Our MySpace Experiment

Here is the other side of the story. That Anthony changed the password changes things a bit, but I still think he should be compensated for the amount of work he has done. Hopefully, negotiations on that front will continue. Also, I don't like the "we are making this up as we go along" part of the explanation--Chris

I won't have time to post today, but you should read this post from TechPresident. The account written here does not quite accord with what Micah reported--Matt

Hi, I'm Joe Rospars and I'm the New Media Director at Barack Obama's campaign. There have been a lot of questions and comments in this community related to our MySpace profile, and so I wanted to come by and clarify how we got here and answer questions.

Our campaign started quickly. People around here say that this has been like building an airplane in mid-air, having already taken off. This is especially true of the New Media operation. While the campaign in general is going from zero to sixty, our team is at the same time charged with exploring the new ways we can build relationships between Barack and his supporters, and foster relationships among supporters themselves.

When it came to MySpace, we decided to take a leap. We decided to make the attempt to combine the organic support and community-building of a grassroots effort with the official campaign outreach efforts.

In many ways this mirrors what has happened on the campaign's own web site. On February 10th, the day Barack announced his candidacy in Springfield, we launched My.BarackObama.com has an unprecedented public utility for supporters.

Even on the campaign's own web site, the organizing efforts and community-building by the grassroots has outpaced the growth of the traditional campaign infrastructure. On the site, over 11,500 people have created their own blogs about everything from their issue priorities to their personal experience campaigning locally. Thousands of events have been planned using the events tool (social events, planning meetings, small fundraisers), and tens of thousands of people have RSVPed to these grassroots-driven gatherings.

And over 5,000 grassroots volunteer groups have been founded -- in many states, these groups will be the only organizational presence the campaign has. Even in the early states, staff organizers are hitting ground in places where volunteer groups have already been meeting and organizing. One of the first orders of business for new staff on the ground is getting to know the grassroots who have already started building the movement.

When it comes to MySpace, I'm not sure if a campaign of this size has ever teamed-up with a grassroots volunteer on this scale, but we wanted to give it a try.

Joe Anthony's great work was building community at the www.myspace.com/barackobama address, and so we contacted him.

At that point, the profile had about 40,000 friends, and to our delight, Joe agreed to work with us. Indeed, he seemed relieved to have some help -- he gave us the password, and we began to exchange content, work together, and continue growing this community from the ground-up.  We created images that he (and others online) could post, and began going through the process of preparing the profile to be "official" by combing through the content and establishing a plan to ensure that everyone who tried to contact the campaign through the profile received an answer. (People wrote messages and comments in huge numbers, virtually all addressed to Barack or the campaign -- "Will you come speak at my graduation?", "Where do you stand on issue X?", "How can I help locally?", etc.)

We started talking to Joe about formalizing the arrangement, preserving his work building the community, and talking through how to preserve his involvement in the direction and development of the profile.

For a time, both the campaign and Joe had mutual access. Soon after, MySpace launched a promotional campaign to direct traffic to the official candidate pages. The campaign allowed MySpace to promote this unofficial profile because, strictly speaking, there was no official presence. And so MySpace began featuring the profile in candidate promotions -- and the friends and workload grew.

We knew Joe had a full-time job already, and, early on, we floated the idea of moving to Chicago to work for us full-time (potential staffers were moving to Chicago and join the team at that time, and there were openings). I totally agree when Chris Bowers says that the New Media/online outreach efforts of campaigns should be a priority -- and we have built an operation here in Chicago and in the early states that reflects that posture.

But Joe seemed to prefer to volunteer part-time from the outside with the campaign to continue building the community. He said he was honored to help out, and we were honored to work with him. We worked through the complications that arose: letting Joe know that he shouldn't work on the site from work, educated him about the rules governing campaign promotion of official Senate material, etc. Joe was right with us, and things continued down the path towards making this unofficial community into an official space run with help from volunteers.

As we progressed, we began to work-up paperwork that would codify this arrangement -- ensuring that the campaign would have full access (what if someone put up an obscene comment during the day while Joe was at work?), and assuming the liability burden (legally, ethically, and politically) for what happened on the site.

At the same time, though, the community had skyrocketed. Nobody expected the grassroots to respond this campaign in such large numbers the way they have, and the rapid growth of the MySpace profile once the MySpace Impact Channel began promoting the various candidates is yet another example of the appeal of Barack. We were well over 100,000 friends, and the burden of administering such a profile became immense.

Unfortunately, at that point, Joe changed the password on the profile, and didn't give us the new one, like he had done in the past. This changed the previous dynamic, and we could no longer access the profile at a moment's notice if need be. We asked Joe what was needed to restore access, and subsequently we received the list of itemized financial requests that have been discussed elsewhere.

This made us uncomfortable. Every day, MySpace was driving tens of thousands of people to the page on the premise that this was more or less our "official" presence -- yet we had no access to the content on the page, and no ability to be responsive to the thousands of messages coming in from supporters seeking information or action from the campaign.

We talked to Joe and made clear that we truly wanted to incorporate the community into the campaign's official presence, but that if these financial demands were a precursor to the campaign having access at all, that we would need to start with an official profile separately and have MySpace promote that instead.

And so it became clear that we needed to have MySpace point people at something we had at least basic access to -- immediately. In MySpace, politicians, musicians, and other public figures have the right to their own name (www.myspace.com/barackobama, www.myspace.com/hillaryclinton, etc.), and so we asked MySpace for use of that URL and to ensure that any promotion of "official" profiles for candidates be directed to the new profile our team created.

The community of the 160,000 still exists, and we've made sure that MySpace will let Joe have access to the community he helped build. And we hope we can continue to work with him to make that as effective as it can be.

At the end of the day, this is all new for everyone -- this Joe, that Joe, and everyone participating or commenting on it. We're flying by the seat of our pants, and establishing new ways of doing things every day. We're going to try new things, and sometimes it's going to work, and sometimes it's not going to work. That's the cost and that's the risk of experimenting. Joe launched this profile for all the right reasons, and for a while grew it with us.

But the ultimate purpose is building a community around the idea that ordinary people can come together and affect change in this country. Barack Obama is the candidate I believe can transform the process and make that change happen.

And, to the extent that more and more people every day come to that same conclusion, my bet is that both profiles will continue to grow.

Cross-posted at BarackObama.com and DailyKos.com



Display:


Re: Our MySpace Experiment (2.00 / 10)

Too little.

Too late.


by ManfromMiddletown on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:25:43 PM EST

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 5)

At the very least, you could offer a little constructive criticism. Personally, I think that if it is true that Anthony changed the password and cut the campaign off from having access...well, that's a fairly valid point for taking the site over.


by PsiFighter37 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:27:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 3)

I'm sorry.

I have a serious problem with a campaign launching an assault on the character of one of their volunteers into the blogosphere.

Candidate have to earn the trust of volunteers, not the other way around.


by ManfromMiddletown on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:34:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And volunteers... (3.00 / 1)

are by definition blameless?  Everybody's right from their point of view.


by rashomon on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:41:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 5)

Assault on whose character? They are putting their side of the story out there for everyone to judge. That is called transparency in my book.


by kekuta on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:42:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 3)

I'm wondering about that as well.

It's possible this guy Joe Anthony is a destructive, egotistical crank, and has been unreasonable.  Though changing the password does not seem to be evidence of that.

What Joe Rospars does not seem to address is when in the course of any discussions or negotiations the password was changed.  Did he change it in response to some less than good faith or fair negotiation over the handing over of the site?

We don't know the relationships management and factos going into that decision to change the password, which could simply have been Mr. Anthony's protection of his work product after discovering the campaign was trying to go around him and play bigfoot with MySpace.

Unfortunately, Mr. Rospars has now invited Mr. Anthony to give his side to this public pushback from the Obama campaign, and this could turn into a flame war between Mr. Anthony and the campaign.  

I had always hoped Obama would learn how to pick some real fights without singing kumbayah, but I never imagined his campaign would do it with one of their own volunteers on the pages of MyDD.


by Pachacutec on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:50:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 4)

He cut them out, and said pay me and I'll give you the password after they had worked mutually on the website for awhile.  What they did made sense to me.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:59:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you have a BEEF, it is with MY SPACE.. (3.00 / 2)

the rules are crystal clear about people who create sites/content of famous people.  If the creator has an inflammatory/liable site against a "famous person" that person has a right to take their name from the creator.  It is that simple.  Obama, again, DID NOT take his "friends or content" only his name and he had the right to do so.

It seems the campaign was trying to work with this person, even offered him a JOB at the onset, but he refused and continued to donate his time for FREE.  Again, VOLUNTEERED for FREE.

Lastly, if you do not understand this "time is money and money is time" and you are trying to get paid "after the fact", whose fault is it that you got fucked.  And that is what happened.  He should have NEGOTIATED from the get-go, but did not.  So, he live and learn.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:03:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you have a BEEF, it is with MY SPACE.. (3.00 / 2)

Agree.  If the site was called, "Fans of Barack Obama" or whatever, then the site founder should do be able to do whatever he wants.  

But the MySpace page was called "Barack Obama." (www.myspace.com/barackobama) and as far as I am concerned, Barack Obama has every right to take over THAT MySpace page whenever he wants, and for whatever reason.  


John McCain loves war.
by Winston Smith on Thu May 03, 2007 at 04:04:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

an assault on his character!? (3.00 / 1)

what the hell? i don't get that at all from reading this.

"it's business, its not personal. you takin' this very personal"


by the green and bold on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:04:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (none / 0)

Will you please point to the character assault?


by faithfull on Thu May 03, 2007 at 08:52:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 4)

Too late!  Is that a joke?  How fast were they supposed to respond?


Sam L
by Sam L on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:24:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's not about the blogosphere (3.00 / 2)

it's about whether they asked this guy to come up with an amount  (with no intention of actually paying him) - and than never bothered to counter offer..

it appears they were stalling until they could get an agreement with myspace/Newscorp before seizing the account.

negotiating in bad faith


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's not about the blogosphere (3.00 / 1)

As opposed to John Edwards' rapid response on the question of whether he'd retain the bloggers he hired?

There's no evidence of bad faith.  Read the Rospars account.


by Adam B on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:32:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not exactly right (3.00 / 1)

the element of alleged bad faith was asking for a $$ amount then just going to myspace to lock the guy out.  if anthony just called them up and asked for $39k +, then no, it's not bad faith.  but if they asked for an offer first i think it changes things.

and rospars account and his answers to questions on the dkos version of this diary are conspicuously silent on that point.  all rospars says is that anthony proposed a fee.  that seems a big point and he didn't deny it (sounds very well worded) and that he ignored the question (and if you didn't see it, no it wasn't way way down thread).  

that's not evidence of bad faith i guess, but the accusation was there and not rebutted.  but it's at least a reasonably inferrence.


by corn dog on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:49:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not exactly right (3.00 / 1)

Well, Anthony locked out the Obama folks first from an site the Obama folks treated as official and to which they therefore needed access, after Anthony had first approached them for payment.  (They just asked him, "Okay, how much?")


by Adam B on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:13:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not exactly right (3.00 / 1)

it sounds a little different on the techpresident update.  in fact he pretty much calls BS on their explanation of this point.  he claims his sources are campaign people who spoke on background.

as far as the locking out goes, if it were me i'd have been really concerned about them doing it to me.  game theory, ya know?


by corn dog on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:55:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"I am John Edwards and I approve this (3.00 / 1)

message."

Your partisanshipo makes it impossible to take that comment seriously. You just want to bash Obama and found an opportunity here, that's all.

Too late? WTF

I think that Joe should get some compensation, and I trust the Obama team that he will, but his original demand was absurd and he acted like a greedy fool with the password thing.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:26:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "I am John Edwards and I approve this (none / 0)

They asked him to name an amount.  They could have countered.  Instead they acted like assholes.  Sorry, no other way to portray it.


Waiting for the Glorious Train Wreck.
by Rooktoven on Thu May 03, 2007 at 08:44:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (2.75 / 8)

Great post, and thanks for clearing things up.

Bottom line, he was running a site based off BARACK OBAMA. Members joined the group thinking it was the official campaign presense. Since that clearly was not the case, you had every right to make an official page.

Thank you.


by mattmfm on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:28:24 PM EST

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (2.00 / 10)

Clearly the Obama campaign did the right thing, but did it in a clumsy way.  My impression is that Joe Anthony is a bit of a nut, and of course they had to regain control of what had been a quasi-official site when he changed the password and started extorting them.

Would it have been more prudent to simply pay off this extortionist wackjob?  Maybe.

I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed that MyDD would fly off the handle, smearing Obama before looking at both sides of the story.


by grimm on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (2.20 / 5)

great Job Joe and thanks for posting I wouldn't be this charitable to Joe but understand why you have to be to me if he was  a real supporter that cared about seeing Obama elected he wouldn't be whining like a little baby.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:32:16 PM EST

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (2.60 / 5)

Wow.  So...all the people who jumped to a conclusion having only heard one of the story should be pretty embarrassed by now, right?


by RickD on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:37:07 PM EST

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (2.33 / 3)

Don't count on it. They have a motive: to put negative stories out there about Obama.


by kekuta on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:44:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (none / 0)

Yeah, everyone I don't agree with has a secret motive for disagreeing with me.


"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."--John McCain
by lorax on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:50:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, it's obvious (none / 0)

Edwards supporters like TarHeel are the one jumping on this one.

For a reason.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:29:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (2.50 / 4)

Not quite. I find it very hard believe Rospars here, especially given his history, that Anthony changed the password on the account for no reason, and followed up with a bill.

More of this will emerge.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:33:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Josh... (2.00 / 2)

What's your angle here?

I looked you up and I see that you work with Zack Rosen, who worked with Joe during the Dean campaign.

You've recently begun a firm with Zack which, as far as I can tell, is a competitor of Blue State Digital, right?

And you're trying to suggest that Joe Rospars has done something bad with the DNC? A potential client of yours, perhaps?

Please explain yourself or stop with the innuendo.


What's the Point?
by Vermonter on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:45:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Josh... (3.00 / 2)

Please explain yourself or stop with the innuendo.

Sure thing.

Zack and I met via a spontanious project which he (Zack) began to try and get web professionals to use their talents to help the campaign. It was called DeanSpace and while the technology was only partly successful -- it lives on as CivicSpace -- but as an organizational model for how a campaign can work well with a group of motivated high-value grassroots supporters it was pretty groundbreaking.

None of this requires "looking me up," by the way. I post inks to my business and personal blogs in my signature. You may also find this old blog series to be interesting.

Anyway, as for my suspicions about Rospars, there's no innuendo. In 2004/05 Joe Rospars was both a partner at Blue State Digital and technology director for the DNC, most of which was built by... Blue State Digital. This is all well known.

On the upside, they did good work, and in the end that's the main thing, but Joe's been at best evasive and at worst deceptive about his role(s) with those organization, or as to how he navigates the ethical fog of such arrangements. This means that, to me, he's a less credible voice.

Also, his posts read like press-releases.

We're hardly set up to be competitors with Blue State, and the truth is that the marketplace we're addressing is growing much faster than any of our little businesses.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:06:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

on dKos (3.00 / 2)

Rospars dropped by to ask some questions...

PSI who I think is an Obama supporter asked about whether Obama's campagn asked Anthony to name a price...

Respars didn't answer


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:16:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Josh... (none / 0)

Thanks, I was a volunteer (meaning I never asked for money) with the Dean Web Team at Dean HQ, working primarily with Jim Brayton, now Obama's Internet Director -- but I did meet Zack.

I'm very familiar with the DeanSpace/CivicSpace Drupal project. And, by "looking you up" I meant that I clicked on your "work" link.

Do you really think that it's appropriate to be accusing Joe Rospars of unethical behavior in a public forum without any proof?

Good luck with the start-up.


What's the Point?
by Vermonter on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Josh... (3.00 / 2)

Coolio. I was up there for a weekend in September 2003. Great times.

As for proof there's this paper trail coupled with my own experiences of seeing Rospars shuck and jive when asked about it at the Personal Democracy Forum.

I'm not saying he's a Bad Person, just that when I read a post like this, it feels like spin, and since there are details that just don't make sense, I just don't believe them. He hasn't built trust, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:24:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Josh... (3.00 / 1)

Apologies for bad spelling/grammar in the above. I'm on my way out the door but I'll check back if you have any other questions.

You may also find this paper trail to be interesting.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:21:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 1)

There is no reason in the world that Joe could justify changing the password and not letting the campaign have access to the site. No justification.  

What if the obama camp had changed the password on Joe??? Think about that.


by RadRobin on Thu May 03, 2007 at 12:00:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 2)

They took the whole site not just changing the password.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Thu May 03, 2007 at 12:26:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (none / 0)

Them's the rules on myspace.  If I started a PaulMcCartney site, I would expect Paul to take it from me, given my acceptance of the myspace terms.


by RadRobin on Thu May 03, 2007 at 12:33:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (none / 0)

They didn't take "the whole site"; the friends list remains with Anthony.


by Adam B on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:02:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 1)

I freely admit total embarassment!

Shame on me.  And shame on everyone who can't see the dirty-handedness of Joe Anthony changing the password.  That's a huge no-no.  That's not evidence of a person who wants to work anything out.  He was probably drinking some beers with his lawyer bosses and they got to thinking greedy thoughts.

I did a blogpost from the one-sided view.  But I have now updated my blog.


by RadRobin on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:58:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (2.33 / 3)

thank you for clearing this up and getting the other side of the story out there. It is especially important to me that you offered him the opportunity to move to Chicago and take a full time position with the campaign. Thanks for reminding me why Barack Obama is my candidate.


by commoncents on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:37:50 PM EST

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 0)

I think the right thing to do at this point, in terms of smoothing things over and moving past this, would be to pay him the equivalent of what you would pay any other organization for a list of 160,000 contacts, be it more or less than his initial request.


Sam L
by Sam L on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:27:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

uh, they didn't get the list (none / 0)

so why would they pay for it?


John McCain is a Bush ally on Social Security.
by John DE on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:52:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 2)

Sounds like there wouldn't have been a problem if you would have just brought him on part-time without the demand to move to Chicago. For internet stuff, it seems kinda silly to think you need people in the building.

Thanks for stopping by, hope all's well buddy.


- John McCain
by Bob Brigham on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:40:14 PM EST

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 1)

ignore manfrom middletown, he or she is an avid supporter of someone else, and is always looking for ways to ding obama


by dpg220 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:42:47 PM EST

So... (3.00 / 1)

In the future, could we please try to let a little time go by to find out more of the story before everybody flies off the handle in the latest of episode of "Honey, I Told You Obama Was a Fraud?"


What's the Point?
by Vermonter on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:52:04 PM EST

Re: So... (3.00 / 3)

I really don't see how this changes anything. Rospars would like us to believe that Anthony locked out the campaign for no reason just as the pressure was mounting and he'd need even more help to deal with the group. I don't buy that.

The point of all this was that the Obama campaign wants volunteers-as-pawns, tightly controlled message, and top-down direction, which is allegedly what they're going out to change.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:35:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So... (3.00 / 0)

People blindly say that "the truth is in the middle" all the time, but I think that is actually the case here.  I think this comment is exactly right--I doubt that Anthony suddenly, out of the blue, changed the password, and I really doubt whether the campaign didn't actually start ratcheting up pressure as the group got larger.  


"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:58:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So... (none / 0)

What national campaign doesn't use volunteers as pawns?

I wish it were different. But, it's never "your campaign."

I'm a volunteer for Obama, have put in over 300 hours over the last six months, have talked to Chris Hughes on the phone (nice, sincere guy, by the way -- just as Anthony describes) and I would have given over control of that domain in a heartbeat. And never would have asked for money retroactively for work that I had done.


What's the Point?
by Vermonter on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:58:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So... (3.00 / 1)

What national campaign doesn't use volunteers as pawns?

Not to beat a dead horse, but Dean For America? There are certainly others that have made use of more actively-engaged volunteers, and certainly every campaign everywhere uses volunteers who want to be pawns as pawns (hopefully!).

The question is where the rhetoric of "people stepping up to solve problems and make America a better place" rubs up against the reality that the campaign wants you to do as your told.

I wish it were different. But, it's never "your campaign."

We'll just have to agree to disagree here.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:14:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So... (3.00 / 1)

How exactly did Dean for America do things any differently than Obama's campaign?

People love to idealize the Dean campaign, but let's be honest. There was an inner circle of establishment politicos in that campaign as well (especially as it gained momentum).

I'd love it if some campaign actually internalized the great work done by Zack Exley to describe how to actually bridge the bottom-up/top-down divide.

But, I've never seen it done. Maybe at the local, but certainly not at the national level.

If you can give me specific examples where 'roots folks have actually gotten a real seat at the decision-making table, it would be much-appreciated.

And that doesn't mean just getting invited to hang out with John Edwards at his house.


What's the Point?
by Vermonter on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So... (none / 0)

I already mentioned DeanSpace as an example. I also personally took a trip with my friend Britt Blaser to Burlington in September 2003, when things had definitely "picked up." We walked in and started work, and within 48 hours we'd taken over the promotion and branding of the (at the time) biggest political conference call in history.

That's what I'm talking about.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:33:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So... (none / 0)

I should add I never met Dean other than a quick handshake at a fundraiser. That was never the point. I mean, I really liked the guy as a candidate and especially as a speaker, but it wasn't about him, it was about being able to come in and participate meaningfully in a campaign that I believed in, and that I felt some small degree of ownership over. It was about being able to use all my skills and run my little corner of the operation in my own way.

They gave us that freedom and it was a huge benefit for the campaign, and would (I believe) have carried over in encredible ways to the general election and (dreaming here) governance.

Also, for what it's worth, the inner circle was Kate O'Conner, nobody's idea of a power politico, but just as problematic -- if not more -- in her own way.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:38:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Disagree about the lessons of the Dean campaign (none / 0)

The power Dean gave supporters had it's costs. People in Iowa were freaked out by his young, out of state supporters and how wild they were for the Governor. In large part, people are defined by their supporters. If Obama pulled in an important campaign surrogate, like, say David Geffin, and told him to shut the hell up with the anti-Hillary crap, no one would accuse Obama of dissing the grassroots, because David Geffin is a powerful man. In today's day and age, Joe Anthony is also a powerful man.

Dean, you may remember, got his ass kicked in the primary. If I'm Joe Rospars (who hopefully learned something for his experience at the campaign) I would want to exercise a little more control over message than Dean did for exactly that reason.


by Ozymandias on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:41:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disagree about the lessons of the Dean campaig (none / 0)

People in Iowa were freaked out by his young, out of state supporters and how wild they were for the Governor.

I don't really know how much of a factor that was vs hype. "Purple-haired kids from seattle" was one of those memes from the Perfect storm that wasn't really true.

Now, it is true that the Perfect stormers were inexperienced and had no local connections to draw on, and as a result the campaign both lost ground to local organizers (in particular Vilsack's people who went to Kerry in the 11th hour) and were unable to give a clear picture to HQ about just how much ground was being lost. I had several friends there, and in hindsight they realized they were marking all sorts of people as "ones" (hard supporters) who were probably twos or threes.

I'm sure there were a few instances where an inexperienced and energetic supporter may have turned someone off, but on the whole the ability of the campaign to expand via existing social networks -- supporters nationwide making inroads within their indigenous communities -- was a huge factor in how we achieved national frontrunner status. It worked out incredibly well. In that light, the Perfect Storm was a strategic error from the start, because it was built on the idea of bussing in strangers rather than building organically.

The issue for a campaign that wants to operate this way is about message coherency, not message control. If you want to build a network campaign, you have to allow your individual nodes to behave autonomously and speak their own language. They'll have their own set of priorities for issues and use frames that make sense for them and their community in building the campaign. You can't "control" the message in that context, but what you can do is try to make sure that the Official Message is coherent -- that it actually makes sense in addition to sounding good -- such that intelligent people can create their own variations and harmonious riffs without contradicting the national drumbeat.

One of the issues we face in this light is that most political "message" these days is almost pure unadulterated PR, and may or may not have any internal consistency or logic. Consultants think in buzzwords because its easier than real ideas. The Bush administration is a pinnacle of this -- their language amounts to a ball of trigger-phrases designed to play on fears and prejudices -- but many Democrats go for a watered-down version of that (it ends up sounding like pandering) and have a lot of the same problems over time.

In the dean HQ, they had a three bullet point list tacked up all over the place, that explained "what this campaign is about." These were not talking points to be repeated, but an internally consistent framework of ideas that supported a coherant campaign message, sympatico with the actual behavior of the campaign, and creating space for volunteers to do their own thing.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Thu May 03, 2007 at 01:41:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you have an axe to grind? (none / 0)

Look, you all ready said you have a problem with Rospars.  My guess is that there is more to that story than your concern for the DNCs bank account.  

Then you start commenting, rather definitively, about a situation in which you do not appear to have access to the real inside story.  When somebody claims something smells when their nose is many miles away, I generally think they have an agenda.

Why should we believe you any more than Rospars?  The obvious question, besides your relationship to Rospars, who are you supporting?  My guess is that the answer isn't Obama.


by upper left on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:12:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you have an axe to grind? (none / 0)

arrrrrgggghhh.  why does it always come to that??  "who do you support?"  like having an opinion only counts if you can support Candidate X.  and apparently the only way to prove you support Candidate X is if you only say good things about them.

the most recent big news out of the DOJ is the utterly disgusting way in which the political appointees asked potential career hires if they were democrats or republicans.  what you're doing isn't far off philosophically - they're both loyalty tests.


by corn dog on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:54:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop spinning (none / 0)

My point is that few people are coming to this debate from a very objective point of view. If you read through all of the comments here, you will notice that most of the people who are giving the Obama campaign a lot of grief over this situation are people who are vociferous supporters of other campaigns or people who take pot shots at Obama whenever gives half a chance.  

Obama supporters are inclined to give the campaign, and especially the candidate, the benefit of the doubt. Most opponent are willing to indite and convict on the barest of circimstantial evidence.  I don't think any of us who are on the outside know enough to comment intelligently about the situation.

We have no knowledge of the evolving relationship between the campaign and the volunteer. I can see this going either way.  The campaign could have had a lot of legitimate reasons for becaming uncomfortable with the situation.  It is after all Barack's image we are talking about.  They tried to be cool and decentralized and it didn't work.  They tried to exert more control and the volunteer who had put a lot of effort into the project naturally got defensive and territiorial.  The breakdown in communication and cooperation isn't hard to imagine.  OTOH, the campaign may have people in it who are control freaks who were inclined to centralize and were just looking for an excuse and an opportunity.

My point is that we don't know.  Most of what is being said by both sides is spin.  Most of what is being said in this thread is spin.  Everybody should stop talking like they do know.  My guess is that there aren't more than a dozen people who really know what really went down.

Ths situation is very unfortunate.  It says little about the campaign, and less about the candidate.  


by upper left on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:44:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you have an axe to grind? (none / 0)

FWIW I don't support any of these candidates yet. Still waiting for someone to show me something. Click on my blog and you'll find my current fascination with Gravel. :)

I'm not sure what "inside situation" you're referring to. In this case, I don't have any more details than what are available here, but I trust the word of a motivated volunteer with a blog than a consultant who's been less than open in the past (see my other comments here for the details there). That's all.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:32:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you have an axe to grind? (none / 0)

Please see my reply to corndog above.


by upper left on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:45:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you have an axe to grind? (none / 0)

I see your point, and there are a lot of known supporters of others (mostly edwards) who are piling on here.

I'm not one of them, but rather someone with a critical eye towards all the campaigns. Call me a skeptic or (if you like) discount me as a jerk. I do try not to spin here though. That sort of ruins the point of MyDD for me.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Thu May 03, 2007 at 01:10:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you have an axe to grind? (none / 0)

especially since Joe Rospars has serious cred. If anyone tries to tell me that Joe Rospars is full of shit, it's they who have their head up their ass.

That said, the techreport article does point out some discrepancies between Joe's account here and other sources from within the campaign. But all in all it doesn't really matter much.


NB
by azizhp on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:14:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (none / 0)

This is getting silly. get over it people.


by jed on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:52:34 PM EST

You still locked him out of his own page (3.00 / 1)

....though didn't you? That crosses the line.

"...we've made sure that MySpace will let Joe have access to the community he helped build."

This is also extremely troubling. He built he should continue to have access to the community regardless of whether or not the campaign feels it's fine or not. Honestly this entire episode wreaks of strangling spontaneous citizen activism--and that's not the message your guy is pushing is it?

Or at least, it's not supposed to be.


by MNPundit on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:56:11 PM EST

Re: You still locked him out of his own page (3.00 / 2)

My read is as follows:

The URL belongs to the individual named:  Barack Obama.  They have asked the MySpace people to give Joe all the content of his site and all of his friends at a new URL.  This is because the existing URL is listed as the offcial MySpace site of the campaign and is being fed by the MySpace campaign space.  It makes sense to me.


by upper left on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:16:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm curious about the "make a bid" (3.00 / 1)

did Obama's people ask Joe to make a bid or did Joe ask for money first?


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:01:50 PM EST

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (none / 0)

So it boils down to Joe Anthony just cut off access by changing the password and then demanded money? At the same time you want Obama supporters to treat him kindly and you hope to continue to work with him? Good luck with that.


by alarabi7 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:07:01 PM EST

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 1)

said this before Joe's comments but they still apply:

"This is hurting the Obama campaign in more ways than one. It seems obvious to me that Anthony deserved compensation and 40k seems like a modest amount.  Clearly, the Obama campaign has now heaped upon itself a good million in bad publicity.  Not only that but the Obamites posting here seem so fanatical in support of their man they are willing to throw common sense out the window.  If Obama survives the primaries I will support him, but looking at his zealous supporters now, I would be reluctant to support him any earlier."


by syvanen on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:10:49 PM EST

for a direct comparison (3.00 / 2)

Here's Joe Anthony's description of what happened:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseac tion=blog.view&friendID=159248288&am p;blogID=259712152&Mytoken=8738375F- A57E-4AB4-900496ABAA3F3FF11236719

On the details, we seem to have a "he said/he said" situation.


http://www.actblue.com/page/asaslist
by asahopkins on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:12:43 PM EST

Re: for a direct comparison (3.00 / 1)

That's a helpful link, and I don't see Joe Rospars addressing any of the content in Mr. Anthony's message.  The changing of the password does not seem at all to me like an act of bad faith, especially since Mr. Rospars offers no clear context for when in the course of conversations or negotiations this occurred.

Mr. Anthony says he experienced the campaign's behavior as bullying and dishonest, and not just at the end of the process when they strongarmed him and did an end run.  Frankly, I would not blame him for changing the password in such a context, and had I been advising him as I do my negotiation clients, if his fact explanation (which is also incomplete) is close to true, than I would have advised him to change the password.

Jo Rospars' post does not add up to me, and I hope he'll come back to clarify these things, or, better yet, work out an agreement with Joe Anthony to Mr. Antony's satisfaction.  That's what should have happened in the first place.  After all, it seems Anthony made an offer, an opening bid, and rather than receive a counter, he got circumvented.  That's not good faith negotiation on the part of the Obama team, if it's true (and Rospars has not denied it or addressed it).


by Pachacutec on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:25:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this might help (3.00 / 1)

Sen. Obama called Joe on the phone to talk about it.  


by Adam B on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:12:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this might help (3.00 / 2)

It seems appropriate for Senator Obama to call Anthony at this point, and I'm glad he did.  Anthony is asking everyone to stay cool on things and see where it all leads, which seems sensible.  

But it's also true that Obama making the call is evidence that this has been a major fuckup by his staff.  It should never have gotten to this point, and the only reason it did was their incompetence (at best).  This is not the kind of story you want out there about your campaign, at least, not if you're a Democrat who is supposedly not an authoritarian who is running as a people powered candidate.

Obama is trying to fix this, but it should never have gotten to a level where the campaign is trying to undo damage in public in its relationship with a very successful and high profile campaign volunteer.  I hope, and Mr. Anthony does, that Obama will take a good hard look at his campaign operation and make any necessary changes to address the underlying problems, where ever they lead.


by Pachacutec on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:41:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Decision Maker (3.00 / 1)

t should never have gotten to this point, and the only reason it did was their incompetence (at best)

I'm with you on this Pach - this never should have risen to this level. One of the strongest pieces of evidence as to Obama's grassroots appeal has been his huge support on social networking sites. techPresident has done a great job of tracking social networking presence and this is how I first learned of this kerfuffle.

What I want to know is who's responsible for letting Obama's MySpace presence get so fouled up? Having one of your largest quantifiable strengths for netroots-related metrics become a liability overnight is a huge mistake. Separate from whatever personality differences may have contributed to Anthony splitting off from Obama, someone at some point in the Obama campaign decided that their relationship with Anthony and the friends he'd brought in was not worth $xx,xxx. That was the point a mistake was made.

This is an accountability moment. Maybe my impression about how presidential campaigns are relating to the netroots and to social networking communities is off-based, but this makes it look like the Obama campaign's internet shop was operating with zero intentionality. Separate from how it will affect his campaign (probably not much), it makes internet organizing look petty and bush league. Obama should hold his staff accountable for this failure.

--Matt Browner Hamlin


by PhiloTBG on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:38:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Decision Maker (none / 0)

i agree pretty much 100%.  one of my first thoughts when i started seeing this pop up everywhere in a negative light today was, "who's gonna get fired?"  

because no matter who's right in this joe vs. joe back and forth, someone on the campaign's internet team seriously screwed this up either at the point this incident happened if you believe anthony or long before if you believe rospars because they never should have let the situation happen in the first place if this was so important.

while i don't put any blame on obama for this, it must go higher up in the campaign in terms of culpability because either way it's a huge lack of oversight.  this sounds like they had the lawyers involve very early which means some one more senior than the web guy was involved and aware of this.  there's no way an attorney doesn't point out that someone else controlling the website is a risk.  and there's no way that an attorney doesn't make sure someone of sufficient authority is aware of the legal risks the campaign is taking.


by corn dog on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:01:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Decision Maker (none / 0)

Frankly, the Obama campaign should have demanded the myspace url the day Obama announced he was running.  But if you think about it, they did seem to want to run with what Joe A. had going.  That was a mistake.  It's as big a mistake as if Joe A had bought the domain barackobama.com and the campaign didn't immediately seek its remedy of getting the domain back.

Very unfortunate circumstances.


by RadRobin on Thu May 03, 2007 at 12:12:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nothing about compensation (none / 0)

And that does matter.  They DO need to offer some compensation to Joe Anthony for the work he has done

I know it can't be helped, but - would people please not jump on anything negative that Jerome posts about Obama, until a couple of days pass by?

These one-sided broadsides (running 7-to-1 against Obama in Jerome's posts) that Jerome launches, are becoming tiresome.

I'm an Edwards supporter as well - and Jerome is going to write what he writes - so my request is for everyone else to chill, or at least recognize the pattern of Obama-sniping by Jerome.


by jc on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:15:26 PM EST

Re: Nothing about compensation (none / 0)

Exactly. I thought he was nuts for supporting Mark Warner but why run around launching fusillades about it?


by MNPundit on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:21:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

why was this allowed to happen? (3.00 / 2)

This old 30-something has never used MySpace and does not have a clue how it works. But since David Axelrod has been having Obama followed with a camera for years, preparing for a possible presidential bid, why was Joe Anthony allowed to operate the Barack Obama MySpace page for so long without any connection to Obama's people?

It seems like two years ago at least, one of Obama's staff people should have negotiated an agreement to take over control of the site. And if they didn't want a volunteer without any connection to the campaign to be running this MySpace page, why did they start directing people there in February?

I just don't get it. If Edwards' staff pulled something like this, it wouldn't change my mind about supporting Edwards, but it would make me mad. It seems like a lot of unwise decisions were made by Obama staffers, and now they've got a lot more than $50,000 in bad publicity.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:20:27 PM EST

Re: why was this allowed to happen? (3.00 / 0)

Um, most people on this site constantly push for more open campaigns that are moved by activists.  You're welcome to feel the opposite, but that's sort  of odd given that you're a registered user on MYDD.


Sam L
by Sam L on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:30:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good to see you Jerome (none / 0)

While we've got you, is it too much to ask for Barack to stop taking potshots at the netroots like we're some big angry absolutist monolith or something?  He's got you working for him, so he obviously knows that's not true.


ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future
by Nonpartisan on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:23:36 PM EST

Er (none / 0)

Joe, that is. *slaps self


ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future
by Nonpartisan on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:44:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Money talks (3.00 / 1)

It appears the netroots can walk.


by dpANDREWS on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good to see you Jerome (none / 0)

"is it too much to ask for Barack to stop taking potshots at the netroots"

What potshot are you refering to?


by upper left on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:01:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (none / 0)

While there will naturally be blowback from stuff like this I am glad the principle of the matter was a bigger issue than worries about others criticism.


by sterra on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:24:35 PM EST

Spin it up, Rospars (3.00 / 1)

Joe, dawg, I have a hard time with your version: that Anthonay changed the password for no apparent reason just as the pressure was ratcheting up, and the next communique you got from him was a bill.

Frankly, you're a nice guy and pretty smart, but after how you played it w/Blue State and the DNC, I don't believe you. Either open and be honest, or just be quiet and conserve whatever credibility you have left.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:29:09 PM EST

Re: Spin it up, Rospars (none / 0)

I see upthread you back away from this rather aggressive pose. Still, linking to FEC reports is at best an insinuation, you haven't even explicitly spelled out what ethical lapse you think Joe R. was actually guilty of. You just paint a few dots and ask us toconnect them?

Joe Rospars has a long history since 2003 as a core member of the original netroots cadre who propelled Dean to the top. As I said upthread, Rospars has serious cred. You cant waltz in here and expect anyone who was a veteran of the Dean campaign and phenom to swallow this whole.

Either make a specific accusation against Joe, or admit you got nuthin' and stop littering the thread with vague FEC diclosure links.


NB
by azizhp on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:19:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Anthony got some Obama time... (none / 0)

As he writes on his blog (complete with exclamation points):

"TC from Barack Obama (!!!)

I just received a phone call from Barack Obama himself.

He expressed his appreciation and we agreed that there is something to be learned by everyone involved at this point. (Frankly, I was a little surprised by the call, and was too nervous to remember any exact quotes)

I assured him that this is just a horrible thing that happened and obviously he wasn't responsible and shouldn't be held responsible. It's his campaign that perhaps mismanaged this whole thing. He of course stands by his campaign, but again. . . much to be learned by all.

I'm sure he has mixed feelings in speaking with me about this, but it was nice of him to call, and quite an honor to finally speak to him!

I guess I have mixed feelings as well, but it was still a great honor.

I urge you all to consider this situation carefully. It'll take time for me to work this out and decide if I will personally continue to support Obama, regardless of how I feel about his campaign's handling of this situation.

It's not right what they did to me and this profile, but it's also wrong to let this change your views of Barack Obama as a candidate.

After all it was Obama that inspired me to do all this.

What a day. I'll keep you posted. . . ."


What's the Point?
by Vermonter on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:33:07 PM EST

Anthony could change the name of his site (3.00 / 0)

Fans of Obama

And Obama gets possession of his name.

Here I think Obama had the right.


by jasmine on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:33:23 PM EST

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 1)

Thanks for taking the time to tell your side of the story.  Most of us have no idea what to believe, naturally, but I'm not sure it matters.

I think it's obvious that there is simply no way this dispute can be of any benefit to the campaign.  It really doesn't matter if you are 100% in the right here; for it to have reached the point it's at, someone screwed up somewhere.

I like Senator Obama a great deal and I'm sorry to see his campaign having to do all this damage control.  I hope you find a way to move on from this issue as soon as possible.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:37:25 PM EST

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (1.50 / 2)

If he gives in to the extortionist, I will be severely disappointed.

Fans of Obama did not donate to the Senator for him to give $40k to a guy who had a myspace profile, they gave him the money so he can win and change America.


by paragon88 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:46:26 PM EST

The Ultimate Folly... (3.00 / 0)

...of the anti-Obama faction in the netroots is this...

If, after all the anti-Obama rhetoric over the last few months (and likely for the entire campaign season), Obama still wins the nomination, all of this will prove the netroots activists to be as irrelevant as the establishment says we are.

I don't want to see that happen.


What's the Point?
by Vermonter on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:53:28 PM EST

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 1)

Joe,

You've made a terrible PR mistake and it's blowing up in your face. You should have just settled with him and taken over the site. While it's true he used the Obama "brand" to build the site, the number of site visitors is very high. He wasn't "squatting." He built the site. You're a New Media expert. I won't list averages here, but you certainly know the rates and fees associated with eyeballs whether those eyeballs are associated with advertising, marketing, subscriptions or any other form of end-user web site access. 100,000+ "members" is a big, big site. It's not about where he was (ie., 60K). It's about where he is.

The thing to do would be to fully recognize Joe Anthony's contribution and seek some reasonable mutually acceptable agreement.

It is VERY IMPORTANT that the political organizations in this country realize that Internet social networks provide advantages in product diversity, scalability and time to market that are not achievable with any other form of media. Bloggers and other social network developers should not live in poverty. Where political New Media is concerned, they are the true entrepreneurs.

If you want to dominate this medium you must find a way to compensate them in some equitable manner. It is likely that over the next 5-10 years that Internet media (and that includes bloggers and other social network developers) will surpass print and TV news and op-ed as the dominant marketing mechanism where politics is concerned.

Michael Harold


by mdharold on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:00:39 PM EST

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (3.00 / 0)

I appreciate you coming out onto the blog to explain what happened.  Thank you for taking the time to do this.  Shows how committed some people in Obama's campaign are to the blogosphere.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:01:05 PM EST

leave the editorializing off the post (1.00 / 1)

let the diary speak for itself. we already know your opinion.


mydd straw poll vote: 1. other (gore) 2. unsure 3. dodd 4. edwards 5. obama
by colorless green ideas on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:01:21 PM EST

Re: Our MySpace Experiment (none / 0)

it would have been nice to see thos "worked out" but the name Barack Obama" belongs to him no matter who sets it up ect....changing the password and then demanding money is simply extortion and the fact that he did a good job and for a while teamed up with the campaign doean't change that fact at all. Perhaps they should have paid as the "leverage" Anthony had was huge due to the PR shitstorm today, hopefully this now can be worked out.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Wed May 02, 2007 at 09:05:23 PM EST

Thanks for Obama's side Joe (3.00 / 1)

But bottom line, I agree with Jerome. The campaign should have bought him out when he declined to move to Chicago. There are plenty of reasons a person might not want to up and move to work at something that may just be no more than a year or two long gig at best. So buy the guy out. Do it graciously. And do it quickly.

As Jerome points out, the price was not out of line, and definately would have cost more if done through a "professional." Obviously the campaign needed control of this, it was in Senator Obama's name, so doing the right thing here would have cost less than $50K for something that gained much more than this in good press and good will alone.

But how much does this situation cost? What's that Warren Buffett quote: it takes a whole career to build up trust and five minutes to lose it? Seems the Obama campaign chose to panic, rightly or wrongly, and throw away the trust of not only Anthony here, but a lot of people. Over what? $50K for a guy who's efforts became more successful than he bargained for? And an unqualified success it was at a time when the campaign had no presence what so ever. Don't discount that. Make it right.

For those of you chiding the "greedy" volunteer, take a breath and step back. It's easy for a volunteer who is successful to find himself quickly in a role in which he finds himself still a volunteer, yet integral to the campagin in some way, along with the associated pressure and responsiblity. And a full time job at the same time.  And working more hours "volunteering" than at their full time job often results. There is a huge sense of pressure not to let the campaign down. If you put a volunteer in a role