Opinion... The White House battleground has shifted online

They are, of course, still important. But such is the accelerating demand for news - and the declining attention span of viewers - that most of the early skirmishes are now taking place on the web.

For example, before the first presidential debate was even finished the McCain campaign already had a video up on YouTube mocking Obama for agreeing with their candidate on several issues.

It later dawned on people that this was hardly the best reason for saying someone was not ready to lead. A better line might have been - 'Even Obama agrees McCain has the right ideas', for example.

But even so, they got marks for setting new standards in quick response, even in this nanosecond-quick election. Although the same campaign’s banner ad claiming victory before the debate had even started was probably going a bit too far.

It’s actually hard to overstate the impact that online media is having in this contest. YouTube alone has completely altered the dynamics of the race. Apart from allowing for the lightning quick-response, the site is also influencing TV news coverage.

That means the campaigns are actually releasing ads as a kind of video press release. As the respected Politico.com website observed: “To stay on top of the daily news cycle the campaigns are running ‘phony’ ads. These are designed to grab headlines (and free airtime), put the other side on the defensive and rattle the opposition. However, they are not designed to actually air on TV.”

To guarantee this kind of exposure the ads themselves have to be shocking, outrageous or funny. Again the McCain campaign has shown itself to be more adept at this, with its initial salvo of ads comparing Obama to Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and even Charlton Heston as Moses. Or, in their words, as an empty-headed clueless celebrity.

However, after the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate the focus shifted. First to ‘lipstickgate’ - the bizarre episode where Obama’s injudicious use of the phrase “lipstick on a pig” was pounced on as referring to the Alaska governor.

Subsequently there was a spot that claimed Obama wanted to introduce sex education to toddlers in kindergarten. The latter was denounced by many – including trade weekly Advertising Age, which called it “the worst in presidential politics: lies, distortions and Rovian distractions of the most despicable kind.”

However this and spots like it highlighted the fact that unlike on TV, there is no ‘gatekeeper’ online. You can pretty much say anything you want and the worst that could happen is you have to withdraw it later.

The candidates are now limited only by their own restraint and good judgment. Or more realistically by the potential backlash from the public if you go too far.

Obama, for example, had one that mocked McCain’s inability to use a computer - which fell flat after it was claimed he couldn’t do so because of lingering war injuries. His supporters also had a more successful spot, which made fun of McCain’s inability to remember how many houses he owned.

But ultimately it is the chance to replay embarrassing or funny moments from TV that are burning up the broadband lines. For example: Governor Palin’s interviews with CBS have been described as “cringe-inducing’ even by some of her Republican supporters. And by others as a “high school student trying to BS her way through a book report”.

Perhaps most extraordinary is that the masterful parody of her performance on Saturday Night Live by comedienne Tina Fey is almost indistinguishable from the original.

But it isn’t only about 30-second potshots at the opposition. The biggest change that the internet has made is in fundraising. And this is where the Democrat candidate Barack Obama has truly excelled.

According to the New York Times, “At the center of the Obama campaign’s online effort is an email list, which now numbers in the millions.” US law states that no individual can donate more than $2,300 each but according to the same article over “90 per cent of his supporters are donating $100 or less”. And that has meant he has continued to have a big upside throughout the race.

In August alone, the Democratic candidate raised over $66 million online, adding over 500,000 new donors. It has allowed him to forgo restrictive Federal spending limits and claim that his fundraising is ‘without strings’ compared to donations received from corporations or lobbyists.

Ultimately, though, while money helps level the playing field between the two candidates, the decision will rest with a small percentage of undecided voters in the so-called ‘swing states’ such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and, yes, Florida.

They will decide, most likely, in the way that busy consumers everywhere decide on just about everything: on gut feel rather than intellect and on emotion rather than reason. That’s where the ads, whether seen online or on TV, will come in. The more memorable the image, the better the soundbite, the more likely they will get the vote.

The rest of the world, of course, will just have to look and see. But such is the level of interest around the world that The Economist has actually set up a Global Electoral College allowing the rest us to have our say. So far every single country in the world is voting Obama. Some by huge margins (the Philippines, for example, favours him by 75:25.) But the only vote that counts will be in November. Let’s hope they choose wisely.

David Guerrero, Chairman, BBDO Guerrero