The Battle to Control Obama's Myspace
By Micah L. Sifry, 05/01/2007 - 11:15pm

In November 2004, Joe Anthony, a paralegal living in Los Angeles, started a unofficial fan page for then-newly-elected Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) on MySpace.com. Inspired by Obama's keynote address at that summer's Democratic convention, Anthony had never been politically active before. "I was just blown away," he told me. He put time into the site every day, answering emails from people wanting to "friend" the page, pointing them to voter registration information, and, once Obama threw his hat into the ring, telling them where to find out more detailed positions taken by the candidate.

By the time of Obama's official campaign announcement in late January, Anthony's Obama profile--which had the valuable url of myspace.com/barackobama--already had more than 30,000 friends, well more than the other contenders. Over the following weeks, it continued to grow at a rapid pace, generating lots of headlines about Obama winning the "MySpace primary." Yesterday, the profile had just over 160,000 friends. Today, that url has only about 12,000. And it's under new ownership. Joe Anthony, one of the super volunteers of the Connected Age, has lost control of the page he started to the professionals on Obama's staff.

How all this happened is a complicated tale that is still unfolding, and none of the parties involved--Anthony, the Obama online team, and the MySpace political operation--emerge from this story unscathed. Speaking on background, Obama campaign staffers are spreading word that Anthony just wanted a "big payday." Anthony in turn has posted a missive on his blog (that was originally sent to me as an email) accusing the Obama team of "bullying...[and] rotten and dishonest" behavior. However one parses those accusations (more below), the Obama campaign's reputation as the most net-savvy of 2008 has taken a big hit. And MySpace executives have been forced to take extraordinary action to resolve a dispute between two high-profile users of their invaluable site, one a passionate volunteer with a huge network of friends and the other a frontrunning presidential candidate who has helped make MySpace a new factor in the 2008 contest.

The Barocket Takes Off

At first, all was rosy between Anthony and the Obama campaign. Chris Hughes, one of the campaign's first internet staffers (and a co-founder of Facebook.com), emailed Anthony through the MySpace page and both sides were pleased to connect with each other. For several weeks, they collaborated on a daily basis, with the Obama campaign offering advice to Anthony on how to improve the site, sharing content with him, helping him place a fundraising widget on the site, etc. He in turn gave the campaign password access to the profile in case they wanted to tweak it quickly, but they made little use of it and relied mainly on Anthony to maintain the site.

It was a labor of love for him. Here at TechPresident, we started getting emails from Anthony every now and then, making sure our own tracking of Obama's MySpace friends was up-to-date, and pointing us to his progress elsewhere in the campaign. "I'm working on [the site] in the mornings, lunch breaks, and for a couple of hours every night," he wrote me on March 1st. "Nearly 10,000 friend requests this past week, and all are unsolicited!" he added "This profile has evolved into quite a large community and I'm glad that it seems to be mobilizing people."

But sometime in the middle of March things began to go awry. On March 17, MySpace announced the creation of the "Impact Channel," which aimed to focused attention on the presidential race, and the Obama campaign had them use Anthony's Obama profile as the site the Impact Channel pointed to. As you can see from TechPresident's tracking page, Obama started gaining friends on MySpace at a much faster pace, hitting 80,000 a few days later. Anthony's workload began to grow. A few weeks later, when Obama's picture was featured on MySpace's "Cool New People" box on its home page (Hillary Clinton is there now), everything exploded. Obama's friend total barocketed from 100,000 to 140,000 in a week. Meanwhile, Chris Hughes had handed the MySpace portfolio to a new campaign hire, Scott Goodstein, who came to Chicago with tons of experience running social network-focused efforts for an impressive array of progressive groups and causes.

It's around this point that the informal working relationship between Anthony and the Obama campaign went sour. The exact chronology of events is in dispute but the general trajectory is clear. As his volunteer workload grew to all hours, Anthony decided to email the Obama campaign asking to be paid in some way for his time. This set off discussions within the campaign about what to do, and ultimately they decided they had to control the page. Unfortunately for all concerned, the negotiations on how to do that were a disaster. Anthony says:

For the past few weeks, the campaign decided it would be better if they just took control of the profile and we decided to try to come to some agreement. By this time, I didn't have quite as much respect for the campaign guys, and frankly felt like I was just being used. They knew about this profile the entire time, and really just waited until it got enough media coverage and friends request so they could step in and bully me out of it.

The last few weeks were just insane. They kept scheduling phone conferences with me, I would wake up early that day after barely sleeping the night before, I'd take time off work, etc. and each after another would be postponed at the last minute. This went on for weeks.

It got to the point where I didn't feel comfortable turning the profile over to the campaign unless they paid for it. This was largely symbolic. The same campaign that inspired me to work so hard to build this community, the same campaign whose underlying message stresses "the power of the individual to have an impact on politics", was constantly downplaying my role in this, bullying me, and a couple of other things that were just rotten and dishonest (specifically in connection with Myspace, and the campaign quashing a recent NPR interview about the profile).

Crash and Burn

Obama insiders see things very differently. They agree that at first all was copacetic, and that Anthony was only helping the Obama campaign with his site. But as attention grew to MySpace, they started to worry about a potential train wreck. A Newsweek story noting that Anthony had some minor facts wrong about Obama's biography made them nervous. And while he complied with every request they made about content on the site--keeping a prominent disclaimer stating that it was an unofficial page, removing a link to Obama's Senate podcasts because it might be an FEC violation, culling a "friend" from a Larry Flynt profile page--they chafed nonetheless.

Coordination with a volunteer they had never met, who lived far from campaign HQ, and who controlled an asset of increasing value to their effort, was just not as seamless as they would like. Who knows who he is actually emailing, they worried. How do we know if the answers he is giving people are the right ones? Welcome to the age of voter-generated media, where a super-volunteer using popular online tools and sites can become as important as big donor or a top campaign surrogate.

Anthony's request to be compensated for all the work he was putting into Obama's Myspace page--anywhere from five to ten hours a day--was the final straw, apparently. After kicking around various ideas including hiring him or making him a consultant, the Obama people asked Anthony to propose a one-time consulting fee. In exchange he would give them control of the page, with credit for the work he had put into it.

"I went for a four mile walk to think about it," he told me, continuing:

I considered the time I had put into it from January 1st of this year, not counting the previous two years. It was about $39,000. Plus I asked that if any fees were to be paid to MySpace by the campaign up to that point in time, those should be shared with me, up to $10,000. There was no counter-offer. They said they didn't have any money.

Indeed, it appears the Obama internet team was shocked by the size of Anthony's proposal and argued to themselves that it was proof that he was just in it for the money, even though campaigns like theirs regularly give tens of thousands of dollars to highpriced media consultants who would give their eye-teeth to deliver 160,000 rabid activists to a campaign. Instead to them, Anthony's bid was all the more reason to get control of the site. Obama's staffers are now spreading the word that Anthony wanted a big payday, including a huge percentage of any ad buys on MySpace. I have a copy of Anthony's email proposal, however, and it contradicts that claim.

Of course, no one really knows how to value the creation of a popular political website with tens of thousands of members. Big sites like Flickr.com and Weblogs.com have earned their owners somewhere between $20 and $40 per member. Care2, the massive progressive email list vendor, charges about $1 per email address that they generate for a campaign. But it would be silly to suggest that Anthony generated 160,000 MySpace friends for Obama on his own--if he wasn't plugging a very charismatic candidate like Obama he'd never have grown such a large site.

Whatever the case, at this point it appears the Obama people simply decided that they would get control of the myspace.com/barackobama url by going around Anthony and getting MySpace to lock down his access to it. In their view, Anthony was violating MySpace's terms of service by falsely representing himself as Obama, and thus they didn't have to pay him anything. The worst that would happen, they reasoned, is that they would have to rebuild the candidate's network of friends.

And this is indeed what is happening now. At the request of the Obama campaign, the url myspace.com/barackobama has been taken away from Joe Anthony and put in their hands. Jen Psaki, the deputy press director for Obama, says:

There is an incredible amount of support for Obama's candidacy on MySpace and our goal is to ensure that we are being as responsive as possible to the community. Because MySpace and the community treated the work as official and due to sheer volume, our campaign staff wanted make sure users had direct access to the campaign. We support the MySpace communty, and look forward to building our relationship.

Was this action fair to Joe Anthony? MySpace itself has come up with a positively Solomonic solution to that question, promising to restore Anthony's network of 160,000 friends as soon as he picks a new url for whatever unofficial Obama fan page he may care to create. Says Jeff Berman, MySpace's senior vice president for public affairs and general manager of video:

We are firmly committed to empowering our users and protecting their rights. The situation with Senator Obama's profile became an unfortunate instance where a user gave a campaign functional control of a profile and the relationship between the two broke down. We felt under the circumstances that Senator Obama had the right to the URL containing his name and to the official campaign content that was provided, but that the user should retain the basic elements of the profile, including the friends who had been accumulated. Now that each Presidential candidate controls his/her own MySpace page, we don't expect this to be a problem again.

And indeed, for MySpace this probably will never be a problem again, for in the future it's likely that political campaigns will always make sure to build and maintain their own official presences there.

But this latest episode in the evolving interaction between voter-generated media and campaign-controlled content raises several unsettled issues:

*If it weren't for the hundreds of hours put into sites like MySpace by passionate volunteers like Joe Anthony, would the folks at MySpace even have anything like an Impact Channel? The only reason campaigns and advertisers are taking sites like MySpace seriously is because they have millions of users; shouldn't the volunteers who help draw the crowds to these new online town halls get some kind of compensation beyond a little modest recognition from political professionals now and then?

*Is it true that once a voter-generated site gets major traction, the campaign affected has to control it? Can a front-running presidential campaign--even one as devoted to empowering supporters to take their own initiatives and connect to each other through social network tools as the Obama campaign--afford a major site run by a campaign volunteer outside their control? Is such control even possible?

*Why couldn't the Obama people find the money to work out an amicable arrangement with Anthony? What are they spending the $26 million they raised last quarter on?

The most intriguing thing about this whole mess is this is the first time I can think of where the grass-roots activist at the bottom of the pile has a megaphone as big as the folks who tried to boss him around. Right now Joe Anthony is lying on his sofa, trying to gather his thoughts as he wonders what happens to all the sweat and passion he put into the last two and a half years for Barack Obama. As best as I can tell, he really doesn't know what he should do, because he's never been in these shoes, and he's as bewildered as anyone could be about how it all came crashing to the ground. But unlike every activist who's ever been crushed by events beyond his control, he can do something that just might give him a clue as to what comes next. He can ask his 160,000 friends for help.

Anthony should be ashamed of himself

It's really sad to witness what a so-called "volunteer" for the Obama campaign is willing to do to blackmail the campaign. Honestly, no serious Barack Obama supporter would behave like this. This is pretty low by most standards. Quite a pathetic spectacle from Anthony.

And I think this episode tells a lot about what today's society has become - a truly selfish, money hungry, greedy, narcissistic culture.

Big loss for the Obama Campaign

I feel for Joe. I know what it's like to work on Myspace around the clock. You stay up late, consume lots of caffeine, approve friends & comments and look for the latest news to post. On top of all that I am always looking for ways to spread the word, help raise money, and expand the community. It definetly kills your social life.

I run the www.myspace.com/hillaryclinton2008 profile. It's not the official profile, I don't work for the campaign, I don't get paid, it's just a grassroots profile I run because I really care and believe in my candidate. As an internet geek I can say this was a huge loss for the Obama team, and in a way a win for my grassroots campaign.

I used to work in the music industry and the most important people on any marketing campaign is always the street team, those fans that geniunly believe in the artist. The street team live and breath the music, they organize, create communities and vital to breaking in a new artist or helping promote a new album. What you don't do is cut off your street team. Which is essentially what they did by cutting Joe off.

Joe if your reading this, I want you to know your always welcome to join and help the Hillary Grassroots campaign.

I don't feel sorry for the guy one bit

I really don't. Why? Because he is a cybersquatter.

The Barack Obama folks have every right to claim the site because Joe Anthony's Obama myspace page has the official Barack Obama url. If it weren't that, I would be siding with Joe. It's just like someone claiming ownership of hillaryclinton.com because they registered the site first. Hillary Clinton has every right by law to take control of her name and domain site. The same thing applies to Barack Obama. If you type in Barack Obama in a MySpace search, the search result comes up with Barack Obama.
There's no dispute that that Barack Obama page is the official page. Mr. Joe Anthony is free to have an Obama page in whatever capacity he wants, but he can't have the official Barack Obama url page on Myspace. He has no right to the official Obama myspace url.

Huh? Come again?

He wants what? $39,000 plus an extra $10,000??? Jeez. This is freaking extortion, plain and simple. Nuts I tell ya.

Stupid idiot.

This is Joe Anthony.

This is not blackmail and I'm not a "squatter".

They wanted the profile and asked me to propose a fee, and indicated that Myspace was ok with this. I have no experience making such proposals and had no idea what to ask for.

I proposed a fee, and now they're accusing me of looking for a "big payday".

This is not blackmail. This is not me cashing in on the profile.

I do not believe that one person on that profile, who has personally witnessed the close personal attention I've dedicated to this community since 2004 would disagree with this.

Who's "Big Brother" now?

Marketing companies who build profiles for movies, artists, products and campaigns charge hundreds of thousands of dollars -- and usually only build up to a few thousand friends.

If the campaign was asking Joe to get out and give up all ties to something he had built himself, and he was only asking for $49K max, then he was being more than reasonable.

The campaign would have raised a ton of money from those 160K people, and all the additional friends those would bring in over the coming months. They would have stayed permanently far ahead of all other campaigns on MySpace. Now they might be permanently behind.

But the worst mistake the campaign made was trying to smear Joe. That could come back to bite them, especially if the other campaigns pick up on this opportunity and get some surrogates talking about this "Big Brother" move by Obama.

When Obama heralded the "power of the individual" for the 1984 ad, it turned out it was actually a staffer of his own consultant.

Now, when a real individual produces something amazing, he steals it away from the guy. Pretty disappointing all around.

Joe, Your attitude is a real disgrace to all Obama volunteers

As a long time volunteer for the Obama campaign, I'd NEVER consider charging the campaign for my volunteer hours. EVER. This is not what volunteering or supporting a candidate means at all. I find it appalling that this Joe Anthony guy even thought of money as a prerequisite to handing over Barack Obama's official website address on My Space. The profile site address belongs to Barack Obama. This is precisely why My Space shut down your Obama profile and handed the address to Obama's campaign.

Well Joe, if you were not looking for a "big payday", why won't you hand over the site to the Obama's campaign then? You say: "This is not blackmail. This is not me cashing in on the profile"
What exactly is it that your are doing then? This is not a way to make a quick buck and your blatant attempt to do so is utterly disgraceful.

It's not too late...

Joe,

Obviously, you've been a big supporter of Obama for some time, and you've clearly done great things for the campaign. I have volunteered a ton too. Trust me, they appreciate the help, even if they miss phone calls or forget to say thanks. I understand that you felt you deserved some compensation for the time you've put in and the success you have achieved on MySpace. But all of us volunteers have done important things and spent a lot of hours helping the campaign, and none of us have asked for compensation. Think about this... you're potentially about to do more harm to the campaign by making this a story than all the good you've done promoting your page on MySpace. Is that really what you want? It's not too late to handle this the right way, regardless of how you felt the campaign should have handled it. You can disagree with them on their approach, but if you still believe in what Obama stands for, then think through what you say when the mainstream press calls about this story. Personally, I hope you're still a supporter and you realize that being compensated or not has nothing to do with Obama being the best candidate.

Unfair

Haley, this is a really different situation. Imagine you built something for the campaign that turned out to be absolutely invaluable. Worth millions of dollars even for the campaign in future donations. And imagine that thing you built was actually a community of people and had become a real labor of love. And then imagine that they wanted you to step away and give up your role in what you built.

And remember, according to Micah's reporting, the campaign suggested a one-time payment, not Joe.

Reply to andersj

If Joe Anthony's name was on that site, there wouldn't be a problem here. As it stands now, he built the site using Barack Obama's name, not his. Many people assumed that particular site was being run by the Obama campaign due to the name. It wasn't advertised as an unofficial Obama page like many other Obama myspace sites are listed.

MySpace has given Joe a very fair shake. The asked him to pick another site name which is fair to Barack Obama. It's not like Joe lost his 160K list.He gets to keep his list. He's just not entitled to control what is essentially Barack Obama's official url address on Myspace.

MIT5: LonelyGirl ’08 and Collective Identity Formation

As much as Joe Anthony is hurt and bewildered, and as much as Obama supporters are attacking him here, I think it is important to get back to the important underlying questions that Micah raised at the end of the article.

They tie nicely into issues that were discussed at the Media in Transition conference at MIT last weekend.

I've been writing up my thoughts about this on my blog, Orient Lodge. For my thoughts on this particular topic and how it relates to the MIT5 conference, please check out MIT5: LonelyGirl ’08 and Collective Identity Formation and Political Campaigns.

the website

thanks for this piece. I felt like i had been getting pieces of the story all morning but not the actual story. While I feel badly that Joe's feelings were hurt, I do understand why the campaign had to get control of website based on this story. I don't know why but I totally overlooked the fact that he would be held responsible by the media and bloggers and everyone else for the content on the website whether it was accurate or not. Also, Joe, it sounds like it was becoming more than you could handle without this becoming your full-time job and they did at least consider just hiring you--not clear why that didn't work out.

Sorry, it all ended this way. Hope all works out for you and Barack.

Obama is the one who should be ashamed.

What they did is practically stealing. A supporter put in lots of his own hours to support a candidate he was passionate about and when the Obama campaign got grabby he gave a very reasonable offer. They continued to be greedy and used a loop hole to steal from Joe. Disgraceful!
Obama's campaign is arrogant to think they have any right to Joe's fan page.
First Edwards blogger nightmare, now Obama's stolen MySpace page... do any of these "populist" "netroots" candidates have any understanding or respect for the tools and the people that are making them popular?

www.irnbru001.com

We're going to see more of this in the future

Not necessarily specifically with MySpace, but with citizen-generated content in general. Campaigns staffs are going to have a tough time surrendering message control, but they'll need to do so to a certain extent if they're going to take advantage of social/participatory media. Power struggles ahead...

Colin Delany
e.politics
http://www.epolitics.com

The worst part about wresting in turds

No matter who "wins" it still stinks. Micah's right, neither side comes away looking good from this one, and it's impossible to tell in the he said-they said exactly where it went wrong. I can't believe grown, committed adults [sic - I've seen enough politics] couldn't come to a reasonable agreement. I've thought in the back of my mind about how I would handle going from grassroots volunteer to someone under more official control, just to cover a campaign's rear, and I figured being hired on at some pittance rate would at least be a way for a campaign to get a content creator to sign some kind of contract and be held more accountable. $39K is not what I'd call that "modest fee," and does somewhat call into question how much of the labor was inspired by a real passion for the candidate; but that the Obama campaign couldn't use some of their management skills and negotiate this to an amicable solution is a failure on their part.

OBAMA'S ROOKIE MISTAKES

What a foolish decision on Obama's part. Paying this man for his work is not only the right thing to do, it's also the smart thing to do.

MySpaceGate is just the latest in a series of rookie mistakes by Obama including snubbing the Congressional Black Caucus as well as his weak debate performance.

Obama is a talented guy. However, if these blunders are any indication, his decision making process doesn't seem to rise to the level that is required of a President.

Bad Call Micah

You didn't even respond to Anthony's request and instead attacked one of your own over a paltry amount of money. People might be attacking Anthony on THIS thread, but you have done damage to the silent majority of your supporters by creating this rift. It is now a significant distraction and momentary setback, the cost of which is way more than $39k in time and energy spent. Joe Anthony delivered 160,000 supporters. Why can't you comprehend that that has value to the campaign WAY in the many $millions? Movement folks, try to understand that a political movement is run on money and principle, not just the latter. Get used to it folks and learn to see the forest for the trees!

Correction

Didn't mean to target Micah - that was directed to the Obama campaign. My apologies.

I would also add that Anthony was not going to seriously contest control of the Myspace page. He just wanted to get paid, and had that happened he probably would have gone on to keep up his good work in some other capacity. Efforts like those are going to bring in the millions this campaign (and others) needs. Highly publicized tiffs over finances WILL NOT.

The next largest Obama myspace page

So how does everyone reading this feel what should happen to the next biggest Obama myspace page with 20k people?

http://www.myspace.com/barackobamaca

The interesting thing about this connundrum is that Team Obama has a second chance to handle the situation.

Obviously it's difficult to migrate communities from one page to another so... Should the campaign also take it over because of misinformation concerns or work closer with the creator?

Politics and Big Brother

Many people think politics are dominated by greedy politicians. In my experience, it's actually greedy consultants. There's an "everybody uses them" list that gets hired over and over again whether they win or lose, whether they give good advice or bad. They are the folks who brought us Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004.

The 2008 campaigns are heading in the same direction.

But the Dean campaign was an exception. Joe Trippi talks about why in his book. The campaign never expected to do as well as they did. Unprepared for success, they were always running a few steps behind supporters. So they hired us. That was the genesis of Blue State Digital, now gone mainstream with the Obama campaign, and many others. When I was in Iowa and was being interviewed (and quoted) by everybody from San Francisco to the UK press (as we all were), the Dean campaign gave us simple instructions, "Speak for yourself. Don't speak for the campaign. But talk about why you're here, why YOU support Dean." Not all volunteers were media savvy enough to heed this, but many were. I personally saw it play out in an interesting way when I got back to California.

A local cable access channel was hosting a talk show on the candidates. They invited representatives from the various local campaign volunteer groups. I went for the Dean Meetup group in my county. There was a very articulate former reporter representing Clark supporters, and that was it. The Kerry group had agreed to send somebody, but had first checked with the campaign. The campaign said the volunteer would first have to drive 2 hours for a full day of media training before appearing on this small local TV show. The Dean campaign sent me an email telling me how to get local press coverage before I went to Iowa, while I was there, and when I got back. That was all the training I got. I never thought to ask the campaign for permission to be on TV. This was our campaign, and we all felt that.

I went on TV before, during, and after Iowa. When the talk show moderator asked about Dean's positions, I either replied with things I'd read in campaign literature, things I'd heard him say, or my own opinions--clearly stated as such.

Dean supporters started Meetup groups, websites, blogs, and listservs. They held visibility and other events and invited the media. Today I'm sure they would have started pages on MySpace and Facebook. As so many things did in that campaign, they belonged to us, and the campaign brought us in as fast as they could.

Only now, after more campaign experience with other candidates, do I realize how rare it was for a campaign to escape the clutches of the true chattering class, the political consultants.

I disagree

I think this episode tells a lot about what today's society has become - a truly selfish, money hungry, greedy, narcissistic culture.

That's hardly fair. This kid put more than a years worth of energy and effort into something, for free, for the love of it, and it ended up being quite valuable, and essentially the campaign wanted to take it away from him. The idea that he should feel somehow thankful for the privilege to serve Obama by handing it over seems a bit off to me, to say the least.

Anthony built something really great, a real human network which he had a relationship with, but because the campaign didn't trust him (that's what their concerns all boil down to), they wanted to take control of it. To me, that's the real story here, not that an organizer grew attached to the community he built and reacted negatively to their proposition that he surrender it for a fee.

That's totally understandable. It's human nature. What I don't understand is why Obama's campaign didn't just hire this kid, and how the fear of "what he might be doing" grew to the point where they decided they needed to seize what he had created. Well, I guess that's understandable too, but only in terms of typical, top-down, control-freak power politics, which isn't what Barack is supposed to be all about.

Actions, louder than words.

The Dean Comparison

I would also like to echo the sentiments of cfinnie, upthread. The Dean Campaign is my yardstick as well, and while there were certainly conflicts between supporters and the official campaign, the working dynamic was healthy, engaged, and largely hands-off from Burlington.

Early on, they made their peace with the idea that if this grassroots thing were to work, they could not control the message on unofficial outlets. This was an enormous component of what made them successful, because it empowered supporters to speak in their own voice, and showed trust from the campaign in it's citizen backers.

Obama's online campaign is reminding me more and more of Wes Clark's problems in 2003.

didn't I just read this same quote on politico website

I think Micah's blog points out that they did consider paying him but $39,000 was too much--let's not stretch the truth. As the blog indicates, Obama would have been held responsible for the content, just as he was with the person who created the Hillary ad even though the guy just worked for the company that designed his website. Kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

As for the CBC, he didn't snub them--again you're twisting the truth into a pretzel. I read that story and they were clear that he donated money to CBC members campaign directly from his own campaign and he also went out and campaigned for them in the '06 election. That's hardly a snub.

please don't be disingenuous.

Joe Anthony, Obama and MySpace Profile!

Politics 2.0 has three posts today on this rapidly evolving story.

One on TechPresident's coverage:
http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/techpresident-battle-to-control-o...

one on National Journal The Hotline blog's coverage:
http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/obamas-myspace-mayhem-national-jo...

and one on Joe's email (published on his MySpace page and linked in National Journal story) to TechPresident:
http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/joe-anthonys-published-on-myspace...

Alex Hammer
Politics 2.0

As a campaign Donor....

As a donor to the Obama campaign, I don't want to see a dime of campaign money go to feckless extortionist.

$40,000 is just too much money to give away to a glorified domain squatter.

You did the right thing, Chris Hughes!

great job

Joe,

By speaking out, you did more to help Obama than you could have by continuing to run the page. The behavior of his campaign was outrageous and unethical, and it's going to hurt him if he doesn't clean it up. Imagine if this had happened during the DNC Convention in 2008, the media frenzy and the RNC oppo frenzy that would have ensued.

You are a principled guy and politics is a lot of pressure. What you did shows guts. You stood up not just for yourself but for anyone treated badly and dishonestly by the political system.

Congratulations. It doesn't necessarily feel like it right now, but you showed tremendous leadership.

Matt Stoller
MyDD.com

Guys, step back and read the actual text

This whole "Anthony is a greedy schmuck" and "the Obama campaign tripped up" debate is a bunch of malarky. Read what was actually written:

(1) Campaign staffers had become concerned about the currency and accuracy of information on the site.

(2) Anthony was overworked and suggested that they should make him a consultant.

(3) They said they would rather have a one-time transfer, and he should name a price.

(4) He picked a number. They said no and went to MySpace management for resolution.

(5) MySpace came up with an eminently equitable solution. Mr. Anthony has been given the opportunity to build the site again with a different URL and full transfer of his friends list.

It's as simple as that. He's not a greedy bastard. They asked him to pick a number. Obama staffers are not bumbling idiots; they tried a couple of approaches, things weren't working out, and ultimately they decided to run the site themselves.

MySpacegate, indeed. Surely we can focus on the actual issues, and not this cyber-distraction?

Thank you

Thank you so much RickRussellTX for the first reasonable post on this topic. There's no reason to rush to jump to conclusions in favor of one side or the other. Things just didn't work out, as happens all the time in many different situations. Neither party came away very happy.

Matt Stoller's Terrible Advice

Matt Stoller, this is some of the worst advice I have ever read and frankly reflects very poorly upon you. Please explain where the campaign was acting either outrageously or unethically and how publicly detailing this private matter helps anyone?

If someone is a supporter and a volunteer, you would think they would at the very minimum explore communications through some additional back channels before discussing this matter with the press.

I'm not sure why the campaign discussed a one-time payment with a volunteer, maybe that was a mistake to even bring up, or why Joe felt that was appropriate, and there is obviously more to the story than we know from only hearing Joe's side of things.

I don't know of any other volunteers getting paid for volunteer work they've done in the past, regardless of how useful it turned out to be, or having any expectations of getting paid for it. I know the DraftObama folks and other early grassroots/netroots movers turned over their lists of supporters and information for nothing, with no expectations and no problems.

[edited to add volunteer discussion]

Unfortunate

Joe, thanks for letting the world know how the campaign and MySpace has treated you.

I think the handling of this by Obama's staff and MySpace is extremely shameful. They had no problems with the page at all, and apparently even knew it existed for quite some time.

Only after it reached critical mass did they care about the future of the page.

Essentially, because of his hard work and effort, they realized they had quite a thing going and wanted control.

I will not be casting a vote for Obama.

RickRussellTX-- My thanks as well

You laid the arguments out clearly. It either case, it sounds like they both made what they considered to be honest attempts to resolve the problem and it just didn't work out. Unfortunate, but as you said "a cyber-distraction."

No harm, no foul.

Thank you, Matt (from Joe Anthony)

I appreciate your support, and I realize that this is a difficult situation for all of us.

So many people are reaching out to me to show their support and offer their sympathy right now, and it's absolutely inspiring.

Thank you.

-Joe

Obama lost me. He has no integrity.

This is a continual theme from Obama. First I hear about the land deal, and then I hear how he treated his childhood friend, then a number of other issues and now this. The guy is a complete and total opportunist. I cannot believe any of you are even defending the deplorable way he has operated, and worse, how he is treating Joe.

This move by Obama reminds me of eminent domain. Obama wanted control...even though we DID have control over content and the password. Apparently, his real issue was he wanted 100% control of Joe too. So, when Joe asked for peanuts in compensation (yes, $39,000 for two and half years of work when you look at Obama's FEC reports and what he pays staff and consultants is PEANUTS) Obama asks for a flat rate. Thirty cents per person is what it would cost adding in the $10,000 for MySpace fees. 30 CENTS!! and Obama doesn't want to pay for what a guy built for 2 1/2 yr that he now wants to own.

Now, Obama could have 1) Let Joe keep control and start up his own "official" site as did Howard Dean and other politicians. But no, that wouldn't do because what Obama REALLY wanted was the 2 1/2 years worth of work Joe put in that gave him 160,000 supporters. 2) Hire Joe on. That probably would have been the smartest move given Joe was doing an excellent job to begin with. 3)Make a flat rate offer. Obama chose the third option, however, it really wasn't an "offer" because when Joe did just that, instead of doing what an ethical campaign would have an made a counter offer if they thought it was too high, they did a total Chicago-thuggery mobster move and got Joe's url revoked and took ownership and now are going around badmouthing Joe.

Obama, you completely and totally disgust me. A shallow, image-only candidate who is no alternative to the corrupt Republicans currently in office.

I have no idea who I will donate to and volunteer and vote for, but I do know it will NOT be Barack Obama. Oh, and by the way, Senator Obama, your MySpace profile lists your "Ethnicity:Black / African descent " another lie. You are HALF black, half Caucasian, and you own history says it was your white mother that raised you when your father was off abandoning you. Of course, since you want to cash in on black heritage like you cash in on anything you can use it is no surprise. I guess white people shouldn’t vote for you since you are so ashamed of that part of bloodline. Tiger Woods has no problem saying he is mixed. As an activist who works for racial equality, I am ashamed of you on so many levels.

For Obama supporters, if he treats his supporters like this, imagine how he would treat you--US workers in corporate America (not wanting to pay for their work or loyalty) and imagine how he will choose to spend your hard earned tax dollars when President (corporate welfare= yes, meaninful job creation and social programs = no). Something for you to think about because if he does become President, I don't want to hear the whining afterward about how "shocked" you are by this move or that decision by Obama.

>>As a donor to the Obama

>>As a donor to the Obama campaign, I don't want to see a dime of campaign money go to feckless extortionist.

$40,000 is just too much money to give away to a glorified domain squatter.

You did the right thing, Chris Hughes!
<<

But's it's alright for Chris Hughes and his staff to be well paid for doing the same thing? Right, sure...

I've noticed this crappy self righteous attitude from other Obama supporters. Even more reason not to vote for him. Joe is not an extortionist or a narcissist by any measure. Maybe naive, but not a criminal.

Chris and co feigned paranoia so they could formulate a calculated excuse to justify their mean spirited behavior. Like other 'professional' consultants, when it comes to dealing with real people, they suck at it, or worse, their true character comes out.

They have the right to acquire and maintain the obama barack name and url. Nobody is disputing that. But the means do not justify the ends. If it does, we might as well ask George Bush to run again(I know he can't, just making a point).

Who you surround yourself with is just as important as who you are, just ask Bush.

Great post Micah.

I've weighed in with a somewhat lengthy post at my blog.
________________________________________
David All
The David All Group
http://davidallgroup.com
________________________________________

Southern Values

I'm a Bluedog and some of Obama views I think are a little liberal for me, but I see a good man in him with an extraordinary vision for our country’s future. That's why I've made a small donation to the campaign and why I continue to passionately support his candidacy to my conservative friends who are on the fence about the Senator.

This situation with Joe and the Obama campaign is very unfortunate. Growing up, my daddy taught me that you have to treat people right regardless of how inconvenient it maybe to you. I maybe be naive, but I believe campaigns are no different; if you owe a man, you have to give him his due.

Even if team Obama decides not to compensate Joe, I think he is owed an apology for the attacks they have been covertly making. This guy isn’t a political hack, just a volunteer. When the campaign of the man I believe will be the next POTUS engages in this kind of activity, I am troubled and saddened.

With that being said, this guy represents what all volunteers strive to be; passionate, loyal and devoted. If we don’t honor that, then we are no better than Republicans we rail against everyday. That’s why I feel I have to do something.

Joe, if you have Paypal account, drop me an email with your info at muddinguy@gmail.com. I'd like to make a donation to honor your work for the movement. I know it isn’t necessary, but this is just the way I feel. I had planned to give to the Obama campaign again this quarter, but I think this would be a better use of my money. I know the money I'd spend on a night out on the town doesn't even come close to representing the true value of your time and energy, but like I've said before, its something I want to do.

Learn the facts first!

This discussion is a perfect metaphor for what's wrong with our country right now. Most of you have jumped to these extreme positions immediately, without knowing a fraction of the facts that you should before making such statements. You guys are acting like George Bush... seeing the world in extremes and being totally naive to the fact that most things, like this issue, are simply more complicated than that.

Half of you are calling Joe an extortionist and half of you are accusing Obama of acting improperly. Virtually none of you know the whole story. Even Joe himself, who admits to being a little naive about these things, has only added a few lines of comments but has left out a ton of stuff. Think about it... this is how Bush forms opinions... don't be like that!

Do you really think that someone from the Obama campaign didn't try to work with Joe on coming to a reasonable solution first? Think about it from their perspective... people were coming to a site that they had every reason to think was an official, campaign organized site, and they were getting sometimes false or misleading information. Of course anyone can run their own MySpace or Blog!... but when you are getting people to believe that you are the official one, and you actually aren't, then there is a fraudulent element to that. How could a presidential campaign allow that? Hillary didn't. Check it out. She took over her page a few months ago.

When Joe was asking for $40-$50K, well... that crossed a line with the campaign. That doesn't mean they acted improperly or unethically anymore than it means that Joe is an extortionist. Smart people just disagreed. Why do you all have to make one of them a villian? Could Joe have been a more loyal volunteer and done whatever he could to help the campaign, yes. Could the Obama people have been nicer to Joe and worked harder to come to an agreement, probably. Should this thing have gotten all out of proportion like this... no way. We have much bigger things to worry about in this country.

Wait until all the facts come out. Then decide how you feel. Initial emotional reactions on a fraction of the facts are almost always too extreme. Just ask Bush.

160,000 MySpace Friends Aren't "Rabid Activists"

I think this whole brouhaha comes down to one simple fact -- 160,000 MySpace friends isn't worth $39,000. Of those 160K, less than a 1,000 will actually volunteer time or donate to the campaign. Facebook and MySpace numbers really don't mean anything. I blogged about it on MyDD several months ago when the Obama Facebook group was being built up:

Obama, Facebook, and Threesomes

Changing Your Mind About Obama over this Episode is Overreacting

Anyone changing their minds over Obama over this episode is overreacting (or perhaps a troll who really supports another candidate).

First of all, Obama himself had nothing to do with it. Even if you think his people screwed up, you should still give him a chance to try to rectify the situation.

Secondly, we don't know all of the information or the facts, so you are jumping to conclusions.

Third, choosing a candidate based on how they chose who runs their Myspace profile is just about the most random way to pick a candidate possible.

I agree, this shouldn't be a

I agree, this shouldn't be a reason to support or not support Obama. I see the reactions here as more of a lets nip this in the bud before it gets out of control. There are a few trolls, there are also more than a few sanctimonious, self rightous Obama supporters too.

Obamas staff have the right and responsibility to protect their canidate. They have the legal rights to the url, no question about it. They just really fumbled in how they dealt with it. A smear campaign against a well meaning but naive supporter should be beneath them. I don't blame Obama personally, I just hope he gets a better handle on his staff in the future. It is a rookie mistake after all, but one made by supposed professionals.

Somehow, all this is so Democratic partyish.hehehe. Lots of fighting, but in the end, joining together and getting things done. At least that's my hope as an staunch ex-Republican(it was tough to leave, but Bush and his corrupt cronies made it a lot easier).

I'm really looking forward to 'Spank the Republicans part II' in 2008, buti it won't happen if the Democrats in general keep fumbling the ball everywhere you turn. Starting with Pelosi.

"Facebook and MySpace numbers really don't mean anything"?

If they don't mean anything, then why are Obama and every other campaign coveting those communities. If 160k doesn't mean anything, why did they seize the profile URL?

$39k vs.150 internet news outlets covering this story (according to Google news) in the last 24 hours? Simple lesson of price vs cost.

Nobody likes Goliath and the little guy will have the last word. why? What Joe does with what is HIS 160k new friends will be the next story.

Those numbers really don't matter

Someone becoming a MySpace friend or joining a Facebook group is not real political activism. It's not volunteering one minute of time nor is it contributing one dollar to the campaign. It's not even giving your email address to the campaign so that they can contact you in the future.

Have any of the staffers working for the presidentials actually said "we covet the MySpace community"? Absolutely not. Because they don't. Quite frankly, the "political technology bloggerati" has ginned it up to seem like this campaign is truly an online one. It's not. Not by a long, long shot.

To campaigns, social networks are just another form of advertising A free method at that (unless you let some dude cybersquat your name for a couple months and then he charges you $39K for it). They're valuable in that they allow campaigns to establish their presence in more areas and to more people.

But thinking of 160,000 MySpace friends as a political list is just plain wrong and a misunderstanding of how social networks are used and how these lists are built up.

It's All in the Name

On the surface it looks like Joseph Anthony has been wronged. After all he did create and maintain the MySpace account. However, the profile name is not "PasadenaForObama" or "ObamaFans". The profile name is "BarackObama". Anthony knew (or should have known) that his claim to ownership of the profile would always be weak to nonexistent. The amount of time and effort he spent working on the account is irrelevant.

The Obama campaign is not without fault, though. They should have never even solicited a financial offer from Anthony. Instead, the campaign should have offered signed books, buttons, shirts, and a handwritten thank you letter from Obama.

As a contributor to the Obama campaign myself, I would have been annoyed to see my cash pay for Obama to purchase his own name. I am disappointed that the Obama campaign made the mistake of soliciting an offer, but the bottom line is that Anthony was not wronged.

I hope Anthony reconsiders his position and comes back to the Obama camp.

______________________________________
Translate perfect mac browser style colors.

Stepping back from the hysteria

As others have commented, there's an amazing and disappointing amount of hysteria reflected in this exchange.

In his excellent post, Micah raised some of the more enduring issues surfaced by this episode. I'd offer (or reformulate) a couple more ...

1)Given the tremendous personal empowerment enabled by online technologies, when does a "volunteer" cease being one and become something else?

Joe was not a typical campaign volunteer, making a few dozen calls or doing some canvassing. Arguably he, and others to follow, built a very valuable campaign asset. I know plenty of fundraisers who would happily pay -- if he actually controlled the addresses -- $100 per thousand for use of self-identified supporters of a cause or candidate. And that's $100 per thousand PER USE.

What's the typical presidential campaign's "reward" for the "volunteer" fundraiser who bundles $100K or $200K or more of contributions? Nothing more than ego-stroking if the candidate loses. Ego-stroking + a night in the WH or an ambassadorship if the candidate wins.

Only the very naive would deny that there's a category of "super-volunteers" engaged in presidential politics. Admission to the club used to be all about money. With the internet tools now available, admission criteria will now need to include those who prove they can mobilize other forms of attention, conviction and participation. Campaigns will need to figure out how to deal with their Joes ... and with more finesse that it appears was the case in this instance.

2)But cutting the other way is the chicken and egg question of who came first ... the candidate or the grassroots volunteer?

There's a theme in this exchange that somehow the volunteers "make the candidate popular" and therefore they are entitled to more or less own him or her.

It's ridiculous to say a volunteer makes a candidate popular. If Joe had been laboring all this time for any of dozens of other wannabe candidates, he wouldn't have much of a friends list!

Personally, I want my candidates to be independent ... independent of the volunteers (who, as this exchange shows, can be pretty kneejerk and emotional), independent of the professional campaign staff & consultants (who can also be rather self-important and obsessed with control), independent of the big $$ bundlers (and their wish lists), independent of polls (whether sponsored by Gallup or MoveOn).

I want the candidate to own himself or herself, and invite the rest us to sign on with no strings attached, other than an expectation that the candidate, if elected, will indeed deliver as promised by the values and priorities they've espoused.

anti-obamamania

Ah, Matt Stoller, the beltway hack who bans people from his site who have the temerity to speak truth to power and call him on his anti-Obama bullcrap, is supporting Joe. Big surprise there.

I predicted months ago that Joe was doing this so that he could leverage himself a good deal with the Obama campaign. He, of course, denied it at the time.

The takeaway from this is that most of the people who claim progressive netroot creds are ultimately only out to make a buck, just like the people they pretend to be against.

I am absolutely disappointed

Your request for working full-time as what I would consider to be a social media strategy consultant was utterly, absjectly cheap. I mean, seriously, bargain basement given you didn't just work on a profile page for 2 years. You built them a whole frigging community of donors. 160,000 is about the size of an average town in the US, for chrissake.

Honestly, as a negra latina who had Obama in my top 2 (I won't say who the second is), I am utterly dismayed that the consultants would rather steal your work and defame you instead of paying. You delivered to them 160K names, you contributed to his political success and this is what you get?

Ah.

Hell.

No.

Tacky, tacky, tacky.

The question is : Can we parse the treatment you received from their staff from the candidate or is Obama guilty by association?

Liza Sabater, Publisher
www.culturekitchen.com
www.dailygotham.com

Sorry Tom, but I have to

Sorry Tom, but I have to disagree with you assessment about Joe being some uber volunteer wanting to own the candidate. They are certainly out there, but Joe never said that, not even remotely implied it. For those that actually read his blog, the Obama campaign people were very glad for his work and were assisting him so he could improve it. Then the so called 'Pros' came on board, and suddenly he was just a hack interfering with their plans. Some of the things they were alleged to say about him were distrubing to say the least.

Had Joe expressed some sort of outrage as if he 'owned' the candidate you would have a point. He didn't. Like most other human beings, he resented being treated like dirt and refused to take it lying down.

Such a shame

I see mostly good intentions on both sides of this unfortunate debacle, although both could have handled it better. In the end, though, the ball is in the Obama campaign's court. They would be wise to repair this rift, because no amount of spin is going to make them look good. What could they do, at this point, to make things right?

btw, I think Joe's work in building a community of friends is admirable and impressive, but crediting him with the full 160,000 seems a bit over the top. As I read Micah's chronology, the bulk of that explosive total came once MySpace started shining a special light on presidential candidates, a light that would have gone Obama's way regardless of Joe's impressive work up to that point. I don't mean to undervalue the work he did, but Obama was bound to create a MySpace landslide of some proportion with or without him.

Anthony v. Obama

Whether a president succeeds or fails depends in part on his skill in choosing the right people for the jobs -- department heads, cabinet secretaries, white house advisors, to name a few -- that must be filled. The same is true of presidential campaigns. Obama -- a legislator, not an administrator -- is just getting started, and perfection is not an attainable standard, so his communications staff need to be cut some slack while they learn their jobs. But by almost any measure the campaign's relationship with Joe Anthony has been mishandled, and mishandled badly.

This isn't about money. $39,000 is meagre compensation for Anthony's efforts, and a campaign that raises $25 million can find $39,000. It's partly about control, partly about the political dangers posed by the combative personalities of the internet community. But mostly it's about how people should be treated, about how people have a right to be treated. A man who puts two years of his life into promoting Obama for president, and who builds an operation of considerable value to the campaign, is an asset, not a threat. Anthony's operation could have been absorbed into the campaign, and the campaign could have -- and should have -- treated Anthony as a volunteer hero. Instead, it strong-armed him. That's not smart politics.

And ultimately, it's Obama's fault. It's his campaign. He hired the people, he set the tone. I hope his operation learns something from this, but my decades of experience in politics tells me that what his operative will learn is that they can get away with stomping on the little people.

James Conner
Kalispell, MT

$40000 for clicking ADD / DENY and using WIKIPEDIA

I want a job like that.

Where I take - say - Ross Perot - build a FREE MySpace account. Monitor it for 2 years by only doing research on Wikipedia and spending "hours" by clicking ADD / DENY to people who are drawn to your MySpace profile by the name ROSS PEROT - not YOU. YOU make the decision to allow them to be your friend.

And then to ask Ross Perot to pay you $40,000 for your service. What would Ross Perot do?

ROSS would first laugh his crazy machine gun like laugh. Then He would probably drop out of the race and then jump back in the just before election day to split the votes between Clinton and the Republican candidate - so no one has a clear majority.



© 2008 Personal Democracy Forum | All Rights Reserved |