Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
July 2, 2007 7:30 AM
Good On You, Barack…Now What Does It Mean for the Future?
It's pretty damn exciting that Barack Obama has gotten more than 250,000 people to contribute to his campaign. As I've written before, his efforts to raise small dollar donations is looked upon by those in the Beltway as some sort of scandal, when in fact it's totally admirable in an election system that unfortunately is not publicly financed.
The news, covered by Beltway reporters with typically vapid platitudes and caricatures, made me think about a few important questions that few are asking.
The first set of questions are horse-race-ish: Does being an Obama donor mean you are an Obama voter or volunteer? I think that's a harder question to answer than it seems in light of the fact that we know his campaign (admirably) asks lots of people for fairly small amounts of money. Someone may be willing to pay $5 or $10 just to go see Obama speak, but that doesn't necessarily mean they support him. Hell, I might consider paying $5 or $10 to go see one of the Republicans speak just to hear them and evaluate their skills - but that sure as hell doesn't mean I'd vote for them or work to get them elected. So how much of the 350,000 represents die hard support, and how much represents interest in a media spectacle?
Second set of questions: Though getting so many people to contribute money to the political process is absolutely great, is there anything slightly troubling about it? What I mean is this: Barack Obama has very little experience, and, in my honest opinion, has yet to take either many strong, power-challenging positions on key issues, or really tell us what a Barack Obama presidency would be all about (beyond buzzwords like "hope" and "change"). It's quite possible that's because he's waiting until later on in the election process to do so, considering that, despite the media's hyperventilation, we are still a full 7 months away from the first primary votes being cast. Or, alternately, perhaps his relatively undefined profile exists because he just isn't interested in really fundamentally challenging the status quo - I can't be sure, because I'm not inside his campaign.
But I wonder if underneath the genuinely positive and awesome feat of attracting that many new investors in the political process there is a sad commentary on what has become of America's political culture? Is the key to engaging people really just about being a media celebrity who positions himself as a blank slate of nebulous "hope?" In other words, are people so desperate for anything that even resembles change from Clinton-dominated dynasty politics that they will flock to a candidacy that most can candidly admit is still not all that well-defined? If that's the case, what does it say about the substance of American politics? Obama, after all, may talk a lot about change, but it's an undebatable fact that A) it's difficult to state succinctly what his candidacy is truly about, beyond a politician actually saying the words "hope" and "change" and B) he's chosen to surround himself by many key parts of the D.C./Clinton machine (as just one example, he keynoted the launch of the Hamilton Project - the Bob Rubin creation designed to continue pushing lobbyist-written globalization policies). Thus, if people supporting Obama are supporting him out of a desire for fundamental change, and yet if Obama doesn't really represent fundamental change, would there be any real election mandate for such a candidate to DO something specific once in office?
The Obama partisans are going to inevitably attack me for asking these questions - a small but vocal group of his most ardent supporters have a bit of a Limbaugh-ish dittoheadedness to them in that they attack anyone who says anything other than Barack Obama is a deity. But, as I said, I actually like Barack Obama, and, more importantly, I ask these questions sincerely because I think they get to the deeper issues of what our politics are really about - or not about - and what kind of concrete results we can expect from a given election. That is, at least for me, far more important than any one candidacy in any one election cycle - especially with 20/20 hindsight in looking at the false prophet nature of Bill Clinton's populist 1992 presidential campaign.
Bottom line here - Good on you, Barack, for engaging so many new people. It's a truly impressive accomplishment. Now, what does it all mean for the long-haul?
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- Fox News: "Historians Pretty Much Agree" That FDR Prolonged the Great Depression
- Maddow Busts Morgan Stanley Board Member for Conflict of Interest
- Viva Las Vegas?
- Gov. Paterson Is Either Deliberately Deceptive Or Grossly Uninformed
- We WERE Punked
- CO-SEN: Potential Huge Differences Between Candidates Have National Implications
- Kirk as USTR - Changeiness or Change?
- Maddow: Did America Get Punked On the Bailout? Yes...Now Here's What to Do.
- Becerra Turns Down USTR
- In a Recession, Should States Raise Taxes Or Slash Spending?
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
February 17, 2009 -
February 10, 2009 -
February 4, 2009 -
January 27, 2009 -
January 20, 2009
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
The Obama campaign is very much the beneficiary of the Dean campaign in 2004. Joe Rospars who was part of Dean's internet team has done a masterful job once again.
I just hope that Obama can live up to the promise and be willing to get tough. But I'm concerned that "cant we all just get along" approach to politics is not going to work in a general election. You've got to able to point out the bad part of your opponents approach. That is not "going negative", it necessary.
Dar
Chat live with other progressives about this and other issues at DemocracyInteractive.com
http://www.democracyinteractive.com
Dear David,
First... thanks for all you do. But in concentrating on Obama are you perhaps falling into the media trap of anointing "front-runners" too early in the process?
I have noticed that all of the major networks/big media mainly show this as a 2-candidate race... part of the earlier & earlier "horse-race" coverage that rarely if ever touches on actual issues.
Although I am not "in" the Edwards campaign, I have contributed, and I noticed that Edwards has nearly 200,000 contributors & just hit his ambitious mark of $9 million, MORE than enough to be a credible candidate & get his message out.
If you looked at previous nomination races, the eventual winner was often not #1 or #2 on the radar until much later in the process. So David, as you admire Obama's undeniably excellent campaign progress (at least in the horse-race aspect), please do not ignore John Edwards...
It is also VERY IMPORTANT to see that John Edwards would actually OUTPERFORM both Obama & Hillary in defeating Repubs in a general election (Rasmussen Poll, June 2007).
As ELECTABILITY becomes a key issue (for example, Hillary is the ONLY major candidate with a majority of Americans stating they could NOT vote for her under any circumstances) later in the campaign (hopefully along with substance on issues, like Iraq, Poverty, Labor Justice, Trade, & "Two Americas"), John may emerge as a leading candidate.
Thank you for listening... & thanks to all of you out there, regardless of whether we agree on every candidate or issue, who are attempting to make American democracy work the way it should.
Good questions Dave but its fallen on deaf ears as usual.
The problem is the folks at Dkos don't like them at all, considering it generated a shitstorm aimed at you. Now you're a "concern troll" and "purity troll" according to mindless party hacks that seem to constitute the bulk of Dkos posters.
That said, presidential campaigns are beauty and personality more than anything else. Content and policy don't play much of a role IMO. This is why a inarticulate clod like Bush could do so well against two east coast elitists(Gore and Kerry). Compared to the two snot jobs, Bush looked good at the time.
David,
I fear that this election so far is about celebrity and feel good words rather than subtance. If it were about real issues, John Edwards would be way out in front. He is the only candidate of either party who has clear ideas on HOW to solve real issues. I am still fearful for America. My fear is that people will flock to the smooth and hopeful words rather than engage the practical (and possibly painful) solutions to our problems.
Unfortunately the most powerful strategy available to the opposition at this point is to fund an unelectable candidate into the Democratic Party nomination.
People need to be watching very carefully because they have done exactly this in many local office primaries across the country. Spending big money in the primaries promoting the opponent studies indicate you can most easily defeat can be more effective than spending the same amount in the general election on somebody you want to see win.
We'd all like to believe that America is finally ready to elect a woman or a black man president but I find the huge amount of money going into both campaigns relative to the other candidates a very chilling development.
Charisma politics. Even party faithful will identify with a charismatic candidate (lacking definition) as opposed to a non-charismatic with well-defined positions. Sadly, people would rather feel good about a candidate than invest in the mental effort to understand issues. So much for a well-informed electorate.
David,
First, welcome to Colorado.
Second, if you post suggesting that David writes only about Hillary and Barack at the expense of Edwards, then maybe you should read his blog a little more often.
Also, if you think 250,000 Republicans (other than Rubin democrats) have donated to Obama's campaign so they can face him in the general, then you're just crazy. They have enough problems to deal with without trying to determine who their opponent is going to be 16 months from now.
Finally, if you think Obama is just a soundbite without real substance (David included), I suggest you actually go read his books, especially "Audacity of Hope." (Disclosure: I have not contributed to any campaign, although I likely will contribute to Obama or Edwards in the future) While not a policy pamphlet such as you may be able to get from Edwards, the book does give some detail about what Obama feels is necessary on the policy front, in particular related to health care reform and domestic economic issues. Obama is a charismatic politician, and as such he seems to me a master at speaking to his audience. He knows he isn't going to get any detail out in 30 seconds on TV, and so he doesn't try. I suggest allowing him to stretch out in your minds by reading the book, and then see if you still think he lacks substance. Keep up the great work,
Dave in Boulder
I'm not supporting any candidate yet, but I'm watching Obama closely. Its pretty obvious he has the charisma, the intelligence, and the leadership qualities (if not yet fully developed) to lead the country. The right stuff. He needs to be more assertive in telling us about it. Stronger annunciation of his position(s). He seems to be feeling his way....which is unimpressive. Compared to George W. Bush during his first campaign, Obama is flat marvelous
I am for Obama and so far, I have not contributed to his campaign.
I and many other Democrats picked Obama, not because he is a celebrity, he is a celebrity because we picked him. He is collecting money because he, in contrast to all the other Democratic candidates, has a vision for a different type of politics, and for unifying the country.
When you say he has no experience, you mean he has no experience tearing down other people in politics. He does not need, and I don't want him to have, this type of experience. Obama has the experience to bring people together. This is what he has shown by collecting so much money. He is getting people to follow him in a cause.
You, of all people, should be rooting for Obama, as the leader of the Democratic Party. His contrast with Republicans is stark: Republicans attack and attack, divide and divide; Obama is THE Democrat that brings together, brings together, unites and unites.
David, I hope you vote for Obama.
"I noticed that Edwards has nearly 200,000 contributors & just hit his ambitious mark of $9 million"
1. Edwards does not have nearly 200,000 contributros, he barely has 100,000.
2. I'd hardly call $9 million "ambitious", especially considering that it's a $5 million drop from the first quarter.
I'm an Edwards supporter and donor, but get real. Drinking the kool-aid won't get him elected.
One word: Kucinch.
I'm doing the mop up today getting on this late, but I have been preoccupied with a new edition of my book Parity Democracy arriving, amazon.com and BN.com. David said the magic hot button for me when he asked "where is the substance in American politics" I do not intend putting my vote behind any nebulous candidates. I deal with that subject in the aforementioned book and recommend that all candidates should be required to post in writing their agenda. It is the height of stupidity and emotionalism to vote for a candidate without a thorough known platform. Ironically Guilani has made a breakthrough with his 12 commitments that in my view is a brilliant contribution. This should be mandatory for every candidate to expose what they stand for. Enough of this voting for a pig in a poke.
I don't disagree with anything you have said, though maybe a bit harsh. I was for Obama and I have decided not support him because he lacks real leadership qualities. Fanatastic ideas, great speaker, but won't stand toe to toe. I have not seen him take the lead in the Senate on any controversial issue, and there have been a few big ones in the last six months.
But if not him, then who do we support that has a legitimate shot at that office? I like Edwards and I would like Gore even more. Almost solely because they are now Washington outsiders and just seem to get "it" more. By "it" I mean real people and their real issues, not some Washingtonized version of the issue that they spin to make a compromise more palatable. But that is my opinion and I don't know that I have seen your proposed solution to this dilemma now facing democrats looking for real change. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on who?
Consensus politics is good, but I am hungry for Leadership politics that has a moral vision of social and economic justice for this country. John Edwards is showing the leadership we need for this Country to tackle the real problems of poverty, racism, global warming and human rights abuses. We need a leader with a passion for social and economic justice, and that leader is John Edwards.
Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA
One more comment regarding John Edwards, $9 million; keep in mind that this is a tidy sum for someone not taking any PAC or Lobbyist money.
Karita Hummer (KaritaAllegheny)
San Jose, CA
Imagine if the Democratic candidates divided all the money up among themselves and then spent an equal amount for each candidate's campaign?
Everybody talks the talk about campaign finance reform. Can the candidates get together and walk the walk?
Obama Oschlama..He can't win..!
Leave it to the Democrats to stab themselves in the groin repeatedly..!
Obama without a doubt is decent and very smart person, but what really worries me is his association with K Street and the Rubin crowd. These two groups are poison to the American people and country as a whole.
If he dumps them I'll support him. Otherwise he's just another Clinton.
As far as consensus goes its a load of crap. Look at the legislation that had a anything of a consensus; NAFTA, the Bankruptucy bill, PATRIOT Act, PNTR for China, Tort Reform, Telecom deregulation, the immigration bill, Pelosi's secret trade bill. All of these had bipartisan support and fucked over the ordinary American.
Consensus just doesn't work when your pols are crooks and work for monied interests.
And hope doesn't fix squat, its a friggin buzzword and pallative to bambozzle people. Though its a good tactic to use when you refuse to spell out how you are going to solve the multitude of problems this country faces.
David,
I think you are slightly off-key despite your usual incisive comment.
I contributed to Obama and attended an inaugural organization meeting. I would love to be part of a group that has done some foot work, including a trip to New Hampshire and ranges from Goldwater Republicans to liberals.
Some equivocation on Obama's part inhibits our further participation for now. I have since made a tiny donation to Edwards and dearly wish he could have organized like Obama. I am willing even now to believe Obama may yet be the better choice. As you say, it is not clear what Obama stands for. I discount the "experience" factor.
I think not one donor that I have seen was just interested in the spectacle.
FWIW I am not overly attracted by Obama's speeches but was rather attracted by a very exciting bill introduced by Obama that has gone unnoticed and unremarked.
All JMO.
Best, Terry
David, you're being way too kind.
Yes, Obama has energized something of a movement.
But he hasn't said much of substance. What he's said would play well on Oprah but doesn't at all let us know what kind of president he'd be.
For that reason, I call him Barack Oprahbama.
He owes us a lot more substance and a lot fewer platitudes. Right now, I wouldn't vote for him. He talks a good game but it all seems to amount to... just a game.
Join the Discussion