Bio
Dana began her Mom Career when her son was born in 2004. When she isn't fulfilling demands for chocolate milk and oreos or watching episodes of Bob t...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

Recent Comments

BlogHer 2007: Educating Myself On Politics and Our Online Community

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 12
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

BlogHer 2007 was my first blogging conference and I must admit I learned more about politics than I bargained for.

My education began with the first Breakout Session for politics, Earn Our Votes: What Questions Do Women Bloggers Want Candidates to Answer In Election 2008?

Sarah Simmons, a Republican party pollster shared statistics about the diversity and trends of female voters both young and old, as well as spoke about how women voters drove the margin for change in the House and Senate in the 2006 elections.

She stated that women have a broad agenda when it comes to politics. Some of our main concerns include health care, withdrawal from Iraq, education, costs of living, how to successfully own and operate small businesses, and how to care for our aging parents.

Ms. Simmons mentioned that women are more likely to personalize politics to fit their main concerns and beliefs. When women discuss immigration we don't really discuss immigration. We worry about emergency room back-ups due to the "non-taxpaying" patients and the rising costs of health care as a result. When women discuss the environment we don't talk about the environment. Instead we talk about clean drinking water for our families and children, and well-kept parks and green spaces for recreational activities.

Another interesting piece of information is that 45% of female voters are favorable to Senator Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, but 67% of Republicans or conservative women are not.

This is largely because they feel Hillary hasn't struggled, suffered, or sacrificed to get where she is today. Because Hillary Clinton is a woman, wife, mother and successful career woman, some women feel she hasn't been in their shoes and that she doesn't understand their less privileged positions.

While it's sad to hear that women can judge other women based solely on her achievements, whether they are jealous of her success or not, I can't fault them for feeling that Hillary Clinton is disconnected from women who don't share the same success.

During this panel, the audience also broke into multi-partisan groups to discuss four critical issues raised by a survey. The four areas of the biggest concern were Economy, Health Care, Environment and Iraq. BlogHer's Morra Aarons is working to bring the results of these focus groups to BlogHer very soon.

Some of the questions that were asked in the Economy breakout included: The corrupt student loan system, rising child care costs for working mothers and families, national minimum wage is still low, small businesses are suffering because the cost of health insurance is skyrocketing, bankruptcy laws are disorganized and complicated, and the very frustrating mortgage crisis.

Women want answers to these questions and more. We're tired of politicians spewing the same pat answers when we talk about important issues.

After this breakout I stayed for the next session, How to Write Great Political Coverage:  From Breaking News to Op-Ed. Professor Kim Pearson was an excellent moderator and encouraged the audience to interact during the session.

She asked, "Are political bloggers the same as bloggers who write about politics?"

We got into small groups and the one I was in decided that while political bloggers tend to push a certain agenda, a person who blogs about politics may be discussing the issues. On the other hand, bloggers can write a post that isn't about politics at all and still be political.

An example was given by a group member in regards to jazz music and the effects of Hurricane Katrina almost destroying the birthplace of jazz. Americans didn't seem to be as concerned about this, perhaps because of the predominant race of the jazz culture and this definitely comes across as political.

Panelists Faye Anderson and Katharine Daniels also offered great advice for writing about politics.

Glennia from The Silent "I" has a comprehensive list at her blog. Here are just a few:

Be clear about who you think you are and what you are covering. Let audience know what you are trying to accomplish. Have to have clarity on what you are doing and develop your own sense of mission.

Be transparent with your audience. If someone comes to your blog, and reads something on a particular candidate, they may assume that you support that candidate. If you say something negative about a candidate, they may assume that you support the other side.

Do your homework and consider the

  • 12
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Kim Pearson 5 pts

Looking forward to hearing from you when your little one lets you out to play ;-)

Kim

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com )|

DanaFiles 5 pts

I'm trying to reply to your comment directly, but I'm having trouble getting the page to come up!

I'm still reading your links and putting it all together (and if a certain three-year-old wasn't on my lap, I'd have more time!), but yes! I do want to continue this conversation!

I'll be back soon, after I gather my thoughts!

I love when you give me more references to read and process. I always learn so much! :)

Kim Pearson 5 pts

Hi Dana,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I do understand your point. My difficulty is two-fold -- it seems to me that the ideological labels often obscure the degree to which people are NOT like-minded, and worse yet -- it often blunts the opportunity for real dialogue. The liberal-conservative framing in the dominant culture also tends to obscure important differences in that stem from our varied perspectives based on race, class, immigration status, etc.

The immigration debate among people of color is a fascinating case in point. Former Reagan administration official Linda Chavez has been a leader in efforts to roll back affirmative action and a fierce opponent of the civil rights tactics employed by African Americans. But her contention that some opponents of immigration just don't like Mexicans ( http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LindaChavez/200... ) could have been written by W.E.B. Du Bois -- although that's not her frame of reference. On the other hand, some African American opponents of legalization have hearkened back to the anti-immigrant themes in Booker T. Washington's Atlanta Expositon address. ( http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/39 )

What you're seeing here is not merely an argument over a policy position, but of a vision of what it means to be American, and the place of people of color in the American polity. Now throw in an episode such as the kerfluffle ( http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/05/dobbs-an... ) last year over Lou Dobbs' use of a graphic sourced from an organization widely considered to be white supremacist -- the Council of Conservative Citizens -- in one of his "broken borders'" segments. If you agree with Dobbs' concerns about immigration, do you worry that he's using information from an organization that many consider racist? Or do you accept Dobb's explanation that the graphic came from a free-lancer and they used it without knowing its source, and therefore decide it's not important? There's no single "conservative" or liberal answer to the question.

I worry about having rules of engagement in the public square that allow for deeper engagement. This has been an important issue for me ever since a rather searing encounter ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/2004/06/night-ron... ) I had early in my career. I learned from the encounter described in that anecdote that while I had been groomed to be the poster child for a new integrated America, for a significant portion of the voting public, I was a threat that had to be marginalized. A new politics was born in that election that has, arguably continued into this century ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/2004/11/more-gut-... ) in deeper and more complex ways.

I'm getting more complicated than I should in a brief comment, so I'll stop here. But I would love to continue the conversation.

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com )|

ByJane 5 pts

Dana,

I guess because I love Texas, I didn't hear her comment as a slam against the Great State. My brain did a little jig and just heard it as a slam against Bush. As in--I'm sorry that you're from the state that the man misguiding our country is from. As someone else pointed our somewhere else (aren't I helpful?!), Texans can point with pride to the late Ann Richardson.

But I will reiterate: only by conservatives like you speaking loud and clear will the voices that are bespoiling your waters be drowned. Keep on talkin'!

By Jane
ByJane.blogspot.com

DanaFiles 5 pts

Hi Jane!
Thank you so much for your comment. I do want to point out that those offended by Mrs. Edwards remark about Texas had nothing do with them liking or hating President Bush. It was offensive because she made the assumption that it must be awful to live in Texas because that's where the president is from.

If Mrs. Edwards is going to make an "anti-Texas" comment as you said, shouldn't she be more aware of how that will affect those who would potentially vote for her husband?

As for BlogHer and equal representation -- I realize that more women are liberal and that doesn't bother me. What I'm concerned about is the conservatives who feel like they can't speak up because there are more left-leaning members here. I feel their voices are just as important as yours and others. If I have to give a little push to get them to share their voices, I'm okay with that!

Professor Kim,
Thank you for your feedback! I sometimes think the labels: Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, Fundamentalist -- they drive wedges between us. But yet at the same time those labels group us with people like us and allow us to vote along "party lines" if we so desire.

But not every voter sticks with everything a party believes. I know I don't. I care just as much about Iraq and health care as I do about abortion and stem cell research. I often cross into "the left" on certain issues.

I really would love to see candidates group together based on the issues: health care, Iraq, economy, education, environment, etc; and really take a stand and reveal their bottome lline.

It's tiring to try and sort out which candidate really means what he says and which one is just puffing smoke.

While in Chicago, I read an article in the Tribune (and I can't remember the author's name off the top of my head) that was titled "When did 'liberal' become a dirty word?" (or similar) and it really hit home. Same thing with the word conservative -- few like to call themselves that because of the stigma that goes along with it.

Morra,
I appreciate all that you did to bring these sessions together. You did an amazing job and I know you tried to bring balance to the panels, and invited these campaigns to the conference.

I don't fault you or BlogHer for the GOP's lack of interest in their women voters. If anything, It speaks VOLUMES as to who they are trying to appeal to. I guess it's not us. And that's a shame.

Morra Aarons Mele 5 pts

First, thank you for writing this, Dana, and for giving voice to this sentiment:
"Excuse me, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Romney, and the rest? Where were you? You missed a big opportunity to show us, your voters, that you do in fact care about us.

I'm not the only conservative who felt alienated."

We tried to get a large representation...maybe next year?

I want to make sure everyone saw Zephyr Teachout's post on this here at TechPresident ( http://techpresident.com/node/4091 ).

Second, it's a fact that women tend to be more liberal. For an interesting take on gender gaps, check out ( http://www.fandm.edu/x3781.xml ) this article:

Amanda 5 pts

I really enjoyed this post, Dana.

I'm sorry that I missed this discussion at the conference--it would have been interesting to hear it in person.

Amanda Shaffer, Blogher Health and Wellness Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com )

The Cat Lady. ( http://the-cat-lady.com )

Kim Pearson 5 pts

Hey Dana,

Thanks so much for your participation and kind feedback on our session. One of the things I really appreciate about your post is that you highlight the fact that there is no monolithic "conservative" position -- and the same is true of "liberals." I would submit that our public discourse has become so coarsened that we bandy these terms around as epithets -- synonymous with "wingnuts" or "feminazis" or any of the other degrading characterizations that tell us nothing but sabotage everything related to constructive civic engagement.

In my experience, what divides people politically is often the premises from which they proceed. That's one of the reasons that I think it's so important to be transparent about our data sources and our assumptions.

I can't say that I agree that BlogHers are necessarily liberal by and large -- we only read a small sample of the views of this community of thousands on any given day, on any given issue.

And I don't know what "liberal" means any more. The "liberal" Clintons support capital punishment, supported a welfare reform law that borrowed from the views of a eugenicist ( http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/PBS-oct94.htm ) who argues for racial differences in intelligence.. Our "conservative" vice president opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment and, along with the "conservative" president who has spent the country into record deficits.

Labels are not a substitute for dialogue. And it is only dialogue that will save us.

Kim Pearson

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com )|Contributing Writer ( http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/KimPearson ), Online Journalism Review

toledolefty 5 pts

I enjoyed Elizabeth Edwards's talk but thought that the "I'm sorry" remark was regrettable. I think it was a slip, but as the session about what women voters want made very clear, not all women are Democrats and conservatives should be treated with respect.

I would like it if more people from all over the political spectrum would speak out, especially women. We don't need the debate to be a shouting match between Ann Coulter and Al Franken. I think that we'd find a lot more in common with each other if we weren't afraid to talk about politics with people who disagree (respectfully) with our opinions. I get bored only talking to other liberals.

----
Jen
http://yawwblog.blogspot.com
http://angryfatgirlz.blogspot.com
http://toledolefty.blogspot.com

ByJane 5 pts

I really appreciate your post, Dana, as I did Daring Young Mom's. I'm not a conservative, have always voted and worked for the Dems, and count myself as a Progressive for this election. But I cannot stand when representation is not equal. My feminism rests in my need to have a voice, so why ever would I want to silence others?

Except: does everything have to be equal time? I don't know why the majority of women who are face front at BlogHer are not conservatives. I don't know what that says about our particular demographics (although I'm sure there is much that could be said). What I do know is, that's the way it is.

I applaud your urging your fellow conservatives to speak up, because that's the only way you'll be heard--and respected. As long as the loudest female conservative voices are Ann Coulter's et al, staying silent for fear of being lumped with her should not be an option for conservative women.

What I love about BlogHer is the fact that anyone who has something to say, can. What I would hate is if we were asked to censor ourselves (cf Elizabeth Edward's anti-Texas comment) so as to not offend someone, anyone, who might love Bush.

I don't see this issue as very different from all the discussion going on in the blogosphere about men feeling excluded from BlogHer conferences. Life's not fair--and hasn't been since we were children.

By Jane
ByJane.blogspot.com

DanaFiles 5 pts

That is a very good point Denise! I didn't get it either. When Ms. Simmons explained this, several women thought it was crap that Hillary was being punished for being successful!

Denise 9 pts moderator

Another interesting piece of information is that 45% of female voters are favorable to Senator Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, but 67% of Republicans or conservative women are not.

This is largely because they feel Hillary hasn't struggled, suffered, or sacrificed to get where she is today. Because Hillary Clinton is a woman, wife, mother and successful career woman, some women feel she hasn't been in their shoes and that she doesn't understand their less privileged positions.

Is there any candidate running for president, or has their been any candidate in the last 20 years, who does understand the less privileged position? Why is Hillary getting a bum rap for not being in their shoes when no other candidate has been in those shoes either?

Look at the two Bush presidents, those are two privileged white men who certainly haven't walked in my shoes - or yours - or the average American woman's. Weird. People are weird. ;-)

~Denise
Fast Times @ Homeschool High ( http://fasttimes.clubmom.com ) & Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net</a )