Edwards’ Smokescreen?

Mar 22 2007 Published by under Candidates, Democrats, Elections, Politics

I’m eagerly awaiting the announcement by John Edwards that is scheduled for noon. As I wait, here is my thought. While I fully appreciate his wife’s illness, and wish her no harm, I’m not quite sure that her ailment is the only reason for his campaign suspension.Earlier this week, Patrick Ruffini detailed the trouble Edwards was having in campaign fundraising. Despite his standing among the leftroots, Edwards is raising less than stellar amounts of money. His ActBlue total is a little over $1.1 million now, and that is pretty weak by the standard of what Hillary and Obama are raising. His campaign can’t possibly have much fuel and the one thing he has been able to get press on was the poor decision to hire Amanda Marcotte. He’s not exactly a juggernaut.

While I respect Edwards for putting his family first, I’m doubtful that this was the whole reason for his decision.

UPDATE: Well, at the risk of being completely cynical, it’s even worse than I thought. The whole purpose of the press conference seems to have been “Hey, look at us. My wife is sick and I’m running for President.”

I’m not sure exactly why we should care about the fact that a) Elizabeth is sick, but treatable, and b) it’s not going to have an impact on his campaign. I hope to God this doesn’t start a trend where POTUS candidates call a press conference to get attention any time their spouse sneezes.

Comments

A Note To Presidential Hopefuls

Feb 28 2007 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Democrats, Elections, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Marketing, Politics, Republicans, The Internet

I was having lunch with my good friend Anne today and recalled a conference I attended a while back. Henry Copeland from BlogAds was talking about the crazy guy in the back of the room – not a specific crazy guy, but the type. He cautioned that you should always pay close attention to the crazy guy in the back, because the really oddball question is probably being asked by the guy that sees a bigger picture than you.

Henry went on to say that he had been the crazy guy in the back for a couple of years and would always ask candidates what their strategy was for dealing with blogs and advertising via blogs. It was a couple of years before the idea hit and he was recognized for his wisdom.

Most of those watching online politics seem focused on asking how these candidates have employed the technology of the day. Are they using YouTube, do they have a MySpace page, and how many friends do they have?

Anne asked why it was that I seem to be the only guy asking these campaigns how their online campaign will contribute significantly to their ability to get elected. What is their strategy to win? What are their obstacles? How will their online campaign help seal the deal on Election Day?

Most of the Presidential campaigns have not, at least to the casual observer, answered those questions. Looking at their sites, you have no idea how their web operation is going to move them toward the goal of actually getting votes.

Obama, as I mentioned in my TechPresident post yesterday, comes closest to providing the tools for an effective ground game and the ability to manage it online. By incorporating voter data into his organizing tools, he could have a seriously effective operation. Beyond his effort though, there is little evidence that the campaigns are thinking about how to use technology to win.

The Republicans

If your goal is to counter the view that you’re a cult member, maybe Mitt Romney’s site comes close. His reliance on MittTV may allow people to view him in a light that separates his campaign from the stigma of polygamy and the Mormon Church’s odd rituals. By providing a lot of video, and a lot of scripted testimonials, he may be able to convince people that his religion should be overlooked in favor of the fact he’s a good looking guy with a lot of friends.

It may not be fair to judge Rudy Giuliani on the basis of what is clearly a transitional website, but many will. Most other campaigns have a fully functional site out the door, and Rudy is a delayed entry. He needs to get his site in place quick, or he runs the chance that people begin to view him as too deliberate and slow to campaign effectively.

I previously said McCain is probably our best bet for the general election. I still stand by that, but my doubts about his ability to compete in the primary are compounding daily.

His biggest problems are the disapproval of most in the GOP, and his dourness. I don’t know that a black and white website with only occasional glimpses of color will address the latter. I know that his limited social networking tools are not the best way to address the former. If people don’t like you, giving them a choice between taking marching orders from you, sending your pre-written e-mails to friends or not participating at all may not be a winning strategy.

The Democrats

As I said, Obama is nearly feature complete for where he needs to be at this point. His biggest hurdle is now the same challenge Dean had in 2003. How do you convert your celebrity, and the people gravitating to you solely because of it, into volunteer activity? He has almost all the right tools, but can they convert enthusiasm into activity? The only other clear flaw I see in his operation is his decision to only ask for zip code on his sign-up.

This is one of my pet peeves. Back in 1999, peope didn’t like to give a lot of information online. ComScore recently announced the online commerce figures for 2006 totaled more than $100 billion. It’s time to step out of the Internet stone age and ask for more information. This is especially true in politics because you need more precise data to do sophisticated geo-coding to deliver services like driving directions to polling locations, or distributing invites to your neighbors if you’re having an event in your home.

In the Western US, zip codes encompass very large areas, so you need better information to reach rural voters. Zip codes are fine in New York, Boston, and DC. A whole generation of Internet consultants needs to spend a month in Wyoming to understand the stupidity of their approach.

Sorry, I digress….

Hillary’s website is almost as bad as McCain’s in what it allows you to do for her. My action opportunity for helping her recruit voters is to send the following message:

Hillary Clinton is preparing to run for President. This is a massive undertaking and she needs our help. Building an early base of support is critical to any successful Presidential campaign, so I’m asking you to sign up as a supporter.

This will be a (sic) historic campaign, and I’m hoping that you’ll sign up to be a part of it.

Any custom text you insert appears at the bottom, after the official campaign message, and just above the signature line. For a candidate facing charges that she is less than warm and friendly, why not let me include a paragraph, right at the beginning, that tells people, in my words, why they should support you – or better yet, why I support you.

This is yet another hold over from 1999, and most candidates are making the same mistake. Your detractors are probably not driving people to your website to use your tools against you (with occasional notable exceptions). Get over it, and allow people to use their own words.

Next to Obama, Edwards probably has the best tools – as judged by openness and capability – but it’s a long way between first and second place. His biggest problem is his site looks like it was done by a committee of undergrad graphic design majors. Tidy it up John and focus your message.

Winning

Like I said, the biggest problem I see with most of the candidate sites so far is an inability to see how they’re online campaign will contribute to their victory. Granted, it’s a year before any votes will be cast. At this time, a campaign to introduce your candidacy is necessary. However, there’s no reason you can’t combine an effort to educate, with an effort to lay the groundwork for future voter registration/contact/mobilization.

Comments

My Last Word On Marcotte & McEwan

Feb 16 2007 Published by under Bloggers, Candidates, Politics, The Internet

A colleague – and fellow blogger – and I were discussing the Marcotte situation. He raised two valid concerns that this would a) deter campaigns from hiring bloggers in the future and b) lead to a situation where an arms race of who can find dirt on the other guy’s blogger.

While I respect his concerns, I think the issue is a little different. Take the Internet out of the equation and substitute print media or television. If a campaign hired a Bill O’Reilly, an Ann Coulter, or an Al Franken as a spokesperson, and that person continued to keep their day job as a firebrand, it would be a short matter of time before they said something stupid on air or in print to cause the same eruption.

The fact is, this had less to do with blogs and online politics, than it did with two questionable decisions – one by Edwards, and one by Marcotte. The bad decision Edwards made was in not demanding that Marcotte stop blogging at Pandagon. The bad decision by Marcotte was to continue doing so.

When you work for a Presidential campaign, especially as a spokesperson, you become the voice of the campaign. Everything you write, or say, can be construed as a campaign position. You may say something that you’d never think twice about in day-to-day life, and it becomes a much larger issue because you say it with the weight of your position.

That’s why the Ann Coulter’s and Bill O’Reilly’s don’t take campaign jobs (ok, that and the massive salary cuts). That’s also why Marcotte’s decision to continue blogging on topics as trivial as a movie and its feminist leanings is such a mistake. It’s rarely a blatant statement that gets someone in trouble. It’s almost always an off-hand remark that costs them. Just ask Joe “Barack is Clean” Biden. One of Marcotte’s commentators points out this very fact in response to the Children of Men post.

It appears that jackelam and pduggie have very different experiences of organized Christianity from Amanda’s. Well bully for them. I’m glad on their behalf.

And as a white woman I have very different experiences of privilige from those of someone of a different skin colour. My good fortune, probably, but that doesn’t mean that I get to say that the experiences of a black woman or a Cree woman, and her consequent take on my culture, are invalid or wrongheaded, even if I believe my culture didn’t mean for the black woman or the Cree woman to feel bad.

And yet, that is exactly what Marcotte did. She ignored the fact that different people bring different perspectives to any interaction, and she offended a great many people with her words. In doing so, she spoke not only for herself, but with the megaphone of the campaign. The trouble is, she didn’t realize it was turned on.

Comments

Irresponsible Selective Perception

Feb 14 2007 Published by under Bloggers, Craziness, Democrats, Politics, Republicans, Technology, Terrorism, The Internet

What constantly amazes me about politics is the ease with which partisans can ignore the worst traits of their own ranks while casting stones at the sins of those on the other side of the aisle. It is appalling the extent to which some will go to make a point, while pretending to be completely ignorant of the atrocities committed in their name.

Take, for instance, Chris Bowers at MyDD. A recent post of his takes issue with the acts of the unhinged right.

Much like the democratic means attempted by conservatives to outlaw abortion, the media pressure against Edwards didn’t work. Unfortunately, the violent threats against Melissa did. Over at Pandagon, Amanda offers a taste of some of the tamer threats she received during the episode, and which it appears she continues to receive. Ultimately, it appears that it was the continuing threat of violence, not any media pressure or caving from the Edwards campaign, that allowed the right-wing to “take scalps” in this whole affair. (emphasis mine)

Well, if you look at McEwan’s post (which Bowers excerpts) what she said was:

There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats.

She received what she considered to be threats. That is, to be sure, absolutely inappropriate. The posts over at Pandagon are atrocious. The venom in them is atrocious.

The trouble is, with few exceptions, none of them, actually threatened violence. They said horrid violent things, and wished all manner of ills on Marcotte, but they weren’t specifically threatening. They wished harm on people simply because they disagreed with their lifestyle. Why does that sound so familiar? Oh wait!

They sounded like the comments of Kos himself. They sounded like the comments of the fringe left (#8 is my favorite example).

Even McEwan, at least, referred to them as veiled threats. Her post not only downplayed the nature of those threats, but also explained that those who had called for her expulsion from Camp Edwards were “tacitly” condoning those who had threatened her.

Well, frankly, that’s just stupid.

Does that mean that anyone who is pro-environment is tacitly endorsing the actions of groups like Earth First when they spike trees to break chain saws and cripple loggers? Hardly.

Does that mean that people who advocate for higher CAFE standards or electric cars are tacitly endorsing the actions of the Earth Liberation Front? Nope.

Bowers (and McEwan to a lesser extent) are guilty of exactly that of which they accuse Republicans – attempting to equate one very reasonable action to the irrational acts of a fringe element. In doing so, they seek to persuade others against the rational act.

For Catholics to oppose the continued employment of Marcotte and McEwan was a perfectly reasonable and legitimate act. Anyone who issued threats, or engaged in fringe behavior should be recognized as the fringe. Those actions are beyond the pale.

Bowers, on the other hand, uses McEwan’s post to engage in the worst possible form of misdirection. Threats against her are bad. Claiming that those threats represent some sort of sustained conscious campaign on behalf of the Republican Party is just ridiculous.

Terrorism and the threat of violence against American citizens remains a key political tool for the American right-wing. This is true both in the sense of conservatives and Republicans trying to scare people into voting for them / justifying their legislative agenda, and in the sense of actual terrorism and threats of violence against Democrats and progressives who stand in their way… physical violence and the threat of physical violence is still successfully being employed as a political tactic against individual progressives in America.

If you want to look at the use of terrorism as a political tool, fine. Do it honestly, however. Any discussion of such violence should recognize the role of the left in actual terrorism. The two examples cited above would be good places to start.

Earth First and the ELF have caused significant damages to businesses that are legally operating just as abortion clinics are. ELF was actually identified as the single greatest domestic terror threat until the attacks of 2001. Does Bowers renounce their actions? If so, why doesn’t he recognize the activity of the fringe left as well as the fringe right?

If he doesn’t reject their actions, and believes that the spiking of trees to prevent legal timber gathering, and the acts of arson and vandalism carried out by ELF are legitimate financial attacks (assuming they don’t hurt of kill anyone), then surely he believes abortion clinic bombings done after hours, when the clinics are empty, would be perfectly legitimate too. Right?

Unfortunately, he doesn’t spread his distaste of violence and threats of it around evenly. I suspect if you scan through the comments on MyDD, you’ll probably find more than a handful of veiled threats against the Bush Administration. Does he denounce all of his readers for the stupid comments of a few? If he did, maybe his claims about the fringe of the Republican Party would ring true, rather than hollow.

Comments

Prognostication

Feb 13 2007 Published by under Bloggers, Democrats, Operatives, Politics, Republicans, Technology, The Internet

Here’s my prediction about Marcotte fallout. Now that Presidential campaigns have officially joined the ranks of Senate and Congressional campaigns being held accountable for questionable hires, you will likely see a lot of attacks by a lot of different groups on the bloggers hired by just about every campaign.

Ultimately, I think this may be more damaging to Democrats than to Republicans, but I suspect there is a lot of damage to be spread around. There has been an growing trend in politics to assail the staff of candidates as a way of damaging the candidates. For all the Democrats who feign outrage at the treatment of ‘poor Miss Marcotte’, let us reflect on the unrelenting attacks on Terry Nelson (examples here, here, here and here).

As bloggers go, I think bloggers on the left tend to be more offensive in language and tone, so I think assailing their past statements will probably be easier for Republicans. That’s not to say the use of course language by Republicans is non-existent. You only need to read this blog on occasion to find examples. I do think the Democrats give us more ammunition, though.

Comments

« Newer posts Older posts »

Livefyre Not Displaying on this post