It is easier to make deals with a few people in secret, instead of holding transparent negotiations in public, and it is easier to work within Washington's narrow, antiquated rules than mobilizing a massive, unpredictable movement to fundamentally reform a broken system. Those are the temptations for the White House. Yet even as the midterms fade into the rearview mirror, it often seems like Obama's aides are in denial about the political costs of these strategies. The arguments of former loyalists like Graham-Felsen and Ganz are striking because they not only appeal to the idealism or "promises" of the Obama campaign, they also press blunt warnings about the President's political survival. Does it get through to the White House? One suspects that if the warnings were heeded in private, they would probably not be going public.irmaly's diary on Kos:
Sam Graham-Felsen says he was President Obama's 2008 "Chief Blogger"in an opinion piece just published in the Washington Post. He complains that while Obama is being accused of alienating the left, what he has really lost is "the list."
Graham-Felsen says over $500 million came to Obama from his thousands of small dollar donations, but that these people have been forgotten.
They were inspired by Obama's promise to upend Washington by governing from the bottom up. "The change we need doesn't come from Washington," Obama told them. "It comes to Washington."
Yet at seemingly every turn, Obama has chosen to play an inside game. Instead of actively engaging supporters in major legislative battles, Obama has told them to sit tight as he makes compromises behind closed doors.
- irmaly's diary :: ::