Chris Bowers: Obama Camp 'Decapitated' Influential Progressive Group

Progressive Media USA was a more important organization to the progressive movement than many people know. For one thing, it employed a large number of progressive movement types with an online focus. Also, even though it was accomplished behind the scenes, it is responsible for a strikingly large number of the anti-McCain stories to appear in the national press over the past six months. Further, it was not meant to just operate during the campaign, but also to fight media pushback against a new Democratic administration in 2009 and beyond.

Basically, it was a very netroots friendly organization doing a lot of very positive anti-McCain work, and was also a potentially important allay of a new Democratic administration. However, at the behest of the Obama campaign senior leadership, it has now been decapitated and decommissioned by Barack Obama's uber-wealthy donors.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[Susanfrom29]

I think Chris Bowers did a masterful job of explaining the recent Obama moves that had confused and concerned me. Now it appears that what the Obama campaign is trying to do is to get big money out of the PACs and 527s and allow more individual small contributors a chance to be heard.

If you read the entire article and follow his links on net neutrality you learn more about the differences between Obama and Clinton. Clinton's policy could have been (and may have been) written by the telecommunications industry for their benefit.

When you are done, read their position papers, on their respective websites, and you will find hers filled with vague meaningless double talk and his with nuts and bolts information. And they claim he is all suit and no substance!

[tbone99]

The full length article is made MUCH clearer by the comments that follow it, if you happen not to be great at the ins and outs of finance reform, like me.I excerpted a comment from a poster there that sums up my worries:

"by donating to a third party, you grow another power center, instead of investing in a single one, and one that isn't responsible to you. ('You' as part of the left, that is.) One that you hope will take an oppositional posture that pulls the other powers center leftward.

Investing into the Obama machine is great, but limited. If we as outsiders and small donors want power, we can't allow ourselves to be completely coopted. There will come a time--I'm thinking in late February, 2009--when the Obama administration does something that many of us find pretty disappointing. At that point, we can either use the power we've built to try to convince the administration to do the right thing, or we can just weep and gnash and send angry emails asking for our contributions back."
(Thx to poster Joel)

[Susanfrom29]

If you read the entire article, you learn that that is NOT what he is doing. He is trying to get the big dollar donors to stop supporting 527s. Moveon.org, supported almost entirely by small donors is doing just fine. The organization mentioned by name in Chris Bowers article was supported strictly by large dollar donors, NOT small donors and outsiders like us.

[tbone99]

certain "large donors", though, are made up of many small donors, such as unions, and say univeral health care collaborators.I like to see the many voices represented for a candidate, we are not just one mind , represented from the top down.And I like to know he is under the pressure of their scrutiny. This way their positons are silenced.

[Testtubebaby]

Every one wants the power....

[racetoinfinity]

The most important parts of the article IMO are the links to two stories - one that states that Obama is a supporter of net neutrality and reducing corporate control over the Internet, and that Hillary's tendencies are just the opposite. More evidence that Hillary is a corporatist in populist clothing.

[eXcommunicate]

The article linked to in this blog and the subsequent comments on that site make me laugh so hard. The blogospherians are pulling their hair out and now making conspiracy theories about Barack Obama trying to strangle them to death. lmao. All this is about is a play to reign in the 527s and box McCain into a corner. It can also be used as a rationale for not taking public financing. I see it as a good play for the Obama camp. Bloggers should be applauding this, but instead they are grabbing pitchforks, thinking they should have more "pull" with the Obama than the 1.5 million donors to his campaign.

[tbone99]

Yes ,but i can't forget Obama calling ads run by unions "special interest groups', a common accusation of the Repugs. As if a union , working for decent wages and working conditions,is the same as an oil company ( an entity devoted soley to the profit of a few).

[drzoon]

this is a new time.... and we are doing things in "new ways".

and that includes even two years ago.

we are not slaves to any paradigm that we (obama "08) didn't create for ourselves. and even it that doesn't work... we toss it.

for the most part this is a story about power... and protecting it.... and lashing out when its challenged.

we are "turning the page"

[ajax2]

I would hope that Obama modifies this position. The MSM will, under orders, fall in behind McCain and assist every attack. This message to consolidate is wrong.

[the964kid]

It makes sense because Obama doesn't want 3rd parties doing controversial ads and then having to be put in the position of being caught in the middle. We saw a lot of this in 2004 and we'll see more this year. Obama wants one message, and if an ad represent him (or his interests) he wants to make sure he agrees with the tone of the ad. It also demonstrates that Obama and his campaign are serious about trying to stay above the fray and keeping things clean and positive. Can you imagine craggly old McCain doing the same?? Obama's key to success this year is staying on message, and not being distracted from the real issues. I'm glad to see he's trying to reign in the 527 work, because often these groups are not helpful to true political dialogue.

[fedupcitizen]

Barak Obama asked that anyone supporting his campaign should contribute directly to his campaign.

That does not mean that people cannot support your organization or others...
if they choose to do so.

His campaign does not want his message to be confused with your message.

The organization he built is called Barack Obama and the organization you built is called Progressive Media USA which remain separate organizations.

You may appeal to your organization for donations directly. You may create some nifty web advertisement asking for donations.

[naijaman]

Obama means it when he says he embodies new politics. Chris Bowers doesn't get it.

[cog1000]

From Politico:
"Brock is now seen in political circles as closer to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign than to Sen. Barack Obama's, but Brock said he has already met with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a close Obama ally.

"This is a unity play," Brock said. '

TPM has a clear, informative post about the demise of Progressive Media USA. And backers seem to be both Clinton and Obama supporters. Just correcting my errors....

[cog1000]

Guess I'm being slow today. Just remembered that some of the people attached to this 527 were Clinton supporters (Brock?). Right? I may be wrong. So I guess that would explain the whole Obama attack thing.

[PioneerKing]

YOU ARE CORRECT

[abouttime]

Chris Bowers writes: "Progressive Media USA was ... a potentially important allay of a new Democratic administration."
WAS... ? POTENTIALY... ? Great! Prgressive Media USA can speak for themselves, and without your help. Obama's campaign, whose INDEPENDENCE is critical in maintaining its "kenetic" support for progressive change. His populist campaign is bolstered by grass roots actvism. 527 groups are free to do what they do, but can screw up a campaign; inentionally or not. Its a no brainer.
Obama 08

[axt113]

Obama is doing this to project his image of a new politics, letting the 527's run free would hurt him on that front. Yes he loses that ability to strike, but he has his own huge war chest with which to fight back, and as we saw this week, he doesn't need much help. No he wants to project himself as the change cantidate, and this is a step towards that

[cog1000]

So why is Bowers attacking this move? Because he thinks it's risky? Because he is anti-Obama? Because he is insulted that Obama thinks DailyKos is boring? I still don't get the rationale behind his article. Or is it just about headlines?

whatever. You have to give Obama credit for effective tactics and maintaining his principles.

[Gemma08]

DailyKos IS boring...

[colleen2]

I think because he and the other jerks on the townhouse list want some of the money

[paganmist]

To support 527s - even the "good ones" (which is of course ALWAYS a matter of perspective) is to give them legitimacy.

To give 527s legitimacy - even if only some of them - is to send out a clarion call to OTHER 527s, as well as their supporters/donors, that basically says,

"If Obama's doing it, then it's perfectly fine and fair for us to do it too."

He did not kneecap this particular 527 because he hates them. He created an environment where should 527s (such as the one that tanked Kerry) should attack, he has a higher ground upon which to fight them.

Obama has effectively set the bar here, people. Anything that the Republicans do now will be viewed in the public eye as blatantly below the bar, unfair, overly-vicious, "downright mean", etcetera.

If you want a way to help Obama, find another. Take out a loan. Borrow some money from your parents. But stop whining about how Obama "cut off your money" when he doesn't know you from Adam, yet you expect him to trust that you will send out messages that remain entirely true to what he represents? WHAT EGO.

[cog1000]

I guess I'm being stupid. It all makes sense if Chris Bowers is supporting Sen. Clinton.

[cog1000]

This was may understanding of Obama's reasoning. Which leads me back to what's Bowers talking about?