Unlike a public event, with the press asking questions, a Web announcement is completely under the control of the campaign; it can be filmed over and over again until it is flawless, at the same time conveying a sense of intimacy and spontaneity.

That would be extremely new and innovative indeed. It's not at all like a TV commercial.

on intertube politics, lemme see if i can find it.

he thought joke line would be a good person to ask about edwards' populism. but no wimmin were worthy enough to make the cut on his list of political analysists. back to the kitchen, wench.

through the web must be what they are talking about. The transparency, and ability to communicate messages across a broad spectrum. It is very hard for those in power to deal with. The macaca moment is legendary in that sense. George Allen was supposed to be the hand picked successor to the George Bush White House, and he did not even win his Senate Seat.

The rise of the non-profit NGO, the organic rise of movement after movement. I can think of dozens off the top of my head, from the local food movement, the bike happenings, microlending. These types of things just emerged, have no leadership to speak of and are beyond belief large and growing in the world today.

They cannot be ignored. They contribute to the inexorable pressure on issues of global warming, peak oil, conservation, protection of endangered species.

A very very positive trend. I wouldn't even call it media, so much as a means of communication that is UN-mediated. There is no lens through which observations can be made.

A beautiful thing.

... The Huffington Post, as an example — where I am currently participating in the development of political coverage...

The powers-that-be are always well aware of the workings of media because they know the power of media to make and break them. Ergo, they do all they can to control media as far as possible, e.g., through corporate consolidation. Where they can't control it, they seek to either influence it or even suppress it.

Commenting as someone who was an anti-war activist in the Vietnam era, it was obvious to the activists of the time that we are largely fighting a media war with the Nixon administration. We did things specifically to get media attention, such as mass marches. It didn't surprise activists to see much of what we did either not reported, incorrectly reported, or distorted.

In addition, we lacked a communications connection linking up the broader anti-war movement. The corporate media were submerging us and doing their best to sabotage us, and we did not have an effective alternative to reach our own people quickly other than by word of mouth. At that time, it is was pretty much only the alternative papers that carried the message, but that was a drop in the bucket and way behind the curve as events unfolded rapidly. As a result the anti-war movement was severely hampered. It wasn't the anti-war movement that did Nixon in, it was Judge Sirica and the tapes.

The Right later concocted the "stab-in the back" spin blaming US ignominious withdrawal when victory was in grasp on the lack of will of the US public due to the liberal media and the anti-war movement, for which Jane Fonda in Hanoi became the poster-child. That was just BS. Activists realized that they were pretty powerless in the face of the military-corporatist-governmental complex, and like now now, Dems controlled both branches of Congress and the unlike now, the courts were fairly liberal, including SCOTUS. It was Nixon's hubris and stupidity that did him in, and otherwise he would probably have pulled it off. As it is, all his people are now back running (ruining) things again.

The internet has changed all that big-time. This is not yet widely recognized, other than by the activists and the ruling elite. The rulers are waking up to the challenge they face in manipulating the news in the face of the instant and widely available internet response, as well as the role that the internet plays as an organizational and fund-raising tool. Be assured that they will do all they can to undermine this new force they now face.

Therefore, it is necessary to use this opportunity effectively while it still exists in pretty much a free form. If authoritarian government grows stronger, expect attempt to restrict the communications capability of the net in serving the opposition. For example, the anti-terrorism laws now in place can be interpreted in such a way as to suppress dissent outside of the legal system.

The state department is still part of the Bush/Cheney executive is it not? What got me were the numerous references to the Netroots, and specifically Daily Kos, Open Left... On the "Right" Ron Paul, blah blah blah... I'm used to straight up propaganda coming out of any department of the Bush executive. This article was basically just as one might find posted on Huff Post. Really, what gives? Did this just creep under the radar (posted on the front page) or is there a deeper conspiracy at work here?