Search Results for ‘senator obama’
The other day, the Iowa State Senate voted by a margin of 47-2 to close the Fallon Loophole that allows candidates to pay themselves with campaign funds. The issue of candidates paying themselves salaries with campaign funds came to the fore after it was revealed that Fallon paid himself nearly $14,000 in campaign funds after losing his 2006 bid for Governor. While Fallon attacked this initiative as “status quo politics at its worst” and described the bill as a “silly bill.” However, it is no different than legislation passed by Barack Obama in the Illinois State Senate which prevented candidates from paying themselves with campaign funds in that state. While Fallon, after being paid by John Edwards during the caucuses, is now an enthusiastic supporter of Obama, it seems Fallon does not share Obama’s zeal for change in this aspect of campaign finance reform.
It’s also worth noting that the only two Senators who wanted to keep the Fallon Loophole opened were Jack Hatch, who represents Fallon’s former district and has to kowtow to Fallon’s base and Mary Lundby, the former Republican leader in the Senate who openly displayed her contempt for organized labor last year.
There was a time when Ed Fallon would have proud that any campaign finance reform bill passed by a margin of 47-2. Now he calls it silly and displays open disdain for a small step forward for good government and honest politicians. It’s sad that once again, as with I’M For Iowa, Fallon values his own personal gain over campaign finance reform.
April 23rd, 2008
There is an issue in the news right now that is of greatest interest to Iowans. I’m not taking about frontloading the primary schedule, but rather the exponentially increasing role of the internet in campaigns. While it remains to be seen what impact it will have had when this process culminates on January 14, 2008, we have already seen the effect it can have for a candidate. Many have credited YouTube for handing Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and the Democrats the senate majority, thanks to a video featuring now former Senator George Allen calling a Webb staffer a “macaca.” Facebook and MySpace have also thrown their names into the political arena. While this may get many more people involved in the caucuses, it is increasingly difficult for the rest of us to process such a large volume of information and take the time to make sense of it for ourselves.
A prime example of this is a video entitled “Vote Different.” Posted on YouTube two weeks ago, it has been viewed over 919,000 times. It is a testament to the power of such ad campaigns on the internet. If you haven’t seen it, watch it for yourself.
Upon first glance, you should notice a few things. First is that it is a clever mashup of the famous 1984 Super Bowl ad introducing Apple Macintosh to the computer world. Secondly, it appears to be obvious that it is from the Obama campaign. This is a view that many major sources of news media have advanced. It’s a fair statement. The woman with the hammer has the symbol of Obama’s campaign on her shirt, and at the end of the ad is Obama’s web address.
But something just doesn’t seem right. Why would that particular sound bite be chose? There must be something that gets their message across more efficiently. They show Hillary’s explicit attempt to come across as a regular person, having a “conversation” with each of us individually. Now watch the original. The Macintosh ad speaks of “one people, one will, one resolve, one cause,” and “a garden of pure ideology where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory thoughts,” all coming from a voice that is meant to sound evil. It completely contradicts with Hillary’s explicit statement that “we all need to be part of the discussion,” and “I don’t want people who agree with me.” Themes such as unity, and “one people” are actually coming from the Obama campaign. Also notice the change in contrast between the two, as Hillary is bright white, as opposed to the dark room. The image of the “big brother” is dark, and blends with the dark wall, with a lighter room.
Now consider that the video was posted by someone with the username “ParkRidge47.” It is significant in that Senator Clinton was born in Park Ridge in 1947. It was also posted with the text: “Make up your own mind. Decide for yourself who should be our next president,” very much in line with the Hillary sound bite. So let’s say this actually is from the Clinton campaign. Could the message be that she is trying to create an exchange of ideas to make everyone better off, thus distancing herself from the image of politics that she is associated (i.e. a war of the partisans or even a politics as a competitive sport in which the American people are spectators)?
In the original commercial, the power comes from the irony of the hammer hitting the screen just as the “big brother” says “we will prevail.” In the mashup, the hammer hits Hillary as she says “I want to keep this conversation going until November, 2008.” Also notice that the woman with the Obama symbol is now wearing an ipod, symbolizing that she refuses to take part in Hillary’s conversation, and is then actually stops it suggesting that Obama is the one who wants to end her conversation. As for the reason why 2008 won’t be like “1984,” that is the year that Walter Mondale, running as an unabashed liberal, lost forty-nine of the fifty states in the general election. This suggests that having Hillary on the Democratic ticket would result in a different outcome this time around. This message is made clearer by having Obama associated with the black screen, while Hillary is associated with white.
Both sides have denied responsibility for the mashup, and I personally don’t subscribe to either view. We just don’t know, and can’t say for sure where this ad came from. My point is that not everything will be as it appears this campaign season. We must all take a closer look at everything we see and form our own opinions. It’s not an easy job, but it is our responsibility to do so.
March 21st, 2007
After the Edwards campaign released its list of “senior Iowa staff” the other day, I thought it might be prudent to discuss how each campaign’s staff is shaping up. Their differing approaches are interesting, at least, and they could make a difference by the time the caucuses come around next January.
First up, the Obama campaign has been doing quite a bit of hiring over the last month. All of their key positions (regional field director, state field director, state director, and deputy state director) are filled, and they are hiring on new field organizers every week. Some have compared Obama’s staff to Howard Dean’s from four years ago, because it seems to include an unusual number of ideologically motivated young people, many of whom have never worked a caucus before. Their typical field organizer offer, which is the lowest of the candidates reviewed here, is $2,000 per month. Because Senator Obama is so magnetic, they are having no trouble filling positions, but the low salary may not be enough to entice experienced operatives.
Next, the Edwards campaign has staffed all or most of its key positions as well, and has begun hiring field organizers. In contrast to Obama’s staff, most of Edwards’s staff so far have Iowa political experience, and many have also worked with state director Jennifer O’Malley or state field director Jackie Lee before. General impressions from folks seem to be that the Edwards staff has things together, that their hiring process is quicker and perhaps more organized than Obama’s, and that they already have a more specific plan in place. Their typical field organizer offer seems to be $2,500 per month.
And finally, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been a bit slower to announce their hiring decisions here, but those whom they have hired have impressive resumes. Staffers who may not have significant Iowa experience but who have significant experience elsewhere are taking positions on the Clinton campaign that are well below where the staffers might be in most campaign hierarchies. Clinton is paying field organizers about $2,750 per month — the most of any candidate — although from what we know here, many positions have not been filled.
Beyond these “big three” campaigns, none of the others have hired (or begun to hire) a full staff here. Dodd, Richardson, and Biden all have a few folks on the ground here, but not enough to get a general impression yet.
How the staffing differences will affect the caucuses, nobody knows, but past caucuses have proven that staff strength can be a major factor in the final delegate counts. Without a sound field strategy in place, a campaign cannot win Iowa, and that takes a good staff.
March 20th, 2007
Bill Richardson is coming to Iowa in early March and one of the events on his schedule is a house party at the Indianola residence of State Representative Mark Davitt. Needless to say, when a state legislator has a house party for a Presidential candidate, it seems quite likely that the state legislator is supporting that candidate. And if Davitt is endorsing Richardson, it offers Richardson a major boost in Warren County.
Davitt is a well-liked State Representative who defeated another popular incumbent, former State Senator Doug Shull, to win re-election to his third term in 2006. Davitt’s family also has strong local roots. His father also served as a State Representative from Warren County and his wife is the publisher of the local paper. Davitt is the leading Democrat in the 14th most important county in the state in the Iowa Caucuses.
Mark Davitt is comparatively unknown next to another politician who endorsed a candidate in the caucuses this week, Tom Daschle, who endorsed Barack Obama. But it’s doubtful whether the mind of any caucusgoer will be swayed by Tom Daschle’s endorsement. However, while Mark Davitt is nowhere near as well known nationally or even statewide as Daschle, his opinion is a lot more likely to sway caucus goers, particularly those in Warren County. Iowa Caucuses are not won by the endorsements of major national politicians, they are won by the support of well-respected community leaders like Mark Davitt. If Davitt is backing Richardson, his endorsement is worth more than that of 10 Tom Daschles.
February 25th, 2007
Last night, we blogged on the Hotline’s report that Dave Loebsack may have endorsed Barack Obama at the Obama rally in Cedar Rapids last night. It seems though that he was just echoing a common practice of Congressman Boswell and appearing as a courtesy at the event, not endorsing. However, Iowa’s Attorney General, Tom Miller, and its State Treasurer, Mike Fitzgerald, did endorse Obama at the Senator’s rally in Ames today. This leaves the Obama campaign about 1,157 Iowans behind Tom Vilsack and closing. Incidentally, Selden Spencer spoke at the Ames event without endorsing Obama. This goes to show that you don’t have to be elected to Congress to speak at a Presidential candidate’s event without an endorsement, you just have to lose by less than 20 points.
February 11th, 2007
As Barack Obama’s announcing his Presidential candidacy today in front of huge crowds. We thought it was worth revisiting some of our past coverage of Senator Obama’s candidacy as well this handy Obama primer from today’s Guardian that does an excellent job of offering a brief introduction to the man and the phenomenon that he has spawned.
The other noteworthy political news today is that Mitt Romney has adopted a new campaign strategy that should prove very successful. It is to feed Republican activists free steak. Even if Romney’s supporters aren’t the most fervent of any candidate, they will certainly be the best fed.
February 10th, 2007
Here’s a prediction: Hillary Clinton is going to lose the Iowa caucuses. Perhaps very badly. And it’s because she is still fumbling on Iraq.
In perhaps her most forceful statement on the issue, Clinton told DNC members on Friday: “If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war… If we in Congress don’t end this war by January of 2009, as president, I will.”
But according to a survey (pdf) done by The Politico (via MyDD), she does not regret casting her 2002 vote in favor of the war. This is a very tricky line to walk: As president, she would not have been for war, but as senator she would be? Isn’t there a singular responsibility as an elected official to do what’s best for her country, regardless of title? I’m sorry, but this is straight out of a 2004 John Kerry campaign.
MyDD’s Chris Bowers notes that Clinton is trying to pull a Joe Lieberman: appear anti-war to accrue Democratic votes, but maintain support for the war in reality. It worked in Connecticut, he says, because “low information voters just won’t know the difference.” Unfortunately for Clinton, Iowa caucus-goers are hardly low information voters. They brave the sleet and snow in order to stand — sometimes for hours — in crowded high school gymnasiums. And they sure as hell know where the candidates stand.
They also, sure as hell, oppose the Iraq War. The AP reported yesterday that the Iraq War is the number one issue for Iowa voters and that Iowa Democrats are overwhelmingly against it: 86 percent of Iowa Dems said the war wasn’t worth it and 76 percent favored at least the beginnings of withdrawal. According to Former Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Dave Nagle, “Anybody who tries to toe-step around it is going to have a real problem.”
At the moment, it looks like Hillary Clinton fits that anybody description pretty well. Despite a recent ARG poll that had her in the lead, every other poll coming out of the Hawkeye State has shown her down, behind Edwards, Obama, and sometimes even Vilsack. The fact of the matter is, the more people get to know her, the more they will get to know her views on Iraq. Which is why it looks like Iowa Dems will be looking for somebody else.
February 6th, 2007
Although we will soon be deluged with articles analyzing Barack Obama’s candidacy in racial terms, it seems worth mentioning one article out of the cresting wave, Peter Beinart’s analysis of how Obama is perceived. Beinart posits that Obama, like Colin Powell, is perceived as a “good Black” by whites because he doesn’t follow the classic stereotype of an African American politician (unlike, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton). However, Obama is able to continue to be perceived as authentic to fellow African-Americans because his “African American wife, his connection to the black church, and his work as a community organizer give him racial credibility.”
As unique as this article might sound, it’s been written before in the same publication. Two years ago, Noam Scheiber wrote a much better version of the same article in the same magazine. In it, he gives the same analysis of how Obama is perceived as being a “good black” and somehow different from typical African Americans. This accounted for much of his political success, in the article a consultant for one of Obama’s opponents in the primary “notes that the only time suburban and exurban white voters ever responded negatively to Obama was when he was associated with more conventional black politicians. ‘We [showed voters a sound] bite from Jesse Jackson Junior,’ says Dunn, referring to a video clip of the Chicago congressman praising Obama. ‘[blue collar] voters didn’t like that.’”
However, this analysis isn’t all that original either. It all stems from a New Yorker article written by Malcolm Gladwell over ten years ago about the differences in how African-Americans and West Indian immigrants to the U.S. are perceived. Gladwell states that minorities who are perceived as somehow foreign or different, like West Indians in Brooklyn, are not only able to avoid negative stereotypes but are associated with positive stereotypes It’s far to say that the concepts expressed in this article, written before Barack Obama was even a State Senator, will drive much of the debate over Obama’s racial identity over the next year or two. Gladwell’s article, amplified by the stories in the New Republic, will be read by the journalists covering the Presidential campaign. It already seems well on its way from meme to conventional wisdom. The ideas of Gladwell, knowingly or unknowingly, will most probably inform the language and vocabulary used by David Yepsen, the New York Times, other bloggers and just about everyone else writing about Barack Obama. Whether or not Gladwell’s concepts are actually applicable to Obama is irrelevent. What matters is that it is increasingly clear that they will provide much of the framework around which Obama will be perceived by the media.
January 29th, 2007
Although Tom Vilsack may have been the Mayor of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa (population 8,751), he doesn’t have the support of the entire town. Not because he did something wrong as Mayor, as State Senator or even as Governor but because Barack Obama’s political director is also from Mt. Pleasant. When Obama hired former Senate Caucus Director Emily Parcell as political director, he hired another Mount Pleasantonian. This means that one small Iowa town will be very much in the thick of things during the caucus. Although Henry County may only be the 40th most important county in terms of delegates, it certainly seems to be more important when it comes to who makes the decisions on Presidential campaigns.
January 27th, 2007
Now that John Kerry has decided he isn’t running again for President, it’s worth exploring who stands to gain and what impact it will make on the caucuses. One poll done nationally shows relatively little impact for any candidate. However, among donors, there’s a clear shift from Kerry to Obama. As the New York Times notes, a lot of his big donors are already getting behind Obama and Chris Cilizza sees Obama as a big winner as well.
However, in Iowa, it’s curious to see what happens to the pockets of support that the Senator still had, such as among the Hawkeye Labor Council in Cedar Rapids. It would be curious to see where those people go, especially since if one still supported Senator Kerry now, they were a real hardcore supporter. But it’s also worth remembering what was perhaps the high point of Kerry’s abortive 2008 campaign, his speech here in Grinnell in May which drew nearly 1000 people. It may not have drawn as much media attention as his low point but it’s still worth remembering.
January 25th, 2007
Previous Posts
