Now that the Palin Hotmail Hack has had its 15-minutes or so of notoriety we can revisit something much more interesting, and important: the Obama campaign's use of social networking and mobility to smother critics.
This is change you can believe in.
In a 17 September Chicago Tribune story, reporter John McCormick reported about the Obama Action Wire, which is based on the campaign's database of millions of Obama suporters. "Now Obama's presidential campaign is increasingly using the list to beat back media messages it does not like, calling on supporters to flood radio and television stations when those opposed to him run anti-Obama ads or appear on talk shows," according to McCormick.
Days before the story appeared, the Action Wire made itself felt: the campaign "orchestrated a massive stream of complaints on the phone lines of Tribune Co.-owned WGN-AM in Chicago when the radio station hosted author David Freddoso, who has written a controversial book about the Illinois Democrat."
According to the story, the McCain campaign, which like its rival uses the Internet for fund-raising and organizing, has nothing remotely like this.
The Tribune story has the official campaign take on Action Wire: "The Action Wire serves as a means of arming our supporters with the facts to take on those who spread lies about Barack Obama and respond forcefully with the truth, whether it's an author passing off fiction as biography, a Web site spreading baseless conspiracy theories or a TV station airing an ad that makes demonstrably false claims," said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt.
Or, in other words, whatever the Obama campaign decides are lies, baseless conspiracy theories and demonstrably false claims. Because the alerts generated by the Action Wire galvanize Obama supporters not into thought, or even debate, but action. Emails with radio station phone numbers can generate instant calls from cell phones, and trigger a kind of network effect among passionate believers, focusing outrage and action on a very specific target.
You can evaluate the tone of one of the alerts, which was posted at the conservative "National Review." And here are some of the Obama campaign "talking points" aimed at one its targets, conservative writer Stanley Kurtz, appearing on a Chicago radio station in late August.
You can get a sense of how these talking points and suggestions (like "Use the talking points above to help you speak confidently and concisely") were translated into truthtelling and debate with this first-hand account of what happened when the Wire targeted one Chicago radio talk show. The account is by another conservative radio talk host and columnist, Guy Benson. My personal favorite: "One female caller, when pressed about what precisely she objected to, simply replied, 'We just want it to stop!' Which, one has to admit, is certainly concise.
The Obama campaign and its defenders have argued that the Action Wire is a defense against the possibility of Obam being "swift-boated," a reference to the Bush-Kerry presidential campaign when TV adds and blog posts by a group of Navy Swiftboat veterans called into question some aspects of Senator John Kerry's account of his Vietnam military service.
But the Swiftboat debate was exactly that -- a debate. By definition, TV ads and Internet blog posts enter into a larger world of examination, analysis, argument, counter-argument and, one would hope, possibly even reflection. The Obama Action Wire turns that dynamic inside out: it masses sympathizers to, in effect, choke off debate and argument.
At least some of the callers to the talk shows seem to have come from well-outside the radio station's broadcast range. They weren't calling in to debate, since they had no idea what had been said. Except, what they had been told through and by the Obama social network.
Which brings to mind Yeat's poem, "The Second Coming" -- "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity."
Cox is a senior editor at Network World.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Swift boating was slander, not a debate
You think the swiftboating of John Kerry was a *debate*? Give me a break.
Swift boating was not debate.
In a debate you start with a premise and then raise points to support the premise. If the premise is "John McCain is too old to be president" then stating that "John McCain would be the oldest President at time of election" would be a valid point because it has some basis in fact. When one side is making things up, then debate is no longer possible.
If the premise is "Obama is too in-experienced to be president" then a point is "Obama has not served in an executive position". That is a valid point to the best of my knowledge because it has a basis in fact.
Swift boat attacks were attacks and not debate.
obama use of social networking techniques
Mr. Cox,
Obama's use of social networking techniques to counter smears and lies by the McCain campaign or its representativesthe is 100% legitimate.
Its about time there is a mechanism to fight the Attwater/Rove approach to campaigning which relies predominantly relentless attack utilizing misrepresentation, distortion, half truths and outright lies. It has been a disgrace and an out of control cancer in the democratic process.
The fact that you have stated in print that the Swift Boat attacks were a debate is ludicrous, belies your affiliation and obliterates any credibility you might have had. Truly pathetic.
Whose truth?
The first casualty of war is truth. That is certainly true in politics, too. The only hope of sorting through the conflicting claims is to have an open and fair dialogue. Democratic attempts to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine" in order to stifle talk radio and now Barak H. Obama's "Obama-bots" that are being used to squelch any dissenting view should trouble anyone on either side of the isle that values free speach, fairness and justice for all -- rich/poor, black/white, or Republican/Independent/Democrat. But zealots that are afraid of the free exchange of ideas are the ones to use their "free speach" as a club to bludgeon opposition into silence and aquiesence while protesting all the while that any dissenting view to their talking points is hateful, mean spirited and false. If the Obama-bots win then truth and fairness will be the most recent casualties in this political war.
One the favorite tactics of
One the favorite tactics of the SDS was to show up at public meeting of someone they did not like and start a phony "debate". (The SDS is the 1960s organization that Bill Ayers quit to form the Weather Underground so he could kill cops and bomb banks and schools. Ayers is still a Friend of Obama who might end up as the next Sectary of the Department of Education.)
The SDS would attempt to engage the speaker in a Q&A that started with "And what about x?", where x was any issue that might have some interest with the crowd. Regardless of the answer, the next question was "And what about y?" (louder, and repeated by other SDSers) and so on. Next, they'd try to overwhelm the speaker with jeers and accusations. I personally witnessed this tactic being applied to Milton Friedman, the Nobel-prizing winning economist.
And of course, they were just following the Communist party play book, which took special satisfaction from using free speech to destroy it, that freedom being dangerous element of "bourgeois materialism" which had to be "smashed." The same tactic has been adpated in various forms, by many "community organizers."
The Obama campaign isn't quite there yet, but it seems they're edging closer to it.
Obama Action Wire = Communist Party???
The premise of Cox's original piece and some of the inane comments that have followed amaze me. You would think those interested in the idea of journalism being "fair and balanced" and objective would watch themselves a bit more closely. The Obama Action Wire, so far as I can see, is a very effective way for those who want to be involved in the campaign to have a voice. As with any advocacy group or campaign organization, members are told when there are discussions, books, radio programs, etc.. that are speaking negatively about Barack Obama and his campaign and more importantly, spreading lies or deceptions. Members can then access information that the campaign provides to make their voices heard, sending letters or calling these folks to tell them why they don't agree or to provide facts that prove otherwise. And this is somehow being compared to the communist party play book? Ridiculous. Last time I looked (and despite attempts to the contrary in the past 8 years), we still had freedom of speech and expression in this country. If I believe that what John Cox wrote in his blog is wrong or if I differ with his opinion, I have the right to express myself via this comment section. Similarly, I have participated in the Obama Action Wire to send similar comments of disagreement and to correct facts when I've seen them distorted by broadcasters and other folks in the public eye. The idea is not to censure these folks, rather to make an opposing view heard and in some cases, an attempt to point out when lies have been told. Any comparison to a communist party playbook - or even more ridiculous, the swift boat "debate", is absolutely ludicrous. The swift boat attacks, as I would more accurately deem them, were instigated by a 527 group, if you recall, and there was certainly no debating about an issue, rather an all-out attack on John Kerry's war hero record.
It could be me, but I think there are more important "debates" going on in this election and much more significant issues to discuss than how Obama rallies his supporters into action.
re: Obama Action Wire = communist party???
John W. Cox senior editor Network World
1. My premise was *never* that the Obama Action Wire (OAW) was the Communist Party!!!
2. I agree completely that OAW is a "a very effective way for those who want to be involved in the campaign to have a voice."
3. You wrote "the idea is not to censure these folks." You may be confusing censure with censor, but perhaps it was a Freudian slip. Censure means strong or vehement expression of disapproval;" censor means "to suppress or delete any contents considered objectionable."
As the Tribune story and associated links in my original post make clear, the EFFECT of the OAW -- in the cases cited -- is to use censure to censor: to use technology to so amplify and focus the vehement expression of disapproval that the objectionable opinions are suppressed.
I'm perfectly willing to agree that such is not what is intended. But technology is full of unintended consequences. This is one of them. And that seems like a very different, and far more important, issue than how Obama rallies his supporters to action.
4. It's kind of odd to me that three of the posters picked up on the Swiftboat reference in my post, which is only there because it's used by the Obama campaign as a justification for these tactics.