I do not know what the experience was in 2004, but it must be different.
Trippi: in 2003, everyone was laughing at the Internet. Half of the senior level thought it was crazy. In our own campaign, we had to explain why we had to put up a blog. Now, the candidate calls and asks – when are we doing a video? There is a major change from before.
Zack: Can the enthusiasm be a “curse”?
Peter: People used to come to the Internet group at Kerry and ask for us to fix their computer.
Trippi: Warner’s SecondLife announcement – while it was a great exploration and risk taking, when avatars were changing clothes and suddenly naked, it was a bit of an embarrassment.
Mindy: as many have written in the papers, this is the “Year of the Internet Campaign”. Sometimes it is good (people dropping by with ideas) and sometimes it is bad (too many things overwhelming the tasks), could possibly set us up for failure.
Josh: Another positive, it forces everyone to very quickly, especially if you do not know what another department is doing, you have to learn very fast. Now you have to integrate to make things happen.
Peter: It really is revolutionary what is going on – the transformation of politics. Trying to work your way through the use of all of the tools and how to use them. 20-30-40 years from now, this will be seen as the time when things changed politics.
Christian: what drove this was the ability to raise money on line. When we won the NH primary in 2000 and raised 1M, then everybody bought into the web campaign.
Zack: danah boyd gave a proposal on how to do the digital handshakes – why shouldn’t the candidates make direct contacts with each of the constituents.
Peter: Hillary blogging on firedoglake, on her own (my addition: did not clearly answer the idea behind danah’s suggestion)
Trippi: we had Howard do that – but he was not comfortable as a blogger. We did not have “walls” back then. In the eCampaign manager’s role, the “to-do” list is getting unbearable. This time, you can get inundated with each department asking for things to do on the campaign.
Zack: at the present time, candidates are going to be spending time on call-time and shaking hands. Will we see candidates spending blocks of time on the web?
Peter: we will have a live webcast – beauty of the online media an technology. In the end, it is individuals on a one-to-one or one-to-many.
Mike: campaigns tend to look at things regarding extending the moment. What they tend to do, they tend to “extend” the moment.
Peter: there is no difference between internet people and other people. It is the level of connectivity. If a high-dollar donor donates online, are they an Internet donor?
Josh: can people on the campaign understand the abstraction of an Internet team? Unlike it was a couple of years ago, it sticks out much more.
Trippi: we ad a problem with is the “authenticity” of the candidate. We could have someone write on the wall, which is more than likely a staffer. is it really the candidate or someone else.
Zack: we are not “feeling” Obama.
John: there has to be a balancing point – you lose something you gain something – no matter what you do. There will be people organizing to “Take Back the Senate”. Is it a zero sum game?
Mindy: we are all working for people running for President for the United States. Do we really want this to have the candidates making the time to email be online. Do we really want them speaking to everyone?
Open To Questions:
Matt Stoller: do you believe that candidates have less perceived control over the message. If that is true, does that mean there is a shift of power away from the President? Is power flowing away from the Executive Branch?
Trippi: the big shift is to the bottom – power is moving to the people. Numbers are participating even more than before. Glen Reynolds – great book – but you have Goliaths and Davids. Is the Edwards Campaign building the slingshots so they can do something about these issues. Now it is about change.
Aud Mmber: Trippi felt that there was a difficulty. Bush had a moment where he picked up the phone and it was replayed over and over. Hitting one person was valuable.
Zack asks: What would it take for you to believe?
Trippi: one example – Dean’s tuna fish sandwich in front of the computer when Cheney was having a $2000 a plate dinner. People could not believe that it was happening – it was incredibly “authentic”.
Peter: the moment is magnified by traditional media – it just expands on its own. It can be magnified on its own.
Josh: there is a level of cynicism: call three TV crews and have this
Ari Melber: Will we have a “justin.tv” like candidate?
Mindy: absolutely. Unedited information will happen. (my opinion – not in this cycle)
Josh: there is content with Obama talking to others, much more personalized, the mechanism is there – much easier.
Ari Melber: How do you plan on taking input on things other than theme song. For example: minimum wage, etc and take it into the campaign so the feedback can be placed within the campaign and the governance. Or do you not see that role that way.
Peter: most successful initiative was the petition for the resignation of the Attorney General. While humor is important, the information is as well.
Audience Suggestions:
- Less control of the message, let the people speak
- Use eventful to make an event happen by the people
- Forget the swing vote
- If the candidate can not blog, get a group to blog together.
- Post your calendar
- Register people to vote with a widget
- Create a widget on google
- Have a real debate
PDF2007