I

FACEBOOK NATION:

HOW THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN USED ONLINE

SOCIAL NETWORKS TO ATTRACT YOUNG VOTERS

IN THE 2008 AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

By:

Corey Benjamin Shefman

This dissertation is submitted to the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media

& Cultural Studies, Cardiff University, in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Political

Communications.

August 2009

II

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my grandfather, Jack B. Sklar

of Calgary, Alberta, Canada for teaching me to always do the best I can and

to get right back up when I fall down. I miss you Zaida.

Acknowledgements

This dissertation would not have been possible without the generous support

and assistance of so many people who gave me their time and input over the

course of the past year.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the teaching staff at JOMEC,

especially my supervisor Stephen Cushion, who always had a helpful

suggestion to point me in the right direction.

Of course, I would never have gotten this far without the unyielding support of

my parents. My mom, who would never let me give up no matter how much I

might complain: Mom, I know I sometimes give you a hard time but at the end

of the day, you’re always right. It might have taken me a while, but I’ve finally

learned that. And my dad, who infected me with the political bug in the first

place: Dad, this is all your fault. I can never thank you enough.

Last but certainly not least, I need to express my sincere appreciation to

Professor Eugene Orenstein of McGill University for teaching me the value of

stories and the importance of storytelling. Professor Orenstein, you continue

to inspire me.

III

Abstract

This dissertation seeks to begin to explain how the 2008 Barack Obama Presidential campaign used ‘new media’ and related digital communication technologies to attract the unprecedented support it enjoyed amongst young voters. Scholars and politicians alike have long sought to reverse the apparent trend of apathy among young citizens and with the dawn of the digital age, some believed the answer to be apparent. While the elections of 2000, 2004 and 2006 saw progressively more complex uses of the internet and related technologies, it was not until the 2008 Presidential election that the full potential of the Internet was harnessed. Through his self-contained activist network and extensive presence in online social networks, Barack Obama integrated his traditional political and networking skills as a community organizer with the realities of the digital generation. This dissertation makes use of semi-structured interviews with experts (both professional and academic) on the intersection of new media and politics, as well as visual and technical analyses of two aspects of the Obama campaign’s web presence. By attempting to understand the Obama campaign’s success in using new media and online social networks to attract youth support, this dissertation outlines how future political campaigns may begin to replicate that success and re-engage youth. This study draws on the concept of social capital and evidence given by experts to show that only by integrating the online and offline worlds can politicians engage youth in general in civil society.

IV

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS II

ABSTRACT III

CONTENTS IV

FIGURES V

CHAPTER 1 – RISE OF THE DIGITAL GENERATION 1

CHAPTER 2 – YOUTH, POLITICS AND THE INTERNET: REVIEWING THE

LITERATURE 5

FACTS AND FIGURES 5

YOUTH AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT 6

BUILDING SOCIAL CAPITAL 10

LABELLING THE INTERNET 11

THE AMERICAN DIGITAL DIVIDE 12

WHEN POLITICS GO ONLINE 13

WEB 3.0: THE NEXT GENERATION OF ONLINE POLITICS 15

CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY 19

INTERVIEWS 20

WEB ANALYSIS 23

GOING FORWARD 25

CHAPTER 4 - BRINGING THE DIGITAL WORLD OFFLINE: AN ANALYSIS

OF MY.BARACKOBAMA.COM 26

SEARCHABILITY 27

TARGET AUDIENCES 29

SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT 31

NAVIGATION AND FUNCTIONALITY 34

AESTHETIC DESIGN 34

INTERACTIVITY 36

CHAPTER 5 - ENGAGING ON THEIR TERMS: AN ANALYSIS OF BARACK

OBAMA’S FACEBOOK PAGE 37

V

INTERACTION SCENARIO 39

CHAPTER 6 – THE ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORKS: A DISCUSSION 43

CHAPTER 7 – CONCLUSION 50

BIBLIOGRAPHY 54

Figures FIGURE 1: THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN’S HOME PAGE ON 16 FEBRUARY 2007 27

FIGURE 2: ENTRY TO MYBO FROM THE CAMPAIGN SITE IN FEBRUARY 2008 28

FIGURE 3: RETURNING USER’S ENTRY TO MYBO IN FEBRUARY 2008 29

FIGURE 4: EXAMPLE OF THE PERSONALIZED ‘DASHBOARD’ OF MYBO 31

FIGURE 5: ‘STUDENTS FOR BARACK OBAMA’ HOME PAGE 40

FIGURE 6: EXCERPT FROM THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN’S TWITTER PAGE 41

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No

Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License. To view a copy of this license, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/ or send a letter to Creative

Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

1

Chapter 1

Rise of the Digital Generation

“It's been a long time coming, but...change has come to America” (Obama

2008). These words, from American President Barack Obama‟s victory

speech on the evening of 5 November 2008 marked an important milestone in

the changing political and social landscape of the United States of America.

The US Presidential election of 2008 was significant for a number of reasons.

It saw a woman and an African-American competing for a major party

nomination. It saw the first woman on a Republican Presidential ticket and

most significantly, it saw the election of the first black President of the United

States. In many ways equally noteworthy however is the important role that

young people played in this election; especially when compared to the role

they played as a group in previous elections.

In the 2008 Presidential election, young people distinguished themselves not

only from older voters, but also from past generations of young voters. With

increased turnout amongst voters under 30 years of age it is both striking and

curious to note that 68% of young voters cast their ballots for Barack Obama

despite the fact that only 45% of that age group identifies themselves as

Democrats (CIRCLE 2008).

What led young Americans to present such a united front in this election?

What was it about Barack Obama and his campaign that led young voters to

support the Democratic candidate in such disproportionate numbers?

There were undoubtedly many factors at play during the 2008 election that

contributed to his success. Obama‟s message of hope and change, his

oratorical skills, eight years of an unpopular Republican President, two wars

and a worsening economic crisis would all have played a role. Yet from the

start, Obama was at a disadvantage. A freshman Senator who had not even

completed his first term, who had no executive experience and few

2

meaningful political connections was to run against Hillary Clinton, a woman

whose name recognition, money and connections were second to none.

Yet by the end of the campaign, Obama had raised $5.5 Million online, more

than had ever been raised before by a candidate on the internet. By the time

the primary season had begun, supporters and activists were using the

Obama Campaign‟s online social network, commonly called MyBO, to set up

campaign organizations in their own states before the official campaign had

even arrived (McGirt 2009 p.4). As his popularity grew, Obama‟s profiles on

the most active social networking websites, such as Facebook and Twitter,

also grew in popularity, as the primarily young users of those sites (Alexa.com)

began taking an interest in the campaign.

As will be explored in this dissertation, it was no accident that young people

took such an interest in Barack Obama and eventually voted for him in such

large and unprecedented numbers. Using the internet and associated

technologies, the Obama campaign reached out to young voters in a way no

American campaign ever had before. By combining online social networks, a

medium intimately familiar to many young Americans, with traditional

community organizing techniques, the Obama campaign has potentially

sparked the beginning of a series of important changes in how digital political

campaigns are carried out.

As will be discussed in Chapter 2, scholars have long been concerned with

the problem of „youth apathy‟. Around the world, voter turnout among youth

has steadily declined and young people generally have significantly less

„social capital‟ (Putnam 2000) than previous generations. This research is

intended to shed light on one promising solution to this problem. By examining

how Barack Obama secured the support that he did among young voters,

other politicians in the United States and around the world will gain an insight

into how they might replicate his success. While this research is a first step,

future research will be required in order to paint a complete picture of

Obama‟s success and how others can learn from his example. Nevertheless,

understanding how his campaign was able to attract young activists and

voters (many getting involved in a political campaign for the first time) will

3

undoubtedly contribute to our understanding of how apathy and

disengagement amongst young people can be reversed. Thus, proceeding on

the premise that the Obama campaign did enjoy unprecedented success

among young voters, this dissertation will seek to answer the question; “How

did the 2008 Barack Obama Presidential campaign use the internet and

related digital communication technologies to attract young voters?” In

answering that central question, this study will also explore the concept of

“Web 3.0” – the intersection of online and offline networks – as a significant

political model adopted by the Obama campaign.1

Before attempting to analyze the Obama campaign‟s success, Chapter 2 will

review the literature relevant to this topic and demonstrate how this study

relates to that which has already been written. In addition to discussing some

academic thought relating to youth apathy, it will touch on the notion of „social

capital‟ as well as survey past uses of the internet in political campaigns in

order to facilitate a comparison with the Obama campaign‟s use of the

technology. In Chapter 3, the methodology used for this dissertation will be

explained. The use of interviews and website analysis allowed for a

worthwhile depth of data which, I argue, makes up for the limited breadth. In

Chapters 4 and 5 MyBO and Barack Obama‟s Facebook page are analyzed,

incorporating commentary gathered from personal interviews with experts on

digital campaign techniques. Finally, Chapter 6 and 7 begin a discussion of

the importance of combining new and old organizing techniques while

harnessing the digital communication technologies associated with the

internet which form such an integral part of the daily lives of many young

people.

While organizations such as „Rock the Vote‟, academics and politicians have

been working for many years to find a way to reverse the decline in voter

turnout among young people, the success of the Obama campaign gives new

hope that modern communication tools can be used to engage honestly with

young citizens. This dissertation seeks to begin to understand how that

1 ‘Web 3.0’ is defined and fully explained as a concept on pages 15 and 16.

4

success was achieved and how it can be used keep these newly engaged

young people within the public sphere.

5

Chapter 2

Youth, Politics and the Internet: Reviewing the Literature

A study such as this one, which is primarily concerned with the internet and

related technologies, will inevitably need to face the challenges associated

with any emerging field. As the internet and digital communication

technologies continue to rapidly change and develop so does the scholarship

surrounding them. While there has been little academic work published on the

use of the internet in the 2008 American Presidential election (as of the time

of writing), there is significant commentary on the use of the internet in

previous elections. This chapter will begin by discussing data gathered by

CIRCLE, a research centre at Tufts University concerned with the “civic and

political engagement” of young Americans, relating to the youth vote in the

2008 election. It will then go on to examine literature pertaining to both youth

engagement in politics in past elections and how politics has been practiced

online in the 21st Century. By understanding these issues, we can better

explain the hypothesized success of the Obama campaign. The questions of

social capital and the public sphere will also be addressed in terms of the

roles they play in relation to how the internet can engage young people in

civic life. As well, a number of terms significant to subsequent chapters of this

dissertation will be defined and explained.

Facts and Figures

For the first time in nearly a generation, youth voter turnout (that is, voters

under the age of 30) in the 2008 American election was above 50%. Even

more significantly however, nearly 1 in every 5 voters was a young person,

accounting for at least 60% of the overall increase in voter turnout. With an

estimated 52%-53% of young people having voted, it is extremely important to

understand why there has been an increase of over 10% in the youth vote as

compared to the 2000 election and 5% since the 2004 election (CIRCLE

2008). All of these statistics become even more significant however when it is

revealed that young voters, for the first time ever, voted for one candidate,

6

Democrat Barack Obama, by a ratio of 2:1 (approximately 68% to 32%), while

the overall vote difference between the two candidates was only 53% to 46%.

This gap is startling when we realize that between 1976 and 2004 young

people almost always voted the same way as older voters, never differing by

more than 1.8 percentage points (Circle, 2008). As a final point of reference,

while only 33% of young voters identify as „Democrats‟, 54 percent of all

young voters voted for Democratic candidate Barack Obama (Circle, 2008). It

is thus clear that youth had a significant impact on the outcome of the 2008

Presidential election. Yet on their own, these numbers do not explain whether

young people supported Obama as a result of campaign tactics (online or

otherwise), fatigue with the Republican Party or the candidate‟s personal

charisma. However, combined with evidence comparing past campaigns‟ use

of the internet as well as the analysis of two aspects of the Obama

campaign‟s web presence which follows, a clearer picture begins to form of

how the Obama campaign may have begun to make politics relevant to youth

once again.

Youth and Civic Engagement

In order to understand why a study of how youth may engage with politics is

relevant, it is important to understand what (and when) youth itself „is‟. As a

frame of reference, “Youth” is ambiguous. Sociologically; “youth is generally

taken to denote a period of transition between the dependence of childhood

and the... independence of adulthood” (Fahmy 2006 p.29). This period of

transition however, is happening later in life and taking longer than ever

before. Fahmy (2006) points to the fact that the number of 16 year olds in the

UK remaining in full time education between 1987 and 1994 rose by 75%

(p.32) and that only 9% of 16 year olds in Britain finishing their mandatory

education went on to full time employment as evidence of this - young people

are staying in school longer, in effect, extending their youth (p.31).

While there is no commonly accepted definition of youth, CIRCLE, „The

Centre for Information and Research on Civil Learning and Engagement‟, a

research centre at Tufts University in Massachusetts and one of, if not the

7

most important research centre on issues surrounding the civic and political

engagement of young people in America, define youth as being between 15

and 25. CIRCLE‟s definition notwithstanding, the only reliable data (and

CIRCLE‟s primary source of data) on voter turnout immediately following an

election comes from exit polls compiled by the National Election Pool (NEP)

which measures „young voters‟ as being 18-30. In practical terms, this means

that a discussion of the impact youth had on the 2008 election must

distinguish between impact during the campaign, which will rely on CIRCLE‟s

own definition, and impact on voting and results, which will, out of necessity,

rely on the NEP‟s statistics.

„Youth Apathy‟ has long been seen as a societal ill and a plethora of

organizations such as „Rock the Vote‟ in the United States and „Apathy is

Boring‟ in Canada have established themselves in the past decade to combat

this perceived threat to democracy. To a large extent, this perception of young

people is accurate. As Putnam (2000) has shown, young people today are

less likely to participate in community activities than their parents and

grandparents. Livingstone, Couldry and Markham (2007) further demonstrate

that young people are significantly less likely than their adult counterparts to

express interest in political issues or „issues of the day‟ such as health care or

the economy. However, Gerodimos and Ward (2007) argue that observers

are too intent on relying on traditional measures of engagement. While youth

may not vote or join political parties in numbers on par with previous

generations;

Young people are often at the core of rising alternative forms of civic engagement and voice expression: flash-mobbing and impromptu protests; virtual networks spilling over to offline communities; the rise of citizen-reporters through blogging, vlogs and podcasts; online petitions, charity sites and other causes such as natural disaster aid (Gerodimos and Ward 2007 p.116)

While at first glance, this may seem to undermine the idea that youth are, as a

group, unengaged in civic society, the fact remains that while these alternative

political activities are beneficial to the public sphere and society as a whole,

they are not a substitute for the most basic processes of democracy – voting

and participation in the electoral process. Indeed, each of the activities

8

identified by Gerodimos and Ward are indicative of disillusionment with

existing structures and the belief that they cannot make progress by engaging

directly with politicians and other elites. Thus, while participation in any form is

no doubt a positive development, this fact, if anything, reinforces the need for

youth to be reengaged with civil society and traditional democratic institutions.

As Dahlgren and Olsson (2007) and others (for example, Mesch and Coleman

2007; Livingstone et al 2007) demonstrate, it is a common perception among

youth that their opinions do not matter, that politicians do not listen to what

they have to say. As a result, it can be argued that traditional political

participation is seen as a waste of time by many youth. This is especially

significant in the context of the 2008 Presidential election given the historical

context (8 years of a controversial Republican presidency) and Democratic

Candidate Barack Obama‟s popular image as an underdog. It is important to

note however that according to many academics „youth apathy‟ may in fact be

more a result of action by elites than inaction by youth themselves.

Fahmy (2006 p.16) quotes the British Youth Council as saying that; “Rather

than young people being apathetic it is in fact the politicians and parties that

are indifferent, uninterested and complacent...” A position further supported by

Livingstone et al. (2007) among others. Indeed, Fahmy (2006, Pg. 34) points

to the work of Catan and Lister who argue that the rhetoric of citizenship

directed at youth has come at a time when youth are being structurally

excluded from political participation. Continuing economic dependency, falling

wages as a proportion of adult wages and rising youth unemployment all

contribute to the impression among youth that politicians simply are not

concerned with their issues. In addition, as Fahmy (2006) points out, with

rising student debts, young people are out of necessity less interested in

collective action – despite the benefits it might bring to them – and more

concerned with alleviating their own hardships.

The debate surrounding the question of youth engagement (or lack thereof)

can generally be split into two opposing theories concerning the lives and

culture of young people today. According to Giddens (1991) and Castells

9

(1997) as cited by Loader (2007), many young people cannot relate to

traditional political structures and methods of political communication in an era

of Facebook, YouTube and instant messenger. A dearth of youth engagement

is not due to any lack of interest on the part of young people, according to this

view, but rather because the rigid structures of traditional politics do not

conform to the lifeworld experienced and understood by this generation, an

experience that is largely open-source and user generated – the exact

opposite of traditional politics. Referred to by Loader (2007 p.2) as the

“cultural displacement perspective”, proponents of this point of view argue that

rather than signalling some kind of crisis of democracy, the coming of age of

the „dotcommers‟ or „internet generation‟ may herald the beginning of a new

kind of Western politics. In contrast, the Disaffected Citizen perspective

proposed by Henn (2002) and Dalton (2004) as quoted by Loader (2007),

sees the differences between today‟s youth and older generations as largely

exaggerated. Rather than radically changing how politics is practiced, “the

new media can be assimilated as a[n]... additional channel of political

communication to young people” (Loader 2007 p.2). In other words,

disaffected citizen theorists attempt to argue that all that is necessary to re-

engage youth in the political process is to use new communication

technologies as a vehicle for communicating traditional politics as opposed to

adapting traditional politics to the new generation.

Traditionally, civic engagement has been measured by voter turnout, party

membership, campaigning activities and even union membership. By all of

these measures, today‟s youth is the least engaged, most apathetic

generation in over a hundred years, if not longer. Between the lack of social

capital (Putnam, 2000) and politicians apparent disregard for „youth issues‟,

young people have little direct incentive to become engaged. In discussing

British electoral politics, Fahmy also explains that; “[t]he perception that

electoral politics do not address the needs or interests of many young people

has undoubtedly been exacerbated by [an] atmosphere of „sleaze‟” – a claim

which could likely be equally applied to American politics (2007 p.44). A

further factor significant in understanding the decline of engagement levels

amongst young people is the notion of „social capital‟.

10

Building Social Capital

The idea behind social capital, as expounded by Robert Putnam;

... is that social networks have value. Just as a screwdriver (physical capital) or a college education (human capital) can increase productivity (both individual and collective), so too social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups (2000 p.19).

Specifically, Putnam‟s theory of social capital comments on the

interconnectedness of Western society and how the social contacts and

networks formed in our communities, clubs, teams and associations are

essential to the long term health of American democracy. However, while

Putnam quotes Alexis de Tocqueville commenting on how “Americans of all

ages, all stations in life, and all types of disposition are forever forming

associations.” (2000 p.48) he argues that since the beginning of the 20th

Century, Americans‟ social capital has steadily declined. As proof, Putnam

points to the sharp drop off in the number of Americans who are members of

community organizations as well as clear declines in traditional measures of

political engagement – from voting to attending a rally. In short, Americans are

spending more time on their own and as a result are less engaged in their

community and civil society.

Putnam is ambiguous as to what effect the internet will have on social capital.

According to his arguments, it is too early to tell (or at least, it was in 2000)

whether the internet is a “niftier telephone or a niftier television” (2000 p.178)

– whether it will become a tool for communication and community or

entertainment and apathy. Anabel Quan-Haase and Barry Wellman (2002),

building on Putnam‟s research, propose three conceptual frameworks through

which the Internet‟s effect on social capital could be understood. First, the

internet could transform social capital. It‟s low cost, easily accessible and

widely dispersed nature could allow for the formation of brand new, previously

inconceivable social networks. Second, the internet could diminish social

capital. As a “niftier television”, the internet and its entertainment capabilities

could increase the amount of time individuals spend on their own or

alternatively, online networks could begin to replace in-person networks –

equally detrimental to social capital. Finally, the internet could supplement

11

social capital; adding value to existing networks by allowing for both deeper

and broader connections between people who already connected. Not

surprisingly, this last option is the framework most accepted by sociologists

and media theorists. By pointing to the internet as a supplementary tool in the

promotion of democracy and engagement, more recent analysts avoid the

downfalls made by earlier Internet theorists, such as Manuel Castells (2001),

who declared that the rise of the internet would bring with it a new age of

logical, network politics.

A significant amount of research has looked at how young people use the

internet (Xenos and Bennett 2007, Dahlgren and Olsson 2007, Vromen 2007,

Dahlgren 2007, Montgomery et al. 2004), whether for celebrity news or

coordinating the activities of a nongovernmental organizations they are

involved in, youth are undoubtedly forming networks online. One important

question however is who these young people are.

Labelling the Internet

It should be no surprise that in an academic field developing and changing as

quickly as the study of the Internet and its related technologies, there is no

consensus term to describe the kind of technologies being discussed here.

Some refer to ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) (Loader

2007) while others call them IDS (Internet, interactive, instant and digital and

satellite) (Perlmutter 2008). In the traditional news media, they‟re often

referred to as Web 2.0 and to many they‟re known collectively as simply „New

Media‟ (as in the journal New Media & Society). While “new media” is likely

the most popular term, it is also the most easily misused.

It is instructive to ask whether blogs, online social networks, video sharing

sites like YouTube and digital music sharing (illegally or otherwise) can be

considered „new media‟ when the people within the age groups with whom

this study is concerned have never lived without these technologies

(Perlmutter 2008a p.160). For the groups with which we are concerned, this

„new media‟ is more accurately the popular media, as the television was to

12

their parents and the radio to their grandparents. Yet a distinction certainly

must be made between „old media‟ such as newspapers and television and,

for example, communication technologies developed for the internet such as

blogs and online social networks. While “digital communication technologies”

is perhaps not as catchy as „new media‟ or „ICT‟, it is arguably a more

informative description. All of the tools with which this study is concerned are

fundamentally communicative technologies, and more specifically multi-

directional channels of communication. In addition, they all owe their

existence to the digital revolution of the late 1990s and the first decade of the

21st Century.

The American Digital Divide

Any analysis of internet usage must take into account what is commonly

called the „digital divide‟ (Putnam 2000, Calenda and Mosca 2007, Vromen

2007). In general, internet users are educated, young, middle class or better,

white and male. Indeed, while most academics condemn the digital divide,

Putnam goes so far as to call it “cyberapartheid” (Pg. 175). This phenomenon

is even more concerning after one takes into account the data collected by

CIRCLE on the portrait of an average voter in American presidential elections.

CIRCLE (2008) points out that; “Although [only] 57% of U.S. citizens between

ages of 18 and 29 have… attended college, 70% of the young voters had

gone to college”. These discrepancies only increased as education decreased.

While Americans without a high school diploma make up 14% of the

population, only 6% of voters do not have a high school diploma. Given the

extensive support President Obama received from all sections of American

youth, it is important to examine the internet as a tool of citizenship for young

people.

Gustavo S. Mesch and Stephen Coleman (2007) identify two theses

concerning the effects that the internet has on political participation. The first,

what they term „mobilization thesis‟ argues that the internet will transform the

way we interact with each other and how politics is practiced. It emphasizes

the many different outlets for engagement online as well as the new tools and

13

features that the Internet brings to the table. Through all of these services,

which are generally more egalitarian than traditional tools of political activism,

mobilization thesis argues that the Internet facilitates new forms of political

activism and will engage people (especially youth) who did not previously

participate in political and activist activities. On the other hand, „reinforcement

thesis‟, supported by research by Livingstone et al. (2007) argues that the

internet “is strengthening rather than radically transforming existing patterns of

political participation” (2007 p.38). In addition, because internet users are

“self-selecting”, the internet does not broaden the field of activists, simply

encourages and strengthens existing ones. This debate is especially

important in the context of the 2008 Presidential election, when 64% of 18-24

year olds were first time voters and even more strikingly, in the 18-29 age

group, 45% of Black voters and 61% of Latino voters voted for the first time,

compared to only 37% of white voters in the same age group (CIRCLE 2008).

Given the earlier figure that young voters supported Barack Obama by a

factor of 2:1, these statistics are of significant importance for the present

inquiry.

When Politics Go Online

Despite the growing importance of the internet as a mode of communication,

political parties have been slow to adopt web strategies reflective of the true

capabilities of the internet. Instead, most often they have used websites as an

online filing cabinet for campaign documents and endorsements (Xenos and

Bennett 2007 p.63). Despite the fact that some estimates put regular web

usage among 18-29 year olds at more than 80%, until the 2008 Presidential

election, the only major candidate for high-level elected office in America to

make more than cursory use of the internet was Howard Dean in the 2004

Presidential primaries (Xenos and Bennett 2007 p.50). Indeed, when Xenos

and Bennett (2007 p.63) performed a detailed content analysis of House,

Senate and Gubernatorial candidate websites in the 2002 and 2004 American

elections, they found that candidates‟ websites were far less likely than youth-

oriented websites to be interactive, have material geared specifically towards

young people and have any multimedia content whatsoever.

14

Dean however, relied heavily on blogs and other forms of digital

communication for many of the same reasons Obama would four years later.

With less name recognition and little money, Dean seized upon the

blogosphere (Gensemer 2009; Perlmutter 2008a; Chadwick 2006) to create

excitement about his candidacy. In what was then heralded as a first, Dean

also encouraged supporters to use Meetup.com, a website designed to bring

together supporters first online and then in person – in some ways a much

simpler version of MyBO. Despite this early version (perhaps in software

terms, a „Beta version‟) of Web 3.0, as Andrew Chadwick points out; “It seems

that a lot of talking and storytelling was going on at the Meetups but not all of

it was focused on getting out the vote” (2006 p.165). No doubt Dean‟s digital

campaign team learned from their mistakes, however, when they went on to

form Blue State Digital, the firm that would a few years later create Obama‟s

web presence (Gensemer 2009).

In an email sent out to young supporters on 2 November 2008, just three days

before the election, the Obama campaign wrote; “For too long, the power of

the young people in politics has been dismissed. But this is your election.

Students have been the number one donors to this campaign, and young

people are the driving force behind field and get out the vote operations”

(Portnoy, 2008). Unlike what Xenos and Bennett (2007 p.62-63) found in 2002

when there was a negligible number of appeals to young people in online

campaign material, the Obama campaign spent significant resources online

capturing the youth vote; from announcing their Vice President nomination via

„Twitter‟ and mobile phone text message to having dedicated micro-sites for

both students and “Kids” under 12.

Finally, studies by David D. Perlmutter (2008a; 2008b) must be taken into

account as some of the most recent accounts of the intersection between the

internet and politics. Blogwars (2008a) examines the importance of the

blogosphere – both blogs by politicians and news blogs. The second is a short

article based on a roundtable moderated by Perlmutter in which prominent

American bloggers discuss the Presidential primaries as of early 2008

(2008b). The roundtable will be discussed in Chapter 6. In Blogwars,

15

Perlmutter makes a number of interesting observations about how politicians

use the blog medium. Interestingly, he identifies then-Senator Barack

Obama‟s blog as being the most effective of national politicians in its

balancing of the professional tone people expect from politicians and the

personal nature of blogs as a form of communication (p. 152). One of the

most important factors Perlmutter identifies for successful communication

between politician and constituent, especially through blogs, is an ancient

Roman concept known as “commilito” or “fellow soldiership” (2008a p.154).

Commilito refers to the feeling of camaraderie that develops between a

General and his soldiers on the battlefield, the sense that one‟s leaders care

about each individual and speak directly to each individual. Similarly, the idea

that “...successful mass political communication is that which best

approximates successful personal communication” (2008a p. 153)

emphasizes the importance of blogs and other forms of digital communication

in connecting with a population normally accustomed to only seeing politicians

on the news.

Web 3.0: The Next Generation of Online Politics

In the context of this dissertation, Web 3.0 refers to the convergence of the

internet with the offline world. Much of Obama‟s web presence is made up of

what is commonly referred to as Web 2.0, what Darcy DiNucci, who coined

the phrase, explains by arguing that; “The Web will be understood not as

screenfuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether

through which interactivity happens (1999 p.53). More simply, Web 2.0 is the

interactive Web. It is hyperlinking and commenting, collaborative blogs and

viral videos. Its name is derived from the software naming convention of

giving the second version of a program (for example, following a major

content upgrade) the designation “2.0” in contrast to the original release,

which would normally be referred to as “1.0”. Similarly, I argue that Web 3.0 is

the third major iteration of the Web. Where for much of the first decade of the

21st Century, the Web seemed to many to be, as Robert Putnam would call it,

a “niftier television”, doing little more than entertaining and informing, recent

16

events, especially the 2008 Presidential election, have demonstrated a new

course being charted for the Web.

It was during the early years of Web 2.0, when the notion of interactivity was

taking hold, that many argued that the internet is detrimental to the

establishment of social capital by, like television, taking citizens away from

their neighbours and spending more time on their own, forming loose and

unreliable „virtual networks‟ (Davis and Owen 1998; Axford 2001; Moog and

Sluyter-Beltrao 2001; Scheufele and Nisbet 2002). While this period may have

seen the birth of interactivity, Steve Davis (2005) notes, in reference to the

use of the Web by politicians, that “The recipients [of online communication

from candidates] were not asked to do much in the offline world” (p.241).

Davis thus observed that during this period, to borrow a phrase, „what

happened on the web, stayed on the web‟ ensuring that digital campaigning

techniques would remain for the time being little more than a sideshow. As

Axford rightly points out, this use of the internet, Web 2.0; “privilege[s] instant

gratification above reflection” (2001 p.20). Putnam, in discussing the impact

that the proliferation of the television had on political engagement, similarly

pointed out that;

TV-based politics is to political action as watching ER is to saving someone in distress. Just as one cannot restart a heart with one‟s remote control, one cannot jump-start republican citizenship without direct, face-to-face participation. Citizenship is not a spectator sport” (2000 p.341).

This argument can equally be applied to Web 2.0 and the political content of

the Internet in the early years of the first decade of the 21st Century.

In contrast to the „bystander politics‟ of Web 2.0, the core principle of Web 3.0

(and not coincidentally, the Obama campaign‟s web activities) is the

importance of translating online interest and engagement into in-person

participation and action. While small-scale experiments with this strategy were

employed by the Dean and Bush campaigns in 2004, the 2008 Obama

campaign saw this convergence put into practice for the first time on such a

large scale. The significance of this notion cannot be understated. First, the

17

transferring of online networks to the „real world‟ ostensibly answers Putnam‟s

question about the role of the internet. It points to the internet, using Putnam‟s

analogy, as a „niftier telephone‟ – a two-way (in fact, multi-directional)

communication tool able to bring people together to take direct action on the

societal level – not just among a small core of radical activists. By enabling

such collective action, Web 3.0 would seem to not only supplement social

capital, but create it by facilitating the creation of new networks. Second, the

advent of Web 3.0 resolves the conflict between the internet as a tool of

engagement and Jurgen Habermas‟s conception of the public sphere (Sassi

2001). Some theorists have argued that the internet fragments the public

sphere into digital „sphericules‟ (Gitlin 1998; Sassi 2001 p.90). Dahlgren

argued in 2001 (p.75) that; “Cyberspace is… becoming a vital link and

meeting ground for a civicly [sic] engaged and politically mobilized stratum of

the polity. In this regard, it fosters the emergence of multiple mini-public

spheres.” While neither Dahlgren nor Sassi (2001) speak to whether they

believed the fracturing of the global public sphere into “mini-public spheres”

was a positive or negative development, the creation of those „sub-networks‟

likely contributed to the theoretical framework of Web 3.0. Indeed, the

philosophy of Web 3.0 as implemented and pioneered by the Obama

campaign demonstrates that the internet can in fact develop the public sphere

as a whole – bringing those who otherwise may remain on the outside into the

community.

The inability of politicians, prior to the 2008 Presidential election, to make

effective use of the internet to engage in a multidirectional dialogue as argued

by Perlmutter (2008a), Xenos and Bennett (2007) and Livingstone (2007) may

be an indication that what Loader (2007 p.2) refers to as the “cultural

displacement perspective” is the more accurate understanding of why youth

have generally resisted participating in traditional political activities. This claim

that the lifeworld of young citizens does not generally conform to the

traditional political structures of western democracy supports the idea that the

use of Web 3.0, the convergence of the online and offline worlds may lead to

“an emerging techno-social and political culture” (Loader 2007 p.2).

18

This new perspective for the digital generation also has implications for their

social capital. As youth, previously unengaged with traditional forms of

political action, find politicians directing more resources to communicating

directly with them in ways that their generation is familiar with, they may be

mobilized to interact on an ongoing basis with civic society. The “mobilization

thesis” identified by Mesch and Coleman (2007 p. 38) supports the idea,

integral to Web 3.0 and the perceived success of the Obama campaign that

by providing young people with a space to engage in a conversation with both

their peers and elites in a manner with which they are accustomed and

comfortable, they will in turn, translate their new engagement to the offline,

„traditional‟ political arena.

The literature discussed in this chapter provides a context within which we

can better understand more recent developments in the use of the Internet for

political campaigns. By taking into account concepts such as the digital divide

and social capital as well as past campaigns‟ successes and failures, this

dissertation will seek to determine if and how the Obama campaign

succeeded in using digital communication technologies to drive the youth vote

within a rapidly changing and developing digital world.

19

Chapter 3

Methodology

Just as the literature concerning the use of the internet in political campaigns

is constantly changing as practices evolve, the rapidly developing

technologies being used to facilitate online communication between

candidates and voters requires methods of analysis to develop at a similar

pace. Through a variety of methods, some tested and with a long history of

academic use – such as qualitative interviews, and others which are fairly raw

and based on the developing technologies with which we are concerned, this

dissertation will attempt to present an overview of what the Obama campaign

did differently. This research will seek to explore why the campaign chose to

use the resources they did and how the digital focus contributed to the

campaign at the grassroots level, eventually directly leading to the

unprecedented support Obama enjoyed from young voters at the ballot box.

As with any student-led research and indeed, any research at all, the scope of

this study is limited primarily by two resources, time and money. An

exhaustive study of the topic at hand, Obama‟s use of digital information and

communication technologies in the 2008 Presidential campaign, would require

the use of extensive surveys of young voters, focus groups, interviews and

other research methods – both qualitative and quantitative, in order to

determine the full effect of these new campaign tactics (Gerodimos and Ward

2007). Nevertheless, the groundwork laid by this study may lead to more in

depth research of what effects the Obama campaign‟s digital tools had on the

electorate and what that means for the future.

For the purposes of this study, I have used two qualitative research methods.

The first method is “semi-structured élite interviews” (Gillham 2005).

Interviews in this context will allow the research to, as Gillham (2005 p.3)

points out; “achieve a depth of understanding...” While initially, the use of

questionnaires as a primary research method was considered, it was

determined that the data which could be garnered from a survey set would be

20

useful in the context of this study only if the sample size was large enough to

be representative of the entire „young voter‟ demographic. In addition, while

supplementary data from organizations such as CIRCLE could have been

used, the resources available for this study would have been insufficient to

conduct a satisfactory analysis. Thus, by conducting interviews first, future

research will be able to make use of the data gathered to better inform the

creation of a large-scale questionnaire and other more extensive techniques.

As well as interviews, this study makes use of an extensive website analysis –

examining both aesthetic and technical elements of the MyBO campaign

website and Barack Obama‟s Facebook „fan page‟. These two aspects of the

Obama internet campaign can serve as exemplars of the networking aspect of

the digital campaign as a whole (Reich personal interview). The analysis uses

a synthesis of two web site research methods; the first suggested by Nina

Wakeford (2004) is based on traditional techniques for visual analysis and

relies heavily on production inquiry while also bringing semiotic analyses to

play. The second aspect of the analysis places a stronger emphasis on the

technical aspects of the websites. This aspect, proposed by Quentin Langley

(2008) focuses on the more technological aspects of a website, such as

interactivity and searchability.

Interviews

Three distinct categories of people, all with a stake in the Obama campaign‟s

use of digital technologies, have been identified and were to be interviewed

individually, with questions that are equivalent for interviewees in the same

category, a derivative of the interview process identified by Bill Gillham (2005,

p.76). Significantly, the questions will not be derived from a questionnaire

style interview, as suggested by Byrne (2004 p.181), but will be tailored to the

individuals and the categories into which they fall to ensure that the greatest

value is taken from the interviews.

The three categories are „Decision Maker‟, „Implementer‟ and „External Expert‟.

Subjects in the „Decision Maker‟ category all occupy (or occupied) positions of

21

authority in the Obama Campaign or in similar organizations. The subjects in

this category were to be Thomas Gensemer (the managing partner of Blue

State Digital, the company behind the Obama web presence), Joe Rospars

(the New Media Director of the Obama campaign), Chris Hughes (a co-

founder of the Facebook website and in charge of Obama‟s online social

networking) and Todd Herman (the current New Media Director for the

Republican National Committee). The second category, „Implementers‟ was

made up of subjects who used the digital media and new technologies on a

day to day basis at the grassroots level, „implementing‟ the vision of the

decision makers. Some of the subjects in the implementer category were

known to the researcher beforehand while some were referred independently.

The subjects in this category all occupied mid to high level positions within the

Obama campaign in states such as California and Florida. All of the subjects

in the „implementer‟ category who participated in the interviews requested that

their participation remain anonymous and thus their names and job titles will

not be referred to in this dissertation.2 Interview subjects in the second

category were asked questions which dealt specifically with their experiences

working for the campaign. Subjects were asked what use they made of MyBO,

Facebook or YouTube in recruiting volunteers or planning campaign events.

As well, they were asked to describe how their use of these technologies

differed in their personal capacity as an Obama supporter and professional

capacity as a campaign employee. Questions for this group of subjects

focused on these issues and how the digital elements of the campaign made

a difference.

The final category, external experts, was included to allow for 3rd party

„discussion‟ of the issues at hand. Experts on blogging and online

campaigning were interviewed to discuss current academic thought on these

issues as well as to make use of more objective viewpoints. The subjects in

this third category are David Perlmutter (a Journalism and Communications

Professor at the University of Iowa and author of the book „Blog Wars‟) and

2 When referenced in the body of this dissertation, these anonymous interview subjects will be

referred to either as a “senior campaign official” or in an embedded citation as “(implementer personal interview).

22

Brian Reich (a former aide to Vice President Al Gore and new media

consultant working with a variety of American politicians). The inclusion of the

third category could certainly be considered unorthodox for a primary

research study of this nature. However, it is an inescapable reality of the

digital age that no technological truth stays true for very long. What one day is

the latest groundbreaking technology can a month later be considered

antiquated and a waste of bandwidth. By consulting with third party experts,

this study was better able to consolidate the latest research and thinking in

this rapidly changing and as a result, under studied field. Subjects in this third

category were asked different questions based on their different specific areas

of expertise. Both subjects were asked to describe what demographic groups

would have benefited most from these campaign strategies and more

specifically, how significant of an impact they believed Obama‟s social

networking presence will have had. These participants were then asked what

role Obama‟s background as a „community organizer‟ may have played in his

digital campaign and what direction they saw online politics going in the future.

There were two major „stumbling blocks‟ in the conduct of the interviews. The

first is that most of the interview subjects fall into categories such as “the

specialist academic” and “the advanced practitioner” identified by Gillham

(2005 p. 55-56) and as such require a specially formulated type of interview.

As he points out; “Careers have been ruined by something as apparently

simple as the construction of a sentence or an unfortunate choice of words”

(2005 p.55). Further complicating matters was the likelihood that the subjects,

especially those in the first (Decision Maker) category, are restricted both in

what they can say by confidentiality agreements and in who they would be

willing to speak to, given the intensely competitive nature of their industry.

While these restrictions may have lead to the opportunity loss of significant

data, Gillham does provide solutions for the other issues associated with elite

interviews. These include the offer of anonymity in the final report, a chance

for the subject to review both the interview transcript and the final report for

accuracy and an agreement to destroy the original interview recording (2005

p.55). Along with the possibility of confidentiality agreements, the high profile

of the subjects in the first category carried with it the possibility that they

23

would simply be unwilling to participate for corporate reasons or due to time

constraints.

Unfortunately, none of the potential subjects in the first category were willing

to participate in this research. While their unwillingness to take part in the

interviews certainly made gathering data more difficult, substantial information

was nonetheless collected from subjects in the other categories. It will be

crucial for future studies to make note of the corporate reticence of the

„decision makers‟ and plan accordingly.

The second major obstacle for the interviews was geographic distance. Given

the subject matter of this study, it is not surprising that all of the subjects are

based in the United States. Given both the researcher‟s location in the United

Kingdom and the high profile (and by extension busy schedules) of the

subjects, it was extremely unlikely that an opportunity would arise for the

interviews to be conducted „in person‟. While effort was made to arrange face-

to-face interviews, time constraints of the interview subjects led to the use of

telephone interviews. There are certainly downsides to this method, chief

among them the loss of non-verbal communication data such as facial

expressions and body language. In addition, the impersonal and „distant‟

nature of telephonic communication as opposed to face-to-face

communication is not insignificant, especially when trying to establish a

rapport with the subject (Gillham 2005 p.103). However, despite the

disadvantages which may accompany telephone interviews, the data gained

will still be significantly more insightful and in-depth than any which could be

garnered through surveys.

Web Analysis

The second method which will be used in this study is „web analysis‟. While

this is not a research method which has been put to use on a regular basis, it

is invaluable to a study such as this which asks how digital (and primarily

online) technologies impacted a group of people. The ever changing nature of

digital media however has meant that no single method for studying the Web

24

has developed from a technological standpoint (Wakeford 2004). In addition,

the 2001 book „Handbook of Visual Analysis‟ (vanLeeuwen and Jewitt) makes

no mention of the internet and only mentions digital technologies in the

context of digital cameras.

In her 2004 chapter „Developing Methodological Frameworks for Studying the

World Wide Web‟, Nina Wakeford draws on some traditional visual analysis

tools that allow the Web to be analysed both within visual culture and as a

unique feature of the digital age (p 42). More directly, Quentin Langley, a

public relations and new media expert, has produced what he calls a “Website

Critique Toolkit” (2008). This toolkit identifies six important areas of analysis

for critiquing websites; searchability, target audiences, substantive content,

navigation/functionality, aesthetic design and interactivity.

This study will synthesize Wakeford‟s checklist, which focuses on questions of

production, aesthetics, audience and to a lesser extent, technology, with

Langley‟s toolkit, while incorporating some traditional aspects of visual

analysis theorized by Roland Barthes (1973) and expanded on by David

Machin (2007). The analysis will focus on two web sites – first and most

importantly, Barack Obama‟s campaign networking sub-site, referred to by

campaign insiders as „MyBO‟ and secondly, the campaign‟s presence on the

popular social networking site Facebook. By combining semiotic analysis with

modern digital analysis techniques and complemented with the data collected

from interviews, this study will seek to explain how the Obama campaign

made use of digital communication technologies to attract young voters.

The primary risk inherent in this method is that it is relatively untested. The

ever-changing world of technology means that any comprehensive

technological analysis will be necessarily constantly adapting and evolving.

The specific method being used here, for lack of any previously published

method which meets the requirements of this study, exemplifies the problem

of the digital age for researchers.

25

Despite its potential pitfalls, this method has contributed significantly to the

conclusions of this research. Simple semiotic analysis would be grossly

insufficient to properly understand the impact of Obama‟s digital presence on

the campaign, as it would omit entirely from its analysis uniquely digital

qualities such as „searchability‟, hyperlinking, interactivity and indeed, the

Web 3.0 characteristics which, I will argue, defined Obama‟s digital campaign.

The internet is unlike any other form of media – it cannot be defined in terms

of its text as newspapers are, its voice as radio is, nor its images as television

is. Without the combination of the three (in addition to other important features,

such as interactivity) the internet simply cannot be properly understood.

Going forward

Future studies of this topic should seek to expand on the methods used here

to develop a broader picture of the issues at hand. While this study focuses

on depth of knowledge, a full understanding of the impact Obama‟s web

campaign had both on his own electoral fortunes and future political

campaigning must also explore the breadth of knowledge which can best be

gained through focus group interviews and large-scale questionnaires. By

establishing what „young voters‟ in America took away from Obama‟s digital

campaign and how it affected them as a group, this and subsequent research

will have important practical effects for practitioners of politics and for voters.

Once this paper establishes causes, future research must examine the effects.

26

Chapter 4

Bringing the Digital World Offline: An Analysis of My.BarackObama.com

My.BarackObama.Com (MyBO), the brainchild of Chris Hughes, Facebook

co-founder and one of the leading figures on the Obama Campaign‟s Internet

team, (McGirt 2009 p.1) is, to this point in history according to many

observers, the most elaborate and successful use of the Internet and digital

communication technologies for a political campaign (Reich personal

interview; implementer personal interview). By giving rise to Web 3.0 and

making politics relevant to the everyday lives of today‟s youth, MyBO played

an important role in the success of Barack Obama‟s presidential campaign

and has left an indelible mark on the history of online political campaigning

(Reich personal interview).

What follows is a visual and technical analysis of MyBO and some of its

associated tools. Data for this analysis has been gathered from two places.

The first is my.barackobama.com as it currently exists. Since it is by its nature

a campaign microsite, it has been left mostly intact following the end of the

campaign. Due to the highly interactive and personalized nature of the MyBO

network, it is imperative for the analysis that it remains fully functional. The

Internet Archive, an online library which regularly creates archived copies of

much of the content on the World Wide Web, due to space and technological

constraints, is not able to preserve the interactivity of MyBO3. It thus must be

an acceptable compromise to use the site as it currently exists.

The second source of data for this analysis is archived versions of

www.barackobama.com, the campaign‟s primary home on the web and

gateway to the campaign‟s presence across the Internet. Two archives have

been used for the purpose of comparison. The first, from February 16th 2007,

is the first archive made of the Obama campaign site following the

3 The full technical explanation for why the Internet Archive is unable to access MyBO can be found

http://web.archive.org/collections/web/faqs.html#exclusions

27

announcement of his candidacy on the 10th of February 2007. The second

reference used is the archive from just over one year later, February 22nd

2008, the final archived version of the site available as of this writing in July

2009.

Searchability

The first measure of a website‟s potential success and the first area of

analysis is how easily it can be found. Especially in a political campaign, if a

resource cannot be easily found by its intended users it is not much use to the

owner. Unlike most campaign tools however, (such as the main campaign

website), MyBO is not meant to be „Googled‟. Where the main campaign site

is targeted to „influencers‟ (such as journalists and party leaders) and ordinary,

undecided voters and thus easily searchable on Google, Yahoo! or any other

search engine, MyBO is designed specifically and exclusively for activists

(implementer personal interview).

From the first week of the campaign, the main campaign site and primary

portal to Obama on the Web featured a prominent „doorway‟ to MyBO (see

Figure 1). Situated „above the fold‟, as it would be described in the

terminology of print media, visitors are immediately drawn to the link by virtue

Figure 1 – The home page of the Obama campaign on 16 February 2007. Notice the

“My.BarackObama.com” portal‟s prominent position and highlighted key words.

28

of its location, size and contrast with the rest of the site. The designers laid

the „internal advertisement‟ on a differently coloured background from the rest

of the site and very clearly told visitors why they should sign up for the service.

Key words such as “supporters”, “network” and “fundraiser” are all highlighted

and the language of the advertisement uses an active voice urging visitors to

„do their part‟ for the campaign. In other words, visitors are told clearly what

positive impact their participation would have.

Searchability in this context then does not refer to what one would normally

expect – what could also be referred to as “googleability” – the ability to find

the site using traditional Web search and index techniques. Rather, it refers to

the ability of the target audiences to reach the site. The target audiences, as

described below, would have reason to already be on the main campaign site

and thus searchability could be described as being very high.

As the campaign progressed, the entry portal for MyBO became smaller and

less prominent, with text replacing images. The site likely reached a point

where it was no longer necessary to use valuable real estate on the site‟s

main page to advertise for new sign ups, but rather word of mouth and other

online social networks drove publicity. Indeed, as

the activist base grew and MyBO became an

everyday tool for supporters, it is not surprising that

the campaign devoted more „real estate‟ on the

home page to content geared towards non-activist

visitors such as journalists or independent voters.

Also interesting to note is the change in tone of the

home page portal to MyBO. Where at the beginning

of the campaign the portal took on the form of an

advertisement, explaining why visitors should sign up

and presenting a broad picture of the site‟s benefits,

later incarnations of the site were more specific in

their requests to visitors and used space more economically. The later

example (see Figure 2) offers visitors direct links to “Make Calls” or “Register

Figure 2 – Likely intended to engage

with first-time visitors to the site, this

portal is one of two objects „above the

fold‟ on 22 February 2008.

29

to Vote” among other activities, but notably, the section blends in with

surrounding objects on the site in contrast to earlier iterations where the

advertisement was clearly set apart. This specialization can also be attributed

to the campaign‟s developing understanding of the value MyBO stood to bring,

as the campaign progressed (McGirt p.3-4). By this point in the campaign, the

new portal with links to specific activities would have been intended to serve

as an entry point for first-time visitors to the site and new supporters – again

by telling them how their help would support the campaign – while the general

login link found at the bottom of the page (see Figure 3) would have been

intended for those who had visited before and knew what they were looking

for.

Target Audiences

In a significant departure from how political campaigns

used the internet in the past, the MyBO network is

clearly intended for activists and Obama supporters

rather than for the general public. Undecided voters

would find little of interest, and journalists would

similarly find little to report besides process stories.

Unlike traditional campaign websites, MyBO is an

intricate system designed to encourage and facilitate

interaction and campaigning (Reich personal interview). The other groups

which would normally be considered potential target audiences for politicians‟

websites; journalists and undecided voters, would have little to gain from this

site.

The MyBO designers likely went even deeper than simply an activist

orientation in designing the site however. While it could certainly be used by

any activist, it is more likely to be used and appreciated by those who in other

circumstances would better be classified as casual supporters than „activists‟

in the traditional „door-knocking‟ sense. Broad groups such as the elderly and

young people, who either may not have the physical ability or the time and

resources to volunteer at a local campaign office used MyBO to take action on

Figure 3 – This advertisement

is found near the bottom of the

Obama Campaign‟s home page

on 22 February 2008.

30

their own time and in their own neighbourhoods (Gensemer 2009). Arguably

equally importantly as one senior California campaign official has pointed out,

MyBO takes a form with which young people are familiar and can understand

(personal interview). The participants can focus on issues which concern

them, make calls to people similar to them and interact with people who share

their interests. Most importantly, these young users can do all of this in a way

which would already be familiar to them thanks to popular social networks like

Facebook and MySpace.

Brian Reich, in talking about the demographic groups which benefit from

services such as MyBO points out that;

...open source, collaborative and more substantive [campaign] policies... particularly benefit those people who feel disillusioned by politics, people who don‟t agree with all the extremes on one side or the other, people who don‟t feel like politicians represent them, who don‟t feel like the issues that they have... are being addressed (personal interview).

Given that, as explained in Chapter 2, it is young citizens who best fit this

description outlined by Reich (Fahmy 2006; Livingstone et al 2007; Dahlgren

and Olsson 2007; Mesch and Coleman 2007) it is clear that it is youth who, by

extension, stand to gain the most from these types of campaign strategies.

Nina Wakeford, in her proposed methodological framework for web studies

(2004), asks “What technologies does [the subject‟s] production depend on?”

Likely purposefully, MyBO is a very simple website in terms of its

technological requirements. It makes little use of technologies which require a

high-bandwidth connection such as Flash and videos. This is especially

important in a country like the United States where the „digital divide‟ is still a

very prominent factor when discussing civic engagement. The simplicity of the

site means that far more people would be able to access and make use of its

features than on technology-heavy sites such as MySpace and YouTube. This

is especially important given that much of Obama‟s support came from ethnic

and inner city communities as well as from voters with relatively low levels of

education (CIRCLE 2008). Indeed, besides the relatively graphics-heavy

31

background of the site which is simply the standard branding of all of the

Obama campaign‟s portals on the web, there is nothing that requires even a

broadband connection, let alone special browsing capabilities.

Substantive content

The „home page‟ (referred to internally as the „dashboard‟) of MyBO is unique

for each person (see Figure 4). It includes direct links to the user‟s personal

profile and blog, areas which borrow heavily from Facebook, as well as a

personalized resource titled “Neighbor to Neighbor” which collects information

on campaigns in which the user can participate in their own neighbourhood.

The „dashboard‟ also allows users to connect their MyBO account with their

„Facebook‟ account, provides links to personal fundraising and event planning

Figure 4 – The home page or „dashboard‟ of MyBO. Note the “Making a Difference” Activity Index, the “Connect

with Facebook” link, the “Neighbor to Neighbor” section and the prominent “Donate Now” button at the top. Also of

interest is the prominence of the “Community” section on the right-hand side of the screen which indicates the

importance of drawing connections between the user‟s online network and their offline „community‟.

32

areas, and arguably most importantly, gives the user a „score‟ on an “Activity

Index”. The activity index is designed as a personal motivation tool and

through a fairly complex system allows users to gain points by performing

„traditional‟ campaign tasks – from knocking on doors to raising money and

then reporting those activities back to the campaign.

Young people are used to being given scores. Whether it is as a member of a

recreational sports team, as a student being given their grades at school or as

a member of the digital generation getting their score in a video game, young

people often expect to be scored and the urge to better one‟s record (or beat

a friend) can be a powerful incentive. Simply, in many aspects of everyday life,

young people expect to be given a score, a mark or a rating of some kind.

How and why this practice exists is inconsequential for this study. What is

significant however is that this tendency is motivational and especially as

applied by MyBO, it is constructive.

The Activity Index is the most visible object on the MyBO dashboard and

displayed under the heading; “Making a Difference”. It encourages users to do

more for the campaign and spurs competition between friends and peers

using the network in a way which, thanks again to Facebook and MySpace,

young people are already familiar. For example, a volunteer may knock on

one hundred doors or make two hundred phone calls during a campaign, but

under normal circumstances, they are never given any indication what impact,

if any, their actions had on the outcome of the election. MyBO and its activity

index, however arbitrary, tell users exactly how beneficial their actions have

been and how much of a difference they have made by assigning a numerical

value to their activities. This fact also strengthens the evidence for the

importance of Web 3.0 to the Obama campaign. The activity index, by serving

as both a motivational tool and an online link to offline activities, reinforces the

centrality to the campaign of bridging the gap between the two „worlds‟ (Moss

and Phillips 2009). Rather than in the past, where a similar tool may have

simply counted the number of emails sent in support of the candidate or at

best, instructed the user to contact the campaign office for further instructions,

the MyBO dashboard integrates seamlessly the offline and online worlds,

exemplifying Web 3.0. This emergence of Web 3.0 has the additional effect of

33

further weakening the claim that the internet has a negative impact on the

public sphere by creating numerous “public sphericules” (Gitlin 1998; Sassi

2001). Rather, MyBO and the philosophy of Web 3.0 demonstrate that the

internet can in fact develop the public sphere – bringing those who otherwise

may remain on the outside into the community and strengthening existing

bonds between communities.

The site also makes use of the theory proposed by David Perlmutter that

political blogs work best when they promote a sense of “commilito”. A

prominent part of MyBO was the internal network of groups, events and blogs

that brought together activists and supporters on a single street, a county, a

state and indeed, the entire nation. Blogs written by campaign staff, ordinary

supporters and celebrities were available for all members to see and

comment on. Indeed, emulating that ideal of „fellow-soldiership‟ Brian Reich

points out that “...there was essentially a top down message and the tools in

the digital campaign were designed to facilitate as many different ways as

possible for people to share that message” (Reich personal interview). This,

coupled with blog posts and a Twitter account maintained in the candidate‟s

name (though by campaign staff) gave young supporters and activists, the

primary users of these services, the sense that they had the ear of the

candidate – that Barack Obama was listening to, and cared about what they

said. This is especially significant given the work done by Fahmy (2006) and

Livingstone et al (2007) which demonstrated that one of the most compelling

causes of apathy among youth is the belief that politicians and political elites

do not listen to and do not care about the issues of young people. Despite the

fact that, as Thomas Gensemer (2009), has pointed out, Obama doesn‟t

personally use Twitter, users are still left with the impression that they‟re

interacting directly with the „powers that be‟ (Perlmutter personal interview).

This sense of camaraderie was amplified by personalized emails and text

messages sent to activists‟ cell phones.

It is important to note that while MyBO was designed as a tool to expand on

the activities and assist activists of all shapes and sizes that was not

necessarily the end result. Indeed, one of the few positive aspects of the

34

digital divide is that the fact that internet users are generally younger means

that young people were more likely to make use of this service. This

combined with young people‟s familiarity with similar services such as

Facebook and MySpace means that there is little doubt that it is young people

who benefited the most from this innovative use of technology.

Navigation and Functionality

Navigating through MyBO‟s interface is relatively straightforward, especially

for people who have some familiarity with similar social networks such as

Facebook. Indeed, Chris Hughes‟ involvement with Facebook undoubtedly

played a significant role in the development of MyBO. It is important to note

that MyBO is more than just a database of potential campaign calls and blogs.

It is a social network in the vein of Web 2.0 which connects people through

online friendships and common interest groups such as “Students for Barack

Obama”, “Environmentalists for Obama”, “People of Faith for Obama” and

over 28,000 others. This aspect of the service allowed activists to share best

practices and to meet others with similar interests from all across the United

States, not just in chat rooms but through phone calls and strategy sessions –

certainly an example of Web 3.0 and the expansion of the public sphere.

The functionality of MyBO revolves around the Activity Index discussed above.

Users are told how many events they hosted or attended, how many calls

they have made, how many blog posts they have written, how much money

they have raised for the campaign and other relevant statistics. These ratings

direct users to how they can contribute most effectively to the campaign. For

example, if a user does not have enough „points‟ in the “Number of blog

posts” category, it is a simple matter for them to click on the “Write a Post”

button under the “My Blog” heading. The same is true for the other important

aspects of the digital campaign – from fundraising to event coordination.

Aesthetic Design

In contrast to the main Barack Obama campaign site, MyBO is very simple in

terms of aesthetic design. It is interesting, given the iconography that arose

35

during the campaign around Obama and his campaign, that MyBO maintained

little more (in visual terms) than the background and title banner of the main

site. In contrast to the main campaign site, the functional areas of the MyBO

dashboard and subsidiary areas of the site clearly put much more emphasis

on efficiency and ease of use than on aesthetics. Despite the impressive use

of graphics and images in other areas of his campaign, their relative scarcity

on MyBO is not surprising given the site‟s purpose. Indeed, as Brian Reich

points out, unlike Obama‟s YouTube videos and main campaign site, MyBO is

not meant to change anyone‟s mind or convince potential voters, but rather to

get a job done (personal interview). Indeed, MyBO could be likened to a

corporate intranet in its design and layout. Where the main campaign site is

predominantly blue with white and lighter blue typefaces, MyBO makes heavy

use of white backgrounds with black and grey typefaces. This is significant as

the blue and white motif of the main site is likely designed to evoke feelings of

freedom and the notion that „the sky is the limit‟, an idea supported by the

image of Obama gazing into the distance which is featured at the top of the

site (Machin 2007). In contrast, the MyBO colour scheme is businesslike and

professional, intended not to be associated with the inspirational imagery

which usually follows Obama, but rather focussed on the seriousness of their

endeavour.

The most important visual feature of MyBO however is its emphasis on

community and cooperative effort. All of the most important features of MyBO

in some way attempt to bridge the gap between the online network and „in-

person networks‟ and every page has a link back to the “My Neighborhood”

page which connects the user with people, groups and events in their area.

Obama‟s campaign director for Maryland, Jeremy Bird, has pointed out that

the campaign was surprised to discover that what they had originally thought

was simply an online group of Obama supporters on MyBO actually turned

out to be a serious campaign organization which, by the time the official

campaign arrived, had already set up a fully functional campaign office in the

state capital (McGirt p.4).

36

Interactivity

MyBO has set a new standard for interactivity in the use of the internet for

political campaigns. Never before has such an extensive infrastructure been

put to work for the sole purpose of engaging activists and directing campaign

efforts. Every aspect of the site is interactive. Users can post their own blogs

or comment on the blogs posted by campaign staff or other users. Activists

are able to see a list of undecided voters who live near them or a list of

undecided voters across the country who shared a common trait with them,

such as their profession. They could send automated emails to friends and

relatives requesting donations and start online groups based on any issue or

personal characteristic and then create events to meet with others in their

groups. MyBO allowed supporters to do from the comfort of their own homes

more than they could have done at a local campaign office.

The establishment of MyBO allowed activists to interact both with each other

and with campaign staff in a manner radically different from those tools which

came before. Where past digital campaign interactions were usually one way,

or involved limited and always moderated two-way communication in settings

such as an online „town hall‟ meeting or simply blog posts, MyBO allowed

serious conversations to take place between the grassroots and the

backrooms. Where previous campaigns waited for supporters to come to

them, MyBO brought the campaign to Obama‟s supporters and it did so in a

language and method which young people understand and make use of on a

daily basis. This appreciation for how modern technology can be put to use as

a vehicle for tried and tested organizing techniques will undoubtedly have

significant implications for future political campaigns

37

Chapter 5

Engaging on Their Terms: An Analysis of Barack Obama’s Facebook Page

On a technical level, Obama‟s Facebook page meets all of the criteria laid out

by Langley and by Wakeford for a successful website. Indeed, his Facebook

page is just as searchable as his primary web page (www.barackobama.com).

When searching “Barack Obama” on Google, the Barack Obama Facebook

page is the 5th result, with his MySpace profile as the 8th result. While the

result does move further down on Yahoo Search, which uses a different

method for indexing web pages, Obama‟s Facebook page is still found on the

first page of search results. The high placement of these search results helps

to indicate the ubiquity of the social networking sites and the importance of

the candidate‟s profiles to the overall campaign effort. When young people

spend an average of 20-30 minutes on a site like Facebook, it is not surprising

that the campaign would place a high value on its importance (alexa.com;

Perlmutter personal interview). Finally, using the internal Facebook search

engine, “Barack Obama” brings up his main Facebook page as the first result

and significantly, “Students for Barack Obama” is the third result, again

indicating the importance of young people to the intersection of online social

networks and politics.

The target audience of Facebook is best discerned by looking at who makes

up its user base. According to data gathered by Alexa, which bills itself as

“The Web Information Company,” Facebook users as a segment of the

„internet population‟ very closely mirror the „internet population‟ as a segment

of the population at large. Facebook users are typically young, male and well

educated. This is reflected in the content posted by Obama staff on his page.

The page makes heavy use of embedded YouTube videos, and often links to

action items which direct activists to their personal MyBO page and which

then allows them to make calls or send emails on a given issue. His Facebook

page also embraced unofficial campaign resources, such as the well known

„Yes We Can‟ video produced by popular musician Will.I.Am

38

(Facebook.com/BarackObama). As Lynda Lee Kaid (2009) acknowledges, it

was YouTube content such as the „Yes We Can‟ video which; “… honed

Obama‟s „rock star‟ image,” another reason why the campaign made such a

concerted effort to integrate these different aspects of the social media world

into Obama‟s most popular social networking „home‟, Facebook. Brian Reich

also emphasizes the importance of social networking sites such as Facebook

by pointing out that what made the difference was how Obama had; “… an

appreciation for the way that people get and share information and the way

they form communities and how he can be a part of different communities…

and empower people to carry his message forward…” (personal interview).

Finally, Barack Obama‟s Facebook presence incorporates extensive

interactive content. Besides being able to read informative blog-style posts on

a variety of issues, users can post comments on news items. While this

aspect is similar to previous incarnations of the internet campaign and differs

little from traditional blogs, that changes rapidly when it becomes clear that

users can post their own news and messages on the page almost in the style

of a „group blog‟, a medium not normally associated with election campaigns.

Further, users can watch videos of Obama or follow links to the interactive

MyBO site, creating a campaign network within users‟ existing Facebook

networks. Users can also see events that Obama is attending and indicate

their own attendance. Finally, the Facebook page gives users a quick method

to view and comment on the traditional Barack Obama blog, thus fully

integrating the different aspects of the digital campaign. While all of these

aspects of Obama‟s digital campaign may seem to be a rather quick shift from

previous campaigns, it is far from an accident. Perlmutter points out that from

the beginning; “…there was always a sense that the blogging people, the

MySpace people, the YouTube people, the texting people and the cellphone

people were part of the [organizational] conversation at the upper levels”

(personal interview).

While Facebook was arguably Obama‟s most significant presence on social

media, it was hardly the only one. According to his website, Obama had a

presence on; Facebook, MySpace, YouTube (a video sharing site – Alexa

39

rank 3), Flickr (a photo sharing site – Alexa rank 30), Twitter (a relatively new

micro-blogging service– Alexa rank 31), LinkedIn (a social network for

professionals – Alexa rank 91), Digg (a site which uses user feedback to rank

news stories – Alexa rank 156), Eventful (an event tracking site– Alexa rank

4,248) and a number of „niche‟ social networks, including sites aimed at

African Americans, Christians, Baby Boomers, Latinos and Asian Americans..

At the simplest level, it seems that the Obama campaign was striving for

complete market saturation. Regardless which site was your favourite, which

interest group you were part of or what issue you identified most closely with,

Obama had at least one, if not two or three networks on the Web from which

you could engage with the campaign.

By apparently „choosing‟ online social networks over blogs and other static

communication, young people have seemingly begun to answer Robert

Putnam‟s question about the role of the internet in the creation of social

capital. By choosing interactivity and community over pundits and static text

(no matter how „hip‟ a blog may be), young people – and young voters in

particular, have defined the internet clearly as a „niftier telephone‟ – bringing

people together and building social capital, not further dividing them and

maintaining existing divisions, as blogs would.

Interaction Scenario

The different aspects of Obama‟s digital campaign described in this

dissertation do not stand alone. Rather, they are all interlinked and rely on

each other as much as they rely on „real world‟ engagement. (Kaid 2009;

Moss and Phillips 2009)

A hypothetical student‟s first contact with the Obama campaign may have

come from seeing (by way of the activity tracker referred to as the “News

Feed”) that a „friend‟ on Facebook had posted information or a news story

about Barack Obama, established a connection with Barack Obama‟s page or

linked to one of his YouTube videos. From there, the student would be

directed Obama‟s own page where they might become a “Fan” (as page

40

subscriber are referred to) and see on his page a link to the Facebook „group‟

“Students for Barack Obama”. That group may have then directed the student

to www.barackobama.com/students (see Figure 5), a site containing

resources geared specifically to student activists taking into account campus

life and the specific policy concerns of supporters in the relevant age group.

The student focussed site, like similar sites for other important religious, social

and ethnic groups features a blog by Obama‟s student campaign director,

videos by celebrities and links to events which would be of concern to

students.

That site would likely have led

the student to sign up for a

personal MyBO account (if they

had not already been led there

from Obama‟s main Facebook

page). After signing up at MyBO,

the campaign would begin

sending the student regular

personalized email updates

based on specific demographic

information gathered from their

activities on the site (Gensemer

2009). In one (and likely more

than one) of those emails, the

student would have been asked

to provide their mobile phone number to the campaign – information which the

campaign planned to use mainly to get out their vote in November but also, in

what some called a stroke of genius, to announce the candidate‟s Vice-

Presidential running mate by text message rather than the traditional press

conference (Stelter 2008).

In addition to the obvious value of such an interconnected campaign presence,

it is instructive to note the number of aspects of the above „roadmap‟ which to

some extent establish or build on the sense of „commilito‟ which the campaign

Figure 5 – The home page of Students for Barack Obama

(www.barackobama.com/students)

41

no doubt hoped to develop. Indeed, it is present from first contact. By

observing interaction on, for example, one‟s Facebook news feed, the student

immediately establishes a personal connection with the candidate‟s imagined

presence. This continues right to the student‟s visit to the Barack Obama

campaign site and to MyBO, where he would receive messages, watch videos

and read blog postings „from‟ Barack Obama. It is significant to note however,

that while the page in question purports to be Barack Obama‟s, most people

likely understand that the candidate himself does not actively engage with the

site. Perlmutter points out that while in 2004, some activists were

disappointed in this „3rd party effect‟; “…people… now know that social media

and politics means you and I, not you and the candidate. That the candidate

can‟t have a social media presence except to empower our social media

presence” (personal interview). This again

serves as an example of the importance of

Web 3.0 both to the Obama campaign and to

the future of digital politics. In the above

quote, Perlmutter makes clear that the aspect

of Obama‟s web presence which should be of

note is the connections which Facebook,

MyBO and similar tools create between

activists and supporters. Connections which,

by design, are most useful when transformed

from digital to physical (Moss and Phillips

2009).

In his speech at Grant Park in Chicago on

election night, Obama reminded listeners of a

recurring theme from the campaign, that the

Obama campaign had done things differently

from the start. “We didn‟t start with much

money or many endorsements. Our

campaign was not hatched in the halls of

Washington; it began in the backyards of Des

Moines and the living rooms of Concord... It grew strength from the young

Figure 6 – A sample of Barack Obama‟s

Twitter posts.

42

people who rejected the myth of their generation‟s apathy...” (Obama 2008).

For the first time, a major political campaign embraced the internet on its own

terms and for the benefit of its users, not simply as an extension of the

traditional campaign. While in other circumstances these words may be taken

as little more than populist rhetoric, Perlmutter (personal interview) observes

that;

…it‟s interesting to me that this Senator from Illinois, only two years into his term, was able to become President of the United States. And I think most people agree that four years earlier it wouldn‟t have happened…. Social media served as a force multiplier that made it possible to break through the wall of money and political connections that Clinton had….

Given the heavy traffic which Facebook and similar social networking sites

enjoy, especially among youth (alexa.com), it should not be a surprise that the

Obama campaign, which began the election very much the underdog, made

extensive use of this essentially free media. As one senior campaign

organizer pointed out (personal interview), social media such as Facebook is

one of the few constants in an otherwise “transient” lifestyle for the college

students who make up a significant percentage of young voters (CIRCLE).

This means that by maintaining such an active presence on the site, the

campaign could engage with youth on a level and through a medium which

they appreciate. By then connecting the campaign‟s social media presence

with resources such as MyBO designed to motivate activists, the campaign

demonstrated that it is indeed possible to combine traditional and proven

campaign tactics with effective and innovative digital participation.

43

Chapter 6

The Role of Social Networks: A Discussion

While MyBO was a tool for activists and committed supporters, the Obama

campaign was well aware that the digital generation, as far as American

politics is concerned, is a large, diverse and relatively untapped population

(Perlmutter 2008; Mesch and Coleman 2007; Xenos and Bennett 2007). The

2008 Obama campaign took advantage of the explosive growth of social

networking and Web 2.0 and oversaw a transition from blog-based politics

back to network-based politics – only this time, moving to online networks.

This is a transition that has the potential to define online politics for the

foreseeable future. This chapter will discuss the results of the website

analyses while asking why the Obama campaign succeeded where past

campaigns had failed.

Prior to the 2008 Presidential election cycle, blogs were arguably the most

prominent example of digital politics. As Perlmutter has pointed out, many

politicians have attempted to blog, though only a few managed to do so

successfully. Indeed, Perlmutter has explained that; “I don‟t think that blogging

by politicians is… a powerful medium of expression within politics at this point”

(personal interview). Successful political bloggers, according to Perlmutter

(2008a), must relate to their readers and be able to write in a manner which

balances the personal nature of blogs with their professional role as a

politician – a synthesis which is unfamiliar to most politicians and unique to

the blog form. It is thus not surprising that in 2008 the emphasis of the digital

campaign shifted to social networks.

In a roundtable moderated by Perlmutter during the 2008 Presidential primary

campaign, Joan McCarter of the prominent blog DailyKos argued that Obama

was at that point (in January 2008) last among the top three Democratic

candidates (Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards) in terms of his use of

political blogs. However; “In terms of using social networking sites like

MySpace and Facebook, Obama has taken the lead” (Perlmutter 2008b

44

p.162). This is especially significant considering Obama‟s success with young

voters, both in the primaries and general election. In the general election, as

mentioned earlier, young voters chose one candidate (Obama) in greater

numbers than their adult counterparts for the first time since 1976 (CIRCLE

2008). Perlmutter points to the Iowa caucus as a similar situation. He reports

that a record percentage of Democratic voters in Iowa (22 percent) were

under thirty years old and that Obama won a startling 57 percent of that youth

vote (Perlmutter 2008b p.163). McCarter and others (Kaid 2009, Ord 2008),

attribute this unprecedented success to “his MySpace and Facebook outreach

efforts.” Perlmutter agrees that; “the social media is where the real action is

going on” (personal interview). Just as importantly, Perlmutter explains that

the target of Obama‟s outreach efforts to social media such as Facebook and

MySpace was what he calls “the social media generation”, “20-somethings

and [the] millennial generation” (personal interview). Matthew Fraser and

Soumitra Dutta (2008) agree, noting the unprecedented levels of support

Obama received from what they refer to as “the Facebook generation” –

Americans under 25. In this, Brian Reich also agrees, pointing out that by

speaking to young people in a language and in a form which they are familiar

with, he integrated politics into their everyday lives, in effect, bringing politics

to them rather than asking them to come to the campaign (personal interview).

Perlmutter (2008a p.72; personal interview) and others such as Joan

McCarter (Perlmutter 2008b p.163) point to the rapid demise of Howard

Dean‟s 2004 primary campaign as an example of the failure of blogs. In the

run up to that campaign, much was made in the traditional media of the blog

„hype‟ being accorded to Dean. His campaign was seen as being driven by

the blogs and indeed that ended up being the campaign‟s downfall. Blogs, like

any traditional form of media, can shape opinion and influence others, but on

their own, cannot increase participation, win more than a handful of votes or

do any meaningful campaigning. Perlmutter explains that; “With Obama there

was an integration of the technology and the message which fit very well, it

felt authentic” (personal interview). He goes on to compare Obama‟s

relationship with digital media to John F. Kennedy‟s relationship to television.

Similarly, Brian Reich notes that the difference came from the fact that the

45

Obama campaign used an important aspect of the everyday lives of many

young people (Facebook) and; “insert[ed] politics into the information stream

of their day” rather than attempting to “get a whole bunch of people to

disconnect from whatever patterns they have in their existing lives and tune in

to politics” of their own accord (personal interview).

Interestingly, it is exactly this tactic of inserting the desired message into the

ordinary routine of a person‟s day that was the hallmark of the „agitation‟-style

community organizing in which Obama‟s campaign politics are based

(Gensemer 2009; Lizza 2007). Finally, Joan McCarter, pointed out that while;

“...bloggers can by very influential in their own circles[,] I think that we‟re not

yet at the point where [bloggers] are extensively shaping a larger media

narrative” (Perlmutter 2008b p. 168). Rather, it is the combination of the

technology and traditional campaign methods, in other words, Web 3.0, which

lead to success.

It should not be surprising then that Obama‟s success came on the backs not

of the blogs but of the social networks and Web 3.0. In many ways, the

interactivity of blogs – the exchange of ideas, primarily through the

„commenting‟ feature – is an old media kind of interactivity not unlike sending

a letter to the editor of a newspaper. The most important example of this is

that blogs are often one way forms of communication, where the blogs‟

comments are only read by other commenters rather than the person who

initiated the „conversation‟. This is particularly true when the purported author

is more prominent (though there are cases when blog authors respond to

comments, making the conversation 2-way). In addition, the content itself is

generally static (v-logs – video logs, excepted), which, to many young people

today, is already outdated in comparison to other Web technologies. Finally,

blogs are a closed form of communication. Especially when it is obvious that

the purported author of the blog, in this case Barack Obama, is no more

writing his own blog posts than he is writing his own speeches, blogs, no

matter how familiar a tone they may be written in, may seem to young people

to be simple one more way for elites to dictate to them (Xenos and Bennett

2007, Reich personal interview).

46

Social networks on the other hand, such as Facebook and MySpace, offer

exactly the opposite to users. Facebook, on which Obama‟s own MyBO is

based, allows users the opportunity to build their own social networks by

joining shared interest groups, planning common events, comparing cultural

interests and a nearly unlimited number of other interactive possibilities. New

media consultant Brian Reich takes this even further by arguing that it is up to

the politicians to make politics and government accessible to young people in

a manner with which they are most comfortable:

I think what Obama realized is that people are not that interested in politics. So the likelihood that you‟re going to get a whole bunch of people to disconnect from whatever patterns they have in their existing lives and tune in to politics at the level and depth that political junkies like myself and other people do is unrealistic. So a much better strategy is to take something that relates to their lives and to insert politics into the information stream of their day (personal interview).

Thus, Obama, no doubt in large part thanks to his experience with traditional

organizing and „agitation‟ techniques, understood that dictating to and

patronizing young people – a demographic he would have to carry if he was to

win the election, would simply not be enough (Perlmutter personal interview;

Reich personal interview; Williams and Gulati 2007). Indeed, according to

Thomas Gensemer, from the very beginning of the campaign, it was made

clear that; “…the model of politics was going to be based on traditional

community organizing. So the challenge was to layer technology on that…”

(2009). While according to Perlmutter, the McCain campaign; “decided

campaign strategy just like in 1996 and then they realized „Oh ya we better do

some blog stuff on this‟” (personal interview), the Obama campaign clearly

understood that they needed to „inject‟ the candidate into the everyday lives of

young Americans. To Chris Hughes and Obama‟s „new media‟ team, this

meant social networking (McGirt 2009).

Why young people have flocked to these sites in such numbers is not the

subject of this study, but it is undeniable that they have. According to Alexa

(www.alexa.com), one of the most prominent sources of information about

Web usage, Facebook is the 4th busiest website on the internet, as calculated

by a combination of average daily visitors and monthly page view information.

47

This translates into 20% of all Web users making use of Facebook.

Significantly for this study; as a proportion of the “general internet population”

users in the 18-24 years old and 25-34 years old age groups are significantly

over-represented in visits to Facebook.com. While the average traffic to

MySpace is slightly lower than to Facebook, users which this study considers

„young voters‟ are again over-represented. These statistics are especially

significant given that they take the digital divide into account. In these cases,

young people are not over-represented in terms of their place in the overall

population, but rather in terms of their numbers compared to the total

„connected population‟, what Alexa describes as “the general internet

population.” (alexa.com)

The importance of online social networks to the campaign is evidenced by the

fact that with more than two million supporters during the election (compared

to John McCain‟s 600,000), Obama‟s Facebook page was one of the most

popular on the site. Obama‟s numbers on Twitter are no less staggering –

with 112,000 „followers‟ to McCain‟s paltry 4,600 (Fraser and Dutta 2008).

Indeed, the popular blog “Mashable”, billed as “The Social Media Blog” claims

that “Barack Obama made history with his Facebook usage” (Parr 2009).

Perhaps most staggering however is the fact that the 1,800 videos added to

Obama‟s YouTube „channel‟ were watched 97 Million times during the

campaign, beating the McCain campaign by 4 to 1 (Fraser and Dutta 2008).

Yet it was not simply the technology that permitted the Obama campaign to

make such significant inroads with young voters. Rather, according to Brian

Reich, it was; “his appreciation for the way that people get and share

information, the way they form communities and how he could... empower

people to carry his message forward” (personal interview) that led to his

success, a position echoed by Perlmutter (personal interview) and by Thomas

Gensemer, managing partner of Blue State Digital, the company tasked with

designing Obama‟s online presence (Moss and Phillips 2009).

Indeed, this understanding of how young people today process information in

some ways bring Obama‟s career full circle, back to his lessons in „agitation‟

and his experience in traditional community organizing (Gensemer 2009).

48

Perlmutter explains that; “He got a political education in a very traditional way,

but he was able to marry all the new stuff to that traditional political education.

He wasn‟t a prisoner of his past” (personal interview). Rather than focussing

on the mainstream media and polling data as his opponents did, his

understanding of, as Brian Reich puts it; “old-school grassroots politics”

(personal interview) and his ability to relate to people on their own terms

meant that his social networking presence empowered young people to

contribute in their own way and on their own terms – a completely new

experience for many, if not most of them. As Perlmutter explains it; “You could

say that Obama was the iPhone and McCain was the landline” (personal

interview).

As a result of that traditional political education, Obama understood, as

Thomas Gensemer explained; “that you as my neighbour knocking on my

door meant more than a paid organiser or even [Obama] himself knocking on

the door” (Moss and Phillips 2009). While many candidates in 2008 at all

levels of government have their own Facebook profiles, Williams and Gulati

(2007), writing after the 2006 mid-term congressional elections, observed that

while Facebook had the potential to “[play] an important role and… [has] the

capability of affecting the electoral process” politicians‟ inability to translate

online enthusiasm into offline action was the primary stumbling block to that

much anticipated success.

It is interesting to note that Williams and Gulati list as the most important

reasons for Facebook being held back as a political tool; the relatively low

turnout of young voters and candidates inability to use Facebook to “facilitate

off-line political activities” (2007 p.18). Yet one election later, Moss and

Phillips, in an interview with Thomas Gensemer (2009) point out that; “Rather

than merely join this network, passively clicking a button to donate or express

an allegiance to Obama, members were encouraged to go out into the real

world to knock on doors, hand out leaflets and spread the word.” This, in

concert with the marked increase in voter turnout among young people, have

in effect proved Williams and Gulati right and in the process, demonstrated

the existence and importance of Web 3.0.

49

As testified to by Thomas Gensemer, the candidate understood the need to

bring the campaign to young people on their own terms and subsequently

bring young people back to the campaign in a more traditional manner. This

synthesis led to unprecedented support from young voters and in all likelihood,

a new paradigm for online politics (Moss and Phillips 2009).

The Obama campaign‟s successful use of online social networks is the result

of many different factors coming together to produce a meaningful digital

conversation between the campaign and its supporters. Certainly the

importance of online social networks to the campaign would have been

greatly diminished were they not such a pervasive aspect of young

Americans‟ daily routines. Yet even with such high usage rates among young

voters, other candidates such as John McCain and Hillary Clinton failed to

even come close to the success enjoyed by the Obama campaign. Certainly,

the candidate‟s personal charisma and image was not insignificant, but the

key factor was Obama‟s synthesis of the new realities of the American

network society and the traditional organizing techniques that has elected

politicians and brought communities together for decades. Neither aspect

could have succeeded without the other. This then is Web 3.0 and it is this

„next generation‟ of the internet – an upgrade of methods rather than

technology – that made the difference.

50

Chapter 7

Conclusion

The 2008 American Presidential election was no doubt an election of firsts.

The first time a woman and African American competed for a major party

nomination and the first time an African American was elected President.

Based on the evidence in this dissertation, it is also the first time that the

internet played a critical role in the outcome of the election and the first time

that young voters, as a group, cast their vote differently than voters over 30

years old (CIRCLE 2008). While concluding definitively how Barack Obama

won the election and why youth voted for him in such large numbers would

require extensive surveys and ethnography, Perlmutter leaves no room for

doubt when he argues that;

Barack Obama would not be President of the United States if the internet didn‟t exist. I don‟t think he‟d be President of the United States if he‟d run in 2004, I think this was the time and this was the technology and these were the venues and this was the political and economic situation. The nodes and the stars aligned (personal interview).

Through the use of Web 3.0, the synthesis of digital communication

technologies with traditional offline political action, Barack Obama mobilized

thousands of supporters, many of whom had never voted or been politically

active before (Gensemer 2009).

This dissertation has discussed the Obama campaign‟s web presence

through the lens of two of the most prominent and politically significant

aspects of that presence – the activist portal MyBO and Obama‟s page on the

social networking site Facebook. While MyBO and Facebook arguably had

the most impact, the importance of the other facets of the campaign‟s online

presence, especially YouTube, the launching pad of the „viral videos‟ that

contributed significantly to knowledge among youth of his campaign, must

also be acknowledged. While the question of how young people accessed

Obama‟s YouTube videos may be the subject of another study, their regular

51

presence embedded on his Facebook page meant that it was more efficient,

and indeed a more accurate representation of the interlinked Web for this

study to analyze his Facebook presence.

That analysis of Barack Obama‟s Facebook page found that it incorporated an

appreciation for how young people, in general, operate that had previously

been lacking from major political campaigns. By placing the candidate within

the normal daily routines and conversations of the millions of youth who use

Facebook (and similar sites) on a daily basis, the Obama campaign brought

politics to those who many otherwise believe have no interest political

participation (Livingstone et al 2007). It is interesting to note Loader‟s (2007

p.2) argument in support of the “cultural displacement perspective” as

explained in Chapter 2;

Parliamentary and congressional forums, voting booths and the restrictions of social class-based party allegiance contrast strongly with the self-expression induced communication spaces of MySpace, MSN, Flickr4 and mobile texting as a potential means to enable young people‟s political efficacy.

Writing in 2007, it apparently seemed to Loader that there was essentially no

way to bridge the gap between the multi-directional, “many to many”

(Livingstone 2007 p.103) style of communication which the digital generation

was used to and the traditional understanding of political engagement.

However, by fundamentally changing how a political campaign interacted with

youth, by injecting itself into the day-to-day lives of young people and in effect,

bringing the campaign to them, the Obama campaign seemingly bridged that

gap. Indeed, by coming to them, rather than expecting young people to come

to the campaign on their own accord, it is likely that Obama began to dispel

the notion common among many young people that their leaders have little

interest in their concerns (Dahlgren and Olsson 2007).

Once engaged, the Obama campaign still did not expect supporters and

activists to come to the campaign, as had always been the norm. Rather, with

the establishment of the MyBO activist network, the campaign harnessed the

4 Italics in original

52

idea that, as Perlmutter notes; “the smallest unit of people is a group, not an

individual” (personal interview). The Obama campaign took a major step

forward, both in politics and in use of the internet, by embracing Web 3.0 and

encouraging supporters to build their own social capital. By knocking on their

neighbours‟ doors and making calls to people with whom they shared a

profession or other trait; by building new offline networks and strengthening

existing communities the Obama campaign demonstrated not only that the

internet has the potential to play a role in civic life in ways scarcely imagined

previously, but also that it was possible, indeed, beneficial to engage even the

least interested groups of people in civic life.

Social capital was not the only societal good that the campaign demonstrated

the internet could strengthen. While some (Gitlin 1998, Dahlgren 2001; Sassi

2001) have argued that the internet fragments the global public sphere, Web

3.0, as used by the Obama campaign, can in fact strengthen the public

sphere by bringing those who otherwise may remain on the outside into the

community. The cooperation and shared values discovered by many through

tools like MyBO enabled the creation of new public spaces and forums;

spaces in which the media, politicians and voters operated side by side.

Unlike the generations of their parents and grandparents, it can be argued

that today‟s youth are not interested in “hiring a leader” so that that person

can “take care of things for us.” Rather, as Brian Reich points out;

…the digital approach and playing into the expectations that [young] people have that they could take ownership over the campaign and that they could take ownership of the problems we have in our society… absolutely contributed to younger people finally being engaged in politics (personal interview).

Thus, it would seem that it is no longer sufficient to simply ask people to vote

for a certain candidate. Youth today, a far more significant voting bloc than

previously thought as a result of years of low voter turnout, will not be content

to be spoken at and preached to. Rather, if the Obama campaign is any

indication, they will demand to play an active role at all levels and to do so in a

53

manner familiar to them. In other words, if politicians want to engage young

voters, they must do so on young people‟s terms.

As the Obama campaign found, this notion of engaging with young people on

their own terms is not something which should be a struggle for future

campaigns. Indeed, by simply providing them with the tools – such as those

on MyBO – to engage with the issues and with others in a manner with which

they are familiar, young people, in general, will not hesitate to contribute.

Through incentives such as the Activity Index, connections to their regular

routine such as blogs, YouTube videos and Facebook links and connections

with issues that are of concern to them and in their power to affect change,

young people will contribute to and indeed, take ownership of the campaign.

This dissertation has shown what the Obama campaign‟s use of digital

communication technologies could accomplish and has extrapolated what

their likely impact was. However, it is important that future research examine

the other side of this issue, what young people themselves experienced and

appreciated and how their understanding of these new campaign techniques

affected their participation in the election. Both questions, the one answered

here and that which is still to be answered, are important to appreciating the

future role young people will play in politics and civil society more generally.

By achieving a greater understanding of these issues, politicians and

governments will be better able to engage young citizens in civil society.

Academics, when claiming to forecast the direction the internet will take, have

a fairly regular tendency to be wrong. However, one thing that the Obama

campaign‟s harnessing of Web 3.0 to engage youth will almost certainly

ensure is that politicians can no longer afford to risk taking the youth vote for

granted, as has too often happened in the past. Rather, by inserting politics

and civic life into the regular day-to-day routines and conversations of young

people, politicians and indeed, society in general, stands to gain a great deal.

54

Bibliography

ANONYMOUS, A. Implementer Interviewed by SHEFMAN, C. (9 July 2009)

ANONYMOUS, B. Implementer Interviewed by SHEFMAN, C. (9 July 2009)

ANONYMOUS, C. Implementer Interviewed by SHEFMAN, C. (9 July 2009)

ALEXA.COM. 2009. Alexa: The Web Information Company [Online].

Amazon.com. .

AXFORD, B. 2001. The Transformation of Politics or Anti-Politics. In:

AXFORD, B. & HUGGINS, R. (eds.) New Media and Politics. London:

Sage Publications Ltd.

BOGARD, C. J., SHEINHEIT, I. & CLARKE, R. P. 2008. Information they can

trust: Increasing youth voter turnout at the university. Ps-Political

Science & Politics, 41, 541-546.

BYRNE, B. 2004. Qualitative Interviewing. In: SEALE, C. (ed.) Researching

Society and Culture. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.

CALENDA, D. & MOSCA, L. 2007. Youth Online: Researching the Political

Use of the Internet in the Italian Context. In: LOADER, B. D. (ed.)

Young Citizens in the Digital Age: Political Engagement, Young People

and New Media. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

CASTELLS, M. 2001. The Internet Galaxy. Reflections on the Internet,

Business and Society, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CHADWICK, A. 2006. Internet Politics: States, Citizens and New

Communication Technologies, New York, Oxford University Press.

CIRCLE 2008. Young Voters in the 2008 Presidential Election. The Center for

Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

DAHLGREN, P. 2001. The Transformation of Democracy? In: AXFORD, B. &

HUGGINS, R. (eds.) New Media and Politics. London: Sage

Publications Ltd.

DAHLGREN, P. 2007. Introduction: Youth, Civic Engagement and Learning

via New Media. In: DAHLGREN, P. (ed.) Young Citizens and New

Media: Learning for Democratic Participation. Abingdon, Oxon:

Routledge.

55

DAHLGREN, P. & OLSSON, T. 2007. Young Activists, Political Horizons and

the Internet: Adapting the Net to One's Purposes. In: LOADER, B. D.

(ed.) Young Citizens in the Digital Age: Political Engagement, Young

People and New Media. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

DAVIS, R. & OWEN, D. 1998. New Media and American Politics. New York:

Oxford University Press.

DAVIS, S. 2005. Presidential Campaigns Fine-tune Online Strategies.

Journalism Studies, 6, 241-244.

DINUCCI, D. 1999. Fragmented Future. Print. New York: F+W Media.

ELBERSE, A., HALE, M. L. & DUTTON, W. H. 2000. Guiding Voters through

the Net: the Democracy Network in a California Primary Election. In:

HACKER, K. L. & VAN DIJK, J. (eds.) Digital Democracy: Issues of

Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications.

FAHMY, E. 2006. Young Citizens: Young People's Involvement in Politics and

Decision Making, Hampshire, Ashgate Publishing Limited.

FOOT, K. A., SCHNEIDER, S. M. & DOUGHERTY, M. 2007. Online Structure

for Political Action in the 2004 U.S. Congressional Electoral Web

Sphere. In: KLUVER, R., JANKOWSKI, N., FOOT, K. & SCHNEIDER,

S. M. (eds.) The Internet and National Elections: A Comparative Study

of Web Campaigning. Oxford: Routledge.

FRASER, M. & DUTTA, S. 2008. Obama's win means future elections must

be fought online. Guardian Technology [Online].].

GENSEMER, T. 2009. Obama's (not so) Secret Weapon. City University

London.

GERODIMOS, R. & WARD, J. 2007. Rethinking Online Youth Civic

Engagement: Reflections on Web Content Analysis. In: LOADER, B. D.

(ed.) Young Citizens in the Digital Age: Political Engagement, Young

People and New Media. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

GILLHAM, B. 2005. Research Interviewing: The Range of Techniques,

Maidenhead, Open University Press.

GITLIN, T. 1998. Public Sphere or Public Sphericules? In: LIEBES, T. &

CURRAN, J. (eds.) Media, Ritual and Identity. London: Routledge.

KAID, L. L. 2009. Changing and Staying the Same: Communication in

Campaign 2008. Journalism Studies, 10, 417-423.

56

KEANE, J. 2000. Structural Transformations of the Public Sphere. In:

HACKER, K. L. & VAN DIJK, J. (eds.) Digital Democracy: Issues of

Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications.

LANGLEY, Q. 2008. Website Critique Toolkit. Cardiff: Cardiff University.

LIVINGSTONE, S. 2007. Interactivity and Participation on the Internet: Young

People's Response to the Civic Sphere. In: DAHLGREN, P. (ed.)

Young Citizens and New Media: Learning for Democratic Participation.

Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

LIVINGSTONE, S., COULDRY, N. & MARKHAM, T. 2007. Youthful Steps

Towards Civic Participation: Does the Internet Help? In: LOADER, B. D.

(ed.) Young Citizens in the Digital Age: Political Engagement, Young

People and New Media. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

LIZZA, R. 2007. The Agitator: Barack Obama's unlikely political education.

The New Republic [Online].

LOADER, B. D. 2007. Introduction: Young Citizens in the Digital Age:

Disaffected or Displaced. In: LOADER, B. D. (ed.) Young Citizens in

the Digital Age: Political Engagement, Young People and New Media.

Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

MACHIN, D. 2007. Introduction to multimodal analysis, London, Hodder

Arnold.

MCGIRT, E. 2009. How Chris Hughes Helped Launch Facebook and the

Barack Obama Campaign. Fast Company [Online]. Available:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/134/boy-wonder.html.

MESCH, G. S. & COLEMAN, S. 2007. New Media and New Voters: Young

People, the Internet and the 2005 UK Election Campaign. In: LOADER,

B. D. (ed.) Young Citizens in the Digital Age: Political Engagement,

Young People and New Media. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

MONTGOMERY, K., GOTTLIEB-ROBLES, B. & LARSON, G. O. 2004. Youth

as E-Citizens: Engaging the Digital Generation. Washington D.C.:

Center for Social Media, American University.

MOOG, S. & SLUYTER-BELTRAO, J. 2001. The Transformation of Political

Communication. In: AXFORD, B. & HUGGINS, R. (eds.) New Media

and Politics. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

MOSS, S. & PHILLIPS, S. 2009. Is this man the future of politics? Guardian

57

Politics [Online].].

OBAMA, B. 2008. Obama: Victory Speech. Chicago: The New York Times.

ORD, R. 2008. Eight Reasons the Internet has Changed Politics Forever.

WebProNews [Online].].

PARR, B. 2009. Obama: Does He Pass the Social Media Test? Mashable

[Online].].

Author. 2007. The Internet Election. The Straits Times.

PERLMUTTER, D. D. 2008a. Blogwars, New York, Oxford University Press.

PERLMUTTER, D. D. 2008b. Political Blogging and Campaign 2008: A

Roundtable. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13, 160-170.

PERLMUTTER, D. D. Interviewed by SHEFMAN, C. (15 July 2009)

PORTNOY, B. 2008. Your Election. Students for Obama [Online]. Available

from:

http://students.barackobama.com/page/community/post/bradleyportnoy

/gGgz8q [Accessed 12 February 2009].

PUTNAM, R. D. 2000. Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American

community, New York, Simon & Schuster.

QUAN-HAASE, A. & WELLMAN, B. 2002. How Does the Internet Affect

Social Capital? Toronto: University of Toronto.

REICH, B. Interviewed by SHEFMAN, C. (13 July 2009)

SASSI, S. 2001. The Transformation of the Public Sphere? In: AXFORD, B. &

HUGGINS, R. (eds.) New Media and Politics. London: Sage

Publications Ltd.

SCHEUFELE, D. A. & NISBET, M. C. 2002. Being a Citizen Online: New

Opportunities and Dead Ends. The Harvard International Journal of

Press/Politics, 7, 55-75.

STELTER, B. 2008. Hearts A-Twitter Over Obama V.P. Text. The Caucus

[Online]. [Accessed 10 July 2009].

VANLEEUWEN, T. & JEWITT, C. 2001. Handbook of Visual Analysis,

Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

VROMEN, A. 2007. Australian young people's participatory practices and

Internet use. In: LOADER, B. D. (ed.) Young Citizens in the Digital Age:

Political Engagement, Young People and New Media. Abingdon, Oxon:

Routledge.

58

WAKEFORD, N. 2004. Developing Methodological Frameworks for Studying

the World Wide Web. In: GAUNTLETT, D. & HORSLEY, R. (eds.)

Web.Studies. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold Publishers.

WILLIAMS, C. B. & GULATI, G. J. Year. Social Networks in Political

Campaigns: Facebook and the 2006 Midterm Elections. In: Annual

Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 2007 Chicago.

American Political Science Association.