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.  

A month ago today, I wrote about John McCain's YouTube problem. New media tools allow ordinary Americans to fact-check his factless speeches and to compare the "new" McCain to the "old" McCain":

McCain's Achilles' heel has always been his policy oscillations.  His limber "principles" allow him to sweep from one side of an issue to another; they are generally lauded as badges of maverickness in the press and recognized by the reality-based community  largely as panderiffic moments of Washington as usual. And until now, because the traditional media has refused to properly cover these flip-flops and distortions, McCain has been able to get away with saying one thing and doing another, or voting one way and soon thereafter voting another. But how will the real McCain -- whiplash policy McCain -- play out in 2008, where video and blogs will be able to juxtapose his stances and statements in such a manner that shatters the myth of McCain as an "honest broker"?

If there were any question, yesterday's speech in New Orleans makes clear that McCain has another YouTube problem. In the digital era, Americans turn to the internet to receive information about their candidates.  It's not enough to have a nice little soundbite quoted in the press.  No, the modern voter has the ability to seek out context and primary sources.

So no matter how good Harold Ford may think McCain's speech was yesteday, no matter how sharp a line may be when quoted in the morning papers, the fact remains that the unfiltered McCain is painful to watch on video.  He's awkward, like a teenage boy forced to take ballroom dancing classes because his mom is obsessed with Dancing with the Stars.  He's condescending, as if he were born with the egos of a thousand Friedmans. He's smug, like the kiss-ass co-worker who crows about how much the boss loves him.  And he's downright boring, with the exception of when he allows himself to raise his voice and pound his fist, and then we have before us all the captivating sound and fury of a sparking and walking wind-up godzilla toy.

Perhaps that explains why the McCain camp is so slow (reluctant?) to include videos of the candidate's speeches on his website. If you headed to johnmccain.com to check out his speech, you're encouraged to "READ THE SPEECH." Click on "speeches" and you're greeting with a bland page of links, linking you to -- you guessed it -- the text of his speeches. His "multimedia" page is filled with his ads (which, for the most part, spare us the agony of having McCain speaking on the screen for more than a few seconds at a time).  

Contrast this with Barack Obama, who has available on his website for every voter to see every major speech he has made (including yesterday's).

The internet is a visual medium, and as voters increasingly turn to that medium to help them make their choice in the fall, McCain's other YouTube problem will become a liability.  Because no matter how much his campaign tries to avoid making available video of his speeches or tries to creatively edit them so McCain doesn't look like the William Hung of Political Idol, if there's a YouTube, there's a way for American voters to see the real McCain in all his stilted glory.

The Senate seat occupied by Senator Max Baucus is considered a safe Democratic seat. After all, Baucus won re-election in 2002 with 62.74% of the vote, and enjoys a 67% approval rating. The NRSC tried to recruit former Governor Mark Racicot and GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg, both of whom could launch a decent challenge against Baucus. But with neither Racicot or Rehberg taking the bait, the GOP had to make do with some less attractive options.

There were six candidates in yesterday's GOP primary vying to take on the Baucus juggernaut. The battle was supposed to be between long-time politico Michael Lange and engineer Kirk Bushman. Lange is a three-term member of the Montana House of Representatives and the former House Majority Leader. If you recall, he was also caught on tape telling Governor Schweitzer to "stick [the state budget] up his ass." Other GOP candidates included Anton Pearson, who ran "a campaign on faith" and who argued on the trail that we should "holding college professors accountable for treason."

But it wasn't Lange or Bushman who won yesterday's primary. It was Bob Kelleher, a sometimes Democrat, sometimes Green Party, now running in the GOP primary candidate who beat his opponents by 13 points yesterday, winning the right to challenge Baucus in the fall.

Kelleher has been described as a "frequent candidate." He ran against Baucus in 2002 -- as a Green candidate. He won 2.2% of the vote.

You can check out his website here. His number one issue is poverty. He calls the Iraq war a "waste of money and blood." He also has some more, um, interesting ideas. More on Kelleher:

HELENA - Bob Kelleher is a man who has lost a lot of elections - but he's still running, this year as a Republican for U.S. Senate.

Since 1964, Kelleher, an 85-year-old Butte attorney, has run for public office 15 times, losing all but once. His single victory came in 1971, when he was elected as a delegate to the 1972 convention that rewrote Montana's state constitution.

Kelleher's lone rallying whoop then - as now - probably has something to do with his extended losing streak: Kelleher wants to do away with America's unique system of representative democracy and replace it with a parliament.

Kelleher beat out five Republicans in yesterday's primary.  And he didn't just eek out a victory.  He crushed them by 13 points.  And as for the GOP's hopes of at least saving face in this race? Well, I think it's safe to say that train has left the station.

Update:  Flashback to 2002.  The Daily Show correspondent Stacey Grenrock-Woods interviews  Mr. Kelleher. Enjoy.

Race tracker wiki: MT-Sen

As Hunter has pointed out, the "Dream Ticket" of Obama/Clinton, despite today's media frenzy, is a non-starter.  But as the Clinton campaign contemplates just how to have Senator Clinton exit the race, and as questions abound as to what her political future holds, here's some speculation to think about:

The Obama camp, however, remains nervous about Mrs Clinton’s intentions and ambitions, and is preparing a face-saving package that will allow her to continue to play a role in health care reform, which has been her signature issue for more than a decade. Despite pressure from some Clinton allies, Mr Obama and his advisers do not wish to ask her to be his vice-presidential running mate. "They will talk to her," one Democrat strategist close to senior figures in the Obama camp told The Sunday Telegraph. "They will give her the respect she deserves. She will get something to do with health care, a cabinet post or the chance to lead the legislation through the Senate."

Another Democrat who has discussed strategy with friends in the Obama inner circle said that Mr Obama was openly considering asking Mrs Clinton to join his cabinet, alongside two other former presidential rivals: John Edwards, who is seen as a likely attorney general; and Joe Biden, who is a leading contender to become Secretary of State.

Mr Obama hinted at the plan last week. "One of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln," he said. "Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his cabinet because whatever personal feelings there were, the issue was 'how can we get this country through this time of crisis?’ And I think that has to be the approach that one takes."

If you haven't read Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, get your hands on a copy and you'll get a glimpse into the type of leadership Senator Obama is trying to emulate.  From a 2005 New York Times review of the book:

AS these internal Republican feuds suggest, the party in the 1860's was a coalition of politicians who only a few years earlier had been Whigs (Lincoln, Seward, Bates), Democrats (Blair, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles and Vice President Hannibal Hamlin), Free Soilers (Chase), or had flirted with the short-lived anti-immigrant American Party, or Know Nothings (Cameron and Bates). In addition, several cabinet members personally disliked each other: Blair and Chase, Seward and Welles, Chase and Seward, Blair and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who replaced Cameron in January 1862. Lincoln's "political genius" enabled him to herd these political cats and keep them driving toward ultimate victory.

How did he do it? Goodwin deals with this question better than any other writer. Part of the answer lay in Lincoln's steadfastness of purpose, which inspired subordinates to overcome their petty rivalries. Part of it lay in his superb sense of timing and his sensitivity to the pulse of public opinion as he moved to bring along a divided people to the support of "a new birth of freedom." And part of it lay in Lincoln's ability to rise above personal slights, his talent for getting along with men of clashing ideologies and personalities who could not get along with each other.

While we're far from November and victory is certainly not certain, Senator Obama's approach to his rivals now--if it indeed mirrors that of Lincoln, that is, and all indications are that it will--will be the single most important key to the party unity required to win back the presidency.  If Senator Obama can encourage his rivals (and, by extension, their supporters) to focus on the real rival, Senator John McCain, then we can win the White House.  

In the meantime, Senator Clinton's role in that team--if any--will largely depend on what she does over the next few days (and how she does it).

October 2007:

NEW YORK — He is the phenom of the 2008 campaign, the most viable African-American contender for president in history and the most prodigious fundraiser of any candidate in either party this year.

However, since Illinois Sen. Barack Obama entered the Democratic presidential race and instantly became the leading challenger to Hillary Rodham Clinton, he has not made significant inroads in the New York senator's support nationally or seized the lead in any of the states that hold early contests.

In February, when Obama announced his candidacy, he trailed Clinton 48%-23% in the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. After nearly eight months, six debates and the expenditure of millions of dollars, the numbers are nearly the same: 45%-24%.

Also from that article:

In 13 national polls this year, USA TODAY asked Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents whom they'd prefer if the nomination came down to Clinton or Obama. Findings from the first four surveys (taken in February to early April) and the last three (taken in August and September) were combined to create large enough samples to study different voter groups.

Among key findings: Clinton's lead among African-Americans has widened by 9 percentage points, to 62%-34%.

In a speech to the Minnesota Republican Convention, Karl Rove gives us the (predictable) GOP campaign against Senator Obama:

St. Paul, Minn. — Delegates to the GOP convention disagreed often over the weekend, but they joined together to warmly welcome Karl Rove.

Rove praised Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Sen. Norm Coleman, and he lashed out at Democrats.

"They think any day is a good day, rainy day, sunny day, spring day, fall day, summer day, winter day, any day, is a good day to raise your taxes, and our answer is no it's not," Rove told the delegates.

Rove spent much of his speech ripping likely Democratic presidential nominee Barrack Obama. He reserved his harshest criticism for Obama's positions on foreign policy.

"Without pre-condition he said 'I will meet with the leaders of North Korea, Iran Syria, Venezuela and Cuba.' You know, that's the sort of world traveling tyrant tour," Rove said.

Rove ridiculed Obama for speaking in generalities, and he said the Democrat should use the rally he's planning in the Twin Cities on Tuesday to start talking specifics.

"You know we are the change we've been waiting for, I mean wait a minute, wait a a minute. We've been waiting for ourselves? We've been late? We've been keeping ourselves waiting. The people who don't want change are on time, but the people who do want change are late. I mean what is that? I mean who is that. I mean the time for that has passed. Now is the time to spell it out," Rove said.

Rove called on Republican activists to unite behind John McCain and to search out like minded undecided voters in hopes they can be convinced to vote with the GOP.

As usual, where the GOP cannot fight on the battlefield of ideas (after all, Americans prefer the Democratic position on nearly every major issue), it fights instead against a caricature.  The caricature of Barack Obama is a predictable one: he's a tax-loving liberal lacking substance who wants to hold hands with scary people.  

Or, in other words, the same caricature used to campaign against John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000.  

And while the GOP has dusted off a candidate from 2000, and while it has recycled it's 2004 strategy of running against caricatures rather than candidates, it's 2008 now.  The American people have seen the man behind the curtain.  They have realized that the Republican party traffics in fear and distortion and that it cannot be trusted to handle the future of this country in its clumsy hands.

And as for Republican activists finding "like-minded undecided voters"?  Well, that should prove to be a very tough road to travel.

While much is being made about Harold Ickes's statement that Senator Clinton reserves the right to take the delegate issue to the credentials committee, and while the Clinton campaign has reportedly just released a press release reiterating that threat, it's noteworthy to point out that many of Hillary Clinton's supporters on the Rules and Bylaws Committee voted for the Michigan and Florida allocations and delegate strength.  

Only eight committee members voted against the Michigan proposal.  No committee members voted against the Florida proposal.

I suspect that a lot of today's defiance on the Clinton camp's part is directly related to the fact that there are three more contests left, and promising to possibly appeal this decision is likely aimed at galvanizing her supporters in those states rather than taking the issue to the Credentials Committee.  After all, since even the Senator's most ardent supporters voted for the compromise, that's a pretty big signal that this thing is over.

NOTE: The chairs of the credentials committee are Alexis Herman and James Roosevelt -- yes, the chairs of today's RBC meeting. So I'm not sure where I'd put the chances of having a different outcome. Clinton's camp isn't likely to get a whole lot of procedural breaks in trying to reopen a case Herman and Roosevelt just presided over closing. [Kagro X]

Chuck Todd on MSNBC:

You know, there is a big thing we should be getting out of this party tonight, and that is the Democratic National Committee is not somehow controlled by the Clintons. Not by the Clinton campaign any more. We may have started this campaign believing that the Clinton campaign controlled, but this is Barack Obama's party now. He's already been winning the outside game, he now won the inside game. Yes it's true that Harold Ickes can threaten this stuff about the credentials, but Don Fowler really did signal today by being for the Michigan compromise that, "Guys, it's over."

CNN:

(CNN) — Barack Obama resigned Saturday from his Chicago church — where controversial sermons by his former pastor and other ministers had created repeated political headaches for the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, his campaign confirmed Saturday.

Obama plans to hold a news conference after the town hall meeting he is presntly holding in Aberdeen, South Dakota, the campaign said.

Update:  The resignation is "effective immediately". Also, from ABC News:

Sources tell ABC News that Obama felt that as the campaign continued, the media would continue to focus on the church, to the detriment of the church community, that Obama would be held responsible for what happened in the church, and that the Church would be held responsible for his campaign. It would be best, Obama felt, to simply cut ties. He has not yet joined a new church.

Democrats introduce a common-sense bill to compensate service members affected by the President's excessive use of the "stop loss" policy:

Service members whose military careers are involuntarily extended by stop-loss orders would be compensated $1,500 a month for each additional month of service under a bill introduced Friday in the Senate.

The bill, S 3060, would not only affect the estimated 4,000 soldiers now affected by stop-loss, but also would retroactively apply to the more than 58,000 people whose retirements have been delayed or whose enlistments have been extended because the services decided they were needed on active duty.

The $1,500 payment would be paid for serving even one day of a month beyond the period when service was supposed to end.

The average stop-loss has forced service members to remain on active duty for an additional 6.6 months, which means that the bill, if it were to become law, would result in average payments of $10,500 to those whose lives have been changed by the policy.

The bill is being introduced by Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ), and is cosponsored by Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Bob Casey (D-PA).

In 2004, when John Kerry was calling out President Bush on his abuse of the military's stop-loss policy, John McCain joined Kerry in calling the process a "backdoor draft." Stop-loss, McCain said, "a terrible thing for morale." Meanwhile, in this election season, John McCain's military advisor, Ralph Peters, has claimed that stop-loss is "a myth of the left."

So how will the "new" John McCain vote on this bill, if he shows up to vote at all (let us remember that McCain failed to even show up for the vote on the Senator Webb's GI Bill). Given his track record, a "yes" vote from McCain on this would be a pleasant surprise. As Matthew Yglesias notes:

It's worth noting that not only did John McCain oppose Jim Webb's bill expanding educational benefits for veterans, but he has a long track record of fairly stingy behavior on veterans' issues. As Hilzoy puts it "McCain has supported basic appropriations for vets. However, when there are two competing proposals, he generally chooses the cheaper one, and often, when only one proposal to increase benefits is available, he opposes it."