WurfWhile

[Update: Apologies (sincere) to michael in chicago for butchering his handle in the original post - I’ve corrected it below.]]

I’m at home today with my sick daughter who’s napping now - so I’ve refined a response to comments by CyberDem and more directly So-Called “Austin Mayor” and given it’s length am posting it here:

Hi CyberDem and So-Called “Austin Mayor” - thanks for your comments. While I will ostensibly be responding to Austin Mayor here - I think my response in some ways addresses your comment CyberDem - the net-roots approach is new, and I try to give some sense of what it requires.

First off let me sincerely say that So-Called “Austin Mayor” underestimates their talent and ability. Let me also say I don’t speak for Kos here - but will try to explain his comments about Democratic blogging/hi-tech communications and the 6th District race not being a “net-roots” race as I understand them.

In many cases So-Called “Austin Mayor” is right, most campaigns don’t usually need a ‘technical’ person for a blog - although at least some technical knowledge is needed (e.g. in podcasting) - but what I said was Kos indicated a lack of “‘trained’ bloggers/hi-tech communications people” - i.e. people who know how to communicate in the medium and understand it. In that respect I think we disagree that a specific skill set/level is needed (perhaps because Austin Mayor has that ability and modestly discounts it) and agree that it’s about good content. I would also disagree that the candidate is solely responsible for this content (taking the extreme of Austin Mayor’s words) - although obviously what the candidate brings to the table is a major component. While bells and whistles (properly used) can add tremendously to the bottomline (remember the money Dean bats raised) they are not the primary content.

Austin Mayor writes:

[And if Kos doesn’t think that the IL-6 race has a ”’net-roots” candidate’, I question whether such a
candidate exists - anywhere. Did he give an example of a “real” net-roots candidate? I am curious as to what one looks like.]

IL-6 doesn’t have a “net-roots” candidate because no candidate has taken the mantle and run with it. Let me be clear I’m not dumping on any of the candidates - not everyone wants to be (or perhaps should be or can be) a “net-roots” candidate - and to be fair the vast majority of candidates (winning and losing) thus far are not.

One example since I know you have Cegelis in mind. A “net-roots” candidate is more than one that is aware of the net-roots, speaks to and acknowledges them, and has people out there supporting their campaign. It’s one that integrates their campaign communications with the net-roots - that takes the leap of faith and trust because they believe. Here’s the example from michael in chicago. It’s exactly what you want - a great use of blogging to personally tell the story of a candidate from the perspective of some guy who likes her campaign enough to volunteer to drive her around for a weekend. It’s a compelling approach - and a great way to introduce the candidate to people - and further personalize and develop understanding of the candidate for those who already know her a bit.

Look at Christine Cegelis’ blog and you’ll see what’s missing - the whole story. Not only is Michael’s great story not referenced on the blog (or better yet, up on it) - but nothing’s been updated for over a week. I’ve told people on the campaign that they need fresh material on the blog all the time - and that they had enough blogger support to do it for free. There is no single model for a net-roots campaign, but if Christine had a net-roots campaign with the current infrastructure you, Austin Mayor, should have been asked to blog regularly on the campaign blog, along with michael in chicago and others (obviously with ground rules - but also with the trust that you would best represent Christine because you believe in her and her message). The message in Cegelis’ blog, like her opponent Lindy Scott’s blog, is that we understand acknowledging blogs and the net-roots is important - and blogs are part of our campaign - but ultimately that’s not what our campaign is about. I do give credit to Christine for reaching out and to Lindy for a very good and smart approach to endorsements that fits his campaign. But net-roots isn’t what it’s about for either of them (and not for fellow Democrat Tammy Duckworth or the Republican opponent Peter Roskam).

That’s not me trashing the campaigns. Again, while I see value (and values) in “net-roots” campaigns, that doesn’t mean they’re for everyone - or that you can’t run a perfectly good, honorable and winning campaign using another strategy. I should also note that Kos suggested that there still could be a net-roots campaign in the 6th - but there wasn’t one now. I agree. Arguably Tammy Duckworth’s campaign, hampered by Tammy’s inability to do anything public until her release from the National Guard, could have positioned itself as much more of a net-roots campaign, particularly among military blogs, than it did (I recognize there were issues about any public office discussions prior Duckworth’s military release, so perhaps this could not have been done until just before her campaign announcement - but even then it might have been worthwhile). The net-roots might have helped create much needed infrastructure at no cost. This still might happen for any of the three Democrats in the race - although it’s harder and harder to see them effectively adapting to it until after the primary.

Who did Kos point to as running a net-roots operation?

The senate campaign in Ohio between Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett. What are some examples of it (my examples, not Kos’)?

From Brown’s blog (Grow Ohio):

“Grow Ohio is a community-based project with the goal of empowering the grassroots of Ohio’s Democratic Party. By signing up to become a member, you can access the tools necessary to get involved in a meaningful way, talk about local issues and upcoming events, and swap stories on the blog. So, sign up for an account and join the conversation today.”

Brown’s people forgot to say it’s also extremely cool.

From Hackett’s website under “Take Action”:

“5. Be Our Eyes and Ears

There’s a lot of information about this race out there… tv, radio and the internet, add them all up and there could be a lot of misinformation out there. If you see a mistruth about Paul or his campaign, correct it. If you spot news we may have missed, send it to us. If you come across an opportunity we should be taking, tell us.”

When you click

“We cannot succeed without your feedback. Please use the form below if you have any questions, comments or suggestions. We will do our best to respond to each email personally either by email, phone or U.S. Mail.”

There’s a difference - and it’s not just about money and resources - it’s about tone, message and overall content.

In the end a net-roots campaign should do just what michael in chicago describes:

“I felt patriotic this weekend. I felt like I was actually doing something to reclaim my government. I felt involved in a way I never had before, even when I was involved with the Dean campaign. And I’m not alone in this feeling. As Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur said when she visited a couple weeks ago: ‘You can’t fake this kind of enthusiasm and energy.’

I went into this weekend biased and came out convinced. Christine Cegelis is winning. She’s winning people over with her genuine desire to change government for the better. She’s winning people over by listening to them, talking with them, going to their homes, their local ma & pa restaurants, their local events, and their district forums. She’s winning because she shows up, early and often. She’s winning because she’s one of us, and we can all win through her.”

A net-roots campaign makes people excited to wake up each morning and see what has happened in their campaign - and what they can contribute to their campaign that day, hour and minute to get their candidate that much closer. It’s a community experience built around constant group effort.

Just as Austin Mayor’s recent blog post plugging Jake Parrillo’s fundraiser doesn’t make Austin Mayor a Republican (and I like Jake too) - so too Austin Mayor, michael in chicago and a handful of other bloggers’ efforts along with some blog posts from Christine do not make the Cegelis campaign a net-roots operation. Do I think the Cegelis campaign could turn it into a net-roots campaign? Absolutely. Do I think it would be wise to go that route? I have advocated it in the past to them as the right thing to do - and I still think there is merit to it at this stage of the game. But it’s their decision whether or not they want to make it about you - all of you - and your net-roots campaign. While the decision has moral overtones it is a strategic decision. Net-roots is not the only way to run a campaign morally or strategically - and it certainly isn’t the only way to win. It is a new way - and it arguably may become one of the best ways.