Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

That's a really awesome video and shows just how effectively Obama's movement can message against Senator Clinton.  But Obama, who talks a great game, doesn't act like he gets it.

Jim Margolis, a well-regarded Democratic media consultant, is in talks with the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama about playing a formal role, according to three Democratic sources familiar with the discussions....

Margolis was the lead media consultant for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerryduring the 2004 primaries but left the campaign in April 2004. He is a close adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reidof Nevada and currently is a partner with GMMB, a political consulting firm.

If Margolis officially signs on with Obama, he would join David Axelrod on the media team. Axelrod has been with Obama since his 2004 race for the Senate. David Plouffe, who is a partner in Axelrod's firm, is Obama's campaign manager.

Highlighting the close-knit nature of the consulting community, Margolis used to work with Mandy Grunwald, the lead media consultant for Democratic presidential aspirant Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York., at Greer, Margolis, Mitchell, Grunwald & Associates.

From what I understand, Margolis is pretty bad when it comes to the poor commission structure of Democratic media consultants.  Margolis's clientelle at GMMB includes Sallie Mae, AT&T, MPAA, DaimlerChrysler Corporation.  VOX, which he co-chairs and which is the parent compnay of GMMB, includes such laudable clients as Walmart, Bank of America, and Johnson & Johnson.  My point here is not to criticize people who take corporate PR work.  I just want to make clear that the choice of Margolis is another example of the good old boys club at work.  Along with Robert Gibbs, he's in 'the collect money from rich people and spend it all on TV school' of politics, which requires a slew of corporate clients to sustain it in the off-season.

As such, Obama is building an old school campaign where the internet is an afterthought, a high end ATM and walled garden of social networking.  Ironically, his poor treatment of the internet in his campaign means that he's beholden to the big money interests of which he is rather appropriately disdainful.  At this point, with this level of energy and media attention, Obama's campaign should have raised $10 million online.  I doubt they've gotten there.  In fact if I had to guess, I would guess that Hillary Clinton has outraised Obama's campaign, having just completed a competently executed $1 million online fundraising drive last week.  

It's too bad.  Obama could really let his movement change politics if he only embraced it.  Hopefully the movement will be stronger than the high walls of inertia still in the Democratic Party's electoral system.

Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, president (all tags)

Comments

85 Comments

Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

you have no basis for either the "walled garden of social networking" line or the "I doubt they've gotten there" statement on money.  

Obama's website and its social networking is consistently viewed as a net positive for him. His website is very open and has formed numerous groups in a short period of time. Furthermore, he has over 300,000 facebooks friends (a portion of whom he met at a campign rally), and has more than double Hillary's myspace connections.

Now he might be ignoring them but you have little to no evidence to back this up other than the fact he is also marketing in a traditional manner. To claim he is "walled off of social networking" and grassroots organizing is to ignore the facts above (and his community organizer background) and assume just because he's also doing an "old school campaign" he can't be doing both. Why can't he? You offer no evidence that he hasn't and most evidence suggests that he has. Indeed, as Adam Conner noted in a diary a few days ago, Obama actually met with the drafobama.org movement to listen to their ideas.

by dpg220 2007-03-05 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Obama's website and its social networking is consistently viewed as a net positive for him. His website is very open and has formed numerous groups in a short period of time. Furthermore, he has over 300,000 facebooks friends (a portion of whom he met at a campign rally), and has more than double Hillary's myspace connections.

Those 300K friends came not on his group but on a group set up by a supporter.  That's great evidence of a movement, but it's not evidence that he's doing anything special from his side.

by Matt Stoller 2007-03-05 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

I agree. that's why I qualified it by saying "Now he might be ignoring them." But you really don't have much proof that he isn't using it either.

by dpg220 2007-03-05 03:14PM | 0 recs
Uh...Apple

Matt, you may be too young to remember, but this is a direct rip off on an old 80's Apple ad. I mean it is the Apple ad, with a couple of minor modifications.

So first off it would be massive copyright infringement.

Second, it would alienate rather than convert royalists.

by ElitistJohn 2007-03-05 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Uh...Apple

This is obviously fair use.

by Matt Stoller 2007-03-06 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Uh...Apple

I agree that the video passes fair-use muster under the Copyright Act.  It is also obviously political speech, which receives the greatest degree of First Amendment protection.

by Laurin from SC 2007-03-06 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Uh...Apple

I question whether a complete steal of an entire ad video qualifies.

by ElitistJohn 2007-03-06 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Uh...Apple

I think the point to take from this is not reuse this ad per se(just let it live on YouTube for all to see). But take the pluckiness displayed by the admakers and harness that to new creative ads.

I said this before and I will say it again. You have to have Hillary to lose her cool at some points to really beat her in the primary. She has more to lose by going after a candidate's negatives. This is the strategy the DLC plays. When they are trailing, they go all out in attacks and preach to us how it is fair game and politics is not for the faint of heart. BUt when they are in teh lead, it doesn't play to their advantage to have  a negative campaign.

Obama should be stressing positive governing over positive campaigning. Negative campaigning does not mean Obama should resort to smears and offbase shit like the republicans pulled on Bill Clinton with Whitewater and Vince Foster.

by Pravin 2007-03-06 11:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

The evidence equally supports the claim that Obama is building a grassroots/netroots campaign alongside the old school tools.

Where is your evidence for the "afterthought" part?

by demondeac 2007-03-05 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

He's not asking for anything.  Not even money.

by Matt Stoller 2007-03-05 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Interesting that his not asking is the evidence for your claim.

I have been wondering about this myself and am of two minds: he is either allowing the grassroots part to truly grow organically, or he is ignoring it.

He has given everyone all the tools they need to raise money, have house parties, etc. He has asked. He has asked in speeches, on his website and by his encouragement of the draft people.

But he has not asked, too. He has not sent e-mails requesting money to the people who have registered at his website. He has not sent the kind of emails Exley advises candidates to send (no one has).

We'll see. Right now the evidence is not strong enough to be able to conclude that the grassroots/netroots part is an afterthought.

by demondeac 2007-03-05 02:51PM | 0 recs
Matt - don't tell me you haven't

seen this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGxzqwRJU zM

by TarHeel 2007-03-05 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Matt - don't tell me you haven't

that was not an online request.

But the "negative" publicity about it did send the request indirectly to millions.

by demondeac 2007-03-05 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Does he really need to ask for money right now?  No.  I'd prefer he wait til the end of the quarter to ask.  You dont need to constantly bombard people and ask for money.  Honestly, I hate that people like Clinton and Edwards ask for money each time they send out an email.  Its annoying and reminds me of John Kerry - who then had $30 million left over...so much for the good of my contribution.

Eventually he is going to have to engage everyone - but right now they have the "luxury" of waiting.  

I remember back this time in 2003 with the Dean campaign - they didnt have the infrastructure in place to handle the grassroots - and it showed.  Maybe the Obama team is getting all that is necessary in place before they really turn on the machine.

by novademocrat 2007-03-05 05:26PM | 0 recs
Asking

I just got an e-mail that does have an "asking you to help with both money and time" component, but I think the specific e-mail I got was sent to people who have already donated. I wonder if the rest of the mailing list is getting a different e-mail today.

by Dave Thomer 2007-03-06 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Obama has largely the same consulting team that worked for Mark Shriver that lost a 30 point lead in his primary loss to current DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen.

by Marylander 2007-03-05 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

I think it's kind of hard for a Democrat to have any consultants who haven't lost one race or another at this point. There's plenty of futility to go around from the past 12 years.

by PsiFighter37 2007-03-05 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Two words...Bob Shrum.  Too bad he's not consulting this year...then we'd know who's not going to win.

by rashomon 2007-03-05 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Except for Mike Henry - who is working for Hillary Clinton.

by novademocrat 2007-03-05 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

sweet heart chris van hollen could have beat any kennedy with or with out the consultants. van hollen is real--he don't need no stinkin consultants.

by aiko 2007-03-05 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

oh is that right!  good grief!

by timlhowe 2007-03-06 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

I hate to break it to you, but buying tons of blog ads alone won't win a national election. Anybody who is realistic about the actual abilities of the netroots knows that kissing the appropriate asses at MyDD, Kos, Firedoglake, and Atrios is but a small part of a successful campaign. TV will dominate the campaign. Joe American loves his teevee. Even Dean didn't gain his stranglehold lead in 2003 until his big money advantage had him saturating the airwaves in all the early states.

by OfficeOfLife 2007-03-05 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

I don't want him to kiss my add or anyone else's ass.  I want him to ask his supporters to do something.

by Matt Stoller 2007-03-05 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

I see your point Matt, but I would be patient with it.  He is working to build the grassroots network.  It is still 10 months away from the first Primary...

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-05 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys
Like Edwards?
by Rooktoven 2007-03-05 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Quite the biased report. The fact that he has a well grounded national grassroots campaign is more than I can say about his opponents!

by mattmfm 2007-03-05 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Clinton has a much stronger grassroots campaign, actually.  Obama is trying to replicate her campaign, which is foolish.  He should be trying to run a different campaign, but he's not.

by Matt Stoller 2007-03-05 02:43PM | 0 recs
Winning March '07

Can you comment on what is out there to win at this point? Isn't there a risk of peaking way too early if you mobilize your supporters too far out from the actual voting? If Obama is able to track Hillary Clinton in the polling without mobilizing his grassroots support isn't it good strategy to save it as a reserve for a finishing blow this fall?

I agree that Obama could ask a lot more from his supporters but I don't know if it's good tactics to rev up this far out.

If Obama's poll numbers are rising on plain rhetoric and growing name recognition I would think it's wise to let the numbers find their own level before mobilizing people one way or another. It's not like Edwards is catching fire and it's not like anybody doesn't already have an opinion about Hillary Clinton. Obama is the one who controls the tempo of the race and I think it's smart to choose a limited, reserved strategy this far out.

PS - I think Obama asks for five or ten bucks from supporters in the audience of his rallies. That's asking the grassroots for support at it's most plain.

by joejoejoe 2007-03-05 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

I think it's pretty unfair to compare campaign structures to either Clinton or Edwards at this point.  Both have been running and putting the pieces in place since 2004...Obama clearly didn't start doing that until late 2006.  Most of the grassroots stuff (at least here in NorCal) seems to be organic at the moment.  I get the strong impression that Obama's camp is trying to figure out how to handle the enormous groundswell.  It's not just about how many fundraising emails you send out.

by rashomon 2007-03-05 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

If you mean the same tired old partei hacks who've been around their local structure for years.

by ElitistJohn 2007-03-05 07:07PM | 0 recs
To some degree, I agree and disagree

I think the Obama campaign is bringing in a lot of otherwise sideline voters who would have never particpated in the political process. One thing that bothers me about the netroots community is the tendency to conflate online support with actual on the ground local support. Obama's campaign to their credit is building ground support which matters a whole lot more than online support. At the same time, they are also devoting quite a good amount of resources to their mybarack obama social organizing feature. But it's the local volunteers on the ground who are familiar with their districts who make the greatest impact in any campaign. The central focus of any campaign should be building local grassroots support and goodwill.

As for fundraising, I agree with Matt. To some extent, I'm surprised that the Obama campaign hasn't yet embarked on an ambitious and massive online fundraising drive. The energy level for the Obama campaign is pretty high right now and it would be smart for the campaign to tap into that early energy and enthusiasm.

Who knows, maybe things are in the works down the line.

by rosebowl 2007-03-05 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys
On one hand I think Obama should reach out more to the community online.  On the other I think you guys act alittle like spoiled kids who are not getting your way.
I do know there is a set plan in place where he is mostly doing rallies and is not available much to shows like hardball and this may be true with online.
He needs to raise big money fast.  And he needs to build up support and name on the road.
I do wish he would get together with you guys but, I've also seen him give interviews to various bloggers.
I don't really know what you want except to be feted.
by vwcat 2007-03-05 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

We are just some people who post on the internets, we are not who Obama is appealing to.  His list is probably three or four times as large as the readereship of MyDD, and will soon grow larger than that of kos and maybe even Moveon.

by Matt Stoller 2007-03-05 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

He did an interview with Jonathan Singer for Christ Sake! How can you say he is ignoring us.

by dpg220 2007-03-05 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Don't forget the Draft Obama meeting as well.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-05 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

How many times does Matt need to say that it isnt that Obama isnt doing out reach to the blogs, its that the campaign is not asking his supporters (not the big bloggers) to do something.

That was Dean's real strength, he raised millions, got them to do productive work at meetups etc.  It isn't enough just to give them the tools, you have to organize them.

by juls 2007-03-05 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

"its that the campaign is not asking his supporters (not the big bloggers) to do something"

facebook organized a 3500 person rally at GW, that should count for something.

Obama also had a meetup last thursday (Bill Burton led it) with college kids across the country.

http://obamabarack.blogspot.com/2007/03/ team-obama-holds-conference-call-with.ht ml

by dpg220 2007-03-05 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Did Obama ask them to do it?  No.  Did Obama know how many people were going to be there? No.  Did Obama move to try and do more of these types of events after that huge success?  Not that I have seen, other than the one you mention above.

There point of this post is that there is a ton of organic energy that is not being capitalized on.

by juls 2007-03-05 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Maybe that's the point.
He doesn't NEED to dictate to people what to do.

These folks are doing quite well on their own, and will be an asset to the campaign.  

And it is people taking their own inititive that matters.  That is what is needed in politics

by v2aggie2 2007-03-05 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

It was Deans strength - but also major weakness.  They didnt have the staff to handle what was being asked of them - and frankly it frustrating for the grassroots (well at least for the people I know) to not being able to get anything out of Burlington.

by novademocrat 2007-03-05 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: What do you mean by "disdainful"?

"the big money interests of which he is rather appropriately disdainful"

What do you mean by "disdainful"?  He's been taking millions from corporations and lobbyists.

by justinh 2007-03-05 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: What do you mean by "disdainful"?

Not from corporations, I don't think.

by Matt Stoller 2007-03-05 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: What do you mean by "disdainful"?

Unless I'm misreading opensecrets.

by justinh 2007-03-05 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: What do you mean by "disdainful"?

Obama, like edwards, does not take PAC money. He gets donations from everyone else, as does Edwards. To suggest that Obama is more wed to big money than Edwards (like trial lawyers) is just not true.

by dpg220 2007-03-05 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: What do you mean by "disdainful"?

$1,315,428 in PAC money alone, according to opensecrets.org.

Who's comparing Obama to Edwards?

by justinh 2007-03-05 04:19PM | 0 recs
In the past Obama has taken

corporate PAC money,  edwards never has.

for this election Obama says he won't

by TarHeel 2007-03-06 03:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

You really nail this on the head here.

I want to support Obama, but it's almost like he doesn't understand why his supporters (particularly young people) are so fervently behind him.

I signed up to the Obama social networking thing, and while it's scores better than the other candidates, it still doesn't really cut it for me.  The interface is clunky and there are a ton of redundant groups that just don't seem to know what to do with themselves.

by whogotthegravy 2007-03-05 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

I think people are forgetting that this is week 3 of the campaign! For being so early, and with polls showing a complete lack of name recognition only a few weeks ago, the Obama campaign is chugging along at a great speed. To see him gaining such a large amount of support with little if any true campaigning...it's a good sign.

by mattmfm 2007-03-05 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Thanks Matt, for posting that horrific youtube video about Hillary.

Asshole.

by marasaud 2007-03-05 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Thanks for censoring my comment.

You will be standing in the station as the train disappears from sight -- wondering what happened.

If you are a Democrat, you need to remove that video of Hillary Clinton.  It's a hate tactic.

by marasaud 2007-03-05 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

LMAO. Loved it.

by johnalive 2007-03-05 04:02PM | 0 recs
Ah...

I see. Don't question Hilly-Billy. Bow to our royal family, lest thou help the enemy.

Nice self-serving argument...you can't oppose Hilly-Billy in the primary, because that will hurt her in the General. The same rules don't apply to anyone else.

Piss off, royalist.

by ElitistJohn 2007-03-05 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Ah...

you can oppose - you just shouldnt attack on the personals - cant you remember the effect of bradley calling gora a liar in 2000 - it freed the gop to use that word and ipso facto we got bushed.

i luvs me that hillary - but id never attack barrack - i like the fella - but i will get in a bar brawl with anyone who attacks someone i respect, be it hillary, barrack

by timlhowe 2007-03-06 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys
It's not going to sink her campaign. She ought to be able to deal with a bit of negative campaigning by now, the right wing has been accusing her of murder for a dozen years. An ad attacking the idea of inevitability is not going to lose her the election.
by Englishlefty 2007-03-06 04:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

I don't see why this video wouldn't just as effective with Obama's face up there, talking about "hope."  Or any other candidate on either side for that matter.

by MassEyesandEars 2007-03-06 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

I am really laughing at you guys...What Obama is is slick.   Is he grass roots, or does he have corporate roots, he spoke at the DLC, but then he asked for small donations at his rally, but then he was keynote speaker at the Hamilton Project, but he has all this Face Book support, but he is friends with Ford, but he talks about hope, but he was against the war, but he is against Feingold's plan, but he is for withdrawal. He has got you guys spinning your wheels hard.

by Kingstongirl 2007-03-05 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

I think you nailed it.

He doesn't seem to want to be beholden to any one constituiency.  Call it slick or smart.  Time will tell.

by aiko 2007-03-05 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Obama will not have a money issue, at all. All he needs to do is ask and he will have millions spewing in. I have already donated small amounts, and am just waiting for him to ask for more.

Here is RI, a local Obama campaign has already formed and is holding meetings/planning fundraising events. Can't say the say for Clinton, or any others for that matter.

One thing Obama has that Clinton doesn't...energy. People are excited by the Obama campaign.

by mattmfm 2007-03-05 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys
Obama is a very very not-yet-ready-for-prime-time politician. "the Obama movement" is making something of him that he is not...at least not yet. Progressives need to throttle their desparation for a leader until a real leader arrives, not try to make one up.
.
.
by gak 2007-03-05 04:34PM | 0 recs
like Gore when he ran in 1988

I think Obama is going to learn a lot in the coming year. He might be a better candidate in eight or twelve years.

by desmoinesdem 2007-03-05 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

gak-

Clearly you missed his speech yesterday, or for that many any speech he's made in the past year.

Though a freshman senator, he's taken a front seat in the Senate. It is his time.

by mattmfm 2007-03-05 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys
my aren't you the presumptuous one - a sign of immature...figures.
.
by gak 2007-03-05 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

A few suggestions and possibilities regarding Obama and the internet:

1. Since the last two candidates who were closely identified with the left blogosphere - Dean and Lamont - both lost, perhaps Obama has calculated that the better strategy is to avoid such close identification, for the time being at least.

2. As I understand it, Obama is currently engaged in a struggle to convince African-American voters - a major Democratic constituency - that he is their guy, and is working to wrest more of these voters away from Clinton, who is the beneficiary of a great deal of reserve trust from the African-American community due to her husband's legacy.  Perhaps this is not quite the time to jump head first into the white-o-sphere, in a way which is bound to create a lot of off-message, conflicting press.

3. The recent Edwards hire/fire episode has surely given a number of candidates pause, and shown that before getting tangled up with the blogosphere, it is best to do a lot of homework first and know exactly what you are doing.  Why attach yourself visibly to certain bloggers and sites, only to expose oneself to wingnut witch hunts and comment trolling?

4. The blogosphere is noted for its independence and rapid reaction time.  Why make the big play now at this absurdly early date?  After all, we know that eventually all of the candidates will do several things to alienate sizeable left blog constituencies.  Perhaps the best move is to lay back and wait for an optimal time for the big embrace during a period of widespread disenchantment with the others candidates.

5. I live in New Hampshire, and recall that Kerry's campaign languished here through months and months of lackluster single-digit performance before making a late break in the wake of Dean's collapse in Iowa.  I think all of these candidates should fear overexposure and public boredom.  Perhaps a big move into the white-hot, trend-driven, short-attention-span blogosphere is not called for at this time.  After all, there is still something to be said for preserving a sense of mystery.

6. Finally, what is it precisely you want Obama to ask for, Matt?  Do bloggers really need some sort of royal invitation, or official start signal to start working for him independently?  We already know he is in the race, and is a serious player.  People are perfectly free to start working and raising money for him without a tap on the shoulder. Is the "embrace" you are looking for really a matter of not knowing what to do, or is it a question of pride?

by Dan Kervick 2007-03-05 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

THe only reason Lamont got 40% was because of support from the blogoshere. If Lamont just cateresd to the mainstream, he doesnt even get traction for a primary.

Dean - the sanme.

Blaming the netroot factor for their losses is as silly as saying that every other primary candidate who lost the same time as Dean  did so because they sought out more mainstream support. You need all kinds of support.

Netroots are not kingmakers. But they can help do their share. Take the Webb election. If Webb lost support from any wing - he loses. THe netroots helped him with macaaca. The establishment did their share with Webb. Obama needs help from everyone. He doesn't need to alienate one wing by being close to the netroots.

by Pravin 2007-03-06 11:19PM | 0 recs
Jim Margolis is a good guy.

He got his start working in Michigan politcs, for good progressive candidates. Plus, Marglis TV spots were partially credited for Kerry's turnaround in Iowa and New Hampshire.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2007-03-05 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Jim Margolis is a good guy.

It's true -- Jim Margolis is a good guy, and I believe a smart one. But Matt's criticism is of Margolis the old school consultant, not Margolis the nice Democrat.

That said, I don't completely agree with his premise that Margolis being brought on board is proof-positive of Obama's campaign failing to strive for anything new. After all, Margolis was previously with Mark Warner's campaign, which started to run a different style of campaign, especially online.

by Scott Shields 2007-03-05 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

I like personalization in campaigns, which is why I like his approach currently...to move around the country drawing huge crowds and simply talking with them.

When I am asked to donate, I will. I've already recieved a mailing from the Obama campaign.

While I agree that the Obama campaign is a bit disorganized (nationally) currently, that should be expected. This is only the second week!

BTW, I completely agree with everything in your post.

by mattmfm 2007-03-05 04:50PM | 0 recs
Video

I think the video is well made, but I think a speech by George W. Bush is a more appropriate choice to impose in this imagery.  The republicans will demonize HRC enough, I don't think we liberals need to do it for them via video's like this.  

I personaly like HRC and think she is a great candidate for President.  I also like Obama and Edwards.  I could decide for any of the three.  I hope they will discuss healthcare, taxes, immigration, AIDS, Iraq, climate change and their answers to these questions will determine my vote.  

I think she should be challenged on Irag and other issues, but should not be attacked via video's like this merely because she is considered the front runner.  She has done a lot to earn the front runner status and should be treated with a little bit of respect, even if you support someone else.  

by rogpol1 2007-03-05 05:00PM | 0 recs
Clinton Rules hurt all Democrats not just Hillary

Why is Hillary's image and words up there on the screen as the public face of 1984?

I think it is hitting below the belt and hurts not just Hillary Clinton but all the Democratic candidates when such a video is shown approvingly without a word as to its unfair bias..

George Bush or Dick Cheney or Rudy Guiliani are the face of 1984 in this country, not Hillary Clinton.

I think the blogosphere's dislike for Hillary blinds them to the damage they are doing to their own cause when such charges are tossed out. Hillary as the voice and face of the dictators of 1984 is such a canard that I shudder to think that no one on our side realizes the damage that is done. Just think what Drudge or Coulter would do with this video clip not just against her if she's our nominee, but how easily such charges transfer to any Democratic nominee.

This is very shortsighted.  

There are legitimate differnces, policy, personality, politics but not this.  No Democrat should be portrayed as Big Brother. That is not our party; that is their party. You would think even those who hate her would realize that.

by debcoop 2007-03-05 06:55PM | 0 recs
Lighten up , people. This is softball stuff

THe Apple ad was an attack on the old way of doing things. People, just YOuTube Apple and 1984 and watch the original ad. This is the original Apple ad just manipulated to replace the old guy with Hillary. It was about a new way of doing things more than a pure 1984 Orwellian scenario. It was an attack on the stodgy old guard and how people need to think outside the box and get out of the rut.

Hillary represents that old overcautious way of thinking and her Iraq war vote is an example of people afraid to cross the groupthink. It doesn't mean Hillary is coopting everything from the book 1984.

by Pravin 2007-03-06 11:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Video
I think it's partly because an attack on Republicans doesn't mark a candidate out as anything special. It's also partly an attack on the inevitability meme, and I also took 1984 as a reference to Mondale's winning of the nomination. It's clumsy and probably overly aggressive, but it's not the worst thing we'll see in the next two years.
by Englishlefty 2007-03-06 04:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

It seems to me that most are missing one of Matt's key points.  Or maybe I'll just run with it a bit more.

Obama is hiring people whose entire mentality is devoted toward television.  Sure, TV is still vital, but the internet is becoming about as important.

In 2004, the Kerry campaign saw the internet as a fundraising vehicle.  Not much more.  Ask Michael Bassik.  

Spending millions of dollars on 30-second spots won't be the best way to go.  

My take is that Matt is not talking about right now, but the campaign as a whole.

by jptrenn 2007-03-05 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

I'm hearing over at Talking Points Memo that the creators of this ad aren't connected to the Obama campaign.

by KimPossible 2007-03-06 04:12AM | 0 recs
Hey KimPossible!

I'm not sure why anyone would think it was... Doesn't seem like an official ad that I'd imagine anybody running.

by Vermonter 2007-03-06 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Well you dont need an organization to do this ad. This ad is the actual Apple Superbowl ad where they just removed the old guy's image and placed Hillary's. Good job by whoever did it.

by Pravin 2007-03-06 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

Stoller - Are you condoning this kind of crap?

As an Obama supporter I hate this.

Too bad the 'talent' behind this didn't put forth an effort for a positive spot.

by sndeak 2007-03-06 04:15AM | 0 recs
netroots might get another chance...

...but they blew it over Edwards/Marcotte. Check out all the blog posts - at Poor Man, Atrios, LGM, Edroso, this is even before Coulter's faggot comment. I'm talking about the business of who curses more, right or left. This was what was needed to combat Donoho when he was raging.

Edwards sold Amanda down the river when he admitted that he was offended by her old posts. I realize that it looked like a hard slog to admit you used the word "Christofascist" and still live, but that was the time to do it - the year before the actual campaign. This is the time to say that everybody talks dirty sometimes, sometimes in conversation you make your point that way, and whatever anybody says, blogging is not book writing. In formal terms it is a form of chat.

This is the year to say that all such fake scandals and questions are not going to be able to distract us. We don't care who the President screws and we don't care if the President uses bad language sometimes. More than that, pace Adam B, but the ability to talk FREELY is the key to the energy of the netroots. To think that blogginh is some kind of technological whizbang is an error. What it is, is a feeling that goes counter to the way interacting with the government makes you feel (tired). Blogging is the antidote to watching TV, which is why hardly anyone (but me) blogs without watching TV. You see something on TV and then you blog it to purify yourself...

The reason why everybody is landing on Coulter for doing the same thing she's done for years, the reason why everybody is suddenly out there backtracking to prove that the Right is just as foulmouthed as we are, is because we all feel the sudden loss OF OUR BALLS. Edwards said he was offended by Amanda's posts. How could she work for him after that?? I don't care if she comes up saying that's not how it was. What did he mean, he was offended? By her bad language?

We could have struck back at Donoho and we could have won respect and more strength for blogging. Instead we have a situation in which bloggers need to realize that this has happened, and we're close to a situation in which bloggers have to pass a mouthwash test to participate directly in campaigns. Just at the moment when Stoller and Bowers were doing their "Pay Us" campaign, too.

As for Obama - he is still feeling out his stump speech. He is more of an innocent than you think. Watch the entire raw video from Austin if you can get it from that TV station. He almost fell apart in the middle of that speech. I also think that Obama and his wife have retained a lot of personal power in the campaign - they're not like the candidates who crawl around begging the consultants to "do something".

As for that anti-Hillary commercial - I cannot imagine anyone thinking that was a real campaign commercial. Mrs. Clinton is a little stiff but she isn't Big Sister, come on. That was a graduate student project.

by frenchman 2007-03-06 05:27AM | 0 recs
Maybe they heard you Matt!

Got an email from the Obama campaign today. Might answer Matt's concerns:

"In the last few weeks, it's been humbling and inspiring to see the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed on to support our campaign.

Many people like you are already organizing groups and building the campaign in your communities. You've been generous with your time, your energy and your ideas, and I am more convinced than ever that we are in the process of building a movement for change that this country hasn't seen in a generation.

But so far, only a fraction of those who've signed up have taken that next step in owning this campaign by making a donation. You're one of them, and I thank you for it.

Now I need your help to dramatically multiply the number of people who own a financial stake in our effort to change politics and transform our country.

So I'm asking you to promise to match the donation of someone who hasn't taken the leap yet.

Here's how it works:

-You choose the amount you want to match.
-You write a message to a potential donor about why it's important to own a piece of this campaign.
-You'll be matched with a fellow supporter who's making their first donation because of your promise.

My own experience as a community organizer taught me that when a person takes ownership of an organization, even with a small donation, they become far more likely to spread the word, volunteer their time and build the movement. More people have to take that first step of involvement, because the only way we can win is by making this campaign belong to as many people as possible.

Will you make a promise to match someone's first donation now?

http://action.barackobama.com/promise

It's going to take more than just you and the others who have generously donated so far to build this national campaign.

It's going to take a movement. It's going to take millions of people to beat back the millions of dollars from Washington lobbyists and special interests who are planning to spend more money than ever to try to own our political process and dictate our policies in Washington.

But we're not going to play that game.

We're not taking any contributions from Washington lobbyists or political action committees.

We're going to transform the political process by bringing together hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans in a campaign that's owned by no one but the people.

Your promise to match someone's first donation could be what finally makes that person take that important step. If you succeed, you'll even get to read a message from the new donor you recruited.

Please make a promise to match someone's first donation now:

http://action.barackobama.com/promise
It may sound strange for a presidential candidate to launch a fundraising drive that isn't about dollars.

But our democracy shouldn't be about money, and it's time our campaigns weren't either.

It should be about people.

What the American people are asking for is simple: an end to the war in Iraq and the restoration of American leadership in the world; a chance for all Americans to get ahead in a changing economy; and a hope that our voice can matter in a political process that has too often left people out.

Today, you can be the reason that one more person takes ownership of our democracy -- make a promise to match someone's first-time donation now:

http://action.barackobama.com/promise
I'm deeply honored that so many people have put their hope and faith in our campaign.

And if we succeed, it will because you made history and took control of our campaign's destiny.

I know we can do this.

Thank you,

Barack Obama"

by dpg220 2007-03-06 05:48AM | 0 recs
You're missing what's happening

The Barack Obama campaign, like the Dean campaign, isn't primarily about what the candidate's staff is doing.
Instead, it's a tremendous yearning on behalf of millions of Americans for a candidate who reflects what they are looking for in a President.

Looking at my family, my son in China sees Obama as a transformational candidate who will be the first candidate who doesn't reflect the culture wars of the 60's.

My sister in Boston is ready to take a leave of absence to work for the Obama Presidential campaign.

I was interested enough to put up $2300.00 for breakfast, and I diaried about it in Daily Kos

My parents in Ohio find Senator Obama to be the first candidate since the Kennedys who inspires them.

My wife, for the first time in a long time, is reconsidering her support for Emily's list because of their early support of Senator Clinton.

My brother who has never voted for a Republican, finds Senator Obama interesting because of his visit to Rick Warren's church and his moral compass.

All of us are reading Obama's books.

These are all decisions being arrived at semi-independently, and this is certainly the earliest that any of us have been interested in any Presidential campaign.

The stakes for our country have never been higher. The country is at a crossroads. Of all the candidates, Senator Obama is the candidate we all see as an agent for change, and someone who can transform the vicious snakepit of American politics into something that reflects our better natures and answers our real needs.

by Aeolus 2007-03-06 06:05AM | 0 recs
Here's the ask, OK?

In the last few weeks, it's been humbling and inspiring to see the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed on to support our campaign.

Many people like you are already organizing groups and building the campaign in your communities. You've been generous with your time, your energy and your ideas, and I am more convinced than ever that we are in the process of building a movement for change that this country hasn't seen in a generation.

But so far, only a fraction of those who've signed up have taken that next step in owning this campaign by making a donation. You're one of them, and I thank you for it.

Now I need your help to dramatically multiply the number of people who own a financial stake in our effort to change politics and transform our country.

So I'm asking you to promise to match the donation of someone who hasn't taken the leap yet.

Here's how it works:

   -You choose the amount you want to match.
    -You write a message to a potential donor about why it's important to own a piece of this campaign.
    -You'll be matched with a fellow supporter who's making their first donation because of your promise.

My own experience as a community organizer taught me that when a person takes ownership of an organization, even with a small donation, they become far more likely to spread the word, volunteer their time and build the movement. More people have to take that first step of involvement, because the only way we can win is by making this campaign belong to as many people as possible.

Will you make a promise to match someone's first donation now?

Link going to take more than just you and the others who have generously donated so far to build this national campaign.

It's going to take a movement. It's going to take millions of people to beat back the millions of dollars from Washington lobbyists and special interests who are planning to spend more money than ever to try to own our political process and dictate our policies in Washington.

But we're not going to play that game.

We're not taking any contributions from Washington lobbyists or political action committees.

We're going to transform the political process by bringing together hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans in a campaign that's owned by no one but the people.

Your promise to match someone's first donation could be what finally makes that person take that important step. If you succeed, you'll even get to read a message from the new donor you recruited.

Please make a promise to match someone's first donation now:

http://action.barackobama.com/promise

It may sound strange for a presidential candidate to launch a fundraising drive that isn't about dollars.

But our democracy shouldn't be about money, and it's time our campaigns weren't either.

It should be about people.

What the American people are asking for is simple: an end to the war in Iraq and the restoration of American leadership in the world; a chance for all Americans to get ahead in a changing economy; and a hope that our voice can matter in a political process that has too often left people out.

Today, you can be the reason that one more person takes ownership of our democracy -- make a promise to match someone's first-time donation now:

http://action.barackobama.com/promise

I'm deeply honored that so many people have put their hope and faith in our campaign.

And if we succeed, it will because you made history and took control of our campaign's destiny.

I know we can do this.

Thank you,

Barack Obama
P.S. -- If you'd like to make a donation without being part of the new donor drive, you can do so here:
http://action.barackobama.com/promise

by Vermonter 2007-03-06 07:38AM | 0 recs
Oops, sorry...

I didn't see that this was already posted... Sorry about that...

by Vermonter 2007-03-06 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

I like Obama but he is not going to beat Hillary Clinton! All of the hatred Hillary gets from the left wing bloggers are only going to fuel her supporters energy.

by ND1979 2007-03-06 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

That's it! don't look at the reasoned criticism why she's not qualified in judgment or character to be President of the US of A... just call it hatred... way to go!

Team Hillary... brand it, package it and swallow it.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-06 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Opportunity versus the Good Ole Boys

The Clintons have gotten praise from left wing bloggers whenever they did a good job. I am one of the biggest Hillary bashers and I probably have put out at least 20 comments praising some aspect of the Clintons past.

by Pravin 2007-03-06 09:10AM | 0 recs
Somone ask Apple for the rights

I wonder if Steve Jobs would allow Obama campaign to use this ad. This ad has the potential to create a lot of buzz because we know the Hillary cmap will explode in anger fueling free publicity for this ad.

by Pravin 2007-03-06 09:08AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads