Please tell us: Should BlogHer interview presidential candidates or stick to their spouses?

*********************************************************************************************************
From our sponsor: ‘Tis the season for sharing! Good Housekeeping, Country Living, and RedBook want you to share your best recipes with them. Visit their Recipe Finder website and enter to win a Le Creuset’s 5-Piece Essential Set.
*********************************************************************************************************

Hi everyone,

This headline isn't a gimmick--it represents a real choice BlogHer needs to make in our 2008 Election coverage, and we need to hear from you and your readers to head in the right direction (see poll below).

BlogHer's Election 2008 coverage was created in response to the terrific enthusiasm this community demonstrated while developing our non-partisan 2008 Voter Manifesto, twelve policy questions American women have about health care, Iraq, the economy and the environment.

Frankly, however, our political team is confused by the response of presidential candidates to BlogHer, and to some other organizations and blogs by women. For the past six months, BlogHer has invited seven leading presidential candidates -- Democratic and Republican, we're non-partisan -- to participate with BlogHer's influential, passionate community of now 7.6 million techno-savvy women, who write and read thousands of influential blogs. While our editors, Morra Aarons-Mele and Mary Katharine Ham have made in-roads with the campaigns and we do have another year until Election Day, at this point we've been told no, both in words and in actions, as have some other women's blogs and political groups.

And there’s more -- what really confuses us is that:

BlogHer has not obtained any interviews with presidential candidates. BlogHer has been offered an opportunity to interview two candidate spouses, Ann Romney and Michelle Obama (note: these were separate conversations. More in our action timeline below)

Just this week, two presidential campaigns (Senators Clinton and Obama) marketed new Web sites devoted exclusively to women, even specifically to moms. These are the very women who populate BlogHer's conferences, visit our sites and write the blogs in our ad network. In fact, if they’re trying to reach moms, the majority of BlogHer's 1,100 BlogHer Ad Network members are mothers, and most blog about that parenting experience! (More detail, including their recruiting letters to women and moms in our action timeline below.)

I believe these candidates are missing a key piece of the social media puzzle where women voters are concerned so I'll spell it out here: BlogHer's surveys demonstrate time and again the extraordinary influence of women who blog. According to our most recent survey, 62 percent of our bloggers and their readers have purchased a product based on a recommendation from a blogger and 52 percent have recommended a product to friends online. Presidential candidates – the ultimate product in an election year -- who earn the votes of these women stand to benefit from blogger influence in our communities! Women who blog are an essential and influential segment of the American female population that has made up the majority of American voters since 1964.

So our question is, do we want to be marketed to by presidential campaigns or spoken with? And by whom? We think that if they want to get our votes, candidates themselves should answer our questions in the Voter Manifesto. But only if that’s the course this community supports. So -- could you please lead us in the right direction by answering these questions and asking your readers to help us too by posting this poll on your blog? We’ll take all our votes and our voices on this poll right to the presidential campaigns.

How Should Presidential Candidates Earn Women’s Votes?

CLICK HERE to take the survey questions described below

1. Do you want BlogHer to talk with the candidates themselves -- Obama, Hillary, Mitt, etc.-- or will their families and supporters -- Oprah, Chelsea, Ann, etc. -- do?

Candidates
Spouses and supporters
Both
None

2. Do you want presidential candidates to answer policy questions in the Voter Manifesto?

Yes, on video
Yes, in print
No, the candidates don't have to but the campaign should
No, I have a different question I'd like to ask: (Open-ended question)

3. Are you turned on or turned off by the candidate’s tactics to reach moms (as spelled out below)?
I like efforts like “Women for Obama” and “Moms for Hillary”
I’m turned off by these efforts
Other ____

4. Do you want BlogHer to interview mainstream media personalities who have interviewed and know the candidates and their positions?

Katie Couric | CBS
Gwen Ifill | PBS
Rosie O'Donnell
Mara Liasson | NPR
Oprah Winfrey
Barbara Walters | ABC
No
Other ____________

5. Where do you get most of your news?

Newspapers
TV
Radio
Internet
Blogs

6. Do you have a message for the candidates about this initiative that you’d like to share?

Thank you so much for voting! And to provide you with more information, here's a timeline of the past year and the work BlogHer has done to bring your questions to candidates:

Jan 2007:
-Democratic Senators Obama and Clinton announce candidacies in same week, resulting in a rash of excited election-related posts from blogs that rarely if ever talk politics

May/June 2007:
-BlogHer reaches out to representatives of Democratic and Republican campaigns to invite staffers to speak at and/or to attend BlogHer 2007 in Chicago.

July 2007:
- Clinton and Edwards campaigns send representatives to BlogHer 2007, with 800 women in Chicago. Elizabeth Edwards keynotes.
- All seven Democratic candidates attend the Yearly Kos convention in Chicago, with 1,000 progressive political bloggers. In response, PunditMom blogs "An Open Letter From the Candidates" on The Huffington Post.

Aug/Sept 2007:
- BlogHer is offered interviews with two wives of presidential candidates, Michelle Obama and Ann Romney.
- Rudy Giuliani addresses 1,500 women at the National Federation of Republican Women in Palm Springs, CA; he is the only Republican candidate to attend.
- The Chicago Moms Blog invites the Obamas to a meeting and get turned down, while a sister blogger on the Silicon Valley Moms Blog donates her way into a meeting they have with Oprah.
- Hillary Clinton agrees to answer questions submitted to iVillage.

Oct 2007:
-BlogHer invites Candidates Clinton, Edwards, Obama, (Democrats) and Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson (Republicans) to answer Voter Manifesto questions on-camera, including an offer to fly to the U.S. location of the candidate's choice and be interviewed for 15 minutes by a member of her or his own political party, by either Editor Morra Aarons or Editor Mary Katharine Ham (also of Townhall.com). No candidate accepts.
-BlogHer co-sponsors 10questions.com, a techpresident.com initiative co-sponsored by The New York Times and MSNBC.

Nov 2007:
-BlogHer re-invites candidates to answer Voter Manifesto questions on-camera. No candidate accepts.
-BlogHer members submit questions to 10questions.

Dec 2007: BlogHer re-invites candidates.
-Candidates John Edwards and Mike Huckabee submit answers to 10questions.com. Candidate Ron Paul also agrees to participate, according to the site.
- Sen. Obama tours Iowa with Oprah Winfrey and his campaign markets "Women for Obama" to women bloggers using this email (note: The Obama campaign launched "Women for Obama" in Feb. 2007):

"As part of the Obama for America campaign effort to engage women across the country, the Women for Obama team is reaching out to women's political blogs, seeking ways to bring useful information about Barack, his policies, his record and his approach to leadership to women on line.

"Would you be interested in sharing information about Barack with your readers? Perhaps by linking to our website (www.women.barackobama.com)? Could we send you our weekly e-newsletter, for use in your own blog? Do you ever invite guest bloggers? We would happily arrange for a senior member of Barack's political or policy advisory teams to provide insight into the campaign, his policy proposals, how women are reacting to or affected by the election, etc.

"As background, Women for Obama is a national grassroots network of 20,000 women working in the field every day on behalf of Senator Barack Obama. They serve as the backbone of our operation on the ground by reaching out to undecided women and organizing supporters to play an active role in their communities to help elect Obama their next President. Through organizing activities such as canvassing, phone banks, book clubs, house parties, community donation drives, caucus and primary trainings, fundraising and online outreach, Women for Obama has engaged women throughout this country who are now positioned to make the difference in this election..."

- A few days later, Sen. Clinton's campaign launches Moms for Hillary with this offer:

"Sign up to become a Mom for Hillary and you could win a special Mom's Night Out!

"The holidays are in full swing - what would you want most? A night when you can put up your feet with your favorite pals and have someone throw a party for YOU! You can be that one lucky person who is randomly selected from the first moms who sign-up on the Moms for Hillary website to receive a fabulous - and very unique - prize.

"Not one - but two - former White House Social Secretaries, Ann Stock and Capricia Marshall, will plan and execute a lovely gathering for you and your favorite moms. They will come with a bundle of campaign goodies, including t-shirts, bumper stickers, a signed book and lots of stories about Hillary.

"Holidays are Hillary's favorite time of the year! Let Ann and Capricia tell you all about Hillary's family's special traditions and favorite things! The event will be at a venue and date selected at the discretion of the Committee in consultation with the winner."

Again, please let these candidates know who you are and what you think! We invite you to add your comments to this post, as well as link your blog and any of your writings about our question or any Election 2008 issue. If you are so inspired, we would very much appreciate your help spreading the word about this poll, which you can place on your own blog by copying and pasting this link.

We look forward to your thoughts –

Best,
Lisa

For Elisa, Jory and Lisa

*********************************************************************************************************
From our sponsor: Free Service - MyThings Recall Alerts
Frustrated and worried about the slew of toy recalls this holiday season? MyThings has launched a new personal assistant to monitor toy and other product recalls for you, and alert you if anything you own is affected - for free! So, check out MyThings Recall Alerts (www.mythings.com/productrecall.aspx), and if you have any comments or questions, email me (Kaitlin Pike) at kaitlin.pike@mythings.com for more info.
*********************************************************************************************************

> Comments (49) > Lisa Stone’s blog posts

Comments

Well, you can guess what I think!

By: Elisa Camahort Posted: 22 weeks 2 days ago

Took the poll.

Candidates all the way.

I find it patronizing for a candidate to want my viral, bloggy goodness,without having to answer specific questions I participated in crafting.

That'd be like a company asking me for a good review without letting me kick the tires on their product.

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer
elisa@blogher.org

Nice metaphor

By: Lisa Stone Posted: 22 weeks 2 days ago

So you're saying, you want a test drive? In order for a candidate to earn your vote, you've got to test-drive their answers?

Thank you for voting!

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

Ha!

By: elleinthecity Posted: 22 weeks 2 days ago

I find HIllary's "Mom's Nite" shtick insulting. And after seeing Elizabeth Edwards at BlogHer, I wish she was running, along with Michelle Obama. The wives are far more well rounded and interesting than the candidates. OK, maybe that doesn't apply to Rudy's Judith...

They don't get it. We want real answers to questions that matter to us. We've got brains and we're afraid to use them. Better yet, we're not going to be shy about our opinions.

Play us right, and you're golden. But screw up, and it's everywhere in an instant. I think the candidates (or their people) understand us better than you think, and they fear us.

trueconfessions.wordpress.com

"the candidates...understand us better than you think..."

..."and they fear us."

Elleninthecity, thank you so much for voting.

Are you saying that you think the candidates and their campaign staffers are deliberately circumventing social media, sticking to "push" marketing messages rather than a conversation with voters? And does that help them or hurt them with you ultimately? Would also love to know what you find insulting about the Clinton Web site?

Did They Not Learn Anything About Not Showing Up?!?

By: Gena Haskett Posted: 22 weeks 2 days ago

Let me count the ways. Some Democrats didn't want to debate on FOX.

Some Republicans did not want to debate in front of African-Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, and assorted other folks. M$M picks questions from YouTubers but not more of the serious questions that would cause candidates to jump off the speech grid.

So why are we surprised when they don't want to speak in front of women? Thinking women. Writing and Videoing women. How many times do we have to ask?

And after this week I bet John Edwards would be willing to talk to just about anybody at this point (not endorsing anyone, just saying).

They are still running the old political game. We need to insist that the rules have changed. But we shouldn't have to beg their attention.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

Women's questions that'd get candidates 'off the speech grid'

Gena, excellent perspective on the social media participation and lack thereof of various candidates. Do you feel like the CNN YouTube debates were windowdressing and these new sites by candidates are traditional marketing and direct mail ploys that happen to be distributed via Internet technology?

To your point about Sen. Edwards, he is actually the lone candidate who has responded to the huge 10questions initiative (led by techpresident and co-sponsored by The New York Times and MSNBC, as well as a rash of online media organizations including BlogHer). Mike Huckabee has a few answers and Ron Paul has committed to participate. That turnout is better than the response BlogHer has received, but it inspired NewTeeVee blogger Chris Albrecht to ask, "R.I.P. UGC in this presidential race?". Check it out -- think he's right? And what can we do to shake that up?

It Was A Form of Passing for Cool

CNN, and the other M$M had direct control of the questions that were to be asked. Now certainly due to the expansive nature of the Internet you can't have someone in their undies asking a viable foreign policy questions to the tune of Old Mary Had A Lamb. I do understand they needed to monitor the content.

With 10 Questions the creator/viewers decided the questions to be advanced to the candidates. With CNN a team of network producers filtered the acceptable questions. Compare what was presented on CNN version what was asked at 10 Questions.

I went to the article you suggested. I think it is too soon to ignoring UGC just yet. The candidates can ignore it but folks are still going to be a part of this process. They will make campaign commercials, they will track candidates via words, photo, video and when one of them says something in Texas a blogger in Pittsburgh will dig up evidence to the contrary.

Just wait until they start having presidential ads - the re-mixing of political messages is going to be astounding. There are already a couple of video sites that have banked hours of political videos just waiting to be used. One example of this http://politicalvideo.org/ that has an archive of the White House videos for re-mixing. This is going to happen to the candidates for sure.

I think one of the ways we can serve our country is to produce content that is relevant to the population. Those that write sex blogs could review administration policies that are linked toward the control of sexuality. Mommy Bloggers can take dead aim on education issues. Green bloggers have an amazing opportunity to goose 'em with facts.

Sharpen the pencils ladies, we got work to do.

"Sharpen the pencils ladies, we got work to do."

Gena, I like your point that:

"...one of the ways we can serve our country is to produce content that is relevant to the population. Those that write sex blogs could review administration policies that are linked toward the control of sexuality. Mommy Bloggers can take dead aim on education issues. Green bloggers have an amazing opportunity to goose 'em with facts."

Yet as a mother myself, I'm having a very mixed response to some of the outreach to m via that category. I'm going to ask the recipients of BlogHer's Mommy & Family newsletter what they think. Back in a jiffy...

Best,
Lisa
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

Elisa said it well

By: Jill Posted: 22 weeks 2 days ago

Spouses are no substitute. They have value on their own, but they aren't the candidate, and vice versa. Frankly, I wonder why the spouses don't say, I'm not going to do that for you! I mean, will the next White House spouse accept a surrogate spouse whenever his or her actual spouse is busy being president? lol

Crazy.

Thanks for asking.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Touche Jill

Campaigning takes a village, I have seen that on the campaign trail as a reporter, and as a voter I can understand that the candidate cannot be everywhere at once. Fair enough.

But when a group of citizens who happen to be bloggers ask policy questions and the campaign response is to offer a view into the candidate's marriage ad home life, I think there's a fundamental disconnect with the question and it makes me wonder why.

That said, this community may be very interested in asking questions of Ms. Obama and Mrs. Romney and if that's the case, you all please do tell me and we'll take these interviews and recruit questions from the entire community.

Jill just emailed me an update

She writes -- and I'm reprinting with her express permission:

I did complete the survey but I just wanted to add that, as primarily a political blogger, I'm vehemently opposed to the candidates offering up their wives. I've participated in a civic forum called Meet the Bloggers based in NE Ohio and we've interviewed over 100 political and civic figures in Ohio, in person, including Gov. Ted Strickland, Secretary of State Brunner, and seven of eight Cleveland mayoral candidates in 2005. There is simply no substitute whatsoever for the candidate himself or herself. As a freelance writer, I would say the same: speaking with a spokesperson is never like speaking with the person himself or herself. I've also been working with the Ohio-based steering group that's been collaborating with The White House Project as it brings Go Run to Ohio and I have a hard time imagining that we would settle for spouses of speakers rather than the speakers to tell us what it's been like for them.

They are confused

By: Jill Posted: 22 weeks 1 day ago

I'm not above recognizing that the candidates struggle with doing the right thing, But they are so preoccupied with doing the right thing and probably looking at microtargeting numbers that they are missing the forest for the trees. Sure, BlogHer is composed primarily of women. But it's by no means a monolithic group and that is where the candidates do themselves a real disservice. Think about it: perhaps this is actually one reason why they do not want to address a group that in fact reflects the diversity of women that exist in the real world. Why not? Because they can't stick with one perspective of how they want to present an issue to a group when they CAN count on it being monolithic.

More simply (sorry - it can take me a lot of words to get the simple ones!): This is to say that groups composed of women who are more homogeneous aka just moms perhaps (and we know that even moms aren't so homogeneous) are much easier for candidates to address. But a group of 7.6 million WOMEN who represent every spot along the spectrum? SCARY - just in terms of crafting messages or knowing how to say what they want to say.

Anyway - that's one of my theories. It's just a scary thought to the candidates - too big a demographic that can't be easily profiled for the purposes of crafting positions.

Which, of course is what we want: UNcrafted positions, that is - CANDOR, God forbid.

Ok - I ranted but I think the point came across.

Spouses are fine as spouses and I'm open to hearing them, but candidates have no substitutes.

Thanks. :)

Two quotes that stick out for me here:

By: Lisa Stone Posted: 22 weeks 1 day ago

Jill, you may have a t-shirt slogan or two here:

"...what we want: UNcrafted positions, that is - CANDOR, God forbid."

"Spouses are fine as spouses and I'm open to hearing them, but candidates have no substitutes."

Excellent points, all. I agree that constantly refining and target message a la focus groups when trying to peel votes away from a huge field of competitors is a constant temptation for traditional campaign managers. But to be truly effective in a world where the Internet is the #1 medium and users are in charge of their own experience? Time to reach out, answer questions from any one of these organizations, post the answers on their Web site and urge the bloggers to blog their responses.

Totally reasonable suggestion

You make a great point here, Lisa:

"Time to reach out, answer questions from any one of these organizations, post the answers on their Web site and urge the bloggers to blog their responses."

Now, we're smart enough to know that the candidates may or may not actually sit down and compose every word of such answers. I'm even willing to accept that if they are willing to take responsibility for those answers representing their responses. That might sound like backtracking but it isn't because the point of all this is to open a dialogue - that's the beauty of these new mediums.

I'm partly baffled at how they don't work harder to find a way to leverage BlogHer - not in a manipulative way, but in a democractic way, with a little "d." Maybe it just seems too natural to me, that this is how it should be, between voter and candidate. But I prefer to think that it's just been wrangled by professional candidate wranglers for too long (and I do like political consultants and so on - I don't think they are as evil as others would have us believe).

But, I hate to sound so harsh, do we women really have time for thought-brokers between us and the candidate? I don't think so.

Last thing: Lisa - there's a program from WNYC called Your Billion Dollar President. It's part of an effort by journalists John Hockenberry and Adaora Udoji who will be hosting a new morning show from WNYC and a bunch of other partners. At that website, there is a place where folks can go to contribute thoughts on what the election process would and could and should look like, if we could scrap everything and start all over. They found me somehow in Cleveland and taped me on Monday for a snippet on the show - to be broadcast on 12/18 (they're focusing on Ohio in that day's one hour segment).

Anyway - might be an interesting place to have BlogHer folks visit and give feedback about elections and presidential campaigns.

Candidates first

By: Erin Kotecki Vest Posted: 22 weeks 2 days ago

I'm happy to talk with candidates wives. I'm happy to talk to their aides, but not as a replacement...only as an asset or addition to the candidate. They want my vote? They can answer our questions.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

Thanks Erin!

right on

By: bmama Posted: 22 weeks 13 hours ago

Right on!

But do they care about my spouse?

By: Nina Smith Posted: 22 weeks 2 days ago

Until the candidates recognize that my partnership is worthy of the same rights and legal standing as theirs, then why should I care what their spouses have to say. Value my "marriage" and I'll value yours. Kucinich is kindly excused from the bunch.

Nina Smith
Queercents
We're here, we're queer, and we're not going shopping without coupons.

Duly noted Nina, thank you for voting.

Poll update: So far, 55 % say candidates, 35% say both

Just checked out our poll, and here are your responses thus far to the first question:

Do you want BlogHer to talk with the candidates themselves -- Obama, Hillary, Mitt, etc.-- or will their families and supporters -- Oprah, Chelsea, Ann, etc. -- do?

55.56% say Candidates
4.44% say Spouses and supporters
35.56% say Both (Candidates AND Spouses and supporters

Also, most of you say you're turned off by the outreach to women and moms.

Please, keep the votes coming!

You nailed it.

By: Rita Arens Posted: 22 weeks 2 days ago

You nailed it with your comment about "talking to" instead of "marketing to." I'm sure this is a terrifying thought to the candidates, but technology has enabled us to actually have a conversation. Let's have that conversation.

Thanks for lighting the fire. I'm a mother. I'm a writer. I'm a taxpayer. I'm a citizen. I'm a member of corporate America. I'm a recycler. I'm a daughter. I'm a consumer. I understand needing to break people into demographics when you're trying to get messages out in a short amount of time, but the candidate who stops treating women as one facet of their personalities will make a lot of inroads with BlogHers - I'm sure of that, regardless of political affiliation.

Surrender, Dorothy - When I was your age, we just let them ride in the back window.

Rita, just picked the theme song for this discussion

by Meredith Brooks, if I read you correctly.

I noticed when I visited the "Moms for Hillary" web site that the economy and the war in Iraq were not issues that appeared on the site; education, healthcare and the treatment of veterans were. Does that mean the site Web masters think mothers don't care about Iraq and the economy? How about the candidate? Am I not one of the moms they think will vote for Hillary? Or am I overemphasizing the importance of the messages I read on that site?

As a blogger and as a voter, these are the questions that occur to me when I visit the site. . .

Essay Question!

By: Pam Posted: 22 weeks 2 days ago

ON seeing the survey, I thought "Multiple choice is NOT going to do it for me." :)

Personally, I'm totally fine with the pitch to wives and mothers. If it mobilizes the voters, well, more power to them. We need voter turn out, people, and if moms and wives feel like they're finally getting some attention from the candidates, even if it's not what we'd like to see, well, it's about freakin' time.

On a side note, I'd like to see the answer to the question about marketing to women answered from the other side of our privileged digital divide before deciding if it's a bad idea, and I don't know how we get that data. The approach might not work for the BlogHerAti, but it may be doing very well in sectors we aren't part of.

That said, hello, it is NOT ENOUGH to be sent a spouse. Play with this idea in any other context and it's unforgivable! I can't send my spouse to answer questions about the projects I'm working on, I don't want to see my doctor's spouse when I'm sitting in the clinic, my mechanic's wife may be lovely but I don't want to hear what she thinks about my car. Yeah, yeah, yeah, different situation. Whatever. As smart as those women may be, they're not on the ticket. I'm not voting for them. (Okay, I might not mind being sent Bill, but you know he was, um, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and all.)

Finally, because I'm on the box, I am sick to death of seeing all the campaigning instead of action in Washington. War? Civil rights? Health care? Anyone? I seem to remember a campaign promise from these very same Senators about making change in Congress if gave them the power. Where's my change? Are the candidates doing any work right now besides campaigning that shows I should promote them to President?

Oooo, this election really pisses me off.

Nerd's Eye View

On "Where's my change?"

Pam, thank you so much for your essay in response -- and I really like the credit you give to the candidates' spouses and their own intelligence, even as you make it crystal-clear which member of the marriage you want to hear from!

And here's a question I'd like to have Mary Katharine and Morra ask the candidates as a chaser: "Are the candidates doing any work right now besides campaigning that shows I should promote them to President?" I can tell you from visiting their official senate and other Web sites that most of them are definitely on the job...

Reaching out to moms...Hmmmm....

By: CityMama Posted: 22 weeks 15 hours ago

As one of the founding editors of MOMocrats.com, you can guess how I feel out that...We didn't want to be pandered to ("soccer moms" my @ss!--hey, I feel a slogan coming on!) so we took the bull by the horns and created our own site.

Yes, candidates, reach out to moms! If there is any doubt that moms are a force to be reckoned with, within a week of launching MOMocrats we were picked up by the New York Times, the Daily Kos, and a few weeks later had Elizabeth Edwards herself commenting on our blog. Plus, you know, ask Bill Clinton how he got elected...but anyway!

We're backing John Edwards (for many reasons, but, broadly, because he supports the issues that are important to us) but will support whoever is the Democratic pick if it's not Edwards.

Go Moms!

Stefania Pomponi Butler

I blog:
CityMama
Kimchi Mamas

""soccer moms" my @ss!-"

By: Lisa Stone Posted: 21 weeks 6 days ago

Stefania, thanks for voting!

You grab me here:

We didn't want to be pandered to ("soccer moms" my @ss!--hey, I feel a slogan coming on!) so we took the bull by the horns and created our own site.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "pandered to"? For me, there's a strong contrast in content and discussion between voter advocacy blogs -- such as your site, Momocrats.com, and Heather Johnson's Moms4mitt.com -- and sites created by campaigns to target moms and women.

I am so glad to have found your site

By: Tacomamama Posted: 21 weeks 5 days ago

I just posted a little rant the other day in my other blog about why I am voting for Edwards, if it matters at all by the time the Washington State primary rolls around. The idea that any candidate trying to reach moms right now would not focus on the economy is beyond me. Every day, I wake up and things cost just a little more than they did the day before, across the board. I don't know anyone with a family who isn't struggling this year more than they were last year. Edwards is the only candidate I have heard consistently addressing the economy, and the only candidate with a history of taking on the corporatocracy in any real way.

On the Blogher candidates issue: As a mother, I am tired of being treated like a novelty voter, more interested in a spouse's chocolate chip cookie recipe than any real issues. As a woman, the thought that campaigns have extended this novelty voter block treatment to our entire gender is both offensive and surreal. When did we wind the clock back to 1920?

Women as a "novelty voter" block

By: Lisa Stone Posted: 21 weeks 1 day ago

That's a very interesting observation, Tacomamama, I haven't heard anyone else articulate this point. Would love to know what you think drives it - and here's a link to my favorite site about the women's suffrage movement. You know your history!

I think the candidates need

By: Dana J. Tuszke Posted: 22 weeks 15 hours ago

I think the candidates need to start answering to the very women who could potentially put them into office. I am still surprised that so many of the presidential hopefuls are bypassing women.

Sure, it appears as though they care about us when they introduce new sites targeting women, but my grandmother always said, "If you want to know what a person has to say, head straight for the source." I don't think it's any different for politicians! If the candidates really want to know what women have to say and what we think; if they really want our votes, it's time they step up to the plate and go to bat for us!

"If you want to know what a person has to say...

...head straight for the source."

Yes, that's exactly the point: Talk WITH women in blog communities rather than market TO us. Engage. Exchange. Discuss. Listen.

Take the gimme

By: justpowers Posted: 22 weeks 14 hours ago

Like Pam, I too am ok with campaigns "reaching out" with targeted websites to women and moms . What I don't like or understand is the campaigns NOT taking advantage of this community of 7.6 million women bloggers who are looking for feedback. We are organized and engaged and ready to listen to them. They didn't even have to go to the trouble of setting up their own websites, just come to ours!

Someone once told me first rule of comedy is "Take the gimme". I would say the same thing applies to politics. When they don't respond when we reach out to them, but then want to reach out to us, it makes me suspicious and a little cranky.

As far as spouses, I do like hearing from them - after all, the people a candidate chooses to surround him or herself with says a lot about that candidate. But when it comes to understanding where a candidate stands on issues that are important to me and what values they hold, I want to hear it straight from the candidate's mouth.

"We are organized and engaged and ready to listen to them."

Justpowers, thank you so much for this entire comment. I appreciate your point about the value of interviewing spouses and other people close to the candidate, in the context of the larger issue. At this point, most of our respondents agree that they'd rather "hear it straight from the candidate's mouth" as you put it. Here's the breakdown thus far:

Question: Do you want BlogHer to talk with the candidates themselves -- Obama, Hillary, Mitt, etc.-- or will their families and supporters -- Oprah, Chelsea, Ann, etc. -- do?

Pick one answer:

Candidates 62.56%

Spouses and supporters 2.96%

Both 31.53%

Other 2.96%

I'll keep the poll open until early next week and then report back.

The CANDIDATE Please

I strongly oppose the gift of their spouses to the online community. I prefer open, honest, truthful dialogue with the CANDIDATE. I am voting for the CADIDATE, not their wives. I don't want to hear from their supporters, their backers, or thenir family. Rather, I prefer to converse with the person I am voting into office. This is the only respectable way to make a voting decision.

Thanks bmama! One more question for you...

We've got your vote. I'm taken by your use of the word "respectable". Can you elaborate on your statement that "this is the only respectable way ot make a voting decision"? Do you feel you're being asked to decide your vote in a way that you don't respect?

I voted for both

By: Kim Pearson Posted: 21 weeks 6 days ago

I also want to hear from the candidates. But presidential spouses played key roles in the administrations of Clinton, Bush 41 and Ford. Among the Democrats, especially, we know that the spouses of all three leading candidates are key advisers to their partners' campaigns, and we can anticipate that they would be players in their spouse's presidency.

What would we have learned from hearing Hillary on health care in 1991? I don't know, but what might it have meant if the opportunity for conversations with a community such as ours, where thousands of active, engaged thinkers have identified health care as a central concern?

No, a spouse should not swing a vote. But especially given the value of the conversation we had with Elizabeth Edwards, I wouldn't mind hearing from Michelle Obama, Ann Romney or some of the others who have substantial public service records.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS

By: Csamuels Posted: 21 weeks 6 days ago

Frankly, I think the paucity of candidate responses to BlogHer shows a scandalous tone-deafness. This is 2008 we're talking about, and we still have to fight to be officially included? The winning candidate will need more than the political women in party groups, they need the moms and food bloggers and tech bloggers -- the BlogHer community -- even more. Access through BlogHer is a gift and they seem to be completely clueless about it. Pitiful.

Women vote more than men, women volunteer more than men, women are profoundly participatory. BlogHer is a perfect platform for them to deliver their messages to concerned, committed women. I can't imagine why they don't understand that. It's a bit scary to think that we still have to fight this battle.

As for moms night, I don't even want to talk about it. I do think though that spouses tell you a lot about a candidate; that's why I voted for "both." The problem is, they AREN'T the candidate, so interviewing them is not a substitute, it's a supplement.

BlogHer should make some noise about this.

Cynthia Samuels, Partner
Cobblestone Associates, LLP
Blog and Media Strategies and Content Development Online and on Television
http:dontgelyet.typepad.com/dontgeltoosoon

I voted for "both" and agree

By: Staci Schoff Posted: 21 weeks 5 days ago

I voted for "both" and agree 100% with what Cynthia said.

http://stacischoff.blogspot.com/

Cindy, Staci, great points about "both"

Thank you for voting.

Here are my thoughts

By: barefoot Posted: 21 weeks 5 days ago

1. Do you want BlogHer to talk with the candidates themselves -- Obama, Hillary, Mitt, etc.-- or will their families and supporters -- Oprah, Chelsea, Ann, etc. -- do?

I want BlogHer to speak to candidates AND spouses, not supporters. Most of the candidates are men, so what this implies is their wives (women) are not as important. These candidates are NOT super heroes, they cannot be everywhere and do everything, their spouses are the best extension of them. I also believe that people DO vote for the first lady, if you like the spouse there is a good chance you'll like the candidate. The first lady has an important role to play, I grew up with Nancy Reagan's say no to drugs campaign and the hope that with Hillary being a career woman that a new era had come.

I almost answered None to this entire question because BlogHer does not represent every type of woman on or offline. I went to blogher07 and it was clear to me that you better be well networked in this group. It is a hierarchical society, that's why people announced what blog they were from. Not to mention that although blogher represents the largest minority, women, I didn't get the impression it was a culturally or geographicaly diversified group.

3. Are you turned on or turned off by the candidate’s tactics to reach moms (as spelled out below)?
I like efforts like “Women for Obama” and “Moms for Hillary”
I’m turned off by these efforts
Other ____
Not really, it doesn't bother me either way, as long as they don't call me at dinner or knock on my door while I'm changing a diaper we're ok.

4. Do you want BlogHer to interview mainstream media personalities who have interviewed and know the candidates and their positions?

definate NO on this one, not at all interesting, this idea reminds me of E! True Hollywood Story

Thanks for asking, hope you get what you're looking for!

beauty blog: http://steepingbeauty.com
mommy blog: http://pajamamom.com

Barefoot, thank you for voting

I really appreciate you adding your candid commentary to your answers - couple of thoughts:

I don't think of women as a minority because we are the majority -- of the American population, of consumers and of Internet users! Now if we can just get more of us to show up at the polls...

Couple of thoughts about BlogHer specifically: We work constantly to spread the word that women who blog cannot be stereotyped as interested in a single subject (see our topics list!) or representative of a single demographic -- we're every age, every race, and from every continent on the planet. I do find that techno-savvy women who blog tend to be better educated and better paid than the average American female, but in order to avoid homogeneity, we make sure that every year the grand majority of our conference speakers are brand-new to the conference, and we also work hard to encourage cultural and racial diversity in our speaker and editor recruiting. We feel blessed that a number of folks who attend our conferences have attended before, but in Chicago most had not. And I'm sorry that you felt the identification of blogs created a pecking order -- I perceive it as women trying to put a face to a blog-name and online identity. And I can see why - these blogs are gorgeous and should be a point of terrific accomplishment and pride. :)

Back to what you're looking for from our election coverage: Duly noted that you're anti-celebrity interviewer. I think you're representative of most! 'll blog the other results soon...

Sometimes the spouses are inspiring

By: Morra Aarons Posted: 21 weeks 5 days ago

or at least make us like the candidates better- this article on Ann Romney is pretty insightful, actually: click here- although wow, is Ann romney a throwback:

he has a Web site and an autobiography in the works, just in case the occasion — a general election — should call for one. She has been in People magazine and on the television interview shows. By that measure, she has more in common with Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards on the Democratic side than with any of the Republican spouses.

But she cuts a far more traditional figure, sticking to small talk — in South Carolina, she went on and on about the weather — and personal stories, and putting a contented face on stay-at-home motherhood. She began dating her husband, son of Michigan’s then-governor, George Romney, at 15. (Her high school yearbook jokingly referred to her as “the first lady.”) She converted to his religion, Mormonism, at 18, waited the two-plus years that Mr. Romney spent as a missionary in France, and married him when she was 19.

She spent the first decades of her marriage raising five sons. She taught 6 a.m. Mormon scripture classes five days a week for her sons and other children, and put sesame-seed chicken on the table for her boys at 5:30 p.m., hours before Mr. Romney returned home to Belmont, Mass., a suburb of Boston, from his work in consulting and then private equity. She even went to bed surrounded by her kids, who held searching late-night talks in their parents’ bedroom.

Mr. Romney is so devoted to his wife, said Laraine Wright, an old friend, that when he had to spend a few days in another city for work, he would sometimes fly home at night, just so they could see each other. And once, when a Romney son insulted his mother, Mr. Romney sped home at midday to set him straight.

The seeming perfection of the Romney’s union has led to some eye-rolling, but their claim of total harmony is a bit easier to understand in light of their religious beliefs. When Mormons wed, there’s no “till death do us part.” Couples are actually “sealed” in a ceremony meant to bond them for eternity. One result is that the church emphasizes perfecting, marriages — talking out problems, getting help. “It’s like constant marriage counseling,” said Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp, a religion professor at the University of North Carolina.

Candidates only

By: Mata H Posted: 21 weeks 5 days ago

Here is the prize : MY VOTE

The prize will not be given to a spouse or a supporter. The prize will be given to a candidate.

The candidate who wants my vote will have the courtesy to show up for it.

When the spouses are up for a legal vote, I'll be happy to interview them. Maybe on a soft news day. Maybe for human interest. But unless they are the ones calling the political shots, why should I care what they say about the candidate?

The person whose name appears on the ballot should have their name on the interview as well.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs relentlessly at

Welcome!

Topics

special offers

Latest BlogHer News

Event & Media Partners

Social Web

Comments