As is inevitable in American politics, the election horseraces this past week have been evaluated on the basis of money raised -- all the more so in how the mainstream media is measuring the Democratic contenders. On Barack Obama's numbers, I cannot count how many times I've heard the words "shocking" and "astonishing" on the few television news programs I can stomach.

The numbers aren't really a surprise to me, nor I suspect for anyone who's paying attention to what the people are thinking. The pundits continue to insist on their realities, but here's a milepost where they find themselves way behind the rest of us. We can expect more of that in the coming year.

On other words, the revolution in electoral politics orthodoxy will not be televised. At least not until the mainstream media pull their collective heads out and start paying attention to what the people are saying. It's willful ignorance on their parts -- it's not hard to find alternative views, after all -- but sooner or later they will have to realize that Press Club yuks and K Street cocktail parties don't automatically qualify them as authorities on what the people want.

And the fundraising numbers are a case in point....

On CultureKitchen last Thursday, mole333 wrote:

Some may see it as business as usual, but I see it as a shift in how
politics is functioning. Not a fundamental shift, but still a
significant one.

Well, the demise of the Democratic Party has been predicted for some
time...and when Howard Dean became head of the DNC more people than
ever predicted it would spell doom and destruction for the party of the
Donkey.

Since then, we did unexpectedly well in 2005 elections (NYC aside).
Then in 2006 we kicked ass. Now it is too early to say what 2008 will
bring, but my gut feelings about our candidates vs. their candidates may be playing out in the most important arena there is: fundraising.

On Friday, Kos posted an interesting observation about how Barack Obama's campaign differed so much from Hillary Clinton's, when it came to fundraising and emphasis:

Notice the emphasis is on movement building, on gathering at Obama events. And yes, of course, money was solicited at those events, but it was a shared experience, coming together to organize on their preferred candidate's behalf. It's what movements do. In fact, the only money ask on that front page was the red "Donate" button, a striking difference from a Clinton site focused on squeezing every last dime from their supporters.

This is a lesson many campaigns still haven't learned.

Don't go to people begging for money. Go to people and ask them to be part of a bigger movement. Once they believe in a campaign, they'll gladly open up. To whom would you give $20, a stranger on a street or your good friend? Campaigns need to focus more on establishing that emotional connection with potential supporters. Once that connection is made, you don't have to press too hard for money. It'll come.

In other words, it's basic sales 101: establish value first, then close.

To me, one of the offensive aspects of Hillary Clinton's own campaign is that she refuses to establish any value, except when it comes to Washington establishment interests and K Street. A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Hillary Clinton spoke from the heart. Since then -- perhaps after she got mauled in her inept attempt to reform healthcare during Bill's presidency, and certainly since she started marching at the head of her own parade -- it seems that her main interest has been to not say anything, especially to offend the radical right.

What she hopes to gain by this fair-to-middlin'-on-everything strategy, I have no idea. Personally, I feel that she loses stature every time she bugs out her eyes and says in a scolding say, "I've taken responsibility for my vote!" (A friend of mine, upon first hearing her say that, quipped, "She's just like Bush! She's playing 'Stay the Vote.' Bush plays 'Stay the Course,' and Hillary is playing, 'Stay the Vote.'" That strikes me as rather true, and quite a contrast from John Edwards.)

Her numbers are not promising, either:

Hillary Clinton had a good news/bad news day in the polls yesterday
(see them after the jump), but there was one number in a McLaughlin and
Associates survey (pdf) that likely was quite alarming to Camp Clinton: a tanking approval rating.

According to McLaughlin, Hillary has gone from 46% positive/44% negative in November to 42% positive/48% negative.

When was the last time a politician with a negative approval rating
won the White House? Jim McLaughlin couldn’t think of any. Even
President Bush was in positive territory in 2004.

And yet she's still viewed as so inevitable by the mainstream media that the big story of the week has been whether Hillary the Inevitable is really as inevitable as they have been claiming.

With an intriguing analysis on various points, David Sirota turns up his nose at both Clinton and Obama.

Some may say that because Edwards "only" raised a whopping $14
million in contrast with Clinton and Obama's $25 million each, it means
he may not be viable. I tend to look at it the other way: The fact that
a guy who spent most of his life challenging economic power can raise
$14 million without taking money from lobbyists or PACs is unfathomable
- arguably more of a feat than the sheer amounts that Clinton and Obama
hauled in.

This isn't to say that Clinton or Obama are bad candidates.
Obviously, they are way better than the Republican field, and Obama in
particular has potential to grow into more of a leader - if he has the
spine to shun the ruling-class sensibilities of the people he's
surrounded himself with (as an aside - I sincerely hope this happens,
though am not optimistic, considering Obama's top strategist is bragging to reporters
that he is crafting a campaign aimed at shunning all ideology and
issue-based stands in order to present a pure personality story).

But right now, while there is a contest among Beltway insiders about
which candidate to leech onto in hopes of an administration job or a
good contacts for the next corporate lobbying contract, there is simply
no contest when it comes to the issues that really matter to ordinary
people. Where Hillary Clinton has embraced her position as the
establishment candidate and where Barack Obama told me "I don't
consider myself the leader of a movement," Edwards is openly trying to use his candidacy to lead a real substance-based movement.

While I share his concern of both their interest in K Street support, when I look at John Edwards, I see a campaign that continues to call for money at every turn. Maybe that's because, during the anti-feminist tantrum thrown by the Catholic League, when I used the campaign website's contact form to express my support for Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, I ended up on their campaign list. Those campaign emails, which arrive several times a week, seem to point to every event as a reason to give money to the Edwards campaign. I really wish they'd just write about the issues and make calls for action that don't include pulling out the checkbook. The email ATM is bad form.

Oh, and John: Don't be afraid of the big bad Fox. They already butcher you in their regular coverage. In a debate, there are rules, and you'll be able to make your case -- not for the twerps in the newsroom, but for the regular folks watching on TV.

Meanwhile, the Beltway insiders are continuing to say that Barack Obama needs to get specific on the issues, which is kind of like an alcoholic complaining about all the wine bottles cluttering the house. The mainstream media don't cover the issues, so why should Obama start jumping out and taking positions. His is the ultimate soft-sell, and his first order of business is making himself known to us.

The thing is, part of being knowable means taking some positions, at least on the big things. There's plenty of time for the comprehensive position papers and 5-point plans. But his gambit on being the blank slate where everyone supporting him can write their own hopes can get him only so far. This election is going to become a bareknuckle fight, especially from the old-guard establishment who don't like seeing the grassroots tide washing away their power base. He has an uphill battle against the deep and buried prejudice of people who have convinced themselves that being polite about it means they are open-minded, but he's still a black man running for the most powerful office in the land. It's incumbent upon him to establish himself as a sober, reasonable, presidential candidate to reassure the self-congratulatory liberal-minded when it comes to race.

But being presidential also means taking stands on the important issues we face. If he doesn't point the way, how can he expect us to follow?

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.