Obama Network Organizes and Revolts Over Spying
Barack Obama tapped his sizeable grassroots network on Saturday, coordinating over 4,000 "Unite for Change" meetups across the country through the campaign's social networking portal, MyBo. At the same time, however, other supporters worked furiously over the weekend to organize a new MyBo campaign to protest and pressure Obama. Many activists are outraged by the Senator's recent announcement that he will back a controversial bill to grant the Executive more spying powers and immunize telephone companies accused of illegal surveillance. Both efforts demonstrate how Obama's national network, which broke fundraising records and turned the first term Senator into an unlikely presidential nominee, can respond to top-down edicts and spring into action for self-organized protests.
Since launching last week, the protest group, "Senator Obama Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right," swelled to one of the ten largest campaign groups on Sunday. (FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which the Democratic Congress is poised to amend under White House pressure.) It is the largest group of its kind on MyBo, which focuses on local networking, official campaign events, and constituency groups like "Women for Obama." It looks like the group grew through the Obama network, with a few web mentions on liberal sites such as OpenLeft and TPM, and it urges Obama to reject the "politics of fear" and lead Democrats to oppose the White House bill. Blogger Mike Stark says the effort demonstrates the kind of civic engagement and "open government" that Obama espouses, even if it delivers the "sting of social networking" pushback during a tight campaign.
One Democratic Internet consultant predicted that Obama's reaction could reveal his commitment to meaningful engagement with supporters. "How Obama responds will tell us a great deal about both his willingness to listen to input from his supporters and what influence the MyBarackObama community has on the campaign itself," said the operative, who wished to remain anonymous while working on another campaign. "In the meantime, this is a huge opportunity for Obama's supporters to organize around an issue, not just the candidate, and take action beyond using their credit card."
There's no way to know whether the criticism resonates with the hardcore activists who gathered at Saturday's official events. The 4,000 meetups, which drew guests from MyBo and local networks offline, generated overwhelming interest. Though barely covered by the mainstream media, the gatherings suggest another edge for Obama's Internet organizing. 
The campaign reported over 200 events in the pivotal state of Ohio alone, where middle-aged voters like Cheryl Wright, of Boardman, hosted students and neighbors in her living room. Back in bluer territory, Patrick Callahan, a 31-year-old Brooklyn educator, drew about 35 people to a meetup barbeque. He said about half of the guests were his friends, and half were strangers who found him through MyBo. In a completely anecdotal sample, one attendee told me that Obama's surveillance stance was disappointing, while several others said they had not heard of the issue. Callahan, who learned of the "Unite for Change" meetups from a campaign email, said he was willing to throw open his home to strangers because he backed Obama's positions on education and foreign policy, while McCain wants to stay "in Iraq for at least the next 100 years."
Obama's official events obviously beat the MyBo protests by several orders of magnitude, and the campaign deserves credit for hosting the very technology people are using to organize and pressure the candidate. Obama won the nomination by blending the practical and the ideal -- riding the financial juggernaut of Internet politics and promising a new, interactive civil society along the way. He made people feel good, and connected, and they showered his long-shot campaign with money, energy and adulation. Their votes are already in the bag, in general election calculus, but their work, enthusiasm and contributions to any larger "movement" are not guaranteed. Just as the campaign worked to mobilize so many supporters this weekend, it may have to reengage supporters concerned about Obama's recent drift. He could answer their arguments with a direct video explaining his vision for restoring the rule of the law and constitutional rights. Granting more unchecked surveillance power to the Executive and sidelining judicial oversight is a staggering affirmation of Bush's approach, especially coming from the candidate of change. If Obama is going to stand by that failed policy, he should at least explain his thinking in depth. It might even get more hits than a fundraising video.
--
Ari Melber is the Net movement correspondent for The Nation, where this first appeared. Check out the Net Movement Politics Facebook Group.
Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As Jefferson once said if you expect freedom and you're ignorant, then you are messed up in the head. That isn't a quote mind you, but you get it. Research this and ask questions. Don't let the Telco trolls on here (you listening Michale?) sooth you with calming lies. FISA is really bad. Get informed.
Here's another idea:
Don't send Obama any MONEY until he returns to protecting and defending the Constitution. See how much he gets from the right-wingers he is bending over for.
In our system, MONEY is what politicians understand, and Obama just said "Screw you" to all of us - those much-vaunted "small contributors" that got him where he is. MONEY is OUR LEVERAGE. After all, the Supreme Court says it is "political speech". So, everbody, START TALKIN'!
Two more ways to get your message to him:
Campaign site:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2
Senatorial site:
http://obama.senate.gov/contact/
I agree with Keith O, Obama has to take a stand on Fisa and make it clear why he is making it. Anything less will lose him a lot of people voting. Not voting for Mac but voting period. If we cannot do better than bush cheney and mac them Obama is it if the votes are there. Up to him now.
yep ... Same view Here ...
President Obama '09
Is my current disappointment with Obama realistic? Am I so sick and tired of everything that we've lost in the last 8 years that I have no tolerance for the nuances/practicality of what has to be done to win this election? Do I need the change we all yearn for so badly that I am willing to sacrifice the election by demanding that my candidate of hope and change stand boldly, unbendingly holding high the end goals of this change we so badly need? Or... can I trust my instincts about this exceptional leader and leave some room for decisions I don't agree with and or don't understand? Can I earnestly express my concerns and opinions (FISA, etc.) to Obama without abandoning the best hope we've had in 40 years for restoring some sanity to this sick government? I am commiting myself to staying strongly behind Barack Obama. The alternative - a John McCain presidency is unthinkable! Let us progressives not be so rigid in how and when our goals are realized that we are seen as fantical a the far right zealots.
I've asked myself many of these same questions, but I keep going back to the significance of the matter at hand--the wholesale betrayal of our trust, which, if legitimized, could seriously impair the concept of "expectation of privacy." I keep concluding that protesting Obama's position is the right thing to do. The kind of compromise he's embracing is true blue-dogism, and it doesn't bode well for the future. This is the kind of decision HRC made by voting to go to war--politically motivated, not on the merits, calculated to deflect future criticism--in his case, on a commitment to national security. Hillary's decision lost her the nomination, as it should have. This move, especially if it's followed by other cave-ins, could do the same for Obama. He's the presumptive nominee; it's not in the bag until the convention's over.
He needs to say no to this bill while resisting the GOP efforts to impugn his patriotism.
If anyone can do it, he can, and if anyone has to, he does.
Keith is making a comment on this topic tonite. "How Obama can have his cake and ear it too"
oops...eat it too
I have stopped sending my monthly check to Obama and I have explained to his campaign staffers why. It's only a one-person effort but I feel good about it.
It's hardly a ONE person effort. Our family has done the very same thing and will NOT give any more money to his campaign unless and until he votes against the FISA bill. Here's hoping!
.
Me too! My spouse is also upset with his change on NAFTA.
Hope he has the sense to get back on course.
Notice that Obama is no longer mentioning bringing the troops home. He'll backpedal on that too. And forget health care. He won't stand up to the Telecom Industry and he won't stand up to the Insurance Comanies. There will be no change.
I agree with you.
Don't let fear bite you in the ass. Be patient.
Go YouTube it, he says the same as he's always said - troops come home, as carefully as Bush was careless sending them in. And you know the whole reason the media, owned by the same people as the telecoms, are trying to make him look bad and the giddy left buys it from the people owned by the military industrial complex, for pity's sake? Because he will destroy their monopolies, read his telecom policies, and he will cost them millions, read his campaign finance reform that gives equal air time to all candidates on the ballot to end raising millions from millionaires to pay a media that lies to us the 23 hrs 59 minutes not paid for in our own ads.
I am definitely smelling cooptation. I refuse to believe the progressive writers have all lost their minds and never read Obama's outrageously detailed 40 page plan. It's obvious to me the MSM and telecom/military/oil/insurance barons (usually the owners of all five industries) did, and they saw his lauded speech to Google in 07.
It's always good to protest in the name of the people over important issues. However, we're letting this administration and the rest of Congress off the hook and putting the issue on the shoulders of one vote. One vote won't do much if we really want to intervene and hold those responsible responsible. That doesn't make sense. Obama's not the president. The republicans will laugh all the way to closing yet another door on us over corporate regulation and control of spying--and we'll get disillusioned with our efforts. We should not be this easily manipulated by the republicans. If the rallies are directed at the current administration and Congress as a whole then Obama is just one person that needs to hear the protest and respond. Yes, rallies rallies rallies! But the focus must be directed at the right place--on the current administration and Congress as a whole. For individuals, write letters and make phone calls. Whose idea was it to make Obama the focus? One day of rallies will also not be enough. Rotating rallies might work so people don't tire out.
I agrree that all of Congress and the republican admin need to be held responsible. However, it gives us a glimpse of what to expect from Obama, and it doesn't bode well. But then, as I have been saying from the beginning of his campaign - he is just another politician, and one that has come up through the corrupt political machine of Chicago, which also does not bode well for us.
Yes, it tells us the rich, the status quo and even the right are going to fight us for Obama. It tells us not all of Congress is on our side on this issue. The reason I support Obama is because I believe we the people have the greatest chance of rising up and making our demands heard to rebalance the country. Of course, I don't see miracles. I do see change in some of the right places, however. Obama is the best place available to start.
Obama stated he couldn't do things alone. That is not political hype. He's being honest. We have to step into the limelight and take our country back. We can't judge him on his actions until we are rallying and making our demands repeatedly and in larger and larger groups of people. If he turns away or orders us put to sleep again, we can talk then.
We have to use our strengths to get the politicians out of the medicine chest filled with old band-aids and dated medicine bottles for us. The only thing kept current are the sleeping pills.
It's too late for him to change. Obama has already made his stand known and to change again would throw him in the same category as Kerry--Flip-Flopper. Instead, he gets to come across as just another weak, pandering democrat who's afraid to take a stance. The republican dogma is horrible and destructive, but at least they aren't afraid to be what they are--conservative wingnuts. I think it's officially in the Democratic Manifesto--Check your balls at the door.
Good going, Senator. Way to alienate your rank-and-file supporters. I have at least one friend whose vote you may have already lost. A few more decisions like this one and i'll be going Nader myself. I can't stand the guy, but at least he says what he means and is not afraid to stand behind it.
I disagree that it's too late for him to change. He can say that over the break... he and his staffers looked over the blog comments (like this one)... read the myBO group blogs and 'contact' emails he's recieved over this issue and his supporters... overwhelmingly didn't wan't him to vote yes. The Repubs can say flip flopper all they want... but the cheers from Americans who have been longing for a leader who actually listens to them would drown them out.
You seem to think that PUBLIC OPINION should have sway over this matter..
To me, there is ONE issue and ONE issue only..
Do these new measures help authorities track and eliminate terrorist threats..
YES or NO..
Obama has already answered in the affirmative..
PUBLIC OPINION, especially IGNORANT public opinion, (if I may quote Tommy Lee Jones from MEN IN BLACK) "means absolutely dick"...
Michale.....
Your mouth to God's ear.
Obama seems to me to be smarter than most, so I have to assume he knows what he is doing. He does have to get elected first and if the problem is minor, as it appears to be from these posts, then it would be a mistake to create trouble now.
While I am at it, Obama is in a tight spot with this gun thing, but like he says big difference between father and son hunting in Montana and sixteen year olds shooting at each other on a busy city street,
Seems to me that a federal law deeming any crime committed with a gun would bring 25 years imrisonment would make some think twice. A murder with a gun should be life imprisonment, A federal crime would mean the FBI gets involved.
After all, using a gun in a crime violates our constutional equality rights, right???
The alternative is for the NRA ot conduct shooting lessons for gang members because the problem is not gang menbers killing eachother but missing and killing a six year old in her bedroom.
Your comment certainly doesn't live up to your online name - oldwiseone. I see nothing wise about your advice. Create trouble? The problem is minor? Assume he knows what he's doing? Democracy is not a passive exercise it demands participation. Your advice to others sounds more like something the Bush Republicans would say.
Can someone please explain to me how a 'yes' vote for FISA insures an O bama victory in November?
As far as I can tell... a 'yes' vote for FISA...
-- gets him labeled a flip flopper, liar, and Bush like
-- loses a part of his base who voted for him not because he was progressive... but because he convinced us he was 'different' (can't be different if you're voting the same as Mc Cain and how B ush wants you to vote).
--loses a lot of HRC supporters who are only reluctantly supporting him because after criticizing her 'kitchen sink', win at all cost campaign.. he's now playing that same game.
A 'no' vote for FISA...
--gets him labeled 'soft on terror'
--convinces people he is a different politician
--solidifies his base (especially if he says that he's voting no because he listened to his supporters)
--attracts swing voters who were waiting to see how 'different' he really is
--BONUS: he keeps his dignity
I can only say that it's personally costing Obama my support and I will be voting for McCain in 2008 if he passes that bill. I like about half the Democrats, the younger, net savvy ones, but unfortunately they don't run the Democratic Party, the DLC does, Rahm, Hoyer, and other total dirtbags do.
I infinitely prefer the GOP to the DLC.
It is ridiculous we have to keep fighting this spying and other crap that comes out of the DLC over and over again. I'm frankly tired of it. You have no idea how happy my Republican friends (whom I've had a hard time getting along with over the last 7 years) are about my change relative to this.
We have a bad government, Obama has been a huge disappointment to me. He's now making speeches about "patriotism" apparently to paint the spying thing as "patriotic". These are the policies I am opposed to, and I don't care if he is doing it "just to get elected" or not. I will not support it and it infuriates me to the point I'm going to become a critic.
Dems haven't done anything since 2006 but throw more money away. They've doubled Iraq spending, they've pushed through all this Bush crap. They haven't put anyone in jail. It's been unyielding capitulation after capitulation.
At the end of the day, Obama is asking his supporters to be hypocrits. I won't be one of them ... good luck to those of you that
So, you are not going to vote for Obama because he is voting for the bill but instead you are going to vote for McSame because he is voting for the bill? Do you think this makes any sense whatsoever?
OBAMA IS NOT THE SECOND COMING.
People, he can't be everything to everyone. No other politician has been defined so definitively, by everyones opinon, he doesn't wear a flag pin, he's a muslim, he didn't vote the bill, he took campaign finance.
We have to pick the right fight, yes, part of the bill sucked. But before it they were spying on you anyway, and heads up if they want too, they will still spy on you. NO BILL IS GOING TO STOP THAT.
Our economy, our infrastructure, is falling down around us. We find out this morning they maybe, a 3rd WAR. Let's keep cool heads here and get back on track.
The GOP and DLC have backed him into a corner because of what they have done and planned. If there is an attack on foreign or domestic soil he will be viewed as soft on terrorism for voting against the FISA bill and that is what the GOP/DLC is hoping for. If only he were able to speak the truth to the American people so we could all know the truth behind this dangerous political game.
Unfortunately, those who threaten to not vote for him over this issue are either soft or lack the education and insight to step out of their box so they can fully evaluate the dangerous circumstances surrounding their choice. If a majority of people in this country were educated about FISA and the threat to individual liberties then maybe there would be a greater uproar that would threaten all members (GOP/DLC) of congress who have voted in favor and then those who voted in favor would be forced to change thier vote to the will of the people. However, those who are educated in general, nevermind on FISA, are the minority and that is the "soul" disgrace of our country and why we have the government we have and why we have to support and vote for Obama at this critical poin in our history. After he is elected we will all work hard to hold him and congress accountable so we can begin to take back our country.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
