Das neue Jahr beginnt so, wie das alte endete – anderswo laufen detaillierte und richtungsweisende Debatten über Politik im Internet und hierzulande nimmt man davon keine Notiz. Unter dem Label The Obama Disconnect konzentriert sich die Diskussion über…

Are you seriously proposing that signing or veoting legislation is the only role the President has in crafting legislation? Look back through the news about health care reform and you'll see plenty to suggest that the Obama administration, like every other administration since, well, Washington, has had an active role in shaping what comes out of Congress.

You can see a number of times where the President has called players in negotiations to the White House, where the President has gone to Capitol Hill to urge congress to move forward, where the President's staff – Rahm Emmanuel especially – has been active in negotiations. Perhaps the most prominent example is the PhRMA deal: whether there was a deal or not, there certainly were meetings between White House staff and PhRMA lobbyists (just as there were meetings with lobbyists from other groups on all sides of the issue, though Congressional Progressives didn't get theirs until late in the process, and single-payer advocates basically had to stage a sit-in). It seems odd to me that PhRMA would even bother going to the White House if the President had so little control over what happens in Congress.

Ultimately, too, I think “cynical” is too strong a word to describe Sifry's piece. I would call it criticism, of the constructive kind that I would guess by your conclusion you would welcome. What I take away from this is that the Obama administration, and the ongoing Obama campaign, have yet to figure out how best to work with a grassroots organization that is tied specifically to a politician in office. Since 2006, progressive organizations have looked to an inside/outside approach by which grassroots groups would try to move the debate further to the left by applying, or at least appearing to apply, pressure on politicians to move leftward in their policies. In that model, OFA is a contradiction in terms: if local groups are receiving direction from the DNC or Obama operatives, then Obama is ultimately accountable for their actions. This direct connection creates a situation in which he may either a) seem to be negotiating in bad faith, because his organization is calling for stronger action than those he's negotiating with will agree to, or b) have to limit his organization to simply cheerleading any possible compromise that might come out of the process.

There's probably a solution here, and Obama, with all his gifts, may very well find it. But is it cynicism to provide the feedback that a lot of us are concerned that he and his people have chosen option “b”?

I tend toward cynicism myself. Thanks for an eloquent reminder of how difficult change really is and how important it is to recognize and use OUR power.