Everyone's learning as they go along. In retrospect, Joe should have created a fan or supporter group on MySpace, not a profile. Or, he should have named the profile something like 'barackobamafan'. Using an actual, famous person's name, even with a (small) disclaimer on the site, is misleading. MySpace should have set that as a rule from the very beginning.

I am a public relations specialist working in economic development doing grassroots organizing in the poorest section of the US. I work with a wide crossection, from federal legislators to state officials, business owners, Chamber people, educators and individuals.

Some of them look at grassroots as a way to get what they want. Some know intellectually it is a good thing, but in their heart they mistrust the people to know what they want or need. Others are sure they are helping by telling people what the should do and how they should act and feel. They are good, well-meaning people, but they do not actually believe the grassroots philosophy or they are afraid it is wrong and all hell will break loose. On the other hand, you have people who have seen these types all of their life. They know better than to expect anything real from them, so it is tremendously difficult to get them to believe/trust anything or anyone.

I try to stand between these groups and help them shape a collective philosophy and understanding that can move the region forward. The arguments and tactics are many and varied, but I have only two rules for participation: 1) anyone can participate who has a genuine interest in improving the region and 2) everyone must be treated with respect. No one is forced to participate, no one is looked down on if they don't have money or a title after their name. It took more than two years to make everyone believe those two rules were our only criteria, but I have earned the trust of many of the 250,000 people in the region. And now we are beginning to make some serious strides forward.

I participate in online communities, although not MySpace or Facebook. I've been at dKos since before there were user IDs and in other political and non-political groups as well. I think the concept of online communities is fascinating from both a personal and a professional perspective.

The Joe Anthony situation is illustrative of some of the issues you address. The 160,000 "friends" of Obama on his site were building a community based on a common goal (supporting Obama). For some, it was purely ideology, some politics, others had other reasons to participate. But they were building a collective narrative and a collective image of their candidate.

From a purely PR perspective, Obama's campaign handling of the Anthony situation was a disaster. I remember the splash the Obama site made when it topped the 100,000 mark. And Obama's people were very happy to exploit that. But what appears to be happening is the "old school" team that doesn't really trust the netroots has gained the upper hand. If that is the case, this is just the tip of the iceberg. For a candidate trying to build his rep as a grassroots guy, that may be a real-world train wreck. People know when you are just "talking the talk" to get something from them.

Consultants want to control the territory, political consultants more than most. They are concerned with image and brand and guard those jealously. If that is allowed to continue, there will be no collective narrative created, which means there will be no buy-in from the netroots. Some politicians understand that, some don't.

In addition to the paternalism and mistrust that is found in grassroots organizing, netroots community building is hampered by a fundamental misunderstanding of who the netroots are and what they want. There is a tendency to ascribe very superficial objectives and shallow character profiles -- twenty-something geeks with too much idle time and no real sophistication in relating to others. Netroots activitst know that -- and hate it -- and they look for signs of that in new interactions.

That attitude fairly dripped from the handling of the Anthony situation on the part of the Obama campaign. And while some people won't notice it (or care if they do), many will hold that against Obama for a long time. He is going to have to do a lot to overcome that disrespect of the netroots.

And that is part of the collective narrative that is being built, whether his campaign likes it or not. No matter what side you are on, "the Anthony mess" will forever dredge up unpleasant connotations in online communities. And it matters not at all whether the MSM ever picks up on it or what they label it. Netroots is characterized by a profound disrespect for the MSM. Where it hurts Obama is in the REAL netroots, where the narrative is developing.

As some people noted on MyDD, Jerome and Kos have big megaphones and they are not particularly supportive of Obama. But among netroots, there are as many or more people who ignore/dislike them and their positions as pay attention to them, even on their own sites. So their megaphone plays out primarily in the MSM, and that matters very little. People not in the netroots don't care what happens there, netroots don't care what happens in MSM. Its a draw.

I don't have dog in that fight, but as a PR professional, I find the handling of the situation appalling. If a couple of Obama staffers had met with Armstrong face-to-face, the entire thing could have been resolved amicably in short order (unless they are all complete idiots).

Despite what some have said, Anthony was not a cybersquatter. He didn't squat on the names of all of the potential candidates and wait for it to become profitable. His actions were those of a fan and he rallied 160,000 people because his enthusiasm for his candidate came through. That is worth a lot more than his programming/site design skills. The inabiity to look past the technology to the humans on the other side is a huge liability and one Obama's team had better overcome if he is going to have a positive netroots narrative.

Right now it is just a kerfuffle. What he does with it will say a lot about his fitness as a candidate, though.

i have to disagree with this analogy, mostly because campaigns just aren't very much like people. i can easily see how someone who spends a lot of time on youtube or some other site, and whose "performance" on that site is tied closely to his or her personal profile, could have his or her identity shaped by that experience. for myself, i don't spend *that* much time on blogs (no matter what my wife tells you!), but even so I've found my personal values and behavior shaped by that experience. to take a simple example, i am much more aware about potential conflicts of interest in my business dealings, and try to scrupulously disclose to all affected. i can trace that kind of tendency directly to the "disclose first, ask questions later" ethos of the blogosphere. it's easy to imagine how someone who spends much more time online could have a more profound experience. chris bowers wrote something interesting about this a while ago, and pastor dan followed up with a sort of religious take; if you didn't see that i can go find it for you.

anyway, the point is, i don't think the analogy works when you're talking about a campaign. no matter how invested a campaign is in social networking, there's no way that anything like a majority of its waking hours are spent managing online profiles and doing things like that. there *may* be workers within the campaign who do spend most of their waking hours online, but even there the analogy doesn't work. first, the campaign worker isn't doing work directly tied in to her personal profile; she's managing a carefully crafted work product, not a direct extension of her personality. second, even the most internet-savvy campaigns will give the blogger/social networker a seat at the table in shaping the campaign, but not the only seat at the table.

although the analogy doesn't work too well, i think we have a perfectly good vocabulary to talk about this kind of topic already. it can be found in Howard Dean's campaign, starting around late summer or early fall of 2003. I don't have to remind you, but "You have the power" and the substantive steps behind that (empowering volunteers to take charge of meetup, opening up the blog to comments, personal fundraising pages, all of that), is a very different approach than Obama's approach to date. this is a simple question between top-down control and giving power away in order to become a more effective campaign.

as for the US Army's experience, it's no surprise that they don't want any form of interaction in their web presence. but i do find the idea of an open source air force intriguing...