Against Philly Against McCain
A week and a half ago Philly for Change announced that from now until the 2008 general election they will effectively be Philly Against McCain. The idea behind PAM seems to be the conviction that McCain would be a continuation of President Bush’s anti-progressive policies and so McCain must be stopped at all costs. To do this, PAM will seek to link McCain to Bush in the minds of swing voters and energize potential volunteers who would otherwise remain uninvolved. Several questions arise, and so again we go with bullet points:
-
The official statement from Philly for Change links the strategy and goals of Philly Against McCain with Ray Murphy’s much publicized Philly Against Santorum movement in 2006. But the circumstances surrounding the 2006 PA Senate race are very different from the circumstances surrounding the 2008 Presidential election. For one thing, under the questionable guidance of Bob Roggio, Bob Casey’s campaign did not have an organized field program in Philadelphia and PAS filled that void. You can bet that the Democratic nominee for President in 2008 will have an organized field program in Philadelphia and so PAM, as they seek to do their own thing, only creates problems for coordinating an organized Democratic field program. Basically, it shows no trust in the Democratic Party and fractures the movement in Philadelphia to elect a Democratic president.
-
In the same vein, you had in Bob Casey a candidate who did not exactly make people excited and energized to volunteer/vote for him, and so launching a negative campaign against his opponent, the clearly evil and dangerous Rick Santorum, was a good strategy to fill that void in the energy of the volunteer base/electorate. The Democratic candidate for President, almost certainly Obama, is probably the opposite of Casey in that he has no problem attracting volunteers and excitement for his candidacy. For Casey a negative campaign against Santorum was probably necessary, but for Obama a positive campaign can do the job.
-
Perhaps most importantly, a cornerstone of Obama’s campaign is that he is taking the high road by not slandering his opponents or engaging in old style divisive and destructive political campaigning. Isn’t a negative campaign like Philly Against McCain just that? Even in rhetoric, doesn’t Philly Against McCain sound a lot like www.againstobama.com and www.againsthillary.com? It seems like a small step from one to the other. Given that our candidate is pushing it, don’t we want to be part of a movement of new politics that seeks to promote a great candidate rather than bash the opponent?
-
The Philly for Change membership did not vote on this – the decision to become Philly Against McCain was decided by the PFC leadership on their own. Do PFC members approve? Does PFC leadership care what the members think? Didn’t PFC endorse Obama a long time ago? Why not just stick to their endorsement and work to support Obama’s campaign? Why make their own splinter group with its own strategy and agenda?
All this seems to point to a suspicion that The Pork Report has had for some time: that what the “Progressive Movement” in Philadelphia really consists of is a small and isolated network of young and ambitious political operatives who are really not much different in their goals and methods than the Pork Grinders they seek to overthrow. The difference is the generation they come from, where rising to the top under the banner of “progressivism” is an acceptable pursuit even if the end result is the same. This is the land of Pork – there are no revolutions, there are only regime changes.
Philly for Change was at its best in the 2006 primaries, when it was recruiting, training, and endorsing party machine-independent Democratic City Committeemen, when it showed unprecedented grassroots muscle with the State Rep campaign of Anne Dicker (whose legacy has already been tainted by recent events), and when it raised money for dark horse candidates like Tony Payton Jr. This was the only time when it looked like anyone outside PFC supported what PFC was doing, and it was doing good things. Supporting the elections of independent Democratic City Committeemen in particular is a relatively small thing that can have a tremendous impact on the political character of Philadelphia, and potentially make a huge change for the better here.
But when “progressive” groups splinter from coordinated positive movements happening in our city to do their own thing for no clear reason, PFC looks a lot like Neighborhood Networks – another group that pounded its chest and waved the banner of “progressivism” and in the end turned out to be just a tool for the political advancement of a few top individuals and showed no real strength, significant base of volunteers, or political clout. This city does not need another rogue political group that actually does not represent anyone, it needs a unified front on the basic issue that we all agree with – electing a Democratic President of the United States. That’s why The Pork Report is for Obama and against Philly Against McCain.
Its an interesting point that the steering committee at PFC embarked on PAM without putting it up to a genreal vote. Its also worthwhile to point out that turnout at the meet-up where PAM was announced drew about twice the average turnout and the crowd was pretty thunderingly in approval of PAM.
In other words, blog posts and emails about the PAM strategy in advance of the meet-up helped drum up more classic PFC activist enthusiasm than has been seen since the mayoral primary. PAM has every indication of making PFC more, not less relevant, while we wait for the endorsement to be settled. And it would pass a general vote without question.
So count me Against Against Philly Against McCain
seand
May 22, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Re: seand
Your comment underscores exactly what’s wrong with PFC and PAM right now. If the goal of PAM is to draw more members to PFC meetings, then PAM is a success. If the goal of PAM is to elect a Democratic president and make a better Philadelphia, then PAM is a failure.
How can Obama be the candidate representing a new politics that rejects divisive attacks when we’ve got Philly Against McCain doing just that? It’s a hypocritical message from Democrats when that’s the last thing Democrats need right now.
You keep trying to make PFC more relevant. I’ll keep trying to do what’s best for Philadelphia.
The Pork Report
May 22, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I sit on both the Philly for Change Steering Committee, and have not bought into the “Philly Against McCain” (PAM) concept.
The Obama campaign is everything a group of “Deaniacs” could have ever wanted in form and function, and Philly for Change has not fully embraced it. The Dean campaign had and Democracy for America has talked so much about community empowerment, and the Obama campaign is doing just that. I have had the privilege of being an Obama trainer, and faciliated several neighborhood groups where political activists from difference backgrounds and varying levels of experience have realized their potential to make change in their communities.
I’ve agreed to keep an open mind until the PAM field campaign is presented to the Steering Committee. We’ve been told that PAM will target areas in the outer wards and suburbs where Obama underperformed or had weak suppoprt in the primary. Good intent…but my initial response was that these are the very places where we need activists to beef up the Obama neighborhood teams, so the burden of proof that PAM will add more value than folding in with Obama teams is high, in my opinion.
Keith Campbell
May 27, 2008 at 9:48 am
I meant to say “I sit on both the Philly for Change Steering Committee, and the Philly for Obama Steering Committee”.
For full disclosure =)
KC
Keith Campbell
May 27, 2008 at 9:50 am
Democratic Under-performance and Activist Development is a challenge and an opportunity for those who want to change direction in this country and Commonwealth. Philly for Change, or any group, is only as relevant as it’s service to it’s vision. …and in the 2008 general election, the vision is clear: To get Democrats elected at all levels of government, and to build a lasting base of activists who will organize for progressive change on an on-going basis.
When I ran for chair of Philly for Change in January, I had two goals in mind for 2008 election year: (1) to train more activists region-wide, with an emphasis toward on-going progressive community organizing, (2) to help reduce the problem of Democratic “underperformance” in Philadelphia’s outer wards, and suburbs such as Eastern Delaware County and Lower Bucks — in support of candidates up and down the ballot.
During the January Steering Committee retreat / election session, I found that while the other Steering Committee members supported the goals, there did not appear to be the support structure within the committee nor the organization to accomplish them. They we’re also not fully committed to being a regional organization, at the time. (…and the question is still out for discussion at a June Steering Committee retreat, more to come) Knowing the importance of working toward these goals in an election year, and seeing a competent chair candidate in David Sternberg, I withdrew from the chair race and supported Mr. Sternberg. I went forward to focus my energies most of 2008 to-date, on training Obama volunteers, and supporting Obama teams in Camden County and Lower Bucks in the NJ and PA primaries, respectively.
Going forward into the general, I’m open to new and creative ways to build the Democratic Party, and the liberal movement, especially in area where we’ve been weak. At this time, I still see it more productive to go to Drexel Hill, Bensalem, or Mayfair wearing an Obama t-shirt, instead of a “Philly Against McCain” t-shirt. I am keeping an open mind, but it will take a lot to change it.
Keith Campbell
May 27, 2008 at 11:12 am
I agree and I don’t. Are you guys over reading a little possibly?
The Obama campaign will be completely retooling itself after Denver. It has to. At this point there is no way Clinton doesn’t try to wrestle something out of Obama, unfortunately. Most likely I think it will be money out of the DNC to help retire her debt which is sad because ultimately its a form of extortion “Give me cash or I will quietly encourage my supporters to stay home” and hurts Dems in the big picture. Anyhoo thats another story.
Is PAM anything more formed than a chance to get a drop on half the work of Nov. without going out of our way at alienating the Clinton supporters amongst us? If you would prefer to only talk about national politics and be Obama 24-7 right now dammit, go for it. I think PAM as it was laid out in Sam’s original piece was a chance to get a jump on the half the work we can do now together, nothing more, nothing less. PFC has its own identity, its own strengths and weaknesses – no candidate should wholly rely on it – but the work it does to connect building real democracy nationally to local issues is part of its core mission.
Planning ahead for joint canvassing, media events, message development, working up argument builders – there is no reason why PFC can’t work on developing that stuff right now with a little bit of homegrown flavor. PAM is catch phrase to encapsulate that effort. I think you guys are overthinking the “branding” a little too much. Wearing Obama shirts and working on something called Philly Against McCain is hardly an “either or” situation, its a “and also”. In terms of working more regionally, pushing out more into the Bensalems, Drexel Hills, Mayfairs – I think that you are making a fight that isn’t there on that front. I think the PAM-ers explicitly agree with you on that one. That is where the most work needs to be done at this point in time.
Plus PAM must be doing something right because the concept immediately pissed off a lot of my Republican blogger friends to no end.
seand
May 28, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Um “doing whats best for Philly” sounds nice rhetorically but what does it mean? McCain’s strategy will be two parts from here on out.
1. I’m not really Bush (but if you are a diehard conservative I’m damn close – otherwise its Bush who?)
2. I’m experienced, Obama is naive. I’m really more “change”, more “anti-gridlock” than a lliberal like him is.
Building up your anti-McCain arsenal right now is job one because rest assured they are building up their anti-Obama material like nobodies business.
seand
May 28, 2008 at 7:00 pm
This post is doubly silly.
1. If you think we can win this year without going negative on the Republican candidate for President, you are wrong. Every presidential election is, in large part, a referendum on the incumbent president. Ideally it should be more than that and the candidate seeking to replace the incumbent should present a vision of the future that lifts people up. But it can’t just be such a vision. Political scientist have shown for fifty years that many people vote retrospectively.
2. Your comment about Neighborhood networks is totally gratuitous and false. NN has been successfully involved in many issue campaigns over the last three years from the ethics reform charter changes to the minimum wage to the transit funding to, at a few points, casinos. That work has been as if not more important than our electoral work for various candidates. One of those candidates came from the NN leadership, me. Other candidates we worked hard forIrc , including other at larger council candidates and Ackelsburg and Jesse Brown in the 8th district. NN was an important part of my campaign and of those other campaigns. That we lost had a lot more to do with lack of money than lack of strong supporters from NN.
Marc Stier
May 29, 2008 at 9:15 am
Sam Durso, Philly for Change’s Electoral Action Coordinator, gave a great presentation last night at the Philly for Change Steering Committee, on a potential Philly Against McCain field plan. As promised, I asked hard questions on why a “Philly Against McCain” strategy may be appropriate for areas where Obama under-performed in the primary.
Mr. Durso also emphasized that the effort will be pro-Obama (and support other Democratic candidates) at the end of the day, yet will take a unique approach.
Sam was very upfront that many of the outer wards will be challenging to canvass, but that such effort was worthwhile. Sam Durso is a skilled field operative, with diverse field experience and a good estimation of the nuances of this region.
It’s still early, and the “look and feel” of the overall Democratic field effort is still in flux. Given that many variables are still to be determined, I will be cautious in concluding at this time. I have, however, pledged to Sam, and to Philly for Change, that I will help the organization fully explore this option.
I welcome your comments, as we walk the path toward taking our country back.
In Solidarity,
Keith Campbell
keith.j.campbell@gmail.com
Keith Campbell
May 29, 2008 at 11:35 am
Re: Marc Stier
In response to the two issues that you raised:
1. This isn’t about going negative or not going negative. This is about a delicate balance between the good side of political involvement where activists want to get involved and make an impact, and the bad side of political involvement where activists want to do it their own way for their own ends to the ultimate detriment of the common cause. The Obama campaign’s message and strategies are everything that so called “progressives” could ever ask for. Why are they splintering to do their own thing? When you were running for City Council last year would you have wanted a splinter group knocking on doors with a negative off-message pitch about your opponents? Wouldn’t you think that they would join your campaign and help you in any way they could if getting you elected was what they really actually wanted?
2. The comment about Neighborhood Networks was not gratuitous or false. What does NN do that Philly for Change does not? What is the purpose of NN when we already have PFC? “Too many splinters weakens the bat” is ultimately what happens, because everybody wants their shot at being a candidate, the leaders are more concerned about their own ambitions than our common goals, and this city is the worse for it. Both NN and PFC are progressive/liberal good government groups that take the same progressive stands on the same issues and use very similar strategies. Their common mission is very admirable. The difference between NN and PFC is not an ideological difference but rather a difference in the constellations of personal ambitions that they revolve around. Can this possibly be good for the progressive movement in Philadelphia? If so, please explain how.
The Pork Report
May 29, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Actually the differences are generational. The PfC folks are in their 20s and 30s. NN folks are in their 40s, 50s, and earlhy 60s. ADA folks are 60 and up with the exception of some of the new people they recently recruited.
There is also some difference in what we drink. PfC folks drink beer. NN folks drink coffee and cheap wine. ADA folks drink expensive wine.
PfC folks walk people to the polls. NN folks drive people to the polls. ADA folks are mostly driven to the polls.
There is also some difference in how we are organized and work. PfC uses the brigade model: They send people out to different campaigns around the city. NN uses the ward / division model. Most of our folks work in their own division. We in NN think that this ultimately will help us change the political structure of the city. But sometimes we send our members outside our districts. And PfC has an interest in electing Democratic Committeepeople. ADA has not done any serious organizing in about thirty years.
It would make sense to say that personal ambition was the source of the differences between PfC and NN if we endorsed different candidates. More often than not, we don’t. I got more votes than anyone else at the PfC meeting that endorsed at-large candidates. And I was the first at-large candidate endorsed by NN. NN and PfC both endorsed Anne Dicker for State Senate, although there was a Farnese contingent in NN, too. If I remember correctly NN and PfC endorsed Maria Quinones-Sanchez and Vern Anastasio as well.
ADA has been a little different but that’s mostly because of personal pique at Stan Shapiro for discussing the idea of NN with them and then deciding to create a separate organization. There is still resentment of NN and some NN founders because of that.
I’d like to see all three organizations merge. Perhaps if we can agree on an organizing model and what to drink–and if the new blood in ADA actually makes that organization useful again–we will. At any rate NN and PfC (and Philly Now which is a strong organization and also endorsed me and Anne Dicker) meet from time to time together to coordinate some of our work.
Right now, however, that is not a top priority for any of us. And it’s not because, contgrary to what you say, most of us don’t see problems that have arisen because of the existence of these separate organizations.
Marc Stier
June 11, 2008 at 4:45 pm
In response to your first question, sometimes it is useful for organizations to arise that give a different message than the official campaign. In particular, most candidates don’t want to go negative especially if they are presenting a positive hopeful campaign message.
That was certainly the case for my campaign. You will recall that my campaign theme was The Poitics of Hope. (Hannah Miller and I were on to hope long before Barack ) There was a moment when I was strongly tempted to go negative against Bill Green, however. But it would have been deadly for my campaign to do so. If some other organization had done so, however, I would not have complained.
Marc Stier
June 11, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Just catching up.
Marc’s posts above are excellent and I don’t have much to add except what is essentially a point of personal privilege. I don’t know if people in ADA are upset with me because I allegedly took the NN concept away from them, but if they are, it’s not what happened. ADA didn’t want to develop the idea that became NN, and it’s at that point that it became clear to me that I would have to develop it independently. Presumably the Board was OK with that because ADA contributed $500 toward the costs of our Founding Conference.
This is just to set the record straight. ADA obviously had every right to be skeptical of the ward and division structure I proposed. It wasn’t then and isn’t easy now to maintain. But it was ADA’s decision, not mine, that led to the separate organization.
Stan Shapiro
July 8, 2008 at 4:07 pm