Home › Blogs › Soren Dayton's blog ›

Is Obama killing the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs?

Submitted by Soren Dayton on Fri, 07/04/2008 - 13:37
in

Barack Obama has built a mythical fundraising operation based on small-dollar donors. These were primarily upper-middle class affluents who were energized by a change message. These were also the netroots. Recall that the 3 issues at the core of the netroots are FISA, Iraq, and net neutrality. Obama's recent actions seem to be going to be undermining his appeal with both of these groups, with potentially disastrous consequences for his small-dollar online fundraising.

Obama has now shifted to the right on FISA. It certainly looks like he is in mid-flip on Iraq. Marc Ambinder asks today:

My question is: is any of this seeping through the filter between politically engaged activists and the rest of the Democratic electorate? In other words: will see enthusiasm for Obama diminish?

In reference to a scathing NYT editorial that also attacks Obama for flipping on guns, the death penalty, and other issues. The NYT ends with:

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

Which must count as a warning on his Iraq position.

What happens to Obama's fundraising if this march of flip-floppery continues? He loses energy among his "change" constituency as he becomes "just another politician". His netroots, affluent coalition weakens tremendously.

Does his small-dollar fundraising evaporate?

I joined the FISA protest group at myBO. I have copied the text of some of the emails that go out to the list below the fold. The anger is palpable.

For example:

Since he didn't even acknowledge his reversal, he did nothing to explain it.  He gave us no new information or circumstances that would explain why he had such a drastic change of heart.  In fact, he seems to be pretending that this is all about a simple disagreement on a policy position as if he had never promised to stand with us.  He must know that this would upset a lot of us even more than his original reversal.

Or:

Rather than to inform and educate on Constitutional and Intelligence issues he chose to lie in his FISA response.

For me, that's not ok.

Or:


But sending a donation to Ralph Nader at this point in the fund raising season would make the point without risking the Supreme Court.

Or:

If you cave in and actually vote for the FISA compromise bill I will demand my donation to your campaign be refunded.  Of all people, sir, to give in on such an issue. You’re a Harvard educated lawyer not a two-bit Texas hustler. Of anyone, you should know blanket immunity for blatant disregard of the law is not the American way. The rule of law must prevail.

I have, literally, hundreds of these in my inbox right now.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Wishfull Conservative Thinking

Submitted by Allen on Fri, 07/04/2008 - 14:19.

Unfortunately, he will hold on to the vast majority of his supporters. Even liberals can't get too excited by a candidate supporting an anti-terrorism measure.

I posted this elsewhere, but it fits this theme, too

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 07/04/2008 - 15:26.

Perhaps this ought to be the Obama campaign song?

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 07/04/2008 - 09:06.

Flip, Flop & Fly!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ig6Jvp8Ro8

So I wonder how many "hope & changers" are getting the Blues right about now?

I also wonder if my theory about "peak fundraising" pans out----perhaps in order to appeal to enough voters to win one simply can;t maximise one's contribution base.

 

Why? ..

Submitted by Calvin Jones an... on Sat, 07/05/2008 - 00:20.

Did you join the BO FISA goup?  So you believe that corporations shouldn't spy on ordinary Americans for no reason?  Because what the telecoms did was illegal.  One, they started doing it before 9/11.  Second, Quest refused to go along with the program(and the CEO was later indicted on questionable charges).  Are any of you old enough to remember the Church Commission?

I'm with you

Submitted by Repack Rider on Sun, 07/06/2008 - 10:54.

I don't see supporting the atrocious FISA bill as a "shift to the right."

I see it as a "shift to dictatorship."

Opposing telcom immunity is not a "left wing" position.  It is a CONSTITUTIONAL position, and the "left" is correct to oppose it..

How did so-called "conservatives" ever get on the wrong side of this issue?

Wait a second here....

Submitted by lagomorph on Sun, 07/06/2008 - 13:49.

Why is it that you're constantly posting about the atrocity of FISA but you have nary a word to say about the fact that Google is driving down our streets photographing our private property so that it can be displayed on Google Street View as well as Google Satellite View?  Do you care about the fact that our privacy is volated every time someone performs an Internet search on our names when our street addresses, apartment numbers and cell phone numbers come up in the results set?  Do you care that the one basic purpose of our government is to protect its citizens?  Do you really care about individual rights at all, or do you only care about the Talking Points delivered to your laptop daily by the Progressive Left Wing of the Democratic Party?

Wake up and smell the hypocrisy.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - once.  If you're truly as caring, thinking, principled and righteous as you might just be based on what you say you believe, then you will clearly see that Yahoo and Google, who contribute only to the Democrats, are violating our rights in exactly the same manner as FISA, only worse - because they're not doing it to a couple of Americans from time to time, they're doing it to all of us, daily, everywhere in this country.  Internet privacy violation is a violation in substance, not in principle. 

The Progressive objective is to keep the base focused squarely on the Republican vast right wing conspiracy meme to obscure the fact that the real threat will occupy several of the seats right next to yours in Denver next month.  And your response to that assessment is going to clearly indicate whether the neurological theory that Democrats are "open to new ideas" and "tolerant to new new information" is a fact, or a crock. 

Let's see how open you are to the new and exciting  possibility that your own party is setting the table for totalitarianism, spying, and unethical and unapproved sharing of proprietary information including detailed home, purchasing history, financial, and medical records that could harm and endanger Americans in a very real and tangible way. 

Oh, and if you're not interested in a dictatorship, then you should consider voting for John McCain since having a Democratic majority and a Democratic President will completely tip the balance of power scale in one pocket and shut out the voices of half of the population of the United States of America.  But maybe that's ok with you?  Maybe having no dissent, no challenge, no one to have to negotiate or compromise with, would suit your agenda?  If so, that will tell us all we need to know as well.  So yes, I'm throwing the gauntlet to you both to show your true principles, Sirs.  Very definitely, I am. 

~ BS-detecting Bunny

Simple answers to simple questions

Submitted by Repack Rider on Sun, 07/06/2008 - 20:32.

Why is it that you're constantly posting about the atrocity of FISA but you have nary a word to say about the fact that Google is driving down our streets photographing our private property so that it can be displayed on Google Street View as well as Google Satellite View?

Wow, is it really necessary for me to explain the difference between PRIVATE CITIZENS like the people who work for Google photographing publicly accessible areas, and THE GOVERNMENT vacuuming up all electronic communications and using computers to sift them for items of interest?

One of these entities is paid by tax money and subject to the Fourth Amendment, and one is not.  The Fourth Amendment does not protect you from having your address published in the phone book and does not prevent a private citizen from taking a photograph of your house while standing on public property.

It certainly is depressing that I am forced to explain something so obvious.

 

So, I suppose we have to cover our property with tarps

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 07/06/2008 - 20:41.

since I've seen commercially available photos on the web of my house detailed enough to show what color my family's cars are in the driveway....is that not an invasion of privacy? Doesn't this commericaly available stuff aid stalkers et al? Are more people physically harmed by stalkers or (except in the movies) rogue intel operatives out to harass ordinary citizens?

   

If you don't like what Google does

Submitted by Repack Rider on Sun, 07/06/2008 - 21:52.

Write your congresscritter and get a law passed that says people can't take photographs in public places.

This hysteria about Google seems to be a smokescreen to keep people from having to address the issue of telcom immunity and the flagrant abuse of the Fourth Amendment that it represents.

Say it ain't so.

guess if it's so flagrant

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 07/06/2008 - 22:56.

why is Obama voting for it?

Let me rephrase that

Submitted by Repack Rider on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 02:19.

Why is ANYBODY voting for it? 

Answer: The telcoms own them.

I expect conservatives to stand up for the Constitution, and when they don't I want to know why not.  In this case it seems that those standing up for it are liberals, and the conservatives in congress have sold their votes to the telcoms.

How dfid the liberals seize the moral high ground here, and why isn't there more of an outcry from the right?

Please tell me that the conservatives reading this value the Constituition and the Bill of Rights as much as I do.  Why bother to defend the Second Amendment if you are going to ignore the Fourth?

You sound like poor old Chris Dodd

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 06:05.

bleating on about how dear old dad gave the Nazis due process at Nuremburg. Notice that argument got 15 Democrats to vote against cloture.

Someone else who was involved with the Nuremburg trials had a better understanding of the Consitution. Google "Robert Jackson" and "suicide pact" and start climbing off your ledge. 

And you sound like

Submitted by Repack Rider on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 10:33.

Someone who does not have an argument, and just wants to call me names.

Don't make me do your homework.  If you have something to say, say it here and I will respond, since the author of the link you gave me is not on this board.

If you don't know who Robert Jackson is

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 22:49.

please stop pretending to know anything about the Consitution, then

My congresscritter is a Democrat

Submitted by lagomorph on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 01:15.

who doesn't represent my values in any way, shape or form and certainly wouldn't want to offend two of the Democratic Party's biggest contributors here in California.  Other than that, that's a great idea! 

And dangling from the sky above my house may be a public place per se, but it does give a much different vantage point to would-be break-in artists, providing information about where the cars are parked, when we're usually home or not, egress and ingress, easements, etc. - all without some creep ever having to leave his house to surveil mine with the same technology available to the folks at CTU on '24'.  It could also be used by criminals or terrorists to obtain security information at military or other secure locations, or businesses, etc. 

But obviously you can easily dismiss this and it doesn't concern anyone else on the Left because if I understand you correctly, who cares if another private citizen is violating my privacy as long as it's not the government - is that correct? 

Wait until they distribute your medical records, and those of your friends and family members.  Even CNN has sent up the red flag on this bit of business:

Google Inc. will begin storing the medical records of a few thousand people as it tests a long-awaited health service that's likely to raise more concerns about the volume of sensitive information entrusted to the Internet search leader.

Google views its expansion into health records management as a logical extension because its search engine already processes millions of requests from people trying to find more information about an injury, illness or recommended treatment.

But the health venture also will provide more fodder for privacy watchdogs who believe Google already knows too much about the interests and habits of its users as its computers log their search requests and store their e-mail discussions.

The only depressing thing about this is how easily you dismiss it.  The bottom line is that both our parties are corroded and rotten in many ways and you and I should be looking at both of them with a jaundiced eye, not just at the Republicans.  I thought you were smarter than that.  Looks like we've got the deaf leading the blind, here. 

You read me wrong

Submitted by Repack Rider on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 02:31.

if I understand you correctly, who cares if another private citizen is violating my privacy as long as it's not the government - is that correct?

No.  Maybe you should work on that.

Private citizens like those who work for Google, as well as the business itself, are subject to laws made by congress and state legislatures, and these bodies have the authority, if not the will, to protect your privacy.  I'm not sure what sort of legislation you are looking for, but that's where it would come from, if and when it is enacted.

On the other hand, actions by the government are constrained by the Constitution, and the law protecting your privacy from that entity is ALREADY on the books and has been since 1787.

It's called the Fourth Amendement.  It's one sentence.  Read it and call your congresscritter and tell him/her to enforce it.

 

Thank you for clarifying

Submitted by lagomorph on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 11:09.

I appreciate the reply and I'll move the discussion back up to the 4th Amendment.  It's interesting how often I hear discussions on the 4th repeat the same exact phrase:

It's called the Fourth Amendement.  It's one sentence.

Two issues come to mind whenever I hear that:

  1. That particular sentence was written in 1791, and each time new technology is invented (starting with the daguerreotype), the law must be reinterpreted
  2. Throughout the history of Western Civilization and certainly the United States, liberty always suffers during wartime. 

That's the short version, but I must be off so I'll leave you with this.  Your concern over whether conservatives value the Constitution and Bill of Rights as much as you do is one which certainly resonates with me.  I appreciate the fact that your responses have been sober, thoughtful, and reasonable.  I shall look forward to doing a bit of homework and returning later on with enough knowledge to engage in what I hope will be an intelligent debate.  One can only do what one can with one's God-given resources.  And Google.  Heh. 

 

 

I have to get to work also

Submitted by Repack Rider on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 12:32.

So let me leave you with this:

     

    • That particular sentence was written in 1791, and each time new technology is invented (starting with the daguerreotype), the law must be reinterpreted.

     

 

When was the Bible written?  Does morality change every time there is a new technology?

 

I am....

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 07/05/2008 - 09:52.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Commission#Aftermath

Early on, critics such as Bing Crosby and Paul Harvey accused the committee of treasonous activity. The 1975 assassination of Richard Welch, a CIA station chief in Greece, intensified the public backlash against its mission.[8] The Committee's work has more recently been criticized after the September 11th attacks, for leading to legislation reducing the ability of the CIA to gather human intelligence.[9][10][11][12]

I also remember this......evidently the Commision's work was wildly popular in the chairman's home state 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Church#Late_political_career

Church was defeated for re-election to the Senate by conservative Republican congressman Steve Symms in 1980 by less than one percent of the vote.