Article today in NY Times on the Edwards campaign's usage of the Internet as the primary force in his candidacy now in the run up to Iowa. "After running a decidedly traditional race for the White House in 2004 and in the early stages of this contest, Mr. Edwards has quietly overhauled his campaign with one central goal: to harness the Internet and the political energy that liberal Democrats are sending coursing through it. In a slow but striking power shift, advisers who champion the political power of the Web have eclipsed the coterie of advisers who long dominated Mr. Edwards’s inner circle, both reflecting and intensifying his transformation into a more populist, aggressive candidate." Seems like no-brainer stuff to me. But, more in question, imo though, is the Edwards campaign assertions of vitality based on web traffic that, as the article implies, could have been generated by any number of sources whose affiliations can't really be determined by a hit. And if a hit on John Edwards' webpage is an indication of support for him, then by that turn, I guess that means I'm a supporter of Scientology. There seems to have been interesting results from the CNN/YouTube debates, so I wonder if the real metric of the Internet's effect on national debate/the political process leading up to the election doesn't come more from participation in the debate (the voiceless get a chance to be heard in the conversation for a cheap webcam and a coherent sentence) and less from just having 24/7 access to information on a website. Interwebs and Politics? | 
