It's almost pathological their aversion to serendipity.

=================================
Writer and Publisher
www.lizasabater.com
www.culturekitchen.com
www.dailygotham.com

Dan Manatt wrote the opposite regarding this event. And it's the "Most Emailed."

I don't know if people really care. In politics, as with anything else, if you can fake sincerity, you've got it made. I hate to be cynical-- but there's a limit to how "interactive" I personally need to be with a Presidential candidate.

Andrew Rasiej spoke to Michele Noris on All Things Considered yesterday, where he flat out said that the Republican candidates are not doing any viral marketing. I plainly don't believe him-- he runs PDF, which has a claim of bipartisanship, and he could find no example of anything a Republican candidate is doing? Sheesh. If only he read the article you wrote in November about Mike Huckabee, who you felt was making the most effective use of the web: "He is the only candidate consistently--every day--sharing user-created videos on his blog, the videos that many predicted would dominate this election. The user-created videos are far more irreverent (even tweaking Huckabee himself) than videos other campaigns will share, and they are far more interesting."

I'm a reluctant occasionally reader of TechPresident. But it seems like too often contributors take the shortcut can go with their gut as opposed to doing real research (as you did in November.)

Of course, there's also limited returns of the hocus-pocus. And there's far many more electronic battlefields. The NYTimes dealt a body-slam to Obama on page A1 of Sunday's paper, bringing up the issue of how he apparently acquiesced to the nuclear industry in a bill he brought to the Senate. The Obama website -- or, rather, the campaign's lesser known factcheck domain-- swung back. But the conservative blogs (strangely trusting the Times for a change) lapped up the story. I couldn't find a top liberal blog which picked up the campaign's talking points.