What Happens in Vegas...
Mary Conley
Ahhhhh, Vegas. There's just nothing like 100 degrees in the shade. The site of the first-ever YearlyKos Convention. How appropriate it's in this town of gamblers, thieves and dreamers. What better place for a new political movement to launch itself? This entire idea of netroots, progressive beliefs and people-powered politics is a gamble. We hope to win (not steal like the other side) in November and you can't make it happen unless you can dream big.
I had some fears that this would be where all those Dungeons and Dragons guys I knew in college would end up. Lots of under-exercised folks, pasty white from living too long in the glow of their computer screens, but that turns out not to be the case. The crowd is predominantly white, with meetings led by people in their 30s, attended by an audience proud of its gray hair. And ladies, ladies - you've got to start blogging. Women are seriously outnumbered here, but I don't think that's the only reason Maureen Dowd's among us. Like Joe Wilson, Wesley Clark and Howard Dean, I think she knows this is a crowd that shouldn't be ignored. Because we're going to talk about you...
Like Eugene, this convention is a place where you're never more than one comment away from a good conversation. You can be standing in line for coffee and the person behind you starts talking. By the time you're taking your first sip, you've not only got your blood pressure raised from sharing your rage at the insanity of the Bush Administration, you've also learned something. Two guys I talked to yesterday are veterans, both of them inspired to join this team by the war in Iraq and the administration's subsequent trashing of veteran's benefits.
One of the things you notice if you spend time on the DailyKos site is how educated the posters (diarists) and commenters are. Markos has extensive rules about what's acceptable on the site and you're not supposed to quote statistics unless you can back them up with facts. These folks have the facts, the stats and some serious brain power. I love it.
But the overwhelming thing these people have is a sense of community. They've been spending time together online (how some of them ever work is a mystery, if you read the comment threads on Cheers and Jeers, for example), and they've developed relationships. They've become friends, stayed at each others' houses, even fallen in love and moved across the country for each other. Their screen names may be Sigmond Fried and Terminal Elephant Expansion, but off-line they're John and Jane and they're really really sick of where this country's been headed the past five years.
I got in mid-day yesterday and will spare you my screed about the pains of flying and dealing with airports. I missed the morning "pundit training" sessions which were booked up within minutes of being announced online. I met a guy from Maryland who was happy to have landed a spot there as he's becoming a grassroots pundit and wanted to prepare for being on a conservative radio show next week. He got hands-on training, videotaping and coaching. He's ready to roll.
I went to the Pacific caucus, where the talk started on what happened to CA-50 and the lessons we should take from the defeat of Francine Busby. Even though it's an overwhelmingly Republican district, she came closer than originally thought possible, and wasted millions of their dollars in the attempt to defeat her. It was also seen as a communications failure, because her gaffe about "immigrants not needing papers to vote" might have been able to be cleared up on the spot by a communications staffer, none of whom were present. Though she tried to correct herself, it was too little, too late in the shark tank of conservative press that grabbed the comment and turned it into a flaming pitchfork.
Most of the hour was spent - much like last weekend's Democratic convention in Eugene - coming up with hands-on, grassroots, on-the-ground ideas to turn our talk into action. I shared some of the organizing tips I'd learned last weekend (and got applause for Blue Oregon, thank you very much, Kari). It was as if the DNC/DLC debate was being had all over again and once again the DNC/Howard Dean 50-state strategy comes up the winner. These people aren't as interested in the ephermals of messaging as they are in how many doors we can knock on, and coordinating those efforts so the same doors don't get knocked on 10 times during the election cycle while others never see our faces. The Bus Project also got kudos - and invited people to Get on the Bus.
In between the meeting and the evening kick-off reception, I had time to quiz Kossacks and get a crash course in the site. How could I get mojo? What's the strategy for keeping your un-recommended diary on the site's front page for longer than five minutes? And what's the story with all the pooties (aka "kitty cats")?
There is also lots of lamenting about the outing of Armando, one of DailyKos's best and most-beloved diarists. By day, he's a corporate attorney, by night a great thinker and writer who's inspired everybody. But he's lately become the target of "trolls" (site lurkers and enemy combatants) who found out his identity and outed his client list, so Armando has said farewell to blogging and cancelled his appearance here.
Armando's take-down points out the dangers of blogging - and adds more fuel to the argument brought up in Crashing the Gates that our side of the aisle doesn't have outlets for people like him, for devoted activists, to make real money fighting for the cause, so we end up losing them. The other side finds dough, nurtures talent, and creates people like Karl Rove. Until we get that kind of backing, we may keep chewing up and spitting out the heart of our organization.
Onward and upward. Day Two of making what happens in Vegas not just stay in Vegas.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jun 9, '06
I paid $10 to live stream this (watching it as I write this), so far it's not been much but self-congratulatory stuff but I'm hoping for more. As with most events of this kind I'm sure its much better to be there in person. Do wish there would be more individual discussions/interviews but that probably wouldn't work so well for those in attendance. Also, concerning the streaming, it would be nice to have some shots of the people in attendance. The most important thing though is that it is happening!
9:45 a.m.
Jun 9, '06
As for Armando, it's not like it was hard to figure out who he was. His real name is... Armando. And there were at least two spots on the net (buried, sure, but Google, y'know) where his full name is listed along with a bio note that he blogged at Kos.
Personally, I don't think people who take a highly active role should be anonymous. Here at BlueOregon, we don't allow our contributors to be anonymous. They all have names, and they all have bios. It adds credibility. During the fight over the Supreme Court Justices, Armando would have had more credibility - not less - if the world had known that he was a partner in a major law firm who had successfully argued and won in federal court.
Of course, there are costs to a lack of anonymity. I know - I get the crank calls and the crank emails from crazy people, both harassing and desperate for help. But I think it's worth it.
Anyway, thanks Mary, for telling us all about YearlyKos. Give us another update before it's all over. Thanks!
Jun 9, '06
Allowing people to contribute anonymously allows those who would normally be silenced for their particular standing ( i.e. person of color, woman, gay, poor) the ability to have a forum. Those who hold the power get to say who speaks and isn't that a form of censorship? I don't think that knowing that Armando is an attorney or a partner gives him any more or less credibility. I don't need to parade my legal education before everyone to prove I have something valid to say. Plenty of non-legally trained individuals have something to say about our courts. In fact, they offer a fresh perspective. If you have never been to law school, Kari, you may not know that the legal world is a very narrow place where free-thinking isn't always allowed or appreciated. It's the free-flow of ideas that often brings the most creative and innovative suggestions. Sadly, I'm afraid that blogs, like this one, only replicate a system they are trying to reconfigure when they give the most value to the elites among us and "weed out" others because they post anonymously.
11:33 a.m.
Jun 9, '06
That's true -- anonymity can protect people. After all, Thomas Paine was effectively an anonymous blogger two hundred years ago.
And I agree that the biggest credibility comes from the power of your ideas. But it's also true that by identifying yourself, you carry forward your credibility from "the real world" into this blogging one. (And as I've often said in workshops, there is no 'cyberspace' - we're all real people here, talking about real things.)
For example, I happen to think that Oregon WIP would be a much more effective and credible blog if people knew who you were. I do, but I'm not going to out you - until you do so yourself.
Generally, I'm against outing people who choose anonymity. They've chosen it for a reason; and it's not up to me to decide for them.
Exception: where their anonymity allows them to launch truly horrible attacks on people.
Of course, anonymity comes with a cost -- eternal vigilance against the genius of Google.
12:35 p.m.
Jun 9, '06
I think there's a difference between anonymity and confidentiality. Anonymity means no one has a clue who you are, or how to distinguish you from the rest of the personae who are anonymous.
On the other hand, when someone logs on as (say) B!x, and registers a comment, most everyone knows who is speaking and that person's "context"--what their historical opinions have been, where they are knowledgable and where they are not, etc. Maybe you don't know how that person comes by their knowledge, or who they knew to receive it, but I don't think that renders them in-credible.
Imagine what it would be like if reporters used confidential sources that were given handles, like bloggers and commenters have. I think it could enhance credibility of a report if instead of saying "A senior White House official said," the report said "Senior White House official 'HootieFan' noted that..." Over time, you could gain insight as to whether HootieFan knew what he was talking about, and suddenly an anonymous source comes with prior credentials that give you better information about if their story might be true. And that's the difference between anonymous and confidential.
Jun 9, '06
Is that Mark Bunster, blogging on the City of Portland's nickel?
12:47 p.m.
Jun 9, '06
You mean, like "Deep Throat"?
12:50 p.m.
Jun 9, '06
Well, Deep Throat wasn't ever a source per se; he was always on (deep) background. But if Woodward had used him the way we're discussing, and had done so from the time that he'd helped Bob on the George Wallace shooting, by the time Watergate rolled around, perhaps other outlets may have taken the Post's reportage more seriously.
12:52 p.m.
Jun 9, '06
"Who is Torridjoe" :
Is that an unnamed, ANONYMOUS troll, trying to squelch and shift debate, without any basis of knowledge or facts being imparted?
Save the pathetic intimidation tactics for Jack Boghimmler's blog, OK?
Jun 9, '06
Lunch break. It's good to see the discussion of anonymity. I didn't know how available Armando's info was, for instance. But I'd rather focus the discussion on how the Dems can USE people like him, whether or not they're anonymous, instead of just whistling and looking the other way as they leave the debate. I think to really ground this movement, we have to find those benefactors or other financial means to keep these folks in the game. Talent is rare. Talent with an interest in politics, even more so.
<h2>The other side doesn't debate the cost-benefit analysis of that strategy and look where it's gotten them in the past twenty years. I'd say their investment has paid off for their donors. I know we're not the party of Big Corporations, but still... "there's got to be a better way."</h2>