[[1.01|1.01 A Practice Observed: Caught in the Web]]://Dick Cheney sought to defend himself against claims his opponent, John Edwards, made about Halliburton--an oil-services company that also provides construction and military support services--and Cheney's involvement with it. Edwardsďż˝ claims were included in a transcript of the debate posted on the Web site of the Public Broadcasting Service.//<<tiddler "*Note001-1">>\n [[Next Note|*Note002]]

<<enx 001 1 20060627165230 "http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/debates/vpdebate/part3.html, archived 10/09/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041010042939/www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/debates/vpdebate/part3.html" "IA" "Public Broadcasting Service">>

[[1.01|1.01 A Practice Observed: Caught in the Web]]: //Cheney's misstatement evoked reactions from various others, including press organizations, civic and advocacy groups, individual citizens, and government agencies. The response by the producers of factcheck.org was threefold.//<<tiddler "*Note002-1">>\n [[Previous Note|*Note001]] | [[Next Note|*Note003]]

<<enx 002 2 20060627165043 "http://www.factcheck.org/article272.html, archived 10/14/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041014020434/http://factcheck.org/article272.html" "IA" "Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania">>

[[1.01|1.01 A Practice Observed: Caught in the Web]]: //In a twist that further illustrates the complexities of Web campaigning, the producers of factcheck.com redirected Web traffic coming to their site not to factcheck.org, but to georgesoros.com--a site maintained by the well-known financier, George Soros, who had independently contributed over $20 million to organizations actively supporting the Kerry-Edwards campaign.//<<tiddler "*Note003-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note002]] | [[Next Note|*Note004]]

<<enx 003 3 20060627161545 "http://www.georgesoros.com, archived 10/12/2004 (IA)." "IA: TBD" "PC" "Soros, George">>

[[1.01|1.01 A Practice Observed: Caught in the Web]]: //This incident illustrates the risks associated with providing connections to independent actors on the Web. A citizen site producer, commenting on the incident, suggested, "this will be the last time that one of the political candidates, Republican or Democrat, refers people to a Web site they don't control."//<<tiddler "*Note004-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note003]] | [[Next Note|*Note005]]

<<enx 004 3 20060206132451 "http://blog.lextext.com/blog/_archives/2004/10/6/155847.html, archived 02/26/2005 (PC)." "PC" "PC" "Fausett, Brett">>

[[1.01|1.01 A Practice Observed: Caught in the Web]]: //The Commission on Presidential Debates transcribed Cheney's rendering of the factcheck site accurately, but inserted [sic] after the .com. //<<tiddler "*Note005-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note004]] | [[Next Note|*Note006]]

<<enx 005 4 20060206132755 "http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html, archived 02/26/2005 (PC)." "PC" "PC" "Commission on Presidential Debates">>

[[1.01|1.01 A Practice Observed: Caught in the Web]]: //The White House took an unprecedented step of not only inserting a textual correction in parentheses after the original statement, "(** factcheck.org is the correct Web address)" but also inserted a tag in the HTML associated with factcheck.com that linked the textual URL to factcheck.org instead, in effect correcting the error in the underlying code but leaving it visible in the presented text//<<tiddler "*Note006-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note005]] | [[Next Note|*Note007]]

<<enx 006 4 0060206133001 "http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041006.html, archived 02/26/2005 (PC)." "PC" "PC" "The White House">>

[[2.03|2.03 Web Production Techniques]] //The front page of a campaign site of a congressional candidate in 2004 encapsulated a link to the phrase "Experience we need, leadership we trust," but the link resolved to a " 404 page not found" error.//<<tiddler "*Note007-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note006]] | [[Next Note|*Note008]]

<<enx 007 39 20060725132516 "http://www.bufordforcongress.com/, archived 11/03/2004 (PC)." "PC" "PC" "Buford, Tom">>

[[3.01|3.01 A Practice Observed: Informing]]: //A list of "movements, events, and issues which Rick [Stanley was] keeping an eye on" enabled visitors to gain a sense of the candidate's concerns, values, and affiliations. //<<tiddler "*Note008-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note007]] | [[Next Note|*Note009]]

<<enx 008 45 20060206133504 "http://www.stanley2002.org/Rickscauses.htm, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101130332/http://www.stanley2002.org/Rickscauses.htm" "LC" "Stanley, Rick">>

[[3.01|3.01 A Practice Observed: Informing]]: //In one section of Stanley's site, labeled "Most Important Documents," a visitor could read the entire text of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights//<<tiddler "*Note009-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note008]] | [[Next Note|*Note010]]

<<enx 009 45 20060206133821 "http://www.stanley2002.org/midocs.htm, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101110834/http://www.stanley2002.org/midocs.htm" "LC" "Stanley, Rick">>

[[3.01|3.01 A Practice Observed: Informing]]: //The text exhorted readers to volunteer, noting, "And remember--this is not just for the Stanley for U.S. Senate campaign--this is for you, your family, your friends, and your community. It is for our country."//<<tiddler "*Note010-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note009]] | [[Next Note|*Note011]]

<<enx 010 45 20060206134117 "http://www.stanley2002.org/national.htm, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101121633/http://www.stanley2002.org/national.htm" "LC" "Stanley, Rick">>

[[3.01|3.01 A Practice Observed: Informing]]: //The Democratic candidate posted positions on twelve issues on his campaign site, and the incumbent Republican candidate described his Senate committee appointments and the legislation he sponsored but did not provide any distinct issue positions. //<<tiddler "*Note011-1">> <<tiddler "*Note011-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note010]] | [[Next Note|*Note012]]

<<enx 011-1 45 20021102122450 "http://www.stricklandforcolorado.com/pageinpage/ontheissues.cfm, archived 11/02/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021102122450/http://www.stricklandforcolorado.com/pageinpage/ontheissues.cfm" "LC" "Strickland, Tom">>

<<enx 011-2 45 20060206170820 "http://www.allardforsenate.com/aboutAllard.html#, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101114200/http://www.allardforsenate.com/aboutAllard.html#" "LC" "Allard, Wayne">>

[[3.01|3.01 A Practice Observed: Informing]]: //The campaign appropriated materials from several newspapers--over a dozen news articles and editorials, dated and attributed to the newspapers in question, were re-presented in the "Press Clippings" section of Stanley's site. //<<tiddler "*Note012-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note011]] | [[Next Note|*Note013]]

<<enx 012 46 20060206171302 "http://www.stanley2002.org/lpnews12_19_01.htm, archived 10/04/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021004125439/http://www.stanley2002.org/lpnews12_19_01.htm" "LC" "Stanley, Rick">>

[[3.01|3.01 A Practice Observed: Informing]]: //Two other sections of the site, "Endorsements" and "Letters from the People," also manifested coproduction by displaying texts authored by persons outside the official campaign.//<<tiddler "*Note013-1">> <<tiddler "*Note013-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note012]] | [[Next Note|*Note014]]

<<enx 013-1 46 20060206171302 "http://www.stanley2002.org/endorsements.htm, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101133723/http://www.stanley2002.org/endorsements.htm" "LC" "Stanley, Rick">>

<<enx 013-2 46 20060206172046 "http://www.stanley2002.org/letters.htm, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101114307/http://www.stanley2002.org/letters.htm" "LC" "Stanley, Rick">>

[[3.01|3.01 A Practice Observed: Informing]]: //Both Stanley's site and the portal purepolitics.com posted on their Web sites the candidate's responses to a questionnaire that the portal had authored and emailed to candidates across the country.//<<tiddler "*Note014-1">> <<tiddler "*Note014-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note013]] | [[Next Note|*Note015]]

<<enx 014-1 46 20060206163416 "http://www.stanley2002.org/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080129/http://www.stanley2002.org/" "LC" "Stanley, Rick">>

<<enx 014-2 46 20060206163657 "http://www.purepolitics.com/rickstanleysenco.htm, archived 01/11/2003 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20030111112442/www.purepolitics.com/rickstanleysenco.htm" "IA" "Purepolitics.com">>

[[3.02|3.02 The Practice of Informing]]: //Candidate speeches are typically presented as audio files or transcribed texts. //<<tiddler "*Note015-1">> <<tiddler "*Note015-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note014]] | [[Next Note|*Note016]]

<<enx 015-1 47 20060206172552 "http://www.saxby.org/media/speech/default.asp, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080134/http://www.saxby.org/media/speech/default.asp" "LC" "Chambliss, Saxby">>

<<enx 015-2 47 20060206172748 "http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer, archived 09/22/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020922073548/http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer" "LC" "Kerry, John">>

[[3.02|3.02 The Practice of Informing]]: //Campaign advertisements are presented similarly to speeches but also may be available as video files. //<<tiddler "*Note016-1">> <<tiddler "*Note016-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note015]] | [[Next Note|*Note017]]

<<enx 016-1 48 20060206172928 "http://jaydickey2002.com/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080858/http://jaydickey2002.com/" "LC" "Dickey, Jay">>

<<enx 016-2 48 20060206173043 "http://www.tomharkin.com/features/tv-ads.cfm., archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101105159/http://www.tomharkin.com/features/tv-ads.cfm." "LC" "Harkin, Tom">>

[[3.02|3.02 The Practice of Informing]]: //Press releases, typically addressed to journalists, are usually text memos about campaign events or candidate activity.//<<tiddler "*Note017-1">> <<tiddler "*Note017-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note016]] | [[Next Note|*Note018]]

<<enx 017-1 48 20060206173259 "http://www.dougose.com/press.htm, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101125853/http://www.dougose.com/press.htm" "LC" "Ose, Doug">>

<<enx 017-2 48 20060731144518 "http://www.colemanforsenate.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={D11D264B-868F-45EA-99BD-DA0ED0B62CE9}, archived 10/07/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021007125638/http://www.colemanforsenate.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={D11D264B-868F-45EA-99BD-DA0ED0B62CE9}." "LC" "Coleman, Norm">>

[[3.02|3.02 The Practice of Informing]]: //Candidate biographies can be presented as brief overviews about a candidate's personal life. //<<tiddler "*Note018-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note017]] | [[Next Note|*Note019]]

<<enx 018 48 20060206173947 "http://www.dawnbly.com/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101012514/http://www.dawnbly.com/" "LC" "Bly, Dawn">>

[[3.02|3.02 The Practice of Informing]]: //Candidate biographies can also be resume-like listings of professional positions held and political experience. //<<tiddler "*Note019-1">> <<tiddler "*Note019-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note018]] | [[Next Note|*Note020]]

<<enx 019-1 48 20060206174317 "http://www.scottmcinnis.com/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080134/http://www.scottmcinnis.com/" "LC" "McInnis, Scott">>

<<enx 019-2 48 20060206174539 "http://www.captainorin.com/biography.htm, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101082604/http://www.captainorin.com/biography.htm" "LC" "Opperman, Orin">>

[[3.02|3.02 The Practice of Informing]]: //Alternatively, candidate biographies can be extensive narratives about the events, beliefs, and values that influenced a candidate's decision to run for office.//<<tiddler "*Note020-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note019]] | [[Next Note|*Note021]]

<<enx 020 48 20060206174706 "http://www.wilhoit410gov.com/bio.html, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101083437/http://www.wilhoit410gov.com/bio.html" "LC" "Wilhoit, Charles">>

[[3.02|3.02 The Practice of Informing]]: //Issue statements on campaign sites also vary in focus, depth, and breadth.//<<tiddler "*Note021-1">> <<tiddler "*Note021-2">> <<tiddler "*Note021-3">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note020]] | [[Next Note|*Note022]]

<<enx 021-1 48 20060206175010 "http://www.flattaxamendment.org/longprof.html, archived 10/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021001083808/http://www.flattaxamendment.org/longprof.html" "LC" "Challa, Venkat R. ">>

<<enx 021-2 48 20060206175159 "http://www.stan2002.com/plan.html, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101121354/http://www.stan2002.com/plan.html; http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101095157/http://www.feeley2002.com/issues.asp." "LC" "Matsunaka, Stan">>

<<enx 021-3 48 20060206175337 "http://www.feeley2002.com/issues.asp, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101095157/http://www.feeley2002.com/issues.asp" "LC" "Feeley, Mike">>

[[3.02|3.02 The Practice of Informing]]: //The Web site for Steve Forbes's 1996 primary campaign included sections on issues, press releases, speeches, news articles, a biography, and a Forbes family album. //<<tiddler "*Note022-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note021]] | [[Next Note|*Note023]]

<<enx 022 48 20060206180200 "A copy of this page is archived in �Election �96: The Online Campaign Web Archive,� a collection of the Internet Archive. http://ftp.archive.org/96_Elections/forbes2/forbes96.htm, accessed 06/01/2005." "http://ftp.archive.org/96_Elections/forbes2/forbes96.htm." "IA" "Forbes for President Committee, Inc.">>

[[3.03|3.03 Techniques for Informing: Documentation]]: //This report provides the names of personal and political action committee (PAC) contributors whose donations were above $200, along with their addresses and employers. //<<tiddler "*Note023-1">> <<tiddler "*Note023-2">> <<tiddler "*Note023-3">> <<tiddler "*Note023-4">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note022]] | [[Next Note|*Note024]]

<<enx 023-1 51 20060206180740 "http://www.statonforcongress.org/default2.htm, archived 08/30/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020830214517/http://www.statonforcongress.org/default2.htm" "LC" "Staton, Cecil">>

<<enx 023-2 51 20060206181157 "http://herndon2.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00369926/33217/sa/ALL, archived 08/30/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020830214544/http://herndon2.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00369926/33217/sa/ALL" "LC" "Federal Election Commission">>

<<enx 023-3 51 20060206181428 "http://www.peopleforplatts.com/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080201/http://www.peopleforplatts.com/" "LC" "Platts, Todd">>

<<enx 023-4 51 20060206181605 "http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?H0PA19053., archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080201/http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?H0PA19053." "LC" "Federal Election Commission">>

[[3.03|3.03 Techniques for Informing: Documentation]]: //Norm Coleman's (R-MN-Sen) campaign site featured a "Financial Disclosure" page with a link labeled "Contributors not otherwise filed as public information with the Federal Election Commission on August 29, 2002 for calendar year 2002," but the site did not link to the FEC report for its campaign.//<<tiddler "*Note024-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note023]] | [[Next Note|*Note025]]

<<enx 024 51 20060731150733 "http://www.colemanforsenate.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={8CFD7A12-E5D3-4DFD-8464-063BBABAA941}, archived 10/04/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021004122245/http://www.colemanforsenate.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={8CFD7A12-E5D3-4DFD-8464-063BBABAA941}" "LC" "Coleman, Norm">>

[[3.03|3.03 Techniques for Informing: Documentation]]: //An itemized list of Eli Bebout's campaign receipts through August 2002 was created by the campaign with an FEC template that included fields for each personal and PAC contributor's name, city, state, date of contribution, and amount received.//<<tiddler "*Note025-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note024]] | [[Next Note|*Note026]]

<<enx 025 51 20060731153503 "http://www.bebout4governor.com/other_images/r&e.pdf, archived 10/31/2002 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20021031092648/www.bebout4governor.com/other_images/r&e.pdf" "IA" "Bebout, Eli">>

[[3.03|3.03 Techniques for Informing: Documentation]]: //Bebout's campaign site had two other itemized lists containing only personal contributions, formatted similarly to the first report but without headings or dates.//<<tiddler "*Note026-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note025]] | [[Next Note|*Note027]]

<<enx 026 51 20060731154056 "http://www.bebout4governor.com/other_images/FinanceReport4.pdf, archived 10/31/2002 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20021031102648/www.bebout4governor.com/other_images/FinanceReport4.pdf" "IA" "Bebout, Eli">>

[[3.03|3.03 Techniques for Informing: Documentation]]: //This link resolved to a page with a long list of personal contributors' names, cities, and contribution amounts, the contents of which remained unchanged throughout the election season.//<<tiddler "*Note027-1">> <<tiddler "*Note027-2">> <<tiddler "*Note027-3">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note026]] | [[Next Note|*Note028]]

<<enx 027-1 52 20060206183630 "http://www.tancredo.org/, archived 07/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020701203933/http://www.tancredo.org/" "LC" "Tancredo, Tom">>

<<enx 027-2 52 20060206183913 "http://www.tancredo.org/supporters/supporters.htm, archived 07/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020701203933/http://www.tancredo.org/supporters/supporters.htm" "LC" "Tancredo, Tom">>

<<enx 027-3 52 20060206184219 "http://www.tancredo.org/, archived 11/05/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021105030017/http://www.tancredo.org/." "LC" "Tancredo, Tom">>

[[3.04|3.04 Techniques for Informing: Position Taking and Issue Dialogue]]: //The campaign site of the Green candidate presented positions on five issues: campaign finance reform, the environment, taxes, healthcare, and national security.//<<tiddler "*Note028-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note027]] | [[Next Note|*Note029]]

<<enx 028 53 20060206184332 "http://www.chandlerforcongress.com/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080524/http://www.chandlerforcongress.com/" "LC" "Chandler, Dave">>

[[3.04|3.04 Techniques for Informing: Position Taking and Issue Dialogue]]: //On the Reform candidate's site were two of the same issues, campaign finance reform and healthcare, as well as several other issues: education, small businesses and farming, term limits, Social Security, and Medicare.//<<tiddler "*Note029-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note028]] | [[Next Note|*Note030]]

<<enx 029 53 20060206184514 "http://www.voteforgood.com/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080010/http://www.voteforgood.com/" "LC" "Good, Victor">>

[[3.04|3.04 Techniques for Informing: Position Taking and Issue Dialogue]]: //The Democratic candidate's site overlapped on taxes, education, Social Security, and Medicare, and addressed two issues not mentioned by other candidates.//<<tiddler "*Note030-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note029]] | [[Next Note|*Note031]]

<<enx 030 53 20060206184808 "http://www.feeley2002.com/issues.asp, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101095157/http://www.feeley2002.com/issues.asp" "LC" "Feeley, Mike">>

[[3.04|3.04 Techniques for Informing: Position Taking and Issue Dialogue]]: //The campaign site for the Republican candidate demonstrated significantly more issue breadth than the other three by displaying his positions on thirteen issues, including taxes, education, healthcare, and Medicare.//<<tiddler "*Note031-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note030]] | [[Next Note|*Note032]]

<<enx 031 53 20060206185239 "http://www.beauprezforcongress.com/textonly/issues.htm, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101101536/http://www.beauprezforcongress.com/textonly/issues.htm" "LC" "Beauprez, Bob">>

[[3.04|3.04 Techniques for Informing: Position Taking and Issue Dialogue]]: //The Reform candidate did so by posting an analysis of his opponents that included an explicit critique of the Republican candidate's position on taxes.//<<tiddler "*Note032-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note031]] | [[Next Note|*Note033]]

<<enx 032 54 20060206185436 "http://www.voteforgood.com/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080010/http://www.voteforgood.com/" "LC" "Good, Victor">>

[[3.04|3.04 Techniques for Informing: Position Taking and Issue Dialogue]]: //The Democratic candidate's main campaign site included his position on abortion in the issue section, and a link from the home page to a second site (also produced by the campaign) that criticized the Republican candidate's position on abortion.//<<tiddler "*Note033-1">> <<tiddler "*Note033-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note032]] | [[Next Note|*Note034]]

<<enx 033-1 54 20060206185730 "http://www.feeley2002.com/index.asp; 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101093617/http://www.feeley2002.com/index.asp" "LC" "Feeley, Mike">>

<<enx 033-2 54 20060206185910 "http://www.beauprezfacts.com/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080744/http://www.beauprezfacts.com/" "LC" "Beauprez, Bob">>

[[3.05|3.05 Techniques for Informing: Convergence]]: //Posting a 30-second video advertisement featuring the candidate on the campaign site allows site visitors to glean information through hearing and seeing the candidate in ways that they might not get from written texts and even still images.//<<tiddler "*Note034-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note033]] | [[Next Note|*Note035]]

<<enx 034 56 20060206192609 "http://www.elizabethdole.org/multimedia.asp, archived 10/30/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021030135753/http://www.elizabethdole.org/multimedia.asp." "LC" "Dole, Elizabeth">>

[[3.05|3.05 Techniques for Informing: Convergence]]: //The archive of television and radio advertisements on Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign site in 2000 allowed site visitors to view or listen to them for many weeks after they were broadcast, and to do so from locations far beyond the geographical reach of the local or even national radio or television stations on which the ads were originally broadcast.//<<tiddler "*Note035-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note034]] | [[Next Note|*Note036]]

<<enx 035 56 20060206192731 "www.gopatgo2000.org/radio_ads.asp, archived 11/12/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20001112133151/www.gopatgo2000.org/radio_ads.asp" "IA" "Buchanan-Foster ">>

[[3.05|3.05 Techniques for Informing: Convergence]]: //Some of the most delightfully anachronistic examples of the blending of online information into the offline environment are banners proclaiming a campaign site URL hung on wooden kiosks at state fairs.//<<tiddler "*Note036-1">> <<tiddler "*Note036-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note035]] | [[Next Note|*Note037]]

<<enx 036-1 57 20060206192856 "http://www.gwu.edu/%7Eaction/2004/parties/iafairbooths.html, 02/01/2006 (PC)." "PC: http://www.gwu.edu/%7Eaction/2004/parties/iafairbooths.html" "PC" "Appleman, Eric M. ">>

<<enx 036-2 58 20060206193002 "http://www.gwu.edu/%7Eaction/2004/parties/mnbooths0904.html, archived 02/01/2006 (PC)." "PC: http://www.gwu.edu/%7Eaction/2004/parties/iafairbooths.html" "PC" "Appleman, Eric M. ">>

[[3.06|3.06 Techniques for Informing: Linking]]: //The beneficial effect of internal linking on the informational value of a site is evident when a site with multiple levels of internal links, such as the 2002 congressional campaign site for Libertarian candidate Andy Horning (IN-7), is compared to a site with no internal links, such as the one produced for fellow Libertarian congressional candidate Jim Higgins (MO-1) in 2002.//<<tiddler "*Note037-1">> <<tiddler "*Note037-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note036]] | [[Next Note|*Note038]]

<<enx 037-1 58 20060206193145 "http://www.andyhorning.org/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080545/http://www.andyhorning.org/" "LC" "Horning, Andy">>

<<enx 037-2 58 20060206194338 "http://members.aol.com/higginslp/index.html?mtbrand=AOL_US, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101092307/http://members.aol.com/higginslp/index.html?mtbrand=AOL_US." "LC" "Higgins, Jim">>

[[3.06|3.06 Techniques for Informing: Linking]]: //Outlinking, or linking to Web objects posted on a different site, from the main campaign site to another site produced by the candidate or campaign may enable more extensive information--and thus improve the credibility of the candidate--while keeping the campaign site distinct from other sites in the electoral Web sphere. An example of this is when an incumbent's campaign site links to the candidate's government office site.//<<tiddler "*Note038-1">> <<tiddler "*Note038-2">> <<tiddler "*Note038-3">> <<tiddler "*Note038-4">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note037]] | [[Next Note|*Note039]]

<<enx 038-1 58 20060206194505 "http://www.schiff4congress.com/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080133/http://www.schiff4congress.com/" "LC" "Schiff, Adam">>

<<enx 038-2 58 20060206194912 "http://www.house.gov/schiff/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101092810/http://www.house.gov/schiff/" "LC" "Schiff, Adam">>

<<enx 038-3 58 20060206195103 "http://www.peopleforplatts.com/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080201/http://www.peopleforplatts.com/" "LC" "Platts, Todd">>

<<enx 038-4 58 20060801080801 "http://www.house.gov/platts/, archived 10/14/2002 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20021014184648/http://www.house.gov/platts/." "IA" "Platts, Todd">>

[[3.06|3.06 Techniques for Informing: Linking]]: //The biography page of John Graham's (D-CA-48) congressional campaign site in 2002 linked to Graham's faculty page at the University of California at Irvine, offering the campaign site visitor "more details on [Graham's] academic career."//<<tiddler "*Note039-1">> <<tiddler "*Note039-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note038]] | [[Next Note|*Note040]]

<<enx 039-1 58 20060220131803 "http://www.johngraham4congress.com/background.html, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101081702/http://www.johngraham4congress.com/background.html" "LC" "Graham, John">>

<<enx 039-2 58 20060220131938 "http://web.gsm.uci.edu/~jgraham/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101081948/http://web.gsm.uci.edu/~jgraham/." "LC" "Graham, John">>

[[3.06|3.06 Techniques for Informing: Linking]]: //The front page of Mike Feeley's (D-CO-7) primary campaign site in 2002 featured a quote by a former district vice-chair of the Republican party expressing concern about his Republican opponent, Bob Beauprez, and support for Feeley. A link supplied with the quote resolved to a second site (also produced by Feeley's campaign), misleadingly labeled www.beauprezfacts .com. This site was devoted to critiquing Beauprez's stance on abortion.//<<tiddler "*Note040-1">> <<tiddler "*Note040-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note039]] | [[Next Note|*Note041]]

<<enx 040-1 58 20060220132347 "http://www.feeley2002.com/index.asp, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101093617/http://www.feeley2002.com/index.asp" "LC" "Feeley, Mike">>

<<enx 040-2 58 20060801092843 "http://www.beauprezfacts.com/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080744/http://www.beauprezfacts.com/" "LC" "Beauprez, Bob">>

[[3.06|3.06 Techniques for Informing: Linking]]: //The 2002 campaign sites for Stan Matsunaka (D-CO-4) and Tom Harkin (D-IA-Sen) provided an array of voter registration information, including links to the voter registration form and election information section on their respective Secretary of State sites.//<<tiddler "*Note041-1">> <<tiddler "*Note041-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note040]] | [[Next Note|*Note042]]

<<enx 041-1 59 20060220132534 "http://www.stan2002.com/voterinfo.html, archived 10/31/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021031131012/http://www.stan2002.com/voterinfo.html" "LC" "Matsunaka, Stan">>

<<enx 041-2 59 20060220132658 "http://www.tomharkin.com/voting-info/index.cfm., archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101111700/http://www.tomharkin.com/voting-info/index.cfm." "LC" "Harkin, Tom">>

[[3.07|3.07 Techniques for Informing: Coproduction]]: //Some campaigns have presented scanned images of newspaper articles on their sites.//<<tiddler "*Note042-1">> <<tiddler "*Note042-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note041]] | [[Next Note|*Note043]]

<<enx 042-1 60 2006 "http://www.sneary.com/press_.html, archived 08/18/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20000818140827/www.sneary.com/press_.html" "IA" "Sneary, Loy">>

<<enx 042-2 60 20060220133144 "http://www.allardforsenate.com/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080543/http://www.allardforsenate.com/ " "LC" "Allard, Wayne">>

[[3.07|3.07 Techniques for Informing: Coproduction]]: //Adam Schiff's (D-CA-29) site in 2002 employed an unusual variant of appropriation: The campaign appears to have saved complete pages from the Los Angeles Times Web site, and then served them through its own site.//<<tiddler "*Note043-1">> <<tiddler "*Note043-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note042]] | [[Next Note|*Note044]]

<<enx 043-1 60 20060220133705 "http://www.schiff4congress.com, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080133/http://www.schiff4congress.com" "LC" "Schiff, Adam">>

<<enx 043-2 60 20060220133839 "http://www.schiff4congress.com/news/as_latimes_102902.htm, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101112416/http://www.schiff4congress.com/news/as_latimes_102902.htm." "LC" "Los Angeles Times">>

[[3.07|3.07 Techniques for Informing: Coproduction]]: //Similarly, in recent elections the producers of the election section of the Washington State Secretary of State's site have offered campaigns the opportunity to provide candidate information and the URL of the campaign site on their government site.//<<tiddler "*Note044-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note043]] | [[Next Note|*Note045]]

<<enx 044 61 20060220134047 "http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/voterguides/?u=2004Primary, archived 06/20/2005 (PC)." "PC: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/voterguides/?u=2004Primary " "PC" "Washington Secretary of State">>

[[3.08|3.08 Tensions in Informing]]: //Some campaigns proudly announce the inclusion of their sites in a Web archive.//<<tiddler "*Note045-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note044]] | [[Next Note|*Note046]]

<<enx 045 63 20060220134234 "http://www.miriamforcongress.com/, 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080212/http://www.miriamforcongress.com/" "LC" "Masullo, Miriam J.">>

[[3.08|3.08 Tensions in Informing]]: //A few campaigns request that their sites not be displayed in a Web archive.//<<tiddler "*Note046-1">> <<tiddler "*Note046-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note045]] | [[Next Note|*Note047]]

<<enx 046-1 63 20060220134525 "For example, the 2002 campaigns of Ralph Hall (D-TX-4) and Sandy Thomas (Lib-GA-Senate) requested that access to their sites be restricted in the Library of Congress 2002 Election Web Archive. See http://lcweb4.loc.gov/elect2002/catalog/1857.html, accessed 06/01/2005 and http://lcweb4.loc.gov/elect2002/catalog/1934.html, accessed 06/01/2005." "http://lcweb4.loc.gov/elect2002/catalog/1857.html" "LC" "Library of Congress">>

<<enx 046-2 63 20060220134702 "For example, the 2002 campaigns of Ralph Hall (D-TX-4) and Sandy Thomas (Lib-GA-Senate) requested that access to their sites be restricted in the Library of Congress 2002 Election Web Archive. See http://lcweb4.loc.gov/elect2002/catalog/1857.html, accessed 06/01/2005 and http://lcweb4.loc.gov/elect2002/catalog/1934.html, accessed 06/01/2005." "http://lcweb4.loc.gov/elect2002/catalog/1934.html." "LC" "Library of Congress">>

[[3.08|3.08 Tensions in Informing]]: //The front page of the 2002 campaign site for Ed Pastor (D-AZ-2) explained, "This is the only official web site of the Pastor for Arizona Committee. While other web sites might advocate Ed Pastor's election or the defeat of other candidates, and while they might contain links to this site or republish information or materials that we have made available to the general public, they are not authorized by the Pastor for Arizona Committee, nor have they been coordinated in any way with the Pastor for Arizona Committee."//<<tiddler "*Note047-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note046]] | [[Next Note|*Note048]]

<<enx 047 66 20060220134839 "http://www.edpastor.com/, archived 11/02/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021102080217/http://www.edpastor.com/" "LC" "Pastor, Ed">>

[[3.08|3.08 Tensions in Informing]]: //Interestingly, one candidate in 2002 told site visitors that although financial contributions to his campaign would be appreciated, the most important contribution would be to get Internet access in order to become informed: "Regarding contributions, the most important contribution you can make to good government is to get yourself access to the INTERNET. That's where the best campaign information is available. If you can't afford the equipment, etc. ask your local elementary school to set up a Cyber Cafďż˝ where you and your neighbors can surf the web in the evenings. Your local public library can also help you with Internet access."//<<tiddler "*Note048-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note047]] | [[Next Note|*Note049]]

<<enx 048 66 20060220135024 "http://www.johngraham4congress.com/youcanhelp.html, archived 09/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020901072254/http://www.johngraham4congress.com/youcanhelp.html" "LC" "Graham, John">>

[[4.01|4.01 A Practice Observed: Involving]]: //A page urging visitors to "create momentum for Joe" featured a map of the United States.//<<tiddler "*Note049-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note048]] | [[Next Note|*Note050]]

<<enx 049 131 20060215130004 "http://www.joe2004.com/site/PageServer?pagename=getin_mojoe, archived 01/19/04 (PC)." "PC: http://www.joe2004.com/site/PageServer?pagename=getin_mojoe, Annotator ID: 0000000006f778e10106f86883ce638d" "PC" "Lieberman, Joe">>

[[4.01|4.01 A Practice Observed: Involving]]: //Each state page included photos of Lieberman with citizens of that state, a schedule of upcoming local events, and the invitation to "make a contribution from your state."//<<tiddler "*Note050-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note049]] | [[Next Note|*Note051]]

<<enx 050 131 20060215130414 "http://www.joe2004.com/site/PageServer?pagename=state_AZ, archived 01/19/04 (PC)." "PC: http://www.joe2004.com/site/PageServer?pagename=state_AZ, Annotator ID: 0000000006f778e10106f8617bb56388" "PC" "Lieberman, Joe">>

[[4.01|4.01 A Practice Observed: Involving]]: //The campaign also developed an online structure for involving that invited site visitors to coproduce a photo album. The entry point was a link on the front page labeled "Dogs for Joe," featuring a headshot of a blond dog.//<<tiddler "*Note051-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note050]] | [[Next Note|*Note052]]

<<enx 051 131 20060215130750 "http://www.joe2004.com, archived 1/19/04 (PC)." "PC: http://www.joe2004.com, Annotator ID: 0000000006f778e10106f89ee2016394" "PC" "Lieberman, Joe">>

[[4.01|4.01 A Practice Observed: Involving]]: //Part of the text on the page was narrated by Fenway, Lieberman's dog, and explained his support of Lieberman: "of the reasons Joe is this dog's best man is that I can count on him to be there to protect our beaches, our forests, our parks, and all the places that are part of my natural habitat. Although his global warming bill didn't pass, I am proud of the way he refused to roll over and play dead and worked his tail off for a principle he deeply believes in. He is a fighter, and I know he'll keep at this until we cap those greenhouse gases and do what's necessary to protect the planet for litters to come."//<<tiddler "*Note052-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note051]] | [[Next Note|*Note053]]

<<enx 052 131 20060215130948 "http://www.joe2004.com/site/PageServer?pagename=targeted_dogsforjoe, archived 01/19/04 (PC)." "PC: http://www.joe2004.com/site/PageServer?pagename=targeted_dogsforjoe; Annotator ID: ff808081065f67870106afe7adb96377" "PC" "Lieberman, Joe">>

[[4.01|4.01 A Practice Observed: Involving]]: //By January 2004, the photo album displayed pictures of more than eighty dogs, evidence that this involving strategy resonated well with site visitors.//<<tiddler "*Note053-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note052]] | [[Next Note|*Note054]]

<<enx 053 132 20060224131531 "http://www.joe2004.com/site/PhotoAlbumUser?view=UserAlbum&AlbumID=5925, archived 02/11/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040211000755/http://www.joe2004.com/site/PhotoAlbumUser?view=UserAlbum&AlbumID=5925" "IA" "Lieberman, Joe">>

[[4.02|4.02 The Practice of Involving]]: //As contact information, some campaigns simply provide a textual reference with just a post office box address for the campaign.//<<tiddler "*Note054-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note053]] | [[Next Note|*Note055]]

<<enx 054 134 20060224131810 "http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!F9!75!85F6E32C97A2/zone_0/GEORGENLYNE/, archived 09/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020901071256/http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!F9!75!85F6E32C97A2/zone_0/GEORGENLYNE/." "LC" "Lynne, George">>

[[4.02|4.02 The Practice of Involving]]: //Some sites provide just a street address and phone number for their physical campaign office.//<<tiddler "*Note055-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note054]] | [[Next Note|*Note056]]

<<enx 055 134 20060224131940 "http://www.votemarkgreen.com/, archived 09/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020901070012/http://www.votemarkgreen.com/." "LC" "Green, Mark">>

[[4.02|4.02 The Practice of Involving]]: //The 2002 campaign site for Dennis Umphress (Lib-CA-16) had a page labeled "Contact Us" which consisted of the statement, "Email general correspondence, requests for more information, or offers to volunteer to: dmumphress@hotmail.com" and the suggestion, "If you have a question on a specific subject please email all of the candidates for their positions," along with his opponents' email addresses.//<<tiddler "*Note056-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note055]] | [[Next Note|*Note057]]

<<enx 056 134 20060224132119 "http://www.theron.net/umphress/contact.htm, archived 09/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020901090453/http://www.theron.net/umphress/contact.htm." "LC" "Umphress, Dennis">>

[[4.02|4.02 The Practice of Involving]]: //Other campaigns employ a Web-based form to allow site visitors to create a database entry that is a message to the campaign; some sites refer to this as "sending a note" or "email."//<<tiddler "*Note057-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note056]] | [[Next Note|*Note058]]

<<enx 057 134 20060224132242 "http://www.brianbaird.com/send/index.html, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101113550/http://www.brianbaird.com/send/index.html." "LC" "Baird, Brian">>

[[4.02|4.02 The Practice of Involving]]: //On a page labeled, "How You Can Help," a text written in the first person and signed by the candidate included several invitational paragraphs.//<<tiddler "*Note058-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note057]] | [[Next Note|*Note059]]

<<enx 058 135 20060224132346 "http://www.johngraham4congress.com/youcanhelp.htm, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101081920/http://www.johngraham4congress.com/youcanhelp.html" "LC" "Graham, John">>

[[4.02|4.02 The Practice of Involving]]: //Thaddeus McCotter's 2004 site provided a downloadable form (Adobe PDF) on which donors could indicate whether they would be "performing" as "blue grassroots" by pledging $400, "rhythm section" at $500, and so on, up to "conductors" at $5000 or more.//<<tiddler "*Note059-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note058]] | [[Next Note|*Note060]]

<<enx 059 137 20060220115635 "http://www.mccotterforcongress.com/McCotter-The%20Band.pdf, archived 11/03/2004 (PC)." "PC: http://www.mccotterforcongress.com/McCotter-The%20Band.pdf, Webshot." "PC" "McCotter, Taddeus">>

[[4.02|4.02 The Practice of Involving]]: //Alternatively, some campaigns provide a downloadable form to be mailed to the campaign office, on which site visitors are asked to indicate the type of volunteer labor they are able to provide.//<<tiddler "*Note060-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note059]] | [[Next Note|*Note061]]

<<enx 060 137 20060224132710 "http://home.attbi.com/~jgs3d/, archived 09/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020901071347/http://home.attbi.com/~jgs3d/." "LC" "Scileppi, Jim">>

[[4.02|4.02 The Practice of Involving]]: //The information collected via this form could have been directly entered into a campaign database record for the site visitor.//<<tiddler "*Note061-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note060]] | [[Next Note|*Note062]]

<<enx 061 137 20060220120356 "http://www.jimnussle.com/nussle/wrapper.jsp?PID=4086-681, archived 02/20/2006 (PC)." "PC: http://www.jimnussle.com/nussle/wrapper.jsp?PID=4086-681, Screenhot, June 29, 2005." "PC" "Nussle, Jim">>

[[4.02|4.02 The Practice of Involving]]: //The Web form requested a broad array of information from site visitors, including whether they were union members (and if so, of which union), which issues concerned them, what special skills or interests they had that could be of use to the campaign, and how they found about the campaign Web site.//<<tiddler "*Note062-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note061]] | [[Next Note|*Note063]]

<<enx 062 137 20060220134850 "http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/plugin/template/gephardt/Volunteer/*, archived 01/19/2004 (PC)." "PC: http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/plugin/template/gephardt/Volunteer/*, Screenshot June 29, 2005." "PC" "Gephardt, Dick">>

[[4.02|4.02 The Practice of Involving]]: //The 2002 version of McCotter's volunteer page requested basic contact information from the site visitor, provided seven volunteer activities as options from which the visitor was invited to select as many as desired, and offered a textbox in which visitors could write comments to the campaign.//<<tiddler "*Note063-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note062]] | [[Next Note|*Note064]]

<<enx 063 138 20060224133217 "http://www.mccotter2002.com/volunteer.asp, archived 09/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020901072100/http://www.mccotter2002.com/volunteer.asp" "LC" "McCotter, Taddeus">>

[[4.02|4.02 The Practice of Involving]]: //The 2004 version of McCotter's volunteer page lacked a textbox for open-ended comments, and instead asked visitors to indicate the three issues that concerned them most, and offered an additional five volunteer activity options along with the ones provided in 2002.//<<tiddler "*Note064-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note063]] | [[Next Note|*Note065]]

<<enx 064 138 20060220144612 "http://www.mccotterforcongress.com/volunteen.asp 06/30/2005 (PC)." "PC: 2004 version of http://www.mccotterforcongress.com/about.asp, Screenshot June 29, 2005." "PC" "McCotter, Taddeus">>

[[4.03|4.03 Techniques for Involving: Transaction]]: //The 2002 Web site of Mary Bono (R-CA-45) simply stated that the campaign "will not disclose your email address or any other contact information you have provided us. We will not provide your contact information to any other organization unless you specifically authorize us to do so."//<<tiddler "*Note065-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note064]] | [[Next Note|*Note066]]

<<enx 065 145 20060224133423 "http://www.marybono.com/Privacy.cfm, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101084732/http://www.marybono.com/Privacy.cfm" "LC" "Bono, Mary">>

[[4.03|4.03 Techniques for Involving: Transaction]]: //The privacy policy posted on Tom Harkin's 2002 campaign site acknowledged that "some" of the information provided by site visitors, including name, address, and phone numbers, "may be shared with similar organizations (such as county Democratic groups)."//<<tiddler "*Note066-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note065]] | [[Next Note|*Note067]]

<<enx 066 145 20060224133537 "http://www.tomharkin.com/privacy/index.cfm, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)" "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101103705/http://www.tomharkin.com/privacy/index.cfm " "LC" "Harkin, Tom">>

[[4.03|4.03 Techniques for Involving: Transaction]]: //The privacy policy was headlined as "LarryCraig.com's Promise to You, Our Customer," and approached the relationship with the site visitor as one might expect a business to approach a customer.//<<tiddler "*Note067-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note066]] | [[Next Note|*Note068]]

<<enx 067 146 20060224133644 "http://www.larrycraig.com/priv.cfm, archived 09/30/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020930113917/http://www.larrycraig.com/priv.cfm " "LC" "Craig, Larry">>

[[4.03|4.03 Techniques for Involving: Transaction]]: //As of October 1999, Bush's campaign site had no privacy policy, although it had already been soliciting email addresses and volunteers via the site for at least six months.//<<tiddler "*Note068-1">> <<tiddler "*Note068-2">> <<tiddler "*Note068-3">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note067]] | [[Next Note|*Note069]]

<<enx 068-1 146 20060224133813 "http://www.georgewbush.com/, archived 10/06/1999 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/19991006180044/http://www.georgewbush.com/" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

<<enx 068-2 146 20060224133926 "http://www.georgewbush.com/Volunteer/volunteer.html, archived 10/11/1999 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/19991011011839/www.georgewbush.com/Volunteer/volunteer.html" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

<<enx 068-3 146 20060224134054 "http://www.georgewbush.com/Volunteer/volunteer.html, archived 05/08/1999 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/19990508183416/www.georgewbush.com/Volunteer/volunteer.html" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[4.03|4.03 Techniques for Involving: Transaction]]: //By the end of November 1999, Bush's campaign had posted an undated privacy statement that addressed several aspects of what the campaign would and would not do with the personal information visitors voluntarily provided to the campaign via the site.//<<tiddler "*Note069-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note068]] | [[Next Note|*Note070]]

<<enx 069 146 20060224134936 "http://www.georgewbush.com/disclaimer/privacy.html, archived 11/28/1999 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/19991128215745/http://www.georgewbush.com/disclaimer/privacy.html" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[4.03|4.03 Techniques for Involving: Transaction]]: //Bush's campaign privacy policy included the statement, "We will continue to evaluate our efforts to protect your information and will update our privacy policy whenever necessary," but did not indicate how updates would be announced and whether changes would be applied retroactively to personal information provided prior to any privacy policy updates.//<<tiddler "*Note070-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note069]] | [[Next Note|*Note071]]

<<enx 070 146 20060220123957 "http://www.georgewbush.com/Privacy.asp, archived 10/01/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20001004073450/http://georgewbush.com/Privacy.asp" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[4.03|4.03 Techniques for Involving: Transaction]]: //By June, 2003, Bush's campaign privacy policy began differently.//<<tiddler "*Note071-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note070]] | [[Next Note|*Note072]]

<<enx 071 147 20060224135236 "http://www.georgewbush.com/Privacy.htm, archived 06/06/2003 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20030606222543/georgewbush.com/Privacy.htm" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[4.03|4.03 Techniques for Involving: Transaction]]: //In August 2003, a more detailed policy was posted on Bush's site, which differed from the 2000 policy in a few key ways regarding the use of personal information provided by site visitors.//<<tiddler "*Note072-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note071]] | [[Next Note|*Note073]]

<<enx 072 147 20060224135457 "http://www.georgewbush.com/PrivacyPolicy.aspx, archived 10/08/2003 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20031008051904/www.georgewbush.com/PrivacyPolicy.aspx" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[4.03|4.03 Techniques for Involving: Transaction]]: //Although Bush's privacy policy assured visitors that their own personal information would not be sold to any other entity, it asserted the campaign's intention to "share your information with Republican organizations committed to re-electing President Bush ... and the Republican ticket," such as the Republican National Committee, Republican state party organizations and local Republican groups.//<<tiddler "*Note073-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note072]] | [[Next Note|*Note074]]

<<enx 073 147 20060215132216 "http://www.georgewbush.com/PrivacyPolicy.aspx, archived 06/22/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040622050638/www.georgewbush.com/PrivacyPolicy.aspx" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[4.04|4.04 Techniques for Involving: Convergence]]: //Carol Moseley-Braun's presidential primary site in 2004 also included a related feature that manifested convergence in the involving practice: an Adobe PDF sign-in sheet template for organizers to download and use "for gathering information at events for Carol supporters."//<<tiddler "*Note074-1">> <<tiddler "*Note074-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note073]] | [[Next Note|*Note075]]

<<enx 074-1 149 20060215134245 "http://carolforpresident.com/content.php?page=schedule, archived 01/19/2004 (PC)." "PC: http://carolforpresident.com/content.php?page=schedule" "PC" "Moseley-Braun, Carol">>

<<enx 074-2 149 20060215133948 "http://carolforpresident.com/content.php?page=kit, archived 01/19/2004 (PC)." "PC: http://carolforpresident.com/content.php?page=kit, archived January 19, 2004." "PC" "Moseley-Braun, Carol">>

[[4.04|4.04 Techniques for Involving: Convergence]]: //Campaign-focused Meetups were enabled by the Web service provided by a company called Meetup.com, which bills itself as "[helping] people find others who share their interest or cause, and form lasting, influential, local community groups that regularly meet face-to-face."//<<tiddler "*Note075-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note074]] | [[Next Note|*Note076]]

<<enx 075 150 20060215134632 "http://www.meetup.com/about/, archived 03/12/2005 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20050313022604/http://www.meetup.com/about/" "IA" "Meetup Inc.">>

[[4.04|4.04 Techniques for Involving: Convergence]]: //Meetup.com, the brainchild of Scott Heiferman, was launched in June 2002, as "the first easy-to-use service that allowed people to participate in and organize local gatherings about things they care about."//<<tiddler "*Note076-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note075]] | [[Next Note|*Note077]]

<<enx 076 150 20060215135027 "http://press.meetup.com/watch/archives/000696.html, archived 03/29/2005 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20050329132531/http://press.meetup.com/watch/archives/000696.html" "IA" "Meetup Inc.">>

[[4.04|4.04 Techniques for Involving: Convergence]]: //When a campaign contracted with Meetup.com, the Meetup site producers created a campaign-specific page, to which the campaign site linked.//<<tiddler "*Note077-1">> <<tiddler "*Note077-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note076]] | [[Next Note|*Note078]]

<<enx 077-1 151 20060215135831 "http://clark04.com/meetup/, archived 02/02/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040202080519/http://clark04.com/meetup/" "IA" "Clark, Wesley">>

<<enx 077-2 151 20060215140326 "http://wesleyclark.meetup.com/, archived 04/12/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040412080129/http://wesleyclark.meetup.com/" "IA" "Clark, Wesley">>

[[4.04|4.04 Techniques for Involving: Convergence]]: //Once on the volunteer page of the site, potential volunteers could click a link labeled "Campaign Headquarters" to retrieve this map.//<<tiddler "*Note078-1">> <<tiddler "*Note078-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note077]] | [[Next Note|*Note079]]

<<enx 078-1 152 20060224140656 "http://www.tancredo.org/helping_tom.htm, archived 12/14/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20001214004900/www.tancredo.org/helping_tom.htm" "IA" "Tancredo, Tom">>

<<enx 078-2 152 20060812204305 "http://www.mapquest.com/cgi-bin/ia_find?link=btwn/twn-map_results&event=find_search&SNVData=njij9-qw7;vdduvj&7cl56,cjtsc(u,f7c3m(0,c2j%7cx0672u.3rs;_wd672u.q8k8)c2j&7cx0472u.q8k8)cw8%7c.h472u6,3iqcme5%7c;rom6(.gv2js-$kdq(.xif1m88;,hxggm-eqej;xmwjs8$bcjsol@klqr(0,rxhqje;libbdf$5s34l9-&country=United+States&address=609+w+littleton+blvd,+Suite+200&city=Littleton&State=CO&Zip=80121&Find+Map=Get+Map, archived 12/14/2000 (IA)." "IA: http://www.mapquest.com/cgi-bin/ia_find?link=btwn/twn-map_results&event=find_search&SNVData=njij9-qw7;vdduvj%7cl56,cjtsc(u,f7c3m(0,c2j%7cx0672u.3rs;_wd672u.q8k8)c2j%7cx0472u.q8k8)cw8%7c.h472u6,3iqcme5%7c;rom6(.gv2js-$kdq(.xif1m88;,hxggm-eqej;xmwjs8$bcjsol@klqr(0,rxhqje;libbdf$5s34l9-&country=United+States&address=609+w+littleton+blvd,+Suite+200&city=Littleton&State=CO&Zip=80121&Find+Map=Get+Map" "PC" "MapQuest, Inc.">>

[[4.05|4.05 Techniques for Involving: Linking]]: //John McCain's 2000 presidential primary campaign may have been the first to produce a multisite Web presence: mccain2000.com and mccaininteractive.com.//<<tiddler "*Note079-1">> <<tiddler "*Note079-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note078]] | [[Next Note|*Note080]]

<<enx 079-1 154 20060224140942 "http://mccain2000.com, archived 10/07/1999 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/19991007235849/http://mccain2000.com/" "IA" "McCain, John">>

<<enx 079-2 154 20060224141110 "http://www.mccaininteractive.com/, archived 11/28/1999 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/19991128033455/http://www.mccaininteractive.com/." "IA" "McCain, John">>

[[4.05|4.05 Techniques for Involving: Linking]]: //The Web presence of eight of the nine Democratic presidential primary campaigns in 2004 included three or more sites each, and two campaigns, Dean's and Kerry's, included at least seven sites each.//<<tiddler "*Note080-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note079]] | [[Next Note|*Note081]]

<<enx 080 154 20060220131216 "See http://politicalweb.info/2004/2004.html, archived 06/28/2005 (PC)." "PC" "PC" "Politicalweb.info">>

[[4.05|4.05 Techniques for Involving: Linking]]: //A link to Joe Lieberman's primary presidential campaign site, joe2004.com, was prominently posted on the home page of www.leadingwithintegrity.com, along with an invitation for visitors to get involved in the campaign, through attending a local campaign event, signing up for campaign email, or contributing to the campaign.//<<tiddler "*Note081-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note080]] | [[Next Note|*Note082]]

<<enx 081 154 20060224141804 "http://www.leadingwithintegrity.com/involved/index.htm, archived 12/04/2003 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20031204224210/www.leadingwithintegrity.com/involved/index.htm" "IA" "Lieberman, Joe">>

[[4.06|4.06 Techniques for Involving: Coproduction]]: //A successful candidate in at least three races, Thomas Tancredo (R-CO-6), recycled much of the campaign site he used in 2000 in his run for re-election in 2002, including the volunteer page.//<<tiddler "*Note082-1">> <<tiddler "*Note082-2">> <<tiddler "*Note082-3">> <<tiddler "*Note082-4">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note081]] | [[Next Note|*Note083]]

<<enx 082-1 156 20060224142001 "http://www.tancredo.org/, archived 10/09/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20001009092349/http://www.tancredo.org/" "IA" "Tancredo, Tom">>

<<enx 082-2 156 20060224142151 "http://www.tancredo.org/helping_tom.htm, archived 08/16/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20000816011110/www.tancredo.org/helping_tom.htm" "IA" "Tancredo, Tom">>

<<enx 082-3 156 20060224142316 "http://www.tancredo.org, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080122/http://www.tancredo.org/" "LC" "Tancredo, Tom">>

<<enx 082-4 156 20060224142455 "http://www.tancredo.org/volunteer/volunteer.htm, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101093413/http://www.tancredo.org/volunteer/volunteer.htm" "LC" "Tancredo, Tom">>

[[4.06|4.06 Techniques for Involving: Coproduction]]: //Although Tancredo's 2004 campaign site had a distinctly different appearance and new information features and structural elements, the information fields on the volunteer form remained mostly the same.//<<tiddler "*Note083-1">> <<tiddler "*Note083-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note082]] | [[Next Note|*Note084]]

<<enx 083-1 156 20060215140802 "http://www.tancredo.org/index.html, archived 03/06/2005 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20050306233205/http://www.tancredo.org/index.html" "IA" "Tancredo, Tom">>

<<enx 083-2 156 20060215140817 "http://www.tancredo.org/info/volunteer.html, archived 03/06/2005 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20050306234225/http://www.tancredo.org/info/volunteer.html" "IA" "Tancredo, Tom">>

[[4.06|4.06 Techniques for Involving: Coproduction]]: //The campaign site for Steve Udall (D-AZ-1) offered site visitors the opportunity to participate in the "Udall 2002 Poll."//<<tiddler "*Note084-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note083]] | [[Next Note|*Note085]]

<<enx 084 157 20060224142923 "http://www.udall2002.com/, archived 09/17/2002 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20020917070025/http://www.udall2002.com/" "IA" "Udall, Steve">>

[[4.06|4.06 Techniques for Involving: Coproduction]]: //John Sophocleus' (Lib-AL-Gov) 2002 site featured a poll on the question, "Who is best qualified to lead Alabama to economic prosperity?" Respondents could choose "a professional politician, a professional economist, other, or nobody/not sure" and view poll results displayed on a page produced by the Web hosting company Homestead.com.//<<tiddler "*Note085-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note084]] | [[Next Note|*Note086]]

<<enx 085 157 20060224143225 "http://www.votesoph.com/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080005/http://www.votesoph.com/" "LC" "Sophocleus, John">>

[[4.06|4.06 Techniques for Involving: Coproduction]]: //Text within the bat graphic on Howard Dean's site stated the amount of funds received toward the goal and the number of contributors to date, and the coloration of the bat visually depicted the proportion of funds received toward the goal.//<<tiddler "*Note086-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note085]] | [[Next Note|*Note087]]

<<enx 086 157 20060220132001 "http://deanforamerica.com, archived 01/27/2004 (PC). " "PC: http://deanforamerica.com, January 27, 2004; Annotator ID ff808081065f67870106aff0791b637d" "PC" "Dean, Howard">>

[[4.06|4.06 Techniques for Involving: Coproduction]]: //After $1.4 million had been donated in a seven-day period, the Dean bat was fully colored, and the text "Home Run!" was added to the graphic.//<<tiddler "*Note087-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note086]] | [[Next Note|*Note088]]

<<enx 087 157 20060215142156 "http://www.deanforamerica.com/, archived 02/08/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040208165546/www.deanforamerica.com/" "IA" "Dean, Howard">>

[[4.06|4.06 Techniques for Involving: Coproduction]]: //In mid-October 2004, Richard Romero (D-NM-1) played to local culinary culture by employing a chile pepper graphic framed by text urging supporters to "keep the heat on" his Republican opponent by "filling the chile pepper" with ten thousand dollars "by Tuesday."//<<tiddler "*Note088-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note087]] | [[Next Note|*Note089]]

<<enx 088 157 20060220132644 "http://www.richardromeroforcongress.com/, archived 09/26/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040926122741/http://www.richardromeroforcongress.com/" "IA" "Romero, Richard M.">>

[[4.06|4.06 Techniques for Involving: Coproduction]]: //Charles Laws' site was organized as a multiple-author discussion forum, with site visitors invited to submit new topics or comment on existing topics.//<<tiddler "*Note089-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note088]] | [[Next Note|*Note090]]

<<enx 089 158 20060227122819 "http://www.charleslaws.org/, archived 10/31/2002 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20021031080153/http://www.charleslaws.org/" "IA" "Law, Richard">>

[[4.06|4.06 Techniques for Involving: Coproduction]]: //Although introduced as a feature on a candidate site in 2000, blogs were on very few campaign sites in 2000 or 2002.//<<tiddler "*Note090-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note089]] | [[Next Note|*Note091]]

<<enx 090 158 20060227123041 "http://www.bonnieb2000.org/weblog/blogger.html, archived 01/25/2001 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20010125050900/www.bonnieb2000.org/weblog/blogger.html" "IA" "Bucqueroux, Bonnie">>

[[4.06|4.06 Techniques for Involving: Coproduction]]: //The Dean campaign launched its read-only blog in March 2003. //<<tiddler "*Note091-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note090]] | [[Next Note|*Note092]]

<<enx 091 159 20060812204446 "http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000396.html, archived 10/11/2003 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20031011041122/blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000396.html" "IA" "Dean, Howard">>

[[4.07|4.07 Tensions in Involving]]: //Site visitors were offered the opportunity to sign up for "instant updates with the latest news about Dick Gephardt," but that option required the visitor to indicate assent to the statement, "I realize that this may mean one or more emails every day."//<<tiddler "*Note092-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note091]] | [[Next Note|*Note093]]

<<enx 092 161 20060220134540 "http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/plugin/template/gephardt/Volunteer/*, archived 01/19/2004 (PC)." "PC: http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/plugin/template/gephardt/Volunteer/*, archived January 19, 2004." "PC" "Gephardt, Dick">>

[[4.07|4.07 Tensions in Involving]]: //Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY-23) maintains an active site between campaigns, informing supporters of activities and soliciting contributions.//<<tiddler "*Note093-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note092]] | [[Next Note|*Note094]]

<<enx 093 162 20060201151632 "http://www.boehlert.com/content.cfm?id=27, archived 02/01/06 (PC)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20050307002220/http://www.boehlert.com/content.cfm?id=27" "IA" "Boehlert, Sherwood">>

[[4.07|4.07 Tensions in Involving]]: //Since his defeat in the presidential election of 2004, John Kerry has continued to update his campaign site regularly and use it for purposes beyond what a future Senate campaign site might entail, including fundraising for the Democratic party.//<<tiddler "*Note094-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note093]] | [[Next Note|*Note095]]

<<enx 094 162 20060227123609 "http://www.johnkerry.com/, archived 07/01/2005 (PC)." "PC: http://www.johnkerry.com/, Screenshot July 1, 2005" "PC" "Kerry, John">>

[[5.01|5.01 A Practice Observed: Connecting]]: //The blog was mentioned in Bonnie Bucqueroux's announcement of the launch of the campaign site on August 30, 2000, in which she stated, "`Blogging' is the new online rage that allows Bucqueroux to share insights and ideas immediately."//<<tiddler "*Note095-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note094]] | [[Next Note|*Note096]]

<<enx 095 191 20060227124143 "http://bonnieb2000.com/releases/0830.html, archived 02/17/2001 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20010217042001/bonnieb2000.com/releases/0830.html" "IA" "Bucqueroux, Bonnie">>

[[5.01|5.01 A Practice Observed: Connecting]]: //A total of nine posts were made between September 22, 2000 and October 26, 2000, describing a series of campaign events and the candidate's attempts to be included in televised debates featuring the major party candidates.//<<tiddler "*Note096-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note095]] | [[Next Note|*Note097]]

<<enx 096 191 20060227124258 "http://bonnieb2000.com/weblog/blogger.html, archived 01/26/2001 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20010126012000/http://bonnieb2000.com/weblog/blogger.html" "IA" "Bucqueroux, Bonnie">>

[[5.01|5.01 A Practice Observed: Connecting]]: //One commenter engaged Bucqueroux's campaign on the issue of the value of the Green party itself:\n<<<\nThursday, October 26 at 04:04 AM:\nJim Smith from Lansing wrote:\nI think that you are a waste of time. You and the rest of your Green party people are going to be sorry for the next four years if you cost good people like Al Gore and Debbie Stabenow the important elections because you are simply trendy liberals. Maybe Al Gore isn't perfect, nor is Debbie, but they sure as hell are a lot better than Bush and Abraham. At least they'll take the time to listen to common sensible people.//<<tiddler "*Note097-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note096]] | [[Next Note|*Note098]]

<<enx 097 192 20060227124438 "http://bonnieb2000.com/soundoff.html, archived 02/02/2001 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20010202135500/bonnieb2000.com/soundoff.html" "IA" "Bucqueroux, Bonnie">>

[[5.01|5.01 A Practice Observed: Connecting]]: //Bucqueroux's site provided a list of "links that matter," directing site visitors to a topically sorted list of more than one hundred external Web sites.//<<tiddler "*Note098-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note097]] | [[Next Note|*Note099]]

<<enx 098 192 20060227124719 "http://www.bonnieb2000.org/links.html, archived 01/25/2001 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20010125045200/www.bonnieb2000.org/links.html" "IA" "Bucqueroux, Bonnie">>

[[5.01|5.01 A Practice Observed: Connecting]]: //Bucqueroux's Web site included a page titled "Why we are running a cyber-campaign" that included links to several tools being used on the site.//<<tiddler "*Note099-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note098]] | [[Next Note|*Note100]]

<<enx 099 192 20060227124904 "http://www.bonnieb2000.org/cyber.html , archived 01/25/2001 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20010125044100/www.bonnieb2000.org/cyber.html " "IA" "Bucqueroux, Bonnie">>

[[5.03|5.03 Techniques for Connecting: Association]]: //Ray Tricomo's campaign used the affordances of the Web to post not only the names of individual supporters, but also links to statements of support that some individuals had written about him.//<<tiddler "*Note100-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note099]] | [[Next Note|*Note101]]

<<enx 100 195 20060306131343 "http://www.raytricomo.org/endorsements.php, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101092048/http://www.raytricomo.org/endorsements.php" "LC" "Tricomo, Ray">>

[[5.03|5.03 Techniques for Connecting: Association]]: //In one comparison, the Rogers campaign posted a scanned image of a letter received from Hayworth on congressional stationery by a Rogers' campaign volunteer in June 2004, in response to a letter protesting the leak of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plume.//<<tiddler "*Note101-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note100]] | [[Next Note|*Note102]]

<<enx 101 196 20060227125618 "http://www.er2004.com/jdonjd1.html, archived 10/09/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041009224833/www.er2004.com/jdonjd1.html" "IA" "Rodgers, Elizabeth">>

[[5.03|5.03 Techniques for Connecting: Association]]: //Spencer Abraham's (R-MI-Sen) 2000 campaign produced the "Liberal Debbie" site parodying his opponent, Debbie Stabenow.//<<tiddler "*Note102-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note101]] | [[Next Note|*Note103]]

<<enx 102 196 20060306131650 "http://www.liberaldebbie.com/, archived 08/16/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20000816184104/http://www.liberaldebbie.com/" "IA" "Abraham, Spencer">>

[[5.03|5.03 Techniques for Connecting: Association]]: //In 2002 Ohio gubernatorial candidate Jim Hagan's campaign's Web presence included both a non-humorous site criticizing his opponent Bob Taft, firetaft.com, and a parodic site, taftquack.com, in addition to the main Hagan campaign site.//<<tiddler "*Note103-1">> <<tiddler "*Note103-2">> <<tiddler "*Note103-3">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note102]] | [[Next Note|*Note104]]

<<enx 103-1 196 20060227130111 "http://firetaft.com/, archived 09/22/2002 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20020922013143/http://firetaft.com/" "IA" "Hagan, Tim">>

<<enx 103-2 196 20060227130345 "http://www.taftquack.com/, archived 08/30/2002 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20020830233751/http://www.taftquack.com/" "IA" "Hagan, Tim">>

<<enx 103-3 196 20060227130856 "http://www.timhaganforgovernor.com/, archived 08/30/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020830212951/http://www.timhaganforgovernor.com/" "LC" "Hagan, Tim">>

[[5.03|5.03 Techniques for Connecting: Association]]: //Jim Hagan's campaign announced the launch of taftquack.com in late August and linked to the parody site from the front page of its main site.//<<tiddler "*Note104-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note103]] | [[Next Note|*Note105]]

<<enx 104 196 20060812212520 "http://www.timhaganforgovernor.com/, archived 08/30/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020830212951/http://www.timhaganforgovernor.com/" "LC" "Hagan, Tim">>

[[5.03|5.03 Techniques for Connecting: Association]]: //About a month after the parody site was created, the Hagan campaign attempted to draw more traffic to it through the mobilization practice of encouraging site visitors to "please send this link to 10 people, and remember to keep checking back for the latest commercials and updates."//<<tiddler "*Note105-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note104]] | [[Next Note|*Note106]]

<<enx 105 197 20060227131338 "http://www.taftquack.com/, archived 09/22/2002 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20020922071657/http://www.taftquack.com/" "IA" "Hagan, Tim">>

[[5.03|5.03 Techniques for Connecting: Association]]: //The parody site was updated several times during the campaign season, and contained press releases from the Hagan campaign and links to the volunteer sign up and donation features of Hagan's main site.//<<tiddler "*Note106-1">> <<tiddler "*Note106-2">> <<tiddler "*Note106-3">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note105]] | [[Next Note|*Note107]]

<<enx 106-1 197 20060227131855 "http://www.taftquack.com/press_releases.htm, archived 10/01/2002 (IA). "http://web.archive.org/web/20021001152128/www.taftquack.com/press_releases.htm" "IA" "Hagan, Tim">>

<<enx 106-2 197 20060227132228 "http://www.timhaganforgovernor.com/gi/volform.html, archived 10/02/2002 (IA)" "http://web.archive.org/web/20021002104618/www.timhaganforgovernor.com/gi/volform.html" "IA" "Hagan, Tim">>

<<enx 106-3 197 20060227132417 "http://www.timhaganforgovernor.com/gi/contribute.html, archived 10/02/2002 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20021002084349/www.timhaganforgovernor.com/gi/contribute.html" "IA" "Hagan, Tim">>

[[5.03|5.03 Techniques for Connecting: Association]]: //The site also hosted an archive of parodic animated "Internet ads" and billboards that employed the TaftQuack theme, which allowed Web visitors to view and re-view them any time (an example of offline convergence, as we explain later).//<<tiddler "*Note107-1">> <<tiddler "*Note107-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note106]] | [[Next Note|*Note108]]

<<enx 107-1 197 20060227132533 "http://www.taftquack.com/billboard.jpg, archived 10/12/2002 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20021012123130/www.taftquack.com/billboard.jpg" "IA" "Hagan, Tim">>

<<enx 107-2 197 20060227132805 "http://www.taftquack.com/commercials.htm, archived 10/14/2002 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20021014180643/www.taftquack.com/commercials.htm" "IA" "Hagan, Tim">>

[[5.03|5.03 Techniques for Connecting: Association]]: //The parodies were a series of animations archived in a section of the main Bush-Cheney site labeled the "Kerry Media Center," linked to from the home page.//<<tiddler "*Note108-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note107]] | [[Next Note|*Note109]]

<<enx 108 197 20060227133127 "http://www.georgewbush.com/KerryMediaCenter/, archived 06/22/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040622013234/www.georgewbush.com/KerryMediaCenter/" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[5.04|5.04 Techniques for Connecting: Convergence]]: //The "Schedule Highlights" section of the campaign site produced by Pat Buchanan, the Reform party candidate for president in 2000, exemplified this calendaring strategy.//<<tiddler "*Note109-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note108]] | [[Next Note|*Note110]]

<<enx 109 199 20060227162715 "http://www.gopatgo2000.org/schedule/, archived 10/28/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20001028053400/www.gopatgo2000.org/schedule/" "IA" "Buchanan-Foster ">>

[[5.04|5.04 Techniques for Connecting: Convergence]]: //By mid-August, a "Calendar" page had been added to Bush's site, linked from the front page, but throughout August and September, the only event listed on the calendar was the election on November 7.//<<tiddler "*Note110-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note109]] | [[Next Note|*Note111]]

<<enx 110 200 20060813074651 "http://www.georgewbush.com/Calendar.asp, archived 08/15/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20000815054040/http://www.georgewbush.com/Calendar.asp, " "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[5.04|5.04 Techniques for Connecting: Convergence]]: //Only in October did the Bush campaign begin to actively maintain its calendar, and even then, the only events posted on October 4 were upcoming nationally televised presidential and vice-presidential debates.//<<tiddler "*Note111-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note110]] | [[Next Note|*Note112]]

<<enx 111 200 20060227162950 "http://www.georgewbush.com/Calendar.asp, archived 10/04/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20001004073436/http://www.georgewbush.com/Calendar.asp" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[5.04|5.04 Techniques for Connecting: Convergence]]: //By the end of October, there was a noticeable shift in the Bush campaign's Web calendar strategy toward enabling site visitors to connect with the campaign by learning about upcoming events in which they could participate in ways other than viewing.//<<tiddler "*Note112-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note111]] | [[Next Note|*Note113]]

<<enx 112 200 20060227163125 "http://www.georgewbush.com/Calendar.asp, archived 10/21/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20001021063424/www.georgewbush.com/Calendar.asp" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[5.04|5.04 Techniques for Connecting: Convergence]]: //In mid-December 2003, the front page had a section titled "Events Calendar" with the subtitle, "Show your support at events in your area," indicating the Bush campaign's hope that the calendar would be used by supporters to learn about events in which they could participate.//<<tiddler "*Note113-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note112]] | [[Next Note|*Note114]]

<<enx 113 201 20060227163318 "http://www.georgewbush.com/, archived 12/18/2003 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20031218133937/http://www.georgewbush.com/" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[5.04|5.04 Techniques for Connecting: Convergence]]: //In mid-January 2004, as the Democratic primaries were heating up, a "live chat" event with Bush and Cheney was listed as part of "Bush's positive agenda" on the site's Web calendar.//<<tiddler "*Note114-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note113]] | [[Next Note|*Note115]]

<<enx 114 201 20060227163511 "http://www.georgewbush.com/calendar/, archived 01/10/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040110035313/http://www.georgewbush.com/calendar/" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[5.04|5.04 Techniques for Connecting: Convergence]]: //By mid-February, 2004, the Bush campaign was making more strategic use of its Web calendar.//<<tiddler "*Note115-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note114]] | [[Next Note|*Note116]]

<<enx 115 201 20060227163713 "http://georgewbush.com/calendar/, archived 02/13/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040213041518/http://georgewbush.com/calendar/" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[5.04|5.04 Techniques for Connecting: Convergence]]: //Details and contact information were provided for each event.//<<tiddler "*Note116-1">> <<tiddler "*Note116-2">> <<tiddler "*Note116-3">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note115]] | [[Next Note|*Note117]]

<<enx 116-1 201 20060227163937 "http://georgewbush.com/calendar/CalendarDetail.aspx?ID=331, archived 02/27/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040227161943/georgewbush.com/calendar/CalendarDetail.aspx?ID=331" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

<<enx 116-2 201 20060227164212 "http://georgewbush.com/calendar/CalendarDetail.aspx?ID=335, archived 02/27/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040227162730/georgewbush.com/calendar/CalendarDetail.aspx?ID=335" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

<<enx 116-3 201 20060227164337 "http://georgewbush.com/calendar/CalendarDetail.aspx?ID=340, archived 02/27/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040227161906/georgewbush.com/calendar/CalendarDetail.aspx?ID=340" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[5.04|5.04 Techniques for Connecting: Convergence]]: //Most significantly, the campaign had enabled coproduction of the calendar by adding a feature inviting supporters to complete a Web form to add their events to the calendar database.//<<tiddler "*Note117-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note116]] | [[Next Note|*Note118]]

<<enx 117 201 20060227164813 "http://www.georgewbush.com/calendar/SendEvent.aspx, archived 02/06/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040206114550/www.georgewbush.com/calendar/SendEvent.aspx" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[5.05|5.05 Techniques for Connecting: Coproduction]]: //The 2000 campaign site of congressional hopeful Pam Ellison (Ind-MN-4) featured a message board where site visitors exchanged comments with each other and on which the candidate participated actively.//<<tiddler "*Note118-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note117]] | [[Next Note|*Note119]]

<<enx 118 203 20060227165208 "http://www.pam4congress.net/, archived 08/16/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20000816111132/http://www.pam4congress.net/" "IA" "Ellison, Pam">>

[[5.05|5.05 Techniques for Connecting: Coproduction]]: //Would-be discussion participants were required to register with the partnering site to post messages to the discussion board, which may have discouraged use.//<<tiddler "*Note119-1">> <<tiddler "*Note119-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note118]] | [[Next Note|*Note120]]

<<enx 119-1 203 20060227170429 "http://clear2000.com/c2/, archived 08/23/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20000823155916/clear2000.com/c2/" "IA" "Clear, Richard">>

<<enx 119-2 203 20060227171035 "http://login.delphi.com/dirlogin/index.asp?webtag=CLEAR2000&lgnDST=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edelphi%2Ecom%2Fclear2000%2Fstart%2F, accessed 07/06/2000." "PC: http://login.delphi.com/dirlogin/index.asp?webtag=CLEAR2000&lgnDST=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edelphi%2Ecom%2Fclear2000%2Fstart%2F, accessed July 6, 2000." "PC" "Delphi Forums">>

[[5.05|5.05 Techniques for Connecting: Coproduction]]: //The 2002 Web site for Tim Hutchinson (R-AR-Sen) included a link to "Endorsements" on its front page.//<<tiddler "*Note120-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note119]] | [[Next Note|*Note121]]

<<enx 120 204 20060227171205 "http://www.tim2002.com/, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101080116/http://www.tim2002.com/" "LC" "Hutchinson, Tim">>

[[5.05|5.05 Techniques for Connecting: Coproduction]]: //The links all resolved to pages purporting to be accurate and full representations of press releases or editorials from the endorsing organization, with the appropriated content below the standard header found on other pages within the Hutchinson campaign site.//<<tiddler "*Note121-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note120]] | [[Next Note|*Note122]]

<<enx 121 204 20060227171338 "http://www.tim2002.com/timcontents/endorsements/, archived 06/22/2003 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20030622123954/www.tim2002.com/timcontents/endorsements/" "IA" "Hutchinson, Tim">>

[[5.05|5.05 Techniques for Connecting: Coproduction]]: //The Web site produced by the 2002 campaign of Dave Chandler (Gr-CO-7) provided excerpts from selected news stories and editorials, with links to pages on the sites maintained by the original producers that presumably contained the full text of the original materials.//<<tiddler "*Note122-1">> <<tiddler "*Note122-2">> <<tiddler "*Note122-3">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note121]] | [[Next Note|*Note123]]

<<enx 122-1 204 20060227171528 "http://www.chandlerforcongress.com/davesarticles.html, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101085432/http://www.chandlerforcongress.com/davesarticles.html" "LC" "Chandler, Dave">>

<<enx 122-2 204 20060227171652 "http://www.jeffconews.com/n2294ta.html, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101093406/http://www.jeffconews.com/n2294ta.html" "LC" "Sentinel and Transcript Newspapers Online">>

<<enx 122-3 204 20060227171835 "http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_1474861,00.html, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101104926/http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_1474861,00.html" "LC" "Rocky Mountain News">>

[[5.05|5.05 Techniques for Connecting: Coproduction]]: //Headlines, source citations, and links to news stories produced by press organizations were provided by the Web site produced in 2002 for candidate Anna Eshoo (D-CA-14).//<<tiddler "*Note123-1">> <<tiddler "*Note123-2">> <<tiddler "*Note123-3">> <<tiddler "*Note123-4">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note122]] | [[Next Note|*Note124]]

<<enx 123-1 205 20060227172058 "http://www.annaeshooforcongress.com/, archived 10/17/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021017070224/http://www.annaeshooforcongress.com/" "LC" "Eshoo, Anna">>

<<enx 123-2 205 20060227172217 "http://www.annaeshooforcongress.com/hot_off_the_press.html, archived 10/17/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021017084215/http://www.annaeshooforcongress.com/hot_off_the_press.html" "LC" "Eshoo, Anna">>

<<enx 123-3 205 20060227172338 "http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F70E12F73A540C738DDDAC0894DA404482, archived 10/17/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021017084419/http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F70E12F73A540C738DDDAC0894DA404482" "LC" "The New York Times Company">>

<<enx 123-4 205 20060227172428 "http://www.paweekly.com/paw/morgue/2002/2002_02_20.digest20.html, archived 10/17/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021017084252/http://www.paweekly.com/paw/morgue/2002/2002_02_20.digest20.html; " "LC" "Embarcadero Publishing Company">>

[[5.05|5.05 Techniques for Connecting: Coproduction]]: //The RSS feed created by the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004 was subscribed to by some Republican candidates running for other offices, such as Tom Buford (R-KY-6).//<<tiddler "*Note124-1">> <<tiddler "*Note124-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note123]] | [[Next Note|*Note125]]

<<enx 124-1 206 2006 "http://www.georgewbush.com/wstuff/NewsFeed.aspx#Terms, archived 11/03/2004 (PC)." "PC: http://www.georgewbush.com/wstuff/NewsFeed.aspx#Terms." "PC" "Bush, George W.">>

<<enx 124-2 206 2006 "http://www.bufordforcongress.com/issues/index.html, archived 11/03/2004 (PC)." "PC: http://www.bufordforcongress.com/issues/index.html, Webshot on November 3, 2004" "PC" "Buford, Tom">>

[[5.05|5.05 Techniques for Connecting: Coproduction]]: //A creative instance of syndication was the use of music by Robert Hoyt on the campaign site of Nanette Garrett, a Green party gubernatorial candidate in Georgia in 2002.//<<tiddler "*Note125-1">> <<tiddler "*Note125-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note124]] | [[Next Note|*Note126]]

<<enx 125-1 206 20060227173150 "http://www.garrettforgovernor.org/music.html, archived 10/21/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021021125545/http://www.garrettforgovernor.org/music.html" "LC" "Garrett, Nan">>

<<enx 125-2 206 20060227173249 "http://www.e-sites.net/roberthoyt/, archived 10/21/2002 (IA)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021021125512/http://www.e-sites.net/roberthoyt/." "LC" "Hoyt, Robert">>

[[5.05|5.05 Techniques for Connecting: Coproduction]]: //On Rogan's site, the moreover.com name was not made readily available by the campaign and could only be obtained by evaluating the source code of the page.//<<tiddler "*Note126-1">> <<tiddler "*Note126-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note125]] | [[Next Note|*Note127]]

<<enx 126-1 207 20060227173540 "http://www.jimrogan.org/, archived 10/16/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20001016110052/http://www.jimrogan.org/" "IA" "Rogan, James E.">>

<<enx 126-2 207 20060227173917 "http://w.moreover.com/, archived 08/15/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20000815064052/w.moreover.com/." "IA" "Moreover.com">>

[[5.06|5.06 Techniques for Connecting: Linking]]: //Along with links to the Web sites of forty-five local newspapers and television stations, Mongiardo's site provided links to more than fifteen party, government, NGO, and citizen sites.//<<tiddler "*Note127-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note126]] | [[Next Note|*Note128]]

<<enx 127 209 2006 "http://www.drdan2004.com/site/PageServer?pagename=links_home, archived 10/11/2004 (IA). " "http://web.archive.org/web/20041011152741/http://www.drdan2004.com/site/PageServer?pagename=links_home" "IA" "Mongiardo, Dan">>

[[5.06|5.06 Techniques for Connecting: Linking]]: //These links on John Graham's site were framed by two invitational statements.//votesmart.org" //<<tiddler "*Note128-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note127]] | [[Next Note|*Note129]]

<<enx 128 210 20060227174611 "http://www.johngraham4congress.com/aboutopponents.html, archived 09/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020901073031/http://www.johngraham4congress.com/aboutopponents.html" "LC" "Graham, John">>

[[5.06|5.06 Techniques for Connecting: Linking]]: //Clicking on the graphic launched the Corzine Web site in a frame, under a link to "RETURN TO MURRAYSABRIN.COM."//<<tiddler "*Note129-1">> <<tiddler "*Note129-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note128]] | [[Next Note|*Note130]]

<<enx 129 210 20060227174912 "http://www.murraysabrin.com/, archived 10/19/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20001019180410/http://www.murraysabrin.com/. " "IA" "Sabrin, Murray">>

<<enx 129-2 210 20060813083946 "http://www.murraysabrin.com/corzine.html, archived 06/19/2001 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20010614091810/www.murraysabrin.com/corzine.html" "IA" "Sabrin, Murray">>

[[5.06|5.06 Techniques for Connecting: Linking]]: //The 2004 campaign site for Elizabeth Rogers (~D-AZ-5) outlinked not only to the live version of her Republican opponent JD Hayworth's site but also to a publicly-displayed archival impression of the opponent's site, in order to demonstrate that the opponent had purged his site of references to the Iraq war//<<tiddler "*Note130-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note129]] | [[Next Note|*Note131]]

<<enx 130 210 20060227175215 "http://www.er2004.com/jdonjd2.html, archived 09/19/2005 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20050919151216/http://www.er2004.com/jdonjd2.html" "IA" "Rogers, Elizabeth">>

[[5.06|5.06 Techniques for Connecting: Linking]]: //The 2004 campaign site for Elizabeth Rogers (D-AZ-5) outlinked not only to the live version of her Republican opponent JD Hayworth's site but also to a publicly-displayed archival impression of the opponent's site, in order to demonstrate that the opponent had purged his site of references to the Iraq war.//<<tiddler "*Note131-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note130]] | [[Next Note|*Note132]]

<<enx 131 210 20060227175350 "http://jdhayworth.com/press.html, archived 12/06/2003 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20031206080505/jdhayworth.com/press.html" "IA" "Hayworth, J. D.">>

[[5.06|5.06 Techniques for Connecting: Linking]]: //This technique of creating nonreciprocal links was demonstrated on Tom Flynn's congressional campaign site in 2000 on a page called "Political Searchers," which enabled visitors to search a database of campaign Web sites and a database of contributors to federal campaigns, as well as to follow links to several other political actors (including political professionals and political portals).//<<tiddler "*Note132-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note131]] | [[Next Note|*Note133]]

<<enx 132 211 20060227175543 "http://www.flynnforcongress.com/political_searchers.html, archived 08/19/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20000819054028/www.flynnforcongress.com/political_searchers.html" "IA" "Flynn, Tom">>

[[5.06|5.06 Techniques for Connecting: Linking]]: //By the end of January 2004, the front page of the Dean campaign's blog site linked to over 375 different Web sites produced by entities other than the campaign.//<<tiddler "*Note133-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note132]] | [[Next Note|*Note134]]

<<enx 133 211 20060227180412 "http://blogforamerica.com, archived 01/26/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040126065747/http://blogforamerica.com/" "IA" "Dean, Howard">>

[[5.07|5.07 Tensions in Connecting]]: //The Gorton site promptly changed the underlying image on its own site, while retaining the original file name, thus causing the Cantwell campaign Web site to display an image other than the one it had intended to show its site visitors (Connelly 2000).//<<tiddler "*Note134-1">> <<tiddler "*Note134-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note133]] | [[Next Note|*Note135]]

<<enx 134-1 215 20060227180731 "The fish photo at http://www.slade2000.com/contents/tourdiary/pic_wbuster2.jpg, archived 08/17/2000 (IA) was linked to from http://www.cantwell2000.com/content/buster.html (See [[Next Note|Note134-2]])" "http://web.archive.org/web/20000817013258/www.slade2000.com/contents/tourdiary/pic_wbuster2.jpg" "IA" "Gordon, Slade">>

<<enx 134-2 215 2006 "http://www.cantwell2000.com/content/buster.html, archived 08/17/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20000817010541/http://www.cantwell2000.com/content/buster.html" "IA" "Cantwell, Maria">>

[[5.07|5.07 Tensions in Connecting]]: //Both Cantwell and Gorton posted personal responses to the incident on their respective sites. Gorton, trying to downplay the photo's significance, wrote "Maria, it's yours."//<<tiddler "*Note135-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note134]] | [[Next Note|*Note136]]

<<enx 135 215 20060227181510 "http://www.slade2000.com/contents/rumors/oldmill2.shtml, archived 08/22/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20000822170348/http://www.slade2000.com/contents/rumors/oldmill2.shtml" "IA" "Gordon, Slade">>

[[5.07|5.07 Tensions in Connecting]]: //In a statement regarding the fundamental nature of the Web, found on the World Wide Web Consortium Web site, Berners-Lee wrote on the subject of linking: `Its universality is essential: ... a hypertext link can point to anything, be it personal, local or global."'//<<tiddler "*Note136-1">> <<tiddler "*Note136-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note135]] | [[Next Note|*Note137]]

<<enx 136-1 215 20060227180826 "http://www.cantwell2000.com/content/buster.html, archived 08/17/2000 (IA), which linked to as the source of the quote by Berners-Lee." "http://web.archive.org/web/20000817010541/http://www.cantwell2000.com/content/buster.html, which linked to http://web.archive.org/web/20000817010541/http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/FAQ.html as the source of the quote by Berners-Lee." "IA" "Cantwell, Maria">>

<<enx 136-2 215 2006 "http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/FAQ.html, archived 08/17/2000 (IA)" "http://web.archive.org/web/20000620091509/www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/FAQ.html" "IA" "World Wide Web Consortium">>

[[5.07|5.07 Tensions in Connecting]]: //One part of the Dean campaign coproduced presence, the fordean.org network of sites, included a single site that connected more than 500 discussion groups, state and local Dean action coordinators, and Dean supporter Web sites.//<<tiddler "*Note137-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note136]] | [[Next Note|*Note138]]

<<enx 137 217 2006 "http://www.fordean.org/ForDean, archived 10/15/2005 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20051015195128/http://www.fordean.org/ForDean" "IA" "Dean, Howard">>

[[6.01|6.01 A Practice Observed: Mobilizing]]: //By mid-June 2004, a section labeled "Online Headquarters" had been created, focusing visitors' attention on seven features that the campaign hoped supporters would use in advocating on behalf of Kerry.//<<tiddler "*Note138-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note137]] | [[Next Note|*Note139]]

<<enx 138 241 20060227183421 "http://www.johnkerry.com/onlinehq/, archived 06/15/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040615023929/www.johnkerry.com/onlinehq/" "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[6.01|6.01 A Practice Observed: Mobilizing]]: //This feature included an extensive set of materials (beginning with an "Assignment for the Week"), links to relevant news articles, tips on contacting local television and radio stations, talking points to use in communicating about the campaign, and style guides for writing letters to editors.//<<tiddler "*Note139-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note138]] | [[Next Note|*Note140]]

<<enx 139 241 20060227183530 "http://www.johnkerry.com/onlinehq/mediacorps, archived 06/15/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040615142334/www.johnkerry.com/onlinehq/mediacorps/" "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[6.01|6.01 A Practice Observed: Mobilizing]]: //One aim of the Media Corps was to build a shared sense of group identity and purpose between members--in other words, to build a community of advocates. This was evidenced in two ways: in the campaign's use of the first person plural tense to describe the corps ("We are a group of committed supporters ..."); and in the sign-up form for the Media Corps, which included the requirement that recruits agree to allow their contact information to be shared with other members of the Media Corps.//<<tiddler "*Note140-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note139]] | [[Next Note|*Note141]]

<<enx 140 241 20060227183640 "http://www.johnkerry.com/signup/mediacorps.php, archived 06/06/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040606114440/www.johnkerry.com/signup/mediacorps.php; " "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[6.01|6.01 A Practice Observed: Mobilizing]]: //A related feature encouraged visitors to promote Kerry by posting on blogs and in discussion forums, and provided links to twenty of them:\n<<<\n"Blogs" and Forums allow you to make comments about articles and have discussions with other people across the country. Start by visiting the Kerry Blog and Online Forum; then use the list available by clicking below to join some of the largest and most diverse sites on the Internet. People supporting each campaign are talking about the issues and the candidates so be sure to sign up for the daily updates from the campaign when you pledge to take online action!//<<tiddler "*Note141-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note140]] | [[Next Note|*Note142]]

<<enx 141 242 20060227183857 "http://www.johnkerry.com/onlinehq/bbn.html, archived 06/10/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040610154400/www.johnkerry.com/onlinehq/bbn.html" "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[6.01|6.01 A Practice Observed: Mobilizing]]: //In this feature, the campaign site producers explained MeetUps to site visitors. //" <<tiddler "*Note142-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note141]] | [[Next Note|*Note143]]

<<enx 142 242 20060227184207 "http://www.johnkerry.com/onlinehq/, archived 06/15/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040615023929/www.johnkerry.com/onlinehq/" "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[6.01|6.01 A Practice Observed: Mobilizing]]: //Links were provided to Kerry's Meetup page, and, ironically, to a PDF "Organizer Toolkit" that appeared to have been originally designed for offline use but was subsequently posted on Kerry's site.//<<tiddler "*Note143-1">> <<tiddler "*Note143-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note142]] | [[Next Note|*Note144]]

<<enx 143-1 242 20060227184330 "http://kerry2004.meetup.com/, archived 06/15/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040615075337/kerry2004.meetup.com/" "IA" "Kerry, John">>

<<enx 143-2 242 2006 "http://www.johnkerry.com/download/buttons/toolkit.pdf, archived 06/09/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040609214338/www.johnkerry.com/download/buttons/toolkit.pdf" "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[6.01|6.01 A Practice Observed: Mobilizing]]: //In describing the people he had met through Meetup, a participant wrote, "This is grassroots volunteerism, not centrally organized. These are the kinds of people who will go to caucuses, write letters, canvass for voters, take people to the polls. All over the country."//<<tiddler "*Note144-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note143]] | [[Next Note|*Note145]]

<<enx 144 242 2006 "http://18minutegap.com, 08/03/2003, archived as http://18minutegap.blogspot.com/2003_08_03_18minutegap_archive.html, 02/21/06 (PC)." "PC: http://18minutegap.com/archives/000903.html, accessed June 28, 2005." "PC" "18minutegap.com">>

[[6.01|6.01 A Practice Observed: Mobilizing]]: //A fourth feature in Kerry's Online Headquarters was an invitation to "Add Your Kerry Site to a `Web ring."' The rationale provided was that "unofficial Kerry websites are popping up all over the web and one of the best ways to make sure yours is seen is to link to other sites that support John Kerry. Visit http://dir.webring.com/rw to find out more."//dir.webring.com/rw to find out more." //<<tiddler "*Note145-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note144]] | [[Next Note|*Note146]]

<<enx 145 242 20060227184635 "http://www.johnkerry.com/onlinehq/, archived 06/15/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040615023929/www.johnkerry.com/onlinehq/" "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[6.01|6.01 A Practice Observed: Mobilizing]]: //The Online Headquarters also challenged supporters to take an "online action pledge" in which they could commit to any of nine actions to promote the campaign online, using the structures provided by the campaign.//<<tiddler "*Note146-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note145]] | [[Next Note|*Note147]]

<<enx 146 243 20060227184726 "http://www.johnkerry.com/signup/online_pledge.html, archived 06/09/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040609213431/www.johnkerry.com/signup/online_pledge.html" "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[6.02|6.02 The Practice of Mobilizing]]: //One page of Van Presley's site featured an electronic document designed to resemble a leaflet, with dotted lines signaling where to cut between sections with scissors once the document had been downloaded and printed. //<<tiddler "*Note147-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note146]] | [[Next Note|*Note148]]

<<enx 147 245 20060227184819 "http://www.votevan.org/page7.html, archived 10/12/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041012075159/http://votevan.org/page7.html" "IA" "Presley, Van">>

[[6.02|6.02 The Practice of Mobilizing]]: //The mobilizing logic also appeared on the page on Presley's site that requested donations to the campaign, in the text: "Take the Power of TWO Pledge! Please get the commitment of TWO others to contribute, and then, ask them to continue the chain! The only language understood by the Powers-That-Be is the Language of Power. That means Grassroots Power: Spread the word by Powers of Two! `Politics begins in personal relationships.'--William Greider."//<<tiddler "*Note148-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note147]] | [[Next Note|*Note149]]

<<enx 148 245 2006 "http://www.votevan.org/page3.html, archived 02/21/2006 (PC)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040614063009/votevan.org/page3.html" "IA" "Presley, Van">>

[[6.02|6.02 The Practice of Mobilizing]]: //Facilitating the creation and dissemination of letters to newspaper editors is one type of mobilizing feature.//<<tiddler "*Note149-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note148]] | [[Next Note|*Note150]]

<<enx 149 247 20060227185108 "http://www.kahnforcongress.com/media.htm, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101113054/http://www.kahnforcongress.com/media.htm." "LC" "Kahn, Roger">>

[[6.02|6.02 The Practice of Mobilizing]]: //A second mobilizing feature is the provision of materials on the campaign site intended for offline distribution, such as flyers and posters.//<<tiddler "*Note150-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note149]] | [[Next Note|*Note151]]

<<enx 150 247 20060813093826 "http://www.gogeorgego.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={81B97C16-EC37-4DF0-A027-50CC11F23B62}, archived 10/03/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021003120152/http://www.gogeorgego.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={81B97C16-EC37-4DF0-A027-50CC11F23B62}" "LC" "Cordova, George">>

[[6.02|6.02 The Practice of Mobilizing]]: //Another mobilizing feature is the provision of "e-paraphernalia" such as graphics, screensavers, or digital wallpaper with the campaign logo, to be used on a campaign supporter's computer or Web site.//<<tiddler "*Note151-1">> <<tiddler "*Note151-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note150]] | [[Next Note|*Note152]]

<<enx 151-1 247 20060227185425 "http://www.jimryanforgovernor.com/Downloads.asp?FormMode=Download&Type=Wallpapers, archived 10/12/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021012124818/http://www.jimryanforgovernor.com/Downloads.asp?FormMode=Download&Type=Wallpapers" "LC" "Ryan, Jim">>

<<enx 151-2 247 20060227185526 "http://www.wallyherger.com/wall.htm, archived 10/01/2002 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20021001070009/http://www.wallyherger.com/" "IA" "Herger, Wally">>

[[6.02|6.02 The Practice of Mobilizing]]: //In the "Wallpaper" section, site visitors could select from among eight issue-themed options, each available in two sizes, under the heading "GeorgeWBush .com computer backgrounds not only show your support for our President Bush but the issue that is most important to you!"//<<tiddler "*Note152-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note151]] | [[Next Note|*Note153]]

<<enx 152 247 20060227185745 "http://www.georgewbush.com/WStuff/downloads.aspx, archived 07/15/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040715025031/http://www.georgewbush.com/WStuff/downloads.aspx and 040727-Bush-Downloads.jpg" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[6.02|6.02 The Practice of Mobilizing]]: //E-postcards and related features that enable a site visitor to email a page URL from the campaign site to one or more friends are also mobilizing tools.//<<tiddler "*Note153-1">> <<tiddler "*Note153-2">> <<tiddler "*Note153-3">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note152]] | [[Next Note|*Note154]]

<<enx 153-1 247 20060227185923 "http://www.georgewbush.com/Postcards.asp, archived 12/17/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20001217073500/www.georgewbush.com/Postcards.asp" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

<<enx 153-2 247 20060227190040 "http://www.jimryanforgovernor.com/EPostcard.asp, archived 10/12/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021012070619/http://www.jimryanforgovernor.com/EPostcard.asp" "LC" "Ryan, Jim">>

<<enx 153-3 247 20060227190210 "http://www.betseybayless.com/Team/Tell.cfm, archived 09/07/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20020907074351/http://www.betseybayless.com/Team/Tell.cfm." "LC" "Bayless, Betsy">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //Nader's 2000 site featured a wide range of documents for downloading and distribution, including flyers, yard signs, and bumper stickers, as well as audio and video commercials for which supporters were asked to sponsor radio and television airings.//<<tiddler "*Note154-1">> <<tiddler "*Note154-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note153]] | [[Next Note|*Note155]]

<<enx 154-1 249 20060813095637 "http://www.votenader.com/downloads/download.html, archived 11/07/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/e2k/20001107173842/www.votenader.com/downloads/download.html" "IA" "Nader, Ralph">>

<<enx 154-2 249 2006 "http://www.votenader.com/publicmedia.html, archived 11/07/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/e2k/20001107173833/www.votenader.com/publicmedia.html." "IA" "Nader, Ralph">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //During the 2004 presidential primaries, Carol Moseley-Braun's site had an interesting array of materials formatted for easy printing and offline distribution, including her biography, resume, and issue positions, as well as a window sign and other promotional materials.//<<tiddler "*Note155-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note154]] | [[Next Note|*Note156]]

<<enx 155 249 20060227190714 "http://www.carolforpresident.com/content.php?page=kit, archived 12/11/2003 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20031211185051/www.carolforpresident.com/content.php?page=kit." "IA" "Moseley-Braun, Carol">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //Site visitors were also encouraged to call talk radio programs and write letters to newspaper editors in support of Buchanan's participation in the debates.//<<tiddler "*Note156-1">> <<tiddler "*Note156-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note155]] | [[Next Note|*Note157]]

<<enx 156-1 249 20060813100152 "http://www.gopatgo2000.org/, archived 11/07/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/e2k/20001107173009/www.gopatgo2000.org/" "IA" "Buchanan-Foster ">>

<<enx 156-2 249 20060227190941 "http://www.gopatgo2000.org/library/default.asp?id=131, archived 11/19/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20001119082500/www.gopatgo2000.org/library/default.asp?id=131" "IA" "Buchanan-Foster ">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //One site listed 18 email addresses and urged supporters to either email a local editor individually or address the same message to all the editors.//<<tiddler "*Note157-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note156]] | [[Next Note|*Note158]]

<<enx 157 250 20060227191046 "http://www.kahnforcongress.com/media.htm, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101113054/http://www.kahnforcongress.com/media.htm" "LC" "Kahn, Roger">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: ////<<tiddler "*Note158-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note157]] | [[Next Note|*Note159]]

<<enx 158 250 20060227191140 "http://www.jimnussle.com/nussle/wrapper.jsp?PID=4085-683, archived 11/03/2004 (PC)." "http://www.jimnussle.com/nussle/wrapper.jsp?PID=4085-683" "PC" "Nussle, Jim">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //Jim Nussle's site also exemplifies the growing number of campaigns in each election that enabled site visitors to send letters to editors by providing draft letter texts, creating a Web form on which a site visitor could compose a letter, selecting a newspaper or editor from a menu of names, and emailing via the campaign site.//<<tiddler "*Note159-1">> <<tiddler "*Note159-2">> <<tiddler "*Note159-3">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note158]] | [[Next Note|*Note160]]

<<enx 159 250 20060227191346 "http://www.abraham2000.net/Volunteer.asp, archived 10/18/2000 (IA)." http://web.archive.org/web/20001018153904/http://www.abraham2000.net/Volunteer.asp" "IA" "Abraham, Spencer">>\n

<<enx 159-2 250 20060227191522 "http://www.abraham2000.net/NewspapersForm.asp, archived 08/18/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20000818120610/www.abraham2000.net/NewspapersForm.asp" "IA" "Abraham, Spence">>

<<enx 159-3 250 20060227191708 "http://netelection.org/notes/notedisplay.php3?ID=1, archived 01/12/2001 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20010112030900/netelection.org/notes/notedisplay.php3?ID=1" "IA" "Annenberg Public Policy Center">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //Patty Murray's (D-WA-Sen) campaign site in 2004 included a well-developed feature enabling visitors to send letters of support to local newspaper editors via the site, but did so in the context of a detailed privacy policy.//<<tiddler "*Note160-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note159]] | [[Next Note|*Note161]]

<<enx 160 250 20060227191843 "http://www.pattymurray.com/privacy.php?PHPSESSID=a2e924d0bbfaaa5435866ddfc7324082, archived 08/18/2005 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20050818101441/http://www.pattymurray.com/privacy.php?PHPSESSID=a2e924d0bbfaaa5435866ddfc7324082" "IA" "Murray, Patty">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //Each month's winning letter was posted on the site, thus serving as an endorsement and model for would-be letter writers.//<<tiddler "*Note161-1">> <<tiddler "*Note161-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note160]] | [[Next Note|*Note162]]

<<enx 161-1 250 20060227192021 "http://www.pattymurray.com/lte.php, archived 11/03/04 (PC)." "PC: http://www.pattymurray.com/lte.php Webshot on 5197b3abfff7129000fffcd81ef213c6" "PC" "Murray, Patty">>

<<enx 161-2 250 20060227192117 "http://www.pattymurray.com/lte_winner.php, archived 11/03/04 (PC)." "PC: http://www.pattymurray.com/lte_winner.php Webshot on 5197b3abfff7129000fffcdd074c13d0" "PC" "Murray, Patty">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //Beginning in June 2004, Kerry's site recruited supporters to join the campaign's Media Corps, creating a distinctive identity and community experience for these supporters-turned-advocates that may have helped to attract other Corps members and sustain their engagement during the election season.//<<tiddler "*Note162-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note161]] | [[Next Note|*Note163]]

<<enx 162 251 20060227192227 "http://www.johnkerry.com/onlinehq/mediacorps/, archived 06/15/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040615142334/www.johnkerry.com/onlinehq/mediacorps/ and screenshot." "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //In 2000, McCain's supporters across the country volunteered to telephone voters in Iowa and New Hampshire in the weeks before the primaries in those states, and then received contact information for the voters they were assigned to call.//<<tiddler "*Note163-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note162]] | [[Next Note|*Note164]]

<<enx 163 251 20060227192324 "http://www.mccaininteractive.com/feedback/feedback.cfm?r=10, archived 03/03/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20000303023253/www.mccaininteractive.com/feedback/feedback.cfm?r=10" "IA" "McCain, John">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //For the Kerry campaign's house parties, would-be attendees who were not invited personally by the hosts could indicate their interest to the hosts via the campaign site.//<<tiddler "*Note164-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note163]] | [[Next Note|*Note165]]

<<enx 164 252 20060227192502 "http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/event/plan/?type=18, archived 10/13/2005 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20051013104055/http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/event/plan/?type=18 Annotator ID: ff808081065f67870106eb0dcf6a63a4" "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //Nader's 2000 presidential campaign was one of pioneers of house parties, providing detailed instructions in a house party kit that included the specific email address to which lists of invitees, attendees, and contributors were to be sent.//<<tiddler "*Note165-1">> <<tiddler "*Note165-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note164]] | [[Next Note|*Note166]]

<<enx 165 252 20060813103418 "http://www.votenader.com/materials/houseparty/index.html, archived 11/07/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/e2k/20001107181427/www.votenader.com/materials/houseparty/index.html" "IA" "Nader, Ralph">>

<<enx 165-2 252 20060813103526 "http://www.votenader.com/materials/houseparty/HousepartyKit.html, archived 11/07/2000 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/e2k/20001107134115/www.votenader.com/materials/houseparty/HousepartyKit.html" "IA" "Nader, Ralph">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //Non-presidential candidates, such as Laura Wells, a 2002 candidate for controller in California, also used the Web to catalyze house parties.//<<tiddler "*Note166-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note165]] | [[Next Note|*Note167]]

<<enx 166 252 20060227194901 "http://www.laurawells.org/pages/volunteer6.php?project_id=6, archived 10/13/2002 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20021013120242/http://www.laurawells.org/pages/volunteer6.php?project_id=6" "IA" "Wells, Laura">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //Other non-presidential candidates also used the Web to catalyze house parties were three 2004 Ohio House candidates, Charlie Morrison (R-OH-15), Charles Sanders (D-OH-2), and Greg Harris (D-OH-1).//<<tiddler "*Note167-1">> <<tiddler "*Note167-2">> <<tiddler "*Note167-3">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note166]] | [[Next Note|*Note168]]

<<enx 167 253 20060227195037 "http://www.getthefedout.com/volunteer/vol-houseparty.htm, archived 10/31/04 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041031114459/http://www.getthefedout.com/volunteer/vol-houseparty.htm" "IA" "Morrison, Charlie">>

<<enx 167-2 253 20060227195217 "http://www.charleswsanders.org/html/wwwboard/bulletin.html, archived 10/24/04 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041024171713/http://www.charleswsanders.org/html/wwwboard/bulletin.html" "IA" "Sanders, Charles W.">>

<<enx 167-3 253 20060227200852 "http://www.electgregharris.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=54, archived 06/19/2004 (IA). " "http://web.archive.org/web/20040619020202/www.electgregharris.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=12" "IA" "Harris, Greg">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //An example of recruiting house party hosts.//<<tiddler "*Note168-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note167]] | [[Next Note|*Note169]]

<<enx 168 253 20060813105718 "http://www.getthefedout.com/volunteer/vol-houseparty.htm, archived 07/10/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040710170144/http://www.getthefedout.com/volunteer/vol-houseparty.htm" "IA" "Morrison, Charlie">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //A notice on the event-planning page of the Kerry site cautioned: Federal law prohibits contributions to John Kerry's general election account. Any fundraising at a John Kerry House Party shall be conducted solely on behalf of John Kerry Victory 2004, the DNC or John Kerry GELAC, and must comply with the prohibitions, limitations, and reporting requirements of federal campaign finance law. John Kerry is not responsible for the content of communications written by House Party hosts or guests.//<<tiddler "*Note169-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note168]] | [[Next Note|*Note170]]

<<enx 169 253 20060227195627 "http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/event/plan/?type=18, archived 10/13/2005 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20051013104055/http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/event/plan/?type=18 Annotator ID: ff808081065f67870106eb0dcf6a63a4" "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //To reduce barriers for those who would be willing to fly to New Hampshire, the Edwards' site offered housing and transportation: "Sign up for John in January! Come to New Hampshire in January to help Get Out The Vote for John Edwards. Please join Team New Hampshire for the week or weekend before the primary to help with our Get Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts to ensure Senator Edwards is successful on election night, January 27th. We will provide housing and in-state transportation for all of our Edwards supporters. You will be part of history and the first step on Senator Edwards' road to the White House."//<<tiddler "*Note170-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note169]] | [[Next Note|*Note171]]

<<enx 170 254 2006 "http://www.johnedwards2004.com/travel-nh-asp, archived 01/19/2004 (PC)." "PC: http://www.johnedwards2004.com/travel-nh-asp, Annotator ID: ff808081065f67870106eb15d1a563a7" "PC" "Edwards, John">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //Howard Dean's site also featured a "NH Rideboard" on which site visitors could request rides or offer rides to others who wanted to drive to New Hampshire in the weeks before the primary.//<<tiddler "*Note171-1">> <<tiddler "*Note171-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note170]] | [[Next Note|*Note172]]

<<enx 171-1 254 2006 "http://newhampshire.deanforamerica.com/primaryweek, archived 01/19/2004 (PC)." "PC: http://newhampshire.deanforamerica.com/primaryweek; Annotator ID: ff808081065f67870106eb1cf60b63ae" "PC" "Dean, Howard">>

<<enx 171-2 254 2006 "http://newhampshire.deanforamerica.com/ridestonh, archived 01/19/2004 (PC)." "PC: http://newhampshire.deanforamerica.com/ridestonh?PHPSESSID=5df1694849bd1c57eca87e6d0da601f5" "PC" "Dean, Howard">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //Similarly, in the final days of the 2004 general election, the Bush campaign site provided an online structure to facilitate supporters in organizing friends to participate in neighborhood walks to help get out the vote.//<<tiddler "*Note172-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note171]] | [[Next Note|*Note173]]

<<enx 172 254 20060227200540 "http://www.georgewbush.com/, archived 10/30/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041030114101/http://www.georgewbush.com/" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[6.04|6.04 Techniques for Mobilizing: Convergence]]: //With the statement, "We respect everyone's time and special skills and hope to provide opportunities that are both fun and fulfilling for everyone," Harris' campaign site sought to engage supporters in forms of mobilization that would be both influential and enjoyable.//<<tiddler "*Note173-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note172]] | [[Next Note|*Note174]]

<<enx 173 255 2006 "http://www.electgregharris.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=12, archived 06/19/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040619020202/www.electgregharris.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=12" "IA" "Harris, Greg">>

[[6.05|6.05 Techniques for Mobilizing: Coproduction]]: //The names of a few of McCotter's endorsers were displayed on another page of the site, but it was not clear whether they had been collected via the site.//<<tiddler "*Note174-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note173]] | [[Next Note|*Note175]]

<<enx 174 255 20060227200959 "http://www.mccotterforcongress.com/about.asp, archived 11/03/2004 (PC)." "PC: http://www.mccotterforcongress.com/about.asp, Webshot." "PC" "McCotter, Taddeus">>

[[6.05|6.05 Techniques for Mobilizing: Coproduction]]: //The third option was similar to an e-postcard in that it invited visitors to McCotter's site to send their endorsement statement to five friends via email messages generated by the campaign site.//<<tiddler "*Note175-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note174]] | [[Next Note|*Note176]]

<<enx 175 255 20060227201108 "http://www.mccotterforcongress.com/volunteer.asp, archived 11/03/2004 (PC)." "PC: http://www.mccotterforcongress.com/volunteer.asp" "PC" "McCotter, Taddeus">>

[[6.05|6.05 Techniques for Mobilizing: Coproduction]]: // A rudimentary method for campaigns to collect the names and email addresses of site visitors' friends was the provision of contact tables (in PDF, Microsoft Word or Excel documents), which visitors were asked to complete and return to the campaign. This method was employed by several sites in 2002 and 2004, as illustrated by the "sign-in sheet" posted on Carol Moseley-Braun's site to be downloaded, printed and used by supporters at campaign events.//<<tiddler "*Note176-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note175]] | [[Next Note|*Note177]]

<<enx 176 256 2006 "http://www.carolforpresident.com/kit/cmb_signin_sheet.pdf, archived 08/19/2003 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20030819005850/www.carolforpresident.com/kit/cmb_signin_sheet.pdf" "IA" "Moseley-Braun, Carol">>

[[6.05|6.05 Techniques for Mobilizing: Coproduction]]: //Inez Tenenbaum's site attempted to capture email addresses stored on supporters' local PCs.//<<tiddler "*Note177-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note176]] | [[Next Note|*Note178]]

<<enx 177 256 20060227201358 "http://www.inez2004.com/portal/index.php?module=article&view=67, archived 10/31/2004 (PC)." "PC: http://www.inez2004.com/portal/index.php?module=article&view=67 webshot" "PC" "Tenenbaum, Inez">>

[[6.05|6.05 Techniques for Mobilizing: Coproduction]]: //Tenenbaum's site also suggested an email message containing the campaign site URL for supporters to send to others.//<<tiddler "*Note178-1">> <<tiddler "*Note178-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note177]] | [[Next Note|*Note179]]

<<enx 178 256 20060227201528 "http://www.inez2004.com/portal/index.php?module=article&view=67, archived 10/31/2005 (PC)." "PC: http://www2.webarchivist.org:7010/annotate/webshots/5197b3abffdafad700fff0bdabc32630 or http://www2.webarchivist.org:7010/annotate/webshots/5197b3abffdafad700fff0c168c32638" "PC" "Tenenbaum, Inez">>

<<enx 178-2 256 20060227201657 "http://www.inez2004.com/portal/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=20&OLTARGET=involved_2, archived 10/11/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041011083146/www.inez2004.com/portal/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=20&OLTARGET=involved_2" "IA" "Tenenbaum, Inez">>

[[6.05|6.05 Techniques for Mobilizing: Coproduction]]: //A typical example of a send-link feature was present on the 2002 site for Joe Turnham (D-AL-3). It had a Web form with text boxes for five email addresses with the editable text: "I am emailing you to let you know about the Joe Turnham for Congress website! Joe is running for Congress in the 3rd Congressional District. His site is very informative, and will allow you to catch up on the current events. Please visit Joe Turnham's site at http://www.joeturnham.com."//www.joeturnham.com." //<<tiddler "*Note179-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note178]] | [[Next Note|*Note180]]

<<enx 179 256 20060227201833 "http://www.joeturnham.com/tellafriend.asp, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101085650/http://www.joeturnham.com/tellafriend.asp" "LC" "Turnham, John">>

[[6.05|6.05 Techniques for Mobilizing: Coproduction]]: //The campaign developed syndicated graphics to place on supporter-produced sites, most famously the "Dean Bat" indicating progress toward the fundraising goal of the day.//<<tiddler "*Note180-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note179]] | [[Next Note|*Note181]]

<<enx 180 257 2006 "http://deanforamerica.com, archived 01/27/2004 (PC)." "PC: http://deanforamerica.com, Annotator ID: ff808081065f67870106aff0791b637d" "PC" "Dean, Howard">>

[[6.05|6.05 Techniques for Mobilizing: Coproduction]]: //Dean's campaign not only succeeded in catalyzing a very large number of inlinking supporter sites, it also employed an unconventional strategy of outlinking to hundreds of supporter sites from its campaign-produced sites.//<<tiddler "*Note181-1">> <<tiddler "*Note181-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note180]] | [[Next Note|*Note182]]

<<enx 181-1 257 20060227202451 "http://www.deanforamerica.com/, archived 02/08/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040208165546/http://www.deanforamerica.com/" "IA" "Dean, Howard">>

<<enx 181-2 257 2006 "http://www.fordean.org/ForDean, archived 08/22/2005 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20050822205539/http://www.fordean.org/ForDean" "IA" "Dean, Howard">>

[[6.06|6.06 Techniques for Mobilizing: Linking]]: //In 2002, Katherine Harris's (R-FL-13) site provided links to seven party organizations at the county, state, and national levels.//<<tiddler "*Note182-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note181]] | [[Next Note|*Note183]]

<<enx 182 259 20060227202852 "http://www.electharris.org/links.html, archived 10/31/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021031135100/http://www.electharris.org/links.html" "LC" "Harris, Katherine">>

[[6.06|6.06 Techniques for Mobilizing: Linking]]: //More than six months before the 2004 election, Kay Granger's (R-TX-8) campaign site linked to the site of a task force funded by the Republican National Committee (RNC) called the Strategic Taskforce to Organize and Mobilize People (STOMP).//<<tiddler "*Note183-1">> <<tiddler "*Note183-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note182]] | [[Next Note|*Note184]]

<<enx 183-1 259 20060227203205 "http://www.kaygranger.com/, archived 05/24/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040524044615/http://www.kaygranger.com/" "IA" "Granger, Kay">>

<<enx 183-2 259 20060306161536 "http://stomp4victory.org/, archived 06/08/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040608192815/stomp4victory.org/" "IA" "National Republican Congressional Committee">>

[[6.06|6.06 Techniques for Mobilizing: Linking]]: //In the text around this link, site visitors were assumed to already have recruited others to donate to the Kerry campaign and were urged to promote donating to the DNC as well.//<<tiddler "*Note184-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note183]] | [[Next Note|*Note185]]

<<enx 184 259 2006 "http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/contribute, archived 11/02/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041023053419/volunteer.johnkerry.com/contribute/" "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[6.06|6.06 Techniques for Mobilizing: Linking]]: //One relatively common strategy was to provide campaign graphics and code on the campaign site for visitors to download and post on their own sites, thus creating backlinks to the campaign site. This strategy emerged in 2000 and was evident on several congressional sites in 2002, such as Mary Bono's (R-CA-45).//<<tiddler "*Note185-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note184]] | [[Next Note|*Note186]]

<<enx 185 259 20060306161645 "http://www.marybono.com/team/TeamList.cfm?c=20, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101090704/http://www.marybono.com/team/TeamList.cfm?c=20" "LC" "Bono, Mary">>

[[6.06|6.06 Techniques for Mobilizing: Linking]]: //Laura Wells, a 2004 candidate for California's controller office, suggested to site visitors, "If you know anyone who hosts or manages a website, see if they would like to link to [this site]."//<<tiddler "*Note186-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note185]] | [[Next Note|*Note187]]

<<enx 186 259 20060302190109 "http://www.laurawells.org/pages/volunteer6.php?project_id=6, archived 10/12/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041012171000/http://www.laurawells.org/pages/volunteer6.php?project_id=6;" "IA" "Wells, Laura">>

[[6.06|6.06 Techniques for Mobilizing: Linking]]: //The front page of Joe Lieberman's 2004 presidential campaign urged visitors to add a "Joe 2004 Link to Your Website" and offered two sizes of graphics to use as labels that were embedded with link-to code for www.joe2004.com.//<<tiddler "*Note187-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note186]] | [[Next Note|*Note188]]

<<enx 187 259 20060306161729 "http://www.marybono.com/team/TeamList.cfm?c=20, archived 11/01/2002 (LC2002)." "http://wasearch.loc.gov/e22k/20021101090704/http://www.marybono.com/team/TeamList.cfm?c=20" "LC" "Bono, Mary">>

[[6.06|6.06 Techniques for Mobilizing: Linking]]: //The Web ring directory site to which the Kerry campaign directed supporters featured an "Election 2004" box on the front page that linked to Web ring registries for Bush, Nader, and Kucinich as well as to that of Kerry.//<<tiddler "*Note188-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note187]] | [[Next Note|*Note189]]

<<enx 188 260 20060306161847 "http://dir.webring.com/rw, archived 06/15/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040615081954/dir.webring.com/rw" "IA" "WebRing, Inc.">>

[[6.06|6.06 Techniques for Mobilizing: Linking]]: //As of October 13, 2004, the Kerry Web ring registry included 133 sites.//<<tiddler "*Note189-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note188]] | [[Next Note|*Note190]]

<<enx 189 260 20060306162016 "http://q.webring.com/hub?ring=unofficialjohnfk, archived 10/13/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041013130942/http://q.webring.com/hub?ring=unofficialjohnfk" "IA" "WebRing, Inc.">>

[[6.06|6.06 Techniques for Mobilizing: Linking]]: //It appears that the Kerry campaign site producers' promotion of the Web ring registry may have been at least somewhat effective in prompting supporters to register their sites; on that same date in October 2004, the Nader ring had four sites and the Bush ring had thirty-two sites.//<<tiddler "*Note190-1">> <<tiddler "*Note190-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note189]] | [[Next Note|*Note191]]

<<enx 190-1 260 20060302190414 "http://h.webring.com/hub?ring=electralphnaderi, archived 10/13/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041013194544/h.webring.com/hub?ring=electralphnaderi" "IA" "WebRing, Inc.">>

<<enx 190-2 260 20060302190700 "http://s.webring.com/hub?ring=bushcheney04, archived 10/13/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041013193514/http://s.webring.com/hub?ring=bushcheney04" "IA" "WebRing, Inc.">>

[[6.07|6.07 Techniques for Mobilizing: Empowerment]]: //The 2004 Web site for Jim Nussle (R-IA-1) featured an "e-Captain" sign-up that was pitched as, "Help Jim by becoming a political electronic entrepreneur."//<<tiddler "*Note191-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note190]] | [[Next Note|*Note192]]

<<enx 191 262 20060303131005 "http://www.jimnussle.com/nussle/wrapper.jsp?PID=4085-680, archived 11/03/2004 (PC)." "PC: http://www.jimnussle.com/nussle/wrapper.jsp?PID=4085-680; Annotator ID 5197b3abfff7129000fffd01a8f41423" "PC" "Nussle, Jim">>

[[6.07|6.07 Techniques for Mobilizing: Empowerment]]: //The Action Center on Bush's site sought to convey a sense of empowerment to volunteers both rhetorically and via the tools it offered.//<<tiddler "*Note192-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note191]] | [[Next Note|*Note193]]

<<enx 192 262 2006 "http://www.georgewbush.com/GetActive , archived 10/31/2004 (PC). " "PC: http://www.georgewbush.com/GetActive; Annotator ID: ff808081065f67870106eb26220d63b1 " "PC" "Bush, George W.">>

[[6.07|6.07 Techniques for Mobilizing: Empowerment]]: //Clicking on "Become a Bush Volunteer" resolved to a page entitled "Bush Team Leader Signup".//<<tiddler "*Note193-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note192]] | [[Next Note|*Note194]]

<<enx 193 263 2006 "http://www.georgewbush.com/Secure/BushTeamLeaderSignUp.aspx, archived 07/11/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040711041725/http://www.georgewbush.com/Secure/BushTeamLeaderSignUp.aspx" "IA" "Bush, George W.">>

[[6.07|6.07 Techniques for Mobilizing: Empowerment]]: //Gary McLeod's (Republican & Constitution-SC-6) 2004 site employed empowerment in its attempt to appeal to those who are entrepreneurial both financially and politically. One option offered to site visitors was to become a campaign "affiliate" by getting a campaign Web site to raise funds for the campaign. The campaign provided a financial incentive for this affiliation//<<tiddler "*Note194-1">> <<tiddler "*Note194-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note193]] | [[Next Note|*Note195]]

<<enx 194-1 263 20060303131248 "http://www.garymcleod.org/, archived 09/24/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040924143447/http://www.garymcleod.org/" "IA" "McLeod, Gary">>

<<enx 194-2 263 20060303131347 "http://www.garymcleod.org/cgi-bin/affiliates/signup.cgi, archived 10/09/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041009214640/www.garymcleod.org/cgi-bin/affiliates/signup.cgi" "IA" "McLeod, Gary">>

[[6.07|6.07 Techniques for Mobilizing: Empowerment]]: //By autumn 2004, Kerry's Online Headquarters had become the Online Volunteer Center:\n<<<\nWelcome to the Online Volunteer Center. //<<tiddler "*Note195-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note194]] | [[Next Note|*Note196]]

<<enx 195 264 20060303132210 "http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/, archived 11/01/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041101085633/volunteer.johnkerry.com/" "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[6.07|6.07 Techniques for Mobilizing: Empowerment]]: //On Kerry's "Raise Funds" page, supporters were provided with a tool that generated a fundraising email to send to friends.//<<tiddler "*Note196-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note195]] | [[Next Note|*Note197]]

<<enx 196 264 20060303132327 "http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/contribute, archived 11/02/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041102092845/volunteer.johnkerry.com/contribute/; Annotator ID: ff808081065f67870106eb2d897a63b4" "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[6.07|6.07 Techniques for Mobilizing: Empowerment]]: //A site visitor completing the Kerry campaign's Web form to host an event, fundraise, or participate in some other way in promoting the campaign was presented with the following text just above the request submit button.//<<tiddler "*Note197-1">>\n[[Previous Note|*Note196]] | [[Next Note|*Note198]]

<<enx 197 265 20060303132439 "http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/event/plan/?type=hp&1=1, archived 10/09/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20041009172152/volunteer.johnkerry.com/event/plan/?type=hp&1=1" "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[7.02|7.02 Web Producers in a Social-professional Context]]: //Professional Web producers in the political community value awards like the Golden Dots and the Pollies and frequently trumpet them on their own Web sites as testimony to their professional qualifications.//<<tiddler "*Note198-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note197]] | [[Next Note|*Note199]]

<<enx 198 303 20060303133439 "See, for example, Web pages produced by New Media Communications (http://www.technomania.com/awards.asp), NetCampaign (http://netcampaign.com/projects/), Liberty Concepts (http://www.libertyconcepts.com/golden_dot.htm), and NetPolitics Group (http://www.netpoliticsgroup.com/awards.html). Archived 02/26/2006 (PC)." "PC: See, for example: New Media Communications http://www.technomania.com/awards.asp, NetCampaign (http://netcampaign.com/projects/), Liberty Concepts (http://www.libertyconcepts.com/golden_dot.htm), and NetPolitics Group (http://www.netpoliticsgroup.com/awards.html). Accessed September 7, 2005." "PC" "New Media Communications">>

[[7.02|7.02 Web Producers in a Social-professional Context]]: //Jonah Seiger and Shabbir Safdar, co-founders of Mindshare Internet Campaigns and pioneers in Web campaigning, established a bi-weekly Web and email newsletter, "Campaign Web Review," to assess the impact of the Web on the 1998 campaign as it unfolded.//<<tiddler "*Note199-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note198]] | [[Next Note|*Note200]]

The first issue of Campaign Web Review is archived in the "Interesting People Mailing List Archive." http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/199807/msg00061.html (accessed 02/26/2006).

[[7.03|7.03 Campaigns in an Organizational Context]]: //Campaign receipt data, provided by campaigns to the Federal Election Commission, are processed and made publicly available by several public interest groups.//<<tiddler "*Note200-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note199]] | [[Next Note|*Note201]]

//We appreciate the invaluable service provided by both the Center for Responsive Politics (http://opensecrets.org) and the Institute on Money in State Politics (http://followthemoney.org) in making available the data they collect on campaign finance.//

[[7.04|7.04 The Web in the Context of Genre]]: //Our data for 2000 indicate that these features were found on 89 percent and 75 percent of Web sites, respectively.//<<tiddler "*Note201-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note200]] | [[Next Note|*Note202]]

//75 percent, of course, falls below the genre threshold of 80 percent. Given the trend line, we attribute the lower measure in 2000 to measurement error.//

[[8.04|8.04 Web Impacts]]: //The Web site produced for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign (www.johnkerry.com) began life promoting his 2002 Senate campaign//<<tiddler "*Note202-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note201]] | [[Next Note|*Note203]]

<<enx 202 351 20060306125406 "http://www.johnkerry.com, archived 09/24/2001 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20010924081646/http://www.johnkerry.com/" "IA" "Kerry, John">>

[[8.04|8.04 Web Impacts]]: //In its October 2005 incarnation, Kerry's Web site offered few of the involving or connecting features--and none of the mobilizing features--that were prominent during the campaign.//<<tiddler "*Note203-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note202]] | [[Next Note|*Note204]]

<<enx 203 351 20060306125517 "http://www.johnkerry.com, archived 10/12/2005 (PC)." "PC: http://www.johnkerry.com, accessed October 12, 2005; Annotator ID: 0000000006f778e10106fdea9eb06399" "PC" "Kerry, John">>

[[8.04|8.04 Web Impacts]]: //In contrast, one of Kerry's rivals for the 2004 Democratic nomination, Dennis Kucinich, engaged in the practices of involving and mobilizing through his Web site through October 2005, using the same www.kucinich.us URL as was used during the 2004 campaign.//<<tiddler "*Note204-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note203]] | [[Next Note|*Note205]]

<<enx 204 351 20060306125616 "http://www.kucinich.us, 10/17/2005 (PC)." "PC: http://www.kucinich.us, accessed October 17, 2005; Annotator ID: 0000000006f778e10106fdef6540639c" "PC" "Kucinich, Dennis">>

[[8.04|8.04 Web Impacts]]: //Browsers directed to the URL www.kucinichforcongress.us resolved to the same page as did browsers directed to www.kucinich.us.//<<tiddler "*Note205-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note204]] | [[Next Note|*Note206]]

<<enx 205 351 20060306125748 "http://www.kucinichforcongress.us, archived 10/12/2005 (PC)." "PC: http://www.kucinichforcongress.us, accessed October 12, 2005; Annotator ID: 0000000006f778e10106fdf48790639f" "PC" "Kucinich, Dennis">>

[[8.04|8.04 Web Impacts]]: // Lois Herr (D-PA-16) was one of several candidates who lost bids for seats in the U.S. House in 2004 and announced their intention to run again for the same seats more than a year prior to the 2006 elections, not only maintained the same URL but also the same underlying site design and site content.//<<tiddler "*Note206-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note205]] | [[Next Note|*Note207]]

<<enx 206 351 20060306125854 "http://www.loisherr.us/, archived 10/12/2005 (PC)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040928090847/http://loisherr.us/" "PC" "Herr, Lois">>

[[8.04|8.04 Web Impacts]]: // John Russell (D-FL-5) was another candidate who lost bids for seats in the U.S. House in 2004 and announced their intention to run again for the same seats more than a year prior to the 2006 elections, not only maintained the same URL but also the same underlying site design and site content.//<<tiddler "*Note207-1">> <<tiddler "*Note207-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note206]] | [[Next Note|*Note208]]

<<enx 207-1 351 20060306130039 "http://johnrussellforcongress.com, archived 09/26/2004 (IA)." "http://web.archive.org/web/20040926002342/johnrussellforcongress.com/" "IA" "Russell, John">>

<<enx 207-2 351 20060306130129 "http://www.johnrussellforcongress.com/, archived 10/12/2005 (PC)" "PC: http://www.johnrussellforcongress.com/, visited October 12, 2005; Annotator ID: 0000000006f778e10106fdfbc9d063a4 " "PC" "Russell, John">>

[[A.02|A.02: Electoral Web Sphere Demarcation]]: //Although our processes were not as formally implemented in 2000, and were slightly different in 2004, the 2002 process is also a useful illustration because an extensive archive of the multiple impressions of the full collection of sites identified is publicly available as the "Election 2002 Web Archive" at the U.S. Library of Congress.//<<tiddler "*Note208-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note207]] | [[Next Note|*Note209]]

<<enx 208 351 2006 "_http://www.loc.gov/minerva/collect/elec2002/index.html, accessed 02/27/2006." "PC: http://www.loc.gov/minerva/collect/elec2002/index.html, accessed October 15, 2005." "PC" "Library of Congress">>

[[A.03|A.03: Campaign Web Site Analyses]]: //For 2004, we report a set of data obtained from a random sample of 119 campaign Web sites, selected from among the universe of campaign Web sites identified by Project Vote Smart .//<<tiddler "*Note209-1">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note208]] | [[Next Note|*Note210]]

http://www.vote-smart.org, accessed 09/20/2004.

[[A.03|A.03: Campaign Web Site Analyses]]: //Furthermore, given the lack of adequate archives for analysis of campaign Web sites from 1998, it is unlikely that future research will yield better estimates of the practices exhibited in the earliest years of Web campaigning.//<<tiddler "*Note210-1">> <<tiddler "*Note210-2">> \n[[Previous Note|*Note209]]

<<enx 210-1 351 2006 "_http://www.loc.gov/minerva/collect/elec2002/index.html, accessed 02/27/2006." "PC: http://www.loc.gov/minerva/collect/elec2002/index.html, accessed October 15, 2005." "PC" "Library of Congress">>

<<enx 210-2 351 2006 "_http://www.loc.gov/minerva/collect/elec2002/index.html, accessed 02/27/2006." "PC: http://www.loc.gov/minerva/collect/elec2002/index.html, accessed October 15, 2005." "PC" "Library of Congress">>

* [[1.01 A Practice Observed: Caught in the Web]]\n* [[1.02 Defining Web Campaigning]]\n* [[1.03 Web Campaigning, 1994–2004]] \n* [[1.04 Theorizing Web Campaigning]] \n* [[1.05 Online Structures and Web Spheres]] \n* [[1.06 Structure of the Book]]

On October 5, 2004, during the only televised vice-presidential debate of the 2004 U.S. campaign season, Dick Cheney attempted to send debate viewers to the Web site of a non-partisan research group associated with the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) at the University of Pennsylvania, called factcheck.org. Cheney sought to defend himself against claims his opponent, John Edwards, made about Halliburton--an oil-services company that also provides construction and military support services--and Cheney's involvement with it. According to a transcript of the debate posted on the Web site of the Public Broadcasting Service, <<popnote 001>> Edwards said,\n<<<\nWhile [Cheney] was CEO of Halliburton, they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and Ken Lay. They did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States. They're now under investigation for having bribed foreign officials during that period of time. Not only that, they've gotten a seven-and-a-half billion dollar no-bid contract in Iraq. And instead of part of their money being withheld, which is the way it's normally done because they're under investigation, they've--they've continued to get their money.\n<<<\nCheney's Web troubles began with a slip of the tongue when he replied,\n<<<\nWell, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smoke screen. They know the charges are false. They know that if you go, for example, to factcheck.com, an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton. It's an effort that they've made repeatedly to try to confuse the voters and to raise questions, but there's no substance to the charges.\n<<<\nAs most Web users know from experience, making an error in the last part or top level of a domain name can lead to an unintended and sometimes undesired Web location. The Web site referenced by Cheney, factcheck.com, turned out to be produced by an advertising company, Name Administration, run by a business in the Cayman Islands. The producers of factcheck.com were not expecting hundreds of thousands of visitors to their Web site that night. Within minutes of Cheney's reference in the televised debate, the producers noticed a significant spike in traffic. Having learned of Cheney's inadvertent reference to their site, and in the hope of avoiding a penalty fee from their Internet Service Provider, the producers of Name Administration created a re-direct from their site to georgesoros.com--a site produced by a supporter of the Kerry-Edwards effort.\n\nCheney's attempted use of factcheck.org--an independent, authoritative source--points to an expansion of Web campaigning. By attempting to create a cognitive bridge between the Bush-Cheney campaign and factcheck.org, Cheney sought to add veracity to his claims. In fact, Cheney's reference to factcheck was not the first interaction between the campaign and the independent Web site. The campaign had previously appropriated content from factcheck.org on its Web site, georgewbush.com, by copying headlines and providing links to selected postings on the independent Web site. The use of the Web to provide these connections, and the fact that one such connection was established via an offline medium (in this case, broadcast television), illuminate both the practice of connecting different political actors to each other on the Web and the convergence of modes associated with campaigning.\n\nReactions to Cheney's misstatement further illustrate how the complex network of relationships among political actors is extended by Web campaigning. Cheney's words implicated three specific actors, two directly--the producers of factcheck.org and the producers of factcheck.com--and one indirectly drawn into the fray--the producers of georgesoros.com. Additionally, they evoked reactions from various others, including press organizations, civic and advocacy groups, individual citizens, and government agencies.\n\nThe response by the producers of factcheck.org was threefold. <<popnote 002>> First, they noted, unhappily, "Cheney got our domain name wrong--calling us `FactCheck.com."' Second, the producers indicated that Cheney had "wrongly implied that we [factcheck.org] had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton." Third, the producers of factcheck.org had a technical crisis on their hands: Their servers were not equipped to handle the deluge of page requests resulting from the Cheney reference.\n\nPrior to the televised debate, factcheck.org averaged 30,000 hits per day. During the twenty-four hours after the debate, the site received 8.5 million hits. For the following two days, the site was effectively inaccessible to the Web public. The flood of site activity by individuals seeking information about the domain also significantly negatively affected other networks at the University of Pennsylvania and the APPC. The APPC's project budget for factcheck.org could not cover the formidable cost of handling this surge in traffic. Eventually, the APPC changed hosts to a provider who could handle the traffic requests at a cost in line with the project budget.\n\nThe producers of factcheck.com, similarly experiencing a spike in traffic--and thus in their hosting costs, as well--reacted by redirecting traffic from their site to another site. In a twist that further illustrates the complexities of Web campaigning, the producers of factcheck.com redirected Web traffic coming to their site not to factcheck.org, but to georgesoros.com--a site maintained by the well-known financier, George Soros, who had independently contributed over $20 million to organizations actively supporting the Kerry-Edwards campaign. <<popnote 003>>\n\nWithin minutes of Cheney's reference in the televised debate, Web users who followed Cheney's suggestion and went to factcheck.com were greeted by a Web page headlined, "Why We Must Not Re-Elect President Bush." Clearly, this was not the intention of Vice President Cheney. This incident illustrates the risks associated with providing connections to independent actors on the Web. A citizen site producer, commenting on the incident, suggested, "this will be the last time that one of the political candidates, Republican or Democrat, refers people to a Web site they don't control." <<popnote 004>>\n\nThe choice made by the producers of factcheck.com caused a political controversy, and in fact became a story itself. Several days after the debate, when Web traffic to factcheck.com had returned to manageable levels, Name Administration posted a notice on its site explaining its decision to redirect to georgesoros.com:\n<<<\nName Administration administrators redirected those visitors to a website relevant to U.S. politics. Name Administration chose the website of investor, philanthropist and political activist Mr. George Soros, because his website is well-funded, does not seek to raise funds from visitors, and had greater capacity to absorb the load of visitors, reaching over 100 visitors per second during peak times after the debate. An administrator for the Annenberg Public Policy Center has since informed us that their web server system would have been severely crippled by the load, had we directed the traffic to them. Contrary to some imaginative rumors spun by some, our actions were undertaken on a voluntary and emergency basis, with no prior communication or consultation with the Soros organization. As confirmed by our legal counsel in response to media inquiries, Name Administration Inc. has not been offered, and has not sought, any inducement, compensation, or other consideration from any individual or organization, for re-directed [sic] the resulting web traffic. Traffic to factcheck.com has begun to return to normal levels, and Name Administration Inc. wishes the citizens of the United States well in the selection of their leaders, whose actions can sometimes have unintended consequences beyond the borders of the United States.\n<<<\nName Administration Inc. later told the system administrator of the factcheck.org site that they were unaware of its existence prior to the incident, and had no idea where Cheney had meant to send the debate viewers.\n\nPress organizations, civic and advocacy groups, and government agencies made interesting choices about how to handle the misstatement in their transcripts of the debate. As noted, the Public Broadcasting Service posted a transcript of the debate as studio and television audiences had witnessed it. Other political actors felt the need to assist Cheney in setting the record straight. The Commission on Presidential Debates, for example, transcribed Cheney's rendering of the factcheck site accurately, but inserted [sic] after the .com. <<popnote 005>> The White House took what we believe to be an unprecedented step of not only inserting a textual correction in parentheses after the original statement, "(** factcheck.org is the correct Web address)" but also inserted a tag in the HTML associated with factcheck.com that linked the textual URL to factcheck.org instead, in effect correcting the error in the underlying code but leaving it visible in the presented text. <<popnote 006>>

The 2004 election in the United States was, if nothing else, notable for the significant expansion of Web campaigning. We define Web campaigning as those activities with political objectives that are manifested in, inscribed on, and enabled through the World Wide Web. Various actors engage in Web campaigning in a range of sociopolitical contexts. In this book we focus on the Web campaigning activities of candidates and their campaign organizations as they seek to accomplish electoral objectives. The factcheck incident, while a footnote to both the 2004 election in general and even as viewed from the Web, nevertheless encapsulates the evolving phenomenon of electoral Web campaigning. It illustrates the range of political actors that coproduce what we introduce later as an electoral Web sphere, and the political and technical dilemmas that lead to differences in their production choices.\n\nThis book centers on issues regarding how U.S. electoral campaigns employ Web technologies to enact and extend campaign activities. Our aim is to advance understanding of the complex and evolving nature of Web campaigning, in order to trace the trajectory emerging from the first ten years of practice. The overarching question we seek to address is how the use of the Web reflects, resolves, or aggravates challenges and tensions in the campaigning process. Our study is further shaped by two additional questions: What factors help explain why Web campaigning in the United States has emerged in particular and specific ways and not in others? And what might Web campaigning look like in the future and under different organizational, political, and technological circumstances? To address our central questions, we engage in practice-based theorizing, a form of theory development in which we investigate campaigns' Web production practices in order to understand the evolving relationship between the Web and electoral politics.\n\nWe base our analysis primarily on extensive and systematic observations of hundreds of campaign sites produced by candidates during the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections in the United States. We view campaign Web sites as both surfaces on which campaigns' production practices are inscribed over time and evolving structures that simultaneously manifest and enable political action. In approaching Web campaigning this way, we seek a more in-depth and nuanced understanding of it as neither solely "politics as usual," (Margolis and Resnick 2000) nor wholly revolutionary. We aim to identify practices that can be used as analytical lenses, to further practice-based theorizing on the relationship between technology and electoral politics, as well as to make methodological contributions to the study of the Web. We also seek to advance the practice of digital scholarship through the presentation of a collection of annotated artifacts drawn from campaign Web sites produced during the study period that is integrated with the present text.\n\nIn an analysis of the use of the Web and offline media by campaigns associated with four races in 2000, Bimber and Davis (2003) found that campaigns integrated Internet applications into traditional campaign activities, primarily reinforcing messages conveyed via traditional, that is, offline, media. However, they also noted that Internet technologies offered important and highly effective tools for "mobilizing activists" (p. 166).\n\nIozzi and Bennett (2004) argue that in embracing such tools, which they term "interactive social networking technologies," campaign organizations cede to others some of the control they have traditionally sought to maintain. We concur in part with Iozzi and Bennett, but we also demonstrate that some campaigns employ innovative Web production techniques in ways that retain or even increase their own control, such as by extending their ability to manage transactional relationships with site visitors. Web production decisions made by a campaign reflect the inherent tensions between a desire to maintain control over messages and resources and the generally decentralizing dynamic of Web-based communication. On one hand, campaigns want to inform as many prospective voters as possible; on the other hand, they want to control the information that is disseminated about the candidate. While campaigns want to involve a large number of supporters, they also want to establish the terms of that involvement. They desire to multiply their resources by mobilizing supporters to promote the candidate in the supporters' spheres of influence, but they also want to manage and track these promotional activities.\n\nDifferent strategies for mitigating these tensions are evidenced within and across various campaigns' Web presences. The production of any individual Web site, much less a Web presence across multiple sites, involves a myriad of choices on multiple levels, including strategic, rhetorical, structural, and aesthetic. In the process of producing a campaign Web site, many production decisions may entail trade-offs regarding exploiting the affordances of the Web versus managing the candidate's image and maintaining the campaign's strategic communication focus.\n\nThe remainder of this chapter serves to place the phenomenon of Web campaigning in a historical context and to introduce the theoretical approach we take in examining this phenomenon. We briefly trace the contours of Web campaigning and its relationship to campaigning in general. We demonstrate that campaigns have been developing as sociotechnical networks, involving both human and technological elements, for many decades. We describe the four practices of Web campaigning that are the foci of this study. To conclude, we present a general overview of the book.

<<tiddler notIncluded>>

<<tiddler notIncluded>>

<<tiddler notIncluded>>

This study is an examination of campaign Web practices. We trace the emergence and evolution of campaigns' online presences and practices, and the tensions to which they point, through their inscriptions on the Web. Through the production of Web objects, campaigns' strategies of informing prospective voters, involving supporters, connecting Internet users with other political actors, and mobilizing advocates are manifested on the Web in differing ways and to varying degrees. Each of these Web practices is analyzed in view of techniques of linking, coproduction, and convergence, as well as other, practice-specific techniques.\n\nIn chapter 2, we elaborate on the techniques of Web production as ways of tracing practices within the conceptual framework of Web sphere analysis. In chapters 3-6, we analyze each Web campaigning practice in-depth, examining the particular ways that the production techniques of linking, coproducing, and convergence mediate the practices of informing, involving, connecting, and mobilizing. Each of these chapters analyzes strategies campaign organizations employ to negotiate the tensions manifested as these practices are engaged on the Web. In chapter 7, we explore the impact of four broad types of factors on the variance in Web campaigning: characteristics of Web producers, aspects of political campaigns, the dynamics of the Web environment, and the structuring effects of practice on practice.\n\nWe conclude in chapter 8 by returning to our original questions regarding the relationship between the Web and electoral politics. We use our close analysis of the Web practices and techniques employed by campaign organizations as they instantiated these practices over the course of three elections to draw conclusions about the changes in Web campaigning itself and in campaign organizations as a result of Web campaigning. We consider various potential futures for Web campaigning, taking into consideration the trajectory emerging from the first ten years of practice and the possible developments in organizational, political, and technological circumstances. Finally, we suggest ways in which our conclusions contribute to a political theory of technology and a technologically grounded theory of electoral politics.

* [[2.01 Web Sphere Analysis]]\n* [[2.02 Bounding Web Spheres]]\n* [[2.03 Web Production Techniques]]\n* [[2.04 Methods for Tracing Campaign Practices in U.S. Electoral Web Spheres]]

As explained in chapter 1, we conceptualize a Web sphere as not simply a collection of Web sites, but as a set of dynamically defined, digital resources spanning multiple Web sites deemed relevant or related to a central event, concept, or theme. In this book, we employ the electoral Web sphere as a framework within which we focus on the Web practices of electoral campaigns. Web sphere analysis is a conceptual lens for this and other studies of Web phenomena, enabling analysis of communicative actions and relations between Web producers and users developmentally over time. Web sphere analysis provides an approach for investigating relations between producers and users of Web materials as potentiated and mediated by the structural and feature elements of Web sites, hypertexts, and the links between them.\n\nIn the first stage of the multimethod approach of Web sphere analysis, researchers identify Web objects (usually either sites or pages) related to the topical focus of the sphere. These objects are archived at regular intervals during the period of the study in a manner that maintains their hyperlinked context, allowing the researchers to reproduce at some point in the future the experience users might have had (Arms et al. 2001). This enables both contemporaneous and retrospective analyses of developments in the Web sphere over time. Then metadata are created through the annotation of archived objects (again, usually sites or pages) with human or computer-generated notes and/or codes of various kinds. These metadata correspond to the units and levels of analysis anticipated by the researchers. Finally, interviews, focus groups, experiments, or surveys are conducted with site producers and Web users and triangulated with Web annotations and objects to interpret the sphere.\n\nDecember's (1996) typology of units of analysis for Internet-related research is useful for understanding the nature of a Web sphere as a unit of analysis. The five types of units of analysis December identifies are:\n# a media space, consisting of the set of all servers of a particular type that may provide information in one or more protocols, the corresponding clients that are capable of accessing these servers, and the associated content available for access on these servers;\n# a media class--a particular set of content, servers, and clients;\n# a media object--a specific unit in a media class with which the user can observe and interact;\n# a media instance--a media object at a particular time; and\n# a media experience--a particular user's perception of a set of media instances.\nIn correspondence with December's definitions, a Web sphere could be considered a subset of an Internet media space, constituted by a set of Web sites (a single media class), each of which are composed of elements or objects such as links, features, and texts. Boundaries based on a thematic or event orientation and a temporal framework differentiate our concept of a Web sphere from December's definition of a Web space.\n\nThe Web sphere can function as a macro, aggregate unit of analysis, by which historical and intersphere comparisons can be made. For example, the Web sphere of the 2000 elections in the United States can be comparatively analyzed with the electoral Web sphere of 2004 and those that will develop in later years. Similarly, comparative analyses can be conducted on electoral Web spheres internationally. A significant element in our conceptualization of a Web sphere is the dynamic nature of the sites that constitute the sphere. This dynamism comes from three sources. First, researchers involved in identifying the boundaries of the sphere are likely to continually find additional sites to be included within it. Second, new sites related to the topic of the sphere may be produced as it develops. Third, the process of defining a Web sphere is recursive, in that pages that are referenced by included sites, as well as pages that reference included sites, may be considered part of the sphere under evaluation. Thus, as a Web sphere is analyzed over time, its boundaries may be dynamically shaped by researchers' identification strategies, the production of new sites, and changes in the sites themselves.\n\nThe more micro and/or molar units--such as texts, features, links, sites, or even the multisite Web presence of an actor--can be employed in analyses simultaneously within a Web sphere. Defining any of these units operationally can be challenging, particularly when the temporal and malleable aspects of Web objects are considered. For example, any Web text or feature can appear stable but actually be modified by its producer or rendered differently by technologies such as Web browsers employed by users at a particular moment. Therefore, the point in time and the way in which a Web object is observed must be part of the unit's definition for research purposes. Units such as an actor's Web presence must also reflect the potential for change over time by being situated in a particular temporal period. For instance, the Web presence of a political party might be appropriately specified by the particular week or month within an election cycle. The hyperlinked and multilevel nature of the Web makes the identification and demarcation of units of analysis a critical but difficult task, even within a Web sphere. Seemingly straightforward questions, such as what constitutes a Web site and from what or whose perspective (robot, browser, or human) that question will be framed, require careful consideration. In addition, the coproduced nature of the Web--evidenced in the joint production by multiple actors of many features and much content-- makes the attribution of agency to producers of specific bits problematic.

<<tiddler notIncluded>>

<<tiddler notIncluded>>

<<tiddler notIncluded>>

* [[3.01 A Practice Observed: Informing]] \n* [[3.02 The Practice of Informing]] \n* Techniques for Informing\n** [[3.03 Techniques for Informing: Documentation]]\n** [[3.04 Techniques for Informing: Position Taking and Issue Dialogue]]\n** [[3.05 Techniques for Informing: Convergence]] \n** [[3.06 Techniques for Informing: Linking]]\n** [[3.07 Techniques for Informing: Coproduction]]\n* [[3.08 Tensions in Informing]] \n

The 2002 Senate campaign site of Colorado Libertarian Rick Stanley was a model of breadth, depth, and hyperlinked architecture in its information provision. In addition to a biography and overview of the candidate's positions on a range of issues, the site also featured several other types of information. These included an explanation of Stanley's reasons for running for the Senate, an overview of his "new ideas for government," texts of speeches given at campaign events, and endorsements.\n\nSome of the information provided by the Stanley campaign was unusual enough to differentiate their site from most. A list of "movements, events, and issues which Rick [was] keeping an eye on" enabled visitors to gain a sense of the candidate's concerns, values, and affiliations. <<popnote 008>> In one section of the site, labeled "Most Important Documents," a visitor could read the entire text of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. <<popnote 009>> Another section of the site was devoted to a national "Bill of Rights" campaign urging Congress to repeal all unconstitutional laws. The text exhorted readers to volunteer for that effort, noting, "And remember--this is not just for the Stanley for U.S. Senate campaign--this is for you, your family, your friends, and your community. It is for our country." <<popnote 010>> The invitation to volunteer with this issue campaign illustrates how Stanley used his electoral campaign site to advance an issue agenda.\n\nStanley's campaign made extensive use of the techniques of linking and coproduction in its implementation of the practice of informing. The primary issue section on this site featured a grid containing titles for twenty-seven issue topics, ranging from those commonly addressed on campaign sites (taxes, education, and healthcare) to those that are rarely mentioned (jury nullification, flag desecration, and drug prohibition). Each issue title on the grid was internally linked to a lengthy page of text describing Stanley's position on that issue. Furthermore, each issue position page had a section at the bottom containing outlinks to other Web sites supporting Stanley's position along with a set of relevant quotes from news articles and famous people.\n\nIn contrast, Stanley's Democratic and Republican opponents addressed fewer issues, with less substantiation. The Democratic candidate posted positions on twelve issues on his campaign site, and the incumbent Republican candidate described his Senate committee appointments and the legislation he sponsored but did not provide any distinct issue positions. <<popnote 011>> Both sites lacked the long descriptions, extensive outlinks, and supportive quotes that made Stanley's site so rich in issues.\n\nCoproduction was also employed among the Stanley campaign and other Web producers in the 2002 electoral Web sphere. The campaign appropriated materials from several newspapers--over a dozen news articles and editorials, dated and attributed to the newspapers in question, were re-presented in the "Press Clippings" section of Stanley's site. <<popnote 012>> Two other sections of the site, "Endorsements" and "Letters from the People," also manifested coproduction by displaying texts authored by persons outside the official campaign. <<popnote 013>>\n\nThese instances of coproduction were largely unilateral, on the part of Stanley's campaign. However, a form of reciprocal coproduction was evident between the candidate and the producers of the political portal purepolitics.com, self-described as "a non-biased, non-partisan political portal that is not supported by any cause or entity." Both Stanley's site and the portal posted on their Web sites the candidate's responses to a questionnaire that the portal had authored and emailed to candidates across the country. <<popnote 014>>\n\nThough Stanley's site made extensive use of linking and coproduction to provide information, it did not employ convergence beyond the provision of a street address and telephone number. Stanley sought to affiliate himself with like-minded individuals, issue advocacy groups, and Libertarian organizations in many ways, but made no attempt to explicitly compare himself to his opponents.

Web producers engage in the practice of informing when they create online structures to present information to site visitors. In essence, with every element posted on a Web site, site producers create a message and transmit it, upon request, to the site visitor. A campaign’s engagement in the basic form of this practice does not require the creation of a structure that facilitates either additional interaction between the producer and the recipient, or any additional action on the part of the recipient beyond the initial request. However, when campaigns engage in the practice of informing through the techniques of coproduction, introduced in chapter 2, and documentation, introduced later, more robust and complex online structures emerge than are suggested by the sender-receiver models of communication (Lasswell 1948; Shannon and Weaver 1949). \n\nWe conceptualize informing as foundational to and part of all other Web practices. In other words, all online structures present information. However, because some aspects of Web campaigning are associated with informing alone, it is useful to examine informing as a practice in its own right. To do this, we must consider the overall patterns of informing by campaign organizations over the past few election cycles, as well as the particular techniques employed by campaign organizations as they engage in this practice. \n\nOur examination of informing highlights tensions that the adoption of this practice entails for campaign organizations. In particular, organizations are concerned with pressures to create and maintain a significant quantity of accurate and current information, as well as to provide specific information. Closely related to the pressure for quantity and specificity are campaigns’ concerns for providing information to a sufficiently wide audience—including those whose interests may not coincide with the campaign. Addressing these concerns can be especially challenging in a rapidly evolving environment where Web materials are increasingly cached and archived, facilitating analysis by other actors, including current and future opponents, journalists, and regulators. These concerns shape how campaigns seek to inform site visitors, as we will discuss in detail.\n\nCursory examination of campaign Web sites reveals that most sites engage in the practice of informing. Candidate biographies, issue statements, texts of speeches delivered by the candidate, press releases and other campaign news, and text or video presentations of campaign advertisements released in other media are common examples of this practice. Some are fairly standard in form and structure: Candidate speeches are typically presented as audio files or transcribed texts <<popnote 015>>, campaign advertisements are similar but also may be available as video files <<popnote 016>>, and press releases, typically addressed to journalists, are usually text memos about campaign events or candidate activity <<popnote 017>>. Others show more variety: Candidate biographies range from brief overviews about a candidate’s personal life <<popnote 018>> to resume-like listings of professional positions held and political experience <<popnote 019>>, to extensive narratives about the events, beliefs, and values that influenced a candidate’s decision to run for office <<popnote 020>>. Issue statements on campaign sites also vary in focus, depth, and breadth <<popnote 021>>. \n\nThe very earliest campaign Web sites provide evidence that most of those campaign organizations practiced informing extensively from the inception of Web campaigning. Sites launched to support the efforts of candidates in the 1996 Republican presidential-primary election—the first campaign in which most serious candidates launched Web sites—show a high incidence of informing. Analyses of these sites indicate that most featured candidate biographies, issues sections, speeches, and campaign news (Benoit and Benoit 2000; Margolis, Resnick, and Tu 1997; Selnow 1998; Tedesco, Miller, and Spiker 1998; Klotz 1997). For example, the Web site for Steve Forbes’s 1996 primary campaign included sections on issues, press releases, speeches, news articles, a biography, and a Forbes family album <<popnote 022>>. \n\nNearly universal adoption of informing as a Web campaigning practice continued during the 2000 and 2004 presidential primary campaigns. Informing features were ubiquitous during the 2000 primary season: All of the sites included candidate biographies, issue statements, speeches, and campaign news, and all but two included campaign ads. Presidential campaign Web sites during the 2004 Democratic presidential primary season provide similar evidence that the practice of informing had become widespread and deeply ingrained. Seven of the nine presidential sites evaluated in 2004 included all five features, and all of the sites included at least three of the features.\n\nSimilarly, campaign Web sites produced to support gubernatorial candidates and congressional candidates provide further evidence of the early, widespread, and growing adoption of the Web campaigning practice of informing. Our analyses of congressional and gubernatorial campaign Web sites in 2000, 2002, and 2004, when combined with Kamarck’s (1999) analysis of 1998 sites, provide a broad overview of more than 2,000 campaign Web sites across four election cycles. Averaged over those cycles, 91 percent of the sites included a candidate biography, and 83 percent included issue statements. The prevalence of the other three indicators of informing (speeches, campaign news, and ads) is less widespread. The percent of sites featuring candidate speeches declines, from 20 percent in 1998 to 10 percent in 2004; overall, speeches were found on 13 percent of sites across the four cycles. Data for campaign news show an increasing trend, from 49 percent of sites in 1998 to 73 percent of sites in 2002.\n\nThe stability in the prevalence of biography and issue statements from cycle to cycle at the presidential primary, gubernatorial, and congressional levels shows that these two key indicators of informing were widespread from the earliest emergence of Web campaigning. Further evidence of the importance site producers place on the practice of informing on the Web comes from the Web-based survey we conducted after the 2002 campaign. We asked campaign site producers to rate the importance of eleven potential goals for a campaign site. Three of the four top-rated goals directly reflected the practice of informing: informing Web site visitors, increasing public awareness of issues, and persuading undecided voters. A fourth goal, cost-efficient campaigning, reflects an underlying aspect of informing, that of seeking to expend the minimum resources to reach the maximum desired audience. These findings indicate that the prevalence of informing features on campaign sites reflects the priority most campaigns place on informing.\n\nOur focus in this chapter so far has been on the types of information provided on campaign sites and the prevalence of informing across campaigns. We now turn to an analysis of how the techniques of documentation, position taking, convergence, linking, and coproduction are employed in the practice of informing.\n

In the electoral context, political actors not associated with candidate campaigns make reasoned decisions related to their roles in the election as voters, contributors, organizers, journalists, or even opponents. The processes by which they make these decisions are greatly enhanced by having access to particular types of information. For example, knowing who produced or sponsored the message, the source of the information, points of comparison and contrast between candidates, and details of campaign financing could usefully contribute to making decisions. We call the cluster of techniques employed in the provision of such information documentation. A primer produced by the Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet (2002) identifies "best practices" for Web campaigning, including those related to informing. Documentation is among these best practices, first, because visitors to campaign Web sites look for such documentation, and second, because when it is provided it enhances the credibility of campaigns.\n\nThe affordances of hypertext and the Web make many forms of documentation relatively easy and inexpensive to produce in comparison with print or broadcast media. It is reasonable to suppose, then, that documentation could be various and widespread on campaign Web sites. However, while most campaign sites provide the most basic forms of documentation, other forms are quite rare.\n\nThe most common and fundamental forms of documentation are statements expressing the candidate's position on a range of issues. As previously discussed, information about a candidate's position on at least one issue appeared on an average of 83 percent of campaign sites over the 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections. Our analysis of more than 800 campaign sites produced for House, Senate, and gubernatorial candidates in 2002 indicates that more than three-quarters of those Web sites with any issue statements addressed the candidate's positions on three or more issues. One-third of these sites presented position statements on five to nine issues, and another one-third provided statements on ten or more issues. Furthermore, 86 percent of sites with position statements substantiated the candidate's position by providing some type of rationale on at least one issue.\n\nHowever, most of the other documentation techniques identified as best practices by the Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet (2002) appeared much less frequently on campaign Web sites. In 2002, very few sites examined referenced an independent publication or Web site in support of claims made in the issue statements. Aligning a candidate's issue position with the views of another political actor, such as a party or advocacy group, was more common than contrasting the candidate's position. On 15 percent of campaign sites, visitors were provided with statements indicating common interests or shared viewpoints between the candidate and another political actor. Only 6 percent of campaign sites contrasted the positions of candidates with their opponents, whereas 11 percent contrasted the candidates' positions with other political actors besides opponents. Because both contrast and alignment entail representing a candidate to site visitors in relation to some other political actor, they are also associated with the practice of connecting, as we discuss in chapter 5.\n\nAnother set of features associated with documentation concerns transparency regarding sponsorship and campaign finances. A statement of sponsorship is required by law on all print and broadcast campaign materials and recommended on campaign Web sites as well (Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet 2002); however, just over half (56 percent) of campaign sites produced in 2002 included an explicit message to the visitor acknowledging site sponsorship. And while about 10 percent of the candidate sites posted a position statement on the issue of campaign finance reform, only a handful of sites (less than 1 percent) provided information on their own campaign's contributors, contributions, or expenditures.\n\nA close examination of sites that provided the forms of documentation we have discussed reveals that they were structured in interesting ways. For instance, the sites produced for Cecil Staton's (D-GA-11) primary election campaign and Todd Platt's (R-PA-19) general election campaign each provided a link to an online report by the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) of their respective campaign's receipts. This report provides the names of personal and political action committee (PAC) contributors whose donations were above $200, along with their addresses and employers. <<popnote 023>> Norm Coleman's (R-MN-Sen) campaign site featured a "Financial Disclosure" page with a link labeled "Contributors not otherwise filed as public information with the Federal Election Commission on August 29, 2002 for calendar year 2002," but the site did not link to the FEC report for its campaign. <<popnote 024>> On Eli Bebout's (R-WY-Gov) 2002 campaign Web site, the prime real estate of the upper left corner was devoted to a feature labeled "Campaign Receipts." By October 31, 2002, links to three more financial reports had been posted: An itemized list of receipts through August 2002, created by the campaign with an FEC template that included fields for each personal and PAC contributor's name, city, state, date of contribution, and amount received; <<popnote 025>> and two other itemized lists containing only personal contributions, formatted similarly to the first report but without headings or dates. <<popnote 026>> As a final example, in June 2002, the campaign site of Congressional candidate Tom Tancredo (R-CO-6) featured a link in the main navigation menu labeled "Contributors and Supporters." This link resolved to a page with a long list of personal contributors' names, cities, and contribution amounts, the contents of which remained unchanged throughout the election season. <<popnote 027>> Ironically, none of these candidates who provided financial information addressed the issue of campaign finance on their sites.

The overarching aim of all campaigning strategies is to maximize votes, primarily in order to win elections (Downs 1957). Based on this assumption, researchers have documented the incentives for candidates to remain ambiguous in their issue stances (Page 1978), and to carefully choose when or whether to associate themselves with controversial issues that polarize the electorate (Stokes 1963). The selection of issues on which to take a position and the explication of positions are among the primary means by which candidates construct pluralities of voters that will send or return them to office. As the fundamental currency of campaign issue discourse, the technique of position taking involves articulating statements of advocacy or opinion on political issues of public concern. At campaign events, in press releases, and in advertisements, candidates make issue statements that they believe will win them votes. Although somewhat consistent with offline campaigning, campaign techniques of issue selection and message construction on the Web do not conform entirely to the usual patterns found in print and broadcast media offline (Xenos and Foot 2005).\n\nSimon (2002) refers to instances of opposing candidates referencing each other or each other's issue stances in the course of position taking as campaign issue dialogue. Instances of issue dialogue may be direct, where campaigns make explicit reference to issue positions held by political opponents (e.g., "my opponent, Robert Republican, will raise your taxes but I will not"), or indirect, where campaigns produce comments or statements on the same issues as their opponents without explicitly mentioning their opponents' positions (Xenos and Foot 2005).\n\nWhether offline or on the Web, position taking and direct and indirect dialogue are variants of informing that serve as the principal ways that candidates transmit policy-relevant information about themselves to prospective voters. In offline campaigning, however, both indirect and direct issue dialogue are quite rare. In a content analysis of issue statements appearing in newspaper articles related to campaigns for U.S. Senate in 1988 through 1992, Simon (2002) found that rational-acting candidates avoided both kinds of issue dialogue whenever possible.\n\nModels of campaign discourse indicate that in order to maximize votes, campaigns seek to highlight issues on which the candidate has a stance that is likely to appeal to the most voters. In other words, campaigns seek to focus voters' attention on issues for which the candidates' positions are likely to be widely well received. Assuming that issues favoring one candidate work to the disadvantage of other candidates and that all candidates approach issue selection strategically, one would expect candidates to discuss those issues their primary opponents do not much more frequently than issues on which opponents advance a position. According to this logic, campaigns have little incentive to engage in indirect issue dialogue. Furthermore, because mentioning an opponent publicly increases that candidate's visibility and thus works against the fundamental goal of vote maximization, campaigns generally seek to avoid direct issue dialogue (Benoit et al. 2003; Simon 2002; Zaller Forthcoming).\n\nIn the Web campaigning practice of informing, position taking is manifested in the campaign site presentation of a candidate's stance on an issue. Issue dialogue occurs when two or more campaigns within a race each present opposing candidates' positions on the same issue on their respective sites. For instance, a few days before the 2002 election in Colorado's 7th congressional district race, all four campaign sites associated with the Democratic, Republican, Reform, and Green party candidates evidenced position taking and issue dialogue. The campaign site of the Green candidate presented positions on five issues: campaign finance reform, the environment, taxes, healthcare, and national security. <<popnote 028>> On the Reform candidate's site were two of the same issues, campaign finance reform and healthcare, as well as several other issues: education, small businesses and farming, term limits, Social Security, and Medicare. <<popnote 029>> The Democratic candidate's site overlapped on taxes, education, Social Security, and Medicare, and addressed two issues not mentioned by other candidates. <<popnote 030>> The campaign site for the Republican candidate demonstrated significantly more issue breadth than the other three by displaying his positions on thirteen issues, including taxes, education, healthcare, and Medicare. <<popnote 031>>\n\nIn short, in this congressional race there was indirect issue dialogue among the campaign sites on five issues. Indirect dialogue was evident among the Green, Reform, and Republican candidates' sites on healthcare in general, and among the Republican, Democratic, and Reform candidates' sites on healthcare for seniors (Medicare) and education. There was indirect issue dialogue on taxes among the Republican, Democratic, and Green candidates' sites, and on campaign finance reform between the Green and Reform candidates' sites. Both the Reform and the Democratic campaigns engaged in direct dialogue with the Republican candidate. The Reform candidate did so by posting an analysis of his opponents that included an explicit critique of the Republican candidate's position on taxes. <<popnote 032>> The Democratic candidate's main campaign site included his position on abortion in the issue section, and a link from the home page to a second site (also produced by the campaign) that criticized the Republican candidate's position on abortion. <<popnote 033>> \n\nAs previously discussed, the predominant strategy in position taking offline has been the avoidance of issue dialogue with opponents (Simon 2002). Position taking on the Web evidences a somewhat different pattern (Xenos and Foot 2005). Although a strong majority of campaign Web sites from the 2002 election evidenced position taking, only 8 percent of campaign sites with issue position sections engaged in direct dialogue with their opponents by referencing the opponent's position on one or more issues. This rate is consistent with findings from studies of direct dialogue offline (Simon 2002). Campaign sites in 32 percent of races evidenced at least one instance of indirect issue dialogue. In races in which both major party candidates produced Web sites, position taking was even more prevalent, with indirect dialogue evident on more than 80 percent of campaign sites.\n\nFurther evidence of indirect dialogue on the Web is provided by Williams et al. (2005). In a comparative analysis of the Bush and Kerry sites prior to the 2004 presidential election, they found a strong correlation between the issues discussed on the home pages of the two campaign sites over a period of ten weeks leading up to the presidential election. The high level of position taking and indirect issue dialogue in the 2004 presidential race and in the 2002 races in which both major party candidates produced campaign Web sites indicates that the practice of informing in Web campaigning differs significantly from the ways in which informing has traditionally taken place offline. These findings indicate that the Web is a media environment in which it is noticeable if a candidate--such as an incumbent--does not engage in position taking on particular issues.\n\nOffline, the traditional development of campaign messages tends to evolve from simple recognition and introductory messages that appear early in a campaign (like the familiar biographical advertisements), to strategic issue-related appeals later on. However, a temporally regularized form of basic campaign information presentation on the Web may alter the dynamics by which campaign messages evolve over the course of the election season in offline media. The ease with which campaign sites can be compared may force candidates to make some aspects of all of these types of communication available at all times throughout the campaign, thus diluting the agenda-setting effects created by strategic timing of paid advertising and other communications.\n\nFurthermore, some campaigns have found that posting issue positions on their Web sites serves an agenda-setting function in relation to the news media. As the Webmaster of Jesse Ventura's 1998 gubernatorial campaign in Minnesota commented:\n<<<\nWe rejected that idea [that posting issue positions would alienate some prospective voters] and published all of Jesse's public policy positions on the web site. Soon after we did so, the media began moving off the wrestling theme and started treating Jesse more seriously as a candidate. One newspaper called him "Jesse `The Wonk' Ventura," referring to the large amount of public policy information on his web site. After this information was posted, the issues pages of the site were second only to Jesse's biography in popularity. Users seemed to enter the site asking, "Who is Jesse Ventura and where does he stand on the issues?" Reporters and pundits frequently referred to and quoted from Jesse's public policy positions as stated on his web site (Madsen 1998).\n<<<\nMadsen's comment indicates that position taking on a campaign site may prompt journalists to report on the issues that the candidate wants to address. Having analyzed the ways that campaigns employ position taking and issue dialogue, we now turn to examine the use of convergence in the practice of informing.\n

As explained in chapter 2, the technique of convergence involves the integration of the online and offline realms of production, whether through media, organizations, or activity. New media in general, and the Web in particular, can be viewed as bearing a hybridization of the affordances of older, non-digital media such as print, film, broadcast radio, and television (e.g. Manovich 2001). The incorporation of offline media is common in the Web production technique of convergence as it is employed in relation to the practice of informing.\n\nBrochureware (Kamarck 1999) reflects the digitization and hypertextual rendering of texts that were originally created on analog or offline media, such as type-written and photo-copied flyers. This variant of convergence has been utilized significantly in campaign sites. Another variant is providing video or audio files on a campaign site that were originally produced for dissemination on television or radio; this tactic accomplishes several things for a campaign. First, it adds diversity to the content of the site: Posting a 30-second video advertisement featuring the candidate on the campaign site allows site visitors to glean information through hearing and seeing the candidate in ways that they might not get from written texts and even still images. <<popnote 034>> Second, audio and video files extend what Seely, Brown, and Druguid (2000) might call the social life of these campaign informational artifacts across time and space. For instance, the archive of television and radio advertisements on Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign site in 2000 allowed site visitors to view or listen to them for many weeks after they were broadcast, and to do so from locations far beyond the geographical reach of the local or even national radio or television stations on which the ads were originally broadcast. <<popnote 035>>\n\nNearly instantaneous debate response systems, developed by presidential campaigns beginning in 2000, are yet another example of informing through convergence. The Gore and Bush campaigns recognized that some of their core audience members, especially journalists and campaign activists, would be experiencing the debate in a mixed-media environment, simultaneously using online and offline media. The campaign organizations created almost-real-time response systems (e-buttal systems) on their respective Web sites to allow those watching on television to simultaneously review campaign staffers' responses to each point and counterpoint of the debate.\n\nThe 2004 Bush and Kerry campaigns similarly employed e-buttal during debates, with even more effort invested than in the 2000 presidential campaigns. Both campaigns demonstrated the significance they placed on this strategy with the depth and rapidity (every minute or two) of updates that campaign staff posted to their respective campaign during each debate. Each campaign had anticipated the response of its opponent to each question and had prepared more numerous and more lengthy rebuttal comments than would be allowed on the televised debate. These comments were posted in a special section of the campaign site during and following each round of debate.\n\nFinally, the practice of informing through the technique of convergence is manifested in campaign efforts to publicize the presence of the Web site in offline modes or media. Yard signs and posters bearing the campaign site URL exemplify this approach. Some of the most delightfully anachronistic examples of the blending of online information into the offline environment are banners proclaiming a campaign site URL hung on wooden kiosks at state fairs. <<popnote 036>> In an interesting twist on the brochureware phenomenon, some campaigns have been observed distributing printouts of pages from campaign sites at campaign events. Whether for convenience or to demonstrate tech-savvy, the offline distribution of html-formatted information-- sometimes with URLs and href tags intact--illustrates the bi-directionality of convergence.\n\nIn this section we have demonstrated the varied ways that convergence is employed in informing. The integration of online and offline realms of production enables campaigns to inform across the electoral Web sphere and the rest of the electoral arena. In the next section we focus within the electoral Web sphere on the technique of linking.

Linking, or the insertion of a hypertextual element that associates two Web objects, is foundational to Web production. The form of linking of primary importance to the practice of informing is internal linking, in which objects or pages within a single site are interlinked. As a production technique associated with the practice of informing, linking is a way for campaigns to structure the information architecture of their sites, thus defining the range of possible user experiences.\n\nA campaign's choices regarding the internal linking on their Web sites can shape users' perceptions of the informational value of the site, as well as influence users' senses of motion/navigation and control. Internal linking facilitates expansiveness in the breadth and depth of the materials, while enabling site visitors to select the type and level of information they wish to view. For example, in the issue section of Al Gore's 2000 campaign site (the most extensive site in that presidential race), information on Gore's positions on a wide range of issues was provided in three levels of detail: bullet points, paragraphs, and lengthy white papers available for downloading as Adobe PDFs. A site visitor could select the level of detail desired for information about Gore's stance on any of the issues listed. The beneficial effect of internal linking on the informational value of a site is evident when a site with multiple levels of internal links, such as the 2002 congressional campaign site for Libertarian candidate Andy Horning (IN-7), is compared to a site with no internal links, such as the one produced for fellow Libertarian congressional candidate Jim Higgins (MO-1) in 2002. <<popnote 037>> The internal links on Horning's site allowed visitors to easily select the informational elements they wanted to view. The lack of internal links on Higgins' site required visitors to scan a lengthy single page of text to locate the information in which they were interested.\n\nOutlinking, or linking to Web objects posted on a different site, from the main campaign site to another site produced by the candidate or campaign may enable more extensive information--and thus improve the credibility of the candidate--while keeping the campaign site distinct from other sites in the electoral Web sphere. An example of this is when an incumbent's campaign site links to the candidate's government office site. <<popnote 038>> Other campaign sites link to one or more Web pages produced by the candidate outside of the political sphere. For instance, the biography page of John Graham's (D-CA-48) congressional campaign site in 2002 linked to Graham's faculty page at the University of California at Irvine, offering the campaign site visitor "more details on [Graham's] academic career." <<popnote 039>>\n\nAnother variant of outlinking for the purpose of informing is providing a link from a primary campaign site to a campaign-produced anti-candidate site that criticizes one's opponent. During the presidential primary campaigns of 2000, for example, the main Bradley campaign site displayed a link to an anti-Gore site called moreaboutgore.com, which was also produced by the Bradley campaign (Stromer-Galley 2000). In another instance, the front page of Mike Feeley's (D-CO-7) primary campaign site in 2002 featured a quote by a former district vice-chair of the Republican party expressing concern about his Republican opponent, Bob Beauprez, and support for Feeley. A link supplied with the quote resolved to a second site (also produced by Feeley's campaign), misleadingly labeled www.beauprezfacts .com. This site was devoted to critiquing Beauprez's stance on abortion. <<popnote 040>> Each of the previous examples illustrate ways in which campaigns engage in informing across two or more campaign-produced sites by linking between sites.\n\nOutlinking can also be a way of offering site visitors information beneficial to the campaign's goals without the site producer assuming responsibility for collecting, maintaining, and displaying the information. Many campaign sites urge visitors--many of whom presumably are supporters-- to register to vote. In 2002, about 30 percent of campaign sites facilitated voter registration by providing external links to Web sites produced by civic organizations or government bodies that handle voter registration. The prevalence of this feature increased to 44 percent in 2004. Examples include the 2002 campaign sites for Stan Matsunaka (D-CO-4) and Tom Harkin (D-IA-Sen), which provided an array of voter registration information, including links to the voter registration form and election information section on their respective Secretary of State sites. <<popnote 041>>\n\nThe previously discussed documentation technique of linking to the campaign's reports on the Federal Election Commission Web site facilitates campaign site visitors' access to contributor information, without providing it directly. This technique, then, is another type of outlinking for the purpose of strategic informing. It can be risky for a campaign to link to an information source on another site rather than to post that information on its own site. Campaigns have no control over the information posted on another site; the producer of the other site may modify that information at any time. Thus outlinking requires a calculation of risk and a release of control.\n\nLinks have both functional and symbolic values (Beaulieu 2005; Rogers and Marres 2000). In this light, linking in the practice of informing can be understood as a way for campaigns to provide and structure information, but also to perform a type of hypertextuality, thus symbolically displaying technical expertise. In other words, the dearth of both internal links and outlinks on some campaign sites conveys both a lack of depth in their information infrastructure and an absence of Web fluency. Linking can also be integral to coproduction, as we discuss next.

Coproduction, as introduced in chapter 2, is the technique of jointly producing a Web object through texts, features, or links. Within the practice of informing, coproduction can be employed in several ways, one of which is the joint production of Web materials by different branches of a campaign. For example, the campaign calendar for a presidential candidate may integrate information produced by several geographically distributed campaign offices. The use of content from an incumbent candidate's government-produced site on a campaign site is a similar kind of coproduction in the practice of informing. In such cases, the campaign site functions as a type of boundary object (Star 1988) through which the candidate-promoting activities of various branches of a campaign coalesce and are coordinated.\n\nAnother type of coproduction as part of informing takes place between the campaign and other actors. One variant is the appropriation of content from news producers by the campaign, a type of coproduction that we term unilateral. Another variant occurs when a campaign teams up with one or more individual site producers to create or distribute information about a candidate. In the offline world, candidates have long used materials produced by other actors--such as press organizations--for their own campaign purposes. Reprinting and distributing favorable editorials or news stories on their own letterhead is a form of coproduction. When a Web producer reproduces material previously distributed by an external organization on its own Web site, and does so without providing a Web link to the external organization, the campaign is coproducing through appropriation as part of the practice of informing. Some campaigns have presented scanned images of newspaper articles on their sites. <<popnote 042>> One reason for a campaign to employ this seemingly retro technique may be to convey a sense of authenticity. Another motive may be that because scanned images represent the candidate's presence in the offline news media, they may symbolically convey the message that the candidate's views and activities are "newsworthy" and thus should be attended to by site visitors. Many other campaigns simply re-key or cut and paste materials from newspapers or newspaper Web sites, usually with a reference to the original producers but frequently without a hyperlink to the original producer's Web site. Adam Schiff's (D-CA-29) site in 2002 employed an unusual variant of appropriation: The campaign appears to have saved complete pages from the Los Angeles Times Web site, and then served them through its own site. <<popnote 043>>\n\nFinally, coproduction in informing is evidenced when campaign organizations contribute information about a candidate to Web sites produced by other actors, such as government bodies or civic organizations. For instance, in each of the last several elections, Project Vote Smart has sought responses from campaign organizations to a standard survey of issue positions. The responses from the campaign organizations are provided verbatim on Project Vote Smart's site. In 2000, 2002, and 2004, the Democracy Network (DNet), produced in cooperation with the League of Women Voters, also relied on campaign organization participation for its content. Similarly, in recent elections the producers of the election section of the Washington State Secretary of State's site have offered campaigns the opportunity to provide candidate information and the URL of the campaign site on their government site. <<popnote 044>> Browsing such sites suggests, however, that many campaigns have not contributed the information requested by these site producers. This indicates that Web campaigning on sites not controlled by the campaign organizations is less common than Web campaigning in venues sponsored by the campaigns themselves. Whether they have found it inconvenient or strategically undesirable is unknown, but the relatively low levels of campaign participation in these coproduced sites indicate that there are tensions involved in informing. We discuss several of these tensions in the next section.

Informing is seemingly a straightforward Web practice. However, our analysis of campaign Web sites and data from site producer interview and survey responses reveals at least six areas of tensions. The first three tensions are shared by many kinds of site producers and pertain to the accuracy, volume, and currency of the information producers are expected to create and maintain. Producing accurate content, and keeping it accurate during an evolving campaign, requires a lot of effort. As one congressional campaign site producer in 2000 explained,\n<<<\nI've found [managing the campaign Web site] somewhat overwhelming. We have a lot of help now, but just getting things up on the Web site, making sure they're correct when they're out there for people to see. You want to make sure they're very accurate statements because it's like a quote in a newspaper. If you do something wrong or say something wrong, people are going to use that against you. We wanted to make sure we were very accurate and very detailed as to what [the candidate's] positions were.\n<<<\nSecond, campaign site producers also experience tension regarding the volume of information to produce or provide. Too much information (particularly when it is not well organized) may overwhelm site visitors, and too little information may leave them unsatisfied. In short, erring in either direction may reflect poorly on the candidate.\n\nThird, campaign site producers experience the pressure of currency, a need that is further complicated by the cross-pressure of serving both first-time visitors and regular visitors. Campaign site producers must provide a site that is attractive and functional for new visitors at the same time that they are providing the features and information repeat visitors would expect. An up-to-date Web site comes at a cost. It encourages regular visits but also requires producers to generate new content continually and quickly in relation to unfolding events that are reported around the clock. Campaigns must monitor the Web environment on at least a daily basis in order to keep a campaign site current in relation to sites produced not only by other candidates but also by a wide range of other political actors including news organizations, bloggers, and advocacy groups. This continual pressure for currency demands that campaigns engage in a new kind of sociotechnical network: in effect, a rapid-response production system. Unsurprisingly, many campaigns, especially those at the House and Senate level, have opted not to engage in the currency game, a choice that is evidenced by the lack of dynamism on most campaign sites up to and including the 2004 election cycle.\n\nThe second cluster of tensions encountered by campaign site producers is more specifically related to campaign strategies regarding information and control. The first of these is a tension between two needs: the need many campaigns feel to maintain strategic ambiguity in the information provided to the public, and the need to use the Web's capacity for broad and deep information. As one campaign manager commented in 2000,\n<<<\nI think most of the other campaigns that I've looked at, both congressional and other campaigns in general, are using the Internet for very general things. As I said, the policy statement [on our site] is a very general policy statement, rather than a detailed plan. I think [the candidate] wants to do more plan, more detail, and then there is more risk when you do that.\n<<<\nAlthough the Web allows campaigns to disseminate many plans in great detail, campaign managers such as this one recognize that providing details decreases the ambiguity that allows many candidates to appeal to a diverse array of people.\n\nAnother control-related tension has to do with the durability and potentially long period of availability (what we might term permanence) of the information campaigns posted on the Web. Current estimates of the average life of a Web page on its original server range from forty-four days to one hundred days (Rein 2004; SAP AG 2004). However, the fact that a producer changes or eliminates a Web page does not guarantee that it hasn't been captured, stored, archived, or cached somewhere else by someone else. The widespread caching of pages by search engines such as Google, as well as by large Internet service providers (ISPs) such as America Online, introduce a time lag and thereby foil attempts by campaign organizations to eliminate previously posted pages.\n\nSearch engines and ISPs are not the only organizations that store and make available older Web pages. The introduction of RSS feeds (XML file formats for syndicating Web pages, known as Really Simple Syndication), particularly during the 2004 campaign, has the effect of decentralizing content management and making it nearly impossible to retract or recall information once posted. In addition, when organizations such as the Library of Congress and the Internet Archive systematically archive campaign Web sites, as was done in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections, campaign Web sites become a permanent part of the public record. Most campaigns have not objected to the inclusion of their sites in Web archives. Some campaigns proudly announce the inclusion of their sites in a Web archive, <<popnote 045>> others request that their sites not be displayed. <<popnote 046>> The creation of publicly accessible Web archives of campaign-produced materials is vital to the study of many aspects of contemporary politics, including scholarly, journalistic, and opposition research. Even apart from Web archives, browser caches and mirror sites make expunging Web materials difficult. Overall, the possibility of permanence on the Web may cause some campaigns to refrain from posting some kinds of information. In short, for campaign Web site producers, the desire to control information may trump the desire to disperse it.\n\nThe third control-related tension arises from the fact that generally all information provided on a public Web site is accessible to any Web user in the country (and the world). Just as businesses seek to target particular audiences with persuasive messages tailored to their interests, many campaigns seek to tailor messages to particular voter segments. In the elections between 2000 and 2004, some major party campaigns segmented their email distribution lists by the issue interests and campaign commitment level of the recipients. The number and content of messages sent to different groups varied. However, segmenting users and differentiating campaign messages is more challenging on the Web than in email. Lynn Reed, campaign manager for Bill Bradley's 2000 presidential primary campaign, elaborated this tension in an interview:\n<<<\nReed: Let's take press as an example because our site handled that differently than the other sites. From the beginning we intended to handle it differently. We set up a press center for a number of reasons. Number one was cost savings. We thought that the more reporters we could get to receive press releases by email rather than fax, the more money we would save. In order to do that we sent it to the press center, which was a way that the reporters could come on online, sign up, and indicate what they wanted to receive. The company called Issue Dynamics, which was another one of the consultants and part of this team, modified an existing product of theirs so that with one push of a button the press secretary could hit both the people who were signed up by email and the people who were signed up by fax, so that it was an integrated list and not two separate lists that you must continually crosscheck against one another. That was a very key early decision and most of that was a cost saving. But from a message point of view, I knew that I wasn't going to want to put every single press release on the public site. Secondarily to that, there might be a press release that is written from a certain perspective for reporters that I might want to tweak a little bit for the general public. And it's the difference of audience, and there is a very fine art to how you write a press release for its intended audience of reporters. Probably, 80 percent of the time that was fine for the general public, but there were cases when it wasn't and I wanted to have the flexibility.\n\nInterviewer: So it wasn't framed as journalists only, although it was as if `all the same content appears but at a public place, and if you are a journalist it will be organized differently and is easier for you to find.' But in fact, there were some differences in the content.\n\nReed: Right. I didn't want the general user to feel as though he or she was excluded from this.\n\nInterviewer: Yes. One of the reactions we had was we wondered if people will react and go, "Well, wait a second, what are they telling journalists that they are not telling us?" Did you get any feedback to that effect?\n\nReed: Not really. I was surprised. I'm sure we had some people sign up on the thing who in fact were not journalists, but what we had more was people who were school journalists, or people who were foreign journalists or people who were Internet only journalists, who would never have gotten the time of day from a press secretary without this. So I think it wound up being more of an advantage in that that kind of under-served niche of the press actually got treated equally (Reed 2000).\n<<<\nAs Reed's reflections illustrate, it is more difficult on the Web than in less public and pervasive media to create and maintain distinct messages for different kinds of audiences, whether journalists versus citizens, Iowa voters versus California voters, or union members versus managers. But there are ways.\n\nMajor party presidential campaigns in the 2000 and 2004 elections, and a few congressional campaigns in 2002 and 2004, were able to strategically frame campaign site messages for some users by inviting visitors to personalize the campaign site. Site visitors could complete a Web questionnaire in which they registered themselves with the campaign, selected the issues that they considered most important, and affiliated themselves with one or more socioeconomic groups. The campaign site then employed cookies, (a packet of information sent from a server to a client computer via a browser, which transmits information back to the server), to ensure that the version of the site a registered user saw on subsequent visits foregrounded their particular interests--creating the possibility that site visitors with different demographics could receive different and potentially contradictory information from a campaign.\n\nFinally, the dilemma of whether to be solely proactive in various aspects of informing or to also react to opponents and other critics creates another control-related tension for campaign site producers. In a 2002 survey of campaign site producers, we asked a set of questions regarding how concerned campaign site producers were about false information online. One-third responded that they were "very concerned" about inaccurate news reports online. One out of three also reported being very concerned about other political actors spreading false political rumors online to shape public opinion. And one-quarter of the site producers surveyed said they were very concerned that unqualified people give political information online.\n\nMany campaigns feel compelled to monitor the Web environment daily to attempt to manage and respond to the information (or misinformation) that is provided about them by other political actors. The majority of campaign site producers keep close tabs on their opponents' sites. A handful of campaign site producers admitted to visiting an opponent's site several times a day; about 11 percent visited daily, and another 36 percent reported visiting their opponents' sites weekly. When a congressional campaign manager in 2000 was asked in an interview whether she thought about the prospect of campaign opponents visiting the site, she responded candidly:\n<<<\nWe do. Honestly, there are certain things--we don't want to put down every single thing that the campaign is doing. We talk about all the major public events that we have. We're not going to write down, "[the candidate] has a meeting with these fundraisers that day, or a meeting with this person." We don't get that extensive, but I think you'll find just about everything that we're doing is usually right there.\n<<<\nOne-third of the site producers reported having responded on their own sites to changes in the content, features, or links on an opponent's site. Some employed a strategy of posting notices on their campaign sites to make the official status of the site explicit. For instance, the front page of the 2002 campaign site for Ed Pastor (D-AZ-2) explained,\n<<<\nThis is the only official web site of the Pastor for Arizona Committee. While other web sites might advocate Ed Pastor's election or the defeat of other candidates, and while they might contain links to this site or republish information or materials that we have made available to the general public, they are not authorized by the Pastor for Arizona Committee, nor have they been coordinated in any way with the Pastor for Arizona Committee. <<popnote 047>>\n<<<\nInforming is a familiar practice deeply embedded in the traditional mission of campaign organizations. Interestingly, one candidate in 2002 told site visitors that although financial contributions to his campaign would be appreciated, the most important contribution would be to get Internet access in order to become informed:\n<<<\nRegarding contributions, the most important contribution you can make to good government is to get yourself access to the INTERNET. That's where the best campaign information is available. If you can't afford the equipment, etc. ask your local elementary school to set up a Cyber Café where you and your neighbors can surf the web in the evenings. Your local public library can also help you with Internet access. <<popnote 048>>\n<<<\nThe fact that the candidate made this statement on his campaign Web site begs the question of whether constituents without Internet access would see it. However, he may have made the same appeal in other media as well. The statement indicates the importance that a growing number of candidates place on the role of the Web for informing citizens.\n\nThe tendency for political campaigns to be waged largely through ever-shrinking sound bites has been demonstrated by several analyses (see, for example, Adatto 1990). The Web provides a forum within which campaigns can expand their practice of informing with an ever-increasing number of gigabytes. Furthermore, evidence indicates that some campaigns have taken advantage of the opportunity to shift their practice of informing toward providing heterogeneous types of information in various media formats with multiple structures, targeting different audiences. It is beyond the scope of this book to evaluate the quality or value of the information provided by campaigns on the Web, or to compare it to campaign information in other media. However, it is clear that the Web affords opportunities for expanded breadth and depth of information at relatively low cost, and that many campaigns are taking advantage of that affordance.\n\nThis affordance suggests a more complex model of communication than suggested by the early, linear sender/receiver models (Lasswell 1948; Shannon and Weaver 1949). These models assumed a monolithic sender, and discrete messages sent at particular points in time. In contrast, informing in the context of Web campaigning is engaged in over time by the sociotechnical network of a campaign in affiliation or differentiation from other actors. Many types of information, or messages, have multiple elements; the structure as well as the substance of those elements shapes the visitor/ receiver's interpretive frame and experience of control over message exposure. Furthermore, Web archiving transforms the sender/receiver model by rendering durable a message that a sender might have intended as ephemeral.\n\nIn summary, we should not be surprised at the degree to which campaign organizations engage in informing. Although the early history of politics on the Internet suggested the potential for alternatives modes of campaigning, informing emerged as the initial and dominant practice as the prevalence of Web campaigning expanded. As we discuss further in chapter 7, the practice of informing became nearly ubiquitous in Web campaigning by 2002. All campaigns with a Web presence engaged in this practice, albeit with some variety in the specific techniques employed. There are some campaigns that only engaged in the practice of informing rather than choosing to use the Web to involve, connect, or mobilize. At the same time, although we view informing as a distinct practice, each of the other practices we consider in the following chapters also entails some aspect of informing. Involving requires the distribution of information about a campaign in order to recruit supporters to participate. Connecting entails enabling an interaction or exchange of information between site visitors and other political actors. Lastly, mobilizing involves equipping supporters to promote the candidate to others, that is, to become information disseminators on behalf of the campaign.\n

* [[4.01 A Practice Observed: Involving]]\n* [[4.02 The Practice of Involving]]\n* Techniques for Involving\n** [[4.03 Techniques for Involving: Transaction]]\n** [[4.04 Techniques for Involving: Convergence]]\n** [[4.05 Techniques for Involving: Linking]]\n** [[4.06 Techniques for Involving: Coproduction]]\n* [[4.07 Tensions in Involving]]

The main campaign site produced for Joe Lieberman, a Democratic presidential primary candidate in 2004, made strategic use of the practice of involving. From the front page, a site visitor could use any of several links to access the campaign's online structures for involving. A page urging visitors to "create momentum for Joe" featured a map of the United States. <<popnote 049>> Clicking on a state in the map led to a state-specific campaign page, framed within the main site. Each state page included photos of Lieberman with citizens of that state, a schedule of upcoming local events, and the invitation to "make a contribution from your state." <<popnote 050>>\n\nThe campaign also developed an online structure for involving that invited site visitors to coproduce a photo album. The entry point was a link on the front page labeled "Dogs for Joe," featuring a headshot of a blond dog. <<popnote 051>> The same photo appeared on the Dogs for Joe page, labeled "Fenway the Dog." Part of the text on the page was narrated by Fenway, Lieberman's dog, and explained his support of Lieberman:\n<<<\nOne of the reasons Joe is this dog's best man is that I can count on him to be there to protect our beaches, our forests, our parks, and all the places that are part of my natural habitat. Although his global warming bill didn't pass, I am proud of the way he refused to roll over and play dead and worked his tail off for a principle he deeply believes in. He is a fighter, and I know he'll keep at this until we cap those greenhouse gases and do what's necessary to protect the planet for litters to come. <<popnote 052>>\n<<<\nVisitors to the page were asked "Does your pet support Joe? Send a photo of your dog to info@joe2004.com and put 'Dogs for Joe' in the subject line of your email. We'll add your dog to our Dogs for Joe photo album!" The campaign's email address had an embedded mailto code that invoked the site visitor's email application to generate an auto-addressed message, and a link was provided to the album itself.\n\nBy January 2004, the photo album displayed pictures of more than eighty dogs, evidence that this involving strategy resonated well with site visitors. <<popnote 053>> The captions for a few photos were just the dogs' names, but many captions made tongue-in-cheek statements of support for Lieberman, such as "Casey is thoughtful but tough as nails--just like Joe!," "Woo is dreaming of Joe in the White House," and "Daphne says that if terriers could vote, Joe would win." By inviting supporters to coproduce a section of the campaign site, the campaign involved supporters in the campaign.

Campaigns engage in the Web practice of involving when they create and provide online structures facilitating interaction between site visitors and the campaign organization. Web site features that manifest this practice include those that allow visitors to subscribe to the campaign's email list, indicate willingness to volunteer time or effort, or make a financial contribution. Involving as a campaign practice is a familiar and traditional part of electioneering. In fact, the earliest campaigns to use computer networks as part of their campaigning repertoire engaged in involving practices. However, when Web technologies were introduced, involving was not widely adopted by campaigns initially, and its growth has been more modest than that of the practice of informing. Nevertheless, involving has more recently emerged as one of the most important and essential aspects of Web campaigning, and as such, it represents a likely arena for rapid and significant expansion in the coming election cycles. At the same time, involving as a Web campaigning practice entails certain threats to traditional campaign organizations. Attempting to meet site visitors' expectations for continuous involvement, and establish and maintain technical and organizational capabilities for handling significant data management responsibilities, requires considerable resource investment and organizational restructuring.\n\nCampaign organizations engage in the most simple and common form of the practice of involving by providing particular types of information that facilitate site visitors' abilities to contact the campaign. Campaign contact information, included on more than 80 percent of campaign sites in 2002, provides the opportunity for site visitors to initiate contact and interact with the campaign organization. For this reason, what is seemingly the simple provision of information is closely associated with the practice of involving, not just the practice of informing.\n\nIn its more complex forms, the Web campaigning practice of involving is manifested through online structures that enable organizations to query site visitors for information that is required by the Federal Election Commission for contributions and other types of data. The data most commonly requested from a site visitor by campaigns are typically the site visitor's name, street address, and email address, as well as some indication by the site visitor of a desire to contribute time or money to the campaign effort. These more complex involving features, through which information is solicited from site visitors, were present on slightly more than half of campaign Web sites observed in 2000 and three-quarters of campaign sites in 2004.\n\nThe relatively few campaigns and other political organizations that were early adopters of the pre-Web Internet pioneered the practice of involving. In the late 1980s, several computer conferencing systems supported political activists with bulletin board services. Computer bulletin board and conferencing systems--such as The Well (Whole Earth `Lectronic Link), PeaceNet, EcoNet, and hundreds of online community bulletin boards, as well as Usenet--included as participants candidates running for elective office (Rheingold 1993). Many of these earliest adopters of computer networking for political purposes used these early systems to engage in discussions with other users of the systems and to recruit and involve participants. The relatively few scholarly analyses of the early use of computer networks, as well as an examination of the popular literature of the time, suggests that involving was an especially significant practice (Shannon 1994; Downing 1989).\n\nAs the number of Internet users grew and the Web emerged, two factors contributed to a slight dampening of campaigns' adoption of the Web practice of involving. With the emergence of the graphical browser and the associated explosion in the number of Internet users, the Web became a mass medium. The online population came to bear characteristics similar to those of the general population in terms of political inclinations and engagement levels. Once the Web browser was widely distributed, the Web quickly became more a medium that relied on a "push" or transmission model of communication and less a medium that required or facilitated an interactive paradigm (as the pre-Web Internet did). The Web was viewed primarily as a method of one-to-many communication through computers, akin in this respect to publishing and broadcasting. In general, most Web producers during the 1990s construed site visitors more as readers and less as participants. During the same period, the percent of campaign organizations campaigning on the Web was greatly expanding. With this expansion came a level of caution and reluctance not usually associated with the earliest adopters of new technology (Rogers 1995). Thus, as Web campaigning in general diffused through the population of campaign organizations, aversion to risk reduced the proportion of campaigns willing to engage in involving. The risks associated with involving are discussed later.\n\nAs we have discussed, the practice of involving, in its simplest form, is enacted when campaign organizations provide information facilitating contacting the campaign, such as a telephone number, street address or email address. There are some structural differences from campaign to campaign in the way that this type of feature is produced. Some campaigns simply provide a textual reference with just a post office box address for the campaign. <<popnote 054>> Some sites provide just a street address and phone number for their physical campaign office, <<popnote 055>> while others provide only an email address. For instance, the 2002 campaign site for Dennis Umphress (Lib-CA-16) had a page labeled "Contact Us," which consisted of the statement, "Email general correspondence, requests for more information, or offers to volunteer to: dmumphress@hotmail.com" and the suggestion, "If you have a question on a specific subject please email all of the candidates for their positions," along with his opponents' email addresses. <<popnote 056>> Some campaigns such as Umphress's provide just a simple text email address to encourage email contact, while others provide an email address with an embedded mailto code. Still others employ a Web-based form to allow site visitors to create a database entry that is a message to the campaign; some sites refer to this as "sending a note" or "email." <<popnote 057>>\n\nAlong with the structures used to facilitate contact, the rhetorical framings of invitations to contact the campaigns vary widely. The mere presence of any contact information implies an invitation to contact, and many campaign sites simply present that information under a heading such as "Contact." Other campaigns post texts one or more paragraphs in length inviting input and feedback of various kinds. The 2002 campaign site for John Graham (D-CA-48) exemplified the latter. On a page labeled, "How You Can Help," a text written in the first person and signed by Graham included the following invitational paragraphs:\n<<<\nThe single best way you can help elect the best Representative for the 48th Congressional District is to recommend to your friends that they visit this and my fellow candidates' websites. This is crucial [emphasis in original]. We should all cast our ballots on November 5th based on the best information available.\n\nI'd be most pleased if you might host a coffee or other event in support of my candidacy. All I ask is that you organize about 20 48th District voters (or more) on a weeknight. I'll be glad to stop by and provide more details about my ideas. Please just call me at 949-856-1969 or email is even better at john@graham4congress.org.\n\nI am very much in need of your criticisms and good ideas. Please let me hear what you think about the issues the others and I have raised regarding your federal government. Email is the best way to share your ideas with me--ideas@graham4congress.org. <<popnote 058>> (Italics in original.)\n<<<\nThis type of invitation evokes a form of "text-based interactivity" (Endres and Warnick 2004) and constructs an interactional relationship between the site producer and visitors.\n\nDuring the primary season in early 2000, we conducted a series of focus groups in which we met with citizens--potential users and coproducers of campaign Web sites--to explore the value they ascribed to different types of Web campaigning. Many of our participants saw value in being able to email the candidate and the campaign. One participant stated, "It gives you a voice back to the candidates, a very important one." Another recalled for her group the experience she had in emailing a candidate through a campaign Web site. She explained that she utilized the email option because of its ease: "They gave me an opportunity to respond to the candidate right there online, which I was more likely to do than pick up a pen or pencil and get the address and send some question or comment to him." Other participants elaborated that, for them, email served as a direct channel to the campaign, via which they could ask for clarification on an issue they had not seen covered in the press or could not find on the candidate's Web site, or convey their own issue positions.\n\nThe more complex methods of engaging in the practice of involving occur when campaign organizations collect data from campaign site visitors who provide it voluntarily and consciously. Site visitors, of course, also provide data about their navigation through a Web site without doing so explicitly or intentionally or even, perhaps, without realizing what they are doing. Site log files, for example, can be examined to determine the path individual visitors took through a particular Web site, that is, what pages were visited in what order and for how long. These data, in which site visitors are identified by an IP address only, may be useful to a campaign as it evaluates its Web strategy; however, they have little significance as involving mechanisms to the campaign organization.\n\nWeb site features and production techniques associated with the practice of involving that include data collection are generally focused on facilitating the ability of campaign organizations to accumulate financial, informational, and volunteer resources, such as campaign contributions, issue concerns, and commitments to work for the campaign. Online structures that enable these aspects of involving are designed to facilitate interaction between the campaign organization and individual site visitors. Such features include structures for site visitors to provide an email address to receive future messages from the campaign, to make electronic campaign contributions online, or to provide contact and other information related to volunteering for the campaign. Features of this type were heavily used during the 2004 election. A telephone survey conducted during November 2004 by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that an estimated 7 million people signed up to receive email from the presidential campaigns alone, 4 million contributed to a campaign online (up from 2 million in 2000), and 4 million signed up to volunteer via campaign Web sites (Rainie, Cornfield, and Horrigan 2005).\n\nIn requesting contributions, an increasing number of campaign sites go beyond presenting a postal address to which checks could be mailed by providing an online structure to mediate electronic funds transfer. The latter allows campaigns to collect additional information from donors, including both the information required by the Federal Election Commission as well as additional data of value to the campaign. Of the sites that request contributions, most do so in a straightforward manner. Of those that provide a rationale, most highlight the need for funds to extend the campaign's message. However, one particularly creative framing of the contribution request was found on the campaign site of 2004 congressional candidate Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI-11). The "Contribute" section featured a fairly elaborate, tongue-in-cheek narrative depicting the candidate as a guitar player and the campaign as a band, and included quotes from "John, Paul, George, and Ringo" about the candidate's musical abilities. The contribution pitch was an invitation to "join the band" of the campaign, and various types of perks were offered to contributors at different levels. The site provided a downloadable form (Adobe PDF) on which donors could indicate whether they would be "performing" as "blue grassroots" by pledging $400, "rhythm section" at $500, and so on, up to "conductors" at $5000 or more. <<popnote 059>>\n\nOnline structures soliciting volunteer labor for the campaign also vary significantly. The most basic type is the provision of contact information for the campaign office with a statement to the effect that the campaign needs volunteer help, accompanied by an invitation to participate. Alternatively, some campaigns provide a downloadable form to be mailed to the campaign office, on which site visitors are asked to indicate the type of volunteer labor they are able to provide. <<popnote 060>> To mediate this type of interaction entirely online, a Web form is required, which can be set up to either generate an email to a campaign address with the information the user has provided or to function as an interface to create an entry in a database. As an example of the latter, the 2004 campaign site for Jim Nussle (R-IA-Gov) created a Web form in order to solicit information from volunteers. The information collected via this form could have been directly entered into a campaign database record for the site visitor. <<popnote 061>> In this particular case, eight volunteer activities were pre-selected such that site visitors submitting the form would by default indicate interest in all eight unless they deselected or opted out of one or more of the types of volunteer help being offered. Pre-selecting response options is a way of influencing the response options submitted.\n\nSome campaigns use online structures for volunteering to elicit other kinds of personal information from site visitors beyond their names and contact information. For example, the volunteer section on the campaign site for 2004 Democratic presidential primary candidate Dick Gephardt invited site visitors to "volunteer at the level of commitment you'd like." The Web form requested a broad array of information from site visitors, including whether they were union members (and if so, of which union), which issues concerned them, what special skills or interests they had that could be of use to the campaign, and how they found about the campaign Web site. <<popnote 062>> In contrast to Nussle's 2004 campaign site volunteer page, Gephardt's volunteer page had only three of seven actions pre-selected as default settings for site visitors. In comparing the volunteer sections on Thaddeus McCotter's 2002 and 2004 campaign sites, it is apparent that McCotter's campaign learned the value of soliciting additional information in a structured format from prospective volunteers. The 2002 version of the volunteer page requested basic contact information from the site visitor, provided seven volunteer activities as options from which the visitor was invited to select as many as desired, and offered a textbox in which visitors could write comments to the campaign. <<popnote 063>> In contrast, the 2004 version of McCotter's volunteer page requested an additional five fields of contact information (including home phone, work phone, and county of residence), the name of the site visitor's spouse, the visitor's occupation, title, and employer. The 2004 version lacked a textbox for open-ended comments, and instead asked visitors to indicate the three issues that concerned them most, and offered an additional five volunteer activity options along with the ones provided in 2002. <<popnote 064>>\n\nBoth Web campaign site producers and visitors to Web sites value features associated with the practice of involving, but they do so to a lesser extent than with features associated with the practice of informing. In a survey of campaign site producers conducted after the 2002 elections, respondents were asked to rate the importance of a series of goals for their Web sites. Goals associated with the practice of involving--signing up volunteers, publicizing events, soliciting donations--were ranked as important, but they were not as important as the goals associated with the practice of informing, as discussed in chapter 3.\n\nIn a survey of Internet users we helped conduct during the 2000 campaign, relatively few had visited campaign sites, and of those who did, slightly less than one-third indicated that they looked at the volunteer sections or expressed interest in becoming involved with campaign organizations through the Web sites. However, a survey conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life project in 2004 found that 11 percent of U.S. Internet users (approximately 13 million people) reported engaging in campaign-related activities online during the 2004 election cycle. Participants in focus groups conducted in New Hampshire during the presidential primaries in 2000, few of whom had visited campaign sites prior to participating in the study, expressed interest in interacting with the candidate or campaign staff, especially through email or chat forums. They wanted to be able to indicate willingness to get more involved in the campaign through the Web site and were not surprised by the requests on the candidates' sites to contribute to the campaign or to volunteer. One participant described her reaction in this way: "I think they are going to take any opportunity to get any money or anybody to come along, so it doesn't surprise me at all that the credit card is there or the volunteers--I mean that is what it is out there for, to pull people in, to get them involved in whatever way." Some found it surprising when the candidates offered an array of ways to get involved, such as putting up lawn signs or creating an e-precinct (that is, using the Internet to organize fellow supporters within their electoral district). They found these many opportunities to get involved desirable, especially for those who may want to become more involved but are not sure how to do so.\n\nMore specifically, focus group participants wanted the opportunity to email candidates if they had a question, although they did not expect or necessarily want the candidate to respond. For example, one participant, when asked what she would like to see on a candidate site, said, "What I would like is if I had a question for a candidate, not just [this candidate], anyone, if I could put my question in there and send that off and then I could get an answer." They also wanted information on how to contact the campaign at the local level. One New Hampshire resident said, "I think there should be something on there for local contact people too--if you wanted to get in touch with somebody like in Dover or in this area, to help do something with this campaign." These respondents viewed online structures for contacting candidates and campaign staff as an important component of a campaign site. In the following sections we examine the ways that convergence, linking, and coproduction are employed in the practice of involving, but first we introduce a technique that is specific to involving: transaction.

Campaigns that want to catalyze and manage site visitors' involvement require online structures that allow them to obtain information provided by site visitors. By creating such online structures to facilitate Web-based interactions, campaign organizations establish a transactional relationship with site visitors. The technique of transaction mediates these relationships and is associated uniquely with the practice of involving. A transaction requires site visitors to provide information and creates an implicit, and sometimes explicit, responsibility or obligation on the part of the campaign organization to process and manage the information properly and efficiently. Creating and managing transactional relationships on the Web requires that campaign organizations adopt new tools in association with the practice of involving.\n\nTransactional relationships are not new to campaign organizations, which have always had systems of varying sophistication for processing donations and managing volunteer relationships offline. However, transactional relationships created and managed in online environments differ from offline relationships in significant ways. For example, Web site visitors may be more sensitive to and have more concerns about engaging in online transactions with campaigns than they have in establishing relationships with campaigns in person or through other modes. Despite the fact that by the 2004 election, nearly 70 percent of Internet users had bought a product online (Pew Internet and American Life Project 2005), there was still skepticism and reluctance to engage in online commerce, perhaps especially with unknown and ephemeral organizations such as campaigns. Furthermore, online transactions via campaign sites create a need for campaign organizations to establish and publicize policies for managing these relationships. Finally, creating a transactional environment, especially one that is capable of handling financial contributions and managing a complex volunteering environment, requires a campaign to establish computerized database structures to process the transactions. For these reasons, the emergence of involving as a Web practice has been somewhat slower and less extensive than the emergence of informing, described in chapter 3.\n\nIn order to engage in the practice of involving, campaigns need to develop an underlying technical infrastructure to manage the transactional elements. This can be as simple as some automated capability for processing electronic mail or as complicated as a fully automated system for accepting regular donations from contributors via credit card or automatic bank withdrawal. These kinds of background ("back-end") processes require technical expertise. However, such technical expertise is also required to develop the front-end forms-processing infrastructure to transform the fundamentally static Web HTML environment into a dynamic transactional environment.\n\nOne of the primary ways campaigns seek to involve site visitors is through online structures that collect and manage email addresses. Although not yet a mainstream practice in congressional campaigns, it is becoming increasingly common for campaigns to purchase email addresses from outside vendors (Howard 2006; Hunter 2002). However, we focus our analysis on the collection of email addresses through campaign Web sites. Viewed through the lens of the technique of transaction, site visitors' email addresses are a resource that can be harvested and managed via the campaign site when appropriate online structures are produced and configured strategically.\n\nOne critical production decision is whether to merge email addresses collected through a campaign email list sign-up feature with addresses collected from volunteer sign-up features. Campaign email list sign-up features are often given informational labels such as "Signup for Campaign Updates" or "Subscribe to Campaign News." The risk of merging addresses from email and volunteer signup features is that those who signed up expecting to receive informational updates from the campaign may be repulsed by emailed requests to volunteer or donate. The opportunity in the merging of these addresses is that a larger number of individuals will receive requests to volunteer or donate, as Bill Bradley's 2000 campaign manager, Lynn Reed, observed in her explanation of that campaign's decision to merge addresses collected through both kinds of features:\n<<<\nReed: The email lists we started building from day one. One decision that we made ahead of time that I believe wound up helping us greatly in the end was that the email list was not separate and distinct from our supporter database. It was a part of our supporter database. You didn't sign up for the email list and then separately sign up to volunteer; it was one form. What that meant for us on the backend was that you had to manage it a little bit differently. We had to build a pretty sophisticated database in order to manage that, but as the list built up, we were able to email subsets of that list very efficiently. We started building up names for twelve months before we ever needed to subdivide it and just mail to the people in the California 12th congressional district. But by the time you are ready to email people in that district, you've got a significant number of names.\n\nInterviewer: In terms of volunteering and getting involved, do you recall how many volunteers you were able to recruit off the Web site?\n\nReed: We'll probably have to define what we mean by volunteer because our total database of names that we collected through the Web site was around 85,000 names. Now, people indicated that they were willing to get involved at different levels within that 85,000, but in practice, if we had your email address, we were going to at least ask you to volunteer. You might have checked off the box that said volunteer, or you might not have checked off the box that said volunteer, but if we had an email address, we were going to give you the opportunity to volunteer whether you said so or not (Reed 2000).\n<<<\nReed's comments illustrate production decisions entailed in creating Web forms and database architecture to support the transaction of soliciting email addresses from site visitors, as well as strategy decisions regarding how to use the email addresses collected via the campaign site.\n\nEmail addresses are increasingly viewed as an important resource by campaigns. The growth in the number of email addresses amassed by presidential campaigns in 1996, 2000, and 2004 is quite revealing. Bob Dole's 1996 campaign collected 70,000 email addresses, and gained one-third of its volunteers (15,000 out of 45,000 total) via its campaign site (Arena 1996). At the end of the 2000 presidential primary season, the Bradley campaign had collected 85,000 email addresses through a combination of an email signup and volunteer features on its site. McCain's campaign site producer reported that 142,000 email addresses of volunteers were acquired via the Web during the 2000 primary season (Fose 2000).\n\nIn contrast, at the end of the 2004 presidential primary season, the Dean campaign had collected about 600,000 email addresses (Spagat 2004), and the Kerry campaign had about 690,000 email addresses (Harris 2004). Even though the incumbent George Bush was not yet officially campaigning in May 2004, the Bush campaign had collected about 6 million email addresses by then, including many purchased from vendors (Harris 2004). A Kerry aide contended to a reporter at that time that his campaign's email list, though smaller, was just as valuable as Bush's since it consisted solely of volunteered addresses and did not include addresses purchased from vendors (Harris 2004). By the end of the 2004 presidential election, the Kerry campaign had collected 2.7 million email addresses, mostly through the email sign-up feature on its campaign site (Faler 2004). Although the growth in the average size of presidential campaigns' email databases across election cycles may reflect the general increase in the proportion of the population with email accounts during this period, it also indicates an increasing willingness on the part of Internet users to divulge their email addresses to political actors. Furthermore, it is also a rough indicator of the increasing importance of email addresses to campaigns and the scale of database architecture needed to manage email addresses. The fact that a campaign staffer in 2004 felt the need to defend the size and sources of a campaign's email database points to the significance that had come to be attached to email addresses as a campaign resource.\n\nThe fate of email addresses collected by campaigns hinges technically on the ability to preserve a campaign's databases and migrate them across operating systems and database software applications. As a Washington Post reporter observed, "Few cared what happened, for example, to Al Gore's email list when his Democratic presidential campaign folded. But with the increasing maturation of the Internet as a political tool--and the huge sums that can be raised online--some experts said those addresses can remain valuable long after an election" (Faler 2004). However, some former campaign staff and political analysts have voiced concerns over the ethics and privacy implications of transferring database records including email addresses from a defunct campaign to a political party or other entity (Hunter 2002; Faler 2004; Spagat 2004). We discuss this further later.\n\nBeyond collecting and managing email addresses, some campaign organizations have extended their transactional capacity to build ongoing strategic relationships with site visitors. These campaign sites include capabilities to bring together data provided intentionally and consciously by the site visitor with additional data about the site visitor. The visitor's experiences on the Web site, including the frequency of page views, may be combined with data about the site visitor obtained from outside sources, such as party registration, turnout history, contribution record, and purchasing patterns (from credit card company databases). Constituent relationship management (CRM) systems attempt to extend to the political realm the powerful marketing tools commonly found in the business community, with the goal of providing relevant information to individually identified site visitors (Howard 2005; Seiger 2003).\n\nAs campaign organizations have begun enabling transactional relationships with site visitors, some have taken explicit steps to articulate boundaries and establish terms to govern that relationship, most commonly by posting privacy policies on their Web sites. It is evident that users of candidate Web sites want clear privacy policies. Focus group participants in 2000 indicated that they were (already) weary of having their email addresses and personal information sold or otherwise transferred and then receiving unwanted solicitations. They desired explicit statements regarding the purposes for which the information they provide Web site owners would be used. As one participant stated, "I like the fact they say okay when you give us this, this is how we'll use it." An online survey of Internet users conducted by researchers at the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet in 2003 confirmed the views articulated by the focus group participants: Of survey respondents, 69 percent felt hesitant about providing their email addresses and 89 percent felt hesitant about providing credit card numbers to political Web sites. The reasons for their hesitation included fears about privacy, security, and unwanted email (Seiger 2003).\n\nCampaign site producers employ a variety of strategies for articulating and structuring the transactional relationships they establish with site visitors. To date, a majority of them have no statement whatsoever, leaving the terms of the relationship completely unstated. In our analysis of campaign Web sites, the proportion with a section labeled "Privacy" addressing the campaign's use of personal information and visitors' site-use data increased from 10 percent in 2000, to 17 percent in 2002, and then again to 29 percent in 2004.\n\nAmong those sites that have posted an explicit policy, some were minimal and straightforward. For example, the 2002 Web site of Mary Bono (R-CA-45) simply stated that the campaign "will not disclose your email address or any other contact information you have provided us. We will not provide your contact information to any other organization unless you specifically authorize us to do so." <<popnote 065>> Privacy policies on some other sites acknowledged complexity in the relationship between the campaign and site visitors: This more comprehensive approach was taken by Tom Harkin (D-MO-Sen) in 2002. The privacy policy posted on his campaign site acknowledged that "some" of the information provided by site visitors, including name, address, and phone numbers, "may be shared with similar organizations (such as county Democratic groups)." <<popnote 066>> The Harkin campaign stated that information associated with contributions would be reported, as required by law, to the Federal Election Commission, and explicitly noted that server log information was not matched to other personal information. Still other campaigns appear to have appropriated policy and terms of use from e-commerce or other types of sites. Larry Craig's (R-ID-Sen) 2002 campaign site used language common to commercial sites. The privacy policy was headlined as "LarryCraig.com's Promise to You, Our Customer," and approached the relationship with the site visitor as one might expect a business to do with a customer. <<popnote 067>> The policy referenced shipping addresses, promotions, games, and storing items in a shopping cart, and was one of the few we observed that promised to notify the site visitor by email of changes to the policy. Most sites reserved the right to change the privacy policy without notification and also explicitly noted that the sites contain links to other sites that may be governed by different privacy policies.\n\nA campaign Web site privacy policy that evolves within and across elections can be problematic, as we demonstrate by comparing the privacy statements on Bush's campaign site in 1999, 2000, 2003, and 2004. As of October 1999, Bush's campaign site had no privacy policy, although it had already been soliciting email addresses and volunteers via the site for at least six months. <<popnote 068>> By the end of November 1999, the campaign had posted an undated privacy statement that addressed several aspects of what the campaign would and would not do with the personal information visitors voluntarily provided to the campaign via the site. <<popnote 069>> However, this statement did not address whether the policy was retroactive, that is, whether the current terms would also be employed in managing personal information that had been provided prior to the posting of the privacy policy.\n\nIn regard to personal information provided to the Bush campaign by a site visitor for the purpose of customizing the campaign site, the campaign's policy stated, "We will never share any of your personalization information with any third party" in November 1999. In regard to personal information provided to the campaign in conjunction with volunteer sign-up, the campaign promised it would not be shared with other organizations without the site visitor's permission. However, the campaign's statement did not specify whether email addresses collected through the site's email sign-up feature would be shared with other organizations, leaving that possibility open. The policy included the statement, "We will continue to evaluate our efforts to protect your information and will update our privacy policy whenever necessary," but did not indicate how updates would be announced and whether changes would be applied retroactively to personal information provided prior to any privacy policy updates. <<popnote 070>>\n\nBush's campaign organization redirected traffic from the campaign Web site, georgewbush.com, to the Republican National Committee Web site for most of 2001 and 2002, but began soliciting donations and email addresses for the 2004 re-election campaign via its site in June 2003. At that time, the privacy policy began:\n<<<\nWelcome to the temporary site for GeorgeWBush.com. An expanded privacy policy will be available when the full Web site is launched. GeorgeWBush.com currently enables supporters to voluntarily sign up to get involved with the effort to re-elect President George W. Bush. GeorgeWBush.com will not collect any individual information without your knowledge. <<popnote 071>>\n<<<\nThus, any site visitors who signed up to volunteer did so with no idea what uses the campaign would make of the personal information they provided the campaign in the sign-up process. In August 2003, a more detailed policy was posted that differed from the 2000 policy in a few key ways regarding the use of personal information provided by site visitors. <<popnote 072>> This statement assured site visitors that the campaign would not retain the names and email addresses supplied by visitors through site features that enabled visitors to forward links from the site to others via a Web form, nor use that information for any other purpose. Although the policy assured visitors that their own personal information would not be sold to any other entity, it asserted the campaign's intention to "share your information with Republican organizations committed to re-electing President Bush ... and the Republican ticket," such as the Republican National Committee, Republican state party organizations and local Republican groups. <<popnote 073>> By the eve of the 2004 presidential primaries, the Bush campaign site privacy policy had provided opt-out mechanisms whereby volunteers recruited through the site could decline to have personal information provided transferred to other entities.\n\nAs the 2004 presidential election got underway, not only was the campaign's assurance from 2000 that personal information would not be shared with third parties absent from the site, but the Bush campaign had reserved to itself the authority to disseminate the email addresses and other personal information of site visitors in any way that served the Republican party. The policy did not mention whether email addresses collected during the 2000 election or earlier in 2003 would now be subject to the new, more liberal clauses. The policy concluded with the campaign's assertion of its right to revise or update the privacy policy at any time: "While we do not intend to make any changes to this policy we do reserve the right to do so. If any changes to this privacy policy are made the date that the revised or updated policy is posted to GeorgeWBush.com will appear at the bottom of the page." The original date of posting, August 18, 2003, did not change over the period of the 2004 election, so it seems these terms served the Bush campaign's needs adequately. Whether they served citizens well is a subject for future research.\n\nOur purpose in comparing the various statements made by Bush's campaign organization between 1999 and 2004 is to illustrate the ways in which the online structures and policies undergirding transactions between campaigns and site visitors have implications beyond a particular election, and the ways they may change over time. Databases of personal information supplied by site visitors to Bush's campaign in 2000 under particular terms of use fell into a murky morass during the interim period between elections. Although not explicitly addressed by the campaign's policy in 2003, these databases were most likely migrated into the 2004 re-election campaign's information architecture--under significantly different terms of use.\n\nIn sum, the technique of transaction on campaign Web sites establishes the terms of the relationship between the campaign organization and site visitors. This technique is generally employed in ways that enable the campaign organization to assume responsibility for managing the details of the relationship and thus retain control over the data necessary for such management. Decisions entailed in the configuration of transactional online structures have significant implications for site visitors, particularly in regard to privacy, and for a campaign's capacity to share informational resources across the campaign organization and migrate such resources across elections. Next, we turn our attention to the use of convergence in the practice of involving.

The technique of convergence, or the integration of the offline and online realms, is employed in the Web campaigning practice of involving in several ways. Convergence in involving can be as simple as using a Web site to solicit mail-in donations of contributions to an offline postal address, or as sophisticated as a donor database with a Web interface that allows supporters to self-enroll by entering their names, addresses, credit card numbers, or even bank account information for automated monthly contributions to a campaign. In this section, we analyze five distinct types of online structures reflecting the technique of convergence as it is employed by campaigns in the practice of involving.\nThe first is the provision on a campaign Web site of documents intended for distribution, such as posters or flyers. Formatted to be easy to download and print, these documents are designed for offline distribution: The campaign site functions as an online repository and dissemination structure for them. For example, as we discuss in chapter 6, flyers and posters may be intended by some campaign site producers as mobilizing tools, as when they encourage supporters to distribute them to others on behalf of the campaign. Here, our focus is on the way that posting distributable documents on a campaign site can foster a sense of belonging among supporters in relation to the campaign. Such documents can come to symbolize supporters' association with the campaign. Max Fose, campaign Web producer for presidential candidate John McCain in 2000, explained how the online provision of flyers strengthened bonds between supporters and the campaign:\n<<<\nWhen we started [providing flyers on the site], John McCain came to the headquarters and said, "I'm sick of signing those flyers" because everyone would print them out and go to these rallies. It was a way we could tell that this was working because they were showing up to these rallies with these flyers that were nothing more than Uncle Sam saying, "Vote John McCain." They had a connection to the campaign--that's what it did (Fose 2000).\n<<<\nFose's account demonstrates that one way supporters enact their affiliation with a campaign is by printing out a flyer and bringing it to a campaign event to be autographed by the candidate.\n\nA second variant of convergence for involving is seen in the calendar feature found on many sites in each election. Campaigns that post a prospective calendar of campaign-sponsored events enable interested site visitors to learn about and make plans to attend in-person gatherings, which may increase their involvement with the campaign. About one-third of campaign sites provided a calendar in 2004; about the same proportion of campaign sites employed this feature in 2002. For example, the 2004 campaign site for Democratic presidential primary candidate, Carol Moseley-Braun, provided a calendar of offline campaign events, such as the candidate forums, fundraisers, and television programs, in which she planned to participate. This site also included a related feature that manifested convergence in the involving practice: an Adobe PDF sign-in sheet template for organizers to download and use "for gathering information at events for Carol supporters." <<popnote 074>>\n\nCitizens look to the Web to provide them with information about candidates. But they also expect to find ways to contact or interact with candidates--an expectation they may not have when learning about candidates in other media. Focus group participants during the presidential primaries in 2000 expressed interest in using a campaign Web site to find out where the candidate would be, when the next debate would be, and when the candidate would next be in their area. One participant said he would use a candidate Web site to learn the following things about a candidate: "How he did in the recent debate, or where he's gonna be the next time, or where he's booked--you know, if he has an interview on Dateline." Some participants criticized one of the candidate Web sites they saw because its schedule of events was not up-to-date.\n\nOf course not all interested site visitors are supporters of the candidate; the downside to calendars is that they provide the opposition with lists of events to disrupt. A comment from a site producer surveyed in 2002 illustrates this dilemma: "We initially posted an event calendar, but found that our opponent used it to find out where we would be, and then showed up at the same places. We took down the calendar after a month or so." This tension is discussed in more detail later.\n\nThe third variant of convergence we consider in association with the practice of involving is the quasi-self-organizing "Meetup" phenomenon that emerged as a facet of Web campaigning during the 2004 presidential primary campaigns. Campaign-focused Meetups were enabled by the Web service provided by a company called Meetup.com, which bills itself as "[helping] people find others who share their interest or cause, and form lasting, influential, local community groups that regularly meet face-to-face." <<popnote 075>> Meetup.com, the brainchild of Scott Heiferman, was launched in June 2002, as "the first easy-to-use service that allowed people to participate in and organize local gatherings about things they care about." <<popnote 076>> The service is topic-neutral; the topical focus of any Meetup event is up to its organizers. However, Meetup staff initiated some events, and thus deserve credit for the first electoral campaign Meetup.\n\nThe introduction of Meetup as a convergence tool in Web campaigning was somewhat serendipitous, but the appropriation of Meetup was strategic for the practice of involving. On March 5, 2003, nearly 500 people gathered at the Essex Lounge in Manhattan in the hope that Democratic presidential primary candidate Howard Dean would appear. The gathering had been initiated by Meetup's executives, not by campaign staff, and organized on Meetup.com. Over 400 people had signed up in advance on Meetup.com to indicate their intent to attend the gathering. Much to the delight of those gathered, Dean showed up. Soon afterward, Dean's campaign negotiated an agreement with Meetup's management to receive the email addresses of those drawn to the campaign through MeetUp.com in exchange for a monthly fee (Hemingway 2003). By the end of 2003, approximately 150,000 Web-using Dean supporters had indicated their interest in the campaign by signing up on Meetup.com, contributing significantly to Dean's ascent (Overfelt 2003; Wikipedia 2005). Most of the other Democratic presidential primary campaigns developed Meetup followings as well during 2003 and 2004, as did many congressional candidates in 2004.\n\nWhen a campaign contracted with Meetup.com, the Meetup site producers created a campaign-specific page, to which the campaign site linked. <<popnote 077>> Linking to a campaign-focused page on Meetup.com facilitates involvement in the campaign by enabling face-to-face gatherings of supporters; it also enables voter-to-voter connections outside of or with loose ties to the campaign itself--a phenomenon we discuss further in chapter 5. Meetups enable mobilization as well by facilitating supporters in becoming advocates for the campaign, as we discuss in chapter 6.\n\nA fourth variant of convergence is the use of the Web for coordinating offline volunteer work. Jesse Ventura's (Ref-MN-Gov) 1998 campaign demonstrated this variant