Barack Obama's online campaign strategist is gone. Should we be shocked?
The Barack Obama campaign has one of the worst track records in reaching out to the blogosphere for support. Not only have they snub the so-called netroots bloggers that strategize through the Townhouse mailing list, but they have actually gone out of their way to not reach out to prominent black, latino and women bloggers who are outside of said mailing.
The best example of this snub was the campaign's absence from BlogHer, the largest convention of women bloggers in the United States and, technically, the world. At BlogHer we had the pleasure to have Elizabeth Edwards as one of our keynote speakers. The Hillary Clinton campaign made a lukewarm appearance by sending in a representative. The biggest omission was Barack Obama himself. After all, the conference was in his hometown of Chicago.
Not sending Michelle Obama to speak to the 800+ networks of vote-ready of mostly mommybloggers who were in attendance has been, in my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes of the Obama campaign. Worse than the unforgivable muscling-out of the volunteer Joe Anthony from the largest volunteer Obama network on MySpace.
So it does not come as a surprise that Barack's blogger outreach guy has left the building :
Josh Orton, who had been doing "blog outreach" for the Obama campaign, has departed the campaign, two sources familiar with his move said.
Orton, who worked for Air America Radio before joining the campaign, filled a new job description that most presidential campaigns now embrace, a kind of press secretary and community liaison focused on the growing network of liberal political bloggers.
It's unclear whether the reasons for his departure were more related to personality or to policy, but some bloggers have been frustrated by Obama's reluctance to engage the highest-profile and most widely read branches of the Netroots.
I am still mystified as to what is the logic behind this strategy. It's true that Obama has an incredible online track record of raising vast amounts of cash from small donors. TechPresident has the numbers and it's quite impressive : Obama was able to raise $20 million from 352,000 people.
Micah Sifry is quote by Ben Smith as saying that the Obama campaign has been focused on "building their own political network directly under their roof".
Isn't that completely counter-intuitive to how online networking works? Or are they rationalizing that if a fenced platform without a networking system works for MySpace and Facebook it will work for a man running for President as well?
This then begs the question : What kind of offline democratic practices can we expect from a man who has gone out of his way to not create a more open and democratic way to connect to his online democratic platform?
In other words, is Barack Obama's online strategy good for rebuilding our democracy?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Blogosphere | Blogs | Media | Networking | Power | Triangulation | 2008 Presidential Elections | Barack Obama
It really is not just him, it is all of Washington
Submitted by liza on 3 October 2007 - 10:36am.
And by 'Washington', I mean the political establishment. When they hear "power to the people", they think it refers only to them 
What are you talking about?
Submitted by Rayray (not verified) on 3 October 2007 - 3:30am.
Netroots? Liberal bloggers? All of whom refuses to give Barack's candidacy a fair unbias consideration. Pluheeese! Still you are all welcome at barackobama.com. "What kind of offline democratic practices can we expect from a man who has gone out of his way to not create a more open and democratic way to connect to his online democratic platform?" Again you are all welcome at barackobama.com you should take this opportunity to join our movement instead of dealing with the likes of a anti Obama operative like Ben Smith.
Obama 08!
What are YOU talking about
Submitted by mole333 on 3 October 2007 - 7:25am.
Speaking for myself, I reached out to Richardson, Obama and Edwards' camps. Richardson's was the only one who responded enthusiastically and to participate with us as a blog. Edwards' camp had the respect to see us as press and invite us to an event as press. Obama...(sound of crickets). I got no response from them. I DID have a friend who is an Obama supporter come and write (at MY invitation!) about him...and I made use of her inspiring post later. But the Obama campaign, from what I have seen, has in no way responded to our invitation, let alone reached out to us. So don't give us crap about not giving Obama fair consideration. We invited him in. And we have blogged positively about him (as well as positively about Richardson and Edwards).
And perhaps you might consider that we HAVE been to his website. But you aren't going to win an election by directing people to your website. There is something called "outreach." THere is something called "resepect." Giving us crap for stuff you encountered elsewhere is bullshit. If you won't take the time to figure out who you are talking to, then you are behaving much like poor Richardson who thanked the wrong union at a union sponsored forum. Only in his case he was thanking the wrong people. You are scolding the wrong people. Really, REALLY bad form.
why should baracobama.com be the place to go?
Submitted by liza on 3 October 2007 - 10:38am.
why can't barack reach out to all the communities that are out there, online?
The logic is really simple.
Submitted by Basic Brains (not verified) on 3 October 2007 - 7:18am.
The logic is really simple. Bloggers don't mean jack. They are tiny tiny tiny piece of the electorate that only the most politically passionate read. It's the Dean voters. Edwards has already gone after that market and thats why he's running third.
Most people do not read blogs. But there is a helluva lot of people on Myspace. So, he decided to go where the numbers are. I'd rather have 10,000 female supporters from Facebook than 1,000 female bloggers mostly reading each others stuff.
The social networking model is far more successful than any blog out there, so it was only smart of him to build his own social network than depend on a bunch of amateur pundits.
Well
Submitted by mole333 on 3 October 2007 - 7:37am.
For the record, I know of at least four Congressional Reps, a couple of dozen local and state level Reps. from around the country, some NASA scientists, a Governor (or so he tells us), and a Senator who disagrees with you about our importance. Now you are right that blogs only reach a small portion of the population. But those who read us probably vote at near 100% (I am guessing here). Smugness doesn't win votes, my friend. We work hard at this and there are many who recognize that as valuable. And most of them vote.
It's not just bloggers
Submitted by liza on 3 October 2007 - 10:56am.
They, as all the other candidates, need to reach out to people more through their online communties. It's not an easy task, but that's why these cammpaigns need to put more money into the development of more democratic technologies. Focusing on a couple of fenced in social networks is not as sound as it seems; especially when it looks like the users of Myspace and Facebook overlap by more than 50%.
Honestly ... do you know what the word network actually means?
shocker.
Submitted by Joe Anthony (not verified) on 29 November 2007 - 3:15am.
I'll share my Zoloft with him if he needs it.
I don't understand. when I
Submitted by spirit57 (not verified) on 21 January 2008 - 8:26pm.
I don't understand. when I typed in his name this site came up.Are you trying to say his site is no longer available? If not, did you ever stop to think for security purposes?
Aristocrats and Democrats
Democrats and anti-Democrats.
That's what Frances Moore Lappe says is the real divide in America. Those who interested, really interested in inclusion and those interested in exclusivity. Those who really believe in the wisdom of crowds, no matter how messy. And those who believe in the superiority of a few men in a back room.
or
Thomas Jefferson Quote - Aristocrats and Democrats.
Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still, and pursue the same object. The last appellation of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.
It's been clear to me that Obama has always been a bit of an Brahmin.