techPresident - Howard Dean - Comments

Yep

Fred Gooltz — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:32:59 -0400

I agree. Though, as somebody who is kinda partly responsible for JRE's ubiquitous presence on socnets, I do think that Dodd's use of the Citizen Whip VoIP tool was new and good.

Dodd leveraged the platform of his campaign to raise the profile of his signature governing policy beliefs in a way that suited the issue.

He enabled his supporters as well as a much wider universe of issue activists to advocate WITH him.

I'd like to see more of that from electeds and candidates.

After the election

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:52:40 -0400

Fascinating post, I really appreciate the historical perspective.

I wonder what will happen if the movement feels that Obama lets them down. If he becomes President, and probably even just in the course of the general election, at least some of the larger clusters that have been drawn into the game are bound to be disappointed by one or more policy positions.

When it happens, will people be able to use the same infrastructure that assembled them to pressure him? Or will they just leave? Can the movement arraign itself to allow for processes or consultation and/or accountability that will give people the sense that even if they disagree with his stance or one thing or another, they at least had a fair chance to be heard, and should stay to fight, also on the internal fronts, another day? Would the campaign even want that?

It seems to me that a recurring tendency in somewhat decentralized and largely self-organized movements is that they are very inclusive, and may work pretty well, as long as everyone remains on more or less the same page in terms of the short-term and purely instrumental goals. But one thing is for a lot of people to come together because they agree that the country needs a Democratic President. Another is to maintain cohesion and the power it generates once things gets more complicated than that.

Interesting thought!

Joe212 — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:52:22 -0400

Interesting thought!

If he wins the election, and wants to successfully implement the changes promised, we'd need the support from his current organization/group to ensure Democratic Party majority controlled in both senate and congress. As such, I think his existing organization should be managed by the DNC. By the end of the day, it is all about "money" and "quit pro quo". In order for him to be able to advance his programs, he needs support both from those guys in Senate and Congress, who in turn also need his support to raise money for their reelection campaign.

One of the reasons of the party insiders/superdelegates have been exciting of supporting Obama is the ability of Obama and his campaign organization to raise money from small donors. (Why in the hell they want to support the other candidate whose campaign was in such huge debt?).

In any event, if this movement is sustainable, it will change the dynamic in American politics.

Campaigning vs. Governing

Luigi Montanez — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:01:53 -0400

It'll be interesting to see what will happen when this movement seeking to capture power actually attains that power. Didn't work out so well for the Conservative Movement these past few years.

Campaigns are competitions at their core. Americans like that. There are contests that we can follow, votes we can tally, dollars we can count. Governance, on the other hand, has no points system. Yes, Obama can keep revamp WhiteHouse.gov to be more transparent. He can continue to utilize his massive list with calls to action. But will his followers really respond the way they do now?

American government, from the federal level down to the local school board, is not a very attractive thing. But campaigns are great fun. They have clear winners, there's a clear goal, and there's a lot of drama. Governance is about the infinite shades of grey, and the outcomes are never clear, often frustrating, and always complicated. Who wants to get involved in that?

The only way I can see the Obama movement continuing is if a clear issue-based organizing infrastructure is set up. That way, supporters can pick and choose where they want to expend their energy. Those who want to see solutions to global warming can engage in one space, those interested in universal healthcare over here, etc. It may even make sense to organize around concrete initiatives within the larger issues. Whatever the solution, it needs to remain accessible to the masses while recognizing that attention is a scarce resource.

He'll probably keep BarackObama.com up

Patrick Ruffini — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:13:05 -0400

There's not a lot of precedent here, but past practice has been turn your list over to the RNC/DNC once you win.

I suspect Obama will keep his list independent of the DNC, and organize independently from there. As we've seen, the person is a lot more powerful a platform than the party.

very funny!

Freedomfighter — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:46:21 -0400

"it suggests that the era of Big Money and Big Media pre-selecting the nominee of the Democratic party may well be over" .........yeah right, ROFLMAO!

Here are some factors to consider:

1) the anti-Clinton movement gave Obama a huge advantage. Progressives did not like her, moderates hated her husband and young people found her unappealing. This made it easy for Obama to appeal to many types of voters.

2) white guilt which did not, and still does not want to criticize Obama, because it fears being seen as racist.

3) Young people under 26 who read more books of Harry Potter than history. Obama looks like a high school debate guy, and the young are drawn to him and react as if they are voting for American Idol or prom king instead of president. Doubts? How far would a white Republican candidate get if his middle name was "Hitler"?

4) George Bush sucks at speaking. Face it. The last ten presidents before Bush spoke a thousand times better. But just remember, a good speech does not mean a good president.

5) Obama raised lots of money from groups like Moveon. To say big money did not play a part is disingenuous.

http://www.widecircles.com

johnsmith5082 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:01:57 -0400

We are all watching a parallel university,they made a number of creative students.Always welcome for your advertisement.
-----------------------------------
johnsmith
Highly relevant, efficient advertising to forum, blog, wiki and other types of web sites. Drive large number of visitors to your website and build quality links.
http://www.widecircles.com

Yes ~ Ron is the 2008 Ross!

4Yahshua — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:50:49 -0500

Greetings! Just want y'all to know that I really believe this especially after watching him on Glen Beck on 1-1-2008. The man does not believe in any U.S. Government complicity in the events of 9/11!!! Wake up bloggers!! Don't you watch T.V.? Sadly, the man seems to be another "shill" for the Bush Sr. White House!
Seek the Mighty One Upstairs!

TREES ~ YES BUSHES? NO!!!!!!!!!
"For 26 years we have had a Bush Sr. White House! How can we get back OUR House??"

Paul and Dean aren't that similar

Zephyr Teachout — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:09:38 -0500

I don't think Dean and Paul are that similar at all, actually.

Dean, at core, is a pragmatist who believed in self-government, and he appealed to people with those traits. Paul--although I'm still figuring him out--seems to start from first principles and believe in little government. They are polar opposites in temperament.

The only similarities I see are the use of Meetups (but, as Paul supporters have pointed out, that was a completely supporter-driven tactic), high numbers of online fundraising, and an opposition to a central orthodoxy in the party regarding the Iraq war.

That's not a very deep set of comparisons, and if the internet wasn't around, I don't think the comparisons would be there. The orange caps, as you'll recall, was a campaign (top down) invention. The Georgia for Dean and its ilk press releases were always more muted than the DFA official press releases.

Dean/Paul Movement Comparisons Are Fascinating

Luigi Montanez — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:33:56 -0500

The similarities: Overwhelmingly white, college-educated, and well-off financially. But the Paul movement seems to be younger (the Dean movement was much older than portrayed by the media) and much more tech savvy than Deaniacs.

But it all comes down to the primaries. How does the Paul movement actually become a political campaign that converts money and energy into votes? If Iowans thought Deaniacs in orange caps were a put-off, what will they think of brash, "REVOLUTION" t-shirted Paul supporters? How exactly does the Paul campaign plan to harness their activist energy?

Assuming Paul loses in the primaries, what happens to his movement afterwards? Does it stick together a la DFA, or like libertarians are apt to do, break apart? Will we be seeing Chairman Ron Paul installed into the RNC after a Democratic landslide and President Hillary in 2008? Completely fascinating to think about.

FYI, here's the RonPaulGraph for total donors:

http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/total_donors.html

72,000 for just this quarter, but I don't know if that's really a count of total donations or unique donors.

Woah!!

alicescheshirecat — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:44:52 -0400

Micah Sifry is on Facebook!? SWEET!

join the Future Majority

really disruptive sheep

paulcanning — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:53:17 -0400

"We’re talking about tossing around some really disruptive sheep."

I hope PETA doesn't hear about this ;]

www.paulcanning.me.uk
web stuff and other ramblings
~~~~~~~~~~~

Dean dreams big

cfinnie — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:06:06 -0400

I don't actually see that two-way conversation Dean talks about in this election. I saw it in the Dean campaign at the beginning of the 2004 race. But really not since.

Still, I love the way Dean dreams. And I hope he's right!

We should have noted this when it happened:....

Tex MacRae — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:40:17 -0400

I noticed.

Ron Paul surges past Obama

Here's a heads up. On August 8, Ron Paul will have been in the Technorati top search continuously for four straight months. That is unprecedented. Ask your brother. :)

Trippi is still ahead of America

cfinnie — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:23:24 -0400

Someday, Joe Trippi will be right. But, as history shows, it's rarely during the campaign he's working on.

The Internet enabled Howard Dean to be a viable candidate. It did not make him a winner. And I contend that the reason it enabled his high profile and fundraising totals was not because of the tool, but the campaign and candidate. When I first went to the Dean campaign site, I was amazed at what I read there. There was no political parsing. I didn't see calculation and hype. I saw open, honest opinions and I was hooked. So that was the first tool I saw the campaign use. But it was the message that did it, not the tool. When I first saw Dean, he said "only you have the power..." Then campaign then provided the tools and the structure to back that up. So the tools proved the commitment. But they were not the winning message, just the medium.

As the earlier comment points out, blogs are impacting the MSM. But their media reach is still a fraction of Faux Noise. With that big an echo chamber, even the lack of message can be overcome. That's why the Republicans are not worried.