I disagree that you can give this much credit to the Internet. You can't deny how important the bad economy and low incumbent approval ratings are. Historically, with these two variables alone, change is a shoo-in.
How do you explain Obama's beating Hillary? She had a powerful team that used the TV expertly. Her weakness lay in her not using the Internet effectively.
Obama also is a much better speaker than Paul, and he had a reputation behind him: after 2004, he was a rock star of a celebrity. So he had some advantages. Paul, meanwhile, was virtually unheard of until after the primaries were underway. Obama had already begun consolidating his base and planning.
Plus, Obama used the Internet. With Ron Paul, fans would plan things for him. Obama actively created a platform (my.BO) that let volunteers operate efficiently.
Her weakness lay in her not using the Internet effectively.
Her other weakness is that she's essentially a rich white male from a political family. Yes, she's not actually male, but it's hard to tell the difference.
The voters wanted something different for a change. Obama was different, and that's why he won.
That's a snappy line, but it's wrong. Hillary went in to the election with incredible support. She beat Obama by 20 points plus in the polls. She had incredible female support. She was a Clinton, yes, but she was a woman running for president.
Obama won because he had such an effective online infrastructure, and because he was able to rally up volunteers using the Internet and focus their movements. It was a radical shift in campaign strategy from what anybody else has been able to do historically.
I, for one, think everyone should thank George W Bush. If not for his 8 year plan to leave the country in our current state the choice between McCain and Obama might be a really tough one
1) Obama's campaign used the Internet as a resource skillfully.
2) Obama winning is a historic event (demographically).
3) ... techcrunch deadline ...
4) "Obama would not have won without the internet"
