The Obama’s Campaign Internet Outreach Continued

November 8th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

At the conservative activist blog The Next Right, Jonathan Klingler takes a closer look at the Change.gov website created by Team Barack Obama this week, arguing that it is once again a smart initiative from the campaign that had the best Internet infrastructure in history.

The main strength of the change.gove is, Klingler rightfully argues, that it allows visitors to participate in the political debate, just as BarackObama.com, the official campaign website, did. It allows visitors to become actively involved in the debate, in the government and to organize themselves in communities that tackle national, state, regional and local problems.

As Klingler explains, change.gov could very well be used to bypass the mainstream media in times of hardship; it will be a tremendous tool for the new president to reach voters, unhindered by the filter of MSM, if that would ever proof necessary.

Change.gov is still being developed, but I already noticed some things no one else seems to have noticed yet. For instance, and this is important: you can now register at change.gov by filling in the questions in the top right corner (e-mail address and zip code). Once you register, you are referred to a new page where you can send an invitation to your friends to register as well. To make it easier for you you to do so, and this is yet another sign of the Internet smarts of Team Obama, you can import your e-mail contacts. I tried it myself by sending an invitation to several people, among whom the Managing Editor and Assistant Editors of this site; it seems to have worked quite well.

The following message was sent to those individuals:

Hey,

President-Elect Obama is hard at work getting this country back on track, but he’s counting on all of us to get involved.

I just signed up to learn more about the presidential transition, and I thought you might want to do the same.

Just visit http://www.change.gov, and enter your e-mail address in the top right corner.

Thanks.

Aside from Change.gov yet another initiative was launched recently, which also aims at working with grassroots in order to ‘improve’ the nation. WhiteHouse2.org is a site very similar to digg, but then only about policy questions. This site is not an official part of any one campaign but it is used to rally the troops and to influence policy.

Visitors can vote for and suggest policies they would like to see implemented. These policies will then be ’suggested’ to President Barack Obama. Leading examples of such policy suggestions at the time of writing this article were “kill the Patriot Act” with 402 recommendations, “stop the Iraq War” with 380 recommendations, and “shut down Guantanamo” with 329 recommendations. Another very popular one was “energy independence in seven years.”

Visitors can endorse suggestions by clicking on the “endorse” button. If they attempt to do so for the first time, they have to register first, in a very fast and simple procedure taking 10 seconds or so. After this, they can endorse as many suggestions as they want, and they can share their own ideas.

Although Team Obama has no official ties to the website, it seems reasonable to suggest that they would focus on it and use it to their benefit nonetheless in the coming years: considering the high degree of Internet outreach by the campaign during and before the election, and the creation of change.gove afterwards, WhiteHouse2.org seems to fit right into the Obama play of reaching out to voters in new, untried ways.

Even if Team Obama does not do so, it could learn from WhiteHouse2.org and create a similar website, or a similar page on change.gov, which would increase people’s participation in the political process tremendously, which seems to be a key goal of the president-elect.

Changes are indeed coming, if not necessary in politics, than at least in the way politicians deal with the public and reach out to them over the heads of the mainstream media.

In the meantime, Team Obama announced at the old campaign website BarackObama.com that this website would continue to function in the coming years in order to help citizens “organize locally” to improve their neighborhoods, villages and cities.

“The online tools in My.BarackObama will live on.  Barack Obama supporters will continue to use the tools to collaborate and interact.  Our victory on Tuesday night has opened the door to change, but it’s up to all of us to seize this opportunity to bring it about,” the team said in the statement.

“In the coming days and weeks, there will be a great deal more information about where this community will head.”

There is Change.gov, BarackObama.com and other options such as WhiteHouse2.org for the Obama campaign to use to keep in touch with grassroots, to organize locally, regionally and nationally, and to assemble e-mail lists of potential donors for future campaigns. Obama’s campaign and behavior in the aftermath indicate that Obama may very well be the first politician who truly understands the power of the Internet, and who is determined to use it in order to bring the “change” he talked about so frequently during the campaign.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Jim Gilliam
    November 9th, 2008 at 01:43
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Thanks for the kind words about whitehouse2.org. I do hope the Obama administration incorporates ideas from the site into change.gov to really engage the American people in governing. We’ll certainly do our best to lead the way.

  2. Jason, Managing Editor
    November 9th, 2008 at 01:52
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Visitors can vote for and suggest policies they would like to see implemented. These policies will then be ’suggested’ to President Barack Obama. Leading examples of such policy suggestions at the time of writing this article were “kill the Patriot Act” with 402 recommendations, “stop the Iraq War” with 380 recommendations, and “shut down Guantanamo” with 329 recommendations. Another very popular one was “energy independence in seven years.”

    Unfortunately, those aren’t policy suggestions, they are slogans. Policy suggestions must grapple with issues of practicality and alternatives while slogans can use magic wands. Energy independence in 7 years? How is that even possible? Kill the PATRIOT Act? What percentage of people even know what is in there beyond the distortions presented in partisan talking points? Shut down Guantanamo? What would be done with the prisoners and are those alternatives practical and/or effective?

    I agree that the site is a good idea, but it needs to be taken to a more practical level if the “suggestions” that result are to be anything more than a popularity contest for meaningless slogans.

  3. Jim Gilliam
    November 9th, 2008 at 03:29
    Reply | Quote | #3

    I think we will get there over time. There is a meaningful discussion already emerging on whether Obama’s plan for a “responsible, phased” withdrawal of troops from Iraq is better than pulling out immediately, or within 8 months.

    http://whitehouse2.org/priorities/339-responsible-phased-withdrawal-of-troops-in-iraq-16-months

    There is a lot of nuance to policy, obviously, but I think with a good deal of effort, we can get people to think about the specifics of what they are suggesting and build consensus around key policy decisions. It’s a way for folks to move beyond just griping about what is wrong.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.