I apologize in advance for typos and stuff, but hey, I'm in the audience typing on my lap. Bill suggests in the comments I use my keyboard instead. Plllpppppt! Gimme a break!
We started with a dinner - and it was a trip to have these guys come up to me and tell me that they read me. Okay, maybe McJoan didn't do that, or Jerome, but the other guys did.
McJoan and I had a chat while we were wandering the archives on a short tour - my first Kossack. And we chatted amiably, and, as usual, found we had some interesting ground in common regarding the war.
Ah, here they come.
Dave Perlmutter is doing the intros... and telling "Professor stories..."
He moved on to talking about some of the current candidates and their use of bloggers - but neglected to mention Amanda... discreet man.
[Update: okay, now that the event is over, I've moved most of the verbiage into the Flash Traffic/Extended entry to save your scroll-wheels.]
]]> Dave is making the point that the best mass communication is that which approximates personal communication, and how blogs sort of fit in that - and don't. But he follows on with the observation that blogging is so new, we don't know how it's going to go - but lets talk about it.First question - Joan - What is the most important lesson for a Candidate to have learned? Her answer - this isn't a static medium that you talk at - it's one that you talk to. Don't just turn it into another press release. Her kicker - the most important lesson - bloggers aren't an ATM - she demands satisfaction for her money.
The question shifts to Scott - Scott responded that *his* view is different from Joan's, in that he sees blogging as his way to interact with others, vice as a venue for politics per se.
Pat Hynes makes a point for politicians that the Army bolo'd - Don't use blogs. Interact with them, but don't set out to use them in that fashion.
Jerome: (He's Howard Dean's blog guy in the last election.). He suggests that the candidates engage with the bloggers directly, and bloggers of different perspectives - not just and echo chamber. Dave ask Jerome how the field has changed. Jerome notes that last time, Howard Dean and to a lesser extent, Wes Clark were the only people who engaged the bloggers. This time around - it's the losers who are *not* going to engage the bloggers. The bloggers aren't deal makers - but they can be deal breakers, potentially.
On to Eric. Erick makes the point that political media types don't really understand the difference between blogs, bloggers, and regular media. And that they need to understand that difference and work within it - or it will work against you.
Dave moved on to Joan and her meeting with Clinton. Joan related that Clinton is fascinated with the blogs and the speed by which the blogs can swarm an issue. He was appreciative of the left blogosphere's campaign to make changes to the 9/11 miniseries, and he was trying to understand the phenomenon. Joan says Clinton reads all the blogs (I assume the poliblogs, I doubt he reads Argghhh!) and the Chelsea turned him on to the blogs.
Jerome reinforced the point about how blogs have changed the speed with which information flows in the political data exchange.
David asked the panel to do an "American Idol" judgement on the current field - Jerome says he thinks that Edwards is the leader... and Scott chimed in with Amanda Marcotte. Jerome's response is that Edward's operation failed to vet Amanda properly. Scott suggested that perhaps Mrs. Edwards (based on something Joan had said in an interview) knew exactly what she was doing. Jerome still figures that it was just sloppiness and inexperience. Joan noted that as a result of the Pandagon affair, all the candidates are doing that vetting now.
David asked Erick about the Republican side - Erick loyally said McCain, with Romney doing well too - and then I lost the thread. Sorry, Erick.
Dave shifted to Pat to ask how does a candidate balances message discipline and the stream-of-consciousness aspect of blogs. Pat suggests that candidates who don't blog, haven't blogged, shouldn't just jump in and try to do it. Better to forge relationships with bloggers, and let them do that for you, organically, rather than try to just suddenly become a blogger.
Dave asked about the propriety of having other people blog in the name of the candidate - as in ghost writing. Erick responded that it depends on the candidate. If they're going to do it, and make it work, they should be willing to jump into the comments. He told of Tom DeLay, now blogging at Red State, and how he did just that - jump in and defend himself in comments. To the point that when one commenter said she'd make a public apology if it happened, but that Delay would never respond. Delay did so, and at the end said, "I'll take that apology now..."
Jerome suggested that a good way for candidates to connect is for them to let themselves be filmed being themselves - and let the voters see who they are, as they are, rather than crafting a faux media image.
Joan basically echoed them - be honest, be engaged, and don't patronize the blogging community.
BTW - we have *no idea* whose wireless we're using. The staff said they didn't have any. There's an unsecured network somewhere.
The gestalt seems to be that the candidates need to be able to communicate - and communicate effectively - which includes the more personal nature of bloggers. Joan said she thinks that blogging might well cause a change in political communication - not in this cycle, but the next. Erick jumped on that point and suggested that it will in fact improve communication because the blogs will actually force the candidates to actually communicate in a two-way fashion, vice the "push" method.
BTW - any mistakes in message here are me. I'm not a steno. I'm having some trouble keeping up.
Scott joined in with an attack on the MSM, in a sense. Blogs take the middleman out of the conversation. Erick jumped in pointing out that it's the media punditocracy who actually dislike the blogs far more than the politicos - because it took their control away. Pat agreed with that premise. He pointed out the MSM doesn't' like *any* of us, lefty or righty.
The discussion continues on the issue of the MSM shaping the message. Both sides agree on this, interestingly enough.
David brought up the complaint that the MSM focuses too much on the 'horse race' aspect, instead of on the issues. The blogs push that aside for the issues. Joan suggested that one of the real values of the blog is the analysis of the races - especially in terms of picking aprt the polling.
Dave's final question before opening to the audience: Blogs have been accused of "numerous cimes against the political process" because we drag down the conversation, half-truths, lies, etc.
Joan basically said - Tough noogies, we're here and we're here to stay. She was much more polite than that, of course.
On to audience questions.
The question is: What about vidblogging and it's impact?
Joan acknowledge the utility of the vidbloggers who were able to get the video out instantly. She said smart bloggers will figure out how to incorporate it - or be little bloggers.
Pat talked about how the MSM was the filter - but now, your email list is the filter. Scott observed that pols need to understand that *everything* they do and say will be all over the world, and darn near instantly.
Next question - The questioner says she is a local grassroots organizer - and then zinged with... "I see on the panel that you are all wealthy, all white, and 4 of 5 are men. What do you have to offer to someone like me?"
First response - "I'm not wealthy...." Everybody said that. And there was some discussion of demographics. The questioner then started with her pet peeves and it pretty much got smothered by the moderator - as the questioner was changing from question to asserting her pet political peeve.
And that caused me to miss the next question, dangit.
The next question was essentially - given the nature of blogs and google - how does blogging affect the issue of flip-flopping by candidates - and does it pose a problem for candidates who are trying to be all things to all people?
And the bloggers response, left and right - was, you betcha. You better be able to be consistent all the time and everywhere.
The next commenter talked about the left-right divide and how both sides live in bubbles, and what should they do about that - where are the center muddle bloggers?
Erick I think makes the best point - the problem with the middle is there is no passion, almost by definition, and that's why blogs tend to trend one way or another. (I personally think it's not quite that simple, but this ain't the place for that discussion).
The next question was - will blogs supplant stump speeches, and will a candidate get creamed by a blog-related issue. Basically they said that stumping is still needful, and that the only reason a blog will kill a candidate is because the candidate set themself up for it.
The question came back up about moderate representation - all of the bloggers pretty much agreed that the moderates may not be *commenting* they are reading. And the fact that the media is reading the blogs - is another way that the blogs get to the middle.
The next question was another "echo chamber" question - do bloggers take themselves too seriously.
Unanimous response: Yes. Erick elaborated with something that I've talked about - it's not how many read you, but who reads you.
The next question was "Do blogs help one party more than the other." Jerome suggests that yes, up to now, its favored the Dems. But he notes that now that they are in the minority - the Republicans will be going to school on that. I can attest that my email box is more full of better stuff from Republicans than I ever used to. It's still amateur hour, but they're learning.
Scott jumped in with an observation from Michael Barone - the left side of the sphere is about the movement aspect - the right side has evovled as a critic of the media - because of the perception that the MSM consistently blocks the view from the right.
Next question: What's the impact of MySpace and Facebook voters? Jerome suggests that the politicians who get the young involved via their "own" media (meaning the younger folks) they will more successfully attract the younger voters to their side. Jerome really thinks Obama has the lead in this.
Next question - will the blogosphere help a less-well-financed candidate succeed? Joan says near term, no, TV still is the big dog. But the evolving nature of the media may change that. Jerome disagrees - he believes media fragmentation will actually make it cost more.
Pat agreed, and pointed out that media fragmentation actually layers things. One form of media doesn't supplant another form - it just adds another layer you have to buy.
Next question - The gentleman said he didn't like politicians because they pander - do bloggers help or hinder that?
The answer was - they hinder pandering, forcing candidates to own their words. Spin is your enemy in the blog world.
I'm guessing not many people are reading this milblogger liveblogging polibloggers... 8^)
We're done!
Well done - civil, even our one questoiner who had to get her politics in did it politely.