Just recently, Professor Adam Green’s Politics and the Internet class in the GW School of Media and Public Affairs hosted Justine Lam, the online director for Ron Paul 2008. Lam, who will be speaking on Alex Hunsucker’s panel on building grassrooots momentum at the upcoming Politics Online Conference, appeared with Jonathan Bydlak, the finance director for Paul’s campaign. In response to a student’s question about which candidate has most effectively leveraged new media in this election cycle, Bydlak and Lam opined on Obama’s use of the Internet.

The video has drawn widespread attention in the blogosphere so far, most notably on DailyKos, where some readers have taken to chastising Lam and Bydlak for implying that Barack Obama’s campaign was too “top-down” in its use of the Internet.

Many have pointed out that while this may seem like a legitimate criticism, Obama’s campaign has ultimately been more effective in the long run with its online strategy. It seems fair. When I spent my winter break in New Hampshire volunteering for the Clinton campaign, I remember thinking before the day of the primary that Ron Paul was a force not to be underestimated. Of course, January 8th came and Ron Paul failed to make the impact that I had anticipated.

Despite all of the hype, Paul’s online army of sorts did not translate into any significant amount of votes for the libertarian 10-term congressman from Texas. But in the aftermath of the failure of support to materialize, the online component of the campaign (arguably the campaign itself) seems to have fizzled even further, with the Los Angeles Times blog reporting that Paul’s online supporters:

have been less evident, effusive and at times abusive in the last couple of weeks.

Lam and Bydlak’s point that the Obama camp’s use of the Internet is “ironic” in that it centralizes operations that should remain decentralized (i.e., donation, volunteer coordination, and event information functions) via the Internet is bound to provoke a spirited discussion because the citizen-based model evidently did not produce the results that many had predicted.

One of the most thought-provoking soundbytes came when Ron Paul said:

I could not stop this movement if I tried.

That, to me, raises the question of “What is the nature of the movement that he could not stop?” A well-organized campaign with an effective online strategy? Or a grassroots movement that, while admirable in its intensity and passion, has failed to deliver votes?

Perhaps there is a way to integrate a strategy that combines the decentralized elements of Paul’s operation but still sufficiently organizes supporters. To me, it is certainly not altogether inconceivable. But as Julie made the point a little while ago, it is important to consider that we are still navigating the waters of the new media and we have not yet necessarily found the perfect solution with regard to incorporating the Internet in a presidential campaign. Perhaps there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution. Ultimately, though, this is yet to be known.

Ron Paul can fight on, although it is becoming increasingly difficult to claim that his cadre of impassioned online supporters will cause a noticeable difference in the amount of delegates he attains throughout the primary season.

For now, I have learned to not become overly consumed by a campaign that appears highly energized online but is lacking in traditional GOTV and mobilization strategies. In any case, Hunsucker’s panel (on which Lam is sitting) will examine why there is an apparent disconnect between the online community and offline results and what campaigns can do to manage this gap.

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 21st, 2008 at 4:36 pm and is filed under 2008 Election, Citizen Media, Politics Online Conference. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.