Colin Delany's comments on Matt Bai's recent NYT article reminds me of so many conversations I have had about how Google killed message control. For a long time, I have argued that campaigns cannot control their message anymore. At best they can only hope to manage the chaos.

But as a result of a recent conversation with my friend Lenny Steinhorn, I am convinced that the internet has not killed message control, but rather language control. Campaigns may still be able to shape the message, but citizens are free to internalize it and restate it in their own language. And with the internet, any campaign's message is able to take root in the polity, in many forms and with greater impact.

Bill Richardson has relaunched his website, coinciding with his announcement that he is officially running for the Democratic nomination for President. On the heels of his highly successful Job Interview web commercial, his newly redesigned website is essentially his resume 2.0.

After delivering up more than 150,000 views of his subtle but hysterical Job Interview commercial on YouTube, the Richardson campaign has decided the candidate’s resume needed a new look and feel. In the age of digital elections, a candidate’s website is his/her resume, providing voters with information regarding experience, issue positions, and plans for leading the nation. It is a place where voters can create their own relationship with the candidate and the campaign. And it is a place where the press can gather fodder for its stories. A good campaign website is all of these things.

A great campaign website also mobilizes the voters to become more actively involved in shaping public policy, not just by voting, but by voicing their opinions to policymakers, the media, and their own personal networks. This broader view of a campaign website or, more appropriately, a political website has yet to be taken up in earnest by most of the candidates. As I alluded to in an early post about Barack Obama’s petition drive to pressure Senate Republicans up for re-election to overturn the President’s veto of the supplemental war funding bill, real presidential candidates lead people to take control of their own country. They do not just ask voters to give them their votes. This is the difference between a visionary candidate and a candidate who is “in it to win it.”