He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama, Joe Anthony and MySpace

Micah Sifry has two important pieces up today on the Joe Anthony / MySpace / Barack Obama incident. First, the claims and counter claims over who asked who for money and when seem to be turning into a case of he said / she said:
But what strikes me as odd about it is Rospars' claim that Anthony's "list of itemized financial requests" came unbidden, after the workload on the page exploded and Anthony cut off the campaign's password access to the site. Rospars would have you believe that Anthony was in effect extorting the campaign by witholding access, but my notes of my conversations with Obama staff, which were "on background" make clear that Anthony only produced that proposal (the $39,000 plus the $10,000 for possible advertising spending by the campaign on MySpace) at the request of Chris Hughes.

I should add here that I know Rospars a little and based on our past conversations and his general reputation among politech folks, he's a straight shooter. I don't think he's saying anything other than what he believes were the actual version of events. But what I don't know is whether Rospars was personally involved in all the details of the relationship with Anthony, or what he's written here reflects what others who were more directly involved are feeding him.

It's possible that we will soon see a clarification of this issue, since Anthony tells me that Rospars offered to let him post
The details of this part of the story, which for many people is the crux of the issue (did Anthony try to extort the campaign or did the campaign negotiate in bad faith?) now seem rather murky. There is a lot of he said / she said that might not ever be entirely sorted out. The second key aspect of the story, the issue of fair compensation for the work Anthony did, is addressed by Micah Sifry in another post today:
I've seen comments about this controversy suggesting that Joe Anthony's work in creating his myspace.com/barackobama profile page two-and-a-half years ago and building it to the point that he had more than 30,000 friends by the time Obama formally launched his campaign in late January was negligible, little more than stitching together some images and biographical content and then clicking "add" for all the friend requests that flowed in.

But from talking with Joe, and even from Joe Rospars defensive post on the Obama site, it's clear he did a lot more than that and spent a great deal of time--at least five hours a day starting this January, he says--responding to individual emails, pointing people to information on how to register to vote (something he is rightfully intensely proud of), answering their questions about Obama, and so on. If you hired someone to do this for you to promote a movie or a product or a candidate on MySpace, surely you'd have to pay them something. Top internet consulting firms charge anywhere from $50-$150 an hour for staff time. If Anthony put in just 5 hours a day over the last 18 weeks, that could be anywhere from $30,000 to $90,000 in value.

I'm not even factoring in the intangible value of all the good press Anthony's site generated for the Obama campaign as soon as the media started reporting how well the Senator was doing in the "MySpace primary." You can say that if it wasn't Joe Anthony who made Barack Obama so popular on MySpace, and you'd be right, but still, Anthony was still doing the back-end work of building and maintaining a rapidly growing group, and by all accounts did so pretty well. Not perfectly, but when I asked the Obama campaign folks if Anthony's management of the site ever harmed them, they unanimously said no.

And then there's the future value of a vibrant group of 160,000 "friends" on MySpace. Lots of people have expressed skepticism about this (including a truly condescending post on a blog connected to the D Conference about Obama losing the support of that "all-important 13- to 17-year-old demographic at the polls"). If you think the group has no daily life, that once people friended Anthony's Obama profile, consider this: as of this morning, there are at least 18,000 comments from members of that group responding to a bulletin Anthony sent them about the situation and asking for their advice.
Nothing bothered me more in the discussion yesterday than the argument that Anthony's work wasn't valuable. That line of argumentation had strong overtones of implying that all internet and netroots work conducted on behalf of a campaign was not valuable, a emem meme which we in the netroots have struggled against for years. What made it worse were the many Obama supporters in the netroots who were echoing that view simply in order to defend their candidate. Some of you may not consider that a fair characterization, but the degree to which it echoed many establishment arguments about the lack of importance and general irrelvancy of the netroots disturbed me greatly, and seemed to hold the seeds of our own destruction (or at least self-marginalization).

Sifry has quite a bit more to say in both posts, here and here, including comments from a variety of internet consultants on the value of Anthony's work. If you think this isn't a big issue, I think you are wrong. This incident cuts right at the right of funding issues surrounding the netroots and blogosphere, and the value of our new medium in general. As opposed to the conversations yesterday, I also think that now it is clear that there are no clear answers or "sides" to take on what happened. This isn't a black and white issue, but it is very important, and it needs further discussion.

Tags: Barack Obama, netroots (all tags)

Comments

97 Comments

Agreed

Agreed all around - MySpace gave Obama the credibility of being a "candidate of the people."  This guy organized that site and ran it for 2.5 years.  To say that he did no work and it wasn't worth compensating by the campaign is disgusting.

If MySpace didn't happen for Obama, could he really have sold his donor numbers during the 1Q reporting?  I doubt it.  More people are driven to MySpace than Barack's own site, and I'd trust the numbers on the semi-independent MySpace more than I'd trust any of the posts on Barack's blogs, which the campaign ultimately controls.

by Conquest 2007-05-03 07:55AM | 0 recs
this should not impact

anyone's support of Obama but two things are clear.

1.. Obama's campaign asked Joe to come up with a number in bad faith.. they had not intention of paying him anything.  Even on dKos Joe Respars did not answer repeated questioning of why they asked him to come up with a number.

2.  regardless of the value of the bad press - it's still worth 39K to a campaign with 25 million in the bank to have 160,000 email adresses of likely supporters..

by TarHeel 2007-05-03 07:56AM | 0 recs
Stop making stuff up

This is not fact:

"they had not intention of paying him anything"

This is your opinion.

You do not know what exactly happened.  That is what Chris means by he said/he said.

by aiko 2007-05-03 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop making stuff up

if you read his post on dKos yesterday, several people asked why they didn't counter offer...

while he responded to other questions he did not on that.

so far the Obama campaign has not disputed the fact that 1.  they asked him to name a number and 2. there was no counteroffer

by TarHeel 2007-05-03 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop making stuff up

It is a guess.  You are guessing.  People have been throwing around accusations, guesswork and implications as FACT for the last two days.

Just because I think something happened, does not make it true.

by aiko 2007-05-03 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop making stuff up

Why don't you stop making stuff up .. if the guy won't answer the question .. it's obvious he is hiding something

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-05-03 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said

Nothing bothered me more in the discussion yesterday than the argument that Anthony's work wasn't valuable. That line of argumentation had strong overtones of implying that all internet and netroots work conducted on behalf of a campaign was not valuable.

Indeed. There was even a diary to this effect yesterday. What bothers me is that they implied that they would pay him something, and then locked him out. If someone's a volunteer, make that clear - don't ask them to name a price.

by clarkent 2007-05-03 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said

For what it's worth, it seems clear to me under the law that if Obama wants the friends list, they've got to figure out a fair valuation and pay for it.  It's a thing of value that's clearly worth more than the $2300 that Joe Anthony can deliver as an "in-kind contribution" to the campaign, so the campaign can't take it for free.  John Ashcroft once got dinged by the FEC for a similar offense -- taking a mailing list from his leadership PAC w/o paying for it.

by Adam B 2007-05-03 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said

From what I understand, the new Obama site does not have all of those friends.  Indeed, I just checked and unless I have misspelled the link, he only has 290 friends at the moment.

If all the campaign did was claim the url, then that is fairly reasonable if a bit abrupt.  If I was part of the campaign's on-line outreach team, then I would want to get access to the friend list unless I honestly thought I could recreate it very quickly.

There also seems to be some confusion over how much work Obama's staffers have put into the website since the camping launched.

by Luam 2007-05-03 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said

You misspelled the name; Barack has 21613 friends, all new since the URL swap.

by Adam B 2007-05-03 11:21AM | 0 recs
Ooops

I did misspell his name, his actual site has 21,613 friends at this moment and appears to have grown since my last reload of the page.

Still a lot less than the 160,000 number we have been talking about.  There are a lot of pages with minor misspellings of his name.

by Luam 2007-05-03 11:24AM | 0 recs
Thanks for a well reasoned

post.

I think the issues you discuss -- the role of ordinary people in the netroots, i.e., democracy -- are more important than defending or attacking Obama, depending on one's candidate of choice.

The progressive movement is more important than any one candidate.  

The real issue here is how should campaigns interact with netroots supporters and volunteers.  Do they work with or do they exploit?  There are two basic models, one egalitarian, the other hierarchical.  Of course, there is a range between extreme versions of either model.  

In this particular situation, and it might have been any candidate's campaign staff, it looks like they chose exploit and hierarchy. I believe that a top/down model does not fit the possibilities created by the internet and "direct democracy."  Thus, the methods they choose are self-defeating.

Time will tell.  

by littafi 2007-05-03 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama, Joe Anth

I guess it is precisely because Obama is so popular that these issues are even issues.  And I guess that Obama has to be tested on every front in order to make to the finals. My only hope is that we don't beat up on him so much that we get Clinton by default.  That would be a shame.

by aiko 2007-05-03 08:03AM | 0 recs
Not about Obama

No.  This is an issue because a campaign intentionally screwed over a grassroots supporter.  If Edwards or Clinton had done this, we'd be having the same conversation.  The fact that it's Obama doesn't make a difference.

You can't claim to be the candidate of the people and then bite the hand that feeds you.

by Conquest 2007-05-03 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Not about Obama

If you believe it's not about Obama you haven't been paying attention.

by aiko 2007-05-03 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Not about Obama

It's not about Obama ... who do you think people around here want more ... Obama  or HRC? .. so stop your nonsense

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-05-03 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama, Joe Anth

If this happened with Edwards or any other candidate, the netroots would be all over it. But there is a lot more controversy over this situation precisely because Obama is supposed to be the savvy "Internet organizer" candidate. He had huge MySpace numbers that were being touted in glowing press reports.

by clarkent 2007-05-03 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama, Joe Anth

I'm concerned about the lack of ethics shown by the Obama campaign here.  It's not ok to step on a little guy, and to smear his reputation out of an institutional defensiveness.  And the reason is quite practical - if this isn't stopped, it's going to happen again at a less opportune moment and severely damage Obama's campaign.  Imagine this happening during the DNC Convention in 2008.  What a nightmare.

If Obama's people were smart, they would take this seriously and fix the campaign.  Obama supporters should push for this to be fixed.

by Matt Stoller 2007-05-03 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said:

I really don't like that the Obama campaign has chosen to go on the offensive against a volunteer in the blogosphere.

This should be a warning for anyone thinking about volunteering for the Obama campaign.

That some many of the Obama supporters here are willing to pile on to this guy who built up there movement speaks to me of a lack of loyalty, and a dangerous cult of personality that excuses unbecoming behavior.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-05-03 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said:

Thanks for the "1" rating.

Summarily downrating people who disagree with you really shows that there's not an authoritarian mindset among Obama supporters.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-05-03 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama, Joe Anth

i'm not an obaman--and they definitely need to fix this, including compensation--but i didn't see any smearing of his reputation. what are you referring to, specifically?

by colorless green ideas 2007-05-03 10:52AM | 0 recs
People are missing the forest for the trees

Where in FEC law, is any campaign allowed to receive a list of 160K potential or actual supporters for free?  For anything other than "fair market value"?

Even if they hired Anthony they would have had to have compensated him for the list.  

Is 0.25 a name, fair market value?  I don't know.  My guess is, its a lot more than that.

by DWCG 2007-05-03 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: People are missing the forest for the trees

I thought I heard .16$ per name recently.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-03 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: People are missing the forest for the trees

I don't know.  I do know that if I were to buy a regular list of voters, to contact them would require phone lines/call center and/or direct mail.  A list on a social networking site, where I can contact individuals FOR FREE has to have the same or more value, ironic as it seems.

by DWCG 2007-05-03 08:18AM | 0 recs
By the way

This is the reason Anthony still has control of his MySpace friends, if not the domain.  

No one is being "nice to Anthony" by letting him keep access to the list.  Obama would be breaking the law by earning access to the list without paying for it.

by DWCG 2007-05-03 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: By the way

If you know the FEC code, and can link to it, this would make a really good diary.  I'm inclined to agree with you that when the campaign receives something of value they have to report it.  This is a discussion that need to be had, because I think that you've hit the nail on the head.  

And in fact if the list has value, Obama's actions become all the more dubious, and potentially violate campaign finance law because he's not paying the fair market value.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-05-03 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: By the way

I'm inclined to agree with you that when the campaign receives something of value they have to report it. This is a discussion that need to be had


The thing about that list of names is that the people on it signed up based upon support for Obama.  His name was used to generate the interest and so it seems to me that he has some sort of interest in it.  If it was turned over to him for free by the person who controlled the account I think you could make a good case the list was just going where the people who signed up intended and that it was not some sort of a gift in kind.

That said, and in view of all the good work this guy did, I think that it made sense for Obama to offer some sort of a deal to him.  The most reasonable deal would have been to have offered him a consulting contract or staff position and to have perhaps sweetened the deal on account of what he had already done with the understanding that the list would in the future be under the control of the campaign and he would aid in its future use.

That would have been a reasonable offer to make and perhaps that was what the Obama campaign was expecting him to suggest.  It looks to me like somehow the deal got queered when it looked there was a simple request for a cash payment for the list. 

I am not quite sure why the campaign would not accept that or at least make a counter offer,  but the problem may have been that legal counsel advised that if they were to negotiate for a purchase price of the list, rather on the terms upon which the creator would join the campaign, they might be seen to be giving  up any claims to the list based upon the fact that Obama's name was used to generate it in the first place.

The basic mistake may have been that Obama delegated this negotiation to the head of his online campaign without realizing that that person had a conflict of interest when it came offering the most obvious deal: that this guy become a senior part of the online Obama team. That it got this far is a total disaster that should have been foreseen and I hope that if Obama gives it his own attention he can heal this rift.

It reminds me a bit of when the online staff of the Kerry campaign decided that the DailyKos was persona non grata because of something impolitic that Markos said and removed the link to it from Kerry's web page.  This was a big mistake that I argued about online there for a long time, but in the end it came to look to me like this decision had been placed in the hands of people who felt that their key position in the Kerry online world was threatened by a site as successful as the DailyKos and they would not budge.

These sorts of intramural blogosphere fights needed to be settled at a higher level or they can escalate and damage a campaign.

by Fred in Vermont 2007-05-03 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: By the way

The thing about that list of names is that the people on it signed up based upon support for Obama.  His name was used to generate the interest and so it seems to me that he has some sort of interest in it.  If it was turned over to him for free by the person who controlled the account I think you could make a good case the list was just going where the people who signed up intended and that it was not some sort of a gift in kind.

However it turns out, this is going to produce interesting precedent.

The problem here is that the Obama campaign wants to  take something of value, and they don't want to pay the price the seller asks for.  Even if Anthony wanted to give it up at no charge, because it has value (presumably over $2300) this is not a legal option. This is the issue.  No amount of saying that Obama has a right to it it going to make it so.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-05-03 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: By the way

the Obama campaign wants to take something of value, and they don't want to pay the price the seller asks for.


That begs the question of whether he has an interest in it by virtue of the fact that it is a list of people who signed up to support him.


No amount of saying that Obama has a right to it it going to make it so.


On the other hand if he does have an interest in the list the fact that someone is demanding he pay a high price for it does not make it true that it is something he must pay such a price for.

If you had a willing buyer and a willing seller that would be a good proof the agreed price was the value, but where just one person demands a price that does not prove that is the value of something to someone who claims they have an interest in it.  There has been no bargain struck.

And what about the interest of those people who are on the list?  They have indicated some intent to support, or at least consider supporting, Obama.  Some may be ready to make contributions.  But how many signed up with the intent of giving their contact information to someone they had never heard so that person could then get money by selling their names to Obama?  None at all I suspect. 

So this is a real problem here for the would-be seller.  In demanding payment from Obama he comes to the table with something close to dirty hands with his demand Obama to pay to find out who the people were who indicated they wanted to support Obama.

by Fred in Vermont 2007-05-03 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: People are missing the forest for the trees

I don't believe this is right.  A list of names has value, and the campaign might be required to report it as an in-kind contribution, but the FEC doesn't actually dictate the terms of private negotiations.

by Steve M 2007-05-03 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: People are missing the forest for the trees

It does, kinda.  Because any value greater than $2300 goes beyond what Anthony could transfer to the campaign as an in-kind contribution.  [Imagine that instead of a mailing list, Anthony had wanted to give the Obama campaign a brand-new, fully-geared campaign bus, which he claimed was "only" worth $2300.]

John Ashcroft was fined by the FEC in 2003 for having tried to smuggle a valuable mailing list from his PAC to his Senate campaign without paying for it.  Settlement agreement here.

by Adam B 2007-05-03 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: People are missing the forest for the trees

This is an important point.

If nothing else, this is going to produce some very interesting case law, that's going to be very important as 2008 rolls arund.  This matter to all campaigns, becuase as things like MySpace, Facebook, and Second Life virtual assets are seen to have real value, that's going to influence the nature of online outeach efforts.  

Campaigns are going to have to control these things from the get go, because if they let a volunteer keep ownership of an asset, and it grows in value, they will end up paying far more for it.  And that's going to be their only option, because they have to pay fair market value.  

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-05-03 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: People are missing the forest for the trees

But in turn, that makes me view the payment thing another way.  Anthony said $39,000 adequately reflected the value of his time from Jan 1 to (when they asked).  If the Obama campaign wanted to bring the list in-house, that would require another, much larger payment.

by Adam B 2007-05-03 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: People are missing the forest for the trees

Is there any precedent on what the fair market value of a myspace list?  Is there even a procedure to determine value?

This is interesting from a precedent point of view.

What I get from what you've said, is that it would make more sense for the Obama campaign to allow Anthony to keep control of the list, and ether bring him on as a contractor or "lease" the list.

It seems that it's the bringing the list under direct campaign control that creates the legal problem.

Undoubtedl this issue will arise for other campaigns.  It seems that the lesson here is don't try to go for full ownership unless you're willing to pay whatever price the seller asks.  Much better to employ them as a contractor, or "lease" the asset.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-05-03 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: People are missing the forest for the trees

It only creates a legal problem, whether rented or leased, if you're not paying fair market value for it.  But it's complicated.

by Adam B 2007-05-03 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: People are missing the forest for the trees

Moving this discussion away from the Obama campaign and onto the wider issue would be useful.

Obviously, this is going to be an issue in 2008.

More on this issue would make a good diary.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-05-03 12:06PM | 0 recs
I respect

what you are saying about value of work and the gray area nature of Anthony's work/volunteering for the campaign.

ie. Your argument is that Anthony had moved beyond being a volunteer, both campaign and Anthony knew it, and whatever the "he said/she said" of the negotiations, the Obama campaign should send a message that the kind of "work/vountering" Anthony was doing should be properly valued.

I hear that point of view, even if I have real, pragmatic reservations about retroactive pay for volunteering by campaigns.

That being said, I've volunteered, over the years, enormous amounts of skilled, semi-skilled and "not-so-skilled-at-all" time to campaigns and non-profits.

What I recognized in that story, and I think MyDD, Dkos and Atrios should have recognized, was a VERY common scenario.  What happens when unpaid work for a campaign or a cause goes beyond volunteering? What happens when a campaign and a beloved vounteer have a disagreement?

There are almost always bad feelings and misunderstandings like this in every campaign and organization. Hell, even among folks who are highly paid from the get go there can be bad feelings.

This was NOT the clear cut case that MyDD, dailykos and Atrios made it out to be.

This story was fundamentally misreported and it was, essentially, overhyped.

I hear your point about the nature of the work Joe Anthony was doing.

I also think that the coverage of this story and the invective against the Obama campaign hurled around the blogs showed a real weakness of our medium and some very real failure to achieve even a semblance of balance on a topic that, aside from  the novelty of the MySpace factor, represents a very common situation.

by kid oakland 2007-05-03 08:12AM | 0 recs
A plea for civility

Well, the question in my mind is this: did Anthony move his work beyond 'volunteering', or did the campaign?

In some ways, that seems the bottom-line discrepancy. Everyone reasonable agrees Anthony did a tremendous amount of successful work. Everyone reasonable agrees that hundreds of volunteers do a tremendous amount of successful work--even if it's not as visible as Anthony's.

But if the campaign said, "Hey, we wanna pay you for this. How much would you like?" and then negotiated in bad faith, they deserve every ounce of (civil) invective.

If Anthony said, "I'm unilaterally declaring myself no longer a volunteer, and I want retroactive pay," that's a very different question. (And an interesting one, that we should discuss outside the particulars of this case.)

I also think that Matt's point (and, yeah, I'm pretty sure he can speak for himself) was precisely about how common this is. What was the title? 'Welcome to the Club, Millennials?' There's a already a friggin' club!

So his point, I think, largely agree with yours: that, at bottom, this is a VERY COMMON SCENARIO. I don't think he failed to recognize that at all. It's just that, with the net and the new media, the fallout from this very-common dynamic has been radically changed. Which is--to me at least--the fascinating part.

Well, that and how easily almost all of us find our personal egos engaged in team sports such as campaigns, wherein any criticism of our team feels like a personal injury. (And I'm certainly not pointing any fingers, being keenly aware of this pheonemon in myself.)

by BingoL 2007-05-03 08:36AM | 0 recs
Guys its really simple

This isn't retroactive pay.  This is compensation for the purchase and access to a list.  As much as we'd like to make the situation seem unique because it involves the net, Myspace and all, it's not.

Access to the domain can be debated.  But access to the list can't.  Federal campaigns have to pay fair market value for a list of supporters/potential supporters, unless (I think) it comes from the party.

This is why Anthony still has access to the 160K supporters and not the Obama campaign.

by DWCG 2007-05-03 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Guys its really simple

But from the campaign's perspective --they wanted control and they were willing to sacrifice the huge list in order to gain control.  

by aiko 2007-05-03 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Guys its really simple

I think they jumped the gun and discovered they had no right to the list.  Having the address really isn't that big a deal.  They could started an official site with other name.  

I wonder what the cost will be to build 160,000 names on their site now.

by pioneer111 2007-05-03 10:42AM | 0 recs
this has happened to me

started out volunteering on a campaign doing tech work, when the paid staffer had to leave, all of a sudden, i was the only person who knew how to do it.  it was expected that i would do it, and i did it without compensation, but stopped when it became possible because i felt unappreciated. i had made the commitment to the campaign, and put myself in that position, so that's why i did it. it happened before that, and it will happen again. you don't volunteer because you're looking for strokes, you do it because you believe in a cause.

fwiw, i still think obama should make a good faith gesture, and pay anthony a more than fair amount for the names.

by colorless green ideas 2007-05-03 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: this has happened to me

and I would agree that the campaign you worked on also made a big mistake.  Why let talent walk out the door?  Why take advantage of people like this?   its bad business.   I understand it when we are talking small campaigns with no budgets.  that is not the case here.

is it that easy to find well qualified dedicated people?  Certainly hasn't been in my experience.

by onemadson 2007-05-03 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: I respect

The blogs reporting on this story was really bad.You had all the famous blog-heads pilling up Obama without even hearing their side of the story.

Joe Anthony kept the friend-list and Obama has his URL just like everyone else is entitled to.

I've donated to Obama and i dont think that my money should go on buying some myspace friend-list from a guy for $50k while noone that works for Obama is getting paid above $25k.Obama's name was the major reason those people signed up to be friend, not Joe Anthony.

Let's see how Obama new page does.If About is about to get at least 50-100k by the end of this month,then paying this guy $50k would've been a very high price.

I personaly  felt they should have paid him no more then 10k but not because he was the reason those 160k friends signed up.I'd pay him just to put this stuff behind the campaign and go on their business.The bad press wasnt needed.

by JaeHood 2007-05-03 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I respect

can you get a link to back up that no one on the obama campaign makes more than $25K a year?  

by onemadson 2007-05-03 04:03PM | 0 recs
Yet More On Obama, Joe Anthony and MySpace

1. Locked out Obama's campaign.
2. Tries to alienate the 160,000 people on myspace.  

Whether he did or didn't deserve money, he surely doesn't now IMO.  

(Personally, if Joe A. wanted a financial deal he should have set one up from the start.  You don't hold the door open, play guitar, etc. and then ask for money after the fact.)

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-03 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Yet More On Obama, Joe Anthony and MySpace

Way to miss the point!

by clarkent 2007-05-03 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Yet More On Obama, Joe Anthony and MySpace

1.  He founded the page in 2004

2.  As he developed the page it became more than a hobby and demanded vast amounts of his time.

3.  The amount of friends he attracted to that page geave BO unprecedented publicity about how well he was doing in the online community, and that brought BO MILLIONS of dollars in contributions.

4.  He allowed BO campaign people unfettered access.  

5.  As he realized that what he was doing was consuming more time than a volunteer typically does, he asked if he could be compensated.

6.  The BO campaign said "give us a number"

7.  He did, they didn't counter, implied he was greedy, and did and end run around him to get control of the page.  He didn't ask for money at the outset because he didn't anticipate the demands on his time.  

Basically because this was a "little guy" and not a professional consultant, the BO campaign felt they could  treat Anthony shabbily.  I.e. to offer negotiations in bad faith.

by Rooktoven 2007-05-03 08:31AM | 0 recs
interestng

I wonder under these theories of all the value Anthony contrbuted, what he value of Obama's front-page link to Anthony's myspace page was.  Would it be $40,000?  Probably.

by John DE 2007-05-03 09:37AM | 0 recs
I've been doorknocking for several candidates...

... yet, after coming back from canvassing, I don't demand money from the campaign. I'm sorry, but I can't feel bad for a volunteer who suddenly feels he is worth more money than many congressional race campaign managers get paid.

Secondly, read PsiFighter's diary on MySpace/Facebook... I think you guys are terribly mistaken about just what these sites are. They are very different that MyDD/DKos/etc.

Thirdly, please remember that 30,000 or even 160,000 is actually NOT very many MySpace friends.

If I were a donor, I would be terribly upset if the Obama campaign was spending that much money on this.

Lastly, Chris, you lose credibility by targeting your outrage at this.

by nate1701e 2007-05-03 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: I've been doorknocking for several candidates.

Well it's true that MySpace is a glorified high school yearbook with mp3 and video added, but that 160,000 got BO a lot of free publicity and credibility that translated into millions of dollars.

by Rooktoven 2007-05-03 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I've been doorknocking for several candidates.

How many were Obama fans pre-myspace, and added to show support?  I know I did.  That myspace page didn't push me to donate, I donated on my own.  The numbers will fluctuate up and down if you add key factors to this analysis of the worth of the myspace page.  Then there's the fact that they are majorly high school students and/or college students.  How many of them REALLY donated?  We don't know that.  So how much it actually helped is being based on posibility and very little on actuality.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-05-03 08:55AM | 0 recs
Did you miss this blockquote??

I'm just going to repost what Chris blockquoted above, because apparently you missed it.

I've seen comments about this controversy suggesting that Joe Anthony's work in creating his myspace.com/barackobama profile page two-and-a-half years ago and building it to the point that he had more than 30,000 friends by the time Obama formally launched his campaign in late January was negligible, little more than stitching together some images and biographical content and then clicking "add" for all the friend requests that flowed in.

But from talking with Joe, and even from Joe Rospars defensive post on the Obama site, it's clear he did a lot more than that and spent a great deal of time--at least five hours a day starting this January, he says--responding to individual emails, pointing people to information on how to register to vote (something he is rightfully intensely proud of), answering their questions about Obama, and so on. If you hired someone to do this for you to promote a movie or a product or a candidate on MySpace, surely you'd have to pay them something. Top internet consulting firms charge anywhere from $50-$150 an hour for staff time. If Anthony put in just 5 hours a day over the last 18 weeks, that could be anywhere from $30,000 to $90,000 in value.

I'm not even factoring in the intangible value of all the good press Anthony's site generated for the Obama campaign as soon as the media started reporting how well the Senator was doing in the "MySpace primary." You can say that if it wasn't Joe Anthony who made Barack Obama so popular on MySpace, and you'd be right, but still, Anthony was still doing the back-end work of building and maintaining a rapidly growing group, and by all accounts did so pretty well. Not perfectly, but when I asked the Obama campaign folks if Anthony's management of the site ever harmed them, they unanimously said no.

And then there's the future value of a vibrant group of 160,000 "friends" on MySpace. Lots of people have expressed skepticism about this (including a truly condescending post on a blog connected to the D Conference about Obama losing the support of that "all-important 13- to 17-year-old demographic at the polls"). If you think the group has no daily life, that once people friended Anthony's Obama profile, consider this: as of this morning, there are at least 18,000 comments from members of that group responding to a bulletin Anthony sent them about the situation and asking for their advice.

by clarkent 2007-05-03 08:33AM | 0 recs
very few

internet consulting firms agree to a price of $0 and then afterwards bill $50-100/hour.  I don't see any comparison.

by John DE 2007-05-03 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: very few

You ever heard of "scope creep"?   I'm currently going to probably double the initial fee on a project.  My client doesn't have a problem with that as they see the value of the work and see that the project has doubled.   Of course i didn't start at zero dollars but at one point they offered to bring him on as a full time employee according to the campaign.  Seems like they were saying he was worth money to them at one point.

If you are planning to build a campaign asking people to volunteer as much time as this guy did for free you have a very fatal flaw for any sort of sustained campaign.  

by onemadson 2007-05-03 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: I've been doorknocking for several candidates.

Donors ought to be upset when a candidate spends all the money he does on consultants .. like Kerry and Edwards did on guys like Shrum ..  that's where the real outrage should be

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-05-03 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I've been doorknocking for several candidates.

amen!

by onemadson 2007-05-03 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: I've been doorknocking for several candidates.
"Lastly, Chris, you lose credibility by targeting your outrage at this."

Thank you concern troll.
by Chris Bowers 2007-05-03 10:44AM | 0 recs
Obama supporters will defend no matter what

Chris wrote "Obama supporters in the netroots who echoing that view simply in order to defend their candidate..." Obama supporters will say ANYTHING at this point. They will argue that he is the greatest friend of the grassroots in one sentence and in the next explain away his campaign's latest screwing of the grassroots as "necessary for him to get elected."

Seriously, could you imagine the 2003/2004 Dean campaign ending up at loggerheads with an ardent netroots supporter like this? Me neither. If this were the Dean campaign, Joe would have moved to Burlington by now.

I'm still waiting for an Obama supporter to explain the hiring of Robert Gibbs as campaign spokesman (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2 /22/134458/142) as anything other than a big F.U. to Dean supporters and wink, wink signal to big $ donors who are frightened by Dean's empowerment of the grassroots that Obama sides with them (the big donors). (I wonder how long it takes Gibbs and other Obama campaign officials and consultants to earn $39,000 from the campaign.)

I write all this, btw, as someone who may well end up voting for Obama in the primary (if it looks like he's the only one who can stop Hillary). I'm just not under any illusions about the true insider nature of his campaign. (I admit to being under some illusions about him when I donated to and did other work for his 2004 primary campaign for Senate. I learned....)

by Jim in Chicago 2007-05-03 08:47AM | 0 recs
Obama supporters are defensive

because their candidate gets attacked on a regular basis for not being progessive enough.  You are right we tend to be defensive over the tone and tack of many front page posts and diaries.

I support Obama because I believe that he will be the most progressive president in my  lifetime.  Is he perfect? NO.  Does he make mistakes? YEA.  Does this website spend an inordinate amount of time tearing him down? I think so.

by aiko 2007-05-03 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are defensive

Look at it this way ..  it's like preparation for next year .. if he wins the primary ... after all .. the Reich-wing noise machine is gonna go full out against who ever the Dem nominee is .. and they better be up for fighting back .. whether is it Edwards or Obama

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-05-03 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are defensive

This reminds of a quote attrbuted to LBJ:

"My enemies I can handle, it's my friends that keep me walking floors at night"

by Sam I Am 2007-05-03 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama, Joe Anth

somewhat tangential, but I noted this from the reposting of Sifry:

"but my notes of my conversations with Obama staff, which were 'on background'"

What's wrong with this picture? When you speak "on background," that generally means not only not for specific attribution (ie, Joe Jones said this), but not for identification either (ie, Obama staffers). Remember Deep Throat was so named because he was speaking on "deep background"--meaning, don't even THINK of referring to me in any way!

My guess is that the things Obama's staff told Sifry on background, were things that Obama's staff did not want published as coming from Obama's staff, even unnamed as individuals. I'm still learning and make my own mistakes, but if you're going to play journalist as a blogger, you've got to play by the rules.

by torridjoe 2007-05-03 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama, Joe Anth

We were treated to mush testimony on this during the Libby Trial:

Off the record = I can tell you but you can't use it, and you can't use it to go looking for other stuff on this subject.  This is just for you to know.

Background 1 = I'm telling you so you know and you can use it for helping you guide questions of others or do some more digging (sometimes called "deep background").

Background 2 = I'm telling you but you may not identify me (sometimes also referred to as "not for attribution").  This sometimes involves negotiation over generic appellations (Judy Miller let Scooter be quoted as a "former congressional staffer" for one part of her notes about Valerie and in other parts as a "senior white house official").

On the record = Here I am, this is my name and this is what I'm saying.  Print away.

In this context, by characterizing general conversations on background, attributed to some nebulous sample of Obama staffers, the quote seems to be on reasonable ground, though the ground is firmer if the use of such a definition of "background" was discussed with sources in advance.

by Pachacutec 2007-05-03 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama, Joe Anth

It seems to me that we're wasting a lot of ink debating the ethics of Obama's campaign staff, as opposed to Obama himself.  No one has alleged that Obama got personally involved in negotiating terms with the MySpace guy.

We're not even talking about someone like Obama's chief foreign policy advisor, or some other person who might be presumed to have influence over the candidate's views.  You can wax philosophic about how it shows Obama doesn't run a tight ship or whatever, but at the end of the day, we're debating the actions of people who have absolutely nothing to do with how Obama would run the country.  So we could probably stand to dial it down just a notch.

by Steve M 2007-05-03 09:03AM | 0 recs
NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBAMA AND STAFF

There is no material difference between the actions of Obama's campaign and Obama himself.

by ChicagoDude 2007-05-03 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBAMA AND STAFF

Well, I disagree, even though you nearly persuaded me by typing in all caps.

If one of my employees makes a bad decision, I may be responsible as a legal matter, but it was still their decision.  Saying that I should be judged just as harshly as if I had made the decision personally doesn't make any sense.

by Steve M 2007-05-03 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBAMA AND STAFF

By that standard we can therby conclude that John Edwards is the type of person who would charge a $400 haircut to his campaign contributers.

by Sam I Am 2007-05-03 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama, Joe Anth

What I don't understand is this. If a DC insider consulting firm had 160,000 names a campaign would have no hesitation and no problem at all paying a tremendous amount of money for it. Obama has been using Daschle's donor base which I think is around 80,000 people. I would guess there is some type of arrangement financially and politically for Obama to tap into Daschle's network.

The amount of money this guy wanted for 2 1/2 years of work is barely even minimum wage for the massive amount of work he did. DC insiders get paid much more than that for just a few days of work which does not produce as much in the way of results.

by robliberal 2007-05-03 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama, Joe Anth

It's also possible that this cultural divide is reiterated inside the campaign.  The online outreach people may not have anywhere near the budget or campaign respect in house as the other folks you mention do.

That would not excuse them for possibly dealing with Anthony badly, but it would place some of their actions in greater context.  They may have heard his offer, understood it to be way out of line with what they could offer, and may have known they could not get approval from the rest of the campaign to get it.  In other words, they may have determined there was really no bargaining zone.  Or, they may have communicated up the chain to get more money and some lawyer said "fuck that" and played bigfoot hardball, the establishment way.

Either way, the campaign was at fault, as the story should never have gotten to this point, and they should never have issued a press/blog release that dodged questions and implied Anthony was a greedy actor of bad character.  We just don't know where, entirely, in the campaign system the problem lies, and I doubt we ever will, though I would say Rospars has made things worse rather than better, from a communications point of view.

We do know that Anthony alleges he found the campaign contacts he'd made to be controlling and dishonest earlier in his interactions with them, but he's offered no specifics and we can't verify any of that.  We also know Anthony states he is trying not to get into that because he's been giving years of his life to this stuff and does not want to hurt Senator Obama.

by Pachacutec 2007-05-03 09:22AM | 0 recs
Do the Right Thing, Barack
There is now a Do the Right Thing, Barack blog up. It is for people upset about how Obama's campaign has handled the MySpace issue with Joe Anthony. People are encourage to post comments explaining what they feel "the right thing" is for Obama to do, to rectify the situation.
by DoTheRightThingBarack 2007-05-03 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama,

I certainly don't agree with how this was handled by the campaign and I think the way this guy valued his efforts was more than fair (i've worked in internet marketing consulting for the last 6 years and I can tell you i don't work for $50 an hour and I work directly with client with no overhead.   Agencies charge a whole lot more on an hourly rate).  I think the campaign royally screwed up.   But what shocks me most is that the campaign admits they are flying by the seat of their pants while doing this.   Personally i find that unacceptable.   They aren't inventing anything new here.  There are people who know how to do this without flying by the seat of their pants.  Reminds me of this quote from the Rollingstone article on how all the dem campaigns are hiring the same old strategists who do things the same old way.


"People are not getting their information the same way they were five years ago, yet the consultants have been very slow to react," he says. "Why aren't campaigns doing what Google and Yahoo do: using algorithms to analyze e-mail lists and figure out what moves people on a daily basis? If you had this conversation with a consultant in Washington, they'd say, 'What do you mean, algorithm?' "

This was a rookie move.  Personally I would've bought the myspace page as soon as I found out it existed.  Probably could've got it for the equivalent of the catering costs on on TV commerical shoot.

And i'd be interested in Adam B's ( i think he is the law guy) input on www.mikehuckabee.com   From what i've been reading you seem to think that he has no legal right to that domain.   If I were him i'd be fighting like hell to make Huckabee pay me a big chunk of money.  

by onemadson 2007-05-03 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama,

I will refer you to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999.

by Adam B 2007-05-03 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama,

Do the cybersquatting statutes apply in the same way to a fan club type of site especially on a social networking site?

by robliberal 2007-05-03 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama,

I don't know if the statute itself would apply to subdomains off a main site, but the common-law right of publicity and other torts might.

Just imagine if I wanted to log on here as "Barack Obama".

by Adam B 2007-05-03 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama,

It doesn't.   That would imply rights to a directory named for you on any internet site anywhere.

As for common law right of publicity, BO's campaign was complicit with him running it for a long time.  They were content for him to do the lion's share of the work for them until he wanted to be compensated.

by Rooktoven 2007-05-03 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama,

But it's not just a directory on MySpace; you get to assume an identity.  It's different from www.mydd.com/tags/barackobama.

by Adam B 2007-05-03 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama,

Not really.  It's more analogous to www.mydd.com/user/barackobama.

It's still a pseudonym ultimately subject to the whims of the site owner.

And besides, BO's campaign knew about it and apparently didn't ask him for control, rather they waited until he asked to be compensated for his ever-increasing services (and we know the rest).

by Rooktoven 2007-05-03 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama,

ok.  thanks.  

But what if you aren't making money off of it and just want to keep it to write about the guy?  

by onemadson 2007-05-03 10:05AM | 0 recs
For the umpteenth time,

This isn't cybersquatting.   Cybersquatting according to very  wiki article referenced pertains to domains.  A directory on a web site is not a domain.

It really makes me wonder why this term is thrown out about Anthony over and over when this absolutely is not what it is.

by Rooktoven 2007-05-03 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: For the umpteenth time,

my question was about the guy who has www.mikehuckabee.com   I think that definitely would fall under cybersquatting if he was trying to sell it to Huckabee.   However, if he isn't trying to profit from it and just makes it a site about Huckabee, I'm wondering if he can do that.

by onemadson 2007-05-03 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: For the umpteenth time,

And as I've said before, Sen. Obama has rights in his name under common law that would apply anyway, even if this statute doesn't.

If I set up an account here as "Barack Obama," do you really believe the campaign would have no legal recourse?

by Adam B 2007-05-03 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: For the umpteenth time,

You are the one pushing the term Cybersquatting over and over.  You are the one who introduced this term into the thread, implying that is what Anthony was doing.

When challenged on that, as before, you fall back on common law publicity-- which  

a) is not the same thing

b) pertains from what I can see largely to false representations of endorsement in a commercial arena

c) probably does not pertain to political figures, especially when a commercial endorsement is not involved.

And yes, I believe the campaign would have no legal recourse, because almost all logins here (and at most blogs) are pseudonyms.  Unless you created a Barack Obama login and said "I am Barack Obama"  (and even then it's doubtful) no court would bother taking your case.   It falls  to the owner of the site to determine who gets rights to what login..

by Rooktoven 2007-05-03 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: For the umpteenth time,

Another case I recalled around this.    

Where does this ruling come in to all this


Evangelist Jerry Falwell lost a U.S. Supreme Court appeal Monday of a case that sought to shut down a Web site with a similar name but opposite views on homosexuals.

Falwell claims that a gay man from New York City improperly draws people to a site by using a common misspelling of the reverend's name as the site's domain name.

A federal judge sided with Falwell, whose ministry based in Virginia but has ties around the world, on grounds that Christopher Lamparello's domain name was nearly identical to the trademark bearing Falwell's name and could confuse Web surfers.

Last year, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and said Lamparello was free to operate his "gripe site" about Falwell's views on gays at http://www.fallwell.com. Lamparello "clearly created his Web site intending only to provide a forum to criticize ideas, not to steal customers," the court said.

by onemadson 2007-05-03 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: For the umpteenth time,

It's a neat opinion I had forgotten about, though the Supreme Court declined review and did not rule on the merits.  That said, the Falwell case turned on something which is not present here:

[W]e need not resolve that question or determine whether Sections 32 and 43(a) apply exclusively to commercial speech because Reverend Falwell's claims of trademark infringement and false designation fail for a more obvious reason. The hallmark of such claims is a likelihood of confusion -- and there is no likelihood of confusion here....

Reverend Falwell's mark is distinctive, and the domain name of Lamparello's website, www.fallwell.com, closely resembles it. But, although Lamparello and Reverend Falwell employ similar marks online, Lamparello's website looks nothing like Reverend Falwell's; indeed, Lamparello has made no attempt to imitate Reverend Falwell's website. Moreover, Reverend Falwell does not even argue that Lamparello's website constitutes advertising or a facility for business, let alone a facility or advertising similar to that of Reverend Falwell. Furthermore, Lamparello clearly created his website intending only to provide a forum to criticize ideas, not to steal customers.

Most importantly, Reverend Falwell and Lamparello do not offer similar goods or services. Rather they offer opposing ideas and commentary. Reverend Falwell's mark identifies his spiritual and political views; the website at www.fallwell.com criticizes those very views.  After even a quick glance at the content of the website at www.fallwell.com, no one seeking Reverend Falwell's guidance would be misled by the domain name -- www.fallwell.com -- into believing Reverend Falwell authorized the content of that website. No one would believe that Reverend Falwell sponsored a site criticizing himself, his positions, and his interpretations of the Bible.

Here, obvs, there was a great amount of confusion.

by Adam B 2007-05-03 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama, Joe Anth

I'm pleased to see references to internet industry fee structures in Anthony's support. I don't know what paralegals earn in LA, but . . . .

by Soggydog 2007-05-03 09:56AM | 0 recs
thinking about time and dollars

by Soggydog 2007-05-03 09:57AM | 0 recs
Wow, you're desperate, aren't you?

This is really pathetic:

"Nothing bothered me more in the discussion yesterday than the argument that Anthony's work wasn't valuable."

Joe Anthony did some incredibly valuable VOLUNTEER work. Volunteer = free. If he wanted money for what he was doing, he should have asked for it up front.

To which the Obama campaign would have replied: "Thanks, but no thanks... we'll have one of the interns do it for free."

Joe Anthony, despite the kind words of Joe Rospar yesterday, was participating in extortion. Luckily, the Myspace terms of service protects the names of high profile celebrities and polticians from being hi-jacked.

Joe Anthony's work WAS worth offering him a position in the campaign, which they did, but it wasn't worth any money. When he asked for money, they said no and let him keep his work. All they took was the url, which was rightfully theres and which took no work for Anthony to obtain in the first place.

Myspace and facebook are not the netroots. Stop whining.

by potus2020 2007-05-03 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow, you're desperate, aren't you?

Extortion my ass.  BO's campaign asked him to offer a number.

by Rooktoven 2007-05-03 11:52AM | 0 recs
Closure

Obama needs to put an end to this.  Pay the guy.  He deserves it and the campaign can afford it.

It's cheaper than a TV spot and much more useful.

by Hellmut 2007-05-03 10:59AM | 0 recs
Why Am I not Surprised ?

People who support a candidate that uses unethical means to gain financially taking the side of a man who tried to extort money from a Presidential Campaign.

Big Shock there.

NOT!

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-05-03 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Am I not Surprised ?

WTF???

by clarkent 2007-05-03 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama, Joe Anth

A point no one seems to be bringing up:  can someone sell an email list from Myspace (or elsewhere) to the highest bidder, without the consent of the people on the list?  Did they have any expectation of privacy when they signed up?  Is there a standard disclaimer saying "your email address may be sold to people who will solicit money from you"?

by Lex 2007-05-03 11:36AM | 0 recs
Um Hello

Your talking to people who see nothing wrong with that unethical practice in the first place. Look who they support. They think it's okay to do that. That's why they are on Joe Anthony's side. It mirrors their own candidate.

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-05-03 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Um Hello

not sure what you are implying.  I'm either voting for Edwards or Obama, as it would appear you are.  

by onemadson 2007-05-03 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama, Joe Anth

Honestly I'm not too upset about the payment issue. At some point they should have paid him but how long was he doing that under expectation of compensation? On some level he was a volunteer for some amount of time.

As I said though, I think his work has value that should be monetarily compensated but the process of locking out the site is what bothers me the most.

by MNPundit 2007-05-03 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: He Said, She Said: Yet More On Obama,

The campaign was WRONG, and they need to stop trying to slander this young man. It makes them look worse.

by rikyrah 2007-05-03 12:22PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads