Change Happens From The Bottom Up

Ceci Connolly overheard the President telling Senate leaders that he would prefer the progressive hits on Democratic members of Congress to stop.

President Obama, strategizing yesterday with congressional leaders about health-care reform, complained that liberal advocacy groups ought to drop their attacks on Democratic lawmakers and devote their energy to promoting passage of comprehensive legislation.

In a pre-holiday call with half a dozen top House and Senate Democrats, Obama expressed his concern over advertisements and online campaigns targeting moderate Democrats, whom they criticize for not being fully devoted to "true" health-care reform.

"We shouldn't be focusing resources on each other," Obama opined in the call, according to three sources who participated in or listened to the conversation. "We ought to be focused on winning this debate."

Specifically, Obama said he is hoping left-leaning organizations that worked on his behalf in the presidential campaign will now rally support for "advancing legislation" that fulfills his goal of expanding coverage, controlling rising costs and modernizing the health system.

I'm wondering how Connolly knows this much about what appears to be a closed strategy call. My assumption is she knows what the White House wants her to know. So going on the assumption that it's true, I'll say this:

Of course this is what Obama would tell Democratic leaders in the Senate about attacks on Democrats in the Senate. He doesn't want those attacks to have his direct sanction, these are lawmakers he has to work with now and in the future, and so it makes perfect sense for him to play good cop. He can take the pose of just wishing these attacks would stop, without intervening directly in the activities of outside organizations (which would be illegal, I believe). It's a classic Obama middle path.

At the same time, this is also nothing new. He essentially drained progressive groups of funding during the 2008 campaign. So that past set of actions is part of this statement, too. It's one thing to make the idle "I wish they'd jump in with the home team for the big victory" comment, it's another to make it secure in the knowledge that he could move it from "I wish" to "do this or some of your biggest fundraisers might get a phone call."

Obama wants to control message and have all these outside groups pushing alongside him for "reform." But his vision of that reform includes a broad set of principles and a glaring lack of specifics. The Presidential candidate who said "change begins from the bottom up" should be the last one as President to expect his supporters to follow him blindly.

What's more, progressive pressure has worked.

But there is no question that these hard-hitting campaigns representing breast cancer survivors and others have been successful, and they have been instrumental in backing Ben Nelson and Kay Hagan off their opposition to a public plan. The memberships of these organizations are in clear support of their efforts, and with 76% of the country in support of a public plan, the President seems to be one of the unhappy few who oppose their tactics.

I could probably find about 1,000 quotes from candidate Obama about how it's time for Americans to once again participate in their government, and how we are the change we've been waiting for, etc. You cannot empower people for months and months to take action and then try to stage-manage that action. Activism doesn't have an on/off switch.

I was actually at this event where Maxine Waters expressed admiration for the DFA ad against Mary Landrieu ("I'm going to be in New Orleans this weekend, telling everyone about it") and said, "Let me just say to all of our friends out there, that a sustained effort, directed at public officials, demanding no less than a public option, can be very successful. So go to work." I believe this work will continue, even if it makes the President uncomfortable. He didn't create this monster, but he certainly drafted off it during 2008. People want to be actively engaged in politics again. It's a shame for anyone to try and cut them out.

...as expected, progressive groups won't be stopping their ad buys anytime soon. Via email, DFA's Charles Chamberlain said that his group hasn't received any calls from the White House to pull back, nor will they be doing so, and he thinks that "this article is a very good sign that what we are doing is working. If Senators and Reps weren't afraid of us, they wouldn't be asking for us to stop."

Making Norm Coleman Pay, One Dollar At A Time

Norm Coleman finally got around to filing his appeal of the three-judge panel's ruling that Al Franken won the Minnesota Senate election by 312 votes. It's funny that he and his lawyers stated their intention to appeal for months, and only got around to it seven days after the ruling. Why, it's as if they were intentionally dragging their feet to delay the seating of Senator Franken!

The filing is here. And I liked this question from the Minnesota press:

St. Paul Pioneer Press reporter Jason Hoppin asked what made Coleman think the ballots he wants opened and counted would break his way, when batches of ballots opened during the recount and the election contest trial favored Franken.

After commenting that “you guys like asking this question don’t you, Jason?” Ginsberg said absentee ballots opened since the election have been more from precincts that favored Franken than Coleman. The ballots Coleman wants counted come from precincts that favored him, Ginsberg claimed.

Except Franken has consistently won absentee ballots regardless of the district.

To this point, the protracted court battle has worked out pretty good for Norm Coleman and the Republicans. For a relatively low price, Coleman has denied Democrats a 59th seat in the Senate, with little additional consequence. Until now. This is an ingenious idea from Adam Green.

Recently, I critiqued the DSCC's "petition" asking Norm Coleman to get out -- saying there was no "theory of change" about why people taking that action would have any impact.

To be constructive, I gave a free piece of advice to the DSCC on how to organize people strategically: ask people to give $1/day until Norm goes away. If Republicans in DC saw the DSCC's warchest growing by the day, their incentives would reverse -- instead of telling Norm to keep going, they'd tell him to get lost.

The DSCC didn't take that advice. But Howard Dean's Democracy for America was all about it, and partnered with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (which I co-founded) to make it happen at NormDollar.com. Instead of raising money to help generic Democrats, we're raising it to support bold progressives in 2010.

Since Saturday, over $20,000 has been raised -- prompting news coverage in the New York Times, ABC, Politico, Huffington Post, and great support at Digby's blog, MyDD, CrooksandLiars, FDL, Senate Guru, The Seminal, The MN Progressive Project, and other blogs.

I'm sold. And you should join the NormDollar.com campaign as well. Even if Coleman continues to delay the result of the election, at least progressive candidates will get richer in the exchange.

DFA Steps Up For True Grassroots Progress In California

I am both surprised and heartened to see DFA send their members in California information about the race for Controller of the California Democratic Party. Simply put, this is not a front-burner issue for most progressives, especially those not at the activist level inside the Party. But it's no less important, and in fact reforming the party and making it more attentive to grassroots concerns is paramount if we want to get back to leading the nation instead of lagging behind it. Let me reprint some of the email they sent to their supporters today:

Did you know DFA members first proposed a 58 County Plan to the California Democratic Party (CDP) four years ago? It's true and DFA members have worked hard to help make that commitment a reality.

This month, you have the power to make sure the 58 County Strategy is supported at the top level of the California Democratic Party.

The CDP elects officers on April 25th. DFA members told us months ago about a great grassroots activist running for Party Controller. We've followed the campaign, met the candidate and it's clear that one candidate has earned our unified support.

I'm excited to announce DFA's endorsement of Hilary Crosby for Controller of the California Democratic Party. Only delegates to the CDP can vote, but any DFA member can help Hillary win by making a few calls to delegates or contributing to her campaign.

HELP ELECT HILARY CROSBY CDP CONTROLLER

We're talking about a grassroots movement to elect the Controller of the state party. Crosby's participation at the officer level of the CDP would be a sea change, a real difference-maker in terms of having a voice committed to the 58-county strategy at the table, and willing to follow up with action instead of words. The proof of the past two cycles signals the need for a broader strategy inside the party to win contested seats. And just the model for getting her elected - through a grassroots GOTV process - makes me hopeful that she gets it, and has the right allies to bring about change within the state.

Speaking for myself, I enthusiastically support this effort to help elect Hillary Crosby, in both form and function.

California Campaign Update

I simply have not had the time to do a full update of all the Congressional and legislative campaigns. And sadly, it doesn't look like that time will be forthcoming soon. So I think I'll do mini-updates where possible.

• CA-46: Debbie Cook has been endorsed by DFA (Democracy for America). Jim Dean, the Chair of DFA, said in a statement, "Debbie Cook has been a grassroots champion for over 20 years and has a proven record of success in the private sector and as a public servant ... Debbie Cook is running because she's a committed advocate and activist who fights for her constituents and delivers results."

In the past, DFA has been able to move some resources into districts, so we'll see if they're going that route in this race. DFA has also recently endorsed Bill Hedrick (CA-44).

• CA-26: Russ Warner's campaign is announcing via email that the DCCC named his race as "one to watch." That doesn't mean they'll get any money, but it puts them in the queue if the race tightens. Unfortunately, the DCCC has kind of a deliberate style, where they hoard their money for the races they know are toss-ups, and then wait until the very last minute for these emerging races, sometimes beyond the point at which that money can be effective. I understand the strategy but it wouldn't be smart from Warner's perspective to bank on any help from Washington in his race against David Dreier. He needs his own resources as well as money from California lawmaker's PACs.

Which reminds me, California Democrats, it's time to use it or lose it. We have a number of races where the challenger can win if they have enough resources, and in the seats where an incumbent has token or no opposition and a huge war chest, that money should not be sitting in an account somewhere. Help our own candidates! Expect more pressure on this very soon.

• CA-03: It's kind of fun watching Dan Lungren try to humina-humina his way out of supporting Prop. 8. He really has no idea what he's talking about. It would be bad enough if a citizen of the state had this atrocious an understanding of basic civics, but this guy is not only a US Representative but a former state Attorney General!

• AD-80: The GOP tried to get Manuel Perez' occupational status as an "educator" thrown off the ballot, but they failed. Now he has received the endorsement of the highest-ranking law enforcement official in Imperial County, D.A. Gilbert Otero. Considering that his opponent, Gary Jeandron, is the former police chief of Palm Springs, I'd consider this endorsement to be significant.

IL-03: DFA Canvassing For Mark Pera

Having come close to giving up on the Presidentials in terms of leadership, thoughts turn to the more important primaries, like Mark Pera's battle against Bush Dog Dan Lipinski. DFA is stepping in:

Democracy for America, our nation's largest progressive political action organization, will hold a rally in support of Mark Pera's campaign in Illinois' 3rd Congressional District. The rally, scheduled for Sunday, January 27 at 1:00 PM at Connie's Pizza, 2373 S. Archer Chicago, IL 60609, will be followed by door-to-door canvassing and phone banking by local DFA members.

DFA Chair Jim Dean and Mark Pera will be on-hand to address the crowd before going out to knock on doors and speak to voters and residents in the district.

"Mark Pera offers true, progressive Democratic leadership," Jim Dean, Chair of Democracy for America, said. "We are proud to support his campaign and we are excited to be in the district to speak with his constituents."

You can contribute to Mark Pera at Blue Majority.

Read also Sun-Times columnist Carol Marin on the Lipinski machine (he was handed the seat by his daddy).

Feinstein Gets The Message

This James Risen article untangling what happened in yesterday's Judiciary Committee has an interesting little nugget halfway down the page:

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the panel, is pushing a plan that would substitute the federal government as the defendant in the lawsuits against the telecommunications companies. That would mean that the government, not the companies, would pay damages in successful lawsuits.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, said in an interview after the vote Thursday that he would support a compromise along the lines of the Specter proposal.

Mr. Whitehouse was one of two Democrats who voted against an amendment proposed by Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, that would have banned immunity for the companies. “I think there is a good solution somewhere in the middle,” Mr. Whitehouse said.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who also opposed Mr. Feingold’s measure, pleaded with Mr. Leahy to defer the immunity issue because she wants more time to consider several compromise proposals.

(I was under the impression that Herb Kohl also voted against the Feingold Amendment -ed.)

Feinstein had no need for compromise earlier in the week. She was gung-ho for telecom immunity. Clearly the pushback in the Senate amped up the desire for compromise, even if Specter's is a fig leaf that would still get the telecoms off the hook while effectively stopping lawsuits through an expected invocation of state secrets. But I have to assume that the heat Feinstein is taking from the grassroots back in California is driving her thinking as well. If Leahy passed out immunity she would be seen as the biggest cheerleader for it - AGAIN, after Southwick and Mukasey. It would be the last straw. So she's trying to get out in front and take credit for some kind of compromise that will eventually come.

So the progressive movement can take a little credit for winning this battle, as DFA did in a hyperventilating email last night. We have not yet won the war, and there will absolutely be a floor fight and a bullshit centrist compromise to work against.

This isn't over.

(Also the rest of the bill is pretty good, and has things that the Bush Administration has vowed to reject, always a good thing. But will the Congress cave? That's the big question.)

UPDATE: This DKos post notes that Harry Reid is going to bring up the Intelligence Committee bill as the main bill, with the Judiciary Committee bill as a substitute. That's the exact opposite of what he said yesterday. This is very fluid and there's likely to be shenanigans.

More Progressive Orgs. Push For Accountability On Feinstein

In addition to the buzz in the blogosphere about activist efforts to censure Dianne Feinstein for her votes with Bush Republicans on key issues, some of the top progressive organizations have DiFi in their sights. MoveOn is asking their California members to call Feinstein about tomorrow's vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee over the revised FISA bill, and tell her not to grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies who violated the law by handing over information to the Bush Administration.

Senator Dianne Feinstein is facing tremendous pressure from the Bush administration. Tomorrow, she will likely vote on whether or not to let the phone companies off the hook for helping the president illegally spy on the phone calls and emails of innocent Americans.

President Bush wants immunity for these companies to cover-up his own illegal actions. The pending lawsuits against companies like AT&T may be the only way we ever find out how far the Bush administration went in breaking the law.

We have to make sure Sen. Feinstein hears from us right away. Can you call Sen. Feinstein and tell her to vote against immunity for big corporations who break the law? Tell her that voters want accountability and oversight—not immunity.

Here's where to call:
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Phone: 202-224-3841

DiFi has already signaled her intention to allow telecom immunity for lawbreakers, but clearly she needs to feel the pressure. What is far more interesting is DFA's effort to have Feinstein removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee altogether.

In California, we have a law -- commonly called the three-strikes law. And, like all laws, I think it ought to apply to everybody -- including my Senator, Diane Feinstein.

Too many times Senator Feinstein has failed to represent the people of California. Now she has announced that this Thursday she will support President Bush for the third time in two months. And it all comes down to Senator Feinstein's role on the Judiciary Committee.

Strike One: A Bush nominee for the federal bench, Leslie Southwick has a long history of rulings in lower courts that violate equality laws. Feinstein cast a deciding vote to give him a lifetime seat.

Strike Two: Michael Mukasey, nominated for Attorney General, refused to say he would oppose torture. But Feinstein voted to send his confirmation to the Senate floor anyway.

Now she's poised for her third bad vote in a row, on a rework of the FISA Act -- the law that's supposed to protect us all against illegal wiretapping [...]

Please call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid right now and demand he remove Senator Feinstein from the committee and replace her with a Democrat who will stand up to President Bush's abuse of power.

Senator Harry Reid
202-224-3542

As I've said, progressives in California are looking for ways to get DiFi's attention, and inform her that she works for the people of this state, not elites in DC. These are two national organizations working at the local level to do just that.

UPDATE: Incidentally, yes, you should call the Senate Judiciary members opposing immunity for lawbreakers. It would be unconscionable that we never get to the bottom of just what the Administration has been doing to our privacy in the name of security all these years.