Matt Stoller discusses the criteria for a Netroots endorsement at MyDD. A lot of people have raised questions about how they make their decisions…you should all go read the whole thing. The Cliff Notes are below.
I’m not sure how useful the blogging world was to Jon Corzine’s election in 2005, but the blogosphere that was left behind in the wake of that election has been helpful to New Jersey progressives and Democrats. The Virginia blogs created in the wake of Tim Kaine recruited James Webb, and won him the primary victory. The Montana blogs that grew in 2004 helped Tester immensely in his primary victory. The Connecticut blogs are becoming a permanent part of the Connecticut establistment and beating up on Lieberman, the Texas blogs are remaking the Texas Democratic party, and the Pennsylvania blogs are part of the ‘silent revolution’ that is attacking the very structure of the Philly machine. All over the place, an entirely new progressive and open source political intelligence network is snapping into place, supporting candidates, learning, and growing. Next cycle, they will recruit candidates and one day soon, we will have an entirely different party. It will have its own problems and its own structural weaknesses, but it will be more transparent and it will be people-powered.
What do you think about this strategy?
If they called this something like “David, Kos, Matt, Chris Endorsed” it would be great. I think alot of people would value their work in tracking down local netroots activity. But they do need to come up with a more inclusive process to call it “Netroots Endorsed.” And I hate to be so pc, but why no women involved in the selection process? I’m sure they’d have reasons for this, but they are leaving themselves wide open to being labelled a good-ol-boys club.
Politics has AWYAYS been a “good ol boys club” and I suspect this isn’t going to change appreciably, not in my lifetime anyway.
As far as I can tell, women bloggers who are getting the widest front page readership are those who have been chosen (by the men) who own and who run the the biggest blogs. I am a bright enough bulb to know that this mean that its mostly the women who don’t get “too far outa line” that get heard the most.
Which leaves the rest of us pesky “womens studies” types out of the mix, pretty much, in terms of the “big blog” world that is getting so much attention now.
It’s no surprise to me to see the chest beating behaviors we’re seeing now..as a lot of fella big bloggers compete to see who can shout the loudest, and speak for the biggest number of us. Doesn’t impress me one bit either.
I think I’m lucky living in Philly to have [off the top of my head] five very good bloggers, who also happen to be female, reporting on local/national stuff: A Smoke Filled Room, Above Average Jane, Factesque, Politics Philly [she’s having Drupal issues right now though] and Susie. I can think of three big bloggers who get some good national attention who also happen to be women: Pam Spaulding, Annatopia and MSOC. And there’s also Georgia10 who is all of 23 years, [but I don’t think I’ve ever read a sentence of her writings].
I don’t know why they’re not a bigger part of these, for the lack of a better phrase, top-level things, but they should. How can the rest of us push them to the forefront?
And I say ‘bloggers who just happen to be female’ because they’re not just ‘female bloggers’ – they’re just good writers/thinkers.
>>I don’t know why they’re not a bigger part of these, for the lack of a better phrase, top-level things, but they should. How can the rest of us push them to the forefront?<<
Very big question, and one I’ve spent a lot of time on, without any easy answers. The entire structure of politics in a heirarchy: a competative model based on power over others. The power has always been concentrated at the (male dominated) top of every part of it. Traditionally, the first priority of those who have power is to hang onto it, protect it, increase it.
I have not met any men with power who seem very willing to move over a bit, to share it with anyone, especially women. There’s that fear of being criticized by other men…as bearing too soft, etc.
Many women, on the other hand, bring a more collaborative, creative energy (rather than strongly conpetative energy) to the world. This is often viewed by men and women, as a “weaker” energy.
The stark reality is that BOTH kinds of energiies are deperately needed if there is to be any kind of essential balance at all. It is the lack of this balance in America…that has, in my opinion, led us down this long dark road. If I am right, it’s going to take restoring that balance for us to even survive.
But this means that those WITH power currently, need to wake the hell up and move over a bit, so the legions of powerful women who stand ready, willing and oh SO VERY able…can take their rightful place in this top down society.
It is NOT likely that women can change any of this basic imbalance all on our own, because our lives hold so many other priorities besides the drive for more power over others: things like home, family, having and raising children, loving, listening, collaborating, creating..because we know how to do all of these so very essential things..
It is a plesure to hear a man ask that question, Albert, a real pleasure. This is hope for “someday…”
Don’t get mad, but in my corporate experience, men work with other men much more easily than women work with other women. However, it is true that many men, a decent percentage, resent being given orders from a woman. However, in my experience, many women resent the very same thing, but do not resent taking orders from a man.
As for power sharing, that is probably a little different, since I more discussing office politics.
Good god, office politics! The parallel universe that is the real world.
At my old job my duty was to carry out the orders of a man, and act as go-between to a bunch of engineers, a bunch of grunt mircochip fab operators, and a bunch of program directors, plus deal with outside clients and suppliers. So, I got a very good look at how all these groups interact, since I was essentially a liaison officer.
I don’t miss it.
I think that if I hear the phrases ‘open source’ and ‘people-powered’ one more time I’m going to puke.
But I don’t think the strategy is bad. It could be better, it could be worse. I’m not sure how much better it can be until local blogs are more ubiquitous.
To Chris’ credit, he is very very pro putting the focus on the local blogs. I know with my discussions with him [convenient that we’re both in Philly] that he wants to help the local blogs get the credit they deserve as they are the ones closest to the action.
I’ve only received that focus when it made me look like a dope.
ah yes, that wasn’t pretty. he apologized later on about that mess.
Where? I got an email which was nice, but I never saw anything public.
This is the closest I can find right now, he said that he posted a retraction afterwards, but no link and I don’t feel like searching for it right now.
If by close you mean nothing like, I think we can agree. The most recent thing I can find is something titled OK, So Maybe I Wasn’t Wrong About PoliticsXX. No biggie.
it’s just window-dressing to be perfectly honest.
The best netroots endorsement a candidate can get from blogtopia is a blogger who splits his/her time between on-the-ground organization and regular updates on the web. Tim’s post for Ned Lamont currently on the recommended list seems like a good model – not only is he working in Connecticut, he’s sharing ads and campaign updates with us here that I would’ve never received in the desert of southern Arizona.
Another quibble. Is it a “MyDD Netroots Endorsement” or a “Netroots Endorsement”; because it is starting to grate my nerves to hear that as a blogger I am endorsing someone whom I had no input for the selection process.
You and NLinStPaul make the same point. Are there any seats left on this bus? May I step aboard?
The idea is fine as far as it goes, but let’s not call it “netroots” unless we’re having some form of actual democracy, folks. My problem isn’t with them making endorsements, it’s in their claiming they wear the mantle of democracy.
The Knoxville News-Sentinel has published a letter of mine, but that doesn’t mean I’d be comfortable if they decided to endorse a candidate and claimed it was on “behalf of everyone who has ever written here.”
Sure theres seasts left on the bus! Just keep walking. They’re back there behind the roas of seats reserved for the big boys who can see the big picture and know what’s best for all of us.
Back of the bus? Back of the bus!?!?!
I thought there were laws against that kind of thing now (I know, laws, what a quaint notion).
Sure theres laws about this! The ones they write to make people think things have really changed when they haven’t changed much at all, but they do make lots of people feel better about how it still is .
If MyDD is censoring input and banning legitimate comment, then how can they claim to represent something through a fair input process??
They cannot and it is pure BS for them to suggest so. Just another exmaple from the many of how censorship of legitimate input always gets you in trouble eventually. How good (versus evil) can the intentions of someone be who condones censoring to increase their short term perceived clout??
As a strategy for electing Democrats, it seems workable and I wish them success in drawing members willing to contribute to their ambitions. That said, the people doing the picking aren’t progressives in my opinion and won’t pick strictly progressive candidates so I have no interest in being one of those contributors. They definitely don’t speak for me on politics in general or this in particular.
As far as their use of the word netroots, it’s just a marketing sham that damages their credibility in my eyes. If the selection process isn’t democratic, then it has nothing to do with the roots of anything. Different medium, different master, same patriarchical structure. Tell me who to support daddy, I promise I’ll be a good little boy.