But before you — or the media — get too carried away with all the Iranian cyber-activism, take a step back. Yes, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and other social media sites are helping the world outside Iran learn about what’s happened there since last Friday’s apparently phony elections, especially since the regime has barred foreign journalists from doing their job. And the eruption of solidarity in the U.S. and around the world is clearly important symbolically. Still, so far there isn’t much evidence that the Internet is driving events in Tehran — the protesters don’t seem to be using it to plan, and the government’s hackers don’t seem to be doing as much of the malicious tracking as people here think they are. The revolution, to borrow the Gil Scott-Heron-inspired phrase that’s been thrown around a lot in the last week, may not actually be Twittered, after all.

Start with the question of what the state security forces are doing about — and with — all the #iranelection tweets (that’s the Twitter shorthand most people are using to write about the protests). Iran has been living under a closed, repressive government for 30 years. The country’s estimated 60,000 active bloggers have had to deal with service interruptions, random blocks and occasional surveillance for years, according to a January study by the OpenNet Initiative. Most of the country’s Internet traffic routes through a very small number of central backbones, so theoretically, officials could easily monitor what’s being said and written about the unrest. U.S. observers don’t know a whole lot about the way the Iranian government patrols the Internet, though. When the addresses of secret proxy servers — used to get around Iranian censorship — have been put on Twitter or in public forums this week, they’ve been blocked or attacked, said James Cowie, chief technology officer and a co-founder of Renesys, an Internet consulting firm that’s been watching Iran’s connectivity this week. Iran recently bought more Internet monitoring systems from Nokia Siemens Networks, a joint venture by the Finnish and German tech companies, and authorities may be intercepting more private communications lately.

But it’s likely that anyone brave enough to be Twittering the protests this week was already known to the authorities. And the actual violence in the actual streets is far more of a threat to the Iranian opposition movement than any online surveillance — yet it hasn’t kept the marches from happening. “The protesters in Iran have crossed the line at this point — there’s a line that they’ve crossed, and there’s really no going back,” said Goli Fassihian, a spokeswoman for the National Iranian American Council. “The fear of being beaten and the potential violence on the street is certainly a concern, but I have not heard from anybody that it’s stopping them from going in the streets.” Contacts in Iran aren’t reporting much particular anxiety about what they’re doing online, Fassihian said. Once you’re already marching outside a government building even though Basij paramilitaries are shooting into the crowd, putting something on Twitter isn’t really a significant additional risk. And since Twitter doesn’t require users to publish their real names or other identifying information, tracking them might not be that easy, even if you control the major Internet pipelines into the country. Some of the most active Iranian Twitterers have noted that they don’t mind having their usernames out there.

That may be because the Iranian regime has bigger problems to deal with than social media. “The government has people with stones throwing them into the government buildings,” said Evgeny Morozov, a blogger for Foreign Policy and a fellow at George Soros’s Open Society Institute who has studied the use of technology to fight authoritarian regimes. “Looking at people’s communications — at this point I don’t think it’s a priority.” Cowie agreed. “With things the way they are, I’d be surprised if they could pay a lot of detailed attention to the content [of Internet traffic] other than just finding sites to add to the list to block,” he said.

Though U.S. media outlets can’t get enough of the idea that Twitter — already a press darling — is the greatest thing to hit the democracy movement since Gandhi, reality is a little more complicated. Authorities in Iran probably realize that the Tweets and Facebook updates aren’t the main threat to the status quo right now — instead, it’s what’s happening in the real, not virtual world. Iranians who are Twittering the protests are mostly doing to help spread the word to people outside Iran, not inside the country (as Business Week and Slate have noted). “The main message with respect to social media and Twitter is not so much that it’s having an impact on the political situation in Iran,” Fassihian said. “What those tools are really having an impact on is how the outside world is viewing what’s happening in the country.” Relatively old-fashioned text messages, using cell phone networks that also appear to be straining during the crisis, is helping to spread the word much better than any newer tools. So the idea — which even the State Department seems to believe — that Twitter is essential for organizing the rallies and marches in Tehran is a little much. “That would be really stupid,” Morozov said. “If you want to plan a revolution, you never do it in public — the authorities show up and arrest everyone. It’s just beyond me that somebody would start posting locations on secret meetings on Twitter.”

Activists and observers say Iranian authorities are mostly using the Internet to obscure the free flow of information, choking network traffic in and out of the country to a standstill in order to prevent Iranians from reading — or writing — updates on the situation. Most Internet users in Iran still rely on slow dial-up connections; it doesn’t take much interference from the government to make the Internet effectively unusable in a crisis. Iranian Americans say they’ve noticed a steady drop-off of electronic communications from friends and family in Iran, as congestion meshes with the country’s already heavy censorship to make it hard to get through. YouTube reported earlier this week that traffic from inside Iran was down 90 percent from its usual levels. But interestingly, Renesys found that Iran’s outbound connections to the rest of the world were still functioning. “While the domestic Internet is obviously being throttled and is extremely crowded and almost unusable, the pipes to the outside world continue to be intact,” Cowie said. That may be in part because Iran — despite years of sanctions — can’t keep its economy running if it cuts itself off entirely from the world outside its borders.

Some of the activity from outside Iran could actually be counterproductive. Taking advantage of the Twitter interest, Iranian intelligence operatives appear to be spreading disinformation online now — which means U.S. supporters of the revolution who pass along messages they find about Iran might be helping the regime instead. The well-meaning attempts to bring down Iranian government Web sites slow traffic for dissidents almost as much as they do for ardent defenders of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, network experts say. And if everyone changes their Twitter location, it’s hard to know who’s actually providing reports from the scene in Tehran and who’s really in Teaneck. That might confuse the Iranian authorities, but it also confuses people around the world who are trying to figure out what’s actually going on there. “It’s slacktivism,” said Morozov. “It doesn’t require much effort — you can still be a slacker and search the Web — but you have great ability supposedly to influence events in Iran.”

That may be a little harsh, though. The crackdown by Iranian authorities on traditional journalism means Twitter and Facebook updates — at least the ones by people who are actually there — are providing a real service; the more widely the message is spread, the more the world can be outraged by the government’s oppressive reaction to the protests. Still, the Internet isn’t causing a revolution — it’s documenting it. That’s plenty to be proud of, without needing to exaggerate things in the name of solidarity. So keep the Tweets coming. Just don’t forget that the real action — and the real risk — isn’t happening anywhere near a computer.

Yes, I spent the historic 2008 Election Night at a golf resort in Phoenix and missed the parties in the street back home in D.C. But that’s alright — once Barack Obama had won, there was more news to come. I met Orly Taitz, and saw the first signs of stress appear in the relationship between progressives and the incoming White House. The new administration got moving quickly, and the conservatives were already starting to get a little freaked out (not least because the Republican Party was suddenly in the hands of Michael Steele). Between Tea Partiers and the endless healthcare reform debate, 2009 flew by. And suddenly, another campaign is in full swing.

But this time, I won’t be around to chronicle the rest of it on Salon. Today is my last day here; in two weeks, I start a new job as managing editor of Washington City Paper, an alt-weekly I’ve been reading for 20 years. As you may have gathered if you read any of the various posts and stories about D.C. voting rights that Salon’s editors indulged my desire to write, I consider myself a bit of a D.C. nationalist — my dad’s family has lived here for three generations, and I grew up in the area and have been back for a decade now. So the chance to help shape coverage of the city and region I’m so proud to call home was irresistible. (Besides, if I wasn’t leaving voluntarily, I’d probably manage to get myself fired over the next couple of weeks for ducking out of work too often to watch the World Cup.) At least in this new job, I should be safe from Andrew Breitbart’s rage.

It’s been a thrill, and a privilege, to write about these last few crazy years in national politics and government here. My colleagues at Salon are smart, funny, creative and supportive, and working with them has been a blast every day. And you, our readers, always keep the staff on our toes, sending complaints, ideas and — occasionally — compliments over the transom on just about every story. I’m happy to be joining you again as a consumer of Salon’s brilliant writing, just as I was when the site first started (though, fortunately, I no longer need to depend on a 14.4k modem to do it).

So thanks for letting me be your guide through the last two-and-a-half years of politics. (You can still keep track of me on Twitter if you feel the urge, and of course, I hope you’ll check out what we’re doing at City Paper, even if you don’t live near the District.) And for now, so long.

Watch here:

The recipient of $25 billion in TARP funds in 2008, Morgan is by far the worst offender. Its guide to the tournament, produced by the bank’s “quants” (yes, that’s the same term used for the math wizards whose models utterly failed to predict the collapse of the housing market), expects the U.S. to lose to England on Saturday, follow that up with a loss to unheralded Slovenia on June 18, then finally salvage some pride with a win over Algeria on June 23 — which would be too little, too late to advance to the tournament’s knockout stage. And just like that, the Yanks would head home, losers, along with the likes of New Zealand, Paraguay and North Korea.

Goldman’s team, in its report (PDF), wasn’t that much more generous to the nation that’s treated the firm so well over the years. “Group C looks very friendly to England, and in an effort to help boost the game in the U.S., let’s assume they come second!” the Goldman analysis says. “Both Algeria and Slovenia may have good grounds to question this.” In other words, the bank doesn’t really expect the U.S. to advance to the round of 16, but since this whole thing is just a silly exercise designed to get them publicity (you’re welcome, Goldman), the writers threw U.S. Soccer a bone. Then again, while Goldman did get $10 billion in TARP funds a couple of years ago to stay in business, it’s had a more tumultuous relationship with the government since then. Maybe if the SEC hadn’t sued the bank, they would have picked the U.S. to win it all!

Meanwhile, the Swiss bankers at UBS — who didn’t take any money from the U.S. government (but did get a bailout from their own taxpayers) — appear to predict that the U.S. will, at least, advance from the group stage to the single-elimination round. (Though only barely, and their chart ranks South Africa, Mexico, France and Uruguay — who can’t all make it, because only two teams from their common group will advance — as likelier to move on.) But they give the U.S. less than a 13 percent chance of winning their first knockout game, in which the Americans would likely face Germany.

Yes, I realize I’m taking these predictions more seriously than they’re intended to be taken, and that the reports are — as you might expect for a research document prepared by investment firms — larded up with disclaimers about past performance and statistical models being no guarantee of future returns. Still. This is the World Cup! It’s serious business! And for these Wall Street bankers to blithely write off the U.S. cause as hopeless — or worse, as Goldman does, a charity case — is downright un-American.

So if they don’t like America, which nation’s citizens do these cold-hearted bankers think will be dancing in the streets after the July 11 finals? UBS picked Brazil, five-time winners already. Goldman put Brazil in the final — but in a rare nod to style over mathematical models, picked Spain to beat them: “Here we are going to go against history and stick with flair.” And JP Morgan, picking Slovenia to make it all the way to the semifinals after edging out the U.S. for a spot in the knockout rounds, predicts England will beat Spain — on penalties — for its second-ever World Cup title. (For what it’s worth, I don’t expect the U.S. to win the tournament; I do expect them to advance to the second round, behind England, and maybe win another game if they get lucky. Spain will probably win, which would be fine with me, but I’m really rooting for Argentina, and I wouldn’t mind the Netherlands winning, either.)

These reports, then, should give anyone in America plenty of motivation to watch the U.S.-England game on Saturday: Not only is the U.S. the underdog, but Wall Street is rooting for the English. No, an upset win this weekend won’t fix the economy and undo the damage years of corporate influence have had on our politics. But it might help humble some smug bankers somewhere. And if that’s not a victory, what is? U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

With the 2012 Republican presidential primary set to start on Nov. 3, the day after the midterm elections, Romney has been busy endorsing candidates all over the country, and especially in early primary states like Nevada. Last night was a good one for one of his picks, Nikki Haley, who fell just short of winning the GOP gubernatorial nod in South Carolina and seems sure to win a runoff. But Romney hadn’t gotten involved in the Nevada race up to now — which was probably wise, since the GOP establishment backed loser Sue Lowden, and endorsing Angle before she won the nomination might have made Romney look a bit too enthusiastic about the Tea Party set.

Still, it’s not exactly a profile in political courage to endorse your party’s nominee against the very vulnerable sitting Senate majority leader. Romney took a similarly bold stand in the Florida Senate race a week before Gov. Charlie Crist quit the party — and well after it was obvious that Rubio was going to wipe the floor with Crist if he stayed in. Those risk-averse political instincts, though, could help Romney win the nomination as the safe choice this time around. After John McCain in 2008, Republicans have probably had enough of self-styled mavericks.

Then again, the folks Angle beat to win the nomination weren’t exactly world class politicians, either. Establishment pick Sue Lowden — who Tea Party activists in Nevada hated because, as party chairwoman, she had dared to cross Ron Paul during the 2008 presidential primary campaign — was leading for months. Until she collapsed suddenly, after babbling about people bartering chickens for healthcare and drawing legal challenges over a campaign bus. Businessman Danny Tarkanian never managed to get any buzz for his own race, which seemed to be grounded entirely in the fact that his father had coached the UNLV Runnin’ Rebels.

Still, it says a lot that given a choice between Angle and the Republican who endorsed chickens for healthcare, Reid’s team preferred Angle. (And in fact, his statement on the race didn’t even mention his opponent, as he aimed for the high road instead.) Reid’s performance in poll after poll in Nevada has been abysmal, with barely a third of voters approving of the way he does his job. But aides have said for months that the race would sharpen once it settled into a contest between Reid and an actual opponent. And Angle’s record, which didn’t get much exposure during the GOP primary, gives them some good ammunition to work with.

Announcing her campaign last year, Angle told the Reno Gazette-Journal that families with two working parents “dilute” healthcare and retirement benefits. Unlike many politicians in Nevada, she’s fine with the idea of trucking nuclear waste into the state to bury it at Yucca Mountain. In the state Assembly, she once voted against tougher penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders — but also said alcohol should be illegal. She says custodial work is something “Americans just won’t do.”

Besides Reid, some very conservative people were pleased with the results Tuesday, too. Angle’s win is another victory for the Club for Growth, the rabidly anti-tax (and, essentially, anti-government) group that endorsed her, as well as Utah Republican Mike Lee, who knocked off Sen. Bob Bennett last month. The Tea Party Express, an Astroturf group that held a big rally in Reid’s hometown in March, claimed another win, too; they spent millions of dollars supporting Angle, helping her offset Lowden’s stronger fundraising.

National Republicans tried to put a brave face on the news. “With Sharron Angle’s nomination today, I am confident that this seat will be a prime pick-up opportunity for our party in November,” GOP Senate campaign chief John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a statement. “Sharron Angle has earned Nevada’s trust and respect through her long record of public service as a teacher, school board member, businesswoman, and state assemblywoman.” Michael Steele chimed in, too, with a promise of financial resources for the various GOP candidates in the state.

Angle will need a lot of  financial help against Reid. Last month, Reid reported having $9 million in the bank — compared to Angle’s $138,000. That can pay for a lot of ads about banning booze.

Ever since the Tea Party arrived on the scene last year, Republicans have been happy to ride along with its nutty members and their eccentric ideas. Just about all the energy in the GOP, after all, comes from Tea Party anger. Angle’s win Tuesday, though — and Rand Paul’s, in Kentucky — might represent the flip side of that energy.

Could she still win in the fall? Sure. Very few incumbents recover from political situations like Reid’s. But by nominating the candidate sitting farthest out on the right wing fringe, the GOP base — and especially the Tea Party chunk of it — may have thrown Reid a lifeline.