Tonight's dueling blogger dinners in Arlington by Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran got me thinking about these events, what the point of them is, and what they say about the evolving role of bloggers in the political universe. In no particular order, here are a few thoughts that come to mind.1. Increasingly, bloggers are being courted by candidates. This is a stark contrast to just a few years ago, when "blogger dinners" were rare (if they occurred at all), and bloggers were generally ignored by political campaigns. After Webb, Obama, etc., that's certainly not the case anymore.
2. Overall, I think having dinner or other meetings with bloggers is a fine idea. I do believe it should be made clear who the candidate is inviting - only supporters, supporters and "neutrals," or anyone and everyone.
2a. My understanding is that Josh Chernila was disinvited to the Moran dinner after endorsing Terry McAuliffe. So, apparently, Moran's dinner is only for Moran supporters or "neutrals." In contrast, Deeds campaign manager Joe Abbey SPECIFICALLY told me yesterday that I was NOT uninvited following my endorsement of Terry McAuliffe. I note the stark difference in attitude, as I believe it is revealing of the different approaches those two campaigns are taking.
2b. On the same note, Terry McAuliffe's blogger dinner a couple weeks ago had people there who supported Terry, leaned towards Terry, were neutral in the race, were leaning against Terry, or were outright hostile to Terry.
3. Blogger dinners should, ideally, be "on the record" unless there's some overriding reason why they shouldn't be. Brian Moran's blogger dinner last spring was off the record (I'm not 100% sure about tonight's dinner, which I'm not attending, but I presume it's on the record). Terry McAuliffe's two dinners so far have both been completely ON the record. Creigh's dinner tonight is ON the record; in fact, Joe Abbey specifically asked me if I was bringing my flip video camera.
4. In general, what all these dinners, lunches, phone calls, live blogs, etc. by candidates for governor, LG, AG, House of Delegates, etc. tell me is that candidates now see bloggers as an important group of "influentials" to court and hopefully win over to their side. Whether or not they're correct in their assumption that bloggers have influence, they DO seem to be assuming that, which is why they're willing to spend the candidate's precious time and money to wine and dine them. Again, this is a significant contrast from just a few years ago, when bloggers - at least at the state level - generally were not courted.
5. Candidates and their campaigns obviously attempt to woo the "traditional" media as well, so this is not much different, except that bloggers are not pure reporters, they are also activists, advocates, and even party officials or electeds. As the lines get blurrier and blurrier, does this help enhance public understanding of the political process and the politicians, does it hurt it, or what? I'd say it's a mixed bag, but I definitely don't see any reason to believe that "citizen journalists" will do any less of a job than traditional reporters. The main thing is that bloggers should disclose their biases as much as possible, and certainly should disclose any monetary relationship they currently have with a candidate.
6. It's become a joke between Ben and me that I decide who to support in inverse relationship to how much they wine and dine me. For instance, if I recall correctly, Jim Webb offered Josh, Lee and me only glasses of water at our first meeting, and we loved him anyway (the discussion of Jacksonian Democracy was a lot more nourishing than any food)! In contrast, Harris Miller insisted on treating Josh and me to an expensive dinner at a nice restaurant, and we...well, didn't end up supporting him. So, candidates, keep that in mind as you court the bloggers. We can be an ornery lot! :)
