It seems as if every 2008 presidential candidate announced on the Net. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton joined the race via online videos, and though John McCain announced on David Letterman, the Web was soon crawling with that footage, too. This kind of canned speechifying is really just a free commercial for the candidate, and where there's one kind of presidential ad, there's bound to be another. That's right: The online mudslinging has already begun.

Just a few weeks ago, "Hillary 1984" hit the Web. In the unlikely event you haven't seen it, the video is basically Apple's landmark "1984" TV advertisement repurposed as an Obama spot. In the ad, an attractive, athletic woman with a sledgehammer launches a revolution against the forces of conformity and oppression. But it's not some non-descript Big Brother figure in the firing line. It's Hillary. Pretty dramatic stuff. This viral video has been viewed more than three million times--and that doesn't include the countless repeats on the major TV news networks. At first, no one claimed responsibility. But it turns out the spot was made by Phillip de Vellis, a Democratic operative with Blue State Digital, a consulting firm that does work for the Obama campaign. Allegedly, de Vellis did the entire ad on his own without the Obama campaign or his employer knowing anything about it.

Conspiracy theorists are bound to doubt this kind of lone-gunman explanation, but I don't. I totally believe that one guy could do this. If my 12-year-old son can sit down at his computer and piece together new songs with rap samples, Phillip de Vellis can make and distribute that Hillary attack ad with just his MacBook and Final Cut Pro.

What's more, I'm sure that other ambitious political operatives, aspiring comedians, and extremists of all persuasions are hunched over their screens right now, doing the same sort of thing. As de Vellis told PoliticsTV.com, this is a new day for political discourse, in which voters are participants in the debate, not just spectators. "Politics now is in the hands of ordinary citizens," de Vellis says. "You can create something in your living room, get it out there through YouTube or another video service, and potentially millions of people can see it."

In fact, just days after the "1984" video broke, the humor Web site This Just In generously created a response ad in Clinton's behalf in which a classic Oscar Meyer commercial id dubbed with the words "Barack Obama has a way with B-O-L-O-G-N-A." Another anonymous YouTube mash-up uses Wendy's famous "Where's the Beef?" ad to mock Obama's lack of experience. The latter ad is particularly remarkable because although it's dull and amateurish, it's still been viewed more than 50,000 times.

The problem is that there's not always accountability for this sort of thing. In the past, campaigns had to buy spots on TV and obey certain rules of fair play. Campaigns had to identify ads as approved by the candidate, and there was always a money trail to follow. Sure, you could run a spot accusing your opponent of fathering illegitimate children, letting murderers out of jail, and doing drugs in college, but the press and the public could hold you responsible for such mudslinging. That doesn't happen online.

There are political analysts out there who see viral videos as a great informational opportunity, but that isn't what people are interested in watching. People want to see the very funny and the very mean. If a video doesn't make you laugh or make you angry, it won't spread. During this campaign, you'll see some funny online ads, but you'll see even more that are nasty. Being funny is hard; being mean is a lot easier. Just look at what a small group of Swift Boat veterans did to John Kerry in 2004.

Now imagine what those ads would have looked like if there was no way of tracing who made them. Yes, de Vellis was identified (and quickly lost his job), but it isn't hard to cover your tracks on the Web, and after he was singled out, I expect most online mudslingers will choose to remain anonymous.

There's a place in this country for anonymous political speech. After all, the Federalist papers were written anonymously. I think we have the right to speak up without being singled out, and now more than ever we have the power to do so. Just don't be surprised if, thanks to the Web, this is the nastiest election we've ever seen.

If you enjoy this sort of thing, and I have to admit part of me does, the best place to watch the battle is on TechPresident.com. Good stuff from the folks at the Personal Democracy Forum.