Whew! my diary yesterday went beyond my expectations. I hoped for some dialog/debate on the hand-wringing going on over the Obama administration's support of the public option and, wow, did I get it.
I also got called an "Obamabot", and "Obamaniac" and a "Kool-Aid drinker". I've been called worse, I suppose.
I also got the message that calls for a bit of reality in the debate is seen as equivalent to telling people they shouldn't criticize the president. Nothing could be further from the truth in my mind.
You may call me any name you wish but I would ask you to read this diary before you make up your mind about me and about people like me.
Because if we don't tell our stories and hear each other, we'll start talking PAST each other and we have too many battles ahead us with our real opposition: the right wingers and corporate interests that will fight us every step of the way on health insurance reform, climate change/clean energy legislation, immigration reform, education reform and so many other progressive issues.
If we're fighting each other, those douchebags win.
Last summer my wife and I got heavily involved in the Obama campaign, rapidly rising to the level of neighborhood team leaders and culminating in running a GOTV effort the four days before the election. Doing some rough calculations, I figured I knocked on no fewer than 1,000 doors over a four month period and made at least that many calls at phonebanks.
In early December, I was invited by the campaign to the Legacy for Change Conference in Chicago. Roughly 400 people were gathered together to discuss the future of the Campaign for Change's grassroots network after Barack Obama was inaugurated. It was roughly 1/3 field directors, 1/3 field officers and 1/3 unpaid volunteers like myself.
Here's what may shock you: I was adamantly outspoken that OFA not become an unpaid lobbying arm for the Obama administration. I reserved the right, I told them repeatedly, to disagree with the administration and to make my opposition known. I had a LOT of support for that and, even today, when some of us have problems with how things are moving, we are able to pass our feelings up through the organization so that they are heard. That's part of what OFA is about: fostering a two-way path of communication to and from the grassroots.
I understand that many people feel the administration is not outspoken enough about the public option as it relates to health insurance reform. To them, if I understand their arguments correctly, President Obama's refusal to commit to veto ANY bill that doesn't contain a public option, a STRONG public option, makes him complicit in its failure if that happens. Without his leadership on this, they feel, he is nearly ensuring it won't happen. Progress so far, they seem to believe, has only come about because the netroots have been fighting back by contacting their members of Congress (MOCs) to hold their feet to the fire, not from any action by the administration.
Here's where I both agree and disagree. It certainly HAS been the case that grassroots pressure on MOCs that has made the difference. But where I disagree is that this pressure has come about because the president has shirked his role. I would say that the president's tactic all along has been to stimulate the grassroots to rise up and be heard. A huge part of this has been through the DNC's Organizing for America (OFA) efforts. Volunteers for OFA have been somewhat quietly phonebanking and canvassing since June to get people to pressure their MOCs to support comprehensive health insurance reform. Other groups have also contributed greatly, most notably the folks at Fire Dog Lake (including our own slinkerwink and ncyeve) and MoveOn. But this isn't by accident. It's quite arguable that the administration is playing the netroots like a fiddle, getting their passion up at exactly the right moment in the debate that they can actually accomplish their goals.
If the president is the focal point of every single argument, he becomes the sole target for all of the opposition and that drains away his effectiveness on this issue and others to the point where he becomes impotent.
On the other hand, if he can enlist "the troops" to push the debate, it is seen oh-so-much more as a grassroots issue (which, of course, it IS.) He reserves a bit of his precious political capital while engaging the citizenry of this country in their civic duty as Americans to help guide national policy.
And the teabagger/screamer meltdown in August? I see that as nothing more than a masterful application of skillful political timing. The administration allowed these fanatical, eyes-bulging/veins-popping right wingers to crash their venom against the rocks in public view. Rather than helping their cause, their fanaticism and outrageousness HURT them. The proof of that is in the increasing support of Americans for health insurance reform, the collapse of the Republican party support and the INCREASE in the president's favorability numbers.
Is it a gambit, a gamble for the president to play things out this way? Is it risky for him and his administration to stay calm and not be so out in front on the public option as some here would want them to be? Sure it is. Any political tactic is a gamble. But this is a gamble being taken by political experts that accomplished something in 2008 that most people didn't think possible. They defeated the Clintons in the primary and went on to defeat the Republicans during a time of war. There were plenty of times during the campaign when people on this very site were wringing their hands and crying, "OMFG! He just gave the nomination to Hillary!" or "OMFG! He just gave the election to McPalin!" only to be proven days or weeks later to have made the correct decision. Calmly, decisively and thoughtfully, he navigated some pretty shark-infested waters and came out the victor.
Watch how I run my campaign, he told us, if you want to know how I'll govern:
Marc Andreesen, the guy who started Netscape, recounts a 90 minute meeting he had with Obama shortly before he started running for President:
We asked him directly, how concerned should we be that you haven't had meaningful experience as an executive — as a manager and leader of people?
He said, watch how I run my campaign — you'll see my leadership skills in action.
At the time, I wasn't sure what to make of his answer — political campaigns are often very messy and chaotic, with a lot of turnover and flux; what conclusions could we possibly draw from one of those?
Well, as any political expert will tell you, it turns out that the Obama campaign has been one of the best organized and executed presidential campaigns in memory. Even Obama's opponents concede that his campaign has been disciplined, methodical, and effective across the full spectrum of activities required to win — and with a minimum of the negative campaigning and attack ads that normally characterize a race like this, and with almost no staff turnover. By almost any measure, the Obama campaign has simply out-executed both the Clinton and McCain campaigns.
This speaks well to the Senator's ability to run a campaign, but speaks even more to his ability to recruit and manage a top-notch group of campaign professionals and volunteers — another key leadership characteristic. When you compare this to the awe-inspiring discord, infighting, and staff turnover within both the Clinton and McCain campaigns up to this point — well, let's just say it's a very interesting data point.
So, back to why I'm writing this diary. I would like everyone on this site who casually throw around terms like "Obmabot" and "Obamaniac" and who are quick to call Obama supporters "Kool-Aid drinkers" to remember this: we don't believe that Barack Obama is a god. We don't believe he is perfect. But we also know that he has mad political skillz. We know he knows how to lead. His leadership style is different, no question. He's not an overt arm-twister of the type we've come to expect in Washington, D.C. But, you know what? That's a BIG part of the reason we voted for him!
We wanted change. We wanted a departure from the "politics as usual" crap that we've all grown so weary of. Why would we expect him to govern any differently than he campaigned and why would we expect him to run his administration the same as all previous administrations? Why would we expect them to approach their political initiatives in the same ways others have, particularly when those previous approaches didn't work?
This is change. It takes time (certainly more than 10 months) to achieve all their goals. But as Bill in Portland Maine reported a few days ago, there is a plan:
BREAKING! For folks (like me) who are a little miffed that the president seems to be dragging his feet on repealing Don’t Ask, Don't Tell and other gay issues, take heart, says [Episcopal Bishop V. Gene] Robinson: "I was in the White House two weeks ago, and I can tell you that they have a timeline for all these things. And I don’t mean in eight years, I mean soon."
He added that: "It is important that you also lean on your congressmembers, so they can create and push the legislation that the president is eager to sign."
A little patience. A little faith. A little less reactionary hand-wringing and a little more grassroots action. These are the things that I think are needed. Holding the president and his administration's feet to the fire is absolutely okay. I myself have some issues on which I have big problems (FISA, torture policy, war crimes tribunals, e.g.) and I intend to be vocal about them along with others. But I think you make a big mistake if you think that President Obama doesn't have a plan or isn't moving forward with "deliberate haste" with most of the things we all want.
That doesn't make me an Obama-worshipper. I am an admirer and, until he proves me wrong, I still think he's the smartest guy in the room.
I'm just sayin'...