Which matters more: what happened or what people believe happened?

As I watched last night's Democratic debate I saw no clear winner, but comparing candidate web site coverage, I declare Richardson's campaign the hands-down winners.

Candidates with debate coverage on their home page

The good
Bill Richardson, debate photo with caption: "Strong Debate Performance" followed by "Governor Richardson showed once again that he is the candidate with the boldest vision and strongest record to lead America forward." [This was not at all my take on the debate, which makes front paging this an even smarter move; the Richardson campaign clearly understands the value of spin and the reach of the web.] Blog: video clips (no clip transcript or recap).

Dennis Kucinich, excerpts from press release, positive remarks from Donna Brazile, and a link to a transcript (text only). [Excerpts from his blog are the bulk of his home page; not recommended, but it does keep his front page up-to-the-minute.]

Joe Biden, good one-liner overshadowed by photo/spin of previous debate.

The bad
John Edwards and Mike Gravel both refer to the debate as if it hasn't happened yet. Whoops.

[edited 7/2 to add: most of the home pages noted above have changed by now.]

How'd the others do with their blogs?

Chris Dodd was the clear winner. His campaign posted a video (with transcript) of his best answer.

Hillary Clinton: encouraged supporters to chat/cheer during the debate then wisely edited the original post to excerpt positive press quotes.

John Edwards: lively group commenting during debate; no campaign perspective.

Barack Obama: one post buried in fundraising pitches.

The ugly truth
This kind of web coverage is not the best money can buy, but it's the best money is buying. Politcal use of the web has become much more prevalent since 2004, but the message is still mostly lost in a tangle of technology.

--Louella Pizzuti

Obama campaign exploits technology but obscures message

The Barack Obama 08 campaign is using the technology well. Take a look at how they have both video vignettes and audio clips from donors on their front page--in support of their end-of-quarter fundraising/donor push. The videos are straightforward, edited with a light hand and appear to be unscripted; excellent job. But the page as a whole? Not nearly as impressive. I'm sure the page will change, but right now it's impossible to tell what Barack Obama's message is by going to his home page. Let me say that again:

It's impossible to know Barack Obama's campaign message by looking at his home page.

The page is split in two vertically--and "Be Inspired, Be Counted" (the fundraising pitch) consumes the left side. This includes links to three videos, a rotating audio clip (with text excerpt), a (presumably) new-donor name/location crawl, and updated stats about how many people have donated this quarter.

Sound busy? It is, but it works both visually and in getting the "donate now" message across.

But what about the Obama-curious? What's here for them? Nothing. To get any actual information about Barack Obama and what he stands for, you have to click through at least one page deeper. The people in charge of Obama's home page understand technology but they're losing the casually curious visitor.

Don't make this mistake on your site; technology is important--even imperative--but technology should exist in service to the message, not to obscure it. See also Letting your IT person write your web copy is like letting the phone company write your fundraising scripts.

--Louella Pizzuti