The LA Times has a story about the Obama campaign's refusal to hand out street money to Philadelphia ward leaders to work the upcoming primary:

"We've heard directly from the Obama organizer who organizes our ward, and he told us it's an entirely volunteer organization and that I should not expect to see anything from the Obama campaign other than ads on TV and the support that volunteers are giving us," said Greg Paulmier, a ward leader in the northwest part of the city.

Neither the Clinton nor the Obama campaign would say publicly whether it would comply with Philadelphia's street money customs. But an Obama aide said Thursday that it had never been the campaign's practice to make such payments. Rather, the campaign's focus is to recruit new people drawn to Obama's message, the aide said.

The article also includes quotes from Carol Campbell, Dwight Evans, and ward leaders Peter Wilson and Garry Williams. It also includes this great anecdote about Bob Brady:

Brady was sitting in his campaign office with two of his political lieutenants. He reached into a desk drawer at one point and pulled out a $50 bill -- street money. Brady tore it in two and gave each man a half. Then the men made a bet: Whoever pulled in the most Democratic votes that day from his precincts would get both halves.

Local color aside, this is a hard issue. On the one hand, it's problematic that political loyalties seem to be for sale to whichever campaign can pony up the cash (several people say that if ward leaders don't get money from Obama, they'll take it from Clinton). On the other hand, if Obama's going to cut into Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania, he's going to need a strong showing in Philadelphia. Obama's campaign is rich as Croesus, and coming from Chicago, he knows how this process works.

It's also unclear exactly what Obama gets by standing on principle. Maybe the Clinton campaign could try to play Philadelphia off against the rest of the state if they could claim that Obama had "bought" city support. But in a big campaign like this, obscure issues like street money only have so much traction. Another alternative is that the combination of volunteers, an alternative GOTV operation, and the support of political leaders who have already endorsed Obama will be able to get the deed done.

It's possible that intentionally or not, the Obama campaign is testing a theory: is it possible to win in Philadelphia with a combination of big ad buys and all-volunteer support?

One thing is clear: the fact that the Obama campaign has chosen to forego the traditional methods of getting out the vote in the city creates both a need and an opportunity. The need is for supporters of the Obama campaign to get out and volunteer. The opportunity is for alternative organizations who support Obama, including progressive ones, to show what they can do on the national stage.

I just got an email from the Barack Obama campaign which may be of interest to the YPP community. Obama's introducing a program to give campaign volunteers training in community and field organizing. It's called the Obama Organizing Fellowship, which sounds like it would be paid (it isn't) and competitive (which it is). This sounds particularly good for college students, recent grads, and other younger people looking to get some hands-on experience w/ community and political organizing.

I got my chance on the South Side of Chicago, as a community organizer, and it was the transformative experience of my career.

It allowed me to put my values to work and to see that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, when ordinary people come together around a common purpose.

The experience changed the course of my life -- and I want to share that kind of opportunity with you.

That's why we're introducing a program that's going to train a new generation of leaders -- not only to help us win this election, but to help strengthen our democracy in communities across the country.

If you apply and are selected, you'll be trained in the basic organizing principles that this campaign and our movement for change are built on. You will be assigned to a community where you'll organize supporters. Assignments will begin in June, and you'll be required to work a minimum of six weeks over the summer.

This program is designed to give you real world organizing experience that will have a concrete impact on this election.

Full text (including links) after the jump.

I'll be out of town on April 22 and so had to request an absentee ballot.

Finding and downloading the application on the State of PA absentee ballot page was easy. The form itself is terribly designed. Looks like it hasn't had a makeover in 30 years. It asks for your ward and district numbers. I did a quick search online and couldn't find any tools to find my ward and district numbers.

The State of PA page had a link to local election offices phone numbers. So I called the Philly office, a human being picked up the phone and informed me that, indeed, I didn't need to fill in my ward and district, they would do that for me.

There's so much rhetoric about the demographics and symbolism of the Clinton-Obama split in the Democratic electorate (young/old, black/Latino, male/female, rich/poor, vision/experience, change/restoration, etc.) that it's refreshing to read journalism that breaks down what this means, and why campaigns for candidates who don't differ sharply on much really don't seem to like each other.

This Washington Post piece on union organization in Ohio reads in part like typical on-the-campaign-trail stuff, but also notes that while most of the AFL-CIO unions have backed Clinton, Obama's won most of the the splinter group Change To Win, including the Teamsters, the hotel and service workers, and others. Change To Win broke with the AFL-CIO over political and organizational strategy, and has a greater emphasis on grassroots organization and expanding the base of union workers.

Likewise, The Nation has an excellent piece that reads the Clinton/Obama split in the light of Howard Dean's 2004 Presidential campaign and his management to date of the DNC. Since Dean lost in 2004, it wasn't clear whether his message and his strategy was really the wave of the party's future or just a neat new way to raise some money. Likewise, Dean was criticized for devoting DNC funds to organization in all fifty states rather than focusing on a few battlegrounds to build a larger congressional majority.

Well, now Obama is riding Dean's wave, connecting with younger and affluent voters on the web, organizing precinct-by-precinct from the bottom up, and winning delegates by rallying Democrats and independents in heartland states. He's Dean with vastly more charm, more profile, and more discipline. Meanwhile, the Clinton folks are stinging at the fact that they're not only unable to beat back Obama, but may find it difficult to win the war of ideas and resources against a vindicated Dean at the DNC.