No spin, no rhetoric, no bull, no idea

Have you ever wondered what politicians would be like if they had no special advisors, no spin doctors, they just appeared on camera and spoke like the ordinary guy in the street. This is the late Australian Labour Party senator Bob Collins, he had a rather chequered career but his has to be a high point. I would love to see Paxman's reaction to someone like this.

Bizarre Logic

The British National Party Chair Nick Griffin is not someone I take too seriously too often, though there is a real danger that the party will make gains from Labour, particularly in the poorer, heartland areas, where they can sell themselves as, well, a sort of nationalist socialist party - ring any bells? The party is distancing itself from being racist, and so is tying itself up in knots trying to be non-racist but be nationalist in a racial supremacist manner. The BNP's "Language and Concepts Discipline Manual" for the simple reason that such persons do not exist". Instead the party argues that the term used should be "racial foreigners". In a BBC interview, Griffin argues to call such people British was a sort of "bloodless genocide" because it denied indigenous people their own identity. So the argument is that describing someone as British denies them their own identity: "These people are 'black residents' of the UK etc, and are no more British than an Englishman living in Hong Kong is Chinese." The aim remains to repatriate these 'racial foreigners'.

But this logic is so bizarre to me and simply twists words. Firstly it ignores any notion of birth, if you are non-white (who seem to be the targets of the term racial foreigner) but born in Britain does that still make you a foreigner and where exactly would someone be repatriated to. What if you are mixed race etc etc. Then there is that more profound question, if we really decided that everyone who was not indigenous to these islands should be classified a racial foreigner and singled out for repatriation who would actually remain. What about those of Roman, Norman, Angevin, Viking descent, or if that is too far back what about the Dutch immigrants of the eighteenth century. What the position tries to cover up is that the targets appear not to be immigrants generally, as lets face it most of us can trace our roots back to some form of immigrant, but those of a different race as opposed to nationality.

In some ways it is good the BBC give an airing to Griffin and his arguments, personally I would like to see the party given greater air time. Why, because the problem with the BNP is that they are able to take the high ground and say they are branded as racist and neo-fascist and so are unable to give their side of the story. But if they are given air time more people may be able to see through this thin veil of rhetoric and see that by classifying people born in Britain as racial foreigners you are creating apartheid, segregation by colour, and not making any move toward preventing a 'bloodless genocide'. Griffin could be an MEP in the matter of a month, sitting on the same group in the European Parliament as the Conservative Party (a bad decision by Cameron), only 3% more votes are required - there's a thought

colourful language

There has been a lot of colourful language around this week, and I don't mean swearing but alliteration, hyperbole, embellishment, the sort of techniques that make the difference between interesting and dull. I did like the Cameron insult of Brown 'spineless as a jellyfish'; Tom Harris is defending himself for calling the British 'bloody miserable' on his blog; but the biscuit goes to Andy Burnham. He could have said that David Davis had been having private conversations with civil liberties campaigners persuading them of his sincerity to gain their support. Instead, in an article in Progress, he said Shami Chakrabarti had been "seduced by Tory talk of how liberal they are" during "late-night, hand-wringing, heart-melting phone calls" with "the man who was, and still is I believe, an exponent of capital punishment". Chakrabarti took this as a personal slur and suggestion of something more than an attack on her politics or those of David Davis; a shrewd move as it undermines Burnham completely.

But Burnham did the damage himself. It is a smart phrase, it conjures up a range of images, for me not sexual, more of Davis as a Machiavellian persuader whispering in ears privately to get people on side. But it perhaps was not run past the communications team in his department or in No. 10 - then again maybe it was, but if it was they missed the fact that it could get coverage for being perceived as a personal attack on Chakrabarti rather than an attack on the politics of Davis. So, the language used achieved the aim, it was repeated and publicised across the media. But the language elicited the wrong reaction and so gained negative coverage. Perhaps it is symbolic of a government that seems to just get everything wrong and gets punished for everything, certainly it gives the impression of desperation in their attacks the way the media has treated the story.

The rhetoric of war

George W. Bush is quoted as saying he regretted appearing as a warmonger in talking up the War in Iraq. The Guardian and Times say "I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric," So phrases used to win support for the war such as "bring 'em on" and "dead or alive" he said, "indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace". Here he is thinking of his legacy, but in reality his language was to rally support to a war few saw as a good idea and linked to the various rumours in the US of the links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda shows he wanted a nation to be warmongers also. Perhaps his real regret is that he failed to deliver the quick easy victory that the US people wanted, had he done so he would probably say nothing about his use of language.

Courting the opposition

After a fairly dirty fight it is difficult to heal the schisms among supporters, particularly when you need them to support you and not their preferred candidate. Obama has now launched a charm offensive targeted at Clinton's Democrats. Taken from an email to supporters, but also used across the Internet and in interviews, is the following:

Senator Clinton made history over the past 16 months -- not just because she has broken barriers, but because she has inspired millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to causes like universal health care that make a difference in the lives of hardworking Americans. Our party and our country are stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, and I'm a better candidate for having had the privilege of competing with her. Senator Clinton will be invaluable to our efforts to win in November, and I look forward to campaigning alongside her to bring this country the change it so desperately needs...

Suddenly Obama and Clinton are fighting for the same cause, no longer is an outsider versus and insider. Clinton has paved the way for a Democrat victory and for Obama. Obama has learned from her through the competition. Above hall is expresses humility and seeks not just the endorsement she had to give but her active support through the campaign. it is almost saying if you do not actively campaign you are letting your supporters down. Great rhetoric and use of language, his communications team are excellent at these sorts of arguments where the purpose is dual and perceptual.

Unique style

The media seemed to side with RMT Union Leader Bob Crow and have fun blaming Boris Johnson for the weekend's over the top celebration on the Circle line in response to the drinking ban. It is rather odd to blame the man who is outlawing public drinking for riotous behaviour caused by public drinking, perhaps the real error was to decide to bring it in on 1st June a Sunday rather than middle of a week when partying is restricted by work. But you have to like his analysis of the event, he is quoted as saying the party was: "anthropologically misunderstood... I think what we had there was the kind of exuberant, Celtic-style wake for the passing, the long overdue passing, of a custom". Given the last time he spoke about wakes one hopes few Liverpudlians were involved.

Hope, Change and Electioneering

Paraguay is a very young democracy, since 1992 in fact. As many young democracies, politics has been fairly unstable with coalitions forming and collapsing bringing governments down with them. While dominated by a political elites, and effectively one party for much of the last 16 years, it has been commented that personal power were far more important for those standing for office than serving the nation in any way.

That may have all changed though. A total outsider and former Roman Catholic bishop Fernando Lugo, the man who campaigned as "bishop of the poor" won 41% of the vote in an election that witnessed the highest ever turnout (66%) to become president. Maintaining a tradition of giving out free food when 'on the stump' he offered hope and, according to the LA Times correspondent, "Lugo is like a charismatic comet on a collision course with the lumbering planet that is Paraguay's political status quo". His campaigning was very much street level, but the rhetoric is the language of change used the world over.

In commenting on Paraguayan democracy and the political elite Lugo stated: “in Paraguay there are only thieves and the victims of thieves”. His intention was to break the status quo on the back of "“an inclusive political movement because it is solely by coming together within diversity, with everyone respecting our natural differences that we can build a new Paraguay”. Sound familiar?

Lugo's is probably a great victory, if nothing else it shows that there is more than one party politics and that the electorate does have the power to change the system. The reasons he won seem so familiar and widespread though, even if the actual context may be less serious. Dissatisfaction with the system; the desire for a charismatic outsider, someone closer to the people; the desire for change; and perhaps also the desire for values beyond neo-liberal free market capitalism. In the US they have Obama, there are many examples of figures appearing across Europe, it seems voters across the world have similar desires. In accepting victory Lugo told reporters "Today we can dream of a different country... Paraguay will simply not be remembered for its corruption and poverty, but for its honesty." Can he deliver?

Scarred of the headlines

Responsible parenting has been the subject on ITV's This Morning and David Cameron weighed in to declare himself as a disciplinarian. Well almost,. He stressed the importance that "kids grow up knowing the difference between right and wrong" (blamed on "breakdown in society and the family unit"), he favours the naughty step and admitted "sometimes you have to grab them - and that happens quite a lot" but he was less than equivocal on whether he did smack his children more that he could see when it may be necessary. Tony Blair did admit to smacking all children apart from the youngest, is that because he had become PM, or Leo was a saint, too young or just that he didn't want to say anything about now in the same way as Cameron seemed uneasy. Perhaps the same thought entered both minds when considering their words, the headline 'Conservative leader beats his children' screaming out of the news stand. As Nick Clegg discovered an honest admission or guess-timate can be a dangerous thing if a journalist is looking for a hook on which to hang a story. Perhaps what every politician should do is fill out a questionnaire, prepared with public input, they would be forced to be totally honest, and the purpose would be 'How average are you'; that it seems is the point underlining many of the statements politicians make and if all answer truthfully it would take the wind out of the sails of the journalist looking for sleaze to hype up.

A war of rhetoric

"Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those steps and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough'. Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit."

A nice quote, a nice bit of rhetoric, and a nice link to popular culture and the notion of the all-American fighting spirit. But this line could backfire if the media also notes that in the 1976 film Balboa lost despite advise that he should give up. Hillary Clinton, the person who delivered this line as part of the last stages of the Democrat nomination race, is under pressure to concede and stop the division within the party in order to redouble efforts to undermine the McCain onslaught. Clinton seems under pressure to be twice the man of any other candidate, but is the rhetoric right and the messages resonating with those who will determine the outcome of the contest?

Voluntary or Compulsive?

I am not ideologically opposed to ID cards, as every marketing company, DVLA, NHS, and god knows how many other organisations seem to have my details it would seem to be no big deal. Personally my major gripe is that the proposal was we were being told to have something and then given a bill for the privelege. As we have to pay more for passports, driving licences and various other 'ID' forms, a further high cost card seems unnecessary and designed to annoy the poeple a little more than they were previously. The media says there is a climbdown by Jacqui Smith and the government in makign the statement:

We have always said that there will be no requirement to carry and present a card. That has not changed, and will not change. And there will be no compulsion, either, in having to apply for a dedicated identity card for the purposes of proving your identity.

But I wonder, as ever with these things the devil is in the detail. Within her speech, Smith talked of the selling points for young people having an ID card would be:

It will make it easier to enrol on a course, apply for a student loan, open a bank account, or prove your age

But does this hint that without clear photographic proof young people would be unable to go to college or university, get their loan, have an account ot put it in, or have a drink in the student bar so getting an ID card would be inevitable? It is an interesting idea to ensure that the next generation of youth will need to have an ID card and so mean that in the long term they will become a part of everyday life, but is that what Brown and Smith have in mind while they also make it all seem voluntary.

A Brown Vision

Although not a heavily publicised as the annual conferences, this weekend sees Labour's Spring Conference and the Welsh Conservative conference take place. Today the leaders offered their set piece. For Brown it was about his vision and his government ushering in an 'Age of Ambition'; "Imagine" he asked delegates "if together we create a Britain where, for all of us, the future is not a fate we can't escape but a common purpose we create". He was rewarded with a standing ovation for his rousing finale "So with the courage of our convictions, With pride in our common purpose, Let us go out with confidence to meet the world to come, Let us embrace this new age of ambition, and let us build the Britain of our dreams". High in rhetoric but a good leader's speech all the same.

The problem is that he did not really comment on the problems that are synonymous with him and his party. He defended Alastair Darling but did not really comment on specific policies. It was all at the macro level, the big ideas and aspirations of his government, it was about building perceptions of him as a man, but it may be seen as an attempt to distract rather than to face critics head-on. Visions are great, but you have to believe the rhetorician is a visionary that can delivery; is this true of Brown anymore?

Creating a personal bandwagon effect

I'm writing to you this morning from Las Vegas. After the New Hampshire primary last week, we set a goal of 100,000 online donors in 2008 -- a goal we hoped to reach before the Nevada caucuses on Saturday. Last night we got there five days early. Think about that: 100,000 donors in 15 days. That response has boosted our entire organization and proven that this movement for change is just getting started. In town halls and rallies across Nevada, I can feel that momentum. And it's clear that more than 100,000 people are feeling it all across the country. But we need to build an operation that can compete in all fifty states, so we are setting our sights even higher. Our new goal: 125,000 donors by the Nevada caucuses this Saturday, January 19th. Now is the time to step up and own a piece of this campaign. Your support is so crucial to reaching our goal that one of the supporters who already gave this year is waiting to match your gift today.

Whether any of this is true matters little, the purpose is to gather the maximum support on the principle that the tide is already flowing in Obama's favour. Barack Obama is setting up supporting him as a norm for American voters in order that it is seen as the thing to do; whether it has the desired effect will be determined in Nevada on Saturday, it is a well used tactic in advertising and commercial promotion and fairly common in political communication as well.

Every persuasive devise in the book!

One of the laws of a piece of persuasive political rhetoric is to not give your opponent exposure, but to take their arguments and turn them against them in order to promote oneself; this is this law in practice Obama style.

In a speech in New Jersey he offered the following argument:

“People are saying that Barack Obama has got good policies and is inspiring but we can’t vote for him now because he hasn’t been in Washington long enough. He has to be seasoned and stewed a little bit longer so they could boil the hope out of him, like those other candidates… But he argued that those candidates were not going to provide the politics or society Americans want; he said: “Change is not going to happen by the same old folks doing the same old things. We need somebody new, a new leader.”

The Fight to be Progressive

It seems that often the fight over the ownership of an idea in politics can be as vigorous as any election contest. The idea of being progressive has lain dormant, often used by Labour, but never particularly contested never mind defined. Former Labour MP, peer and Professor Emeritus David Marquand attached the moniker to Blair back in 2000, though recognising this as a problem for the party in terms of what being progressive means. The Conservatives may have invoked a similar problem!

MPs Jeremy Hunt and Greg Clark have produced a pamphlet asking the question 'Who's Progressive Now?' The answer is unsurprisingly the Conservatives, they argue that Brown's use of the phrase 'Progressive Consensus' shows the term to be empty of meaning; it is the fact that they see Brown as standing still, not progressing or achieving anything, that leads to this claim. The Conservatives may not be historically associated with the phrase but, Hunt and Clark argue, the party has been the one of progress throughout its history.

They also lay out an alternative definition of the term building six key planks of being 'progressive'. They are: making progress; being hostile to uniformity and embracing diversity; being actively concerned about the less fortunate; an antipathy to unmerited hierarchies; a concern for social, as well as economic, goals; and a sense of responsibility for the future. Reading these one would think they should be central to the goals of any democratic party.

However the pamphlet critiques Labour under Brown (Blair being mentioned 13 times, mostly alongside Brown, Brown is named 28 times) before setting out how Cameron's leadership has stuck closest to the tenets of being progressive as set out by the authors. They map fairly closely to US ideas of progressivism from the turn of the century.

Big questions, are such ideas more of a risk than an advantage. Due to the abstract nature of terms such as progressive politics, can any failure in making progress be called unprogressive? Equally, and perhaps alternatively, can any party claim to own ideas that should underpin the policies of every democratic aspirant. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, do such phrases and ideas have any resonance with the public and will they be translated into ideas that do have relevance to the lives of the voter?

Perhaps as a set of ideas and tenets the pamphlet is useful in setting down democratic benchmarks for a party; however making such ideas as undermining unmerited hierarchies a point of principle in a nation and world full of such hierarchies means there could be a problem in practice and it is the practice that can be the problem for any progressive party.

The weird and the wonderful

Conferences essentially have little to do with real politics, it often seems that parties, a little like a car manufacturer putting its ideal car on a stand at one of the big motor shows, try to show what they can do but not necessarily what they will do. The media role, it seems, is to try and prove why the ideal car wont run on the available fuel. Well I liked that analogy!

The Conservatives have talked a lot about Gordon Brown, I lost count during Osborne's speech! Osborne also suggested the following "the new economy... succeeds by trusting in the collective wisdom that emerges from free people making individual decisions about their own lives. That's how Google works. It's how FaceBook works. It's how MySpace works. But it is not how Gordon Brown works". But, apart from being highly successful businesses, what does the organisation of social media tell us about he economy. Sorry I didn't get that - is there an economist in the house?

David Davis compared Brown unfavourably with Margaret Thatcher, but also told a lot of inspiring stories of the sort of people he argues possess the true spirit of Britain, almost. He also evoked a wonderful image thus: "It's come to something, hasn't it when Gordon Brown presents himself as Dunfermline's answer to Mrs. T. And Jack Straw presents himself as Blackburn's answer to Mister T." Like him or not its a good one-liner!

Alan Duncan introduced anti-Communism, well at least a combined and confused ramble on the works of George Orwell. There was "We are living in the world predicted by George Orwell. Gordon Brown was elected in 1983. I feel it all started in 1984." errr well the first thirteen years was a Conservative government? And then "And even now, if you know your Animal Farm, there is an unsuspecting Snowdrop the pig sitting somewhere around his cabinet table." I do know my Animal Farm, the pig who was a caricature of Trotsky was called Snowball. I like Alan Duncan, but this was a little weird.

The bit that is overlooked is the New World booklet, this contrast Brown's 'Old Politics' with changes that are required (see screenshot below).

It is very idealist, the problem is that these simple ideas get lost in the rhetoric, jokes and weird references. Though perhaps as there is a lack of substance, more a case of trust us to do this, then maybe it is not these key ideas that are intended to be communicated. But it returns us to the idea of what a conference is, is it a marketplace for ideas or just a piece of branding and showmanship.

Mixed messages

Wandering past one of the many TV screens showing rolling news that populate the modern media school I saw the most bizarre of events. The Labour Party conference, trying to follow the words of The Red Flag, which was being sung by a soprano opera singer, as Gordon Brown smiled on. So we have a collection of quite right wing pronouncements, coupled with the nationalistic overtones of the British Brown, all wrapped up with a nod to the history of the Labour movement. What Keir Hardie would have made of the spectacle god only knows. The Guardian's Simon Hoggart was less than impressed that's for sure!

But in considering the point of it all, this seemed to be the return of something iconic, something that denotes socialism, while everything that is proposed is as far from socialism as is possible. So why? Was this some attempt to revoke some core philosophy, or did someone suggest that they needed "a little something to keep the reds happy"? It certainly came across as a bizarre piece of spectacle that conferences have become (on the reform of conferences see James Stanyer's work).

For those interested in symbols, rhetoric and connotations, the song was signing the party up to:

It well recalls the triumphs past,
It gives the hope of peace at last;
The banner bright, the symbol plain,
Of human right and human gain.

It suits today the weak and base,
Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place
To cringe before the rich man's frown,
And haul the sacred emblem down.

With heads uncovered swear we all
To bear it onward till we fall;
Come dungeons dark or gallows grim,
This song shall be our parting hymn.

Then raise the scarlet standard high
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.

One wonders how many of those whose minds are fixed on pelf and place see Brown as the man who wont let them down? Just a thought.

The performance of politics

The prime ministerial speech seems to have come early in Labour's conference this year, but as ever it is the centre piece and the key media spectacle. For all those that feel Brown is not a performer in the ilk of his predecessor it perhaps proved them wrong, Brown displayed the same passion and managed to deliver the soundbites for the media coverage on tonight's news (after all that is the bit that 98% of the population will be most likely to see).

The speech itself seemed to tell us a great deal about what he aims to do, but little on the way it is to be done. A particularly emotional piece was the following: "Every year 10 million die from diseases we could have the medicine and science to prevent and cure. If in the 20th century human ingenuity could put a man on the face of the moon, then surely in this 21st century human compassion can lift the pain from the face of a suffering child"; but nowhere did Brown state who was to pay for this, from what budget.

So what do we know, he stands for a lot of things that most people would probably agree with, for example "I stand for a Britain that defends its citizens and both punishes crime and prevents it by dealing with the root causes"; but a little more controversial is "I stand for a Britain where it is a mark of citizenship that you should learn our language and traditions". But the key soundbites are as follows. The first has been his enduring response to questions about a snap election (something he did not claim to stand for): in talking of the challenges of the summer's terrorist attacks and foot and mouth outbreak, "our" (that is he and Britain), "response was calm and measured. We simply got on with the job". The second key soundbite responds to the distrust of his predecessor and the feeling that he let the people of the country down (as shown in a number of focus groups held around the 2005 General Election". Brown stated:

This is my pledge to the British people: I will not let you down. I will stand
up for our schools and our hospitals. I will stand up for British values. I will
stand up for a strong Britain. And I will always stand up for you.

The standing ovation was mandatory as ever, but in the end it was simply a rallying call to the converted and the delivery of a few key soundbites for media use; such speeches are simply a performance and it is impossible to say if any of the items the speaker 'stands for' will ever be translated clearly into policy.

deeply profound or deeply wacky?

There has been much said about the direction political advertising is going, on the whole negativity seems to have been favourite over recent campaigns with one estimate suggesting 48% of all advertising in the UK 2005 general election was an attack. The US has of course led the way with negativity, and it is argued to work though the effects can be negative on the creator, the political system as well as on the candidate under attack.

However it seems one candidate is taking an alternative route. Mike Gravel, a left-wing Democrat appears to be trying to say a great deal by saying nothing (in the below ad named 'Rock')



and almost purely using symbolism in the Youtube video 'Fire' (below). Too clever by half or a refreshingly alertnative way of getting a message across?



He is not seen as a serious contender, perhaps the ad style is symbolic of this alone or his standing is symptomatic of his rather wacky approach. It may be interesting to see this replicated.

Wanted: Pristine Politics

Jamaican politics, and election in particular, have witnessed a significant amount of problems. Corruption is said to be rife and the democratic process questionable. The Jamaica Gleaner, reflecting on the history, has put a call out to the parties and candidates to follow certain standards for the 2007 election, expected to be called on Sunday; those standards include:

• We are, of course, reasonably assured that the outcome of the voting will, by and large, reflect the people's choice. We have a democracy that functions relatively decently. But a process that is relatively decent is not good enough for us. We want it to be pristine. After all, elections are not blood sport. Rather, they are processes by which people exercise their franchise to choose a group of people in whom they can repose their trust to manage the affairs of the country for a particular period.
• Political leaders have a responsibility not only to make statements but to act in accord with these declared values. Put another way, we expect any candidate from any party who breaches the codes presumed by democratic competitiveness to be exposed, severely censured and even ditched by their leaders.
• Second, we expect the remainder of the campaign to be substantially about ideas and specific programmes, rather than vapid and trite declarations or feel-good fun sessions.
• That those who offer themselves as candidates begin to speak with clarity and outline specifics, rather than offering platitudes and promises that are undeliverable. In other words, we hope for a process that is honest and truthful, with declarations of specific goals, with timetables for achievements and actions to be taken in the event of failure.

Reading these ideals makes me wonder why such standards are not demanded more broadly, can we say that, in the UK, the USA or across the EU, Australasia, or any democracy for that matter, such standards are met? It is hard to say yes isn't it? Is the fact that we cannot say yes, these are central to our understanding of an election campaign, the reason that many disengage from campaigns, show a disinterest in electoral politics, or mistrust those who claim to represent us. There's a thought for the weekend!

The People's Policy?

Barack Obama seems to be taking consultation, and perhaps the idea of political marketing, to a new more sophisticated level. On his website he lists his position on all the major issues facing America. However on the side bar he asks for more than simply comments:

"Across our country, everyday people like you have experiences and ideas that haven't previously been heard. This is your chance to speak your mind and help set the policies that will guide this campaign and change the country"

There are then three steps to complete:
Step 1: Present your ideas; in the form of ideas, telling your story, uploading a video or recording a message.
Step 2: Collaborate and Debate: Here Obama says "In the coming months we will be helping you collaborate with others across the nation to define and refine the best ideas and incorporate them into our vision for the future. We'll make it possible for other people to weigh your ideas and give their own thoughts on the issues."
Step 3: Define a New Direction; the philosophy being: "As the best ideas from the community are refined, we'll use your feedback to find the best and important submissions and incorporate them into the campaign's policy."
This all suggests that rather than simply commenting on policies, interaction of those who sign-up to 'My Barack Obama' will actually shape policy initiatives if he becomes the Democratic nominee and perhaps also if he becomes President; this of course is not specified.

Some forms of interaction are already going on. In an open thread begun by Scott Goodstein tells readers that "This afternoon we sent Obama supporters who signed up for text messages a note about the upcoming debate tonight... We asked folks to tune in and text us back with their thoughts about the debate. A few of the responses that came in just before the debate started: Jayson will be "watching for a Darfur question" while Kelsey wrote "you are truly inspirational and perhaps the only person capable of reversing all the damage that has been done since Bush took office". We even had a text from a Howard University student who was headed to the debate. But that all reads as just a little too censored and congratulatory.

As is the contribution from high school teacher 'Angela': "A lot of people drop out of teaching after the first couple years, because it can be an extremely difficult job," she said. "It's not great every day, but the high moments keep you going. They inspire me to be a better person. I feel like I can change things by leading by example, and I think that's part of why I respect Senator Obama-- he leads by example". There seem to be a few too many words of support to suggest that this is open debate, and the videos that are posted are more citizen endorsements than anything else (see below)

If this is a new phase in political marketing, connecting people to decision making and the design of the political offering, where is the serious debate? While those who believe in Obama and support his campaign are clearly drawn to contributing, his initiative could draw others to the campaign who feel marginalised from politics. Maybe it is too risky at this stage in the process, the danger is that it maybe perceived as rhetoric if the debate is not started.