Obama - ahead of Clinton Machine AND the mighty Blogosphere

Mydd had an article where it explained the Obama movement
http://mydd.com/story/2008/1/5/223227/67 68
"A careful observer of the Obama and Clinton campaigns' youth turnout efforts could have seen the results coming. Hillary's team were told to invite young people over for a night of watching TV shows like Gray's Anatomy or The Office, and use that opportunity to engage them in a conversation on the issues. Obama's team went about finding its cadre of supporters by using their website, built off of the FaceBook operating system or platform, in tune with Millennial's social networking habits. Once they found potential supporters, Obama's team didn't ask them to watch television, something Millennials do infrequently, unless it's on their laptop with shows downloaded from the Net, but to hang out at the local bar. There Michelle Obama, or "the closer" as her husband calls her, asked them to come out on caucus night and change America's politics forever." end quote

To which I add - Obama got these new voters while Edwards who was the last one in internet activity in 2004, merely cultivated his old "netroots" (from Kerry campaign and a few other old venues - by pumping advertising money  Kos, Democratic Underground et al and surrogate posts and mostly - trying to craft for himself a persona to fit those blogs and forums demands (way different than the 2004 candidate).
But this is 2008 - and new people vote today, people who don't give a damn about Kos, DU, but somehow discovered Obama and were inspired by him and brought into the political process.
Sorry, "netroots" - the word itself is antiquated already...

Tags: Blogosphere, Elections, netroots, obama (all tags)



Re: Obama - ahead of Clinton Machine AND the might

The netroots is more about message than turning out actual voters.  As long as I've been around, people who don't really understand the netroots have been writing them off as irrelevant.

by Steve M 2008-01-08 09:16AM | 0 recs

The netroots quite often has the wrong message. They hop onto the latest fad and it becomes the CW. Take social security, for example.

In 2005, it made COMPLETE SENSE to deny that there are any problems with SS. We had a Republican president bent on pushing privatization, and a GOP congress.

Right now, however, we're set to have a Democratic president and a democratic congress. There is no threat of privatization. In fact, it makes political sense to bring the issue up over and over and over. That way, we can make the GOP vote for privatization (it's really unpopular) and then they'll have to face voters.

And yet - the netroots folks are so in love with their supposed gift for "strategic" thinking that they haven't adjusted tactics. It's group think - but quite often, it's really dated group think...

by mcdave 2008-01-08 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Message...

How exactly do we make the GOP vote for privatization over and over?  I'm not exactly impressed with your superior political instincts here.  Frankly, none of the Obama supporters seem to have a clue when it comes to Social Security.

Tell me, do you think it was just a game to deny that there are problems with Social Security?  Are you under the impression that there really are problems?

by Steve M 2008-01-08 09:49AM | 0 recs
The funniest was saying the blogs are for
the latest fad. Of course if that were true, Oabma's support would have been overwheliming. There is just such stupidity that emanates from some Obama supporters.
by Big Tent Democrat 2008-01-08 09:54AM | 0 recs
the funniest ....
First of all, I am voting for Gravel in the primaries. So your "stupid" brush aimed at the competition missed its target in more than one way.
I didn't say that the blogs were a fad. However they started as activism, later called themselves media and eventually some transformed from media with point of view paid arms of campaigns - a bit of a conflict of interest.
Not all blogs mind you - there are plenty of credible ones around. But the most influential in the electoral game became the ones you can trust the least.
by Robbedvoter 2008-01-08 02:36PM | 0 recs
The wrong message
IF what you care about ONLY is winning the current election, thast is true. If you care about issues and wining the battle of ideas and policy, then that of course is a matter of opinion.
by Big Tent Democrat 2008-01-08 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: The wrong message
What I really care is getting rid of the thugs in charge and repairing as much of this democracy as possible. For this election I have just one hope: that the votes get counted so this time our candidate - whomever that happens to be - gets to take office.
    I also care about having a media that I can trust - and my conclusion is - in order to have that, I need to move fast, before today's good thing becomes Newsweek's fluff boy.
by Robbedvoter 2008-01-08 02:39PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads