Recently (October 27th 2008), an e-zine whose editor is a friend published an article on Senator Obama use of Web 2.0 campaign. (The article is here, but only in Italian).
I have been researching over the last few years potential business uses of social networking, as a natural evolution of my testing and thinking of integrating “new” technologies into business and social processes (e.g. Internet in early 1990s).
My perspective is, as usual, not only that of a reporter- I have been a consultant and profiler (of people, organizations, technologies) most of my life.
At least since I was actively in politics as a teenager- also if I have been lucky enough to observe first hand the logistics and organization of political campaigns from my childhood.
Lucky? well, if you get used to that kind of constant change and anticipation games, it is refreshing when you get back into the loop 
As discussed with my friend, I posted a comment- in Italian (well, my Italian is really bookish and boring…).
This posting is the English translation. Comments welcome, to the usual e-mail addresses.
01 Spreading the message
What really fascinates me is not that Senator Obama (I am writing in late October 2008!) is using Web 2.0 and all the Internet paraphernalia.
This campaign is beyond a mere update of the Dean campaign use of Internet: they are integrating the messages across all the media.
Direct mailing itself changed, to integrate the online and general media campaign.
But a typical Web 2.0 element is building online “preview” groups, e.g. on who was going to be the Vice-President candidate: previously, only major donors had this kind of access.
And it is a fitting paradox that this transparency backfired- generating a tempest in a teapot, as reported in late August 2008 by Le Monde (Les supporteurs d’Obama auraient dû être les premiers à connaître le nom de son colistier)
Being online implies getting used to a significantly shorter response time: political (and business) communication must be managed accordingly.
Why the brouhaha? Who was in the communication list saw the media reporting the vice-presidential choice first… because they did not respect the embargo.
But it is not just communication- funding changes.
02 Impulse shopping
Micro-payments are all the rage: as in USA private donations have a legal limit, enabling micro-payments as a way to be part of the campaign converts any micro-donor into a potential fund raiser.
At first an impulse shopping (micro), donors can confirm their allegiance thru a “virtual vote”, whenever they see a communication event that motivates them to show their support, with further micro-payments.
Using their own personal networks, these enthusiasts supporters promote the idea- vintage viral marketing.
The communication juggernaut set up since the beginning of the campaign could be a paradigm shift: provided that it will still be in place, should it result in a victory.
Few years ago, some suggested that Internet had the potential to spread worldwide the Swiss democratic model, based on constant participation by calling citizens to vote often on specific issues (cfr. the article from Joichi Ito Emerging Democracy).
What will happen to political parties, and their bureaucracy? Currently, Political Campaigning 2.0 matters mainly to the media professionals- and who lives with the new media (the so-called “Digital Natives”), along with people who come in contact with either or both of them.
The UN-sponsored campaign to overcome the “Digital Divide” plans to expand by 2015 (Connecting the unconnected) the availability of Internet, using also mobile phone-based Internet; each political campaign is based on networks of contacts: how will these be affected?
03 Bibliography and the future
The main item is: the media outlets are part of the story- but not anymore the main or only source; and also established media use Internet as a source (well, sometime leaving behind the “best practices” learned in centuries of journalism, like fact-checking…)
The first target of Political campaigning 2.0 is the new generation: but it will change, as noted by Inc. Magazine in Does It Matter That One Candidate is Comfortable Using Technology and One Isn’t?
Already in January 2008 Herbert on the New York Times talked about the The Obama Phenomenon
But, as Andrew Sullivan wrote in The Atlantic Monthly in December 2007, Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters this campaign probably will have deeper effects- and sign a change in the ways and means of politics.
The future? If you can join political campaigning experience, technological savvy, marketing expertise… probably you have a new job as a political operative on new media is waiting for you!
Of course- you still need a candidate 
Tags: 2.0, campaign, funding, network, obama, political, president, social, usa, web
To follow: how the organization (and mailing list) built for the election is going to be used
A permanent bypass on Congress, with a direct constituency that is larger than that of any elected member?
A new party?
A permanent PAC (Political Action Committee, for the non-Americans)?
Interesting social and political side-effects of new-media