MichaelFauntroy.com

What Obama's Money Really Means

It may be over before it starts. All the talk of a titanic battle for the Democratic Party presidential nomination may not match the actual contest. That is because Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s rocketship ride to the top of America’s political consciousness is picking up steam. The reports that he raised $25 million from his official announcement on February 10^th through the end of March have sent much of the punditocracy and the bloggerazzi into collective head scratching mode trying to figure out what this means. Is Obama is more than just a good speech, dashing figure, and compelling personal story? What does all this mean for Hilary and the Clinton army? Is it just a two person race? My only wonder is what his money will do to, not for, his candidacy.

Obama definitely opened some eyes with his number. More impressive than the total dollar amount is the total number of donors. His 100k donors means that the number of people who reached the legal limit ("maxed out") is small; amazingly, 90 percent of his donors gave less than $100. The legal limit is $2,300 for the primary campaign, and another $2,300 for the general election, so he can go back to the overwhelming majority of his supporters throughout the campaign. That’s a good place to be in politics.

The money also poses a quandary. The large amount of campaign contributions from such a vast range of people allows Obama to speak freely in a way that most other big money candidates can’t. The question for me is: Will he use his freedom to speak out forcefully on issues on which most Americans care deeply? Or will he simply play it safe, take few chances, and try to run out the clock to the nomination? The people want the former, but the latter is more the norm for front-runners.

Obama's success is really an expression of public frustration with the political status quo. The current candidates on the Democratic side, many of whom are very well qualified to seek the presidency, all represent different versions of the status quo. Obama’s appearance on the political scene offers hope to millions of Americans who seek something new. How else does one explain his rise to the top of American politics? It can't be about what he has done in office, because he hasn't done anything legislatively to warrant the attention he receives. He’s not closely associated with one particular policy issue and hasn’t established himself as the "go to guy" on anything.

Clinton has to be sick about this. Now, some of her donors are going to give to Obama just to make sure they are on his list in the event that he wins the nomination. That, combined with Obama’s ability to go back to the same donors on numerous occasions throughout the year means that he will be able to raise at least $20 million each quarter for the rest of the race. If Hilary doesn't broaden her donor base (she has a much larger number of maxed out donors), then she will be in trouble and the race could be over before the first ballots are cast.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, Ph.D.

April 8, 2007

Where is the CBC on Iraq Debate?

There has been a tremendous amount of handwringing and discontent about the slowness with which congressional Democrats are moving to end the Iraq War. Some are angry that the Democrats are being tentative about how best to end the war given their recent ascendancy to majority status leading some to wonder what is the point of throwing out the Republicans if the Democrats will show little leadership on this critical issue. This is a time for conscience and character, something Congress needs now more than ever before since Watergate. So where is the Congressional Black Caucus’ – the self-styled "conscience of Congress" – in the debate over the war and the distribution of supplemental funds? The reality is, that with all its vocal opposition to the war, the CBC has not done much to lead Congress and the country out of Iraq.

Legislatively, the CBC’s role is limited because the only way to end the war in the short run is through the appropriations process and this is where the Caucus has little influence. CBC members hold just 5 of the 37 Democratic seats on the full appropriations committee and just one – Sanford Bishop– on the Defense appropriations subcommittee. Bishop isn’t really considered to be a "firestarter" so to speak, so it’s unlikely that there will be a CBC-led push on the sub-committee to cut off funding or place significant constraints thereon. Given that reality, the CBC can only make any headway in the full committee, where long-standing and vocal critics of the Iraq War, most notably California Representative Barbara Lee, sit. While Lee is the most courageous member of Congress on Iraq given her 2002 no vote for authorization, even she can’t bring Congress to its senses. Consequently, there are individual members have show great courage and leadership but the Caucus, as a group, has left much to be desired.

The most respected and experienced members of the Caucus – e.g. John Conyers and Charlie Rangel – don’t chair committees with the authority to end the war. What is left are members who are either conflicted (Rep. Jim Clyburn, who is in the leadership and answerable to Speaker Nancy Pelosi moreso than the Caucus), vocal, correct but, ultimately, seen as marginalized (most notably Reps. Lee and Maxine Waters), and everyone else who opposes the war but struggles to balance that goal with the political/military reality that a hasty exit may make things worse.

The timetable measures that have been offered and talked about problematic because they all engage in congressional micromanaging of the war at one level or another. I spoke recently with a high-ranking Pentagon official who told me that DoD is sick of Bush/neo-con micromanagement and adding Congress to the mix would make everything messier.  While President Bush's consistent failures and incompetence have undermined his credibility and taken away any benefit of the doubt that he might otherwise get, it's not yet clear that Congress will do much better.

All this does give the CBC an opportunity to lead, something the country desperately needs.  Continued Caucus silence, however, gives CBC bashers another opportunity to take a rhetorical bat to the venerable "conscious of the Congress," a group that many feel no longer lives up to its moniker.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, Ph.D. April 5, 2007