« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Using my.barackobama.com to organize for marriage equality on California Proposition 8
So thinking about the fight ahead of us in opposing the California
same-sex marriage ban Proposition 8, there are two things I keep
returning to:
1. It is sometimes a little difficult for the average anti-8
volunteer to know exactly what the opportunities for activism are in
one's particular area.
2. Since Barack Obama opposes Prop. 8, and I find it likely
there is some decent overlap between Obama supporters and Prop. 8
opponents, I'm curious whether there's some way to build synergy
between the Obama and anti-8 volunteer efforts.
In an attempt to help with these two things, I have created a group on my.barackobama.com: Obama Supporters Against California Proposition 8:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/ObamaSupportersAgainstCaliforniaProposit
The purpose of this group is to use the MyBo tools to track
volunteer opportunities opposing Prop. 8 and supporting marriage
equality. At the moment, I am using it to catalog emails and events
from Equality for All, the California statewide effort to oppose Proposition 8; and BAYMEC,
the LGBT election committee for the San Francisco Bay Area). At the
moment there is a single event listed there (the ongoing EFA
phonebanking in San Francisco against Prop. 8).
I hope that people find this useful. I think recent events have
demonstrated the movement Barack Obama has not been building is not
just a movement to get Barack Obama elected, but a movement to change
America; and that movement can be a vehicle for real progressive change
above and beyond Obama's election itself.
If you are a MyBo user, you can join the Obama Supporters Against California Proposition 8
group just by going to the link and clicking "Join Group" while logged
in. The group is set up so anyone can add events, and if anyone else
has any suggestions for activist groups besides EFA and BAYMEC that I
should be watching for events to add-- or suggestions in general-- I'd
appreciate it. Thanks!
Comments (20)
Bad idea. Less discerning readers would see that site and an official policy statement by Obama. It would inevitably link Obama to a California proposition, squeezing him between national and state politics. Obama has enough spots for the GOP to attack him on, why create another?
I suggest you create an independent website and perhaps send out an announcement of it to people you know at Obama's site, but that should be the extent of it.
July 20, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Clearthinker,
I think it's important to make it clear this group is an independent effort not endorsed by the Obama campaign (although Obama has already linked himself to this issue by publicly opposing the amendment). However the MyBo tools really do constitute a general organizational social networking site-- actually the best one for these purposes I'm specifically aware of-- and it is far from being the case that every group on there is endorsed by the campaign. There are several thousands of groups on MyBo and in fact the largest one last I checked-- the FISA group-- is a group not only not endorsed by the campaign, but in a specific sense explicitly opposing actions by Obama! I think that this kind of independent effort is within the bounds of what MyBo is meant for and someone who is an existing MyBo user would know that.
However this is not immediately obvious without having that familiarity with MyBo, so I have added a disclaimer to the group description noting we are not endorsed by the Obama campaign. Do you think that this helps?
Thanks for your feedback.
July 20, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The FISA group was about Obama. Your page is about a California proposition. Obama isn't even from California. It has nothing to do with him.
Do not confuse Obama's website with a general left-of-center social network. MyBarackObama is not FaceBook nor MySpace. Set up your network there, where it's appropriate.
July 20, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, I'd argue that due to Section 1 of Article 4 of the Constitution:
This is, in fact, a national issue. That Obama has said he's against Prop. 8 (I was unaware of that, but I'll take mcc's word for it) is refreshing.
As for his web-site, I think it's helpful to keep in mind that Obama got into politics as a political organizer. I'm sure that if he were asked, he'd completely support mcc's use of it here. The FISA issue is a much harder case as it was explicitly against Obama's stated position. That he tolerated it does suggest to me that he considers this web-site's importance as a political organization tool to be more important than its use as a campaign tool.
That said, the disclaimer mcc added can only be considered helpful, because certainly some people won't know the difference between my.barackobama.com and Obama's campaign.
July 20, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben,
CA Proposition Elections are not national issues. If they were, I know you would be following all of them from VA.
They do, however, serve a political tools during campaigning. Marriage issues are a nice tool in this regard, right next to abortion. They are emotional issues that serve to pull away attention from the real issues that the president will have to deal with in a more practical way: the economy, foreign policy, national infrastructure.
The FISA group was a form of protest from Obama's supporters to Obama. It was meant to send a message. Had Obama gotten rid of it, he would have sent a certain message back. He was too smart to get rid of it. There is no reason to infer that the act showed that Obama thinks of his site as a catch-all for left-of-center causes, and I have seen no proof along those lines from either Obama or his people.
His site was set up for exactly one purpose: to propel him to the White House. mcc's site is not associated with that purpose. Compare, for example, how TPM-aholics have used Obama's website.
There is also reason to believe that many who will go to Obama's site for information (think of the GOP folks fed up with Bush-economics), will be very turned off by mcc's site. Whether they are right or wrong in that opinion is not the point: it will hurt Obama. Obama gains nothing from that addition and stands to lose from it.
I still see nothing wrong with using FaceBook or MySpace. Let's be honest here: the real issue is whether mcc should be allowed to use someone else's organization to promote his set of political views. That's the reason why mcc wants to post to MyBarackObama rather than the other social network sites: it allows him to by-pass the organizational step. In that sense, mcc's website is a parasite on the Obama one. If you really want to use Obama's organizational skills as a motivating factor, than mcc and his cohorts should organize their campaign on their own.
July 20, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll have to agree to disagree on whether this particular California proposition has national ramifications. I think that the aforementioned Section 1 of Article 4 of the Constitution makes it national. As for its importance relative to the economy, foreign policy, national infrastructure, I don't think it's our place to tell mcc (or others) how important this issue should be. We each have to decide what are our important issues.
As for my.barackobama.com, the top of the log in page says "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington … I'm asking you to believe in yours." So, it seems like a relevant place to bring about the change that we think should be brought forth. But, OK, why don't you tell me what you do think belongs there. You've already mentioned the FISA group and the TPM-aholics. The first not because it necessarily really belongs there, but because it'd be bad politics for Obama to take it down (unless I'm misunderstanding your argument), and the second because it's directly related to getting Obama elected. So, basically the only two groups that should be there are those will "propel him to the White House" and those that are critical of him? What are all those extra sections in there for, then? I think maybe you're the one who is misunderstanding the explicit purpose of the web-site. Sure, a cynic (and who's not a cynic?) might say that ultimately he set it up to help him get elected, but that's not its explicit purpose. To assert that it is (as you seem to be doing) does more harm than acting as if it's not.
That is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. However, Obama does gain something from it. He gains information about what kind of people support him and what issues are important to him. Or, even if these people don't support him (I expect almost all of them do), he gains information about them. What does Facebook gain from letting us use it for our purposes? Obama gains similar (but slightly different) things from letting us use his site, as well. Your assertion that this can only be harmful to Obama seems to result from a 20th century line of thought.
I also see nothing wrong with him using Facebook (I just can't bring myself to say that about MySpace), but I can't square your suggestion there with your later statement that "mcc's website is a parasite on the Obama one". How would it be any less parasitic to use Facebook? I sense that you're holding these two to different standards, but I'm not sure why.
July 20, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not as important. Since marital issues have yet to be part of standardized litmus test for candidates for SCOTUS (it's too new), the next president will have little direct exposure to the marital issue. Especially when you contrast that with what the chief exec concerns himself with.
This is called preaching to the choir. It gains him nothing as you move towards the middle ground -- the ground which will determine whether Obama wins the election or not.
Let's put this another way: Obama's site is user supported. He is trying to raise money. This is a hot topic issue that is not on the national agenda (regardless of your argument, it's not, it's still a state by state initiative). Obama would do best to avoid it as a result. Someone could show up on Obama's site and see mcc's page and say "what the hell? I gave money to promote this other issue???" (Because as I know you are fully aware, the Internet is not free.)
It's not in Obama's interests to have anyone put up any particular issues that are not truly associated with the national election.
At least my biases are about substantive issues.
;-) You are under the impression that Facebook is any less corporate than MySpace. (Much like those that still believe that Apple is different than MSFT.)
Facebook is set up for the purpose of social networking. You can't be parasitic about that. MyBarackObama has the purpose of getting Obama into office.
The fact is that mcc is trying to pull a brown-headed cowbird maneuver. Pure and simple.
July 20, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll have to agree to disagree on the appropriateness then, of mcc using myBO the way he is.
As for my prejudices against MySpace is has nothing to do with my impressions of how corporate it is. It has everything to do with how crappy the typical user page is on MySpace. I can't really fault MySpace itself for that, but I still tend to avoid the site.
July 20, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly, you prefer Facebook, in a large measure, because it was restrictive and not generally open -- therefore had "better" pages. MySpace is the open, general, free-for-all, that many here tend to argue for.
July 20, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course (as I assume you know since you're using "was restrictive" in the first sentence), Facebook no longer is as restrictive, but it still maintains a higher ratio of quality-to-junk.
There's no doubt an interesting lesson there in how to grow a site. Actually, there are probably several lessons, with each of us drawing our own.
July 21, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the lesson is unless you are 14 years old you don't want too much font variety, blinking lights, things moving around or words you can't read becuase of the photos behind them.
July 21, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Now it sounds like you are an old fart to the young ones coming up. I only point this out because so many here, often will grasp onto the "it's so 20th century" or "you are thinking the old way" type arguments. ;-)
July 21, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I am old.
July 21, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blast and tarnation. Ben, I wrote a longish reply to your post here and it was "held for approval by the blog owner". I assume this is because there were three links in it. Since I'm not sure whether TPM ever checks their spam queue I at least wanted to post to let you know that you can find Obama's statement announcing his opposition to prop. 8 here. Thanks for your responses.
July 21, 2008 2:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I support these efforts. I agree that the MyBo website is being used in many ways and that everybody knows that the groups and opinions on that site are a reflection of some of the people who support Obama but not all of them and not Obama himself or the campaign. It is a social and political networking tool and should be used freely. And the idea that Obama supporters or Obama should stay out of an California issue doesn't make sense. First of all, if he has already stated his position then he has not stayed out of it. Second of all, what California decides will effect the whole nation as it should. It is disturbing to me that this issue is still so controversial among democrats (don't even get me started on how disturbed I am by republicans but that is a different story). Marriage equality should be something we can talk about and promote freely in a democratic setting.
July 21, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Care to prove this statement?
You are also missing a fundamental point, AM: MyBarackObama is not a Democrat site. It is an Obama site, to get Obama elected.
July 21, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't feel I need to go to the trouble of getting evidence of one thing... which is that there are things going on with that site that are not being controlled by the campaign. they seemed to have set it up for a place for the people who want Obama elected to network and discuss and I don't see why promoting a cause that Obama also agrees with (or even one that he doesn't, but in this case he does) can harm the campaign.
It seems to me an Obama site is a Democrat site. Obama is a Democrat. There may be Democrat sites that are NOT Obama sites but I don't think it works the other way around.
No, I cannot prove my statement that "everybody knows..." but I can prove that it is logical and information generally available. Since the campaign is not closely monitoring and censoring the information put up on that site, the logical conclusion is that it is a reflection of those who post the information and not a direct reflection of the opinions or strategy of Obama or his staff.
July 21, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having read the rules below, posted by Genghis, I see that I am somewhat right and somewhat wrong. Most importantly though, I am right. Even if there is some monitoring going on, they state clearly that they do "not endorse content posted..."
July 22, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT, here are the mybo terms of service concerning user content:
As you can see, it's quite open as long as you don't use it for spam or porn. I have found that someone at the campaign does monitor group creation. When I created tpm-aholics, I had to modify the somewhat snarky group description before the moderator would approve it. Since mcc's group is active, it has been approved by the someone at the campaign.
July 21, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi mcc, are you familiar with the TPM group on mybo? http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/TPM-aholicsSupportGroup
You may want to send out a message on the listserv there about your prop 8 group. You can also probably find some CA groups and do the same. If you send a message to TPM-aholics, please let me know, as I'm moderating the emails and don't receive any notification when they they're sent. (Mybo could still use a few improvements.)
July 21, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment