It's reality time at MyBarackObama.com. The latent tension between a conventional top-down presidential campaign and the bottom-up social-networking Internet operation it launched has burst into the open in the form of a grassroots insurrection against Senator Obama's decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration's program of wiretapping without warrants.
The Obama campaign, by far the most Internet-savvy presidential campaign thus far, operates several web sites. BarackObama.com is a straight-forward campaign site, where visitors can see videos of speeches, read about issues, and or course donate money. MyBarackObama.com is a full-fledged social networking site built along the lines of Facebook. Once a visitor registers as a MyBarackObama member, he or she can post blogs, join discussion groups, send each other messages, organize events, and create networks of "friends," just as on Facebook or MySpace.
In fact, MyBarackObama.com is actually a Facebook knock-off, shepherded into reality over a year ago by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. The Obama campaign's early recruitment of Hughes, which enabled the campaign to pull a virtually bug-free social networking site out of its hat early on in the campaign, was one of the most pivotal yet least noted turning points in the presidential race.
MyBarackObama.com has been critical to the spectacular fundraising success of the Obama campaign. But what Senator Obama might do with this novel asset beyond simply raising money was an open question. And what MyBarackObama.com might do with Senator Obama was a question few even asked.
Noam Cohen wrote in the New York Times last month, "The receptiveness of the Obama campaign to such bottom-up influences raises a question: might the candidate actually model his approach to politics on the informal communal spirit the Internet encourages?"
Political commentator Andrew Sullivan thought the question had already been answered. "It's a new form of politics. It is likely to last beyond the Obama campaign and to change the shape of all campaigns to come."
Not so fast, argued Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of the DailyKos. "The Obama campaign is still very much a top-bottom operation. They've made it very easy for people to hop on the bandwagon, but those in the back of that wagon still get no say in where the campaign is going."
Well, this week it started to get really noisy in the back of the wagon. A new "group" started on MyBarackObama.com called "Senator Obama -- Please, No Telecom Immunity and Get FISA Right." By last night there were 7,000 members. At noon today there were 11435, just short of making it the largest group on the MyBarackObama site. During the time I wrote this column, more than 800 more signed up. By the time you read this, it will almost certainly be the largest. There is even a contest being organized to see who can predict how many members the group will have by the time of the FISA vote next week.
Note to the Obama campaign: even a cursory glance at the history of social networking on the Internet ( MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter for starters) shows that when content creation is put into the hands of the users who also have the ability to communicate and share with one another, the result becomes highly dynamic and unpredictable.
So here we are, balanced at the precise point where the bottom-up dynamics of Web 2.0 meets the top-down dynamics of an American presidential campaign. Depending on your take on Obama, you might imagine the Senator as railing in private against the power his Internet advisors have unwittingly given his base, or alternatively, as being secretly delighted at the unruly democratic spirit his campaign and its Web tools have unleashed.
In my most recent post, I wrote about the tension between Obama's Internet fundraising operation -- the 1.5 million small donors -- and his conventional fundraising. I wondered who would have the most influence with Obama, the small group of big donors who have faces and phone numbers the candidate knows, or the 1.5 million small donors.
It seems that the social networking tools of MyBarackObama.com may give some of those small donors a collective face and point of contact. At this moment, the contact is the "Senator Obama -- Please, No Telecom Immunity and Get FISA Right" group.
There is of course no guarantee how much real influence the members of this group will have with Obama. But they certainly have his attention. In fact, the good folks at Obama HQ are without doubt counting every new member. 12,261 and counting.
**
Some comments from "Senator Obama - Please, No Telecom Immunity and Get FISA Right":
After going through the long and difficult primary I truly believed that Senator Obama was the man we needed. It did not take long for him to prove me so wrong. The Senator from Chicago became an inside the Beltway wonder in such a short period of time. What I want, and I say want, not please, is to see him stand up and as the leader of the Demos and stop this FISA bill. The FISA part of the bill is just as wrong as the telecom immunity. But how can you condone the telecoms disregard of the law? Please tell me how? If he does not I am finished and I will not vote for him or any Demo. This is very difficult to say with McShame running on the GOP ticket. But if Senator Obama can't stand up for me and my right to privacy (4th Amendent) who the hell will?
this is a group that REFUSES to support a candidate that supports a measure that is _unconstitutional_. Playing that "it will get McCain elected" game doesn't fly here. We're concerned about the CONSTITUTION, remember that thing?
I'm done capitulating. If the contributors to the Obama campaign truly own it, as Obama likes to say, then it's time we started acting like it.
I have just contacted the Obama campaign and asked for my money back that I have contributed. They have agreed to refund it. If Senator Obama changes his mind and opposes FISA I will send all of my money back to the campaign.
etc.
secondly, what is there to stop republican trolls and agitators from fanning the flames of division among Obama's supporters on this website? anybody remember when Oxy Limpballs exhorted his lame-brained dittoheads to go out and vote for Hillary? same principal
divide and conquer is a tried and true strategy which every Obama supporter must be aware of and take into account --- Obama has said repeatedly that he will revisit this and many other Bushco travesties after he takes office --- Obama's FISA vote may or may not be the right one for right now but when all is said and done, it comes down to a question of whether or not you have faith and trust in the candidate you've chosen to support
admittedly, having faith and trust in ANY politician today is an audacious thing to do, considering the broken and corrupted state of affairs in Washington DC that currently passes for a democracy, but Barack Obama has singlehandedly given back to America the hope that one day things can and will be better and, at least for now, that's good enough for me
Secondly, I love the post-partisan 0bamabot talking point about dissenters being republican trolls!
I would bet for one thing, the potential for government contracts sure dried up.. I would also imagine they took a hit in the PR department. Who wants to deal with a company that would assist terrorists over their own government.
Michale.....
I set up an Event in this Group on July 4th called "Undonate to Obama" for those people, like the one you mentioned, who feel betrayed and want the campaign to know they are no longer going to be donating or have donated to other places in order to fight this FISA iteration. Those who want to ask for their donation back were instructed to call or email the campaign and request that their donation be "Undonated"
Someone killed my Event, without notice, explanation. The group monitors denied knowledge (and didn't try to find out who had), and said that they had *asked* me already. I mistakenly thought ask implied a choice. They didn't want to attract any "negative press"--like this protest group itself hasn't already brought what some consider negative press.
I have inquired through the Obama campaign web support whether they brought it down, but have received no answer.
I have no way to contact those who signed up. Some only made $4000 a year and had donated and now felt betrayed. Others asked how they could stop their recurring donations. Many were precinct captains and had donated many hours.
Either because of fear of giving ammunition to the competition or Obama campaign crackdown, the result is not bottom-up activism.
>And, I suppose, should I be called upon
>to break the law for the greater good, I
>would also be willing to bear the legal
>consequences... for the greater good.
>Jack Bauer does... why shouldn't I?
OK, let's take that tact..
The important question is not "WOULD YOU??"
The important question is, "SHOULD YOU HAVE TO?"
The answer to the first, only you can answer..
The answer to the second is a resounding and emphatic "NO!"
Michale.....
>Your scenario is ridiculous.
Translation:
"Your argument completely derails my position and shows it for the fallacy that it is. So, I will respond in passive/aggressive mode completely illustrating my impotence in the ability to form a rational and logical argument."
Thank you for your concession...
Michale.....
CALDER v BULL
Petitioners' Claim
That Connecticut legislation granting a rehearing of a probate dispute violated the Constitution's prohibition of ex post facto laws.
Decision
Connecticut's legislation was not a constitutional violation because the ex post facto provision applies only to criminal cases.
Significance
The Supreme Court's decision in Calder v. Bull changed the course of American jurisprudence by eliminating consideration of ex post facto violations in civil cases.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/13565/Calder-v-Bull.html
I keep telling you people and telling you people and telling you people.
But you simply WILL NOT listen.
Don't bring a knife to a gun fight...
Michale.....
Come back when you get your story straight, Michale.
So, there IS no Ex Post Facto violation.....
Which is what you claimed..
Do I have to dig up your post??
Or will you be mature about and simply admit you were wrong??
Michale.....
You, on the other hand, are all over the map...
Michale.....
"The Calders unsuccessfully appealed the probate court’s decision to the superior court and the Supreme Court of Errors. The Calders sued, claiming that the Connecticut law was void because it violated the Article I, § 10 of the Constitution, which prohibited states from enacting ex post facto laws. The Court issued seriatim opinions, upheld the decisions approving the will, and discussed the nature of judicial review.]"
The claim of EX POST FACTO was not upheld..
Michale.....
Obama should keep doing what he's doing. I know every blogger, and many posters on this site thinks that they're Obama's campaign managers, but they aren't. He's never been far left, which you'd know if you've closely followed his political career, but he is left of center in his Senate voting and most of his policies. If that's not enough for the super left patriots they can vote Nader, Kucinich, Clinton, McCain, ythemselves, or sit it out.
I'm not emotionally involved, as I seen far too many disappointing presidents over the years to have great expectations, but I trust Obama more than I trust anyone on this site to know what can and should be done in the political realm, to try and get this country out of the mess we're in.
(in case you coudln't tell - sarcasm... I agree wholeheartedly with you) :)
America needs a GOOD president. Senator Obama is the only choice if we apply that criterion.
>No. As a matter of fact, that is
> what *you* have done multiple times.
Actually, no... I define "can't think for yourself" as someone who makes a claim about something but whose SOLE evidence of this claim is because someone else told them..
And THAT is what we have here...
>No. In case you haven't noticed, I hold
>the Dims in very low regard. Barely
>better than the GOP. They are spineless
>and corrupt.
You must have a lot of fun on election day...
>No. I think this is a bad move for him
>to make. The "faith-based" gravy train
>is even worse.
If you cannot even concede you are wrong, then that is not principles talking.. That is ego..
On the other hand, I agree with you completely about the "faith based" crap.. Religion doesn't belong in politics..
Michale.....
or whether some of them don't completely understand the Bill
0bama needs to address the issue
period
Succinctly, logically and completely...
It's just that there are those who refuse to accept his reasoning, logical and rational though it is..
Michale....
"The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I've been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens -- and set an example to the world -- that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America –- no one is above the law."
"No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people -- not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. . . . "
That was before he sold out.
I have read comments where people are of the opinion that many people in the group are tro//s
I personally am a member of the group, so I know that is not the case
I have been against this vote from the beginning
all I said was that no matter what, 0bama needs to address to issue with the voters
I guess the intricacies of telecom law and the 4th amendment are more important than state sanctioned homicide.
That's just so unbelievably depressing.
1. The Hillary/PUMA crowd. This group's committed goal is to sabotage Obama's candidacy in any way possible. This is simply another manifestation of that.
2. The Bush Bashing crowd. This group opposes the new FISA measures simply because the Bush Administration supports the new FISA measures.
3. The Ignorant/Follow The Herd crowd. This group simply has other people dictate their opinions for them. They are averse to actually learning for themselves and are content to go with crowd...
That pretty much sums things up...
Michale.....
Those are the ones who were REALLY looking forward to having a nice shiny new baseball bat in which to beat the Bush Administration over the head with...
The funny thing is, they can still have their bat under these new FISA measures. They are just going to have to work a little harder to do it and won't be able to get rich or bankrupt the Telecomms when they do it...
Regardless of all that, the Telecomm Civil Liability Immunity is NOT a Constitutional issue. Ergo, they wrapping themselves up in the Constitution is disingenuous at best...
Michale.....
Is the FISA bill in need of updating? I would say yes, there are simply way more ways for communication, money raising, money laundering, and more sophisticated tools at the disposal of both terrorists and the government that the bill fails to consider. Does this bill adequately address some or all of those... eh, it tries, and trying is better than not.
Telecom immunity is a hard pill to swallow, but the reality is courts have already ruled that without being able to prove specific damage done to an individual no lawsuits can be brought forth. Going after the Telecoms is not the way to end this travesty, nor is it the best way to punish them. Going after the government, IOW Bush is the best way to enure this doesn't happen. The companies despite their having broken the law were operating under executive order, doing what they thought was correct. Bush and his administration knowingly broke the law and convinced the Telecoms that the requests and filling the requests was legal.
The civil lawsuits are attempts at discovering how pervasive the tapping has been. I still doubt this is the best way to find this out. Subpoenas for documents in a court case against Bush et. al. is likely to be more satisfying and more likely to prevent such future abuses.
1. Republicans.
2. Blue Dogs.
3. Obamabots.
That pretty much sums things up...
BC
Actually, it doesn't..
There's a 4th group that you did not mention..
That is the group who are independents in the true sense of the word. This group thinks for themselves and when they come to a conclusion, it is based on logic and facts, not hysteria and political bigotry. They don't have political pundits giving them their opinions.. They don't take the word of cowardly pandering politicians who are only out to score political points.
That's the group that I belong in.
Michale.....
Now, up roars a uniformed cop in a marked patrol unit. He jumps out of his car and approaches you. You look at him, expecting more praise, when he suddenly grabs you, throws you up on the hood of your car and cuffs you.
"I have been following you since you blew that red light! You're under arrest for speeding, reckless driving and endangerment..", he yells!
"But I was helping!!!" you state…
As the uniformed cop snatches the $100 bill from your hand, he says, "Helping, eh?? Looks like to me, you just did it for the money!!"
You turn to the undercover cop you helped and say, "Do something!!"…
The undercover cop says, "Sorry, you broke the law. I know it was a good reason and all, but.. hay.. The law is the law…"
Now, how would you feel NOW about your "no one is above the law" statement???
Michale
Me?? I would ask if I can bring my own weapons.. :D
Michale.....
Well, ooookkaaaayyy.....
Michale.....
There is absolutely NO REASON to believe that things are not exactly as stated..
Lives are at stake and you are the only hope, Obi Wan..
Now do you do the right thing??
Or do you call your attorney first??
Michale.....
>No one is above the law. Not Bush.
>Not the telecoms. That law is treasonous.
Ignoring for a moment the inherent hysterical nature of your accusation, consider this:
Let's say you are driving down the road, merrily on your way. You stop at a traffic light and suddenly this strange man jumps into your car. He shoves a badge in your face and orders you to run the light and follow that green car ahead. He tells you that there is a very bad man in that car and that, if you don't help the cop catch him, many people will die..
So you, being the civic (no, not Honda!! :D) minded person you are, step on the gas, blow the light and proceed to follow the evil man in the green car.. You race down at breakneck speeds and somehow, miraculously, get the car stopped. The cop in your car jumps out and arrests the evil man and all is good and right in the world. The cop from your car comes up to you and says, "You did a fine job. THank you for helping me. I know you probably burned a lot of gas doing that, so here's a hundred bucks for your time and trouble.."….
CONT
Obama is the communist version of George Bush.
Obama is going to drill in Anwar, he's going to keep the war going, he's going to oversea the nations first $1 TRILLION annual deficit because of his spending programs, and he isn't going to fix a single problem. Obama is running around telling people to "donate their time to the government" and justifying why he wants to spy on us ...
... rather than offering solutions to the oil, economic, and other problems we have coming.