by Greg Beato

Back in the Dial-Up Ages, when the megabytes flowed like Mogen-David at a George Allen seder, even a 20-page educational technology plan white-paper was a less excruciating campaign tool than a 28.8 Kbps attack ad. Aspiring revolutionaries foresaw electoral upheaval in temporary technological constipation, but luckily, just when it seemed as if Internet populists were poised to seize democracy from rich politicians, lobbyists, corporate fat cats, and other special interests, YouTube arrived. Far from being the first channel the many-to-many aesthetic into a channel, YouTube is responsible for putting people-powered politics in a holding pattern. Please excuse the technological interruption.

Sure, YouTube is a step backwards from the glory days of 2004, when a $2000 ad buy could yield a candidate as much as $80,000 in donations. But if YouTube advertising isn't actually profitable, at least it's free and unencumbered by campaign finance regulations -- plus it gives you a shot at reaching the preaching to the preachers. You're preaching to the elect themselves -- their ballots were set in stone long ago. But YouTube? If the idiot box is for people who are too apathetic to vote, well, YouTube is for people who are too apathetic to watch West Wing. It's a chance to reach a whole new base, one harrowing attack ad at a time.

Except for Claire McCaskill and James Webb, however, few candidates are using the medium well. Instead, they're littering the vast dumping ground that is YouTube with the carcasses of standard-issue TV spots and debate footage that's less viral than an Amish kissing booth.

What makes a YouTube video work? In the words of media consultant Carter Eskew, the medium "favor[s] a kind of authenticity and directness and honesty." Of course, asking a politician to be honest and direct is like asking your washing machine to fry you an omelette: It wasn't designed for that, so things will probably get a little messy.

But ultimately it's not too hard to crack the code to YouTube success: Just be no one understands him-- not his parents, not the Democrats, not the Republicans, not Daniel -- and it's still possible no would watch. YouTube, after all, is a meritocracy, and in a meritocracy, the man with the most loyal group of ballot stuffers wins.

But how many campaign strategists are exploiting this fact? Recently, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman went out and hired Hollywood conservative David Zucker (Scary Movie 4, Airplane) to produce a series of commercials for the GOP. For the first one, which showed how basketballs are almost as effective as Ronald Reagan's Star Wars plan in protecting us from evil empires, the release strategy was top-notch: Deem the clip too hot for official GOP sanction and unofficially publicize it through The Drudge Report.

Once Drudge started sending viewers to the clip, it quickly gained a foothold on YouTube's heavily-trafficked "Most Viewed" page, where even more people watched it. Its rise to the top was so sudden that eventually perplexed YouTubers started accusing the person who posted the clip of hacking the site somehow. (That person, known only as "sking28" had never posted a clip before and only joined YouTube that day.) And in a way, of course, he had -- just like anyone with a constituency big (or indefatigable) enough to watch a clip enough times to get it on YouTube's "Most Viewed" page.

But perhaps giving Mehlman credit for the Drudge leak is too presumptuous. Zucker has created a second ad; this one's about tax-crazed Democrat zombies and it's boring enough for the RNC to feel comfortable hosting it on its own site. But it's also on YouTube, where it's gone virtually unnoticed.

Why spend big bucks on Hollywood production values and then not even bother
to get a Young Republicans street team to turn it into a grassroots YouTube sensation? And why even go the Hollywood route when Grover Norquist dancing in his bedroom while lip-syncing to The Beatles' "Taxman" could be promoted just as effectively?

For the time being, it's probably best to keep costs down. A million YouTubers may vote for your favorite ad, but will they take the next step and vote for your favorite candidate on election day? As Howard Dean and Samuel L. Jackson can attest. Internet enthusiasm has a way of staying on the Internet. Still, as YouTube evolves, there's no question who will thrive there: Those who can rent the best talent and rig the system most skillfully. Sorry, great unwasheds, the filthy rich still rule.

Greg Beato (gbeato@soundbitten.com) writes for Reason, Las Vegas Weekly, and many other publications. He wrote last for Political Bite about Bill O'Reilly.

by Ana Marie Cox

1. The difference between a "benchmark" and a "timetable" is that benchmarks will help you win, whereas "Withdrawing on an artificial timetable means we lose." Corallary: The difference between "winning" and "losing" in Iraq is whether or not we are in Iraq. As long as we are there, we are winning. We're sort of starting to understand why he thinks Republicans will keep the House now.

2. Bush would like us to know he is NOT staying the course. Far from it. In fact, "Today I will explain how we're adapting our tactics," because "[a]s the enemy shifts tactics, we are shifting our tacticsl." You see, "[o]n the military side, our commanders on the ground are constantly adjusting our tactics."And, of course, "we're taking new steps to help secure Baghdad, and constantly adjusting our tactics." Really, what he means is "my point to the American people is, is that we're constantly adjusting our tactics." No, seriously: "And that's important for the American people to know, that we're constantly changing tactics." Why? Well, "I do not want to leave before we achieve victory. And the best way to do that is to make sure we have a strategy that works, tactics that adjust to the enemy." Put another way, "[w]hat will work is a strategy that's constantly -- tactics that constantly change to meet the enemy." Ooops. Almost used a synonym there. Don't want to confuse people. Or the person giving the speech.

3. "Why aren't you going to fire that incompent boob?" is "Washington code" for "Tell me how great a job the incompent boob is doing." ("Heck of a job, Brownie" now makes total sense.)

4. The difference between the Iraq War and World War II is simple: "This is a war against extremists and radicals who kill innocent people to achieve political objectives. It has a multiple of fronts." Also? "We were facing a nation state -- two nation states -- three nation states in World War II."

5. The midterms are NOT a referendum on Iraq. They're a referendum on lollipops and and gum drops! Or whatever it is they vote for on the planet Bush is currently visiting.

ELSEWHERE ON THE WEB: You know things are bad for the Republicans when Michelle Malkin mocks you: "Bush has also asked Saudi Arabia (great) and Jordan to help persuade Sunni insurgents to accept 'national reconciliation.' Goooood luck." Less polite sarcasm from Rude Pundit: "Bush like campaign. Campaign fun. Eat chicken. Shake hands. No hard thinking." Over at the Corner, the point that "America's patience is not unlimited" is dubbed a "useful line." According to ABC, the official Democratic response featured "some guy talking to his car dealer, elevator music from someone's phone being on hold, continuous loud beeping, and odd heavy breathing."

Political junkies -- a term used to define anyone who pays attention to electoral politics before Halloween -- have been enjoying the campaign antics of Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) and Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) for month. Now, with the election close at hand and both parties in a frenzy (one in delirious optimism, the other simply delirious), other players have stepped to onto the stage to play target practice with their toes...

After a debate for Wyoming's lone House seat, Rep. Barbara Cubin responded to accusations that she had taken money from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramhoff with the testy threat, "If you weren't sitting in that chair, I'd slap you across the face." The reason her opponent -- Libertarian Thomas Rankin -- is in a chair is because he has MS. This is probably the best thing to happen to the Libertarian party since taxes.

In Iowa, Rep. Steve "D.C. is More Dangerous than Iraq" King explained his opposition to illegal immigration with a plain spoken comparison: "King said at first stray cats help by chasing mice, so people feed them. King added that the stray cats then have kittens, which are liked for their cuteness, but eventually the strays, fed by the people, end up getting lazy, just like illegal immigrants." And then there's the kittens' loud music and souped-up cars... Would you let your sister marry a kitten? I didn't think so.

What's more, everyone knows that kittens can't vote. But immigrants actually can -- contrary to a letter sent out by Tan Nguyen's California campaign to "new voters with Latino surnames telling them -- wrongly -- that it is illegal for them to vote if they are immigrants." The GOP has actually asked Nguyen to step out of the race because of this goof, though he insists an aide was responsible.

Last week, Rep. J.D. Hayworth became the second Republican in Congress with a hidden Jewish background. Having already inserted his foot in his mouth by endorsing Henry Ford's Americanization" program, Hayworth was to appear at synagog for a mea culpa/outreach. He didn't show, prompting an interfaith dialog during which one of Hayworth's representatives asserted that his member's pro-life stance made him a "more observant Jew" than than those present. After the event, the same staffer, responding to the less-than-friendly atmosphere, said "No wonder there are anti-Semites." Oh, and this staffer was once convicted on gambling charges.

No wonder there are non-voters.

by Ana Marie Cox

The big debate within the Republican party today has less to do with how to vote than whether to vote at all. And as the interparty rhetoric has heated up in recent past, so has the intraparty rhetoric. From a an email to Kathryn Lopez posted today at The Corner:

Subject: Burns

You wrote: "I don't deny abandoning [Burns' candidacy]...my list of candidates whose losses I'd cry over does not include him."

If a Burns loss leaves the Senate 51-49 Democratic, and Reid as Majority Leader, would you really feel this way? You would really not shed a tear if losing Montana meant Democrats were put into a position to thwart what needs to be done in the war on terror?

Lots of people might someday die because in 2006 conservatives insisted on ideological purity.

by Ana Marie Cox

I was watching "Meet the Press" when Tim Russert cajoled Barack Obama into admitting he would possibly consider a presidential run. It was a quiet statement, made in a manner both reluctant and calculating, just vague enough to never be held against him -- unlike his rather definitive pronouncements that he definitely WOULD NOT run.

To judge by the coverage of this mild admission, you'd think he rolled out bunting and turned up at a pot luck in New Hampshire. He's number four in Technorati searches and usually one has to send dirty instant messages to a page or conduct a Diet-Coke-and-Mentos experiment to get that high. Maybe that's next week. For today, the hype and attention given to the first-term senator from a book tour called hope says more about the state of the Democratic Party than it does about any candidate in particular. Especially not this candidate -- his not quite pronouncement could well be a head fake on Obama's part to spike up interest in his campaign and fundraising appearances the last two weeks of the campaign. The excited response, however, speaks to just how desperate both Democrats and the press are to have someone, anyone, create a real race against the presumptive front-runner, Hillary Clinton.

It may shock readers of the Note that the two camps (the party and the press) have different reasons to be wary of a Hillary lock on the nomination. Democrats fear that she can't win. Journalists fear that she'll put them to sleep. Covering a Hillary campaign would make oxygenating paint seem like a Tony Scott film. A disciplined and controlled campaign -- the kind of campaign Hillary could be expected to run -- makes for bored reporters. Describing the Bush-Cheney press plane in 2000, a friend once told me that the operation was run so tightly that once they left a campaign event at night there was nothing left to write, "So, basically, we drank... It was like a giant, flying happy hour."

Of course, a drunk press corps doesn't guarantee positive coverage -- they can turn surly if not properly fed -- but it can make it easier to, as the Bush campaign insisted, "get our message directly to the voters." Who knows: If Hillary will keep her contingent buzzed or bored or both, one hopes that if she does take her message to voters, she figures out something to say.