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.

� Secure this line!

---

I am madly jealous!

by Maggie on February 13, 2007 7:50 PM

---

I'm in the audience typing on my lap.

Bet you'd have fewer typos if you'd type on the keyboard...

by BillT on February 13, 2007 8:24 PM

---

Good point. I'll keep that in mind.

Plllpppptttt!

by John of Argghhh! on February 13, 2007 8:36 PM

---

This was great. I loved that info. I think I am one of those "middle" bloggers. I only have passion for certain people and things. LOL

Anyway...very interesting indeed.

And, I think that they keep nailing the essential message of blogs: they are the watchers of the watchers and everything you say and do will be drummed down to the minute and matched up with everything else you did and said.

I fully believed that is what cooked Kerry's goose. he couldn't escape his words over and over and he couldn't escape being nailed by it. The blogs kept the pressure on, even if the TV fed on it and made it bigger.

by kat-missouri on February 13, 2007 10:49 PM

---

Good deal, thanks... Interesting. personally, I think the wbe is the end of TV media, but it may take a few years... It will all go the way of Fox's infotainment, with no real interest by teh masses, especially once vid feeds are fast. And EVERYone can be a news caster, everyone with a camera will be...

I read an article/essay once that discussed what people really hunger for, die for, just eat up whole... Point of View. It's not the medium, necessarily, nor the handedness, but the POV. People want fresh, clean POV or they want POV they agree with, or they want POV they can yell at while driving (my favorite thing to do at National Proletariat Radio). That's one thing I like about Argghhh and dslike about LGF (anymore). POV is different and presented diffently, and I am not just talking about gun interests.

So, what I see is that in 5-10 years, TV will be PCs, will be stereos, will be home entertainment, and people will plop down and hit the remote for WHATEVER they are in the mood for, be it Movies on Demand, stupid MSM-type talkie-talk non-news like CNN (which has become completely irrelevent to me), or American, or international, or blogs, or WHATEVER. The total fusion is not far off, and people like you and I will look back on these days with pride, the way I still like to show off with DOS commands (it's amazing what you can still do behind the windows, Oh Great OZ, and I astonish younger folks even more now than I used to do when everyone was looking at C:\>... Like doing a piped dir into a text file (something windows still can't do easily)...

Anyway, my whole point here is that I am certain blogs are just the crest of the wave (I know I'm not an orginal thinker here), but the wave is not quite what a lot of people think it is is going to be.. It will be 24/7 news on demand, live from joe-blow on the street in downtown Beijing, taking digital video of the parade and talking live split screen with Josette Blow who is at Mardi Gras, and reporting on the similarities of people partying (except I don't expect many Chinese women are stupid enough to bare their breasts for some dumb-a$$ beads...)

Anyway, POV. Blogs have it... and BEST OF ALL, we all get to share in creating the POV community. We are the POV, though it helps to have a guide or shepherd to maintain tone and tenor, if you will... An orchestra leader.

Not sure if that makes sense, but if any of you give me any grief about it, I start waxing poetic about immigration! And let me tell you. I CAN talk about immigration...

Bye for now.

by SangerM on February 14, 2007 12:19 AM

---

So, what I see is that in 5-10 years, TV will be PCs, will be stereos, will be home entertainment, and people will plop down and hit the remote for WHATEVER they are in the mood for, be it Movies on Demand, stupid MSM-type talkie-talk non-news like CNN (which has become completely irrelevent to me), or American, or international, or blogs, or WHATEVER. The total fusion is not far off,

---Sanger.

Umm, have you looked at what the PS3 or the XBox 360 does lately Sanger?

IT's not in five years. It's yesterday(more like Nov of 2006 when the PS3 launched in the US). Those consoles are your entire entertainment system. Surf the web, tivo, download and play iTunes or other MP3, whatever. You do it with those consoles.

That's why they cost $5-700. Most people will buy them simply as game machines and under utilize them. But they're meant to be the heart of any entertainment system. You can even do a wireless keyboard via USB to word process and blog.
It's here, today Sanger and it retails for $699.99 at Toys'R'Us.

ANd you should talk about immigration. We're kinda stale on that. Maybe for your dramatic re-entrance you could do a cross post here and at Grand Retort?

by ry on February 14, 2007 1:02 AM

---

Nah... Not yet. And I like the graphics, but I'm not impressed with the hardware, and too expensive for what you get. But see, you're talking about infrastructure--which matters too-- but I was talking about content and social-structure. People as a rule are not yet (but close), really global in their thinking, nor even really national. A lot of people still watch the local news stations and the MSM to see what's going on, because they don't yet understand the mature of gatekeeping by agenda-bound organizations. Bottom line, anytime a reporter is in anyway concerned about advertisers or where the $$ is coming from, they are slaves to whoever has the cash, no matter what they may claim.

Trust me, there is a whole lot more to what I am talking about than just a fancy piece of hardware. I am talking about a seas change in public opinions and attitudes about news, about government, etc.. And it is coming, but we're not quite on the edge of close yet. I give it about 10-15 years... Ever see any of Bruce Sterling's Stuff. Think Neuromancer, Burning Chrome & Johnny Mnemonic, but not quite as iconoclastic, with a touch of Bladrunner multiculturalism... And spend some time standing on the corners in Georgetown just watching people, to see the kind of place I think the entire country is going to be in 100 years or possibly even less...

I actually regret a little that I won't be around to see it all...

But I guess that's how Jules Verne felt too, and Asimov, and all the rest... [deep sigh]

by SangerM on February 14, 2007 8:57 AM

---

Thank you SO much for live-blogging this. My gf got sick yesterday so I couldn't attend, but through the power of google I can at least get the gist of it. thank you.

by matt on February 14, 2007 9:07 AM

---

Trust me, there is a whole lot more to what I am talking about than just a fancy piece of hardware. I am talking about a seas change in public opinions and attitudes about news, about government, etc..

Okay, now we're talking 'market penetration' of a concept. I follow, I think.

Netheads of a certain stripe do that. Hard-core gamers do that. It's still a counter culture and not the norm. I think I follow.

The capability is there though. Even without broadband enabled by fiberoptics cable.

I just don't think I want to speak a polyglot language though. I have a hard enough time speaking and spelling in English. ;)

by ry on February 14, 2007 1:26 PM

---

> I just don't think I want to speak a polyglot language though. I have a hard enough time speaking and spelling in English. ;)

Ah... but now consider. written language is a relatively recent invention of humankind. Punctuation, which essentially exists to tell people when to breath was invented much later... But what is written language?

It is nothing more than the way we preserve speech across time & space, so that something said here, can be 'heard' there or later, vs. now.

Now, consider what windows and high bandwidth net apps are doing to the 'need' for written language....

Ever see anyone in Star Trek actually write anything? At most you saw people reading, but usually lots of pictures, but the closest you saw to people write what the captain stabbing the yeoman's box with that stylus thingy (and make of _that_ what you will, dirty minds).

My point is that humans are visual and verbal creatures, not creatures of writing (which in many ways is an affectation of civilization, 'cause most old things were passed down by word of mouth, eh?

So... my whole point here (sorry this is disjointed) is that spelling is a meaningless thing to know (beyond our time) and has little real value in the grand scheme or things, just as does the knowledge of grammar and syntax and all that other useless stuff that you don't need to know (in detail) in order to communicate relatively well. In 100 years, I am not sure people will be writing at all. I think they will be speaking to a machine and the machine will translate it into some kind of universal script that can be translated by another machine into any written or spoken language. So... it will be important to be able to read, but not write.... For most folks anyway.

And as for a polyglot language, you already speak read and write one that is evolving every day... English comes from Danish, Frisian German, and Saxon. The Romance languages (French and Latin) didn't get bundled in until 1066, and that was just the veneer, if you will. English is one of few languages (may be the only, but I think the French tried once) to have a thesaurus, 'cause we have three root languages and a couple of overlay languages. Consider: most concrete words in English (hard nouns) come from Germanic (door, table, mother, father, bread, cheese, tower, stool, etc..); most intangible things(abstract ideas) come from Latin or French mostly, but all of the romance languages are bundled together so one as all, mostly. You had to have wondered at some point why English words are spelled so stupidly when almost every other language makes sense? What other language has a word that has the same vowel pronounced 3 ways in the same word: marmalade. And you know why 'ghoti' can be pronounced 'fish' right?
Anyway, American English is really a bigger language than British English because it includes more words relating to geography (a lot of geography words used in the US are not common English words because a lot of American landforms don't exist in England... A "bluff" is one that comes to mind.

For an excellent write up on this, check out H.L. Mencken's The American Language. (get the 1 volume abridged version, the 3 volume is monstrous)

And P.S. English is NOT based on Latin grammar (as we were mistakenly told so many times, and that one reason prepositions (and prepositional phrases, like "jump up on" which is different than "jump upon") can be used on the ends of sentences.

Ha, betcha didn't know all the useless crap. Or care, either.. he.

by SangerM on February 14, 2007 3:15 PM

---

Ya' know... I really ought to slow down on this stuff. The last three posts of mine have been full of spelling, grammar, and syntax errors, to say nothing of unclosed parenthetical expressions, spacing problems, and just plain 'sounding like I'm from the pine barrens' sorts of things.

I'll try to be less sloppy. You can rest easier now.

by SangerM on February 14, 2007 3:27 PM

---

Actually, I didn't have any trouble following it at all. Which rather supports your thesis, no?

But I was thinking more of the mix of German-Japanese-Portugese that Edward James Olmos' character speaks in Bladerunner. But them, we already do that, just to a different degree. Akimbo--pure Japanese. Zeitgeist---German. I guess I don't want it to change or add stuff faster than I can keep up with is all.

Thanks for the book recomend, Sanger. We'll see what we can afford AFTER I get the gollummobile fixed.

by ry on February 14, 2007 4:38 PM

---

...and just plain 'sounding like I'm from the pine barrens' sorts of things..

Heh. Now *there* is an esoteric reference, albeit a trifle dated.

Those Who Know call it "Deep 609"...

by BillT on February 14, 2007 8:18 PM

---

John,

It was great meeting you and the Mrs. Did you find out when it would air on CSPAN?

I forgot to ask.

by Rick Calvert on February 14, 2007 11:36 PM

---

I should have known you'd catch that Bill. I have been using that for so long I don't even think about it anymore. I just assume everyone knows. Kind of like "squeal like a pig." ;-)

www.jerseygirlracing.com

BTW, I found this (scroll down some to the You're from Jersey if"). Made me feel right at home, and even though I'm not from Jersey, I spent enough time there. My father's folks used to own an apartment off the Boardwalk, just up from Steel Pier a ways...

One of my step-fathers was born and raised in Summer's Point, just over the bridge from Ocean City, he actually went to Lakehurst a day or so after the Hindeburg burnt, he had a very interesting life from about in the 20s&30s until the war...

Also, spent lots of time in Pennsauken, Camden, and Cherry Hill (had a girlfriend from there, but not "Mary Hill," which, BTW, is very close to my all time favorite song, up there with Hang on Sloopy, and If you want it, come and get it...)

Ummm, sorry, there I go again on a tangent.

The last time I was in Jersey was in '92 or '93 or so, at Ft. Monmouth for some work. I have a cousin who's worked there forever, but I didn't know he was there then. And of course, I love driving from there back down toward Philly. I take all the back roads (or used to), which was just heaven to me. In 2000, I was hoping to go work at Monmouth for ARINC, but I was offered the other job, and here I am... I should have taken the Jersey job, I think. Of course, my daughter would talk funny, but s'ok, she talks like a Texan sometimes now, which is just as bad--no, worse!

You by any chance know Roxborough/Manayunk or the Wissahickon Valley in Philly, just north across the Schuylkill from the Main Line (Bala Cynwood, Bryn Mawr)? That's where I was raised mostly. Well that and summers spent down the shore at Atlantic City or Ocean City.

by SangerM on February 15, 2007 12:37 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!