Is White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs truly this clueless, or is he just doing his job offering up the best possible spin for the White House and for his boss, President Obama? You decide. The following is an excerpt from a good article by Sam Stein at the Huffington Post today:
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged on Wednesday that progressive voters' disinterest and unhappiness was threatening what traditionally should be a blowout Senate election victory for Democrats in Massachusetts.
Briefing reporters in his office, Gibbs said he did not know "why some segment of political observers don't seem to be as motivated" going into the special election between Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley and Republican State Senator Scott Brown.
"There is a lot at stake," Gibbs stressed. "There is a lot at stake in the election for Massachusetts. There is a lot at stakes... as to whether or not we are going to go forward with ideas for economic recovery, creating a new foundation or are we going to go back to some of the policies that caused this type of economic devastation to take place."
Asked if that was an admission from the White House that the Democratic Party was having trouble rallying its base, Gibbs replied: "That was the premise of [the] question and I didn't dispute the premise."
Got that? The White House and the Democratic Party are having trouble rallying their base, and Gibbs doesn't know why progressive voters are disinterested and unhappy.
Coupled together with a rather in-depth look at the first year of Organizing For America (OFA) from Politico, it seems to me to be time to send the White House a message. Organizing For America is the organization which was born from Barack Obama's mailing list (more accurately: emailing list) of 13 million names which he amassed during his historic campaign.
The organization, Politico reports, is having some problems fitting in. This is because, early on, the decision was made to put it under the control of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Which leads to problems, when the core purpose of the DNC (electing Democrats to office) clashes with the core purpose of OFA (supporting Barack Obama's agenda). Snide quotes are reported from the party chairs of Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, although many more state party leaders went on the record as being pleased with OFA. The obvious conclusion is that the party might be out of touch with The People in a few states, due to picking weak candidates to support, is not made within the article, however.
There's another obvious conclusion the article fails to make, as well. This is that OFA is having some enthusiasm problems of its own among its supporters, and that this lack of enthusiasm is not due to problems with the supporters, but rather problems with the leader of the movement, President Barack Obama himself.
Here's an excerpt from the Politico article, to show you what I mean (the entire article is fascinating, and well worth reading in its entirety).
Perhaps most troubling for the party, former Obama aides and other Democrats say, OFA simply hasn't been as effective as they had hoped. And as 2010 shapes up to be a difficult year for Democrats, the quiet hand-wringing among party officials over the organization's capacities has been matched by a new public hand-wringing among Democratic activists, with both struggling to diagnose the ills of the group that was meant to change the game.
"'Fixing health care' was a tough initial assignment for Organizing for America. It was both too diffuse and abstract," said Simon Rosenberg, president of the Democratic think tank NDN, who said he thought OFA "could get back on track" next year by focusing on the economy and the elections.
. . .
Susan Smith, an OFA activist from Tampa who is heavily involved in local Democratic politics, complained that OFA "from the beginning has not been really clear about what their mission is" on health care and other issues.
She said the group's stances on even key issues like the public option seemed to vacillate from one day to the next. "On one day the public option would be in their paperwork and on their website, and the next day people couldn't find it. Then all of sudden, it was back and it was No. 8 in an 11-point plan. It's just been very amorphous."
Now go back and re-read this excerpt, except that while you do, replace (as you read) the term: "OFA" with the name: "Obama," and see if it doesn't ring true. The Deputy Director of OFA, after all, is quoted in the same article as saying that OFA, "no matter where it was, was going to be identified with the president." OFA's web address is actually: barackobama.com. So it's a fair measure, even by their own admission and example.
In other words, if Press Secretary Gibbs is looking for reasons why Democratic voters "don't seem to be as motivated" now as they were a year ago, he probably doesn't need to look much further than the Oval Office. The Politico article ends with:
The group's key challenge, however, is balancing that focus on the hard core with an effort to keep the larger membership of a list that has more than 10 million e-mail addresses interested. Stewart said that the e-mail open rate -- a key measure for online groups -- is "extremely healthy if you compare it to any other organization out there" but declined to go into detail. Critics have complained that the e-mails -- notable during the campaign for offering a straightforward take and, sometimes, breaking news, have grown trite and interspersed with gimmicks like online holiday cards.
Politico reported last month that the response to e-mail appeals had fallen by half over the course of the fall, while discontent among supporters over the details of health care reform grew.
With OFA's effectiveness in dispute, its clear test will come in this year's midterms. Stewart declined to discuss its plans in detail, but the group sent a survey to supporters asking them about their willingness to participate in two key activities: voter registration and working to ensure that Obama's 2008 voters -- many of whom stayed home in Virginia and New Jersey last year -- return to the polls in 2010.
"We are in a unique position to help reach out to some of the Democrats or folks who are supportive of the president who are apathetic right now," Stewart said.
So, my advice to OFA is not to send out surveys asking whether people are interested in trying to make their fellow Democrats enthusiastic about voting this year, but rather instead to identify the real source of their problems: why Barack Obama is not making voters as enthusiastic as he once did. Because unless you fix that problem, I think the other may be unsolvable.
So here is my suggestion for a survey to send out to that multimillion-name email list. A quick quiz for OFA supporters, as it were. Actually, to save time, I would suggest just choosing 1,000 names off the list at random, and send the quiz out to them. Because I would bet that even a random sampling of their supporters right now would be cause for deep concern at the White House. At the very least, it would tend to give Gibbs (and his boss) some sort of idea why they have lost so much support so quickly.
Here is my OFA opinion survey. OFA members, former OFA members, and anyone else -- feel free to post your responses in the comment section.
Organizing For America member survey
Below are three options. Choose one of them to show your support for the direction you believe President Barack Obama should take in the coming year. In other words, which of these three would make you more enthusiastic about the president, more enthusiastic about OFA as an organization, and more enthusiastic about getting out the vote for this year's congressional elections?
(A.) President Obama should redouble his efforts at changing the way Washington works by appealing to the Republicans in Congress for a more bipartisan approach to legislating. People are tired of the partisan mudslinging, and want to see Obama reach out across the political divide in order to do what needs to be done for the country.
(B.) President Obama should continue his largely-successful strategy of identifying the broad concepts of legislation he requests of Congress, and then allowing the Legislative Branch to write such legislation in its own fashion, as our Constitution lays out. At the end of this process, Obama can honestly say he got 90 percent of what he asked for and claim victory for his effort, even if the final bill doesn't contain every detail he wanted.
(C.) President Obama should choose a few key issues core Democrats want to see enacted, say exactly what he wants in specific legislative detail, and then lead the fight to pass such a bill -- even if he ultimately loses such a fight in Congress. Obama should choose a few issues from his campaign, use the "bully pulpit" of the Oval Office in a more effective manner than he has yet, and draw some clear lines in the sand. Obama should strongly stand up and say: "I will not sign a bill without these exact provisions -- anything less will be unacceptable." Rather than standing quietly on the sidelines while Congress debates, Obama should make it crystal clear where he stands, and be a fierce advocate for his position -- even if he winds up losing such a political fight with conservatives in his own party. "Change we can believe in" is simply not going to happen without picking a few big political fights -- with Wall Street, for example.
I bet that 1,000 random OFA members, responding to such a survey, might just open Gibbs' eyes a fraction, and give the White House some valuable data on the subject of why Democratic voters (especially the "base" represented by OFA members) are feeling so disillusioned, apathetic, and downright unenthusiastic about donating their time or money to the Democratic Party in this year's elections.
Any OFA members out there? Anyone who volunteered during the Obama campaign? What are your thoughts?
[Note: While posting in the comments is fun, you can perhaps also have your voice heard by those who really matter in this situation. I heartily encourage everyone to copy the text of their comment and send it to either the Democratic National Committee or directly to the White House itself. The OFA web contact page, if you don't click "sign up to be a volunteer," just redirects you to the White House comment page anyway. Maybe they'll listen, in time for it to do some good.]
[Full Disclosure: I do not join political organizations as a general journalistic rule, and have never been a member of OFA, or the campaign organization which preceded its formation. I have, however, been registered as a Democratic voter ever since California scrapped their open primary system, so that I am able to vote in Democratic primary elections.]
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Obama and the White House have not sent out a clear vision that Icould really behind. There is no way I can be bothered to make calls for Coakley when I am disillusioned by the health care bill and the whole process. It's a messy bill. Obama never communicated a clear message of what he was for.
I am sorry but he has to get in there and fight for a few key issues.
I have emailed the White House and my Democratic senators repeatedly begging them not to sell us out with individual mandates with no option and to realize what political suicide that would be. I pointed out that their solution to every problem seems to be throwing taxpayer money at the very people who caused the mess in the first place and that for the first time was hearing common cause on both sides of the political spectrum as a result. WH never responded, the senators emailed thanks for my support in their fight for real health care reform like the Senate bill. Can't understand why people are angry.
We aren't stupid . If Obama could figure out to tell us he'd fight the moneyed interests in favor of Main Street, add transparency, restore Constiutionality, etc. to get elected, he's smart enough to see that doing the opposite might be problematic. If Gibbs really doesn't see that, they are all too stupid to run our country. If they do see it but continue as they are doing, they are too corrupt to run our country. We're really suffering out here and don't have time for them to play the same old games fiddling and fundraising while Rome burns.
I volunteered for Obama because he was the best candidate. Can we have decent candidates for some of these elections? I didn't think we could come up with someone less electable than Corzine who lost in New Jersey, and whatzisname that lost in Virginia. I voted for Capuano, but I didn't campaign for him. I'm sorry now.
Dear MoveOn member,
With "tea party" money pouring into the fight for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, the airwaves full of outside ads, and the polls showing a tight race, Democrat Martha Coakley needs a massive get-out-the-vote effort between now and Tuesday.
Special elections are won by the campaign that does the best job getting its supporters to the polls. Organizing for America has an online tool where you can call likely Democratic voters in Massachusetts and remind them to vote on Tuesday. Can you make a few calls right now?
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=86037&id=18606-3024395-f5KEvcx&t=1
Right-wing smear merchants are spending $1 million or more on attack ads, and the tea partiers are out in full force for Republican Scott Brown. They would like nothing better than to stop health care reform by winning this race. We can't let them.

Martha Coakley's vote is needed to pass health care reform and the rest of President Obama's agenda. As Massachusetts' first female senator, she will fight to advance Sen. Ted Kennedy's legacy.
Martha Coakley is fighting to hold onto the seat Ted Kennedy held for 47 years. Letting the tea partiers win this race is simply not an option.
 Please sign up today to help get out the vote in these critical last few days:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=86037&id=18606-3024395-f5KEvcx&t=2
Thank you.
Adam, Stephen, Carrie, Kat, and the rest of the team
OFA supports the president’s agenda, not because it marches lockstep… it consists of individuals with diverse beliefs, political parties, and most all are unpaid volunteers.
Each OFA team has unique leadership, individual thought is recommended (best part of OFA), thus state and district teams can support the main objective in different ways, with varying effectiveness. Bright, creative, selfless, individuals lacking personal agenda, who neither hate nor run sycophantic for Obama, do well.
Obama’s biggest problems: GOP purposely refusing to work bipartisan, and excessive worshipping of supporters who elected him. There are no words for the GOP. Unrealistic expectations of followers have only hurt.
This president was elected for a reason, and trust for change must come into play. There comes a time when Americans of vast leanings pull it together and trust that the president they elected will in the longterm make the best decisions by keeping the greater good of this nation in mind at all times.
Obama is far from perfect; however, I and many others he is our best choice and the right person for president, especially with Biden at his side. Obama has my full support, even when I’m peeved at him... and yes I’ve disagreed.
Constant division, anger, apathy and hate will destroy any hope for change…not Obama...not OFA.
Don't forget "We're not Bush... remember Bush?"
I actually heard congressional Democrats are planning on using Bush as a central theme in the 2010 elections. The cluelessness is astonishing, at times.
-CW
There are a lot of people out there who think exactly the same as you do. Which makes Gibbs' professed ignorance all the more astounding.
-CW
This is kind of what I expected, too. Obama could have used the "bully pulpit" a lot better than he so far has, and also could have successfully done what Reagan called "going over the heads of the media to The People." It's an open secret that Congress is actually TERRIFIED of The People, and Obama could have used this to his advantage.
But I'm not totally giving up all hope that he can't get better at this in the next year. We'll see....
-CW
But this isn't why OFA is running into problems. It's because OFA is NOT "Organizing for AMERICA." It's "Organizing for the DNC/ DLC." Think the Republicans who crossed over to vote for Obama, and all of the Independents who carried him, will rally when urged to support bill passage as the president's agenda when the actual legislation is completely different? Think they have any interest in schoozing at time-wasting Dem social events? Do the hacks of OFA think we're all completely numb, or utterly stupid? OFA could have been a vehicle for education and transformation, bridging bipartisan gaps at the community level. The opportunity was there in the wake of the election. But instead of furthering the positive momentum, the organization we helped build became a meaningless piece of the party machine.
Unless he does some housecleaning and head-clearing, and starts taking substantive action to make changes, Obama's term will go down as a tragedy of squandered opportunities. Compared to the health insurance reform debacle, TARP, foreclosure "assistance" that enriched the mortgage industry instead of saving homes, endless war, etc., OFA's fate is a piffle, but Obama's handoff to the party still makes me feel bitter.
Obama appointed Emanuel, Geitner, Summers. They are still in their jobs doing the same thing.
Obviously they are doing what the President WANTS them to do.
When Joe Lieberman killed off the public option, MSNBC reported that President Obama called him and thanked him.
It's time to stop projecting virtuous or noble intentions on our corporate shill President.
Progressives and liberals need to stand up TO him, not with him.
OK, guilty as charged. I really did try to make (A) and (B) sound like reasonable choices, but then I went a little overboard on (C), you're right.
But then, most surveys are actually slanted in some direction or another, especially ones from political organizations (as opposed to pollsters).
But you're right. What I wrote wasn't so much a suggestion to OFA as to how to word an actual survey as a blunt rhetorical instrument to beat them about the ears with.
But then, Gibbs did say he has no idea why the enthusiasm is dropping, so I thought it should be made clear to him what is going on out here outside the Beltway.
Feel free to write (D), "insert your own answer here" if you'd like. Just keep to the theme of "what could Obama do that would give me enthusiasm for supporting him, and Democrats in general."
I'd be interested to see what answers others come up with, personally.
-CW
Obama was sworn into office and immediately issued Executive Orders repealing DADT, instructing the Justice Department to bring charges against Bush administration officials, and _____ (fill in your pet progressive cause here).
The right wing pundits, anxiously looking for some sort of way of criticizing Obama without bringing up his race, immediately latch onto his actions as "fascism". He is accused of circumventing the Constitution and imposing a dictatorship in the United States. The mainstream media feels that they are obligated to tell "both sides of the story" and starts running "Is Obama a fascist?" stories, complete with a catchy musical theme and a logo. Nervous white people turn to the Republican party who promise that in 2010 they will "bring America back to democracy" if they are only given a majority in the House and Senate.
Obama is praised by the netroots who feel vindicated after spending years of receiving "virtual wedgies" from the right-wing. They start congratulating each other on Huffington Post and Daily Kos. However, they don't have enough political pull to prevent a landslide for the Republicans in 2010.
With the Republican Congress firmly against him, Obama can't get any of his initiatives in 2011 and 2012 passed. Obama is portrayed in the media as a weak President and comparisons to Jimmy Carter abound. In 2012, Newt Gingrich runs against him on a "Return to Democracy" platform and wins.
It's not fast enough for the immediate-gratification crowd. I get it.
But if the left got everyone they wanted right away the backlash would be so severe as to cripple his Presidency.
That's reality. It's not what we want, but it's better to have a President who is working (albeit slowly) on getting some of what we want than to go down in flames, continually beating our chests and moaning "we are correct, if only the world would recognize our brilliance".
I do not like Bush and think he is a war criminal but the one thing he did know how to do was strengthen his base. In his first year, he signed and initiated unpopular legislation and exec orders that rallied the base. Even when things got bad in Iraq and the Katrina debacle, they stuck with him and defended him to the end.
In your post, you proved the progressive base point. Well done.
As long as he's on our side, it's okay for him to do the exact same things that we excoriated Bush for doing?
Or did we elect him to return the country to a rule of law and a respect for the Constitution?
The last year has taught me he's part of the problem and will never be part of the solution. Before now I was a "weak Democrat" meaning I was a Democrat because I'll never again vote for a republican. Today, I doubt I'll ever vote for a Democrat at the national level unless I move to Dennis Kucinich's district. The Democrats, thanks largely to the DNC and Obama, have convinced me they're too far to the right to ever offer a real solution for America.
In short, I know why enthusiasm for Democratic candidates is waning. I bet a lot of people outside the beltway can see it too.
Story is that the job market is especially bad this year. Oh yeah! THAT'S why you established such close ties with corporations! Makes sense, since they are the only ones with money today!
Please take my name off your solicitation list. I gave.
1) Choked and failed to lead on real health care reform,
2) Failed to close Guantanamo,
3) Continued to operate secret CIA prisons where torture is still conducted today,
4) Toothless financial reforms,
5) Hiring Summers and Rubin, whose past ineptitude (Clinton White House, Harvard, Citi) was clear,
6) Tim Geithner,
7) Reversal on gay rights promises,
8) Invitation to Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration,
9) Refusal to allow prosecution of torturers, and those who ordered torture,
10) Refusal to consider international land mine ban,
11) Failure to deliver on "green jobs,"
12) Lackluster help/program for foreclosures,
13) Incoherent strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan,
14) Insisting that health care overhaul must be deficit reducing, but war must be conducted using borrowed money,
15) Lack of will to tax outrageous bonuses on Wall St, as is being done across Europe,
etc., I decided to quite Organizing for America. I was sickened by the memories of the e-mails I used to get during the campaign, with subject lines like "Change" this and "Change" that. This isn't change, my friends. This is betrayal.
Obama made us believe ichange was possible (remember "yes, we can?"), only to show us "no, we can't." My generation's optimism has been forever tarnished.
I do think you left out
16) fought to keep pay restrictions and accountability OUT of TARP II.
17) asked for a stimulus package half the size economists said it needed to be and then wasted much of that on GOP tactics proven not to work.
And on your number 1 point, I think he went far beyond "failing to lead". His first move was to kill single payer, replacing it with a nebulous "public option". That was the point where I knew health care reform was dead. And in fact it was replaced by a massive corporate welfare bill and that was largely the President's doing.
as has been stated by some, OFA is a grassroots org and directing it from the top down clashes with that. Also, you just can't expect the overall support and energy to be there after the general election. College kids got wrapped up in the fun of it all. Ask them now if they are working for change and they don't care. They don't follow the issues-Most,not all. It's much easier to get people to pizza parties to make up signs and knock on doors for a rock star young candidate than it is making hard phone calls about medicare cuts and union insurance coverage.
That is an interesting list. Sad, in its way, but interesting. All I can say is that I hope you either sent or will send this list to the WH, because according to Gibbs, they haven't figured it out yet.
-CW
OFA is the open & visible contradiction to BHO's campaign. It's back to the DLC/DNC/HRC - you elected us- now trust us no matter what we do.
The WH & DNC have let multiple crises - Healthcare Reform [NOT health insurance "subsidy"], Wall Street Reform, & Economic Recovery die with their willingness to negotiate before having a proposed bill. Their attempts to "rally" the base fall on deaf ears because everyone can replay the Candidate's speeches where the Public Option was the only & main point.
Now the WH tries triangulation when they find out that their "minor part" of the "reform" is the important one to their base & others.
The WH hire of DLC operatives is a signal to all that the Clinton "experts" who came out of the ARK bunch are still in charge {Summers, e.g. - instead of Krugman, Stiglitz, Madrick, Bernstein in the Oval Office}.
What they're pushing now as "Change We Can Believe In" is no change at all from GWB on economy, Gitmo, fraudulent wars , Bill of Rights, warrantless wiretapping, transparency . . .,
(My name) --
"If we don't get it done this year, we're not going to get it done."
That's how President Obama -- briefing leading Organizing for America volunteers in our health care effort -- described our fight to pass real health care reform in 2009.
Then, yesterday, the President took the next step by writing congressional leaders to re-emphasize his principles for real health care reform, INCLUDING HIS COMMITMENT TO CREATING A PUBLIC INSURANCE OPTION FOR ALL.
Now it's up to us to show massive public support for the President's call -- and we have to move quickly. Can you add your name today?
OBAMA sold us out on the public option and then pretended like he didn't....
This was from 6.4.09 in an email titled "I have President Obama on the Line" from David Plouffe.
If the PO was only one small, not very important part of HCR why was it the ONLY individual component of the plan mentioned?