The mobile phone as political communication channel orbits around the simple use of text messages (SMS). Senator Clinton uses them. Senator Barack uses them. Let's talk about the next phase. What's the future strategy for reaching supporters on the mobile phone?

Barack Obama is the leading Democratic candidate with a clear mobile strategy.

Is the "Gays for Giuliani" campaign run by Democrats?; more video fun from Rudy Giuliani's past; after the YouTube debate, MySpace, Slate, Yahoo, and Huff Post are helping to change the face of the debates; mobile technology and the campaigns; and shadowing the campaigns in search of the next "macaca moment."

Barack Obama's campaign has an interesting example of the online-offline integration I talked about a few weeks ago. Having signed up for their text messaging list, I texted in my addresses to get a free Obama bumper sticker. It came yesterday and looks like this:

Aside from feeling some mild disappointment in not receiving the standard Obama'08 sticker to add to my collection, I got to thinking, and this is an interesting viral strategy. If I had to guess, the last thing they want is for this to actually be placed on cars -- you can barely see the call to action. Rather, the point is for it to be stuck on the outside of dorm room doors, where it can spread virally offline among college students. The amount of thought that went into this campaign (I got an SMS telling me my bumper sticker was being packaged up in Chicago with some TLC) shows you the premium they are placing on text messaging versus other forms of online communication.

A few months back, I chided John Edwards's team for not effectively using its mobile text campaign. Then I softened my stance a little bit as they started using Twitter more effectively than their own text program, and now I truly believe that they have the entire mobile messaging strategy right.

How do you bridge the divide between reaching the energized core on the Internet and the masses through traditional voter contact? Don't expect Web 2.0 to do it on its own. You've got to build hooks between the new and the old, and a number of tools are emerging for doing that effectively. I call these technology hybrids.

What are some examples of technology hybrids? Something I did earlier today, sending my first TwitterGram, certainly qualifies. I recorded a voicemail previewing this post that was then instantaneously sent to my Twitter account. How useful is this? It probably isn't for me. Who wants to hear my voice? But if you're a candidate, it can be tons more authentic than "texting" in your message. Zack Exley has famously urged candidates to write their own emails, but even if they did, would people believe it was them? That's why candidates shouldn't Twitter; they should TwitterGram. They shouldn't blog; they should videoblog. That solves the authenticity dilemma of campaign websites -- we'll know for sure it's them, in video or voice, delivering a message many times more compelling than plain text.

This got me connecting the experience to some ongoing thoughts about the most effective uses of technology in campaigns. Twitter's API may have saved the product from laughingstock status, but it's nowhere close to mainstream yet. But the idea of connecting to supporters via voice rather than SMS and email is as old as the auto-dialer in politics. Imagine if a candidate could send a phone message to its entire supporter list through a simple Web-based interface, a sort of opt-in robocall. Then imagine it was free. That's exactly what SayNow is doing in the entertainment community; artists can sign up to send messages to their fan community. Fans can send voicemails to them. Fans can also be alerted via SMS when a new message comes in.

How would such an integrated campaign have worked in the fundraising quarter that just ended? Say the campaign sends an email appeal out to supporters. A few hours later, the campaign auto-dials its online supporter list with a personalized message from the candidate reminding them of the email (he or she will have recorded the 500 most common first names on the email list, to add that personal touch). At the end, it's Press 1 to be connected to an operator to donate, Press 2 to volunteer, and Press 3 to enter your cell number for SMS alerts. That's similar to what John Edwards did by connecting supporters to donate over the phone, except instead of SMS the initial delivery vehicle was email reinforced by a phone call -- mainstream technology that nearly all voters are comfortable with.

What are some other examples of cool technology retrofits candidates are trying in 2008 -- or should be?

• Mitt Romney's tele-townhalls in Iowa and South Carolina -- an effective way to reach your entire universe cheaply and get the candidate in front of thousands of voters at once.
• Obama's low-dollar donor "kickoffs" in major cities, and his requiring email to attend rallies. Some say this is the special sauce behind his fundraising numbers. At the end of the day this is not high-tech at all, just 10,000 pieces of paper -- turned into 10,000 email addresses. Simple -- and smart.

• Embeddable click-to-call (Jajah is an interesting product) -- good for online phone banks, potentially conducted via mobile.
• Along these lines, ONE did something very cool a few weeks back. Instead of facing the typical response rate dropoff of asking people to call into a conference, they called anyone who RSVP'd.
• Edwards sending 70,000 DVDs to Iowa voters. Imagine if these contained a slimmed down version of his site, with the ability to donate or volunteer. That could connect you with some older, less avid Web users.

Justin Oberman’s post on the Edwards campaign’s recently launched SMS fundraising campaign prompted a series of questions from fellow TechPresident contributor Colin Delany about the ability of other candidates to replicate Edwards success.   

In response to Colin's questions, I was contacted by Edwards' Deputy Director of New Media Amy Rubin. She provided responses to Colin's comments. I have assembled his questions, her responses, and my commentary into this virtual interview.

The Obama campaign has just launched its Eons campaign, including a big ad on the Eons homepage rotation. For those of you unfamiliar with Eons, it is a social network for people ages 50 and up (I had to lie about my age to join, heheh), founded by Monster.com's founder Jeff Taylor. While many think of social networks as online communities filled with youngsters, Eons clearly breaks the mold. Offering the same type of networking tools and opportunities as MySpace and Facebook, Eons is clearly not your kid's Oldsmobile (does Oldsmobile even exist anymore? Yes, I know it does, but do you remember the last Oldsmobile commercial you saw?).

The Web on the Candidates

Todd Zeigler at the Bivings Report articulates a strategy I've been trying to find the words for: he calls Ron Paul's dependence on third-party sites for campaign video, campaign news, scheduling, photo sharing, and social networking "distributed online campaigning." "His website is basically a mashup of all this stuff, with only a few core functions being performed by the website itself," Zeigler writes. "Obviously, as a long shot candidate with a limited budget, the use of these free tools is done out of necessity. But the strategy here is also very sound: by not giving supporters much to do on his own site he maximizes the amount of noise they make in other venues. It is the perfect approach for an insurgent candidate like Paul."

With little fanfare the Barack Obama campaign has followed the Edwards and Hillary campaign in launching a multi-faceted mobile campaign. Obama supporters were emailed about the announcement with an emphasis on taking Obama's "movement for change" "offline." And by "offline" they meant your cell phone.