Actually, it's 48 state strategy.

about Obama as well.

I agree completely that this organisational effort would have been impossible without the funds to create and support it, as it was certainly costly, and while I acknowledge the institutional support he had for his bid initially from Illinois it is also clear that his fund-raising soon became another example of a broadly based network of relatively modest donations.  I don't mean to minimise the institutional support he had from the outset, and without which his campaign would never have gotten started, but it is also my thesis that he would not have been competitive without using those early resources to successfully reach out to a much broader, and national, donor base.  And certainly ample funding has been one of the cornerstones of his success throughout the campaign.  I intend, hopefully, to make that the subject of the next diary of the series.

Thanks for your insight about the telemarketing activities in Iowa, I was not aware of these.  As you point out it allowed the campaign to 'expand the universe of supporters' in a critical early state.  Did you have any objection to the use of this tactic at the time?  It seems innocuous enough, if effective.

I think that is the real key difference.  Both Clinton and Obama have used highly sophisticated turnout models to reach out to their voters.  In Iowa and New Hampshire in particular.  But after that she seemed to not be using that capability as much.

"One organizing tool Obama used in Iowa, which I haven't seen much written about, is hiring telemarketers to make voter ID calls disguised as opinion polls. Three questions: are you planning to caucus? Who's your first choice? Who's your second choice? Thank you for your time.

I don't know how many of those calls I got last year. It was a lot. I always ask who paid for the call, and the answer for almost all of those short survey calls was Obama for America."

Are you sure that these were hired? Because that is the exact script that has been used by every phone banker for the campaign in every state, and the official name of the campaign is "Obama for America."

As an organizer, I find it interesting that you say elections "have become just a game of political strategy..." as if there was once some golden age when elections were clean and pure.  

Nominations used to be totally decided at the conventions by party insiders, obviously just getting the right to vote has been a fight for everyone except white land owning men, and it was largely the Daley political machine that delivered the presidency to Kennedy, etc., etc.

What this post points out, i think, is also something that seems to exasperate Clinton supporters: Obama approaching politics like an organizer creates great excitement amongst his ever growing number of supporters and is very effective. The flip side, is that (some) of Hillary's supporters see this as something "wrong" with his supporters.  They are cult like, it is all about Obama the rockstar, etc.

Progressives would do well to remember that voters have never voted purely based on rational self interest. If they did , this would be a very different and better country. People vote based on emotions, on how they perceive people they respect are voting, on who they like best, etc.  

In organizing, we teach brand new organizers an acronym to help them understand an important principle about emotions and decision making:
AHUY = Anger, Hope, Urgency, You.  To inspire people to take action to improve there lives you must first get them angry about their situation, then provide them hope that things can get better, create urgency that now is the time, and finally show them that they as individuals play an indispensable role in creating the desired change.
The Obama campaign has captured this better than any political campaign I have ever seen.

Yeah, I have fallen into Commonwealth usage and admittedly have the UK-English spell-checker installed these days.  But I was born in Manhattan in 1954 in spite of spending the last twenty-four years overseas as a loyal but expatriate US citizen.  There are quite a few of us, actually.

You gotta be honest.

Quotes aside -- Hillary's campaign has been a top down campaign.

It's been completely and entirely built on the idea that Mark Penn's "micro-targeting" witchcraft can properly calibrate a message and organization to win  an election.  It's all micro-trends.  It's not about individual contact -- it's about finding the happy sweet spot that crosses multiple tiny demographics.

I'm not saying Penn's a complete idiot - microtrends and tiny demographics have their place when it comes to say... internet advertising.  But on the national political level?  Nonsense.  Foolishness.

It's why she's losing -- and like it or not -- it's another reason I think we're dodging a bullet by keeping the Clinton team off the top of the ticket.

Mark Penn conducting our national fall campaign would be a DISASTER.  Like it or not -- I don't want another fall campaign of process stories about whether the candidate should be wearing "earth tones".   I don't want another campaign paralyzed because they came up with a bad message out of the gate - then argued, fought, and couldn't settle on a better one.

Am I supporting Obama because his campaign has been run much better than Clinton's?

No... but it's an important factor that Democrats should take into account.

Well, if you have read Alinsky, and her thesis, you would know that the 'agitation' he was talking about was not violent, far from it:

He believed that widespread poverty left America open to the influence of demagogues and that the only antidote was active, widespread participation in the political process. Alinsky envisioned an "organization of organizations," comprised of all sectors of the community - youth committees, small businesses, labor unions and, most influential of all, the Catholic Church.

[...]

A passionate believer that social justice could be achieved through American democracy, Saul Alinsky methodically showed the "have-nots" how to organize their communities, target the power brokers and politically out-maneuver them. The lessons he taught people about the nature of power, imparted dignity to the poor and helped create a backyard revolution in cities across America. His work influenced the struggle for civil rights and the farm workers movement, as well as the very nature of political protest. He was a mentor to several generations of organizers like Ed Chambers, Fred Ross and Cesar Chavez. Alinsky's still thriving Industrial Areas Foundation became the training ground for organizers who formed some of the most important social change and community groups in the country.

The Life of Saul Alinsky

He was an activist who never espoused violence but saw that the legal rights guaranteed by law were not being utilised to empower the disadvantaged.  If you read Hillary's thesis you will see that she felt that the activism he proposed was too radical, and impractical, and she felt that his tactics were 'outside' the system even though they were within the law:

When one moves beyond the city and local issues, the idea of independent national organizing seems impossible.  The Depression demonstrated the feasibility of nationally controlled planning, and a massive war effort convinced us of it's necessity.  Now we are no longer so convinced.

Hillary Clinton - 'There is Only the Fight...': An Analysis of the Alinsky Model p 76 2 May 69

And it was clear that she was reluctant to oppose the institutions of power, at least at that time, by confrontation:

Nevertheless, her classmates insist she was never a radical. Hillary was more willing to work within the system to change things.

Paul Kengor - God and Hillary Clinton pp 28-29 18 Jul 07

I did my research.  To ascribe to Alinsky principles of violence betrays a complete lack of understanding of his philosophy and history.

Sorry but you are totally off base. Alinsky did not endorse violence as a means to an end. want to try another interpretation of that quote?

A very interesting point.  Yes, there is certainly a strong marketing influence with Obama's campaign, as one might predict with a national model.  And the confrontation element is evident only in Obama's message of opposition to special interests and the distinctions he has drawn between his campaign and 'the ways of Washington.'  But an election, especially a tightly contested one, is a confrontation of sorts as well.  I am not trying to present Obama as an activist leader of the disenfranchised, although he has mobilised many who would otherwise have not participated, but as a politician who has harnessed the notion of 'bottom-up' activism to a political campaign.

Jesse Jackson's runs for the presidency have been criticized for not building a substantial organization. The Rainbow Coalition was touted as an on-going, progressive organization, but after each election, when Jackson lost, the organization pretty much disappeared. Part of this was that his supporters were discouraged and part of it was that there was not enough money to sustain much of an organization. But part of it was Jackson's charismatic approach which did not really empower his followers.

After the 2008 election, whether Obama wins or loses, will his campaign organization continue as a powerful entity? Or can it shift supporters into other general progressive organizations like MoveOn or issue groups like NOW, Peace Action, the Sierra Club, and Jobs with Justice? Will his supporters feel empowered to be on-going activists or will they be taken for granted, ignored, or left behind? Are his supporters just rock star groupies / members of a charismatic cult or are they empowered, progressive activists who will go on to work for change for the rest of their lives?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but I hope that whether he wins or loses, Obama can transform the energy of all his supporters into something tangible and useful beyond November 2008. If he can do that and wins the election, then he will be much more effective as a President. If he can do that and loses the election, then the energy he generates will still help move the country in a progressive direction. If he cannot, then his model may be no more effective than Jesse Jackson's was.

I agree that your objection is a reiteration of the MLK vs LBJ argument, and I'm not sure if anybody wants to start that food-fight all over again but I will make a couple of points, firstly the enacting of that legislation was the last legal step in a long struggle which, with a few significant exceptions, was initiated and prosecuted almost exclusively by citizen activists acting within the law but in direct opposition to the de facto institutions which were supported, or at least condoned, by 'top-down' leadership for more than a century.

Secondly, the 'top-down' approach you refer to has been the conventional model for our political system, and parties, for decades.  In what reality does that more empower or involve citizens in transparency of government, insight into decision making or participation in the debates about their collective interests beyond the limited role we have been accustomed to all this time?  Where does that diminish the excessive power of the media in shaping public opinion and special interest in influencing our policy and national direction?  

And what part of the strategy of the Obama campaign discussed in the diary doesn't seem like leadership to you?  

Gimme a break.

"Daley machine".

Do you know who John Daley is?

I'll give you a hint... he co-chaired the campaign of one of Obama's opponents in the 2004 IL State Senate primary.  He also happens to have a relatively famous brother.  The other co-chair of that campaign?   Legendary Chicago/Cook County machinist Dan Hynes.

Christ.

I get so pissed at morons who obviously don't know what they're talking about who stride into threads and starting hurling bullshit like monkeys hurt their feces.

Precisely, he has used the community organizer as a badge of honor. Please read my post below.  He stood by his donor and put the community out to hang.  The power will go to the same people that it always goes to, it's just that the people will be lulled into thinking they belong in the table.  

Barak Obama stands on the shoulders of lots of good organizers like yourself who have worked in the trenches for the past 40 years inspiring people, empowering them, and building grass-roots organizations. Obama has allowed all these empowered people and organizations to support his candidacy -- unlike most politicians who want to control everyone or exclude them if they can't be controlled. This is great.

However, as freemansfarm points out above, Obama still tightly controls his organization -- the Obama campaign is not democratic -- he and his close advisors make all the policy decisions and the rest of us have essentially no say in that. The campaign encourages people to work on the campaign in their own way, but they are not encouraged to build their own policy organizations. Of course, it would be difficult to actually have a democratic campaign organization -- the nature of election campaigns dictates a certain amount of top-down control, especially in the very hostile media environment we find ourselves in and facing a very powerful and reactionary elite.

I think it is wonderful that organizers have done such a good job over the last 40 years to build the basic foundation of a strong progressive movement -- teaching, inspiring, and empowering people to challenge oppression and exploitation. I am very excited that Obama has courted the progressive movement and that it has lifted him up and may make him President. I hope that Obama continues to support the progressive movement and allows it to flourish. If he does, then the movement can continue to support him and lift him up to everyone's mutual benefit. I fear that he is just using the movement for his own purposes and will drop us once he either wins or loses the presidency. I hope my fears are groundless.

But no matter what happens, the progressive movement still has a strong foundation and appears able to wield quite a lot of power. This is wonderful!!