
*********************************************************************************************************
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:
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 below1. 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
None2. 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
Blogs6. 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
*********************************************************************************************************
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
Well, you can guess what I think!
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
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!
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?
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette
Did They Not Learn Anything About Not Showing
Up?!?
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$M picks questions from YouTubers but not more of the serious questions that would cause candidates to jump off the speech grid.
So why are we surprised when they don't want to speak in front of women? Thinking women. Writing and Videoing women. How many times do we have to ask?
And after this week I bet John Edwards would be willing to talk to just about anybody at this point (not endorsing anyone, just saying).
They are still running the old political game. We need to insist that the rules have changed. But we shouldn't have to beg their attention.
Gena - Out On The Stoop
Women's questions that'd get candidates 'off
the speech grid'
Gena, excellent perspective on the social media participation and lack thereof of various candidates. Do you feel like the CNN YouTube debates were windowdressing and these new sites by candidates are traditional marketing and direct mail ploys that happen to be distributed via Internet technology?
To your point about Sen. Edwards, he is actually the lone candidate who has responded to the huge 10questions initiative (led by techpresident and co-sponsored by The New York Times and MSNBC, as well as a rash of online media organizations including BlogHer). Mike Huckabee has a few answers and Ron Paul has committed to participate. That turnout is better than the response BlogHer has received, but it inspired NewTeeVee blogger Chris Albrecht to ask, "R.I.P. UGC in this presidential race?". Check it out -- think he's right? And what can we do to shake that up?
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette
It Was A Form of Passing for Cool
CNN, and the other M$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.
Gena - Out On The Stoop
"Sharpen the pencils ladies, we got work to
do."
Gena, I like your point that:
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
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.
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette
Jill just emailed me an update
She writes -- and I'm reprinting with her express permission:
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette
They are confused
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. :)
Jill
Writes Like She Talks
Two quotes that stick out for me here:
Jill, you may have a t-shirt slogan or two here:
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.
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette
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.
Jill
Writes Like She Talks
Candidates first
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!
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette
right on
Right on!
But do they care about my spouse?
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.
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette
Poll update: So far, 55 % say candidates,
35% say both
Hi everyone,
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!
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette
You nailed it.
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. . .
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette
Essay Question!
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...
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette
Reaching out to moms...Hmmmm....
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!-"
Stefania, thanks for voting!
You grab me here:
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.
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette
I am so glad to have found your site
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
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!
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette
I think the candidates need
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.
Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette