Demassifying remassification

I'm trying not to make this blog an expression on overt, immediate political views, but I do think the meta-narrative of the current US Presidential campaign bears some examination. (And yes the campaign has a meta-narrative; I don't know if they always had one, but they sure do now!) I was thinking about Hillary Clinton's campaign, and its efforts to debase Barack Obama's candidacy by having its minions spill scurrilous material about Obama (Hussein, madrasa, cocaine, etc.) into the mainstream press. Of course the press dutifully laps up this narrative, at the same time criticizing the naked attempt to smear Obama, but nonetheless repating the allegations (facts really, they're simply repeating established facts in a context of innuendo, with press operating in a context of impartial critic which must, nonetheless, cluck its collective tongue at such below-the-belt behavior. The point is that this kabuki is so well scripted and practiced by Clinton and her media-savvy crew -- the know what they want to portray and they st4ructure the process so that it appears to land in their favor.
Observing this process, I can see that the Clinton campaign is horribly, naively out of step with the underlying processes in the (still) emerging on-line universe. Clinton employs a mass media strategy. the background assumption is that messages can be controlled and massaged through predictable spin cycles, with appertaining playbooks for attack and defense. Press one for smarmy innuendo, press two for an explanation why what you though you heard isn't ncessarily what you thought she said, etc., etc. Again, the underlying assumption is mass audience. Yet these obviously savvy and plugged in people must know that the growth of on-line culture over the past 20 years has shifted the mass audience assumption. I'm sure some of them read Toffler, and others read Chris Anderson and are well aware of the impact of demassification as a phenomenon. It is transcendent. Yet they have opted for a remassification strategy because , well, that's what they know and understand best. And they have some evidence that this strategy works, at least to the extent that they can test means and ends. But here's where they're flying into unintended consequences generated from an unanticipated meta-dimension -- it's impossible to effectively navigate a truly demassified society using a mass approach. it's the reason they're flailing and failing. The winning strategy is not necessarily an internet phenomenon strategy, it's one where small clusters of like-minded people congeal around an idea and are fed through their own chosen filters. The winning strategy is impacted by myriad tactics and approaches. It's the Ron Paul phenomenon among the republicans. And on the democrat side, I think Obama and Edwards are much more savvy about reaching out to people to convey passion, commitment and authenticity in context. Clinton and her crew can't and won't bring that to the table. So they try to stuff Pandora back into her box (to mix a mind-bending number of metaphors) and look polished and in control in the mass media -- a media whose impact and authenticity dwindles daily.