So, my question is this: How do you change that cycle in politics? How can Obama make good on his promise? Going negative, returning blows, answering tit-for-tat...that's all old politics. Is there a way to change it at all or is it all a feel-good mass-marketed fantasy?

By continuing to try to elevate the discussion above petty issues about a candidate's character and patriotism. Yes, Obama has engaged in this a bit. But only about 1/10th as much as Clinton has. Think of all the things that Obama could talk about in regards to the Clintons - donor scandals, controversial pardons, Bill's infidelities. Yet he doesn't. Meanwhile Clinton openly disses Rev. Wright, talks about Farrakhan, Ayers, Obama's "bitter" comments, brings up Rezko, etc.

So Obama has been derailed a bit in his "new politics" pledge. But it's not about being nice all the time. In fact, it's about hitting your opponent hard - on issues. So long as Obama can get the nation to start talking about just exactly what it means to raise taxes so that teachers are paid more, or how we should approach hostile foreign nations, or what energy policy we should pursue, then he's elevated the political discourse. That's the new politics. Discussion. Respecting your opponent's ideas but disagreeing with them. We'll see if he can actually deliver - I hope he will.

Something about your tone makes me doubt the genuine sincerity of your question, but I agree with the commenters above that the Obama campaign has steered clear of irrelevant dirt. When they have gone "negative" it has been to document instances in which reality belies the claims she's making on the trail. That doesn't seem out-of-bounds to me.

Additionally, you should look at his proposals for keeping voters involved in the policy issues that effect our lives -- particularly his plan for departments to hold policy meetings online periodically, followed up by opportunities for citizens to weigh in on proposals at hand.

Using technology to keep citizens organized and actually give them a seat at the table will go a long way to transform a political culture currently designed to keep us uninformed and manipulate us with emotionally charged misrepresentations of public figures and critical facts.

The Clinton and McCain campaigns' efforts to paint Obama as elitist are ludicrous when he is the only candidate standing who wants to revive egalitarianism in politics again.
.

I have always thought of the "new politics" in the sense that he has the ability that Clinton does not to have high approval ratings as President by not picking fights with the opposition party but actually trying to get things done. A President with high approval can get a lot done in Washington even without a big majority in Congress (although I hope that the majority expands this year of course.

The problem with Hillary Clinton as President is that she would almost certainly never have much if any support from moderate Republicans and she doesn't appear to be able to pull Independents her way either. All of which makes for a CiC with a max of 45% approval; which isn't the worst in the world but certainly not a mandate to do anything.

Anyone can claim they are going to change politics. However, you have to have a plan to do so. Have you read The Obama Doctrine?

The article lays out what, to me, seems to be a plan to change some of the more odious elements of "old politics."

What's Senator Clinton's plan?

Obama has a Pastor problem, an inexperience problem, friends problems ect..ect...
Hillary Clinton has directly questioned him on all of the above, DIRECTLY!

Clinton has a Nafta problem, a husband problem, a cheating husband problem, a bosnia problem..a Columbian trade problem..ect..ect...If Obama makes any mention of those topics, even the one's where she is flat out caught lying, then he is being negative. I mean, he cant even comment on reality especially after being attacked first, he is not supposed to respond? Talk about your double standards! I wanna say its not fair, but I know how that would be exploited as an Obama supporter, so I guess we are to just burry our head in the sand and buy the crap, I guess.

Look, when the Senator's campaign does not respond to the false and demeanng sttements thrown at him, he is accused of being soft, not able to run a tough campaign, therefore the republicans will crush hin in November. When he fires back with claryifying statements, he has sunk to the level of gutter politics. What do you want? He is responding to the echo chamber in which we all live. If you do not define yourself pronto, that chamber will define you.

Also a lot of voters get their information about a candidate from the 30 second sound bites. If the Senator was to allow erronous information to circulate in the echo chamber, he would be defined by them. Glass jaw, indeed!

For me it is a simple equation:

transparency -> involvement -> accountability -> trust = new politics

secrecy -> division -> corruption -> apathy = old politics

Getting over a million people to donate less than $100 each, resulting in unprecedented fundraising numbers.

Is this not changing politics?

Getting millions of younger voters involved not only in the process but also, in the actual voting. (More so than any time in history). So much so, that the younger generation is now as influential in American politics as the traditional voter segments.

Is this not changing politics?

Instead of distancing himself from Rev. Wright, a potentially campaign-ending issue, Obama cast political expediency aside, and defended his relationship with him. Even though everyone in the political world thought he should throw him under the bus. And Instead of making the issue go away, he stood in the middle of the public square and brought up one of the most toxic subjects in American history--racism.

Is this not changing politics?

Clinton's supporters hold Obama to a different standard than his own supporters do -- and by far, much different standards than they hold any other politician to.

We feel he's the better choice, based on policy and character. I don't think anyone--not even Obama--has said he was meant to be perfect, save for his detractors.

For me, I've taken his lines about changing politics as a thing to take place once he's in office. The rhetoric was borne out of the toxic political atmosphere that cropped up just after 9/11, when being a Democrat meant you hated America and wanted them terrists to win. When the Republican White House managed to change the public discourse to equate patriotism with severe jingoism. When people got put on no-fly lists based on little more than their membership to activist groups or a couple books they checked out from the library.

That's what needed changing, and still apparently does (flag pins, anyone?) -- and that's what I think Obama means when he talks about bringing everyone together. It has far less to do with suddenly having everyone agree (or hold hands and sing kumbaya along with that celestial choir) and a lot more with giving your opponents a fair shake and chance to speak without ostracizing them. I think Obama's given Clinton that privledge and then some, but I suppose that's another point where I will disagree with Clinton's supporters.

That also, I think, is why the lines about Clinton being a fighter strike us Obamaphiles as being off. We've had a fighter in office for the past 8 years, and we're sick of it. We're ready for an elevated discourse -- and even if it's just lifted from the sewer and plopped in the gutter, that's still an improvement.

I guess he could start by not failing to keep his promise on public financing with McCain. If anybody wasn't sure whether Obama is for a new honest kind of politics, they need only look to him blatantly breaking this pledge for the sake of having an upper hand against McCain.

Ugh. Hilary supporters, don't you realize that Obama can only "change" this disgusting form of politics once Hilary is out of the race? Huh? Oh, then he's gotta face McCain and the Right Wing for months? Uh...well, after that then! Er, then he'll have to deal with those morons in congress, who care of NOTHING else except trying to make Dems look terrible, scandal prone, and elitist? Damn man. Well, no matter, Obama will change it somehow, at some point.

I'm voting for Hilary or Obama. I don't like either that much. Hilary cause she's annoys me to the point of delirium. Obama because he SO played up to the "Obama as Savior" role, realized platitudes work fantastic with desperate Dems who HATE this type of atmosphere the REPUBS have created, etc.

But they are SO FAR BETTER than the Repubs (you "I hate Hilary" people are like Obama...the "lets come together...unless the other side makes you angry, then get vicious!").

Obama supporters are directing their anger and frustration at Hilary. They just want him to be true so badly, want his platitudes to be reality. Its not possible.

And here's the main reason why - how in the world is he going to change the "current kind of politics"? Is he planning to make the Dem party bigger pussies? Have them cave in more frequently? Is the problem "current..." or is it the Repubs? You think he'll show them respect, ask them to "participate" and they'll go, "damn, we really care about whats best for this country, lets stop trying to destroy the Dem party, take care of the big corps that support us and our orgy parties, and work with Obama." They haven't done anything close for...how long? But Obama can convince them cause he's such an easy target when for them and their base ("a black muslim terrorist people!") that they'll lose interest, ala shooting fish in a barrel.

Again, I'm voting for either one. You Obama people have to get over it. I'm a realist and understand the Repubs only strategy (you can't run on "we take care of our corporate masters!") is to lie and beat the shit of the Dems. Thus, Obama's promise to change that filth hole means nothing to me, like if Hilary were to promise a trip to Mars in her first year for everyone. Just ain't happening.

Hello Everyone,

I usually read and say nothing but felt compelled to sign up and join in this conversation.

Barack Obama wants to elevate the entire political process and the mindset that brought us to this point. I think it's naive to believe that will happen overnight. I also think it's naive and unrealistically to think anyone, no matter how many times they mention the words change, will stand still and do or say nothing while getting bruised with lies and innuendo day after day,after day, from all directions.

I am an Obama supporter and I listened to him when he said, I am not a perfect man. I took him at his word. To me that made it obvious he would make mistakes but being human doesn't negate his message.

I can't smile 24/7, I can't be positive 24/7 and I don't expect Obama, a man who is not perfect, to exhibit the essence of his message (change) 24/7.

I also don't expect him to take crap without eventually giving it back. That's human nature to defend yourself against attacks and sometimes you do and or say more then you would normally do or say. To me that's being human, more so then being hypocritical or deceitful unless, you are consistent in this behavior more times than not. I don't see consistent negative behavior in Barack Obama.

In life, sometimes one has to compromise, the key is finding a balance in how far you will go before you sell your soul. Based on his behavior he's found that balance. He tilts every now and then but always manages to correct himself and find his center.

As a politician it's important to phrase your words and in this PC climate (which drives me nuts) even more so. I don't see anything disingenuous about that but to say he's doing it with the hopes of not getting caught, is a matter of opinion not fact.

There are things he has chosen not to say or not do, until he's be confronted with certain issues but is that old style politics or common sense? Once he has been confronted with these issues wouldn't it be fair to say they were issues that could only be judged based on a persons perception? How many times have we been in a situation and thought of it one way and others saw it differently?

Have any of these issues shown him to be a criminal of some kind, or simply human? Has he not given an explanation, or not taken responsibility for his actions? There are those that may not like the explanations, may not understand the explanations but can he be expected to please everyone all the time, is that realistic?

How does one become perfect, you simply keep going; being consistent as possible and correcting behavior that does not fit into that category of imperfection. Will you ever obtain perfection on earth, not if you're human but as long as you are striving for that goal of perfection, you will only get better and better. That to me, is Barack Obama, that to me, is change I can believe in.

one of the reason I don't post is because I can't type "sorry" again:)