Carrots, Not Sticks: THANK our Public Option Supporters!

The most valuable function of conventions like Netroots Nation is that they provide a venue for dedicated, highly intelligent people to network and share ideas in real time. The just-passed Netroots Nation shindig in Pittsburgh was no exception.

One of the principle ideas that kept coming up again and again from in conversations with such luminaries and Meteor Blades, Darcy Burner, Jim Dean and many others was the notion of using not just sticks, but also carrots. This idea of rewarding our friends and allies is something the wingnuts do well, and remains to be adequately learned and incorporated by the online left.

This is entirely understandable: our movement grew and matured as a distinctly opposition movement, at a time when no other serious resistance to Republican policies was being offered by Democrats in Congress or by the supposed watchdogs in the fourth estate. We screamed into the ether, made angry calls, and did all we could to be a fly in the ointment of our foes. We raised money for favored candidates like Jerry McNerney and Jim Webb to beat selected Republicans or bad Democrats; and proceeded to revile them at turns when they failed, by some accounts, to live up to their promise.

Rarely, however, have we rewarded our representatives and Senators for doing the right thing. Rarely have we engaged them in conversation, given them pedestals on which to stand, and showered them with the respect and encouragement they deserve. Here in California, Senator Dianne Feinstein has received 100 times more attention for being consistently wrong on the issues than our usually excellent Senator Boxer has received for being so consistently right.

Human beings are psychologically predictable creatures, much like Pavlov's famous canine. We do respond well to negative reinforcement, but we respond just as well if not better to positive reinforcement. Do nothing but beat a dog with a stick, and the dog is likelier to be aggressive than lovingly loyal. Do nothing but scream at a child, and the child will eventually fail to respond to the screaming. Senators and Representatives, no matter how elevated, are still just people: the rules of psychological conditioning still apply. If all we can do is scream at people who don't do what we want, eventually no one will listen to us at all.

On the issue of healthcare, the time has come to reward those Democrats who have committed to standing up for the public option by refusing to vote for a bill that does not include it. Fortunately, the always excellent folks at Democracy for America have made it easier for us to thank our healthcare heroes for doing the right thing, by giving them words of positive encouragement for continuing to stand up for the public option.

Piggybacking and expanding on that idea is an ActBlue page created by Howie Klein called Take the Pledge to financially reward those 64 representatives who are doing the right thing. This is part of an effort being put together by Jane Hamsher, Howie Klein, Darcy Burner, my brother Dante Atkins, myself and others that I am dubbing the Carrots, Not Sticks Initiative to help generate fundraising, blogosphere attention and broader media attention for members of the Progressive Caucus and for likeminded Senators. If the insurance industry and other big GOP donors are going to help reward those who dance to their tune, the least we can do is to help reward those who do what we want in whatever way we can, through the power of small-dollar fundraising.

From the ActBlue page:

These are the progressive members of Congress with the guts to stand up to Big Insurance, Big Pharma and to the pressure from their own party bosses. They stood with the American people and ordinary working families when push came to shove and both political parties decided propping up a disastrous health care system and a corrupt Insurance Industry was more important than keeping the promise made over and over to working families. These were the men and women who promised to vote against any health care reform bill that didn't include, at the minimum, a robust public option. 57 signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi and 18 took the FDL Pledge.

Democratic members of Congress need to understand that a healthcare reform bill with a Public Option is simply not an option-- it's a requirement. The congressmembers on this list have said in no uncertain terms that they will not vote for a bill without a public option all the way through Conference. That takes courage, and we need to show them how much we appreciate them for doing so. Please make a contribution-- and thanks for everything else you're doing from the public option.

If Anthony Weiner is right that there are at least 100 potential Hosue members to join this effort, their names will be included on the ActBlue recipient list. And, of course, if any Senators decide to sign on to the effort, they will be rewarded as well. The time has come to provide a real progressive incentivizing counterweight on the organizational side, to the series of positive reinforcements available to Republicans and conservative Democrats on the right.

As funds accumulate for this effort, those Democrats in very safe seats can be encouraged to donate funds to their more endangered counterparts in an effort to make maximally productive use of the money. They Took the Pledge also allows you to donate to specific candidates on the list, rather than to the list as a whole, so that individuals can determine how best to allot their financial carrots.

Please do what you can today to help reward our Democrats.

Donate at They Took The Pledge.

Send a good word for Progressive Caucus members through DFA's Thank Our Healthcare Heroes.

And join the Carrots, Not Sticks group on Facebook to learn more about other initiatives to help reward our best progressive Democrats for getting our backs.

Title

With unemployment on Friday jumping by 51,000 to take this year’s job losses to almost half a million, Mr Obama is mining a potentially rich seam. But a number of Democrats, including advisers to the Obama campaign, are worried that the Democratic party’s overall electoral advantage this year has not yet translated into comfortable leads for Mr Obama. On Friday Gallup showed Mr Obama just one point ahead of John McCain – a significant tightening in the past two weeks.

Bullshit alert #1: using Gallup's national polling. Gallup has already forfeited its claim to credibility on the presidential race this election cycle by fudging the numbers "just to see under a scenario where McCain supporters are energized" while pretending the poll represented a normal result, and by showing consistently closer margins than almost any other pollster in the field. If you're intending to write a hit piece against Obama, cherry-picking the closest poll you can find (and one that still shows him ahead) is a good place to start.

But that's only the beginning. Mentioned only briefly and misleadingly in the article is the state-by-state polling tally, where Obama holds a huge edge and is playing heavily on red-state turf. Given Obama's huge polling deficits in Appalachia and certain southern states, the fact is that Obama could easily be almost tied with McCain in the popular vote, yet win by a landslide in the electoral college. One of the most infuriating aspects of any traditional media on the campaign horse race is the seemingly intentional refusal to get into the details of electoral vote projections, and how those results are going to impact targeted advertising campaigns. In short, just as in the primary campaign against Clinton, if Obama wanted to shore up his national popularity, all he would need to do is reinforce his popularity in blue states. But that's not where elections are won or lost. One would think that the 4th estate, charged with informed the general public, would take greater care with such a seemingly simple fact of campaign politics.

But it gets worse. Next come a few grafs praising the supposed efficacy of McCain's recent ad campaigns painting Obama as a celebrity messianic elitist:

the signs are that Mr McCain’s continuing attacks – most recently in a commercial that portrayed Mr Obama as a vapid celebrity against images of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears – may be striking a chord with the white working class voters who shunned Mr Obama so emphatically in many of his primary contests with Hillary Clinton.

With just one month to go before Labour Day – the traditional beginning of the general election – and only three weeks before the Democratic convention, many Democrats fear that time is running out for Mr Obama to overcome the suspicions of this key swing vote.

These "many Democrats" who are so concerned are mostly anonymous in the article, of course. It is extraordinarily tiresome to hear pundits and journalists consistently refer euphemistically to the "white working class" voters: the sort of people susceptible to dog-whistle racism, suspicious of a candidate who might be too fit and skinny, and deeply distrustful of a candidate who can produce adoring throngs overseas--mostly because they've never been overseas themselves.

There used to be a simpler way to refer to this kind of voter: a conservative. These are not "moderates": real moderates are turned off by McCain's recent approach. Or, with more nuance, this kind of voter might be called a "Reagan Democrat", the sort of "Democrat" that makes up the majority of PUMA's and No Quarter's consistuency. The Democratic party of the DLC and Bob Shrum has spent countless hours and untold dollars attempting to woo back these conservative "Reagan Democrats", largely to no avail. Bill Clinton won some of them back (with a great deal of help from Ross Perot), but the larger Democratic Party never did. The traditional media needs to understand something very clearly: the Democrats do not need to cater to the conservative social values of "Reagan Democrats". Those that are swayed by Democratic economic messaging will come our way; those that don't will be overwhelmed by the youth vote, the Hispanic vote, and the midwestern and western Obamacans that are making up part of this year's realignment election.

After more piddling, the article continues:

The numbers back up the concern. Although Mr Obama has a good shot at winning traditional Republican states such as Colorado, Virginia and even North Carolina, he cannot capture the White House if he loses more than one of Pennsylvania, Ohio or Michigan – the more traditional, blue-collar swing states, which Mrs Clinton won by huge margins in the primary contests. Polls suggest these states are too close to call.

Too close to call. Um...ok. Let's look at this. States were Obama has "a good shot" include Colorado (Obama currently ahead by 1.5% according to Pollster.com average), Virginia (Obama currently ahead by an averaged 2.6%), and North Carolina (McCain ahead by under 3% averaged). States that are too close to call, meanwhile, are Michigan where Obama has a 6 point lead with excellent trendlines, Ohio where Obama has a 3.6% lead, again with excellent trendlines, and Pennsylvania where Obama holds a commanding 9-point lead with damning trendlines for McCain. In other words, the states listed as "too close to call" in the article are, by and large, much more uneven in Obama's favor than the states in which Obama has "a good shot"--two of which are already in Obama's favor.

Meanwhile, the article makes no mention of former red states Florida (Obama ahead by over 2%), New Mexico (Obama ahead by almost ten points), Colorado (Obama slightly ahead), Montana (Obama ahead), or Iowa (Obama ahead by about 7 points). To say nothing of all the other red states about as close as North Carolina, including Nevada, Indiana, North Dakota, Missouri, McCain's own home state of Arizona, and even--if the latest polls are to be believed--Alaska.

And none of this makes any mention of the massive voter registration efforts by the DNC and the Obama campaign that will boost Democratic numbers beyond those shown in the polls. But then, none of these inconvenient facts would fit the "why isn't Obama further ahead" narrative, would they?

At this stage in the 1988 presidential race, Michael Dukakis, the Democratic candidate, had a 17 percentage point lead over George H.W. Bush, who went on to win the election. John Kerry emerged from the 2004 Democratic convention with a strong lead over George W. Bush only to lose the election as well. In 2008, conventional wisdom says Mr McCain is running a much less effective campaign than either of the Bushes.

Hmmm....let me think for a second. Do you think that could possibly be because of the hyperpolarization of American politics since 1988? Show me any modern presidential candidate in the America of the Bush-Gore and Bush-Kerry races with a 17-point lead in the polls, and I'll show you a squadron of flying pigs still sporting the icicles they carried out of hell. But surely the Financial Times will find some idiot to shamelessly reinforce this meme...

That reinforces disquiet about Mr Obama’s inability so far to take a decisive lead. “Even on his worst day, Bill Clinton was able to signal that he understood voters’ concerns and that he felt their pain,” said Douglas Schoen, a Democratic consultant. “Obama has no trouble with the campaign stagecraft. But this isn’t Harvard, it’s the beer hall. He has to talk in language that people understand.”

Ah, yes. When you need an idiot to back up Republican ideas with the cover of a "Democratic consultant", look no further than world's biggest moron Doug Schoen, who also happens to be partner of fellow idiot Mark Penn. Do you get the feeling, somehow, that this entire article is the bitter backlash of a few diehard DLC and neoliberal Clinton backers, attempting to subterfuge the Obama campaign? I do.

The article closes by once again taking Obama unapologetically out of context over his quote about being a symbol of restoring America's traditions, followed by McCain operatives quoted as saying that Obama thinks highly of himself. In the interest of fair use--and of preventing symptoms reminiscent of ipecac in my readers--I'll omit the last few sections.

So I guess the question is this: is the Financial Times a merely stupid tool of Republicans and DLC "Democrats", or is it actively attempting to subterfuge the Obama campaign?

Because an article this lack in journalistic ethics and this devoid of basic respect for the truth--much less balance--brooks no other alternatives.

kcrw test

This is a test of the KCRW embed:



Test

BlogTalkRadio

Want to start your own radio show? Well, you're going to need an agent, a lawyer and a big contract. Just kidding! With new online radio platforms, all you need to get started are a few basics. Oh, and co-hosts aren't a bad idea.

***Scroll down for an On Topic radio show discussing this diary***

First of all, some of you are probably wondering why you would want a radio show at all. There are several compelling reasons to add audio, and particularly radio shows, to your content:

• Some topics are better suited to the radio format. Got a great interview lined up on a topic you would like to diary? Well, if you set up the interview as a show, you can diary the topic and allow readers who want to go more in-depth on the topic access to the actual audio. You can even set up call in shows and allow readers to pose questions to your guest directly.



• It's nice to have a voice sometimes. A lot of writing is story telling, and being able to provide a first hand account or source, or even just your own commentary can be powerful.
• It can add a greater depth to your diary--especially since most readers will only look at so much text before they move on. Providing a radio link with more discussion on the topic can break up the information and allow those who want to hear more a different way of accessing your information.



• Reach new audiences. Especially when it comes to organizations and issues advocacy, a radio show or in-depth interview can be a great way to reach new audiences and even keep your current supporters up to date on the projects you are working on. Call in shows mean the dialog can run both ways.



• Why not? It's essentially FREE, and as I will show you, pretty easy to boot.

Getting Started

There are several ways to get started in putting together your own radio show. First is deciding what platform you are going to use to record. A radio show is simply an audio file or a podcast (unless you have some hot distribution deal, in which case, maybe YOU should be writing this), so this means recording is the biggest factor in which approach you take.

Anyway you can make a podcast, you can make a radio show. There are numerous audio recording programs you can download, Mac Books often come with recording software, or you can even record Skype calls. The challenge is if you want more than one person on the recording (which I hope you do) and whether you will be dealing with feeding in calls. For the sound engineers among us, no problem! But for the rest of us, there are sites that offer a means of circumventing this problem and I highly recommend using them to get started.

BlogTalkRadio.com is the site thereisnospoon, clammyc and I currently use. It employs a recording platform that run via phone. You sign up, schedule a show and they give you a number to call into via landline, cell phone, or skype and it records a digital audio file for you and hosts it on the their site. You can link to it from your own site like we did for a time (politicalnexus.blogspot.com) or use their host page as your main site. And you can pull links for your most recent show and embed them in your diaries.

Pretty simple. Now for the tricky part: actually creating the shows.

The difficult part is putting it all together: live radio means you don't have to deal with pesky editing, but it also means you need to do more planning so you don't have dead air time.

So when you put together a show, you should consider several things:

1) How long should my show be? And how much content do I need to cover that amount of time?

2) Will I have a co-host? Different guests?

3) How often will I produce my show?

4) What do I want my show to be about?

5) Have I come up with a show intro and show close I can use?

6) Do I have copyright free music I can use as an intro to my show?

Our shows are typically 15-20 minutes when it comes to a single topic like our FrameWork shows, and 30-60 minutes for our in-depth interviews with Congressional Candidates or On-Topic shows. Our call in show Don't Hijack My Thread is 60 minutes.

We typically plan out five topics for Don't Hijack My Thread--but we rarely get through them all! For our shorter shows, we started out with five or so questions but we largely abandoned structuring our shows too much once we got used to the format.

In my opinion, one of the most important things you can do is not talk those last few seconds before your show goes live! If you have a clean intro to your show and a solid beginning it sets a good tone, even if you flub some of the other parts.

Transcripts of shows are something we get commonly requests for, especially since many cannot listen to audio at work, but we gave up on being able to provide them since they simply took too long to compile.

In terms of promoting a show, the best way to go about it is to compile the email addresses of people that you think might be interested, and send them

• the link to the show for downloading
• the phone number to dial in (if you want to take callers)
• the topics and details of the show

Any more questions? Just post them in the comments and we'll be answering them over the course of the next 24 hours. Also, any of you audio geeks who have expertise in sound engineering, equipment, etc. please share your thoughts as well. And of course, I am the first to admit there are many more knowledgeable than myself, so pipe up!

A radio show discussing the topics of this diary can be found here: On Topic Kossacks Under 35: How to Start Your Online Radio Show We just taped it but it the audio should be available soon so please check back if there are problems.

Also here is a link to a previous interview we did with Kath25 herself about the Kossacks Under 35 series

Kossacks Under 35 is a weekly diary series designed to create a community
within DailyKos that focuses on young people. Our overall goals are to
work on increasing young voters' Democratic majority, and to raise
awareness about issues that particularly affect young people, with a
potential eye to policy solutions. Kossacks of all ages are welcome to
participate (and do!), but the overall framework of each diary will
likely be on or from a younger person's perspective. If you would like
more information or want to contribute a diary, please email kath25 at kossacksunder35 (at) gmail dot com

Stop the Sucking

Sure, she's wasting campaign money. And Democratic opportunities to attack John McCain. And attempting to create divisions in the Party.

But of all the many reasons that Hillary Clinton should graciously concede the Democratic nomination to the clear winner of the contest, none has been more overlooked than the impact on downballot races.

No, I'm not talking about Obama's major coattails, though that is certainly important. I'm talking about the oxygen that this continued farce of a campaign is taking away from the deserving and overlooked women and men running for Senate and Congress.

Clinton supporters not making their votes based on identity politics, and who are not currently deluded enough to believe that their candidate is more electable, presumably are making their votes based on specific issues. Maybe they believe that mandates on health insurance programs are a good idea (I don't); maybe they believe that freezing interest rates for 5 years is a good idea (I certainly don't); maybe they believe that we should pull out of Iraq more slowly (I disagree). Who knows?

But the truth of the matter is that without a strong Democratic congress to help the Chief Executive to push these plans through the legislature, none of them will come close to passing in the forms being pushed by the candidates. Any voter truly making decisions about these candidates based on the issues while ignoring the state of the downballot races is making a colossal error in judgment. Much I find Clinton's candidacy and modus operandi highly distasteful, I know that a Clinton presidency with a strong Democratic, progressive congress is likelier to lead to the policy outcomes I desire than an Obama candidacy with a weaker Democratic congress. The reverse is, of course, doubly true.

I know that there are some who say that continuing this primary is good for the party, as it registers new voters and create ground operations in every state. But that help is dramatically overwhelmed by oxygen being sucked out of lungs of our deserving candidates: the media attention and money that are the lifeblood of such campaigns. Every second of every minute of every day that the Clintons spend desperately trying to maintain their grip over the Democratic Party and its levers of power is precious sand running out of the hourglass for the candidates who could actually use the most time, energy and money from the netroots and the progressive movement. Every campaign donation drive from the pockets of the netroots faithful on behalf of the Obama or the Clinton campaigns to maintain this petty and ultimately pointless intramural fight the Clintons are waging, is not only money that could have been going to attack John McCain: it's money that could have been going to candidates like those on the Red to Blue list--to say nothing of the many other deserving candidates like Ron Shepston, Mary Pallant or Gilda Reed.

My good friend clammyc and I have been conducting a series of online, podcastable radio interviews with deserving progressive, Democratic congressional candidates (the interviews also get posted to Heading Left, in case BlogTalkRadio's format is a too intimidating). In every single show, I make the case that as important as the Oval Office is, and as much as the presidential candidates deserve our time and effort, these candidates need our aggressive support to succeed in sometimes extremely difficult circumstances. Not all of them will have Bill Foster's good fortune in having a single special election to focus on, or having Barack Obama appear in ads for them, or having as sadsack an opponent as Mr. Oberweis. These are very difficult battles, and they could use a little more love coming their way. And they won't get that love from most of us unless Hillary Clinton ends her quixotic quest to put herself and her husband back in the White House.

One of those candidates I'm talking about is Ron Shepston in CA-42, running against the odious Gary Miller. As many of you know, Ron Shepston (whom clammyc and I will be interviewing tomorrow) started his political career right here in the blogosphere, posting under the name CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, and has had our backs as a progressive activist for years. Fellow Kossacks hekebolos, theKK and I just hosted a fantastic fundraiser/house party for him this last Saturday. And Ron is just one of many, many candidates who stands to gain enormously by our party turning its attention away from the Clintons' desperate power ploy, and back to the issues and candidates that matter.

If Hillary Clinton or her supporters care anything at all about the Democratic Party, the issues we hold dear and the legislation we want passed, they must know that the time has come to end this charade. We've got more important things to worry about at this point.


--------------------------------------

By the way, for those interested in hearing the real voices of some great candidates, you can hear prior interviews in our candidate series below:

• Betsy Markey (CO-4) - The diary about Betsy is here. The link to her interivew can be found here
• Gilda Reed (LA-1) - the diary about Gilda is here. The link to her interview can be found here.


• John Laesch (IL-14) - the diary about John is here. The link to his interview can be found here.


• Dennis Shulman (NJ-5) - the diary about Dennis is here. The link to his interview can be found here.


• Barry Welsh (IN-6) - the diary about Barry is here. The link to his interview can be found here.


• Charlie Brown (CA-4) - the diary about Charlie is here. The link to his interview can be found here.


• Mark Schauer (MI-7) - the diary about Mark is here. The link to his interview can be found here.


• Heather Ryan (KY-1) - the diary about Heather is here. The link to her interview can be found here.

What Hillary Means By "Obama Isn't Vetted"

Among the memes this election cycle that are so patently stupid that it makes me want to beat my head against a wall is the idea put forth by the Clinton campaign that "Obama isn't vetted." Here's just one example of Hillary Clinton herself pushing this idea:

“I’ve been tested. I’ve been vetted. I have been in the political arena in our country very intensely for 16 years. There are no surprises. There’s not going to be anybody saying, ‘Well why didn’t we think of that?’ or ‘What, my goodness, what does that mean?’” she said. “I am going to be able to go up against any Republican who they nominate.”

And here's longtime Clinton booster Taylor Marsh:

I'm getting quite a lot of heat these days for my posts on Mr. Obama. Frankly, I don't care because when a man running for office hasn't been vetted by the media or our own party, it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

The pertinent question is, "What could the Clinton camp possibly mean by this?" It certainly can't be the fabricated Rezko scandal, or the silly Exelon story, or the ridiculous charge about "present" votes, or the insulting "cult" insinuations, or the plagiarism charges, or his supposedly incomplete health care plan, or his supposed "lack of experience" in domestic or foreign policy. All of these are attacks are easily batted aside and debunked, of course--but more importantly, they've already been used by the Clinton campaign. Most of these broadsides are more influential with Democratic voters than with the general election; if hitting Obama with them hasn't sunk his presidential campaign in a Democratic Primary against an opponent with better name recognition who started off 20 points ahead in the polls, why should anyone believe that they'll stick in the general election?

Certainly she can't mean that Obama has yet-unseen skeletons in his closet. After all, she had to have been using at least some of the $140 million she wasted on oppo research. If the Clintons couldn't dig up serious dirt on Obama with over 13 months to run against him and most of the Democratic establishment until recently at their disposal, Democratic voters should not too afraid of what 9 months of Republican research in Obama's background will bring. Not to mention the fact that the Clintons' last seven years of financial dealings have not been vetted, as the disclosure of the $100 million Boratgate scandal reminds us. Add to that the fact that Clinton refuses to release her tax records until after the nomination has been secured and continues to resist releasing Clinton Library records, and it becomes a serious question who has more undisclosed skeletons in their closet (to say nothing of the numerous Clinton skeletons that have already been exposed and are lying all over the bedroom floor). That Hillary Clinton has survived rightwing assaults is no great shakes: surviving a challenge from Rick Lazio in bluer-than-blue New York is no more a badge of honor than Obama's beating Alan Keyes in Illinois.

No, the frustration and exasperation seen on the faces of the Clinton campaign and its supporters about Obama's supposed lack of vetting has nothing to do with scandal or experience: it's all about race and Muslim smears. This is an uncomfortable truth that was first pointed out by Bob Novak, of all people.

The Clinton camp is frustrated because they know that the "Black/Muslim" line is the only one they can't use in a Democratic Party without its blowing up in their faces. They also know it's the only one that has a prayer of working to smear Obama enough to stop his incredible grassroots movement and fundraising momentum. And as is typical of the DLC, weak-willed finger-in-the-wind bunker politics practiced by the Clintons and many of their backers, they believe that when Republicans use this strategy on Obama in the general election, it will destroy Obama and secure the nomination for John McCain.

But they couldn't come out and say that explicitly--not, at least, until the Clinton campaign became as desperate as they are today. Now that the Clinton camp is all but certain to lose the nomination, they are throwing all caution to the wind and actively going with the sort of campaign that they have been signaling with various dog-whistles that Republicans would be running: an overt strategy to paint Obama as a black African Muslim.

It is actually a boon to the Obama campaign to see Clinton begin this line of attack, especially after her ridiculous attempt to accuse Obama of having started the gutter politics first, right before she knew that she would be using the filthiest line possible against him. To the Obama campaign's credit, David Plouffe has has responded quickly and coherently to this tripe, which just goes to show that the Obama camp, as usual, is on its toes and ready to counter such vile fearmongering. The Clinton camp, in true Fox News fashion, is playing coy, neither affirming nor denying that they were behind the attack, but stating with extraordinary nerve that

We think it is wrong for the Obama campaign to say that this is divisive photo. It’s not a divisive photo.

This Rovian strategy of accusing the other camp of doing exactly what you intend to do, combined with appealing to the worst instincts of the American electorate, is exactly what Obama can expect to encounter from the Republican machine.

It is the final barrier; the final vetting. Clinton has hit Obama with every other attack possible but the Black/Muslim smear. This last is what Hillary means by "Obama isn't vetted." So let's vet him and get it over with. That neither Obama nor any of the other candidate shave gone this route against Clinton (e.g., Vince Foster or Chelsea Hubbell rumors) even when things looked hopeless for their campaigns is a testament to their collective character. Let us demonstrate once and for all who our friends really are in the Democratic Party.

And, more importantly, let us demonstrate that the American people can respond to the better angels of our nature and reject the gutter politics being pushed by the Clinton campaign just as surely as we can reject it from the Republicans.

Yes, we can.

Am I a Cult Member?

Am I a cult member? Jake Tapper seems to think so. The Guardian seems to think so. Many commenters here seem to think so.

One must, of course, admit that there has been more than a whiff of the euphoria of fervent aspiration among Obama supporters. It is certainly a phenomenon, a movement that has rarely been paralleled in American politics. Obama's message, his speeches, his policy platforms, and his personal charisma have been deeply inspiring to millions across America. But is there more to it than that? Is it about Obama--or is it about something else entirely?

One of the central tenets of a cult of personality is, by definition, that the cult disappears without the person behind the cult. Thus, by this thinking, if Obama himself were to die tomorrow and his candidacy disappear, there would be no movement. There would be no fervor, no animus, no euphoria. The cultists would, as though deprogrammed and removed from a trance-like state brought on by the sight and sound of the Obama wurlitzer, come to some "rational" support for another candidate--a candidate with a more pedestrian style perhaps, but with the hard-nosed experience to fight against Republicans.

The biggest problem with this thinking is not that the millions who have voted for Obama are too many to accurately describe as a cult, or that cults tend to be closed systems while political campaigns are not, or that cults utilize brainwashing tactics to recruit and retain their members (where's that secret Obama handshake?).

The biggest problem is that this movement--this phenomenon--was already in place. It was happening before Obama took it by the horns and ran with it. It has been growing and building since Howard Dean's candidacy gave progressive Democrats the will to believe, and provided a reason to hope for the future. And it has had many, many faces--Obama's is only the latest.

This movement is about CHANGE. Change from not only last eight years of Bushism, but from the previous eight years of Clintonism before that. It is about change from neoliberalism, from centrism (no, Obama's inclusivity is not centrism), from triangulation, from arguing over the same boomer battles from abortion to Vietraq year after year, from corporatism, from playing not to lose, from apathy. Change from the belief that we have to settle for the lesser of two evils. Change from the belief that the nice people at the top of the food chain will do what's best for all of us--whether that's supply-side economics, or a candidate who believes that LBJ's pulling the levers of power was more important than MLK's grassroots movement.

Obama didn't create this movement; he's just the last and most credible candidate left to harness it. Perhaps more importantly, it is a movement that cannot and will never have Hillary Clinton at its head--first female candidate or not. Not because of sexism against her first and maiden names, but because of anti-DLCism against her last name.

One way to demonstrate these twin points is by looking at candidate support on DailyKos over the past year. While acknowledging that Daily Kos readership is not the same as the Democratic electorate (obviously) or even Obama supporters in general, it is nevertheless indicative, in a broad sense, of the Netroots progressive movement that has been a key part of the "change" demographic since the rough-and-tumble days of Howard Dean and before. And since almost 80% of DailyKos readers now support Obama, they are at least somewhat indicative of a certain kind of very passionate and well-informed Obama booster.

Let us examine, then, the latest tabulated dkos straw poll results provided by Markos on 12/20/07:



What you will notice here is fairly obvious: Obama's support is a recent phenomenon. Obama support hovered on average around 25% of DailyKos all the way from February of 2007 until mid-December--even cratering to 16% as late as October. His fluctuating numbers are proof that many of his supporters were not so mesmerized by his personality that they didn't switch their support from him to other candidates--particularly Chris Dodd, who at that time and to this day showed himself a greater champion for progressive values and for change from the politics of the past than did Obama himself.

You will also notice something even more obvious to those who have paid any attention for the last year: DailyKos has historically been Edwards territory, not Obama territory--by wide margins, in fact.

You will also remember that many Kossacks (myself included) were holding out for Al Gore to enter the race, leading as many as 9% of voters to reject all of the candidates in the race in favor of the man who would not, unfortunately, end up running for more than an Oscar and a Nobel.

Most importantly, you may notice that in all these fluctuations, Hillary Clinton never broke the 11% barrier among those committed to this change movement. Not once. Even Bill Richardson (ugh) hit 13% at one point in May. But not Hillary.

Now let's examine the straw polls since then. Here we are on January 2, 2008 eve of the Iowa caucuses:



John Edwards reaches the height of his support at 48%. Obama has fallen to 27%. Dodd limps along with Dennis Kucinich at 4%. Hillary, the Democratic Default Candidate, stands at 8%--with 92% of 22,568 Kossack votes against her, spread out among various candidates.

But then came Obama's victory in Iowa. And after that came Hillary Clinton's surprising win in New Hampshire.

Now let's see what happens. From the straw poll taken on January 16:



By now several of the candidates (Dodd, Biden, Richardson) have dropped out of the race. Obama's momentum, stalled by his NH loss, has carried him to a 41% surge. Edwards' failure to take Iowa where he was putting all his marbles (combined with his dismal NH showing) deflates his support to 37%. In spite of Hillary's amazing New Hampshire victory being recently in the minds of poll-takers, Clinton once again hits only 11%--barely tying her highest mark to this point. With the first two states down, the "change" vote is split between two candidates--neither of whose supporters are yet being labeled cult members at this point.

Now let's move on to the latest straw poll to date, taken on January 30:



With Edwards out of the race, Obama has now taken a whopping 76% of 18,784 voters in the dkos poll; the die-hard supporters of dropped out change candidates plus Gravel account for 5%, putting the "change" vote at over 4-in-5 Kossacks and lurkers. As for Hillary? Once again, she stalls at 11%. Because Obama is the only credible candidate left to defeat the Clintons, all the support is now thrown his way.

-----------------------------------------

What all of this should tell you is that Obama's supporters aren't part of an Obama personality cult: they're part of a "Change" cult. A change cult that wants to end Clintonism almost as badly as it wants to end Republicanism. A "Change" cult that sways from one change candidate to another--be it Gore, Gravel, Edwards, Kucinich or Obama--but that is in no way motivated to switch its allegiance to a Clinton.

It is a movement that believes as much in itself as it does in its chosen candidate(s). It is a movement that needs no leader, no figurehead, no reason to exist beyond the courage of its own convictions and its own aspirations for a political future radically different from that of the past 30 years.

And this story is, in fact, my story. For months I held out in vain hope (get that word?) for Gore to jump into the race. His incredible book The Assault on Reason is in many ways my Progressive Bible, ranking right up there with Markos' own Crashing the Gate. I have never promoted Obama's books before; I have repeatedly promoted Gore's and Markos'. When it became clear that Gore would not enter and that he chose to make his mark in ways other than electoral politics and elections, I moved squarely into the undecided camp. I could not support Richardson or Kucinich for several reasons; Edwards bothered me, admittedly, for reasons that had much more to do with image and electability than with substance (perhaps I can write more about what I believe was wrong with Edwards' campaign when the flames of passion have died down here somewhat), while Obama's seemingly conciliatory rhetoric turned me off.

Like my good friend clammyc, I became a Dodd supporter because of his hard-nosed fights on our behalf. When I went to YearlyKos, it was Dodd I went to go see speak--not Obama. I still have the red wrist-tag somewhere to prove it.

But then, as it became clear that Dodd could not get traction for several reasons (again, grist for a diary someday), I moved into the undecided column again. As of two days before the Iowa Caucuses, I still couldn't make up my mind. And then, after leaning his direction for a while based on the movement he was building, this video sealed the deal for me and convinced me he would be the fighting candidate we need:



From this point on, my destiny was set. I signed up to become a precinct captain in my neighborhood; I went to Nevada where my suspicions about the lack of ethics of Clinton machine support were confirmed in ways that even I couldn't believe; and I've been turning out voters for Obama ever since.

Does that make me and the other 80% of Obama supporters here in the progressive grassroots members of a cult of personality?

Hardly. It makes all of us members of a Cult for Change: a cult that will continue to exist well beyond Obama's candidacy should it come to the same unfortunate end as Howard Dean's. A cult that will only with extreme reluctance unite behind Hillary Clinton as a nominee in order to end Republicanism (in the dual quest to end Republicanism and Clintonism, I guess I'll settle for 1 out of 2).

A cult that will not stop, come Republican or Democratic victories, until it has actually succeeded in creating the cultural transformations and political realignments demanded by the urgency of our times.