Wonder Twins powers, activate!

Form of: An Edit Button.

You may be right, cscs, but there are other possibilities that worry me. I can't help but wonder if Bill and Hillary know exactly what they're doing. I started thinking about this last night, after listening to both Olberman and Abrams criticize Clinton for these gaffs that keep happening. Clinton has been repeating obviously false things all through the campaign, yet even when caught, she continues to do it. Why is that? The Clintons are obviously extremely saavy politicians, so why do they continue to say so many things that seem so absolutely boneheaded and tone-deaf?

I'm not certain, but I'm now wondering how local news stations are carrying the candidates statements. Do they show the candidate's talking points, but not the controversy? Maybe Clinton's audience is specifically those voters who don't get their information from the internet. What does all of the stuff that's been raging over the last several weeks look like to that person? It may be very different than the way it looks to us.

I'm hoping you're right though...

Sez hoo?

Fine post, mon ami.

I still think Josh should solicit contributions to hire some programmers that know what they're doing.

I agree the Clintons are political dinosaurs.

The other problem I see right now is how the Wright issue just keeps proliferating. Which says to me that this is not an anti-American nor a racism issue.

Rather today it becomes very clear with the pushing of Wrights Pastor sermon pamphlets on msnbc that the issue is really about Israel. They are even pushing Wright as 'anti-Italian' based on his comments that are unsupportive of the ROMANS. The pamphlets also include remarks from a man who is a member of Hamas.

What I do not understand however is why any Americans beleive America's foreign policy should be held captive to the politics of Israel.

Supporting Israel as an ally is one thing but when it comes to Israel foreign policy being a criteria for selecting the US President based on what his pastor's political views are that is ludicrous.

Wright obviously sees the Palestinian side of the issue much moreso than those who are pushing pro-Israel policies, such as the neocons have for the past 8 years.

So the Rev Wright comments are still in the news.

Whatever Wrights political views are does not mean they are Obama's views.

Obama has not at anytime voiced political views consistent with Wrights and I believe it is wrong to smear him by association even if he was a member of the church for over 20 years.

Being a member of a church based on spiritual faith does not mean you thereby agree with the pastors political views. It is evident to me that the numerous community outreach programming of Trinity is a lot bigger than the ministers political views. It is understandable to me that Obama would be there based on how the church helped and ministered to the poor, unemployed and those in need of food and shelter.

Anyone who takes time to listen to Wrights sermons on Youtube also knows that the minister railed against social injustice and economic inequality. Those were the core messages whether he was talking about America's domestic or foreign policy. None of which makes him a radical kook.

It is becoming clearer and clearer why the Clintons are hooking up with the rightwing neocon faction.

It's very interesting... I think somebody could make a lot of money as a political consultant that focused only on "youtube" moments. You'd sit the candidate down for a day and listen to all of their stories and then you would take one week and see how many of them you could debunk with postable video. It could be video that's either already online (probably most of it) or stuff you upload. You then go to the candidate and tell them they'd better start conforming to what's provable. Some one could make a fortune at that.

The real mistake people make is that they don't realize how old so much online video content is. Everybody knows that you shouldn't make racist comments in public because you risk being taped. But people don't realize that the internet is as useful for hunting up old pre-youtube interview clips from Charlie Rose as it is for capturing and distributing current events.

Just because you did something before the internet, or before parts of it like youtube came on line, doesn't mean it's not available.

I think that it is more than just the two candidates grasp of "New" media. They seem to have fundamentally different views of how to "do" politics. Clinton continues to use the tactics and strategies that were used (and worked) in the 90s - old tactics, new tools.

Obama sees (correctly in my estimation) that the old strategies and tactics won't work. In fact, not only will they not work, they will be counterproductive. This goes for his campaign as well as his politics.

I think one of the reasons this fight has seemed so ugly is because we are in the transitional period between the old and the new - the new ready to take power, the old not wanting to give it up and both not understanding the other's viewpoint. I also think this is why we've seen the split in age groups for the candidates.

I think it's healthy to some extent, but it's also painful.

Well, a measured yes to all.

One thing that hasn't been brought up here is the 'technology divide."

I mean, a lot of Obama's supporters were the ones teaching their parents how to use e-mail, etc. This would necessarily translate into better (and er, "hipper") use of emerging technologies.

Still, the voters Hillary is likely courting--to some success--are those same parents, (now grandparents, most likely), not giving much of a hoot about Youtube, or online news sources. They likely still get their news from Newspapers and local news, which doesn't get into so much parsing, snark, and debunking. ...and they LIKE it that way!!!!!!...damn kids!! Get off the grass!!!!!

But I digress...

I think that is perhaps why Hillary is still competitive and doesn't appear to care about the Youtube/new politicking. She's speaking an archaic language that is going by the wayside. Planned? Could be.

Has anyone looked into the numbers of hip youngsters vs. decrepit oldsters? Perhaps the reason this campaign appears to be so divided is because each campaign is basically reaching out to half the electorate in different ways.

Just a thought.

Excellent post.

I think that Bosnia is Hillary's "macaca moment." Akin to Dukakis in the tank.

The problem for Hillary is that these are her own words. Obama has less of a problem with Wright because no matter how much Wirght may be viewed as offensive, he's just not Obama.

In some ways, Wright may even help Obama. Many people actually agree with some of the things that Wright has said. For example, everyone knows that the Israel/Palestine issue is at the heart of problems in the Middle East. The fact is that Israel has been intractible on this. But no American politician wants to say this even though critics of their own government in Israil, the Israeli p[eace movement, & some Hassids say this all the time. Now Wright has said what American politicvians are afraid to say. Some may be glad that someone is saying this to a presidential candidate.

Precisely why Obama's going to cream McCain in November. McCain's probably got the Morse Code and Ham Radio vote, though.

Perceptive post, cscs. To paraphrase a fellow denizen, I'd give it a "5" if I could. :

Insightful!!!

This is definitely the next wave of democracy we're riding here.

Thanks for post.

I do think it's true, in practice, that the media does like him more --

There's no question, Alex, that the "media" likes the fresh young face of Obama better than Clinton and the coverage has reflected that. But...that will only last through the primary. The candidate the media really loves is McCain and you'll soon find that out in the GE.