"Building a movement versus ATM"

Markos:

Barack Obama shocked the political world by raising several million more primary campaign dollars than the supposed fundraising juggernaut of Terry McAuliffe and Hillary Clinton.

The reason Obama was able to do that is demonstrated by the number that got a lot less play -- the total number of contributors. Obama had twice the number of contributors, 100,000 to 50,000. And the reason for that disparity is that Obama is building a movement, while Clinton is treating her supporters like an ATM.

Look a their websites the last day of the first quarter on March 27th. Hillary Clinton:
You can see that Bill Clinton video here. He says:

The only real reason to get involved in a campaign for president is that you believe a candidate will be the best president. Based on her experience, her commitment, her passion, her persistence, and her record, I know Hillary will be the best president. If you agree, I hope you'll send in a contribution and support her campaign. And do it by the March 31 deadline.

It's a money ask, plain and simple. And it appears that the campaign suspected the crassness of the ask, since next to the video, it includes Bill's quote and look at what they omit:

The only real reason to get involved in a campaign for president is that you believe a candidate will be the best president. Based on her experience, her commitment, her passion, her persistence, and her record, I know Hillary will be the best president. I hope you'll support her campaign.

Now let's go over to the Obama site the day before the fundraising deadline:

Notice the emphasis is on movement building, on gathering at Obama events. And yes, of course, money was solicited at those events, but it was a shared experience, coming together to organize on their preferred candidate's behalf. It's what movements do. In fact, the only money ask on that front page was the red "Donate" button, a striking difference from a Clinton site focused on squeezing every last dime from their supporters.

This is a lesson many campaigns still haven't learned.

Don't go to people begging for money. Go to people and ask them to be part of a bigger movement. Once they believe in a campaign, they'll gladly open up. To whom would you give $20, a stranger on a street or your good friend? Campaigns need to focus more on establishing that emotional connection with potential supporters. Once that connection is made, you don't have to press too hard for money. It'll come.

The Obama campaign claims it only sent four fundraising emails to its list. This is amazing, and mimics the Bush effort in 2004, when it used its email list to educate and activate its supporters, rather than the Kerry list which was all fundraising, all the time (and obnoxiously so). Hillary Clinton has been spamming me relentlessly with money asks for the last two years even back when she was running for Senate essentially unopposed by a serious candidate. For example, I got this hysterical email on February, 25, 2006, when it was already clear she wouldn't have to deal with a serious opponent:

The 2006 elections are right around the corner, and the GOP is in full swing to throw everything they can at Hillary. And the worst thing we can do is sit on our hands [...]

Let's not kid ourselves, Hillary is in for a fight. Team Hillary Supporters will enable her to be prepared for whatever they throw at her.

It was a laughable claim for anyone who followed politics closely, but that didn't stop her from dishonestly using fear to scare her supporters into ponying up money for a race that didn't exist. But that has been the Hillary approach, even when she hasn't need it: Money, money, money, money, money.

Is it any wonder that people are drawn to Obama?

Update: The Obama campaign writes to correct me that the screenshot above was changed to the following one before the end of the quarter:

My point still stands.