On this point, at present Obama's so-called "movement" appears, to me, appears manufactured and led top-down. As I follow it I get the distinct feeling of watching some made for TV event, from Obama's appearance on the national stage at the DNC convention, to the adoring crowds that now receive him wherever he goes -- with the national media capturing every made for TV moment. It all seems constructed to invoke adoration.
In contrast, the Dean movement had a sense of authenticity, an unstaged quality -- from his speaking pattern (not the most polished), to his appearance. To say that the two "movements," Dean's and Obama's, are "compelling" may be true; however, they are compelling for very different reasons. Dean's movement is compelling for its bottom-up nature, while Obama's is compelling for the opposite reasons: his so-called movements appears to be fueled by national players (party insiders, media types and the adoring national media), and appears to be packaged with a clear intention to emote... as if reaching for high drama.
That's my impression as well. Dean and Trippi used to talk about how the campaign was "decentralized." Much different than Obama's.
centralized or not, 25,000+ people on a facebook group alone is pretty impressive.
"Impressive" in what sense?
That 25,000 people felt excited and motivated enough to join a group. It's just a click or two, but it does show that the message/movement is impacting or is powered by a large number of people who are decentralized.
I think that's right. The question is: what is the source of the excitement and motivation? Is it something Obama has said or done? If not, what is the value of the "impression"?
To a certain degree this is simply a chicken or egg question... I think perhaps the most interesting thing to note is that Obama himself tries to answer this question at almost every outing, most notably in NH.
I suppose for it to be chicken or egg, there would at least have to be something that Obama supporters could point to that he has said or done that provides the basis of their excitement.
How does Obama try to answer this question?
I forget how far through the video he discusses "hype" but you can see it here:
http://www.barackobama.com/media/new_ham pshire_celebration/
Thanks for the link.
(i help blog for runobama.com)
Facebook, what is the percent of underage voters?
You have to have a college email to even register, so the vast majority of these people will be able to vote. And if they're this excited now, just imagine what they'll be like come 2008.
In 2006, we found Facebook to be a tremendously effective organizing tool for our GOTV efforts (mostly for Jim Esch (NE-02), who ran a volunteer-driven and youth-based outsider campaign). Facebook had an "Election Pulse" feature that allowed you to show your support for a candidate. Jim got about 70% of the Facebook vote. He lost the general election with 45% of the overall vote. I don't know how well those numbers line up (there was no exit polling on the race), but there was a tremendous amount of enthusiasm for the campaign among youth, and Facebook accurately reflected that.
I think Obama's support on Facebook is a good measure of how much support he enjoys among youth. One of the reasons I support him is that I believe he will energize my generation in a way that others cannot.
Obama's primary victory in 2004 showed how weak the Chicago political machine had become. But as soon as he was elected, Obama began turning his back on the progressives that got him elected and started kissing up to the machine -- both Chicago and DC versions.
Many forget that Obama had to emerge out of a 7 candidate primary field where other candidates had more money and/or far more insider backing. It was the energy of progressives -- so many of whom came over from Howard Dean's just-failed presidential campaign -- that allowed Obama to pull away from the pack and win that primary.
Right... Because the man himself had nothing to do with it at all did he?
is met with a vicious caricature of the stated position?
It makes it virtually impossible to have a reasoned debate.
And the longer his supporters short-circuit the possibility of a reasoned debate, the more they confirm the suspicions of his critics--or even those who simply have honest doubts.
1) Because at that point, Stoller's crap had gotten me so pissed off that cheeky sarcasm was all I had left. In hindsite, it was uncalled for and I apologize and would delete it if I could.
2) The Obama detractors are just as guilty as the supporters in the lack of debate... unless you consider calling Obama a pandering hack as several on here have done a constructive debate.
Sure, it's my fault.
I've asked them to address his routine mischaracterization of progressives, past and present.
I've asked about his vote to confirm CondiLies.
I've asked about his vote on the Bankruptcy bill.
I've asked his support for the Iraq Study Group, with its support for privatizing Iraq's oil.
I've presented data showing that his Senate voting record is that of a moderate liberal, not a progressive.
I've questioned his analysis that polarization is a matter of rhetoric, rather than underlying economic realities.
None of this has been responded to. My comparison of Obama's Senate record to Edwards' has been responded to--but that has been all about Edwards, not Obama.
So, no, (1) It's not true that both sides are equally lacking in substance. We're not. And
(2) The burden of proof is on you. You're saying that he has substance. You have the obligation to back that up with examples.
The fact that this never even occurs to you is evidence of how much you have unconsciously been infected by the rightwing habit of "proof"-by-assertion. This is deeply dangerous for all of us. I could easily live with an Obama candidacy and presidency, if his supporters were critical supporters, but I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever so far.
The difference between Obama and Dean could not be clearer, it seems to me.
I thought I was done here, but I decided to read through one last time, and I have to add this one more thing:
Obama did not -- NOT -- vote for the Bankruptcy bill. Here is the vote. Check for yourself. Also, he voted against cloture on the Bankruptcy Bill: see here.
I don't know how the myth that he voted for the Bankruptcy Bill got started, but it's just false.
It just occurred to me why the "Obama has no substance, he's just a pretty face with nothing behind him, and he'll probably turn out to be a Republican in disguise" thing bugs me, apart from its being, well, false: it is more or less exactly what people used to say about Wes Clark. It wasn't true of Clark -- when people were saying it, he actually had some pretty impressive positions out there that no one had gone to the trouble of looking up before they started repeating the "ooh, he's just a pretty resume" mantra. And it's not true of Obama.
We are not naive.
I know that others have called Obama just a pretty face, but that has never been my criticism of him.
My criticism has to do with false credentials as a progressive, based on what he's actually done in the Senate. Is he a better Hillary Clinton? Yes, he's a better Hillary Clinton. Is he a better, more consensus-building Paul Wellstone or Russ Feingold? No, he is not a better Paul Wellstone or Russ Feingold.
However, I do criticize his supporters along the pretty face lines, because that's what their support is based on.
I appreaciate the fact that you are atypical. But so far, you are very atypical.
Thanks -- and I agree with you that the cloture vote was the important one. But why is that relevant here, since he voted against cloture ( = for the filibuster) as well?
Did he go out and fight for it?
I dunno. Why don't you take over the research on this one?
If you are supporting him, you should be able to answer these questions.
OK, the non-snarky version:
I can find out relatively easily whether or not Obama voted for the Bankruptcy Bill (no) and whether he cared enough to vote against cloture, rather than voting for cloture and then against the bill so that he could claim to have voted against it while not having supported it when it really counted. (He voted against cloture, so he did support it when it really counted.)
I am not in DC working on the Hill, so I wasn't around when the fights were happening. Thus, I have to rely on press reports to tell me who "really fought against" a given bill. Those press reports might tell me about the activities of the people the Senate Democrats designated as point people on the bill, but they might not.
If Obama was not the point person on the bill, what would his "really fighting against it" consist in, above and beyond the votes? Presumably his having tried to persuade other Senators to support it. Is there any reason to think that those conversations would have made it into any source available to me, a random citizen? Not that I can see.
It is, I think, incumbent on all of us to try to find the facts behind our assertions. Since I am not, in fact, a supporter of Obama, I don't think it's specially incumbent on me to find out the facts about him -- the only reason I ever got into this argument was that I had run across some facts while doing other things. But I think it is clearly not incumbent on me to be able to answer any question anyone can come up with, whether or not there's any reason to think that I could possibly find out the answer. And knowing how hard Obama pushed for something, as distinct from how he voted, is one of those things I don't see any way to find out about.
So let me ask anyone who thinks I should be able to answer this question: do you have any concrete reason to think that he did not fight hard against the Bankruptcy Bill?
Note: in the comment above, I dropped a 'not' from this sentence: "Presumably his having tried to persuade other Senators to support it." NOT to support it.
Note to self: proofreading is your friend.
I suck at proof reading and I am a lawyer.
actually if you wanted to know you could figure it out. but the question is do you want to know? that's my problem with the discussion. when people want to go deeper, and critique him for things he has said, or ideals he expoused, there seems to be this roadblock. It reminds me of the discussion about how to treat the South as a region which often switch by some from being a question of should there be a South only strategy which has dominated both parties for 150 years or so, or should there be a multi regional strategy, the debate normal shifts into pretending one is having an abandon the South conversation. It really feels, whether the posters intend it or not, manipulative, and it contributes to my feelings that this is a lot of hype. When I hear that this guy is so great, I want concrete stories and examples as proof. THis really isn't about Obama- it's about Kerry and Gore, and all the others who were hyped before Obama. No more hype, more substance. That's about all I am saying.
who helped get him elected. I really don't think he emerges out of the primay pack without the overwhelming support of the grassroots that he enjoyed in that election.
That, once elected, he decided he could get ahead faster by listening to and cozying up with the "we don't want nobody nobody sent" crowd is the sad/ironic thing. And it shows in the way he talks now. In 2004 he was almost as forthright as Howard Dean. Today, half the time he sounds like John Kerry.
Right, because Blair Hull's implosion ha nothing to do with it.
My opinion is Blair Hull would have lost in the primaries to Obama... He was not likable and even without the divorce files, he would have lost in a close one to Obama as the weeks closed.
Weird race -- see the graph on page 4 here -- the Hull stuff came out on 2-27-04, apparently. It was tough for me to have a favorite, because Dan Hynes's brother (and his wife) were also classmates of mine in law school.
It did have to do with it as Obama admits.
However, at the time Obama was closing in on Hull.
True story: In early Feb. I was talking to a friend who was near the top of Hull's staff (forget his exact position). They saw Obama closing in after the third person (forget his name) had blown up in scandal. The Hull team was desparately trying to find anything at all that they could use as a negative against Obama but were coming up empty. My friend told me, "This guy is an African-American law professor with a great family life and history of helping people. He is almost too good to be true. But he is."
The scenario you describe happened all over the country. Dean and Kucinich supporters worked their asses off for whom they thought might most closely resemble Dean and Kucinich i.e. progressive (standing up to corporate power) politics. Many of us have been disappointed with people that ran as "Democrats" and seem then to govern like Republicans. Dean and Obama are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of authenticity and plain tough talk.
It's not manufactured, and if you read his books and speeches, there's plenty of substance. But what it isn't is orthodox progressivism.
Dean's movement doesn't become bottom-up until Dean himself provided the core substance for the 'roots to work with. Give Obama time. It's not winter yet.
What's he said of substance in his speeches and books that makes him stand out for you?
I think when you get down to nuts and bolts, either he or Edwards will be the most progressive candidate, policy-wise, in the field -- especially on economic issues. Obama's going to present it in an inclusionary way; Edwards in a more partisan way. I'd be happy with either as the nominee.
As I note below, I know Obama pretty well, so that personal loyalty is part of the reason (and part of why you need not trust my judgment).
I think, also, that the fact of his early popularity should be seen as a good thing -- why be afraid of the one people already like? It's the difference between marketing Coca-Cola and trying to sell RC.
The reason I ask is so that we can have a more constructive discussion about Obama at Mydd. So, can you provide anything of substance to help advance the debate?
Manufactured and top-down? How does one manufacture the kind of crowds he draws, the free media, the adoration, the 26,000 facebook group members, the millions in small donations? TIME sells more issues when Obama is on its cover. Do they just "manufacture" some extra sales those weeks? Are they less interested in sales at other times?
People are responding to something, yes.
It is astonishing that we look this gift horse in the mouth.
Just because the Obama movement does not have the same geneology as the Dean movement does not make it any less real.
Beatlemania, etc?
The Beatles and Stones turned out to have substance and staying power. The Dave Clark Five, not so much. But there was a hunger they were all feeding, and they had nothing to do with creating that hunger.
They could have all been Dave Clark Fives, and it would still have been quite similar. You just wouldn't have gotten anything like Rubber Soul, Aftermath or anything else that came after.
And that's what our concern is with Obama. What's going to happen in the aftermath?
Interesting metaphor. Not sure I agree with its validity in this situation, but something to think about.
Yea, I was there for it, swept up in it, and, at age 10 saw the Beatles live in Comisky Park. Saw, not heard, since the screaming girls literally drowned out the sound of the music.
The Beatles and the Stones were authentic. Is Obama? That's the question. It cannot be answered today. I have read his book, speeches, etc., and he seems authentic.
We'll see.
The fact is, as you say, at this moment in time Obama is feeding that hunger, not creating it. I have read your various posts and comments and you pose good questions.
Many, however, have a reflexive suspicious rejection.
I am suspicious of all politicians. It's my job. I'm a newspaperman. Not to mention, a citizen.
But I'm not reflexive beyond my reflex to question. My concerns come from that questioning--not from reflexive rejection. I've stated my concerns repeatedly. They are tied to specific actions--or lack thereof--that I have questioned, and that Obama supporters have almost universally ignored.
I know you are not reflexive. Sorry that was not clear in my response.
I didn't think you meant that, even though the impression was there. So I just wanted to make sure.
We're all a bit unclear from time to time in these rapid-fire exchanges.
Paul provided a gool illustration of how enthusiasm for X can be, in fact, manufactured; and that this is a separate matter from what people may crave. Yes, some people are clearly interested in the Obama persona that's presented. But that persona doesn't not necessarily translate the same away across all audiences. Frankly, I want someone whose rhetoric and actions are those of a strong and unabashed progressive; and, for my taste, Sen Obama relies on liberal straw men too often. I'm simply not enthusiastic about that type of candidate. Now, as I've done in every election since I've been able to, I will work for the Democratic nominee no matter who he or she is. But at this point, the campaign surrounding Sen Obama seems manufactured by national party insiders and media types, as I described above (of course, many of his early supporters are receptive).
As for looking at a "gift horse in the mouth," sure, if Sen Obama obtains the nomiation, why not? The Democratic party should ride that wave... but we're far from there yet.
I'm not sure why. I think it will be interesting to see how Obama's numbers are bumped after the traditional media feeding frenzy. But, I also wonder how many "converts" will stay converts. If all it took was a bunch of stories by CNN and MSNBC, even though they lack depth of coverage, then can they be counted on to stay in the fold as "new" and "sexy" candidates get that coverage.
