Evolving the campaign

Carlos has the idea that to really deliver on his message of change, Obama should leverage his massive campaign resources to start producing real results right now, even before he is elected:

It is a necessary evolution of his message, but luckily for Obama, it's also within reach if he acts soon. In this age of gigantic campaign bank accounts (Obama's in particular), and with his fervent support from young liberals and other political newcomers, he is in a unique position to convert his followers into organizers for more than just getting out the vote....

If the Obama campaign organized an event to raise funds for clinics that accept the uninsured in my city, I would be there in a heartbeat, and I'd stand by that campaign through thick and thin. But until he turns his message into action, my support for him will be timid and fleeting.

I think this is a great idea, and jibes particularly well with the sort of out-of-the-box/bottom-up thinking that has characterized the Obama campaign from the beginning. Obama has always claimed that he is but a figurehead for a movement, a grass-roots movement of ordinary people who are desperately worried about the direction of their country and who, if sufficiently well-organized, can usher in a new era of less divisive, more effective politics. If he could actually mobilize his supporters to implement significant local improvements in communities across the nation during the campaign, he would empirically vindicate his own theory of change--he would be demonstrating, in real time, the power of "ordinary people" to work together to achieve "extraordinary things".

There would also be a lot of other benefits. Clinton's primary rebuttal against Obama's "movement for change" argument is that it is nothing but empty rhetoric--flowery and nice, sure, but completely ineffective in a nasty political reality that requires "hard work" and "taking on the Republican machine". Obama would be turning Clinton's argument on its head. "Look," he'd say, "you say I'm all talk--fine. But while you were spending $100,000 on an attack ad in Pennsylvania, my campaign decided instead to help build low-income housing in Philadelphia and to raise funds for a struggling veteran's hospital in Pittsburgh. My 'talk' has resulted in bricks and mortar and hospital beds--what has yours accomplished?" I'm not sure what she could say to this.

Moreover, the whole concept works to Obama's advantage because it--like Obama's candidacy--is in some sense extra-political. Obama frequently claims that he will "transcend" partisan politics by bringing in fresh players to the democratic process and instituting change on a level not possible within the current political framework. Coming together to do community work wouldn't be about the political goal of electing Obama, per se--it would be about the more primal, pre-political desire to work with fellow Americans of all ideologies toward a goal that everyone shares and really believes in.

The press would eat it up. To my knowledge, no campaign has ever done community work unrelated to the campaign to demonstrate a point about itself. Even if Clinton accuses the Obama campaign of cynical motivations, of staging a publicity stunt--who cares? Obama can say with a smile that even when he's cynical he brings people together. He can mock Clinton's distorted, Washington-poisoned worldview, where "integrity" means sliming your political opponents to the max and "cynicism" means organizing people in the community for change.

And, of course, some veterans and low-income individuals might appreciate the effort, too--no matter who gets elected in the end.