While most of the Republican candidates have a pretty solid online presence, folks are still waiting for a good YouTube debate. While Guilliani is reportedly comfortable with doing a debate on YouTube, Romney is said to be far more wary of this type of publicity. Will it hurt the Republican's [sic] in the voting booth? Probably not, but a furthered integration of traditional media with an online format, perhaps one that is not directly tied into a youth-oriented video-sharing site, will probably be more encouraging towards the Republican crowd.

First, the Democratic YouTube debate has already had a tangible effect on the Democratic race, with the past week being dominated by discussion of the event and Obama's answer to the "meet with foreign dictators" question in particular. Also, on an anecdotal level, I know of at least one friend who was a strong Edwards supporter until the debate but switched to Clinton based on their performances. And yes, she's volunteering, donating, etc. There's no reason to believe that a Republican debate wouldn't have a similar set of effects.

Second, the Republican field's aversion to interactions "tied into a youth-oriented video-sharing site" is part of a broader pattern of issues with social media outreach facing the Republicans going into the '08 cycle. Again, check Patrick Ruffini's post on why the YouTube debate matters for Republicans and watch that TechRepublican interview with Joe Trippi. There's a reason that all the top tier Democratic candidates and the Congressional leadership are heading to YearlyKos next week. Grassroots media and organizational infrastructure and staggering fundraising capacity aren't to be taken lightly and there's simply no way that these factors won't have an effect on the election.

How can Mashable miss that?

(Chuffed is tonight!)

My guess is that this behavior is the result of a couple factors. One, it's a "tech" story to some degree, in that it involves YouTube and net culture and isn't exactly A-1, above the fold news for most people. That said, it's an interesting item for process wonks and those focused on web strategy. It also plays on inside access to newsmakers and campaign staff, which a traditional reporter would have and most bloggers would not. The result is one set of social dynamics pushing the story "down" towards the blogs and the other pushing it "up" to mainstream outlets, hence its singular affect. Fascinating.

As far as I can tell, this story first broke with Marc Ambinder's posts at The Atlantic yesterday (here and here). This was followed by posts from Ana Marie Cox (Swampland, Time), Patrick Ruffini, and others but the narrative didn't really take off until the WaPo's "The Trail" pushed it with, "But Don't Ask Him on YouTube..." That post seems to have now morphed into a more traditional news item on the WaPo site; the Memeorandum cluster associated with this story now directs reader there instead of the original blog post.

I've been fascinated by the lifecycle of these narratives since I first started working on SHELOB back in grad school. The work back then had to do more with the structure of the networks at play and who "draws the water" that moves a narrative forward, but its becoming clear to me that some attention needs to be paid to the social dynamics at work there, not just the who but the why: why is this person blogging, why is X story chosen over Y, what are their motivations and associations, etc. It seems like I may be able to return to this kind of work soon, so... expect more on this, I guess.

As a closing confection, Patrick Ruffini (webmaster for Bush/Cheney in '04 and did Internet strategy for the RNC '05 - '07) has an item on why the YouTube debate matters. He's not wrong. Money graph:

At the end of the day, the issue is not YouTube. The YouTube debate snub is the symptom, not the disease. If Republicans fret about a simple debate format, which is really just the modern version of the 1992 townhall debate, how in the heck are we going to be make the really bold, gutsy decisions to transform our campaigns so we can raise over $100 million online and recruit millions - yes millions - of volunteers over the Internet?

Watch the video of Joe Trippi while you're over there.

The YouTube debate, though more revolutionary in theory than practice, was the precursor to an extended and potentially profound discussion of our foreign policy affect. On the "meet with foreign dictators front," Rasmussen has support for Obama's position leading in public opinion, 42% to 34%. Granted, like 10 people know what he said, but what are you going to do. Conventional wisdom among the press seems to be shifting, too, with more people agreeing that this was Obama's week. Here's a bloggy perspective. This is so far away from the establishment perspective that I can't help thinking that this is one of the tangible realignments that I mentioned above. I guess extended 65% disapproval for the status quo will have that effect.

The Republican candidates are now involved in a defensive maneuver to avoid having to go through a similar experience. Romney and Giuliani indicated that they wouldn't attend, though later reports indicated the Giuliani was walking his position back and saying that he wasn't opposed to the format, just the scheduled date.

There was a total blog meltdown about this issue, but it made little impact on mainstream coverage outside of the major media blogs like WaPo's "The Trail" and CBS's "Public Eye." The later fatuously compares Republican reluctance to face the public to Democratic aversion to the Fox News and fatuously asserts that, "whether it's Frosty or Jim Lehrer asking the questions, these nationally-televised debates are a singular chance to reach potential voters." The problem is that on Fox it isn't Jim Lehrer, it's Chris Wallace and Brit Hume. When the Republican frontrunners are refusing to attend a debate hosted by The Washington Monthly and The American Prospect we can talk. But think about that for a moment; questions submitted by the public are as threatening to Republicans as the partisan hacks at Fox News are to Democrats. What does that tell you?

Staying on a similar theme, Bill O'Reilly continued to slam DailyKos about hateful comments on the site only to learn that turnabout is fair play. Last night, during yet another segment on comments at DailyKos, O'Reilly told a guest that she was lying and cut her mic when she mentioned some of the more extreme posts on his own discussion forum. He said that they had been removed, but as of today they were still online. Check out the page modified times in the screencaps. Also, Colbert. Srsly.

I'm really looking forward to the Presidential Leadership Forum at YearlyKos. I'm hoping that the experience will help me start getting behind a candidate.

OK, time to focus on a couple Six Feet Under episodes.