Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pay Up or Risk Long Battle, Obama Told
Barack Obama has been warned that his refusal to pay the traditional "street money" to local operatives to help get the vote out in Philadelphia today could cost him the crucial percentage points needed to knock Hillary Clinton out of the race for the White House.
In many of the city's poorer wards, the recipients look forward to these bonuses from Democratic officials - a hangover from the days of the party's old-fashioned machine politics - even though the amounts are relatively small, ranging from $50 to $400.
But as in other contests, Obama is relying on his own army of unpaid volunteers to get the vote out. The Clinton team, meanwhile, is not saying whether it will pay out "street money".
There are 69 wards in Philadelphia and estimates suggest it would cost Obama $400,000-$500,000 to pay the 14,000 people normally required to help get the vote out.
Carol Ann Campbell, an integral part of the city machine, said she expected Obama to win the city, but his failure to pay could cost him the crucial margin needed to force Clinton out of the race for the presidential nomination.
In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer last week, Campbell defended the practice of "street money", saying: "We are a machine town." She added that there was nothing dirty about it. "The committee people and the ward leaders have to buy lunch for hundreds of people, otherwise they won't have good workers. They have to buy coffee, orange juice and doughnuts. That's just the way it is."
Since the start of the primary campaign last year, Obama has avoided using the Democratic machine, on the assumption that it had already been tied up by the Clintons, and instead built up his own volunteer network. He has encouraged his supporters to be self-sufficient, with volunteers bringing dishes into campaign headquarters rather than sending out for meals.
The different approaches have produced a clash of cultures in Philadelphia. Obama's team on the ground is being supplemented by thousands of young supporters who have travelled from Washington, New York and other neighbouring conurbations, watched warily by the locals, some of them resentful about being denied the "street money".
Jeremy Bird, Obama's Pennsylvania field director, told the Los Angeles Times that the campaign had faced a similar predicament in South Carolina over the traditional distribution of money: "We always said that we're not going to do politics the way it's always been done because it's always been done that way."
© 2008 The Guardian
79 Comments so far
Show AllDirty, dirty politics - leave it for the Clintons. They do it so well.
Is this for real? Suddenly I feel like I'm at The Onion, or something. The man's political fortunes rest on his giving money to his supporters? And people admit it? And still think they have a "Strong democratic tradition"? What is this?
If he pays it is saying things are not going to change and if that is what it takes they can piss up a rope! and that is certainly not democracy.Tony
Top 5 (Okay, 6) Reasons for "Supervoters" Why the Clinton "Big State" Strategy and Argument is a House of Cards
1.) It lost the last two elections.
2.) When Bill Clinton, in South Carolina, pushed the double-speak of "Obama-can't-win-but-they-would-make-a-dream- ticket" line, he reasoned it would be because of what he implied was Obama's "urban" draw. Yes. That same old map – with Hillary taking what would be, according to conventional wisdom, Republican territory in a general election. As if Clinton will really compete there. Anyone seen her "negatives" amongst Democrats, let alone Republicans?
3.) This is further undercut by Obama's wins in those "small states." You know, where there are a lot of those "white" working class voters that Clinton says are her "base." Am I missing something here? I don't think there's any reason to doubt Obama is going continue to bring new voters to the polls and pad the popular vote – state by state. ("There are not blue states and red states…there are the United States…blah, blah, blah.")
4.) Clinton's latest double-speak where behind closed doors she continues to say Obama can't win, but when pushed said that not only does Clinton think Obama can beat McCain, but she also said she'll do "anything" she can to make sure a Democrat takes the Whitehouse following November's election. That would make the "Big State" strategy moot anyway, right? I mean, since she'll bring it home for the Dems anyway?
5.) The reason Obama's message has resonated with large chunks of the electorate is because it transcends the micro-poll messaging and targeting that leads to a divided electorate – currently playing itself out with the Clinton "Big State" (and 50% + 1, slash and burn, kitchen sink) strategy in exit polling, showing the same old divides of class, race, gender, religion, region, etc., etc., etc.
6.) Playing devil's advocate (you know, "we're only toughening Obama up for the general when the Republican attack machine really comes after whoever's the nominee") still makes you an advocate for, um, the devil. Uh, did I mention Clinton's negatives?
In the end, what Obama has bet on is that changing the electoral map can transcend what a friend of mine calls the "tyranny of the six percent" (you know – so many agree with you and so many disagree with you and you go after the rest) that leads to micro-poll messaging and targeting and 50 % + 1 tactical elections (oh yeah, and two-party corporate control of the electoral system – oops did I say that?) where solutions and progress get lost in the margins of the "undecideds" and special interests.
This race is down to a debate about strategy. Obama's team has shown throughout the primary campaign that it is clearly better at strategy, and Clinton's house of cards is showing that Obama's strategy is clearly better for the general election.
One of the things that have pushed me onto Obama's side is that he has tried to remain above the fray. If he doesn't pay and loses the primaries at least he is still intact morally for the future. If he pays up and wins the primaries he'll be swift-boated for something, but this would sure stink, especially if true.
But I think it's kind of a fine line. It's ok to pay the TV stations to do their work, but not the street kid to hustle and do his work? Maybe if the street hustlers came up with receipts it would be OK? I'll bet the TV station costs a lot more than all the street hustlers, and might not even be as effective.
How much have either Clinton or Obama spent on TV ads in Pennsylvanian?
Harper was allowed to spend 1.5 Million dollars, in the last election, but spent more than 2.5 Million dollars.
This is considered a big scandal up here since it means that Harper may not have won the last election if he did not resort to dirty tricks. Puts the whole Cadman Affair into perspective and sheds light on Karlheinz Schreiber's assertion that the same kind of stuff is still going on.
Thanks for bringing that up, vaudree, about Harper, that is.
I hope that both Canadians, and Americans, begin to know and care about this. And not just those who believe that "Free Market" means that the positions of rulership area available for purchase to the richest and/or shrewdest buyer.
Yet again, Obama's showing that he's got some stuff. I'm starting to like him.
Clinton will take some of Billy's China money and hand it out on the streets of Philly. The Clintons fully embrace corruption at the lowest level and right up to and including renting out the white house.
Ultimate solution = publicly financed elections. Why has no one mentioned this?
Sometimes Obama doesn't seem all that terrible. I'm still voting 3rd party.
Limbaugh will be happy with the progress of operation chaos.
-James
www.thepoliticus.org
If Clinton is not paying it's because they don't have the money.
Sadly, this is common practice is a lot of east coast towns and cities. I ran into it many years ago in New Jersey where it's called "walking around money." It's how the machine keeps its foot soldiers in line. I think there's another word for it -- bribery.
Street money is not paying the voters, it's paying campaign workers. What's the big deal?
We do this down in New Orleans to.
You can get paid up to $100 to stand on a street corner waving a sign on election day.
I've done it before just for the money. I didn't even know anything about the person who's sign I was waving... Neither did anyone else on the "job".
"We are a machine town... [t]hat's just the way it is."
And with people like that supposedly on our side, we still wonder how broken the system is? I have some small hope that by staying above this, Obama will be able to task whoever is next in charge of the party to start dismantling this criminal enterprise.
I wonder how much money it would take to get Mumia Abu Jamal out of prison? Innocence didn't do it.
I'd chip in.
"a hangover from the days of the party's old-fashioned machine politics"
Obviously, those days haven't ended.
If the campaign was directly paying the workers, that's one thing. The key to watch is the 'middlemen' who are making the threats to the campaign. Its a pretty good guess that some of the money from the campaign goes straight into their pockets without reaching the workers. So, this is more a shakedown at that level than its about the paying of the workers who wear the t-shirts and carry the signs.
Anyone watch 'The Wire' on HBO. Clay Davis had a nice version of this sort of shake-down on that show.
Greed. How rich was the last gambler on the Titanic?
Street money or "walking around money" is kind of like free Thanksgiving turkeys or a Christmas bonus or tipping the refuse man, or anyone who provides a service that is "helpful". As a newcomer to Philadelphia some 30 years ago,I observed that money handouts seem to be one of the patronizing perks of being of the servant class or poor in east coast cities. Major offense is taken if such gratuities are not given.
The problem with this type of thinking and this expectation is clear--voting is not a "service". It is a "right". a "privilege", and a "duty" that we as American citizens have. Persons who expect gratuities see themselves as servants and dependent. Obama needs to frame this in clear language for all people who see themselves as the underclass.
Sounds like protection money to me, extortion.
So these people will just sit around a table banging their fists and chanting, "I want a doughnut." Or they just won't support a candidate unless they get their doughnut. I will keep this in mind the next time I hear about a group of men talking about democracy in Philadelphia.
I hope Obama stands his ground on this issue. Perhaps then we will see what he is really made of. I'm a significant contributor to his campaign since before he announced over 15 months ago and continue to be impressed with his smarts, imagination, and organizational abilities (or David Axelrod's) as well as most of his programs and ideas for the future of the country. If he stands firm and loses PA it will be a significant statement as to the continuing corruption in American politics. However, he should still win the Democratic Party nomination unless the rot demonstrated by the "machine" in Philadelphia carries all the way to the top of the Democrtic National Committee. I met Howard Dean in Austin, TX before the Iowa caucuses in 2003. He was tough and honest. I hope he still is and doesn't allow the good old boy/girl network of the Party to undermine the obvious will of the people around the country.
I seem to remember both campaigns having way more than half a million dollars to spend, I may be wrong.
I get the sense that Clinton seems to rely more on political favors etc etc rather than, or as compared to relativley new Obama who seems to rely more on volunteers (that seems to be to be the biggest difference on the table anyway). What that would seem to translate to is that Clinton would face a hurdle if she won, being that it would seem she got there through "politics" rather than "voters", not that has stopped hardly any elected politician since this country began. And not that these two "choices" are much different (I still am not convinced).
Though, to the "get out the vote" workers-for-doughnuts.... I am reminded of the parable of Loaves & Fishes. Which is not about Jesus magic, but rather about the miracle of charity. If there are a thousand people gathered, and they are selfish, some may eat and some may not, but if they share... viola! everybody eats. Maybe they can use that. Or just buy the frakkin election so I can get back to Idol.
"a machine town"
What a tool - literally.
Obama likes his millions being his own. He wants to be president for his own benefit, and those of his private interest societies.
Why should he lie, and act like he'll do anything for the common people who actually labor?
Oh how I wish that the Reverent Wright were the one running for election, and that there had been controversy over him having had Obama in his parish, instead.
What's wrong with providing coffee, orange juice and lunch for your workers?
It reminds me of calling working people "down-scale" Democrats. It's the same kind of insult. Obama is true to the Republican ideal that work has no value, and people who work for a living are to be held in contempt.
Looks like The Guardian wants a U.S. president who will continue sending young Americans overseas as cannon fodder.
Oh, please. This is not a big deal. Campaigns buy food all the time for their volunteers. Remember Hillary's "pizza bill" from a few months' back?
If friends of yours come by to help you move, or paint the house, or whatever, the right thing to do is buy them lunch, or cook up a few hot dogs and provide a few beers. That's all this is.
I like Obama a lot, but this kind of thing is what is expected, especially in urban areas where people are poor. A coffee & a donut or a slice of pizza when people are hustling to get out the vote for you is not exactly payola, or vote-buying. Calling it "street money," though, gives it kind of a rough-edged connotation, and that might be what is turning some people off.
Philly's "street money" convention appears to hold at least a shred of social justice with election workers extracting a modest concession from the "big wigs" for work that amounts to a civic responsibility but that inevitably benefits the "big wigs" disproportionately. Let O'Bama achieve some mighty shift of wealth distribution proportional to FDR's New Deal and then Philly might be willing to talk turkey over "street money". And let him remind the people that it's not up to him, it's up to them to "make him do it". So he would explain to the Phillys that instead of bribing the big wigs they should challenge them with support for big wig squishing third parties such as the Green party.
I wonder why bloggers here are criticizing Clinton for the long standing method used in Philly? Hillary didn't start that mess and has not said she'll pay out any money either and it would be utter stupidity for her to do so.
Think about that stupidity for a minute. ___Why on Earth would the Clinton campaign ever pay money out to insure people in Philadelphia voted?__ Why?
If one seriously gave it any thought, it would be NUTSO for Clinton to do that. It doesn't make any sense, because if the people in Philly do vote, the vast majority will vote for Obama. So to jump on Hillary on this issue is really dumb, it's Obama who needs the voter turnouut in Philly, Not Clinton. __LOL.
If politicians can spend millions on ads, they can certainly put some money aside to buy coffee and donuts.
I agree with other comments above: "Street money" carries a negative connotation. Breakfast/Lunch appreciation fund would better describe it - unless there's something more to this of which we are unaware.
jposty say:
"Limbaugh will be happy with the progress of operation chaos."
It seems to be working quite well:
Voters Switch Party In Record Numbers
March 24, 2008
LANCASTER, Pa. -- People are switching to the Democratic Party in record numbers in the Keystone state as the Pennsylvania primary nears.
Since the beginning of the year, more than 57,000 people have filed an application to change their party affiliation to Democrat. The week of March 10, the latest week for which News 8 has statistics, more than 22,000 people switched to Democrat, marking a new record.
http://www.wgal.com/news/15693206/detail.html?subid=10100841
***
Many Switch Political Party Affiliation in Pennsylvania
Fri March 07, 2008 - Harrisburg, PA
Andy Briggs
One month ago, abc27 found that hundreds of voters had switched to the Democratic Party. That number is now in the thousands. There are two possible reasons for this. The first is that Hillary Clinton's primary wins in Ohio and Texas this week energized her campaign and put her back in the race against Barack Obama. The second possible reason is that the deadline to switch parties or register to vote is coming in two and a half weeks.
In Dauphin County, 1,100 voters switched to Democrat since January 1st. 163 of them doing so in the past 2 days.
In Lebanon County, 500 made the switch since January 1st. 10 percent of those did it this week.
In York County, 1,000 voters changed to become Democrat. 27 of them did so since Tuesday.
And in Cumberland County, 848 became Democrats since January 1st. 42 of them since Wednesday.
A few hundred switched to become Republicans, but those numbers pale in comparison to the Democrats.
http://www.whtm.com/news/stories/0308/501865.html
***
Voters switch parties to help McCain
By STEVE MARRONI
Evening Sun Reporter
03/13/2008
Sandra Reed of Gettysburg has been a Republican since she was old enough to vote.
But, Tuesday, she and her husband, Vernon, went to the Adams County Courthouse and became Democrats.
"We were registered Republicans, and we will always be Republicans, but we want to help Hillary get the No. 1 position for the Democrats," said Reed, 70. "So, we are switching for the primary to vote for Hillary, then we will switch back and vote for McCain."
http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_8559675
Kempatrick say:
"...to jump on Hillary on this issue is really dumb, it's Obama who needs the voter turnouut in Philly, Not Clinton. __LOL."
Correct. Clinton has Limbaugh, Hannity, and the others to get out the vote for her, a strategy which, so far, seems to be succeeding beautifully for her. Obama has to earn the votes he gets. Clinton just has to suck so badly that the Republicans prefer to run against her.
youbetterwork April 22nd, 2008 12:30 pm
"We do this down in New Orleans to.
You can get paid up to $100 to stand on a street corner waving a sign on election day.
I've done it before just for the money. I didn't even know anything about the person who's sign I was waving… Neither did anyone else on the "job"."
redstatelefty April 22nd, 2008 12:12 pm
"Street money is not paying the voters, it's paying campaign workers. What's the big deal?"
The big deal, as youbetterwork stated, is that it requires no commitment or support for the candidate, which reduces the process to hucksterism. Not that it's anything new, just that it promotes crap for a political system. Oh wait...we already have that. I wonder why?
For peace, social and economic justice and human rights.
www.carolmillercongress.com
I love & respect Obama. I have yet to see an ugly photograph of him and I think that's because he's out front and "clean." On the other hand, Hillary looks very bad (and false) in many of her candid shots. I feel sorry for her, and have lost any respect I once had. Plus I think Obama is way more intelligent, better at strategy, kinder and more able to have dialog with other nations, which we sorely need to do. We can't win anything by having wars all over the world, we'll just deplete our resources (including our poor soldiers). Now Hillary has said she'll "obliterate" Iran if it attacks Israel. Take heed, fence-sitters. Vote for Obama who has a POSITIVE message. We need all of that we can get.
If you stand for change, you must stand for change. Even the appearance of "impropriety" can't be allowed. I understand Obama is willing to lose if he has to compromise. Remember, he is counting on US to be the change, not just him. If you want the man of change, are YOU willing to change, and give up a donut and coffee? If not, your commitment is not very strong.
It's amazing how naive people are after two brazenly stolen presidential elections. Why in the world do you think "walking around" money or throngs of volunteers are going to make a difference in November?
Instead of babbling in the streets the Democratic party should have been busy in Secretary of State offices all about the country looking into "caging" "purging" and paperless voter machines. Filing lawsuits to get these machines out of operation, and making it clear that on election day a lawyer or Democratic Party operative will be looking over the shoulder of every county elections clerk nationwide. Instead it has been business as usual and I don't care who the Democratic nominee is what you need to do is practice saying, President McCain because that is what you are going to get! It's not possible to wake up the Democratic party!
This has to be common practice in Chicago too. And Barack has won there. I guess you can beat 'em some of the time but the odds are stacked against you with machine politics.
Republicans switching over to vote for Clinton so she will be the one to run against their guy. They seem to have no sense of integrity or justice. It is seen as a game. These people are truly disgusting. Why don't democrats do the same? because they are better people than these religious fanatics who are absolutely convinced they are right and the ends justify the means. This is why the US is such a crappy place, its people. This is creepy.
Work is a human right. Governments should generate enough jobs to keep people busy or provide them with training so that they can get employment. Giving people coffee or pizza will not solve the problems. We need more people to organize workers and force the gov to do what the Dems have not been able to accomplish in the last two years in Congress. PLEASE IMPEACH THESE LIERS AND BASTARDS.
Obama '08 and Gov Richardson
Obama has some heart and soul, he has some good in him.
Obama/Richardson.
The "problem", only exists in the eyes of the press, because the repiglikin primaries are over, so anything them godless leebruls do must be made to sound bad. Even though they all do it and have done it for about as long as there have been elections. There are a lot of people who want to get paid to stand on the street and try to get people to vote. SO WHAT?! This is about as wild as Edwards haircut. Have you ever tried to get a downtown LA hair stylist to come to your hotel room to do your head? That's probably a whole day's work that's going to need to be rescheduled.
The easiest way to get rid of this "Problem" is to make voting mandatory. Well, we could make going to the poles mandatory, the voter wouldn't have to vote, but I figure if they showed up, they probably would. We could make it a requirement to get that tax rebate check. For people who have loads of money, we could freeze their assets if they don't go. Or tax them a tenth. We'll call it the un-pole tax.
Then there'd be no need for "Walking around money". Next thing, we'e have public financing of all Federal elections and force the communications companies to "Do the right thing" so we can have some real debates on TV.
I know, it's a pipe dream. About as realistic as the Republicans running a Ron Paul in the general election.
I've got a great idea... I'm gonna rent a Porche for anyone who wants to volunteer to do campaign work for me. Hey, they gotta get around, gotta make a good impression, right?
Big_Money for Prez! I'll show ya what side your bread is buttered on.
That does it. - I'm rootin' for Obama!
~ClassicLiberal2~ Are you criticizing me for what I posted?
I said it would be stupid for Hillary to pay people to get the vote out in Philly and it would be stupid for her to do that. I wrote that, because so many here are condemming her for doing it, ___ and she isn't doing it.
It's ignorant for any to say she is and then blast her for it. It's funny actually, LOL again.
That's like blasting someone for pissing in the kitchen sink yesterday ___ when they died tenyears ago. Some here are ignorant and show it. I'm not praising or saying I support Hillary on this thread. I just say she isn't guilty of the things some are smearing her with.
It's Obama who'd better offer donut money to the precinct committee people in Philly, of course somone can buy a lot of donuts for $400 bucks.
Tonight Hillary will win Pennsylvania with the help of the Rep slaves. It has happened in Ohio and everywhere else. I wish the corporate media would be more honest about this situation. How can the Dems be so stupid? They need to change the election rules. I wish Obama would win.
What a lot of irrational exuberance. So Obama OR Clinton pays campaigners some street money-this is not a fucking Moral collapse, this is reality. My god, some of the moral outrage above makes this sound like My Lai,
Barn Burner,
My Lai happened because a few people did the wrong thing. It was halted (albeit too late) because fewer people had the guts to say, "Stop this now!"
Machine politics serves the machine. That is a moral outrage!