One thing is clear from both articles is that using Twitter well will be an essential part of politics in the future.

Unlike other political web tools, like email lists, websites and video channels, Twitter is completely instantaneous and multidirectional. A fact or an idea can start almost anywhere on Twitter and spread without centralized control. To be sure, if you’re trying to start and spread a meme using the platform, it doesn’t hurt to have a network of well-connected friends–but the most popular memes seem to spread mainly because they’re fresh AND of inherent interest to users. (Sifry)

Lewis added, “The ability to effectively utilize the Internet in the political realm works very well for the have-nots. It does not work so well for the establishment.”

To that end, Republicans are working overtime to establish a beachhead, online.

“Twitter is the best example of the most modern technology and how folks are organizing,” David All, a GOP new media consultant who has helped galvanize the party on Twitter, told CNN. He points to the success of hashtags – a popular way to keep track of a conversation – on Twitter. “#TCOT” (top conservatives on Twitter) has seen much more success on Twitter than “#P2 (progressives 2.0).  See stats from Hashtag.org here: TCOT vs P2.

Cooper is quick to defend progressives: “Conservatives are always good at pushing that one concise message. The death panels are easy to tweet. The explanation for why there are no death panels and making that explanation takes much more explanation. You can’t do that on Twitter.” (Kuhn)

Thanks to Jay Rosen for setting this up.

Who ensures that even that limited moment of choice and opinion is secure and trustworthy. How are the votes counted? Who ensures that the people have even voted? You don’t have to be living in Iran to wonder about that!

How does a candidate get chosen? In the west it depends on a party and immense sums of money. In other places, the regime makes the call. It is all but impossible to become powerful without having made a deal with the in group whether this is in Iran and the Mullahs or anywhere.

What might democracy become in the age of Social Media?

Could President Obama have gathered the financial and voter support in his campaign without it? I think that it would have been unlikely. Are most politicians responding to what happened in that election?

I don’t think so. For I think that they miss the point.

The tools of social media are just that. Tools!

The point is that to engage the people you have to have a cause that strikes to their heart. Obama had that.

What the tools do is to make a real cause too powerful for the status quo to push under the rug.

In Iran, people are risking and losing their lives  for change. In the before Social Media times such as at Tianemen Square, the regime can and did utterly squash dissent. I don’t think that this is possible today if the cause is well enough supported. Yes, the regime can set up a massacre that may stop the demonstrations. But the legitimacy of the regime will be ended. Their only chance then will be to become a North Korea or an Burma – a true pariah. The story will not end there.

The tools and the supporting global community are enabling the story to be told. The world is a witness.

There is also another aspect that I see. Our response to the traditional media is usually helplessness and then numbness. We see terrible events but we can do nothing but feel bad. Traditional media is so one way and so passive.

But people outside of Iran not only know what is going on but many are actively engaged in helping or in providing emotional support. This was even true for the Obama campaign. Millions of non Americans became personally engaged in the election in a way not possible by simply reading the paper or watching TV.

The Obama campaign – but regretfully not the Obama administration – and the Iranian push-back – will surely be seen in retrospect as a Tipping Point in the evolution of democracy. What will happen, I cannot know yet.

But the regimes everywhere will have to take note. There is a line of self interest and oppression that cannot be crossed. For if it is, the “Sleeper will awake”.

The voice of the people is no longer restricted to the ballot box. No longer subject to the control of the ballot box. No longer subject to the needs of party affiliation or millions of campaign dollars.

I don’t know how this will play out but it sure sounds more democratic to me.

So first I ask why is it impossible to get any real change – real change being defined as something that has to overcome the establishment in any field?

To have a real change – there has to be a President who will risk political capital and a majority vote in the house. By design right now this is impossible. Why?

Because until now the President has needed  a lot of money to get elected and to have a chance of a second term. Because until now Congressmen and Senators need a lot of money to get and stay elected.

Because until now, the electorate were largely ill informed, passive and often even helpless. Their only involvement was to vote every few years and, even then, many chose not to do even that. Why should they? They knew that the decisions were being made by another process.

Washington has been bought by lobbyists. The lobbyists represent the establishment. The phone rings in a senator’s office. It is you the voter. A second phone rings, it is a major lobbyist. Which call gets priority?

No wonder we are all cynical.

How could health care or agriculture be reformed when all the money is behind the status quo and money is what is needed?

That is until now!

By building a vast grass roots organization by using 2.0 principles, Obama was able to raise more money than by using the traditional lobby pools. He not only got more money but he is less attached than any president in generations to the special interest himself.

Is this organization going to go away now? No – there are signs that Obama intends to grow this organization. Here is the link to his new site, Change Gov,  just released yesterday.  It is clear that he plans to go around the Hill.

He is preparing for the war of the future – A People’s War – where the President has a direct ongoing relationship with the people of America.

Roosevelt started this. His use of radio in the 1930’s was a masterstroke of using the then new media – to talk in a conversational way with the people. Now the President can listen to our conversation and converse with us.

I expect that we will start to see a new electorate – an engaged electorate – that will grow out of the grass roots campaign network.

I hear rumours of a new “Peace Corps” not to be deployed in foreign lands but at home. I see that community development and engagement will become paramount in the years to come.

So where does leave the old power brokers on the Hill? Isolated!

The smart Congressmen and Senators had better follow suit and fast – they will have to catch up with the people and the President. The real money that they do need will come from their engagement in the betterment of those that they represent.

The voters will awaken. They will start to be active. They will seek to take back their power so that what affects them most – so that decisions that affect them the most having access to good work, to energy, to food to a good environment and to better healthcare to a better education will be made by them and not a by a few who care only for themselves.

So politicians will have to awaken too. It will be more than their voting record that will be watched. It will be their larger actions to help their people. The greater transparency of our time will shine on them all. Those who serve the people will be rewarded and those that serve the elect will be punished.

Where does this leave the lobbyists? The best lobbyist will themselves have more than a check book. They will have to represent groups of active engaged voters or leave town.

A real change in health care demands that the insurance companies, the drug companies and the doctors have to be taken out of the position of political control.

A real change in energy policy means that the oil and coal companies have to be taken out of their control position.

A real change in how we spend money and on what in defense has to taken out of the hands of the main suppliers and the senior officers who serve them.

A rel change in how our financial system is governed means that control needs to be vested fram the leaders on Wall Street.

A real change in food systems means that BIG Ag has to lose control.

Without going around the Hill. Without directly engaging the People both in the policy and in the action – real change is systemically impossible.

This is Martin Luther all over again. The system cannot be reformed from within. A new direct model is the only way.

This is possible. For the first time, real democracy is possible.