Image 01 Image 03

Latest Attack On Obama Legacy: Dem Party Requires Dem Nominee Pledge Not To Duplicate ‘Organizing for Action’

Latest Attack On Obama Legacy: Dem Party Requires Dem Nominee Pledge Not To Duplicate ‘Organizing for Action’

“many Democratic Party officials still fume about Barack Obama’s decision to create his own political group outside of the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for Action”

When twice-failed Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton failed to defeat President Trump in 2016, Obama’s legacy was in jeopardy.  She was his chosen heir apparent, the one who would cement his legacy, yet his support didn’t help her in her presidential aspirations.

And now Obama’s legacy is in tatters.  Trump has significantly undermined ObamaCare, ended the bad Iran deal and the ridiculous Paris climate agreement, and rolled back many Obama-era regulations.  But the most significant attacks on the Obama legacy come not from Trump but from Democrats.

Former VP and former Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) is campaigning, in large part, on keeping and expanding ObamaCare, that “big f*ing deal” that turned out to be a major flop.  It’s so bad, in fact, that even Biden thinks it has to be “fixed.”  Democrat primary voters apparently disagree and favor “Medicare for all” (at least until they find out what’s in it).

The latest repudiation of Obama and his legacy also comes from Democrats.  The DNC is rightfully still reeling from the massive Democrat losses that occurred nationwide under Obama.  Under Obama, Democrats lost a jaw-dropping number of seats across the board. In local, state, and federal elections, Democrats lost 1,030 seats as of 2016.

Obama’s fixation on Obama is becoming a more public bone of contention among Democrats as the Party now requires Democrat presidential candidates to disavow the building of parallel political groups like Obama’s Organizing for Action (previously Organizing for America).

Politico reports:

To this day, many Democratic Party officials still fume about Barack Obama’s decision to create his own political group outside of the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for Action.

Now they’ve ensured it won’t happen again if a Democrat wins the White House in 2020.

The Association of State Democratic Committees announced Tuesday that every leading presidential contender has vowed not to create “any organizing or messaging infrastructure that is parallel or duplicative” to the DNC or state parties. The signed pledge also binds candidates to publicly call on their supporters not to launch outside groups on their behalf.

. . . . “It’s a huge shift,” said Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party. The move sends two messages, she added: “You cannot create another OFA,” and “the DNC is an important national infrastructure, but it’s not in the states — we are.”

Organizing for Action, the political group that grew out of Obama’s first presidential run, decentralized power from the DNC by building a parallel infrastructure that competed for donors. It was a move that many state party chairs loathed, and in the years since have faulted for Democrats’ losses at the gubernatorial and statehouse level.

“It wasn’t helpful to the political work that needs to get done in building a bench,” said Stephen Handwerk, executive director of the Louisiana Democratic Party. “We have a political tool in the state parties and the president should use them.”

Hardest hit? Bernie and his cranky, shouty commie “revolution” thing.

Politico continues:

But Our Revolution was a point of contention during discussions with the Sanders campaign, according to people familiar with the negotiations. Sanders has long identified as an independent in the Senate, though he caucuses with Democrats. He is a self-described democratic socialist.

It’s uncertain what the agreement will mean for organizations like Our Revolution and Next Gen, an outside political group formed by billionaire Tom Steyer, who’s now running for president.

“We can’t have competing centers of gravity as we move forward,” said Ken Martin, chair of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and president of the state Democratic committees. “We’ve learned the lessons of the past.”

“If Sen. Sanders is the president, he would put his energy and political capital into the Democratic Party,” Martin added.

Sanders’ campaign argued that Our Revolution could remain in operation because the group already acts and operates “independently” from the Vermont senator. Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Sanders, said outside groups such as Move On, Progressive Change Campaign Committee or Third Way would likewise not be affected by the pledge.

No one expects Bernie to get the nomination, so this is aimed at self-styled “bigger than the party types” who share Obama’s self-assessment of himself as super special and stuff.

With Obama’s legacy in tatters and his administration under investigation, the Democratic Party may be attempting to save its own from future humiliation.  Or it could be making the move to rebuild its own power and reverse Democrat losses endured under Obama.  Or maybe we should embrace the power of “and” in this case.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


With all due respect to Mark Twain, it has become apparent that the Democrat Party and all of its active members comprise our native criminal class. And that goes for the Democrats in the Republican Party, too.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to txvet2. | August 28, 2019 at 8:51 pm

    Spot on!

    No more OFA (Obama F’ing America!)

    Excuse my Farsi!

    Is this evidence that the Dems are finally going public with their concern about being taken over by communists? A pledge is not going to do much if they continue to cooperate with and take money done all of the Soros groups (which they exempt) and the other commie organizations fueling this. No, they will have to start cooperating with the DOJ in their investigations to rout the Deep State out of power. People have to start going to prison.

      Close The Fed in reply to Pasadena Phil. | August 29, 2019 at 8:18 am

      Phil, I think you’re taking entirely the wrong message from this.

      It means the Dems don’t want to lose money and talent to outside groups, because it cost them so many seats.

      They’re still wannabe commies.

        No, I didn’t miss that part. The DNC wants to win and they know that they can’t when their message is co-opted by all of these outside commie organizations. So yes, it’s about the money. But if the DNC was on board with losing they wouldn’t be fighting for the money. The commies are leading the Democratic Party into extinction.

        Despite all of the phony polls and propaganda, Americans are NOT ready for communism.

BerettaTomcat | August 28, 2019 at 9:13 pm

The modern Democrat Party has always been a cult of personality; e.g., FDR, JFK, WJC. All the natural-born British East African, the Democrats’ biggest personality cult, did was take fund raising and messaging to the inevitable point by setting his organization up independent of the DNC.

Well, he just didn’t want them getting a taste of his money, just like he wanted to get a taste of everyone else’s money. I like to say that everything you need to know about the Portland, OR, city government can be learned from watching The Sopranos.

Translation: The Democrats want the money. Obama tried to divert some of the money coming into his campaign to his personal political organization, instead of the DNC. The DNC doesn’t like this.

Follow the money. It’s always the money. This has nothing to do with policy, support for proposed policies, or the good of the country. It has to do with paying money to the operatives the DNC wants to pay.

    Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | August 28, 2019 at 10:17 pm

    You can’t do policy, or support proposed policies, or even promote the good of the country if that’s your thing, without money. And OFA sucked up money that should have gone to the state parties, and didn’t do their job. All that money went to promote 0bama’s brand, not the party’s, so now they don’t have the nationwide structure of office-holders that they used to count on.

      txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | August 29, 2019 at 2:11 am

      For which we owe them thanks.

      Valerie in reply to Milhouse. | August 29, 2019 at 9:43 am

      “OFA sucked up money that should have gone to the state parties, and didn’t do their job. All that money went to promote 0bama’s brand,….”

      I think you touched on something very significant, here, which I alluded to in a different fashion.

      Mike Royko’s observation about clean graft and dirty graft applies, here. Clean graft is noticing an opportunity for a government contract, and acting on it, for profit, but also delivering full value on the contract. Dirty graft is taking the money and failing to deliver on the contract, especially in a system where there are no repercussions for such failure.

      Barack Obama’s dealings with the Annenberg Challenge are a precursor to what happened in this instance. Obama’s group wrote an application on improving the education of school children, got the money, spent the money on “organizing” the parents instead of educating the children, got no positive results on educating the children, and wrote a report saying they needed to spend more money to educate the children.

      That is why I said it wasn’t about policy, but paying money to favored operatives.

Obama created his own funding mechanism right out of the DNC cash machine.
Ooh… really bad manners..

Control, it’s all about the CONTROL, money, taxes, guns, where you live, how you live. That’s what the Dems/Progs do

Dems have no sense of embarrassment, so you can bet this is a simple attempt to re-consolidate power.

So let me get this right. They are being asked to sign a loyalty pledge?
I can remember when that was a BAD thing.

2nd Ammendment Mother | August 29, 2019 at 11:31 am

IMHO, they suspect that Obama is supporting Beto’s campaign and is planning to give him access to the data building resources of OfA. Remember that OfA was collecting data on every single voter from every single source publicly available and some that probably wasn’t available. It was supposed to be sophisticated enough the their GOTV phone operation were able to tailor their calls to knowing if the person was on public assistance, had a criminal record, made lots of purchases on Amazon or subscribed to the Wall Street Journal.
What we do know about Beto’s campaign? He’s collecting lots of from Obama staffers. 2 California based IT companies have relocated to El Paso (EP is not an IT friendly infrastructure). He seems to have mountains of money (outside of his families own wealth) to burn despite a very low voter response level. And he’s playing the everyman game, despite having never been an everyman anytime in his life.
I never thought Obama was smart enough to run the campaign he did and it showed up at the White House. Having personally known and been a contractor on jobs with Beto – I know he’s not smart enough to be in this race without a lot of back office support.

My theory is that Obama was a mafia/cartel candidate and Beto definitely is…. isn’t my tin hat pretty!

What happens to all of those hideous pant suits that she wears, once? It is difficult to imagine that ordinary women would even consider wearing such garish “outfits”, outside of a Walmart, during the first week of the month.

Small wonder that Bill has been looking here-and-there, looking every where, looking for a love that he can call his own!