« Dirty South, Can Y'all Really Feel Me | Main | Ultrasound And The Future Of Confused Wannabe Paternalists »
May 02, 2007
I Guess He Isn't Jesus
by Stephen of the Thinkery
Barack Obama's campaign is experiencing a wee bit of trouble lately. Here's a quick rundown:
Campaign finance violations
This is pretty minor stuff, which you can read about in the link. It's difficult to run a campaign while occupying a political office without overlap between the two operations. The plain fact is that the candidate and the officeholder are the same person. So while Obama's Senate office and his campaign need to be far more careful about the boundaries between the two, this seems to be yet another example of our campaign finance laws, to quote another person accused of improper politicking, "straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel."
Leaked fax.
This ties into the campaign finance problems, since it was one of the items improperly sent from his Senate office equipment. This fax is full of advice, talking points, all the usual stuff that politicians have to deal with. It's interesting, but not all that consequential. So what if Obama was advised to not promise Russ Carnahan a specific leadership title in his campaign? Carnahan is a US Representative. His father was Governor of Missouri, his mother a Senator. His sister is Missouri's Secretary of State. I'm quite sure that Rep. Carnahan has received the exact same advice, and has heard members of his family receive and follow advice of that type many times. Howard Fineman, in particular, wants to make Carnahan some sort of injured party. If Rep. Carnahan can't handle what that fax says about him, then his endorsement isn't really going to mean much.
The real problem Obama faces is after the fold.
MySpace? No, MYSpace
This is what's going to hurt Obama. Joe Anthony, a big Obama fan, started up a plainly-labeled unofficial MySpace page dedicated to Obama. It garnered quite a bit of attention - for example, when the media started to report on how many MySpace friends each candidate had, it was Anthony's page that was the source for Obama's numbers. Anthony and the campaign were cooperating, but ceased to do so when Anthony asked to be compensated for the work he had done.
Perhaps Anthony shouldn't have asked for money. However, it does seem clear that he didn't do it until the campaign's requests to him became financially burdensome. Whether or no Anthony should have asked for compensation is nothing, though, compared to the campaign's actions after that. Long story short, the Obama campaign bullied MySpace into transferring ownership of the page from its creator to them.
This isn't about technology. As Atrios points out, this is about the way volunteers are treated. With both the Kerry/Edwards campaign in 2004 and the Claire McCaskill campaign last fall, it was clear that they were overjoyed to have volunteers like me come down and help them in exactly the way they instructed me to help with no deviation whatsoever. Or input. Or questions, really. You know, I'm busy, and could you just get on with it while I talk to someone important?
The technological aspect of this becomes important because the liberal blogosphere has latched onto this and will not let go of it. This is for a primary, and Obama's campaign is alienating a rather large group of activists, people who not only will vote but will contribute and volunteer. The liberal blogosphere can't guarantee an Obama nomination, but I believe it can block one. In other words, he'll still want friends besides us, but we're all the enemy he needs. It will be interesting to see if Obama's campaign sees the light with this, and how long it will take.
May 2, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Yeah, everyone makes mistakes. It's how the campaign responds to one that really matters. So we'll see what they do with the Myspace screw-up. Definitely could blow up in their faces if they don't handle it properly.
Posted by: Korha | May 2, 2007 2:06:14 PM
> Perhaps Anthony shouldn't have
> asked for money.
Naw, he should have paid Rahm Emmanual to be put on the list of DCCC "media consultants" and then asked for a LOT of money.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | May 2, 2007 2:07:46 PM
Actually, it looks like this is already blowing up in their faces. Damage control time!
As the Edwards bloggers fiasco shows, if the campaign handles this right they should be OK.
Posted by: Korha | May 2, 2007 2:14:24 PM
"You guys, you're always talking about the fans, the fans, the fans; she was your biggest fan, and you threw her away!"
Posted by: kchiker | May 2, 2007 2:17:41 PM
"As Atrios points out, this is about the way volunteers are treated."
This is what happens you when have a campaign based on personality and biography rather than on issues and progressive causes.
Controlling all aspects of your candidate's biography becomes more important than the efforts of volunteer supporters.
Posted by: Petey | May 2, 2007 2:26:35 PM
The MySpace thing is truly incompetence on the part of Obama's team. Playing some legal mumbo-jumbo to take over a supporter's blog without offering generous compensation is the worst kind of Tom Delayish hardball. I hope Anthony sues their ass off, makes lots of noise, and publicly disavows Obama - on his blog so the fans can see the clay feet of their idol.
Makes my blood boil, it does.
If Obama is delegating this kind of decision (or god forbid, made the decision himself) then he doesn't belong in the oval office.
Pisses me off, you see.
I was tired of the Rovian total info control thing before Rove appeared on the scene in the late 90's, and when Hillary seemed to be doing the same thing I was appalled.
For Obama, there is no excuse. If he fails to publicly apologize for this monumental blunder, he deserves to lose his netroots and grassroots support. He will certainly leave my list of possibles.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 2, 2007 2:36:35 PM
This is what happens you when have a campaign based on personality and biography
*cough*"I was the son of a mill-worker..."*cough*
Posted by: Tyro | May 2, 2007 2:37:50 PM
"*cough*"I was the son of a mill-worker..."*cough*"
David Axelrod ran the '04 Edwards campaign.
David Axelrod is running the '08 Obama campaign.
The guy likes to run personality and biography campaigns. Ten years from now, he's going to have as bad a reputation as Bob Shrum does.
Posted by: Petey | May 2, 2007 2:46:29 PM
Obama is an idiot, he support queers. Joe Boden in '08.
Posted by: The Populist | May 2, 2007 2:55:19 PM
I actually think Axelrod's general approach isn't a bad one. Biography does matter more than issue positions in winning over swing voters in general elections.
The trouble is that it's not giving me what I need right now -- a guarantee that our next president will do what needs to be done, as far as pushing the progressive movement forward goes.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 2, 2007 2:55:24 PM
I dunno how important the myspace thing really is. I acknowledge that some netrooters are genuinely pissed off. But the semantics of the episode are too net-specific to bloom into anything too troublesome to the others.
I had my first internet tube (a uucp holding bag model) surgically installed in the mid 80's and I've upgraded consistently. Now, as a 50 year old who lacks the child predator gene, I can tell you that I could give a crap about MySpace. I also know from experience that some volunteers are insane, not that I have any cause to believe that about Anthony. My point is that even as a fairly net literate guy, the injustice here isn't obvious to me. I'd have to know more about the MySpace context and this Anthony guy to get up about it. I'd bet most people have less context than I do and care even less.
I just don't see it going anywhere.
Posted by: dithered | May 2, 2007 3:17:36 PM
"I actually think Axelrod's general approach isn't a bad one. Biography does matter more than issue positions in winning over swing voters in general elections."
Yes, but lack of an issues core becomes part of your personality/biography profile if you follow an Axelrod / Pat Caddell style of candidacy.
The classic historical example is the Gary Hart '84 campaign, which got derailed on "What's the beef". The '04 Edwards campaign also suffered from some of this, with stuff like Josh Marshall wondering if Edwards was too 'plastic' around the time of the NH primary.
The problem with Axelrod-ism is that an issues core and personality/biography have to reinforce one another for a campaign to be strong. Edwards' "son of a mill worker" bio reinforces his economic populist message, for example. But you can't just eliminate the issues core and have the personality/biography survive intact. Too many folks begin to wonder what you really stand for, and the personality/biography turns to dust.
Look at the Kerry '04 campaign, for another example. It was based entirely around biography - nothing else. So Karl Rove attacked the biography with the Swift Boat ads, muddied the biography up, and suddenly there was nothing else to sustain the Kerry campaign.
Or look at the Wes Clark '04 campaign.
You're entirely correct that personality/biography matters more than issue positions in winning over swing voters in general elections. Damn straight, in fact. But Axelrod/Caddell-ism misses the basic concept that in lacking an issues core, your candidate's personality/biography becomes oddly weak, non-compelling, and open to attack.
It took a long time for Bob Shrum to acquire his particular reputation, and it'll take a long time for folks to get a fix on what Axelrod is missing.
Posted by: Petey | May 2, 2007 3:20:53 PM
Obama is an idiot, he support queers. Joe Boden in '08.
Well Populist,
Pretty much all of the Democratic candidates do, although few have the balls to actually say so. I believe it will be Hillary/Obama for the Democrat party in '08.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 2, 2007 3:26:50 PM
Yeah, we're in agreement on all that.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 2, 2007 3:28:56 PM
This is what happens you when have a campaign based on personality and biography rather than on issues and progressive causes.
Controlling all aspects of your candidate's biography becomes more important than the efforts of volunteer supporters.
Sure Petey. And what explains Edwards' mess with Amanda and Melissa? Control of the campaign is always more important than volunteers and staff.
If he fails to publicly apologize for this monumental blunder, he deserves to lose his netroots and grassroots support. He will certainly leave my list of possibles.
Just like with Edwards. The netroots is very fickle.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 2, 2007 3:49:59 PM
Atrios is right-- Democrats do not treat their volunteers that well, and this is coming to a head with the netroots, who are (at least statistically speaking) frequently white-collar professionals who aren't used to being treated like we're dumb IRL. I say this periodically, but IMO it bears repeating: the GOP uses language that flatters their grassroots even if they don't really ask anyting of them other than contributions and to sign canned letters, while Democrats too often seem to view their activists as exceptionally dim cash cows. I can't remember the last time I got an email that was even mildly interesting or offered anything more than five links to contribute and maybe a petition that I more often than not had already signed.
Posted by: latts | May 2, 2007 4:02:51 PM
Neil and Petey: I agree heartily, except I'd add that you have a lot less control over your public biography than you'd like (witness the haircut story), and you better be ready for a way to deal with pushback.
In particular because campaigns are large organizations of people, and there's no way even a perfectly ideal Candidate can encompass everything the campaign does. Notice in this story how the actions of a bunch of mid-level staffers are being taken to reflect on Obama’s personality himself. That’s just BS, and it’s wrong when it’s done to any candidate. The focus on biography becomes an impossible standard that needs to be held by the thousands of people working for the candidate too, and then you lose the election.
Posted by: Tony V | May 2, 2007 4:08:50 PM
"Sure Petey. And what explains Edwards' mess with Amanda and Melissa? ... The netroots is very fickle."
Being a good centrist, Sanpete, I'm not sure it's possible for you to have your finger on the pulse of the netroots.
For example, the Edwards "mess" with Amanda and Melissa seems to mark the moment when Edwards took possession of the netroots. And in both the '04 and '08 cycles, the netroots seem very un-fickle. A candidate gets chosen, and once chosen, that preference tends to intensify, not change.
Posted by: Petey | May 2, 2007 4:18:04 PM
I know the big story is the MySpace fiasco, but I just have to say as an Edwards supporter, I really hope that Russ Carnahan is going to be a leading spokesman for Obama in Missouri.
Posted by: Clark | May 2, 2007 4:23:43 PM
Petey, you're just hallucinating the premise for your ad hominem response. And you're ignoring the plain context of what you quoted from me--not hard to guess why. You didn't explain what accounted for the fact that the Edwards campaign hired two wildly unsuitable bloggers, left them hanging while they dinked around trying to figure out what to do with them (and how the wind would blow, very likely), and then watched them both leave in a matter of days under pressure that the campaign should have seen coming and been prepared for. As I said, control of the campaign is always more important than the volunteers/staff; that's not a bit more true for Obama than for Edwards.
The fact you seem to have forgotten in regard to how fickle the netroots are is that fully half the posters during the Edwards bloggers flap threatened they would turn on Edwards if he didn't support the bloggers. Your spin that this is when Edwards took possession of the netroots (besides not really being true) has nothing to do with the fact the netroots were ready to dump him over this miniscule event. Now Jim takes a similar stance about Obama. Yes, that's fickle.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 2, 2007 4:48:40 PM
Unless Axelrod or his minions were involved in the Myspace takeover, and they probably weren't, then it's simply illogical to parlay the latter into an attack on the former. I'm looking at you Petey.
Also, who's going to deny that Obama is running a pretty good presidential campaign? It's an open question where to go from here, but so far the guy's done damn decent.
Posted by: Korha | May 2, 2007 4:52:36 PM
"Unless Axelrod or his minions were involved in the Myspace takeover, and they probably weren't, then it's simply illogical to parlay the latter into an attack on the former."
I think you miss my point. The MySpace nonsense is a very small symptom of the kind of personality/biography campaign Axelrod runs.
It's not a matter of attacking Axelrod. It's a matter of saying that the weaknesses of the Axelrod/Caddell style campaign are on full display in the MySpace nonsense.
"Also, who's going to deny that Obama is running a pretty good presidential campaign?"
Moi.
If you had told me two months ago that Obama would lose the anti-war progressive movement to Edwards given their respective positions on Iraq in 2002, I'd have laughed.
And now it's happened.
If the name of the game is building the Obama brand for a possible VP nod, and/or a possible future run at the WH, then Axelrod is doing a fine job. If the name of the game is getting Obama to the Oval Office in 2009, then not so much.
Posted by: Petey | May 2, 2007 5:01:48 PM
"Your spin that this is when Edwards took possession of the netroots (besides not really being true)..."
I think it's rather indisputably true.
As stated, Sanpete, being a centrist, you're never going to be able to have your finger on what drives the netroots.
Posted by: Petey | May 2, 2007 5:07:45 PM
Obama blew it. I do think that the sum he was being asked for ($39,000-$49,000 for 4 months of part-time work) was probably excessive. However, the proper reaction to that is to make a counter-offer, not just take over the guy's page.
Stupid.
Posted by: JoshA | May 2, 2007 5:24:41 PM
The nomination could come down to a MySpace page? Really? That seems almost inconceivable to me.
Posted by: Jason | May 2, 2007 5:42:11 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.