Reactions to Obama's Consolidation of the Party

by: Matt Stoller

Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:30


Yesterday, Ben Smith in the Politico confirmed the story I broke last week on Obama's consolidation of the party, and today, Jonathan Weisman and Michael Shear of the Washington Post added added more detail .  I argued that Obama is both transforming Democratic politics through aggressive and hypercompetent web-based organizing on a scale we've never seen, and centralizing power around his campaign by cutting down outside groups.  Smith adds to the story, and quotes Obama finance chair Penny Pritzker as asking big donors not to give to outside groups.  Obama's been making noise for months about outside groups.
Matt Stoller :: Reactions to Obama's Consolidation of the Party
'Right now in Iowa you have candidates who are having millions of dollars spent on their behalf uh by other groups...These folks don't have to disclose where they are getting money from. It's completely the Wild West, these 527s and so forth. And that's something that's going to have to be controlled,' he added.

Obama is musing about voluntarily capping donations at $1000.  Is this unilateral disarmament?  I don't think so.  Chris Bowers riffed off my post with an interesting observation that hints at the motive here.

I know this is all pretty vague, but it does sum up my basic sense about the coming Obama administration and Democratic Party. Overall, instead feeling like Blue Dogs, Joe Lieberman and media pundits are running the party, it should feel kind of like PIRG, but a bit more right-wing, academic and well-to-do. In other words, PIRG without seeming like DFHs run the show. That should be an upgrade from the 1990's, but expect quite a few times where progressives will need to take oppositional stances.

In other words, Obama really may mean that he doesn't want outside groups in the race.  He's a campaign finance reformer, he believes in campaign finance reform, and he's willing to stake his race on the idea of a transformed political environment.  Big Tent Democrat's Reveling In The Demise of Their Relevance, Lambert's post, and Susie Madrak's Vision of the Future all assumed that I cheered on his consolidation of the party.  My attitude is closer to Donna Darko (update: this is actually from Redstar):

The organizing and mobilization scholar in me is totally impressed. But the conflict theorist and skeptic of authority in me is totally horrified.

We can after all get ready for more situations like this.  Here's Mike Connery, representing the millenial organizing groups:

Sen. Obama probably has a bigger "youth" list than all the youth vote and youth policy organizations out there combined. What does he plan to do with it after election day - win or lose? How will he keep his Millennial Movement engaged in effective action beyond his election towards the accomplishment of real progressive policy goals? We have no idea because his campaign won't tell us.

I also agree with Ian Welsh and his post 'The Obama Squeeze'

My bottom line is simpler. Obama isn't John McCain, and that's all I really expected out of either Obama or Clinton. Anyone who expects much more, I predict, is going to be disillusioned. Within a year of Obama getting in power, progressives and liberals will feel about him the way they do today about Pelosi and Reid.

Gil Smart, Matt Steinglass, Ed Cone, Jay Ackroyd over at Eschaton, Ezra Klein, Andrew Sullivan, CIO Insight, Witigonen, Cathie from Canada, and Chris Hayes all added a bit to the discussion, and Micah Sifry is going to dig deeper into Obama's network and its culture.  Dana Blankenhorn at ZDNet makes what I think is a useful analogy.

His sites are becoming Google-like in their power, and Google-like in their autonomy from the movements which spawned them.

That's a great analogy, and I think it's quite possible the Obama campaign and administration is going to be placed into a Google-like center of immense political and administrative power.  I'm not worried that Obama will lose the 2008 campaign because of these choices; with six macro-trends in Democrats' favor, we can look forward to trouncing the GOP.  Mike Lux notes a possible concern.

I worked in the Clinton White House when the progressive movement was terribly weak- single issue siloes, no grassroots energy, no effective communications, infrastructure, all the horror stories you've read about before. Even before the Republican congressional takeover in 1994, it made the White House weak as hell. The Obama machine is easily the most impressive candidate-driven organization in my lifetime, but it can all wash away if Obama starts to fumble and bog down, which is inevitable given the barriers to change. They need an outside infrastructure as much as we progressives on the outside do, and I hope they come to realize that sooner rather than later.

It's Obama's party right now.  It will be for at least a few years, if he wins.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Reactions to Obama's Consolidation of the Party | 63 comments
I think this could either way (4.00 / 2)
in terms of hurting or helping progressive policy.  It's not really clear to me what Obama's intentions are, but I guess I'd say that I wouldn't lose much sleep if 527s largely disappeared.  While there are definitely some great and innovative ones out there, they are certainly no magic bullet, they don't have an amazing track record of success (especially considering how well funded many of them were for 2004), and they are fundamentally reliant on large donors.  

I also suspect Obama simply wants more control than the current system affords him, and what better campaign finance reform laws would give him.  In previous elections, the diffuse organizations within a kind of mutated system were generally autonomous operators, with autonomous funding from whoever could afford to write a check.  I think Obama's fundamental goals here are 1) hone his popular image as ethical and strong on good government, 2) empower a grassroots model of funding and organizing non-official party organizations, rather than have them run and funded by wealthy insiders, and 3) place his campaign and administration at the root of that model, providing and controlling the message and theme.  

That's just my two cents, and I could be right or wrong.  If I'm right, I suppose you might say that I hope Obama knows what he's doing, and will do things progressively.  If he does conduct himself in a generally acceptable manner as far as progressivism goes, I think his model is probably preferable to the current one.

Fear of exclusion (0.00 / 0)
The anti-authoritarian impulse common in a lot of liberals, and which I share, is definitely visible on both the pro and anti Obama sides.

Re: the movement, from glancing at other blog comment threads, I'm reminded of a very gut-level, "It's happening without ME, I am NOT included....therefore they will screw ME...."they" have decided I'm worthless...I don't want anybody having power over ME/My favorite orgs" self-absorbed reaction.  

And this reaction is disguised in a "but what I really care about is the party" pose.  It's really a paranoid fantasy.  It's all fear.

I mean, really, we all have to live with the possibility of disappointment.  

Well Matt (4.00 / 2)
I read your original post several times and you did cheer on Obama. You did it to the degree that you were wondering what the poor blogosphere was going to do in the future as you were being squeezed out. If you have a change of heart after reading the people you cited just say so. It's OK to have a change of heart.

And Obama on the net being Google-like? Quite an overstatement.

As for 527's. Big mistake on Obama's part. He wants to allow the GOP to Swift Boat him with no 'like' response on the part of friendly 527's. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

Kerry's biggest downfall was 'non-response' - don't we ever learn? If Obama thinks going nice is a winner in the general he is delusional.

But then what can he really do? He can't counter attack the GOP who he has been courting. To do so would go against his post-partisanship theme so in essence he has painted himself in a corner. They will Swift Boat him and he can't Swift Boat back. Talk about going to a gun fight with just a spoon!

All that may be academic anyway because he can't control who gives to 527's or anyone else. The special interests will spend to get their message out in Presidential elections no matter who is running. Obama can't change the Constitution and free speech.

And no Matt this is not Obama's party as you will learn if he is elected. Congress, neither Democrat of Republican, are going to give up their power centers. The Presidency does not have the power to do that in any way. If anything it is congress who controls the Presidency in many ways as it is they who write the bills and budgets.

And people like me who are long time true Progressives are not going to give up the fight as you were willing to do in your original post last week. We will NEVER ACCEPT post-partisanship and Obama's brand of triangulation. Never.

Wow (4.00 / 3)
... Congress, neither Democrat of Republican, are going to give up their power centers. The Presidency does not have the power to do that in any way. If anything it is congress who controls the Presidency in many ways as it is they who write the bills and budgets.

Yep, if there's one thing we've learned in the past seven years, it's that Congress is ready to stand up for their principles against a popular President who can make real threats to their electoral prospects.

Seriously, you're not even trying anymore, are you?

We will NEVER ACCEPT post-partisanship and Obama's brand of triangulation. Never.

And why would you when the Clintons' brand of triangulation has worked out so well for the party and the country?

[ Parent ]
Oh they will stand up (0.00 / 0)
against anyone who tries to move in a progressive direction. They only lay down for conservatives, the last forty years has taught us that.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
True enough (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, that's pretty much true.  Unless Obama's popular enough to force the uncooperative to make a choice between progressive legislation and looking for new work.  They're old whores but Congress is a pretty good gig and most of them won't be too keen on leaving.  Who knows?

That said, I do think Obama will be more useful and important for changing the political climate and de-vilifying liberalism than he will be for any actual huge changes in the lives of Americans.  If all goes well, though, he'll help change the political climate to one in which a more progressive President and Congress can get elected.

[ Parent ]
Clinton triangulated (4.00 / 4)
against a STRONG Republican Party. Obama triangulates against a seriously weakened one, probably the weakest we've seen in a generation.

I just don't get that.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
How little you know about politics (4.00 / 1)
It is different having a Republican president and a large enough Republican Senate than it is to have a workable Democratic majority in both the WH and in the Senate. It is much easier for congress to control a President of their own party than it is an opposition President willing to veto the oppositions bills and budgets.

And if you disliked Bill's triangulation you will just hate Obama's. At least Bill tried to keep his under the radar. Obama puts his out there in Neon Lights right up front. He openly taunts the Left. Bill never did that. he did things we did not like but he didn't taunt us or try to take away our money, voice, or respect.

And do you really think it would be wise for Obama to threaten the Democratic congresses electoral prospects? If he did that they would bury him and he'd be a one term president. They are not going to give up decades of power for a two term Senator. No way. You really do not understand how the world works do you? Obama steps out of line and he will not only have the GOP trying to sabotage him as they will anyway - he will have so many factions within the Democratic Party at his throat he won't know which way to turn.

Mr. Obama has some growing up and learning to do. he is already attacking 527's and the people behind them so he is starting to dig a hole for himself before he even takes office. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the Supers aren't taking note of that as we speak. We don't want a King.

[ Parent ]
I guess you have a list of principles you check each morning (4.00 / 3)
or maybe you are just angry because of something else. But I have never read an post that didn't have a kernel of something worth reading, but you're so hard to read as you grit your teeth, lean towards me and push a couple glasses off the table.

300 million people live here, a wild crazy mixup of Americans defining themselves as they will, with issues ranging from the right to carry rifles down the street to a range for practice to affirmative action, to safe neighbourhoods: with cultures as different as Sante Fe Mexicale Nouveau, to inner city fourth generation Jazz Musician to lumberjacks and rocket scientists. We have different priorities! Different politics. I get it, the Democratic Party Nominee is not as progressive as you are, in your analysis anyway. I get it. I dont know why that makes you so angry.

I for one am very pleased, we put on blindfolds and over a couple of million of us whipped up a candidate that will inspire popular involvement in politics for a generation.

When I look at what we created I can see painting outside the lines, I want bigger ears and a longer tie. But I feel the process was successful, I am calm at our chances for a centre left government, for a good long time, IF we work really hard together. Which means pulling together in close quarters.

I get it, unlike me, and possibly you, Obama is not perfect, I get it.  

I said this yesterday, which has some agreement with you, but which allows us to all pull together too:

Obama's advice (on funding ed.), and I use the word specifically, is not to centralize all power, but to have dominant control of his message during the election, because when he controls his message he wins. The fact that despite the feces storm he has suffered the last 3 to 4 weeks he has won against the most powerful Democratic Party political organization America has seen since ... who?, and he now, is actually also surging against McCain.

If I was Obama I would have great confidence in that, great confidence in my team, and a little trepidation about allowing others to 'help' him win.

I, would 'advise' you to keep funding the organizations that you support and I would hope that a huge effort would be made to not stomp Obama's message. I would hope and advise, that the funding of all the Donna Edwards running would be the main focus of progressive activists.

But organizing and funding the organizers who are working to create the best possible healthcare system, the strongest possible action against climate change, the end of mercenaries and war profiteers, the restoration of the constitution, the creation of a foreign policy based in the rule of law, treaties and international dignity, the end of torture and all the other vitally important changes we need, would continue.

Obama wants a huge mandate for the changes to come, rooted in dignity and American tradition, and he has shown he can create that mandate. I want that skill, his skill, that inspiration, that commitment, that heart to be speaking loudest too. But I don't want any reduction in our effort to create "more better dems".

I don't think that's an unprincipled position. Obama has caught America's imagination, not just her attention.

The one thing we want-- is Americans to want to be involved as citizens, the people to whom we are all responsible. Without that, without confidence and a fearless demand for their power to upheld as supreme we are just a single election cycle away form loosing everything. Passing a law is far far less important than empowering the electorate into demanding rights, democracy - demanding in. Even better recognizing that democracy means its their country, not exxon's not the house of saud, not the house of Cheney, not GE, not a selection of propagandists selected by the Pentagon.

And a final message point, the one single thing that opened the debate, that allowed us to question again as a culture not one or twelve brave souls on the corner, was a comedian, who through shared feeling and shared incredulous disbelief created room to question everything this cabal has brought about.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
I'm not angry (0.00 / 0)
Nor do I hate anyone as some have suggested.

I'm just passionate. I'm passionate about people politics that I disagree with.

[ Parent ]
t feels angry SIL (0.00 / 0)
But I admire passion. I am old enough to remember Dylan singing:
"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate,
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

Just caring is admirable, trying to figure the damn thiong out is damn admirable, knowing it matters is.

You have that much passion, but all you have have angrily told us is that Obama has flaws, and we'll be sorry. Im not sorry, If Obama turns out to be.... name your most disappointing Democratic President. Fine.

Its shouting at the wind, your passion to change the rules so we eliminate poverty, so we stop emitting carbon into our atmosphere, so we promote the rule of law, so we close Gitmo and add your extra list here. The real blood letting, life destroying things that we have to move on now.

I urge you to tackle a job, a blog and set of posts that move us forward now. Your passion is obvious, lets make this election the start of not eight years of Obama, but 16 of Obama and Edwards, then Fiengold to take us to 24 years, until Lincoln Chaffee beats us.

The point is being right its doing right.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
The point isnt being right, its doing right. (poster cant type to save the country) (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Right is in the (0.00 / 0)
eyes of the beholder.

I can't support post-partisanship for the many reasons I have given in my many posts here.

With post-partisanship we will be stuck in many ways in a Bush time warp. There will be very little moving forward.

[ Parent ]
Triangulation (4.00 / 3)
So you'd prefer the Clinton brand of triangulation better, I assume, given your history of hitting every thread here with anti-Obama pro-Hillary FUD?

The reason why Obama is better for progressives is fairly simple, and illustrated by the Cazayoux and Childers victories. Even though Obama is not himself a progressive, his popularity will get many OTHER progressives elected. And that's a good thing, because he's the nominee. Notice how WV didn't change anything? If that kind of election result didn't change the race, nothing will.

I think you need to look deeply into your knee-jerk reactions against Obama. He's an excellent candidate and a shoo-in in November, which doesn't mean he's perfect, but it does mean you'll be stuck with him. Don't exile yourself to the wilderness, but think about how you can use Obama, or his machine, to advance your own agenda. Being an anti-Obama Democrat now is like holding back a locomotive. If you get it in your head that in order for you to win, Obama has to lose, then you're not going to be happy in the end.

[ Parent ]
I'd say (4.00 / 2)
that Cazayoux and Childers got elected on their own merits. They would probably agree.

And yes i like Clinton better. At least she doesn't suck up to Republican ideas like Obama does. She has said she will fight Republicans form the beginning - Obama has said the opposite. now you may like sucking up to Republicans as he has - I don't. I'd say that puts me far more to the Left than you which is something I am proud of.

Support Obama? His machine? My agenda is not playing nice with Republicans who I know will not play nice. So I don't know how Obama can help me in that respect. He and I are polar opposites of each other when it comes to the Republican agenda. Again you may like sucking up to Republicans as he has - I don't.

There is no knee jerk reaction on my part. I figured Obama out long ago. I've seen other politicians and other people just like him in my lifetime. My reaction to him is well thought out. And now that I see him trying to reign control over everything around him I like him even less. We already had one egomaniac for eight years and I'll be damned if I will accept another. Fortunately I have great faith the the egomaniacs in congress will rein him in.

[ Parent ]
Figuring out? (4.00 / 1)
You can never "figure out" anyone you don't personally know.  You proceed on the notion that you can "figure out" things that nobody else here can.

Well, if you conclusively could figure things out, then you'd be able to persuade.  Yet I don't think you're achieving any persuasion here.

Funny that you think you've "figured out" Obama is an egomaniac....but you don't know that ALL politicians are.  That's fundamentally very naive.  It goes with the territory.  

[ Parent ]
What an example of conflicting (4.00 / 1)
statements you are.

So you area an Obama supporter right? Do you have him figured out? If not why are you voting for him. Do you always vote for someone who you haven't tried to figure out?

And if you do have him figured out - do you personally know him?

BTW in another post in this thread I called congressional politicians egomaniacs.

BTW,BTW - there is no persuading people who have already made up their minds. That is why companies spend so much building up brand names. That is why Obama has mostly offered a brand than actual policy and answers on how all he speaks of he is actually going to acheive.

But he certainly succeeded in 'selling' his brand. Problem is like most brands what you find in the box is not always what the label says it is outside.

[ Parent ]
He kick your dog or something? (0.00 / 0)
He's the nominee. What are you going to do? Vote McSame? Write in Clinton (who is no progressive)? Stay home?  
[ Parent ]
What do you mean, "my" nominee? (0.00 / 0)
I'm a racist, and Lord Kos has explained to me that my own candidate has no place in the Party, which means that I don't. Who am I to disagree?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
You're trapped and you don't know it (0.00 / 0)
so why are you posting here? and why are your views so out of the mainstream?  

You think you understand politics...but you're trapped in what you want politics to be.  Not what it is.  

[ Parent ]
Out of mainsteam?? (4.00 / 1)
you are kidding right?

Clinton has received almost half the popular vote in this race.

So what - your half is mainstream and the other half is not?

People like you are one on the reasons I won't vote for Obama besides Obama himself. People like you chase Clinton supporters away from voting for him.

[ Parent ]
I have no idea what Obama will do (0.00 / 0)
Let me add: I don't know ANY politician. I don't know what they'll do.  It's all faith. It's all guesswork.  On January 21, everything changes.  

You think you can predict the future.  

[ Parent ]
It's guess work for you (4.00 / 1)
But not for me. Humans actually have the ability to listen to people; watch them; understand their words; understand their double talk; understand how they say they will govern; access their past; etc...

And form intelligent impressions that are most often right.

[ Parent ]
Yes, Say It Loud (0.00 / 0)
is much smarter than any of us.  Just ask.  You obviously haven't been listening to HRC much, if you haven't heard any double talk from her.  First MI and Fl would not count, now they do.  Then small states didn't matter, now after WV they are HUGE.  I only wish there was a caucus left that she could win, wouldn't we all love to hear how big a win in an important state that would be.

Want to know how dumb and uninformed you are?  Just disagree with SAY IT LOUD, then you will truely know that the education you recieved was the worst the world could offer, because if you disagree with SAY IT LOUD, you must be uneducated, uninformed and just plain stupid.    

[ Parent ]
Some Republican Ideas Clinton likes (0.00 / 0)
You write: "At least she doesn't suck up to Republican ideas like Obama does."

1) Voting to give Bush and his Neo-Con Junta the "blank check" AUMF to invade and occupy Iraq.

2) Anti-flag burning laws

3) Concluding that John McCain is fit to be the Commander in Chief

4) A Gas Tax Holiday Scam

5) The notion that God has chosen some people to lead the rest of us.

6) Iran must be "obliterated"

7) Bill O'Rielly is a legitimate journalist

8) White people = hard-working Americans

9) Its OK to be anti-intellectual, as low as you can win the election.

Now, I ain't saying that Mr. Obama hasn't spoken approvingly of some GOP ideas, too, but clearly you were lying when you made the statement I re-posted at the outset of this response.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
and the NRCC .. (0.00 / 0)
and the Freedom's Watch .. tried to tie Childers to Obama .. and you saw the results .. so while Childers might have won vie his own doing .. the Rethugs tried to tar him and it didn't work ..  so please .. stop getting your hate on
[ Parent ]
Thanks for (0.00 / 0)
making my point. He did win on his own.
[ Parent ]
Hillary fight Republicans? (0.00 / 0)
I guess that's why she's on Fox News every day yukking it up with Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
There is a reason why he formed his own from scratch (4.00 / 4)
And that's because the current progressive online community - from Daily Kos on down - was NOT, repeat NOT on board the Obama train.

For the most part, we were on the Edwards train.  

I remember back, when Matt and Chris were over at MyDD, that any "gray" statement of Obama's was quickly jumped on, as a "matter of concern" for progressives.  

Most of the online netroots, for the most part, were taking potshots at Obama.

In this sense, Obama's accomplishments are even more extraordinary.  

He didn't have the Washington money powered networks - Clinton had those sewn up.

He didn't have the netroots behind him - Edwards had those sewn up.

So what did he do?  He and his team, took the lessons of the net, and built everything out from scratch.  Successfuly, after getting no help from the left, right, or center.

It's a big deal - and in Obama's position, I can understand why he would be asking 3rd party grounds not to give the to established netroots, that had been sniping at him, since the beginning. (Until Edwards, basically, dropped out.)

Now - do I like that?  No - I don't like that much concentratred power in one person's hands.  On the other hand, he's been effective, in a way that the netroots has not been.

Edwards hardly had the netroots sewn up (0.00 / 0)
He worked hard to get the netroots on his side and received decent support, but Obama always had plenty of netroots swooning even as he turned a cold shoulder, both in his broader worldview and in actual blogger outreach. If Obama had worked the netroots harder from December 2006 on, the situation may have been reversed.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
527s (0.00 / 0)
Seems to me that maybe the real reform we could make here would be to subject 527's to the very same caps and reporting requirements we subject campaigns to.  Limit all political organizations, candidate or otherwise to $2300-per-period contribution limits.  Or even $1000, if Obama wants to go that way.  It wouldn't neuter them because Obama donors who maxed out on him would presumably go to them.  MoveOn already raises a lot of small dollar contribs, so the biggest impact on them would be reporting.  It probably would kneecap Republican 527s, though. ;-)
transformational time (4.00 / 1)
It is a transformational time and we are lucky to be here. It is a brief moment in time, emerging from the wilderness. Enjoy! And stay alert. Let's hold him accountable, demand transparency, and beware of compromises but don't refuse to compromise.
hold him accountable!!! (4.00 / 3)
That's funny. How are you going to do that? Already he has not only paid no attention to the Left - he has actually distanced himself form the Left verbally on many occasions.

So why would he listen in the future? He won't.

That is why I LMAO that the blogs have thrown in with him. Why would anyone throw in with someone who does not recognize them and has dissed them. It is a very strange time in Democratic politics indeed.

[ Parent ]
because (0.00 / 0)
if he doesn't work well with the next Congress -- which will be a strongly Obama Congress given the electoral coattails he's going to hand them -- his entire agenda will fail. Remember he's going to be tackling all of the biggest issues the world faces now, with great risk of failure. He'll have the party consolidated behind him, but various internal coalitions (Blue Dogs, CBC, Out of Iraq) will not so easily step in line. Not to mention the Republicans, who will throw absolutely everything at him in order to do to him in '10 what they did to Clinton in '04 and Carter in '78. So yeah, he'll be plenty accountable. This campaign doesn't stop in November, in fact, it doesn't ever stop.
[ Parent ]
Coattails? (2.00 / 4)
Who will benefit - Republicans or Democrats?

You see Obama is throwing in with Republicans so how is he going to campaign against them and still sleep with them? It can't be done.

So in order to keep his coalition together he must remain neutral.

Besides if I was a swing voter who had voted for both parties in the past and I was looking at a Republican candidate why shouldn't I vote for them? You see Obama says it is OK to like Republican's and their ideas so why shouldn't the voter?

See the dilemma? Obama says IOKIYAR. That is what his entire platform is based on. Sweet huh?

[ Parent ]
You should try out for the Olympics (4.00 / 2)
Because you make astounding leaps.  Obama won't campaign against Republicans?  How do you know?  How do you know how "swing voters" vote?  How can you generalize so unbelievably broadly?

Why don't you just join the Greens?  Clearly, you're way, way out of the stream of thought of most movement D's on the web.

And I'm guessing you don't exactly win converts in person, either.  

Why the 382 daily posts?  What do you hope to accomplish or convince people of?  

[ Parent ]
You know what? (0.00 / 1)
I always imagined you as young. I always imagined you as not too politically savvy. And it is comments like the following that confirm it for me:

"How do you know how "swing voters" vote?"

WTF!!!!!

Do you even know what a swing voter is?

[ Parent ]
Say what? (4.00 / 1)
I don't remember Obama campaigning for the Republican candidates in the last three special elections. Did I miss something?

Your premise would be correct if the hypothetical Republican and Democratic candidates had identical positions on all of the issues. But I haven't run across an election where that is the case. So a swing voter is going to make up his/her mind the way they always have. Yelling at them that the Republican candidate is the devil incarnate isn't going to be that effective in changing their vote. And in the unlikely event this year where the Republican actually wins an election, there are going to be issues where you will need to work with them to get something you want passed.

You mistake Obama's unwillingness to demonize the people on the other side of the aisle and wanting to work with them on issues where's there's common ground with the triangulating that went on during the Clinton administration. You can work with Coburn on government transparancy or with Luger on arms control without agreeing with them on other issues. Those are examples where if all you were counting on were Democrats, you'd have failed. (Because some times, it's members of your own party that are the roadblocks. Just look at Rockefeller and the FISA renewal.)

[ Parent ]
Obama has never embraced (4.00 / 1)
elected Republicans, period.  You're full of it on that.  He's reaching out to Republican voters disillusioned with elected Republicans, and I have nothing wrong with that, so long as he doesn't dilute his policies.  I see no huge, damning evidence that he's done that, which must make it very easy for you to get creative and make things up.
[ Parent ]
Funny (0.00 / 0)
Funny coming from the guy who supports a woman who REFUSES to admit when she has been wrong (ala Bush) and can't even muster the guts Edwards has to apologize for that Bullshit AUMF vote.
[ Parent ]
Outside groups (0.00 / 0)
I don't understand how Obama is supposed to shut down outside groups. Donors aren't going to follow his orders not to give to them, assuming he gives such orders. And people who have already given $2300 to the Obama campaign but have more they'd like to give somewhere aren't going to just forget the idea.
The DNC, I bet (4.00 / 3)
My guess is he's recommending that donors give to the DNC. Once the election is over and Dean's term is over, Obama will be able to pick his successor and thus directly control the DNC, as he should. So giving to the DNC now is like giving to the future Obama machine. Not to mention that the DNC will be burning through every penny of that money between now and November.
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't worry about donors sidelining 3rd party groups forever (4.00 / 1)
Probably right now the big-money people are willing to defer to Obama because he's succeeding.  If he ceases to succeed, those folks will probably try something else to win elections.

I agree that a sudden consolidation of power is good reason for skepticism, no matter who's doing the consolidating.  On the other hand, wouldn't it be refreshing to see the Democratic Party run efficiently?

Thanks for covering this so extensively, please keep it up.

Isn't that part of the problem? (4.00 / 3)
If progressives in office cave, or if they start to fumble, they'll need either pressure or support from strong progressive institutions. Those institutions won't be very strong if they only start to get funding once progressive in power crumble or cave too much.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
Let's distinguish (4.00 / 2)
There's three kinds of 3rd party groups here:

1. permanent ones, like Sierra Club, PIRGs, NRDC, People for the American Way, MoveOn and so on
2. temporary ones like America Coming Together
3. temporary arms of permanent orgs, like the MoveOn GOTV efforts

My understanding is that categories 2 and 3 might lose out from Obama's efforts on this front, especially 2.  Which are debatable in their efficacy to begin with.

I wouldn't worry too much about category 1, they have institutionalized fundraising that lives without any particular candidate.

[ Parent ]
It;'s funny... (0.00 / 0)
But reading your post makes me think of Obama as Hugo Chavez.  A very, very watered down Hugo Chavez (not to mention totally different rhetoric), but the same basic mix of strong, legitimate beliefs and a desire to create all institutions anew and circumvent or ignore any existing coalitions.

Not meant as a slight against either one.  Thinking of Obama dressed up as a Bolavarist makes me laugh though.    

Mao? (0.00 / 0)
A couple of days ago I was thinking about how Obama could govern if he maintains these millions of supporters and keeps them engaged. It struck me as rather similar to Mao. He used his massive popularity among the grassroots to influence the bureaucracy from below. It was an odd kind of top-down grassroots synergy similar to what Obama may try.

While Mao was alive, this worked to prevent the sort of ossified bureaucratic system Stalin had built from taking hold, but as soon as he died that is what happened.

Any comparison like this is bound to be silly, but that is the one that comes to mind for me.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
True (0.00 / 0)
And like Chavez, Obama's control over his base is not total. He has a bully pulpit and the best channels of information, but as yet he's still leading a disparate alliance and can be pushed in one direction or another if elements of his coalition are prepared to make the effort.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
This makes sense if he's opting out for the GE (4.00 / 3)
By recommending people not contribute to 527 groups, it makes it easier for him to opt out of federal funding in the general election, especially if he caps donations. He'll be able to say that he's reducing the influence of groups that have very little transparency with regards to donors while at the same time, getting relatively small donations from millions of people. In that sense, it will be a 'publically' funded campaign.

Additionally, in 2004 Kerry had to rely upon 527 groups to fight back since he was limited in his funds. And since the outside groups couldn't coordinate their message with the Kerry campaign, the response wasn't as effective as it could (or should) have been. If you're not constricted by funds, it makes it easier to ensure your message is consistent.

Could be a deal with McCain (0.00 / 0)
Both of these men seem to genuinely not like 527s.  Of course, they like winning at least as much, but I can imagine them both trying to take a stand by sidelining 527s.  Of course, the game theorist in me understands that each would love to say this publicly while privately egging on anything that helps the effort.  And McCain probably is waiting to slap Obama hard on the federal financing issue.  

Even if not a deal, I agree it's a way for Obama to hang on to the goo-goo mantle without forswearing his hard earned dough.

[ Parent ]
I Agree with Mike Lux (4.00 / 1)
Obama is clearly much, much more progressive than Bush and the right-wing Republicans. But on many issues, he appears more centrist than progressive.

And even if he were the most progressive leader around, it is still always a bad idea to have the movement dependent on a few people who can get sick or be co-opted or assassinated. One of the main things I learned from the 60s is that we need a very broad, diverse movement with many leaders and many separate support infrastructures who all work together, but who also challenge each other (in constructive ways) and hold each other accountable. Multiple structures are inefficient in some ways, but redundancy provides great resiliency in the face of attack.

Also, we always need to be encouraging and developing leadership among every person in the movement. Democracy can only work when people are knowledgeable and active. Democracy is not a spectator sport. A real movement must have millions of people actively working for positive change.

Here is an annotated list of 500 Leading Progressive Organizations that work at a national level. In a big election year like this, these groups will find it difficult to raise funds. So please, choose a few that are doing good work and send them some money. And please spend some of your time encouraging and supporting local progressive organizations and helping develop grassroots leadership. We are the ones we've been waiting for to build the progressive movement.

Regarding Connerly's quote: (4.00 / 1)
Sen. Obama probably has a bigger "youth" list than all the youth vote and youth policy organizations out there combined. What does he plan to do with it after election day - win or lose? How will he keep his Millennial Movement engaged in effective action beyond his election towards the accomplishment of real progressive policy goals? We have no idea because his campaign won't tell us.

My guess is that Obama's campaign isn't telling because they have no idea what they're going to do with the lists after the election.  They're probably focused exclusively on winning the election (and probably they should be).  So I would think that it might be extremely helpful for us to lay out a vision of what we think Obama should do with the lists & movement, and to come up with arguments for why he should do so in order to promote his own values.  

At least you have faith in a win... (4.00 / 1)
Jerome seems ready to slit his wrist.  TO read him, we are going to lose the White House big in November.  It amazes me someone that smart is acting like that... Its as if Obama personally wronged him in some way.
Could be (0.00 / 0)
Depends on whether Jerome takes false charges of racism, rampant misogyny, and disenfranchising two states personally. Me, I think it's just business, but YMMV.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
It's a Club (4.00 / 1)
And not so much a club as in a social organization, as in something to beat recalcitrant Congress-critters over the head with.

The reason the GOP has been able to stonewall so effectively is that they don't dare break ranks.  If they do, they get primaried or thrown to the wolves.  So you can't split off enough votes to get compromise legislation passed unless you compromise by capitulation.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are all over the map, with each caucus and each member setting their own agenda.  Even on really important stuff like FISA, there's always a few that can be brought over to the GOP's side because their own constituency doesn't care.  So the CBC sucked down telecom cash and voted with the GOP on the immunity.

Until Wynn got primaried.  That put the fear into them, and let the House leadership stop immunity from getting rammed through.

Obama is building an organization that can act as both carrot and stick.  Toe the party line, and you get support, help the GOP defy the leadership and you're going to get smacked.

Something like this was neccessary.  And frankly, I'd be more worried if Obama did look like a progressive ideologue.

Well, we agree then (0.00 / 0)
Obama's not a progressive -- as throwing universal health care under the bus should tell anyone.

Tell me again why I should give him my vote? Seems to me we've been down the road of "He can a great campaign so he can govern" before, and in the not too distant past.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Most Dem Politicians Create their own Networks (4.00 / 1)
The Democratic Party is often bypassed by the candidates as they run for office using their own fundraising skills, their own mailing lists, their own issues, their own platform, and their own paybacks. I'm not saying the party is meaningless, but look at how Hillary Clinton was supposed to win based on all the long-term favors outstanding from 10 years ago. Also, look how Dean was criticized for attempting to build a better power-base for the Party through the 50-state program at the DNC.

Ironically, G. Bush seems to represent the Republican Party pretty well, using it as much as it uses him. But, the GOP has consistently been much better integrated with movement Conservatism, as well as all the various factions of Conservatives, neo, theo, crypto, libertarian, etc.

As for the Progressive wing of the Democrats, we may have minimal direct influence over Obama, but I'm not willing to write off indirect influence. If we put MoveOn, the Progressive Blogs, the budding network of Progressive think tanks together, we add up to a lot of people. At a minimum we are beginning to serve as a counterweight to the [paul]M$M[/paul].

The important progressive thing is "More and Better Democrats"

As the GOP weakens, power and money will start flowing to the Democrats, but that will include a lot of Conservative influence and corporate lobbyists. Obama will need votes in Congress for his policies, and it will be interesting to see how he negotiates with or is pressured by the Democratically dominated Congress. We have an interesting balance of power: let's approximately label it 1/3 Republicans, 1/3 Conservative Dems, and 1/3 Liberal Dems.  What proportion of Congress should we call "Obama" Dems?

If we want to win legislation on progressive politics, we need a lot more Better Dems. So we have our work cut out for us, no matter what Obama does or doesn't do.

What happens if Obama offers candidates around the country to grab onto his coattails, and then aids them with endorsements and his awesome Internet and field machine?

It seems like only yesterday (0.00 / 0)
that Obama and his surrogates were furious over the undemocratic and partisan arm-twisting by a handful of big Clinton donors who threated Nancy Pelosi with withholding donations to Democratic causes.  This was naked extortion by the evil Clinton machine, and a threat to party cohesion.  Most of all, it was the "old politics" that change agents all despise.

Today, when Obama "suggests" that donors no longer fund "outside" groups (most of them, oddly, associated with Clinton), forward-thinking agents of change see a  unifying "consolidation" of the party, to place "the Obama campaign and administration ... into a Google-like center of immense political and administrative power."  After all, Obama "owns" the party now.  He can do what he wants with it.  This is the new politics that we all love and cherish and the fulfilment of promises of hope and change.

I learn more about new politics every day.

How does it feel to be "owned", then? (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure I like it that much....

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
Omelettes and Eggs (0.00 / 0)
We've been bitching for years that somebody needed to take the corporate-funded political structure and blow it wide open.  This is what that looks like.

The old game was rigged.  So, since we've got an opportunity to burn it down and start from scratch, let's take it.

[ Parent ]
Robespierre (0.00 / 0)
didn't make very tasty omelettes.

[ Parent ]
A tisket, a tasket.... (0.00 / 0)
I don't think anyone is going to get lined up against the wall.  I can think of a few I wouldn't mind seeing there, but that's not where we're headed.
[ Parent ]
Taking the Chicago Machine national (0.00 / 0)
Eventually all power, money, jobs, benefits will flow from Obama, the new boss of the i-patronage machine.  No one can complain or criticize or they will be cut out.  
Reactions to Obama's Consolidation of the Party | 63 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox