One of the things I love about blogging and the web is that if you have a halfway decent idea and it gets noticed by a few sites that function like giant switching stations, very quickly all kinds of other good people pop up and get in touch with their own good ideas and content. So, in just the last day, since being tapped by both TechCrunch and TalkingPointsMemo, here are some of the cool sites and posts that I've encountered:

The Web on the Candidates -- Politics Online Edition

Jeff Jarvis posts a roundup of one of the first sessions at the Politics Online conference, on putting together a web team. The panel, moderated by former Hotline editor Chuck Todd, featured Giuliani advisor Patrick Ruffini, former Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi, myDD's Jerome Armstrong, and Townhall's Chuck DeFeo. Trippi, as usual, was full of useful anecdotes from his Dean days. Jarvis reports one: "[Trippi] recalls a moment in Iowa — a story I’ve heard before — when a student told Dean that he was skipping a final to see the candidate but the candidate switched to dad mode and insisted that the kid go take his test. It made great and authentic video, Trippi says, and he marks it as a significant moment in the campaign online." No current has reached that level authenticity, Trippi says. Check out a video of the panel on Ruffini's site.

The Web on the Candidates

The Washington Post's Jose Antonio Vargas writes about the presidential candidates' use of video, and the reviewers that pick it apart. Specifically, he interviews Jeff Jarvis, James Kotecki, and techPresident's own Micah Sifry about what the candidates still have to learn about online video. Online viewers want something different than they're getting from the candidates; while one of Hillary Clinton's recent Hillcasts had about 15,000 visitors, a popular video of YouTube featuring Clinton singing an out-of-tune national anthem has been viewed over 1.1 million times. A lot of viewers are looking for that human touch: "Look at how the candidates are talking in their videos. With a few exceptions, they're mostly looking sideways, not talking directly to the camera. The important thing about this medium is it's very human and intimate. A voter comes across and clicks on you. You should talk to that voter and look at him in the eye," says Jarvis. Micah agrees. "There's something fundamentally different about video online. Viewers are looking for that rare, unscripted, revealing moment, to get a little sense of who these candidates really are."

Breaking news: Barack Obama is taking off like a rocket in the video-sphere, judging by the number of views his YouTube channel has garnered in the last 48 hours. Just take a look at our chart: After slowly rising in the last week to about 100,000 views, his site has shot through the roof, passing 400,000 in the last day. Everybody else is relatively flat.

The Web on the Candidates

A commenter on Jeff Jarvis' Buzzmachine says that "there's a big elephant in the room on viral video for politics," which is that as more political advertising (and eyeballs) end up on YouTube, local broadcast stations will lose their most cherished sources of funding, similar to the way Craigslist has challenged newspapers' classified ads model.  The dominant advertising mode is still TV, Jarvis writes, but it won't be that way forever: "All political advertising won’t migrate online yet because the audience on broadcast is bigger and campaigns are inherently conservative. But there will be a point of no return."   

James Kotecki's new video takes a look at the most popular videos on YouTube that feature politicians doing or saying something stupid.  He isn't sure that, in the end, these assorted "macaca" moments will ultimately affect the race, since the more we record candidates' every move, the more likely they'll get caught making gaffes, and we'll become used to the idea that candidates make mistakes.  Kotecki ends with a sorta-funny montage of his own "gaffes."

William Beutler of Blog P.I. has a nice update/analysis of Mitt Romney's jump in to the YouTube pool.

What I find most interesting is that Mitt's eGuy, Stephen Smith, left a comment on Beutler's post which tells me two things: 1. Smith is paying attention to what people are saying about his guy. 2. Smith has been given "permission" to be a "spokesblogger" for the campaign.

Keep going...

It's been quite a day out here on the internets, with the blogosphere buzzing over our story yesterday of how Obama volunteer Joe Anthony lost control of his MySpace Obama page to the pros at the Obama campaign. And now it looks like we're going to have another day to chew over the story, for the candidate himself and the campaign's internet director have waded into the fray.

A little while ago, just before Obama internet director put up a long post explaining his version of the events surrounding Anthony's MySpace adventure, Senator Obama personally called Anthony at home.

This issue [Obama's MySpace Brouhaha] reminds me of questions that we had to deal with all the time on the Dean campaign. We called people like Joe Anthony "centers of gravity"-- people who had built up their own Dean communities. We wanted centers of gravity as close to campaign as possible without imploding.

One of the underlying issues raised by Obama's MySpace Mess is just what it takes to build a mega-group on a big social networking site, and how to value that work. I want to get into that here.

The dust is starting to settle on Obama's MySpace Mess. For those people who imagined that Joe Anthony might turn to the courts and sue the Obama campaign for taking control of a community space that he spent two-and-a-half years and thousands of hours nurturing, that move is fortunately for all concerned not in the cards.