Announcing a running mate via text messages is only the latest indication that the Obama campaign is really the first 21st century campaign in American politics. Not only is it an absolutely brilliant way to have active voters volunteer what is probably their most reliable contact info (you can gloss over an email, ignore a call via caller ID, but text messages cry out to be read), but it also provides the campaign with an immediate way of contacting (read: mobilizing) thousands of voters in an instant.  

That said, using a new medium to make the announcement raises questions. A friend writes via email:

So what do you all think the text message will be? Will it be quick and easy: "Biden" or text-hip: "BO <3 Kaine" or more formal: "Barack chooses Sen. Evan Bayh (IN) as VP"</p>

Will it include an appeal for $?

Thoughts?  How do you think The Message will read?

As veep speculations reach a fever pitch, this nugget of stupidity is flaring up all over the place:

But that experience — he was first elected to the Senate at age 29 and has served for nearly four decades — would undercut Mr. Obama’s image as an agent of change.

So, picking someone with a resume a mile long "undercuts" Obama's image, because apparently, "change" is such a delicate, porcelain concept that it shatters at the slightest hint that, gasp!, a career politician is in the midst.

The Obama camp has long argued--correctly--that "change" and "experience" are not mutually exclusive. Let's play with unicorns for a second and presume that Obama chose Al Gore as his running mate. The former vice-president's "experience" is unparalleled, and yet there would be little serious debate that Gore would shake things up policy-wise.

The idea that a hefty resume is somehow a roadblock to change is ridiculous.  Politicians do not neatly fall into Column A "experience" types and Column B "change" types. But this political taxonomy is catchy, so certain members of the press gleefully run with it.

Obama's image as a "change" candidate will not be "undercut" if he happens to pick a familiar face in politics. On one level, that image is culled from the historic nature of his candidacy. On a deeper level, it exists because the entire Obama candidacy, from the grassroots up, has been build on a foundation of change, on a need for change, and on a belief that the old politics of George Bush and John McCain are hurting the American people. That foundation is so strong (2 million supporters strong, to be exact, and millions more who volunteer or support Obama's candidacy) that it won't be cracked if and when Obama chooses an old white guy with decades of D.C. experience.

The 26th annual Bulwer-Lytton contest winner was announced this week.  Just what type of contest is it?

The Bulwer-Lytton, in fact, rewards the most wretched, the most inept, the most fantastically awful abuses of English writing. The kind of language that should be taken out and shot. Each year applicants submit putrefying one-sentence openings to bogus novels...

As the New York Times reminds us, "[t]he contest is named after 19th-century author Edward Bulwer-Lytton, writer of the much-parodied opening 'It was a dark and stormy night.'"

And now, without furher ado, the winning opening line:

"Theirs was a New York love, a checkered taxi ride burning rubber, and like the city their passion was open 24/7, steam rising from their bodies like slick streets exhaling warm, moist, white breath through manhole covers stamped 'Forged by DeLaney Bros., Piscataway, N.J.' "

Are you up to flexing your creative muscles?  If you were to write a book about George W. Bush, his presidency, Republicans, or, really, any political topic, what would your fantastically awful opening line be?

Update:  For more opening line goodness, check out The Termite's diary here.

Great news:

HONOLULU (AP) — Senate candidate and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner is scheduled to deliver the Tuesday night keynote address at this year's Democratic National Convention — the same role that launched Barack Obama to national prominence four years ago.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's rival during the Democratic presidential primaries, is also scheduled to speak that night, Aug. 26. But Warner is being given the plum position, according to an e-mail that Obama campaign adviser Mike Henry sent to Virginia supporters late Tuesday. [...]

"Mark Warner is not afraid to challenge the status quo to bring people together and get things moving," Plouffe's statement read. "It's that kind of spirit and innovation that resulted in his selection as keynote speaker on a night when the convention program will focus on renewing America's economy."

The focus on Warner could help boost his prospects in Virginia, where he is trying to win an open Senate seat and Obama is also campaigning hard. Virginia went to George W. Bush in the last two elections, and the Obama campaign considers it one of its best opportunities to turn a red state blue.

Also:

"The theme of Monday's program is One Nation. The opening night of the Convention will highlight Senator Obama's life story, his commitment to change, and the voices of Americans who are calling for a New Direction for this country," said Speaker Pelosi. "Barack Obama's story is an American story that reflects a life of struggle, opportunity and responsibility like those faced by Americans everyday."

Speaker Pelosi and Senator McCaskill will speak late in the program about the values of the Democratic Party, the efforts to take America in a New Direction and to reach out to all voters, in particular new voters, Independents and Republicans, to get the country moving in the right direction at this critical time.

Monday night will also feature a tribute to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who has worked for more than 45 years to bring the country together and ensure equal opportunity for all Americans.

Also featured on Monday night will be family members of Barack and Michelle Obama. Craig Robinson, Michelle Obama's older brother, will introduce his sister, who will be Monday's headline speaker in prime-time.

As the person who knows him best, Michelle will talk about the Barack Obama she knows and loves, the values that shape him and why she believes he'll be an extraordinary president.

Check out the discussion on this topic in Drdemocrat's diary here.

Gather around, watchers of the world, enthusiasts of the ethnic, and fans of the foreign (yes, Cokie Roberts, that includes you.  Especially you, since you appear to be anthropologically fascinated both yesterday and today.)

Check out the indigenous people on this exotic island.  Take note of their unique cultural dress, the trademark "baseball cap" and the light sneakers commonly worn by people inhabiting the island.  The female is also dressed in traditional garb, and is using what the locals refer to as a "point and  shoot" camera.

In "McCain takes lead on YouTube hits", Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times, in a feat as amazing as squeezing raindrops from a rock, concludes from the number of hits on McCain's YouTube channel that McCain has "figured out the younger generation just fine." Dinan's article echoes what's been chattered about on cable news coverage of McCain's "Celeb" ad--that the ad's YouTube popularity is allegedly evidence that younger voters are "tuning in" to John McCain:

Mr. McCain has pumped out a series of brutal yet entertaining attack ads and Web videos mocking the press and Mr. Obama, and the combination of wit and insult has pushed his YouTube channel to the sixth most watched on the site this week. Mr. McCain has beat Mr. Obama's channel for seven straight days and 11 of the past 14 days, in a signal he intends to compete for the YouTube vote.

That is a giant reversal. Mr. Obama had been quadrupling Mr. McCain's YouTube views and beat him every day since February, according to TubeMogul, which tracks online video

Dinan admits that Obama's YouTube channel still dominates with 51 million views, but states that McCain is "catching up" with 4.1 million hits.

Equating YouTube hits with candidate popularity or relevance is obviously a flawed calculus which is easily embraced by those eager to pump out a "tech in 2008" story. Yes, McCain's two most recent ads - "Celeb" and "The One" -- have indeed been YouTube hits. "Celeb" boasts 1.9 million hits, and "The One" has been viewed some 1.1 million times.

Yet, while McCain's "Celeb" ad and "The One" ad have received over a million hits each, those are the only two McCain ads to have crossed that threshold. All of McCain's other ads are lucky to break 300,000 hits. In contrast, Obama's ads almost universally break the 1 million hit barrier, with his race speech having almost 5 million hits.

But the hits are not what's important. Just because you slow to look at a car wreck doesn't mean you love the carnage of the accident. People are looking at the "Celeb" and "The One" ads out of curiosity, and not because youth voters can be wooed by Britney Spears and Paris Hilton references.

To disprove Dinan's entire article, one need only look at how YouTube users have rated McCain's ads. Sure, people are flocking to McCain's channel these last couple of weeks, but both ads barely garner a two-star rating (on a five-star scale). Indeed, most of McCain's ads receive less three stars or less. Obama's ads all have either four or five star ratings.

So, in short, people are flocking to see the McCain ads for the same reason people flocked to see Paris's sex tape---some things are so bad, you can't help but look.

Need more evidence that McCain isn't making any inroads with the YouTube crowd? A recent Democracy Corps poll reinforces the fact that the youth vote is Obama's--and Obama's alone:

The most recent national survey of young voters conducted by Democracy Corps and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner finds that the last six weeks have not dulled young people’s support for Barack Obama, despite the inauguration of a Republican attack machine. The new research finds the same convincing margin (27 points) as last month.

And really, when Paris Hilton's ad---which says McCain is so old he remembers when dancing was a sin and beer was served in a bucket -- already has almost 6.4 million hits and has received rave reviews, any claim that McCain nets a positive out of this is just absurd.

Those seeking to gauge candidate support among the "kids" are best served not by simply adding up YouTube view counts, but by looking at what really counts--how they are showing their support for a candidate, both on and offline.  Who are they organizing for on college campus? Are they buying up Obama shirts or McCain shirts? Are they dipping into their Ramen noodle budget to donate to Republicans or Democrats? Are they getting up early on a Saturday morning to attend an Obama rally or a McCain Townhall?  Those are hard indicators of which candidate best relates to the youth of this nation. And all indicators are that McCain, even with his new snarky ads, just isn't cutting it.

It's fascinating that John McCain lies not only about the big things (his desire to stay in Iraq for decades, his claim that he's a "reformer" when his staff is chock-full of lobbyists, etc.) but he has an uncanny ability to fib even about the most mundane of items--like filing out campaign questionnaires:

John McCain at the NAACP convention today assured a questioner that he will indeed fill out the group's civil rights survey, a comment that prompted a smattering of applause.

"I'll look forward to filling it out," McCain said. "We fill out literally every survey, so I'll be more than happy to do that."

Literally ever survey.  Except, as Hotline points out, the Project Vote Smart Survey:

Every survey? Well ... not quite. Rewind to April 10, 2008, when Mother Jones reported that McCain was booted from the Project Vote Smart board for not completing the organization's Political Courage Test. Mother Jones: "PVS contacted the McCain campaign 25 times from June 2007 to February 2008 in the hopes of avoiding the embarrassment this move entails for both the organization and one of its long-time board members."

And as a commenter at Hotline points out, he also didn't fill out the AFL-CIO survey. He also did not respond to the Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire. Or the Human Rights Campaign questionnaire. Or the Oregon Fair Trade questionnaire. Or the American Association of People with Disabilities questionnaire...

You get the idea.  

Barack Obama has another amazing fundraising month:

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama raised $52 million in June, the campaign said on Thursday, a jump from last month and more than double the $22 million raised by his Republican rival John McCain.

June is his second best month ever (he brought in $55 million in February).

The stunning tidbit from June's totals is that the average donation has decreased, from around $100 in February to $68 in June.  In other words, while the average amount donated has decreased, the number of donations has increased.  A lot.

As the article notes, McCain raised $22 million in June, which, in any other year, would be quite a in and of itself. But it's clear that whatever fears existed over the last month or so that enthusiasm for an Obama candidacy would wane and affect his fundraising was misguided.  Indeed, it is McCain who is the victim of a seemingly insurmountable enthusiasm gap.

A Gallup poll at the end of June revealed that "61% of Democrats said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting in this year's election, while just 35% of Republicans said that."  A recent Pew poll (PDF) found that 13% of Obama supporters have donated to his campaign, while just 7% of Republicans who support McCain have donated to his campaign.

In short, what was true at the beginning of this race is still true, and will likely be true up until election day:  Democratic voters are more engaged in the process, more enthusiastic about their candidate, and more likely to reach into their pockets--even at $5, $10, or $20 at a time--to put an end to Republican governance.  

For more on Obama's huge fundraising numbers, check out the discussion in sharris0512's diary here.

A large part of McCain's YouTube problem is that all the old stories McCain wishes would never see the light of day are popping up online. Like this admission by McCain:

I believe there have been times where I have probably been influenced because the big donor had - buys access to my office, and we know that access is influence. And honestly, that taints us all. It taints me.

As a twenty-something political junkie, perhaps I am hypersensitive to charges that my generation is somehow not meeting the "activism" standard of previous generations.

Last year, Thomas Friedman labeled us "Generation Q", charging that we were too plugged into our laptops, too "quiet," and not active enough in the real world. The most recent jab at Millenials comes from Sally Kohn. Kohn is the Director of the Movement Vision Lab @ the Center for Community Change. She recently penned a piece in the Christian Science Monitor, "REAL CHANGE HAPPENS OFF-LINE: Millennials need to be activists face to face" (also crossposted on the site here). Both Friedman’s piece and Kohn’s latest lament that Millenials are not meeting their potential to create large-scale change. And what’s holding us back? That damn internet:

[I]nternet activism is individualistic. It's great for a sense of interconnectedness, but the Internet does not bind individuals in shared struggle the same as the face-to-face activism of the 1960s and '70s did. It allows us to channel our individual power for good, but it stops there.

Kohn does recognize that the internet has allowed a new generation of Americans to not only become more informed about national and world issues, but to also connect with others on a national and international scale. But this is not enough, she writes:

This is great for signing a petition to Congress or donating to a cause. But the real challenges in our society – the growing gap between rich and poor, the intransigence of racism and discrimination, the abuses from Iraq to Burma (Myanmar) – won't politely go away with a few clicks of a mouse. Or even a million.

I must have missed the memo that said that the burden of solving the world's greatest problems, from class warfare to racism to illegal wards, falls upon internet-loving high schoolers and college kids, and not also upon the millions of other Americans who also have an interest in solving these moral issues. And indeed, perhaps this is what I find most infuriating about pieces that call out Millenials for their perceived inaction -- that there is no corresponding chastisement of the Baby Boomers or the millions of other Americans who also have the ability to engage in "real world" activism. No, the slap on the wrist is reserved only for Millenials, who Kohn and others believe are too focused on the self and not focused enough on collective action:

The lone cowboy story was a myth. Our greatest accomplishments, as individuals and as a nation, have almost always come from hitching our wagons to others and working together, not just in going it alone.

To avoid eroding the values Millennials so appreciate, and to truly influence the world around them, they must transform their online activism into off-line communities and build an effective movement for change. From church basements to campus meetings to voters' doors, Millennials need to add face-to-face action to their innate sense of community.

The idea that any person—or any generation, for that matter—is advocating "going it alone" is a convenient strawman, for as the explosion of activism online has demonstrated, Millenials are not "going it alone," but are reaching out to strangers and friends alike to fight for change. The notion that Millenials don't appreciate the need for corresponding offline action is also ludicrous. One need only glace at Barack Obama's "events" page to see how active Millienials are offline.

These pieces feed nicely into the myth that Millennials are failing to meet some "activism" standard set by previous generations, or that by being tethered to our computers, we are isolating ourselves from a real world aching for change.

Yes, it is certainly true, our generation has generally avoided protests and sit-ins, the twin hallmarks of traditional activism. But it must also be recognized that unlike activists in the past, we do not have the draft nipping at our heels, a factor that unquestionably led so many in the 1960s to leap into action. In other words, politics decades ago were intensely personal – from civil rights struggles to being drafted - and there is no greater incentive for action than policies which have a direct and palpable effect on the individual. In this sense, although Kohn claims it is our "hyperindividualism" that shackles us, it is the closer connection between politics and the individual in the decades past that prompted youth to take action.

More critically, however, it is a fallacy to urge us to use tools from the 1960s activist toolbox in this digital age.

A funny thing happens when you're putting in double shifts since, well, like February. Unless you write things down a to-do list, the little things start slipping away from you.   I don't do to-do lists (although I am mercilessly teased at work for writing the occasional note on my hand). So I find myself in this frenzied atmosphere forgetting about way too many things.  

Like filling in for dmsilev for this week's FAQ forum.

So, here we are.  On a Saturday night.  Pretending it's Wednesday so we don't put a kink in the FAQ Forum universe.  Ask away.

And while we wait for questions, I present for your chuckling pleasure this, from the peerless K. Lo over at National Review:

A totally crazy Saturday-morning thought: Wouldn't George W. Bush make an awesome high-school government teacher? Wouldn't it be something if his post-presidential life would up being that kind of post-service service? How's that for a model? Who needs Harvard visiting chairs and high-end lectures? How about Crawford High? (Or wherever?) Reach out and touch the young before they are jaded, or break them of the cynicism pop culture and possibly their parents have passed down to them. Whatever you think of President Bush, he's a likable guy in love with his country with some history and experience to share.

In a recent DSCC fundraising email, Barack Obama noted that "a new president alone isn't enough." Indeed, reclaiming the presidency is just one facet of reclaiming the country from the radical right. A Democratic House and Senate are also key parts of the equation.

But so are state legislatures, those local bastions of political power which serve as breeding grounds for policy and, too often, stomping grounds for the corrupt as well.

The power afforded to state representatives or senators is an awesome one:  from their legislation can spring forth redistricting (which has a direct impact on national elections), election procedures (see, for example, voter ID laws across the country), and a host of other laws and policies which are intricately intertwined with our national politics. It is no surprise then that the Obama campaign is also focusing on state politics, with an eye towards helping candidates down-ticket, even way down ticket in local races as well. The most recent example of this is in Texas, where the Obama camp is dedicating resources to help turn that state's legislature blue.

State institutions can be just as bloated, corrupt, and ineffective as federal ones, so getting more Democrats and better Democrats in state legislatures is also a key component of building long-term progressive change.

As was the case with Brian Keeler's 2006 race for New York State Senate, more and better Democrats can be found right here in our midst.  You may recall that I profiled Illinois local Daniel Biss before.  Daniel's been a member of this community since December of 2004 (and has an oh-so-envious user ID # of 38,936). He's a 30-something math professor (and proud new daddy, if I may add!), and he's doing all he can to help this nation change from the bottom up--he's running for state representative.

One of his most enthusiastic supporters is Representative Jan Schakowsky (IL-9). Schakowsky is one of the most progressive members of Congress. She co-founded the Out of Iraq Caucus and is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She recently wrote a diary about Daniel, and included this conversation with the candidate:

Daniel: George Bush didn’t happen by accident.  George Bush happened as a consequence of really four decades of organization on the part of the radical right and they really invested heavily in local candidates, and particular in state legislatures.

Jan: That’s right.

Daniel: So I’m curious for you, as someone who’s done such important work on national and international issues, on Blackwater, on starting the Out of Iraq Caucus, what is your thought about the way in which that work is bolstered by having a strong grassroots progressive movement that works equally on locally issues as well?

Jan: Well, first of all, let me say I feel, as someone who really for almost 40 years has been working in the progressive movement, that we could possibly, if we work hard between now and November, be on the verge of a new progressive era in our country. But having said that, even then, with the election of Barack Obama as president—and Barack gets this, I think—does not automatically mean that that kind of change can come. And I think what Barack understands is that in order to take on special interests, like the oil companies, or the pharmaceutical industry or the insurance industry when it comes to healthcare, you have to have a mobilized electorate, people need to have your back. I think that the kind of work that you are doing, your election, is going to help usher in that kind of progressive era, where we see leadership at all levels advancing this kind of people’s agenda.

In an interview with me this month, Daniel emphasized the important of local elected officials to a national progressive agenda:

"State legislatures and local elected officials function as an important point of contact between grassroots activists and federal elected officials. And so having state and local elected officials who are onboard with an anti-war agenda helps bolster our federal elected officials so they have an understanding that they have that sort of support from their grassroots base."

Fundraising deadlines loom, so I'm sure you're getting slammed from all sides for contributions (hey, did I mention that we're close to reaching our goal on the Orange to Blue list? hint, hint). But in helping national candidates, let's not forget the local ones who are also working tirelessly to reform government, from the bottom up.

After all, state legislatures provide fertile ground for good leadership--in Illinois, we have had two former state legislators who have make our state quite proud...

On the web:  Daniel Biss for State Representative
Contribute:  ActBlue

With the Republican brand in tatters, the President's approval ratings below freezing, and an angry electorate demanding change, the toxicity of the current political environment for Republicans is one not seen since the days of Tricky Dick:

Just 29 percent of voters say they have a positive view of the [Republican] party, compared with 51 percent who say the same about the Democrats; just 24 percent of voters say they have a positive feeling about Bush.

It is of no surprise then that the Republican candidate for president has chosen not to run as a Republican at all.

It's typical and indeed expected for a candidate to lurch to the "center" when the general election begins.  Candidates routinely shed the rigid, tough talk used to appeal to the base and adopt the fuzzy, gee-I'm-so-moderate-and-reasonable-and-mainstream exterior that is traditionally more palatable to the general electorate. It is intrinsic in their nature that candidates (with rare exceptions) will adapt to the political landscape to survive.

But what happens when a Republican candidate is running in an unquestionably progressive environment? What happens when the "center" looks more like the "left"?

These are poll numbers that make the GOP's blood boil: 66% of Americans support health coverage for all, even if it means raising taxes; 76% of Americans think global warming in "a proven fact"; only 16% of Americans think abortion should be completely outlawed; 77%of Americans believe we should meet with leaders who are hostile to the United States; 57% of Americans support either gay marriage or civil unions; and 85% of Americans say a candidate's position on Iraq is "extremely important" or "important" to their vote.

Thus, the core beliefs and principles of the Republican Party are held generally by a minority of Americans. How then does a Republican candidate win a majority of the votes in the fall?

For John McCain, the answer is to do what he has always done in his political career: adapt and survive.

I must confess that I've never trusted the Web. I've always seen it as a coward's tool. Where does it live? How do you hold it personally responsible? Can you put a distributed network of fiber-optic cable "on notice"? And is it male or female? In other words, can I challenge it to a fight?
-- Stephen Colbert

Senator Ted Stevens thinks the internet is a "series of tubes."  George W. Bush believes there are internets galore out there.  And John McCain...well, the Senator has admitted that he doesn't even know how to use a computer.

Politics in the digital era is tricky, not so much because of the wealth of information on the web, but because of the millions of ordinary Americans using that information on a daily basis.  Armed with new media tools, muckrackers today number in the millions.  No longer is a candidate able to present a poll-tested package to the press and have that persona spoon-fed to the American people.  No, today's voters have available to them a universe of information consisting of detailed voting records, primary sources, debunking sites, blogs, and more.  As John McCain recently said, "[w]hat you can find out now on the Internet -- it's remarkable."

What's remarkable is that now more than ever, Americans are turning to the internet to become familiar with the candidates and otherwise engage in the political process.  A just-released survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project reveals these astonishing figures:

A record-breaking 46% of Americans have used the internet, email or cell phone text messaging to get news about the campaign, share their views and mobilize others.

What's fascinating about this survey is how the internet is being used in this, the first presidential campaign of the 21st century:

35% of Americans say they have watched online political videos a figure that nearly triples the reading the Pew Internet Project got in the 2004 race.

11% of Americans have contributed to the political conversation by forwarding or posting someone else's commentary about the race.

As most of us who have been on the receiving end of those right-wing rags known as "forwards" know, bullshit spreads far and wide on the internet.  You know the ones, the ones with a "letter" written by some stay-at-home mom in Oklahoma who was just compelled to write about how scandalous it is that her children can't say the Pledge of Allegiance in school because it contains the words "under God."  Or the ones chock-full of animated graphics of waving flags and fireworks noting some lie about terrorists endorsing Democrats, and demanding that we "take America back."  Or the ones about Barack Obama's secret pact with Muslim leaders to take over the White House and then make all of us wear head scarves and replace our guns with slingshots.  

The phenomenon of the right-wing forward has never ceased to amaze me.  It seems like no matter how outrageous the lie or how repulsive the smear, these emails are crafted in such a way as to make otherwise sane people--our right-wing family members or co-workers--momentarily insane--just long enough to click "forward" and pass on the filth to you, and every other name in their address book.

While Stephen Colbert may wonder aloud whether you can challenge the internet to a fight, it's clear that Barack Obama has indeed chosen to do so.  Obama has been on the receiving end of some of the most outlandish right-wing emails in recent memory.  His response has been swift, first by dedicating a portion of his website to debunking the smears, and most recently, by launching yet another site, fightthesmears.com.*  In other words, the Obama camp is fighting fire with fire--using the same medium that started the lies to fight the lies, targeting the same people.

John McCain doesn't have an email problem, and not just because the left has yet to master the art of the political forward.  As we've discussed repeatedly (here and here), John McCain has a YouTube problem.

For McCain, the dangers of the digital age lay not in a single lie spread wide by email, but in his own multiple lies and panders, presented in his own words, on video.  There are countless of mash-ups on YouTube and other video sites of McCain vs. McCain, offering up in delicious clips the devastating sound-bites of McCain taking one position (when it was political convenient to do so) and then taking another.

In light of the unique problems (and solutions) the internet presents to both candidates, the figures in the Pew survey are that much more relevant.  More Americans are looking to online video than email forwards this campaign season, a clear disadvantage to McCain.  And while Obama can fight email smears with debunking pages and emails, McCain does not have such a clean-cut response with respect to his YouTube problem.  He cannot disclaim his own words, or present a mash-up of his own (indeed, as we've noted before, the McCain camp has concertedly avoided pushing out video of the candidate).  The negative, then, remains unchallenged.      

This isn't 2000, and McCain isn't in Kansas anymore.  Gone is the ability to control voter perception through an elite group of press reporters who can be wooed and wowed with fancy buses and family barbecues. Empowered Americans are taking to the web to filter through the noise and obtain much-needed context.  And yeah, there's a lot of disinformation on the web as well.  But at the very least, the opportunity to critically evaluate every source and piece of information is there, as McCain would say, just "a Google" away.

In this digital era, the candidate who can most appreciate the interplay between technology and politics will have an upper hand, in both mobilizing voters, raising money, and fighting back against negative attacks.  At this juncture, clearly, Obama has the upper hand.  And as for McCain? Simply put, his "Straight Talk Express" isn't ready to ride the information superhighway.

*Update:  Apparently, the website, isbarackobamamuslim.com, which I originally listed as being created by the Obama campaign, is not a campaign project.  Still, that individual supporters are harnessing the power of the web to fight smears against their candidate is testament to how, as the survey cited above notes, Obama's supporters are more engaged online than the supporters of any other candidate.  

John McCain:

"Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war. ...

As user Dr Colossus and others have pointed out, George W. Bush had this to say to American soldiers about two months ago:

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

The first reporter on the Straight Just Talk Express to ask McCain if he believes the President is a "fool" or a "fraud" gets a cookie.

In "The Things They Carried," a short story about a platoon of soldiers during the Vietnam War, author Tim O'Brien describes in detail what the soldiers carry as they plod through the war. Aside from the weight of their equipment (mosquito repellent, weapons, first aid kits, etc.), the men carry with them the love for lovers left behind, daydreams of a world a thousands miles away, and hearts full of regret and doubt.

During this nomination battle, much has been said about Hillary Clinton's "baggage," about the things she carried over to the primary campaign from the political bloodfests of the 1990s. Reference was routinely made to her failed attempts at healthcare reform and the scandals of her husband's administration, and certainly these things weighed heavily on some voters' minds.  

But as we lay the cold corpse of Clinton's candidacy on the examination table, as pundit and citizen alike dissects her maneuverings over the last 16 months and offer up a post-mortem, a reflection on the things Clinton carried into this campaign sheds light into why she lost a race she was supposed to win.

During the 1990s, the Clintons were victims of one of the most vicious and hellish campaigns of personal destruction in modern history. The scandal-thirsty media salivated at pursuing every salacious detail, while GOP operatives poured untold amounts of money and effort into generating a personal failing into a political firestorm. In 1998, Hillary appeared on the Today Show told Matt Lauer that the campaign to destroy her husband was part of a "vast right wing conspiracy." She was mocked mercilessly at the time for using the phrase. Time has proven her right.

Ten years later, Hillary once again found herself fighting a battle -- this time, for the Democratic nomination. Her opponent, Barack Obama, was described in the media as a "rockstar" and a "phenomenon." The airwaves buzzed about an Obama "movement." The same media that mocked and destroyed the Clintons in the 1990s was now eager to do again....right?

Time and time again on the trail, both Bill and Hillary Clinton lashed out at the press for being "biased" against Hillary. Hillary sourly and sarcastically asked at one debate whether the moderator would offer Obama a pillow. Bill frequently and angrily took on the press at town hall meetings. For the Clintons, Obama's success was part of a vast media conspiracy.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As a recent study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found, the perception that the press was "soft" on Obama is utterly false:

From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates’ character, history, leadership and appeal—apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns.

The trajectory of the coverage, however, began to turn against Obama, and did so well before questions surfaced about his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Shortly after Clinton criticized the media for being soft on Obama during a debate, the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical—and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself. What’s more, an additional analysis of more general campaign topics suggests the Obama narrative became even more negative later in March, April and May.

For the Clintons though, who carried with them the battle scars of the 1990s, the media's coverage of the primaries was met with scorn and distrust. As such, they failed to appreciate that Obama actually did have a movement behind him.  

That Hillary herself did not take the Obama phenomenon seriously is evident by the way she ran the last few months of her campaign. So many of her actions were geared not at influencing Obama voters or undecideds to vote for her, but at influencing the media to wake-up from what her campaign believed was a hope-induced stupor. Bill Clinton angrily referred to "fairytales" while Hillary argued that Obama needed more "vetting" (read: the same media scrutiny she survived in the 1990s).  And all the while, while the Clintons were so focused on getting members of the press to change their reporting, they failed to recognize the change that was actually taking place.

But change was taking place. From coast to coast, red states to blue, ordinary Americans were called upon to do an extraordinary thing -- hope again. Obama's near-perfect campaign execution coupled with the very real desire to seek out fundamental change did indeed create a movement. This was not, as Hillary made it out to be, some sort of naive infatuation:

Framing Obama as both a deceiver and a dream weaver, Clinton said "none of the problems we face will be easily solved."

Then oozing derision, Clinton cracked, "Now, I could stand up here and say, 'Let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified. The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.'"

The Clinton campaign refused to believe in the authenticity of the "change" movement. For them, it was another manufactured story, hyped up by the "anti-Clinton" media. And while they failed to recognize that the wide-spread support for the skinny kid with a funny a name was indeed organic, and while they downplayed the idealism of Obama supporters, hope proved to be very contagious. And soon, it was apparent that the phenomenon reported by the press was indeed very, very real.

It was, in a word, a movement. And when that movement took to the polls, it beat in her in state after state, in caucuses and primaries alike, in small states and big states, and yes, in states that "matter." It was a conspiracy after all -- a conspiracy by millions of Americans to hope for and vote for something daring, and different, and desperately needed: a new politics for a new era in America history.

The millions of voters who carried Obama through to victory in the primary were underestimated by the Clinton campaign, and they'll likely be underestimated again in the general. The GOP is already deploying full force every lie and smear it can to attack Obama. The bruising fights of the primary will be child's play compared to the all-out ideological war we will face in the fall. Republicans believe that they can win the presidency by exposing the "real" Obama -- whatever lie that turns out to be. But this strategy is premised in the erroneous belief (that was shared in part by Clinton) that the man makes the movement. For those of us in the trenches, for the millions of us who believe "hope" is isn't a slogan but a way forward, this election is about so much more than one man.  

It's about 160,000 men and women in Iraq, or about the 47 million Americans without healthcare. It's about one child going to bed hungry or one mother having to work two jobs to make ends meet. It is, in sum, about the things we carry, on our shoulders, in our hearts and in our conscience. And it is that movement which may well carry Barack Obama into the White House.

On the heels of Senator Clinton's excellent speech today, the Obama camp has set up a thank-you page where  you can leave a comments of support for her.  The page also includes a video excerpt of Obama's speech in St. Paul this week:

At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office.  I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better.  They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.

That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else.  Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she’s a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she’s a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

We’ve certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months.  But as someone who’s shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning – even in the face of tough odds – is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children’s Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as First Lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency – an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be.  And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory.  When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen.  Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

So yesterday, Senator John McCain released his first general election ad. It's playing in 54 media markets across 10 states - Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. You can watch the ad here. The full text of the ad:

"Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war. ... I was shot down over Vietnam and spent five years as a POW. ... I hate war. And I know how terrible its costs are. I'm running for president to keep the country I love safe. I'm John McCain, and I approve this message."

Who would have thought that John McCain would have put out the first anti-war ad of the general election?

For the no or low information voter, the average American who doesn't know much about John McCain, this introduction tells them two things: John McCain was a POW, and John McCain hates war.

And for us, who have known John McCain all along, it tell us that, as expected, the only way John McCain thinks he can win is if he sounds like a Democrat.

The transformation from "primary season" McCain to "general election" has been remarkable.  Gone is the austere black-and-white website and scrubbed is the text that McCain wants to send more troops into Iraq. The not-so-subtle slogan "the American president Americans have been waiting for" has been tossed aside, and sing-songs about bombing Iran are a distant memory.

Welcome the new, general election McCain.  His website is now bursting with color, and has an all-too-familiar logo on it. His slogan, riffing off of Obama's, is now "a leader we can believe in." His speech on Tuesday?  It was all about "change." In fact, McCain mentioned "change" twice as many times as Obama did in his victory speech on Tuesday.

It's not surprising that McCain is co-opting Obama's message (among other things).  After all, it's a message and a campaign theme that has clearly resonated with voters. It works.

But no matter how clever the McCain camp thinks it is by camouflaging itself in Obama's mantle of change and pragmatism, no amount of spankin' new marketing or rebranding can change the candidate himself. No amount of reinvention can alleviate McCain's YouTube Problem, or erase the fact that McCain has voted with President Bush almost 100% of the time over the last two years.    

In 1985, the Coca-Cola Company launched a new product, New Coke. It looked like traditional Coke, but was sweeter and was rolled out with a grand marketing campaign. The product lasted a whopping 77 days, as consumers, who weren't swayed by the savvy marketing, rejected the "new" Coke.  

The American people have a sophisticated palate when it comes to their Coke.  Will the same prove true for their candidates? Given how transparently obvious McCain's attempts are to conceal his true policies and positions, and how brazen his attempts are to market himself as a reasonable moderate when his record proves anything but, I suspect many Americans will find the "new" McCain entirely unappetizing.