One of the great things about Twitter, and its API, is that it promotes the rapid development of innovative applications on top of it. For example, Twitpay was created over the course of a weekend. At a recent Ruby on Rails conference, a full-blown Twitter-based application was live-coded over the course of one freakin’ hour.

So Twitter isn’t just a great tool, it’s a great platform to build on. Now, we all know for a fact that conservatives dominate Twitter (and that the Left should be nervous). But so far, all the Right has built on top of Twitter is a lame leaderboard. And attempts to mirror ActBlue have not been successful.

Because I just can’t stand to see a good idea go unimplemented, I’d like to share with you a step-by-step description of how a Twitter political fundraising engine could be built, and how much it would cost. Let’s call it Conservatwiv. SPOILER ALERT: It would be really easy, and relatively inexpensive.

With a Democrat back in the White House, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh has rekindled that fire in his belly, and his listeners are already beginning to dream about 2012. Over the past month, several possible domain names for a hypothetical Rush Limbaugh 2012 presidential bid have been snatched up by forward-looking dittoheads.

Much has been written about what’s next for the national movement that sprung up around the Obama campaign. The fruit of the Obama campaign’s organizational prowess is a multi-million member supporter list, probably the most powerful political list ever amassed in American history. As someone who has extensively worked with the lists built by the campaigns of Howard Dean (as an employee of Democracy for America from 2005-2006) and John Kerry (as a consultant for Friends of John Kerry from 2007-2008), I may have some unique insight into what exactly is going to happen next.

One of the more fascinating aspects of the presidential campaign has been the proliferation of email smears against Barack Obama, and his campaign's efforts to fight back. Back in July, such an email dropped into my inbox, which claimed to be a reprint of a New York Times column by Maureen Dowd. A complete fabrication quickly debunked, the column claimed that contributions to the Obama campaign originated illegally from the Middle East and China. Now comes news that the RNC will file a complaint against the Obama campaign for the possibility of accepting illegal foreign donations.

Looking back at the past 18 months, what’s remarkable about the 2008 campaign is how unremarkable it’s actually been when it comes to the use of the Internet. While Patrick Ruffini earlier argued that Barack Obama’s website is boring, it’s been stewing in my mind for months that the entire cycle has been rather ho-hum.

All campaigns, from the presidential level on down, have seemed to be unwilling, or unable, to rewrite the rules of the game when it comes to how technology is used in electoral politics. They have (pardon the word play) been shiftless in producing a paradigm shift. And maybe, after the upheavals of 2004 and 2006, that should be expected.

The Obama campaign has launched a microsite at FightTheSmears.com, debunking the attacks du jour against him (and his wife). But why exactly did the campaign feel compelled to do this, and why won’t we be seeing a similar site from the McCain campaign? A quick visit to Snopes.com may offer an explanation.

A quick note about the Law of Unintended Consequences in action: A post on Crooks and Liars earlier this afternoon reported that the RNC's Facebook group had surpassed the DNC's group in membership, and the RNC was actively shopping the story around to reporters. The progressive Netroots hit back swiftly.

We’ve all seen microsites used in politics, from ImpeachGonzales.org last year to the recently launched CanWeAsk.com. Common to microsites are a clear message and clear call to action. But how about sites that are literally just one word? A few years ago the site Is Lost a Repeat? launched. Now, we have Is Barack Obama Muslim?, aimed at knocking down the rumors spread via email chain letters.

The John McCain campaign has been pilloried time and time again when it comes to their email strategy. The emails are overly long, unclear, and designed as if they were a piece of direct mail. But, as a public service to all campaigns and organizations looking to execute solid online organzing, I thought it would be illustrative to point out exactly what makes an email successful.

Bob Barr, who served in Congress as a Republican but is now registered with the Libertarian Party, today formally announced his entry into the Presidential race, and as the only candidate for his party’s nomination who has actually won a significant election, will likely be the Libertarian candidate this fall. Can Barr harness the energy from the libertarian-minded Ron Paul campaign and mount a disruptive third-party run? Or is he doomed to receiving a miniscule portion of the popular vote, as has been the case with past Libertarian presidential candidates?

Update: This post has been changed to clarify the paragraphs speculating on the acquisition of the Ron Paul list.