The challenge of Obama
Barack Obama's victory in Iowa last night identifies a major challenge for the Green Party. He built this election victory by appealing to the very voters that we need to attract. People turned out in record numbers in Iowas, twice as many in the Democratic Caucus as in the Republicans. The ones who caucused for Obama were frequently younger, many were independents. He is the one that voters have now given the mantle of being the agent of change. The fact that Edwards and Clinton finished in nearly a tie indicates a repudiation of all the mainstream stuff.
At the enviromental Gristmill blog, Dave Roberts wrote that "green is an issue Dems still own." To the extent that this is true, Green have a problem. They have stolen our brand. Roberts goes on to give Obama a coat of greenwashing.
Do I want the tax-averse, government-averse, war-hungry guy with a middling climate plan, or do I want the guy that's going to go big on climate? If the election turns on green, voters might want the real deal, not the echo.
If Obama is the real deal on climate change for the Democrats, then absolutely nothing has changed and all of those who claim that there is no difference between the corporate parties are right. The only thing that has changed is the perception of change itself.
If our presidential candidates are going to make any inroads into this election, they will have to make the case that Obama is playing a shell game, letting you think he will change things while he is still the prophet of corn based ethanol and clean coal. It was not long ago that Grist was reaming Obama for his support of Clean Coal but, hey, he won in Iowa so let's get behind a winner.
Note to all our Presidential Candidates. You have to strip Obama of his Green Jacket. He has the media focus now and is taking away your voters. You can not even make an ethnic appeal, because he has got you there. We need to convince that Obama is only the image of change and not the real deal at all. It is either that or hope that Hillary can become the second coming of the Comeback Kid.
Technorati Tags: 
I agree 100% with Wes Wrolley's analysis. Obama's surge is at once a challenge and an opportunity for Greens. We have to rise to the challenge but it must be handled with finesse (delicacy, refinement, and subtlety of performance, execution or workmanship -- a virtue which, unfortunately, some of our most outspoken Green activists do not have). Obama's surge proves that there is now a huge appetite in this country for change. If Barack ultimately gets "kicked to the curb" by the long knives of the Democratic Party Establishment (and I'm willing to bet money he will be), then we need to be in a position to capitalize on their stupidity.
Two Points:
(1) We must not trash Barack Obama personally on the war or on the environment. Now more than ever, we should maintain our fire on the Democratic Party Machines that have mostly lined up for Hillary.
(2) We pay no attention to the Black pseudo-nationalist rap. Cynthia McKinney has already tried to paint Obama as an "Uncle Tom." Elaine Brown, among other things, trashed McKinney as a "sellout." Jared Ball's supporters are out waving the Red, Black, and Green colors of Black Nationalism. This is a big mistake. The Obama people most likely to lean Green are the politically sophisticated, independent-minded folks who are also most likely to reject that tired adolescent conformist nonsense. Here again, the correct tactic is to keep hammering away at the Democratic Party Machine Bosses like Los Angeles Congresswoman Laura Richardson and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who have been shamelessly groveling for Hillary.
My only point of disagreement with Alex is not one of fact, but one of judgement. I am more likely to believe that Clinton will screw this up again just as she lost Iowa with a flawed campaign when she had been clearly ahead. She has been a loser for so long that she has forgotten how to be a winner.
However, to keep telling the truth about energy, about global warming, about truly Green policies will respond in either case. If the Hillary grovelers win out, we will be in a position to profit. If Obama manages to hold no, we will be challenging where he is vulnerable.
In either way, I will be basing my evaluation on the California Debate very heavily on the manner in which our candidates understand the environment and associated issues: energy, national security and real improvements in our health in addition to a more equitable manner of delivering health care to all.
"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente
The following arrived in my email with the subject line "Can you please post to greencommons?"
So here it is.
__
The most important thing to remind ourselves of is the fact that the Dems represent and cater to the centrists (a necessity to retain power) and that they get their money from the same place as the Repubs. Anyone thinking that Obama represents the type and extent of change that this country needs is inhaling from the Big Bong. His positions are already suspect as well as uninformed: for corn ethanol, clean coal, and the possibility of nukes.
The other thing we need to resist - a song that both Obama AND the Republicans are singing - is this absurd notion of Unity, bipartisanship, whatever. Ending these will mean abandoning principles and compromising. Where is there room for compromise on Iraq? On universal health care?(Obama doesnt even favor mandating 100% enrollment, a really dumb stand). On new coal plants? (Building 50% of those proposed?). If we were dealing with racial discrimination, is there room for compromise? Either you ban it or you dont.
When the candidates talk about change, they are amazingly vague and unspecific. When we talk about change we don't mean the same thing at all. We want change to close the gap between rich and poor by taxing the rich and the corporations. We want change in health care to take control away from the insurance companies and the for-profit rip-off HMOS and others. We want change to stop fossil fuel and nuke subsidies; they might simply want to reduce them, not eliminate them.
I haven't heard anything from anyone but Edwards that suggests their idea of change comes anywhere near ours. Obama is no improvement over Clinton, in fact maybe he is worse because people are too ready to cut him too much slack; one blogger on green commons already said to go easy on him. Nonsense, that is patronizing. If you cant stand the heat.....
Lorna Salzman
mine first LOL! I reckon great minds think alike.
Wes is correct that Obama has successfully stolen the green brand despite being wrong on almost every related issue. I've already posted here at Green Commons about Obama's sellout to King Coal.
I've also posted here about the myth of ethanol. Short story - Obama took advantage of the "ethanol bubble" which has gripped the entire corn belt, hence his victory in Iowa's Democratic primary last night. See it here in his own words. Total BS but it's a natural for him having been pushing the same snake oil to this crowd in his neighboring Illinois.
Let's not forget Obama's yea vote on the Energy Act of 2005, better known as "Dick Cheney's energy pig giveaway to the fossil fuel industries."
Listen to Obama very carefully and you'll continually hear buzz words such as unite and bipartisanship - a sure sign this guy is a corporatist in sheep's clothing. Greens and environmentalists should be checking the bushes this evening.
We can go on and we should but we have to attack the policies, not the man. The former are fair game and I believe there's more to be gained on that front anyway given that Obama himself has provided his critics with ample reason to doubt his rhetoric on green issues.