Or does the fact that during CBC’s Canada Votes! election broadcast, Susan Ormiston attempted to look like she actually “gets” Twitter while trying to pull off her best “I-wanna-be-hip-like-John King on CNN” impression by informing the future leader of the Liberal party – the ever unbiased Peter Mansbridge-that there’s this thing called the Internet (Peter, see Bill Curtis ref below) and something called Twitter while finger-scribbling on a SMART board.

I would have almost believed Ormiston if she hadn’t delivered her segment with all the micro-blogging savvy of someone who was briefed about Twitter while getting her make-up done just before going in front of the camera that night.

Thankfully much of her audience not on Twitter were probably blissfully unaware.  That’s partly for the reason Twitter is not yet “mainstream,” at least from the Canadian perspective.

Does the fact that the mainstream broadcast media is grappling with micro-blogging and Twitter on television broadcasts mean we can all exclaim Twitter as “mainstream?” No, not yet.

How about if the Wall Street Journal writes an article about Twitter as it did today?  A helpful explanation of Twitter (and how some are using it) for the beginner and the more savvy Twitterati to be sure.  Does the fact that WSJ (just another “broadcaster” on Twitter) in terms of it’s use as a tool like many pro-journalists mean that Twitter is finally becoming “mainstream” when WSJ starts conversing with others rather than simply pushing updates?

Well maybe. . .

In fact, WSJ only needs to follow and learn from Tannette Johnson-Elie (@telie) of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel who uses Twitter very effectively as an unpaid crowd-sourcing tool for stories and sources -myself being one of those sources.  She not only updates us on what she’s writing about, but she actually talks with us as if we were…well…”human beings,” just like she is.  I suspect many other journalists/broadcasters such as Sanchez and Lemon on Twitter do the same but that still doesn’t mean Twitter is “mainstream.”

Having said all of that, there are certainly signs that we’re at the “tipping-point” for the label to be more realistic.  Why?  Well for one, many high-profile users are “tweeting.”  Barack Obama’s campaign for President of the United States is using Twitter very effectively for their purposes (107K+ followers); Joe Biden has 2600+ followers; McCain, of course, needs Bill Curtis to find the Internet for him, and because of that, McCain has 4174 followers.  Sarah Palin has just over 1000.

Actually, the “tipping-point” is fast approaching really because of the collective combination of all of the above.  With these high-profile users comes a large communal following. Obviously that certainly helps to spread the word about Twitter into the “mainstream” of society.  So, we’re getting there, but we’re not there yet.

No, for me, the litmus test for when I’ll start calling Twitter “mainstream” is when the Republican party and McCain campaign shows a Youtube video of McCain himself using Twitter remotely (a laptop is fine) which is then followed up by a Ross Perot-like SMART board explanation of the micro-blogging technology and culture-at-large that makes John King red with envy.

When that happens “my friends,” then I think it’ll be safe to say Twitter is not only “mainstream,” but more likely just about to be “mothballed.”  Not to mention that by that time, Biz Stone and crew will have figured out how to make a buck on Twitter without it caving and everyone jumping ship to Identi for good…

Actually come to think of it, Twitter is perfect for the McCain/Palin ticket.  McCain can sum up his entire campaign platform like this “My friends, Maverick, Iraq war, Barracuda, drill baby drill,” and still have 81 characters left of the 140 to talk about his economic plan or “pork-barrel spending.”