All a-Twitter

Newsweek compares a couple political 'revolutions:'

If the medium is still the message—and I think it is—then the best way to understand what is going on in politics this fall is to think of the difference between Facebook and Twitter.

Barack Obama in 2008 was a product of Facebook (the root of which is a members-only Ivy League network) and other Web sites. He was a one-man brand, and his central site was his main vehicle...

The Tea Party counterrevolution of 2010 is far more diffuse and fast-moving, a Twitter-based hive mind with no one central figure or campaign headquarters...

The Tea Party's blunt message—low and less government (except along the Mexican border)—is much longer than “hope,” but still less than 140 characters. The Tea Party message is easily adapted and transported.

In 2008, Barack Obama’s army was organized and motivated via the Web, including Facebook. That made sense, since his was a crusade built on the celebration of one man and his platform, and it was designed to be an instant “outsider” establishment. It was focused and very highly centralized under the direction of David Plouffe, the campaign manager.

"Focused" and "very highly centralized" versus "diffuse and fast-moving." Sounds like the difference between statist and free.

And here's a clue for Mr. Fineman: most Tea Partiers recognize government has legitimate roles. Like securing the borders. They just think it's far too focused on things it has no business doing, and shows little interest in the purposes for which it was ordained.