave discussion of that to a million different blogs, and the traditional media. What interests me in the release of these announcement videos are the differences in how each campaign uses the medium.

CLICK HERE to view the announcement videos

Former Governor Tom Vilsack (D-IA)

Now, this is a vLog! In the most traditional sense, Vilsack nails the medium. A static camera, at that slightly low-angle makes you feel as if it’s shot with a web-cam sitting on his desk. The choice of locations – on a couch in front of a packed bookshelf – lends itself well to his homespun delivery, which is where Vilsack really shines.

I don’t know how this was produced, but I really do get the feeling from it that he is alone with the camera. Were his aides comfortable enough to just let him sit down and tape himself? Somehow I doubt it. That’s how it comes across though. Vilsack comes out on top of the heap as far as intimacy and conversational-ism. In subsequent videos, he has managed to maintain this. Having met Governor Vilsack, it’s great to see that he talks in the same thoughtful way in his vLog as he does one on one.

Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC)

Edwards creative and symbolic use of setting makes his video stand out from the rest. Coming as an preface to his official announcement the next day, Edwards continues something he started in video presentations for his pre-presidential PAC, One America. For One America, Edwards would release a video ahead of making a speech, outlining what he would be talking about and giving a personal and emotional context to the speech to come. After that, the speech would be presented as delivered, but would mean a lot more to those who watched the “pre-show.”
The use of the camera has a “hand it to the volunteer and roll” feel that is loose and gives that amateurish “grassrootsy” feeling. The remarks are obviously thought-out, but maintain an off-the-cuff quality of someone speaking from the heart.

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)

Dodd is the one video that feels like an after thought, as if someone in the office suddenly realized, “All the other candidates have YouTube videos. We need to whip one up.” They threw up a couple flags, plopped the Senator in front of him, and told him “go!”
That said, it does lend a certain credibility to the video the others don’t have. This isn’t a calculated move. It isn’t a contrivance meant to display that the Dodd campaign “gets it.” Dodd’s announcement doesn’t have the production values or backdrop that many of the other videos do, but it gets the job done. Afterthought or not, they thought it important to reach out this way and the Senator gave us a little about himself. I especially liked how he said, “I’m a Senator from Connecticut.” He is truly introducing himself to us in this video.

The best part is actually at the very end, and resides mainly outside of the piece. If you follow a link that comes up at the tail of the video, you go to a page on Dodd’s website that asks you for a video link of your own, opening up two-way conversation via YouTube.

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)

Senator Obama’s clip is the most “formal” of those released. Shot in a slightly loose closeup, the announcement is delivered in one take to a static camera. The lighting is very traditional, but also dramatic and rich. This video – in one word – is stable. Obama’s firm delivery, combined with the controlled setting, lighting, and camera remind me of a Presidential address. I’m pretty sure that exactly what they want you to take away.
This was shot to show control and heft. In a recent article (can’t remember which), the writer talked about Obama’s style on the stump, saying it was like watching someone think out loud. That is certainly one type of Obama speech, the “finding a way through things while everyone watches” delivery. This video is the other type of Obama speech. Like the DNC Keynote in 2004 this one is a planned march. A candidate who’s found the way, and is not looking for it. In a way, it leaves a little out of the piece. Obama’s million megawatt smile and good humor are not to be seen here – it’s all business.

This video tackles the “inexperience” argument. For what I think the aim of the piece was, it succeeds.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)

Normally, I’d call her Senator Clinton; but this video has “Call me Hillary” all over it. Shot in a living room on a comfy couch, with family photos in the background and a lovely day outside; the Hillary video is warm and welcoming – if a bit scripted. She is inviting and friendly, with a touch of humor – while still carrying the weight of a powerful United States Senator. It’s clear that this video intends to cozy you up to the former First Lady, who we all “know” so well. She is a familiar face and an old friend to the Party.

But, in bringing that out, I feel the presence of a “director,” who brought out a bit of a forced delivery. One thing that bugs me are her gestures. The one that jumped out was when she puts her arm up on the back of the couch. Not so much that she did it, or that it seemed “stagy.” My problem with it is in the editing. It happens twice. Back to back. She puts her arm up, delivers a line about the President. There’s a cut. She puts her arm up and makes a different point. In doing it, she seems perfectly natural. After editing though, it looks like a stage-directed move. Her lean forward on “Let’s chat.” (and even the use of the word “chat”) didn’t seem in character, either. We get it already, she’s not frigid. She’s not unapproachable. Don’t push it on us.

Most of this video gave me a very different feeling than I’ve had sometimes about Senator Clinton. Namely, that she is “Hillary.” Those few moments, where she seemed guided to do things, undercut the rest of the piece where – by actually talking to us – she was communicating all that they wanted her to get across. Let Hillary be Hillary.

Maybe I’m expecting too much in this video, or something. My wife didn’t see any of this the same way. She usually has a far more critical cinematic eye than I do, and isn’t inclined to be a fan of Senator Clinton…after this video, all that changed. She is firmly in Hillaryland, now! So, on that measure this video is a raging success. I look forward to the “chats” that are on deck in the coming week.

Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM)

The offering from Governor Richardson is formal (like the Obama video) but with the warmth of the Clinton video. He let’s us know who he is (sharing his strong resume) and where he is coming from. He also digs deeper into plans and issues than the other candidates, making a detailed case for why he should be the next President. The choice of location is excellent. The warm lighting, flowers in the background and hearth give a homey feeling…but the fireplace as angular and strong (with a classic look) that reminds of something you may see in a room of the White House. This is smart “regular-guy” at home among marble.

I’d have like to have seen him cut loose a little more, but I mostly like his delivery. He doesn’t come off as a natural communicator. But, he portrays seriousness and honesty and a genuine interest in tackling big issues. This is a man of depth, with a lot on his mind – who has so much to share he can barely even the outline into the four and a half minutes of the clip. I saw him in person once at a Democratic Governors Association event, and remember him as pretty funny. I hope future videos show a bit more of that humor.

A lot of people will key in on his speaking in Spanish, let me just add a heartfelt, “bully for you, Governor!” I would like to see these videos dubbed into other languages, as well. Richardson has a leg up in this area. Let’s talk to all Americans, even those who are new here and learning our language.

On The Whole

All of these have their good points and bad points.  Some were better at being conversational.  Some were lit or shot better.  Some used context and setting better.  What’s important is that everyone is in the game.  All of the candidates have seen from 2006 the importance of this medium, and are – pardon my pun – exploring it.  I hope to see them all grow as vLoggers (or whatever you’d call them!) as the campaign goes on.

My quick takes:

Vilsack – Conversational
Good:  Thoughtful delivery.  Intimate camera.
Bad:  Hmmmm…I’ll get back to you on that.  I really like this video.

Edwards – Active
Good:  Top-notch context and setting.  Free-flowing dialog
Bad:  Get in closer.  It’s a small picture area online, medium and wide shots don’t get enough emotion (read: your face) across.  Start wide (to get the cleanup) and cut in.

Dodd – On-the-Fly
Good:  Very open and conversational, very comfortable.  Two-way video communication web page!
Bad:  The “Afterthought” effect.

Obama – Controlled
Good:  “Strong” camera.  Dramatic lighting.  Good delivery.
Bad:  For this one it works, but loosen up a little in the future.  Careful in your framing (ie. the “Half Hands” at the bottom of the frame).

Clinton – Inviting
Good:  Conversational.  Good balance of policy and personality.  Nice humor.
Bad:  Relax and be yourself.  Like Obama, get off the script a little next time.  You’re sitting on my desktop.  Let me get to know you.

Richardson – Exuberant
Good:  Depth and Information.  Homey, yet formal setting.
Bad:  Let your humor out.  You’re a famous “backslapper” of a politician.  Give us a little tap!