Not Just the Usual Suspects

I was having a conversation with a group of friends recently when the 2008 presidential campaign came up. Expecting to hear an intellectual discussion about fixing America’s healthcare system or the Iraq situation (War-Zone, Police-State, Hell-on-Earth, who knows what the government is calling it now), I prepared my thoughts, only to be surprised when the unthinkable happened: my friends started talking about Facebook.

“Did you see that new Anti-Clinton group on Facebook?”

“Yeah, talk about vicious posts. It’s almost as bad as that anti-Clinton T-shirt Web site I saw the other day.”

I sat, stupefied, as the conversation continued to revolve around Facebook groups, mostly those on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and occasionally groups about other candidates, including John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. This was how people were getting their information about the presidential election?

“What about the other candidates?” I asked, determined to interject something meaningful into the conversation. “What about some of the Republicans like Mitt Romney? What are groups saying about him?”

“Mitt who?”

Every time I turn on the television or surf the net for political news, I inevitably find a barrage of stories, or another Time or GQ cover, depicting Clinton and Obama clamoring for votes. Occasionally stories on other candidates appear, but those often focus on how that candidate might perform against Hillary or Obama a year from now.

All it takes is a casual search on CNN’s Web site (type in the candidate’s last name, or in Hillary Clinton’s case, her entire name, then “Presidential Election”), to see there are more links about the Democratic candidates. Hillary Clinton came out on top with approximately 193,000 hits, Obama was a close second with 191,000, and John Edwards had 189,000.

The nearest Republican candidate is McCain with 189,000, followed by Romney with 187,000, and Giuliani with 175,000.

Even in being the targets of negative campaigning, Democrats, particularly Clinton, are taking the lead. A quick Google search uncovers over 78,000 “Anti-Hillary” Web sites, while anti-Giuliani and McCain sites number at a mere 21,100 and 13,100. Obama has managed to remain relatively unscathed with less than 1,500 Web sites.

Clinton, along with our current president, has voodoo doll kits available at Barnes & Noble bookstores. There are also numerous ABC (Anyone But Clinton) groups cropping up on Facebook. How silly of me to think ABC groups discussed liquor stores and not something more substantive like groups of people bashing Clinton because she married a Playboy, wears skirts, and has the audacity to ask hard-hitting questions and talk intelligently about politics (give or take a few subjects, like Iraq).

So far in the media and social networking world, the Republican candidates can be remembered as that group of aging Protestant white men who wear gray suits, white shirts and, if we’re lucky, a colored tie that helps us tell them apart. Other than occasionally mentioning Giuliani’s marital past and Edwards’ outspoken wife, why would the press want to run stories about the other candidates unless it concerns topics like Giuliani’s daughter supporting Obama on Facebook?

The one exception is Mitt Romney, and if some people are doubtful about America’s “readiness” for a female or black president, I doubt America can handle a Mormon. It does not matter that he has told the press he does not believe in polygamy or that the Mormon religion has outlawed the practice. One look at him as president and people will be reminded of Bill Hendrickson popping Viagra in his many sex scenes from Big Love.

What's more, if you are a member of the press belonging to the Christian right, you can forget about covering most candidates like Giuliani and Clinton. So far, the media has one story to tell and they're sticking to it: one man keeps marrying the wrong woman and one woman refuses to divorce the man who needs to be shot with a tranquilizer dart to keep himself off other women.

It might seem too soon in the presidential campaign trail to start comparing Web hits or Facebook posts, but there is already an impression being made on the public and it is during this time when, realistically, we really do have more than two people to choose for president. It is already beginning to feel like there are only two people running, and I am not nearly ready to choose between the two, if I want to choose either of them.

I understand why most of the public only know about the front-runners Obama, Clinton, and Giuliani: It is easier to read the many stories on candidates the media is obsessing over and not make an informed decision on all the potential presidential candidates. But it is important to realize that there are other candidates out there and it is our responsibility look for information on their political platforms, even if the media is making that job more difficult. After all, we, not the media or the Web, are electing who is to become our next commander-in-chief.