I'm breaking this implicit net roots rule and attacking Obama, not personally, but professionally, and also because he and his supporters need it. I believe Obama and his people are running a lightweight campaign far outside Democratic progressive-populist traditions, holding hands with the financial establishment - afraid to offend them, and completely unready for a general election.
Obama is the Brand of the Financial Establishment
Obama and Clinton are both moderate establishment-bankrolled candidates. But, Obama is definitely advertised differently than Clinton. The financial establishment is bankrolling Obama to avert retribution from a perfect storm brewing in our economy. Obama reached an bargain with the financial establishment. He created his brand based on this bargain. Implicit in the bargain is the agreement to drown-out populist voices by poaching the rare air and substantively not being a populist voice, yet appealing to populist leaning voters. It was the illusion of change and anti-Bush change sold instead of real economic change that fit the actual priorities of the Democratic Party. He reflects the viewpoints of his high-profile donors.
Let's dim the lights and go for a little tour behind the scenes...
"Obama was in town to deliver a speech at a charity dinner for children in poverty at the Mandarin Oriental—but also to pursue another, less high-minded, but more momentous, objective: to begin the process of attempting to pick Hillary Clinton’s pocket.
The conference room belonged to George Soros, the billionaire bête noire of the right. After talking to Soros for an hour about his prospective bid for the White House, Obama walked down the hall and found assembled a dozen of the city’s heaviest-hitting Democratic fund-raisers: investment banker Hassan Nemazee, Wall Street power Blair Effron, private-equity hotshot Mark Gallogly, hedge-fund manager Orin Kramer."
The Fight for the Establishment:
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are fighting to run the establishment. Neither is fighting against. I'm fascinated reading arguments of purported 'outsider' or 'insurgent' status. These are two $100M primary candidates. This in unheard of in a Democratic primary. Obama is a political insider, an intra-establishment insurgent, not an establishment insurgent. There is an enormous difference. Obama finally offers four things needed by the financial establishment: 1) a straight political hedge 2) an alternative to Clinton. 3) breadth and reach in the political spectrum. 4) protection from populists
'The establishment' is the combination of the financial and political establishments. This combination dominates the nation's policy. Unfortunately Citibank and Merrill Lynch are two recent headline examples of the establishment. Their investors and customer are being crushed, but their executives who ran the unregulated transactional scams did and are doing very well. This estblishment ethic of golden parachutes for billion dollar failures is disconcerting. It is beyond money, it is now Culture. Even Bill Kristol gets a promotion to the Op-Ed of the NY Times after promoting a failure. We're living in the Gilded Age of no accoutibility and a rotating inbred economic circle. When executives can lose $20 billion for their company and be retired with $80M for their efforts, something serious is askew in the culture.
The financial establishment ("FE") is almost always on the inside of the political establishments of both parties. From the inside, the FE has a dominating voice on how their industries are regulated. They got nearly everything they wanted for the last seven years and we’re paying for this today. Rarely does the FE face serious political challenge. When they do, it's historically from the Democratic Party. Therefore, the Democratic primary is where the line is held. If the FE poaches the right commitee chairperson or they back the right candidate in the Democratic Party, they can protect themselves. As a New York fundraiser says, 'the rest of the country votes, New York invests.' Well, this year, the Democratic primary is the line. If they can't hold the line, they lose. The FE is winning.
The financial establishment has accepted the likelihood of a Democratic president in 2009. The $200M flows from that hard judgment.
http://www.opensecrets.org/...
The Perfect Storm:
The financial establishment made several hard political judgments over the prior two years. 1) a Democrat will win the white house. 2) the Democrats will have deeper grip on the Congress. 3) populist sentiments will rise.
This is a serious threat. This is when bad things can happen for the FE. The FE has had one eye on the Sharrod Browns (anti-free trade) in the Congress and the other on any Edwards-types tampering with the presidency. Ask Chuck Schumer, he feels the pressure all the time to dampen down the populism, especially the trade talk. The FE knows 'a' storm is coming. If it's a perfect storm, it threatens to unhinge the FE from the political establishment for the first time in many years. When the financial and political establishments are unhinged from one another, 'The establishment' is not merged. The establishment has enjoyed merger for decades. In fact, many Americans have never lived through this non-merger.
Averting the Perfect Storm:
Actions to avert the perfect storm began two years ago. The FE saw Clinton attempting a lock on their money and they saw a known vote-getter and prior national candidate with a populist message sitting in Iowa. Obama did not exist...as a funded candidate. The FE didn't like the odds of a head to head between Clinton and Edwards alone. (See Obama fundraising arguments). Edwards could win a two-person race. The FE needed another candidate for two reasons, 1) to dilute populists 2) to hedge FE bets 3) get out from under the Clinton domination 4) distrust of a possible 'liberal Clinton third term' 5) fatigue and personal reasons.
The FE has not had an easy history with the Clintons, it’s mixed, at best. Obama offers to free the FE from their chained-relationship with the Clintons. Power and money can become quite resentful of one another. The FE didn't always get what they wanted and they have some negative history with the Clintons. See Dodd's law limiting securities fraud accoutibility, Clinton's veto, and Dodd's ultimate override. Lieberman and Dodd have always been the 'bank men' of the Democratic party. FE likes and funds both.
http://www.opensecrets.org/...
But, FE needed a winner.
Enter: The Barack Obama PowerPoint:
Obama has incredible poaching skills. You might be surprised how much quality time Obama spent and spends with high-profile bankers and bundlers in NY. Obama is an exceptional and personal fundraiser. Not only did Obama come knocking, but he was the perfect candidate for the FE to fill this void. Obama would soon become the first $100 FE bankrolled primary candidate who could claim outsider status and suck rare populist air. For the first time in memory, the FE had a candidate who could claim insurgency against a real national-ticket insurgent who was being starved of cash because of his insurgency. This is the populist illusion versus the populist fact. Add a little establishment press hype and you have a full blown insider-outsider. http://nymag.com/...
If you read the NYM article, you will understand the implicit Barack Obama bargain. You will realize that Obama can’t say what he wants. Obama is not nearly as free as Edwards or even Clinton. You will understand that while Obama may appeal like a populist, he can't talk like a populist. He is not disagreeable or confrontational with power (even obviously corrupt power) for a specific reason. Obama didn't parlay his name, history, or gravity into dollars, he had no gravity or history when he was seeded. Obama had to put together a very compelling argument...for the high profile FE money. He also had to deliver it personally to the financial establishment. He did, he succeeded. This is the early Obama-bargain. This led to the Obama-brand. Unlike most presidents, Obama's money pitch proceeded the brand. Obama had the advantage of no brand and no national reputation besides one speech. Obama's brand is not based on a record. It's based on the lack of a record and it could be easily moulded to appeal to the FE.
Unfortunately, most Americans don't understand fundraising, both seed capital, bundling and the implicit bargain. Don't get confused by 'individual contributions'. Bundled money is often maxed individual contributions within the same business or industry, family members, etc. The national media fails to lift the curtain to its audience. When you raise $100M because of the mega-bundling of the FE, not only can't you be John Edwards. That's the bargain. Clinton is getting the same amounts of money from the same establishment to be fair. But, again, she's not advertised otherwise. She is advertised as an insider.
The Financial Establishment Bankrolls TWO candidates:
The FE now has the likelihood of a candidate that owes them or a candidate who owes them big. Obama would owe them big for obvious reasons, he absolutely needed the mega-bundlers to make a move. She didn't. Neither could have attracted the mega-bundlers with Edwards' progressive platform. Democrats must wake up to this raw political fact.
This is not necessarily an insult nor a compliment to Obama. Clinton doesn't see it as one. This is an observation. If you like the financial establishment or you're part of it, this is great news. If you think their policies help the country, this is also great news. Some do, some don't. I have friends on both sides of the FE. But, Obama is not as advertised. He’s not a populist. He’s running against them, he's diluting them. As long as that's clear and the electorate is aware, I think it's a fair fight. It's clear with Clinton.
Obama-Clinton: Small Difference, Big Battles:
"The reasons academic politics are so vicious is because the stakes are so low" - Henry Kissenger. In the Obama - Clinton case, I’d say: "The reasons the attacks are so vicious is because the differences are so few."
The Obama supporters' attacks on Clinton far outweigh the policy differences. This is perhaps the most interesting aspect of this campaign, the FE establishment frothing the party into a serious lather over what is really a stylistic and establishment sport brawl. This steals the air and the media time. You would think, all things being equal, in an issue-election, the biggest fights would be between those with the widest policy differences. In our Gilded Age, it's between the two identical establishment candidates.
Obama’s message is abstract and ‘transformational’ because it can’t distinguish. In fact, if it does distinguish with Edwards, it helps Edwards. If it distinguishes with Clinton, it plays to her strength with the party base. Therefore, drawing distinction isn't on the program. Obama flirted with this over mandates, but dropped it when well-known progressives started attacking his health care platform. (silence) Clinton, has emphasized her experience and commitment, in response. Neither candidate is really emphasizing their policy differences. However, this will change as Clinton suddenly woke up last week with an idea and an economic stimulus.
An Obama bundler said in the NYM article.. it was the 40 year olds versus the 50 year olds in the establishment. 1990's M&A money versus 2000's hedge fund money. The 40-something bankers feel they can 'get a seat' at the table with Obama instead of getting in a long line with Clinton. That makes sense. But, friendships are not being destroyed on the Upper East side. Issue arguments are not erupting, catty race and gender arguments, however, do errupt. Populism and substance is being quieted. Their fights are base, banal, and disquieting. They always steal all the media air. The FE is running two candidates in the Democratic Primary and they are both sucking up all the air with very few substantive differences.
The Dilution of Populism:
The FE didn't want Clinton sharing air alone with Edwards in 2008. These bankers had a firm sense of where the economy was heading. They were right. They knew Edwards would pick up the change and populist vote in the absence of a more crowded field. This was a risk that the financial establishment would not take: an Edwards' primary victory is a populist presidency coupled with a Democratic Congress. This presents the perfect storm. This initiated the donor demand outside of Clinton.
Enter Obama:
Obama hit this demand. To his credit, this was a bold decision. How does a first term Senator with only two years in the Senate raise $100M in a primary. The fear of Edwards populism and no hedge on Clinton will open wallets. Obama’s personal story and appeal also opens wallets. If a 1-5 candidate, Obama losses, the bundlers would face the wrath of the Clintons. That’s the key story of this fundraising battle. Obama was able to poach some big, high profile bundlers. They surely didn’t think he was a favorite, even with the money. This is quite a risk if you’re a high profile industry bundler (UBS, banks, etc) taking on the Clinton coronation. It could be a cold 8 years. So, how did this happen?
The Obama PowerPoint: The FE donors made their Obama decisions in a Clinton-dominated field based on two items: 1) Edwards could beat Clinton in a head-to-head primary (the perfect storm calls to invest). 2) Obama can win with Edwards eating Clinton’s low-income voters. (ultimate reward for investment). So, they determined he coudl win. They were right, he could.
This is electioneering, of course, but it provides both the logic for the FE to contribute on a large scale to a virtual unknown (stop Edwards/populists) and the logic that Obama could win. (the reward)
More to Lose Through Inaction:
The FE had more to lose by not bankrolling Obama. If you believe the FE is an organized and a sophisticated operator, then you might believe the Obama candidacy was motivated against your interests (if you’re a populist). If you don’t believe the FE, banks, and regulated industries are organized or act in any concert, I'd say you don't visit K street, but, the logic of the candidate’s message still applies. So, you don't have to believe in concerted actions to follow the money.
Clinton was always the smart bet. This begs the question, how was Obama able to poach so many high-profile FE bundlers? No one in the FE believed that beating Clinton would be easy. Her strategy of inevitability wasn't only aimed at the voters, it was aimed at the establishment donors and often the message was hard. She knew this Obama PowerPoint was percolating.
The FE trust Clinton less than Obama. She is too big. The Clintons are a continent. The bigger you are the harder you are to control. They also fear the old liberal tendancy. (You would not think this reading some diaries here). The FE did not create Clinton. But, the FE ultimately merged uncomfortably with Clinton after some rough going. However, the FE could claim wholly creating the seed funding of the 2008 Obama candidacy from nothing. Obama owes them more than Clinton.
Real Economic Populists:
If you're a real economic populist, not only is Obama very detrimental, but he's obstructing the powerful message of detailed and real change. Most people don't know what 'change' really or how it's made the day after you win. It's boring and threatening stuff to the FE. They know what it is. If you read progressive candiates, they know what it is. It's regulation, legislation and the leadership to push it. You can't push too hard against your mega-donors. Disloyalty to mega-donors is political death for a first term president. Obama is not a populist, Obama is the least progressive. Obama grabs the populist air while moving to the right of Clinton, who is already to the right of Edwards. Voters have to make hard judgments because Obama is very appealing and very likable.
Obama fundraised by being the pro-corporate alternative to Edwards and a stylistic alternative to Clinton. You don’t hear 'corruption' from Obama because this was implicit in his original donor-bargain. You don't hear stories about victims who pay for insurance. You don’t turn against your seed cash, especially if it launched you against a Clinton. The FE wants to crowd out populist talk in this primary.
The Nation Magazine wrote,
"we believe this election presents a historic opportunity to precipitate a progressive realignment. There is ferment in the air, a yearning for change and for a resuscitation of America's most inspired dreams of justice and equality. The kindling is in place, but the right spark has not yet been struck."
They know Obama is not this spark. I am disappointed with Obama's campaign, the brand, the choice of donors and bundlers, and the issues-message, especially considering the potential.
The Financial Establishment’s Restrictions on Brand-Obama:
Even as the press reports flow of unprecedented banking losses due to unregulated anti-consumer practices, Obama can’t blink. This news is banging at the primary door. You would think it would be more likely to make any Democratic candidate at least sound more like Edwards. (Clinton did). Obama can only say what fits within the narrow bands of his original bargain with the FE. Therefore, no populist rhetoric. One might respond... 'well, can't Obama fudge it a little, go populist now (like Clinton) and track back later?' Obama can’t. Herein lay the power and restrictions of the original bargain.
The bargain has a wider rationale, that being, you don't froth up the Democratic party or the electorate anymore than they already are. Hundreds of elections are taking place down-ticket while Obama picks up red-state endoresements. Don't rock that boat. The FE needs more than a presidential candidate, they need a spokesman for moderation in a time of impending populism. They need an alternative message delivered by a popular, non-populist, candidate: 'Relax, we'll work this out. We can disagree without being disagreeable." This message is implicit in the bargain with the FE.
The FE understands that a Democrat will have to ‘let some steam out’, but the bargain is if you're a funded Democrat who took the bargain: 'hold the line, hold the line, hold the line.' Obama holds the line even in the face of mounting populist pressures.
The FE will also take Clinton over Edwards, clearly she shares the same FE donor base. However, her base is a little wider because of her experience. This also makes her slightly less beholden to specific people or small groups. The FE is not worried about a Republican, they’re only worried about the wrong Democrat. That's the reason all the chips (and the money) are on the table in the Democratic primary.
Un-reality of a Primary
Obama, being new to primaries, is living in a different world of fast, one-dimensional, hyped, but powerful support. Obama has about 25-30% nationwide, some hard, some not. That's not enough for an Obama coronation either. Obama needed a quick blow to Clinton. He almost got it, but didn't.
The Opportunist Candidacy: Is He More Liberal or Less?
The genius of poaching Clinton is he is poaching to her right and her left. Only a uniquely vague, ambiguous, and powerful candidate can do it. Obama has some people believing he is more liberal than Clinton (here). Obama has other people thinking he's less liberal than Clinton. (there). How long can this strategy continue? I argue not long, not in this economic atmosphere. Republicans have turned into Democrats in Michigan. The headlines are crying economy everyday. People will require more information the longer this battle continues. Obama is too light on record, platform and details to provide it. New Hampshire might be Obama’s Waterloo. He couldn't close. Political operators know you have to close when you have that lead. The longer this goes, the harder it is to maintain this ambiguous message and failure to close. The longer it goes the harder it is to preach politeness to more worried and angry population. Worse, he has Edwards climbing in Nevada likely because he is hitting the message exactly. Every political operator admits that Edwards has the most focused message. But, is it the right one, does he have the money, will he get air... Those questions remain.
More of The Two Obama Arguments:
"Clinton is conservative, establishment, and a war monger." - The liberal Obama argument.
"Clinton is more liberal, health care mandater, and a closet socialist." - The moderate/independent/Republican Obama argument.
On Kos, I hear, "Obama will transform into a great progressive after the election, just watch." Off Kos, you read, "Don't be fooled by Clinton, she will win and transform into a socialist." These arguments are diametrically opposed. They can't stand together and argue for Obama. One will fall over time. Clarity through time is not on Obama's side.
Obama supporters calls to Edwards' supporters are growing louder. Edwards supporters tend to be hard-wired on the issues. Suddenly, Edwards is nearly tied in Nevada, probably more blowback from the worsening economy. Suddenly, Obama looks like a lightweight on economic issues and Edwards and Clinton are the heavyweights. Obama's hands are tied by the bargain and his brand. Could Obama leave himself out in the cold on the issue of the day? He can't attack the establishment that feeds him. As almost any objective observer will note, Obama doesn't break this rule. Can this last?
No Poaching Allowed...
The one-side Obama can't poach is the hard-issue populist progressives of Edwards. With Obama's rhetoric skills, he would be able to import Edwards' rhetoric and knock it out of the park. But, he can’t. That is outside the bargain. This is fascinating. Obama is giving up poaching blue collar Democrats who support Edwards, could support Obama, but might break to Clinton on labor and specific blue collar issues. I hear the calls on the Daily Kos diaries, but it doesn't ring true because Obama can't make this argument himself. This is huge presumptive argument without any proof to support it. Yet, Obama remains quiet and vague. This is a vote rich environment. It appears off limits to Obama, but not his supporters and proxies.
The Obama-Brand 'be nice' to the establishment blowback might be having a serious effect on Obama. But, he hasn’t responded effectively to the breaking economic news and he’s suddenly off the economic message. He reminds me of Bush in 2001-2006 when Bush was not talking about war he almost fell asleep. When Obama discusses economic policy or troubles, he looks bored and detached. Is this the meme of a progressive or a populist? The longer this campaign continues and the more economic headlines we face, the greater chance Obama loses.
Obama Makes Friends with the Military Industry
While Clinton has more military industry support than even the Republicans, Obama even tried to triangulate and poach the military complex. He is pledging to increase standing, trained troops another 90,000. This is an enormous increase and pander to the complex and signals business with the complex. This is anti-progressive. Its a huge increases for an undefined mission. Progressives don't want a weak military, but they realize they're not fighting large standing armies or the Soviet Union. Obama's 90,000 increase for no stated purpose is the reasons he has supporters like Robert Kagan co-founder of the neoconservative center, the Project for the New American Century. Obama proves, again, that he is a consummate triagulator, mirroring Clinton, to poach Clinton. Obama's pledge should be disconcerting. What is the rationale for 90,000 new troops if he's withdrawing 100,000 from Iraq. This question remains unanswered and unasked in any debate. Edwards, on the contrary, has deliberately made no pledge to increase the military's size for an undefined mission. This is significant and incredibly, it's ignored by so-called progressives in net roots. Many net roots progresives have focused on the military complex for years, until Obama. Some people pre-Obama would have chose a candidate on this issues alone. Has Obama's campaign changed the country for the better in this regard or is everyone willing to suspend their core beliefs?
Obama also co-sponsored a resolution over the July 2006 Lebanon War, insisted by resolution that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire by the United States, thus breaking with all our European and NATO allies and even public opinion in the United States.
Lastly, Obama just announced his mortage economic crisis remedy today. 80-120 billion in tax cuts. $250 per family, tax cuts untargeted to those actually most affected by the crisis. This is a very unprogressive remedy, especially in light of Edwards and Clinton's targeted proposals.
Can a real populist win?
New Hamphire taught Obama that his support is not-hard wired, far from a majority, and he can't close a lead. With three tough candidates in this atmophere, and increasing economic pressure, anything can happen. Don't listen to anyone that says otherwise. Support your progressive and if you're confused as to who is the progressive or the populist who will bring the change you desire...do your research and don't buy the hype.