The article looks over everything done so far and what might come ahead.

What didn’t they cover? This:

Ultimately the “buzz” idea behind candidates using YouTube etc. is “connecting”. If you look at Hillary Clinton’s videos thus far they actually aren’t “connecting” ready, they are mass media ready. Sure they go viral online but they get covered on TV. Most of the other candidates appear to be “connecting” to and with the online world of bloggers & YouTubers. People who sound like the video above.

Now I am not going to go out of my way to make a judgement call here BUT if you spend a lot of time looking over a lot of this Web 2.0 candidate goodness you see a couple of things. 1) that all those facebook and myspace numbers actually represent a good deal of people who simply hit yes to a friend request and then never interact beyond that point. 2) If you go through a lot of submissions when mainstream media ask for “your questions” or just people conversing with video & twitter etc., you see a lot of very, how should I put this, interesting people with interesting ideas that want to be catered too.

I am all for online democracy and involvement etc. I just wonder how much of it is a giant waste of time and how much of it will actually result in votes.