<%BANNER%>

Creating Net Roots

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021238/00001

Material Information

Title: Creating Net Roots Incumbent Senators and the Digital Self
Physical Description: 1 online resource (194 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Cohen, Diana Tracy
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: elections, internet, senate, symbolic
Political Science -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Political Science thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Senators are complex animals that work in the depths of multiple contexts. As elected officials, they represent a large geographical space, attempting to appeal to different groups within that area. Concurrent with this role, the vast majority of senators seek re-election, providing a window where these individuals hold a dual identity as senator and candidate, office holder and office seeker. This dissertation takes a mixed-methodological approach to understanding how senators create a presentation of self on multiple Web contexts. By examining the Senate.gov and campaign pages of all 2006 Senate incumbent candidates, as well as interviews with members of these offices and a case study of the changing digital image of incumbent Joe Lieberman, this study explores online self presentation over digital space and time. Analysis reveals intriguing trends of consistency and inconsistency both within and between contexts. The greatest amount of consistency occurs within contexts. Ultimately, differing office goals, political histories of each politician, as well as the unique larger political climate of each role, work to create these differences both between and within contexts.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Diana Tracy Cohen.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Rosenson, Beth A.
Local: Co-adviser: Smith, Daniel A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021238:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021238/00001

Material Information

Title: Creating Net Roots Incumbent Senators and the Digital Self
Physical Description: 1 online resource (194 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Cohen, Diana Tracy
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: elections, internet, senate, symbolic
Political Science -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Political Science thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Senators are complex animals that work in the depths of multiple contexts. As elected officials, they represent a large geographical space, attempting to appeal to different groups within that area. Concurrent with this role, the vast majority of senators seek re-election, providing a window where these individuals hold a dual identity as senator and candidate, office holder and office seeker. This dissertation takes a mixed-methodological approach to understanding how senators create a presentation of self on multiple Web contexts. By examining the Senate.gov and campaign pages of all 2006 Senate incumbent candidates, as well as interviews with members of these offices and a case study of the changing digital image of incumbent Joe Lieberman, this study explores online self presentation over digital space and time. Analysis reveals intriguing trends of consistency and inconsistency both within and between contexts. The greatest amount of consistency occurs within contexts. Ultimately, differing office goals, political histories of each politician, as well as the unique larger political climate of each role, work to create these differences both between and within contexts.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Diana Tracy Cohen.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Rosenson, Beth A.
Local: Co-adviser: Smith, Daniel A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021238:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text









CREATING NET ROOTS:
INCUMBENT SENATORS AND THE DIGITAL SELF










By


DIANA TRACY COHEN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007


























Copyright 2007

By

Diana Tracy Cohen



































Dedicated to the Cohen, Relyea, and Wertz families. Also dedicated to my dissertation
committee members, Beth Rosenson, Dan Smith, Larry Dodd, Dave Hedge, and Kendal
Broad.









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to all of the wonderful professors at the University of Connecticut and

University of Florida. You have all helped me to realize how rewarding and challenging

being a scholar can be.

This dissertation could not have been possible without the love and support of my

family. To my parents, thank you. Your selflessness gave me so many opportunities.

From watching my UConn hockey games to talking about challenging topics, I cannot

thank you enough for being such wonderful parents. To my grandmothers, I love you

both so much. I wish you many more years of health and happiness. Finally, to my

husband. I am honored to have you as my partner and best friend.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............... ...........4...................


LIST OF TABLES ............... ............9... ......... ....


LIST OF FIGURES ............... ........... ..........10.........


AB STRAC T ...._._ ............... ............ll.. ....


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ............... ...........12...................


2 EXPLORING PERTINENT LITERATURE ............... ...................19


Symbolic Interactionism ............... ............. ........... 19... .....
The Significance of Erving Goffman ................. .....................20
The Dynamic Nature of Home Style and Web Style ................... .......22
Recent Attempts at Measuring the Senatorial Presentation of Self .........23
The Importance of Political History ............... ... ............ .25
Considering Web Consistency and Context as a New
Senatorial Puzzle. ............... .......... .............26
Potential Benefits of Digital Inconsistency ............. .... ........28
Development of the Internet as a Campaigning Tool ............... .............30
1996 ............... ............30.. ...............
1998........... ............31.....
2000 ................ ......... ... ......... ..... .......... 34
The Federal Government Considers Web-Based Campaigning ...............35
2004 ................. ... ... ... ... ...........37. .......
The Rise of 527/501 (c) Organizations ............... ............... ..39
2006 ................ ...........41...................
Looking Ahead ............... ............43.. ...............


3 METHODOLOGY ............... ............44.. ...............


Initial Questions ............... ........... ............44.. .....
Determining the Population ............... .......... .............45
Timeline............. ... ............45.
Identifying the Web Pages ............... ......... ..............46
Methods Selection ................ ...........47............. ...
The Importance of Reflexivity ............... ......... ............48
In-Depth Interviews ............... .......... ...........49... .....
Methodological Approach ............... ................ .........50












Analytical Strategy. ...._............... ...................52
Quantitative Analysis ............... ...........53...................
Setting Parameters ................. ............................55
Images as Insights into the Self ................ ....................56
Issues as Insights into the Self. ................ .....................56
Functional Features and Other Considerations ................ ...........58
Case Study .............. .. ..... ....... ...........59. .......
The Importance of Lieberman. ............... .....................60
What the Case Study Explores ............... .....................61
Looking Ahead .....__ ............... ............62.. .....


4 UNDERSTANDING WEB PRESENCE QUALITATIVELY ................... ....63


The Senatorial Puzzle. ............... .......... ......... ..... ... .........6
Web-Based Tools as Enhancement of the Self. ............... ............... .64
Web Page Layout and Content Construction ........._._.. ............65
Perceptions of "The Basics" .............. .............. ...._.68
Template features ............... .............. ......... ..69
Up-to-date content ............... ........... ... ............. 69
Strategic Functions of Campaign and Senate Sites ............... ...............70
Campaign Web Pages ............... ...........................71
Mobilizing existing supporters ............... ............ ......71
Empowering existing supporters ............... ..................72
Intimidating the opponent ......... ............... ...........74
Give information to the media..........._ __ ...................76
Senate Web Pages ................ .......... .... ... .......... ...77
Offering accessible constituent information. ............. ... ........77
Providing contact information ............... ...................77
Updating senatorial activity. ............... ....................78
Coordination as Strategy? ............... ............79.. .......... ....
Considering the Law ................ ........... ...............82......
Consistency through Visual Queues ............... .......... ..........85
Constructing a Complete Self ................. ............................85
Political History as Self-Definition ............... ...................85
Defining the Message ............... .............. ......... .87
Conclusion... ......... ............88..


5 UNDERSTANDING WEB PRESENCE QUANTITATIVELY ..................9 1


Introducti on ............... ............91.. ...............
Ideal Types ............... ...........91...................
Issues........... ........ .. ... ............9
Issue Constituency within the Campaign Context ............ ...... .....95
Highest ranking issues ............... ......... .............95
Lowest ranking issues ................ ............. .............96
Issue Consistency within the Senate Context ............... ...........97












Highest ranking issues. ......___ ......_ ............97
Lowest ranking issues ........._._. .. ......_._._.................99
Issue Consistency between Campaign and Senate Contexts .............99
The "Issue Candidate" Ideal Type ............... ............... ...._102
Images ............ ... ... .......... ... ..... ... ..........10
Slideshows as a glimpse of the dynamic self. ........... ................ 106
Images and the "localized candidate" .............. ................ .107
Digital tools. ............... ......... .......... ........... 10
Considering Overall Consistency and Change ............... ............... 110
Change in Competitive Versus Non-Competitive Races ............ ..... ......112
Conclusion............ ...........116..


6 JOE LIEBERMAN' S CHANGING FACE OF INCUMBENCY............. 118


Background ..........._ ...... .___ .....___.. .......18
Joe Lieberman, the Incumbent..........._ ...........,,....... .........119
Ned Who? .......... .... ... .. ......... ......... ...........1
Choice Time for the Lieberman Campaign. ............... ...........120
The Value of this case ............... ...........121............. ...
The Four Faces of Lieberman ............... ............... ......... 124
The Democratic Phase ............... .........................124
The Transitional Phase. ............... .......... .............127
The Independent Democrat Phase ................... ..................129
The Hijacked Phase: The Case for a Forth Identity ................... ....133
Conclusion........... ...... ..... .........13
The Reaches of Media Influence ............... ....................13 8
"Candidate in Crisis" .............. ...........................140
Political Histories ............... ............ ......... .....140


7 CONCLUSION ............... ...........143..................


The Evolving Digital Self. ............... ............ ......... ......144
Conclusions .............. .......... .......... ...........14
The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective ............... ............... 146
The Question of Consistency ............... .....................147
Benefits of Change ........._._. ..........._......._....150
Respondent Insights ......._....._._.__ ......___ ...........5
Critiques ........._._._ ....__ ......._._ ...........5
Considering Political Histories ....._._.__ ......___ ...........153
The Implications of Subj activity ............... .........................154
Future Research ............... ............157. .......... .....
Final Thoughts ............... ...........160..................


APPENDIX


A CAMPAIGN SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE ................... ....162













B SENATE OFFICE SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE. ........._......164


C IRB APPLICATION. ...._ ......_____ ......__ ..........16


D CAMPIGN WEB PAGE CODING SCHEME ...........__ ............... .172


E SENATE WEB PAGE CODING SCHEME ............... ..................174


F ISSUE CODING CATEGORIES ............... .......... ..............1 76


G TEXT FROM HILLARY CLINTON' S PRESIDENTIAL WEB PAGE..........177


H TEXT OF JOE LIEBERMAN"S TRANSITIONAL PHASE. ................... ...179


I TEXT OF JOE LIEBERMAN' S HIJACKED LETTER ............ ... ........181


J LIST OF SENATORS INCLUDED IN STUDY. ........._..._ .............182


K NOVEMBER 8th COOK REPORT ............... ............. ...._..183


L IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS ............... ............................185


REFERENCE S ............... ...........186..................


B IO GRAPHIC AL SKET CH ............... ...........193................










LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3-1 Image codes ............... ...........56..................

5-1 Highest and lowest ranking issues. ............... ...........................100

5-2 Issue similarities between time and context. ............... .......... .........101


5-3 Slideshow usage. ............... ............107. .......... ....











LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

3-1 Stages of grounded theory ......... ............... ..... .......... 53..

5-1 Extremely important issues in 2006 ............... .............. ......... ..93

5-2 Highest ranking campaign issues ............... ............. ......... ...95

5-3 Lowest ranking campaign issues. ............... ............. ......... ....97

5-4 Highest ranking .gov issues. ............... ............... 98......... ...

5-5 Lowest ranking .gov issues. ............... .............99............ ...

5-6 Home page images. ............... ............104. .......... ....

5-7 Digital Images ............... ............105. .......... ....

5-8 Most Popular Web Tools ............... ............109. .......... ...

5-9 Web Page Changes ............... ...........111.................

5-10 Competitive Versus Non-Competitive Races ............... ...................114









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
Of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the degree Doctor of Philosophy

CREATING NET ROOTS:
INCUMBENT SENATORS AND THE DIGITAL SELF

By

Diana Tracy Cohen

August 2007

Chair: Beth Rosenson
Cochair: Dan Smith
Major: Political Science

Senators are complex animals that work in the depths of multiple contexts. As

elected officials, they represent a large geographical space, attempting to appeal to

different groups within that area. Concurrent with this role, the vast maj ority of senators

seek re-election, providing a window where these individuals hold a dual identity as

senator and candidate, office holder and office seeker.

This dissertation takes a mixed-methodological approach to understanding how

senators create a presentation of self on multiple Web contexts. By examining the

Senate.gov and campaign pages of all 2006 Senate incumbent candidates, as well as

interviews with members of these offices and a case study of the changing digital image

of incumbent Joe Lieberman, this study explores online self presentation over digital

space and time. Analysis reveals intriguing trends of consistency and inconsistency both

within and between contexts. The greatest amount of consistency occurs within contexts.

Ultimately, differing office goals, political histories of each politician, as well as the

unique larger political climate of each role, work to create these differences both between

and within contexts.









CHAPTER 1
INTROCUTION

Technological advances often cause political change, with the Internet' s impact

on American politics being no exception. From the advent of the printing press to the

digital boom of the 80s and 90s, candidates and elected officials have sought to capitalize

on new technology to enhance the likelihood of political success. These technological

advancements may enhance representational linkages, increase political participation, and

help build social capital. With blogs, online video diaries, list-serves, and streaming

video becoming commonplace for actors seeking electoral influence, the Internet has

become an increasingly pivotal part of American politics. This dissertation takes a mixed-

methodological approach to understanding how senators create a presentation of self on

the Web. By examining the official Senate.gov and campaign pages of all 2006 United

States Senate incumbent candidates, as well as interviews with members of these offices

and a case study of the changing digital image of powerful incumbent Joe Lieberman,

this study explores senatorial presentation over digital space and time.

We are extremely fortunate to be living in this time of digital politics. New

technologies are continually emerging, bringing about an exploration into new Web-

based political tactics. Scholars in political science, communication, and sociology have

been highly active in this area of scholarship, particularly after the Internet began to take

its place in candidates' repertoires during the 1996 election cycle (Browing, 1996; Casey,

1996; Rash, 1997). This continual treading into new territory in the online politics

literature means that, more than ever, we understand who goes online, what they do there,

and how politicians use this information for electoral success (Xenos & Foot, 2005;

Bimber & Davis, 2003). We also have a steadily increasing knowledge of the central









features of candidate Web pages (Kaid et al, 2003), basic aspects of how congressmen

present themselves on the Web (Gulati, 2004), and more broadly, the Web's impact on

our democracy (Anderson and Cornfield, 2001; Abramson et al., 1998).

Scholars have brought a variety of methodological approaches to this deepening

understanding of Web politics. Bimber and Davis (2003) used a combination of surveys

and in-depth interviews to better understand online campaign decision-making and the

impact it has on political consumers. Gulati (2004) utilized content analysis to better

understand national versus local campaigning presentations of the senatorial self.

Scholars such as Solop (2001) and Cornfield (2004) have considered case studies in

better understanding the details of candidate Web page development. All of these

methodological approaches offer scholars unique ways to better understand our online

political realities, helping to illuminate the benefits and limitations of certain methods in

answering particular questions and paying the way for areas of future research. Utilizing

a mixed-methodological approach, tackling some of the same questions with multiple

lenses, gives us a fuller picture than any one method alone can offer. This dissertation

employs three approaches, utilizing content analysis, case study, and in-depth

interviewing methodologies to better understand Web-based senatorial presentation of

self.

Beyond mixed-methodological approaches, another way scholars can bring a

greater wealth of information into their scholarship is by taking an interdisciplinary

approach to the theoretical framework. Knowledge can be created in many ways, with

one way being the merging of multiple abstract ideas in consideration of a central topic.

Interdisciplinary studies help scholars to broaden the depth and scope of their









investigations. They illuminate new theoretical frameworks, help us to understand the

benefits and limitations of new methodologies, and offer new networks of scholars to

draw upon. Some of the most interesting scholarship comes when academics of different

orientations approach the same questions. This brings about new theories and debate that

swell much needed lines of communication between our academic disciplines.

This dissertation draws on concepts and methods from political science,

sociology, and communication. Sociologists from the Symbolic Interactionist camp,

particularly Erving Goffman (1959), help set the stage for considering presentation of

self. The Symbolic Interactionist camp informs us as to how people create meaning in

their individual lives and how this meaning can change between and within contexts.

This framework is drawn upon to argue the importance for understanding online

senatorial presentation of self on multiple contexts and over time. This literature also

helps one to consider why we may see different or similar online presentations, and how

the intended Web audience helps congressmen to create a sense of meaning in any given

digital context.

The field of political science also offers this dissertation invaluable information

on why incumbent candidates may present themselves in particular ways on different

Web contexts, as well as over time. Foundational scholars in American politics offer a

useful source of reflection. Fenno (1978) helps us to place the Symbolic Interactionist

framework in a political context. Scholars such as Fiorina (1977) and Mayhew (1975)

help us to unravel why we may or may not see online senatorial consistency, and also

provide a theoretical basis for the numerous dimensions of senatorial self explored in the

content analysis. Political science and sociology come together in this research for a










highly innovative explanation as to why self-presentation of the same individual differs

between these contexts. These fields help us to realize the dynamic nature of senatorial

presentation of self over digital space and time.

Finally, the field of communications is also instrumental in the theoretical

grounding of this dissertation. Scholars in communication and political science have

already realized great value from combining forces, creating a wealth of new knowledge

in the area that has come to be known as political communication. Scholars in this field,

particularly Kaid (2003) and Bystrom (2004), inspire this dissertation to reach new

heights in the scope and breath of its content analysis. Like political science, political

communication also offers a strong basis for many of the dimensions of self-presentation

explored in this study. Aspects of the technological self, including the consideration of

the interactive tools and coding technology, stem from prior work on digital campaign

content analysis.

In conducting the in-depth interviews for this research, some of the respondents

questioned the importance of this research, saying that they failed to see its impact on

practical politics. They attempted to direct me to "hotter" areas of online campaigning.

These topics included the construction of Web-based negative campaigning through

third-party URLs, third-party blogs, and the usage of home videos, such as on YouTube.

Receiving this type of criticism is never easy; it caused me to question the ultimate

importance of this research to the non-academic community. I took some time away

from my writing to explore leads on their suggested topics, finding more than I ever

could have expected. It was humbling to more fully realize the minor magnitude of my

dissertation topic when it is considered in the larger scope of online politics.









However small this research may feel at times, it is important to keep perspective

on why this study is important and what it adds to our larger understanding of Web

politics. This research is innovative in its interdisciplinary approach. Also, by examining

the two Web contexts over a period of nine months, this research adds the dynamic

dimension of time to our knowledge of digital politics. We will explore how real-world

events potentially influence the construction of the digital self, giving us an invaluable

sense of comparison both between and within different political Web contexts.

Finally, we will delve into new territory in exploring the relationship between the

Washington and campaign office staff in constructing an online senatorial presentation.

We will explore if, when, and under what conditions one office will look at the Web page

of the other office. We will gain a deeper understanding as to what "informal"

collaboration may be going on behind the scenes of the two offices in constructing a self.

Even though formal collaboration between campaign and office staff is illegal under the

Hatch Act when communicating on Washington staff' s business time, this regulation

does not prohibit the offices from talking during non-business hours.

To preview what is coming up, chapter 2 starts off by exploring the theoretical

basis of self-presentation and the importance of digital context. This literature review

will also consider different theoretical sides as to why we may or may not expect to see

senatorial online consistency between and within digital contexts over time. We will also

briefly explore developments in the online campaigning literature, as well as a few key

recent articles that helped set the stage for this dissertation. It is here where we first see

the Symbolic Interactionist framework applied to online politics.










Chapter 3 sets the stage for chapters 4, 5, and 6, detailing the methodological

approach utilized in the analysis. First, we get a grasp on the central questions of who

was studied and when. We then explore the nature of the content analysis, followed by

the interviewing approach. The pros and cons of the two major methodological

instruments-the coding and interview guides--will be discussed.

Chapter 4 offers qualitative insights in-depth interviews with campaign and

Senate office Webmasters. This section explores what technological tools campaigns and

Senate staff used to highlight senatorial image, the nature of the relationship between the

different ounces, and the amount of consideration staff members gave to creating a

consistent Web-based senatorial image. We will also gain valuable insights into staff

members' interpretations of the Hatch statutes as they apply to Web collaboration.

Chapter 5 offers a quantitative approach to understanding online presentation of

self between and within Web contexts. Using a coding guide that measures different

digital characteristics, one will better understand what elements of the incumbent Senator

are highlighted or downplayed in different Web contexts. Images, text, and digital

features such as blogs are all considered in this analysis.

Chapter 6 offers an exciting case study of Connecticut Senate incumbent Joe

Lieberman. This chapter details Joe's Web transformation through four stages. We

progress through Lieberman' s first stage as a powerful incumbent U. S. Senate candidate,

to a second period of uncertainty and senatorial re-creation, to the Einal product of an

Independent candidate. We also explore hacking as a forth stage. Here, we see how

Joe's online transformation acted in response to the larger political climate surrounding

the dynamic election of 2006. It also serves as a reminder that even the most powerful










people in the U. S. Senate are subj ect to senatorial makeovers, both in the digital and real

world.

Finally, chapter 7 offers conclusions and implications for further research. It

offers solid advice for scholars seeking to build upon this study and illuminates budding

areas of future inquiry. Centrally, this chapter places the collective findings of the

dissertation in the larger scope of our politics. While there is still much to learn about

digital American politics, in sum, this dissertation offers us a deeper understanding into

how congressmen come to establish, maintain, and proj ect images of the digital self.










CHAPTER 2
EXPLORING PERTINENT LITERATURE

This chapter offers a core literary understanding for the rest of this study, placing

the dissertation within a broader political and sociological context. First, it introduces a

central theoretical framework of this dissertation, Symbolic Interactionism (SI), tracing

its roots through influential figures such as George Herbert Head and Erving Goffman.

This discussion leads us to Richard Fenno' s connection of the S.I. perspective on

senatorial behavior, following its appearance in more contemporary scholarship and

illuminating the place and importance of this dissertation. It then provides an overview

of each election cycle, moving from 1996 through 2006, discussing the important

scholarship and technological developments that arose from each respective period.

Important campaign finance decisions will also be discussed throughout the description

of some election cycles.

Symbolic Interactionism

With campaign Web pages having become commonplace in U.S. senatorial

elections, the Internet has become a medium for elected onfcials to express and negotiate

their presentation of self in numerous ways. This includes wearing particular types of

clothing, using specific language, and putting particular images on their Web sites. To

consider the social-psychol ogical basi s for how and why thi s presentation occurs, it i s

useful to draw from sociology's Symbolic Interactionist (S.I.) perspective (Mead, 1934;

Goffman, 1959, Cooley, 1902). Stemming from George Herbert Mead's M~ind, SelfJ and

Society, the S.I. framework focuses on individuals and their interactions with one another

(1934). It further stresses that the mind has the ability to interpret symbols and that









society is a product of collective daily social interactions. Individuals are seen as

dynamic, conscious actors who attach meaning to symbols as they progress through their

life course, serving as a way to communicate different expectations, ideologies, and

perceptions during their interactions with others (Mead, 1934; Goffman, 1959; Blumer,

1972, 1969).

Influential figures in the Symbolic Interactionist literature, including George

Herbert Mead, Anselm Strauss, and Herbert Blumer, wrote in hopes of constructing an

alternative to the dominant paradigms of structural-functionalism and behavioralism (see

Parsons, 1951; Merton, 1957). Mead's students, Herbert Blumer and Erving Goffman,

carried on their mentor' s impressive framework. Like Mead, these S.I. scholars were

critical of structural-functionalism in that they felt the perspective failed to acknowledge

that people are the authors of their own lives and that individuals are the carriers of social

processes. Goffman went on to make substantial contributions to understanding how

actors present themselves in multiple contexts, further empowering individuals to create

meaning within various aspects of their lives. This dissertation offers an expansion of

this literature as it pertains to senatorial online contexts, drawing heavily from Goffman's

contributions to explore how 2006 incumbent Senate candidates create digital

presentation in the context of campaign and constituent Web pages.

The Significance of Erving Goffman

Obtaining his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1953, Goffman built his

roots in the theoretical perspective of Symbolic Interactionism. Goffman carried on the

S.I. orientation in his seminal work Presentation of Self in Everyda~y Life (1959) by










arguing that ideas about the everyday world are socially created and that life is like a big

play acted out in various contexts of this creation.

Goffman's 1959 masterpiece helps us to understand how ordinary people present

themselves in a multitude of situations, as well as how individuals attempt to control the

impressions that others make of them. His discussion of the dramaturlogical approach

illuminates how dynamic everyday social interactions are much like that of a

performance. As individuals, we go through life on a variety of different stages,

corresponding within the context of the different roles that we play during any given day.

While in a specific capacity, according to Goffman, we will attempt to win over the

audience by persuading them that we are fit for a specific role. Impression management,

the goal of influencing and/or controlling the impressions of others, helps individuals

build a model of consistency while playing a specific role. This dissertation will explore

the level of consistency in self-presentation between two different political e-contexts

over time.

From Goffman's 1959 text, readers can draw out three essential self-presentation

motives: to conform to social norms, achieve our individual goals, and present a

consistent self-presentation to others. While Goffman does not explicitly present these as

"principles", it becomes evident after reading the text that these three concepts are central

to ideas of self-presentation. One could make this argument because these concepts are

central to his discussion of the dramaturlogical approach and his justification for why

people engage in impression management tactics.

Taken either individually or together on face, these three paradigms seem to make

a lot of sense. They appear congruent, feeding into one another. As this chapter









develops, however, I will question this symmetry as it applies to our politics. Could the

American senatorial reality call for an inconsistent presentation of self, depending on

context? I believe politics is one example of where it could, with inconsistency being a

calculated vehicle towards achieving an instrumental goal. We can take some steps

towards exploring these concepts by understanding how scholars have applied the

Symbolic Interactionist perspective to our politics thus far.

The Dynamic Nature of Home Style and WebStyle

Before the introduction of the Internet into our political system, Richard Fenno

(1978) set the stage for a lively discussion regarding the presentation of the political self.

Home Style (1978) helps us to understand how the presentation of self and ultimate

construction of trust opens up opportunities. for giving congressmen more policy

flexibility in Washington. Indeed, as noted by Fenno, not all congressmen convey the

same "professional politician" ideal, with most attempting to keep a perceived connection

with their home districts as much as possible. How a congressman perceives his/her

home constituency will drive how he/she constructs a unique home style. The central

aspects of the self that must be emphasized in a senatorial setting, according to Fenno, are

maintaining perceptions of qualification, empathy, and constituency identification.

Fenno' s discussion of these three concepts places the importance of Goffman' s

impression management within the context of American politics.

Fenno was the first scholar to connect sociology's Symbolic Interactionist

framework with the study of politics, after which this line of research laid dormant until

the twenty-first century and the booming of online politics. In 2002, a communications

scholar by the name of Branwart revived the application of this theoretical framework to










politics, developing a concept known as "Web Style". This concept describes a general

presentation of self on the Web, focusing on such features as content, pictures, and

interactivity (Branwart, 2002). Embracing the S.I. perspective, described in the next

section, Web Style illuminates the importance of a politician controlling his or her

message through the presentation of self. Non-verbal content, such as colors, images,

and layout collectively work to speak about the individual. Similarly, verbal content,

such as attacks against opponents or discussion of policy positions, all actively work to

bolster a preconceived presentation of self (Bystrom et al., 2004).

While Web Style offers a good start on understanding senatorial Web presentation,

the measures used to quantify these observations do not fully capture the multi-faceted

nature of senatorial elections. This literature can be built upon to speak uniquely about

the complex worlds of senators. Observing things such as color and tone serve as a good

foundation for Web study but can clearly be built upon to understand how and who

candidates appeal to. Institutions such as parties and interest groups also work to

influence the complex nature of senatorial life, which undoubtedly shape how one

proj ects him or herself. This dissertation expands on the way we conceptualize

Web Style, going beyond a general description of tone and images to better understand

how site content, hyperlinks, blogs, and other technological tools actively work to

emphasize different dimensions of the self.

Recent Attempts at Measuring the Senatorial Presentation of Self

The most recent work in the area of Web presentation, and the one that is drawn

on most heavily on for the methodology of this dissertation, was conducted by Gulati

(2004). His work, "Members of Congress and the World Wide Web," applies a Goffman









lens to the question of senatorial self-portrayal on official Senate Web pages (house.gov

and Senate.gov). Looking at images of 344 Senate sites, he groups politicians as having

either a national, local, or neutral presentation of self. Sites giving off a national theme

featured images reflecting Washington D.C., including monuments, government

buildings, and onfcial government seals, and often showed the Senator in a formal setting

dressed in business attire. Sites giving off a local theme featured images from their home

constituency, like buildings such as the state capitol, monuments, or state flags or seals.

Congressmen often looked more casual, showing images of shaking hands with

constituents. Sites grouped as neutral had no clear theme, often showing the official

senatorial picture of him/her behind a desk with an American flag in the background.

Gulati concluded that there is no prominent style to the presentation of self applicable to

all congressmen, but found some slight variations between individuals of different race,

gender, and seniority status.

Without question, the work of Gulati is creative and serves as an important step

for future works in the area of online self-presentation. The work has clear strengths and

weaknesses in its methodological approach, lessons we can learn from to build a better

study. Perhaps the most important strength was the clarity with which Gulati coded each

Web page. Quantifying the national and local dimensions of his population called for

seeking out visual images. Some of these images are hard to classify due to subj activity

in coding. Beyond this, there is another significant limitation to Gulati's approach. His

coding scheme is limited, leaving us with a narrow dichotomous understanding of

representatives. The dichotomy is that one either gives off a local or national


SAccording to Gulati, the American flag was considered a neutral symbol, as it is a national symbol that
does not give off imagery specific to Washington D.C.










presentation of self. Sometimes middle ground was found by coding images as being

neutral. We can build upon this model by considering other characteristics to look at.

Beyond pictures, text and online features such as blogs and streaming video tell us more

about politicians. This dissertation embraces the fundamental work of Gulati, while

considering other dimensions of the self beyond a national and local dichotomy.

Gulati's work also gives us a strong foundation in understanding that images play

a strong role in giving off a certain political portrayal. His article tells us that

congressmen give off a certain presentation of self at one point in time, a single snapshot

when the research was conducted. It is a whole new question to explore if this

presentation of self changes over time, and even more complexly, between contexts.

The Importance of Political History

Further adding to the literature on digital presentation, it is also a brand new

question to consider how political history can influence the ways that politicians present

themselves online. Chapter 4 will discuss insights from Ray, one of the campaign

respondents. In relaying his experience working for a Senate challenger, he highlights

the past as an important part of determining the present. Scholars have yet to address this

important point as it applies to online politics.

As humans, we naturally reflect on our past experiences in making decisions in

the present day. We often try to replicate behavior that helped us achieve success in

some prior endeavor. At the senatorial level, most candidates have a substantial level of

political experience from which to draw upon. This experience may play a key role in

the way an incumbent candidate chooses to present him or herself online. If something

worked in a previous election cycle, the individual may be inclined to try that strategy or









tactic again. If something did not work, the individual will likely abandon any replication

of that strategy.

With the Internet being a part of American elections for over a decade,

incumbents not only have a political history, but more central to the questions being

posed in this work, have a digital history to reflect upon. For some, utilizing the Web as

a campaigning tool may have been a particularly useful strategy in the past. For others, it

may not have lived up to their expectations. As we will see in the case of Joe Lieberman,

he may very well feel that the liberal blogosphere played a large role in ending his bid for

the presidency is 2004. Ray suggests this negative experience may have contributed to

him developing a non-interactive Web presence. As we will explore in chapter 4, political

histories are just another piece of the complex puzzle of creating a digital identity.

Considering Web Consistency and Context as a New Senatorial Puzzle

If humans as social actors make a conscientious effort to persuade audiences that

they are good at a particular role, it is not hard to imagine why one would want to be

consistent in the way we portray ourselves. This concept is directly in line with

Goffman's three principles described earlier in the chapter: conforming to social norms,

achieving individual goals, and offering a consistent presentation of self. Persuading

your audience is a chief way to obtain an instrumental goal throughout the course of a

social performance. Consistency in self-presentation aids in achieving this goal.

To consider why this would be true, before extrapolating to the political world,

let us consider the context of business. While playing the role of a businessman, one

wants to consistently act competent, experienced, and professional. To do this, an

individual might "play" that role by wearing a suit or skirt, arriving to work before










expected, and being courteous to fellow employees. If this same individual decides one

day to come to work in j eans and a baseball cap, shows up late, and interrupts colleagues

during a meeting, the "audience" will regard him or her in a very different light. The

consistency is broken, and the professional presentation of self is breached.

While applying Goffman' s framework to the world of business may seem

intuitive on face, considering it in the context of politics gets substantially more

complicated. We must reflect: do candidates want to proj ect themselves in the same way

all the time? The political campaigning literature informs us that this is not always the

best approach to take, given the importance of targeting specific messages to specific

audiences (Faucheux, 1998). If not all groups are hearing the same message, it may very

well be possible that they are also experiencing different senatorial online selves. Further

complicating this puzzle, incumbent representatives have two roles, that of both

candidate and elected official. Is it reasonable to assume that the self-presentations in

these two capacities are the same?

While one may be quick to assert that, of course, we will see a consistent

presentation of self between Senate and campaign Web pages, it is important to

remember the fluidity and complexity of American political campaigns. Indeed, for a

multitude of reasons, it is not outside the scope of reason to believe that the presentation

of a political self could be drastically different between these two sites. Campaign

offices are very different entities than constituent offices, including different staff, goals,

and timelines to negotiate with. Campaign offices live in a very different context of

American politics, and seek to employ the most effective strategy that will help them win

the election, the candidate's primary goal (Mayhew, 1975). A campaign includes









professional staff that spends countless hours analyzing the political landscape of the

constituency, creating themes and messages, writing a campaign plan, and conducting

opposition research (Thurber & Nelson, 1995; Shea & Burton, 2001). They also rely

heavily on surveys to test messages and gather unique up-to-date opinions about the

candidate and his/her opponentss. Senatorial staffers, conversely, have other goals,

including constituency relations and policy research (Fiorina, 1977; Cain, Ferejohn &

Fiorina, 1987). They likely use polling data in attempt to influence the actions and

presentation of their Senator, but probably do not use survey research in the same tactical

ways as their campaign counterpart. Given these core differences between the contexts in

which the two offices reside, it is not hard to imagine how the staff could have a very

different understanding as to how they want to frame the same individual, and

consequently, how this presentation is ultimately expressed to constituents on the Web.

Potential Benefits of Digital Inconsistency

Given the unique environment of American politics, we can see how digital

inconsistency may come to be a reality for many incumbent candidates. This dissertation

will argue that this is not necessarily a bad thing. There may be both unforeseen and

calculated benefits in the construction of different digital selves. This may be true in part

because senators and their staff members have a strong understanding of who and why

people visit their campaign or Senate.gov Web page. Their decision to highlight different

attributes, characteristics, and digital tools may be based on this understanding.

One example of where inconsistent digital presentations may be beneficial is in

the case of candidates running for higher office. In these instances, one will likely find

that the most important issues at the various levels of government are different. House









members running for Senate, or Senate members running for president, may particularly

find this to be the case. Local issues will likely be unique from those found in larger

constituencies. For example, in her bid for the presidency, Hillary Clinton may have very

different self-presentations on her Senate.gov page and presidential campaign page. New

York is just one of many areas that she must consider in creating a presidential

presentation of self. To have exactly the same presentation of self simply may not be

appropriate given the demands of the j ob she is seeking compared to her current capacity.

On a more local level, incumbents running for the same office may also benefit

from digital inconsistency. As we will explore in chapter 6, Joe Lieberman had a highly

unpredictable campaign. While his campaign and Senate.gov page appeared very similar

on the onset of the campaign, the presence of a formidable challenger forced Lieberman

to deviate from his original campaign plan. His campaign home page changed

dramatically over the course of eight months, all while his Senate.gov page remained

stable with few changes. Ultimately, all campaigns are subject to the ebbs and flows of

the larger political climate in which they are taking place. In Lieberman's case, his

campaign took place amidst growing negative sentiments towards the Iraq war and

President Bush. The Senator's continued support of the Bush and the war in Iraq quickly

became a central issue in the 2006 Connecticut Senate election. Facing a formidable

opponent and eventually losing the party primary, Lieberman's campaign had to change

course to secure a win in the November general election. In the post-primary

environment, what evolved was a very different Lieberman. His Senate.gov page

remained steady while his campaign page changed dramatically. This campaign move to

a more bipartisan Joe helped him secure electoral success in November. Had his









campaign persona stayed the same, the new Democratic Party nominee may have had a

decent shot at delivering one of the biggest electoral upsets of the year.

Now having a better understanding of the Symbolic Interactionist perspective, the

importance of political history, and the question of digital consistency, it is useful to

reflect on the history of the Internet and American politics. This brief yet influential

history helps to place the importance of digital presentation in our larger politics.

Development of the Internet as a Campaigning Tool

1996

The Internet began to take its place in candidate' s repertoires during the 1996

election cycle (Casey, 1996; Rash, 1997). A presidential election year, Bill Clinton and

Bob Dole both utilized the Web in creative new ways that set a standard for online

politics (Margolis et al., 1997). Other down ballot races did show signs of Web-based

campaigning, but this was far from commonplace. Campaign Web pages were typically

very bare, offering no interactivity, limited information, and very few media images

(Stone, 1996). Often all one would find is a single photograph, contact and biographical

information, and brief policy positions (Gibson & McAllister, 2005). Scholars believe

this was likely because campaigns were still stuck in the broadcast media model,

neglecting to consider the great potential benefits of the Internet as a new

communications medium (Selnow, 1998).

On the presidential level, campaigns took a chance with this new medium,

attempting to direct traffic to their Web pages by placing their home page URLs on

campaign brochures and mentioning it in public spaces (Selnow, 1998). Senators Bob

Dole and John Kerry had relative success with the number of Web page visitors. Both









campaigns estimated that one-third of their new volunteers were identified through the

Intemet (Noble, 1999). The Clinton/Gore ticket also had a Web page, as did Pat

Buchanan and the two major parties (Stone, 1996). Dole's page was the most successful

in terms of traffic, attracting three million hits and 1,700 new volunteer sign-ups

(Dongen, 1996). This success stemmed, at least in part, from the fact that Dole stated his

campaign URL address on live television during the second presidential debate (Selnow,

1998; Benoit & Benoit, 2000).

Beyond knowing which candidates utilized the Internet during this election cycle,

scholars helped us to identify the type of constituent who sought out political information

from the Intemet during the 1996 campaign. The Pew Internet and American Life project

has served as a great resource in this regard, estimating that 23% of Americans adopted

the Internet by the 1996 election (Pew, 2005). The profile of those who went online for

political information during this time has been clearly documented as skewed to younger

males with high political efficacy (Pew, 2005). Additionally, reports estimate that

approximately 80% of people who visited campaign Web pages during this election cycle

voted (Noble, 1999). In contrast, reports during the 2004 election estimated that nearly

two-thirds of Americans were online, and that an increasing percentage of online political

browsers were women, older Americans, and people that lived in rural areas (Pew, 2005).

1998

The coming of the 1998 cycle saw more than two-thirds of open seat House and

Senate candidates using the Intemet as a medium for campaign communication (Dulio et

al., 1999). As opposed to 1996, where campaign Web pages provided little more than

very basic information, great advancements in contribution solicitations, interactivity, and









communication forums became a hallmark of online campaigning during the 1998

election cycle.

Independent Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Jesse Ventura proved to be one of

the first cases where the Internet flexed its muscles in its ability to influence U.S.

elections (Gibson & McAllister, 2005). Fineman (1999) describes how Ventura's usage

of the Internet, most specifically e-mail capability, assisted him in what turned out to be a

very tight election. A reform party candidate, Ventura deeply embraced the Intemet as a

communication medium, likely because of his limited campaign budget (Raney, 1998).

His campaign site offered the capability for followers to submit their e-mail address and

be added to a list-serve known as "JesseNet". During the last week of the campaign, an

e-mail was sent out to this list-serve asking supporters to come out in force to help get out

the vote. The tactic paid off, with 250 people showing up to help coordinate Ventura's

tour of Minnesota during the last 72 hours of the campaign (Raney, 1998). Ventura went

on to win the election by a margin of three percentage points over Republican Norm

Coleman. While the Internet is certainly not the sole reason Ventura was propelled to

victory, it unquestionably helped his campaign, with its one full-time employed staff

member, organize 250 supporters in a period of two days.

Two maj or areas of scholarly research peaked during this election cycle. A

substantial amount of literature from this period, much like that from 1996, was aimed at

simply getting a handle on how many candidates at different levels of government had

campaign Web pages (Sadow & James, 1999). Also of great importance was the rise of

the normative debate regarding the Intemet' s potential impact on the future of U. S.

democracy. Reflecting on social capital literature, scholars examined the previous two









election cycles to make normative arguments about the Internet' s ability to strengthen or

weaken our Democratic process.

Anderson and Comnfield's (2002) edited volume illuminates the contrasting

perspectives that scholars took during this period, a debate which still rages on within the

Intemet politics literature. Some scholars in this volume, such as Berman and Mulligan,

believe the Internet is the wave of the future, citing moveon.org as an example of how

new technology allows for people with differing political ideologies to collaborate on

economic, social, and other important issues. Others scholars contributing to the volume

are much more cautious, including Vlahos, who argues that the Intemet can only have a

limited impact on our politics without accompanying institutional change.

Along the same line of research, important scholarship regarding digital

inequality also arose during this time, leaving people to wonder about the implications of

unequal access to the Internet. In Anderson and Comnfield's edited volume, authors Delli

Carpini and Keeter warn us about the growing gap in political knowledge, in part due to

the Internet. This critical line of research evolved with the coming election cycles, with

scholars such as Mossberger at al. (2003), Warschauer et al. (2004), and Norris (2001)

making important contributions to this discussion. While there is still no consensus

about the depth of the digital divide or its implications for future U.S. politics, this

important line of research reminds us that it is critical to reflect on the drawbacks of such

new technologies.









2000


With the coming of the new century, Web pages became increasingly complex,

using HTML language and multimedia flash to create impressive graphics and aid in the

construction of interactive features. One of the biggest developments in the 2000 election

cycle was Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his utilization of the

Internet for fundraising purposes (Fritz, 2000). His online fundraising success was

critical during the primary season, with estimates indicating he raised an unparalleled

$500,000 after the New Hampshire primary. He also raised multiple millions of dollars

from that point through the conclusion of the campaign (Birnbaum, 2000).

McCain's page was also groundbreaking from an interactive targeting

perspective, a topic that received a significant amount of academic attention in 2000.

James E. Tonlison' s contribution to The M~illennium Election: Communication in the

2000 Election (in Kaid et al., 2003) describes the McCain Internet phenomenon as a case

study of major mobilization via the Web. In his article, Tonlison gives readers an in-

depth look into the multiple mobilization features that McCain' s presidential Web page

offered. Most remarkably was McCain's ability to use the Internet to organize volunteers

by state. By giving the Web site a highly interactive face where users could click on their

state and find out anything from upcoming events to local contact information, McCain

was able to categorize and track potential supporters by geographic region. Using state-

of-the-art tracking technology, the Senator personalized the Web interface each time a

person came on to the page. For example, users would see such features as a

personalized greeting. His success with both mobilization and fundraising raised the bar

and set online politics standards that far exceeded anyone's imagination. Political









communications scholar Tonlison notes, "Senator McCain' s campaign made an indelible

impression on the press, the professional political consulting community, the public, and

on both sides of the major parties" (Kaid et al. 2003, 85). While Dean has since

overshadowed McCain with his online presence in the 2004 election, we should not

forget how cutting-edge McCain was for his time and the standard he set for interactivity

and fundraising online.

Looking at academic literature, the election of 2000 prompted an explosion of

new methodologies being employed in online politics scholarship. Most notably, Bimber

and Davis' Camnpaigning Online (2003) employed a complex mixed-methodologi cal

approach in their attempt to understand the strategy that goes into Web page design, as

well as how this strategy influences voter' s thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors.

Campaigning Online serves as a methodological inspiration for this dissertation in that

Bimber and Davis utilized elite interviewing and content analysis. Further developing

their mixed-method approach, they also conducted experiments and random digit dial

telephone interviews, offering the most comprehensive understanding of Web-based

strategy to date.

The Federal Government Considers Web-Based Campaigning

With campaigns, organizations, parties and individuals increasingly turning to the

Internet for communication and fundraising purposes, the election of 2000 was

monumental in that it prompted the involvement of the federal government in online

campaigning matters. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) started to consider the

applicability of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to Web-based politics, a









debate that rages today as campaigns continually test the boundaries of campaign finance

regulation under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).

The Federal Election Commission is an independent regulatory agency that

interprets and enforces campaign finance laws. Prior to 1996, the FEC did not have to

consider the applicability of campaign finance regulation to our online politics. The

question never arose because the Internet had no place in American campaigning. As

more and more candidates started to look to the Web as a source of fundraising and

campaign communication, particularly starting with the 2000 election, important

questions arose that the FEC simply could not ignore.

There are campaign finance regulations as to what types of organizations,

businesses, and committees can spend money on federal candidates, as well as spending

limits for individuals. Certain types of communication are also restricted. With e-mail

list-serves, Web pages and blogs, any person or entity can post or send political

information about a candidate. A problem is in discerning if this information has a cost,

and thus is subj ect to FECA spending regulations (Potter, 2000; Petri, online).

Additionally, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify who is posting the information,

and what their political motives might be. Given the anonymity the Web brings to our

politics, in conjunction with the low cost of Web-based talk, it is challenging to

determine if digital communication is considered a political expenditure or contribution.

Initially, the FEC was inclined to think that there was a cost associated with Web

communication and thus this behavior should fall under the FECA statutes (Potter, 2000).

The difficulties associated with this perspective became evident when the FEC was

forced to consider how they would go about assigning a monetary value for online









behavior, and perhaps even more daunting, figuring out how to classify where the speech

was coming from (Potter, 2000). Due to these difficulties, the issue of regulating Web-

based political communication was largely tabled until new questions arose in 2002 and

2004 in light of the BCRA.2 With this decision, political actors were free to push the

boundaries of online campaigning even more.

2004

2004 brought the Howard Dean campaign, a phenomenon that transformed online

American politics as we know it. Dean embraced the Internet as a central part of his

campaign strategy, bringing political Web interactivity to a whole new plateau. He

creatively reached out to constituents all over the country, using new digital technologies

such as Meetup.com, interactive live blogs, and DeanTV. His interactivity and openness

to constituent uploads proved to be an inspiration and template for many liberal

candidates in 2006, particularly Democratic U.S. Senate challenger Ned Lamont.

Dean brought new meaning to campaign blogs, a feature that was growing in

popularity. When people consider characteristics of a blog, as American culture has

come to popularize the concept, they likely imagine an area where both the Web-

browsing constituent and the site administrator can openly and immediately post on a

Web page. This type of blog would allow for free-flowing discussion where individuals

from across the globe can respond to each other' s comments within seconds. It is not

hard to image how this high level of interactivity and communicative freedom is

potentially destr-uctive to those with a specific agenda, such as individuals seeking

political office. In attempt to control the messages being placed on their Web sites,


2 Potter (2000) discusses some advisory opinions that were released by the FEC in 1999 and 2000 relating
to the regulation of Web-based political conununication.










candidates in the 2004 election limited this interactivity by turning their "blogs" into

online campaign "j ournals" where the ability to post on the site is limited to those within

the office (Cohen, 2005). What resulted was a type of internal communication occurring

primarily between campaign staff members. This communication could be viewed by

those browsing the campaign Web page, but site visitors could not post messages.

Howard Dean's site offered a truly interactive blog where individuals both internal and

external to the campaign had the ability to post text on the site in real time. This Web

feature was very much in line with the overall highly interactive nature of Dean's page,

including DeanTV, where constituents could upload their own commercials, speeches,

and videos relating to Dean's campaign. Towards the end of the campaign, DeanTV had

attracted enough content to stream online twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

Research reflects how Web-based creativity in online campaigning features

expanded beyond the Dean campaign during the 2004 election cycle. This creativity was

particularly evident in campaigns' attempt to empower site visitors to make unique

contributions to the campaign (Cohen, 2005). The importance of this empowerment

came in the form of personalization, letting current supporters craft their own ways of

reaching out to others. One of the ways this occurred was through the "political event-in-

a-box" feature (Darr et al. 2004, 6). This option allowed for supporters to download the

materials for their own home-based event, such as house parties, debate watches, or

meals. Downloads such as posters or recipes allowed for supporters to craft their own

events at home.

Another creative way that candidates utilized the Web to empower supporters in

the 2004 election, particularly at the Senate level, was by giving them tasks that could be










completed via the Internet (Cohen, 2005). Campaigns encouraged supporters to write

Letters to the Editor (LTEs). This process would start with the campaign either calling or

e-mailing supporters who signed up to be a campaign volunteer via the Web. The

campaign would then encourage the individual to write a LTE to the local newspaper,

using information provided to them on the Web site. Sometimes these pages would take

the site visitor to a listing of all local newspapers, their mailing address, and their Web

site, if applicable. These sections would also offer an issues page that included bullet

points which LTE writers were encouraged to use as talking points. Some campaigns

sent out LTE templates to volunteers via e-mail. The same template was used with radio

call-ins.

Success with online fundraising was also a hallmark of the 2004 election cycle.

Raising more than $20 million dollars via the Internet, the Dean campaign flexed its

fundraising muscles through the accumulation of smaller donations (Rice, 2004).

Presidential candidates John Kerry and George W. Bush followed suit, subsequently

having great success with online fundraising. Kerry raised an unprecedented $82 million

through online donations, while Bush raised $14 million.

The Rise of 527/501 (c) Organizations

Enacted in 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) constituted the

most sweeping reform in the history of campaign finance regulation. Aimed at

eliminating the use of soft money and curbing the appearance of corruption, BCRA had

three noteworthy components: the banning of soft money, increased contribution limits,

and restrictions on issue advocacy advertising (Herrnson, 2005; Corrado et al., 2004).









With the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in place, the 2004 election saw the rise

of 527 and 501(c) organizations, which quickly made their presence known in the virtual

and digital world. Classified and overseen by the Internal Revenue Service, these

organizations proved to exploit a sizable loophole in the BCRA statues by absorbing the

unregulated soft money that the BCRA attempted to steer away from our electoral

process (Petri, date unknown). The rise of 527 and 501(c) organization demonstrates the

power behind La Raj a' s (2002) belief that, with restrains on campaign activity,

organizations outside of the formal party structure would increase in importance. The

Internet was an important part of this success in exploiting BCRA loopholes.

527 and 501(c) organizations were clever, mostly because their existence and

ability to use funds in certain ways depended on it. For example, they had to be creative

in the ways they made political advertisements and disguised them as party building

activities (Petri, date unknown). This creativity bubbled over to the way they attracted

and mobilized supporters on their Web pages. Organizations like Democracy for

America profiled liberal candidates across the country, giving them free media attention

and offering such interactive features as real-time blogs and virtual campaign training.

They also made their fundraising presence known online by accepting unlimited amounts

of soft money donations. Moveon.org raised close to $44 million overall, with a large

maj ority of those funds coming through online donations.

One can argue that one of the positive implications of the 527 and 501(c) Web

presence was the rise of more global campaigns. With entities like Democracy for

America profiling local candidates on a nation-wide scale, smaller campaigns gained

exposure that they could have never been able to afford on their own. This globalization










of campaigns, particularly in the form of free media, was significantly built upon in 2006

with the invention of such virtual mediums as Youtube and My Space.

2006

While significant scholarship has yet to be published on the 2006 election, one

can anticipate the online developments that will be the sources of greatest attention. 2006

saw the development of third-party media pages such as YouTube, My Space, and

Facebook.3 The development of such sites allowed for constituents to play a much larger

role in uploading video and public commentary on Eile-sharing Web pages in 2006.

Due to the growing prevalence of such file-sharing outlets, candidates have to be

careful of what they say and where they go. A development in 2006 was campaigns

hiring workers, often referred to as "trackers", to follow their opponents around with

video cameras knowing that this tactic could potentially produce content showing the

opponent in a negative light (Brody, 2006). Now, any comment or action a candidate

makes may very well end up on the Web and viewed by millions of people across the

world. People everywhere became familiar with candidate mishaps, most notably,

George Allen's usage of the word "macaca".

In the heat of a tight campaign, George Allen, an incumbent Senator from

Virginia, pointed to S. R. Sidarth, a twenty year-old college student tracker from his

opponent' s campaign, and laughingly called him a "macaca". This word refers to an

African monkey and is often interpreted as a racial slur (Brody, 2006).4 The backlash

John Kerry received for his comment about students ending up in Iraq if they do not



3 The Web addresses for these sites are www.voutube.com, www.myspace.com, and www.facebook.com.
4 Video of this comment can be found online at http://voutube.com/watch?v=9G7gg7GO71Ic. This video
shot was taken by a tracker from the James Webb campaign. For more information, visit
http://www.nowpublic.com/politicians caught oninternet_candid cameras.










study is yet another example of politicians being subj ect to an increasing file-sharing

presence on the Web.s

People who may not otherwise know who George Allen is now likely know at

least one thing about him. Beyond sending him into a tailspin that cost him his re-

election to the Senate, political analysts believe that his usage of the word "macaca" may

have caused Allen his presidential run in 2008. This is because the "macaca" incident

received substantial attention with people well outside of his Virginia constituency. The

aforementioned YouTube events with Kerry and Allen demonstrate that, with this new

type of video information sharing, one seemingly inadvertent comment can lead to

widespread negative press and potential political failure.

This type of information sharing is going to continue to be even widespread given

the Federal Election Commission's highly anticipated 2006 decision to leave blogs

unregulated. The only Web-based political behavior that will be subj ect to campaign

finance regulations are those that involve monetary transactions (Petri, date unknown).

Of most significance, paid political advertisements must be paid for by hard money

(Holman, 2006). As if stepping on eggshells, the FEC struck a delicate balance by

leaving the benefits of free political communication it tact, yet placing regulations on

political advertisements.6 The question of Web-based campaigning and campaigning

finance statutes will unquestionable rise again in upcoming election cycles as candidates,

individuals, and organizations continue to push the envelope of current statues.


5 Video of this conunent can be found online at http://voutube.com/watch?v=aP5197wHA9c .


6 The Federal Election Conunission issued new rules regarding Web-based political conununication in
March of 2006. To view the full revised regulations, please visit
http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej compilation/2006/notice_2006-8.pdf. This code of federal regulations was
published in the Federal Register, volume 71, number 70, on April 12, 2006.
42









Looking Ahead

Having a greater understanding of how the World Wide Web has developed to

take on an important place in American politics, it now may be more evident why Web-

based senatorial presentation would be an important thing to consider. A 2006 Pew

report reminds us of just how important a factor it may be. They published a memo

reporting that on a typical day in August of 2006, a period where party primaries were

taking place, 26 million Americans went online to get political information (Pew, 2006).

This equates to roughly thirteen percent of Americans over the age of eighteen (Pew,

2006). These constituents may be influenced by the content of the Web pages they log

on to, including statements by the candidates, photos, video, and other images.

The next chapter explores the methodological approach used in this dissertation.

Exploring initial questions such as sample, selection of methods, and other topics helps to

clarify how the research design for this dissertation came to be. The chapter explores the

details of the case study, quantitative analysis, and qualitative interviews used in the

upcoming chapters.









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

This dissertation takes a multi-method approach to better understanding a unique

intersection between Web technology and American Politics. Intertwining in-depth

interviews, quantitative analysis, and a case study, we explore how congressmen create a

digital sense of self on their campaign and constituency office Web pages. This chapter

offers a detailed perspective on each of these methods. Stemming from in-depth

interviews with campaign and constituency office staff members, chapter 4 offers a

unique qualitative perspective. These interviews helped to construct the coding guide for

the quantitative analysis presented in chapter 5. Chapter 6 brings the quantitative and

qualitative research together in considering the case study of Joe Lieberman's 2006 U.S.

Senate campaign. Analyzing Lieberman's different Web presentations, we will see how

drastically senatorial presentation of self can change in the course of a single election.

Together, these three methods rival the most comprehensive research on the topic of

political digital self-presentation date.

Initial Questions

When breaking into new territory, scholars are often faced with difficult

methodological questions. How one chooses to answer these questions largely shapes the

scope and breath of the analysis. With this dissertation, questions arose concerning the

timeline for research, scope of the population, methods to utilize, and other topics. This

section offers a brief synopsis of how those questions were answered, and may serve as a

starting point for scholars looking to build on this research.










Determining the Population

In considering how to approach a study of political presentation of self, one of the

most paramount questions is determining what members of Congress will be examined.

The House and Senate are two very different animals. Among other things, we see

differences in procedure, careers, size, terms, and policy making. All of these aspects

make it difficult to consider the House and Senate as equal institutions.

Beyond these differences, there are clear methodological implications to studying

some variation of the two chambers. With the House, the primary concern is the size of

the population. Sampling would make this population more manageable, but would also

take away from the researcher' s intimacy with the data. Studying both the House and

Senate leads to similar concerns. Although having both chambers in the analysis would

serve as a great source of contrast and comparison, sampling would have to take place.

Additionally, due to the aforementioned differences, we may not be doing justice to our

understanding of legislative politics by treating the House and Senate as statistical equals.

Ultimately, I felt that it was important to get as deep an interaction with the data as

possible. Working with the Senate alone allowed for the whole population of incumbents

running for re-election to be included in the study. The case study of Joe Lieberman is an

example of how researchers can benefit from having an intimate knowledge of their

population.

Timeline

Another critical question that arose was what election cycle(s) would be used for

analysis. It was questionable if archives from prior election cycles could reasonably be

obtained. There are a few Web-based resources that may have been helpful, such as









Politicsl.com. There are also notable scholars in political science and communication

who have done work analyzing campaign Web pages, including Bystrom et al. (2004),

Gulati (2004), and most recently, Sulkin et al. (2007). The difficulty would have been in

attempting to find archives of constituency Web pages from prior election cycles. To

date, there has been no systematic study of these Web pages. That led me to conclude

that working with the 2006 election cycle would provide the best opportunity for both

quantitative and qualitative data collection. As such, this study focuses on Class I

Senators, individuals who were elected to office in November of 2000 and ran again in

2006 for a term that expires in 2013.7 The terms of thirty-three incumbents were up in

the 2006 election cycle, with twenty-eight ultimately deciding to pursue re-election.8

Twenty-four of these incumbents were studied in this dissertation.9 Four senators were

not included because their campaign Web pages were not online at the beginning of the

archival process.

Identifying the Web Pages

In the previous chapter, we discussed the importance of Erving Goffman and

the concept of context. Drawing on multiple Web pages featuring the same individual is

a great way to more fully understand the importance context plays in the constr-uction of a

digital self. There are certainly a lot of digital contexts to choose from when considering

what Web pages feature senators. Third-party blogs, unofficial campaign and fan pages,

political advocacy groups, campaign sites and Senate pages are all places that may come

to mind.



SFor an explanation of the different classes, please visit
.
SClass I senators not pursuing re-election included Sarbanes (D-MD), Dayton (D-MN), Frist (R-TN),
Jeffords (I-VT), and Corzine (D-NJ).










In selecting what Web pages to use as examples of context, the first question

considered was what sites incumbent senators might have in common throughout the

2006 election cycle. While some may have unofficial fan or advocacy pages, that may

not be universally tr-ue. Perhaps more importantly, these pages represent a third party's

perspective on how they want to represent the Senator. This leaves us with only official

pages as sources of owner-controlled self-representation, specifically, campaign and

Senate Web sites. Senate Web pages serve as the online gateway to our chambers of

Congress. 10 They are maintained by the staff in each constituency office. Campaign

Web pages, the second digital context, are maintained by campaign staff and serve as the

portal into the incumbent' s world as a candidate.

To identify the campaign Web pages for each Class I Senator, a Yahoo! Search

was conducted on each incumbent." Most of the time, the official campaign Web page

revealed itself as the first listing on the search. It was necessary to determine that each

site was indeed the official campaign page and not some spoof or fan page. Specific

markers included the general professionalism of the page, a possible notation "paid for by

the [insert name here] committee", and the presence of campaign contact information.

Since campaign Web pages were identified very early in the election cycle, sifting

through mock campaign pages was not a notable issue in the search process.

Methods Selection

Another central consideration was determining what methods would be utilized




9 Please see appendix J for the list of senators included in the quantitative portion of this study.
'0 These pages are www.house.gov and www. Senate.gov

11 The search engine home page is Yahoo.com. Typing in the Senator's name typically rendered a
successful search. On a few occasions, it was necessary to type some other marker, such as "2006".
47









for this research. Previous studies in the field of Internet Politics have employed a wide

range of methods, including case studies (Cornfield, 2004), content analysis (Bystrom et

al., 2004), quantitative analysis of surveys (Mossberger et al., 2003; Norris, 2001), in-

depth interviews (Bimber & Davis, 2003), personal diary (Trippi, 2004) and various

combinations of these methods (Bimber & Davis, 2003).

These previous works represent a good starting point for considering the benefits

and drawbacks of using certain methods. From a methodological standpoint, this

dissertation was highly influenced by the work of Bimber and Davis (2003). They were

the first political scientists to combine qualitative and quantitative approaches in the field

of online politics, utilizing surveys, lab experiments, interviews, and content analysis.

Their book, Campaigning Online, shows us how these methods can come together into a

masterfully crafted piece of scholarship on how the Web was used in the 2000 election.

Bimber and Davis note that they brought these methods together in hopes of shedding

light on some gaping holes in our knowledge of online politics, with an aim to create "a

fuller picture" (173). Four years after the publication of their book, having recognized

some limitations in their study, I take a multi-method approach for the same reason.

The Importance of Reflexivity

During each step of the data collection process, I was highly considerate

of reflexivity (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1993). I constantly thought about how my

presence actively worked to shape the construction of reality in my data collection

process. I believe my presence was most notable in my in-depth interviews, where my

existence was influential in shaping the reality my participants and I were mutually

constructing. As will be explored, some of my respondents were reluctant to open up to










me about their habits in talking with the other office. These types of experiences are and

should always be regarded as data. My role in constructing these realities is further

discussed in the conclusion.

In-Depth Interviews

In-depth interviews provide a unique lens through which to view political issues.

All too often, due to their lack of generalizability, they are often overlooked as a valuable

research tool in the political science discipline. This seems to be especially true in

American politics, where researchers often study the entire voting electorate. As

standards for hiring and tenure get more competitive in academia, scholars tend to

gravitate towards the more marketable benefits of quantitative methodology. I see great

benefit in employing a mixed-methodological approach to our study of politics. We can

utilize in-depth interviews to inform quantitative analysis, and visa versa. As such,

chapter 4 is dedicated to the results of grounded theory analysis of in-depth interviews

with campaign and constituent office staff members. This analysis, in turn, influenced

the coding sheet construction for chapter 5.

Numerous scholars have done remarkable scholarship using in-depth interviewing

techniques. We can find a few notable examples of political scientists who conducted

interviews with members of Congress. Richard Fenno (1966) conducted semi-structured

interviews between 1959 and 1965 to Eind out more about the congressional

appropriations process.12 In his methodology, he describes how he asked certain key

questions of all respondents, then left the rest of the interview open-ended.





'2 To access Fenno's interview notes, visit http1 w\ il \\ archives.gov/legislative/research/special
collections/oral-history/fenno/interview-ntshm









A few years later, Fenno (1978) wrote a text that serves as a maj or inspiration to this

dissertation. Craftily blending observation techniques with in-depth interviews, he gives

us insight into how congressmen interact with others while in their home constituency.

He describes the phenomenon of how members of Congress create a "home style",

detailing how incumbents deal with their districts in different ways. In this dissertation,

we examine how and if incumbents create this type of "home style" on their campaign

and Senate Web pages.

Methodological Approach

This dissertation is based on the combined results of two separate rounds of in-

depth interviews. The first sets of interviews were conducted with twelve U.S. Senate

campaigns during the 2004 election cycle.13 The second set of interviews consisted of

interviews with twelve campaign staff members and twelve constituency office staff

members during the 2006 election cycle, giving us a total respondent base of thirty-six

unique individuals. In both the 2004 and 2006 data collection cycles, respondents

consisted of staff members in charge of Web-based decision-making, the selection

process of which will be described in further detail. All of the interviews were semi-

structured in nature, using a series of pre-constructed questions as a conversational

guide.14 Specific questions inquired about what decisions were made in selecting specific

Internet-based tools such as blogs and streaming video, the strategy behind these tools

and the site in general, and perceptions of what tools worked best throughout the course

of the election cycle. The interview guide for the campaign and constituency offices was




13 These interviews were completed as part of a pilot study for this dissertation. They offered such
substantial data, results were included in this study.
14 Please refer to Appendix A and B for the interview guides.










designed to be as similar as possible, allowing for some degree of comparison between

the two groups."

An important part of this study was getting the most knowledgeable respondent

on the telephone. This process was slightly different in the two interview cycles. When

calling campaigns in 2004, virtually none of the offices telephoned had a staff member

whose sole responsibility was considering and implementing Web-based strategy. Often,

this individual had multiple roles. This included acting as the Webmaster, political

director, or some other specialized task. This issue was similar when contacting

constituency offices in 2006. Thus, with the blurring and combination of staff member

duties, the exact title of this person varied from office to office. To ensure that the call

was directed to the most knowledgeable person in the office, I asked the person who

answered the phone to put me in touch with, "The person who is responsible for making

decisions regarding Internet-based strategy". This opening worked well, as only a few

circumstances arose where there was confusion as to who was responsible for such tasks.

In those circumstances, I spoke with the political director, and he or she put me in touch

with the right person. Interestingly, when contacting campaigns in 2006, there was an

increased number of staff members who were dedicated to online strategy. With these

campaigns, the duties of online content, implementation, and uploading fell clearly in one

person's lap. That was the individual's only responsibility in the campaign.

During the 2004 cycle, telephone interviews with the twelve Senate candidate

staff members were conducted between June 2nd and November 10th, 2004. During the



'5 The intention behind this qualitative research is to illuminate general concepts and expand our theoretical
understanding of how the Intemet is used as an election tool from the perspective of Web decision-makers.
Inherently, generalizability is sacrificed to achieve this depth (Esterberg, 2001). The comparisons
described in the upcoming chapters may not apply to all campaign and constituency offices.









2006 cycle, campaign and constituency offices were contacted between July 18th and

November 13th. Some of the campaigns contacted close to Election Day asked me to call

back at a later date. In most of those situations, an appointment was made to speak with

the appropriate person a day or two after the election had taken place.

We should consider the implications of conducting interviews with staff members

two years apart. Campaigns can change a lot from election cycle to election cycle.

Specific to this study, Web technology and tactics can change significantly over the

course of two years. Grounded theory analysis helped to illuminate that many of general

concepts applied to both election cycles. While some of the Web features may have

changed, many aspects relating to the importance and utilization of digital technology

remained common. The analysis presented in chapter 4 offers a broad view of these

similarities discussed by respondents in both election cycles, intertwined with details that

are specific to campaigns of that election cycle.

Analytical Strategy

Analysis of the thirty-six total interviews utilized a grounded theory approach

(Glaser & Strauss, 1976). An inductive method, grounded theory allows researchers to

tackle specific aims of a proj ect without any preconceptions or hypotheses (Strauss &

Corbin, 1994; Glaser, 1992). Through the use of constant comparisons between

interviews, researchers can extract sensitizing theoretical concepts, maj or themes that

appeared over and over (Glaser, 1992). The layered phases of grounded theory that this

analysis utilized were as follows:

























Figure 3-1 Stages of grounded theory [Reprinted with permission from Dick, Bob. 2005.
"Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch." Available online at
http://www. scu.edu.au/schools/ncm/ar/arp/nrounded.htm.

Open coding of the interview transcripts was crucial for the illumination of

repeating concepts. Each paragraph was coded with important notations, including what

the respondent is talking about, adjectives that describe the phenomenon, and the like.

As coding occurred, memos were also kept on the side for additional information. They

served as a reference for thoughts regarding more general themes. Using the coding

notes and memos together, findings were sorted into common themes and concepts. The

degree of commonality in these concepts led me to believe that I reached the point of data

saturation in the interviews.

Quantitative Analysis

Quantitative analysis is an excellent way to look across the cases in this dissertation

systematically. Bernard (2000) shows scholars how quantitative data can be used to

visualize patterns through the construction of maps, tables, and matrices. Rochefort's

2006 edited volume compiled numerous pieces from the journal PS: Political Science

and Politics to demonstrate the diverse quantitative approaches one can take in studying










important scholarly questions, including regression analysis to understand pivotal

questions such as why people are disengaged from politics (Putnam, 2006).

We are privileged to be able to point to many solid quantitative works in the field of

Intemet politics. An area of developing interest in that of equality and the Internet.

Using quantitative analysis of surveys, Pippa Norris (2001) explores the implications of

the digital divide worldwide. This important work helps us to understand the

"Democratic Divide" between those who use the Intemet and those who do not.

Importantly, she finds that, for now, the Intemet only works to engage the engaged. This

is problematic because the engaged represent a fraction of the overall population.

However, despite these bothersome findings, her quantitative analysis also reveals that

the online culture is a very accepting, open-minded one, enabling a value shift as

modernization continues. Mossberger et al. (2003) use survey data to further argue that a

dangerous inequality exists due to the rise of the Internet. The imbalance comes not only

with those with the technology, but perhaps more importantly, those who know how to

use the technology for their own personal gain.

Bringing together insights gained from the in-depth interviews, chapter 5 offers a

quantitative look at how the twenty-four incumbent senators running for re-election

presented themselves online in 2006. Both the constituent and campaign Web pages

were saved on a weekly basis from March 21, 2006 through November 14th, 2006.

Saving pages after the election allowed for the ability to capture good-bye messages.

Web sites were typically saved on Monday mornings using Intemet Explorer' s Web page

complete "save as" functionl6. This function allowed for most images, text, and graphics


16 There are Web page saving programs on the market. Such programs allow users to save Web pages
automatically by storing specific HTML addresses. I decided to use Internet Explorer's Web Page









to be saved, as opposed to simply archiving text or HTML17. A new folder was created

labeling each week, and within that folder, sub-folders were created for senatorial and

campaign pages, respectively.

Setting Parameters

Each of the Web sites analyzed for this study contain numerous layers of pages

and hyperlinks. All of these pages offer value to better understanding many of the

questions considered in this dissertation. They also all come together to reflect the most

accurate, complete digital presentation of self. However, for the purposes of this study,

only home pages were analyzed. The home page is the first thing a Web browser sees,

and in some cases, may the only thing he or she looks at. It creates an immediate

proj section of the self and is arguably the most important part of a political Web page

(Bimber and Davis, 2003).

Another issue that had to be considered was how much data saved in the Web site

archive would be used for the analysis. Data was collected on a weekly basis from

March 28th to November 8th, providing thirty-three weeks of archives for each

incumbent' s campaign and constituency Web pages. To make content analysis more

manageable, each Web page was coded on a bi-weekly basis starting on March 28th and

ending on November 8th. From this archive, different periods were used for the

quantitative analysis in this dissertation. The analysis ultimately ended up using a

snapshot of Web pages in March when the Web pages started to take form, early June

when the primaries were readily upon us, and early November just before Election Day.




Complete function because I felt it was important to consistently view the pages. Manually saving the
pages provided such opportunity, whereas automatic page saving programs would have not.
'7 Other Explorer save functions include Web Archive (single file), Web page (html only), and Text File.









Images as Insights into the Self

Images play a tremendous role in portraying a presentation of self, giving them a

key role in this analysis. To better understand the role they played in the 2006 campaign,

every home page picture on both the campaign and constituent Web contexts was

assigned one of the following variable status categories as shown in the table below.

Table 3-1 Image codes

CODE VARIABLE LABEL MEANING
1 PNONE Not in picture at all
2 P_SELF In picture with self only
3 P_SGROUP In picture with one or two others
4 PLGROUP In picture with group of three or more
5 P_slideshow Slideshow of multiple pictures

These categories give us a quick overall snapshot of the dominant pictures on

campaign and constituency Web pages in 2006. Statistical analysis in chapter 5 tells us if

incumbents tend to select images focusing only on him or herself alone, him or herself

with a small or large group, or something generic with no people in the image. We will

also explore how common it is for the images to change via a slideshow presentation.

Issues as Insights into the Self

Moving beyond how congressmen present themselves in images, it is equally as

important to consider how they present themselves in words. Looking at campaign and

constituency Web pages, one will immediately notice the plethora of information. There

are typically a lot of words on a single page, as well as access to numerous pages. When

trying to measure issues, given that the level of material is so sizable, an important

question is to determine what should be considered an "issue".

The issue coding procedure for this proj ect was adapted from the Wisconsin Ad

Proj ect, and has been successfully used by Sulkin et al (2007). Sixteen of the twenty-










three issues utilized for this proj ect were previously identified by the Wisconsin Ad

Proj ect, with Iraq, generic helping constituents, Iraq, energy and gas, women' s rights,

immigration, the opponent, and state-specific issues all being unique categories added for

this study. I The following sixteen issues stem from the Wisconsin projects: agriculture,

budget, campaign finance, crime, consumer issues, defense and foreign policy, education,

environment, health, infrastructure, jobs and economic development, Medicare, social

and cultural issues, Social Security, taxes, and welfare. Statements were coded into only

one category. This category was the one estimated to be the dominant theme of the

statement.

In addition to measuring what issues were talked about, another variable was

added as a measure of relative space. This helps us to understand how much space one

issue took up relative to other issues on the home page. As Prior (2001) helps us to

understand, it would be somewhat shortsighted for scholars to treat all Web statements

equally. Some issues may be talked about at length while others may be passively

mentioned in a single sentence. The existence of such disparities allows for the space

measurement to help us understand the relative priority one issue has in relation to

another, and has been successfully used in Tracy Sulkin's work (see 2007 article for most

recent work).

The construction of this relative space measurement is based on a weighting

system that deciphers how much digital space was given to a particular issue. The first

step in calculating this measure was to assign each issue a score. These scores ranged

from zero to three. Zero means that the issue was not mentioned at all on the home page,

one meaning the issue was discussed in a sentence or less, two meaning the issue was


's Appendix F offers the full list as a reference.









described in one to three paragraphs, and three meaning there was a link to a full-page

explanation or press release of the incumbent' s view on the issue. Adding up these

scores across all issues gives us the denominator for our Web space statistic. The

numerators are the scores that each individual issue received on the one through three

scale. This process is described in greater detail in chapter 5, and we will see how this

comparative measure of space allows us to compare both the amount of space an issue

receives and the total number of issues mentioned on any given home page.

Functional Features and Other Considerations

As we will explore in chapter 4, the in-depth interviews provide us with insight

into what types of technological tools and features are viewed as digital necessities in

attempting to proj ect a certain senatorial presentation of self online. Similarly, we will

explore what types of tools and features were avoided to maintain a consistent

presentation. These items include the creation of blogs, fundraising capabilities,

personalized log-in functions, and the presence types of media, such as photographs and

television commercials. To supplement these finding, statistical analysis was performed

on the campaign and constituency Web pages to determine what types of digital functions

were found on the home pages.19 Some of the tools searched for included blogs (both

end-user interactive and non-interactive), fundraising capabilities, and newsletter sign-up.

These statistics give us an idea of what features appear on the two Web contexts, and if

and how these features change over time.

Beyond photos, issues, space, and functional features, other notable variables

were considered in the statistical analysis. The decision to include some of these

variables arose from findings drawn out of the grounded theory analysis. For example,









some of the respondents spoke about the importance of senatorial history in the

construction of the digital self. This finding prompted the inclusion of demographic

variables including seniority in the Senate and age. Other demographic variables include

geographic region represented, level of committee presence in the Senate, gender, and

race. These variables come together in chapter 6 to help us explore presentational

similarities and differences within and between groups.

Case Study

Case studies offer us detailed insight into complex worlds, helping us to

understand social phenomenon in a highly in-depth way. Stephen Van Evera (1997)

illuminates how case studies can be used to both test and create theory about our politics.

King, Keohane, and Verba (1994) further assert that although, "the styles of quantitative

and qualitative research are different", the same logic of inference underlies both

approaches (3). Case studies may initially start out with a sample size of one or two, but

will grow as more scholars give the cases attention (King et al, 1994). Embracing this

valuable resource, chapter 6 features a case study of Connecticut incumbent Senator Joe

Lieberman. Moving from a popular Democratic incumbent to a polarizing Independent

candidate, it offers a detailed account of how Lieberman' s digital presentation of self

morphed over the course of the 2006 election.

Numerous scholars have utilized case studies to help illuminate interesting

political phenomenon. Barbara Sinclair (1997) introduces readers to five different case

studies to demonstrate different ways that a bill can become a law. Each case study

shows variety in procedures of Congress.



19 Please see appendix D and E for the coding schemes.










The Importance of Lieberman

All of the incumbent senators running for re-election in 2006 made some degree

of change to their Web presence. This applies to both the campaign and Senate.gov page.

Often, the change simply meant updating the daily happenings of the Senator. In other

instances, as in the case of Joe Lieberman, the changes were more dramatic, with the site

going through a total overhaul. In Lieberman's case, despite this overhaul, he earned

victory in the general election.

Lieberman provides a very unique case because, while it has happened in the past,

it is very rare to see an incumbent candidate switch party affiliations mid-election20. This

is particularly true at the senatorial level, though there are a few notable examples. Most

recently, James Jeffords of Vermont changed his party affiliation from Republican to

Independent. This move changed the balance of power in the Senate in 2001 from a 50-

50 split with a Republican tie-breaker to a 50-49-1 in the hands of the Democrats.21

Lieberman's situation is strikingly familiar to Jeffords' 2001 party change, with Vice

President Dick Cheney still holding the tie-breaker. The balance of power in the Senate

for the 110th Congress is 49-49-1-1. One Independent is Bernie Sanders, who took over

the open Vermont Senate seat vacant from Jeffords' retirement. Joe Lieberman holds the

other Independent seat, classifying himself as an "Independent Democrat".22 Lieberman

has openly stated that he will caucus with the Democrats, but as scholars have come to





20 For a comprehensive list of representatives who switched parties, visit
.
21With this 50-50 split, Republican Vice President Dick Cheney represented the tie-breaking vote. After
Richards switched parties, the Democrats had control until the 2002 election cycle.
22For more information on the balance of power in the 1 10t Congress, visit
<









realize, political behavior is far from predictable, making his victory even more

intriguing.

Beyond thinking about the balance of power and uniqueness of party shifts in the

Senate, the political context in which Lieberman's victory took place is also noteworthy.

One would have to consider what characteristics a state must have to elect a candidate

that makes such drastic moves in the middle of a campaign. We will explore how

Connecticut is comprised of a very unique constituency, with a large Independent base.

Understanding this political context gives us perspective on the conditions that helped lift

Lieberman to victory.

What the Case Study Explores

Lieberman's 2006 campaign provides us with such a fertile source of data,

scholars will undoubtedly enrich our knowledge of multiple subfields within the

American politics literature with this case study. For the purposes of this dissertation, we

look at this case through the lens of attempting to better understand digital presentation of

self in online political contexts. Most interestingly, even though Lieberman' s Web page

represents one space in our cyberworld, this space was drastically reconstructed over the

course of the nine months the page was archived for this proj ect.

The case study highlights four main phases of Joe Lieberman's presentation of

self, the Democrat, transition, Independent-Democrat, and hijacked phases. Each of these

phases are identified by significant shifts in some combination of tone, background,

imagery, and message. Chapter 6 discusses each of these phases in great detail. Some of

the more interesting highlights include the usage of language, word counts, images, and

characteristics of the Connecticut electorate.









Looking Ahead

The next chapter draws on in-depth interviews to explore how a senatorial

presentation of self created on our two Web contexts. Here, we begin to see how unique

the two offices truly are, and how these differences lead to unique goals and obj ectives in

the Web page. Chapter 5 offers a quantitative perspective on this question, measuring

how much relative space multiple issues are given on each Web page. We will learn how

consistency is most clear within contexts. Finally, chapter 6 explores the wild

Connecticut Senate election of 2006. Using case study analysis, four different stages of

Joe Lieberman's digital presentation of self are identified. The chapter demonstrates the

power of context in the development and public acceptance of the self.









CHAPTER 4
UNDERSTANDING WEB PRESENTATION QUALITATIVELY

The Senatorial Puzzle

Senators are complex animals that work in the depths of multiple contexts. As

elected officials, they represent a large geographical space, attempting to appeal to

different groups within that area, appease party leaders, and work on legislation while

potentially setting themselves up for a move up the political ladder. Concurrent with this

role, the vast maj ority of senators seek re-election, providing a window where these

individuals hold a dual identity as Senator and candidate, office holder and office seeker.

It is provocative to question how these individuals present themselves within the

contexts of their differing capacities. Fenno (1978) argues that it is important for House

members to have a consistent presentation of self at home. A consistent presentation of

self helps one develop trust with the constituents. Senators, Fenno argues, have a much

less personal Home Style. Since their home regions are bigger than that of House

members, and their terms are six years instead of two, it may be harder for senators to

have a highly consistent image. When you add in the dimension of context, meaning

home versus Washington, this may become even more true.

While it may be helpful for re-election purposes, there is no unspoken rule that

states that the messages presented in the context of these multiple capacities must be

identical. For example, as a working Senator, an individual often talks about what he or

she is doing in the present. They might present themselves as being caring, professional,

and diligent. As a candidate, the same person may focus more on the future, presenting

himself or herself as being creative, optimistic, and open-minded. The two presentations










may have wildly different central focuses, may be identical, or perhaps more likely, meet

somewhere in the middle.

There are numerous venues that incumbent senators use to proj ect a self-

presentation including television, radio, personal appearances, and the main focus of this

dissertation, Web technology. The key avenue for digital presentation typically comes in

the form of a personal Web page, which may contain photos, news features, streaming

video, blogs, and other features. Incumbent senators running for re-election are unique in

that they have this personal online presence in two places, through their government Web

page (Senate.gov), and through their official campaign site.

Based on in-depth interviews with both campaign staff working in the 2004 and

2006 election cycles, and Senate staff working in 2006, this chapter offers qualitative

insight into the question of how Congressmen present themselves on these two different

Web contexts. Topics covered include understanding how and why specific content gets

online, the functions of each respective page, and the strategy behind utilizing or

avoiding certain Web-based features to help construct a digital self. We will also explore

if and how campaign and Senate staff work outside the boundaries of political advocacy

laws in order to communicate with one another. We will see how surprisingly little

coordination exists between the two entities, giving credence to the idea that campaign

and constituency offices truly are two different beings that present a digital Senator in

their own unique way.

Web-Based Tools as Enhancement of the Self

In today's technological age, Web tools are powerful ways that individuals and

groups can obtain their goals online (Ireland & Nash, 2001). Features such as blogs, real-









time chats, and digital teleconferencing allow for people to communicate quickly and

cost efficiently. Streaming videos, My Space and Facebook accounts, and digital diaries

also present unique ways for information to be presented to Web browsers. Interactivity

and personalization allow for individuals to find the type of information they are looking

for quickly, such as in the case of creating individual settings when a particular Web

browser logs in (Mayer & Cornfield, 2003). The usage or avoidance of these functions

says something about the agenda of the person who created the page. It points to their

intentions regarding strategy, capability, and the amount of input they are willing to let

end-users offer to the site. These aspects all come together to say something about the

self-presentation the entity is trying to portray.

In the literature review, we explored Erving Goffman's concept of "impression

management", the idea that an individual will go to great lengths to assist others in

believing that he or she is successfully playing the role they are portraying. This may

mean using certain language, wearing certain clothing, making references to specific

topics, and so on. Congressmen running for re-election represent an interesting group of

individuals because they are trying to construct and maintain their identity in two

different roles simultaneously, that of a candidate and of elected official. Web

technology is one arena where incumbent Congressmen can create, sustain, and project a

presentation of self.

Web Page Layout and Content Construction

Before we explore what we see in these different Web contexts, and the reasoning

behind them as presented through the eyes of staff members, one of the more









fundamental questions that must be addressed is getting a handle on is who creates the

Web page layout and content.

All twelve campaigns contacted during the course of the 2006 election indicated

that they sought out the expertise of third-party companies in constructing the template of

their Web page. Campaign Solutions was the most commonly cited business used for

this service.23 The campaigns were seeking out assistance with the basic layout only, not

for help with content writing or other services. This is verified on the Campaign

Solutions Web page, which states that the company does not deal with writing of content

or construction of a Web strategy.24 The business specializes in the construction of

templates for campaign photographs, online donations, press releases, and other political

Web page essentials.

Unlike their constituency office counterparts, some campaign staff members had

experience in Web design and layout. They often collaborated with third-party Web

design companies to create the exact layout they wanted. Additionally, having these

skills set the campaign up for making complex changes to the Web page more easily.

With the increasing importance of the online presence and strategy in campaigns, it

should come as no surprise that candidates are hiring staff members with Web design

backgrounds. Some of the campaigns interviewed in both the 2004 and 2006 election

cycles had an individual dedicated to online communications, often hired into the

position because of their ability to mix campaign and Web design experience. We will

likely see an increasing presence in this type of capacity within statewide and national

campaigns as we move forward towards 2008.


23 The Campaign Solutions Web page can be found at: http://www. campaign-solutio ns.co m/
24 blip w\ il \t .campaign-solutionls.com/services~asp









In addition to page layout, digital content plays a significant role in constructing

and maintaining an overall Web presentation (Gulati, 2004; Bystrom et al., 2004). For

campaigns, the authors of the Web content differed dramatically. Some campaigns left

online communication solely to the communications director or online specialist. This

person would have virtually no oversight and was typically the only person responsible

for creating a Web strategy. Other campaigns made content creation more of a joint

effort. Feeling that digital content played an important part in the campaign's overall

strategy, these offices held staff meetings where Web text and images were brainstormed

between multiple staff members. Other campaigns used a group approach, but with less

collaboration towards an overall Web strategy. These campaigns allowed for staff

members to upload content freely, giving very little sense of oversight and unity in

content development.

As will be discussed later, some candidates embraced the idea of giving

constituent control over certain Web content, a totally new interactive dimension of

construction of the self. Features such as streaming video commercials uploaded by

browsers, as in the case of Dean TV in 2004, or truly interactive online blogs, as in the

case of Ned Lamont in 2006, give control of one' s digital identity to others. Most

incumbent candidates strategically stayed away from such interactive features solely for

the purpose of having total control over what appeared on the Web page.

Like their campaign counterparts, all twelve of the Senate offices interviewed in

2006 indicated that they sought out third-party assistance with the construction of their

Web page. Some of the offices turned to people within their party for assistance, such as

in the case of one popular incumbent who turned to the Democratic Senate









Communications Center. Numerous respondents mentioned that the United States Senate

puts out a list of recommendations, but offices are not required to abide by this list. All

of the offices interviewed stated that they turned to third-party entities that were not on

the Senate's list for help, often contacting companies where someone in the office was

familiar with that agency's work.

In deciding what third-party service to ultimately use for Web page layout

assistance, the office staff primarily sought out companies that offered user-friendly

templates. A few of the respondents interviewed had experience with Web design, but

most did not. This is perhaps best illustrated by one Democratic Senate office respondent

who laughingly offered, "We were looking for something monkey proof, something that

we could all do without screwing up" (anonymous DS1, 2006). Clearly, the staff wanted

to be able to upload specific content without jeopardizing the page layout itself.

Given that Senate office online communication is not as high-profile as their

campaign counterpart, likely because they do not receive attention from traditional news

mediums like campaigns do, constituency offices do not employ a staff member

dedicated to online communication. This typically falls in the lap of a general

communications staff member. We can see how this is different than their campaigning

counterpart, where employees may be hired specifically for the purposes of managing

online communications and Web-based strategy. The result is that constituency offices

have people working on the Web site that lack any significant experience with digital

politics and Web site development.

Perceptions of "The Basics"










Template features

Both campaign and constituency office staff respondents talked about the

importance of having "the basics" on their Web page, tools or features that they

perceived as being imperative for a successful Web page. Having a template that was

easily manipulated was seen as critical to staff members being able to upload and change

these basic features at will, sometimes as much as on a daily basis. Perceived "basics"

differed largely between campaign and constituency offices. For campaigns, basics

included an issues page, the senator's biography, a newsroom with press releases, a

volunteer page, and the ability to accept credit card donations. This is in line with the

suggestions presented by Ireland and Nash (2001). For constituency offices, perceived

basics included a biography, contact information, current bill information, and

information regarding different constituency services such as flag requests. Both

constituency and campaign staff members talked about the importance of having these

features prominently displayed and easily accessible through the incumbent' s home page.

Up-to-date content

Both constituency and campaign staff members viewed continually updating the

Web site as very important. For constituency offices, this meant updating information on

what the senator was currently working on, often including updating text on bills in

progress or issuing new press releases. For campaigns, posting the most recent calendar

events and public appearances, press releases, and recaps of past events was seen as

critical.

As we will discuss in the next section, continually updating the Web page has

different significance for the two offices. For campaigns, giving off the perception that










the candidate is very busy is of great importance. This ties into the strategic function of

attempting to intimidate the opponent, as well as communicating to the media that the

campaign is very active. Appearing busy is also important for constituency offices,

updating Web browsers on what the senator is doing in office. This allows for both

constituents and political groups to better understand the senator's position on current

1SSUeS.

These findings are in line with Mayhew (1974), who describes three main

activities of Congressmen. Credit claiming, position taking, and advertising are all ways

that politicians attempt to reach their goal of re-election. Even though Mayhew appears

to talk more about these activities as campaigning tactics, we can also reflect on the

Senate office as a place where they also take place. Appearing busy, communicating to

the media, and offering up-to-date digital content all support the concept that Mayhew' s

main ideas are true in both the online and offline worlds.

Strategic Functions of Campaign and Senate Sites

One way to more fully understand how, why, and to what degree campaign and

constituent office Web contexts differ is to consider the functions that each Web page

serves. By understanding these functions, we will be able to assess how and why

senatorial presentations may differ in these contexts. We will also be able to more fully

comment on the implications of these findings.

Grounded theory analysis of interviews conducted in 2004 and 2006 revealed four

maj or strategic functions that campaign Web sites serve: mobilizing existing supporters,

empowering those supporters, intimidating the opponent, and communicating with the









media.25 Analysis of 2006 data revealed that the strategic functions that Senate.gov

pages serve are offering accessible constituent information, providing contact

information, and updating senatorial activity.

Campaign Web Pages

Mobilizing existing supporters

Both 2004 and 2006 campaign respondents spoke about how Web pages were

most often visited by supporters, people who already decided they were going to vote for

the candidate. While this is not exclusively true, having this general knowledge helped

staff members understand what audience they were speaking to on their site. The trick,

staffers believed, was to get these supporters together to propel their candidate to

electoral success.

Blogs, a highly popular phenomenon, played a significant mobilization role in the

minds of numerous 2004 campaign staff members interviewed. This finding is in concert

with some of the recent literature that argues in favor of blogs' ability to mobilize and

active citizens (Kerbel and Bloom, 2005; Uslander, 2004; Grossman, 1995). Some

candidates stressed the importance of having a blog directly on the candidate's Web page,

where others only offered links to third-party blogs. Some sites took an approach similar

to Chris Dodd's 2004 "Doddblog", where the campaign would post text and images and

call it a "blog". Blogs of this nature allow the campaign to fully control the content and

topics featured and discussed. The only truly interactive blogs posted directly on

candidate's campaign Web pages belonged to Howard Dean in 2004 and Ned Lamont in





25 This grounded theory analysis encompassed interviews with incumbent senator staff members running in
2004 and 2006, respectively. These four strategic functions proved to be common in both election cycles.









2006. Regardless, the perception of having a blog seemed to trump the interactive versus

passive blog dichotomy.

As noted by one 2004 Democratic incumbent, and echoed by one 2006

Democratic challenger, staff members often called or e-mailed third-party blog-posters to

personally address their questions and concerns. This gives credence to the importance

of blogs regardless of their placement in the digital atmosphere. As normative academic

literature would likely argue, and as mirrored in the conversations with these two staff

members, blogs serve as a mechanism for getting more people involved in the political

process, which is both an exciting and important part of running campaigns.

Also seen as a type of basic necessity, having a volunteer sign-up was seen as a

key to mobilizing online supporters. Virtually all of the 2004 and 2006 campaigns talked

about the importance of having this feature prominently displayed on their home page

and making it easy to use. Letting the volunteer decide how he/she wanted to help the

candidate was seen as crucial as well, thus most sign-up forms had boxes of different

activities that people could select to help with. In a strategic move, a few 2004

campaigns mentioned how they had pre-checked boxes on the form which the site user

would have to de-select if he/she did not want those options. The pre-checked options

were most often to receive e-mail campaign updates from the candidates. One 2004

candidate had a pre-checked box that asked the campaign to send postal mail to the

volunteer.

Empowering existing supporters

Moving one step beyond mobilizing supporters, campaigns found the idea of

empowering these individuals to be equally as important in both election cycles.









Considering the 2004 Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet study that

discusses "online influentials", the power of supporters who are highly involved through

online politics, this concept of empowerment makes sense (Darr et al., 2004). By

empowering existing supporters to identify and influence other potential supporters, the

campaign would be utilizing the human capital that the candidate's site brings together.

Empowering existing supporters also brings virtually limitless return on the campaign's

digital investment, bringing in new potential voters, volunteers, and fundraisers by simply

adding a few features to the Web page.

Respondents mentioned numerous Internet-based tools that they relied on to

empower their existing their supports, most of which they viewed as successful in

achieving this goal over the course of both the 2004 and 2006 campaigns. It was clear

that the importance in this empowerment came in the forms of creativity, freedom, and

personalization; letting current supporters craft their own ways of reaching out to others.

In this sense, the campaign served the role of the template, providing a basic outline and

letting the current supporter do most of the work. This relates to a concept identified by

the IPDI as "political event-in-a-box" (Darr et al., 2004). This feature allows for

supporters to download the materials for their own home-based event, such as house

parties, debate watches, or meals. Such downloads often included posters, banners, and

recipes.

A fantastic way that Senate campaigns attempted to empower supporters in both

2004 and 2006 was giving them tasks that could be completed via the Internet. In

particular, numerous campaigns talked about the importance of encouraging and

empowering supporters to write Letters to the Editor (LTEs). This process would start









with the campaign either calling or e-mailing supporters who signed up to be a campaign

volunteer via the Internet. The campaign would then encourage the individual to write a

LTE to the local newspaper, using information provided to them on the Web site. For

example, Senator Chris Dodd's 2004 (D-CT) Web site had an option to click on the home

page called "Letter to the Editor", which would take the site visitor to a listing of all local

newspapers, their Web sites (if applicable), and their mailing address. This was not an

uncommon feature. Sites similar to that of Dodd' s in both 2004 and 2006 would also

offer an issues page that included bullet points, which LTE writers were encouraged to

use as talking points. Some 2006 campaigns also sent out LTE templates to volunteers

via E-mail upon request. Similarly, campaigns empowered supporters by giving them the

tools to conduct radio call-ins. Much like in the case of LTEs, numerous campaign sites

offered the contact information of local radio stations in the area.

Intimidating the opponent

Campaign staff members spoke extensively about using Web-based politics as a

means of psychological intimidation against opponents. In considering who visited their

Web page, staffers listed groups in the order of likely supportive voters, undecided

voters, media, and potential rivals. Knowing this fact was something campaigns felt they

could benefit from by putting feelings of doubt and inferiority in the minds of the

opposition. Most notably in 20004, the integration of advanced Web-based technologies

was seen as a powerful strategic intimidation tactic. One 2004 Republican incumbent

spoke about new flash animation options that were utilized on his home page. This

respondent had no inhibitions in telling me how proud the campaign was of their site,

feeling that it was the best statewide or national candidate Web page to date.









The interesting thing about this type of psychological intimidation is that it is

noticeably different from that discussed in the campaigning literature. Numerous authors

have talked about the benefits of negative campaigning (Ansolabehere & lyengar, 1995;

Mark, 2007). As Mark suggests, it is a delicate art form that can be highly successful.

Psychological intimidation plays a significant role in this process. With digital

intimidation, respondents are not talking about direct negative attacks on their opponents.

This type of intimidation is much more indirect; like pulling up to a debate in a

Lamborghini when your opponent arrives on a motorized scooter. The candidate driving

the Lamborghini did not do anything to directly hurt the opponent on the scooter, but the

disparity between their vehicles of choice is notable and may result in some consequence

in how voters perceive each person.

A few popular 2004 incumbents felt that their Web pages did not need to feature

new technology, and thus offered only a bare skeleton of the candidate and his/her

campaign themes. They felt that they were so likely to win, they could intimidate their

opponent by giving off an aura of confidence through lack of Web-based content. In

2004, Republican incumbent Arlen Spector' s (R-PA) Web site team clearly took this

approach by offering only a home page and one other page on issues. Interestingly, very

few campaigns mirrored Spector' s page, with most popular Incumbents having very

detailed and technologically-advanced pages.26 This was the case with all incumbents

running in the 2006 election cycle.

Another strategy that was viewed as important in intimidating the opponent was

that of looking highly active. As noted by one 2004 Democratic challenger, "A site

should be like your headquarters; it should look busy, even when you're not. It should










look strong and geographically-specific" (anonymous DC1, 2004). The strategies

discussed talked about perceptions, fooling the opponent into believing he or she is

seeing something that may not necessarily be true. By having lots of features on the Web

site, including pictures and press releases, it gives of the impression that the campaign is

highly active. Creating this perception in the opponent's mind helps to cast thoughts of

doubt and inferiority, and as will be discussed in the next section, gives off a favorable

impression to visiting media representatives.

Give information to the media

The last strategic function that was discussed by campaign respondents was

giving information to the media through Web-based communication. This is in line with

current literature dealing with media and politics. Kedrowski (2006) describes how

members of Congress reach out the media to influence public policy. One Webmaster

respondent believed that the media goes to candidate Web sites to not only look for basic

issue information, but mistakes, level of activity, and aggressiveness in schedule.

Speaking to a point that was also important in attempting to intimidate the opponent,

giving off the appearance of being busy was seen as imperative. As noted by 2004

Republican campaign, "It' s important to give the media the impression that your

campaign is a winning proposition to cover" (anonymous RC1, 2004).

A few 2004 and 2006 Web sites had specific pages devoted to press relations.

This section, referred to as the "press room", offers items such as campaign contact

information, press releases, speeches, and endorsements. This allowed site visitors from

the media to complete quick one-stop shopping, finding important information on the

campaign' s recent activity all on one page or series of pages.


26 2004 archives from www.chrisdodd.com or www~harrvreid~ccom serve as examples.









Senate Web Pages

Offering accessible constituent information

Constituent offices get flooded with calls on a daily basis. The biggest function

of the Web page, as noted by all twelve Senate offices interviewed in 2006, was to offer

accessible information on the Web page in hopes of curtailing these calls. As noted by

one Republican office, "We try to direct callers to the Web page as much as possible. By

placing detailed information online, we hope we can answer their questions on things we

are asked a lot, such as flag requests" (anonymous RS1, 2006).

There are a few other strategies that offices employ in hopes of directing

constituents to their Web page. When calling Joe Lieberman's Senate office, one is

greeted with a recorded message. It's Joe's voice, and before giving callers the

opportunity to speak to a live person, he suggests visiting his Senate page. Other offices

attempt to give their Web page an "office-like" feeling, featuring streaming video

welcome or a welcome letter encouraging constituents to browse the page for specific

information. One can view this function as also freeing up resources. The less time staff

members spend answering phones, the more time they have to do other activities.

Providing contact information

Respondents felt that offering contact information was another very important

function of the Web page. This includes contact information for the different local

constituency offices, Washington office, and e-mail address for the senator. With an

increasing number of Americans getting into the wired age, telephone books may be

taking a back seat to digital surfing for political contact information. Making this contact










information readily accessible was seemingly important amongst respondents for this

reason.

Some respondents found it more important than others to have this contact

information located directly on the home page. As noted by one Republican office, "We

tried to make it as easy as possible to help people Eind this information, so we put it on

the bottom-right corner of the home page" (anonymous RS2, 2006). Others agreed that

this information was important, but felt that putting a link to the information off of the

home page was just as acceptable and that someone looking specifically for that

information would be able to Eind it.

Updating senatorial activity

Mentioned by ten out of the twelve Senate offices interviewed, updating the

senator' s senatorial activity was also a primary function of the constituent Web page.

Respondents felt page browsers might log on to see what the senator is doing in office, if

he or she is supporting a specific bill, or what issues are currently on the Senate floor.

Most of these respondents reported that they update the home page on a daily basis, with

a few offering that they update every few days.

Interestingly, the Web function of keeping browsers informed of what' s going on

seems to hold increasing importance for people outside of the constituency. Multiple

respondents talked about how political groups may use Senate.gov as a way to identity

allies in office. This may be true with campaigns as well, but respondents from that camp

did not raise it as a topic. This is likely because, as offered by the Senate staff

respondents, their Web page offers detailed, up-to-date information on what the Senator

is doing in Congress.









One feature that two Washington staff members talked about as being their next

step in the wired age is to feature a live video feed when the senator is speaking on the

floor. This would offer the most real-time information on what the senator is doing,

speaking to the importance of offering continually updated information on senatorial

activity. One Republican incumbent' s office talked about following the senator around

the halls of Congress with a camera and uploading the feed onto the Internet.

While mainstream television media such as C-SPAN offers constituents the

ability to see what is going on inside the Senate chamber, these two respondents

commented on how Web streaming video could offer more targeted information. Below

is a quote as noted by one Republican incumbent's office.

"People check out our page because they want to see what Senator [name
deleted] is up to. Our idea is to show people clips when he is speaking on the
floor so they can get a better idea of what is going on. People will probably sit
and watch a short video online but not watch C-SPAN, especially if we decide to
automatically start the video when someone logs onto our page" (anonymous
RS3, 2006).

While we typically think about campaigns as being the ones that target, here we

see evidence that Washington offices also offer their own type of specialized,

strategically planned information.

Coordination as Strategy?

Now understanding the differing functional purposes of each Web page, further

considering the type of strategy campaign and constituency offices use to construct their

Web page begs the question of if and how the two offices coordinate their online

presence. Although we see that the functional goals of these two contexts are not

identical, given that two offices are working on behalf of the same individual, it seems

reasonable that the two entities might collaborate with or consult each another for









information. Sharing text and pictures would certainly speak to a cognizance towards

creating a consistent online senatorial identity. Conversely, working in complete

independence of one another potentially reifies the idea that the offices are truly two

separate beings. This research represents the first scholarly attempt at understanding if

this type of collaboration exists for the purposes of online communication.

The Hatch Act of 1939 served as the first legislation to regulate the behavior of

federal employees as it applies to the engagement in partisan activities. The Act, named

after Senator Carl Hatch, was proposed in response to Works Progress Administration

(WPA) workers using their official government capacities to help aid the Democratic

Party in the 1938 election cycle ("Hatch Act", Encyclopedia Britannica, 2007). Even

though these events were aiding his own party, Senator Hatch proposed these laws as a

way to end corruption from inside Washington establishments.27

In 1993, these laws were revisited by Congress to help further define what

constitutes illegal activity while working in a federal, state, or local capacity. The most

important update to these statutes was the broadening of political advocacy activities

government employees could engage in while not on duty. The Act outlines times when

government employees may not engage in political activity, including when using a

government vehicle, on official duty, when wearing an official uniform, or when

physically in the office ("Political Activity", Office of Special Council, 2007).

Otherwise, with the exception of individuals in specific high-level capacities, government








27 To read more about the Hatch Act, please visit http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm.









workers were given explicit permission to manage and/or work on political campaigns in

through the updated statutes.28

Specific to this dissertation, we should consider how these regulations impact

employees working in Washington constituent offices. Given that the Washington staff

members are being paid to serve constituents with taxpayers' dollars, using work time to

assist in campaigning efforts falls under the umbrella of illegal behavior. The

implications of this means that constituent staff members cannot collaborate with

campaign staff members during business time. However, campaign and constituent

office staff have identified legal ways to communicate without being in violation of the

law. Since the Hatch statutes do not regulate communication between these entities

outside of business hours, communication in their own personal time is viewed as legal

and legitimate.

In speaking with Senate staff about communicating with their campaign

counterpart, the level of inter-office communication varied wildly between offices. Ten

of the twelve constituency offices interviewed did not engage in this type of

communication, such as in the case of one Midwestern Democratic incumbent whose

office staff reified the idea that each office serves different purposes.

"We are here as a base for constituent concerns while they are working to keep
Senator [name extracted from transcript] in office, so we are working for the same
person but are doing different things. They have their own agenda and ways of
going about things, and honestly I haven't even looked at their Web page"
(anonymous DS2, 2006).

Surprisingly, this was not the only Senate office that said they did not look at the

other office's Web page. Most of the offices interviewed followed suit in this regard. On


28 For a full list of federal employees subject to greater restrictions on partisan activity, please visit
http://www. osc.gov/ha_ fed. htm#agencies.









the other side of the spectrum, two Senate offices had constant communication and

collaboration with their campaigning counterpart on non-business time. The Washington

office for one highly popular Democratic incumbent wrote a significant level of issue-

based content for the campaign home page. The communications director in this office

laughingly shared her experiences as quotes below.

"I am actually quite involved in working with the campaign. I can't talk to them
while in the office, but we talk through a personal e-mail account. They actually
asked me for help writing the issue pages of the Web site because they wanted to
get it right, and figured we would know, so I spent my own time on the weekends
writing stuff and sent it off to them, and they copied and pasted what I wrote
word-for-word" (anonymous DS3, 2006).

There is a lot of insight in this quote, with one important feature being a clear

valuing of consistent, "correct" information. Here, the campaign office is looking to the

Senate office as the authority on the senator' s views on specific issues. They are

cognizant that offering a similar message on the senator' s issues is of some notable

importance.

Although this one respondent provides evidence that collaboration exists between

the two entities, this was far from the norm, with only two out of twelve respondents

speaking to this idea. A topic that arose out of the grounded theory analysis that spoke to

why this type of communication may be lacking is a misunderstanding of Hatch

regulations.

Considering the Law

The line of questioning about inter-office communication clearly raised eyebrows

with respondents, likely because it touches on legal issues and people cannot immediately

verify the identity of the person conducting the phone interview. Most of the respondents

got defensive at the very onset of topic, cutting the interviewer off and immediately










denying any such activity, something that may lead us to wonder how well staff members

understand their rights as staff members.

As we have explored, the Hatch Act clearly allows for inter-office collaboration

during non-business hours. Constituent and campaign offices can communicate legally

and effectively within the confines of these laws. However, many of the respondents did

not appear to realize that inter-office communication was legal in certain circumstances.

As one Republican Senate staff member explained: "We cannot talk to them [the

campaign staff], so we don't speak. It's illegal" (anonymous RS4, 2006). This seemed

to be the common perspective amongst the eight of the twelve Senate offices interviewed.

It was not apparent that these respondents realized the law does not extend beyond their

physical time in office.

Given the fact that this line of questioning does touch on legal issues, honesty in

responses may be at play. It is highly doubtful that any of the staff members would admit

to breaking the law, and if respondents interpreted any form of inter-office

communication as illegal, they would not talk about it to a stranger. Thus, we may not be

getting a completely clear picture of the level of inter-office coordination and/or

communication that may be at play here. It is not outside the scope of reason that office

staff members may be instructed to answer questions in a certain way and to deny the

existence of certain behaviors.

Consistency though Visual Queues

A different way to ask about the idea of inter-office collaboration is to touch on if

and when campaign staff seek out visual queues from their senatorial office's Web page,

and visa versa. On face, this line of questioning would seem much more innocuous than









asking about inter-office communication, as it is unlikely that someone would interpret

viewing a Web page as being in violation of the Hatch Act. Respondents were asked if

they visited the other office's Web page to consult, view, or take information from the

site. The value of this line of questioning is that engaging in this type of behavior could

be interpreted as a very basic, inexpensive, and innocuous way to achieve senatorial

online consistency between the two Web contexts.

This line of questioning revealed that the two offices rarely, if ever, consult one

another' s Web page. Stunningly, most respondents stated that they did not look at the

other office' s page at all though the course of the election. While four out of twelve

campaign office staff stated that they have viewed the Senate.gov page of their candidate

over the course of the 2006 election cycle, it became apparent that they were looking at

the page for the purpose of getting an overview of the digital tools used, not reading the

content itself. These campaign staffers stumbled when asked what issues were discussed

on the Senate Web page.

This finding offers evidence that there is not only a lack of digital collaboration,

but more broadly, speaks to a larger disconnect between the two offices. It is surprising

that the staff in each respective office do not look to one another for guidance. This

chapter demonstrates that this disconnect applies to both phone conversations and Web

browsing.

With that said, given the apparent lack of communication and collaboration

between the campaign and Senate offices, one must begin to wonder how and if the Web

pages differ in terms of senatorial presentation. Do they contrast with one another? Are

the stated priorities and issues the same? These are all new questions that will be first









addressed on a scholarly level here. An important step we can take to better understand

how a senatorial presentation of self is created on these Web contexts is to consider

common frames of reference campaign and constituent ounces may rely upon in

constructing their respective pages.

Constructing a Complete Self

Understanding that inter-office collaboration for the purposes of senatorial self-

presentation is extremely rare, we have to ask ourselves where the basis for this

presentation may stem from on each respective page. This section offers additional

insights by the twelve campaign and twelve Senate office staff interviewed in the 2006

election cycle.

Political History as Self-Definition

Many of the incumbent senators running for re-election in 2006 brought a deep

senatorial history to their campaign. Class I incumbents included a former first lady

(Hillary Clinton, NY-D) and presidential and vice presidential candidate (Joe Lieberman,

CT-D). Having a rich political history, particularly as a candidate, plays into the

contemporary construction of self in both the online and offline worlds. Victory in some

former campaign may set the stage for embracement by the populous, while defeat and

scandal may mean the end of a political career.

Numerous respondents in this study relayed the important role political history

played in constructing the online presence of their senator. One 2006 Democratic Party

challenger was interviewed for this proj ect and was able to share interesting insights. The

candidate's campaign representative quoted below is referencing the sitting incumbent

who, due to a prior electoral experience, did not embrace online interactive technology.









"And before the primary, the person who went on to be the [Democratic
incumbent' s] campaign's communications director in an official capacity, before
the primary, was talking off the record with reporters about spreading...I guess
they weren't really rumors. I guess he would find comments here and there, one
or two comments out of thousands of comments out of the people that read the
blogs, and try to sell it to reporters as being representative of all the blogs. Like,
look at [Democratic challenger] supporters" (anonymous DC1, 2006).

From this quote, we better understand how prior experience with the online

bloggosphere altered campaigning strategy in the current day. This perspective is of

particular interest to this line of research because it shows how the implications of digital

technology are perhaps more far-reaching than scholars have recognized to date.

Both the campaign and Washington staff can reflect on an incumbent senator' s

political history when constructing online content. In that way, political history serves as

a common frame of reference that may help to shape a Senator' s digital identity.

Certainly, staff members are free to interpret political histories in multiple ways. A staff

member' s own upbringing, current political context, and other characteristics will aid in

the person's interpretation of previous events. Thus, reflecting on these common frames

of reference may not lead to identical interpretations. However, incumbents' histories

often include political facts which are interpreted with much less subj activity.

In the case of Hillary Clinton, her political history as a former First Lady is of

great significance to her contemporary being. That experience afforded her the ability to

lead efforts on multiple social and economic issues, including women's rights, adoption

rights, and health care. First Lady represents a unique, high-profile, and virtually

universally known capacity. It would seem like a clear aspect of her self-presentation

that both a Washington and campaign office would want to highlight.









Indeed, analysis shows that this is the case, and that this aspect of Hillary' s

political history plays an important role in her two digital contexts. The following

represents text from the second sentence on her 2006 Senate biographical page.

"She is the first First Lady of the United States elected to public office and the
first woman elected Independently statewide in New York State" ("First Lady",
Hillary for Senate, June 3rd 2006 archive).

Under her 2006 Senate page campaign biography, similar to what we see on her

2008 presidential Web page, we find a section dedicated to her identity as a First Lady.

Her 2008 presidential page features a 292 word political history describing her in this

capacity.29 Her presidential campaign Web page offers the information below.

"When her husband was elected President in 1992, Hillary's work as a champion
for women was recognized and admired around the world. She traveled the globe
speaking out against the degradation and abuse of women and standing up for the
powerful idea that women's rights are human rights" ("First Lady", Hillary for
President, April 1 2007 archive).

This example shows us how Hillary's capacity as former First Lady plays a role in

the construction of self on three different digital contexts, her 2006 U.S. Senate and 2008

presidential campaign Web pages, as well as her 2006 constituency office page. It

appears and shapes the online discourse because, as offered by 2006 Democratic Party

challenger respondent, political histories matter in the shaping of contemporary

candidates and office holders. This represents one mechanism for the construction of a

consistent online self on multiple Web contexts, and does not require any inter-office

communication or collaboration.

Defining the Message

Going along with the theme of political histories, politicians who have held



29 The full text of this page can be read in Appendix G.










office for a long time often become known as championing certain social or economic

issues. Themes arise in the type of legislation politicians gravitate towards, again

providing a common frame of reference for constituency and campaign offices in the

construction of the digital self. A 2004 Republican campaign respondent spoke about

how her candidate was very well-known for his work on education.

"When coming with stuff to put on the Web, we knew the maj or thing we would
talk about. Senator [name deleted] is very well-known for his work on education
throughout the state, which was a great place to start, so we basically researched
some of the major bills he had worked on in the past few years and talked about
them" (anonymous RC2, 2004).

One benefit of being a senior senator is that the person can portray him or herself

as being a specialist in a particular area. The respondent quoted above describes how the

campaign used that frame of reference as a starting point in writing the Web page

content. Even though inter-office communication did not take place between the

campaign and senatorial offices of this Republican incumbent, similar to the example of

Hillary, his political history was an important element of self-presentation on the Web

contexts of those two offices. A strong record on specific issues is yet another aspect of

political history that provides a common frame of reference for the designers of these

pages.

Conclusion

Web contexts provide unique opportunities for politicians to create and display a

sense of self. This chapter has offered new viewpoints on better understanding how this

presentation is constructed, what functions certain political Web contexts have, and the

importance of political history in the construction of a digital self. Perhaps most

surprisingly, we have learned that inter-office communication is not a popular mechanism









for constructing a consistent senatorial presentation of self between the campaign and

constituency offices. More broadly, respondents seemed to have a general disinterest in

viewing the other office's page for substantive content.

Reflecting on some of the questions posed in the literature review chapter, this

evidence speaks to some implications of the two offices having different staff members

and varying objectives. These motives translate into different priorities, foci, and

strategies. With the digital incumbent/candidate being a product of different offices, that

senatorial presentation of self may be just as diverse as the office he/she came from. For

some senior incumbent candidates, deep political histories provided one avenue for

online consistency. Similarly, some candidates offer histories that point to heightened

interests towards certain policy areas. In these instances, this background was usually

recognized and reflected by both the campaign and constituency offices, because the

offices had a common frame of reference.

In some ways, this chapter poses more questions than answers. If the two offices

are not communicating with one another in hopes of creating a consistent online

presentation of self, with a few exceptions, how are these two digital self presentations

different? How are they similar? What are the larger implications of finding evidence

one way or the other? Up to this point, scholars have yet to raise or research these and

other related questions.

The next chapter represents the first step in analyzing these questions

quantitatively. The research we just explored offers evidence that these Web contexts are

indeed uniquely different, and that these differences are expressed in many ways. Staff

members from the campaign and constituency offices are cognizant of this difference,









and further, show little signs of trying to reconcile the implications it may have as it

applies to senatorial presentation online. Armed with this knowledge, chapter 5 offers a

more systematic approach to understanding how these contexts offer both similar and

different digital presentations. It considers how the functions of these Web pages, as

offered by the respondents described in this chapter, play into the construction of a

unique digital self. Together, the qualitative and quantitative analysis offers us insights

into why senatorial presentation of self differs, how they differ, and how they are similar.

The final chapter offers insight into the implications of these findings and suggestions for

further exploration of political contexts and self-presentations.









CHAPTER 5
UNDERSTANDING WEB PRESENTATION QUANTITATIVELY

Introduction

In the previous chapter, we explored different perspectives on how senators come

to create a presentation of self on campaign and Senate Web contexts. Based on in-depth

interviews with Webmasters, we learned about the importance of technological tools,

political history, and template features in the construction of the digital self. In the next

chapter, Joe Lieberman's re-election campaign will show us how one can change these

features and content drastically yet still find a way to electoral victory.

The interviews and case study represent an insightful yet somewhat limited

perspective on how a senatorial presentation of self is developed. Each interview and

case study represents a single perspective, and leaves us wondering how much of this

information applies on a broader scheme. We can consider the previous two chapters as a

strong starting point from which to pursue more generalizable information, which is

offered in the coming pages.

The beauty of a mixed-method approach is that one method can inform another in

unique and insightful ways. Insights from the Webmaster respondents played a central

role in the development of the quantitative measurements presented here. Like Bimber

and Davis state in their 2003 work, I hope that the case study, interviews, and quantitative

methods presented here show the power of a mixed methods approach and set a high

benchmark for future scholarship in the area of digital American politics.

Ideal Types

Different examples of ideal types will be intertwined with the quantitative

analysis throughout this chapter. A concept invented by sociologist Max Weber in his









description of bureaucracies, ideal types describe characteristics that help one

approximate a specific reality (Weber, 1949). Utilized in disciplines throughout the

social sciences, they provide a mental framework for others to understand essential

characteristics of a larger concept. While not all of the characteristics of an ideal type

must correctly apply to the larger phenomenon being described, the case is generally an

excellent overall description of a specific reality one is trying to illuminate (Weber,

1949).

In this chapter, two ideal types that will be explored are the "issue candidate" and

the "localized candidate". We will also set the stage for chapter 6, where Joe Lieberman

will provide an example of a "candidate in crisis". These cases are being supplied

throughout the chapter to demonstrate that incumbents take on certain types of

candidacies, and that we can pick out individuals that exemplify these realities.

Issues

One way that we can capture the level of consistency in senatorial presentation of

self is by examining what issues are discussed over time, as well as how much relative

space those issues received on each Web page. Exploring these general patterns gives us

a sense of the role and importance each issues plays in creating an overall digital self.

When considering the relative importance of issues, it is useful to understand the

larger political climate of the time. Every election takes place in its own unique context.

To get a better sense of the political climate in the time frame explored here, we can take

a look at poll results from a survey of American adults.30 As reflected in the bar chart

below, Iraq, economy, terrorism, immigration, and moral issues came to the forefront





























































30Data is retrievable from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/special/ise/ Results are based on a
phone survey of 1, 104 American adults on October 27th through October 29 h, 2006. The sampling error is
+/- 3. The survey was conducted by Opinion Research Corporation.


when Americans were asked what issues they viewed as "extremely important" in

determining how they would vote in the 2006 general election.31


100







25%9








Figure 5-1 Extremely important issues in 2006

With exit polls reflecting that 57% of Americans disapproved of the War in Iraq,

we have since come to learn that these anti-war sentiments perhaps had the greatest role

in turning the tides on the Republican Party (CNN Online). The chart above indicates

Iraq was the single most important issue in determining how a person intended to vote in

the 2006 cycle. Terrorism was not far behind at 46%, followed by the economy (33%),

illegal immigration (29%), and moral issues (25%).

We now turn to the analysis of 2006 incumbent senators armed with a better

knowledge of what was important to the American public. To track the importance of

and space dedicated to select issues, data was collected at three points during the 2006










election cycle.32 The first point was the end of March, representing the time when Senate

candidates started to carve their own space in the digital world. All incumbent candidates

had some form of official campaign presence at this time. The second data collection

point was at the beginning of June, representing the time surrounding the party primaries.

This time proved to be more critical than expected for some of the incumbents,

particularly Joe Lieberman. The final collection point was the beginning of November,

giving us a final showing of where these issues stood just prior to the general election.

Examining issues at these three points in time gives us a unique perspective on how and

if the dominant issue changed throughout the course of the campaigning season.

While it is useful to know what issues were talked about on digital contexts,

getting a sense of how much these issues were talked about gives us yet another

dimension on which to compare incumbents and visualize trends over time (Sulkin et al.,

2007). Recall the zero to three scoring as a measure of relative space. Zero means that

the issue was not mentioned at all on the home page, one means the issue was discussed

in a sentence or less, two means the issue was described in one to three paragraphs, and

three means there was a link to a full-page explanation or press release discussing the

incumbent' s view on the issue. The average score for each issue was determined at each

of the three points in time, illuminating which issues were talked about using the highest

average Web space.









32Archived data for additional periods dating from March through November are available. Please contact
the author at dtcoheniiufl.edu if interested in accessing these archives.










Issue Consistency within the Campaign Context

Highest ranking issues

To start, we can examine issues as presented on a single context across time. The

data as reflected in the chart below indicates a relatively high degree of consistency in the

highest and lowest scoring issues on campaigning Web pages throughout May, June, and

November. "Jobs and economic development" ranked as one of the top four issues at all

three points, scoring the highest ranking issue space mean in March with .75, the forth

highest rank in June with .50, and the third highest rank in November with .63. The issue

category "defense and foreign policy" received high marks at the beginning and end of

the campaign, scoring a second best .54 in March and third-highest .63 in November, but

trailed off in the middle of the election cycle with a mediocre score of .25 in June.





0.9
0.8
-QJ obs/Economic Development
0.5 -5- Defenser For eign Policy
0.3 Helping Constitu ents
0.1

March June No\Rmber
Month



Figure 5-2 Highest ranking campaign issues

We also see that the general "helping constituents" category had an increasingly

important presence as the campaign cycle inched towards November. While not

addressing any specific issue, these statements typically reflected a general expression of

the candidate wanting to help his or her constituency. This topic had great movement as

the campaign cycle inched its way to Election Day. It received a mediocre space ranking

95









in March with .29, and then rebounded with the highest ranking issue scores in both June

(.67) and November (.88).

Lowest ranking issues

We also see consistency with the lowest ranking issues on the campaign digital

context across our three points in time. While most of the twenty-three issues saw some

digital space, a few consistently were ignored on campaign home pages. Campaign

finance, the budget, and consumer issues were three topics that failed to receive coverage

across all three periods of time. This is a striking finding, and may appear somewhat

unbelievable on face, particularly in the wake of raising gas prices. However, recall how

issues were classified into categories. Statements could only be classified into one

category, this being the dominant theme of each statement. If these three issues were

peripheral to a larger issue within a statement or press release, they were not recognized

as taking up space on the Web page.

Besides the aforementioned issues that failed to receive any coverage, other

categories consistently received low coverage scores within the campaign context.

Agriculture, social security, and women's rights and all received low scores throughout

our three points in time.















0.9
0.8-
P0.7
0.6 Agri cultu re
9. 5 --Social Security
&0.4 WmnsRgt
~0.3 -o~lsi~
0.2
0. 1-

March June November
Month



Figure 5-3 Lowest ranking campaign issues

From a normative perspective, it is particularly disappointing to see women's

rights as a reoccurring low-score issue. One bright spot is that, out of those candidates

who did discuss the issue on their campaign home page, those individuals did so

consistently. Hillary Clinton was particularly prolific in that way, discussing the topic at

all three points in time on her campaign home page, and has continued to offer women' s

issue as a point of discussion in her current digital campaign for the presidency.

Issue Consistency within the Senate Context

Highest ranking issues

Turning to the Senate.gov pages, we also see consistency throughout the three

points in time. Amongst the issues that consistently received high issue space rankings

for the March, June, and November observations, we see the defense/foreign policy and

state-specific issue categories take center stage.














1.6



e ~Defense/Foreign Policy

50.4

0.2

March June November
Month



Figure 5-4 Highest ranking .gov issues

The defense and foreign policy category consistently rated in the top three issues

at each of the three points in time. It was the most discussed issue in March with a rating

of 1.04, the third-highest ranked issue in June (1.0), and concluded as the second most

talked about topic in November (1.42). State-specific topics also received lots of digital

airtime. Issues were coded into the state-specific category when the nature of the

discourse made the state as the main focus. Often, a discussion of an issue was framed in

a larger discussion of the state's needs. For example, when home page sentence talked

about a state's need to protect its local parks, that sentence would be coded as a state

issue. While such a statement could also have been interpreted as an environmental

issue, recall that the coding scheme only allows for statements to be coded as the most

dominant topic. There is a degree of discretion involved with this coding category in

particular. As will be further discussed in the next chapter, this is also an example of

how allowing statements to fall under multiple categories could be beneficial to

understanding the importance of peripheral issues.










Lowest ranking issues

In our final glimpse of trends within single digital contexts, we see that the

campaign finance category once again received zero space across the three time points.

Discussions of the incumbent' s campaigning opponent also received zero attention on the

Senate home page context. As reflected in the figure below, social security and women's

rights were the next low-ranking issues that received non-zero scores.






0.9
0.8
(0 .7
rP.-+-Social Security
~0.4 -gWomen's Rights
p0 .3
0.2
0.1

March Ju ne November
Month




Figure 5-5 Lowest ranking .gov issues

As with our analysis of the campaigning online context, we see social

security and women's rights representing low scoring issues. In this context, Hillary

Clinton does not present herself as the champion for women's issues. Debbie Stabenow

and Ted Kennedy both received the highest possible score on the issue in both June and

November. As the chart reflects, women's rights received no attention in March.

Issue Consistency between Campaign and Senate Contexts

We have multiple ways that we can examine the importance of issues in

constructing the senatorial self. Looking within a single context, we can track the relative










importance of issues at three points in time, March, June, and November. The previous

two sections provide evidence for some degree of consistency within the campaign and

Senate online contexts. The fact that common issues were able to be identified at all

three points in time within contexts is encouraging for the idea of stability and

consistency in the construction of the digital self. To add another analytical dimension,

we can look at issues between two contexts during these three points in time. This means

that we can look at issues in any variation of six different ways, with the most possible

depth being across the two Web contexts (campaign and Senate) at three different points

in time (March, June, and November).

Below is a summary of the highest and lowest ranking issue categories within the

campaign and constituent Web contexts. These issues were calculated by ranking the

presence and issue space given to each context during March, June, and November. The

categories listed below were ones that fell in the top or bottom three issue space means

across all three time periods.

Table 5-1 Highest and lowest ranking issues

Campaign Senate

High Jobs and economy Defense and foreign policy
State-specific content

Low Campaign finance Campaign finance
Budget
Welfare
Consumer issues

To look at this slightly differently, we can also look at the commonalities between

contexts over the course of the three points in time. The table below reflects the highest

and lowest ranking issues, considering both time and space.












Table 5-2 Issue similarities between time and context

Low Hinh
March
Campaign finance Defense/foreign policy
Welfare
June
Campaign Finance Immigration
Welfare Energy/Gas
November

Campaign Finance Defense/foreign policy

Looking between the two contexts, we see the defense/foreign policy category

makes its way into the top three issues in both contexts for two of the three observation

periods (March and November). Campaign finance finds its way into the bottom three

issues in both contexts across all three periods. Welfare proves to be a close follower to

campaign finance, making an appearance in the bottom three issues two out of the three

months (March and June).

Out of the twenty-three coded issues, we see a clear level of consistency between

the highest and lowest ranking categories across both time and space. While this

consistency is not absolute, looking at the highest and lowest ranking issues, it is

substantial. The most important issues stood the tests of time and space, as did the least

important ones. These issues did not represent isolated incidences of discussion. They

were highly cited topics that actively worked to shape the online presence for 2006

Senate incumbents across time and space.

Looking at the broader picture, we also see consistency between the five maj or

election issues identified by voters and the issues most frequently discussed on campaign

and Senate Web contexts. Although the Wisconsin Ad proj ect issue categories used for









this dissertation's coding scheme differed from those discussed in CNN's election

coverage, we can still see clear patterns between the two data sources. Recall the CNN

bar chart on page two. They cited the most important issues as being the War in Iraq,

terrorism, the economy, immigration, and moral issues. The chart above clearly shows

the relative importance of defense and foreign policy in this dissertation, giving us the

first of a few similarities. Looking deeper beneath the surface, we see that the economy

and moral issues were also very important to incumbent senators in both contexts, falling

in the top Hyve issues mentioned. The consistency between these two data sources points

to an intriguing type of connection between incumbent senators and their constituents.

The "Issue Candidate" Ideal Type

Having just explored the place issues have on campaign and Senate.gov web

pages, we can point to an example of an incumbent that really stood out as being "issue

candidate". We can think of this candidate as representing an ideal type because she

exemplifies someone who places issues well beyond any other element on her Web page.

As we will explore, there were a few characteristics on her Web page that helped her to

stand out above others in terms of her dedication towards a single issue.

In 2006, Maria Cantwell was the Democratic Party incumbent from Washington

State, an "issue candidate" ideal type. Her major issue was protecting the environment, a

theme that ran throughout her campaign and Senate.gov Web pages. Most of the other

issues she discussed, such as energy independence, were couched within the larger theme

of protecting the environment.

While some other candidates devoted substantial levels of Web space to one

particular issue, such as Hillary Clinton to the theme of women' s rights, there were a few









characteristics that helped Senator Cantwell stand out as an ideal type. Starting with the

April 4th archives, her campaign home page featured a petition, making her one of only

two candidates that offered this resource. She dedicated her whole campaign home page

to discussing President Bush' s recent elimination of federally protected areas, and asked

citizens to co-sponsor the Roadless Area Conservation Act. At the same time, her

Senate.gov Web page had a video clip of her talking about the environment and the

benefits of exploring natural energy sources.

Senator Cantwell's dedication of Web space to one particular issue both between

and within the campaign and Senate.gov contexts was striking. The inclusion of an

online petition, online videos, and letter to constituents regarding this one issue helped to

distinguish her as an "issue candidate" ideal type.

Images

Beyond considering issues, another approach to measuring senatorial consistency

is to examine the images presented on the multiple Web contexts over time. Like the

discussion of issues or tools, images represent yet another piece of the overall puzzle of

senatorial presentation.

Recall that every home page picture on both the campaign and constituent Web

contexts was assigned a score from 1 to 5. One means that the incumbent was not in the

picture at all, 2 meaning the Senator was the only one in the picture, 3 meaning he or she

was in the picture with one or two others, 4 meaning the Senator was seen with three or

more others, and 5 representing the presence of a pictorial slideshow. Images were

captured along the same timeline as the issues, with data being collected in late March,

early June, and early November. Also similar to the issues section, we can take a mean





score across these three timelines to understand more about how these images changed

throughout the course of the election.

We see that the way the incumbent senators elected to present themselves through

images remained very consistent within but not between the two contents during our

three observation points. On their campaign home page, incumbents utilized 114 total

pictures in March, 95 in June, and 95 in November. These figures are noticeably lower

than those on their Senate Web pages, observed at 139 for March, 114 for June, and 123

for November.


140
120
100
80
Number of
Images 60
40
20


March June N~ovember
IVonth


Figure 5-6 Home page images

There are a few interesting trends to note in the table above. First, the number of

images on the Senate page, when taken in the aggregate, outnumbers those on the

campaign page 376 to 304, just shy of 20% more imagery.33 Another interesting trend is

the overall decrease in images around the primary season. One may intuitively expect to

see the amount of images go up as the election cycle progressed to November,


ICamp
M Senate










particularly on the campaign page. We see this is not the case for either context. This

may be because the images are being displaced for other things, such as digital tools.

To get a sense of the types of images that are present on the home pages, we can

take a look at the mean, median, and mode statistics between our two contexts over time.





2. 5


1.5
1 mMean
0.5 mMedian


camp Isenate camp Isenate camp senate od

March neJun~~Y~ne Nov



Figure 5-7 Digital images

We see a consistent mode of one both between and within the campaign and

Senate contexts across throughout the three periods. This indicates that the most

common type of image on both contexts was one that did not include the incumbent.

Some of the more frequently shown images included American and state flags, state

seals, images of state-specific landscape, and the U.S. Capitol. Further bolstering the

evidence for pictorial consistency, the mean, median, and mode statistics remain constant

when we look within contexts. The median and mean are higher for campaign contexts

across all three data observation points, indicating a greater prevalence of pictures that

include the Senator in campaign home page images.



33 These figures represent counting each image on the page across all three contexts. It is likely that some
of the pictures remained the same, thus these statistics include duplicates. It does not represent statistics for

105









Slideshows as a glimpse of the dynamic self

As new technology develops, candidates increasingly will have new and creative

ways to present themselves on digital contexts. In present day, the usage of virtual

slideshows is still rather new in the online political circle. Slideshows allows for

politicians to change the content of their images and video while a person's browser is

sitting on their page. Slideshow images fade in and out, creating an engaging atmosphere

while the web browser is in a passive state. The notion that images no longer have to be

considered on a static dimension allows for the possibility of a much more dynamic

presentation of self in political contexts. Yet, while virtual slideshows are ever-present in

contexts such as Myspace.com, political Webmasters have yet to catch up to this

technology.

Campaign Web pages are typically the venue where we first see new technology

being tried out in the political sphere. This is likely because, as reflected in some of the

in-depth interviews, candidates use the digital context as a means of competition and

constantly trying to outdo their opponent. This type of competitive perspective lends

itself well to delving into new digital ideas. One of the more memorable pages to

successfully employ slideshow technology was Senator Harry Reid's 2004 campaign re-

election page. Drawing on the interactive power of Flash coding technology, Reid's

Webmaster created sliding home page menus that revealed unique pictures when touched.

Even with the Web developments over the past two years, Reid' s page is still ahead of its

time.

In 2006, the usage of flash and other similar technology for the construction of

imagery and animation was surprisingly low. While incumbent pages were loaded with


the number of unique images used across th~e three points in time.









features and information, overall, they lacked this dimension of developing technology.

As reflected in the table below, we barely saw a more basic form of changing imagery in

the usage of digital slideshows.

Table 5-3 Slideshow usage

March June November

Senate 0 0 0

Campaign 2 3 3

We see that slideshow technology was not used at all in Senate Web pages, and

used relatively sparingly on campaign sites. The incumbent candidates who embraced

virtual slideshows as windows into the self were Senators Ensign, Allen, and Akaka. The

rotating presentation of self allowed for these candidates to interchange between different

types of images. While it is somewhat surprising that slideshows are not yet used on

Senate Web pages, it is likely something to look for on the near future.

Images and the "localized candidate"

Images played an important role in helping with the identification of a "localized

candidate" ideal type. As discussed in Gulati's 2004 article on local versus national

digital presentations, local candidates often downplay their relationship with Washington

in favor of having more items that help connect them to their home constituency. Recall

our earlier discussion of Senator Maria Cantwell and her usage of online petitions and

streaming video to set her apart as an "issue candidate" ideal type. Here, images play an

important role in helping to identify Democratic Senator Dan Akaka of Hawaii as a

"localized candidate" ideal type.









Most of the candidates studied in this dissertation dedicated some digital space to

talking about the needs of their constituents. For some, this came in the form of a letter

on either their campaign or Senate.gov page. Others highlighted their support for local

legislation on these two Web contexts. Dan Akaka' s usage of language, imagery, and

content help set him apart as having a significant focus on the people of Hawaii. His

connection to Washington was minimized on both his Senate.gov and campaign pages.

Being a representative of a non-contiguous state, Senator Akaka had some notable

advantages to help him distinguish himself from Washington. These included the usage

of both verbal and non-verbal cues relating back to his home area. His campaign home

page used terms such as "aloha" and "mahalo nui loa" [thank you very much]. Images

feature him wearing a lei. Landscape photos are unmistakably of Hawaiian shores and

flowers. Other candidates lack the ability to relate with constituents through their own

unique language, and imagery may be mistaken for other contiguous states. The presence

of such unique characteristics, and his consistent usage of them on both his Senate.gov

and campaign Web pages, helps Senator Akaka to stand out as "localized" ideal type.

As discussed in the previous section, the usage of slideshows helped Senator

Akaka to reveal a dynamic digital self. It also assisted him in creating a deeper localized

self. His campaign slideshow images all featured pictures of Hawaii, either landscape

alone or the Senator with Hawaiian constituents. These pictures actively capture the Web

browser's attention. Since the focus of these changing images is on his localized self, the

slideshow helps to accentuate this aspect of his digital presentation. Thus, the usage of

slideshow technology helps one to identify Senator Akaka as a localized ideal type.










Digital Tools

A third important facet of digital presentation described by the Webmaster

respondents was the presence of specific online tools and features. For Senate sites, these

included things like contact information and constituent service links. For campaign

pages, features included items such as press releases and the ability to contribute money.

These and other items come together to create a digital sense of self. With technological

tools continually developing, it is useful to understand the frequency with which these

tools are used. It is even more interesting to compare these tools across different

contexts .

We can start off by examining the most popular Web tools across the campaign

and Senate digital contexts. These statistics stem from the November archives, giving us

a snapshot of the tools utilized just before the election. The most popular features were

the existence of a photo gallery, welcome letter or video, contact information directly

located on the home page, and a link to a biographical page.





80


Percent Used40
ICa mpa ign
20
MSen ate

Photo Gal W~elcorme Contact Bio Page
Info on HP
Tool



Figure 5-8 Most popular web tools









Even though campaign and Senate Web pages represent two different contexts

and have two unique agendas, we do see overlap in the usage of certain tools and

features. However, we see signs that these unique agendas do lead to a degree of

divergence in the tools used. There were numerous items that appeared on one context

but not the other.

Some items that received attention only on the campaign home page were the

ability to donate money (66.7%), volunteering through the home page (54.2%),

mentioning the opponent (27.3%), and offering a familial presence (25%). Only one

incumbent offered a familial presence on the Senate home page. Conversely, the Senate-

specific items included offering a link to constituent services (82.6%), a link to or about

the state (20.4%), a link specifically for students (50%), and offering a section about their

activities as mentioned in the news (91.3%).

The fact that some of these items appear in great frequency in one context and not

at all on another shows us that consistency is not a thought when creating certain features.

Campaigns need to solicit money and volunteers, while Senate offices need to help

constituents find different services. It makes sense that total consistency cannot and

should not be achieved. While it is intriguing that family presence appears on a quarter

of the incumbent' s campaign Web pages yet only on a single person' s Senate page, it is

helpful to remember that home pages are finite spaces. Information must be prioritized.

Considering Overall Consistency and Change

Thus far, we have individually considered the role that images, issues, and tools

play in the development of the digital self. Reflecting on the presence of these items in

isolation of one another is both interesting and insightful. To take it a step further, the













































/
/

/'
/ --4
I I


next progression is to see how all of these elements come together on the campaign and

Senate Web pages. As in the previous analysis, we can look at the two online contexts

across a span of three observations.

The chart below shows the number of home page changes across both digital

contexts. In compiling this data, each senatorial Web page was compared with itself

from period to period. For example, the June campaign data was calculated by

comparing the March site for an individual senator to the June site for that same

individual. The number of changes from one period to the next were tabulated. These

changes could be pictorial, issue-based, tool-based, headlines, or other categories. The

June page for a particular senator was then compared to the November page of that same

individual, giving us the basis for the November figures. These figures were then

calculated for each context.


16




8 8

%4
m O


-*- Why Campaign
I-~Rbty Government
Nov. Campaign
Nov. Government


O 1 2 to 3 4to6 70ormore
C han ges per H ome Pag e


Figure 5-9 Web page changes

The figure above reflects a modest number of changes for both contexts as

measured in both June and November. All four lines indicate that there were a handful of










senators who did not change their home page between points in time. We see steady

amounts of change leading up to the 4 to 6 changes per home page category. The June

Senate pages were most dynamic, with fifteen senators making seven or more changes to

their Senate page at that time. Only one person made zero changes in their Senate page

between the March and June observations.

There is definitely a degree of subj activity when interpreting the above chart. On

one hand, we can see evidence of change amongst both contexts at all observed periods

of time. On the other hand, one can easily question how significant these changes are.

To make four to six changes to a home page may not be regarded as meaningful. In the

scope of a detailed home page with many photos and headlines, making more than seven

changes may not be that substantial either. Considering the implications of these findings

leaves us to wonder when and how "change" can make a substantial impact on potential

Web browsers.

Change in Competitive Versus Non-Competitive Races

One can also consider overall consistency and change in respect to race

competitiveness. It is thought-provoking to consider how much incumbent candidates in

competitive races change their digital image when compared to incumbents in non-

competitive races. One may be quick to assert that if an incumbent feels they will likely

win, he or she may take a conservative approach to changing their online presence. In

other words, why change a good thing? As the campaign respondents described in

chapter 4, change can be a good thing in itself. It can give the impression that the

incumbent is busy and that he or she is responding to the ever-changing needs of the









constituency. With that perspective, one could make strong arguments for both sides of

the coin.

A useful resource to learn more about the vulnerability of incumbents is the Cook

Political Report, a non-partisan Web site that reports on House, Senate, gubernatorial,

and presidential races.34 Charles Cook, editor and publisher of the Report, posts various

documents detailing different races. One of these documents is a race rating where all of

the seats up for re-election are placed into four categories: toss-up, lean, likely, and solid.

The placement of each incumbent into one of these four categories helps site browsers to

understand the chances of any given seat switching parties in the upcoming election.

Using the Cook Report as a resource in conjunction with the Web page data archived for

this dissertation, it is possible to compare seat vulnerability with the number of Web page

changes.

For this analysis, the November 8th Cook Report was used to help determine the

average number of Web changes in different types of races.35 We can regard races falling

into Cook's "solid" and "likely" categories as being non-competitive, and races

categorized as either "lean" or "toss-up" as being competitive. We see that, on average,

candidates in both competitive and non-competitive races make similar amounts of

changes to both their Senate.gov and campaign Web presentations.











34 To learn more about the Cook Political Report, see http://www. cookpolitical. com/about/default.php .
35 Please see appendix K for the November 8" Cook Report.
113

































Figure 5-10 Competitive versus non-competitive races

We see that the "lean/toss-up" category has slightly higher means for both the

campaign and Senate.gov contexts, but by a very small margin. It is interesting to see that

candidates in different types of races are making similar amounts of changes to their

digital selves. This likely speaks to the fact that change is not necessarily a bad thing,

and cannot be predicted based on competitiveness of the seat. Both successful and

troubled candidates engage in this behavior. Lincoln Chafee, Republican from Rhode

Island, was one of the more prolific candidates in terms of making changes. Categorized

by the Cook Report as being in a "toss up" election, Chafee found himself in the

maximum change code category, over seven changes between archives, during all three

observed periods. This applies to both his campaign and Senate.gov web site. Also

finding herself in the maximum Web page change code category was New York Senator

Hillary Clinton. Listed in the Cook Report as a "solid democrat", she also had over seven

changes between archives on her campaign and Sen.ate.gov Web page throughout all


2 amag
a entego


0:
moi llal ea ot n u


Cook Rating









three observed periods. While we cannot be certain what prompts digital change, looking

at the aggregate, the data provided above indicates that competitiveness of the seat does

not appear to be a significant factor.

Unfortunately, this dissertation cannot shed light on the tangible implications of

making one change, for to six changes, or seven or more changes per home page. As will

be discussed in the next chapter, exploring that question through Web-based experiments

would give scholars a unique perspective on this question. However, this lack of

concrete empirical evidence does not preclude us from making some educated guesses.

We can draw on some of the insights from our in-depth interviews to help us in this

exerci se.

Recall some of the goals Webmasters talked about in the construction of their

pages. A few of the campaign respondents talked about the importance of trying to

intimidate their opponent. If a candidate has a static Web page, they are not actively

working to achieve this goal. The one Democratic challenger Webmaster interviewed for

this proj ect spoke laughingly about how pathetic his opponent' s Web page was.

Describing it as a "joke", this respondent felt that the opponent' s lack of digital presence

gave his candidate confidence that he could dominate the liberal online constituency.

A second reason for and potential implication to changing one's presentation of

self, also as spoken to by some of the Webmaster respondents, is giving the media and

constituents the appearance of being busy. One respondent equated the perception of

being busy with the perception of covering a winning campaign. By changing images,

headlines, and features, it gives off the perception that the campaign is actively working

on their digital presence. Additionally, offering updated press releases and online










calendars gives potential incentive for the media to come back to the page at a later point

in time. Thus, some degree of digital change has positive implications for both the

Senate and campaigning contexts.

Conclusion

The question of context is a central consideration in politics. Thinking about who

you are talking to, what their needs are, and what appeals to them to gain their vote are all

important in a campaigning and representative context. This dissertation considers

campaign and Senate.gov Web pages as two different political e-contexts. These places

both reside within the world of our larger politics but are created by different staff

members who have separate agendas. Senate offices are the first line of contact for

constituents, offering help and services to people living in the incumbent' s home state.

Campaign offices aim to get the candidate elected or re-elected, emphasizing the person's

perspectives and persuading constituents that he/she is worthy of their vote. In both

contexts, a presentation of self must be constructed. Here, we are attempting to

understand how consistent these selves are on the two digital contexts, and how they are

similar and/or different.

In considering how this self is developed, we first individually considered the

topics of issues, images, and technological tools. These elements were then considered

collectively to get an overall measure of change and consistency between and within the

campaign and Senate digital context. The data reveals an interesting mixture of

similarities and differences between the two e-contexts. The exploration of issues shows

consistency with the least and most cited topics both between and within contexts over

time. Our exploration of pictures reflected a little more diversity between contexts, with










campaign home pages more frequently showing images that include the incumbent by

him or herself, as well as with others. Senate pages offer more pictures of landscape and

images with unidentifiable people. Finally, our exploration of tools also gave us mixed

results in terms of consistency between contexts. While biographical statements, contact

information, photo galleries and welcome messages all played an important role in home

pages on both contexts, there was great diversity in some of the other features and tools.

Numerous tools were common on one context, while not seen at all on the other.

In thinking about why some issues, images, or tools may take privilege over

others, we must remember that space on any given home page is limited. It represents a

finite context. Some pages are atypically long, such as Myspace profiles. Campaign and

Senate home pages do not take on this type of look, likely because Webmasters want to

give off a clean appearance. From that perspective, incumbents must be selective in what

they choose to put on this valuable real estate. What we see is a byproduct of this

difficult selection process, for which many factors play a role.

The next chapter brings together findings from the qualitative and quantitative

chapters. Through an analysis of Joe Lieberman's changing presentation of self, we will

see how drastically incumbents can alter their digital presentation when faced with a

challenge. This chapter will ultimately illuminate the importance of context in the

development of the self.










CHAPTER 6
JOE LIEBERMAN' S CHANGING FACE OF INCUMBENCY

Background

The election of 2006 proved to be dynamic in many respects, with the political

world watching Democrats gain six seats in the Senate, thirty seats in the House, and six

governorships across the country (CNN online, 2006). Fueled in part by a general

disapproval with the war in Iraq, powerful Republican incumbents tumbled, including

Jim Talent (R-MS), Rick Santorum (R-PA), and George Allen (R-VA). Other

incumbents dodged bullets by changing the nature of their candidacy, as is in the case of

Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who changed party affiliation after his upset in the Democratic

primary.

This chapter explores how Lieberman's digital presentation of self changed

throughout the course of the 2006 election. Four phases will be described in detail. We

begin with Lieberman presenting a conservative yet informative image of a powerful

incumbent. After losing the primary, we see a clear phase of redefinition, with his Web

page being nothing but a brief letter to constituents. His Independent-Democrat phase

offers a striking contrast to the previous two phases, offering harsh criticism of Ned

Lamont and a much more aggressive styling. The final stage is that of a hij acked

identity, a period surrounding the party primary where Lieberman' s digital self was taken

away from him. All together, these four phases represent a dramatic spectrum of

senatorial presentations.









Joe Lieberman, the Incumbent

It was no surprise when Democrat Joe Lieberman announced he would be seeking

his forth term in the U.S. Senate. A very popular incumbent, Lieberman came to power

in 1988 by upsetting moderate Republican Lowell Weicker by a margin of 10,000 votes.

Lieberman never looked back, winning his next three elections by significant victories.

In 1994, he landed the biggest landslide ever in the history of Connecticut Senate races,

raking in sixty-seven percent of the vote (Lieberman Senate Web page, 2006). While

Lieberman had an unsuccessful bid for the vice presidency in 2000, and again four years

later for the presidency, he was still able to retain his Senate seat, winning reelection in

both 2000 and 2006. The race in 2006 was a far cry from his previous landslide victories,

with no political forecaster being able to predict the viability of Democratic challenger

Ned Lamont.

Ned Who?

Ned Lamont, a successful businessman from the Southwest region of Fairfield

County, announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate on March 13, 2006. A virtual political

newcomer, his only experience in office was in the capacity of a selectman for the town

of Greenwich, as well as various civic boards. Starting the campaign as a virtual

unknown throughout the State, nobody could have imagined the fight he would give

Lieberman throughout the course of the race.

Amidst heated negative sentiments towards President Bush and the Iraq war,

Lamont consistently attacked the popular incumbent on television and the radio

throughout the duration of the race. Accusing Lieberman of being a loyal Bush

supporter, Lamont painted his opponent as a staunch Republican and disloyal Democrat.









He continually reminded constituents that Lieberman voted in favor of the Iraq war

resolution, and attacked his attendance on the Senate floor. This message began to take

hold in route to the primary, and Lamont slowly started to gain name recognition

throughout the State.

By July, Lamont found himself in a statistical dead head with the Lieberman in

statewide polls. It became increasingly obvious that Lieberman was in trouble and that

his primary victory was far from certain. The Senator's ads became increasingly

defensive and he began to flounder in his support of the Iraq war. Lamont creatively

used the incumbent's words to make his point about the need for new blood in the Senate.

Taking a clip from Lieberman's 1998 debate against Republican incumbent Lowell

Weicker, Lamont captured a video file of Lieberman stating he would never run for four

consecutive terms in the Senate. This message bombarded airwaves in the weeks leading

up to the election, and on August 8, 2006, the previously unknown challenger made

national headlines by beating the three-time incumbent in the Democratic primary.

Choice Time for the Lieberman Campaign

In the days leading up to the primary, Lieberman began collecting signatures to

get on the ballot as an Independent candidate. While he likely would have preferred to

keep this move silent, keeping it quiet until after the primary, he was forced to abide by

Connecticut campaign laws. State statutes required him to submit 7,500 valid signatures

the day after the primary in order to earn a place on the November ballot (Associated

Press, 2006).

Despite narrowly losing the primary by 10, 119 votes, Lieberman was ultimately

able to capitalize on the large Independent base in the State, as well as the lack of a viable










Republican challenger. He took 70% of the Republican vote in the general election

(Hartford Courant, 2006). Lieberman went on to win the November general election by

115,648 votes over his Democratic challenger (CNN online, 2006).

The Value of this Case

Negative sentiments surrounding the war in Iraq helped to bring us numerous

interesting House and Senate races in 2006. Many Republican incumbents were forced to

consider how to run their campaign in light of the growing disapproval with the Party' s

agenda. This meant making difficult decisions regarding how to present themselves to

the public during the course of their campaign. These types of decisions likely included

considering what issues to stress, what alliances to highlight, and how to portray a party

allegiance while appealing to voters.

While it has happened throughout the course of U.S. history, it is relatively rare

that an incumbent will switch party affiliation, particularly at the senatorial level.36 It is

even more notable when this switch occurs during the course of an election. Due to this

rarity, the Connecticut Senate race provides a particularly unique context for exploring

how Congressmen tactically change their Web presentation of self. The reality of

Lamont winning the primary forced Lieberman to make a very difficult campaign

decision: to continue running for U. S. Senate without the backing of the Democratic

Party, or to drop out of the race all together. Believing he could draw strength from

Democratic-leaning Republicans and Independents, both of whom were ineligible to vote

in the primary, Lieberman decided to stay in the race under the newfound label of





36 For a comprehensive list of representatives who switched parties, visit
.
121









"Independent Democrat".37 With this new label came a significant shift in his

presentation of self, both in the online and offline worlds.

In the study of politics, scholars often find themselves engaging in "chicken and

the egg" type of arguments, debating what entity first influenced the behavior of another

entity. We particularly see this debate within the subfield of political communication,

with the unresolved question of if the media influences the larger politics, or if the larger

politics influences the media. I believe this case study is important, in part, because it

offers unique pieces of evidence for both sides of this debate. We will see substantial

evidence that Lieberman's Web page content arose in response to the larger politics of

the race. On the other side of the spectrum, we will explore how the hacking and

hij acking of Lieberman' s Web page lead to an outburst in the offline political world,

including harsh accusations in various offline mainstream media contexts. Thus, this

case study provides us with evidence that the online media both influences and is

influenced by our larger politics.

Scholars in the Hield of political science are fortunate in that politics are far from

predictable. Initially, conducting a case study of the Connecticut Senate race was not part

of my methodological approach, as it was nearly impossible to predict that this race

would come to play out the way it did. It was through the weekly Web page archiving

process that the excitement of this case became clear. By viewing and saving each Web

page frequently, I became intimately familiar with each incumbent' s look and message.

This is an important reason why I ultimately decided to focus this study on Senate

incumbents, as opposed to both House and Senate. I felt that the small number of cases


37 Lieberman's placement on the ballot was under the party label "Connecticut for Lieberman". The term
"Independent Democrat" is used because that was how Lieberman referred to himself in the media.
122









would allow me to gain an intimacy with the data that likely could not have been gained

otherwise. The Lieberman case study arose from this benefit.

While other incumbents made image changes in both their senatorial and

campaign capacities during this time, as the other chapters in this study explore, no

change was as dramatic as Joe Lieberman's. This case is unique in that Lieberman went

through a complete candidate overhaul. Quantitative analysis simply cannot adequately

capture the scope or depth of these changes, giving this chapter an important place in this

study.

One additional element that makes this case interesting is an interview that I was

able to obtain with a staff member of the Lamont campaign, Ray.38 Ray interested me as

a respondent because of his high level of activity on the Lamont campaign and local

liberal blogs. I got in touch with him electronically through the Lamont blog, and he

agreed to be a part of this study. A forty-five minute telephone interview was conducted

approximately a week after the general election. Quotes from this interview are offered

throughout the piece, as Ray gave great insight into Lieberman's online campaign. This

brings a unique breath of life into this case study, offering perspective from the Senator' s

opponent and someone who is very active in and familiar with the Connecticut

bloggosphere. The depth of the topics brought up by Ray again lead us to consider the

great benefit of qualitative research.

Scholars may be quick to dismiss the findings in this chapter because it talks

about a sample of one. Since quantitative analysis is privileged because one can

generalize from the results, this is an easy trap for people to fall into. However, some



38Ray is a randomly assigned pseudonym used to protect the true identity of the respondent.
123










political scientists attempt to remind us that a case study of one holds substantial value.

Most notable, King, Keohane, and Verba (1994) offer

"...a single observation can be useful for evaluating causal explanations if it is
part of a research program. If there are other single observations, perhaps
gathered by other researchers, against which it can be compared, it is no longer a
single observation" (211).

This Lieberman case study is offered in hopes that it encourages others to bring new

examples to the political science and sociological literatures.

The Four Faces of Lieberman

The Democratic Phase

While vying for the Democratic nomination, Lieberman kept a very up-to-date,

conservatively bland campaign home page. The upper-right hand said "Fighting for

Connecticut" and had an accomplishment of the day that changed daily. The center of

the page featured a letter from Joe, or on days where a special campaign event was

occurring, a recap and pictures from the day's events. Scrolling down the page, one

would find a bar with multiple options that can be clicked, surrounded by the text "Join

Joe' s Fight". Like most other campaign home pages, Lieberman had links leading Web

browsers to his stances on different issues. Elements that were immediately striking upon

reading the content were how he consistently embedded the topics under the umbrella of

being a fighter, offered scarce mention of his opponent, and used a lot of words to

describe himself.

Lieberman's page was also notably conservative, offering virtually no

interactivity. There was no blog, no streaming video, and no personalized interactive

feature. As noted by Ray, the Lamont campaign respondent, "Before the primary, his

Web page was a joke. It was not interactive. It just had a few articles that were updated,









no blog" (Ray interview, 2006). The closest thing a browser could do to be "interactive"

was to submit a story on how Joe's work in the Senate impacted their personal lives.

This feature was a far cry from many other incumbent candidates' Web-based interactive

features, as well as Ned Lamont' s. Lieberman was informative yet conservative, giving

out information but taking little in return and offering no personalization. The message

was all about Joe, controlled solely by Joe.

In addition to pictures, logos, and other media, the usage of language is very

important in setting the tone of an online campaign. Content analysis of Lieberman' s

pre-primary campaign home page reveals strong support for his self-portrayal as a

fighter. Variations of the word "fight" were identified seven times on the July 22nd home

page, giving credence to Lieberman' s usage of this concept as a maj or theme in the

campaign.39 We also see virtually no mention of his opponent, something that will

change dramatically as we explore later phases of Lieberman' s Web page. The campaign

home page uses the words "Lamont" and "Ned" one time, respectively.40 This leads to a

clear emphasis on the self. "Joe" or "Joseph" can be found twenty-six times on the home

page, and "Lieberman" can be identified forty times. Overall, we see that Lieberman

relied heavily on language, using approximately 1,209 words on the home page alone.41

During the pre-primary period, Lieberman stressed his relationship with other

Democrats on his campaign Web page. This became evident through three main home

page features. First, he often highlighted campaign events he had with other Democratic

Party figures. This feature would often include a picture of Lieberman with his



39 MOre specifically, these variations include the words "fight", "fighter", and "fighting".
40 This content analysis is from Lieberman's July 22nd campaign home page. The archive of this Web page
is available upon request.
41 The 1,209 word count comes from the campaign home page archive dated July 22, 2006.
125









Democratic ally, brief text about the event, and a quote from the ally focusing on

Lieberman's candidacy. A powerful example of this is when Bill Clinton came to

Connecticut to campaign on behalf of Joe. 42 The campaign archive dated July 30th

features Clinton' s visit towards the top of the page. Directly under the headline

"President Bill Clinton in Waterbury" reads a quote, 'He is a good Democrat, he is a

good man, and he'll do you proud' -Bill Clinton" (Lieberman campaign home page, July

22nd, 2006). Looking at the entire home page, this quote is the only one that appears in

bold text.

The second way Lieberman featured his relationship with other Democrats in a

section called "Who's Supporting Joe", which was located on the bottom right corner of

his home page. This feature included an image of a person and a caption that described

who the individual was. Featured supporters included Democratic candidate for

Connecticut' s Forth Senatorial district Diane Farrel (July 30th) and Planned Parenthood

(July 22nd). While a similar feature was present in the post-primary version of his Web

page, Lieberman did not specifically refer to those supporters as Democrats during this

time, again demonstrating the importance of his party connection in the pre-primary

stage.

The third main feature that reflected the importance of Lieberman' s partisanship

in his self-presentation was a hotlink on his campaign home page titled "Democratic

Links". This feature could be found towards the bottom of topics browsers could click

on, and took users to a page of links to other Democratic candidates, the DNC, and other

Party-related pages. As the primary campaign moved forward, the title of this hotlinked



42 This highlight could be viewed on the July 22nd and 30th archives.
126









was changed to "Election Websites" (starting with the June 15th archive). This feature did

not appear on his campaign Web page after his primary loss.

The Transitional Phase

After losing the Democratic primary, Joe's campaign Web page remained

relatively barren for approximately one month.43 The campaign left up the same image

of Joe in the upper-left hand corner, along with the "get involved" and "contribute" links.

These were the only hyperlinked options on the page, which went unchanged during this

month. The essence of the transitional Web page was a letter explaining why Joe wanted

to continue his candidacy.44

The vagueness and lack of information present on his campaign Web page

resembled the suddenly quiet persona he gave off in the real world immediately

following the primary loss. This was likely a time of redefinition; a time where the

Senator and his campaign staff had to decide what it meant to be Joe Lieberman,

"Independent Democrat". The campaign home page, mostly in the form of a letter to

browsers, contained approximately 271 words.45 This is in stark contrast to the 1,209

words used in the first phase of the campaign home page, a time when his candidacy had

definition and direction. The information he provided in the letter did give us insight into

one element of his future campaign, that of a bipartisan orientation.

During this transitional time, site visitors that read the letter got hints as to the

bipartisan tone that Lieberman would be taking on. Multiple phrases in Lieberman's

Web letter alert us to this re-creation as a bipartisan candidate.




43 Lieberman's new campaign page came online between the August 30th and September 10th archiving.
44 See Appendix H for the text of Lieberman' s campaign home page during this transitional phase.
45 This word count was conducted on the Lieberman campaign home page archive dated August 14th, 2006.
127









"So much needs to be done, but so little is actually getting done in Washington
because our politics have become so partisan and polarized"

"l hope you will join me in this cause, no matter your political persuasion...."

"I do not and will not hesitate to work across party lines when it will get things
done for my constituents" (Lieberman for Senate, 2006) 46

These quotes give us a good feel for the candidate Lieberman is about to

transform into, foreshadowing his shift to a more bipartisan entity that becomes apparent

in the third stage of his campaign. As we will explore in the next section, it is indeed true

that the bipartisan theme in these statements becomes one of the maj or platforms for the

Independent stage of Lieberman' s campaign.

An interesting point regarding the transitional phase in Lieberman's online

identity was the length in which it existed. During this period, Lieberman was in the

national spotlight, and vigorously continued his campaign activity in the offline world.

On August 9th, one day after the party primary, Lieberman's offline campaign moved on

to the new stage of his candidacy, but his online campaign was very slow to follow suit.

The fact that Lieberman' s online transition from Democrat to Independent-Democrat

took over a month could be the result of a few factors. It could be that the campaign was

under a high degree of stress, and the development of Web content was not a high

priority in the redefinition of the Senator' s candidacy. Conversely, it could be that the

campaign gave very careful consideration to the development of the new Web content

and needed the month to put out a quality product. Since the layout of the page went

through a complete overhaul, as we will explore in the next section, programming and

Web design may have taken the full month. Brainstorming new Web content may have

added to this design delay. According to Ray, our respondent from the Lamont










campaign, Lieberman brought new communication staff members on board after his

primary loss, and they may have needed time to get acquainted with the campaign in

order to make this online transition.

Either way, it is reasonable to consider that the Senator' s online senatorial

presence took some sort of a queue from his new offline candidacy. Since Lieberman's

campaign as an Independent Democrat was already in motion in the real world, that

offline self-definition likely helped the campaign staff to determine how to project the

Senator online. As we will see in the next phase, there was a high degree of media

sharing between the radio, television, and Web streaming video. This type of connection

between the online and offline campaign did not exist in the pre-primary stage. Now, the

connection between the Senator' s online and offline presence took more of a center stage,

with offline media flexing its muscles in Lieberman's online campaign.

The Independent Democrat Phase

After Lieberman's month-long transitional period came to an end, what emerged

was nothing like what Web browsers had seen before. The Senator completed his

Independent-Democrat persona with a Web page that would last throughout the duration

of the campaign. The background was different, the color scheme had changed, new

headlines filled the home page, and perhaps most critically, the demeanor and content

surrounding Lieberman's self-presentation was radically altered. The time the campaign

spent with the Web page down was clearly not for maintenance purposes; it was to

construct a whole new candidate in the digital and real world.

There were many dramatic changes to the new campaign Web page, with one of

the most striking being the difference in word count compared to the previous two


46 QUOtes taken from Joe Lieberman's e-letter, August 9th through approximately September 10th
129










phases. Where the pre-primary home page featured 1,209 words, the post-primary page

had only 153 words.47 This is an amazing transition, giving those 153 words on the new

page a heightened importance.

Beyond a significant change in the number of words used, we also saw a dramatic

shift in the nature of the content. Whereas Lieberman had a clear focus on himself in the

pre-primary stage, defining his opponent took on a much more prevalent role in the

Independent-Democrat phase of this online campaign. Recall that the pre-primary phase

of Lieberman' s page only mentioned the words "Ned" and "Lamont" once, respectively.

Now, we see "Ned" mentioned three times and "Lamont" used once. While this may not

seem like that significant of a change, examining the placement of those key words gives

us a much clearer picture about how important those words are in the scope of the page.

Also, considering how those words are used in context gives us a better sense of their

relative importance.

In the home page archives leading up the primary, it was very difficult to find

Lieberman's opponent mentioned anywhere on the page. One would have to scroll down

about halfway down the page, where they would see Lamont's name used in a description

of the senatorial debate that took place on July 6th. The Lieberman campaign writes,

"Debate Highlights Lieberman's Strong Record of Delivering for CT and Lamont's

Uncertainty and Inexperience" (Lieberman for Senate, July 22nd, 2006). Ned's name is

mentioned one more time in that article. In a dramatic twist, Lieberman becomes much

more cynical in the contexts in which he refers to his opponent in his post-primary





47 The 153 approximate word count comes from the campaign home page archive dated September 10 h,
2006.










presence. These quotes below come from a September archive of the Lieberman

campaign home page.

"Ned's got foot-in-mouth disease"

"The FULL Lamonty: The Whole Truth about Ned"

"No less a figure than Senator Dodd is calling out Ned's growing double talk

habit" (Lieberman for Senate, September 10, 2006).

While Lieberman ran a few negative television ads against Lamont prior to the

primary, his Web page had virtually nothing of the sort. Space on his new page was

largely dedicated to painting Lamont in a negative light. This strategy persisted from the

September 10th archive through the end of the election. Examining the October 29th

archive, Lieberman has two attacks on Lamont that are clearly visible upon visiting the

site. They come in the form of creative icons, both of which have messages contained

within the images. The first attack can be found on the lower right-hand comer of the

home page, and comes in the form of a brown piece of paper with a wrinkle on the

corner. Red writing states, "The Fudl Lamonty", while black text underneath that reads,

"The Whole Truth About Ned". Even if the viewer does not click on the link to find out

what specifically the reference is about, there is a clear message that constituents do not

know everything they need to know about Ned. This message entices browsers to

explore the Web page further, a creative element that was nonexistent in the Democratic

straight-edged Joe.

More than in the previous two stages of the campaign, Lieberman visibly mixed

his offline and online campaign presentations during his Independent-Democrat phase.

The top right comer of his new Web page featured commercials the campaign was airing









on local television programming. These commercials clearly had a bipartisan tone,

focusing on experience and desire to help the Connecticut constituency. One commercial

that ran on television and on his Web page featured the Senator at a chalkboard. With a

line drawn through the middle of two polar opposite labels, Democrat and Republican,

the Senator talks about the importance of a bipartisan effort. He recites his new

campaign slogan, "It's about people, not politics".

Looking at the new campaign home page, one would not be able to determine

what party Lieberman was associated with. The top of the home page had an image of a

flag, with the words inside the borders spelling out "Vote Joe for Senate". Another

headline just under this box read "Team Connecticut". Lastly, the color scheme of the

page was red and blue, encompassing both the traditional Democrat and Republican

colors. As the general election came closer, the campaign uploaded an icon of a sign that

read "Dems for Joe", attempting to revive an online Democratic connection.48 This

image linked to a page detailing various Democrats who were supporting Joe's candidacy

as an Independent. For a period of two weeks, from October 1st through October 15th

new hyperlink appeared where browsers could view the Connecticut and national list of

Democrats who were supporting Joe. Interestingly, this hyperlink disappeared before the

next weekly Web archiving took place.

Towards the end of October, the Lieberman campaign spent a lot of time

attempting to educate voters on how to find Joe's name on the ballot. His name appeared

on the very bottom, a reality that clearly worried the campaign. Both Lieberman's offline

and online campaigns made ballot placement a major issue, and again, we saw offline


48This icon was visible from the archives dated October 1st through the general election. As noted, the
nature of this icon did change.









media's influence arise in the Senator's online presence. Radio and television ads once

again made their way onto campaign Web space. The campaign created a jingle which

aired on local radio channels, which subsequently found its way to a center headline on

the campaign home page. Lieberman's staff also created a new television commercial on

the topic, which aired in the upper right hand corner of the Web page. The presentation

of radio and television ads on the campaign Web space was a new phenomenon that

occurred only during this third phase of the Senator' s online presence.

The Hijacked Phase: The Case for a Forth Identity

The three phases of Lieberman' s identity discussed thus far all have one important

commonality: they were all identities that were consciously created by the campaign.

The campaign Web page represented Lieberman's own piece of digital space; a place

where he was in total control of his message and could upload whatever images and text

he chose appropriate at the time. The next identity that will be described is different in

that control was clearly taken away from the campaign, with the message being created

by some unauthorized author. A hacked identity offers a forth identity for the Lieberman

campaign, however unwanted this identity may be.

Content analysis reveals that Senator Lieberman' s Web page was hacked at least

three times, including a hij acking period that included the day before, of, and after the

primary. 49 It is possible the Web page was hacked or hij acked more times, taking place

between the weekly Web archiving. When the Web page was hacked, the nature of the

content alteration made it clear that the authenticity of the page had been violated.

Excluding the page hij acking the night before the primary, the hacker went out of his or










her way to advertise the accomplishment of breaking into the security of the site. The

content of the altered page varied. In one instance, the hacker left just a white home page

and thick black text that read, "This page has been hacked". Other times, when hij acked,

including the day before, of, and after the primary, the page went offline completely.

With Lieberman and Lamont clawing for primary votes, the 72-hour hij acking

surrounding the primary became the center of a heated political battle. The Lieberman

campaign accused Lamont supporters of disabling his Web page the day before the

primary. Ray, our Lamont campaign respondent, describes how the Lieberman campaign

was quick to point fingers at Lamont supporters:

"[Lieberman] screamed about being hacked, he mentioned that the bloggers did it,
which is the most ludicrous thing in the world. Nobody I know who' s worked
close to the campaign would even know how to do that...so that was like the first
big hit. He made us seem like we were nefarious forces attacking his Web site"
(Ray interview, 2006).

The Lieberman campaign accused Lamont' s supporters of inflicting what is known as a

"Distributed Denial of Service" attack, or DOS. This type of Web-based attack occurs

when a hacker wants to have a specific Web page unavailable to online browsers at a

particular point in time. It is executed by attacking the Web server such that it cannot

adequately communicate with the site browser' s computer (Carnegie Mellon University,

1997). It is considered a cybercrime to initiate Dos attacks, and as a result, the

Lieberman campaign asked the Connecticut Attorney General's office to launch a

criminal investigation.

The evidence tends to support the fact that the Lamont campaign, as well as its

supporters, played no role in the disabling of the Lieberman Web page the day before the


49 It is possible that the number of successful hacking attempts is higher, indicating the Web site was
hijacked between the weekly archival for this dissertation. It is also possible that there were other
134










primary. Multiple sources confirmed that the Lieberman campaign used a very low

budget Internet host, paying $15 a month. By comparison, the Lamont campaign was

paying $1500 to have their Web page hosted online. On December 20, 2006, the

Connecticut Attorney General concluded that no criminal activity had taken place in the

disabling the Lieberman Web page. While we can never be sure what or who was

ultimately responsible for the site disabling, it is difficult to overlook the basic fact that

one often gets what they pay for. Paying $15 a month for Web hosting means that the

capacity of the Web server to take on significant traffic is limited, making the page prone

to such outages. Interestingly, Lieberman never pointed fingers or referenced the

multiple previous hackings that took place well before the primary. This meant that

Lieberman either had no knowledge of the previous hackings, or was attempting to make

the final hack seem much more despicable by painting it as an isolated incident that was

waged at such an important time. If he admitted to previous hackings, his campaign

could be criticized for not taking action to better protect their Web page from hackers.

Any form of sympathy would likely be significantly diminished, if not lost, in that case.

One may be quick to question why Lieberman decided to point fingers at the

Lamont bloggers as opposed to Lamont campaign itself. Ray gives us interesting insight

into this question, theorizing that his negative feelings about bloggers dates back to his

experience running for president in 2004. Ray shares

"With the blogs, I think it was genuinely held that we were all yelling, screaming
left-wing whackos, and I think this comes from the presidential election of 2004.
I think that' s where it really comes from, Dean. I think Joe was the frontrunner.
You have to look back at the 2004 stuff, because Joe was the frontrunner. Gore
took his time deciding if he was going to run in the election. He ended up
endorsing Dean, he didn't endorse Joe, and I think Joe felt just so betrayed by
that...he always had this idea as bloggers being this evil force of the party. I

unsuccessful hacking attempts that went undocumented.
135









think he took that with him into this campaign, and it had a lot to do with why he
made such poor online decisions. And it had a lot to do with why he didn't want
to get involved online. I mean, he had nothing online before the primary, and
after the primary it was a very cynical attempt, but it was successful. It was his
online presence as he saw us, purely attack and nothing else. But he didn't need
that, because he had 70% of the Republican vote, and no Republican candidate"
(Ray interview, 2006)

Ray's insights demonstrate the importance of a candidate's political history in

current campaigns, and provides insight as to why Lieberman started his online campaign

so conservatively. Even though the presidential election of 2004 may be a distant

memory for many Connecticut voters, its influence is still with us. As a candidate,

Lieberman carries that losing experience with him, according to Ray, which likely

includes a distaste for liberal bloggers.

While it is curious to consider who Lieberman pointed fingers at after the hack, it

is less surprising that his campaign felt the need to point a finger in the first place. The

disabling of the Lieberman Web page put the campaign in a very precarious situation.

They lost an important resource during a highly critical point of the race. Lieberman

attempted to get a positive benefit out of the otherwise negative hack by using it as an

avenue to attack his opponent' s supporters. He simultaneously painted himself as an

innocent victim. When something as harsh as having your online identity taken away

from you arises at such a critical time in the election, options are limited. This was likely

one of the only defenses the Senator could muster.

Conclusion

Joe Lieberman's digital transformation was truly amazing, illuminating how Web

presence and presentation of self can change dramatically in a short period of time. As

we explored in the literature review, campaign Web pages were nothing more than a









basic template just a decade ago, providing very basic information about the candidate.

Now, crafting a campaign digital presence is a work of art, with online campaigning

being just as dynamic as the political world it lives in.

Lieberman's page was a living, breathing entity that both shaped and was shaped

by its outside surroundings. As a powerful Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, his

page was busy, informative, and detailed. It served as a great source of campaign news,

positional perspectives on issues, and information on the Senator's vast political

experience. During the pre-primary period, Lieberman consistently presented himself as

a strong fighter looking to better his Connecticut constituency. He was confident,

professional, and conservative in both the online and offline worlds. As the political

climate changed, starting with his loss in the Democratic primary, his online presence

followed his offline tailspin. Lieberman was more silent after his loss, publicly stating

that would continue running, sitting in the background of mainstream media. He sat in

the background as he rethought his campaign strategy and image. During this time, his

Web page once again changed to blend with the larger political climate, with the Web

page lying dormant for a period of a month serving as strong evidence. When Lieberman

resurrected himself in the form of an "Independent Democrat", he was a candidate with a

new look, message, and presence both in the digital and real world. His online behavior

took a queue from his offline behavior, as he became much more aggressive in the way

he attacked his opponent. His radio and television ads began to take a role in shaping his

online presence.

Many facets of this race have interesting implications for how we regard the future

of Internet technology in our politics. The fact that Lieberman's Web page was hacked









multiple times, including the days before, of, and after the primary, reflects the true

volatility of such technology. While many people tout online politics as the wave of the

future, many still have reservations about its total replacement of traditional mediums of

campaign communication. Lieberman's case study is certainly evidence for those that

may agree with the latter sentiment. It further bolsters the argument that nothing beats

the candidate going out and speaking to voters face-to face, simply because no hacker can

eliminate or alter the existence of that presence.

The hacking of Lieberman' s home page was also significant in that it potentially

blocked constituents' ability to gather accurate information on the candidate. A browser

may have only a few minutes to visit a campaign home page. He or she may go the

hacked site and never return. Alternatively, a hacker could potentially upload a

fraudulent campaign web page, representing it as the official one. All constituents can do

is trust that the campaign and Senate Web pages are maintained by authorized staff

members, but as with any site, tight control of that Web space cannot be fully guaranteed.

It is ultimately impossible to gauge the impact Web hacking had on Lieberman's

campaign, as it would be for any campaign. It' s hard to believe that its impact was

negligible, particularly in the context of this race, where the Senator' s hij acked Web page

became a hot issue in the mainstream media.

The Reaches of Media Influence

The Lieberman case study is an instance where we see both online media

impacting the larger politics, and the larger politics impacting online media. The third

phase of the Lieberman campaign is illustrative of how Web media responded to the

larger political context. It took a long time for the new Independent Democrat Web page









to be operational, but when it was, we saw offline media inj ected into the online

presence. This came in the form of streaming video previously aired on television

stations, as well as radio commercials, being broadcasted on the home page.

During the forth phase, the hacking period, we saw a very different dynamic.

Here, activity on the Web page clearly influenced what subsequently happened in the

larger political context. After the hacked Web page came back online, the Lieberman

campaign wrote an accusatory letter blaming Lamont supporters for the disablement.5

Lieberman then went to the Hartford Courant with the story and filed a claim with the

Connecticut Attorney General. The online hijacking became an offline debacle that

received substantial mainstream press.

Ultimately, it is hard to gauge precisely how influential Lieberman's shift in

online identity was to the outcome of the election. While we know that people are

increasingly turning to the Internet as a source of political information, researchers are

still at the early stages of measuring how look, content, and changes to a Web page may

influence potential voters. It is not outside the range of possibility that Lieberman's new

digital look turned off undecided voters. Sensing the cynicism and negativity Lieberman

was putting out towards his opponent, they may have decided he was not the candidate

for them. Viewers may have also sensed a loss towards the featuring of local politics.

Others may have liked the Independent vibe Lieberman was portraying in his new look.

It is important for scholars to gain more knowledge about how what we see on the Web

impacts our political behavior. This would allow us to understand the larger implications

of such presentational shifts in the senatorial presentation of self.









"Candidate in Crisis"

In chapter 4, Senators Maria Cantwell and Dan Akaka were discussed as

presenting us with two unique ideal types. Cantwell served as an "issue candidate",

while Akaka reflected the "localized candidate". In both instances, the senators presented

unique characteristics that set them apart from their Class I colleagues. In this chapter,

Lieberman demonstrated why he reflects the ideal type of a "candidate in crisis". After

losing the primary, we witnessed a clear period of re-definition. This period was

noticeable because very little information was present on his campaign Web page. When

the page came back to life a month later, we saw a very different Lieberman.

While not all candidates in crisis may act this way, Lieberman certainly represents

one type of reaction to a viable threat. Other candidates may have elected not to switch

party affiliations after suffering a primary loss. In that sense, Lieberman provides with an

aggressive ideal type when faced with crisis. He not only decided to switch parties, but

attempted to align himself with both. Capitalizing on a theme of bipartisanship, he was

able to dig himself out of crisis and retain his seat in the U.S. Senate.

Political Histories

Finally, this case study reminds us of the importance of the political histories

candidates bring to their elections. Even someone as politically established as Joe

Lieberman has biases and privileges that can rear their head in the course of any given

campaign. In the Senator's case, as Ray helps us to understand, a past vulnerability from

2004 translated into a current insecurity towards the bloggosphere. It is possible that

Lieberman feels that the liberal Dean bloggers took away his presidential chances, still

holding negative sentiments towards the online political world. We can see from the


50 See Appendix I to view the content of this letter.
140










very early stages of the political campaign that Lieberman had little intention to use the

Web as an interactive part of his campaign. While he used it to fundraise and collect the

names of volunteers, browsers were otherwise passive. This was in stark contrast to his

opponent Ned Lamont, who had an interactive blog and other active features. Lieberman

is a good example of political history reliving itself during the first two phases of his Web

presence.

This case study represents the tip of the iceberg in understanding how a senatorial

presentation of self is created on the World Wide Web. Lieberman shows us that not

even powerful incumbents are immune to digital facelifts, and that these facelifts can

sometimes be dramatic. As the Internet becomes an increasingly important tool for the

gathering of political information, it behooves us to consider how Web presentation may

impact the browsing constituent. Scholars are just beginning to understand how Web

presentations are created in our political world. As we refine our methods for such

studies, future research can address how these presentations change both within and

between election cycles.

Just as people reflect on how presentations in television debates turn the tides for

political candidates, Web presence may soon gain that same type of prominence. The

digital presentation of self is often a calculated, strategic creation that both shapes and is

shaped by our larger politics. Lieberman is certainly not the last candidate to have to face

difficult Web-based decisions. Further research can help illuminate how different aspects

of Web design work to shape an online presence.

The final chapter of this dissertation brings together the questions, findings, and

discussions posed throughout the course of this dissertation. We will consider what the









case study, interviews, and quantitative analysis collectively say about how and why a

construction of self is created on multiple political e-contexts. We will also explore how

one could expand on this research to attack important questions raised throughout this

dissertation. When placed in the larger context, it will become apparent how this work

represents the first of many steps that need to be taken to better understand how

senatorial presentation of self is constructed and maintained across space and time.









CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION

Just as political institutions develop, so does digital technology. With each

passing election cycle, we see the Internet playing an increasingly important role in our

politics. What once started out as a simple template with very basic biographical and

contact information, political Web pages have developed immensely in their complexity

and importance. In this dissertation, we have gained deeper insight into how incumbent

senators use this technology to develop a digital self. Having explored the progression of

Web politics since 1996, we can appreciate the amount of time and effort that has been

spent in developing this online presence.

This research has introduced new concepts of time and space to our study of the

digital self. Through a comprehensive mixed-method approach, we explored how

incumbent senators running for re-election in the 2006 cycle presented themselves on

their campaign and Senate Web pages.

This chapter starts off by discussing the broad findings as offered by the previous

three chapters. This is followed by a reflection on some of the key points made by our

Webmaster respondents, including some criticisms not included in the qualitative chapter.

We then explore the implications of subj activity, including the results of not having inter-

coder reliability, weakness of the coding scheme, and the concept of reflexivity. Solid

suggestions are offered for those looking to expand on this research, followed by a few

final words.












Conclusions

Overall, we see interesting patterns of consistency and inconsistency in the

construction of the senatorial self. This research demonstrates that the greatest degree of

consistency exists within similar contexts. We see consistency in the types of digital

tools used, as well as the issues discussed the most and least. Evidence of consistency

between contexts is apparent, but this is not as dramatic as within the same context, likely

because the two venues have very different obj ectives.

Throughout the analysis, readers are continually reminded of how the Senate.gov

and campaign contexts are indeed very different. While the two contexts explored here

are representing the same person, they also represent two different offices with diverse

motives. These differences actively work to shape unique constructions of the digital

self.

One can begin by going back to the origination of these pages, specifically,

looking at the in-depth interviews with Webmasters and their perspectives on the goal of

each Web context. The respondents identified some very critical differences. For

campaigns, the goals of the Web page included fundraising, intimidating the opponent,

giving information to the media, and empowering supporters. For Senate pages, goals

included offering accessible information on constituent services, updating senatorial

activity, and offering contact information. These Web-based goals are in line with the

larger needs of the office, which prove to be very different. This is elaborated on in the

following sections.


The Evolving Digital Self









The implications of these differences are illuminated in the quantitative analysis.

We see the usage of different online tools and digital technology to help aid in achieving

these goals. The focus on issues and images also differs between the two contexts. For

campaigns, images focused more on the self. Unique tools included the abilities to

donate money and sign-up for a virtual newsletter. For Senate offices, unique tools

included the addition of contact information on the home page and a link to constituent

services. Images not including the senator were much more prevalent on these pages.

The ultimate conclusion to be drawn is that not only office goals, but also the

larger political climate, work to create differences both between and within contexts. The

case study of Joe Lieberman represents a dramatic shift in self-presentation within a

single context. Here, we see how an unexpectedly competitive election caused an

overhaul to Lieberman's presentation of self on his campaign home page. The page went

through substantial changes as the larger politics surrounding the race went in new

directions.

The in-depth interviews also lead us to conclude that the construction of the

Senatorial self is not directly related to the level of technologically savviness that the

office workers may have. This is likely a misconception that one unfamiliar with the

topic may be quick to conclude. The interviews revealed that a significant degree of the

initial Web page setup is done out of house. Further supporting this argument, many

campaign offices went to the same vendor, Campaign Solutions, for Web services. If the

office staff members were highly Web savvy, they likely would not feel the need to

secure the services of such outside vendors. This indicates that the playing field of









technological knowledge in campaign and Senate offices may be much more level that

one would expect.

In finding the most appropriate respondent for the interviews, it was discovered

that some of the campaigns had employees dedicated to the digital campaign. It may be

possible that these employees were hired after the Web page came online, and thus did

not have a chance to create the Web site. However, evidence suggests that these

employees were hired for their knowledge of digital strategy, not digital programming.

The best example of this came in speaking with a campaign that was accused of hacking

into their opponent' s Web page. The respondent, a person dedicated to the candidate's

online strategy, stated that he did not know how to perform such an action, and that the

campaign was innocent of such allegations. This was an intriguing finding, given the

high level of interactivity on one page.

The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective

Placing these findings in the scope of symbolic interactionism, this research

represents yet another example of how people continually work to construct their own

reality. As new information comes in to play, senators make changes in accordance to

how they think others will interpret their actions. This process results in the ultimate

construction of the digital self.

Erving Goffman would enj oy reflecting on this senatorial puzzle of how

incumbents come to create a digital presence both between and within digital contexts

over time. It represents a very complicated phenomenon, mostly because this sense of

self is being created within the very volatile world of American politics. It is an

interesting exercise to reflect on how some of his concepts in self-presentation apply to










our unique political world. I believe Goffman's dramaturlogical approach can rightfully

be applied to both the online and offline political self. Digital Web presence is a unique

form of performance through which senators attempt to persuade others that they are

legitimate in their roles as candidates and elected officials. Language, tools, and images

all represent mechanisms of impression management, working to further persuade

viewers that the incumbent is right for the role.

The Question of Consistency

Questions concerning the importance of senatorial consistency were presented in

chapter 2 of this dissertation. Given that we see evidence that points to both its

importance and relative subdued value, the most appropriate conclusion is that the

political climate of the race determines whether or not consistency is a valuable

characteristic. Looking at the case of Joe Lieberman, we see great inconsistency within a

single context over the 2006 election cycle. Although he lost the primary, his

inconsistency in both the online and offline world resulted in a solid victory in the

general election. Although many other factors came into play in helping him retain his

Senate seat, his inconsistency did not cost him the election. One could reasonably

suggest that his inconsistency, specifically moving more to a bipartisan persona, helped

to ensure Ned Lamont could not pull a maj or upset in the November election. Thus,

inconsistency was a valuable characteristic in the content of the 2006 Connecticut Senate

race.

On the other side of the spectrum, one can reflect on John Kerry' s presidential run

in 2004. The term "flip flopper", referring to his changing stance on the Iraq war,










resonated with the American public. Voters' interpretation of this likely played a

significant role in Kerry's downfall.

According to the Webmaster respondents, change is a positive thing. Some

respondents cited it as key way to let the media know that the candidate is keeping busy.

These interviews help us to understand that inconsistency should not be looked at in a

negative light. Change means the incumbents are being active and responding to what is

happening around them. In that sense, change may be an important part of the

impression management of incumbent senators. If the change is deemed to be too

dramatic, such as Kerry's "flip flopping" on a key political issue, the candidates are no

longer convincing constituents that they are made for the role of senator. If this

perception of an inconsistent self is too great, voters will let them know at the voting

booth. In moderation, both online and offline change is a healthy thing for our political

process. The voters have a very powerful role in determining how much change is

appropriate at any given time.

Voters have another powerful way of expressing what they perceive as acceptable

change, public opinion polls. In this dissertation, we explored how the top issues

presented on the campaign and Senate contexts compared to a public opinion poll of

1,000 American adults. We saw a striking degree of consistency between the multiple

data sources, indicating a potential connection between polls and what topics receive the

most Web attention. Ultimately, as the perspectives of constituents change as reflected in

public opinion polls, this empowers senators to make changes to meet constituents'

needs.









Fenno (1978) helps us to understand why different presentations of self take place

online. Recall that he describes how the Washington and home constituency roles mix

when the goals of each capacity coincide. These roles do not intertwine when the goals

of each capacity do not find common ground. In this dissertation, the Webmaster

respondents helped to illuminate some of the different office obj ectives. We explored

how campaigns are attempting to fundraise and recruit volunteers, amongst other things.

The Washington office is more focused on sharing information on constituent services.

Fenno would likely argue that, given that these goals are different, we should not see an

intertwining of the Washington and campaign roles. Consequently, the presentation of

self would likely be different on each Web context.

Mayhew (1974) may help to explain why we see some degree of consistency in

presentation of self. Recall that Mayhew describes three main activities of congressmen.

Credit claiming, position taking, and advertising are all ways that politicians attempt to

reach their goal of re-election. We found that appearing busy, communicating to the

media, and offering up-to-date digital content are all online actions that support

Mayhew' s three activities. Since these three digital activities apply across the

Washington and campaign contexts, this may help facilitate some degree of consistency.

Fenno would likely agree with Mayhew on this point, stating that the intertwining of

these goals represents an intertwining of capacities. Fenno would further add that the

intertwining of these goals and capacities would likely lead to a degree of similarity in

presentation of self.









Benefits of Change

As illustrated in the diverse examples of Joe Lieberman and John Kerry, change

can, at times, be a good thing. These two candidates demonstrate that the potential

benefits of change are substantially dictated by the larger politics surrounding the race.

As we discovered in Lieberman's case, change enabled him to take a more bipartisan

tone approaching the general election. Securing the independent base proved to be key in

his successful re-election bid. Had he maintained the same persona in the online and

offline worlds, Ned Lamont may have been victorious in November.

In Kerry's case, his change in persona was largely defined by his opponents.

While he may have changed perspectives on an issue, it was the Swift Boat Veterans for

Truth, as well as President Bush, that ultimately bestowed the popular label of "flip

flopper". Here, to his detriment, the larger politics defined Kerry. With the definition of

his persona quickly getting away from him, he was not able to reap any benefits of

change.

Change in presentation of self, when carefully calculated, can open up

opportunities for candidates. As in the case of Lieberman, it may open up the

opportunity to appeal to different constituent base. For others, it may bring freshness to

the campaign. As noted by the staff respondents in chapter 4, change can be seen as

being active, responsive, and busy. It all ultimately depends on how and if the

constituency is willing to look upon these changes in a favorable light.

With that said, one may reasonably conclude that one of the most central factors

associated with change is level of popularity in public opinion polls. Polls give both

candidates and sitting incumbents an idea of where they stand in the eyes of their









constituents. If the individual is popular, he or she will likely not feel the need to change

presentation of the self. If polls show that the probability of re-election is slipping away,

the candidate will likely want to change something in hopes of attracting voters. In

essence, strong politicians will question why they should change a good thing, while

floundering politicians will question how they can change an unpopular thing.

Respondent Insights

Critiques

In conducting my in-depth interviews, two of the campaign office respondents

questioned the importance of this research, saying that they failed to see its impact on

practical politics. They attempted to direct me "hotter" areas of online campaigning,

including the construction of online negative campaigning through third-party blogs and

Web pages. Receiving this type of criticism is never easy, and it caused one to question

the ultimate importance of their research to the non-academic community. Ultimately,

commentary like this helps us to understand what people in the field feel are cutting-edge

topics for scholars to pursue. It is their way of expressing their priorities to scholars, and

as academics, it is important that we listen.

One of the two respondents pointed out the growing relationship between online

media networks and offline politics. He made specific reference to George Allen's usage

of the word "macaca" at a public gathering, which quickly made its way onto YouTube.

It was this respondent' s impression that the popularity of this YouTube video was

responsible for sending the popular incumbent on a downward spiral. We now know that

George Allen's campaign never was able to recover from this incident.









The criticism and suggestions received from these respondents illuminates two

key points. First, there is a vast world of digital campaigning that scholars have yet to

give adequate consideration to. This is not because they do not want to, but more

because there is not enough manpower to do so. Online campaigning is developing at a

rate where scholars have a hard time keeping an up-to-date understanding of our digital

politics. The long journal review process does not help this reality. By the time scholars

can identify certain digital phenomenon, successfully submit an article, and have the

issue in which it appears released for public reading, we are already seeing new

technology arise.

The second maj or point to reflect on from the respondents' criticisms is that there

is a greater need for discourse between scholars and people in the field. This was not a

particularly new concept, but rather something that became reinforced as a result of the

interviews. The fact that two of the respondents did not see value in understanding the

implications of online senatorial presentation of self is cause for question. It could have

been the instrument itself; perhaps the questions were not clear enough, the interview

length was not appropriate, or the respondents did not like the interviewing style.

Perhaps the respondents were having a bad day. Regardless, we must remember that the

Webmasters bring a totally different frame of reference to this study. As the men and

women in the political trenches, they are privy to a host of information that we as

scholars must reach out to understand. Furthermore, when there are political dynamics

that are so clearly changing the tides of key elections, such as George Allen and his

YouTube video, other things become seemingly much less significant.










A good model to follow for future school ar-practitioner interaction is a conference

that the political campaigning program at the University of Florida held in February of

2005. Entitled "The Electoral Challenge: Theory Meets Practice, program director Steve

Craig brought together notable scholars and field workers to discuss issues such as the

effects of political consultants, campaigning on the Internet, initiatives and referendums,

and other items." Steve Craig later compiled articles on these subj ects in an edited

volume (Craig, 2006). Events such as this conference enable those working in and

studying politics to come together and debate hot topics in the field. Such exchanges

allow for scholars to learn about what is going on in the trenches of our politics, and

provide a valuable opportunity to ask questions.

Considering Political Histories

One of the most interesting contributions to arise out the interviews was the

importance of political history in developing a presentation of self. Simply, past

historical experiences shape the present. Given that this research focuses on incumbent

senators, the population being studied has substantial political history. One Democratic

respondent made an interesting connection between Senator Lieberman's political history

and the development of the case study offered in this dissertation. Stemming from his

presidential run in 2004, Lieberman' s negative perceptions of the liberal bloggosphere

impacted his digital strategy in 2006. According to the respondent, Lieberman has never

valued the bloggosphere, and blames them for his campaign page mishaps. Had his

political history been different, the Senator may have elected to reach out to the

bloggosphere in his 2006 campaign.



51 For more information on the conference, visit http1 w\ il \t .polisci.ufl.edu/campaign/new/events.html.
153










George Allen's political history with YouTube likely worked to shape his

decision not to run for president in 2008. Prior to the "macaca" incident, Allen had made

several trips to both lowa and New Hampshire (Heilmann, 2006). One could reasonable

assume that he did so to test the waters for a presidential run. In early December of 2006,

just after his defeat in the general election, he announced he was not running for

president. His usage of the word "macaca" and its popularity on YouTube made his

future political viability less than had it not occurred.

Not all political histories are as negative as in the cases of Senators Allen and

Lieberman. Reflect on the candidacy ofNed Lamont. Running against Joe Lieberman

for the Democratic Party nomination in Connecticut, Lamont created a deep online social

network through the liberal bloggosphere. Even though he was unsuccessful in the

general election, his connection to this bloggosphere still remains. He taps into it

periodically to ask for help with issues pertaining to the Democratic Party, sending out e-

mails to supporters. It is likely that, should he decide to run for Congress again, his

positive history with the liberal bloggosphere would continue to be a positive asset for

him.

The Implications of Subjectivity

One of the biggest methodological drawbacks of this study was the fact that there

was only one person conducting the coding section of the proj ect. Often studies are at

their best when multiple people view the same information. Typically, research that

requires coding receives a "team" of graduate students and professors. As a graduate

student, without having financial resources to offer to assistants, is it difficult to assemble

such a team. This approach limits the ability to see how one coder's perspective










compares to that of others. While one may try to be as cognizant as possible of the

importance and implications of reflexivity, this person can never fully understand how

his or her own biases alter the approaches, classifications, or conclusions for any given

proj ect. Having multiple coders allows for a greater opportunity to identify and discuss

researcher bias, something that was not present here. It would possibly result in the

emergence of new codes, new things to look for, debates over how certain things should

be coded, and so forth.

Certain content presented clear interpretive challenges. For example, general

discussions about "troops" or "supporting our troops" were coded as "military/foreign

affairs" instead of "Iraq". Some scholars may not have taken this same approach, and

had these discussions been coded as Iraq, that category may very well have been the

number one issue in certain periods. This type of subj activity makes quantitative analysis

a very delicate process. The best that one can do is to justify the reasoning. In this

circumstance, there were numerous examples of how the senators were not specifically

speaking about Iraq when they mentioned supporting troops. One of the best illustrative

examples came from Senator George Allen's constituency page. The following quote

was located under the title "Supporting Our Troops" on his home page.

"Senator Allen stands strong with the brave men and women who serve in our
Armed Forces as they fight to protect our freedoms around the world" (Allen
Archive, March 28th

Another example of a challenging category was coding things as "state-specific

issues", or discussions that rotated around the state's needs or accomplishments. Like the

topic of "supporting our troops" this is an example where the discussion could have

received multiple codes. Since the coding scheme utilized in this dissertation only allows









for statements to be coded as the most dominant issue, this falls to the discretion of the

coder. Had that issue category not existed, those statements would have been dispersed

to other topics, and the statistics would be different.

Given the fact that statements were coded as falling under only one category, this

dissertation misses out on capturing peripheral issues. Statements may have been pigeon

holed into a single category when, in reality, multiple topics were receiving digital space.

In the future, it would be useful to devise a coding scheme that allows for researchers to

adequately capture all of the issues being mentioned in a single sentence. This would

deepen our knowledge of issues' relative importance to one another, as well as how often

multiple topics are talked about in a small amount of digital space. With online real

estate at a premium, this would be a worthy line of research to pursue.

Reflexivity also plays into the concept of subj activity. As a researcher, one

should always reflect on how their own biases shape the nature of the study. Here, the

researcher' s capacity as a graduate student at the University of Florida may have

impacted this study in many ways. First, it may have played into which campaign and

Senate offices were willing to take the time to complete the interview. The perceived

importance of academic studies may not be as great to campaigns when compared to

phone calls from various news media outlets. Some offices never returned the phone call,

which may be a result of the researcher' s occupational status.

Being a Connecticut resident, the Joe Lieberman case may have taken on a

heightened sense of importance compared to someone living outside of the state. It is

always exciting when the state in which you reside rapidly becomes the hotbed of

political activity. Ultimately, though, any heightened since of importance did not serve










as a disadvantage to this study. If anything, it helped to illuminate a very interesting case

of senatorial presentation that may have otherwise gone unnoticed in the scholarly

community. It also gave the researcher a more solid understanding of the background

and context of the race.

Future Research

There is never a lack of things to study for scholars looking to make contributions

to the Hield of digital politics. One benefit of this subfield is that there is room for

everyone, and there is much work to be completed. Due to the fact that the subfield is in

its infancy, scholars should feel empowered to move across disciplinary lines to Eind

valuable theory and methods. By its very nature, the study of Internet politics should be a

highly interdisciplinary line of inquiry. We have already seen scholars from political

science, communications, and sociology make meaningful contributions to this budding

line of literature.

This dissertation has drawn on sociology's Symbolic Interactionist perspective as

a major theoretical paradigm. While other scholars have made such connection (Gulati,

2004; Bystrom et al., 2004), we should always seek to push the limits of a theory's

applicability to different circumstances. This research is unique in that it introduces

questions of digital time and space to Goffman's notion of the dramaturlogical approach.

Future scholars should bring in even more dimensions and circumstances to further this

line of thinking. This applies whether one is applying Symbolic Interactionism or some

totally different theoretical perspective to our understanding of digital politics.

Reflecting on this dissertation, there are many interesting improvements that

future scholars can make. The first idea is to consider presentation of self at different









levels of government. Comparing and contrasting the House and Senate would be an

insightful exercise, and the one that would likely first come to mind for people looking to

improve on this proj ect. It would be highly encouraged, however, for future scholars to

broaden their perspective of levels of government. Governors have multiple Web

contexts, and would provide an interesting comparison group to senators, who also have

state-wide elections. Looking more locally, more fundamental questions arise. Do town

officials have a digital presentation of self! If so, how complex is this presentation?

How difficult is it to find this online presence?

In chapters five and six of this dissertation, we explored three different ideal

types, including the "candidate in crisis", "localized candidate", and "issue candidate".

The identification and description of these three incumbents demonstrates that there are

excellent examples of cases to help illuminate ideal types. Considering digital tools,

images, and text, future scholars can attempt to identify new classifications of ideal types.

This dissertation focused on incumbent U.S. Senate candidates. Future scholars should

look at challengers on both the senatorial and house level. With the 2008 presidential

election on the horizon, there is an excellent opportunity to examine and identity ideal

types on the national level.

As the popularity of online politics grows, it is highly likely that the importance

of a digital presence will trickle down to more the local levels of government. Research

on digital politics at the local level would be groundbreaking at this point in time. In

essence, scholars taking this path would be observing the building of the ground floor of

digital politics at the local level. Just as with presidential candidates back in 1996, local

candidates will likely start off with very simple templates offering very basic









information. Moving forward, scholars may be able to capture how local presentation of

self develops as the prevalence of local candidate Web page increases.

Another great addition to this research would be to conduct interviews with the

senators themselves. This would add an incredible dimension to this project. Such

interviews would shed light on if senators are presenting themselves the way they want to

on Web contexts, and illuminate the role they themselves play in developing their

presentation of self. It would also help to create a connection between this body of

literature and the population being studied. Simply, political science is at its best when

scholars and practitioners can come together to share ideas and debate issues. One can

only begin to imagine the insights that senators would bring to the table regarding how

their digital selves are constructed.

One could also make numerous expansions based on the Lieberman case study.

Senator Lieberman represents a case of how a competitive election can lead to great

inconsistency in how one presents him or herself. An interesting step would be to find

other cases that either supports or refutes such findings. It would be exceptionally

interesting to compare Lieberman's case to other instances in which sitting incumbents

were faced with a totally unexpected challenge. Creating a larger sample would help

scholars to understand how universal the findings of the Lieberman case truly are.

Lastly, it would be beneficial for future researchers to expand on the concept of

digital space. This research examined two official contexts. Digital space is a very vast

concept that includes many contexts. New official contexts have arisen, such as

My Space and Facebook accounts managed by the campaigns. It would also be insightful

to see how third parties present elected officials in unofficial contexts. To start, one









could examine the Web pages of 501(c) and 527 groups and unaffiliated supporters. As

one moves to more peripheral contexts of digital space, meaning moving further and

further away from official contexts, it would be interesting to understand how digital

presentations of elected officials change.

Final Thoughts

As this dissertation is being written, the importance of the digital self becomes

more and more evident. Earlier in this dissertation, there was a discussion about how

official campaign and Senate Web pages were identified. When talking about My Space

and YouTube, it is much more difficult to assess what is "official". Recently, there was a

dispute over presidential candidate Barack Obama' s My Space account. A supporter

created an account under Obama's name, attracting over 160,000 friends. A reporter for

The Examiner poses it best when she asks, "Is My Space always mine or can it belong to

someone else?" (Pickler, 2007). An unpaid supporter started the Web page with the

knowledge and support of the campaign. According to The Examiner

"At first, that arrangement was fine with the Obama team, which worked with
Anthony on the content, promoted the link and even had the password to make
changes. But as the site exploded in popularity in recent months, the campaign
became concerned about an outsider controlling the content and responses going
out under Obama's name. It told Anthony it wanted him to turn it over" (Pickler,
2007).

Such events demonstrate the value of having control over one' s presentation of

self. In our current political climate that embraces the development of digital politics,

control over Web design is not a small thing.

When we see presidential candidates struggling to maintain authenticity on

various Web contexts, it likely makes their presence on official contexts all that more

meaningful. People go to campaign and Senate Web pages knowing that they are

getting valuable information. When stories such as Obama's disseminate to both

160









offline and online media contexts, it heightens people' s senses of the importance of an

authentic presentation of self.

Just as elected officials proj ect a sense of self while standing in front of a crowd

or while appearing on television, the Internet represents another venue for this

presentation to occur. As this research has shown, each Web context represents yet

another unique place for the self to be developed. As we move forward, new contexts

will likely come into play. They may have already arrived with venues such as

My Space and Facebook, but in all likelihood, exciting new sites are just around the

corner. As they develop and take a position within the digital sphere, those contexts

will challenge politicians to yet again consider how to construct a presentation of self.

This dissertation implies that the level of consistency between these new contexts and

the ones studied here depends on the larger political context, as well as the goals of

each specific Web space.

We are very fortunate to be living in these times. From a scholarly

perspective, there is so much to explore. One could easily spend a career studying the

developments and implications of digital technology. From a constituent perspective,

there is a vast world of opportunity. As people continue to take advantage of these

opportunities, we can remain optimistic that our democracy will grow stronger.









APPENDIX A
CAMPAIGN SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE

Introduction: May I speak with the person in charge of making decisions with your
campaign's Web page?

Read informed consent form

1. Tell me about your Senate race.

2. How important is the Internet to the success of your candidate?

If Q2 = no Web page, SKIP to Q29

3. What factors came into play in deciding what features to include on the site?

4. How about what features to exclude?

5. Did the campaign consider the issue of money in deciding how to construct the site?

6. Who creates the Web page?

7. Who updates the Web page?

8. Does the Senator ever write content for the Web page? If so, how often?

9. Thus far, what Web site features are working well for the campaign? Why?

10. What features are not working as well as you originally anticipated? Why?

11. What unique features do you think your Web site has?

12. How did your campaign think of these features?

13. Were you targeting any specific demographics with features? If so, who and for

what purpose?

14. How does the campaign attempt to attract people to the web page (if respondent asks

for example: putting the web site address on literature or signs)?

15. In retrospect, are there any features you wish you put on the site that you did

not originally include?









16. How important was the Internet to your candidate's overall campaign plan?

17. What functions did the site serve during the course of your campaign?

18. Were any of these functions unexpected?

19. What types of features do you think we will see on future campaign pages?

20. Do you ever look at the Senator's Senate.gov page? If so, how often? If not, why
not?

IF Q20= no, SKIP to Q32

21. Why do you look at that page?

22. Do you ever borrow content from that page?

23. Do you ever talk to the Senate staff in Washington? If so, how often?

24. Why do you talk to them?

25. Do you ever discuss Web pages in your discussions with them?

26. How does your Web page differ from the Senate.gov page?

27. Do you feel that the content on the two pages are similar? If so, how?

28. Do you ever fear the two pages contradict each other? If so, how?

SKIP to Q32

29. What factors went into your decision not to have a Web page?

30. Do you think you will have a Web page later in the campaign? Why or why not?

31. Thinking about your campaign specifically, what are the weaknesses of not having a
Web page?

32. What role do you think the Internet will play in future campaigns?

33. How will campaign pages be different in the future?

Interviewer read debriefing statement

NOTE: Some respondents scheduled the interview for after Election Day. In these cases,
past tense was used.











APPENDIX B
SENATE OFFICE SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE

Introduction: May I speak with the person in charge of making decisions with your
office's Web page?

Read informed consent form

1. Tell me about the Senator.

2. How important is the Internet in your day-to-day operations?

3. What factors came into play in deciding what features to include on the site?

4. How about what features to exclude?

5. Who creates the Web page?

6. Who updates the Web page?

7. Does the Senator ever write content for the Web page? If so, how often?

8. Thus far, what Web site features are working well for your office? Why?

9. What features are not working as well as you originally anticipated? Why?

10. What unique features do you think your Web site has?

11. How did your office think of these features?

12. Were you targeting any specific demographics with features? If so, who and for

what purpose?

13. How does the office attempt to attract people to the web page (if respondent asks for

example: putting the web site address on literature)?

14. In retrospect, are there any features you wish you put on the site that you did

not originally include?

15. How important is the Internet to the Senator's ability to help constituents?

16. What functions does your Web page serve?











17. What types of features do you think we will see on future Senate.gov pages?

18. Do you ever look at the Senator's campaign page? If so, how often? If not, why
not?

IF Q18= no, SKIP to Q27

19. Why do you look at that page?

20. Do you ever borrow content from that page?

21. Do you ever talk to the campaign? If so, how often?

22. Why do you talk to them?

23. Do you ever discuss Web pages in your discussions with them?

24. How does your Web page differ from the campaign page?

25. Do you feel that the content on the two pages are similar? If so, how?

26. Do you ever fear the two pages contradict each other? If so, how?

27. How will Senate.gov pages be different in the future?

28. What types of technologies is your office trying to implement for the future?

Interviewer read debriefing statement









APPENDIX C
IRB APPLICATION

1. TITLE OF PROTOCOL:
Considering Campaign and Official Government Internet Sites: An Exploration into the
Web-based congressional Presentation of Self [title changed since IRB submitted]

2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(s):
Diana Tracy Cohen, M.S.R., M.A.
Graduate Research Assistant and Alumni Fellow
Department of Political Science
234 Anderson Hall
P.O. Box 117325
Gainesville, FL 32611
(352) 392-0262 (office phone)
(352) 262-5099 (cell phone)
dtcohen(@,ufl.edu
(3 52) 3 92-8127 (fax)

3. SUPERVISOR (IF PI IS STUDENT):
Beth Rosenon, Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science
234 Anderson Hall
P.O. Box 117325
Gainesville, FL 32611
(352) 392-0262, extension 232(phone)
rosenson~polisci .ufl. edu
(3 52) 3 92-8127 (fax)
4. DATES OF PROPOSED PROTOCOL: From: 2/01/2006 To: 5/01/2006

5. SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE PROTOCOL: Alumni fellowship, applying for
AAUW Dissertation Fellowship award.

6. SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION:

This investigation is designed to explore how congressional incumbents use the Web to
create a presentation of self. This proj ect will deepen our knowledge not only of how
congressmen portray themselves on the Internet, but also our understanding of how
consistent this portrayal remains through the context of different Web pages, specifically,
official campaign and official governmental page. This consistency of congressional
presentation will also be explored though conversations with campaign and constituency
office staff members.









7. DESCRIBE THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN NON-TECHNICAL
LANGUAGE. The UFIRB needs to know what will be done with or to the research
participantss.
This investigation will employ an in-depth interviewing methodology. A sample of
eighty subj ects will be drawn from staff members of incumbent candidates running for
Congress in 2006. Once the target is on the phone, the informed consent page will be
read, and all questions or comments will be addressed. Once consent is given, I will
begin tape recording the interview, and proceed to asking questions dealing with the
Congressman' s/Congresswoman' s presentation of self on the Web. Questions will also
be asked dealing with the significance of the Web to the individual's overall
congressional self-presentation. Specifically, the following research instrument will be
employed :

1) Who is the primary decision-maker for the content of your Web
site?
2) How often does this individual consult with the
Congressman/Congresswoman in regards to Web content?
3) Does your office ask the Congressman/Congresswoman for his/her
opinion of the Web site? What does he/she think of it?
4) Do you feel that the Congressman/Congresswoman has a presentation
of self online?
5) How did your office decide what features of the
Congressman/Congresswoman you would make most prominent on
the Web page?
6) What are those features?
7) How do these features relate to the Congressman' s/Congresswoman's
activities in office?
8) Did you look at other Congressional Web sites to determine how your
Incumbent should look?
9) (If yes) How often do you look at other sites?
10) Do you collaborate with the [campaign/government] office when
determining what to put on the Web site?
11) How does this collaboration work?
12) Do you feel that your Congressman/Congresswoman is presented
similarly on his/her government and campaign Web sites?
13) (If no) How are these presentations different?
14) (If yes) How are these presentations similar?
15) (If Q4 = yes) Do you think it is important that your
Congressman/Congresswoman continually puts out the same
presentation of self!
16) Overall, how important is the Incumbent' s Web site to
[campaigning/constituency relations]?

After completion of the interview, the debriefing statement will be read (see attached).









8. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND ANTICIPATED RISK. (If risk of physical,
psychological or economic harm may be involved, describe the steps taken to protect
participant.)

This protocol involves no more than minimal risk. It is possible that participants may
feel awkward in discussing their Web Congressional identity to a researcher, however,
this is not likely to be the case. Participants will be informed before the interview begins
that their participation in this study is completely voluntary, that they do not have to
answer any question you do not wish to answer, and are free to withdraw their consent
and to discontinue participation in the interview at any time without consequence. After
the interview, during the debriefing, I will remind them that the content of the interview
will be listened to by me alone, that their identities will remain confidential, and that the
tape will be physically destroyed.

9. DESCRIBE HOW PARTICIPANTS) WILL BE RECRUITED, THE NUMBER
AND AGE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, AND PROPOSED COMPENSATION (if
any) :

This study calls for making contact with both campaign and Washington Congressional
offices of candidates running for the House and Senate in 2006. Twenty House and
twenty Senate candidates will be selected with consideration of geographical location,
political orientation, and seniority. Once a candidate is selected, both his/her campaign
and congressional offices will be contacted via telephone, for a total of eighty interviews
(forty House, forty Senate). Once the respective office has been reached successfully via
telephone, the following screening question will be posed: "Hello, my name is Diana
Cohen, and I am a graduate student calling from the University of Florida. May I please
speak with the individual who is in charge of making decisions pertaining to the features
of your Web site?" If there is no such person, I will then ask to speak with the campaign
manager.

Once the target respondent is on the phone, he/she will be read the informed consent
form. Once all questions and comments have been addressed, and verbal consent has
been given, the interview will begin. Upon completion of the interview, a brief
debriefing statement will be read, and the respondent will be asked if he/she would be
interested in receiving a copy of this study' s results.










10. DESCRIBE THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS. INCLUDE A COPY OF
THE INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT (if applicable). See attached

Please use attachments sparingly.



Principal Investigator's Signature


Supervisor's Signature

I approve this protocol for submission to the UFIRB:



Dept. Chair/Center Director Date










Department of Political Science
234 Anderson Hall
PO Box 117325
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

Informed Consent

To be read orally to all potential participants prior to interview

Protocol Title: Considering Campaign and Official Government Internet Sites: An
Exploration into the Web-based Congressional Presentation of Self

My name is Diana Cohen, and I am a political science graduate student calling from the
University of Florida. I am currently conducting a study that explores how incumbents
use the Internet to construct a presentation of self. In conducting this research, I am
interviewing campaign staff members who make decisions regarding congressional
campaign and governmental Web pages and their features.

You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer, and are free to
withdraw your consent and to discontinue participation in the protocol or activity at any
time without consequence. While there are no immediate benefits or compensation to be
drawn from your participation in this study, your responses will help further our
knowledge about Internet campaigning strategies. At the conclusion of the study, I will
be happy to share and discuss my findings with you. Your participation will take
approximately fifteen minutes.

The content of this interview will be tape recorded after your consent is given. I will be
the sole person having access to this data, and will physically destroy the tape by ripping
out the ribbon after its transcription. Your identity, and the identity of your candidate,
will remain anonymous.

Please keep in mind that you do not have to answer any question you do not wish to
answer, and that the identity of your campaign will be kept in the strictest of confidence
at all times, unless otherwise directed by you.
If at any point during or after the interview you have any questions, comments, or
concerns, I will be more than happy to assist you. My address is: Department of Political
Science, 234 Anderson Hall, P.O. Box 1 17325, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
32611. My supervisor' s name is Beth Rosenson, assistant professor of political science.
She can be contacted at: 234 Anderson Hall, P.O. Box 117325, Gainesville, FL 32611.
Any questions or concerns that you may have about your rights as a research participant
can be directed to the UFIRB office, Box 1 12250, University of Florida, Gainesville FL
32611-2250. This address information will also be repeated at the end of the interview.










Department of Political Science
234 Anderson Hall
PO Box 117325
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

Debriefing Statement

To be read orally to all participants after the interview

Protocol Title: Considering Campaign and Official Government Internet Sites: An
Exploration into the Web-based Congressional Presentation of Self

Thank you once again for your participation in this study. The information that you have
supplied will help both academic and campaign professionals understand how
Congressmen use the Internet to create a presentation of self.

Please keep in mind that all of your responses will be kept strictly confidential, and that
your identity will be kept anonymous. The tape of this conversation will be destroyed
upon transcription.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this interview in the future, or would like
a copy of the results, I will be more than happy to assist you. My address is: Department
of Political Science, University of Florida, 234 Anderson Hall, P.O. Box 117325,
Gainesville, FL 32611. My supervisor's name is Beth Rosenson, assistant professor of
political science. She can be contacted at: 234 Anderson Hall, P.O. Box 117325,
Gainesville, FL 32611. Any questions or concerns that you may have about your rights
as a research participant can be directed to the UFIRB office, Box 112250, University of
Florida, Gainesville FL 32611-2250. Thanks again for your participation, and good luck
on Election Day.










APPENDIX D
CAMPAIGN WEB PAGE CODING SCHEME

1. Last name
2. First name
3. State
4. Party
5. Gender
6. Race
7. Change (amount of change from previous Web page, 0-7 scale)
8. Rolling image (existence of slide shows or other rolling media)
9. Party obvious (is the party identification obvious)
10. Independent (does the Senator use the word "independent" to describe him/herself)
11. Pl (what is in picture 1, 1-5 coding scheme)
12. P2 (what is in picture 2, 1-5 coding scheme)
13. P3 (what is in picture 3, 1-5 coding scheme)
14. P4 (what is in picture 4, 1-5 coding scheme)
15. P5 (what is in picture 5, 1-5 coding scheme)
16. P6 (what is in picture 6, 1-5 coding scheme)
17. P7 (what is in picture 7, 1-5 coding scheme)
18. P8 (what is in picture 8, 1-5 coding scheme)
19. P9 (what is in picture 9, 1-5 coding scheme)
20. Pl~note (describe what image is of)
21. P2_note (describe what image is of)
22. P3_note (describe what image is of)
23. P4_note (describe what image is of)
24. P5_note (describe what image is of)
25. P6_note (describe what image is of)
26. P7_note (describe what image is of)
27. P8_note (describe what image is of)
28. P9_note (describe what image is of)
29. Issues 1 (agriculture, coded 0-3)
30. Issue 2 (budget, coded 0-3)
31. Issue 3 (campaign finance reform, coded 0-3)
32. Issue 4 (crime, coded 0-3)
33. Issue 5 (consumer issues, coded 0-3)
34. Issue 6 (defense and foreign policy, coded 0-3)
35. Issue 7 (education, coded 0-3)
36. Issue 8 (environment, coded 0-3)
37. Issue 9 (health, coded 0-3)
38. Issue 10 (infrastructure, coded 0-3)
39. Issue 11 (Iraq, coded 0-3)
40. Issue 12 (jobs and economic development, coded 0-3)
41. Issue 13 (medicare, coded 0-3)
42. Issue 14 (social and cultural issues, coded 0-3)
43. Issue 15 (social security, coded 0-3)









44. Issue 16 (taxes, coded 0-3)
45. Issue 17 (welfare, coded 0-3)
46. Issue 18 (generic helping constituency, coded 0-3)
47. Issue 19 (energy and gas, coded 0-3)
48. Issue 20 (women's rights, coded 0-3)
49. Issue 21 (immigration, coded 0-3)
50. Issue 22 (opponent, coded 0-3)
51. Issue other (list other items described)
52. Construction (is site under construction)
53. Letter (home page letter to constituents)
54. Account (ability to create an account)
55. Contact media (links to contact different media)
56. Campaign store
57. In news (section that describes Senator in the news)
58. Press releases (links or postings of press releases)
59. Blog
60. Volunteer (ability to sign up as a volunteer)
61. Money (ability to contribute)
62. Contact info on home page
63. Link to contact info
64. Photo gallery
65. Petition (is there an online petition on the home page)
66. Additional pages (are there links to additional pages)
67. Quotes (are there quotes from others on home page)
68. Post card (can browsers send a virtual post card)
69. Register to vote link
70. Issues (is there a link to an issues page)
71. Biography (is there a link to a biographical statement)
72. Spanish (does Spanish appear anywhere on the page)
73. Portuguese (does Portuguese appear anywhere on the page)
74. Language (does any other language appear on the home page)
75. Specific Language (what is this other language)
76. Family (does the candidate's family appear on the home page)
77. Family How (how and where does the family appear)
78. TV (is there a television commercial on the home page)
79. Cool item #1 (any other interesting items of note)
80. Cool item #2 (any other interesting items of note)
81. Opponent (is the opponent mentioned on the home page)










APPENDIX E
SENATE WEB PAGE CODING SCHEME

1. Last name
2. First name
3. State
4. Party
5. Gender
6. Race
7. Change (amount of change from previous Web page, 0-7 scale)
8. Rolling image (existence of slide shows or other rolling media)
9. Party obvious (is the party identification obvious)
10. Independent (does the Senator use the word "independent" to describe him/herself)
11. Pl (what is in picture 1, 1-5 coding scheme)
12. P2 (what is in picture 2, 1-5 coding scheme)
13. P3 (what is in picture 3, 1-5 coding scheme)
14. P4 (what is in picture 4, 1-5 coding scheme)
15. P5 (what is in picture 5, 1-5 coding scheme)
16. P6 (what is in picture 6, 1-5 coding scheme)
17. P7 (what is in picture 7, 1-5 coding scheme)
18. P8 (what is in picture 8, 1-5 coding scheme)
19. P9 (what is in picture 9, 1-5 coding scheme)
20. Pl~note (describe what image is of)
21. P2_note (describe what image is of)
22. P3_note (describe what image is of)
23. P4_note (describe what image is of)
24. P5_note (describe what image is of)
25. P6_note (describe what image is of)
26. P7_note (describe what image is of)
27. P8_note (describe what image is of)
28. P9_note (describe what image is of)
29. Issues 1 (agriculture, coded 0-3)
30. Issue 2 (budget, coded 0-3)
31. Issue 3 (campaign finance reform, coded 0-3)
32. Issue 4 (crime, coded 0-3)
33. Issue 5 (consumer issues, coded 0-3)
34. Issue 6 (defense and foreign policy, coded 0-3)
35. Issue 7 (education, coded 0-3)
36. Issue 8 (environment, coded 0-3)
37. Issue 9 (health, coded 0-3)
38. Issue 10 (infrastructure, coded 0-3)
39. Issue 11 (Iraq, coded 0-3)
40. Issue 12 (jobs and economic development, coded 0-3)
41. Issue 13 (Medicare, coded 0-3)
42. Issue 14 (social and cultural issues, coded 0-3)
43. Issue 15 (social security, coded 0-3)









44. Issue 16 (taxes, coded 0-3)
45. Issue 17 (welfare, coded 0-3)
46. Issue 18 (generic helping constituency, coded 0-3)
47. Issue 19 (energy and gas, coded 0-3)
48. Issue 20 (women's rights, coded 0-3)
49. Issue 21 (immigration, coded 0-3)
50. Issue 22 (opponent, coded 0-3)
51. Issue other (list other items described)
52. Construction (is site under construction)
53. Letter (home page letter to constituents)
54. Account (ability to create an account)
55. In news (section that describes Senator in the news)
56. Press releases (links or postings of press releases)
57. Blog
58. Contact info on home page
59. Link to contact info
60. Photo gallery
82. Petition (is there an online petition on the home page)
83. Additional pages (are there links to additional pages)
84. Quotes (are there quotes from others on home page)
85. Post card (can browsers send a virtual post card)
86. Register to vote link
87. Issues (is there a link to an issues page)
88. Biography (is there a link to a biographical statement)
89. Spanish (does Spanish appear anywhere on the page)
90. Portuguese (does Portuguese appear anywhere on the page)
91. Language (does any other language appear on the home page)
92. Specific Language (what is this other language)
93. Family (does the candidate's family appear on the home page)
61. Family How (how and where does the family appear)
62. State link (are there links to other state agencies)
63. Interactive State (is there an interactive state map)
64. Services (is there a link for constituent services)
65. Students (is there a link for students)
66. Cool item #1 (any other interesting items)
67. Cool item #2 (any other interesting items)










APPENDIX F
ISSUE CODING CATEGORIES

1: Agriculture
2: Budget
3: Campaign finance reform
4: Crime
5: Consumer issues
6: Defense and foreign policy
7: Education
8: Environment
9: Health
10: Infrastructure
11: Iraq
12: Jobs and economic development
13: Medicare
14: Social and cultural issues
15: Social security
16: Taxes
17: Welfare
18: Generic helping constituency
19: Energy and gas
20: Women's rights
21: Immigration
22: Opponent
23: State-specific

Issues 11 and 18-23 are unique for this study, while the rest of the categories stem from
the Wisconsin Ads Proj ect.









APPENDIX G
TEXT FROM HILLARY CLINTON' S PRESIDENTIAL WEB PAGE

The text from Hillary Clinton' s Presidential campaign page while running for U. S.

Senate :

First Lady

When her husband was elected President in 1992, Hillary's work as a champion

for women was recognized and admired around the world. She traveled the globe

speaking out against the degradation and abuse of women and standing up for the

powerful idea that women's rights are human rights.

In the White House, Hillary led efforts to make adoption easier, to expand early

learning and child care, to increase funding for breast cancer research, and to help

veterans suffering from Gulf War syndrome who had too often been ignored in the past.

She helped launch a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy and helped create the

Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which moved children from foster care to

adoption more quickly. Thanks in part to her efforts, the number of children who have

moved out of foster care into adoption has increased dramatically.

As everyone knows, Hillary's fight for universal health coverage did not succeed.

But her commitment to health care for every American has never wavered. She was

instrumental in designing and championing the State Children's Health Insurance

Program, which has provided millions of children with health insurance. She battled the

big drug companies to force them to test their drugs for children and to make sure all kids

get the immunizations they need through the Vaccines for Children Program.

Immunization rates dramatically improved after the program launched.









Hillary's 1995 book It Takes A Village, about the responsibility we all have to

help children succeed, became an international best seller. Hillary has donated the

proceeds -- more than a million dollars -- to children's causes across the country.

Hillary's autobiography, Living History, was also a best seller. It has been

translated into 12 languages and sold over 1.3 million copies.









APPENDIX H
TEXT OF JOE LIEBERMAN' S TRANSITIONAL PHASE

The text of Joe Lieberman' s letter on his campaign home page during his transitional

phase, dated Wednesday, August 30th:


Welcome to Joe2006.com! We'll be re-launching our full website soon to bring

you the latest news and updates from the campaign.


In the meantime, I want to take a moment to thank my supporters and explain to you

why I have decided to fight on until November.

I'm staying in this race because I want to keep working for the things that matter to

you and help meet the critical challenges facing our state and country.

I've been a leader in the Senate on strengthening our national security, protecting and

creating jobs, stopping global warming and finding cures to diseases like cancer and

diabetes.

And I'm staying because I want to help end the war in Iraq as quickly and successfully

as possible, in a way that brings stability to the Middle East and doesn't leave us even

more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

So much needs to be done, but so little is actually getting done in Washington because

our politics have become so partisan and polarized.

I have always followed a different path. My 30 years of experience have been about

bringing people together and solving problems.

I am and will always be a proud, progressive, strong-on-defense democrat. But I do

not and will not hesitate to work across party lines when it will get things done for my

constituents.









That is what my campaign will be all about building a new politics of unity and

purpose and delivering results for the people of Connecticut.

I hope you will join me in this cause, no matter your political persuasion, to secure a

brighter future for our state and our country.










APPENDIX I
TEXT OF JOE LIEBERMAN' S HIJACKED LETTER

The text of Joe Lieberman' s letter on his campaign home page immediately following his

hij acked phase, dated Wednesday, August 9th




STATEMENT FROM SEAN SMITH: "For the past 24 hours the Friends for Joe

Lieberman's website and email has been totally disrupted and disabled, we believe

that this is the result of a coordinated attack by our political opponents. The campaign

has notified the US Attorney and the Connecticut Chief State's Attorney and the

campaign will be filing a formal complaint reflecting our concerns. The campaign has

also notified the State Attorney General Dick Blumenthal for his review."


"We call on Ned Lamont to make an unqualified statement denouncing this kind of

dirty campaign trick and to demand whoever is responsible to cease and desist

immediately. Any attempt to suppress voter participation and undermine the voting

process on Election Day is deplorable and has no place in our democracy."










APPENDIX J
LIST OF SENATORS INCLUDED IN STUDY

1. Daniel Akaka
2. George Allen
3. Conrad Burns
4. Maria Cantwell
5. Thomas Carper
6. Lincoln Chafee
7. Hillary Clinton
8. Gaylord Conrad
9. Mike DeWine
10. John Ensign
11. Dianne Feinstein
12. Orrin Hatch
13. Kay Hutchinson
14. Edward Kennedy
15. Herbert Kohl
16. Jon Kyl
17. Joe Lieberman
18. Dick Lugar
19. Robert Menendez
20. Bill Nelson
21. Rick Santorum
22. Olympia Snowe
23. Deborah Stabenow
24. Jim Talent










APPENDIX K
NOVEMBER 8th COOK REPORT

NOVEMBER 8, 2006

2006 Senate Race Ratings


Senate Lineup: 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, 1 Independent
Senators with names in parentheses are retiring.
The chart below provides a spectrum that analyzes the vulnerability (the chances
of the seat switching parties) of the Senate races up this cycle.

Solid: These races are not considered competitive and are not likely to become closely
contested.

Likely: These seats are not considered competitive at this point but have the potential to
become engaged.

Lean: These are considered competitive races but one party has an advantage.

Toss-up: These are the most competitive races; either party has a good chance of
winning.

Likely Democrat (2)
-Cantwell WA
-MN (Dayton)

Lean Democrat (1)
-Stabenow MI

Toss-up (2)
-Menendez NJ
-MD (Sarbanes)

Solid Democrat (12)
-Nelson FL
-Bingaman NM
-Byrd WV
-Conrad ND
-Feinstein CA
-Carper DE
-Akaka HI
-Kennedy MA
-Clinton NY
-Kohl WI
-CT (Lieberman)










-Nelson NE


Independent: Likely Democrat (1)
-VT (Jeffords)

Lean Democrat (2)
-DeWine OH
-Santorum PA

Toss-up (5)
-Talent -MO
-Burns- MT
-Chafee RI
-Allen VA
-TN (Frist)

Lean Republican (1)
-Kyl AZ

Solid Republican (7)
-Lugar IN
-Snowe ME
-Lott MS
-Ensign NV
-Hutchison TX
-Hatch UT
-Thomas WY










APPENDIX L
IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS

Anonymous, DS1, 2006. Telephone interview. 10 November 2006.

Anonymous DS2, 2006. Telephone interview. 18 July 2006.

Anonymous DS3, 2006. Telephone interview. 21 August 2006.

Anonymous DC1, 2006. Telephone interview. 9 November 2006.

Anonymous RS1, 2006. Telephone interview. 13 November 2006.

Anonymous RS2, 2006. Telephone interview. 13 November 2006.

Anonymous RS3, 2006. Telephone interview. 18 July 2006.

Anonymous RS4, 2006. Telephone interview. 10 November 2006.

Anonymous DC1, 2004. Telephone interview. 14 June 2004.

Anonymous RC1, 2004. Telephone interview. 22 June 2004.

Anonymous RC2, 2004. Telephone interview. 22 June 2004.

Ray. Telephone Interview. 13 November 2006.










LIST OF REFERENCES


Abramson, Jeffrey. B., F. Christopher Arterton, and Gary. R. Orren. 1998. The
Electronic Commonwealth: The Impact of New M~edia Technologies on Democratic
Politics. New York, New York: Basic Books.

Anderson, David, and Michael Cornfield. 2001. The Civic Web: Online Politics and
Democratic Values. New York, New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto lyengar. 1995. Going Negative: How Political
Advertisements.\r 1hi in and Polarize the Electorate. New York, New York: The Free
Press.

Associated Press. 2006. "It's an Independent Lieberman on fall ballot". M~SNBC
Online, August 23. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn. com/id/14482646/.

Benoit, William L., and Pamela J. Benoit. 2000. "The Virtual Campaign: Presidential
Primary Websites in Campaign 2000." American Communication Journal, 3(3):
online. Retrieved from
http://www. acj ournal.ore/hol dinns/vol 3/Iss3 /rogue4/b enoit.html .

Bernard, H. Russell. 2000. Social Research M~ethods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Bimber, Bruce A., and Richard Davis. 2003. Campaigning Online. New York, New
York: Oxford University Press.

Birnbaum, Jeffrey H. 2000. "Politicking on the Internet." Fortune, March, pp. 84-6.
Available online at http ://www.firststrategy.com/politics.htm.

Blumer, Herbert. 1972. Symbolic Interaction: An Approach to Human Communication in
Approaches to Human Communication, R. W. Bude & B. Ruben (eds.). New York,
New York: Spartan Books, 401-419.

---- 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Brody, Leonard. 2006. "Politicians Caught on Internet Candid Cameras." Now Public,
October 15. Retrieved from
http://www.nowpublic. com/politicians_caught on internet candid_ cameras.

Bystrom, Dianne G., Mary Christine Banwart, Lynda Lee Kaid, and Terry A. Robertson.
2004. Gender and Candidate Communication: VideoStyle, WebStyle, NewsStyle.
New York, New York: Routledge.

Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina. 1987. Personal Vote: Constituency










Service andElectoralhIndependence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Camegie Mellon University. 1997. "Denial of Service Attacks." Calrnegie M~ellon
Sofhyare Engineering histitute Online, 2 October 1997. Retrieved from
http://www. cert.ore/tech_ tips/denial of service.html.

Casey, Chris. 1996. The Hill on the Net: Congress enters the information age. Boston,
Massachusetts: AP Professional

CNN Online. "Issues". CNN Online, November 2006. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/specialisu.

CNN Online. 2006. "America Votes 2006". CNN Online, November 9. Retrieved from
http://www. cnn. com/ELECTION/2006/.

Cohen, Diana. 2005. "My Page is Bigger than your Page: A Comparative Examination
of E-Campaign Functionality and Strategy of 2004 Senate Candidate and State Party
Sites." Paper presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science
Association, September 1 September 4, Washington, DC.

Cooley, Charles Horton. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York, New
York: Scribner's.

Cornfield, Michael. 2004. Politics Moves Online: Camnpaigning and the hIternet. New
York, New York: Century Foundation Press.

Corrado, Anthony, Thomas E. Mann, Daniel Ortiz, and Trevor Potter. 2004. The New
Campaign Finance Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party
Government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of Califomnia Press.

Craig, Steve. 2006. The Electoral Practice: Theory Meets Challenge. Washington,
D.C.: CQ Press.

Darr, Carol., Julie Barko, & Brandon Robinson. 2004. Putting Online hIfluentials to
Work for your Camnpaign. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Politics, Democracy & the
Internet. Available online at http://ipdi. ore/UploadedFiles/POIWC .pdf.

Dick, Bob. 2005. "Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch." Available online at
http://www. scu. edu. au/school s/gcm/ar/arp/grounded .html.

Dongen, R. V. 1996. "Buchanan brigades organize on the net: Grassroots go
online." Roll Call, March 11, 21.

Dulio, David A., Donald L. Goff, and James A. Thurber. 1999. "Untangled Web:










Internet Use during the 1998 Election." PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 32, 1,
pp. 53-59. Available online at
http://spa.american.edu/ccps/Retpdf.phptalpuiciosI=8

Evera, Stephen Van. 1997. Guide to M~ethods for Students of Political Science.
Ithaca, New York: Comell University Press.

Faucheux, Ron. 1998. The Road to Victory: The Complete Guide to Winning Political
Ca~npaigns-Local, State, and Federal. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company.

Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style. Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown.

--- 1966. The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress:
Appropriations Politics in Congress. Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown.

Fineman, H. 1999. "Pressing the flesh online." Newsweek, September 20, pp. 50-3.

Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New
Haven, CT: New Haven University Press.

First Lady. 2007. "On Hillary Clinton for Senate". Hillary Clinton's presidential
candidate Web page, April 1. Retrieved from
http://www. hillarycl inton. com/ab out/fi rstl adv/.

First Lady. 2006. "On Hillary Clinton for Senate". Hillary Clinton's Senate candidate
Web page, June 3. Retrieved from http://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/firsld/

Fritz, Sara. 2000. "McCain Campaign's Legacy: Internet Outreach." St. Petersburg
Times, March 13. Retrieved from
http://www. sptimes.com/News/03 1 300/new~s pf/Worl dandnati on/McCagin
campaign_s_1eg. shtml.

Gibson, Rachel, and lan McAllister. 2005. "Does Cyber Campaigning Win Votes?
Online Communication in the 2004 Australian Election." Center for the Study of
Democracy Report, paper 05-09. Available online at
http:.//repositories. cdlib. or/csd/05 -09/.

Glaser, Bamney G. 1992. Emergence vs. forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis.
Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, Bamney. G, and Anselm L. Strauss. 1976. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, 1L: Aldine Publishing Company.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in EverydalyLife. Garden City, New
York: Doubleday Anchor Books.











Grossman, Lawrence K. 1995. The Electronic Republic: Reshaping Democracy in the
htfornzation Age. New York, New York: Viking.

Gulait, Girish. "Members of Congress and Presentation of Self on the World
Wide Web." The H~arvard Journal of Press and Politics, (1): 22-40 Winter 2004.

Hammersley, Martin, and Paul Atkinson. 1993. Ethnography: Principles in Practice.
New York, New York: Routledge.

Hartford Courant. 2006. "Election Results". Courant.Cont, August 10. Retrieved from
http://hosted. ap.ore/dynamic/files/elections/2006/bv_ state/CTPage0808.html?SITE=C
THARELN& SECTION=POLITICS .

Hatch Act. 2007. Encyclopedia Britannica, February 22. Retrieved from
http://www. britanni ca. com/eb/article-93 66695 .

Heilemann, John. 2006. "George III." New York Magazine, March 13. Retrieved from
http://nyman. com/news/politics/powerarid/1 63 81/.

Herrnson, Paul S. 2005. "The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and Senatorial
Elections," in L. Dodd and B. Oppenheimer (Eds.) Congress Reconsidered.
Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Holman, Craig. 2006. "FEC Ruling on Campaign Finance on the Internet." Public
Citizen press release, March 27. Retrieved from
http ://www.cleanupwashington.org,/cfr/page cfm?pageid=88.

Ireland Emilienne, and Phil Nash. 2001. Winning Camnpaigns Online: Strategies for
Candidates and Causes (2ndEdition). Bethesda, Maryland: Science Writers Press.

Kaid, Linda Lee, John C. Tedesco, Dianne G. Bystrom, and Michael. McKinney. 2003.
The M~illennium Election: Conanunication in the 2000 Camnpaign. New York, New
York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Socialhzquity:
Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.

Kedrowski, Karen. 2006. "How Members of Congress Use Media to Influence Public
Policy," in Doris A. Graber (Ed) M~edia Power in Politics. Washington, D.C.: CQ
Press.

Kerbel Matthew R, and Joel David Bloom. 2005. "Blog for America and Civic
Involvement." H~arvardhInternational Journal of Press and Politics, 10(4): 3-27.
Available online at http://www.uoregon. edu/~j bloom/BlogforAmerica.pdf.











LaRaja, Ray. 2002. "Political Parties in the Era of Soft Money," in L. Sandy Maisel
(Ed.) The Parties~PPP~~~~PPP~~~PPP Repond (4' ed). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Lieberman for Senate. 2006. "Biography." Official Senate
Web page, date of authorship unknown. Retrieved from
http:.//li eb erm an. Senate ov/ab out/.

Lieberman for Senate. 2006. "Biography." Retrieved from Joe2006.com.

Margolis, Mike, D. Resnick, and Chin-Chang Tu. 1997. "Campaigning on the Intemet:
Parties and candidates on the World Wide Web in the 1996 Primary Season." H~arvard
hIternational Journal of Press Politics, 2 (2): 59-78.

Mark, David. 2007. Going Dirty: The Art ofNegative Campaigning. New York, New
York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Mayer, Jeremy and Michael. Comnield. 2003. "The New Media" in Mark Rozell (Ed).
Media Power, M~edia Politics. New York, New York: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.

Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.

Mead, Herbert G. 1934. M~ind, SelfJ and Society. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago
Press.

Merton, Robert. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York, New York: Free
Press.

Mossberger, Karen, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Mary. Stansbury. 2003. Virtual brequality:
Beyond the DigitalDivide. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Noble, Phil. 1999. "Noble: The Intemet Will Bring the Public Back to Politics." The
Political Standard~~~dddddddd~~~~ May/June. Retrieved from
http://!politicsonline. com/coverage/bettercampaigns/index. html.

Norris, Pippa. 2001. DigitalDivide: Civic Engagement, htfornzation Poverty, and the
hIternet Worldwuide. Cambridge University Press.

Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The SocialSystent. MacMillian.

Petri, Tom. Date unknown. "Campaign Finance Reform." Representative Tom Petri's
House Web Page, Issues Section. Retrieved from
htt ://www.house. nov/Detri/issues/camofin.htm.










Pew Internet and American Life Project. 2006. "Data Memo." August 1. Retrieved
from http://www.pewintemet.org,/PPF/r/187/reportdisplay.asp

Pew Intemet and American Life Project. 2005. "The Internet and Campaign 2004."
March 6. Retrieved from
http:.//www.pewintemnet. ore/pdfs/PIP_2004_Campainn.pdf.

Pickler, Nedra. 2007. "Obama Takes MySpace Page from Backer." The Examiner. Com,
May 2. Retrieved from http://www. examiner.com/a-
70785 8~Obama_TakesMySpace PageFromBacker.html?ci~s-oiis

Prior, Markus. 2001. "Weighted Content Analysis of Political Advertisements."
Political Communication 18(3): 335-45.

Political Activity (Hatch Act). 2007. On United States Office of Special Council (OSC)
online, February 24. Retrieved from http://www.osc. nov/hatchact.htm.

Potter, Trevor. 2000. "Recent Developments in Campaign Finance Regulation: The
Internet and Federal Election Law." The Brookings Institute. Governance Studies,
November 7. Retrieved from http://www.brookinns. edu/ns/cf/headlines/intemet.htm.

Putnam, Robert. 2006. "Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social
Capital in America," in David H. Rochefort (Ed.) Quantitative M~ethods in Practice.
Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Raney, Rebecca. 1998. "Former Wrestler' s Campaign Got a Boost from the Intemet."
Cybertimes: The New York Times on the Web, November 6. Retrieved from
http:.//www.politi csonline. com/coverage/nytimes2/06 campai nn. html .

Rash, Wayne. 1997. Politics on the Nets: Wiring the Political Process. New York, New
York: W.H. Freeman.

Rice, Alex. 2004. "The Power of the Intemet." Campaigns Online, November report.
Retrieved from http://www. campainnsonline. ore/reports/1104. html.

Rochefort, David A. 2006. Quantitative M~ethods in Practice; Readings from PS.
Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Sadow, Jeffrey D., and Karen James. 1999. "Virtual Billboards? Candidate Web Sites
and Campaigning in 1998." Prepared presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, Sep. 2-5. Available online at
http://people.uis.edu/j sadol/uis/cwsp/apsa99.htm.

Selnow, Gary. W. 1998. Electronic whistle-stops: The impact of the Internet on
American Politics. Westport, CT: Praeger.










Shea, Burton M., and Michael J. Burton. 2001. Campaign Craft: The Strategies, Tactics,
and Art of Political Camnpaign Management. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.

Sinclair, Barbara. 1997. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S
Congress. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Solop, Frederic I. 2001. "Digital Democracy Comes of Age: Internet Voting and the
2000 Arizona Democratic Primary Election," PS: Political Science and Politics, 34
(2): 289-293.

Strauss Anslem, and J. Corbin. 1994. "Grounded Theory Methodology An Overview,"
In Handbook of Qualitative Research, N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 273-285.

Stone, Brad. 1996. "Politics '96." Internet World, November 7, 44-50.

Sulkin, Tracy., C. Moriarty, and V. Hefner. 2007. "Senatorial Candidates' Issue
Agendas On and Off-line." The H~arvard International Journal of Press and Politics,
(12): 63-79.

Thurber, James A., and Candice J. Nelson. 1995. Campaigns and Elections: American
Style. New York, New York: Westview Press.

Trippi, Joe. 2004. The Revolution will not be Televised: Democracy, the Internet, and
the Ovei' thil 1,1 ofEverything. HarperCollins Publishers Inc: New York, NY.

Uslaner, Eric M. 2004. "Trust, Civic Engagement, and the Internet." Political
Communication, 21(2):223-42.

Warschauer, Mark, LeeAnn Stone, and Michele Knobel. 2004. "Technology and equity
in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide." EducationalPolicy, 18(4), pp. 562-
588. Available online at http://www.Rse.uci. edu/faculty/markw/tes.pdf.

Weber, Max. 1949. The M~ethodology of the Social Sciences. Edward Shils and Henry
Finch (eds.). New York, New York: Free Press.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Diana Tracy Cohen was born on June 1, 1981 in Goshen, New York. She grew

up in South Salem, New York with her mother and father. An avid sports enthusiast, she

started martial arts in first grade. While a student at John Jay High School, she played

varsity field hockey and lacrosse.

Diana got her bachelor' s degree in sociology and political science in 2002, as well

as her master' s degree in survey research in 2003, at the University of Connecticut. She

made Dean's List every semester and graduated Magna Cum Laude. While an

undergraduate, she was the starting goaltender for the Division I women's ice hockey

program during the 2000-2001 season. Her most memorable hockey experience was

ending her Division I career with a 2-0 shutout against in-state rival Quinnipiac

University. She currently holds the University record for most saves in a single women's

ice hockey game (55).

Diana accepted an Alumni Fellowship from the Department of Political Science at

the University of Florida in the fall of 2003. She received her M.A. in political science

with a certificate in campaigning in 2005, and is currently working towards her M.A. in

sociology. In the fall of 2005, she received a high pass on her American Politics field

exam.

Diana is a World Taekwondo Federation certified 2nd degree black belt and

active sparring competitor. While at the University of Florida, she served as President for

the Sport Club Taekwondo team (2004-2006). She competed in the National Collegiate

Taekwondo Championships four years in a row, winning two gold medals, one silver, and










one bronze. Her goal is to make the Armature Athletic Union and Collegiate National

Teams.

Starting in the fall of 2007, she will be appointed as a Visiting Professor of

Political Science at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania. She currently resides in

Connecticut with her husband Dan and cat Nemo.





PAGE 1

1 CREATING NET ROOTS: INCUMBENT SENATORS AND THE DIGITAL SELF By DIANA TRACY COHEN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF D OCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 Copyright 2007 By Diana Tracy Cohen

PAGE 3

3 Dedicated to the Coh en, Relyea, and Wertz families. Also dedicated to my dissertation committee members, Beth Rosenson, Dan Smith, Larry Dodd, Dave Hedge, and Kendal Broad.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to all of the wonderful professors at the University of Connecticut and University of Florida. You have all helped me to realize how rewarding and c hallenging being a scholar can be. This dissertation could not have been possible without the love and s upport of my family. To my parents thank you. Your selflessness gave me so many opportunities. From watching my UConn hockey games to talking about c hallenging topics, I cannot thank you enough for being such w onderful parents. To my grandmothers I love you both so much. I wish you many more years of health and happin ess. Finally, to my husband. I am honored to have you as my partner and best fri end.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .4 LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ... ... ....... 10 ABSTRACT ... .11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 12 2 EXPLORING PERTINE NT LITERATURE .19 Symbolic Inte ractionism .. 19 The Significance of Erving Goffman ........ 20 The Dynamic Nature of H ome Style and WebStyle 22 Recent Attempts at Measuring the Sena torial Presentation of Self ... ....... 23 The Importance of Political History Considering Web Consistency and Context as a New Senato rial Puzzle .. 6 Potential Benefits of Dig ital Inconsistency .. Development of the Internet a s a Camp aigning Tool 1996 30 1998 31 2000 34 The Federal Government C onsid ers Web Based C ampaigning ......... 35 20 04 37 The R ise of 527/50 1 (c) Organizations 2006 Looking Ahead ... 43 3 METHOD OLOGY Initial Questi ons Determining th e Population Timeline Identifying the Web Pages 6 Methods Selection The Importance of Reflexivity In Depth Interviews 49 Methodologi cal Approach 50

PAGE 6

6 Analytica l Strategy Quantitative Analysis Setting P arameters Images as Insights into the Self Issues as Insights into the Self Functional Features and Other Considerations ... ... Case Study The Importance of Lieberman ... ... What the Case Stu dy Explores .. 1 Looking A head 62 4 UNDERSTANDING WEB P RESENCE QUALITATIVELY The Sen atorial Puzzle .63 Web Based Tools as Enhanc ement of the Self Web Page Layout and Con tent Construction 65 Template features Up to d ate content Strategic Functions of Campai gn and Senate Sites ... 70 Campaign We b Pages Mobilizing existing su pporters Empowering exist ing supporters Inti midating the opponent Give information to the media Senate Web Pages 77 Offering accessible con stituent information Providing conta ct information Updating senato rial activity Coordination as S trategy? ...... .... 79 Considering the Law .. ...... .. ... ... ...... ............................. ... 8 2 Consistency throug h Visual Queues Constructing a Compl ete Self .. Political History as Se lf Definition ..85 Defining t he Message Conclusion 88 5 UNDERSTANDING WEB PRE SENCE Q UANTITATIVELY Introduction ... 91 Ideal T ypes Issues Issue Constituency within the Campaign Context Highest ran king issues Lowest rank ing issues Issue Consistency withi n the Senate Context

PAGE 7

7 Highest ran king issues Lowest rank ing issues Issue Consistency between Campaign and Senate Contexts Images Slideshows as a glimpse of the dynamic s elf Images and th .... 107 Digital too ls Considering Overall Consisten cy and Change Change in Competitive Versus Non Competitive Races Conclusion 116 6 NGING FACE OF INCUMBEN C Y Background .118 Joe Lieberman, the Incumbent Ned Who? Choice Time for the Lieberman Campaign The Value of this case The Four Faces of L ieberman The Democra tic Phase The Transiti onal Phase The Independent Democrat Phase .. The Hijacked Phase: The Case f or a Forth I dentity .. Conclusion The Reaches of M edia Influence Political H istories 7 CONCLUSION The Evolving Digita l Self Conclusions The Symbolic Interactioni st Perspective The Question of Consistency Benefits of Change Respondent Insights 151 Critiques Considering Politi cal Histories The Implications of Subjecti vity 4 Future Resear ch Final Thoug hts 60 AP PENDIX A CAMPAIGN SEMI STRUCTU RED INTERVIEW GUIDE 162

PAGE 8

8 B SENATE OFFICE SEMI STRU CTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE .. 164 C IRB APPLI CATION .. 166 D CAMPIGN WEB PAG E CODING SCHEME .. 172 E SENATE WEB PAG E CODING SCHEME .. 174 F ISSUE CODING CATEGORIES .. 176 G TEXT FROM HILLARY CL WEB PAGE .. 177 H TEXT OF JOE LIEBERMA S TRANSITIONAL PHASE .. 179 I TEXT OF JOE LIEBERMAN D LETTER 181 J LIST OF SENATORS INCLUDED IN STUDY 182 K NOVEMBER 8 th COOK REPORT L IN DEPTH INTERVIEWS REFERENCES .. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ... 193

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3 1 Image c odes ... 5 1 Highest and lowest r anking i ssues 5 2 Is sue similarities between t ime a nd c ontext 5 3 Slideshow u sage .. ... 107

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 3 1 Stages of grounded t h eory 5 1 Extremel y important i ssues in 2006 ... 5 2 Highest ranking c ampai gn i ssues 5 3 Lowest ranking campaign i ssu es 5 4 Highest r anking .g ov i ssues ... ..... 9 8 5 5 Low est r anking .g ov i ssues 5 6 Home page i mages ... 5 7 Digital Images ... 5 8 Most Popular Web Tools .. .109 5 9 Web Page Change s ... 5 10 Competitive Versus Non Compe titive Races ..

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School Of the University of Flo rida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the degree Doctor of Philosophy CREATING NET ROOTS: INCUMBENT SENATORS AND THE DIGITAL SELF By Diana Tracy Cohen August 2007 Chair: Beth Rosenson Cochair: Dan Smith Major : Political Science Senator s are complex animals that work in the depths of multiple contexts. As elected officials, they represent a large geographical space, attempting to appeal to different groups within that area. Concurrent with this role, the vast majority of senators seek re election, providing a window where these individuals hold a dual identity as senator and candidate, office holder and office seeker. This dissertation takes a mixed methodological approach to understanding how senators create a presentation of self on m ultiple Web contexts. By examining the Senate .gov and campaign pages of all 2006 Senate incumbent candidates, as well as interviews with members of these offices and a case study of the changing digital image of incumbent Joe Lieberman, this study explore s online self presentation over digital space and time. Analysis reveals intriguing trends of consistency and inconsistency both within and between contexts. The greatest amount of consistency occurs within contexts. Ultimately, differing office goals, political histories of each politician, as well as the unique larger political climate of each role, work to create these differences both between and within contexts.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTROCUTION on American politics being no exception. From the advent of the printing press to the digital boom of the 80s and 90s, candidates an d elected officials have sought to capitalize on new technology to enhance the likelihood of political success. These technological advancements may enhance representational linkages, increase political participation, and help build social capital. With blogs, online video diaries, list serves, and streaming video becoming commonplace for actors seeking electoral influence, the Internet has become an increasingly pivotal part of American politics. This dissertation takes a mixed methodological approach to understanding how senators create a presentation of self on the Web. By examining the official Senate .gov and campaign pages of all 2006 United States Senate incumbent candidates, as well as interviews with members of these offices and a case study of th e changing digital image of powerful incumbent Joe Lieberman, this study explores senatorial presentation over digital space and time. We are extremely fortunate to be living in this time of digital politics. New technologies are continually emerging, bri nging about an exploration into new Web based political tactics. Scholars in political science, communication, and sociology have been highly active in this area of scholarship, particularly after the Internet began to take oires during the 1996 election cycle (Browing, 1996; Casey, 1996; Rash, 1997). This continual treading into new territory in the online politics literature means that, more than ever, we understand who goes online, what they do there, and how politicians use this information for electoral success (Xenos & Foot, 2005; Bimber & Davis, 2003). We also have a steadily increasing knowledge of the central

PAGE 13

13 features of candidate Web pages (Kaid et al, 2003), basic aspects of how congressmen present themselves on t our democracy (Anderson and Cornfield, 2001; Abramson et al., 1998). Scholars have brought a variety of methodological approaches to this deepening understanding of Web politics. Bimber and Davi s (2003) used a combination of surveys and in depth interviews to better understand online campaign decision making and the impact it has on political consumers. Gulati (2004) utilized content analysis to better understand national versus local campaignin g presentations of the senatorial self. Scholars such as Solop (2001) and Cornfield (2004) have considered case studies in better understanding the details of candidate Web page development. All of these methodological approaches offer scholars unique wa ys to better understand our online political realities, helping to illuminate the benefits and limitations of certain methods in answering particular questions and paving the way for areas of future research. Utilizing a mixed methodological approach, tac kling some of the same questions with multiple lenses, gives us a fuller picture than any one method alone can offer. This dissertation employs three approaches, utilizing content analysis, case study, and in depth interviewing methodologies to better unde rstand Web based senatorial presentation of self. Beyond mixed methodological approaches, another way scholars can bring a greater wealth of information into their scholarship is by taking an interdisciplinary approach to the theoretical framework. Knowle dge can be created in many ways, with one way being the merging of multiple abstract ideas in consideration of a central topic. Interdisciplinary studies help scholars to broaden the depth and scope of their

PAGE 14

14 investigations. They illuminate new theoretica l frameworks, help us to understand the benefits and limitations of new methodologies, and offer new networks of scholars to draw upon. Some of the most interesting scholarship comes when academics of different orientations approach the same questions. T his brings about new theories and debate that swell much needed lines of communication between our academic disciplines. This dissertation draws on concepts and methods from political science, sociology, and communication. Sociologists from the Symbolic Interactionist camp, particularly Erving Goffman (1959), help set the stage for considering presentation of self. The Symbolic Interactionist camp informs us as to how people create meaning in their individual lives and how this meaning can change betwee n and within contexts. This framework is drawn upon to argue the importance for understanding online senatorial presentation of self on multiple contexts and over time. This literature also helps one to consider why we may see different or similar online presentations, and how the intended Web audience helps congressmen to create a sense of meaning in any given digital context. The field of political science also offers this dissertation invaluable information on why incumbent candidates may present them selves in particular ways on different Web contexts, as well as over time. Foundational scholars in American politics offer a useful source of reflection. Fenno (1978) helps us to place the Symbolic Interactionist framework in a political context. Schol ars such as Fiorina (1977) and Mayhew (1975) help us to unravel why we may or may not see online senatorial consistency, and also provide a theoretical basis for the numerous dimensions of senatorial self explored in the content analysis. Political scienc e and sociology come together in this research for a

PAGE 15

15 highly innovative explanation as to why self presentation of the same individual differs between these contexts. These fields help us to realize the dynamic nature of senatorial presentation of self ove r digital space and time. Finally, the field of communications is also instrumental in the theoretical grounding of this dissertation. Scholars in communication and political science have already realized great value from combining forces, creating a wea lth of new knowledge in the area that has come to be known as political communication. Scholars in this field, particularly Kaid (2003) and Bystrom (2004), inspire this dissertation to reach new heights in the scope and breath of its content analysis. Li ke political science, political communication also offers a strong basis for many of the dimensions of self presentation explored in this study. Aspects of the technological self, including the consideration of the interactive tools and coding technology, stem from prior work on digital campaign content analysis. In conducting the in depth interviews for this research, some of the respondents questioned the importance of this research, saying that they failed to see its impact on practical politics. The y attempted to direct me to These topics included the construction of Web based negative campaigning through third party URLs, third party blogs, and the usage of home videos, such as on YouTube. Receiving this type of criticism is never easy; it caused me to question the ultimate importance of this research to the non academic community. I took some time away from my writing to explore leads on their suggested topics, finding more than I ever could have expected. I t was humbling to more fully realize the minor magnitude of my dissertation topic when it is considered in the larger scope of online politics.

PAGE 16

16 However small this research may feel at t imes, it is important to keep perspective on why this study is impor tant and what it adds to our larger understanding of Web politics. This research is innovative in its interdisciplinary approach. Also, by examining the two Web contexts over a period of nine months, this research adds the dynamic dimension of time to ou r knowledge of digital politics. We will explore how real world events potentially influence the construction of the digital self, giving us an invaluable sense of comparison both between and within different political Web contexts. Finally, we will de lve into new territory in exploring the relationship between the Washington and campaign office staff in constructing an online senatorial presentation. We will explore if, when, and under what conditions one office will look at the Web page of the other collaboration may be going on behind the scenes of the two offices in constructing a self. Even though formal collaboration between campaign and office staff is illegal under the Hatch Act does not prohibit the offices from talking during non business hours. To previe w what is coming up, chapter 2 starts off by exploring the theoretical basis of self presentation and t he importance of digital context. This literature review will also consider different theoretical sides as to why we may or may not expect to see senatorial online consistency between and within digital contexts over time. We will also briefly explore de velopments in the online campaigning literature, as well as a few key recent articles that helped set the stage for this dissertation. It is here where we first see the Symbolic Interactionist framework applied to online politics.

PAGE 17

17 Chapter 3 sets the stag e for chapters 4, 5, and 6 detailing the methodological approach utilized in the analysis. First, we get a grasp on the central questions of who was studied and when. We then explore the nature of the content analysis, followed by the interviewing approa ch. The pros and cons of the two major methodological instruments the coding and interview guides will be discussed. Chapter 4 offers qualitative insights in depth interviews with campaign and Senate office Webmasters. This section explores what techno logica l tools campaigns and Senate staff used to highlight senatorial image, the nature of the relationship between the different offices, and the amount of consideration staff members gave to creating a consistent Web based senatorial image. We will also gain valuable insights into staff Chapter 5 offers a quantitative approach to understanding online presentation of self between and within Web contexts. Using a coding g uide that measures different digital characteristics, one will better understand what elements of the incumbent Senator are highlighted or downplayed in different Web contexts. Images, text, and digital features such as blogs are all considered in this an alysis. Chapter 6 offers an exciting case study of Connecticut Senate incumbent Joe Senate candidate, to a second period of uncertainty and senatorial re creation, to the final product of an Independent candidate. We also explore hacking as a forth stage. Here, we see how unding the dynamic election of 2006. It also serves as a reminder that even the most powerful

PAGE 18

18 people in the U.S. Senate are subject to senatorial makeovers, both in the digital and real world. Finally, chapter 7 offers conclusions and implications for fu rther research. It offers solid advice for scholars seeking to build upon this study and illuminates budding areas of future inquiry. Centrally, this chapter places the collective findings of the dissertation in the larger scope of our politics. While t here is still much to learn about digital American politics, in sum, this dissertation offers us a deeper understanding into how congressmen come to establish, maintain, and project images of the digital self.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 EXPLORING PERTINE NT LITERATURE This chapter offers a core literary understanding for the rest of this study, placing the dissertation within a broader political and sociological context. First, it introduces a central theoretical framework of this dissertation, Symbolic Interactionis m (SI), tracing its roots through influential figures such as George Herbert Head and Erving Goffman. ction of the S.I. perspective on senatorial behavior, following its appearance in more contemporary scho larship and illuminating the place and importance of this dissertation. It then provides an overview of each election cycle, moving from 1996 through 2006, discussing the important scholarship and technological developments that arose from each respective period. Important campaign finance decisions will also be discussed throughout the description of some election cycles. Symbolic Interactionism With campaign Web pages having become commonplace in U.S. senatorial elections, the Internet has become a me dium for elected officials to express and negotiate their presentation of self in numerous ways. This includes wearing particular types of clothing, using specific language, and putting particular images on their Web sites. To consider the social psychol ogical basis for how and why this presentation occurs, it is Mind, Self, and Society the S.I. framew ork focuses on individuals and their interactions with one another (1934). It further stresses that the mind has the ability to interpret symbols and that

PAGE 20

20 society is a product of collective daily social interactions. Individuals are seen as dynamic, cons cious actors who attach meaning to symbols as they progress through their life course, serving as a way to communicate different expectations, ideologies, and perceptions during their interactions with others (Mead, 1934; Goffman, 1959; Blumer, 1972, 1969) Influential figures in the Symbolic Interactionist literature, including George Herbert Mead, Anselm Strauss, and Herbert Blumer, wrote in hopes of constructing an alternative to the dominant paradigms of structural functionalism and behavioralism (see P critical of structural functionalism in that they felt the perspective failed to acknowle dge that people are the authors of their own lives and that individuals are the carriers of social processes. Goffman went on to make substantial contributions to understanding how actors present themselves in multiple contexts, further empowering individ uals to create meaning within various aspects of their lives. This dissertation offers an expansion of contributions to explore how 2006 incumbent Senate candidat es create digital presentation in the context of campaign and constituent Web pages. The Significance of Erving Goffman Obtaining his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1953, Goffman built his roots in the theoretical perspective of Symbolic Interact ionism. Goffman carried on the S.I. orientation in his seminal work Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959) by

PAGE 21

2 1 arguing that ideas about the everyday world are socially created and that life is like a big play acted out in various contexts of this cre ation. themselves in a multitude of situations, as well as how individuals attempt to control the impressions that others make of them. His discussion of the dramaturlogical ap proach illuminates how dynamic everyday social interactions are much like that of a performance. As individuals, we go through life on a variety of different stages, corresponding within the context of the different roles that we play during any given day While in a specific capacity, according to Goffman, we will attempt to win over the audience by persuading them that we are fit for a specific role. Impression management, the goal of influencing and/or controlling the impressions of others, helps indi viduals build a model of consistency while playing a specific role. This dissertation will explore the level of consistency in self presentation between two different political e contexts over time. ential self presentation motives: to conform to social norms, achieve our individual goals, and present a consistent self presentation to others. While Goffman does not explicitly present these as at these three concepts are central to ideas of self presentation. One could make this argument because these concepts are central to his discussion of the dramaturlogical approach and his justification for why people engage in impression management tacti cs. Taken either individually or together on face, these three paradigms seem to make a lot of sense. They appear congruent, feeding into one another. As this chapter

PAGE 22

22 develops, however, I will question this symmetry as it applies to our politics. Could the American senatorial reality call for an inconsistent presentation of self, depending on context? I believe politics is one example of where it could, with inconsistency being a calculated vehicle towards achieving an instrumental goal. We can take so me steps towards exploring these concepts by understanding how scholars have applied the Symbolic Interactionist perspective to our politics thus far. The Dynamic Nature of Home Style and WebStyle Before the introduction of the Internet into our political system, Richard Fenno (1978) set the stage for a lively discussion regarding the presentation of the political self. Home Style (1978) helps us to understand how the presentation of self and ultimate construction of trust opens up opportunities for giving congressmen more policy flexibility in Washington. Indeed, as noted by Fenno, not all congressmen convey the with their home districts as much as possible. How a c ongressman perceives his/her home constituency will drive how he/she constructs a unique home style. The central aspects of the self that must be emphasized in a senatorial setting, according to Fenno, are maintaining perceptions of qualification, empathy and constituency identification. impression management within the context of American politics. fra mework with the study of politics, after which this line of research laid dormant until the twenty first century and the booming of online politics. In 2002, a communications scholar by the name of B r anwart revived the application of this theoretical fram ework to

PAGE 23

23 presentation of self on the Web, focusing on such features as content, pictures, and interactivity (Branwart, 2002). Embracing the S.I. perspective, described in the next section, WebStyle illuminates the importance of a politician controlling his or her message through the presentation of self. Non verbal content, such as colors, images, and layout collectively work to speak about the individual. Similarly, ver bal content, such as attacks against opponents or discussion of policy positions, all actively work to bolster a preconceived presentation of self (Bystrom et al., 2004). While WebStyle offers a good start on understanding senatorial Web presentation, th e measures used to quantify these observations do not fully capture the multi faceted nature of senatorial elections. This literature can be built upon to speak unique ly about the complex worlds of s enators. Observing things such as color and tone serve as a good foundation for Web study but can clearly be built upon to understand how and who candidates appeal to. Institutions such as parties and interest groups also work to influence the complex nature of senatorial life, which undoubtedly shape how one projects him or herself This dissertation expands on the way we conceptualize WebStyle, going beyond a general description of tone and images to better understand how site content, hyperlinks, blogs, and other technological tools actively work to emphas ize different dimensions of the self. Recent Attempts at Measuring the Senatorial Presentation of Self The most recent work in the area of Web presentation, and the one that is drawn on most heavily on for the methodology of this dissertation, was conduc ted by Gulati

PAGE 24

24 lens to the question of senatorial self portrayal on official Senate Web pages (house.gov and Senate .gov). Looking at images of 344 Senate sites, he groups po liticians as having either a national, local, or neutral presentation of self. Sites giving off a national theme featured images reflecting Washington D.C., including monuments, government buildings, and official government seals, and often showed the Sen ator in a formal setting dressed in business attire. Sites giving off a local theme featured images from their home constituency, like buildings such as the state capitol, monuments, or state flags or seals. Congressmen often looked more casual, showing images of shaking hands with constituents. Sites grouped as neutral had no clear theme, often showing the official senatorial picture of him/her behind a desk with an American flag in the background. 1 Gulati concluded that there is no prominent style to the presentation of self applicable to all congressmen, but found some slight variations between individuals of different race, gender, and seniority status. Without question, the work of Gulati is creative and serves as an important step for future works in the area of online self presentation. The work has clear strengths and weaknesses in its methodological approach, lessons we can learn from to build a better study. Perhaps the most important strength was the clarity with which Gulati coded each Web p age. Quantifying the national and local dimensions of his population called for seeking out visual images. Some of these images are hard to classify due to subjectivity His coding scheme is limited, leaving us with a narrow dichotomous understanding of representatives. The dichotomy is that one either gives off a local or national 1 According to Gulati, the American flag was considered a neutral symbol, as it is a national symbol that does not give off imagery specific to Washington D.C.

PAGE 25

25 presentation of self. Sometimes middle ground was found by coding images as being neutr al. We can build upon this model by considering other characteristics to look at. Beyond pictures, text and online features such as blogs and streaming video tell us more about politicians. This dissertation embraces the fundamental work of Gulati, whil e considering other dimensions of the self beyond a national and local dichotomy. a strong role in giving off a certain political portrayal. His article tells us that congre ssmen give off a certain presentation of self at one point in time, a single snapshot when the research was conducted. It is a whole new question to explore if this presentation of self changes over time, and even more complexly, between contexts. The Imp ortance of Political History Further adding to the literature on digital presentation, it is also a brand new question to consider how pol itical history can influence the ways that politicians present themselves online. Chapter 4 will discuss insights fr om Ray, one of the campaign respondents In relaying his experience working for a Senate challenger, he highlights the past as an important part of determining the present. Scholar s have yet to address this important point as it applies to online politic s As humans, we naturally reflect on our past experiences in making decisions in the present day. We often try to replicate behavior that helped us achieve success in some prior endeavor. At the senatorial level, most candidates have a substantial leve l of political experience from which to draw upon This experience may play a key role in the way an incumbent candidate chooses to present him or herself online. If something worked in a previous election cycle, the individual may be inclined to try tha t strategy or

PAGE 26

26 tactic again. If something did not work, the individual will likely abandon any replication of that strategy. With the Internet being a part of American elections for over a decade, incum bents not only have a political history, but more cen tral to the questions being posed in this work, have a digital history to reflect upon. For some, utilizing the Web as a campaigning tool may have been a particularly useful strategy in the past. For others, it may not have lived up to their expectations As we will see in the case of Joe Lieberman, he may very well feel that the liberal blogosphere played a large role in ending his bid fo r the presidency is 2004. Ray suggests this negative experience may have contributed to him developing a non interac tive Web presence. As we will explore in chapter 4 political histories are just another piece of the complex puzzle of creating a digital identity. Considering Web Consistency and Context as a New Senatorial Puzzle If humans as social actors make a consc ientious effort to persuade audiences that they are good at a particular role, it is not hard to imagine why one would want to be consistent in the way we portray ourselves. This concept is directly in line with r in the chapter: conforming to social norms, achieving individual goals, and offering a consistent presentation of self. Persuading your audience is a chief way to obtain an instrumental goal throughout the course of a social performance. Consistency in self presentation aids in achieving this goal. To consider why this would be true, before extrapolating to the political world, let us consider the context of business. While playing the role of a businessman, one wants to consistently act competent, ex perienced, and professional. To do this, an

PAGE 27

27 expected, and being courteous to fellow employees. If this same individual decides one day to come to work in jeans and a ba seball cap, shows up late, and interrupts colleagues consistency is broken, and the professional presentation of self is breached. the world of business may seem intuitive on face, considering it in the context of politics gets substantially more complicated. We must reflect: do candidates want to project themselves in the same way all the time? The political campaigning literature informs us that this is not always the best approach to take, given the importance of targeting specific messages to specific audiences (Faucheux, 1998). If not all groups are hearing the same message, it may very well be possible that they are also expe riencing different senatorial online selves. Further complicating this puzzle, incumbent representatives have two roles, that of both candidate and elected official. Is it reasonable to assume that the self presentations in these two capacities are the s ame? While one may be quick to assert that, of course, we will see a consistent presentation of self between Senate and campaign Web pages, it is important to remember the fluidity and complexity of American political campaigns. Indeed, for a multitude o f reasons, it is not outside the scope of reason to believe that the presentation of a political self could be drastically different between these two sites. Campaign offices are very different entities than constituent offices, including different staff, goals, and timelines to negotiate with. Campaign offices live in a very different context of American politics, and seek to employ the most effective strategy that will help them win includes

PAGE 28

28 professional staff that spends countless hours analyzing the political landscape of the constituency, creating themes and messages, writing a campaign plan, and conducting opposition research (Thurber & Nelson, 1995; Shea & Burton, 2001). They al so rely heavily on surveys to test messages and gather unique up to date opinions about the candidate and his/her opponent(s). Senatorial staffers, conversely, have other goals, including constituency relations and policy research (Fiorina, 1977; Cain, Fe rejohn & Fiorina, 1987). They likely use polling data in attempt to influence the actions and presentation of their Senator, but probably do not use survey research in the same tactical ways as their campaign counterpart. Given these core differences bet ween the contexts in which the two offices reside, it is not hard to imagine how the staff could have a very different understanding as to how they want to frame the same individual, and consequently, how this presentation is ultimately expressed to consti tuents on the Web. Potential Benefits of Digital Inconsistency Given the unique environment of American politics, we can see how digital inconsistency may come to be a reality for many incumbent candidates. This dissertation will argue that this is not necessarily a bad thing. There may be both unforeseen and calculated benefits in the construction of different digital selves. This may be true in part because s enators and their staff members have a strong understanding of who and why people visit their campaign or Senate .gov Web page. Their decision to highlight different attributes, characteristics, and digital tools may be based on this understanding. One example of where inconsistent digital presen tations may be beneficial is in the case of candida tes running for higher office. In these instances, one will likely find that the most important issues at the various levels of government are different. House

PAGE 29

29 members running for Senate or Senate members running for president, may particularly find thi s to be the case. Local issues will likely be unique from those found in larger constituencies. For example, in her bid for the presidency, Hillary Clinton may have very different self presentations on her Senate .gov page and presidential campaign page. New York is just one of many areas that she must consider in creating a presidential presentation of self. To have exactly the same presentation of self simply may not be appropriate given the demands of the job she is seeking compared to her current cap acity. On a more local level, incumbents running for the same office may also benefit from digital inconsistency. A s we will explore in chapter 6 Joe Lieberman had a highly unpredictable campaign. While his campaign and Senate .gov page appeared very si milar on the onset of the campaign, the presence of a formidable challenger forced Lieberman to deviate from his original campaign plan. His campaign home page changed dramatically over the course of eight months, all while his Senate .gov page remained st able with few changes. Ultimately, a ll campaigns are subject to the ebbs and flows of the larger political climate in which they are taking place. In campaign took place amidst growing negative sentiments towards th e Iraq war and Pr esiden war in Iraq quickly became a central issue in the 2006 Connecticut Senate election. Facing a formidable to change course to secure a win in the November general election. In the post primary environment, what evolved was a very different Lieberman. His Senate .gov page remained steady while his campaign page changed dramatically. This campaign move to a more bipart isan Joe helped him secure electoral success in November. Had his

PAGE 30

30 campaign persona stayed the same, the new Democratic Party nominee may have had a decent shot at delivering one of the biggest electoral upsets of the year. Now having a better understand ing of the Symbolic Interactionist perspective the importance of political history, and the question of digital consistency, it is useful to reflect on the history of the Internet and American politics. This brief yet influential history helps to place t he importance of digital presentation in our larger politics. Development of the Internet as a Campaigning Tool 1996 election cycle (Casey, 1996; Rash, 19 97). A presidential election year, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole both utilized the Web in creative new ways that set a standard for online politics (Margolis et al., 1997). Other down ballot races did show signs of Web based campaigning, but this was far fro m commonplace. Campaign Web pages were typically very bare, offering no interactivity, limited information, and very few media images (Stone, 1996). Often all one would find is a single photograph, contact and biographical information, and brief policy p ositions (Gibson & McAllister, 2005). Scholars believe this was likely because campaigns were still stuck in the broadcast media model, neglecting to consider the great potential benefits of the Internet as a new communications medium (Selnow, 1998). On t he presidential level, campaigns took a chance with this new medium, attempting to direct traffic to their Web pages by placing their home page URLs on campaign brochures and mentioning it in public spaces (Selnow, 1998). Senators Bob Dole and John Kerry had relative success with the number of Web page visitors. Both

PAGE 31

31 campaigns estimated that one third of their new volunteers were identified through the Internet (Noble, 1999). The Clinton/Gore ticket also had a Web page, as did Pat Buchanan and the two ma in terms of traffic, attracting three million hits and 1,700 new volunteer sign ups (Dongen, 1996). This success stemmed, at least in part, from the fact that Dole stated his campaign URL add ress on live television during the second presidential debate (Selnow, 1998; Benoit & Benoit, 2000). Beyond knowing which candidates utilized the Internet during this election cycle, scholars helped us to identify the type of constituent who sought out pol itical information from the Internet during the 1996 campaign. The Pew Internet and American Life project has served as a great resource in this regard, estimating that 23% of Americans adopted the Internet by the 1996 election (Pew, 2005). The profile of those who went online for political information during this time has been clearly documented as skewed to younger males with high political efficacy (Pew, 2005). Additionally, reports estimate that approximately 80% of people who visited campaign Web p ages during this election cycle voted (Noble, 1999). In contrast, reports during the 2004 election estimated that nearly two thirds of Americans were online, and that an increasing percentage of online political browsers were women, older Americans, and p eople that lived in rural areas (Pew, 2005). 1998 The coming of the 1998 cycle saw more than two thirds of open seat House and Senate candidates using the Internet as a medium for campaign communication (Dulio et al., 1999). As opposed to 1996, where camp aign Web pages provided little more than very basic information, great advancements in contribution solicitations, interactivity, and

PAGE 32

32 communication forums became a hallmark of online campaigning during the 1998 election cycle. Independent Minnesota guber natorial candidate Jesse Ventura proved to be one of the first cases where the Internet flexed its muscles in its ability to influence U.S. of the Internet, most specifica lly e mail capability, assisted him in what turned out to be a very tight election. A reform party candidate, Ventura deeply embraced the Internet as a communication medium, likely because of his limited campaign budget (Raney, 1998). His campaign site o ffered the capability for followers to submit their e mail address and be added to a list e mail was sent out to this list serve asking supporters to come out in force to help get out the tour of Minnesota during the last 72 hours of the campaign (Raney, 1998). Ventura went on to win the election by a margin of three percentage points over Republican Norm Coleman. While the Internet is certainly not the sole reason Ventura was propelled to victory, it unquestionably helped his campaign, with its one full time employed staff member, organize 250 supporters in a period of two days. Two major areas of scholar ly research peaked during this election cycle. A substantial amount of literature from this period, much like that from 1996, was aimed at simply getting a handle on how many candidates at different levels of government had campaign Web pages (Sadow & Jam es, 1999). Also of great importance was the rise of democracy. Reflecting on social capital literature, scholars examined the previous two

PAGE 33

33 election cycles to make normat weaken our Democratic process. perspectives that scholars took during this period, a debate which still rages on within the Internet politics literature. Some scholars in this volume, such as Berman and Mulligan, believe the Internet is the wave of the future, citing moveon.org as an example of how new technology allows for people with differing political ideologies to col laborate on economic, social, and other important issues. Others scholars contributing to the volume are much more cautious, including Vlahos, who argues that the Internet can only have a limited impact on our politics without accompanying institutional c hange. Along the same line of research, important scholarship regarding digital inequality also arose during this time, leaving people to wonder about the implications of Delli Carpini and Keeter warn us about the growing gap in political knowledge, in part due to the Internet. This critical line of research evolved with the coming election cycles, with scholars such as Mossberger at al. (2003), Warschauer et al. (2004), and Norris (2001) making important contributions to this discussion. While there is still no consensus about the depth of the digital divide or its implications for future U.S. politics, this important line of research reminds us that it is critical to r eflect on the drawbacks of such new technologies.

PAGE 34

34 2000 With the coming of the new century, Web pages became increasingly complex, using HTML language and multimedia flash to create impressive graphics and aid in the construction of interactive featur es. One of the biggest developments in the 2000 election cycle was Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his utilization of the Internet for fundraising purposes (Fritz, 2000). His online fundraising success was critical during the primary se ason, with estimates indicating he raised an unparalleled $500,000 after the New Hampshire primary. He also raised multiple millions of dollars from that point through the conclusion of the campaign (Birnbaum, 2000). from an interactive targeting perspective, a topic that received a significant amount of academic attention in 2000. The Millennium Election: Communication in the 2000 Election (in Kaid et al., 2003) describes the McCai n Internet phenomenon as a case study of major mobilization via the Web. In his article, Tonlison gives readers an in use the Internet to organize volunteers by state. By giving the Web site a highly interactive face where users could click on their state and find out anything from upcoming events to local contact information, McCain was able to categorize and track pote ntial supporters by geographic region. Using state of the art tracking technology, the Senator personalized the Web interface each time a person came on to the page. For example, users would see such features as a personalized greeting. His success with both mobilization and fundraising raised the bar

PAGE 35

35 impression on the press, the professi onal political consulting community, the public, and overshadowed McCain with his online presence in the 2004 election, we should not forget how cutting edge McCain was for h is time and the standard he set for interactivity and fundraising online. Looking at academic literature, the election of 2000 prompted an explosion of new methodologies being employed in online politics scholarship. Most notably, Bimber Campai gning Online (2003) employed a complex mixed methodological approach in their attempt to understand the strategy that goes into Web page design, as Campaigning Online serves as a methodological inspiration for this dissertation in that Bimber and Davis utilized elite interviewing and content analysis. Further developing their mixed method approach, they also conducted experiments and random digit dial telephone interviews, of fering the most comprehensive understanding of Web based strategy to date. The Federal Government Considers Web Based C ampaigning With campaigns, organizations, parties and individuals increasingly turning to the Internet for communication and fundraising purposes, the election of 2000 was monumental in that it prompted the involvement of the federal government in online campaigning matters. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) started to consider the applicability of the Federal Election Campaign Act (F ECA) to Web based politics, a

PAGE 36

36 debate that rages today as campaigns continually test the boundaries of campaign finance regulation under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The Federal Election Commission is an independent regulatory agency that inte rprets and enforces campaign finance laws. Prior to 1996, the FEC did not have to consider the applicability of campaign finance regulation to our online politics. The question never arose because the Internet had no place in American campaigning. As mo re and more candidates started to look to the Web as a source of fundraising and campaign communication, particularly starting with the 2000 election, important questions arose that the FEC simply could not ignore. There are campaign finance regulations as to what types of organizations, businesses, and committees can spend money on federal candidates, as well as spending limits for individuals. Certain types of communication are also restricted. With e mail list serves, Web pages and blogs, any person or entity can post or send political information about a candidate. A problem is in discerning if this information has a cost, and thus is subject to FECA spending regulations (Potter, 2000; Petri, online). Additionally, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify who is posting the information, and what their political motives might be. Given the anonymity the Web brings to our politics, in conjunction with the low cost of Web based talk, it is challenging to determine if digital communication is cons idered a political expenditure or contribution. Initially, the FEC was inclined to think that there was a cost associated with Web communication and thus this behavior should fall under the FECA statutes (Potter, 2000). The difficulties associated with t his perspective became evident when the FEC was forced to consider how they would go about assigning a monetary value for online

PAGE 37

37 behavior, and perhaps even more daunting, figuring out how to classify where the speech was coming from (Potter, 2000). Due t o these difficulties, the issue of regulating Web based political communication was largely tabled until new questions arose in 2002 and 2004 in light of the BCRA. 2 With this decision, political actors were free to push the boundaries of online campaignin g even more. 2004 2004 brought the Howard Dean campaign, a phenomenon that transformed online American politics as we know it. Dean embraced the Internet as a central part of his campaign strategy, bringing political Web interactivity to a whole new plate au. He creatively reached out to constituents all over the country, using new digital technologies such as Meetup.com, interactive live blogs, and DeanTV. His interactivity and openness to constituent uploads proved to be an inspiration and template for many liberal candidates in 2006, particularly Democratic U.S. Senate challenger Ned Lamont. Dean brought new meaning to campaign blogs, a feature that was growing in popularity. When people consider characteristics of a blog, as American culture has come to popularize the concept, they likely imagine an area where both the Web browsing constituent and the site administrator can openly and immediately post on a Web page. This type of blog would allow for free flowing discussion where individuals from acros hard to image how this high level of interactivity and communicative freedom is potentially destructive to those with a specific agenda, such as individuals seeking political offic e. In attempt to control the messages being placed on their Web sites, 2 Potter (2000) discusses some advisory opinions that were releas ed by the FEC in 1999 and 2000 relating to the regulation of Web based political communication.

PAGE 38

38 the office (Cohen, 2005). What resulted was a type of internal communication occurring primarily between campaign staff members. This communication could be viewed by those browsing the campaign Web page, but site visitors could not post messages. Howard D external to the campaign had the ability to post text on the site in real time. This Web e, including DeanTV, where constituents could upload their own commercials, speeches, attracted enough content to stream online twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Research reflects how Web based creativity in online campaigning features expanded beyond the Dean campaign during the 2004 election cycle. This creativity was contributio ns to the campaign (Cohen, 2005). The importance of this empowerment came in the form of personalization, letting current supporters craft their own ways of in a feature (Darr et al. 2004, 6). This option allowed for supporters to download the materials for their own home based event, such as house parties, debate watches, or meals. Downloads such as posters or recipes allowed for supporters to craft their own ev ents at home. Another creative way that candidates utilized the Web to empower supporters in the 2004 election, particularly at the Senate level, was by giving them tasks that could be

PAGE 39

39 completed via the Internet (Cohen, 2005). Campaigns encouraged suppor ters to write Letters to the Editor (LTEs). This process would start with the campaign either calling or e mailing supporters who signed up to be a campaign volunteer via the Web. The campaign would then encourage the individual to write a LTE to the loc al newspaper, using information provided to them on the Web site. Sometimes these pages would take the site visitor to a listing of all local newspapers, their mailing address, and their Web site, if applicable. These sections would also offer an issues page that included bullet points which LTE writers were encouraged to use as talking points. Some campaigns sent out LTE templates to volunteers via e mail. The same template was used with radio call ins. Success with online fundraising was also a hallma rk of the 2004 election cycle. Raising more than $20 million dollars via the Internet, the Dean campaign flexed its fundraising muscles through the accumulation of smaller donations (Rice, 2004). Presidential candidates John Kerry and George W. Bush foll owed suit, subsequently having great success with online fundraising. Kerry raised an unprecedented $82 million through online donations, while Bush raised $14 million. The Rise of 527/501 (c) O rganizations Enacted in 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Refor m Act (BCRA) constituted the most sweeping reform in the history of campaign finance regulation. Aimed at eliminating the use of soft money and curbing the appearance of corruption, BCRA had three noteworthy components: the banning of soft money, increase d contribution limits, and restrictions on issue advocacy advertising (Herrnson, 2005; Corrado et al., 2004).

PAGE 40

40 With the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in place, the 2004 election saw the rise of 527 and 501(c) organizations, which quickly made their prese nce known in the virtual and digital world. Classified and overseen by the Internal Revenue Service, these organizations proved to exploit a sizable loophole in the BCRA statues by absorbing the unregulated soft money that the BCRA attempted to steer away from our electoral process (Petri, date unknown). The rise of 527 and 501(c) organization demonstrates the organizations outside of the formal party structure would increase in importance. The Internet was an important part of this success in exploiting BCRA loopholes. 527 and 501(c) organizations were clever, mostly because their existence and ability to use funds in certain ways depended on it. For example, they had to be creative in the ways they made political advertisements and disguised them as party building activities (Petri, date unknown). This creativity bubbled over to the way they attracted and mobilized supporters on their Web pages. Organizations like Democrac y for America profiled liberal candidates across the country, giving them free media attention and offering such interactive features as real time blogs and virtual campaign training. They also made their fundraising presence known online by accepting unl imited amounts of soft money donations. Moveon.org raised close to $44 million overall, with a large majority of those funds coming through online donations. One can argue that one of the positive implications of the 527 and 501(c) Web presence was the rise of more global campaigns. With entities like Democracy for America profiling local candidates on a nation wide scale, smaller campaigns gained exposure that they could have never been able to afford on their own. This globalization

PAGE 41

41 of campaigns, par ticularly in the form of free media, was significantly built upon in 2006 with the invention of such virtual mediums as Youtube and MySpace. 2006 While significant scholarship has yet to be published on the 2006 election, one can anticipate the online de velopments that will be the sources of greatest attention. 2006 saw the development of third party media pages such as YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook. 3 The development of such sites allowed for constituents to play a much larger role in uploading video an d public commentary on file sharing Web pages in 2006. Due to the growing prevalence of such file sharing outlets, candidates have to be careful of what they say and where they go. A development in 2006 was campaigns video cameras knowing that this tactic could potentially produce content showing the opponent in a negative light (Brody, 2006). Now, any comment or action a candidate makes may very well end up on the Web and viewed by millions of people across the world. People everywhere became familiar with candidate mishaps, most notably, In the heat of a tight campaign, George Allen, an incumbent Senator from Virginia, poin ted to S. R. Sidarth, a twenty year old college student tracker from his African monkey and is often interpreted as a racial slur (Brody, 2006). 4 The backlash John Kerry re ceived for his comment about students ending up in Iraq if they do not 3 The Web addresses for these sites are www.youtube.com www.myspace.com and www. facebook.com. 4 Video of this comment can be found online at http://youtube.com/watch?v=9G7gq7GQ71c This video shot was taken by a tracker from the James Webb campaign. For more information, visit http://www.nowpublic.com/politicians_caught_on_internet_candid_cameras

PAGE 42

42 study is yet another example of politicians being subject to an increasing file sharing presence on the Web. 5 People who may not otherwise know who George Allen is now likely know at le ast one thing about him. Beyond sending him into a tailspin that cost him his re election to the Senate ent received substantial attention with people well outside of his Virginia constituency. The aforementioned YouTube events with Kerry and Allen demonstrate that, with this new type of video information sharing, one seemingly inadvertent comment can lead to widespread negative press and potential political failure. This type of information sharing is going to continue to be even widespread given unregulated. The only Web ba sed political behavior that will be subject to campaign finance regulations are those that involve monetary transactions (Petri, date unknown). Of most significance, paid political advertisements must be paid for by hard money (Holman, 2006). As if stepp ing on eggshells, the FEC struck a delicate balance by leaving the benefits of free political communication it tact, yet placing regulations on political advertisements. 6 The question of Web based campaigning and campaigning finance statutes will unquesti onable rise again in upcoming election cycles as candidates, individuals, and organizations continue to push the envelope of current statues. 5 Video of this comment can be found online at http://youtube.com/watch?v=aP5l97wHA9c 6 The Federal Election Commission issued new rules regarding Web based political communication in March of 2006. To view the full revised regulations, please visit http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2006/notice_2006 8.pdf This code of federal regulations was published in the Federal Register, volume 71, number 70, on April 12, 2006.

PAGE 43

43 Looking Ahead Having a greater understanding of how the World Wide Web has developed to take on an important pla ce in American politics, it now may be more evident why Web based senatorial presentation would be an important thing to consider. A 2006 Pew report reminds us of just how important a factor it may be. They published a memo reporting that on a typical da y in August of 2006, a period where party primaries were taking place, 26 million Americans went online to get political information (Pew, 2006). This equates to roughly thirteen percent of Americans over the age of eighteen (Pew, 2006). These constituen ts may be influenced by the content of the Web pages they log on to, including statements by the candidates, photos, video, and other images. The next chapter explores the methodological appro ach used in this dissertation. Exploring initial questions suc h as sample, selection of methods, and other topics helps to clarify how the research design for this dissertation came to be. The chapter explores the details of the case study, quantitative analysis, and qualitative interviews used in the upcoming chapt ers.

PAGE 44

44 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This dissertation takes a multi method approach to better understanding a unique intersection between Web technology and American Politics. Intertwining in depth interviews, quantitative analysis, and a case study we explore how congressmen create a digital sense of self on their campaign and constituency office Web pages. This chapter offers a detailed perspective on each of these methods. Stemming from in depth interviews with campaign and constituency of fice staff members, chapter 4 offers a unique qualitative perspective. These interviews helped to construct the coding guide for the quantitative an alysis presented in chapter 5 Cha pter 6 brings the quantitative and qualitative research together in consideri Senate drastically senatorial presentation of self can change in the course of a single election. Together, these three methods ri val the most comprehensive research on the topic of political digital self presentation date. Initial Questions When breaking into new territory, scholars are often faced with difficult methodological questions. How one chooses to answer these questio ns largely shapes the scope and breath of the analysis. With this dissertation, questions arose concerning the timeline for research, scope of the population, methods to utilize, and other topics. This section offers a brief synopsis of how those questio ns were answered, and may serve as a starting point for scholars looking to build on this research.

PAGE 45

45 Determining the Population In considering how to approach a study of political presentation of self, one of the most paramount questions is determining what members of Congress will be examined. The House and Senate are two very different animals. Among other things, we see differences in procedure, careers, size, terms, and policy making. All of these aspects make it difficult to consider the House an d Senate as equal institutions. Beyond these differences, there are clear methodological implications to studying some variation of the two chambers. With the House, the primary concern is the size of the population. Sampling would make this populatio n more manageable, but would also Senate leads to similar concerns. Although having both chambers in the analysis would serve as a great source of contrast and comparison sampling would have to take place. Additionally, due to the aforementioned differences, we may not be doing justice to our understanding of legislative politics by treating the House and Senate as statistical equals. Ultimately, I felt that it was impo rtant to get as deep an interaction with the data as possible. Working with the Senate alone allowed for the whole population of incumbents running for re election to be included in the study. The case study of Joe Lieberman is an example of how research ers can benefit from having an intimate knowledge of their population. Timeline Another critical question that arose was what election cycle(s) would be used for analysis. It was questionable if archives from prior election cycles could reasonably be o btained. There are a few Web based resources that may have been helpful, such as

PAGE 46

46 Politics1.com. There are also notable scholars in political science and communication who have done work analyzing campaign Web pages, including Bystrom et al. (2004), Gulat i (2004), and most recently, Sulkin et al. (2007). The difficulty would have been in attempting to find archives of constituency Web pages from prior election cycles. To date, there has been no systematic study of these Web pages. That led me to conclud e that working with the 2006 election cycle would provide the best opportunity for both quantitative and qualitative data collection. As such, th is study focuses on Class I Senators, individuals who were elected to office in November of 2000 and ran again in 2006 for a term that expires in 2013. 7 The terms of thirty three incumbents were up in the 2006 election cycle, with twenty eight ultimately deciding to pursue re election 8 T wenty four of these incumb ents were studied in this dissertation. 9 Four se nators were not included because their campaign Web pages were not online at the beginning of the archival process. Identifying the Web Pages In the previous chapter, we discussed the importance of Erving Goffman and the concept of context. Drawing on mu ltiple Web pages featuring the same individual is a great way to more fully understand the importance context plays in the construction of a digital self. There are certainly a lot of digital contexts to choose from when consideri ng what Web pages feature s enators. Third party blogs, unofficial campaign and fan pages, political advocacy groups, campaign sites and Senate pages are all places that may come to mind. 7 For an explanation of the differen t classes, please visit . 8 Class I senators not pursuing re election included Sarbanes (D MD), Dayton (D MN), Frist (R TN), Jeffords (I VT), and Corzine (D NJ).

PAGE 47

47 In selecting what Web pages to use as examples of context, the first question consi dered was what sites incumbent s enators might have in common throughout the 2006 election cycle. While some may have unofficial fan or advocacy pages, that may perspective on how they want to represent the Senator. This leaves us with only official pages as sources of owner controlled self representation, specific ally, campaign and Senate Web sites. Senate Web pages serve as the online gateway to our chambers of Congress. 10 T hey are maintained by the staff in each constituency office. Campaign Web pages, the second digital context, are maintained by campaign staff and serve as the To identify the campaign Web pages for each Class I Senator, a Yahoo! Search was conducted on each incumbent. 11 Most of the time, the official campaign Web page revealed itself as the first listing on the search. It was necessary to determine that each site was indeed the official campaign page and not some spoof or fan page. Specific Since campaign Web pages were identified very early in the election cycle, sifting through mock campaign pages was not a notable issue in the search process. Methods Selection Another central consideration was determining what methods would be utilized 9 Please see appendix J for the lis t of senators included in the quantitative portion of this study. 10 These pages are www.house.gov and www.Senate.gov 11 The search engine home page is Yahoo.com. Typing in the Se

PAGE 48

48 for this research. Previous studies in t he field of Internet Politics have employed a wide range of methods, including case studies (Cornfield, 2004), content analysis (Bystrom et al., 2004), quantitative analysis of surveys (Mossberger et al., 2003; Norris, 2001), in depth interviews (Bimber & Davis, 2003), personal diary (Trippi, 2004) and various combinations of these methods (Bimber & Davis, 2003). These previous works represent a good starting point for considering the benefits and drawbacks of using certain methods. From a methodological standpoint, this dissertation was highly influenced by the work of Bimber and Davis (2003). They were the first political scientists to combine qualitative and quantitative approaches in the field of online politics, utilizing surveys, lab experiments, i nterviews, and content analysis. Their book, Campaigning Online, shows us how these methods can come together into a masterfully crafted piece of scholarship on how the Web was used in the 2000 election. Bimber and Davis note that they brought these meth ods together in hopes of shedding some limitations in their study, I take a m ulti method approach for the same reason. The Importance of Reflexivity During each step of the data collection process, I was highly considerate of reflexivity (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1993). I constantly thought about how my presence actively worked to shape the construction of reality in my data collection process. I believe my presence was most notable in my in depth interviews, where my existence was influential in shaping the reality my participants and I were mutually constructing. As will be exp lored, some of my respondents were reluctant to open up to

PAGE 49

49 me about their habits in talking with the other office. These types of experiences are and should always be regarded as data. My role in constructing these realities is further discussed in the c onclusion. In Depth Interviews In depth interviews provide a unique lens through which to view political issues. All too often, due to their lack of generalizability, they are often overlooked as a valuable research tool in the political science discipl ine. This seems to be especially true in American politics, where researchers often study the entire voting electorate. As standards for hiring and tenure get more competitive in academia, scholars tend to gravitate towards the more marketable benefits o f quantitative methodology. I see great benefit in employing a mixed methodological approach to our study of politics. We can utilize in depth interviews to inform quantitative analysis, and vi sa versa. As such, chapter 4 is dedicated to the results of grounded theory analysis of in depth interviews with campaign and constituent office staff members. This analysis, in turn, influenced the coding sheet construction for chapter 5 Numerous scholars have done remarkable scholarship using in depth intervie wing techniques. We can find a few notable examples of political scientists who conducted interviews with members of Congress. Richard Fenno (1966) conducted semi structured interviews between 1959 and 1965 to find out more about the congressional approp riations process. 12 In his methodology, he describes how he asked certain key questions of all respondents, then left the rest of the interview open ended. 12 collections/oral history/f enno/interview notes.html

PAGE 50

50 A few years later, Fenno (1978) wrote a text that serves as a major inspiration to this dissertat ion. Craftily blending observation techniques with in depth interviews, he gives us insight into how congressmen interact with others while in their home constituency. detailin g how incumbents deal with their districts in different ways. In this dissertation, and Senate Web pages. Methodological Approach This dissertation is based on the co mbined results of two separate rounds of in depth inter views The first sets of interviews were conducted with twelve U.S. Senate campaigns during the 2004 election cycle. 13 The second set of interviews consisted of interviews with twelve campaign staff m embers and twelve constituency office staff members during the 2006 election cycle, giving us a total respondent base of thirty six unique individuals. In both the 2004 and 2006 data collection cycles, respondents consisted of staff members in charge of W eb based decision making, the selection process of which will be described in further detail. All of the interviews were semi structured in nature, using a series of pre constructed questions as a conversational guide. 14 Specific questions inquired about what decisions were made in selecting specific Internet based tools such as blogs and streaming video, the strategy behind these tools and the site in general, and perceptions of what tools worked best throughout the course of the election cycle. The inte rview guide for the campaign and constituency offices was 13 These interviews were completed as part of a pilot study for this dissertation. They offered such substantial data, results were included in this study. 14 Please refer to Appendix A and B for the interview guides.

PAGE 51

51 designed to be as similar as possible, allowing for some degree of comparison between the two groups. 15 An important part of this study was getting the most knowledgeable respondent on the telephone This process was slightly different in the two interview cycles. When calling campaigns in 2004, virtually none of the offices telephoned had a staff member whose sole responsibility was considering and implementing Web based strategy. Often, this ind ividual had multiple roles. This included acting as the Webmaster, political director, or some other specialized task. This issue was similar when contacting constituency offices in 2006. Thus, with the blurring and combination of staff member duties, t he exact title of this person varied from office to office. To ensure that the call was directed to the most knowledgeable person in the office, I asked the person who d ecisions regarding Internet circumstances arose where there was confusion as to who was responsible for such tasks. In those circumstances, I spoke with the political director, and he or she put me in touch with the right person. Interestingly, when contacting campaigns in 2006, there was an increased number of staff members who were dedicated to online strategy. With these campaigns, the duties of online content, implementation, and uploading fel l clearly in one During the 2004 cycle, telephone interviews with the twelve Senate candidate staff members were conducted between June 2nd and November 10 th 2004. During the 15 The intenti on behind this qualitative research is to illuminate general concepts and expand our theoretical understanding of how the Internet is used as an election tool from the perspective of Web decision makers. Inherently, generalizability is sacrificed to achie ve this depth (Esterberg, 2001). The comparisons described in the upcoming chapters may not apply to all campaign and constituency offices.

PAGE 52

52 2 006 cycle, campaign and constituency offices were contacted between July 18 th and November 13 th Some of the campaigns contacted close to Election Day asked me to call back at a later date. In most of those situations, an appointment was made to speak wi th the appropriate person a day or two after the election had taken place. We should consider the implications of conducting interviews with staff members two years apart. Campaigns can change a lot from election cycle to election cycle. Specific to th is study, Web technology and tactics can change significantly over the course of two years. Grounded theory analysis helped to illuminate that many of general concepts applied to both election cycles. While some of the Web features may have changed, many aspects relating to the importance and utilization of digital technology remained common. The an alysis presented in chapter 4 offers a broad view of these similarities discussed by respondents in both election cycles, intertwined with details that are sp ecific to campaigns of that election cycle. Analytical Strategy Analysis of the thirty six total interviews utilized a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1976). An inductive method, grounded theory allows researchers to tackle specific aims of a project without any preconceptions or hypotheses (Strauss & Corbin, 1994; Glaser, 1992). Through the use of constant comparisons between interviews, researchers can extract sensitizing theoretical concepts, major themes that appeared over and over (Gla ser, 1992). The layered phases of grounded theory that this analysis utilized were as follows:

PAGE 53

53 Figure 3 1 Stages of grounded t heory [Reprinted with permission from Dick, Bob. 2005. Grounded theory: Available online at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html .] Open coding of the interview transcripts was crucial for the illumination of repeating concepts. Each paragraph was coded with import ant notations, including what the respondent is talking about, adjectives that describe the phenomenon, and the like. As coding occurred, memos were also kept on the side for additional information. They served as a reference for thoughts regarding more general themes. Using the coding notes and memos together, findings were sorted into common themes and concepts. The degree of commonality in these concepts led me to believe that I reached the point of data saturation in the interviews. Quantitative Ana lysis Quantitative analysis is an excellent way to look across the cases in this dissertation systematically. Bernard (2000) shows scholars how quantitative data can be used to visualize patterns through the construction of maps, tables, and matrices. R 2006 edited volume compiled numerous pieces from the journal PS: Political Science and Politics to demonstrate the diverse quantitative approaches one can take in studying

PAGE 54

54 important scholarly questions, including regression analysis to understan d pivotal questions such as why people are disengaged from politics (Putnam, 2006). We are privileged to be able to point to many solid quantitative works in the field of Internet politics. An area of developing interest in that of equality and the I nternet. Using quantitative analysis of surveys, Pippa Norris (2001) explores the implications of the digital divide worldwide. This important work helps us to understand the I mportantly, she finds that, for now, the Internet only works to engage the engaged. This is problematic because the engaged represent a fraction of the overall population. However, despite these bothersome findings, her quantitative analysis also reveals that the online culture is a very accepting, open minded one, enabling a value shift as modernization continues. Mossberger et al. (2003) use survey data to further argue that a dangerous inequality exists due to the rise of the Internet. The imbalance c omes not only with those with the technology, but perhaps more importantly, those who know how to use the technology for their own personal gain. Bringing together insights gained from the i n depth interviews, chapter 5 offers a quantitat ive look at how th e twenty four incumbent senators running for re election presented themselves online in 2006. Both the constituent and campaign Web pages were saved on a weekly basis from March 21, 2006 through November 14 th 2006. Saving pages after the election allowe d for the ability to capture good bye messages. 16 This function allowed for most images, text, and graphics 16 There are Web page saving programs on the market. Such programs allow users to save Web pages automatically by st

PAGE 55

55 to be saved, as opposed to simply archiving text or HTML 17 A new folder was created labeling each week, and within that folder, sub folders were created for senatorial and campaign pages, respectively. Setting Parameters Each of the Web sites analyzed for this study contain numerous lay ers of pages and hyperlinks. All of these pages offer value to better understanding many of the questions considered in this dissertation. They also all come together to reflect the most accurate, complete digital presentation of self. However, for the purposes of this study, only home pages were analyzed. The home page is the first thing a Web browser sees, and in some cases, may the only thing he or she looks at. It creates an immediate projection of the self and is arguably the most important part o f a political Web page (Bimber and Davis, 2003). Another issue that had to be considered was how much data saved in the Web site archive would be used for the analysis. Data was collected on a weekly basis from March 28 th to November 8th, providing thirt y three weeks of archives for each manageable, each Web page was coded on a bi weekly basis starting on March 28 th and ending on November 8 th From this archive, different per iods were used for the quantitative analysis in this dissertation. The analysis ultimately ended up using a snapshot of Web pages in March when the Web pages started to take form, early June when the primaries were readily upon us, and early November just before Election Day. Complete function because I felt it was important to consistently view the pages. Manually saving the pages provided such opportunity, whereas automatic page saving programs wou ld have not. 17 Other Explorer save functions include Web Archive (single file), Web page (html only), and Text File.

PAGE 56

56 Images as Insights into the Self Images play a tremendous role in portraying a presentation of self, giving them a key role in this analysis. To better understand the role they played in the 2006 campaign, every home page picture o n both the campaign and constituent Web contexts was assigned one of the following variable status categories as shown in the table below. Table 3 1 Image c odes CODE VARIABLE LABEL MEANING 1 P_NONE No t in picture at all 2 P_SELF In picture with self only 3 P_SGROUP In picture with one or two others 4 P_LGROUP In picture with group of three or more 5 P_slideshow Slideshow of multiple pictures These categories give us a quick overall snapshot of the dominant pictures on campaign and constituency Web pages in 2006. Stat istical analysis in chapter 5 t ells us if incumbents tend to select images focusing only on him or herself alone, him or herself with a small or large group, or something generic with no people in the image. We will also explore how common it is for the images to change via a slideshow presentation. Issues as Insights into the Self Moving beyond how congressmen present themselves in images, it is equally as important to consider how they present themselves in words. Looking at campaign and constituency Web pages, one will immediate ly notice the plethora of information. There are typically a lot of words on a single page, as well as access to numerous pages. When trying to measure issues, given that the level of material is so sizable, an important question is to determine what sho The issue coding procedure for this project was adapted from the Wisconsin Ad Project, and has been successfully used by Sulkin et al (2007). Sixteen of the twenty

PAGE 57

57 three issues utilized for this project were previously iden tified by the Wisconsin Ad immigration, the opponent, and state specific issues all being unique categories added for this study. 18 The following sixteen issues stem fr om the Wisconsin projects: agriculture, budget, campaign finance, crime, consumer issues, defense and foreign policy, education, environment, health, infrastructure, jobs and economic development, Medicare, social and cultural issues, Social Security, taxe s, and welfare. Statements were coded into only one category. This category was the one estimated to be the dominant theme of the statement. In addition to measuring what issues were talked about, another variable was added as a measure of relative space This helps us to understand how much space one issue took up relative to other issues on the home page. As Prior (2001) helps us to understand, it would be somewhat shortsighted for scholars to treat all Web statements equally. Some issues may be talk ed about at length while others may be passively mentioned in a single sentence. The existence of such disparities allows for the space measurement to help us understand the relative priority one issue has in relation to another, and has been successfully recent work). The construction of this relative space measurement is based on a weighting system that deciphers how much digital space was given to a particular issue. The first step in calculating t his measure was to assign each issue a score. These scores ranged from zero to three. Zero means that the issue was not mentioned at all on the home page, one meaning the issue was discussed in a sentence or less, two meaning the issue was 18 Appendix F offers the full list as a reference.

PAGE 58

58 described in o ne to three paragraphs, and three meaning there was a link to a full page scores across all issues gives us the denominator for our Web space statistic. The numerators are the scores that each individual issue received on the one through three scale. This process is described in greater detail in chapte r 5 and we will see how this comparative measure of space allows us to compare both the amount of space an issue receives and the total number of issues mentioned on any given home page. Functional Features and Other Considerations As we will explo re in chapter 4 the in depth interviews provide us with insight into what types of technological tools and features are view ed as digital necessities in attempting to project a certain senatorial presentation of self online. Similarly, we will explore what types of tools and features were avoided to maintain a consistent presentation. These items include the creation of blogs fundraising capabilities, personalized log in functions, and the presence types of media, such as photographs and television commercials. To supplement these finding, statistical analysis was performed on the campaign and constituency Web pages to deter mine what types of digital functions were found on the home pages. 19 Some of the tools searched for included blogs (both end user interactive and non interactive), fundraising capabilities, and newsletter sign up. These statistics give us an idea of what features appear on the two Web contexts, and if and how these features change over time. Beyond photos, issues, space, and functional features, other notable variables were considered in the statistical analysis. The decision to include some of these va riables arose from findings drawn out of the grounded theory analysis. For example,

PAGE 59

59 some of the respondents spoke about the importance of senatorial history in the construction of the digital self. This finding prompted the inclusion of demographic varia bles including seniority in the Senate and age. Other demographic variables include geographic region represented, level of committee presence in the Senate gender, and race. These variables come together in chapter 6 to help us explore presentational s imilarities and differences within and between groups. Case Study Case studies offer us detailed insight into complex worlds, helping us to understand social phenomenon in a highly in depth way. Stephen Van Evera (1997) illuminates how case studies can be used to both test and create theory about our politics. approaches (3). Case studies may initially start out with a sample size of one or two, but will grow as more scholars give the cases attention (King et al, 1994). Embracing thi s valuable resource, chapter 6 features a case study of Connecticut incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman. Moving from a popular Democratic incumbent to a polarizing Independent morphed over the course of the 2006 election. Numerous scholars have utilized case studies t o help illuminate interesting political phenomenon. Barbara Sinclair (1997) introduces readers to five different case studies to demonstrate different ways that a bill can become a law. Each case study shows variety in procedures of Congress. 19 Please see appendix D and E for the coding schemes.

PAGE 60

60 The Impor tance of Lieberman All of the incumbent senators running for re election in 2006 made some degree of change to their Web presence. This applies to both the campaign and Senate .gov page. Often, the change simply meant updating the daily happenings of th e Senator. In other instances, as in the case of Joe Lieberman, the changes were more dramatic, with the site victory in the general election. Lieberman provides a ver y unique case because, while it has happened in the past, it is very rare to see an incumbent candidate switch party affiliations mid election 20 This is particularly true at the senatorial level, though there are a few notable examples. Most recently, Ja mes Jeffords of Vermont changed his party affiliation from Republican to Independent. This move changed the balance of power in the Senate in 2001 from a 50 50 split with a Republican tie breaker to a 50 49 1 in the hands of the Democrats. 21 President Dick Cheney still holding the tie breaker. The balance of power in the Senate for the 110 th Congress is 49 49 1 1. One Independent is Bernie Sanders, who took over the ope n Vermont Senate 22 Lieberman has openly stated that he will caucus with the Democrats, but as scholars have come to 20 For a comprehensive list of repre sentatives who switched parties, visit < http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pa/party_switching_in_the_united_states.htm >. 21 With this 50 50 split, Republican Vice President Dick Cheney represented the tie breaking vote. After Richards switched parties, the Democrats had control until the 2002 election cycle. 22 For more information on the balance of power in the 110 th Congress, visit << http://usgovinfo.about.com/blbalance.htm >

PAGE 61

61 re alize, political behavior is far from predictable, making his victory even more intriguing. Beyond thinking about the balance of power and uniqueness of party shifts in the Senate worthy. One would have to consider what characteristics a state must have to elect a candidate that makes such drastic moves in the middle of a campaign. We will explore how Connecticut is comprised of a very unique constituency, with a large Independent base. Understanding this political context gives us perspective on the conditions that helped lift Lieberman to victory. What the Case Study Explores scholars will undoubtedly enr ich our knowledge of multiple subfields within the American politics literature with this case study. For the purposes of this dissertation, we look at this case through the lens of attempting to better understand digital presentation of self in online po represents one space in our cyberworld, this space was drastically reconstructed over the course of the nine months the page was archived for this project. The case study highlights f self, the Democrat, transition, Independent Democrat, and hijacked phases. Each of these phases are identified by significant shifts in some combination of tone, background, im agery, and message. Chapter 6 discusses each of these phases in great detail. Some of the more interesting highlights include the usage of language, word counts, images, and characteristics of the Connecticut electorate.

PAGE 62

62 Looking Ahead The next chapter draws on in depth interviews to explore how a senatorial presentation of self created on our two Web contexts. Here, we begin to see how unique the two offices truly are, and how these differences lead to unique goals and objective s in the Web page. Chapter 5 offers a quantitative p erspective on this question, measuring how much relative space multiple issues are given on each Web page. We will learn how consistency is most clear within contexts. Finally, chapter 6 explores the wild Connecticut Senate election of 2006. Using case study analysis, four different stages of power of context in the development and public acceptance of the self.

PAGE 63

63 CHAPTER 4 UNDERSTANDING WEB PRESENTATION QUALITATIVE LY The Senatorial Puzzle Senators are complex animals that work in the depths of multiple contexts. As elected officials, they represent a large geographical space, attempting to appeal to different groups within that area, appease party leaders, and wo rk on legislation while potentially setting themselves up for a move up the political ladder. Concurrent with this role, the vast majority of senators seek re election, providing a window where these individuals hold a dual identity as Senator and candida te, office holder and office seeker. It is provocative to question how these individuals present themselves within the contexts of their differing capacities. Fenno (1978) argues that it is important for House members to have a consistent presentation o f self at home. A consistent presentation of self helps one develop trust with the constituents. Senators, Fenno argues, have a much less personal Home Style. Since their home r egions are bigger than that of H ouse members, and their terms are six years instea d of two, it may be harder for s enators to have a highly consistent image. When you add in the dimension of context, meaning home versus Washington, this may become even more true. While it may be helpful for re election purposes, there is no unsp oken rule that states that the messages presented in the context of these multiple capacities must be identical. For example, as a working Senator, an individual often talks about what he or she is doing in the present. They might present themselves as b eing caring, professional, and diligent. As a candidate, the same person may focus more on the future, presenting himself or herself as being creative, optimistic, and open minded. The two presentations

PAGE 64

64 may have wildly different central focuses, may be identical, or perhaps more likely, meet somewhere in the middle. There are numerous venues that incumbent senators use to project a self presentation including television, radio, personal appearances, and the main focus of this dissertation, Web technology The key avenue for digital presentation typically comes in the form of a personal Web page, which may contain photos, news features, streaming video, blogs, and other features. Incumbent senators running for re election are unique in that they have thi s personal online presence in two places, through their government Web page ( Senate .gov), and through their official campaign site. Based on in depth interviews with both campaign staff working in the 2004 and 2006 election cycles, and Senate staff worki ng in 2006, this chapter offers qualitative insight into the question of how Congressmen present themselves on these two different Web contexts. Topics covered include understanding how and why specific content gets online, the functions of each respectiv e page, and the strategy behind utilizing or avoiding certain Web based features to help construct a digital self. We will also explore if and how campaign and Senate staff work outside the boundaries of political advocacy laws in order to communicate wit h one another. We will see how surprisingly little coordination exists between the two entities, giving credence to the idea that campaign and constituency offices truly are two different beings that present a digital Senator in their own unique way. Web Based Tools as Enhancement of the Self groups can obtain their goals online (Ireland & Nash, 2001). Features such as blogs, real

PAGE 65

65 time chats, and digital teleconferencing all ow for people to communicate quickly and cost efficiently. Streaming videos, MySpace and Facebook accounts, and digital diaries also present unique ways for information to be presented to Web browsers. Interactivity and personalization allow for individu als to find the type of information they are looking for quickly, such as in the case of creating individual settings when a particular Web browser logs in (Mayer & Cornfield, 2003). The usage or avoidance of these functions says something about the agend a of the person who created the page. It points to their intentions regarding strategy, capability, and the amount of input they are willing to let end users offer to the site. These aspects all come together to say something about the self presentation the entity is trying to portray. believing that he or she is successfully playing the role they are portraying. This may mean using certain language, wearing certain clothing, making references to specific topics, and so on. Congressmen running for re election represent an interesting group of individuals because they are trying to construct a nd maintain their identity in two different roles simultaneously, that of a candidate and of elected official. Web technology is one arena where incumbent Congressmen can create, sustain, and project a presentation of self. Web Page Layout and Content Con struction Before we explore what we see in these different Web contexts, and the reasoning behind them as presented through the eyes of staff members, one of the more

PAGE 66

66 fundamental questions that must be addressed is getting a handle on is who creates th e Web page layout and content. All twelve campaigns contacted during the course of the 2006 election indicated that they sought out the expertise of third party companies in constructing the template of their Web page. Campaign Solutions was the most commo nly cited business used for this service. 23 The campaigns were seeking out assistance with the basic layout only, not for help with content writing or other services. This is verified on the Campaign Solutions Web page, which states that the company does not deal with writing of content or construction of a Web strategy. 24 The business specializes in the construction of templates for campaign photographs, online donations, press releases, and other political Web page essentials. Unlike their constituency o ffice counterparts, some campaign staff members had experience in Web design and layout. They often collaborated with third party Web design companies to create the exact layout they wanted. Additionally, having these skills set the campaign up for makin g complex changes to the Web page more easily. With the increasing importance of the online presence and strategy in campaigns, it should come as no surprise that candidates are hiring staff members with Web design backgrounds. Some of the campaigns inte rviewed in both the 2004 and 2006 election cycles had an individual dedicated to online communications, often hired into the position because of their ability to mix campaign and Web design experience. We will likely see an increasing presence in this type of capacity within statewide and national campaigns as we move forward towards 2008. 23 The Campaign Solutions Web page can be found at: http://www.campaign solutions.com/ 24 http://www.campaign solutions.com/services.asp

PAGE 67

67 In addition to page layout, digital content plays a significant role in constructing and maintaining an overall Web presentation (Gulati, 2004; Bystrom et al., 2004). F or campaigns, the authors of the Web content differed dramatically. Some campaigns left online communication solely to the communications director or online specialist. This person would have virtually no oversight and was typically the only person respo nsible for creating a Web strategy. Other campaigns made content creation more of a joint strategy, these offices held staff meetings where Web text and images were b rainstormed between multiple staff members. Other campaigns used a group approach, but with less collaboration towards an overall Web strategy. These campaigns allowed for staff members to upload content freely, giving very little sense of oversight and unity in content development. As will be discussed later, some candidates embraced the idea of giving constituent control over certain Web content, a totally new interactive dimension of construction of the self. Features such as streaming video commerc ials uploaded by browsers, as in the case of Dean TV in 2004, or truly interactive online blogs, as in the incumbent candidates strategically stayed away from such interact ive features solely for the purpose of having total control over what appeared on the Web page. Like their campaign counterparts, all twelve of the Senate offices interviewed in 2006 indicated that they sought out third party assistance with the constructi on of their Web page. Some of the offices turned to people within their party for assistance, such as in the case of one popular incumbent who turned to the Democratic Senate

PAGE 68

68 Communications Center. Numerous respondents mentioned that the United States Se nate puts out a list of recommendations, but offices are not required to abide by this list. All of the offices interviewed stated that they turned to third party entities that were not on the Senate ne in the office was In deciding what third party service to ultimately use for Web page layout assistance, the office staff primarily sought out companies that offered user friendly templates. A few of the respondents i nterviewed had experience with Web design, but most did not. This is perhaps best illustrated by one Democratic Senate office respondent we could all do without screwing u to be able to upload specific content without jeopardizing the page layout itself. Given that Senate office online communication is not as high profile as their campaign counterpart, likely because the y do not receive attention from traditional news mediums like campaigns do, constituency offices do not employ a staff member dedicated to online communication. This typically falls in the lap of a general communications staff member. We can see how this is different than their campaigning counterpart, where employees may be hired specifically for the purposes of managing online communications and Web based strategy. The result is that constituency offices have people working on the Web site that lack an y significant experience with digital politics and Web site development.

PAGE 69

69 Template features Both campaign and constituency office staff respondents talked about the ls or features that they perceived as being imperative for a successful Web page. Having a template that was easily manipulated was seen as critical to staff members being able to upload and change these basic features at will, sometimes as much as on a d differed largely between campaign and constituency offices. For campaigns, basics volunteer page, and the ability to accept credit card don ations. This is in line with the suggestions presented by Ireland and Nash (2001). For constituency offices, perceived basics included a biography, contact information, current bill information, and information regarding different constituency services s uch as flag requests. Both constituency and campaign staff members talked about the importance of having these Up to date content Both constituency and campaign staf f members viewed continually updating the Web site as very important. For constituency offices, this meant updating information on what the senator was currently working on, often including updating text on bills in progress or issuing new press releases. For campaigns, posting the most recent calendar events and public appearances, press releases, and recaps of past events was seen as critical. As we will discuss in the next section, continually updating the Web page has different significance for the two offices. For campaigns, giving off the perception that

PAGE 70

70 the candidate is very busy is of great importance. This ties into the strategic function of attempting to intimidate the opponent, as well as communicating to the media that the campaign is very active. Appearing busy is also important for constituency offices, updating Web browsers on what the senator is doing in office. This allows for both issues. These findings are in line with Mayhew (1974), who describes three main activities of Congressmen. Credit claiming, position taking, and advertising are all ways that politicians attempt to reach their goal of re election. Even though Mayhew appears to talk m ore about these activities as campaigning tactics, we can also reflect on the Senate office as a place where they also take place. Appearing busy, communicating to the media, and offering up to ma in ideas are true in both the online and offline worlds. Strategic Functions of Campaign and Senate Sites One way to more fully understand how, why, and to what degree campaign and constituent office Web contexts differ is to consider the functions that each Web page serves. By understanding these functions, we will be able to assess how and why senatorial presentations may differ in these contexts. We will also be able to more fully comment on the implications of these findings. Grounded theory analysi s of interviews conducted in 2004 and 2006 revealed four major strategic functions that campaign Web sites serve: mobilizing existing supporters, empowering those supporters, intimidating the opponent, and communicating with the

PAGE 71

71 media. 25 Analysis of 2006 d ata revealed that the strategic functions that Senate .gov pages serve are offering accessible constituent information, providing contact information, and updating senatorial activity. Campaign Web Pages Mobilizing existing supporters Both 2004 and 2006 c ampaign respondents spoke about how Web pages were most often visited by supporters, people who already decided they were going to vote for the candidate. While this is not exclusively true, having this general knowledge helped staff members understand wh at audience they were speaking to on their site. The trick, staffers believed, was to get these supporters together to propel their candidate to electoral success. Blogs, a highly popular phenomenon, played a significant mobilization role in the minds of numerous 2004 campaign staff members interviewed. This finding is in concert active citizens (Kerbel and Bloom, 2005; Uslander, 2004; Grossman, 1995). Some candida where others only offered links to third party blogs. Some sites took an approach similar topics featured and discussed. The only truly interactive blogs posted directly on n 25 This grounded theory analysis encompassed interviews with incumbent senator staff members running in 2004 and 2006, respectively. These four strategic functions proved to be common in both election cycles.

PAGE 72

72 2006. Regardless, the perception of having a blog seemed to trump the interactive versus passive blog dichotomy. As noted by one 2004 Democratic incumbent, and echoed by one 2006 Democratic challenger, staff members often called or e mailed third party blog posters to personally address their questions and concerns. This gives credence to the importance of blogs regardless of their placement in the digital atmosphere. As normative academic literature would likely argue, and as mirrored in the conversat ions with these two staff members, blogs serve as a mechanism for getting more people involved in the political process, which is both an exciting and important part of running campaigns. Also seen as a type of basic necessity, having a volunteer sign up was seen as a key to mobilizing online supporters. Virtually all of the 2004 and 2006 campaigns talked about the importance of having this feature prominently displayed on their home page and making it easy to use. Letting the volunteer decide how he/she wanted to help the candidate was seen as crucial as well, thus most sign up forms had boxes of different activities that people could select to help with. In a strategic move, a few 2004 campaigns mentioned how they had pre checked boxes on the form whic h the site user would have to de select if he/she did not want those options. The pre checked options were most often to receive e mail campaign updates from the candidates. One 2004 candidate had a pre checked box that asked the campaign to send postal mail to the volunteer. Empowering existing supporters Moving one step beyond mobilizing supporters, campaigns found the idea of empowering these individuals to be equally as important in both election cycles.

PAGE 73

73 Considering the 2004 Institute for Politic s, Democracy, and the Internet study that online politics, this concept of empowerment makes sense (Darr et al., 2004). By empowering existing supporters to identify and influence other potential supporters, the digital investment, bringing in new potential voters, volunteers, and fundraisers by simply adding a few features to the Web page. Respondents mentioned numerous Internet based tools that they relied on to empower their existing their supports, most of which they viewed as successful in achieving this goal over the course of both the 2004 and 2006 campaigns. It was clear that the importance in this empowerment came in the forms of creativity, freedom, and personalization; letting current supporters craft their own ways of reaching out t o others. In this sense, the campaign served the role of the template, providing a basic outline and letting the current supporter do most of the work. This relates to a concept identified by in a his feature allows for supporters to download the materials for their own home based event, such as house parties, debate watches, or meals. Such downloads often included posters, banners, and recipes. A fantastic way that Senate campaigns attempted to e mpower supporters in both 2004 and 2006 was giving them tasks that could be completed via the Internet. In particular, numerous campaigns talked about the importance of encouraging and empowering supporters to write Letters to the Editor (LTEs). This pro cess would start

PAGE 74

74 with the campaign either calling or e mailing supporters who signed up to be a campaign volunteer via the Internet. The campaign would then encourage the individual to write a LTE to the local newspaper, using information provided to them on the Web site. For CT) Web site had an option to click on the home newspapers, their Web sites (if applicable), and th eir mailing address. This was not an offer an issues page that included bullet points, which LTE writers were encouraged to use as talking points. Some 2006 campaigns als o sent out LTE templates to volunteers via E mail upon request. Similarly, campaigns empowered supporters by giving them the tools to conduct radio call ins. Much like in the case of LTEs, numerous campaign sites offered the contact information of local radio stations in the area. Intimidating the opponent Campaign staff members spoke extensively about using Web based politics as a means of psychological intimidation against opponents. In considering who visited their Web page, staffers listed groups i n the order of likely supportive voters, undecided voters, media, and potential rivals. Knowing this fact was something campaigns felt they could benefit from by putting feelings of doubt and inferiority in the minds of the opposition. Most notably in 20 004, the integration of advanced Web based technologies was seen as a powerful strategic intimidation tactic. One 2004 Republican incumbent spoke about new flash animation options that were utilized on his home page. This respondent had no inhibitions in telling me how proud the campaign was of their site, feeling that it was the best statewide or national candidate Web page to date.

PAGE 75

75 The interesting thing about this type of psychological intimidation is that it is noticeably different from that discuss ed in the campaigning literature. Numerous authors have talked about the benefits of negative campaigning (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995; Mark, 2007). As Mark suggests, it is a delicate art form that can be highly successful. Psychological intimidation p lays a significant role in this process. With digital intimidation, respondents are not talking about direct negative attacks on their opponents. This type of intimidation is much more indirect; like pulling up to a debate in a Lamborghini when your oppo nent arrives on a motorized scooter. The candidate driving the Lamborghini did not do anything to directly hurt the opponent on the scooter, but the disparity between their vehicles of choice is notable and may result in some consequence in how voters per ceive each person. A few popular 2004 incumbents felt that their Web pages did not need to feature new technology, and thus offered only a bare skeleton of the candidate and his/her campaign themes. They felt that they were so likely to win, they could in timidate their opponent by giving off an aura of confidence through lack of Web based content. In PA) Web site team clearly took this approach by offering only a home page and one other page on issues. Intere stingly, very detailed and technologically advanced pages. 26 This was the case with all incumbents running in the 2006 election cycle. Another strategy that was viewed as imp ortant in intimidating the opponent was

PAGE 76

76 look strong and geographically onymous DC1, 2004). The strategies discussed talked about perceptions, fooling the opponent into believing he or she is seeing something that may not necessarily be true. By having lots of features on the Web site, including pictures and press releases, it gives of the impression that the campaign is doubt and inferiority, and as will be discussed in the next section, gives off a favorable impression to visiting medi a representatives. Give information to the media The last strategic function that was discussed by campaign respondents was giving information to the media through Web based communication. This is in line with current literature dealing with media and p olitics. Kedrowski (2006) describes how members of Congress reach out the media to influence public policy. One Webmaster respondent believed that the media goes to candidate Web sites to not only look for basic issue information, but mistakes, level of activity, and aggressiveness in schedule. Speaking to a point that was also important in attempting to intimidate the opponent, giving off the appearance of being busy was seen as imperative. As noted by 2004 the media the impression that your A few 2004 and 2006 Web sites had specific pages devoted to press relations. n contact information, press releases, speeches, and endorsements. This allowed site visitors from the media to complete quick one stop shopping, finding important information on the 26 2004 archives from www.chrisdodd.com or www.harryreid.com serve as examples.

PAGE 77

77 Senate Web Pages Offering accessible constituent information Constituent offices get flooded with calls on a daily basis. The biggest function of the Web page, as noted by all twelve Senate offices interviewed in 2006, was to offer accessible information on t he Web page in hopes of curtailing these calls. As noted by placing detailed information online, we hope we can answer their questions on things we are asked a lot, There are a few other strategies that offices employ in hopes of directing Senate office, one is and before giving callers the opportunity to speak to a live person, he suggests visiting his Senate page. Other offices welcome or a welcome letter encouraging constituen ts to browse the page for specific information. One can view this function as also freeing up resources. The less time staff members spend answering phones, the more time they have to do other activities. Providing contact information Respondents fel t that offering contact information was another very important function of the Web page. This includes contact information for the different local constituency offices, Washington office, and e mail address for the senator. With an increasing number of A mericans getting into the wired age, telephone books may be taking a back seat to digital surfing for political contact information. Making this contact

PAGE 78

78 information readily accessible was seemingly important amongst respondents for this reason. Some respo ndents found it more important than others to have this contact tried to make it as easy as possible to help people find this information, so we put it on the bottom rig this information was important, but felt that putting a link to the information off of the home page was just as acceptable and that someone looking specifically for that information wo uld be able to find it. Updating senatorial activity Mentioned by ten out of the twelve Senate offices interviewed, updating the Respondents felt page browsers might log on to see what the senator is doing in office, if he or she is supporting a specific bill, or what issues are currently on the Senate floor. Most of these respondents reported that they update the home page on a daily basis, with a few offering that t hey update every few days. seems to hold increasing importance for people outside of the constituency. Multiple respondents talked about how political groups may use Senate gov as a way to identity allies in office. This may be true with campaigns as well, but respondents from that camp did not raise it as a topic. This is likely because, as offered by the Senate staff respondents, their Web page offers detailed, up to date information on what the Senator is doing in Congress.

PAGE 79

79 One feature that two Washington staff members talked about as being their next step in the wired age is to feature a live video feed when the senator is speaking on the floor. This would offer the mo st real time information on what the senator is doing, speaking to the importance of offering continually updated information on senatorial the halls of Congress with a camera and uploading the feed onto the Internet. While mainstream television media such as C SPAN offers constituents the ability to see what is going on inside the Senate chamber, these two respondents commented on how Web streaming video could offer mor e targeted information. Below deleted] is up to. Our idea is to show people clips when he is speaking on the floor so they ca n get a better idea of what is going on. People will probably sit and watch a short video online but not watch C SPAN, especially if we decide to RS3, 2006). While we typically th ink about campaigns as being the ones that target, here we see evidence that Washington offices also offer their own type of specialized, strategically planned information. Coordination as Strategy? Now understanding the differing functional purposes of each Web page, further considering the type of strategy campaign and constituency offices use to construct their Web page begs the question of if and how the two offices coordinate their online presence. Although we see that the functional goals of these two contexts are not identical, given that two offices are working on behalf of the same individual, it seems reasonable that the two entities might collaborate with or consult each another for

PAGE 80

80 information. Sharing text and pictures would certainly speak to a cognizance towards creating a consistent online senatorial identity. Conversely, working in complete independence of one another potentially reifies the idea that the offices are truly two separate beings. This research represents the first scholarly attempt at understanding if this type of collaboration exists for the purposes of online communication. The Hatch Act of 1939 served as the first legislation to regulate the behavior of federal employees as it applies to the engagement in partisan activit ies. The Act, named after Senator Carl Hatch, was proposed in response to Works Progress Administration (WPA) workers using their official government capacities to help aid the Democratic ica, 2007). Even though these events were aiding his own party, Senator Hatch proposed these laws as a way to end corruption from inside Washington establishments. 27 In 1993, these laws were revisited by Congress to help further define what constitutes il legal activity while working in a federal, state, or local capacity. The most important update to these statutes was the broadening of political advocacy activities government employees could engage in while not on duty. The Act outlines times when gover nment employees may not engage in political activity, including when using a government vehicle, on official duty, when wearing an official uniform, or when Otherwise, with the exception of individuals in specific high level capacities, government 27 To read more about the Hatch Act, please visit http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm

PAGE 81

81 workers were given explicit permission to manage and/or work on political campaigns in through the updated statutes. 28 Specific to this dissertation, we should consider how these reg ulations impact employees working in Washington constituent offices. Given that the Washington staff assist in campaigning efforts falls under the umbrella of illegal behavior. The implications of this means that constituent staff members cannot collaborate with campaign staff members during business time. However, campaign and constituent office staff have identified legal ways to communicate without being in violat ion of the law. Since the Hatch statutes do not regulate communication between these entities outside of business hours, communication in their own personal time is viewed as legal and legitimate. In speaking with Senate staff about communicating with t heir campaign counterpart, the level of inter office communication varied wildly between offices. Ten of the twelve constituency offices interviewed did not engage in this type of communication, such as in the case of one Midwestern Democratic incumbent w hose office staff reified the idea that each office serves different purposes. Senator [name extracted from transcript] in office, so we are working for the same person but are doing different things. They have their own agenda and ways of (anonymous DS2, 2006). Surprisingly, this was not the only Senate office that said they did not look at the other off 28 For a full list of federal employees subject to greater restriction s on partisan activity, please visit http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm#agencies

PAGE 82

82 the other side of the spectrum, two Senate offices had constant communication and collaboration with their campaigning counterpart on non business time. The Washington offi ce for one highly popular Democratic incumbent wrote a significant level of issue based content for the campaign home page. The communications director in this office laughingly shared her experiences as quotes below. while in the office, but we talk through a personal e mail account. They actually asked me for help writing the issue pages of the Web site because they wanted to get it right, and figured we would know, so I s pent my own time on the weekends writing stuff and sent it off to them, and they copied and pasted what I wrote word for There is a lot of insight in this quote, with one important feature being a clear valuing of consistent, Senate importance. Altho ugh this one respondent provides evidence that collaboration exists between the two entities, this was far from the norm, with only two out of twelve respondents speaking to this idea. A topic that arose out of the grounded theory analysis that spoke to w hy this type of communication may be lacking is a misunderstanding of Hatch regulations. Considering the Law The line of questioning about inter office communication clearly raised eyebrows with respondents, likely because it touches on legal issues and pe ople cannot immediately verify the identity of the person conducting the phone interview. Most of the respondents got defensive at the very onset of topic, cutting the interviewer off and immediately

PAGE 83

83 denying any such activity, something that may lead us t o wonder how well staff members understand their rights as staff members. As we have explored, the Hatch Act clearly allows for inter office collaboration during non business hours. Constituent and campaign offices can communicate legally and effectively within the confines of these laws. However, many of the respondents did not appear to realize that inter office communication was legal in certain circumstances. As one Republican Senate campaign sta to be the common perspective amongst the eight of the twelve Senate offices interviewed. It was not apparent that these respondents realized the law does not extend beyond their ph ysical time in office. Given the fact that this line of questioning does touch on legal issues, honesty in responses may be at play. It is highly doubtful that any of the staff members would admit to breaking the law, and if respondents interpreted any f orm of inter office communication as illegal, they would not talk about it to a stranger. Thus, we may not be getting a completely clear picture of the level of inter office coordination and/or communication that may be at play here. It is not outside th e scope of reason that office staff members may be instructed to answer questions in a certain way and to deny the existence of certain behaviors. Consistency though Visual Queues A different way to ask about the idea of inter office collaboration is to touch on if and visa versa. On face, this line of questioning would seem much more innocuous than

PAGE 84

84 asking about inter office communication, as it is unlikely that someo ne would interpret viewing a Web page as being in violation of the Hatch Act. Respondents were asked if site. The value of this line of questioning is that engaging i n this type of behavior could be interpreted as a very basic, inexpensive, and innocuous way to achieve senatorial online consistency between the two Web contexts. This line of questioning revealed that the two offices rarely, if ever, consult one anothe campaign office staff stated that they have viewed the Senate .gov page of their candida te over the course of the 2006 election cycle, it became apparent that they were looking at the page for the purpose of getting an overview of the digital tools used, not reading the content itself. These campaign staffers stumbled when asked what issues were discussed on the Senate Web page. This finding offers evidence that there is not only a lack of digital collaboration, but more broadly, speaks to a larger disconnect between the two offices. It is surprising that the staff in each respective office do not look to one another for guidance. This chapter demonstrates that this disconnect applies to both phone conversations and Web browsing. With that said, given the apparent lack of communication and collaboration between the campaign and Senate offic es, one must begin to wonder how and if the Web pages differ in terms of senatorial presentation. Do they contrast with one another? Are the stated priorities and issues the same? These are all new questions that will be first

PAGE 85

85 addressed on a scholarly l evel here. An important step we can take to better understand how a senatorial presentation of self is created on these Web contexts is to consider common frames of reference campaign and constituent offices may rely upon in constructing their respective pages. Constructing a Complete Self Understanding that inter office collaboration for the purposes of senatorial self presentation is extremely rare, we have to ask ourselves where the basis for this presentation may stem from on each respective page. Th is section offers additional insights by the twelve campaign and twelve Senate office staff interviewed in the 2006 election cycle. Political History as Self Definition Many of the incumbent senators running for re election in 2006 brought a deep senator ial history to their campaign. Class I incumbents included a former first lady (Hillary Clinton, NY D) and presidential and vice presidential candidate (Joe Lieberman, CT D). Having a rich political history, particularly as a candidate, plays into the co ntemporary construction of self in both the online and offline worlds. Victory in some former campaign may set the stage for embracement by the populous, while defeat and scandal may mean the end of a political career. Numerous respondents in this study r elayed the important role political history played in constructing the online presence of their senator. One 2006 Democratic Party challenger was interviewed for this project and was able to share interesting insights. The ive quoted below is referencing the sitting incumbent who, due to a prior electoral experience, did not embrace online interactive technology.

PAGE 86

86 ector in an official capacity, before or two comments out of thousands of comments out of the peo ple that read the blogs, and try to sell it to reporters as being representative of all the blogs. Like, From this quote, we better understand how prior experience with the online blogg osphere altered campaigning strategy in the current day. This perspective is of particular interest to this line of research because it shows how the implications of digital technology are perhaps more far reaching than scholars have recognized to date. political history when constructing online content. In that way, political history serves as Ce rtainly, staff members are free to interpret political histories in multiple ways. A staff common frames often include political facts which are interpreted with much less subjectivity. In the case of Hillary Clinton, her political history as a former First Lady is of great significance to her contemporary being. That experience afforded her the ability to rights, and health care. First Lady represents a unique, high pro file, and virtually universally known capacity. It would seem like a clear aspect of her self presentation that both a Washington and campaign office would want to highlight.

PAGE 87

87 political history plays an important role in her two digital contexts. The following represents text from the second sentence on her 2006 Senate biographical page. first wo Hillary for Senate June 3 rd 2006 archive). Under her 2006 Senate page campaign biography, similar to what we see on her 2008 presidential Web page, we find a section dedicated to her i dentity as a First Lady. Her 2008 presidential page features a 292 word political history describing her in this capacity. 29 Her presidential campaign Web page offers the information below. a champion for women was recognized and admired around the world. She traveled the globe speaking out against the degradation and abuse of women and standing up for the Preside nt, April 1 2007 archive). the construction of self on three different digital contexts, her 2006 U.S. Senate and 2008 presidential campaign Web pages, as well as her 2006 c onstituency office page. It appears and shapes the online discourse because, as offered by 2006 Democratic Party challenger respondent, political histories matter in the shaping of contemporary candidates and office holders. This represents one mechanism for the construction of a consistent online self on multiple Web contexts, and does not require any inter office communication or collaboration. Defining the Message Going along with the theme of political histories, politicians who have held 29 The full text of this page can be read in Appendix G.

PAGE 88

88 office for a long time often become known as championing certain social or economic issues. Themes arise in the type of legislation politicians gravitate towards, again providing a common frame of reference for constituency and campaign offices in the construction of the digital self. A 2004 Republican campaign respondent spoke about how her candidate was very well known for his work on education. talk about. Senator [name deleted] is very well known for his work on education throughout the state, which was a great place to start, so we basically researched some of the major bills he had worked on in the past few years and talked about One benefit of being a sen ior senator is that the person can portray him or herself as being a specialist in a particular area. The respondent quoted above describes how the campaign used that frame of reference as a starting point in writing the Web page content. Even though in ter office communication did not take place between the campaign and senatorial offices of this Republican incumbent, similar to the example of Hillary, his political history was an important element of self presentation on the Web contexts of those two of fices. A strong record on specific issues is yet another aspect of political history that provides a common frame of reference for the designers of these pages. Conclusion Web contexts provide unique opportunities for politicians to create and display a sense of self. This chapter has offered new viewpoints on better understanding how this presentation is constructed, what functions certain political Web contexts have, and the importance of political history in the construction of a digital self. Perhap s most surprisingly, we have learned that inter office communication is not a popular mechanism

PAGE 89

89 for constructing a consistent senatorial presentation of self between the campaign and constituency offices. More broadly, respondents seemed to have a general disinterest in Reflecting on some of the questions posed in the literature review chapter, this evidence speaks to some implications of the two offices having different staff members and varying ob jectives. These motives translate into different priorities, foci, and strategies. With the digital incumbent/candidate being a product of different offices, that senatorial presentation of self may be just as diverse as the office he/she came from. For some senior incumbent candidates, deep political histories provided one avenue for online consistency. Similarly, some candidates offer histories that point to heightened interests towards certain policy areas. In these instances, this background was us ually recognized and reflected by both the campaign and constituency offices, because the offices had a common frame of reference. In some ways, this chapter poses more questions than answers. If the two offices are not communicating with one another in hopes of creating a consistent online presentation of self, with a few exceptions, how are these two digital self presentations different? How are they similar? What are the larger implications of finding evidence one way or the other? Up to this point, scholars have yet to raise or research these and other related questions. The next chapter represents the first step in analyzing these questions quantitatively. The research we just explored offers evidence that these Web contexts are indeed uniquely different, and that these differences are expressed in many ways. Staff members from the campaign and constituency offices are cognizant of this difference,

PAGE 90

90 and further, show little signs of trying to reconcile the implications it may have as it applies to senatorial presentation online. Armed wi th this knowledge, chapter 5 offers a more systematic approach to understanding how these contexts offer both similar and different digital presentations. It considers how the functions of these Web pages, as of fered by the respondents described in this chapter, play into the construction of a unique digital self. Together, the qualitative and quantitative analysis offers us insights into why senatorial presentation of self differs, how they differ, and how they are similar. The final chapter offers insight into the implications of these findings and suggestions for further exploration of political contexts and self presentations.

PAGE 91

91 CHAPTER 5 UNDERSTANDING WEB PRESENTATION QUANTITATIVELY Introduction In the p revious chapter, we explored different perspectives on how senators come to create a presentation of self on campaign and Senate Web contexts. Based on in depth interviews with Webmasters, we learned about the importance of technological tools, political history, and template features in the construction of the digital self. In the next election campaign will show us how one can change these features and content drastically yet still find a way to electoral victory. The interv iews and case study represent an insightful yet somewhat limited perspective on how a senatorial presentation of self is developed. Each interview and case study represents a single perspective, and leaves us wondering how much of this information applies on a broader scheme. We can consider the previous two chapters as a strong starting point from which to pursue more generalizable information, which is offered in the coming pages. The beauty of a mixed method approach is that one method can inform anot her in unique and insightful ways. Insights from the Webmaster respondents played a central role in the development of the quantitative measurements presented here. Like Bimber and Davis state in their 2003 work, I hope that the case study, interviews, a nd quantitative methods presented here show the power of a mixed methods approach and set a high benchmark for future scholarship in the area of digital American politics. Ideal Type s Different examples of ideal types will be intertwined with the quantit ative analysis throughout this chapter A concept invent ed by sociolog ist Max Weber in his

PAGE 92

92 description of bureaucracies, ideal types describe characteristics that help one approximate a specific reality (Weber, 1949) Utilized in disciplines throughout t he social sciences, t hey provide a mental framework for others to understand essential characteristics of a larger concept. While not all of the characteristics of an ideal type must correctly apply to the larger phenomenon being described, the case is ge nerally an excellent overal l description of a specific reality one is trying to illuminate (Weber, 1949) In this chapter, two ideal types that will be explored are the issue candidate the localized ch apter 6 where Joe Lieberman will provide an example of a These cases are being supplied throughout the chapter to demonstrate that incumbents take on certain types of candidacies, and that we can pick o ut individuals that exemplify these realities. Issues One way that we can capture the level of consistency in senatorial presentation of self is by examining what issues are discussed over time, as well as how much relative space those issues received on each Web page. Exploring the se general patterns gives us a sense of the role and importance each issues plays in creating an overall digital self. When considering the relative importance of issues, it is useful to understand the larger political climate of the time. Every election takes place in its own unique context. To get a better sense of the political climate in the time frame explored here, we can take a look at poll results from a survey of American adults. 30 As reflected in the bar chart below, Iraq, economy, terrorism, im migration, and moral issues came to the forefront

PAGE 93

93 determining how they would vote in the 2006 general election. 31 Figure 5 1 Extremely important i ssues in 2006 With exit polls reflecting that 57% of Americans disapproved of the War in Iraq, we have since come to learn that these anti war sentiments perhaps had th e greatest role in turning the tides on the Republican Party (CNN Online). The chart above indicates Iraq was the single most important issue in determining how a person intended to vote in the 2006 cycle. Terrorism was not far behind at 46%, followed by the economy (33%), illegal immigration (29%), and moral issues (25%). We now turn to the analysis of 2006 incumbent senators armed with a better knowledge of what was important to the American public. To track the importance of and space dedicated to se lect issues, data was collected at three points during the 2006 30 Data is retrievable from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/special/issues/ Results are based on a phone survey of 1, 104 American adults on October 27 th through October 29 th 2006. The sampling error is +/ 3. The survey was conducted by Opinion Resear ch Corporation.

PAGE 94

94 election cycle. 32 The first point was the end of March, representing the time when Senate candidates started to carve their own space in the digital world. All incumbent candidates had some f orm of official campaign presence at this time. The second data collection point was at the beginning of June, representing the time surrounding the party primaries. This time proved to be more critical than expected for some of the incumbents, particula rly Joe Lieberman. The final collection point was the beginning of November, giving us a final showing of where these issues stood just prior to the general election. Examining issues at these three points in time gives us a unique perspective on how and if the dominant issue changed throughout the course of the campaigning season. While it is useful to know what issues were talked about on digital contexts, getting a sense of how much these issues were talked about gives us yet another dimension on which to compare incumbents and visualize trends over time (Sulkin et al., 2007). Recall the zero to three scoring as a measure of relative space. Zero means that the issue was not mentioned at all on the home page, one means the issue was discussed in a sent ence or less, two means the issue was described in one to three paragraphs, and three means there was a link to a full page explanation or press release discussing the of the three points in time, illuminating which issues were talked about using the highest average Web space. 32 Archived data for additional periods dating from March through November are available. Please contact the author at dtcohen@ufl.edu if interested in accessing these archives.

PAGE 95

95 Issue Consistency within the Campaign Context Highest ranking issues To start, we can examine issues as presented on a single context across time The data as reflected in the chart below indicates a relatively high degree of consistency in the highest and lowest scoring issues on campaigning Web pages throughout May, June, and ur issues at all three points, scoring the highest ranking issue space mean in March with .75, the forth highest rank in June with .50, and the third highest rank in November with .63. The issue the beginning and end of the campaign, scoring a second best .54 in March and third highest .63 in November, but trailed off in the middle of the election cycle with a mediocre score of .25 in June. Figure 5 2 Highest ranking campaign i ssues important presence as the campaign cycle inched towards November. While not addressing any specific issue, these statements typically reflected a general expr ession of the candidate wanting to help his or her constituency. This topic had great movement as the campaign cycle inched its way to Election Day. It received a mediocre space ranking

PAGE 96

96 in March with .29, and then rebounded with the highest ranking issue scores in both June (.67) and November (.88). Lowest ranking issues We also see consistency with the lowest ranking issues on the campaign digital context across our three points in time. While most of the twenty three issues saw some digital space, a f ew consistently were ignored on campaign home pages. Campaign finance, the budget, and consumer issues were three topics that failed to receive coverage across all three periods of time. This is a striking finding, and may appear somewhat unbelievable on face, particularly in the wake of raising gas prices. However, recall how issues were classified into categories. Statements could only be classified into one category, this being the dominant theme of each statement. If these three issues were periphe ral to a larger issue within a statement or press release, they were not recognized as taking up space on the Web page. Besides the aforementioned issues that failed to receive any coverage, other categories consistently received low coverage scores wit hin the campaign context. our three points in time.

PAGE 97

97 Figure 5 3 Lowest ranking campaign i ssues From a normative perspective, it is particul rights as a reoccurring low score issue. One bright spot is that, out of those candidates who did discuss the issue on their campaign home page, those individuals did so consistently. Hillary Clinton was particularly pro lific in that way, discussing the topic at issue as a point of discussion in her current digital campaign for the presidency. Issue Consistency within the Senate Context Highest ranking issues Turning to t he Senate .gov pages, we also see consistency throughout the three points in time. Amongst the issues that consistently received high issue space rankings for the March, June, and November observations, we see the defens e/foreign policy and state specific issue categories take center stage.

PAGE 98

98 Figure 5 4 Highest r anking .g ov i ssues The defense and foreign policy category consistently rated in the top three issues at each of the three points in t ime. It was the most discussed issue in March with a rating of 1.04, the third highest ranked issue in June (1.0), and concluded as the second most talked about topic in November (1.42). State specific topics also received lots of digital airtime. Issue s were coded into the state specific category when the nature of the discourse made the state as the main focus. Often, a discussion of an issue was framed in about a s issue. While such a statement could also have been interpreted as an environmental issue, recall that the coding scheme only allows for statements to be coded as the most domi nant topic. There is a degree of discretion involved with this coding category in particular. As will be further discussed in the next chapter, this is also an example of how allowing statements to fall under multiple categories could be beneficial to un derstanding the importance of peripheral issues.

PAGE 99

99 Lowest ranking issues In our final glimpse of trends within single digital contexts, we see that the campaign finance category once again received zero space across the three time points. Discussions of the Senate rights were the next low ranking issues that received non zero scores. Figure 5 5 Lowest r anking .g ov i ssues As with our analysis of the campaigning online context, we see social Clinton does not present herself as the champion for wom and Ted Kennedy both received the highest possible score on the issue in both June and Issue Consistency between Campaign and Senate Contexts We have multiple ways that we can examine the importance of issues in constructing the senatorial self. Looking within a single context, we can track the relative

PAGE 100

100 importance of issues at three points in time, March, June, and November. The previous two sect ions provide evidence for some degree of consistency within the campaign and Senate online contexts. The fact that common issues were able to be identified at all three points in time within contexts is encouraging for the idea of stability and consistenc y in the construction of the digital self. To add another analytical dimension, we can look at issues between two contexts during these three points in time. This means that we can look at issues in any variation of six different ways, with the most poss ible depth being across the two Web contexts (campaign and Senate ) at three different points in time (March, June, and November). Below is a summary of the highest and lowest ranking issue categories within the campaign and constituent Web contexts. The se issues were calculated by ranking the presence and issue space given to each context during March, June, and November. The categories listed below were ones that fell in the top or bottom three issue space means across all three time periods. Table 5 1 Highest and lowest ranking i ssues Campaign Senate High Jobs and economy Defense and foreign p olicy State specific conte nt Low Campaign f inance Campaign finance Budget Welfare Consumer issues To look at this slightly differently, we can also look at the commonalities between contexts over the course of the three points in time. The table below reflects the highest and lowest ranking issues, considering both time and space.

PAGE 101

101 Table 5 2 Issue similarities between t ime and c ontext Low High March Campaign f inance Defense/foreign p olicy Welfare June Campaign Finance Immigration Welfare Energy/Gas Nov ember Campaign Finance Defense/foreign p olicy Looking between the two conte xts, we see the defense/for eign policy category makes its way into the top three issues in both contexts for two of the three observation periods (March and November). Campaign finance finds its way into the bottom three issues in both contexts across all three periods. Welfare proves to be a close follower to campaign finance, making an appearance in the bottom three issues two out of the three months (March and June). Out of the twenty three coded issues, we see a clear level of consistency between the highest and lowest ranking categories across both time and space. While this consistency is not absolute, looking at the highest and lowest ranking issues, it is substantial. The most important issues stood the tests of time and space, as did the least i mportant ones. These issues did not represent isolated incidences of discussion. They were highly cited topics that actively worked to shape the online presence for 2006 Senate incumbents across time and space. Looking at the broader picture, we also se e consistency between the five major election issues identified by voters and the issues most frequently discussed on campaign and Senate Web contexts. Although the Wisconsin Ad project issue categories used for

PAGE 102

102 coverage, we can still see clear patterns between the two data sources. Recall the CNN bar chart on page two. They cited the most important issues as being the War in Iraq, terrorism, the economy, immigration, and m oral issues. The chart above clearly shows the relative importance of defense and foreign policy in this dissertation, giving us the first of a few similarities. Looking deeper beneath the surface, we see that the economy and moral issues were also very important to incumbent senators in both contexts, falling in the top five issues mentioned. The consistency between these two data sources points to an intriguing type of connection between incumbent senators and their constituents. Ideal Type Having ju st explored the place issues have on campaig n and Senate.gov web pages, we can point to an example of an incumbent sue candidate We can think of this candidate as representing an ideal type becaus e she exemplifies someone who places issues well be yond any other element on her Web page As we will explore, there were a few characteristics on her Web page that helped her to stand out above others in terms of her dedication towards a single issue. I n 2006, Ma ria Cantwell was the Democratic Party incumbent from Washington Her major issue was protecting the environment, a theme that ran throughout her campaign and Senate.gov Web pages. Most of the other issues she discussed, such as energy independence, were couched within the larger theme of protecting the environment. While some other candidates devoted substantial levels of Web space to one particular issue, ghts, there were a few

PAGE 103

103 characteristics that hel ped Senator Cantwell stand out as an ideal type. Starting with the April 4 th archives, her campaig n home page featured a petition, making her one of only two candidates that offered this resource. She dedica ted her whole campaign home page citizens to co sponsor the Roadless Area Conservation Act. At the same time, her Senate.gov Web page had a video clip of her talking about the environment and the benefits of exploring natural energy sources. one particular issue both between and within the campaign and Senate.gov contexts was striking The inclusion of an online petition online videos, and letter to constituents regarding this one issue helped to Images Beyond considering issues, a nother approach to measuring senatorial consistency is to examine the images presented o n the multiple Web contexts over time. Like the discussion of issues or tools, images represent yet another piece of the overall puzzle of senatorial presentation. Recall that every home page picture on both the campaign and constituent Web contex ts was assigned a score from 1 to 5 One means that the incumbent wa s not in the picture at all, 2 meaning the Senator was th e only one in the picture, 3 meaning he or she was in the pict ure with one or two others, 4 meaning the Senator was seen wi th three or m ore others, and 5 representing the presence of a pictorial slideshow. Images were captured along the same timeline as the issues, with data being collected in late March, early June, and early November. Also similar to the issues section, we can take a m ean

PAGE 104

104 score across these three timelines to understand more about how these images changed throughout the course of the election. We see that the way the incumbent senators elected to present themselves through images remained very consistent within but not between the two contents during our three observation points. On their campaign home page, incumbents utilized 114 total pictures in March, 95 in June, and 95 in November. These figures are noticeably lower than those on their Senate Web pages, observed at 139 for March, 114 for June, and 123 for November. Figure 5 6 Home page i mages There are a few interesting trends to note in the table above. First, the number of images on the Senate page, when taken in the aggregate, outnumbers those on the campaign page 376 to 304, just shy of 20% more imagery. 33 Another interesting trend is the overall decrease in images around the primary season. One may intuitively expect to see the amount of images go up as the election cycle pr ogressed to November,

PAGE 105

105 particularly on the campaign page. We see this is not the case for either context. This may be because the images are being displaced for other things, such as digital tools. To get a sense of the types of images that are present o n the home pages, we can take a look at the mean, median, and mode statistics between our two contexts over time. Figure 5 7 Digital i mages We see a consistent mode of one both between and within the campaign and Senate conte xts across throughout the three periods. This indicates that the most common type of image on both contexts was one that did not include the incumbent. Some of the more frequently shown images included American and state flags, state seals, images of sta te specific landscape, and the U.S. Capitol. Further bolstering the evidence for pictorial consistency, the mean, median, and mode statistics remain constant when we look within contexts. The median and mean are higher for campaign contexts across all th ree data observation points, indicating a greater prevalence of pictures that include the Senator in campaign home page images. 33 These figures repre sent counting each image on the page across all three contexts. It is likely that some of the pictures remained the same, thus these statistics include duplicates. It does not represent statistics for

PAGE 106

106 Slideshows as a glimpse of the dynamic self As new technology develops, candidates increasingly will have new and creative wa ys to present themselves on digital contexts. In present day, the usage of virtual slideshows is still rather new in the online political circle. Slideshows allows for s sitting on their page. Slideshow images fade in and out, creating an engaging atmosphere while the web browser is in a passive state. The notion that images no longer have to be considered on a static dimension allows for the possibility of a much more dynamic presentation of self in political contexts. Yet, while virtual slideshows are ever present in contexts such as Myspace.com, political Webmasters have yet to catch up to this technology. Campaign Web pages are typically the venue where we first se e new technology being tried out in the political sphere. This is likely because, as reflected in some of the in depth interviews, candidates use the digital context as a means of competition and constantly trying to outdo their opponent. This type of co mpetitive perspective lends itself well to delving into new digital ideas. One of the more memorable pages to election page. Drawing on the interactive power of Flash codi Webmaster created sliding home page menus that revealed unique pictures when touched. time. In 2006, the usage of flash and other similar tech nology for the construction of imagery and animation was surprisingly low. While incumbent pages were loaded with the number of unique images used across the three poi nts in time.

PAGE 107

107 features and information, overall, they lacked this dimension of developing technology. As reflected in the table below, we barely saw a mor e basic form of changing imagery in the usage of digital slideshows. Table 5 3 Slideshow u sage March June November Senate 0 0 0 Cam paign 2 3 3 We see that slideshow tec hnology was not used at all in Senate Web pages, and used relatively sparingly on campaign sites. The incumbent candidates who embraced virtual slideshows as windows into the self were Senators Ensign, Allen, and Akaka. The rotating presentation of self allowed for these candidates to interchange between different types of images. While it is somewhat surprising that slideshows are not yet used on Senate Web pages, it is likely something to look for on the near future. l ocalized c Images played an important role in helping with the identification of a As discussed in Gul digital presentations local candidat es often downplay their relationship with Washington in favor of having more items that help connect them to their home constituency Recall our earlier discussion of Senator Maria Cantwell and her usage of online petitions and streaming video to set her images play an important role in help ing to identify Democratic Senator Dan Akaka of Hawaii as a localized

PAGE 108

108 Most of the candidates studied in this dissertation dedicated some digital space to talking about the needs of their constituents. For some, this came in the form of a letter on either their campaign or Senate.gov page. Others highlighted their support for local age, imagery and content help set him apart as having a significant focus on the people of Hawaii. His connection to Washington was minimized on both his Senate.gov and campaign pages. Being a representative of a non con tiguous state, Senator Akaka had some notable advantages to help him distinguish himself from Washington. These included the usage of both verbal and non verbal cues relating back to his home area. His campaign home ch] Images feature him wearing a lei. Landscape photos are unmistakably of Hawaiian shores and flowers. Other candidates lack the ability to relate with constituents through th eir own unique language, and imagery may be mistaken for other contiguous st ates. The presence of such unique characteristics and his consistent usage of them on both his Senate.gov and campaign Web pages, helps As discussed in the previous section, the usage of slideshows h elped Senator Akaka to reveal a dynamic digital self. It also assisted him in creating a deeper localized self. His campaign slideshow images all featured pictures of Hawaii, either landscape alone or the Senator with Hawaiian constituents. These pictur es actively capture the Web slideshow helps to accentuate this aspect of his digital presentation. Thus, the usage of slideshow technology helps one to identify S enator Akaka as a localized ideal type.

PAGE 109

109 Digital Tools A third important facet of digital presentation described by the Webmaster respondents was the presence of specific online tools and features. For Senate sites, these included things like contact info rmation and constituent service links. For campaign pages, features included items such as press releases and the ability to contribute money. These and other items come together to create a digital sense of self. With technological tools continually de veloping, it is useful to understand the frequency with which these tools are used. It is even more interesting to compare these tools across different contexts. We can start off by examining the most popular Web tools across the campaign and Senate digi tal contexts. These statistics stem from the November archives, giving us a snapshot of the tools utilized just before the election. The most popular features were the existence of a photo gallery, welcome letter or video, contact information directly lo cated on the home page, and a link to a biographical page. Figure 5 8 Most popular web t ools

PAGE 110

110 Even though campaign and Senate Web pages represent two different contexts and have two unique agendas, we do see overlap in the usag e of certain tools and features. However, we see signs that these unique agendas do lead to a degree of divergence in the tools used. There were numerous items that appeared on one context but not the other. Some items that received attention only on th e campaign home page were the ability to donate money (66.7%), volunteering through the home page (54.2%), mentioning the opponent (27.3%), and offering a familial presence (25%). Only one incumbent offered a familial presence on the Senate home page. Co nversely, the Senate specific items included offering a link to constituent services (82.6%), a link to or about the state (20.4%), a link specifically for students (50%), and offering a section about their activities as mentioned in the news (91.3%). T he fact that some of these items appear in great frequency in one context and not at all on another shows us that consistency is not a thought when creating certain features. Campaigns need to solicit money and volunteers, while Senate offices need to hel p constituents find different services. It makes sense that total consistency cannot and should not be achieved. While it is intriguing that family presence appears on a quarter Senate p age, it is helpful to remember that home pages are finite spaces. Information must be prioritized. Considering Overall Consistency and Change Thus far, we have individually considered the role that images, issues, and tools play in the development of the digital self. Reflecting on the presence of these items in isolation of one another is both interesting and insightful. To take it a step further, the

PAGE 111

111 next progression is to see how all of these elements come together on the campaign and Senate Web page s. As in the previous analysis, we can look at the two online contexts across a span of three observations. The chart below shows the number of home page changes across both digital contexts. In compiling this data, each senatorial Web page was compared with itself from period to period. For example, the June campaign data was calculated by comparing the March site for an individual senator to the June site for that same individual. The number of changes from one period to the next were tabulated. The se changes could be pictorial, issue based, tool based, headlines, or other categories. The June page for a particular senator was then compared to the November page of that same individual, giving us the basis for the November figures. These figures wer e then calculated for each context. Figure 5 9 Web page c hanges The figure above reflects a modest number of changes for both contexts as measured in both June and November. All four lines indicate that there were a handful o f

PAGE 112

112 senators who did not change their home page between points in time. We see steady amounts of change leading up to the 4 to 6 changes per home page category. The June Senate pages were most dynamic, with fifteen senators making seven or more changes to their Senate page at that time. Only one person made zero changes in their Senate page between the March and June observations. There is definitely a degree of subjectivity when interpreting the above chart. On one hand, we can see evidence of change am ongst both contexts at all observed periods of time. On the other hand, one can easily question how significant these changes are. To make four to six changes to a home page may not be regarded as meaningful. In the scope of a detailed home page with ma ny photos and headlines, making more than seven changes may not be that substantial either. Considering the implications of these findings Web browsers. Change in Competit ive Versus Non Competitive Races One can also consider overall consistency and change in respect to race competitiveness. It is thought provoking to consider how much incumbent candidates in competitive races change their digital image when compared to incum bents in non competitive races. One may be quick to assert that if an incumbent feel s the y will likely win, he or she may take a conservative approach to changing their online presence. In other w ords, why change a good thing? A s the campaign respo ndents described in chapter 4 change can be a good thing in itself. It can give the impression that the incumbent is busy and that he or she is responding to the ever changing needs of the

PAGE 113

113 co nstituency. With that perspective, one could make strong argum ents for both sides of the coin. A useful resource to learn more about the vulnerability of incumbents is the Cook Political Report a non partisan Web site that reports on House, Senate, gubernatorial, and presidential races. 34 Charles Cook, editor and publisher of the Report, posts various documents detailing different races. One of th ese documents is a race rating where all of the seats up for re election are placed into four categories: toss up, lean, likely, and solid. The placement of each incumbe nt in to one of the se four categories helps site browsers to understand the chances of any given seat switching parties in the upcoming election. Using the Cook Report as a resource in conjunction with the Web page data archived for this dissertation it is possible to compare seat vulnerability with the number of Web page changes. For this analysis, the November 8 th Cook Report was used to help determine the average number of Web changes in different types of races 35 We can regard r aces falling into Cook competitive, and races categorized as either toss We see that on average, candidates in both competitive and non competitive races make similar amounts of ch anges to bo th their Senate.gov and campaign Web presentations. 34 To learn more about the Cook Political Report, see http://www.cookpolitical.com/about/default.php 35 Please see appendix K for the November 8 th Cook Report.

PAGE 114

114 Figure 5 10 Competitive versus non competitive r aces campaign and Senate.gov contexts, but by a very small margin. It is i nteresting to see that candidates in different types of races are making similar amounts of c hanges to their digital selves. This likely speaks to the fact that change is not necessarily a bad thing, and cannot be predicted based on competitiveness of the seat. Both successful and troubled candidates engage in this behavior. Lincoln Chafee, Republican from Rhode Island, was one of the more prolific candidates in terms of making changes. Categorized afee fou nd himself in the maximum change code category over seven changes between archives, during all three observed periods. This applies to both his campaign and Senate.gov web site. Also finding herself in the maximum Web page change code category w as New York Senator over seven changes between archives on her campaign and Sen ate.gov Web page throughout all

PAGE 115

115 three observed periods. While we cannot be certain wha t prompts digital change, looking at the aggregate, the data provided above indicates that competitiveness of the seat does not appear to be a significant factor Unfortunately, this dissertation cannot shed light on the tangible implications of making one change for to six changes, or seven or more changes per home page. As will be discussed in the next chapter, exploring that question through Web based experiments would give scholars a unique perspective on this question. However, this lack of concrete empiri cal evidence does not preclude us from making some educated guesses. We can draw on some of the insights from our in depth interviews to help us in this exercise. Recall some of the goals Webmasters talked about in the construction of their pages. A few of the campaign respondents talked about the importance of trying to intimidate their opponent. If a candidate has a static Web page, they are not actively working to achieve this goal. The one Democratic challenger Webmaster interviewed for this projec gave his candidate confidence that he could dominate the liberal online constituency. A second self, also as spoken to by some of the Webmaster respondents, is giving the media and constituents the appearance of being busy. One respondent equated the perception of being busy wi th the perception of covering a winning campaign. By changing images, headlines, and features, it gives off the perception that the campaign is actively working on their digital presence. Additionally, offering updated press releases and online

PAGE 116

116 calendars gives potential incentive for the media to come back to the page at a later point in time. Thus, some degree of digital change has positive implications for both the Senate and campaigning contexts. Conclusion The question of context is a central cons ideration in politics. Thinking about who you are talking to, what their needs are, and what appeals to them to gain their vote are all important in a campaigning and representative context. This dissertation considers campaign and Senate .gov Web pages a s two different political e contexts. These places both reside within the world of our larger politics but are created by different staff members who have separate agendas. Senate offices are the first line of contact for constituents, offering help and Campaign offices aim to get the candidate elected or re perspectives and persuading constituents that he/she is worthy of their vote. In both contexts, a presentat ion of self must be constructed. Here, we are attempting to understand how consistent these selves are on the two digital contexts, and how they are similar and/or different. In considering how this self is developed, we first individually considered the topics of issues, images, and technological tools. These elements were then considered collectively to get an overall measure of change and consistency between and within the campaign and Senate digital context. The data reveals an interesting mixture o f similarities and differences between the two e contexts. The exploration of issues shows consistency with the least and most cited topics both between and within contexts over time. Our exploration of pictures reflected a little more diversity between contexts, with

PAGE 117

117 campaign home pages more frequently showing images that include the incumbent by him or herself, as well as with others. Senate pages offer more pictures of landscape and images with unidentifiable people. Finally, our exploration of tools also gave us mixed results in terms of consistency between contexts. While biographical statements, contact information, photo galleries and welcome messages all played an important role in home pages on both contexts, there was great diversity in some o f the other features and tools. Numerous tools were common on one context, while not seen at all on the other. In thinking about why some issues, images, or tools may take privilege over others, we must remember that space on any given home page is limit ed. It represents a finite context. Some pages are atypically long, such as Myspace profiles. Campaign and Senate home pages do not take on this type of look, likely because Webmasters want to give off a clean appearance. From that perspective, incumbe nts must be selective in what they choose to put on this valuable real estate. What we see is a byproduct of this difficult selection process, for which many factors play a role. The next chapter brings together findings from the qualitative and quantita tive see how drastically incumbents can alter their digital presentation when faced with a challenge. This chapter will ultimately illuminate the importance of contex t in the development of the self.

PAGE 118

118 CHAPTER 6 C Y Background The election of 2006 proved to be dynamic in many respects, with the political world watching Democrats gain six seats in the Senate thirty seats in th e House, and six governorships across the country (CNN online, 2006). Fueled in part by a general disapproval with the war in Iraq, powerful Republican incumbents tumbled, including Jim Talent (R MS), Rick Santorum (R PA), and George Allen (R VA). Other incumbents dodged bullets by changing the nature of their candidacy, as is in the case of Joe Lieberman (I CT) who changed party affiliation after his upset in the Democratic primary. This chapter hanged throughout the course of the 2006 election. Four phases will be described in detail. We begin with Lieberman presenting a conservative yet informative image of a powerful incumbent. After losing the primary, we see a clear phase of redefinition, with his Web page being nothing but a brief letter to constituents. His Independent Democrat phase offers a striking contrast to the previous two phases, offering harsh criticism of Ned Lamont and a much more aggressive styling. The final stage is that o f a hijacked away from him. All together, these four phases represent a dramatic spectrum of senatorial presentations.

PAGE 119

119 Joe Lieberman, the Incumbent It was no surpris e when Democrat Joe Lieberman announced he would be seeking his forth term in the U.S. Senate A very popular incumbent, Lieberman came to power in 1988 by upsetting moderate Republican Lowell Weicker by a margin of 10,000 votes. Lieberman never looked b ack, winning his next three elections by significant victories. In 1994, he landed the biggest landslide ever in the history of Connecticut Senate races, raking in sixty seven percent of the vote (Lieberman Senate Web page, 2006). While Lieberman had an unsuccessful bid for the vice presidency in 2000, and again four years later for the presidency, he was still able to retain his Senate seat, winning reelection in both 2000 and 2006. The race in 2006 was a far cry from his previous landslide victories, w ith no political forecaster being able to predict the viability of Democratic challenger Ned Lamont. Ned Who? Ned Lamont, a successful businessman from the Southwest region of Fairfield County, announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate on March 13, 2006. A virtual political newcomer, his only experience in office was in the capacity of a selectman for the town of Greenwich, as well as various civic boards. Starting the campaign as a virtual unknown throughout the State, nobody could have imagined the fig ht he would give Lieberman throughout the course of the race. Amidst heated negative sentiments towards President Bush and the Iraq war, Lamont consistently attacked the popular incumbent on television and the radio throughout the duration of the race. Ac cusing Lieberman of being a loyal Bush supporter, Lamont painted his opponent as a staunch Republican and disloyal Democrat.

PAGE 120

120 He continually reminded constituents that Lieberman voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution, and attacked his attendance on the Senate floor. This message began to take hold in route to the primary, and Lamont slowly started to gain name recognition throughout the State. By July, Lamont found himself in a statistical dead head with the Lieberman in statewide polls. It became in creasingly obvious that Lieberman was in trouble and that defensive and he began to flounder in his support of the Iraq war. Lamont creatively ake his point about the need for new blood in the Senate Weicker, Lamont captured a video file of Lieberman stating he would never run for four consecutive terms in the Senate This message bombarded airwaves in the weeks leading up to the election, and on August 8, 2006, the previously unknown challenger made national headlines by beating the three time incumbent in the Democratic primary. Choice Time for the Lieberman Campai gn In the days leading up to the primary, Lieberman began collecting signatures to get on the ballot as an Independent candidate. While he likely would have preferred to keep this move silent, keeping it quiet until after the primary, he was forced to ab ide by Connecticut campaign laws. State statutes required him to submit 7,500 valid signatures the day after the primary in order to earn a place on the November ballot (Associated Press, 2006). Despite narrowly losing the primary by 10,119 votes, Lieb erman was ultimately able to capitalize on the large Independent base in the State, as well as the lack of a viable

PAGE 121

121 Republican challenger. He took 70% of the Republican vote in the general election (Hartford Courant, 2006). Lieberman went on to win the N ovember general election by 115,648 votes over his Democratic challenger (CNN online, 2006). The Value of this Case Negative sentiments surrounding the war in Iraq helped to bring us numerous interesting House and Senate races in 2006. Many Republican inc umbents were forced to agenda. This meant making difficult decisions regarding how to present themselves to the public during the course of their campaign. These type s of decisions likely included considering what issues to stress, what alliances to highlight, and how to portray a party allegiance while appealing to voters. While it has happened throughout the course of U.S. history, it is relatively rare that an incu mbent will switch party affiliation, particularly at the senatorial level. 36 It is even more notable when this switch occurs during the course of an election. Due to this rarity, the Connecticut Senate race provides a particularly unique context for explo ring how Congressmen tactically change their Web presentation of self. The reality of Lamont winning the primary forced Lieberman to make a very difficult campaign decision: to continue running for U.S. Senate without the backing of the Democratic Party, or to drop out of the race all together. Believing he could draw strength from Democratic leaning Republicans and Independents, both of whom were ineligible to vote in the primary, Lieberman decided to stay in the race under the newfound label of 36 For a comprehensive list of representatives who switched parties, visit < http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pa/party_switching_in_the_united_states.htm >.

PAGE 122

122 37 With this new label came a significant shift in his presentation of self, both in the online and offline worlds. ntity first influenced the behavior of another entity. We particularly see this debate within the subfield of political communication, with the unresolved question of if the media influences the larger politics, or if the larger politics influences the me dia. I believe this case study is important, in part, because it offers unique pieces of evidence for both sides of this debate. We will see substantial the race. On the other side of the spectrum, we will explore how the hacking and including harsh accusations in various offline mainstream media contexts. Thus, this case study prov ides us with evidence that the online media both influences and is influenced by our larger politics. Scholars in the field of political science are fortunate in that politics are far from predictable. Initially, conducting a case study of the Connecticut Senate race was not part of my methodological approach, as it was nearly impossible to predict that this race would come to play out the way it did. It was through the weekly Web page archiving process that the excitement of this case became clear. By v iewing and saving each Web This is an important reason why I ultimately decided to focus this study on Senate incumbents, as opposed to both House and Senate I felt th at the small number of cases 37 rm

PAGE 123

123 would allow me to gain an intimacy with the data that likely could not have been gained otherwise. The Lieberman case study arose from this benefit. While other incumbents made image changes in both their senatorial and campa ign capacities during this time, as the other chapters in this study explore, no through a complete candidate overhaul. Quantitative analysis simply cannot adequately c apture the scope or depth of these changes, giving this chapter an important place in this study. One additional element that makes this case interesting is an interview that I was able to obtain with a staff member of the Lamont campaign, Ray. 38 Ray inte rested me as a respondent because of his high level of activity on the Lamont campaign and local liberal blogs. I got in touch with him electronically through the Lamont blog, and he agreed to be a part of this study. A forty five minute telephone interv iew was conducted approximately a week after the general election. Quotes from this interview are offered brings a unique breath of life into this case study, offering opponent and someone who is very active in and familiar with the Connecticut bloggosphere. The depth of the topics brought up by Ray again lead us to consider the great benefit of qualitative research. Scholars may be quic k to dismiss the findings in this chapter because it talks about a sample of one. Since quantitative analysis is privileged because one can generalize from the results, this is an easy trap for people to fall into. However, some 38 Ray is a randomly assigned pseudonym used to protect the true identity of the respondent.

PAGE 124

124 political scientists atte mpt to remind us that a case study of one holds substantial value. Most notable, King, Keohane, and Verba (1994) offer part of a research program. If there are other single observations, perhaps gathered by other researchers, against which it can be compared, it is no longer a This Lieberman case study is offered in hopes that it encourages others to bring new examples to the political science and sociological literatures. The Four Faces of Lieberman The Democratic Phase While vying for the Democratic nomination, Lieberman kept a very up to date, conservatively bland campaign home page. The upper an accomplishment of the day that changed daily. The center of the page featured a letter from Joe, or on days where a special campaign event was would find a bar with mu browsers to his stances on different issues. Elements that were immediately striking upon reading the cont ent were how he consistently embedded the topics under the umbrella of being a fighter, offered scarce mention of his opponent, and used a lot of words to describe himself. interactivit y. There was no blog, no streaming video, and no personalized interactive Web page was a joke. It was not interactive. It just had a few articles that were updated,

PAGE 125

125 no b Senate impacted their personal lives. based interacti ve out information but taking little in return and offering no personalization. The message was all about Joe, controlled solely by Joe. In addition to pictures, logos and other media, the usage of language is very pre primary campaign home page reveals strong support for his self portrayal as a nd home campaign. 39 We also see virtually no mention of his opponent, something that will change dramatically as we explore later 40 This leads to a six times on the home ified forty times. Overall, we see that Lieberman relied heavily on language, using approximately 1,209 words on the home page alone. 41 During the pre primary period, Lieberman stressed his relationship with other Democrats on his campaign Web page. Th is became evident through three main home page features. First, he often highlighted campaign events he had with other Democratic Party figures. This feature would often include a picture of Lieberman with his 39 40 nd campaign home page. The archive of this Web page is available upon request. 41 The 1,209 word count comes from the campaign home page archive dated July 22, 2006.

PAGE 126

126 Democratic ally, brief text about the event, and a quote from the ally focusing on Connecticut to campaign on behalf of Joe. 42 The campaign archive dated July 30 th Directly under the headline 22 nd 2006). Looking at the entire home page, this quot e is the only one that appears in bold text. The second way Lieberman featured his relationship with other Democrats in a his home page. This feature included an ima ge of a person and a caption that described who the individual was. Featured supporters included Democratic candidate for th ) and Planned Parenthood (July 22 nd ). While a similar feature was pre sent in the post primary version of his Web page, Lieberman did not specifically refer to those supporters as Democrats during this time, again demonstrating the importance of his party connection in the pre primary stage. The third main feature that ref in his self on, and took users to a page of lin ks to other Democratic candidates, the DNC, and other Party related pages. As the primary campaign moved forward, the title of this hotlinked 42 This highl ight could be viewed on the July 22 nd and 30th archives.

PAGE 127

127 th archive). This feature did not appear on his camp aign Web page after his primary loss. The Transitional Phase relatively barren for approximately one month. 43 The campaign left up the same image of Joe in the upper left hand corner, These were the only hyperlinked options on the page, which went unchanged during this month. The essence of the transitional Web page was a letter explaining why Joe wanted to continue his candidacy. 44 The vagueness and lack of information present on his campaign Web page resembled the suddenly quiet persona he gave off in the real world immediately following the primary loss. This was likely a time of redefinition; a time where the Senator and his campaign staff had to decide what it meant to be Joe Lieberman, browsers, contained approximately 271 words. 45 This is in stark contrast to the 1,209 words used in the firs t phase of the campaign home page, a time when his candidacy had definition and direction. The information he provided in the letter did give us insight into one element of his future campaign, that of a bipartisan orientation. During this transitional t ime, site visitors that read the letter got hints as to the Web letter alert us to this re creation as a bipartisan candidate. 43 th and September 10 th archiving. 44 45 Thi s word count was conducted on the Lieberman campaign home page archive dated August 14 th 2006.

PAGE 128

128 ctually getting done in Washington ngs Senate 2006) 46 These quotes give us a good feel for the candidate Lieberman is about to transform into, foreshadowing his shift to a more bipartisan entity that becomes apparent in the third stage of his campa ign. As we will explore in the next section, it is indeed true that the bipartisan theme in these statements becomes one of the major platforms for the An interesting point regarding the transitional phase in Li identity was the length in which it existed. During this period, Lieberman was in the national spotlight, and vigorously continued his campaign activity in the offline world. On August 9 th fline campaign moved on to the new stage of his candidacy, but his online campaign was very slow to follow suit. Democrat took over a month could be the result of a few factors. It could be that the campaign was under a high degree of stress, and the development of Web content was not a high campaign gave very careful consideration to the devel opment of the new Web content and needed the month to put out a quality product. Since the layout of the page went through a complete overhaul, as we will explore in the next section, programming and Web design may have taken the full month. Brainstormin g new Web content may have added to this design delay. According to Ray, our respondent from the Lamont

PAGE 129

129 campaign, Lieberman brought new communication staff members on board after his primary loss, and they may have needed time to get acquainted with the c ampaign in order to make this online transition. campaign as an Independent Democrat was al ready in motion in the real world, that offline self definition likely helped the campaign staff to determine how to project the Senator online. As we will see in the next phase, there was a high degree of media sharing between the radio, television, and Web streaming video. This type of connection between the online and offline campaign did not exist in the pre primary stage. Now, the with offline media flexing its The Independent Democrat Phase long transitional period came to an end, what emerged was nothing like what Web browsers had seen before. The Senator completed his Independent Democrat pers ona with a Web page that would last throughout the duration of the campaign. The background was different, the color scheme had changed, new headlines filled the home page, and perhaps most critically, the demeanor and content presentation was radically altered. The time the campaign spent with the Web page down was clearly not for maintenance purposes; it was to construct a whole new candidate in the digital and real world. There were many dramatic changes to the new campaig n Web page, with one of the most striking being the difference in word count compared to the previous two 46 letter, August 9 th through approximately September 10th

PAGE 130

130 phases. Where the pre primary home page featured 1,209 words, the post primary page had only 153 words. 47 This is an amazing transition, giving those 153 words on the new page a heightened importance. Beyond a significant change in the number of words used, we also saw a dramatic shift in the nature of the content. Whereas Lieberman had a clear focus on himself in the pre primary stage, defining his opponent took on a much more prevalent role in the Independent Democrat phase of this online campaign. Recall that the pre primary phase seem like that significant of a change, examining the placement of those key words gives us a much clearer picture about how important those words are in the scope of the page. Also, considering how those words are used in context gives us a better sense of their relative importance. In the home page archives leading up the primary, it was very difficult to find about half of the senatorial debate that took place on July 6 th The Lieberman campaign writes, Debate Highlights Lieberman's Strong Record of Delivering for CT and Lamont's Uncertainty and Senate July 22 nd mentioned one more time in that article. In a dramatic twist, Lieberman becomes much more cynical in the contexts in which he refers to his opponent in his post primary 47 The 153 approximate word count comes from the campaign home page archive dated September 10 th 2006.

PAGE 131

131 presence. Thes e quotes below come from a September archive of the Lieberman campaign home page. in rman for Senate September 10, 2006) While Lieberman ran a few negative television ads against Lamont prior to the primary, his Web page had virtually nothing of the sort. Space on his new page was largely dedicated to painting Lamont in a negative ligh t. This strategy persisted from the September 10 th archive through the end of the election. Examining the October 29 th archive, Lieberman has two attacks on Lamont that are clearly visible upon visiting the site. They come in the form of creative icons, both of which have messages contained within the images. The first attack can be found on the lower right hand corner of the home page, and comes in the form of a brown piece of paper with a wrinkle on the Full while black text underneath that reads, what specifically the reference is about, there is a clear message that constituents do not know everything they need to know a bout Ned. This message entices browsers to explore the Web page further, a creative element that was nonexistent in the Democratic straight edged Joe. More than in the previous two stages of the campaign, Lieberman visibly mixed his offline and online campaign presentations during his Independent Democrat phase. The top right corner of his new Web page featured commercials the campaign was airing

PAGE 132

132 on local television programming. These commercials clearly had a bipartisan tone, focusing on experience a nd desire to help the Connecticut constituency. One commercial that ran on television and on his Web page featured the Senator at a chalkboard. With a line drawn through the middle of two polar opposite labels, Democrat and Republican, the Senator talks about the importance of a bipartisan effort. He recites his new Looking at the new campaign home page, one would not be able to determine what party Lieberman was associated with. The top of the home page had an image of a Senate page was red and blue, encompassing both the traditional Demo crat and Republican colors. As the general election came closer, the campaign uploaded an icon of a sign that 48 This image linked to a page detailing various Democrats who were sup as an Independent. For a period of two weeks, from October 1 st through October 15 th a new hyperlink appeared where browsers could view the Connecticut and national list of Democrats who were supporting Joe. Interestingly, this hy perlink disappeared before the next weekly Web archiving took place. Towards the end of October, the Lieberman campaign spent a lot of time on the very bottom, a real and online campaigns made ballot placement a major issue, and again, we saw offline 48 This icon was visible from the archives dated October 1 st through the general election. As noted, the nature of this icon did change.

PAGE 133

133 again made their w ay onto campaign Web space. The campaign created a jingle which aired on local radio channels, which subsequently found its way to a center headline on the topic, which aired in the upper right hand corner of the Web page. The presentation of radio and television ads on the campaign Web space was a new phenomenon that The Hijacked Phase: The Case fo r a Forth Identity commonality: they were all identities that were consciously created by the campaign. space; a place where he was in total control of his message and could upload whatever images and text he chose appropriate at the time. The next identity that will be described is different in that control was clearly taken away from the campaign, with th e message being created by some unauthorized author. A hacked identity offers a forth identity for the Lieberman campaign, however unwanted this identity may be. three times, including a hijacking period that included the day before, of, and after the primary. 49 It is possible the Web page was hacked or hijacked more times, taking place between the weekly Web archiving. When the Web page was hacked, the nature of the content alteration made it clear that the authenticity of the page had been violated. Excluding the page hijacking the night before the primary, the hacker went out of his or

PAGE 134

134 her way to advertise the accomplishment of breaking into the security of the site. The content of the altered page varied. In one instance, the hacker left just a white home page including the day before, of, and after the primary, the page went offline completely. With Lieberman and Lamont clawing for primary votes, the 72 hour hijacking surrounding the primary became the center of a heated political battle. The Lieberman campaign accused Lamont supporters of disabling his Web page the day before the primary. Ray, our Lamont campaign respondent, describes how the Lieberman campaign was quick to point fingers at Lamont supporters: which is the most ludicrous thing in the w (Ray interview, 2006). s supporters of inflicting what is known as a based attack occurs when a hacker wants to have a specific Web page unavailable to online browsers at a particular point in time. It is execute d by attacking the Web server such that it cannot 1997). It is considered a cybercrime to initiate Dos attacks, and as a result, the Lieberman campaign asked the Connecti criminal investigation. The evidence tends to support the fact that the Lamont campaign, as well as its supporters, played no role in the disabling of the Lieberman Web page the day before the 49 It is possible that the number of successful hacking attempts is higher, indicat ing the Web site was hijacked between the weekly archival for this dissertation. It is also possible that there were other

PAGE 135

135 primary. Multiple so urces confirmed that the Lieberman campaign used a very low budget Internet host, paying $15 a month. By comparison, the Lamont campaign was paying $1500 to have their Web page hosted online. On December 20, 2006, the Connecticut Attorney General conclud ed that no criminal activity had taken place in the disabling the Lieberman Web page. While we can never be sure what or who was ultimately responsible for the site disabling, it is difficult to overlook the basic fact that one often gets what they pay fo r. Paying $15 a month for Web hosting means that the capacity of the Web server to take on significant traffic is limited, making the page prone to such outages. Interestingly, Lieberman never pointed fingers or referenced the multiple previous hackings that took place well before the primary. This meant that Lieberman either had no knowledge of the previous hackings, or was attempting to make the final hack seem much more despicable by painting it as an isolated incident that was waged at such an import ant time. If he admitted to previous hackings, his campaign could be criticized for not taking action to better protect their Web page from hackers. Any form of sympathy would likely be significantly diminished, if not lost, in that case. One may be qui ck to question why Lieberman decided to point fingers at the Lamont bloggers as opposed to Lamont campaign itself. Ray gives us interesting insight into this question, theorizing that his negative feelings about bloggers dates back to his experience runni ng for president in 2004. Ray shares left wing whackos, and I think this comes from the presidential election of 2004. think Joe was the frontrunner. You have to look back at the 2004 stuff, because Joe was the frontrunner. Gore took his time deciding if he was going to run in the election. He ended up betrayed by unsuccessful hacking attempts that went undocumented.

PAGE 136

136 think he took that with him into this campaign, and it had a lot to do with why he to get involved online. I mean, he had nothing online before the primary, and after the primary it was a very cynical attempt, but it was successful. It was his that, beca (Ray interview, 2006) current campaigns, and provides insight as to why Lieberman started his online campai gn so conservatively. Even though the presidential election of 2004 may be a distant memory for many Connecticut voters, its influence is still with us. As a candidate, Lieberman carries that losing experience with him, according to Ray, which likely inc ludes a distaste for liberal bloggers. While it is curious to consider who Lieberman pointed fingers at after the hack, it is less surprising that his campaign felt the need to point a finger in the first place. The disabling of the Lieberman Web page pu t the campaign in a very precarious situation. They lost an important resource during a highly critical point of the race. Lieberman attempted to get a positive benefit out of the otherwise negative hack by using it as an supporters. He simultaneously painted himself as an innocent victim. When something as harsh as having your online identity taken away from you arises at such a critical time in the election, options are limited. This was likely one of the only defenses the Senator could muster. Conclusion presence and presentation of self can change dramatically in a short period of time. As we explored in the literature review, campaign Web pages were nothing more than a

PAGE 137

137 basic template just a decade ago, providing very basic information about the candidate. Now, crafting a campaign digital presence is a work of art, with online campaigning being just as dynamic as the political world it lives in. by its outside surroundings. As a powerful Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate his page was busy, informative, and detailed. It served as a great source of camp aign news, experience. During the pre primary period, Lieberman consistently presented himself as a strong fighter looking to better his Connecticut constituency. He was c onfident, professional, and conservative in both the online and offline worlds. As the political climate changed, starting with his loss in the Democratic primary, his online presence followed his offline tailspin. Lieberman was more silent after his lo ss, publicly stating that would continue running, sitting in the background of mainstream media. He sat in the background as he rethought his campaign strategy and image. During this time, his Web page once again changed to blend with the larger politica l climate, with the Web page lying dormant for a period of a month serving as strong evidence. When Lieberman new look, message, and presence both in the digital and r eal world. His online behavior took a queue from his offline behavior, as he became much more aggressive in the way he attacked his opponent. His radio and television ads began to take a role in shaping his online presence. Many facets of this race h ave interesting implications for how we regard the future

PAGE 138

138 multiple times, including the days before, of, and after the primary, reflects the true volatility of such tech nology. While many people tout online politics as the wave of the future, many still have reservations about its total replacement of traditional mediums of may agree wit h the latter sentiment. It further bolsters the argument that nothing beats the candidate going out and speaking to voters face to face, simply because no hacker can eliminate or alter the existence of that presence. was also significant in that it potentially may have only a few minutes to visit a campaign home page. He or she may go the hacked site and never return. Alternativ ely, a hacker could potentially upload a fraudulent campaign web page, representing it as the official one. All cons tituents can do is trust that the campaign and Senate Web pages are maintained by authorized staff members, but as with any site, tight con trol of that Web space cannot be fully guaranteed. negligible, particularly in the context became a hot issue in the mainstream media. The Reaches of Media Influence The Lieberman case study is an instance where we see both online media impacting the larger politics, and the larger politics im pacting online media. The third phase of the Lieberman campaign is illustrative of how Web media responded to the larger political context. It took a long time for the new Independent Democrat Web page

PAGE 139

139 to be operational, but when it was, we saw offline m edia injected into the online presence. This came in the form of streaming video previously aired on television stations, as well as radio commercials, being broadcasted on the home page. During the forth phase, the hacking period, we saw a very differe nt dynamic. Here, activity on the Web page clearly influenced what subsequently happened in the larger political context. After the hacked Web page came back online, the Lieberman campaign wrote an accusatory letter blaming Lamont supporters for the disa blement. 50 Lieberman then went to the Hartford Courant with the story and filed a claim with the Connecticut Attorney General. The online hijacking became an offline debacle that received substantial mainstream press. Ultimately, it is hard to gauge preci online identity was to the outcome of the election. While we know that people are increasingly turning to the Internet as a source of political information, researchers are still at the early stages of measuring h ow look, content, and changes to a Web page may digital look turned off undecided voters. Sensing the cynicism and negativity Lieberman was putting out towards hi s opponent, they may have decided he was not the candidate for them. Viewers may have also sensed a loss towards the featuring of local politics. Others may have liked the Independent vibe Lieberman was portraying in his new look. It is important for sc holars to gain more knowledge about how what we see on the Web impacts our political behavior. This would allow us to understand the larger implications of such presentational shifts in the senatorial presentation of self.

PAGE 140

140 In chap ter 4 Senators Maria Cantwell and Dan Akaka were discussed as presenting us with two unique ideal types. Cantwell unique character istics that set them apart from their Class I colleagues. In this chapter, losing the primary, we witnessed a clear period of re definition. This period was noticeab le because very little information was present on his campaign Web page. When the page came back to life a month later, we saw a very different Lieberman. While not all candidates in crisis may act this way, Lieberman certainly represents one type of rea ction to a viable t h reat. Other candidates may have elected not to switch party affiliations after suffering a primary loss. In that sense, Lieberman provides with an aggressive ideal type when faced with crisis. He not only decided to switch parties, b ut attempted to align himself with both. Capitalizing on a theme of bipartisanship, he was able to dig himself out of crisis and retain his seat in the U.S. Senate. Political Histories Finally, this case study reminds us of the importance of the politica l histories candidates bring to their elections. Even someone as politically established as Joe Lieberman has biases and privileges that can rear their head in the course of any given vulnerability from 2004 translated into a current insecurity towards the bloggosphere. It is possible that Lieberman feels that the liberal Dean bloggers took away his presidential chances, still holding negative sentiments towards the online political w orld. We can see from the 50 See Appendix I to view the content of this letter.

PAGE 141

141 very early stages of the political campaign that Lieberman had little intention to use the Web as an interactive part of his campaign. While he used it to fundraise and collect the names of volunteers, browsers were otherwise p assive. This was in stark contrast to his opponent Ned Lamont, who had an interactive blog and other active features. Lieberman is a good example of political history reliving itself during the first two phases of his Web presence. This case study repre sents the tip of the iceberg in understanding how a senatorial presentation of self is created on the World Wide Web. Lieberman shows us that not even powerful incumbents are immune to digital facelifts, and that these facelifts can sometimes be dramatic. As the Internet becomes an increasingly important tool for the gathering of political information, it behooves us to consider how Web presentation may impact the browsing constituent. Scholars are just beginning to understand how Web presentations are c reated in our political world. As we refine our methods for such studies, future research can address how these presentations change both within and between election cycles. Just as people reflect on how presentations in television debates turn the tide s for political candidates, Web presence may soon gain that same type of prominence. The digital presentation of self is often a calculated, strategic creation that both shapes and is shaped by our larger politics. Lieberman is certainly not the last can didate to have to face difficult Web based decisions. Further research can help illuminate how different aspects of Web design work to shape an online presence. The final chapter of this dissertation brings together the questions, findings, and discussion s posed throughout the course of this dissertation. We will consider what the

PAGE 142

142 case study, interviews, and quantitative analysis collectively say about how and why a construction of self is created on multiple political e contexts. We will also explore ho w one could expand on this research to attack important questions raised throughout this dissertation. When placed in the larger context, it will become apparent how this work represents the first of many steps that need to be taken to better understand h ow senatorial presentation of self is constructed and maintained across space and time.

PAGE 143

143 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION Just as political institutions develop, so does digital technology. With each passing election cycle, we see the Internet playing an incr easingly important role in our politics. What once started out as a simple template with very basic biographical and contact information, political Web pages have developed immensely in their complexity and importance. In this dissertation, we have gaine d deeper insight into how incumbent senators use this technology to develop a digital self. Having explored the progression of Web politics since 1996, we can appreciate the amount of time and effort that has been spent in developing this online presence. This research has introduced new concepts of time and space to our study of the digital self. Through a comprehensive mixed method approach, we explored how incumbent senators running for re election in the 2006 cycle presented themselves on their camp aign and Senate Web pages. This chapter starts off by discussing the broad findings as offered by the previous three chapters. This is followed by a reflection on some of the key points made by our Webmaster respondents, including some criticisms not i ncluded in the qualitative chapter. We then explore the implications of subjectivity, including the results of not having inter coder reliability, weakness of the coding scheme, and the concept of reflexivity. Solid suggestions are offered for those looki ng to expand on this research, followed by a few final words.

PAGE 144

144 The Evolving Digital Self Conclusions Overall, we see interesting patterns of consistency and inconsistency in the construction of the senatorial self. This research demonstrates that the gr eatest degree of consistency exists within similar contexts. We see consistency in the types of digital tools used, as well as the issues discussed the most and least. Evidence of consistency between contexts is apparent, but this is not as dramatic as w ithin the same context, likely because the two venues have very different objectives. Throughout the analysis, readers are continually reminded of how the Senate .gov and campaign contexts are indeed very different. While the two contexts explored here a re representing the same person, they also represent two different offices with diverse motives. These differences actively work to shape unique constructions of the digital self. One can begin by going back to the origination of these pages, specifical ly, looking at the in depth interviews with Webmasters and their perspectives on the goal of each Web context. The respondents identified some very critical differences. For campaigns, the goals of the Web page included fundraising, intimidating the oppo nent, giving information to the media, and empowering supporters. For Senate pages, goals included offering accessible information on constituent services, updating senatorial activity, and offering contact information. These Web based goals are in line with the larger needs of the office, which prove to be very different. This is elaborated on in the following sections.

PAGE 145

145 The implications of these differences are illuminated in the quantitative analysis. We see the usage of different online tools and di gital technology to help aid in achieving these goals. The focus on issues and images also differs between the two contexts. For campaigns, images focused more on the self. Unique tools included the abilities to donate money and sign up for a virtual ne wsletter. For Senate offices, unique tools included the addition of contact information on the home page and a link to constituent services. Images not including the senator were much more prevalent on these pages. The ultimate conclusion to be drawn is that not only office goals, but also the larger political climate, work to create differences both between and within contexts. The case study of Joe Lieberman represents a dramatic shift in self presentation within a single context. Here, we see how an unexpectedly competitive election caused an through substantial changes as the larger politics surrounding the race went in new directions. The in depth interviews al so lead us to conclude that the construction of the Senatorial self is not directly related to the level of technologically savviness that the office workers may have. This is likely a misconception that one unfamiliar with the topic may be quick to concl ude. The interviews revealed that a significant degree of the initial Web page setup is done out of house. Further supporting this argument, many campaign offices went to the same vendor, Campaign Solutions, for Web services. If the office staff members were highly Web savvy, they likely would not feel the need to secure the services of such outside vendors. This indicates that the playing field of

PAGE 146

146 technological knowledge in campaign and Senate offices may be much more level that one would expect. In f inding the most appropriate respondent for the interviews, it was discovered that some of the campaigns had employees dedicated to the digital campaign. It may be possible that these employees were hired after the Web page came online, and thus did not ha ve a chance to create the Web site. However, evidence suggests that these employees were hired for their knowledge of digital strategy, not digital programming. The best example of this came in speaking with a campaign that was accused of hacking into th online strategy, stated that he did not know how to perform such an action, and that the campaign was innocent of such allegations. This was an intriguing finding, given the h igh level of interactivity on one page. The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective Placing these findings in the scope of symbolic interactionism, this research represents yet another example of how people continually work to construct their own reality. As new information comes in to play, senators make changes in accordance to how they think others will interpret their actions. This process results in the ultimate construction of the digital self. Erving Goffman would enjoy reflecting on this senator ial puzzle of how incumbents come to create a digital presence both between and within digital contexts over time. It represents a very complicated phenomenon, mostly because this sense of self is being created within the very volatile world of American p olitics. It is an interesting exercise to reflect on how some of his concepts in self presentation apply to

PAGE 147

147 be applied to both the online and offline political self. Digital Web presence is a unique form of performance through which senators attempt to persuade others that they are legitimate in their roles as candidates and elected officials. Language, tools, and images all represent mechanisms of impression managem ent, working to further persuade viewers that the incumbent is right for the role. The Question of Consistency Questions concerning the importance of senatorial consisten cy were presented in chapter 2 of this dissertation. Given that we see evidence that points to both its importance and relative subdued value, the most appropriate conclusion is that the political climate of the race determines whether or not consistency is a valuable characteristic. Looking at the case of Joe Lieberman, we see great inc onsistency within a single context over the 2006 election cycle. Although he lost the primary, his inconsistency in both the online and offline world resulted in a solid victory in the general election. Although many other factors came into play in helpi ng him retain his Senate seat, his inconsistency did not cost him the election. One could reasonably suggest that his inconsistency, specifically moving more to a bipartisan persona, helped to ensure Ned Lamont could not pull a major upset in the November election. Thus, inconsistency was a valuable characteristic in the content of the 2006 Connecticut Senate race. ng stance on the Iraq war,

PAGE 148

148 According to the Webmaster respondents, change is a positive thing. Some respondents cited it as key way to let the media know that the candidate is keeping busy. These interviews help us to understand that inconsistency should not be looked at in a negative light. Change means the incumbents are being active and responding to what is happening around them. In that sense, change may be an important part of the impression management of incumbent senators. If the change is deemed to be too longer convincing constituents that they are made for the role of senator. If this perception of an inconsistent self is too great, voters will let them know at the voting booth. In moderation, both online and offline change is a healthy thing for our political process. The voters h ave a very powerful role in determining how much change is appropriate at any given time. Voters have another powerful way of expressing what they perceive as acceptable change, public opinion polls. In this dissertation, we explored how the top issues pr esented on the campaign and Senate contexts compared to a public opinion poll of 1,000 American adults. We saw a striking degree of consistency between the multiple data sources, indicating a potential connection between polls and what topics receive the most Web attention. Ultimately, as the perspectives of constituents change as reflected in needs.

PAGE 149

149 Fenno (1978) helps us to understand why different presentations of self ta ke place online. Recall that he describes how the Washington and home constituency roles mix when the goals of each capacity coincide. These roles do not intertwine when the goals of each capacity do not find common ground. In this dissertation, the Web master respondents helped to illuminate some of the different office objectives. We explored how campaigns are attempting to fundraise and recruit volunteers, amongst other things. The Washington office is more focused on sharing information on constitue nt services. Fenno would likely argue that, given that these goals are different, we should not see an intertwining of the Washington and campaign roles. Consequently, t he presentation of self would likely be different on each Web context. Mayhew (1974) may help to explain why we see some degree of consistency in presentation of self. Recall that Mayhew describes three main activities of congressmen. Credit claiming, position taking, and advertising are all ways that politicians attempt to reach their goal of re election. We found that appearing busy, communicating to the media, and offering up to date digital content are all online actions that support Washington and cam paign contexts, this may help facilitate some degree of consistency. Fenno would likely agree with Mayhew on this point, stating that the intertwining of these goals represents an intertwining of capacities. Fenno would further add that the intertwining of these goals and capacities would likely lead to a degree of similarity in presentation of self.

PAGE 150

150 Benefits of Change As illustrated in the diverse examples of Joe Lieberman and John Kerry, change can, at times, be a good thing. These two candidates de monstrate that the potential benefits of change are substantially dictated by the larger politics surrounding the race. tone approaching the general election. Securing the independent base proved to be key in his successful re election bid. Had he maintained the same persona in the online and offline worlds, Ned Lamont may have been victorious in November. opponents. While he may have changed perspectives on an issue, it was the Swift Boat Veterans for ip ment the larger politics defined Kerry. With the definition of his persona quickly getting away from him, he was not able to reap any benefits of change. Change in presentation of self, when carefully calculated, can open up opportunities for candidates. As in the case of Lieberman, it may ope n up the opportunity to appeal to different constituent base. For others, it may bring freshness to the campaign. As noted by the s taff respondents in chapter 4 c hange can be seen as being active, responsive, and busy. It all ultimately depends on how and if the constituency is willing to look upon these changes in a favorable light. With that said, one may reasonably conclude that one of the most central factors associated with change is level of popularity in public opinion polls Polls give both can didates and sitting incumbents an idea of where they stand in the eyes of their

PAGE 151

151 constituents. If the individual is popular, he or she will likely not feel the need to change presentation of the self. If polls show that the probability of re election is slipping away, the candidate will likely want to change something in hopes of attracting voters. In essence, strong politicians will question why they should change a good thing, while floundering politicians will question how they can change an unpopular thing. Respondent Insights Critiques In conducting my in depth interviews, two of the campaign office respondents questioned the importance of this research, saying that they failed to see its impact on including the construction of online negative campaigning through third party blogs and Web pages. Receiving this type of criticism is never easy, and it caused one to question the ultimate importance of their research t o the non academic community. Ultimately, commentary like this helps us to understand what people in the field feel are cutting edge topics for scholars to pursue. It is their way of expressing their priorities to scholars, and as academics, it is import ant that we listen. One of the two respondents pointed out the growing relationship between online ay onto YouTube. responsible for sending the popular incumbent on a downward spiral. We now know that

PAGE 152

152 The criticism and suggestions received from these respondents illuminates two key points. First, there is a vast world of digital campaigning that scholars have yet to give adequate consideration to. This is not because they do not want to, but more beca use there is not enough manpower to do so. Online campaigning is developing at a rate where scholars have a hard time keeping an up to date understanding of our digital politics. The long journal review process does not help this reality. By the time sc holars can identify certain digital phenomenon, successfully submit an article, and have the issue in which it appears released for public reading, we are already seeing new technology arise. iticisms is that there is a greater need for discourse between scholars and people in the field. This was not a particularly new concept, but rather something that became reinforced as a result of the interviews. The fact that two of the respondents did not see value in understanding the implications of online senatorial presentation of self is cause for question. It could have been the instrument itself; perhaps the questions were not clear enough, the interview length was not appropriate, or the respon dents did not like the interviewing style. Perhaps the respondents were having a bad day. Regardless, we must remember that the Webmasters bring a totally different frame of reference to this study. As the men and women in the political trenches, they are privy to a host of information that we as scholars must reach out to understand. Furthermore, when there are political dynamics that are so clearly changing the tides of key elections, such as George Allen and his YouTube video, other things become se emingly much less significant.

PAGE 153

153 A good model to follow for future scholar practitioner interaction is a conference that the political campaigning program at the University of Florida held in February of eets Practice, program director Steve Craig brought together notable scholars and field workers to discuss issues such as the effects of political consultants, campaigning on the Internet, initiatives and referendums, and other items. 51 Steve Craig later c ompiled articles on these subjects in an edited volume (Craig, 2006). Events such as this conference enable those working in and studying politics to come together and debate hot topics in the field. Such exchanges allow for scholars to learn about what i s going on in the trenches of our politics, and provide a valuable opportunity to ask questions. Considering Political Histories One of the most interesting contributions to arise out the interviews was the importance of political history in developing a presentation of self. Simply, past historical experiences shape the present. Given that this research focuses on incumbent senators, the population being studied has substantial political history. One Democratic respondent made an interesting connection and the development of the case study offered in this dissertation. Stemming from his impacted his digital strategy in 20 06. According to the respondent, Lieberman has never valued the bloggosphere, and blames them for his campaign page mishaps. Had his political history been different, the Senator may have elected to reach out to the bloggosphere in his 2006 campaign. 51 For more information on the conference, visit http://www.polisci.ufl.edu/campaign/new/events.html

PAGE 154

154 Ge several trips to both Iowa and New Hampshire (Heilmann, 2006). One could reasonable assume th at he did so to test the waters for a presidential run. In early December of 2006, just after his defeat in the general election, he announced he was not running for future political viability less than had it not occurred. Not all political histories are as negative as in the cases of Senators Allen and Lieberman. Reflect on the candidacy of Ned Lamont. Running against Joe Lieberman for the Democratic Party nomination i n Connecticut, Lamont created a deep online social network through the liberal bloggosphere. Even though he was unsuccessful in the general election, his connection to this bloggosphere still remains. He taps into it periodically to ask for help with iss ues pertaining to the Democratic Party, sending out e mails to supporters. It is likely that, should he decide to run for Congress again, his positive history with the liberal bloggosphere would continue to be a positive asset for him. The Implications of Subjectivity One of the biggest methodological drawbacks of this study was the fact that there was only one person conducting the coding section of the project. Often studies are at their best when multiple people view the same information. Typically, research that student, without having financial resources to offer to assistants, is it difficult to assemble such a team. This approach limits the ability to see how on

PAGE 155

155 compares to that of others. While one may try to be as cognizant as possible of the importance and implications of reflexivity, this person can never fully understand how his or her own biases alter the approaches, classifications, o r conclusions for any given project. Having multiple coders allows for a greater opportunity to identify and discuss researcher bias, something that was not present here. It would possibly result in the emergence of new codes, new things to look for, deb ates over how certain things should be coded, and so forth. Certain content presented clear interpretive challenges. For example, general Some scholars may not have taken this same approach, and had these discussions been coded as Iraq, that category may very well have been the number one issue in certain periods. This type of subjectivity makes quantitative analysis a very delicate process The best that one can do is to justify the reasoning. In this circumstance, there were numerous examples of how the senators were not specifically speaking about Iraq when they mentioned supporting troops. One of the best illustrative examples came fr Armed Forces as they fight to protect our fre (Allen Archive, March 28 th ). specific received multiple codes. Since the coding scheme utilized in this dissertation only allows

PAGE 156

156 for statements to be coded as the most dominant issue, this falls to the discretion of the coder. Had that is sue category not existed, those statements would have been dispersed to other topics, and the statistics would be different. Given the fact that statements were coded as falling under only one category, this dissertation misses out on capturing peripheral issues. Statements may have been pigeon holed into a single category when, in reality, multiple topics were receiving digital space. In the future, it would be useful to devise a coding scheme that allows for researchers to adequately capture all of the issues being mentioned in a single sentence. This would multiple topics are talked about in a small amount of digital space. With online real estate at a premium, t his would be a worthy line of research to pursue. Reflexivity also plays into the concept of subjectivity. As a researcher, one should always reflect on how their own biases shape the nature of the study. Here, the udent at the University of Florida may have impacted this study in many ways. First, it may have played into which campaign and Senate offices were willing to take the time to complete the interview. The perceived importance of academic studies may not b e as great to campaigns when compared to phone calls from various news media outlets. Some offices never returned the phone call, Being a Connecticut resident, the Joe Lieberman case may have taken on a heightened sense of importance compared to someone living outside of the state. It is always exciting when the state in which you reside rapidly becomes the hotbed of political activity. Ultimately, though, any heightened since of importance did not serve

PAGE 157

157 as a disadvantage to this study. If anything, it helped to illuminate a very interesting case of senatorial presentation that may have otherwise gone unnoticed in the scholarly community. It also gave the researcher a more solid understandi ng of the background and context of the race. Future Research There is never a lack of things to study for scholars looking to make contributions to the field of digital politics. One benefit of this subfield is that there is room for everyone, and ther e is much work to be completed. Due to the fact that the subfield is in its infancy, scholars should feel empowered to move across disciplinary lines to find valuable theory and methods. By its very nature, the study of Internet politics should be a high ly interdisciplinary line of inquiry. We have already seen scholars from political science, communications, and sociology make meaningful contributions to this budding line of literature. perspective as a major theoretical paradigm. While other scholars have made such connection (Gulati, applicability to different circumstances. This research is unique in that it introduces Future scholars should bring in even more dimensions and circumstances to further this line of thinking. This applies whether one is applying Sym bolic Interactionism or some totally different theoretical perspective to our understanding of digital politics. Reflecting on this dissertation, there are many interesting improvements that future scholars can make. The first idea is to consider present ation of self at different

PAGE 158

158 levels of government. Comparing and contrasting the House and Senate would be an insightful exercise, and the one that would likely first come to mind for people looking to improve on this project. It would be highly encouraged however, for future scholars to broaden their perspective of levels of government. Governors have multiple Web contexts, and would provide an interesting comparison group to senators, who also have state wide elections. Looking more locally, more funda mental questions arise. Do town officials have a digital presentation of self? If so, how complex is this presentation? How difficult is it to find this online presence? In chapters five and six of this dissertation, we explored three different ideal t The identification and description of these three incumbents demonstrates that there are excellent examples of cases to help illuminate ideal types. Considering digi tal tools, images, and text, future scholars can attempt to identify new classifications of ideal types. This dissertation focused on incumbent U.S. Senate can didates. Future scholars should look at challengers on both the senatorial and house level. Wi th the 2008 presidential election on the horizon, there is an excellent opportunity to examine and identity ideal types on the national level. As the popularity of online politics grows, it is highly likely that the importance of a digital presence will t rickle down to more the local levels of government. Research on digital politics at the local level would be groundbreaking at this point in time. In essence, scholars taking this path would be observing the building of the ground floor of digital politi cs at the local level. Just as with presidential candidates back in 1996, local candidates will likely start off with very simple templates offering very basic

PAGE 159

159 information. Moving forward, scholars may be able to capture how local presentation of self de velops as the prevalence of local candidate Web page increases. Another great addition to this research would be to conduct interviews with the senators themselves. This would add an incredible dimension to this project. Such interviews would shed light on if senators are presenting themselves the way they want to on Web contexts, and illuminate the role they themselves play in developing their presentation of self. It would also help to create a connection between this body of literature and the populat ion being studied. Simply, political science is at its best when scholars and practitioners can come together to share ideas and debate issues. One can only begin to imagine the insights that senators would bring to the table regarding how their digital selves are constructed. One could also make numerous expansions based on the Lieberman case study. Senator Lieberman represents a case of how a competitive election can lead to great inconsistency in how one presents him or herself. An interesting step w ould be to find other cases that either supports or refutes such findings. It would be exceptionally were faced with a totally unexpected challenge. Creating a larger sample would help scholars to understand how universal the findings of the Lieberman case truly are. Lastly, it would be beneficial for future researchers to expand on the concept of digital space. This research examined two official contexts. Digital spa ce is a very vast concept that includes many contexts. New official contexts have arisen, such as MySpace and Facebook accounts managed by the campaigns. It would also be insightful to see how third parties present elected officials in unofficial context s. To start, one

PAGE 160

160 could examine the Web pages of 501(c) and 527 groups and unaffiliated supporters. As one moves to more peripheral contexts of digital space, meaning moving further and further away from official contexts, it would be interesting to under stand how digital presentations of elected officials change. Final Thoughts As this dissertation is being written, the importance of the digital self becomes more and more evident. Earlier in this dissertation, there was a discussion about how official c ampaign and Senate Web pages were identified. When talking about MySpace created a knowledg e and support of the campaign. According to The Examiner Anthony on the content, promoted the link and even had the password to make changes. But as the site exploded in populari ty in recent months, the campaign became concerned about an outsider controlling the content and responses going 2007). Such events demonstrate the value of having control ov self. In our current political climate that embraces the development of digital politics, control over Web design is not a small thing. When we see presidential candidates struggling to maintain authenticity on various Web con texts, it likely makes their presence on official contexts all that more meaningful. People go to campaign and Senate Web pages knowing that they are

PAGE 161

161 offline and online med authentic presentation of self. Just as elected officials project a sense of self while standing in front of a crowd or while appearing on television, the Internet represents another venu e for this presentation to occur. As this research has shown, each Web context represents yet another unique place for the self to be developed. As we move forward, new contexts will likely come into play. They may have already arrived with venues su ch as MySpace and Facebook, but in all likelihood, exciting new sites are just around the corner. As they develop and take a position within the digital sphere, those contexts will challenge politicians to yet again consider how to construct a presenta tion of self. This dissertation implies that the level of consistency between these new contexts and the ones studied here depends on the larger political context, as well as the goals of each specific Web space. We are very fortunate to be living in these times. From a scholarly perspective, there is so much to explore. One could easily spend a career studying the developments and implications of digital technology. From a constituent perspective, there is a vast world of opportunity. As people continue to take advantage of these opportunities, we can remain optimistic that our democracy will grow stronger.

PAGE 162

162 APPENDIX A CAMPAIGN SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE Introduction: May I speak with the person in charge of making decisions with your Read informed consent form 1. Tell me about your Senate race. 2. How important is the Internet to the success of your candidate? If Q2 = no Web page, SKIP to Q29 3. What factors came into play in deciding what features to include on the site? 4. How about what features to exclude? 5. Did the campaign consider the issue of money in deciding how to construct the site? 6. Who creates the Web page? 7. Who updates the Web page? 8. Does the Senator ever write content for the Web pag e? If so, how often? 9. Thus far, what Web site features are working well for the campaign? Why? 10. What features are not working as well as you originally anticipated? Why? 11. What unique features do you think your Web site has? 12. How did your campaign think of these features? 13. Were you targeting any specific demographics with features? If so, who and for what purpose? 14. How does the campaign attempt to attract people to the web page (if respondent asks for example: putting the web site address on literature or signs)? 15. In retrospect, are there any features you wish you put on the site that you did not originally include?

PAGE 163

163 16. 17. What functions did the sit e serve during the course of your campaign? 18. Were any of these functions unexpected? 19. What types of features do you think we will see on future campaign pages? 20. Senate .gov page? If so, how often? If not, w hy not? IF Q20= no, SKIP to Q32 21. Why do you look at that page? 22. Do you ever borrow content from that page? 23. Do you ever talk to the Senate staff in Washington? If so, how often? 24. Why do you talk to them? 25. Do you ever discuss Web pages in your discussions with them? 26. How does your Web page differ from the Senate .gov page? 27. Do you feel that the content on the two pages are similar? If so, how? 28. Do you ever fear the two pages contradict each other? If so, how? SKIP to Q32 29. What factors went into your decision not to have a Web page? 30. Do you think you will have a Web page later in the campaign? Why or why not? 31. Thinking about your campaign specifically, what are the weaknesses of not having a Web pag e? 32. What role do you think the Internet will play in future campaigns? 33. How will campaign pages be different in the future? Interviewer read debriefing statement NOTE: Some respondents scheduled the interview for after Election Day. In these c ases, past tense was used.

PAGE 164

164 APPENDIX B SENATE OFFICE SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE I ntroduction: May I speak with the person in charge of making decisions with your Read informed consent form 1. Tell me about the Senator. 2. How important is the Internet in your day to day operations? 3. What factors came into play in deciding what features to include on the site? 4. How about what features to exclude? 5. Who creates the Web page? 6. Who updates the Web page? 7. Does th e Senator ever write content for the Web page? If so, how often? 8. Thus far, what Web site features are working well for your office? Why? 9. What features are not working as well as you originally anticipated? Why? 10. What unique features do you t hink your Web site has? 11. How did your office think of these features? 12. Were you targeting any specific demographics with features? If so, who and for what purpose? 13. How does the office attempt to attract people to the web page (if respondent asks for example: putting the web site address on literature)? 14. In retrospect, are there any features you wish you put on the site that you did not originally include? 15. 16. What functions does your Web page serve?

PAGE 165

165 17. What types of features do you think we will see on future Senate .gov pages? 18. not? IF Q18= no, SKIP to Q27 19. Why do you look at that page? 20. Do you ever borrow content from that page? 21. Do you ever talk to the campaign? If so, how often? 22. Why do you talk to them? 23. Do you ever discuss Web pages in your discussions with them? 24. How does your Web page differ from the campaign page? 25. Do you feel that the content on the two pages are similar? If so, how? 26. Do you ever fear the two pages contradict each other? If so, how? 27. How will Senate .gov pages be different in the future? 28. Wh at types of technologies is your office trying to implement for the future? Interviewer read debriefing statement

PAGE 166

166 APPENDIX C IRB APPLICATION 1. TITLE OF PROTOCOL: Considering Campaign and Official Government Internet Sites: An Exploration into the Web based congressional Presentation of Self [title changed since IRB submitted] 2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(s): Diana Tracy Cohen, M.S.R., M.A. Graduate Research Assistant and Alumni Fellow Department of Political Science 234 Anderson Hall P.O. Box 117325 Gai nesville, FL 32611 (352) 392 0262 (office phone) (352) 262 5099 (cell phone) dtcohen@ufl.edu (352) 392 8127 (fax) 3. SUPERVISOR (IF PI IS STUDENT): Beth Rosenon, Assistant Professor Department of Political Science 234 Anderson Hall P.O. Box 117325 Gainesville, FL 32611 (352) 392 0262, extension 232(phone) rosenson@polisci.ufl.edu (352) 392 8127 (fax) 4. DATES OF PROPOSED PROTOCOL: From: 2/01/2006 To: 5/01/2006 5. SOURCE OF FU NDING FOR THE PROTOCOL: Alumni fellowship, applying for AAUW Dissertation Fellowship award. 6. SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION: This investigation is designed to explore how congressional incumbents use the Web to create a presentation of self. This project will deepen our knowledge not only of how congressmen portray themselves on the Internet, but also our understanding of how consistent this portrayal remains through the context of different Web pages, specifically, official campaign and offic ial governmental page. This consistency of congressional presentation will also be explored though conversations with campaign and constituency office staff members.

PAGE 167

167 7. DESCRIBE THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN NON TECHNICAL LANGUAGE The UFIRB needs to know what will be done with or to the research participant(s). This investigation will employ an in depth interviewing methodology. A sample of eighty subjects will be drawn from staff members of incumbent candidates running for Congress in 2006. Once the t arget is on the phone, the informed consent page will be read, and all questions or comments will be addressed. Once consent is given, I will begin tape recording the interview, and proceed to asking questions dealing with the s presentation of self on the Web. Questions will also congressional self presentation. Specifically, the following research instrument will be employed: 1) Who is the primary de cision maker for the content of your Web site? 2) How often does this individual consult with the Congressman/Congresswoman in regards to Web content? 3) Does your office ask the Congressman/Congresswoman for his/her opinion of the Web site? What does he/she think of it? 4) Do you feel that the Congressman/Congresswoman has a presentation of self online? 5) How did your office decide what features of the Congressman/Congresswoman you would make most prominent on the Web page? 6) What are those f eatures? 7) activities in office? 8) Did you look at other Congressional Web sites to determine how your Incumbent should look? 9) (If yes) How often do you look at other sites? 10) Do you collaborate w ith the [campaign/government] office when determining what to put on the Web site? 11) How does this collaboration work? 12) Do you feel that your Congressman/Congresswoman is presented similarly on his/her government and campaign Web sites? 13) (If no) How are the se presentations different? 14) (If yes) How are these presentations similar? 15) (If Q4 = yes) Do you think it is important that your Congressman/Congresswoman continually puts out the same presentation of self? 16) b site to [campaigning/constituency relations]? After completion of the interview, the debriefing statement will be read (see attached).

PAGE 168

168 8. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND ANTICIPATED RISK. (If risk of physical, psychological or economic harm may be involved, des cribe the steps taken to protect participant.) This protocol involves no more than minimal risk. It is possible that participants may feel awkward in discussing their Web Congressional identity to a researcher, however, this is not likely to be the case. Participants will be informed before the interview begins that their participation in this study is completely voluntary, that they do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer, and are free to withdraw their consent and to discontinue pa rticipation in the interview at any time without consequence. After the interview, during the debriefing, I will remind them that the content of the interview will be listened to by me alone, that their identities will remain confidential, and that the ta pe will be physically destroyed. 9. DESCRIBE HOW PARTICIPANT(S) WILL BE RECRUITED, THE NUMBER AND AGE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, AND PROPOSED COMPENSATION (if any): This study calls for making contact with both campaign and Washington Congressional offices o f candidates running for the House and Senate in 2006. Twenty House and twenty Senate candidates will be selected with consideration of geographical location, political orientation, and seniority. Once a candidate is selected, both his/her campaign and c ongressional offices will be contacted via telephone, for a total of eighty interviews (forty House, forty Senate ). Once the respective office has been reached successfully via Diana Cohen, and I am a graduate student calling from the University of Florida. May I please speak with the individual who is in charge of making decisions pertaining to the features k with the campaign manager. Once the target respondent is on the phone, he/she will be read the informed consent form. Once all questions and comments have been addressed, and verbal consent has been given, the interview will begin. Upon completion of t he interview, a brief debriefing statement will be read, and the respondent will be asked if he/she would be

PAGE 169

169 10. DESCRIBE THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS. INCLUDE A COPY OF THE INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT (if applicable). See attached Please use attachments sparingly. __________________________ Principal Investigator's Signature _________________________ Supervisor's Signature I approve this protocol for submission to the UFIRB: _____________________ _______ Dept. Chair/Center Director Date _____________________________

PAGE 170

170 Department of Political Science 234 Anderson Hall PO Box 117325 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 Informed Consent To be read orally to all potential participants prior to interview Protocol Title: Considering Campaign and Official Government Internet Sites: An Exploration into the Web based Congressional Presentation of Self My name is Diana Cohen, and I am a political science graduate student calling from the Univers ity of Florida. I am currently conducting a study that explores how incumbents use the Internet to construct a presentation of self. In conducting this research, I am interviewing campaign staff members who make decisions regarding congressional campaign and governmental Web pages and their features. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer, and are free to withdraw your consent and to discontinue participation in the protocol or activity at any time without consequence. While there are no immediate benefits or compensation to be drawn from your participation in this study, your responses will help further our knowledge about Internet campaigning strategies. At the conclusion of the study, I will be happy to share and discuss m y findings with you. Your participation will take approximately fifteen minutes. The content of this interview will be tape recorded after your consent is given. I will be the sole person having access to this data, and will physically destroy the tape by ripping out the ribbon after its transcription. Your identity, and the identity of your candidate, will remain anonymous. Please keep in mind that you do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer, and that the identity of your campaign will be kept in the strictest of confidence at all times, unless otherwise directed by you. If at any point during or after the interview you have any questions, comments, or concerns, I will be more than happy to assist you. My address is: Department o f Political Science, 234 Anderson Hall, P.O. Box 117325, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL She can be contacted at: 234 Anderson Hall, P.O. Box 117325, Gainesvil le, FL 32611. Any questions or concerns that you may have about your rights as a research participant can be directed to the UFIRB office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611 2250. This address information will also be repeated at the end of the interview.

PAGE 171

171 Department of Political Science 234 Anderson Hall PO Box 117325 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 Debriefing Statement To be read orally to all participants after the interview Protocol Title: Considering Campaign and Official Government Internet Sites: An Exploration into the Web based Congressional Presentation of Self Thank you once again for your participation in this study. The information that you have supplied will help both academic and campaign professionals understand how Congressmen use the Internet to create a presentation of self. Please keep in mind that all of your responses will be kept strictly confidential, and that your identity will be kept anonymous. The tape of this conversation will be destroye d upon transcription. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this interview in the future, or would like a copy of the results, I will be more than happy to assist you. My address is: Department of Political Science, University of Florida, 234 Anderson Hall, P.O. Box 117325, political science. She can be contacted at: 234 Anderson Hall, P.O. Box 117325, Gainesville, FL 32611. Any questions or concerns that y ou may have about your rights as a research participant can be directed to the UFIRB office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611 2250. Thanks again for your participation, and good luck on Election Day.

PAGE 172

172 APPENDIX D CAMPAIGN WEB PAGE CO DING SCHEME 1. Last name 2. First name 3. State 4. Party 5. Gender 6. Race 7. Change (amount of change from previous Web page, 0 7 scale) 8. Rolling image (existence of slide shows or other rolling media) 9. Party obvious (is the party identification obvious) 10. Independent (doe 11. P1 (what is in picture 1, 1 5 coding scheme) 12. P2 (what is in picture 2, 1 5 coding scheme) 13. P3 (what is in picture 3, 1 5 coding scheme) 14. P4 (what is in picture 4, 1 5 coding scheme) 15. P5 (what i s in picture 5, 1 5 coding scheme) 16. P6 (what is in picture 6, 1 5 coding scheme) 17. P7 (what is in picture 7, 1 5 coding scheme) 18. P8 (what is in picture 8, 1 5 coding scheme) 19. P9 (what is in picture 9, 1 5 coding scheme) 20. P1_note (describe what image is of) 21. P2_no te (describe what image is of) 22. P3_note (describe what image is of) 23. P4_note (describe what image is of) 24. P5_note (describe what image is of) 25. P6_note (describe what image is of) 26. P7_note (describe what image is of) 27. P8_note (describe what image is of) 28. P9_note ( describe what image is of) 29. Issues 1 (agriculture, coded 0 3) 30. Issue 2 (budget, coded 0 3) 31. Issue 3 (campaign finance reform, coded 0 3) 32. Issue 4 (crime, coded 0 3) 33. Issue 5 (consumer issues, coded 0 3) 34. Issue 6 (defense and foreign policy, coded 0 3) 35. Issue 7 (e ducation, coded 0 3) 36. Issue 8 (environment, coded 0 3) 37. Issue 9 (health, coded 0 3) 38. Issue 10 (infrastructure, coded 0 3) 39. Issue 11 (Iraq, coded 0 3) 40. Issue 12 (jobs and economic development, coded 0 3) 41. Issue 13 (medicare, coded 0 3) 42. Issue 14 (social and cultur al issues, coded 0 3) 43. Issue 15 (social security, coded 0 3)

PAGE 173

173 44. Issue 16 (taxes, coded 0 3) 45. Issue 17 (welfare, coded 0 3) 46. Issue 18 (generic helping constituency, coded 0 3) 47. Issue 19 (energy and gas, coded 0 3) 48. 3) 49. Issue 21 (imm igration, coded 0 3) 50. Issue 22 (opponent, coded 0 3) 51. Issue other (list other items described) 52. Construction (is site under construction) 53. Letter (home page letter to constituents) 54. Account (ability to create an account) 55. Contact media (links to contact differen t media) 56. Campaign store 57. In news (section that describes Senator in the news) 58. Press releases (links or postings of press releases) 59. Blog 60. Volunteer (ability to sign up as a volunteer) 61. Money (ability to contribute) 62. Contact info on home page 63. Link to contact inf o 64. Photo gallery 65. Petition (is there an online petition on the home page) 66. Additional pages (are there links to additional pages) 67. Quotes (are there quotes from others on home page) 68. Post card (can browsers send a virtual post card) 69. Register to vote link 70. Issues (is there a link to an issues page) 71. Biography (is there a link to a biographical statement) 72. Spanish (does Spanish appear anywhere on the page) 73. Portuguese (does Portuguese appear anywhere on the page) 74. Language (does any other language appear on the home pa ge) 75. Specific Language (what is this other language) 76. 77. Family How (how and where does the family appear) 78. TV (is there a television commercial on the home page) 79. Cool item #1 (any other interesting it ems of note) 80. Cool item #2 (any other interesting items of note) 81. Opponent (is the opponent mentioned on the home page)

PAGE 174

174 APPENDIX E SENATE WEB PAGE CODING SCHE ME 1. Last name 2. First name 3. State 4. Party 5. Gender 6. Race 7. Change (amount of change from previous W eb page, 0 7 scale) 8. Rolling image (existence of slide shows or other rolling media) 9. Party obvious (is the party identification obvious) 10. 11. P1 (what is in picture 1, 1 5 coding s cheme) 12. P2 (what is in picture 2, 1 5 coding scheme) 13. P3 (what is in picture 3, 1 5 coding scheme) 14. P4 (what is in picture 4, 1 5 coding scheme) 15. P5 (what is in picture 5, 1 5 coding scheme) 16. P6 (what is in picture 6, 1 5 coding scheme) 17. P7 (what is in picture 7 1 5 coding scheme) 18. P8 (what is in picture 8, 1 5 coding scheme) 19. P9 (what is in picture 9, 1 5 coding scheme) 20. P1_note (describe what image is of) 21. P2_note (describe what image is of) 22. P3_note (describe what image is of) 23. P4_note (describe what image is of) 24. P 5_note (describe what image is of) 25. P6_note (describe what image is of) 26. P7_note (describe what image is of) 27. P8_note (describe what image is of) 28. P9_note (describe what image is of) 29. Issues 1 (agriculture, coded 0 3) 30. Issue 2 (budget, coded 0 3) 31. Issue 3 (campai gn finance reform, coded 0 3) 32. Issue 4 (crime, coded 0 3) 33. Issue 5 (consumer issues, coded 0 3) 34. Issue 6 (defense and foreign policy, coded 0 3) 35. Issue 7 (education, coded 0 3) 36. Issue 8 (environment, coded 0 3) 37. Issue 9 (health, coded 0 3) 38. Issue 10 (infrastructu re, coded 0 3) 39. Issue 11 (Iraq, coded 0 3) 40. Issue 12 (jobs and economic development, coded 0 3) 41. Issue 13 (Medicare, coded 0 3) 42. Issue 14 (social and cultural issues, coded 0 3) 43. Issue 15 (social security, coded 0 3)

PAGE 175

175 44. Issue 16 (taxes, coded 0 3) 45. Issue 17 (welfar e, coded 0 3) 46. Issue 18 (generic helping constituency, coded 0 3) 47. Issue 19 (energy and gas, coded 0 3) 48. 3) 49. Issue 21 (immigration, coded 0 3) 50. Issue 22 (opponent, coded 0 3) 51. Issue other (list other items described) 52. Constructio n (is site under construction) 53. Letter (home page letter to constituents) 54. Account (ability to create an account) 55. In news (section that describes Senator in the news) 56. Press releases (links or postings of press releases) 57. Blog 58. Contact info on home page 59. Link to contact info 60. Photo gallery 82. Petition (is there an online petition on the home page) 83. Additional pages (are there links to additional pages) 84. Quotes (are there quotes from others on home page) 85. Post card (can browsers send a virtual post card) 86. Register to vote link 87. Issues (is there a link to an issues page) 88. Biography (is there a link to a biographical statement) 89. Spanish (does Spanish appear anywhere on the page) 90. Portuguese (does Portuguese appear anywhere on the page) 91. Language (does any other language appear on the home page) 92. Specific Language (what is this other language) 93. 61. Family How (how and where does the family appear) 62. State link (are there links to other state agencies) 63. Interactive State (is there an interactive state map) 64. Services (is there a link for constituent services) 65. Students (is there a link for students) 66. Cool item #1 (any other interesting items) 67. Cool item #2 (any other interesting items)

PAGE 176

176 APPENDIX F ISSUE CODING CATEGOR IES 1: Agriculture 2: Budget 3: Campaign finance reform 4: Crime 5: Consumer issues 6: Defense and foreign policy 7: Education 8: Environment 9: Health 10: Infrastructure 11: Iraq 12: Jobs and economic development 13: Medicare 14: Social and cultural issues 15: Social securi ty 16: Taxes 17: Welfare 18: Generic helping constituency 19: Energy and gas 21: Immigration 22: Opponent 23: State specific Issues 11 and 18 23 are unique for this study, while the rest of the categories stem from the Wisconsin Ads Pro ject.

PAGE 177

177 APPENDIX G Senate: First Lady When her husband was elected President in 1992, Hillary's work as a champion for wome n was recognized and admired around the world. She traveled the globe speaking out against the degradation and abuse of women and standing up for the powerful idea that women's rights are human rights. In the White House, Hillary led efforts to make adopti on easier, to expand early learning and child care, to increase funding for breast cancer research, and to help veterans suffering from Gulf War syndrome who had too often been ignored in the past. She helped launch a national campaign to prevent teen preg nancy and helped create the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which moved children from foster care to adoption more quickly. Thanks in part to her efforts, the number of children who have moved out of foster care into adoption has increased dramatic ally. As everyone knows, Hillary's fight for universal health coverage did not succeed. But her commitment to health care for every American has never wavered. She was instrumental in designing and championing the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which has provided millions of children with health insurance. She battled the big drug companies to force them to test their drugs for children and to make sure all kids get the immunizations they need through the Vaccines for Children Program. Immunizat ion rates dramatically improved after the program launched.

PAGE 178

178 Hillary's 1995 book It Takes A Village about the responsibility we all have to help children succeed, became an international best seller. Hillary has donated the proceeds -more than a million dollars -to children's causes across the country. Hillary's autobiography, Living History was also a best seller. It has been tran slated into 12 languages and sold over 1.3 million copies.

PAGE 179

179 APPENDIX H The tex phase, dated Wednesday, August 30th: Welcome to Joe2006.com! We'll be re launching our full website soon to bring you the latest news and updates from the campaign. In the meantime, I want to take a moment to thank my supporters and explain to you why I have deci ded to fight on until November. I'm staying in this race because I want to keep working for the things that matter to you and help meet the critical challenges facing our state and country. I've been a leader in the Senate on strengthening our national security, protecting and creating jobs, stopping global warming and finding cures to dis eases like cancer and diabetes. And I'm staying because I want t o help end the war in Iraq as quickly and successfully as possible, in a way that brings stability to the Middle East and doesn't leave us even more v ulnerable to terrorist attacks. So much needs to be done, but so little is actually getting done in W ashington because our politics have be come so partisan and polarized. I have always followed a different path. My 30 years of experience have been about bringing people together and solving problems. I am and will always be a proud, progressive, strong on defense democrat. But I do not and will not hesitate to work across party lines when it will get t hings done for my constituents.

PAGE 180

180 That is what my campaign will be all about building a new politics of unity and purpose and delivering results for the people of Connecticut. I hope you will join me in this cause, no matter your political persuasion, to secure a brighter future for our state and our country.

PAGE 181

181 APPENDIX I ing his hijacked phase, dated Wednesday, August 9 th : STATEMENT FROM SEAN SMITH: "For the past 24 hours the Friends for Joe Lieberman's website and email has been totally disrupted and disabled, we believe that this is the result of a coordinated attack b y our political opponents. The campaign has notified the US Attorney and the Connecticut Chief State's Attorney and the campaign will be filing a formal complaint reflecting our concerns. The campaign has also notified the State Attorney General Dick Blume nthal for his review." "We call on Ned Lamont to make an unqualified statement denouncing this kind of dirty campaign trick and to demand whoever is responsible to cease and desist immediately. Any attempt to suppress voter participation and undermine the voting process on Election Day is deplorable and has no place in our democracy."

PAGE 182

182 APPENDIX J LIST OF SENATORS INCLUDED IN STUDY 1. Daniel Akaka 2. George Allen 3. Conrad Burns 4. Maria Cantwell 5. Thomas Carper 6. Lincoln Chafee 7. Hillary Clinton 8. Gaylord Conrad 9. Mike De Wine 10. John Ensign 11. Dianne Feinstein 12. Orrin Hatch 13. Kay Hutchinson 14. Edward Kennedy 15. Herbert Kohl 16. Jon Kyl 17. Joe Lieberman 18. Dick Lugar 19. Robert Menendez 20. Bill Nelson 21. Rick Santorum 22. Olympia Snowe 23. Deborah Stabenow 24. Jim Talent

PAGE 183

183 APPENDIX K NOVEMBER 8 th COOK REPORT NOVEMBER 8, 2006 2006 Senate Race Ratings Senate Lineup: 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, 1 Independent Senators with names in parentheses are retiring. The chart below provides a spectrum that analyzes the vulnerability (the chances of the seat switching parties) of t he Senate races up this cycle. Solid: These races are not considered competitive and are not likely to become closely contested. Likely: These seats are not considered competitive at this point but have the potential to become engaged. Lean: These are c onsidered competitive races but one party has an advantage. Toss u p: These are the most competitive races; either party has a good chance of winning. D E M O C R A T S 1 8 h e l d s e a t s Likely D em ocrat (2) Cantwell WA MN (Dayton) Lean D em ocrat (1) Stabenow MI Toss up (2) Menendez NJ MD (Sarbanes) Solid D em ocrat (12) Nelson FL Bingaman NM Byrd WV Conrad ND Feinstein CA Carper DE Akaka HI Kennedy MA Clinton NY Kohl WI CT (Lieberman)

PAGE 184

184 Nelson NE Ind ependen t: Likely D em ocrat (1) VT (Jeffords) R E P U B L I C A N S 1 5 h e l d s e a t s Lean D em ocrat (2) DeWine OH Santorum PA Toss u p (5) Talent MO Burns MT Chafee RI Allen VA TN (Frist) Lean R ep ublican (1) Kyl AZ Solid R ep ublican ( 7) Lugar IN Snowe ME Lott MS Ensign NV Hutchison TX Hatch UT Thomas WY

PAGE 185

185 APPENDIX L IN DEPTH INTERVIEWS Anonymous, DS1, 2006. Telephone interview. 10 November 2006. Anonymous DS2, 2006. Telephone interview. 18 July 2006. Anonymou s DS3, 2006. Telephone interview. 21 August 2006. Anonymous DC1, 2006. Telephone interview. 9 November 2006. Anonymous RS1, 2006. Telephone interview. 13 November 2006. Anonymous RS2, 2006. Telephone interview. 13 November 2006. Anonymous RS3, 2 006. Telephone interview. 18 July 2006. Anonymous RS4, 2006. Telephone interview. 10 November 2006. Anonymous DC1, 2004. Telephone interview. 14 June 2004. Anonymous RC1, 2004. Telephone interview. 22 June 2004. Anonymous RC2, 2004. Telephone int erview. 22 June 2004. Ray. Telephone Interview. 13 November 2006.

PAGE 186

186 LIST OF REFERENCES Abramson, Jeffrey. B., F. Christopher Arterton, and Gary. R. Orren. 1998. The Electronic Commonwealth: The Impact of New Media Technologies on Democratic Politics. New York, New York: Basic Books. Anderson, David, and Michael Cornfield. 2001. The Civic Web: Online Politics and Democratic Values New York, New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyengar. 1995. Goi ng Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate New York, New York: The Free Press. MSNBC Online, August 23. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14482646/ American Communication Journal, 3(3): online. Retrieved from http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol3/Iss3/rogue4/benoit.html Bernard, H. Russell. 2000. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quan titative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Bimber, Bruce A., and Richard Davis. 2003. Campaigning Online New York, New York: Oxford University Press. For tune, March, pp. 84 6. Available online at http://www.firststrategy.com/politics.htm. Blumer, Herbert. 1972. Symbolic Interaction: An Approach to Human Communication in Approaches to Human Communication R. W. Bude & B. Ruben (eds.). New Yor k, New York: Spartan Books, 401 419. ---1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Now Public October 15. Retrieved from http://www.nowpublic.com/politicians_caught_on_internet_candid_cameras Bystrom, Dianne G., Mary Christine Banwart, Lyn da Lee Kaid, and Terry A. Robertson. 2004. Gender and Candidate Communication: VideoStyle, WebStyle, NewsStyle. New York, New York: Routledge. Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina. 1987. Personal Vote: Constituency

PAGE 187

187 Servi ce and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute Online 2 October 1997. Retrieved from http://www.cert.org/tech_tips/denial_of_service.html Casey, Chris. 1996. The Hill on the Net: Congress enters the information age. Boston, Massachusetts: AP Professional CNN Online, November 2006. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/special/issues CNN Online, November 9. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/ of E Campaign Functionality and Strategy of 2004 Senate Candidate and State Party 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 1 September 4, Washington, DC. Cooley, Charles Horton. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order New York, New York: Scr ibner's. Cornfield, Michael. 2004. Politics Moves Online: Campaigning and the Internet. New York, New York: Century Foundation Press. Corrado, Anthony, Thomas E. Mann, Daniel Ortiz, and Trevor Potter. 2004. The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Craig, Steve. 2006. The Electoral Pract ice: Theory Meets Challenge. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Darr, Carol., Julie Barko, & Brandon Robinson. 2004. Putting Online Influentials to Work for your Campaign. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet Available online at http://ipdi.org/UploadedFiles/POIWC.pdf Dick, Bob. 2005. Grounded theory: Available online at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded. html Roll Call March 11, 21.

PAGE 188

188 PS: Pol itical Science and Politics Vol. 32, 1, pp. 53 59. Available online at http://spa.american.edu/ccps/getpdf.php?table=publications&ID=58 Evera, Stephen Van. 19 97. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Faucheux, Ron. 1998. The Road to Victory: The Complete Guide to Winning Political Campaigns Local, State, and Federal. Dubuque, Iowa : Kenda ll/Hunt Publishing Company. Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style. Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown. --1966. The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress : Appropriations Politics in Congress. Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown. Newsweek September 20, pp. 50 3. Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: New Haven University Press. F Senate candidate Web page, April 1. Retrieved from http://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/firstlady/ Fir Senate Senate candidate Web page, June 3. Retrieved from http://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/firstlady/ Fritz, Sara. 200 St. Petersburg Times, March 13. Retrieved from http://www.sptimes.com/News/031300/news_pf/Worldandnation/McC ain_ campaign_s_leg.shtml. Democracy Report, paper 05 09. Available online at http://repositories.cdlib.org/csd/05 09/ Glaser, Barney G. 1992. Emergence vs. forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, Barney. G, a nd Anselm L. Strauss. 1976. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.

PAGE 189

189 Grossman, Lawrence K. 1995. The Electronic Republic: Reshaping Democracy in the Information Age New York, New York: Viking. The Harvard Jo urnal of Press and Politics, (1): 22 40 Winter 2004. Hammersley, Martin, and Paul Atkinson. 1993. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. New York, New York: Routledge. Courant.Com, August 10. Retriev ed from http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2006/by_state/CT_Page_0808.html?SITE=C THARELN&SECTION=POLITICS Hatch Act. 2 007. Encyclopedia Britannica, February 22. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/eb/article 9366695 New York Magazine March 13. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/16381/ Cong ress Reconsidered. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Citizen press release, March 27. Retrieved from http://www.cleanupwashington.org/cfr/page.cfm?pageid=88 Ireland Emilienne, and Phil Nash. 2001. Winning Campaigns Online: Strategies for Candidates and Causes (2 nd Edition). Bethesda, Maryland: Science Writers Press. Kaid, Linda L ee, John C. Tedesco, Dianne G. Bystrom, and Michael. McKinney. 2003. The Millennium Election: Communication in the 2000 Campaign. New York, New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Kedrowski, Karen. in Doris A. Graber (Ed) Me dia Power in Politics. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Harvard International Journal of Press and Politics, 10(4): 3 27. Available online at http://www.uoregon.edu/~jbloom/BlogforAmerica.pdf

PAGE 190

190 (Ed.) The Parties Repond (4 th ed). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Lieberman for Senate Official Senate Web page date of authorship unknown. Retrieved from http://lieberman. Senate .gov/about/ Lieberman for Senate Margolis, Mike, D. Resnick, and Chin Harvard International Journal of Press Politics, 2 (2): 59 78. Mark, David. 2007. Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning. New York, New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Media Power, Media Poli tics. New York, New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Mead, Herbert G. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society Chicago, Illinois: University of Ch icago Press. Merton, Robert. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York, New York: Free Press. Mossberger, Karen, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Mary. Stansbury. 2003. Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide. Wash ington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. The Political Standard, May/June. Retrieved from http://politicsonline.com/coverage/bettercampaigns/index.html Norris, Pippa. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge University Press. Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. MacMillian. House Web Page, Issues Section. Retrieved from http://www.house.gov/petri/ issues/campfin.htm

PAGE 191

191 from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/187/report_display.asp Pew Intern March 6. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_2004_Campaign.pdf Pickler, Nedra. 200 The Examiner.Com, May 2 Retrieved from http://www.examiner.com/a 707858~Obama_Takes_MySpace_Page_From_Backer.html?cid=rss Politics> Prior, Markus. 200 Political Communication 18(3): 335 45. Political Activity (Hatch Act). 2007. On United States Office of Special Council (OSC) online, February 24. Retrieved from http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm Governance Studies, November 7. R etrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cf/headlines/internet.htm avid H. Rochefort (Ed.) Quantitative Methods in Practice. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Cybertimes: The New York Times on the Web November 6. Retrieved from http://www.politicsonline.com/coverage/nytimes2/06campaign.html Rash, Wayne. 1997. Politics on the Nets: Wiring the Political Process. New York, New York: W.H. Freeman. Retrieved from http://www.campaignsonline.org/reports/1104.html Rochefort, David A. 2006. Quantitative Methods in Practice; Readings from PS. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Virtual Billboards? Candidate Web Sites Prepared presented at the Annual Meeting o f the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, Sep. 2 5. Available online at http://people.uis.edu/jsado1/uis/cwsp/apsa99.htm Selnow, Gary. W. 1998. Electronic whis tle stops: The impact of the Internet on American Politics. Westport, CT: Praeger.

PAGE 192

192 Shea, Burton M., and Michael J. Burton. 2001. Campaign Craft: The Strategies, Tactics, and Art of Political Campaign Management New York, NY: Praeger Publi shers. Sinclair, Barbara. 1997. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Digital Democracy Comes of Age: Internet Voting and the 2000 Arizona Democratic Pr PS: Political Science and Politics, 34 (2): 289 293. Strauss Anslem, and J. Corbin. 1994. "Grounded Theory Methodology An Overview," In Handbook of Qualitative Research N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage Pu blications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 273 285. Internet World, November 7 44 50. Agendas On and Off The Harvard International Journal of Press and Politics, (12): 63 79. Thurber, James A., and Candice J. Nelson. 1995. Campaigns and Elections: American Style. New York, New York: Westview Press. Trippi, Joe. 2004. The Revolution will not be Televised: Democracy, the Internet, and the Overthrow of Everything. HarperCollins Publishers Inc: New York, NY. Political Communication, 21(2):223 42. Warschauer, Mark, LeeAnn Stone, and Educational Policy, 18(4), pp. 562 588. Available online at http://www.gse.uci.edu/fa culty/markw/tes.pdf Weber, Ma x. 1949. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Edward Shils and Henry Finch (eds.). New York New York : Free Press.

PAGE 193

193 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Diana Tracy Cohen was born on June 1, 1981 in Goshen, New York. She grew up in South Salem, New York with her mother and father. An avid sports enthusiast, she started martial arts in first grade. While a student at John Jay High School, she played varsity field hockey and lacrosse. Diana got her degree in sociolog y and political science in 2002, as well undergraduate, she was the starting goaltender for t program during the 2000 2001 season. Her most memorable hockey experience was ending her Division I career with a 2 0 shutout against in state rival Quinnipiac University. She currently holds the University record for mos ice hockey game (55). Diana accepted an Alumni Fellowship from the Department of Political Science at the University of Florida in the fall of 2003. She received her M.A. in political science with a certificate in campaigning i n 2005, and is currently working towards her M.A. in sociology. In the fall of 2005, she received a high pass on her American Politics field exam. Diana is a World Taekwondo Federation certified 2 nd degree black belt and active sparring competitor. W hile at the University of Florida, she served as President for the Sport Club Taekwondo team (2004 2006). She competed in the National Collegiate Taekwondo Championships four years in a row, winning two gold medals, one silver, and

PAGE 194

194 one bronze. Her goal i s to make the Armature Athletic Union and Collegiate National Teams. Starting in the fall of 2007, she will be appointed as a Visiting Professor of Political Science at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania. She c urrently resides in Connecticut with her husband Dan and cat Nemo.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101115_AAAAAW INGEST_TIME 2010-11-15T07:10:49Z PACKAGE UFE0021238_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 2364 DFID F20101115_AAAHOD ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH cohen_d_Page_182thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
b9a0ef0ac3733c4c7586f46d92125c61
SHA-1
309c049031bcea1e801b0e6153d07621a3416619
50631 F20101115_AAAHNO cohen_d_Page_076.pro
c9bac1f13b85a018ab3f6b6940ce4851
f4c5a88bfc8fd50afb927a297e7ce22eaa574a0a
54124 F20101115_AAAHOE cohen_d_Page_122.pro
fa2e6bf6b2915d140d311c12a7d48d1d
0b41a222cf8731d33ffe3ed884090e7804ce1175
1053954 F20101115_AAAHNP cohen_d_Page_088.tif
9f1f5cf23a2400ed6827581edc039e33
a629f6d29277b0c02bdc08b79cf26bbfd91ce970
2027 F20101115_AAAHOF cohen_d_Page_028.txt
836ee486b80af66d1e18ee94ab9091a9
faee130f543461498199e2862ee48f08330b9e11
23987 F20101115_AAAHNQ cohen_d_Page_168.QC.jpg
d1ad83e79ddc4136694766b171175f38
2e7f936496498d72d58087c0c3d6dbd5b89116ed
1995 F20101115_AAAHOG cohen_d_Page_038.txt
64194996f0f238d9a7e9bf0317069296
6309881c2af84fb4082aee21a8a4ce9c35c30d1d
83449 F20101115_AAAHNR cohen_d_Page_190.jpg
b53912334cc7459927b8df1e6fca0843
dfc6c174e6e222592702edc75644448a519f29b1
105098 F20101115_AAAHOH cohen_d_Page_021.jp2
b408a216fc15d0eac70b4fca1db945f4
8451d94750d1b1cf8df5561d305ee40ae2f1823d
52447 F20101115_AAAHNS cohen_d_Page_136.pro
ab4d2a2df44b67ea2e8a4447f1943121
d355e6f44ea4bacb2926d27259eb3901268ac1a4
71761 F20101115_AAAHOI cohen_d_Page_037.jpg
ebfb49c7db6bdf05cdd2aa8dd484c5d0
7d12d71ad0ad00470d593b10528e2874dfa4ff1f
76891 F20101115_AAAHNT cohen_d_Page_086.jpg
1556d3120e4651d19b0328aa96834abb
42ae761f91fcaed9a7661ff40743d8d0da27d73a
1796 F20101115_AAAHOJ cohen_d_Page_147.txt
2b9e1fcafa24eec55230fd686ca28cd9
30dab4a0f730dd883eb08a8124723fbb6549f6e2
50778 F20101115_AAAHNU cohen_d_Page_082.pro
89859ab83e4a7ad0a392a9233599beab
8b3e87a0632bba33fd18ac6735e731d3f77b14d0
25394 F20101115_AAAHOK cohen_d_Page_182.jpg
aad00952fb3d2dff266697edc867d8c0
d7074890bbff5bb70db8073583b07ae6a60c264b
1656 F20101115_AAAHNV cohen_d_Page_143.txt
fda0bfbf593cec411d74fd6405326f8a
b8ae4c3791d5f51555327ac903f9420576b41cf3
21984 F20101115_AAAHOL cohen_d_Page_069.QC.jpg
ecd07bf18e0216447967984cf5183c4a
a9b180b1193d2647ee07398fc8ab084b44104487
F20101115_AAAHNW cohen_d_Page_131.tif
901e992fbb05356270a2605398a1c9c3
a46cf9fa5856647a1afa13270571eb834c987b9d
70599 F20101115_AAAHPA cohen_d_Page_016.jpg
7ba18a6d03a0c15de047b32aebf4edeb
f0abe2c043d20a96d724934b113a041a162e9104
26554 F20101115_AAAHOM cohen_d_Page_187.QC.jpg
e2ad214a0a4e717a396dd730ac9b102d
72c466bcfc804a016f494402b4de455ff1d9aa61
25271604 F20101115_AAAHNX cohen_d_Page_005.tif
001299ea29642da590e87daf967c3fb3
c4ddc2bcb9497dd77464d04884bdffbb52a91184
72304 F20101115_AAAHPB cohen_d_Page_017.jpg
a89c3bec2f4de8aba6f86c398c0cac42
ef0d11653c4b13626ab946e59fccc7ee84436676
1564 F20101115_AAAHON cohen_d_Page_107.txt
8e2f8c729263e80282d037a4986e3c92
1cd75cb149e12a68ca572ef1bc371bd3967f0cc6
6236 F20101115_AAAHNY cohen_d_Page_071thm.jpg
33a7b41a03d3512e7f724fbe756901ff
eeb82689f95c7eafae5ce0c0a2f82439de5ab272
67503 F20101115_AAAHPC cohen_d_Page_019.jpg
3ebe0462d84601cfac6b9a70509ecc91
2f8b3981a689316dd16eca5ca06ef53b4ca18e8b
58480 F20101115_AAAHOO cohen_d_Page_109.jpg
b2841a21368918ac96bb052ca749a702
d5dc1cf016a680d81106f28805ee3c71f7bb7fe4
71070 F20101115_AAAHNZ cohen_d_Page_014.jpg
d83ffdf4763fb41615f412bf1870b022
1a228e507a92fe05a4413db7939eacc03ddf218c
71500 F20101115_AAAHPD cohen_d_Page_023.jpg
fa67ecb0b2bac47bbfe923f17ae185ca
385895ccf1dc2618c464686f94290eebc8fe3bd3
74422 F20101115_AAAHPE cohen_d_Page_024.jpg
8ef2824eaa21c4ecbbc4fa23a96f82f6
7c94507a58136ae21cec12259e4b2acca3a4df54
72290 F20101115_AAAHOP cohen_d_Page_129.jpg
59b80a851d0c88228014aab5cbdebb78
67300c399eb86d345093f1f8a3c13a37b83a6403
71279 F20101115_AAAHPF cohen_d_Page_026.jpg
64358bf57475a2bb2a8d95180930b0bb
af275b28eab22881375571de67441e9ead07f808
47105 F20101115_AAAHOQ cohen_d_Page_090.jp2
077ac5ed5b44077845c7ec793c25c4a3
893ca335beed461b794b2337b686522842a2162d
72891 F20101115_AAAHPG cohen_d_Page_028.jpg
9edf62ae4ec00e4515ae0ddbb37bc370
61af8eb4f1042bb5924bbb72f448a6b37c8dd2df
287426 F20101115_AAAHOR UFE0021238_00001.xml FULL
dc6bde1516ccf4a8da42079cc3a73f32
068e11d5a3b10c4a034c301abd03c8cada637a5c
62388 F20101115_AAAHPH cohen_d_Page_033.jpg
ad2c4c995815029e7785e58e062cdcfe
6df890298d900ddb352d92170dee68898408ac60
67480 F20101115_AAAHPI cohen_d_Page_035.jpg
81c6bd85363f396f353437f66c06ba21
66c5939181181d0bf67d20a61e3639703dc7a66d
71768 F20101115_AAAHPJ cohen_d_Page_036.jpg
e856f983e103a00e6c406f5833fc3f67
f2dea6c4780cb74956c916ba5867b7990d1827e0
91482 F20101115_AAAHOU cohen_d_Page_006.jpg
4b0996b0f90c36d1a7b3994529f819da
90b246923b838344b7569d34c3f3b52334e9159a
73233 F20101115_AAAHPK cohen_d_Page_040.jpg
bbabe622f64d1067aa9a869d6f19f848
435a0948f8a74174d1ebd55505213d7db98deb38
84953 F20101115_AAAHOV cohen_d_Page_007.jpg
ff00470778d07b13a0212adc4e71f8fc
edd98af5270936036f640925e6aaf82092121949
82962 F20101115_AAAHPL cohen_d_Page_041.jpg
8f825f1f9e71b0b9a5e1caac9c72f53c
dfaf1959a624dbc27dd9d208a5a015a7746aafe6
19145 F20101115_AAAHOW cohen_d_Page_009.jpg
e9836d7119a16ee184c40407ed198148
4dee4f950ad6304ba7b0460f0e6e1c1b6080d13b
83461 F20101115_AAAHPM cohen_d_Page_042.jpg
4d060161df2561508ad9446c870f006a
fc79a15345cc8f26bad409171fb43382fc4e51b6
35064 F20101115_AAAHOX cohen_d_Page_010.jpg
df1a79264a953582b5fffe9ed349e956
1c1c88cedf4f1a0f931c9fc0b6625b02db1edbd8
70118 F20101115_AAAHQA cohen_d_Page_073.jpg
0b5a415e3e8242c725644eebfc78d9a2
28cf9a7258639e72d263dbed0742375235642686
47179 F20101115_AAAHPN cohen_d_Page_043.jpg
07793656ae31b625ee3ec6345dc91f93
5f729059f0cf8ce774c82f2039e41e2570844706
74192 F20101115_AAAHOY cohen_d_Page_012.jpg
f4e5fb1c83d9dae05569b9d37e0aafd5
f219299a97530d075dc23218678fb45dfed9ef4d
73255 F20101115_AAAHQB cohen_d_Page_074.jpg
c2404c6af9c4f6f4dc8ded74c70bc966
5bea49b39d0a14276a64c90c7fbebf69609e110c
67319 F20101115_AAAHPO cohen_d_Page_045.jpg
1e8e6934ea77ce4543e26f98b2603367
3f50a6764cbc6032a9439e78a73ae71a4e80b2e0
70604 F20101115_AAAHOZ cohen_d_Page_015.jpg
fb54467c50db97ec59c5786b99364b70
47954018a3fbd1fd396cfde6249f3fc28d898b2d
71927 F20101115_AAAHQC cohen_d_Page_075.jpg
ed543555fdc18368fa1f168757a15722
29cde06fb74620d2fb5c2b02f0aa783eb6dbaeb3
76670 F20101115_AAAHPP cohen_d_Page_051.jpg
3042b385200c55dd28a3275bf0b767f6
12cb5dce68f11862f6040aaad095b284d52ae28b
81783 F20101115_AAAHQD cohen_d_Page_076.jpg
a03741fbfe9718199c4d486c3a9066c8
42c714934ef8b885a8fdd286e6ef0c2a8cc68ae0
64744 F20101115_AAAHQE cohen_d_Page_078.jpg
984013a67bcde9372494f83d1ebcce11
9b4966c1ac3a0c0629d949f917fbc7a8be1c4112
75344 F20101115_AAAHPQ cohen_d_Page_054.jpg
4d2e495ec6dddf99d8d3199ea6b81dc9
33b04ace2a5c4fe7e7c779409588a4ba81e7397f
73116 F20101115_AAAHQF cohen_d_Page_079.jpg
7df2cd7700e94b48ff3d8b47c7d76c3a
be750a436036ebced13be63faedcea659479ff38
71144 F20101115_AAAHPR cohen_d_Page_055.jpg
fa96cbf2d91e3a0987ef187d6d849bf0
8a9cdac6cad4894cff18a4b91e8416ffedd667d1
71644 F20101115_AAAHQG cohen_d_Page_082.jpg
849c31f100a6818af06ae9e3dd529038
fd29db3fc7fe8cda0b9d4729988cb35e2c36a055
70723 F20101115_AAAHPS cohen_d_Page_057.jpg
1b6603de5379052b5b2103264146a8b0
30eef0048dc1e034434a20ea9c5380869ef0fa66
67079 F20101115_AAAHQH cohen_d_Page_083.jpg
5e485593a10b9913787113a0e391cd0a
af231e598080b6159c7ba3c1b5e8b6f6f980c5b1
70844 F20101115_AAAHPT cohen_d_Page_058.jpg
e68c8f97171d0e5f4fe2ac28ce9751d1
55957760c1f4cc1946f6dec45042e49b039529ee
68909 F20101115_AAAHQI cohen_d_Page_084.jpg
dfc6a2fe5b0fdeb3159df78bccd98c20
3ceba6984539863bf36e8ff0ae2342c0e4261112
81613 F20101115_AAAHPU cohen_d_Page_060.jpg
45ba440dc83195be362ff750392b1f34
022838cd73113e451d4a7cb8dbd26dc4a820997a
65229 F20101115_AAAHQJ cohen_d_Page_085.jpg
61160c6950b5564b995352aba708a46e
71bddf788af3d6e24b670b370e3e0c54e09df8eb
65823 F20101115_AAAHPV cohen_d_Page_061.jpg
eb3d2291d11cfdbda6a6fa2980cbda79
1e04cb6d7548a7bfa189d2bc41670297a7090809
70951 F20101115_AAAHQK cohen_d_Page_088.jpg
d03f2591525d3532bfb7e4bdf57337b6
fbc06a4b324124414f15e65b4b3cca9c89f8fe5f
66830 F20101115_AAAHPW cohen_d_Page_069.jpg
39dd5fa3a7fcf254cd06471d123da2a3
092059fab442bd0f5e42cc8e6a7c2bed5d4e529f
69106 F20101115_AAAHQL cohen_d_Page_089.jpg
9771f9f75ff74521b77d584f1afb2f71
14e9212558101aa67a6de54f1bb0a0fc69e53ee0
65551 F20101115_AAAHPX cohen_d_Page_070.jpg
b108ac7fce7156ccd8403ba1460fcba8
71c439f5998145ac2e8fa0b507d1271772d75e4e
68537 F20101115_AAAHRA cohen_d_Page_116.jpg
089f98fcb3153d8b264e6d5d5cad101b
fd4e4b5732e5cc41e77a95f95b09c61d350522d2
34138 F20101115_AAAHQM cohen_d_Page_090.jpg
65b0edbb3ff1c3c11d5adcbb23cd1ea5
1d2a49220f87427f4ea4ca083338f79852edb65d
68018 F20101115_AAAHPY cohen_d_Page_071.jpg
003b8f41c593b189551b76cb44ef6722
a1c8a088b5d282e6edb6868e5fd73b56dbd6d778
60164 F20101115_AAAHRB cohen_d_Page_117.jpg
c46bc835f1f34ed163b5f027754c3e3e
90edda1e68c1621dacc18d531846acb1529334c5
66359 F20101115_AAAHQN cohen_d_Page_092.jpg
77e078d5ca16e4d2193498c8d658189b
d200bcb6b502013f113ee1916024412a79b787e8
66743 F20101115_AAAHPZ cohen_d_Page_072.jpg
e9c9d3ce3a7817f099b6f6479a954f36
f3113bfbd0c93142460890d7677c877c5daf65ea
58926 F20101115_AAAHRC cohen_d_Page_118.jpg
ffdd10187455077cbcc2224d0df5bee8
c4f8d623c719b81af0473977954aac4fe181d795
72841 F20101115_AAAHQO cohen_d_Page_094.jpg
95dcc9b66184767ebab34d09f59fabd7
1234f05eae73afb0737f62994e160fbb09ca4e14
77242 F20101115_AAAHRD cohen_d_Page_121.jpg
7db984a4d4eb9fe97745f401d7f6bf74
31a1eed2f939e081c7f359e9dee4980d4655d03d
71852 F20101115_AAAHQP cohen_d_Page_095.jpg
7834269779d2a970f080182c268cca59
c081155d4aff5fca17f886b93d5f08a50c3b5516
74919 F20101115_AAAHRE cohen_d_Page_122.jpg
47e45fbf6fb9c4f0295405c0fb962e4f
2bbb36f66845a46266bfca66f044c70c0c2d197a
62737 F20101115_AAAHQQ cohen_d_Page_098.jpg
e6c77d37b9fd4657d51882f5a97455c5
3adc7372a042e7360d50f75dd1ddd9a28c222bb9
69110 F20101115_AAAHRF cohen_d_Page_124.jpg
0c6aa31a0da883af8efe369275ceed32
33f3183fda3f739740e5a5d7c493a99fd31dd7e0
76322 F20101115_AAAHRG cohen_d_Page_125.jpg
9f4beaa37d6dbe0409e6ec078115fc7a
21b2b625ebda0118c1d9c128761a72d3e5e7c073
61907 F20101115_AAAHQR cohen_d_Page_099.jpg
24cda3309595b797199646a62dcd94c4
db33a23fe3a488350666154bab5eac5c968e861b
68766 F20101115_AAAHRH cohen_d_Page_126.jpg
353b9f663811a5b216c752beab8399ea
536442a4ce26b15ef5b6d25726d5e889eca1808f
60658 F20101115_AAAHQS cohen_d_Page_100.jpg
8a7b57a052492012c8e0924d7bc0326c
82d6d05f795886cc3cde8f40f228ee7932818490
70807 F20101115_AAAHRI cohen_d_Page_127.jpg
229495e22e7374abaa2d1d93d5a40f22
bbab63b28480ba4e0911cd86edbf157e146f5863
70502 F20101115_AAAHQT cohen_d_Page_102.jpg
ddb2b5ee8b684b3d87bd0edeae9f90af
f17e71aba3e6905668188cf6ce3336c986ccd317
73377 F20101115_AAAHRJ cohen_d_Page_128.jpg
6e262081626c0690fe37fb0271f8ab3c
359d082972b90b06513c74d44f6758124b6fe9df
65441 F20101115_AAAHQU cohen_d_Page_105.jpg
5a10f5c11d727b1614e43d66a7012f99
1729d741d124f13946acb6e4bdc2a10799c1de67
65550 F20101115_AAAHRK cohen_d_Page_131.jpg
a73302fd6dcf428f65d726a1684818af
555cd4134739139ef4093a1ce0786f4142c8d021
59499 F20101115_AAAHQV cohen_d_Page_107.jpg
9686dcc0412e8a4d474496ab213fa425
1bc1ab7602c7e9eb7031daeb1ca7aa6f1f4d97ce
70435 F20101115_AAAHRL cohen_d_Page_133.jpg
686cfb374ebf002d7a85ea67d60438c8
f1c916641f24951955d39088edd533cc87aef594
72947 F20101115_AAAHQW cohen_d_Page_108.jpg
c007a947d5e8c46501e77be5b1fe1b61
59ca101d095dd80b613affdc3bc21436f64522b6
54966 F20101115_AAAHSA cohen_d_Page_161.jpg
b157a1784cec7924bb21798efebb3a07
aa1926617803bae5ee27e31c25db891247e7efd9
77366 F20101115_AAAHRM cohen_d_Page_134.jpg
59c4accd654804ed7255144c39c9d662
0b8b3b7fdb821765de3558f6eebebe8f0e79cd80
63254 F20101115_AAAHQX cohen_d_Page_111.jpg
1994dc96bbaa8a66be9ece01f69e55ed
93d659b9218ad736351f65578284d845a8c64f68
51924 F20101115_AAAHSB cohen_d_Page_164.jpg
26812bf2244ba5c1d1e285ae78774e07
c48c6a0144b130e7293109022409d30558fcaac5
81977 F20101115_AAAHRN cohen_d_Page_135.jpg
f85894a9bccf01fd1540ce40378640a3
b78034eb3ea2e84af31471a1fb12e7e952948697
67253 F20101115_AAAHQY cohen_d_Page_112.jpg
7ec541721c05dff7188906f62bd08294
9f44e1cee7033a6854b41f1748a13e110007f091
72092 F20101115_AAAHRO cohen_d_Page_137.jpg
516829b91e93deed3203c1e7f55d6eec
2e54ec19fcd83a582fcccaef0625d36499dc66e6
61597 F20101115_AAAHQZ cohen_d_Page_114.jpg
25b8f1307718d957744f7956e237eb8a
c9932189fe5cf3c39366db00b2828da9075eca7f
74361 F20101115_AAAHSC cohen_d_Page_166.jpg
abae9cd81e50fabf2e10bc0a583e172b
8fa0e14a891a3d6cea9af355d871475cfae197cf
69227 F20101115_AAAHRP cohen_d_Page_139.jpg
b0f5ec983705e7ef4e7dfbb0160b9e0e
3a7ed815f170bf87fb6abf55131f843ef1982df4
6490 F20101115_AAAGPB cohen_d_Page_001.QC.jpg
9b64aa33787968e792a9c4bf44d429fd
99ae2298feefdbb559b9effd5744fae824cd61f7
86981 F20101115_AAAHSD cohen_d_Page_168.jpg
1bbad0547f365a92f3a32ae8590c4209
313935065b95a833f05cfdee636125baff485e68
68889 F20101115_AAAHRQ cohen_d_Page_141.jpg
c28d921dafda8d7a05c1384fb4eb9630
c63bce9f38c1543279959b095c69dfac37f0cbc3
33729 F20101115_AAAGPC cohen_d_Page_114.pro
63433e5bd5c12a5ecb251ae4ce186bc1
358a83ec9c95769f171d145048be33301aab22c8
23281 F20101115_AAAHSE cohen_d_Page_169.jpg
b6b9d8f3cf25fc22edf1c8178d88f0bd
caddd41830db0b39f19b2d9c4345657c5c82be8f
60730 F20101115_AAAHRR cohen_d_Page_143.jpg
e97ed910966fc1f7735e5a1ace42d800
f2130599cac3a06867b66852d444fb26e81b0d0e
67042 F20101115_AAAGPD cohen_d_Page_146.jpg
b979518a9d1f1d354ca5322c912912fc
2bd8df44ffb24cfd26ccdaa8584d231ec54d9b77
91389 F20101115_AAAHSF cohen_d_Page_170.jpg
76aaddc8c2bc037b836eaa8a098abc0c
fed6d5520ab0bd83e7dcdbe16ef859b82a596190
F20101115_AAAGPE cohen_d_Page_157.tif
6fdb6ef636e8fa284e7a8e85772bffa0
462f0294071a5e44cf8c51be2b420ed383612b7d
57727 F20101115_AAAHSG cohen_d_Page_171.jpg
d6aad98fab8b0e5533dbae885dbcdf45
87e7fd607b12dd2746cb66dd0ef88ca967f43235
61313 F20101115_AAAHRS cohen_d_Page_144.jpg
04316fb98503176f8716a4b260fd616a
e9dd4b0104a10982f4fd46c00fc089dd84992b6c
73394 F20101115_AAAGPF cohen_d_Page_087.jpg
b80db277ba9839be61affea6ebd8bcb1
f400cb8f004ff2af04de18420f09cbba0065c0da
67037 F20101115_AAAHSH cohen_d_Page_172.jpg
ccd0aee61cf48f5d90bdb3a4928e04ff
08fbd99176997611869562a34765436217b4c135
65576 F20101115_AAAHRT cohen_d_Page_147.jpg
e4eee10c910aa906ae47421d514d3f05
18efcc2d8fca99bf8162bcb0310c1aa5892d27ce
6428 F20101115_AAAGPG cohen_d_Page_066thm.jpg
41ec5a7c3cbcd82ab42523f493935938
7f32af3e8afe4b28a1032a8d84c4a30ba988ce64
65479 F20101115_AAAHSI cohen_d_Page_173.jpg
fc9aee39c56aee721e211c153a20ca5d
68a3283ccc47be9405cd5630f52079e78c483e8c
67456 F20101115_AAAHRU cohen_d_Page_150.jpg
e737d4afe115c4ec6ca7de3b723a7ad6
4673d54613a6fbca0ac3d70fc578f981de7c8526
68444 F20101115_AAAGPH cohen_d_Page_064.jpg
e5cc30063f580ffaed3589bb40e3e3b8
ee99d19bf7ea2c7de3ae7642031166ec82274d6e
18772 F20101115_AAAHSJ cohen_d_Page_180.jpg
2d9d330164483a197fdc13b6df559321
ce13309dbf926f5073968b753ade4a4b4d7523f4
69465 F20101115_AAAHRV cohen_d_Page_154.jpg
c35c12b9a43c82918267eb0bd56e25fa
49f15d0cc6eb60be91e99e597e7e2334305b3ad3
F20101115_AAAGPI cohen_d_Page_136.tif
2316c9f1d29fdd718cf38385aaea6f91
ff077787bead81cf6cf46db526951e673a05b00b
48509 F20101115_AAAHSK cohen_d_Page_181.jpg
a2dbba90dbb003e69145c8475d3f603d
980ce47c5e1e45bfae8c4d8608a30af61e9db2d8
71818 F20101115_AAAHRW cohen_d_Page_156.jpg
d6c0829f956f6322ea8d73b038b771fc
860b606e7bcc28067ffb1fc823610c9baa9a1936
3437 F20101115_AAAGPJ cohen_d_Page_004thm.jpg
28860ea3f79d8adfe6d36c5facad3f6c
5c6ae0e293a826943cb1006384203382ed4c9b4a
20324 F20101115_AAAHSL cohen_d_Page_184.jpg
864ce3a91424765af11c3b77004794c5
09b8a38f23384029cb1afecd573990e9ccc2530a
67863 F20101115_AAAHRX cohen_d_Page_157.jpg
d42bbb71fc80f54065ba4052b2514aa3
be07eb4ad3c4f1ef6586a925634f63a8481dca48
38513 F20101115_AAAHTA cohen_d_Page_018.jp2
3ef113a9c6c31557e7f7f7db660d406f
a82b6a002efb0e63b4c6286c84361b8033c3243c
48830 F20101115_AAAGPK cohen_d_Page_021.pro
000bef52696b59e9acf86cf7ad0775e4
d02a0d80f6111a8c904e634cf51e6164349abbf4
35632 F20101115_AAAHSM cohen_d_Page_185.jpg
0f943311db93efad78c4dff7804c3a44
4ed38a092b4e8ba54082374f03e2b5ebcad00c70
71023 F20101115_AAAHRY cohen_d_Page_159.jpg
c445e61146746f22d8fdfd8375aeb904
47c9b3e23bf118a8e376806b71307aac1b87b67e
101967 F20101115_AAAHTB cohen_d_Page_020.jp2
9264fdb270f3ff625598457fe7d16a28
e7715876b8ab1c489e5afc654380b4631c40c59c
68387 F20101115_AAAGPL cohen_d_Page_059.jpg
10dd3f8bf5c20cb901555c7e5d428088
566398eeb6a2984c596ed6d909c9119fa1b615d7
92719 F20101115_AAAHSN cohen_d_Page_187.jpg
24315779abd87e3cfedc763f43e7caea
d41d54b1e3edb44dffac394696c0c8cbdde44426
76345 F20101115_AAAHRZ cohen_d_Page_160.jpg
b9b57033f82177f7997b46e0060ab0bf
d2661669d939d47df8c59a8beb2942391898be13
5960 F20101115_AAAGQA cohen_d_Page_148thm.jpg
468187be61f674a25d7099fbf322706c
62cd07b3341dc50f83d56da010497a947bdf1ed9
108547 F20101115_AAAHTC cohen_d_Page_031.jp2
5c7d424cc6a8694d96ad0dddd6bf623c
528de5abd1391864e5323d4671e5e12f39e3ba8c
F20101115_AAAGPM cohen_d_Page_076.tif
a9ef20921f076d7ab81e39c6d304bea1
0c44a2e938a19cbcb71fa8a41c71d53346bf244e
95039 F20101115_AAAHSO cohen_d_Page_191.jpg
1bade456a6a2a5ad554cd8947503385b
c95a8259b6938fe2673ad5dc8b4d667813706b3f
54837 F20101115_AAAGQB cohen_d_Page_162.jpg
70d5568836f8d58339f93e93c5216c91
d42e9720324505fd1481f4e5df709d7b897b3eef
109087 F20101115_AAAHTD cohen_d_Page_034.jp2
cb4b72b4b774f609ba8ff8756b6f61f9
6b8369a3cd75590e3c8714135283f0c472267a30
6286 F20101115_AAAGPN cohen_d_Page_145thm.jpg
94f94d2ea7d0e29c4f79b4b9187afcb1
5ab4988ec6ac7b03e0eb84b237ce6a3f209767e5
64224 F20101115_AAAHSP cohen_d_Page_193.jpg
bd01570360a2c00bc07f132b0c75eb69
9f55a27576ced6e9bee694a6b56925776537b495
3503 F20101115_AAAGQC cohen_d_Page_185thm.jpg
cff06a33baad37bbf6d1fc27af24dd83
43b6a432412ef4e7864f8276524de82ef59a4bf3
100956 F20101115_AAAHTE cohen_d_Page_035.jp2
869fa6f62f2d664f356f1fb429043af9
77bcf4bf2618152fae39d7301cc8147287806176
55472 F20101115_AAAGPO cohen_d_Page_163.jpg
f271307a19909035822eacb1796c99cf
a1dd0ff8beec2c370557eb709f4208ecb0e9ea7a
18894 F20101115_AAAHSQ cohen_d_Page_194.jpg
267859e8a6dbee8769aa78cafbd2951b
164e72a9548ca62b68560a38beed3b5a5160333d
1863 F20101115_AAAGQD cohen_d_Page_056.txt
5be0c3d08f803189a2b822a7fce9ffed
f847cf308a13280052eeadceb4774c2ec8a1c157
108237 F20101115_AAAHTF cohen_d_Page_036.jp2
2197fdeb1406f38bd98238fa3c1c64a9
020a16fa545c60c587d8ee1a56073f34f0070d3e
42305 F20101115_AAAGPP cohen_d_Page_033.pro
d14c7af76b3a72b2ac6449afc8605490
44992c974d8b91b25c02445fe70b7fac6940a14c
6242 F20101115_AAAHSR cohen_d_Page_002.jp2
1e63e1d2bfcebba5f17c95ab21ff983e
047f198f8035b6fb7728b14b18b863b410903c87
72596 F20101115_AAAGQE cohen_d_Page_038.jpg
1d2387ce17bc15b32042fb2aaf71f414
2adf6b9d7f251afb8f67edd75fbf19d3fbcff0de
109746 F20101115_AAAHTG cohen_d_Page_038.jp2
9bcb9e9f5595dfa0d6d8f96b9535607b
2af2802b29fc29835a8d2102245155b2956ae261
2093 F20101115_AAAGPQ cohen_d_Page_060.txt
cc80a95f4af2d419de7acfc8123bbb55
7a462307c10c802ee9688b73e1b0596d7c0c8591
43286 F20101115_AAAHSS cohen_d_Page_004.jp2
2c9c3e0f10145fd2950af6a8851a4df3
b58e53b4be4d633962aa88a6207d89464e2c189e
100139 F20101115_AAAHTH cohen_d_Page_039.jp2
04f70e013530a361df0342841ed9f3a0
44c074ed04821b928d2775d0316428b48870d346
23535 F20101115_AAAGQF cohen_d_Page_086.QC.jpg
7577abde73624085fda9efcd64702b11
bda0f92d1baaaf9e076ad6171f73d0b0f8ef6a6f
110969 F20101115_AAAHTI cohen_d_Page_040.jp2
bf8c5ed11d410d42e8fbf92387dd5e90
ab82af12a72146e489d6b02d321d87abfc245ee3
6563 F20101115_AAAGQG cohen_d_Page_038thm.jpg
7e770f7781c99fb2e1bcdcc963a82b5d
6af33920e765eaf91c5e3194719946ee59032b5e
F20101115_AAAGPR cohen_d_Page_072.tif
f56358e4c8741befeae3967345cf1604
a5c934b5e0afeb33ac56039f532714d5710a4ec3
1051945 F20101115_AAAHST cohen_d_Page_005.jp2
029b06d5754340c83181504e84d61e83
92eec58e9afd62526a6d1341aac2ef3a2ba737a4
1051949 F20101115_AAAHTJ cohen_d_Page_041.jp2
dcfb4798ae7efe68e9f0c881ad8dab94
f73304bff97ba1b64e7565dd75a13eba74468a74
26833 F20101115_AAAGQH cohen_d_Page_191.QC.jpg
492d4781bce02fcdff8a0821fecd3279
e609a5fcb7cb3f548097953714489bbaf1cb6921
23248 F20101115_AAAGPS cohen_d_Page_046.QC.jpg
b3e63f4b22c74b8f61c6361d9c8d49fc
f838727ae7a46a89b0bfaa1084a0a97ba30b7aec
1051981 F20101115_AAAHSU cohen_d_Page_006.jp2
3e865e9c76132c29b5645e5a753735c2
8a0203d9fcc225b406f59a7ff56698e61948ad4e
101498 F20101115_AAAHTK cohen_d_Page_045.jp2
ce6cc19a2d2ed95b06dc3bbeaeed82ef
83beed62920ca30006ad959c52ed3cd60eb82e84
22112 F20101115_AAAGQI cohen_d_Page_095.QC.jpg
ed12dfeeb16d3c73ab0912671711b858
daaa98e2a0028876633f6dcd96e02d7087e67a0d
F20101115_AAAGPT cohen_d_Page_151.tif
eacdda62a4a74edbbabd93a12cded32c
b48ac324093e4f9beeff02ca37420e685ee0f93f
1051964 F20101115_AAAHSV cohen_d_Page_007.jp2
a8d23ea7cbfcdec59394ae6a245c69c4
f3b50682365ce663f5e5c6e0457f9cc0b5bea4a9
105689 F20101115_AAAHTL cohen_d_Page_046.jp2
828ad382c688efdc9219eb17cc0a8465
f3f80a12c2ce9dde815c5c6b59bc22382f4b41c6
6523 F20101115_AAAGQJ cohen_d_Page_156thm.jpg
2215ebb0ab3466b12bf378e3deae090b
eea65072f48d1179e9c381e5eafd8e5a90ab7887
22736 F20101115_AAAGPU cohen_d_Page_157.QC.jpg
8411c71397620eccbc87bf3c4be9cb71
14bfce71efab8f6ff10d705de8b270a8e1a69690
251607 F20101115_AAAHSW cohen_d_Page_009.jp2
9761a56a24b1afdca77a66f6eee015d9
50c96a22d6feb82b4e575f06884e946cbb4f9451
107593 F20101115_AAAHUA cohen_d_Page_075.jp2
030ab5e72f5fec9a26af07463459eba5
401ec6c3792b1c00bd2753ddd130aba61b6ab92d
108933 F20101115_AAAHTM cohen_d_Page_048.jp2
78191c707271efe1e75644dda09fc078
b6924da849a446f4c3978a269eeab8f8b741809b
23368 F20101115_AAAGQK cohen_d_Page_034.QC.jpg
1295b2ac7718e9b78c36aecec6d6c003
a6f17df52545a6f336262afb3e1bca14af4b2f92
71604 F20101115_AAAGPV cohen_d_Page_031.jpg
2b21f057a153e080c3837525efcf21c8
b909cb45a91802216be9a2db1a7df45d358bb116
111431 F20101115_AAAHSX cohen_d_Page_012.jp2
d6642cb4259a5744364d5ec295bcb064
0bcb86eeb8802aa8d5c200098535b80804012622
1051941 F20101115_AAAHUB cohen_d_Page_076.jp2
b97c86b259a7f50c3787db6e8290cc9a
8a0bb7096b3adcfd7e318ce5558fcf988fd60dee
100630 F20101115_AAAHTN cohen_d_Page_049.jp2
e606354db5a8990dcf1b23d7c0987cf4
d8924d568547e89b85a4799ef135fd5cf13dbe87
2000 F20101115_AAAGQL cohen_d_Page_076.txt
8df411bd7bb41775734ed29b2be8f2b8
16f106ec70bbe306321fd7ea73f868607786a5c0
1630 F20101115_AAAGPW cohen_d_Page_166.txt
e74ef94a81a3d7432a7e1af16b77554d
37b793a0e8624b907a6dfaa1844b58df51a94348
108914 F20101115_AAAHSY cohen_d_Page_013.jp2
e9aea9fabc170a9ec045a20239a189f0
4bb83631d435eb42bafa18546d5dfd7f853febc0
98220 F20101115_AAAHUC cohen_d_Page_078.jp2
118cb3b67376e2bf1b609d33b39bf315
88177da9fcfaea3b861509acf8cfda1a77dc1837
107350 F20101115_AAAHTO cohen_d_Page_050.jp2
b16f053fff6785897912893fd4cb213e
3bf8cf15920a763d89b43840d2952d9be2df7e27
72873 F20101115_AAAGRA cohen_d_Page_007.pro
b85a90b152047927240955f62c3bee96
160c86e4b71574f277ecf44869a7b8705506389b
1976 F20101115_AAAGQM cohen_d_Page_137.txt
3b6a5daf0e7c7ad9d40627b08e97fc4b
0f673387be0c8f7c8ac7c1df0bb8266b4f58f4e3
68033 F20101115_AAAGPX cohen_d_Page_043.jp2
a7bf7f88506203a9108429e19ba046a9
ce43d8aa329ac5acb9331abb4995e499ac6095a5
107030 F20101115_AAAHSZ cohen_d_Page_015.jp2
05cf148b4c42efccc964a7d576412583
52ca06b66bc51fb6e768a983c3092aaee042b05f
1051963 F20101115_AAAHUD cohen_d_Page_081.jp2
63b83fa78331dc9b66e678067024fe92
deaadc7e5ad540e60c06639f153035400aa7ef69
96195 F20101115_AAAHTP cohen_d_Page_052.jp2
072185aa3292952883a9af55c11e3281
f14768324708b73d7275ad22f1e258db0322f62d
1973 F20101115_AAAGRB cohen_d_Page_067.txt
43a69a502a6dffc730d83fee06c2090e
3ff00621d2df496b778de9121598944528a3279c
1051957 F20101115_AAAGQN cohen_d_Page_190.jp2
e48a2ff7f8eec191e7b4bb770837ff77
1774fa5efca11ae6df6daee0559a7c50c0f7b69b
109680 F20101115_AAAGPY cohen_d_Page_027.jp2
3292aac06c2a8184cad443ffccc45a7c
007645f1043a97bc9be8bae5c7855a6e7e210160
108443 F20101115_AAAHUE cohen_d_Page_082.jp2
a90bb6a020efbcf4264b22fcd23b5058
62ea66830c425691d65d8c3e4fd4eb3708b613bb
869446 F20101115_AAAHTQ cohen_d_Page_053.jp2
d18aee453acaa55e6ed101ce30f1389b
94f74d9be44c3ddfce0728ca935e649946d7af1f
67740 F20101115_AAAGRC cohen_d_Page_020.jpg
0891235a6df28dd6a02e412378099813
139b59f4a5a45aad34947344ba0868e83a5cdeab
106655 F20101115_AAAGQO cohen_d_Page_106.jp2
106dc4e6f988e2356d1267e3f3a89887
085b185a4d18048791a9955f41eadced963bade3
F20101115_AAAGPZ cohen_d_Page_042.jp2
0e3c13b12e376909268eb6a03465fbef
4e0feaff02e4c8422ffcbe1dcfac29730ca70318
101965 F20101115_AAAHUF cohen_d_Page_083.jp2
fd8ca0f4fe9e2898c259ae18176cddd3
60a1bff15e23bb94697e12bb5b446b3fab9bd67d
114447 F20101115_AAAHTR cohen_d_Page_054.jp2
5179a5ba8dd6d6484cfea0d26cef485e
a085626822dfeebaf7aae217fbfa1513eabfb2c6
1942 F20101115_AAAGRD cohen_d_Page_013.txt
3129e449483888d67a77b49d61d257f4
3e9c05e37664e8e2fe330339ca281252e795fd5d
F20101115_AAAGQP cohen_d_Page_150.QC.jpg
6135c8c3b4c4c2982dbe39e27db511a4
8d918a59446a931e3d153e0f62dd1111dd53c96d
F20101115_AAAIAA cohen_d_Page_179.tif
9860520ddee52a1525e20c81cf3ebebb
9b037039a54f1bf13a282eee6c349594f1422ee3
105427 F20101115_AAAHUG cohen_d_Page_084.jp2
99fa35ad44b22bea9e0cd7c0f8bff1d6
e935967409af17c4f3933b359539508a14d48ef3
101968 F20101115_AAAHTS cohen_d_Page_056.jp2
e15e4f9aa3bfdceeb7968772f41e8210
1264cf406ec0e715d3063cf68dbc0b7e819f4c38
9187 F20101115_AAAGRE cohen_d_Page_018.QC.jpg
fe82c77b76dae0d8d5ea95d028803bfb
99e88cfc6597d0797fa0da48b2d23b6dbd247934
23461 F20101115_AAAGQQ cohen_d_Page_159.QC.jpg
cf3947fd452bee9233f87b4919b4d84a
12780fbbfb0cc3cefcfcab3e67d6301ae2dc7d30
F20101115_AAAIAB cohen_d_Page_184.tif
c0696bec0953bd2282b90b6f47cba025
ff7805826f5f4d9d32d85c9d8da6c2fb9ff29d37
114535 F20101115_AAAHUH cohen_d_Page_086.jp2
c407f54a2501297b474be7899492fda9
54391132c5cd7233490db675016c5167d2a4c17a
1051970 F20101115_AAAHTT cohen_d_Page_060.jp2
d95192c0231a0bfa4293ed30804c30d5
f0d90388a69ae20e3c9b2fe7c6fd5b8fb4fe320b
6383 F20101115_AAAGRF cohen_d_Page_123thm.jpg
e29af09e95b0c4ca827cdde23eadf59b
6e484b79e7c5260703c08f860c2fce50534a12b0
21057 F20101115_AAAGQR cohen_d_Page_178.jpg
56faedb38fc11686e17976eb6fe20f2b
99589aed4bf478ebdb922c0b99b91f0f20eabebd
F20101115_AAAIAC cohen_d_Page_188.tif
79ac0d2a2dea5b50e0b6250f8d6da4fc
9fd9f4524bcf3577845939a5ff7023c20f5d9374
108744 F20101115_AAAHUI cohen_d_Page_088.jp2
e1c2fd2a0d524560d049193661e344d3
a826a7bbffda60b46703bc510b1edc956ab1a233
23081 F20101115_AAAGRG cohen_d_Page_126.QC.jpg
c3d7250ab579497cfd3b7fcec87c9b03
350d06f17b067108a61d18c79e150f2459ea5608
F20101115_AAAIAD cohen_d_Page_190.tif
5203f8218a8a3f818628bc54c182035b
0c460a4227dc9e71697ec24e142ea7301e03bb05
106513 F20101115_AAAHUJ cohen_d_Page_089.jp2
3db9abf01ef7a55372097ef15bcf7e54
dea191685d0eff61655ec35e0060b14ce35e18c1
47724 F20101115_AAAHTU cohen_d_Page_062.jp2
0490c27eea900ea36507c986ccd1d336
cbd3e2e22db05c8982893760ebc596da844ae9d9
6427 F20101115_AAAGRH cohen_d_Page_127thm.jpg
e15ba7fa4536b260c1d68406468342ea
b3b1d6f7c3a9117914f2f40310edb34c59729cf1
109270 F20101115_AAAGQS cohen_d_Page_159.jp2
c587b9e9a927b097183a5991b3f9dda4
1bef1aa864698159f66ea0785965b8044ae64c48
F20101115_AAAIAE cohen_d_Page_191.tif
64d7785a58eebc0b3366ca2d45897eee
eec73d07710a80fa49e7de14150411643883f6b1
828973 F20101115_AAAHUK cohen_d_Page_093.jp2
bd3fd989e8cd41bbbd23a3c4b396fe68
71cca109c752b52e64073f041d93f03c0fd442ca
103180 F20101115_AAAHTV cohen_d_Page_063.jp2
20da11d7a5ab751b29af488876183ada
bf832cf6d15b3c72b9ca7c62bd7ae17f7b23c73e
105775 F20101115_AAAGRI cohen_d_Page_127.jp2
d43ac555106d32df1be00ba4d6e13df1
6a63da25a24a7b6c0ebe5a6be7b81f205d8730a4
F20101115_AAAGQT cohen_d_Page_113.tif
96fbacb0ceb91de734d79bff75810c48
ee0a5a48bdd7cd49cd2241cfa01818a32393dfc4
F20101115_AAAIAF cohen_d_Page_193.tif
82b6fc9b52772556b0a6efe81b2f8abc
ec07e35d28b6e38b9a1938fecf9057531205594f
1028331 F20101115_AAAHUL cohen_d_Page_094.jp2
5a29ffdfd11c0d5f98ee6c62196d1f84
f9ca97fde2677f19f9899e142b126cf545d574ce
101474 F20101115_AAAHTW cohen_d_Page_065.jp2
9220f77ebaf5c32f205df7fa30957695
292f6529eac3937a33a780c066c894ba58209634
21541 F20101115_AAAGRJ cohen_d_Page_065.QC.jpg
8a4a7bcf262a2f731e00e1f109887555
8a8b3da93bc85df6961f23265c69f1b152f00788
23222 F20101115_AAAGQU cohen_d_Page_138.QC.jpg
0ecc97266b51ba7e1cd4ae7235650d27
540ce8ca3cbe0e31886481e23594d2819726e05d
F20101115_AAAIAG cohen_d_Page_194.tif
8976780397e09b974c51658587db604e
fc9aa74ac9c8472dc7d4c3790d75d04b06c41f81
111559 F20101115_AAAHVA cohen_d_Page_122.jp2
a50a34d3fbb8f887ae4714095fbaa60e
cac55cf5d691c496116c3c0e451851d011e9d5e1
715899 F20101115_AAAHUM cohen_d_Page_097.jp2
b10ec2967d5665719981e2d26dc57bd5
e95987dc9959e7fcd65ef93cd389058598b1f3cf
108299 F20101115_AAAHTX cohen_d_Page_067.jp2
f69181c2f5675f64f74849eca8c2aa4b
baababf43cc98ea4bcf4791da131f2de4bf2f5f1
100810 F20101115_AAAGRK cohen_d_Page_019.jp2
4ff1c7a8c7e520967a4007dc0a120e9f
b2fa2d59bc62382ef380f768ea25b966597de8eb
550 F20101115_AAAGQV cohen_d_Page_142.txt
b9e15333eb3f4bbf54dfe7c1411f979f
f419d331503ac3c6930be5902db2d98332cf2c07
9448 F20101115_AAAIAH cohen_d_Page_009.pro
a5b1c5296bb1d89a861027b476477af1
b3db0f19ec679ff9af361a0aad9cf0107f81e990
104543 F20101115_AAAHVB cohen_d_Page_123.jp2
7ed6ed8c0db1c7b62e9370cf94ebff65
6cc6584aa148b769da67fd385ca504b21830fc81
840914 F20101115_AAAHUN cohen_d_Page_098.jp2
c80151c6d0408e4b5db2f6a23ba641ad
4194ff6af9f7f556abce9951ae92b23eaf383ffb
102439 F20101115_AAAHTY cohen_d_Page_069.jp2
b0df3592673f6d309255e95515d1ca0c
0c25bc069149fbe2384f516ab30002e2125c3f56
1344 F20101115_AAAGRL cohen_d_Page_104.txt
a0d19188e7a456619ead64aa194129a8
8c3b78c5db826393744397447e486d5809faf806
22633 F20101115_AAAGQW cohen_d_Page_087.QC.jpg
3ebbd6b06cd4b566ed6117b7fc2c6d29
a4657f56af0dd1891d9149bbe98fdd9448d5bd41
40651 F20101115_AAAIAI cohen_d_Page_011.pro
0b8b635effc441c6408556d51e82b9dc
caf380068d62a76d4f5e771c5042e59d1bdd18dd
114572 F20101115_AAAHVC cohen_d_Page_125.jp2
9386ff61c382aa257438c90535e52450
eb3430dbc177cf135f7f4e77bbe5674e258b6fa9
794684 F20101115_AAAHUO cohen_d_Page_099.jp2
7704544bbdbcc85aa211ef676b76922c
519f06249fd9fdd7e12023e7725f98c79022ce17
102534 F20101115_AAAHTZ cohen_d_Page_072.jp2
f2d1a820302fd510373474f9f7843377
86e01104528deb334cd7f6dbb2b0c9b0d9dc7d9a
F20101115_AAAGRM cohen_d_Page_135.tif
b257dff97fec0abffef688d088327de2
77cb598aa474be625d3d9e7702d398771f6ec190
68107 F20101115_AAAGQX cohen_d_Page_130.jpg
f2bdb2a7dec3798c311333e32a7d3b99
bb060bd034156650ba426ecbc0bd237870a1fbf5
19866 F20101115_AAAGSA cohen_d_Page_100.QC.jpg
987d3ec25a4966222ebdc5f94e694b36
7ce1cff35108962461ebc4857223e4d7fa10bd9c
51046 F20101115_AAAIAJ cohen_d_Page_012.pro
877cc6aea60a07291c84984ef0c2cb81
6076d131b130e643d74444f2a254f88d47c83ef6
102043 F20101115_AAAHVD cohen_d_Page_126.jp2
984d608b01148a34b6eb1e74cf71f974
59b76cfdfd05f3f7ccbd72e63139e0f76e831483
91264 F20101115_AAAHUP cohen_d_Page_100.jp2
cb0ac01d349d6d8b7b26c6bae7307163
65bc79defd4df85c57c60a6cf2b6d0cb709453c2
1828 F20101115_AAAGRN cohen_d_Page_085.txt
198a8b2dff88406a7cccab36bd9a8970
105cb2d26f59805426fd96289004e5fb46fe0485
108846 F20101115_AAAGQY cohen_d_Page_129.jp2
ab1457cf6acb553dbb8cdc12192e0ee8
f3329c286a8d81c78e382c5df8d6700db68da745
F20101115_AAAGSB cohen_d_Page_189.tif
9aca06dbf1b9c558a2d82495323e6f88
ca6891289b19ae143efc66874155de885e0f9a3c
50068 F20101115_AAAIAK cohen_d_Page_014.pro
326521b6fff98f59e2dd385423be5a9f
7236840fc9eb5338fbfb49f8441a14d2850c359b
102067 F20101115_AAAHVE cohen_d_Page_130.jp2
67f3e6bf4b7f063a3a04d325f0f995ca
bffa2857844593f7b0d6484d1769e763bd4215f0
90050 F20101115_AAAHUQ cohen_d_Page_101.jp2
8aa2fcf80f63b91f4091467561df287e
732d9f54ef28951bbe85c4c2049ac6496160d0bb
5686 F20101115_AAAGRO cohen_d_Page_104thm.jpg
f7aca45b5f1c74fe65949650188497db
a49ddab32fa306d57aef3e9a11cdb1e718ab6519
F20101115_AAAGQZ cohen_d_Page_105.tif
fc5db11371d5e20d1725071ca012114d
67b2218912b829e7ee63a8711c4e2518cbb814d9
7142 F20101115_AAAGSC cohen_d_Page_187thm.jpg
57b62c73e556b2fadff2c992f8232673
924c52d10132ebc6fd3f633da80a6e3eab187ed9
46659 F20101115_AAAIBA cohen_d_Page_045.pro
25f91ea9a062c93c6ad2498a4085eead
59eb0624f86747ffa1f4aa95d80c522cb1681b90
49845 F20101115_AAAIAL cohen_d_Page_015.pro
16963e762f84445abe7200ab326a074d
280a66a0938295a0273f8b8a5e1335fe32ce6e98
98674 F20101115_AAAHVF cohen_d_Page_131.jp2
47a64d375aecc96e9e8b18192cc7c33e
f5582f5f9a3158d2eba3fb28abe96391eaa3d1f8
102546 F20101115_AAAHUR cohen_d_Page_103.jp2
0c47b1c5027dcf28c0143d038d9d7517
ce6e441408b66318f6b81e98f277eec3f1b667df
6741 F20101115_AAAGRP cohen_d_Page_054thm.jpg
68c1a6e76e06a23609a53bbc2235c670
2aa2f4f8d18551bc4b9c5f395e3361800de8e490
1919 F20101115_AAAGSD cohen_d_Page_091.txt
4e072b66bfd41ac3d9c16d83c6042dbb
ff4fc97470b5522da15b8b017df0ab8f5d4491c6
50544 F20101115_AAAIAM cohen_d_Page_017.pro
6114021d5b66977dfcecfac85f64ba62
5ca5925b8faf7a3a723cfd453994c178dc0c31ff
115449 F20101115_AAAHVG cohen_d_Page_134.jp2
cc4d495f2b8e16441f045fccd7f46126
b5b7ff433c13507c2074bbe54c0c6734caf3c565
110485 F20101115_AAAHUS cohen_d_Page_108.jp2
0b71197b0b3c293446e3bef9609edb24
62dd92736b62168d94822b5e87201b7a82be4a9c
1787 F20101115_AAAGSE cohen_d_Page_149.txt
192ed3e474b3604ad5f2d74d4187bafc
45bec81d1d1294cdbc66dc769113091792250283
99956 F20101115_AAAGRQ cohen_d_Page_091.jp2
871eb5f108eebcbbbb909f9823f67c3f
8eccd4207459a7268ae29344d00dd30e8e6be262
50119 F20101115_AAAIBB cohen_d_Page_048.pro
86a8d0d812e8a44185966946003adfc6
689ae8e7e164d62f843a333a51343527ccc08afa
46482 F20101115_AAAIAN cohen_d_Page_020.pro
c6349186f13e5801599547fefeb7c75b
51e412f9dad12f523204b6f78b19c44cbd7f7012
123029 F20101115_AAAHVH cohen_d_Page_135.jp2
e3af8f5de4a6c25b89d19f7fe9a00edb
c4df200b96b33f3da6d97017560e4fc7b2f258d2
105804 F20101115_AAAHUT cohen_d_Page_110.jp2
643624eb9de37dd0809151bb56348b39
d39893c74fe2eb8343f081f211cf375d633841ca
18631 F20101115_AAAGSF cohen_d_Page_104.QC.jpg
41b947ca706cf88e9bc5c1437d50bc57
57e9b3fea6983b2ad4358a16454d68e6b8be0c46
743783 F20101115_AAAGRR cohen_d_Page_104.jp2
af286890d4b69e117d5cba54380ecc04
db4279f6c6a7f024ba90334f80fe324a71f5e777
34318 F20101115_AAAIBC cohen_d_Page_053.pro
da1b3941e75af1323a60822710dc37ef
f20f880310ad83f191bb94a1031e5b8bfea57449
49882 F20101115_AAAIAO cohen_d_Page_023.pro
049df207e2a964305ce2db82b3c5409b
f98485b619a0d19ea8ef8b2d96c287ba69dd6157
109829 F20101115_AAAHVI cohen_d_Page_136.jp2
d847faf5462925b64889414f3aba6bf5
1f7f10d5dbe4d1fb2063ad0813eb0bea7833a18a
89913 F20101115_AAAHUU cohen_d_Page_113.jp2
12e852908f39fb32c120ca56c712730d
eecb10360521603092a6c06ce45df5d8de09a5df
71540 F20101115_AAAGSG cohen_d_Page_050.jpg
26230292ff073c314d84dee61b601796
37ad0910387170ed75a2338a3a8e33d0e107a181
1051953 F20101115_AAAGRS cohen_d_Page_080.jp2
cba11c41f3cbbab36c090eb45cc524a9
6fa14d8253416be56a92f1bea2563971e10e2da7
50326 F20101115_AAAIBD cohen_d_Page_055.pro
2de19532a04cc82eac0534612eefc021
bd4348ecf1a3a2b0dc88567aa500a6297bd386c0
53596 F20101115_AAAIAP cohen_d_Page_024.pro
3f0fe931e41229f8ec7f57c374319f01
6537929bfc2007ec1d9268a7501836f678d711a3
103287 F20101115_AAAHVJ cohen_d_Page_139.jp2
fc2039cbd2f08b961e5fa1526af62a08
18afafd4e90521a6a10350596a1dc5ad797ebbe8
F20101115_AAAGSH cohen_d_Page_180.tif
aac6b8efc0b2226a3a8840f8a617f851
d57a6debbedbfaa7fea986469c6bc5fc719d4242
46479 F20101115_AAAIBE cohen_d_Page_056.pro
332d209b9cac5de50dc32c6e57d27bd3
af423ef5270fbda0003481cb7429c14aa21e995f
51438 F20101115_AAAIAQ cohen_d_Page_028.pro
cd1d1399f4af1b581ccce941d1f2be0e
cfffd74679ed8dcd5c371b98ddb158fc6d8ed7d0
107214 F20101115_AAAHVK cohen_d_Page_140.jp2
42f5c25cba866fd27bec3742dfabd684
3aac5d0e9dd194254baa9192485fb07cb64f2401
107857 F20101115_AAAHUV cohen_d_Page_115.jp2
ae6d1bcfead22de1717f7607c7084db0
682af1353bfb89a5eccfa3daefd3ba040c84eab1
108374 F20101115_AAAGSI cohen_d_Page_022.jp2
bbce1f44184e8e9cebdb2aa871becef1
ed41f5a8e2961eed59f35700ab04292991f24d49
6566 F20101115_AAAGRT cohen_d_Page_040thm.jpg
e145054b6ffd28f06ffb7f1044ffa943
890c857bedc05cc32292bcaa77422a8f2e0711e0
53281 F20101115_AAAIBF cohen_d_Page_060.pro
f1361685b5cd8876b1a4ecc12a4f094b
d06654cb7a88480c8595f425737ff0169fb009a0
46944 F20101115_AAAIAR cohen_d_Page_030.pro
0a4067e5a2eb60b846d2dd48d3b539d7
d462ef3293c09c7a42b18aa7a21291b58298b990
105661 F20101115_AAAHVL cohen_d_Page_141.jp2
239d2d89b46fe129531fa82f7754f044
d4407e127cf6ea53c95d83d8e1b9edeb03b6b5b9
104349 F20101115_AAAHUW cohen_d_Page_116.jp2
1eff628bd6a603085c885f3547c5dd2c
2245645f8a9ab13ed37ff87bece42cae25c35245
2065 F20101115_AAAGSJ cohen_d_Page_128.txt
ed921e033a2323f2a1dc3369f037d595
8b133379e501df873c5f391bb2598baf43b72224
48895 F20101115_AAAGRU cohen_d_Page_096.jpg
2c0ab4a07256b7d2fbbb01596821e68b
71bad2ce067c0135a3acd03da2854eaf34d0e6c8
45993 F20101115_AAAIBG cohen_d_Page_061.pro
3904433369243fed394f25ea5caae92d
b247674820cc98d0ea4726bbe81a495e840da600
49941 F20101115_AAAIAS cohen_d_Page_032.pro
ede5b793178a06a3db9be476d9ecc306
7517090d9c4578eb7ad1099888f20f606be47a15
996254 F20101115_AAAHWA cohen_d_Page_166.jp2
24ffeb4f954c95f89a34a6545dff2b94
baeed5334192d7ffbac8ee568e142c2a7b61c9cb
88553 F20101115_AAAHVM cohen_d_Page_143.jp2
7dfbb5ee724611f809be35c74d807923
aa320092e16b651309ee2f4741fd5900bba7ffb6
99400 F20101115_AAAHUX cohen_d_Page_119.jp2
44adc0f2a751f87c945db033be04cfa8
4098342fea2eb23cbbfa11c0516dc88a7c6ba271
1458 F20101115_AAAGSK cohen_d_Page_114.txt
e562888570c83031fa303c6fe54774eb
a46cd852a225adb341a3019b83e6d5cd47d10b92
65191 F20101115_AAAGRV cohen_d_Page_148.jpg
6679e5218539d4b8256066c4c62c21e4
0e235be148b81723168c7c2a8ac097cb6a696493
47316 F20101115_AAAIBH cohen_d_Page_063.pro
e9122d31ddb81baaa5b10cf7e06447ab
bbb7d73f299205ac0ab3e2b7929a3ceb22937dda
50151 F20101115_AAAIAT cohen_d_Page_036.pro
aa2a26716491fbe1a8578d6bccfdc277
f1634f43f1bb0c97495c016806098f4642a4d6fc
129316 F20101115_AAAHWB cohen_d_Page_167.jp2
e6127052b63c9bf32b9033c00920acc3
1e36bc549e924720c6e1f58e8ad50bfc16c6f50c
93021 F20101115_AAAHVN cohen_d_Page_144.jp2
701f1cb1c8f61a2c502e22f3816e8120
4df20b1ad2691345c84f7b5553d5f3d019a4ca02
102080 F20101115_AAAHUY cohen_d_Page_120.jp2
42070894883ac7a97b4fa2d0ecbf3f0d
2136efc10eb3d0b040e08ab6920c8e790c9f4e70
F20101115_AAAGSL cohen_d_Page_092.tif
355c902a4da44a899581d1a6f8b320a3
1ecdb32ccc06fe198489e40b88b08e1255dba879
57039 F20101115_AAAGRW cohen_d_Page_104.jpg
e294110c2d37e4a38d47c774bb252e6f
220b70409a31e9ff5149f849211ce261cd19b324
46166 F20101115_AAAIBI cohen_d_Page_065.pro
14182641b1708ad0809229a820fb0318
2fde041c031e4e60f48b7c4b7fd246794f7ae7f5
50563 F20101115_AAAIAU cohen_d_Page_037.pro
c4c33a017584a157cd239e4a1ce15478
4a0e5401e92511f80369b47fcd74494cdc337096
125448 F20101115_AAAHWC cohen_d_Page_168.jp2
5d31b3f40491be6a4bf567b831b339a4
971da109588d42bb0ec9d1637b3663ad6376896a
102848 F20101115_AAAHVO cohen_d_Page_145.jp2
05b355787147ed21ee65618f470a979e
6d716488db88b9f396fffaad93bf3c5675ce3efa
1051984 F20101115_AAAHUZ cohen_d_Page_121.jp2
55b93e636dfe4c0ab938ed3963abba77
096fda433e4b8f44fa613e929a4b59eba0248273
22771 F20101115_AAAGTA cohen_d_Page_089.QC.jpg
b2c62ed47653e0bf4281bc6b19176d05
dbb6c460b1a01dc7bc5f4f5c8b191e3bf5ce2ec1
22770 F20101115_AAAGSM cohen_d_Page_127.QC.jpg
d9c21ed120e2657c91a0832298312727
a738f6d9524afafcf6c2d8f8ae2d1ae42c442a64
5327 F20101115_AAAGRX cohen_d_Page_113thm.jpg
cc88f18196bd95ff4987cbc5ff476c1d
7d680fa31470bf01ca1694c4588e994a3e6e9b01
49255 F20101115_AAAIBJ cohen_d_Page_066.pro
5feefb6eeccb96dcfd425077dea5b236
bce4e80bd5ed6592647064c1a086a5419450d90a
50874 F20101115_AAAIAV cohen_d_Page_040.pro
f0446060f96c7450c6e1d8a7667a95de
1808d38200dcc07afe1b22200659e1e1ffbad337
24412 F20101115_AAAHWD cohen_d_Page_169.jp2
05839ed809489e72a3c5587967cb6d9e
9f8f23c42ea8fb14ebfff8ced143fb2f185d30da
101094 F20101115_AAAHVP cohen_d_Page_150.jp2
91531cea2e1556a7fad4aee1b4962dbe
a20e024102a6a35ae391e91521656f04ae9338ac
6250 F20101115_AAAGTB cohen_d_Page_069thm.jpg
1102e8c23495d037a007360bf971fae2
81212a04635801e027dd1ba5d2ca876134dff240
1011 F20101115_AAAGSN cohen_d_Page_008.txt
c9849cd95d8c2e74e88c115e47527691
0b43bb0c1fc4b595b2cf84ffe34f623f705b8328
F20101115_AAAGRY cohen_d_Page_120.tif
b8a8f359554b6bd9f8c56d8f2d873740
5f08099b8f400658442c1363b6a2af9483c2324a
45112 F20101115_AAAIBK cohen_d_Page_070.pro
e84c9d6fdab7663415304cb5645ae86e
e6d9a020edfd29f2ccbde72a61940991e2ef8eb9
52684 F20101115_AAAIAW cohen_d_Page_041.pro
a314a871a2c0422b311d36f320a2fee5
5ca87f238316cfe32b86ff0468e851e5dcdd2142
80488 F20101115_AAAHWE cohen_d_Page_171.jp2
504c45b74ecd3f0bd23103dade94de9a
e4118ed750d3d82af20d30b6991f9766f8f98c9c
98516 F20101115_AAAHVQ cohen_d_Page_151.jp2
4e1ac2e544a86cfcbfc100bf22ed3474
8c91eaaa82d671a8e4dfd969192e23465fb680d4
F20101115_AAAGTC cohen_d_Page_183.tif
0a06c6586e8745d32e9b9746214c4c48
721810fe0c69d9c095e5a67f5c8e839e7d2a13d1
91481 F20101115_AAAGSO cohen_d_Page_033.jp2
ac9f2a4d4e629385c39a0bc3987b0fbd
ebc241d70282177b1b0aba45b9f02c14431b59bf
13600 F20101115_AAAGRZ cohen_d_Page_008.QC.jpg
8bf321a5fdad60edd31761bfc5a68197
1b4561a3266246bcc449d5c621ca4c850173efdb
32268 F20101115_AAAICA cohen_d_Page_096.pro
2db357a153dfde7810f5cac1af5b0200
1197058301bfe377ec18cfb1032ac658ffcc9f80
46060 F20101115_AAAIBL cohen_d_Page_072.pro
a6fc00aef3a6371968dc77bbc008cd0c
0081bffc1055e2ecb4df54a34acc340214c24810
54654 F20101115_AAAIAX cohen_d_Page_042.pro
16ce0c2da14e57b2b47a5a72b4fb7c63
afe53e841eff57144aed1faf2c2b3121257a5e7a
98386 F20101115_AAAHWF cohen_d_Page_172.jp2
d4ab77c2cbf97bc9aeb1c9487c919b47
cfd63b3783d397dd43608f17a8cca870cdaba84f
1051980 F20101115_AAAHVR cohen_d_Page_153.jp2
55c10e96bf9c66cad5a337352091ce44
f3f9be3e2b260d4e5a1dd2aba1ddd5becfc58cce
63282 F20101115_AAAGTD cohen_d_Page_044.jpg
99f779e848613bc8eb5e430caa6d5628
eb34073ede2aae8341cbe5f243f90a8d0823e388
1827 F20101115_AAAGSP cohen_d_Page_151.txt
b7019405357240f65c80098d3e7ea050
57616b12e2a91150daa0d0561c84aba888cbeaa3
34800 F20101115_AAAICB cohen_d_Page_098.pro
ce656a183cc5d00377986c472738acdb
248bd2fd62a5f72125e87e1a88466af9adfa26ff
49047 F20101115_AAAIBM cohen_d_Page_073.pro
07165fe2735f325e8ccfa0d307f2a682
614fd8320c254ae3d7ece739ecd54fa5d062d40a
29974 F20101115_AAAIAY cohen_d_Page_043.pro
2fdb0cf40f125b241cf7f0e948ab24c2
fe784c206ed257b1005f5ee1f0fee31229b66755
98170 F20101115_AAAHWG cohen_d_Page_174.jp2
67a604c3eef028389ac4db384fb3e9df
a01a7f57b21eab73756d9d076cd1254c5bea2952
109592 F20101115_AAAHVS cohen_d_Page_155.jp2
025a279f110bef9515f028a1d3771048
752a14931fbb86861812bef209ef6048d39d7635
308 F20101115_AAAGTE cohen_d_Page_180.txt
bf569060e64e91b6370818c05171c0ab
d766fe41d9338173dd86ed8160a9e9ebaaa7df54
1955 F20101115_AAAGSQ cohen_d_Page_063.txt
526ac8e3873b5f828650badacf01ad18
40805f9f7f631452e8551ddbfcf5e85d49093e0d
50490 F20101115_AAAIBN cohen_d_Page_074.pro
bdee102ae2608b44fb873bc9e788738c
e1474c05611259f88a521721c6237fed91e984bd
42529 F20101115_AAAIAZ cohen_d_Page_044.pro
0f2d59268342bd13616915846330d35f
c4ae40c5e107e0f9033c8ecdbc22be18257660c3
92515 F20101115_AAAHWH cohen_d_Page_175.jp2
c7c613b4e0b1010f8c740b62cae29acf
249829d4bac23e5b677a9c233e347c845a5b0974
108960 F20101115_AAAHVT cohen_d_Page_156.jp2
6676123a65a5d4356ad23881fc9bc551
b842d330e1e407cc765f4a6102fdd4c14f169b3a
F20101115_AAAGTF cohen_d_Page_024.tif
4c4bc4a1f7b514b1e7c2786440e12a86
d9ca62a6ef1ec5706ba28624a46e7da8ea5f1813
6198 F20101115_AAAGSR cohen_d_Page_021thm.jpg
94bfe25a717b489c1e79ce3b1ccb4089
9a380b41a206eba45fcd3eb974e59250cf4f12be
41099 F20101115_AAAICC cohen_d_Page_100.pro
027eabfb50b707bbba7d4b80b319dda9
89de200f53d172bc04fc0c0e1c41664c280672f5
49426 F20101115_AAAIBO cohen_d_Page_075.pro
92f4ab5823056d110f2035df759d9de3
f3ffcf1c3af3d95617127720d1815a81bcb3e6ac
36612 F20101115_AAAHWI cohen_d_Page_176.jp2
dfe63646b83922eda586d586f4c53912
fc9b6e12fe3e5455cabb58cc7e87e9e60daf8829
101879 F20101115_AAAHVU cohen_d_Page_157.jp2
a8130ab6ff5556b6de8899b657263f44
dafd4ecdded0e0ae356f7ee7c5149706d0d19637
66923 F20101115_AAAGTG cohen_d_Page_174.jpg
fc78c068aad69433e7f837858226d5da
61219b8269f79a361a8a3c199ad7739b50c30287
51532 F20101115_AAAGSS cohen_d_Page_128.pro
b06f12cf9e76df2608d9b9e22e57cc04
9942450b33289a9232a7bf7e162680d00f51c0e4
47037 F20101115_AAAICD cohen_d_Page_103.pro
07e2c2eadb0823ce61c3630ba059553d
139a0800a1f38dc855c9c5f36d869f144ef8c7b5
44711 F20101115_AAAIBP cohen_d_Page_077.pro
ed63cde68c4b1cec782ee419490234ff
885e008eca67355bc568ed42d34b43ea4beb4ef2
94451 F20101115_AAAHWJ cohen_d_Page_177.jp2
ed24652dc6067ce30cc281f00e3b1923
89e436c0cc82fca1493acc57ed44d26b65bc8ca1
115103 F20101115_AAAHVV cohen_d_Page_160.jp2
a6c979e5c30ecdf43bfcd7203f219bde
f26ba06db43da98c4058b405bc9876655910cce0
1946 F20101115_AAAGTH cohen_d_Page_066.txt
82838da928ff460b2605bfc06c326a71
e27a13c6d211d1c51a2ec42f9c971d8265bbcc03
66353 F20101115_AAAGST cohen_d_Page_170.pro
936870f90600e3cf3661c9896e6887b3
c9c28765d6a1077ef1dcb614ba4eeac5b05349c6
48942 F20101115_AAAICE cohen_d_Page_106.pro
54fa9326045209c7a8e05b233d0ec3d4
48104350347545c1f4fd24e44d0bacbec4d742cf
44913 F20101115_AAAIBQ cohen_d_Page_078.pro
8b3f573918c68afd57a54cbfa28d177c
554df2aa499d652051dde34057e4b4c623cca94c
86575 F20101115_AAAHWK cohen_d_Page_179.jp2
d8e5b64db319570b5547e5a5f562260d
9acec1dd35122e72092adcab8d26aa0a79deac5a
21611 F20101115_AAAGTI cohen_d_Page_151.QC.jpg
80b36c32ec2c490f3f386c1687b78a10
4ce65deb06ba9030bf35409324bf67d924077e45
30904 F20101115_AAAICF cohen_d_Page_109.pro
c9585a822bf7e7477c0686971e7fa4bd
a5d4d4c6ce2d72c5e56e77d39932cdb115490a10
51224 F20101115_AAAIBR cohen_d_Page_079.pro
2e306f2a8d3b19df32904ec12915474e
e784d9b3656bc1eb45e32fd454e9db81291d13d8
22001 F20101115_AAAHWL cohen_d_Page_180.jp2
9e3f6f2f433f67539ceafe678a7cccc2
fbefaa3f2ec4a62f4837e94282c23c5ee5a65158
79245 F20101115_AAAHVW cohen_d_Page_162.jp2
deff5139dc3551ca5d9653a383272061
0a1582aa0716b03f7e56c8b0ac274d21044f0d6c
99169 F20101115_AAAGTJ cohen_d_Page_092.jp2
996d9ef2a87200097ed9daa66acaa76b
6d8a44e13c2a9658943a4d410de12197aaf388ac
F20101115_AAAGSU cohen_d_Page_145.tif
2b11801519a66199c82079175a53a8c7
f5e2aed57e222aaa04b52d03280b596b8b4dedf7
33339 F20101115_AAAICG cohen_d_Page_111.pro
50580c5185c08eb1e5ebe54e8dcbccf7
2e6fc128c460f33dced037af961ace2514c90817
46997 F20101115_AAAIBS cohen_d_Page_083.pro
51368239348dd2317afae4132428ec97
ee99b9de72dedc2afadb122dee5f3c4a43122f39
F20101115_AAAHXA cohen_d_Page_023.tif
7ed9d81dafc834333ac923c6e311c59c
0e493774036120b907245e574f768d69ae22aed0
30077 F20101115_AAAHWM cohen_d_Page_182.jp2
7eadfeb91f2e2e7bf73dfa77b4a3834e
9d76faea654d42131260d4d11f4ad6940a11c89f
82703 F20101115_AAAHVX cohen_d_Page_163.jp2
2c3609c9fc0f5dd448eefb5fb219ad6b
1eee49d55a1954af50a65ec4219c7592f47fe2c2
7568 F20101115_AAAGTK cohen_d_Page_169.QC.jpg
441aab9772900bc9a8c061050bf0f64c
d44c8f5756210bd15bd8cc09833f9800ede154af
108604 F20101115_AAAGSV cohen_d_Page_023.jp2
8d540336cb7b774b5f36d616ae8b3442
88bdbeafca9e1fb89f80e96f4ed1904674242212
41153 F20101115_AAAICH cohen_d_Page_113.pro
422de237a9889726fd552ae5ff57d1dd
71c3f48705f154042e4d62f32a627c21291cd031
48660 F20101115_AAAIBT cohen_d_Page_084.pro
29bf0f1c773bfc410654f6fba233ec21
270231fb1b191cb4440cb3fca119558d6468e360
F20101115_AAAHXB cohen_d_Page_027.tif
534c1745d213e4908c48abd878b3a9c8
feae8e076acf235f65a3522dcf8f91489542d756
21476 F20101115_AAAHWN cohen_d_Page_184.jp2
91f604c2736bf9539dc507e2d85c7b39
9ae20b094514985b2b07fa3b564daafb5d901e70
76635 F20101115_AAAHVY cohen_d_Page_164.jp2
bd9c876516c107ac46721faeca1bf196
07286e9521e890b527030531b9ad2f39cc2080ce
24116 F20101115_AAAGTL cohen_d_Page_008.pro
23de44476750fdd6d8c42cfe1910ef47
922d0e978fcd8e89986f74cac2a8c66913c64607
22663 F20101115_AAAGSW cohen_d_Page_123.QC.jpg
2c10714133f5edbfed79f8ba7c1bad6d
7e1e03f0d1f2051c43ec235c6e5e05a31bb14dbb
48980 F20101115_AAAICI cohen_d_Page_115.pro
c1995f3b663283b77ffb4ac23b7dabc8
5779a5ed144a1eadb3cb7103ceb4a6c38143bd4c
45382 F20101115_AAAIBU cohen_d_Page_085.pro
74a5182e1df2fa1e7546049d7af69c19
7a89332c8f5232e00223f47023a7fdcaaa2fcacd
F20101115_AAAHXC cohen_d_Page_028.tif
0d2000c6071077cd50a137b55464bdca
45c70a7775b3a0114557ea95855b575ba2e81bcd
47933 F20101115_AAAHWO cohen_d_Page_185.jp2
73c44991ee2029853516fd5e97e52123
d48aeaa09870d452ce17cea3b54f46a35ad9ce53
50846 F20101115_AAAHVZ cohen_d_Page_165.jp2
7403e4c80679c16d4df55f5222e6a49c
b0fa3d42661baaa95a74110519a6078c8927ae28
16371 F20101115_AAAGTM cohen_d_Page_096.QC.jpg
5a1a37bb5f7fe8508e8351580324819f
ff0461580e76767765add0fd088e9bbbbb4f0dda
46336 F20101115_AAAGSX cohen_d_Page_080.pro
1e20edb04e16d1aa2b39da80aaef2389
b7b35e660d2eb6ef4abe8b78b6d9100b35164b0c
F20101115_AAAGUA cohen_d_Page_117.tif
eff344313f12006295ef0b50df1c22e0
6d521606a2af4362ad85f150640f36f22558bc8f
40612 F20101115_AAAICJ cohen_d_Page_117.pro
61e032c34b22d0da63807ccf07f66f28
999ce0cb0a3bfd1323d1b5630b8fdb4cbf2cfdfa
50401 F20101115_AAAIBV cohen_d_Page_088.pro
e2eef9eef3bed425b7af2be360d6d7c8
d25161965a6ff96b44468a7cac8bc0226446417a
F20101115_AAAHXD cohen_d_Page_031.tif
60ace689a875cd0f4417702685c73644
62dc0803d57b8559e32c609366428cc1e96921ba
1051985 F20101115_AAAHWP cohen_d_Page_187.jp2
ab4f990229e7b7b68cd32d9e88dc1520
739264356c4ec22bde5d5699253c4ff2c7f5fd6b
50113 F20101115_AAAGTN cohen_d_Page_025.pro
322e556d18bed4e671d5e346af2614ae
f3807fefb390535c04285741bbac48f5a28d4376
78787 F20101115_AAAGSY cohen_d_Page_006.pro
72ccea394f8bc742a25a702f11f61148
7d77d78d7de17326a66d5bac30738c4a3e6818c0
F20101115_AAAGUB cohen_d_Page_140.tif
e2fd1dccd2641af5971188374902e9fd
c2c687c51956a8542da2bcdacb7e1c7ed07ebd13
38266 F20101115_AAAICK cohen_d_Page_118.pro
791ad1866c5672b8a939aef756a8382d
ae25f4ea8d99bbba4287b1520b0fffb2428be083
20628 F20101115_AAAIBW cohen_d_Page_090.pro
1a1eaeb3d63d8a59c62bb8b4cddf2169
9014bdf0c8792c3ca09b2e8e02d597f500134cba
F20101115_AAAHXE cohen_d_Page_032.tif
eef6e33aad874fff54d346d9bbbf0178
84e524f5abec903b74c6e4c1316add656134c18e
1051933 F20101115_AAAHWQ cohen_d_Page_188.jp2
52a9778de8f6b7dd43b0fdc8fd47fea1
435530c9216570f9d75e454cf296651ebcd815e2
1939 F20101115_AAAGTO cohen_d_Page_021.txt
ed8c0a0b79060e0b642fb161e5a80f2c
10a67f300e78a8440acc829e3d8b6eca7cc3ceb1
F20101115_AAAGSZ cohen_d_Page_003.tif
2aaf3084bfcd072f5b81b41b081f89df
c69261c2fca37635ca8e3a86562b4e7fc6317fa4
109978 F20101115_AAAGUC cohen_d_Page_132.jp2
0fed7e1e7e09464d613e0c76b7b7ad58
b31e3293cec27ff0c32bdcf6c2ed0b83a91d93ed
42045 F20101115_AAAIDA cohen_d_Page_144.pro
509cd35915f0323800609bc845a92755
5785fefa81be73e399d464d7593065b298df6dc2
45291 F20101115_AAAICL cohen_d_Page_119.pro
dea48ed69f60bbc74fefa66b05c71d66
1cc64622fe05db78bd134b5f857227d92cee5c6c
45137 F20101115_AAAIBX cohen_d_Page_091.pro
70d86fe138a6ed408cbe65db2718043e
8543617e4b5642fc2fd9b16e21b930c35c3dba19
F20101115_AAAHXF cohen_d_Page_035.tif
68b804fb9776780c564b0f20f19ab9ad
7f871b5f56d2fafad448ae382018008f28ef9b9a
F20101115_AAAHWR cohen_d_Page_191.jp2
fe165c63895576e715e065f3f77e002b
59a744b7f1500d8073e22f9d732cedf3dbef41e2
6227 F20101115_AAAGTP cohen_d_Page_046thm.jpg
bcf5faf77be5d9029d357fd5580dc043
fb4d7d4ebe4a7a27cf5c5b3b977a4f84cf6f7692
6837 F20101115_AAAGUD cohen_d_Page_135thm.jpg
d47382c8cb0caf6eab987cda692e9c16
e1e5565edc8a0a6e556462a89869cab4eadc29a0
47935 F20101115_AAAIDB cohen_d_Page_145.pro
b2cbe97700fc6c81a6b4448070c73438
c8d97008a0b4a753bbeddbb9a28e118cde9b1a4e
47106 F20101115_AAAICM cohen_d_Page_120.pro
21ec4ed3cfe624f95fe6b4d7e80d1e56
e164cf1a3b9a4dc2fc11e289d63691568e71b254
46253 F20101115_AAAIBY cohen_d_Page_092.pro
36c83f7d23ab82b0d3a0f65f12ed5c90
c9bf4a296db590bd85e27ebacdfce90dabc0d896
F20101115_AAAHXG cohen_d_Page_036.tif
9e36772c5b30762643fc4675fa824458
b526d090780a4d33ff2dbbc6c7d572061874affa
95116 F20101115_AAAHWS cohen_d_Page_193.jp2
5dfac8add764b5db9f42a5949cf0ec91
37e794881e20d52780ec809bb31d45b47eabc695
6684 F20101115_AAAGTQ cohen_d_Page_024thm.jpg
08cfc11af94f927d8a0332b49bb914a2
5eb2aab52f5606ee1b16484a215950b62ac68514
23794 F20101115_AAAGUE cohen_d_Page_108.QC.jpg
481d91ebc94c4ad8063d6aa116dea21e
55e3267bba7bc5f2ddee278ef99317b417ca30a9
46405 F20101115_AAAIDC cohen_d_Page_146.pro
97102343a9ed75028f7b295c0d1402b2
1b1f2d0c57512e374b32006c9181642aa64d754b
48485 F20101115_AAAICN cohen_d_Page_121.pro
8d1964229f7460be7214cec7d629eeee
c2de1ba83619befdcc0f8912792fa7bc689fe4a1
46311 F20101115_AAAIBZ cohen_d_Page_094.pro
c0085bcfe4b999383bb398a23b20f35b
15a238e9af82a98390fd489d5a1a82266df7fe91
F20101115_AAAHXH cohen_d_Page_037.tif
0d106897c9cb2ead60b1615c04c618a9
2ca5fa4321cadc0aa53c5eaf015e77a13982c466
F20101115_AAAHWT cohen_d_Page_002.tif
7642cf16df14156c438bbc83ea2d404c
352b2d8755f127211030af1a1b7c8f9d3e14db8d
F20101115_AAAGTR cohen_d_Page_052.tif
37ae5c68d98f9556fab64aa9bf5dd722
5512020922eb40faa568b4177375602861decf0e
25209 F20101115_AAAHAA cohen_d_Page_178.jp2
09ab966e65bb5ec276663975d3e0760e
ba0d0d031b59d3e5c0af4c796dc3b6030e52c7a3
1799 F20101115_AAAGUF cohen_d_Page_119.txt
97d995e00cdab2352c35eaf092d03696
1d9d484c4c7d72046d41c5de249d43420cb1e3bd
48631 F20101115_AAAICO cohen_d_Page_123.pro
d5d74304a46975d757aae76dfe2b586e
675dcaa04a85126e1f6043c312d73167d5b4dd7e
F20101115_AAAHXI cohen_d_Page_038.tif
20a33a0ff86fefc875d16f1029c5b36b
b79ee7966815068d661d3cd1486534ccf795b829
F20101115_AAAHWU cohen_d_Page_004.tif
2e5cc2cd25a47316136efcd8c708b99a
3abd73047e70510dc93b7364aa03b7a6f23d6697
343 F20101115_AAAGTS cohen_d_Page_194.txt
d06b57c7bb761e75c9e161d7949ba24d
72ec4c0780e8949da7ec05406451ec13012a66dd
1051971 F20101115_AAAGUG cohen_d_Page_186.jp2
393a76f64b0c25c298870961e381526f
8084c484c424e6cc3c997bd4484064cdad9206c6
45148 F20101115_AAAIDD cohen_d_Page_147.pro
ee64ad89281e1a3c7436275ff099ad0e
9b05dc005f77731e78af29c3984336102f28ef4b
48128 F20101115_AAAICP cohen_d_Page_124.pro
7fcc83b54f394196b10e90debcc96968
cc0d9815864f988374490f5096e565d51897990c
F20101115_AAAHXJ cohen_d_Page_040.tif
adce1b47682b0dc024f5187786b8eaab
4e76910be766ebd3ccdb15b618b119ec87e9bdbb
F20101115_AAAHWV cohen_d_Page_012.tif
8a48c3335dc2e21de5354a8dec7792ff
cf592d9e1b7004a9685644103627cb82cc5dbeb9
1829 F20101115_AAAGTT cohen_d_Page_061.txt
3c11ac505dbf288eee6befdba70aba78
66c24bf2a9f028bc32e3c112c5257db852b0365f
F20101115_AAAHAB cohen_d_Page_159.tif
e79795d9748b8548ebfd942256bf9a3c
3f420b0a736a5d7a46eced1925a81af178c6e6e9
6156 F20101115_AAAGUH cohen_d_Page_084thm.jpg
0a798329115e1ea34b725e2f14527862
d883de8535f087f40b8cf27581e77f8bbecdb2ee
44865 F20101115_AAAIDE cohen_d_Page_149.pro
448a8cb070a8dd16ead596477b15ef82
59c1c7e328e4ff684d457681d17ffcb5994afb66
54937 F20101115_AAAICQ cohen_d_Page_125.pro
5f21a1b998c808c4d37efdbbe17a4796
0aca5dec1079a20596276cddf1e2a80719761114
F20101115_AAAHXK cohen_d_Page_041.tif
1462f6730e50e56014b67d477c11c7bf
3a66153b6573efbead8448135c9f0c1538a0fd0a
F20101115_AAAHWW cohen_d_Page_016.tif
93c010e7492f11977f4f194675ff29b3
7fe336420a1e592343168c8a900d219810278bf3
1606 F20101115_AAAGTU cohen_d_Page_179.txt
013b33baceb163c81448e30e04e8573f
8155ac71a9eecf99abf951fc92b73c3213824f65
F20101115_AAAHAC cohen_d_Page_039.tif
163cc011e14a227be1018e5a0291e67e
d166edeecfb9214288d844851d35ceddc7d0f283
72757 F20101115_AAAGUI cohen_d_Page_132.jpg
4266bf2fa8cb8dac29f74e996ca7c00c
e22bf43457d65e7623c5ad9c2416a8d05c94b71e
45272 F20101115_AAAIDF cohen_d_Page_151.pro
872e1bdfd082839e4e62bd2526ff8610
3ee2f3ee730b4831babad7a850c547c65d07ffff
47621 F20101115_AAAICR cohen_d_Page_126.pro
9c90769a79af39c2314018eccbb3fd76
48c60fd26cd339f0c3887b301a540790426a8e33
F20101115_AAAHXL cohen_d_Page_043.tif
9d9712a6166a9063be03d57a2afe15bf
d29aae3de3e71a99eb62bf74fc3f5fb60688ecfc
6574 F20101115_AAAHAD cohen_d_Page_086thm.jpg
089885b34260a714672896cd18ab6d4d
66c7190f9c150db724384875fce07cea9ca311e1
53290 F20101115_AAAGUJ cohen_d_Page_160.pro
7c85faae2e20f8de97a7c1656647764b
6225d12e17735dbab26495058b9440bdad040617
49523 F20101115_AAAIDG cohen_d_Page_153.pro
fc280e674159f84e080fa109144074fc
7ce2c53816bdf4382569050301e6c490754f1fa2
46862 F20101115_AAAICS cohen_d_Page_130.pro
145d44bd8522c631d5c9af9da6c5e80b
974d932bb05efc6581eb0160e41dd1268ff2acab
F20101115_AAAHYA cohen_d_Page_075.tif
0310a0d8372ca1d9659f0ac0dd0f308f
2e72610fec2720d6b9fff8cef0ee067b6c81a240
F20101115_AAAHXM cohen_d_Page_044.tif
5c3a82dbbca2cd3d62b739942f69b56d
d30756751f4bdea0acf37d17644ed65a5e8326e9
F20101115_AAAHWX cohen_d_Page_018.tif
f89ab10c4ba7c5a9dce7324024ce4067
ba6dc88976d90e67133d754215e820142642ba12
110831 F20101115_AAAGTV cohen_d_Page_028.jp2
dceeb5a640afd4b17009baa137fda925
de2f6376640dde2bf87a36ced90818869089e0c2
69946 F20101115_AAAHAE cohen_d_Page_138.jpg
4e3c7de1105099d4b8db80ae7c2fd7fa
ba890287781a02e38f75d9c308d3d014c8231cb5
6412 F20101115_AAAGUK cohen_d_Page_079thm.jpg
d5a0ce0a1cf8af246599af09f5ebc221
1aa3215b2446c42a9e28984b3a86ef11cdf3a0e2
48054 F20101115_AAAIDH cohen_d_Page_154.pro
97504c3429a3704c20e09666bc02829e
56c05409b454f0ee0089877c8dc99c94c85d42dc
48012 F20101115_AAAICT cohen_d_Page_133.pro
71fb66341c0fa917797e050697e510e1
34e7e4a13e691bea41731caee19afe8599437560
F20101115_AAAHYB cohen_d_Page_077.tif
9d7362fb2e648d5e963437cd384d05f2
ec686f589d8bf4126c0c005c247c96b100acaba9
F20101115_AAAHXN cohen_d_Page_047.tif
80981d0a9833e4914c93322d0a5e2aef
49d5fe4a21e0bab850d4ece08b953407dcea304f
F20101115_AAAHWY cohen_d_Page_019.tif
b02f25960de558fc0ae21ed7023e2d4b
0213c055dabef9030732ba52405040a12918258c
53657 F20101115_AAAGTW cohen_d_Page_054.pro
b8d2bb71692fa5b17c48db05ab919514
51e3dd3c97e42145ed270670eaf8fa7898219a6e
F20101115_AAAHAF cohen_d_Page_150.tif
e75f7a2b8b4f80a75b557475fb93bc10
ea9210c2bfd23389d0b6388aa5bb7792412d7599
6760 F20101115_AAAGUL cohen_d_Page_081thm.jpg
174a091fb08963705bfa8a46749fed53
0ad8f25abb47fddf44ab740232a69fcc7c55d981
50664 F20101115_AAAIDI cohen_d_Page_155.pro
5e16f962427676a0c3984432faf67d5b
98697e990a958a0ad98c27b290c3545dce100215
55130 F20101115_AAAICU cohen_d_Page_134.pro
c7ce1bdc033aa8ba1d6e4e51ad14d41d
8cca4d16b69be225a74296f63bbe44283d71b947
F20101115_AAAHYC cohen_d_Page_078.tif
9435366ab5c22ed7de12bc0d8fbebccf
a7e73dd526b43a0b7ea5e6305b7ca823985cd1f3
F20101115_AAAHXO cohen_d_Page_049.tif
043d886fdca043a4567d5ade13ec3672
2e09660116761e683d6bae8f1bb5badcb01ca11c
F20101115_AAAHWZ cohen_d_Page_022.tif
fd973bc02e6965b7f4da154e54235773
632c3b4c98dc43d3acaa0cd85f2f7cee273ddf16
108739 F20101115_AAAGTX cohen_d_Page_037.jp2
794d9ffdb145e32e92f4311d960300ec
707fc082b7f7beceda98685961bf8b7bc7fb9125
F20101115_AAAHAG cohen_d_Page_158.tif
b3b4879ad2f0f47b5cce75c214383015
6ba1a8c39f2238c83ba6620fe7013324d9611a67
66635 F20101115_AAAGVA cohen_d_Page_151.jpg
04f5f2b1d8eed8eb4dc7c0fd9dab3785
24aeccbcea10a99dad9a1d004b82e96e2aa0f899
23792 F20101115_AAAGUM cohen_d_Page_128.QC.jpg
6c83ac8f18ad34f2603fe84007f9330b
9fabe272f157b355ccfba95ee80b995184df3d79
50730 F20101115_AAAIDJ cohen_d_Page_156.pro
4644e5aab4ea43a4fe8af9e64935de7d
33bfaf665a7aa67eefe2aec66ec9949adb97be97
50046 F20101115_AAAICV cohen_d_Page_137.pro
0c699dea834f2c50b2f72f0913c3b76a
4f22cda071f9b96639b2d396018b852f79f384c3
F20101115_AAAHYD cohen_d_Page_079.tif
9286c01d6a3fcf70f4e85faf4862a66f
81d3c77b9609ab536cb519bd1d4161b71c6c1e0e
F20101115_AAAHXP cohen_d_Page_050.tif
a88479627351b90b9ba61e2758a54244
9749e3e1ac6432e0967de3b38656b279f35367cb
16782 F20101115_AAAGTY cohen_d_Page_175.QC.jpg
6a575089d5bdea6ffa6882f54cc41b46
2a8969c8720cbcf07d7de5dd07c960460586951e
6902 F20101115_AAAHAH cohen_d_Page_153thm.jpg
a090946e8348e68e4ee9f6aaeecedb21
ba36d28fd87d2990c86f97c4f4a2e6a1b00eb29f
5680 F20101115_AAAGVB cohen_d_Page_144thm.jpg
e622c94154213f8fe84422fee548760e
186da0adeab8613642ba77a61431daa255d18d3a
2032 F20101115_AAAGUN cohen_d_Page_009thm.jpg
79b721be80dab273a5f8bb6d4339ff3b
bb8c308be05c148c91f4ba9123375e57971914f8
50908 F20101115_AAAIDK cohen_d_Page_158.pro
1d20ae4179d2b542712ad8ca8d43aa41
814a9c5a43b0c36734550f4199a6bf1731bf9dde
47814 F20101115_AAAICW cohen_d_Page_139.pro
3a8cc95c5da1fe013cc812687aad18c0
57c66e056d9a1c8ecbd1a14d61addad11daff132
F20101115_AAAHYE cohen_d_Page_080.tif
ba8abd1082cbe1696618fe9df76c3355
12979c9e3db763a51348a4ac3e5ffd86a65025a8
F20101115_AAAHXQ cohen_d_Page_051.tif
4221efc1d557e8a76dbc6a4eb5bbe510
467107a88bbebcc38b70a102016886f6ec0ec2d8
34796 F20101115_AAAGTZ cohen_d_Page_062.jpg
a81c80d132787d541cd910b2ef038a56
f2ac2a6f3781f87f9b34569d00695ae48ea15801
65749 F20101115_AAAHAI cohen_d_Page_149.jpg
7d4c0ade042975bae7269b601456402c
f0ae7ac6661bf8d1ad7f187bd424dacacc04b295
7621 F20101115_AAAGVC cohen_d_Page_001.pro
23011ba52241c641e00e7d27cec26aa2
640d39d28c4bc6cfeea33d12ecb60f6f2c2ae156
1730 F20101115_AAAGUO cohen_d_Page_193.txt
6dd36395e505caa84fd1e6c2da9d3b22
86a3788c3c3a8152dc385ec9aa1f832e0a189a02
26986 F20101115_AAAIEA cohen_d_Page_183.pro
62a02a4024d8a0d5ccace4a129c5653f
48b47cf6505cb83afe4dff3e1a802fc807ca3e04
36756 F20101115_AAAIDL cohen_d_Page_163.pro
614f333823edb65f479c0bb56b038205
7ff93d281151ce70c819eadf41d2bf1fc935bb2a
50615 F20101115_AAAICX cohen_d_Page_140.pro
c772f8573d2fd74ecd27efa8e6839883
425ddfb4a0a40e643ccaf1e359a8df3cdf97ac7e
F20101115_AAAHYF cohen_d_Page_081.tif
9dd8cfaaff63a7ff7e0bc8ec1a1e3538
595efe153a52f0ce0f37ce95f2d723ffa7755e7b
F20101115_AAAHXR cohen_d_Page_055.tif
384111aa4963a24806926c67800d326d
616f7fa619b270e17500de577e1ee15e9370ded5
F20101115_AAAHAJ cohen_d_Page_173.txt
07fc04cc85f0b3987b79c368f2e159ab
67b2c57c6d1439c17894e734385deb11d38f4f37
4785 F20101115_AAAGVD cohen_d_Page_003.pro
7919b3e641131b41f682ddbf88d80b10
9b385139e3898b7bb50feccc62d3427889e73df3
1909 F20101115_AAAGUP cohen_d_Page_019.txt
3f6705aabb8a54c13d4f473a8453c9fa
25d1cbee446a7f56ec55feb649e0dcd54a247d98
8928 F20101115_AAAIEB cohen_d_Page_184.pro
aa80a144a3794287a72dbc8000bf5c67
c97c23e35acf012c1e1fa4e0a1e91c3619760d28
33960 F20101115_AAAIDM cohen_d_Page_164.pro
9335072f3f38b9cb9f8ddb106ad3b8f8
f8fd7d6d5882cad8c63ce73c5f31652b7b5115dc
48726 F20101115_AAAICY cohen_d_Page_141.pro
014bae92777061c4016d4482c1e57614
376037025c30ddf342b73492cd2574b99882a2ef
F20101115_AAAHYG cohen_d_Page_082.tif
c6614a2d56391008da0a9d44541492c0
bb97b0a641105f76c4691d0ce94b2bb1edc80c76
F20101115_AAAHXS cohen_d_Page_057.tif
0aabd139eeb2ccf1dc67b8b3b2e15f35
8de76fa87f402720cb2b6fff2dbc6c6a9c5dbb8f
F20101115_AAAHAK cohen_d_Page_007.tif
7875b4c9af411b439631ea935ee95ecd
253aeda1dcba241b44d3481bc24adb401ccc4c39
49849 F20101115_AAAGVE cohen_d_Page_067.pro
08b7ad7f0c538f7abad687c34b328486
30ac95076098c15daa144708f7909e919abed678
51093 F20101115_AAAGUQ cohen_d_Page_027.pro
e23504e028109ada254b53f6c6b793b0
8668517dc2baf12aaaa7798ef1266a1713d29728
18991 F20101115_AAAIEC cohen_d_Page_185.pro
6443293823c9c4b25fad9409cacb239d
2a24539a0ff549015c373606c13a1126b162e412
21371 F20101115_AAAIDN cohen_d_Page_165.pro
b49891d989853cbd20e3d5444362d738
f0250fe6420ec611302956ac4065e0b4560a043e
39344 F20101115_AAAICZ cohen_d_Page_143.pro
9661547048deb488b9d08bdd2f634a1f
3a35eb8703eaa3544d5218797d1ba032a238e898
F20101115_AAAHYH cohen_d_Page_083.tif
a607daa34de07dce0c926104bb8acaeb
9d8c0fe83c8d863fd0dcc523f60d821b30b83789
F20101115_AAAHXT cohen_d_Page_063.tif
3566027176aca790cf71a33d56e71b3f
fbb82c34f5f44e899e350f94c801e14ef74f0f5d
103253 F20101115_AAAHAL cohen_d_Page_071.jp2
bd5e51b2cfb21ffcbfe0bc18b2d7ae88
8b925ddda9f06651a222f96bee5e0b4ca415119a
8922 F20101115_AAAGVF cohen_d_Page_176.QC.jpg
3187d365e18f3bc67734c618bf994a47
68ae1e97e1a23d79a636386f87af033ef9407cbb
59268 F20101115_AAAGUR cohen_d_Page_093.jpg
eb72f478701744afaedf28fe25b42785
dac7629314c244ae7f7ff1e12cee7274094b3e66
F20101115_AAAHBA cohen_d_Page_001.tif
7eaa2a24807b83bbadde1075e816712b
9032636d6ff5613c8c35e220622d6e879b8cff13
56199 F20101115_AAAIED cohen_d_Page_187.pro
8445004cf9ec6263b5b4904c34838a69
0428ed14898cf90b17802dcdfb533cd5d6100860
40714 F20101115_AAAIDO cohen_d_Page_166.pro
a41f18e0836217586e1beb05e5a50646
fd35cab66668b2632859a70e88af0fb7c7d7fe27
F20101115_AAAHYI cohen_d_Page_085.tif
b7aad8fa02cb9dd7bed722df1799ab36
825e4d02e357cc1a04a4d85ac8d92fd243f27b5e
F20101115_AAAHXU cohen_d_Page_064.tif
5bcb7ead519ff586820e9fa716a85386
953ceb1e11b73d283787fe6e5d15fd80b5a3ef66
1710 F20101115_AAAHAM cohen_d_Page_100.txt
a1dc737a8f010118c72e4a7a975716a1
937ec4e3057da090fa04a673405efed47a38e299
71576 F20101115_AAAGVG cohen_d_Page_005.jpg
10835e6dc9504a9e4f43b3f460cf322a
2ac93586433dad9e1f1dd204ff915f2fea1ad412
F20101115_AAAGUS cohen_d_Page_008.tif
6bc97b3dfdef1efa97c4fadb19cb788c
84c76e40a4bb9d30135361d435e23ab926df4b97
F20101115_AAAHBB cohen_d_Page_102.tif
bd986800e925f21c51df827ae358b09f
5518733701ee2b9377dffa70f62749952a28b978
60875 F20101115_AAAIDP cohen_d_Page_167.pro
deb5fe3d1a311e59870d3081dba7717a
67eb61680eb5743ca6b1841ae66ca97e72738738
F20101115_AAAHYJ cohen_d_Page_086.tif
6e975b918bf194c328ace9b5ad7ff146
797b0730de0d1c8592a94a16f26beaaad83084a9
F20101115_AAAHXV cohen_d_Page_067.tif
d8f2df87efecb9f3a15a8a4fa61b2238
eee920a0684afc5dd08a641e8aa7992c08411cc6
69593 F20101115_AAAHAN cohen_d_Page_106.jpg
849f4fc5ac7bd18cedf99cf3f86e8b3b
6f595989c4b593ab1daa5219f46c6f44bbfe9bf7
6192 F20101115_AAAGVH cohen_d_Page_103thm.jpg
e859297af562f5a0a30835ed23a77ae8
e64cbbaa237dc6b4a8375f7f0bff5646fc26669b
67113 F20101115_AAAGUT cohen_d_Page_068.jpg
40eaf67d0c4e0275360c961c503f55e4
489f806bc9ea9fe3e6fcd57b6eaf75f47a7ea412
55467 F20101115_AAAIEE cohen_d_Page_188.pro
b1a1b850df687ef530d7e19119829093
ea76c1980843b7ea4e9977e071424d08f9e0f084
60924 F20101115_AAAIDQ cohen_d_Page_168.pro
e84e93374a3117a5aa9d72da1ad6de69
929c8d7949fa4dd77ead6a403b05034c6d9e6577
F20101115_AAAHYK cohen_d_Page_089.tif
7e1a687b991c0c9f62fa9a3ebde30517
5744ba6b1af7e18629d2e55400c1b3fb18c539a5
F20101115_AAAHXW cohen_d_Page_068.tif
0fdd822d8cce54ab8a6b25a130142101
ade5fe68ebea8037c13d637245b64f9bd469d038
15087 F20101115_AAAHAO cohen_d_Page_003.jp2
77346ec5c29ac4409c0753801dad5b0b
c8bbabdcc1d01e98b8bff5dc60c1c164cc45debe
1903 F20101115_AAAGVI cohen_d_Page_145.txt
d16ad3d28c184a7b131b13596297dfa0
89a0c54ef1d2281f31f1fd7c0863f2cad023ac2e
58453 F20101115_AAAGUU cohen_d_Page_179.jpg
096293840a457c5a32cd000cc9f3b7f0
1789eacfd8782a305b301fb7410713afb48ec264
99658 F20101115_AAAHBC cohen_d_Page_068.jp2
71fc185e012b793d60fc06aefe2c08a8
451bd8a88d7145f465f199f1cff8fb21f16a8864
57005 F20101115_AAAIEF cohen_d_Page_189.pro
b50be4580e237bee5b736dd7b88737ed
17bbd79cdf1f623c891e5fc8f8d01cd61b348759
8121 F20101115_AAAIDR cohen_d_Page_169.pro
38f5282ad47259b25ac0306be7539206
b607b688a552ae6728aa17427cf77fa115505761
F20101115_AAAHYL cohen_d_Page_090.tif
a1fca760394e2767953ed2ddcde8d062
929fc9badbc072d2cbac396e9777af432c744869
F20101115_AAAHXX cohen_d_Page_069.tif
4aa2fc56600e71bcbb855bffddd3d40a
6e9afce9c24f160ef7100ae892255e0e970957b0
1979 F20101115_AAAHAP cohen_d_Page_055.txt
238d3de0b4cfb7b0702493762df5afa2
562e9cbdfd2f131d36ee725d4b0001499398ca25
2079 F20101115_AAAGVJ cohen_d_Page_081.txt
2248b8a6d53bd52503e0284f16dc22e2
8981732f230f0bd070e863e401fc1223e30d4799
F20101115_AAAGUV cohen_d_Page_174.tif
e9ace8e04cc2a77c42c5478d4390dc26
37687da38cdfbb6327c5d9e7463a93c148a857ae
F20101115_AAAHBD cohen_d_Page_127.tif
f94b1b6a797db84bcbda2299d7e62e8f
d87a790ca57a026954ffdef4375e057143b54a67
50729 F20101115_AAAIEG cohen_d_Page_190.pro
65fb5bb57207850c71fba985e40765cd
39d3f79fafb26d06795321f75cf1fdf19c0d211f
46208 F20101115_AAAIDS cohen_d_Page_173.pro
6d1e4380740fffa71e229cf36e61fd45
d52a12a5944f3e9bc55b54039688c2f163a95083
F20101115_AAAHZA cohen_d_Page_128.tif
c1d643d89b2c12ad2c48b790cba1caeb
bc6182ac3fcc6887bd67577b2c10a89c243a6d11
F20101115_AAAHYM cohen_d_Page_094.tif
84ada48975624fed0f9fa649d321c2c4
a2e670903b1a09ea6d9de32845a038b22124f2e7
24974 F20101115_AAAHAQ cohen_d_Page_170.QC.jpg
f9672be78e50a9687df1d2d3351dbbee
8677e0b2fefdeeaaad0fe59f9a0a6b86a7764f85
F20101115_AAAGVK cohen_d_Page_101.tif
8445e69f843aa98e21a10ceed488ff9b
537b8846e7bba513a27da2191c082276061f4b37
21851 F20101115_AAAHBE cohen_d_Page_068.QC.jpg
17e0aeaef28b7f20687c4fffcc56447d
7dc298ae6dd8277e750ed19b246a30e8db1e3ac4
58565 F20101115_AAAIEH cohen_d_Page_191.pro
5bc2e68faf2cc920928f427ec09aff09
d5a49d8ea2636b39511befafca3647273bac73e9
47862 F20101115_AAAIDT cohen_d_Page_174.pro
f9b6ee4c8049fcf447200694a26e64ba
c919db461f7ec52a7abbfaee744d327e1fdbb239
F20101115_AAAHZB cohen_d_Page_129.tif
a1576db652dd0f5006573b46c750dc27
84dcc35aec80a17d5c74cb4e940fe53d3aaec348
F20101115_AAAHYN cohen_d_Page_096.tif
fe42eb83ef14befdf0a8eb29cc0fa138
82ff0e01744a71bd9b7533e7f5b9b81b32c7703c
F20101115_AAAHXY cohen_d_Page_070.tif
18e7055d6b0cf0109fb3d901f8fa969b
3e299225b8062f2766c3b138f70793601a51b635
F20101115_AAAHAR cohen_d_Page_026.tif
5087c113142652e877eaf6bc3750173b
f6b0d24aa2251534d5ef1149ddd099a45a04b805
105622 F20101115_AAAGVL cohen_d_Page_138.jp2
047619bc11e8a08e14952c7b714701df
9893c3a8d0eb7af053a760b348d9493621a47037
104674 F20101115_AAAGUW cohen_d_Page_064.jp2
e7d57d858b98590444fb0a5d54a0c8a6
c8a8181587ab4ad3e8eafc7b78316ce1a5e163b5
49313 F20101115_AAAHBF cohen_d_Page_031.pro
33e0b625922ce744222b99d7be26e32f
e888734d1f7cb2bdb57fb6568b9de29578f0218b
44218 F20101115_AAAIEI cohen_d_Page_192.pro
2ffbc28172240ccb0eacdb3257661afd
0436a29b8227a935e630b2abcf0c8b9381ea693b
44254 F20101115_AAAIDU cohen_d_Page_175.pro
1a930967c8b05136004d57b20f54e4e5
093db297fd9c264dfc691cf3c61361c21c4dbfd8
F20101115_AAAHZC cohen_d_Page_133.tif
f52cd458d1c2269e507e94fe3db8c73c
2a8d4d8d4998d36da60ea5c79f9ff7eed680c930
F20101115_AAAHYO cohen_d_Page_099.tif
a36896d9a7bc4e7a331fe589a9abba57
4af8141e680ad89c3c436c6cd467346d8d052e42
F20101115_AAAHXZ cohen_d_Page_071.tif
a27772f796f40c47e356e3c48205c582
607d1ad323f2195649a2ceb4307b66f3d97e128e
F20101115_AAAGWA cohen_d_Page_034thm.jpg
072ef72507b3133ed5fcde6a00c6b30b
48c360f73ecbfcf1541beb62393f530c89f969b3
47914 F20101115_AAAHAS cohen_d_Page_172.pro
8c50019b48493c06069dc4d9901c4d2e
a3fdbd9bf2d68ad19d4d1a5707c0062955b3413e
F20101115_AAAGVM cohen_d_Page_056.tif
e29efd1fba191a9dda25c69d9da64444
61b272308f935406bf3c13c2654ab358de0901c8
1984 F20101115_AAAGUX cohen_d_Page_025.txt
b457c430ba54c8c9cd0691e42a9cb7a8
476fcedd2bd2aeb38912cd745bd53c8301f176ae
107788 F20101115_AAAHBG cohen_d_Page_066.jp2
95402284f0fc21986b0f93385ef0a3db
07c4236f72719d83b07c511aca9029c08fa4777e
42505 F20101115_AAAIEJ cohen_d_Page_193.pro
762c3da09e523e6aa64f77c090ce115b
d8ecad68bc4f12ba58a21ca49df906d085f161c4
15415 F20101115_AAAIDV cohen_d_Page_176.pro
c127d714cc539ba69bf998dacb975fb8
a1e3575cf1d1f6b4fb87ac7b876f70742666c056
F20101115_AAAHZD cohen_d_Page_134.tif
fe927bfe2904234b2e157f3e156d8c29
ea9c67d28b223b481f498f391130614af07b5f6d
F20101115_AAAHYP cohen_d_Page_103.tif
9188c2882aae4164793a559fc9a56c59
782e107b2d3d000735f1f059a790e3be61cdb9d0
1934 F20101115_AAAGWB cohen_d_Page_141.txt
7ec3f5e723e68ee9de40c12165a24b32
173bfc3a9425d83f1c96c3e873cea8be4e54439a
59503 F20101115_AAAHAT cohen_d_Page_113.jpg
0f2cb903f14b25916ebe240c9c93e02c
8fce5d065fdc8860f6d828c88858cd1794356fdf
23438 F20101115_AAAGVN cohen_d_Page_057.QC.jpg
cf9efeab8305cb689c32d6276aeb2c65
30cb84777b9a8a1841ed7c2f7c5a0a44512607f5
2078 F20101115_AAAGUY cohen_d_Page_041.txt
af2b8819b7f5a98535fe6a23290e338c
9ab8e35299826af0d1cf1d74a41d611989dfe3e6
2199 F20101115_AAAHBH cohen_d_Page_125.txt
47ec9b29aa23dc76093ea512c116ffba
06ebc827270113f7aa3e87b9d8d3f1ee146020f2
421 F20101115_AAAIEK cohen_d_Page_001.txt
15890572f35f37101c3abc03b2c5ab38
d169eaef96f48aeffbbb1b727673e77528b1ab6c
10405 F20101115_AAAIDW cohen_d_Page_178.pro
480b5aeb5a618bb0b75fa5e8f690abac
7662e831829ed2ef98db985ed398df3b08c75cc3
F20101115_AAAHZE cohen_d_Page_138.tif
dae96d7cbcfc4738b7f150332148a9b3
7d68819448d4166135e3be7d24dbcec1625bca53
F20101115_AAAHYQ cohen_d_Page_111.tif
fd182144b66c04a1f388d237fff12199
472d862c90c529116adf2c363f0caddb215647d2
107462 F20101115_AAAGWC cohen_d_Page_026.jp2
318719951d43aee7b7edc064de043afd
481b7e6d10dd52831758ff30794b07934200411b
6310 F20101115_AAAHAU cohen_d_Page_088thm.jpg
3c7d5d7805a2edc867b2c2715edfe571
2389faf45c7994a5296f62839806974ef3266b87
1971 F20101115_AAAGVO cohen_d_Page_023.txt
c1967417a3243c1fea33373d70ad196e
e62a2f76fcddab5d1cd4c03f3bb7513e792bf01c
1781 F20101115_AAAGUZ cohen_d_Page_192.txt
70bbce6e8f77302ab69eed5980e48d33
0cea99710c2c432ffcd89bbd425df374f528a381
2165 F20101115_AAAHBI cohen_d_Page_122.txt
351b60d980c330e18783ebf684a5526a
1683af656a0ae5d2ce620f65b799aae567e97e42
1693 F20101115_AAAIFA cohen_d_Page_033.txt
81e470a8deb7aad7451fcc1ce351df28
fbbaadcc041f860cb4bfa04f5fe3ab4c72b5194c
101 F20101115_AAAIEL cohen_d_Page_002.txt
0666cd5748958c64b9c5ce80d9cfc60a
641e3adc39d297fbac63ad0c360b4857eb867846
38648 F20101115_AAAIDX cohen_d_Page_179.pro
6ee9d418e1dc22a078a8fe924b6e45e7
94bdf63c8839305b2d129bbc82845508fce5f870
F20101115_AAAHZF cohen_d_Page_139.tif
5c65bde26191da0f3c895b2946488506
c79811f1e870ceb89c7e1f5eb06dc6df8bd83256
F20101115_AAAHYR cohen_d_Page_114.tif
7a4781530d58b641fa9816def990e441
e29eb830372370e2601b01356017e2b486e3b790
6318 F20101115_AAAGWD cohen_d_Page_067thm.jpg
72858fe67af5d1aadfc28abfc70e9118
84344d7884137be7f73b9ed6c7d162345cd098f9
17657 F20101115_AAAHAV cohen_d_Page_164.QC.jpg
6c634a32b612ccb1829d0480927d6d2f
62aca2b2f73ee5acb102e17b0a113b71b8e80644
22988 F20101115_AAAGVP cohen_d_Page_116.QC.jpg
550d2a80eacac9954d813d180c88978c
69e8f125c8ad88e3c2e8d98f94955eb1cb693e92
4578 F20101115_AAAHBJ cohen_d_Page_174thm.jpg
dacca0b8205369455b048a664b443e57
6da8d3a3a0a5d5129291ba6861f85bd3d27a3bda
1963 F20101115_AAAIFB cohen_d_Page_034.txt
ac9269f67e78b431cca8d624a5283b19
5bce36b8ed8f058f45433054a32e2e7682ff2853
278 F20101115_AAAIEM cohen_d_Page_003.txt
fae8da46b97fa60e758b8a74eee18c52
e5dda818b0fa0afa31de3b61974143e2c31ee581
7504 F20101115_AAAIDY cohen_d_Page_180.pro
22c09ff21df3bdc5d2baae1d994d3dda
e686792ae6ace017d1c134f86ec026325f416306
F20101115_AAAHZG cohen_d_Page_141.tif
966f1affdaa432a05feebdf750b83ef7
01e073e5087f2c22f351dba2dbd56cd40dd9fdeb
F20101115_AAAHYS cohen_d_Page_115.tif
d9a013b877175651848346e32a9e68d0
97b45692371dd2b0bdbf3f2360d5bd2c7641ab76
42425 F20101115_AAAGWE cohen_d_Page_177.pro
36915d87241636298b3421e73f4bb6f8
9f4d0fee575e07de5d72c193d042d076178d1369
6539 F20101115_AAAHAW cohen_d_Page_115thm.jpg
7584078d7484e1436623ebbc0bba52ca
eb1ef07fdac7e3ee107fd4d0f0ce93310cf4f96d
6576 F20101115_AAAGVQ cohen_d_Page_132thm.jpg
f4247388d853b395a7240e24aa057685
c64e823866faca318a8c9a2e43a51ed617a2f3ca
F20101115_AAAHBK cohen_d_Page_153.tif
a637ad9861211bb96b1a2ac91634d6ee
dfdbc3e3bf7612aa1fbb6a822098aa0181697035
1778 F20101115_AAAIFC cohen_d_Page_035.txt
d6e0b08f7a09fc938c829259499c5c41
eab78fbf4ce7e2c73948c80d9b00e71daeb4e2b0
2857 F20101115_AAAIEN cohen_d_Page_005.txt
2fbdafaf5292907c15595e915b9d4d43
63a3cdca5405a95da00ff5f4f85c0d9015272d9d
25904 F20101115_AAAIDZ cohen_d_Page_181.pro
825a0e1502a00415a15a982f120202e2
ec1133b7b0ba231736831489db8d4a7d170f05c2
F20101115_AAAHZH cohen_d_Page_142.tif
7e6cf4471d8d99dc4b03f77309525c36
2c09f774fb49bf0c1a39143361cd046f65502f43
F20101115_AAAHYT cohen_d_Page_116.tif
578c4f52a49e0bb92b29026321efc610
cf6a7a6933f886096c5604d44769cc41e81b9a1c
107984 F20101115_AAAGWF cohen_d_Page_158.jp2
1361210eecd0820b3647556890571049
854304986736cc90f256ce9fa0ea553ffc571d27
23418 F20101115_AAAHAX cohen_d_Page_031.QC.jpg
7ec8d497de50a5b36fd84e92e1591ae0
e79d56baf0f011098a12894f276f54942a94a98d
F20101115_AAAGVR cohen_d_Page_159.txt
aad0ef0780369b43a92b8372153bc732
96dc14b513bf17860f4357fcee3a3dc2a5fb3e42
1852 F20101115_AAAHCA cohen_d_Page_094.txt
6fcc4e3131b709d910499b0182a4acfc
4a45f23666cd7fe2bbb6c72b441d302c0fd3e80b
67734 F20101115_AAAHBL cohen_d_Page_056.jpg
a8509087346b4f92506d8a6fff0315be
94b1281e2d62bcb90991955aa6321ba02e084af0
1985 F20101115_AAAIFD cohen_d_Page_036.txt
12df2556f7134936ea503a089666c516
7b941a1b8b76c098780b5ea60608a40a9076f010
3647 F20101115_AAAIEO cohen_d_Page_006.txt
b808fb0c12087d5b7d40c96a8732d0a6
bfb34969f165bad2b640c8f8d97e06d45080b76f
F20101115_AAAHZI cohen_d_Page_143.tif
71afaf7a8c7791aa017f51a6124d3ce9
051a799e4ae033e37f048472bced3aebfa453b42
F20101115_AAAHYU cohen_d_Page_119.tif
f04562d5ef831b42992ebde1803a7978
166c20b14d9d6bd6f4f0a1f15296d247fc754e29
2080 F20101115_AAAGWG cohen_d_Page_087.txt
61e92f831c5f77a53bc0bba79de4e0f8
e4d3ac6c19a71e34c62196f6f90169e6f3228eaf
14225 F20101115_AAAHAY cohen_d_Page_003.jpg
bb7b219746083b8805abf59c1bb55c86
2800201205c5ef4ee288cf6d7e75794d070b120b
107939 F20101115_AAAGVS cohen_d_Page_057.jp2
8f641324270ab7b2bc869a4449a68bf2
bb94c96d6b558e741de9a2976a385037f30f7c2f
70756 F20101115_AAAHCB cohen_d_Page_025.jpg
fe6e3ca55d2aed976c8cc405f8645746
c2c37dc1e185d20eb00f0fe64972e68cdf4ee0fa
1968 F20101115_AAAHBM cohen_d_Page_015.txt
b95aca1c69da99a718be5d3b713d2a81
87531ae02cb46b22d2814dcfa0b855151ab4961e
1990 F20101115_AAAIFE cohen_d_Page_037.txt
0a5049dbe57fd7eda9ae5cd507f31fbe
e6ae5cd76226f4396a87bb7eb64a21bf78b0dcf0
3343 F20101115_AAAIEP cohen_d_Page_007.txt
089e424bbe4af461a04469f775d978bc
288224e8bf64450f37c5f22b7f45787b2b1f99d0
F20101115_AAAHZJ cohen_d_Page_144.tif
00599376a8163ca9a7ade024df1e5b0a
623f512f6ef0571a55be9de413ce2c56f35de769
F20101115_AAAHYV cohen_d_Page_121.tif
4cce39d599c268c0c3402832134af96b
a27ffc0bd1a42b49b5a454a004a483d688bc8105
F20101115_AAAGWH cohen_d_Page_098.tif
2e1fda5d322ea274d97ea3e0117c3400
a6d5fd583d6d2851f918c72262373cf5cc8a629a
1868 F20101115_AAAHAZ cohen_d_Page_130.txt
14570e572aea999fcd9fcf332de5a909
4a787681cad6b90e8591806ceb57cb364677d1c4
F20101115_AAAGVT cohen_d_Page_091.tif
2588e002c26ff75e230c7a46f326709a
51fa71b8d0570f73e7d72d93752bc483e24be134
69898 F20101115_AAAHCC cohen_d_Page_110.jpg
499fe7e6ae6e7d197d82ef921215b652
6d2fd9341cd986b4ecf91d84aded8cca86c13e2e
F20101115_AAAHBN cohen_d_Page_186.tif
c8931ee22516abf6a9017c2c812710b7
13341a458ffa76aead20585ccdd7ed4f1c89b19d
436 F20101115_AAAIEQ cohen_d_Page_009.txt
8752c6df0693006140a83cca71d9f6f7
2e5a52b3502dd831f4f5e74602b5966dbb4bb96a
F20101115_AAAHZK cohen_d_Page_146.tif
c5092a67184fcff7342d63ee92f9b4ce
6b84d322e89955a874dd4a78c1d8f5805966b536
F20101115_AAAHYW cohen_d_Page_122.tif
b9c76adbcdb3fc76befe0fcb16db7b5d
a0bfc4f0114eb07c5f80d32739c48aed6c0c7277
50433 F20101115_AAAGWI cohen_d_Page_038.pro
537085e4314ed452adc4021dd94ec8c0
0a4fad236e7c7fa839fc1a5295482da18fdc8816
101671 F20101115_AAAGVU cohen_d_Page_146.jp2
a6fde24596a4b05c8b0424e6913567b1
f7a30820f70f42f5966509a5a1d953078045f49e
6270 F20101115_AAAHBO cohen_d_Page_035thm.jpg
a8bf9bc8e09bb1cccf3ca1e4c927f95d
710e3bb2d76be72c51761893759ba7a6364d0585
1798 F20101115_AAAIFF cohen_d_Page_039.txt
424a450687142fd4980bbd84bc656a1e
73e15a856e72ea27f463a4c6e8d4ca86a00971e7
1045 F20101115_AAAIER cohen_d_Page_010.txt
6d4ff8125994d271d1d6c454d4885c37
1d64512f3fd2b3000e77b001b001d50f6ce028ce
F20101115_AAAHZL cohen_d_Page_148.tif
90ba2b05cfa0bd82be3d927cbfff6055
95977d783f34e94151c53452423b5435889f2cd2
F20101115_AAAHYX cohen_d_Page_123.tif
2168c232ec81c7b91e77aa567a11568a
ded11a9cb6ceb5f42ddab3a1c30e3143ee974b06
F20101115_AAAGWJ cohen_d_Page_074.tif
f595e048f6449511386855f94c2ef905
996b27e1ac19322cebde6fbd0cf5bc3dc89695a8
18253 F20101115_AAAGVV cohen_d_Page_174.QC.jpg
30f719b9132f5a2f61f82a5da46bf7ce
5a2beedc486655bf3a739eab66effde9e9af9f76
6558 F20101115_AAAHCD cohen_d_Page_014thm.jpg
202456284c07b336b643b68edd0d2d6e
35fbf5036b595269aa48b833b9fe24fb301a7313
F20101115_AAAHBP cohen_d_Page_029.tif
e4dc2c88a0361acd7e69684b04eabe2d
b122cfd1fa34249ed3bb80c04f64402c8ed2bc75
2013 F20101115_AAAIFG cohen_d_Page_040.txt
aab35097d0e14948b38fa9805876c78e
9504d0be5a3ac79db3f121aae3e67ce6b87c0799
1974 F20101115_AAAIES cohen_d_Page_014.txt
766c074ebf16d4171f4ef811567f3447
84f6d1e846234ba6bf1ec15a3e32bdf527b3b9dd
F20101115_AAAHZM cohen_d_Page_149.tif
07a567986f9780c2019d7e1c0cc6ac4d
ec0f798ed20e144645965674d8e064fb35270379
F20101115_AAAHYY cohen_d_Page_125.tif
4b2777a6520b14a3096eed16bd1333ea
d3090415d96d3d998d2cdf59136a3572838b6e35
3357 F20101115_AAAGWK cohen_d_Page_002.QC.jpg
51f6566c1673be67d1b2ccba986dc58b
d7454ccb063598ec3fbf51f46ca44e7a1c71ed58
F20101115_AAAGVW cohen_d_Page_104.tif
85caa429ebe1bbeeb8b30bd3d71e4e34
36e14a2438312197c46c0531ddc20c737ccbe743
12678 F20101115_AAAHCE cohen_d_Page_165.QC.jpg
c5c86592e2306bd4733c1989faec75e2
2f18b1a416d9935931638d204fd8bab17a7e98b7
F20101115_AAAHBQ cohen_d_Page_087.tif
413123e170f0f236d7d40c4ade08e94e
468981617d9f609bd7e99b7cdddbbd7b22725359
2184 F20101115_AAAIFH cohen_d_Page_042.txt
464469711aed05af1d9e1cce725bbf75
304b9682e4e7f8a8d6cace2e96a4bfb079495a5d
2008 F20101115_AAAIET cohen_d_Page_017.txt
c4c3dbbcda173ff28882e16586d3145c
a4daee84c2bbc1c26ddb1917ab3841be95493c3e
F20101115_AAAHZN cohen_d_Page_152.tif
87caf18fec4d09c7d5c245e0244bc030
9e7acbd26d375d86587715e4377b11b1ea226e67
44527 F20101115_AAAGWL cohen_d_Page_148.pro
a9a0fdd07c1fdaea604ca699aa22db9e
3def4f9980237e5d9ac57950ec35763ada984ce2
20077 F20101115_AAAHCF cohen_d_Page_144.QC.jpg
25ef6e8937bef501234c0183fe24e88f
163fa395077a03df7dc867e40b6733dee19b3126
10417 F20101115_AAAHBR cohen_d_Page_002.jpg
c902e9798bee97b4bd81b65896942cf1
cd2396a8342460d5305e016f10b5767a93609eb5
1207 F20101115_AAAIFI cohen_d_Page_043.txt
62a06f8d8b6914596582f7ba10ce6218
801cf7072efaadfeff78da754c1acfc26b0536b5
672 F20101115_AAAIEU cohen_d_Page_018.txt
569f191f6f204714670564616038e2fc
67593c862e2a483cd951c7ba8ae2c2dcda6c81ab
F20101115_AAAHZO cohen_d_Page_154.tif
16275b3f0a45fc30588709be293b83c9
d0427893c633e8df9a85d0857d77eda127721785
F20101115_AAAHYZ cohen_d_Page_126.tif
82447c5b37ff2c37199d1d36cfcd6514
202d74657a1be440a3b770d5abab80ba21b6af46
108252 F20101115_AAAGWM cohen_d_Page_058.jp2
5e3d4d7fb899beb448054eee73b44d7f
d7fb7e7205b5ad3e3bc0f84d817a13492d617067
72279 F20101115_AAAGVX cohen_d_Page_027.jpg
74882ad85b8635ca7e1e6e707de509af
a09e36f737354a2be050ec8b7b438ff5793a642f
47592 F20101115_AAAHCG cohen_d_Page_064.pro
13921c65325c9027d3a53e7604b2a8cc
9a18ef75ead2fbe30268d99b7a618954afb887cd
24736 F20101115_AAAGXA cohen_d_Page_125.QC.jpg
ede88feb53bea898c71280758a662d92
cf3903760fb8fdc019c4ce6ca507cc1d86609d86
F20101115_AAAHBS cohen_d_Page_020.tif
06a4a5134412babc2dfe0f0ad22b562a
245e9c848a7106d52f97d8325ec2637ae0750361
F20101115_AAAIFJ cohen_d_Page_044.txt
877458170f5dac2a38c76590893fd078
9b6d6e55f8b1af56f06e1e4ad22e5446b3607564
1841 F20101115_AAAIEV cohen_d_Page_020.txt
91d80c08652d68b5e76d91a69e1a1916
9ccb528f5c3300e063268a5c48941a2eebc79f34
F20101115_AAAHZP cohen_d_Page_156.tif
923d644969969ac9ad76e949335b0f4a
5e453c2ef2aceafe793a9d6186f6dc81e9df3868
1622 F20101115_AAAGVY cohen_d_Page_003thm.jpg
47f111b973a393bd6c6ff22a3c431231
70a5fca5d5104e8c4ab9ca73df1d5a52b1ae6973
105915 F20101115_AAAHCH cohen_d_Page_016.jp2
0c025d9ca7438a37274303c317a0e7b0
2667bcb4203d0064baf2db20e9dc10a267bb0ff0
71278 F20101115_AAAGXB cohen_d_Page_155.jpg
cca418c958cec9426740c95be02d91b1
c8b978c3d49b792dfce9fe84705a66c37365c308
21982 F20101115_AAAHBT cohen_d_Page_059.QC.jpg
59cf934736f63251533a51ab5c4cfa8c
56ffa1fa3329f6e67dcf0ba22399b401e84f3dd2
763326 F20101115_AAAGWN cohen_d_Page_109.jp2
406d2cbd57256282de18e92a32fde4d7
d2f64e0824884a0c0ee01947787010b3c45f9e2d
1857 F20101115_AAAIFK cohen_d_Page_045.txt
47664d1afa1a277999143491a76dfaa0
93b7a335611caeace2135a7eff243e75278a11c9
1977 F20101115_AAAIEW cohen_d_Page_022.txt
00c160f28cd91bf5b286e4ef3171ccba
1800d9c56ea688187921cdfc606a984e198e0eee
F20101115_AAAHZQ cohen_d_Page_160.tif
201602da641571f0abbce7957780a24c
654ca18f5bd31485ca7474ca00816e7015438968
F20101115_AAAGVZ cohen_d_Page_170.tif
1b21dafa5fd33e8faafa8ab7ceb5bbfe
c6afab12c4b0535df0267f987d6cf7094bd49856
44788 F20101115_AAAHCI cohen_d_Page_131.pro
c493db3b274df232db36029673762a91
a16998585690550635ce3ffaa5f0c391f19a25b7
F20101115_AAAGXC cohen_d_Page_109.tif
b2bea01120719f71ed7dc3a8876a95d7
2d69061232abe2c474ea1dcff61ee5ee566acb0b
6479 F20101115_AAAHBU cohen_d_Page_057thm.jpg
ab16a990ec0ec190b60a8f2bb949b3e7
69c424f4c958c2ced56c2c02f39b9334c4a1ab75
5940 F20101115_AAAGWO cohen_d_Page_019thm.jpg
8f372c22493acfd9d4b65af3de24fa29
0a48523dfc0e174892e9dff51076e0380dfd036b
1936 F20101115_AAAIGA cohen_d_Page_073.txt
1b2d3523e247d62cb7044df197472cd6
0205ffc308d07ebde92e1f9eba17626d86114f32
1956 F20101115_AAAIFL cohen_d_Page_046.txt
f9700364e66a753551340caa3ba73d41
7413f0d389ea0d51ab461a5ce4c3b05db0931667
F20101115_AAAIEX cohen_d_Page_026.txt
a9cdd7d9f93dea849cca8479d5128650
ce02087d404f39da9dd72e55a42d3908759254b5
F20101115_AAAHZR cohen_d_Page_161.tif
fc270d901fd66e56905dc33e4abfad2c
bed89e108a5194d4a7b544020077819d77779342
F20101115_AAAHCJ cohen_d_Page_048.tif
c4ac368ff314b8ab7709570807bc7cca
8bfb4b785c489ecbd945774cfc2044114bdf6b2d
21733 F20101115_AAAGXD cohen_d_Page_020.QC.jpg
7022cb328921620fe29f49634fff44a8
8a1d2a21ce171ef7432b033baf4299531fc1ba18
26464 F20101115_AAAHBV cohen_d_Page_188.QC.jpg
223e67074ddb1326f57bb638b46a13a6
1421d700e9630b4f61cb36495cc68dafde804acf
F20101115_AAAGWP cohen_d_Page_047thm.jpg
df507226d514ceb81a637c44c0b5ad95
2af5307c570d6ed7a33df9b251d9b5f7c491ee65
1960 F20101115_AAAIGB cohen_d_Page_075.txt
1960cd3bc66d6a1bcff6a26805a5a146
5896f7e60cb9ee73b39cf6dd79bc4cc43764a80b
2081 F20101115_AAAIFM cohen_d_Page_047.txt
c65ff51e2f463b110ce1058702786aba
fe34fba69522753b147da3e30a39378b5307ce50
1879 F20101115_AAAIEY cohen_d_Page_030.txt
cda2fceb25d73b450317ce4a41f61244
7356f8d479c34028f7de58709f11a7a31dd8612a
F20101115_AAAHZS cohen_d_Page_162.tif
eb2db8ead34a66001d0b5e19f0787c13
9e0ff130d4feafa54d59135a407fc5f8a1a6032f
F20101115_AAAHCK cohen_d_Page_065.tif
1b9d224844436ead2faa1190e77c546f
82042cafbfa85a4ff1bf0779d846e7268039dba7
44463 F20101115_AAAGXE cohen_d_Page_008.jpg
79522d8c8e0c116b54e44d775051ba4e
57682f93dcf2886015d28791c9c3e24c0add5450
97419 F20101115_AAAHBW cohen_d_Page_147.jp2
d69e9aaeeb6cbf66f43d179d8198282e
f04d6c0df6d0afb74ef26055db60f07c1c499282
105437 F20101115_AAAGWQ cohen_d_Page_133.jp2
91c42b7b217496e50042fc9169f7095a
4c958bc377b62da289a46c5a41a775d6866349dd
1789 F20101115_AAAIGC cohen_d_Page_078.txt
67e5ea0c3dc9f05cd8579b4a5aacf8ff
18a93db493cee2792a7950762c11e194fc437ab9
1983 F20101115_AAAIFN cohen_d_Page_048.txt
35309c970c4a2f844ef19b4685baff67
1f6f45288c4885b99ecfc9e32f73395295b92467
1969 F20101115_AAAIEZ cohen_d_Page_032.txt
949f9fac8f6da67822ea40fd40f97019
eed09e7ff317727060e409092c7bd80608880212
F20101115_AAAHZT cohen_d_Page_164.tif
3434464edc233600ad7e9f3bbf0cf2ea
3a061d3936345cfd1834197b14c76bb3606187bd
1878 F20101115_AAAHDA cohen_d_Page_092.txt
5cd9ddb878b0afaa3c8d3f36e4c27488
2f6b886d15c3dab659cb94e2010a5e583d10216a
6619 F20101115_AAAHCL cohen_d_Page_134thm.jpg
eb64db2f37b2e112ef8af270d1f270b0
fbf6bd50790c396e5dcc630f730a440cca3b28c4
49978 F20101115_AAAGXF cohen_d_Page_058.pro
9a81e53c161bd844ce00e2e3801d93dc
692b2d47ff37ec369e6e34c066c3b3100dd3cc90
23220 F20101115_AAAHBX cohen_d_Page_094.QC.jpg
c3284792ddf243ba3beacbefc42d5212
5ac77ec0d1b7cecd18d54d32f2f0e86bb013029a
49103 F20101115_AAAGWR cohen_d_Page_102.pro
e737efc0351820f3c83ff77c9847f84b
ccb247d05fbba7d2377c98aafd5053a35c792747
1854 F20101115_AAAIGD cohen_d_Page_080.txt
a45eb3c256c201b2d7657f02bf5fffe6
f26b265dbc6f7e08587a2584aed673b5d908fa29
2229 F20101115_AAAIFO cohen_d_Page_051.txt
abd03d5444991fea11efa3c5397a3b6a
337af3c221b3b331c9c1af17f2cd420aa19ed9bf
F20101115_AAAHZU cohen_d_Page_165.tif
d8f2a3628ab7f11c25effac93f11e8ee
f1c1c6dc19f3e23feda6e3114ff41c4e3e31d171
21137 F20101115_AAAHDB cohen_d_Page_070.QC.jpg
d15ebb020d580cfc0bff115b1d513141
e6a9a8c5bd1c4aef2be31d4f64493ce0a5386b1e
2483 F20101115_AAAHCM cohen_d_Page_169thm.jpg
bfeac5b6491bdb8c47e2345dd88bd8e8
7b89664a20a2c4fde27eca7ecd91c5579635998f
22701 F20101115_AAAGXG cohen_d_Page_141.QC.jpg
3f18c72b29b4e4cb2b530e95036b8f46
733b9b4ff6c1ee64f5fcf8f8d4bb0706440854c9
109507 F20101115_AAAHBY cohen_d_Page_128.jp2
47030f6f88b81463059ff36cf007e48e
a4f3c78ec84701455ae75780782af756a83778a9
F20101115_AAAGWS cohen_d_Page_013.tif
f9c49f3dcc074e778666cf4b812651ec
7a86c02b25c3248ff81987e073fb33f10a614a74
F20101115_AAAIGE cohen_d_Page_083.txt
b480a0908529aa9c26f22b48ace65328
858ae4f9894222bfffee33e6ed36a5072c39ffdd
F20101115_AAAIFP cohen_d_Page_052.txt
aaf0d40029a0a1125eb49418deb5c729
cccc8d67a932b7672c24805f3324a877e8456aab
F20101115_AAAHZV cohen_d_Page_168.tif
327c9df74a899e64b72408e5dd01b1fa
7a32e1c436752d2b4a0a6456be4ddb1b1d15d40e
66656 F20101115_AAAHDC cohen_d_Page_049.jpg
3127e57f3a1a7ea959ec5f823a7c76fe
2c969438d43f056c706bb942390e2bacf68bd300
4336 F20101115_AAAHCN cohen_d_Page_175thm.jpg
c7a394c9233ed40592612ea3bfb95742
67c0f422612f59b2413677b3ea5dd199a20b2423
1945 F20101115_AAAGXH cohen_d_Page_031.txt
79ce6ca5ccc35ad773822041870b5fc9
63bf0b72357862eef1958007c2e3610709378c0c
F20101115_AAAHBZ cohen_d_Page_053.tif
b7f1a7aac95f3afd248107e5de9e9973
395bc9b3f583a3511867d70be993b2ec2fbb514f
23310 F20101115_AAAGWT cohen_d_Page_106.QC.jpg
bc56d9086076ec592e26a265a0793db6
c19fcc5a38bdf1a8de6ba6812214fa9883c3bab2
2056 F20101115_AAAIGF cohen_d_Page_088.txt
ae70cb11d7497c6be3e26fb4145c8907
9bbe09d2329517b94c4dc94e556bb01976ab8e65
1412 F20101115_AAAIFQ cohen_d_Page_053.txt
b5bda0c28cb0c0cddcd4bafa5d7c49a7
6ac4d4c537bdc9f476580ea4ea6b15de06ded956
F20101115_AAAHZW cohen_d_Page_169.tif
14cfdcf59644d1e3cac614b0d07566a0
fab0c2a374dc27c23dc27578886e8a06041f0e7c
32633 F20101115_AAAHDD cohen_d_Page_004.jpg
fcf69baff778724fed70b4069cdf172e
ce4ac55aa8beaf103b9fff9426d85c7b8f3244ed
57022 F20101115_AAAHCO cohen_d_Page_051.pro
7ae78e362053b9b9df3bca89caeae264
7a0f0e3b1a634021027a1a71b8571c3dbd799fe7
109420 F20101115_AAAGXI cohen_d_Page_074.jp2
96187520a5e0931f0795c14ac4bffd58
79819195780521221f31129cde7df108b9ec29ad
32871 F20101115_AAAGWU cohen_d_Page_142.jp2
be86743dfb583302d78025c1b7ab7229
d6df1e5c30a9b5211c3a0c43c7a21c4563e2148c
2103 F20101115_AAAIFR cohen_d_Page_054.txt
3c53284de3117159ff26abb7f40533a9
a878c3803e64de3629f0085e38a4a53aa2606ed1
F20101115_AAAHZX cohen_d_Page_171.tif
693266a8ddad5a7738e9633a62ce9d1e
c80328b9b77efd5bdb0fac9096999122e43c5433
F20101115_AAAHCP cohen_d_Page_107.tif
658db838219230860ca3c360b7aeaa90
217453fb902bcebc3352872b08caadb025f1b896
103214 F20101115_AAAGXJ cohen_d_Page_030.jp2
e5dc3a31795798c547b6f24e265b7d3d
43ffd08ff71669a18eff7931a26900c228397db6
F20101115_AAAGWV cohen_d_Page_166.tif
a773c6b6ea3d4e3bfaed5c3fb6a7dcca
8ab8e16c6f510691772d4308bf512241d67db991
1941 F20101115_AAAIGG cohen_d_Page_089.txt
b5604800a34567fe4e13dc75fd5e62ba
5a7db71905f3a641e637578eeb0929cff35c95db
F20101115_AAAIFS cohen_d_Page_057.txt
7f9f69dc59ef41cf0e116a2b5abb9037
25f6faba64eaeefdf5e8979a6a8d182778c3af49
F20101115_AAAHZY cohen_d_Page_172.tif
514cff3ad5edd980f966ae19b782185f
ad746f91627fe492adf9dc49bd45a474beef53e9
F20101115_AAAHDE cohen_d_Page_187.tif
c0fdadbb809c6673e7667fb21cc9fecc
33487627c2dd25a34e8fe0d1502e1273aa97544c
18203 F20101115_AAAHCQ cohen_d_Page_004.pro
6616d19dce964f0ebb93a3d2ab7e3cf9
23de8d135660944f6adbca3e6cf2e9e2dd685964
108451 F20101115_AAAGXK cohen_d_Page_032.jp2
f75ef8a32ce8245e51eb4b8a9a52df8f
830706d9789b55fb0af843de84590f97766a28e1
21006 F20101115_AAAGWW cohen_d_Page_052.QC.jpg
d0900de389cd8dd4fe4a9a17174d1e53
c4a1b5b7e2dd8a2099f47d7e85903882524921dd
819 F20101115_AAAIGH cohen_d_Page_090.txt
dc2453977f0461b8fec370d3d4ea15eb
d38b5eaed3d12dc08d920bd91013a85a93a2eea6
855 F20101115_AAAIFT cohen_d_Page_062.txt
f1c103511f2c39c87c84424936aeb932
d1c677767b5faf96f0daca811fa07debf5a98904
F20101115_AAAHZZ cohen_d_Page_176.tif
72e82ce679544cdd7c306ed2dc445309
e59d2ee6e947dce59ed7a72dbfa4a100f85d4f61
103886 F20101115_AAAHDF cohen_d_Page_124.jp2
848645ee73226657d7f70cf6df2bf58e
cbe5c445981942166eb41de2c54ef06e0025f2fd
5824 F20101115_AAAHCR cohen_d_Page_101thm.jpg
93220714737e0dd2442bccb60fe49745
6f0e65a5d75c0cbf61172a5111aaab07f2ff13d9
23216 F20101115_AAAGXL cohen_d_Page_014.QC.jpg
1db6a4e0d070dc8f2b3fcb9cd3c2bc7e
a91a91fc87e80fcbf2283a7830cddc76ba053db9
23977 F20101115_AAAGWX cohen_d_Page_017.QC.jpg
0198e35b52b6fa3047e4ecf07dbdab20
d785e7ec5c7fa04d964d12c01a3d9d1cb238eb11
1452 F20101115_AAAIGI cohen_d_Page_093.txt
95c2cf4d41c5f0b7a8627812acfa4fc2
7ec2d035a70cc482746b233789fec5b69745d0ae
1832 F20101115_AAAIFU cohen_d_Page_065.txt
98616f92f5084ef9d54b74a824b61802
d1181102d357b4978544ff4bdb791790034d74e1
46106 F20101115_AAAHDG cohen_d_Page_069.pro
5d474d6c7a0b14ed882df875d099985f
3049f31d66c36eea98c4fa002d828cdd6b700061
F20101115_AAAGYA cohen_d_Page_177.tif
1005704bb30f74f735fbd00fd3699144
5012495fd330fab9f4ec0bb384ae7c8b5d77c584
107520 F20101115_AAAHCS cohen_d_Page_102.jp2
ca9495dfbdf416340739443dcd8123fa
8b1a537e4424b1cfa85166e62fa68e5b87159c71
1615 F20101115_AAAGXM cohen_d_Page_111.txt
7457c330c13377707aada2d1dfc18ef4
db6436490a18b769b096f01d2a8228f23483ddbe
1746 F20101115_AAAIGJ cohen_d_Page_095.txt
68cde2f88dc000ad41fdf756a80997e3
96e5332a7f90b24e47a23a9a438386d57a181c0d
F20101115_AAAIFV cohen_d_Page_068.txt
321b0495fbeee4ee966141995c4c269c
9caecab6d9be4ffcb198e0d791916d25b99023cc
1899 F20101115_AAAHDH cohen_d_Page_133.txt
5a1882ca45f3f2a7a8d1113090b1cbe1
e4a952caa0d95cec3685c9d0f984a92f336c66fa
64139 F20101115_AAAGYB cohen_d_Page_177.jpg
816782a8ed2fdcbd71baa4129d64e458
aed323ec59adb18e7c2fa0f01321508bbd1a44fd
1628 F20101115_AAAHCT cohen_d_Page_117.txt
d5acb039eeee6bc3dc3016074db1f7a1
2b5e60a90e915a7a228df3d1f2bdfcc4ff1b4174
39677 F20101115_AAAGXN cohen_d_Page_101.pro
cbbd464c007e685846b914a2454e994c
ffd8d8ff54089e58f53ebfe16bb5452342085643
46869 F20101115_AAAGWY cohen_d_Page_150.pro
02d9dfe9546a34dfe1c9ae9518b01685
33de3824c4afa077d0fda247df753fe10bb69572
1300 F20101115_AAAIGK cohen_d_Page_096.txt
e4cff5d7aaca2832cd5fd962cee9d501
1bb5415302fc0c54fd6ae364b03835cd2e98a001
1836 F20101115_AAAIFW cohen_d_Page_069.txt
0da6231604d4983cf22a69a45c0d6817
c65cc2f302114c9a00d73da19f7f81f1642c4006
62384 F20101115_AAAHDI cohen_d_Page_175.jpg
8d0e72e5a870dcbe2cc5bb6ba8d220d1
b7849aeb190edffdf509b4d8a262a7823b45d01a
44848 F20101115_AAAGYC cohen_d_Page_035.pro
dea1c2e28f18374eaaad0ef803e1ddf6
e2952668c2b9414e71c450f32350421bd3cac234
69625 F20101115_AAAHCU cohen_d_Page_021.jpg
b8aa9532b85d1cde82b3382db41d948f
4a29ab6828bd467955c6e97e3748b5305ae01b85
1927 F20101115_AAAGXO cohen_d_Page_084.txt
06048ca1af3b34a0f0b71c0aeda8f8de
65b5ddc4f6fc1d80f9eaa99fbae24cfe2957c3fb
F20101115_AAAGWZ cohen_d_Page_034.tif
dcd42ac4c111ae4f54ef2ca3b13b68ab
12aa72b2a071d55d5941739da7d417cada519145
1928 F20101115_AAAIHA cohen_d_Page_126.txt
db59b58704e5264671c84e370a1ae1a3
8e0f0a178ba6e4a26fdc266d54d4dac66f9b215e
1492 F20101115_AAAIGL cohen_d_Page_098.txt
03efb032cdea1f87070baa905e2bd02e
da4263fb0006f267836f28a1deed67115dbd4bd2
1814 F20101115_AAAIFX cohen_d_Page_070.txt
dc06c1f604f8a2a36f7b7fe3b1a71b83
7d381f87a22480bd6c45a238fa379d71a4387b27
6375 F20101115_AAAHDJ cohen_d_Page_124thm.jpg
cbf97cdab550206d277726940cf521b1
9e8eda7454308f3eb0ea30b6de25b204b2a79757
60257 F20101115_AAAGYD cohen_d_Page_101.jpg
1cb67c6c4203d2ffcdb4876beb1cf007
1b241080e83babb58d6b0f193f6f8588d8f81fb6
46132 F20101115_AAAHCV cohen_d_Page_019.pro
598c6712099060e323488726241994bb
cdeee7440e6540df2e0f5517bb9a63ec120ac27e
59174 F20101115_AAAGXP cohen_d_Page_135.pro
4921eb6db8c9e10d1cac3cef7a499883
241f8afe792ffffe3afe8fc9dfd35dbc77e09cac
2034 F20101115_AAAIHB cohen_d_Page_129.txt
4ac9fc7ccd606ac877d662651eeb7d54
5b80a6819ab1580f132e0304352ef7501de0603f
1411 F20101115_AAAIGM cohen_d_Page_099.txt
c44411fc00fdd91c58062c555a60faad
27fd802de7058dd3ea2a82eb29a9d5645238063e
1866 F20101115_AAAIFY cohen_d_Page_071.txt
1f2a848b42fe8e072088aa037556c8b2
a9db450513507ab77c40c53269b365b46c520b87
21914 F20101115_AAAGYE cohen_d_Page_039.QC.jpg
5645dfc285c6b1b635af5f2861f38d80
8608a64363d9de1507a9e0cb3b40392214669c50
23776 F20101115_AAAHCW cohen_d_Page_081.QC.jpg
7b636dcb2812ab65a8a58a7c5e588176
418f6d92a7d4bf394db3bda118a5677a43186c5c
23893 F20101115_AAAGXQ cohen_d_Page_134.QC.jpg
c5cd239685ccc6fd2d7173e68100196b
da31300229253513811c35ab28ea3889fa2086b1
1406 F20101115_AAAHDK cohen_d_Page_162.txt
e5d5151fd58b6371854b939194a68314
2bc9cfd0b7bf67f468561f4cb93bbbac37ba0c1b
1806 F20101115_AAAIHC cohen_d_Page_131.txt
74b3115ecc16aa489d5f9dec11516393
47783c9abeec959044bc0b46639139a8b804bad1
1665 F20101115_AAAIGN cohen_d_Page_101.txt
7d0adb548a84ffe4f164e3e7dc3cd459
7baddb669469d8ed01fff44505cb3b73ea3b1cc7
1837 F20101115_AAAIFZ cohen_d_Page_072.txt
e730d9d7dfc18c7d55c43c942b7b7950
c1105c9dfba3e6f9592bec126f7157cddfe2eb11
36870 F20101115_AAAGYF cohen_d_Page_165.jpg
e1feafdec4cdbbd21d8e4c0c173f5422
2db1540b61ca293be87c100f3f3936d492ffed01
1051973 F20101115_AAAHCX cohen_d_Page_189.jp2
39548572b184f2c8f8c8ca9fa248390b
77ab422212f52a959bc199cdc6bc07c3e044fdc3
34354 F20101115_AAAGXR cohen_d_Page_162.pro
ce58681cab00054145407ff4cf85d61a
ed1c8b4c8e7cbf6a97992f663cda9f01a59c40a2
63473 F20101115_AAAHEA cohen_d_Page_053.jpg
4648746b456bbddd3307cfbb457f6335
db462826fb744257d2c5141c32fd166cc760ce96
18339 F20101115_AAAHDL cohen_d_Page_172.QC.jpg
f734b904c958cb975d22227de8531401
052f4c2f2f955cb4c337011ff472b954ab7ca1a6
2009 F20101115_AAAIHD cohen_d_Page_132.txt
03842b4d8dbe2981dcdd034808f4cb55
c14d0a4a2227c00b78bcb6c70c6dd9aa9e980a6e
1902 F20101115_AAAIGO cohen_d_Page_103.txt
73e61f5dbab5ad48f3397269fd5b84ad
411349b3a4b0d2b68cb05e0b377e76c024d85af0
26871 F20101115_AAAGYG cohen_d_Page_189.QC.jpg
28197a791512e987fd33c349b77138c2
491a3d0972d5962d309961ad16a0bed54eb33a61
1930 F20101115_AAAHCY cohen_d_Page_157.txt
c8b803c26a51240ddb8e7157a3d6eaae
2ecb4f1e2b34166894749827b92c75df90645051
6155 F20101115_AAAGXS cohen_d_Page_078thm.jpg
4a16df0aeb0879bd43a70a375a0688a1
9b9e9f685f631658d33743dc9faad468d2ffab9b
108790 F20101115_AAAHEB cohen_d_Page_137.jp2
4b02bfde65e0f2e47a5a26873c14c692
78735eccc6bcb91fba74e8749f0524c566c82e92
23025 F20101115_AAAHDM cohen_d_Page_110.QC.jpg
701b23661d527f39830768c5c7655eb2
31e2017886b835c20ec6ccb4136c031c03d7096a
2385 F20101115_AAAIHE cohen_d_Page_135.txt
a396d46043be95dda4cd0b714c344da2
16b7e1e87a73c64f4d8494979f365f7ae07b98aa
1700 F20101115_AAAIGP cohen_d_Page_105.txt
92988648d5164ab24eafe612011c1dfe
77a4d2656263b3d9839b5465287cb255692257e8
7313 F20101115_AAAGYH cohen_d_Page_189thm.jpg
30831ff952803236638c5e674e5380d2
620399391bec5bedc0cc816a298d53297eed7493
F20101115_AAAHCZ cohen_d_Page_030.tif
b4e6e646feed441b37f63767ebc20da7
da3eed3c180ab4f18e7a2d97a9d7b7475213a2c8
1051983 F20101115_AAAGXT cohen_d_Page_047.jp2
fe08a0c92ca5040da066c4e28393fed8
f6aaf3cdb26f64cfe61bf3380362521dc90eeed2
547 F20101115_AAAHEC cohen_d_Page_182.txt
630fae80fc279b7a08747f1618dbeb8f
4cf08d1763660575b44116fa310eac038f78be5c
51711 F20101115_AAAHDN cohen_d_Page_081.pro
528a327375b2a08b1bcfd9bddf81e706
f66c3608be9cf26ebc51fac44a23c6e2edcc9b78
2158 F20101115_AAAIHF cohen_d_Page_136.txt
c73dd99d33f3336a36b0fe13879537ba
b0b51db2a3f7ee9efb9e25192601fbcccfd813d9
F20101115_AAAIGQ cohen_d_Page_106.txt
f05ae44e0990e2616bf7af92ab22848c
70ea4d4cbed01352e2cdf6c09e21e32e89284dfa
110778 F20101115_AAAGYI cohen_d_Page_079.jp2
cb6b3071516acc5d1a0ef02875d196d8
217956f20f0e5f4719058b8d37710d6b3d2ac75d
90562 F20101115_AAAGXU cohen_d_Page_188.jpg
c6dc6ff3dd8f52f9c55d4ca9e987b92f
fd87f71ddfe0cfa3b2e7b799174fbdfefe908998
97478 F20101115_AAAHED cohen_d_Page_148.jp2
7cf2bd83a3f5681a1ff524b0293c1e3c
ccb085e1509cb25101bb7abe5e2a6fbed38686b2
F20101115_AAAHDO cohen_d_Page_192.tif
da41898a8fdb907c1dbb50f4131cd988
add5ab409e900d0ecf10d144b9f5d4c3549a1ace
1935 F20101115_AAAIHG cohen_d_Page_138.txt
0a24603867e59fdaa344c74063783ba7
a3e15f69164aeacbe7d83b8d35573e23f3581453
1991 F20101115_AAAIGR cohen_d_Page_108.txt
49ffa3972aec6177d5f775055f3688d7
6134557005b1395cba099366ec76ab6046170c9a
103194 F20101115_AAAGYJ cohen_d_Page_152.jp2
c0daea1e76eeb879939fc8fcbca00607
b1b0b19abc8065776abbe5d2a3f8013fbed7ce5e
99094 F20101115_AAAGXV cohen_d_Page_085.jp2
8ec637c1e4754a3a861d945842e45e59
e916fb4d7bf9af5abc6250802e79687a9cf54ab1
23622 F20101115_AAAHEE cohen_d_Page_156.QC.jpg
12d0b1c226047e5b8af199a3ec68497c
c2650cf28146e9252cd579156e5c693cedb153e3
106309 F20101115_AAAHDP cohen_d_Page_073.jp2
9f492cd6b42990a5f61e981e5bdefaa5
ff63499dd8ccb839f9d2711d8492416de7aa7dbd
1604 F20101115_AAAIGS cohen_d_Page_109.txt
b0d623db95c0a97954ac689220f76918
daf07be07f24ce000e10b464e5f6c43784f7f691
4595 F20101115_AAAGYK cohen_d_Page_171thm.jpg
82d2b19fc8c2e30343aaf9039a42681c
ab30664e8bf29181997de1bb7db44cbe3d254f41
16638 F20101115_AAAGXW cohen_d_Page_018.pro
66213ef8569fd7181e9f8d3774f08337
54c32a7a21633c1f65122272599aa924e6b00085
47162 F20101115_AAAHDQ cohen_d_Page_071.pro
3d0f33a516ad60aabb1d4858468c3699
660efd1379af279e3537699657fb044048f460bc
1892 F20101115_AAAIHH cohen_d_Page_139.txt
22b512ec2be7212a2cf172580af1e8eb
9958eb035dd75747a36c9e007a53381782b559fd
1940 F20101115_AAAIGT cohen_d_Page_110.txt
25b71bbf691ad203f19d6c53de103a6d
ea0862bad3e180ca835fd116a7540448cb3f8b1e
71752 F20101115_AAAGYL cohen_d_Page_032.jpg
1c723805af637b81bbbe09d13d9605ee
e9964299997100feb556e725b8137480f44f1df0
31996 F20101115_AAAGXX cohen_d_Page_093.pro
faf201b1dd2151ca8f164e56a7998457
6b92721d001224ff557bddde467ef9a7dbe36578
F20101115_AAAHEF cohen_d_Page_175.tif
644ce805ffc2fa4302caeb0ead8a432d
191e677b3c381e5c5ebbfbd01726853869f373b8
23691 F20101115_AAAHDR cohen_d_Page_032.QC.jpg
04b5e1db0875b6840b1785c30f5d3fb4
33390351c1e70f748259d54ae6f35a8611efa70f
2040 F20101115_AAAIHI cohen_d_Page_140.txt
41b0d32873a3e1995952bd74b07e9809
d61f77bc1c895cac4ee9c773ed385c5225ea0920
1702 F20101115_AAAIGU cohen_d_Page_113.txt
de803e43d99cda6af4ec8a05966071fd
da22f0e10762b558737ac4e7fe1f71ea02f0b838
F20101115_AAAGYM cohen_d_Page_009.tif
022c92666004df4eb12806dce2987dd9
c11bfb0fcbae8ecb3f9831951dd6bf358dd50c3a
22175 F20101115_AAAGXY cohen_d_Page_146.QC.jpg
f03cb502638d5498a93f14007c632e27
818ec8ef69de17a62bcc8fefdff6477c7c0e7506
96722 F20101115_AAAHEG cohen_d_Page_173.jp2
b090a71873736f07714b6e2f6e0cd7e8
e1d74c59f538024b203e724c8748579da95b7c2e
6475 F20101115_AAAGZA cohen_d_Page_133thm.jpg
4a60f8eb640163f0b9b27da2d8c9d3b0
19c30aeaf97ec89808ae0d898fd79e5268a8bcc4
F20101115_AAAHDS cohen_d_Page_011.tif
2b67b94effeff3ecf69a43d92c54c45d
6c1668f686c93c8d1d04677a8fc7b4eb2062bf75
1687 F20101115_AAAIHJ cohen_d_Page_144.txt
97dc7e5ce0ba3ca181c8dfa1d7dd0339
213297f4a11af9b503dbed3962d0b937262ab0b3
F20101115_AAAIGV cohen_d_Page_115.txt
aef69609bef558a78ac42d70197ca903
cef164b4d549383e9e32505eec49d5095d1e559f
F20101115_AAAGYN cohen_d_Page_061thm.jpg
dd3d41c60034b6d838c1479cc853e92d
1339e7742f66c84399bccc9ce73d5e275ae2b8ea
61426 F20101115_AAAHEH cohen_d_Page_183.jp2
82435f794afbc1af483494c8f015e84e
b612e56f515007019fe15d7ce70bb5d463a84c5b
71511 F20101115_AAAGZB cohen_d_Page_158.jpg
c40524503e996b4337591e7a8cf5d126
b4c60dd91e194029d8f7a32c1a64f67e6f1a6f37
2219 F20101115_AAAHDT cohen_d_Page_160.txt
762730fdd4f2590ae7e983ba46427b13
80e7c631be23b7f6b40b55bd54f97c0b8aa5bb77
1840 F20101115_AAAIHK cohen_d_Page_146.txt
a7d6dd5a3be247d79ac48206d130f667
ae7cc79d6babc77fc64ddbdc36c6f5b34fa5dc14
F20101115_AAAIGW cohen_d_Page_116.txt
4faa46edeeae51dc4cc168e31d58add2
85068370ad975edf1a4f73dfffc7d122c250b530
F20101115_AAAGYO cohen_d_Page_042.tif
082130590faa4657317cc4e6dd0768d5
b7afc53767ace87c9389bfbc19da97f7e5a5db00
10676 F20101115_AAAGXZ cohen_d_Page_010.QC.jpg
81ee19f64c8548b961fabdeb7d95c724
39711fa732a38135ef6bfdac46f3f0fd6007c1b7
21688 F20101115_AAAHEI cohen_d_Page_092.QC.jpg
94083edda8049c4a70902be6ff61ebac
efd63db94de9b50593b3434e633788e91b2530db
25346 F20101115_AAAGZC cohen_d_Page_060.QC.jpg
cc009e8b61afaf74965bff86e2beaace
6a2c49f33d74fbc9af4a96ad492170a066911e86
2240 F20101115_AAAHDU cohen_d_Page_134.txt
ad71602b3394d8b1de5da28eb906dfab
2c4e605163654e4c4195047334a9bcc62669c6fa
2224 F20101115_AAAIIA cohen_d_Page_186.txt
059c03e9ea216c56b0a081848d0b991a
ff1c9916b59007800170610bbd1a6a2d39343349
F20101115_AAAIHL cohen_d_Page_150.txt
74ebc77fb94a6ed1c46c4470d4e6d102
0de49353fb6b271966bada503ade7e9d6ad52c77
1872 F20101115_AAAIGX cohen_d_Page_120.txt
85afdb67e02fa85daa1d64a176625a71
b0aefc0a819f109964946fb0410ddf2734db6c76
F20101115_AAAGYP cohen_d_Page_084.tif
3576b41862b20068593d4c1d1f355d55
8d45245702c039d11a68d13076e3542d3b91015b
F20101115_AAAHEJ cohen_d_Page_163.txt
d52cf629139e97ddfd274503bc579ad8
49fbbcbb83320b9254a451648390619bcb10b8a8
6365 F20101115_AAAGZD cohen_d_Page_136thm.jpg
8c2b85f6d424cad5ce044ef052216932
95d56be279dcd6837137452bd4388456cdcd48a1
909800 F20101115_AAAHDV cohen_d_Page_008.jp2
ccdd34267123ee2576152f2e23f3142e
d96afac02a57d4a24241167755c1c03f367b2916
2216 F20101115_AAAIIB cohen_d_Page_188.txt
b77aea0943edc9c578329cb448460a2c
54f1ca07701072cc719ba3c226e5c7a4af4d0ab7
1901 F20101115_AAAIHM cohen_d_Page_152.txt
eeacb892821934a102ae3d06ef8c57b9
6e77d6292ce8df9736eb5ec5e633a4f20d4ea75e
F20101115_AAAIGY cohen_d_Page_121.txt
0ed65ffbb43313c219ada1b3d5f807bc
151f706390b9e8894a39a09a34df0f2eb0362d53
23570 F20101115_AAAGYQ cohen_d_Page_075.QC.jpg
b5bf52d30d75809d34f52205b2438ccf
c3e442298c007002360937ca6d93527bdf7f7af0
6570 F20101115_AAAHEK cohen_d_Page_140thm.jpg
9e1be362bccda37ec9e946d2c2e6b598
60057d63bb903bf8a55c88c49f16e53d75cc4eca
1965 F20101115_AAAGZE cohen_d_Page_016.txt
1d9b9f002c9c4352657a33ac498e14a9
191d1d22ee490844d5869e021878f5cbf09c0af8
F20101115_AAAHDW cohen_d_Page_163.tif
1d0e6120c0f3c6a880e7b1adfeb48f7d
97b540ef7c64731a05b73c59fd864b5d5db71efe
2260 F20101115_AAAIIC cohen_d_Page_189.txt
b7983f6b8f2adb5b35ad3f0461ccf850
6bd1c90e027c2825cf944836dd2f6c041932263e
2003 F20101115_AAAIHN cohen_d_Page_153.txt
4889a8436080ce9db308d3a0f6b63f3e
c7302af203637ea77706265a12a99af1fb8d5218
F20101115_AAAIGZ cohen_d_Page_124.txt
0df09f9dfb675ce3a7e87b619b21287b
dc4d1ed88945d7ec5c379b2ea7aee24af5f30f71
6793 F20101115_AAAGYR cohen_d_Page_121thm.jpg
149506b78a993922a4e4282b098e5cbb
7a06be7d76ae19a5e44d52369cbd811493a57ee6
86296 F20101115_AAAHFA cohen_d_Page_118.jp2
04a0e7589e758847cbf50fe18a019e30
897e2b80078c73b6a2c82a1f0e903888e979ccfb
49527 F20101115_AAAHEL cohen_d_Page_016.pro
d10157942cdc58f6bc278adb44badd64
56d95b3ee704eab55c3f13d51908970bf6559ff8
6657 F20101115_AAAGZF cohen_d_Page_137thm.jpg
7d34a6558615040fb08e5ce14bc5d4d8
0c64f8f1d8544fcb1334f5e01ecfd5ea6c472afe
89979 F20101115_AAAHDX cohen_d_Page_117.jp2
320a2c8c3bb1f9d538748257f824672e
7f9e9f03fe29061f066661428c2e505260cc24ae
2031 F20101115_AAAIID cohen_d_Page_190.txt
12e2366e0b96f09e20476c3e3404e7b0
3258539303d4f6d1862cafcc97a6c595b3f2abae
2007 F20101115_AAAIHO cohen_d_Page_156.txt
0a1dfd087ad932cca001b1ec46225518
9b1dbe8e1374395823d930a82f5a457382a7e775
F20101115_AAAGYS cohen_d_Page_022thm.jpg
59d21d42914783188e5f8978dfa2e3f3
8c013bfe4cecfc7e7cca1325788104ddefe69cd4
113369 F20101115_AAAHFB cohen_d_Page_024.jp2
25a44b1bd81952aed21fb32d332bea1c
22aee32d62949c79e65020c34882d38a7ab9fea5
2370 F20101115_AAAHEM cohen_d_Page_168.txt
990f6b78c54e3ca42023b621a6d96aa2
1a39cb36fee406840f7f5169a931a83c6aa98b5f
F20101115_AAAGZG cohen_d_Page_058.tif
f316b76e00429df68468d07bea6bfca0
ec11ba7a501c228d5bac5d0df8888790d2c24d8a
6015 F20101115_AAAHDY cohen_d_Page_146thm.jpg
3cb3a2ae47e01be7644b6fcfa2ee5603
7c2918d5f6cf2a75a762c09d57167483ae84f7f0
1047100 F20101115_AAAIIE cohen_d.pdf
0793ac9b6003a5d07f03811d284d61a0
2b3a270b7dfe8fe0566ac38cf42e07c003e81546
2785 F20101115_AAAIHP cohen_d_Page_167.txt
29f531a6ca590bd2845a4e32087e3929
499dc26c89538b5abf78ba358a5a756d897f32f4
F20101115_AAAGYT cohen_d_Page_006.tif
ff1c5b4028f4e3bd92d27d5c76bde4d3
71f59851e42ee5581f8ebbacc809d0248ea33ed2
100126 F20101115_AAAHFC cohen_d_Page_061.jp2
66f157d5a803816e0e2afcbcfb00de1d
d75199a3b10f99fe16d806ccaad5bef060a16ea5
42886 F20101115_AAAHEN cohen_d_Page_052.pro
57ccb56ef85580d880a73749cac75eca
afd364cbeb2315ad27662429e12064717218e969
F20101115_AAAGZH cohen_d_Page_124.tif
48bd80eb477f65012b3f10bdc7686398
c90cc98eef3c36005a5d3fbe1518a032a440fb1f
7169 F20101115_AAAHDZ cohen_d_Page_186thm.jpg
e98cc537da45170ca01f9d91aafb487c
039bc5c9420045efb1d00da520216ae3b7bf726a
1379 F20101115_AAAIIF cohen_d_Page_002thm.jpg
1653cef5e5876c2af6d406574e4c9d97
ef736203b7567e034f34d39e687467d7e228e798
F20101115_AAAIHQ cohen_d_Page_169.txt
bdbed4ed7ec93b0f2070deddbd6dcb43
f22509a546a7b878b705939b91215d42f8d1f81e
F20101115_AAAGYU cohen_d_Page_022.pro
e0b18157ff43156fc5b8052cdb20d07b
febb1a588297d31bdc02c3abc6e3a13f999b94f8
60462 F20101115_AAAHFD cohen_d_Page_005.pro
e3043be28669d14ad62297048b66cc45
98172aeeed372c0bc44dff475a4cbe9cb26ac3c4
69335 F20101115_AAAHEO cohen_d_Page_123.jpg
5014eaf9637fa40f2051407c610ad049
22efa14e958d2975d8c12f6142e17d1f4100114f
F20101115_AAAGZI cohen_d_Page_014.tif
d7a4e6f50e2651abb0216d4b603cd602
86b292dfa67f666f47bc1f524f71871e1f30c7f9
4525 F20101115_AAAIIG cohen_d_Page_003.QC.jpg
58a563859611921e6f547f8ab2fc4bd4
e259beff17b8ab98ef0ea249749ef4f3efe4186f
2764 F20101115_AAAIHR cohen_d_Page_170.txt
fbe619e8712e0081ea8f5642a0291c38
ccd88a93d579264dd858903f06cf2b7ae7ee3cf9
70243 F20101115_AAAGYV cohen_d_Page_066.jpg
dbae2cda04d0ff98554be8d8e6a4987d
746c712dd98b71339f9b0a48a2a2ba72ba64a074
1773 F20101115_AAAHFE cohen_d_Page_148.txt
dccf804be0195e4175224c09c18cefec
17d141c19cbce52ff29e75b51eaa28f198daba4a
2015 F20101115_AAAHEP cohen_d_Page_027.txt
8940a96e570be8b10d967f454b837363
a68788b84c664f091f3aa9ac646f709264caa069
F20101115_AAAGZJ cohen_d_Page_073.tif
6bbc53b4a6ba6c93aa7d9873d2d4c5d1
b02194eb657c73450f6e57d761b7174a0c3c04c5
5519 F20101115_AAAIIH cohen_d_Page_006thm.jpg
f876117ae432529e9fcc5bceb3ec6e66
c0c58f35e7d824da68c678980ca4e03b35e030a1
F20101115_AAAIHS cohen_d_Page_172.txt
4dd13811ddbf04b22b8f51d00b6c175c
06f0ca5dfdbac8bc854c053a8342aefc8f59c4d0
36809 F20101115_AAAGYW cohen_d_Page_161.pro
35a320dda35b67fcfcc6a4323d0f5b26
849ed4edf32ec239b2bbbc9142d2f60b89ea0a1c
F20101115_AAAHFF cohen_d_Page_093.tif
d5f673cf41eb78a3bc594fca564046d2
088acf3e73618fa00b4a723740e6167e20cbfcf4
66774 F20101115_AAAHEQ cohen_d_Page_065.jpg
6c6ce56a5adf2a7b2e57d3732ae396ad
3bfb6df82661eddee177a4c66fb2a8d295badcc6
1904 F20101115_AAAGZK cohen_d_Page_049.txt
ff4c29056f074397d61f8fd2d3f23e6b
71c22b16cb822ce94ce877a05a4abec7873d2711
1900 F20101115_AAAIHT cohen_d_Page_174.txt
abe9217e49d13c00fbc86fd9725b6590
6eea90face28f2a3fc41ddc98d71e9953ba75842
769 F20101115_AAAGYX cohen_d_Page_004.txt
2ed4c86743bf7b732f42ff5022f515c3
27e97937c84154d62953a3f6a6060aa5be081c03
47072 F20101115_AAAHER cohen_d_Page_049.pro
60ef6de6295184b1f9e1be0885a8940e
07dfae5a475c17926e4f6a651164c1b45802ed66
68964 F20101115_AAAGZL cohen_d_Page_145.jpg
cb1179c132ab7cc9bcd7c8bf536da3b1
41dd6aa820644e45c5d23ef6fe28f8d1abbe0c8b
5375 F20101115_AAAIII cohen_d_Page_007thm.jpg
4c139643336af0580f93434bd4ebc4b2
7d0e9ceadb1469fe42c2187d9ad32c66d42e6fe4
1723 F20101115_AAAIHU cohen_d_Page_175.txt
2813ae6bbb5e1cc469596903a1a05128
97e9b8537139142926240a5f8b41900990bfaf2c
F20101115_AAAGYY cohen_d_Page_108.tif
5feacbc5c5635dbabe1a990a8d8d06c9
f2a53ed52b04cc33fb666c61fbff7043c6b6af98
1223 F20101115_AAAHFG cohen_d_Page_002.pro
b56e1c762605c95c66e3209959a0ae43
911a1cb96d415de245638cc1ad78230ad0664899
74396 F20101115_AAAHES cohen_d_Page_029.jpg
4d86db1cf8f3b65ec6948c5cfb4ab9db
afc8234c525cc6ff3da08b8279fc291ed99eb21c
17989 F20101115_AAAGZM cohen_d_Page_097.QC.jpg
1eddd322656cae6c0e7d0045392207b8
c8d07a6964e109e1e28200be046ee429eec51b06
3779 F20101115_AAAIIJ cohen_d_Page_008thm.jpg
49a44537dd9318ae83e36576764f9093
5ee035f1730a230244b7eb6b63455879da1348e3
675 F20101115_AAAIHV cohen_d_Page_176.txt
60a31b11255b2240b65b357333696a05
f8f6504141d8373819f0fa7666b219bcb4728e66
6170 F20101115_AAAGYZ cohen_d_Page_085thm.jpg
74f38af7da0003ab2e963569f812856a
9fcac294df65866f711e572e3700bf79af42bfeb
1395 F20101115_AAAHFH cohen_d_Page_164.txt
bf2895c8187272b1cc2066486885f8dc
aa30cbfe21344b67732f496aa699ff1c974430f6
25663 F20101115_AAAHET cohen_d_Page_142.jpg
618b569a6a2a9d829ebaa1d39476cef4
ca5e4500a4a03aa95146aaba931fa300e8f3aaf6
7196 F20101115_AAAGZN cohen_d_Page_191thm.jpg
b5888430850253c7c84f4c652b4fc113
5ac8c09e6de36a0ba1004a924ec72ff13df67f69
19655 F20101115_AAAIIK cohen_d_Page_011.QC.jpg
82ee4595802ab6ddbb6885df15722405
0823b72938d2a0661ccb1f03134a2ce76d3f62a9
1770 F20101115_AAAIHW cohen_d_Page_177.txt
b6b8a5df81388b947082502d7fd5aacb
13be20e28345a9cf86835abb552e1354015a70bf
50892 F20101115_AAAHFI cohen_d_Page_132.pro
fdf5446aa8bdc33ff8086bfb97c62248
0ac033313412cdb765d5ffd8d58e40449849115f
1914 F20101115_AAAHEU cohen_d_Page_064.txt
6978a290801bce37f2bef09a8e6ae7ff
e67727b5cbc68bdddf8ffd9908cc9066e0d013f0
5751 F20101115_AAAGZO cohen_d_Page_114thm.jpg
b6431b948f17486f792d8408c65a83fa
39ca80136fc1997bd88c10db53ff9072303642ae
6431 F20101115_AAAIJA cohen_d_Page_027thm.jpg
e4d89026be05cf11d08ae545e403155d
3e10448366e4944852e76534693f2e04ff478719
24267 F20101115_AAAIIL cohen_d_Page_012.QC.jpg
d960659dc692cc5fefd81b4e33ec094e
be746d67a48ddf6134fe22dabe0cf85b7388d616
430 F20101115_AAAIHX cohen_d_Page_178.txt
db0d57e42f932e7f0f6ba4089652f3a0
5e5807e631d05f0784f23cac4a635cd7ef9663d1
F20101115_AAAHFJ cohen_d_Page_181.tif
d353fe6e2cb0584004a5dba1a9a8febe
e7d59ebde2f55e1c4ce96d6eb45d329431769cde
22982 F20101115_AAAHEV cohen_d_Page_136.QC.jpg
1a0c08d3b07cae248185b4e8f1520c25
95426b8ad7fad8a4d4b9d477f6267a2a85c429cc
2335 F20101115_AAAGZP cohen_d_Page_001thm.jpg
010f461005d957e8a323e095d8b53e1d
1f6711cf37140c535f0a984937fbd14a5d4347a3
24111 F20101115_AAAIJB cohen_d_Page_028.QC.jpg
67c50cbaf16bb0dded3b1489ec6726ed
47197ad3cc15b4f05635029195e1d7d38a8b0028
23659 F20101115_AAAIIM cohen_d_Page_013.QC.jpg
947dbca6d619cd3805485eb1839575ba
811f30700b51d974e7fe3ee84a2e80f96e144121
370 F20101115_AAAIHY cohen_d_Page_184.txt
60e88457debb24ece00def1e6d681221
bec1cd464ddca72af71324503d142e3dbf04e9d8
5804 F20101115_AAAHFK cohen_d_Page_098thm.jpg
ca52000c0dd8d9da8d5180102390335a
2c555550b6890b84925906763f9ae72c4d23ad09
2100 F20101115_AAAHEW cohen_d_Page_024.txt
e0553801ed8ac6292968e782b40d743e
499e9746fee54dd9410387d0b6bed46a40a0d31d
F20101115_AAAGZQ cohen_d_Page_045.tif
08555d7dd7764fd85ea9be982a97d124
4cd0efb317d19013168faf8fd402ce90b825c066
24733 F20101115_AAAIJC cohen_d_Page_029.QC.jpg
7bef0bd2054de1374cc07f72bf654591
0c6f8f661bc5fbbffb17a27fcd2dab35705317e6
23574 F20101115_AAAIIN cohen_d_Page_015.QC.jpg
c93d37a8cd26cc35694b71a50b46ef55
52b90e758771df06387fe67757d52cfbd2b97545
825 F20101115_AAAIHZ cohen_d_Page_185.txt
9dada99c1e7bce79fddba054b922ff50
e9e85efa3c55a4aeb276009623dd49363e11baad
F20101115_AAAHFL cohen_d_Page_029.txt
ac8af0bbdea2b60649e884fdaa2571fc
eb558c759340c40eb7de6ec3f2624bab83b430bd
91484 F20101115_AAAHEX cohen_d_Page_186.jpg
eeebb583d942b559d5d93a8fbff608ed
e7b2a33eee248c5f4c473d0f30b6f3acdeb1cb5a
2018 F20101115_AAAGZR cohen_d_Page_155.txt
346d5d9759786033606af2a2c3d95aad
0b1b056df163ad93378c94aa01ae188570e5d6e8
109152 F20101115_AAAHGA cohen_d_Page_087.jp2
6ea1be66f10b5f69635a78d02284209a
b484a74e899fd76f660c02b865073c9fae6ac6cc
6146 F20101115_AAAIJD cohen_d_Page_030thm.jpg
d12f3638b50ed1a2cb4cafaea66c769d
e950e31933f8b82732ce2e9bb85878a9b0e06cbf
6384 F20101115_AAAIIO cohen_d_Page_015thm.jpg
fdf2852b296d3b6fb302883f787e999c
fe8a53144d7651a6a0610aa9bab2eeed6d8ba299
17903 F20101115_AAAHFM cohen_d_Page_162.QC.jpg
cb544b1c3ac8eb4ea19bd40ceeab3503
dad2988e6d6010e9a0d0f8853de5059b88f2ea3c
109075 F20101115_AAAHEY cohen_d_Page_014.jp2
c75e8dc09002e84694c3571f4b139c74
8b93bf8fc76f638076d74251f5fe4b68fe854f19
2006 F20101115_AAAGZS cohen_d_Page_158.txt
efd34b68c63175f85db1857c8626130a
4d90f111f90dd3baddc7319109883ec978392b92
F20101115_AAAHGB cohen_d_Page_015.tif
afefafe9625cdbb926b2f81de803b94a
5eb837e9dfbd0fdda804e70460c34093116c9586
6482 F20101115_AAAIJE cohen_d_Page_032thm.jpg
265a98e8909a7e9b1c6b85fc97b99cc9
0ca23ba141c47fa6e599b29478c22e5860bc4a0c
6599 F20101115_AAAIIP cohen_d_Page_017thm.jpg
255f971bad9037a7ae3f586177bfa663
8a819ff8048cce77eba57b38429567433c1d5a5d
798148 F20101115_AAAHFN cohen_d_Page_114.jp2
895edbfd085f2e2933b6b0b6baafdc61
6c4f445301e979f59d799f073ee055b7a8c3583e
45558 F20101115_AAAHEZ cohen_d_Page_112.pro
0018b13389ad57d5c2a0837577ba7e4a
24269f089450d0e64ab77898a23816323e31d42a
6087 F20101115_AAAGZT cohen_d_Page_009.QC.jpg
2de3c36f0bf22b004891fcbf782e8b9c
4261ffaed9a884ded144e03f368868c05c6a0e4e
F20101115_AAAHGC cohen_d_Page_046.tif
9e9c008b2b3da65bc5d7f921a9af66ce
fc5e648f226f89157b9fb3c0ac8744ee843e9641
20475 F20101115_AAAIJF cohen_d_Page_033.QC.jpg
0a2c8aa096932c70719b575ee047759c
2bbcdc47ee48386d186352913a75346cf5973b0e
2989 F20101115_AAAIIQ cohen_d_Page_018thm.jpg
399d560c3bf218a7b44b10a81039f50d
9c261a0dc44168c1451aa09252d27ac845d0108f
20434 F20101115_AAAHFO cohen_d_Page_098.QC.jpg
5aa0c659df2b538f0a700448032fe4f9
cdc2b9a29a3f315abde633dd20edc1890d0b2c1a
26289 F20101115_AAAGZU cohen_d_Page_135.QC.jpg
38de9039e628b718e995a044f4ce987e
73a767ab3502ccc0e0a6c0d18ef0ab52bd490ffe
71821 F20101115_AAAHGD cohen_d_Page_034.jpg
870018325b2d83f7a6aa0824fcab662b
9ed5dc7a1ecebcd0e82d8b6506f13e4dd02fb5aa
5669 F20101115_AAAIJG cohen_d_Page_033thm.jpg
ddfb79e64d9f7181f38fc91774a20358
9b073361cf58d86e04987813a29b689928b559b3
22043 F20101115_AAAIIR cohen_d_Page_019.QC.jpg
56f4f7d0552ce469699d5fa20138d1e2
1a71825865bc3048acec95b9fbe5f0b661724f31
F20101115_AAAHFP cohen_d_Page_060.tif
1317464e071ff7220c012ab0aca00b30
31a8fe6be3815315e6343ae0b6639ed64c285f31
1779 F20101115_AAAGZV cohen_d_Page_077.txt
6f28635f62459144b0f269b40c6c2828
c6ab273416df5d086a19cb655d2d6ad23898de98
51593 F20101115_AAAHGE cohen_d_Page_047.pro
48a1a520108ff67d7ec62d3ec6aa7e8a
5836249ed19e13e19c9b868a64cb840239e9992a
21628 F20101115_AAAIJH cohen_d_Page_035.QC.jpg
e54be40ef491915fc60550364a8b1769
7605fd0ad777fa451719c3801b76f114883c6e14
6325 F20101115_AAAIIS cohen_d_Page_020thm.jpg
4268c0e5a6469051ba498e589ee79de8
7c57235ef7a7ba4c25b262874da998fa0ea102e8
6407 F20101115_AAAHFQ cohen_d_Page_013thm.jpg
9c48d3bba0e0eb84f24fa4c36b9efd59
4c304737f094a276d53f18bb340ab0cd2d26d48a
F20101115_AAAGZW cohen_d_Page_171.txt
7f092c1102d46f0aba63a673feff3e22
48c172e2ebd38cb9c44d01a267e7f52a4f41875c
1932 F20101115_AAAHGF cohen_d_Page_154.txt
3ee989e32d3e51b79e270998c920dabd
68bde84a63ca6f75b274d59b24b0baf1ab84ac64
23077 F20101115_AAAIJI cohen_d_Page_037.QC.jpg
bb7532781795611657114a2ac0a51d43
b64bb2c83f5b0a7160960f633b7d89aec65db232
22895 F20101115_AAAIIT cohen_d_Page_021.QC.jpg
74ab4a8e9a487626d89e4c2ff76c66c3
464b8dc6cad112254a5235b086dba7f0feb699f2
49779 F20101115_AAAHFR cohen_d_Page_034.pro
e5add496934fb7eef21e7f25b1eaba2b
419375742bd9e66135a07c2b733c82b75ed00777
6653 F20101115_AAAGZX cohen_d_Page_122thm.jpg
83eebc951c7479ae66f1ccbeecc28470
f51146b10a9df117ae9b6fd4f9f779715ebd62cc
75503 F20101115_AAAHGG cohen_d_Page_080.jpg
7a11718838fd8d6af81c9412836a1de1
2cc35d61d8f9b3b5328a51599cc2ef86eae85e3e
23665 F20101115_AAAIIU cohen_d_Page_023.QC.jpg
d8edad6f6c817f11c1dcf580cb59e8fd
68910b68d2b66f646e5b7f2c181a499c4f26fd2b
5997 F20101115_AAAHFS cohen_d_Page_119thm.jpg
4714a3e61c49ac4e249d48ab2b4b5115
c5e23d1a042139aa63462b1ed8bac7a527970bff
F20101115_AAAGZY cohen_d_Page_118.txt
1dbcf6ec187904962ca366566d510ae6
202eff6fe724e94378cd9c48d006f8a0534a6124
24162 F20101115_AAAIJJ cohen_d_Page_038.QC.jpg
50f4ba5ba88f73eb4e201540d1a9f76d
a02543c67c204cfe44b32ddd324151bc0e8eed5e
24403 F20101115_AAAIIV cohen_d_Page_024.QC.jpg
965b22557f7debf376380bb6edf8abe2
a8c22a11b532ef214b1c064f819243dc5c0c3315
46251 F20101115_AAAHFT cohen_d_Page_059.pro
badffd1dfd10217cb446e65c8bf66be6
126d4fd6b800765c46c1ae180dab6a5b06313410
23597 F20101115_AAAGZZ cohen_d_Page_036.QC.jpg
6657e37d4e3a7e37181f06e64f1da2bb
7aae8cffa055321e705bb3a78f6117a3439f6891
2222 F20101115_AAAHGH cohen_d_Page_180thm.jpg
2ba4454d74309c39463a1c93467a6fb7
9797c4f3a7c183f73f6aa3fa12fcbe29fc84c664
6390 F20101115_AAAIJK cohen_d_Page_039thm.jpg
b77206c06a65aa4afef1712e985401ef
7adda84505bbc45ed4178a0b42f2a68b8d66b3e3
23529 F20101115_AAAIIW cohen_d_Page_025.QC.jpg
bb1c7d9333c85fa712ef203356977c57
e5e1a8a58cea2c524224ae1dacbe9a56c017e5da
38662 F20101115_AAAHFU cohen_d_Page_171.pro
1b5983135b3f4d6d6ed2a81a7f4c2b17
c7ddbd285d268576cc6e7f2f51dad3e5eed4100c
2326 F20101115_AAAHGI cohen_d_Page_191.txt
2d6176a7243d975adde7c087db99e65c
e1540f3f25cd94eb504ea485d868429db2f5980a
6644 F20101115_AAAIKA cohen_d_Page_051thm.jpg
fc93728d7a72edcb6d9053fd74f79d11
1a5932d75ae81f786abd3eb7c303e9173a21c4fa
24201 F20101115_AAAIJL cohen_d_Page_040.QC.jpg
8a7a81f67245b126bd20743fbdc09090
e4d83d6df06e48550774ef266bf0fd1ddd6c2f94
6520 F20101115_AAAIIX cohen_d_Page_025thm.jpg
c82a7fd41a2c5a3e932deefbe4c376f0
1f5d36464173b1961cb9e39ac4a81dcd51ff3027
48271 F20101115_AAAHFV cohen_d_Page_110.pro
208ef54d7ab9f71a058a6d717ac3d763
a473b07cf6ef71ed67812e9629dff406f8a41f36
65160 F20101115_AAAHGJ cohen_d_Page_077.jpg
0550bb338905a00b5d252a5dd14cda9b
f4f2db9af7ec3e9bb3744ad7747d1afe9fdd23d4
5851 F20101115_AAAIKB cohen_d_Page_052thm.jpg
e4d8d2d96adf87a5f1f971d67e407e4a
ccf5ca002a7dd7fcc8de9a43b9bb2ce5b6bc7a27
25247 F20101115_AAAIJM cohen_d_Page_041.QC.jpg
26f70284869106d997d3f5d84e6fe8a9
2a87fa37cf83acb874997ae65c8f423efc751810
6430 F20101115_AAAIIY cohen_d_Page_026thm.jpg
93083f32863f62c4ae91238dae424b3e
1a191c78ef642632f5944911fd5824a49ca18761
19727 F20101115_AAAHFW cohen_d_Page_053.QC.jpg
2c9c13a4a65ec6c95aac8ce99f07cd8a
b3a0c478e5d0da62d95a8b3c06ac1e23a9a52725
1143 F20101115_AAAHGK cohen_d_Page_183.txt
94f1f02168a8c2d5d5391cd03d4556b5
28a7f25527e67b40af5c35f7f2a65280b286bcfe
5478 F20101115_AAAIKC cohen_d_Page_053thm.jpg
596d0ee2361dd3b2c31667bf51f1f7ee
b7c4abbcfcd07e4a704277cc295bcf39d73abbf8
7131 F20101115_AAAIJN cohen_d_Page_041thm.jpg
7b15234dc00653c4d14fb8ca5d8bb48b
5e6958ce591ecef2ab937e310440118cbe67aa3f
23741 F20101115_AAAIIZ cohen_d_Page_027.QC.jpg
a5dff3398c82fae58f10303da5055ea6
a094377714cb8de72221acd538c6a71bdd9bc55e
4680 F20101115_AAAHFX cohen_d_Page_005thm.jpg
c90b7bb551722f64a751a1af15367521
bfbcce0b29b00bd382cbcc3f6db2704f560c11de
F20101115_AAAHHA cohen_d_Page_110.tif
b32ef30028fb18fa70c22bbea208fb73
2da2b35fe32a3ea648f290b2bc26d0d734e2c64e
22629 F20101115_AAAHGL cohen_d_Page_030.QC.jpg
2c5b7c522cff8c568b7b99557fd53506
b4376a1b123b9a54f2476a6f61b112e718410a7d
24004 F20101115_AAAIKD cohen_d_Page_054.QC.jpg
408bc84c214917ac672409c8bd593681
7c4c70d19e5bc581c2078825dbfeb67471f45cfe
25271 F20101115_AAAIJO cohen_d_Page_042.QC.jpg
86e3d6634848b0fc2fa43a3a15425da0
2feb23e44734a859b6711c9f3a4a06b4f20bb18e
68681 F20101115_AAAHFY cohen_d_Page_152.jpg
b350e67409f705af7701e5a64028971a
7e235a91db1aee1ca2307e82982db56a9fc81c1b
74126 F20101115_AAAHHB cohen_d_Page_096.jp2
b12d43704521587f27fb203fb43c33e3
cc76ab7ff8310c428891a90f4baeb2647ed9c93e
48038 F20101115_AAAHGM cohen_d_Page_152.pro
a650297edff4399aef3d964ea96ad261
6a1b01ca8b2fa52603d9097ea0dca2c4849adce9
23075 F20101115_AAAIKE cohen_d_Page_055.QC.jpg
c8f2628e0adc3345566476db01c9b63b
002ea0422be437a03baf00498ba7fc37f755c9b7
7134 F20101115_AAAIJP cohen_d_Page_042thm.jpg
1c51c98d6c7f63789c1ad41efbef3576
5403cbe5e0dcdff77a7affaf554133e115cba603
32288 F20101115_AAAHFZ cohen_d_Page_099.pro
44e7bbad0d08cb67d018e8e41d8a9b6e
a40f485b389fa404dfd001060ba540e0bfbacc76
72810 F20101115_AAAHHC cohen_d_Page_192.jpg
43fd4e4718e8ed95232f5369471dcd0b
fb33575388f2285d5e9ff0eaee0c0a71d63a4920
67569 F20101115_AAAHGN cohen_d_Page_091.jpg
f2fe152e6edbf62b44b672d2a862920c
e0b24e331fc3dd96349ea16ad7d83a58d162d8ee
22530 F20101115_AAAIKF cohen_d_Page_056.QC.jpg
0a6a7418f16b9dc446c72d6f28b7e203
3cccd209e825a32f353f889dc7ada4831e42fc09
20322 F20101115_AAAIJQ cohen_d_Page_044.QC.jpg
d8a89d5f3ff93a4aacba0bf7cf660061
98f55b70d9e65591a126ff49f407e84f012a0ffa
80194 F20101115_AAAHHD cohen_d_Page_047.jpg
6d8a942ef2aea3f59d2338566d287292
d51422eb1cd6e27265128d931e42e90139f74458
892339 F20101115_AAAHGO cohen_d_Page_111.jp2
1fb4b378594c9952a7a30fc0a12203f8
2cbcd1c160838baeb43cfed5b43adb252ca6e3ac
6066 F20101115_AAAIKG cohen_d_Page_056thm.jpg
69a5a160af9d30819e10b60955c2ae3c
db8335ec861acc9d3d9d79890d6b127ae440bbe1
5695 F20101115_AAAIJR cohen_d_Page_044thm.jpg
a06b8b23f480f982cd3eefa8051a1732
553ce4621af2f8a4c0307214cf68e20900bf8750
89498 F20101115_AAAHHE cohen_d_Page_011.jp2
9a23c759ceed882e278887280c6853e6
4d0193270394deb56086a15c5b00d3a045fba586
F20101115_AAAHGP cohen_d_Page_012.txt
0bf895016b9ed4280f4e1062fed0ab54
dfd3834210aaf5f36ec4cb994b97f8af0ef929ad
23642 F20101115_AAAIKH cohen_d_Page_058.QC.jpg
1a1bf8b73b96d1d2ef29792e96ccb647
d3aca9e18b712f1fbb906040b2eff60bbf23184d
5979 F20101115_AAAIJS cohen_d_Page_045thm.jpg
ac3656b2441b8ef8265334b76366dcff
8dfe2366d4eb976011ce1cc88bb62c9c88e5d8cf
6183 F20101115_AAAHHF cohen_d_Page_089thm.jpg
5bff0638b59455d41c7656ff3a5ff793
49f48c7fca3ed6efbce12c48bfe690c73c6df3a6
39034 F20101115_AAAHGQ cohen_d_Page_095.pro
d89fcaeded25dfb8b8483bda888ea9eb
30fca985625099045c8e6a474fb44f84e2f01cc4
6381 F20101115_AAAIKI cohen_d_Page_058thm.jpg
80365ea79e6e6332e3f10ee06dc61eb1
5847724f5ea5c0ccc7060026b82b40d5586a76ba
24304 F20101115_AAAIJT cohen_d_Page_047.QC.jpg
5a3dfd2e7897b4900daffd77c81e548c
9360156539370dfc4d3ed3793fdfc071001591a1
611031 F20101115_AAAHHG cohen_d_Page_181.jp2
ef3c7521f4e8d9014d2ef1ea5e6cef04
b29f875ad02d022ccc4fc16e5ace8fe3e38b310d
F20101115_AAAHGR cohen_d_Page_066.tif
2da4d3c75c3a5969a56ada7c25d5b587
414eca02e89352d1a40123c9fdc4c9b2b3d0b81f
21593 F20101115_AAAIKJ cohen_d_Page_061.QC.jpg
329b63030b80860439dd3b9004260cab
a3aefd910cf78e4e8fd77eeee187023def057f84
23772 F20101115_AAAIJU cohen_d_Page_048.QC.jpg
f27e260dea05d40da4789e99ecd96407
733b0806563d5f70a66238779eb5aaf92c153dc6
20198 F20101115_AAAHHH cohen_d_Page_114.QC.jpg
064c1cce27deb85a2b46718181390e2d
f0a7f87043424015780c8a064301aea6d36cd644
28999 F20101115_AAAHGS cohen_d_Page_176.jpg
762b4d9cbafa11aca6f72e17130643e6
0639986364d85066b6bea049ca23b3c793945f45
22045 F20101115_AAAIJV cohen_d_Page_049.QC.jpg
6dc5da4d9309e1f57c2ee54ebc179d8a
e7cc21c15186b70b7ba9d1128985a5a3e1d40809
5963 F20101115_AAAHGT cohen_d_Page_070thm.jpg
65da475baa028e69c3b8c21e6bd30a52
ce4b26f4099bdec5ace190fa0aaa8eb2045f713d
11284 F20101115_AAAIKK cohen_d_Page_062.QC.jpg
6666c65ed5c44118ef8fcec3b998dcbf
2d7c2669b294c2f7eff806ade44dc273036ca12b
6233 F20101115_AAAIJW cohen_d_Page_049thm.jpg
bc81062d00d0fb9c31dcacb89c192b5d
46b2ab973ddda3c75263b8bc7fe5084ec2ad3c5f
F20101115_AAAHHI cohen_d_Page_167.tif
80b4c8c416ebf97cd565dfcc153a9769
9f52c28aa27f3298523c4586ae5f89fde7916af8
96774 F20101115_AAAHGU cohen_d_Page_189.jpg
154af78989914c2f216a3dfff458091f
a883915fc2ea733aa504efbaaaf542b3fcbdf1e6
21012 F20101115_AAAILA cohen_d_Page_078.QC.jpg
92e513548b8e89a98c52513099c5ce7f
6b579de7b0a459b5b1017ac83634f4581eac76a2
3446 F20101115_AAAIKL cohen_d_Page_062thm.jpg
1a6e12161282025fc078a8729adf0118
5b82fc1f4d8a889dfca045be737ceba70d5fb813
23236 F20101115_AAAIJX cohen_d_Page_050.QC.jpg
316d682ac727d7cf00dc5f5905e00d61
62165b6a7654c9c7e6e1d14a91ac74beeca3083a
70386 F20101115_AAAHHJ cohen_d_Page_115.jpg
e090bcc6d84876da80ed8ae3a010b97e
365df408bb7c36160ba63aa9b94ffbe61322b3cf
F20101115_AAAHGV cohen_d_Page_061.tif
430ce38a8d18394afb92e75f26eb08cf
e7659483e05ac3a186b7c4157fdf1f0618dae26f
F20101115_AAAILB cohen_d_Page_079.QC.jpg
bd21f6fff38b02817f498d287da1609c
1aa60d275df8f01a545ad4c8e2697805896cedf5
22766 F20101115_AAAIKM cohen_d_Page_063.QC.jpg
a29688baa9a290c8c7fc358d2bfc1985
48d4dfd9a4ee2ce9a148e988f8de74dee201e20b
6376 F20101115_AAAIJY cohen_d_Page_050thm.jpg
1c60cab93a80c0de728be29db6d42a29
e40bce1dffe121ac89a19795b202a7d774de9cd6
22597 F20101115_AAAHHK cohen_d_Page_066.QC.jpg
1a315f8159853a2e944d51cb3d35aa94
1ec9b7e201b4d6d5307c1d6dd9ebfa90ea623615
50257 F20101115_AAAHGW cohen_d_Page_129.pro
e71cf495e6f2c849ed296db9bd55e5cf
b3db183dc089a0c0fbe4c744b23ea74b4e614a78
23628 F20101115_AAAILC cohen_d_Page_080.QC.jpg
9b9c0ef63dd85af6fb7dd33ebc01bebd
3d663a00d309985a0a8252ff098869e3feccaffd
6226 F20101115_AAAIKN cohen_d_Page_063thm.jpg
bd11580d1b5c20bec7cc5a92e27a48f6
c331484ed54fc07003d40701b68c183d6c2e35de
24359 F20101115_AAAIJZ cohen_d_Page_051.QC.jpg
e37c9c6a61cea59d345d3764ac58ea98
ca545949061ff32dc62b2c3df411e83d9b9668ea
6541 F20101115_AAAHIA cohen_d_Page_120thm.jpg
d180240b2157ce8b409d68e2268a54bd
9f6a919268ddc26bca02f8c1b8bf7fa8aa7694af
5527 F20101115_AAAHHL cohen_d_Page_011thm.jpg
63d75f22f5a7e7a73087858af105b78d
7a63adadb909ad825b3135632c835b40dc1c125c
112632 F20101115_AAAHGX cohen_d_Page_029.jp2
1aa34908f971c81b3ec5b78d76ecdf0e
a819abee3d67a741bc7c32dcf6e63a447f7fc55f
6517 F20101115_AAAILD cohen_d_Page_080thm.jpg
0b80f24fb992e8eebea2eb92b38ee9e2
2f9dd80e58cabda277606513851c436b588b65ad
6305 F20101115_AAAIKO cohen_d_Page_064thm.jpg
23331afddd02008f2a211981584bc8b9
89d0d0841f8a124ebab1f1b957d99455b381d7fa
50369 F20101115_AAAHIB cohen_d_Page_057.pro
dc8c538cc01296984b8961ab710a2a09
7e8e6a1a2b90a5e1c6be1b198371eea48e57a85c
23346 F20101115_AAAHHM cohen_d_Page_026.QC.jpg
53f5b84bdc880bcbae75b6e97083976d
8643a012fbd6ba17111f80495af9064397562be3
50520 F20101115_AAAHGY cohen_d_Page_026.pro
78cb8755ccf1f6ed1999516e8515d2e1
a9473929597574364e9242ceb92dac960d336482
6508 F20101115_AAAILE cohen_d_Page_082thm.jpg
54d818c854b6603c39c9ff8c507bffff
2ccabcba71d0566e8b79c294e212923d3c9023fe
6225 F20101115_AAAIKP cohen_d_Page_065thm.jpg
c77205749713d03347ed92e2ff1dc9ca
1d311a3f71ab302cdacc9b5f8fa4ae282772ee69
21550 F20101115_AAAHIC cohen_d_Page_177.QC.jpg
241274b950183922b5b1146cbb5eaf68
e2dea3e4397d92fbc3fa6e187eef5adc6cc034fe
28527 F20101115_AAAHHN cohen_d_Page_097.pro
df2998c1cfa7b7f5db7e58515847f577
d915f8f46052488ba467f371f133fe8f5eab20a4
47777 F20101115_AAAHGZ cohen_d_Page_157.pro
4b03e41cd95e89f7cb6d372e96f15b63
b09d61d737e583f3c107ccfdb552115e5edac466
21985 F20101115_AAAILF cohen_d_Page_083.QC.jpg
ee35210531bf02bff96ab6ee31501800
908509ced03fd8d3c8ae1854646a3c9331cf60f8
23443 F20101115_AAAIKQ cohen_d_Page_067.QC.jpg
179b47322da56d0b0d060336499d8149
c20834ef54b7b43d695cb0aa5b5d22abe27a09ff
68985 F20101115_AAAHID cohen_d_Page_063.jpg
fa81d2ce4074bbec81f88489ecc36d4b
c88b820fed5b872e6c75099ad656cb24aa3df83a
60662 F20101115_AAAHHO cohen_d_Page_011.jpg
7992c93719aa4a619957214e94965f0b
50972469c99529670cb9f113a8bd61904556d507
21406 F20101115_AAAILG cohen_d_Page_085.QC.jpg
570325510467ac2f09ba5e5b9156c07e
9c6fc894b8ba79456792c1e523e0eb6007087967
21949 F20101115_AAAIKR cohen_d_Page_071.QC.jpg
7633c86cf40a8d4e8d117cc9ebe9d426
6ce8f54bf54eae8cc603e752bfc98fd0862bc6dd
49230 F20101115_AAAHIE cohen_d_Page_013.pro
b284980fe5b1f3cc69a2f66968e02fc1
a7d0c1d3a7117f4d3dfc82241c604884e49f0a9e
71609 F20101115_AAAHHP cohen_d_Page_022.jpg
dca645dddf9f9adc75a42764347ffc0a
7161f639c44198d51f8440c7c1ccd1c181f4ff7c
F20101115_AAAILH cohen_d_Page_087thm.jpg
eee4985195d510668b89d2122575a9cc
3d189514bf1b48947ff46e44872783b7331bfcbf
22128 F20101115_AAAIKS cohen_d_Page_072.QC.jpg
84e7835436b6b2dec089c4464e03fb2b
e1763430054904f40fef27463110939f3be5336c
50428 F20101115_AAAHIF cohen_d_Page_159.pro
e20836fc78995cc019af40c228088430
0a8ddacd15988815d3845f33cfd150ba9ef5a2f4
6554 F20101115_AAAHHQ cohen_d_Page_012thm.jpg
dd6ccbd0e9a91b9d982f670bdb6eaff3
9ae360e8ddfc89871b08120d84e9ef6fe4f7f640
23061 F20101115_AAAILI cohen_d_Page_088.QC.jpg
5749035b2a8900c2e28c96dac577b543
b59a54753b3c447ad8097d18f0299a3c490f017d
F20101115_AAAIKT cohen_d_Page_072thm.jpg
fb1d6922e768c94742babccfb3dff045
18a9b66e3cacdf8626971b45075a1a157bba83d0
F20101115_AAAHIG cohen_d_Page_059.tif
55e7043195f4277e1f3ede31ff942208
d67939eb169dc46c58be982adfbf8cff9796c47a
99338 F20101115_AAAHHR cohen_d_Page_070.jp2
3a6a2eef015fc125afeb016f156414c1
a3cc2dcd2e323c3436be70900a8328f0278ef355
11049 F20101115_AAAILJ cohen_d_Page_090.QC.jpg
fcefae86515a1c40fede925fbe2b2f60
cea5b94904f949fd0fc3a189bb8f98da9555454f
22978 F20101115_AAAIKU cohen_d_Page_073.QC.jpg
aa70d7fd6a7605d6cdc7afd59f2a5301
8edccc78a549b8e3bb98b478ab706f471094d6d0
22570 F20101115_AAAHIH cohen_d_Page_152.QC.jpg
bec9f58566d09591b871f01d40d2be57
7b49ded055c835994406d1eaadf18016f358b0fc
2107 F20101115_AAAHHS cohen_d_Page_079.txt
1776b7c6cb7c677268a071a29a42d959
4cc2c4da9aec5b0687f2fe84d3104e32cae7d5cc
3399 F20101115_AAAILK cohen_d_Page_090thm.jpg
919548f7c88e124ac4ebb4b970f3e09a
b691eef6560a9bebbe4444a8c2f9bec4cd36e624
6248 F20101115_AAAIKV cohen_d_Page_073thm.jpg
984ad4a8650bbb600402350cc98f3386
223dcb73e3891627f095bad9032c1cb4e56a999d
49023 F20101115_AAAHHT cohen_d_Page_089.pro
fc5dd73d81f439754427e96b7ec2adb4
cab69071edb2fb7a89cf5602f2c04dd4a3c60146
116962 F20101115_AAAHII cohen_d_Page_051.jp2
73d227dce95c7554c40022bd7bef6dd0
044a186810f8f6214bf3009b8de0b12e62202ff9
24221 F20101115_AAAIKW cohen_d_Page_074.QC.jpg
6f426cf58e108441b5369a8e3584cc5c
1d4c51865db96e09fbd5ff2b1a95334eb192d244
F20101115_AAAHHU cohen_d_Page_182.tif
b253b10085c76f2883e227fd92a0f60d
5773b25c3a87dd82bf4af274aff0836872538775
20379 F20101115_AAAIMA cohen_d_Page_105.QC.jpg
11c103c208562137236bd6844e74e59e
a7cdb56f125cca729d8bba34c55d64109ecf93ee
6073 F20101115_AAAILL cohen_d_Page_091thm.jpg
5fe2b50acb7cb99510ec49d1e6f297a0
9f5928cbf49b108f3f8d247155b24f19f8b65f01
6423 F20101115_AAAIKX cohen_d_Page_075thm.jpg
c2bbb39df38c3583851a5b5a19c7ab92
bf1700e5cf8fe0b9e0b0ec677143c5707dedfc4a
F20101115_AAAHHV cohen_d_Page_123.txt
44a10916d51916ea70671368c9aedae6
0742a57c8c7d2effab4896d210870d7cf6084d98
966283 F20101115_AAAHIJ cohen_d_Page_095.jp2
847b93d8e5861a30cf2bb2f861ae6039
cbbc8ab3f55c1ec5ba6ce5769dcb5de60f7bb2af
5951 F20101115_AAAIMB cohen_d_Page_105thm.jpg
dc21e842f8476ed54be4bd4dcb137148
cd8d2f602c3fe57a27b5aeffeac40b1b781ebe90
5953 F20101115_AAAILM cohen_d_Page_092thm.jpg
c9c5ad0f2a27ce7d5fd0fcd42996b97f
1995ec2e0d50f92eec7c4a3a3ad7d248ab11982b
25953 F20101115_AAAIKY cohen_d_Page_076.QC.jpg
1dd4c0c99d7eb538badad1c7be70cf0c
19f842366b592ac29b884213d41c7bf112045fe9
106833 F20101115_AAAHHW cohen_d_Page_055.jp2
2ecd93720ac734e35c0ebd092a4c880b
3c6563c2053cc0bd716a1ae4a796ccdde0c893d2
23136 F20101115_AAAHIK cohen_d_Page_133.QC.jpg
f065bf72c116102a3b98423dd477bf3a
9157be8681687cff24019af4b065f208e3d2565f
6567 F20101115_AAAIMC cohen_d_Page_106thm.jpg
2704c677d37e4495e28d7b88c75e9574
6b2c6b204601f45f761cdd0826c230d29f0145e2
F20101115_AAAILN cohen_d_Page_093.QC.jpg
b8a7fba579e76afa02fc7ea89025aaa9
fa00b223be606f6ec3f502002b91acf1e1f34c9b
21497 F20101115_AAAIKZ cohen_d_Page_077.QC.jpg
608e509973f798dedbae45066c71108c
00697937a33fba31a631f6a33efc103cc884040f
55718 F20101115_AAAHHX cohen_d_Page_186.pro
cbb97667e851c947eaeac808097fa985
dced417e7cfc4069d46a456f1d79c9986a6923ff
2238 F20101115_AAAHJA cohen_d_Page_187.txt
44a99423d2eb11dbdba34e66584e1647
ef5a9fdb9bc77472a764a20ae2ffe3a1e105f59c
20407 F20101115_AAAHIL cohen_d_Page_062.pro
08ca45bfc9809efb3fdb310de3413d76
140563cebb37a55ae071235573a90eaae662ad7e
19636 F20101115_AAAIMD cohen_d_Page_107.QC.jpg
fb6fbc5e64659a85aa6b90442a0fa543
689b71cb78e1e20151c64551a1ac50638a7b5c1f
5367 F20101115_AAAILO cohen_d_Page_093thm.jpg
e170bc6ee5f83ff63e9c99cd11d02f67
640d2224299de5865daec5e956f1cb0ecb33d686
5844 F20101115_AAAHHY cohen_d_Page_111thm.jpg
fc9787516f6abde80ba79c9368e276e0
1dc7067d04b79936f54ab12b7b95347f4612c712
3071 F20101115_AAAHJB cohen_d_Page_010thm.jpg
20b861a02fcf11169a8ba36bb410b815
90ed5d69eedf3fd0392d61ac936b86e3c4aa4893
F20101115_AAAHIM cohen_d_Page_021.tif
22f81250f9a021c8ff586587ffde105e
da575ae46f7a4942a3de39a38c394d4046dca067
5537 F20101115_AAAIME cohen_d_Page_107thm.jpg
a32e14688437e64a12218f1b0068955d
5a32120c61d745bc23bd03b26e7ec43d3fcaeb35
6283 F20101115_AAAILP cohen_d_Page_094thm.jpg
5298da830afb16663c3d2c92b397724c
2aa3bb3c2adb8663d35cd418521187ed0e83a35c
1477 F20101115_AAAHHZ cohen_d_Page_161.txt
48c4aa5f3c80e064f32b17dadc4bbe8b
4bb257e5f2e825c74936fe5ca242a0dd8d47e646
6513 F20101115_AAAHJC cohen_d_Page_028thm.jpg
af24f2f7f21a91c107fad0fd4fd4d3eb
8e761f51c33a69ad3feb135018230ee9d5742fae
F20101115_AAAHIN cohen_d_Page_118.tif
07a6d6fb4c6d03527024fff6f44d205b
e93ef72a53e9b81e2e457cb6aa2851239ff2deea
6643 F20101115_AAAIMF cohen_d_Page_108thm.jpg
2d7cd06625c6e4938a19c5644462dd34
0a0178c5219bb541b5b40d4e4388c9cb2944de6d
6223 F20101115_AAAILQ cohen_d_Page_095thm.jpg
1b0e50cc1e072e759a4505a4337a226d
c663e36d07161fbacf142deaf5dd20d75ee44aeb
12593 F20101115_AAAHJD cohen_d_Page_182.pro
82b3b8c65c70afb60c139c55e97e041d
e39656da6bb60d5e2ada04ac92390d26f493aea9
6048 F20101115_AAAHIO cohen_d_Page_131thm.jpg
02951066c47752dd9e45927506935b71
12e2fefc613f57ae7ea5c49214bd820a9efcac5d
19346 F20101115_AAAIMG cohen_d_Page_109.QC.jpg
8aa93b912e6918d7c82bca2b1f522cae
f569b0f4550d569e6f9b7e983417eff5bd354980
4736 F20101115_AAAILR cohen_d_Page_096thm.jpg
1fb44fe5e549cd01ab55612b23f01e0d
c893909f91a7b30b77c0b15d1b757c659ed17a30
655167 F20101115_AAAHJE cohen_d_Page_010.jp2
8000643fe021000aaa81df06e8bb399c
6b64f58e81f7aaa490c8c5456a22a5a73ec9796b
109975 F20101115_AAAHIP cohen_d_Page_017.jp2
79e8d3caa82f09c7b0c54b6d11ba30c4
ea6bda29b5a55debcd6654c0d46b802e5dba560f
5597 F20101115_AAAIMH cohen_d_Page_109thm.jpg
888a3f4223bca7b109de09565638992a
65124e7f140e4ff267ce575b951cd8509d0dd645
5262 F20101115_AAAILS cohen_d_Page_097thm.jpg
6149615f9cc7f0a3b063bbdb6d3ddefd
204b0bb0cfd265ab6f847ab38bc43466ad82c84b
26441 F20101115_AAAHJF cohen_d_Page_186.QC.jpg
6f41dd580440cfd227376e0222cb6191
8e4e47f7992185ed6a89cc7a7244f3142d6be5ec
F20101115_AAAHIQ cohen_d_Page_137.tif
46caac993b8fc6b6f063dcaced662935
ecb2196b13fbc6787e85f8234932fe8cd371ed82
6281 F20101115_AAAIMI cohen_d_Page_110thm.jpg
a8d7743859dd17a9c15e90ead12d4225
9e3ca33305d40b5ca4cec5d0c035bb44d25d91b3
19260 F20101115_AAAILT cohen_d_Page_099.QC.jpg
e7c080c8622f0e95e451358345f4404d
c18c01f1163aaa045d3460004131c3bedf597466
50756 F20101115_AAAHJG cohen_d_Page_050.pro
ff857d226eda07cc4abfe2b5b1e4086e
5a04d8d5135ac884512284707dcd759cf08031cc
6491 F20101115_AAAHIR cohen_d_Page_074thm.jpg
9f348719cc825e9b9878cfc81f8b62f4
a93346cf111fe04c64c05a354f6dc05bcb3e4412
22201 F20101115_AAAIMJ cohen_d_Page_112.QC.jpg
8708f91b83aa90eeaf90167268f61757
da6d70d523d79aecc3cc81ea1a84d67f92b39cb3
5493 F20101115_AAAILU cohen_d_Page_099thm.jpg
f44360d785448a5e671e4b67fcbedeb6
927954f993e133ba57f3ffe4732d1e45eee94fa1
50456 F20101115_AAAHJH cohen_d_Page_127.pro
8adb606377a8471e79571a4efe99651e
97cee8b665a7e1f585182e1511c5f2e10e8ebdb2
5831 F20101115_AAAHIS cohen_d_Page_192thm.jpg
5294f4b763e1dc67ed22444ccd311fd4
422cae6cd9fffb007e76312375b2a9b63c8dafb9
6282 F20101115_AAAIMK cohen_d_Page_112thm.jpg
ce6b95b541905d25d7525aed8f75bb4c
b5836740dfcb11bc839095c7360e92028d343ac3
5748 F20101115_AAAILV cohen_d_Page_100thm.jpg
a5b621b44d97afee7ac4bbb15c04a7c8
05c1af9177e7cd78255353c9e205932b7666f12a
6547 F20101115_AAAHJI cohen_d_Page_048thm.jpg
2d8d8074f44f9cb7e9a60267249812a7
49eb8d407eddc58720be2143e2f4fd73a1884677
F20101115_AAAHIT cohen_d_Page_192.jp2
149fc65b89f44660c00fe254cd2c4942
8c70ebfbe9ac629ecf4c6d0d212cc17a45ae8784
19372 F20101115_AAAIML cohen_d_Page_113.QC.jpg
c2f1d6ce11cc1ab716333418a8eb0c03
131bc98ce04f6856d51567b621736e36d8b028da
20069 F20101115_AAAILW cohen_d_Page_101.QC.jpg
b901968619872b74fc669b7dc426f1c8
2e95a36f65497a957fbaba02e2fe01b61976a27f
19411 F20101115_AAAHJJ cohen_d_Page_005.QC.jpg
51090fd34748d00124c9759d333ce1fb
1c89af3b91098942df7a023adbe29ec26a40ae47
107123 F20101115_AAAHIU cohen_d_Page_025.jp2
22796d82d1751726da3edc0ac31913b9
e1adf68ad96eae85e0be335f728e3b0d866b07fc
6347 F20101115_AAAINA cohen_d_Page_130thm.jpg
76058605fcc6fbea79ecfec959270b1d
be9c321d3e613aa143ae57a97268a36e2680ebcf
23530 F20101115_AAAILX cohen_d_Page_102.QC.jpg
bc3031ee54ebd981367022e15024b8ca
45407b731834ddc8ede3234e2efc95ad101f0034
6144 F20101115_AAAHIV cohen_d_Page_068thm.jpg
9cd1d35278480d5c9a3a35394d54ba79
5674e83c397538f9e8c78fad026cdbfd6cb4aada
21699 F20101115_AAAINB cohen_d_Page_131.QC.jpg
2be6371c3281d3de5bf2431c9d3de1ea
f251bb0d555fa09b9239ee0d84b0d953e1e51faf
23071 F20101115_AAAIMM cohen_d_Page_115.QC.jpg
f340fdb726038c05795fb1c33e82f8c9
7e1cd17c4fee3cdfc2cd093e8f971269a33e846d
6564 F20101115_AAAILY cohen_d_Page_102thm.jpg
ff275745d3f909a0378f41459432985d
d821c29d913af9be68d94a8a8e8c986c3c982d57
F20101115_AAAHJK cohen_d_Page_058.txt
8b49b04dd1feb0f8f310e71545cbaa13
86b919c20c814941c6cbb1a89fc5dd92073e638a
54875 F20101115_AAAHIW cohen_d_Page_097.jpg
429d139d34ff317fccd54f6b596a013a
68cda02c3dea97cd5e607a0a71ad62a7ef959b7d
23649 F20101115_AAAINC cohen_d_Page_132.QC.jpg
03b554f7ac8c101299880354e775c971
cc0c200521ebfd2da065eeac3fceabd6406aaaa6
6316 F20101115_AAAIMN cohen_d_Page_116thm.jpg
604abecb36a36cfc07a7967365c78021
3c022c029746286998cdd0bf1c9fb9dbc7afff4f
22435 F20101115_AAAILZ cohen_d_Page_103.QC.jpg
51f2537a23dd6b237400e54fda81f106
38a7e7457f63bf2f8b1de3c9f8b3c1c552856ec5
F20101115_AAAHKA cohen_d_Page_074.txt
5f14191aa783fa22252e07a869855917
62963cc6e2dcabccf6502d43707ea19d62df7f8d
22759 F20101115_AAAHJL cohen_d_Page_082.QC.jpg
fb642eea6409ac7b4730561c735a6571
910d3de944340e9e45da8486871f99f07697648e
45341 F20101115_AAAHIX cohen_d_Page_039.pro
7791204766673cdeca1806ee72a88e2c
b86592d707a587cfb2dd12f93a869f26fdf7985b
24090 F20101115_AAAIND cohen_d_Page_137.QC.jpg
d517cd087e29fe496e0fba40f1ea2f65
f9606179198b9f3540940e68b3e89a7d28160e84
20046 F20101115_AAAIMO cohen_d_Page_117.QC.jpg
23ea907bd1ad0063f29d423c40d1e1c8
a2417a3343011ea07492f3447a87434ba298efe8
38896 F20101115_AAAHKB cohen_d_Page_107.pro
7a63a19448d42f32d21d7552a9b8a37c
d0aa611160436dc3d3a69ac638d61ce4cca379a0
6313 F20101115_AAAHJM cohen_d_Page_031thm.jpg
b44430597f7b6d2cf9c56f07120d4e6f
607d0c8d85de76327f57f6d33e8a893da33ff33f
71825 F20101115_AAAHIY cohen_d_Page_140.jpg
e4774b2762810a7d3fbcddad62695587
767ea0ef06ec7eeba4e322eeb30bed819a4e6fd9
F20101115_AAAINE cohen_d_Page_138thm.jpg
f494a10c116b6183180e9233d5988103
3efbf2be3a8624ace9e1652b845d0a9d8ef04427
5495 F20101115_AAAIMP cohen_d_Page_117thm.jpg
114b9e0a1d1382addc8d1d351b97ae70
f6bc3639a20e507175f0f418a691f179447ad04e
F20101115_AAAHKC cohen_d_Page_130.tif
ef65d22bfbed9063512ae30b9bef21cf
dc59822a184abb299dcaddc55465ee5267d4aeee
23576 F20101115_AAAHJN cohen_d_Page_022.QC.jpg
85f14c783dad9d22d31f3a03106918e6
0d8386ad431f91288d8d352f7731cdf87982e3f7
86978 F20101115_AAAHIZ cohen_d_Page_107.jp2
9ac60b6f6a37164dd0de7a85e890410b
66de628c9fbf4c0f139f9d78e696721017563ccc
23797 F20101115_AAAINF cohen_d_Page_140.QC.jpg
f821c0803a98d0775f87262467862a82
9d3755d035217d49740eea47444a9123ec13d386
19236 F20101115_AAAIMQ cohen_d_Page_118.QC.jpg
7462b68f87deb903c0d18b132ea32acf
ac755ea912d0a841381d1f2c12a0398e9b65bab2
F20101115_AAAHKD cohen_d_Page_178.tif
fc85203ae7c434b240d6f681fa8f19e5
28db613cd97121468eb5965f4d12c3311a3b4643
F20101115_AAAHJO cohen_d_Page_025.tif
7e6964add5f45cceb8804306e81a8d82
f0ea87461ebe6b4c77790f90769079829115a6b8
6366 F20101115_AAAING cohen_d_Page_141thm.jpg
f17fbb01806a15f385a4a3e33db0afb3
e52625c2c48f0905fe4a3534f8c4e944dee9f0f6
5655 F20101115_AAAIMR cohen_d_Page_118thm.jpg
f85ca298b9be7ed2a36b11062fedff64
dd4b8c869bb723769bd049844aa4ad5ee0d5952a
23038 F20101115_AAAHKE cohen_d_Page_120.QC.jpg
1278a6a92ce1b85fae7b187531663830
6d61855ebf3b7e07fcf70a043c4b20ddfc9e7539
22326 F20101115_AAAHJP cohen_d_Page_119.QC.jpg
bc50d8c0f6f8b6955ac259bee989a25f
717665400a8d8293ae6722698fa993ba9042e002
8633 F20101115_AAAINH cohen_d_Page_142.QC.jpg
395f748e27623db5c631e85c648adba1
6b1011aa5b76919fc45d680c585f6a3dda424055
24092 F20101115_AAAIMS cohen_d_Page_121.QC.jpg
a0e17423a1179cda3826f92e49aa9ae9
5fef5f99b4c54a769b1fc81184822cc3a2f36239
45194 F20101115_AAAHKF cohen_d_Page_068.pro
3418b8270572f7711ac1327cc2b71eac
c8543ddaa6415391da3cb649d39557ab34b9be9b
98576 F20101115_AAAHJQ cohen_d_Page_077.jp2
4d1183f4a2799f1a918538b40f8ee270
b59899f401297f5cdc368c6df5dbaf63b4338037
2636 F20101115_AAAINI cohen_d_Page_142thm.jpg
6ea47bd3be0543be8663320c9761451a
4959a08a0fae87561c9d3e2d8010fe01248cf371
24076 F20101115_AAAIMT cohen_d_Page_122.QC.jpg
ecfbc5212723b48383ce153263044273
23a22c876868a36459494514aa302b2c923dbc9a
68080 F20101115_AAAHKG cohen_d_Page_120.jpg
3e857792cbf13d9487ff8dd8c3a9e43c
5408263e9773ab7f244c3b42b417a4808b9cff11
22322 F20101115_AAAHJR cohen_d_Page_091.QC.jpg
4f02bb2c858a4429be440b996c958c36
b7da3d62b1a1ed8a1b7660830f5aa4ea40ad6066
19677 F20101115_AAAINJ cohen_d_Page_143.QC.jpg
9c87441d415f013d06b16235f208370d
0ef1a51fa3933e8545f1ff4930519ef642fb5cec
22610 F20101115_AAAIMU cohen_d_Page_124.QC.jpg
238c26fd844ad10bf5f9bb591518d9f6
06ecdd913e02c8daea6c71fb85a941eba0322867
1994 F20101115_AAAHKH cohen_d_Page_050.txt
4894652e016c4a8d16a42125237c5b35
2e7b8e93a57772936455ab8b6ebdce810d74bdc1
F20101115_AAAHJS cohen_d_Page_147.tif
9a0cf78530234734eb7638f039833a8f
82eca116448f57f1356d71972835788984abd6fd
5555 F20101115_AAAINK cohen_d_Page_143thm.jpg
68355964b79cd2b581f4fc896cddf3d4
a09775bb0c59502bbedee3d61b070029ceaf6cd6
6721 F20101115_AAAIMV cohen_d_Page_125thm.jpg
230290b5678da713b8122c24fd766892
e5f9404e1d9e4e3cb02e748cdafa5b46b3999bf2
2243 F20101115_AAAHKI cohen_d_Page_184thm.jpg
8d1c04b2e039fa51649b953b835b6d06
e76f6a3455fffcb9dcb7bc8598a5d2bc27622af0
87447 F20101115_AAAHJT cohen_d_Page_167.jpg
80ddf93b9a10303963931f64da0e57a9
a241b19129b0ae6bb2bc90313c9af39d2c1c5f74
22359 F20101115_AAAINL cohen_d_Page_145.QC.jpg
902f7c49e950f017b4f2d6dbc1d75625
9c27b69e1799f3f8065a5d71ce46aed2b00aef0d
6524 F20101115_AAAIMW cohen_d_Page_126thm.jpg
7c3010014fd3a614f480f3a5614e41f8
3fb7b802483179ad3cc88a5391407f4e09102372
13822 F20101115_AAAHKJ cohen_d_Page_142.pro
79775e2a32b5bf53e897c2e6afaa082f
6d76cb3ea95b36b470687e1b7dfad77071e78db6
101408 F20101115_AAAHJU cohen_d_Page_059.jp2
e0beaf1242a779629236500d77825581
3359bfbdf4a15e3d32104bafa7c522f9d52eb874
F20101115_AAAIOA cohen_d_Page_159thm.jpg
3574824af575584821c1a6fe0310b4ae
cf7be5a32a17674c515dc856871a10442e29f1aa
21503 F20101115_AAAINM cohen_d_Page_147.QC.jpg
e4ebb97dcd6645933c326a72d23a4ea4
ec7c1b620055dfe163dd845d0a9b83c53a412dca
6593 F20101115_AAAIMX cohen_d_Page_128thm.jpg
4634f04b9145c1f1f1f7429a96787c36
61f28e2f39699d84fc84eaf77da7ede25c1b0d3b
F20101115_AAAHKK cohen_d_Page_037thm.jpg
48470011728310c6c4626026cb25bd87
073f5e588ea37f8ac49beb7652e888f7e79c5483
F20101115_AAAHJV cohen_d_Page_029.pro
fa8656b2ab8419b824ae7e3eaa505061
da4a9b69c5da5a1a3aaa8ba2fcc5758d023d0400
24139 F20101115_AAAIOB cohen_d_Page_160.QC.jpg
96d097cebd78948efe5660f56a71fa14
0a048d2de69825615e89422b56dafb85f60d7826
24217 F20101115_AAAIMY cohen_d_Page_129.QC.jpg
f40e43f8657a432cb5bc0bae73a194dc
da768ba86ccdd6a1ba3158c0e985dd7fe025b6e2
6662 F20101115_AAAHJW cohen_d_Page_129thm.jpg
b8e67244f8dd341d20519ff783f7877f
7473e7ac3c2404715dd161d136ce1de8c433556c
6411 F20101115_AAAIOC cohen_d_Page_160thm.jpg
680aabb22b61de0ea63e884e4d538967
35005144bf525d75934dfe8e872855fca3399578
21335 F20101115_AAAINN cohen_d_Page_148.QC.jpg
22b1a48e2a9fb685ecbb672c7d08fba4
5bbe5988c55f3e35b6b129183dd1aa2d57c3517a
22981 F20101115_AAAIMZ cohen_d_Page_130.QC.jpg
08ee618fe15eef767b7bdef29774523a
dcadb3a76690202d9b4e394a13e0fde8c801919a
864 F20101115_AAAHKL cohen_d_Page_165.txt
5fbf20d72904c49ebba79ef7228ccd68
3575c939e39aa74834fc7da3a0bafd2bf54c9978
23791 F20101115_AAAHJX cohen_d_Page_006.QC.jpg
0af5e5fc2c09b268097a5b6a61be303a
69831c35994fb55c8cb5bd4dce50d39fa1e16695
22323 F20101115_AAAHLA cohen_d_Page_084.QC.jpg
90b5b5ef575b09f7fe0c055be72b2532
5547efea9a25af57333305668c3fe6b1d4462f53
4903 F20101115_AAAIOD cohen_d_Page_161thm.jpg
c79766c322ebb2d672dc07fd3693e7d3
76a94cee5b328b2fac17e78720cf0943759dc93f
21685 F20101115_AAAINO cohen_d_Page_149.QC.jpg
7ce703beedb84090c6c44cac8a39c7d4
e5a81ddeba72f20434f5db554a167b14294e21a9
F20101115_AAAHKM cohen_d_Page_132.tif
77d0401ac7553056eb8e79fe9f5a0733
c1320c26c33118dc01ac24df00c581afa502677f
F20101115_AAAHJY cohen_d_Page_062.tif
0c6f6d6f6c3e339f505fa6c0a75c1ba5
8fe9355015559ede2d8d05865c56a886bc246a63
79913 F20101115_AAAHLB cohen_d_Page_081.jpg
1ba70f57f9fcd8b60ffe0c0ca5b0e429
d51a5a8dea8123f61154d9dc9d5513d0949e7080
5350 F20101115_AAAIOE cohen_d_Page_162thm.jpg
a8625e7d6e625bc0e2160ea0d4cd1438
93a1f8d300dc58c57cf259cbd97866b11da36d10
6065 F20101115_AAAINP cohen_d_Page_149thm.jpg
82ff3bc43296a634fb1326edd229c67f
24eae2c873a2b608cbe658929c05b4a959030f2e
54913 F20101115_AAAHKN cohen_d_Page_086.pro
ffd081d1da54363e4b79699e970f2e3c
b8e45c3bc18814e14f40ad95d1cfee64f9883ab6
66576 F20101115_AAAHJZ cohen_d_Page_119.jpg
c58d5f8894c1c4a343d9f37d178b65b1
f510e4b961440d1d4992203dfe501b8619b80cee
49119 F20101115_AAAHLC cohen_d_Page_138.pro
9d1271b1853c7ca50dc64b06d6732469
4dd47dc72cca178f96260c1029d3a817643c98a5
18517 F20101115_AAAIOF cohen_d_Page_163.QC.jpg
36e71027a073f45c959544ad41346c18
ec8147103366aa6bf0666c6ba54dd908a61b9343
6040 F20101115_AAAINQ cohen_d_Page_150thm.jpg
aeeec41592599396a765cc7ab36624ca
9001fcb1173940d7717993393a22ac0aed0219fa
28651 F20101115_AAAHKO cohen_d_Page_018.jpg
1028f95ab18daa7cbc742bcda0982ed5
3b993d801956c0c296b09037f19e94dfbeba6b9b
131727 F20101115_AAAHLD cohen_d_Page_170.jp2
cb9e87d5454fcb21d858cc27819c6daa
ba183a4ceeac26c0d3a4e39b3acf0eb63752dce9
5326 F20101115_AAAIOG cohen_d_Page_163thm.jpg
e2daf60d8b1802bbf3a2fb2d529a21d1
ab82aa5d2642ce31f2476e613c9781cf25904163
6092 F20101115_AAAINR cohen_d_Page_151thm.jpg
271b2a6aafa03e8c3b0ba22d5d0bd1bd
9ff9e1fd473ae0b86098f8b20f933626aa128ce6
F20101115_AAAHKP cohen_d_Page_106.tif
50690ae56533805759154de1b2e609e0
2deb8ab1269edbb8b04fb6c25c35944c864ec5ce
2759 F20101115_AAAHLE cohen_d_Page_176thm.jpg
e774edc288e1c15d736a3c52d47911d8
4f0eaf2d6635fb951528874b802cdc1dac9b62dd
5042 F20101115_AAAIOH cohen_d_Page_164thm.jpg
403c73b15353bd11b5e55da02ad80bef
725197f9cf6ef62cb7bc9e06646aa1127051bbb2
6470 F20101115_AAAINS cohen_d_Page_152thm.jpg
71012aaf0c84d72e0179fd379a611f47
930c22c6c81d986bb6216f39efaca76155af8996
F20101115_AAAHKQ cohen_d_Page_100.tif
0729c4260b6bea03339abeadf1f050ef
9b3e2226f7917af27f1ca43fac8c84d4b92e6392
48071 F20101115_AAAHLF cohen_d_Page_116.pro
63b89ead4f5051663c13bc11466877f0
0b75989f443030233e4397d79a1ab4319f9c54e5
3688 F20101115_AAAIOI cohen_d_Page_165thm.jpg
8935f2b135951d068db55107589c33c2
c3190dbe78a4bea3713667f1b40d3cc63bda0ba3
24741 F20101115_AAAINT cohen_d_Page_153.QC.jpg
ee533145e9606afbd74af63a6412c833
acfc13ed5963e5e3cad2386d6c0a57cabb0b4a22
49734 F20101115_AAAHKR cohen_d_Page_046.pro
823ee40ab78dd80d474458610114bbf2
ba457a3948c39740793fdb7bc9bc7bb40bad702c
F20101115_AAAHLG cohen_d_Page_173.tif
4550a419323129de0cbb065c87b3b560
82695eb444b3ef9dc6c20914267acd4f8762daab
5177 F20101115_AAAIOJ cohen_d_Page_166thm.jpg
5fbe6c9e283d39807a154852583b6915
adb2bde8c19b5437257d0276306112891bcb5d99
6414 F20101115_AAAINU cohen_d_Page_154thm.jpg
672042c02c11c41a50ce30b44c1d5ac3
1ab78ba0e6cf438c7715d34116ff93c77d77ffa0
6934 F20101115_AAAHKS cohen_d_Page_076thm.jpg
ec9668c144d331f92ff27ba61d8db8f5
4c3a1c4d7a98c60b8ef33d60efbe6d5198f0d0f7
67138 F20101115_AAAHLH cohen_d_Page_039.jpg
0c5fcdb2b640cd670ecfb8d6739d9fa4
1a4a8a116f2c21236a124f80d7473e4eae250141
24416 F20101115_AAAIOK cohen_d_Page_167.QC.jpg
446e8b77c7d36dd3dfaad5cf63516670
6ba34ce6ac07bfeb99463f3202443cb2d5f773ed
23462 F20101115_AAAINV cohen_d_Page_155.QC.jpg
5961c86be2298ee7dde682bc530c1cb7
9387645870c45bf9b0ac6365a26ce44df1a63ec0
73468 F20101115_AAAHKT cohen_d_Page_136.jpg
bc50334c6602e75af40255e6dee164eb
762f339bd61aa45391f0e241e7413bab627ce3ab
102556 F20101115_AAAHLI cohen_d_Page_154.jp2
28ef27169a57fbc18c5448b51965a35d
db9a190196886721de67940849b98f398706bb29
6003 F20101115_AAAIOL cohen_d_Page_167thm.jpg
319b3b2ea91ced67dc3bab48e71358f6
b3b6b7567e140b45a5236107421f7d62cfce4474
6359 F20101115_AAAINW cohen_d_Page_155thm.jpg
b635f2e962ab0f1a6e334939d2867975
8d7d85c8d796ae9d337bfc3947dd8ddfab202475
4437 F20101115_AAAHKU cohen_d_Page_043thm.jpg
6b3ea560c8485a89da46fa244998765a
71bdbc694c893cb3e4126296f6ab929f31abe546
20851 F20101115_AAAHLJ cohen_d_Page_111.QC.jpg
a690f40d8c0140d2675986c9b7193e17
360f7e25e7ff3e2a53fbc1804b82598b5ec60a96
4174 F20101115_AAAIPA cohen_d_Page_183thm.jpg
6e9bfa393f76c172fe688bb1ab9b227a
acff23677468f685a76e8d94b8da497113261ab6
5938 F20101115_AAAIOM cohen_d_Page_168thm.jpg
4844b97eb6b552ff571e7d507cc423ed
9fd7d8e641657f55c1323419521cc539f7106e9a
6178 F20101115_AAAINX cohen_d_Page_157thm.jpg
1e0891e6fef4de0af4bfc3ccda3d7995
fc407e97c9f6a990bd6568300553b95cce4be9e1
17055 F20101115_AAAHKV cohen_d_Page_171.QC.jpg
f49a1d99ae8ca165f8b7e55d471909eb
b797bbd0ca580af9c0aff393ea69abdea505e084
6528 F20101115_AAAHLK cohen_d_Page_036thm.jpg
349140b208650155e9edf7e1a547ea21
3e155aad15736d5290018e1d16f4a1a870ce3bdc
6858 F20101115_AAAIPB cohen_d_Page_184.QC.jpg
eb4b6de116675137dbd4a2f8cf4a8a32
1cb171d645598bf88eac43e11fd1a5a14ae0ced3
6496 F20101115_AAAION cohen_d_Page_170thm.jpg
94bcec8901d0e2cb34c33aee8f31de31
9e2aaad84564ed8ad0f0cd124596e6fa69470616
23844 F20101115_AAAINY cohen_d_Page_158.QC.jpg
0ef4f18a5592a0392e908348cb9a13dc
eca4ff72c71644196ad5be05e3197642e9bc5070
24370 F20101115_AAAHKW cohen_d_Page_010.pro
79b6d9d7fb3a77235d1cefa551b555ad
77d03895837a4d05525b8c3410b024044de4069f
6455 F20101115_AAAHLL cohen_d_Page_139thm.jpg
c1d6b574901d1fe798a6dfc4296b4bda
b65456e45e71d002691deb3d59326793bfb06f14
11573 F20101115_AAAIPC cohen_d_Page_185.QC.jpg
58266030fe1d1f184ef1bd5eb47d62da
7f4f51f042657758c974ea3a2856374adcecb2ef
F20101115_AAAINZ cohen_d_Page_158thm.jpg
66ea7755aa92f6f318583433f427d878
bc6110dae66f363480b0764e909bfd19b0a87348
22271 F20101115_AAAHKX cohen_d_Page_007.QC.jpg
a70e593b129bd46be64ae90f8cde13b0
52610adb5edd7e1ebbf5ca05def0c22d14058c14
50726 F20101115_AAAHMA cohen_d_Page_087.pro
1c06ad8e09726aa62d1f87fbe31ecc6c
9f6a53a940fec8578ae48540654754d8e55895d5
7153 F20101115_AAAIPD cohen_d_Page_188thm.jpg
c7bbf2df21b24c3d1a25621e33a092d1
d63460048312671d56cab6073991a12f7bc0a98d
4613 F20101115_AAAIOO cohen_d_Page_172thm.jpg
4aef1e8342267264aa188edb93933453
d60820a1190cfcad677555d595082e6f79af9676
892750 F20101115_AAAHKY cohen_d_Page_105.jp2
fe97c98fb3439d3e3e5f1b073d383cb7
494770c13fddc79d0a1672831b88f703aa388d60
F20101115_AAAHMB cohen_d_Page_017.tif
40608bae152a92844752364675c9f734
107a597887154a5cb224fb3122b55caa06135e6a
F20101115_AAAHLM cohen_d_Page_010.tif
93906ac27d47f0e707108fd9dc6bfa31
1c68c4bc7a8c26f5e2d979083ab167cb39ffdc58
24237 F20101115_AAAIPE cohen_d_Page_190.QC.jpg
bd79ab72fd6c0e3c081493ac66b97bf9
a86c24f5d643dfd307a7463654ccb6a7343458f0
17737 F20101115_AAAIOP cohen_d_Page_173.QC.jpg
a9a10415dbb8ffd9c2453186a56a9e8a
381a909d4c9b9bc03920f6ec79ed3bb39a9de2eb
F20101115_AAAHKZ cohen_d_Page_095.tif
9e794c97093b5291d6f2498799836c79
b163688add49f74305caeeac17bee67d67cc63f5
F20101115_AAAHMC cohen_d_Page_112.tif
b673772a39b548642f24f57a3cd38eb2
44097c5bcd5583c089df0f4496aa961e8c3e104f
F20101115_AAAHLN cohen_d_Page_097.tif
c1b92193f7d3928963dc2eaf4f9c07b8
7217da52b3ab99e2c3f2668d73cd2758aba893e9
6980 F20101115_AAAIPF cohen_d_Page_190thm.jpg
46f7ec33654c748c0e99f26f973ea413
b3b4cb030d3e1cd93cd7bde2842a430ecf8ac22e
4533 F20101115_AAAIOQ cohen_d_Page_173thm.jpg
909ae1744bc6ed75a4ab713f2127c8d4
26d13ce806192452103f184b1287ea2583344919
F20101115_AAAHMD cohen_d_Page_154.QC.jpg
2fa7a2346cbe1ffb69706cb01bcf9973
8fe27b744f36a0e0143470891435efff3406cd8b
2046 F20101115_AAAHLO cohen_d_Page_082.txt
66a6fa1a4972cf4eadef410c28af2065
14f897e872611b7aaa778779c71e7f57e10e13d0
20469 F20101115_AAAIPG cohen_d_Page_192.QC.jpg
cb59b0817e194956939b7ac8a42b9eed
203d521476f2603b8c7d75096c14b6b8d2b46c29
5797 F20101115_AAAIOR cohen_d_Page_177thm.jpg
e0d46a9480394496b6bc1507f511ce3b
0615ce7a4a1ecf19faa51d0c295dcbabfe6bf7bb
29584 F20101115_AAAHME cohen_d_Page_104.pro
fe85a245701ef0b2007b1119863d8805
95c32cc11478c65abd0e333451e479c440d1a96f
22956 F20101115_AAAHLP cohen_d_Page_016.QC.jpg
aaae14aa39c049b665eaa6f817c731f5
da757e00ce37a8470c494acd5b7349c295631f0a
20728 F20101115_AAAIPH cohen_d_Page_193.QC.jpg
84ba0fbee5cb662c531d1a960c0d4246
2aacf5fc8c4939e1d949fdcb470226c97cad74ec
6986 F20101115_AAAIOS cohen_d_Page_178.QC.jpg
a4205678fdaa5b22f72f039e8b46ddc9
f6246f593e784d3d286babecee53b13f9e849b58
1874 F20101115_AAAHMF cohen_d_Page_059.txt
b50ff7f03573e4ae83d8f6f3c57ddefe
7fdf3a47501d0eea5d3692b533db3d92970568a5
F20101115_AAAHLQ cohen_d_Page_055thm.jpg
f134079f55c09e99b45e803dbd72bfff
01c73f23e6e39297a7bb6a5f5c3480a0892e02a2
5947 F20101115_AAAIPI cohen_d_Page_193thm.jpg
747371b618daa3aa1f494528ee841647
32e7906ce31cd6ba8dbfe329bfaefafc7a683deb
19686 F20101115_AAAIOT cohen_d_Page_179.QC.jpg
30c3723b290be002b7f3aa7c8a8e4878
47b94b53cd162153a56eec504bdd2e02153ec63d
71451 F20101115_AAAHMG cohen_d_Page_067.jpg
c8be738e033a6ce3b4a00a55f3af0f5c
4c3d3c2a446e2674506bc9667282f6a1db4939b6
6713 F20101115_AAAHLR cohen_d_Page_029thm.jpg
bcb396d9b5a83f71d09b23b6b747a4b6
e7e2c7981c37085bd7a85500f80e75662293fcf9
F20101115_AAAIPJ cohen_d_Page_194.QC.jpg
bdb23378c805115ef18a360168c03993
e7863f0775c21516f0aadc1ef2270bdb8cea8be3
5730 F20101115_AAAIOU cohen_d_Page_179thm.jpg
249e147f9402f04461645b54aca2b464
80a0bc3bed1deb0762491471c7b7ce3e022e52b2
79203 F20101115_AAAHMH cohen_d_Page_153.jpg
8f45dc5ac71e60909a2548dfcb707b18
157d227173d9fcc4ba2af448307206f8550c209d
94594 F20101115_AAAHLS cohen_d_Page_044.jp2
adca70eebad1ef23dd66882e0766ab18
49565f2b25d8f9643c0adf7aab5b985c8f52b53d
2092 F20101115_AAAIPK cohen_d_Page_194thm.jpg
4af673d148f54de1ce1ea974b3399527
5a11ed39e09eb8404aa35c79b8b97f923d78299a
6338 F20101115_AAAIOV cohen_d_Page_180.QC.jpg
022661e55af0e0b39f5b119d979c14f2
ab5518ffe70a5ca61abf60268cf02a026c340532
1312 F20101115_AAAHMI cohen_d_Page_097.txt
0ec7e63bf41b814263c991762cb4c311
50cbe59e7ff2e12f37ce94f0b7a0a3bbd21fe9e8
8273 F20101115_AAAHLT cohen_d_Page_194.pro
7c7e62e5f3e606bf76312dc3647cfa2a
2bc16678fe7b21ae3259f0d0f318f527a69981fa
221915 F20101115_AAAIPL UFE0021238_00001.mets
1d74d25a8c80c8a0804fb2d8de70cd28
be0cce847ae5dbcf7572d3b8afcf53b4ce275ed2
15181 F20101115_AAAIOW cohen_d_Page_181.QC.jpg
dd98f3e725fcef6f7f06d2b21f3b22e8
b903453f3eb85ed5bcc11e9ee7886824680dd87b
2045 F20101115_AAAHMJ cohen_d_Page_127.txt
0675415179830feaa0c72ec566d54393
9f3c3d04b9756593b84022b13924a7441f85963c
22702 F20101115_AAAHLU cohen_d_Page_001.jp2
142ef23e14726f6048ce95bcd447ad94
2db6d1a7574867ca4fd510a9ef6a1dca25dc3627
4535 F20101115_AAAIOX cohen_d_Page_181thm.jpg
7020ba6b260c1c7185a868897034af91
4215877df8fbc7c913a37b84737a616b3fc80fa4
22497 F20101115_AAAHMK cohen_d_Page_139.QC.jpg
f07c3bcc68fb9820b84532909b0861b0
82efe6c45aa25e31047a398748f5a36b9fd9302b
F20101115_AAAHLV cohen_d_Page_054.tif
f3a4b39b082aaa6cc0cc44ed58b1e5e6
19486b811cd88b0ca18176af0084f25e3253469e
7542 F20101115_AAAIOY cohen_d_Page_182.QC.jpg
dc060dea267cbcb19165337987b449e3
101c2b23a47804af40e7b9b9592151afa61d1d57
6422 F20101115_AAAHML cohen_d_Page_023thm.jpg
2d2b9a5cdb605b156a3bee3c2f227a56
04c22f4ba8defa778f8ec1468df356ccafd53d1d
68105 F20101115_AAAHLW cohen_d_Page_103.jpg
caea9d844be20d1229c03740160622ad
cc778bf7c062ccb561ebc810485ed9613d2d618f
13818 F20101115_AAAIOZ cohen_d_Page_183.QC.jpg
ad848cca59105a5709920a28708ae906
7950ffed51dc8bbb0f112039dbf8d418fed57d6f
F20101115_AAAHNA cohen_d_Page_033.tif
d5e80d233d1ee2ce41581eed2babc6fc
4236551530ee4604b77644a15c74d055210be242
99177 F20101115_AAAHMM cohen_d_Page_149.jp2
2a6754ff48203bf4311aa6beed94dfb5
9cc302f3d54c2c1f0ce3daccc13bcce3885cd0e1
2285 F20101115_AAAHLX cohen_d_Page_178thm.jpg
ebc66dbb70d4c44d1de5500a7bbef7b0
4ab6caf5f7c6a2c6fcbd508136bff50851d4e58b
22809 F20101115_AAAHNB cohen_d_Page_064.QC.jpg
b499556f9a1e181c1d7e2266124961e7
4f5316e3464cc4200ea5fd244c491184c3bc2340
6101 F20101115_AAAHLY cohen_d_Page_083thm.jpg
f54e09b42372953c8bbf0b8062badb96
b76f58fee8f8e0a355a858ee61ae215da55f3df8
79827 F20101115_AAAHNC cohen_d_Page_161.jp2
8cb8d48be98cc9aeb4e58c5a0b9abf4e
0c9edfd30ac2b73946d625907e16e38eab6070b2
6014 F20101115_AAAHMN cohen_d_Page_147thm.jpg
fe95087b9a104d71a5687b337c255b26
e07d666beefe8b4bf8796b941f6471fcb1e3159d
44581 F20101115_AAAHLZ cohen_d_Page_183.jpg
560329dc5f0a2f7452d17d76cc722620
877dd7c1dce0e953300179b69607e6ae9cc3b60f
101573 F20101115_AAAHND cohen_d_Page_112.jp2
bc94e65279618e490ecfce3ed6b8d0c5
2d69300b1a5fcd5937008c8c45fd0fa0aa43858b
1091 F20101115_AAAHMO cohen_d_Page_181.txt
5ed4e89587b7d1e0c26b474b11abb93b
8a6d10fa2f4230159316c3bccb8a6308ae942788
F20101115_AAAHNE cohen_d_Page_185.tif
dd71204f7d3c2df8e36f68a955313f98
1050c4621b6808ad3e6aae8e77e7b3407eb01842
6710 F20101115_AAAHMP cohen_d_Page_060thm.jpg
c7d3e48eb2a411ade0c8acd4ec167999
9420e421a756b367e207bd6f066edc057c0a3347
18412 F20101115_AAAHMQ cohen_d_Page_161.QC.jpg
ea90679c88179f645e00f0535d371ad6
ff47ddd308547c32e3fda11946711d35dfb09e5a
72211 F20101115_AAAHNF cohen_d_Page_048.jpg
42833f6d4ddb05771434c539207cb80b
e0b2e3349f1137836dbf4aa24397b88b5c0dc801
15579 F20101115_AAAHMR cohen_d_Page_043.QC.jpg
233e5946f2348c3fd706e47f3dcfb998
cac1d1b9fd6b90f8318746eec33e1cdc0c23f233
68152 F20101115_AAAHNG cohen_d_Page_030.jpg
6c6ce668411932b6c880f5dbd7fbcc59
964a0511606017365f56375ea3e32c18f33d5748
22245 F20101115_AAAHMS cohen_d_Page_001.jpg
92f4c1d509d4fdfb37a453e4b7c9ffab
6afc1b44c94e40f5e5c5df5f682623f6a343a3d8
21968 F20101115_AAAHNH cohen_d_Page_194.jp2
a46a64a4602f5b2a42e763c54b10f1b1
88e463ad5047f4c5a3f4b334b80a0d578728eec1
22196 F20101115_AAAHMT cohen_d_Page_045.QC.jpg
7823e1518212302bbdbd0d6b8965bd91
0761123b9ad3aefde166bd76674a7b0f9d8ddd29
1807 F20101115_AAAHNI cohen_d_Page_112.txt
8d323c6a2aac6f8d92bc42c187e1eb8a
d8d3143cc070d39f237b53fc669a213db3a174a0
70103 F20101115_AAAHMU cohen_d_Page_046.jpg
a80e85d68ec50b21ca10dc4e4c64b7c4
67d377debca6d2d09358ea0c2819701ba0555dfa
6113 F20101115_AAAHNJ cohen_d_Page_059thm.jpg
c38b606679647083aa6fe5585a3454f4
2510dd442a33ce89b2ab7b10f390afd3cd7c3990
2217 F20101115_AAAHMV cohen_d_Page_086.txt
b8c8cba9d71467f255a7c15166bdb6b5
c95f7a0941167e36d941011dfed3d8b527e4ce56
6463 F20101115_AAAHNK cohen_d_Page_016thm.jpg
be2cfeabe58b9e71b0f5bca83c423ba7
165880821f1efe93856e7203fe4bb0d23f4ad10b
38319 F20101115_AAAHMW cohen_d_Page_105.pro
a54a7063babece62448ca02fdf06bca8
8b4e514c878cef77b844fc6f265dbdb3e67c4e6d
F20101115_AAAHNL cohen_d_Page_155.tif
63936d117194ccfebd54d6f44c4b4656
d0a42083c76cd22b0b564bec10866c460805d647
50241 F20101115_AAAHMX cohen_d_Page_108.pro
86dff2438f53dd8b29182d2c1a439207
65a54e0c998779e965721a455b952853daac7488
71894 F20101115_AAAHOA cohen_d_Page_013.jpg
38c665314e9c20353133dbf980c7c5d8
c876984a402df37b91c6acb3120491cd327e55a7
6053 F20101115_AAAHNM cohen_d_Page_077thm.jpg
310bd14c4392675d6cdb9483efefa10e
25572e785497fe9cc7bb1631ce4c4fd182142177
1813 F20101115_AAAHMY cohen_d_Page_011.txt
35c79552b32be7734134a4d475975e4b
ee38ba4b581764ca95f094cc272d12629b4badb2
63610 F20101115_AAAHOB cohen_d_Page_052.jpg
f310d5861e2a27af828a51b69ddd30b4
ef3b255f098bb0b3c7dfd49b582caec0bfd13812
20294 F20101115_AAAHNN cohen_d_Page_166.QC.jpg
42658e39d805215220457af46f513187
6a2a526f8da6e4a6ccaef5ba019bc92ba9ca9c30
1948 F20101115_AAAHMZ cohen_d_Page_102.txt
da91f531a28efa44ff65c336688dfb0c
1156f9f4c64164e30e75b844bd88ced3dbc21cdf
10978 F20101115_AAAHOC cohen_d_Page_004.QC.jpg
1a1ce774d510d02fbb27047b8c98c6e9
a80b1b3c8b7fab3854f2e51c0548bd4648edc396