The Democratic Party has finally started to figure out that it needs People, more than anything else.
Not money, or TV ads, or fliers, not consultants, patronage, or polls, just People.
Since the dawn of color TV, advertising and packaging has been the main concern of a campaign. Usually about 80% of a candidates budget was spent on TV advertising. Lots of attack ads, and focus group tested soundbites for 30 second commercials.

Now, move on to the internet, Howard Dean, Barrack Obama, and a Democratic Party that is finding its Grassroots.
The power behind Obama's campaign is its volunteers. Real People, voters who usually sit at home on election day, now have decided to go door to door asking people to vote.
I say it every election. Inspire people to get off the couch, stop fighting for the ambiguous middle that makes up their mind on election day. Now the benefits of that strategy are finally coming true.
There's a technical side and an emotional side to this revitalization of American Democracy. Howard Dean, as current Chair of the DNC, helped lay the groundwork, and create an organized network to coordinate volunteers. Standardized databases, and intra/internet systems, to help connect with interested volunteers and put them to meaningfull work.
Barrack Obama, is the emotional side, he gets volunteers energized because he actually believes in us, he believes in the public, and he believes in democracy.
Other candidates have tried to dumb down the debate with wedge issues like flag burning, haircuts, and fear. Obama insists on rising above that, and treating the public like a collection of concerned individuals, not a heard of sheep who can be fooled and manipulated into giving you their vote.
I have been waiting for a candidate like this, one who can stand on principle and speak openly and honestly. A candidate who has little tolerance for divide and conquer political games. Someone who doesen't have a hidden agenda. One who has faith in the beautiful chaos of an informed democracy.
Systematic, organized word of mouth, has become the most important tool of the Democratic Party. Thank You Barrack, and the Internet. If the youth stay involved, the political games of 2000 and 2004 will be forced into extinction.
One Quick Note, about Obama's position on the war.
Some people say that since he was not a senator at the time, and he didn't have to vote on the Iraq War resolution, it is easy for him to say he opposed the war from the start. That argument really bothers me, anyone who agrees with it does not remember 2002.
Or maybe in 2002, you agreed with war in Iraq, maybe you were like 70% of the country who were convinced by Bush Cheney propaganda that Saddam Hussein was 'Directly responsible' for the attacks of September 11(

In 2002, I was protesting on the streets of Washington, NYC, Buffalo and Fredonia, I was passing out fliers, planning events, and sitting behind an anti-war information table in the Campus Center. And I can tell you for a fact, that it was not easy, or popular to be against Bush and his war. There were ribbon magnets and flags on all the cars, we were shouted at, demonised, and threatened. Our protests were marginalized, the media and 3/4 of the government never gave us the time of day. Obama's opposition to the war was courageous. And he was right about the consequences.
Obama on War
Clinton on War
PS, The Nation is now endorsing Obama

Cool, DCoffee. To be fair to you, I haven't been able to view the Obama video yet. I'll do that later on. Now, it may or may not make me feel better about his sincerity, (I really don't trust politicians) but I think there is still room for "Yeah, it's easy to say it without putting your vote down" - although let me make this very clear, it is still preferable to what the others do, which is to pretty much absolve themselves of all guilt and responsibility.
Me, I'm easy to lie to. Just ask my exes. *drums*
I'll be watching you buddy!! =) Your skepticism has always been healthy, and so I hope you keep it up. I think we all want a new brand of politician, and Obama represents a very exciting possibility, even if I don't agree with the guy on X, Y or Z policy. It's really easy to get excited, and it isn't my intention to discourage that, only to reinforce the point that politicians lie easier than they breathe, so the skepticism should always stay strong.
Jason, always love your comments. I know you usually check out my sources and such, but I think you didn't watch the video before writing, not that it will change your mind, but the Obama video has excerpts from back to 2002, and you can tell me if you think he was speaking from his heart or just politicking. His statements could have been transcripts of mine from the students for peace meetings back in Fredonia. He did vote to fund the war, and I think that is politicking (probably smart politicking to deal with John McCain on national security), but that does not make him a hypocrite (see his statements in the video),
I know it seems like I'm giving him a blank check, but I am a skeptical person, and I know that campaign season is full of empty promises. I'll be watching his ass, and if he screws around I'll be out of the democratic party again. But I think, if he is elected he will continue to involve the public, he will respect the facts, and disregard ideological pipe-dreams, unlike the current whitehouse occupier.
Hey there, another interesting post.
First of all, I don't think it's any kind of surprise that The Nation is endorsing Obama. He's definitely the most Liberal of all the viable candidates. If Kucinich had a shot in hell, and had say Hillary's numbers, they would be backing him. They LOVE his ass. Maybe it's me just being cynical, but I don't really trust the press (especially partisan rags of any kind) to be any more honest than the politicians. I just don't.
I remember 2002 very clearly indeed, my friend, and it is definitely "easy" for a politician (that's exactly what he is) who didn't actually have to put their name to a vote to claim the moral high ground. It may or may not come from the heart. He is first and foremost a politician, and he would be an idiot to not take advantage of how Hillary, etc. are flaming hypocrites (who, by the way, inexplicably still to this day get off scot free with their shitty excuses for their war votes).
I don't even really think it's cynical to point that stuff out. If you don't agree you need to have a counter argument. The guy has voted to fund the war in the past, which outs him as at least a part time enabler, if not a full blown hypocrite himself, depending on your level of ideological purity in terms of being anti war. I agree he has plenty of promise, and could be the kind of politician we all hope for - and I hope he is sincere - but please don't give him your trust cheaply.