With the Democratic Primary race still neck-and-neck, it's time to look closer at the candidates. What really differentiates them? Is it policy, rhetoric, experience? How about their Flickr pages?
Blogger Drew Anderson has found a clear difference by analyzing Clinton's and Obama's Flickr pages. Both candidates have "Pro" accounts ($25/year), but Clinton's staff has left her profile blank: she has no contacts and no testimonials. To make things worse, Clinton's photos are tagged "All rights reserved" so they can't be reused. But Obama? His profile overflows with contacts, testimonials, and interests. His photos are nicely organized into collections (mainly depicting his volunteers), and are free for users to share and reuse (for noncommercial purposes, anyway). While these pages are clearly set up by campaign staffers, the comparison demonstrates a difference in the two campaigns' approach to Web 2.0 site use.
Clinton's Flickr page:
Obama's Flickr page:
Click on the pages above to see the candidates' pages in detail. Here's a bit more from Anderson's blog post:
Barack Obama has 13,936 photos in his Flickr account Hillary Clinton has 3,081 photos in her Flickr account Net profiling is very interesting when it comes to social sites. You can certainly tell a lot about people. I realize that Barack and Hillary probably don't personally handle their social networking sites but, these social networking sites are a direct representation of the candidates. One of the key parts to a social network is the social part, it's not just "hey look at my photos", it's about letting people put their voice in and share it with others. Obama gets it, Clinton doesn't.
Read the rest of the article and get ready for a debate in the comments!