4Barack

"DON'T DO THIS!" a friend wrote, a friend who never uses allcaps, a friend who cares genuinely about what's good for me, and who believes that what's good for me depends in part upon how easily I can talk to the next administration. "He is NOT going to win. She has it sewed up. DON'T burn your bridges before they're hatched -- so to speak."

So was my suggestion that I come clean publicly about what many here will have intuited long ago -- tha I support Barack Obama for President -- met by my friend. But I said as much in March, 2004, though I expected this year would be four years later. Barack was a colleague from way back. I've supported every campaign since the first. And from the very first moments I knew the guy, I thought that he was precisely the sort we should be able to elect as President.

Friendship, however, isn't the most compelling reason (for at least others) to support a candidate for President. I was therefore relieved and very happy that on substance, too, this is my candidate.

The closest leading competitor for my loyalty is of course Edwards. He's got great views about technology and privacy. He's got a fantastic commitment to changes that might well address the corruption that has become my focus. And he's come around to the right views about the war. I've long admired his passion and conviction. And but for fears about his flirting with protectionism, he would, in my view, make a great President.

The other front running Democrat, however, is not a close call for me. (Saying this is what terrified my newly allcaps friend.) She supported the war, but as my support of Edwards last time round indicates, I can forgive that. The parts I can't get over all relate to the issues around corruption. I signaled as much in my comments about her comments about lobbyists. We see two radically different worlds here. And were she President, I'd bet everything that we'd see radically little change.

But the part that gets me the most about Senator Clinton is the eager embrace of spinelessness. I don't get this in Democrats generally. I never have, but I especially don't get it after two defeats to the likes of George Bush (ok, one defeat, but let's put that aside for the moment). Our party seems constitutionally wedded to the idea that you wage a campaign with tiny speech. Say as little as possible. Be as uncontroversial as you can. Embrace the chameleon as the mascot. Fear only that someone would clearly understand what you believe. (Think of Kerry denying he supported gay marriage -- and recognize that the same sort of people who thought that would win him support are now inside the control room at ClintonHQ).

All politicians of course do this to some degree. And about some issues, I even get it. But what put me over the line with Senator Clinton was the refusal to join the bipartisan call that presidential debates be free. Not because this is a big issue. But because even on this (relatively) small issue, she couldn't muster the strength to do the right thing.

Her failure here was not because her campaign didn't know of the issue. I spoke directly to leading figures (or so they said) in the campaign. The issue was discussed, and a decision was made. And the decision was to say nothing about the issue. You can almost see the kind of tiny speak that was battered around inside HQ. "Calling for free debates might be seen as opposing copyright." "It might weaken our support among IP lawyers and Hollywood." "What would Disney think?" Better to say nothing about the issue. Better to let it simply go away.

And no doubt that was the safe bet, highly likely and politically sensible. But the issue of course didn't go away. The legal threats that motivated us to launch this call for free debates materialized in a threat against Senator McCain. But that again gave the Senator an opportunity to say something true and principled and consistent with values she certainly ought to hold dear: That Fox should not not silence McCain, even if his words were an attack on her. Again, there was an opportunity for principled, and strong character. Again, it was frittered away by tiny speak among the very same sorts who frittered away 2000, and 2004.

We (Democrats) and we (Americans) have had enough of this kind of "leadership." That (plus the Lincoln Bedroom) made it impossible for me, honestly, to support Senator Clinton. No doubt I would prefer her to any Republican (save, of course, the amazing Ron Paul). But I can't support the idea that she represents the ideals of what the Democratic Party must become.

And that leaves Barack -- an easy choice for me (except for the "trailing Clinton" part) for lots of reasons.

First, and again, I know him, which means I know something of his character. "He is the real deal" has become my favorite new phrase. Everything about him, personally, is what you would dream a candidate should be. Integrity, brilliance, warmth, humor and most importantly, commitment. They all say they're all this. But for me, this part is easy, because about this one at least, I know.

Second, I believe in the policies. Clearly on the big issues -- the war and corruption. Obama has made his career fighting both. But also on the issues closest to me. As the technology document released today reveals, to anyone who reads it closely, Obama has committed himself to important and importantly balanced positions.

First the importantly balanced: You'll read he's a supporter of Net Neutrality. No surprise there. But read carefully what Net Neutrality for Obama is. There's no blanket ban on offering better service; the ban is on contracts that offer different terms to different providers for that better service. And there's no promise to police what's under the technical hood (beyond the commitment already articulated by Chairman Powell): This is a sensible and valuable Net Neutrality policy that shows a team keen to get it right -- which includes making it enforceable in an efficient way, even if not as radical as some possible friends would like.

Second, on the important: As you'll read, Obama has committed himself to a technology policy for government that could radically change how government works. The small part of that is simple efficiency -- the appointment with broad power of a CTO for the government, making the insanely backwards technology systems of government actually work.

But the big part of this is a commitment to making data about the government (as well as government data) publicly available in standard machine readable formats. The promise isn't just the naive promise that government websites will work better and reveal more. It is the really powerful promise to feed the data necessary for the Sunlights and the Maplights of the world to make government work better. Atomize (or RSS-ify) government data (votes, contributions, Members of Congress's calendars) and you enable the rest of us to make clear the economy of influence that is Washington.

After the debacle that is the last 7 years, the duty is upon the Democrats to be something different. I've been wildly critical of their sameness (remember "Dems to the Net: Go to hell" which earned me lots of friends in the Democratic party). I would give my left arm to be able to celebrate their difference. This man, Mr. Obama, would be that difference. He has as much support as I can give.

(Oh, and to my allcaps friend, this was my reply: "Don't be ridiculous. This isn't about misplaced courage. Barack is going to win this one easily.")

This piece was originally posted here.

Comments

[MRb1000]

Peruvian trade agreement. What the Peruvian trade agreement. This is silly. This is a nation that has 0. We are slapping on them the same laws of the United State to sale and trade products. Tell me one other country that has to abide by these same laws of our land. We can compete with anybody that has to use the same rules as our nation. I hope people listen more. Could you imagine if we apply this rule to all countries in the world!!! We would running around screaming happy days are here again!!!! This law is a start to a level playing field.

[longnow]

I will vote for HRC if I have to. I will
vote for Obama to get the nomination.
If it turns out to be Hill I get 2 for 1.
If I vote Barack I get the equivalent.

President Obama...now there's a thought.

[MThomasinNC]

I have trouble getting my hands around the Clintons. While BC is the better politican, they both have views that smack them right in the middle. Former chair Greenspan said that BC was the best president the republicans have had recently. Why would he say that, because he knows the economic machine is what runs the game. Under BC, corporations got what they wanted - more privatization of government functions, more deregulations in banking, FCC, NAFTA, etc. Sen. Clinton has the same mind set.
Sen. Edwards is cool, but he let them, in 2004, take away his '2 americas' platform that was a winning strategy. I still believe in him and would vote for him if he is the nominee.
I love Sen. Obama. He is the best hope for the future of the world. Will they let him win, or will there be a repeat of 1968 when all our great leaders of hope were wiped out. I wonder....

[BluestateWatchdog]

The big difference between Obama supporters (or any other Dem supporters) and HRC supporters is glaringly obvious, yet I haven't seen many people point it out. Were she not to receive the nomination, her supporters would rally around the inevitable candidate. Conversely, if HRC were to get the nod, many supporters of other nominees would not rally around her. People like myself for example.

[GuiltyByStander]

"The other front running Democrat ..."

This is where your argument loses me. "Front-runner" is a marketing idea, not a political idea.

The media have almost succeeded in creating a presidential auction. Almost.

Turn off the TV (except for those wacky "debates") and do the reading. We get the president WE choose, not the one media chooses for us.

[LeeFromVA]

It's amazing to me that there are still people out there that think Hillary has the best chance of winning. This is a liberal web site and the anti-Hillary posts are overwhelming. Doesn't that tell you something. How hard would it be for the Republicans to capitalize on her negatives? They don't have to convert liberals into conservatives, they just have to energize their base and put some doubt in the swing vote. Hell, 51 percent say they'll never vote for her and they haven't even begun their campaign against her yet. The problem is people think she's the same as Bill. But Bill was likeable, and she simply is not. I loved him and hate her, and there are many like me. This election is the Democrats to lose, and the quickest way to do that is to nominate Hillary. I'm a supporter of Obama, as I believe anyone that read Dreams from my Father would be, but PLEASE, I'm begging you, vote for anyone but Hillary.

[RuthieM]

Welcome to the ObamaRamas, Lawrence Lessig, a place for Obama fans like me. Great article. How refreshing to actually read 3 pro-Obama articles in one day! Keep it up! And I especially like your last parenthetical -- "...Barack is going to win this one easily."

[freespeach]

Often there is hostility and name calling when supporters of one candidate square off with those who oppose him/her.

I like the "intangibles" on Obama. He does have a nice smile, he looks Presidential, he puts me at ease and my gut reaction to him would include trust.

But when I do my homework I see things that bother me, such as.......

Why did he NOT vote against Mukasey in what would have been a clear demonstration of his opposition to torture?

Why is he so opposed to impeachment for our filthy war criminals Bush and Cheney?

Why is he silent on the FISA bill which gives Bush the right to spy on us, and grants immunity to Telcoms while derailing the ACLU law suits in process?

Why does he think it is OK to find Jesus with a homophobic preacher?

Why did Obama hire Moses Mercado on as a key member of his team? Mercado is a top lobbyist for the vile NRA and worse.....a top lobbyist for the war profiteering Carlyle Group, a collection of billionaire thugs from the Bush and Bin Laden families?

Any Obama supporters out there want to explain these moves by your man?

[mooph]

What is it with all of the "I'm tired of losing" whiners? When did we, as democrats, progressives and/or liberals, decide that winning was more important than voting our values and conscience?

I hear a lot about how political expediency and triangulation weirds people out, but then they capitulate to "voting for a winner." But why should anyone support a candidate that will promote policies and legislative agendas that are contrary to their values?

More than losing, I'm tired of having to hold my nose and vote the lesser of two evils.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

I support Barack Obama for President, but the weaknesses of Hillary Clinton (or negatives, because I don't want to imply she lacks toughness) should make us look at the other options as well.

Bill Richardson-- we "bring back the Clinton years" with Richardson, without the baggage, and he also doesn't have a Senate voting record bogging him down. He's been more aggressive than Obama in trying to get us out of Iraq (as any candidate would have to be in order to steal the thunder away from the top contenders). He's a good speaker and probably has more "red state" appeal than the other Dems.

John "RFK" Edwards-- he did a big disappearing act after Kerry chose him as his running mate, but-- again, in order to take some of the attention away from Hillary and Obama-- he has moved much farther to not simply the left but where we should be on health care and Iraq. Personally, I think a lot of this is crafty-lawyer-strategy more than deeply held principles. But don't they all do that (except Kucinich, and then he used to be pro-life before 2004)?

AL GORE (my own caps-lock-stuck moment): Please, Al. We know you want to save the Earth, which is nice and all, but you were born to be President. If not Obama, then only Nobel Prize Winner and (more importantly) Academy Award Winner Al Gore can save us from Hillary Clinton when her well-oiled machine rolls right over Barack, which is exactly what will happen if he gets within 5% of her in the national polls.

[ebh215]

Hurrah! Hurrah! Thank God the people who give a shit about this country and its liberties are taking sides against another election of cowardly political hacks. The good thing is that if our democracy is truly about issues and ideas, the next election will be Barack Obama vs. Ron Paul.

Anywbody else want a policy-based election? Anyone else want a debate about the true role of the Federal Government in our lives?

Democrats interested in a policy driven election should vote for Obama in their state Primaries.

Republicans interested in testing their commitment to small government should vote for Ron Paul in their state primaries.

My hope is that the American people, when offered a choice, will vote for the supremely competent, intellegent and honest, Barack Obama.

A large federal government, competently run, is no evil if the masthead of that government is Barack Obama. His commitment to transparency would be anodyne to the secrecy, manipulation, reckless spending, outright lying to the American people we've gotten since George H.W. Bush, Sr. was president in 1992.

(As a Democrate all of my life, it pains me to feel that the last decent American president is the current president's father, and that the next president could be the previous president's wife. Somehow, I don't think our democracy is strong enough to combat the nepotism and corruption from these two families. I hope I am wrong but I don't think its possible)

Should the election be Clinton vs. Any Other Republican than Ron Paul, I think we are doomed to endure another four to eight years of corruption.

All hail Mr. Lessig for speaking out.

[progressnerd]

Professor Lessig, I really admire your work combating extremism in copyright law and starting the Creative Commons. I think you will come to see that the same forces that are driving the pro-corporate extremism in intellectual property are driving pro-corporate extremism in trade policy. John Edwards isn't promoting "protectionism" in trade policy in the sense that it means isolationism. He is promoting fair trade policies that work for more people in the same way you are promoting fair copyright policies that work for more people.

[123xyz]

Nice post

The oval office definitely needs something new after the Bush/Clinton/Bush era and while Obama certainly isn't perfect he would be a welcome and refreshing change.

[Researchguy66]

Can someone actually give me one example of Obama's "brilliance"?

I keep seeing that word in print, hearing it in the media, and I'm dumb-founded. I've looked at the bills he's sponsored/co-sponsored. I've looked at his voting records. I've read his proposals, none of which seem "brilliant" by a long shot. I can get people saying "he's young, he's bright, he'll shake things up", but I can't seem to understand the liberal useof the work "brilliance"...anyone?

[Pdubya]

net neutrality? bomb iran? fund iraq? accept lobby money? divide America?


...no thanks. besides, we don't need another attorney in the white house.

we need a Doctor.