* There’s a real problem with the coverage today about Bill Brady’s legislation to overturn a state law to ban mass euthanasia of pet animals…

On Monday, Brady promised, if elected, to veto the idea “because I realize the consequences associated with the legislation.” Asked what those consequences were, Brady said, “The people of Illinois don’t want it.”

So, after much thought and the realization of how unpopular it was, Brady wouldn’t sign his own bill.

Trouble is, Brady voted against the original law that banned the mass animal killings not once but twice.

The law was a product of negotiations between the Farm Bureau and the Humane Society. It wasn’t an easy process by any means. The talks lasted two long years, and they were often difficult.

So, it’s hard to disagree with Gov. Pat Quinn on this one…

Quinn said the Brady euthanasia legislation goes directly to the senator’s overall judgment.

“He withdrew it because everybody in Illinois thought it was one of the worst ideas ever submitted to the Illinois General Assembly, and I think he ought to be accountable for it,” Quinn said. “What kind of nonsense was he thinking when he even submitted the bill?”

Not only that, what was he thinking when he twice voted against the original moratorium back in 2009?

* Keep in mind, Brady’s bill was introduced just two days after the February primary. This is what I told subscribers back in late February…

Obviously, Brady is not yet thinking like a statewide candidate. For crying out loud, you can’t introduce a bill to help out your local puppy gas chamber when you’re trying to be governor. I mean, seriously, what kind of thought process concocts an idea like that?

Brady shouldn’t be let off the hook so easily on this thing. He ought to be held accountable not only for his incredibly goofy bill, but for his two votes against the original moratorium.

Now, is this the most important issue in the state? Hardly. But Brady’s legislation sure was the stupidest bill of the year. By far. That’s really saying something, and that alone makes it an issue.

* Meanwhile, Illinois Statehouse News has a story about “viral” YouTube campaign videos…

The four candidates at the top of the ticket have reached almost 425,000 people via the Internet–enough to populate Illinois’ three biggest cities outside of Chicago. Kirk’s video viewers alone would constitute Illinois’ second biggest city; he and Quinn have substantial leads on their opponents in terms of Internet viewership.

It is a large market to tap into and one that professor Max Dawson of Northwestern University’s School of Communication says could revolutionize the output of campaign press.

“This new platform allows for more targeted messaging, more immediate messaging and it allows messages to be customized to an audience,” he said “Uploading is free, less costly allow candid to blanket the public with the platform and reach out to young people.”

The targeted messaging allows candidates to respond to the news of the day quickly or highlight nuances of the campaign that may not seem important enough for statewide airtime. When, for example, legendary Bears Coach and self-described conservative Mike Ditka endorsed Gov. Quinn, the campaign released the announcement on Youtube.

No surprise, Gov. Pat Quinn’s puppy killer video is by far his top-watched YouTube effort at 20,681 views. Bill Brady’s most-viewed YouTube video is an ad from the primary. It was called “Brady Plan” and it has received 7,074 views.

Mark Kirk’s most-watched video, at 9,754 views, is his TV ad called “Risky.” Alexi Giannoulias’ top video has 13,155 views. It’s called “On and On,” a web vid about Kirk’s military embellishments.

None of these are truly “viral” videos. But Quinn’s puppy vid is probably the closest thing we have to that because it is the only one which has generated any sort of buzz and “mainstream” media coverage. ABC7 was one of the outlets that covered the story last night. The Guardian did a piece on it last week.