Mayhill Flowlyer has a new piece on Huffington Post about Obama’s organizational structure in California.

The plan is a mini-campaign in every California congressional district, using a modified form of pyramid campaign marketing. With small core groups established in every congressional district, the Obama strategy relies on the multiplier effect of each-one-reach-one with an ultimate goal of knitting together volunteer campaign staff in every one of the thousands of California voting precincts. Starting immediately, the campaign is also embarked on a strategy of converting campaign donors into campaign workers.

According to his plan, every California congressional district will have a seven-member team running its own mini-campaign. Each of the seven will find and teach another seven, according to the campaign blueprint. Then each of those groups doubles again. “You will be forming these teams for the next 30 days,” Messenger said to a group of northern California organizers. “For the next few weeks you will be doing intense volunteer recruitment.”

The plan reminds me a bit of distributed computing, in which two or more computers run the same program simultaneously in different environments while communicating with one another . Together they can crunch a much larger set of numbers and accomplish a big goal in a shorter period of time.

The piece as a whole is very interesting and a great window into how the Obama campaign is operating in new and interesting ways. With that said, I question the motive of the profile piece. Obviously at the moment Obama is not doing very well in California. He is twenty points down in the polls.

If this were a strategy for victory it would work much better as a surprise strategy. The piece not only gives an overview of the plan it gives the exact details of organization, mission and dates certain for accomplishments. So if I am in the Clinton campaign I can take all this, emulate it or formulate a counter strategy.

So if I question the motive of why the Obama campaign is willing to give up so much information about its strategy, then I have to wonder if it doesn’t already think it isn’t working very well or might not work. They may also have wanted this piece out as a way to ease donor fears that he is running a one-state campaign in Iowa.

Let’s hope the campaign isn’t giving up too much information.