NPR’s Ina Jaffe reports this morning on how the Obama campaign trains volunteers in grassroots organizing techniques. Particularly noteworthy is the story includes the power of story in the campaign.

At NPR.org
Download MP3

(Cross-posted at Off the Bus)

Many Democratic party loyalists fret that an ongoing battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will tear party unity and delay vital fundraising. But Republicans shouldn’t start cheering yet. Below are three hidden benefits of an extended intramural fight for Democratic Party at the national and at the local levels in 2008 and beyond.

1. BUILDING THE BASE

So far 2008 has seen unprecedented voter turnout for Democratic party primaries and caucuses. Not only has voter turnout for the Democratic contest often swamped Republican turnout, but the Democratic:Republican turnout ratio has consistently exceeded the 2004 Kerry:Bush vote ratio in every state (with the glaring exceptions of Florida and Michigan). The likelihood that voter turnout will remain high while the Democratic contest remains contested has certain benefits for Democrats on the local and national levels. First, more voters will end up in the campaigns’, and often the Party’s, databases, either from outreach efforts or the state’s Board of Elections. In several states, such as Pennsylvania, participation in the primaries or caucuses requires actual registration in the Party, so both campaigns are busy re-registering voters as Democrats — a registration that just might stick

Second, Democrats will continue to get massive, free media attention that normalizes their general platform. The continuing coverage of the differences between the Obama and Clinton health care plans sets universal health care as a goal while relatively little is being broadcast against that goal. (In negotiations, injecting a position early into the process is called “anchoring,” and evidence suggests that it works). And record-breaking turnout so far suggests that “voter fatigue” is a figment of bored pundits’ imagination.

Third, independent or Republican voters who cast their ballots for a Democrat may engage in post-decision rationalization that leads them to confirm their decision as a good one, even if they might otherwise have been on the fence or GOP-leaning. (Salesmen exploit this psychological bias to resolve cognitive dissonance by getting potential customers to make small purchases that pave the way to bigger ones later.) Admittedly, while this effect has been demonstrated for specific candidates, it’s questionable whether it might also apply to the entire party.

2. BUILDING THE ORGANIZATION

Vernelle Graham, whom I described in my earlier coverage of the South Carolina primaries, is another reason why continuing the contest may benefit the Democratic Party in November and beyond. Ms. Graham had never before run an electoral operation, but for the week leading up to primary day, she pulled together a team and had a direct hand in organizing a winning GOTV effort. With that experience now on her resume, Ms. Graham will be that much more valuable to the November general election field operation to turn that red state blue, or at least purple. Perhaps more importantly for the long-term health of the Democratic Party, she has also picked up valuable skills that she’ll be able to use to help elect local leaders, the lifeblood of the party. It’s even conceivable that she and others like her might run for office themselves.

Every time a campaign rolls into a contested state and uses old-fashioned, grassroots strategies, more individuals like Vernelle Graham become involved, learn new skills, and expand local grassroots potential.

What’s true at the grassroots is also true inside each of the campaigns, which function as “incubators” of skilled organizers. Continuing the contest through more states will give staff organizers the chance to continue to rack up real field experience and iron out operational kinks. And while the top ranks of either campaign will likely not join the other’s, many at the lower and middle levels will, bringing with them a wealth of electoral experience. Several Obama campaign staffers I spoke with in South Carolina underlined their commitment to the party, not just the candidate; it will be up to the eventual nominee to recruit and make best use of the other team’s human resources.

3. BUILDING LEGITIMACY

Finally, letting the contest continue can deepen both parties’ legitimacy and accountability to regular voters. Years ago I conducted research on the politics of Boston’s Chinatown, at the time a rather small urban community where two factions — traditional business organizations and progressive social service organizations — were claiming to stand for the community’s interests. I found that when these organizations were in conflict, they were forced to prove their legitimacy by actually consulting the grassroots; when they were in harmony, the community was at risk of being cut out of the process.

Thus, the Republican party’s preference for a coup d’etat may yet come back to haunt them. Huckabee’s lingering strength in the polls, despite McCain’s inevitability, indicate that the Arizona senator has yet to win over a substantial plurality of the party’s base. A longer electoral process resulting from would have given McCain more time to refine his outreach and message to secure the religious flank.

Meanwhile, in my own phonebanking to Vermont in advance of the March 4 primary, I’m still surprised that there are still voters who are only just now paying attention to the election. And those who have been following the campaign avidly are delighted to have their voices heard.

CONCLUSION

Democratic activists have good reason to worry as the nomination drags on. Each of the above benefits also has a negative side. If either campaign goes very negative, all of the free media attention will start hurting November prospects. Let the campaign staff and organizers incubate for too long, and they risk burning out. Resort to superdelegate shenanigans, and the party will lose precious legitimacy for years. There’s a point of diminishing returns to an extended nomination process. But I’m not convinced that we’ve hit the point of negative returns — yet.

(Cross-posted at Off the Bus and techPresident)

Watching the Obama campaign message, “Yes we can,” morph into a music video and then once again into a user-generated participatory project is to see the beginnings of Web Politics 2.0.

There won’t be a singular moment that captures the ascendancy of the Internet in the way that the Kennedy-Nixon debates marked the arrival of television. In part this is, of course, because television dictates the “must-see moment,” while the Internet connects us in both more diffuse and more pervasive ways. Yet history will credit the Dean campaign for demonstrating the power of the Web and the Obama campaign for capturing its spirit.

A year after Time announces “You” person of the year, “You” is/are the centerpiece of the Obama message. Call it a movement (if you’re a believer), or mass delusion (if you’re a cynic), or crowdsourcing (if you’re a geek). What we’re learning is that while average candidates stand on their platforms, great leaders become a platform for supporters to stand upon. This is why observers who talk about the powerful Obama “brand” only tell half the story. True, the “O” logo and even the name “Obama” might well be the most generative meme since the original iPod ad. But where a professional marketer sees a political Rorschach test, an organizer sees individual citizens coalescing into a community based on common values.

Critics who hear Obama’s rhetoric as empty demand more policies, more specifics, more details. Marshall Ganz, Harvard’s grassroots guru and an Obama campaign consultant, blames the left’s failures precisely on this privileging of issues over values. True, the language of values sounds vague; it offers a blank slate on which anyone can scribble their dreams; it’s easy to confuse with mere “emotion.” But values frame political possibilities. Ronald Reagan opened one set of possibilities and closed another when he declared, “Government is not a solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Obama, if he succeeds, intends to formulate a new moral consensus. And that requires the joining of his supporters’ values.

Hillary Clinton describes the Democratic party — and by extension, her own campaign — as a fragile brand to be protected from frightening Republican attacks. There is, in this defensiveness, an echo of corporate efforts to protect intellectual property from unauthorized derivative works. After declaring, “Let the conversation begin,” Hillary Clinton offered up inert catchwords that defied permutation — “Ready” and “Experience” — because they were about herself, not her community’s common vision.

It’s by clearly articulating shared values, not specific policies, that Obama gives supporters license to not just repeat but also remix his message. True, the high profile “Yes we can” mashup came from will.i.am, Jessie Dylan, and other Hollywood luminaries — not exactly your average kid in the basement with a webcam. But that video is merely the sheen on deeper stories that underlie the campaign’s core organizers, sometimes even appropriated by Obama and then re-appropriated by supporters.

It turns out that Web 2.0 and effective movement organizing share something in common: the expectation that we all can do for ourselves rather than wait for someone else to do for us.

If Barack Obama committed a mistake in how he rebutted Hillary Clinton’s dismissal of his rhetoric, it wasn’t because he “plagiarized” off his friend Deval Patrick, but that he missed a golden opportunity to sound the second note of his candidacy.

The Obama campaign’s communications team has been highly successful at branding Senator Obama as the inspiring candidate of change. This is a remarkable feat given that Barack Obama’s rhetorical style easily drops out of the stratosphere and into the pedantic weeds of legal academia. So the decision to stay general was, in part, a tactical one, staying away from the candidate’s weaknesses.

At the same time, staying general was also a strategic move, grounded in the same belief that drives the entire campaign: America isn’t short on new ideas but rather lacks a vibrant common vision and values. Articulating intricate policies for universal health care won’t get anything done because there’s no underlying commitment to realizing them, the thinking goes.

Obama executed this first phase of the communications strategy brilliantly: no one, not even his critics, doubts his inspirational powers (even glum arch-conservatives perversely argue otherwise because they see which way the wind is blowing). In the past week, Obama has attempted to sound a second note, in harmony with the first: putting solid plans on the table.

It’s a brilliant strategy if he can pull it off, because while supporters carry on the baseline (“hope, change”), Obama himself can finally freestyle on policy with a lower risk of putting audiences to sleep, as he’d been doing before he latched on to the “hope” message. The YouTube masses have certainly found the beat; will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” video project has now spun off into a full audience-participation project.

Now the challenge for Obama seems to be whether he can fit his substantive policy into soundbite format. And this is where I see a missed opportunity on Saturday in Wisconsin: Obama could easily have crammed a whopper of wonkish policy-talk into his “just words” rebuttal:

Don’t tell me words don’t matter. “Nine million children will have health care under my plan” — just words. “Universal health care” — just words. “I have a dream” — just words?…

By sandwiching it in between the “big ideas,” the (not-so) little idea — quasi-details — might have slipped into the soundstream.

I don’t doubt that Obama can carry on for hours talking policy details — I know how law professors are. The real question is whether he can fit those details into the soundbites on which the media thrive.

Or, has the era of YouTube has finally ended the lamentable age of soundbites? Even I don’t have that much hope.