Booman Tribune

Time on the Blogosphere

by BooMan
Tue May 9th, 2006 at 12:06:32 AM EST

It's always amusing to see how the mainstream media covers the blogosphere. Perry Bacon Jr. of Time writes about a new creature on Capitol Hill: the Internet outreach specialist. I know these guys (and so far, in my experience, they are all guys). They send me a steady stream of email all day long. Most of it is vaguely spamlike, but some of it is very useful. I'm often pleased to get advanced notice that Sens. Byrd or Feingold are about to take to the floor to excoriate the Bush administration, or that John Conyers is releasing another damning press release. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Washington politicians make an effort to buddy up to the bigger blogs in order to curry favor and deflect criticism. Frankly, even though it's flattering, I don't give a damn unless I see them doing what I want. Bacon recounts the amusing efforts of Nancy Pelosi to get in good at Daily Kos. In case you missed it, she attempted to take credit for getting tough with Republicans at the very time that the Dems were leaving Feingold high and dry on the censor issue. It didn't go well.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi is one of the many Washington politicians trying to the adapt to the world of blogs. Last month, she went on the liberal blog Daily Kos to tell readers about her resolution calling for congressional investigations into GOP lawmakers' connections with lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The liberal blogs love politicians like Pelosi who are feisty and aggressive, so the visit to Daily Kos, which gets more than 500,000 a visitors day, seemed likely to win her new fans.

But blogs also prefer their guests to engage in conversations. So when Pelosi posted on Daily Kos and then didn’t respond to any of the hundreds of comments users made in response — instead returning to her day job of leading the 201 Democrats in House — one Daily Kos user accused her of "hit and run diaries," while another griped: "Daily Kos is not your personal press release piggybank." The next day, she returned to the blog to try to explain herself. "I don’t have the kind of schedule that allows me to respond to every comment," Pelosi wrote, "but I will a delegate a staffer on my future posts to answer your questions."

She never responded to my irritated post in that thread. It's not surprising that politicians have a little difficulty adjusting to interaction with the blogosphere. We are not an audience that responds to empty platitudes and we can't be spun. You don't come to Daily Kos to tell us that "The Gloves are Off" at the same time that the place is in an uproar about Democratic silence over the utter destruction of our fourth amendment rights. I mean, that is really dumb. And the Pelosis of the world are starting to learn.

The politicians hope that by developing a close relationship with like-minded blogs, the bloggers will feel more like part of the team and will temper their criticism. But even friendly blogs aren't easy to satisfy — as Pelosi found out after her Daily Kos encounter. Democratic aides complain that Matt Stoller, a blogger for mydd.com, another popular liberal site, never seems satisfied Democrats are being tough enough. "I don’t think we’re well-liked necessarily," Stoller said. Bloggers often complain, moreover, about being spoon-fed information they could just as easily get on a senator's website.

This is almost comical. Anonymous staffers are complaining about Stoller being hard to satisfy. They should try satisfying me. They haven't come close in five years. The last thing I saw that really impressed me was the defection of Jim Jeffords in 2001 (although the successful defeat of Bush's social security plan and the blocking of John Bolton's nomination satisfied me).

The Democrats are just starting to get it. The left-wing blogosphere is made up of little people. We aren't CEO's. We generally are not in the highest tax brackets, although we are not poor. We have no vested interest in an enormous military budget or a huge military footprint in Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. We want policies that put people first, not corporate access to markets and windfall profits. We want health care and quality education for all Americans. We're not radical. We're just far to the left of DLC Democrats that are most concerned about protecting the status quo, attracting a decent share of corporate donations, and maintaining our gargantuan military budget and status as the sole global superpower. We want sensible policies based on scientific inquiry and informed compromise. We want the government to assure that we have clean air and water and safe food and medicine. And we have the potential to fund candidates that are willing to respond to our wishes, rather than respond to their traditional masters.

The Democrats are either going to really embrace a more progressive platform, or they are going to find the left-wing blogosphere is just as dogged a critic of the Democrats in power as we were of the Republicans. They'll find us organizing to run and fund primary challengers that pledge to forego corporate donations, PAC's and bundling. Right now, they think we are useful, but kind of a nuisance. They want to befriend us, but they are wary. The most important thing is, they need to realize that we are not out of the mainstream of the general public on the issues. If you don't believe us, look at the polls on issue after issue. What we are, is out of the mainstream of the contrived political debate that is dramatically shifted to the right and narrowed by the ridiculously conservative presentation of the news by the networks, cable news, and major editorial boards in this country. We know that we need to pay for progressive politics or we won't get progressive politics. But before we open our wallets, we need to see politicians that are standing up for us and pushing the types of policies that most Americans say they support.

Russ Feingold understands this. Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, do not. People-powered politics is not just about electing Democrats. It's about electing a different kind of Democrat. And we know that Washington D.C. is not ready to make that change.

In the future, Democrats will not authorize unnecessary wars, pass bankruptcy bills, and watch quietly while Quaker groups are spied on and the NSA strips us of our constitutional rights. If they do, they'll find themselves just as unpopular in the blogosphere tomorrow as George W. Bush and Joe Lieberman are today. They say we are hard to satisfy. How do they know? They haven't even tried.



Display:
I was going to delegate a staffer to respond to this, but he hasn't gotten back from picking up the dry cleaning yet.  So I guess that means I'll just have to do it myself!  Sigh!

Love that DailyKos post you linked to Booman!  That says it all, and in very few words! Excellent.

by mythmother (mythmother (at) gmail.com) on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 12:33:32 AM EST
We want sensible policies based on scientific inquiry and informed compromise. We want the government to assure that we have clean air and water and safe food and medicine. And we have the potential to fund candidates that are willing to respond to our wishes, rather than respond to their traditional masters.

I like you.

there is no such thing as history. there are only historians.

by S2 on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 12:40:49 AM EST
I don't know.  I've been reading multiple liberal/progressive blogs for the last 3 years and frankly on a regular basis it crosses my mind that many of the people who participate ARE outside the mainstream and are more liberal than the average democrat (much less the average non-political American).  In fact, it regularly crosses my mind that some (a very small minority) of the people who comment on these various blogs are ultra left wing fanatics that I wouldn't want running the country any more than I want the ultra right wing fanatics.  

I can see how people who don't spend a lot of time reading blogs might think that too.  And how one or two experiences might lead them to believe that we all are like that.

by maryb2004 on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 01:01:34 AM EST
True.  I definitely agree.  But, there is a distinction we need to be careful to make.

There are certain issues where the country is more conservative, like religiosity, issues of patriotism (anthem, flag), and big ass-kicking military.

But, when it comes down to other issues like public education, environmental policy, corporate welfare, minimum wage, affordable health care, the electorate is right there with us.

On other issues like reproductive rights, the country is with us but, because of intensity differentials, it is a more even match.  

The real bread and butter policy issues favor our side of the Democratic Party, not the Bankrupty Biden side.  

The debate, however, paints hawks like Kerry and Hillary as about as far left as the electorate can possibly tolerate.  That's not reality.  That's a false reality that the media creates.

How far out of the center has Bush governed, and without any electoral majority or mandate?

We are not only fighting the right-wing, but the big money, big defense, wing of the Democratic Party.  

by BooMan on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 01:15:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
but is still a long way from realizing it.

We've been able to highlight certain issues to create a buzz that forces the MSM to pay some attention, but, for the most part, with a limited shelf life (Downing Street Memo, anyone?).

We've been able to raise some money for some worthy candidates, but, so far, none of them have been elected.

We've served as an incubator for some new political ideas and strategies, and have generated some healthy democratic debate, but too often, the debates degenerate into name-calling, flame wars, or navel-gazing side shows.  There is enormous pent-up frustration and anger in the blogosphere, and the solitary anonymity of staring at a computer screen seems to encourage venting it, oftentimes at each other.

The blogosphere is a vast cacaphony of personalities and points of view, voices and issues, people and ideas, energy and enthusiasm -- in short, democracy.  

Energy becomes power when it is shaped and directed.  It remains to be seen whether the energy of the internet can be shaped and directed into real political power, or whether we will remain loud-mouthed gadflies, yelling at the top of our lungs, to no avail.

 

Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs

by leftvet on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 07:22:49 AM EST
It depends on how impatient we are with the 'recognition' and shaping the debate.

Due to the nature of the medium we have come to expect immediate action and change. Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing, hell, we could use some quick change in the WH, but I think we underestimate the influence we do have on shaping what the politicos in DC and the media pay attention to... they just haven't figured out (probably for the reasons you list) how powerful we can be if we all stopped trying to get each other to march in lockstep (big orange comes to mind immediately... troll hunters and such. OT, but relevant, who made kos the arbiter of what candidates the 'netroots' support? Did we have a run off where all the members of the site agreed to support a candidate or was it just another dictate from on high? Anyway, back to my point...)

There are a few issues which we have pushed to the forefront.

One is the Downing Street Memo. It would have been another footnote had we not be screaming about it. So no, we didn't succeed in getting Bush impeached (yet) but we did get it covered on the news and gave people like Conyers some cover to pursue it.

Another is Plamegate. Not to toot my own horn, but before the timeline was FP'd at dkos the media had all but decided the story wasn't interesting and didn't need to be covered. And now it's all over the news (yes, Fitz helped too, but we started the push to make it newsworthy again ;)

Or the Draft Al Gore movement which seems to be getting some traction.

Or Boxer standing up and calling for a recount of 2004.

And torture. Not that it changed much but it became much harder to hide.

Or Camp Casey.

Baby steps and all. Unfortunately, at this point in history it would have been nice if the blogosphere had been learning to crawl 10 years ago and was now up and running around causing shit. But you take what you can get and keep going. Tis the only option.

We just need to learn how to use our collective voice and make more of an impact imo.

by spiderleaf (spiderleaf at gmail dot com) on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 10:34:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and especially astute in his comment that the very nature of immediacy of the internets lead us all to expect things to happen right away.

kids, i was alive and cognizant when the goldwater repubbblicans were just starting...and nobody listened to them at all.

now, 40 years later, the country is awash in extremists that make goldwater look like ghandi.

my point being, it takes time to turn the battleship of public opinion around...just because most of the candidates we supported didn't win (not all...witness stephanie herseth, barak osama and tim kaine), doesn't mean we didn't have an effect.  people are coming to us, and listening.  maybe not acting on what we say, but they are listening, however begrudgingly.

booman's initial post proves that.

patience, grasshopper.  these things take time

by skippybkroo (skippybkroo@aol.com) on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 08:43:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
so when pelosi posted on daily kos and then didn't respond to any of the hundreds of comments users made in response -- instead returning to her day job of leading the 201 democrats in house...

really?  i wondered what she does...

by skippybkroo (skippybkroo@aol.com) on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 08:47:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They say we are hard to satisfy. How do they know? They haven't even tried.

The sad thing is, whenever somebody like Russ stands up and does the right thing, we're right there cheering and loudly wishing more would do the same.  If the likes of Hillary, Reid and Pelosi would pay attention, maybe they'd know that.  

I'm sick of 90+% of the politicians fighting over who gets to represent the 25% of the population.  Maybe they should try inspiring some of the 50% who aren't voting at all (universal healthcare and a raise in the minimum wage sounds like an okay place to start), and they'd make some headway.

"Little people are very stuff-intensive."

by CabinGirl on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 08:37:57 AM EST
Too late for many words, but let me just say: amen.
by Arminius on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 02:48:37 AM EST
The blogs are a disruptive technology. We haven't yet seen just how disruptive they're going to be, but they are already making a difference and will continue to do so.

I for one welcome our new Twitter overlords. @Omir55
by Omir the Storyteller (omir.the.storyteller -CAT- gmail -DOG- com) on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 02:53:44 AM EST
That's what impresses me about Gore.  He gets it, as does Feingold, Conyers, Louise Slaughter and a handful of others.

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt
by Steven D on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 07:17:38 AM EST
Maybe I haven't set my sites high enough, but for now I'm happy that I have a place to go with others who are like-minded and my voice (mixed with all those others) is a least being acknowledged. Think about where things would be without the blogosphere - people wouldn't even know that there is a reality-based community that wanted to hold the Hilary's and Biden's accountable.

And to think that after only a few years of blogging, Markos is writing a lead editorial in the Sunday Washington Post (yeah, I know everyone didn't agree with EVERY WORD he said) letting the world know that all Dems aren't necessarily ready to walk lock-step into the next presidential race with Hilary - now thats progress!!

Doesn't information itself have a liberal bias? Steven Colbert

by NLinStPaul on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 07:58:32 AM EST
Hey, Booman. I love your manifesto.  I wish the Dems would adopt it whole cloth as their platform.

If you want things to get better, be prepared to deal with change.
by Kahli on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 08:55:28 AM EST
I agree with most of what's been written, but this little nugget in the Time article struck me:

But blogs also prefer their guests to engage in conversations.

That is absolutely true that we want folks to engage, expand upon their points, explain their points further. That's a good thing. Holding politicians accountable is long overdue.

But do help me out here: Are people really pissed off because Pelosi or others don't have the time to run back to see if there are 10 new comments on her diary? I get it that she can't use "get tough" as a talking point (even though it's unfair to slam her on Feingold since she's not a senator--Murtha, however, is fair game) without backing said assertion, but do you really think that she can respond to each comment--or respond multiple times during the day?

Sorry, but that's unfair. There's only so much time that they, and their staff, have to devote to anything. I really believe there should be MORE representatives in the House (maybe having a rep for every 250K constituents or even 100K instead of the 600K that they represent now) but until that happens, expect that they are overloaded. She's got her leadership duties (which includes herding cats known as the Democratic Caucus) and her constituent duties (the people who actually elect her--and if she actually goes back to the district on a regular basis, that's time lost, too--she can't just hop a train or fly home in an hour or two). She's not liberal enough for the blogs; she's seen as too liberal among several members of the Caucus.

But back to the point: don't act like the deluded folks that say that if they were a Member or a Senator that they would answer every piece of mail personally. Bullshit. They wouldn't last a day. (That's why they will all have some uniformity to them--there's just no time to personalize each letter. Now some members are lazy, but others are trying to keep up with the flow and respond in a timely manner.)

I'm all for tough criticism but there's something about this that struck me as unfair. There's a difference with how they use their limited time (sputtering about impeachment, taxes, budget, etc. instead of working to speak clearly) and acknowledging the fact that their time is indeed limited.

Can't hear ya, Peach!

by AP on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 09:52:14 AM EST
But do help me out here: Are people really pissed off because Pelosi or others don't have the time to run back to see if there are 10 new comments on her diary?

Not really.  They are pissed off that the communication seems like a press release instead of a conversation.  Compare that with Brad Miller's use of dKos diaries.  Or how Louise Slaughter sometimes uses her diaries.

And they are pissed off that she does not grasp that she really is talking to a diverse group of Democrats.  They are pissed off at the stereotyping and implicit audience shaping that is in the style of the diary.  It is not candid.

Some of the candidates running against Republicans understand how to use diaries to engage people, but a whole lot have campaign staffs who do their writing for them and look at a blog as a big wallet to tap.  Not that a request for campaign donations is unwelcome--if it not the only communication from the candidate.

What citizens are looking for, especially those in the mainstream and almost all bloggers (believe it or not) are in the mainstream is for politicians to acknowlege what they are saying, to actually listen to individuals instead of responding to a demographic.  The politicians who grasp this reality will be the ones who will be elected in spite of all negative advertising thrown against them.

50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

by TarheelDem on Tue May 9th, 2006 at 02:35:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]
Menu
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password





Find textbooks at Alibris!

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES

Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos
by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.


Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")



Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)


Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)


"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen


The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review


BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual

$79.95 * Sale: $59.95


Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)


The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!


The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan


Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----


Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review


Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey


1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus



Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"


Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)


The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids

by Madeline Levine


Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com

:





We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Alibris - Books You Thought You'd Never Find
Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:
www.Patagonia.com


Listed on BlogShares

© 2009 Booman Tribune