Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Forget What Clinton Did Wrong. What Did Obama Do Right?
There have been numerous postmortems about "what Clinton did wrong," but I don't think that can really be analyzed outside of "what Obama did right."
Much of it was laid out in a fascinating article in the Atlantic by Joshua Green, where he recounts Obama's early courting of Silicon Valley techies and the social networking architecture they subsequently helped to build. It turned his campaign into a virtual machine for organizing volunteers and generating money:
When My.BarackObama.com launched, at the start of the campaign, its lineage was clear. The site is a social-networking hub centered on the candidate and designed to give users a practically unlimited array of ways to participate in the campaign. You can register to vote or start your own affinity group, with a listserv for your friends. You can download an Obama news widget to stay current, or another one (which Spinner found) that scrolls Obama's biography, with pictures, in an endless loop. You can click a "Make Calls" button, receive a list of phone numbers, and spread the good news to voters across the country, right there in your home. You can get text-message updates on your mobile phone and choose from among 12 Obama-themed ring tones, so that each time Mom calls you will hear Barack Obama cry "Yes we can!" and be reminded that Mom should register to vote, too.
"We've tried to bring two principles to this campaign," Rospars told me. "One is lowering the barriers to entry and making it as easy as possible for folks who come to our Web site. The other is raising the expectation of what it means to be a supporter. It's not enough to have a bumper sticker. We want you to give five dollars, make some calls, host an event. If you look at the messages we send to people over time, there's a presumption that they will organize."
The true killer app on My.BarackObama.com is the suite of fund-raising tools. You can, of course, click on a button and make a donation, or you can sign up for the subscription model, as thousands already have, and donate a little every month. You can set up your own page, establish your target number, pound your friends into submission with e-mails to pony up, and watch your personal fund-raising "thermometer" rise. "The idea," Rospars says, "is to give them the tools and have them go out and do all this on their own." The organizing principle behind Obama's Web site, in other words, is the approach Mark Gorenberg used with such success--only scaled to such a degree that it has created an army of more than a million donors and raisers. The Clinton campaign belatedly sought to mimic Obama's Internet success, and has raised what in any other context would be considered significant money online--but nothing like Obama's totals, in dollars or donors. John McCain's online fund-raising has been abysmal.
I remember being at an Obama event in Iowa, and the row of volunteers at each door was four people deep. You weren't getting in there without giving some bit of personal contact information. Got a cell phone? Scott Goodstein ran their text messaging campaign. Enter your zip code and you'll be activated when volunteers are needed in a particular state. The way the campaign worked volunteers into a system orchestrated by professional organizers was staggering both in its scope and its efficiency. They built an email list that is estimated to be somewhere between 4 and 8 million, some say as high as 10. Then they worked it. And worked it. Every email solicitation is now a fundraising motherlode.
Clinton, by comparison, ran Al Gore's 2000 campaign. She may have raised more money than any other Democratic presidential candidate who came before, she may have had a formidable machine, but she was blown away by an organization that executed a nearly flawless mastery of new social networking technology. State after state, her team thought she didn't need to compete. Under an old model, maybe not. But Obama's organization brought manpower and resources to every state that the Clinton team just did not see coming.
The effect this has all had on modern politics has yet to be measured. But think about it: in February, the month that Obama raised $55 million, he did not host one single fundraiser. Clinton, on the other hand, was tied to a system where her time was spent courting big-dollar donors. Which has the effect (potentially) of freeing a candidate from saying one thing to the public, with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge to the folks writing the checks. Now the public are the folks writing the checks.
I was on Bloggingheads today with Matt Yglesias, who noted that this may be responsible for some of the messianic messaging of the Obama campaign. When he speaks to his supporters, he's actually speaking to his funders, trying to get them invested and enrolled in the network of his campaign. It can all sound a bit cult-like to those outside of it, but it's an integral part of the way his organization is set up to run.
Micah Sifrey writes today about what this all means for the future of politics. If Obama carries this sort of organizational ability and infrastructure into the Oval Office, what kind of transformative effect will it have on the way he governs?
He links to Dave Winer, who notes:
The Internet destabilizes every hierarchy it contacts. It erases every barrier to entry.
The Clinton campaign might very well have worked in 2000. But in 2008, it was Tower Records. Obama was Napster. Meanwhile, they're rubbing sticks together at the McCain campaign:
John McCain stumping and raising cash today in Richmond joked about his method for vetting prospective veep candidates. Per pool press ...
"We're going through a process where you get a whole bunch of names, and ya ... Well, basically, it's a Google," McCain said. "You just, you know, what you can find out now on the Internet. It's remarkable, you know."
Sounds like Grandpa can't program a VCR. The upcoming contest, waged from opposite sides of the technological divide, will be interesting to say the least.
Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The Obama team won the primaries because they looked to the future instead of the past.
Back in 1990 Alvin Toffler predicted in POWERSHIFT that the 3rd wave of post industrialism knowledge and commnications based economy would create major shifts in the old industrial power structure - and it's finally happening.
Obama's energetic organizers used the internet and created a new core of intelligent younger supporters who were previously non political - and got millions to contribute a few dollars - rather than depend on the usual corporate few to contribute millions. His organizers looked to the ad hoc fluid organisational styles of Saul Alinski, rather than the last century top down DNC structure of the Clintons - who tried to unsuccessfully re-invent the past. Both McCain and the Clintons ignored a wise
quotation of Abraham Lincoln's " Revolutions don't go backwards."
It's great to hear how so many people have placed a stake in this campaign. Nothing like this hasn't happened since the Oklahoma land rush days when so many laid claim to the west. We can now start to reclaim the WH for the American people.
IT"S OUR HOUSE!!!!
WE ARE THE CONSTITUENCY!!!!
WE THE PEOPLE!!!!
Join us Hillary supporters we all can make history together!!!
Clinton's mistakes were few in number and huge in consequence:
1. Behaving like she was entitled to the job and that the election was a formality. Voters don't like being taken for granted and that kind of arrogance does not promise a good POTUS.
2. Lying. Landing under fire in Serbia. That wasn't just a slip of the tongue, but a flat out lie, easily exposed by playing newsreel of the welcoming ceremony. Voters do not like to be lied to. It was also an obvious attempt to embellish her image - nothing to do with policy. Some of us have had it with image.
3. Racism. Her comment carrying the innuendo that Obama might be Muslim; the continual stream of leaks from her campaign sniping at Obama. The National Enquirer cover smearing Obama, published by a Friend Of Clinton.
4. Her evident unsuitability to handle foreign policy. Anyone who thinks the answer to every foreign policy problem is to nuke 'em at 3 in the morning shouldn't be left anywhere near The Button. McCain or McClinton?
5. Her suggestion that McCain would be a better president than Obama. How low can you sink?
6. For me, the Clintonista groupies, who wanted any woman elected, however dishonest. I left Britain because I'd had it with Thatcher and co and seen this kind of mindless sycophantism amongst the feminists already.
AMEN!!
It is gratifying to hear that Joe Rospars is involved in Obama's dramatic internet fund raising success! Rospars' name is not unfamiliar to those of us who were involved in "Dean for America" during Gov. Dean's 2004 run for the White House. Glad to hear that Joe's using the enormous talent he brought to the Dean team to help elect the next President of the United States, Barack Obama! Thank you, Joe, for everything you've done to grow the movement!
When I got the mail the Sat. before the CA primary, I found two pieces from Obama. I realized we had never gotten anything from Hillary.
Two hours later, the doorbell rang, and there were two young guys from the Obama campaign.
I am so glad that someone finally had the good sense to approach this story, rather than the constant barrage of stories about Clinton's mistakes. Barack Obama ran an excellent campaign; and though Clinton's mistakes may have contributed to his ability to win, they were certainly not the main reason this campaign was successful. Thanks, Ms. Hamsher, for finally bringing the more positive side of the story to light.
Good story.Thank you for writing!
yes obama's set up where you could make calls at home for him to various areas, his use of text messaging, his grasp of the dynamics of how to win, ie how to rally a caucus...all amazing
NOW BHO show us you are a good stewart of our campaign donations, don't you be giving our money away to Hillary!!
She stubbornly stayed on despite the math, reprising her own version of "the Unsinkable Molly Brown" and she needs to pay the fare. With campaign debt at about 28M, she can tell Mark Penn to suck an egg for his $5M, her contributors paid $1M, she can save herself some money on her senate campaign by converting her $23M to that, she paid $11M, she can bargain 50% off the rest with vendors and after that....SUCK IT UP HONEY. Call it the price of running a vanity campaign. That's why John Edwards got out quick...it's called strategy, planning and practicality. DON'T LET US DOWN BARACK....WE NEED YOU TO USE THAT MONEY IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
He can't give it to her. That would be a campaign finance law violation. When they talk about him helping her with his debt they mean him using his name and image to convince people to donate money to pay it off. Good luck with that. I think Bill will be spending a bit of his money from speeches paying off Hill's campaign debt.
It seems that Obama's "do right" list was all for Obama, not 1 thing for us, the people. How could those almost 18 million voters not see this? His entire campaign was a "gimme" money grabber, 1 lie after another which gave an untue image of Obama, promises which he probably will not keep because they were plans, not promises. I am sick to my stomach over this horrible choice that we have been given for the most important job in the world. After 8 years of the worst President we ever had, we will now be subjected to the actions of a non-achiever, a man who would rather make up facts of his life than tell us the truth about himself, a man who has made blunder after blunder & blames us for misinterpreting his words, a man who will bankrupt the nation with his plans or, we can have another Bush.
Lots of conjecture and opinion ... but nothing to substantiate your claims! In fact, your claims cannot be substantiated because they are lacking in both fact and reality.
He did not steal our money ... we willingly gave to support his campaign.
Nor did he make up facts about his life. You may not want to believe his story, but his story can be corroborated by the people who shared his life journey with him. Your claim that he will PROBABLY not keep his promises or that he will bankrupt the nation are mere conjecture, unless of course you have the rare ability to see into the future.
What is unique about Senator Obama's campaign platform is that it is inclusive, of and for all of us. Contrary to "I will be ready on day one," Senator Obama has centered his campaign, not around himself, but around the people he will serve. "Yes WE can." Obviously, you do not like Senator Obama, but you should at least justify your antipathy for him rationally and honestly.
He's given us two (bestselling) books about himself, what "truth" about himself is he not sharing? He disclosed in the first book that he'd smoked pot - none of that "I didn't inhale" BS we got from Bill or "I don't remember if I did Coke" from W. And "non-achievers" don't get to be president of the Harvard Law Review. Try digging for information from something other than opposition talking points.
And, "gimme" money grabber? Hillary has publically *bragged* about taking money from at least TWO children - a little boy who sold his bike and video games to donate to her, and a little girl who donated the money she had been saving up for a trip to Disney, both after the point where Hillary couldn't win even a majority of pledged delegates - and you think OBAMA'S the money grabber? I'm sorry, a child tries to hand you a check and tells you it's the money they were saving for Disney or that they sold their bike to get the funds for you, the correct response is "oh my goodness, you're so amazing and I'm so proud to have your support, but I really can't in good conscience take such an essential part of childhood from you"... instead Hillary continued to bring it up in her stump speeches and ask people living paycheck-to-paycheck for more money for HER debt! AUDACIOUS!
I don't even know where to start, afed27. Sounds like you have are very selective about what you pay attention to. Its a good thing most of us aren't wearing blinders. Still mad about Hillary losing? It sure sounds like it. Maybe next time she runs she won't vote for another unpopular war, or lie so much. But she's a Clinton dammit. She doesn't need my stinking advice
The most fun I've had in years was hitting the Obama site's ersonal fund raiser button and uploading my email list. It made me feel involved in a powerful way and though my goal remains incomplete, I'm still uploading emails from friends' lists, if they're comfortable sharing them with this effort. So by the time the race is over and Obama has won, the 2500 I've hoped to raise may be a reality.
That kind of instant involvement is exhilirating. No overhead, no committees. No hot dogs and balloons to buy or phone calls to make, trash to take out. I just raised a pile of cash I couldn't afford on my own, for the candidate of our dreams. Fabulously brilliant! It certainly says a lot about this Harvard lawyer's smarts...his team is tops. Do we need that in the WH or what?
Barack's campaign strategies will be taught in schools for years to come. It isn't that it is so extraordinarily new, rather it is based on the oldest rule of ethics - The Golden Rule - and although he counterpunched with force at times, he did not sway from his original theme, even when he was down 20 points to Hillary.
Hillary did not have the strength or wisdom to plan the campaign that he did or she would have been the nominee and next POTUS. Instead, she triangulated, played one group against another, ignored a large block of voters and generally ran the same kind of campaign that Bill, Ronnie and both Bushes had. When Barack decided not to follow her into the swamp, she looked callous in comparison. Ferraro only added to the shame of HRC's campaign. Whoever encouraged her to continue her ridiculous assertions will no doubt be banned from all campaigns by the "big money" financial supporters.
Barack ran a different campaign and Hillary, in her "kitchen sink" strategy, looked like more of the same and the American people were, thankfully, fed up of more of the same.
I hope that more women will look at the success of Barack's campaign and decide to run for office at all levels, knowing that they won't have to sell out to do so.
The ability to reach more directly to the public means candidates do not have to be as beholden to their parties to get elected. This is the only road to purple and breaking the red/blue division.
I guess it wasn't racism when 10 out of 10 black people were voting for white men all our lives and supported the Democratic party to this day and help get them elected into office. So don't talk about racism to me, when we never had another choice until Barack Obama got into the race. No one had a problem when I voted for Hillary twice in NY state as a senator, so how dare you Clinton supporters now want to call it racism because a large majority of AA voted for Barack.
There is a big difference. Sadly, you did not have a choice of a black, or a woman, or a Jew, or an Asian, or a homosexual. Only white Protestants were the usual choices. This year, we did have a choice but many chose not to vote for the best candidate but to vote for the person's color or sex. Mr. Johnson, of BET TV, when asked why he was supporting Hillary, not Obama, his reply was,
"Just because a person is black does not mean that he should be President". Obama is black & he should not be President. I am afraid that his nomination will be very bad for the country. I do not dislike blacks, I do dislike liars, non-achievers who have not done 1 thing while a Senator for 12 years, those who make up fake bios, those with bad associates. I also dislike McCain for lying, for acting like Bush. I cannot trust either man. WE ARE IN TROUBLE!
If we are in trouble, it is due to the type of entertainment found on BET. I hope that Mr. Johnson is as outspoken about what has become of BET, as he is about what he thinks Obama will do to our country. Senator Obama inspires hope, while BET, in present form, inspires decadence.
Regarding choices, weren't Alan Keyes and Al Sharpton recent presidential choices? If your theory is correct (that African Americans vote by skin color), why didn't Keyes or Sharpton get 90% of the African American vote?
Here!! Here!!
I share your sentiments! People have selective memories when they choose to. No one questioned the 90% of support that President Clinton received from the African American community, or the 90% of African Americans who rejected both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson when they ran for president, not that long ago. Our vote has always been for the white candidate, even when we had a choice. In fact, as long as we voted for the white candidate, not only were these questions not raised, but there were never questions raised about our political astuteness and our ability to distinguish between the better candidate from the candidate who fell short. For the past century, our vote was merely taken for granted, as long as our support or non-support reflected the support or non-support of the mainstream base.
But now that we as a community are in agreement with most other Americans - Democrats, moderate Republicans and Independents - that Senator Obama is indeed the better candidate, some have chosen to define us as racists, simply because he happens to be black. This is not only very ignorant in respect to understanding what a racist is, but it is also very offensive, especially in view of the many years that African Americans have unconditionally supported our party.
Can't we just forget Hellary--period? She's so over! We have yet to enjoy a day without some reference to her, and I for one am sick of it.
Great article. Everyone should read Joshua Green's article and also Micah Sifrey's (both linked above). Someone below referred to "Bowling Alone", which I think describes how Americans are less inclined to join in communal activities. Maybe the U.S. is going through a reaction to that and many people now yearn to be part of a group again. Judging from some of the comments here, the Obama campaign is providing an outlet for them. Just another example of Sen. Obama and the Zeitgeist.
If it was only so easy to win the Presidency by having the Youth, with their Tech Savvy, bloggin' away for you. If that only really translated into votes. I remember Howard Dean, before the infamous shout heard round the toilet bowl, getting all kinds of Internet Buzz. It did him absolutely no good. Lets all marvel with weepy eyes about those wonderful Silcon Valley Tech Heads and their "Savvy". If only that won elections, instead of news space.
Loading comments…
Posted June 9, 2008 | 08:57 PM (EST)