MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

MySpace Meltdown: How Barack Obama Lost His Biggest Fan

Washington Dispatch: Much of the new online political organizing work isn’t being done by political pros -- or anyone they know or control. Fireworks are bound to ensue, as the Obama campaign just found out the hard way.

May 14, 2007


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


Last week, top-down campaigning collided with bottom-up netroots organizing when Barack Obama's web team wrested control of an unofficial Obama MySpace page from its diligent proprietor. The power play resulted in the loss of 160,000 MySpace friends for the presidential candidate and one very disillusioned organizer. Twenty-nine-year-old Obama enthusiast Joe Anthony, a Los Angeles paralegal, created MySpace.com/BarackObama long before Obama's presidential bid began, and maintained it—with the campaign's knowledge and encouragement, he says—for more than two years. But as Obama's popularity grew, so did his MySpace profile, and as the page neared 200,000 members, the campaign became increasingly uneasy about having an unknown volunteer in charge of a significant outreach project. The clash illuminates what will likely be a recurring tension between campaigns and their unpaid supporters in the 2008 election cycle as presidential candidates strive to harness the power of the net.

The Obama campaign says it had no choice but to take control of Anthony's profile when it became apparent that the Los Angeles paralegal was after "a big payday"; Anthony acknowledges that, when the campaign asked him to turn the profile over, he asked for $39,000. The campaign also says the profile contained misinformation about Obama, a claim Anthony disputes.

Anthony spoke with Mother Jones about how campaigns can effectively take advantage of supporter-generated communities without suppressing voter-rallying enthusiasts, his disappointment with the campaign's handling of the MySpace meltdown, and why he thinks Edwards "gets it a little bit more."

Mother Jones: Did you ever envision that this page would get so huge?

Joe Anthony: Never. Even before the campaign got involved, it kept exceeding my expectations. When it crossed 1,000 friends, I thought that was so cool. When it crossed 10,000, I thought it was amazing. And then it started picking up more and more.

MJ: Did you ever think the Obama campaign would try to take control of the site?

JA: Not at first. I thought we were just working together and that they just wanted to make sure everything was accurate. They really didn't do much on the page.

MJ: How long did you have a working relationship with the Obama campaign?

JA: It wasn't for very long, maybe two months. I was never an official volunteer. I gave them the password a couple of times, but I changed the password every couple of days, for security reasons.

MJ: Do you think the campaign had plans to take control of the page from the beginning?

JA: I think they were trying to make their decision as they went along. At first they were passive, then they were passive aggressive, then aggressive. They threatened to delete the profile. I told them it was a stupid idea and that there were 160,000 people on the page and a lot of my hard work.

MJ: There is a lot buzz around Obama's web campaign. People think his is the most innovative because it provides supporters with the tools to organize and then more or less gives them free reign. What do you think about this?

JA: I think it's probably why they wanted the profile. Long before the campaign even got involved, I read blogs and news articles that said it was so great how Obama's campaign was reaching out to places like MySpace and that it was the reason he was gathering so much support from young people. But it wasn't the campaign. It was volunteers, people like me. And when this page started getting so big and started getting media attention, that is when they wanted it.

I think that if I hadn't gone public, nobody ever would've known that I had anything to do with it. People would have thought that it was an official profile the whole time. That is dishonest. And I think it sends a more powerful message anyway that it wasn't organized by the campaign -- that it was netroots.

MJ: Which candidate is the most innovative in using online tools?

JA: I really kept a close eye on the other candidates' MySpace profiles. I think maybe John Edwards gets it a little bit more. Early on, he took advantage of third-party widgets like Twitter. Edwards would send messages like, "getting on the plane, long day," something like that. And that's really cool. It's a way for the supporters to relate to the candidate. I had firsthand contact with all these supporters for two and a half years. They were always making suggestions like that, and I implemented them whenever I could.

Hillary Clinton started an official MySpace profile. There was already an unofficial Hillary page. I was aware of this one, because it was always the second biggest unofficial page. I kept an eye on it. The campaign started an official page, but left up the unofficial page and then linked them to each other. It looks like it worked out really well for both of them. That is a very positive alternative. I would have been grateful to do that.

MJ: Zephyr Teachout, a member of Dean's web team in '04, wrote on techPresident.com about "centers of gravity" -- supporters who generate communities. She said that a campaign legally could either have complete control over the volunteers or no contact at all. How do you think campaigns should handle "centers of gravity"?

JA: They should be left alone. The idea of an official MySpace page profile is ridiculous, anyway. They know it's not Barack Obama working on it.

MJ: When did you ask for compensation?

JA: Literally by February and March, it had taken over my life. I enjoyed doing it very much and I knew that it was helping, but I have a full-time job. When they decided that they wanted to take over the profile, I decided that since from the very beginning, they had nothing to do with it, if they wanted to take it over from me, that if this was to become an official profile I should be paid. I should be paid.

MJ: Generally speaking, do you think volunteers should be compensated in some way?

JA: No. If I were to continue doing this on my own, I would never have asked to be compensated. I did this for 2.5 years. I obviously didn't do it for the money.

MJ: What's happening with the profile?

JA: I deleted it. There were a lot of suggestions as to what I should do with it. In the end, I thought it best to start over. There were 140,000 people left and nobody was going to agree. I invited some of them to join my personal profile and 2,000 of them did in one day. I might start something new, but it is not going to endorse a single candidate.

MJ: Do you see more of this happening down the road as campaigns and supporters struggle to find their way in the new universe?

JA: That is one of the positive things that came out of this. The situation has started a broader debate about the clash of netroots and political campaigning. Maybe it will set some sort of precedent in the future and these things will work a little more smoothly.

Leigh Ferrara is an Investigative Fellow for Mother Jones.



 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

Obama demonstrates his lack of credibility over and over again. When are the netroots going to get it? Cut this idiot loose now.
Posted by:HereticMay 31, 2007 4:26:01 AMRespond ^
Obama had a fan?
Posted by:Ames TiedemanJune 3, 2007 12:33:18 PMRespond ^
Obama has 91,000 friends now in three months, it will be more than 150,000 with ease. Maybe it was a bad idea afterall. By 2008 it will be more than 250,000. I have being lookin at the numbers. About 30,000 people joined in a month or two.
Posted by:GloJune 3, 2007 4:51:30 PMRespond ^
I really cannot see a black man becoming a president.
Posted by:George W. BushJune 3, 2007 7:23:59 PMRespond ^
I know presidential candidates needs to raise money for their campaign, and I am wondering why this guy wants to charge so much when they need more funds to win the election.
Posted by:FlowerJune 5, 2007 7:53:07 PMRespond ^
Obama, Hillary or who ever except Bush and his supporters may suit me fine. But the prograssive politicians who truly care for ordinary people may never get their chance in American culture if they do not learn one important thing about politcal campaigning in the USA. If you want votes, you should never forget the American conservative Christians. There are probably millions of them, and not all of them are hardcore rightwingers, or idiots (although some may be..). The right knows how to do propaganda and get their cheap extra votes by showing sone sympathy for conservative Christian values and folks, even if the right wing leaders were closer to pure materialists in their true heart... Besides, there's nothing wrong with true Christian values, if you ask me. Jesus was a very progressive thinker, and western concepts of human rights are largely based on Bible teachings. I think that the values of early Christians may often have beeen as far from the rich US right wing elite as anything could be... In the early Christian church the poor were taken care of (unlike in the rightwing USA), people even held everything in common, Christian people did not trust violence and money but instead were ready to sacrifice themselves and everything they had for their fellowmen. Please, dear liberals, read, for example, what Jim Wallis has to say about Christianity, before you abandon Christians and Christian values altogether: http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/ 2005/03/gods_politics_jim_wallis.html Strong bias and prejudice is stupid wether leftist or rightwing bias. Open your eyes to the positive values in Christianity and do not show yourself as the archenemies of Christianity to the millions of American Christians. Besides, you might even learn something new and worth learning from those Christians, if you are not too proud to learn?
Posted by:Christian votesJuly 9, 2007 3:32:59 PMRespond ^
I am sick and tired of this foot race between JUST Clinton and Obama. The Democratic side of the field has a lot of other candidates who are so much more qualified and credible, worthy candidates who get NO media attention, just because the media is blindly focused on the African American Male candidate and the European American Female candidate. Granted, this is a first in the American pursuit of the Presidency. But, come, come! These frontrunner follies are getting to be a bit much. We are losing sight of the real issues, so busy focusing on the race and gender spectacle that has been beaten to death for longer than I can appreciate already. I like John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson as much as I like the well financially healed, rock-star popular frontrunners. I foresee more potential for change under leadership from someone like Kucinich who stands committed behind his convictions than the frontrunners who change their stance on every issues posed as often as they change their underwear, or who have historically justified their inconsistencies, incompetence, and inadequacies with the convenient cloak of political expedience and correctitude. I want someone who is willing to go the distance and stand alone when it's not popularly correct or politically expedient. Unfortunately, neither frontrunner assures me of that.
Posted by:PennyJuly 17, 2007 2:45:14 PMRespond ^
The Democrat frontrunners are a black man and a woman? is America really ready for that? Couldn't they try to get some more blacks and women into the Congress or the state legislatures first? Using campaign spending limits to get America better politicians is the only way to solve America's problems enough. Government funding of political campaigns only solves about half the problem.
Posted by:Gene SilversJuly 29, 2007 6:47:01 PMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com
















bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2007 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS