Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
RE: THE AARP. To answer Ezra's query, my understanding was that so many people wanted Obama to attend so many different events that he decided he couldn't run his campaign the way he wanted to, so he instituted a blanket moratorium in August on attending non-DNC approved new events. This managed to get him out of a lot of politically pointless forums. Unfortunately, the moratorium also covered this AARP forum, which really matters. Attending this forum would seem especially important for a campaign that is strongest among younger people in a state where 64 percent of caucus-goers in 2004 were over 50 years old.
Obama has made the attack on special interests a big part of his stump speech, as have John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, but the critical difference between the candidates is that Obama has maintained a greater distance from traditional Democratic interest groups, as well, and his campaign seems less interested than either Clinton's or Edwards' in reaching out to people who are not part of its "transformational" strategy. He doesn't seem to mind dissing people who he doesn't think are useful or part of his master plan, and I have to wonder if, in Democratic primary politics, that's not partly responsible for his declining numbers, because it turns transformational politics into the worst form of transactional political organizing, where the campaign refuses to reach out to groups and people who they think won't matter on the ground. On the one hand, this shows an admirable discipline and focus on winning, but, on the other, is can be a bit off-putting and leave people feeling rebuffed by his campaign.
Edwards is running on a platform of policy change and changes in how our government works, but, unlike Obama, he's actually running a very traditional campaign (with the exception of not taking money from lobbyists). He's courting constituency groups, racking up union endorsements, and being everywhere anyone wants him to be (especially in Iowa). Clinton is a master of constituency-group outreach and politics, and while she may not get as much union support as Edwards will, she's in the lead in some of the other constituency contests, such as local legislator endorsements in Iowa. She's very, very old-school about trying to bring people into her orbit, whether they are part of her master plan or not, and, like Edwards, she recognizes that primary politics rewards the art of relationship building and constituency mobilization.
The Obama machine, on the other hand, is building its own army. It's a bit of a risky strategy, to try to change the rules of political campaigning during a primary, rather than to just set sights on winning under the existing rules. When you see that army, at things like Tom Harkins's Streak Fry, where several thousand Obama-supporters marched in unison into the audience before Obama spoke, it seems impressive and novel and like it could work. Other times, like Walter Shapiro, I have my doubts.
--Garance Franke-Ruta
COMMENTS (11)
Hmm... bold claims there. If you can back them up with evidence, especially this one:
"his campaign seems less interested than either Clinton's or Edwards' in reaching out to people who are not part of its "transformational" strategy. He doesn't seem to mind dissing people who he doesn't think are useful or part of his master plan...it turns transformational politics into the worst form of transactional political organizing, where the campaign refuses to reach out to groups and people who they think won't matter on the ground"
I might listen to what you have to say.
Posted by: Steve W. | September 20, 2007 2:09 PM
I latched onto that too, Steve. In GFR's very next post she recognizes that Obama announced a tax elimination for seniors.
So, which is it? Is he "dissing" this group that's not part of his plan to win by sticking with his stated plan not to attend the forum, or is he reaching out to them?
The real question is, does the AARP in Iowa see this as a diss by Obama? We can talk all day about how they should see it, but haven't people who are likely to attend this forum had ample opportunity to meet Obama? Is this their last shot to do so before January? I doubt it.
Posted by: Trevor | September 20, 2007 2:40 PM
Garance, maybe try easing up on attempting to make Obama supporters out to be some kind of robo-stormtroopers goosestepping across Iowa.
Posted by: CJR | September 20, 2007 2:50 PM
Wow, tough crowd here...
Posted by: Eric | September 20, 2007 3:04 PM
"Obama has made the attack on special interests a big part of his stump speech, as have John Edwards and Hillary Clinton"
Hilary Clinton is attacking special interests?
Hacktastic reporting, Garance, as usual.
-----
"Wow, tough crowd here..."
What do you expect? GFR often seems like she thinks she's writing for The Corner, rather than for a Democratic blog.
Posted by: Petey | September 20, 2007 3:40 PM
back to the transformational as transactional paragraph. You'll have to elaborate that one, since you're assertion that his campaign "turns transformational politics into the worst form of transactional political organizing" is based on your speculation about why he is apparently dissing traditional Democratic interest groups -- i.e. that they're not useful to his campaign.
How is that more transactional than the traditional glad-handling and local endorsement grabbing that you say Edwards and Clinton are engaged in.
Some more support, please.
Posted by: eli | September 20, 2007 4:51 PM
"his campaign seems less interested than either Clinton's or Edwards' in reaching out to people who are not part of its "transformational" strategy"
I sort of agree with this. He's got this group of culturally diverse followers on one hand, to whom he holds out this promise of revolutionary political change. But on the other hand he has this rhetorical bid out for "bipartianship," which I really can't get over because, given his big dollar funding, I can only read it as the usual willingness to compromise everything away to entrenched financial interests.
So, while skipping the Iowa AARP "divided we lose" forum may be coincidental, it also kind of plays into my impression that the transformational strategy is largely rhetorical.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 5:00 PM
Ah, I get it--the key to transforming politics in general and Dem electoral politics in particular is pandering to traditional Democractic interest groups!
Of course!
That's a neat rhetorical trick.
Posted by: Anon | September 20, 2007 7:32 PM
"That's a neat rhetorical trick."
Yes, it is. It's like he went to an ivy league school, trying to appear to be revolutionary while stoking one's stock portfolio, one's political career, etc. But, see, it's been a losing proposition for liberal ideology and it's going to be a losing proposition for him, too, because corn-fed America doesn't think that way. But, he still has his senate seat. Meanwhile, Hillary will hold her nose and eat bad food in Iowa (she lived in Arkansas, for God's sake) and live another day as a born again Republican.
Please. I do it every single day I get up and go to work in the morning. Day jobs, people. Actually, we should all start thinking in the most mundane ways possible. Barbara Ehrenreich does have a point.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 8:33 PM
How much does the AARP represent Iowa seniors? When the AARP endorsed the Medicare drug plan put forth by the Republicans and big pharma, my father mailed back his membership card. I'm sure he wasn't the only one.
Posted by: Joyful Alternative | September 20, 2007 11:15 PM
It'd be more convincing if he, you know, proposed policy changes that in anyway different or interesting. As Kevin Drum noted he's safe and conventional across the board on taxes, health care and foreign policy. It's really one group of insiders vs another, how much do you think the people of Iowa care about that?
Posted by: AJ | September 21, 2007 9:55 AM