White House photographer Pete Souza captures a glimpse of behind-closed-doors moments at the White House from this past week and the past year as the White House worked to pass the health care bill — and they are, well, heartwarming. We see Hillary Clinton hugging President Obama; White House staffers cheering, applauding, and hugging as they watched Congress vote on the bill late Sunday night; Obama fist-bumping a young doctor who grins ear-to-ear; Nancy Pelosi holding her grandson and grinning next to Obama a day before the historic House vote.

Flickr is not a new tool; people have been using it to share their important moments with friends and family for years. But the Obama White House is the first White House to use Flickr to share their photos and are publicly documenting private moments that, until now, had remained hidden from the American people.

On another note, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs also recently got on Twitter and though he started off slow, he has adjusted to the medium pretty quickly. This morning he cracked jokes with the rest of the Twitterverse, telling his followers that this video of a misguided White House staffer who bears a resemblance to Gibbs was most definitely not him. And then, perhaps most notably, after the historic bill-signing ceremony today, Gibbs responded to Vice President Biden’s earlier f-bomb in his excitement over the health care bill with a tweet remarking “Yes, Mr. Vice President, you’re right…”

It’s the little things – the jokes, wisecracks, the candid photos of fist-bumps and hugs and families and friends—that demonstrate a level of authenticity from this White House and show us, above all, their human side.  They connect with everyday citizens on a human, peer-to-peer level. They don’t  want to be put on a pedestal; they want to remind us that people are just people – and they are too.  Of course, the photos posted on their Flickr account are part of a carefully crafted public relations strategy designed to make us love them – but come on, you can’t tell me you didn’t smile even a little when you saw this totally adorable, sincere moment of joy (between two formal rivals, no less!)

This White House’s use of new media has been hailed as revolutionary many times already by tech policy experts and critics, but it’s almost startling to really see the everyday effects of it. It’s not just that government should get into social media because it’s the cool new thing – it’s because now, citizens get to see candid moments of humanity and humor from our government officials, rather than just the rehearsed speeches, press conferences, and talking points designed for public consumption.  It’s because once we see our elected officials not as corrupt politicians but as human beings whose lives are not so different from our own, we start to feel that our political system might not be so bad and might be worth participating in.

Consider, for a moment, if the Bush White House had had a Flickr feed.  Or if Dana Perino, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice,  even Dick Cheney had been on Twitter while they were still in office.  Imagine if we had seen photos of their moments of excitement and pride, or photos of them with their families.  Yes, it goes without saying that they were a different administration that had different policies and priorities, and this is not a defense of any of the previous administration’s actions. But, it poses an interesting thought: had they been able to show us even a little bit of their human side through  new media, it might have made it a little bit harder for people to demonize Rumsfeld, Rove and company if they constantly reminded everyone that they, too, were just people – humans, who make mistakes like everyone else.

For the first time in history, new media tools allow us to pull back the metaphorical curtain and catch a glimpse of what is going on inside the White House – and it seems like people are liking what they are seeing, which is exactly new media matters. So, Robert Gibbs, tweet away! And Pete Souza, keep those Flickr photos coming! We’re loving every minute of it.

First, a little backstory. I was outside the hotel copping a smoke when I heard some CPAC attendees buzzing about a run-in between Andrew and liberal videographer/columnist Max Blumenthal, that had just occurred (this is an annual rite at CPAC). I learned later, from Max, that he was on his way out of the hotel when he was accosted by James O’Keefe’s ACORN-busting partner, Hannah Giles.

According to Max, she began asking him “bizarre questions,” and a crowd quickly formed. He engaged the crowd for about an hour, and while they started out hostile, by the end, it was much more civil. As the gathering broke up, Breitbart saw Max, and (according to Max) started an argument, part of which can be seen here. (Max’s own video may be available soon.) The crux of the argument was Max’s accusation that Breitbart’s…independent contractor… is a racist. I find it instructive, though, that in both this argument and in his interview with me, he says that the worst thing you can do in America is to accuse someone of racism. Andrew, if you’re reading this, here’s a follow-up: How many notches below that is actually being a racist?

Max also claimed that the DC police who were handling security for the conference advised him to leave for his own safety.

Upon hearing this, I rushed into the hotel to ask Andrew about it. Aside from his dissertation on mucus and weird personal cracks, there are several things worth noting.

First of all, I did not accuse anyone of racism, no matter how much Breitbart wishes I did. I simply asked a question. Breitbart and his crew might want to paint this as an indictment itself, like “when did you stop beating your wife,” but this is just not the case. There’s ample reason to ask it, and it’s a gift-wrapped opportunity for them to put this issue to rest.

In fact, this points up a neat contrast between O’Keefe and myself. I had a reason to ask the question. It’s an issue that’s been raised elsewhere, based on O’Keefe’s own behavior. In fact, after my interview with Breitbart, several CPAC attendees thanked me for “calling it out.”

O’Keefe, on the other hand, decided to set up a sting operation to see if ACORN would give tax help to a pimp and a prostitute. Why? Did O’Keefe have any reason to believe that this was an issue for ACORN? He’s never said so. So what is it about ACORN that made him want to engage in the pimp attack? Where was the probable cause?

If only James or Breitbart would answer that. For it appears that Breitbart’s influence over O’Keefe extends to only let him talk to friendly journalists, but, as our encounter shows, his influence isn’t large enough to include taking responsibility for O’Keefe’s actual product. Apparently, O’Keefe has no editor. This is a great deal for Breitbart, as he gets to exploit O’Keefe’s work, but assumes less responsibility in protecting him.

This brings me to my original point. When I learned that my editor, Colby Hall, was posting my video with a disclaimer, my initial reaction was anger. Upon reflection, though, I can see that this was the right thing for him to do. Whether you like him or not, and whether you consider what he does journalism or not, Andrew Breitbart is already a towering figure on the media landscape – and his influence is still growing. I am generously allowed the freedom to interview people like Breitbart, and comment on them, however I see fit.

Whatever it is that Breitbart’s selling, lots of people are buying, and his array of performances from this weekend are top-of-the-line Breitbart. Love him or hate him, the guy puts on a hell of a show. The trick, for liberals, is to put on a better show.

Editor’s note – on Saturday we published the original video interview with the disclaimer that the opinions reflected by Tommy did not reflect those of Mediaite.

Well, mystery solved — thanks to White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton, who very kindly responded to our barrage of questions on this important matter of national security yesterday.  In so doing, he laid to rest some of the extrapolated conclusions drawn from the 22-second clip of Gibbs on C-SPAN, notably that White House staffers were banned from Twitter (they’re not), that the same people are responsible for both @WhiteHouse and @BarackObama (they’re not) and that nobody tweets from the White House (they do!). It’s true, children: It’s coming from inside the house. Behold Bill Burton’s answers below:

Who updates the White House Twitter feed? Is it one person or a few people? (updating from HootSuite suggests multiple editors)

The new media team (basically [Director of New Media] Macon Phillips and [Online Programs Director] Jesse Lee)

Does/do the same person/people update the Barack Obama Twitter feed?

No, that’s DNC.

Where are the offices of that person/those people located?

New media [NB: Those offices are in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.]

If in the White House, is HootSuite enabled on the White House computers?

Yes, for new media.

Are people allowed to bring their own laptops into the White House and work off those? Would that allow them to get on Twitter.com from inside the White House?

We use official government computers and archive records.

Why is Twitter blocked on the White House computers? Archaic technology, archaic 1978 Presidential Records Act , or official policy?

A little bit of recordkeeping a little bit of security but we are working with WH counsel and the Office of Administration CIO [Chief Information Officer] to review and relax these restrictions.

Is there any rule banning White House staffers from having their own personal Twitter account?

Not to my knowledge.

If not, could you point me to a few?

I have an account that I follow on my personal blackberry but I don’t actually twitter myself. It’s more to keep track of what Diddy and Perez Hilton are up to all day.

Would it be fair to call Robert Gibbs “internet-savvy?” Or would it be hideously inaccurate?

I’ve never known him to exactly break new ground as it relates to technology – but he’s a real whiz on his blackberry.

****

So there you have it. It should be noted that, a month and a half before Gibbs’ off-the-cuff response on C-SPAN sent the blogosphere into a min-tizzy,  Mother Jones‘ David Corn quietly determined that the new media team had exclusive White House Twitter privileges, and a month before that, Time‘s Michael Scherer described the travails of bringing the White House into the world of social media, including the new media team’s exemption from the standard White House computer blockage (Scherer’s also the one who noted that, technically, the new media team is in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, but “It’s coming from inside the Eisenhhower Executive Office Building!” is so much less scary. Then again, Cheney used to spend a lot of time there). Even so, the one or two tweets from Tweetie demonstrate that one could update Twitter from the White House; the point is, Twitter isn’t verboten, which means the geekosphere can relax and know that all their @replies to the White House are totally being read.