The media and the net has focused on Obama's background as a community organizer and his community organizer approach to campaigning.  His is supposed to be a "bottom up" instead of a "top down" approach.  One newspaper argued that "regardless of the outcome . . . the Obama campaign will leave behind a new generation of trained community activists." In fact Marshall Ganz, the designer of Obama's organizing approach states that "We're training a whole bunch of new leaders."

In this post, I argue that what Obama is doing has little to do with the core tradition of community organizing that I have been talking about in this series, and that he was trained in himself.  His approach is unlikely to "leave . . . a cadre of activists behind" that can generate power outside of the context of Obama's machine.

Traditional organizing seeks to create local groups whose direction is determined by local leaders.  Leaders elicit stories about the desires of many potential members, creating a broad network of relationships based in common goals.  Obama's approach is essentially the opposite.  Leaders go out in the community to tell people their stories in an effort to bring them over to Obama.  

Let me stress that my point, here, is not to critique the Obama campaign.  In fact, I'm generally an Obama supporter, although not a particularly strong one.  Efforts to mobilize voters are probably necessarily quite different from efforts to create strong local organizations.  But in part because few people in the media seem to really understand the distinction between these, many stories blur this distinction in problematic ways.  And the distinction is critical, because the campaign model, in its very structure, is directly opposed to the goals of community organizing in crucial ways.  (To some extent this post is related to Paul Rosenberg's earlier posts on Obama as a classic progressive.)

Those new to these posts may want to read Part I and Part II of "What is Organizing?".

More detail after the flip.
Crossposted from Open Left.

There's more...

Shepherdstown, W. Va.

While Barack Obama is busy ordering champagne for his premature victory party on May 20th, Hillary Clinton is pounding the West Virginia trail to get-out-the-vote in Tuesday's primary.

By all accounts Clinton will enjoy a double-digit win in West Virginia, followed by another in Kentucky one week later. And even though Obama, his surrogates, and pundit parrots are furiously pre-spinning his losses in these two states by suggesting that they don't really matter -- West Virginia and Kentucky could end up being game-changers for Clinton. Here's why:

Rural America can determine who becomes the next President. And West Virginia and Kentucky show off Clinton's commanding rural advantage.

But they aren't the only ones. Check out the county-by-county results from four very close contests (Clinton is red; Obama, green):

Missouri (Obama won by 1.3%):

New Mexico (Clinton won by 1%):

Texas (Clinton won by 3.5%):

Indiana (Clinton won by 2%)

As you can see, Clinton's base covers a broader geographic region, nearly a sweep of counties.  Although population counts may be relatively equal between the red and green areas -- these maps illustrate how well she consistently performs in rural America.

Hillary has hit her stride in small towns and rural communities across the country, connecting with working class voters with a populist appeal reminiscent of Bobby Kennedy. For those who have followed Hillary Clinton's life and career, we know it's genuine. You can see the joy on her face when she's working the rope line in town squares, even at the end of a 16-hour day. Of course Obama's "bitter" moment aided her, but cinching this demographic segment is a crucial achievement that Clinton has earned for the Democrats. And, you might say...one benefit of this extended primary season that some party members are anxious to end.

A Democratic pollster for the Wall Street Journal and NBC News said it well:

Rural and small-town voters are the best indicators of whether a candidate is connecting with the values of Middle America. "They are America.  Too often Democrats end up with candidates who can speak only to metro America. If you can speak to [rural and small-town America], then you relate to the rest of America."

Pay attention, folks. These are General Election swing voters needed to reach 270 electoral votes.

Swing voters.

And no one understands that better than the superdelegates, many of whom rely on these same voters for their own re-elections.

So Barack Obama might think twice about dismissing West Virginia and Kentucky, even if he calculates that their votes and delegates are inconsequential to the nomination. The hard-working people of Appalachia and bluegrass country represent a nationwide constituency capable of delivering the White House in November. And for Clinton, they will put her within striking distance of a popular vote lead.

Note: Maps and election results from uselectionatlas


Cross posted at texasdarlin.

TexasDarlin, all rights reserved.
Not affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign

There's more...

There's a profoundly disturbing diary on the recent diaries list that requires some further comment. The subject of the diary is a wingnut video, plucked at random from YouTube, juxtaposing Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama and images of the burning World Trade Center. Here's what's coming for you, Democrats, the diarist warns, if you nominate Obama. Just thought I'd show you.

The idea, ostensibly, is to frighten Democrats into dropping their support for Barack Obama - support which is majoritarian and hardening across all polls - in favor of his primary competitor, Senator Hillary Clinton. I would hazard a guess that this video would be deleted if posted on RedState. Even they have standards.

I haven't, nor have many others, given years of my life to the Progressive Movement to be associated with this kind of filth. We New Yorkers tend to react viscerally when anyone uses 9/11 imagery in pursuit of some base political goal; that this is a wide-spread view held far beyond the five boroughs is attested by Rudy Giuliani's implosion. There is something deeply obscene about campaigning on the graves of our dead. It is doubly obscene to see it happening in a Democratic primary. Those 3,000 people didn't die to give Hillary a momentary tactical advantage.

More >>>

There's more...

There has been so much generalized chatter regarding the Democratic candidates effect on down ticket candidates running for Congressional office in 2008 , that I decided to explore some of the top contenders and the effect their candidacy for President may have on a specific down ticket candidate. The Democratic candidates I will be taking a look at are Barack Obama , my candidate , John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Congressional candidate I will be looking at is none other than my own , House Representative and DOCTOR Steve Kagen (D-WI) who represents the 8th District of the state of Wisconsin.

Dr. Kagen was elected to a seat that was once held by a very strong Republican in a very tight race and the Republicans want their seat back. He was elected in 2006 after running on a platform of HEALTH CARE ! I encourage others who have members of Congress up for re-election to also think about the effect our Presidential Nominee will have on their down ticket candidate. Dr. Kagen was heavily attacked by the Republican opposition last time and is currently on the RNC's Target List for defeat this time as he is up for Re-Election.

There's more...

To those of you who have already chosen a candidate other than Illinois Senator Barack Obama and are criticizing his recent decision to limit future debates, I have a simple question for you. I am reading quite a few complaints about Barack Obamas decision to limit the future debates to the ones sanctioned by the DNC as well as a few others he has already committed to, in a effort to reach voters who are unable to view or attend these debates. Barack Obama has not "dropped out" of televised debates as some are spinning or misstating , but rather , he is limiting them. I have no reason to believe that he is doing this for none other than what was stated by the campaign.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/communitygroup/ObamaHQ

However, I am perplexed by the accusations and animosity coming from die hard supporters of other candidates regarding Barack Obamas decision. These claims and suggestions being made by others would have one believe that Barack Obama has somehow , turned his back on the democratic process of running a campaign when in all truth, he is doing the exact opposite. He's making his Campaign more inclusive and he is not going to be able to effectively meet with voters in key Primary states if he is bogged down attending a debate and answering Press questions from the Media as opposed to the real voters , under the false setting of a Forum or debate setting. But my question to those of you who have chosen another candidate to support and are not supporting Barack Obama, but have taken so much time and energy to attack him on this decision, is this.

Why does it matter to you so much?

There's more...