As Obama Takes Office, Another President Says Good-bye

Rodriguez mulls on Presidential good-byes, and also the significance of good-byes in general. I found it to be quite powerful. It’s four and a half minutes — give it a listen if you get the chance.

The feeds presented are comprehensive and well-named. It’s strangely rare to see good use of these anywhere on the web.

As an aside, I took a look at the code… ewww ASP.
[html]

Oh well. It’s the execution and content that count. I just hope their firewalls aren’t running on Microsoft too!

If you are already convinced that we need to give money to the campaign, and/or you have already donated, you can skip down to the “How much to give?” section at the end of the article.

Why does the Obama Campaign need more money?

These past few weeks, the polls and the narrative in the media have made it seem like an Obama victory is inevitable. He certainly performed strongly in all of the debates, and the campaign has been able to largely avoid or divert any smears and attacks.

But we’ve still got 2 weeks to go, and it would be dangerous to become overconfident at a time like this. Here’s why:

1. Obama’s lead has been shrinking the past few days.
   
   October 12 - McCain: 40, Obama 53 (13 point lead)
   October 18 - McCain: 43, Obama 50 (7 point lead)

   source

   This shrinking lead is something to take very seriously. It is impossible to know if the lead will continue to shrink or bounce back in the next two weeks (see point 2, below).

2. Gore in 2000
   
   Quoting from a recent email from the Obama campaign:

   In October of 2000, Al Gore had a double-digit lead in the polls. By Election Day, it came down to one state and a handful of votes.

3. Last-minute smear attacks
   
   When the 2004 election season was getting started, Bush was plenty unpopular. Kerry, with his long political career and extensive military achievements, had a rock-solid patriotic image, and was in a good position to start winning over undecided and moderate voters.

   Until the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth began their unprecedented months-long smear campaign, destroying Kerry’s image.

   Something just as egregious, but less visible, is happening right now as you’re reading this — the “robo call” smear campaign. McCain-Palin and the RNC are spending $70,000,000 (seventy million dollars) calling voters in 10 swing states with these messages:

   Hello. I’m calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the US Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge’s home and killed Americans.

   You need to know that Barack Obama and his Democrat allies in the Illinois Senate opposed a bill requiring doctors to care for babies born alive after surviving attempted abortions — a position at odds even with John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama and his liberal Democrats are too extreme for America. Please vote — vote for the candidates who share our values.

   source

4. Disenfranchisement of voters.
   
   Over the last decade, Republicans have unapologetically disenfranchised voters in every election, and this one is no exception.
   • After A Surge in Registration, A Surge in Suppression
   • Vote-scam fliers target black neighborhoods
   • …and so much more

How much to give?

Many of you reading this have probably made at least a small donation to the Obama campaign. Unless you have a very limited income, you have probably thought to yourself at some point, “Should I donate a little more?”.

Think of it this way: what are the most important things to spend money on in your life right now? If you’re life will be just fine if McCain wins, then you don’t need to think about giving more money. If the changes that Obama will bring to this country won’t drastically improve your financial security, your physical security, your physical health, or your mental health, then you don’t need to donate.

I’m pretty sure that if you are reading this, then that’s not the case. I urge you to donate as much as you possibly can. Don’t think that enough other people will donate, so you don’t have to. That’s the same thing as thinking that enough other people will vote, so you don’t have to.

And don’t think that the Obama campaign already has enough money. Every dollar you give directly translates into more campaigning in swing states, to counteract and surpass McCain-Palin’s efforts in those same states. (In the unlikely scenario that there is a significant surplus of funds, the money will go to the DNC, which is doing great work these days.)

It would be nice if the politician with the best ideas won, but we know that’s not how it works. If you have any kernel of faith that Obama will win because America and the news media like him better these days, you need to get over that. Election after election, the candidate who raises the most money wins, period.

In 2008, given the state of our country and the world, and the candidates on the ballot, I believe that it is irresponsible to not donate as much money to the Obama campaign as you possibly can, whatever that might mean for you.

If you’re a student, or otherwise have a very limited income, this might mean an extra $20.

If you’re working, but have your share of financial responsibilities (loans, children), consider cutting down on drinks, eating out, or even your monthly savings, and give an extra $100-$500.

If you’re working and have very few financial responsibilities, consider giving a lot. Consider giving the maximum allowed by campaign fundraising laws in the post-primary season – $2300. That’s what I did.

Even if you have to cut into your savings to donate, think of it this way– getting Obama into office is a more important investment in your future than a few hundred extra dollars sitting in your bank account.

Click here to donate now.

BUT! Will he live up to the expectations he has set?

Will he refuse to “play the same old washington games with the same old washington players.” ??

Will he let us down?

Behold, my new blog:

Obama Letdown Watch

Senators Obama and Coburn have introduced the Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 (S. 3077), which would modify their 2006 transparency act. That first bill created USASpending.gov, a searchable web site of government outlays.

…

The new bill would expand the scope of information available via USASpending.gov, adding information about federal contracts, leases, and audit disputes, among other areas.

At some point, “Real” conservatives (even a lot of  (most?) Reagan-style conservatives)  are going to wake up and realize that Obama is doing radical work to make government spending more transparent and accountable, and that’s a GOOD thing for more efficient government!

The site didn’t get fleshed out nearly as much as I thought it would, both because I had anticipated having more time to contribute to the wiki, and because I thought I would get far more user contributions. (Strangely, more than half of the people who registered for an account made no changes to the wiki.)

Now that Obama is the Democratic nominee, the primary purpose of the site is no longer there. I don’t think many people comparing Obama to McCain will be worried about Obama’s level of experience, and if they are considering McCain in the first place, then Obama’s reformist resume will probably turn them off anyway. (oh wait, McCain used to stand for campaign finance reform… I guess that’s over with).

Anyway, I’m tempted to just take it down. I don’t have time to contribute to it, and no one else seems to either. It’s the first hit on Google for “Obama’s Resume”, which is a good and bad thing. Good because, in theory it is being found very quickly by exactly the people who would be looking for it, bad because there isn’t much useful info on there.

What do you, dear reader, think I should do with the site? Leave it? Hype it more? Take it down?

Anyone want to take it over?

I also noted on their website that they seem to be pretty critical of Nader, that he is not doing constructive things for the independent movement — I agree.

Update: John Opdycke from CUIP got in touch with me and clarified CUIPs relationship to the effort in North Carolina:

The Committee for a Unified Independent Party did not endorse Barack Obama, but rather is providing political and financial support to a longtime independent activist in North Carolina, Tyra Cohen, who has initiated an organizing effort entitled “North Carolina Independents for Obama.” Several of CUIP’s state affiliates have endorsed Obama; others have chosen not to make presidential endorsements but to focus on crucial political reform and base building efforts.

update: audio file from when the wrong numbers were announced

In chronological order. Newest updates are at the bottom. Last updated 9:31 pm, eastern

– 9:10 pm –

• it’s pretty nuts – lost sign in sheets, ad hoc procedural decisions, etd.
• in the beginning, everyone was told they could sign in (indicating the candidate) and then leave
• if they didn’t want to be a delegate
• [my wife] did, so we stayed
• then, when the initial count of hillary voters for one of the precincts was off by an obvious order of magnitude… [update: see audio file above]
• now we’re doing resolutions
• 1 – impeach bush/cheney
• (didn’t see that coming)
• anyway – a bunch of signup sheets were missing
• and the chair suggested that we allocate the delegates based on who was still here (!)
• (a bunch of folks had left – I would have if not for [my wife])
• but then someone came out of the back with a bunch of sheets
• and they’re still counting
• there was zero control over the sheets
• so I don’t think we can be too confident
• - next resolution has to do with inaccurate vote counts in the past – hehe

– 9:20 –

• rats – hillary took both precincts
• but by a narrow margin
• the total vote counts sounded sane
• hundred twenty something total for one precint, hundred two for the other – but i’m going to count
• about 100 still in the room – makes sense to think about that many left
• back into 4 groups – one O & one H for each precinct
• now voting on delegates, after hearing resolutions
• there’s usually no competition for delegates.
• right now a green party convert is stumping to become an obama delegate
• our precinct gets 5 delegates for obama, and 12 people signed up for it ([my wife] among them)
• we also get 5 alternates (makes sense), and so the delegates are expressing which they want to be
• looks like we pared down to 10 and agreed to split off the alternates
• no vote needed, and [my wife]‘s a delegate – we’re taking off (baby’s cranky)

Josh had this to say after he got home:

• John: well… from what you told me it seems like some pile of sheets came from nowhere
• John: magically
• yeah — someone had stashed them in the back
• John: or at least– they could have been pre-processed by some party before they made their reappearance
• there were enough signers present, and the sheets were in plain sight…
• that it would have been foolish to try large fraud, I imagine
• but the control really wasn’t there — one or more sheets could have been lost
• all the addresses and voter reg (or drivers license) numbers will be verified
• so from that perspective, it’s probably better than those damn machines we used for the primary

His stance against the war

Obama was against the war before it began, has criticized the war since then, and is now running a campaign centered around ending the war. All the way through he has spoken the plain truth about it: (a) there was no compelling evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (b) we should have been focusing our military efforts on quelling terrorist networks (c) we need to work on improving our reputation and relationships with other countries and cultures in order to not incite terrorism in the first place.

His meta-policies

Reading Obama and Clinton’s policies side-by-side, one will discover that they are pretty similar. I happen to think that Obama’s are presented much more clearly and intelligently on his website, and smack of greater sophistication and detail, but it is arguable that this has more to do with audience targeting than with the quality of the goals and final details of the policies themselves.

What really impresses me about Obama, and sets him apart from Clinton, are his “meta-policies”, if you will; his policies and goals about government.

Obama wants to make our government more transparent, more accessible, and more accountable. To this end he has done the following work while in the US Senate:

• Introduced the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, which requires the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2007 on a website maintained by the Office of Management and Budget (http://www.usaspending.gov/).
• Put together, with Russ Feingold, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which amends parts of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. It strengthens public disclosure requirements concerning lobbying activity and funding, places more restrictions on gifts for members of Congress and their staff, and provides for mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure bills.
• Introduced the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls, as witnessed in the 2006 midterm elections

(Not all have passed. Click through to see current status of each piece of legislation. Descriptions lifted from Wikipedia and slightly modified.)
Now, during his campaign, he has an incredibly impressive set of policies on using technology to improve government transparency and accessibility. I could give you an overview, or I could just direct you to Lawrence Lessig’s fantastic piece on why he supports Obama, which mostly addresses technology and transparency. In a nutshell: Obama wants to make government information and information as easy to access as your favorite blog. On top of that, he has the most sophisticated position on Net Neutrality. (quick definition of Net Neutrality: not allowing the phone/cable company to charge you more to access some websites vs. others, which is what they want to start doing.)

Previously mentioned here: this fantastic lecture Obama gave on  government accountability, transparency, and ethics.

His style of politics

Obama has run an extremely long and beautiful grassroots campaign. He has established an extremely impressive network of paid staffers in most (all?) states. He has engaged his supporters using accessible and innovative online tools. He has the best website, by far.

He has not accepted any lobbyist contributions. (see extensive discussion of this topic here).

He has been able to spool up and sustain an enormous, million-dollar-a-day, grassroots fundraising machine.

Only 10 percent of Clinton contributors did not donate the legal maximum $2,300 for her primary campaign. In contrast, only three percent of Obama donors gave the maximum. The rest of the cash came from small sums from many more people. (source)

He has completely refrained from what, to my understanding, most people would call “negative” campaigning / mud slinging. As of a couple weeks ago, the Clinton campaign can’t say the same…

That’s why Obama is such a different candidate to me. I’d love to hear what folks out there think about the differences (or lack thereof) between the two candidates, if I am buying into hype, or if I am missing some important points.

But I don’t understand what it means to accept money from a lobbyist. A conversation I just had with my friend Ryan:

John: so the obama campaign says they do not accept lobbyist contributions
John: it is my understanding that organizations/companies cannot contribute to a campaign anyway
John: how is it that lobbyist can contribute to a campaign?
John: from the human’s own pocket, in a grey-market way of getting a commercial money to a campaign?
John: or is there a separate system.
Ryan: hmm… I don’t know much about that
Ryan: I remember the whole “swift boat veterans for truth” thing from the last presidential election, where advertisements for bush were paid for by a third-party organization not affiliated with his campaign, so that is definitely one way to do it.
John: ah yes.
John: that is completely different though
John: those people were “independent”
John: lobbyist contributions go directly to a campaign, in a legal way
Ryan: Often companies will “encourage” employees to contribute to the company’s selected candidate
John: right
John: still not lobbyists.
John: (i think)

Then Ryan found this, which states:

PACs get their money not from the sponsoring group’s treasury, but from its members or employees. That arrangement neatly bypasses federal laws that prohibit direct contributions.

Which seems to suggest Ryan was right about the companies encouraging their employees. Is this the whole picture?

• All money-offering lobbyists represent PACs
• PAC members are easily identifiable
• Obama rejects money from PAC members
• Clinton accepts money from PAC members

According to this article, the answer is no:

While refusing money directly from federal lobbyists, who get their income from clients, Obama takes money from those clients.

[snip]

“If you cannot be completely pure, is it worth it to be partially pure? That seems to be debatable,” said political scientist Bruce Cain, director of the University of California Washington Center, based in the nation’s capital.

“We cannot say his policy is completely meaningless,” Cain said. “But it doesn’t insulate him from interests.”

I don’t know anything about the lobbying system — it seems that this article is saying “the lobbying system has many layers, and Obama is only opting out of contributions from the very first layer”.

The article mentions: “Obama still received 68% of his money from donations of $1,000 or more, compared with 86% for Clinton.” (this goes along with the NY Times quote I mentioned a few paragraps ago).  I wish the article gave Obama more credit for running a very different campaign from Clinton, but I can see how one could say that the Obama campaign is being less than cut and dry with its “accepting money from lobbyists” language.

On the other hand– maybe the Obama campaign is doing something that no major campaign has done for decades? Is this the case? Does anyone out there know the answer?

Good stuff. I myself am not aware of how cut and dry that is though (no Al Qaeda in Iraq until after the war began). Anyone know of a report/study/article that demonstrates this?

ObamasResume.org aims to put together a simple and complete description of Barack Obama’s career, which will be useful for Obama supporters to show their Clinton supporter friends. Anyone may edit this wiki.

The content is a little sparse right now — but that’s why it’s a wiki! Head on over and help me fill it in, so that we can start sending it around to our well-meaning-but-tragically-uninformed Clinton-supporter friends in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, Rhode Island, Wyoming, and Missouri.

Only 10 percent of Clinton contributors did not donate the legal maximum $2,300 for her primary campaign. In contrast, only three percent of Obama donors gave the maximum. The rest of the cash came from small sums from many more people.

– The Democratic Take: From Top to Bottom — The Caucus — New York Times Blog