(cross posted at The Next Right)

I have been a pretty harsh critic of the RNC and its Internet operations. I have argued for some time that the RNC really doesn't foster a sense of creativity or innovation. While I still maintain that is generally true, I have to admit I really like their latest project - www.barackbook.com.

The idea is very good. Facebook captures the interconnection of people, so how better to demonstrate Obama's connection to some really shady people than a FB parody. It's not quite an exact rip-off of Facebook's profile page, which would have been easy enough to do, but I suspect they were trying to make it different enough that they wouldn't get sued (friggin' lawyers!).

Some might argue that mocking Facebook is a bad move given that FB co-founder Chris Hughes is running my.BarackObama.com. It may call attention to the fact that Obama has attracted some big tech names to his side. I disagree.

I think the message is compelling, and I think the connection between Obama and FB really won't get much traction.

The only real critique I have of the effort is the relative inability to spread it around. I would suggest to Cyrus and company, that they add an option in the upper left to "Add Friends", and provide the opportunity for visitors to virally promote the site. Regular Facebook users would likely click on the link just to see what what's behind it.

Monday afternoon the GOP spin machine cranked into high gear and began barfing out news releases and research documents about the Obama Waffle comment.

A lot of people have asked me why I give the GOP such a hard time about their online efforts. The party, whether others would admit it, has developed some very cool toys, but nobody is using them. The problem, I have maintained, is the fundamental disconnect between political communications and marketing. This perfectly illustrates that point.

Since I am often accused of bitching w/o offering constructive comments, I'm turning over a new leaf. From now on, when I see specific examples of how I think we went wrong, I'll point it out and offer ideas of other things we could have done to capitalize.

Here are five things we could have done in this situation...

(cross posted at KungFuQuip)

I'm in the second morning session at Politics: Web 2.0. Paul Zube from Michigan State is walking us through an analysis of candidate use of MySpace versus their own websites. His assumption was the campaigns, which are control/image oriented would be able to serve less interactive content via MySpace (limited primarily by the platform) and would have less control of the content than their campaign site provides.

Following Zube, Rebecca Hayes addressed the ways candidates used these social networks and began with an explanation that her further studies revealed under 18 audiences were not engaging before coming of election age, and typically did not engage at 18 because they felt candidates were ignoring them and not speaking to their issues.

While studies show adult web users are more likely than their peers to vote, the youth who are very engaged online, are less likely to vote. Hayes explores central route and peripheral route decision making. Central route relies on rational decision making while peripheral route relies on external cues to spur decisions. She suggests that her study indicates young voters are more inclined to peripheral decision making.

Micah Sifry is busy covering the session focused almost entirely on the 2004 Dean campaign, so I decided to pop into a session focused, at least in theory, on analyses of practical applications of technology.

Sandra Gonzalez-Bailon explored the ways in which web sites - primarily blogs in her analysis - draw an audience and gain importance. In addition, Jonah Bossewitch examines the Zyprexa Kills campaign as an example of citizens using the Internet to distribute information.

Session 1 of the Politics: Web 2.0 Conference brings us to an examination of Facebook and clustering of ideological types and research done by Brian Gaines and Jeff Mondak at the University of Illinois. One of the fears about the growing rise of the Internet is it fosters a cognitive dissonance and allows individuals to ignore information with which they disagree. It also allows them to congregate together with only those who align with their views and self-reinforce.

Gaines and Mondak looked at whether friend networks had commonality of belief systems or whether there were significant variations. One interesting aspect they explored was whether the urge to add more friends - ths raising their social capital - would lead people to connecting with more divergent networks and therefore exposing themselves to more diverse opinions.

This wasn't supposed to be "Beat up on Hillary Week". It really wasn't. It just happens that this is the second thing in a week I've been given that just didn't work for me.

Below is the e-mail I just received from Team Hillary:

Now, I love images in e-mail. I like nice big, friendly images that complement the copy. I don't like big images that ARE the copy and this is exactly why. It is more and more common for e-mail clients like Thunderbird and Outlook to block images in e-mail. Unless you change the default behavior of the client, or add every list to which you subscribe to your address book, this is often what you get.

Hillary's folks would be better advised to dump the giant image and use text that won't get wiped out if images are off.

Hillary has a new web ad up on at least a handful of sites. The creative is a little uninspiring, but what really caught my attention was what they say without saying a word. Here's a grab of the ad:

What's most interesting about the ad is their choice of picture. It's especially interesting when you look at it in context of all the Internet chatter about Barack Obama's alleged "un-American" activities.

A recent Washington Post article quoted me as saying most online campaigns really aren't moving the ball forward. In a recent appearance at Google, Garrett Graff was asked if he agreed with my assertion. I'll let you watch for yourself the discussion and his answer. It's good, so I recommend you do.

Let me, however, elaborate on the original question I was asked and the reply. I did not mean to imply that campaigns weren't doing interesting things. Mindy Finn with Romney's campaign did some really good work on the "create your own ad" effort. Obama's people have done an amazing job of fundraising online. There are some novel online efforts being undertaken.

What I meant, more specifically, was there does not appear to be any effort to convert that excitement and energy into actual votes. Most of the GOTV work being done is still being done offline, and what little is being done online seems to be badly marketed and ill-conceived.

Yesterday I got an e-mail from a local Hillary staffer looking for phone bank help. What I found interesting was the offensive tone it took. I had started to say she "asked" for help, but it really was more of a demand.

Now maybe I'm reading too much into this. I recognize that e-mail is a flat emotionless medium so text is often misread for context and intention.

That said, I was shocked by the subject line before I ever opened it. The subject line seems to imply that no matter what I may have done, no matter how much I may have given, no matter how much time I might have spent talking about Hillary, I had not, in their eyes, "pitched in" yet.

The RNC is pushing a Valentine centered campaign this week with a set of eCards you can mail to your friends. Check them out at www.GOPValentine.com.

They feature such witty content as Hillary saying, "If I could rearrange the alphabet, I'd put T and AX together." Perhaps the most misguided of these is the Obama card which says, "Three years in the US Senate qualifies me to wish you a Happy Valentine's Day."

I guess they didn't get the memo that the same line of attack isn't working terribly well for Hillary.

While I like the general idea of using the holiday to make a point, I think they're a bit off the mark with their specific messages. When, for example, did the GOP decide that a long time in DC was a good thing?

So let's have some fun with this, leave a comment and tell me what your best Valentine themed attack would be.