Obama, the Internet and the Decline of Big Money and Big Media
I just got back home from a quick business trip to Israel, and literally arrived at JFK at 6am this morning to learn all of the results from the Uber-Tuesday primaries. So forgive me if this post seems like it was written at 35,000 feet. But I think if we take a step back from the state-by-state results and look at the broader picture, I think a bold statement is in order.
If it were not for the internet, and all the campaign- and voter-generated activism that it has enabled, Hillary Clinton would already be the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee, and Barack Obama or another reform-minded candidate would be trailing badly.
(On the Republican side, it's harder to make such a clear-cut statement, mainly because the field has been so open on that side. But again, I think the internet and all the campaign- and voter-generated activism it has enabled has helped keep the Republican field from solidifying, and certainly it has helped two of the four remaining candidates, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, extend their reach. For the purposes of this argument, though, I am going to focus on the Ds, a side that I know better anyway, and maybe one of techPresident's Republican contributors will wrestle with this on their side.)From the 1980s forward, the presidential nominating process--what political scientists call "the winnowing process"--has been dominated by two things: the money chase and the big media's power to frame the primary narrative around the race. On the Democratic side, we've seen the same pattern play out every time there has been an open field (i.e., no sitting president running for re-election). One candidate is the favorite of the party's establishment and its major sources of funding, and one tries to create a reform coalition to dislodge the establishment favorite. That, in broad strokes, is the story of Mondale vs Hart in 1984, Dukakis vs Jackson in 1988, Clinton vs Brown in 1992, and Gore vs Bradley in 2000.
In 2004, something started to shift, and we saw a semi-outsider candidate powered mainly by small donations, Howard Dean, nearly steal the prize, but then the voters--and the establishment and the money--quickly solidified around John Kerry. The frontloading of the primaries--which has been engineered by a succession of party insiders who have wanted to insure a quick consolidation around a frontrunner (ideally from the establishment) has always given the edge to that better-financed establishment candidate. And certainly once Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire, that was the end of any reform challenge to the frontrunner.
To be clear, I don't think the Democratic pattern can be distilled simply down to Big Money + Party Establishment vs Smaller Money + Outsider Reformer. As Ron Brownstein pointed out in a great column last year, there's a demographic element to this pattern too. In each case cited above, the victorious "insider" candidate has also managed to appeal to the more working-class Democratic base while the "reformer" has tapped more well-educated liberal types. Beer-drinkers vs wine-drinkers. Labor vs eggheads. Ethnic Catholics vs Jews and blacks. Brownstein warned that Obama, with his two best-selling introspective books and Harvard pedigree, might simply be repeating the same Hart-Jackson-Brown-Bradley role, while Clinton, with her base among working women, union members and urban minorities, was more likely to maintain the upper hand. And that may still be the story of 2008.
Now, Clinton vs Obama does have echoes of Gore vs Bradley or Mondale vs Hart. In each case, you have a former VP (or former First Lady, which Hillary is playing as if she was VP) against a reformist Senator. In each case, the reformist campaigned for change and new ideas over experience. But with Obama, two things are different.
One, and it's almost ridiculous to have to state it, is his obvious charisma. Compared to Obama, Bill Bradley and Gary Hart had all the charisma of a Brookings Institution policy paper (though perhaps Donna Rice felt differently about Hart). It often feels like the Obama campaign is selling us a rock star (tell me if that isn't the case with his main national TV commercial, when it zooms in on him on some giant stage surrounded by thousands of adoring, screaming fans). But time and again Obama delivers an arena-level performance, and his fans want to share the magic they are experiencing with others. And while I haven't had the time yet to dig into the cross-tabs, my gut tells me that Obama is drawing more support, in absolute terms, from younger voters than either Bradley or Hart ever managed to do--so even if his coalition is similar in make-up to theirs, it's bigger.
But the other big change, to finally circle around to my statement at the beginning of this post, is that we are now seeing the internet's role in politics in full flower. As Patrick Ruffini pointed out here recently, no candidate in American history has ever raised $32 million in a single month--until Obama came along and hit that mark this January. $28 million of that, the campaign says, was raised online. Clinton, who has had a more traditional fundraising operation, raised something like $13.5 million last month. There's also a significant difference in how the two campaigns are doing in attracting and mobilizing volunteers. We don't have the same kind of hard metrics, but from all kinds of soundings we know that Obama has been deploying huge numbers of paid and unpaid field organizers, and that voter-generated events on his behalf vastly outnumber similar events organized by Clinton supporters. (See my January 15 post on how he was dominating online organizing of offline events.)
And lastly there is a real difference in how each candidate and their base is situated in the online ecology. In addition to the backing of e-groups like MoveOn.org, Obama is rolling up personal endorsements from all kinds of tech/geek influentials: danah boyd, Larry Lessig, David Weinberger, Dave Winer, Ross Mayfield of Socialtext, Michael Arrington--there are plenty of others and I've just lost track. (The only influential tech blogger backing Hillary that I know of is Jeff Jarvis.) And perhaps most importantly, Obama's supporters are net natives. They know how to use the medium to spread messages. Just compare the DipDive "Yes We Can" video to the Clinton campaign's latest attempt at viral video, it's dippy "Guitar Hero" parody. One campaign benefits from voter-generated organic online support (that it has helped foster, as Ari Melber keeps pointing out), and one hires professionals to make online videos that, at least in this case, reek of inauthenticity. One campaign embraces the open internet in policy terms, and one cleaves to a Hollywood-inspired attitude towards intellectual property that kept it from even calling for free use of campaign debate video. The bottom line is, in generational terms Clinton's core supporters--women in their 40s through their 60s--are far less likely to be digital natives than Obama's youthful base.
Imagine if Bill Bradley or Gary Hart had the full-blown internet at their disposal in 2000 or 1984. Yes, I know Bradley raised a ton of money online (indeed, he achieved fundraising parity with Gore in 1999), but part of my point here is that back in 2000 the small-donor revolution was just starting--and today the internet effect is not just about small donors (26% of Obama's money is from people giving less than $200, compared to just 12% of Clinton's), though of course that is the easiest metric to point to, and still the most consequential.
The internet effect is also on grass-roots mobilization, by the campaigns as they ask their supporters to take actions (click here to virtual phone bank, or to download a precinct walk list, or to host your own house party) AND by supporters acting on their own to make and share their own powerful messages of support. Back in 2004, Dean webmaster Nicco Mele talked to me about feeling a new kind of progressive muscle flex in support of that campaign (See "The Deaning of America.") Now we're seeing that muscle on steroids. It's partly a product of a candidate with charisma and a real message that resonates--things for which there is no technological fix. But under the right circumstances, and I think we're seeing them now, the internet is a force multiplier for such a campaign.
The old winnowing process, which was mainly about wooing big donors and winning news cycles, is no more. Obama seems to be carving a new path to the nomination, one that has gotten him to parity, and maybe even given him the edge going forward. If he wins the Democratic nomination, there will be all kinds of reasons why. But if that happens, let's hope everyone gives the internet and all the campaign-driven and activist-driven organizing it has powered on his behalf a big share of the credit.
To read more coverage and analysis of how the candidates are using the web and vice versa, go to techPresident.com.
Maybe I'm getting too optimistic or ahead of myself, but I'm starting to get a sense that Obama has the potential to finish what Howard Dean flashed as being possible (though of course losing badly in his actual race) in 2004. In particular see a parallel to the vanguard reprsented by Goldwater (who himself went down in flames), aided by new use of technologies (direct mail, talk radio) eventually seeing their dreams come to fruition with Reagan 16 years later. Perhaps a true progressive "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", fueled by the technology of the internet for massive small-donor fundraising, viral videos, etc. will see its dreams realized just four years later (in these time maybe one internet year equals four 20th century years!)
February 6, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sensing a Howard Dean victory lap by Move-On Obama Democrats and I don't think it has a happy ending in a national election.
PRMCO
February 6, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, consider the difference in Iowa. In 2004, Iowa Dems choked and went for the safe guy. In 2008, the young people rushed the polls and safey be damned. If nothing else, an 18 year can follow the link from the voting info site to the google map of their polling place.
February 6, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is certainly some excellent analysis.
One scary thing about most young people, aside from their willingness to punch in their credit card number wherever and whenever, is that they do not vote. Yes, Obama's campaign is attracting a greater number of young participants, but at a certain threshold, I don't know, maybe for people under 30, in spite of their excitement they don't seem to come to the polls. That was the story on Super Tuesday. I think that the first internet generation is largely grown up, and they will not vote uniformly. And the second wave of internet kids, those between 18-25 may speak with a more unified voice, just as they might at a concert, but they are, on a Tuesday, maybe more likely to skip class than sit through another useless lab.
I think I might vote for Obama because of his stance on neutrality, but I might not. One thing that's certain is that I will vote. I came up surrounded by people who thought it was important, we were a minority. But we saw each other face to face. If you don't have someone to go to the polls with, you might not go. But I guess if you can bring your iPhone you can have your Talking Points Memo wherever you go...
February 6, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
What all these pundits fail to realize is that America is pretty much divided. We liberals go the extra mile for aspiring African American politicians. We overlook, for example, the cult mentality of the Obama phenomenon. Nay we don't just overlook it, we embrace it.
But when it comes to the general, Obama has a very slim chance to beat McCain because the rest of non-liberal America don't share our eagerness to see the end of racism as we do.
Micah and most pundits are obsessed with the horserace and the mechanics of getting elected. In his piece above he seems to be implying that because Obama is charismatic and is tapping into latent enthusiasm, he is ipso facto a leader that would be great for America. That's just where the pundits lose me.
They are so mesmerized by the horse race that the lose sight of the content of the person. Recall Martin Luther King' admonition that we should not judge a man by the color of his skin but by the content of his soul.
Well in a perverse sense, these Obamamaniacs do judge Obama by the color of his skin (especially black voters) and are almost completely oblivious to the shallowness of his message
1) Change. Gee as time passes there is change
2) Unity. I don't want unity with right wing zealots
3) We need to move into the future not the past. Gee that's really an absurdity. Everything moves into the future and there is no going back in time and that is not a matter of political preference but physics itself.
And the list goes on
Yet a large segment of the population finds his campaign persuasive despite its shallowness.
Any fancy orator can get up on stage and belt out these platitudes but they have no substance. They make you feel good, but just really are empty of any substantive content.
The reason why Obama does not want to compete with Hillary on substance is because he sucks at it and she is brilliant at it. She is in command of the facts, the details and can enunciate them in a clear and coherent manner. When Obama is bloviating about Change, Unity, Forward not backward, he is in his elements, when he is forced to compete with Hillary on actual policy issues he is a dud.
That's the facts
God Help America if this is the future of American politics.
The National Socialist got the ball rolling on how to bamboozle the public; I guess Micah wants to follow in that dismal tradition.
February 6, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Mr. Strat,
Your claim that Obama supporters are attracted by his "shallowness" and that he cannot compete with Clinton on substance is patently absurd. My sense is that Obama supporters are very engaged with policy issues and look at his foresight on Iraq, as well as his demonstrated commitment to steer clear of Washington lobbyists, as evidence that (1) he is a Democrat who won't play the republican-lite DLC triangulation that has led to Democratic incompetence the last twenty years and (2) that he has the ability to offer commonsense to our body politic.
February 6, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew,
If you think Obama's message is shallow, and people are following him like cattle because he is charismatic, you certainly have not been paying attention.
In fact, it is the exact opposite. Obama supporters are mostly the educated and young people who are less affected by race.
In 2004, he gave an interview with Charlie Rose. There were no screaming fans, no great oratory, just genuine good old common sense.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6111662663051664637&q=barack+obama
Hillary supporters are the uneducated, who seem to more interested in what she can "do" for them.
And the Hollywood and NY elite, who have had many years and many millions tied to both Hill and Bill's candidacies.
I really wish Hillary supporters would actually pay attention, instead of throwing out the "Obama=Cult" line.
February 7, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know that supporters on either side of the Clinton/Obama line are becoming more and more tense as things are looking to play out similarly to this years Super Bowl - right down to the very last play. I for one want to see Obama get the nomination. There are several reasons for this, some are more "sound" than others. But when added together they make for a convincing enough case for me to support Obama. (Andrew Strat please note that I'm no Cult of Obama member but simply a person sick of Clintons & Bushes).
Firstly I think that Obama will have more success implementing policies than Hillary will. Let's face it she will shore up the Republican party and provide them a little focus in a time when they have little unity and virtually no leadership whatsoever. In addition the Clinton machine has alienated some within the Democratic party over the years which will surely lead to some internal resistance for her down the line. There's no guarantee that all of this will come to pass of course but it does seem reasonable to assume. Secondly I want us out of Iraq...yesterday. And between Obama and Clinton my money is on Obama delivering the goods on this long before Clinton. The woman clapped for Bush's surge for crying out loud...really? Interesting... But finally, the biggest reason I want to see Obama nominated is that I'm tired, oh so very tired, of Bushes and Clintons. This last reason is really the deal breaker for me.
When the walking disaster known as GWB leaves office our country will have been under the stewardship of a Bush or a Clinton for the past 20 years. 20 years! And say what you like about Hillary being her own person, she's still a Clinton. Bill's years in office, have been no less rosily painted than Reagan's were. I'm particularly upset about deregulation under his tenure which plays no small part in the hardships we now face today. So I'm under no delusion that Bill Clinton was the best thing since sliced bread. Far from it. I find myself getting a bile-like taste in my mouth whenever I'm forced to utter the words President Bush or President Clinton...ack, there it is again. I've had it with political "dynasties" and Washington "insiders". We don't need anymore of the old "establishment". We need some new approaches and different ways of thinking. We need new people. Obama qualifies as new people, Hillary does not. He may not deliver on even 30% of what I think needs to be done but he's not a Bush or a Clinton and that's a good start in my book.
I know Obama is far from perfect. So am I. But whenever anyone gets to feeling too terribly critical of Obama vs. Clinton simply imagine what the Republicans must be feeling! Their choices are more like being asked to choose which terrible disease you'd rather meet your demise from. But I will say this - If I look down at my ballot this fall and see Clinton's name as the Democratic candidate I will have a bit of empathy for all those Republicans. I'll have an inkling of what they must be feeling. I will feel a hint of reservation about choosing her for President. Not because she's a woman but because she's a Clinton. I will feel like we will have once again missed an opportunity to really move in new direction even if it is only by a few inches. And immediately afterwards I'll run to the local drugstore for some Pepto-Bismol to help me cope with the fact that we will be looking at least at another 4 years of yet another "President Clinton or President Bush"...ack...there it is again...
February 7, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hillary can beat McCain, but it's no gimme.
I think Obama will slaughter him.
But what do I know? Obama is my third choice. Kucinich and Edwards have both dropped out. (Edwards I still don't understand.)
Yes, the internet is nice, but it helps if you're already a rock star. Micah, you identified two differences between Obama and previous "insurgent" candidates. For my money, charisma is the bigger factor. Just my opinion.
-- ARG
February 6, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you're doing the Uriah Heep thing, the acronym is so much more eye catching. JMHO.
February 7, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, are you implying by your Dickens reference that my comments are less than sincere? In this case, my humility is not feigned. But maybe the comment is redundant -- everyone who posts is just expressing an opinion.
BTW, FWIW, I've been known to use the acronyms here and there. But I don't always feel it.
-- ARG
February 7, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arg,
Thanks for avoiding the tread worn chat room acronyms.
February 7, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully people will recognize that this shift is the best thing that could happen. Meaningful campaign finace reform won't ever happen from within the hallowed halls of our nations capitol.
Money is a concrete thing, as opposed to an idea and is crucial to a campaign. This signals a transformation of how the Internet has served to alter how we communicate and how it can change an outcome. If we consider how that might evolve it opens up other possibilities.
I want to change the topic and postulate how that might provide for a different outcome in an altogether different circumstance.
We have an administration that has sought to substantiate unlawful activities by circumventing standard processes of our government that have served us well for over two hundred years. This is no less than a continuation of the altering of the legal schema by the Bush WH of how our government is lawfully required to conduct its business. This has left the country in the position of having a congress that will not initiate an impeachment hearing just because it may not succeed due to political circumstances even though there is no objective argument to refute that laws have been broken. Congress is supposed to be the jury that tries a president for alleged misdeeds, but this congress has been bribed (politically speaking), which is, of course, also illegal. Maybe this analysis is simplistic. However, it is fundamentally true and indisputable. I think republicans in congress, many of whom were around at the time of Nixon, remember all too well the damage done to their party then. Thus, no matter the cost to the nation, they have consciously decided not to permit a recurrence of that. I don’t see any way to evaluate this other than as a knowing act of treason. This is that simple. And even though it may be discomforting, the entire congress, republicans and democrats alike, are culpable in this treason.
This is obviously controversial but if the Interent evolves in a way that invites the vast majority of Americans to become politically involved then we stand at the forefront of actually having a government by and for the people that truly allows for the voice of everyone to be heard. And if that voice is unified on a topic our politicians won't be able to ignore the message. Right now our politicians don't have to acknowledge the obvious because the MSM won't acknowledge it. The Internet could ultimately alter the relationship where the MSM becomes irrelevant as the primary vehicle driving the formulation of public opinion. For all the talk of candidates touting change I wonder how receptive they would be to this? Given that it implies a loss of power for them I don't think they would embrace it. And maybe even act in ways to prevent its occurrence.
February 7, 2008 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points. I've been thinking along the same lines for some time, and was just thinking about it even more so after seeing the headline about Obama's fund raising ability on the TPM front page. It's quite impressive how many small contributions he's gotten, even from the beginning. I was pleasantly surprised to see Sirfy's article on TPMC's front page, reading my mind.
All I'd add is that Sifry's analysis is also borne out by voting demographics, as Hillary is still appealing more to older women, rural voters, and less educated voters, which also correlates with lesser internet and critical information skills. Basically, these are people more likely to be bit behind the information curve, and therefore likely to vote for an establishment candidate. The most prevalent argument I've heard from Hillary supporters is that the economy was good under Bill, which is of course a paper thin logical fallacy.
So, it's important for Obama supporters to contribute financially to allow for MSM commercial buys, and also for supporters to volunteer to walk districts and inform voters at the grass roots level.
February 7, 2008 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is the only Democrat this year who can decisively beat a Republican to the point that coattails achieve a broader legislative victory. He is the game changer.
I'm also very concerned at the way the Hillary people dismiss his candidacy as some kind of vague fairytale. It is damaging to the party, and it is also historically inaccurate. Game changing politicians of the past -- Ronald Reagan, FDR, William McKinley -- have deliberately put out a very simple kind of valence message. I think it's more important to look at the voting record, and Obama's is highly impressive, and should be very reassuring to anyone of a liberal persuasion.
The real question is, who do you think would be more likely to build the kind of Democratic coalition and push for the kind of policy that can reverse Reaganomics? The master triangulator who is also most polarizing figure in American politics after Bush/Cheney? Or the first Democratic presidential candidate since the 1940s to poll strongly with white male independents and who also has the most liberal voting record in the Senate?
February 7, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your analysis.
One thing that you didn't mention is that the Big Money/Big Media strategy for choosing the Democratic candidate for president has been most successful in one area: choosing a loser. By nominating the candidate least offensive to the power structure, Democrats have, time after time, neutered themselves in the battle with whoever the Republicans put up. Instead of opposing, the Democratic strategy has been to co-opt. The Clintons' strategy of triangulation is the ultimate expression of this approach.
This time around, we may not be saddled with the weakest candidate. The groundswell of support for the insurgent candidate may have finally overwhelmed the ability of the gatekeepers to control the outcome.
Hillary Clinton is the latest favorite of the gatekeepers of the Democratic Party. If they are successful at installing her as the nominee, she will follow in the footsteps of those other darlings of the Democratic establishment - and she will lose the general election. From Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis to Al Gore and John Kerry, the one thing all these Democratic frontrunners have in common is that they were the "safe" pick.
Maybe this time we'll give ourselves a chance to win and pick the candidate with the most popular support instead of the one who's least offensive to people in high places.
If the internet can make this happen, it'll be revolutionary, indeed.
February 7, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good article, I believe as does Mr Sifry that the internet has allowed people to feel much more involved in the grassroots of campaigning. I really fail to see in ant way how any negatives outweigh that simple fact. I know for me personally that the internet has allowed me to listen to a much more diverse range of news and media than I had ever been exposed to before. I think with the help of social networking on the internet that people from different parts of the country have been able to stay in contact in ways that just were not possible a decade ago. Of course this has brought about many types of punditry guised in the mold of real news but the end result is that the internet fights back against by pushing from the other side. Also it has allowed me to gain access to voices from many different professions while examining any particular subject. For example you can go to blog by constitutional scholars or concerned economist and read about their thoughts on the modern America from their unique background. It allows me to research the so called "facts" which the traditional media outlet's feed us, of course you must research things from all sides to get a clearer picture but without the internet I do not believe I would have the time nor patience to go about this level of studying any particular subject.
On Obama, I think he appeals to the many different types of people but mostly I believe he gives them hope for change. He appeals to them by going into their arena, the internet, and asks them for their help and their money if they can. By asking the American people instead of telling them he is doing what every politician should do, "ask!" He encourages his supporters to bring their own unique style of communication to reach out to people. This gives his campaign a sense of uniqueness that you just can't buy. That authenticity is reflected in his overwhelming support and gives much hope that authenticity can be brought back to Washington. To me this is why Mrs Clinton is having such a hard fought campaign; it is hard to argue against authenticity when so much of the division in this country is predicated on the lack of truth-telling inclusiveness whether perceived or real from most politicians.
If anyone saw Mr Obama's interview from the Reno Gazette Journal the entire interview, then you might remember the part where Mr Obama said that if he had a problem with some legislation or if he felt some sort of contentious issue was out there, he was willing to put it on CSPAN so the whole country would get the opportunity to see the nuts and bolts of the discussion. I believe he sees how transparency is so important to the American person which is why his appeal is getting such a solid return with the voter's. I wish that our government was not so afraid of the light (transparency) in many matters; it is in fact the real world most of us end up having to deal with!
February 7, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is a decent-enough liberal candidate. But he is not electable because 1) he's perceived as too liberal (even though he isn't), 2) he's black (and racism is endemic in the US), 3) there are issues in his past that will provide fodder for the Rovian machine (Rezco, drug use, Exelon, etc.), 4) moderates will perceive him as weak on defense (and McCain will drill that home), and 5) Michelle (vastly more polarizing than Hillary ever was). I'm also tempted to add 6) his evangelical campaign and the supporters it attracts are so offputting.
As you revel in the money and the support flowing into the Obama campaign, Mr. Sifry, remember that if nominated, he'll need more than 7 million votes to win a general election, more like well over 50 million. So at some point he'll have to figure out how to reach those voters who have better things to do than sit at their Macs and surf Facebook.
February 7, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please checkout my cafe blog, related to this subject
February 7, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
A full and thoughtful article. Thanks.
I was for Edwards and felt like he was evolving into an advocate who could withstand the seductive kool-aid of big corporate money influence. I trusted he knew where the true roots of corruption were. That is vital for change.
Now I pray for Obama's (if it is to be Obama) emotional, moral and intellectual learning curve. Will he have the spine? How compromised do you have to be to be allowed into the game? I think of that old adage, lay down with dogs, get up with fleas. Will he recognize the difference when there is a snowball's chance in hell of serious negotation or simply one more exercise in futility and gridlock? Will he honor and fight for the "welfare of the common good"? It has lost its meaning in Washington.
And I pray for the enlightenment of an electorate majority that was obtuse enough to put GWB in for TWO TERMS. How do you fight that recipe for cynicism and despair? I watch the Republican senators on CSpan beating out the patriotic crazymaking talking points one more time and I am awed and worried. I guess "being Republican is never having to say you are sorry."
The internet has changed me into more political thoughtfulness and activism. I hope I will sustain it. I appreciate the accessibility of real news and issues via the internet. I appreciate the forums to listen and share.
The Edwards campaign showed me how serious candidates and issues are cavalierly buried by the Mainstream Media. How the histrionic hype of its demigod pundits is like a mis-directing road side sign of a mischievous cartoon character eager to confound and confuse the players.
If we don't learn to stay awake as citizens, no matter what "team" we are aligned with, we will continue to be lost. If we are not an active part of the solution, to paraphrase the old adage, we are contributing to the deadweight of the problem.
February 23, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink