You need to read this article:
http://www.examiner.com/a-2166927~Analysis__Critics_co_opt_Obama_organizing_playbook.html

Some of the content:

The 20th century community organizer who used 21st century tools for his people-powered White House campaign now finds himself besieged by citizens airing their grievances at 19th century-inspired town hall style meetings.

Barack Obama’s top legislative goal hangs in the balance and his popularity is suffering as critics co-opt his tech-savvy organizing methods, tag him as a boogyman and disrupt local gatherings on his proposed health care overhaul.

Is the groundbreaking campaigner, whose White House political arm is aptly called Organizing for America, being outmaneuvered?

“That’s a fair summary of where things are at the moment,” said Sanford Horwitt, a biographer of Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing.

“The other side has the anger and the intensity, and Obama’s side doesn’t,” Horwitt said. Harking back to the presidential campaign’s tactics and success, Horwitt said, “This really first-rate community organizing has not revealed itself in the first months he’s been in office, particularly when it comes to the health care issue.”

The White House and its allies claim the protests are simply a fake grass-roots movement – “astroturfing” – but a USA Today/Gallup Poll this week found that most Americans believe the protesters’ sentiments are genuine.

You are completely negating the power of market forces. Reagan was right when he said that about government. When government gets out of the way, the market produces superior products because competition enters the fray.

If government takes over health care, there will be rationing and a diminishing of services. With wikipedia, collaboration excels. Any government run health care produces rationing, long lines, and huge inefficiencies.

And you are completely wrong when it comes to the current US Health Care system, Bill. We produce the finest doctors and provide the highest quality care. There isn’t much broken here to fix.

The substance of this discussion is centered on Tapscott’s biases in the article above.

Many look at the current US health care system and conclude it fails miserably when compared to other countries, by any metric chosen. Reformers want a more collective and inclusive response. They feel government has a role to play, since the marketplace has done such a poor job when compared to other countries. In the case of health care, collaboration will produce a superior product.

It is plain (to me, anyway) that Mr. Obama is far from implementing a governmental network based on “transparency” and “mass collaboration.” Instead, he is QUICKLY trying to pass his massive restructuring of our healthcare BEFORE anyone has a chance to contemplate and digest the ramifications of his proposal. If Obama embraced the positive power of wikinomics to win the election, he is misusing them to govern the American people.

Even if Mr. Tapscott could have used a more impartial line, the point is that Americans are now given access to Decisional Democracy – A concept that I believe is inherent to the Wikinomics Dialectic. Therefore it is not a Partisan approach, but more of a “best initiative wins our support” approach. Mr. Obama (may it be for good or bad) is the first American leader to have implemented a governmental open network based on transparency, mass collaboration and supported real freedom of political expression, especially fro the opposition.
And this does not deny the fact that there has also been extremely commendable initiatives on the Republican side, yet not implemented on this kind of scale. However it is a fact that Republican Cells (a minority) have been trying to disrupt democratic efforts to reform the healthcare system. Democrats also disrupt Republican anti Healthcare reform gatherings but not with this level of intelligence.

My point is that relating facts and impressions associated to a political party is not necessarily an act of out-right support for that party.

Ergo, if I may, I would like to suggest that people who share your view consider this point in order to allow Mr. Tapscott less pressure next time he considers relating governmental facts/views; (please feel free to disagree) and that Wkinomics editors make sure they adopt a more diplomatic/neutral approach/syntax when dealing with partisan politics.
As this comment board suggests, failure in doing so not only generates a Real Partisan Debate on the site but it also derives our attention from the initial subject: Technology used to overcome the Washington “Insider clubs”. In my mind a problem for all Americans, and especially for the rest of the planet that to often suffers the consequences of their “old boy games”. (As a top oil exec once described it to me)

Whit mutual respect and kind regards

The pro-Obama directives are just as top-down and well-funded and “fueled by rhetoric” as their conservative counterparts. To pretend that all of the money is on the side of the status quo is flat-out wrong – in fact, “Of the $52 million spent so far, CMAG calculates that the largest share — $23 million — has come from groups advertising broadly in favor of overhauling the health-care system, without necessarily positioning for or against the plans being advanced by Obama and congressional Democrats.”

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/04/AR2009080401447.html)

I have no problem with politically slanted posts – just politically slanted posts that pretend like they aren’t.

How is “Already, opponents to health care reform are starting to sabotage the first of thousands of these town-hall meetings. Protesters are being bussed in to disrupt information sessions and help spread myths that Obama’s plans are socialist or fascist or both.” different than community organizing under Obama?

and does “For the first time in history the population has access to a potent many-to-many communications tool known as Web 2.0. The most skilled users of this tool are members of the Net Generation who strongly reject the status quo. Witness which candidate they overwhelmingly supported last November. On the issue of health care, they want to see what has long been promised: a government of the people, by the people, for the people. They won’t be easily denied” not apply to Americans that oppose Obama? Shouldn’t Wikinomics apply to conservatives as well as liberals?

Mr. O’Grady – I don’t mind highlighting the rise of direct democracy via interactive media. I agree that is happening. I mind quoting one side of the political discussion without the other side here in Wikinomics. I consider Wikinomics an excellent source of Web 2.0 and related information – not a political blog.

Mr. Tapscott – I agree with much of what you say. I agree with the things that are factual. I am delighted to read opinion on Web 2.0 and other technical and cultural aspects of it. It is just that I am disappointed to read political opinion in Wikinomics.

With great respect,
Dwayne Phillips

Already, opponents to health care reform are starting to sabotage the first of thousands of these town-hall meetings.

Come on, Don! Sabotage? Sleazy tactics? Don’t believe everything you read in the media and please, don’t continue to tarnish your influence with these divisive ramblings.