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.