From the pundits who brought you "thrown under the bus," "taking the gloves off" and sundry other sports analogies in electoral politics comes the latest irritating game in town: the "game changer." Back in March, Sen. Barack Obama's ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright were dubbed a primary-season game changer— until Obama's exculpatory speech on race changed the game right back again. Hillary's big win in Pennsylvania was a game changer (or maybe not), as was Obama's world tour (though it's unclear for whom, him or John McCain). Last week the game allegedly changed twice in 13 hours: first with Obama's convention speech, then the next day with McCain's veep selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
By the time you read this, it'll probably have "changed" a few more times. And there's the rub: do we really believe that something as massive as a national presidential campaign fundamentally shifts more than once or twice per election? It's another byproduct of millisecond news cycles: if today's story isn't game-changing, we might as well change the channel. And we can't have that. So this week, as the media grade each GOP convention speaker (game changers all!), let's test-drive a new sports analogy: game over.
