Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

How Obama Squandered 13 Million Activists—and Health Care Reform

Over the summer, as conservative activists outplayed liberal activists, turning Democrats’ local health care forums into daily news clips against the Democratic reform bill, I kept wondering where the Obama army was. Where was Organizing for America, the 13 million-strong grassroots network Obama put together during the ’08 Presidential campaign? Weren’t they supposed to be in place still, ready to get Obama’s back during his change-agent presidency?

In August, The New York Times ran an article about OFA and how conservatives were dominating the health care debate. The article didn’t explain why the Obamatons were dropping the ball, but at least it confirmed I wasn’t imagining things—OFA was indeed, anemic and MIA.

As the health care debate intensifies, the president is turning to his grass-roots network — the 13 million members of Organizing for America — for support.

Mr. Obama engendered such passion last year that his allies believed they were on the verge of creating a movement that could be mobilized again. But if a week’s worth of events are any measure here in Iowa, it may not be so easy to reignite the machine that overwhelmed Republicans a year ago.

More than a dozen campaign volunteers, precinct captains and team leaders from all corners of Iowa, who dedicated a large share of their time in 2007 and 2008 to Mr. Obama, said in interviews this week that they supported the president completely but were taking a break from politics and were not active members of Organizing for America.

There was also this curious bit of news. Although, again, it went unexplained:

In recent months the group’s strategy has changed. Gone are the television commercials on health care, climate change and other issues that were broadcast in an effort to pressure moderate Democrats to support the president’s proposals. Now, after the White House received an earful from some of those Democrats, the group has started running advertisements of appreciation.

Wasn’t OFA supposed to hound Democrats to make good on Obama’s mandate for change?

My questions have now been answered. Seizing on the latest (and crippling) loss in the fight for health care reform—Scott Brown’s historic GOP win in Massachusetts—Rolling Stone published an article titled “No We Can’t” this month that explains why everything fell apart:

Blame Obama’s decision to fold OFA into the Democratic National Committee (and the resulting inability to go after moderate Democrats) and their reliance on traditional politics (abandoning popular pressure from the grassroots for inside-the-Beltway deal making).

[Obama's 2008 campaign manager David] Plouffe, in a truly bizarre call, decided to incorporate Obama for America [now known as Organizing 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.”

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.”

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.




  • lol

    Because when I want to be lectured on successful grassroots politics, I turn to Joe Trippi, the Bob Shrum of the blogosphere.

    Also strangely absent – the hundreds of thousands of phone calls OFA has been making to Congress, district rallies, town hall meetings and local organizing. But wait, that wouldn't fit the narrative being advanced.

  • sarah68

    The town hall meetings and local organizing in the Seattle area have not been accomplished by OFA, unless every organization and individual who have worked on those have been deliberately hiding their affiliation with OFA. I doubt they've done so and I don't know why OFA would have agreed to that. Thus, I'm inclined to credit Washington CAN, Healthy Washington, labor groups, and other very active organizations for the work to bring the public to a realization that this actually concerns them. Who are you, lol? Tell us what you know, don't just make claims.

  • http://yrihf.com/ jabailo

    This website calls itself “Pub”-licola, but it seems more like Democola.

    No matter how failed and broken the President's plan is, you refuse to admit that John McCain would have already enacted health care at a low cost for most people.

    Look at Washington State — as Maria Cantwell has often said — we already have a public plan. Instead of squandering trillions on TARP, the President could have spent a fraction of that money helping to fund state public plans like Washington's, which can provide health care for as little as $33 a month.

    Why make a mountain out of a mole hill. Either you want more and cheaper coverage for those without a job-based plan, or you want to grandstand about “changing the way we do health care”.

    The R in Republican stands for Reason. Take a look at a Reasonable plan before (D)ismissing it outright.

  • sarah68

    Jabalo, if we don't raise more revenue (i.e., more taxes) in Washington State, we will completely lose the “public health plan”. It costs the state (i.e., you and I) much more than $33 a month. Are you for more taxes? If not, prepare for Basic Health to go away, and you won't be able to tout it anymore as a solution. You can't have it both ways. Last I heard, the health care corporations Republicans support don't provide free care, and last I heard, Republicans don't think taxes are necessary for anything.

    Re your comment about McCain, I think you must be smoking something. He's a Republican. The Republicans have simply said “no” to anything involving health care, at state levels as well as the national level. The R in Republican stands for Refuse.

  • http://yrihf.com/ jabailo

    (1) I said the Feds should have supported the WA state plan (instead of TARP, Stimulus). So no new taxes.

    (2) Here is the Republican Health Plan discussion as currently put forth by the Republican Study Committee:

    http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/Solutions/Discuss…

    (3) Republicans didn't say no to anything. They weren't allowed to read the plan in the Senate (yes, I know, you'll have to recall two months worth of history, but try, if you can).

  • WK9

    If reasonable is code for “exactly what heath-care lobbyists and big pharma want: more profits taken from sick Americans” then, yeah, the GOP is super reasonable.

    TARP has nothing to do with heath care and everything to do with preventing the complete economic melt-down initiated by the GOP (thank god it worked).

    And, dont forget who instituted our basic heath plan–that was some Democrats my friend.

    But anyways, my point is this: The move of OFA to the DNC is just one indication of the broader problem w/ Obama's transition from campaign to government. Through 2008, Obama activists like myself were energized by his principled tone, his refusal to back down when confronted with the Republican attack machine, and his promises to lead towards change. After Jan 20, 2009, that all changed. Principal turned into “pragmatism,” standing strong changed to “bi-partisanship” and leadership changed to “we're going to let the congress figure out the details.” Its not just that OFA went to the DNC–a move, I'll be honest, that I didnt even know about until now (though it makes sense looking back at the difference between Obama emails pre- and post-inauguration). Obama's failure comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a leader and what it takes to mobilize an American political movement. Obama more than “squandered” his activist base; by stopping the passion, the charismatic principled stands and the willingness to call out opponents for selling out Americans, he de-activated his activist base.

    and finally, thanks PubliCola for not succumbing to the calls for “objective” journalism from those who would prefer falsehoods and misrepresentations be given equal time with smart, strong arguments. Keep up the honest, informative reporting. And I'm surprised our friend jabailo doesn't recognize a story that takes Democrats to task when he sees one…

  • sarah68

    Tom Price was quite up front in his first letter to Obama: the Republicans decry the supposedly dangerous takeover of health care by the government. Although there has indeed been much outreach by the Dems to the Repubs on health care, and many (useless) concessions, there's not much collaborative hope when one of the two major parties patently denies the fact that we ALREADY have three long-time government health care programs: Medicare, Medicaid, and VA healthcare. If that “history” is completely discounted by the Republicans, what common points can be agreed upon? I have yet to see what the Republicans propose in order to rein in drug costs, insurance premiums, or for-profit healthcare corporations. I'm guessing that's because all of those involve the free market — i.e. the right to profit from selling a product. The fact that such a product involves life and death doesn't matter.

    At some of the town halls (which weren't organized by OFA), I listened to a number of irate people jump up and villify the government. They all said exactly the same things, as they were programmed to do, and they were all obviously of Medicare age. Apparently they were in favor of having their Medicare taken away because it's a government program, but that's only if you think that they actually thought through what they were saying. There's never been such an awful example of people working against their own self-interest as the health care “debate.”

  • u no oo

    well golly gee whilikers– he failed to organize and use his e mail army. Been sayin'. but I guess now that the rolling stone magazine sez it to it's okay to talk about it?

  • Choch

    It's movement politics, effervescent after a presidential. Obam built his house upon the sand. Besides, who under 50YO gives a rusty fuck about health care?

  • sarah68

    People with MS, cancer, AIDS, diabetes, major depression, and every other condition which affects lives and kills people, and all the mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and friends of those people.

  • http://wellescent.com/health_forum/ Wellescent Health

    Given that health care is only one issue, activating OFA could simply be harder to do if the majority of members are young and healthy. So much effort on health care may not be as meaningful to them as other topics. Just speculation…

  • Michael G

    I was thinking after I read this article what some of the other possibilities might have been.

    What made OFA so successful during the campaign is that it was participatory. It gave people a lot of options for what they could do. It was interested in its members' experiences. It provided leadership opportunities to the enterprising young people who flocked to the campaign.

    I stopped participating after the election, and not because I had lost interest. I was more politically active in 2009 than in any previous year. Rather, what happened is that OFA morphed into an organization with no discernable purpose than promoting whatever the President and Congress had on their agenda at the moment, the kind of short-term politics from which I had hoped to escape.

    What if instead OFA had generalized its purpose into other things? There could have been civics classes, so that members could learn how to lobby their legislators, track Congress, testify at the city council, and join community organizations. There could have been issue training: not just drilling five talking points to use on one's grandmother, but real understanding of how health care and energy and other things work. There could have been organized meetings to discuss and have serious debates on issues, including issues specific to the city or state. There could have been recruitment of reform-minded, progressive candidates in jurisdictions that lack them. Had OFA invested the resources into created this civic groundswell, for which there exists enormous hunger in America, the positive consequences could have been enormous and long-lasting.

    But instead . . . well, you read the article.

  • WK9

    For me, a 21 y/o inter-collegiate athlete, heath was not the issue. I was energized by the public option that promised to be a government commitment to social justice and the hopes of lowering the deficit and giving a needed update to a huge and flagging sector of our economy presented by reform. My personal heath, which is just fine, had nothing to do with my desire for the bill to pass or my willingness to get involved–I would have followed if Obama had he led me.

    Good question, but I still think its a failure of leadership that killed OFA and heath care reform.

  • Robert_Cruickshank

    There was talk among a few state OFA leaders about doing some of those things in their states. Sad to say, it didn't happen, quashed by OFA/DNC leadership.

    The RS article is dead-on: Obama embraced insider deal-making over mobilizing the OFA membership, and he and Democrats more broadly are paying the price.

    Obama and the Senate Democrats seem to have believed that the 2008 victory meant they could just go back to the way things were done in the 1990s. That was a catastrophic mistake, and now Obama will have to fight to salvage his presidency.

  • http://wellescent.com/health_forum/ Wellescent Health

    Thanks for providing your perspective. If others your age are also of the same mindset, it does point to dropping the ball on the part of the OFA.

  • Josh Feit

    Jabailo,

    I'm not sure how posting an article that trashes Democratic President Obama and his chief of staff for merging with the DNC makes us a Democratic site.

    FWIW: GOP President George Bush and GOP candidates Sen. John McCain and Sarah Palin supported the TARP. McCain voted for it the first time around. (He flopped after Obama became President.)

  • matthewsbeachmikek

    I'm no activist, but I did volunteer in a partisan election for the first time in 2008 for Obama. That experience has prompted me to get engaged in other issues locally, but on a national level, it seems pretty futile right now, given the ineptitude of the democratic congress and the outright obstructionism of the republican party. And it's not like we have to harangue our representatives and senators, McDermott, Murray, and Cantwell; they aren't the democrats standing in the way of meaningful reform. So, I'm inclined to stay local with my new found activism and work at this level. I think Obama has made a number of mistakes that have alienated those of us on the left, but, all in all, I'm still an Obama man.

  • hmmmm

    Man bites dog.

  • hmmmm

    I mean, “dog bites man”.

  • Mike Mansfield

    Do we really have any reason to believe that an independent OFA would have been any more successful? Other than the fact that a dependent OFA hasn't been as wildly successful as we hoped?

    As someone who worked for the campaign and pushed hard in late 08 for the OFA and DNC to remain separate, I am well acquainted with the arguments in favor. But folding OFA into the DNC wasn't just a bizarre whim on Plouffe's part. It was an acknowledgement that an independent OFA would compete locally with the party's organizational efforts and create a lot of strife.

    In Seattle Obama love trumps Democratic party loyalty, to be sure. But in much of the country Democrats were hardly enthusiastic about this flashy young change agent, and they worked for him out of calculation, not passion.

    For all the criticism the back-room approach to legislation receives, Obama/Emanuel/Reid did get 60 votes (including some VERY conservative democrats) for a massive health care bill.

    Losing Mass is inexcusable, but seems a failure in tactics more than broad strategy. That race was simply not on anybody's radar until the last week.