

nyt.com
There have been numerous postmortems about "what Clinton did wrong," but I don't think that can really be analyzed outside of "what Obama did right."
Much of it was laid out in a fascinating article in the Atlantic by Joshua Green, where he recounts Obama's early courting of Silicon Valley techies and the social networking architecture they subsequently helped to build. It turned his campaign into a virtual machine for organizing volunteers and generating money:
When My.BarackObama.com launched, at the start of the campaign, its lineage was clear. The site is a social-networking hub centered on the candidate and designed to give users a practically unlimited array of ways to participate in the campaign. You can register to vote or start your own affinity group, with a listserv for your friends. You can download an Obama news widget to stay current, or another one (which Spinner found) that scrolls Obama's biography, with pictures, in an endless loop. You can click a "Make Calls" button, receive a list of phone numbers, and spread the good news to voters across the country, right there in your home. You can get text-message updates on your mobile phone and choose from among 12 Obama-themed ring tones, so that each time Mom calls you will hear Barack Obama cry "Yes we can!" and be reminded that Mom should register to vote, too.
"We've tried to bring two principles to this campaign," Rospars told me. "One is lowering the barriers to entry and making it as easy as possible for folks who come to our Web site. The other is raising the expectation of what it means to be a supporter. It's not enough to have a bumper sticker. We want you to give five dollars, make some calls, host an event. If you look at the messages we send to people over time, there's a presumption that they will organize."
The true killer app on My.BarackObama.com is the suite of fund-raising tools. You can, of course, click on a button and make a donation, or you can sign up for the subscription model, as thousands already have, and donate a little every month. You can set up your own page, establish your target number, pound your friends into submission with e-mails to pony up, and watch your personal fund-raising "thermometer" rise. "The idea," Rospars says, "is to give them the tools and have them go out and do all this on their own." The organizing principle behind Obama's Web site, in other words, is the approach Mark Gorenberg used with such success--only scaled to such a degree that it has created an army of more than a million donors and raisers. The Clinton campaign belatedly sought to mimic Obama's Internet success, and has raised what in any other context would be considered significant money online--but nothing like Obama's totals, in dollars or donors. John McCain's online fund-raising has been abysmal.
I remember being at an Obama event in Iowa, and the row of volunteers at each door was four people deep. You weren't getting in there without giving some bit of personal contact information. Got a cell phone? Scott Goodstein ran their text messaging campaign. Enter your zip code and you'll be activated when volunteers are needed in a particular state. The way the campaign worked volunteers into a system orchestrated by professional organizers was staggering both in its scope and its efficiency. They built an email list that is estimated to be somewhere between 4 and 8 million, some say as high as 10. Then they worked it. And worked it. Every email solicitation is now a fundraising motherlode.
Clinton, by comparison, ran Al Gore's 2000 campaign. She may have raised more money than any other Democratic presidential candidate who came before, she may have had a formidable machine, but she was blown away by an organization that executed a nearly flawless mastery of new social networking technology. State after state, her team thought she didn't need to compete. Under an old model, maybe not. But Obama's organization brought manpower and resources to every state that the Clinton team just did not see coming.
The effect this has all had on modern politics has yet to be measured. But think about it: in February, the month that Obama raised $55 million, he did not host one single fundraiser. Clinton, on the other hand, was tied to a system where her time was spent courting big-dollar donors. Which has the effect (potentially) of freeing a candidate from saying one thing to the public, with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge to the folks writing the checks. Now the public are the folks writing the checks.
I was on Bloggingheads today with Matt Yglesias, who noted that this may be responsible for some of the messianic messaging of the Obama campaign. When he speaks to his supporters, he's actually speaking to his funders, trying to get them invested and enrolled in the network of his campaign. It can all sound a bit cult-like to those outside of it, but it's an integral part of the way his organization is set up to run.
Micah Sifrey writes today about what this all means for the future of politics. If Obama carries this sort of organizational ability and infrastructure into the Oval Office, what kind of transformative effect will it have on the way he governs?
He links to Dave Winer, who notes:
The Internet destabilizes every hierarchy it contacts. It erases every barrier to entry.
The Clinton campaign might very well have worked in 2000. But in 2008, it was Tower Records. Obama was Napster. Meanwhile, they're rubbing sticks together at the McCain campaign:
John McCain stumping and raising cash today in Richmond joked about his method for vetting prospective veep candidates. Per pool press ...
"We're going through a process where you get a whole bunch of names, and ya ... Well, basically, it's a Google," McCain said. "You just, you know, what you can find out now on the Internet. It's remarkable, you know."
Sounds like Grandpa can't program a VCR. The upcoming contest, waged from opposite sides of the technological divide, will be interesting to say the least.
Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com

Kirby Chambliss (USA) beat Paul Bonhomme (GBR) in a spectacular Red Bull Air Race World Series battle in Detroit on Sunday in front of a crowd of 750,000 U.S. and Canadian spectators lined up along the banks of the Detroit River. Chambliss was clocked in a winning time of 1:12.08, just 0.15 seconds faster than Bonhomme (1:12.23) in the third race of the 10-stop 2008 World Series. The Brit still leads the championship. But Chambliss has proved he can be beaten.
“It worked out fairly well,” said Chambliss “I went crazy and went out as fast as I could fly. I know Paul’s going to put down a fast time. He’s got a fast airplane. I don’t know whether he went just a little bit conservative or something. But I’ll take the win.”
Hannes Arch of Austria took third with a clean run and a time of 1:12.73 beating Mike Mangold (1:15.44) in the 3rd Place Fly-Off. Arch, who joined the World Series just last season, is clearly no rookie now having come second in the first race in Abu Dhabi, fourth in San Diego and now has another podium position in Detroit.
Racing in Detroit was hampered by heavy winds that forced the cancellation of the Qualifying sessions on Saturday. But the 12 pilots more than made up for that with one of the most breathtaking and exciting races seen to date, with pilots bettering the previous time in almost every run.

The Huffington Post | May 23, 2008 03:41 PM
Hillary Clinton's argument for staying in the race took a disturbing turn today. While meeting with the editorial board of South Dakota's Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, she raised the specter of assassination while discussing why she would stay in the race:
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."
The Obama camp has offered the following response to Sen. Clinton's comments:
"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
The Clinton camp is denying any implications beyond historical comparison in her reference to Bobby Kennedy's assassination:
"She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 as historic examples of the nominating process going well into the summer. Any reading into beyond that would be inaccurate and outrageous."
UPDATE: Sen. Clinton has issued the following apology for her statements, a quick departure from her campaign's initial response:
"Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact.
The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to, and I'm honored to hold Senator Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family."
Marc Ambinder wonders about the explanation of her Bobby Kennedy reference:
For those who contend that Clinton was referring to competitive contests or example, why didn't she bring up Ted Kennedy in 1980? Or Gary Hart in 1984? I think she was pointing to primary races where the eventual nominee was unknown at this point in the cycle.... But 1984 would apply more, her husband was the de-facto nominee at this point, and the compressed calender really renders such comparisons null and void.
Even if her point is legitimate, surely she is aware of the sensitivity of the subject.
The issue of assassination has been a sensitive one this election. Black voters have repeatedly expressed concern that Barack Obama would be assassinated during the race, sentiment that hearkens back to the murders of civil rights leaders, Bobby Kennedy's assassination included. Reports the Telegraph:
Mr Obama, 46, was given full Secret Service protection last May.
It was the earliest juncture for any presidential candidate since the practice was first introduced following the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy, two months after Dr King died from a shot fired by James Earl Ray, an escaped convict and racist.The prospect of Mr Obama meeting a similar fate is etched deep in the collective psyche of many American blacks, particularly those old enough to remember the events of 1968, who overwhelmingly back the Illinois senator over his rival Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
Earlier in the campaign, a Clinton surrogate also raised the issue of assassination, this time with a more direct reference to Obama. The Clinton camp immediately distanced itself from the suggestion:
Today, in Dover, Francine Torge, a former John Edwards supporter, said this while introducing Mrs. Clinton: "Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually" passed the civil rights legislation....
Phil Singer, a Clinton spokesman said: "We were not aware that this person was going to make those comments and disapprove of them completely. They were totally inappropriate."
Nobel laureate Doris Lessing also raised a stir when she suggested that Obama would be assassinated were he to become president:
Obama, who is vying to become the first black president in US history, "would certainly not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would murder him," Lessing, 88, told the Dagens Nyheter daily.

An estimated 75,000 gathered on the banks of the Willamette River in Portland on Sunday to see Barack Obama.
“Wow! Wow! Wow!” were his first words, as he surveyed the multitude, which included people in kayaks and small pleasure craft on the river.

It is “fair to say this is the most spectacular setting for the most spectacular crowd” of his campaign, he told the crowd.
Previously, the campaign’s biggest crowd was when the candidate spoke to 35,000 on Independence Mall in Philadelphia.


WATERTOWN, S.D. — Barack Obama laid into John McCain on Friday for advancing a tough-guy foreign policy that he called "naive and irresponsible," serving notice that he's ready to launch a full-throttle challenge to the Republican presidential contender on international relations in the general election campaign.
Lumping McCain together with President Bush, Obama declared: "If they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that's a debate I'm ready to win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for." He blamed Bush for policies that enhance the strength of terrorist groups such as Hamas and "the fact that al-Qaida's leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan," among other failings.
McCain agreed, at least, that there were huge differences between himself and Obama on foreign policy, and said he'd be happy to let the American people decide who was right.
"It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that's not the world we live in. And until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe," McCain said in a speech to the National Rifle Association in Louisville, Ky.
McCain rejected the naive comment, saying Obama should have known better, and added: "Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel 'a stinking corpse,' and arms terrorists who kill Americans, will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. It is reckless. It is reckless to suggest that unconditional neetings will advance our interests."
His campaign issued a statement accusing Obama of making a "hysterical diatribe."
The three-way dustup over foreign policy _ Bush vs. Obama vs. McCain _ began a day earlier, when Bush gave a speech to the Israeli Knesset in which he criticized those who believe the United States should negotiate with terrorists and radicals. Obama said Bush's criticism was directed at him, and took umbrage; the White House denied the president had Obama in mind; McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with rogue leaders.
Obama continued the debate on Friday at a town-hall meeting in a livestock barn. He said he had planned to focus on rural issues during his swing through South Dakota, but felt compelled to answer the remarks from Bush and McCain.
"I'm a strong believer in civility and I'm a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days," he said.
Obama said McCain had a "naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism."
Speaking of McCain and Bush together, he added: "They aren't telling you the truth. They are trying to fool you and scare you because they can't win a foreign policy debate on the merits. But it's not going to work. Not this time, not this year."
Obama vowed to turn the foreign policy debate back against Bush and McCain, rejecting the notion that Democrats critical of the war in Iraq are vulnerable to charges of being soft on terrorism. Meeting with reporters, he argued that tough-minded diplomacy and engagement with rivals have long coexisted, citing the foreign policies of former Presidents Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan.
"That has been the history of U.S. diplomacy until very recently," Obama said. "I find it puzzling that we view this as in any way controversial. This whole notion of not talking to people, it didn't hold in the '60s, it didn't hold in the '70s ... When Kennedy met with (Soviet leader Nikita) Khrushchev, we were on the brink of nuclear war."
He also noted that Nixon opened talks with China with the knowledge that Chinese leader Mao Zedong "had exterminated millions of people."
Laying down a marker for the fall campaign, Obama offered a challenge to the GOP nominee: "If John McCain wants to meet me anywhere, any time to have a debate about our respective policies ... that is a conversation I am happy to have."
Other Democrats accused McCain of hypocrisy Friday, saying the certain GOP presidential nominee had previously said he would be willing to negotiate with the militant Palestinian group Hamas.
McCain told reporters in West Virginia: "I made it very clear, at that time, before and after, that we will not negotiate with terrorist organizations, that Hamas would have to abandon their terrorism, their advocacy to the extermination of the state of Israel, and be willing to negotiate in a way that recognizes the right of the state of Israel and abandons their terrorist position and advocacy."
McCain said there was a "huge difference" between his own statements and Obama's willingness to negotiate with "sponsors of terrorist organizations."
"I'll let the American people decide whether that's a significant difference or not," he said. "I believe it is."
Obama said he has stated "over and over again that I will not negotiate with terrorists like Hamas."
Obama closed out his campaign day with a noisy rally in Sioux Falls before about 6,500 cheering backers, perhaps showing some of the strain of a long campaign day. "Thank you Sioux City," Obama said, as a roar greeted his entrance. He quickly corrected his reference to a nearby Iowa town.
"I've been in Iowa too long," said Obama, referring to his long campaign to win that state's leadoff caucuses in January.
___
Associated Press writer Glen Johnson in Louisville, Ky., contributed to this report.
Posted June 9, 2008 | 08:57 PM (EST)/HuffPost