Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
No We Can't: Obama Muzzled His Supporters
Obama had millions of followers eager to fight for his agenda. But the president muzzled them - and he's paying the price
"Staff are replaceable. A mass of dedicated volunteers is not." — David Plouffe
As the polls were closing in Massachusetts on the evening of January 19th, turning Ted Kennedy's Senate seat over to the Republicans for the first time in half a century, David Plouffe was busy reminiscing about the glory days.
The president's former campaign manager was nowhere to be found at the sprawling war room of Organizing for America, the formidable grass-roots army he had forged during the 2008 campaign. Instead, Plouffe — who serves as a "supersenior adviser" to OFA and its only direct conduit to Obama — was across town at a forum hosted by the Progressive Book Club, where he pimped his memoir, The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory.
It was a bitterly ironic way to mark the end of the president's first year in office. Together with David Axelrod, Plouffe was the brains of Obama's campaign, the man who transformed a shoestring organization into a high-tech juggernaut. After the 2008 election, Plouffe had taken OFA, previously known as Obama for America, and moved its entire operation into the Democratic National Committee. There, he argued, the people-powered revolution that Obama had created could serve as a permanent field campaign for the Democratic Party, capable of mobilizing millions of Americans to support the president's ambitious agenda. Fresh off the campaign, the group boasted 13 million e-mail supporters, 4 million donors, 2.5 million activists connected through the My.BarackObama social network and a phenomenal $18 million left in the bank. Even Republican strategists were staggered. "This would be the greatest political organization ever put together, if it works," said Ed Rollins, who was to Ronald Reagan what Plouffe is to Obama. "No one's ever had these kinds of resources."
Yet rather than heeding the lessons of Obama's historic victory, Plouffe and OFA permitted Martha Coakley to fumble away Kennedy's seat — destroying the 60-vote supermajority the Democrats need to pass major legislation. In December and early January, when it should have been gearing up the patented Obama turnout machine — targeting voters on college campuses, trumpeting the chance to make history by electing Massachusetts' first female senator — OFA was asking local activists to make phone calls to other states to shore up support for health care reform. "Our Massachusetts volunteers were calling into Pennsylvania or Ohio to recruit volunteers in support of the president's agenda," admits OFA director Mitch Stewart.
It wasn't until 10 days before the election, after OFA finally woke up to Coakley's cratering poll numbers, that the group sent out an urgent appeal to members, asking them to help turn out Massachusetts voters from phone banks across the country. But after having been sidelined by the White House for most of its first year, OFA discovered that most of its 13 million supporters had tuned out. Only 45,000 members responded to the last-minute call to arms.
In the final week, volunteers organized 1,000 phone banks and placed more than 2.3 million calls to Massachusetts. OFA also scrambled to place 50 staffers in the state to gin up a door-knocking operation. But it was too late: In a race decided by 110,000 votes, 850,000 of those who voted for Obama in Massachusetts failed to turn out for Coakley. "The relationship-building process we did with Obama for America," concedes Stewart, "is not something you can manufacture in three weeks."
The failure to reignite Obama's once indomitable field operation has left many of the president's former campaign staff shaking their heads. "How in the hell did we let that happen in Massachusetts?" asks Temo Figueroa, who served as Obama's national field director and is now a political consultant in Texas. "How in the hell did the White House not get Organizing for America seriously engaged in this until there was a week and a half to go?"
As a candidate swept into office by a grass-roots revolution of his own creation, Obama was poised to reinvent Washington politics, just as he had reinvented the modern political campaign. Obama and his team hadn't simply collected millions of e-mail addresses, they had networked activists, online and off — often down to the street level. By the end of the campaign, Obama's top foot soldiers were more than volunteers. They were seasoned organizers, habituated to the hard work of reaching out to neighbors and communicating Obama's vision for change.
As president, Obama promised to use technology to open up the halls of power and keep the American people involved. "If you want to know how I'll govern," he said, "just look at our campaign." His activists wouldn't just be cheerleaders; they would be partners in delivering on his mandate, serving as the most fearsome whip Washington had ever seen. "At the end of the campaign, we entered into an implied contract with Obama," says Marta Evry, who served as a regional field organizer in California for the campaign. "He was going to fight for change, and we were going to fight with him."
The problems started before Obama was even elected. While his top advisers worked for months to carefully plot out a transition to governing, their plan to institutionalize its campaign apparatus was as ill-considered as George Bush's invasion of Iraq. "There was absolutely no transition planning," says Micah Sifry, the co-founder of techPresident, a watchdog group that just published a special report on OFA's first year. In what Sifry decries as a case of "criminal political negligence," Obama's grass-roots network effectively went dark for two months after Election Day, failing to engage activists eager for their new marching orders. "The movement moment," he says, "was lost."
The blame, insiders say, rests squarely with Plouffe. "That was totally Plouffe's thing," a top member of the president's inner circle recalls of the transition planning. "It really was David."
By that point, at the end of the campaign, Plouffe had his eyes on the exit. He was gaunt, exhausted. His wife was about to give birth to their second child. He needed a break. "There was no question of my joining the administration," he recounts in his memoir. So Plouffe, in a truly bizarre call, decided to incorporate Obama for America as part of the Democratic National Committee. The move meant that the machinery of an insurgent candidate, one who had vowed to upend the Washington establishment, would now become part of that establishment, subject to the entrenched, partisan interests of the Democratic Party. It made about as much sense as moving Greenpeace into the headquarters of ExxonMobil.
Steve Hildebrand, Obama's deputy campaign manager, tried to dissuade Plouffe. "The DNC is a political entity," he says. "Senators who you are going to need to put significant pressure on to deliver change — like Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who was opposed to health care reform — are voting members of the DNC. It limited how aggressive you could be." Hildebrand pushed Plouffe to make "Obama 2.0" an independent nonprofit, similar to FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, the right-wing instigators of the Tea Party uprising. Free from the party apparatus, Hildebrand argued, the group could raise unlimited funds and "put enough pressure on conservative Democrats to keep them in line."
But Plouffe was resolute. Obama was troubled by the prospect of big-dollar donors driving an independent nonprofit, and the DNC offered a ready infrastructure and fewer legal hurdles. "The president is a Democrat," says Stewart, a veteran of Obama's victory in Iowa who took over from Plouffe as OFA's director. "It would be very hard to explain why Obama's grass-roots field team is not housed with his party."
Plouffe checked out to write his memoir — but as a senior adviser, he continued to call many of the shots. In a muddy chain of command, Stewart officially reports to the head of the DNC, but in practice he takes many of his cues from Plouffe. "He has an incredible input on what we do and don't do," says Stewart.
The decision to shunt Organizing for America into the DNC had far-reaching consequences for the president's first year in office. For starters, it destroyed his hard-earned image as a new kind of politician, undercutting the post-partisan aura that Obama enjoyed after the election. "There were a lot of independents, and maybe even some Republicans, on his list of 13 million people," says Joe Trippi, who launched the digital age of politics as the campaign manager for Howard Dean in 2004. "They suddenly had to ask themselves, 'Do I really want to help build the Democratic Party?'"
In addition, with Plouffe providing less input in his inner circle, Obama began to pursue a more traditional, backroom approach to enacting his agenda. Rather than using OFA to engage millions of voters to turn up the heat on Congress, the president yoked his political fortunes to the unabashedly transactional style of politics advocated by his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Health care reform — the centerpiece of his agenda — was no longer about mobilizing supporters to convince their friends, families and neighbors in all 50 states. It was about convincing 60 senators in Washington. It became about deals.
"There were two ways for Barack Obama to twist arms on Capitol Hill," says Trippi. "You can get the best arm-bender in town to be your chief of staff — and I don't think there'd be many people who would deny that Rahm is a pretty good pick. Or the American people can be your arm-bender. What I don't understand is why the White House looked at it as an either/or proposition. You could have had both."
The shift in tactics left OFA sitting on the sidelines. A far cry from the audacious movement that rose to the challenge of electing America's first black president, the group has performed like a flaccid, second-rate MoveOn, a weak counterweight to the mass protests and energetic street antics of the Tea Baggers. Rather than turning out thousands of voters at rallies for the "public option" in health care reform, the White House instructed OFA to adopt a toothless, almost invisible approach: asking followers to sign a generic "statement of support." In July, when OFA ran ads asking voters to call their senators and urge them to vote for health care reform, the effort was quickly slapped down by party leaders. "It's a waste of money to have Democrats running ads against Democrats," fumed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Not only did the White House fail to crank up its own campaign machinery on behalf of health care, it also worked to silence other liberal groups. In a little-publicized effort, top administration officials met each week at the Capital Hilton with members of a coalition called the Common Purpose Project, which included leading activist groups like Change to Win, Rock the Vote and MoveOn. In August, when members of the coalition planned to run ads targeting conservative Democrats who opposed health care reform, Rahm Emanuel showed up in person to put a stop to the campaign. According to several participants, Emanuel yelled at the assembled activists, calling them "fucking retards" and telling them he wasn't going to let them derail his legislative winning streak. "We're 13-0 going into health care!" he screamed. "We're not going to be 13-1!"
Emanuel also locked down OFA: When liberal activists approached the group about targeting conservative Democrats, they were told, "We won't give you call lists. We can't go after Democrats — we're part of the DNC." It was exactly the danger that Hildebrand had warned about when Plouffe made OFA part of the party apparatus. In the end, the activists scrapped the organizing effort, leaving the president without a left flank in the health care debate.
"Instead of channeling the energy of the base, they've been squashing it," says Markos Moulitsas, founder of the influential online forum Daily Kos. "When special interests are represented by people like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, you've got to go after those people. Instead, you had OFA railing against Republican obstructionists, when the Republicans were irrelevant to the debate."
Given Emanuel's background as a legislative insider, it's not surprising that the White House shelved its activist base. "They don't give a crap about this e-mail list and don't think it's a very useful thing," a well-sourced former campaign staffer told tech-President. "They want to do stuff the delicate way — the horse-trading, backroom talks, one-to-one lobbying." The feeling inside the White House, the ex-staffer said, is that "unleashing a massive grass-roots army is only going to backfire on us."
What backfired, it turns out, was ceding populist outrage on health care to the far right. Because OFA failed to mobilize the American people to confront the insurance companies, it allowed industry-funded Republicans, like former House majority leader Dick Armey, to foment a revolt by the Tea Partiers, whose anger dominated the news. Stewart, the director of OFA, says the failure to anticipate last summer's town-hall ragefest was his. "Organizing for America did not properly plan for that first week of August," he says. "That was an error on my part." OFA scrambled to rally its troops, generating more than 300,000 calls to Congress on a single day. But the belated effort typified the group's first year. "It's always reactive and half-hearted," says Moulitsas. "The movement was built on the concept of big change — but they haven't gone after the things you need to do to enact change." Indeed, OFA's own numbers reveal a sharp drop-off in activist participation: All told, only 2.5 million of its 13 million followers took part in its health care campaign last year — and that's counting people who did nothing but sign the group's "statement of support."
"It didn't work — with an exclamation point at the end!" says Rollins, the former Reagan strategist. "They didn't keep the organization alive. They thought it was out there to use whenever they wanted to use it. But with constituents who feel like they've been part of a revolution — as ours did in '80 and '81 — you've got to feed them. You've got to make sure that they feel important." Instead, says Rollins, OFA "e-mailed them to death, but without any real steps to make them feel a part of the process, like they felt a part of the campaign."
In the wake of Coakley's loss, OFA has been silent on the health care front. "There hasn't been a single directive from OFA since Election Day in Massachusetts," observes Evry, the former campaign coordinator. "No 'Let's get those e-mails out there.' No 'Let's phone-bank.' No 'Let's target this politician.' Nothing." The failure to secure a bill through Emanuel's fuck-the-activists dealmaking has created a double whammy heading into this fall's midterm elections: no legislative victory on health care, coupled with widespread disillusionment among the party's base.
Acknowledging that it was blindsided in Massachusetts, the president has summoned Plouffe back to the White House to oversee campaign efforts. The move is an implicit admission that Plouffe's intermittent engagement was part of the problem. "They thought this was the Harry Potter school of organizing," says one insider. "Just wave your wand. But this shit isn't easy."
The good news is, OFA's last-minute blitz in Massachusetts underscored what it's still capable of. In just 10 days, the group generated more than twice as many calls on Coakley's behalf as they did in support of health care last year — an effort credited with helping to cut Republican Scott Brown's final margin of victory in half. Yet asked if the lesson from Massachusetts is that OFA should recommit itself to being a Democratic turnout machine this fall, Stewart is noncommittal. "We're still figuring it out," he says.
Privately, some party leaders complain that OFA isn't doing enough to campaign for vulnerable Democrats. The only true accomplishment from OFA's first year, they say, is the work it's done to build a national infrastructure for the president's 2012 re-election campaign. To reproduce the organizational structure developed by Obama for America in 2008, OFA has quietly deployed paid staff to all 50 states, building a network from state directors all the way down to a corps of supervolunteers, trained in organizing, who recruit an army of neighborhood team leaders. "There's a skeleton of a re-election campaign already set up — beyond a skeleton," says Figueroa, the campaign's former field director. "There's already meat to the bone in every state in the union. Three years away from the next election, that army is already being continually fed. If you're Barack Obama and his political operation, revving the engine, how is that not a good thing?"
The failures of the past year, however, have left a strong sense of betrayal among many who once were Obama's fiercest advocates. "After all the sweat and tears of the campaign," says the creator of a popular pro-Obama website, "we were owed the opportunity to fight for something." Adds another, "We thought we had earned an ownership stake in the future of our country through this campaign, but that ownership stake has been revoked."
Had Obama let his activists lead the charge and gone to the mat for health care reform, would the outcome have been any different? "I can't say that we would have health care reform," says Moulitsas. "But people wouldn't be so demoralized. We'd have an engaged base still willing to fight for that change. And I tell you what: We would not have lost Ted Kennedy's seat."
- Posted in


99 Comments so far
Show AllObama already preparing for 2012. What a surprise! Letting his supporters down -- another big surprise. Fouling his own supporter base with inaction and hubris -- another big surprise -- NOT!
This President has fumbled the ball after running the best campaign in recorded history by his inept performance and harkening back to George W. Bush for many of his policies. He deserves to lose his supporter base -- what has he done for them lately?
Barry -- you are going to lose in 2012. And allow Palin the Oval Office. Damn you!
Gary
“Please, give us an opportunity 'cause we are all hard workers, not criminals.”
-- Miguel Garcia
The thing that drives me nuts about so much of the media is that politics is just a game to them. Who is going to win? The Dems, the Repubs? Is what Obama doing going to effect the chances of him winning the next election?
HELLO!!!! What these guys do and don't do affects real peoples lives! What the do/don't do can literally leave people broke and homeless, or even kill people. This is not just a game that is played out for entertainment, and to keep pundits gainfully employed, at least I hope it's not.
"If you're Barack Obama and his political operation, revving the engine, how is that not a good thing?"
Obama is just a typical political hack. If you're already organizing for your reelection, while not fighting for the things you got elected to do, you will not get reelected.
The author misses two key points:
--Obama stole the primary. He and his people fought dirty. The favorite tactic of his fans was to call their fellow Democrats racists. This should have tipped you that Obama was no friend to Democrats.
--Obama is a neocon. He couldn't use the grass-roots organization he had created because he had no intention of pursuing any policies those people would like.
My Only God is Rahm, an allegory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sIAEhpg1L4
Stole the primary from whom?
Such arrogance is worthy of Carville, Atwater, Rove, Lunz, and Lakoff. All of these mass media manipulators are badly in need of some mental laxitive to clean out their bloated egotistical impression of themselves.
The Democratic Pary and Barack Obama are in the crapper because they rolled over and played dead--with overwhelming majorities in both the Senate and House, foreign and domestic crises demanding bold new initiatives, and the goodwill of the fed up American electorate wanting to see "change we can believe in" and a spirit of "yes we can", these imbeciles blew it and gave us the third term of Dumbya and the Neocons.
We can speculate all day as to the cause for this malfeasance and misfeasance (was it the the security state and the big business financiers threatening the life of the new [president and his family or was Barack never anything more than a pathological lying con man to begin with?) but there ain't enough lipstick at Max Factor, Revlon, and every other cosmetic manufacturer to make the pig of this past year's presidential performance anything less than the ugly, abysmal, abject failure that it was and continues to be.
No amount of My Space, You Tube, Twitter, or other whiz-bang cyber magic can transform such ineptitude and to suggest that it somehow could is but one more sign of the cluelessness of those supporting the President.
Poet
Months prior to the election, Paul Street, a political analyst often published on Z-net, conclusively proved Obama to be "never anything more than a pathological lying con man to begin with." I was one who pointed to his essays, along with others. This item is not much more than a feeble excuse for Obama's lies and betrayal.
Well said, Barack'll Bombya giving himself a B+ for his first year notwithstanding...
Bear in mind that the Democratic Party has been in the crapper for more than 40 years, and, at the rate things're going, it's likely to stay there unless we get people more progressive than Obama and most of the other Democrats who're now in power.
On President Palin's inauguration day, I expect to see Obama hold the limo door for her, just as he did for Bush, on his (Obama's) inauguration day.
The underlying assumption of this piece is way off.
First of all, Obama is a conservative. Actually look at his record right now. He's basically continuing or extending virtually all of Bush's key policies. And now a Republican spending freeze?
Second, Obama's campaign was always a corporate generated parade (thanks Glen Ford). He smashed records for corporate fund raising and THEN the populace, which mainly subsists on corporations for it's media diet, jumped on board.
Third, America is not experiencing change and the election of Obama as change is just an illusion created by the coming together of an attractive candidate with a short resume who talks a good game, combined with his very appealing agenda for big business, coupled with the ability of corporations to bring on aboard for a short ride millions of "fans" to pay attention to just about any pretty face with an appealing story---but only until the next story to sell comes along.
That's it. That is the Obama phenomenon.
Most people on this site no there is no change.
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
Make history or just let the status quo keep happening?
I'd venture to say that most people on this site knew upfront that the whole "hope and change" mantra was a fraud from jump street because most people here are smart enough to peruse a candidate's voting record before making a decision. I'd also say that there is a much higher percentage of Mckinney/Nader voters on this site than in the general population. Unfortunately our voices amount to whistling in a wind tunnel as the other 99% of Americans will continue to vote D or R. and the status quo, despite our best efforts, will continue to win out. Co-sign on the rest of your post though.
There is a total disconnect on the part of the author. He's under the delusion that activists could have saved Obama from himself. The reality is, when you run on a platform of hope and change, you better deliver on some of it. Instead, we have health care reform that had all real change in it removed from the start. Single payer was off the table. Wall Street regulation? Ask Tim Geithner what happened to that. Getting the MIC under control? Drone usage and production is on the rise. The list is endless.
Kennedy's seat is just the precursor of things to come. 2010 and 2012 are going to be GOP landslides. I myself have exclusively voted for Democrats and third party all my life. I've voted for my last Democrat. I suspect I am not alone. The Democratic party could be irreparably damaged at this point in time. In a twist of irony, the candidate of hope may have hopelessly damaged the Democratic party. How is that for change?
My views exactly.
No accident the crash of the Democrat party-made to look like an accident.
But these are real lives they are playing with. Real hopes and real needs. In one interview HE even mentioned something to the effect that one term would be ok. Yes. Get in, get the job done, get out. Screw them for screwing the American people
Are there no Democrat leaders willing to mount a challenge to the sell out administration?
Either Dennis or Cynthia would do it ---if they were convinced enough of us were backing them.
I was one of the Goddess-knows-how-many people who mailed Dennis after his "Prayer" speech became public, begging him to stand for prez. He did, and I never saw anyone so worthy get so screwed so fast.
Some locally-well-known political "names" called an organising meeting to get together a state organisation here in 2003 to support Dennis's candidacy. I attended, and immediately regretted the waste of the afternoon. Most of the attendees were self-absorbed nitwits eager to use Dennis's candidacy to advance their *own* ends. Needless to say, nothing good came of it.
So, after the 2004 disaster, I suggested at DU (I hadn't been purged yet) that we create a machine for Dennis for 2008. No takers. Lots of people "in favor" of him becoming President, but nobody willing to do anything useful to make it happen.
The late Robert Heinlein, whose politics I didn't much like, did say one thing that ought to be engraved in granite everywhere, so that people have to read it as they walk by: no matter where or what, there are makers, takers, and fakers.
The soi-disant "left" by and large are mere fakers.
From title to content, this article is seriously flawed. The title should be changed to "No we won't" from "No we can't". Obama promised almost nothing. His only job was to make it as a special celebrity and nothing more. You can still look at his website but if he doesn't like your concerns, you are on the black list. Forget about campaign failure. Obama had nothing to show the voters of MA that he would listen to Ted Kennedy. The minute he was president elect, he listened to the rightwingers starting with his selection of Rahm Emanuel. Every 4 years, there are always these silly quarrels between Team Red and Team Blue over nothing. It's fun to watch this fake wrestling match until the stadium burns down.
I was campaigning for Nader in 2008 and ran into difficulty convincing even former Nader voters in 2000 away from Obama. Their excuse was that Obama's campaign looked lively and that voting for Nader would give us Republicans. It turns out that voting for Obama is giving us more Republicans even in safe blue states such as NJ and MA. Don't expect them to learn any lessons from this. The constant petty quarrels between Team Red and Team Blue will continue until the stadium burns to the floor.
Having used progressives and first-time voters to get elected, Obama and his folks promptly dumped them in a play for nonexistent "moderate Republicans" and the the vanishing "center."
This will make fund raising much easier, as it plays to the lobbyists, but won't do his long-term political career any good
Whatever Plouffe can do or not do, it was Obama who hired Emanuel as his chief of staff. He knew as well as anyone that Emanuel was the consummate insider and had zero interest in wasting his time with "grassroots activists" who he's always considered "fucking retards". Emanuel is emblematic of beltway hubris, and insider elitism constitutes his essence.
It's impossible to believe that Obama is any different. Their political instincts are identical. Neither trusts the common rabble to influence the direction of ANY policy, so why would they want to empower OFA after they used them to get elected? Emanuel, Obama, Harry Reid and the DNC cut their power the day after the election and concentrated strictly on those 60 magical votes, a strategy only a truly retarded politico could appreciate.
So now they've doomed their own signature legislation, the rabble (the rest of us) are abandoned again to the insurance and pharma mafias, Wall Street bailouts and Pentagon warmongering are foremost on the center-right agenda, and we're confronted with a near-inevitable Republican takeover in at least the Senate, this year, and almost definitely the White House in 2012. By then, the Obama machine will have nothing to show after 4 years of capitulation to the far right and they could resurrect Strom Thurmond to run with Palin and probably win. Rahm Emanuel and Obummer together have delivered us once again into the hands of raging barbarians.
Hey! I said "No we can't" had become the slogan of Obama's presidency first!
Yes, we can hope.
No, we can't change.
Many of us here saw Mr. Obamageddon for the shill he is, before the election.
Nader or McKinney would have been the perfect ticket for change.
Can you imagine that Rahm Emanuel? Calling OFA-types "fucking retards" (and to their face no less)? Emanuel could have been nicer (and more accurate) if he had characterized them as a bunch of well-pampered college boys and girls (whether still in college or not) whose idea of a "relationship" would be of someone with whom you "hooked up" when you "went out" on a Saturday night. Obama provided a one-night stand; or to change the analogy a little, a party of chicken wings and beer that could last only as long as the chicken and beer lasted. The followers weren't serious about his supposedly "liberal" platform, he was just a way for them to achieve peer acceptance by falling in with the "cool" thing to do in an election season; so why should they care about Organizing for America? America, what's that; maybe the U.S. Olympic team. Once that season was over, they were ready to hook up with other peer sensations of the day.
Well, so the guys are thinking 2012, they are getting ready now for the next hook-up, it's Saturday night already again, and who will be my hookee for this week? Barry again? Well he was damned good in bed and I thought it might work out but he hasn't called or texted me all week; so what the hell: I hear that Sarah Palin is hot now and I hear she really likes chicken wings and beer so maybe...
Yes, who will be the "One"? "Look more closely," I said. "Relax," they told me, "He's the One." (This is literally true, repeated numerous times.)
So, while preening their "cool" at Starbucks or listening to cool music on the local cool community radio station, they will be looking for the coolest brand in candidates.
Did I mention how I feel about "cool?"
Wow, pretty scathing indictment of Obummer voters (I was one). That was because I was terrified that if that did not happen, then we would have McPalin. Also that if Republicans got to pick the next Supreme Court justice, we would be even more spectacularly screwed. Did not have anything to do with "cool," etc. Now that that election is over, I want to move on to a real progressive in 2012. Alan Grayson would be great, or Dennis, or Bernie.
Drinsulaa: My message to you is "Do not afraid" (as you and many other Obama voters were as they were terrified of McPalin). Palin will, in my opinion, be on the ticket again, this time as the Head Bogeyperson, but please don't that deter you from supporting a "real progressive" like Alan or Dennis or Bernie. We surely have learned what evil we get when we vote the "lesser evil."
The Obama administration got exactly what it wanted in Massachusetts.
I have read that the money men, like George Soros, were contacted by the adminstration and told to keep their minions in line, so to speak -- i.e. George Soros funds MoveOn.org -- and the administration did NOT want activists on the streets of this country, for any reason!
I agree with Ephraim: "It's impossible to believe that Obama is any different [than Rahm]. Their political instincts are identical. Neither trusts the common rabble to influence the direction of ANY policy, so why would they want to empower OFA after they used them to get elected?"
I have read, too, that Howard Dean's "50-State Plan" has already been dismantled, or is in the process of being dismantled.
The DLC simply does NOT believe in empowering "we the people."
You should check out the Daily Kos. Even from a most recent poll on that site, most of them voted to ask current DNC chair Tim Kaine to step down.
Actually, Dean's 50-state plan never got off the ground if you look at the flyover states. We didn't see the strategy here in Kansas. There was one House seat that went to the Democrats in 2006 but that was only because the Republican was in a serious scandal that year. Boyda turned out to be just another bland politician and in 2008, the Republicans got back that seat.
I can't believe that it's so hard for third parties including the Green Party to get on the ballot. The Democratic Party should take its name off states they think they can't win. If Obama hadn't been on the ballot here in KS, Mckinney and Nader would have gotten more votes that they deserved.
I don't really want to dump on Obama. It doesn't take that much effort and it's not productive. I get it. He was a media figure with charisma. I thought so then, but I take no comfort whatsoever in saying "I told you so" now. It's not about me. Being right isn't worth that much with so much at stake.
But I think people are wrong in investing all this power in him. If you think he's a whore why do think he stands for anyone or anything? Is he a conservative? Nope. Is he a liberal? Nope. He is - as he once himself said - a blank slate.
We have to see how easy he is to rope-a-dope as the Republicans did him on Health Care; and how easy he and his "advisors" are to manipulate.
What happened when he criticized the banks and they then muscled back? He folded. What happened when Scott Brown won? He became a fiscal conservative and froze the budget. Are those principles or are they mere reactions?
He is driven by one principle ... one principle that makes him worth less and less to us at this moment in history. He wants everyone to get along. It's absurd but let him have it. Focus instead on 2010 and Congress.
You know one thing the tea party movement has that we don't have? A Movement.
What if 2 million or more unemployed, broke and disenfranchised Americans descended on DC under a progressive banner demanding more? What if that were matched by millions more in other cities? What If we had a movement?
Obama's not the mystery in all this. We are. Well not us, but what we stand for. How hungry and broke and cold to Americans have to get before they fight back? We need progressive leadership, not a Progressive President. Shit we don't even need a President. We. Need. A. Movement. Led by principles. Fed by anger and righteousness.
Feet on the street. Messages on everyone's phones. E-mails to jam every politicians mail-box. They are ALL Whores in Washington and they will jump if enough of us scream how high.
Why are the neo-cons the only ones who are mad as hell?
Don't blame media; they are whores too. They follow the biggest story because that story is about ratings and ratings mean money.
Don't blames the corporations either; they are the biggest whores of all. A true movement can hit them where it hurts most by boycotting their products and that means loss of revenue and they will flip I assure you.
Want a little inspiration?.
Check out these two things:
Listen to FDR at the convention in '36. That's leadership!
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/us/fdr1936.html
Now look at this:
Palin at the tea party convention 2010. That's the enemy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP4PJlufZ0c&feature=PlayList&p=46E922D3AF701989&index=1
HOW MUCH DO YOU HAVE AT RISK IN LETTING THINGS STAY AS THEY ARE?
For the upteenth time, Obama is nothing like FDR and stop using Tea Party fear to bully us into supporting Obama. The guy did wrong and he deserves to pay the price like everyone else. People may make stupid decisions that lead to monsters but we can always call for changing that so that we can correct our mistakes.
Really Kyle? You and your frat brothers are being bullied? Hmmmm.
Sioux Rose
WALT: Your post makes some good points; however, this idea that Obama wants all sides to get along is a convenient cover, or fiction. What it hides is the true reality that both parties serve the same corporate/$ masters, so under the guise of wishing to get along, what ultimately is being furthered are the interests of big business. This idea of bipartisanship as diplomacy lends cover to supporting one set of interests alone, and these happen to be antithetical not only to the welfare of citizens as a whole, but to the stated intentions and objectives of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. If there is no tension between party interests, there is no viable basis for debate. Issues that are overdue for debate, scrutiny, examination, and HOLDING guilty parties to account are shoved under the rug... hidden by this idea that it's not politically correct to lack common cause (or get along) with your alleged political opponent. Bah, humbug!
S.R. 12:01 ----- Your absolutely correct Obomber definitely agressively obtains the agendas he wants such as War, Police State,Vested Energy and transfer of wealth to UberRich. Obomber has a vision of fascist imperial domination that he is quite successfully implementing.
Which allowed will be the material collapse of all.
Sioux Rose
GLENN: Thank you for the nod. Did you notice the photo of Obama in the column that runs parallel with this one? He looks like DRACULA. Maybe this idea of "the dark side" taking control of persons is not just an illusion. (The Catholic Church still performs exorcisms!)I do believe that evil acts as a palpable force, and if someone keeps compromising with it, how can they not become it... at essence?
*** One definition for evil (in the modern world) is to build bombs with money that is not being spent to feed the starving or heal the dying or house the homeless on these extremely cold nights. (Here in Florida it will be in the 20's again tonight!)
Sioux Rose,
Maybe I think you all give Obama too much credit. Of course what you describe is the dynamic behind all this, but in Obama they found a perfect foil for their conspiracy (they always do - Bush Jr., Reagan were both "sincere" in their motives, but puppets all the same). I really think Obama believes his mission is to unite America. He said it all through the primaries and the election. When "they" heard that they said, "Eureka! Here's our guy."
I'm mostly arguing to take the emphasis off him. We should stop expending energy on the discovery that he's shill --- and start focusing on Congress. Put as many progressive Independents in office as we can. Let them see that obstructionism can have a progressive face. When people start seeing they are having an impact on their government and gaining a voice inside it, we will have a movement. It's our best and perhaps our only realistic option.
Sioux Rose
You two either WANT to believe his motives are good, or have a personal stake in encouraging others to see what is NOT there. You mistake the "ad" on the cereal box for what is clearly inside. Like one of the big ag producers of semi-edible foodstuffs who make claims for their product's nutritional value where none exists, this is the political PRODUCT/equivalent.
"What if 2 million or more unemployed, broke and disenfranchised Americans descended on DC under a progressive banner demanding more? What if that were matched by millions more in other cities? What If we had a movement?" -- walt
Walt, I have NO idea where the movement is. At this moment in time, I can NOT make a trip to D.C., but I do take part, whenever possible, and with a little notice, in events that take place here in NYC. I have written this in prior posts, but events are lacking in participation in this city -- and this is a city of 8 million people. Protests and rallies are small -- very small. And, other political events -- panel discussions about health care, torture, media issues, etc. -- are also small. Even medium-sized halls are NOT full.
I will also point out that during the George W. Bush years, people turned out in droves! The very same medium-sized halls turned people away. However, having said that, I do think that the financial crisis has hammered people from every angle. In some cases, people have lost their homes, their jobs, their pensions, etc. And, each day, the news gets worse.
"this idea that Obama wants all sides to get along is a convenient cover, or fiction. What it hides is the true reality that both parties serve the same corporate/$ masters, so under the guise of wishing to get along, what ultimately is being furthered are the interests of big business. This idea of bipartisanship as diplomacy lends cover to supporting one set of interests alone, and these happen to be antithetical not only to the welfare of citizens as a whole, but to the stated intentions and objectives of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. If there is no tension between party interests, there is no viable basis for debate." -- Sioux Rose
I agree with you, and WELL STATED!
Kay Johnson sez: "I will also point out that during the George W. Bush years, people turned out in droves! The very same medium-sized halls turned people away."
***
They were turned away because of their "Protect our Civil Liberties" bumper stickers and t-shirts.
"They were turned away because of their "Protect our Civil Liberties" bumper stickers and t-shirts."' Goebbels
I wasn't clear in my post and I apologize! People were turned away because the hall was already overflowing with people. People were NOT turned away because of t-shirts, etc.
It's surprising Rolling Stone would publish this article, spun the way it is and still playing the game of Democrat vs. Republican.
I don't think this article will fool anyone.
On a positive note, I saw a headline that Michelle is beginning a new childhood obesity initiative. Starve the children! Or get them in military bootcamp.
I suspect Michelle is the front for pouring billions more into agribiz.
Yes- we wonder. Each must get their turn?
"How in the hell did we let that happen in Massachusetts?"
Answer: by coming within a hair's breadth of passing one of the worst pieces of legislation in US hisory, you damned fools.
It wasn't a matter of organizing the foot soldiers, it was a matter of attempting to foist a corporate boondoggle onto the backs of ordinary Americans.
Fools. Idiots. Mr. Obama may have a great mind, but he seems to have no real convictions to which he will adhere.
I am surprised to see even the Rolling Stone parrot lines like "Plouffe and OFA permitted Martha Coakley to fumble away Kennedy's seat — destroying the 60-vote supermajority the Democrats need to pass major legislation", which of course gives everyone a great excuse for ineffectual hand-wringing and whining. No supermajority, wah wah wah. I wish the "progressive" press would get off the sound-bite wagon.
Plouffe's emails consisted of two themes: 1.Support this nebulous idea of health reform, which the president himself has failed to clearly explain, (probably because if he did it would be blatantly obvious that it is another corporate welfare gift)and 2.Send money.
People haven't responded because despite the insults to Obama voters here on this site, they are not all as stupid as you think. They can see that the health care reform is shit, they can see that the president is ignoring them and abandoning their hopes for change.
The only thing that keeps them hanging on is that they just really like the guy, his eloquence and dignified manner are still cloaking his blatant corporatist agenda in their eyes. Gradually as he continues to act in ways contrary to what his supporters elected him to do, the fabric of the cloak will unravel.
Sioux Rose
ELAINE: Great post & excellent analysis.
Hi Sioux, and thanks.
I'm sure you also noticed this statement: According to several participants, Emanuel yelled at the assembled activists, calling them "fucking retards" and telling them he wasn't going to let them derail his legislative winning streak. "We're 13-0 going into health care!" he screamed. "We're not going to be 13-1!"
This is a great example of the hyper sports team mentality that we have talked about. The Washington insiders like Rahm look at things starkly in terms of political victories. In the same way that a super bowl quarterback has no interest in what the fans are paying for beer or whether the line at the latrine is too long, our alleged leaders are narrowly focused on their own game.
Emanuel sounds like a deranged Little League Coach screaming at a bunch of ten-year-olds. He is also apparently keeping a scorecard as well, and I for one am wondering exactly what's on it. Thirteen political victories of what type? I'm only able to think of the Sotomayor nomination as being really artful. So 12 more, and what does he consider a victory? Unrestrained war funding & more aid to bankers?
Sioux Rose
ELAINE: You're on your game. Your analysis here is spot-on. Imagine the parents of retarded children hearing those words spoken? The arrogance of those screaming at us to remain still while the ship is sinking astounds me. We need a phrase that takes, "Have you no shame?" up to the 11th power!
Shame would require a conscience. I think Rahm's answer to your question would go something like: "Who needs shame when I have one hand around America's wallet and the other hand around its neck MWA HA HA..."
Oh gosh- you are so right! The absolute worst was during the SOTU address, when he bleated, "If anyone has a better plan, show it to me..." WTF?? Every letter and phone call that I and a whole lot of us made to the White House and our "representatives," were ALL ABOUT that better idea. We didn't have to come up with the structure ourselves, since we already have it for the lucky few (Medicare)!!! After single payer got thrown under the bus, my calls/letters began to mention the Public Option as a fallback- again, we didn't have to write any legislation or figure out the logistics, because that plan had ALREADY been developed by Dr. Hacker. How many more "better ideas," does the guy want???!! I can supply some more, if needed, the first of which is: Stop with all the "bipartisan," hogwash and herd your sheep (Dems in Senate). Republicans are never going to further any public interest when they can simply obstruct it (duh!) instead. Of course right before the MA election (~2 weeks) I also wrote to say that I expected a loss there, and tried to explain why former Democratic voters would be leaving in droves (it is too hard to see any difference between the 2 parties). Of course, they did not listen then, either.
The people were starved for coherent leadership on the health care "debate", while Obama mumbled and obfuscated and acted like he never even heard of Single payer. (I, too, wrote and called and wrote some more. I have a feeling a boatload of people did.)
One such coherent voice was Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York who got on TV whenever he could and explained Single payer in a clear and simple way. Nancy Pelosi got him to shut up by promising to allow a debate and vote on a single-payer plan, on which she later stabbed him in the back. Big surprise there.
Obama, on the other hand, could have given hungry voters the guidance they needed to see Single payer as a positive step towards our national economic and social recovery. Everyone says how eloquent he is; how dignified and considerate. (I personally couldn't stomach the SOTU address; O is just as dreadful as W on my digestive system.)
He could have made it simple, especially since H.R 676 has already been clearly and concisely written (as opposed to the 2,000 page turd floating around the cesspool of Congress now) and has sponsors (like Rep. Weiner) in Congress who would have rallied around him.
He could have SOLD it. Especially since the majority of the people are ready and waiting to buy it.
"I don't think there'd be many people who would deny that Rahm is a pretty good pick."
Anyone else read that as "a pretty good prick" at first glance?
I enjoyed the article - mostly because I like discovering things about Steve Hildebrand, one of the most interesting insiders to the "O" campaign, and a fellow South Dakotan.