Live Blogging Election 2008 Direct from NPR Studios

Dateline nprbloggers nprbloggers

Woo-hoo! It's official. The Spewker will be live blogging the presidential election direct from NPR World Headquarters in Washington, D.C. on election night. And I couldn't be any more excited!!

Okay. That's not exactly true. I could be more excited. For instance, I could start jumping on the couch and screaming at the top of my lungs about how much I love a country that lets an obscure unheralded blogger like me play political pundit on the most important night of the year. But then, what's the point? Pulling a Tom Cruise is already so done and tired it's cliche. Besides, it's no fun to go completely bonkers without a live audience to appreciate the level to which I could completely lose it.

I don't think my little family qualifies as an audience. Not yet, anyway.

So, join me here in this very spot on election night. Bookmark it if you have to. This article will be regularly updated beginning at approximately 8:00 p.m. on November 4th and continuing until they've called a winner. I'll have all the election news that's fit to print and maybe some that isn't. You might laugh. You might cry. You might even see a wee bit of video.

Because live blogging is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.

Nov 4th 12:23 a.m. - Drat. I may not be able to sleep tonight. My inbox is brimming with press information, NPR World Headquarters PR, NPR correspondent bios, guest blogger guidelines, specs on next day coverage, and quite frankly, my head is spinning.

Going over everything now to avoid having a cow on my way to Union Station. Or maybe I'll drive in and take my chances with parking. Can't be any worse than the 4th of July.

For anyone tuning in early, you won't believe all the social media these NPR people have cobbled together. An election blog, a streaming Twitter report, an unverified voter reporting map, a voting problems aggregator, and an extremely impressive press room wiki -- I'm still navigating all the links.

Wow! CurrentTV is also covering the election using VoteReport. Their program starts at 9 a.m. That's less than nine hours away! Advocacy groups, news reporters, and anyone with a gripe about the election can tune in early and monitor these reports, hopefully do something to fix any broken situation rather than just sit there and grumble.

I can see it now. By the time I reach NPR Headquarters, I'll be running on pure adrenaline. One hundred twenty people doing live coverage with live mikes broadcasting our every word, sniffle, and sound bite. OMG!

I can't wait.

2:35 a.m. - I just found the coolest vote tracking map ever. It's interactive. Can't wait to see how it tracks the returns. Just one caveat: It's from FoxNews. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

2:58 a.m. - Dixville Notch, NH is the first jurisdiction to register a win for Obama-Biden. With 100% turnout, no less. Hoo-ah! FoxNews map hasn't changed one iota.

Come on, peeples. Get out there and vote!!

2:00 p.m. - Still haven't left Baltimore. My scheduled dentist appointment took longer than I thought. Such a pity too. These lovely ladies were standing outside of a local elementary school willing to give rides to the polls.

Sadly, I didn't get their video up in time. The free rides ended at 1:00 p.m. But these women are such a dedicated bunch, I decided to give them the extra recognition they deserve.

Doing my part, however ineptly.

Earlier today I happened upon my friend and relative Greg G. Greg is shaking up the election with his own exit poll at Pikesville Senior High (video to post a little later). Follow Greg's unique election coverage with video, live updates, and news at Baltimore Jewish.com.

4:30 p.m. - Leaving for D.C (finally)! Just might miss traffic if I hurry up. Darn computer. Needs disk space, no time to compress. YouTube video of Sandy Rosenberg hot off the presses (finally). Oh no. Must be a conspiracy. Even YouTube is against me. The video didn't load. At least that's what my YouTube account is showing.

Taking an additional laptop to NPR just in case my world weary steed won't free up ram. Crossing all body parts. Wishing for the best.

Approx. 6:30 p.m. - Dateline: NPR studios. I've arrived. Only took about two hours down the parkway in intermittent rain. And the most confusing split in Massachusetts Avenue right where the NPR building stands. Let's just say, I'm lucky to have set up and to have made it here on time.

Still getting to know my table, a small set up in the corner of the room. Mostly comprised of NPR employees. In the middle sit the majority of tonight's bloggers, a fine mix of tech, politics, and social media. But since I'm trying to work off two computers at the same time, I thought it best not to take up too much extra space.

On the way over the radio talking heads debated The Fairness Doctrine, early voting in Maryland, exit poll returns, etc. Polls are closing in some key states. According to the TV news Obama seems to be leading in Kentucky, "very very early in the game." But don't let that discourage all you McCain supporters. According to Fox News, democracy requires that everybody vote. Hurry up! In some parts of the country you still have time.

Most of the TV and radio pundits are saying the election turning point was the September meltdown of Wall Street. But I disagree. I say it was McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as running mate. Good for Conservatives, bad for Independents and disaffected Democrats. At one point in this election I could have gone either way, but with the selection of Palin, well, that was the final straw.

Appx. 7:00 p.m. - They're starting to call Kentucky for McCain. But still too early, although about 8,000 votes are in. Vermont called (again early) for Obama. If so, McCain now leads in the electoral college.

Mark Warner projected winner in Virginia for U.S. Senate.

Appx. 7:45 p.m. - Just came back from the studio tour given by Amy Schriefer of All Songs Considered. Three people at a time, I wanted to be one of the first volunteers. Hopefully, if I ever get today's Sandy Rosenberg video to load, I'll have whatever video I was able to get of the studio posted.

Ah, finally (fer real this time). Ladies and gentlemen, Delegate Sandy Rosenberg:

Appx 8:00 p.m. - Yes we can!! NPR just called a slew of states for Obama. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and D.C. They are saying that Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are must wins for McCain. But now McCain is the projected loser in Pennsylvania, although called the winner in Oklahoma, Kentucky, Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennesee.

And now they're projecting Elizabeth Dole as a loser in her election race. Can you believe that? No more Liddy Dole! The horror.

Some grumbles in the blogger room about NPR projecting Pennsylvania way too early for Obama. No other news organization is making that call ... except ... Al Jezeera (credit to someone at the big blogger table -- didn't see who). Very funny.

Can hear cheers in the background of the current NPR broadcaster. Seems like a lot of people are psyched about those early calls for Obama. About 170 electoral college votes. Obama is almost half way there.

Colorado polls are still open apparently. NPR is broadcasting from a McCain support center. The lady says they are still calling people to get out the vote. So if you're a voter in Colorado and you still haven't voted....what in the world are you waiting for?

Appx 8:30 p.m. - Whew! NPR is no longer out on limb projecting PA for Obama. MSNBC and CBS News are now on board. If these folks are correct, it's a very big loss for John McCain.

Appx 8:50 p.m. - Obama-Biden headquarters are starting to heat up with excited supporters. John Dickerson reports from Chicago that there are six spotlights pointed to the sky, "presumably preparing for Obama's ascent to heaven." Can't tell if he's a supporter or detractor. Actually, I think I recall his earlier broadcast of a vote for Obama, but don't hold me to that.

Projected 80% turnout for voting. Hmph! I thought it would be way higher.

Now projecting Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Wisconsin for Obama, North Dakota and Wyoming for McCain.

Appx 9:10 p.m. - Washington Post has a nice stream. They're refusing to call PA for Obama, probably out of an abundance of caution. Their team of pundits are now saying that the only way for McCain to hold on is to win all the red states for Bush in the last election plus a swing state. That's a lot to live up to, even for McCain. I don't think he can pull it off. It's 9:10 p.m. and I'm calling this election for Obama.

You heard it here first.

Georgia called for McCain. Big swath of red in the south. And now there's some red states showing on top of the map as well. Wyoming and North Dakota for McCain. There must be some kind of correlation between the people living in those big country states and the south. Far be it from me to suggest the commonalities. I'll leave that to you to figure out.

Appx 9:25 - The camera guys are here. Popping pictures all over the place. Maybe I'll download some and post here.

In the meantime, even The Washington Post has called PA for Obama. And NPR is calling Ohio for Obama. Richard Cohen from The Washington Post says this election is a vindication for Lyndon Johnson. Who would have ever thought the civil rights movement would forever go down in history as his baby.... Surely not Martin Luther King.

Appx 9:40 p.m. We're having an amazing round table discussion about the election and what a historic Obama-Biden victory will mean. Phrases like "fruition of a dream cut short in the late 1960s," "Americans voting for President based on the country they want to live in," "wanting a President who's smarter than me," and "Conservative voters hijacking the Republican party" are piquing my interest in another video. Still waiting for the NPR Studios composite to load. But if my computer speeds up, I may be able to post a video capturing the spirit of an impending Obama victory.

10:55 p.m. - Washington Post put Louisiana in McCain's column. Big duh.

10:10 p.m. - New Mexico called for Obama. After almost an hour of downloading 22 minutes of the NPR studio tour, the program malfunctioned. Can you believe that? No? Neither can I.

Eh, not much going on here really. A few bloggers have left, a sizeable amount are on break. Pundits reduced to how John McCain will save face and maintain his reputation.

More on the "I can't believe that just happened" front - while I was out at the buffet, I heard an NPR program where they were discussing our round table "fruition of a dream" discussion. Coincidence? I think not.

10:45 p.m. - Just wrapped my video with Terrance Heath - an in depth discussion about race and religion and recreation of our round table discussion. Good stuff!

Virginia just called for Obama. Hoo-ah!

10:55 p.m. - Colorado called for Obama by The Washington Post, but NPR is still staying neutral. Big shocker of the night - Virginia called for Obama and North Carolina still too close to call. And talk about Florida... 83% precincts reporting with 49% for McCain and 51% for Obama. Looks like tonight's story will be Virginia and Ohio. And "as Ohio goes, so goes the nation..."

11:00 p.m. CNN calls the election for Obama! California tipped the election. You're witnessing history!

11:45 p.m. Computer froze. But I'm back. Have some great photos of the blogger room. Here's the scene during McCain's concession speech.








11:50 p.m. Barack Obama is expected to speak at the top of the hour. Just checked my email. A bunch of links from the other NPR live bloggers. Check out their articles:

writeslikeshetalks
Matador Pulse
siteview
arstechnia

Okay - Obama has taken the stage in Chicago. I need to hear this.

Nov. 5th 12:15 a.m. Obama just wrapped his speech. Hurrying to upload on YouTube. NPR wants to pack up and go home.

12:35 a.m. - Last video of the night. Yes we can! Thanks, NPR.

Over and out.

A Blogger Success Story: Rogue Interview with James Kotecki, Part II

This article is a continuation of an impromptu interview with video blogger James Kotecki that took place at the 2008 Politics Online Conference in Washington, D.C.

Part I of the interview can be found here. For more background about James Kotecki, check out his cheeky bathtub review.

SCPB: So, you don’t think at some point though, the old media is going to say, "Look, this is who we are, but bloggers, this is who you are and never the twain shall meet."

JK: Absolutely not, I mean, there’s an example at Politico.com where I work right now. We have people on staff. My title is video blogger although Politico is more of a mainstream organization. A lot of people came there from The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, other places like that. We have blogs that are written by reporters. There are sites like The Huffington Post which is known as a blog, it has its slant certainly, but on a number of issues it is still very credible and its analysis is at least – if you don’t agree with it – at least worth reading to see what that side of the aisle has to say.

SCPB: What makes somebody trust a site like, let’s say, The Huffington Post more so than they would trust a site like The Spewker that doesn't have any backing? I’m just writing it because this is what I think and feel. What is it that gives credibility to somebody who wants to get out there, start blogging, and find an audience?

JK: The credibility I got early on, and all I can really do is speak from my own experience, but, um, Emily actually asked me this early on, "Why should anyone believe in the analysis that you’re providing?" And I thought, well, I don’t know (laughter)...

SCPB: ...you don't know (laughter)...

JK: ... at first I didn’t know, but then I thought about it for a second and I realized if I continued to put out this analysis and I continued to do it consistently and build up a persona, and if I have a persona brand, if you will, of authenticity combined with humor, combined with legitimate information ...

Emily: It builds up trust.

JK: Yes, it builds up trust in people. The authenticity and the light-heartedness are probably part of that because you’re not taking yourself too seriously, too pompously. With the analysis I was providing, if people could think about it and it made sense to them, that's how I found my audience.

SCPB: I was one of your early followers, I just want you to know that.

JK: I appreciate that, I appreciate that very much.

SCPB: I saw you evolve on YouTube and it was quite exciting.

JK: Thank you. I think that’s how you build up trust, just keep putting it out there and if it’s consistent it should reach people. I mean, if nobody had believed anything I was saying about politicians who use YouTube, yeah, it wouldn’t have worked. But at a certain point, there’s a tipping point between building up enough people who trust what you say, then people will follow you and take credence in what you say. Especially if you get enough media mentions, then you are an expert. It doesn’t matter. Nothing else matters, basically. If you get enough media mentions, you’re an expert.

Eventually, The Economist said I was probably one of the most foremost experts on YouTube presidential candidates.

SCPB: That’s unbelievable.

JK: That was. I think that was kind of Economist snark, in a sense, because if you think about what they’re saying, it’s such a very narrowly defined expertise, it’s almost laughable.

SCPB: But it was in a year or less that this happened?

JK: Yes, that happened probably about five months after I started.

SCPB: Do you ever think that something like that could happen in the future again or is it just because you got in so early?

JK: Part of it was timing. And part of it, a big part of it was I picked the right topic, unbeknownst to me.

I thought it would be a good niche topic. I didn’t know how good of a niche it would be. It was the perfect confluence of the media really cared about it, very few people were talking about it or could talk about it credibly, and I was able to talk about it in a way that turned out to be compelling to people. In a sense, I was lucky to have picked that right topic.

SCPB: And I think you were lucky to have had Emily.

JK: Oh, absolutely. I had media consulting in Emily, but what I would say to people who were interested in kind of replicating some of that for their own subjects is keep playing. Definitely, micro-target on a niche, but don’t necessarily be married to the first one that you choose. I just did politics, maybe you have to go narrower. Maybe you have to move over to a niche that’s related to but isn’t the same as the small niche you've already done. Maybe you have to broaden it a little bit.

I think, it’s all about playing around with it. What’s so great about the Internet, YouTube, blogs, and everything else is it only costs your time and effort. It does not cost hardly any money to do. You can afford to play around with different topics and see what catches on. Then, once you find a thing that catches on, produce more of it. You’re not going to be able to know necessarily ahead of time what that is, although you can try to figure it out.

SCPB: But once that catches fire, just go with it, so to speak

JK: Once it goes, once you realize this could be something interesting, yes. I had kind of a gut feeling that, okay, YouTube and politics could be something really interesting. My topic was specifically about how presidential candidates are using YouTube officially in their campaigns. A topic that was very very niche, only a few other people even today have talked about it thoroughly, but especially at the time there were only other two places I knew of that were really talking about it at all.

I thought maybe the media would be interested in something like this because I think it's interesting. I didn’t know how soon it would happen, how quickly it would happen. But I realized early on that the topic would be beneficial to discuss if the media got involved in it too. Luckily, they did.

Part of the reason I was aware of the power of the mainstream media was because months before, a few months before I started video blogging, I did about thirty interviews in a week about scandal on Capitol Hill because I’m a former House page. A lot of news organizations contacted me in a very short period of time. It was a fascinating study into the power of the media to amplify a message. I was aware of that from the very beginning, although like I said, I would have been willing to play around with more topics had that one not stuck.

SCPB: You seem a little bit self-effacing, somebody who doesn’t think too much of themselves or maybe tries not to be too blown up, but I’m going to ask you this question anyway. Do you think you were responsible in some respects for the CNN/YouTube Debates?

JK: No. I think that was probably something CNN was thinking of, that YouTube was probably thinking about before I came into the picture. I think it would have happened without me too.

At the same time, when I first joined YouTube, there was no news and politics section. It was actually called "News and Blogs" which they broke into two sections, "People and Blogs" and then "News and Politics." I think they were already thinking about building out "News and Politics" for the election. I don’t know if they realized how big it would be and I don’t know when they had the idea for the YouTube Debates, but I was very gratified to be a small part of a chorus of people calling for more interaction between politicians and candidates.

Part of the reason I knew I was hitting the right notes in my analysis of YouTube and politics is because few other people were talking about it. As more people started to talk about it, they began to discuss new ideas.

I think everybody at the same time was coming up with a similar sense of an idea for how [the Internet and political elections] could really work and revolutionize how things were going. I’m just happy to be one of the people that was able to articulate that at the right time and at the right style to catch the fire.

SCPB: How old are you?

JK: Twenty-two.

SCPB: I have to say, your parents should be very proud of you.

JK: Thank you very much. I love my parents very much.

SCPB: And what part of the country are you from?

JK: Well, [Emily and I] are both from Raleigh, North Carolina originally. I moved there when I was four. She moved there when she was like, eleven. We went to high school together in Raleigh. And then we moved to D.C. She went to American University and I went to Georgetown.

SCPB: Well, thank you so much for this interview and this time. It’s so appreciated. I’m sure your fans out there are going to appreciate it too.

Follow James Kotecki at Politico and PoliticoPlaybook

A Blogger Success Story: Rogue Interview with James Kotecki, Part I

Plenty of times in my life, a door has opened but I passed it by. Not ready to enter. Too busy to enter. Or didn't think entering was a good idea.

I'd like to make excuses for letting so many months pass between the time of this interview and appearance of the article, but truth is I grabbed the opportunity as it came knocking and didn't have time to follow-up. Unfortunately, this interview wasn't the only one that slipped through my fingers from GW's 2008 Politics Online Conference.

My only saving grace is the timelessness of the topic. What was relevant then is still relevant today. James Kotecki is a good egg, the kind of young man most people cheer. I can't tell you what a relief it is to finally print this interview. But I don't think I had a choice. If I simply let it go, the world would be a less enriched place. I couldn't have that kind of pox hanging over my head.

James is a true Internet pioneer with pearls of wisdom. For better or worse, here's what transpired in the lobby of the D.C. Renaissance Hotel, March 4th or 5th, take your pick since it's been too long to remember, 2008.

The first thing that strikes me about James Kotecki is his fresh-faced optimism and youth. Here's someone whose meteroic rise in the blogosphere took him from a college dorm to the featured video blogger on YouTube, to a featured subject at The Washington Post, to video correspondent at Politico in less time than it took Barack Obama to lay claim to the Democratic presidential nomination.

James is an instantly recognizable Internet celebrity. Still, I get the feeling he's such a trusting young soul that if I dangled some colored candy and called to him from afar, "Hey little boy, come with me for a mouth watering treat," he'd follow the candy, no questions asked.

Ah, but in reality, Mr. Kotecki is one of the scheduled speakers at a busy conference in downtown D.C. Hundreds of people mill about. I just happen to be at the right place as he disembarks from the escalator.

Composure, composure. My first inclination is to gush. But then, it's easy enough to tell him I'm a fan and ask for an interview. James is more than happy to comply.

Classy. A guy who quickly reached the stratosphere but doesn't mind giving back.

"James Kotecki," I call out walking in his direction. "Do you have time for a brief interview?"

"Uh, sure, no problem," he responds sounding somewhat unsure. Maybe he's not used to being recognized by complete strangers at a 500 plus person conference. "Let me just tell Julie Germany [head of IPDI] I'm here."

"No problem," I reply and hover nearby.

This is one fish I don't want to get away. Julie is surrounded by a small crowd of people as James confirms his arrival. They speak briefly and glance my way. Maybe he's also confirming my media credentials. No matter. This was one conference where I somehow procured a media pass rather than sneak in and play correspondent.

For moral support or perhaps because he didn't want to leave her stranded, James insists on locating high school sweetheart now fiance, Emily Freifeld, a podcaster at The Washington Post, before he'll sit down.

Certainly. No problem. Anything to make him comfortable. I suppose I could be a stalker, a fan-crazed nobody who likes to corner Internet celebrities for no purpose other than the thrill of playing news reporter. By all means, find your fiance.

Emily is waiting patiently in the plush lobby of the Renaissance Hotel. We make our way back up the escalator, finding a relatively quiet spot with a comfortable looking arm chair and love seat. Emily, who is also young and fresh-faced but with a slightly greater air of worldliness, reconnects with James out of earshot. They speak briefly and agree to provide a few minutes of his time.

I am both relieved and nervous with nothing prepared other than my zeal to document James's formula for success and follow it to a tee.

_________________________

SCPB: How did you get out there, noticed, picked up for a professional job on the Internet? Some background, please.

JK: Blunt force was the key.

No, basically, it started off with a web cam. I had a web cam to video chat with Emily. We were going to different colleges, so I got this web cam and I thought okay, why not start making videos?

SCPB: What year was this?

JK: This was a little over a year ago. January 2007. I started making videos. I thought there’s so much stuff out there on YouTube and so much of it is bad. Yet, that stuff is getting a lot of views. Maybe people will look at my stuff too. I think I can have something to say.

I made a couple videos about politics because politics is my favorite subject, it has been for a while. The first few videos I made were ... very boring and very bad.

SCPB: How so?

JK: In the sense they were just talking about what the mainstream media was already talking about. It was basically me mimicking what they were saying about the front running candidates at the time. They were bad in the sense that they weren’t entertaining, especially the first video. It was just me in my dorm room talking to the camera in a very deadpan sort of way. My energy was very low. There was nothing visually interesting. After doing this, I realized I needed to be doing something different. So, for the next video ...

SCPB: Wait. How did you realize you needed to do something different? Was it because your videos weren’t getting a lot of views?

JK: There were two reasons. One, Emily told me I needed to do something different (Emily laughs) because she said I needed to be something more interesting. But also, I watched it myself and thought this isn’t even something I want to watch. So there’s no possible way anybody else wants to watch this (laughter).

The first thing I did was make my videos a little more visually interesting by taping pictures of politicians to pencils and flipping [them] around. It was kind of like imitating picture in picture, you know, inside a newscast. I didn’t have the technology to do that, nor did I have any idea how to do that. I just put their pictures on pencils and flipped them around. And that was very appealing to people.

I also realized that I needed to pick something different for a topic. This whole broad idea, just politics generally, was too vague and too bland.

SCPB: Too much like everybody else?

JK: Exactly. I started pecking ... hunting around. I came across a video from Chris Dodd who was running for president at the time. It was basically just him in a somewhat low “res” video, very simple video straight talking into the camera kind of like a video blogger would, you know, like other video bloggers on YouTube.

And on the video description it said, “Upload a video response.” So, I thought okay I will. I’m a political geek. I'd like to talk to a presidential candidate Senator. Sounds great. I did a video response critiquing the way he was using his video to communicate. "You know, can do this better." "You’re not doing this as well." "Why are you in a building that looks like it’s just in a random warehouse somewhere? It’s kind of off-putting," "You could be talking to the camera this way..."

SCPB: A kind of a snarky comment video?

JK: It was a bit snarky, but it was also things I believed he should be doing better. I think it was well-intentioned snark.

SCPB: Were you an early supporter of Dodd?

JK: Uh, no, I was not. I just thought it would be cool to talk to a presidential candidate. I realized this could be somewhat of a niche for me, that not a lot of people were talking about how the candidates were using online video.

At the time, this was in January ’07, early February, I looked around for other candidates who were also using online video to communicate and there were, maybe, six presidential candidates total I could easily find. Soon, I began to discover more and then more of them started to get their own YouTube channels and online video. So, I made videos about all of them, commenting about how they were using the web and how they were using online video.

SCPB: So distinguishing yourself from the pack was pretty important.

JK: That was key, to have a niche, to be one of the first people to talk about something. Also, I kind of embodied the niche in the fact that I was just using a cheap web cam myself to communicate from a college dorm room. I was embodying the very trend of online video communication I was discussing. I also talked about how YouTube can be used as a two-way conversation between candidates and voters. Not just as a one-way broadcast, but the voters can talk back and the candidates can talk back to them.

After a while, YouTube featured one of these videos which gave me a lot of popularity and got me on the radar screen of The Washington Post. YouTube was very interested in a similar message. They used my video as a way of promoting that message, of conversation, of using it more in more interesting ways than just what politicians were doing at the time. Unknowingly, I was helping them out. In return, they helped me out. In a sense, it was mutually beneficial for them to feature that video for awhile.

SCPB: What about people who aren't promoting a message YouTube is pushing or necessarily likes. How can they get featured?

JK: When you talk about pushing, there’s never been any kind of control over my videos, there’s never been anything like that. YouTube has reached out to and wants to make a more concerted effort to reach out to people who are creating consistent content at a certain level of quality to promote that. Not about ideology or what it is specifically, but just on a general level they want to keep promoting the best content, they want to encourage the creators of that content to keep creating. Featuring my video was one of the ways to do that, same as featuring other videos across a number of different genres.

SCPB: YouTube was a stepping stone.

JK: Featured videos led to The Washington Post getting in touch with me for an article Jose Antonio Vargas was doing. I think it was specifically about web video, maybe just the Internet and politics in general. Once your name is in The Washington Post, even as a person related to this topic, more and more media sources begin to contact you. At that point, I kind of became a kind of – quote unquote – expert.

And like I said, the fact that I was a college kid in a dorm room using the same technology I was talking about gave me a lot of credibility. A lot of credibility that I might not have otherwise had.

Also, I spoke about a topic that was hot in the media. They needed stuff to talk about, the election was heating up. Online video was happening, but there were very few people who understood it. I realized early on that, you know what, I may not be able to understand everything there is to know about this, but I can probably understand more about or as much about this as anyone else. Because it’s so new, it’s a wide-open field for understanding. I can just start giving my opinions on it. If that catches on, then I will be credible because no one else will know more than me about it.

SCPB: But was there more to it than just the topic? Not everyone can latch on to interesting topics that haven't been done before.

JK: I thought about early on going off the model of Jim Cramer whose show Mad Money on MSNBC was very popular. Not because his stock picks are good necessarily — lots of times they’re very wrong – but because he’s consistently entertaining.

SCPB: The entertainment factor.

JK: I knew that if I was entertaining that would be my insurance against otherwise boring content or even wrong analysis occasionally. If I was entertaining, people would come back and keep watching me. I wanted to maintain a high energy level, throwing in visual gags, throwing in pencil puppets lots of times.

SCPB: I think you’ve identified two things here, correct me if I’m wrong, for finding success on the Internet. Authenticity and the entertainment factor. Is there anything else?

JK: No, that’s exactly right. I guess the other third thing is articulation of a message. The message I crafted about how politicians should use YouTube in politics evolved because I looked at more videos and kept making commentaries. I realized that some of what I was saying could be unified to similar ideas across different videos and different political spectrums.

But, I think entertainment is probably paramount because if it’s not entertaining, no one’s going to watch it. If they have fifty other videos on the page, they can easily click away. If they’re bored for a second they can watch something else.

Authenticity is probably next. Having the information be solid is what kept me going to media shows and everything else like that.

It was, in fact, one really reinforcing the other because it wasn’t just that I was popular on the Internet. I was also becoming more of a quote unquote expert in the field through the mainstream media. People who saw me on those channels, I’m sure reflected back positively on my blog and my videos. And so, it’s reinforcing. It’s not one or the other. And it’s not bashing, I’m not one of those bloggers who would bash the mainstream media necessarily because it has been an important part of my success, as has the Internet. It’s worked together. I think that’s an example of what’s going to happen in the future, like, there’s no, there’s just going to be less and less separation between what people call “The MSM” and bloggers. It’s just basically one big blob of media content that is completely interdependent.

Read Part II of this interview here.

Matt Bai on the Power of the Internet

4:00 p.m. Waiting here in the ballroom for the closing remarks, Can't resist mentioning Matt Bai's lunchtime presentation. For the record, even though Matt is legendary, I had never heard of him or his body of work. Pity because Matt gave one the best presentations at the conference. Witty, informative, engaging, topical... have I left out anything?

No, I am not fawning. After listening to him, I honestly like this guy. Must have been the anecdotes about his toddler son's Thomas the Train PC and his attempts to engage Matt in a computer game called "Banana 4.0."

Or maybe because Matt is not as full of himself as he probably could be. He's a blogger/journalist on the scene since its inception, hand-picked to do a 2005 - quote unquote - book tour up the California coast with Marcus and Jerome of DailyKos. Matt is a rock star. Some paraphrased highlights:

"The Internet isn't changing politics...it's changing everything in our lives."

"Television took some time to become mainstream and has been the major form of influence for the past sixty years. The Internet is even more profound than television. Its influence will last much longer than sixty years."

"The Internet is a two-way dynamic. People can have conversations with the people they like and admire. This is something television will never be able to do."

"We are living in an 'Age of Confirmation,' meaning people are unwilling to go outside their comfort zones. The failure of people to read opinions from the political spectrum is unhealthy for democracy."

"The baby boomers are the first generation who were not born into the same world they ended up leading. Their generation of leaders must adapt to a different world."

"The purpose of the Internet is to empower people and give them more control over their lives. However, no one should dictate their beliefs to other people."

"Another value of the Internet is its ability to change the landscape of America. More people will be able to work at home and as a result they will be happier, their employers will have less costs, and workers will be more productive."

"As more political campaigns use the Internet, the energy for politics will be less about tactics and more about fostering new ideas and innovations."

Matt Bai is an innovator, but he is not about changing the core principals of democracy. He is also a defender of the electoral college. Matt doesn't view bloggers as competition for journalists. Blogging is a different form of expression. It's more of a conversation. And therein lies the power of the Internet.

At the end of his presentation, Matt was deluged by well-wishers. Too bad. I wanted to relate a funny story about divergent political views and my own personal experiences with a certain person in my neighborhood. But, that will have to wait for another time.

What do you know, no closing remarks. The conference is over. Wow. That was fast. Congratulations to Julie Germany and her wonderful group of student volunteers. The conference was a fabulous success.

Still have a couple of interviews to post, but things are winding down at the Renaissance. Hope to get everything done before Mashmeet.

Utilizing Political Influencers to Reach Undecided Voters

3:30 p.m. Still here at the Politics Online Conference and things are winding down. Since lunch, it has been a whirlwind afternoon. I've spent the last hour trying in vain to get my Internet connection back. Well, not exactly a full hour. After about fifteen minutes in the area near the cocktail lounge, I became exceedingly frustrated. That's when I turned to the nice gentleman sitting in the chair to my right. He turned out to be Neal Gorenflo, V.P. of Client Services for FAS.research, a network analyst for businesses and other enterprises. Neal helped clear out my cache, but the flippn' PC still wouldn't connect.

May have been our location. My favorite blue chairs at the edge of the downstairs lobby were already taken.

Deciding to make lemonade out of lemons, I agreed to watch Neal's online presentation about market media. His company created a social statistics model from their affiliation with the Vienna Green Party to identify hubs of influence. These hubs are undecided voters with a bent toward the political middle. The company's objective: influencing people I have previously identified as the de facto third party to support a particular candidate. One of yesterday's conference sessions touched upon this very subject, so Neal had my undivided attention.

The two of us had a great time discussing Independent voters, Hillary or Obama, the need for less rancorous political discussion, and Neal's presentation. Yes, social statistics are not imperial evidence. There is margin for error. Still, it is a better model than what candidates work with now -- well worth investigating. FAS is hard at work, identifying parties and/or voters like the Vienna Green Party here in America, hoping to spread a candidate's message by targeting their political influencers.

But how does one influence a voter in the middle who may not necessarily agree with an influencer's political perspective? I say agree to disagree and be nice about it. Neal says the answer is more definitive.

Frame the message in such a way that it becomes palatable. For example, a hardline conservative voter is against crime, wants to reduce crime, but thinks crime is committed by lazy shiftless people. A more liberal voter believes people who commit crime have been dealt a bad hand and shouldn't be blamed for their anti-social behavior. How can the swing-voter influencer reach both kinds of voters? Tell the conservative voter society benefits by keeping people out of jail. Therefore, their best solution is to support a political ideology likely to accomplish that objective. Create jobs, start social programs, that kind of thing. The liberal voter is already onboard.

Brilliant!

Actually, the presentation was much more detailed and comprehensive than that, but it is the message I walked away with at the end of the presentation as I, once again, packed up my PC and conference materials to search for greener connection pastures.

Wandering around the Renaissance at the Politics Online Conference

11:59 a.m. Lunch begins in about fifteen minutes. I'm supposed to be meeting the ever elusive Joshua Levy for a bona fide interview, but he is still nowhere to be found. Maybe he misunderstood our designated meeting area. I thought I was clear. No matter. I've prepared for the interview, but maybe he hasn't. Or maybe he just wants to write me off as a stalker. Who knows.

Some of the titles of the 11:15 a.m. break-out sessions:

"Cyber Terrorism" - Infectious viruses. Hackers. People who want to bring your site down and what to do about it.

"Practical Data Strategies for Mobilization" - Sounded interesting, but I am walking around, listening in at the door. Nothing of substance catches my fancy, although, the topic was fairly well attended.

"Optimizing Your Search Marketing Program" - Getting out the message. Websites need to promote, promote, and promote some more to build an audience. I've heard talks like this before, but it was good to get a brief refresher.

"Does Web 2.0 Work in Politics?" - The room was packed. I think it might have been hot inside. Again, listening at the door. A continuation of the morning plenary. Wished I had more time to sit down and take it all in.

"Meet the Tchnologists: Online Media" - The topic speaks for itself, right? Session heads include Matt Boyd of ValueClick Media and Trent Walter of Advertising.com.

12:15 p.m. And now I'm sitting at a table with Richrd Kosinski, V.P. of Political Advertising at Yahoo.com. Richard is telling me about an organization that runs something called, "The Pollies," an award program akin to the Oscars for the online political community. This is an event I'll be checking out more thoroughly. But for now, it's time for lunch.

Politics Online Conference Day Two - Morning Plenary

9:40 a.m. The plenary morning event turned over to Waldo Tibbets (Assoc Publisher, Politico) - Politico.com is a sponsor of the morning panel and largest distributed Hill publication. No #15 of newspaper based web sites and has only been in existence for 13 months. This morning's topic is "White House 2.0"

Ari Schwartz will moderate the panel discussion. He regularly testifies before Congress. The morning topic will explore the concept of a White House becoming regularly engaged online with its citizenry. How do we capture the tools being used in the current campaign and utilize them for the White House?

Tom Steinberg (mysociety.com) - They run the non-partisan democracy sites in the U.K. Sites like theyworkforyou.com tell people who their politicians are, what they say, how they vote, what their vote means, and how constituents can get in touch with them.

Their politician pages are very popular and well-known by the politicians they cover. Obviously, this can be a thorn in their side. But, the site does very high level work with politicians. They are not thought of as "person non-grata." Their site has been evolving at the request of politicians and can now be used for submission and signature of online petitions.

If attendees walk away with anything from this session, realize that your White House can become 2.0 very quickly. Whoever wins, it is very likely the next president will want to implement these change to show, "Here is how we govern differently."

"Start the conversation today. Remind your government that whitehouse.gov can become that tool."

9:54 a.m. Ellen Miller (Sunlight Foundation) - "We have learned from mysociety's work." Sunlight is a marriage of wisdom and technology. Their goal is to digitize political information and allow ordinary citizens to digest it. They have over twenty integrated websites, most with the word "open" in their title. They developed a counterpart to Thomas.com called "Louis."

"Our job is to make the next president aware of the need to use online technologies. It is time for government to come into the information age. Transparency is a fundamental principal of democracy. We are only at the edge of this technology, moving forward."

Note to twitterphiles. Ellen is on twitter.com. Do you follow her? She just remembered that someone needs to send out a tweet that the conference has started. Not to worry. Someone already has.

10:01 a.m. Former Congressman Rick White - introduced as one of the most wired members of the House ever. "Using the Internet is a tricky subject. Constituents need to think about why a candidate is utilizing the Internet. Technology is important to us, but it's going to take a while for the technology to register at the voting booth. Until it does, technology isn't going to matter very much to the candidates." Therefore, he thinks we are only going to be able to make glacier-like progress. Movement forward is going to be extremely slow.

"Recognize that a technology policy will exist, but it will be slow. But if someone in the White House would become very excited about the technology and would take a risk," he would like to see a Wiki Budget process. He wonders what we would end up with. "That would be very interesting to see."

Mentioned that an internal CIA wiki process already exists. "It would be great to see government experiment in that area," he says.

An interesting aside: originally, they thought the technology of the Internet would revolutionize the political process. It did not. Hopes that the next administration doesn't look for ways to use the technology as a sword, rather, it should be used as a helpful device for the citizenry to work with its politicians on issues like trade, immigration, etc.

10:07 a.m. David Almacy (whitehouse.gov and VP of Digital Strategies, Waggener Edstrom Worldwide) - David was the third Internet Director of the White House. He reflects on how the White House has grown over time. Clinton1.nara.gov will have a place in history as the first White House site. "Interesting to look at for the purpose of seeing where technology was back in that day. At the time, it was very forward thinking."

"Enter the year 2000. How does digital technology change the way politicians interact with their constituents and move legislation forward? Blogs and podcasts did not exist back then. Cell phones were not used to catch pictures on the sly. Google was barely a blip on the radar screen. Most Internet access was dial-up."

My, how cyberspace has changed.

His role in the White House in 2005 was as a visionary for the Internet and liason to bloggers. He spent five years at CSPAN and used this experience to formulate a public position. First: whitehouse.gov would be reserved as the President's site. For more information about unrelated activities on the Hill or cabinet departments, the site provided links.

Second: whitehouse.gov would be used as an archive of the President's activities.

Third: the website would be a repository of history for people who want to research America and the President.

David suggested a redesign of whitehouse.gov and this was done in the year 2007. Also, since the White House website is a taxpayer funded entity, they cannot provide direct links to sites like Digg, Technorati, YouTube, etc. Social networking is encouraged, but it has to be done by individuals who drop by.

A strong tool on whitehouse.gov is "Ask the White House." This link actually communicates with the President. People can submit questions directly and get answers. News and feeds, radio address feeds, all of these were established based upon the success of this tool. A funny interactive tool they developed was the "BarneyCam," about a 3-minute long video of a web cam strapped to the President's dog, Barney, during the holidays. Eight million people viewed the original video.

Here is a 2006 episode:



BarneyCam's tremendous success spurred much interest. Lots of people at the White House wanted to be featured, especially President Bush. The President's episode had extremely low viewing stats, not because it didn't attract viewers. They gave up control of the episode by allowing it to be hosted at sites such as YouTube and embedded on news sites and blogs. David recognized the value of this approach and began providing more emphasis on multimedia for all of the President’s events. Comparing whether it was better for more people to see the video or for them to have more page views at whitehouse.gov, David chose distribution. This has become the preferred method to broadcast White House messages online.

As part of the President’s E-Gov initiative, the Office of Management and Budget developed digital tagging of papers passed around Congress and the White House. Earlier this year, President Bush electronically distributed the 2009 budget to Congress with his digital signature. The eBudget was validated and authenticated when received by Congress. Another digital first. Yes, the White House continues to churn paper, but the digital tagging is real progress.

In his opinion, the President will never blog. Why? Because all he has to do is schedule a news conference and speak into a microphone. However, he thinks the White House should hire a paid person to maintain a blog. The time has come.

10:29 a.m. Time for the questions. This blogger takes a time out.

Update 3.6.08: David Almacy is kind of enough to e-mail with the following information:

As a result of the digital tagging initiative, the GPO and GAO are now moving toward paperless production of government legislation and executive documents. This will save countless trees and future resources.

David further notes the success of external wikis wherein the executive branch publishes internal data under the mandates of the Coburn/Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, and citizens are encouraged to provide feedback. These include accountability for government spending,earmarks, and agency regulations.

Finally, with respect to BarneyCam:

BCam V in 2006 was the last one I worked on and where we employed the best use of digital tactics on whitehouse.gov. We offered three video formats, a behind the scenes "making of" photo essay, HTML text version of the script and audio MP3 downloads of the BCam soundtrack uniquely arranged and performed by "The President's Own" United States Marine Band (also avail in WH Room on iTunes).

Thanks, David. I hope this information encourages readers to catch all the episodes and motivate future White House occupants to build upon your success.

Best Practices for Political Advertising Online - the Breakfast Opening

8:30 a.m. Day two of the Politics Online Conference. Horrible traffic this morning. Barely made it to the breakfast opening this morning. But I am here and ready to go. The panlists take the stage almost at the same time my online connection becomes viable.

One of the caveats of the presentation is that the paper being discussed this morning was the brainchild of Tony Winders of ValueClick Media, a sponsor of the conference. I especially like this disclosure at the start of the session. Almost all of the panelists are involved in some type of online advertising, the same for the authors of the paper. Good for them. That makes the message more ethical. Something to consider.

8:45 a.m. Tony opens the morning networking breakfast.

"We would like candidates to start thinking about using the Internet for their message campaigns."

Samples of conversations he has had with political strategists: "Will you incorporate online advertising into your political campaign?" Answer: "It's too full. There's no place for you. All the space is taken."

After much consideration, a publication was born. Best Practices for political Advertsising Online - many authors. Made sense to put together because they saw a need for this education.

Tony Winders: The paper is divided into two parts. One: Marketing. Establish political objectives and how that fits into online advertising. Two: Establish an online marketing strategy.

This is not to say that political marketers do not understand the web. They don't understand the scale. This paper looks at why that is happening and some strategies to overcome it. Both the business of online advertising and politics are complex. This paper is not the holy grail. It's about a marketing mix.

Michael Bassick (VP of Interactive Marketing, MSHC Partners)- the "Debbie Downer" of the industry, by his own words. He feels like he is always in the difficult situation of trying to encourage greater usage, saying there is a small market share for the Internet with respect to political campaigns, but thank you for the pen. Funny.

For example: videos on YouTube -- free advertising -- were some of the winners for the Golden Dot Awards last night.

"We are seeing more activity in this primary stage of Election 2008." All of the candidates are using sophisticated ad servicing, rich media, and many have stopped asking the difficult question, "Why do I need to be online." Now the candidates are looking at acquiring budgets.

"Why is this exciting? Because of the trickle down. From the presidential campaigns, other industries will begin to realize the power of the Internet."

Karen Jagoda - (signonradio.com) - saw opportunity in 1998 because she was working in this field, but even then, she was unable to convince candidates to use the Internet for persuasion, not even findraising. There are many myths about the Internet as a way to reach voters. "We're about cross-media optimization. Not shutting out any medium," but thinks media should spread the wealth.

She authored chapter two about voters online - "We don't know enough about people. We need to learn more about African-Americans abd Hispanics. We, as a community, need to understand the phenomenon as it is happening now. Members in the audience on the research marketing side are urged to keep track of this and report what works and what doesn't."

She also authoried chapter three - perspectives - what is the best way to reach both sides of the campaign and how the consultants see the Internet. The report indicates that it's a money issue. She believes the reason consultants are not using the Internet is because they don't think it's useful for the voters they want to reach. Also, she believes the Internet is a useful tool in so many ways, not just in respect to funraising.

Members of the audience were invited to participate in their next survey that tracks these trends.

Rena Shapiro (Google) - discussed best practices in search. Google has over 65% share of search. The next closest was Yahoo at 20%. In deciding where to allocate dollars online, the best place to start is search. The Best Practices study emphasizes that point and allows attendees to distribute the paper to people at their places of business, especially those who remain unconvinced.

She believes it is important for all candidates to have a paid link for contributions on their sites. Why not? The campaign only pays if someone clicks the link. There is nothing to lose by including this type of advertising.

Another part of search involves branding and distribution of information. By using search media, campaigns will have better ability to disseminate their message in the place people are likely to search for it. Good point.

Jay Friedman (President of Goodway 2.0) - helped author the chapter about display. He is filling in for someone else and only has about five minutes for his presentation. Refer to page 39. A few important points. Appreciate the Internet's ability to reach many people at the same time. Imagine this as a dart trying to get the largest percentage of mindshare. Believes candidates should give themselves the chance to get in front of people. Even if your candidate is on the TV news every night, they still need to consider online marketing as a way to reach voters who are not seeing that message.

Thinks it is unfair to view the Internet as a cureall. It is not - however - there is a lot that can be done. The part that the Internet plays should not be ignored. Online can be used effectively. Julie had joked about "There is no one online" and it is a joke. Many people are online. One of the huge values of online is that if the person isn't there, the impression isn't served, and you don't pay. On TV, if you buy advertising and there are less viewers than projected, too bad. You still pay. So online has an advantage TV and radio cannot provide.

Tony Winders (ValueClick Media) - In charge of the service known as lead generation. This is an objective and a product. He explained the chapter written by Josh Gray, chapter six. Josh could not be present. The chapter is "Supporter Recruitment Through Lead Generation." Quickly building data bases of qualified users who have expressed an interest in a specific type of marketing.

9:15 a.m. This was a highly informative session about The Best Practices for Political Advertising Online. If readers are interested in reviewing the publication, I suppose they should contact Julie Germany, Director if IPDI or, as I just found out from student volunteer Max McGowen, e-mail Max directly at mmcgowen1 [at] gmail [dot] com.

Social Networking Media Strategy for Presidential Campaigns

The room is packed by the time I get there. No place to sit down. But wait. I see an empty seat. Drat. The session has already started. Don't want to push my way in front of a bunch of people to get to the empty chair. Ah, but it is in the last row before the wall. I drag the seat backward and plop myself down. Too bad for the guy stretching out his long legs directly behind me. I think he is trying to purposefully kick my chair. What does this guy have against innovation? It's not as if I didn't leave him an adequate amount of space to sit comfortably against the wall.

Oh the mindset. Kind of what this session, "Social Networking/ Media Strategy for the Presidential Campaign" is all about.

The panel is moderated by the acquaintance I made earlier, Alan Rosenblatt, Center for American Progress. At least that's what my conference brochure says. Sitting to his right are Justine Lam (eCampaign Director of Ron Paul for President), Amy Rubin (Deputy Director of New Media, John Edwards for President), Michael Turk (former RNC eCampaign Director and V.P. Industry Grassroots for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association), and Katie Harbath (Deputy eCampaign Director, Rudy Giuliani for President). Essentially, these are the people responsible for bringing Election 2008 campaigns online.

Election 2008 will be remembered as a watershed event for the Internet. Campaigns using the Internet effectively reaped huge dividends. The trick was in knowing how to leverage the Internet to a candidate's best advantage. This session examined what worked and what didn't. Future political campaigns will build upon the lessons of these panelists and take successful techniques to the next level.

Let's start with Justine Lam. Ron Paul's campaign utilized the Internet early and effectively. In elections past, I think Paul would have been a marginal candidate going the way of someone like a Duncan Hunter. Early and out. But not this year. True, Paul is nowhere near the front runner and has no chance of becoming president. That doesn't diminish his online accomplishments. Julie's strategy focused upon two key components.

One: Recognizing the power of social networking technologies such as MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, and Meetup, the campaign created a strong social network outside their base website. A candidate's website only reaches current supporters. With offsite technologies, campaign strategists can engage new supporters and remain connected with them. Early mobilization of such people gave Ron Paul credibility and boosted his visibility in the campaign.

Two: Early on, the campaign clarified Ron Paul's message, targeting an existing group who would understand and support that message once they knew it was available. That's a fancy way of saying the campaign used social media to target a certain type of people. Kind of a "build it and they will come" type of strategy.

They came in droves. Once their network jelled, the voters created strong bonds with one another which in turn increased fundraising. The campaign collected over $20 million in quarter four of 2007.

In this particular case, the top down approach was amazingly successful. Too bad the message wasn't one average Americans wanted to hear. Yes, the perception is Ron Paul supporters are chunky granola loving whack jobs. I'm not saying that's what I think. I'm only relating what I hear.

Moving on to Team Giuliani. In blogger speak, this was the campaign that never was. So much promise. So little execution. Not blaming Katie. It is what it is. Ultimately, Rudy took complete responsibility for ruining his own campaign. Personally, I did not like their "Team Rudy" application. I thought it was a loser right out of the gate. Like the way Rudy ended up. If he had only bothered to actually leave the gate, Rudy coulda been a contender.

Katie said a campaign can't ignore social media but shouldn't rely upon it solely. The key is finding a message that will resonate. Yeah right. Hasn't that been the basics of politics 101 for some time?

John Edwards. Interaction and accessibility. Identify the thought leaders and bring those people onboard. Amy said this can be done through candidate issues and technology. A little known website, Upscoop.com, has the ability to determine where supporters social network. Identify who gives money, who comes back to the social network, who is effective in connecting with others, and target the contacts of those people. This strategy isn't a guaranteed winner, but it did help the Edwards campaign target more people who agreed with their candidate's message.

This campaign also used Eventful.com as a way to connect wih supporters. They ran contests, giving people incentives to disseminate Edwards' message by awarding the most influential with a visit to their hometown. They also encouraged supporters to submit questions by awarding the best one with an actual answer. This in turn helped the campaign learn which issues were important to their supporters and tailor e-mail messages accordingly. Translating valuable data into cash and support, the campaign ran quite well. Unfortunately, it was no match for the two top Democratic contenders.

What did Michael Turk have to add? Well, he worked on the Fred Thompson campaign, an effort full of sound and fury; signifying nothing. Michael thinks the campaign failed because Thompson sat on the fence too long. He should have entered the race earlier. But hindsight is 20/20, as they say. Talk radio was so convinced he was the man.

Michael also disparaged campaign strategists who refused to trust social media. Dinosaurs still have not recognized the Internet's value as a way to organize support and raise money. The Thompson campaign had an effective website, but then strategists let it go by the wayside. They also stopped posting to the blog. When the community they had built no longer trusted them, their candidate tanked.

Concluding this informative session, Alan Rosenblatt noted the following:

1. Identify goals very early - articulate what the candidate is trying to accomplish and what will be the measure of success.

2. Inside/Outside - organize support on the candidate's website as well as offsite social networks. Use the network to spread a candidate's message.

3. Link - the campaign will be most effective if all social networks are linked to each other at a catchall website.

4. Tailor the message - convince voters and activists that they have a personal stake in the campaign. Frame the message as the candidate's support for a public interest rather than a private one.

5. Network - social networking is not just online. Arrange in person meetings and other ways to connect with supporters.

6. Act - delay will be the death of campaigns.

7. Clarify - make sure supporters understand a candidate's message so they can influence others to come onboard.

Terrific session. I asked some poignant questions, but I'm too tired to blog. Maybe another day. Goodnight!

That's Not a Cocktail - It's a Live Blogger at the Politics Online Conference

Talk about a long day. It's after 11:00 p.m. and I'm bushed. But I did say I would blog about the Politics Online Conference after the cocktail party. I can't very well go back on my word.

That must have been some cocktail party if it's now past 11:00 p.m., right? Not exactly. I finally tracked down the elusive Joshua Levy. We had a riveting political debate and exchanged friendly banter. Still trying to get that interview. Maybe we will connect more tomorrow.

I also sauntered over to Gregory Ensell, Manager of Government and Public Affairs for Cox.com, to introduce myself. I don't know, there was something about him that seemed to scream across the room, "I'm a fun guy. Lots to say. Come talk to me."

He was and I did. Don't know about him, but I had a blast. We discussed everything from The Wire, to Ayn Rand, to a guy who looked exactly like Tim Robbins, to tussling with a well-known radio and cable personality in the sixth grade. Gary...erm...I mean Greg is a great guy with a wonderful sense of humor (pardon my inability to remember names - I'm fabulous with faces, terrible with names). I'm so looking forward to reading his personal blog. Sorry, no link. I don't think Greg wants the publicity.

Anyway, the cocktail party ended around 8:00 p.m. It took all this time to drive back to my hosts' house in Silver Spring, eat dinner and unwind. Tomorrow I must be back up and at 'em at the crack of dawn. The networking breakfast begins at 8:00 a.m. and as I said earlier, I have a keen interest in the "Best Practices" paper being presented by Tony Winders.

Yes, I did attend one seminar at 3:30 p.m. I also interviewed James Kotecki, the vlogger from Politico. That article will have to wait. It's so late and I still have much to do before I retire. I'll be lucky to complete the article about the seminar before dozing off at my laptop.

For the record, the conference is excellent. Well-prepared panelists. Informative topics. New media celebrities. It would be nice to relax and enjoy all the offerings as an employee of a larger political operation; however, I am here as a blogger and a rogue one at that. My mission is to blog as much as possible, wherever and whenever possible, and I take my shots where I find them.

Right now, I'm taking a shot at a world's record for lack of sleep as a live blogger at a two-day conference. Go figure.

A Chance Encounter With James Kotecki

6:15 p.m. I just met James Kotecki, vlogger extraordinaire for Politico, and his fiance, Emily Freifeld, who creates political podcasts for The Washington Post. James and Emily were nice enough to sit for a rogue interview. Good stuff. James opens up about his meteoric rise to the big times through YouTube and his reasons for making it.

Don't get James wrong. He's really very self-effacing. So much so that when I asked him whether he thought he was in any way responsible for the 2007 CNN YouTube debates, he emphatically responded, "No."

Is that enough of a tease? Because I need a cocktail. I'm about to shut down my computer again and you know what that means....

Live Blogging Blues

5:57 p.m. Okay, okay. I know the live blogging isn't quite up to snuff. Four reasons:

One: The Renaissance D.C. Hotel. I must have lost my Internet connection at least four times in the middle of posting. Some areas are more conducive to live blogging than others. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be in any of the seminar rooms.

Two: Whenever I put my PC into hibernate mode, my Internet connection dies. Thank goodness for blogger - it saves my drafts automatically. Otherwise, there would be very little to read. There's only so much time in a day to take out my computer, blog, then go through the steps of repairing my Internet connection.

Three: My PC's internal power stinks. About an hour of stored power and then it runs out. Basically, this means I must be plugged into an outlet to blog, not the easiest requirement to navigate for a live blogger.

Four: I'm green. I admit it. This is my trial by fire. I've been trying to keep up, but honestly, with all of my technological limitations, including my inability to upload the digital pictures I took this morning, I'm kind of at a disadvantage.

Lessons learned. On the other hand, I have made some exciting contacts here at the conference. I plan to make up for all my foibles, including a summary of the seminar I did in fact attend, right after the networking cocktail party. Which according to my calculations starts in three minutes. Cheers!

A Rogue Interview with Phil Noble, Politics Online

1:50 p.m. A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Actually, on the way to lunch. I met Alan Rosenblatt, Associate Director of Online Advocacy for the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Alan had very graciously agreed to walk me to lunch and possibly introduce me to Josh Levy, editor, blogger, and panelist here at the conference. I'm a fan and had asked for an interview. I'm still waiting to hear back. Thought I could streamline the process.

But as luck would have it, as I'm hanging out with Alan around the buffet, who should he greet but none other than Phil Noble. Yes, that Phil Noble, the one whose name I misspelled in the prior post and who was nowhere to be found in the morning break-out session.

Faced with the choice of continuing to seek out Mr. Levy or hang out with Phil Noble, I did what any self-respecting blogger would do.

I let Alan walk into the banquet room without me. I may be green, but I'm savvy enough to recognize opportunity when it comes knocking on my the door. I hope Alan will forgive me. I certainly want to get to know him better and locate the elusive Mr. Levy, but when Phil Noble is willing to talk with you and the rest of the conference is chowing down, you stop and listen.

Mr. Noble and I began discussing the current campaign, his interest in politics, and when he first became interested in the political process. And then, he began to tell the most fascinating story. I couldn't resist. I took out the recorder. For what it's worth, here is my interview with the, as John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal describes him, "...maestro of forward-looking campaigns."

Me: When did you first become interested in politics

Phil Noble: I was nine years old and I was walking through the living room, and my dad was sitting watching the Kennedy-Nixon debate. And he said, "Come here, boy. Watch this." So, I sat and watched it...

Me: ...and it was 1960...

Phil Noble: It was 1960. I was nine years old, and I watched the debate, and when it was over, my dad said, "Well, what do you think?" And I said, "Well, I kinda liked that Kennedy guy." And he said, "Well, why don't you go out there?" And much to my amazement, he told me where the Democratic party headquarters was, so the next day, I just go, I got on my little red bicycle and rode down there and walked in the front door.

Me: And in those days, did you have to have anyone accompany you?

Phil Noble: No, no, no, of course not, no. This is just the small town south, right? I walked in the door fully expecting to see John Kennedy sitting there behind the desk, but he wan't there -- his pictures were there -- and it was exciting! People were running around and the phones were ringing, the hand-cranked mimeograph machine was going, and I was just in there, and somebody walked up to me and says, "What do you need? And I said, "I'm here to help." And they gave me a stack of brochures and patted me on the head, and said, "Here, go give these away."

[laughter]

Phil Noble: So, I went out on the street corner - I'm sure they never expected to see me again - I went out, handed them out, turned around, and came back and said, "Okay. Now what?" And I've been coming back ever since.

Me: As a 9-year old, were you able to digest what was going on in the country at the time, or were you just doing what your father told you to do?

Phil Noble: No, it was exciting. I mean, politics for a 9-year old kid...to see something on television and then the next day be able to -- quote, be a part of it - at 9-years old, and it's -- you don't know what it is -- but you know that it's something really important. And, to be sort of a part of that...

Me: And that's what got you hooked?

Phil Noble: That's what got me hooked. And then, you know, then he got elected and the whole...even at, even at an early age, I mean, his inaugural address really just, I mean this sort of "ask not" stuff...even as a kid...I understood it. I understood exactly what he was talking about.

Me: It was inspiring, right?

Phil Noble: Yes, absolutely. So then, other than one time, one time four years later when my girlfriend was working for Barry Goldwater -- I went to a Barry Goldwater rally -- but other than that, I've never strayed since 1960.

Me: You mean from the Democratic party?

Phil Noble: That's right. I've been a Democratic person ever since.

Me: Did you feel you were instrumental in getting Kennedy elected? You were a 9-year old at the time.

Phil Noble: Well of course, I mean, it was 125,000 votes and I must have given out that many brochures.

[more laughter]

So of course it made the difference.

Me: Is that what Politics Online tries to accomplish now through the Internet?

Phil Noble: Uh...you know, I think what Politics Online tries to do is to say to people that the Internet is radically changing politics and there's a unique opportunity for the next generation to use the tools to remake politics in a way that we've never had before. And that is just as exciting....even as to me as a 9-year old walking into [the Kennedy] headquarters. And now, it's even more exciting because the change is global. The change is bigger. The change is quicker. The change is...

Me: ...the change is instantaneous...

Phil Noble: ...you know, you can literally change the world.

Me: Just from your own perspective, being on the scene, meeting people who are involved in the process, what do you think is going to be the biggest challenge going into this campaign as we narrow the candidates and get our finalists?

Phil Noble: Well, I think a couple of things can happen. Number one: I think Obama, if he stays hot, he may raise a billion dollars, a billion with a big B.

Me: He's a rock star.

Phil Noble: Well...he's beyond "he's a rock star." He's a rock star who, you have to understand, is in the lead. And if he raises a billion dollars, then that's enough to fund a revolution. Then you've got from the White House to the courthouse, resources to really create...a fifty state sweep.

Me: You're assuming he's going to get elected.

Phil Noble: Yeah. I think so. I mean, well, I've been wrong a lot, but I think he may, although I think he may have some trouble today, super super Tuesday. But ultimately, I think he's going to win. And I think McCain is a wonderful guy -- everybody recognizes he's a true patriot-- but I think he is going to sort of fade into becoming a bit player like Bob Dole was in '96. He was just sort of a bit player in [Bill] Clinton's bridge to the twenty-first century, all that kind of stuff. I think that's the potential, a huge potential to have an impact in this country, and even bigger, perhaps even as big as globally. Because there is enornous interest growing in this guy [Obama] internationally, and as soon as the rest of the world figures out how to -- quote, participate in our election -- they're going to. I mean, we may have a half a billion people...

Me: They're already starting to...

Phil Noble: Exactly. So, it's going to be the first global U.S. election and what does that mean? And what are the rammifications for Obama, and the U.S. and the foreign policy going forward? I just think that it's a radically different amount of possibilities out there.

Me: You said that Obama is using the new media in a way his opponents are not. Can you give specific examples?

Phil Noble: Obama's people fundamentally understood what they're doing is creating a movement, and providing the tools to create the movement they want.

Me: The tools? You mean the tools on the Internet?

Phil Noble: Yeah. The online tools. They don't have a pay phone. They have a few donors, they call them up, and they say "Come on, click on this link on our website" and then just make more phone calls. They can turn around a half million phone calls in a few days.

Me: So part of it is the fundraising. Is there any other aspect to it?

Phil Noble: Well, it's everything, everything online. It's the fundraising, it's the ability to enable people to go to their site and do things right now today, in the next fifteen minutes, they are going to make a difference in Ohio and Texas. From anywhere you want to go, from anywhere you are, at any time. And that's stunning, a stunning development.

A friend of mine was in Louisiana. They sent him into Louisiana, and he said, he showed up about two weeks out. Obama showed up ten days out. Had nothing on the ground. Showed up ten days out. Had a rally. Had 10,000 people show up. Got about 6,000 e-mails out about [the rally]. Forty-eight hours later, they sent those supporters e-mails, they said "Click here" on their website, then they made phone calls, and they made about a half million bucks.

Me: You can't compete with something like that...

Phil Noble: That's right. And, you know, if Obama gets beat today and he turns around and says, hell, instead of $60 million, he's going to raise $80 million...

[laughter]

Me: ...people are going to have their say in this election...

Phil Noble: Of course! At some point, an increase in amount becomes a difference in kind. It's a different kind of election. It's totally different.

Me: It's the Cult of Obama.

Phil Noble: Obama-mania. Ya gotta have it.

[laughter]

Me: Thank you, Phil.

Phil Noble: Absolutely.

3:17 p.m. So, there it is, dear readers. Thoughts from the mind of an Internet Politics guru. And I've missed another seminar. But what does that matter when you have the opportunity to speak with Phil Noble, am I right?

The Marriage of Politics and the Internet is Scary and Creepy

11:08 a.m. I'm missing the first seminar to blog about the morning break-out session. Ubiquitous technology. Its impact on political campaigns. Pervasive politics. Pattern of past purchases becoming politically meaningful. Fascinating stuff.

FYI, my hotel Internet connection died while my computer hibernated. It's taken me all this time to get back online. Sigh. The perils of being a blogger on the road.

Julie Barko Germany, Director of IPDI, takes the stage with Adam Greenfield (critical futurist, author), Jonathan Taplin (University of Southern California Annenberg professor and former employee of Bob Dylan), and Bob Boorstein (Google representative, former Democratic political campaign strategist, and NOT a technocrat as Julie describes). Phil Nobel is missing, probably still sleeping, Julie surmises. But then, he's not on the list of scheduled speakers. Despite being the person who said, and I paraphrase, "Although we have come very far, we're still at 8:00 a.m. on the first day of the Internet revolution," Phil can afford to snooze.

I'm scared. And creeped out. IPV6. RFID. UWB. YMax. Visualization. Location. Layered protocol. What do these technologies mean to the average person?

According to the panelists, Big Brother is here. In the not so distant future, maybe within the next eighteen months, integration of various technologies will create a global inferential memory so strong, so powerful that the average person walking to their polling precinct and passing a Starbucks will receive an advertisement for a double latte as well as a "Vote for" message from the most techno-savvy candidate.

How will this development translate to future political campaigns?

According to John Taplan, the viral nature of the Internet and ability to quickly broadcast a candidate's message will put an end to the "swiftboat tactics" used in the 2004 election. Adam disagrees. "The meme does not lose its force," he proclaims. The tactics will remain, they'll simply adjust to technology.

I'm with Adam. Although he's the first to qualify his conjecture by saying these pontifications may be premature. No one wants to go on the record. At least that's the way I interpret this equivocation.

Well, with the proliferation of new media, it's no longer an option. Statements will go on the record as soon as they're made. Candidates will be scrutinized harder than before. Bloggers are everywhere. Case in point right here. One caveat. Live blogging is especially difficult and should be viewed with a grain of salt. Yes, we're listening, but we're also concerned about feeding our audience. Content gets lost. Shuffled around. Misheard. Word wise to the reader: Blogging is fraught with misinformation and live blogging even more so. Hey, we try. But we may get it wrong due to the nature of the pace. That's the price we all pay for new media. As Adam says, view all new media with a grain of salt.

Most bloggers are biased. We all know that. Which raises another interesting question discussed by the panelists. Personalized media v. privacy. To what degree do our specialized choices of media leave us less informed? The panelists all agreed about this particular danger. That's why John listens to Rush Limbaugh and Bob, who can't bring himself to do even that, reads FoxNews 45 minutes every day. Combining information from different political perspectives is crucial to the person trying to stay politically informed. Too many people refuse to integrate perspectives. This is a huge mistake.

Wrapping this up, John mentions the "political summer vacation." Before the advent of new media, political candidates had time to breathe over the summer months. Is the Internet destroying nappy time?

In a word, yes. And what that means to the political process, they're still not sure. Bob thinks this will lower the level of people who go into politics because high caliber candidates won't have the stamina to withstand the pressure. Perhaps. But I think not. Humans are by nature understanding and forgiving. As Adam said in response to whether there will still be margins to make mistakes, "We will all become French." Which sounds like a nice way of saying, "We will forgive mistakes if there is reason to forgive."

So all of you political wonks, take heed. Your candidates are being scrutinized and there is very little margin for error. The biggest mistake candidates can make as politics and the Internet become more integrated is sitting on their backsides and hoping the message goes away. It will not. If anything, it will multiply.

11:54 a.m. Quick, effective, decisive counter message is the only viable response. Otherwise, risk adverse messages going viral and having an impact. And as any good political strategist knows, the only impact your candidate wants a message to have is a positive one.

12:16 p.m. I lost my connection twice and my computer shut down for lack of battery power. But I'm ending this post. Welcome to the dawning of the new age of media.