Since political web videos started to gain traction with the infamous “Maccaca” video (See “Gotcha Videos”) in 2006, web video, “has gone from a curiosity to an essential tool of 21st century politics thanks to cheap digital video technology and the rise of YouTube” (Manatt). Web Video has opened up new possibilities to campaigns, but has also generated new challenges. Campaigns now have an efficient and easy way to release content for widespread dissemination, but also face increased scrutiny with video equipped cell phones tracking their every move. While in 2004 and 2006, campaigns struggled to work with the medium, in the 2008 Presidential Election cycle, campaigns have gained web 2.0 sophistication with heavy web presences and internet operation management teams. This election cycle has seen the rise in power of web video that has tested campaigns abilities navigate the medium.

One reason for the change in the power of web video in the last 4 years is bandwidth. According to a study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, “Broadband adoption grew by 40 percent from March 2005 to March 2006,” and since then has only increased (Carlson). This growth made on-demand video sites technically possible. The major reason for the uproar over web video, is that this is the first presidential election in YouTube’s three year existence. Tim Tagaris, Internet communications director for Ned Lamont's 2006 U.S. Senate campaign, and later director of Chris Dodd’s presidential campaign, has said, "Most campaigns know that YouTube is totally necessary” (Carlson). Despite its young age, it commands a massive audience, “last year, by one estimate…[consuming] as much bandwidth as the entire Internet did in 2000 (Linkins).

With the rise of YouTube has come a significant drop in the price of entry into the video market. Video cameras are everywhere, “DV cameras, security cameras, web cameras, cell phones, etc. Digital technology means $100,000 cameras and editing suites now cost $5,000 or less – making it more accessible and ubiquitous. YouTube and other video publishing accounts are free – giving anyone free access to a worldwide audience for $0” (Manatt). This has led to a situation today, that, “for better or worse, candidates and other political leaders must assume they are being taped 24/7 by their opponents if not the average Joe” (Mannat).

Web video changes the political conversation. Ordinary people are contributing like never before, “making media that adds to the political conversation, lugging small (and big) cameras to political events and telling their own stories. They post their own commentary on issues using webcams. They use video clips to influence their own communities. They don't stick to talking points” (How Web Video…). Such posting is usually much different than that of the Main Stream Media (MSM). The footage’s “primary purpose is the exhibition of ‘unseen’ or hard-to-find photographs and video. Often the visual material posted on these sites is meant to expose or reveal embarrassing or funny moments, sometimes it is meant to provide otherwise unreported information, and sometimes it exposes scandalous activities or events” (Griffin). Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, a former Clinton White House staffer, underscored the greatest fear of campaigns, that on the new playing field, "you lose the ability to manage what you want to say" (Noveck). In such an environment it is often the gaffes that gain attention, and the screw ups that a decade ago would have gone unnoticed. This has put tremendous pressure on campaigns to run their operations smoother and always attempt to avoid potential snags.

Of benefit to campaigns, web video has the potential to, “allow campaigns to reach past traditional media filters and speak directly to voters” (Delany). Additionally, web video, “is viral marketing at its best. Individuals can forward links to videos on YouTube, Google Video, etc. and embedding videos within websites/blogs has become a common practice” (Online Political Video…). With web video, campaigns can reach people with stories that are missed by the MSM that may sway their vote. Rewardingly, by successfully marketing a video online, campaigns often benefit from “e-mobilization”, where, “New information first appearing in the Internet often drives subsequent coverage by the mainstream media” (Griffin).

This projects seeks to give an overview of how political web video is impacting politics. I have identified sixteen different categories of web video, expanding upon the categories identified by the New Politics Institute in a recent study. Each category is unique and offers a different take on a segment of political web video that is making a difference. For each category I have collected some of the most important video clips from this election season. Each video has garnered either a significant web presence or is representative of a certain type of video. I hope after watching and reading about the different varieties of web video, that you gain an appreciation for how it is influencing politics and what it could potentially mean for the future.