Obama's Game Changing - - His refusal to play by the old political rules is about to pay off.

Obama's Game Changing
Thursday, May. 08, 2008
By JOE KLEIN



<SNIP>

Clinton's paste-on populism changed absolutely nothing. The demographic blocs that had determined the shape of this remarkable campaign remained stolidly in place. Blacks, young people and those with college educations voted for Obama; Clinton won women, the elderly, whites without college educations. Clinton's slim margin of victory in Indiana was provided, appropriately enough, by Republicans, who were 10% of the Democratic-primary electorate and whose votes she carried 54% to 46% — some, perhaps, at the behest of the merry prankster Rush Limbaugh, who had counseled his ditto heads to bring "chaos" to the Democratic electoral process by voting for their favorite whipping girl. Clinton's new glow, her newfound stump proficiency, her symbiosis with Limbaugh, seemed an eerily Faustian narrative. But, as we know, those sorts of bargains tend to end badly. In this case, the upper-crust liberals who seemed ready to flee Obama in Pennsylvania — the sort of people who would run out and buy a hybrid before they'd support a reduction in the gasoline tax — decided to vote their faith that Obama was running an honorable campaign rather than their fear that his membership in Jeremiah Wright's church would render him radioactive.

<SNIP>

Clinton's apparent loss of the nomination was a consequence of her campaign's incompetence, but it was also a result of her reliance on the same-old. The shameless populism that seemed a possible game changer to media observers, micro-ideas like the gas-tax holiday, the willingness to go negative — which Obama tried intermittently, in halfhearted reaction to Clinton's attacks — appeared very old and clichιd to Obama's legion of young supporters, who were the real game changers in this year of extraordinary turnouts. That, and the fact that Democrats have been the party of government, tragically hooked on the high-minded: they don't react well to flagrant pandering or character assassination. This has been a losing position these past 40 years, and the media — like pollsters and political consultants — tend to look in the rearview mirror and pretend to see the future.

In his victory speech after the smashing North Carolina results came in, Obama went directly after both McCain and the media. " plan to win in November appears to come from the very same playbook that his side has used time after time in election after election," Obama said. "Yes, we know what's coming. I'm not naive. We've already seen it, the same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn't agree with all their ideas, the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives, by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy, in the hopes that the media will play along."

<SNIP>

In the end, Obama's challenge to the media is as significant as his challenge to McCain. All the evidence — and especially the selection of these two apparent nominees — suggests the public not only is taking this election very seriously but is also extremely concerned about the state of the nation and tired of politics as usual. I suspect the public is also tired of media as usual, tired of journalists who put showmanship over substance ... as I found myself doing in the days before the May 6 primaries. Obama was talking about the Republicans, but he could easily have been talking about the press when he said, "The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they will run; it's what kind of campaign we will run. It's what we will do to make this year different. You see, I didn't get into this race thinking that I could avoid this kind of politics, but I am running for President because this is the time to end it."

Politics will always be propelled by grease, hot air and showmanship, but in the astonishing prosperity of the late 20th century, we allowed our public life to drift toward too much show biz, too little substance. Yes, the low-information signals — the bowling and tamale-eating — are crucial; politicians have to show that they are in touch with the lives of average folks. But a balance needs to be struck between carnival populism and the higher demands of democracy, and as a nation, we haven't been very good lately with the serious part of the program. As a result, there is a festering sense — I've seen it everywhere I've traveled this year — that the country is in "the ditch," as Clinton said. A general-election campaign between John McCain and Barack Obama doesn't need any hype. It won't be boring. The question is whether we, politicians and press alike, will grant this election — and electorate — the respect that it deserves.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1738330,00.html

harder and harder for the Super Delegates to give the nomination to Hillary. Now that Obama is the "perceived" winner or nominee by the press it will be difficult to reverse that. The media is going so far with this I'm amazed they have not called him the "likely" nominee as they did when the math became impossible for McCain.

very quickly. There was not much of a change in the math of the race (slight change in favor of Obama) but pretty much EVERYBODY in the media is portraying Hillary as a lost cause. Amazing how much media coverage influences public perception of the race.

Hillary, and saturating the conversation with almost nothing but Rev. Wright, Obama was still able to prevail.

What that told the media is that voters are seeing through their manipulative charade....and in order for them to retain any credibility, they were forced to get off the Hillary wagon. The American people will not be hoodwinked, and the media is starting to understand that. They are now retooling and will do some honest reporting for a while, until they can lull us back into their good graces.

Don't worry, they haven't given up in their attempts in controlling our election through their propaganda......they just have to hide for a while, so that it can work they next time they try it......like in October of 2008.

They are the choir of cynics that we need to not listen to until President Obama can institute some changes to give us back a real press, and not these corporate backers whose job is to keep the money coming into the corporate coffers at any price.

agree 100%

People who represent the potential for real change have a habit of not surviving long in the Presidency.

If anything happened to him, I think I'd be one of the millions to March on DC and shut it down until an investigation found the real culprits.

I'd be happy to tell them where to start too.

must force the leadership to stand firm. We need a new congress and senate that stands with him too. It will come. Cleaning house. Opening the windows. Letting in the sunlight. Disinfecting. Get ready to scrub.

all this 'new politics' is absolute baloney. Obama is the exact same as all the rest, just on a smaller scale since that's what he has had the opportunity to do. He's been courting the same old guard. There is nothing in his actual record to demonstrate that he will do anything but govern from the middle and compromise with the right on all the major issues of our day.

n/t

it seems too many people think something dramatic is going to happen. The only dramatic thing will be watching his support among the dreamers when he turns out to do exactly what he says he's going to do.

The audacity!

What we now call the "old politics" began in 1960 with the first television dominated presidential election. It is now ending with the melding of internet and other new communications technologies with old-fashioned pre-1960 wardheeling neighborhood face to face politics. Dean did a beta test in 2004 and got the internet part right while falling short with the ground game part. Obama has put both halves together for the first time.

Consultant-driven focus group politics is out, and participation is in. The content of the policies will take awhile to reflect this, but it is coming.

He pledged to have his AG look into torture by the administration.

You can't just go saying something like that unless you mean it.

only to change his mind a month later.

See, here's the funny thing. I thin Barak Obama is Bill Clinton in 1992. He ran for President because everyone expected him to, to make a national name and organization for himself looking forward four years. When you're doing that, you can say all sorts of things that will never happen because you don't really expect to win this time around. and then look what happened...all of a sudden you catch fire and the expected winner falters. now you're kind of in trouble because during the early primaries you were feeding all sorts of red meat to the wing of the party to solidify their support, and you know you have to pull back on some of them for the General Election (let alone as President) so now what do you do?

have a Democratic Congress AND Senate back then?

maybe by 2010 we can have a MANDATE that does not include Blue Dogs?



That's me HOPING...


for CHANGE.


:)

"Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

That's on his page right now. Where do you get you information?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

where he said that he would reach out to Republicans and find common ground to solve the problems in Iraq. what do you think that means?

I'm just amazed at the "with us or against us" attitude of some DUers. How did you get "I've changed my mind on withdrawal" from "looking for common ground"?

So, are you going around telling others this lie, or is this the first time you've tried it out?

Seriously, that shit is ridiculous.

have you read his technology platform?

Change has to be in all branches of the government. Congress is full of fat cats who take money from lobbyists, and they are on both sides of the isle. We need to get rid of "good old boys" and put in new blood that will work for the people. If we only change the face in the whitehouse, we won't get anything accomplished, just more of the same old politics that cater to the wealthy corporations, and and give the shaft to the little guys!

I for one want to see massive changes in congress so we can put this country back together again. Bush has torn this country apart, and it will take some serious changes to repair it.

:kick:

Long article but worth the read. Thanks for the link.


Sonia

It looks like maybe Klein will be starting some straight talking of his own...

:shrug:

my favorite bit:

Now we have a candidate who we can be proud of - who speaks the truth, and demands change.

that she "won" the majority in those demographics, but substantial numbers of them, voted for Obama

:-)

America is not only choosing to reject old politics, we are are also rejecting the messages the MSM is trying to force-feed us. In addition to ratings and corporate interests, the MSM's hyper-coverage of this campaign (and their reaction to Tuesday night) shows that they're quaking in their boots because their traditional influence is slipping away.

An example of that is the way that they CHANGED when Obama (who I believe really won) gave them the May surprise and they had to pull back their instant check as a Clinton win.

They were shocked that she wasn't an instant winner! Shocked!


When they finished needing their Depends they started telling the truth... "Obama is the nominee and This is the End for Clinton.

They are now regrouping and will be clinging to the dirty tricks bandwagon again.

But for that brief moment, they were a CHANGED MSM.

Go along to get along. Sign conservative legislation. Talk about bi-partisanship as the Repubs stick it to 'em. Follow the DLC. Let the Republicans do whatever they want to do.

It's truly time for a change and I hope Obama is successful in delivering it to the nation.

Changing up the way the game is played is smart. Let the media and the Repukes be caught flatfooted, scrambling to react, attempting to regain control.