Read Ron Brownstein on Obama and Clinton waging the first 21st century campaign. I would only add that the "first" business is a bit of a journalistic conceit, Clinton and (even more so) Obama are improving on many models and ideas that Howard Dean used in 2004 and were even to some extent present in the McCain 2000 campaign.
« Gates v. Air Force | Main | McClimate »
Welcome to the Future
21 Apr 2008 04:24 pm
Comments (15)
Unintentional comedy moment from the article:
Similarly, about 750,000 people have signed up to work for the campaign through the sophisticated myBarackObama.com website.
MyBO, as Obama aides call it,
Really?.
I'm not sure how much confidence to place in your views anymore, given that you were among the 40 journalists who signed a vitriolic letter to ABC complaining about the debate moderators. As Jen noted, it is nice actually to have a list of putative journos who no longer have any claim to objectivity and whose views can be comfortably discounted as spin from the Obama camp.
I'm not sure how much confidence to place in your views anymore, given that you were among the 40 journalists who signed a vitriolic letter to ABC complaining about the debate moderators. As Jen noted, it is nice actually to have a list of putative journos who no longer have any claim to objectivity and whose views can be comfortably discounted as spin from the Obama camp.
"A fair for all, and no fair to anybody."
-F. Scott Firesign
One hopes that "myBO" rhymes with "Tae-Bo," and not pronounced "My Bee Oh."
The dynamics of the fundraising side have changed, with Dean's campaign as the prototype.
What hasn't changed, at least not substantially, is that political campaigns remain a massive wealth-transferring mechanism, with the largest recipients being the owners of network affiliates and local cable monopolies. That story about Obama's refusal to cough up street money in Philly was actually the first bit of reporting this campaign season to go anywhere near that issue:
A neutral observer, state Rep. Dwight Evans, whose district is in northwest Philadelphia, said there might be a racial subtext to the dispute. Ward leaders, he said, see Obama airing millions of dollars worth of television ads in the city -- money that benefits largely white station owners, feeding resentment. People wonder why Obama isn't sharing the largesse with the largely African American field workers trying to get him elected, Evans said.
From my perspective, the real breakthrough comes not when technology isn't seen primarily as a way to run an expensive campaign, but instead a way to run a cheap one. In that regard, Brownstein's piece is actually pretty good at pointing out the transitional nature of this year's campaign communication structures and the hierarchies that remain in place.
On the one hand, the Obama campaign has been innovative with its matching schemes and its decentralised organisational structures. But the loop will only be closed, ironically enough, with Street Money 2.0: that's to say, when donations compensate volunteers rather than bankroll split-seconds of ads -- or better still, when those tools dethrone money as the index of a campaign's support.
I don't remember what McCain was doing back then, but I can't look at Obama 2008 or Dean 2004 without thinking of Nader 2000.
Dwight Evans sounds like a Philly version of Clay Davis:-)
When did street money ever mean signifiacnt money to the volunteers doing the work? It has always been just good old fashioned graft paying a bunch of mnoey to Ward Heelers, ministers and other local powers who trickle some of that money down to the people.
Jeff makes a good point. Nader 2000 gets a bad rap.
or better still, when those tools dethrone money as the index of a campaign's support.
I agree but we're a long way off. (Well-put comment, btw) What's worth noting is that Obama is leading in contributions of small amounts.
Hillary supporters argue "let democracy work" and it is, you have more people giving what they can afford in small amounts to Obama, while Hillary has the fundraising machine left over from the 90s. (Plus kicking in her own millions. And Obama leads in the popular vote).
Back in the 1970s there was community organizing. The internet now allows for community organizing to occur on a larger scale than ever envisioned, something that Howard Dean recognized with his "meetups" 4 years ago.
Obama comes from community organizing, and based his campaign on the grassroots community organizing model.
All the other campaigns still organize on a top-down big-ticket basis, and want to know how to leverage the internet to raise money rather than how to organize communities who will support you.
Those two approaches are fundamentally different. Street money is big ticket money, volunteers on the street are a different matter entirely.
It has always been just good old fashioned graft paying a bunch of mnoey to Ward Heelers, ministers and other local powers who trickle some of that money down to the people.
Oh, without a doubt. But bundling $25 donations into million-dollar checks to station bosses (especially shits like Sinclair Broadcasting) is equally noxious.
My subtext isn't racial but entirely political: you don't address the power of regional broadcast monopolies by larding them with campaign cash every two years.
Those two approaches are fundamentally different. Street money is big ticket money, volunteers on the street are a different matter entirely.
TV money is big-ticket money. Obama's campaign has spent millions of dollars on TV ads in PA -- over $2m a week, according to some reports.
I understand the reasoning: local TV is voters' main source of news; a dollar for every adult in the state doesn't seem like much; you can't beta-test a national political campaign, and it takes bravery to consider spending money elsewhere. But I want to see the equation balanced out.
Hillary's speaking style is archaic, though. Her voice and all her mannerisms are stereotypical union rally stuff.
I remember reading that Obama refused to pay out 'street money' in S.C. as well, and that some ministers were upset about that. Didn't seem to affect turnout much, though.
Comments closed May 05, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Only a trustfund scumbag like Petey could ignore the fact that Hillary wants to extend our nuclear umbrella to unnamed arab countries.
Guess that makes her the Saudi candidate.
Posted by Seebach | April 21, 2008 4:45 PM