Pundits will debate the success of Barack Obama for some time.
Politically he is carrying out Ronald Reagan’s unmade run of 1968, delivering a new Political Thesis, new Myths and Values, based on a new medium, to a people desperate for them. Reagan unfortunately waited until Richard Nixon had his nomination sewed-up in 1968 before trying, at the convention, to take it away. Nixon won that convention easily because there was no consistent representative of movement conservatism to oppose him before then.
Howard Dean, as everyone understands by now, carried out the Goldwater role in 2004. His failure came down to an unwillingness to scale the intimacy his campaign had in 2003 — instead hordes of kids in orange hats descended on Iowans who wanted something more personal.
Obama’s team, by contrast, delivered what Dean’s team had only promised, a process revolution I wrote about in Let Obama Be Reagan, while minimizing the kind of nonsense I wrote about in ObamaRomney in December.
The Obama campaign has caused the snapshot people saw as they focused on the early campaign to be the clear idea of a New Thesis, and voters are responding. The key moment, in retrospect, was his reaction to the Iowa victory, paired against Howard Dean’s reaction to his Iowa defeat. Obama spoke to history, Dean to his disillusioned supporters. History is what people want to be part o
f, what they feel a part of, as a new political thesis emerges.
Dean’s online campaign was an amateur hour compared to Obama’s effort. It’s like comparing a Buster Keaton short from 1921 to an MGM feature of 1939. Obama’s people went to school on what Dean did, and failed to do, online. They went to school on the opportunities Dean missed for connecting the online and off-line worlds. And in retrospect (despite my early criticism) they have succeeded magnificently.
A campaign’s technical effort is far more than a Web site, far more than a blog, far more than text messaging. It’s an integrated whole, combining the ability to draw in massive amounts of data, and to use it in directing people to do the campaign’s work for you. I can’t tell you enough how important early 2007 was to Obama’s Iowa win in 2008. It was everything.
While Dean’s staff used the Internet as an adjunct, and top aides posted to the blog directly, Obama’s team understood the process revolution the Internet makes possible. Thus, they collected small donations as the price of admission to early Obama rallies, and used that to build their database. Thus, they collected a ton of detail on the Iowa caucus process throughout 2007, and disseminated it to volunteers who lived in those districts and could man their own caucuses personally.
Obama’s people understood that "people-driven media" is, in some ways, a sideshow to a campaign. They enabled it, but they didn’t let that be the show. The main show had to be a branding exercise — that’s what campaigns are. So their online effort was directed at amassing tons of people and tons of real, little campaign jobs for those people to do.
In other words they scaled the intimacy. They scaled it even beyond where Markos Moulitsas envisioned its being scaled in Crashing the Gate. This is the process revolution Dean promised, targeted at the Internet Generation which would understand that message and run with it.
The second contribution of the Obama campaign has been knowing its place in history, representing a new political thesis born of the Internet, and the Internet generation. As I wrote nearly a year ago now, this didn’t have to be explicit.
Obama has talked a lot lately of "consensus," and some in the
Netroots see that as a code for knuckling-under to the Right, because
that’s how the dominant Thesis has always used it.But it doesn’t have to mean that. It can mean, simply, starting with where we agree and working outward.
There’s a third ingredient to the Obama success, which comes from
the candidate himself. I could see it as he got up to give his Iowa
victory statement last week, and maybe you didn’t notice it. But you
know how every successful candidate has their own way of interacting
with crowds? Think of Richard Nixon with his two arms in the air, or
Bill Clinton with his thumb out.
Barack Obama claps. He’ll give a wave, with one arm then the other,
but mainly when he is being applauded he claps along, applauding his
crowd. It’s a unique bit of stagecraft. Then again, everything about
his personal style is stagecraft, artfully constructed. His ability to
present an empowering image, a forward-looking image, a new image, is
what he’s all about. Let the pundits ponder the details, what people
want is new and improved. And when Obama took the stage last week with
his attractive young wife and his attractive young children, that’s
what he delivered.
Can he still blow it? Yes, he can. The institutional Democratic
Party, which has been behind Hillary Clinton, and which destroyed Dean
with John Kerry, remains intact. America is filled with gun nuts, and
any one of them could turn Obama into Martin Luther King Jr. at any
moment. There could be a gaffe — every politician is capable of them
and every newscaster is adept at creating them.
But right now, Barack Obama and the Internet Thesis are sailing
forward, with seemingly unstoppable momentum. The candidate, his staff,
and their Internet people all deserve applause. In response, they may
clap back.
I think the mainstream media destroyed Dean, far more than institutional Democrats and John Kerry. They did it by playing the scream in an endless loop and covering it like a celibutant DUI until Dean was reduced to a celebrated laughingstock in the eyes of the average American, who had barely heard of him otherwise and surely couldn’t correctly differentiate Vermont from New Hampshire better than 50% of the time. This was not done out of malice, but out of the need to find something new and interesting to talk about in what was a pretty boring campaign (note that they were still avoiding being overtly critical of Bush and the war due to the perceived need to be “loyal” to ensure continued access). I think many of the more established journalists actually overestimated the American people and assumed that since Bush had already proven himself incompetent and had no chance of being reelected (I know I, an East coast elite, thought as much), it would be both undignified and unnecessary to spend much time on his foibles. Since everyone/thing else was so boring/verboten, why not dwell endlessly on Dean? It was only after this and directly in reaction to it that the party really put their weight behind Kerry, who was established/boring enough to not be susceptible to new spin by the media (little did they contemplate Karl Rove and Swift Boat).
I think the mainstream media destroyed Dean, far more than institutional Democrats and John Kerry. They did it by playing the scream in an endless loop and covering it like a celibutant DUI until Dean was reduced to a celebrated laughingstock in the eyes of the average American, who had barely heard of him otherwise and surely couldn’t correctly differentiate Vermont from New Hampshire better than 50% of the time. This was not done out of malice, but out of the need to find something new and interesting to talk about in what was a pretty boring campaign (note that they were still avoiding being overtly critical of Bush and the war due to the perceived need to be “loyal” to ensure continued access). I think many of the more established journalists actually overestimated the American people and assumed that since Bush had already proven himself incompetent and had no chance of being reelected (I know I, an East coast elite, thought as much), it would be both undignified and unnecessary to spend much time on his foibles. Since everyone/thing else was so boring/verboten, why not dwell endlessly on Dean? It was only after this and directly in reaction to it that the party really put their weight behind Kerry, who was established/boring enough to not be susceptible to new spin by the media (little did they contemplate Karl Rove and Swift Boat).
Since I personally am often lovingly called a “gun nut” due to my love of American Freedom & the shooting sports & I also personally know many like-minded so-called “gun nuts”, none of whom are murderers or assassins, nor have desires to become such, I can personally vouch for the fact that being a gun nut does not make one a murderer or assassin nor nor more likely to become a murderer or assassin.
Saying gun nuts are more likely to be murderers or assassins just because they like guns & freedom is akin to saying all people who love automobile’s are more likely to be drunk drivers just because they all have a passion for cars.
Such a thought is obviously absurd.
Since I personally am often lovingly called a “gun nut” due to my love of American Freedom & the shooting sports & I also personally know many like-minded so-called “gun nuts”, none of whom are murderers or assassins, nor have desires to become such, I can personally vouch for the fact that being a gun nut does not make one a murderer or assassin nor nor more likely to become a murderer or assassin.
Saying gun nuts are more likely to be murderers or assassins just because they like guns & freedom is akin to saying all people who love automobile’s are more likely to be drunk drivers just because they all have a passion for cars.
Such a thought is obviously absurd.
“America is filled with gun nuts, and any one of them could turn Obama into Martin Luther King Jr. at any moment.”
That is the most obnoxious, bigotted remark I’ve heard in a long time.
Sorta like saying “America is full of middle-aged, balding guys with 1970’s style beards and glasses, and any one of them would love nothing more than to play Dungeons and Dragons while assaulting the 9-year-old girl they just kidnapped”
Stereotypes suck, don’t they?
“America is filled with gun nuts, and any one of them could turn Obama into Martin Luther King Jr. at any moment.”
That is the most obnoxious, bigotted remark I’ve heard in a long time.
Sorta like saying “America is full of middle-aged, balding guys with 1970’s style beards and glasses, and any one of them would love nothing more than to play Dungeons and Dragons while assaulting the 9-year-old girl they just kidnapped”
Stereotypes suck, don’t they?
He should be more worried about an anonymous Clintonista with an untraceable .38 special revolver ….
He should be more worried about an anonymous Clintonista with an untraceable .38 special revolver ….
As your said yourself, “They see their own interests as the only possible good. They see all other interests as evil.” So why the need to mercilessly tar people who believe in their own self defense, people who recognize the importance of the second amendment to the Constitution as evil? You’re only indulging in the same bigotry that you accuse your political opponents of engaging in. You say “America is filled with gun nuts… [who] could turn Obama into MLK”. Dude, Obama won in IOWA. As you might say, get a clue. We’re not all the racists you think we are. Why must you tar gun owners as evil?
As your said yourself, “They see their own interests as the only possible good. They see all other interests as evil.” So why the need to mercilessly tar people who believe in their own self defense, people who recognize the importance of the second amendment to the Constitution as evil? You’re only indulging in the same bigotry that you accuse your political opponents of engaging in. You say “America is filled with gun nuts… [who] could turn Obama into MLK”. Dude, Obama won in IOWA. As you might say, get a clue. We’re not all the racists you think we are. Why must you tar gun owners as evil?
Maybe. Or perhaps it’s just that Iowan democrats don’t like Hillary or Edwards.
‘Course it would be hard to base a pretentious thousand word essay on that possibility.
“Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.”
–Gilbert Keith Chesterton
Maybe. Or perhaps it’s just that Iowan democrats don’t like Hillary or Edwards.
‘Course it would be hard to base a pretentious thousand word essay on that possibility.
“Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.”
–Gilbert Keith Chesterton
Geeze…nothing like conflating “assassin” with “gun nut”.
Since you don’t bother defining what you mean by “gun nut”…you can probably understand why people who enjoy the lawful ownership of firearms resent the implication that the 99.9999% of gun owners who don’t want to kill anyone at all and haven’t committed anything worse than a speeding infraction are somehow a threat to Obama…or anyone else.
Certainly sounds like bigotry to me…
Geeze…nothing like conflating “assassin” with “gun nut”.
Since you don’t bother defining what you mean by “gun nut”…you can probably understand why people who enjoy the lawful ownership of firearms resent the implication that the 99.9999% of gun owners who don’t want to kill anyone at all and haven’t committed anything worse than a speeding infraction are somehow a threat to Obama…or anyone else.
Certainly sounds like bigotry to me…
Very interesting that people are so paranoid about the gun nut comment. I liked it. Seems all the gun owners are right on edge and missing the point. Gun owner does not equate to gun nut. Owner and nut are spelled different to start. Mean different things. Funny how paranoia is huh. No I don’t own a gun as I live in a city, so no need to go shooting things. But admit it folks, there are gun nuts in America. They make the world news every few years.
Very interesting that people are so paranoid about the gun nut comment. I liked it. Seems all the gun owners are right on edge and missing the point. Gun owner does not equate to gun nut. Owner and nut are spelled different to start. Mean different things. Funny how paranoia is huh. No I don’t own a gun as I live in a city, so no need to go shooting things. But admit it folks, there are gun nuts in America. They make the world news every few years.
Marvin,
Too little too late–you might be making that distinction, but the author sure didn’t bother.
In any event, the common use of “gun nut” is to describe, often derisively, someone who is enthusiastic about guns as a hobby and is supportive of gun rights. The author should have been careful to make the distinction you’re making ex post facto.
In any event…I live in a very violent city, and have as much reason to own guns as anyone in rural America, probably more.
Marvin,
Too little too late–you might be making that distinction, but the author sure didn’t bother.
In any event, the common use of “gun nut” is to describe, often derisively, someone who is enthusiastic about guns as a hobby and is supportive of gun rights. The author should have been careful to make the distinction you’re making ex post facto.
In any event…I live in a very violent city, and have as much reason to own guns as anyone in rural America, probably more.
Yes Marvin, “Gun Owner” does not equal “Gun Nut,” but “Gun Nut” does not equal “Racist Assassin,” which is what people are really complaining about.
Yes Marvin, “Gun Owner” does not equal “Gun Nut,” but “Gun Nut” does not equal “Racist Assassin,” which is what people are really complaining about.
Someone once asked Willie Sutton, a notorious bank robber, why he robbed banks. “Because that’s where the money is,” was the reply.
Yet, the gunloons who comment with so much vitriol and indignation on this topic, demand we ignore the very real fact that many gunloon groups have a long history of racism and bigotry.
If one attends a typical gun show, one will invariably find booths selling The Turner Diaries–a novel extolling the virtues of an all-out racial war in the US. Check out the racial views of the leadership of the NRA or GOA; it’s not difficult to find views that are to the right of Bull Connor.
Someone once asked Willie Sutton, a notorious bank robber, why he robbed banks. “Because that’s where the money is,” was the reply.
Yet, the gunloons who comment with so much vitriol and indignation on this topic, demand we ignore the very real fact that many gunloon groups have a long history of racism and bigotry.
If one attends a typical gun show, one will invariably find booths selling The Turner Diaries–a novel extolling the virtues of an all-out racial war in the US. Check out the racial views of the leadership of the NRA or GOA; it’s not difficult to find views that are to the right of Bull Connor.
I’m sure it’s not lost on anyone that racists aren’t only to be found at gun shows. Gun control laws are rooted in racism from beginning to end–from the first gun control laws designed to disarm freed slaves to the gun control policies of the modern anti-gun movement, which are tantamount to “guns are ok for you rural white folk, but not for the inner city [read: where the black folk are]”. Hell even black politicians will utter things to that effect.
Gun control in modern America has at it’s core the presupposition that you can’t trust black people and other minorities with guns. It disarms the people who most need the means of self protection. It has a history rife with explicitly racist laws. People like Jadegold prefer you not be aware that their laundry is far dirtier than ours.
I’m sure it’s not lost on anyone that racists aren’t only to be found at gun shows. Gun control laws are rooted in racism from beginning to end–from the first gun control laws designed to disarm freed slaves to the gun control policies of the modern anti-gun movement, which are tantamount to “guns are ok for you rural white folk, but not for the inner city [read: where the black folk are]”. Hell even black politicians will utter things to that effect.
Gun control in modern America has at it’s core the presupposition that you can’t trust black people and other minorities with guns. It disarms the people who most need the means of self protection. It has a history rife with explicitly racist laws. People like Jadegold prefer you not be aware that their laundry is far dirtier than ours.
Oh, and I’ve been to many, many gun shows, and seen nary a copy of the Turner Diaries. But you do see lots of African American folk buying hunting rifles and shotguns and pistols for home defense and target shooting.
Gun rights supporters are to be found of every race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender. Read Kenn Blanchard’s Black Man With a Gun for a good recounting of the racist history of gun control. And consider that gun controllers tend to be white folk trying to disarm minorities.
Oh, and I’ve been to many, many gun shows, and seen nary a copy of the Turner Diaries. But you do see lots of African American folk buying hunting rifles and shotguns and pistols for home defense and target shooting.
Gun rights supporters are to be found of every race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender. Read Kenn Blanchard’s Black Man With a Gun for a good recounting of the racist history of gun control. And consider that gun controllers tend to be white folk trying to disarm minorities.
So, we are “gun nuts” cum “gun loons” with a long history of racism? Sounds like the culture war that anti-2A folks started 30 years ago is alive and well in this thread. A brief look at the history of gun-control laws will reveal that it is the promoters of these laws which must stand scrutiny when it comes to the ever-effective charge of “racism.”
So, we are “gun nuts” cum “gun loons” with a long history of racism? Sounds like the culture war that anti-2A folks started 30 years ago is alive and well in this thread. A brief look at the history of gun-control laws will reveal that it is the promoters of these laws which must stand scrutiny when it comes to the ever-effective charge of “racism.”
A visit to most any gun show will attest to the fact the clientele is overwhelmingly white and male. The Turner Diaries is a hot commodity, along with such classics as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the usual UN-conspiracy/New World Order slop. And that doesn’t take into account the fascination with Nazi memorabilia.
It’s odd that you don’t see such merchandise at computer, auto, or other shows. Or is it?
I note the fact opposing commenters don’t address the fact many NRA, GOA, and other gunloon groups have leaders that are bigots and/or have ties to white supremacist groups. Do a google on Larry Pratt. Check the rantings of a Ted Nugent. These are just a few.
A visit to most any gun show will attest to the fact the clientele is overwhelmingly white and male. The Turner Diaries is a hot commodity, along with such classics as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the usual UN-conspiracy/New World Order slop. And that doesn’t take into account the fascination with Nazi memorabilia.
It’s odd that you don’t see such merchandise at computer, auto, or other shows. Or is it?
I note the fact opposing commenters don’t address the fact many NRA, GOA, and other gunloon groups have leaders that are bigots and/or have ties to white supremacist groups. Do a google on Larry Pratt. Check the rantings of a Ted Nugent. These are just a few.
One should also consider Freedom In Peril, an NRA fundraising document.
One should also consider Freedom In Peril, an NRA fundraising document.
Link didn’t work: http://wonkette.com/politics/nra/nras-secret-graphic-novel-revealed-223889.php
Link didn’t work: http://wonkette.com/politics/nra/nras-secret-graphic-novel-revealed-223889.php
Nobody addresses it because the logical fallacy of suggesting that gun rights folks are by and large racist by pointing at the Nuge is obvious. Just because Ted Nugent is a raving loon doesn’t mean A) that I am or that B) anyone else on the NRA’s board is. The NRA was until recently headed up by a 5’2″ Jewish woman–so if they were a bunch of racist, sexist jerks over there, you kinda have to wonder how Sandy Froman squeeked past the white male only screening process.
Not sure why the overwhelmingly white male crowd at gun shows is relevant, really. There are plenty of minorities at the gun shows I’ve attended (and no Turner Diaries to be found). It’s not like there’s a sign on the door that says “whites only”. Go to a high school basketball game in Baltimore and the crowd will be mostly black males. Does that mean basketball players are racists? Duh. Of course not.
By way of contrast, the racist nature of gun control laws is indeed relevant–the “guns are ok for rural white folk but not us inner city minorities” is inherently racist, as is the explicitly stated motivation of the first gun control laws passed in this country. Nothing racist about saying “people should be afforded the right to defend themselves”. But it’s quite racist to suggest that what works in Vermont doesn’t in New York or Baltimore or DC.
Nobody addresses it because the logical fallacy of suggesting that gun rights folks are by and large racist by pointing at the Nuge is obvious. Just because Ted Nugent is a raving loon doesn’t mean A) that I am or that B) anyone else on the NRA’s board is. The NRA was until recently headed up by a 5’2″ Jewish woman–so if they were a bunch of racist, sexist jerks over there, you kinda have to wonder how Sandy Froman squeeked past the white male only screening process.
Not sure why the overwhelmingly white male crowd at gun shows is relevant, really. There are plenty of minorities at the gun shows I’ve attended (and no Turner Diaries to be found). It’s not like there’s a sign on the door that says “whites only”. Go to a high school basketball game in Baltimore and the crowd will be mostly black males. Does that mean basketball players are racists? Duh. Of course not.
By way of contrast, the racist nature of gun control laws is indeed relevant–the “guns are ok for rural white folk but not us inner city minorities” is inherently racist, as is the explicitly stated motivation of the first gun control laws passed in this country. Nothing racist about saying “people should be afforded the right to defend themselves”. But it’s quite racist to suggest that what works in Vermont doesn’t in New York or Baltimore or DC.
Again, Ted Nugent is but one example. The fact remains Nugent is a leader in the NRA and his behavior hasn’t been a single instance but a near-continuous pattern of bigotry. That the NRA refuses to repudiate such nonsense speaks volumes.
But Nugent is but one example. There are many, many others.
Certainly, if one attends a basketball game in Baltimore, the audience will be predominately black. Just as a basketball game audience in Boise will be predominately white. But gunshows are almost exclusively white regardless of the locale.
I’m wondering where Sebastian derives his claim that anyone is proposing one set of gun laws for Vermont and another for DC. Sounds like a deflection.
Again, Ted Nugent is but one example. The fact remains Nugent is a leader in the NRA and his behavior hasn’t been a single instance but a near-continuous pattern of bigotry. That the NRA refuses to repudiate such nonsense speaks volumes.
But Nugent is but one example. There are many, many others.
Certainly, if one attends a basketball game in Baltimore, the audience will be predominately black. Just as a basketball game audience in Boise will be predominately white. But gunshows are almost exclusively white regardless of the locale.
I’m wondering where Sebastian derives his claim that anyone is proposing one set of gun laws for Vermont and another for DC. Sounds like a deflection.
After read the article.I have just one word to say,you are so brilliant.I like all of your article.Well done.
After read the article.I have just one word to say,you are so brilliant.I like all of your article.Well done.
What is the definition of happiness?
What is the definition of happiness?