Rewarding good behavior

By Kathy G.

Josh Marshall notes that Barack Obama's fundraising efforts seem to be lagging. In fact, the most recently released monthly fundraising totals showed Obama running just about even with McCain.

So what's happened to Obama's much-lauded fundraising ability? The Washington Post article Josh links to points to "the strain of raising money to retire Clinton's debt and some continuing resistance from Clinton's donors (to give to Obama's campaign)." Marshall himself argues that the small-donor fundraising that the Obama campaign has relied on tends to be dependent on the intensity of the campaign cycle, and that right now we're in a lull in the campaign.

Perhaps. But I think there's a much more obvious reason: Obama's stance on retroactive immunity for the telecoms and his various other positionings toward the center of late have alienated the liberal base. We want a progressive candidate, dammit, not a mealy-mouthed triangulator! I for one haven't felt the least inclined to donate money to Obama of late.

To paraphrase Atrios, I like to reward good behavior. Which is why I've given money to some truly progressive, anti-FISA Congressional candidates recently, but not to Obama. If Barack wants our money too, he's got to start doing much, much better.

Comments

[Tom]

That's exactly what I did the when the Obama campaign called 2 weeks ago.If Obama wants to win over the "middle" by his stand on FISA, let them pony up for a couple of months, while I spend my money on campaigns for Democrats who won't cower in the face of power the first time they set foot in Washington.

[Tom]

That's exactly what I did the when the Obama campaign called 2 weeks ago.If Obama wants to win over the "middle" by his stand on FISA, let them pony up for a couple of months, while I spend my money on campaigns for Democrats who won't cower in the face of power the first time they set foot in Washington.

[a-train]

This was my first thought too. Obama's campaign has been too clever by half lately. Many people seem to think that they must know what they're doing because they secured the nomination. But I'm not so sure. It seemed to me that Obama's campaigning was always most effective when it looked like he couldn't win. Conversely, whenever it looked like the win was cinched, things came apart. Looks like the same thing is happening now with this "move to the center" crap.

[natthedem]

Are there people who won't give to Obama over FISA? Yes, but I think you overstate their importance by claiming responsibility for Obama's slow fundraising.

The real issue, I think, is that he's been dependent on the theatrics of the primary season to bolster his fundraising efforts. His biggest yields have come after contentious primaries, where he's been able to galvanize voters off a win/loss. Those moments have been in short supply since he won the nomination.

[Peter VE]

The FISA vote pissed me off so much I donated to Bob Barr.
I live in RI. On the local level I have a choice of corrupt Democrats or quixotic 9th party candidates. On the national level I have one thoughtful Senator, one go-along Senator, and a Congressman elected by dint of his name. The only other thoughtful politician we had (Chafee) lost in the anti-Bush fervor two years ago.
I am hesitant donating on a third party's recommendation to a distant candidate, though I have been so doing.

[Martin]

As a long-time Obama supporter (pre-Iowa) and one whose household has contributed five times thus far, I'm fine with his FISA vote. I'm waiting for after the convention to start giving again, when I feel he'll *need* it. He'll get a September and October donation from me.

I think the FISA thing probably splits along age groups in the Obama camp. Under 35 are outraged, over 35 (me) don't care. I want him elected and we older people have experienced to many democratic close calls in our lifetime. Next year when President Obama and 56 democratic senators have power, they can revisit FISA.

[Clem]

During WWII, Arthur Harris, head of the RAF's Bomber Command, loudly derided those who claimed that attacking a few high-value targets could shorten the war. "Panacea targets" he called them. His preferred approach, firebombing German cities and killing thousands of civilians, didn't appreciably shorten the war, but neither did breaching a few dams in the Ruhr Valley, no matter how spectacular and morale-boosting the "Dambusters" raid was.

I think the progressive base has spent far too much time during the last eight years identifying panacea targets, hoping that attacking each would somehow wake America from its slumber and bring down the House of Bush: the secret White House energy meetings, the Patriot Act, Abu Ghraib, Plame vs. Libby, Katrina, The U.S. Attorney purge, Karl Rove and FISA. What have we to show for our efforts?

Personally, I'm disappointed in Obama for voting for the FISA measure, but it's impossible for me to be outraged because FISA, to me, ranks pretty far fucking down on the ledger of outrages we collectively own. The idea that Obama's fundraisng has lagged because the progressive base is outraged about FISA is more than wrong, it's intensely myopic, and the "rewarding good behavior" dynamic not just wrong-headed but paternalistic. By all means, fight for better representation in the House and Senate, at the State and Federal levels. Obama will be better able to embody a progressive ideal as President if he has a Congress shorn of Kool-Aid drinking Republicans and (truly) craven Blue Dogs.

The more obvious reason for the apparent trough in Obama's fundraising campaign is the toll being taken on voters' bank accounts by rising fuel and food costs and a metastasizing financial crisis. The demographics most likely to support Obama's candidacy are being hit hard. Left Blogistan's outrage has little to do with it.

[Karmakin]

Clem:I never thought about it that way, but I do believe you're right. I disagree with you on some of them...I don't think there was anything symbolic about Katrina, for example, but for the most part, I think that you're right.

It's not going to be a single incident that changes things, it's going to be everything tied into an overall story, and that story being communicated out to the masses. The title of the story?

"Why Elections Matter"

[hondajunkie]

Amazing. When Obama promised to be a different kind of candidate, apparently every liberal thought he meant he was going to vote just like them. It obviously never occurred to the left that he might have actually meant he was not going to let knee jerk ideology define his decisions. I'm well over 60, and have fought the liberal fight for almost half a century. There have been times I have wished Sen. Obama might have voted another way on a particular issue. The FISA vote was certainly one of those. Still, what I have witnessed is a man who understands what H.L. Mencken meant when he wrote, "For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong". He is a master politician and it has been a true pleasure watching him befuddle both the left and right. Withholding my paltry monthly contribution will assuredly not harm Sen. Obama, but low fund raising figures may well embolden the despicable Sen. McCain. Financially and ideologically it hurt this month. But it was much, much better than the alternative.

[Retired Catholic]

People have been hurting for quite some time. I doubt that those who have been financially harmed the most by gas and food prices and continue to swell the numbers of those raped by the mortgage crisis were the ones who constituted the great bulk of his small donors. There is a more deeply seated cooling developing toward him. It will be interesting to see how many people actually come to the Denver stadium, if he does indeed convene the convention there. His tracking poll numbers are being closed by McCain as well.

[Bloix]

hondajunkie - "much better than the alternative" is not enough. I didn't give a thousand bucksto "much better than the alternative." I could give another $1300 and I have it to give. Fuck him.

[Delia]

Well, I'm well over 35 and I care a good deal about FISA. The amount I can contribute to Obama's campaign probably doesn't matter all that much, but I've certainly lost my enthusiasm for writing checks.

[a-train]

There is no sense in what he has done. It was politically idiotic. The majority of Americans believe that law enforcement and intelligence agencies should get a warrant to spy on citizens.

If there is one thing that experience has shown time after time after time, it is that power corrupts. Giving people that kind of power without a check, no matter how well intentioned they may be or you believe they are, is a road to ruin. Full stop. It has never, ever, ever been good for a society. Ever.

Bush and the Telecoms took a chance in breaking the law. If they believe it was justified, they should have no problem allowing uninterested, neutral parties to investigate.