Showing posts with label ofa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ofa. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

"Has Obama forgotten his grassroots?" (the full GRAHAM-FELSEN)



Sam Graham-Felsen:

In the wake of President Barack Obama's deal to extend the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, pundits have focused on how Obama has alienated the left. But the issue isn't the left -- it's the list.

Obama entered the White House with more than a landslide victory over Sen. John McCain. He brought with him a vast network of supporters, instantly reachable through an unprecedented e-mail list of 13 million people. These supporters were not just left-wing activists but a broad coalition that included the young, African-Americans, independents and even Republicans -- and they were ready to be mobilized.

I worked as Obama's chief blogger during his presidential campaign, and my primary focus was telling the stories of these supporters, many of whom had never been engaged in politics or were reengaging after years of disillusionment. There was a common thread in my conversations with the hundreds of people who gave time, sweat and small donations -- that amounted to $500 million -- to Obama's campaign.

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. MORE...

Sunday, November 21, 2010

"Obama Fix # 2 -- Get Rid of OFA"

Linnie Frank Bailey (HuffPo):
Time for OFA to be scrapped. At least as it currently exists.

I can't tell you how disappointed I was after all of our kick-butt, grassroots groups -- part of the 'social network' MYBO (mybarackobama.com) -- were morphed into the boring, unorganized, OFA (Organizing for America).

Some of us tried to stay on-board after the 2008 election. We were ready to take on our local city councils, our county boards, and our state houses!

WE had a mandate for change. Hell... we should have been the Tea Party!

We had the same anger and frustration as the Tea Party, we just know who the real culprits are, and it's not the poor, the old, the unemployed, the sick, OR people of color! We worked hard to elect Obama so that our country would not be BOUGHT!

But while OFA tried to figure out what to do next, the 'buyers' and their media reps used our slogans, our organizing tactics, and our Internet savvy to form the Tea Party. Their 'movement' wasn't a natural occurrence like ours... built from $5.00 and $10.00 contributions. Their movement is about exclusion. Our movement was about inclusion.

So where was OFA while the Tea Party was created and let loose in our suburban, rural, and southern towns?

OFA couldn't seem to figure what should come next after Obama won the White House. After a few months, they sent out some C-list organizers from the campaign to conduct 'listening' tours around the country. MORE...

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

"No We Can't, 2010 Midterms Edition"

A voter walks to a polling station in Titusville, Florida November 2, 2010 (Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty)
Tim Dickinson:
There are many reasons for the "shellacking" Democrats took last night. But the decline and fall of Organizing for America (nee Obama for America), and the subsequent reversion of the electorate to the midterm norm, may be sorriest of all. The fact that young voters, who made up 18 percent of the electorate in 2008, stayed home for this election is especially disheartening -- because those who did make it to the polls broke 57 to 40 for Democrats.

Where did things go wrong? On Monday, the New York Times explored the disillusionment of the Millennial set with Obama and his party. And back in February, I explained how OFA went off course in this feature I wrote for the magazine. MORE...

Howie P.S.: I'm confused. Dickinson also says "The share of the electorate under 30 actually dipped a point from four years ago' to 11 percent." That's all? What about two years ago? Dickinson's earlier piece on OFA should be required reading for every political pundit (cable, print or tavern).

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Giordano: "Next Tuesday’s US Elections in Black and White"

(CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

Al Giordano:
Democratic Senators Patty Murray in Washington state, Joe Manchin in West Virginia, Michael Bennett in Colorado, and US Senate candidate Paul Hodes in New Hampshire – all in states where African-Americans make up less than five percent of the vote – will only win if young white and Hispanic voters get their butts to the polls on Tuesday. (And, frankly, Sestak, Giannoulias, Reid and Feingold need plenty of that kind of help too.) Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer in California is likely going to get reelected because the marijuana referendum will pull enough young voters to the polls (and also because the 6.1 percent of her state’s population that is African-American will turn out in big numbers).

For the Democratic Senate and House candidates in overwhelmingly white states and districts, the last and only hope is the ground war: that their field organizations and that of Organizing for America can drag enough first time voters from 2008 and other young and Hispanic folks who don’t usually vote in midterm elections and get them to the ballot box (or bring the mail-in ballot to them). Organizing for America is targeting these potential voters and also you. They want you to help make seven million phone calls this week, something, they remind, that you can do from home or work and they’ll set you up with the list, the script or even invite you to a phone bank location in your area where you can do it together with other interesting people like you who aren’t just sitting around complaining and worrying. MORE...

Howie P.S.: I'm having trouble believing OFA can do the heavy lift for this election.

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Ari Melber: "White House to Obama Activists: Let Them Eat (Birthday) Cake"


Ari Melber (The Nation):
Why hasn't the massive, record-breaking volunteer and fundraising apparatus built during the 2008 Obama campaign exerted more influence in Washington? MORE...

Friday, March 26, 2010

OFA: "Celebrate passage of Health Reform with Senators Murray and Cantwell and Marcelas Owens! (Health Reform Celebration Events)"

Marcelas Owens, 11, from Seattle, watches as President Barack Obama signs the health care bill, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, in the East Room of the White House in Washington.

OFA:
Join OFA volunteers this Sunday, March 28 at 3PM for a rally with Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, as well as 11-year old Marcelas Owens, as we celebrate the passage of Health Insurance Reform!

For over nine months, Organizing for America volunteers have worked tirelessly on making Health Insurance Reform a reality in this country. On Tuesday, President Obama signed H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, into law. OFA volunteers have spent months contacting Member of Congress, educating neighbors about the benefits of this legislation, and fighting for Members who fight for reform. Because of that work, every American is finally guaranteed high quality, affordable health care coverage.

It's now time to celebrate all of our work together to bring about this incredible achievement for our country!
Time: Sunday, March 28 from 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM
Host: OFA Washington
Location:
IAM Hall (Seattle, WA)
9125 15th Pl S
Seattle, WA 98108
Directions: Click on the bit.ly link for a google map of the location in South Park.

Howie P.S.: Newser has "Meet Marcelas Owens, 11, Health Reform Activist":
That little boy standing at President Obama’s right hand as he signed health care reform legislation into law is, somewhat improbably, one of the nation’s preeminent reform advocates. Marcelas Owens, 11, has been sharing the story of his mother since she died in 2007, uninsured and unable to afford treatment for pulmonary hypertension, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports. “I'm signing it for 11-year-old Marcelas Owens,” Obama said of the bill.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Brian Baird on the hot seat: "Assessing Organizing for America through the health care lens"

Chris Cillizza:
A few weeks back, we wrote that Organizing for America -- the operation built in the wake of the 2008 campaign to push President Obama's legislative agenda -- faced a serious test of its efficacy as it pushed hard for passage of the health care bill.

In the immediate aftermath of Sunday night's vote, OFA claimed a sweeping victory (and a validation of its mission), noting that they had produced hundreds of thousands of phone calls -- among other voter contacts -- to fence-sitting members in the week prior to the vote.

Their work, in turn, drew praise from several people who have followed the organization very closely.

Ben Smith of Politico headlined a post "Credit to OFA" and concluded that in the "legislative trench warfare that has defined this year, [Obama's] campaign organization was a serious asset."

Ari Melber of the liberal Nation magazine, who has studied OFA (and its effectiveness) closely, offered this take:

"In the homestretch...the numbers and coverage suggest that OFA was able to channel grassroots support for the bill in effective and even confrontational ways."

If OFA's success or failure as an organization is entirely hinged on the fate of the health care bill passing, then it's tough to draw any other conclusion than the Sunday vote was a rousing victory for the organization.

The truth, however, of OFA's efficacy in regards the health care vote is far more nuanced and more difficult to accurately assess.

OFA's mission statement is simple: rally Obama's base -- and the more than 13 million email addresses its possesses -- to persuade and/or cajole members of Congress on the president's legislative priorities. And, assessing persuasion is a complicated game that is as much about human nature as it is about politics.

Take Washington Rep. Brian Baird (D) who voted "no" on the health care bill back in November.

Baird, who announced his retirement in early December, was publicly wavering in advance of this vote. In a memo outlining OFA's effectiveness sent to to reporters this morning, Democratic National Committee communications director Brad Woodhouse noted that Baird "said that the number of calls he received from inside his district in support of reform was persuasive in moving him" from "no" to "yes"; Woodhouse added that OFA was directly responsible for nearly three-quarters of all calls to Baird's office in support of the health care bill.

Compare that claim with Baird's quotes in a Roll Call story detailing the effort to win his vote.

Said Baird:

"Everybody knew in my case -- no point in cajoling me, They were likely to get punched in the mouth if they said, 'You're not running,'. You say that to me, you insult me personally, because it implies all I care about is election."

The story goes on to note that as Baird made up his mind he had a private sitdown with President Obama as well as conversations with Vice President Joe Biden and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke (Wash.). He even went over the plan "point by point" with Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orzag.

What then made up Baird's mind? Was it OFA's calls? Or the conversations with top Administration officials and members of the Democratic leadership in the House?

It's impossible to know and it's almost certain that no one thing did the trick.

(In truth, Organizing for America is likely to get less credit than it deserves in some circles because individual Members of Congress are often loathe to credit a persuasion campaign as the reason that their vote changed. The typical stated reason is generally far more high minded citing a detailed analysis of the bill after which they decided it was the right thing for the country.)

But the Baird back-and-forth gets at the fundamental chicken and egg-ness of OFA. We could argue until we are blue in the face as to whether insist that Baird was swayed primarily by calls from OFA or conversations with the President and his aides without coming to any real resolution.

The best (only?) conclusion we are left with is that, at a minimum, OFA helped around the edges to rally support for the vote. If the choice is between scads of calls in support of passing the bill into wavering Members' districts and no calls at all, it's hard to argue against those calls and the work OFA did.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

OFA on HEALTH CARE--"THE COST OF INACTION"

"Final March Day 1: Spread the Facts" (OFA):
It's time to show the insurance lobbyists that no smear campaign can match the power of millions ready for change and committed to the truth.

If you haven't already, please download the fliers and posters below, and make sure everyone in your community sees the facts about reform.

"IF WE DO NOT PASS HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM"

Up to 17 million more people will be uninsured by 2019 than today. 1
The average family's health care costs will nearly double by 2020, from $13,000 to $24,000
— meaning they'll be paying a quarter of their income toward health care costs. 2
Insurers can continue the massive and arbitrary premium rate increases we've heard about
recently — such as Anthem Blue Cross raising rates for customers in California by nearly
40%, and rates in Illinois going up by as much as 60%.
As many as 275,000 people could die prematurely over the next 10 years because they
don't have health insurance. 3
Health care costs will take up a staggering amount of our national budget. In 1960, it was 5
percent of gross domestic product (GDP), last year it was 17 percent. Costs will reach 21
percent of our economy by 2020 if we fail to act. 4
Rapidly rising costs will make it harder for employers — particularly small businesses — to
provide quality health insurance to employees, leading many to drop coverage or shift to
plans that cover less. 5
Even those who have insurance today will be less secure, and more likely to lose coverage if
they switch jobs or lose their job due to rising costs on the individual market or being
denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. 6

1. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411965_failure_to_enact.pdf
2. Commonwealth Fund, via NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28abelson.html
3. Families USA, via NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28abelson.html
4. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Blog/The-Costs-of-Failure.aspx
5. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Blog/The-Costs-of-Failure.aspx
6. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07sun1.html?pagewanted=all
Howie P.S.: OFA is blasting email from "Day 1" (Wednesday, 3/10) thru "Day 7." New AP story in the WaPo today: "Democrats, White House close in on health bill." And AP reports
Labor union members, religious leaders and other activists protested in the nation's capital against what they call an abusive health insurance industry.

Organizers with Health Care for America Now say thousands came in from across the country for Tuesday's march. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean addressed the crowd, calling on Congress to take a final vote on the proposed health care overhaul.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

"Swiftboating the Stimulus: Did the Internet Really Kill "Rovian" Politics?"

Micah Sifry (techPresident):
A year and a half ago, a few weeks before the presidential election, Google CEO Eric Schmidt made a bold claim about the impact of the internet on our public life: "We are witnessing the end of Rovian politics," he declared to Arianna Huffington.
Many observers, this writer included, enthused at how the internet was enabling the mass fact-checking of political statements--I called it "crowd-scouring"--and imagined that perhaps whatever the outcome of the 2008 election, "these new habits and tools will get aimed at making government more honest, open and effective."

Today, watching how our political discourse seems, depressingly, to still be dominated by blatantly anti-factual claims (such as the notion that $862 billion in stimulus spending didn't create one new job, as newly elected Senator Scott Brown recently claimed), it's worth asking whether Schmidt's pronouncement was way too optimistic. Has something changed? Were we too optimistic back in 2008? Or is there another element (no longer) at work, which people perhaps are less aware of: the existence of a robust, "people's army" of pro-Obama factcheckers in 2008, which has withered away in the last year?

At the time of Schmidt's statement, Huffington expanded his notion in a well-received post, writing:

Thanks to YouTube -- and blogging and instant fact-checking and viral emails -- it is getting harder and harder to get away with repeating brazen lies without paying a price, or to run under-the-radar smear campaigns without being exposed.

She noted a series of efforts by the McCain campaign to smear the Obama campaign, but argued that they weren't working:

...[T]here is a diamond amidst all this dung: the lack of traction this Rovian politics is getting. It's as if Rove and his political arsonists keep lighting fires, only to see them doused by the powerful information spray the Internet has made possible.

The Internet has enabled the public to get to know candidates in a much fuller and more intimate way than in the old days (i.e. four years ago), when voters got to know them largely through 30-second campaign ads and quick sound bites chosen by TV news producers.

Compare that to the way over 6 million viewers (on YouTube alone) were able to watch the entirety of Obama's 37-minute speech on race -- or the thousands of other videos posted by the campaign and its supporters.

Back in the Dark Ages of 2004, when YouTube (and HuffPost, for that matter) didn't exist, a campaign could tell a brazen lie, and the media might call them on it. But if they kept repeating the lie again and again and again, the media would eventually let it go (see the Swiftboating of John Kerry). Traditional media like moving on to the next shiny thing. But bloggers love revisiting a story. So when Palin kept repeating her bridge to nowhere lie, bloggers kept calling her on it. Andrew Sullivan, for one, has made a cottage industry of calling Palin on her lies. And eventually, the truth filtered up and cost McCain credibility with his true base: journalists.

The Internet may make it easier to disseminate character smears, but it also makes it much less likely that these smears will stick.

I was thinking about this argument--which I more or less endorsed at the time--as I read my friend David Corn's Politics Daily post today about the current political argument over the impact, or lack thereof, of Obama's stimulus package. David reports on the widespread public belief that the economic stimulus bill hasn't produced any jobs, and charges that one party in the national debate has been deliberately lying about the facts, with little fear of repercussion. In effect, that the "internet truth squad" lauded by people like Huffington and Schmidt either doesn't exist, or is far from as strong as they had imagined.

I asked David if he thought that was the case. He replied:

It may be harder to lie and escape notice, due to expansion of on-line vetting. Bloggers, political entities, journalistic outfits (like http://www.factcheck.org">Factcheck.org and Politifact.com), and ideologically-minded watchdog groups do engage in serious and significant factchecking of remarks made by officials, politicians, and media figures. But the dominant narrative in the established media, which still influences the national discourse, remains "he said/she said."

An example: the White House says the stimulus bill has added about 2 million jobs to the economy; the Republicans say there's been absolutely no new jobs created. Independent factchecking, as I noted in my most recent PoliticsDaily.com column, shows the GOPers are dead wrong. Yet articles in the New York Times and Washington Post focus on the debate between the two sides, treating each side's position with journalistic respect. These articles will include information that a fair-minded reader can use to conclude that the GOPers are not telling the truth. But the frame of this coverage is the face-off between Ds and Rs.

The story is not that one side is flat-out wrong (and perhaps lying). It's the mud-wrestling that counts. This manner of coverage offers an advantage to the side that is peddling false information. Politicians often need only to fight to a draw and can achieve their tactical aims by making a dispute (in which they might otherwise be on the losing end) seem contentious and unclear. Lying helps in such an endeavor--especially if reporters are nervous about calling a lie a lie.

In David's view, the problem is that the mainstream media hasn't really changed since 2008; style matters more than substance, and the horse race (who is winning the messaging wars?) is still more important than reporting on actual facts vs falsehoods. I also asked NYU Journalism professor Jay Rosen, author of the widely influential blog PressThink, whether he thought the current fight over the facts of the economic stimulus was telling us something about the internet's impact, or lack thereof, on the politics of the truth. He replied:

You're asking me about something I have thought a lot about, and tried to develop a theory or two of.... So I would say three things:

1. It's easier to point it out and find the evidence that shows you're right when politicians are lying. You see that in the growth of services like Politifact.com that try to put into practice what I think Schmidt meant. This is a big change.

2. The claim that this would lead to less lying across the entire space of politics was based on an assumption: that politicians care equally about the kind of legitimacy that comes from not being shown up as a liar, hypocrite, flip flopper, shady dealer on the news pages the elites scan. But what if that concern is not equally distributed? And what if you have the rise of political figures like Sarah Palin whose appeal is so grounded in culture war, that "exposure" for false statements is really just fuel for her permanent campaign against elites? Schmidt didn't think about that.

3. To some extent I see this whole discussion as naive. Sure, politicians engage in some pretty outrageous lying and how to make them pay is a puzzle and a half. But during the two terms of Bush one of the outstanding trends across the government was the retreat from empiricism generally, in which facts on the ground became an impediment to executive power and people who knew what they were talking about became the adversaries to the political people. Compared to that, lying pols is a tiny problem. The ur text for this is

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html

an article that I am convinced was never assimilated into political thought by the left, the right or the press. To this day the Republican party hasn't considered the consequences of a split between reality-based Republicans and... another kind.

With the result that today you have a 4,500 word profile of the Tea Party movement in the New York Times that calls it, "A sprawling rebellion, but running through it is a narrative of impending tyranny."

Impending tryanny. Does the New York Times reporter ask if that narrative is reality-based? So you have political forms that are lies: a movement based on an assumption that Soviet-style tryanny of the state is around the corner.

Rosen, like Corn, is basically blaming the mainstream media for failing to alter its very old habit of giving equal credence to both sides of an argument, even if one is clearly not "reality-based."

I emailed Arianna to get her view on the current moment, and she responded:

There is no question that it is much easier, in this era of YouTube politics, to expose the lies our leaders continue to tell – the latest example being all the Republican members of Congress who voted against the stimulus bill, trashed it in public, then turned around and took full credit when the benefits of the bill arrived in their district.

At the same time, this is a moment of great economic anxiety – with millions out work, millions of homes foreclosed, and millions going bankrupt. In times like these, people are more likely to be driven by their lizard brains and react out of fear as opposed to reason, making it easier for demagogues to scapegoat and peddle conspiracy theories laced with violent undertones, the way Glenn Beck is doing.

In this kind of atmosphere, people sometimes refuse to believe their own eyes.

Hmm. It's true that the economy is much worse now than it was in the summer-fall of 2008, but it's not as though there wasn't already intense economic distress all over the country and widespread antipathy to Democratic economic approaches in the sorts of places "Joe the Plumber" came from. So, I'm not sure if the change in the information wars really comes down to, "It's the Economy, Stupid." Something different was going on in the summer and fall of 2008 that made people think Rovian politics was on the run. What could that have been?

I'd like to suggest one additional element that may help in understanding why the White House is losing many current arguments. The internet is a neutral tool, and yes, it does make it easier to spread messages--true ones as well as false ones. But here's what has changed: in 2008, the Obama campaign had a huge, motivated, networked, self-organizing (to some degree) base that was using the internet every day to fight the information wars. They had an active corps of super-volunteers focused on doing "rapid response" to media bias and falsehoods. And they had a well-constructed web operation centered on a special site called "FighttheSmears.com" that was tuned, via search, to capture the attention of random web-surfers wondering whether Obama was a Muslim, or born in America, and get them credible information. But take a look at traffic to FighttheSmears.com over the last two years:

I hate to sound like a broken record, but given that we live in a networked age where people are bombarded with competing information claims 24-7, the notion that you can just hope people will find the truth on their own isn't enough. You have to organize constantly to defend the truth. And thus [cue broken record], the failure of the Obama campaign to properly plan to keep their 13 million member grassroots movement going full steam surfaces again as a key piece of the "meta-story" of the last year and a half of political struggle. When you have a movement, media narratives shift. (Hello, Tea Party!). Without one, the narratives shift too. The other way.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Tim Dickinson: "No We Can't"

Tim Dickinson (Rolling Stone):
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."

Howie P.S.: Another critique of the Obama administration start-up: "The New Deal in Reverse."

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Melber: "Noting Setbacks, Plouffe Returns in New Obama Video"


Ari Melber (The Nation), with video (03:46):
David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager who was recently tapped for an "expanded role" advising the White House, just cut a video briefing Obama supporters on plans for the coming election year.

While acknowledging that Obama's organizing operation faced "fits and starts" last year, Plouffe argued that the White House was "still on the doorstep of passing healthcare reform," and he announced some new numbers for the Democrats' ground game. One million new people joined Obama's Organizing for America (OFA) over the past year, Plouffe said, and supporters have now pledged to volunteer 450,000 hours in the coming year. (Have the Tea Parties registered contact information for a million people?) The results are from an online survey of Obama supporters. The survey found over 70 percent of respondents want to support "education reform" and "job creation" in 2010, while over 80 percent are still fired up for health care. (If at first you don't succeed...)

Plouffe also touched on a few areas where supporters thought Organizing for America came up short, pledging to provide more detailed information and communication about legislative and political strategy.

Beyond the video (link above), OFA is also distributing a two-page handout with more stats -- like OFA held a whopping 819 local events per week around the country last year -- and discussion of "important lessons." "Politically, we know that even our best efforts don't always result in victory," the handout notes, "but we've learned from each hard-fought race and are ready to put those lessons to work in 2010."

That may trigger thoughts of Massachusetts, but as readers here know, OFA's largest failure last year stemmed from the White House's flawed legislative strategy for health care. (More on that in my report on OFA's first year, The Permanent Field Campaign in a Digital Age.)

Beyond Plouffe's increased visibility -- a no-brainer, given his popularity with grassroots Democrats -- the President is still spending his most precious resource, time, on OFA.

On Thursday afternoon, Obama is scheduled to do a live video "conversation" with OFA members who RSVP on OFA's website.

Howie P.S.: In case you forgot, OFA's main shortcoming has been its failure to sway Congressional opponents of Obama's agenda, with health care as the prime example. There's an AP story in the WaPo this morning that analyzes Obama's current approach:
Slapping Republicans with one hand, extending olive branches with the other, President Barack Obama is playing a dangerous political game.

It's not a new one.

And it just might work.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

"Can Obama Woo Back the Grassroots?" (with audio)

KCRW, "To The Point" with audio (27:00):
Can Obama Woo Back the Grassroots? (seven minutes in, after the news and introduction))

The big story of the 2008 presidential campaign was the massive, grassroots army of some 13 million volunteers that Barack Obama recruited with the promise of change. The big question of 2009 was how those political soldiers could help accomplish the goals they fought for. Now, more and more of those supporters say they're being left out of the action by a White House that's all too comfortable with Wall Street and Washington's ways. Did Obama raise unrealistic expectations? Has he missed the opportunity to build a movement, or is governing just different from running a campaign? We hear from grassroots supporters, both current and former. Guests:

H/t to Ari Melber.

Howie P.S.:
John Aravosis says "Krugman and Ezra have apparently had it with Obama on health care reform." More disappointment from Frank Rich: "The State of the Union Is Comatose."

Sunday, January 17, 2010

"OfA on the line in Mass."

Ben Smith:
A handful of readers emailed this week that Organizing for America, the Obama campaign organization, had been unfairly maligned over the last year because it hadn't had a chance to do the sort of intense, electoral organizing it was good at, instead consigned to hazy issue campaigns.

Wrote one emailer:

In just 5 days OFA has shifted almost all of its focus to the Coakley campaign. A couple of days ago, OFA volunteers made over 25,000 calls into MA, and over 15,000 calls were made last night. To put it in perspective, this article notes that the McCain campaign was making 20,000 dials per month in the pre Palin phase. Many of our calls are to potential volunteers and since they are being asked to fill GOTV shifts OFA could be a serious force multiplier. I'll now go back to reading the latest DKos diary about how OFA can't do anything.

The group is doing a conference call today to rally the troops and celebrate the volunteers who made the most calls. If Coakley pulls it out, the group's effectiveness in a late, intense campaign push will be part of the story.

Friday, January 15, 2010

WNYC: "Democratic Netroots" (audio)

WNYC with audio (14:28):
A report on the first year of Organizing for America was published yesterday, and details the successes and failures of Obama organizing online. Author of the report Ari Melber, correspondent for The Nation and contributing editor to techPresident, and William McNary, president of USAction and co-executive director of Citizen Action/Illinois, discuss the report and the state of the netroots on the left.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Even MORE Melber on OFA: From "permanent campaign" to "permanent field program"

Ari Melber (The Nation):
A year ago this weekend, Barack Obama's victorious campaign network was converted into Organizing for America (OFA), a new arm of the Democratic National Committee that lobbies and organizes for Obama's domestic agenda, a departure from the DNC's traditional electoral focus. That move marked the beginning of an unusual experiment.

No president has ever managed the federal government while simultaneously attempting to lead a wired supporter network that can talk to itself, and organize itself, on a local and potentially national scale. And while presidents have always attempted to reach the public by routing around Congress and the media, no previous administration has ever possessed such a massive, interactive list of supporters.

In its first year, OFA has frequently communicated with its 13 million members, and mobilized hundreds of thousands to take concrete actions, from organizing local events to visiting and calling members of Congress. Is this another campaign?

Strategists and scholars have long defined the modern presidency as a "permanent campaign." The concept was most famously enunciated by President Carter's pollster, Patrick Caddell, who argued it was no longer possible to separate "politics and government." "Governing with public approval requires a continuing political campaign," Caddell wrote in 1976, in an influential transition memo for the new President. Sidney Blumenthal, a journalist who later served in the Clinton White House, wrote "The Permanent Campaign" in 1982, a book warning that presidential governance was sliding into a model of constant politicking--an "engineering of consent with a vengeance." Political scientists have sought to demonstrate these trends, measuring increases in campaign-style media and fundraising activity by recent Presidents.

These analyses of the modern presidency, however, are premised on a view that defines "campaigning" as media messaging, political outreach and fundraising. In the current era, however, a key distinction is a new, permanent field campaign--contacting, organizing and mobilizing voters about governance between elections.

OFA marks the first time a political party has deployed a permanent field program with its own communications channel to contact and organize volunteers to advance a policy agenda between elections. The national parties' previous experiments with off-season field efforts were limited to electoral goals, like the "50 State Strategy;" gestures towards policy "campaigns" that did not include actual field mobilization; or "citizen corps" that attempted to advance general support for a President's agenda, but without a dedicated mass communications channel like email, or a coordinated national event program.

Within the first year of the Obama administration, by contrast, OFA deployed a paid staff in 50 states for an ongoing field policy effort. Based primarily on OFA, in fact, the DNC is on pace to assemble the largest paid staff in its history. Growing out of a remarkably vast campaign network and aided by breakthroughs in communications technology, OFA presents a novel opportunity for policy advocacy and party building.

Political scientist Daniel Galvin, who has studied "presidential party building" in the modern era, contends that OFA has fundamentally different assets and objectives than the conventional model of national political parties. While the traditional DNC is "charged with electoral-support responsibilities, such as aiding state and local parties, recruiting and supporting candidates," Galvin writes, "OFA's mandate is different: it is to carry out policy-publicity responsibilities, such as building support for the president's legislative agenda, articulating his ideas, and countering the opposition's attacks." This foundation presents high stakes for Obama and the Democratic Party in general, Galvin argues:

... OFA itself makes Obama much better positioned to make serious party-building inroads than his predecessors ever were. None of his predecessors had such a well-organized and vibrant campaign organization, and none opted to fold what they did have into the DNC. Obama has already done so... But because OFA holds the promise of so much organizational power, the stakes could not be higher. If Obama converts OFA into a multipurpose [policy and electoral] entity that can help the party enhance its myriad electoral operations at all levels, he can change the course of the Democratic Party's history. If he does not, he risks more than a loss of momentum: he risks falling behind a Republican Party that has not abandoned its own organizational party building even as it drifts...

Departing from electoral objectives is difficult, of course. A permanent field campaign to advance governing, rather than electioneering, requires rallying support for specific policy initiatives. It is harder to sell policy than candidates, which is why, after all, so many political campaigns focus on biography, values and symbolism over the content of candidates' actual platforms. Yet OFA has consolidated Democratic infrastructure with policy as the core focus of its first year, primarily health care, with an outreach strategy that essentially operates on two tracks.

At the broadest level, OFA does outreach and organizing to build social, diffused support for the administration's priorities. Through local events, meetings and petition drives, for example, OFA can try to boost the awareness, support and enthusiasm for specific initiatives. On this indirect track, a resulting increase in support might be demonstrated through turnout at events; citizen voices in letters to the editor; local media coverage; people's conversations with their neighbors; or even through national polling on support for Obama's agenda.

This approach can be conceived as "mandate support." It operates on the premise that Presidents enact more of their agenda when their public mandate is large--or perceived to be large. In this model, a President aims to maintain his base not only for reelection (a political goal), but also because maintaining base support helps enact the administration's policies (a governing goal). While the traditional mechanism for such backing was through political, financial and media efforts, not sustained field organizing, the strategic framework is quite similar.

The other track for OFA is directly lobbying Congress. Obama supporters are asked to engage their members of Congress regarding the administration's agenda through phone calls, office meetings and local events. OFA typically encourages supporters to use a positive tone to voice support for a general administration plan or set of principles, such as "health care reform," without drawing more precise lines. (Some OFA volunteers find that approach vexing, since it's even harder to hold politicians accountable without detailed demands.) The posture ranges from encouraging members of Congress to vote for the administration's agenda, to thanking individual members for votes backing the administration, to pressing selected members who vote against key items on the agenda. Unlike many lobbying and advocacy groups, OFA's direct lobbying track generally avoided more confrontational postures towards elected Democrats in 2009.

Proponents of such field policy efforts contend that governance organizing expands the civic and political opportunities for engagement, providing citizens with a tangible way to volunteer and advocate beyond the confines of an electoral campaign. By tapping the interest in a popular President, (at least among his base), OFA can even recruit new governance activists who would not be as likely to engage the legislative process under the status quo, or through actions that focused on their individual member of Congress. (After all, most voters cannot even name their member of Congress.) And Obama's political allies tend to view OFA as a basic opportunity for supporters to advance the agenda they backed in the election.

According to OFA, in 2009, the governance organizing program attracted new volunteers who were not active during the campaign. More broadly, grassroots governance organizing, by either political party, might mitigate some of the distorted influences in the current political market. If the media and financial machinery of the modern presidential policymaking already operate a permanent campaign, a program engaging more regular citizens--as supportive volunteers or persuadable decision-makers--could restore some balance to a process that often focuses on media and financial advocacy more than pressure from grassroots activists.

Others caution that simply layering a field component over a permanent campaign model could actually heighten some problematic trends in civic life. The academic literature on permanent campaigns, and the increasing politicization of the entire federal government bureaucracy, raises this concern. "Campaigning is geared to one unambiguous, [competitive] decision point in time," argues one such critique, contrasting that dynamic to a governing ideal that would proceed more cooperatively. This argument, also reflected in public opinion that dislikes "partisan bickering," raises the prospect that constant campaigning fosters an adversarial, rather than collaborative, approach to governing.

A related concern focuses on the growth of the modern "plebiscitary presidency," in which presidents increasingly make appeals directly to the public, rather than working with the representative branch of government, especially after the Bush era. Fortifying that model with a powerful, national whip operation could further undermine Congress' autonomy, in this narrative.

And finally, there are practical politics. Many progressives and Obama allies are weighing whether OFA's first year provided an organizing program that is both effective and empowering for its members, with an eye towards the rest of Obama's tenure. Some former Obama campaign aides, for example, are concerned about whether OFA is maintaining the meaningful, successful relationships developed among Obama supporters during the presidential campaign.

So it's an interesting time to take stock. I recently interviewed OFA volunteers, congressional staff and veterans of Obama's presidential campaign to tackle these questions--interested readers can find summary findings and the full report at this dedicated page: Year One of Organizing for America: The Permanent Field Campaign in a Digital Age. (There is also a live conversation on Twitter with this hashtag: #ofayear1)

If there is one certainty about OFA's future, it is that the organization's priorities will change in 2010. After a year devoted to health care reform, OFA must choose a new agenda to engage its members.

More Melber: "Why Obama's Organizing Arm Can't Win On The Hill" (Huff Po)

Ari Melber (HuffPo):
The reviews of the President's first year are rolling in, but most neglect the biggest force that Obama brought to Washington: His volunteer army.

In a break from the national parties' playbook, Obama rolled his massive supporter network into a dedicated advocacy operation at the DNC, "Organizing for America" (OFA), one year ago this weekend.

The New Permanent Field Campaign

While a "permanent campaign" philosophy has ruled Washington since the Carter era, OFA is the first time a party is running a permanent field campaign, wired with email, to advance an administration's policies. The unusual experiment could strengthen Obama's position with increasingly nervous Congressional Democrats. There are also risks. Since OFA contacts and summons Obama's most active backers - his financial and field foundation - the program's fate can impact today's fundraising and tomorrow's elections.

So far, OFA's work has been cast as everything from an "unparalleled" and "incredible" success - right here at Huffington Post by OFA's Jeremy Bird - to an ineffective "bust," by McClatchy reporter Frank Greve. But there are not many detailed reports on OFA's track record and impact.

To pinpoint what OFA is actually doing in the field, and how it's playing on Capitol Hill, I recently conducted interviews with congressional staff, former Obama campaign staff, and about 70 Obama supporters active in the OFA grassroots. This post covers a few points -- the entire report is available at techPresident.com/OFAYear1.

High Turnout

In its first year, OFA successfully mobilized and sustained a new corps of "super activists" around the health care battle. Often below the radar, these governance activists are volunteering several hours a week, or more. Many are new to politics. The national data is striking: OFA members spent a cumulative 200,000 hours volunteering in 2009, organizing 37,000 local events, driving 65,000 people to attend lobbying events, and showering newspapers with a quarter million letters to the editor on health care.

My anecdotal surveys found similar trends. Many Obama supporters continue to volunteer, and four different types of OFA members seem to be emerging.

Leading the pack are super activists, who are enthusiastically seizing on governance activism opportunities to volunteer at rates that rival campaign season. Obama Campaign Field Director Jon Carson credited "super volunteers," people working 20 to 40 hours a week, for providing the campaign an "extra layer of staff" in 2008. Many are still going strong.

Then there are critical participants, people who volunteer for OFA while voicing skepticism about some of Obama's decisions.

Other OFA members have become supportive bystanders: They intensely back Obama but decline volunteer opportunities, either because they do not feel needed or are simply busy with other things.

Finally, I did encounter a few former members. These Obama voters simply tuned out OFA in response to its first year program. But they still tend to feel positively towards Obama.

Low Impact on The Hill

While this mobilization is high, most congressional staff interviewed said OFA's efforts are not changing votes on Capitol Hill.

Democratic staff noted that most of the lobbying targeted offices that already backed Obama's health care plan. The reinforcement was welcome, said Democratic aides, but it did not add to the whip count. In the office of a conservative Democrat who voted against Obama's health care, one staffer was hopeful OFA would still "change some minds" and cultivate a more progressive "community" in the district. But the aide said that had not happened yet. And OFA did not mobilize people to aggressively confront Obama's Democratic opposition.

Some Republican staff said they were aware of OFA's field work, but they contended it was not changing public opinion back home. "Even with the OFA push, we've still just seen, for our district, overwhelmingly people are against the bill," observed a House G.O.P. aide. Other Republicans said they had not seen a major OFA presence last year.

Boxed in by the White House

In interviews with former members of the Obama campaign, a common theme was that in many ways, OFA's job is harder than electing Obama in the first place. "How do you recapture a grassroots movement of people fighting Washington insiders when you're sitting inside Washington trying to direct this movement?" asked one former staffer. OFA is in a "very tough position," this person added.

But other Chicago veterans said OFA's first year revealed shortcomings at the White House.

"Rahm and whomever else [at the White House don't] give a crap about this email list and don't think it's a very useful thing," concluded one former campaign aide. "This is the most unprecedented list by far in political history, with the potential to be an incredible tool for social change and a legislative hammer to help pass progressive reform. Yet it doesn't feel like it's being treated that way [by the White House]," argued the former aide, who was concerned that repetitive, top-down emails would "weaken" the volunteer network.

Another former campaign aide agreed, saying, "I don't think the White House is interested in using a grassroots organizing network to really advance their agenda. I can say that flat out." OFA's first year activities revealed the costs of David Plouffe's absence, according to this person, who supported more confrontational and targeted strategies towards Congress. "I think the absence of Plouffe is really felt. When you talk about the top echelons of campaign, who are the people who got the technology, got the organizing and got the network, the single person at the center of that was David Plouffe," the former staffer contended. "And without him in the room on a daily basis, I think the technology and the grassroots networks get a lot less attention."

OFA usually functioned as a single-issue lobbying group in 2009, hammering health care every month. That will certainly change this year, as the agenda evolves. The challenge is turning field work around the country into clout inside the Beltway.

Ari Melber with Chuck Todd on MSNBC on OFA (video)

MSNBC, video (03:44).

Howie P.S.: Ari gets wall-to-wall coverage here because he grew up in Seattle, and still comes back to visit his parents.

Chris Cillizza on Ari Melber on OFA (Updated)

UPDATE: techPresident has their own mini-version of Melber's 73 page report.

Chris Cillizza (WaPo-The Fix):
A new 73-page report penned by liberal commentator Ari Melber for the techPresident Web site offers a detailed examination of Organizing for America, the grassroots arm of the Democratic National Committee. OFA, created after the 2008 campaign in an attempt to transfer the grassroots energy of the campaign into a tool to push the president's policy agenda, has largely operated in a low-key manner with its successes (and failures) cloaked within the broader DNC operation. Melber's report, which is the result of dozens of interviews with congressional staff, former Obama campaign staff and activists on the OFA list, provided decidedly mixed reviews for the organization. While noting that OFA "successfully mobilized and sustained a new corps of super activists" between in its first year, Melber concludes that the actual legislative impact of this activity was minimal. "Congressional aides do not think OFA is changing Members' votes," he writes. "Aides in both parties say OFA has mobilized constituent lobbying but do not say that OFA is a major or powerful force on Capitol Hill." That perceived lack of influence in effecting legislation may well be the result, as Melber's report reveals, of OFA spending most of its time in its first year of existence on "supporting and thanking allies than targeting holdouts in Congress." That, to our mind, is the central dilemma of OFA that remains unresolved. Can a party committee -- or an organization that lives within a party committee -- do the sort of pressuring of its own members in the way that a Moveon.org on the left or a Club for Growth on the right can? And, if not, how can the organization hope to influence members on legislation given that pressure applied hard and often is the only demonstrated way of changing or making up minds? ALSO READ: OFA deputy director Jeremy Bird's defense of the group's work.
Howie P.S.: Ari has now made the transition from "Democratic strategist" to "liberal commentator," apparently.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

GRITtv: "What Happened to the Grassroots Obama Movement?" (with video)


GRITtv, with video (15:17):
The people who voted for him weren’t organized in any kind of new or powerful way, and the special interests–banks, energy companies, health interests, car-makers, the military-industrial complex–sat first at the table and wrote the menu. Myth met reality, and came up wanting.

So said Micah Sifry of Personal Democracy Forum; Karoli of the blog Odd Time Signatures disagreed and said that with help from volunteers like her, Organizing for America is continuing to push for change. They joined us in studio to debate the present and future of progressive organizing, both within the Democratic party apparatus and outside of it.

We also spoke to Geoff Berman, New York Deputy Field Director for OFA, about what’s actually going on with his organization and what he thinks of the critiques.