Interestingly, the nefarious looking folks with flip cameras at the back of your next campaign event or town hall meeting might not be all that . . . nefarious.

Case in point: Chris Shank is a Maryland State Delegate from Washington County (he’s also an alum of our Graduate School of Political Management and a professor in program). When the Herald-Mail editorial page slammed Delegate Shank on May 12, supporters didn’t just write in to the editor supporting Shank – one of them also posted video.

Rex Harrill, a resident of Haggerstown, took his digicam to a speaking appearance held by Delegate Shank the next day, uploaded six minutes of video onto YouTube, and included a link in his letter. In the video, Delegate Shank discusses his role as a public servant. The video isn’t perfect, but it feels patriotic and authentic in ways that a typical political message can no longer convey.

I asked Delegate Shank about the impact this one little video made on his role as a state legislator:

I was fascinated by the integration of old-media and new-media. For years, we’ve been relying on letters to the editor to provide campaign messaging in down-ballot races. Here was something new, however, that provided a new media tool to provide un-filtered, no cost, messaging directly to my constituents. It also bypassed the negative messaging that the newspaper was hitting me with. The message from my constituent that was so refreshing was –”see for yourself.”

I also asked him about the rather – ahem – small viewership. When I tuned in this week, the video only had 50 views. Can you really change the district with 50 years?

The fact that only 51 people viewed it really wasn’t that big of a deal, I have a pretty small district. The whole episode has provided me with the desire to utilize the technology far more to connect with my constituents. I’ve always run as a grassroots guy and I see how this could really help facilitate that connection pretty easily.

Couple this response with my interview with Ric Cantrell from Utah a few weeks ago, and I can see that we are beginning to build a portfolio on how online communications is taking off on a state level.

Right now, I’m watching the President of the Utah State Senate on my desktop.

Nope, it’s not a live stream of C-SPAN coverage. It’s not even footage on the Utah State Senate’s YouTube Channel (though there is that, too). There’s also a blog and a text message application and a podcast.

I’m watching Senate President John Valentine’s office on a live webcam. I can see what he’s doing and – most importantly – with whom he is meeting. So can you. Explorer users only (sorry, Mac and Firefox users) can go to http://senatesite.com/senatesight.html.

It feels intimate, open, and exciting – three words not always associated with the online communications of an elected officials. This afternoon, I talked with the creator of the SENATEcam, Ric Cantrell, the Chief Deputy of the Utah State Senate. Cantrell says the web cam “Serves to demystify the halls of power.” As he explains it, somewhere in Utah, an elementary student might access the web cam as part of a school project and realize, looking into the Senate President’s office that “this is what I want to do when I grow up.”

Why do I like it? Instead of talking about what he does all day, Senate President Valentine is showing it. He’s walking the democratic walk, not just talking the democratic talk.

Of course, there is the little voice inside me – the one who sat through several course on the philosophy of science. “But the web cam is just like a microscope,” says the little voice “and when you put things beneath a microscope – when you observe thing s—the way they behave starts to change.” But that little voice gets quieter and quieter the more I play with SENATEcam. A louder voice emerges, and it’s saying “FTW!!1!” Translation: “Cool!”

I just wanted to link to a new Obama supporter-created online video that has been making waves in the Internet over the past couple days. Barack Obama as Rocky and Hillary Clinton as Apollo Creed.

Baracky: The Movie (note: I’m having trouble embedding this, so I have to only link)

I touched on political online video a few months ago here, and this new video definitely holds true with my earlier thoughts. At first watch, this video seemed to be a little wonkier than the all-appealing Yes We can, Hillary 1984 and Obama Girl videos. While I still believe that Baracky:The Movie’s target audience understands and closely follows electoral politics, it succeeds in drawing in the general public with its use of the Rocky theme, one that is especially fitting for today’s Pennsylvania primary. The metrics back up its viral appeal because as of today Baracky: The Movie has received over half a million views.

The hot topic of discussion today in IPDI labs was the use of viral online political video by each of the three remaining major campaigns. We began the discussion after poking fun at some newly emerging viral videos from Sen. Clinton supporters, most notably this music video that was drawing comparisons to the 1972 Nixon Now advertisement.

In light of the success of three Obama viral videos (Yes We Can, Obama Girl and Hillary 1984) that combined for 15 million views on YouTube, it has become a political reality that video not originating from the campaign can have incredible effects. That being said, more often than not, political videos go nowhere (other providing fodder for Wonkette) and this Hillary video is exhibit A. A lighthearted piece that was clearly trying to take a piece of the “cool” pie away from Obama and cash in on other musical videos about the candidates, fell flat on its face for obvious reasons. The videos that have worked best for each candidates are ones that were rooted in the overarching theme of the campaign.

For the Obama camp, viral videos are easier to create because his campaign values of hope, inspiration and change are ones that resonate with the youngest cohort of voters, which are the same people who have grown up on the Internet. The Hillary 1984 ad works well for them because it is based on the idea of a radical change from the mundane, based on an old technology commercial. The Obama Girl video uses some popular culture overtones, sexual appeal and a catchy tune. The Yes We Can video is the penultimate example of a video capturing the campaigns themes, as it is the Obama campaign in lyrical form (whether or not its good for democracy is another question for another post).

All of Obama’s video play on the same messages and themes that created his movement and have propelled him into the race that he and Clinton are currently engaged in. While completely different from Obama’s theme, McCain has similarly used his campaign messages to craft the video that his campaign is putting forward. One of the better examples is an online only advertisement produced by the campaign called Courageous Service (truth in advertising: this was created by the husband of IPDI’s Director). This video is much longer than the three Obama examples, but it capitalizes on some of McCain’s key campaign themes and speaks to the online audience that supports McCain. McCain followers, like Hillary followers, aren’t going to respond as well to a scantily clad woman dancing around or a bunch of young music and Hollywood stars singing as the Obama crowd does. Rather, campaigns like McCain’s and Clinton’s that are succeeding on the basis of policy discussions should have video that reflects that, just as the video succeeding for the Obama campaign are well-rooted in the concept of hope that is driving the campaign.

Hillary started off her video strategy on the right foot with her online announcement of her intention to run for President and the online conversations that followed. The problem is that she has since strayed from that with the Hillary 4 U & Me video and prior to that this Behind the Music parody that was about 6-years too late to be funny. Clinton needs to focus on her experience and her policy prowess in her online video whether its created by the campaign or not. Otherwise, her videos will end up on Wonkette much more often than they receive the quantity of free media that Obama has.

What do you do when suspect that the chairman of your Commission on Elections received bribes to support a bid from Chinese company to provide your country’s broadband network?

If belong to Filipino group TxtPower, then you post a catchy protest video on YouTube and produce a ring tone. And you produce them in record time – placing your message in the phones and the screens about as quickly as the news hits the media.

This week, President Gloria Arroyo announced that investigations into allegations of a bribery scandal involving Chinese company Zhong Xing Telecommunication Equipment Corp. (ZTE) and Benjamin Abalos, Chairman of the Commission on Elections in Philippines turned up nothing.

Arroyo had previously suspended a $330 million contract awarded from the government to ZTE to provide the country’s broadband network pending the outcome of these investigations.

TxTPower was more than a little skeptical of Arroyo’s decision, and posted the video ZTE Scandal on YouTube a few days ago.

They also launched a ringtone on the TxtPower website, which we were unable to access.

In 2004, we saw an animated John Kerry dancing to the theme song from “Flipper.”

Today, if you want to throw a term like “flip-flopper” at a presidential candidate, then you have to bring more web stuff to the table. Stuff like point-counterpoint issue statements, t-shirts, web video, PowerPoint presentations, a searchable online database of campaign contributions and a citizen journalist toolkit – so that everyman and everywoman can conduct a little opposition research of their own (then report back to the party, of course).

That’s what the Massachusetts Democratic Party did with RomneyFacts.com, a site designed shed light on Romney’s statements as a presidential candidate and make light of any flip-flopping. There’s also a hefty dose of do-it-yourself information to help bloggers and concerned citizens do their own research on Romney.

The Boston Globe quotes the Dean of GW’s Graduate School of Political Management (and IPDI’s interim director) F. Christopher Arterton:

It’s obviously a new application of the Internet, and it strikes me that . . . we’ll probably soon have equivalent sites for all the candidates.

Sites like these are fun to play around with – especially if you vehemently oppose a candidate, but can they really harm a candidate’s chances?

Boston Daily thinks probably not:

Perhaps a determined blogger with a mind for finance will make a significant find in the documents RomneyFacts.com posted, but the attention-grabbing contradictory quotes on the home page won’t hurt Romney much.

We’re wondering if RomneyFacts will develop a widget like the WashingtonPost.com’s Issue Tracker that will allow anti-Romney Democrats to track and compare campaign issue statements with previous performances.

For all those who thought the net neutrality debate was over, think again. AT&T and British broadband providers have rekindled the fire of the pro-net neutrality folks out there on two different fronts.

First, during Pearl Jam’s Lollapalooza performance, which was broadcasted on AT&T’s online entertainment video site called the Blue Room, the company (they say by accident) cut the following lyrics during one of the bands songs:

“George Bush, leave this world alone, George Bush find yourself another home.”

Now at first AT&T said a third party content monitor for the concert got too excited and decided, without permission, to cut the rock group’s politically charged words. However since the event occurred, CNET, MTV, the LA Times and Chicago Sun-Times are all reporting that this isn’t the first time AT&T has censored political statements while allowing swear words to go out over music broadcasts. The Internet policy watchdog Public Knowledge and WIRED Magazine’s Listening Post blog are also reporting that according to an AT&T employee, there is a standing policy at the website to cut any political messages during broadcasts.

AT&T has since apologized for the whole mess but it hasn’t stopped net neutrality proponents from saying that this is just another example of why laws need to be put in place to ensure that content cannot be discriminated against by broadband service providers.

In the United Kingdom, the BBC’s launch of their new” iplayer” online service, which allows you to watch BBC shows to your computer, is stirring up a lot of trouble. Major telecom companies are threatening to slow down the BBC’s traffic unless they pay additional fees because continued expansion of the BBC’s service and other video websites are beginning to put a strain on their systems. Some have argued that this is just a way for ISP to charge more for service without providing additional bandwidth or updating their networks.

The debate continues….

The New Politics Institute just launched the second batch of its New Tools Campaign, highlighting three new tools for progressive political campaigns.

The toolkit includes memos on mobile tech, video and microtargeting:

Go Mobile Now by Jed Alpert and Chris Muscarella

How You, Too, Can Get Video Online by Dan Manatt

An Introduction to Microtargeting in Politics by Mark Steitz and Laura Quinn

The site also hints at a memo on social networking, but we weren’t able to find it online . . . yet.

Reports this morning suggest the Republican YouTube debate is falling apart. The Giuliani campaign says Rudy won’t come. They’re blaming CNN, claiming that the cable network failed to consult with them before picking a date.

Mitt Romney, meanwhile, isn’t a fan of the format:

“I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman,” he said in an interview yesterday.

What on earth are these guys scared of? Hard questions? Young people? Snowmen? The decision really puts Romney and Giuliani in a terrible light. From Patrick Ruffini:

This is a big mistake. The Democrats are afraid to answer questions from Big Bad Fox News Anchors, and the Republicans are afraid to answer questions from regular people. Which is worse?

It’s stuff like this that will set the GOP back an election cycle or more on the Internet. No matter the snazzy Web features and YouTube videos they may put up, if they’re fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea of interacting with real people online, what’s the point?

Having spent the better part of a decade working at the intersection of politics and the Web, I can’t help but feel of a deep, deep sense of dismay that we’re missing something so basic. This is EXACTLY why I am afraid that we will be outraised by $100 million or more in 2008.

Yes, some of the questions on Monday were trivial. Yes, they were partisan. (I expect many of the 9/17 questioners to be partisan Republicans.) Yes, they were messy. But so is democracy. And the fact that some place so much faith in the broken mainstream media over a benign format like this one says a lot about the difficult straits the Republicans are in right now.

Check out further disappointment from Republican consultant David All. He and Ruffini have already started a petition at SaveTheDebate.

Obviously, you’ve got to agree with All and Ruffini. Romney and Giuliani look painfully out of touch. Think of it this way: in the Dem CNN/YouTube debate, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton got asked about their race and gender, respectively, in a way that would never happen between a candidate and a Beltway journalist. Take the marine stationed in Japan who wonders how a President Hillary could talk with Arab leaders. You could tell he almost felt bad asking the question- he defensively says he thinks it’s legitimate. That’s something that real people wonder, but Clinton gave a flawless answer. She may have even changed some minds. Same for Obama, who had the funniest line of the night with his ‘cab in Manhattan’ quip.

Romney,  Giuliani, and the rest of the Republican candidates should jump at the chance to engage in a YouTube style debate and address real questions from voters, instead of retreating from it.

As we enter the final moments of the CNN/YouTube Democratic Debates, I can’t help wondering: who are the candidates having a direct dialogue with? Anderson Cooper? Each other? George Bush?

Shucks! I thought they were supposed to be talking to Americans like me.

After all, the debate incorporated dozens of questions, which, by and large, were actually pretty darn tough. I hate to brag, but I have to pat ourselves on the back for throwing some hard balls. And I have to give us, the American people, some credit for appearing on TV, unpolished (though slightly edited by CNN, it appears, for time), without makeup or lighting — just real people talking about things we care about.

So who were the candidates conversing with? Not me. And, most of the time, not the people asking the questions.

I don’t think they ignored us on purpose. I think they were swept up by the moment, the crowd in the audience, each other, the host. Instead of talking to America, they bickered with the White House, each other, and they argued with Anderson Cooper about how many seconds they had left.

We saw an old-school style debate for a YouTube audience.

That’s why I’ve compiled a short list of things I’d like to see next time:

• First and foremost, answer our questions. Running down bunny trails and changing the subject makes us feel like you’re a) uncertain and b) dismissing our ideas and thoughts. The reason why almost 3,000 posted questions on YouTube is because we want you to answer them.
• American voters don’t want you to use the CNN/YouTube debate to attack each other. We want to see what you have to say about yourself, not what you have to say about your opponent.
• If someone asks you a question on YouTube, then answer that person. Don’t answer Anderson Cooper. He didn’t ask you the question. Look in the camera and answer the person.
• We didn’t come for a lecture or a sermon. Talk to us, not down to us. And certainly don’t shout at us.
• Unless you know you have great comic timing, rethink telling jokes. They come across somewhat uncomfortable and, well, lame (even when we like you). We’re looking for a leader, not a jokester.
• We understand that two hour-debates are tricky. But please don’t take notes while we’re talking to you. Appear to listen. You most likely wouldn’t take notes while you were in the middle of a conversation would you?