« The Obama Infomercial: What to Expect
Polls: Obama Still Has Stable Lead And Gaining In Battleground States »
Obama’s Debt to the People
Oct 29th, 2008 | 21 responses
If elected, Barack Obama will be the first truly independent President of modern times without a large debt of gratitude to big business and financiers. For the nearly two grueling years of campaigning, he is carried aloft by millions of ordinary people and financed for the most part by contributions of less than $100. His debt is to the people.
Obama has already made history not because he is black but because he has signposted an inspiring electoral process truly based on people’s involvement. He has clearly demonstrated that a politician does not have to sell his soul to big money.
He may or may not succeed as President but there is a real and profound reason for hope. He will be the first US politician at any level who is not in moral or financial obligation to big money, big business, aggressive religion, powerful labor unions or feisty non-governmental groups.
Even among Democrats, he is in hock neither to the liberals nor the traditional establishment. His beliefs may be left, centrist or right at times depending on the issue, but he is sold out or subject to no specific sphere of influence.
Some may perceive this as Teflon Obama on whom nothing sticks because he is committed to nothing in particular. Yet if he wants, he can be a truly independent actor taking decisions on the merits of each issue. Hopefully, he is such a man of character rather than one afraid to take decisions.
This is an extraordinary situation. America is fighting one global war – against terrorism — and two regional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is shaken by nearly two years of economic upheavals rising to the current tsunami.
Yet the little $100 people have not given up. They see something fresh and promising in a man who breaks the mold of national politics and did not allow the Democratic and Republican women and men of power to dent their vision.
The hope that Obama offers to the world’s overwhelming majority oppressed by semi democratic and non-democratic regimes does not arise from his person but from the persistence of his supporters. Those people are making Obama. He did not step forward a hero to homage like John McCain.
Obama may never have administered thousands as claimed by Sarah Palin but his campaign machines are masterworks of efficacy. They consistently make correct judgments about how to motivate and mobilize people. He seems to be getting more for each dollar spent than his rivals in terms of work done for him.
From the start, Obama ran a very contemporary campaign that created innovations in almost every aspect of networking, fund raising, mobilizing people and keeping them informed through a new kind of personalized communication. He also used traditional means in a new way. Meetings, debates, TV advertising and radio broadcasts avoided exploiting populist artifices like appealing to the lowest denominator, innuendos and mudslinging.
He may not have been clear on many points of his policy agenda or who he is and his beliefs. But he was clearer than pull-no-punches Hilary Clinton and Bill as well as the formidable Republican war machines of McCain.
He outspent his rivals at every stage with money mostly from people who believe in him and not from those who make down payments on future favors. Influential endorsements, especially those of the Kennedys and Colin Powell came after mature reflection and not just Party affiliation.
Does all of this foretell an effective President? Perhaps not. At first, George Bush seemed a man of character committed to compassionate conservatism and humility in foreign policy. It turns out those were just words he recited in speeches to dupe listeners.
Obama talks well and could in action be vapid like Bush. Even so, he has shown that there are people in America so hungry for fresh air that they are willing to take a risk. That deserves appreciation. Let’s hope his thoughts are his own, not those of glib speech writers and pollsters.
21 Responses to “Obama’s Debt to the People”
Great article BRIJ.
Your observation that, “Even among Democrats, he is in hock neither to the liberals nor the traditional establishment. His beliefs may be left, centrist or right at times depending on the issue, but he is sold out or subject to no specific sphere of influence.” should be, but obviously is not, apparent to all.
It's what will make the Obama Presidency a source of hope and optimism for people of all political presuasions.
Thanks for saying it so well.
“He outspent his rivals at every stage with money mostly from people who believe in him and not from those who make down payments on future favors.”
Interesting article. We will (probably?) see….
Yes, and that's one of the reasons I like Obama. He wants to govern this nation for the benefit of citizens, not corporations. He wants to be a president to improve the lives of this nation's citizens, not reward big business (like Bush did with the energy companies) for their support.
What a crock. Do you really believe this? YOuWhat about the 9 million in one night he collected from Hollywood alone while Galveston was leveled and he did not feel lead to DONATE ONE DIME to those people. You all are in for a real shock. Obama is a great at telling you what you want to hear when you want to hear it, but what you will get as President will be very different indeed. You have been deceived my friends and I hope and pray that the rest of us that recognize a line of BS when we hear one will save you from yourselves.
sdhdavis – I'm a several-time small-amount (< $100) Obama donor, and when the hurricane hit, he sent an e-mail to supporters asking them to donate to the Red Cross instead of to his campaign on that day. I sent $50 to the Red Cross. I don't know how many others did, but my guess is quite a few.
“Yet the little $100 people have not given up. They see something fresh and promising in a man who breaks the mold of national politics and did not allow the Democratic and Republican women and men of power to dent their vision.” Are you kidding!? This guy is as much a textbook liberal Democrat as you can find. Lifted up by the little people…PLEASE, deluded you mean. This guy is going to tax the working class like a madman and give it to folks who don't even pay taxes…is anyone listening out there! Is anyone aware that taxpayers are actually PENALIZED for succeeding and making more money under the Obama tax plan? I ask you why make more money? All I'm going to do is pay more taxes with it. Sound familiar. And you all call yourselves intellectuals. What a joke!
davigoli maybe so, but he did not donate 1 dollar of his election warchest did he. Tell me how much did he contribute personally? Did he take a minute out of his star studded evening and ask all of those hollywood stars to open their wallets when he had the PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO. No because he won't win Texas so why bother. He is a sham and you all are buying it. What a shame?
sdhdavis, all of your comments are basically that you hate Obama and he's a fake. That's fine. Fake, liar, evil, typical liberal, whatever, the post's primary point was that Obama's financial warchest came more than we've ever seen before from people donating relatively small amounts of money. They may all be duped; they may all be right. But either way that was the point of the article.
By the way, in 2 minutes of search I could not find a transcript of the fundraiser, and there may not be one, but the only mildly detailed report I did find says that Obama expressly mentioned the hurricane in Galveston:
“He ticked through the series of crises that have taken place in recent days, including the hurricane on the gulf coast, the deadly train crash in nearby Los Angeles and the turmoil in the nation’s financial markets.”
I can't say whether he asked those people to donate money to Galveston, but on that day you hate so much, he asked all of his donors to give money to Galveston and mentioned it as one of the crises facing the nation that day.
“He asked all of his donor to give money to Galveston”…
How much did Obama gave, in this economy he is asking us to give, he will tax the business making 250.000.000 to spread the wealth from someboby else his money, why does'nt he use some of his money and buy time for Mccain on tv like he is doing tonight, isnt that spreading the wealth also.
Obama for years has been talking about uniting America: that there is not a red America or a blue America. He tries to appeal to Dems, Republicans and independents.
McCain (and Palin) only talk about how their supporters are “real” Americans and those who disagree with them are unpatriotic.
Obama talks unity, McCain talks division.
OK, just did another search and Obama have $240,000 to charity in 2007. It is an increase in recent years, which is likely due to both political reasons and the fact that they've been much wealthier in the last 3 years due to book sales so there's a lot more to give.
And, yes, if one campaign doesn't buy airtime for the other campaign, they should be ridiculed. Clearly.
Pacatrue, “…which is likely due to both political reasons and the fact that they've been much wealthier in the last 3 years due to book sales so there's a lot more to give.”
Yes I agree. And didn't Obama and his wife only repay their student loans four or five years ago?
The political entity we call “America” is divided, in reality. That division is is not a creation of either Democrats or Republicans but of a fracturing society that is diversifying itself out of existence. “United” and “diverse” are antonyms, you can have either one or the other but not both.
If Obama does “unite” America it will be done by crushing the groups of people who do not share his vision of the world, because, after all, government is force, and nothing but.
AsherJ: “…government is force, and nothing but.”
Not everyone will agree with government, not even everyone who was in the colonies at the time of the Revolution agreed with the Founding Fathers' vision. But Obama wants to be as inclusive as possible. He is not separating the country (lke McCain/Palin) into patriotic and unpatriotic regions. Nor is he pandering to a single, narrow demographic (the religious right).
Asher J,
I have to disagree with you that “united” and “diverse” are antonyms; They are actually two unrelated words, that if used in conjunction describe what I, and many other of the “small donors” to the Obama campaign are hoping for. Homogeneous and diverse are antonyms. United and divided are antonyms. America is inherently diverse. If we can work together towards a common goal we can be united.
Of course not every person will agree on every goal. And we will not all agree on every strategy to achieve those goals. But if our leaders can appeal to our similarities and “better sides” and improve the standards of living for everyone in this potentially great nation of ours, how is that less desirable than an administration that will divide us further to achieve a political agenda that helps only the very wealthy and the very powerful.
I know that Obama is simply a man, but he is an intelligent, well-spoken, and pragmatic man, who possesses the ability to improve our standing internationally, and unite our diverse nation domestically.
(And yes, I know I have been drinking the Kool-Aid, and I have been drinking it for over 2 years. But Kool-Aid doesn't have to have cyanide in it.)
Diverse (adj) distinctly dissimilar or unlike
Common(adj) belonging equally to, or shared alike by all
Yep, direct antonyms. The more diverse a people the less they have in common, it's a rigidly inverse relation. Look, I think Obama is probably quite a pleasant person and I don't fear his presidency at all. That's not the point. The point is that politicians aren't creating divisions, rather those divisions exist in objective reality. We have a fragmenting country and we are seeing special interests goups, we are all part of at least one, fighting over access to governmentally directed resources.
Von Clauswitz wrote that war is politics by other means, but the reverse is cleary true, that politics is war by other means. Government is nothing outside the use of force, or the threat thereof.
@Stockboy
“Nor is he pandering to a single, narrow demographic (the religious right).”
Knock off this silly pablum. I'm no fan of the “religious right” but it is not a narrow demographic. You're probably talking about 30 percent of the American population, depending on how you define that term, and those people pay taxes, get married, have children, have low crime rates, etc., everything a country wants in good citizens.
This mindless “religious right” crap is every bit as bad as KKK'ers in the 50s talking about “n*****s”
You're just a pathetic, small-minded bigot. (Oh, and I'm a rabid atheist, it's just like I call it as it is)
The good news, AsherJ, is that dictionaries define meanings of words as best as an academic can guess by speaking with people and reading the use of the word. However, they are most certainly not scientific descriptions of the world, in this case largely a sociological analysis. One can only put unity in direct opposition to diversity if you assume a single dimension and no creativity, but neither is true of any society or set of human relationships.
One can give a variety of examples of how diversity can in fact strengthen a unity or simply not undermine it in any way. If you have a mathematical bent, most entities can be broken down into subsets. Any set of numbers can be broken apart into diverse subsets without harming the overall unity of the entire set. If you have a biological bent, probably the best guess for why sexual reproduction exists is that it introduces diversity into the gene pool, which asexual reproduction does not. It is precisely this variability that gives the whole species as a unit (note the connection to the word unity) greater strength. Similar biological arguments could be made for the benefits and drawbacks to only being able to exist in a highly restricted niche.
On a more everyday level, often the best couples complement each other in some way. The whole opposites attract. When one person is willing to lie back and go along, the other partner will rise up and fight for what the family needs. Same goes on with parenting. My wife is better at certain aspects of parenting than me, and vice versa. We are much better parents as a pair exactly because of our diversity.
I'm sure you get the point. Deciding how societies function by looking in the dictionary is like looking up the word “atom” and thinking you are doing particle physics.
AsherJ: “You're just a pathetic, small-minded bigot.”
No, I just don't like people sticking their noses in my business and telling me how to live. Nor do I like people who claim real Americans are only those who think like themselves. Both of which the religious right does flawlessly.
Nor is their any need to call me a pathetic, small-minded bigot. You don't know me well enough. Now if you did know me and call me that then I'd take notice. But you have no stock with me and your comments (and their tone) are not likely to engender constructive dialogue, either.
Media coverage and Especially NBC and MSNBC have put forth the most unbalanced coverage tantamount to propoganda. General Electric owns NBC and their interests will be served by Obama, as well as the many other international interests who supported him.
If he does not “sell” this 180 to the powers that be after this election, he will be destroyed by the same media that got him elected…if he doesn't manage to cencor them first.
Did I mentionthat GE 's most recently licensed technology, and most efficient is Nuclear Power Facilities that can be built i
n less than 4 years?
Google their website to see whats ahead. I support nuclear power development wholeheartedly.
Some Obama followers don't agree with me on that.
Why is it that favorable articles call his supporters,”followers”? Smacks of socialist and marxist undertones…….worked in history, why not here in America…….have we really become so blind and complacent?