Blogs

In his radio show, Dobson attacks Obama for a June 28, 2006 speech in which Obama declared, "Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would it be James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?"

Dobson’s host called Al Sharpton "a black racist" and Dobson said, "Obviously, that is offensive to me," bizarrely complaining that he himself was being accused of racist by the mere comparison with Sharpton.

Dobson also attacked Obama for discussing Biblical passages that defend slavery, ban eating shellfish, and urge stoning of a misbehaving son. Obama noted about Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, that it "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application." According to Dobson, "He’s taking a direct shot at the Defense Department." In reality, Obama was simply pointing out that many Biblical ideas can be taken out of context and wrongly applied to public policy.

Dobson accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes, that Dobson says no longer apply, to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament. Dobson said, "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

Of course, none of this is true. Obama was simply pointing out how ridiculous Biblical literalism, and why it cannot be used the sole basis of political decision-making..

Dobson also accused Obama making "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution." Why? Obama made a statement in his 2006 speech about how, in arguing for legislation, we shouldn’t invoke God’s will but instead make an argument on principles that transcend a particular faith. Dobson bizarre claims that this means "he’s trying to make the case that it is anti-democratic to fight for moral principles." Dobson claimed, "Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies? What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe." According to Dobson, "we don’t have to go to the lowest common denominator of morality, which he is suggesting."

This really is a "fruitcake interpretation" of Obama’s words. All that Obama was saying is that in the political realm, we should make arguments that appeal to reason and people of all faiths, rather than simply invoking the Bible to prove our claims. It’s a perfectly reasonable position to take. More importantly, it has absolutely nothing to do with interpreting the Constitution, and Obama was in no way talking about government restrictions how people argue about politics.

Note, Dobson also condemned McCain in the broadcast for not expressing support for the Arizona legislature’s efforts to put an anti-gay resolution on the ballot. In the past Dobson has said that he would not vote for McCain.

As a critique by Frederick Clarkson noted, Dobson has a shaky understanding of the Constitution.

Dobson has plenty of odd ideas, such as urging a father to educate his son about manhood by showing the kid his penis:

He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

In his best-selling 1970 book, Dare to Discipline, Dobson urged beating children from the age of 18 months to 12 years old, using a switch or a paddle, and called for hitting kids with "sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely."

Dobson suggests that heterosexual marriage rates in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are falling due to the recognition of same-sex relationships. According to Dobson, "There is no issue today that is more significant to our culture than the defense of the family. Not even the war on terror eclipses it."

Dobson believes that because of bills prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, "every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence."

At one event, Dobson appeared with a "policeman suspended from service for joining a violent abortion protest while on duty."

Dobson has also said, "Patrick Leahy is a God's people hater. I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people."

Some conservatives have dared to speak out openly about Dobson’s lunatic beliefs.

Gil Alexander-Moegerle, a former Focus on the Family, noted in his 1997 book James Dobson’s War on America:

James Dobson believes that he has been entirely sanctified, morally perfected, that he does not and cannot sin. Now you know why he and moralists like him make a life of condemning what he believes to be the sins of others. He is perfect.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey declared:

The criteria of choice in just about every behavior you see in Congress today is politics. Where in the hell did this Terri Schiavo thing come from? There’s not a conservative, Constitution-loving, separation-of-powers guy alive in the world that could have wanted that bill on the floor. That was pure, blatant pandering to James Dobson. That’s all that was. It was silly, stupid, and irresponsible. Nobody serious about the Constitution would do that. But the question was will this energize our Christian conservative base for the next election.

Armey added:

To a large extent because Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies. I pray devoutly every day, but being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid. There’s a high demagoguery coefficient to issues like prayer in schools. Demagoguery doesn’t work unless it’s dumb, shallowas water on a plate. These issues are easy for the intellectually lazy and can appeal to a large demographic. These issues become bigger than life, largely because they’re easy. There ain’t no thinking.

Yet Dobson’s political power continues. In 2007, Dobson led 25 evangelicals who called for the ouster of Rev. Richard Cizik from the National Association of Evangelicals for opposing global warming, accusing Cizik of "using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time."

Dobson also has a connection to the disgraced Republican Jack Abramoff, by following former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed's request in 2002 for Dobson to help Abramoff in opposing a casino license sought by a competitor to Abramoff’s casino interests. Focus on the Family compounded this evil by lying and claiming that "there is no connection" between Dobson and Reed’s efforts for Abramoff. But three days after Reed guaranteed to Abramoff that "Dr. Dobson would privately urge Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton to oppose the Jena Choctaw casino," Dobson wrote a letter to Norton doing exactly that. Focus on the Family’s radio show also did a "special edition" radio broadcast aired only in that state on behalf of Abramoff’s cause.

As a kid, Dobson recalls that he tried to become a bully and targeted a boy he regarded as a "sissy." When the boy beat up Dobson instead, Dobson decided to use words rather than fists to launch a movement aimed at bullying children and "sissies" on a much larger scale.

Dobson’s attacks on Obama reveal what Dobson truly is: a right-wing nut with delusional interpretations of Bible who wields enormous influence within the Republican Party.

Crossposed at DailyKos.

The New York Times wrote about his "decision to break an earlier pledge to take public money." NPR claimed, "Earlier, Obama had said he would participate in public financing if his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, did the same." Chris Matthews on June 19 claimed it was "breaking his principles, breaking his word...It sounds like he’s changed his tune....Something he promised before." David Gregory on his MSNBC show on June 19 claimed it was a "broken pledge by Obama" and declared, "They had a deal." The New York Post headline was, "GOING BARACK ON HIS WORD."

A Wall Street Journal editorial called it a "flip-flop." That line of attack became particularly common: "It was a flip-flop of epic proportions," said Mark Shields on the Lehrer News Hour on June 20, and David Brooks added this it was "the low point of the Obama candidacy" and "epic hypocrisy."

CBS News reported that Obama "abandoned a campaign pledge." NBC News claimed that Obama "did promise to observe the limits if his opponent did." But the most extensive misinformation came from ABC World News. On June 19, Charles Gibson proclaimed, "This is a direct contradiction to what Obama said." George Stephanopoulos proclaimed this a "flip-flop" and added, "this is a clear flip." Continuing the same story for a second day, Gibson proclaimed at the opening of the ABC World News on June 20, "Flip-flop flack: Mounting criticism of Barack Obama for refusing public financing."

And according to ABC’s Jake Tapper, "Obama's stark abandonment of a pledge he repeatedly made during the Democratic primaries has dinged his reputation as a government reformer, and it clearly gave his critics ammunition to attack his character and paint him as a Democratic flip-flopper."

Even progressives fell into this trap. Rachel Maddow declared on June 20 that his stand was "a reversal from his previous position." Joan Walsh of Salon.com proclaimed that Obama "flip-flopped on campaign finance law."(Race to the White House, June 20) Nick Baumann of Mother Jones wrote, "Obama is making a politically expedient decision and essentially going back on his ‘Yes’ answer to a questionnaire that asked whether he would forgo private financing if his opponents did the same."

So what’s the truth. Below is every single case I could find reporting in the media about Obama’s comments on public financing:

1. Even in February 2007, before Obama’s massive fundraising became evident, Obama’s staffers were explicit in stating that public financing in the general election was an "option" and not a commitment.

1. The March 2, 2007 New York Times reported Obama’s campaign saying that he would "aggressively pursue an agreement."

So from the very beginning, the Obama campaign stated over and over again that public financing in general election would require an extensive agreement that went beyond merely having both parties accept the funding.

1. In response to a November 2007 questionnaire to the Midwest Democracy Network and Common Cause, Obama wrote: "My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election....If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

No one could read this answer as suggesting that Obama would accept public financing under any condition. Obama explicitly "requires" a promise by the Republican to adopt a "fundraising truce"–meaning not using the parties or 527s as a way to cheat the system.

1. In a December 23, 2007 speech in Iowa cited by ABC News on June 19 (a search on the internet and Lexis-Nexis finds no instances of the press reporting on this at the time) Obama said: "I wrote a letter to the FEC saying if my Republican opponent is willing to abide by public financing, I would abide by public financing as well...." At most, if this quote was not taken out of context (ABC News cuts off the end of it), it shows that Obama simply made a mistake in a speech that was never reported on by the press and which he was never asked to explain. Clearly, since his letter to the FEC never made any pledge like that, Obama was simply using an oversimplified explanation to a crowd in one case. No one can imagine that this misstatement amounted to a pledge.

1. In a February 20, 2008 op-ed for USA Today, Obama explained that such an agreement would have to be carefully negotiated to produce  a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.

1. At the Democratic Presidential Debate in Cleveland on February 26, Tim Russert asked Obama, "So you may opt out of public financing. You may break your word." Obama responded: "What I – what I have said is, at the point where I'm the nominee, at the point where it's appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody."

1. However, Obama’s promise meant speaking with McCain’s campaign, not necessarily McCain himself. Obama told reporters in February 2008, "If I am the nominee, then I will make sure our people talk to John McCain’s people to make sure we abide by the same rules....My folks will sit down and see whether we can arrive at common sense ground rules."

1. During an April 27 appearance on Fox News, Obama declared, "I have promised that I will sit down with John McCain and talk about can we preserve a public system." Chris Wallace asked: "If you can get that agreement, you would go for a publicly financed campaign?" Obama: "What I don't intend to do is to allow huge amounts of money to be spent by the RNC, the Republican National Committee, or by organizations like the Swift Boat organization, and just stand there without – " Wallace: "But if you get that agreement?" Obama: "I would be very interested in pursuing public financing, because I think not every candidate is going to be able to do what I've done in this campaign, and I think it's important to think about future campaigns."

Obama has been completely consistent from the beginning of his campaign to now on public financing: He would only accept it if the Republicans were willing to meet his conditions for restraining spending by the parties and outside groups.

By contrast to Obama’s consistent commitment to his pledge, McCain’s campaign has shown a clear desire not meet Obama’s standards on campaign finance. As Media Matters noted, the mainstream press such as USA Today, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal failed to mention the fact that McCain, not Obama, had violated the campaign finance laws.

McCain has also indicated, both in words and actions, that he is unwilling to meet Obama’s standards. At the end of May, the Republican National Committee (aided by McCain’s joint fundraising) had almost $54 million, compared to $4 for the Democratic National Committee. McCain flip-flopped and endorsed a North Carolina Republican Party ad attacking Obama. And McCain opened the door for right-wing 527 attacks on Obama, declaring that "I can’t be a referee."

Unlike McCain, Obama asked independent groups to avoid creating 527s and Moveon.org on June 20 announced that it would close its 527 in accord with Obama’s wishes.

The Obama campaign was fully justified in concluding, after an satisfactory meeting between their lawyers, that McCain would not meet the conditions he has explained from the start. Perhaps Obama is guilty of not being aggressive enough in begging McCain to follow these rules, but that’s fundamentally different from violating an unconditional pledge to take public financing–a pledge that Obama never made, and a pledge that the media keep saying he has broken.

Why is the media repeating this lie over and over again?

One reason is the inability of the mainstream media to understand complexity. The notion that Obama could attach conditions to his support of public financing is deemed a cop-out, even if those conditions are entirely rational and consistently given. As Keith Olbermann (a rare exception to the media parade of conformity) noted on June 19 in criticizing Gibson and Stephanopoulos, "you guys have bigger IQs than that. Can't you read the whole paperwork?"

A second reason is the effectiveness of the right-wing in promoting the myth that the media are pro-Obama. This puts pressure on the press to find issues to attack Obama, even when they aren’t true.

A third reason is the "gotcha" mentality of the press toward political reformers. The media believe that anyone who calls for reform should be attacked more viciously than corrupt politicians because of the reformer’s "hypocrisy" and arrogance.

In reality, the media are helping McCain cover up a huge tactical error. McCain could have announced that he would take public financing and publicly agreed to Obama’s requirement for a "fundraising truce." Instead, he failed to push Obama, and embraced the Republican Party and right-wing 527s. McCain foolishly waited until Obama’s announcement, in order to attack Obama. In doing so, McCain lost his only hope for financial parity with Obama, who might have felt obligated to take public financing if McCain had been willing to meet all of the conditions.

Unable to gain a financial advantage by limiting the Obama campaign’s spending and using the Republican party and 527s to smear him, McCain this week turned to his only hope in this campaign: that the mainstream press will lie about Obama, ignore the misconduct of McCain, and help McCain win by misinformation. We can’t let the media get away with distortion of reality.

Crossposted at DailyKos.

Public financing was meant to put mild restraints on that earlier, corrupt system, and it’s largely failed to work in the presidential election. Obama shouldn’t let it stand in the way of his movement. By accepting public financing, Obama won’t halt the level of corruption in American politics; to the contrary, he’ll help to fuel it.

Back in February 2007, when Obama first asked permission from the FEC to keep open the public financing option in the general election (even though Obama would not be taking public funds in the primaries), Obama’s spokesperson Bill Burton said, We're looking to see if we can preserve the option." There was never any kind of unconditional pledge.

Early in 2007, Obama asked the FEC for permission to leave open the possibility of public financing in the general election, even though he made no promises. In his USA Today op-ed in February 2008 (matching the wording of his earlier promises), Obama wrote that he would "aggressively pursue such an agreement" for public funding.

But Obama explained that such an agreement would have to be carefully negotiated: "The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues. According to the Obama campaign, McCain’s side simply refused to take the difficult steps necessary to fulfill this condition outlined by Obama.

Even if McCain had agreed to this condition, Obama should have rejected the public financing system. Three important developments since 2007 make it impossible to embrace it.

First, John McCain violated his own campaign finance laws. McCain broke the "McCain-Feingold" law which prohibits candidates from leaving the public financing system if they use the promise of funding to secure a loan, as McCain did (he secured his $4 million loan during a critical moment of his faltering campaign by promising to use the public financing if he failed to pay it back). McCain also received free ballot access in many states because he had pledged to accept matching funds. If John McCain wouldn’t obey the campaign finance laws in the primary, why should anyone expect him to keep his word in the general election?

Second, the already dysfunctional campaign finance regulation system has broken down entirely. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has become completely non-functional, making it impossible for any Obama/McCain deal to be enforced. The FEC needs at least four commissioners to function, and only has two right now. One of the nominees, Robert Lenhard, has asked to have his nomination withdrawn because he has taken a job with a law firm. This means that Democrats would need to accept controversial conservative nominee Hans von Spakovsky to reach a minimum, which they refuse to do, or President Bush would need to appoint another nominee before the July recess, which he refuses to do. Senate Republicans have refused to allow individual votes on the nominees.

As a result the 2008 election will be like the Wild West of campaign fundraising, except that there’s no sheriff anywhere. Without a functioning FEC, it may even be impossible for Obama and McCain to receive public financing, since a majority of commissioners must formally certify the candidates who receive this money. Obama couldn’t wait for a last-minute deal to build a national fundraising campaign in the general election, so it is impossible for him to accept public funding limits in the absence of a regulatory body.

Third, presidential campaign funding is really a shell game. Presidential candidates in the past have accepted the funding, but only because they knew it wouldn’t stop the flow of money. The dollars would go to "independent" 527 groups and the political parties, which is a system far worse than donations to individual candidates because the donor limits for parties are far higher. As a result, public financing actually encourages presidential candidates to seek out the wealthy donors and ignore the masses in getting donations.

Public financing will also get in the way of Obama’s hope to build a political movement rather than just a solitary campaign. Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, has said: "You ought to be able to run a campaign for two months on $85 million." Unfortunately, $85 million in public funds for the general election is no longer sufficient to run a strong national campaign; Obama has spent three times that amount in the primaries. $85 million is barely enough for a candidate to saturate a few swing states while the rest of the country gets ignored.

By rejecting public financing, Obama can campaign nationwide, and he has promised a 50-state strategy. Under public financing, 90% of the country outside the swing states will be ignored. Without public financing, the Obama campaign has realized that setting up a campaign office in Idaho actually pays for itself from the donations of Idahoans who want to see a new kind of president. This is good for democracy, because it means more people across the country will be involved in the presidential process. And it creates the potential for Obama to win a landslide victory and help transform Congress and state offices. The public financing system would kill a 50-state strategy.

Under public funding, instead of campaigns largely controlling the campaign message, outside groups will determine the commercials seen by people (and therefore much of the media coverage about the campaign). Instead of small donors owning the campaigns, it will be the big donors who fund the national parties and "independent" 527 groups who determine the next president. The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) found that $442 million was spent by 527 groups on federal elections in 2004. Compared to that sum, which may easily exceed half a billion dollars this year, the $84.1 million in public financing is a drop in the bucket. Because of this system, public financing is actually more likely to lead to the corruption of our political process. The candidate who wins will owe an obligation to the big 527 and party donors who made victory possible, rather than the millions of Americans who will fund the campaign without public financing.

If Obama takes the public financing and is Swiftboated by Republican billionaires through 527s, he will be extremely vulnerable. Obama would have to depend on uncontrollable Democratic 527s to respond to these attacks. In essence, accepting public financing will take the control of the campaign out of the hands of the candidates and put most of the power in the hands of independent groups and the millionaires who fund them. Of course, these 527s will spend money from millionaires anyway. But without public financing, regular citizens will be able to help candidates respond to these attacks and provide a legitimate outlet for their donations.

ABC’s Jake Tapper today called Obama’s decision a "broken promise." That’s a lie. Obama’s initial desire was to follow the public financing system (which was something he had no obligation to seek), and it’s the failures in the FEC and the McCain campaign that make it impossible to do this. At best it can be said that Obama wasn’t very aggressive in fulfilling his pledge to "aggressively pursue an agreement" with McCain. However, that’s not the same as a broken promise. I called up Dennis Miller’s radio show today to challenge Tapper’s claim. Tapper dismissed my argument as "spin" and noted that groups such as Public Citizen and Democracy 21 had criticized Obama.

But these organizations have a vested interest in trying to promote public financing, and Obama’s superior approach of small donations is a threat to everything they’ve tried to do. These are not neutral observers. And the fact is, they’re wrong. Obama did not make a promise to use public financing. And it’s pure political spin for reporters to claim Obama did break his promise when McCain is the only one who violated a promise (and the law) with regard to public financing in this campaign.

Public financing won’t end the obsession with fundraising for presidential candidates. John McCain and the Republican National Committee has already set a goal of raising $120 million for this election, which would far exceed the $84.1 million in public financing set for each candidate. Because donors to the parties can give up to $28,500, the opportunities for corruption are much greater. Traditional fundraising events will largely replace the kinds of grassroots fundraising that has allowed Obama to transform the money game.

By eschewing public financing, Obama will be able to rely on small donations from a huge number of supporters. But if he accepts public funding, he’ll have to devote most of his fundraising to big-money donors, and funnel it to the Democratic National Committee.

Total public financing of elections is a mirage. It will never happen politically, and even if it did, there are too many ways for money to influence the process. Money will always flow down into politics, even if it has to go through subterranean channels of political parties and 527s. What’s needed is a public finance system that can encourage democracy rather than limit money. That can be achieved through the system of donor limits and matching funds: the taxpayers could provide politicians with a match for every donor, up to $50. The result would be a system where politicians seek out donations from the masses rather than from the elites. That’s what Obama should seek when he’s president, and this ideal of a campaign funded by the masses is precisely what Obama started today.

Crossposted at HuffPost and DailyKos.

As I argue in my other new book, "Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies," the greatest threats to free speech on campus come from far right advocates of censorship and corporate-minded administrators who seek to appease politicians, students, and donors by silencing controversy (left and right) on campus.

Grabar believes that scholars analyzing Buffy the Vampire Slayer are "this poison rotting away our civilization." English professors writing about TV shows aren’t any threat to civilization or the political establishment. Administrators who follow corporate management models and who have helped replace tenure-track faculty with temps aren’t part of a vast left-wing conspiracy.

Grabar reflects the infantilization of students of the far right, who want a new kind of in loco parentis to regulate what students and faculty say because of her fear that "the left brainwashes the inmates of the educational system." Grabar mentions David Horowitz’s campaign to pass legislation (in Congress and on the state level) to restrict academic freedom. She declares that liberal influence in higher education proves "the very need for such redress."

There’s a very good reason why right-wingers such as Horowitz seek to ban politics (meaning criticism of the government) from the classroom. They fear that a new generation of students might be engaged with reality, might be reading some authors who question the lies of the Bush Administration, might be learning more from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert than from the mainstream media that pushed the lies of the Bush Administration or the right-wing talk radio nuts who still believe those lies. We need to stop censorship by the far right such as Horowitz, who thinks that professors should be banned from criticizing the Bush Administration and prohibited from putting political cartoons on their office doors.

The Obama candidacy has the potential to be one of the most transformative movements on college campuses. This is about much more than mere voting: we need to develop ways for students to be part of a bigger movement for social change.

Faculty, students, and workers at college campuses should be planning now to make engagement with political ideas a fundamental part of campus culture this fall. There should be much more than voter registration. We should have campus debates and discussions to help students understand the issues that confront this country. At a time when the mainstream press is likely to focus on Swiftboating Barack Obama, colleges can be one place where intellectual debate is undertaken about who should be the next president and what his policies should be.

And after the Nov. 4 election, college campuses should plan what I call the "Changing America Project": holding a series of panels with students, scholars, and politicians analyzing specific policy issues and offering advice to the next president and the next Congress about what needs to be done to improve our government and our country.

The right-wing will complain that intellectual engagement ravishes their virgin minds and will try to suppress political discussions on campus, but we must never capitulate to repression.

Note: I'm the author of a new book, Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest, but I'm not part of the Obama campaign.

Crossposted at Daily Kos and College Freedom.

A Change Election

Obama’s message of change fit the country’s mood perfectly, especially when the war in Iraq is so unpopular. Even better than a message, Obama created an image of stability and consistency while Clinton struggled to find the right tone for her campaign. Obama was roundly criticized by the pundits and the press because he didn’t go negative against Hillary Clinton and because he was accused of being too policy-oriented in the summer and fall of 2007 in Iowa and New Hampshire. But he played the campaign just right, understanding the nuances of a long nomination process. Traditional Democratic campaign "strategists" like Mark Penn, Clinton’s chief campaign strategist, imagined that winning an election consisted of dividing Americans into microidentity groups and then doing everything possible to suck up to them. Obama realized what a message of unity could provide among Americans tired of politics as usual.

Clinton’s Failed Big State Strategy

The primary tactical brilliance of the Obama campaign (and failure of the Clinton campaign) was to run a 50-state strategy. While Hillary Clinton focused on Super Tuesday and the big states such as Massachusetts and California, Obama spread his resources around the country. When her advantages on Super Tuesday didn’t provide the knockout blow expected by the pundits, Obama was in a much stronger position to emerge victorious. Clinton ran a campaign designed to end on February 5, and it fell into chaos after that. Barack Obama ran a campaign aimed for a long-term battle. When the Clinton campaign talks endlessly about winning the big states, all they’re doing is discussing the strategy they had that failed miserably. The Clinton campaign never grasped the meaning of the complex delegate system, where a huge victory (by a 20-point margin or more) in a small state is worth as many delegates as a small victory in a big state. Obama completely dominated the category of big-margin wins. Obama won 13 states by more than 30 points and 21 states by more than 20 points. Clinton has won only three states by more than 30 points and two by 20 points. The big wins in small states accounted for Obama’s winning margin in pledged delegates. Unfortunately for Clinton, she doesn’t live in the Big States of America, but the United States.

Organizing Matters

As a former community organizer who helped lead a massive voter registration drive in Chicago in 1992, Obama had the experience Clinton lacked of bringing together a national organizing campaign. Obama had field organizers and campaign offices everywhere in the country, while Clinton struggled to keep up. Obama put together the most massive grassroots organizing campaign ever seen in a primary. More importantly, Obama’s campaign also understood the importance of the internet. Obama’s presence on the web and social networking sites blew away the competition, creating a massive force of volunteers and supporters. And it turned Obama into the greatest fundraiser in American political history. In traditional fundraising, where candidates go to parties and talk to rich people who give large sums of money, Clinton had a clear advantage over Obama. But Obama brought in so much money over the internet, without needing the big donors, that many of his fundraising events were actually big rallies for his supporters.

The War in Iraq
Despite Bill Clinton’s attempt to dismiss Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq as a "fairy tale" (while Bill was re-imagining his own support for it), Obama drew key support from Americans as someone who could not be associated with the disaster in Iraq. Hillary Clinton weakly tried to oppose the war while refusing to apologize for her vote to support it. But ultimately, the American people (and especially the Democrats) hate the war in Iraq with extraordinary passion, and mourn the loss of life and waste of money in Bush’s fight.

What’s equally interesting about this primary race are the factors that didn’t impact the election.

The Myth of the Pro-Obama Media

The Clinton campaign has been trying to game the system by complaining about media bias, as Clinton herself did in a debate by imagining some vast media conspiracy to ask her questions first. In reality, there was no media advantage for Obama., even before the press began obsessing about Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. To the contrary, from the start the media smeared Obama as "inexperienced" without ever questioning Clinton’s qualifications. From coronation to humiliation, the press dutifully followed the Clinton campaign, never questioning Hillary’s key claim to "experience." The fact that Clinton failed to live up to her hype doesn’t change the reality that the media gave this election to Hillary Clinton from the start, and it was hers to lose. When Hillary personally went after Obama’s connection with Rezko, the press dutifully reported the details while ignoring the long record of Clinton scandals. The media clearly liked the fact that Obama turned the Democratic primaries into a real race, but there was plenty of fawning and abuse for both candidates.

The Lack of Progressive Support

What may be most surprising about Obama’s victory is that the left had surprisingly little to do with it. Many leading progressives never recognized (or openly mocked) Obama’s transformational abilities. In the exit polls, Obama, Edwards, and Clinton all roughly split equally among liberals, moderates, and conservatives in the Democratic Party. On DailyKos and other progressive websites, activists tended to favor John Edwards over Obama because Edwards told the left what they like to hear. Leftists such as Paul Krugman, David Sirota, Ralph Nader, and Rick Perlstein all favored Edwards for his anti-corporate rhetoric, and Krugman continued attacking Obama even after Edwards had left the race and most progressives reluctantly embraced Obama as better than Hillary Clinton. The failure of the left to embrace the most progressive presidential nominee in American history reflects the practical ineptness of today’s progressive movement. The left has been out of power for so long, and is so easily accustomed to ideological sniping on grounds of purity, that most of its leaders never saw the groundswell of a new generation moving past them to join the Obama campaign. To this day, cynical grumbling is the preferred leftist stance toward Obama, even though he has the potential to be the Ronald Reagan of liberals, putting a popular face on progressive politics and leading a landslide to the left never seen before in contemporary American politics.

The key problem the Clinton campaign faced is that they could never figure out how to attack Obama. If they smeared Obama as a left-winger, they would alienate the base of the Democratic Party. If they smeared Obama as a centrist, they would alienate the swing independent voters. In the end, Clinton tried many different attacks, but never came up with a consistent ideological approach.

But it was Obama’s positive attributes that ultimately brought him the support of donors, volunteers, and voters. For the first time in many years, Americans feel inspired by a presidential candidate. Instead of being embarrassed by George W. Bush, they imagine Obama as someone they can be proud about as president.

Crossposted at DailyKos.