An Obama Ad Appears On Drudge, Mistakenly (Updated)

Sen. Barack Obama's got the Democratic netroots Fired Up! and Ready To Go, although not in a good way, and news that his campaign is advertising on the site of the master of all grand right wing conspiracy theories, Matt Drudge, will not help matters much.

"Even if it's true, it wasn't intentional, the site isn't on the approved list of sites we advertise on," says Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman.

The banner ad appears to be targeted at Iowans, although it's not clear whether Drudge has the capacity to microtarget IP addresses like that.

The Obama campaign is checking with its internet vendor to see what happened.

But here's the question: does Obama care even a sliver that some bloggers and netroots' activists are angry at him? I don't think he does. I don't think his campaign does. I don't even think, -- and I have nothing to base this on -- Obama's own netroots' team does.

Comments

I am not sure it's fair to wrap this into criticism Obama is receiving from bloggers. I think it's better than Obama ad show up on Drudge than an ad for any other candidate or cause that may be more closely associated with the site.

Posted by Danny | January 2, 2008 2:49 PM

It's idiotic to give Drudge a dime. It's a bad call by his communication team.

Posted by cms | January 2, 2008 2:50 PM

If you read the comments at Politico's post on this, you'll get a sense of how that strategy is working outside the blog-way.

And when you look at how effective the liberal bloggers (and I am one!) were at getting rid of Lieberman, I think the answer is obvious.

Posted by KathyF | January 2, 2008 2:50 PM

When Kos refuses his Chevron advertising, give me a call...

zzz

Posted by lampwick | January 2, 2008 2:51 PM

I remember on the 5th anniversary of Obama's 2002 speech against the war, Obama had big plans to give a "5 years later" speech and the HIllary folks used their direct line to drudge to leak good fundraising numbers for Obama and steal the oxygen.

At the time, the punditocracy was raving about Hillary's effective use of drudge, how it showed her broad appeal to be working so closely with the man who broke the Lewinsky scandal. The pundits raved about how Hillary was so adept at working the machinery of politics, even getting drudge as an accomplice.

There was no outrage from the bloggers at that time for HIllary cynically being in bed with Drudge, who would love the hyperpartisan circus that a clinton restoraion would bring. "Think of all the scandals to break," drudge was probably thinking as he shilled for the candidate who could best help him pay the bills.

But now, Obama merely buys an advertising ad on the website and there is outrage!

More crocodile tears, I think.

Posted by RKA | January 2, 2008 2:53 PM

I agree. I doubt the Obama campaign is very concerned with the fickle netroots "leaders," who've shown themselves to be every bit as petty and superficial as the establishment media.

Kind of sad, really.

By the way, Marc, I don't think you never posted a comment I wrote on your "what if nobody wins" post.

You claimed that Edwards win in '04 was due to rural strength.

The Garance offered up a possible debunking of that myth here:
http://thegarance.com/archives/964

Posted by Vermonter | January 2, 2008 2:56 PM

the net folks are "too polarizing" for Obama's campaign.

bow down and worship the demi-god obama if you wan't salvation

Posted by Outside the Beltway | January 2, 2008 2:57 PM

I'm a huge Obama supporter and am completely consistent in my feeling about Drudge - he is a corrosive influence on the media and is the enemy of Dems. Hillary shouldn't be using them, the media shouldn't take their lead for stories, and no one from our side should be giving them money.

Posted by cms | January 2, 2008 2:58 PM

Personally, and as a liberal and blogger (bartending blog, not politics!), I don't think it's the best idea in the world to bring up "Lieberman!" as the most shining example of the netroots' efficacy.

He's still the Junior Senator from Connecticut. Sickeningly. And he couldn't have done it without a full third of Democratic support in the general election, which is the most maddening part.

Posted by JenJen | January 2, 2008 3:02 PM

It's a shame that Obama won't play by the standard Democratic playbook of being a standoffish prick who wants nothing to do with the unwashed masses in flyover country. Why can't he just pander to "the village" and the "sphere" so we can all be comfy and complacent wrapped in the warm cloak of our insideriness?

Posted by J.B. | January 2, 2008 3:02 PM

Was this ad for Drudge specifically, or was it placed through one of those blog advertising companies to rotate among a group of political blogs?

Posted by Eric | January 2, 2008 3:10 PM

How dare he run an ad on site not approved by the Liberal Bloggers Coalition! Seriously, Drudge, whatever you think of his politics, is a tremendously POPULAR site, with thousands of hits a day. Why would any candidate NOT want to run an ad on that site? It's not like an ad constitutes an endorsement by the advertising party or the hosting party.

Posted by Keith | January 2, 2008 3:13 PM

Netroots angry at the candidate they made? As Durante used to say, 'you ain't seen nothing yet.'

Posted by whoframedrudy | January 2, 2008 3:16 PM

Good for Obama! That's smart. Go to as wide an audience as possible. I am a liberal -- a proud liberal and I still look at Drudge daily alongside HuffPo, TPM, DailyKos and of course the Atlantic blogs. Say what you will but the guy gets unparalleled traffic. Drudge is not going anywhere anytime soon. I'm glad Obama is actually going to leverage Drudge's audience.

Posted by FPM | January 2, 2008 3:17 PM

I'm surprised no one on Kos has diaried about this yet. Well, give it time, and they'll be on it like ants on a sugar pile.

On a related note, I like how Obama got a nice interview and article with Sports Illustrated the other week. No one commented on it, but I'll bet it got him more votes than any position paper on Iraq or whatever.

Posted by lampwick | January 2, 2008 3:19 PM

Hmm...Marc, how much do you know about internet advertising?

Most of the time these web ads just get placed with a bunch of different websites, and the person placing the ad doesn't choose which ones.

Posted by bob | January 2, 2008 3:35 PM

This is a big gaffe in my opinion. Part of the reason McCain lost Republican votes is that eventually the rank and file grew suspicious of his courting of independents.

Obama's team thinks they can hold on to their Dem voters and just add Independent voters with no cost. But they're on the brink, or even over the line into pushing Democrats away, netroots or not. And in the end you have to win more Democratic votes to win the Democratic nomination.

Posted by AJ | January 2, 2008 3:36 PM

Marc,

I am a regular visitor to Daily Kos, and find much to admire about Kos himself. However, it is evident that the netroots (or the most prominent voices among the netroots, such as Kos and Atrios) have had problems with Obama from the beginning. This is nothing new. Obama's political philosophy is simply different from theirs- as he tends to be less overtly partisan than they would like. And despite the fact that Obama has successfully utilized this type of strategy in the past (of reaching out to others and gaining their respect and trust) to pass progressive legislation- he is for some reason distrusted by those who claim to champion the same policies and objectives.

Much of this is, I think, based on a very real misunderstanding of Obama, and it ignores much of what he has accomplished throughout his life for progressive causes.

Also, as you alluded above, Obama has refused to pander to the his most vocal critics among the netroots; or at least he has not seen the need to explain himself every time they misunderstand or misrepresent something he says.

But again, I think much of the netroots' anger tends to based on an ongoing misunderstanding or conscious misrepresentation of Obama's statements and positions.

And in a similar vein, why is it wrong for Obama to advertise on Drudge's site? I dislike Drudge (or his website) as much as any other person who values truth and honesty in journalism; however, I know that there are many Democrats who read Drudge (if just for the entertainment value), and I'd imagine many Independents (and moderate Republicans) also read his site.

Obama's decision has nothing to do with Drudge or his views, but everything to do with the number of people that visit the site- most of whom probably have an interest in politics, and therefore are more likely to vote.

Obama is a progressive candidate. His work as a community organizer, civil rights lawyer, and his ten year history as a legislator (in the Illinois State and U.S. Senate) demonstrates this clearly, as do all of his policy proposals (on health care, energy, education, poverty etc.). He has said nothing during this campaign (despite the recurrent accusations to the contrary) that even come close to representing a compromise on any progressive policy or goal.

But if he reaches out to other Americans who are not traditionally Democrats, and works to convince them that his positions (progressive positions) are in the best interests of the country, he should be criticized and attacked?

That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Posted by Aaron M | January 2, 2008 3:44 PM

Netroots did not fail in CT..
Lieberman was NOT the Democratic Candidate even though Obama wanted him to be...
He won because he got the most Republican votes.,,and Dems like Obama did not support the Dem candidate..
I do not want the candidate who can get the most Republican votes.
I do not want a candidate who spends campaign money on the ultimate Big business smear machine...

You all can have a candidate that reaches over to Republicans..if you cannot see the folly of this..
In 2004 the then Democratic machine crushed a true progressive Mike Miles...look what that gave us.
Salazar, who also campaigned for old Joe..and "reached across the aisle". (Gang of 14) Obama's campaign (maybe not Obama himself) is messin' up big time.

In 2010 Salazar will not make it out of the Primary nor should he...With his increasing pandering to Republicans Obama will not make it out the Primaries, nor should he.

Posted by nogo war | January 2, 2008 3:44 PM

I have two substantive (not snarky) questions for you?

a) What did Obama achieve through his life for progressive causes? Please do not ask me to go to his website. I would like you to tell us.

b) If you imply that he has courageously declined to pander to "netroots" then why is he pandering to Independents and Republicans? If he is not overtly partisan as you say then why does he attack Ted Kennedy in 2003? Unions, Trial Lawyers and Health care mandates in 2007? Is your definition of non-partisanship attacking your own side?

Posted by SRK | January 2, 2008 4:02 PM

The questions are for Aaron M.

Posted by SRK | January 2, 2008 4:03 PM

Obama campaign response:

"Someone is circulating a screengrab of an Obama ad on drudge. Even if it's true, it wasn't intentional, the site isn't on the approved list of sites we advertise on."

Posted by dem | January 2, 2008 4:07 PM

Here are a list of Bills Sponsored by Senator Obama
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Sen+Obama++Barack))+01763))

Posted by Kisha | January 2, 2008 4:17 PM

I'm no fan of the nutroots, but most of them accept advertising from almost anyone, to include GOP candidates. And, over the past few years, I've read many disclaimers (from both sides of the blogosphere) saying, "Hey, I'll accept advertising from anyone but Nazis and child pornographers. If X wants to spend his/her money on the readers of this site ... well, then, maybe capitalism isn't all bad."

In that context, not even the nutroots would turn around and complain about where a candidate advertises.

Posted by Stephen | January 2, 2008 4:19 PM

Obama is trying to position himself that if this democratic nomination doesn't work out for him then he will run on a Bloomberg ticket. That is the reason he is hitting other dem candidates from right. I hope then Obama supporters (if they are true democrats) will wake up otherwise it really won't matter. In a three way race we may end up getting a Huck, Mitt or Rudy as a president for the next 8 years. We might start another war. We will have couple of Scalia and Thomas on the supreme court bench. There goes womens right to choose. There goes affirmative action. There goes your privacy rights and on and on. Heck, we may even have a draft if do another war. Good luck to you all the young Obama supporters..

Posted by Pandy | January 2, 2008 4:21 PM

"Obama sponsored 152 bills and resolutions brought before the 109th Congress in 2005 and 2006, and cosponsored another 427."
Coburn-Obama Transparency Act.
Lugar-Obama (Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction)
"Honest Leadership and Open Government Act"
"Iraq War De-Escalation Act"

Posted by Kisha | January 2, 2008 4:26 PM

Here is his so called irrelevant State Senator record
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

Posted by Kisha | January 2, 2008 4:30 PM

I have one question for you:

Why are you an annoying dick who can't be bothered to type someone's name into wikipedia, but would rather sit here and feign ignorance?

Please don't ask me to look this up, I'd like to hear it from you.

Posted by Enquiring minds... | January 2, 2008 4:33 PM

The question is for SRK.

Posted by ...want to know | January 2, 2008 4:33 PM

What did Obama achieve through his life for progressive causes?

If walking away from being President of the Harvard Law Review to take a 20K/year job working Chicago's South Side to do voter regs and civil rights cases isn't working progressive causes, I'll eat my hat.

I flat-out don't understand the anger at Obama. We progressives have talked for years about actually presenting ourselves as we see ourselves -- agents for the people, dedicated to the people, and working hard to make positive change in America. And someone comes along who's not only walked that walk literally, but then stood up for the bills* that represent some of our most cherished concepts, and on top of it, actually has a chance to take the White House.

And, because he's adept at turning the language that the GOP has infested our National discourse with against them, and is far more interested in grassroots organizing of the people than working with the est. setups of MoveOn and the other Netroots, he's kicked around by the same.
Part of what does fascinate me about his organization is how much they encourage and abet ordinary people to join and contribute, moreso than I've seen in my interactions with Clinton or Edward's campaign, although less than Ron Paul. There really are people who've never been involved in the political process before, coming to it because of him, and it's a joy. I've had great conversations with GOP folks who voted for Bush twice, and are now coming to understand the hell that following the Reagan Democrat model can bring. These are people the netroots can and should be picking up, and encoruaging, not dropping on the side of the road because that "aren't progressive enough".
We need more of that, and less of the sense that you have to be of a "certain type" to be a Netroots "True Blood", in my opinion.

* I see on preview this link has already been provided. Please forgive the repeat.

Posted by Woodrow | January 2, 2008 4:35 PM

SRK,

Obama attacked Ted Kennedy from the left for not standing up to Bush.

He has not attacked unions, merely fought back against the money being poured in by them to do hit pieces against him. The unions attacked him first despite his consistent pro-labor record. I don't know why the unions favor Hilary "NAFTA" Clinotn or John "China, Bankruptcy, Right-to_wors state" Edwards. I guess they just buy the flip-flops I suppose.

Obama didn't attack trial lawyers, he just said that instead of pursing a lucrative career as one, he chose civil rights law instead. Do you really hear about Obama going around trashing lawyers? Sometimes I think some of these bloggers are paranoid schizophrenics with how much they think bogeyman Obama is going to destroy everything they hold dear.

And since when did mandates become a litmus test for progressivism, but support for an unecesary war is somehow much more forgivable? What planet do these folks live on? They do not speak for all progressives in their tactics, their priorities, or their outlandish paranoia.

Posted by RKA | January 2, 2008 4:39 PM

I am saying this and will say it again. The next president is going to be a republican. Its about time you all get in your heads. Several election cycles ago, we lost for several reasons but one of the most important was the use of the word "liberal" and the fact that the outgoing president was fking an intern in the White House.
This cycle, its going to be the blogosphere, MSM and pundits. Let them eliminate the only viable candidates and put the only unviable bitch there.
Like I said, Obama and Edwards have no chance in hell. Lets just tear them down and put HRC there and she will loose.
You don't know the meaning of venom till you see the way republicans vote next November with her on the dem ticket.
People always underestimate hatred. We are on a 40 yr loosing streak that started in 2000.

Posted by Tame my Word | January 2, 2008 5:13 PM

This summer, an Obama online ad appeared as the banner ad on a College Republicans site. Does this mean Obama is reaching out to the future hacks of the Republican Party?

Marc, I love you and your analysis to death but this is where you are analyzing to the point of paralysis. The way web ads work is that you give a buyer the ad they they will put it into rotation - sometimes there are cracks (like here and on College Republicans site) but you cannot start speculating about "whether the Obama team placed an ad purposely on Drudge."

That's just...please. If I were you I'd just stop talking about this. You've got web insiders laughing, hard.

Posted by Covering this is absurd | January 2, 2008 5:28 PM

Josh Marshall agrees that this is easy to do intentionally. Marc, the way you formatted your update, just dumping in the Obama campaign quote, makes no sense.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/062444.php

01.02.08 -- 3:46PM // link

Obama Advertising on Drudge?
There are a couple stories up today about how the Obama campaign is supposedly advertising on Drudge and speculation about how this might enrage Democratic partisans. Now, I don't know anything specifically about this case. We're planning to put in some calls. But at the moment our reporters are tied up working on another story.

However, in the course of building TPM over the last few years I have, quite in spite of myself, become something of an expert on the ins and outs and mechanics of online advertising.

The simple fact is that just because you see candidate X's ad on site Y does not mean that candidate X 'advertised' on that site, in the sense of deciding to do so or necessarily knowing anything about it. These days the vast majority of internet advertising -- especially in the non-MSM world where sites don't have their own in-house ad sales forces -- is done through intermediaries often called 'remnant' ad bureaus.

The advertiser can just say I want my ad to be viewed this many times, or I want it to play in this geographical area or on sites with a certain demographic, etc.

So, just to be clear, maybe the Obama camp has decided to do some advertising on Drudge. I have no idea. But simply seeing an Obama ad show up on Drudge's site does not tell you anything. They might well be as surprised as anyone.

--Josh Marshall

Posted by bob | January 2, 2008 6:50 PM

Sure, depending on how you place your buy and which vendor you're using, an ad can appear somewhere accidentally.

But if the Obama campaign has a list of "approved websites" and their policy is to only advertise on those sites then their ad buyer screwed up.

Either that, or the Obama campaign is asking their buyer to get impressions in a certain geographic area regardless of the website, which is how a lot of web ads work. If this is the case then their surprise that the ad appeared on drudge is totally fake. Or they are clueless about how online advertising works.

Either way it's irresponsible because Drudge will be getting some Obama money now.

BTW: If the Obama campaign wanted to make sure their ads only appeared on liberal websites there is a very simple way to do that:

http://web.blogads.com/advertise/liberal_blog_advertising_network

Posted by shystee | January 2, 2008 8:18 PM

shystee -

Why would Obama want to advertise on a bunch of websites that would rather see a newly progressive millionaire from the Carolinas that voted for the war in Iraq win than an always-been-progressive community organizer from Chicago?

On the union issue, I can guarantee you typical union members couldn't care less that Obama criticized the national's 527 running attack ads on him. On union issues, I've heard nothing but good things from Obama.

Posted by jsmith | January 2, 2008 9:47 PM

jsmith (original choice of nickname, BTW) -

Perhaps Obama would want to support progressive new-media activists that have been working hard (and mostly for free) to fight the right wing media machine rather than "accidentally" contributing campaign dollars to a well-funded right wing operative like Drudge.

I don't think the blogs have settled on a candidate, they are just responding honestly to the positions and statements of the candidates.

Anyway, I would rather trust bloggers who link to quotes and evidence instead of a random Obama surrogate commenter. But thanks for playing.

Posted by shystee | January 2, 2008 10:16 PM

this is a nonissue. what has happened is that the nutroots realize that NO ONE that is normal (doesnt blog for a living) gives a rats ass about whatever "influence" you people have convinced yourselves you have. the arrogance, not to mention the sheer delusion exhibited here and at other sites such as mydd, taylormarsh, is mind boggling. drudge is one of the most visited sites on the internet and not only by conservatives. im willing to bet that the vast majority of the nutroots would have no problem takind ad dollars from exxon, microsoft, or countrywide. idiots.

Posted by nathan | January 2, 2008 10:27 PM

Now I'm an Obama surrogate?!? Take off the tin foil hat for a sec there kiddo.

Fine, if you think rank and file union members give a crap about a pro-labor democrat criticizing a national union's 527, that's fine. Just cause kos says it doesn't make it so.

Posted by jsmith | January 2, 2008 11:10 PM

Someone might want to check the software in the Obamabot code-named Woodrow so it will produce something a little more plausible.

Obama was a corporate lawyer at the politically connected frim of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Obama handled contracts, real estate transactions and employment law cases, as well as voting rights cases. He was was making substantially more than 20K.

Posted by Obamabots are no longer plausible | January 3, 2008 10:16 AM

Yes, I was wrong. He worked for 20k before going to Harvard, and then afterwards join the firm. 1st link when you through the firm + Obama's name into Google pulls up this article, which covers both your angle and mine in this except:

The firm of Miner Barnhill & Galland, many of whose members have Harvard and Yale law degrees, has a reputation that fits nicely into the resume of a future presidential candidate.

"It's a real do-good firm," says Fay Clayton, lead counsel for the National Organization for Women in a landmark lawsuit aimed at stopping abortion clinic violence. "Barack and that firm were a perfect fit. He wasn't going to make as much money there as he would at a LaSalle Street firm or in New York, but money was never Barack's first priority anyway."

The firm offered another advantage to Obama. It was close to the political action.

The article goes on to list many cases Obama was involved in. The point is clear that he was intent on a political future, yet also carried his street organizing focus into this new position, as opposed to taking on a job that would have led to more money, and more of a mainstream political set of connections.
I hope this correction satisfies your irritation with my initial post, and I've very sorry for the error.

Posted by Woodrow | January 6, 2008 1:55 PM