If I Managed Fred Thompson's Presidential Campaign....

My business partner and I were discussing the changed face of Presidential campaigning in the current era this past weekend.

I mentioned the YouTube video developed by an Obama supporter which was targeted at Hillary Clinton. My post about it, from March, may be found here. This seminal event demonstrates that quite a bit of television commercial-like publicity can be had for essentially no money.

Thus, we turned to Fred Thompson. What if he were to run, but with too little time left to raise the sort of money that other leading candidates have raised? Could he still have a chance? How would he do it?

Well, we know from old third-party candidacies such as John Anderson and Ross Perot that having fieldworkers to get such a candidate on the ballot in each state are necessary.

As to mass media campaigns, we believe that a political candidate can now essentially emulate the direct-to-consumer approaches that I have predicted will soon occur for video programming producers, over on my other blog, The Reasoned Sceptic, which is linked to this one.

To wit, we would have Thompson post videos on his website conveying his message on the various topics which he felt were important. Second, we'd have him produced in a town hall sort of environment, answering questions from an audience, and maximizing his thoughtful, sensible, folksy appeal.

Finally, to throw down the gauntlet to the posed and overly-prepped candidates, we'd film Thompson strolling down major streets in various large and small American cities, stopping people to chat with them and engage in discussions. He'd obviously be exposed to unrehearsed questions and comments, which would tend to make the more stultifyingly pompous candidates have to consider doing the same.

We'd post all of these videos on YouTube and various other free video sites across the internet, thus avoiding the need for expensive purchases of advertising slots on network or cable television. Does anyone still think you can't get good coverage directly on the internet with videos?

Just like every other quadrennial campaign, this one has some new wrinkles to which many candidates will probably not well adapt. Last time, it was grassroots, web-based fund raising and website usage. Perhaps this year's change is the rise of spontaneous, free political message videos on the internet.

John Boehner's Slip of the Tongue

I caught a few minutes of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Chris Wallace's Fox-TV program yesterday afternoon. For the most part, it was boring and predictable.

Wallace asked what Boehner thought was missing about Frisco 'Nan's legislative program, and, expectedly, Boehner answered, 'they have no program.' True, other than a sort of nihilistic roll-back of any- and everything they can get their hands on which has been done since the Republicans finally got the Speakership more than a decade ago.

However, when Wallace asked Boehner about which candidate he liked, or what he thought of them, Boehner made a telling, important slip. He whined about how, seemingly just the day after last November's elections, the 2008 Presidential contest had already begun. And that the poor voters should get a break from all this.

I'm a sceptic- born and bred, Midwestern-style. I'm not from Missouri, but, trust me, it's not the only state full of people who want to see proof.

Thus, when a hacked-up professional pol expresses sympathy for the common voter having to endure a too-long Presidential election season, my natural inclination is to think, B'rer Rabbit and crocodile tears.

Boehner's put down of the always-on White House campaign makes me think it's probably a good thing. As I wrote here in February of this year, but more briefly, the eternal Presidential campaign is actually a blessing for voters.

Remember, the President of the US is still the single most powerful elected office on the planet. You cannot know 'too much' about the people who seek, crave, lust after, and dream about inhabiting it. However, the risks, if there are any, to a too-long campaign season, are all owned by the candidates, not the voters. As I wrote in that earlier post,

"You know what? Don't worry about any of these egotistical Presidential wannabes. One of these clowns will win- we can't prevent that. And then, s/he won't be allowed to implement his/her wilder, crazier schemes anyway, because about 300 representatives will have to drink the Kool-Aid to make that happen.

More likely, the really appallingly bad ideas will be stripped off, like ionized electrons, on the way to victory. In the end, it's the daily-monthly leadership, reactive, and problem-solving grind that dominates the Oval Office."

As I discussed with another guy in my fitness club's locker room last night, after hearing Boehner's comment, we know the person we elect to the Oval Office will have warts. S/he'll have some seamier personal attributes, or a few zany ideas that don't make sense. Or some ideological stance that nearly half the country can't abide- like abortion, gun control, or, God help us with these horribly misunderstood topics, 'stem cell research.' Remember when a candidate's stand on busing or the ERA amendment seemed to matter?

In the end, some of us will passionately vote for the winning candidate, fewer of us will ardently vote for a/the loser, and a bunch of us will vote for each while holding our collective nose. I spoke with a friend this weekend who voted against Bush in each of the last two elections, but was an avid Reagan supporter in his day. She simply couldn't pull the lever for our current President, but admitted that she did not really support either Gore or Kerry.

The truth is, we rarely have a President who is actively supported by most American voters. And none of them is without fault. But the longer the campaign trail, the more unscripted, candid-camera style YouTube videos we see, the better we'll feel that we know just what we are getting when we vote for this or that candidate.

My guess is that the era of the big Presidential debate is coming to an end. Online, near-real-time video coverage is going to make a carefully-staged debate become rather meaningless. In my next post, on Fred Thompson, I'll explain that notion in more detail.

For now, though, I'm happy and confident that what is mourned by professional politicians like Boehner, is a good thing for us voters. The age of the fully-informed voter, thanks to cheap, omnipresent digital information sources and high-speed internet access, is further eroding the managed, packaged, staged candidate. No wonder the politicians are dreading the always-on, digital media future of campaigning for President.