Alinsky Rises Again

A brilliant practical theorist. Just kicked in $35 to send Al to Denver. Haven't tried to get my donation back from RV--will do it one of these days.

Clearly, this whole crowd that supports community organizing, small donors and a distrubuted power base is at odds with the old school Dems you reference.  It is interesting watching Obama try to either bring those guys on board or find a way to cut them loose without causing too much damage.  This can all be plainly seen in the current negotiations with the Clinton donors.  They are slow to get on board because they still "have concerns about Obama."  Sure they do...in their case, they have concerns that Obama won't kiss their butts. 

I would imagine the Obama team never went in to this without a plan on exactly how to walk this tightrope.  You need to truly convert or coopt as many of those folks as possible without losing the whole vision and turning off the loyal, progressive base.

Also just a note about the Unite for Change meetings.  These were initiated I would say 3 weeks ago and yet it is only now that I see there was this whole Unite theme that was being laid for this week with the Clinton/Obama rally in Unity, NH.  And, of course, my confidence in the campaign was vindicaed when I got a phone call this week regarding helping with my meeting.  They really are on the ball.

Al -

Is there any way you can provide a bookend of sorts of your (now uncensored) Alinsky post?  Specifically, you called for suggestions in that original post, and we all suggested aspects of the campaign that related to 'rules for radicals'.

Would you be able to quote the comments you found most insightful, and add your commentary about how those rules relate to this election?  (Not being community organizers, I think some of us had a little trouble connecting the dots concretely between the rules and the election.)

Game, set, and match!

Thanks, Al.

So many times through the primary, I would listen to commentators and Clinton campaign people and the David Broder types and would be in awe at how they just couldn't see what was going on, right before their eyes. So many of them either still don't see it or are too scared to acknowledge it.

There are so many people like me, who never before participated in politics, who donated money to Barack Obama (and Al), volunteered for a voter registration drive, read political blogs, and wrote letters to various elected officials and other people. In a way, it is a revolution and that is scaring some of the people, at least those who are smart enough to see it!

Now we get to see McCain and Republicans try to get a handle on what is going on. That should be even more fun than the primaries!

I'm glad you moved over from Rural Votes if they felt the need to "protect" their establishment from a certain type of community discussion.

These people don't own the democratic party or the Obama campaign.  They're way out of touch.   Maybe, we're all ready for something different this campaign!

Tara @ 2:06 PM

"This can all be plainly seen in the current negotiations with the Clinton donors.  They are slow to get on board because they still 'have concerns about Obama.'"

As if their money is going to make a difference about those concerns. As if the this moneyed crew has the power to change Obama to their liking.

One shout-out to 1.5 million donors for $50 produces $75 million with one click. $100? Double it. How much do you need for two months?

=================================

Al's Alinsky Rises Again

This just keeps getting deliciouser and deliciouser.

So now we know Markos is going to be on every pundit's show and probably the Sunday talks when his book comes out in September. Just like his last book. KO will have him on Countdown. Matthews on Hardball. Every serious political blog will be discussing it, comparisons will be made between the Republicans and Democrats, and who is ready for prime-time in the 21st C digital age...and the root-a-toot that planted the political flag on this new moon used to be The Field at Rural Votes which got dissed, dumped, but not destroyed for linking to earth's new reality. And it will be the earth, not just the USA, should Obama win the Presidency. Every group, govt, and challenger on the planet will study how Obama did what he did against perceived almost insurmountable odds in a record 18 months.

Ahhh . . .deliciouser and deliciouser.

=================================

These house meetings form the core of the campaign's organizing model. The concept derives from organizing theory as taught by Saul Alinsky and as adopted by community organizers across the country. Never before has a major party presidential campaign used them to expand their support in a general election. (emphasis mine)

Nice of Ambinder to acknowledge that, even if he doesn't actually mention the Dean campaign, for which house parties and meetings were a major organizing tool. In many ways the Obama campaign is the Dean campaign perfected and expanded, probably because while Dean had good instincts and trusted the grassroots, he and his top people did not (to my knowledge) have much of a community-organizing background; they just lucked into it. It's great to see so many of the things we were making up as we went along four years ago built upon so masterfully!

Dead on, again.  It's been starkly obvious that Obama has been running a classic neighborhood organizing campaign, writ large.  His community work in Chi Town seems to have stuck with him.

Notable, is that the feedback loop goes two ways - Obama's message is delivered, and responses and actions from the public are actively sought.  Then the engaged electorate is offered the opportunity to become more deeply involved in the campaign - through donations, becoming block captains, rallies, etc.  And the web grows ever closer while spreading outwards, organically.  Those volunteers and donors are now informed, empowered and motivated.

This organizing style is not inherently reflective of any political viewpoint, though it does favor the populist and progressive outlooks. John McCain could also try to make use of it.  Likely he won't and would have cognitive dissonance issues if he did.  That's why the Republican's electoral successes have been built on turning out church congregations, who are already conditioned to respond to signals from their leadership hierarchy, and who have reflexive, linear organizations.

Obama's popularity reflects a lot more than his charisma.  People are hungry for the tools and education that lets them attack their own problems constructively.  Bush only wants passive shoppers.

This doesn't mean that Obama is at root any less of a center-right Democrat, but it's inspiring to watch this play out.

Thanks, again, Al.  I followed some links from Fieldhands about the OOF, and found some wonderful material online from Marshall Ganz.
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k2139

I hope the FieldHands who are Organizing Fellows will let us know how they're doing - and if they're near any Fieldhand Groups.

Looking forward to reading "Taking on the System."

when you had that segment to convince Deb that Obama was the best candidtate to support. I was struck by Deb's comments back then. she was very focused on what was good for the party. I thus felt compelled to attack her rather that convince her. I am not a Dem. and I see a lot of the disease we call politics in them as well as the GOP. it takes two to tango.

until the people organize we cannot stand up to the power elites that have run this country for the last 100 years. I say this since in 1913 the professional politician was created by an unconstitutional law that capped the size of the House of Representatives. the House was always envisioned as the power channel for the people as each representative only represented 30,000 people. the Senate was always envisioned as the power brokers forum. but the House gave the people a chance. when they capped it they made the House just like the Senate and politicians became professionals. before that it was not a career position.

this was a very bad time for the State of the Unioun as the trusts created the Central Bank (Fed) to control the economy for them, which was unconstituional also. and created the federal income tax to fund the new big government (this was done legally).

so we have a lot of work ahead of us in organizing to push back all that has been put in place to take the US away from us. back in 1913 corporations did not have rights like they do now. that is unconstitutional too. they have absolutely no roots in the Constitution providing them any rights, and especially not ones more favorable to people who are citizens.

and so every part of this power grab will be against the people, we the people. it will be an incredible task to fight this. Obama is just the toe in the door.

I've always voted, and I never understood why many friends and acquaintances my own age didn't vote. They told me it wasn't not going to make a difference, when I could clearly see huge policy differences between candidates. But reading your post I finally got a sense of why they might have felt the way they did. When both candidates are running a top down campaign and taking marching orders from large donors, there's no sense that anyone is listening to us.

"fear-based thinking... leading many millions of Americans that have more in common ideologically with Democrats than Republicans to turn our backs on electoral politics, participation and voting..."

It's amazing how the bottom up approach has turned everything around and made so many people realize that this time they can be involved and make a difference, and not just by voting, but by organizing on the local level.

Al,

I echo all the comments here and thank you for shining a brighter light on this subject - both in terms of the censorship and the big picture of Obama's campaign.  And always looking for the silver lining, we got in a little practice organizing (thanks in large part to Susan Kitchens!!) and saw how we could come together quickly for the right cause with Donations for Denver.

I'm really looking forward to reading Kos' book in September as I think many of us are somewhat novices at the technology aspect of organizing (but succeeding nonetheless, since the Republicans are so horrible at both technology and organizing.)

@ Tara - that's so terrific you are hosting one of the 3,000 Saturday "Unite for Change" events.  I'm going to one in my neighborhood as well and really looking forward to it.  And I agree with you that there is a good chance the big Clinton donors are walking around with a pouty lower lip since Obama isn't approaching these donor events in the same traditional way.  Jeez Louise, didn't they watch the same primary as the rest of us and see the math that Alexa pointed out?  I mean, he didn't even really need Oprah or Michael Jordan!  I think Oprah went out to S. C. and California and maybe one other place and they decided, "yeah, no."  The celebrity thing wasn't a big winner.  So if he really isn't begging Oprah or Michael (who are good looking, talented AND rich) what hopes do they have that he is going to kiss their ass!?  I think the message he should give Clinton donors is, "What do you think about rounding up some of your friends to help pay down her 20 mil in debt? Or another option would be for you guys to organize and to go on weekends to help get some voters registered in any of the swing states and just keep your wallet in your pocket.  Either of those would be a huge help to our campaign." 

I know the RV-Al breakup was painful to a lot of us, but at this stage it is more than clear who won.  Deb's antics and emails have been so thoroughly discredited that continuing to discuss it is like poking a wounded dog with a stick.  (note to self: never pick a fight with Al Giordano or Barry Crimmins.)

I am excited about my house party.  It's up to 30 people and I just went in and bumped up the limit to 40.  What the hell.  We have a big deck and people can stand.  And an Obama fellow will be attending so I get to meet one in person.  It will also give me first dibs on hard to get swag.  And if by the end of all this, my entree in to community organizing has me approaching strangers on the phone or in person, we will know there has been a huge breakthrough as I dread that.

This whole thing with Hillary's debt makes me cranky.  It was completely irresponsible to go in to debt chasing a fairy tale and now the big funders refuse to get on board unless Obama  helps.  I guess that is politics but it's ugly.  Those folks could be giving to the DNC instead of paying of her debts.  The only good thing to say about it all is that at least she isn't seeking her own money back.

Thanks for your excellent post.  You have inspired me with your intelligence, courage and leadership. 

What these old-guard insiders haven't realized yet is that the Obama meteor has already crashed into the planet and fundamentally changed the political climate in ways that will soon make them extinct.

Our Unite for Change picnic in suburban (and Republican) Folsom, CA already has over 100 signups via barackobama.com, and our local leader doesn't recognize but about a third of the names.  That's at least 70 new names and email addresses added to the database.  And with the 30 or so of us already involved spreading the word, who knows how many more we will collect this Saturday?

..goes back at least a year. A number of people observed that both Dem candidates were influenced by Alinsky and had distinctly different assessments of his work. See the Washington Post in March 25, 2007: For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological Touchstone.

There is also a short but decent summary of Alinsky HERE.

It's amazing how many people want to remain ignorant about this perspective on this years election. And it includes Dems, MSM and even bloggers. I'm hoping those folks continue sleeping a bit because once Obama is in office it is still going to be a struggle achieving some of these goals against the folks who are too cosy with the status quo.

It seems to me the pressure to publish blog posts sometimes prohibits bloggers from looking deeper into angles like this. Some share that curse/blessing with the MSM. But Kos has definitely impressed me this year. And I'm left shaking my head about others I won't take time to mention.

...from Rural Votes. Once it clears, it's on it's way back to you, Al.

Bob -

That "dead dog" on the side of the road still has a credential with my name on it lodged inside its bloated intestines.

If you find the poking uncomfortable, you can skip over the posts - and there are more to come - that will extract it and restore it to its rightful house.

Furthermore, what occurred in this situation provides an excellent "teaching tool" with a microcosm of a greater and substantial struggle inside the United States. For others, as you can see from their comments, it's a compelling narrative with things that really matter at stake.

It kind of irks me too, Tara. However, it goes back to deciding which actions move us forward, and which hold us back. It costs Barack nothing (his financial base is already firm) to encourage the big donors to pay off Hilary's vendors (he's not proposing that her indebtedness to herself be paid off); but the payback could be significant... He pacifies some of her supporters and brings them into the fold, and (significant to me, as a citizen), makes sure her vendors are paid. Some of these are smallish companies which are clearly impacted by unpaid bills. It's likely that these folks, if not already Obama supporters, may look at him in a way they had not considered. I think it has the potential to be a good strategy on Obama's part... even though I won't be contributing to that effort...

You know Al i'm just wondering if Obama came to you and asked you not to write about something until after the election beacause  he thought it would hurt him in the general....i'm just wondering what you would say?    

Well, if that's the case, I'm popping some popcorn. I am in no doubt of the ultimate outcome, I might as well enjoy the show.

Longroad - If anyone came to me - whether it was the president of the United States or an unknown person with no resources or power - to tell me that something I might report would do damage to them, I would attentively listen to his or her concerns and weigh the matter on the merits. I can think of hypothetical cases in which I would tell that person "sorry, but no." And I can think of hypothetical cases in which I would tell that person, "you know, you're right, the harm done by this would create a punishment that doesn't fit the crime."

But as you might imagine, anyone that approaches this journalist seeking that matters of great public importance be hidden from public view had better have the facts and reason on the side of his or her argument. And they'd better not try to apply pressure, whether in the form of bribe or blackmail, or, if they are a person of privilege and means, they sure as hell better not try to wave that power in my face. Those that have come to me over the years taking that kind of stance have walked away empty handed and sometimes worse off for it.

The truth is, every journalist makes a thousand decisions every day of what to put in and what to leave out of a story. It's just not humanly possible to publish every single piece of data assembled in the reporting. The stance by some journalists - "we published that because it was there" - is morally hollow. The challenge is to set priorities, to deduce what matters and what does not, and always provide a listening ear to those that have genuine concerns about the consequences of reporting sometimes on innocent parties.

But if someone called me up today saying, "Hi Al, this is Barack," I'd only wonder which of my pals was playing a prank on me. And since only three people in the world have my home phone number, it wouldn't take me long to figure out who was the joker and plot an appropriate prank in response.

Al, thoughts on FISA? I spent the last two days at the Personal Democracy Forum in NY, and in the hallways there was strong consternation that our nominee isn't quite the fire-breathing progressive some thought he was...and on many of the better lefty blogs, the same consternation and unhappiness, even from Obama primary backers. (And this extended to his "Great Seal" and to a much lesser extent, campaign finance).

My own take is that Obama is a fairly non-revolutionary regular Democrat who trends not far from the center and comes from an organization background - the traditional coalition that elects Dems in metro areas - but that his campaign and how it's organized and most importantly, its raw ambition, is extraordinary and different, not so much the politician himself (aside from his obvious talents/smarts and appealing "first-ever" status).

I've seen you write before that you consider Obama to be a "fairly... regular Democrat" and I've spelled out millions of words so far over the past year putting forward facts and logic that suggest there really is something very very different at work here.

As for FISA, you do understand that it is aimed precisely at people like me, right? A US citizen and journalist that spends most of his time in foreign lands, reports on controversies and social movements and narco-trafficking and money laundering and such, and FISA is specifically aimed at giving the US government and telecom companies permission to tap international calls and emails. So, on paper, I ought to be more concerned than people that don't have much or any international contact, who would not be personally affected by its provisions, but are are evidently very upset whereas I kind of shrug my shoulders.

That's because all the things that people fear FISA will allow are being allowed already. There are many loopholes that already allow the US government to surveil upon international communications simply by doing it through surrogates, be they governments or foreign telecom companies. So why should I be upset about something that only puts a legal imprimatur on what they're already doing anyway?

I also concur with Markos who was quoted today in the Huffington Post saying it's not yet clear what Senator Obama will or won't do on this specific FISA bill, and so I see the "fairly... ordinary Chicken Littling" going on in some corners, a lot of it frankly stoked by former Clinton and Edwards supporters that can't let go of the argument that the presumptive nominee is just the same as any politician, which is a narrative I reject.

As for the flap over the Vero Possumus seal, I thought it was fun! I agree with Wolcott: Its similarity to the Ramones seal was a blatant pander to us former CBGBs denizens, and they probably only took it down because Arturo Vega demanded royalties!

I read the Tom Hayden piece (link below) in January and agree with him.  While I'm hopeful about Obama, it's the movement he has inspired that makes me the most hopeful:

Barack Obama is giving voice and space to an awakening beyond his wildest expectations, a social force that may lead him far beyond his modest policy agend [sic]. Such movements in the past led the Kennedys and Franklin Roosevelt to achievements they never contemplated. [As Gandhi once said of India's liberation movement, "There go my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader."]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/an-endorsement-of-the-mov_b_83478.html

I also feel Obama is a shrewd strategist and will do what is necessary to win.  And that's okay with me.

Loved your post, Al.  You perfectly articulated my feelings about why the Dems have been losing for over a decade (as well as why I became an Independent in the 90s).

This post and the comments are especially thought-provoking today (a frequent occurrence at the Field.)  Perhaps some people are beginning to become uncomfortable with the possible signs of early "inverted totalitarianism", an academic term. The link below, written 4 years ago, provides a short and sweet framework for understanding recent history.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0718-07.htm

@jon, June 25 3:09 p.m.

The link above confirms your statement, "Bush only wants passive shoppers"; as well as the McCain campaign not being very conducive to community organizing techniques.

I agree with Mary's general take and use of the Hayden quote - that may very well be what's going on. Perhaps. Or, it might just be a brief moment - we've down that path before, and the hardship of running this thing we call America drags down the biggest dreams. In any case, I want him to win and very badly.

On FISA, I have no illusions about privacy - none, zilch, zippo. I wrote in @NY back in the 90s that the privacy wars were over. But it seems to me that retroactive immunity to massive multinational corporations to protect them from the people - ie, us and that includes Mr. G - whose privacy they invaded contrary to U.S. laws in some fear-laden witch hunt is a bridge too damned far. So while I was not as disappointed as many early supporters on Obama's non-stance, and have long since given up hope for leadership from the likes of Pelosi, Hoyer, and Reid, it was a a potential moment for leadership - and it passed. More than anything, it was a sign that Obama expects to win and wants as much of the security apparatus in place as possible when he ascends to the top step.

Now, as to the regular Dem thing - well, he just is. Not ordinary. Far, far from that. Great speaker. Very good writer. Awesome synthesizer of vision and brand and marketing. Sublime organizer. Killer pol. But regular? Yes, in terms of organizational Democratic politics. He's not an outsider in the traditional sense. He's changing from within, and his change has slowed a bit and moved to the center now that he's the nominee. Because I want to win, I respect that, though I may occasionally tweak him from a seat on the loyal back bench.

I loved Jim's Ramones line - wish I'd thought of it! (And also was very happy to see killer candidate Obama deep-six it before it became a bigger punch line - smart).

From Markos last night, summing up some of the feeling out there, I think:

“I don’t want to hear him talk about leadership. I don’t want to hear him talk about defending the Constitution. I want to see him do it,” he said. “If he does, it will increase the intensity and level of support he gets from base Democrats. If he doesn’t, we may worry he is just another one of these spineless Democrats who are more afraid of controversy in doing the right thing than they are in actually doing the right thing.”

But he also said, let's face it - McCain vs. Obama is a no-brainer. I think the discussion about Obama the radical vs. Obama the regular Dem is a fascinating one, and worth having.

BTW, congrats on the site - it's working well, like the new comments a lot - and on the convention thing. I covered the '92 confab, once is enough for me (though I did get to meet Aretha Franklin).

"The greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself." — Saul Alinksy

The article I sited at 7:28 p.m. was written 5 years ago, not 4. 

I found the following had a useful summary of where the new FISA bill increases protections over the old and where it reduces them. It really seems to be a mixed bag that way:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/guide-to-new-fisa-bill-part-iii.html

Kris's other posts are also worth reading for a lot of detailed legal background.

"Organizing?

Beauty?

Strength?

Everyday people?

Oooooh. Scary!"

This reminds me of the stupid dictators of Latin America prohibiting citizens from listening to:

"Gracias a la vida" by Violeta Parra.

I keep thinking about this FISA immunity as being a Trojan Horse for the Administration, and that even if it passes, they won't go for it. Not likely, maybe.

But the thought occurred to me that if as a condition of getting immunity from the civil suits, the telecom's have to get a statement from the president saying he authorized them to spy on Americans absent a warrant (a criminal violation of FISA by the Administration) doesn't that serve as evidence against the Administration of law breaking -- even if at the same time it provides immunity from civil prosecution for the telecoms?

Could that be possible? And if so, might the Administration be reluctant to provide such a letter of acknowledgement for fear that in the future it might be used against those involved as evidence of a criminal violation of the FISA law -- and it doesn't appear, from what I can see, that criminal violations are not absolved by this current bill.

At a minimum, the image of the president's signature on such a statement couldn't play very well in the current election cycle for the Republican cause. The Dem.'s voted to enhance our security with FISA reform (even if that's a crock, it's a political talking point) after the President admitted, see, we have his signature here, to a criminal violation of the FISA law.

And might not that slight of hand in this bill be something the Administration would be reluctant to discuss publicly, since to announce that concern to the media would essentially be the same as announcing guilt. 

It couldn't be that slick, could it? I'm sure I'm missing something. Any thoughts?

I just realized that when I've been telling people I like Obama because he understands leadership, it's actually his leadership style that comes from Alinsky. Alinsky's principles as described are driven by basic leadership principles under the definition of "an ability to influence others", which coincidentally is how you obtain power. I don't know why, but the relationship just clicked for me.. perhaps because I never looked at it in terms of community organization but rather in terms of pure leadership.

So, really, those in the Democratic party who are afraid of Alinsky don't understand true leadership and don't understand these principles. No wonder the Democratic party has sucked so bad. The people running the show have no idea what they're doing in a leadership position and are likely there more to feed their power-hungry bellies than actually provide leadership to the country.

Thanks, Al, for giving me a little enlightenment.

I think the most terrifying thing in the world for the political elites and the entrenched economic interests is the prospect of real, citizen-driven democracy.  They are scared shitless by the potential for real change if we da people ever get our hands on the levers of power.  David Broder and his ilk have built entire careers out of making sure that the machinations on Wall St. and in Washington are not interfered with. 

We are going to need to be vigilant 24/7, because the power brokers are going to do everything they can to insure that digital age organizing doesn't threaten their hold on society.

I keep marveling at the timing.  Ten, twelve - even four - years ago, I'm not sure Obama would have taken off like he has.  But things have gotten so bad, on so many levels - it's like the perfect storm for someone like Obama to come on the scene.

Enough to make one believe in Divine Providence. 

It's my hope that when President Obama wants some help to accomplish something, he'll ask Americans to work with him.  It's amazing what a couple of thousand calls to one's senator or rep can do.  Yet most Americans I know have never made even one call - unless it's about their sewer connection or a stoplight or their rising property taxes.

[And not to be snarky, but I accidentally went to the wrong Field link and stayed just long enough to notice that the "Keep Tracy Writing" button is no longer there.  The other donation buttons are intact, however.]

Al, your post reminded me of when and why and how I figured out what it was about Obama that is so different.

tired of fear based approach: yes

community organizer as president: yes

anti-democratic leadership / top down approach: yes

I sent the below email (subject: Thoughts on Super Tuesday and Obama) to my friends and family on February 5 (As a caveat, I grew up in the South and was pretty brainwashed about unions and organizing.):

I am tired of the state of constant fear and factionalism in our country. And I think Obama can lead us on a different path. I reached that conclusion after reading his first book, about his growing up and his first jobs out of college. He was a "community organizer." I didn't know what that meant but I knew that I didn't like the sound of it. When I read about what he did---at the most basic level working towards getting people to help themselves--it convinced me that a Barack Obama Presidency could be similar to his "community organizing" but on a much larger scale.  And that is a very good thing.  He describes helping people speak up and work for a change in their lives - listening to their hopes and interests and then helping them put those into action. It was not about telling them what was best for their lives and then swooping in to fix it.  I read about him sitting by quietly, while the individuals he'd worked with addressed the mayor of chicago or the housing board, to create real changes in their day to day lives. In the same situations, I would have been tempted to speak for them, while they listened to me voice their interests. Not a surprising take, since that is what I do as a lawyer. Obama was more educated and more articulate than these people, so he could have voiced their interest "better".  As I read about these accounts I actually felt nervous for them, hoping they wouldn't blow it. But I realized that Obama had a much larger impact by encourgaing these people to take action (after showing them what was possible and making the resources available to prepare them) rather than doing it for them. I see it as Obama "teaching people to fish" instead of giving them food.  A lot of times, in my life it seems easier for me to just do something myself (remember the old saying, if you want it done right...) instead of teaching someone else how to do it. It takes a lot of patience and leadership to teach the people how and to inspire them to want to take some action for themselves. I could not do it but he can.
 
Obama's approach is more efficient but it requires trusting people to take personal responsibility.  I think that's why some republicans and small government types are drawn to Obama, and why some traditional democrats do not support him.
 
His approach is a "change" away from Democratic Party paternalism, and that scares some people.  Take his health care proposal, for example. He would make it available to all who want affordable health insurance, but would not force everyone to buy it. Clinton would - on "This Week" on Sunday she would not rule out garnishment of wages to require every last person to participate. That is paternalism, a government knows best approach. Obama's approach is totally different in that it would be available to all but he would not require participation.  Most adults want to make their own choices in life and don't want to cede those choices to the federal government. Obama would make insurance available and affordable, and then let people take responsibility for their health care. 
 
Also, reflecting on this Super Tuesday, I am so pleased to support a democrat that does not hand out money to churches or other organizations to get their members out to vote. I have always been ashamed of that traditional democratic party strategy, but I thought it was necesarry to get Democrats in office. I don't want to be ashamed to be a democrat and Obama's principaled actions make that possible. 

I decidely do NOT want to get back into the health care debate. I am leaving it in above because that was the example on my mind back on February 5.

So, I donated $25 back in february to keep Al writing for texas and didn't really expect to see that again. But I donated another $25 to "send Al to denver."  I got a $10 refund yesterday (no explanation for that percentage). Along with that refund came the most depressing message, "You cannot possibly believe this is the result I was looking for -- a betrayal of trust. Lessons -- be careful when you hit that e-mail send button -- the person on the recieving end may not be trustworthy."

I hope our other superdelegates and party bureaucrats aren't "looking for a betryal of trust."

I'm glad I'm not. 

I officially retired my "Got Hope?" long sleeve tee after the speech in the Twin Citeis for a short sleeved: "I'm Fired Up! / He's Ready to Go!" That says it all to me : )

"You cannot possibly believe this is the result I was looking for -- a betrayal of trust. Lessons -- be careful when you hit that e-mail send button -- the person on the recieving end may not be trustworthy."

I hope our other superdelegates and party bureaucrats aren't "looking for a betryal of trust."

What did she expect? Al would turn into a chicken little, LMAO!!!!

It seems to me Deb K. is the one who is untrustworthy.

Well, Al-- like Senator Obama, you continue to both challenge and surprise me. Just when things have started to feel predictable and run- of-the-mill and I've started to question if it's all really "something" afterall, each of you (obviously in utterly different contexts) has come back with a zinger.  I'm not trying to kiss your ass(or his), and obviously we don't agree all the time, but for what it's worth-- thanks for not only the flavor, but the hearty substance you back it up with.

Re: Allinsky/RV-- I remain flabbergasted. Initially I'd thought there must be some reference/understanding I just wasn't getting/recognizing-- afterall, I'm relatively new to the political internets-- but no. Very, very strange. And a real reminder of what we're up against here.

Really, what is UP with that!?!?

Helen - Anybody that censors a reporter's work and tells him in email that if he doesn't accept it she'll shut down his blog, who then expects that her over-the-top emails are somehow considered confidential when no agreement was ever made to make them so, is pretty darn dimwitted. Yeah, as we say in New York, trust this!

With a reporter, if anybody wants something "off the record," or "not for attribution," or "deep background," one has to get an agreement establishing those groundrules in advance. Them's the rules and every pro knows it.

Furthermore, abusive communications from a manager to a freelancer should never be considered private. Anyway, your account of your part of this collective story made me smile.

Mary in Seattle - Interesting about that missing button. Maybe she wanted to be, uh, paid any funds donated to it but encountered something similar to our own story? Too funny!

It coincides with another set of incidents in recent days that cause one to wonder whether Ms. Russo got pangs of conscience after being marched out to the front to scab during a worker-management dispute two weeks ago. Russo spoke at a conference in NY this week and made quite the splash dressing down Senator McCain's Internet guy over McCain's own online illiteracy. The video went viral, was mentioned by Ben Smith, by Kos, on CNN's Situation Room today, and in every case it referred to the  "former Edwards blogger" and nothing identifying Russo from the URL of the Ex-Field. At first I just figured that it reflected a widespread rejection of the ex-hosts by the journalists covering that story, but if it turns out that Russo did the right thing and walked from that remnant of an organization, heck, I can even forgive her for the brief lapse in judgment to have crossed the picket line prior.

I also notice that Russo's name isn't on the "rural" panel at Netroots Nation July 24, which, as it was explained to me, was organized by her. But guess who will be on it? Sounds like a train wreck in the making. (Anyway, if y'all don't get your refunds by then you know where to find the source.)

Anvils flying everywhere! Some coming into view, some still rocketing down from above cloud cover! Heads up!

Interesting topic at the Netroots Nation Convention about on teh same day as the Rural panel:

I e-mailed Deb debbyskoz@cs.com. Monday 06-23-08 requesting a refund on $100.00 submitted to "Send Al to Denver" May 25th.  I included a cut and paste copy of my Pay Pal E-Mail receipt.  I got an e-mail via Pay Pal the next day, 06/24/08 notifying me that Rural Votes will be refunding my money.  I already donated to the new fund and will add the $100.00 as soon as it clears.

The last time I felt this politically energized was at the WTO Seattle 99 demonstrations.  I was at work the first day and we were getting reports that "all hell was breaking loose" in the streets.  But the real difference occurred when Indy Media was born almost accidentally  during the demonstrations at a building in the Bell Town area of Seattle.  Independent journalists were sending global reports of the event and speeches over the Internet in real time.  If I recall correctly, the mainline news feeds didn't arrive in Seattle until Wednesday and by that time it was too late to downplay or control the event.

Al said @11:56 p.m:

"I also notice that Russo's name isn't on the "rural" panel at Netroots Nation July 24, which, as it was explained to me, was organized by her."

I checked out a summary of this presentation with panelist Deb Kozikowski. The title of the discussion is "Rural America and the Progressive Movement." 

Interesting title, especially the progressive part. 

I hate to play the foil, but Obama, while indeed a solid Democratic candidate, is not a sign of the revolution succeeding, nor is his candidacy particularly surprising. He is a good, middle candidate, further left than Clinton on most issues with miles more integrity, but certainly right of many of his colleagues and much further right than any of our activist heroes. It seems Howard Dean's finance wonders were vastly closer to lighting a true fire. Not surprising, the press and the party buried him for a single overblown outburst.

Obama represents a meeting of worlds on all fronts. He is a unobtrusive, safe and business-like enough to appeal to those afraid of a real equal rights candidate [compare his rhetoric to that of the far more astute, and thus, all the more maligned, Jesse Jackson of '88]. Those who speak the truth don't get far. Majorities win elections and thus, the safe candidate nearly always gets through.

Obama's support of the frankenstein farm bill and vastly inferior energy handouts further highlight this middle-of-the-road stance. I do have hope his presidency will sponsor true energy reform: it has to, for the sake of the country and furthermore, the world.

Even Obama's oft-applauded campaign style is more of an update than a departure. He and McCain are not doing public funding, hilarious, considering their "stances" on campaign reform. He has taken plenty of cash and inside advice from big money, except it isn't old money [trial lawyers, unions on the Dem side, NRA, energy lobby on the Republican side]. It's the new corporate hegemony: tech cash. No more ethical and ever more intrusive.

I look forward to an Obama presidency, especially in light of the massive American miscalculation that was eight years of G.W. Bush. I believe Obama a better candidate and politician than John Kerry. However, I see him as a compromise, an attempt to assuage both revolutionary lust and the middle road. Certainly, Obama's speeches and upbringing all prove him a solid intellectual with a revolutionary flair. However, in reality he is a lawyer: a man of subtle details, not great strokes. Mozart, not Stockhausen. His voting record, as liberal as it is, betrays a solid bureaucrat, not a firebrand.

A few years ago, before Obama was a Senator, a D party friend of mine in DC sat me down and mentioned his name as a potential President in 2008. I thought, "no way." Needless to say, the inside was betting on him even then.

Came to this through Al's link out to the Netroot Nation itinerary. Hadn't seen it before now. Al - I wonder, through all the talk about Denver and (potentially) St. Paul, what are your thoughts about the former Yearly Kos? A worthwhile endeavor?

One intriguing aspect of The Field from the RV days was its seeming independence from within the progressive blogsphere at large, despite the side-bar.  This correspondence with Kos is a nice little reminder that we're all in it together, good little net Citizens (Not for McCain) that we are.

To top it off, two sessions for that day are actually titled "Self-Organizing Session" and seem to be led by the "Roots Camp." I haven't heard of them before now, but they held a number of sessions throughout the states in December of last year. So apparently we Field Hands aren't the pioneers I thought we were. :)

Good to have company, though.

Thank you for the education Al. Community organizing isn't something I had heard much about before Senator Obama and even now I still don"t know much more about it than what I have read here. I have been inspired to go learn more but that wasn't my point. Reading this post today made things I've observed in the msm and in long-time traditional Democrats this primary cycle make so much more sense. The threat they feel from the way Obama works and the empowerment his supporters feel is real and, I think, frightening to them. This is probably a 'no duh' type comment to lots of you but it's the first time it really was clear in my own brain just how threatening the way Obama runs his campaign really is to the status quo.

So again, thanks all of you to the education this blog always offers!

Remember Whoville and the little Who children.

Somehow referring to people as 'that' has gotten into our language. Perhaps it's because of the uncertainty caused by 'who' and 'whom.'

Restore personhood to people who write, people who think, women who this, men who that...!

My gratitude to all who agree.

Al - Did you tell us that you were going to be on a panel at the Netroots convention, or did I just dream that?  I am thinking seriously about going, and, if you are going to be there, that might influence my decision.

GoFromHere - You seem to have given Tom W's argument a dose of steroids. He tries to frame the discussion as one of "Obama the radical vs. Obama the regular Dem." Now you're framing it as "revolutionary or not."

I think both are tired old paradigms. There's absolutely nothing "revolutionary" or "radical" about viewing current events through either lens (and I have long experience reporting from the inside of authentically revolutionary movements around the globe and one of the first truths is that most people that define themselves as "radical" or "revolutionary" are not: very, very few walk the talk... and they're almost never found in academia.)

To open a case with claims about whether Obama or Jackson is "more astute" sounds to me like "all black guys look alike." I say that as a Jackson supporter from two decades ago. I've observed both men closely. Not only are they products of different eras, but they are each astute at important, but different, skill sets. I'm baffled that in the name of revolutionary praxis, the first thing one can think of is to make comparisons between the two AA men that have run for president in recent times.

Your statements about dependence on "new money" are demonstrably false: it is the funds that have rolled into Obama's coffers from small donations that has rewritten the rules of dependency on large donors. Small donations are not influence money. That you miss the point of that massive sea change only suggests you haven't been paying close attention.

As for your extrapolation that because one "friend of mine in DC" told you years ago to watch out for Obama that, therefore, "the inside was betting on him," is a classic error of taking one isolated case and inventing a trend out of it. Did he spark some talk and interest from the inside when he gave that convention speech four years ago? Yup. But even as of December 2007, Senator Clinton had the most big donors, the most Senators, Representatives, Governors, DNC members, superdelegates, lobbyists, etcetera, by a factor of 10 to 1 in some categories. It wasn't until Obama won Iowa and later fought Tsunami Tuesday to a tie that the bloc began to break.

I know where they stood because I took the flak from them back in September '07 when I published the road map by which Obama would overturn those disadvantages. Those DC insiders almost universally told me I was crazy and had lost my judgment.

But it's nice to have a revisionist view of history, I suppose. It can be comforting to some. My basic point is that the ways  that Tom W and you are trying to apply "revolutionary" or "radical" yardsticks from the 1970s to the current situation are not themselves radical or revolutionary. They're academic, which is to say, in their DNA they're quite unimaginative.

A few years ago Gore Vidal wrote a classic essay on "How to Read Pravda" in which he disected a New York Times article to get to the truth.  Headline writing is so deceptive. In today's MSNBC I read the headline, "Obama, McCain disagree with Child Rape Ruling" regarding capitol punishment.  The headline reads as if Obama and McCain are on the same page but when you read the article Obama and McCain's actual statements are morally poles apart and simply aren't comparable.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25379987/   (I don't know why the link doesn't seem to be working?  So I'll do a quick cut & paste.)

Candidates react
"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," Obama said at a news conference. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."

McCain said the "ruling is an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime."

Joann Jones and Phil Wood - I won't likely be at Netroots Nation. Yes, I was going to be on that panel, and I had proposed some more interesting ones to the committee there (a "numbers crunchers" panel and a Latin American issues panel) but they seem interested in other things. And in general I dislike attending conferences. Maybe next year, if they ask me nicely.

I wrote earlier about Rick Noriega's campaign to unseat John Cornyn and change Texas politics.  Here is his post on HuffPo today:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-rick-noriega/two-weeks-in-america_b_10...

this kos diarist.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/26/62819/0991/926/542170

I found it interesting to read the history of FISA and what it purports to be.

Damn, Al.  Right on the money as usual, so to speak.

Al "Nostradano"

@Christie @ 8:22 am!

Amen to that--says the former English Teacher!

For "inanimate and non-human objects", use *that*; for "humans/people", use *who*!

People *who* follow Alinsky...not people *that* follow Alinsky...

I have seen the *incorrect* usage many, many times from Al and others, but I didn't DARE correct Al!  tee-hee!

Reminds of when my daughter was in 7th grade, and her English teacher said something like "...where is it AT..."  My daughter raised her hand and told her teacher that she wasn't supposed to end a sentence with a preposition...her teacher was NOT pleased to be corrected in front of the class!

My favorite quote attributed to Winston Churchill concerning ending sentences with prepositions...I used it in my classroom as a teaching tool:

[ending a sentence with a preposition]..."that is something up with which I will not put!"

Love you, Al!

Back to the topic at hand after this quick educational O/T...

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

Deb?  Participating in a "progressive" forum?  Arghghg!!  What happens if the funders should find out about this?  How many voters will this lose to McCain?  Run for the hills!!! BTW...I wonder whether Kenny G. will be providing the musical entertainment?

@ Nancy C. Reading this post brought an "ah ha" moment for me.

"... is a heinous crime ....." juxaposed to ".... efforts to punish these heinous felons ....."

For the most part, Obama focuses on principles rather than labeling personalities. For me, that is much more effective and is one of the reasons I support Obama [and Al].

That's it, Pam @ 10:36... although I do break the rule myself and refer to animals as 'who'! They're people to me. :)

That's it, Anne @ 10:37! Labeling personalities polarizes emotions and prevents reasoned dialogue. Focusing on principles raises the discussion to the mental plane.

Al, Thanks for posting the article from Sept 2007 again. I had not read it before although had heard about it. It was so informative and on the money. I did not make my first donation until January.

I spent most of February in South America then decided it was time to take a stand and try to make a difference. I am way behind most here. 

Nosy question: Are you still in Mexico? I thought you were back in NY.

I could not agree more with Al's post at 9:19 am.

One of the issues that seems to me to be a crucial categorical confusion/conflation from the arguments presented by Tom W and a few others upthread about Obama being just a 'regular' dem candidate is the following---a dismebodiment of Obama the candidate and his positions from Obama the community organizer who put his team together and wanted to run by empowering the people. We may not agree with every move Obama makes, and he may take poisitions that are different than those we would want to see him take but to extrapolate from this dissapointment over paticular policies that the Obama message of citizen empowerement is merely a strategy, that we have been deceived about how core this is to him? These are not seperate parts of Obama, what makes Obama remarkable is that he wants to build a movement, that he sees politics not as something about him but about us. And this has already profoundly transformed the Dem party and how we are doing politics. So to present arguments about how regular this candidate is but yes there is this movement thing which might be good is to miss that the movement grassroots organizing thing is what Obama is about.

Will this yiled the particular policies that I want? I do not know, but I rather have a candidate like Obama who makes this possible than a candidate who holds every position identical to mine but thinks they are the ones who know how to do everything and citizens are checked out at the door of the process.  Yes We Can anyday over Yes He/She Can top down all the way.

Pamela - It's that I never studied or learned to speak English. I've always talked American.

(Interestingly, you can find parallel divergences in the spoken word between Castillian Spanish and that spoken on this side of the ocean.)

Al, your comments at 9:19 am refute the idiocy of Ralph Nader's jealous diatribe against Obama's "blackness" better than anything else I have read.  Of course, Nader was also factually wrong about Obama's legislative record.

But the most shocking thing about Nader's comments is that he falls into a trap about which Jesse Jackson has spoken elequently and at length.

Jackson railed against America's concerted efforts to put a black face on poverty in furtherance of an agenda that ignores the needs of the poor.  He pointed out that more government aid goes to whites than blacks, as there are simply so many more whites in our country.  He also pointed out that in addition to aid recipients there are countless bureaucrats earning taxpayer-funded salaries to "help" the poor, frequently to no real results.

Nader may have finally embarrassed himself into the oblivion he deserves.

@Al 11:40am...that is so funny...here in Detroit, being so close to Canada, we can detect Canadian accents easily...and my Canadian friends say just that:  we don't speak English, we *talk American*!

BTW:  some levity is needed because I am livid re: Nader's remarks!

What is *talking white* anyway?  O-o-o-o...don't even get me started!

Didn't Nader even listen to O's '04 speech?

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

Thought some fieldhands might enjoy some additional info from an old hand at community organizing, passed on to me from another former organizer trained by Moshe ben Asher:

http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers2002/benasher/benasher.htm

A few days ago a fieldhand posted a link to Alexa, and encouraged folks to check out the effects of Al's move from Ruralvotes in terms of web traffic. Having seen the discussion between Tracy Russo and ?? from McCain's campaign regarding his incompetence with things cyber, and having seen the ridiculous "video game" on McCain's website, I got curious as to the actual comparison between web traffic toObama's and McCain's websites. I also decided to throw in Hillary's. Although there are no surpises, it was interesting to see the actual numbers and trends. Of course all three spiked in early June, and have all lost traffic in the last week or so, it's just another way of looking at Obama's hugely successful organizing. Try it at www.alexa.com  -- put in the three websites and click "compare."

Latina for Obama, unless I've just been missing you, haven't seen you around lately. I've always enjoyed your posts, and am glad to see you're still with us.

The alexa comparison of the three sites:

And the comparison between the ex-Field and the Field:

Interesting how the Field has held up better than the campaign sites.

It takes Alexa.com a couple of weeks to truly register trends (because they clock by week and even by month). Those early trends are likely to grow even more disparate with The Field continuing upward and the Ex-Field hitting absolute bottom. By early to mid July that graph will be very impressive.

Yup, both sites are on a weekly or so update frequency, but I think the trend for the ex-field speaks for itself - and narconews.com has already jumped almost 100.000 in the rankings and is holding its own even as the interest in the elections takes a breather.

Ol' Whatsername from the Ex-Field - apparently distraught that, as Crimmins says, she can't confide in disgruntled donors any more - has now added this absolutely meaningless fake "legal" disclaimer/warning at bottom of all her emails:

This email, and any attachments, thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. This e-mail is not to be published without sole permission of its author. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.

Of course, if it really does prohibit publication of words in email by law, I expect a lawsuit for having now published it!

In fact, it's never been tested in a court of law. I don't think a court would even hear it.

There's only one way to prevent words you don't want made public getting into the public domain: don't say them, and absolutely don't type them into emails! Duh.

An easier legal way is to just head 'personal' correspondence with:

"Private & Confidential - Not for Publication"

or

"Embargo - Not for Publication before [insert date]"

BondiBeachViews

"At first I just figured that it reflected a widespread rejection of the ex-hosts by the journalists covering that story, but if it turns out that Russo did the right thing and walked from that remnant of an organization, heck, I can even forgive her for the brief lapse in judgment to have crossed the picket line prior."

Well, it looks like she hasn't posted anything since the 19th and she is not listed on the "Our People" page. Anyone know what's up?

It's here:

Jan, Robert, Susan and me

BEGIN QUOTE:

My fellow Camp Obama veterans...Jan, Robert and Susan and I...held an organizing meeting in a local Oakland coffee shop the other night.

It was an unremarkable affair. There were ten of us locals sitting around a table who, two months ago, would not have known one another if we'd met each other on the street. This week, the ten of us came together in a cafe and started organizing to make a change in American politics.

How we did this was very simple.

[...] It took one hour. No more, no less.

/END QUOTE

[rant]It's SILLY to put meaningless clauses like that in e-mails and with all the lawyers  around said superdelegate she should know that it doesn't work. There is a reason that Non-Disclosure Agreements are called that - you need to get the recipient to agree not to disclose the contents...it is not that hard to understand.[/rant]

Oh well and of course it is sound advice that if you don't want to see something published don't put it in writing.

Agreement can't be imposed by a unilateral disclaimer on an email. Confidentiality requires the consent of all parties.

Furthermore, when one's tactic is to "confide" in donors that want their money back (pretty stupid, no?) as an attempted shield to not see one's libels (and in the case of phone calls, slanders) against others become disinfected by sunlight, those fake "legal" warnings on emails are downright pathetic.

Michael Chapman - The law might be different where you live, but in the United States there is no protection afforded merely by posting "confidential" or "private" or "embargo" atop an email. Where I type from, there is no restriction at all. Jurisdiction is nine-tenths of the law.

So keep those cards, letters and email copies coming in, folks. It's quite the case building up in the file.

Let me know if you think I'm out to lunch on this.

Obama issued some statements suggesting a move on FISA from his earlier position.  Feingold publicly disagreed.

The liberal blogosphere (Kos, HuffPo) exploded with rage at Obama, chiding him for failing to show the courage of Feingold et al. 

Feingold manuevered to delay a vote on FISA. 

The liberal blogosphere exploded with praise for Feingold, and many began calling for Feingold for VP.

And they think they thought it up all by themselves, and when Obama announces Feingold as his choice, the liberal Chicken Littles will do the chicken dance with glee that they forced Feingold on Obama.

And this was Obama's and Feingold's plan from the outset.

If Feingold vacates his Senate seat for the VP post, Wisconsin has the wonderful Tammy Baldwin standing by and well-positioned to win a special election to backfill Feingold's seat.

WI gives America its first out lesbian Senator.

Your thoughts?

Yes, that makes more sense to me than anything I've read at DKos.  Obama not only doesn't do cowering, he doesn't do stupid.  So there has to be something more to the story than what we are seeing.  I think you may be on to it.

I completely agree that Barack is a master strategist and that there is more to the FISA story than what we are seeing. I don't think Feingold will be VP, though because I don't think we'll see another senator on the ticket.

I keep thinking back to the DNC rules committee, and how they came back from their long "lunch break" and everything was choreographed.  They all knew who was going to propose xx, and they knew it wouldn't pass, and they knew who was going to propose yy, and how much it would pass by, and who was going to be pissed about it and what that person would say.

Going back to the idea of their being more going on here than meets the eye... I think the House screwed Barack but that the Senate has rallied to have Barack's back on this.  I think they knew this FISA bill had enough votes to pass in the Senate and that we are seeing another well choreographed episode with a clear purpose in mind.

I may be smart enough to figure out that the Senate has his back and that they are doing a dance, but I'm apparently not smart enough to understand dance itself.

 Nothing to see here folks. The subject says it all.

amk

Attempting to set Chicken Little on her head, I wrote this over at our Fieldhands site:

Feingold will filibuster the FISA bill.
Obama will choose Feingold as his running mate.
Fieldhands will start barking (they will hear dog whistles).

I have since learned that 'dog whistle' is generally a pejorative term... but the idea supports Allan's.

So much of the media from top to bottom have written about Alinsky without ever having read him.  Sort of like those ga-zillions of stories we read about religion and politics this season written by people with a high school level understanding of the subject (if that).

Fact is, Alinsky actually helped the Right from time to time and explicitly stated that the principles he taught were applicable to them as well.

And if you think Alinsky is lost to the Right today, think again.

Some people used to think the dinosaurs died out because the tiny little mammals got into their burrows and ate their eggs. The asteroid (or comet some believe, I think) theory is pretty well established now. In fact there may have been more than one, but I digress. My point is that it's a more apt analogy. And I hope us swarms of little gnawing rodents will create an environment that will allow politics and governance to take a new and superior direction.