Republican and Conservative political analysis and commentary

Is Hillary Clinton's effort to launch her campaign as an online "conversation" campaign really cutting-edge? Not really, say a variety of political consultants, though it is driven by new technologies as well as a need to soften Hillary's image. From the Associated Press...

The campaign-as-conversation is a gimmick, say some political consultants, but not necessarily a bad one. "They've got to soften Hillary and this is a way to do it," said Dane Strother, a Democratic consultant unaffiliated with any of the presidential campaigns.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a political communications expert who directs the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said that for Clinton, it's a good way for her to meet the challenge of appearing both competent and caring that voters seem to demand of female candidates.

And so Clinton planted herself on a couch for three nights this week for upbeat "Webchats" from "Hillary TV," as her Web site styles it. Her first campaign trip to Iowa on Saturday was billed as a "conversation with Iowans."

"We've got a lot to talk about tonight," the New York senator told viewers in her first Webchat. "It's amazing how new technology can bring so many of us together."

The Webchat format, also tried by Democratic candidate John Edwards this week, offers Clinton in an easy, nonconfrontational setting. A campaign aide reads her a mix of friendly questions selected from thousands submitted to the Web site, ranging from substantive topics such as Iraq and energy policy to softballs about things like her favorite movies and her exercise regimen.

There's no risk of hostile questioning here...

Democratic consultant Jenny Backus tells the AP that Hillary's web-chats are part of the legacy of Howard Dean's Internet-driven 2004 presidential campaign, which made it necessary for candidates to engage and empower Democratic activists more directly.

"If you're not talking to activists and engaging in what looks like a two-way dialogue, then you're going to be in trouble inside the Democratic primary," Backus said. Furthermore, because Clinton's every move on the campaign trail is likely to attract a media circus, the Web gives her the opportunity to project "that moment of intimacy via modern technology."

Backus cautions, however, that the "coin of the realm this election cycle is genuiness and authenticity," and Clinton has to guard against looking "gimmicky."

She also has to guard against catering too much to the nutroots - the Democratic blogosphere leans heavily to the ultra liberal side of the party. They helped Ned Lamont defeat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate primary last year, but Lieberman retained the seat by running as an independent - and catering to the middle.

Republican consultant Rich Galen, meanwhile, says Clinton's campaign isn't cutting-edge, but rather, "as conventional as you can possibly be" as she raises tons of money, demonstrated her vote-getting power in a Senate re-election romp, and now takes carefully screened questions.

"It's only new in that you can see it on your desktop, and can watch it anytime you want," he said. "Tinkering around the edges with this stuff is not the same as having a transformational campaign."

Putting it online doesn't guarantee Hillary success among online Democratic activists, either. She's clearly not their favorite. But going online the way she has makes sense in other ways - and other candidates ought to do it. For one, it might - just might - help a candidate reach younger potential voters, who are more likely to be online than watching TV news. For another, all those "web chats" online provide extensive footage for future ads for television and for the website and YouTube.