dagblog - Comments for "Got a Question? The Obama Transition Team has Answers -- and Plenty of Sunlight"

Thanks for the detailed

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:32:05 +0000

Thanks for the detailed answers. I've suspected that the inclusion part of Obama's platform is a bit of a gimmick--maybe b/c I've received too many fundraising emails telling me that I'm part of the team--so I'm interested in hearing how your views evolve once Obama begins to govern. I'm more enthusiastic about the transparency aspect which I believe could help to limit government abuse and corporate influence. We had a big, unhealthy dose of such abuse under the Bush-Cheney regime. I really hope that Obama sticks to it and succeeds in institutionalizing it so that it carries through into future administrations.

Good questions, Genghis.

The Zaftig Redhead — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:44:22 +0000

In reply to Welcome #3. And go easy on

Good questions, Genghis. Lemme see if I can do 'em justice. Here goes:

Do I think that solicitations for input will impact policy, or is it simply a way to make people feel included? Well, I do think it will have some impact... in moderation. Let's be clear that Obama has honed his ideas over the course of an almost two-year campaign. His policy platforms are pretty well developed -- and a lot of the volunteers who helped him develop those positions were on the agency review teams. So while I don't think you'll see wholesale shifts in policy based on this public input, there might be fine turning -- particuarly in the "how." This is where advocacy groups have not only come up with great ideas but developed roadmaps to make 'em happen (opposition research, as well as executive order, legislative, or regulatory langauge, etc.). This is a good thing, in many ways -- it will help the administration move much more quickly than if they had to develop everything from scratch themselves. I know special interests have gotten a bad rap of late, but the reality is that they can be useful to the process in this way -- and the administration will not adopt any ideas at face value. All these proposals will be filtered through Obama's own priorities, agenda, and moral compass.

What I do think, however, is that all this input is a brilliant way to see how the public talks about the issues they care about -- it's like one ginormous focus group, and these comments can be used to hone the message and clean up any ragged edges. Now, I don't want that to sound overly cynical... I suppose one could dissect the input activity as simply a way to tell the people what they want to hear, to curry favor. But the other side of the coin makes more sense to me -- that the transition team is going to use the info to create messages that answer the most pressing, common questions that people have. In that way, the administration can more effectively sell its ideas and garner support -- by telling the public about what they've asked to know, rather than what the administration thinks they should know... two very different things.

...which leads me to the next question...

Clinton admnistration was known for testing the winds and adjusting policy based on polling data and "old special interests" -- how does the new openness differ from prior political practices? Hmmm... well, in all honesty, my experience in the Clinton administration was different, but then I came in after he'd already gotten elected. They certainly interacted with special interest groups, but more so to get them on board after the fact than in truly developing policy. That's not to say that the Clintons didn't listen to public or special interest input -- they did to an extent. But they did a lot of governing by polls, and we should never forget that triangulation was Bill's middle name. Then again, if they hadn't used the polls -- with a Republican Congress and scandals galore -- he might not have gotten re-elected. And truthfully, while Obama's team is more open, his team is also filled with past Clintonites who better understand the need to work with outside groups and the public to get things done, as well as the most innovative grassroots engagement thinkers in the country. Plus, the tools available -- e-advocacy, facebook, twitter, blogs -- have made Obama's effort to be more inclusive and transparent that much easier. So yes, if Clinton comes out wanting in this comparison I would have to say some of the difference is mindset, but some is also simply know-how and ingenuity, and having the right tools for the job.

Welcome #3. And go easy on

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:52:00 +0000

In reply to Got a Question? The Obama Transition Team has Answers -- and Plenty of Sunlight

Welcome #3. And go easy on the Kool-Aid. :) I'm glad to hear from someone involved with the transition that Obama is making good on his transparency promises. I felt that his emphasis on transparency was underappreciated during the primary and the general election battles, since it's not very sexy.

Two questions for the expert, if I may: First, do you feel that the solicitations for input, like "open for questions" will have significant effect on policy or just provide a way for people to feel included? Second, the Clinton Administration was known for adjusting policy based on polling data and in response to the old "special interests." How does the new openness differ from prior political practices?

Welcome to Dag, ZR! I have

Orlando — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:06:05 +0000

In reply to Got a Question? The Obama Transition Team has Answers -- and Plenty of Sunlight

Welcome to Dag, ZR!

I have been checking out the Web site regularly and have been mightily impressed. As far as I'm concerned, it's the first campaign promise--transparency in government--kept. It's a very good sign.