Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama vs. Street Money
The LA Times has published an article today criticizing Senator Obama's refusal to hand out cash to ward leaders and party bosses in an effort to GOTV in Philadelphia on election day. Philadelphia is supposed to be a machine city which depends on grease in order to get a candidate elected. The Times article's main criticism against Obama is that he is disrespecting the culture of machine politics by not paying street money. It boggles the mind that paying people to volunteer and vote is considered okay by certain cities. First of all, it's a citizen's civic duty to vote and if they choose to volunteer for a campaign, it seems a little ridiculous to expect payment. This system of street money reminds me of Tammany Hall where people were told to vote a certain way and given money for it. I hope Obama stands by his refusal to patronize this borderline corruption. He's going to lose Pennsylvania anyway, but at least he loses it with his principles intact.
Comments (7)
Yeah, it would be great to do something for the community, but giving people money to GOTV seems sleazy at best.
We, the supporters, have already donated in excess of $120,000 to PA schools through donorschoose.org . Maybe doing more stuff like that, in his name, would help mitigate the effects. Campaign money should not be used to pay people to vote.
April 11, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, so the LA Times piece seemed like criticism to you? I have to say that I read the piece and it seemed fairly neutral in tone to my eye. It made clear that what Obama was doing was out of the ordinary in Philadelphia, but it did not (to my mind) imply that this was a failure (per se) on Obama's part.
Incidentally, my reaction to the news was completely the opposite of yours. "He's going to lose Pennsylvania anyway, but at least he loses it with his principles intact," is certainly one way to look at it, but as an Obama supporter I would rather he spent the money and lost by a narrow margin than stood on principle and lost by a more substantial margin. Keeping it close ensures that the whole "popular vote" argument remains off-the-table.
April 11, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be cynical (well, OK, a little cynical), but isn't it possible that his campaign has decided on a longer term strategy here? That this is getting press in the media will probably help him not just in later primary elections, but also possibly in the general election.
Although I find Obama to be one of the most principled politicians I know of (on the national level at least), he's still a politician.
April 11, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps. If so, I hope that you are right. I have frequently thought at this or that point throughout the campaign that Obama was making a tactical error, but he keeps winning my own anxieties notwithstanding, so evidently his judgement in these matters is worth more than my own.
April 11, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say I didn't see the criticism in the piece either. It merely pointed out the possibility that this stance may hurt Obama. However, since this has been his stance all along and the campaign has yet to pay "walking around money" in any of the previous caucuses or primaries where this has been a standard practice I don't see this hurting him now.
April 11, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah - I posted this article at about 1:00 this morning, it was a very well, fairly written article, I thought it illustrated the conundrum quite well.
April 11, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see this as a basic issue of fairness. None (at least that I know of, if you know differently, let me know) of the other Obama campaign volunteers in states that have already have gotten "street money" to do the work it takes to get out the vote. I'm sure all of the campaigns lay out money for various expenses that help the volunteers, but if that money wasn't put directly into the hands of those in other states to use as they wish, why should it be done in Philly and Pittsburgh? And how about the potential of ending up in a position of having to "renounce and reject" some campaign worker who did something iffy with that money and gets snagged.
I think this is a statement from the Obama campaign that they are serious about "changing" politics.
I don't know about anyone else, but I've been known to rant about how nice it would be to see a politician stand on priciple once in awhile, even or especially if it could hurt them in some way.
Well here's an example of one. Not a huge one, I'll admit, but a solid example all the same.
April 11, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment