What More Can I Say? (Election Day -- Top Billin'!)

WE INTERRUPT THIS HIATUS TO SAY: VOTE OBAMA!

Just in case any former reader of this recently dormant blog happens to stop by tonight, on the eve of Super Tuesday, I've decided to post a confirmation that I will be casting my vote in tomorrow's New York primary for Barack Obama.

I shut down for the last several months to give a junior campaign a little space to do what it needed to do without scrutiny.

I closed my last post with a rhetorical request that someone call me when we have a movement, not just a campaign. I think we're getting close.

I'm still a critical supporter, and I still believe that's something one can be. I've heard Dr. Cornel West describe himself the same way, so I don't feel that I'm in bad company.

Nonetheless, at this very important moment, I'm willing to simplify my message. Vote Obama. That's it.

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]