The good news is that now voters in other states will have a meaningful role to play. The bad news is that it will get harder and harder to get media play for hugely significant differences between candidates. (<== WARNING: candidate bias apparent in reference selection.)

The best thing any of us can do, I think, is to sternly rebuke anyone we see making crappy arguments. We need to respect the humanity of each of these candidates. The issues of race and gender are stressing this campaign (and have in fact already made it historic) but that is not what the campaign is about. It is about who would make a better president and who presents a better vision for the future of the Democratic Party and the country.

Ok, that's my bit.

Key graf, as they say...

In 2001, Mr. Axelrod played a major role in devising Mr. Ferrer's [New York mayoral, against Bloomberg] campaign message that there were ''two New Yorks'' separated by an economic divide -- a message that, although it was labeled divisive by Mr. Ferrer's opponents, helped him into a runoff against Mark Green, which he then lost. Mr. Axelrod also played roles in the presidential campaign of Senator John Edwards and the victorious senatorial run of Barack Obama of Illinois.

So that looks like it makes more likely an Obama/Edwards ticket, if nothing else.

What else can people find about Axelrod?

A primer on the art of failing in propaganda.

(-and-
one little suggestion.)

First understand that failure at propaganda is redundant.  Any time that a person chooses to rely on propagandistic techniques as a tool for persuasion (rather than say, safety procedures) has already failed.

The reason is that most of the times one needs to revert to propaganda, it is because the cause one is rallying to flies in the face of obvious facts.  These facts take many forms.  Some are historical facts, such as the corruption of an administration; some are mythological facts, such as the cult of armageddon.  

We are mostly familiar with historic facticity, I think, so let me expand on what I mean by mythical facts.  A mythical fact is something like Ragnarok, aka armageddon, that pops up from time to time.  In this way, myths establish some indepent, verifiable reality.  They are facts.  

There are many types of mythological fact, but most we know through their repition.  They repeat themselves in current time, in our experience.  Mythological fact shapes existential colorings of each historical moment.  This is why it is often the basis of propagandistic elements.

In particular the propagandistic application of eschatological premises is quite precedented.  Usually forgotten by the Rasputins of any given time is that these premises have a built in shelf life.  People who want the Rapture, for example, tend to look silly to their children.  

There are of course some new wrinkles to the modern propaganda, such as the soft fascism of conrolling the field of referrent authority via mass media, but even this does not allow propaganda to fly in the face of reality for all that long.  

In conclusion: Any attempt to deny reality does not work.  Reality remains more real.  No matter how you deny reality, it will get you.  Reality is bigger than propaganda.

Today we are fortunate to have the tradition of historic giants such as Rousseau and Franklin; Martin Luther King Jr., I.F. Stone and Woody Guthrie.  

The mythological fact of this presence in history is still being estalblished.  Today, out here in the cyber-fields of Democracy, our generation takes our place alongside our heroes.  For make no mistake, had corruption turned the tide tonight alongside propaganda, this would have been a tragic fall of historic proportions.

But tonight, let us remember our heroes, because we will need them.  Our propagandists of the moment may be battered, but they will not be unbowed.  We must continue to support the candidates we have helped into office.  

My one litlle suggestion, from the heart of a Dean Progressive, is that we consider establishing blog-led subscription pools for officeholders’ off-season funding.  This could be sort of modelled after Public Radio campaigns, but more anarchicly blogic.

In any case, it will work as a counterbalance, however small, to the absolute beholdenness of junior Reps to the corporate machine.

Cheers, all,
-swift

The question, again, is what to do? Given that there is no longer a functioning democracy in this country (arguably hasn't been for a while if you count the absolute control of the presidential primary process that has been maintained by the status quo establishment since at least 1988), what can we do today? Tomorrow? And yes, as tristero says, you still have to vote for Democrats. As much as possible, and making lots of noise if the Dems you have to choose from all stink, but voting.

Besides voting, though, what can we do? Because we certainly do need to do more.

For me, this is more and more about culture. The thing that separates us from full blown fascism (incipient fascism is probably the best way to describe our current situation, IMHO) is the non-existence of a culture of populist violence, literal physical violence, directed against the political opposition AND one or more targeted cultural minority groups.

For those curious, I still think Dave Neiwert lays it out the best in his essay Rush, Newspeak and Fascism. If you never have, you really should read it.

Right now this is still very unacceptable to the mainstream public. If the offices of Planned Parenthood were bombed, for example, there would still be a lot of backlash. In full-blown fascism, there would be none. For our part this means we have an opportunity/responsibility to develop cultural bastions of strength. Being a part of communities, expressing our diversity in ways that people can relate to, that make people feel good about being "American," these are our strongest cards right now.

It is important that this is in the public eye. Community celebrations, parades, festivals, etc. are prime venues for presenting diversity and subcultural identity to other civic minded souls. This should be proud and also friendly. We are claiming our part of the cultural fabric- this means we exist in harmony with the whole. If there is hostility it comes from the bigots and proto-fascists.

On the other hand, I also maintain that the time is coming for more traditional forms of agitation and dissent. There is, after all, a lot happening that deserves our hostility. Also, there are messages that are not being presented by the mainstream media. It is up to us to find ways to present our perspectives. This will of necessity be outside the normal system of cultural communication. It will require going outside the lines, but it is also about communicating. Not throwing a temper tantrum and being angry, but having something to say and getting it across.

There are many people within the citizenry who do not like what is being done with the Constitution, after all, and many of those who remember the civil unrest of the 60s and early 70s will connect the dots and blame the people who have created the situation. It is up to us to help them make common cause with us, not make it more difficult. But given the near categorical lack of public communication by Democrats, many people will understand what we are doing and why.

While networking and planning to undertake this agitation we must always be conscious that the electronic communications we have come to rely upon should not be used. (Hmm. Uh, shit. ;> )

Beyond that, be traditional and be creative. The basic strategy at this point is simply to communicate the essence of our dissent as elegantly and forcefully as possible.

But it is time. Torture is too much. It goes against everything the "greatest generation" fought for. We need to solidly establish a position of dissent while there is still a fresh enough memory of that aspect of our history. This will take a lot of work and will not come easy, but it is what we have, and that's something.

We cannot say that this is comprehensively the will of the American people. But the sad truth is that this is at least not anathema to the will of the people. It is easier to remain ignorant. For those who are a part of the Establishment, it is easier not to argue. Our current course, the decision to torture and make war, is very much the will of all those who participate in the creation and dissemination of politics and "news." It is the will of everyone else to not have to worry.

The other part of the problem is that the opposition leadership has abdicated. There is no debate, no contest. Not on this, not on nukes over Iran, not on corporate malfeasance, not on the "PATRIOT ACT," not on the prison industrial complex, not on the military industrial complex, not on the centralization of media power and its alignment with the interests of one political party....

It has been conceded by everyone in the halls of power that the system is stronger than even a large group who know better. The culture of the times has beaten down any impulse to stand on principle. Eventually we must hold accountable those who could but do not represent an opposition with strength and passion. Do they fear martyrdom, or more do they fear marginalization? No one wants to be Crazy Al Gore. Shunned and beaten like a pin~ata.

But something must be said! If these messages will not be carried forth by those who position themselves as leaders, then we must find ways to lead. What will you do? How will you get the word out? This is the time for making waves, while it is not yet being punished. How obvious is your dissent?

What we are faced with is a cult of power. The insight provided by thoughtful people neither strengthens the aura of America the Powerful nor the god-realm aspirations of the television hosts and producers, so we can not expect to see it.

The truth is a bitter pill to the delusional, and we are caught up now in a furious storm of self aggrandizement. Historically, these storms do not just blow over. First, for whatever strange mythological reasons, we must rage and howl and the wounded and bereft must moan and mourn.

I do believe that we in blogland can make some difference, but to me it is a matter of "creating a buzz," finding approaches to penetrate the very selectively permeable membrane of American Media Consciousness.

This will only happen when it is undeniably a growing concern. When there are really pressing concerns about dissent. And then it will be demonized. But then, most people just want to go back to sleep. There will be a growing demand to make the noise go away, and the politicians will either clamp down or compromise. Some change will occur, and clamping down, no matter how hard in the meantime, fails in the long run.

I wish it was not this way. It saddens my heart. But I do not see any governors in the system. We are careening more and more out of balance. Please tell me I am wrong.

Is this cynical? It seems only founded in an honest reading of history. We can make little real progress in the domain of masses of people. The overwhelming majority of human growth occurs in individual lives. When the awareness of specific means to improve the common lot is widespread, then there develops a pressure to make such changes in societal structures. That is not often, and it is not now. Our task now is simply to mobilize some kind of popular dissent, to make known to a wider audience what the best reasons for a different course are. We can worry about anything else later on.

As I see it, our big purpose out here in blogland has been to demonstrate to any one that gives a shit that there are ways to present an opposition that are both clear and rhetorically sound. Also, we have provided ourselves a sense of community and comfort as we watch the principles upon which our civilization was built slowly be removed and replaced with ever more brutal rationales.

Once upon a time it seemed that we could serve as a conduit for the generation of rhetoric and strategy a la the Repuglican think tank apparat, only on a distributed (and pro bono!) basis. It has become very very clear, though, that the Democratic Party decision makers have no interest in this.

Politically it is has become obvious, this entire election cycle, that the Dems have no interest in taking a stand. They avoid stating clear arguments or pushing any kind of advantage. They do not act from any kind of modern media strategy. They want to come into power with as few obligations to make substantive changes as possible.

Any of these acts would presumably set them at odds with the "real" power in this country, whoever that may be. In any case, and for whatever reason, they are unwilling to act like a real opposition party.

Without a clearly stated opposition platform there can never be enough political will in the body politic to actually make substantive changes. Without substantive changes the Dems will slide further into irrelevance in both public appraisal and in fact. Pick any issue, any news cycle, and you'll see it's true.

So, now, our other task is to start thinking in terms of contingency plans (protests, organizing somehow under the radar of the surveillance state and cellphone/internet dependency, going to ground or building bastions of liberal community in our blue cities).

What will you do? Do you think there is a place for mass movement tactics in todays political climate? How about a few years from now? What about all of the surveillance we know is possible/ongoing? Any thoughts?

Well, first of all, I think the answer is "In your Face." What's more though, is that the whole set up is obvious; the hiding, the chase, the inevitable spider whole, so called.

What these LOOZERS at the News Corporation are gonna get, real soon, is that this whole situation is way more fucked than they think.  

Consider: The Jordanians say hey, we told you where Zarqawi was 4 or 5 times and you never did anything.

Bush goes to Baghdad just before we hit Zarqawi, does his patented tough talkin idiot thing, is hailed as a strong leader, a brave and glorious codpiece once again.

We hit Zarqawi.

A week after we hit Zarqawi the USA today blares that Afghanistan has suddenly gotten much worse! Holy Toledo!

....next is....?

I tend to think "not much," for now anyway. These folks have an uncanny patience and sense of timing. The grand goal is always a master narrative.

But just as a further exercise in borderline paranoia, if this is a scripted strategy a la Karl Rove, I cannot help but wonder what the significant variable was that they keyed on to start the sequence.