Yeah, I know it's his blog, but there's an argument to be made that the cause of all of the hand-wringing and garment-rendering going on in Democratic circles about President Obama and his capitulation to the corporate, Republican, fat-cat, Wall Street agenda can be traced to one Markos Moulitsas.
This story begins on March 1, 2007, when candidates Barack Obama and John McCain announced a "deal" on public financing:
WASHINGTON, March 1 — Senator John McCain joined Senator Barack Obama on Thursday in promising to accept a novel fund-raising truce if each man wins his party’s presidential nomination.
. . .
On Thursday, a spokesman for Mr. McCain said that he would take up Mr. Obama on a proposal for an accord between the two major party nominees to rely just on public financing for the general election.
Such a pact would eliminate any financial edge one candidate might have and limit each campaign to $85 million for the general election. The two candidates would have to return any private donations that they had raised for that period.
Mr. Obama laid out his proposal last month to the Federal Election Commission, seeking an opinion on its legality. The commissioners formally approved it on Thursday.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Senator Obama was lauded by good government, campaign finance reform groups for his stance (along with McCain):
"Democracy 21 strongly applauds Senator Obama for taking the lead and Senator McCain for quickly joining in this effort to preserve the public financing system for the 2008 presidential general election," said Democracy 21 president Fred Wertheimer.
"Senators Obama and McCain are endeavoring to follow in the footsteps of every president elected since 1976, all of whom used the public financing system in their general election campaigns," Wertheimer said.
"It is now time for the other presidential candidates to 'Just Say Yes.'"
http://www.democracy21.org/...
Candidate Obama was even praised by the editorial board of the Washington Post for his leadership in "saving" the public finance system:
THANKS TO an innovative request from Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the Federal Election Commission voted yesterday to try to salvage the endangered public financing system for presidential elections. Now it is up to presidential candidates who claim to support that system to put real commitment behind their rhetoric.
The FEC ruled that candidates can raise general election money now -- as most top-tier contenders are doing -- but change their minds down the road, return the private money and accept public financing instead. Candidates who are sincere supporters of public financing ought to be willing to pledge to stay within the system if they win their party's nomination and the other side's nominee promises to do the same.
. . .
Candidates who believe in public financing need to do more than consider Mr. Obama's challenge. They should just say yes and help save the system.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
I'm sure nearly everyone reading this diary remembers those days well. The people-powered, grassroots campaign. Fifty or one hundred dollars a person fundraisers. Precinct by precinct, political organizing.
All of which led to the situation a year or so later, when that incredible effort resulted in the mightiest email political fundraising list in human history, capable of generating tens of millions of dollars with the flick of a switch. People began to wonder whether Obama would keep to his pledge, now more or less a "contract" of sorts having been already "accepted" by the presumptive Republican nominee and "witnessed" by the media and advocacy groups.
The answer was somewhat equivocal:
Asked about public financing, he tells reporters in Milwaukee, "If I am the nominee, then I will make sure our people talk to John McCain’s people to make sure we abide by the same rules."
That's not exactly a promise to reach agreement, and Obama could propose rules intolerable to McCain — no contributions over $150, for instance.
But it certainly sounds like he's moving back toward what had seemed, a year ago, like a firm commitment.
http://www.politico.com/...
And that's where Markos enters the picture. I think it's fair to say that Kos was possibly the loudest progressive voice explicitly urging Obama to renege on his pledge:
The answer should've been "No".
Look, no one gives a shit if Obama takes public financing or not. The Edwards campaign thought they'd get brownie points for opting in during the primary, and other than me criticizing them for it, they heard crickets. And that was among Democrats, who supposedly care about this sort of thing.
This is such a process story with zero relevance to the public that there's no benefit to be gained by taking public financing -- unless you can't raise it as fast as your opponent. Then you do whatever you can to try and goad your opponent to join you by opting in.
John McCain is accusing Barack Obama of backing away from a promise to participate in a public financing program that would force him to turn off his free-flowing spigot of campaign cash, foreshadowing a likely flash point if the two are pitted in a general election battle for the presidency.
McCain can't hope to raise anywhere near what Obama raises online every time he yawns. So why give McCain the option of financial parity?
Obama should say right now that he's decided to opt out. He's empowered hundreds of thousands to become financially vested in his campaign, and it would be undemocratic to deny them that option. Big money in politics is a problem when corporate interests fund a candidate. In this case, it's regular people.
Let McCain squawk. If Obama gets out and McCain follows that lead and also opts out, then it's a moot point. If Obama gets out and McCain doesn't, and then tries to make an issue out of it, who cares? No one will know what the heck he is talking about while hard core Republicans will be reminded every time how much they hate McCain for his position on campaign finance reform.
This is the biggest non-issue of a campaign. It's best for Obama to make that decision now and move on to more important things.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Well, we all know how this story ends. Obama did renege on his pledge, and Kos was right -- nobody really cared. But I'm sure that most of you reading this also know what happened to candidate Obama -- after the primaries were concluded, you were not going to get inside of a room with the Democratic nominee unless you lived in a swing state or had $28,500 to burn for a plate of rubber chicken and steamed vegetables.
And you can't tell me that all of that money didn't mean anything. First of all, of course people were still maxing out their credit cards online to put him over the top. But the core of the fundraising operation shifted from being an outcome of a grassroots, precinct-based political organizing operation, to your traditional, big-wigs paying exorbitant sums as an investment in their financial futures, not as an expression of their beliefs. How many of us have $28,500 available to spend an evening with a politician without expecting something in return?
But more importantly, the influx of hundreds of millions of dollars changes the methodology of a campaign as well. The consultants. The advertising buys. The deal-making. GOTV "money on the street". Public financing would've forced candidate Obama to hew much more closely to the grassroots-oriented campaign strategy of the primaries where you have to rely on volunteers to spread the message and get out the vote, not professionals and consultants. And how you campaign is critical to how you govern.
Once candidate Obama freed himself from the necessity of maintaining that direct link with the grassroots, he also freed himself from the necessity of being responsive and accountable to our needs and concerns. By Sept/Oct of 2008, candidate Obama was arm-twisting the Congressional Black Caucus into supporting the TARP bailout, and by December, he was appointing Larry Summers and Tim Geithner to run the economy. And the rest, as they say, is history . . .
Of course, the "counter-factual" would be that given a level financial playing field, that candidate Obama would've lost in the general election, and we'd now be tearing our hair out complaining that Obama could've won, but threw the election by refusing to keep his mighty money machine flowing through the fall.
Possible, but likely?