There’s a phrase that I would have expected to see more of in the past few months: “paradigm shift.” In general it means a philosophical or theoretical framework which is used to explain reality in either a scientific or philosophical framework. A static universe was a scientific paradigm until it was replaced by the “Big Bang” theory. Some years ago, Alan Toffler proposed that we were leaving the industrial age for the information age. That was a paradigm shift has been proved-out but this election has demonstrated that shift in spades. Normal folk might call it a “sea change.”

Whatever the results Tuesday, March 2nd, in Texas and Ohio, Obama, the “change” candidate, has already changed the shape and texture of American politics for a generation, Obama has built upon the tools first implemented in the 2004 Dean campaign that turned out to be a momentary blip on the scope. In 2006, the defeat of Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary was another step up the ladder. Now, in the Obama campaign, the extent of the change has blossomed in his campaign’s extraordinary success.

But it is not just the Internet. The ultra-sophisticated use of the tools of Internet was combined with “old fashioned” Chicago “Back of Yards” organization methods. The result is a near irresistible political movement. In one sense, it doesn’t make any difference if ultimately he wins or loses because he has demonstrated that the process can be changed by hyper-modern application of the tools and skills. The paradigm has shifted.

It isn’t the first time that “New Politics” has been trumpeted has transcendent. In the sixties and seventies, "New Politics” was a catch-phrase of the left. But the victories of the old “New Politics” were sparse.

Carter’s defeat in 1980, and the triumphant resurgence of the Right under Reagan ended that era of “New Politics.” Carter’s defeat was one part his political ineptitude and two parts chicanery that has rarely been thoughtfully analyzed. Yes Virginia, there are conspiracies and the fact that Reagan benefited from a stolen Carter briefing book during the presidential debates is not the sole felony that triggered his loss, only the undisputed one.

But the most tragic result of the Carter defeat was that we lost sight of what Carter was so right about – oil (carbon) dependence. The result of the Carter defeat was an American presidency that put aside any concerns for oil dependence with the catastrophic results for the American economy. Among those Presidents who didn’t get it was a Democratic one.

Whatever the results of this election, the Obama campaign has changed the context of American politics. If he wins the ultimate prize, than the process of change will be firmly set in place.

We have enormous problems that can not be solved in the blink of an eye. But the fact that the political paradigm has shifted so dramatically, augurs well. The important thing for the Obama campaign is to keep on, keeping on.

johnklotz.blogspot.com

I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that at the end f the night, Obama will have an small majority of the delegates chosen. If that happens then given the calendar and the remaining states, Obama will be the nominee.

The issue will be, how insensitive to the regular Democrats who have given her campaign its heft, she will be.

Ed Reindell is a perfect example. He has made some restive statements lately but has been a firm Hillary supporter. A former National Committee Chair (courtesy of the Clintons), he is now governor of PA. A hotly contested, negatively accentuated campaign in his state that pits class against class, gender against gender, and race against race is not what he needs for his state. Such a negative primary could wreck the Democratic Party in PA in which McCain appears to be competitive.

The bottom line is that HRC owes something to her regular Party supporters. That she not destroy the Party’s chances by an all out negative fusillade against Obama.

As far as Ohio is concerned, we may be witnessing a temporary return of white men to her banner and let's face it, from the interviews I've seen much of that is racist based and even wrong-headed prejudice about the spurious claim that Obama is a Moslem. These aren't just Reagan Democrats, they are Rush Limbaugh Democrats.

Years ago, someone did a study that claimed that organization accounted for only 10% of the vote, normally a decisive 10%. That may be old politics but today the issue may very well be whether Obama gets that 10% or Hillary does.

In any event, if after all is said and done Obama has increased his lead, the issue will be how cruel will Hillary be and in her starkly negative campaign, how much will she deliver to the Republican.

Of course given the late polling its possible that she will win a clear majority of the delegates. Frankly, my biggest concern about an ultimate Hillary victory is Mark Penn (who sounded like he was ready to bail out a few days ago). I think the Republicans will have an Mark Penn led campaign for lunch in November and that would be too bad.