Change.Gov's First Big Failure

Change.gov had its first big failure last week, though you might have missed it with all the bigger news happening around the world.

Any uproar from Obama supporters about the failure was quickly preempted, as it happens, by a constructive assist from a charter member of the MSM. I did a brief run-down of the events, which may be familiar to readers here, for the "Noted" section of next week's magazine:

Robert Gibbs, Obama's chief spokesman and a seasoned press operative, knows how to maneuver around prickly issues. So when the most popular question on Change.gov asked whether Obama would appoint a special prosecutor to "independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping"--besting 76,000 other questions submitted in recent weeks by citizens--Gibbs simply ignored it. Instead, he recorded a YouTube video tackling other popular questions. Then Obama aides posted a note on January 9 inaccurately categorizing the special prosecutor question as "previously answered." That gambit was the first obvious failure at Change.gov, Obama's admirable attempt to create a portal for more open and transparent government.

It is striking that Obama's aides, who helped win the election by harnessing new media, believed they could just spin away from their online interlocutors. Instead, the move backfired immediately. Bob Fertik, the activist who submitted the question, campaigned for it; and progressive websites, including thenation.com, blasted the dodge. Within a day, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann picked up the story. A day later, Obama was compelled to answer the question in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, who quoted it and pressed Obama with two follow-ups. Obama's answer, which prioritized moving "forward" but did not rule out a special prosecutor, made the front page of the January 12 New York Times.

By blatantly ducking a tough question, Gibbs set off a reaction that forced Obama to answer it. With transparent government and vigilant reporting, important questions can actually trickle up.

Comments (17)

1. Ari, the answer is no.

   Obama is not about to have his turn mucked up by a witchhunt. To date, no former President has ever been prosecuted or convicted for anything after leaving office.

   And there's nothing this mag, Change.gov, or any other fringe lefty groups can do about it. Once January 20th comes around, look for the WH door to slam in your faces.

   Posted by ACook at 01/15/2009 @ 7:08pm

2. By blatantly ducking a tough question, Gibbs set off a reaction that forced Obama to answer it. With transparent government and vigilant reporting, important questions can actually trickle up.

   Sounds like Obama double speak, but I guess he answered technically. Wonder if they are going to keep the website open? Trickling up of questions can be mighty inconvenient.

   Posted by OneVote at 01/15/2009 @ 8:08pm

3. Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/15/2009 @ 8:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   And oh how our prez elect has backtracked on the whole lobbyist issue. What a crock!

   Posted by OneVote at 01/15/2009 @ 8:14pm

4. Needless to say, readers here can safely ignore the post above by the neophyte dabbler, Cook.

   Anyone who has read Jane Mayer's widely acclaimed recent masterpiece, "The Dark Side", (and by all means, if you haven't you should) has probably grasped the full depth of the current situation. And even for those who haven't been paying close attention --Cook, above, for one example-- it ought to be abundantly clear that an impasse is on our doorstep and there is no convenient Yogi Berra escape hatch --i.e. "if you come to a fork in the road, take it".

   The Gitmo detainees will eventually have to be dealt with to start with, and this presents a politically sticky situation, essentially a classic catch-22. If Gitmo is closed, which it inevitably will be, then the inmates will either be released or tried. Mass releases will trigger outcries from the right, and trials won't be much better, and perhaps worse for Obama politically since the highest value inmates will have strong legal basis for having their cases tossed out on coerced testimony grounds due to the well documented use of torture --no matter how much The National Review staffers, for example, might like to weasel out of the whole concept.

   There may be some interesting twists and turns as this beast unwinds itself, but the issues that have been embedded like a booby trap will have to handled in the most clever ways possible by Team Obama.

   If anyone was looking for the "24" ticking bomb scenario to rear its ugly head, this is probably it. Best way to defuse the situation in my opinion along with many others is to go after the underlying legal network of trip wires that John Yoo and David Addington clumsily inserted.

   We're talking a Special Prosecutor of course and a very public airing of the ham-handed way

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2009 @ 8:37pm

5. that bullish operators rammed heinous initiatives down our throats by simply sidestepping the normal channels.

   Obama will be best protected from political damage if he hires a widely respected legal wrangler to expose this cancerous tumor, and dangle it in front of the entire public's collective eyes.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2009 @ 8:37pm

6. Speaking of failures...

   http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/15/america/15venez.php

   Posted by usc1 at 01/15/2009 @ 8:43pm

7. Oh, and I neglected to say:

   Thanks, Ari Melber, for the yeoman work you've done on such a critical issue.

   Big props, dude.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2009 @ 8:49pm

8. Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2009 @ 8:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   Perhaps Obama could "rendition" them over to countries that will try them for war crimes. Don't have to read them their rights or go through the due process of extradition proceedings. Obama can tell them all - I am the decider. It sounds absurb, but guys like Jonathan Turley believe that foreign government may grab of these characters and try them as war criminals if we don't.

   Posted by OneVote at 01/15/2009 @ 9:04pm

9. One Vote,

   Yep, that's one possibility. But as cynical as I've felt about Obama in these last several months I haven't yet given in to a blackened malaise just yet either. This fundamental legal issue is where we'll get to see who the real Obama really is.

   It's gonna be interesting.

   The ball is in Barack's court. Let's see just what kind of moves he can pull on the Big Court versus the basketball court.

   If he throws lousy pass, or tries a stall game he's cooked in my book.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2009 @ 9:15pm

10. But as cynical as I've felt about Obama in these last several months I haven't yet given in to a blackened malaise just yet either.----Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2009 @ 9:15pm

    Didn't you say just yesterday that you were fairly sure we were heading into "complete economic collapse"????

    Posted by Mask at 01/15/2009 @ 9:31pm

11. Didn't you say just yesterday that you were fairly sure we were heading into "complete economic collapse"????

    ~Maskot @ 9:31pm

    It's a very strong possibility if not highly likely.

    But the topic here is Obama and the legal morass that he --and America-- faces.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2009 @ 9:39pm

12. Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2009 @ 8:37pm

    As if the crap you spew is the end all and be all. I don't dabble in the Black Arts like you do.

    And you most certaintly can't speak on the idea of "grasping" anything. Because if you did you wouldn't jump everytime a fringe lefty pisses out a book on the semantics of navel watching.

    Posted by ACook at 01/15/2009 @ 10:42pm

13. It's a very strong possibility if not highly likely.----Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2009 @ 9:39pm

    Okay, that's a saver.

    "Strong possibility...not highly likely!"...LOL

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 09:15am

14. The ball is in Barack's court. Let's see just what kind of moves he can pull on the Big Court versus the basketball court.

    If he throws lousy pass, or tries a stall game he's cooked in my book.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2009 @ 9:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Got some positives. Eric Holder acknowledges that water boarding is torture, and even mentioned the US responsibility of abiding by Geneva Convention. Pretty radical eh?

    Posted by OneVote at 01/16/2009 @ 10:05am

15. mask,

    you can't edit people's quotes.

    remember the "quotation mark incident"?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2009 @ 10:11am

16. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2009 @ 10:11am

    Actually, KOOL gave permission for paraphrasing-

    "Hillary Clinton is smart, energetic, immensely knowledgeable, and, as she likes to say, hard-working. I've been appalled by the misogynous vitriol (and mean-girl snark) aimed against her. If she is the nominee I will work my heart out for her.

    In other words, "If it wasn't for that charisamatic anti-war Obama guy, I'd be full-bore for Hillary" --my paraphrasing of Katha."---B_KOOL

    BLOG | Posted 02/05/2008 @ 02:15am Which Womanhood? by Laura Flanders

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 11:14am

17. I was deeply disappointed.

    I'm not sure that they even allow you to view the questions and votes that were posted before they closed this round.

    The questions were to be put to Obama, not a proxy. (Yes, I know he is busy.)

    Several of the questions in the top 20 or so when I last visited the site (a day or two before close) were about Gaza. Those questions were also fobbed off with a canned response, as if Web savvy users of change.gov could not have used a search engine to find a quote on the topic.

    The way Obama handled this suggests that the exercise was not meant actually to enhance citizen participation.

    Posted by jwisom at 01/16/2009 @ 6:36pm