“Wait you want me to tell you what my husband thinks?  My husband is not the Secretary of State; I am.  So you ask my opinion and I will tell you my opinion, but I am not going to be channeling my husband.” (ITN)

Hillary Clinton’s response to a Congolese university student’s question has been characterized as everything from a temper tantrum to justified, but what is certain is that the highly popular video will survive forever on the Internet. We take a look at two classic cases of politicians caught up in the moment, and the varying opinions on how new media and video immortalization have impacted the nation’s politics.  

Who can forget George Allen’s infamous Mucaca slur at a campaign stop in 2006?

“This fella’ here over here with the yellow shirt, Mucaca, or whatever his name is, he’s with my opponent following us around everywhere.  And it’s just great we’re going to places all over Virginia, and he’s having it on film and it’s great to have you here and show it to your opponent because he’s never been there and probably will never come.” (YouTube)

The slur was a media headache for the campaign and highlighted how careful politicians must be with the abundance of easily transportable recording devices. As the Herald Tribune reported in May, the ability to capture and quickly disseminate a rival’s so-called “Mucaca moment” has become a highly valued tactic in campaigns.  

“In its manual, the National Republican Senatorial Committee warns campaigns to tape every public event where their opponents speak, and to be prepared for their opponent to do the same in the hunt for YouTube material.”  

Such constant vigilance and the viral popularity of these moments can often have devastating effects. The Howard “Dean Scream” that was a favorite of televisions stations and Web sites might have cost him a Democratic presidential candidate bid in 2004.

“Not only are we going to New Hampshire Tom Harkin, we’re going to South Carolina and Oklahoma, and Arizona, and North Dakota and New Mexico.  We’re going to California and Texas and New York and we’re going to South Dakota and we’re going to Oregon and Washington, and Michigan and then were going to Washington D.C. to take back the White House – BEEYAAAAHHH”

But in the documentary “Take It Back” which followed Dean’s campaign, the footage is shown with his audio mixed with the audio from the crowd rather than being isolated, providing a more realistic and entirely different perspective of the speech.  

“Not only are we going to New Hampshire Tom Harken were going to South Carolina and Oklahoma, and Arizona, and North Dakota and New Mexico.  We’re going to California and Texas and New York and we’re going to South Dakota and we’re going to Oregon and Washington, and Michigan and then were going to Washington D.C. to take back the White House – BEEYAAAAHHH”

In response to President Obama recent claim that the Harvard Police acted “stupidly” and the ensuing media buzz, Washington Post columnist Michael Kinsley believes the increasing scrutiny we are putting on our politician’s can be quite negative.  

“The more concerned you are to avoid saying anything wrong or offensive, the less likely you are to say anything inspiring or true.”

Is the trend to exploit a politician’s every word and reaction important for our understanding of a candidate, or could it do more harm than good?