Candidates Could Take a (Web) Page From the Media

OK, I took the dare.

At the end of the first presidential debate, Bob Dole looked solemnly into the camera and invited us--particularly younger Americans--to call up his Web page (https://www.dole96.com or https://www.dolekemp96.org).

So I did, thinking that despite the fact that these sites have been around for months, if they are useful, this is the time when they should prove themselves.

There are speeches by Bob Dole, in words and in audio clips. There are pictures of Bob Dole. There are ways for the campaign to draw volunteers, campaign contributions and to build mailing lists among subscribers.

There are ways to “personalize” your Web display by indicating that you have special interest in one or several specific issues.

They’ve created a way to download a letter-size poster that allows the user to select which picture of Dole or Jack Kemp or candidates and wives that most appeals against a choice of patriotically colored backgrounds.

There is a crossword puzzle that asks readers to fill in Dole’s hometown and the last name of his boyhood hero, Dwight . . . .

And there is plenty, plenty of campaign information, including positions on issues, the reasoning behind his arguments and blinking messages to remember to support Dole-Kemp. There are no negative attacks on the president, there are no references to Whitewater or character issues or much mention at all of who’s running against Dole.

The whole experience is a little like swallowing the Dole message without any of his sometimes biting humor. For all the potential, it’s a little, well, antiseptic.

Just for fairness, it was time to visit the Clinton-Gore electronic headquarters (https://www.cg96.org). Much as the candidates showed at the televised debates, the Web sites are remarkably alike in spirit and intent.

Clinton’s site has many of the same offerings and also avoids any mention of real comparison with his opponent. Like the Republican site, the Democrats offer ways for people to enter into the campaigning by volunteering or by showing up at one of the campaign stops that are listed. There is a little more effort in the site to be comprehensive about the Democratic positions on the issues. The whole effort treats politics as if it is a nice activity.

Now, I enjoy a good political fray more than most people, and it is part of my job to follow the ins and outs. And I do believe in the growing power of the Web to deliver information that goes way beyond what we might be able to absorb at a single sitting.

But for Internet users looking for the first campaign that might turn to electronic publishing to allow more direct interaction between citizen and representative--presaging the day when even online voting will be commonplace--the results so far are disappointing. What we have in the major political sites are basically new outlets for political advertising.

That’s likely to be a growth industry. As computer penetration increases, look for the political campaigns to turn the Net into a huge direct-mail operation that is intended to match specific voters or households with specific political messages.

What we can see now on the Web about politics--this fall, there has been a mini-explosion of sites offering some kind of political coverage--is either boosterism from the individual candidates and parties, parodies from would-be humorists and the emergence of traditional media sites as the most thoughtful and useful sites on the Web.

Efforts like PoliticsNow (https://www.politicsnow.com) offer not only articles from the National Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Newsday and other publications, but informed commentary and moderated discussion. These are offerings that provide some context, some distance from the self-congratulatory messages.

PoliticsNow also has some interactive elements that range from the serious (downloadable guides to judge the debates) to the irreverent and fun (list all the topics that won’t be heard at the debate). On election night, it will also offer real-time election returns.

Another such site is AllPolitics (https://www.allpolitics.com) which was established by Time and CNN. The intent is to offer today’s developments, useful information from past elections, analysis and informed questioning of the assumptions.

Perhaps more fun for me was a visit to the conservative https://www.townhall.com site, simply because it makes no bones about its agenda. This is the site where Clinton bashing is a high art; visitors are asked to vote, for example, on whether they believe Clinton actually did inhale (votes run heavily to “yes”), and there are lists of what are termed outrageous quotes from the White House.

There is a counter from https://www.democrats.org, where the quotes of House Speaker Newt Gingrich and other Republicans are likewise targeted. These sites require political asbestos for the viewer who will get annoyed by a contrary view, but they are far less formal in tone and feel immediately comfortable.

Individual news organizations have their own political coverage, although most of it reflects the coverage in their newspapers or magazines.

Among other sites are www.rockthevote.com, which was designed to appeal to an MTV crowd, and https://www.voxpop.org/jefferson, which has links to many political sites. ElecNet at https://www.e1.com/GOV/home.html described important state races. A site called Project Vote Smart (www.vote-smart.org) was established by bipartisan interests to promote more campaign literacy.

And for a change of pace, the humor sites: https://www.clinton96.org and https://www.dole96.org.

I took the dare. I’m just not terribly satisfied that I did.