I have listened to several programs about the way the internet is revolutionizing the world. Invariably the "Macaca" incident is held up as a prime example of how the netroots and people in general have taken political power via the internet.

I hope the Webb people are archiving all the posts from the Webb campaign and also keeping their journals of Webb's appearances. I think there should be a movie made from this material. If not that then I think this material should make it into the history books. Please, please, keep archives of RK and records of the campaign. It was a turning point in American politics and deserves to be recorded for posterity.

Oh, and also keep the "Macaca" video. (I guess that goes without saying.)

Since the campaign consultants beloved of the national parties' headquarters don't make money on YouTube postings, we have to figure a way so they do, or the power of the YouTube will not be utilized to the greatest benefit of progressive candidates (I regret being a little cynical here, but I'm afraid it's true). Maybe a bright young rising star of the consultant-group can create a pool of videographers and charge big fees, Notice how the slick campaigns and seamy slime of, say, Swiftboating, really looks Madison-Avenue trite compared to the raw reality of the recent videos on YouTube. You're right, the Webb campaign should keep a record, and it would make a terrific movie, so long as it's not trivialized or Hollywood-ized, if you follow me.

Teddy,

I think we need to keep youtube to ourselves. I don't trust the DCCC so I'm just fine with the fact that they aren't interested in youtube. That way the people can have their voice through alternative media. That is often necessary since all the leadership seems to want to say to candidates is

"Don't sound angry now."

Does that sound like shut up to you? It sure does to me.

Allen was campaigning at a public venue, and Goode studiously avoids them when possible. He would rather go to 10 fundraisers of 50 people than one with 500.  Maybe those numbers aren't quite right, but you get the idea. He's built up a network around that concept.

A tracker can manage at a big event, but not many small events that are probably private. Note that Joe Stanley was barred from a press conference.  Whether or not that was appropriate is a different question, but what's clear is that Goode is used to having control over his audience and most of his campaign work was not visible.

Sorry.. don't shoot the messenger. The good news is that as increased transparency becomes the order of the day, such a strategy will become less and less acceptable. The best thing we can do is keep demanding openness and honesty in candidates and legislators.  As it becomes more common, candidates who slink about won't have a prayer.

Agreed, Kathy; no shots being fired from here.  As usual, you are dead on target. 

Those who attempt to campaign in private must be flushed out, and a winning combination can be achieved by teamwork, starting with an assertive, principled challenger and followed up by repeated public insistence on greater involvement with the people who are to be represented by the winner.

By the winner.

That's where RK and others like it can be most effective; keeping the public informed and constantly requesting the assistance and pro-active involvement of those who vote, period.

Blogs are here to stay, and thus far we have seen only the tip of the political icebergs that they can and will become.

Stay at it, RK.

Thanks!

Steve 

The ten minute limit for YouTube is more than enough for the "Expose" type videos, but to get the full picture into the political issues and the stand of each candidate takes usually at least an hour of reasonable debate..... The full length copies of the congressional, senatorial, and marriage amendment debates that we got permission to post on the web are STILL getting a few hundred views per week and more indicative of the interest, there are still a couple of dozen downloads each week of these 575 megabyte or larger files.

Having the actual full videos readily available has made it a lot harder to take excerpts out context and twist them.  Once the Virginia League of Women Voters got upset with the Allen campaign for taking an out of context quote from the Richmond debate, they made the non-partisan distribution rights available and we did just that via the web and public access stations all over Virginia. I personally have used similar copies of speeches and debates to de-bunk and show the lies and distortions of an opponent in the 2005 elections as well.

So to say the short video clip is a weapon of truth and hype is a very accurate statement. However, there is definitely a place for the full length video distributed by web and DVD to act as a "deterrent" against some of the garbage we have seen before. We have gained an amazingly powerful tool with the almost instantaneous distribution capabilities of YouTube and now the full length equivalent on Google Video. Add this to the ability to use our home computers for professional quality video editing so that even multi-hour long shows can be posted over-night What cost tens of thousands of dollars or more just a couple of years ago is now normal “free” services from volunteers who know how to use the tools.

I am sure we have just seen the beginning of the real effects and value of easy cheap and ubiquitous Multi-media.  Just think of how many of just the statewide bloggers that got to “virtually” attend rallies, speeches and press events that could then act as distribution persons for what really happened rather than rumor and “word-of-mouth” accounts of what happened.  Add to this the financial and other participation of dedicated activists who are all over the world even though their heart and sole is still home in Virginia.

Used2Bneutral makes a good point: the longer vidoes, providing us with full recordings of relevant meetings, speeches, and reports, creates a new newspaper of record, so to speak... if people will wade through them. The Bush Administration has with a heavy hand suppressed far too many such records, classified far too much as Secret in an effort (usually successful) to "manage" what the public knows. We do know that Cheney sought to declassify carefully selected portions of some reports so as to make a case for something he was advocating, and to enable him to attack the character of an opponent.

So that makes me wonder: will we see in the future artfully modified videos purporting to be true recordings? Like docudramas from, say, Mel Gibson (or Michael Moore, for that matter)? Manipulating the news has been a Republican strong point, and we can probably expect to see them extend that talent into the new media as well.

Teddy,
As long as we always maintain the ability to directly record, capture, and provide honest non-edited versions ourselves we should have the ultimate weapon, the truth !!! But, I am sure we will be up against fancy editing, but with all the years I have in the business, I have yet to see a video edit that can't be detected if necessary with even crude and in many cases "free" software, Video is much much more difficult, time consuming and expensive to re-touch than a still photo..... Here is where we may be accused of being naïve, because we only supply honest real stuff with usually a name and person who will vouch for it’s authenticity.... Oh of course there will be the funny edits like you see on commercial TV, but those are especially easy to detect..... 

The one thing we may need soon though is a private security protected streaming video server site beyond YouTube and Google Video to distribute our important stuff with, in the case where a pure public site may be more vulnerable to hacking or “denial of service” attacks. The private site may be necessary also where a public site may come under pressure from power-brokers who may be able to eventually control what gets posted and when its available using legal or regulatory issues…..

For your information, right now Google Video can take me as much as 18 to 24 hours to get a ninety minute show up on the web…. It takes about two to three hours to convert or re-code, edit, and then transcode, Before I “RIP” it into a format that Google expects for about another hour…. Then an additional hour or two to up-load it to their site via my relatively fast broad band connection. This is then followed by the Google review process for copyright and terms of use policy compliance which has taken me well over 12 hours on occasion. This is not a difficult process, just very time consuming using home computers instead of the super fast and expensive monsters the TV networks have….But even still, as you can see the biggest piece of the process is the compliance review that is performed for every video.

Thanks. Censoring just ain't what it used to be. I applaud you for making the effort it takes to post on Goggle.

I like your idea of a private security protected streaming video server site, but who would pay for it and how assured would access to the world wide web be then? Do you have anything specific in mind about how to do it, and make sure it will have unrestricted access to the Internet?