In '04 we made history with Howard Dean, in '08 we will help Barack Obama go all the way to the White House.
Fundraising page
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga at the blog Daily Kos writes a post at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/4/154515/5935/857/449684 warning Obama supporters against what he calls "irrational exuberance". Kos points out that Hillary has been the frontrunner so far, with lots of institutional support and the "aura of inevitability". Despite the Obama surge, Hillary is still ahead. Kos writes:
"Clinton is going to win the day. The key is to limit her margin of victory and keep it close enough for Obama to catch up later in the month and into March and April. But if Obama supporters build themselves up to the point they actually think they can win tomorrow (by citing bogus polls by Zogby, for example, and cherry picking the best of the other polls), then anything but a victory will be a demoralizing letdown."
Wise words, my friends. The Obama campaign is raising money hand over fist, far outstripping Hillary. After Tsunami Tuesday, all the primaries are leaning Obama's way. and he's got the momentum to win them, and the nomination with them.
Bear this in mind if, as Kos predicts, Hillary wins most of the states and delegates today. This is a marathon, not a sprint, and Barack Obama will beat Hillary Clinton in a marathon.
Democracy for America is running another "Pulse Poll" -- Obama won the previous poll by a few points, and this one should be tight, too. It's not clear whether DFA will endorse a candidate in '08, but this poll could go a long way toward determining that.
Here's the link:
http://DemocracyforAmerica.com/VoteObama
Positive comments first--Senator Obama was fantastic and the crowd really seemed to respond to him. We loved the diversity in the audience--all ages and ethnicities. It's a hopeful thing to be part of. Oivia's letter was a great tone-setter and it was wonderful not to have to stand through several other speakers before hearing from The Next President of the United States of America.
Constructive criticism for future kick-off's/meetings--Needed better signage or communication of what is happening when & where. We had to bring the e-mail confirmation to get in, but it was unclear when/where that was taking place. Need to get the music mix down in a more seamless way. There were some good songs, but only part of them played and then long periods of silence between. I remember one of the cool things about the Dean campaign rallies was the mix of songs--they created energy and kept people fired up while we waited. Finally, I was expecting someone to follow the Senator to talk about the Kansas City area campaign--has a headquarters been set up? Are precinct leaders in place? When is the next event? What are the immediate needs for volunteers? But it just ended with applause and people filing out into the lobby, apparently to buy homemade Obama gear. (Speaking of that, were was the official stuff??) I don't mean to whine but thought these things would have made the event better.
The local news coverage was good. They chose different sound bites to show and the local ABC affiliate, KMBC-9, did a little longer piece. There was a good column by Steve Penn in yesterday's Kansas City STAR as well.
I'm looking forward to the next steps in the campain. What are they?
It only takes a few seconds to cast your vote for Senator Obama.
To vote, click Link
Our candidate won MDP's first Straw Poll in March by a wide margin and we need to keep the momentum going.
Spread the word!
I know there has been a lot of discussion over the last couple of days regarding the role of the grassroots in the Obama campaign. So, I thought you all might be interested in reading the comments of Zephyr Teachout, who, as you may know, was the Director of Internet Organizing during the Dean campaign. In the comments section of an article on this subject at Tech President, she does a great job of providing a thorough account of the trials and tribulations of running a people-powered campaign.
In the interest of disclosure, I should probably mention that I did volunteer work with Zephyr during the Dean campaign and she was instrumental in helping to get Vermonters for Obama off the ground. And she's a friend of mine.
(I apologize for spamming this around, but I think her comments are very important for all of us to see as we try to find our place within the campaign.)
Here's what she had to say...
This issue reminds me of questions that we had to deal with all the time on the Dean campaign. We called people like Joe A's "centers of gravity"-- people who had built up their own Dean communities. We wanted centers of gravity as close to campaign as possible without imploding.
At first, it was very perplexing, and our tiny team debated options, but we ran into an odd clarifier--the law. Because of legal concerns of coordination, we were told early on by our lawyers that we had two choices: to have a manager/agent relationship with grassroots supporters, or to not direct grassroots supporters actions at all. In February and March, Dean Nation was blogging, and New York for Dean and others were creating posters and strategies of their own--some of them were clamoring for direction.
The question answered itself. We simply couldn't have a manager/agent relationship and still have all this flowering of intelligent political energy, so we chose to be hands off, talking with people but not telling them what to do. As part of this, we had to train the press--when Georgia for Dean sends out a press release, it is not a Howard Dean press release, it is a Georgia for Dean press release. The training of the press took awhile, but they learned. Teaching people who'd worked in politics for a while that "no, we will not vet that flier you are going to pass out to 1,000 people" also took awhile, but led to what I think is the most important thing in a democracy: people taking responsibility. Local groups, centers of gravity like Joe Anthony, took responsibility because they knew we wouldn't. Some got exhausted after a few months of intense work, others did not--and not all relationships were handled well, as we fumbled for solutions for the hardworking volunteers. The issues got more difficult when paid staffers, on the ground, would be working with unpaid supporters who had done far more extraordinary, creative, and difficult work for months--we found that grassroots growth often slowed in states once we put in a paid staffer (I have alot of theories about this, but not for this comment).
There were hundreds of mistakes. Here are two. In March 2003, we signaled that we were going to give a group an "official" status and then changed our position. Our first impulse was to provide the group what they wanted, but after realizing that the "official" group was far more bottlenecked than the unofficial ones, we reneged. We admitted we made a mistake, but people were understandably angry. The second was much later--the fall of 2003. A group started in order to help Dean develop policy positions, or at least do collective research. We effectively shut the door on them--I think we weren't ready to open up that much, and didn't know how to do collective policy, and the founders were annoyed, because I (and others) had initially been very excited. Of course they continued on their own, but without the active enthusiasm of our group.
But we also had some real successes. The most obvious is that Trippi--rage as he would over a few things Aziz might mischievously post--did not try to control the Dean Nation blog. The Friendster pages set up for Dean (yes, there were a handful) were one of our top referrers, and we had rare, but nice, interactions with the founders. The vast majority of our centers of gravity we communicated with, but did not try to control.
There were a few big exceptions. Students for Dean, an amazing group with 20,000 members by the time we started working with them, was created by three college students. It was clear it couldn't keep up their site (which had many features ours didn't) without some financial support--two of the founders were getting hired away by field staff (poached by our own campaign!) and the other couldn't afford not to work for the summer. So we offered him jobs and brought them in, giving them more autonomy than most staffers because that is what they needed to be persuaded to work for the campaign. Of course nothing is that simple--as the campaign stiffened towards the end, Students for Dean lost the staff and autonomy they'd been promised--but the general approach really worked, and the on-site blending of Students for Dean and Dean Students (into Generation Dean, a name created by two South Carolina students--who we asked for permission to use). If Students for Dean had turned us down (which they almost did), then we would have continued to link to them, and gone forward.
I think a similar approach could have worked with the Obama campaign's approach to Joe A.--figure out if they could give Joe what he wanted--and it sounds like they started down that path and then, inexplicably, stopped. If it is true that they asked him for an offer (and Joe Rospars' blog post doesn't contradict this), then why didn't they counter offer?
If they did, I don't care how much Joe A. asked for--the new media team probably didn't have $40,000, but they should have counter-offered what they could. If he'd asked for $200,000 and they had $500 they should have returned with the $500 offer. Its difficult to figure out an amount in any bargaining circumstances, and money in politics is downright bizarre--whether or not the figure was too high, it should be generous with people trying to figure out how to interact with the campaign. I was happy to see that Rospars did not accuse Joe A. of over-asking. Relatedly an itemized list is presumably an effort to appear professional--an effort to show the campaign that you are not bilking them. My heart goes out to someone staying up all night, asking friends' advice, trying to work out the key to the vague promised thing. How much should I ask for?
The mistake of the campaign, may be, perversely, a result of too much success--the brilliant social networking site and tools created a dependency on keeping a loose leash on the conversations, or on "having the conversation on our ship" as Matt Gross might say, so that it lulled the campaign into a habit of being able to make decisions about what could and couldn't be said, and made them think it was possible to have mass support and and vetted statements about Obama. Its not. Rospars post about the success of the Obama web tools suggests that there is a desire (so understandable, if impossible!) for the web strategy of the campaign to live and breathe on the site, on the grounds, in the gardens built by the web team.
Joe Rospars is a friend of mine, and, as Micah said, a straight shooter, and I'm generally sympathetic with the open fumbling of campaigns towards making hard decisions. I wish his post was a little more open, but I know how hard that can be on a campaign with many vetters.
One thing his post reveals is that the Obama campaign had chosen a different general strategic approach than the Dean campaign did--one that would have our lawyers, among others, quaking in their boots. They had decided to create management/agent relationships with this particular center of gravity--the campaign had login access and control over content (at least for a while) and it basically, if gently, perceived itself as the agent finally responsible for the content.
Our lawyers advice was based on fear of FEC problems, but it turned out to be generally sound for grassroots relationships in general: for each relationship, choose whether it is one of absolute control, or no control. THAT won't confuse the press and people writing--at first, perhaps, but they will learn. When in doubt, no control is better, just as it is in friendships--your friends will do everything they can to represent you well and be your supporter, until you start telling them what to say about you.
I hope this episode is a lesson for the Obama campaign, but also others - a reminder that having grassroots support means autonomous individuals who do not just work, but speak.
By Zephyr Teachout at Thu, 05/03/2007 - 3:16am
that the video from any Democratic Presidential debate be available freely after the debate, by either placing the video in the public domain, or licensing it under a Creative Commons (Attribution) license.
Good press about Endorsebarack.com... If you haven't signed this petition site go here:
Link
And here is the article, from the FutureMajority blog:"The 1 Million Strong for Barack Obama FaceBook group just launched a new project - Endorse Barack. The site aggregates state and local petitions requesting that Senators, Congressmen, Mayors and Governors endorse Senator Obama's candidacy.It's a really good idea. Right now, the Barack FaceBook group has upwards of 300,000 "friends." Whether or not those folks have actually done anything for the campaign is questionable at best. Endorse Barack provides a simple ask that can move those potential, or "soft" supporters up the ladder of participation in a relatively painless manner. It's not too big a leap from signing up for a FaceBook group to signing an electronic petition, but the potential payoff for the Obama campaign and for the FaceBook supporters is pretty big. The campaign stands to increase the buy-in among a vast source of potential supporters, and translate some of the youthful grassroots energy around the campaign into tangible political capital in the form of increased establishment support and all the donor and media love that support entails. Obama's young FaceBook group supporters stand to legitimize their organizing practices.Right now the site is still in beta and only 2,000 or so people have signed upwards of 90 separate petitions. I'll be checking in periodically to see if this takes off."Link
Check out the "Endorse Barack" website:
It is an early beta of a web front end to a distributed petiton drive...
It is all about petitioning local governors, senators, mayors and party leaders to endorse Senator Obama for President.
(We'll keep building this out to cover all of the 50 states, and eventually all Democrats in Congress)
But go check out your state...if a petition exists sign up! If it doesn't think about creating one... Instructions are here:
We have currently generated over 1,375 signatures through this, add yours for your state!
Hillary Clinton has spent 2/3 of her life preparing for this moment, and she has a fundraising machine and a husband who is a very savvy political strategist, both of which will propel her forward despite certain grave inadequacies as a candidate. Barack Obama may be deified before he is elected President, but he is clearly the flavor of the season, and people are seeing in him what ever they choose to see. He has the legs for a long race, despite his inexperience (two years removed from the Illinois State Senate). This is a fundraising contest, and the media is all about Hillary and Obama.
The following states have either already moved their primary date to February 5th or are in the process of doing so:
New JerseyNew YorkCaliforniaFloridaTexasIllinoisNorth CarolinaWisconsinMinnesotaAlabamaArizonaArkansasNew MexicoUtahWest Virginia.
Democracy for America is running a "Pulse Poll" to get an idea where DFA members stand when it comes to a candidate for president in 2008.You don't have to ask me twice: Link Obama is currently leading the poll -- but the percentages aren't listed, just the current ranking of the candidates. You probably already received this message via email from DFA, but just in case you didn't, here's that link again:Link
We got that and more.
If you keep sending OBAMA ELECTION RESOURCES innovative ideas we will keep sharing them with you. We are all in this together and even the smallest blog membership can have an impact in their area of interest and expertise.
4. Create a fundraising goal. You can help the campaign raise money by setting a goal for yourself and then encouraging your friends and family to donate. Keep in mind that a bit more is required than sending out a form email asking for money. Talk about why you support Barack, what you think is unique about him and this campaign, and share content that supports your view.
Below are details on how to place an op-ed or letter to the editor in the top 100+ newspapers in the United States by circulation:
1.
USA Today
2.
Wall Street Journal
Op-Eds: 600-1200 words, double-spaced. Must be strong argument about issue in news, not response to Journal article. Exclusive use of your article is required and the paper reserves 10 working days to keep it under consideration. Include cover letter, name, address, phone, fax, e-mail. E-mail edit.features@wsj.com or fax 212/416-2255.Go to opinionjournal.com/guidelines/ for more information.Letters: 300 word limit, must relate to story or editorial in WSJ--include date, headline and page number of article, city where writer is located. E-mail wsj.ltrs@wsj.com or fax 212/416-2255.
3.
New York Times
4.
Washington Post
5.
Los Angeles Times
7.
Philadelphia Inquirer (PA)
8.
Chicago Tribune (IL)
9.
Daily News (New York, NY)
10.
New York Post (New York, NY)
11.
Star Tribune (Minneapolis)
I would like to hear about some of the innovative campaign and fund raising techniques that bloggers are using to help Obama become our next president. Meet-ups and Petitions are great and Writing Op-ed and Letters to the Editor work well see the CCMC OPED.ORG web site for great How To Do It instructions. But I am sure that some of the Politically Experienced bloggers would have some other ideas that would empower all of us to do a more effective job. During the Kerry campaign we rented a small motel meeting room in our town of Woodburn and had guest speakers for fundraisers each month. Because they were held regularly we got out window signs by the hundreds, raised lots of money and even had to move to a larger room. I am truly disappointed that we aren't getting materials like window signs and buttons but I guess they assume we can buy our own. BAD DECISION! Tell us about Web Sites that support average citizens campaign capabilities. If you know of State of the Art Internet strategies let's hear from you. If you are using RSS feeds to share data telll us how to do it. We are all in this together. The Rapid Response Blog started for this purpose but it has become another opinion sharing blog and we need tools not talk. I tried to start and SHARE THE RESOURCES blog but it has been hel up. Lets hope March 31 is a breakthrough for national committment. Dick & C.C. Landis, Woodburn, OR 97071 If anyone knows where we can get NURSES FOR OBAMA and OLD WHITE GUY FOR OBAMA Let us Know
Dailykos.com users should go vote for Barack in the latest Presidential straw poll:
From the conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan:
"The Obama Phenomenon...It's real:
500 show up in Oakland just to volunteer to help with a future appearance. Most candidates would be happy to have that many people show up at the actual event. As the corruption and degeneracy of today's Republicans become clearer and clearer, we may see a tidal wave of response."
Great column in today's Washington Post by Eugene Robinson
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/?nav=globetop
For folks from Maryland:
An update that my petition to Governor O'Malley, Senators Ben Cardin, and Barbara Mikulski to endorse Barack for President are all getting good response, with roughly 40 signatures each so far....
If you are a local Maryland resident, be sure to sign up!
Tim
Ted Sorensen, the speechwriter and special counsel to President John F. Kennedy endorsed Senator Barack Obama tonight and compared Obama’s campaign to Kennedy’s run almost half a century earlier.
“The campaigns are comparable,” Sorenson said in an interview after his speech, which was delivered to a closed $1,000-a-head fundraiser at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, and which left guests buzzing over what several said was an implied comparison to Kennedy. “They say he’s too young, he’s too inexperienced, his demographic is wrong to get elected. They’ve decided in Washington that he doesn’t have a chance. But the campaign isn’t going on in Washington. The campaign is going on in the grassroots.”
Sorenson also sharply rebuked legislators who voted to authorize the Iraq war, a group that includes Senator Hillary Clinton and former Senator John Edwards.
“Members of either party who authorized this disaster should be accountable,” Sorenson said. “[Obama] didn’t have to vote for it, and moderate his position, and come up with an alternate strategy . He didn’t have to come up non-binding resolutions and so forth.”
The Kennedy speechwriter does not always become involved in Democratic primary politics, though he helped Wesley Clark briefly in 2004. He said he couldn’t recall throwing himself this thoroughly behind a campaign since Gary Hart’s 1984 run.
He stopped short of comparing Obama personally to the 35th president.
“We won’t really know the answer to that question until Obama is president and faced with governing,” he said. “His judgment will be tested on the campaign, but not the way it will be tested in the White House.”
(From Barack's issue section)
Stopping the Genocide in Darfur
"Senator Obama has been a leading voice in Washington urging the end of genocide in Sudan. He worked with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) on the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, a version of which was signed into law. Senator Obama has traveled to the United Nations to meet with Sudanese officials and visited refugee camps on the Chad-Sudan border to raise international awareness of the ongoing humanitarian disaster there. He also worked with Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) to secure $20 million for the African Union peacekeeping mission."
Sen. Obama's leadership on this issue runs counter to that of the current president, whose policy on Darfur I call into question in this post on thepolitico.com Link
Bush: Rhetoric Without Action?
Powell's statement represented the first time in our nation's history that a senior government official had labeled the systematic killing of innocent people genocide. In 1994, the Clinton administration did a dance around the "g-word" when Secretary of State Warren Christopher claimed that only "acts of genocide" had taken place in Rwanda.
Powell's views on Darfur, followed by similar ones from President Bush and other officials, were clear and unambiguous. However, nearly 30 months later the statements appear to have lacked any real meaning. In fact, the Bush administration has failed to back this rhetoric with any substantial action. The genocide continues unabated, as a campaign of ethnic cleansing has killed more than 400,000 people in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Recently, the International Criminal Court (ICC) named two main perpetrators who have been accused of working together, and on behalf of the government of Sudan, in committing 51 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Darfur people. In his announcement, the ICC prosecutor did not rule out future charges of genocide. In fact, additional charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, requests for summons and/or arrest warrants for additional senior Sudanese officials and Janjaweed rebels are likely to follow.
Ever since The Holocaust, America and the international community have vowed "never again." As the ICC prosecutor said recently, additional charges may be brought against others in Sudan for this on-going tragedy. Among the highest-ranking suspects is the director of security and intelligence within the Sudanese regime, Maj. Gen. Salih Gosh. In April of 2005, seven months after the Bush administration used the "g-word", the CIA had Gosh flown in to the U.S. in order to assist our nation in the "war on terror." Is this an example of the administration trying to have it both ways as it coddles Sudanese officials complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity even as it calls for bringing an end to the conflict in Darfur?
The actions of the ICC prosecutor are a concrete opportunity for the Bush administration to demonstrate its commitment to Darfur. Setting aside its illogical and ideological differences with the ICC, the administration must assist the investigation, help the prosecution and do its part to bring justice for the victims in Darfur. The door is open. Will the administration walk through it or will it turn its back on the people of Darfur and continue to only offer up rhetoric without action?
Howard Salter
Director of Communications at Citizens for Global Solutions, a Washington, D.C.-based foreign policy advocacy organization.
