Let me reiterate what I say in the title. This is one person’s perception.
Let me put that into context. I have attended all three conventions, and organized and led at least one panel at each. I also write this as a long-time member of this community and someone who lives in the National Capital region and is somewhat politically active here. That sentence is offered solely to perhaps help readers understand some of what I will offer. While this is my perception, my observations, my analysis, I hope that this diary can provide an occasion of conversation, where others can provide evidence supporting or gainsaying what I have offered. After all, I was but one of 2,000 attendees, and only saw a small fraction of the sessions.
So please join me below the fold.
In Las Vegas we were a freak show. In writing that, we were curiosity for the political press, who were not sure what to make of us. Certainly some were drawn by the idea that several possible presidential candidates were participating: we were graced by Wes Clark, Bill Richardson, Mark Warner and Tom Vilsack. And at that point many in the MSM had no real idea of who bloggers were. I remember many conversations with notable journalists who were amazed how many of us were NOT simply in our twenties. Perhaps I heard that more often given my graying hair and beard, but I suspect the age, experience and expertise members of the blogging community offered were a surprise.
Chicago drew attention less for us than for the "big event" of the Presidential candidates. That they deemed to spend time with us, with Clinton even rearranging her schedule to have more complete interaction with the participants offered some validation. The press grasped that, and attended that event, and the breakout sessions with the candidates, but far too often were more concerned with chatting with one another than with the members of the community, even those of us who were leading panels for which we ourselves had demonstrated expertise that had been sufficient to draw experts who were not themselves bloggers. The press seemed to ignore that. Even when far too many of us crammed into that one small bar in the hotel, you might see 6 or 7 journalists at one table, and few others even chatting up people that in our electronic community are notables. Even at the party Time threw before the convention fully got going, the journalists - and there were many - congregated with one another, and it sometimes took some effort to get them to talk with ordinary bloggers.
But Chicago was already representing a change. Others were beginning to recognize that we were people who should be engaged. After all, the Teamsters threw us a party. And NyBri was able to organize an event with many Democratic Congressional candidates, providing them an opportunity to network with the broader netroots community. And an increasingly progressive organizations were seeing us as allies, supporting the convention in myriad ways, from offering swag to participating in sessions to hosting social events. They saw the benefit of affiliating and participating with the netroots.
And in Chicago we saw some changes on our part - the organizing of more local and topical groups, where people could come together to talk about how to build on connections. Yes, there had been some of this in Vegas, but there was even more in Chicago. And we saw a broadening of the community in the efforts of Kid Oakland to sponsor participation by some who needed financial assistance to attend.
Now? We may have lots of us that those outside the Netroots would consider weird, but we are no longer a freak show nor even a mild curiosity. We represent something of importance.
Think back. Las Vegas was part way through a cycle that would see the Democrats regain control of Congress. And those in the Netroots played an important role in that, especially with regard to the Senate. After all, we backed Tester against Morrison, recruited Webb into the race and supported him against Miller. Heck, there was even early support for Obama’s senatorial bid when he was still considered much of a long shot. It was logical for candidates for federal office to want to engage with us, not merely because we could assist them with raising money online, but because we could network, help provide grassroots support, assist in keeping the media somewhat honest, provide meaningful research and analysis.
So that leads me to my first reaction to Austin. I think Nancy Pelosi coming to engage with us is a recognition by some of the party leadership of the important roles we can and sometimes do provide. Saturday evening I heard a number of people criticize her, with some saying she should be in the Senate because of how well she filibustered the questions. That was not my perception. I heard the most powerful woman in America several times focus on our holding public officials - including her - accountable. My perception is that was a recognition of a benefit: because we insist on accountability we are beginning to provide cover for some politicians to move beyond the conventional way of acting. Let me restate that this way: Nancy Pelosi recognizes that how business is done has to change, and our demand for accountability, our insistence on being heard, and our stated willingness to support primary challengers, may provide a framework in which leaders who recognize the need to change can begin to move some of the more reluctant and recalcitrant members in a positive direction.
In Austin we receive major validation as an essential, important part of the Democratic party. We have seen the leadership of the party under Dean recognize what we can accomplish. It is not just that Howard has himself repeatedly come to the conferences. It is also the DNC decision to move to embedding bloggers with state delegations, to providing better facilities for those accredited but not embedded. Yes, there have been glitches, and there have been party officials at state and local levels who have resisted this process, but it is happening.
And regardless of how the press played it, the presence of Al Gore represents a major validation, a real recognition of the role we can potentially play. But with that validation also comes responsibility. And at least for me, it is recognition of that responsibility that shapes my perceptions of Austin. And I will return to this.
But first, some general reactions. The setting was by far the best of the three. Las Vegas is sui generis, but the Riviera was not all that pleasant a facility, and the the offsite locals really felt kind of weird, unreal if you will. In Chicago the events were far too spread out, and having only one really accessible bar - in the hotel - simply did not cut it. By contrast, the facility in Austin was centrally enough located to have a lot of options for formal and informal get-togethers. The sessions were close enough that one did not feel the need to run to get from one to the next. I remember in Chicago being part of one panel in the hotel and then having to speedwalk in order to get to another I really needed to attend which was about as far away as one could get in McCormick. It was a brief walk and two escalators between the two main locales, and that worked pretty well.
The quality of the sessions I attended were pretty good. I have some concern that in some sessions there is simply not enough time for constructive interaction with the audience. It is hard with more than four on a panel to let them all have their say and still have time for audience questions. But given the wide variety of people who want to participate, and the number of outside experts willing to engage with us, I think there is a tradeoff that is worthwhile. Still, I would like to see a somewhat better balance between engaging the attendees and hearing from those on the panels. There are occasions where the audience reaction may be less important. I suspect the conversation with Don Siegelman was one where the key was to hear the most from him - on that I cannot comment directly, as that event was scheduled at the same time as I was leading my own panel on politically active youth.
There were a few glitches. For example, we knew the previous week that C-Span wanted to tape my session. They also wanted to tape the session with Joe Trippi the time slot earlier, so for that time slot a three-way switch of rooms was done. While it was announced the evening before, and new schedules were put outside each of the rooms, far too many people did not get the message. For example, the people doing the streaming had not been informed, and as result began those sessions mislabeled, which could be annoying for those offsite hoping to view one of the relocated panels. That is a coordination issue that should be easily solvable in the future. I would also suggest exploring using easels or some other method be placed outside the rooms of relocated sessions that would say in easily readable text what session is being held there, and to where the session that had been scheduled there was moved. As it was, someone had to stand in the hallway and check on the late arrivals to ensure they knew where the session they wanted to attend was located, lest they disrupt twice, first by late arrival and then leaving when they realize they were in the wrong place.
Also, the tent cards for those relocated sessions were still in the rooms to which the sessions had originally been assigned. Fortunately that was fairly easily remedied. But when substitute or additional speakers were on a panel, there were no tent cards for them, leaving them unidentified on the live feed. It might sense to have a capacity to quickly print such tent cards for panelist changes and/or additions.
Those glitches are minor. Something else does need to be seriously addressed. For any panel in which there is going to be audience involvement, there needs to be a microphone for those participating from the audience. I know how annoying it is when I am watching C-Span and there is an audience question with no audience mike: the moderator has to repeat the question so the viewing audience can hear it, and sometimes so others in the hall can hear. Fortunately both the panel Form Dean to Obama and mine on Politically Active Youth were in the same hall. Neither needed all the possible dais mikes, the people from Cspan had a wireless mike that they were able to patch in. But suppose they were not there with that mike? And then, each panel had to seek out someone to be trained to use the mike (knowing how and when to mute and when to turn on and to move it around the audience). Methinks this is something that needs to be part of future planning.
I don’t want to focus on technical glitches. THey are worth mentioning mainly so we can prevent reoccurrence. And Adam B has already gotten a good number of suggestions on other issues of similar or related natures.
I want to return to our responsibility as participants, as a community, because I believe that as we look to the future, it is unfair to place responsibility for improving the convention solely on the board and the many volunteers who enable the event to take place. Let me offer a few general suggestions, some of which require some coordination with those running the convention, before I focus on my main concern.
In Chicago I showed up late Wednesday morning, and somehow because I was available to help wound up with a leadership position in putting together the swag bags. I would have been happy to assist again, but did not know that this year the effort was going to be done on Tuesday, or I could have come a day earlier. It seems to me that there are many who would be willing to do certain volunteer efforts were they more clearly communicated. Some of this falls on us. A number of segments in the community came together for the effort for care packages for troops. I would hope that next year we would have multiple such efforts, where our participants could put together packages for people in need. It might be for those in military hospitals. Given our rate of incarceration, perhaps we could do an effort for prisoners, perhaps particularly in juvenile facilities. Perhaps we could coordinate that with local efforts. we had some local coordination - Kath25 being able to get a number of people to go out on Wednesday to do voter registration. We are coming into a community, and it would be nice if we planned as a regular part of our effort giving something to the local community upon whom we are descending. Yes, we are spending money in their communities, but somehow I think our commitment to changing our politics and our society would be more meaningful were we able to do something to give to the community.
Next, after three conventions held in cities led by Democratic Mayors, we have yet to have one address us. Perhaps they were invited and declined, but it seems to me that given the prominent Democrats coming to participate in our conventions, Oscar Goodman of Las Vegas, Richie Daley of Chicago and Will Wynn of Austin could have taken the time to offer some words of welcome to their cities. Of course, that raises the question of how rude some of us are at times prone to be. And that leads to my main concern, which is how we view the responsibility that comes with the visibility and validation we are now receiving.
I do not think that anyone can say that Nancy Pelosi was not challenged by the questions she received. Perhaps some might be unhappy that she did not answer as they wanted, or chose to defer to John Conyers on some issues. Yet somehow I remember members of this community complaining bitterly not so long ago when they believe that the Speaker would not let Conyers even take up the first steps of investigation. Yes, she totally ignored the subject of arresting under inherent contempt. But let’s be real, folks. She has a caucus to lead. She welcomed our keeping the pressure on - and perhaps that will provide the framework for more aggressive Congressional oversight. We can challenge, but even when we vociferously disagree we do not need to be rude about it. Not in this setting. And remember, Gina Cooper followed up with some fairly aggressive comments and additional questions.
I am not an advocate of suppressing free speech. But in a community we need to consider the nature of our speech not only insofar as it expresses our deepest feelings but as it affects the others who are part of the community. I do not believe the heckler should be allowed a veto over what I am able to hear. We were this year confronted with something that was at least annoying and distracting, and that was the Code Pink folks. Regardless of whether or not they believe street theater actions are effective (and i tend to think they are more often counterproductive), they draw attention from press that might be better focused on the meaningful exchanges between those addressing the convention and the vast majority of the attendees who want to hear what the visitors have to say. I think we need some clear guidelines as to what activities are considered acceptable as part of our participation in the convention.
Related to this is our relationship with other groups and people who wish to take advantage of the large number of people we draw. Certainly the LaRouche people have free expression rights, and on the sidewalk outside the park where Dean was speaking is fair game. Two years in a row we have now had people enter the convention itself who raise issues. Last year we had the young man in military uniform who wanted to challenge some of our Iraq veterans on their positions. This year Bob Barr, who is a candidate for another political party, bought a ticket and came in to mingle. In fairness, Barr was not at all disruptive and from what I saw was reasonably gracious. Last year I remember the difficulties.
I am not suggesting that such people be denied admission. I am suggesting that there may be a need for guidelines of acceptable behavior within the convention confines so that if someone’s behavior is not acceptable we have the legal basis for lifting their credentials. And I am also suggesting that we give some consideration to how we interact with such people. Please note: I am not suggesting that there was any problem this year. The major conservative response to our presence in Austin was a counter-conference (for which Barr was to be a key speaker) which drew far fewer people. But I think it fair to anticipate that our increased visibility raises the possibility of more such encounters that are not so benign, and we need to give some thought as to the approach we will attempt to take as a community.
And then there is the press. I know many people who were infuriated by the front page piece in the Sunday Austin paper. And perhaps that, and few diaries that pointed at other press coverage, led me to think about relations with the press. Perhaps we could have a function within the press relations. Perhaps it would be a location on the convention website for which links to all stories we can identify about the convention, its events and attendees, could be posted. Perhaps as part of credentialing the press we could request that they provide us with that information when it is available. And the web site could also have contact information for attendees who might want to comment, favorably or critically, about that coverage: it would be one way of holding the MSM a bit more accountable? Similarly, perhaps in cases of truly egregious misstatements in the press coverage there could be someone within staff authorized to issue statements on behalf of the convention - as an official statement it might be more likely to get attention and a response than would the reactions of ordinary attendees.
One additional suggestion. Most conventions I attend have a session by session evaluation procedure. Far too often those are paper intensive. I wonder if we might not be able to have some online facility for feedback on sessions. It could help guide the staff in planning for future panels and panelists, and it could give those who present feedback that can enable them to improve their own presentations. And perhaps through the convention there could be a means of providing two-way communication between presenters and attendees for those who are reluctant to share personal e-mails. Call it if you will the convention blog site?
I thought this year’s convention was quite good. I especially appreciated the opportunity once again to put faces to screen names, whether for the first time or yet again with people I had met at previous conventions. My expressions are less criticisms than they are things I think worth considering as means of making the convention even more effective. I am serious that I think we need to recognize that we are being validated, that we are being valued, both as netroots participants in general, and specifically in the coming together we have now down three times. And I think with that validation and valuing comes a responsibility: that we think seriously what this means, how we can best use the access and influence that seems to be coming to us on behalf of advancing a more progressive future for the party and for the nation.
Those are my thoughts. What are yours?
Peace.