Think Obama

What More Can I Say? (Election Day -- Top Billin'!)

2008-11-04T18:58:00.001-05:00

WE INTERRUPT THIS HIATUS TO SAY: VOTE OBAMA!

2008-02-04T17:01:00.000-05:00

Just in case any former reader of this recently dormant blog happens to stop by tonight, on the eve of Super Tuesday, I've decided to post a confirmation that I will be casting my vote in tomorrow's New York primary for Barack Obama.

I shut down for the last several months to give a junior campaign a little space to do what it needed to do without scrutiny.

I closed my last post with a rhetorical request that someone call me when we have a movement, not just a campaign. I think we're getting close.

I'm still a critical supporter, and I still believe that's something one can be. I've heard Dr. Cornel West describe himself the same way, so I don't feel that I'm in bad company.

Nonetheless, at this very important moment, I'm willing to simplify my message. Vote Obama. That's it.

Where I Was Not; Where I Am

2007-10-14T23:27:00.000-04:00

It's been one week since my last post. This is an eternity in the life of any well-maintained blog, particularly one driven by an insistently visible presidential race.

I'm back to report that the absence is the message. I have very little to say about this campaign at the moment.

I didn't make it to any of the Brooklyn-based "Turn the Page in Iraq" canvasses on Saturday. I decided not to attend a Sunday open house celebrating the opening of Barack Obama's first official field office (not to be confused with the much written about finance office) in New York City. These were not incidental scheduling conflicts, but places I decided not to be. I'm going to attempt to explain why.

I sat down for coffee and an interview on Wednesday of this past week with Jacki Esposito, one of the organizers of Brooklyn for Barack, who is also one of the Obama campaign's designated field organizers in Brooklyn. We spoke for almost five hours.

I'm grateful to her for spending the time to have a conversation that I'm sure neither of us planned to extend into the marathon session it became. We identified many areas of difference in perception and priorities, but also made the effort to reach beyond those to find areas of common interest.

Her commitment is laudable. I have no doubt that she will follow her calling, as she understands it, through to the end of this race. There is a huge amount of work to be done on the ground, and she will be a significant contributor to getting the grassroots end of things done in Brooklyn, and perhaps beyond.

It's difficult to write more than this about our exchange. What I believe we affirmed in the last hour or so of our discussion was a mutual acknowledgment of sincerity of purpose with regard to Barack Obama. This is enough to persuade me to leave most of the substance of our disagreements about means, ends and the significance of electoral politics in the process of governance out of this post. Her views are not interchangeable with those of Barack Obama, nor are mine, and I've decided there's no need to frame the specifics of a personal political debate as campaign-related.

What I heard from her about the grassroots experience in Brooklyn is that it's challenging, but there's been adequate support and communication from the campaign throughout her involvement. She said that many of the people working at the grassroots level are relatively new to politics; people have been learning by doing, and she's confident the enthusiasm and man hours will have a significant impact on the race.

I hope so.

It's partially this hope for success that is tying my tongue and restricting my fingers at the moment. I have more questions and concerns than ever about the Obama campaign, but I'm in need of a new way to address them.

I am interested in better government. I'm committed to a more ethical society, as well as a more peaceful world.

I am an idealist to the extent that I nurture a beleaguered belief that these things are possible; I am also a pragmatist, grounded in the direct experience of complexity, bureaucracy and humanity's worst instincts. Balancing these two orientations requires a constant reevaluation of the world around me. Frankly, this is not an easy way to live, but it's the only path that I feel comfortable walking.

Which brings me back to the question of where I was not, and where I am now. I learned on Wednesday that I'm unlikely to find what I'm looking for among the grassroots graduates of Camp Obama or youthful front-line staffers. This is not to say that I may not work with them in the future, or that I discount what they're trying to accomplish and the effort that they're putting into the campaign.

There are, however, some things that I need answered in ways that organized volunteers and junior staff can't accommodate. They can't actually speak for the campaign or its decision-making, and asking them questions that they can only answer speculatively (with reluctance and seemingly at their peril) is not productive for them or for me.

I'm eager to push this conversation forward with more emphasis on persons of age and experience. I remain fascinated and hopeful when Ted Sorenson gets out and stumps for Barack Obama. To the extent that I remain engaged in the progress of this candidacy, I'll be looking for compelling historical and authoritative ethical perspectives on what's happening now.

I also want to communicate more about people who haven't made up their minds, or at least haven't hit the streets. Much of the truth of this moment lies outside those caught up in its nuances. I'm going to ask readers, friends and acquaintances, to consider submitting short statements about how 2008 looks to them, preferably with an emphasis on their personal thoughts about Barack Obama.

[If you happen to be reading this and get inspired to start writing, please send 500 words or less to thinkobama@gmail.com. My hope is to publish individual statements in their entirety, perhaps following up with posts about questions raised.]

More importantly, I'm returning again to the idea that change doesn't need to wait for any one person. It's not all about one model of community organizing, or one person to catalyze a nation. My allegiance lies with principles, not individuals.

I've spent much of the week feeling about like this: "A campaign's a campaign, and a movement's a movement. Call me when we have the latter."

It often seems that people aren't risking enough to be true in practice to the values that will actually change the country. Going half-way in any direction always strikes me as a good way to lose. The politics of compromise -- i.e., accepting "good enough for government work" -- extend way beyond the Beltway.

When I get disheartened, though, I go back to the well of bold minds from different times. Why wait for the right call to reach you when you can put one out, too?

Marshall Ganz is fine, but I'll go with Gandhi to end this post:

They say 'means are after all means.' I would say 'means are after all everything.' As the means so the end. There is no wall of separation between means and end. Indeed the Creator has given us control (and that too very limited) over means, none over the end. Realization of the goal is in exact proportion to that of the means. This is a proposition that admits of no exception.

Number Three: FIRED UP! READY TO GO!

2007-10-08T01:09:00.000-04:00

Last Tuesday night I promised to follow up on some thoughts that I'd had during the "Turn the Page in Iraq" rally held in Brooklyn that evening. Actually, I left an ellipsis hanging in the air, saying that number three would come the next day.

Well, it's not last Wednesday, but this is Number Three. A couple of things have happened in the interim, but let me get straight to the point that I wanted to make a week ago.

3. PICK A SLOGAN

In fact, I'll do it for you. Now that I've changed the decor on this blog, you'll have a hard time missing it. FIRED UP! READY TO GO!

One striking thing about Tuesday's rally was the difficulty speakers had in eliciting a solid response from calls to the crowd. In part, that can be attributed to the relatively small number of attendees in the large, open space.

I'm convinced, though, that the other problem is that the campaign hasn't fully committed to the best thing that they have going. Why not go with a chant that seems to light up crowds across the country?

FIRED UP! READY TO GO!

People should associate these few words immediately with Barack Obama in 2008. "Turn the Page" is fine, but it just rolled out yesterday, and seems like it might be gone tomorrow.

Campaigns don't thrive on complexity. That doesn't have to mean addressing issues in soundbites, but it does mean that some good sloganeering is desperately needed in a campaign built on enthusiasm.

Fired up! Ready to go! It's just that simple.

Actually, It Started on Broadway...

I don't know why the campaign has been slow to roll with this call front and center, but it struck me first at the Barack on Broadway event on September 25. I was in a room filled with people who had paid at least $250 per ticket (other than the displaced Brooklynites like myself) to support Barack.

He delivered the anecdote about his trip to Greenwood, South Carolina, and when he began calling out "Fired up! Ready to go!" the place went wild. How many more dollars might have been collected that night if there had been any merchandise at all that capitalized on the power of this chant? Where were $20 t-shirts for the big wallets that were fired up and ready to buy?

More important than the money is the ability to carry that energy out of the room and spread it to people who weren't there. It's past time to connect with people who haven't been converted. There has to be more of an effort to spread the fervor.

Straight Ahead

I hope that Obama supporters embrace "Fired up!" as the signature of the campaign and it trickles back up to HQ. I think South Carolina's taking proud ownership of it, and that's a good start. There was an event recently in NYC that worked the words into its title. They're moving, but I'm always eager to see things move faster.

I'm not worried about getting the timing right. Just let the zeitgeist work for you.

I'm putting these designs out there as one more example of what's possible. I know there are more than 11,000 Obama-related items up on cafepress.com of varying quality and intent.

I happen to like the way that my friend took an image of Ms. Edith Childs, the woman who got Barack Obama fired up, and fused it with those magic words. I read that Ms. Childs heard the "Fired up!" chant at an NAACP rally in the early eighties and adopted it as her own. Now it's been passed on again. That movement is testament to a powerful force.

My friend also grabbed my Buffaloes for Barack and worked them into another version. It looks great to me -- let's leave the donkeys and elephants out this time, eh? Time for another type of political animal.

I'll convert these into some basic goods for sale and put a link up, but that's not so much the point. It's really about how easy and essential it is to push the ideas that any of us think work, and not to wait for any official sanction to do it.

Comment: HuffPo Gets It Right, Too

2007-10-04T01:35:00.001-04:00

Reinforcing the idea that more voices do give us a better chance at avoiding mass media group think, I came across this post by Steven Brant, Charles Gibson on new ABC/Washington Post poll: "I know we're getting way ahead of ourselves here, but..." , on the HuffPo home page shortly after filing my last post. Since I had taken the time to call someone out on doing it all wrong, I wanted to be sure to take the time to register my appreciation for someone who was doing it right.

I'll offer my comment here, but I hope you do stop by to read his piece. It proposes a couple of sensible alternatives to the horse-race model of press coverage of presidential races in this country. Let's hope that our democracy can get there.

Thank you for contributing this piece to stop the drum-beat before it's too late. The unreasoned march to an unfounded conclusion, in this case the "inevitability of Hillary subtext," is blatantly under way again, and it's incumbent upon all of us to keep repeating that this is not an acceptable mode of discourse for our public life.

I was disappointed to come across a piece (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-moorad/obama-trailing-off_b_66976.html) on the Huffington Post's OffTheBus Project site today that epitomizes the worst of the reporting that's been appearing recently. I hesitate to draw readers to the post, but it's worth linking to it in order to offer others the opportunity to object to the way the piece is constructed.

The importance of this issue extends well beyond the 2008 presidential race. If mea culpas are still fresh in our ears for lax reporting during the prelude to the Iraq War, we should not take that to mean that we are safe from a similar march toward Iran.

We must demand better journalism in every area of civic consequence. Thanks again for putting together such a thoughtful plea.

Comment: A Small Detour into the Echo Chamber

2007-10-04T00:16:00.000-04:00

I realize that this post is a detour from what I promised yesterday, but number three on my list will have to wait. I apologize for being diverted, but I happened across a piece of writing on HuffPo's OffTheBus site that epitomizes an exponentially increasing trend in coverage of both Barack Obama and the 2008 Democratic Primary race.

It is the return of the echo chamber. This term may be hackneyed, but it's an apt description of the worst of contemporary journalistic practice and it's imperiling the outcome of the 2008 race. What I refer to as our media echo chamber (and it's at this point unfair to limit the description to mainstream media) is the uncritical repetition of a particular point of view as fact, with little reference to empirical evidence, and great reliance on the imagined authority of other people offering the same point of view. While it's certainly true that advocates of a certain position can be instrumental in launching an idea into the chamber, no conspiracy or puppet-master is required for citizens to suffer from the worst effects of broad, media group think.

What's astounding to me about what I see happening now is that people in the field of journalism and the culture at large have spent many public hours decrying this phenomenon as a major contributing factor in our entry into the Iraq War. Yet, somehow, another steady march is now underway.

What is the new foregone conclusion? From the Economist to the New York Times, it's hard to miss some mention of Hillary Clinton, the presumptive winner of her party's nomination for 2008. It appears as a subtle strain in some reporting, with a mere modifying clause that ratifies the self-evident value of Hillary's experience or her campaign's interpretation of fund-raising totals. In other cases, pieces are built from top to bottom around dubious assumptions seem to have been pulled directly from a briefing by Terry McAuliffe.

If this blog has done anything, I hope that it has given proof of my interest in legitimate criticism and tough questioning of all candidates and campaigns. I am not afraid of people taking on flaws in Barack Obama's operation, or that of John Edwards, or any other contender. If anything, a well-reasoned critical piece by a prominent journalist could provide some valuable insights that might reach Barack directly and be translated into useful action.

I object vigorously, however, to the uncritical repetition of so-called facts with little foundation in research or true journalistic investigation. The most insidious examples appear when major news outlets, trying to capitalize on the ubiquitous blogging phenomenon (I feel like I'm talking about those fresh, new bell-bottom trousers as I write that in late 2007, but anyway...), maintain some pretense of objective reporting as they use regular contributors to make blog updates. Short-form entries end up being built on unacknowledged bias combined with the most sensational facts and short-hand references to conventional wisdom.

This is no way for the Fourth Estate to contribute to building an informed, participatory and critical citizenry. New media, while often an ethically gray land of noise and confusion, should be a last, best hope for an alternative perspective on the facts. More voices should create a more complicated picture.

That's why I was so disappointed when I came across this piece, Obama: Trailing Off?, on the Huffington Post's OffTheBus site. I have become an occasional visitor and sometime commenter on that site, because it often does provide a set of facts that are lost in other channels. The attempt to provide a highly visible platform for unpaid contributors to share their insights and receive (presumably) some editorial review is commendable.

How then, did this piece slip through the cracks? It's valuable in that it is much easier to dissect than an article appearing in the New York Times. It lacks the tiered editorial review, quality of professional craftsmanship and authority of venue that can obfuscate similarly empty pieces in conventional news sources.

It's worth reading as a glaring example of how quickly people begin to repeat received ideas and offer them as fact, or worse, some kind of analytical insight of their own. Like a piece of unfinished furniture, you can study how it was constructed without being distracted by shiny finishes or other ornate superficial details that might be added by a master-builder.

I offer you my comments on the piece below. I genuinely don't know if these will make it onto the site, but I'm actually tempted to write a letter to the site's editor, regardless. I'd encourage you, reader, to do the same, if you find the original as disappointing as I did.

This post really does seem oddly "On the Bus" and inconsistent with the general trend in reporting on this site. Other than the first-person experience of having watched a debate (presumably on television), this is an analytically light gloss on secondary and tertiary sources from mainstream media. To the editorial staff: What exactly is this report's function on this site?

As altohone observed, at best, this piece seems intended to goad Obama or his followers into a change of course. At worst, it's a terribly empty echo of the nexis-assembled conventional wisdom that's showing up across mainstream media outlets.

After an inflammatory (albeit conventional) lede, Mr. Moorad alludes to New Hampshire poll data, but draws conclusions based primarily on national numbers. I read his very certain assertions ("It is clear..." and "It is evident...") about Obama's abilities, but I don't see much specificity about missteps or deficits -- just a selective reiteration of polling data. Selective, because of the conspicuous omission of last week's Newsweek survey showing Obama shifting into the lead in Iowa among likely caucus-goers.

Given that the Obama campaign has steadily articulated a four-state strategy, with Iowa squarely at its head, this data seems worth factoring into any analysis. Meanwhile, uncritical interpretations of Hillary's poll position ("appears to be a growing, insurmountable political-breakaway") and relative qualifications ("the inevitable victor with the credentials to match") aren't given legs within the piece to support the weight of the words. The rhetoric has the second-hand ring of Sunday shows and recent NYT reporting.

I write all of this as an Obama supporter who has spent a great deal of time writing critically about the campaign's execution. There is a valid topic to explore here: Is Obama's relative inexperience in national campaign management hurting him in a field of seasoned political veterans with battle-tested machines?

Unfortunately, this piece seems more an awkward exercise in style, losing all track of substance, and effectively perpetuating the worst of contemporary journalistic practice. Or, in other words ... Echo. Echo. Echo. Echo.

Turning the Page and Looking Ahead

2007-10-02T20:38:00.001-04:00

I don't know what I expected from today's "Turn the Page in Iraq" rally, but I return to my keyboard with a couple of blurry pictures and a few more ideas about how to move forward in New York. First, let me offer a quick overview of the event itself.

The challenge of the day in Brooklyn was not crowd overflow, but sparse attendance. I arrived about ten minutes before the scheduled start time and found a few earnest volunteers on the periphery of a largely empty plaza distributing 8.5" x 11" flyers and encouraging people to stop by the event.

Unfortunately, the fact that not many people had arrived made it hard to attract people who weren't previously aware of the event. There weren't many visual cues to let people know what was coming. There were Obama rally signs on the steps of Borough Hall, and the PA system was playing music to attract attention, but supporters arrived slowly and filled the empty space tentatively.

This did give me the opportunity to speak with an older person who had made the trip down from a retirement home in Sleepy Hollow, NY, to attend the Brooklyn rally. He had some very interesting ideas about Social Security, and I hope that he writes to me to share them in more detail. He reinforced my feeling that seniors must be made more central to this campaign. In a small crowd there are many inspiring stories and important voices. But back to the formal proceedings.

The event emcee was a member of Brooklyn for Barack, and she ably hosted a program that included a high-school student, an Iraq War veteran (pictured at right) and NYC politicians (pictured below) brave enough to endorse Barack, in spite of Hillary's local reach. Speeches began around 5:45 p.m. and continued for about 45 minutes.

Thankfully, the crowd seemed to grow as the program went on, and remarks were received enthusiastically. Speakers focused primarily on Barack's willingness to take an anti-war position at a time when it was politically unpopular. They did a good job of repeating that, although Barack didn't hold office and face a vote on the issue, he did risk his reputation and political future by choosing to be outspoken in opposition against the prevailing currents in both major parties and the mainstream media.

Generally, the focus stayed on Barack's good judgment and the issue of Iraq, but there were also calls to local action. Councilman Al Vann, who organized Jesse Jackson's 1984 primary run in New York, invoked Jesse's success in carrying New York delegates twenty years ago to inspire attendees to fight for their home state's votes today. The crowd also heard the important reminder that they must register as Democrats before October 12 if they want to put their support behind Barack when it counts.

All of these things were good. People were on hand to pass out voter registration cards (I saw at least two reach the crowd while the speaking was still going on). Members of Brooklyn for Barack were passing out free rally signs and buttons, and volunteers were circulating with clipboards for Obama and for voter registration.

Always Forward, Always Prepared!

If you'll forgive the quasi-Soviet ring of the header, I think it's the perfect introduction to my same-day impressions of what was done well and what could have contributed to even more success. I say all of this with the caveat that I was not able to contribute anything more than my presence to the on-the-ground effort today.

I learned through a conversation tonight that at least one member of Brooklyn for Barack has read this blog, and I want to emphasize that I appreciate the logistical and material challenges of organizing anything beyond the self-contained utopia of the computer screen. It's never easy, and resource and time constraints are real, but here we go anyway.

1. GIVE IT AWAY

I thought it was great that rally signs and buttons were being given away free. Selling merchandise can be a good fund-raising tool, but getting the message out should supercede the revenue incentive, at least in the New York area.

If NYC becomes image-saturated with Obama logos and slogans, it will help shape the perception of his strength nationally. Let's get more shirts and signs in the background of television morning shows (how about fighting with the tourists in the early AM for a new front in guerrilla campaigning?) and sports/news desks. Just a few more flyers and stickers left behind on subways could have a helpful afterlife. How many journalists/bloggers/editors are riding the F train back to their Brooklyn homes every day?

2. BIG SIGNS, BETTER PICTURES

Again, this is no knock on the organizing that went into today's event, but next time there should be a bigger visual presence. Everything sounded great -- the PA was perfect throughout, from speeches to music, which is no small accomplishment in event planning in a public space. Graphically, though, there was nothing that screamed BARACK EVENT HERE. Like, for example, a sign that reads BARACK EVENT HERE.

I know these things cost money, but I think it's time to think about recruiting art students. I personally work out of a studio in Clinton Hill that happens to sit right next to Pratt. There's one Brooklyn resource for finding people who know how to do things like make enormous graphical displays.

The concepts can be challenging, but the most daunting part is execution. Students -- or working/struggling artists, for that matter -- are more than familiar with what it takes to produce and build things at a minimal cost. I genuinely believe that more colorful banners, a few sandwich boards and a couple of portable booths/stands for voter registration can make a significant impact in drawing crowds and telling more interesting stories.

I'm not sure what photos will come out of today's rally, but I know that something like a twelve-foot long, three-foot high banner (portable mural, even) painted on unstretched canvas would be likely to draw a camera and a crowd. Not every sign has to be perfectly produced. A rough-hewn, hand-made look to any effort like that only reinforces the fact that this is a campaign fueled by grass-roots energy, not just packaged to look that way.

3. COME BACK TOMORROW

No, that's not the suggestion. I'm saying there's a number three. It's my favorite, actually.

It relates to the project that I mentioned consumed my time and energy last week. I'm going to unveil it tomorrow. See you then.

[Post updated with minor semantic corrections and second photo 10/3 - JN]

Rally Ho!

2007-10-02T16:39:00.000-04:00

Today the Obama campaign is sponsoring issue-driven rallies in 17 cities across the country, and Brooklyn just happens to be one of them. I will be leaving in about 15 minutes to attend the "Turn the Page in Iraq" gathering being held at Borough Hall.

I'm bringing a camera and an open mind. The framing of the rally is a bit vague. It's billed as a "rally against the conventional Washington thinking that led us into the Iraq War." I'm all for the opportunity to gather people together to protest against conventional thinking of any kind, but I'm interested to see who will heed this call. There's also no advertised list of speakers, or any sort of agenda, so it will be one big surprise.

I think it's not a bad idea to return to the Iraq issue, and focusing on Barack's early opposition is a differentiator from Hillary. Ultimately, I'm not sure how much a contest around the idea of CHANGE is a winning strategy for the primary. I am encouraged, though, to see some on-the-ground action being taken on an issue nominally more specific than enthusiasm itself. It's a step in the right direction, and it's very interesting choice to attempt this in Brooklyn.

Time to hit the street. Expect a report on my experience a little later.

A Few Dollars More at the End of the Quarter

2007-09-30T23:32:00.000-04:00

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

2007-09-27T14:49:00.001-04:00

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

2007-09-26T23:57:00.000-04:00

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

2007-09-25T14:42:00.001-04:00

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

2007-09-22T02:43:00.001-04:00

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

2007-09-19T20:58:00.000-04:00

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

2007-09-19T15:29:00.000-04:00

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)

2007-09-18T22:11:00.000-04:00

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)

2007-09-18T21:30:00.000-04:00

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)

2007-09-18T20:13:00.000-04:00

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?

2007-09-17T23:45:00.000-04:00

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

2007-09-15T22:13:00.000-04:00

[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

2007-09-13T16:30:00.000-04:00

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?

2007-09-11T22:37:00.000-04:00

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

2007-09-10T00:01:00.000-04:00

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)

2007-09-07T20:20:00.001-04:00

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

2007-09-06T23:37:00.000-04:00

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

2007-09-05T13:00:00.000-04:00

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]

2007-09-04T12:11:00.000-04:00

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

2007-09-03T23:30:00.000-04:00

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.

Comments on "Obama Grassroots" Story

2007-08-31T13:25:00.000-04:00

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.

Practical Matters: One Refund, Part Two

2007-08-30T22:44:00.000-04:00

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.

Comments on the "Obama ATM" Thread

2007-08-29T22:18:00.000-04:00

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.

Race, the Race, and the People

2007-08-28T21:30:00.000-04:00

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.

Asking for More [Updated]

2007-08-27T12:10:00.000-04:00

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).

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)

[I have corrected the second story title and link above. My intention was to send readers to Rock Hackshaw's ATM post. The previous link pointed to Obama in New York, a different story. The piece I posted in error discusses a December 2006 visit to court affluent voters in NYC. It actually comments resignedly on New York's lack of importance to elections for anything other than money.

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.]

Practical Matters: You Can Have a Refund

2007-08-25T23:04:00.000-04:00

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.

Campaign Barack Brush-off: "I'm sorry that you feel that way"

2007-08-24T18:24:00.001-04:00

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.

Barack in Brooklyn: Treat the People Right!

2007-08-23T21:45:00.000-04:00

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

Barack in Brooklyn: A Sorry Apology

2007-08-23T20:30:00.000-04:00

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

Barack in Brooklyn: First, There Was THE LINE

2007-08-23T19:00:00.000-04:00

When 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

Barack in January: When I Stood Up

2007-08-23T18:33:00.000-04:00

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.