Obama's Political Capital

After years of secrecy, Barack Obama's aides are finally dishing on the most powerful asset in his campaign arsenal.

Obama's aides always refused to discuss the campaign's massive email network, which shattered fundraising records and recruited the largest fleet of volunteers in the history of American politics. In 2004, John Kerry's list hit three million, and some estimated Obama's list could top five million. That would make it double the size of the largest email lists in U.S. politics, including older web groups like MoveOn. It turns out those estimates weren't even close.

Obama's list now tops a whopping ten million people, according to today's Washington Post.

The article does not directly attribute that figure to anyone. The same paragraph cites "senior aides," however, to report that the list is so financially valuable that it was "briefly offered" as loan "collateral during a cash-flow crunch." A source in a position to know also told me that the email list has reached eleven million people.

So how did this information go from the Democratic Party's best kept secret to an announcement in The Washington Post?

Because now, Obama's team wants everyone to know. The massive list of energized activists is the biggest stick Obama will carry in Washington.

It enables direct communication at a remarkable scale. The next President can instantly address 16 percent of his national supporters, based on the popular vote. To put it another way, the list dwarfs the audience of all the nightly cable news shows combined.

So even after the gauzy honeymoon talk fades, when people start second-guessing how much "political capital" Obama really has, there will be this resilient network of people committed to enacting the Obama agenda. In a policy fight with Congress -- or a message battle with the press -- these are the people that will take action to get Obama's back. They will call their neighbors, or their members of Congress. They'll knock on doors, or storm local meetings. They'll write letters to the editor or, naturally, email and prod their networks. They can also hold Obama accountable, of course, by using the same networked technology to pressure the new administration. Peter Daou, a web strategist and former adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign, raised that prospect in the article:

...Obama faced an intense backlash when he [changed his position on] the issue of immunity for telecommunications companies that took part in the warrantless wiretapping program. "People who have helped you reach this historic goal by self-organizing can also organize in opposition to your policies," [Daou] said.

Obama supporters converted his website into a protest hub against his FISA position last summer, a presidential campaign first that drew coverage from blogs, The Nation, and ultimately traditional media. They can swiftly organize again. I think it will be even easier now, because traditional journalists are ready to jump on these kind of stories, and media coverage is crucial to growing net movements. Activism focused on pushing Obama, however, is not likely to be an immediate priority. After all, supporters are energized by this victory, and there is a broad consensus on the short-term priorities of the economy and Iraq. (One current effort to rally online opposition to one of the more controversial names floated for Obama's cabinet, Larry Summers, has hardly gained any traction.) Far beyond base activists, the new administration also has an opportunity to tap technology for a more open, transparent and interactive government.(I plan to explore that potential in an upcoming magazine article).

Obama's email network is especially intriguing for governance, however, because it has the potential of acting as both his most powerful grassroots tool and the most visible check on a President at the helm of one-party government.

Comments (42)

1. It also has the potential to be the central front of Chum-talk. Let us be on guard for any more nonsense like his flaccid reasoning to give immunity to those that broke basic laws.

   Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 07:23am

2. amen brother.

   Posted by Truthman at 11/10/2008 @ 08:35am

3. I bet he has 10 million email addresses. I know for a fact that he has three of mine.

   Posted by cvcobb01 at 11/10/2008 @ 08:36am

4. The "60 Minutes" piece last night shows how doomed McCain was from the start.

   That campaign was as tight and strategic thinking as it comes.

   While Maverick was relying on the old Karl Rove playbook of negative campaigning and trying to win the OLD "battlegrounds"....Obama and his team created a plan that let them in places like North Carolina and Indiana...and kept McCain to the nearly the margin of error in Georgia and ARIZONA!

   You think Romney or even Bobby Jindel is going to be able to come up with something like that in 2012???

   Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 08:59am

5. Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 08:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

   hard to imagine now.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2008 @ 09:58am

6. Sarah will read every item she can find about Obamas administrative success, and in 2012 will create a juggernaut of prophectic proportions.

   And, she will do it free from the influence of druids, witches and other assorted miscreants that Obama relied on for his win.

   Posted by crabwalk at 11/10/2008 @ 10:17am

7. >>>You think Romney or even Bobby Jindel is going to be able to come up with something like that in 2012???

   Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 08:59am<<<

   Not Romney, but watch Jindal - he is extremely smart, creative, and non-ideological when it benefits him.

   Posted by Metteyya at 11/10/2008 @ 10:30am

8. 'Because now, Obama's team wants everyone to know. The massive list of energized activists is the biggest stick Obama will carry in Washington.'

   Sorry to be cynical, but I think the relevance of "energized activists" will fade except as an Obama spam list.... perhaps they will become more relevant again as the next election cycle draws near. Rahm Emanuel, an architect of the 2006 Democrats Mandate for Change (out of Iraq, hold Bush & Co. accountable, restore fiscal responsibility, etc., apparently has a different time table in mind than the "energized activists." The Audacity of Hope springs eternal.

   "Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste," Mr. Emanuel said in an interview on Sunday. "They are opportunities to do big things."

   NY Times 11/09/08 - Jeff Zeleny - "Obama Weighs Quick Undoing of Bush Policy'

   What Mr. Emanuel failed to mention, was his own and his party's contribution to the "crisis."

   Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 10:55am

9. Not Romney, but watch Jindal - he is extremely smart, creative, and non-ideological when it benefits him.

   Posted by Metteyya at 11/10/2008 @ 10:30am | ignore this person | warn this person

   Romney won't make it. New face of the Republicans - guys like Jindal.

   Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 10:56am

10. Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 10:56am

    Agreed, look for a subset of repubs to resurrect the policies of Fiorello La Guardia. Jindal may move in that direction.

    Posted by Sorelish at 11/10/2008 @ 11:20am

11. I am a German citizen living in Germany and therefore I will obviously have no impact on US politics. But still I recieved countless emails by Barack Obama - and it's been flattering how he adressed me on an almost intimate level, even though he didn't appear to know me very well, as he has asked me to help in ways I could never possibly help from over here. From what I hear all around Europe, thousands and thousands of journalists, politicians, community organizers, American Studies students and afficionados of any other kind are in his database to learn about his quite revolutionary approach, some of them have donated money, many of them pretend to have an American residence when in fact they have not. So my rough estimate would be a six-figure number of foreigners from all over the world added to those multiple-registrants mentioned by cvcobb01. But those foreigners, some of them opinion leaders in their respective countries, may of course be a powerful resource in international affairs.

    Posted by HeinzZweiDrei at 11/10/2008 @ 11:54am

12. Agreed, look for a subset of repubs to resurrect the policies of Fiorello La Guardia. Jindal may move in that direction.

    Posted by Sorelish at 11/10/2008 @ 11:20am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yes....the repubs will adopt a "me-too" strategy depending on how the politcal winds are blowing. (Remember McCain was an agent of change too....lol). A strategy of increased state's rights and authority, smaller Federal government (ho-ho), and fiscal responsibility and accountability is an alternative I think likely, based on the likelihood of mediocre performance of Dems over the next four years. In any event, there will be too much residual "bad taste" in the mouth of voters for the failed cast of the 2008 Repub Campaign for a resurgence of that cast in 2012 - rightfully so. Look for Repubs to field articulate and intelligent candidates that focus on rational politics, that offer a "change" from past.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 11:56am

13. Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 11:56am

    Great analysis. Think the repubs are going to be rather mum on the "privatization" process at this point also.

    Posted by Sorelish at 11/10/2008 @ 12:16pm

14. Great analysis. Think the repubs are going to be rather mum on the "privatization" process at this point also.

    Posted by Sorelish at 11/10/2008 @ 12:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yes indeed! A 'wait and see' approach is definitely called for at this point.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 12:19pm

15. Posted by Metteyya at 11/10/2008 @ 10:30am

    Problem for Jindal is...how do the GOP that just got their "Obama's a Muslim" mouth-breathers...

    to vote for an Indian-American who's real name is "Piyush Jindal"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 12:46pm

16. Look, Mr. Nichols, our party may have old politicians, but we have much better ideas. Make no mistake, Obama won by sheer default.

    So yeah, we missed the opportunity to restructure our offensive line in the offseason and whip our defensive line back into shape. Our rankings are always top tier, but after a couple of losses in 2006, our rankings started to slip. Since then, our run(s) to the Rose Bowl, has been fraught with injuries, bad attitudes, misconduct, missed plays and worst of all, our QB got convicted of owning pit bulls. Now it's back to square one, starting with sacking the coach, the offensive coordinator, and the GM. And most likely we'll have to cut several players from the 1st and 2nd string too. We have a lot of work to do, but we will most certainly reclaim our championship status in 2012.

    ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!

    Posted by ACook at 11/10/2008 @ 1:07pm

17. Look, Mr. Nichols, our party may have old politicians, but we have much better ideas. Make no mistake, Obama won by sheer default.

    Posted by ACook at 11/10/2008 @ 1:07pm

    Do you know the meaning of objective?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/10/2008 @ 1:11pm

18. Let me get this straight: Barack Obama runs for re-election in 2012 vs. Piyush Jindal? The melting pot is bubbling over.

    Posted by samsung955rep at 11/10/2008 @ 1:13pm

19. Problem for Jindal is...how do the GOP that just got their "Obama's a Muslim" mouth-breathers...

    to vote for an Indian-American who's real name is "Piyush Jindal"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 12:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Or a Mormon named Romney? Catch the wave...."eccentric" names are in....like Rahm Israel Emanuel.....(just kidding)....

    Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 1:24pm

20. He needs to engage the email list openly on what they want, like what we're doing at White House 2. http://whitehouse2.org/

    Here's why... The site makes it quite clear to people that there's a give and take in order to get things done. For instance, there is a battle right now between Obama's official plan of "quality, affordable" health care and "universal, single-payer" health care. This lack of consensus is apparent to anyone involved. If they want to move health care to the top of the list, they have to come together and agree. Otherwise, their votes get split amongst the two, and a 'responsible, phased withdrawal from iraq' is priority #1 instead.

    He will be tempted to simply push his own proposals on his website, and hide proposals from citizens behind a private feedback form, like currently at c hange.gov, but by allowing these disagreements to emerge publicly, it will actually help him build consensus.

    With this openness, I believe he can get an enormous amount accomplished.

    Posted by jgilliam at 11/10/2008 @ 1:33pm

21. Do you know the meaning of objective?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/10/2008 @ 1:11pm

    Sure!

    Objective: throw the dems out in 2012.. :-)

    Posted by ACook at 11/10/2008 @ 2:00pm

22. While it is not a tool that will respond on command, it would be useful to Obama in rallying the base on popular issues. He could, if necessary, bring additional pressure on Congress to pass his programs. You will recall that the people against Immigration Reform shut down the Congressional phone system, when it came up for a vote. While, he would , of course, pay attention to the voting public, international contacts would provide useful opinion and information. I read Haaretz, and Al-Jazeera, along with watching BBC America to get information not available through the tightly controlled American media. One of the first Web site I used on the Web was congress. org. to contact my elected representatives. The Nation needs to go after an international audience.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/10/2008 @ 2:21pm

23. What are our expectations of Barack? I have no doubt he has clear plans for the network of voters he organized as a vice to slam through legislation. He called on us to support him but, with which policy. Can it be assumed this was a mandate for socialized health care or an end to the Iraq war or both? Just what is it that the electorate has a consensus on? When Obama hits the usual foils to the progressive cause, who's going to keep Obama on task? Is it really to be expected of the masses to organize and mobilize itself to push the issues. I'm still very skeptical. I already see a backfire with the passing of California's Prop. 8, amending it's constitution to only recognize the marriage of a man and a woman. I'm willing to bet there are more than just a few gay activists that are much chagrin about working so hard for Obama's campaign, when it was the very influx of those black voters that passed the proposal. This network Obama designed is a savvy political tool. My fervent hope is that he's the man he lead us to believe he is. Moreover, I hope he's the man I projected him to be.

    Posted by OccidentalPeninsular at 11/10/2008 @ 4:00pm

24. Posted by ACook at 11/10/2008 @ 1:07pm

    ACOOK, you predicted Obama would lose...

    now you tell us he won a "false victory"!

    Doesn't that seem a BIT dishonestly partisan???

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 4:20pm

25. Jindal is not an option either. Just like SP some of his religious antics(exorcism) are not going to be well received in the conservative GOP world.

    Posted by lvdragonlady at 11/10/2008 @ 5:00pm

26. now you tell us he won a "false victory"!

    Doesn't that seem a BIT dishonestly partisan???

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 4:20pm

    It is a default victory and no it's not dishonest. The people didn't have any good choices to start with. Both parties backed two of the weakest and most feeble candidates that I've ever seen. However, I must commend you Dems for moving quickly after founding out key GOP players weren't going to run. Had they stayed, we would have cleaned your clocks.... :-)

    And don't be surprised to see a much better Dem and GOP candidate take on Obama in 2012.

    Posted by ACook at 11/10/2008 @ 5:21pm

27. He has to walk the fine line of being a "pure Reagan conservative"...but avoiding the nutty social policy moves.

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 4:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I think you are correct that rather than completely abandoning the "lets not separate church and state" crowd, the Repub strategy will be to leave them at the alter, with no one to turn to but the apparent nominee. Wonder if Huckabee is still interested? Infinitely better grounded and intelligent compared to Palin, but have you seen any of his stuff on Fox News lately? Yuuuucccckkkk.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 5:44pm

28. It is a default victory and no it's not dishonest. The people didn't have any good choices to start with. Both parties backed two of the weakest and most feeble candidates that I've ever seen. However, I must commend you Dems for moving quickly after founding out key GOP players weren't going to run. Had they stayed, we would have cleaned your clocks.... :-) And don't be surprised to see a much better Dem and GOP candidate take on Obama in 2012. Posted by ACook at 11/10/2008 @ 5:21pm

    I would say the Repubs backed the best person they could. His campaign was run terribly but he was the only chance they had. If they would have backed someone anymore Republican you would have gotten your clocks cleaned. The Dem's had a choice of interesting candidates. Say what you want. Deny your loss all you want but frankly the best candidate you could have thrown out because of his "maverickiness" which is exactly what all you Repubs were saying at the beginning of the race got beat. Keep your denial if you want but all I heard at the beginning of the race was that McCain was the best choice for you guys because he was center right instead of far right. Now all of a sudden he was the worst choice. Please.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/10/2008 @ 8:37pm

29. And don't be surprised to see a much better Dem and GOP candidate take on Obama in 2012.----Posted by ACook at 11/10/2008 @ 5:21pm

    "Dem"? You expect him to face a primary challenger as incumbent President??!?!??

    And what Repub?

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 10:04pm

30. Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 5:44pm

    Again, Romney's problem may be...how many LVLIB "Mormonphobes" are out there in the Religious Right? Substantial or is Larry an anomaly?

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 10:05pm

31. I've been reading about the GOP's demise since the election.

    So what in the hell is everyone talking about the 2012 election for?

    There will be none!

    Obama baby, 538 electoral votes.

    Posted by bleedingheart at 11/10/2008 @ 11:01pm

32. With all the talk about the government giving General Motors $$$ to (as GM says "at the very least have working capital, to stay in business") keep them solvent... how about getting that money from the freakin' oil companies, instead of the American taxpayers!!! After all, the oil companies are no better than co-conspirators with the auto makers in killing the electric car. (If you haven't ever seen it, watch the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html). After stopping production on electric cars (granted, just one of many fuel conservation options) and recalling/destroying all existing models... the auto makers continued to crank out more giant gas-guzzling SUVs and Hummers -- even as they became more and more less viable. The oil companies are making billions, if not trillions, in profits. If their partner in crime (GM) needs a handout... let the $$$ come from oily pockets!!! Whatever happened to the proposed Windfall Profit Tax (for the oil companies) that was mentioned in Congress not too long ago??? Did it just vanish, without any action??? Has anyone else thought of this possibility to "save" GM???

    Posted by bragawave at 11/11/2008 @ 12:35am

33. Posted by bleedingheart at 11/10/2008 @ 11:01pm

    BL, your cover is blown.

    Posted by Mask at 11/11/2008 @ 07:24am

34. "Dem"? You expect him to face a primary challenger as incumbent President??!?!??

    And what Repub?

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 10:04pm

    Yes and I don't have a crystal ball.

    Posted by ACook at 11/11/2008 @ 1:49pm

35. I do believe a lot of Obama's political capital; its gains and milage, will be dependent on the perception that:

    1. economy is getting better, jobs increase

    2. torture, Gitmo, Iraq- obamanos

    3. fairness seen in corporations/ecology/labor

    4. DoJ cleaned up

    5. health and education for middle class and vet's improves

    6. far right new con repubs marginalized by moderates in GOP.

    If done thusly, as there is every indication Obama will do-- GOP will more likely want to wait, organize and plan for 2016. Anything the repubs can paste together with Elmer's glue for '012 will be deep 6, fall apart; just look all the more desperate and disorganized. Best the GOP accept that they're their own worst enemy and clean house for the next few years before attempting to storm an imaginary liberal bastille with a following more concerned with their own soiled panties.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/11/2008 @ 2:15pm

36. And here's one for ksaM-- cultists:

    http://tinyurl.com/53ry3c

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/11/2008 @ 3:39pm

37. Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2008 @ 5:44pm

    Again, Romney's problem may be...how many LVLIB "Mormonphobes" are out there in the Religious Right? Substantial or is Larry an anomaly?

    Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 10:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    First rule of creating a "base" is uniting the base by the lowest common denominators. Didn't Huckabee poll higher than Romney among evangelicals as I recall?

    Your question about "Mormonphobes" as an unknown contains the answer about Romney being around in 2012 for the presidential election. He won't be. For many in 2008, he could never quite walk that fine line you reference. Repubs are not going to be taking any chances with this issue in 2012 in my humble opinion. Like I said, Repubs will leave them at the alter and the candidate that becomes the nominee will not have troubling issues with regard to separation of church and state in the general.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/11/2008 @ 4:51pm

38. It'll be harder for repubs to mount a credible campaign in '016 if they let new cons run it in '012. Repubs need to clean their house through '012 to have any kind of a reasonable chance in '016.

    Dad always said, "if you don't clean the house-- you can't have a party."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/11/2008 @ 6:19pm

39. Posted by Mask at 11/10/2008 @ 10:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    'The Rev. Huckabee has proved willing to risk his oversold reputation as the "nice" evangelical with a primary strategy that draws attention to his qualifications as a "Christian leader," in contrast to the suspect Mormonism of Romney. Huckabee was honest enough not to deny that he believes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a cult -- and in fact, many if not most of his fellow Southern Baptists regard the LDS church as a satanic cult.

    In response, Romney delivered an address that simultaneously pleaded for religious tolerance and urged intolerance of what he termed the "religion of secularism." The former Massachusetts governor at once declined to discuss the specific dogmas of his own faith while seeking to convince the bigots in his political party that, like them, he accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and his Savior. (Actually, Mormon beliefs about Jesus, which Romney insists he will not abandon, are considerably more complicated than his speech implied and bear little resemblance to the theology of orthodox Christianity.)'

    Excerpt from:

    Source: Romney and Huckabee's Religious Intolerancel, Salon.com, Joe Conason - 12/07/2007

    Say, you aren't trying to convince the Repubs to nominate Romney are you?

    Posted by OneVote at 11/11/2008 @ 7:09pm

40. Except he voted for the FISA bill anyway.

    Posted by Lil at 11/12/2008 @ 1:56pm

41. HeinzZweiDrei

    sehr amusant

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2008 @ 6:12pm

42. He listens to us. Yeah, right. Dream on. We might as well have Hillary Clinton for all of his insider, DLC retread has-been cabinet picks. Rubin & Summers? Rahm Emanuel? Madeline Albright everywhere, Christopher & Nunn? Now Hillary herself as secretary of state. the world rejoices. Not. So, on with all your pep talk and promises to hold his feet to the fire---but not yet--give the guy a chance, although the increasingly oily Obama pronounced it would be a "bottom up" administration. Meanwhile they are stacking the deck and NOT ONE BONE thrown to the people. Oh wait, I understand there is a "progressive liason"--a Clintonista no less, as an Obama outreach on Huffington Post. What a joke. So much for hope and change. Thumbs down.

    Posted by Lil at 11/14/2008 @ 07:39am