So I'm in a panel ready room at midtown Hyatt, getting ready to speak about online video to a room of PR folks at a PRSA conference, when Steve Rosenbaum, former MTV exec and now CEO of Magnify.net, walks in and asks if I've seen the new Hillary Clinton video. The vid debuted that morning, and Rosenbaum was agog.

"It's...I mean it's just...i don't want to spoil it...just watch it," he said. "Just watch it."

I did. So did you. The video, which spoofs the end of the Sopranos and revealed Clinton's choice for her campaign theme song, was all over the blogs. And the papers. And the major news programs. The pop-conscious, self-aware video was meant to show a softer side to Clinton's typically stentorian presence. How very glib, came the refrain. Oh, how inventive. Merrilly and with a nod to our own savvy -- dude we get it now, this web video thing -- we repeated that sexy phrase: "This is the YouTube election."

Bunkum. Blatherskite. Pure poppycock. The conversations engendered by this PR stunt are meaningless. The fact that the songstress is Canadian? Meaningless. The fact that the song was Canada Air's theme song? Meaningless. The fact that Republicans accused Clinton of outsourcing her music? Meaningless. Fluff and fluff some more, distracting us from the absurdity of considering politics, pop music and TV shows to be worthy of equal critical analysis.

Sigh. We've become so enamored with this idea that candidates can be web-savvy (thanks, Howard) that we neglect to attend to the consequences, while giving credence, heedlessly, to the myths. Which are:

1. YouTube is a backchannel to citizens.

There's an idea that these videos -- Hillary mocking her own singing, Obama Girl shaking her ass, Bill Richardson's self-deprecating adverts -- are some kind of direct line from candidates to citizens, and vice versa. That's just BS. Not only are the online videos controlled by professionals (In Clinton's case, her online director is Peter Daou), but candidates are now more closely controlling their public appearances as well. They fear that an uncensored moment (the word "macaca" is almost an imprecation) could be taped and leaked online. This is the effect of YouTube exposure -- not the flourishing of democratic conversation but the development of a panopticon of fear.

2. YouTube promotes healthy civic discussion.

Really? Sure, there's no shortage of amateur political videos on sites like YouTube. But there's also no shortage of professional political commentary on television and news radio. We can't bemoan the rise of the latter while applauding the former. There are some amateur videographers who do actual reporting, but they're few and far between. You know what I see? A lot of yammering by half-naked people at desk chairs, followed by comment spam.

3. YouTube subverts the traditional political structure.

No, it doesn't. Take a look at the most popular candidates on YouTube and you'll see they're in the same order as offline: Hilary, Barack, Edwards, McCain, Romney, Guliani.

4. YouTube gives us more personal views of the candidates.

This is the idea that we're getting politicians uncensored, or that we're getting a more intimate understanding of their beliefs. Granted, they have time online to offer more nuanced versions of their positions than sound bites can't capture. But do you really believe you're going to divine a deeper understanding of a candidate's character? Kind of like the way, say, that everybody hoped that by watching Kobe Bryant play basketball they'd be able to suss whether he really cheated on his wife? No. No no no. The closest we get is Clinton saying he thinks "Smashmouth" is going to win. Really. Somewhere, a Lewinski giggles.

5. YouTube makes politics itself more personal.

Of all the myths, this one is closest to being true. In the case of the YouTube/CNN presidential debates this Fall, everyday citizens who wouldn't otherwise get to address a candidate are offered the chance to query them via webcam. Nice. YouTube also gives candidates the ability to address specific issues with videos that explain the vicissitudes of their beliefs. Double nice.

But here's the problem. The candidates -- or their campaign managers -- are increasingly equating conflating "personal" with "pop," as if the highest form of communication is flattering you with media. The Sopranos spoof. The Celine Dion song. The Barack Obama ringtones. Pandering. Just pandering to a polity with constant media that says nothing and gets more nothing said.