When news broke several weeks back about the Census Bureau and the decision to scrap plans for the use of handheld devices and a so-called “high-tech count” in 2010 I can’t say I was “shocked.” I held off commenting because it brought back so many memories from 1980, from 1990 and from 2000. In fact, if I unearthed meeting notes, memos, and briefings from then, I likely could produce an account that mirrored what is swirling now: One of those “ripped from today’s headlines” accounts.

But it saddens me in so many ways:

Last week Commerce Department Secretary Carlos Gutierrez told a House panel that the Census Bureau was dropping plans to use newly developed handheld computers to collect information from Americans who did not mail in census forms for the 2010 census. In his testimony, he said the handhelds were part of a larger plan to make the census "better, faster, and simpler."

The plan, Gutierrez said, was to address the increasing problems that the bureau is facing that threaten the accuracy of the census, including a larger population, the changing shape and diversity of American families, and a decreased response rate to the census because of a growing distrust of government and because of privacy concerns. These problems have led to lower productivity of the temporary workers the bureau hires to go door to door to count Americans, which requires hiring even more temporary workers to make up for the lost work. Gutierrez said the bureau developed the GPS enabled handhelds to collect more accurate address locations to make it easier for the workers to find residences.

The ho-hum response from the Hill concerning private contractor employees accessing the passport files of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz., is a bit surprising -- or on second thought, is it?

As Ari Schwartz, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, pointed out in his Nextgov blog and in a Nextgov article, the point here is the lax attitude many agencies have taken in developing privacy impact assessments, which are required by the 2002 E-Government Act. In the assessments, agencies are supposed to analyze how they collect, store, share and manage personal information in federal networks. The idea is for agencies to develop policies that limit access to information before setting up a database.

State, Schwartz says, has done only cursory assessments. And a State agency official says the department believes they "have seen the last of this."

None of the congressmen in the Congress Daily article (link above) mentioned the privacy impact assessments or the E-Government Act. This may be an opportune time to investigate how well agencies have complied with the law's requirement to properly protect the private information they have stored on databases.

In my industry/government conference wanderings, I stopped by Orlando this month for the annual IPIC conference. This is usually a "must attend" event in government and industry circles and has been around so long that few can recall what "IPIC" stands for. (Here's a hint: The first two letters stand for "Information Processing.")

So what was a hot topic for the government folks in attendance? Well, no surprise, it is the upcoming transition. For political appointees, it's all about their life after government, with only a little over 300 days left in office. For the careerists -- many of whom have never been through one before -- there was some apprehension about what will face them.

In the midst of that uncertainty comes a request from the Industry Advisory Council (IAC) leadership to several career government leaders to co-chair IAC's Transition Report effort. What is the drawback to such an invite? The industry co-chair is Mark Forman, now at KPMG and the first e-government czar at the Office of Management and Budget. Mark is a wonderful person -- bright, hard working, considerate. I think very highly of him. But how exactly would a career SESer (Senior Executive Service) explain his or her pairing with a representative of the previous administration to his or her new political boss? Even Sen. John McCain campaign officials are thinking hard about how and where to use President Bush in the upcoming election campaign. It seems that "fundraising" and "securing the conservative base" are the main tasks at present.

But let's keep a watchful eye on what careerist lands this plum assignment from IAC. I will organize the pool on where that person lands -- after the first 120 days under a new political regime (that being the so called "cooling off" period when an SESer cannot be moved). I hope there are openings at Unisys or InterImage.

The new president, coming into office Jan. 20, 2009, will face what the current head of the Office of Personnel Management has called a “retirement tsunami." According to many experts, 60 percent of the federal government’s rank and file workforce and 90 percent of its top managers will be eligible to retire in the next decade. OPM projections show that nearly 61,000 full-time permanent federal employees will retire in fiscal 2008 and that the number of retirements will peak between 2008 and 2010 – just as an incoming president seeks to launch her or his new administration.

Over the next five years, the federal government will lose more than 550,000 employees. But the market for recruits has never been more competitive and government employees are locked in a fierce contest with the private sector.

Richard Clarke, former special adviser on cybersecurity for President Bush and an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, recently criticized Bush's national electronic security initiative Bush signed in January. According to an article posted by InfoWorld today, Clarke raised the specter that Americans' privacy could be at stake because the imitative focuses on "securing the government's own computing and communications networks, and adopting a more proactive approach to engaging in cyber-warfare," according to the article.

If that is true, Clarke says:

There's the idea that somehow these are government networks that we're talking about, but they really aren't, all these government sites are running through the same network of routers and the same fiber channels as everything else, there's no segmentation on these carrier networks. This means that [the plan's authors] either don't know that and merely think they need to reinforce security on state-owned servers, or data in their own facilities, in which case thy are missing most of the problem, or that they plan to do monitoring of everything going through the carriers' systems.

Revealing some of the inside frustration that comes with leaks to the press, John Grimes, chief information officer and assistant secretary of networks and information infrastructure at the Defense Department, said a “disloyal” person was to blame for disclosing information about President Bush’s Cyber Initiative, reportedly totaling several billion dollars.

It was unclear whether the disloyal individual Grimes referred to in his morning session at the Information Processing Interagency Conference was the person inside government that leaked the information or the reporter with The Wall Street Journal that decided to run with the story. Regardless, he seemed to take personally the release of details on the White House cybersecurity directive signed by President Bush in January.

“We did not want this public until we got [various issues] resolved,” including those relating to privacy, Grimes said, referencing the numerous hearings that have been scheduled since the story broke. each hearing requires executives at Defense, the departments of Homeland Security and State, and the Office of National Intelligence to prepare to testify.

“This comes down to political [culture] of decisions,” Grimes said. “Whether an attack is an act of war or criminal -- who makes that decision?”

Reports from news outlets seem to have prompted the release of some details – though not many – about the cybersecurity initiative. Most recently, DHS secretary Michael Chertoff released remarks made to a roundtable of bloggers.

"We are beginning our cyberstrategy," he said. "That will not be done this year, but I'm hoping we can get it, a cybercenter, up and running, and have a full set of plans and a funding budget to move forward over the next several years to get to the next level of cybersecurity."

There is increasing evidence that management of the federal government may actually become a key issue in the candidates' debates and the upcoming presidential election. The most recent issue of The Economist features Sen. Obama on the cover and asks “But could he deliver?” Of course, for different reasons, Sens. Clinton and McCain are asking a very similar question. Government Executive's own Tom Shoop noted in a recent article, “the debate is shaping up to be not just a battle of sound bites, but a genuine discussion about how to improve the government's underlying capability to address the challenges facing the country.” So it may be useful to take a look at the top candidates as they have begun to lay out their plans for “reforming government” and “cleaning up Washington.”

On the Democratic side of the spectrum, Sen. Clinton co-sponsored legislation to create a U.S. Public Service Academy -- the equivalent of West Point or the Naval Academy -- for civil servants. The measure would dedicate $205 million to fund a 5,000 student institution aimed at producing high-quality federal employees. Last spring, she delivered a major policy address at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, where she laid out a 10 point agenda for government reform. One of those drew most of the attention: cutting back the government's contract workforce by 500,000 people. But there is much more in the speech, including making it possible for virtually every government service and transaction to be paperless. Sen. Obama has outlined an aggressive technology agenda to make government more transparent, place much more government information online and to create a government chief technology officer with real authority over government services and infrastructures.

Republican presidential contender John McCain delivered a speech in Oklahoma City, Okla. -- also last spring -- where he outlined a comprehensive platform for government management reforms, describing steps he would take to boost federal pay, speed firings, tie program funding to yearly evaluations and toughen acquisition rules.

All of these positions and speeches can be found on the candidates' Web sites. One can also look at the site created by Professor Donald Kettl of the University of Pennsylvania to track management issues in the 2008 campaign.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is out a chief technology officer. Just before Super Tuesday, Kevin Malover reportedly joined private equity firm GTCR Golder Rauner in Chicago as chief information officer, according to Investment Dealers Digest.

Prior to joining the campaign trail, Malover helped with travel site Orbitz.com and an online real estate company he cofounded. He can be credited for helping to craft Obama’s strategic use of text messaging and social networking sites such as MySpace.com and Facebook.com, and developing an interactive web site that allows Obama followers to find events and volunteer opportunities, register to vote, and call citizens in contested states to drum up support. The Web site's ability to reach out to voters via mass emails has been mentioned as one of the reasons for Obama's success this campaign season. At the time this blog was written, the call function was not available due to “overwhelmed” servers. Perhaps the campaign is already feeling the effects of Malover’s departure?

No word about a replacement CTO has come from Obama's camp.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations is teaming up with West Virginia University in national security efforts using biometric technology. According to a press announcement released yesterday, WVU will serve as the academic arm of the FBI's Biometric Center of Excellence, providing biometrics research support to the FBI and its law enforcement and national security partners.

The center will coordinate biometric and identity management activities within the FBI and partner with other U.S. government agencies to develop and train users on biometric technologies and systems. The goal is to leverage biometric technology in the fight against terrorism and intelligence efforts.

Thomas Bush, assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, credited WVU as having "comprehensive, integrative research and education programs in biometrics," and being known around the world for identification technology research. Perhaps. But there's much to say about the value of proximity -- Clarksburg is home to the Criminal Justice Information Services Division, and Fairmont hosts the Internet Crime Complaint Center.

One has to also wonder how much of a role Sen. Byrd, D-WV, played in the decision, too. The FBI has Byrd to thank for driving the construction of a new Biometrics Fusion Center building at the Harrison County campus, with the addition of $7 million to the fiscal year 2006 Defense Appropriations bill signed into law. He also secured more than $141 million to launch and expand Defense's own biometrics initiatives, which of course contribute to FBI's efforts.

Of course, what came first? The chicken or the egg. Did Byrd's support of FBI efforts come because of its presence in West Virginia, or did the FBI's presence in West Virginia grow with support from Byrd. No doubt state government doesn't much care. This is not to discredit WVU contributions in the area of biometrics. It's National Science Foundation Center for Identification Technology Research teams up with other universities to drive research, which had earned praise in and outside federal government.

After much speculation, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., confirmed yesterday that he will not run for office in 2008. As Republicans and Democrats scramble to defend or snag (respectively) the Davis' congressional seat, the technology community – both in and outside government – bids farewell to a staunch advocate.

The list of IT issues that benefited from Davis' support is long. In his early days in Congress, he founded the Information Technology Working Group to promote a better understanding of issues important to the computer and technology industries. He sponsored the Y2K Act, which encouraged Y2K compliance in industry, and later helped pushed several bills through Congress that advanced efforts to more strategically implement IT: the E-Gov Act of 2002, the Federal Information Security Act, and the Critical Infrastructure Information Act, to name a few. He speaks frequently in support of changes to trade agreement laws that would make it far easier for agencies to purchase technology goods and services.

Phil Bond, the president and CEO of the Information Technology Association of America, described Davis as the “ultimate champion for technology in Congress,” helping to “tear down the wall between the federal government and commercial technologies.

“When other members needed to get smart on IT, they often called Tom,” Bond said in a prepared statement.

Now what? In a statement released this afternoon, Davis said that he has not yet decided what opportunities to pursue, "but it’s clear to me that returning to the private sector and reacquainting myself with that view of the world is the best move." He was careful to call his departure “a sabbatical from public life,” keeping the door open for a return to government, but no doubt the number of offers coming his way in the meantime promises to be staggering -- if it isn't already -- as IT firms and organizations scramble for the chance to profit from his knowledge of government IT as well as his influence.

Charlotte, N.C., mayor Pat McCrory sent out an email news release this week announcing his candidacy for governor of North Carolina. The only problem was that in the letterhead in the email, governor was spelled "governer," according to an article in The News and Observer in Raleigh, N.C.









When contacted by a reporter asking about the misspelling, Victoria Smith, McCrory's campaign manager, said a hacker broke into the campaign's computer system and changed the spelling. Later a campaign spokeswoman said it was a simple mistake made by a tired graphic designer. Smith later stuck to the hacker story. Finally McCrory himself put an end to the mystery: He said it was a simple mistake by the graphic designer.

Hat tip: Wired

Web sites developed by U.S. senators and representatives still have a long way to go to take full advantage of the Internet, according to a recent report released by the Congressional Management Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan group advocating a more effective Congress.

In its fourth report on congressional Web sites, CMF concluded, "Despite some bright spots, overall the quality of congressional Web sites continues to be disappointing. The most common letter grade earned by congressional Web sites in 2007 was a “D”— the same as in 2006." (While CMF identified the gold, silver and bronze winners -- those Web sites that received an A+, A, or A-, respectively , it did not identify those Web sites receiving an F or a D, which accounted for about 42 percent of all congressional Web sites.)

Who are more technically adept, Democrats or Republicans? House Democrats slightly edged out their Republican colleagues in getting a larger share of CMF's top award, the Gold Mouse Award, given the proportion of seats they hold. Democrats were awarded 57 percent of the gold awards vs. 43 percent for the Republicans. (Democrats hold 54 percent of the House seats.)

It was the opposite story in the Senate, with three of the four Gold Mouse Awards going to the Republicans. (Democrats hold a slight majority in the Senate, 51 - 49.)

Also, only 6 percent of all U.S. representatives received a Gold Mouse Award, while only 4 percent of senators did.

Those receiving CMF's Gold Mouse Award for 2007 include:

Rep. Tom Allen (D-ME)
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA)
Rep. John Boozman (R-AR)
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL)
Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN)
Rep. Christopher P. Carney (D-PA)
Rep. Bud Cramer (D-AL)
Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA)
Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-NJ)
Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-VA)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA)
Rep. John Linder (R-GA)
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY)
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-PA)
Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Rep. Hilda L. Solis (D-CA)
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL)
Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. John Thune (R-SD)

CMF, in partnership with Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, the University of California-Riverside, and Ohio State University, measured Web sites in six areas: legislative content, press resources, state or district information, constituent services and communication tools.

We think you, the technology manager in the federal government and industry, have a pretty good insight into just what are the hot issues and events that will unfold in 2008 for the federal IT market. Over the past few weeks we've invited you to take an online survey to let us know what you think; we just want to take this opportunity to invite you to take the survey again, if you haven’t.

We are conducting the survey in conjunction with our friends at Government Futures, which is also offering readers a chance to place bets on what’s going to happen in the federal IT community using the prediction markets on Government Future's Web site.

If you have taken the survey and placed your bets, thank you. If you haven't, please visit the site and give us your opinions. The questions cover a number of hot areas, including information security, the next-generation Internet and federal information technology spending.

In January, we’ll host a webinar to discuss the results of the survey and present an analysis of the predictions.

In the December issue of Government Executive, we discuss some trends that IT experts told us would be important. Now, we want your opinion. So, please take the survey and join the government futures market to help us figure it out.

For years, information technology has been trying to break into the corporate board room or the high-level government management meetings where it can help inform strategies to accomplish an organization’s goals, be it making more profit or serving the public interest. Despite assertions that state otherwise, IT still, by a long shot, has yet to really become a driver in helping government deliver public services and fundamentally transform how agencies do business. IT has tinkered at the edges.

The reason may be that most of our political leaders are so disinterested in IT. We were reminded of that last week during the Republican presidential debates. As Garrett Graff, an editor at large at Washingtonian magazine, reminded us in the Washington Post’s Sunday Outlook section, presidential hopeful “Sen. John McCain let slip a fairly stunning admission,” when he said he “might ‘rely on a vice president’ for help on less important issues such as ‘information technology, which is the future of this nation's economy.’”

The problem, as Graff points out, is the odd allowance we as a nation give presidential candidates to admit that they know so little about an industry that is vitally important to the national economy – and for that matter, to national security. Such admissions happen with surprising regularly. We’ve written about Defense Secretary Robert Gates – who oversees the world’s largest military complex, which has pursued network-centric warfare as its primary strategic objective – that he is “a very low-tech person.” President Bush also has made statements about his ignorance of IT, as my colleague Tom Shoop pointed out in his FedBlog this past summer.

Graff does tip his hat to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama for issuing last month an “innovation agenda,” which lays out an IT agenda for government. Yes, the agenda represents “an exception to the rule” in the presidential race, as Graff says, but almost all Obama’s ideas are vague and warmed, and only advance the introductory Bush IT agenda, which accomplished little of what it set out to do, in just small ways.

The nation and government need something more. Something bolder that shows an understanding of how important IT is to the U.S. economy, how it can transform government and truly improve public services.

An article in today’s Wall Street Journal claims that the head of the Office of Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, may have improperly deleted files on his office computer. The story lays out an odd sequence of events, in which Bloch, in December 2006, bypassed his own IT shop and called Geeks on Call to come to his office to erase all files on his hard drive and the drives on two laptops used by deputies. Bloch claims in the article that the he was trying to rid the computers of a virus, and asked Geeks on Call to conduct a “seven-level” wipe of the hard drive, one of the most thorough cleansing operations for hard drives, which leaves virtually every file unreadable. The WSJ quotes a Geeks on Call executive saying the company typically doesn’t conduct seven-level wipes to remove viruses and that it is unusual to get calls from government officials. The article doesn’t say why Bloch felt it necessary to ignore using his own IT staff to rid the computers of the virus, and a WSJ examination of the $1,149 Geeks bill mentions nothing about a virus.

Bloch, whose office is conducting an investigation into the White House’s political operations, is himself under investigation by the Office of Personnel Management's inspector general, who is looking into claims that Bloch retaliated against employees and dismissed whistleblower cases before thoroughly examining the charges. The IG has asked Bloch for emails; Bloch says the hard-drive erasure did not affect files pertinent to any investigation. In June, Bloch sent a report to President Bush recommending he punish General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan to the “fullest extent” for violating the law prohibiting federal employees to use federal resources for political purposes.

“[A breach in] cybersecurity will be the next Pearl Harbor.” While not original (Win Schwartau, president of security consulting firm Interpact Inc., claims to have coined the phrase "electronic Pearl Harbor" more than 10 years ago), that’s what former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., said during a media dinner in D.C. last night. "We’re making as many problems as we are solving,” as vulnerabilities proliferate and hackers reverse-engineer patches released by vendors like Microsoft to enable access to the network. That leaves government vulnerable and to some degree unaware of the impending danger, until an attack serves as a wakeup call, he said, not unlike the infamous bombing during World War II. What should the government be doing? Nunn didn’t claim to know. He was just as elusive on another subject: a potential run for the White House in 2008, saying only that if it did happen, he’d run as an Independent candidate.

On Nov. 7, the Sunlight Foundation released software that could prove a valuable tool for Republicans critical of congressional earmarks. The Sunlight Foundation, an organization that, according to its Web site, “supports, develops and deploys new Internet technologies to make information about Congress and the federal government more accessible to the American people,” uses the Google Earth application to plot the locations for almost 1,500 earmarks in the House Defense Appropriations bill.

By downloading Google Earth and a House Defense file, users can locate earmarks on a U.S. map, according to where the funds would be allocated. Click on the pushpin that marks an earmark location and you can find detailed information from Sunlight Foundation’s searchable database, EarmarkWatch.org.

Will the software application play any role in the fate of the House Defense Appropriations bill, which contains an estimated $5 billion in earmarks? Probably not. Congress passed it last week, and President Bush has stated no plans for a veto. Still, Senate Republican leaders that have made earmarks a soapbox issue no doubt cheer the application – along with other Internet efforts to garner support for their cause.

While Congress plays political games with the 12 appropriations bills, the Veterans Affairs Department groans under a backlog of 400,000 veterans benefits claims, according to the Senate report on the fiscal 2008 VA-Military Construction spending bill.

The backlog on each of those claims is 177 days, the report noted, while the complexity of adjudicating claims grows as combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan need to be evaluated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and multiple battle injuries to collect their benefits.

The Senate version of the fiscal 2008 VA bill attempts to resolve this backlog by providing $60.7 million to hire new claims processing personnel and another $39.7 million for computers and information technology systems to speed up the processing of the claims, which have increased 39 percent from 2000 to 2006.

The funding is held hostage until at least December (even though there is a war on, Congress needs a Thanksgiving break) when maybe the folks on the Hill will get around to passing the appropriations bills they should have passed two months ago.

One would think that Congress could have at least passed the VA bill before Veterans Day (Nov. 12) in honor of those the nation sends into harms way.

But, hey, the House did honor veterans yesterday with the passage of a bill that called for the creation of National Veterans History Project Week, to be observed next November.

Maybe someone can do a veteran history project on why the Senate and House could not pass a VA spending bill in 2007 before Veterans Day.

We received in our email inbox last week an announcement from FEMA about a video it recently produced on its Flood Map Modernization program. The 8-and-a-half-minute video, "made its debut at the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) Conference in Norfolk, Virginia on June 6, 2007," according to the email. The email said the video "provides valuable information and resources."

The agency gave no specifics about what kind of valuable information and resources the video provided. But one thing is for sure, the video, a flashy production that includes lost of charts and acronyms, promotes FEMA's IT program to upgrade its computer systems that monitor and predict floods.

Who would be interested in such a video? On FEMA's information resource library site, where you can download the Flood Map Modernization Video, FEMA says the audience for the video includes the general public and homeowners; floodplain managers; state, local and tribal representatives; the insurance industry; mapping professionals; FEMA regions; hazard mitigation officers; contractors and vendors.

That's a lot of people. But one group that that may have been left out is Congress. IT programs are big money for agencies, and Congress obviously holds the purse strings. Videos help sell the projects.

Other agencies producing glitzy, high-paced videos (with thumping soundtracks) for IT programs include the Coast Guard. The guard developed a video for its $24 billion modernization program Deepwater, in which the Coast Guard lays out the reasons it needs to upgrade its fleet with high-tech boats and planes. The Army, which has become the master at using the video medium to recruit and promote itself, has used its videography skills to develop at least four videos, which use real actors, to promote its $70 billion-plus Future Combat System. (A rather maudlin video called "Safehouse" shows an earnest doctor saving sick children in Southeast Asia.)

Army's "Safehouse" video on Future Combat System

Not surprising, NASA, which offers dozens of videos on its Web site, has become quite skilled at the promotional video, too. A video produced by Goddard Space Flight Center doesn't focus on an IT program but rather promotes how numerous NASA technologies have boosted the Maryland economy.

What's the common theme here? Lots of money for IT and, at least for Deepwater and FCS, programs that have been criticized for mismanagement, according to this Government Accountability report and this one, respectively.

Does all this promotion work? It just may, as a recent mark up of the fiscal 2008 spending bill for FCS shows.

The reviews of CNN/You Tube presidential debate are in, and it seems no political analyst, reporter or blogger was particularly impressed. The debate, described by CNN as the first that was "solely in the voters' hands," allowed "ordinary" voters to submit via YouTube videos of themselves asking questions directly to the Democratic candidates running for president.

For John Dickerson, a political analyst for CNN who wrote an article for Slate.com, described some of the videos as "so washed-out, it made you want to dial 911 to report a hostage taking. ... But what the majority of the nearly 40 YouTube videos provided was authenticity, which is usually as hard to find in presidential debates as humility."

Brian Braiker of Newsweek was far from impressed. He wrote that "for all the hype, this debate was not effectively that much different from all the others to date."

The same ho-hum reaction was provided by Michael Falcone. Blogging for The New York Times, Falcone wrote that "... in some ways, we had seen it all before. Since the beginning of the year, the Democrats have taken part in numerous unofficial debates and forums and faced questions on many of the same issues."

Some political reporters just skipped right over writing about the format as if this whole YouTube phenomenon is so 2005 (the year YouTube was founded). Ben Smith of Politico.com mentioned the homemade videos barely in passing to get to what the candidates talked about. "Amid the entertainment of a talking snowman and rapping education advocate, however, the candidates drew clear distinctions on crucial questions of foreign policy in a debate that circled repeatedly around Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's positions on the war in Iraq."

Judging form the comments Smith received on his article, the American voter had mixed reviews for the format, as well. "I'm all for creativity and the integration of technology into everyday life but the submitted YouTube questions from last night really distracted, IMHO, from the debate," wrote dallenva.

"I liked that the answers weren't professionally developed (even though they were highly screened in the selection process but that's just the way it is) and that they weren't pre-given to the candidates - at least to my knowledge," dallasmsl wrote.

Ordinary citizens also, of course, include government employees and contractors, presumably readers of this blog. So, how did the CNN/YouTube debate strike you? Let us hear from you by clicking on the comment link below.

The presidential candidates are doing a poor job reaching likely voters through their campaign Web sites, according to a recent study conducted by a search engine consultant.

News and social media sites are the most preferred venues for those potential voters who use the Web to research candidates and their positions, according to a report by icrossing. In addition, the candidates' Web sites are not highly visible when voters search for specific terms on political issues, icrossing reports. Candidates need to focus more on their online presence because 42 percent of all voters use the Internet to research candidates' positions, according to the report.

An interesting tidbit from the report:

Barack Obama and war in Iraq are tops in current candidate and issue searches: Obama attracts the largest share of searches among candidates in the survey of voter interest as of May 2008, topping Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. The war in Iraq is the most searched for issue.

With all the conflicting testimony and claims of not being able to remember specific statements that are central to the Hatch Act violations leveled at General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan, one wonders if someone just may have recorded or videotaped the infamous January 26 meeting. That way we would know for sure what was, or was not, said.

Unfortunately, there is no such recording of the meeting held at the General Services Administration headquarters building in Washington, D.C. At the meeting, a deputy of White House political strategist Karl Rove presented to more than 30 agency political appointees a PowerPoint presentation that analyzed the results of the 2006 midterm election. The Office of Special Counsel ruled Doan violated the Hatch Act by inducing "her subordinates to engage in the type of political brainstorming session that is prohibited from occurring while the political appointees are on duty or in a federal workplace." Witnesses testified that Doan asked the presenter how GSA could help Republican candidates in the next election. Doan testified she cannot recall asking the question.

A recording of the meeting would help. But according to a reply to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Government Executive, none of the equipment used to facilitate the meeting -- which included attendees joining the meeting via video conference -- was set up for, or capable of, making an audio or video recording.

The response to the FOIA request states that the GSA video managers responsible for setting up the video conference said that the equipment used for the meeting was a standard Polycom MGC-50 audio/video bridge. The bridge is capable of bringing together 24 video and 48 audio sites on a single conference call, but is not equipped to record conversations.

As the Office of Special Counsel report suggests, the only way to find out what Doan said at the conclusion of the presentation is to rely on the memory of the witnesses, who testified that Doan asked how the agency could help Republican candidates.

As Americans embrace technology, specifically the Internet, they will become increasingly more conservative and, therefore, more Republican.

That's the assessment of Karl Rove, President Bush's political adviser. In an article appearing in the June 4 issue of The New Yorker magazine, Rove theorizes that Republicans, despite losing Congress in the 2006 elections and facing low approval ratings, will dominate future elections because Americans are becoming more technologically savvy. His quote from the article:

"There are two or three societal trends that are driving us in an increasingly deep center-right posture,” he said. “One of them is the power of the computer chip. Do you know how many people’s principal source of income is eBay? Seven hundred thousand.” He went on, “So the power of the computer has made it possible for people to gain greater control over their lives. It’s given people a greater chance to run their own business, become a sole proprietor or an entrepreneur. As a result, it has made us more market-oriented, and that equals making you more center-right in your politics.

(The other societal trend driving Americans to the right, Rove says, is baby boomers becoming more spiritual as they grow older, which translates into being more conservative. But that topic is for another blog.)

As for the technology-Republican-link theory, we're waiting for a rebuttal from technologist and Democrat Al Gore.