New technology may have permanently changed U.S. politics and campaigning. These panelists, who have both observed and driven this change, attest to how truly transformative the 2008 presidential election turned out to be.  Four million more 18-29 year olds voted in 2008 than in 2004, says Ian Rowe, and nearly 70% of these voted for Obama. Rowe’s convinced this enormous leap in voters, and their sharp preference for one candidate, “is due to the use of new media.” He credits the Obama campaign’s extraordinary mastery of both message and delivery, citing a “centralized and decentralized process; the idea that everyone had part-ownership of the brand.” The campaign reached young people via cellphone, Twitter, and Facebook. He notes Obama’s website, FighttheSmears.com, which battled scurrilous internet rumors. Users “became an ally to preserve and protect his brand,” says Rowe. But none of this would have been effective if Obama had not purveyed such a “phenomenal and consistent message,” which involved drawing on his audience for ideas and direction. This represents “a new kind of governance about bringing you into the process.” Marc Ambinder believes that the 2004 and 2008 campaigns were successful because “they both managed to use tried and tested old media marketing techniques and merge them with technology.” While lagging in resources and technique four years ago, the Democrats this time round were fueled by Obama’s massive $630 million war-chest. The end result was an email database of around 10 million people, which they put to use in social networks like Facebook. Ambinder also recalls a fascinating effort using old and new media in South Carolina, where the Obama campaign worried about gaining votes among older African- American women. Campaign staff recorded some of Michelle Obama’s speeches on the subject, and sent volunteers with DVDs and VHS tapes of her talks to beauty parlors. “Volunteers spent tens of thousands of hours loosening resistance...