YouTube Discussion: Obama Versus Clinton
This is the first American Presidential Election where YouTube is a relevant platform for discussion. That intrigued me at first, then I saw that the two people who were using it most effectively both hold their comments for moderation. After taking a moment to think about it, I realized that this was a step that both campaigns had to take. I personally had no interest in reading through the comments knowing that it was going to me a bunch of cheerleading.
Today, I noticed two things when comparing the YouTube channels of Obama and Clinton. Obama’s videos are more relevant in searches than Hillary’s. Obama has a LOT more comments.
I think the people who are responsible for approving comments for the two channels are using slightly different criteria. I do not have the time to delve deeply into the substantive differences of the comments. If anybody else wants to offer their opinion I would greatly appreciate it.
I filter for spam, but I don’t hold real comments for moderation at this time 
March 11th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I believe that Hillary’s camp has been filtering messages. She had a video up where she was in a band and it was the lamest thing anyone ever saw, but all the comments were positive.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Both groups filter to a great extent, especially when the videos are fresh. I was surprised to see that McCain doesn’t hold his comments for moderation. It’s quite a circus on his comments.
I should note that YouTube members can change the commenting options on individual videos whenever the want to. I haven’t reviewed the moderation status of all videos by all three campaigns. It just seems intuitive that if there are way more comments on the Obama videos, his people must be approving based on a more liberal criterion. I saw one that was about a day old that was pro Clinton and also predicted it’s own immediate removal.