I opened up a few recommended diaries yesterday and earlier while at work, and I was annoyed at the bad information and just the dearth of nuanced, constructive discussion that resulted. That sort of well, crap, makes this place and other blogs just difficult to read, and since I purposely do not comment here or any blog while at work, the self-imposed silence kind of ate at me.
So, below the fold, thoughts on Obama, the economic recovery package, OFA, DNC, Dean, etc. I'm trying to spark some more rational discussion as opposed to just reading people hash the same tired crap.
DNC
Some of the Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel and DNC discussion is filled way too much with quite frankly bad info and myths, and it's gotten to a point where reality based discussion doesn't exist anymore (So to quote from a piece that I wrote a few weeks ago):
- Dean had taken a lot of crap from the media, the villagers, and some of the DC establishment, and I get people want to back him up and get him his due. But anything like "did more than anyone to get Dems elected in Nov" is hyperbole. He should get the proper amount of credit. Nothing less, and certainly nothing more. It doesn't do anyone any good
- Stop being trigger-happy with the "blame Rahm" stuff. Rahm Emanuel may want to have his hand in every bleeping thing, but he can't. There are other people with power in Obama-land other than Rahm. There are/were Obama strategists (NOT NAMED RAHM and who had LOTS more to do with Obama's field strategy and campaign than Rahm) who may have liked Dean's 50-state strategy in theory, but strongly felt there were problems with how it was implemented (AND THERE WERE) and that there were many aspects to Dean's 50-state strategy that needed improvement.
- The sense that I get is that, yes, Obama folks want to have organizers in all 50 states (with more in battlegrounds and emerging battlegrounds -- which is basically what happened during the general election), but they want their people in place. This is for several reasons. Obama staffers were asked to fill out surveys after the election, and one of biggest problems cited by Obama staffers were relationships with state party staffers. There are some really well-run state parties where the relationships between the Obama folks and the state party folks were fine. But in some states, you have moribund state parties with lousy staffs whose petty BS made life difficult for Obama staffers (and many other campaigns), and some state party staffers whose competence needed to be questioned. (See this comment for more.) Some of the money that Dean's DNC sent to state parties were used to hire absolute HACKS who did not do much of anything for many of the wins in 06 & 08.*** (RadioGirl's experience is NOT unique.) Another reason for the Obama people wanting their folks in place is that it would be more streamlined and efficient. It worked for them in the general election. Plus, you have tons of OFA alumni who need jobs. Many of these folks don't have the skills/degrees for a government job in DC, but can be taken care of as FOs in key states. They are arguably better organizers than many of the folks that the DNC hired/trained.
- The 50-state strategy under Dean is over-credited. I supported it and like Dean. And just about everyone I've talked to noted the improvement in voter files. BUT the DNC (and the state parties that it funded under Dean's 50-state strategy) was not some 'untouchable' thing. Many bloggers and netroots activists are over-crediting Dean and the 50-state strategy for the party's successes over the last 4 years. Folks in the netroots are understandably loyal to Dean, but his DNC was a step in the right direction -- not the holy grail. There were certainly many, many wins since Dean took over as head of DNC, that had little to do with the DNC or the state parties that got staffers funded by the DNC. You can read about it here and here.
- Hey, guys, the Obama folks got crap from some DC consultants and insiders for spending a ton of money in states that many people outside Obamaland thought that Obama would surely lose (this list of states includes IN, FL, NC, and for some, OH). So, "going back to the McAuliffe days" is NOT an option for the Obama folks. It's simply not in the cards, as they were "nay-sayed" in a somewhat similar fashion that Dean was.
I don't have all the details, but from what I do know, I think folks should stop worrying about the concept of the 50-state strategy going away. It's not. It may even be a better version of what we got from Dean.
[...]
***One irony for all the "wah, we're going back to the DLC days" is that some of the state parties are in effect controlled by folks who are not progressive, but centrist, and they use the money to help those in control keep power.
I want to expand on this a little bit, though. Maybe the best thing that Howard Dean's DNC did was to invest in the voter file and get the voter files in all states onto the same platform (VAN/Votebuilder). It was long overdue, and I don't think even Dean's detractors had a problem with this. (Now, timing, proportion of the money that went to this project, whether the end product was as good as it could have been given the money invested, etc... those were what caused more arguments.) That said, what I'm sensing from the Obama folks is that there were some problems with the VAN/Votebuilder (or maybe a better way of describing it as that the VAN/Votebuilder brought the DNC into the 21st century but the Obama folks and what they built and added to it brought it up to speed with 2008), and that they want to make it better and thinks it could have been better. Here's a good post from Marc Ambinder on this end. Another point here is that some of the investment in improving the voter files didn't show up until 2007. The truth is that during the 06 cycle, the DNC was simply NOT involved in the way folks here seem to think it was. This is why the 06 election credit goes more to Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, the favorable political environment, and GOP scandals... than to anything Dean's DNC did.
As far as downballot, the truth is, is that there are tons of organizations that do important work to take back state legislatures and win statewide elected constitutional offices (governors, AGs, Secretary of States, etc.) than is often discussed here. I'm familiar with some of these organizations, and I've done searches here at DailyKos to see if they've been mentioned... more often than not, they haven't been. (Again, Dean's DNC can't take all the credit here, and shouldn't be given all that credit.)
Folks in the blogosphere keep up with this "Dean was responsible for all of this and doesn't get anything!" The reality is that Dean was not responsible for all of the success. He was a part of it. He played an important role, but a less important role than how his role is discussed in the blogosphere. Over-crediting him has led people to become almost obsessed with trying to get him what they believe is owed to him, and I think that's been to the detriment of pushing for more progressive legislation and more progressive planks in the econ. recovery bill.
On frequent, over-used enemies
Let me make it clear: I don't like the DLC. Not a DLCer, won't ever be a DLCer, and wouldn't ever work for the DLC. But I do have a problem with calling everything that you don't like "DLC." Or people who confuse "New Democrats" and "Blue Dogs," and just throw terms out there. Or blaming everything on person-I-really-hate, regardless of the evidence that's available to you. What's also annoying is whenever something in Congress doesn't go our way, is the automatic "blame Pelosi and Reid" stuff. It's not to say that they're perfect or even good leaders. (JMO...Pelosi is much better than I think she's given credit for on blogs. Reid is mediocre, but not as horrible as portrayed on blogs.) I think it's bad that the knee-jerk reaction is to always simply blame those two. Truth is, is that the problem when we get legislation that is less progressive than we'd like... is usually in the Senate. And Reid works with the caucus that he has. The problem with the knee-jerk reaction to blame Reid all the time, is that it hardly ever leads people in the blogosphere to find out exactly what happened. What was the pressure point? Which moderate-conservative Democratic Senator led his/her coalition down the wrong path? It's easier to blame Reid than to figure out what happened, and who we should've been calling.
On the OFA 2.0, Obama's email list, and exactly who supported Obama
I think another problem that the netroots have is perspective, and perspective with regard to its size, its influence and exactly what it is good and is bad at. Certainly, progressive blogs can be instrumental in pushing back against right wing messaging and against the media. But don't mistake a loudspeaker for sheer numbers. I've long had a problem with those who equate grassroots with the netroots and those who think that the netroots is necessarily representative of "the base" at large. There are TONS of people who work in communities and volunteer in politics who don't read blogs. Parts of Obama's base (esp. poor, urban folk) don't have internet. So many of the people who volunteered for Obama's camapign (Plouffe says more than half and I believe him on that one) had never volunteered for any campaign before. (Some of the campaign's staffers including some who were based in Chicago hadn't worked on any campaign before.) Many were not self-described liberals and don't subscribe to policies that are as progressive as yours. The netroots is not THE base; it's part of the base.
I think OFA 2.0 could be really great and instrumental in the long haul in getting really tough legislation passed. It's going through a 'build' period, but the President's agenda can't wait for a build period. I think the email list could be used better than it is right now. The organizing and field stuff will take time, but in the meanwhile, the email list should be used to educate, motivate, and keep folks connected to the President and his vision.
It could be used to tell the list more about what is in the economic recovery package and why it would help the economy and how it would create jobs. These should be daily emails... each day, highlighting a different portion of the plan. And asking each recipient to contact his/her reps in Congress to support that plank. The email list could be used to get people to show up at his/her member of Congress's town hall meetings to show support for the stimulus, and win the local media battle.
In the meantime, the economic recovery is running into some problems in the Senate. Obama is looking at a multi-legged stool to get the economy on track and fix a broken system. This is one leg. (I think the Obama WH hasn't done as good of a job at hammering home the multi-part solution to our problems.) Not getting this passed is not good for the rest of his agenda. So if you care to, please consider contacting your Senators in support of more spending to make up for the economic contraction that we're in the midst of. http://senate.gov/...