If you were a candidate, would you ever hire a blogger?

[theboss]

I don't really care about the details of the Edwards' controversy. Someone said something about Catholics and Edwards had to run like hell to distance himself from it. It's politics; it happens. If he is any kind of cadidate, he will recover. If he doesn't, he shouldn't be running for the nomination. (Note: I voted for him in the Virginia Primary in '04. If I had to decide today, he would probably be my choice again...or maybe Biden just to appease my Delawarian girlfriend. In her words, "Joe is a great politician except for that whole talking thing.")

Anyway, where was I? Oh yea...bloggers.

Why in God's name would any candidate hire a blogger? I've been racking my brain trying to think of the benefit and can't. Political blogs do two things well:

1. They help raise money. Though I think you can raise money on the Interent in a variety of ways that don't involve blogs pimping for you.
2. They are great at "Rathering" or "Dixie Chicking" people. I'm not sure this is a benefit to the political discourse, and besides, Right-wingers are simply better at this than we are. And, if you were going to use a blog to destory someone's reputation, you should do it through a back-channel...not have the blogger on your payroll.

Aside from this, I don't see the benefit of blogs at this point. Kos is the King of the Blog Mountain. During 2004, Howard Dean did everything but tuck him in at night. And in the end, I think I ended up with more delegates than Dean. In the land of reality, it did not matter much that the left-wing blogosphere loved Dean.

I know Kerry had a bunch of bloggers, but I don't think they did anything to sway anyone. I frankly did not read them. I tend to prefer blogs like this anyway:

http://kissmesuzy.blogspot.com/2006/11/f-k-it-im-throwing-it-downfield.html

So...what am I missing? Why in 2007 risk the political nuclear bomb that is a blog?

[Katherine Brengle]

1. It just seems silly after all the free advertising and support they already get from unpaid bloggers

[Kagemusha]

2. Only to show you give a damn about the base.

If there's some other way to do that, great.

[nxylas]

3. They believe the hype

The media keeps saying that bloggers are the Next Big Thing, so candidates want to jump on the bandwagon. It's kind of embarrassing, like a middle-aged man talking in hip-hop slang to show that he's "down with the kids".

[Dr Fate]

6. It's not hype. Most on-the-ground activists are connected to internet politics.

Tell me I'm wrong- here you are, posting on the internet yourself.

[bryant69]

4. I find bloggers to be untustworthy folk mostly interested in self aggrandizement.

By the way, you should check out my blog --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Bryant

[Dr Fate]

5. That's right- ignore passionate Liberal activists. Hire "swing-voters" and moderates instead.

Good luck with that one.

The internet is not going anywhere-it is replacing the "conventional wisdom" (AKA bullshit of the talk shows)as far as the active Democrats are concerned.

Most on-the ground activists at least read blogs- or they post & read on political forums.

I think your whole premise relies on the myth that bloggers/"netroots" do nothing but blog- in reality they are the same activists who help organize local parties, knock on doors, start DEM organizations, etc.

Go ahead- suggest that it is okay to marginalize the activist base of the party- I am sure "swing voters" and moderates will all be just as dediciated and work just as hard.

[SteppingRazor]

7. Depends on the blog I think. If it's a heavy hitter like Atrios or Kos...

you have a nationally read medium with a built-in audience of thousands upon thousands (indeed, perhaps millions once links and trackbacks are included) that will be devoted to your message without all that pesky "balance" that the mainstream media tries to employ.

Given that, I would ask why not have bloggers on your side?

[americanstranger]

10. But neither one of them are literally 'hired' by a candidate.

Kos, if he is hired, is hired as a consultant.

Atrios, while he raises money for lots of candidates and accepts advertising from candidates, has never been paid by an individual candidate's campaign.

There's a difference. Kinda like letting a company put an ad on the side of your car rather than selling them the car outright.

- as

[americanstranger]

8. I think they're hired for a couple of reasons.

First, they know how blogging works - familiar with the software, the protocols of linking, etc.

And if the blogger is reasonably well-known, they bring a built-in audience that is familiar with them.

But I don't really think that candidates hire bloggers simply to blog - that's a part of it, of course, but they're also there to do the mundane stuff like moderation and keeping an eye on what goes up on the site.

And even though Edwards had (and by the look of it, may still have) problems because of the bloggers hired by his campaign, there have been quite a few bloggers who have made the jump from straight-up blogging to campaign blogging in the past without undue scrutiny or controversy. Oliver Willis and Jesse Taylor are two who spring immediately to mind.

But there are degrees of involvement in campaigns, as well - you say 'Kerry had a bunch of bloggers,' but you may be confusing a blogger hired by the campaign with otherwise independent bloggers who linked to Kerry fundraising pages. My blog did that, but we were in no way renumerated for it by the Kerry campaign.

- as

[NashVegas]

9. Yes, Absolutely

Providing that said blogger was not an idiot.

Someone with a proven ability to write on a variety of subjects, in such a way that generates thoughtful comment, a constant stream of visitors and positive word of mouth would be a major asset.

Dedicated, successful bloggers have a much better idea of how a successful internet campaign is made than someone with a poly-sci degree and no experience.