I'm not sure why Obama's mystification matters to you: isn't the movement itself the most important thing, not the candidate's understanding (or, really, even 'promotion') of it?
Thanks for the response, that came out a bit snarkier than intended.
I'm not a big Obama supporter, but I'm starting to wonder how much of all my problems with him are due to his style. You say he's still acting like this is something weird: maybe that is just an act. He appears to favor, stylistically, a laid-back, laconic, kinda bemused approach to most things. As someone who prefers a more direct, fiery, confrontational, go-for-the-jugular style, this makes me distinctly uncomfortable, and I start worrying that his style of speech reflects his unwillingness to grind these bastards into dust beneath his chariot wheels.
But maybe this is just style. We all agree he's a smart guy. He was a community organizer, so it's not like this stuff is new to him. And if his meetups were that big, he knows there's power to be tapped, here. He's not just talking some 'gee, whiz', game, at this point, knowing how early this is?
I'm afraid this is gonna be taken the wrong way, but following Stoller's post about the 'Jewish political culture', I wonder if that's just what Obama doesn't have. He's not telling anyone, "I'm a fucking steamroller." And I'm Jew, I like hearing that. Now, maybe Obama's not engaged in the right actions, either, and isn't capitalizing on the volunteers, etc., which would be a bad thing: but if he's just not talking Jew-y enough, I'll give him a pass. For now. Although ... Obama-Spitzer '08!
Hm. That got pretty OT. Well, at some point, I'd like to read a post about the criteria with which you judge a movement. Just in case you have a few spare moments.
I thought that myself when Markos posted snarkily about Obama's comment. I actually thought it was really cool that he had considered letting us entirely take over one of the people-oriented aspects of a campaign, like rallies and such.
I think you're right -- it's an act. He's talking to big corporate media types about this new power structure saying "Oh my, will you look at that! I might try to get in on that." That said, it fits into a style I'm not sure I like, the "falling up the ladder of power" style. But he could just be modest.
I don't understand why you say he doesn't get it. Please explain... I would have thought the grassroots push from his website with the social networking and empowering peopel to be fundraisers and work on his behalf is supporting the movement. I'm serious in I am not sure why you feel the way you do and would welcome you to educate me.
Can you tell me what, in your eyes, the movement is trying to accomplish?
The key for me on this point is support vs. use. Supporting the movement is a long term proposition. My concern is those that would use it to advantage.
This is my "pet" issue to watch for both Obama and Edwards. Obama had a lot of grassroots support in his primary win, and many candidates running supported his run through theirs. He didn't repay that. Edwards has embraced the netroots in message/tone, and when pushed recently he stood his ground.
Again, if you're taking this one quote in a post by kos -- that was taken out of context -- as proof that Obama's surprised by this.
From the whole Simon interview: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/020 7/2689.html
Q: But can we expect boldness to be a hallmark of your campaign?
Obama: I hope so. Some of it by necessity. If I am running for president against some very capable, well-organized individuals who have had years to set up an infrastructure, then we are going to have to do things differently to be successful. I can't just paint by the numbers. And I think part of that difference has to be is allowing our campaign to be a vehicle to be a participation to a lot of people who have been turned off by the process or haven't been fully engaged.
A great example was after the DNC winter meeting I went over to George Mason University. These college kids had organized a rally without any involvement by our staff. We figured there would be a couple of hundred people there, and there were 3,500 people. They had just organized it through Facebook on the Internet.
That kind of grass-roots efforts can be scary, in that I think it is hard for any campaign to give up any kind of control and there is a tendency to try to do things top down. I think we are in a moment where there is a possibility, not a certainty, but a possibility, of bottom-up activism that I think could reshape the political landscape.
And I think technology and the Internet have facilitated that. You started seeing that in obviously the Dean campaign in the last election cycle. But I think that is going to continue to grow and it will be important for us to channel that energy in a creative way.
Once again, can you tell me what you believe the movement is trying to accomplish?
End of Iraq war. Universal health care. Alternative energy. And so on.
Any questions?
How many times has kos posted something to the effect of: "Wow. We're up to 100,000 registered posters." Or, "Amazing. 1 million hits tonight... that's a new record!" I've seen similar remarks of achievement here. Is expressing a very human reaction of awe and humility at how large or how passionate the dkos movement has gotten being "mystified" by it, or having that reaction somehow translate into a feeling that it's all quite "weird?" Hardly. But Obama's not supposed to show similar awe and humility at the level of "movement" support behind him, right? He's just supposed to take in stride that 3500 people showed up to an event his campaign didn't lift a finger for. But not too much in stride, lest anyone think he is taking a person -- or a movement -- for granted.
