The Washington Post has an interesting take on the growing importance of podcasting, video podcasting and other Internet media in the world of politics.

Not long ago, an anonymous video on the Internet would have elicited little more than amusement from the candidate under attack. But the 2006 campaign, in which then-Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) saw his hopes for reelection, not to mention the White House, torpedoed by his now-infamous “macaca” moment captured on a widely seen video, changed the rules.

But if last year’s midterms were the year of the rogue videographers, the already-underway 2008 presidential campaign is likely to be remembered as the point where Web video became central to the communications strategy of every serious presidential candidate.

We’ve previously highlighted how Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama have used podcasts and Internet video to announce their presidential intentions.

Playing defense is only one use of Web video. Equally important, the candidates and their staffs see Web-based video as an inexpensive and potentially significant tool for telling their campaign story without the filters of the traditional media.

Call it the YouTube effect, and it is only growing. The video-sharing site, which less than a year after its founding was bought by Google for $1.65 billion, has revolutionized the transfer of information via video, spawned a number of imitators and forced candidates to recalibrate choices, from their announcement strategies to their staffing decisions.

While the article emphasizes YouTube, the site is actually a small part of candidate’s Internet media strategies. Candidates are using multiple other video sharing sites, creating audio podcasts and appearing in video podcasts such as Rocketboom.