Here are my notes for the talk I'm about to give at Politics Web 2.0 on "The Revolution Will Be Networked: How Open Source Politics is Emerging in America.” (Caveat emptor, your experience may vary.)

Hugh Atkin is viderate. You and I are not (that is, unless you know how to use Final Cut Pro and have amassed an in-depth videobank of clips and allusions that you can manipulate as easily as typing this sentence). We've linked to his stuff before, but I'm writing this mash note because I think he deserves more attention here in the U.S. (his Australian countrymen already know how brilliant he can be).

This year has seen two controversies surrounding online political attacks that were designed to look voter-generated, but were actually produced by people indirectly connected to campaigns. In one, the producer and campaign fared no ill consequences and the work went viral. In the other, the producer and campaign are dealing with a hail of negative publicity and a defunct website. If both of these incidents are superficially similar, why are we calling one a breakthrough and the other a scandal?

Blogger and human rights activist extraordinaire Ethan Zuckerman has a fascinating post up about a Tunisian version of the 1984 Apple ad video mash-up that predates the now famous "Vote Different" Hillary 1984 video by three years.

The Web on the Candidates

Comments from around the web:

Ben Smith of the Politico: "The web consultant who left Obama's web consulting firm after taking credit for the Vote Different ad has been shadowed in the past by accusations of 'dirty tricks.'"

Jerome Armstrong at MyDD: "I know the founders of Blue State Digital, and this was a petty move on their part..."

Hotline On Call: "So -- they fired the guy for creating a creative wonderpiece."

My hat is off to Arianna Huffington and her crew for figuring out who made the "Vote Different" Hillary 1984 video mash-up, and even better for getting Phil de Vellis, its author, to say more about his reasons for making the video.

Why is the "Vote Different" creator still in hiding? There can only be one reason: the project was funded by a well known Obama supporter, or someone with very close and public connections to the Obama campaign. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that the Obama campaign had anything to do with it.

But so far most of the discussion of the ad has put up a picture of an independent video person working at home on their Mac in their spare time. But that's just not plausible. Such a character would be claiming his or her reward right now, boosting his or her career and having a great time doing the media rounds. And, also telling: the ad maker knew exactly what election law lines not to cross, stopping just short of express advocacy. Why didn't the ad say, "Vote Obama"? So, when did independent YouTube video hackers get access to their own election law attorneys?

NY1, the all-news cable channel of New York City, has gotten a response from Hillary Clinton to the "Vote Different" 1984 video. They report that she isn't worried about the video's impact. I'm told that this was an off-the-cuff response on her part.

Heads-up: There's a response video to Hillary 1984 that's started circulating on the web. More on that below. But first this bit of self-promotion: I'm on CNN's "Situation Room" today at around 5:50pm eastern and on the CBS Evening News, in both cases talking about the Hillary video and what it all means, and PdF co-founder Andrew Rasiej is going on MSNBC tonight with Keith Olbermann. Set your DVRs and Tivos.

The first piece of voter-generated video to make a splash in Campaign 2008 has hit, and with it comes a mystery. Is "Vote Different" really the work of an amateur, a civilian if you will? Or is it a shrewd move by someone who wants to stir up trouble between the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns? After all, comparing Hillary to Big Brother, droning on about her "conversation" with America and portraying her supporters as silent automatons is hardly what Obama supporters want to say about the former First Lady. Or is it?