It was the biggest topic in the campaign news for at least twenty-four, maybe forty-eight hours this week, U.S. General Pace remarked that homosexuality was “immoral” and suddenly every news reporter was flocking to find out what all the candidates thought. Did Senator John McCain, the only major candidate to have served, agree with the general? Did Mitt Romney, the candidate now being championed AND questioned heavily by the Religious right, have the answer that would make them happy? The General was speaking about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a popular issue in other elections. What did each candidate really think?

If you wanted to find out and get your news straight from the horses mouth then heading to any of the candidates Web pages certainly wasn’t the way to do it.

I am one step above the casual Web viewer when it comes to using the candidates sites. I subscribe to RSS when possible, get campaign e-mail and check out various other sites which monitor the candidates blogs. Nowhere, not in those immediate hours and rarely afterward did I see anything at all addressing the issue of the day. The sites had plenty of virtual networking available, I could watch old video footage, see Hillary have a conversation from three weeks ago. I could do a lot, I just couldn’t find out what the candidates were thinking, in real time, about an issue immediately relevant to the news.

The real value of the Web for a campaign in my opinion is immediacy. A candidate can instantaneously spread their message to everyone around the world. No need to filter it through the Associated Press or Reuters, to wait for a reporter to pickup the phone or CNN to send a camera crew. Yet in order to collect the candidates opinions on this subject, whom did I have to turn to? The Associated Press, Reuters & the New York Times. It wasn’t under any of the candidates “Issues” drop down menu’s, their “Press Release” sections or in my RSS reader.

So my question is? Why even have those sections? I don’t need them to find out that the candidate of either party thinks the country is great but they have plans to “Strengthen” it. I need those sections to tell me immediately what the candidate thinks and feels about an issue and to do so both in brevity if I want it AND in exhaustive explanation if I need it. I also DON’T Need a blog post by an intern or a media guru telling me what their opinion is on the subject which is what I found at JohnEdwards.com. The guru isn’t running for my vote, John Edwards is and when I consider voting for him it will be because of what he said, not someone paid to hit “PUBLISH” in their blog software.

The mainstream media outlets had statements issued by the candidates. So why didn’t the candidates issue the statement to me? Why didn’t they use their Web site to TALK to me? Can I expect the same thing when an issue of real substance, perhaps a nuclear test by Iran or a health crisis in Africa comes along during the campaign? When I want to hear about the candidates plan for resolving an oil shortage will I have to wait until it is covered in thirty seconds on CNN?

Regardless of the weight of this particular issue of a generals personal thoughts on homosexuality the point is simple. Every major candidate failed to use their Web site to speak to the voters and explain how they would have handled a situation, what their solution would be and what their thoughts were.

Right now PLENTY of bloggers and media analysts are cooing about how the candidates use the Web. They measure it by Web 2.0 functions, by the number of blog entries and the amount of MySpace friends a candidate has been able to sign up. I on the other hand am measuring it by content, control of message and ability to communicate effectively and I have to say, I see nothing but failure out there.