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]