July 14, 2008, 7:25 a.m.
Now that the 2008 general election for president appears to be taking on the qualities of a conventional, "old politics" contest, modeled on the ones in 2000 and 2004, barring some dramatic turn of events I think I've said everything I have to say about it. I'm really sorry it's turned out the way it has, but that's the reality, and so now there's little left but to watch it run its course.
The blog will continue, but after today my daily comments about the candidates and their strategies and fund raising will not. (See links to prior political blog entries, below.)
Senator Barack Obama may think the Second Amendment forbids the Washington, D.C.'s, efforts to reduce handgun deaths, but the only thing he's shot so far is his own foot. Suzanne Goldenberg and Elana Schor, "Obama supports supreme court reversal of gun ban; Candidate's stance at odds with former position," The Guardian, June 27, 2008 ("In the latest in a series of policy reversals for the Democratic presidential candidate, Obama came out in support of yesterday's supreme court decision overturning a gun ban in the city of Washington that had been a model for fighting urban crime.").
I'm not going to say "I told you so" in the offensive, colloquial sense, because (1) I may be (and may have been) wrong, and (2) many others were making the same observations and providing the same advice I was during the last three weeks.
But I will note my earlier predictions that Senator Obama's change of heart, mind, and brand would prove to be a very serious strategic error (in addition to whatever else one might say about its ethics and what was owed to those who gained the nomination for him).
As I wrote last March, in comparing the range of experience of Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama -- that is to say, the breadth of experience, relevant to the presidency, that might warrant a candidate campaigning on the assertion that they were more qualified than their opponents:
None has served as mayor or governor; none has headed a cabinet department; none has helped administer the Pentagon or CIA; none has worked for international organizations, been ambassador to the United Nations or a foreign country; none has been a union officer or corporate CEO. None has headed delegations negotiating with foreign governments over trade agreements, release of hostages or treaties.
Each has the “legislative experience” of making speeches and signing bills, though none as House speaker or Senate leader. McCain has 25 years in the U.S. House and Senate, Obama 12 years in the Illinois and U.S. senates and Clinton the least with eight years in the U.S. Senate.
Nicholas Johnson, Politics: Assessing Candidates' 'Experience,'" The Gazette, March 30, 2008, p. A9, in "Gazette Op Ed: Candidates' 'Experience,'" March 30, 2008. (For contrast, consider the breadth of experience of, say, President George H.W. Bush, or Governor Bill Richardson.)
In short, if Senator Obama is to win in November, his advantage, his potential winning "brand," must be found elsewhere than in his "experience," his "record" -- as commendable as they may be. Senator McCain's experience that is relevant to the presidency, as I wrote earlier, is not that much better -- it's virtually all legislative. But it spans more years, and he does have that military hero's aura as a POW, did have a bit of administrative experience as a squadron commander, and he's older -- so many voters would probably give him the nod on the experience factor (whether warranted or not).
Sadly, Obama did once have the advantage in the form of a unique and winning "brand" -- not just "change," but change "we can believe in," hope, a willingness to "turn the page," to take our government back from the lobbyists and special interests, a real concern for the poor, working class and middle class.
His Web site still leads with the quote, "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."
It was a winning brand. It enabled him to amass millions of dollars in contributions from 1.6 million supporters, and the volunteer hours, enthusiasm, and primary votes of millions more. What is more, it enabled him to win the nomination over eight very attractive and worthy competitors -- most especially, in Senator Hillary Clinton (Obama's last standing competitor), one of the most powerful, well-connected, and well-funded political organizations in the United States in recent years.
Having become the "presumptive nominee" the first week of June, prior to the Democratic National Convention actually nominating him in August, he switched into "general election" mode. He and his advisers apparently drank the inside-the-beltway Kool Aid that presumes Democrats must reverse field on some positions (e.g., public financing of campaigns, FISA and telephone company immunity (i.e., "terrorism" and fear), and The War), bring some others out of the closet (e.g., gun ownership, death penalty, federal funding of religions engaged in community programs), and be seen to be publicly turning his back on his "liberal/progressive" enthusiastic supporters and some portions of the African-American community.
It's not where he is now; it's where he is compared with where he should be that is troubling.
This year should be the Democrats' year -- from the courthouse to the White House.
Democrats have an almost unprecedented 10-point lead among voters who claim affiliation with the Democratic Party compared with those who are card-carrying Republicans. Something like 70% of the American people are other than registered Republicans.
President Bush now has the highest disapproval ratings of any president in American history.
Something like 80% of the people think the country is going in the wrong direction. Gasoline prices are over $4.00 a gallon and seemingly headed north -- inflating the prices of every product dependent on transportation. The War in Afghanistan is going even worse than the War in Iraq. Our balance of trade deficit approaches one trillion dollars a year -- in part because the dollar is now worth one-half to two-thirds of what it once was. And this week we learn that we've just had the second largest bank collapse in history, along with "financial troubles" with the two organizations that, between them, hold $5 trillion in (one-half of all) U.S. mortgages and have just seen a 50% drop in their stock prices.
All of which, politically, helps the Democrats even more (as a McCain spokesperson noted another terrorist attack would help McCain) as voters think Democrats can do a better job with the economy than Republicans. Since one of the consequences of permitting financial institutions to reach such size is that we can't permit them to go belly up, the likelihood is that this "little problem" will ultimately be "solved" by adding more trillions to the $40 trillion in unfunded future obligations our government has already created for our great-grandchildren.
Not only has Senator Obama had the fact that he is a Democrat going for him, his branding in the primary resulted in his stunning 48-to-36 percent lead over McCain among independents (whose past reputation as a maverick formerly made McCain popular with independents).
Switching brands.
When Obama's formerly enthusiastic young supporters became bitter as he "turned the page" back to the old politics he'd promised he'd change, he dismissed them with a casual "you just haven't been listening."
It turned out that they had been listening, and so had the rest of the American people -- 53% of whom now believe that he's just another old-style politician who not only did change positions, but did so merely to "gain political advantage."
The result is that, at this point in the campaign, he has deliberately demolished his old, quite dramatically successful brand, and put nothing in its place, by adopting the losing strategies of Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.
The high cost of switching brands.
As a result (or at a minimum, at least in part as a result) of what I have earlier characterized as this strategic error, Obama's one-time 15% lead over McCain has now shrunk to 3%.
In June Obama had the support of independents, by a staggering 48-to-36 percent; today McCain has their votes, by a nearly reversed 41-to-34 percent.
Contributions to Senator Obama's campaign have dropped month by month February through May: from $55 million in February, to $41, $31, and $22 million in May. Now he's acknowledging he wants nearly a half-billion-dollars by election day, and is turning to $30,000-a-plate dinners and those who can "bundle" $250,000 each from their wealthy friends. This from a candidate who based his primary campaign, in part, on the boast of a dramatic use of the Internet to fund politics, getting away from the control by lobbyists, PACs, and special interests -- and the proportion of his funds coming from those giving $200 or less. This from the candidate who promised to control extravagant campaign spending by funding his general election campaign with the $85 million in public financing -- and then "changed his mind." -- thereby further contributing to the public perception that his "new-style politics" was coming to look more and more like the "old-style politics." See, Nicholas Johnson, "The Money Game -- And Rove's Advice for Obama," July 11, 2008.
Can Senator Obama recover from these self-inflicted wounds? Probably not completely, even under the best of circumstances. Even the most idealistic voters have by now learned the line, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Whatever one may think of Karl Rove, it's difficult to argue with his political savvy or his observation that, in politics, "A candidate's credibility, once lost, is very hard to restore, regardless of how fine an organization he has built." (Quoted in Nicholas Johnson, "The Money Game -- And Rove's Advice for Obama," July 11, 2008.)
Here's the Newsweek report, followed by "Obama's Other Problems" and some additional data regarding the American electorate.
A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama's glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month's NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.
Obama's rapid drop comes at a strategically challenging moment for the Democratic candidate. Having vanquished Hillary Clinton in early June, Obama quickly went about repositioning himself for a general-election audience--an unpleasant task for any nominee emerging from the pander-heavy primary contests and particularly for a candidate who'd slogged through a vigorous primary challenge in most every contest from January until June. Obama's reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.
More seriously, some Obama supporters worry that the spectacle of their candidate eagerly embracing his old rival, Hillary Clinton, and traveling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics. This is a major concern since Obama's outsider credentials, have, in the past, played a large part in his appeal to moderate, swing voters. In the new poll, McCain leads Obama among independents 41 percent to 34 percent, with 25 percent favoring neither candidate. In June's NEWSWEEK Poll, Obama bested McCain among independent voters, 48 percent to 36 percent.
Jonathan Darman, "Newsweek Poll: Obama, McCain in Statistical Dead Heat; Campaign 2008: Glow Fading?; The latest Newsweek Poll shows Barack Obama leading John McCain by only 3 points. What a difference a few weeks can make," Newsweek, July 11, 2008
Obama's Other Problems
Nor does Obama have an edge over McCain in favorable-unfavorable ratings. The author notes, "McCain's biography still appears to be his greatest asset, with 55 percent of voters saying they have a favorable opinion of the Arizona senator, compared to 32 percent who have an unfavorable opinion. (Obama's favorable/unfavorable gap is virtually identical at 56 to 32.)"
Senator McCain now has a 12-point lead with whites. Among Senator Clinton's supporters 30% are unwilling to say they'll support Obama. He never has, so far, done all that well with working class/high school-educated voters, or older women. And whatever else may be said of Jesse Jackson's inappropriate "off-mike" remarks last week, they do represent some disaffection among others in the African-American community as well.
The "FISA blog" on Obama's Web site has 23,000+ members -- clearly the largest -- and most of the comments range from disappointment, through a sense of betrayal, to real anger. And those enthusiastic youthful, first-time-voters who got him the nomination were something considerably more than just general election voters; they were the folks who would have been manning the phone banks, walking door-to-door, and otherwise spreading their enthusiasm. Casting them aside ("throwing them under the bus" as the current expression has it) was not a very smart move -- at least not until he can find an alternative source of equivalent energy.
Clearly, we still suffer under some vestiges of racism in America -- as virtually any African-American can confirm for you based on their own experiences. Polls can go only so far in predicting what voters will do with a secret ballot inside the voting booth on election day. But Geraldine Ferraro's views aside (she was quoted as saying Obama would not have been a serious candidate had he been white), there will be some who will vote against him because of his race(s).
Moreover, there are those who emphasize his middle name ("Hussein"), believe he is a Muslim, was sworn in on the Koran, educated in a madrasah, and uses a terrorist knuckle-greeting with his wife -- none of which is true, of course (except for his name).
The New Yorker hasn't helped on this one with its latest cover.
Among the sophisticated elites who write and read The New Yorker this may be seen as hilarious humor because of the contrast between the truth and the extremes to which political campaigns -- and ignorance -- can carry some Americans.
But insofar as pictures can re-enforce perceptions, even when known to be false, showing Michelle as a terrorist, Barack as a Muslim, Osama's picture on the wall of the Oval Office, and an American flag burning in the office fire place on the cover of one of America's most prestigeous publications has to rank as one of the magazine's more outrageous errors in judgment (at best).
Additional Supporting Sources and Voter Data
Rasmussen Reports' "Summary of Party Affiliation" indicates that the Democrats' margin of voters' affiliation over that of the Republicans from 2004 through the first half of 2006 has usually been in the range of 2-3%. But for June 2008 the figures were 31.5% affiliated Republican, 41.0% Democrat, and 27.5% independent -- a 9.5% margin for the Democrats. "Summary of Party Affiliation," Rasmussen Reports, July 1, 2008. And see, "Partisan Trends: Democrats Retain Huge Party ID Advantage," Rasumussen Reports, July 2, 2008.
Kelly Holder, "Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2004," U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Reports,", March 2006, goes into considerable detail about voter preferences among a number of demographic groups in terms of number of Americans over 18, number who are citizens, number who bother to register, and of those the number who bother to vote, along with the reasons given for not voting.
The source for President Bush's unpopularity is the following:
WASHINGTON DC (CNN) -- A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president.
"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup Poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.
"Bush's approval rating, which stands at 28 percent in our new poll, remains better than the all-time lows set by Harry Truman and Richard Nixon [22 percent and 24 percent, respectively], but even those two presidents never got a disapproval rating in the 70s," Holland said. "The previous all-time record in CNN or Gallup polling was set by Truman, 67 percent disapproval in January 1952."
Paul Steinhauser, "Poll: More Disapprove of Bush Than Any Other President," CNN Election Center 2008, May 1, 2008
_______________
Here are links to recent, related blog entries:
Nicholas Johnson, "Change We Can No Longer Believe In," June 22, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Holding Obama's Feet to the Fireside Chat," June 24, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "The Bundling Business," June 26, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Will the Real Obama Stand Up -- For Us?" June 27, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Pragmatic Idealism," June 28, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Geometry: Triangulation," June 30, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Move to Right Shows Self-Defeating Weakness," July 1, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Telephone Switch," July 3, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "'Producing' a President," July 5, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Request for Response: Your Reaction to 'Move to Center,'" July 7, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama Doesn't Get It," July 9, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Where Have You Gone Barack Obama?" July 10, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "The Money Game -- And Rove's Advice for Obama," July 11, 2008.
# # #
July 10, 2008, 6:25 a.m.
Links to prior, related blog entries on this subject can be found at the bottom of this entry.
Eric Lichtblau, "Senate Approves Bill to Broaden Wiretap Powers," New York Times, July 10, 2008 ("[In] the end Mr. Bush won out, as [the FISA bill] . . . included almost all the major elements the White House wanted. . . . [Senator Obama] had long opposed giving legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in the N.S.A.’s wiretapping program, even threatening a filibuster during his run for the nomination. But on Wednesday, he ended up voting for [the bill].")
And for balance, see Gail Collins, "The Audacity of Listening," New York Times, July 10, 2008.
Just What Has Happened to Senator Obama?
What is Obama doing to himself, his campaign, and his one-time enthusiastic, hopeful young supporters -- and why? And what options do his disaffected former supporters now have?
Seemingly everyone's asking, and it's coming at me from all directions -- the chattering classes on cable, the newspaper stories in hard copy and online, the blogs (especially the comments in the FISA one on the Obama campaign Web site), comments on this blog, conversations with friends -- and personal emails. Here are excerpts from a couple from my inbox this morning.
One speculates the problem may be a switch in campaign staff since the primary:
What in heavens name is that man thinking? He should have gone on a two- or three-week vacation after the primary, is my diagnosis. OR: he needs all new campaign-gurus: almost every wrong turn taken since the primary, good Lord! (All the while, McC campaign ads on local TV ALL the time, and most of them are actually pretty solid—at least before I hit the mute!). Aside from the craziness of all his switches, they’re just so DUMB! I don’t get it—his intelligence was supposed to be one of his greatest virtues. I’m just glad I was for Biden so I don’t feel guilty or even more sunk than I do!
Another finds the Obama saga the only additional evidence anyone should need as to why the two party system has failed ordinary Americans, will continue to do so, and should therefore lead a rational voter to find a third party. Those who trust the two parties promises of "change" every four years, after repeatedly experiencing their failure to deliver, are no better than Charlie Brown relying on Lucy to hold the football:
If Obama doesn't change course immediately, it will be McCain's election to loose.
I haven't been following what McCain's people are saying right now, but if they aren't already doing so, they should be jumping all over this -- hammering Obama over his recent changes in policy . . .
"Who is Barack Obama? What does he stand for? Can we believe anything he says? McCain is a man of courage [blah, blah], patriot [whaa, whaa], steadfast [yadda, yadda], experienced...track record...etc, etc."
"We live in a dangerous world (it's very scary!!). We need an experienced elder statesman to lead us through these difficult times -- not a young man who hasn't even served a full term as a senator and can't make up his mind about what his position on various issues is from day to day. . . .
I think a lot of people are torn between hope and fear. Up until recently, Barack did a good job of playing on their hopes but fear is easy to exploit -- especially when the candidate of "change" and "hope" turns out to be a fraud.
We need a strong third party movement -- the dems and reps are too much alike and too entrenched. The system has been broken for a long time and continuing to expect those who benefit from it to fix it is -- if not the definition of insanity -- kind of like poor 'ol Charlie Brown, always trusting Lucy to hold the football.
That poor 'ol Charlie Brown -- he just never learns...
Nader '08!!
Many members of the Obama FISA blog are using the "lesser of the two evils" line (that Ralph Nader used to twist to "the evil of the two lessers"). It's an age old dilemma for voters, with solid arguments on both sides:
1. "The only realistic thing for a voter to do is to support the candidate who is at least slightly, marginally, better -- 'the lesser of the two evils.' The reality is that no third party candidate has a chance of winning; voting third party is just throwing your vote away -- which, in some states, could actually lead to victory by 'the greater of the two evils.' It's a sad reality, but it's the reality nonetheless."
2. "If you continue to accept disappointment and betrayal election after election, if you continue to let your corporate party's leaders (and their campaign contributors) take your vote for granted -- as the Obama campaign has made clear it is doing with those who got him the nomination -- because 'you have nowhere else to go,' you just perpetuate the system and its gradual worsening, decade after decade. 'Instant runoff' voting is the obvious win-win solution for both the major and the third parties. But since the major parties will probably continue to fight it, the only responsible move is to 'send them a message.' Third parties have brought about progressive change throughout America's political history and they can do so again -- it's a proud record of achievement -- but only when their membership had grown to sufficient size that they constituted a meaningful threat to the major parties. It's long past time we do it again."
What do you think? How do you come out on this choice? Or do you have a third option, or a better way of expressing those two?
Here are links to recent, related blog entries:
Nicholas Johnson, "Change We Can No Longer Believe In," June 22, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Holding Obama's Feet to the Fireside Chat," June 24, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "The Bundling Business," June 26, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Will the Real Obama Stand Up -- For Us?" June 27, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Pragmatic Idealism," June 28, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Geometry: Triangulation," June 30, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Move to Right Shows Self-Defeating Weakness," July 1, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Telephone Switch," July 3, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "'Producing' a President," July 5, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Request for Response: Your Reaction to 'Move to Center,'" July 7, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama Doesn't Get It," July 9, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Where Have You Gone Barack Obama?" July 10, 2008.
July 7, 2008, 4:00 p.m., updated 8:20 p.m.
I put this comment into my blog and the FISA group blog on the Senator Obama Web site a few minutes ago and already have a couple of responses -- as a result of which I decided it should be posted here as well. Needless to say, I would also welcome any comments you'd be willing to register on this blog (which I could then copy over to the Obama blog area as well).
Request for Response: Your Reaction to "Move to Center"
By NickIowa - Jul 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pm EDT
I am a supporter of Senator Obama who would welcome help/comment from any members of this group willing to provide it for an informal study I am doing of the Obama campaign strategy.
Much of the excitement surrounding the Obama campaign has involved those of you who are relatively younger, first time voters, and students. Not all, but many, came to the campaign with a sense of hope and idealism, having been sort of disgusted with what they perceived as the mess the older generation had made of government and politics "inside the beltway." Many believed that in Senator Obama, at last, was someone who seemed to be the genuine article, willing to change all of that -- in terms of campaign finance (1.6 million contributors), involvement of (and communication with) constituents (these blogs), political process ("reaching across the aisle"), foreign relations (talking to our enemies), and domestic programs (a rational/educated approach to creating a progressive agenda) -- and with the intelligence, energy and moral conviction to get it done.
Since the primary, during the past few weeks, our candidate and his campaign have made moves to the middle/right on an array of subjects -- whether they were in fact changes in his positions that was the perception of many supporters: public financing of campaigns (and bundling), NAFTA, FISA and telephone company immunity, $30,000-a-plate dinners, the Iraq War, regulation of handguns, the death penalty, Israel, government funding of "faith-based" programs, tax breaks for corporations, and so forth.
Which of the following comes closest to what has been your reaction to these shifts in positions -- if such they be?
1. Do they bring him closer to what your positions were all along, reassuring you that he is not so progressive/radical as you once feared?
2. Do you not have any view on any of these subjects anyway, and thus you have been unaffected in your enthusiasm one way or the other?
3. Do you have positions, but they're not strongly held, and you do not really care about his positions; you just like him and really want him to win, regardless of what he thinks he has to say and do to get elected, and trust that he will be a good president if he does?
4. Are you slightly upset with what you perceive to be your having supported someone during the primary who has now turned out to be something different from what you first thought -- but you know that all candidates shift from primaries to general elections (liberals to the right; conservatives to the left) and you just accept it?
5. Are you very upset and feel some sense of betrayal and having been manipulated -- but you have nowhere else to turn, since you don't want to vote for Senator McCain or some third party candidate?
6. Are you so upset that, while you've continued your membership on the Web site, and will vote for Senator Obama in November, you are not going to give any more money to the campaign, or otherwise contribute your time and effort?
7. Or have you actually decided that if the election were held now that you would do one of the following: stay home and not vote, or vote for Senator McCain or a third party candidate or some name you'd write in?
I'm concerned that the campaign's shifts in strategy may have been a little too much, too fast -- losing more present and potential future voters than they gain. On the other hand, many of the older voters I've surveyed don't seem to be (for the most part) all that concerned.
What I'm interested in finding out is to what extent there may be differences in the reactions of the younger supporters. Any comments would be appreciated. Thank you.
# # #
Reply [on the Obama blog]
By Dan 11 minutes ago
1. on a couple of the issues, his "new" positions are more in line with my own (particularly the second amendment), but those that fit this description are also not really new. on most of the issues, i don't really care... they aren't critical issues for me. obviously, the one that is a problem for me is FISA.
2. particularly the faith based stuff... i understand the problem people have with it, but it just doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. not because of the merits of the position, but the likelihood that he would put much priority to it.
3. no, but i'm mostly drawn to his decision making process, which includes considering alternative viewpoints. in that sense, his ultimate decisions on most issues are not as critical to me as the process by which he arrived at those decisions.
4. i'm mostly upset that he's voting on the FISA bill, not because it's conservative (it isn't), but because it is a no-win for him politically and a no-win for the american people legally. i feel his decision making process in this issue must not have been very thorough, because anything beyond a purely cursory review of the bill would lead any sensible lawmaker, especially a democratic one, to vote against it.
5. i don't think i've been manipulated, but i also don't think i have no where else to turn if i did.
6. i'm not giving him any more money until i feel he's back on track with his vision for america. i don't know when that will be, but it certainly isn't right now.
7. i will vote for the candidate i feel will best do the job, and that would always be my answer to this question. it's not my job to promise my vote to obama, it's obama's job to convince me he's best for the job.
Reply
By Wayne from Ridgewood, NY 5 minutes ago
"AT&T Whistleblower: “Congress is intervening ... to ... protect the President ... It was all a secret deal, a conspiracy against the American people” "
I am sick to my stomach over this!
A few minutes later there were a couple more:
By janinct Jul 7th 2008 at 5:00 pm EDT
I agree with Arianna Huffington that this is a tactic that can cost Obama the election. I am an older, white, female progressive and I have felt enthusiastic about his campaign, something I have not experienced before. Bush has left this country with overwhelming problems, we need a president who will tackle these problems with intelligent, forthright solutions. These solutions will not come from wishy washy, middle of the road thinking. We need leadership, not triangulation.
By William from Louisville, KY Jul 7th 2008 at 4:55 pm EDT
My interest in Obama is based on the fact that he seemed to be someone who would NOT compromise his integrity. Some disagreement I can handle, but if he decides whether or not to vote for an unconstitutional FISA bill based on what he thinks it will take to get elected I can always return to Nader.
There were subsequent comments that, while not entered as comments in my blog entry, nonetheless appeared either responsive or on the same subject. Here are some examples (sometimes excerpted, but without altering the general point):
Obama Must Stand Against Telecom Immunity
By Brian Carver - Jul 7th, 2008 at 4:50 pm EDT
My wife and I have donated to this campaign multiple times but will no longer do so if Obama does not do everything in his power to remove telecom immunity from the FISA bill. I have joined this site solely to raise this issue. It is a critical constitutional matter.
No to telco immunity
By Todd Grigsby, CA - Jul 7th, 2008 at 4:55 pm EDT
I urge everyone to make the message clear to Mr. Obama, that any form of telecommunications immunity is not acceptable. I want to see Mr. Obama respond to that message by voting against the FISA reform bill in its current form. I want him to stand by his "message of change" and stand up to Bush's "energetic executive" program. I want my rights back, and I want their violation punished, and I don't think that's too much to ask from someone who expects to be the leader of this nation.
I like the Constitution!!
By Michael - Jul 7th, 2008 at 5:12 pm EDT
Preface: I support Obama for President.
Massive epic failure on the part of Obama on FISA, Faith Based Initiatives and Troop pull out.
Senator Please...
1. Keep your promises
2. Don't move to the "center" it is certain political death
3. Quit giving the enemy (the mainstream media) spin fuel. Flipping makes you look weak and malleable, opportunistic and fickle.
4. Pick a progressive VP, because you aren't looking that progressive anymore.
Supporters Please...
1. Bombard Obama with calls, emails and posts about FISA.
2. Knock off the glazed eyed cheerleader infatuation. He needs to be held accountable.
3. Don't think that FISA is distracting or not that important. It is fundamental, the very essence of his campaign.
4. Bombard YOUR Senators about FISA. My Senator McCaskill is turning into a Bush dog, and the other one named Bond, Kit Bond thinks waterboarding is like swimming lessons.
5. Boycott the mainstream media...it is the sickness which eats the body politic.
Thank you
mlk
The time is NOW... they vote tomorrow!!!
By Michael - Jul 7th, 2008 at 5:21 pm EDT
Preface: I support Obama for President, but support is not submission! Obama has been blessed with the FISA issue, not often does a candidate get an issue that will PROVE to all whose side he is on. But then he drops the ball!!!!
Is the Senator's stance on FISA hurting us?
YES!!!
1. It makes him look like a typical politician, this what we expect form an insider, a Pelosi, a Reid, all talk and no action!!!
2. The Evil so called Conservatives are spinning this into Obama being a Kerry like flip flopper and that we got played. Progressives bought in to the hype and now he is turning his back. They spin and the mainstream media eats it up.
3. The skate to the "center" is a sure sign of failure on many levels. Gore, Kerry, Clinton and others have given their goodbye speeches all because of the move to the so called center.
4. MOST IMPORTANTLY, it goes against the spirit, the essence of the Obama campaign. It goes against the hopes and dreams of all of us.
It is the foundation of our support for Obama.
Now I know what you will say...
1. Look at the big picture...there is no bigger picture
2. McCain is worse...McCain is not the yardstick I want to judge Obama by. I'll use Feingold, Kucinich and Dodd for the parameters Obama needs to meet.
3. YES WE CAN!!! Yes we can what, roll over? Pretend this isn't important? Not pressure him to do what is right?
4. This isn't that important...really, if you feel that way, quit pretending to be conscious and go watch TV.
5. We lose the battle but win the war...I say he can gain MORE political capital by doing what is right.
If you REALLY support Obama (not just a glazed eyed cheerleader suckered in by charisma and false hope) then you will SAVE his candidacy and possibly the future of this country by DEMANDING he vote against FISA, not just vote against it, lead the fight against it.
Thank you!
In mourning
By Carol - Jul 7th, 2008 at 5:22 pm EDT
I joined Community Blogs because I need to give shape to the primal scream that wants to escape from my lungs. I was so inspired by Barack Obama. I believed we had at long last found an enlightened leader who would return this country to the ideals it was founded on, bring hope and unity back into government. I thought that the people would have voice and that even the non-elite of us would thrive again. Since the day he became the presumptive nominee for our party, however, I have been disappointed and then alarmed by him. Choosing a WalMart executive as economic advisor, his biased AIPAC speech, his promise of tax cuts for the middle class at a time when even those of us in the middle class understand we can't afford them if we're to get this country back on sound economic footing. And finally the FISA vote. I feel as if I have been duped yet again, that I voted for someone who would lead from his heart and conscience only to find that I have voted for someone who will once again sell us out. I feel betrayed. I have not put my Obama lawn sign out and don't know that I will. Of course I will vote for him; I have no choice. But I am very much afraid that we will only end up with another politician who will sell out to corporate interests, who will continue the Bush/Cheney fear mongering. I've lost the hope he inspired. I am in mourning.
Huffpo blog today: Obama's empty response to our group
By no right turn - Jul 7th, 2008 at 5:33 pm EDT
Last week, on these pages, Senator Barack Obama responded to critics of his position on telecom immunity. I found the occasion to be a strange one - there was something very exciting and vital about seeing Obama engage with his constituents in the way that he did. As an evangelist for the virtues of blogging in general, it was thrilling. But as a citizen, engaged in the issues, I found the substance of the exchange to be wanting. . . .
We've all heard variations on that worrisome theme of the Move To The Center. Speaking only for myself, I'll say that there's nothing inherently wrong with having a centrist position. If you boldly stake out a position in the center, it sends a message of principle to voters. But when I hear critics speak of the "shift to the center," I know that they're not talking about making a bold stand - they're talking about making no stand at all. They're talking about navigating to a place where one's position becomes so indiscernible, so wishy-washy, so undefined, as to make it seem like you are taking all positions at once. Obama's response - which includes a vague promise to join the effort to strip immunity from the bill, even while signaling that its preferable to a worse bill - seems designed to be as innocuous as possible.
This perplexes me greatly, because I simply am unable to see how taking a bold stand against telecom immunity could possibly hobble his presidential aspirations. It is precisely this sort of lawlessness, precisely these sorts of policies, that have driven up public discontent with the Bush administration. . . .
Obama's insulting dishonest reply to our group
By no right turn - Jul 7th, 2008 at 7:03 pm EDT
Maybe he thinks we are like the bumpkins he has met on the campaign trail. I have found that within the net roots are some very politically savvy people who get it much better than the politicians who represent them. . . .
If you want to get to the truth, you have to be willing to lose everything for it. I do not see Obama doing this, not on the FISA issue, not on torture, not on the crimes of the current administration. We have put our faith in a man who by his own words is not perfect. At this point, with all his gifts, he now appears ordinary and common. His first test of mettle is a failure. . . .
Advice for Obama and Supporters
By Michael - Jul 7th, 2008 at 7:25 pm EDT
To Obama and his supporters!! I support Obama for president, but I will not allow him to vote the wrong way on FISA!!! If your a glazed eyed cheerleader infatuated with Obama but have no real education on policy or how elections are won, read this and more.
Obama does not have this election tied up yet. And if we don't check his swerve to the so called center he could lose big!! . . .
Mr. Obama, PLEASE join us!!!
By Robert - Jul 7th, 2008 at 7:36 pm EDT
Well, we are coming down to the wire on this FISA thing. Tomorrow is YOUR big day, (as far as over 20,000 of us feel). It is amazing to watch this group grow day by day, (over 1,000 members just since yesterday evening). Your "pro-FISA" group has 10 members. I bring up these numbers for a reason; they show, we are your staunchest supporters. They also show that the Constitution is much more important to most of us, than even a charismatic good man as yourself. Otherwise, the "pro-FISA" group would be growing by leaps and bounds, to show their support for you, but they are not, and we are. Just to be members of "my.barackobama.com" means that we are probably your strongest base of "get-out-the-vote" voters. We are your foot-soldiers going from door-to-door, manning phone-banks, writing letters to the editor, rallys, etc.
I fear that a "yes" vote on FISA, or Anything short of leading the fight against FISA, will deflate a Lot of the enthusiasm and effort we have brought to your campaign, because we believed in you. In fact, i bet, if you vote "yes", you'll notice it sooner than you think, in terms of All those small donations that have fattened your campaign chest so far. . . .
Telco immunity? Ask whistleblower Mark Klein
By Bluejane - Jul 7th, 2008 at 7:41 pm EDT
Senator Obama, Since you seem to be fact-challenged about the FISA bill, for example claiming the FISA amendments provide adequate oversight measures when in fact they do not, on the issue of telco immunity you might want to read an in-depth interview conducted today with Mark Klein, a long-time AT&T employee and communications specialist who was a witness to massive NSA wiretapping via AT&T through a secret room in San Francisco. Mr. Klein is a chief witness in a lawsuit being brought against AT&T for illegal warrantless surveillance; the suit will be stopped dead in its tracks by the new FISA bill which you support, so that the American people will never know the extent of the wiretapping or the facts of what happened and justice will never be served for breaking the law at the highest levels of government, rendering the rule of law meaningless. . . .
Senator Obama, you are supporting retroactive legislative obstruction of justice. Here's a brief excerpt followed by a link to the extensive interview transcript:
>>Mark Klein: "In 2003 I was assigned to that office [in San Francisco], and I got hold of the documents which were available—they’re not classified—and the documents showed what they were doing. They were basically copying the entire data stream going across critical internet cables and copying the entire data stream to this secret room, so the NSA was getting everything." <<>
# # #
July 1, 2008, 7:30 a.m.
What If It Turns Out That . . .
. . . Liberals Tacking to the Right is a Dated, Failed Strategy That Doesn't Even Work?
[Related:
Nicholas Johnson, "Change We Can No Longer Believe In," June 22, 2008
Nicholas Johnson, "Holding Obama's Feet to the Fireside Chat," June 24, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "The Bundling Business," June 26, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Will the Real Obama Stand Up -- For Us?" June 27, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Pragmatic Idealism," June 28, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Geometry: Triangulation," June 30, 2008.]
With the transformation of Senator Obama's campaign from a primary campaign to a general election campaign the public's and media's perception is that he's been making some pretty sharp turns to the right on such subjects as NAFTA, public financing of campaigns, government funding of faith-based programs, the death penalty, Israel, tax cuts for corporations, regulation of guns, FISA and immunity for telephone companies caught illegally spying on Americans.
This blog -- which has been a supporter of Senator Obama -- has been exploring the issues this raises with regard to political campaigning in general, Senator Obama's campaign in particular, and his most effective winning strategies. (See links, above.) So have many others (most of whom were also at least leaning in Obama's direction) in the mainstream media and blogosphere.
Today's blog entry addresses the possibility that when liberals shift to the right in general elections they lose; that whatever else may be said about the ethics of electorate manipulation, it's a failed strategy.
But first, to recap, yesterday the entry laid out four categories of voter response to a candidate's change in positions -- to which Stephen Ducat provided a fifth:
1. My candidate doesn't support all my positions. Few sophisticated "political people" would express this objection. They are satisfied with the Rolling Stones' advice: "You can't always get what you want/But if you try sometimes you might find/You get what you need." For them, elections have always involved the compromise of picking the "least-worst." But there are some voters who would rather stay home, or cast a protest third-party vote, than vote for someone who's less than their perfect, ideal candidate.
2. There's one issue that's a deal breaker for me. Folks on either side of an emotionally charged issue, such as abortion, sometimes feel that who may end up getting appointed to the Supreme Court, say, trumps for them the candidates' positions on all other issues combined. Others are more willing to give a little on their most important issue so long as the candidate is "right on the issues" with regard to everything else they care about.
3. My candidate is shifting his/her positions from the primary to the general election campaign. However discouraging it may be, most voters have come to accept that some shift in their candidates' positions from primary to general is just a natural part of real politique in America.
4. It turns out my candidate is a very different person, with very different positions and approaches, from what they represented themselves to be. Some voters feel essentially betrayed when they discover they've been manipulated into supporting a candidate based on that candidate's either clearly expressed or vaguely implied misrepresentations. Such voters may respond by voting for someone else, staying home, or at a minimum cutting back on or eliminating their campaign contributions and volunteer time. This is most serious when the candidate's "brand" has been one of courage, character, change, idealism, high moral ground, progressive populism, and a "new kind of politics" -- as was the case with Obama.
To which Stephen Ducat has added,
5. Apparently my candidate "does not believe in his own ability to reframe certain key issues in a way that makes . . . liberal principles intellectually clear and emotionally compelling." In other words, it's not that Obama actually holds and advocates conservative Republican beliefs; and it's not that he's willing to do so just to get elected. The problem is that he either doesn't have, or at least is not willing to show us, the leadership qualities we need in a president who can move our country in a more rational and progressive direction. Apparently, notwithstanding his Harvard Law School education and record, either he doesn't have the ability or he isn't willing to put in the effort, to come up with compelling ways to sell the public, and lead the political establishment, toward innovative reforms that will better serve the public interest.
Stephen Ducat, "Understanding Obama's Recent Right Turn," Huffington Post, June 29, 2008.
And Compromising Principles Isn't Even a Winning Strategy
This morning we examine a sixth suggestion from Glenn Greenwald.
You may think it's morally reprehensible for a candidate to misrepresent who he or she is, and the positions they hold, for the purpose of manipulating voters, who would not otherwise have done so, into supporting them. Or, you may think that's just good old pragmatic politics.
Glenn Greenwald suggests we need to put those considerations aside and more thoroughly examine the data and answers to three questions: (1) "did that strategy ever work?" and, if so, (2) "have the times changed sufficiently that it no longer works?" (3) If a candidate wants (or needs) to project "strength" can it be better done by appearing to drift toward, and ultimately adopt, Republican positions (on national security, torture, war, and spying on Americans) or by consistently opposing those positions?
Could it be that by his "move to the center" Senator Obama is not only alienating his most fervent former supporters -- now feeling something more akin to betrayal than mere buyers' remorse -- but he is also projecting weakness rather than "strength" to the Independents and Republicans looking for a "strong" presidential candidate?
(Greenwald also refers in this piece to Senator John Kerry's campaign in 2004, a subject I addressed at the time in Nicholas Johnson, "What's Kerry Thinking?" May 15, 2004.)
Here are some excerpts from his article:
. . . In 2006, [Republican Congresswoman Nancy] Johnson [who had served 12 terms from a Republican district, and beat her challenger in 2004 by 22 points] was challenged by a 31-year-old Democrat, Chris Murphy, who ran on a platform of, among other things, ending the Iraq War, opposing Bush policies on eavesdropping and torture, and rejecting what he called the "false choice between war and civil liberties." Johnson outspent her Democratic challenger by a couple million dollars, and based her campaign on fear-mongering ads focusing on Murphy's opposition to warrantless eavesdropping . . ..
Johnson's final margin of defeat was 12 points. Despite continuing to represent a tough, split district, Rep. Murphy -- as he runs for re-election for the first time -- recently voted against passage of the FISA/telecom amnesty bill, obviously unafraid that such Terrorism fear-mongering works any longer.
That pattern has repeated itself over and over. In the 2006 midterm election, Karl Rove repeatedly made clear that the GOP strategy rested on making two National Security issues front and center in the midterm campaign: Democrats' opposition to warrantless eavesdropping and their opposition to "enhanced interrogation techniques" against Terrorists. Not only did the Democrats swat away those tactics, taking away control of both houses of Congress in 2006, but more unusually, not a single Democratic incumbent in either the House or Senate -- not one -- lost an election. . . .
Earlier this year, Bill Foster made opposition to the Iraq War a centerpiece of his campaign -- and emphatically opposed both warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity -- and then won a special election to replace Denny Hastert in his bright red Illinois district.
As the 2008 election approaches . . . it's actually difficult to identify [Democrats] who have any real chance of losing. That's how weakened the GOP brand is and how vehemently the country has rejected their ideology and politics -- in every realm, including national security.
So what, then, is the basis for the almost-unanimously held Beltway conventional view that Democrats generally, and Barack Obama particularly, will be politically endangered unless they adopt the Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism and National Security, which -- for some reason -- is called "moving to the Center"? There doesn't appear to be any basis for that view. It's just an unexamined relic from past times, the immovable, uncritical assumption of Beltway strategists and pundits who can't accept that it isn't 1972 anymore -- or even 2002.
Beyond its obsolescence, this "move-to-the-center" cliché ignores the extraordinary political climate prevailing in this country, in which more than 8 out of 10 Americans believe the Government is fundamentally on the wrong track and the current President is one of the most unpopular in American history, if not the most unpopular. The very idea that Bush/Cheney policies are the "center," or that one must move towards their approach in order to succeed, ignores the extreme shifts in public opinion generally regarding how our country has been governed over the last seven years. . . .
[W]as John Kerry's narrow 2004 loss to George Bush due to the perception that Kerry -- who ran as fast as he could towards the mythical Center -- was Soft on Terrorism? Or was it due to the understandable belief that his rush to the Center meant that he stood for nothing, that he was afraid of his own views -- the real hallmark, the very definition, of weakness?
By the time of the 2004 election, . . . [Bush said] "Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand."
Bush's ability to project "Strength" came not from advocacy of specific policies, but from his claim to stand by his beliefs even when they were politically unpopular.
For that reason, isn't the perception that Obama is abandoning his own core beliefs -- or, worse, that he has none -- a much greater political danger than a failure to move to the so-called "Center" . . . ? . . . That narrative -- that he's afraid to stand by his own beliefs -- appears far more likely to result in a perception that Obama is "Weak" than a refusal to embrace Bush/Cheney national security positions.
What's most amazing about the unexamined premise that Democrats must "move to the Center" (i.e., adopt GOP views) is that this is the same advice Democrats have been following over and over and which keeps leading to their abject failure. It's the advice Kerry followed in 2004. It's why Democrats rejected Howard Dean and chose John Kerry instead.
And in 2002, huge numbers of Congressional Democrats voted to authorize the attack on Iraq based on this same premise that doing so would enable them to avoid looking Weak on National Security. The GOP then based its whole 2002 campaign on attacking Democrats as Weak on National Security and the Democrats were crushed -- because, having accepted rather than debated the GOP premises, there was no way to challenge GOP National Security arguments. What makes Democrats look weak is their patent fear of standing by their own views. A Washington Post article last week on Obama's move to the center included this insight:
"American voters tend to reward politicians who take clear stands," said David Sirota, a former Democratic aide on Capitol Hill and author of the new populist-themed book The Uprising. "When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don't pay a lot of attention look at one thing: 'Does the guy believe in something?' They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow."
[If] . . . "Strength" means what the GOP says it means . . . it's a framework within which Democrats can't possibly win, because Republicans will always "out-Strength" Democrats . . .. [O]nly by challenging and disputing the underlying premises can Democrats change the way that "strength" and "weakness" are understood.
The Democrats had such a smashing victory in 2006 because . . . there was a perception (rightly or wrongly) that they actually stood for something different than the GOP in National Security (an end to the War in Iraq). . . . The advice that they should "move to the center" and copy Republicans is guaranteed to make them look weak -- because it is weak. It's the definition of weakness.
The most distinctive and potent -- one could even say exciting -- aspect of Obama's campaign had been his aggressive refusal to accept GOP pieties on National Security, his insistence that the GOP would lose -- and should lose -- debates over who is "stronger" and more "patriotic" and who will keep us more safe. The widely-celebrated foreign policy memo written by Obama's adviser, Samantha Power, heaped scorn on Washington's national security "conventional wisdom," emphasizing how weak and vulnerable it has made the U.S. When Obama took that approach, he appeared to be, and in fact was, resolute and unapologetic in defending his own views -- the very attributes that define "strength."
The advice he's getting, and apparently beginning to follow, is now the opposite: that he should shed his prior beliefs in favor of the amorphous, fuzzy, conventional GOP-leaning Center, that he should cease to insist on a re-examination of National Security premises and instead live within the GOP framework. That's likely to lead to many things, but a perception of strength isn't one of them. . . .
UPDATE: . . . Many Democrats support Bush policies because they believe in them. Others don't believe in them but are persuaded that they must support them in order to be re-elected. Still others have no beliefs at all other than their own re-election and do whatever they perceive is most likely to achieve that. Here, I'm simply taking the political argument at face value -- that Democrats must "move to the Center" in order to win -- and arguing why that's empirically false.
Glenn Greenwald, "The Baseless, and Failed, ‘Move to the Center’ Cliche," Salon.com/CommonDreams.org, June 30, 2008.
Thus, there appears to be both good news and bad news.
The bad news is that by following the consultants' advice to engage in manipulating, triangulating, and misrepresenting who one is and what they believe a Democrat may well lose both their soul and their election.
The good news is that there is an alternative, and that staking out positions on the issues can be a win-win. By avoiding the advice to appear "Republican-lite," by having core beliefs, distinguishing them from those of the Republicans, holding to them, making a persuasive and even emotionally appealing case for what one believes, a liberal Democrat can not only come across to voters as "strong" and a person of integrity, he or she can have the satisfaction of both doing the morally commendable thing -- AND WINNING!
# # #
