It's Not Just Obama's Charisma

posted by Peter Rothberg on 04/15/2008 @ 1:20pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (41)

Subscribe Now

It's already become cliche to talk about Election 08 as a coming out party for youthful America. As anyone with even cursory interest knows, young people have been voting in the primaries and registering to vote in unprecedented numbers. But what are the issues fueling this youthful engagement in politics?

A new video project by our friends at Campus Progress Action is offering some fascinating answers. The I'm Voting For website already hosts more than one hundred testimonials from young people across the country covering a range of issues from health care to the economy, climate change to the war in Iraq. The site allows users to upload videos, which are then posted to YouTube and sent to presidential, congressional, and other candidates as well as major media sources.

This one is powerful:

I also like this one:

And this too:

Click here to watch the full and growing collection of videos. Taken together they begin to assert a narrative about why young people are becoming engaged with the political process far beyond any candidate's personal charisma.

Comments (41)

It's going to be a shame, PETER, if Hillary snags that nomination (via the Supers)...

and those young people end up (once again) facing the cold hard pragmatism of voting for "the lesser of two evils".

Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 1:32pm
Well, I certainly consider Obama to also be the lesser of two evils, if you will, but, yes, if HRC somehow gets the nomination I think we'll see a lot of disillusioned young people.

Posted by Peter Rothberg at 04/15/2008 @ 1:35pm
it doesn't take very long to realize how extraordinarily out of touch (most) politicians and pundits in washington really are. some of them (mccain, rove, bush, cheney) prance around and pretending that they're just like we are (aka Regular Folk), that they have common-sense solutions (like more tax cuts), that they really understand how the Economy works ("the iraq war has not hurt the economy; it has helped the economy!").....

thanks for posting peter....

Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 1:37pm
Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 04/15/2008 @ 1:35pm

BTW, PETER, please inform Christopher Hayes and Te-Ping Chen that...

it's not a "blog" if THEY are the only two people blogging on it!

Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 1:41pm
I think we'll see a lot of disillusioned young people.

Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 04/15/2008 @ 1:35pm

and old people, too.

and canadians and icelanders and gambians, too.

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 2:09pm
J street's mine and mom said you can't touch it!

Go get your own!

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 2:10pm
peter,

are you bitter?

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 2:11pm
Typical "Snob-ama", makes a "bitter" mistake and everyone wants to let him off the hook. Then he starts the blame game. First he blames someone else (Hillary and/or McCain). Then, even worse, goes on the attack of the other Democrat in the race for calling him on his own elitism. Let me see, it was just last night that he condemned Hillary for attacking him, wasn't it? What a two-faced hypocrite and used her words too, "shame on you". Also folks, let us not forget folks where Obama's money is coming from, in his battle for President. His money trail now reveals that he received nearly half of all the millions collected thus far, from big donors. That would be nearly $115,000,000.00 million dollars of the more than $230 million dollars thus far. Not to mention the fact that Obama reported that his money came from all small donor supporters. Instead, it seems, the money is funneling in from filthy rich big name/big money raisers and thousands of top dollar contributors at $2300.00 dollars each/maximum allowed by law, contributor. I knew he didn't have a larger, or even as large of a grassroots organization, as Hillary. His bid for the Whitehouse is being bought and paid for just like Bush by the elitist. I thought Obama was supposed to be different? Of course, there are also the fundraisers on the web that represent the far left, (Huffington Post, Move-On, etc.) who are also collecting for him from their membership (2 Million plus members) for Obama. I used to support Move-On on some of their causes until they endorsed Obama. I know they are raising money for him because they continue to send me e-mails for donations for Obama. Wake-up America, you are being hoodwinked and now being called names as he looks down his nose at "US", by this arrogant and elitist jerk trying to buy his way into the Whitehouse! It is not too late to stop him if the rest of "US" left to vote do so for Hillary. Hillary cares about "US and will restore our greatness at home and abroad. Go PA, bring her on to the rest of "US" by a landslide.

Posted by moblou at 04/15/2008 @ 2:23pm
moblou, you can't be serious.

Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 2:25pm
I don't think MOBLOU can be serious either. This comments reads to me like a GOP plant who knows that McCain would have a much easier time taking on HRC.

Posted by Peter Rothberg at 04/15/2008 @ 2:29pm
Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 04/15/2008 @ 2:29pm

Or we underlings have another term....if MOBLOU never shows up again (as that nick)...

H.T.O.T.D.

"Hillary Troll Of The Day"....pop in for one "Obama killed JFK as a baby" post and then never seen again (again, under THAT nick)!

Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 3:00pm
Texas

MOBLOU it sounds like you're bitter. By the way you have your facts wrong. Do you now how to do unbias research on the internet? It might help you come to a better understanding of Senator Obama. Lighten up, vote for Obama and you will feel better. Say this - "Yes We Can"!

Posted by nlawson at 04/15/2008 @ 3:25pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/15/2008 @ 4:09pm

"Win" or "better chance"?

Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 4:20pm
PETER, I noticed that McCain won't be backing the GI Bill proposal by Webb-VA.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=4652517&page=1

Posted by FritztheCat at 04/15/2008 @ 4:44pm
Posted by MASK 04/15/2008 @ 1:41pm

A blog doesn't require any commentary at all in order to still be a blog. National Review would be one example like The Nation, although feel free to pick your own example from the legions of them.

Posted by FREIHEIT 04/15/2008 @ 4:09pm

How? You can't be basing it on polls, since they show that both candidates beat McCain by about the same margin. She doesn't have much in the way of differentiation, and she will pay for using "experience" as a watch word during the primaries. So, what exactly does Clinton bring to McCain match-up that Obama does not?

Posted by srjenkins at 04/15/2008 @ 5:51pm
but when you look behind the curtain, he's really just a collectivist.

and when you look behind mccain, all you see is numerous false, misleading and contradictory statements.

and, if you look deeper, you just might see george bush.

Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 5:56pm
Posted by HAPPY2 04/15/2008 @ 6:31pm

How about if Obama gets the Presidency and doesn't ...

put us in a quagmire war...

spend hundreds of billions on it on a "credit card"...

turn the military AND military hospitals into crap...

call disasterous disaster relief a "heckuva job"....

appoint pre-Renaissance judges...

and a bevy of incompetents...

how disillusioned are YOU going to get?

Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 7:57pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/15/2008 @ 7:34pm

You think Clinton is a better candidate against McCain because she's a woman? Think about that for a bit. Maybe try out the imagination a bit and slot in other women to see if that still flies.

As for "What's the Matter With Kansas", let's see. Combine the effects of being in a Great Awakening with greater concentration of wealth and of the media, globalization and war - and you have a fairly easy answer to this question.

Further, Thomas Frank's analysis is weak. Kansas as a political model for the United States? Please. They don't even have a city with a population above half a million, which in itself explains plenty about what's going on in Kansas.

Posted by srjenkins at 04/15/2008 @ 8:39pm
What, you would prefer more Ginsburgs on the bench?----Posted by FREIHEIT 04/15/2008 @ 8:15pm

Uh, yes. Sorry, kind of like Constitutional liberties.

As far as Kennedy and Vietnam, sure....always said the MYTH of JFK "keeping us out of Vietnam" was just an Oliver Stone fantasy.

But that doesn't mean we should have IMITATED JFK or LBJ 40 years later.

Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 9:35pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/15/2008 @ 8:54pm

Which brings us back to my original question then. You said, "I think actually HRC would have the better chance against McCain." I then asked, "So, what exactly does Clinton bring to McCain match-up that Obama does not?"

You've suggested that she will win the nomination because she has greater appeal with the Democratic party. However, this doesn't shed any light on why she would be better, in your view, against McCain.

Posted by srjenkins at 04/15/2008 @ 9:58pm
But a lot will happen between now and November, we can count on it.

Posted by FREIHEIT 04/15/2008 @ 10:45pm

and yet nothing will change.....

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 11:14pm
Senator Obama has star qualities for sure, but when you look behind the curtain, he's really just a collectivist.

Posted by FREIHEIT 04/15/2008 @ 4:09pm

i heard he collectivists stamps.

imagine, i philatelist in the oval office........

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/16/2008 @ 02:39am
a not i

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/16/2008 @ 02:54am
today's politicians do things?

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/16/2008 @ 09:17am
Did anyone see the recent Boston Globe article reporting that Bill Clinton implied that the reason why young voters are going for Obama is because they are unintelligent? Older voters, on the other hand, are "too smart" to be "fooled." As a young voter, I find this deeply offensive. We were criticized when we didn't vote, and now we are criticized for voting.

Posted by tzb0785 at 04/16/2008 @ 10:47am
Posted by TZB0785 04/16/2008 @ 10:47am

Well, hell, you've got feminist backers of Hillary telling us that the ONLY reason people vote against her is due to "sexism"!

Posted by Mask at 04/16/2008 @ 12:19pm
Posted by TZB0785

When is he not offensive?

Posted by abell12ct at 04/16/2008 @ 12:36pm
Well, hell, you've got feminist backers of Hillary telling us that the ONLY reason people vote against her is due to "sexism"!

Posted by MASK

And I thought the only reason was that she is a lying sack of shit!

Posted by abell12ct at 04/16/2008 @ 12:39pm
Posted by ABELL12CT 04/16/2008 @ 12:39pm

Doesn't seem to bother guys like EULER...in fact, he admits it.

BTW, even she is better than McCain (Or "Bush-44" as he should be known)

Posted by Mask at 04/16/2008 @ 1:25pm
bush44.

that's a keeper.

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/16/2008 @ 1:29pm
The "new voter" (young voters + political drop-outs) issue will be the key in a contested convention to persuade the remaining undecided superdelegates and Hillary delegates on a second ballot to go for Obama.

Mondale didn't get these voters, Dukakis didn't, Bill Clinton didn't need them because Perot divided the Republican vote; Gore didn't get them, Kerry didn't get them, and Hillary won't get them in November because she doesn't inspire them and represents the corrupt politics of the past that has turned them off to the process.

ONLY Barack Obama can get these new voters, which translates into a Democratic election victory in November!

Posted by Metteyya at 04/16/2008 @ 1:34pm
'It's not just Obama's charisma.' -- Peter Rothberg -- The Nation -- 15 April, 2008

From Wikipedia:

Barack Obama: '...Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 , ... In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats,...regained a majority in the Illinois Senate. He resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate...'

Dennis Kucinich: '...Kucinich was elected Mayor of Cleveland in 1977 and served in that position until 1979.At thirty-one years of age, he was the youngest mayor of a major city in the United States, earning him the nickname "the boy mayor of Cleveland". Kucinich's tenure as mayor is often regarded as one of the most tumultuous in Cleveland's history. After Kucinich refused to sell Muni Light, Cleveland's publicly owned electric utility, the Cleveland mafia put out a hit on Kucinich. A hitman from Maryland planned to shoot him in the head during the Columbus Day Parade, but the plot fell apart ... In 1998 the council honored him for having the "courage and foresight" to stand up to the banks and saving the city an estimated $195 million between 1985 and 1995....In 1983, Kucinich won a special election to fill the seat of a Cleveland city councilman...1994, when he won a seat in the Ohio State Senate. "He was in political Siberia in the 1980s," said Joseph Tegreene years later. "It was only when it became clear to people that he was right... he got belated recognition for the things that he did."...In 1996, Kucinich was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, representing the 10th district of Ohio. He defeated two-term Republican incumbent Martin Hoke by three percentage points. However, he has never faced another contest nearly that close, and has since been re-elected five times....He has criticized Diebold Election Systems (now Premier Election Solutions) for promoting voting machines that fail to leave a traceable paper trail, and posted internal company memos on his website in which company executives promised to deliver the 2004 Ohio election to Bush. He was one of the thirty-one who voted in the House to not count the electoral votes from Ohio in the United States presidential election, 2004....'

Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/16/2008 @ 2:07pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/15/2008 @ 10:45pm

I think this is one of the most cogent posts I've read of yours. I agree.

Posted by TZB0785 04/16/2008 @ 10:47am

Older people forget what it's like to be young and tend to overestimate the value of their experience. I think it is also fair to say that they are used to taking advantage of youth. There's a reason there are crass saying like "Young, dumb and full of cum." It's not young people that use it.

Posted by FREIHEIT 04/16/2008 @ 4:54pm

Disagree with you here. Corporations are not benign. All you have to do is look at the blight of spawl.

But if you want a useful framework, try the film The Corporation that talks about the problems of corporate personhood. If we were to take that legal construct and apply the way corporations behave as if they were people, the film's argument that this person would have behaviors akin to a psychopath has some merit.

Posted by FDR42 04/16/2008 @ 5:46pm

I think LVL does it for his own education, not so much for standing up for the things he believes in. That's just a secondary outcome.

Posted by srjenkins at 04/16/2008 @ 6:19pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/16/2008 @ 6:05pm

Seriously, FDR42, what forced influence over your liberty do corporations wield over your life and liberty - without government also being involved?

One obvious example is advertisements. I can hardly walk in any public space or watch/read/listen to media without being subjected to advertising for products I have no interest in. I would rather pay the full price for media I value than accept advertising in order to defray the costs. However, that is not an option.

Advertising is a more restricted set of a class of corporate problems I think of as pollution. Whether it is media pollution, streams, bringing over invasive species or what have you, corporations are a big part of those kind of problems - without any involvement with government.

Which really is to say the problem is about externalities. Corporations don't care that the United States has destroyed it's manufacturing capabilities or that now we have a "service" economy. Or that most of the corn grown in the U.S. in unfit for human consumption. Or that the rise of stores like Wal-Mart destroys local economies. Or the shipping of jobs overseas, or the importing of illegal immigrants to do jobs here.

Government, in many cases, is designed to reign in all the bad things that happen when corporations have full sway. Look at the history of the "robber barons" of the late 19th Century. Particularly, look at the working conditions.

So, this belief of your tht corporations of benign, you need to let that go because it doesn't match up with the facts.

Posted by srjenkins at 04/16/2008 @ 6:31pm
Ah yes, FREIHEIT, one of those strange people who doesn't see the problem with 90% of all US media being owned by six multinational conglomerates+Clear Channel. By the way the owners are Disney, GE/CBS, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, Viacom, and Sony. Beyond these you have a hand full of news sources that operate in with a near monopoly, like the New York Times. Well this is a problem, why? Because it means from all those news sources, you will be unable to find a view point that goes strongly against the views of the owners of that corporation. Those owners have been made obscenely rich off of the current system, and hence are loath to criticize it.

We've all seen what even Fox news can do when it decides it wants something done, and Fox news is so out there that a lot of people consider it to be nothing but propaganda. If a propaganda machine can control vast swaths of the country, imagine what news sources that are considered legitimate such as the New York Times, CBS, ABC, or CNN can pull off? After all, the owners of these corporations have no less at stake then the owners of Fox, wield similar amounts of power, and have similarly been made obscenely rich by the current system, and have the added benefit of not having half a hundred blogs attack their every move.

Media is commonly referred to as the fourth estate of the government, and just like the other three branches, it has the power to keep the other branches in check. But unlike the other three branches, it has the power to also lend enormous amounts of positive PR and legitimacy to one or all of the other branches. Imagine a world where Bush's GWOT received intense media scrutiny from day one, as opposed to still receiving mixed media coverage today. You think it would have gone off nearly as smoothly?

This problem of such concentration of media ownership is a direct result of government deregulation, the Telecommunications bill of 1996 to be exact. This, no matter your polotical views, cannot be said to have increased the amount of different political views in the media. This, is a definite way in which corporations are actively working to keep people in the dark without needing to leverage power over government to do so.

Posted by shadow master at 04/16/2008 @ 8:20pm
By the time one is on the second half of the life cycle, there isn't too many things we haven't seen or handled.

Posted by HAPPY2 04/16/2008 @ 11:07pm

it's a big universe.

Posted by frosted zoom at 04/17/2008 @ 12:15am
By the time one is on the second half of the life cycle, there isn't too many things we haven't seen or handled.

Posted by HAPPY2 04/16/2008 @ 11:07pm

you mean like having an islamocommieblackpantheringmulatoelitistcanadacoddlinglefthanded kid in the white house?

Posted by frosted zoom at 04/17/2008 @ 12:17am
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/16/2008 @ 6:33pm

The blight of sprawl is a direct function of corporate desire for growth that is not effectively countered by good city planning that provides for commons such as parks, recreational areas, etc - not to mention taking into consideration how people might get the necessities of life by merchants in their area rather than requiring motorized transport to get them. And the fact that sprawl occurs even in the face of zoning, shows how ineffective that tool is in controlling that problem.

While your idea that business uses government to further its own interests is true, your mistake is thinking this is the only problem business poses. Anyone familiar with the history of business knows that businesses preoccupation with profit is in direct conflict with other qualities that communities value such as clean streams/air, diversity, human/worker rights, localism, etc.

But isn't government also made up of humans? And in your view, government employees are more human than the private sector? How?

The problem with corporations is they are a social organization focused solely on profit. Government is a social organization, ideally, that looks to the interests of the people it represents. So, the problem is a function of the social organization, not the individual members that comprise it - which I assume are more or less uniform.

As for blaming only corporations, that's not true. Bad government is just as bad as bad business. The mistake you make is assuming the only problems with business are those that stem from its connection to government. This position is obviously incorrect.

Posted by FREIHEIT 04/16/2008 @ 6:40pm

But so what if you don't like advertising? I find the Ginza, Times Square, Pudong, Picadilly Square all very interesting and exciting.

You may think that having mercury in your drinking water is a-okay with you too. Doesn't mean that safe drinking water, or a media environment polluted by adverisements, isn't a problem.

Don't read the media PAID for by the advertisers.

Care to share which media this might be? Whoever pays the checks, calls the shots. If advertisers are paying the checks and if the majority of my fellow citizens are involved in the media they pay for, doesn't this suggest a problem in what advertisers call "share of voice"? Whose interests do you think these media represent?

Check out North Korea. Low volume of advertising there! Utopia.

Propaganda is advertising. North Korea is actually a good example of why advertising is a problem.

Seriously, is that the best you can do to help out FDR42 on ONE example of how corporations force him to do anything against his will without the government playing a role?

I used advertising as a concrete example of the problem of both pollution and more generally, externalities. You need to re-read my post again if you think that means a single problem.

Posted by FREIHEIT 04/16/2008 @ 6:46pm

You basically admitted in this post that government does provide a useful social function. The fact that this useful function gets subverted in the interest of business suggests that the problem isn't government, at large, but the perversion of government. This is to say good versus bad government.

As for the Federal Reserve, how would you plan to mitigate the problem of bust and boom cycles (another example of a problematic business externalities not related to government, btw) without the Federal Reserve?

Posted by srjenkins at 04/17/2008 @ 09:19am
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/17/2008 @ 09:47am

I doubt that you know more about the Federal Reserves than I do. The Federal Reserve, itself, states it has four functions: monetary policy that is the major government instrument for controlling the economy, regulating banks, maintaining stability of financial markets, and handling the nation's payments.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/mission/default.htm

Feel free to discuss what expertise you have regarding the Federal Reserve and why you assume that you can make an appeal to your authority - and further make claims about what I know, or don't, about it.

Posted by FREIHEIT 04/17/2008 @ 10:02am

First, I didn't even talk about growth. I talked about profits.

Second, business growth can be fueled by many things other than consumer demand, particularly in monopolistic, duopolistic, or oligopolic markets where there are no ready substitutes, competing business interests collude, and what have you. Most markets aren't free markets - which are primarily commodity markets.

The mistake you make, time and time again, is this assumption that free markets are some how typical. They aren't. You also assume they are good, and there are many situations where free markets are not good - one reason among many, competition has costs.

I know enough about economics to know not to get my information from the likes of Krugman, Greider, or Sowell. Maybe you should try Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus's Economics to get a better grasp of the fundamentals before eating the regurgitations of writers filtering economic theory thorough their biases.

Posted by srjenkins at 04/17/2008 @ 12:23pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/17/2008 @ 1:13pm

Economics is the standard in basic economics textbooks, and it has been for years.

Posted by srjenkins at 04/17/2008 @ 6:50pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 04/18/2008 @ 03:05am

If memory serves, it was Malthus that was the reason economics is called the dismal science.

I didn't have time to respond at length before, but I think the crux of the matter is that since you subscribe to an alternative viewpoint, it is incumbent upon you to establish your case. What are the problems with the present system? What are your solutions to them?

I used the Federal Reserve site to point out the fact that monetary policy is the primary tool the government uses to influence the economy - particularly as it relates to jobs, growth rates and so forth. Without such mechanisms in place, you have boom and bust cycles that characterized the American economy - pretty much to the Great Depression. So, you have to provide some kind of argument about how you would address this problem without using something like the Federal Reserve. You didn't do this.

It's fine to be critical of the Fed. I'm not particularly fond of the institution myself. But, I also know that most people's criticisms are both facile and don't provide any real solutions to the problems the Fed addresses.

Now, to your specific questions:

So, SR, you mean to tell me you base your opinion on corporate governance and societal impact on the writings of Paul A. Samuelson?

No. I am saying you should understand economics better, and you should use a standard text before moving on to alternative theories. Particularly, you need to focus on the economics of markets that can't be characterized as "free". You try to apply "free market" principles to every problem - either not understanding or ignoring the problem that these markets are not free and that free markets aren't the end all to be all. That is to say they have problematic aspects just like every other kind of market.

One area we differ greatly on is perception of the Federal Reserve's role.

The Federal Reserve controls monetary policy. This is a fact, and it isn't debatable. This control gives it the ability to influence the economy. Now, whether this is a good thing or not - is debatable. I am sympathetic to both pro and con arguments on the matter, and don't have an agenda one way or another on it. If there is a better solution, I'd support it.

However, your comments and criticism suggests that you are trying to debate these rather straight-forward facts rather than the merits or demerits of it. If so, then it is YOU that needs to make the arguments. Answering a question such as: "What is it about a "banking cartel" that makes it so that what I'm saying is not true" would be one example of how you could actually establish a position.

The only argument you are offering is some kind of questioning of the authority of the source. I see it as akin to my saying something like, "Hey, you got that information about the earth revolving around the sun from NASA." If I were to believe something like a "flat earth" theory. Trying to cast doubt on the sources or knowledge another person - without using any facts, putting together an argument or establishing a credible position for yourself - suggests to me that you don't have much supporting your opinion, and thus, don't present a particularly compelling case for it.

Posted by srjenkins at 04/18/2008 @ 1:47pm