Obama Catches Fire with Netroots

[TeamJordan23]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/obama_catches_fire_with_netroo.html

Obama Catches Fire with Netroots
July 08, 2007
By Salena Zito

Total 2007 primary dollars raised: $55.7 million.

Total 2007 number of individual donors: 258,000.

In a word, Barack Obama's second-quarter fundraising numbers are shattering. There never has been anything like it. For a guy who was in the Illinois Senate three years ago not only to be in the top tier of his party's fundraising but to have raised the most of any candidate in a quarter is mind-boggling.

One thing Obama's success does speak to is the maturation of the "netroots": If you have an incredible story and a compelling case to be made, you can catch fire among the political activists in the blogosphere. It's not always about a thick Rolodex and an institutional operation. A fantastic chapter in politics has not been written about the netroots movement -- and that is, how does a candidate cross the threshold of being presidential while maintaining the cause that enabled him to catch fire?

Can that chapter be written now?

Has the blogosphere moved past puberty and matured enough to propel a candidate into the Oval Office? Certainly the importance of the blogosphere has increased exponentially since it first weighed in during the 2004 presidential election.

So why Obama and not Hillary? Iraq.

PLEASE READ REST AT LINK ABOVE

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

1. Obama is very popular in the netroots

But many in the netroots believe that he is not confrontational enough against Bush and his misadministration. In my mind, Obama and Edwards are equally popular in the netroots, while Hillary is not popular at all.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. He will never be confrontational with right-wingers if he is serious about "unity"

"Unity" sounds good but people don't think about what concessions to the right-wing Obama would have to make in order to achieve some degree of "unity."

Of course, "unity" may just be an election ploy, like it was for Rove in 2000. I accept BO's sincerity on this, though, but I am not willing to make concessions to the right-wing because of an obsession with achieving consensus.

[Odin2005]

5. Since when does "unity" = necessarily mean sucking up to the Pukes?

REALITY CHECK: On the issues most Americans are progressives even if they don't call themselves that because of MSM propaganda against the Dems.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. Unite with who?

Who do you think he is talking about uniting with? It isn't Democrats he is talking about...

Congress will be roughly half Republican in 2009-2010. Obama will either have to make concessions to the right-wing to achieve consensus or he will discard the "unity" theme as soon as he takes office like Bush and Rove did 2000 with the same playbook on unity and "changing the tone in Washington" (repackaged by Obama as a "new kind of politics).

==On the issues most Americans are progressives even if they don't call themselves that because of MSM propaganda against the Dems.==

It is a mere coincidence that the Republicans hold 49 senate seats and controlled Congress from 1995-2007. "Unity" can be achieved without bringing in half of Congress and the 62 million who voted for * in 2004. It will be so easy. I can't believe why presidents like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton and other luminaries in American history like Henry Clay* and Daniel Webster could not achieve the simple thing that Obama is going to do.

Obama is either taking pages straight out of the Rove playbook in 2000, is naive about how difficult achieving something that has not existed since Lexington and Concord, or willing to bend over backwards due to an obsession with seeking consensus with Republicans.

*Clay at least actually did achieve compromises on controversial issues while in the senate. Clay didn't just talk about unity. He delivered numerous times in the senate. Some other senators who talk about unity do not even bother to try to foster compromise on controversial issues.

[LordJFT]

9. oh yeah he'll never be confrontational with right-wingers

it's not like he called out the religious right for hijacking faith or anything :eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. Pat Robertson is not in Congress

;)

[LordJFT]

13. no but Tom Coburn

who favors the death penalty for abortion doctors and calls homosexuality America's biggest problem is. We also have a president whos is advised every week by the president of the NEA. To claims that evangelicals have no political influence would be absurd. My point is that there is one powerful right-wing group that so far Obama has been the only candidate to have the balls to stand up to.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. Obama has worked with Tom Coburn

Sure, Christian fundamentalists have a lot of clout. Still, there is a huge difference between calling out Pat Robertson and calling out a fellow senator. I would like to see Obama take the fight to the likes of Coburn in the senate or the campaign trail.

Obama tells us he wants "unity." With who? And how? There is no way he can come anywhere near achieving it without making concessions. The Republicans are not going to voluntarily cave in to a President Obama's program.

[ShortnFiery]

3. Netroots is what that birdbrain Tweety coins as "The Pajama Hudeen" :P nt

[BringBigDogBack]

4. heh

[penguin7]

7. I understand Wall Street has given big time to Obama.

[Adelante]

8. And everybody else

It's what they do.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. Some far more than others

Obama won the Wall Street battle among the 18 candidates in the first quarter. Given his 2Q numbers, he likely repeated as Wall Street champion.

[Nikki Stone1]

10. Is this why they are killing net neutrality?

Just wondered...