Where I Was Not; Where I Am

It's been one week since my last post. This is an eternity in the life of any well-maintained blog, particularly one driven by an insistently visible presidential race.

I'm back to report that the absence is the message. I have very little to say about this campaign at the moment.

I didn't make it to any of the Brooklyn-based "Turn the Page in Iraq" canvasses on Saturday. I decided not to attend a Sunday open house celebrating the opening of Barack Obama's first official field office (not to be confused with the much written about finance office) in New York City. These were not incidental scheduling conflicts, but places I decided not to be. I'm going to attempt to explain why.

I sat down for coffee and an interview on Wednesday of this past week with Jacki Esposito, one of the organizers of Brooklyn for Barack, who is also one of the Obama campaign's designated field organizers in Brooklyn. We spoke for almost five hours.

I'm grateful to her for spending the time to have a conversation that I'm sure neither of us planned to extend into the marathon session it became. We identified many areas of difference in perception and priorities, but also made the effort to reach beyond those to find areas of common interest.

Her commitment is laudable. I have no doubt that she will follow her calling, as she understands it, through to the end of this race. There is a huge amount of work to be done on the ground, and she will be a significant contributor to getting the grassroots end of things done in Brooklyn, and perhaps beyond.

It's difficult to write more than this about our exchange. What I believe we affirmed in the last hour or so of our discussion was a mutual acknowledgment of sincerity of purpose with regard to Barack Obama. This is enough to persuade me to leave most of the substance of our disagreements about means, ends and the significance of electoral politics in the process of governance out of this post. Her views are not interchangeable with those of Barack Obama, nor are mine, and I've decided there's no need to frame the specifics of a personal political debate as campaign-related.

What I heard from her about the grassroots experience in Brooklyn is that it's challenging, but there's been adequate support and communication from the campaign throughout her involvement. She said that many of the people working at the grassroots level are relatively new to politics; people have been learning by doing, and she's confident the enthusiasm and man hours will have a significant impact on the race.

I hope so.

It's partially this hope for success that is tying my tongue and restricting my fingers at the moment. I have more questions and concerns than ever about the Obama campaign, but I'm in need of a new way to address them.

I am interested in better government. I'm committed to a more ethical society, as well as a more peaceful world.

I am an idealist to the extent that I nurture a beleaguered belief that these things are possible; I am also a pragmatist, grounded in the direct experience of complexity, bureaucracy and humanity's worst instincts. Balancing these two orientations requires a constant reevaluation of the world around me. Frankly, this is not an easy way to live, but it's the only path that I feel comfortable walking.

Which brings me back to the question of where I was not, and where I am now. I learned on Wednesday that I'm unlikely to find what I'm looking for among the grassroots graduates of Camp Obama or youthful front-line staffers. This is not to say that I may not work with them in the future, or that I discount what they're trying to accomplish and the effort that they're putting into the campaign.

There are, however, some things that I need answered in ways that organized volunteers and junior staff can't accommodate. They can't actually speak for the campaign or its decision-making, and asking them questions that they can only answer speculatively (with reluctance and seemingly at their peril) is not productive for them or for me.

I'm eager to push this conversation forward with more emphasis on persons of age and experience. I remain fascinated and hopeful when Ted Sorenson gets out and stumps for Barack Obama. To the extent that I remain engaged in the progress of this candidacy, I'll be looking for compelling historical and authoritative ethical perspectives on what's happening now.

I also want to communicate more about people who haven't made up their minds, or at least haven't hit the streets. Much of the truth of this moment lies outside those caught up in its nuances. I'm going to ask readers, friends and acquaintances, to consider submitting short statements about how 2008 looks to them, preferably with an emphasis on their personal thoughts about Barack Obama.

[If you happen to be reading this and get inspired to start writing, please send 500 words or less to thinkobama@gmail.com. My hope is to publish individual statements in their entirety, perhaps following up with posts about questions raised.]

More importantly, I'm returning again to the idea that change doesn't need to wait for any one person. It's not all about one model of community organizing, or one person to catalyze a nation. My allegiance lies with principles, not individuals.

I've spent much of the week feeling about like this: "A campaign's a campaign, and a movement's a movement. Call me when we have the latter."

It often seems that people aren't risking enough to be true in practice to the values that will actually change the country. Going half-way in any direction always strikes me as a good way to lose. The politics of compromise -- i.e., accepting "good enough for government work" -- extend way beyond the Beltway.

When I get disheartened, though, I go back to the well of bold minds from different times. Why wait for the right call to reach you when you can put one out, too?

Marshall Ganz is fine, but I'll go with Gandhi to end this post:

They say 'means are after all means.' I would say 'means are after all everything.' As the means so the end. There is no wall of separation between means and end. Indeed the Creator has given us control (and that too very limited) over means, none over the end. Realization of the goal is in exact proportion to that of the means. This is a proposition that admits of no exception.

Number Three: FIRED UP! READY TO GO!

Last Tuesday night I promised to follow up on some thoughts that I'd had during the "Turn the Page in Iraq" rally held in Brooklyn that evening. Actually, I left an ellipsis hanging in the air, saying that number three would come the next day.

Well, it's not last Wednesday, but this is Number Three. A couple of things have happened in the interim, but let me get straight to the point that I wanted to make a week ago.

3. PICK A SLOGAN

In fact, I'll do it for you. Now that I've changed the decor on this blog, you'll have a hard time missing it. FIRED UP! READY TO GO!

One striking thing about Tuesday's rally was the difficulty speakers had in eliciting a solid response from calls to the crowd. In part, that can be attributed to the relatively small number of attendees in the large, open space.

I'm convinced, though, that the other problem is that the campaign hasn't fully committed to the best thing that they have going. Why not go with a chant that seems to light up crowds across the country?

FIRED UP! READY TO GO!

People should associate these few words immediately with Barack Obama in 2008. "Turn the Page" is fine, but it just rolled out yesterday, and seems like it might be gone tomorrow.

Campaigns don't thrive on complexity. That doesn't have to mean addressing issues in soundbites, but it does mean that some good sloganeering is desperately needed in a campaign built on enthusiasm.

Fired up! Ready to go! It's just that simple.

Actually, It Started on Broadway...

I don't know why the campaign has been slow to roll with this call front and center, but it struck me first at the Barack on Broadway event on September 25. I was in a room filled with people who had paid at least $250 per ticket (other than the displaced Brooklynites like myself) to support Barack.

He delivered the anecdote about his trip to Greenwood, South Carolina, and when he began calling out "Fired up! Ready to go!" the place went wild. How many more dollars might have been collected that night if there had been any merchandise at all that capitalized on the power of this chant? Where were $20 t-shirts for the big wallets that were fired up and ready to buy?

More important than the money is the ability to carry that energy out of the room and spread it to people who weren't there. It's past time to connect with people who haven't been converted. There has to be more of an effort to spread the fervor.

Straight Ahead

I hope that Obama supporters embrace "Fired up!" as the signature of the campaign and it trickles back up to HQ. I think South Carolina's taking proud ownership of it, and that's a good start. There was an event recently in NYC that worked the words into its title. They're moving, but I'm always eager to see things move faster.

I'm not worried about getting the timing right. Just let the zeitgeist work for you.

I'm putting these designs out there as one more example of what's possible. I know there are more than 11,000 Obama-related items up on cafepress.com of varying quality and intent.

I happen to like the way that my friend took an image of Ms. Edith Childs, the woman who got Barack Obama fired up, and fused it with those magic words. I read that Ms. Childs heard the "Fired up!" chant at an NAACP rally in the early eighties and adopted it as her own. Now it's been passed on again. That movement is testament to a powerful force.

My friend also grabbed my Buffaloes for Barack and worked them into another version. It looks great to me -- let's leave the donkeys and elephants out this time, eh? Time for another type of political animal.

I'll convert these into some basic goods for sale and put a link up, but that's not so much the point. It's really about how easy and essential it is to push the ideas that any of us think work, and not to wait for any official sanction to do it.

Comment: HuffPo Gets It Right, Too

Reinforcing the idea that more voices do give us a better chance at avoiding mass media group think, I came across this post by Steven Brant, Charles Gibson on new ABC/Washington Post poll: "I know we're getting way ahead of ourselves here, but..." , on the HuffPo home page shortly after filing my last post. Since I had taken the time to call someone out on doing it all wrong, I wanted to be sure to take the time to register my appreciation for someone who was doing it right.

I'll offer my comment here, but I hope you do stop by to read his piece. It proposes a couple of sensible alternatives to the horse-race model of press coverage of presidential races in this country. Let's hope that our democracy can get there.

Thank you for contributing this piece to stop the drum-beat before it's too late. The unreasoned march to an unfounded conclusion, in this case the "inevitability of Hillary subtext," is blatantly under way again, and it's incumbent upon all of us to keep repeating that this is not an acceptable mode of discourse for our public life.

I was disappointed to come across a piece (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-moorad/obama-trailing-off_b_66976.html) on the Huffington Post's OffTheBus Project site today that epitomizes the worst of the reporting that's been appearing recently. I hesitate to draw readers to the post, but it's worth linking to it in order to offer others the opportunity to object to the way the piece is constructed.

The importance of this issue extends well beyond the 2008 presidential race. If mea culpas are still fresh in our ears for lax reporting during the prelude to the Iraq War, we should not take that to mean that we are safe from a similar march toward Iran.

We must demand better journalism in every area of civic consequence. Thanks again for putting together such a thoughtful plea.

Comment: A Small Detour into the Echo Chamber

I realize that this post is a detour from what I promised yesterday, but number three on my list will have to wait. I apologize for being diverted, but I happened across a piece of writing on HuffPo's OffTheBus site that epitomizes an exponentially increasing trend in coverage of both Barack Obama and the 2008 Democratic Primary race.

It is the return of the echo chamber. This term may be hackneyed, but it's an apt description of the worst of contemporary journalistic practice and it's imperiling the outcome of the 2008 race. What I refer to as our media echo chamber (and it's at this point unfair to limit the description to mainstream media) is the uncritical repetition of a particular point of view as fact, with little reference to empirical evidence, and great reliance on the imagined authority of other people offering the same point of view. While it's certainly true that advocates of a certain position can be instrumental in launching an idea into the chamber, no conspiracy or puppet-master is required for citizens to suffer from the worst effects of broad, media group think.

What's astounding to me about what I see happening now is that people in the field of journalism and the culture at large have spent many public hours decrying this phenomenon as a major contributing factor in our entry into the Iraq War. Yet, somehow, another steady march is now underway.

What is the new foregone conclusion? From the Economist to the New York Times, it's hard to miss some mention of Hillary Clinton, the presumptive winner of her party's nomination for 2008. It appears as a subtle strain in some reporting, with a mere modifying clause that ratifies the self-evident value of Hillary's experience or her campaign's interpretation of fund-raising totals. In other cases, pieces are built from top to bottom around dubious assumptions seem to have been pulled directly from a briefing by Terry McAuliffe.

If this blog has done anything, I hope that it has given proof of my interest in legitimate criticism and tough questioning of all candidates and campaigns. I am not afraid of people taking on flaws in Barack Obama's operation, or that of John Edwards, or any other contender. If anything, a well-reasoned critical piece by a prominent journalist could provide some valuable insights that might reach Barack directly and be translated into useful action.

I object vigorously, however, to the uncritical repetition of so-called facts with little foundation in research or true journalistic investigation. The most insidious examples appear when major news outlets, trying to capitalize on the ubiquitous blogging phenomenon (I feel like I'm talking about those fresh, new bell-bottom trousers as I write that in late 2007, but anyway...), maintain some pretense of objective reporting as they use regular contributors to make blog updates. Short-form entries end up being built on unacknowledged bias combined with the most sensational facts and short-hand references to conventional wisdom.

This is no way for the Fourth Estate to contribute to building an informed, participatory and critical citizenry. New media, while often an ethically gray land of noise and confusion, should be a last, best hope for an alternative perspective on the facts. More voices should create a more complicated picture.

That's why I was so disappointed when I came across this piece, Obama: Trailing Off?, on the Huffington Post's OffTheBus site. I have become an occasional visitor and sometime commenter on that site, because it often does provide a set of facts that are lost in other channels. The attempt to provide a highly visible platform for unpaid contributors to share their insights and receive (presumably) some editorial review is commendable.

How then, did this piece slip through the cracks? It's valuable in that it is much easier to dissect than an article appearing in the New York Times. It lacks the tiered editorial review, quality of professional craftsmanship and authority of venue that can obfuscate similarly empty pieces in conventional news sources.

It's worth reading as a glaring example of how quickly people begin to repeat received ideas and offer them as fact, or worse, some kind of analytical insight of their own. Like a piece of unfinished furniture, you can study how it was constructed without being distracted by shiny finishes or other ornate superficial details that might be added by a master-builder.

I offer you my comments on the piece below. I genuinely don't know if these will make it onto the site, but I'm actually tempted to write a letter to the site's editor, regardless. I'd encourage you, reader, to do the same, if you find the original as disappointing as I did.

This post really does seem oddly "On the Bus" and inconsistent with the general trend in reporting on this site. Other than the first-person experience of having watched a debate (presumably on television), this is an analytically light gloss on secondary and tertiary sources from mainstream media. To the editorial staff: What exactly is this report's function on this site?

As altohone observed, at best, this piece seems intended to goad Obama or his followers into a change of course. At worst, it's a terribly empty echo of the nexis-assembled conventional wisdom that's showing up across mainstream media outlets.

After an inflammatory (albeit conventional) lede, Mr. Moorad alludes to New Hampshire poll data, but draws conclusions based primarily on national numbers. I read his very certain assertions ("It is clear..." and "It is evident...") about Obama's abilities, but I don't see much specificity about missteps or deficits -- just a selective reiteration of polling data. Selective, because of the conspicuous omission of last week's Newsweek survey showing Obama shifting into the lead in Iowa among likely caucus-goers.

Given that the Obama campaign has steadily articulated a four-state strategy, with Iowa squarely at its head, this data seems worth factoring into any analysis. Meanwhile, uncritical interpretations of Hillary's poll position ("appears to be a growing, insurmountable political-breakaway") and relative qualifications ("the inevitable victor with the credentials to match") aren't given legs within the piece to support the weight of the words. The rhetoric has the second-hand ring of Sunday shows and recent NYT reporting.

I write all of this as an Obama supporter who has spent a great deal of time writing critically about the campaign's execution. There is a valid topic to explore here: Is Obama's relative inexperience in national campaign management hurting him in a field of seasoned political veterans with battle-tested machines?

Unfortunately, this piece seems more an awkward exercise in style, losing all track of substance, and effectively perpetuating the worst of contemporary journalistic practice. Or, in other words ... Echo. Echo. Echo. Echo.

Turning the Page and Looking Ahead

I don't know what I expected from today's "Turn the Page in Iraq" rally, but I return to my keyboard with a couple of blurry pictures and a few more ideas about how to move forward in New York. First, let me offer a quick overview of the event itself.

The challenge of the day in Brooklyn was not crowd overflow, but sparse attendance. I arrived about ten minutes before the scheduled start time and found a few earnest volunteers on the periphery of a largely empty plaza distributing 8.5" x 11" flyers and encouraging people to stop by the event.

Unfortunately, the fact that not many people had arrived made it hard to attract people who weren't previously aware of the event. There weren't many visual cues to let people know what was coming. There were Obama rally signs on the steps of Borough Hall, and the PA system was playing music to attract attention, but supporters arrived slowly and filled the empty space tentatively.

This did give me the opportunity to speak with an older person who had made the trip down from a retirement home in Sleepy Hollow, NY, to attend the Brooklyn rally. He had some very interesting ideas about Social Security, and I hope that he writes to me to share them in more detail. He reinforced my feeling that seniors must be made more central to this campaign. In a small crowd there are many inspiring stories and important voices. But back to the formal proceedings.

The event emcee was a member of Brooklyn for Barack, and she ably hosted a program that included a high-school student, an Iraq War veteran (pictured at right) and NYC politicians (pictured below) brave enough to endorse Barack, in spite of Hillary's local reach. Speeches began around 5:45 p.m. and continued for about 45 minutes.

Thankfully, the crowd seemed to grow as the program went on, and remarks were received enthusiastically. Speakers focused primarily on Barack's willingness to take an anti-war position at a time when it was politically unpopular. They did a good job of repeating that, although Barack didn't hold office and face a vote on the issue, he did risk his reputation and political future by choosing to be outspoken in opposition against the prevailing currents in both major parties and the mainstream media.

Generally, the focus stayed on Barack's good judgment and the issue of Iraq, but there were also calls to local action. Councilman Al Vann, who organized Jesse Jackson's 1984 primary run in New York, invoked Jesse's success in carrying New York delegates twenty years ago to inspire attendees to fight for their home state's votes today. The crowd also heard the important reminder that they must register as Democrats before October 12 if they want to put their support behind Barack when it counts.



All of these things were good. People were on hand to pass out voter registration cards (I saw at least two reach the crowd while the speaking was still going on). Members of Brooklyn for Barack were passing out free rally signs and buttons, and volunteers were circulating with clipboards for Obama and for voter registration.


Always Forward, Always Prepared!

If you'll forgive the quasi-Soviet ring of the header, I think it's the perfect introduction to my same-day impressions of what was done well and what could have contributed to even more success. I say all of this with the caveat that I was not able to contribute anything more than my presence to the on-the-ground effort today.

I learned through a conversation tonight that at least one member of Brooklyn for Barack has read this blog, and I want to emphasize that I appreciate the logistical and material challenges of organizing anything beyond the self-contained utopia of the computer screen. It's never easy, and resource and time constraints are real, but here we go anyway.

1. GIVE IT AWAY

I thought it was great that rally signs and buttons were being given away free. Selling merchandise can be a good fund-raising tool, but getting the message out should supercede the revenue incentive, at least in the New York area.

If NYC becomes image-saturated with Obama logos and slogans, it will help shape the perception of his strength nationally. Let's get more shirts and signs in the background of television morning shows (how about fighting with the tourists in the early AM for a new front in guerrilla campaigning?) and sports/news desks. Just a few more flyers and stickers left behind on subways could have a helpful afterlife. How many journalists/bloggers/editors are riding the F train back to their Brooklyn homes every day?

2. BIG SIGNS, BETTER PICTURES

Again, this is no knock on the organizing that went into today's event, but next time there should be a bigger visual presence. Everything sounded great -- the PA was perfect throughout, from speeches to music, which is no small accomplishment in event planning in a public space. Graphically, though, there was nothing that screamed BARACK EVENT HERE. Like, for example, a sign that reads BARACK EVENT HERE.

I know these things cost money, but I think it's time to think about recruiting art students. I personally work out of a studio in Clinton Hill that happens to sit right next to Pratt. There's one Brooklyn resource for finding people who know how to do things like make enormous graphical displays.

The concepts can be challenging, but the most daunting part is execution. Students -- or working/struggling artists, for that matter -- are more than familiar with what it takes to produce and build things at a minimal cost. I genuinely believe that more colorful banners, a few sandwich boards and a couple of portable booths/stands for voter registration can make a significant impact in drawing crowds and telling more interesting stories.

I'm not sure what photos will come out of today's rally, but I know that something like a twelve-foot long, three-foot high banner (portable mural, even) painted on unstretched canvas would be likely to draw a camera and a crowd. Not every sign has to be perfectly produced. A rough-hewn, hand-made look to any effort like that only reinforces the fact that this is a campaign fueled by grass-roots energy, not just packaged to look that way.

3. COME BACK TOMORROW

No, that's not the suggestion. I'm saying there's a number three. It's my favorite, actually.

It relates to the project that I mentioned consumed my time and energy last week. I'm going to unveil it tomorrow. See you then.

[Post updated with minor semantic corrections and second photo 10/3 - JN]

Rally Ho!

Today the Obama campaign is sponsoring issue-driven rallies in 17 cities across the country, and Brooklyn just happens to be one of them. I will be leaving in about 15 minutes to attend the "Turn the Page in Iraq" gathering being held at Borough Hall.

I'm bringing a camera and an open mind. The framing of the rally is a bit vague. It's billed as a "rally against the conventional Washington thinking that led us into the Iraq War." I'm all for the opportunity to gather people together to protest against conventional thinking of any kind, but I'm interested to see who will heed this call. There's also no advertised list of speakers, or any sort of agenda, so it will be one big surprise.

I think it's not a bad idea to return to the Iraq issue, and focusing on Barack's early opposition is a differentiator from Hillary. Ultimately, I'm not sure how much a contest around the idea of CHANGE is a winning strategy for the primary. I am encouraged, though, to see some on-the-ground action being taken on an issue nominally more specific than enthusiasm itself. It's a step in the right direction, and it's very interesting choice to attempt this in Brooklyn.

Time to hit the street. Expect a report on my experience a little later.

A Few Dollars More at the End of the Quarter

I never stop thinking about the Obama campaign these days, but I sometimes do stop writing about it. I took an end of week break starting Friday. I'm not sure that pause is over, but I do have a few things to say as Q3 fund-raising comes to a close tonight.


1. Last Week

The first is what I was up to last week. I alluded to working feverishly after Monday night's event to put something together. Well, it begins with the buffalo heads above. That's a preview of what's to come around here. Something other than words. Yup.
This is not an unveiling -- the pensive buffaloes above are my own esoteric handiwork -- but the real goods are soon to come. With the help of a talented friend, and the input of a few other generous pals of mine, a mini-campaign was put together last week. I have a full-blown, print-ready couple of sloganeering designs set to go.

The campaign to come is going to focus on promoting agility and opportunity, as well as some specific ideas: connecting the youth vote with seniors (GenerationS Obama, anyone? Building intergenerational relationships to court older voters and ensure turnout by younger ones...), pushing harder in local diasporic populations and fighting countrywide for endorsements from our elected representatives at every level.

2. Big and Small

I'm talking campaign concerns here.

I haven't heard back yet about my "why no signs?" inquiry on Thursday. Fortunately, I was not promised to expect an answer immediately by the Obama volunteer at the HQ number. It might be nice to have a speedier answer, but it makes all the difference that someone was trained well enough to be helpful without overpromising.

Of somewhat greater concern are a couple of emails that I've received from one of the NYC volunteer groups. Apparently, the deadline for independent voters (or registered Republicans who've caught the fever) to switch party affiliations in order to vote in the February 5 Democratic primary here is October 12. Someone checked the data and found a huge number of independents statewide -- enough to make a big difference in the contest between Barack and Hillary.

I'm glad that the word is getting out and that people are talking about how to make a public plea for Obama-leaning independents to walk in Democratic shoes for a few miles, but this seems like a big miss by the campaign. This is exactly the sort of issue that NYC volunteers could have been pushing for the last seven months. Given the way independent votes are likely to fall, it would have made sense to have a systematic campaign to recruit one-time, "Obama Democrats" for the primary vote earlier in the year.

I realize that it's my duty to pitch in and figure out how to make the most of the next 12 days, rather than beginning a postmortem. I'd just like to cite this as one concrete example of why it makes sense for creative people to start thinking ahead and acting, NOT just to wait for direction from HQ. I think I've spent the last month making this case to myself, hoping secretly that I'd be proven wrong, but I'm done with that. Complimentary efforts can only help the cause.

3. Good News

The good news as of tonight's email box is that Barack has gotten a bump in Iowa. According to a Newsweek story cited in an email and available on BarackObama.com, Obama holds a small lead over Hillary among likely caucus-goers. Granted, the margin of error given the sample size basically has the potential to eradicate any candidate's lead in this particular survey, but the Obama ahead spin is coming from Newsweek, not just Obama's guy, David Plouffe. In that sense, the data means less than the fact that one major media outlet is refraining from the "presumptive winner" line for at least a week.

4. The MONEY

Also, the campaign hit its mark for donors and donations. Before the deadline hit, they'd already crossed the 350,000 donor mark and claimed to have received more than 500,000 donations, as well. This will not win the race, but it's not definitely not bad news. Before signing on here, I anted up another $10 (freelance writer=big spender) to flip the counter just a little bit higher.

5. URL Hiccup Ahead

Finally, and this really ought not be at the bottom of this post, I will be redirecting the www.thinkobama.com domain in the next day or two. I know I have readers of different ages and levels of comfort online, so it's hard to know what level of detail is helpful to communicate. I just want to advise you not to be worried if you have any trouble bringing up the site this week.

For anyone using thinkobama.com to get here, there may be a day or two of oddities. I hope not. If you have any trouble, you can always get here directly, using http://thinkobama.blogspot.com in your browser.

Once the transfer is complete, there may be more to this place than just a blog. The end of this year promises to be a wild political ride.

An Excellent Volunteer at Obama HQ

I promise you that I am always looking for good news. I believe that when mistakes are made, there is still the possibility for a positive message to come from them. That's why I'm posting a quick entry about a call that I just had with a volunteer answering the main number at Obama HQ.

Last night I wrote about my dismay at the discovery that signs and banners weren't going to be permitted at the Washington Square Park rally today in NYC. I did some online research last night to try to find an explanation and came up empty-handed. Today I picked up the phone.

I still don't have an answer, but I had a great experience with an earnest and well-trained volunteer named Eric. He listened to me identify myself as a supporter, writer and blogger, and had no qualms. He focused on trying to get me an answer to my question.

When I said that my question generally pertained to a matter of policy about the rapid-entry tickets, he mentioned that there had been some other calls about them and checked the information at his disposal (presumably via an online call-response system). He offered me some details about what I could do if I hadn't received a pass, and said that they weren't required for entry in any case. This was much better than a scripted response -- this was an appropriate improvisation based on the training he'd received.

I thanked him for that information, but told him that my question was actually about the "No signs or banners permitted" in the fine print of the pass that I had received. He checked his system for information about that particular concern, but also conversationally said that he, too, found it surprising. There was no information at his disposal to answer the question, so he said that he would be very willing to pass my inquiry on to the correspondence department and he hoped that someone would respond to me in a timely way.

He was also willing to speculate, as a matter of personal opinion, that it might be related to city or park regulations, or even be a clerical error. In short, he admitted without hesitation that he didn't know the answer. More importantly, he was willing to acknowledge and even share -- speaking clearly as one individual supporter to another -- the spirit of my concern without saying anything that the organization might consider inappropriate.

Eric handled the call perfectly. He took my information, thanked me for my support and expressed his hope that someone would get back to me before the rally, acknowledging that the response might not be quite that quick. I couldn't and wouldn't ask for more.

I look forward to this candid style of communication being practiced throughout the organization. As always, a lot depends on the ability of a particular individual, but I strongly believe that organizations (including government bureaucracies) can create cultures that reward people for doing their work in the spirit of this volunteer -- which is to say, in the spirit of what Barack Obama is promising.

A Bad Sign for Obama NYC Rally

I received this "rapid access pass" graphic in an email from the Obama campaign today at about 8 p.m. ET. I was glad to see it arrive in the inbox in advance of tomorrow's rally in Washington Square Park. Then I read it.

One voice, I was told Monday night by Barack, can change the world. But signs and banners aren't welcome at a political rally. No further explanation.

I've been working furiously to translate an idea inspired by Monday night's speech into meaningful action. Friends -- not yet supporters of Barack Obama -- have generously donated their time to help me, believing in nothing but my commitment and the meaning of friendship. I won't stop working on the full realization of that idea, but I have now been given another side project.

I will be looking for answers to this inconceivably bad decision starting tomorrow. Not at the rally, though. I consider myself officially uninvited.

One Promise Kept

One story on this blog has reached its conclusion. The ending was fundamentally a happy one. As promised, we received three tickets for the "Barack on Broadway" benefit last night to make up for being shut out of the Brooklyn event on August 22.

The young man I mentor, who is now 17 years old, got to experience Barack in person. That mattered to me symbolically, but also personally, and I'm grateful that the campaign found a way to connect with one young voter they almost let get away.

There's more I'd like to say about this, but those three tickets say enough for now. This blog will remain a supportively critical look at the progress of both the campaign and the larger 2008 race, but I will also be trying to shift emphasis to more ideas for action.

I was inspired by Barack's speech at the end of the program, but also motivated to attempt more by missed opportunities that I saw on the ground. Barack reiterated his commitment to telling difficult truths to the people who need to hear them. That's the battle that I'm fighting right now.

The campaign needs to be more agile, more aggressive and more aware of its own resources. It's time to do more, and do more things differently.

If we (supporters and campaign) hold back now, there's not going to be a later for Barack Obama's candidacy. This takes more than two disconnected fields of roots (net and grass).

I have a couple of things in mind to extend this conversation to the street, and start making more direct links between the two worlds. The phone calls have begun, and I'm lining up the resources at my disposal to get this moving.

I am not willing to settle for a "Countdown to Change" in this country. It can begin now, and I'm doing my best to give it a hand.

Activism of All Stripes

Hello, readers. Handful of you that there are, friends of mine and possibly a few unknown visitors, I don't want to neglect you another day. I'm going to comment on my two-day absence, because it has relevance to what I've been publishing here.

In addition to working (for money) during the last two days, I've spent a great deal of time preparing a very short application for a fellowship being offered by MoveOn.org. After several months of intermittent involvement in all things Obama, and a month of engaged blogging, I've realized that I cannot escape an urgent sense that change is required in this country. I firmly believe that now is the time, and I believe that Barack Obama's campaign is one possible road to making a meaningful difference.

I think Barack would be the first to tell you, though, that there are many other ways to achieve some of the same ends. These include small, personal decisions about the ways one leads one's own life, as well as public arenas outside of mainstream political races. I'm currently shopping around for something public, and I don't anticipate limiting myself to one vein of activity.

I have mixed feelings about the tactics employed by MoveOn.org in some of their campaigns, but I respect the effort that they've been making for years to establish a left-leaning power base outside of the Democratic Party. This is less controversial than third-party politics; it's no party politics. That's an idea that I can embrace. Actions that center on shared causes, rather than strategic calculations built on the entangled legacies of our two dominant power machines.

Regardless of the outcome of my last-minute (that's an understatement) fellowship application, completing it proved a challenging exercise in concision -- no 1200 word answers allowed -- and self-inquiry. I walk away with a newly condensed take on my politics.

I'll share question ten with you as an example. I don't think my answer quite says it all for me, but it was fun to try.


10. Tell us your political philosophy in 10 words or less.

people not profits / open borders open minds / means always matter
(my political philosophy as haiku - 10 words, 17 syllables)

Now take a little time time to answer the question for yourself. I can guess one thing about your response that I learned from mine: It's going to contain more than a candidate's name.

Comment Boosting Barack on The Caucus

Having given full expression to my frustrations yesterday, I have felt a little more free today to remind the world why I'm a supporter of Barack Obama. As any reader will quickly realize, I spend very little time on this blog examining what's going well, but that doesn't mean that I don't see it.

I came across this post, "Obama Targets Manhattan," on one of the New York Times' blogs today. The lede mentions shut out supporters at the August 22 Brooklyn event; this immediately drew my attention. The author seems to imply that the Obama campaign organized September 27 in response to the sidewalk full of disappointed people in Brooklyn.

This may not be inaccurate strictly speaking, because that event certainly demonstrated NYC is ready for a large, free Obama rally. Nonetheless, it's incomplete; the good news is missing. In deciding to offer all shut out supporters seats at a $250 per ticket fund-raiser, the campaign had quietly created a great story that wasn't being reported.

I'm guessing the Obama media team didn't give much thought to publicity, because the story begins with a logistical mistake. As far as I'm concerned, the mistake is out there, but the response is another opportunity entirely to demonstrate what Barack Obama stands for in this race.

This is what I submitted and I hope it makes it up on the site, or at least catches the attention of Gerry Mullany, who penned the post:

One important detail regarding the first paragraph of this post from one of the supporters who was shut out in Brooklyn. The Obama campaign has offered every supporter who didn't make it into the Marriott on August 22 a seat at Barack on Broadway, the $250 per ticket fund-raising event on September 24. The NYC office has reached out by email and phone to extend this offer and an apology.

The free September 27 rally is a great, separate event, but it should be reported that the campaign is making a point of recognizing the value of $25 contributors and their time by offering them this access upgrade. This is early proof of a candidate who finds ways to make inclusiveness and respect part of the campaign, not just the speeches.

I write this as one of Barack's most critical supporters, complaining loudly online under the heading "Think, Obama" when the campaign falls short of its own high standards. They make mistakes, but I don't see anyone doing better by small donors.

Any other candidates out there ready to sacrifice $225 per seat at a fund-raiser to translate their principles into action? That's not just hope, that's actual change.

Other comments had already taken on the title (a little dubious indeed), and then launched into a Barack v. Hillary exchange. Perfectly appropriate, but I hope that my contribution will help spread the upside of the Brooklyn shut out story.

Of course, as I mentioned yesterday, I'm still holding my breath and hoping that all will proceed smoothly on Monday. The happy ending is not yet fully in hand.

I'm thankful that the campaign has done enough to give me a good story to tell in response to a piece like today's from the Times. I have the facts to share, and I want people to know about them.

I'm looking for more good stories, and I'll keep suggesting ways the campaign can create them. In this space, though, I'm always going to write candidly about whatever I find along the way.

Comment on Hillary's Secrecy Compulsion

The emotionally charged tone of my posts yesterday may suggest that I was on a critical bender directed only at my candidate, Barack Obama. As it happens, I also took the time to comment in a public forum on the latest example of Hillary Clinton's astounding propensity to obscure her decision-making from public view.

A story on HuffPo's Off The Bus site described a press conference held by Hillary's campaign in conjunction with the announcement of her healthcare plan. The briefing was intended to provide journalists with access to policy experts from the team that had put it together, presumably to help improve the quality of their coverage by allowing them to ask detailed questions.

The following if an excerpt of Beverly Davis' description of how it began:

[...] before we could start querying the three member panel, the Clinton press handlers attempted to control the spin by announcing, "This will be for background only." That's press-speak for: "It's off the record."

What?

Was this a bad flashback to the secretive Clinton White House years?

[...]

"Why is it [the meeting] background?" asked a testy Dan Balz of the Washington Post, who was sitting next to me.

"Well, unless there's some brilliant quote, we want this to be just background," said Jay Carson, Clinton's National Press Secretary.

"But why? That's why we're here; to find out who these people are and what their contribution has been and is," I chimed in.

"Unless we're going to have a revolt, this will be background," Carson responded coolly.

More grumbling and grousing by Balz and Huffington Post's OffTheBus until Carson relented to our demands that the meeting be on record and the policy team of Neera Tanden, Gene Sperling, and Laurie Rubiner began explaining the finer details of Senator Clinton's latest health care plan for the nation.

This is why I really value Barack's focus on openness and think it is significant that he keeps encouraging a change in politics. It's also the reason why I think we should all push harder to see that his standard is put into practice.

After my previous post on the subject of policy, the Chicago Tribune published a story providing some details about the 200-person network of policy advisers working on the Obama campaign. Why not extend the website to include a list with short bios for this engine of policy development? What better way to underscore the contrast with Hillary Clinton on one of the issues that is central to many people's aversion to her?

Several of the reactions in the comments following the story were dismissive of the knee-jerk secrecy, and went straight to claims of journalistic bias, slander and ad hominem attack. This is the default attack posture of right-wing radio. The press event may have had an adequate resolution this time, but the tendency is a real problem in our politics.

This is the comment that I offered on the site:

SiskoKid and linfar,

I appreciate your feeling that Hillary is a frequent target on this site. I'm personally an Obama supporter, but I understand that the tone of comments about Hillary is often vitriolic.

That said, please do not neglect the issue of secrecy and press handling. This is a CRUCIAL question.

People seriously discussing change in this country are seeking an end to the opacity and deception of the Bush White House. I believe Tinuviel and BevDavis both express this anger in their comments, though they take aim at the press' complacency and complicity in the face of being "handled."

This issue cuts across ALL policy debates. We must all hold the candidates we support accountable for setting a different tone. If we don't demand honesty now, we're not going to get it in 2008.

What's wrong with starting that conference "off the record" is the mindset it betrays. Secrecy for its own sake is a pernicious foe of democracy. It's fine that campaign PR relented in this case, but what might the outcome if the PR had the leverage of the WH behind it?

I'd like to see all campaigns disclose the identities of their policy teams publicly. Why should these decisions ever be made in the shadows?

Defend Hillary's plan and laud her ability, but don't ignore a dangerous tendency in her organization. Ask better of your candidate, so others might be persuaded to join your cause.

posted 05:07 pm on 09/18/2007

Frankly, I don't see Hillary changing her approach to politics anytime soon. That is a real difference between candidates, and it's a crucial strength that we Obama supporters should highlight and the Obama campaign should put into practice at every opportunity.

We must build more concrete examples of what Barack IS doing differently, not just in legislation, not just in speeches, but in the day to day operations of the campaign. As this article illustrates, the contrast will be glaring. Let's make the most of this opportunity to win new supporters by doing the right thing.

Group Think Stinks (Tuesday, Part 3)

One more example of language gone awry, you say? Something more insidious to end the day?

Barack is coming to NYC. No, no. Again. Three days after Broadway.

Here's an email from Barack that supposedly went out to supporters in the region. It didn't arrive in my inbox, but my mother upstate received two. So I guess we're even?

It's not actually the form letter that concerns me. It's a little flat, but that's fine. Scroll down a bit on the page and you'll find a very interesting comment. Let me save you the trouble:

By J. Lowe 55 minutes ago
Dear W -

You are thread jumping, so I am posting here in case you do not see over there.

The campaign staff does not monitor the blogs for advice, concerns, or ideas. Please submit your concerns directly to the campaign. You can do this by clicking on the Issues button and then using the MyPolicy system. Discussion of the issues, especially where we disagree, is set up through this system.

I have seen HQ and know how integrated and important this system is in setting out the course of the country.

Most importantly, we are volunteers. We are not highly paid policy and economic advisers to the campaign. We are not equipped to debate the issues in detail, nor should we be asked to.

Right now, the purpose of this blog is fellowship, welcoming, and training. This is what we are qualified to do. Not debate.

SO, if you disagree, write the campaign and tell them what you want to see.

The bold emphasis is from the original post, but the color is mine. Does anyone else find this disturbing?

I'm a little unclear on the context of the original thread, but I know that it involves people exchanging ideas. That's all I need to know.

Volunteers are not equipped to debate issues in detail? Citizens, by implication, aren't qualified to raise questions about issues of policy in a public forum?

There's a contained little pen called "MyPolicy" where form submissions can be sent for evaluation by the "highly paid [really? that would be some news to report] policy and economic advisers to the campaign." Everyone should keep quiet and fly right.

The exclusive purpose of the Obama blog is "fellowship, welcoming, and training" according to this commenter. Barack is a charismatic leader, but this is the rhetoric of a full-fledged personality cult. No one on the page bats an eye. Instead, the hosannas keep coming.

To emphasize what's going wrong here, let's turn back to the content of Barack's letter:

[...] these crowds tell me something else. They tell me that when it comes to what's wrong with this country, the American people are not the problem. The American people are the answer.

[...] In the face of a politics that's shut us out, that's told us to settle, that's divided us for too long, we believe we can be one people, reaching for what's possible, building a more perfect union.

What is the origin of the disconnect between the candidate's message and the behavior of his supporters? What do these words mean to other people?

We could all benefit from some experiential training in creative-thinking an problem-solving. Why would that not be one of many possible purposes of the site?

The ethos of a campaign that's about the American people solving problems themselves and becoming involved in a revitalized civic culture should be one of open discussion, questioning and inclusiveness. I appreciate the fervor and understand the emotional connection, but these are meaningless without reason.

Stifling debate and dissent is a great way to kill nascent innovation. It's also a sure method for missing the contribution of extraordinary thinkers who are leading lives outside of the political establishment. People with good ideas do many, many kinds of jobs. That's the whole point of Barack's campaign!

Promise and praxis! I say it again. If someone interested in the candidate can't go to his site, ask questions, raise problems and expect to hear what supporters have to say, then why pretend to give people a voice? I doubt that the question that preceded that reply came from a policy expert.

It's time to trust ourselves again. A right unexercised is likely to atrophy. Speak freely while you can.

Watch Your Language (Tuesday, Part 2)

Just one more thing about that email, as Peter Falk's Columbo might have blogged. Team Obama recycled language from their initial post-event message. I'm not talking about quotes from Barack's best speeches. I'm talking about the same disingenuous, passive-voiced excuse for an excuse that I decried in my email to the NYC office, and my subsequent phone conversation with them.

Obama NYC: Thanks for listening.

It was a poorly written email the first time. It was disappointing then for what it implied about the values of the campaign in its operations. This time it just looks lazy.

Do you have no communications staff? No writers who might volunteer to assist you with this sort of communication? (I remember something about a professional writer filling out a volunteer form February 10... hmm, I wonder if he's still available?)

The pieces sit together awkwardly. To someone who enjoys words, it reads with roughly the same grace that Frankenstein's monster might bring to a lead role in Swan Lake.

Well, judge for yourself. I've probably oversold its shabbiness, but try to read it with fresh eyes.

Good afternoon,

Once again, thank you so much for attending Senator Obama's event in Brooklyn on August 22nd. We all greatly appreciate your support. Due to the overwhelming grassroots support for Senator Obama, we simply couldn't accommodate everyone interested in attending. We are sorry you couldn't make it in and we are determined to make this up to you.

While we can't make up the time you spent waiting outside, we would like to provide you with a guaranteed opportunity to see the Senator when he next returns to New York. Please hold the evening of Monday, September 24th on your calendars. Senator Obama will be back in New York City and this email guarantees you one non-transferable ticket to that event. As soon as we have the details, we will pass them on to you. Please keep in mind you are the only one who can redeem this ticket.

Hopefully, you’ve already received an email and a phone call from us prior to this confirming your interest in attending on the 24th. We need you to contact us by email (ny-finance@barackobama.com) or phone (212) 763-4850 by 6:00pm TODAY in order to confirm your attendance if you have not done so already. Otherwise we’ll have to let these complimentary tickets go.

Thank you for your patience and understanding. We really appreciate your support.

Sincerely,

Team Obama

Yes, quite. And a good afternoon to you, Team Obama. My eyes tear with the sincerity of your labors on my behalf.

Is that really the best we can do? I don't enjoy being so acid in my criticism, but I'm becoming fatigued by the onslaught of vapid, superficial communications.

Who's Coming to Broadway? (Tuesday, Part 1)

I got an email from my Brooklyn event refund friend today. She forwarded an email that she'd received letting her know that tonight at 6 p.m. would be the last chance that she had to reserve a spot at the September 24 Barack on Broadway event.

She thought this was funny, because her refund had already posted. Not really funny, actually, but another example of lax organization related to the Brooklyn event that I might want to know about.

I called her to discuss it, and we agreed that it seemed more than a little hard to believe that no one had created a master list of people shut out of the Brooklyn event. It's the sort of basic event planning skill that you might pick up by organizing a children's birthday party. Not complicated stuff.

No one seems to be keeping track of who requested (or was issued) a refund, who requested a ticket (or tickets) and who hadn't replied. The problem is not just that it's really simple to do that -- lists can be kept with pen and paper, if need be -- it's that keeping a list would be a great way to help things go smoothly on Monday . What possible rationale is there for not getting that right?

Of course, when I hung up the phone the same blanket email was waiting for me in my inbox. Yup.

As you may recall, I'd confirmed my attendance and established that I'd need three tickets on September 13. It was a good conversation, and I thought things were turning around in the NYC office.

I decided to call and ask very simply whether or not I needed to take any action, since I had spoken with someone already. The person I spoke with (she didn't identify herself -- I guess that's not part of the phone training -- and I didn't ask) could tell me next to nothing.

The conversation went something like this:

Sure, I was probably fine if I'd corresponded with someone. Oh, I'd spoken with someone by phone... well, yes, that was probably fine, too. I'd have my ticket. What? I'd need three tickets? Fine, someone would contact me about how I could buy the other two. Oh, I had purchased three for the original event. Right, well, that's fine -- what's my name? She'd talk with the person who had told me I was fine and confirm that it was ok. No, she didn't have the list in front of her, so she couldn't check it. Fine, yes, and you have a good day, too.

So I have no idea what will be waiting on Monday, but I know they have a good track record for not turning away people without tickets. I guess I'll just count on that, then.

Volunteering in New Hampshire with Campaign Obama?

Last Thursday was a busy day for many things Obama in my life. I posted the continuation of the Brooklyn event story at 4:30 p.m. that day, but I didn’t share anything about another phone call from the Obama campaign that came in around 8 p.m. that night.

Let me explain at the beginning of this story that, much like the old television stand-by Dragnet, the names in this story have been changed to protect the innocent. Actually, one name has been omitted to protect … I don’t know what.

That’s really what this story is about. Communication breakdown number two.

Now back to Thursday. A volunteer coordinator from the New Hampshire office left a voicemail message responding to a form I’d filled out February 10 at BarackObama.com offering my support to the campaign. The coordinator left a name, a New Hampshire number and an “@barackobama.com” email address, suggesting that I get in touch to talk if I’m still interested in helping out. The person was particularly hoping that I might be able to volunteer my time in New Hampshire, since it’s such a crucial primary state.

I replied by email early in the afternoon on Friday, apologizing for not being available that day, but asking about a convenient time to discuss the campaign’s needs. I thought chances were slim that I’d hear back by email before Monday, so I decided to hold off on the blogging the experience until I had something more substantive to report. I had no sense of whether the conversation would be responsive to what I’d written (looking for foreign-language skills, writing or technology background), or a call to pick up a clipboard.

This afternoon I decided to call them back, since by 3:30 p.m. I hadn’t seen an email reply. I wasn’t invested in the turnaround time on that message, though I’d hoped just a bit to be surprised by an early response. It would have been a nice story to relate to a few of my efficiency-geek friends, but not a big loss.

I reached the coordinator directly after a couple of rings. There was an expected misfire or two in trying to place my name, but we soon established that the coordinator had indeed called and that I had emailed to set up a time to talk. A ready apology for not replying was offered, then the standard clipboard pitch was offered. New Hampshire’s a very important state; we’re trying to get people up here for a day or two before the primary to help cover the state, etc.

It wasn’t a rousing call to action, but it was a reasonable request, and the coordinator helpfully offered some information on particular dates and events that also might be especially enjoyable (e.g., a big pumpkin festival). It wasn’t a bad pitch, and I offered to check my calendar and get back in touch with a date that might work. The coordinator agreed to email me some options.

Here’s where trouble began. I asked a few questions about New Hampshire, the strategy and details of efforts on the ground. I won’t cite anything said in reply, but I certainly didn’t hear anything shocking.

As the conversation was concluding, I mentioned that I had been blogging my experience on the campaign, and that coming up to hit the streets of New Hampshire would probably be a great opportunity to find out how things are going on the front lines of the primary. Cue the proverbial spit take, audible across the phone line.

Then came the question. “You’re not blogging this conversation, are you?”

Huh.

I didn’t really think in advance about what response my mention of blogging might elicit, other than a polite “uh-huh” or a yawn. Basically, I wanted to convey the fact that I was seriously considering the trip.

If I had to think about what some good stock responses would be, I might expect one of the following:

“Oh, hey, that’s great. Are you blogging on your my.barackobama.com profile? Maybe you can help attract more volunteers.” [The campaign did suggest it, after all.]

“Really? Your volunteer submission says you're a writer. Are you doing it professionally?” [I’d call this the “we’re listening” approach, which would be right on message.]

“Blogging, you say? [Gulp] What’s the URL?” [This would’ve been a smarter version of the “I’m afraid of landing in the press” reply that I heard; this is also known as the classic CYA.]

But I digress. Dumbstruck by the shift in tone, I replied that I didn’t have to include the person’s name in the post, if they were uncomfortable with it. I could leave it at “Volunteering in New Hampshire.” This response left the person satisfied and I received a politely generic email a few minutes later with dates when I could volunteer.

Sitting at my computer, still dazed by the interaction, I logged on to BarackObama.com to find that Barack had addressed Wall Street executives at NASDAQ headquarters this same morning. He devoted the speech to extolling the virtues of openness, transparency and accountability. Ouch.

The juxtaposition was painful. Transparency was taking a beating on the street while being showered with praise on the podium. I believe unequivocally that Barack Obama represents an alternative to the circled-wagon mentality that dominates contemporary political campaigns, but promise and praxis must be more consistently united.

I haven't chosen to support him because he'll be like most candidates. Barack Obama champions ethics reform, and spoke again tonight on MSNBC about the need to restore a sense of truth-telling to our politics.

We shouldn't have to choose between a campaign that's well run and one that's ethically exemplary. In fact, in the case of the Obama campaign, it's where the campaign falls short on execution that the ethical lapses also lie. It only makes sense to fix both at the same time. We can be better by doing better, and that is the right road to victory.

There's no winning when you only commit to your beliefs half way. Barack has said from the beginning that he can't do it alone, and this is one more way to heed his call. When things go wrong, we should talk about it early and openly, not when it's too late.

That’s my story. This is how it ends. I am blogging the phone call, but preserving the anonymity of the person in question and any remarks made pertaining to tactics beyond the invitation to volunteer.

That’s the ethical solution I choose to the dilemma created by one Obama staffer’s unexpected reticence. This compromise, I think, is more than what is required by the situation. We can keep our eyes on the prize by remembering what the prize truly is; honesty must be on our side.

Wonk If You’re Wary: Candidates, Policy and Answers in Campaign 2008

[As I mentioned previously, a comment posted by ridingonthetrainwithnodoughsucks started me thinking about a few things, and I decided to explore those ideas in a post, rather than reply by comment. This may not be the blog norm, but I thought I'd try it out. Several hours later, I find myself with this extremely long result. -JN]

The public debate in the 2008 election cycle is putting a great deal of weight on “THE ANSWERS” to major policy questions. While I’m certainly not going to suggest that we ought to be nostalgic for a politics driven by intangible, subjective and manufactured notions of mythic personality traits, I do think that ridingottwnds’ comment begins with some apt illustrations of how askew our framework for practical discussion has become.

From the comment:

1. Terrorism: BY DOING XY and Z WE'LL CATCH ALL TERRORISTS AND NEVER GET ATTACKED AGAIN.

2. Economy: BY DOING AB and C OUR ECONOMY WILL EVER EXPAND.

3. Healthcare: BY DOING EF and G WE CAN BE SURE NO ONE IS WITHOUT IT. THIS WILL NOT HURT GOOD COMPANIES, NOR WILL IT AFFECT YOUR TAXES.

ditto for environment, immigration, etc...

What ridingottwnds identifies in these examples is greater than the absurdity of candidates proposing, or voters expecting, a three-step solution to complex challenges; it is also the way that focusing on the means steers attention away from considering the validity of the goals. These three lines really capture the unequivocal ends that we seem to demand in policy discussions outside of universities and think tanks – and even within them. Policy statements are often couched in absolutes that defy reason.

There is no way to guarantee that we won’t be attacked again, nor that we could possibly catch all terrorists. (Has no one watched Spartacus in the last twenty years? You don’t stop a movement by apprehending one man.) Our economy cannot possibly continue an indefinite expansion, but we’re afraid that considering an alternative will bring immediate chaos upon us. In the healthcare debate, we focus on dubious assertions about pain-free solutions to insure all, but too often neglect the uneven and declining state of care delivery to those already insured.

The frame in which answers are offered feels to me like: 1) a reaction to years of broadcast media coverage that fueled sound-bite-driven campaigns; and 2) an extension of the left’s drift since the so-called collapse of communism. The first point drives the idea that new media offers us a different sort of access to candidates (e.g., the branded debates and streaming meetings). It also creates the vague expectation that we might explore policy positions in unprecedented detail -- i.e., with minimal publishing and distribution costs, can’t they all map out every step they’ll take in the White House on their websites?

The second point, meanwhile, puts constraints around the sort of debate that we allow ourselves. By disavowing ideology as an area of contention in mainstream politics, we sacrifice what Webster’s online lists as the word's first definition: visionary theorizing.

This can result in a lack of innovation and too much focus on details of policy proposals that are unlikely to be meaningful once a candidate reaches office. All the top-tier contenders seem to be playing by the same rules, so I’ve adjusted my expectations and chosen what to tune out.


QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

I'll now offer a few direct responses to questions posed in ridingonthetrainwithnodoughsucks' comment.

1. To what degree will/are the candidates play(ing) their hands close to their chests? Because, if they truly DO have an answer, do they want to give it away?

I genuinely don’t believe that candidates are holding out on us when it comes to policy solutions. There are few perfect answers, and generally good policy ideas need more than their own merit to succeed; they need strong advocates and networks of support.

I agree with Barack Obama's assertion that there are many things that we know how to achieve, but have lacked political consensus to accomplish. Many of the obstacles to good policy becoming law can be linked to the ascendancy of industry money in Washington, and the failure of politicians to agree on ways to support one another when making unpopular decisions.

Based on this belief, I’m looking for a candidate who consistently convinces me that their motivations for seeking the highest office have less to do with personal satisfaction than a commitment to help people have better lives. A commitment to progress over ego goes a long way toward allowing opponents to save face at crucial moments for the sake of achieving the best policy solution.

2. To what degree are ALL candidates lying about the answers they have?

I wouldn’t describe candidates as lying about the answers they have. In my understanding, the lies involved in campaigns (on matters of policy, at least) have more to do with failure to challenge shared assumptions. There is also a suspension of disbelief required of politicians, promising to achieve reforms when details of implementation are still hazy, and the political landscape awaiting them is unknown.

One outstanding example of this for me comes from the healthcare debate. I always wince when I hear public figures talk about the importance of computerized medical records to healthcare reform. It’s not that I don’t believe it, but it’s often referred to as an easily accomplished step forward that will cut costs system-wide. There is nothing simple about that sort of transition. Not only will the process be complex and time-consuming, there will be a real human toll as records are lost and misplaced at crucial times in individuals’ lives.

I’d like to hear someone talk seriously about this as a major public infrastructure challenge. Channeling this data safely and effectively should be right up there with past work on great dams and bridges. I’m waiting for someone to talk about the importance of ethical standards in technology development of this sort, and the crucial role of government in mandating accountability during this kind of transition.

I’m also ready to hear a politician challenge the idea that consumerism is an avenue without end, leading to the dream (invoked above) of endless economic expansion. The general absence of this sort of candor, though, doesn’t qualify for me as lying.

Campaigns are a time when inspirational rhetoric can inspire people to believe real improvements can take place in their lives. Visionary statements are best, of course, when firmly rooted in reality and calling for sacrifice and shared responsibility for one another’s destinies, but people should be allowed some unrestrained optimism once in a while, too.

3. If these answers are formed by various experts, how much have the candidates addressed who these experts are and which ones they'll fire that are currently in goverment?

I find myself more and more interested in transparency on the campaign trail. This is something that the current state of Internet technology really can facilitate with a minimum of effort required.

Candidates rely on policy teams to generate ideas and to translate their principles into plans of action, even at a high level. I would love to see more accessible information about who’s working on these teams, and what sources of information they’re using when proposing solutions. Occasionally, specific think tanks are cited in candidates’ literature, but it would be great to see more references incorporated into position statements.

Demonstrating openness about the sources of policy ideas during a campaign sets a good precedent for the same sort of openness in office. I think that rather than focusing on who they might rely on once elected, candidates can demonstrate a good faith approach to governance by disclosing as much as possible who they’re relying on for advice during the campaign.

4. What should we as voters be looking for? Answers? Ideals? Objectives?

I’m focusing my attention mostly on how candidates rank issues and manage their own campaigns. I think it’s also useful to remember that our three top Democrats are U.S. Senators, so the choices they make about how they serve their constituents during their run are also important indicators.

There are a few words that I’ve had written down on a yellow pad for the last week. I thought I’d devote a separate post to them (and probably should’ve, judging by the length of this one), but I’ll offer them here as an alternative starting point for answering this question.

• Transparency
• Honesty
• Integrity
• Accountability
• Innovation
• Organization

These are qualities that I’m looking for in a candidate and a campaign. I’m looking at how well campaigns put these principles into practice. I’m unapologetically making analogies between governance and campaigning.

So far, I’m still with Barack.

Children of the Jazz and Barack on Broadway

Today finds me a little short on time to write, but there are a few things that I'd like to get up here before other commitments pull me away. A brief entry on this blog? Anything really is possible.

Now to hit the high notes:

GREAT COMMENT
A lengthy and thoughtful comment was posted to my last entry by "ridingonthetrainwithnodoughsucks" and I believe that it's really worth a read. [In the interest of intergenerational inclusiveness, I'll mention that the username is taken from a great song by the band A Tribe Called Quest.] The post ends with some questions that may have been rhetorical, but I plan to make an attempt at addressing them. Later. So in the interim, please read what this person had to say, and add your own thoughts, if you have the time.

BROOKLYN EVENT UPDATE
I am happy to report that the Brooklyn event story, the one that launched this blog, seems to be finding its way to a better resolution. My friend heard today that her refund should post properly with a couple of days. I received a phone message offerings tickets to an upcoming Obama event, as promised, on September 24.

She had taken the time to write up her interactions along the way, which is great since she's not really a person for politics. At the time of the post above, she still hadn't gotten anywhere, which was disappointing. As of this afternoon, though, the campaign office remembered who she was, and told her to expect her money shortly.

I am fascinated by the invitation to the event, called Barack on Broadway. I'd come across the story that I've linked to the event name while reading clips about Barack yesterday. When I read that ticket prices started at $250, I wondered if they had plans to hold a second event for those shut-out in Brooklyn.

Today I received a phone message from James in the New York office extending an invitation to the event. When I returned his call, he confirmed the invitation to receive complimentary tickets -- and was aware that I would need more than one. He asked how many I had purchased (so presumably he would do the same for anyone else he called), and then assured me that three would be held for me. An email with more details should follow next week.

When he asked if I had other questions, I inquired about whether or not all people who hadn't made it into the Brooklyn event were being offered seats in the theater. He told me that anyone who would like a refund was welcome to receive one (offered this detail with no specific prompting on the subject), but that there was a section of seats "roped off" for anyone who hadn't gotten in to the event on August 22.

It was encouraging to learn that they have reserved a block of seats for those $25 and $15 (student) contributors to attend this event if they choose. That really is demonstrating respect for the original contribution and making an effort to reward supporters for their patience.

Just to be clear, I'm very encouraged by this gesture, but the issues that the original incident raised still matter greatly to me. I'm glad that at the end of the night on September 24 I should have a better story to tell about the Brooklyn event. I still believe, though, that there are things that really need to change in the campaign.

More transparency is number one on my list. Which brings me to one final item...

HELLO, IDAHO

A comment on an earlier post submitted by "Reggieh" asked if I would consider adding a link on this blog to the IdahoansforObama.org website. I answered in the comments that I would, as soon as I found a logical way to include links on this site. I also mentioned that a few aspects of their website really caught my eye.

One of those is transparency. If you visit IdahoansforObama.org (worth doing no matter where you live), you'll find that they've posted contact information and bios for people involved in organizing the group. This is something that I'd love to see done more extensively both locally and at the national level. Why should we have to scan news clips to know who's using our contributions to make decisions on behalf of Barack?

The Idaho website adopts the look and feel of the main Obama campaign site, but adds details specific to Idaho. It also links to a profile for the group on the main Obama site (within My.BarackObama.com), but it's doesn't rely on it for content. IdahoansforObama.org is definitely more than a splash page, which is crucial given the limited activity options in the MyObama sandbox.

It's really a great anchor to have for people who aren't well-versed in social networking software, or the whole Web 2.0 experience. It also impressed me that it's not simply brochure-ware. It does have its own contribution mechanisms in place, and clearly explains how to donate to the local campaign or the national effort.

Nicely done, Idaho! I'll conclude by saying that it's also great to have a snapshot of what's happening in a state that seems very far away from Brooklyn. If anyone else has a link to a grassroots web outpost like that, please send it to me at thinkobama@gmail.com, or add it in a comment.

What's the Difference, Anyway?

I began spending September 11 in New York City in 2003. In 2002, I was an hour upstate, and in 2001 I was in California.

As I type (with hands now in good working order), sirens go screeching by in waves of three and four at a time. There's nothing unusual about this. A ship horn just sounded. Environmental noise in all five boroughs is a constant.

Since 2001, though, and particularly since a funhouse/madhouse experience I had during the blackout of 2003, sirens here generate more acid in my stomach than I'd like. I don't live in fear, I live in Brooklyn.

But I really have to tell you that living here is quite different from living anywhere else in the United States when it comes to the issue of terrorism. That brings me back to John Edwards, and his speech last Friday.

He clearly chose to deliver a policy address about counterterrorism in New York City, which I think was a great choice. He didn't schedule the appearance for today, which would have been exploitative; he also didn't jump up and down about the link. He, and his team, just made a basic connection between message and location.

I promised more in-depth thoughts about differences between the John Edwards campaign and that of Barack Obama prompted by my experience on Friday. Had I been able to type a day ago, I probably would have shared detailed notes about event logistics. It's a day later and that makes a difference.

I'm not trying to be maudlin, but this doesn't have only to do with the memory of a terrorist attack. I spent a couple hours today working on a painting for a five-year-old girl recently diagnosed with brain cancer. She's the daughter of good family friends who live in Japan, and it's daunting to know the struggle that they face looking ahead at 2008.

These are the things that we, as human beings, inevitably struggle with in our personal lives. We are sometimes completely consumed by private moments of gravity that we can't seem to escape. For politics to matter, for politics to command our attention when immediate suffering has a greater claim on it, we must be inspired to believe that our actions are meaningful.

Overall, my experience at the Edwards event left me with one big question to answer: When it comes to 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, what's the difference?

The speech delivered by John Edwards could have been delivered by anyone in the field, including Barack Obama. A new international treaty organization to establish a more stable and widespread counterterrorism regime. Sure, that's one idea. Tightening up nonproliferation controls and setting a better example through our own nuclear policy. Barack's certainly on the same page. Who wouldn't be?

More funding for foreign language study tied to recruitment for human intelligence work or diplomacy. Great. A new volunteer corps. Not bad. A few statements on Iraq sounded a little half-baked, but who's going to spend time on detailed plans for the executive branch to take action a year from now on a constantly shifting landscape? Do your Iraq work in the Senate, esteemed Senators.

Same, same, and same. This is why I end up back at issues like event logistics. No one, including Barack Obama, is saying or doing anything much that makes this campaign truly different. Instead, all the candidates seem to be throwing darts at the Internet, hoping inadvertently to score Victory 2.0.

There is the potential out there for a nationwide change that doesn't have to wait for November 2008, or January 2009. I want more from my candidate, and I'm going to keep asking for it. It's time for Barack Obama to truly empower his supporters to start making change happen now. Playing it safe is a good way to escort Hillary to the podium, and give the White House to Fred Thompson.

***

The tally after this event:

"Edwards did it better"

1. Better organization. Edwards held a free event, took reservations, and got everyone in. There is no reason for Barack Obama's organization not to get this right every time. It doesn't have to be perfect -- long waits and spillover rooms are par for the course -- but if Edwards can work out reserved admission, Obama can, too.

2. Good location choice. As I said above, Edwards gave a major policy speech outside of Iowa/Washington. Barack, why are you dragging Zbigniew Brzezinski to Iowa to talk about Iraq?


"What Barack brings"

1. A Room the Colors of Who We Are as a People. Don't get me wrong, Edwards had hundreds of people in his audience, and a New York-based university community has some inherent diversity. It was, however, a much more homogeneous group than I've ever seen at an Obama event. That's part of what originally excited me about Barack Obama's candidacy. I think his story and his identity can help remind different-looking people of shared interests and values. Looking around that room, I was vividly reminded of what a difference he can make in bringing people together.

2. Expectations and Energy. John Edwards received enthusiastic applause, and his speech drew support on cue, but there was no sense in that room that history was being made. It's natural that the attendees at a policy speech will be more reserved than a fundraiser. That said, I believe the expectations of people coming to hear Barack Obama start a great deal higher. His presence becomes a catalyst that releases the power of people's latent aspirations for a better world. This intangible and elusive quality, tied both to the charismatic leader phenomenon and his modern celebrity status, is a powerful force. This is not only what can win an election, this is really what can create a better country. Barack makes people believe in themselves, and people do the rest. That's the simple promise of his candidacy. I'm hoping to see it fulfilled.

Pain Trumps Campaign

Sorry, friends, a small accident involving my right hand means that I'm hunting and pecking this post out. I think of myself as a confirmed lefty, but not in this sense.

Hopefully, a day of icing will put me back in action tomorrow. Thoughts on Edwards and word about the Obama campaign's email will have to wait until then. Ouch.

How Do You Queue? (John Edwards at Pace University)

I arrived at Pace University a little after 11 a.m. to claim my seat at John Edwards' policy address, which had been advertised as beginning at 11:30 a.m. This was the view from my place in the line I joined outside of the Schimmel Auditorium.

I took copious notes on the process of lining up and entering the building, but I'll skip ahead to say that I made it in. Not only in, mind you, but to an unreserved front row seat.

The feeling was palpably different from the Barack Obama appearance that I attended in Manhattan, as well as the near-miss in Brooklyn. Those were fundraisers and this was a policy address, but I don't think that explains it all. Since there's more to this idea than the logistical details, I'm going to let the experience sit for a day, before saying too much more.

I'm now absolutely convinced that gaining a broader perspective on the Democratic field through first-hand experience can only be good for any serious Barack Obama supporter. I'd compare it to the insight offered by a first trip abroad, which is to say that only by leaving things that are familiar to you can you really understand them as they are. You return to where you started with both new expectations about what's possible and a clearer picture of what you value at home.

That's the best summary I can offer of my day. Just as there are concepts worth examining in the security-related policy initiatives that Edwards unveiled today, so too are there ideas to be discerned in the movement of the crowd and the energy in the room. After a night of sleep, I'll have more to say about it.