Who cares!

The end.

Well, that didn't go over too well, did it?

Is Al Gore the Answer?

No. No, he is not.

I don't mean this in a "they need to drop out of the race" kind of way. I mean, literally, the world has changed, politics has changed, and the Clintons, who first entered politics in the 1970s and came of age in the 1990s, have been left behind.

In 2006, George Allen's "macaca moment" ushered in a new age of politics -- one where anything and everything said on the campaign trail is copied and pasted into everything else. In today's social-media-connected world, the term "viral" takes on new meaning. Most significantly, in the previous age of politics, where television dominated the mediascape, "message" was controlled both by the news media and the candidates. Today, a third element -- the voters -- can now potentially has a say in the message-spreading process. For example, Allen's racist remark, caught on tape and posted on YouTube, became the dominant narrative, and, thus, he lost.

Several of these viral moments have played (or are playing) significant roles in political campaigns: Allen's macaca, Liberman's "kiss," McCain's "hug."

And now, Hillary Clinton's "Bosnian Memories."

What's interesting here, of course, is that the virus spread this time, not because of something caught "live" on tape, but from footage from years ago, made available and replicated over YouTube:

In the past, a campaign might have hoped that something like this would go away, that the traditional media, especially television news, would not run the old video.  But the old video got out, via YouTube, and people have been looking at it for days...except, apparently, Hillary Clinton, who is still talking about what she was told, which doesn't hold up to what we, thanks to YouTube, can see with our own eyes. 

In a YouTube age, this was an incredibly amateurish mistake. And I think amateurish is precisely the correct word, because both Hillary and Bill Clinton are today, not the wise old Party Elders who hold political savvy, but neophytes. Technical neophytes in an age of Facebook-connected politics. The Bosnia incident, the "Jesse Jackson" comments, the "Fairy Tale" -- all have been played and replayed over YouTube, and blogged about over the liberal blogosphere. (The Scaife photo is apparently next.)

In the past, in the 1990s, these were all the kinds of gaffs that the Clintons' could have gotten past: play the refs, change the subject, go on attack. Anything to get to the next news cycle.

But today, this no longer plays. Or, at least, it's no guarantee.

Not that Obama is immune to this, either. But, so far, Obama has displayed much more media savvy (and therefore political savvy), in that there haven't been many, if any, "macaca moments" for him. Of course, there was the Wright video, but it wasn't Obama's words.

Interestingly, and more proof of Obama's dominance in the YouTube age, the Wright incident is in many ways helping him:

In a pre-Internet era, the manifold replayings on television of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sound bites denouncing America would probably have deeply damaged Obama's candidacy. But millions of voters have been flocking to the web to watch his 37-minute response to the controversy, and observers across the spectrum — from Peggy Noonan to Andrew Sullivan to Jon Stewart — have praised Obama for speaking from the heart and appealing to people's intelligence.

Well, Andrew Sullivan...that's no shocker.

Anyway, that's the thing, that's what makes today's political era different -- you cannot spin away your own words. You can't spin away you not hitting the tarmac under sniper fire.

What you can do, though, is have others turn these gaffs around for you. By tapping into the viral-ness of today's media consumer, you can turn a deficit into a plus.

But, to do that, you have to understand the new rules of the game.

The Clintons, to their detriment, do not.

Barack Obama often says it's time to "turn the page," but that's not it at all. The page has already been turned.

You can't expect to win in politics today if you're a chapter, or maybe more precisely, a blog post, behind.

Apparently the real Sinbad wants us to know that the fake Sinbad is not the real Sinbad.

I've got news for the real Sinbad -- the real Sinbad needs to know that the fake Sinbad is not so easily dismissed. Fake Sinbad, through his writing here, has opened up to us. He's taken the time to share his life with us. We have laughed with fake Sinbad. And we have cried.

We have lived.

I am saying this not as a favor to fake Sinbad, but simply as a fan, a fellow blogger. A friend. Fake Sinbad, you see, is now part of the TPM community -- he is one of us.

In fact, I would go as far as to say the fake Sinbad is more real to us than the real Sinbad.

Has the real Sinbad blogged here at TPM? No.

The fake Sinbad has.

Has the real Sinbad not-gone to Bosnia, not not-taken sniper fire, and lived to tell about it? No.

The fake Sinbad has.

Has the real Sinbad proposed himself as Sen. Clinton's running mate? No.

The fake Sinbad has.

Has the real Sinbad apologized for dissing Fred Armisen?

Well, I'm not sure if fake Sinbad has, either. But I BELIEVE he will.

You see, I BELIEVE in fake Sinbad.

I BELIEVE he can be a force for good in this world. Well, or at least on this blog. Anyway....

So, real Sinbad, listen up. Hear me loud and clear:

You cannot stop fake Sinbad. You cannot simply email TPM and stop what fake Sinbad has started. You cannot stop the movement that has begun. You cannot stop me from RECOMMENDING his blog posts -- again and again and again.

I BELIEVE in fake Sinbad.

I believe...

I have no idea what Democrats are so incredibly vested in the two candidates we have. Don't people realize that, no matter what they say, both Clinton and Obama are still *just* politicians?

Kurt Vonnegut once wrote: There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president.

He was right.

Here are some thing to keep in mind, no matter who wins this race for the nomination.

Your candidate is not going to Change The World.

Your candidate is not going to remove the troops from Iraq anytime soon.

Your candidate is not going to bring our country Universal Health Care.

Your candidate is not going to stop corporations from "maximizing shareholder wealth."

Your candidate is not going to stop our oil dependence.

Your candidate is not going to stop our land and air from being polluted.

Your candidate is not even going to get much of their legislation passed through the filibuster-friendly Congress.

I urge perspective, people.

Perspective.

Are Josh and TPM biased for Hillary Clinton this week? Or for Barack Obama?

Sorry, I lost track.

[ed. note: Funny thing. I actually started this strike Friday. Made a sign, walked up and down 6th Ave. in Chelsea, looking for TPM Headquarters. No one knew what I was talking about...I think it's because I forgot to post this.]

The TPM Strike Starts NOW!

Here are our GRIEVANCES:

1. Deplorable Working Conditions

Last week, my neighbor was doing construction -- hammering, sawing, drilling. I had to go to Starbucks and do my blogging. Starbucks! Noisy, smells like coffee, tons of people around -- who can work like that?

2. Deplorable Work Schedules

Way too often, we bloggers stay up late, blogging into the early morning hours. That leaves far too few hours for sleep -- it is a grind that is wearing down the constitution of the blogging class.

3. No Recognition For Our Work

Last week, I wrote a post that was very well received, both here at TPM, and across the blogosphere. Was I thanked? Did Josh Marshall send me an email and thank me for bring attention to his web site? For getting people talking about TPM? I don't think so!

There is an historical precedent here, my friends. Are the conditions we bloggers today must endure that much different from the conditions that faced the working class 100 years ago?

Are these not the kinds of conditions that lead to the Pullman Strike? The Haymarket Riot?

Is this not The Jungle all over again???

My friends -- it is time. It is time to declare a strike. It is time to take what is rightfully ours!

We grind out post after post after post, while Josh Marshall and Andrew Golis and the rest of the TPM BOURGEOISIE sit in their ivory tower on 6th Avenue, with their FLAT PANEL TV monitors and their fancy HIGH SPEED COMPUTERS!

THE TIME IS NOW!

Who is with me???

We strike!

We strike, for all those who blogged before us!

We strike, for all those who will blog after us!

WE STR.....

ARGH! That drilling is starting again!!!

Do you SEE what I mean???

Who can live like this??????

A stylistic note here on the blog.

In the future, when you call people "stupid," or "idiots," you must precede these terms with something much more vitriolic and virulent.

For example, try "you stupid cock." Or "you fucking idiots."

Because simply using the milquetoast "stupid" or "idiot" doesn't really demonstrate the contempt you seem to hold for all the other bloggers with whom you share this blog.

So folks, remember: Don't be shy! Go for the jugular!

The other people here are just bloggers. Words on a page. It's not like there are any real people behind these accounts.

On another note, while I have the floor, I'd like to address a question I often get in my posts:

What gives you the right to say this?

Well, isn't that what blogging is supposed to be about? Isn't this the alternative to the "mainstream media," the technology that's going to give all us little people a voice? The people-powered movement that's going to help revive our democracy through political dialogue and discourse and debate?

That's at least what I was taught in Blog 101.

Is it possible, then, to make a broad assumption here? That we're ALL entitled to say what we think, simply by virtue of showing up here and taking part in the conversation?

In the future, let's at least try and not question who has the right to state an opinion around here, k? That's pretty much a given -- it comes with the territory.

Got that, you fucking idiots?

But Paterson, a fellow Democrat who becomes New York's first black governor and the nation's first legally blind chief executive, plans to be well prepared for the job. He asked for a handover on Monday, five days after Spitzer's resignation. - AP

David Paterson would not be Governor of New York today if he was not a black, blind man.

If he was a black man, he would not be in this position today. And if he was a blind man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, of any color, he would not be in this position today.

If he was a black woman, who'd lost sight in only one eye, he wouldn't. If he was a half-black, half-white woman, who had sight in both eyes, but had lost an arm, he would not be governor. If he was anorexic, or bulimic, he would not have that job.

Muslim? Nope. Blind Jew? Certainly not.

Let me be perfectly clear -- David Paterson is lucky to be a black, blind man. The people of New York are looking for a black, blind man, and they are simply caught up in the moment.

Now, I now many of the commenters here on the blog are going to accuse me of being racist for saying this. The reality is, anytime you try and talk about how lucky black, blind men are, you're accused of racism.

Well, I think it's YOU who are being racist. Reverse racism. I really think you're attacking me because I am white.

How's that?

How come no one here seems to be able to "reply" to posts? Doesn't everyone see the "reply" check box? Does it not work for some people? What the heck's going on?

Cause I got a headache from freakin' scrolling my eyes up and down the screen, trying to figure out who the hell's talking to who.

Or is it "whom"?

I need aspirin.

Silly me. I always thought blacks had it pretty tough. Now I know they're "lucky" to be black.

It seems odd at first. Look at the fact that while "blacks account for only 12 percent of the U.S. population, 44 percent of all prisoners in the United States are black." Or how even though more white people overall use crack cocaine, "blacks constitute the great preponderance of persons prosecuted for federal crack offenses."

Just lucky, I guess! Who knew?

I always thought that since so many people that look like Obama are still called "nigger," or find nooses hanging on their front lawns, or how the overwhelming majority of racially-motivated hate crimes are against blacks, that was something we'd consider *unlucky*.

But, really, it's lucky!

Good to know.

Note: Please look for my next post, entitled:

"I Wish I Was Muslim!!!"

I think one thing is clear this far into the Democratic primary race: Both Obama's and Clinton's supporters must now drop out of the race.

Hillary Clinton's supporters have gotten incredibly annoying, with their chants of "Yes She Can," and charges of cultism and their desperate yelps of schadenfreude every time Clinton looks like she might actually be "recapturing the lead" that she never had.

And Obama's supporters, yes, you too are incredibly annoying, with your accusations of Clintonian Republicanism and your whiny little cries about how you're going to take your ball and run home if your candidate doesn't win the primary.

Supporters of both candidates, please listen closely. For the good of the Party -- no, for the good of the Nation! -- the time has come for you to leave this race.

No more late nights in front of MSNBC. No more blogging. No more reading TPM. No more arguing at the watercooler, or at the happy hour after work at TGIF's.

Find a hobby -- knitting is really getting popular these days!

Anything, anything but your insistent and continual droning on and on about how perfect your candidate is.

Remember -- the future of this Republic is at stake.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

I think Greg Sargent's got completely the wrong take on that poll he cited.

Give or take a few percentage points here and there (the 48% number isn't that much different from the 43% number), most people in that poll think Obama and Clinton are being treated about the same.

Once again, the thing that bloggers need to remember is that, unlike the vast majority of people in this country, they sit in front of a computer and read the minutia of politics all day long. In additional, bloggers are completely caught up and invested (over-invested, perhaps...) in their candidate.

Most people just aren't like that. It's not a bad thing; in fact, it's great that people are so enthused about politics.

But it can also create a mismatch between the view from the blog and the view from the rest of the populous. And it's the latter that really matters when it comes down to the election.