The quick way to submit a question is to use the widget you can find here. But there are plenty of other resources available if you are interested in learning more about the Summit of the Americas, starting with the America.gov Townhall page or the Howcast Townhall page. The America.gov site in this case links to the Howcast site, which pulls together all the links, how-to videos, and forum posts about this summit, with additional media on their branded YouTube page. The videos and other US State Department media are located on their own YouTube page, and finally there is not one but two professional sites covering Summit of the Americas activities in general.

We have covered how Obama's administration has harnessed YouTube in the past, and it looks like they are taking advantage of that channel again, linking to the Howcast Townhall site directly from the official White House blog. It definitely appears as if they are sincere about leveraging the technological infrastructure that is out there in order to drive engagement for events like these. With any luck, that is what is going to happen, as the issues discussed may lead to lasting decisions about how the democratic nations of the Americas combine to combat these global issues.

That said, however, Obama has dominated the online discussion since day one. It would appear that when it comes to spreading his campaign message via widgets, there's no exception to the rule -- Obama widgets are far and away the most popular. (Though, note that the data on this graph is based on the candidate's most popular widget in the Widgetbox system, and not averaged across multiple widgets -- so it's really only good for looking at a general trend.)

We tried to match peaks and valleys in widget installs to news events to see if there was any correlation, which is really difficult with this data. It looks like Obama saw a growing number of installs in the run up to the Ohio and Texas primaries (entering which he'd won something like 11 or 12 contests in a row) -- then flat-lined for a month after he lost them. Clinton saw a modest bump after Super Tuesday in February where she scored huge wins in New York and California. Sen. John McCain saw a big dip the first week in March, which coincided with his becoming the presumptive nominee and President Bush's endorsement (we'll let you guess which might have turned people off his widget...).

But what's important about this data, is the trends. Starting with the Iowa caucuses just after New Year's, Barack Obama has seen his widgets spread steadily across the web. And even though his campaign does push the widgets on his site, 80-90% of new installs are coming via widgets embedded on non-official blogs -- they're coming from the grassroots rather than via the campaign itself. Clinton and McCain widgets are also being spread virally by supporters, though clearly not as fast. It does look like McCain supporters are doing a better job of embracing new web technologies than they were earlier in the election cycle, though -- the first McCain widgets appeared on Widgetbox in mid-February and have enjoyed mostly steady upward growth since.

This is really just another data point to watch to gauge which candidate has momentum. It's really quite amazing to look a things like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and widgets to measure a US presidential election -- the last time around most of these tools didn't exist (or at least weren't nearly as important).

Interestingly, Spot Runner also just started offering political ads. The difference, though, is that while Spot Runner is targeting local elections -- making it easier for a person running for, say, a town council seat to run a television ad -- VoterVoter.com is talking national politics. The purpose of VoterVoter.com is for individuals to run ads supporting or attacking Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain -- who each have their own section in the site's ad library.

What's the point of paying to run an ad in support of your favorite candidate rather than just giving directly to the campaign? According to VoterVoter.com the reason is that you can get around the Federal Election Commission's $4,600 campaign donation cap per candidate. "Because you are not contributing to a campaign, but are making your own choice on how to spend your money, your independent expenditure is not limited," reads the site's FAQ.

Another reason, one that VoterVoter.com doesn't mention, is that by bypassing your candidate's official campaign, you're free to engage in dirty politics that candidates generally try to avoid. Anyone up for a little swiftboating?

As The Nation notes, MoveOn.org recently launched a pro-Barack Obama TV commercial contest, with the winning ad to be aired nationally. VoterVoter.com will allow any ad to find its way on the air -- which may not be a good thing. One one hand, it does put more power in the hands of the people to influence American politics, but on the other hand, it also makes it easier for partisan organizations to engage in smear campaigns, which is exactly the type of politics we should be working to eliminate, not encourage.

What do you think of VoterVoter.com? Does it add to the political process or make things worse? Share your thoughts in the comments.

The Obama campaign is using software from business intranet provider Central Desktop to manage "precinct captains" -- volunteers who get out the vote and spread the campaign message in specific precincts across the state. The campaign started using the software during the run up to an earlier nominating contest in California -- the nation's most populous state. "The Web-based collaboration platform combined with a strong organized grass-roots effort, created unprecedented public involvement that is revitalizing politics in America," said Patrick DeTemple, the California Data & Systems Manager for the Obama campaign. "Not since Bobby Kennedy has there been such an extensive Precinct Captain operation for a presidential candidate in California."

Central Desktop is a wiki-based collaboration tool that competes with 37Signals' Basecamp (to put it in some perspective). Though most users are business clients who utilize the software as a private intranet, the Obama campaign is using it to power a public facing wiki to organize information for precinct captains in Texas. According to Garcia, the campaign is using the software on their own without much input beyond basic support from Central Desktop -- or in other words, the campaign has been savvy enough to figure out how to utilize an existing tool for a completely new use case.

In fact, Garcia told me that Central Desktop was actually unaware that the campaign had planned to use their software for additional states following California until they noticed an influx of traffic on their servers going to the campaign's new Texas site. Further, according to Garcia, the idea to use collaboration software to manage precinct captains was actually something that bubbled up in the campaign from the grassroots volunteers who were out in the field.

That the Obama campaign is so tech savvy and so open to using social software is unsurprising. They have run one of the most comprehensive online campaigns in recent memory -- perhaps ever -- generally outperforming opponents on nearly every social network or social media site, and according to a recent post from Ning's Marc Andreesen, Obama has long been very interested in social networking and how it can affect politics.

The specific appeal of Central Desktop's wiki-based approach is that allows volunteers to shape the messaging and quickly collaborate with each other without the need to go through a webmaster. The Texas effort, some of which was cloned over from the previous California site, was literally launched a couple of weeks ago in mid-February.

In 2004, the Howard Dean campaign famously used Meetup.com to mobilize supporters. But Dean's use of Meetup was mostly about bringing supporters together to share a common experience. It was not so much a focused and organized campaigning effort, as Obama's use of Central Desktop's software has been. Garcia was hesitant to say for sure, but he thinks Obama's may be the first campaign to make heavy use of collaboration software to help manage on the ground organization (though, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul both utilized Salesforce.com in their campaigns).

Update: Jason Fried pinged us to let us know that the Obama campaign is actually using Basecamp as well. The new media team at the campaign's national headquarters in Chicago (where 37Signals is based), for example, used Basecamp to collaborate while building BarackObama.com. Basecamp is also being used by some parts of the campaign in New York City to manage events.

UPDATE: Also check out Keeping Tabs on Super Tuesday, our guide to following Super Tuesday via the Internet.

Looking over Obama's numbers, we see that an overwhelming amount of that $28 million was via small donations -- 90% under $100 each. 10,000 people gave between $5 and $10. That's a whole new paradigm for fundraising. Rather than chase $2,300 checks from a few hundred rich people at lavish fundraisers (okay, they still do that), campaigns can more easily focus on collecting thousands of smaller donations from regular people that add up to the same amount (or more).

Further, 10,000 donations under $10 means the email addresses of 10,000 people who can still give more money later. About half of Hilary Clinton's money came from "maxed out" voters compared to just about one third for Obama. That gives Obama a much larger pool of donors to hit up for more cash and to put on notice for get out the vote campaigns.

Though I am loathe to agree with Karl Rove, he's right about how the Internet is affecting campaign fundraising. "The Internet dramatically shortens the gap between political success and raising money," he wrote. "Today, if you do well in a debate on Tuesday night you can begin raising large sums of money Wednesday morning. Effective fundraising can be a mouse-click away."

That's something that nearly all of the campaigns are doing. Within hours after Obama's win in South Carolina, his campaign had dispatched emails to supporters pitching for donations. However, raising money doesn't win elections. "Raising the most amount of money by no means assures you of winning the presidential primary," says former chairman of the Federal Election Commission Michael Toner. And for Paul, money and online popularity hasn't translated into votes. For Obama, though, arguably his online success has had an impact at the polls.

The reason may be in get out the vote efforts of each party. Both Paul and Obama, with their anti-war stances and Internet savvy, are attractive to young voters. But only the Democrats are succeeding in getting young people to the voting booths. In Iowa, exit polls showed 40% of voters under the age of 44, and Obama killed in those demographics. On the Republican side, just 26% of voters were under 44. That picture was repeated in other early primary states.

Incidentally, this is also potentially the reason that Mike Huckabee has faded as well -- he appeals to young people with, as one South Carolina paper writes, "his celebrity supporters, preacher’s gift for humor and skill with an electric guitar."

The Democrats are succeeding with young people because they are targeting young people and they are using the Internet to successfully microtarget and rally their base. The Obama campaign, for example, uses sophisticated targeting tools that let them send specially tailored campaign materials to each voter. Firm supporters get a different email than those on the fence.

Other progressive organizations are using similar tools. One is called Catalist. It is used by large progressive organizations like MoveOn and the AFL-CIO to microtarget their campaigns. According to Tony DeYoung of Catalyst Resources (unrelated to Catalist -- Catalyst is a design firm that was contracted by Catalist to redesign the UI of their "Q-Tool" software), Catalist utilizes "on-demand data analysis services to help Democratics microtarget in their voter outreach efforts. Microtargeting uses sophisticated computer models regularly used in commercial marketing, which helps campaigns to locate sympathetic voters and target them with individually tailored messages on issues that are predicted to be most important to them."

This is the same technique the Republicans employed to great effect in 2004 to get out messages to conservative evangelical Christian voters -- who this election cycle don't have a clear cut favorite among the front runners. Which may explain why their get out the vote efforts aren't working as well this time around.

So while both Obama and Paul are running effective online campaigns, albeit in different ways, the get out the vote efforts of the Democrats, which target young people, play to Obama's strength. While strong turnout by voters over the age of 45 have played to John McCain on the Republican side.

Related: Keeping Tabs on Super Tuesday

The people who make Politweets, which I'd come across earlier in the day via The Social Times, also make Twittertale, another Twitter filter, which pulls out all the posts with naughty words. While Twittertale is fun, Politweets is actually useful. As my example from last night illustrates, the site clearly demonstrates Twitter's ability to disseminate newsworthy information quickly and effectively -- and in a conversation atmosphere.

Some sports leagues may be cracking down on live blogging, but as we have suggested, Twitter is going to become a more and more important way for people to report on news as they see it happen. Whether that is "Turn on the TV, something is happening!" or "The score is 87-84 with 23 seconds left," Twitter is becoming a useful tool for citizen journalism.

With a week until Nevada, the Twittersphere has turned its attention to discussing why Hillary won and Obama lost, and how Obama can regain his mojo. On the Republican side, everyone just seems to be trying to figure out who really is the front-runner. It's an interesting discussion to watch on both sides and has already led me to some articles on other sites that I'd likely have missed otherwise. For political junkies, Politweet will be a must monitor web-site on every primary date this season until we know who the candidates for the general election are.

The site also has a ranking of candidate popularity (based on how many times their name has been mentioned on Twitter). Surprisingly, Twitter seems to be one of the few places that Ron Paul isn't ulta-popular -- he is third among Republicans in terms of Twitter exposure.

We noted in August, that looking at YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook popularity predicted an eventual head-to-head between Ron Paul and Barack Obama. But in every national poll at the time, neither candidate came out on top. In November, the Compete "Candidate FaceTime" metric showed Paul and Mike Huckabee way out in front, with Obama and Hillary Clinton leading on the Democratic side. The national poll results still don't bear out the online popularity. National polls still have Clinton way ahead of Obama, and Paul in a distant sixth place.

We've speculated that one reason might be that much of the attention anti-war candidates like Obama and Paul are receiving is coming from overseas -- where anti-war and anti-Bush sentiment is generally greater than in the US. American politics are profoundly important across the globe, so people outside of the US pay attention, but though their votes in online straw polls and visits to candidate MySpace pages are counted, they cannot vote in US elections and are left out of local polling.

Yesterday, Hitwise released numbers showing which candidate's official web site was most popular among Iowans. That means these numbers can't be influenced by people from other countries -- this is the Internet election as predicted by the very people who caucus to start the process tonight.

Surprisingly, Iowa predicts wins for Barack Obama and Ron Paul -- both of whom received far more Internet visits from Iowa connected computers in the past month than their next closes rivals (Clinton and Huckabee, respectively). Hitwise is seeing similar results nationally (though with Paul and Huckabee ahead of Obama and Clinton). These results are in line with what the web has been telling us all year.

The latest polls out of Iowa, however, still disagree with what the web predicts. Real Clear Politics, which averages major polls to come up with a single number, shows a statistical dead heat in Iowa between Obama, Clinton, and John Edwards. On the Republican site, Huckabee and Mitt Romney are neck and neck, but Paul is sitting in 6th place, well out of contention.

So which is right? While Obama and Paul continue to rack up the wins online, the offline poll numbers show a tougher road to the White House for both. At this point, it's probably best to dispense with the predictions, and guesses, and analysis and wait to see who actually wins in the morning -- then we'll have a clearer picture of how much the Internet matters in campaign politics. At least until Tuesday, when we get to do it all over again in New Hampshire (where, incidentally, Hitwise shows John McCain and Mike Huckabee both leading Ron Paul, and the latest polls have McCain in the lead).

Image via: AAAS.