Was the role of technology in politics different in 2006 than in 2004? How did new technology most affect Election 2006, and do you see any lessons for 2008?

I think the subtle difference in 2006 is that we've reached a critical mass of people who are fluent in using technology to communicate, and not just young people or the super tech-savvy. There's a growing sense that all of the many things we now do using our tools and gadgets (blogging, IMing, text messaging, recording videos, building communities, posting photos, and on and on) are just different means to the same end. Some people are finding remarkably creative and poetic ways to do it -- my current favorite is friends who are using the tiny "status box" on Google Talk or Facebook to communicate in haiku-like form -- but I'd argue that in November 2006 some degree of fluency is almost part of the shared American experience. There are political implications. So many of us are discovering and polishing our voices that I don't even think it's crazy to suggest that one of the factors behind the sweeping change we saw on Tuesday is that there are just more of us now who are comfortable expressing who we are and want our leaders to be.

One of the losers (and yay! that it might be so) on Tuesday night was the idea that it's some measure of personal refinement to disdain the culture of communicating online. At this point, it takes willful ignorance to not see that there are some bloggers who add value to politics or that journalists with the some of the brightest futures are those willing to blog or otherwise engage their readers online.

As for 2008 -- while we're getting pretty good today at putting that fluency to work to shape electoral politics, I'm cautiously optimistic that by then we'll have started to figure out how to use it to better effect in movement politics.