![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
Tying up the Netroots NominationPosted on Feb 15, 2007By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—Does Barack Obama have the potential to trump Hillary Clinton’s money, organization and methodical planning by becoming the online phenomenon of 2008? The answer to that question may determine who wins the Democratic presidential nomination. This is the election in which Internet campaigning will reach maturity. The 2000 campaign offered the first glimmers of the medium’s power when John McCain surprised the political world by raising $6 million to $7 million online in his unsuccessful Republican primary campaign against George W. Bush. Howard Dean rode the Internet from nowhere to a strong early position in the 2004 Democratic presidential race, only to fall to John Kerry. The same anti-Bush sentiment that had powered Dean later allowed Kerry to raise an estimated $82 million in Internet contributions. Today, the next new thing is old hat—but still evolving. “It’s so mainstream now that every part of the campaign touches the Internet,” said Becki Donatelli, who pioneered McCain’s 2000 Internet fundraising and is working for him again. “It’s the 900-pound gorilla. It’s the real thing.” That, says Joe Trippi, Dean’s first campaign manager and a longtime preacher of the Internet gospel, means that no single 2008 candidate will have the early command of the online world that Dean enjoyed. “It’s hard to have a Dean-like phenomenon ever again,” said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a progressive advocacy group, “because the Internet is not a shiny new toy anymore.” The question is whether Obama will have an edge as the candidate who talks about his campaign as a participatory mass movement and is trying to embody the word new. Trippi, who is neutral this year, sees Obama as having “a lot of advantages” in Internet campaigning, particularly because “he is really connecting with young people, as Dean did early on.” But much will depend on whether Obama’s approach lives up to his high-minded promise to supporters that his campaign won’t “only be about me” and will become instead “the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams.” That language, at least, matches one measure of a successful Internet campaign, according to Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, a liberal group that has not endorsed a 2008 candidate yet. “You have to make people feel they’re part of the campaign,” he says, “that they’re not just people a candidate is trying to suck money out of.” Clinton, says Trippi, also has the disadvantage of being a front-runner who has received wide publicity for her prowess at large-scale, conventional fundraising. This, he says, might lead potential Internet givers to the conclusion that “she doesn’t need the money.” Obama, he says, has a better chance of creating a sentiment among online donors that they are an important part of his campaign. But Obama faces two obstacles to overwhelming Clinton on the Internet. The first is John Edwards, whose strong stands against the Iraq war and in favor of a sweeping national health insurance plan have made him popular among the more ideologically committed bloggers and their audiences. Obama and Edwards will be in competition for some of the same online support. The second is the Clinton campaign’s awareness that the Internet matters this year as it never has before. “The Clintons have mastered every other aspect of politics,” says Rosenberg. “They’re going to be competitive in this arena.” Hillary Clinton, he notes, has been careful—through her well-produced webcast announcement speech and online “conversations”—to show she understands the new desire among political activists for more interaction with the candidates they support. Clinton also could benefit from what Donatelli sees as a major shift in the sources of online money. “In 2000, nearly 90 percent of what we took in on our website came from people who found their way to us,” she said, referring to McCain’s effort. Now, 50 percent of Internet money is raised through “direct marketing.” Clinton will almost certainly do well on the marketing side, and both Trippi and Rosenberg argue that she is likely to find a strong niche among Democratic women, who have become increasingly important to the party’s financial base. In the coming months, partly because it’s fun to do, the political world will be watching Hollywood and Wall Street to see who racks up the big money. But 2008 promises to be the year when decisions made at millions of computer screens on kitchen tables and office desks could outshine the glitz and beat out the large checkbooks. The Internet could thus provide Obama his best chance of keeping up with one of the most formidable fundraisers in Democratic politics. E.J. Dionne Jr.’s e-mail address is postchat(at symbol)aol.com. Previous item: Wolf as Underdog Next item: Truthdigger of the Week: Ed Henry Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By Ellen Dana Nagler, February 21, 2007 at 10:21 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Only one person has all the qualifications, and he hasn’t declared yet. I refer to a great leader and a great Democrat, Wesley Clark.
Report thisBy K, February 20, 2007 at 6:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
2008, I’ll be voting for the most intelligent, qualified candidate. I won’t vote for anyone who’s connected to the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, CRIMINAL gang.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, February 17, 2007 at 6:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
So far Hillary has been cold and calculating and political. She is certainly competent, but she has never show the large political vision to lead the country into real change. I think Hillary is a good New York senator and should continue in that job. I’m betting on Obama to have the most integrity and vision. Of course, the election is almost two years away. I’m keeping an open mind.
Report thisBy Dennis D, February 17, 2007 at 11:47 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
E.J. - Hello ! Someone bang the GONG already.
I’m sick of the Obama vs Hillary crap and the coronation is more than a year and a half away. Neither novelty act will win in a general election. Take away both coasts and they CANNOT WIN in the Midwest, South or Southwest. Just do the electoral college math.
Report thisIf you want to see another four years of Republican corruption keep trumping up these fools. There are about only ten other people running as of now - lets hear something about them for a change.
By Ben Stone, February 17, 2007 at 11:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The Democrats have a strong field. I wonder if they can coalesce it into an effective campaign.
Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich all have strong philosophical underpinnings. So does Gore, if he is indeed a candidate.
Clinton has none. She’s pure, vintage D.C. double-speak. Therefore, I predict she’ll wilt soon enough. People are tired of all that business-as-usual crapola.
Report thisBy socks, February 17, 2007 at 4:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
This election I’m hoping more voters are aware of the political struggle between the ideologies in play and don’t get caught up in the lesser/madeup agendas that fog the view.
Right now America is in the tyranical grip of corporate/ mega monopolies that are draining the country’s treasury so that no people programs can be funded. Like education and healthcare. While businesses gorge on corporate welfare and immoral practices that keep many countries in poverty thru loan/usery inflation.
It is the corporate media that is robbing Americans of the information they need to make clear headed choices.
This election season and primary process please insist on asking pertinent questions and hearing the answers or the lack of answers.
Too many politicians are bought and paid for in the election seasons. So be as harmless as a dove and as wise as a snake.
Report thisBy Marissa Doyle, February 16, 2007 at 8:40 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillary Clinton has a powerful organization, built from scratch, over her 30 or more years in the political world. There is no way Barack Obama comes out of nowhere, with his scant resume and defeats Hillary Clinton. It isn’t going to happen.
And Al Gore is not running. Primarily, because he knows he could not beat Hillary Clinton.
Report thisBy Margaret Currey, February 16, 2007 at 1:36 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Al Gore should get the nominiation because he was to become president and Bush and company really stole the election or rather Cathleen Harris and the voting system that she controlled took the election from Gore and even if this went to congress to decide the Republicians who had control would naturally pick Bush.
The thing about this administration is the lobbyists along with the fact that Bush seemed confused about anything, good thing he had a war to manage otherwise what would Bush and company do for this country?
Margaret from Vancouver, Washington
Report thisBy Kathlyn, February 16, 2007 at 1:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m a Democratic woman and I’ll never vote for Hillary.
That said and to respond to Walker (Comment 53906), I like Kucinich too and also Edwards and Obama. In fact, it looks to me like we have a whole administration of good people out there running for Prez. Wonder if we could put them all on the ballot under “Administration for President of the United States”? I mean, if we can’t impeach Bush because we would then be stuck with Cheny . . . ?
Report thisBy walker, February 15, 2007 at 10:21 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
A black guy without much experience and a white woman who voted for the Iraq war, and a white guy who’s pretending to do something about health care reform?
Yeah, right.
Dennis Kucinich is the only one out there, but the media ignores him. If it didn’t, he’d probably be dead by now.
Gore is going to get the Democratic nomination.
Report this