McCain's Unfiltered Blog

Barack Obama may be the hottest politician online, but when it comes to unfiltered Internet commentary, nobody beats John McCain.

While McCain's Internet audience lags far behind both Obama and Clinton, his official websites allow more dissent and tough feedback than the Democratic candidates, according to an unscientific comment experiment conducted by The Nation. We posted about 50 comments on the candidates' websites and YouTube accounts, ranging from bland encouragement to policy criticism to sharp complaints. Only the McCain Campaign posted every comment.

McCain's website had no problem with this feedback, for example:

Doesn't understand how to save workers from losing their livelihoods to globalization--I don't care what he says!

Meanwhile, both Democratic candidates rebuffed the same comment.

Team Obama took it down, posting a disclaimer that the comment was removed "due to offensive or disrespectful content." And the Clinton Campaign never allowed it to be posted in the first place.

In fact, comments were repeatedly prevented from posting on Clinton's sites, even when they were positive. On YouTube, a plea for tougher immigration measures was rejected three times. Clinton's homepage declined to post a comment claiming her health care plan would not "cover all Americans." The McCain and Obama sites accepted the same comment, drawing several rebuttals from supportive commenters. On Obama's site, five replies defended the health care plan on policy terms, while one person admonished the poster for spreading "Hillary talking points."

The Clinton Campaign's comment editing is most apparent on a trivial item, the gag music video Hillary and The Band. Despite drawing about 400,000 views on YouTube, the video displays only 79 comments -- all effusive. But over 2,200 people panned the video with low "star ratings," a metric that YouTube does not allow users to manipulate. The lopsided feedback suggests that the campaign rejected hundreds of negative comments.

Meanwhile, McCain's comment threads were most likely to turn critical. The negative comments may not only reflect the campaign's unfiltered format, but also the Senator's touchy relationship with party activists, who often dominate discussion on campaign sites. Either way, McCain deserves credit for letting the "straight talk" flow in both directions.

--

With research by Susannah Vila. Photo Credit: John McCain discusses technology in an April 2007 address. Napalmnews Flickr.

Comments (21)

1. "And the Clinton Campaign never allowed it to be posted in the first place."

   Sort of like what "The Nation" would be if FRANKGRITS or HELENDAO ran things!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 3:40pm

2. The Clinton Campaign's comment editing is most apparent on a trivial item, the gag music video Hillary and The Band. Despite drawing about 400,000 views on YouTube, the video displays only 79 comments -- all effusive. But over 2,200 people panned the video with low "star ratings," a metric that YouTube does not allow users to manipulate. The lopsided feedback suggests that the campaign rejected hundreds of negative comments.

   This is consistent with Hillary's top-down control freak approach to politics.

   The reason she FAILED to bring about universal healthcare when she had the chance is because she negotiated behind closed doors and refused to include others with dissenting opinions, including prominent Democrats, or get the public involved to buffer special interest lobbying by the HMOs.

   America cannot afford to waste more time on Hillary's approach to politics. This approach has already proven to cause failure to bring about progressive change, so why give her another chance?

   Posted by Metteyya at 03/03/2008 @ 3:42pm

3. Yeah, but I don't really have any way to assess this assessment. It's impossible to know what it means in practical terms.

   Do campaigns craft their candidates' image? Do they try to steer discussion around "talking points" favorable to their principals? Well, like, yeah! Durr.

   But the online chat is going to take place on some venue. So it's probably the McCain camp's realism simply blended with the old axiom that any buzz around your candidate is better than no buzz at all.

   Posted by goyadad at 03/03/2008 @ 3:43pm

4. Posted by METTEYYA 03/03/2008 @ 3:42pm

   So why the censorship on Obama's site?

   Posted by MATTMAN at 03/03/2008 @ 3:46pm

5. Clinton = Coke

   Obama = Pepsi

   McCain = The UnCola (aka Dr. Pepper)

   Posted by Happy at 03/03/2008 @ 3:51pm

6. Posted by HAPPY 03/03/2008 @ 3:51pm

   "McCain = The UnCola (aka Dr. Pepper)"

   Actually, HAPster, 7up was the "UnCola." Why is it the right-wingers on this blog always get the historical details mixed up?

   Posted by goyadad at 03/03/2008 @ 3:57pm

7. Posted by MATTMAN 03/03/2008 @ 3:46pm

   It looks like only ONE comment was taken down by Team Obama because they felt it was "offensive or disrespectful".

   I personally don't think a comment that says Obama doesn't understand how to save workers from losing their jobs to globalization is offensive or disrespectful, but it is plainly an ignorant comment.

   Obama, more tha Hillary, has laid out an aggressive retraining program for those who have lost jobs and said he will change the tax breaks that favor shipping jobs overseas. One would simply have to not pay attention to his campaign to reach that conclusion, or the commentator would have to be a "protectionist" who believes America should close its borders and only trade amongst ourselves.

   I think this position of the commentator could have been exposed through dialog on the blog so I disagree with Team Obama's decision to remove that particular comment.

   But the general approach of Obama is to "include" and "empower" from the bottom-up, whereas Hillary's general tendency is toward "my way or the highway, which doesn't get you that far in a democracy where people have a wide range of opinion on the issues of the day.

   Posted by Metteyya at 03/03/2008 @ 3:58pm

8. McCain = The UnCola (aka Dr. Pepper)

   Posted by HAPPY 03/03/2008 @ 3:51pm |

   Naww....."Bush II: The Wrath of John"

   Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 4:07pm

9. Posted by MATTMAN 03/03/2008 @ 3:46pm

   It looks like only ONE comment was taken down by Team Obama because they felt it was "offensive or disrespectful".---Posted by METTEYYA 03/03/2008 @ 3:58pm

   He only did it that ONE time....he didn't like it....and he didn't inhale!

   Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 4:09pm

10. "Doesn't understand how to save workers from losing their livelihoods to globalization--I don't care what he says!"

    sure they understand how to "save the workers".

    (well, maybe not mr. "wreconomics" mccain)

    they just don't want to do it..........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/03/2008 @ 5:07pm

11. Posted by MASK 03/03/2008 @ 4:09pm and the one before

    heheh

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/03/2008 @ 5:09pm

12. I found the same to be true. I tried to post a critical comment about Clinton's policies on Clinton's website, and it never made it. There were hundreds of fawning positive remarks, but not a single one critical of her policies in any way. So much for freedom of expression. Nick Soter

    Posted by nicksoter at 03/03/2008 @ 5:33pm

13. Anyone is free to create a profile & post a blog entry on Obama's campaign site. I've seen Hillary's trolls do it before. They usually get a lot of negative responses, but I've never seen a blog post removed.

    Posted by nicR at 03/03/2008 @ 5:36pm

14. Mccain's website probably only allows "freedom of speech", because he can't afford enough people to play watchdog.

    But this is a sad commentary on Clinton and Obama. I would have expected this from Clinton, but coming from Obama its a real disappointment.

    Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 5:51pm

15. I would have expected this from Clinton, but coming from Obama its a real disappointment.

    Posted by STUBINE 03/03/2008 @ 5:51pm

    birds of a feather...........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/03/2008 @ 9:59pm

16. Ah Oba-Macaca! he knows only how to attack HRC. Here and there he is in the same boat with Dubya, or as Moulitsas loves to say, with Dick Cheney. Read this.

    ------------

    Obama says U.S. should not meet with Hamas Mon Mar 3, 4:59 PM ET

    SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday backed the Bush administration's policy of shunning contact with the Islamic militants of Hamas in its Middle East peace diplomacy.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    The Illinois senator has said he would break with President George W. Bush's stance of declining to talk to some other international adversaries but that stance does not apply to Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and is committed to the destruction of Israel

    Posted by HelenDAO at 03/04/2008 @ 02:15am

17. "Doesn't understand how to save workers from losing their livelihoods to globalization--I don't care what he says!"

    sure they understand how to "save the workers".

    (well, maybe not mr. "wreconomics" mccain)

    they just don't want to do it..........

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/03/2008 @ 5:07pm

    The reason "they" don't want to do it is because it is a futile exercise that only delays the inevitable.

    If a nation's financial resources, which are limited, are used to prop up non-viable inefficient industries it means those resources cannot be used to grow the viable efficient ones. Very simple equation really.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 03/04/2008 @ 06:50am

18. Censorship on a website blog? I'm shocked!!!

    I'm so glad that would never happen here on The Nation.

    Oh, wait....

    Posted by FritztheCat at 03/04/2008 @ 08:44am

19. If a nation's financial resources, which are limited, are used to prop up non-viable inefficient industries it means those resources cannot be used to grow the viable efficient ones. Very simple equation really.

    Posted by HARVEY 79 03/04/2008 @ 06:50am

    all right harvey!!!!

    you finally want to cut that bloated military machine back!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 09:17am

20. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/03/2008 @ 5:07pm

    Don't know how to...don't want to. Can't we have both?

    Posted by gloryoski at 03/04/2008 @ 3:41pm

21. all right harvey!!!!

    you finally want to cut that bloated military machine back!!!!!

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/04/2008 @ 09:17am

    Well athough you may have a point about the use of resources,your suggestion does not invalidate the principle of not wasting resources in propping up unviable industries.

    It's always instructive to do the sums. When one does you will find that in monetary terms these two wars are a piddlingly small use of financial resources.

    ""While the monetary cost is not the most important part of the debate over Iraq or Afghanistan, it does need to be part of that debate, and the citizens of our nation have a right to know what those costs are projected to be," Levin said.

    With the estimated $170 billion for fiscal 2009 and the remaining $102 billion from this year's supplemental, the cost of war operations could reach $1 trillion by the end of fiscal 2009. Congress has appropriated $691 billion for the wars since 2001."

    from TheHill.com

    That averages out over 8 years at about 0.125 trillion pa. In an economy of 13+ trillion that equals 0.125/13 x 100 or aprox 1% of GDP. Or in 2009 0.170/13 x 100 = 1.3% of GDP.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 03/04/2008 @ 3:49pm