For years, web true believers searched in vain to justify their faith in the next big medium. On campaigns, these die-hard souls were often found or relegated to doing research where they could surf to their heart's delight, finding new and intriguing facts that might catch the campaign manager or the candidate's attention.

Every so often I would venture there, deep into the bowels of the headquarters and stepping over the clutter of Jolt cans, I would hope to find a specific vote or resolution that we could tie our opponent to and sink him deep into the waters of political oblivion.

After getting what I needed from our research team, I would take care of pressing matters and then return to thank them for their hard work. We would share a few words about our latest hit and then, it happened ...

In a jumble of excitement, the words would come flailing out of their mouths:

"A new kind of campaign is coming."

"You won't have to spend two-thirds of the budget on TV ads."

And my all-time favorite ...

"The web is going to change everything."

When these electronic preachers mounted their imaginary soapboxes and began to proselytize on behalf of their cause, I mumbled something about checking the budget and turned away.

"Just wait," I heard one of them call, "just wait."

And wait — we did.

In the mid to late nineties, we all waited.

Political consultants waited to see how the web would revolutionize campaigns. We waited for the "killer app," because we weren't about ready to divvy-up hard-earned campaign cash and place a heavy wager on the web. We couldn't imagine trying to convince our congressional candidates that our web site was something more than a 24-hour electronic billboard posted on an isolated highway in cyberspace.

And we were surprised when we heard the symbol of generations past, Bob Dole; mutter his web address during a debate with President Clinton.

Then, other cracks of light began to break through the foundation of our old-world notions. Sen. McCain used his web site to raise millions after handily beating then Governor Bush in New Hampshire. For the Democrats, former Sen. Bill Bradley turned his web site into Ticketmaster, selling seats to his Madison Square Garden fundraiser featuring basketball greats Dave DeBusschere, Dr. J and Walt Frazier.

After 2000, we were willing to concede that the web could help campaigns raise money. Alright, thought managers everywhere, we'll have to include some of the cost of the web site in our fundraising budget. But it's not going to eat up part of the money reserved for TV ads.

On this point, I believed, there could be no negotiation. My web friends continued to warn me, to proceed with an open mind and perhaps, loosen my tight-fisted grip on the campaign purse strings to experiment — but I wouldn't budge.

I remained a skeptic.

There were fundamental differences why using TV and radio (conventional paid media) made more political and financial sense than using the web to persuade voters. The first was connectivity. So many persuadable voters didn't appear to be online. My attitude changed abruptly when my aunt from Hosmer, South Dakota, regularly emailed me about the Thune-Johnson battle in 2002, describing the battle and ways the campaigns were using the web to reach out to rural voters. Hosmer, by the way, has 287 residents.

The second and more pressing reason was that TV and radio ads were what I dubbed an "aggressive" media whereas the web was "passive." As a political consultant, I knew if our campaign bought enough gross rating points on conventional media that eventually our target voters would see or hear our spots and our message would get burned in. Conventional paid media was dynamic — it found the voters whether or not they wanted to receive the information.

For voters to receive the information online, they had to work. They had to turn on the computer, wait for it to boot-up, search and find the web site, read and then evaluate the information before checking other sites. I know voters are busy, and I doubted that they would spend the time looking for this information.

The mist of uncertainty regarding persuading undecided voters using the web was burned away with the 2004 campaign. During the last cycle, we saw voters interact with campaigns and candidates using blogs. I watched as they posted questions, demanded answers and sought the very information I once believed they didn't have time to find. No longer content to wade into the campaign until Election Day, I saw undecided voters using the web to hold candidates accountable.

And lo, I realized the glorious promise of the web was fulfilled.

For we had found the killer app ...

No, it wasn't streaming ads or organizing online. It was something much more basic and profound.

Transactivity.

We went from the monologue model of communicating with voters where campaigns sat on the message mountaintop and dictated the terms of the debate to the voters to a dialogue between some of the voters and the campaigns.

This dialogue or transaction between the voter and campaign helped reignite our passion for democracy and combined with the contentious presidential campaign and the debate over Iraq, we saw more and more voters take to the net to get information and get involved.

So where does that leave us now? Is the web better at communicating with the base or persuading undecideds?

Just like the other media — the answer is that it does both.

Intriguing and interesting TV and radio ads have fired-up the base in previous elections, causing them to invest themselves in a campaign by contributing, writing a letter to the editor or volunteering at the phone bank.

Likewise, online persuasion activities when encountered by a supporter, reaffirms the notion that something is going on at the campaign and that this team cares about winning because they expanded their campaign to the web.

As we have seen in recent studies, more and more voters are turning to the web as their primary source of information, whether it is their Yahoo home page giving them the day's news or reading about the antics of a controversial Hollywood starlet, these voters need to be engaged online.

Furthermore, because the web is a transactional medium allowing for correspondence and relationships to be built with a campaign or among a virtual community, it behooves a campaign to begin asking questions to start the conversation with these voters. Once they are engaged on issues they care about like the skyrocketing costs of property taxes — they will become more likely to trust you and your campaign. It is a simple rule, conversation precedes commitment, but it is up to the campaign to start the dialogue.

The next landmark for using the web as a persuasion tool will take place during the 2006 campaigns. Managers and consultants will need to dedicate the resources necessary to provoke, stimulate and maintain conversations with voters. Only then, will our friends formerly relegated to the backroom truly enjoy a seat at the decision making table.