This Is Not News

Turns out that while I was writing yesterday’s essay about substance in the presidential campaign, John Baer was publishing a commentary in the Daily News wondering why the two candidates he considers to have the most substantial policy experience – Michael Nutter and Dwight Evans – are currently trailing in the polls. The answers he cites are the kind of personality-based rationales that show that winning an election doesn’t necessarily entail support for the winner’s policy agenda.

There’s been a recurring criticism against Barack Obama within the presidential primary discussions at MyDD and Daily Kos, and it seems to follow along the lines of a criticism floating through the overall landscape of the presidential primary. The criticism is that Obama is campaigning primarily on his personality and his let’s-work-together rhetoric, and is not offering either a bold vision of the future or bold plans for what he would do once in office. Neil Sinhababu articulates the criticism from his point of view as an Edwards supporter; Matt Stoller has a post up today arguing that Obama is losing what he calls “the bar fight primary.�

I am not going to say that there is nothing to this criticism. Reports out of a health care forum held recently suggest that Obama does not have nearly as much detail at his disposal on the issue right now as John Edwards or Hillary Clinton do. (Edwards has a seven-page PDF overview of his proposed plan on his website, which is far more than Obama has on his.) There is a segment of the electorate that prizes grasp of issues, and right now I would say Obama is not their candidate. I kinda hope he might be as the campaign goes on, but I can’t say that for sure. And I can understand why some other early adopters might look elsewhere and find what they’re looking for. What I would like to argue is that there is an important substantial point wrapped within Obama’s rhetoric, and it’s one that might make it worth waiting to see if those details arrive.

The major point that Obama is making in his rhetoric is that this has to be “your campaign.� He’s touting the huge number of people who contributed to his campaign in the first quarter and the number of house parties that his supporters organized at the end of March. If Obama can keep mobilizing people like this, I think it has the potential to be a substantive shift in and of itself, because it might help close the gaps between what a candidate says when he is campaigning and what he does once he has to govern.

Let me take a step outside the presidential campaign for a moment. In 2002, Ed Rendell ran for governor and managed to upset Bob Casey for the Democratic nomination on his way to a convincing general election victory. One of the centerpieces of his campaign was a proposal to allow slots gambling at horse racing tracks and a small number of additional facilities in order to finance a more equitable system of education funding in the state. Five years later we have the slots gambling but not the school funding overhaul. Rendell had a huge amount of trouble getting his proposals through the state legislature despite his overwhelming victory – in part because the voters that elected him also elected a Republican legislature, and in part because that bloc of issue-oriented voters I mentioned is not a majority bloc by any means. So there was no major public outcry when Rendell’s proposals did not go through. (And Pennsylvania’s voters are capable of raising an outcry – just look at what happened when the legislature put through a really ridiculous pay hike.) Right now I’m watching Philadelphia mayoral candidates put out policy proposals galore, and the big question is whether they’ll be able to make any of these things happen, in part because they require approval by City Council or – even more daunting – cooperation from the state and federal governments.

So the gap between campaign promise and execution is a key one. Neil writes:

I know perfectly well what Edwards would do — he’d pass an amazing health care plan, take major steps to reduce our dependence on oil, and make an unprecedented effort to fight global poverty. He’s made major policy commitments on all these issues.

But I don’t think Neil can actually know that Edwards would pass an amazing plan, or take major steps. He can probably know that Edwards would propose these things. Once proposed, they would face filibuster threats, lobbying efforts, and tinkering from congressional Democrats. So how do we know that Edwards would be able to get his proposals enacted after running through that obstacle course? You might say, Well, if Edwards gets elected, that must be a mandate for his legislative agenda. But that large group of voters who don’t care or even know about issues dilutes an elected official’s ability to claim such a mandate. Look at Rendell. Look at George W. Bush and Social Security privatization.

So Obama’s legislative record in the state and federal Senate comes back into play as a consideration. He’s built a reputation for being able to get people together and forge coalitions to enact legislation. I think those are useful job skills for a president to have. But Neil is right – legislative skills alone won’t be enough to deal with a high-visibility issue like health care. It would help a lot of if there were clear public pressure on legislators to support a particular plan – it might solidify Democratic support and peel off a few key Republicans. And I believe that Obama’s campaign approach is geared toward shifting our political culture so that such public pressure is easier to mobilize. The Portsmouth Herald wrote the following in its coverage of a health care forum that Obama held recently:

All the views and ideas expressed Tuesday in Portsmouth and at the Iowa meeting will be put on the Obama campaign’s Web site, www.barackobama.com, with an invitation for further public comment. In a few weeks, Obama said he and his policy group would synthesize all the comments and put a draft health care proposal up on the Web site for further comment.

What comes out of that will be announced as Obama campaign’s health care policy, but he said it will really be a template for what he wants to accomplish as president. He said he will remain open to new and better ideas.

Look at that procedure. If Obama really goes through that request-for-comments stage, and then puts out a proposal that takes the feedback seriously, he’ll have given ownership of that proposal to all the people who submitted comments. He’ll also give ownership to other people involved in the campaign, because it won’t just be Obama’s strategy. It’ll be their strategy. And all of a sudden early Obama’s lack of specifics becomes an advantage rather than a liability, because it brings people into the process and amplifies the prospects for change.
Is this a pie in the sky reading? It could be. But it would also track with the things I’ve read Obama say, and with his experience as a community organizer that he cites on the campaign trail. I go back to his first book, Dreams from My Father, because I believe it gives readers an honest glimpse at who Obama is, written long before he was a national figure. There’s a passage where Obama discusses a bus trip to the Chicago Housing Authority with some residents, where the residents were able to arrange some media exposure and get the CHA to listen to their concerns. It so vividly captured what I think of as the promise of democracy that I included it in my dissertation:

I changed as a result of that bus trip, in a fundamental way. It was the sort of change that’s important not because it alters your concrete circumstances in some way (wealth, security, fame) but because it hints at what might be possible and therefore spurs you on, beyond the immediate exhilaration, beyond any subsequent disappointments, to retrieve that thing that you once, ever so briefly, held in your hand. . . .

I began to see something wonderful happening. The parents began talking about ideas for future campaigns. New parents got involved. . . . It was as though Sadie’s small, honest step had broken into a reservoir of hope, allowing people in Altgeld to reclaim a power they had had all along.

I truly believe that Obama cares about unleashing that power. Even in The Audacity of Hope, which is far more obviously a campaign document, I see this commitment. He puts forward an idea of democracy that fits within the theoretical framework described as deliberative democracy – even in his essay on the role of faith in politics, he stresses the idea that as citizens, we owe it to one another to justify our desired political results to one another using reasons that are publicly available. If Obama is really successful at implementing that vision of civic discourse, his campaign will most certainly have a powerful substance at its core.

I find it interesting that fairly important people in Philadelphia politics find it worthwhile to engage in discussion over at Young Philly Politics. I’ve been looking at one thread that’s gotten pretty heated, that focuses on a Daily News report that “outsider” candidate Tom Knox was approached by some top figures in the Democratic Party back in 1999. A Knox spokesperson and a city councilman are just two of the folks in the back-and-forth. It’s kind of funny – a lot of blog communities complain when elected officials just do “drive-by” posts and don’t engage in the comments. So I guess it’s progress when some officials get into a flame war. I can’t help but be a little discouraged.

There’s a recurring theme in the YPP discussion about Knox buying support thanks to the campaign finance loopholes. But I think it also says something about the way the voters feel right now that decades of political service are not seen as an asset. I really hope that one way or the other this serves as a wake up call to the Philadelphia Democratic Party. But we shall see.

Please note an update to Wednesday night’s post on the Philadelphia mayoral election aand Chaka Fattah’s decision not to release his tax returns. Thursday’s Inquirer reports that there is, in fact, a confidentiality agreement that allows NBC10 to terminate Renee Chenault-Fattah’s contract if there is a breach of confidentiality. The Inquirer says that Chenault-Fattah provided a copy of the contract to the newspaper. On Wednesday the Daily News had reported that NBC10 refused to confirm the existence of such a clause, which led me to make my original posting. At the moment I can’t spot anything wrong with the Daily News’s reporting, and I’m a little uncomfortable at how a news outlet like NBC10 winds up having such influence over a story. But that’s the pitfall that comes with this situation.

Please note a further update to this story: NBC10 has waived the confidentiality requirement, and Chenault-Fattah says she still won’t let Fattah release the tax return information.

I’m starting to think that Chenault-Fattah is the one who comes off looking the worst in all of this. And I’m just cynical enough to briefly wonder if that’s the idea.

It also occurs to me that with Fattah in Congress, where he votes on defense appropriations and telecommunications policy, there’s probably more of a conflict of interest potential with GE (the parent company of NBC10) than there would be if Fattah were to win the mayoral race. What a world.

I find it a little disconcerting that I’ve picked a preferred 2008 presidential candidate before a preferred 2007 mayoral candidate. There is something about everyone in the running that rubs me the wrong way. That may say something about my mood right now. It might even say something good about the crop of candidates, in that I don’t hate any one of them enough that I’m willing to overlook negative traits of other candidates in order to defeat them. (I think I’m stretching there, but I figured I should acknowledge the possibility.) But I also think there’s a problem that no one is doing anything to jump up and grab me., and most of the things candidates do for attention just bugs me.

Lately I had been leaning toward Chaka Fattah, because I like the fact that he’s making opportunity for the poor one of his major ideas. But this week he reminded me of one of the things that bugged me about him in the first place, and did so in a way that compounds the problem. Fattah is married to a local news anchor, Renee Chenault-Fattah. Chenault-Fattah has not taken a leave of absence from her anchoring duties, and last I checked she had made no statement about what she would do if Chaka Fattah were elected. I think that just about the only person who can not see this as a major conflict of interest is Aaron Sorkin. (Don’t get me started on The American President. Seriously.) I was starting to not hold that against Chaka Fattah’s candidacy – although I won’t watch Channel 10’s news as long as this conflict of interest persists.

But then this week the Fattah campaign announced that it would not release Fattah’s tax returns. This is a voluntary disclosure, but just about every candidate for citywide or statewide office makes it. Fattah’s campaign claimed that they couldn’t release the data because it would violate a confidentiality clause in Chenault-Fattah’s contract with Channel 10. Only it turns out that there is no such contractual obligation. If I were a diehard Fattah supporter, I’d probably shrug this off as an unfortunate dumb decision. I figure every campaign’s going to make some of those. But when I’m on the fence, it won’t take much to throw me off.

Update: Thursday’s Inquirer reports that there is, in fact, a confidentiality agreement that allows the station to terminate Chenault-Fattah’s contract if there is a breach of confidentiality. The Inquirer says that Chenault-Fattah provided a copy of the contract; on Wednesday the Daily News had reported that NBC10 refused to confirm the existence of such a clause. At the moment I can’t spot anything wrong with the Daily News’s reporting, and I’m a little uncomfortable at how a news outlet like NBC10 winds up having such influence over a story. But that’s the pitfall that comes with this situation.

There was a court hearing today on the challenge to Bob Brady’s spot on the mayoral ballot. The Inquirer’s mayoral election blog was there with live updates, and I was struck with this particular passage:

There’s a lot of testiness in the air, as Brady time and again makes reference to the fact that by sitting on the witness stand he is not doing the job he was elected to do in Congress.

You know, granted, I’m taking the reporters’ word for it that this describes Brady’s attitude. But, y’know, he’s the guy that decided he wanted to run for a term as mayor that starts in 2008 when his term as a congressman doesn’t end until 2009. If Brady had not a) decided to run for a different office and then b) screwed up his paperwork, he could have been down in Washington having a fine old congressional time. So the concern about doing his job seems a little too late.

I have a hunch that by the time this is over, even if Brady’s still on the ballot, I’ll prefer the idea of voting for a dead fish.

I’ve been sitting here at my desk watching a swirl of bad news affecting other people – stuff in the news, stuff that friends are going through – and it made me think a little more about how damned lucky I am. I have a freaking amazing life and I really gotta remember to be grateful for it every second of the day. And I gotta do what I can to spread a little bit of the joy around.

So I just wanted to take a moment here to note that the International Rescue Committee‘s website has a list of its various efforts to help refugees and other victims of violence and disaster. I’d encourage you to go check it out and see if it’s work you’d be willing to support with a small contribution.

While I’m at it, let me take another moment and mention that the Christopher Reeve Foundation has changed its name to the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. I’ll say upfront that I support the Foundation in part because of my admiration for Christopher Reeve, and if that makes me a little bit shallow or blinded by celebrity, so be it. But I think the way that Reeve faced his life after his accident is a truly inspriational story – and it’s a story that probably wouldn’t have happened as it did without the support and efforts of Dana Reeve. So I think this is a worthy tribute.

Pennsylvania is going to hold hearings about moving its primary up to Feb. 5, along with, oh, roughly every other state. On the one hand, I would certainly love to have the chance to actually vote in a contested presidential primary. On the other hand, this is the sort of thing that makes people say these primary campaigns may be looking at spending $100 million each. Those fundraising issues apparently motivated Tom Vilsack to drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination today. Which, perhaps paradoxically, suggests that all of us have a vote to make this year. If a candidate can’t make the case that he or she is financially viable, that candidate might not even make it to Iowa. So small-donor contributions from the Web in 2007 might heavily shape the 2008 race.

In the intersts of disclosure, and in the interest of having something interesting to say tonight, I figured I’d mention that I just made a (very small) contribution to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. So I guess I’ve hopped off the fence.

I’m a little surprised about that, to be honest. As much as I respect and admire Obama, based in no small part upon reading his books, I always kinda figured that there were other people I’d like to get the Democratic nomination even more. I had told myself I was going to wait and see if any of those people joined the race, or if any of the other candidates were able to surprise me.

So what changed? Over the last week or so, I’ve just really liked the way Obama’s rolled out this campaign. I liked the way he dealt with the Joe Biden brouhaha. I liked the way he quickly responded to Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s comments. I like the way he’s stressed his background in community organizing. I’ve found myself responding to these developments with a “Yeah, way to go” attitude, which tells me that somethign abotu the way Obama’s working right now clicks with me. I figure I should put my money where my mouth is and encourage him to continue.

This doesn’t mean that I don’t reserve the right to change my mind. It’s a long campaign, after all. I still hope Wes Clark gets into the race – I think his diplomatic and national security experience would be well-suited to the country’s needs right now. I do have seriosu reservations about Clark’s ability as a candidate at this point, especially since he seems to be waiting so long to get his campaign going, and in large part that’s why I’m not as gung-ho on his bandwagon as I thought I would be.

And part of me does hope beyond hope that Al Gore throws his hat in, and that he can make a good run of it. If he does, I’ll reevalaute where I stand. But for now, I’m ready to get off the sidelines.

I imagine there are quicker ways to make a fool of yourself than to make comments about a fellow Democratic senator that sound racially-tinged, on the very day that you officially announce you’re pursuing the presidency. For example, you could do all of that, and then be scheduled to go on The Daily Show later that day.

In other words, you could be Joe Biden.

I really oughta go upstairs and set the DVR.

In other campaign news, the blogosphere rumor mill is buzzing that Wesley Clark will announce his run later this week. A couple of months ago, this news would have gotten me very enthused. Now, I think I’m more inclined to wait and see if he can really get his campaign moving before I jump fully on board. (And yes, I know, if everyone takes that attitude, failure is guaranteed. I’m willing to take a little risk on being a free rider for now.)