US candidates know Net worth

WIRED:IT'S BEEN fascinating watching the grand battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama play out on "the internets" - as George W Bush, so memorably called it in the last election cycle, writes Danny O'Brien.

Four years on, neither Obama nor Clinton would be seen dead being so openly ignorant of the net: both their campaigns depend on it.

Obama is, as I write, within 20,000 of having a million people donate to his bid - almost all of whom did so online. Clinton's site buzzes with options for her dedicated (and wired) supporters, including local get-out-the-vote teams to join, phone banks to sign up with.

The two may spar with their most populist, media-friendly gibes on TV, but it's on http://factcheck.barackobama.com/ and http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/ where the detailed debunkings and counter-attacks arrive first.

But the internet can also be a trap for the unwary politico. In 2004, the internet buzz on Democratic candidate Howard Dean said that he was the new Messiah. Dean was the first politician to use the net to organise his grassroots, and quickly became the Democrat of choice for left-wing bloggers. But reality smashed into his run for the presidential nomination when it turned out that web popularity didn't necessarily translate into real votes.

For now, Obama has the definite lead on the web and has had for some time.

His campaign earned points among online commentators for being more bottom-up, rather than controlled from the top as the Clinton campaign. His technology policies - with talk of enforcing network neutrality, and reforming intellectual property law - are a closer fit with the "netizen" demographic.

His youth and rhetorical skill plays well on YouTube clips.

Unlike in the traditional news media, which still sees the Democratic nomination as a still closely contested match, the "blogosphere" appears to have all but given the crown to Obama.

Are they right? We should see after March 4th, when Ohio and Texas vote. Netroots opinions aside, if Clinton does not decisively win both those states, the mathematics of the delegate process and hints by the Democratic party leaders will mean she has little chance.

If she wins one or both, the game could continue for months more.

In such a closely fought race, expectations are everything. And with every day counting - and with at least one of the candidates succeeding at least as much on image as policy or experience - the chatter on the net becomes critical in correctly managing those expectations.

Right now, the received opinion among the Clinton campaign is that the mainstream news media has been biased against them. Not surprisingly, Obama's team feels the other way, saying that if its candidate had lost 11 states in a row, the press would have dismissed him out of hand.

It seems to me that the daily online battles between the Clinton and Obama fans have kept both games in the air.

Just as libertarian and internet heart-throb Ron Pauls' candidacy has continued long past the point of viability, so both Clinton and Obama have been kept on their toes by their, and their opponent's, online presence. Both have managed to get their story across far more effectively than if they were still directing all their messaging at the media.

And for every piece of glossy fluff each side spreads via the net, there's another, unplanned moment that hints at a greater substantive discussion.

Buried in the midst of YouTube, for instance, is a combative street interview with an Obama supporter ( http://tinyurl.com/23gglh). The interviewer starts off treating the young black man with contempt, assuming that he's just another Obama fanboy. Five minutes in, both are having a detailed discussion on Democratic policy, oblivious to the original set-up.

It's a genuine video (even though the speaker turns out to be Derrick Ashong, Amistad actor and Harvard graduate) - and now has more than 500,000 views.

There's no primary for the internet (thank God - I'm sure a video of a puppy falling downstairs would win), but it's still an important constituency to seize. Its debates may exist in a tiny bubble of self-regard but, frankly, the same could be said about the existing mainstream media.

And just as the opinions of newspaper editors and TV anchors hold a disproportionate sway over the electorate, so can the opinions of a few thousand overly prolific bloggers or YouTube uploaders.

In many ways, such a tightly fought battle in the primaries should at least sharpen either candidate's skills in battling for this new territory - and their opposition in the real presidential election should watch out.

One of the key moments of Obama's campaign was the viral spread of a supporter-created remix of his "Yes we can" speech. One of the most perfect punches on the aging McCain were the parodies that followed (with clips of the Republican candidate chanting "No you can't").

Funny, pithy and already watched by millions - a reminder that trivial or not, what happens on "the internets" does have an effect. An effect that may determine the future identity of one of the most important people on the planet.

" The internet is crucial to the campaigns of both Obama and Clinton