> Glen Ford, Adolph Reed and others insist that there is no "movement"
> in the way lefties usually mean, only people voting for, and affixing
> their hopes to a "good man" who promises "change". I'm sure there are
> people who'd argue that Sen. Clinton's supporters are part of a
> movement too. But none of us are buying that. Why do we think the
> word applies to the corona circling the Obama campaign?
What do "lefties usually mean" by a "movement"? Only those which occur outside of the mass parties and the electoral system, where demonstrations replace votes as the instrument of change? I see these forms of protest as complementary rather than contradictory, and, as I noted earlier, so do the vast majority of those involved in the popular organizations. The McCarthy campaign and Rainbow Coalition were widely seen as electoral "movements" - what characteristics did they have that the Obama campaign doesn't? Anyway, this is quibbling. However you want to label the two campaigns, it's the issues which separate them which should define our relation to them.
> ...I think there's
> evidence that, at the highest level and well before the "rank and
> file" got involved, some key people changed their minds about who was
> "inevitable"...To H. Clinton's continuing dismay, the "insurgency" started
> within
> elite circles. Indeed, it was the funds initially provided by those
> Dolce wearing, Gulfstream G550 flying 'guerrillas' that made it
> possible for Sen. Obama to get his stylish message out to the rank and
> file.
My understanding is that, like the earlier Dean campaign, the impetus for the Obama campaign came from the bottom up, from from Democratic party supporters at the "netroots" bitterly opposed to Clinton for her stance on Iraq and by temperment inclined to look for candidates from outside "the establishment" - where the Clintons stood at the apex.
It's easy to see how Obama, a hip young black NGO-type with a clean record on Iraq, a newcomer rather than an insider like the other candidates save Kucinich and Gravel, could appeal to them. It's seems incredulous that "key people" at the "highest level" favoured Clinton over Obama BEFORE Obama demonstrated his ability to energize the base, and, more important still, to excite and draw masses of young people into the party. You suggest there's "evidence" to about the elite's prior involvement. Kindly refer us to it. Meantime, I'll continue to rely on the portrait of the campaign drawn by those like Julio and Charles who have first-hand knowledge of it to the Clinton and Republican talking points you repeat about it being the plaything of privileged wine- and latte-sipping liberals sporting Dolces and Gulfstreams.
.