Tech makes this the year of the youth vote, NextGov.

McCain's campaign did not respond to an interview request, and the Republican National Committee simply provided a list of websites that it believes illustrate its youth outreach, including MyGOP.com, the RNC's social network, which allows users to create an account to learn about volunteer opportunities. The site, which went live in January, is the party's answer to MyBarackObama.com.

But some Republicans have quietly expressed concern that the Left is innovating faster than the Right -- producing a gap that could prove costly now and in future elections. Obama, they say, hasn't just created a social-networking chat frenzy. He has built a database of e-mail addresses and cellphone numbers that could help his party keep younger voters in the Democratic fold for years to come.

The day after the presidential election, when everyone else is celebrating or mourning, a transition team will be working – to prepare for the day the new president will take office. The transition process itself is extremely complex and will happen during a short, three-month period. This handover of power will involve an unprecedented amount of information and will require fast, effective communication. The transition team must make the most of modern social technology to shape, coordinate, and run the process of moving the next president into office. Here are some suggestions on how that can work.

What’s the transition team?

The transition team has many responsibilities. They are concerned about staffing the White House, vetting potential cabinet members, developing advisory councils, recruiting lower-level personnel, coordinating with the outgoing administration, communicating with key outside advisors and leaders in government and the private sector, and drafting an initial presidential agenda. Also, in the executive branch agencies, team members have three main jobs: analyzing the overall organization and function of parts of the executive branch, reassessing key senior personnel positions and responsibilities, and looking at pressing and long-term issues in specific subject-matter areas.

Previous administrations – and ultimately the American people – have suffered from poor communication and coordination during transition periods. For example, the infamous “Black Hawk Down” incident occurred in Somalia at the time of the Bush 41-to-Clinton transition, and the “Bay of Pigs” occurred during the Eisenhower-Kennedy transition. Ultimately, it can be argued that these crises, and numerous others, boil down to a lack of communication, coordination, and collaboration between old and new administrations.

Technology in the transition

During the Clinton-Bush transition to the 43rd presidency, we were just past the Y2K confusion and at the peak of the dot-com bubble; Time-Warner purchased AOL; Microsoft released Windows 2000 and was in the middle of an antitrust case; Netscape launched its open-source Navigator 6.0 browser; Wikipedia did not yet exist; and the first true online short film debuted.

Now, presidential campaigns are longer, pricier, and more stressful, and the government is larger. The U.S. is also in the middle of numerous critical world events. In this transitory period, personal connections between the people involved are all-important. How might social technologies, which inherently act to bring people and ideas together (for example, Tip’d, a community for exchanging finance news), improve the transition process?

The Transparent Transition

The transition team will face many challenges. They need to understand the institutional memory of the Office of the President and the executive branch agencies. The president-elect must be made aware of issues that could affect national security and other vital interests. There will be a large recruitment effort – up to 70,000 applications will come in - to seek out individuals with required expertise to staff the incoming administration. The transition team will be overwhelmed with advice from think tanks, experts, interest groups, lobbyists, governors, legislators, and donors. And within cabinet departments, small teams will be preparing materials for cabinet and sub-cabinet heads, teeing up important upcoming issues, and reorganizing resources and personnel.

Social software has many applications here. Tools like blogs, wikis, and collaborative software can be useful internally to make information more widely available, searchable, and discoverable, and it can also promote and aid discussions between relevant transition personnel with areas of overlap. Experts can now also conduct briefings remotely using videoteleconferencing, present information via secure webpages and internal wikis, and conduct real-time discussions and make document modifications using collaborative software and chat tools. Private social networks with blogging, etc. are readily available, whether highly secure like INTELINK, or more causal like GovLoop.

Social software like knowledge management tools, collaborative software, advanced Internet search algorithms, and knowledge of online social networks like the increasingly popular Facebook could also facilitate the vetting of job candidates from outside the government, and possible recruitment and promotion from within it.

With regard to handling all the incoming “advice,” some social tools like CreateDebate allow coordination of formal debates so as to allow actionable conclusions from what might at first seem like the chaos of many opinions. And the new administration might consider using social software like PolicyPitch to reach out to stakeholders as well.

Finally, social software would enable teams interacting with different departments to share information and advice while they perhaps struggle to obtain information or solve problems. Software like CollectiveX can also be used to coordinate informal social networks and organize advisory groups of outside-subject-matter experts to advise the transition team members, keep track of discussions, and include people who cannot attend in person.

Risks During the Transition

Once the president takes office, there is a very real chance of a crisis that will test the new administration. Both World Trade Center incidents occurred in the first year of a new presidency; there are numerous examples of other such incidents in the window around elections from other countries as well.

Social software could bolster formal and informal networks of communication that in turn could help to avert such incidents or react more efficiently to them. This applies not just to intelligence analysts and disaster relief workers but also to “ordinary” government staff. For example, each president organizes his staff in a very personal manner; while surely well-reasoned this has side effects. Staff with insufficient titles cannot go to certain parts of the White House; e.g., the Mess. So, if (say) a senior policy advisor outranks a deputy speechwriter, they might not informally see each other very often. Social media can help create more soft interactions that bypass physical separations. Similar to using Twitter, every morning each staff member could answer the question, “What are you working on?” in 140 characters or less, with the resulting internal data being simple, searchable, discoverable, and archivable.

Governing is very different from campaigning; the president must look out for the needs of the entire nation. Social software can help with this too. Microblog websites – for example, this one dealing with the election – offer real-time information on public discussions people are having on the Internet. Quantifying public sentiment is important for reaching out, listening, and engaging the citizens post-election, and for influencing new policies.

Finally, citizens should be engaged in the transition process, and understand what increased risks there may be during that period. In an increasingly fragmented media and information society, that level of engagement requires more than a press release and newspaper coverage. It means full multimedia engagement using blogging, speeches, informal gatherings, mobile technologies, podcasts, online video, and widgets. The outreach should also use social tools that allow bidirectional conversation, increasing citizen participation and interest in government.

- - - -
Dr. Mark Drapeau is an Associate Research Fellow directing the Social Software for Security (S3) project at the Center for Technology and National Security Policy of the National Defense University in Washington DC. These views are his own and not the official policy or position of any part of the U.S. Government.

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Milton Friedman

In modern America, truly free markets can be hard to find, and like endangered national resources they must be protected from the regulation-happy enemies of capitalism. Especially in emerging industries we must act to preserve competition and the invisible hand.

It may seem counter-intuitive then that I support the defense of internet content, commerce and service providers from the anti-competitive broadband providers, but bear with me for a moment as I explain my position.

In most markets (particularly non-urban areas) there exists a duopoly of broadband internet service providers, most folks have to choose only from either the phone company or the cable company and the offerings are generally not very different.

In the old days of dial-up everyone had a plethora of options to pick from, the market was healthy and the competition benefited the consumer. If one company was providing sub par service the market would correct it. But we must remember the current state of high speed internet access is that real competition does not exist and the free market cannot correct itself.

Because of this anti-competitive environment ISPs are able to endanger consumer choice (and the self-correcting nature of capitalism) by degrading their customer's access to services they offer competing version of. If your ISP offers VOIP or video they are able to coercively remove competition by slowing down or even entirely blocking access to other providers, like Skype or YouTube.

There is already evidence that Comcast has blocked access to certain high-quality video providers, possibly in an effort to eliminate consumer choice in that industry, and we can be sure that more market-squashing like this is in the works from the telecom giant.

As if to drive their anti-populust message home even further Comcast interfered with the democratic process recently when they paid uninterested people to "fill up seats" in an open FCC hearing in Massachusetts on these issues, preventing their critics from even attending the meeting. When questioned on the tactic they admitted to using "seat warmers" to stifle debate.

These sorts of anti-democratic and anti-competitive actions must be stopped before they can endanger emerging free markets and the free speech of citizens.

This story begins two days ago in South Carolina, where on an impromptu campaign stop a woman asks Senator McCain a fairly, shall we say, pointed question. The woman's question was this: "How do we beat the bitch?" Pan, zoom, and in the crosshairs is a candidate facing a potentially explosive situation. Cue the YouTube video. (Let me say upfront that I'm a McCain-booster, and am enthusiastically supporting his candidacy).

Now, we all recall the "macaca moment", and in fact, that memory keeps many GOP communications directors on edge, I'm sure. And it should. The Allen campaign's ineffectual response has become emblematic in many ways of the understanding deficit on the Right when it comes to the Internet and new media.

Back to the tale of the tape: McCain reacted with his trademark humor. Aided by a man in the audience who asked whether the woman had meant his ex-wife, McCain used the question to make a savvy point: he is beating Hillary in several national polls. (See this PDF from the campaign for specifics.)

In the hours that followed the event, the video surfaced on fairly liberal Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo, in truncated form. Overnight, the video went from Internet obscurity to the cable news circuit, and even made the rounds on many local news channels.

Enter CNN's Rick Sanchez, and his shameless attempt to turn the video of McCain's reply into a "gotcha" moment. Sanchez seemed to think McCain didn't do enough to defend Mrs. Clinton. He even went so far as to get Whoopi Goldberg on the phone--who actually weighed in with a modest defense of McCain. Sanchez wasn't having any of it; he was unabashedly trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. (Note: for more on this strange strain of logic, see this inane post at Daily Kos: Cindy McCain Is A Bitch)

Some of you may remember that the term "Clinton News Network" came about in the 90s. Leaving aside that gobs of Time Warner PAC money has flowed into Hillary Clinton's campaign, CNN on its own merits isn't held in high regard by too many conservatives. McCain's Camp undoubtedly recognized this, and dutifully prepared a response.

In what must be record time after the last GOP debate, McCain's campaign cut an ad featuring McCain's major applause line of the evening (See: Tied Up). It's that bit of brilliance that sets up this next move.

Yesterday, the campaign fired a volley back at CNN in a letter to supporters from Campaign Manager Rick Davis using the CNN attack as a fundraising peg. The letter itself became newsworthy, as papers like The Hill and others began reporting not just on the South Carolina McCain-supporter's choice of words, but also on the looming CNN vs. McCain dustup.

In a post at Red State, Soren Dayton amplified an interesting point: "CNN Goes Where Whoopi Won't." Adam C. also filed a report mentioning the CNN attack on Sen. McCain. Then came an AOL poll showing 67% of readers believed McCain "did a good job answering the question."

Just as blogger's like John Hinderaker at PowerLine were speculating about the meaning of McCain's comeback, the CNN story took another turn.

Enter Wolf Blitzer and The Situation Room. Blitzer delved into the McCain counterattack, the highlight of which was his guest Howard Kurtz succinctly stating that Rick Sanchez was way off base in his earlier comments. Sanchez tried to come back last night with a brief retort, but it was weak at best. Today, Whoopi brought the question back up for discussion, on The View, no less--but again, there she was offering a defense of John McCain.

So what can we conclude (besides that McCain's campaign has a lot of life left in it, and appears, in fact, to be on the rise)? Well, for starters, it's refreshing to see a GOP campaign have it "together" on Internet strategy and new media. Sure, you can argue McCain didn't have it so tough with that question. But imagine for a moment how some of the other candidates would have answered it...

My point is this: McCain and his campaign adroitly turned a potentially damaging "YouTube Moment" into a terrific fundraising/earned media opportunity. To be fair, they were aided by a sensationalist CNN anchor who appears to be trying to reach Keith Olbermann status. I'm sure there'll be plenty more "gotcha" YouTube moments ahead in the Presidential race. But at the end of the day, how many campaigns will successfully weather the storm, and indeed, come out on top, as McCain did?

From the Zogby Press release:

It won’t make you dinner or rub your feet, but nearly one in four Americans say that the Internet can serve as a substitute for a significant other for some period of time, according to a new poll released today by 463 Communications and Zogby International.

The Zogby/463 Internet Attitudes poll found that 24% of Americans said the Internet could serve as a replacement for a significant other. Not surprisingly, the percentage was highest among singles, of which 31% said it could be a substitute. There was no difference among males and females but there was a split based on political ideology. Thirty-one percent of those who called themselves “progressives” were open-minded to the Internet serving as a surrogate significant other while only 18% of those who consider themselves “very conservative” would consider it a substitute.

The Zogby/463 Internet Attitudes poll examined views of what role the Internet plays in people’s lives and whether government should play a greater role in regulating it. The online survey was conducted Oct. 4-8, 2007, included 9,743 adult respondents nationwide, and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.0 percentage point. The full survey included detailed demographic information is available at http://463.blogs.com/

Government Regulation of Internet Video: More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government. Twenty-nine percent said it should be regulated just like television content while 24% said government should institute an online rating system similar to the one used by the movie industry. In contrast, only 36% said the blocking of Internet video would be unconstitutional.

The older you get, the more likely you are to support government restrictions. Only 33% of 18 to24 year-olds supported government stepping in on content, while 72% of those over 70 years of age support government regulation and ratings.

“Some view the Internet as their new best friend, others as an increasingly powerful tool that can infect our youth with harmful images and thoughts and therefore must be controlled,” said 463 partner Tom Galvin. “Our challenge as a society is to let the Internet flourish as a dynamic force in our economy and communities while not chipping away at the fundamental freedoms that created the Internet in the first place.”

Among other findings:

Your (Digital) Identity. More than one in four Americans has a social networking profile such as MySpace or Facebook. Among 18-24 year-olds, it’s almost mandatory—78% of them report having a social networking profile. More Democrats have a social networking presence than Republicans (32% to 22% ). But few Americans say it plays a large role in their identity as a person. Only 14% say the Internet is an important part of what they consider to be their identity; 68% responded it’s just how they identity themselves online; it’s not really who they are.

The future of TV and radio isn't looking so bright. While the general consensus may hold that TV remains the dominant media, an Edison Media Research/Arbitron report found that TV's lead is actually tenuous:

Consumers age 12 and older were asked to choose the “most essential” medium in their life; 33 percent chose the Internet, just behind television (36 percent), but above radio (17 percent) and newspapers (10 percent); in 2002, the Internet trailed TV on this perception by a significant margin (20 percent vs. 39 percent), and also trailed radio’s 26 percent.

This is hardly surprising to anyone who follows technology news. We've seen smaller studies like this for a while, but when companies like Arbitron start releasing these numbers, it's time for everyone to take notice.

TV is still effective, but if campaigns want to get more bang for the buck, add the web into the mix. According to a Google presentation that I saw today, marketing campaigns are only spending 1 percent of budgets on new media. When web campaigns are linked with earned media, the results surpass TV advertising for a lot less money.

It looks like those of use who work in web-related fields have some job security since the Internet is projected to grow in the near future:

"It is not a stretch to say that the Internet has become just as important as television as an important source of information and entertainment in the lives of Americans,” said Larry Rosin, President, Edison Media Research. “It is entirely possible that the Internet will lead in all positive categories five years from now."

In addition to writing for TechRepublican, I also write the ElephantBiz.com blog and, of course, my own blog, BillHobbs.com. After noticing that the latter is listed on the blogroll of Fred Thompson's pre-campaign website, among several conservative blogs, I decided to check the blogrolls on the websites of the other 10 Republicans currently running for president, and found something interesting:

Not all of them have blogrolls. Not all of them even have blogs. And some of them have a very different view of how to interact with the world of new media, grassroots media and social media than do others.

That led me to write a series of posts surveying the websites of the 11 candidates for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination to report on how they interface with the "new media," a/k/a/ the "social media" world of blogs, MySpace, YouTube and such.

What I found was a rather wide disparity. Some candidates had the requisite links to official campaign pages on social media platforms like Facebook, MySpace and YouTube, while others actively court the independent conservative blogosphere with "Bloggers For ____" lists and other ways to reach out the the grassroots media.

I also found that money, or the lack thereoff, bears little correlation to how a campaign is able to incorporate the social media into its efforts.

I presented the survey in a series of 11 posts at ElephantBiz.com on Monday, giving each a grade.

Below are links to the 11 reviews. Your comments are welcomed.

Sam Brownback Web Review
Jim Gilmore Web Review
Rudy Giuliani Web Review
Duncan Hunter Web Review
Mike Huckabee Web Review
John McCain Web Review
Mitt Romney Web Review
Tom Tancredo Web Review
Fred Thompson Web Review
Tommy Thompson Web Review
Ron Paul Web Review

Yesterday I and other bloggers posted the video of a 15-minute interview of Fred Thompson by Hoover Institution fellow Peter Robinson. Thompson's proto-campaign website, ImWithFred.com, also posted it, on the Fred Files blog, and it soon drew a very interesting and, dare I say it, ear-opening comment from a reader named Mike McConnell. I'm going to reprint it in its entirety because what Mr. McConnell has to say should be heard - and acted upon - by every single Republican running for office at any level of government.

Mr. McConnell addresses the problem of deaf or hearing-impaired voters not being able to hear the audio portion of online video clips - and he offers a possible solution.

He writes:

Fred,

http://www.deafrepublicans.com

Republican candidates and campaign pros, hear what he has to say.

You are not using the Internet to its full potential if you don't include the available technologies to make your website content and online outreach accessible to the hearing-impaired and the visually impaired.

Recent reports indicate that Thompson is beefing up his virtual team of advisers. In fact, it seems that most of what Thompson is doing is virtual. The question in my mind is this: will Fred "Max Headroom" Thompson come out of his Internet box?

Early leaks to the blogosphere indicated that the Thompson campaign would be radically "different" relying on Internet efforts rather than "trudging through Iowa and New Hampshire". Yesterday, the Hotline reported a gambit of internet savvy Thompson-ites including Mike Turk, Jon Henke, and William Beutler. This is a very capable team.