Organizing for America Will, and Should, Fail

Zephyr Teachout | January 30, 2009 - 11:17am | 21 comments | Email This!

Organizing for America sent out a request for house parties today, asking people to watch a video about Obama's economic recovery plan, talk about it with their friends, and build support for it. While there will be tweaks, this is the kind of action we can anticipate from OFA.

I predict that there will be perhaps a thousand of such parties, then hundreds, then dozens. I think OFA will fail in its mission to directly engage Obama supporters in supporting Obama's executive actions. And I think this is a very good thing.

It will fail because Obama--suiting a President--is not oppositional, conflict-driven, and not likely to pick out particular targets to be won over--all things that are likely to engage people. It will fail because it is from OFA, not from Obama. And it will fail because OFA cannot be a new democratic party, but will have a hard time defining what it is, and what kind of real power ought exist at every level of the organization.

This is a good thing because it is not intended to be a representative organization, where people have real power.

The organization is openly and proudly propagandistic. The email today asks people to host a party at which they can watch a video which will "outline the basics of the plan and how it will impact working families. It will also include answers to questions from folks across the country. Invite your friends and family to watch the video, discuss the plan, and help build support for it."

The organization is proud of the runaround of other power centers (press, congress, etc...).

I support Obama wholeheartedly, and have been thrilled every day of his Presidency. But I support self-government even more, and a successful organization sharing uncritical media with 13 million citizens sounds spooky to me. I'm glad its going to fail.

This is not to say I think OFA should throw away its list and networks. If it were up to me, I would encourage OFA to throw all of its support and resources at local democratic parties and officials--to decentralize the data, and let local groups experiment. I believe Obama has largely done his job, by getting elected and by electrifying the country and showing people that they can have power; but for them to exercise it meaningfully, instead of simply acting as shills for Presidential policy, they will need to exercise it through our representative offices: Congress, and the state houses.

Comments

competence

by Zephyr Teachout on February 2, 2009 - 1:02pm
Thanks Jared for your comments. I suspect that we have different views of what makes an organization "work"--I don't have the slightest doubt about the OFA organizers competence--and even brilliance in many cases (like J-Bird). But the best organizers cannot create an organization if there is not an engine behind it, and I suspect the very nature of the DNC, and of Obama, will make it difficult. I also agree with Wade's very astute points about what the Obama campaign chose not to do during the campaign, and how that reflects a particular ideology.

Wade

by ads.commonsense... on February 2, 2009 - 1:29pm
Wade, I think I would be able to understand your position if you would clarify something that you have written several times in your posts. You say that during the campaign, Obama for America should have had neighborhood level teams meeting once a month, and that something akin to that should have kept occuring after the election. In Virginia, what you have described was the norm. We (field staff) were encouraed, if not ordered, to spend the summer of 2008 developing teams that would meet at least once a week. Some areas had more success at this type of organization than others, but all organizers worked their hardest to acheive that level of grassroots organization. After the election, organizers were asked to contact some of our super volunteers to ask them to participate in the National Day of Service. Again, some organizers had more luck than others, but many tried. Did you see something different on the ground during the campaign?
—

A. J. Schuler, Psy. D.
Principal
CommonSense Media Inc.
6312 Seven Corners Center
Suite 333
Falls Church, VA 22044
(ph) 703-370-6545
(m) 202-251-1263
http://csmads.com/

Yes

by slughfaumhogs on February 2, 2009 - 2:09pm
And reports I've read concerning other areas also differ from your report on Virginia. After having worked on the campaign the previous summer, I returned to San Francisco in April 2008 eager to plug into an exciting movement. I assumed that the team based in my CD would be working away steadily, preparing for the November election with neighborhood teams going door-to-door, registering voters, recruiting volunteers, and convening social and educational events. I also assumed that many of these activists would share Obama’s passion about growing a movement that would stay together after the election to transform the nation. But I was shocked to learn that nothing of this sort was happening in San Francisco. In fact, nothing at all was happening. I couldn’t even find a contact person for my CD. And once a CD team did re-form with new leadership at a meeting to which I was invited, I made a plea for an ongoing commitment, but my plea was ignored. Instead, the leaders said they wanted to wait for direction from Chicago. They ended up mostly recruiting individuals to go to Nevada and phone banking. I said precinct workers could recruit people to go to Nevada face-to-face. I offered to help organize neighborhood teams that would, in part, do door-to-door work, with which I have had experience. But no real precinct organizing ever happened. Did the teams in Virginia meet after the election to debrief? Have they continued to organize their precincts or neighborhoods? BTW, weekly meetings for a full team of 15 or so seems too demanding to sustain over time. We need methods that can enable people with limited time to play a meaningful role. Monthly meetings could better solidify a team, which would then break down into sub-groups of people with more time that would meet more frequently.

RE: Yes, & the importance of the availabiltiy of data

by ads.commonsense... on February 2, 2009 - 3:32pm
Wade I can now see where you're coming from. Reading your reply, a few things jump out to me. The lack of excitement and lack of attention from Chicago to your area's needs probably has a lot to do with the fact that you live in one of the bluest areas of the country. I believe that California had a field staff of less than 20; the types of activism that you advocate were practiced widely in states that were more competitive. I believe that if you talked to anyone who was on staff or a volunteer in states such as CO, IA, NC, or IN, their experience would sound much more like what I described in VA. I can not honestly speak as to what has happened in Virginia after the election, because I am no longer there. However, I can tell you that volunteers from my old "turf" have organized a Coat and food drive, and are eager to help the President in any way that they can. I can also tell you that every single organizer I know received a call in December asking them to contact their best volunteers and precinct captains. I believe that what happened in Virginia is extremely relevant because the same strategies that were executed there are much more likely to be executed nationwide with Mitch acting as executive director of OFA. I disagree with your assertion that weekly meetings are too demanding for a group of 15 to 20. Many people saw these meetings as social events that they looked forward to attending, particularly when the meetings fell under some sort of constituency banner, ie Women for Obama, XYZ High school students for Obama, etc. Of course everyone couldn't make every meeting. But the meeting itself isn't so important, it's what happens after the meeting, it's whether the 15 people who show at to talk strategy at someone's home on a Sunday evening will show up on Tuesday to hit the doors. Finally, to bring this around to a subject that is a little more fitting of TechPresident, what will be much more likely to determine OFA's success will be whether organizers have access to the records of who volunteered during the campaign. Honestly, 13 million email addresses don't mean that much to me. However, knowing that Bobby Sue volunteered every Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday from July to November would help OFA organizers get off to a running start. Without access to all the data in Votebuilder, particularily the data in MyCampaign, all the email addresses in the world will only get you so far.
—

A. J. Schuler, Psy. D.
Principal
CommonSense Media Inc.
6312 Seven Corners Center
Suite 333
Falls Church, VA 22044
(ph) 703-370-6545
(m) 202-251-1263
http://csmads.com/

Chris

by slughfaumhogs on February 3, 2009 - 8:29am
If the goal is to urgently transform the nation, as Barack declared, one should not seriously neglect non-battleground states, as the campaign did. In California, during the Feb. 8 primary, Chicago could have made a big difference with one email that: 1) Asked their CD coordinating committees to form precinct-based teams with 15 or so members that would meet once a month to oversee precinct organizing in their precincts during and after the election. 2) Asked those teams to identify a liaison whose contact info would be listed on MyBO. 3) Told them that Chicago would provide them with updated data from the central database, as you discussed in your post. I think the Obama campaign placed far too much emphasis on job titles. Paid and unpaid staff with obscure job tiles selected in a top-down manner are not essential for precinct-based teams, which can operate on their own with minimal direction. Building a large movement will require it. Central leadership is essential. I have followed Barack’s lead and supported him on all of his major decisions as candidate, President-elect, and President. But no elected official should assume that I will support his or her every decision just because he or she won an election. If I am on the board of directors of an organization and have an equal vote in board decisions, I will support decisions with which I disagree. But I don’t have an equal say in decisions made by my elected representatives. So OFA should not make decisions and then merely ask people to support those decisions. Some of the posts here and Giordano seem to accept this authoritarian approach. Various commentators talk about Obama robots. Obama activists often insist that they are not robots. But many Obama supporters, perhaps one-third of them, come across to me like robots who excessively worship Barack. Transforming the nation, on the other hand, will require strong, autonomous individuals. This pattern is not surprising. The modern world systematically reduces human beings to mere instruments. We learn to submit or dominate. Most post-election communications from the national office have reinforced these tendencies by talking almost exclusively about mobilizing support for the President. Instead, OFA should present a proposal to precinct-based teams and then ask those teams to meet in one of their homes to decide as a team whether or not to support that proposal. Maybe Zephyr was more right that I realized. A movement of robots could be dangerous. Rather than wishing OFA to fail, however, I prefer to hope that it evolves.

The track record

by slughfaumhogs on February 2, 2009 - 1:36am
Chris and Jared, I hope that you’re right and I agree that it’s too early to know for sure. However, based on their track record, I remain apprehensive. During the campaign, they could have established the foundation for a solid grassroots organization with some simple steps. They could have suggested that folks form home-based teams that would meet regularly, at least once a month. After the election, they could have asked those teams to debrief and evaluate their efforts. They could have provided simple guidelines to assist those teams in making decisions as a unit. They could have encouraged those teams to select representatives to talk with one another horizontally. But they took none of those steps. For months, there has been open debate, including Marshal Ganz and others, about whether OFA will be a real grassroots organization. Apparently, some of the key participants in the planning process in the Chicago office paid attention to the recommendations that I submitted. But none of the official statements so far, it seems to me, have countered the expressed concern that OFA will merely be a “Presidential support mechanism.” It is not sufficient to merely say, “If Obama does something that is not popular with his base, he will hear about it loudly and so will OFA.” That was the situation during the election, disconnected individuals and loose-knit groups left on their own to offer input as best they could, which is hardly the way to empower a real organization. Giordana has some telling criticism of Teachout’s statement, but his vision of OFA’s future is murky, as is the case with Chris and Jared. Sure, OFA will be doing organizing. But what kind of organizing? And I disagree with Giordana’s statement that it would be more ideal if those grassroots bases began organizing themselves, independent of the Obama organization. We need central leadership. We need Barack to be more than a great President. We need him and his people to help build a strong grassroots organization. But once elected, officials tend to become primarily concerned about their specific job, and their re-election, and are worried about any grassroots force that could really give them a hard time. Especially given the pressure from his fellow Democrats, Barack is between a rock and a hard place. Only time will tell if he can resolve the contradictions. But at this point, I would have to bet against it. He probably will be a great President, and more power to him. Unfortunately, we need a powerful movement even more. http://progressiveresourcecatalog.org/index.php/Obama/ArticleE

OFA has the potential to revolutionize politics

by newroots@joetri... on February 1, 2009 - 11:44pm
Interesting post Zephyr, and while I strongly disagree with it, you've made me think about how OFA might function to be more effective. First, can OFA succeed? Having worked on the Obama campaign in field, I can promise you Zephyr that the numbers will not dwindle in the way you suggest unless the leadership of OFA screw this up in a way that I think is highly unlikely. The leadership of OFA led Obama's organizing in Iowa, South Carolina, Virginia, Indiana and several other critical states during the primaries and general election. They seem very competent to me. Also, President Obama has inspired a following that a lot of people don't understand. The level of commitment from volunteers I saw during the campaign showed me vividly that this is a movement that is not going to end just because the campaign ended. So, maybe the house party for the stimulus is more of a social gathering than anything else. I am certain that the organization will engage in much more sophisticated actions once it is up and running. After all, it announced its name just a few weeks ago and an organization this novel takes time to get off the ground. I think OFA is trying to give people some things to do because of the great desire to stay engaged that's out there, but clearly OFA is nowhere near being ready. As for OFA not being oppositional, I don't see why not. Aren't the health insurance lobbyists who will try to kill the President's health care agenda a special interest that the grassroots can rally around opposing? Second, is OFA a good thing? You seem disturbed by the prospect of a President having so much grassroots support and employing it. You also view this as a bad thing for self-government. I don't know what's "spooky" about a President having an energized base that is willing to work to help him achieve his agenda. The Republicans have had something similar with the religious right for years. To me, this is close to the ideal of self-government. It seems like a revolution in our politics to imagine that, instead of the only people lobbying Congress being the powerful, wealthy special interests, we will have millions of citizens organized to achieve specific results, such as health care reform. And remember, contrary to popular stereotype, Obama's grassroots supporters are not robots who will passively obey him and OFA's directions. If Obama does something that is not popular with his base, he will hear about it loudly and so will OFA. That's one of the positive aspects of an organization like OFA--it's another way for the President to get feedback from his grassroots supporters. As for the DNC and local Democratic chairs: while OFA will work closely with the DNC, there are a lot of independents and Republicans among Obama's base. They don't want to simply work to help elect Democrats. They voted for Obama and they want to help him succeed, but not necessarily every Democrat in their state. So my understanding is that while OFA will be legally part of the DNC, its identity will be quite separate from the DNC. www.bottomupchange.com

What else?

by slughfaumhogs on January 31, 2009 - 11:59am
A nationwide coalition, including the DNC, that would mobilize one million or more individuals once a month to communicate the same message to all Congresspersons and Senators, as well as the President, on a top-priority, timely issue. Transforming the Democratic Party into a grassroots, activist organization that engages in community service and fights for its platform year-round. Persuading all Congresspersons, Senators, and the President to conduct monthly Community Dialogues, ideally at the same time in a National Community Dialogue, that would: 1) enable speakers, randomly selected without screening, to engage with their elected officials; 2) enable elected officials to report on their activities, and; 3) provide community organizations with an organizing tool. Develop a national network of holistic home-based teams whose members explicitly commit to self-development, community service, and political action -- and set aside time monthly to support one another in those efforts. In order to build an effective progressive movement and deal with national policy, which is essential, we need more unity. We need both decentralization and centralization. I hope that OFA2 wakes up and grows into a powerful force. To do so, they need to evolve rapidly, before losing too much more momentum.

zephyr teachout

by Francine M on January 30, 2009 - 1:25pm
I think you're being narrow-minded here. It is a great thing to be asking people to bring their people together to talk about the economic stimulus plan, or health care, or all the other issues facing our country. In order for our democracy to grow, we have to raise the level of dialogue amongst ordinary citizens. It isn't about just supporting this piece of legislation or that one. Nor is about getting involved in local politics. Especially local democratic party politics, which is a pretty nasty cesspool, usually. Lots of us out here want to be talking about and impacting on policy. In order to do so, we AS A COUNTRY have to get smarter and not just let corporate America and the professional politicians run everything. I think Organizing for America and the call to hold houseparties is a great first step. If you think this is about putting pressure on the Senate to pass a particular version of the bill, then perhaps you are right and it will fail. To me, that is not what this is about.

Its true there's a puzzle

by Zephyr Teachout on January 30, 2009 - 1:41pm
Its true there's a puzzle here: We want OFA to engage people, we want MORE everything--more discussion, more engagement, more involvement. My unhappiness is the connection of it to the President--I want, as a small d democrat, LESS of a Presidency, LESS of an executive, LESS discussion of issues in terms of an individual and more in terms of self-government. I do not, to be clear, begrudge them trying--but I think we owe it ourselves to be skeptical of any efforts by organizations who actually hold power. Now, if you are right this is about a method of teaching people to engage, then I think they have a real challenge--people tend not to engage just because, they tend to be purpose driven--self-education follows power, not the other way around. Moreover if the goal is information, the medium of a single video, instead of a place to share competing platforms, seems not quite right to me. But we'll see!

Not so fast

by ads.commonsense... on January 30, 2009 - 2:20pm
I will not discuss whether Organizing for America should or should not fail, but I think that your predictions of its demise are extremely premature. One should not judge the effectiveness of OFA by the success of the upcoming house parties. When looking at the number of house parties, or house party attendees, it is important to remember that there is not one staffer on the ground in any state to help organize these events. While much has been made of how self-organized President Obama's supporters were during the campaign, it is important to note that having such a large field staff is what facilitated much of the neighborhood level organizing. I do not believe that this (house parties with no direct action being taken towards legislators or electoral politics) will be the action typical of OFA. I say this based on what has been stated in numerous articles about the goals of OFA, and also by Mitch Stewart's record. These initial parties appear to mirror the strategy executed in Virginia, and numerous other states over the summer of 2008. Rather than jumping straight into voter contact, organizers were asked to first form a core of volunteer leaders who could be trained to understand the fundamentals of organizing. By only directing this email to those who have previously hosted house parties, OFA seems to be reorganizing this group of precinct captains and staging location directors, and giving them the training and knowledge of the issues that they will need to be able to recruit volunteers in the future. One should also not assume that President Obama would hesitate to put massive amounts of pressure on Republicans in districts with PVIs between D+3 and R+3. In a midterm election, having a highly trained, and experienced field organization on the ground could boost turnout enough to see several incumbent Republicans tossed out of office. As far as Democrats go, it should be remembered that there are millions of Obama supporters who feel no real allegiance to the Democratic party. Even though some of these people may have never cast a vote for a Republican, they don't feel the same attachment to their congressman or mayor that they feel towards the President. To a certain extent, the President is his own party. When it comes to recruiting volunteers or raising money, it will not matter that the appeals will not be coming directly from President Obama because most supporters are used to getting messages in their inbox from David Plouffe, or their state's campaign director. Once staffers arrive on the ground (which will likely not happen for at least another 6 weeks) and are able to reconnect with Obama's grassroots supporters, we will then beging to see whether OFA will work. Until then, there is little reason to doubt that the people who gave 15, 20, or even 30 hours a week to the campaign will not spend at least a few hours a weeks to ensure that the issues that they cared so much about are dealt with.
—

A. J. Schuler, Psy. D.
Principal
CommonSense Media Inc.
6312 Seven Corners Center
Suite 333
Falls Church, VA 22044
(ph) 703-370-6545
(m) 202-251-1263
http://csmads.com/

A failure to decentralize

by aconner@facebook.com on January 30, 2009 - 2:25pm
I think you make an interesting point here, and I'll be posting about it shortly at Working Wikily (www.workingwikily.net). OFA's strategy here is a very old one: gather loyal supporters and then ask them to rally around a centrally-constructed message. There seems to be very little opportunity for meaningful participation beyond promoting ideas that were crafted by the campaign. I personally tend to delete their emails. What's in it for me? On social networking sites and blogs, I get to talk back and be part of the process. Why as part of OFA am I expected to tow a party line?

Not an impressive debut

by Micah L. Sifry on January 30, 2009 - 2:41pm
My sense is that in states where OFA did a lot of local organizing (mainly battleground states, plus a few like CA where they battled Clinton hard in the primaries), there's more of a residual structure. States like NY, where I live, went thru much less of the intensive field cultivation and thus the post-election meetings I've heard about were also less fruitful. I think Zephyr is making a very serious point that is both a critique of our general obsession with the Presidency as the main lever of change, and also a critique of how OFA2 (Organizing for America) appears to be taking shape as the marketing arm of the Obama political team--the President's email list/political army, rather than an organization of community organizers. All along the way, Obama's internet team told us that when he got to the White House he'd use the internet the same way that he did during the campaign, and now we are seeing that is the case. Micah

A weak first step, at best

by slughfaumhogs on January 30, 2009 - 3:40pm
Though the Host Guide for the Feb. 6 house meetings suggests that the host ask, "Which representatives should we contact to express our support of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan?," and reports that a "Letter Writing Campaign" will be forthcoming ("More details about this call to action will be emailed to all hosts along with a detailed host kit"), I am neither encouraged nor surprised by this development. Once again, the call does not ask hosts to try to form a solid core group that will meet regularly, suggests a mere 60-minute meeting, and suggests neither sharing food nor socializing in order to nurture friendships. But perhaps most importantly, as touched on by other comments here, it does not ask the participants to make a decision about whether they, as a unit, support the recovery plan. I agree that decentralization is essential. One form could be nurturing ongoing, small home-based teams that collectively make key decisions -- like whether they support particular legislation. Hopefully, OFA2 will evolve into a more substantial community-organizing effort. I suggested some possibilities in "Organizing for America: A Proposal" at http://progressiveresourcecatalog.org/index.php/Obama/ArticleQ Rather than the top-down, one-way education reflected in the Feb. 6 call, OFA2 could concentrate on promoting broad scale mutual education. They could encourage home-based teams throughout the country to engage in consistent dialogue with their Congressperson about how to improve the federal government. They could urge these teams to work with their Congressperson to assist people in dealing with the bureaucracy. And they could empower those teams to select representatives that could speak for them with authority. I suspect, however, that OFA2 has decided that it will merely be a Presidential support mechanism. They should have encouraged the formation of ongoing home-based teams during the election when the iron was hot. But they did not and lost momentum. Alas. A real opportunity wasted.

it'll fail.

by jsdavi02@syr.edu on January 30, 2009 - 6:39pm
The only reason it'll fail is because people are being asked to be subjected to something. Passive, not active. It doesn't feel like part of a movement. Just one of those buraucratic mails that you sign up for and receive every weekend. Decentralizing it would be good, but only because it needs to be improved upon. If we rest on our laurels, then by 2012, this operation will be obsolete. Lupercal

too

by Jerome Armstrong on January 30, 2009 - 9:00pm
Dean should have blown up the DNC, out of DC, decentralizing it into at least the 4 regions, if not the 50 states, while he had the chance. His not doing it is probably his one regret.

Interesting idea, Jerome--I

by Zephyr Teachout on January 31, 2009 - 7:51am
Interesting idea, Jerome--I didn't realize that was even on the table. While I do think OFA will not be that meaningful an org, I also think there will be some groups that come out of the Obama campaign (like Durham for Obama, which has extraordinary leadership) that end up having real powerful statewide impacts. As for those, here's my prediction: The groups that last (groups that 3 years from now are recognized as being meaningful sources of power in-state), will be 1) groups that existed prior to Obama staffers' arrivals. 2) have repeat, regular, offline meetings (as suggested above) 3) poach off of OFA, instead of the other way around (send reps to OFA meetings to let people know what's really happening) 4) have a loose committee structure, 5) are overtly political What else?

What is the OFA really for?

by scott@heiferman.com on February 1, 2009 - 1:33pm
Z, after reading another point of view in "The Field Hand" blog, I'm glad that this post is getting some attention in the Progressive world. When OFA was first announced, it said the following; "Obama's top advisers had considered transferring that list — from which Obama raised $745 million — to the Democratic National Committee. In the end, Obama's top aides decided the list should remain separate in keeping with a theme of post-partisan rhetoric." Continuing the netroots energy and making it non-partisan made a lot of sense to me. However, they quickly flipped on that and placed it squarely within the DNC. As long as it is to remain within the confines of the Democrats, Al Giordano's suggestions should be strongly considered; continue building and training a Community Organizer Renaissance; place a trained paid organizer in each of 435 Congressional Districts as a fulcrum for all the yet-to-be-determined organizing projects; and build the grassroots lobbying pressure arm of the movement. However, if the plan is to use OFA as a list server for house parties and fundraisers, they are derelict and should be called on it. John, formerly of the New Hampshire wing of the National Dean Network

Give it time

by ads.commonsense... on February 1, 2009 - 2:47pm
Many of the concerns surrounding OFA seem to center around the theory that because its first official action are a round of house meetings, that will be the only action undertaken by OFA. The idea that OFA will become one of those groups that exists only to send out a meaningless email every week or so is antithetic to everything that OFA's leadership has done in their past. President Obama could have placed someone from Obama for America's Political or New Media teams in charge of OFA2, instead he chose two people with deep organizing backgrounds. Both of whom have shown a strong committment to organizing at the neighborhood level via small teams that are able to meet and function as semi-independent groups. To think that house meetings and emails are going to be it is extremely small minded and short sighted. All of us should wait until staff actually shows up on the ground before judging OFA's effectiveness, in the meantime, we should all roll up our sleeves and be ready to help advance the President's agenda when the time comes.
—

A. J. Schuler, Psy. D.
Principal
CommonSense Media Inc.
6312 Seven Corners Center
Suite 333
Falls Church, VA 22044
(ph) 703-370-6545
(m) 202-251-1263
http://csmads.com/

which in his defense, may

by dannyjhosup23 on April 26, 2009 - 11:43pm

which in his defense, may have been written by a copyeditor rather than distance learning degree by Jose himself. "Politics Is No Longer Local. It's Viral" sounds catchy, playing off the legendary observation that "all politics is local." It's also almost embarrassingly wrong, and a serious misunderstanding of the realities of the Obama campaign.
online management degree | online occupational safety degree

I also assumed that many of

by solariz on May 13, 2009 - 2:43pm

I also assumed that many of these activists would share Obama’s passion about growing a movement that would stay together after the election to transform the nation. But I was shocked to learn that nothing of this sort was happening in San Francisco. In fact, nothing at all was happening. I couldn’t even find a contact person for my CD. And once a CD team did re-form with new leadership at a meeting to which I was invited, I made a plea for an ongoing commitment, but my plea was ignored. Instead, the leaders said they wanted to wait for direction from Chicago.yeni oyunlarmario oyunlarızeka oyunları