Barack Obama

Let's contrast the recent visits of two American politicians to the Federal Republic of Germany ... First, here's a snapshot (courtesy of the Associated Press) of Barack Obama's speech in Berlin:

Second, a smaller image of the reception the President received when he landed in Germany (courtesy of Der Spiegel):

While not conclusive, I'd say, at least, anecdotally, that these two pictures, juxtaposed, represent (Old) Europe's preference in terms of which candidate, & more generally, which political party, they'd like to see (back) in power in Washington.

Now, I will say that, as a proud American, I don't bow to foreigners, nor do I like to be told what to think by those outside of this country. But it is important for America, as a leader in the world, to be respected & admired by our allies in Europe, & the notion that 200,000 mostly non-Americans were waving American Flags during Barack's speech simply takes my breath away, & should make us all think.

Also, I think the state of our relations with Europe, what I like to call the George W. Bush meets Michael Scott school of foreign policy ("Would I rather be feared or loved? Um ... Easy, both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me."), is defunct, & perhaps we need to explore a more equal friendship with the major European powers (as well as the rest of the world).

One of my all-time favorite television shows is HBO's The Wire. So it's a little surreal to feel like I'm living in an episode. No, I'm not involved in the drug trade or police department. I'm not a stevedore losing my union job, and I'm not a school teacher struggling with No Child Left Behind. Like the reporters and police officers in the 5th and final season of the show, though, I feel like my work, and the work of many of my colleagues are not being adequately supported. In short, the youth vote community is being asked "to do more with less."

As I've written many times before, 2004 was a boom year for youth organizing as the progressive movement built many new institutions (and strengthened others) to reach out to young voters. There were two driving forces behind this boom: entrepreneurial activism on the part of young people, and a willingness among donors to take risks and support that work. The results were impressive and verified by independent research.

This year, the "surging" youth vote is one of the most important stories of the election cycle, and one would think that interest in moving as many young voters to the polls as possible would be a high priority. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. Many of the organizations responsible for engaging young voters in 2004 and 2006, and many new organizations working to fill holes in the youth engagement sphere, are struggling to raise funds and scale up their operations for the fall.

"As far as I'm aware, all the youth voting groups put together haven't secured more than $10 Million toward their budgets in 2008," said Billy Wimsatt, founder and former executive director of the League of Young Voters. "If the $40 Million figure from 2004 is correct, this means we are seeing only one quarter of of the funding for youth voting as in 2004. This is a staggering decrease."

Indeed, it is. At a time when expectations for the youth vote are at their highest, youth organizers are not being provided with the resources they need to make good on that promise and capitalize on the energy and excitement among the country's youngest voters. Youth organizers - who have worked for the last 5 years to build up to this moment when our peers could potentially tip a Presidential election - are in a very bad spot. In an election cycle that may see our biggest victory in decades, we do not have the resources to play more than a small part in that victory.

The reasons behind this drastic decline in support are varied. Some point to the success of the Obama campaign in turning out young voters, and a desire on the part of potential funders to put their money "where it is most needed." Others point to statements made by the Obama campaign itself asking that funders not support "outside efforts" on the campaign trail. The tightening economy is also a potential - though less likely - culprit.

This isn't about ego or a turf war between the Obama campaign and independent youth organizers. It's about how the funding cycle works and the long-term health of youth organizing on the progressive (and Democratic) side of the political aisle. As we've seen, Obama's youth support comes almost entirely from college-educated youth who make up only a fraction of the eligible voting population. Everything I hear from inside the Obama campaign points to a college-based youth strategy in the battleground states identified by the campaign. Obama can't and shouldn't be allowed to run the youth component of this campaign cycle alone. His campaign needs the help of complimentary, independent youth organizations to reach out to those non-college voters and get them to the polls - not just to secure his own election, but for the election of down-ballot candidates as well.

The consequences of this dearth in funding go far beyond this single election and may have a negative impact on progressive youth infrastructure well into the midterm elections. As David Simon himself said, you don't do more with less. You do less with less. That will show when youth organizations and donors study their 2008 GOTV efforts and plan presentations for their work in 2009 and 2010. Less impressive results in those post-election studies will likely yield a smaller investment from donors. With a continued decrease in funding, our nascent movements' capabilities to move votes will slowly begin to wither.

Meanwhile, we'll have to wait and see whether the Obama campaign was a worthwhile gamble. And let's be clear - that is exactly what donors are doing by withholding support. They are betting that the Obama campaign will be able to move a sufficient number of young voters on its own, and that those mobilization efforts will continue as long as - and beyond - an Obama Presidency.

Will that organization be the shining savior that continues to effectively mobilize young voters in 2009 and 2010? Or will the Obama administration focus on its own goals and brush aside our concerns about continued youth mobilization as easily as they brushed off concerns about his votes on FISA? In four or six years, will young people (middle and high schoolers now) have the same motivation to support President Obama as do those who carry his campaign today? How about eight years? Is that something you want to bet a movement on? I don't.

Bumped. I'm not sure I agree (see my comment), but it's an interesting question. --Mike

Yesterday, while standing in line at my bank (to get some quarters, because, well, why else would I actually need to consult a bank teller?), I heard the familiar & eerie voice of the presumptive Republican nominee. The voice was coming from the two televisions above the bank windows, which are constantly tuned to CNN, & from that voice I heard something like this:

"I would rather lose an election & win a war ... Barack Obama would rather win an election & lose a war ..."

(The statement was followed, of course, by that creepy smile, which flashes as embarrassingly as an "applause" sign above a studio audience.)

This line of argument (or rhetoric) is an example of imprecise thinking for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is that, in the context of Iraq, the clear dichotomy between winning & losing is not evident. Also, another less obvious, but still paramount, fact to understand before launching into a tirade about anyone "wanting us to lose", is that, technically, we already won the war.

The War on Iraq (or the "Iraq War", or "the war for the liberation of Iraq") was executed masterfully by Coalition forces (led by the American military) in 2003. We invaded (on 20 March 2003) & toppled Saddam's Ba'athist in something like 26 days, with Baghdad falling on 9 April 2003, & the invasion declared "over" on the 15 April. & while "Mission Accomplished" was some sort of cruel hyperbole, it was not inaccurate to say we had achieved, militarily, what the Bush Administration had set out to do. (Here, I'm trying to suspend my understanding that, for all intents & purposes, we were probably lied into this war, & that we should have been focusing on al Qaeda, etc., but, you know ...)

Then came the occupation & the attempt to set up a stable, democratic, peaceful Iraq with the ability to defend herself, principally, from insurgents, many of which were former Ba'ath Party members, as well as members of the military who were purged during "Jerry" Bremer's de-baathification. Ostensibly, while military operations are still going on in Iraq (though the "surge" may have ended), it is not precise (nor is it accurate) to use terms like "winning" or "losing" or "victory" or "defeat" with regards to the situation ... All we have are benchmarks, or key attributes, that we hope the Iraqi Republic can attain to someday. I hope they can, honestly, so something good can come out of this ill-conceived conflict.

The question is, & this election will be a referendum on this, what is the best road, now, for Iraq to follow in order to become able to govern & defend herself, to promote employment, modernization, religious pluralism & moderation, & to be a stable, democratic model for other countries in the region? (Although, I must admit, I am skeptical that what has been termed "Jeffersonian democracy", including ensuring the basic freedoms we cherish in this country, can ever take root there, but I'd like to be proven wrong ...)

My feeling is, when our troops withdraw, Iraqis will stand up & take ownership in each of these areas, & not the reverse. They've already told us they want us out. Now (& this, I think, tends to be Obama's view) this will not mean total disengagement from Iraq, but we do need to take an American face off of this occupation, & replace it with one that is less detested in the region & specifically in that country.

Is that "losing", or "admitting defeat"? Absolutely not - it's intelligently & purposefully trying to find a decent & honorable end to conflict that probably should have never been waged in the first place. It's also, incidentally, a responsible way to promote Iraqi self-governance (& sovereignty) &, ultimately, stability in the region.

It's been a while since we've posted any polling data on the site. In part, that's because the primaries are over and in part because so few polling outfits conduct good polls focusing on young voters.

I don't know about you, but it's left me jonesing for some good polling data. So I thought I'd pass along this recent poll from Quinnipiac, which spotlights the role young voters are playing in keeping Sen. Obama ahead of John McCain (emphasis mine):

With commanding leads among women and young voters and near unanimous support from black voters, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has a 50 - 41 percent lead over Arizona Sen. John McCain, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll of likely voters released today.

Independent voters split 44 - 44 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Sen. McCain has a slight 47 - 44 percent edge among men voters and a larger 49 - 42 percent lead among white voters.

But black voters back Sen. Obama 94 - 1 percent, while women support him 55 - 36 percent. Obama leads 63 - 31 percent among voters 18 to 34 years old and 48 - 44 percent among voters 35 to 54, while voters over 55 split with 45 percent for McCain and 44 percent for Obama.

Lots of stuff about McCain and Obama, but also a few movement-oriented pieces as well. Enjoy.

• Barack Obama authored an op-ed in today's New York Times in which he lays out his Iraq strategy. Here's my favorite part:

  As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

  In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

• This weekend, the New York Times did a hit-piece on Obama, looking to drive a wedge between him and his youthful supporters in the media narrative. Tim Fernholz has the proper response over at Tapped. Also at the Prospect, Courtney Martin has a slightly different take on Obama's "tacking to the center."
• David Frum is the latest conservative to try to make hay about young voters supposed-support of privatized accounts for Social Security.
• The LA Times profiles Joel Flatow. If you want to bring big-name musicians into politics, apparently he's the go-to guy. Only problem, he's also one of the dudes behind the RIAA's awesome strategy of suing its fans. This sucks, big time, and it's why groups like MFA losing their funding sucks even worse. I want musicians involved in politics to support smart copyright reform, not be reactionaries advocating on behalf of a dying business model. As such, getting rid of people like Flatow and delinking the two seems pretty important.
• Rock the Vote says that 3,100 bands signed up for their DemROCKracy contest. If each band registered only 25 fans, that would be 77,500 registrations. Bad ass.
• The Hip Hop Caucus Blog has a great look at the Jesse Jackson/Obama scandal framed as a generational issue within the black community and civil rights movement.
• Finally, John McCain calls college students "spoiled children. Awesome. Here's what I say to that:

Bumped. Bergeris putting out some good stuff. --Mike

Crossposted at Politics of the Common Good.

In his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy called on Americans to serve. Sadly, those words -- "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" -- have become cliche today. We hear them, but most of us drive right by that message of sacrifice without really pondering what it means.

Those words have faded from our collective conscience. The presidency of George W. Bush has reduced "service" to fighting bravely in a war that should never have been fought in the first place. Commentators and other bloggers have noted many a time that Americans were not asked to sacrifice once after the events of 9/11. Immediately after the attacks on our country, the Bush administration focused on Iraq rather than observing and noticing the spirit of goodwill among American citizens as well as citizens of other nations. After invading Iraq in 2003, the phrase "serving our country" was usually used with reference to joining the Armed Forces.

Even after the war had begun, the Bush administration's policies and behavior indicated a philosophy antithetical to the Kennedy call for service. With the nation mired in a mess in Iraq, President Bush never once veered from a policy of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, forcing the burden on those Americans barely able to get their proverbial feet under them. With the price of oil skyrocketing, President Bush chose to visit Saudi Arabia to request that oil prices be lowered rather than approach Americans and ask them to sacrifice for the American economy. This is the same man, by the way, who declared that America was addicted to oil. When a drug addict admits to an addiction and then begs his or her supplier for more, that's not responsible sacrifice -- in fact, it's not sacrifice at all.

Now, in 2008, we have two choices: a man who worked for low-income families on the south side of Chicago versus a man who honorably served the country in another war it should not have fought. Senator Obama has released a detailed plan for national service. Obama will reward college students who give 100 hours of service to their communities with a $4,000 annual tax credit for school. Obama will add 65,000 members to the military. He will also significantly expand AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps.

Turning to Senator McCain, we're left with very little.

John McCain, who's predicated his presidential run in no small part on his distinguished military record, frequently exhorts Americans — and especially young Americans — to serve their country. Despite that appeal, he has yet to offer any proposals to expand or transform national service outside of the military.

...

...The McCain campaign will not commit to releasing a plan for expanding service opportunities. A senior policy adviser said only that they are "studying options for national service." When asked why he does not have a service proposal, Pounder would only say that McCain is proud of his past support for service programs and has exhorted audiences to serve in this campaign.

While refusing to ask for a comprehensive sacrifice of the American people is regrettable when keeping Kennedy's call to service and sacrifice in mind, it's also not smart politics. The Millennial Generation will offer roughly 50 million voters in the 2008 election. These Americans have volunteered at record rates over the past few years. In fact, 60% of 15-25 year olds have volunteered or continued to volunteer on a regular basis (CIRCLE, via Future Majority). This generation's general mindset is to help, big. It's a generation of builders that are civic-minded and want to work together to build a better society, and thus far, community service has been this generation's most productive method of doing so. However, many political junkies have heard by now that Millennials are not only serving, but voting too. In the last three elections, Americans aged 18-29 have increased their voting rate and are on the verge of becoming a powerful voice in the American political dialogue. McCain may not have the internet in common with Millennials, but he'd be best-served politically to develop a civic service bond with Millennials.

The Millennial brand of service seems identical to Kennedy's: service and policy to build, with politics and elections to protect. Kennedy not only called on Americans to sacrifice; he also asked citizens -- national and global -- to hold accountable those Americans in power.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love...

Many Americans immediately link the "Ask not what your country can do" quotation with Kennedy; but they don't realize that in the same speech he offered a compact of sorts. If the American citizen will do all that he or she can do for his or her country, those of us in power will promise to maintain the same work ethic, the same ethical standards, and the same dedication to bettering the national community as the citizenry. That promise, linked with Kennedy's allusion toward sacrificing for the unknown ("a good conscience our only sure reward") is not only the national service we need, but the closest thing to patriotism I can think of.

John Edwards's statement early on in the primaries calling us to be "patriotic about something other than war" is relevant, but it's only a start. We need to build off that statement by working together in service to "the land we love." Many volumes have researched and described the connections between service and leadership; it's a pretty natural linkage. Any contender for the highest office in the United States should have a plan on restoring the patriotic duty of sacrifice and service -- not just militarily, but all throughout our society.

Here's whats up

Young Obama fans crucial to victory, need resilience. Good piece about how young people can impact what is going on for Obama and the extent to which they need to be encouraged.

MTV Spotlights Young Veterans this holiday season. "on July 4th MTV2 will honor the millions of young men and women who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Young Voters Look Carefully at Candidates. Harvard IOP's spring poll says that only 6% of those who plan to vote in November are doing so because of a specific candidate. This is another indicator that young people are smart enough to make up their minds about the issues.

Obama highlights Services and Responsibility on Patriotism Tour. In Monday's speech on Patriotism, Obama spoke about the importance of encouraging civil service and participation among young people

"The appeal may have an audience on university campuses and military bases full of young voters who have already taken up the service call.

"I think he's got a shot," said an Air Force officer at the speech, who requested anonymity so he was not seen as speaking for the service. "I think he's got real appeal with young people, all young people."

Young Evangelicals Contemplating Obama over at Huffington Post.

"At one evangelical college in Santa Barbara, CA, a small group of faculty and staff supporting presidential candidate Barack Obama are preparing for challenging conversations in their community as they look ahead to the fall semester."

Why are Republicans so Un-Cool answers the question in an interesting way. There are so many reasons... so so many.

Beep beep... get on board... Young Voters hitch a Ride on the Bus

Media Consultant Paul Gillin discusses media buys that focus on young people and how the 30 second spot doesn't do it for em anymore.

Young Voters hold the Key to the Future of America ... really just read the title... its a nice pick-me-up

In ten years historians will look back on this week and declare that it is was a ground breaking week for Barack Obama. And nope, it won’t be because the junior senator from Illinois picked a running mate or because “Young Berry” delivered another one of his trademark speeches. This week was important because for the first time it became clear to many of his die hard supporters that Barack Obama might not be all that progressive.

From the FISA Bill to his support of Bush’s faith based initiatives to his willingness to throw Wesley Clark under the bus, this week Obama has proven that he won’t be right (no pun intended) on every issue. In fact after this week it’s becoming clear that he is going to be wrong a lot more than we would like him to be

Of course, the truth is that we really don’t need Obama to be on the right side of all the issues all of the time. Nor should we really expect him to be. After all skeptics in the blogosphere have been hacking away at him for months, claiming that his voting record has been spotty at best.

At the end of the day, as young progressives we really just need Obama to be accountable to us most of the time and the rest of time it’s going to be up to us to push back and fight with the him. Let's be honest, it’s going to be our vote that gets him in the office. We shouldn’t be afraid to roll up our sleeves and go 12 rounds with him.

But I have to be honest, I am starting to wonder if our generation has “the sand” to consistently stand up to Obama when he strays from the progressive path. So many of my friends, family and former coworkers have drunk so much of the Obama Kool Aid that I some times wonder if they can still see straight. I mean, it’s all right to love your candidate but as young activists we shouldn’t be naïve. Obama is going to continue to be tempted to move toward the center, especially if he wins on November 4th. We just can’t follow him there.

Originally posted at The Nation.

A few weeks ago, the Obama campaign caused a stir when it suggested that major progressive donors should abstain from supporting independent organizations outside of the campaign working to influence the election. The implication at the time was that Obama was talking solely about 527 independent media organizations (progressive equivalents of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth), but if taken to its logical conclusion, these statements could apply to any number of electorally engaged organizations, including youth institutions that do partisan voter registration and GOTV. This makes me nervous.

In talking with youth organizers, my sense is that there is already far less money on the table for partisan youth GOTV work this cycle than there was at this time in 2004. Obama's phenomenal track record in turning out young voters is one of the dominant media narratives this cycle and I'm worried that donors will take Obama at his word and leave the youth vote work to the campaign. That would be a mistake and I want to lay out a few reasons why that is so:

• Youth Orgs Are Complementary and Boost Turnout Even Higher: Young voters made up the highest share of the electorate in the two states where the campaigns were joined in their GOTV efforts by a strong, independent youth-focused effort. In Iowa, youth were 22% of the electorate, outperforming their share of eligible voters and comprising a higher portion of the electorate than the so-called reliable seniors. In New Hampshire, youth were 18% of the electorate - the second highest share for youth during the primary process, and 43% of all young voters turned out, far and away the highest level of actual turnout among 18 - 29 year olds. In both of these states independent youth organizations like Rock the Vote, the Young Democrats and the Young Voter PAC worked to turnout young voters. Few thought that the primary season would extend beyond these states and most organizations lacked resources or time to organize efficiently elsewhere. That lack of resources was evident in the youth turnout and share of the electorate, which were lower in the other 48 states.
• Obama Needs Help Reaching Non-College Youth: Obama has had great success in exciting the youth vote, but primarily these were college-educated young voters. According to CIRCLE, only 1 in 14 non-college youth voted in a primary or caucus this cycle, compared to 1 in 4 college-educated youth. Organizations like the Young Democrats, The League, and others focus most of their energies off college campuses and in the communities. It is here, in turning out these hard to reach youth, that they can contribute most to Obama's candidacy.
• Youth Organizations Will Increase Turnout for Down-Ballot Races: Presidential cycles are great because they drum up a lot of excitement, but they also tend to induce myopia among the electorate. The latest youth poll from Democracy corps indicates that Sen. Obama is dominating Senator McCain among young voters, but will those young people vote on down ballot races? Or, lacking information on the candidates, will they decline to vote? Will the Obama campaign, with its shiny new 50-state strategy campaign on behalf of down ballot candidates? Maybe, but we don't really know for sure and we dont' know to what extent. As we saw in 2006, supporting partisan youth organizations outside the campaign will ensure that young voters don't just turnout to elect a president, but turnout to elect a whole new wave of Democrats at all levels of government.
• Youth Organizations Do Not Disappear After Election Day: On a similar note, many activists and political operatives are starting to notice that Barack Obama is now in possession of one of the largest lists in progressive politics. It is highly likely he also has the largest youth list in progressive politics. He is marshaling the support of these new political activists to great effect on behalf of his campaign, but will their engagement continue beyond the election? Will the Obama campaign morph into a new, critical piece of progressive infrastructure as Dean for America did when it became Democracy for America? Or will it dissipate like the many campaigns of Ralph Nader or the campaign of John Kerry? What will that mean for the youth vote during the 2010 midterms? Thanks to the work of over a dozen new youth institutions, young voters are trending increasingly Democratic and an infrastructure exists to ensure they stay that way for decades to come. It would be the worst kind of short-term thinking to deprive that infrastructure of vital resources at a time when youth interest is higher than it has been in decades. We should be helping our nascent youth infrastructure capitalize on that excitement, not using it as an excuse to invest resources elsewhere.
• Don't Repeat the Mistakes of the Republicans: There is a precedent for all of this. The Republicans conducted aggressive youth vote outreach in the 1980s and it paid dividends. Young voters routinely chose the GOP candidate (Reagan, Bush Sr.) over their Democratic opponents. But the Republicans became complacent and their courting of young voters became less of a priority in the early 90s, allowing the Democrats to briefly recapture the youth vote. In 2000, youth turnout was essentially a wash, splitting 48 - 46 in favor of Al Gore. It's only in the past three cycles that Democrats have secured a dominant advantage among Millennials. Win or lose, the Obama campaign will not be around forever. Let's not make the same mistakes as the GOP and shoot our highly successful youth infrastructure in the foot when we're barely out of the gate.

One of the greatest challenges that all progressive organizations face is the cyclical nature of progressive funding, which tends to ramp up during election years and dramatically scale back during off-years. This has been doubly true for youth organizations, which only recently began to receive substantial funds to sustain and occasionally expand their work. All of the points I've listed here provide a compelling rationale for donors to continue investing in youth organizing outside the scope of the Obama campaign. No matter how successful the Obama campaign is at reaching youth, it is foolish to sacrifice a growing youth infrastructure and put all of our faith in one campaign, and one candidate. Let's not get caught up in the myopia that so often accompanies Presidential politics. Let's have the vision to make smart, long-term investments in our youth and the sustainable institutions that can engage them for years to come.

Just a few links today . . .

• In the Washington Post, Jose Antonio Vargas notes that Left or Right, young or old, the internets hate John McCain.
• AlterNet interviews Keli Goff about her new book, Party Crashing, and the political trends among young African American voters.
• Across the Great Divide - a potentially interesting new blog chronicling the cross-country travels of a Millennial out to discover if his peers really are the "Next Great Generation."
• The Chicago Tribune runs the numbers and thinks young voters could tip a few vital swing states this year:
  

  If Obama could inspire just 10 percent more Democratic voters under 30 to go to the polls than did four years ago, that alone could be enough to switch Iowa and New Mexico from red to blue, the analysis suggests.

• Some pranksters (young freepers?) interrupted a conference call with Sherrod Brown, George Miller and the PIRGs about the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. - h/t PushBack
• Finally, John Stewart continues to warm my heart by mocking McCain. I think Stewart's man-crush is officially over.