Barack Obama 2.0
| Tue Jan. 13, 2009 10:43 PM PST
BARACK OBAMA 2.0....Barack Obama is apparently planning to create a permanent political organization designed not just to help him win reelection in 2012, but to help him get his policy agenda passed in the meantime:
The organization, known internally as "Barack Obama 2.0," is being designed to sustain a grass-roots network of millions that was mobilized last year to elect Obama and now is widely considered the country's most potent political machine.Organizers and even Republicans say the scope of this permanent campaign structure is unprecedented for a president.
....Though the plan still is emerging, one source with knowledge of the internal discussion said the organization could have an annual budget of $75 million in privately raised funds. Another said it would deploy hundreds of paid staff members — possibly one for every congressional district in certain politically important states and even more in larger battlegrounds such as Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina.
....The Obama system will be used at least in part to influence members of the president's own party. For example, Democratic lawmakers in Republican-leaning districts might resist voting for an Obama-backed global warming bill. In that case, the White House or DNC could use the new network for phone campaigns, demonstrations or lobbying trips to push lawmakers to stick with Obama.
This is something that Mark Kleiman more or less predicted many months ago. (To me, anyway. I'm not sure if he blogged about it.) His conjecture was that Obama's organization had fundamentally redefined presidential politics thanks to its huge pool of dedicated volunteers and its ability to quickly raise unheard-of sums of money. After all, what congressman is likely to buck the boss if the boss can offer — or withhold — hundreds of thousands of dollars without batting an eye and mobilize — or withhold — hundreds of thousands of phone calls and telegrams depending on how closely you toe the presidential line? Every president has a certain amount of power he can bring to bear against holdout legislators, but Obama's organization brings this to a whole new level.
If this turns out to be right, Congress is going to learn pretty quickly that the ballgame has changed. Should be fun to watch.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
The effect of the executive celebrity branch corrupting the legislative branch, and the effect of the superstar president having such enormous control over the party makes me long for what *used* to be a core Democratic principle: campaign finance reform.
Pardon me for being so pre-Obama, but I still think that money corrupts politicians.
Having a permanent, $75M organization to promote all things Obama seems like a very unDemocratic force.
(If the new dog has laser beams on his head, the game will have been given away.)
I'm not so sure the effects will be so fun.
Submitted by Bob (not verified) on Tue Jan. 13, 2009 11:11 PM PST.
hundreds of thousands of phone calls and telegrams
Telegrams? Did Kevin fall into a timewarp?
Submitted by Ethan Stock (not verified) on Tue Jan. 13, 2009 11:19 PM PST.
Kevin, did you actually just write 'telegrams'? Was that a slip o' the keyboard, or do people actually still send those??!! Surely you meant 'emails' and were hit by a 19th century neurovirus as you typed.
This explains why the emails from the Obama campaign keep coming with about the same frequency as they did before the election. The sender is always one of the big names (Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Joe Biden, Jill Biden, David Plouffe). They explain why the real challenges start now, and they all have a "DONATE" button.
I wonder how many campaign donors will fall for this. It's much too slick and kind of a turn-off coming from the guy we were hoping will give us straight talk. Count me out.
Have to concur, this just sounds downright sinister. I guess if you expect to agree with everything Obama wants done, you'll be happy with it. But I sure don't have that expectation, and even if I did, I hope I'd still be wary. It's too much power in the hands of one person.
J. F. C. people.
He'll only have the money so long as people keep donating and he'll only have the volunteers so long as the base stays happy.
This is a wonderful opportunity for the mass base of the democratic party to develop stronger ties to, and control over, the folks in Washington.
Well, now we wait and see how many of his die-hard supporters have waned in enthusiasm since his announcement of:
A.) Rick Warren
B.) Summers/Rubin
C.) Relatively wimpy stimulus package
D.) Appointment of hawkish HRC to Foggy Bottom.
E.) Should I really continue?
I still truly hope he has a successful presidency, but I don't think I'm the only person who is done giving him any of my time and money.
I'm absolutely in agreement with Godless Heathen, and for the reasons he's cited. I'll add his silence on the war crimes in Gaza and the inclusion of the pro-likud pro-military Israeli faction among his ME "Clean Break" advisors and the exclusion of arab/persian voices (as noted by R Cohen) as well. I think he's loosing the fire of his most passionate supporters while his overall support, in percentage numbers, may have broadened.
Yes, I'm in agreement with all the critics. It would certainly ruin Democracy if people with a progressive outlook actually organized and tried to get legislation passed. And only a Hitler could love a bunch of "brownshirts" running around in support of a fairer tax system, ending the war in Iraq and reviving the economy.
The power of the Right Wing was in the ability to organize people through their Fundie churches and other organizations. God forbid the left should do that.
This is only going to work if he cuts back on the spam. I didn't mind it so much during the election, but guy hasn't been inaugurated and I'm getting 2-3 emails per day. I haven't started flagging these as "Junk" yet, but I plan to start soon.
I'm with Adam. I agree that "This is a wonderful opportunity for the mass base of the democratic party to develop stronger ties to, and control over, the folks in Washington."
At first glance, of course, one feels a little paranoia about what an empowered mob might do--someone has already mentioned brownshirts-- but that kind of concern for protecting the minority interests against the power wielded by the majority is wired in our national DNA (federalist papers? electoral college?)
But answer the following question: Which of the following situations would you prefer, a nation in which legislators are held accountable for their actions by...
1) (proposed situation) millions of ordinary Americans, OR
2)(current situation) a small group of extremely wealthy donors?
When troops are still in Iraq, hostilities escalate in Afghanistan, the genocide in Palestine continues with US arms and the economy continues to decline despite the pumping of American workers future earnings to financial and industrial giants, will Obama's followers still support him with money and their time? Some will, but it is unlikely their support will be as vigorous and as generous as it was in 2008. Obama will no longer have W. Bush to rally an opposition to his support and he will increasingly be challenged by activist groups who will oppose his establishment policies. Obama will use some of his war chest to co-opt some of those challengers to his establishment policies, but events will outpace his ability to do so. Without deliverying real change, Obama will find it difficult to maintain his organizational advantage.
The sycophant media is already making comparisons between Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama. One was the Great Emancipator, but the other hasn't even gotten into office and may well be nicknamed the Great Disappointment. Seems to me the economic problems are too extensive and structural to be addressed with mere anti-cyclical get-rich-quick stimuli.
It is not easy to pass and sign legislation that actually changes anything.
Why? Because the GOP has party discipline and the Democrats do not.
I'm for anything that will keep the Democratic members from throwing spitwads and paper airplanes as soon as the teacher's out of the room.
In a parliamentary system with good party discipline, a PM wields similar power over the members of the majority. The difference is the PM can be replaced short of four years.
This is just the President's third hat (Head of State, Chief Executive, Party Leader) taken out of poli-sci classes and put to work.
Alas, human nature being what it is, people are a lot more likely to be "against" than to be "for." So, with a Democratic president, the Sierra Club and NARAL are likely to raise a lot less money, and right wing organizations will raise a lot more. Similarly, I suspect that Obama will find volunteers and contributors a lot less interested now that there is no enemy for them to focus on.
Submitted by Christopher (not verified) on Wed Jan. 14, 2009 8:40 AM PST.
This is neighborhood/city politics at its core. And it's what makes cities work and responsive to their citizens. Republicans and the right figured out massive mobilization at the national level years ago. The Left -- which is great at the local level doing this -- has failed at the National level to mobilize. Barack is bringing his experience as a street level organizer in Chicago to national politics -- this a great thing IMHO. As someone that has spent the last 7 years of my life working toward immigration reform -- I'm constantly frustrated about the lack of interest in the Left of national politics, the feeling of inevitability that we had no voice and couldn't counter attack the right-wing noise machine.
Obama is setting that up. And it needs to be done. We need decisive political pressure in the way that urban government functions. It's about time.
I think there's a significant difference between grassroots organizations with clout because of their financial power, and an organization run by the top guy in the executive branch with the power to fund or not fund folks in the legislative branch.
The transition has used the grassroots networks to gather information about what people want, both in general and about health care in particular. They are using the grassroots to help develop the agenda rather than imposing one.
If they continue to use the grassroots this way, I'm on board. If it changes to a one-way information and command flow, I'm not. So far they haven't gone there, so I think many of the comments above are hardly fair.
Submitted by garth (not verified) on Wed Jan. 14, 2009 12:07 PM PST.
i'd like to express my thoughts on the issue of the size of obama's bailout package. i've been following this closely via brad delong, tpm, krugman and nate silver and mulling over what obama's strategy appears to be.
first off, nearly everyone i tend to respect agrees that the size of the bailout package is too small and that it is disproportionately tied to tax cuts. i, too, tend to think that's the case based on the reasoning behind it.
does obama know this?
i think he does.
then it's deliberate?
i think it is.
why would his opening proposal be too small?
i tend to believe it is driven largely by his desire to forge a working relationship with congress. by offering a "modest" proposal, when measured by the number obama floated of 1 trillion, he invites congress to fill in the blanks. once a congressman has filled in his blank with one of those good ideas obama was talking about, why then he becomes committed to seeing the bill pass and taking some credit.
the idea is to develop a working partnership wherein congress can contribute as many good ideas as it likes and take all of the credit so long as they continue to move in the direction obama wants. in short, obama is really trying to re-integrate congress back into its proper constitutional role, but, in a manner conducive to getting his legislation passed.
there are several pieces of the puzzle that seem to fit when viewed through this lens. obama's retention of a large number of senate staffers and former clinton insiders should increase his ability to get things through congress, think lbj. in these cases, i believe that they have been taken aboard despite ideological differences, for their technical expertise in the arcane area of legislation. here they will be putting their skills to use from the top down as obama likes to say.
obama's television appearances practically beg for input from congress. give me good ideas he says.
the framework offered by obama is thought to be a step in the right direction everyone agrees and congress has been explicitly invited to the table.
it's also consistent with that old straw about FDR listening to a plan he agreed with and then challenged the proponent to "make me do it."
going about this way also includes the additional benefits of keeping his campaign promise to lower taxes and includes a tax cut in the bill for the republicans.
but what if you're wrong?
you mean, what if congress can't get it's act together and function as a legislative body?
yes.
well, then, obama might have to resort to the stick of the public arena and use his popularity based on the reasonableness of his requests to shame congress into towing the line.
does anybody remember rick warren?
I agree. And to add to the list of problems you mention I'd add the trillion dollar deficits and the skyrocketing national debt. These debts will have to be paid by those under 50 or so, which also happens to be Obama's base. If he doesn't deal with this he's going to have some serious problems.
Submitted by Randy G (not verified) on Wed Jan. 14, 2009 1:07 PM PST.
I unsubscribed from the Obama email list just 2 days ago when it became clear that the avalanche of email wasn't going to stop. I have more than enough ways to stay connected without getting hit by them every day, especially when they were always still asking for money.... and I let them know this, if they happened to care.
Ah,,,how silly it is to read all these socio-democrat & liberal idiotic comments here. It just makes me laugh, but I'm sad at the same time. A president or individual with this much power is never a good thing. The sheeple here just don't seem to learn from history. But don't worry, you're all going to get exactly what you deserve, unfortunately, so will the other 52 million that didn't vote for the "savior"..
Looks very interesting. Thanks for sharing..
Point of Sale
