Ultimately, it means this:
The end of the Democrats' capitulation to, and cooperation with, the Republican 'Southern Strategy.'
I'm watching Jim Lehrer - what an extraordinary show - and David Brooks is embarrassing himself talking about Obama as a crafty liar, a 'tough SOB' (seriously); what a soulless, worthless hack Brooks is, overcome with resentments, simpering at the foot of power he'll never have. The decision not to take public funding isn't a sellout; I'm startled that otherwise intelligent people keep insisting that it is. By opting out of public funding, Obama has already reformed campaign funding, more than campaign-funding crusader John McCain ever has. Obama has said that he's in favour of far-reaching reform of federal campaign funding; by making his campaign directly accountable to several million donors (rather than the lobbyist organizations and big-money donors McCain will happily embrace in his 'publicly funded' campaign), he's paving the way for an overhaul of the 527 and PAC rules in 2010 and 2012.
If you assume that everything he does, he does for purely political, power-grabbing purposes, then of course this move looks hypocritical. But think long-term: he's gonna raise hundreds of millions of dollars. He's gonna chip away at the Party of White Resentment, the Right wing of the Republican Party, and its hegemony in 'red' states across the country. He's not just campaigning for 2008, he's making an initial push toward expanding Democratic outreach in the Old South and Southwest. Yes, this will force McCain to compete in states where he thought he was secure - but only demagogues and hacks would fail to see two things:
1) This will make McCain stronger, and
2) this will make for more honest representation in these states.
Obama's already making inroads in swing states - according to one major poll he's well up in Florida(!). But if you believe in the strong or weak form of the false-consciousness argument Thomas Frank advanced in What's the Matter With Kansas?, then you'll immediately get the importance of Democratic outreach in 'traditionally' Republican states: then end of pure pandering in lieu of proper campaigning, the beginning of an economic, pragmatic, full-throated argument about the merits of the Democrats' approach (and the consequences of the Republicans').
Look, Obama's going to win. Guaranteed. The Dems are going to shitbox the Republicans in this electoral cycle and that'll probably do the Republicans a hell of a lot of good. The end of public financing in its current form (which may be the ultimate result of Obama's decision) is part of a broader debate about the influence of special interests (GOP and Dem) during campaigns and beyond. There's nothing particularly noble about 'public funding,' especially compared - and this is a key point, pay attention - to the astonishing increase in public participation and excitement around Obama's campaign. It's not just young kneejerk liberals flipping out for this guy. And if a shift to direct funding (which is 'private' in the sense of 'unmediated,' not in the sense of 'privatizing Social Security') means Obama will be able to compete on equal footing in states where the Republicans have enjoyed extremely partial media treatment and extremely limited narrative penetration, then that's better for everyone! Especially the Republicans, who will now be accountable to their voters in ways they haven't been in decades (promising Culture War victories, delivering service cuts and lower taxes for corporations and the rich).
David Brooks is right about one thing: Obama definitely changed his mind about public funding. Why? Because he's embraced a system that's better not only tactically but on the merits. Obama's right about the influence of 527's and 'independent' operatives - remember that he just fought the Clinton machine to a standstill, and those bastards are masters of the Swift Boat style - and I believe he'll undertake comprehensive campaign-finance reform in ways McCain could only have dreamt of a few years ago. That's why the major media hates this decision - it represents yet another threat to the plutocratic political system in which our 'journalists' and laughable pundits are utterly complicit.
I'm open to an argument that Obama's about-face is a bigger deal than his far-reaching political program. But I've yet to hear one.
Shorter version of the above: David Brooks is a Republican hack and today's NYTimes column on Obama is nothing more than typical Republican propaganda dressed up as 'outsider' commentary. Just because Brooks doesn't take overt pleasure in pouring crude oil over endangered birds doesn't mean he's not an utterly conventional 'contrarian' hack.
