Today, the Booker game-changer; tomorrow ...

As Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz's heads exploded at MSNBC, there prevailed considerable calm from Politico's Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman. Last night, Matthews was so worked up over the Cory Booker kerfuffle that he came within inches of declaring the Obama campaign irreversibly toasted; meanwhile, reported Thrush and Haberman, Democratic advisers "consider the Booker ... comments to be a sideshow that elevates the cable news chatter level but doesn’t hurt their overall message where they care about it, which is in the Midwest."

Schultz we should excuse. He means well; he's a good-hearted populist who seems to genuinely believe in the purely propagandistic concept of the "99 percent." It's that very passion, however, that corrupts his understanding of practical politics--and it shows. Matthews, though, should know better. He worked in the political rackets before starring in the cable rackets. The latter have evidently swamped his sense of perspective. Last night the poor man was so exercised over Booker's self-important sabotage of Obama's principal campaign message, he wrung his hands on-air for an additional live hour--only to watch Booker, on Maddow, about an hour later, offer a serviceable rebuttal of Republicans' typically instant overreach.

My point is a common, and perhaps even a superfluous, one: We no longer just follow political campaigns, we careen through them--we zig, zag, bounce off the walls and do Daffy Duck backflips and handsprings upon every news-cycle story: this is the one, the one game-changer, the explosive mutation that alters everything.

Until tomorrow, or later that day, or the next "tweet."

Meanwhile, the cable-news gurus who are forever bemoaning the loss of real debate about substantive, deep and deep-rooted issues in political campaigns remain forever fixated on each hour's supreme game-changer.

I'd wager if I were to stop the next hundred folks I met on the street and ask them who Cory Booker is, maybe, maybe one could tell me. This is what Barack Obama understands about American politics, and the gurus do not.

Comments

[Peter G]

I suspect the only career irretrievably damaged by Booker's MTP comments was Booker's. The snow shoveling ,lady saver was the public perception but now he has opened himself up for a peak behind the screen. Now I realize that being a mayor is a job that actually requires doing things and solving problems and no mayor worthy of the title is going to want to appear ideologically
antagonistic to business. To be seen as such would be harmful to the interests of the city he serves. But he went way beyond what would be politically pragmatic in that regard. Only higher ambitions could have led him so far off the track and now everybody is asking why that is so. Connections to thwe sources of his campaign funds are now being publicly aired and his populist image is going down fast. Too bad.

[You Don't Say]

Of course. Practically every day there's a new outrage on one side or the other, although I will say Booker's performance was sort of jaw dropping as was Harold Ford's pile on. It's going to be a long six months.

[Chris Andersen]

I used to be a member of the "hair-on-fire" brigade. I got tired off it after I lost all my hair.

Now I just try to concentrate on the long-game and give as minimal attention as I can to the day-2-day caterwauling.

[Joy]

You are so right and I never thought about it - your average, every day person not glued to the internet or a political junkie knows or cares who Cory Booker is.