Meetup.com members as of 9/09/2007
These numbers are important, because they are unsolicited grass roots support.

Republicans

Paul 42,440
Hunter 194
Thompson 169
McCain 107
Giuliani 55
Tancredo 33
Romney 30
Huckabee 30

Democrats

Obama 5804
Edwards 4123
Kucinich 4034
Clinton 2021
Gravel 43
Richardson 33
Biden 0
Dodd 0

I would agree that the greater potential from candidate blogging is from community blogging (i.e. my.barackobama.com) and not so much from official paid candidate blogs. I've been wondering about something: How much danger is there really from opening up access to community blogging on a website like my.barackobama.com? I made the point in my post that Obama's website needs a recommended list, a blogroll, a full list of diaries --- all of these tools that other sites have used to great success in creating vibrant, engaged online communities.

These are supporters who will, independently of the candidate, magnify and spread their message throughout the country --- this is true even if the readers of these new blogs are no one outside of their family and friends. New people are draw to blogging through mainstream candidates than through establishment blogs that are perceived in the media as too far left or too far right.

Most of these newly-minted bloggers are very committed to the campaign, defensive about their candidate, happy to take tips from the campaign and spread its message. These community bloggers exchange tips and encouragement, coordinate responses to news articles and write letters to the editor (this is one of the biggest functions of my.barackobama.com that i've seen so far), exchange new arguments that could be useful while canvassing or phone-banking. There are clear benefits from the liveliness that such a website could produce. (DailyKos and MyDD have also proven that online communities can be pretty potent when it comes to generating fundraising too.) Such a community has the potential to revitalize democracy a little bit.

So what is the risk? For one, there's the possibility that a journalist could do a piece on the website and quote from community bloggers extensively as if they were surrogates for the campaign --- this doesn't actually seem that likely to happen. First, partly because the mainstream media still seems reluctant to quote these kinds of online sources. Second, other candidates have taken the plunge and haven't really suffered any consequences: Edwards has a blogroll and a recommended list, while Clinton's Hillaryhub.com highlights a list of blog posts on MyDD and DailyKos --- and to my knowledge not one has even been cited in a press piece (though Hillaryhub also seems to steer away from some of the more caustic Clinton supporters/bloggers on MyDD and it doesn't highlight community blogging on its own site.)

The bigger risk is another David Geffen moment . Racist/sexist/obscene comments posted on candidate blogs aren't really the problem, since the campaign has no problem deleting and repudiating them, though it is an interesting point that MyDD and DailyKos work partly because they have no compunction about banning users that cause trouble --- would political campaigns be as willing? The bigger problem is when candidates are called upon to repudiate statements from supporters critical of other candidates.

Opposition research teams will probably be scanning through the blogs. It would probably not be too hard to find a critical comment of the Clintons somewhere on my.barackobama.com, and, in this scenario, just to take an example, Obama would be challenged to reject the comment. (Geffen's "lying comes to them so easily" comes to mind.)

But besides just being uncomfortable, is there really any danger in this kind of situation? The David Geffen moment was a pretty tiny ripple in this campaign. No one not playing insider baseball would know who he is or why he matters. In the media coverage, it was more about judging the relative professionalism of the media veterans in both campaigns. Second, the campaign can just as readily say that they had nothing to do with the comment --- that it doesn't respresent their views, etc. Wouldn't that suffice? (Hm... I wonder if a rival campaign could actually call upon them, as site administrator, to delete the comment or ban the user...)

Anyway, sorry for the long comment. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Excellent post and discussion.

Regarding this sentence, "Bloggers working for a campaign are digital press secretaries," you're right.

In fact, that's why I used to go by the moniker "Spokesblogger" on Congressman Jack Kingston's blog:

I never had the title of “New Media Director” or “Blog Coordinator.” On Capitol Hill, I was known as the “communications director” who was using a new medium to communicate a Republican message. But in the blogosphere, I used the moniker, “Spokesblogger.” I was no longer simply writing press releases and taking incoming calls or trying to pitch a story to a reporter - I was also blogging incessantly on a Congressional website and at Redstate - and loving every minute of it.

There's also a difference between a professional communicator who becomes a blogger and a blogger that becomes a campaign operative. For me, it wasn't until I actually had a blog of my own that I saw the blogger-side of the world. However, that didn't mean I still didn't help get out a message effectively.

For a blogger-turned-operative, I think it's likely a delicate balance. But just as a reporter has a "beat" that they may not always agree with or want to write about, it's still their job and it's likely helping them get where they need to go.

Again, great thread.

________________________________________
David All
http://davidallgroup.com
http://techRepublican.com
http://slatecard.com
________________________________________

Wonderful comments! I am so glad this conversation is continuing.

Psericks to your question about opening up the community and really making what is there known, I think the big danger comes in two forms. The first is that these communities are really little islands that create echo chambers seperated from the rest of the voting public. Adrienne Royer followed up on that at techRepublican saying "The majority of this country receives the news from reading a newspaper or watching TV". What happens online influences the MSM now in a way that cannot be separated, but it is not necessarily equal.

There is a culture growing in places like Edward's & Obama's community spaces that contains a good deal of vilification against other democrats as well as Republicans and other groups (right to life movement, the NRA, religious right etc).

Meanwhile I sometimes wonder how someone who rallies others with such combative ideas against candidates in their own party can turn that off if their pick loses. In this echo chamber can they rejoin the party for the general election when they are on record for a year of their lives saying terrible things about them and encouraging others to do the same?

The general election is the second problem area. When Edwards hired Amanda Marcott and Melissa McEwan he had a taste of how an uncensored and highly ingrained sub-culture on the far left of the party plays in the television, newspaper, magazine, talk radio world.

When I read through those spaces and see the things written, slanderous accusations, somewhat obscene ideas, even things that can be misconstrued as threats, I think "how will this play when Sean Hannity & Bill O'Reilly" give the impression that it comes directly from the campaigns? The call will be, "It is on your Web site, you must encourage it". They have weight because what they say is easily picked up by the MSM with their slant and repeated, and repeated, and repeated like the Dean scream.

There is a lot to chew on and a lot to explore in your question but those are my first two thoughts. What do you think?

www.electiongeek.com

That's the funny thing about community blogging on these candidate websites, I don't actually agree with this part of your argument:

There is a culture growing in places like Edward's & Obama's community spaces that contains a good deal of vilification against other democrats as well as Republicans and other groups (right to life movement, the NRA, religious right etc).

This seems reflective of the common misconception about Internet 2.0 or online communities. The reality is much more mundane and kind of beautiful. Fourteen thousand people on the Obama website not only took the step of setting up a profile, but they decided to set up a blog, though most of these people are no doubt not very active --- if the website was more transparent in how it operated and was more adept structurally at encouraging interaction, there would be more.

These are not the people who we traditionally think of as political bloggers --- all of those people blog elsewhere. I have the feeling that these community blogs draw in a broader sample of the public. Campaigns have the ability to draw people in and encourage them to be a part of the discussion in ways that other kinds of websites don't. This isn't just about winning the campaign but about fostering an active, engaged electorate, about improving our democracy.

And if you flip through the list of all blog entries posted on my.barackobama.com, the overwhelming majority of posts are first-hand accounts of a recent rally, accounts of a grassroots organizing action, occasional discussions of unrelated current events, lots of repostings of news articles about the campaign, etc. There's not all that much that's offensive. There aren't that many "slanderous accusations" or "obscene ideas." The community is actually pretty tame.

I'm not that interested in these community blogs becoming the face of the campaign. What I would like to see is the internal walls within these sites taken down so that these supporters can better communicate with each other. Supporters can exchange encouragement, share organizing ideas, build ties, etc. etc.

One of the best ways that online communities police themselves is not just through active administrators but through user-generated feedback: recommended lists that bump the best diaries to the top and encourage bloggers to read each other's posts, troll ratings that can hide offensive comments, etc.