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.
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).
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.
Social networks have value. He built the list. What to people pay for prequalified, opt in mailing lists?
That's not cyber squatting, which is a very narrow and incorrect way of viewing this. He did not just buy a url and do nothing with it. He built something powerful, a network, by the way, outside of its revenue potential and history, which generated lots of great free press and publicity for Obama that he'd have to pay a helluva lot to buy himself.
What would they have had to pay someone, purely on an hourly basis, to do the work Anthony had done?
Much more than that.
Another way to view pricing is not by hourly wage for professional service rendered but in terms of value. That is, what is the value to the buyer of the product? That calculation inclues what the asset is wiorth in terms of uts future revenue and labor saving cost potential.
If you monetize the value, these are small dollar donors worth much more than 39k, and also campaign volunteers who provide time/labor for free. Plus, the cost of generating a new list of such volunteers/donors is much more than 39k.
Plus, Obama's whole brand is about being a candidate of the pee-puhl. The small dollar fundraising cost of his tarnished brand following the campaign's attempt to strongarm this guy will cost more than the 39k, even assuming they make this right and fix it, like, right now.
No matter how you slice it, 39k was cheap cheap cheap.
I don't have the link, but Joe Trippi wrote about this here at MyDD. Trippi now works for Edwards, after saying he wanted to work for a "transformational candidate."
Ergo, it's reasonable to conclude that Edwards sees himself and wants to be seen as such a candidate. He has some credentials to make the case with fervor on domestic issues, but does not quite seem to be all the way there on foreign policy. His GWOT refusal at the debate was a very good sign, though.
There's an inside conversational process to attempt to influence candidates, and there's an outside process, which includes writing blog posts. I'm certain, without verifying it, that Tracy Russo and Joe Trippi read this post, and they understand what's going on.
I have not discussed this post or the thinking behind it with Matt, but it may very well be that he's signaling to the Edwards campaign that they are close but have work to do to close the sale on foreign policy.
If Edwards does that, it could make him a clear netroots favorite, something I would think the Edwards supporters here would want. Lighten up, Edwards bots.
You will notice that Matt uses his writing to pressure each major candidate to become something closer to a real netroots progressive favorite. That's how an outside movement works, folks.
It's our role in politics to bring her to a different place, to show her that progressive politics can be done with progressive structures, and that the perceived double-talk on single issue micropolling is no longer necessary or productive. Ultimately, and this may not be possible though I think it will be,
How? What do you propose?
we will have to figure out how to work together as strong allies.
Why? Are you saying that you believe her nomination to be inevitable, or are you speaking less about Senator Clinton, the presidential candidate, and more about the party establishment in general?
I don't understand what you're getting at. For my part,I've been inclined to steer clear of primary candidate endorsements, while pressuring any of them as seems most appropriate, and in that context, I'm just not sure what you're saying.
The Clinton camp is seeking to perpetuate the bedwetting state?
You can look at this in dry terms and say, yes, we should think through a Democratic response to potential attacks, but that's not what the Clintons are doing.
They're doing neocon fearmongering to slash the other primary candidates under their neoliberal banner, which, not coincidentally, openly supported the neocons until very recently.
This just shows how the Clintons do not get it and are not willing to bring needed change to the country. I'm sorry a lot of people find Senator Clinton to be a very nice and kind person. I rather expect she is. But this Rupert Murdoch friendly fundraising appeal is immoral and she should be called on it. It does not belong in Democratic politics.