My next original Think, Obama post will return to the discussion that I began in "Practical Matters: One Refund, Part Two." In the interim, I wanted to offer comments that I left on a new Huffington Post story, "From the Obama Grassroots: San Francisco GO Kick Off!"
Again, this may be considered bad form (I honestly don't know), and if anyone thinks this is redundant, just skip this post. But I know some of the people reading out there are my friends from around the country, and they don't all have time to travel the blogs. They care, but they have other demands in their lives.
They agreed to come here out of respect for my friendship, and the fact that I believe what's happening now is important and needs their attention and their input. Whether it's my friends in Portland shaping our future incarnate by raising two amazing and dynamic children, or another in Boston, making sure that a new generation finds its way into one of the country's most revered education institutions, they're busy people.
So let me stop wasting their time. Here are some comments that I made on the story above, which discusses the Obama campaign's model for grassroots organizing in California. At a meeting in Northern California, a representative of the Obama campaign spoke enthusiastically about how they would be adopting grassroots tactics used by the United Farm Workers in the past. The idea is to create an unprecedented network of Californians for Obama, organized in units that reach down as far as each individual block in the state.
Good idea, but the columnist and I share some concerns. Please read on...
Mayhill,
Your concerned interest reflects my own, as well. I grew up in the 1970s, but lived the boycott through posters that still hung in my family's house as Reagan's shadow fell over the country at the start of the next decade. Cesar Chavez was a hero in our home (not to mention RFK), and I think there are great lessons to be learned from UFW tactics and successes.
As I think you're implying, those lessons do not translate into a ready-made template for action in 2008. Michael Dukakis recently implored Democrats, with particular focus on the Obama campaign, to consider a precinct-level effort (and to start moving in 50 states ASAP). It's encouraging to hear that they are putting a plan like this into action.
There seems to be a disconnect somewhere, though, as Barack Obama explicitly rejects the ideological battles of a previous generation, while his campaign fully embraces the tactical approach of those fights. Clipboards, conversations, and handshakes will accomplish a lot, but the piece that integrates these into feedback channels and sustainable communication structures that connect to the top still seems to be missing.
Zack Exley's recent look inside "Camp Obama" [found here] provides a glimpse of the incredibly talented and committed people being drawn to the campaign. This gives me hope that volunteers will start seeing opportunities to improve on the tactics they're being offered.
Hopefully, Barack is creating a new generation of leaders, and they're really going to lead. This means taking their training and building on it. They must make it work better as they see needs on the ground.
As you suggest, Obama supporters must learn from the whole story of the UFW. It's important that Obama attract talented people, but also that he have a campaign that can support and retain them.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Practical Matters: One Refund, Part Two
The friend who took me up on my invitation to attend the August 22 event called today to get a refund from the Obama campaign. She posted the story of her experience on her own blog, and I strongly encourage any committed Obama supporter who makes it here to read it.
The good news is that she was treated courteously, and assured that she would get her money back. She merely had to provide them with the same information that she'd written on a clipboard the night of the event. That was also the same information that she'd emailed to them at the NY Finance address a week ago in a message that hadn't received any reply a week later. She is the perfect example of why the Obama campaign should have been as well prepared for the Brooklyn event as you'd expect them to be for any big donor bash.
My friend is not terribly interested in politics (I've put this mildly compared to her own take on the subject). Which is not to say that she's indifferent to problems of policy, or lacks concern for her community, or society at large. In fact, she spends her professional life working on technology that makes more of the world accessible to people with disabilities. Not badly credentialed as a decent human being, I'd say.
My friend, however, has little stomach for the theater of politics. She is a computer programmer by trade, and her love of logic extends to an affinity for common sense, and a pretty strong disdain for gratuitous inefficiency. The sound-bite driven banality of modern American political life, with its endless repetition of obvious truths, does little to engage her.
In agreeing to check out my candidate, Barack Obama, she said that she was mainly looking for someone who wouldn't make any promises that were blatantly false, or disingenuously broad. Those weren't the exact words, but that was the spirit of her perspective: Don't do anything ridiculous, and I'll give you serious consideration. Not Bush, not conservative -- you're halfway there.
Did she think that overselling the event was the end of the world? No. But neither was she inclined to construe a loss of time and money, and subsequent unresponsiveness, as any sort of incentive to support the candidate.
Her first experience with the official campaign was one of poor event management. It was followed by poor customer service. As an open-minded person looking for cues to tell her about Barack Obama as a leader, she found poor organization.
When I spoke with the New York campaign office last week, I was asked near the end of the call how things could have been done differently. I began to provide some answers, but I didn't get any sense that the office was interested in thinking about how they still had the power to change the story that they'd created.
In my next post, I'll spend some time discussing how else that situation might have been handled, and hopefully will be in the future. I'll also focus on why it matters that we supporters, at the grassroots level and in the official campaign, need to listen and hear opinions that may seem unreasonable to us when they're based on direct, personal experience.
For example? Analogies between campaign management and governance. Today the campaign office, tomorrow FEMA.
If you don't like that story and don't want it to spread, you can't just drown people out with a sea of "Go Barack!" and "Obama '08!" postings. It requires listening, empathetic understanding, and real actions to change the story.
The good news is that she was treated courteously, and assured that she would get her money back. She merely had to provide them with the same information that she'd written on a clipboard the night of the event. That was also the same information that she'd emailed to them at the NY Finance address a week ago in a message that hadn't received any reply a week later. She is the perfect example of why the Obama campaign should have been as well prepared for the Brooklyn event as you'd expect them to be for any big donor bash.
My friend is not terribly interested in politics (I've put this mildly compared to her own take on the subject). Which is not to say that she's indifferent to problems of policy, or lacks concern for her community, or society at large. In fact, she spends her professional life working on technology that makes more of the world accessible to people with disabilities. Not badly credentialed as a decent human being, I'd say.
My friend, however, has little stomach for the theater of politics. She is a computer programmer by trade, and her love of logic extends to an affinity for common sense, and a pretty strong disdain for gratuitous inefficiency. The sound-bite driven banality of modern American political life, with its endless repetition of obvious truths, does little to engage her.
In agreeing to check out my candidate, Barack Obama, she said that she was mainly looking for someone who wouldn't make any promises that were blatantly false, or disingenuously broad. Those weren't the exact words, but that was the spirit of her perspective: Don't do anything ridiculous, and I'll give you serious consideration. Not Bush, not conservative -- you're halfway there.
Did she think that overselling the event was the end of the world? No. But neither was she inclined to construe a loss of time and money, and subsequent unresponsiveness, as any sort of incentive to support the candidate.
Her first experience with the official campaign was one of poor event management. It was followed by poor customer service. As an open-minded person looking for cues to tell her about Barack Obama as a leader, she found poor organization.
When I spoke with the New York campaign office last week, I was asked near the end of the call how things could have been done differently. I began to provide some answers, but I didn't get any sense that the office was interested in thinking about how they still had the power to change the story that they'd created.
In my next post, I'll spend some time discussing how else that situation might have been handled, and hopefully will be in the future. I'll also focus on why it matters that we supporters, at the grassroots level and in the official campaign, need to listen and hear opinions that may seem unreasonable to us when they're based on direct, personal experience.
For example? Analogies between campaign management and governance. Today the campaign office, tomorrow FEMA.
If you don't like that story and don't want it to spread, you can't just drown people out with a sea of "Go Barack!" and "Obama '08!" postings. It requires listening, empathetic understanding, and real actions to change the story.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Comments on the "Obama ATM" Thread
I recognize that I have a pronounced proclivity to pen prolix posts. In this tendency, I find one more reason to consider Barack "short-form debates aren't my thing" Obama a kindred spirit.
And yes, if you're wondering, I kicked off with the gratuitous alliteration, because another hallmark of my rhetorical style is to get heavy quickly. I'm trying to start a conversation, and I know I'm not going to get far offering a steady diet of long-form, humorless prose.
I was moved to lay these truths about my writing style on the table when I saw the length of a comment that I left tonight on the thread that's grown out of the Obama ATM story. I have no reservations about the points I wanted to make, but I'm new to some of these venues. I don't really have a good sense of comment-length etiquette, and I'm not sure if I may have offended. I hope not.
It occurred to me, too, that comment threads don't always get the widest readership two or three days after a new feature appears. [Unlike a new post here? Cough, cough. Well, I'm working on it.]
So I'm going to recycle/reuse/repurpose. Below in orange is a comment left for me based on something I'd written earlier. My reply follows.
The general theme of the exchange is why Barack Obama's campaign should adapt its four-state strategy and establish a deeper presence in other locations (particularly NYC).
Observations on Barack
Submitted by TNDem (not verified) on Wed, 08/29/2007 - 4:24pm.
To Justin Neely,
I may not have stated my point as clearly as I intended, so allow me to address this again. It isn't personal. From what I have seen, there is a huge demand for Barack Obama even still at this point. Similar to Bill Clinton, he has a certain charisma that draws people in and even here in my southern state, people would line up to hear him speak. That said, there are about 4 months until the first vote will be cast in the IA caucus. Any day that a candidate spends outside of these early states better somehow move the campaign forward. My guess is if he could, he would be in places like NY, CA, TN etc. It's just not possible. You are not going to see any candidate, Hillary included, spending much time in Brooklyn, no matter how large, unless it is a fundraiser. I'm sure that if either Barack or Hillary are the primary candidate, they will visit but before that. It's not happening.
BTW, if you feel that he "jumped into this race because the time was right, regardless of his relative lack of preparation", why do you even want him to come to Brooklyn?
Nothing harder to handle than early success...
Submitted by Justin Neely (not verified) on Wed, 08/29/2007 - 10:07pm.
TNDem,
Thanks for elaborating on your earlier comment. I understand that your observation is not personal, but a particular (and reasonable) pragmatic/strategic view of Obama, and the CW's, four-state approach to the primary. The challenge that I make to the campaign's application of that strategy is their early failure to adapt to on-the-ground realities.
Since we're on Rock's thread, I'd like to single out three points he included in the original post that reflect what I mean:
1. "[...] Obama should be different. If he strives to be different (and he is), he has to be consistent. He also has to lead by example."
2. "Believe me when I say that these events will make both mainstream and national media [...]"
3. "The efforts of his passionate NY/NJ volunteers should be harnessed by some experienced staffers. he needs to hire such staffers real soon. He should open offices in the tri-state areas ASAP. He has the money; he can afford it."
On point 1, the campaign has set a high bar for itself. They have to be ready for wild and premature success. Managing volunteers is a challenge, and staffers may want to focus elsewhere, but they are dealing with more than a charismatic leader. They are managing a celebrity.
That word has been used against him, but it is a fact that -- unlike the uber-charismatic Bill Clinton at the time of his run -- Barack is a celebrity in a celebrity-obsessed culture. It was something he may not have asked for, but to keep this national visibility an advantage, not a liability, he must extend his campaign farther and faster than any other candidate.
Point 2, on a related note, since he is already running a national media campaign (what magazine hasn't put him on its cover?), the NYC area is a particularly useful place to be involved in events on the ground. The concentration of industries with voices that travel (media, entertainment, finance) is disproportionately high, so what happens here will be heard at a volume not true of some other places.
But this leads me directly to Point 3, which is that the idea is not to suggest that Barack needs to spend so very much more time here himself. He does, however, need to build a larger, more visible, and more responsive official campaign presence. That will enable him to make more of the time he does spend.
In terms of popular perception, you can't be the leader in funds raised, and then suggest that you don't have the money to man a well-staffed office in a city that is also one of the world's largest economies. In my last phone call with the campaign, they actually emphasized that they're "not a big company" and implied that they're short on resources to deal with something like the overbooking of the Brooklyn event.
I'm a supporter, inclined to accept their pride in their low campaign funds burn rate (a feature of Plouffe's last media dispatch), but even I cringed at this dose of "awww shucks." They raised the money here, they can hire a few more staffers.
Either it is a different kind of campaign, or it's a different kind of candidate running on some tired, old assumptions. The strategy should be flexible and adaptable -- it's not just old or new. Expand the pie with some of that $50m+ war chest, don't make it a zero-sum game.
In answer to your final question, when I wrote that he entered the race in spite of being relatively unprepared, I didn't mean that in any pejorative sense. I think it's great that he was not intimidated by his lack of preparation (and by that I don't mean inexperience on the national stage, I mean that he didn't have a Clintonesque fundraising or campaign machine primed to go).
There were some stumbles early on at the Obama store, and with his site roll-out, as well as logistics around his first Manhattan stop, and the first official campaign meeting, that I all let slide as part of the campaign getting up to speed. The Brooklyn event, though, struck me as time to start a reality check on how well his campaign is running, so changes can be made before it is too late.
Thanks again for your comment, and I hope this elucidates some of my concerns.
And yes, if you're wondering, I kicked off with the gratuitous alliteration, because another hallmark of my rhetorical style is to get heavy quickly. I'm trying to start a conversation, and I know I'm not going to get far offering a steady diet of long-form, humorless prose.
I was moved to lay these truths about my writing style on the table when I saw the length of a comment that I left tonight on the thread that's grown out of the Obama ATM story. I have no reservations about the points I wanted to make, but I'm new to some of these venues. I don't really have a good sense of comment-length etiquette, and I'm not sure if I may have offended. I hope not.
It occurred to me, too, that comment threads don't always get the widest readership two or three days after a new feature appears. [Unlike a new post here? Cough, cough. Well, I'm working on it.]
So I'm going to recycle/reuse/repurpose. Below in orange is a comment left for me based on something I'd written earlier. My reply follows.
The general theme of the exchange is why Barack Obama's campaign should adapt its four-state strategy and establish a deeper presence in other locations (particularly NYC).
Observations on Barack
Submitted by TNDem (not verified) on Wed, 08/29/2007 - 4:24pm.
To Justin Neely,
I may not have stated my point as clearly as I intended, so allow me to address this again. It isn't personal. From what I have seen, there is a huge demand for Barack Obama even still at this point. Similar to Bill Clinton, he has a certain charisma that draws people in and even here in my southern state, people would line up to hear him speak. That said, there are about 4 months until the first vote will be cast in the IA caucus. Any day that a candidate spends outside of these early states better somehow move the campaign forward. My guess is if he could, he would be in places like NY, CA, TN etc. It's just not possible. You are not going to see any candidate, Hillary included, spending much time in Brooklyn, no matter how large, unless it is a fundraiser. I'm sure that if either Barack or Hillary are the primary candidate, they will visit but before that. It's not happening.
BTW, if you feel that he "jumped into this race because the time was right, regardless of his relative lack of preparation", why do you even want him to come to Brooklyn?
Nothing harder to handle than early success...
Submitted by Justin Neely (not verified) on Wed, 08/29/2007 - 10:07pm.
TNDem,
Thanks for elaborating on your earlier comment. I understand that your observation is not personal, but a particular (and reasonable) pragmatic/strategic view of Obama, and the CW's, four-state approach to the primary. The challenge that I make to the campaign's application of that strategy is their early failure to adapt to on-the-ground realities.
Since we're on Rock's thread, I'd like to single out three points he included in the original post that reflect what I mean:
1. "[...] Obama should be different. If he strives to be different (and he is), he has to be consistent. He also has to lead by example."
2. "Believe me when I say that these events will make both mainstream and national media [...]"
3. "The efforts of his passionate NY/NJ volunteers should be harnessed by some experienced staffers. he needs to hire such staffers real soon. He should open offices in the tri-state areas ASAP. He has the money; he can afford it."
On point 1, the campaign has set a high bar for itself. They have to be ready for wild and premature success. Managing volunteers is a challenge, and staffers may want to focus elsewhere, but they are dealing with more than a charismatic leader. They are managing a celebrity.
That word has been used against him, but it is a fact that -- unlike the uber-charismatic Bill Clinton at the time of his run -- Barack is a celebrity in a celebrity-obsessed culture. It was something he may not have asked for, but to keep this national visibility an advantage, not a liability, he must extend his campaign farther and faster than any other candidate.
Point 2, on a related note, since he is already running a national media campaign (what magazine hasn't put him on its cover?), the NYC area is a particularly useful place to be involved in events on the ground. The concentration of industries with voices that travel (media, entertainment, finance) is disproportionately high, so what happens here will be heard at a volume not true of some other places.
But this leads me directly to Point 3, which is that the idea is not to suggest that Barack needs to spend so very much more time here himself. He does, however, need to build a larger, more visible, and more responsive official campaign presence. That will enable him to make more of the time he does spend.
In terms of popular perception, you can't be the leader in funds raised, and then suggest that you don't have the money to man a well-staffed office in a city that is also one of the world's largest economies. In my last phone call with the campaign, they actually emphasized that they're "not a big company" and implied that they're short on resources to deal with something like the overbooking of the Brooklyn event.
I'm a supporter, inclined to accept their pride in their low campaign funds burn rate (a feature of Plouffe's last media dispatch), but even I cringed at this dose of "awww shucks." They raised the money here, they can hire a few more staffers.
Either it is a different kind of campaign, or it's a different kind of candidate running on some tired, old assumptions. The strategy should be flexible and adaptable -- it's not just old or new. Expand the pie with some of that $50m+ war chest, don't make it a zero-sum game.
In answer to your final question, when I wrote that he entered the race in spite of being relatively unprepared, I didn't mean that in any pejorative sense. I think it's great that he was not intimidated by his lack of preparation (and by that I don't mean inexperience on the national stage, I mean that he didn't have a Clintonesque fundraising or campaign machine primed to go).
There were some stumbles early on at the Obama store, and with his site roll-out, as well as logistics around his first Manhattan stop, and the first official campaign meeting, that I all let slide as part of the campaign getting up to speed. The Brooklyn event, though, struck me as time to start a reality check on how well his campaign is running, so changes can be made before it is too late.
Thanks again for your comment, and I hope this elucidates some of my concerns.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Race, the Race, and the People
Have you heard Barack's "Call to Renewal Keynote" speech (one of his Senatorial podcasts)? How about the one on "Network Neutrality" from June 2006? These are old news, but they're also good news. They're part of the reason I got excited about the possibility of a President Obama.
When I first took my enthusiasm for Barack Obama online, I landed on his official Senate site. I began reading everything that I could find posted, and listened to every speech I could download.
I was enthralled with the well-reasoned thoughts of the man I'd gotten to know better through Dreams from My Father and the Audacity of Hope. I didn't spend much time listening to what other people were writing or saying about him. I wanted to get to know him first, and start running with him (so to speak), following his political career as a Senator in real time.
By the end of January, I desperately wanted Obama to declare, but the more he lived up to my expectations, the more that I was afraid he wouldn't live through the announcement. That was my main concern about his run. Racism, fear, and ignorance, as well as a culture of violence in the United States, had in the last half-century cut down the best leaders of another generation. It left me tempering my hope with trepidation.
Which brings me to today. In the last week, I've been reading more broadly and attentively what people are writing online about both candidate and campaign. In the course of this reading, I found the post written by Rock Hackshaw that I included in my last entry.
After reading it at Daily Gotham, I ultimately found the more comment-friendly instance linked above at a site called Room Eight. I contributed a couple of thoughts there, and Rock replied to my inquiry about the feelings of Brooklyn for Barack members about the NY campaign presence.
He invited me to get in touch (which I definitely will do in the next day), and also asked if I'd read his three-post series (Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3) considering Barack as a candidate. Heeding the complaint of one commenter from my last post, I thought reading and responding briefly here would be a good way to spend a day away from my series of posts about concerns arising from last Wednesday and campaign operations.
Rock's posts are prolific, but the dominant themes concern the importance of race and identity in this political race, and how those issues and the way they're addressed (or manipulated, or ignored) translate into real-world consequences in the outcome of the election and the future of the country. I encourage you to read for yourself, because I'm losing quite a bit of detail there, but I think it's a fair overview.
One paragraph from the most recent post that I find particularly striking is the following:
There are many who would disagree with this, but with Al Gore a non-starter, there are only two things stopping Barack Obama from becoming the next president of the United States. One is called: racism. Yes; racism in all of its many varied and subtle forms. The other is a cousin (this time around): assassination. The latter could be either political or physical in nature. In fact it could be both political and physical; in that order.
I hope that my extended introduction to this post explains a little of why this attracted my notice, echoing concerns and thoughts that I'd shared. It's been many months since the campaign kick-off, and I've been spending my time focused on other aspects of the run. I've been trying to persuade friends to take the time to explore the substance behind the star, working to articulate why celebrity status could be an asset to a candidate of substance.
I've also tried to take my cue from Barack Obama. He has not made race and identity the fulcrum of this campaign, and so I've dutifully shifted my focus. Rock's posts make me rethink this decision.
Dreams from My Father, it's useful to remember, has an official title that includes the phrase "A Story of Race and Inheritance." As I emphasized in the January email that I've posted on this blog, the way that Barack has negotiated and resolved his own identity is a hugely important point on his resume. It says something about him as a person, but it is also a testament to his ability to understand this country and the people of the world.
His run is a great opportunity for us to talk about all of the divisions that keep us apart. Sometimes it's the pernicious myths of skin, another day it's religion, or region, or (Barack's favorite) funny-sounding names, foods, being foreign-born, or any other invention one person can find to keep another person at a distance.
To deny that racism, particularly in its most insidious, semi-conscious forms, is an issue in this election is foolish and dangerous. That's one reason why I think the national campaign effort shouldn't wait, especially where there's already support on the ground.
This campaign must bring out the votes that haven't felt connected to the political process, adding new numbers to the equation. Do not doubt that many generally decent people (of all backgrounds, because let's not forget that self-hatred is a powerful cultural force) will be possessed by many generations of demons when they reach for the lever to make their commitment to the future.
It's a hackneyed formulation, but if you're not made somewhat uncomfortable, you're not going to produce change. This country is going to have to go through some major convulsions if it's going to be ready for President Obama. Let's not pretend otherwise.
This campaign is sometimes called a quest without a cause. If the celebrity candidate fails, some would say, all is lost, because there is no greater rallying cry. Increasingly, I think that question is ours to decide.
We know the policy concerns that we share, and the ultimate goals that bring a large part of this country together behind some candidate of the left. What we shouldn't forget is that the way we conduct this campaign can itself produce change and have lasting effects.
That's what I appreciate about Rock's posts about Barack Hussein Obama (no shame in that name!). He's talking frankly about race, the race (2008), and the people. This is a chance for all of us to put some too seldom spoken thoughts on the table and deal with them. We can speak with different voices while working toward a common purpose.
It matters what we say and how we say it -- and that we say it at all. It matters how we get to the finish line.
Barack Obama's public life is a lesson in exhilarating challenge of combining idealism and pragmatism. It should teach us at least one thing: Just because we're willing to compromise, it doesn't mean we have to settle.
When I first took my enthusiasm for Barack Obama online, I landed on his official Senate site. I began reading everything that I could find posted, and listened to every speech I could download.
I was enthralled with the well-reasoned thoughts of the man I'd gotten to know better through Dreams from My Father and the Audacity of Hope. I didn't spend much time listening to what other people were writing or saying about him. I wanted to get to know him first, and start running with him (so to speak), following his political career as a Senator in real time.
By the end of January, I desperately wanted Obama to declare, but the more he lived up to my expectations, the more that I was afraid he wouldn't live through the announcement. That was my main concern about his run. Racism, fear, and ignorance, as well as a culture of violence in the United States, had in the last half-century cut down the best leaders of another generation. It left me tempering my hope with trepidation.
Which brings me to today. In the last week, I've been reading more broadly and attentively what people are writing online about both candidate and campaign. In the course of this reading, I found the post written by Rock Hackshaw that I included in my last entry.
After reading it at Daily Gotham, I ultimately found the more comment-friendly instance linked above at a site called Room Eight. I contributed a couple of thoughts there, and Rock replied to my inquiry about the feelings of Brooklyn for Barack members about the NY campaign presence.
He invited me to get in touch (which I definitely will do in the next day), and also asked if I'd read his three-post series (Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3) considering Barack as a candidate. Heeding the complaint of one commenter from my last post, I thought reading and responding briefly here would be a good way to spend a day away from my series of posts about concerns arising from last Wednesday and campaign operations.
Rock's posts are prolific, but the dominant themes concern the importance of race and identity in this political race, and how those issues and the way they're addressed (or manipulated, or ignored) translate into real-world consequences in the outcome of the election and the future of the country. I encourage you to read for yourself, because I'm losing quite a bit of detail there, but I think it's a fair overview.
One paragraph from the most recent post that I find particularly striking is the following:
There are many who would disagree with this, but with Al Gore a non-starter, there are only two things stopping Barack Obama from becoming the next president of the United States. One is called: racism. Yes; racism in all of its many varied and subtle forms. The other is a cousin (this time around): assassination. The latter could be either political or physical in nature. In fact it could be both political and physical; in that order.
I hope that my extended introduction to this post explains a little of why this attracted my notice, echoing concerns and thoughts that I'd shared. It's been many months since the campaign kick-off, and I've been spending my time focused on other aspects of the run. I've been trying to persuade friends to take the time to explore the substance behind the star, working to articulate why celebrity status could be an asset to a candidate of substance.
I've also tried to take my cue from Barack Obama. He has not made race and identity the fulcrum of this campaign, and so I've dutifully shifted my focus. Rock's posts make me rethink this decision.
Dreams from My Father, it's useful to remember, has an official title that includes the phrase "A Story of Race and Inheritance." As I emphasized in the January email that I've posted on this blog, the way that Barack has negotiated and resolved his own identity is a hugely important point on his resume. It says something about him as a person, but it is also a testament to his ability to understand this country and the people of the world.
His run is a great opportunity for us to talk about all of the divisions that keep us apart. Sometimes it's the pernicious myths of skin, another day it's religion, or region, or (Barack's favorite) funny-sounding names, foods, being foreign-born, or any other invention one person can find to keep another person at a distance.
To deny that racism, particularly in its most insidious, semi-conscious forms, is an issue in this election is foolish and dangerous. That's one reason why I think the national campaign effort shouldn't wait, especially where there's already support on the ground.
This campaign must bring out the votes that haven't felt connected to the political process, adding new numbers to the equation. Do not doubt that many generally decent people (of all backgrounds, because let's not forget that self-hatred is a powerful cultural force) will be possessed by many generations of demons when they reach for the lever to make their commitment to the future.
It's a hackneyed formulation, but if you're not made somewhat uncomfortable, you're not going to produce change. This country is going to have to go through some major convulsions if it's going to be ready for President Obama. Let's not pretend otherwise.
This campaign is sometimes called a quest without a cause. If the celebrity candidate fails, some would say, all is lost, because there is no greater rallying cry. Increasingly, I think that question is ours to decide.
We know the policy concerns that we share, and the ultimate goals that bring a large part of this country together behind some candidate of the left. What we shouldn't forget is that the way we conduct this campaign can itself produce change and have lasting effects.
That's what I appreciate about Rock's posts about Barack Hussein Obama (no shame in that name!). He's talking frankly about race, the race (2008), and the people. This is a chance for all of us to put some too seldom spoken thoughts on the table and deal with them. We can speak with different voices while working toward a common purpose.
It matters what we say and how we say it -- and that we say it at all. It matters how we get to the finish line.
Barack Obama's public life is a lesson in exhilarating challenge of combining idealism and pragmatism. It should teach us at least one thing: Just because we're willing to compromise, it doesn't mean we have to settle.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Asking for More [Updated]
I am trying to get some comments out to other Obama supporters (and other concerned, left-leaning individuals) who may not have made their way to this still obscure corner of the Web. I have not finished -- in fact, I've just begun -- shining a light on what events like last Wednesday's can do to a campaign. Making a case study of what's gone wrong, as I hope I've already made clear, is not about gratuitously haranguing the campaign in a public forum.
I am doing my best to remind supporters that they have the obligation to demand the most of their candidate and his operation. This also means having the responsibility to contribute vital ideas and solutions, along with any kind of critique. You don't have to be a trained volunteer to get something done right, and you don't have to accept what you see, if it doesn't seem like it's working.
I found a couple of interesting pieces online, and submitted comments to them. I'm not sure if those comments will make it through the moderation process, but for now I'll simply provide links to the latests reading that I've done. On the Huffington Post site, my comments appear under "jneely," and on the other, I was able to sign my name (though it took three submissions to get the form through).
It's precisely this attitude that I'm trying to question. This election needs to be about more than the victory of one man or one party. This is the time to change patterns of civic engagement in a country. Or is that just a line to attract cash? - JN, 4:33 p.m.]
I am doing my best to remind supporters that they have the obligation to demand the most of their candidate and his operation. This also means having the responsibility to contribute vital ideas and solutions, along with any kind of critique. You don't have to be a trained volunteer to get something done right, and you don't have to accept what you see, if it doesn't seem like it's working.
I found a couple of interesting pieces online, and submitted comments to them. I'm not sure if those comments will make it through the moderation process, but for now I'll simply provide links to the latests reading that I've done. On the Huffington Post site, my comments appear under "jneely," and on the other, I was able to sign my name (though it took three submissions to get the form through).
- Obama Field Organizers Plot A Miracle (Zack Exley on Huffington Post's Off the Bus)
- Observations On Barack Obama’s ATM Card (Rock Hackshaw on the Daily Gotham)
It's precisely this attitude that I'm trying to question. This election needs to be about more than the victory of one man or one party. This is the time to change patterns of civic engagement in a country. Or is that just a line to attract cash? - JN, 4:33 p.m.]
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Practical Matters: You Can Have a Refund
In a post yesterday recounting the conversation that I had with a representative of the Obama campaign, I focused on the tone of what I heard and what I believed the implications of that tone to be. I tried to avoid my initial impulse to provide a word-by-word account of what was said.
Unfortunately, in the process, I failed to share one very important practical detail of the conversation: ANYONE WHO WANTS A REFUND WILL BE PROVIDED WITH ONE. This is what Jennifer in the New York office unequivocally told me, and I'd like to share this information with anyone out there wondering.
In that call I also received an answer to my question about having purchased three tickets, but received only one email representing a "non-transferable" ticket. The campaign is under the impression that every single person standing in line provided an individual email address. When I told Jennifer that I provided the only email address for the three members of my party whose tickets were purchased in my name, she said they would take care of it (providing three tickets or an appropriate refund).
If you have questions or concerns from Wednesday that aren't being addressed to your satisfaction, or if you were simply put off by the anonymity and ambiguity of the apology email, you should know that the New York office contains the people who will be responsible for either returning your money or coordinating your attendance at the next event. The campaign clearly stated that their intention was never to discourage refunds, or to avoid individual accountability, so I wouldn't hesitate to contact them.
Apparently, the telephone number for the New York office is not published on the campaign website (so I won't publish it here), but anyone who calls Campaign Headquarters at (866) 675-2008 can be directed there just by asking. If this isn't the case, please let me know by commenting on this website or emailing me at thinkobama@gmail.com.
I should also mention that the New York office is under the impression that "no one wants a refund" based on what they've heard. I know of at least one person (my undecided voter friend) who invalidates this assertion, and had emailed them well before they had me on the phone.
I'm not trying to take money out of Barack's war chest (and I've put my share in it), but I'm troubled by the bubble of the like-minded that seems to be blinding at least part of the Obama operation. Poorly run events cost votes, and you don't hear from the people who are really put off.
They don't send concerned emails. They just walk away with a story. A bad one.
If you're lucky enough to have gotten an email address from one or two, if only because they want their money back, you have an opportunity. You can demonstrate the values you stand for by respecting their money, their time, and their right to choose a different candidate -- even on the basis of something that may seem trivial to you.
You can honor them as people by making it easy for them to walk away. That's an invitation to come back. That at least gives them a different story to tell.
Or you can reinforce the worst of their impressions, and prove that one bad night was not a fluke. You can compound your errors and alienate people more thoroughly.
I'm trying to change the story. Is the campaign going to help me help them? Can we, the grassroots, the part-timers, the concerned, wake them up and help them get the story right?
Comments are very welcome. Let's have a loud conversation.
Unfortunately, in the process, I failed to share one very important practical detail of the conversation: ANYONE WHO WANTS A REFUND WILL BE PROVIDED WITH ONE. This is what Jennifer in the New York office unequivocally told me, and I'd like to share this information with anyone out there wondering.
In that call I also received an answer to my question about having purchased three tickets, but received only one email representing a "non-transferable" ticket. The campaign is under the impression that every single person standing in line provided an individual email address. When I told Jennifer that I provided the only email address for the three members of my party whose tickets were purchased in my name, she said they would take care of it (providing three tickets or an appropriate refund).
If you have questions or concerns from Wednesday that aren't being addressed to your satisfaction, or if you were simply put off by the anonymity and ambiguity of the apology email, you should know that the New York office contains the people who will be responsible for either returning your money or coordinating your attendance at the next event. The campaign clearly stated that their intention was never to discourage refunds, or to avoid individual accountability, so I wouldn't hesitate to contact them.
Apparently, the telephone number for the New York office is not published on the campaign website (so I won't publish it here), but anyone who calls Campaign Headquarters at (866) 675-2008 can be directed there just by asking. If this isn't the case, please let me know by commenting on this website or emailing me at thinkobama@gmail.com.
I should also mention that the New York office is under the impression that "no one wants a refund" based on what they've heard. I know of at least one person (my undecided voter friend) who invalidates this assertion, and had emailed them well before they had me on the phone.
I'm not trying to take money out of Barack's war chest (and I've put my share in it), but I'm troubled by the bubble of the like-minded that seems to be blinding at least part of the Obama operation. Poorly run events cost votes, and you don't hear from the people who are really put off.
They don't send concerned emails. They just walk away with a story. A bad one.
If you're lucky enough to have gotten an email address from one or two, if only because they want their money back, you have an opportunity. You can demonstrate the values you stand for by respecting their money, their time, and their right to choose a different candidate -- even on the basis of something that may seem trivial to you.
You can honor them as people by making it easy for them to walk away. That's an invitation to come back. That at least gives them a different story to tell.
Or you can reinforce the worst of their impressions, and prove that one bad night was not a fluke. You can compound your errors and alienate people more thoroughly.
I'm trying to change the story. Is the campaign going to help me help them? Can we, the grassroots, the part-timers, the concerned, wake them up and help them get the story right?
Comments are very welcome. Let's have a loud conversation.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Campaign Barack Brush-off: "I'm sorry that you feel that way"
I called the New York office of the Obama campaign today, using a phone number provided to me by a friend who is a still-weary veteran of the Dean campaign. The conversation that I had did not restore my confidence in what I've seen from where I sit in Brooklyn.
I called at about 3 p.m., since I hadn't received any response acknowledging receipt of the email that I sent yesterday evening. I knew there was a good possibility that it could be lost in the shuffle of a crowded inbox (though this is certainly part of what concerns me about the management of the campaign), and I wanted to give them a fair chance to share their perception of what happened. I also hoped they might have some additional communication plan in the works, based on my feedback or that of others.
A summary of that call: They're sorry. Well, actually, they're sorry that I feel that way. They had the best intentions. They're a small office, not a big business. What else could they have done?
Sigh.
I spent something like thirty minutes on the phone with Jennifer (likely Jennifer Yeager, NY Finance Director for Obama, based on my reading of Glynnis Macnicol's Huff Post piece). The summary paragraph above is as far as my concerns were heard. Not heard.
When I called, I identified myself as a supporter and a writer, and asked if the office had received the email that I'd sent the previous evening regarding the Brooklyn event. She put me on hold and returned to say that they had received it, and requested a number where I could be reached. They would get back to me shortly. She hadn't identified herself, so before she hung up I asked politely for her name. She provided it as her tone perceptibly soured.
She called back within five minutes and explained more warmly that she wanted to respond personally to the concerns in my email. She began by explaining that they were in no way trying to hide by sending an email from a general email account. They send all of their messages that way and sign them "Team Obama." It's S.O.P. and they do it so that email messages can be accessed by multiple users.
This was the first indication to me that this call was not headed in a good direction. What is it, I wonder, about the structure and tone of my message that would ever lead someone to assume that my concern centered on the operational details of a campaign office? Had she taken the time to google me, she might have discovered that I identify myself online as a freelance writer, editor, and technologist. Finding out more about who you're talking to before you comment on anything should be S.O.P. -- both to serve them better, and to protect the interests of the campaign.
Or she might simply have read the email itself with less haste, and understood that I was not concerned about what intern or volunteer might be screening a communal inbox. The point is one of accountability, and putting a face on the campaign besides that of Barack. Having another person willing to stand up and say, "I take responsibility for this mistake, and I am a person you can contact if you have questions or concerns about how we rectify this situation." The communication should not be one-way only.
I'm very tempted to recount our exchange word for word. Why? Because the exchange that took place on the phone was not one of two people working for the same cause, and sharing ideas about how to make things work better. It was, as a friend described her own approach replying to the campaign's email, more like "dealing with bad customer service."
Jennifer was interacting with me according to a simple (and tired, and ineffective) campaign playbook. I was not heard, I was managed. Or an attempt was made to "manage" me.
She answered the phone politely. Located my email quickly. Skimmed it and assessed the tone as one of a disgruntled supporter who should be appeased quickly. Rather than spending the time to compose a thoughtful reply, or to consult with Chicago, she identified the priority as rapid response.
This m.o. is very similar to that which drove the ill-considered email that they sent out to those locked out. She was proud that they collected "everyone's name and email address" from the line and sent out a message within 24 hours.
I don't mean this to be an ad hominem attack on someone whose intentions certainly are good. However, good intentions and good judgment are two different things.
Barack Obama wants to demonstrate to doubters that experience is not the issue. Good judgment and the ability to build a good team is what it takes to govern effectively.
I am here to remind staffers and supporters that the campaign is a proving ground for this assertion. Campaigns will not be perfect. But admitting mistakes when they happen, and creating a culture of accountability in your organization is crucial.
Nothing that I heard on the phone makes me believe that the campaign's official presence in New York would know enough to do better next time. They're learning some tactical basics, but the biggest lesson -- about respect for supporters -- is being lost. The lines between staffers, volunteers, supporters, and curious undecided voters, are artificial and counterproductive.
Every time the "us and them" mindset takes over an organization, unity goes out the window. The most important idea that didn't seem to register was that transparency matters.
If you offer yourself up as a different kind of candidate, running a different kind of campaign, then you've set the bar higher and you will be held to your own articulated standards. That's what this blog is about.
I called at about 3 p.m., since I hadn't received any response acknowledging receipt of the email that I sent yesterday evening. I knew there was a good possibility that it could be lost in the shuffle of a crowded inbox (though this is certainly part of what concerns me about the management of the campaign), and I wanted to give them a fair chance to share their perception of what happened. I also hoped they might have some additional communication plan in the works, based on my feedback or that of others.
A summary of that call: They're sorry. Well, actually, they're sorry that I feel that way. They had the best intentions. They're a small office, not a big business. What else could they have done?
Sigh.
I spent something like thirty minutes on the phone with Jennifer (likely Jennifer Yeager, NY Finance Director for Obama, based on my reading of Glynnis Macnicol's Huff Post piece). The summary paragraph above is as far as my concerns were heard. Not heard.
When I called, I identified myself as a supporter and a writer, and asked if the office had received the email that I'd sent the previous evening regarding the Brooklyn event. She put me on hold and returned to say that they had received it, and requested a number where I could be reached. They would get back to me shortly. She hadn't identified herself, so before she hung up I asked politely for her name. She provided it as her tone perceptibly soured.
She called back within five minutes and explained more warmly that she wanted to respond personally to the concerns in my email. She began by explaining that they were in no way trying to hide by sending an email from a general email account. They send all of their messages that way and sign them "Team Obama." It's S.O.P. and they do it so that email messages can be accessed by multiple users.
This was the first indication to me that this call was not headed in a good direction. What is it, I wonder, about the structure and tone of my message that would ever lead someone to assume that my concern centered on the operational details of a campaign office? Had she taken the time to google me, she might have discovered that I identify myself online as a freelance writer, editor, and technologist. Finding out more about who you're talking to before you comment on anything should be S.O.P. -- both to serve them better, and to protect the interests of the campaign.
Or she might simply have read the email itself with less haste, and understood that I was not concerned about what intern or volunteer might be screening a communal inbox. The point is one of accountability, and putting a face on the campaign besides that of Barack. Having another person willing to stand up and say, "I take responsibility for this mistake, and I am a person you can contact if you have questions or concerns about how we rectify this situation." The communication should not be one-way only.
I'm very tempted to recount our exchange word for word. Why? Because the exchange that took place on the phone was not one of two people working for the same cause, and sharing ideas about how to make things work better. It was, as a friend described her own approach replying to the campaign's email, more like "dealing with bad customer service."
Jennifer was interacting with me according to a simple (and tired, and ineffective) campaign playbook. I was not heard, I was managed. Or an attempt was made to "manage" me.
She answered the phone politely. Located my email quickly. Skimmed it and assessed the tone as one of a disgruntled supporter who should be appeased quickly. Rather than spending the time to compose a thoughtful reply, or to consult with Chicago, she identified the priority as rapid response.
This m.o. is very similar to that which drove the ill-considered email that they sent out to those locked out. She was proud that they collected "everyone's name and email address" from the line and sent out a message within 24 hours.
I don't mean this to be an ad hominem attack on someone whose intentions certainly are good. However, good intentions and good judgment are two different things.
Barack Obama wants to demonstrate to doubters that experience is not the issue. Good judgment and the ability to build a good team is what it takes to govern effectively.
I am here to remind staffers and supporters that the campaign is a proving ground for this assertion. Campaigns will not be perfect. But admitting mistakes when they happen, and creating a culture of accountability in your organization is crucial.
Nothing that I heard on the phone makes me believe that the campaign's official presence in New York would know enough to do better next time. They're learning some tactical basics, but the biggest lesson -- about respect for supporters -- is being lost. The lines between staffers, volunteers, supporters, and curious undecided voters, are artificial and counterproductive.
Every time the "us and them" mindset takes over an organization, unity goes out the window. The most important idea that didn't seem to register was that transparency matters.
If you offer yourself up as a different kind of candidate, running a different kind of campaign, then you've set the bar higher and you will be held to your own articulated standards. That's what this blog is about.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Barack in Brooklyn: Treat the People Right!
This is the full text of my reply to the campaign's ill-considered, anonymous, and generally impoverished apology for Wednesday night's mismanaged event. I never imagined that this blog would be launched with a wake-up call, but here it is.
To: Obama for America - NY Finance
Dear campaign staffer:
I appreciate your effort to address what happened at Senator Obama's Brooklyn event last night. I cannot tell you, however, how dismayed I am to receive this message in this form.
Last night's event was handled abysmally from a supporter's point of view, and unfortunately you are extending the worst of what took place last night into today. In the spirit of supporting this campaign, I would like to enumerate a few of the obvious problems here.
First, I'd like to know why I am unable to address this email to a person. There is no one taking responsibility by signing this message or sending it from a named email account. Why not demonstrate accountability by offering supporters the reassurance of a point of contact? One-way communication from an anonymous address and "Team Obama" is not good enough for a campaign built on listening.
Second, again to the issue of accountability, stating that "overwhelming grassroots support for Senator Obama" is the reason that pre-sold ticketholders were not able to be admitted to a planned event is both disingenuous and disrespectfully evasive. Offering that you "couldn't accommodate everyone interested in attending" approaches simple doublespeak. You are implicitly refusing to acknowledge that you made a promise to people -- sold them something, in fact -- and failed to deliver.
I suspect that Obama supporters, myself included, are willing to accept mistakes and anticipate some disappointments. What we expect in return is candor and some degree of transparency.
This is where the management of a campaign becomes a significant indicator of what one might expect from an Obama administration. Is the culture of the campaign one that inspires people to act with integrity and respect, or does it inspire a self-serving, self-justifying "win at all costs" approach? If the Senator cannot transmit his values throughout the campaign bureaucracy, why should we hope that he can inspire a country?
Beyond the semantics of your message, I am even more disappointed by its failure on a practical level. Nowhere do you mention that you clearly told ticketholders not admitted to the event last night that they would have the option to choose between a future event and a refund.
Not being prepared to begin processing refunds is certainly reasonable. Not acknowledging what you said outside the Marriott last night is not. It effectively raises an opaque wall between the formal campaign and the "overwhelming grassroots." Don't be afraid of your supporters!
Even worse, the logistical problems that seem to have plagued the event itself are echoed by what you offer here. You propose that your message serve as one non-transferable admission to a future event, based on one email address as an identifier.
I purchased three tickets in two separate transactions. How precisely does your offer accommodate my wife or the 16-year-old young man I mentor, who was hoping to attend his first-ever political event?
I can tell you that it will also further alienate a voting-age friend, not yet a supporter, whom I invited to the event. She'll be out of the country next month, and now likely to cast her lot with Senator Clinton in the primary.
This event was not a free rally. It was a planned event targeting people of lesser means. It offered to make donors of those supporters who might not have had the income to attend Manhattan's $100 per ticket fundraiser.
Validating that smaller contribution level with a personal appearance was a great idea. A logistical mistake was regrettable. In the wake of that failure, not treating $25 donors as you would treat $2000 donors is disgraceful.
Downplaying what a $25 contribution might mean to a working person is anathema to the spirit of a campaign lauding its grassroots funding and hailing $5 donors. These are the people whose contributions should be treated with the most respect.
I have been a supporter since before the Senator declared his decision. I hosted a viewing party on April 1, and was proud to be featured in the New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/us/politics/01obama.html ) as "a dream of a supporter."
I have not been deterred by past mistakes and shortcomings in my interactions with the campaign. Politics is a rough and dirty business, and I understand the technical, logistical, and ethical challenges of trying to run a different kind of campaign while remaining competitive. That said, I believe that I would do a disservice to this effort by remaining silent about the latest negative experience.
I'm sending this message, and plan to enlarge this conversation, because as much as I want Barack Obama to succeed, I want his espoused values to succeed even more. We are a country in crisis, and people need more than inspiration. They need to be trusted by the people who would lead them.
Respectfully,
Justin Neely
To: Obama for America - NY Finance
Dear campaign staffer:
I appreciate your effort to address what happened at Senator Obama's Brooklyn event last night. I cannot tell you, however, how dismayed I am to receive this message in this form.
Last night's event was handled abysmally from a supporter's point of view, and unfortunately you are extending the worst of what took place last night into today. In the spirit of supporting this campaign, I would like to enumerate a few of the obvious problems here.
First, I'd like to know why I am unable to address this email to a person. There is no one taking responsibility by signing this message or sending it from a named email account. Why not demonstrate accountability by offering supporters the reassurance of a point of contact? One-way communication from an anonymous address and "Team Obama" is not good enough for a campaign built on listening.
Second, again to the issue of accountability, stating that "overwhelming grassroots support for Senator Obama" is the reason that pre-sold ticketholders were not able to be admitted to a planned event is both disingenuous and disrespectfully evasive. Offering that you "couldn't accommodate everyone interested in attending" approaches simple doublespeak. You are implicitly refusing to acknowledge that you made a promise to people -- sold them something, in fact -- and failed to deliver.
I suspect that Obama supporters, myself included, are willing to accept mistakes and anticipate some disappointments. What we expect in return is candor and some degree of transparency.
This is where the management of a campaign becomes a significant indicator of what one might expect from an Obama administration. Is the culture of the campaign one that inspires people to act with integrity and respect, or does it inspire a self-serving, self-justifying "win at all costs" approach? If the Senator cannot transmit his values throughout the campaign bureaucracy, why should we hope that he can inspire a country?
Beyond the semantics of your message, I am even more disappointed by its failure on a practical level. Nowhere do you mention that you clearly told ticketholders not admitted to the event last night that they would have the option to choose between a future event and a refund.
Not being prepared to begin processing refunds is certainly reasonable. Not acknowledging what you said outside the Marriott last night is not. It effectively raises an opaque wall between the formal campaign and the "overwhelming grassroots." Don't be afraid of your supporters!
Even worse, the logistical problems that seem to have plagued the event itself are echoed by what you offer here. You propose that your message serve as one non-transferable admission to a future event, based on one email address as an identifier.
I purchased three tickets in two separate transactions. How precisely does your offer accommodate my wife or the 16-year-old young man I mentor, who was hoping to attend his first-ever political event?
I can tell you that it will also further alienate a voting-age friend, not yet a supporter, whom I invited to the event. She'll be out of the country next month, and now likely to cast her lot with Senator Clinton in the primary.
This event was not a free rally. It was a planned event targeting people of lesser means. It offered to make donors of those supporters who might not have had the income to attend Manhattan's $100 per ticket fundraiser.
Validating that smaller contribution level with a personal appearance was a great idea. A logistical mistake was regrettable. In the wake of that failure, not treating $25 donors as you would treat $2000 donors is disgraceful.
Downplaying what a $25 contribution might mean to a working person is anathema to the spirit of a campaign lauding its grassroots funding and hailing $5 donors. These are the people whose contributions should be treated with the most respect.
I have been a supporter since before the Senator declared his decision. I hosted a viewing party on April 1, and was proud to be featured in the New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04
I have not been deterred by past mistakes and shortcomings in my interactions with the campaign. Politics is a rough and dirty business, and I understand the technical, logistical, and ethical challenges of trying to run a different kind of campaign while remaining competitive. That said, I believe that I would do a disservice to this effort by remaining silent about the latest negative experience.
I'm sending this message, and plan to enlarge this conversation, because as much as I want Barack Obama to succeed, I want his espoused values to succeed even more. We are a country in crisis, and people need more than inspiration. They need to be trusted by the people who would lead them.
Respectfully,
Justin Neely
Barack in Brooklyn: A Sorry Apology
Below is the text of an email that I received today from the campaign. At the time that it came in, I was still weighing how I would respond to the mismanagement of Wednesday night's event. This message reinforced the worst of what I'd experienced and provided me with the impetus to make a statement in the form of a reply to the email.
Thank You
Obama for America - NY Finance
Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Good afternoon,
Thank you so much for attending Senator Obama’s event in Brooklyn last night. We all greatly appreciate your support. Due to the overwhelming grassroots support for Senator Obama, we simply couldn't accommodate everyone interested in attending. We are sorry you couldn't make it in and we are determined to make this up to you.
While we can’t make up the time you spent waiting outside, we would like to provide you with a guaranteed opportunity to see the Senator when he next returns to New York. Please hold the evening of Monday, September 24th on your calendars. Senator Obama will be back in New York City and this email guarantees you one non-transferable ticket to that event. As soon as we have the details, we will pass them on to you. Please keep in mind you are the only one who can redeem this ticket.
Thank you for your patience and understanding. We really appreciate your support.
Sincerely,
Team Obama
Thank You
Obama for America - NY Finance
Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Good afternoon,
Thank you so much for attending Senator Obama’s event in Brooklyn last night. We all greatly appreciate your support. Due to the overwhelming grassroots support for Senator Obama, we simply couldn't accommodate everyone interested in attending. We are sorry you couldn't make it in and we are determined to make this up to you.
While we can’t make up the time you spent waiting outside, we would like to provide you with a guaranteed opportunity to see the Senator when he next returns to New York. Please hold the evening of Monday, September 24th on your calendars. Senator Obama will be back in New York City and this email guarantees you one non-transferable ticket to that event. As soon as we have the details, we will pass them on to you. Please keep in mind you are the only one who can redeem this ticket.
Thank you for your patience and understanding. We really appreciate your support.
Sincerely,
Team Obama
Barack in Brooklyn: First, There Was THE LINE
Photo: © Hiroko NeelyWhen faced with this line outside of the Brooklyn Marriott, I took it as a good sign. I expected to find myself at the back of a very crowded room of enthusiastic Obama supporters. The energy was good, people were patient, and Barack was coming to Brooklyn. What could go wrong?
Actually, everything could go wrong for my party of four. No admittance, and no good explanation. Coverage of the shut-out circulated earlier today.
Glynnis Macnicol on the Huffington Post's Off the Bus section: GENERATION NOBAMA: Wildly Overbooked Campaign Event Leaves Barack Pack Out on the Street
Steve Kornacki on the New York Observer's The Politicker: Chaos in Brooklyn?
Jen Carlson on Gothamist: Barack Takes Brooklyn
Actually, everything could go wrong for my party of four. No admittance, and no good explanation. Coverage of the shut-out circulated earlier today.
Glynnis Macnicol on the Huffington Post's Off the Bus section: GENERATION NOBAMA: Wildly Overbooked Campaign Event Leaves Barack Pack Out on the Street
Steve Kornacki on the New York Observer's The Politicker: Chaos in Brooklyn?
Jen Carlson on Gothamist: Barack Takes Brooklyn
Barack in January: When I Stood Up
The night before Barack Obama declared his candidacy, I reserved a domain: www.thinkobama.com. I had already decided that I was going to support his run. Though I wasn't sure how I'd do it, or what I'd have to say, I wanted to stake out a space to do it.
I'd made my mind up in January, and gone public with my commitment via a reply to an email list maintained by a friend. I was responding to comments on Jim Webb's rebuttal to the State of the Union address. This friend and some others were contrasting the tone of his remarks to statements made in brief interviews by Hillary and Barack. The comparison wasn't favorable, and I was moved to share another interpretation -- one that expressed my sense of excitement about Barack and what he could offer to the country.
Many things have happened in the intervening months. I find myself giving life to the URL fueled again by a passionate response to an email concerning Barack. This one came from his campaign and marks a low point for me in how the values he represents have been translated into action.
Since I've decided to offer the entire text of a critical letter that I've written to the campaign, I'm eager to post the text of my January email, as well. It captures another dimension of my passion and enthusiasm. They both come from the same commitment to the vision that Barack Obama has articulated, and I would like them to be understood as part of a continuum of hope and belief.
The text in all its ad hoc imperfection is below. There's still a long road ahead. Let's make sure that we think about each of the steps that we take.
-----Original Message-----
From: Neely, Justin
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:36 PM
It sounds like the time has come for me to begin my public advocacy of Barack Obama. I respect your opinion, and for that reason I'm taking up the keyboard on a mission to get you to reconsider your summary dismissal of the man I believe should next lead the country.
Webb gave an outstanding rebuttal, but I don't think we need him drafted for 2008 (we will still need leadership and integrity in the legislature, won't we?). I'm also convinced that he doesn't exceed Obama in the charisma category.
Obama's fifteen minutes are certain to end, but the conclusion of that fifteen minutes for a person in public life does not mean a trip into obscurity. He's been granted a largely uncritical, soft-focus close-up in recent months, because our celebrity-driven culture industry could monetize the unblemished image of a saintly newcomer. But just because the attention he's received may not all have been awarded him based on merit, it in no way means that he does not merit our attention.
He hasn't had to do much to earn the exposure he's been given, but he has had to manage its effects. I don't think there's anything tepid or milquetoast about his approach to politics and policy. He's a dynamic intellectual with a fairly complex personal identity, yet he has been able to maintain a public persona that can withstand the pressures of the volatile conduit that is the corporate-driven fame machine.
A backlash is absolutely inevitable. Not the standard Obama/Osama "confusions," or agenda-driven slanders about radical Islamic education, but the general media's forthcoming exhaustion in seeking positive angles, and the undeniable hunger of media consumers for variety.
The tone of Obama's remarks were appropriate to the level of scrutiny that he's under, and the amount of amplification that anything he utters will automatically receive. He's not calling additional attention to himself, because he already has as many headlines as he can handle.
If he'd taken a similar rhetorical posture to Webb last night, it would have run on the cover of the Times as an attempt at a coup d'etat! It would also have been dissected as a challenge to Hillary, and all seen in the context of 2008 (just look at this http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/clinton.obama/index.html).
It's exactly the fact that Webb delivered these remarks that allowed them to be heard for what they were and to have meaning, rather than to become lost in the noise of speculation and connotation. Obama speaks candidly, but last night (I was watching Shields and Brooks on PBS, so missed him on CNN, but caught remarks archived on ABC's website) he chose not to speak provocatively. This moment being what it is, at every turn, in every committee meeting, during each walk down a hallway, he is speaking to Democrats of all stripes, the larger public, and major political donors simultaneously.
He may leave things unsaid, and he must be a shrewd tactician, but he brings a different kind of candor to the table. This media savvy doesn't alienate me, and I am most struck by his ability to engage in conversation in a public forum. It's not simply about the way he talks, but about the way that he listens.
Nothing is more inspiring today than to see a leader eager to listen, and willing to think in public view. I also believe that a much higher than average number of his answers to questions come more from conviction than calculation, albeit political reality is such that the two are often inextricably intertwined. He strikes a balance that to me is ethical and appropriate, and his selectively understated comments arrive in the context of a larger and more challenging message.
Through an unexpected commingling of fame and fate, part of this message has already reached a broad audience, and he's been given a unique opportunity. It's good for me to get your perspective on the wary disenchantment in Democratic ranks, but I feel that it's important to share word that among some serious-minded people I know, there's a palpable sense of possibility and excitement.
I'm spending a lot of time digging into who this man really is, and his identity, and awareness of it, matters a lot to me. It is considered and constructed, complex and diverse, and well-suited to an age in greater need of empathy. No leader is better positioned to communicate by example that race, religion, and national identity are not absolutes, but are nonetheless of great importance to people, and need to be considered in matters of policy with an open mind.
He's bright and talented, and no doubt laden with flaws as yet unimagined, but I want the country to learn more about his particular vision of an issue-focused and tolerant centrism before deciding that his brush with fame should relegate him to the celeb dustbin with past contestants from American Idol.
I could, and suspect that I soon will, write more about this. There are a couple of speeches on his website that I should share with you sometime, but I would appreciate it if you would pass along any part of these comments that you feel appropriate to the larger conversation on which I was cc'd.
I'd made my mind up in January, and gone public with my commitment via a reply to an email list maintained by a friend. I was responding to comments on Jim Webb's rebuttal to the State of the Union address. This friend and some others were contrasting the tone of his remarks to statements made in brief interviews by Hillary and Barack. The comparison wasn't favorable, and I was moved to share another interpretation -- one that expressed my sense of excitement about Barack and what he could offer to the country.
Many things have happened in the intervening months. I find myself giving life to the URL fueled again by a passionate response to an email concerning Barack. This one came from his campaign and marks a low point for me in how the values he represents have been translated into action.
Since I've decided to offer the entire text of a critical letter that I've written to the campaign, I'm eager to post the text of my January email, as well. It captures another dimension of my passion and enthusiasm. They both come from the same commitment to the vision that Barack Obama has articulated, and I would like them to be understood as part of a continuum of hope and belief.
The text in all its ad hoc imperfection is below. There's still a long road ahead. Let's make sure that we think about each of the steps that we take.
-----Original Message-----
From: Neely, Justin
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:36 PM
It sounds like the time has come for me to begin my public advocacy of Barack Obama. I respect your opinion, and for that reason I'm taking up the keyboard on a mission to get you to reconsider your summary dismissal of the man I believe should next lead the country.
Webb gave an outstanding rebuttal, but I don't think we need him drafted for 2008 (we will still need leadership and integrity in the legislature, won't we?). I'm also convinced that he doesn't exceed Obama in the charisma category.
Obama's fifteen minutes are certain to end, but the conclusion of that fifteen minutes for a person in public life does not mean a trip into obscurity. He's been granted a largely uncritical, soft-focus close-up in recent months, because our celebrity-driven culture industry could monetize the unblemished image of a saintly newcomer. But just because the attention he's received may not all have been awarded him based on merit, it in no way means that he does not merit our attention.
He hasn't had to do much to earn the exposure he's been given, but he has had to manage its effects. I don't think there's anything tepid or milquetoast about his approach to politics and policy. He's a dynamic intellectual with a fairly complex personal identity, yet he has been able to maintain a public persona that can withstand the pressures of the volatile conduit that is the corporate-driven fame machine.
A backlash is absolutely inevitable. Not the standard Obama/Osama "confusions," or agenda-driven slanders about radical Islamic education, but the general media's forthcoming exhaustion in seeking positive angles, and the undeniable hunger of media consumers for variety.
The tone of Obama's remarks were appropriate to the level of scrutiny that he's under, and the amount of amplification that anything he utters will automatically receive. He's not calling additional attention to himself, because he already has as many headlines as he can handle.
If he'd taken a similar rhetorical posture to Webb last night, it would have run on the cover of the Times as an attempt at a coup d'etat! It would also have been dissected as a challenge to Hillary, and all seen in the context of 2008 (just look at this http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/clinton.obama/index.html).
It's exactly the fact that Webb delivered these remarks that allowed them to be heard for what they were and to have meaning, rather than to become lost in the noise of speculation and connotation. Obama speaks candidly, but last night (I was watching Shields and Brooks on PBS, so missed him on CNN, but caught remarks archived on ABC's website) he chose not to speak provocatively. This moment being what it is, at every turn, in every committee meeting, during each walk down a hallway, he is speaking to Democrats of all stripes, the larger public, and major political donors simultaneously.
He may leave things unsaid, and he must be a shrewd tactician, but he brings a different kind of candor to the table. This media savvy doesn't alienate me, and I am most struck by his ability to engage in conversation in a public forum. It's not simply about the way he talks, but about the way that he listens.
Nothing is more inspiring today than to see a leader eager to listen, and willing to think in public view. I also believe that a much higher than average number of his answers to questions come more from conviction than calculation, albeit political reality is such that the two are often inextricably intertwined. He strikes a balance that to me is ethical and appropriate, and his selectively understated comments arrive in the context of a larger and more challenging message.
Through an unexpected commingling of fame and fate, part of this message has already reached a broad audience, and he's been given a unique opportunity. It's good for me to get your perspective on the wary disenchantment in Democratic ranks, but I feel that it's important to share word that among some serious-minded people I know, there's a palpable sense of possibility and excitement.
I'm spending a lot of time digging into who this man really is, and his identity, and awareness of it, matters a lot to me. It is considered and constructed, complex and diverse, and well-suited to an age in greater need of empathy. No leader is better positioned to communicate by example that race, religion, and national identity are not absolutes, but are nonetheless of great importance to people, and need to be considered in matters of policy with an open mind.
He's bright and talented, and no doubt laden with flaws as yet unimagined, but I want the country to learn more about his particular vision of an issue-focused and tolerant centrism before deciding that his brush with fame should relegate him to the celeb dustbin with past contestants from American Idol.
I could, and suspect that I soon will, write more about this. There are a couple of speeches on his website that I should share with you sometime, but I would appreciate it if you would pass along any part of these comments that you feel appropriate to the larger conversation on which I was cc'd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
