NYT Article that Mentions JK, Dems

[benny05]

Internet Injects Sweeping Change Into U.S. Politics

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: April 2, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 31 -- The transformation of American politics by the Internet is accelerating with the approach of the 2006 Congressional and 2008 White House elections, prompting the rewriting of rules on advertising, fund-raising, mobilizing supporters and even the spreading of negative information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/washington/02campaign.html?pagewanted=1

(It's on the second page)

Also reprinted in the International Herald Tribune which means readers abroad are seeing this too. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/02/news/net.php

[_dynamicdems]

1. Intesting article. Thanks for posting!

The entire article is worth reading, not just the Kerry references, but I'm glad he's mentioned in the article. Usually the media talks around JK unless they have something negative to say.

It sounds like we are doing the right thing by spreading the word online in preparation for the November elections and 2008. November should give us a better indication who has been more successful online and to what affect.

Now, I wonder what is this business about the "Decoy Web sites" mentioned as a Democrat strategy?

[ProSense]

2. They seem to have missed one really good thing:

exposing MSM lies and Repug disinformation:

House Candidate Draws Fire for Web Photo
Thu Mar 30, 8:34 PM ET

SAN DIEGO - A congressional candidate is under fire for a Web site photo that purported to show a peaceful Baghdad neighborhood but was actually taken in a suburb of Istanbul, Turkey.

"We took this photo of Baghdad while we were in Iraq," the accompanying caption on Howard Kaloogian's Web site read. "Iraq (including Baghdad) is much more calm and stable than what many people believe it to be."

Internet bloggers began questioning the photo earlier this week because none of the signs was in Arabic and billboards were advertising Western products.

Kaloogian, a former state assemblyman who founded Move America Forward to support the war and is now running for Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham's House seat, took the photo down on Wednesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060331/ap_on_el_ho/photo_gaffe_4

This is a curious statement from page 2 of the NYT article:

And while the Internet is efficient at reaching supporters, who tend to visit and linger at political sites, it has proved to be much less effective at swaying voters who are not interested in politics. "The holy grail that everybody is looking for right now is how can you use the Internet for persuasion," Mr. Armstrong, the Warner campaign Internet adviser, said.

If they're interested in politics, they can be persuaded to vote for a candidate. If they're not interested in politics, is he saying the Internet can be used to persuade them to get involved in politics? How are you going to get someone not interested in politics to go to such a website? Grassroots maybe?

Most of the MSM news programs now have segments devoted to blogs and the Kaloogian story was all over the news. While it's important not to overstate the importance of blogs in terms of impacting public opinion, it's silly to say blogs have no impact on non-supporters or people who don't frequent blogs. If a person is online, I can't imagine that they haven't come across a blog as they search for information on the issues. Do they stay? So many blogs are popping up and DU sure has grown a lot since I joined.

I wonder how many daily visitors this site gets?

[karendc]

3. There's more to this

Not everyone has to be online to learn from onlne information:

"According to some observers, the Internet may have considerable potential to reach and engage opinion leaders who influence the thinking and behavior of others. According to the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet, "Online Political Citizens" (OPCs) are "seven times more likely than average citizens to serve as opinion leaders among their friends, relatives and colleagues...Normally, 10% of Americans qualify as Influentials. Our study found that 69% of Online Political Citizens are Influentials."

http://www.ipdi.org/UploadedFiles/political%20influentials.pdf

In other words, 7 out of 10 people on the blogs have significant influence on the beliefs and understandings of their neighbors and friends.

This is not an overnight phenomenon, and is one of the most significant things we learned on the Kerry Blog--people who become invested in an online community and become deeply informed by that community do far more to impact the on-the-ground efforts than those who are getting information only or primarily from mainstream media.

It has not been an easy notion to "sell" to officious Washington, where the high-priced consultant is not inclined to shoot himself in the foot, but it is a compelling notion, once they drop the old beliefs.

[ProSense]

4. Thanks for the link. Great point.

I am more familiar with similar studies for print in terms of pass-along readership and word-of-mouth. Same premise though. It's good to have the actual statistics. The MSM continues to write about the blogosphere as if it exists in a vacuum. Every one of DU's subscribers no doubt has had some influence on others who use the Internet infrequently or not at all.

Great information.

[karynnj]

5. They also missed the Kerry blog

Living in NJ, I think I would have missed at least 50% of the campaign if I hadn't checked out johnkerry.com after seeing the address on his bumper stickers. Between the alerts of when he was going to be on TV, the stories on the campaign and the links to local coverage, and the comments from people across the country, it changed the way I saw the campaign.

Using the internet to raise money was one thing, but the blog and the rest of the web site really were different and did build community. I have no idea how many people read it often, but I would guess that those who did are likely disproportionately among those who really saw Kerry for the extraordinary leader he is. I don't know how to say it, but while internet fund raising was a great idea, it was impersonal replacing junk mail as it were. The blog was like a great book or magazine that wasn't finished - in a sense the personal human side of the campaign.

[ProSense]

7. Exactly!

A mention of johnkerry.com prompted me to go to Kerry's site. Up to that point, I was screaming at the TV, because the news just didn't add up---still doesn't, still screaming, but with Kerry (and others) on the scene there is hope.

[beachmom]

6. Jeff Jarvis at buzzmachine.com has a great post about this

http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/04/02/not-quite-times/

Note how he portrays the internet: as a tool for politicians in power. But way lower down in the story, there’s this anectode — which is the real lead — about people who won’t be used and now wield power of their own:


On the left in particular, bloggers have emerged as something of a police force guarding against disloyalty among Democrats, as Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic consultant, learned after he told The Washington Post that bloggers and online donors “are not representative of the majority you need to win elections.”

A Daily Kos blogger wrote: “Not one dime, ladies and gentlemen, to anything connected with Steve Elmendorf. Anyone stupid enough to actually give a quote like that deserves to have every single one of his funding sources dry up.”

That’s the real story, Times, and it’s only just beginning: Politics are changing not because those in power are learning to use these tools but because the people finally have these tools.

That makes me think that we here at the JK forum are a strange phenomenon that is still under the radar. Most people in the left blogosphere have an agenda and hold politicians to the fire if they don't fulfill it. We, on the other hand, have studied John Kerry greatly in depth and have decided he has the character, intelligence, insight, and vision to largely create what we think is most important. We try to think of ourselves as very independently minded, yet we feel reassured that big picture John Kerry is with us, so we are with him. In short, our primary agenda is not the Iraq War or universal health coverage or fiscal responsibility -- it's promoting "our guy" John Kerry. And what makes us truly fascinating was that JK did not either pay us or ask us to do this. Many posters here and on dKos love Feingold, Dean, Clark, and Boxer, yet as soon as one of these politicians does the "wrong" thing, they're immediately lambasted, condemned, and even called the ubiquitous "spineless". We're more forgiving because we know that usually, JK has a good reason for going a slightly different way than we expected, or we just accept "okay, I don't agree" like on, say civil unions vs. gay marriage. Our support for him is not fleeting which makes our smaller organization more powerful than the bigger, fickle ones.

My question to all of you is this. Do we the Kerrycrat people hold real power with the Senator? My first response would be "yes", but I'm curious what all of you think.

[TayTay]

8. Fascinating question.

"My question to all of you is this. Do we the Kerrycrat people hold real power with the Senator? My first response would be "yes", but I'm curious what all of you think."

It is a work in progress. Stay tuned. (I am not trying to be cute or coy. It is a real live work in progress. We shall see. I sincerely hope that we have influence and that we can establish some sort of two-way communication with ALL the Dems on Capitol Hill. (Acutally with all Dems, including local elected officials.)

The liberal web is not the whole of the Democratic Party. That is true. But it can help to form opinions and is a fantastic place to go to churn ideas. (Sometimes that churning gives us heartburn, but on the whole, this is an amazing and wonderful thing.)

[karendc]

9. Power? what is this power you speak of?

The POWER of the jk.com blog was not influence on the campaign after a certain point--the campaign was just too big and there were too many Ehlmendorfs in charge--good people, but still operating under the old rules. Early on, yes, we had opportunities and we used them.

Example: No one in Fall 2003 was talking about OUTSOURCING. A few posts appeared on the blog; they were plaintive and clearly describing a phenomenon happening in various parts of the country. In other words, not something a scheduled focus group was going to get to.

Dick briefed the people upstairs and the issue was addressed by the Senator in his speeches. It may have been one of the issues that jumpstarted his numbers climb.

Anyway, the point is that *power* is not the issue. Anyone here has the *power* to go up to the Senator and mention they blog, and give him advice. Or to write to him. The question is: what is one's responsibility in relation to that power?

That would be a good discussion.

[TayTay]

10. Hahahaha! I figured you'd pick up on that.

It's like Fantasy Baseball Camp, what would I do if only......

In a more perfect world there would be more two-way communication. It's not so much power as it is fully taking advantage of the amazing resources that are found on the net and in the people who read and post there. Your example of the outsourcing issue is great. I only wish that happened more often and not just in the campaigns.

The question is: what is one's responsibility in relation to that power?

Indeed this is the better question. Hmmmm, that requires some pondering time. (In other words, I love it. Let's put that one on the table and see what people say in here.)

[whometense]

12. Very interesting question.

I've been thinking about this since I started blogging - you know, "What am I trying to accomplish here?" - and revisit it at least once every few months.

I started out not trying to influence Kerry at all - but instead trying to wage what often felt like a crazy Don Quoxote-ish battle against the mountains of disinformation that were out there. At first it seemed like us against the media machine, but that soon morphed into the liberal/progressive infighting we still see today. As a Kerry supporter most days I feel besieged on all sides.

I guess I don't see myself as informed or politically sophisticated enough to presume to offer advice. I'm happy to talk about what I see and hear on the ground and online, but I still feel way too busy fighting smears and disinformation to get into other stuff.

I like what beachmom wrote about our little Kerry pod, and I do think there's something fairly new there - though Wes Clark has a cadre of similarly devoted supporters, there are more of us.

My personal impression was that Kerry was (and I'm sure still is) very interested in us, and in what we are thinking and hearing. But he's juggling a lot of what I'll inelegantly call "stuff." Political, financial, policy, etc. etc. His attention must be hard to catch, harder to hold. Hence his everpresent staffers whose job it is to write down the instructions he tosses their way and follow up on. How much follow up there actually is, is something KarenDC knows something about.

[beachmom]

11. Excellent point, KarenDC.

No one is talking about that, other than the MSM, which dismisses the blogosphere as a mob or "overexcited activists". I read recently how our founding fathers were in fact elitists who were ahead of their time, unlike the masses, so there has been and always will be a tension between the elites and power brokers and "the people" where wisdom is often not found in a super-democracy (I think if you polled people, you would find that many disagree with the basic Bill of Rights, but our founding fathers were wiser than that).

But if we assume that the blogosphere is at least a little more elitist than the population as a whole, I am still quite frankly dismayed with a lot of posters out there in the left wing blogs (obviously, I have a BIG problem with the RW blogs, but that goes without saying). They have their compartmentalized issues and never think through all of the consequences, like say how a troop withdrawal will affect Iraq, the Middle East, international terrorism, oil supplies, etc. They only care about the troops, which is praiseworthy, but since we invaded the country and occupied it, it is my opinion that we need to consider the well being of the Iraqi people as well. Yet many bloggers, like Armando of dKos for instance, think we should just get out, and "it's their problem, not ours", as if our actions haven't profoundly changed the dynamics of that country for good.

In regards to Kerry, I will admit to having felt sick with worry and even remorse after the Alito filibuster failed, because I thought that perhaps we had not used our power wisely, counseling him to do something that led to total ridicule of him in the MSM. But after a few weeks has gone by and South Dakota passed their outright ban on abortion, I realized that a) attempting to filibuster Alito WAS the right thing to do and b) it was a strategic success because it allowed many red state and more conservative Dems to portray themselves as centrists -- they voted yes for cloture and no against Alito, the lowest vote for a Supreme Court justice since Clarence Thomas. It moved the debate to the left on an issue very important to me -- choice -- where the RW and Alito are in fact way out of the mainstream. I am not sure how much we bloggers even influenced Kerry on Alito, but I think it did show people power. It also taught me a lesson on how one has to take responsibility if you decide to communicate with a politician.

At this point, we seem to be most influential in tactical and stylistic ways with the Senator -- very important to win elections, of course -- but I don't think we are affecting policy decisions he makes. Perhaps another issue like outsourcing will come up, and we can make some noise about it, but when and if that happens I will very solemnly and prudently use my power.

[karendc]

13. Just to clarify

We were never in a postion to INFLUENCE his thoughts about policy. No one is as informed as he is. But we were able to let the campaign staff know what people were concerned about out here in TV Land.

This may seem like a small point, but it ripples out. The blogosphere is a large and noisy conversation. No one should have to listen to all of that, plus listen to the high donors, the consultants, the staffers, his fellow Senators, Max Cleland, Teresa, Vanessa...you get the picture! If we added value at all, it was as interpreters of the conversations in the blogosphere. Actually, this became Peter Daou's JOB.

Over the past year, as we have all read and considered and researched issues, many here have come to the same conclusions that led us to want to work on his campaign. For the most part, he is his own man. He thinks things through. And no one understands as well as he does how government and people's lives intersect.

So when I ask us to talk about responsibility, rather than power or access, it is not because I believe that we owe him anything, or he owes us anything, including listening to us amidst the noise and haste. It's quite simple, really. How can we HELP?

[beachmom]

14. That's what I thought (NOT influencing thoughts of policy)

Because as you say, he knows more than we do. As far as helping him, that is something that I will have to think about. I feel most comfortable trying to explain the Warner/Kaine phenomenon here in Virginia and why Kerry lost Virginia in 2004, not from a statistic POV but from what I hear. On a secondary level, I do think that the Iraqi bloggers are disseminating different info than the U.S. military or the intelligence community, places where Kerry is WAY more in the know than any of us. But anyway, thank you for taking the time to explain some of this stuff, which does feel way out of my league. My place will always be as a citizen and hopefully, I can help out in some small way.