A Billion Dollars for Obama's New Hope

On April 4, 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama officially announced that he is running for a second term. The president dispensed with two formalities: Necessary documents were submitted to the Federal Election Commission, and his campaign ads kicked off on national television. The first step gives Obama the right to start raising funds for the election campaign; the second gives a general representation of the campaign’s direction.

Traditional American wisdom goes like this: “Money is the blood of politics.” During the 2008 elections, the Obama campaign machine entered $750 million in the accounting books, setting a new national record. For the 2012 election, Democrats raised the bar even higher — up to $1 billion. This sum became one of Obama’s main slogans, something like “Give a billion!” An elite group of donors (450 of them) should each chip in $350,000. If one takes into account that Obama won’t have Democratic Party rivals and that he will possess presidential authority, the treasured sum can carry some serious weight.

In general, the upcoming elections could cost the country $3 billion to $8 billion, according to the estimations of experts. “Money definitely hijacked the electoral system,” bemoan liberals. No way around it, Washington’s political machine functions only when “blood is flowing under it” — real and fiscal.

Speaking in front of major donors at the White House, Obama didn’t drop hints about money. He merely noted, “How nice to see so many friends in this room!”* As concerns the massive group of voter-donors, they don’t beat around the bush with them. By way of mail, email, Facebook and Twitter, Obama headquarters appealed to 13 million donors from the 2008 “harvest” to loosen their purse strings and donate.

But “blood” will be spilled in vain if it does not feed the heart and brain. The first images glimpsed in the beginning of Obama’s campaign ad are telling: a red painted barn, a church and a middle class American’s home flying the stars and stripes flag. A group of citizens are discussing the upcoming elections. They represent the swing states — those who can deliver victory to one side or the other. Some man named Ed, a middle-aged, Southern, white male, says, “I don’t agree with Obama on everything, but I respect him and I trust him.” Gladys, a Latina from Nevada, says, “I’m kinda nervous about it.” Mike, who is voting for the first time, says, “I plan on [re-electing Obama].” Alice, an African-American, talks about the heap of work that falls on Obama and appeals to viewers to think about how they can assist. It’s simple to solve this campaign ad crossword puzzle. Southern men + youths + African-Americans + Hispanics + women = Obama’s second term. The ad says not a word about society’s divisive problems, such as medical insurance.

The beginning of the 2012 presidential campaign is reminiscent of the 2008 campaign. And this isn’t a coincidence. While Obama is no longer an outsider and has spent nearly four years as president, he wants to appear in the eyes of voters as he did before, as if he’s one of them and not from the White House.

It is extremely symbolic that his campaign headquarters are located not in Washington but in Chicago, just like in 2008. Obama’s re-election campaign manager, Jim Messina, who previously occupied the post of deputy chief of staff for operations for President Obama, calculated the distance precisely — 700 miles and 41 steps. The farther, the better, the more “populist” the president appears. Despite the communicational inconveniences, it’s worth it. Washington is the administration; Chicago is policy. Washington is bureaucracy; Chicago is the people. Washington is routine; Chicago is enthusiasm. This is why, despite geography, the road to the White House lies not through Washington but through Chicago. But this imposes a double burden on Obama. It’s his task to be two people: the president in Washington and the people’s candidate in Chicago. Moreover, one interferes with the other.

Obama’s great skill as a candidate is well known and undeniable. Nevertheless, time does not flow backward. 2012 is not 2008. The historical factor that his candidacy was the first for an African-American has disappeared from the scene. In addition, it is much harder to battle for victory with the remains of unfulfilled promises hanging over one’s head. The right wing is rancorous. The left is disappointed. Moderates and independents are oscillating. There are 14 million unemployed Americans in the country. The U.S. has only just recovered from a deep recession, which, as if in jest, made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Republicans dominate in Congress. The federal budget is in limbo, and if it continues to be so for a bit longer, the entire federal bureaucracy and armed forces will be without pay. And finally, there are three wars: one unfinished in Iraq, one continuing in Afghanistan and one beginning in Libya. Plus, China is snapping at the U.S.’s heels, and bin Laden is playing hide-and-seek.

In 2008, when the country was also badly off, Obama was able to honestly offer Americans a program of two words: Change and Hope. He himself was the personification of hope for change. Will he repeat this in 2012? You can’t buy hope or change, even for a billion dollars. Will the country give Obama a second chance? We shall wait and see.

*Editor’s note: This quote could not be verified.