Today, I received a letter from MoveOn.org, which I've included below.
Now, if you've been reading this blog for a while, you probably recall that I was an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton. But I've also tried to make it clear all along that I didn't see the Democratic primaries as an angry "I better win or I'm not supportive" type of race. In fact, I have large and growing respect for Barack Obama, as mentioned here when I wrote "This is Leadership".
So, today, when I received this MoveOn.org email, I thought two things:
- Obama's campaign is super professional. Very smart, very organized and they really appear to outclass the competition when it comes to online marketing.
- Obama is extraordinary at demonstrating leadership.
When he announced that he was turning down public financing this week, he and his team took it and walked proudly, saying that they were opting out and why. They didn't shy away from it and they went strongly on the attack about the system and its loopholes. It's a system that McCain partially architected.
This is very politically savvy. It goes after one of McCain's strengths and makes it a conversation - early. This is important, because as the conversation grows and expands, digitally, it'll be more important come election time.
Additionally, I'm quite certain that this MoveOn.org announcement was not coincidentally timed. It was probably coordinated to demonstrate the support that Obama has from the "left", as it were. But it also does another thing - it proves that as he grows into this role of leadership, before our eyes, he is effective at leading organizations towards a different set of choices.
I'm very impressed Mr. Obama. Keep it up.
(the text of the MoveOn letter)
Dear MoveOn member,
For almost ten years, we've worked together to change American politics. Millions of us have collaborated to build a new progressive moment, catalyzed by the Internet and motivated by our belief that the country we love deserves better.
Now, in Barack Obama, we have a Presidential candidate who has based his campaign on precisely that kind of new politics—a people-driven politics focused on the outside-of-the-beltway consensus around Iraq, climate change, and health care, not the gridlock in Washington.
Using a lot of the tools and techniques developed by the progressive movement—as well as a visionary approach to leadership—Obama's brought millions of new people into the process. And, following in the footsteps of Howard Dean, ActBlue, and other innovators, he's adopted a new way of funding a campaign—relying on a donor base of millions rather than contributions by lobbyists and special interests.
It's a very exciting moment. And so the time has come to answer an important question: should we make an all-in commitment, together, to this new politics?
While MoveOn Political Action has always been funded exclusively by small donors like you, we've held open the MoveOn.org Voter Fund—a separate "527" organization—which can raise money from big donors. We haven't actually taken any big-money checks since 2004, when MoveOn members matched big contributors to educate voters about George Bush's policies. But in light of the new politics offered by Barack Obama, I've come to believe it's time to close the 527 forever—and to challenge organizations on the right to do the same thing.
That means that we won't raise any money for our election work from foundations, or even individuals who want to give over $5,000. It's an all-in commitment to the small-donor way of doing things. But the time is right to take the leap.
Not relying on big donors means that all of us, together, have to take responsibility. So before we sign the final paperwork, we need to know that you're in. Are you? Just click below to take the pledge and let us know:
And if you have any other thoughts or feedback for me on this decision, you can reply to epariser@moveon.org (I can't promise that I'll respond to all the emails, but I'll definitely read 'em).
We've come a long way together in our journey toward a new people-driven politics for America. It's been a wonderful honor to be part of it. And this is just the beginning.
Thanks,
–Eli and the whole team
as a big obama fan, i'm actually a bit disappointed by the way he handled the public financing announcement, and not just because of david brooks. i just wish he wouldn't have been shy about the fact that he changed his tune, and didn't do what he said he was going to do...which is seriously engage mccain on the issue and possibly reach agreeable terms by which they could continue to support (in the hopes of ultimately reforming) the system. the video he distributed was not convincing. i agree with david brooks and others that this is the low point of the campaign. i understand the trade-off, but i would have liked for him to be more up front about it. it's ok to change your mind. just say so. again, this is coming from a guy who owns 4 obama tshirts.
Posted by: Hillary Clinton | June 20, 2008 at 09:00 PM
Well, I'm not sure how seriously I can take a comment from someone identifying themselves as "Hillary Clinton", but I will reply.
While I agree that he maybe minimized the fact that the conversations with McCain's team went nowhere, I don't think it's a bad thing.
First, because the point isn't really that he and McCain didn't sit down in person. That's not nearly as important as the issues that were on the table to be discussed. The biggest issue is probably the 527 organizations and how they play a role in the campaign. What Obama wants to see happen is that they're not influencing the campaign through their unlimited spending capabilities. If that wasn't on the table, there's no point in meeting.
Secondly, I disagree that this is a low point because the fact that MoveOn quickly fell in line and said that they'd follow Obama's lead and example is a very strong move. It illustrates that when facing a challenger who is using all of the loopholes, you can still opt to stick to your principles and inspire those on your side to do the same. If this was really a "low point" of the campaign, Obama would have said "we're not opting for public financing because the opponent's using dirty loopholes to take advantage of the system" and then turned a deaf ear to his supporting organizations when they used those same loopholes. That's not the case here.
This difference in approach and affiliated actions is a big deal. It's worthwhile to think really hard about what these people say AND what they actually do.
Posted by: Robi Ganguly | June 21, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Still...it definitely seems like he could have handled the situation somewhat more politically-adeptly. I mean, even long-time Democratic campaign finance reform advocate Russ Feingold has criticized this decision. I think he also loses some of the high ground with it becomes so clear that he really doesn't need any of the public money anyway. So, it kinda just looks like a calculated move that is intended to put McCain in an awkward situation. I think that he should have made more of an effort with McCain, first...
Posted by: Benjamin Hoyt | June 23, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Actually, Ben, your point about Feingold reinforces my opinion on this.
Remember, the McCain-Feingold bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain-Feingold) is part of the existing ruleset that Obama takes issue with. Feingold and McCain had good intentions, I'm sure, but the loopholes for the 527 organizations (read the wikipedia entry for further detail) are a large source of discontent about its execution.
In this instance, I believe that the situation is thus:
- Good intentions resulted in a compromised solution, which has resulted in lots of "bad" (read: unintended) behavior.
- Opting into public financing but sticking to his principles about 527 spending would severely handicap Obama
Happy to research more if you think I'm not seeing all the context here, but I think that the media is oversimplifying the debate. It's worthwhile to delve into the specific issues of campaign finance to fully appreciate what's at stake here.
Posted by: Robi Ganguly | June 23, 2008 at 10:46 AM