- Defense Department Voting Assistance Program Draws Congressional Fire
- Daily Digest: Obama as Clinton Redux, in More Ways Than One
- Change.gov Swaps Traditional Copyright for Creative Commons
- Obama's Production Tweaks
- Clinton Successor Watch: RFK Jr.'s Facebook Group
- Daily Digest: Did the Internet Matter?
- Change.gov a Wiki Wannabe
- Daily Digest: Obama Looking Eager to Open 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
- Change.gov Starts to Go Interactive, Intensively
- It's Time for a Wiki White House
By Tom Belford, 05/08/2007 - 9:13pm
Of course the Dem candidates should be all over the Iraq issue, proferring plans and proposals of their own. And of course it's legit for them to tap concern, frustration and anger about the issue to surface supporters for their campaigns.
But some are more adroit than others in their online tactics to do so.
Biden, Richardson, and Clinton are running similar online petition campaigns -- "help us send a message to Congress" to de-authorize the war, set a date certain to withdraw troops, whatever. Boring from a tactical standpoint. Plug in [issue] here! I'm amazed that people still "sign" these things. But I guess enough do to keep the prospecting pipeline going.
Dodd takes the same generic name-gathering approach, but focuses his e-petition-signers on his fellow candidates. The predicate in his approach is that he's more anti-Iraq than his fellow candidates. Still boring tactically, but at least you get the idea that he's running against other presidential candidates, not the Congress.
Edwards IMHO is taking the cleverest approach, with his appeal for funds to run anti-war TV and online ads. First, he's using online platform to involve supporters in the very process of creating the ads. Second, he's leveraging the viral potential of YouTube in the process. Third, he's asking for money upfront to do this. Fourth, he's actually using the money specifically to influence the public on the issue (and not accidentally, to position himself as lead champion on the matter). It all seems more credible ... and likely to put Edwards in front of many more people.
Obama and Kucinich seem content to focus their current online appeals on the grassroots psyche of the net population. That is, "Give to me to demonstrate that 'the people' are calling the shots in my campaign." Obama continues to generate the online gifts to support that claim. I suspect Kucinich is somewhat off the pace for reaching his one million $50 gifts goal. Meantime, both candidates' website presents an Iraq plan, but neither is using the issue directly to generate activists or dollars.
So when it comes to Round One of issue-driven campaign fundraising, I'd have to give the round to Edwards ... points for smart use of the online platform, plus points for savvy fundraising.
Recent blog posts
Recent comments
- So very early in the going
2 hours 46 min ago - Manual trackback
3 hours 3 min ago - I have been looking for
9 hours 42 min ago - Thank you for your site. I
9 hours 45 min ago - change.com
9 hours 48 min ago - Good step, but...
19 hours 45 min ago - thanks
2 days 4 hours ago - Forum Federation
2 days 6 hours ago - Tim O'Reilly seems to agree...
3 days 12 min ago - the game is still bottom-up
3 days 1 hour ago

print
email
delicious
digg
technorati
Resonance or dissonance?
To the extent that people getting the Edwards appeal aren't already annoyed to the point of exhuastion by what seems like a weekly appeal from MoveOn.org to "chip in $25 to help us put this ad on the air," Edwards' pitch probably resonates well with that paradigm. But in the Democratic circles I run in -- granted, in the South, but these aren't very conservative Southern Democrats in this big blue dot -- that gag's got whiskers.