All hands are on deck in the progressive community working to surprise the pundits and stave off too many Republican victories on election day. And all the last minute work really does matter, as I will document in my next post about the closeness of margins in swing Congressional races even in years where one party or the other is making big gains. We all need to keep focused and keep our nose to the grindstone, because this election's fate is not yet decided. The President is out on the campaign trail working his butt off; the Democratic leadership in Congress is raising money and helping out in every way they can; the staffers for the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America, and other party committees are out in the field working their hearts out in races all over the country. They are joined by activists from the netroots and every kind of progressive organization knocking on doors, making calls, coming to rallies, and doing everything in their power to turn the tide. It makes me proud that so many people are working so hard even when- in fact, especially when- the going has gotten so tough.
However, I just need to stop for a moment and quickly note, because it will become hugely more important in the weeks and months following the election, that not everyone who in the administration is on the same team. All the passion so many people are showing makes it all the more galling to have certain as yet to be found out people in the Treasury Department, people who owe their jobs to all of you who worked so hard to get President Obama elected in 2008, stabbing us all in the back in the very last days of this campaign. Check out Zach Carter's superb post this morning on the snakes in the Treasury Department who are working to undermine the President, his new appointee Elizabeth Warren, and all of us in the progressive world who are so excited about the potential of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau right before the election. Their petty leaks and nasty attacks are the worst kind of Washington BS. They made a rotten attack on Raj Date , who is a brilliant, progressive, and committed man who was a leader in making the financial reform bill stronger. As to the office paint job leak, it is just laughable: I was over at Elizabeth's very plain office in the standard government building where she is spending 95% of her time, and she hasn't even taken the time to put a picture on the wall. She is a frugal, modest Oklahoman who is so driven by the work that she probably wouldn't even notice if someone repainted her office. And the media hound charge is just funny: senior White House officials told me weeks ago that they wanted Elizabeth to be as visible as possible in the final days before the election because she is a strong voice for the middle class. Literally all the media bookings for her have come at the request of the White House communications shop.
I have always told people that working in the Clinton White House, I met some of the best people I have ever known and some of the worst. There are people who are in government for all the right reasons, because they want to make the country a better place and really help improve the lives of regular people. Elizabeth Warren is one of the very best of that group. And there are people who are in government because they are looking to brownnose the industries they are supposed to be regulating so they can get a really high paying lobbyist job after a few years in government. It is very clear that some of the people in Treasury, certainly the people doing these absurd attacks, are in the latter category. They don't care about screwing over the President and the Democratic Party in the days before the election, and they certainly don't care about helping consumers. What they care about is sucking up to the Wall Street bankers who they hope will give them a sweet job sometime soon.
I have a message for the leakers at Treasury, though: you are playing with fire. The two people closest to the President at the White House, Pete Rouse and Valerie Jarrett, are huge fans of Warren, and I know these leaks have caught their attention. I would love to see a serious investigation into these leaks once the election is over, and it just might happen. And whatever happens on the inside, the entire progressive community- bloggers, members of Congress, labor and consumer organizations- have Elizabeth Warren's back. Right now, unlike you leakers, we are focused on winning elections, but after the election, we will be gunning for you.
There's some chatter going on about the DNC/OFA's sudden interest in LGBT issues. The day after the House vote, I got an e-mail from OFA:
Adam --
This is big news: Yesterday, the full House of Representatives and the Armed Services Committee in the Senate voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
In his State of the Union address, President Obama pledged to end the law that denies gays and lesbians the right to serve their country. Now, we are closer than ever to making good on that promise.
The full Senate will soon start its debate on repeal. But some Republicans are digging in their heels. Senator John McCain said, "I'll do everything in my power" to block a vote. And Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker called the repeal bill "a major mistake" -- announcing that the GOP plans to filibuster.
We can defeat those who'd stand in the way of history. But we must show our senators that Americans -- in every state -- overwhelmingly support repeal.
Stand with the President and join the pledge to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Stand with the President: Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Add your name.
From the Recovery Act to health reform to Wall Street reform, one by one President Obama is delivering on his campaign promises. And, now -- if we can overcome Republican obstruction -- we have a chance to deliver on another: bringing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to an end.
As the President has said, this is about more than just living up to his word. We must end this law because "it's the right thing to do."
Any policy that punishes brave men and women who step forward to serve their country simply for being who they are isn't just misguided -- it's discrimination.
That's why President Obama didn't just campaign on ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; he made it a priority. And it's why it's now a matter of how and when -- not if -- we will repeal this law.
But as the Republicans prepare to block a vote on this historic legislation, we must do all we can to help deliver on the President's promise.
Add your name to the pledge today -- and then please pass it on:
Then, yesterday, one marking Pride month (June) and trumpeting the Administration's accomplishments on LGBT issues:
Friend --
I wanted to make sure you saw this note from Governor Kaine. This Pride Month, the Democratic Party wants to hear from every American committed to the struggle for LGBT equality.
We've made great strides since President Obama took office -- and we're so close to one more big accomplishment in repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
But our work is far from done -- and I'm looking forward to fighting alongside you in the months ahead.
Today marks the beginning of Pride Month -- a time not just to remember the brave Americans who stood up to hate and discrimination at the Stonewall Inn 41 years ago, but a time to stand with those who are committed to that same fight today.
LGBT Americans have helped build the Democratic Party into what it is today. And, as a leader of the party, I'm proud of our role in the struggle for equality.
That's why it's important to me -- and to the future of this party -- that we hear from you.
Take a moment to share your thoughts with us this Pride Month.
At times the pace of progress has not been as fast as some -- myself included -- would like. And, while equality cannot be achieved overnight, the President and our Democratic leaders in Congress have made important strides over the past 16 months to address barriers that LGBT Americans face.
-- Last year, we passed the Matthew Shepherd & James Byrd, Jr., Federal Hate Crimes Act -- which expanded the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation and gender identity and became the first federal law to provide protections for transgender Americans.
-- In April, the President issued a directive, making critical changes to federal regulations and allowing gay and lesbian Americans to make medical decisions on behalf of their partners.
-- And now we are on the verge of living up to President Obama's pledge to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The House just passed historic legislation to end this discriminatory policy, and the full Senate is getting ready to vote in the coming months.
But we are not satisfied. And we are not finished.
We must remain committed to making greater strides toward the fundamental American principle of equality.
Then today, I got another e-mail, which was probably just a "bump" e-mail on the DADT one because I didn't open the first (it was forwarded from a friend):
Adam --
I wanted to make sure you saw the message from Mitch below. The House's vote on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a huge moment -- for our movement and our country.
But this fight is just getting started.
The Senate will take up this issue soon, and there are Republicans pledging to block a vote from even taking place.
Polls show that 78 percent of the country agrees that it's time to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but opponents of reform aren't getting the message. Can you sign on to help us show that Americans overwhelmingly support repeal?
Yohannes Abraham
Political Director
Organizing for America
Original Message
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I'm fairly cynical about it all. The reason is partly because of how OFA and the Obama administration mishandled the No On 1 issue to the point of going out of its way to avoid it (see here and here), not to mention hasn't done much on other fronts. The other part is the DADT e-mail just comes across as a basic, almost shameless list-building, asking me to sign a pledge stating "I proudly stand with the President for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I noticed two things about this. One is that it came the morning after the vote, so the cynical part of me says it's just shamelessly capitalizing on enthusiasm for the Democrats finally doing something awesome on DADT repeal (after many of you threatened a breakup in our open letter to the Democrats late last month). It's kind of like the guy who comes to the victory party after barely lifting a finger to help during the fight.
The other is the timing. The DADT e-mail came a day after the highest hurdle in this fight- SASC and House floor votes. While full Senate repeal still isn't certain, I'm all of a sudden being asked to sign this pledge after the two biggest votes? It did not go unnoticed, by the way, that there were no e-mails of these types before the two toughest votes on this. Where was OFA then? So I'm not exactly the degree of excited that some colleagues are. The Pride month action appears to actually be a little more sincere, asking me to submit a comment that will be "hand-delivered" to Gov. Kaine. I'm crossing my fingers that the comments submitted will actually be read, but am not holding a lot of hope.
The less cynical side of me accepts that any attention is still attention, and hopeful that if there is a great return on these e-mails, that OFA will choose to mobilize members on future actions. Low response rates are one way of telling organizations whether their members care about an issue. So because I think it's worth doing for that reason, and partly because I'm curious, I submitted a comment. And I'm overall glad it's being done- it sends a strong signal. We'll see how much action and mobilization actually follows in the months and years to come.
In a video message to Organizing for America's 13 million members today, President Obama announced that targeting people who voted for the first time in 2008 would be the top tactical priority for OFA 2010. This makes perfect sense. Compared to Gore and Kerry, young voters and first-time voters where President Obama's top demographic groups. Obama's margin among those two groups surpassed Gore's by over 30%:
Young voters and first-time voters are absolutely Obama's base. McCain actually won voters age 40 and over, and Obama only won non-first-time voters by 2%. Compared to other recent Democratic coalitions, Obama relied far more heavily upon young voters and first-time voters.
Long-term data from the census bureau indicates that the turnout gap between Americans above and below the age of 45 widens significantly in mid-term elections. For example, over the last nine Presidential elections, Americans aged 45-64 turned out, on average, at a rate 12.7% higher than Americans aged 25-44. However, in mid-term elections, the average gap over the last nine cycles has been 17.1%.
In 2008, Democrats did better among young voters than in any other election in since 1964. President Obama won voters under 45 by a 57%-41% margin. This means that the "natural" lower turnout among young voters in midterm elections will hurt Democrats more than in any midterm since 1964.
Any coalition based so heavily on younger voters, as is Barack Obama's, will almost inevitably suffer a major setback in midterm elections. Shifting 10% of the electorate (which happened from 2004 to 2006) from the under-45 age group (which Obama won by 16%) to the over-45 age group (which Obama lost by 2%), results in a national popular vote shift of 2% of the popular vote to Republicans.
When young voters and unlikely voters form such a central pillar of a presidential electoral coalition, then that coalition is going to face huge problems in midterm elections. While it is absolutely the correct move for Organizing for America to try and get those voters back to the polls in 2010, they are unfortunately faced with an almost impossible task. Overall turnout drops by more than 33% from presidential elections to midterm elections, and by much more than that among young voters. No GOTV operation, however strong, can reverse trends on that massive scale. Whatever efforts OFA ends up making will only limit the amount of damage Democrats will suffer by basing their coalition on younger voters and irregular voters.
A quick digest of the week's social media news with a side of fun? You're welcome. Introducing CRUSH, the weekly web-show that takes the news on the social media newsladder and crushes it down to reveal the gems.
In this weeks' edition, we discuss the coincidence of Google releasing Buzz at about the same time they struck a deal with the NSA to share info. No relationship - just like Glenn Beck getting a show on Fox the day before Obama was inaugurated.
Facebook, meanwhile made changes to its privacy settings allowing users more control of what info is shared. That won't help people who choose to share their info though. With the growth of location sharing, there is a new website that points out a nagging issue with letting people know where you are all the time.
On the political side of thigs, this past week marked the one year anniversary of the signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Organizing for America released this video to mark the occasion, and the House Committee on Education and Labor realeased a great video as well. This is not the first time the Ed and Labor committee has turned to creative webvideos to spread a message, and we hope it will not be the last.
Sarah Palin was asked what she thought the biggest threat to America is, and when her supporters shouted 'Obama' she felt the need to clarify that they had said it, not she. She didn't correct them though. If Mrs. Palin cared about 'those little facty things' she and her supporters might want to thumb through the Quadrennial Defense Review, which catalougues the various security threats to the nation as determined by, well, the people who spend their careers assessing threats to our nation.
Finally, this is from Ben Whitehair on Facebook, and it is hilarious:
5 steps to an AWESOME day: Step 1: Go to google maps... www.google.com/maps Step 2: Search for 39 Rugdeveien, Bergen, Hordaland, Norge Step 3: Zoom in until you get to street view Step 4: Look to the left of the truck and see two men in scooba gear Step 5: Click to make the truck go down the road and watch the men chase the truck....
Yesterday, we attended a Grow the Hope (GTH) house meeting with their Rapid Response team, Organizing for America (OFA 2.0), and the Carrots and Sticks Project. After the meeting everyone decided to stick around and make calls into MA to help elect Martha Coakley in the race for Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat. We took a moment before leaving to talk with Jon Randall, Maryland's 8th district liaison from OFA 2.0, and we put together this video, quickly detailing how to make phone calls online to support Coakley:
Over at TechPresident, Micah Sifry has two interesting pieces (here and here) on the structure and effectiveness of the the post-election Obama volunteer operation. In the second piece, where he responds to questions regarding what the structure would be like in a perfect world, he raises the interesting possibility of both inside-outside Obama volunteer organizations:
Second, and this is the most critical part in my view, they could have set out to introduce and connect local Obama supporters to each other, organized by congressional district. This is the missing piece that could have altered the track of Obama's legislative agenda--visible, insurgent, civic pressure groups keeping the heat on each member of Congress. Yes, there's a risk that these people wouldn't hew to the White House line on every issue and likely ask for more than what Obama and crew thought they could deliver, but that's movement politics. Your outside forces alter the terrain on which the insider forces then bargain (hello, "Teabaggers"!).
[...]
How could they have addressed the problem of local OFA groups wanting to go their own way, without embarrassing the White House if their demands strayed from the message emanating from the Oval Office? They could have given those local groups a choice (rather than an edict): "If you want funding and staff support from the DNC, accept policy direction from us. If you want to organize on your own, you're on your own." That would have led to a situation where some volunteers would have chosen to affiliate with the DNC (and heck, doesn't the Democratic party want more local chapters--obviously that question is complicated by local politics), and some would have said, we'd rather be independent.
Maybe you'd have congressional districts with both types of groups working. But it would have been the members' choice and thus their motivation to make the situation work. And either way you'd probably have hundreds or thousands of vibrant local groups in existence arrayed around "continuing the movement" on their own terms, and in connection with each other, supporting each other's efforts, rather than this limp list-based DC-centered operation. (Marshall Ganz offered one vision of how this might work here.) Instead, right now you have David Plouffe, Mitch Stewart, Jeremy Bird, Natalie Foster et al--people I respect for their hard work--trying to command and control a volunteer movement. That can only work if the base is really motivated, and it obviously isn't working very well now.
I have a few thoughts on the potential of this idea, and on the potential of OFA in general, in the extended entry.
Natasha's post last night on the DNC/OFA throwing pro-choice advocates and women everywhere under the bus got me thinking about the role of those organizations in general, and the Administration's choices of late.
There is a general belief, both in the Village and even among some people I know in progressive politics, that the DNC's role is to expand Democratic majorities and that's it. For all my criticism of OFA's role in Maine, I've had a few people say to me they shouldn't get involved in ballot fights. It's a D vs. R apparatus and that's that.
OFA's primary focus is to advance the president's agenda. If you advance the president's agenda that's going to translate politically and help Democrats throughout the country. And frankly keeping people engaged on the issues in an off year is going to translate in a mid-term year. They are going to continue to be engaged.
So that expands the definition. What does that mean in terms of OFA's actions of late? Well, they didn't lift a finger to help in Maine- even to the point of diverting resources to New Jersey. They knew about the Stupak amendment for quite awhile and didn't lift a finger. But Obama (if tepidly) came out against Question 1 in Maine and against the Stupak amendment, even pledging to work to remove it in conference. This is the President's agenda. And Sevugan said winning these fights helps Democrats around the country. And that keeping people engaged on the issues- and certainly, choice is an "issue"- helps.
So my question is, why isn't OFA doing its job? I realize OFA is an arm of the DNC. But should it exist to re-elect Democrats, or to actually carry out what Stewart and Sevugan say it should?
There are a number of arguments I've heard against OFA getting involved. One is that OFA should only work on issues that "everyone" agrees on. Another is that pressuring members violates the DNC's core mission of electing Democrats, because having a bunch of people call their members' office and ask the intern to tell the member to vote a certain way will somehow cause them to lose their re-election. Another is that if you "make aware" Obama supporters (also known as citizen engagement) in, say, John Tanner's district that he might suck on women's reproductive health, you'll rile them up and Tanner might lose Democratic votes for re-election, which violates the core mission of the DNC. None of these arguments are very persuasive. OFA could have even done a bland, list-wide "call your member and ask him/her to x". That way you don't name someone specifically, and you can reason that you're targeting all members of Congress because it's such a critical issue, not just Democrats.
The strongest argument I've heard is that OFA pressuring Democrats will cause congressional Democrats to pick up the phone and scream at Obama and screw him, and us, on other legislation. Relationships matter. Okay. But Obama is involved in party primaries, supporting Sens. Bennet, Gillibrand (should she have one), and Specter. His administration is pushing Gov. Paterson to bow out of a re-election bid. George W. Bush got involved in supporting Specter in 2004 and Chafee in 2006 in their respective primaries. Rahm himself got involved in congressional primaries in 2006, and has a reputation for working members hard for votes, engaging allies to pressure them, and so forth. So what's the difference between these actions and asking activists to make phone calls to advance your agenda? Both can damage relationships, both have rewards. If Obama's picks lose, those people can screw him. In this case, the reward is protecting women's reproductive freedom and advancing health care reform. So how come Obama takes a risk by siding with Senate and gubernatorial candidates, but remains silent on core issues of the Party?
In politics, relationships do matter, and I consider that in my own work. But the argument in terms of that here just doesn't hold water. Moreover, we only have a short window in which to enact real progressive change, and I think, within reason and wherever possible, the President should use all available tools to obtain that change and be our "fierce advocate". Please, Mr. President, include OFA among those tools.
Nancy Keenan, head of the national NARAL group (and most obedient of the obedient losers) was apparently personally promised before the health care battle by the Obama administration that they would look after the organization's constituency interests in the health care bill and preserve the status quo. In return, NARAL was asked to stand down its activism.
They did. So with all their colleagues, they got caught with their pants down when a floor vote on the Stupak amendment was imminent.
Today, I got a press release from the DNC, and their Organizing For America project, on their plan to drum up more support for the health care reform bill: targeting Republicans.
It says nothing about women's healthcare. Nothing. Like it isn't even at issue. OFA is still watching NARAL's back, women's backs, as well as they always have.
OFA is crowing about the 500,000 phone calls they've prompted on the health care issue. Were any of them centered around preserving reproductive health care when it mattered? Ha! As Femlaw says at the link, "The idea is to build organizational capacity, so when really critical moments in the campaign happened, OFA could deliver huge numbers."
Targeting Republicans is critical. Encouraging Democrats to stand together for women's health and rights, not critical.
Whee, Joseph Cao voted for the House bill! Too bad it contains the worst blow to women's rights in a generation, while Obama and his pet DNC's reactions continue to be tepid.
(Psst - Did you know that women are supposed to not only get a yearly physical through their family doctor, but have a separate ob-gyn well woman checkup every year from puberty onwards? That's where they check for cervical cancer, look for signs of domestic or sexual abuse, etc. You know, little stuff, but we're supposed to get it checked. Well, neither Obama, nor Congress, nor the DNC seems to know that nor cares. Medical care that all adult women are supposed to get every year won't be going in the required benefits package and there has been no organizing around it.)
The WhiteHouse.gov homepage says nothing about any of this right now. Their women's page says only this:
Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, was in Maine for the election and he and I sat down for some chatting. I'll have more clips up this week of what we talked about, but let's start with Joe talking about the Democratic Party's commitment, or lack thereof, to LGBT issues in response to the OFA/DNC fiasco.
As I've written before, OFA and Obama's refusal to get involved in a major way was not just disappointing but a slap in the face on top of what the Administration (and by extension, the campaign through actions like inviting "ex-gay" homophobe Donnie McClurkin to speak at their rallies) has already done. The Maine fiasco was, for me and others, the straw that broke the camel's back, and in response, John and Joe at AMERICABlog have launched a donor boycott of the DNC until the Administration accomplishes legislative priorities.
Now, I've called for more patience on LGBT legislation, and I don't entirely agree that DOMA can be repealed "today" as they do, but I think these kinds of actions are on the right track, and the Administration is going to see a lot more of this coming down the pipe. HRC gave a tacit endorsement of the action as well.
But what really gets me is the smaller, stupid things they do to smack gays around. As Solmonese said, taking action in WA and ME "is by no means a risky strategy, and at the core of what they ought to be doing." It would not cost them anything to ask for a No vote in the Maine e-mail blast. Obama called for a No vote on Prop 8 but the tepid statement they issued regarding Maine didn't even mention the words "Maine" "No" "Question 1" or anything that would actually influence voters. Rick Warren at the inaugural, Donnie McClurkin, abolishing White House and DNC LGBT liaison positions, refusing to interview with LGBT press, or even apologize for any of these actions... the list goes on and on. In fact, John and Joe have a full list here.
Just like the "internet left fringe" comment, either don't advance Obama's position among voters or, if they do pick up votes, do so at the cost of endorsing McClurkin and Warren-style bigotry. The White House needs to both push harder for action on LGBT priorities as well as shut this kind of crap down.
John Aravosis has the story. Here's a leaked e-mail from Andy Tobias, DNC Treasurer, to donors:
1. An email went out asking activists to make calls to New Jersey. It was insensitive not to omit Mainers from that email. I apologize that no one thought to do that. I can't imagine it could have cost No On One even a dozen votes, but I still wish someone would have thought of this in time to catch it. Mistake noted.
2. A different email went out to Mainers urging them to vote. As the only thing of substance anyone was voting on in Maine was Question One, and as Democratic activists vote our way, this was a small but positive effort to be helpful.
I would have liked to see that email discuss No One One directly, in case there may have been an email-enabled Organizing for America activist someplace in Maine who did NOT know where Maine Democrats stood on this issue. (Out of the country without Internet access until the night before the election?) But I'm told there was concern that advocating specifically for a ballot initiative, whether LGBT or otherwise, would set a precedent for every other ballot initiative. Bureaucracies are nervous about setting precedents.
So a couple of things:
John was in Maine with me the last couple of days, and I spoke with him while all this was going on and he was getting responses from the DNC. We now know that the DNC official either deliberately lied or misled John to squash the story, or the DNC official hastily and stupidly spoke to him without the later facts (that it was a glitch). Either way, it's fucked up.
I spoke with another DNC official today after my piece on the OFA's fuckups/refusals to help, and that official told me "Some Mainers inadvertently got the email, but it was not sent to our Maine list." I was also told that this was a "glitch", and the quote above confirms that. Okay, one might think, a glitch is your system has a few people with the wrong zip codes in them, so they get a blast meant for someone else. Whoops. Fine. That's not actually what happened. What happened, per Tobias' e-mail, is the DNC did a large e-mail blast on this, and wanted to make sure Mainers didn't get that e-mail, for fear that the gays might find out and ask, how come we didn't get this kind of help?
It's kind of like being forwarded a party invite the host doesn't want you to come to, and when you show up, everyone gets silent and it's a-w-k-w-a-r-d. The party, in this case, was electoral help, and OFA wanted to make sure people didn't find out it was being grossly insensitive by not extending an invitation to the gays in Maine. Awesome.
Andy Tobias needs a serious date with electoral organizing reality. He wrote of the insensitivity, "I can't imagine it could have cost No On One even a dozen votes". Just like the White House saying "but but but we invite them to conference calls!" over the "internet left fringe" comment, this misses the point by a mile, and belies a misunderstanding of how campaigns work.
The point is that mobilizing Maine OFA members could have done wonders for the campaign. If Maine OFA members had been mobilized to canvass, give, phonebank, and other activities at different points in the campaign, then we absolutely would have picked up well over a dozen votes. I remember going to Arlington, VA to volunteer the weekend before Election Day 2008. They turned me away because they had more volunteers than they needed. In Maine, there were canvass sites on the weekend before Election Day that did not have enough volunteers in them.
I personally know both of the leaders at DriveforEquality and TravelforChange, who worked insane hours to collect donated airline miles, set up ActBlue donation pages, and coordinate logistics of hotel rooms, rides, etc. to get volunteers from other states into Maine. People wouldn't have had to take time off work and spend money to travel to a corner of the nation if OFA mobilized Mainers to help in their own state. They didn't.
Andy seems to mock LGBT complaints in his #3 point by saying it would have been nice to ask Mainers to vote No "in case there may have been an email-enabled Organizing for America activist someplace in Maine who did NOT know where Maine Democrats stood on this issue. (Out of the country without Internet access until the night before the election?)"
Again, Andy, you're missing the point. One of the biggest priorities for this campaign in an off-year election was turning out young voters, and that was no secret. Lots of OFA activists are young people. I've organized GOTV for young people in 2004 at my alma mater. Young people don't vote just because they know where Maine Dems stand on the issue or they get a bland OFA e-mail reminding them to vote. College students vote after you've given them 25 reasons to, dorm-stormed, called them, set up voter reg tables in the student union, set up shuttle buses to polling places (which the No On 1 campaign did at UM-Orono), have Dave Matthews Band perform at their campus to encourage voting, and basically drag them kicking and screaming to do it. If you want to win campaigns, you have to mobilize people, not just send them an e-mail and pat yourself on the back.
So rolling your eyes and saying "but OFA activists knew where Maine Dems stood on the issue anyway, and we sent them an e-mail, so what's all the fuss about" is irresponsible.
The "concern" that getting involved in ballot initiatives would force them to get involved in every initiative is false. As John pointed out, the DNC sent $25,000 to the No On 8 campaign in CA. President Carter came out against the Briggs Initiative in 1978. I'm sure there are more examples of the party getting involved in ballotland. And what's more, we're talking about an e-mail here, people. Not multiple campaign stops, which Obama gave Corzine and Deeds. Not vast organizing on a grand scale. E-mails.
It is getting harder and harder to give LGBT people a good reason to actively support this Administration and the DNC. I, for one, would like to see an apology from the DNC over all this.
I present to you, The Doctor's Option (transcript for the video-impaired below the fold):
This is our video for Organizing for America and the Democratic National Committee's Health Reform Video Challenge. Written/Produced/Directed by Will Urquhart and Mitch Malasky. Starring Yvette Lewis and Dr. Joann Urquhart, MD. A special thanks to David Hart for helping to make this video happen.
If you enjoy this, please go to the video, rate it/comment on it/favorite it and share, share, share. The more attention it gets, the more likely OFA/DNC will pick it for the 20 finalists.
Every morning I still read my old fashioned paper copy of the morning Washington Post on the subway on my way to the office, and then I sit down to review all the information I am getting from field events and town halls around the country, lobbyists' reports from those meeting with Senate and House members and staff, updates from organizations working in the field. I have to say that the two sets of information could not be further apart, and it makes me wonder again what the disconnect is.
This morning is a classic example. On the front page is a remarkable puff piece that I had to do a double take on because it was so strange: an article on Senator Bob Corker with the headline, "A GOP Senator Looking To Meet Halfway." I had to do a double-take because Bob Corker is one of the farthest right-wing Senators in the chamber, a Senator who has never voted in the middle or been serious about anything approaching a compromise on any major issue that I am aware of. He is not on either of the two Senate committees dealing with health care, is a freshman not in the leadership, and has not offered a single significant piece of health care legislation. What he says about health care is identical to the same talking points Mitch McConnell speaks from, which incidentally were the same talking points Newt Gingrich was speaking from when he killed the last effort at health reform. These talking points include the usual problem that every politician uses when they are trying to kill a bill, about how of course they want to meet in the middle and reach a compromise, if only the other side would just drop everything that really matters. Apparently, the folks at the WP take such silliness at face value.
I turned to page A2, and there was a classically cynical Dana Milbank column, trashing a Democratic member's press conference on health care and talking about Democrats trying, "to pick up the pieces of the shattered health care bill."
Then on page A4, a column about a town hall meeting in rural Colorado that had more anti-reform than pro-reform people showing up in attendance.
On the other hand, in my office, I am reading reports that look like this:
A report from field activists analyzing town hall meetings that showed more than 15,000 people turned out clearly in favor of health reform, compared to 1,200 clearly opposed. (Along with quite a few someplace in the middle, with thoughtful questions.)
A second report analyzing town hall turnout trends from local news accounts suggesting that in most of the town halls reported on, supporters outnumbered opponents.
The OFA program being run out of the DNC, after being derided for months by the traditional media for its slow start, reported some stunning numbers at the start of the Obama/OFA town hall on August 24th: Over 1.5 million have taken action since they launched the health insurance reform campaign on June 6th; 11,906 local events have happened, and average of 171 events per day; 231,572 personal stories have been submitted; OFA members made 64,912 local visits in one week.
In a matter of 96 hours, a group of bloggers raised over $400,000 from 6,800 people to support strong supporters of a public option.
As I've written before, between some combination of their own pre-conceived conventional wisdom talking points and their love of covering a train wreck, traditional media does not want to report the good news about health care reform. I can't remember ever seeing in any traditional media story, for example, the fact that (as Chris Bowers reported) there is now a majority in both the House and the Senate that are on the public record in support of a public option.
The future of health care reform hangs in the balance. We are in the fight of our lives- but if you listen to the traditional media, you would think it is all over.
We at Sum of Change, attended a health care town hall last night, hosted by Congresswoman Donna Edwards. The Congresswoman gave a brief speech, and then opened the floor for questions. The town hall was heated, which should come as no surprise. Not only were conservative groups organizing to get people out to these town halls (with detailed instructions about how to act and talk), OFA 2.0, several Unions, and liberal bloggers pushed progressives to turn out as well. The debate was vigorous, but not disrespectful. If anyone came there with the intent of disrupting the town hall, they failed miserably.
We'll go through a round of the Q&A's. I strongly recommend watching these all the way through, the Congresswoman knows how to finish an answer.
STATE BLOGS
