Well, my title is pretty provocative. But, I hope you'll hear me out. Basically, what I'm trying to say is there is what we want: whoever our Netroots collective candidate is to win. And there is what is reality: that whomever the Establishment wants to win, indeed, will.
Oddly enough, this is my first diary over here even though I've been a reader (and member) for about 3 or 4 years. I used to post a good bit over at DailyKos and even worked with George Lakoff for a year. Anyway, enough background. On to the meat ...
This is a diary about tactics and not so much about issues.
Obama is not engaging in an issue specific campaign. He's deliberately, in my view, attempting to stay above the fray in terms of interest groups. And, like it or not, the Netroots is an interest group -- albeit a very large and diverse one with a host of issues that are being advocated. But it is still not considered to be a legitimate interest group by the Establishment. We can argue all day about the fights the Netroots has won. And there are many. But while inroads are being made into having a true stake in the party structure (like Dean's eing head of the DNC -- probably the most strategic and impressive weilding of power by the Netroots), the Establishment is still al powerful.
And the Establishment or, as I also like to call them, The Powers That Be, are in charge and like to be paid homage to. They ddon't like the upstarts. They don't like to be surpised. Thee power of the Establishment is clearly seen in how Dean's People Powered Movement was not only turned back at the door but nearly run out of town. And we were left with Kerry, a good man who ran a very poor campaign. But, he was the one who worked with the Establishment.
Let's do a little looking back over history. When was the last time an insurgent candidate actually won the Democratic primary? 1992? 1984? I don't know when it was, frankly. But I would argue that it has been quite a long time since an insurgent candidate won. Thee Establishment has deep power to frame the debate and the candidacies. I'm not talking conspiracy theories here. I'm simply talking about the levers and structures that are in place that allow the Establishment to force their will to happen. After all, the American public are mostly sheeple who want to vote for the winner.
By the way, this is not just a Democratic thing. Look over at the Republican side. McCain the last time? McCain even this time? (I'd argue that he's not even the Establishment candidate this time -- though I'm not quite sure -- he's played obescience, but I don't think the Establishment trusts him).
Anyway, the Establishment candidate up to now has been Hillary Clinton. She's been their candidate as well as the presumptive nominee. And I think those two things are fairly different. But the narrative is changing. First, because her support with the Establishment has always been fairly soft. And second, we have another candidate, Obama, who is making inroads into the Establishment.
If you look at his fundraising picture, it gives you the whole story. Obama has gotten quite a bit of money and support from the people. But he's also gotten a LOT of money and support from the Establishment. Just check out this WaPo article: http://tinyurl.com/ypttj5
Obama is speaking to the Establishment and lining up their support. He's even got the lobbyists to support his anti-lobby donation program. He's been gaining support in the news narratives. He just went through a bit of a down news cycle. But even when he was in the up cycle, it was glowing but with a tad of skepticism. The new cycle that has started (look at the Atlanta Journal Constitution today) is not just about fluff but about substance, too. He's also gaining in the Netroots again after some hearty skepticism. But he's not een seen as pandering to the Netroots. And I think that's key to his Establishment narrative. Because the Establishment just barely tolerates the Netroots.
Frankly, I'm not sure I blame them for being a little afraid of the Netroots. By design, the Netroots is sort of like a many headed hydra. They never know which direction its going to come at them from. That's not a bad thing. But the Netroots has no true head or power structure. As a result, it's difficult to fire out how to figure it out. It's difficult to fight it. That's not to mean that they won't use it when it suits their purposes. But otherwise, I think the Establishment sees the Netroots as an annoying gnat most of the time.
Obama is working both sides of the coin. I think that's extremely smart. He's shown his smarts in working the system previously. Just check out what he did when he ran for the Illinois Senate: http://tinyurl.com/29cb73. He knocked out the current candidate and waltzed to the Senate floor. He studies the systems and tries to work within them and outside of them.
I think it's actually good that he's not the presumptive Netroots candidate. Otherwise, he wouldn't be able to work the Establishment like he's clearly doing. He needs to get them on his side. No matter what we want (as opposed to how it should be), they have the most power right now. He may never get their full endorsement. After all, Clinton is extremely powerful, herself, and has been in bed with almost the whole of the establishment. But, if he can knock them off being for her and make them somewhat neutral, then he's got a chance in the power broker game. And he can really go after the Netroots then.
I love that Edwards is going after the Netroots vote. And I'd love it if he won. I'd love it more if Obama won. Hell, I'd be okay if Clinton won. Perhaps in another diary I'll write about why I really want Obama to win.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 36 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
