A Few Dollars More at the End of the Quarter

I never stop thinking about the Obama campaign these days, but I sometimes do stop writing about it. I took an end of week break starting Friday. I'm not sure that pause is over, but I do have a few things to say as Q3 fund-raising comes to a close tonight.


1. Last Week

The first is what I was up to last week. I alluded to working feverishly after Monday night's event to put something together. Well, it begins with the buffalo heads above. That's a preview of what's to come around here. Something other than words. Yup.
This is not an unveiling -- the pensive buffaloes above are my own esoteric handiwork -- but the real goods are soon to come. With the help of a talented friend, and the input of a few other generous pals of mine, a mini-campaign was put together last week. I have a full-blown, print-ready couple of sloganeering designs set to go.

The campaign to come is going to focus on promoting agility and opportunity, as well as some specific ideas: connecting the youth vote with seniors (GenerationS Obama, anyone? Building intergenerational relationships to court older voters and ensure turnout by younger ones...), pushing harder in local diasporic populations and fighting countrywide for endorsements from our elected representatives at every level.

2. Big and Small

I'm talking campaign concerns here.

I haven't heard back yet about my "why no signs?" inquiry on Thursday. Fortunately, I was not promised to expect an answer immediately by the Obama volunteer at the HQ number. It might be nice to have a speedier answer, but it makes all the difference that someone was trained well enough to be helpful without overpromising.

Of somewhat greater concern are a couple of emails that I've received from one of the NYC volunteer groups. Apparently, the deadline for independent voters (or registered Republicans who've caught the fever) to switch party affiliations in order to vote in the February 5 Democratic primary here is October 12. Someone checked the data and found a huge number of independents statewide -- enough to make a big difference in the contest between Barack and Hillary.

I'm glad that the word is getting out and that people are talking about how to make a public plea for Obama-leaning independents to walk in Democratic shoes for a few miles, but this seems like a big miss by the campaign. This is exactly the sort of issue that NYC volunteers could have been pushing for the last seven months. Given the way independent votes are likely to fall, it would have made sense to have a systematic campaign to recruit one-time, "Obama Democrats" for the primary vote earlier in the year.

I realize that it's my duty to pitch in and figure out how to make the most of the next 12 days, rather than beginning a postmortem. I'd just like to cite this as one concrete example of why it makes sense for creative people to start thinking ahead and acting, NOT just to wait for direction from HQ. I think I've spent the last month making this case to myself, hoping secretly that I'd be proven wrong, but I'm done with that. Complimentary efforts can only help the cause.

3. Good News

The good news as of tonight's email box is that Barack has gotten a bump in Iowa. According to a Newsweek story cited in an email and available on BarackObama.com, Obama holds a small lead over Hillary among likely caucus-goers. Granted, the margin of error given the sample size basically has the potential to eradicate any candidate's lead in this particular survey, but the Obama ahead spin is coming from Newsweek, not just Obama's guy, David Plouffe. In that sense, the data means less than the fact that one major media outlet is refraining from the "presumptive winner" line for at least a week.

4. The MONEY

Also, the campaign hit its mark for donors and donations. Before the deadline hit, they'd already crossed the 350,000 donor mark and claimed to have received more than 500,000 donations, as well. This will not win the race, but it's not definitely not bad news. Before signing on here, I anted up another $10 (freelance writer=big spender) to flip the counter just a little bit higher.

5. URL Hiccup Ahead

Finally, and this really ought not be at the bottom of this post, I will be redirecting the www.thinkobama.com domain in the next day or two. I know I have readers of different ages and levels of comfort online, so it's hard to know what level of detail is helpful to communicate. I just want to advise you not to be worried if you have any trouble bringing up the site this week.

For anyone using thinkobama.com to get here, there may be a day or two of oddities. I hope not. If you have any trouble, you can always get here directly, using http://thinkobama.blogspot.com in your browser.

Once the transfer is complete, there may be more to this place than just a blog. The end of this year promises to be a wild political ride.

An Excellent Volunteer at Obama HQ

I promise you that I am always looking for good news. I believe that when mistakes are made, there is still the possibility for a positive message to come from them. That's why I'm posting a quick entry about a call that I just had with a volunteer answering the main number at Obama HQ.

Last night I wrote about my dismay at the discovery that signs and banners weren't going to be permitted at the Washington Square Park rally today in NYC. I did some online research last night to try to find an explanation and came up empty-handed. Today I picked up the phone.

I still don't have an answer, but I had a great experience with an earnest and well-trained volunteer named Eric. He listened to me identify myself as a supporter, writer and blogger, and had no qualms. He focused on trying to get me an answer to my question.

When I said that my question generally pertained to a matter of policy about the rapid-entry tickets, he mentioned that there had been some other calls about them and checked the information at his disposal (presumably via an online call-response system). He offered me some details about what I could do if I hadn't received a pass, and said that they weren't required for entry in any case. This was much better than a scripted response -- this was an appropriate improvisation based on the training he'd received.

I thanked him for that information, but told him that my question was actually about the "No signs or banners permitted" in the fine print of the pass that I had received. He checked his system for information about that particular concern, but also conversationally said that he, too, found it surprising. There was no information at his disposal to answer the question, so he said that he would be very willing to pass my inquiry on to the correspondence department and he hoped that someone would respond to me in a timely way.

He was also willing to speculate, as a matter of personal opinion, that it might be related to city or park regulations, or even be a clerical error. In short, he admitted without hesitation that he didn't know the answer. More importantly, he was willing to acknowledge and even share -- speaking clearly as one individual supporter to another -- the spirit of my concern without saying anything that the organization might consider inappropriate.

Eric handled the call perfectly. He took my information, thanked me for my support and expressed his hope that someone would get back to me before the rally, acknowledging that the response might not be quite that quick. I couldn't and wouldn't ask for more.

I look forward to this candid style of communication being practiced throughout the organization. As always, a lot depends on the ability of a particular individual, but I strongly believe that organizations (including government bureaucracies) can create cultures that reward people for doing their work in the spirit of this volunteer -- which is to say, in the spirit of what Barack Obama is promising.

A Bad Sign for Obama NYC Rally

I received this "rapid access pass" graphic in an email from the Obama campaign today at about 8 p.m. ET. I was glad to see it arrive in the inbox in advance of tomorrow's rally in Washington Square Park. Then I read it.

One voice, I was told Monday night by Barack, can change the world. But signs and banners aren't welcome at a political rally. No further explanation.

I've been working furiously to translate an idea inspired by Monday night's speech into meaningful action. Friends -- not yet supporters of Barack Obama -- have generously donated their time to help me, believing in nothing but my commitment and the meaning of friendship. I won't stop working on the full realization of that idea, but I have now been given another side project.

I will be looking for answers to this inconceivably bad decision starting tomorrow. Not at the rally, though. I consider myself officially uninvited.

One Promise Kept

One story on this blog has reached its conclusion. The ending was fundamentally a happy one. As promised, we received three tickets for the "Barack on Broadway" benefit last night to make up for being shut out of the Brooklyn event on August 22.

The young man I mentor, who is now 17 years old, got to experience Barack in person. That mattered to me symbolically, but also personally, and I'm grateful that the campaign found a way to connect with one young voter they almost let get away.

There's more I'd like to say about this, but those three tickets say enough for now. This blog will remain a supportively critical look at the progress of both the campaign and the larger 2008 race, but I will also be trying to shift emphasis to more ideas for action.

I was inspired by Barack's speech at the end of the program, but also motivated to attempt more by missed opportunities that I saw on the ground. Barack reiterated his commitment to telling difficult truths to the people who need to hear them. That's the battle that I'm fighting right now.

The campaign needs to be more agile, more aggressive and more aware of its own resources. It's time to do more, and do more things differently.

If we (supporters and campaign) hold back now, there's not going to be a later for Barack Obama's candidacy. This takes more than two disconnected fields of roots (net and grass).

I have a couple of things in mind to extend this conversation to the street, and start making more direct links between the two worlds. The phone calls have begun, and I'm lining up the resources at my disposal to get this moving.

I am not willing to settle for a "Countdown to Change" in this country. It can begin now, and I'm doing my best to give it a hand.

Activism of All Stripes

Hello, readers. Handful of you that there are, friends of mine and possibly a few unknown visitors, I don't want to neglect you another day. I'm going to comment on my two-day absence, because it has relevance to what I've been publishing here.

In addition to working (for money) during the last two days, I've spent a great deal of time preparing a very short application for a fellowship being offered by MoveOn.org. After several months of intermittent involvement in all things Obama, and a month of engaged blogging, I've realized that I cannot escape an urgent sense that change is required in this country. I firmly believe that now is the time, and I believe that Barack Obama's campaign is one possible road to making a meaningful difference.

I think Barack would be the first to tell you, though, that there are many other ways to achieve some of the same ends. These include small, personal decisions about the ways one leads one's own life, as well as public arenas outside of mainstream political races. I'm currently shopping around for something public, and I don't anticipate limiting myself to one vein of activity.

I have mixed feelings about the tactics employed by MoveOn.org in some of their campaigns, but I respect the effort that they've been making for years to establish a left-leaning power base outside of the Democratic Party. This is less controversial than third-party politics; it's no party politics. That's an idea that I can embrace. Actions that center on shared causes, rather than strategic calculations built on the entangled legacies of our two dominant power machines.

Regardless of the outcome of my last-minute (that's an understatement) fellowship application, completing it proved a challenging exercise in concision -- no 1200 word answers allowed -- and self-inquiry. I walk away with a newly condensed take on my politics.

I'll share question ten with you as an example. I don't think my answer quite says it all for me, but it was fun to try.


10. Tell us your political philosophy in 10 words or less.

people not profits / open borders open minds / means always matter
(my political philosophy as haiku - 10 words, 17 syllables)

Now take a little time time to answer the question for yourself. I can guess one thing about your response that I learned from mine: It's going to contain more than a candidate's name.

Comment Boosting Barack on The Caucus

Having given full expression to my frustrations yesterday, I have felt a little more free today to remind the world why I'm a supporter of Barack Obama. As any reader will quickly realize, I spend very little time on this blog examining what's going well, but that doesn't mean that I don't see it.

I came across this post, "Obama Targets Manhattan," on one of the New York Times' blogs today. The lede mentions shut out supporters at the August 22 Brooklyn event; this immediately drew my attention. The author seems to imply that the Obama campaign organized September 27 in response to the sidewalk full of disappointed people in Brooklyn.

This may not be inaccurate strictly speaking, because that event certainly demonstrated NYC is ready for a large, free Obama rally. Nonetheless, it's incomplete; the good news is missing. In deciding to offer all shut out supporters seats at a $250 per ticket fund-raiser, the campaign had quietly created a great story that wasn't being reported.

I'm guessing the Obama media team didn't give much thought to publicity, because the story begins with a logistical mistake. As far as I'm concerned, the mistake is out there, but the response is another opportunity entirely to demonstrate what Barack Obama stands for in this race.

This is what I submitted and I hope it makes it up on the site, or at least catches the attention of Gerry Mullany, who penned the post:

One important detail regarding the first paragraph of this post from one of the supporters who was shut out in Brooklyn. The Obama campaign has offered every supporter who didn't make it into the Marriott on August 22 a seat at Barack on Broadway, the $250 per ticket fund-raising event on September 24. The NYC office has reached out by email and phone to extend this offer and an apology.

The free September 27 rally is a great, separate event, but it should be reported that the campaign is making a point of recognizing the value of $25 contributors and their time by offering them this access upgrade. This is early proof of a candidate who finds ways to make inclusiveness and respect part of the campaign, not just the speeches.

I write this as one of Barack's most critical supporters, complaining loudly online under the heading "Think, Obama" when the campaign falls short of its own high standards. They make mistakes, but I don't see anyone doing better by small donors.

Any other candidates out there ready to sacrifice $225 per seat at a fund-raiser to translate their principles into action? That's not just hope, that's actual change.

Other comments had already taken on the title (a little dubious indeed), and then launched into a Barack v. Hillary exchange. Perfectly appropriate, but I hope that my contribution will help spread the upside of the Brooklyn shut out story.

Of course, as I mentioned yesterday, I'm still holding my breath and hoping that all will proceed smoothly on Monday. The happy ending is not yet fully in hand.

I'm thankful that the campaign has done enough to give me a good story to tell in response to a piece like today's from the Times. I have the facts to share, and I want people to know about them.

I'm looking for more good stories, and I'll keep suggesting ways the campaign can create them. In this space, though, I'm always going to write candidly about whatever I find along the way.

Comment on Hillary's Secrecy Compulsion

The emotionally charged tone of my posts yesterday may suggest that I was on a critical bender directed only at my candidate, Barack Obama. As it happens, I also took the time to comment in a public forum on the latest example of Hillary Clinton's astounding propensity to obscure her decision-making from public view.

A story on HuffPo's Off The Bus site described a press conference held by Hillary's campaign in conjunction with the announcement of her healthcare plan. The briefing was intended to provide journalists with access to policy experts from the team that had put it together, presumably to help improve the quality of their coverage by allowing them to ask detailed questions.

The following if an excerpt of Beverly Davis' description of how it began:

[...] before we could start querying the three member panel, the Clinton press handlers attempted to control the spin by announcing, "This will be for background only." That's press-speak for: "It's off the record."

What?

Was this a bad flashback to the secretive Clinton White House years?

[...]

"Why is it [the meeting] background?" asked a testy Dan Balz of the Washington Post, who was sitting next to me.

"Well, unless there's some brilliant quote, we want this to be just background," said Jay Carson, Clinton's National Press Secretary.

"But why? That's why we're here; to find out who these people are and what their contribution has been and is," I chimed in.

"Unless we're going to have a revolt, this will be background," Carson responded coolly.

More grumbling and grousing by Balz and Huffington Post's OffTheBus until Carson relented to our demands that the meeting be on record and the policy team of Neera Tanden, Gene Sperling, and Laurie Rubiner began explaining the finer details of Senator Clinton's latest health care plan for the nation.

This is why I really value Barack's focus on openness and think it is significant that he keeps encouraging a change in politics. It's also the reason why I think we should all push harder to see that his standard is put into practice.

After my previous post on the subject of policy, the Chicago Tribune published a story providing some details about the 200-person network of policy advisers working on the Obama campaign. Why not extend the website to include a list with short bios for this engine of policy development? What better way to underscore the contrast with Hillary Clinton on one of the issues that is central to many people's aversion to her?

Several of the reactions in the comments following the story were dismissive of the knee-jerk secrecy, and went straight to claims of journalistic bias, slander and ad hominem attack. This is the default attack posture of right-wing radio. The press event may have had an adequate resolution this time, but the tendency is a real problem in our politics.

This is the comment that I offered on the site:

SiskoKid and linfar,

I appreciate your feeling that Hillary is a frequent target on this site. I'm personally an Obama supporter, but I understand that the tone of comments about Hillary is often vitriolic.

That said, please do not neglect the issue of secrecy and press handling. This is a CRUCIAL question.

People seriously discussing change in this country are seeking an end to the opacity and deception of the Bush White House. I believe Tinuviel and BevDavis both express this anger in their comments, though they take aim at the press' complacency and complicity in the face of being "handled."

This issue cuts across ALL policy debates. We must all hold the candidates we support accountable for setting a different tone. If we don't demand honesty now, we're not going to get it in 2008.

What's wrong with starting that conference "off the record" is the mindset it betrays. Secrecy for its own sake is a pernicious foe of democracy. It's fine that campaign PR relented in this case, but what might the outcome if the PR had the leverage of the WH behind it?

I'd like to see all campaigns disclose the identities of their policy teams publicly. Why should these decisions ever be made in the shadows?

Defend Hillary's plan and laud her ability, but don't ignore a dangerous tendency in her organization. Ask better of your candidate, so others might be persuaded to join your cause.

posted 05:07 pm on 09/18/2007

Frankly, I don't see Hillary changing her approach to politics anytime soon. That is a real difference between candidates, and it's a crucial strength that we Obama supporters should highlight and the Obama campaign should put into practice at every opportunity.

We must build more concrete examples of what Barack IS doing differently, not just in legislation, not just in speeches, but in the day to day operations of the campaign. As this article illustrates, the contrast will be glaring. Let's make the most of this opportunity to win new supporters by doing the right thing.

Group Think Stinks (Tuesday, Part 3)

One more example of language gone awry, you say? Something more insidious to end the day?

Barack is coming to NYC. No, no. Again. Three days after Broadway.

Here's an email from Barack that supposedly went out to supporters in the region. It didn't arrive in my inbox, but my mother upstate received two. So I guess we're even?

It's not actually the form letter that concerns me. It's a little flat, but that's fine. Scroll down a bit on the page and you'll find a very interesting comment. Let me save you the trouble:

By J. Lowe 55 minutes ago
Dear W -

You are thread jumping, so I am posting here in case you do not see over there.

The campaign staff does not monitor the blogs for advice, concerns, or ideas. Please submit your concerns directly to the campaign. You can do this by clicking on the Issues button and then using the MyPolicy system. Discussion of the issues, especially where we disagree, is set up through this system.

I have seen HQ and know how integrated and important this system is in setting out the course of the country.

Most importantly, we are volunteers. We are not highly paid policy and economic advisers to the campaign. We are not equipped to debate the issues in detail, nor should we be asked to.

Right now, the purpose of this blog is fellowship, welcoming, and training. This is what we are qualified to do. Not debate.

SO, if you disagree, write the campaign and tell them what you want to see.

The bold emphasis is from the original post, but the color is mine. Does anyone else find this disturbing?

I'm a little unclear on the context of the original thread, but I know that it involves people exchanging ideas. That's all I need to know.

Volunteers are not equipped to debate issues in detail? Citizens, by implication, aren't qualified to raise questions about issues of policy in a public forum?

There's a contained little pen called "MyPolicy" where form submissions can be sent for evaluation by the "highly paid [really? that would be some news to report] policy and economic advisers to the campaign." Everyone should keep quiet and fly right.

The exclusive purpose of the Obama blog is "fellowship, welcoming, and training" according to this commenter. Barack is a charismatic leader, but this is the rhetoric of a full-fledged personality cult. No one on the page bats an eye. Instead, the hosannas keep coming.

To emphasize what's going wrong here, let's turn back to the content of Barack's letter:

[...] these crowds tell me something else. They tell me that when it comes to what's wrong with this country, the American people are not the problem. The American people are the answer.

[...] In the face of a politics that's shut us out, that's told us to settle, that's divided us for too long, we believe we can be one people, reaching for what's possible, building a more perfect union.

What is the origin of the disconnect between the candidate's message and the behavior of his supporters? What do these words mean to other people?

We could all benefit from some experiential training in creative-thinking an problem-solving. Why would that not be one of many possible purposes of the site?

The ethos of a campaign that's about the American people solving problems themselves and becoming involved in a revitalized civic culture should be one of open discussion, questioning and inclusiveness. I appreciate the fervor and understand the emotional connection, but these are meaningless without reason.

Stifling debate and dissent is a great way to kill nascent innovation. It's also a sure method for missing the contribution of extraordinary thinkers who are leading lives outside of the political establishment. People with good ideas do many, many kinds of jobs. That's the whole point of Barack's campaign!

Promise and praxis! I say it again. If someone interested in the candidate can't go to his site, ask questions, raise problems and expect to hear what supporters have to say, then why pretend to give people a voice? I doubt that the question that preceded that reply came from a policy expert.

It's time to trust ourselves again. A right unexercised is likely to atrophy. Speak freely while you can.

Watch Your Language (Tuesday, Part 2)

Just one more thing about that email, as Peter Falk's Columbo might have blogged. Team Obama recycled language from their initial post-event message. I'm not talking about quotes from Barack's best speeches. I'm talking about the same disingenuous, passive-voiced excuse for an excuse that I decried in my email to the NYC office, and my subsequent phone conversation with them.

Obama NYC: Thanks for listening.

It was a poorly written email the first time. It was disappointing then for what it implied about the values of the campaign in its operations. This time it just looks lazy.

Do you have no communications staff? No writers who might volunteer to assist you with this sort of communication? (I remember something about a professional writer filling out a volunteer form February 10... hmm, I wonder if he's still available?)

The pieces sit together awkwardly. To someone who enjoys words, it reads with roughly the same grace that Frankenstein's monster might bring to a lead role in Swan Lake.

Well, judge for yourself. I've probably oversold its shabbiness, but try to read it with fresh eyes.

Good afternoon,

Once again, thank you so much for attending Senator Obama's event in Brooklyn on August 22nd. 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.

Hopefully, you’ve already received an email and a phone call from us prior to this confirming your interest in attending on the 24th. We need you to contact us by email (ny-finance@barackobama.com) or phone (212) 763-4850 by 6:00pm TODAY in order to confirm your attendance if you have not done so already. Otherwise we’ll have to let these complimentary tickets go.

Thank you for your patience and understanding. We really appreciate your support.

Sincerely,

Team Obama

Yes, quite. And a good afternoon to you, Team Obama. My eyes tear with the sincerity of your labors on my behalf.

Is that really the best we can do? I don't enjoy being so acid in my criticism, but I'm becoming fatigued by the onslaught of vapid, superficial communications.

Who's Coming to Broadway? (Tuesday, Part 1)

I got an email from my Brooklyn event refund friend today. She forwarded an email that she'd received letting her know that tonight at 6 p.m. would be the last chance that she had to reserve a spot at the September 24 Barack on Broadway event.

She thought this was funny, because her refund had already posted. Not really funny, actually, but another example of lax organization related to the Brooklyn event that I might want to know about.

I called her to discuss it, and we agreed that it seemed more than a little hard to believe that no one had created a master list of people shut out of the Brooklyn event. It's the sort of basic event planning skill that you might pick up by organizing a children's birthday party. Not complicated stuff.

No one seems to be keeping track of who requested (or was issued) a refund, who requested a ticket (or tickets) and who hadn't replied. The problem is not just that it's really simple to do that -- lists can be kept with pen and paper, if need be -- it's that keeping a list would be a great way to help things go smoothly on Monday . What possible rationale is there for not getting that right?

Of course, when I hung up the phone the same blanket email was waiting for me in my inbox. Yup.

As you may recall, I'd confirmed my attendance and established that I'd need three tickets on September 13. It was a good conversation, and I thought things were turning around in the NYC office.

I decided to call and ask very simply whether or not I needed to take any action, since I had spoken with someone already. The person I spoke with (she didn't identify herself -- I guess that's not part of the phone training -- and I didn't ask) could tell me next to nothing.

The conversation went something like this:

Sure, I was probably fine if I'd corresponded with someone. Oh, I'd spoken with someone by phone... well, yes, that was probably fine, too. I'd have my ticket. What? I'd need three tickets? Fine, someone would contact me about how I could buy the other two. Oh, I had purchased three for the original event. Right, well, that's fine -- what's my name? She'd talk with the person who had told me I was fine and confirm that it was ok. No, she didn't have the list in front of her, so she couldn't check it. Fine, yes, and you have a good day, too.

So I have no idea what will be waiting on Monday, but I know they have a good track record for not turning away people without tickets. I guess I'll just count on that, then.

Volunteering in New Hampshire with Campaign Obama?

Last Thursday was a busy day for many things Obama in my life. I posted the continuation of the Brooklyn event story at 4:30 p.m. that day, but I didn’t share anything about another phone call from the Obama campaign that came in around 8 p.m. that night.

Let me explain at the beginning of this story that, much like the old television stand-by Dragnet, the names in this story have been changed to protect the innocent. Actually, one name has been omitted to protect … I don’t know what.

That’s really what this story is about. Communication breakdown number two.

Now back to Thursday. A volunteer coordinator from the New Hampshire office left a voicemail message responding to a form I’d filled out February 10 at BarackObama.com offering my support to the campaign. The coordinator left a name, a New Hampshire number and an “@barackobama.com” email address, suggesting that I get in touch to talk if I’m still interested in helping out. The person was particularly hoping that I might be able to volunteer my time in New Hampshire, since it’s such a crucial primary state.

I replied by email early in the afternoon on Friday, apologizing for not being available that day, but asking about a convenient time to discuss the campaign’s needs. I thought chances were slim that I’d hear back by email before Monday, so I decided to hold off on the blogging the experience until I had something more substantive to report. I had no sense of whether the conversation would be responsive to what I’d written (looking for foreign-language skills, writing or technology background), or a call to pick up a clipboard.

This afternoon I decided to call them back, since by 3:30 p.m. I hadn’t seen an email reply. I wasn’t invested in the turnaround time on that message, though I’d hoped just a bit to be surprised by an early response. It would have been a nice story to relate to a few of my efficiency-geek friends, but not a big loss.

I reached the coordinator directly after a couple of rings. There was an expected misfire or two in trying to place my name, but we soon established that the coordinator had indeed called and that I had emailed to set up a time to talk. A ready apology for not replying was offered, then the standard clipboard pitch was offered. New Hampshire’s a very important state; we’re trying to get people up here for a day or two before the primary to help cover the state, etc.

It wasn’t a rousing call to action, but it was a reasonable request, and the coordinator helpfully offered some information on particular dates and events that also might be especially enjoyable (e.g., a big pumpkin festival). It wasn’t a bad pitch, and I offered to check my calendar and get back in touch with a date that might work. The coordinator agreed to email me some options.

Here’s where trouble began. I asked a few questions about New Hampshire, the strategy and details of efforts on the ground. I won’t cite anything said in reply, but I certainly didn’t hear anything shocking.

As the conversation was concluding, I mentioned that I had been blogging my experience on the campaign, and that coming up to hit the streets of New Hampshire would probably be a great opportunity to find out how things are going on the front lines of the primary. Cue the proverbial spit take, audible across the phone line.

Then came the question. “You’re not blogging this conversation, are you?”

Huh.

I didn’t really think in advance about what response my mention of blogging might elicit, other than a polite “uh-huh” or a yawn. Basically, I wanted to convey the fact that I was seriously considering the trip.

If I had to think about what some good stock responses would be, I might expect one of the following:

“Oh, hey, that’s great. Are you blogging on your my.barackobama.com profile? Maybe you can help attract more volunteers.” [The campaign did suggest it, after all.]

“Really? Your volunteer submission says you're a writer. Are you doing it professionally?” [I’d call this the “we’re listening” approach, which would be right on message.]

“Blogging, you say? [Gulp] What’s the URL?” [This would’ve been a smarter version of the “I’m afraid of landing in the press” reply that I heard; this is also known as the classic CYA.]

But I digress. Dumbstruck by the shift in tone, I replied that I didn’t have to include the person’s name in the post, if they were uncomfortable with it. I could leave it at “Volunteering in New Hampshire.” This response left the person satisfied and I received a politely generic email a few minutes later with dates when I could volunteer.

Sitting at my computer, still dazed by the interaction, I logged on to BarackObama.com to find that Barack had addressed Wall Street executives at NASDAQ headquarters this same morning. He devoted the speech to extolling the virtues of openness, transparency and accountability. Ouch.

The juxtaposition was painful. Transparency was taking a beating on the street while being showered with praise on the podium. I believe unequivocally that Barack Obama represents an alternative to the circled-wagon mentality that dominates contemporary political campaigns, but promise and praxis must be more consistently united.

I haven't chosen to support him because he'll be like most candidates. Barack Obama champions ethics reform, and spoke again tonight on MSNBC about the need to restore a sense of truth-telling to our politics.

We shouldn't have to choose between a campaign that's well run and one that's ethically exemplary. In fact, in the case of the Obama campaign, it's where the campaign falls short on execution that the ethical lapses also lie. It only makes sense to fix both at the same time. We can be better by doing better, and that is the right road to victory.

There's no winning when you only commit to your beliefs half way. Barack has said from the beginning that he can't do it alone, and this is one more way to heed his call. When things go wrong, we should talk about it early and openly, not when it's too late.

That’s my story. This is how it ends. I am blogging the phone call, but preserving the anonymity of the person in question and any remarks made pertaining to tactics beyond the invitation to volunteer.

That’s the ethical solution I choose to the dilemma created by one Obama staffer’s unexpected reticence. This compromise, I think, is more than what is required by the situation. We can keep our eyes on the prize by remembering what the prize truly is; honesty must be on our side.

Wonk If You’re Wary: Candidates, Policy and Answers in Campaign 2008

[As I mentioned previously, a comment posted by ridingonthetrainwithnodoughsucks started me thinking about a few things, and I decided to explore those ideas in a post, rather than reply by comment. This may not be the blog norm, but I thought I'd try it out. Several hours later, I find myself with this extremely long result. -JN]

The public debate in the 2008 election cycle is putting a great deal of weight on “THE ANSWERS” to major policy questions. While I’m certainly not going to suggest that we ought to be nostalgic for a politics driven by intangible, subjective and manufactured notions of mythic personality traits, I do think that ridingottwnds’ comment begins with some apt illustrations of how askew our framework for practical discussion has become.

From the comment:

1. Terrorism: BY DOING XY and Z WE'LL CATCH ALL TERRORISTS AND NEVER GET ATTACKED AGAIN.

2. Economy: BY DOING AB and C OUR ECONOMY WILL EVER EXPAND.

3. Healthcare: BY DOING EF and G WE CAN BE SURE NO ONE IS WITHOUT IT. THIS WILL NOT HURT GOOD COMPANIES, NOR WILL IT AFFECT YOUR TAXES.

ditto for environment, immigration, etc...

What ridingottwnds identifies in these examples is greater than the absurdity of candidates proposing, or voters expecting, a three-step solution to complex challenges; it is also the way that focusing on the means steers attention away from considering the validity of the goals. These three lines really capture the unequivocal ends that we seem to demand in policy discussions outside of universities and think tanks – and even within them. Policy statements are often couched in absolutes that defy reason.

There is no way to guarantee that we won’t be attacked again, nor that we could possibly catch all terrorists. (Has no one watched Spartacus in the last twenty years? You don’t stop a movement by apprehending one man.) Our economy cannot possibly continue an indefinite expansion, but we’re afraid that considering an alternative will bring immediate chaos upon us. In the healthcare debate, we focus on dubious assertions about pain-free solutions to insure all, but too often neglect the uneven and declining state of care delivery to those already insured.

The frame in which answers are offered feels to me like: 1) a reaction to years of broadcast media coverage that fueled sound-bite-driven campaigns; and 2) an extension of the left’s drift since the so-called collapse of communism. The first point drives the idea that new media offers us a different sort of access to candidates (e.g., the branded debates and streaming meetings). It also creates the vague expectation that we might explore policy positions in unprecedented detail -- i.e., with minimal publishing and distribution costs, can’t they all map out every step they’ll take in the White House on their websites?

The second point, meanwhile, puts constraints around the sort of debate that we allow ourselves. By disavowing ideology as an area of contention in mainstream politics, we sacrifice what Webster’s online lists as the word's first definition: visionary theorizing.

This can result in a lack of innovation and too much focus on details of policy proposals that are unlikely to be meaningful once a candidate reaches office. All the top-tier contenders seem to be playing by the same rules, so I’ve adjusted my expectations and chosen what to tune out.


QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

I'll now offer a few direct responses to questions posed in ridingonthetrainwithnodoughsucks' comment.

1. To what degree will/are the candidates play(ing) their hands close to their chests? Because, if they truly DO have an answer, do they want to give it away?

I genuinely don’t believe that candidates are holding out on us when it comes to policy solutions. There are few perfect answers, and generally good policy ideas need more than their own merit to succeed; they need strong advocates and networks of support.

I agree with Barack Obama's assertion that there are many things that we know how to achieve, but have lacked political consensus to accomplish. Many of the obstacles to good policy becoming law can be linked to the ascendancy of industry money in Washington, and the failure of politicians to agree on ways to support one another when making unpopular decisions.

Based on this belief, I’m looking for a candidate who consistently convinces me that their motivations for seeking the highest office have less to do with personal satisfaction than a commitment to help people have better lives. A commitment to progress over ego goes a long way toward allowing opponents to save face at crucial moments for the sake of achieving the best policy solution.

2. To what degree are ALL candidates lying about the answers they have?

I wouldn’t describe candidates as lying about the answers they have. In my understanding, the lies involved in campaigns (on matters of policy, at least) have more to do with failure to challenge shared assumptions. There is also a suspension of disbelief required of politicians, promising to achieve reforms when details of implementation are still hazy, and the political landscape awaiting them is unknown.

One outstanding example of this for me comes from the healthcare debate. I always wince when I hear public figures talk about the importance of computerized medical records to healthcare reform. It’s not that I don’t believe it, but it’s often referred to as an easily accomplished step forward that will cut costs system-wide. There is nothing simple about that sort of transition. Not only will the process be complex and time-consuming, there will be a real human toll as records are lost and misplaced at crucial times in individuals’ lives.

I’d like to hear someone talk seriously about this as a major public infrastructure challenge. Channeling this data safely and effectively should be right up there with past work on great dams and bridges. I’m waiting for someone to talk about the importance of ethical standards in technology development of this sort, and the crucial role of government in mandating accountability during this kind of transition.

I’m also ready to hear a politician challenge the idea that consumerism is an avenue without end, leading to the dream (invoked above) of endless economic expansion. The general absence of this sort of candor, though, doesn’t qualify for me as lying.

Campaigns are a time when inspirational rhetoric can inspire people to believe real improvements can take place in their lives. Visionary statements are best, of course, when firmly rooted in reality and calling for sacrifice and shared responsibility for one another’s destinies, but people should be allowed some unrestrained optimism once in a while, too.

3. If these answers are formed by various experts, how much have the candidates addressed who these experts are and which ones they'll fire that are currently in goverment?

I find myself more and more interested in transparency on the campaign trail. This is something that the current state of Internet technology really can facilitate with a minimum of effort required.

Candidates rely on policy teams to generate ideas and to translate their principles into plans of action, even at a high level. I would love to see more accessible information about who’s working on these teams, and what sources of information they’re using when proposing solutions. Occasionally, specific think tanks are cited in candidates’ literature, but it would be great to see more references incorporated into position statements.

Demonstrating openness about the sources of policy ideas during a campaign sets a good precedent for the same sort of openness in office. I think that rather than focusing on who they might rely on once elected, candidates can demonstrate a good faith approach to governance by disclosing as much as possible who they’re relying on for advice during the campaign.

4. What should we as voters be looking for? Answers? Ideals? Objectives?

I’m focusing my attention mostly on how candidates rank issues and manage their own campaigns. I think it’s also useful to remember that our three top Democrats are U.S. Senators, so the choices they make about how they serve their constituents during their run are also important indicators.

There are a few words that I’ve had written down on a yellow pad for the last week. I thought I’d devote a separate post to them (and probably should’ve, judging by the length of this one), but I’ll offer them here as an alternative starting point for answering this question.

• Transparency
• Honesty
• Integrity
• Accountability
• Innovation
• Organization

These are qualities that I’m looking for in a candidate and a campaign. I’m looking at how well campaigns put these principles into practice. I’m unapologetically making analogies between governance and campaigning.

So far, I’m still with Barack.

Children of the Jazz and Barack on Broadway

Today finds me a little short on time to write, but there are a few things that I'd like to get up here before other commitments pull me away. A brief entry on this blog? Anything really is possible.

Now to hit the high notes:

GREAT COMMENT
A lengthy and thoughtful comment was posted to my last entry by "ridingonthetrainwithnodoughsucks" and I believe that it's really worth a read. [In the interest of intergenerational inclusiveness, I'll mention that the username is taken from a great song by the band A Tribe Called Quest.] The post ends with some questions that may have been rhetorical, but I plan to make an attempt at addressing them. Later. So in the interim, please read what this person had to say, and add your own thoughts, if you have the time.

BROOKLYN EVENT UPDATE
I am happy to report that the Brooklyn event story, the one that launched this blog, seems to be finding its way to a better resolution. My friend heard today that her refund should post properly with a couple of days. I received a phone message offerings tickets to an upcoming Obama event, as promised, on September 24.

She had taken the time to write up her interactions along the way, which is great since she's not really a person for politics. At the time of the post above, she still hadn't gotten anywhere, which was disappointing. As of this afternoon, though, the campaign office remembered who she was, and told her to expect her money shortly.

I am fascinated by the invitation to the event, called Barack on Broadway. I'd come across the story that I've linked to the event name while reading clips about Barack yesterday. When I read that ticket prices started at $250, I wondered if they had plans to hold a second event for those shut-out in Brooklyn.

Today I received a phone message from James in the New York office extending an invitation to the event. When I returned his call, he confirmed the invitation to receive complimentary tickets -- and was aware that I would need more than one. He asked how many I had purchased (so presumably he would do the same for anyone else he called), and then assured me that three would be held for me. An email with more details should follow next week.

When he asked if I had other questions, I inquired about whether or not all people who hadn't made it into the Brooklyn event were being offered seats in the theater. He told me that anyone who would like a refund was welcome to receive one (offered this detail with no specific prompting on the subject), but that there was a section of seats "roped off" for anyone who hadn't gotten in to the event on August 22.

It was encouraging to learn that they have reserved a block of seats for those $25 and $15 (student) contributors to attend this event if they choose. That really is demonstrating respect for the original contribution and making an effort to reward supporters for their patience.

Just to be clear, I'm very encouraged by this gesture, but the issues that the original incident raised still matter greatly to me. I'm glad that at the end of the night on September 24 I should have a better story to tell about the Brooklyn event. I still believe, though, that there are things that really need to change in the campaign.

More transparency is number one on my list. Which brings me to one final item...

HELLO, IDAHO

A comment on an earlier post submitted by "Reggieh" asked if I would consider adding a link on this blog to the IdahoansforObama.org website. I answered in the comments that I would, as soon as I found a logical way to include links on this site. I also mentioned that a few aspects of their website really caught my eye.

One of those is transparency. If you visit IdahoansforObama.org (worth doing no matter where you live), you'll find that they've posted contact information and bios for people involved in organizing the group. This is something that I'd love to see done more extensively both locally and at the national level. Why should we have to scan news clips to know who's using our contributions to make decisions on behalf of Barack?

The Idaho website adopts the look and feel of the main Obama campaign site, but adds details specific to Idaho. It also links to a profile for the group on the main Obama site (within My.BarackObama.com), but it's doesn't rely on it for content. IdahoansforObama.org is definitely more than a splash page, which is crucial given the limited activity options in the MyObama sandbox.

It's really a great anchor to have for people who aren't well-versed in social networking software, or the whole Web 2.0 experience. It also impressed me that it's not simply brochure-ware. It does have its own contribution mechanisms in place, and clearly explains how to donate to the local campaign or the national effort.

Nicely done, Idaho! I'll conclude by saying that it's also great to have a snapshot of what's happening in a state that seems very far away from Brooklyn. If anyone else has a link to a grassroots web outpost like that, please send it to me at thinkobama@gmail.com, or add it in a comment.

What's the Difference, Anyway?

I began spending September 11 in New York City in 2003. In 2002, I was an hour upstate, and in 2001 I was in California.

As I type (with hands now in good working order), sirens go screeching by in waves of three and four at a time. There's nothing unusual about this. A ship horn just sounded. Environmental noise in all five boroughs is a constant.

Since 2001, though, and particularly since a funhouse/madhouse experience I had during the blackout of 2003, sirens here generate more acid in my stomach than I'd like. I don't live in fear, I live in Brooklyn.

But I really have to tell you that living here is quite different from living anywhere else in the United States when it comes to the issue of terrorism. That brings me back to John Edwards, and his speech last Friday.

He clearly chose to deliver a policy address about counterterrorism in New York City, which I think was a great choice. He didn't schedule the appearance for today, which would have been exploitative; he also didn't jump up and down about the link. He, and his team, just made a basic connection between message and location.

I promised more in-depth thoughts about differences between the John Edwards campaign and that of Barack Obama prompted by my experience on Friday. Had I been able to type a day ago, I probably would have shared detailed notes about event logistics. It's a day later and that makes a difference.

I'm not trying to be maudlin, but this doesn't have only to do with the memory of a terrorist attack. I spent a couple hours today working on a painting for a five-year-old girl recently diagnosed with brain cancer. She's the daughter of good family friends who live in Japan, and it's daunting to know the struggle that they face looking ahead at 2008.

These are the things that we, as human beings, inevitably struggle with in our personal lives. We are sometimes completely consumed by private moments of gravity that we can't seem to escape. For politics to matter, for politics to command our attention when immediate suffering has a greater claim on it, we must be inspired to believe that our actions are meaningful.

Overall, my experience at the Edwards event left me with one big question to answer: When it comes to 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, what's the difference?

The speech delivered by John Edwards could have been delivered by anyone in the field, including Barack Obama. A new international treaty organization to establish a more stable and widespread counterterrorism regime. Sure, that's one idea. Tightening up nonproliferation controls and setting a better example through our own nuclear policy. Barack's certainly on the same page. Who wouldn't be?

More funding for foreign language study tied to recruitment for human intelligence work or diplomacy. Great. A new volunteer corps. Not bad. A few statements on Iraq sounded a little half-baked, but who's going to spend time on detailed plans for the executive branch to take action a year from now on a constantly shifting landscape? Do your Iraq work in the Senate, esteemed Senators.

Same, same, and same. This is why I end up back at issues like event logistics. No one, including Barack Obama, is saying or doing anything much that makes this campaign truly different. Instead, all the candidates seem to be throwing darts at the Internet, hoping inadvertently to score Victory 2.0.

There is the potential out there for a nationwide change that doesn't have to wait for November 2008, or January 2009. I want more from my candidate, and I'm going to keep asking for it. It's time for Barack Obama to truly empower his supporters to start making change happen now. Playing it safe is a good way to escort Hillary to the podium, and give the White House to Fred Thompson.

***

The tally after this event:

"Edwards did it better"

1. Better organization. Edwards held a free event, took reservations, and got everyone in. There is no reason for Barack Obama's organization not to get this right every time. It doesn't have to be perfect -- long waits and spillover rooms are par for the course -- but if Edwards can work out reserved admission, Obama can, too.

2. Good location choice. As I said above, Edwards gave a major policy speech outside of Iowa/Washington. Barack, why are you dragging Zbigniew Brzezinski to Iowa to talk about Iraq?


"What Barack brings"

1. A Room the Colors of Who We Are as a People. Don't get me wrong, Edwards had hundreds of people in his audience, and a New York-based university community has some inherent diversity. It was, however, a much more homogeneous group than I've ever seen at an Obama event. That's part of what originally excited me about Barack Obama's candidacy. I think his story and his identity can help remind different-looking people of shared interests and values. Looking around that room, I was vividly reminded of what a difference he can make in bringing people together.

2. Expectations and Energy. John Edwards received enthusiastic applause, and his speech drew support on cue, but there was no sense in that room that history was being made. It's natural that the attendees at a policy speech will be more reserved than a fundraiser. That said, I believe the expectations of people coming to hear Barack Obama start a great deal higher. His presence becomes a catalyst that releases the power of people's latent aspirations for a better world. This intangible and elusive quality, tied both to the charismatic leader phenomenon and his modern celebrity status, is a powerful force. This is not only what can win an election, this is really what can create a better country. Barack makes people believe in themselves, and people do the rest. That's the simple promise of his candidacy. I'm hoping to see it fulfilled.

Pain Trumps Campaign

Sorry, friends, a small accident involving my right hand means that I'm hunting and pecking this post out. I think of myself as a confirmed lefty, but not in this sense.

Hopefully, a day of icing will put me back in action tomorrow. Thoughts on Edwards and word about the Obama campaign's email will have to wait until then. Ouch.

How Do You Queue? (John Edwards at Pace University)

I arrived at Pace University a little after 11 a.m. to claim my seat at John Edwards' policy address, which had been advertised as beginning at 11:30 a.m. This was the view from my place in the line I joined outside of the Schimmel Auditorium.

I took copious notes on the process of lining up and entering the building, but I'll skip ahead to say that I made it in. Not only in, mind you, but to an unreserved front row seat.

The feeling was palpably different from the Barack Obama appearance that I attended in Manhattan, as well as the near-miss in Brooklyn. Those were fundraisers and this was a policy address, but I don't think that explains it all. Since there's more to this idea than the logistical details, I'm going to let the experience sit for a day, before saying too much more.

I'm now absolutely convinced that gaining a broader perspective on the Democratic field through first-hand experience can only be good for any serious Barack Obama supporter. I'd compare it to the insight offered by a first trip abroad, which is to say that only by leaving things that are familiar to you can you really understand them as they are. You return to where you started with both new expectations about what's possible and a clearer picture of what you value at home.

That's the best summary I can offer of my day. Just as there are concepts worth examining in the security-related policy initiatives that Edwards unveiled today, so too are there ideas to be discerned in the movement of the crowd and the energy in the room. After a night of sleep, I'll have more to say about it.

A Date with John Edwards

No, friends, I haven't jumped ship. The gratuitously sensationalist title is just that. I'm off to hear John Edwards on Friday morning at Pace University; he's giving a "major policy speech."

My plan is to compare the experience, from end to end, of being an average person attending an inexpensive (or free) political event featuring a candidate. As a prelude to that future post, let me explain how I, a long-standing Obama supporter, became aware of a John Edwards campaign event in the first place.

A couple of weeks ago, I received an email from someone I know with a link to a post from an individual's blog on the John Edwards campaign site. To access the post, I was prompted to create a basic site profile. Basic meaning username, password, email address and maybe a zip code.

It was a short enough process that I don't recall the exact data fields; as a person who once built databases to make a living, I tend to remember those things. They made signing up easy and non-intrusive enough to get my email address on their list. I registered, read the link I'd been sent, and then wandered off to another online destination.

Within a day, I began receiving regular emails from the Edwards campaign about new content on their site and high-level campaign announcements. My username, "justlooking," doesn't seem to have put anyone off (somehow I can imagine Hillary's people scanning data like that in some sort of counter-intel campaign initiative...).

I haven't felt spammed, but I haven't been drawn to click through to their content either -- with one exception. On Wednesday they got me to take action with an email invitation to attend a speech to be delivered by John Edwards on Friday, September 7.

I followed a link in the message body and it seemed that I could reserve a place at the speech with a simple RSVP, including an email address, phone number and zip code. Again, quick and easy, if a little short on details.

And my plan was born. Go to this Edwards event. It offers a perfect opportunity to compare and contrast two first-tier Democratic campaigns and their operations on the ground in NYC.

I should add that I'm not averse to hearing what any candidate in the 2008 race has to say. This is not just an intelligence-gathering foray for Obama. A prominent Democratic contender discussing a crucial right-wing leverage issue that touches foreign and domestic policy should command some attention, regardless of whom you support.

I'm really curious to find out what happens to me tomorrow. I genuinely don't know what to expect.

I am interpreting the absence of caveats like "first come, first served" or "RSVP does not guarantee you admittance," to mean that there will be an orderly line leading to greeters who will only admit pre-registered guests. I expect that there will be a seat for each person who did respond to the invitation, and that I don't need to bring any proof of having responded to the email other than my name.

I'll try to arrive at least one half hour before doors open, but I am not going to camp out from the crack of dawn. How will I, an average and anonymous citizen, be treated by the event organizers (i.e., Team Edwards)? Tune in tomorrow.

In Praise of the Obama NYC Campaign Office

Last night I amended the previous post, "Politics 101: From Fumble to FEMA," based on some feedback that I received from a friend. I reedited the post, bringing it closer to the original draft -- i.e., taking it from tepid criticism to full-fired rant.

If you're going to make a point, it's worth making it in full voice. That's why I'm taking the time right now to make explicit an idea that has been implicit in every criticism-laden post to hit this blog since its inception.

Barack Obama's New York Campaign Finance Office, including (and, from my understanding, led by Jennifer Yeager), is doing a phenomenal job in fulfilling its primary fundraising mission. The numbers from New York City are outstanding.

Many of Barack's well-reported hedge-fund donors may be based in Connecticut (just a guess from what I know of the industry), but you can bet that the New York office took the lead in pursuing their support. This success is worthy of recognition, and has been a key contributing factor to legitimizing Barack Obama's run in coverage by mainstream and new media sources.

Clearly, the Brooklyn event became a tipping-point stumble for my personal experience of the campaign to date. I reacted strongly because I'm very invested in the outcome of Barack Obama's candidacy. I aimed a lot of criticism at the NYC office, because they're the front line of this particular experience.

I am not rescinding my observations about mistakes that were made, and perhaps continue to be made. This should not, however, be construed as laying blame at the NYC office's door alone.

I'm more concerned about the messages that they're receiving from Chicago, and the role they're being asked to fulfill relative to the resources they've been allocated. A campaign finance office has one major objective: To raise as much money as possible as quickly as possible.

You can bet that this office would not have made its first choice of event a $25 per ticket fundrasiser at a hotel in Brooklyn. That's just not the fastest way to the cash in this area.

This means that they were asked (by Chicago, in response to grass-roots action in Brooklyn) to go above and beyond. They had to use the limited staff allocated to them for their primary mission to make a success of a very different type of event. It's not surprising that there was a mishap. I'm sure they took this task on with the best of intentions and did what they could.

When I write that this would never have happened at a $1000 per ticket event, that statement need not only be read as criticism. I imagine that this office excels at organizing just that sort of big-ticket gathering, and those are also a crucial part of the campaign (take a look at the overall breakdown of contributions by amount). We shouldn't ever discriminate against rich people with open wallets.

What we're missing in New York, and possibly elsewhere, is a larger presence dedicated to getting it right with the so-called average folks. I don't know how large this gap is, but (as I've written before) I don't accept a back-burner approach to primary states that fall behind the conventional first stops. All of the dates in this fast-forward race are too fluid for a simple, four-state wager.

I've made my point repeatedly about the tree that fell in Brooklyn and no one seemed to hear. Now I plan to reach out to the grass-roots groups that I know are functioning in this area and find out what they think of the support they're getting.

I'd also love to find out specifically what resources are lacking in the New York office, so that NYC supporters can help them do better. This isn't information that they should feel they need to hide from their base.

Whether they need volunteers, or need some loud voices calling Chicago and asking the main office to hire reinforcements, people in this city are ready to help the staffers who have come here to get Barack Obama elected. Transparency has its privileges!

As of last night, my friend was still waiting for her refund. This is two weeks after the Brooklyn event, and will soon be one week since her phone call. What's taking them so long to return her $25?

I can guess their answer will be that they're very busy, and they're trying their best. If that's true, then what sense does it make for that office to be buried in email when an eager volunteer force is waiting across the five boroughs?

If they don't feel they can ask Chicago for help, then it's time we start asking for them. The one thing New Yorkers should not be willing to do is to remain quiet and watch the 2008 race be decided with our dollars, but without our input.

Politics 101: From Fumble to FEMA [Updated]

Today the campaign finance office, tomorrow FEMA. Sound like an unreasonable comparison? It did to the NYC campaign office when I spoke with them. That's what concerns me. Here's why:

"I can’t stand another round of lying, deceit, betrayal, war, and a complicit media. Everything that anyone does in the opposite direction will win me over. Anything that even turns its head in the direction of the sort of slick obfuscation, now forever associated with 8 sickening years of George W. Bush, will really turn me away."

That's a powerful statement pulled from my friend's post about her overall experience with the Brooklyn event. I can spend days talking about values Barack Obama represents, but words and abstractions seldom outweigh personal experience.

We, the supporters, don't get to tell other people not to make analogies like that. We can ask people not to believe media hype, or false information, but we can't deny them the right to draw conclusions from their own experiences.

Want to convince someone that one mistake is not indicative of a larger problem? Start by actively listening to their concern. That's what Barack Obama does, as I understand it. Follow his lead, and do not bring a defensive mindset to the conversation.

If you can understand why someone's experience makes the FEMA or broader governance analogy seem valid, you can take steps to prove to them through your actions that it isn't accurate. You can demonstrate the difference, rather than reinforce the perception.

Let's review. I know, I know. I'm won't leave it alone. But one more time, please, with the FEMA comparison in mind.

1) The initial mistake: not admitting all ticketholders after a long wait doesn't look good, but you can plausibly go with a "fog of war"/"mistakes happen" explanation.

2) The uncoordinated response with clipboards begins to look bad. It shows that no one ever considered the possibility of things not going according to plan. That's an event -- and risk -- planning fundamental.

3) The dubiously worded email with no clear contact info or instructions other than "wait" looks somewhere between mismanaged and dishonest, regardless of its arrival within 24 hours.

4) One week later, and no reply to an email sent looking for a refund. Who's responsible for coordinating the response to stakeholder concerns? Apparently, no one.

5) Finally, failing to complete a refund transaction while on the phone with someone who has taken the time to ask for their money back -- that's just silly. There didn't seem to be a problem taking the money off of the credit card.

Think now of mixed messages, dispersed families, trailers, deferred payments, and dubious promises. There was a similar progression from terrible disaster to bureaucratic failure.

That said, OF COURSE, it's also a good reality check about one event in Brooklyn. No one was hurt physically, no one's displaced, and there's not ruin in this event's wake (well, not beyond this little corner of the Web).

The proximate stakes were lower. The ultimate gamble, though, involves the future of our country. It's the 2008 election. These are the small pieces that put an election together or lose it.

This holiday weekend I spoke with a family member of an elected official who holds national office. In discussing the Brooklyn event and 2008 race, she emphasized the importance in politics of being gracious when it comes to people's money, regardless of the amount.

It's good politics 101. The reason, of course, is that if you're successful, you're always going to have to ask people for more money.

That's what was discouraging for me in the response of the New York office, and communication reviewed by the Chicago media team. Talented political fundraisers, who had already pulled in several million dollars, were completely oblivious to what would create a good experience for their donors. That's bad campaigning.

Collecting names was a good idea. It's always a good idea when you stumble. It creates opportunity. You can flag donors for special attention to make up for time of theirs you've wasted and disappointment you've caused.

You can win them back and impress them with how you recover from a mistake. That experience could ultimately be more compelling than a Barack-led pep rally. It's always great to hear Senator Obama do his rhetorical thing, but again, direct experience means a lot. Showing as an organization that you know what you're doing builds confidence and loyalty.

Want to know to the main reason posts on this topic keep coming? I haven't heard another word from any part of the Obama campaign machine. There's a huge ellipsis hanging in the air about how this story ends.

I'm looking for good news locally to post. Good news personally. Anyone else remember Tip O'Neill? Stories of "Camp Obama" in the Bay Area are great, but what's happening here? Until the time they begin communicating about the rain-check event, I'm left wondering if they learned anything from their experience.

Tonight I'll find out whether or not my friend has received her refund. I don't want her to need to make a second phone call.

[Updated 8:21 p.m. -- JN]

In Answer to a Question from Obama NYC

What could have been done differently in Brooklyn?

That's what I was asked by the Obama NYC staffer during our phone conversation. I'd finally like to answer that question here.

I realize that I'm posting this as a reminder to myself, more than for anyone else, and ask your indulgence. This blog is a space to create a sort of public record of personal concerns for a very public effort, and I'm loathe to omit these observations.

I aspire to tilt this blog toward reporting on opportunities to change the future, rather than critically dissect the past. In the interim, I'll spend one more post offering a few tactical suggestions that could be applied to future events.

These aren't secrets, and they're not things that took me nights of reflection to invent. These strike me as good politics, good business practices, and just good sense.

I'm going to overlook the most obvious answer, which is simply: Do not admit people without tickets to a sold-out event when you have a line full of people who have already purchased tickets to said event. I will start with a theoretical problem based on what they claimed caused them difficulty.

Problem: People arrive at a sold-out, ticketed event without tickets, in the company of ticket-holding supporters, and we don't want to turn anyone away.

Option 1: Create a stand-by line. Graciously explain that it is a sold-out event, but offer them the option to wait. If there's room after all donors who have pre-paid are in, start collecting donations and fit as many people as the law will allow.

While people are waiting in line, break out the clipboards (or, better yet, a laptop) and sign them up as supporters. Offer to alert THEM about the next time Barack will come to town. Have literature on hand to distribute to them while they wait. Consider having some merchandise on hand to sell them for their donations. No one has to walk away empty-handed.

Option 2: Have spill-over rooms reserved expressly for people without tickets. If you suspect that you are going to have people arriving who don't have tickets and you know that you'll want to accommodate them in some fashion, create the capacity to do it. You don't have to undersell the main room (that could look bad), but you can risk spending money on extra space.

Problem: We've misjudged the room's capacity, let in too many people, and have a sidewalk full of donors holding tickets that should guarantee them entry. Many of them have been waiting for more than an hour, but we have to turn them away.

Option 1: Be prepared to offer on-site refunds. If you ever doubt that you will be able to give someone what you've promised them in exchange for taking their money, be prepared to give them their money back. Nothing will do more to encourage people to tell you to keep their donation than for you to demonstrate that you respect for its value.

Option 2: Go to the hotel copy center and create a few hundred IOU flyers. If you can't put money back in people's hands, you better give them something.

Put down the basics of your message (admission to future event or refunds available, details to follow), someone's name and contact information specific to this issue, and a basic apology. If that appears on page one of the next day's New York Times, you'll have nothing to be ashamed of but your original mistake anyway.

Option 3: Give away Obama merchandise. Let the celebrity (rock star) comparison be an asset. We're a materialistic, consumerist nation. Even those of us who hope for change and care about the environment.

Want to placate people? Give them a button. Give them a sticker. Give them a sign.

It's not that hard to make people happy. Spend a little money to offset your mistake. Everyone in that line knows you have $50 million and don't forget that.

Enough already. There are more $25 per ticket events scheduled around the country, and I hope that better event planning supports them.