There has been a lot of negative commentary, both in the traditional media and the blogs, about Obama's appearance at the Saddleback Church. Some didn't see the point of him going to a stacked forum, some didn't think he did very well overall, some were critical in both regards. While I didn't think he was as sharp as he could have been in terms of his performance, I think there were some very good things about him going to Saddleback. A couple of points on this:
A couple of things from the past few days have caught my eye from Obama world, both of which struck me as really good signs in terms of how the campaign is thinking, at least in some aspects of their operations:
I noted that Greg Sargent mentioned me among several others because I joined the Facebook group opposing Bayh for the Vice Presidential nomination (now up to over 3,200 members). I hadn't been planning on writing on this topic because many others have been doing a good job of it, and because on most things like this my preferred mode is to communicate my views privately to my friends inside the campaign, which I've already done. But since I've been outed, I thought I'd write a quick post as to why I joined the group.
I read Matt's post here with a lot of interest because I think he represents how a fair number of activists are feeling right now. I thought it was important to lay out some thoughts on the relations between the Obama campaign and progressive activists, and try to encourage some dialogue from both sides.
There has already been mountains of material written about the politics of race in this campaign, and there will be mountains more before it is through (and, for that matter, in the months after no matter what the result), but the latest back and forth has stirred me to weigh in. Having grown up in a working class neighborhood in the Midwest, and spent years talking politics in the labor halls and bars of Iowa, I have lots of thoughts about the working class white folks of middle America that McCain is targeting with this bullshit.
Having not been impressed with the hilarity of their satirical cover, I hadn't bothered to read the actual New Yorker story on Obama that was inside, but a colleague thought it was interesting and gave me a copy to read. And, you know, the story inside was in some ways stupider than the cover itself.
I have a real problem. I have all these great ideas for posts (at least, I think so) and no damn time to write them. The last few months before a Presidential year general election are always really intense, and this year I'm writing a book and helping launch the big new health care coalition, too, so I am completely crazed. Apologies for not writing much lately.
I wanted to take a moment to reflect on the idea of building a bigger movement.
Every two years, after the election is over, Democrats have a big debate, but they take two different forms. If we lose, it's a debate why we lost, with the DLC and their allies always arguing, without fail, whether there is a single bit of data to back them up, that it's because Democrats went too left and too populist. If we win, it's a debate over what to do with our victory, with the DLC-style Democrats warning vigorously against over-reaching, and cautioning Democrats to be slow, careful, and incremental in whatever policy changes they pursue.
If, as seems quite possible (I'm too superstitious to say likely) today, Obama wins and Democrats pick up several seats in both the House and Senate, the debate over what to do with the victory will be joined especially fiercely. For the first time in sixteen years, and the only time over almost three decades, Democrats would control the Presidency and both the House and the Senate by significant margins. With a new President having run on the themes of hope and change, the expectations among the public for real change will be sky-high.
That's why this debate will be so crucial. Establishment insiders, and their cynical allies in the media, will be doing everything possible to stamp out the flames of hope and change, but the public will be expecting our party to step up to the plate and actually deliver the goods. Insiders will be yammering on about filibusters and bureaucracy and Obama's inexperience and committee jurisdictional battles, and how hard it is to get things done. And Democrats' "wise men" will be counseling Democrats to not over-reach, take your time, don't do anything too fast, don't do anything too big or bold or dramatic.
Given the size of our problems heading straight at us down the highway like a Mack truck, and the expectations of the general public, Obama and Democratic leaders need to be bold and big in their approach. The don't over-reach Democrats are going to start their calls for caution immediately- I would predict an op-ed in the Washington Post will appear on November 6th, the Thursday after the election, from Al From or Bruce Reed or Joe Klein or David Broder, or maybe from all of them, advising Democrats to be very slow and careful and bipartisan in their approach to issues. We in the progressive movement need to be ready, assuming such a wonderful Election Day comes as we hope, to immediately and vigorously engage the debate as to why we need big change, not the politics of caution.
Lost in the hubbub of Obama doing lots of things that irritate progressives in recent days are two very significant pieces of good news about the potential of an Obama Presidency:
I think I need to take some of my own advice about understanding the different roles that various folks are going to play. Or perhaps I should, in the words of the classic line from Desperately Seeking Susan, "Just take a valium like a normal person."
I get very worked up in Presidential election years. Once every four years, the country makes a determination as to whether I have hope (not a sure thing, not a done deal, not an easy ride, but at least some hope) for moving forward and making progress on the burning issues I care about, or whether for the next four years I have to spend all my time in defense mode, hoping that the next Republican President won't succeed at utterly shredding the Constitution, won't get us into WWIII, and won't let another four dangerous years pass by with no real progress on the climate change that is cooking the planet. And I know all too well that even if we stave off utter disaster under a Republican President for another four years, that there is no hope that anything positive will happen on making the economy healthier, or getting universal health care, or bringing more people out of poverty, or any of the other issues I care the most about.
Because I get so worked up, I go very much into war mode, and get obsessed about winning the election. I generally spend the other 43 out of every 48 months focused on a wide variety of fronts- media work, organization building, grassroots organizing, Senate/House/state leg races, etc.- that I think will help build the broader progressive infrastructure, but in these last five months I tend to get very, very focused.
In that kind of war mode, I am very focused on the whole winning and losing thing. I never assume that any lead is safe (I've seen plenty of them slip away over the years), and never want anything to happen that helps the Republican or hurts the Democrat. I consider myself on the Democratic candidate's team, whether I'm on their campaign staff directly or not, and I'm ready to go to war with anyone attacking my team, from whatever angle, for whatever reason. That's why I have been getting so testy at progressives attacking Obama and his campaign team right now.
It's also why I don't get too worked up about Obama tacking right as a campaign strategy. As I've written, I don't think it's necessarily the best strategy, but it's not surprising to me and I don't think it's disastrous. It's the conventional strategy in a Presidential - the strategy that the overwhelming majority of general election candidates of both parties in American history have done throughout the years. Frankly, for them to do anything else would have been pretty surprising.
So if I get testy between now and Election Day with my fellow OpenLefties, forgive me. My first instinct is always going to be to attack anyone who attacks my team. I will try to remain philosophical, understanding that people have different roles to play (unless of course I think someone is actually doing real damage to Obama's chances- then watch out...).
I know that we are all going to get irritated with each other these next few months. I will try to stay calm, and hope that those with a different mindset will be understanding of where I am coming from as well.
Warning: this is one of those brutally frank posts that may well piss you off. Sorry about that
Having been trained by an associate of Saul Alinsky when I was still in high school, I have always had strong views about what it means to hold politicians accountable (I've written about holding Presidents accountable in the past here). I have a very different perspective on the matter than Matt Stoller and many of my friends in the netroots. (I hope we'll still be friends after I put this post up.)
Although I am a big believer in the 50-state strategy and generally spreading the map, for many years now I have been consulting for some Democratic donors and progressive groups on how to maximize their political resources, so I have a tradition of creating a top 10 list of states for maximum investment in state parties, outside efforts, and campaigns in these states. I factor in the following things to my ratings:
• Presidential race importance (I factor this in even in the off-years, but obviously it gets maximum rating points in a Presidential election year)
• Competitive Senate races
• Competitive House races
• Competitive Governor races
• Competitiveness in terms of control in state legislative chambers
• Whether Secretary of State and other election administration officials are friendly, whether they are on the ballot
• Strength of state party
• Strength of outside organizational efforts I am aware of
• Relative costs of campaigning in the state (weighting inexpensive states a little higher because of the bang-for-the-buck factor)
• Ballot initiatives/referenda on the ballot in the cycle
I generally think Chris Bowers' analyses are spot-on accurate, but there have been a couple of things lately I need to quibble with. One is his dismissal of the possibility of Scott Kleeb winning in Nebraska. I disagree with that strongly, and will do a post as to why sometime very soon. The other is his post on Obama's first general election ad, which is the topic of this piece.
I will start by admitting that I might well have been confused by some of his fundamental points, but rather than just ask him privately about what he meant, I thought it would be worthwhile to go ahead and have an open debate here on OpenLeft. So Chris, if I'm misinterpreting your arguments, feel free to push back at me.
What I found troubling was that many of the phrases Chris referenced as conservative frames were in my view very appealing phrases that have been hijacked by conservatives. Here are the phrases Chris listed as "conservative frame" phrases:
Now that, as expected, Obama got a little bit of a bump from the primary fight being over and the Hillary endorsement, he seems to have established a small lead in the 2- to 6-point range, depending on the poll. While I am pleased that Obama has the lead, I have to admit that this gives me a new worry, which is that the campaign will get too cautious; Democratic Presidential campaigns have a history when they get a lead of starting to get cautious. It happened to the Kerry campaign when they got a small lead in the spring of 2004; it happened to the Gore campaign when they opened up a lead after the 2000 convention; it happened to the Clinton campaign/White House in 1996 when they opened up a big early lead on Dole, which had less disastrous consequences for Clinton himself, but certainly hurt the Democratic drive to retake the House; it happened to Dukakis is 1988; going way back, it even happened to Carter in 1976 as an early lead of more than 20 points shrunk to a 2-point margin in the final tally.
As I have written in the past, caution seems to be endemic to the last couple of generations of Democratic politicians, and it is natural for a campaign with a lead to want to be careful about making mistakes that blow that lead. I would argue, though, that the biggest mistake we could make this year is one of caution. Here's my thinking:
1. What got Obama this far is that he was the change candidate. If he gets too cautious in his policy and his campaign strategy that makes him look like a typical politician. The more Obama looks like a typical politician, the more a comfortable old brand name like McCain looks appealing: experienced, independent, a maverick who will challenge both parties, a war hero who's been serving his country since before Obama was born. In a conventional game with two candidates who seem like conventional politicians, that McCain brand starts to sound pretty good.
2. The electoral college math also trends toward McCain in a conventional game. Even with a narrow lead in the national popular vote, Kerry states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire are big challenges to win, and none of the Bush states that seem most likely (except maybe Iowa)-Ohio, Virginia, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada-are easy at all. If Pawlenty is on the ticket, that makes Minnesota tough. It is only when Obama is making major gains in the overall vote, or when he is challenging the traditional voting patterns, that this race goes from being a tough-to-win nail-biter to a solid victory. It is hard to make those kinds of gains, or challenge those traditional voting patterns, without having a bold, risk-taking candidacy.
3. The change Obama is promising is not going to come with squeaking out a narrow Presidential win and only picking up a couple more seats in the Senate and House. If in this year of overwhelming Democratic Party brand advantage, we only squeak by with a narrow win, it's not going to give the big change agenda Obama is promising much momentum. And with the mood of the public, and the big problems there at our doorstep, if Obama doesn't deliver on his big change promises, there will be massive hell to pay for the Democrats in 2010 and 2012.
So what do I mean by being bold instead of cautious? I am talking about a campaign mindset that rejects the conventional wisdom both in terms of policy and tactics. Obama should push McCain hard on the policy debate, propose big policy changes on multiple fronts, push the ideological advantage we now have aggressively, and force McCain to react to their agenda. And on tactics, think big and gutsy as well. Spend real time and resources in states like North Dakota, Montana, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Call for nationwide days of action by supporters on key issues. Hold web-connected rallies and events all over the country on the same day. Genuinely deal with McCain on a negotiated series of unusually formatted debates and town halls. Give speeches in front of hostile audiences. Run ads that have edge to them, that don't look like every other political ad.
Let's make the campaign-the issues Obama presses forward, the events and tactics and speeches Obama does-be as exciting and different as the country wants the new President to be. We can win this election by a landslide if we don't get cautious and start playing prevent defense.
I was going to stay out of the VP debates, because as I mentioned the other day the formula for getting it right is really complex, and I could easily make a case pro and con for a bunch of different folks. But because it is all everyone wants to talk about in DC these days, I have continued to think about it as I have listened to everyone's arguments and counter-arguments, and I have decided that I do indeed have a favorite. Since I know all of you are just dying to know what I think (okay, maybe not, but what the hell), here's my argument.
STATE BLOGS
