<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.0.0 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:36:36 GMT--><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:rss="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"><rss:channel rdf:about="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/"><rss:title>Journal</rss:title><rss:link>http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/</rss:link><rss:description></rss:description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><dc:date>2008-07-24T08:36:36Z</dc:date><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.squarespace.com/">Squarespace Site Server v5.0.0 (http://www.squarespace.com/)</admin:generatorAgent><rss:items><rdf:Seq><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/7/11/blogwars-related-speaking-events-update-071008.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/6/7/emergency-twitter-a-case-of-possibilities.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/5/11/the-origins-of-blogwars-part-1.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/5/9/daily-show-blogs-no-longer-the-fringe.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/5/8/blogwars-on-the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-may-8.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/5/7/blogwars-on-washingtonpostcom.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/3/26/blogwars-is-out.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/1/26/dole-institute-of-politics-to-host-panel-discussion-on-milit.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/1/26/hillary-clintons-critical-choice.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/1/26/should-book-authors-blog.html"/></rdf:Seq></rss:items></rss:channel><rss:item rdf:about="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/7/11/blogwars-related-speaking-events-update-071008.html"><rss:title>BLOGWARS-related speaking events (update 07.10.08)</rss:title><rss:link>http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/7/11/blogwars-related-speaking-events-update-071008.html</rss:link><dc:creator>david.d.perlmutter</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-07-11T00:11:49Z</dc:date><dc:subject>BLOGWARS--the Book</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some recent <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blogwars-Political-Battleground-David-Perlmutter/dp/0195305574" target="_blank">BLOGWARS</a>-related speaking events: </p><p>I was a keynote speaker at the <a href="http://clients.imodules.com/s/40/2col.aspx?sid=40&pgid=636" target="_blank">iModules Software User Conference</a> of about 250 college alumni relations officers in Kansas City. My topic was &quot;The Powers of Blogs for Outreach.&quot; [07.09.08] </p><p>I was interviewed by WILL Radio (NPR Affiliate in Urbana, IL) about blogs and politics in the 2008 campaigns. The mp3 download is at: <a href="http://will.illinois.edu/focus580/weekly/">http://will.illinois.edu/focus580/weekly/</a> [06.24.08] </p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/6/7/emergency-twitter-a-case-of-possibilities.html"><rss:title>Emergency Twitter: A Case of Possibilities</rss:title><rss:link>http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/6/7/emergency-twitter-a-case-of-possibilities.html</rss:link><dc:creator>david.d.perlmutter</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-06-07T10:19:47Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Blogs &amp; Big Media</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sharing information quickly: that's a basic aspect of blogging or any other new social interactive media. A good example of the positive possibilities of such a rapid dispersal of data comes from <a href="http://bavatuesdays.com/" target="_blank">Jim Groom</a>, who is an instructional-technology specialist and adjunct professor at the <a href="http://www.umw.edu/" target="_blank">University of Mary Washington</a>. He was <a href="http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=2973&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en">attending a presentation</a> at the <a href="http://www.richmond.edu/" target="_blank">University of Richmond</a> when suddenly, the campus experienced a <a href="http://www.wsls.com/sls/news/state_regional/article/university_of_richmond_put_on_lockdown_police_search_for_man_with_gun/10527/" target="_blank">lockdown after a report that a gunman had been sighted</a> at the library. At the time Groom was in a basement room and could not get a cell phone signal--he could however <a href="http://twitter.com/" target="_blank">twitter</a>, the short-blog format venue where you can quickly upload 140 character messages. </p><p>He <a href="http://bavatuesdays.com/bestiaries-lockdown-and-twitter/" target="_blank">describes</a>&nbsp;his twitter &quot;tweets&quot; in his blog after the events...</p><blockquote><p>&quot;I had no internet access on my laptop, and asked Tom to log me into a UR computer so that I could get a sense what was going on. I went immediately to Twitter, as did several other folks from UR who were holed up in a different computer lab. It was bizarre gauging what was going on through their tweets, almost a sixth sense. Soon enough, I started tweeting what was going on in the room (as did others) , and I found the act to be really soothing. People at UR were sharing information and giving advice to one another, while the larger network from around the world was sending regards, prayers, questions, and their well wishes. I had a very powerful sense that those &quot;others&quot; were there with us from beyond that lab, or even the UR campus. I can't fully explain why that felt so good, someone even offered a Safety dance from abroad, nothing like a laugh during a moment of untold strangeness.&quot; </p></blockquote><p>The opportunities for people to twitter during emergences are obvious. The problem will be, of course, trying to figure out signal from noise, that is, what data are accurate versus inaccurate or worse, disinformation. </p><p>Political candidates are twittering their calendars with short comments: Here is <a href="http://twitter.com/BarackObama" target="_blank">Barack Obama's Twitter page</a>. </p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/5/11/the-origins-of-blogwars-part-1.html"><rss:title>The Origins of BLOGWARS, part. 1.</rss:title><rss:link>http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/5/11/the-origins-of-blogwars-part-1.html</rss:link><dc:creator>david.d.perlmutter</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-05-11T10:29:48Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Prehistory of Blogs BLOGWARS--the Book Professional Blogs</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I got a chance on my <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=168063&title=david-perlmutter" target="_blank">DAILY SHOW appearance</a> to mention when I first started working on my book, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blogwars-Political-Battleground-David-Perlmutter/dp/0195305574" target="_blank">BLOGWARS.</a></em> Here are more details--partly drawn from <em>BLOGWARS</em> itself. In my mind there were three points of origin of the book. </p><p>1. In 1996, a colleague and I conducted one of the <a href="http://list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9612A&L=aejmc&P=468" target="_blank">first studies of presidential campaign Web sites</a>. Our main finding was that they were mostly online &quot;tackboards,&quot; posting information rather than developing content that exploited the hyperlinking and interactive qualities of the Internet. We stated, however, in the conclusions that: &quot;It is currently possible, though no candidate has done this, to host an online talk show where the candidate fields questions from users throughout the nation.&quot; Then, as an afterthought, I began looking at &quot;personal political Web sites&quot; created not by the campaign apparatus&mdash;political consultants, managers, advisers, or parties&mdash;but by individuals who supported the candidate or some cause. Many were raucous and crude, but it did seem that p<em>ersonalized mass political communication</em> was finally possible. Here were ordinary folks&mdash;dry cleaners, cops, high school juniors&mdash;grabbing a bullhorn and insisting, &quot;Listen to me, I have something to say!&quot; about presidential politics, terrorism, the Supreme Court, and so on. If you had Web access, you could read and interact with them for your own enrichment or bemusement. </p><p>2. In 1999, I first noticed something called a &quot;we-blog&quot; (pronounced wee-blog) and then a &quot;blog.&quot; In January 1999, Jesse James Garrett (Infosift) uploaded the names and URLs of the then twenty-three known weblogs. In the <a href="http://www.peterme.com/archives/00000205.html" target="_blank">spring of 1999</a>, Peter Merholz, host of peterme.com and an Internet analyst, announced, &quot;For What It's Worth I've decided to pronounce the word 'weblog' as wee'-blog. Or 'blog' for short.&quot; He recalled that he &quot;enjoyed [the word's] crudeness . . . its dissonance. I like that it's roughly onomatopoeic of vomiting. These sites (mine included!) tend to be a kind of information upchucking.&quot; His readers and correspondents adopted the term. </p><p>3. Taking summer off to study pre-Caucus votes in Iowa in 2003--I was then teaching at LSU--from the vantage point of Ames, Iowa, I gauged the impact of blogs on the campaign of Howard Dean for president. (To clarify: I was researching, <em>not </em>working for Dean). I appreciated that something innovative and exciting was changing political communication as I knew and taught it. People were (a) bypassing regular big media, (b) creating mass communication messages without formal training (like, say, attending my journalism school), (c) reaching, in some cases, large audiences, (d) inviting others to &quot;wiki&quot; or coauthor accretive knowledge, and (e) producing a range of effects on contemporary public opinion, political campaigns, public affairs argumentation, and even governmental policymaking. </p><p>And so the real investigation that became BLOGWARS began&hellip;(more to come)&hellip;</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/5/9/daily-show-blogs-no-longer-the-fringe.html"><rss:title>Daily Show: Blogs No Longer the Fringe</rss:title><rss:link>http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/5/9/daily-show-blogs-no-longer-the-fringe.html</rss:link><dc:creator>david.d.perlmutter</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-05-09T00:59:19Z</dc:date><dc:subject></dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just finished taping The Daily Show. I was interviewed by Stewart himself. What stuck me was how the discussion about blogging was pretty straight and without any real mockery. I argue in <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blogwars-Political-Battleground-David-Perlmutter/dp/0195305574" target="_blank">BLOGWARS</a></em> that 2008 is the year blogging has arrived&mdash;becoming part of journalism, entertainment media, and, of course politics. Well, I think one sign is that instead of making fun of bloggers as geeks and freaks Stewart himself stated that many talented people blog and that blogs were no longer a fringe phenomenon. That's a significant leap from the past. Lets spin back to when that was not so. Bloggers recall the March 200<strong><em>5</em></strong> segment of The Daily Show that made fun of blogs and blogging via a satirical segment on <a href="http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/05/the-daily-sho-2.html" target="_blank">&quot;$ecret$ of New Journalism $ucce$$.&quot;</a>* Jay Rosen, an NYU professor and one of the early academic proponents of blogging was interviewed by TDS correspondent Rob Corddry: it was one of those ambush affairs.</p><p>So it's lucky for me that blogs have some so far! </p><p><em>By the way, in person Stewart is gracious and really puts guests&mdash;like, say, nervous academics&mdash;at ease.</em> </p><p>The Daily Show Blog picked up this post now shows <a href="http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/05/the-daily-sho-2.html" target="_blank">the older segment</a>&nbsp;(which was from 2005, not 2004 as I recalled): compare and contrast!</p><p><strong>Modified: 07.10.08</strong></p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/5/8/blogwars-on-the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-may-8.html"><rss:title>BLOGWARS on the DAILY SHOW with Jon Stewart (May 8)</rss:title><rss:link>http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/5/8/blogwars-on-the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-may-8.html</rss:link><dc:creator>david.d.perlmutter</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-05-08T10:47:40Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Prehistory of Blogs Political Roles Bloggers Play BLOGWARS--the Book</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am scheduled to be on the <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" target="_blank">DAILY SHOW with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central</a> this Thursday (May 8) to talk about political blogging and my book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blogwars-Political-Battleground-David-Perlmutter/dp/0195305574" target="_blank">BLOGWARS</a>. Everyone's first piece of advice for me about being a good guest: Don't try to be funny. I think I can manage that&hellip; </p><p>The Daily Show has become an institution of American politics very much linked to a culture where people--especially younger voters--seek out political information from non-traditional sources. [A KU student (Nathan Rodriguez) in our school's master's program is writing his thesis on the show, to some extent based on his time as an intern.] The show is part of the political culture it satirizes and, in some cases, influences it. The show is considered a source of information, an explainer of politics, and of course a &quot;speaker&quot; of (funny) truth to power. </p><p>TDS's effects are hard to quantify: Think in terms of <a href="http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/" target="_blank">Saturday Night Live</a>'s &quot;effect&quot; on the Clinton-Obama race! However, there is a small but growing area of research that looks at its role in politics and political socialization. A 2004 Annenberg Election Survey found that TDS viewers have &quot;higher campaign knowledge than national news viewers and newspaper readers&mdash;even when education, party identification, following politics, watching cable news, receiving campaign information online, age, and gender are taken into consideration.&quot; </p><p>Jon Stewart was rated the fourth &quot;most admired journalist in America&quot; in a <a href="http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=309" target="_blank">2007 survey by Pew Research Center</a> for the People &amp; the Press. <a href="http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319" target="_blank">Another Pew study found</a> that regular viewers of The Daily Show and its sister Colbert Report had among highest levels of knowledge about news and public affairs among any group of new consumers. </p><p>Other research is finding that the show helps explain politics to people who may not know much about politics. Think infotainment with an educational component. </p><p>Because I'm a political historian I like to find parallels between present and past. Jon Stewart in some ways is performing a very old political function--that of the court jester. </p><p>Today, we think of jesters as smart-alecks in dangling-bell hats cracking jokes at Renaissance fairs; but the post of jester at a noble household or government court was long considered a crucial one for good government. The court jester had many names throughout history, but the job profile goes back at least several thousand years. The first century CE Roman statesman, philosopher and writer <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/L214.html" target="_blank">Seneca</a> tells us that in households of means there would be a slave whose special task it was to taunt and critique his masters and generally be saucy and insolent to the wealthy and powerful. </p><p>In the Middle Ages, nobles&mdash;and indeed the king himself&mdash;employed a jester, or fool. He would have an uncertain and largely uncensored place at the banquet table, in meeting rooms, and in the halls of the court. He could interrupt great counselors of state, making piquant or provoking comments, pointing out fallacies in arguments, reporting his own contrarian observations from experience outside the court, and generally speak wry truth to overstuffed power. The ideal fool is best drawn in literature by Sir Walter Scott in his medieval novel <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451521943?v=glance" target="_blank">Ivanhoe</a>:</em> Wamba, son of Witless, is an equal opportunity infuriator to prince, baron, and banker. </p><p>The king could also trust the fool not to be a sycophantic yes-man, and it was the duty of the same to deliver bad news. There is a famous case drawn from the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Years-War-English-1337-1453/dp/0140283617" target="_blank">Hundred Years War,</a> when England had defeated France in a great naval battle. The nobles of France were afraid to report the truth to their king, so they incited the court fool, who announced to his ruler that the English sailors were great cowards because they refused to swim in the ocean like the brave French seamen. </p><p>I realize that the role of the jesters and saucy slaves has been romanticized: They probably did not have much real power. But I have to think that their influence was also one that few political leaders wanted to admit to. </p><em><p><em>The Daily Show is part of the great modern sweep of interactive media, like blogs, but it has some deep roots. </em></p><p><em><strong>Follow-up thought and clarification:</strong></em> </p><p>Wouldn't we have better government today if we had an official White House Jester? (Who, like Supreme Court Justices, could not be fired). <em>Mr. Stewart, will you run? You get my vote.</em></p></em> <p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/5/7/blogwars-on-washingtonpostcom.html"><rss:title>BLOGWARS on Washingtonpost.com</rss:title><rss:link>http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/5/7/blogwars-on-washingtonpostcom.html</rss:link><dc:creator>david.d.perlmutter</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-05-07T10:17:50Z</dc:date><dc:subject>BLOGWARS--the Book</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin: 5pt 0in"><strong>I was interviewed by Chris Hopkins for the Washington Post about political blogging. It was a webchat with him typing my responses to live questions.&nbsp;An edited&nbsp;transcript follows. </strong><font style="color: #800080" color="#800080"></font></div><div style="margin: 5pt 0in"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/26/DI2008042602322.html"><font style="color: #800080" color="#800080"><strong><u>The link to the full transcript is here.</u></strong></font></a></div><div style="margin: 5pt 0in"></div><div style="margin: 5pt 0in"><strong>Friday, May 2 at noon ET </strong></div><div style="margin: 5pt 0in"><strong>Books: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blogwars-Political-Battleground-David-Perlmutter/dp/0195305574" target="_blank">'Blogwars'</a></strong></div><div><em>David D. Perlmutter: Journalism Professor, University of Kansas.<br />Friday, May 2, 2008; 12:00 PM </em><em>online <strong>to </strong>explain how and to what extent political blogs influence campaigns and legislation, and how they serve to improve democracy and enrich political culture.</em> </div><div>____________________ </div><div><strong>David D. Perlmutter:</strong> My name is David Perlmutter, and I'm a professor at the University of Kansas, and for years I've researched political communication, and three or four years ago I started paying attention to a raucous new venue for political communication, blogging. I saw it particularly in the Dean campaign. My new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blogwars-Political-Battleground-David-Perlmutter/dp/0195305574" target="_blank">BLOGWARS</a>,&nbsp;tracks the rise of political blogs in prominence and influence in general, the entry of political blogger into the corridors of political power and their integration into the campaigns as workers rather than fringe outsiders, and looking at the social interactive media -- Facebook and YouTube, etc. -- and how they're changing the face of elections. </div><div>_______________________ </div><div>Seattle<strong>:</strong> What is the proper role of blogs in politics? Is it to offer an outsider's take on events from someone who didn't receive a White House Correspondents' Dinner invitation? Or is it to offer expert analysis on a subject where professional journalists have none? </div><div></div><div><strong>David D. Perlmutter:</strong> Well, I think there's no &quot;proper&quot; role -- rather bloggers have seized or been offered every potential role in politics. You find candidates blogging, bloggers working for campaigns, people working as blog outreach coordinators for campaigns, you see people making comments and writing opinions -- traditional blogging -- but you also see original reporting, covering caucuses and even interviewing candidates and campaign officials. It's gone from just being a few outsiders making comments to being insiders -- journalists are blogging, professional political people are blogging, and it's become popular inside and outside of the game. </div><div>_______________________ </div><br /><div>Harrisburg, Pa.<strong>:</strong> Has anyone done a strong market analysis on Web sites and blogging? I note that millions of Americans have visited the Web sites of all three major candidates and that many, especially the younger voters, regularly read blogs. What I want to know is: how are these voters deciding who to vote for? How much does what they find on candidates' Web sites influence them? If so, what is it on those sites that does influence them? To what degree are blogs persuasive? </div><div></div><div><strong>David D. Perlmutter:</strong> There already have been many surveys of political bloggers and examinations of their blogging. First, if you look at the profile of the bloggers, they are people campaigns would love to reach out to. They tend to be middle class, $50,000 a year or more in income, politically active -- vote and give money and show up to campaign rallies. So they're a very attractive constituency to reach, especially for fundraising. One of the most interesting things is how bloggers have gotten together in groups or been solicited to raise money for a candidate, even one many states away. If you look at the surveys of the bloggers, they say they get a significant amount of political information online -- it's their preferred medium. We can't say &quot;you will get X number of votes because you have a blog&quot; but all political candidates are seeing that they have to have some sort of presence in social and interactive media. You can't ignore blog readers. </div><div>When you look at what blog readers read, overwhelmingly people do tend to read content they agree with -- liberal Democrats read liberal Democratic blogs. So one influence of blogs is reinforcement. You believe your position is stronger and become more enthused about it. Another interesting aspect is that even if you're attacking someone, you're still going to cite them and give them a hyperlink. </div><div>You also can track the numbers of people using blogs and other interactive social media and use that to raise money. Barack Obama is very interesting in this regard. In my book, finished last September, I said he'd be interesting to watch in his online efforts, and he's raising a ton of money online. He has to go to fewer $1,000-a-plate dinners than John McCain does. Campaigns are paying attention to that. He's also able to bring in newer voters, as he certainly did in Iowa. If you look at the entrance polls in Iowa, the spread of young voters between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, was the widest in the history of entrance and exit voting. I think that had a lot to do both with the qualities of Barack Obama the candidate, but also with the campaign's outreach through online social interactive media. </div><div>_______________________ </div><div></div><div><strong>washingtonpost.com:</strong> What would you consider to be some of the most influential (not necessarily most popular) blogs across the political spectrum? What are some that perhaps have come to the foreground since the book was published? </div><div>_______________________ </div><div></div><div><strong>David D. Perlmutter:</strong> I'd like to answer the question a little more generally -- one remarkable thing about blogs is that even though there are huge community blogs, what's interesting is that blogging is much more democratic than all other media. In tradtional media, it's very rare for a very big newspaper to quote a very small newspaper. The Washington Post might quote a small Iowa paper about the caucuses, but not the war. But DailyKos or Townhall regularly will cite much smaller bloggers. I wrote a post quite some time ago that got referred to by Mickey Kaus [Slate], and within an hour I had 20,000 to 25,000 extra readers. That's probably slightly more [people] than students&nbsp;I will&nbsp;ever talk to who just read my 600 words on a topic. They're much more likely to reach out and encourage and read smaller blogging. It's an egalitarian impulse that I think is good, and applaudable. Because of that, minor bloggers can have a major influence if they're cited over and over again by other blogs. I try to read blogs whether or not I agree with their opinions. I like to see smaller bloggers have an impact. A good example is Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee and his journalistic entrepreneurialism. He checks the facts of major mainstream news stories and does things I don't think reporters do any more in terms of calling to check things, so he gets picked up by million-person blogs. There's an intrinsic balance in the blogging world that allows people with small voices to get heard beyond their core audience. </div><div>In terms of influence within the party structures, on the left DailyKos you could argue is the most powerful political blog in the country, left or right. They have an annual Las Vegas convention where all the Democratic candidates spoke, and ritually all the candidates now feel they have to go speak to the netroots of the party. No one blogs alone, they tend to post and then counterpost and repost and communities gather to lobby a particular issue. In <a href="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2006/1/29/hillary-clintons-blog-dilemma-are-the-grassroots-burning.html"><u><font style="color: #810081" color="#810081">January of 2006</font></u></a> I wrote a couple of posts about what I saw was a real problem for the Clinton campaign. If you remember what was in the mainstream media at that time, she was way ahead in the polling, she was going to raise several hundred million, and people thought she had it locked up. But I'd noticed there was a persistent brush fire in left blogs against Clinton, including another Clinton and someone of her background being a standard of the party, dissatisfaction with her policies on Iraq, and those were not showing up on the polls yet. I speculated that this would be long-term trouble, because these left blogs had the ear of many people in the party, and their yearning for someone to challenge Clinton I think tremendously benefited Barack Obama whose campaign saw this tendency and exploited it through interactive media. </div><div>I you also would include Talking Points Memo, Crooks &amp; Liars, Atrios, Brad DeLong, James Walcott -- these tend to be in higher numbers on the left. Redstate.com, Townhall has really done an amazing job setting up a new paradigm of blogging, converge with other media like radio. Into the era of blogging, conservatives had a strong hold on Talk Radio, and so it's really interesting to see a convergence of those two forms. Powerline blog -- you really could spend all day if you wanted to reading political blogs. </div><div>One key point is that another influence the political blogs have is acting as scouts for traditional political journalists, raising something in their blog and seeing it appear 24 hours later in a major newspaper. In some ways they've replaced tipsters, and journalists say they keep up with the blogs to see what's hot in the world of politics -- aside from their traditional sources in the parties and campaigns. </div><div>_______________________ </div><div></div><div><strong>David D. Perlmutter:</strong> I'll sum up...I'm not sure whether blogs will be around in 10 years or what the future of social interactive media holds. I remember growing up that my only sources of political information were friends' parents and Walter Cronkite and the daily newspaper, but I sense that we'll never get back to a time when people will take information from sources where they can't talk back to those sources. People want to remix and mashup the culture, not just consume it. I'd say we are pretty much like television in the 1950s. We can't really predict where it will go, the role of all these social media in campaigns, but this certainly is the year of testing, trying, seeing what works. A year from now we certainly will have a better estimate of the influence of blogging and similar kinds of media. </div>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/3/26/blogwars-is-out.html"><rss:title>BLOGWARS IS OUT!!!</rss:title><rss:link>http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/3/26/blogwars-is-out.html</rss:link><dc:creator>david.d.perlmutter</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-03-26T08:46:35Z</dc:date><dc:subject>BLOGWARS--the Book</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This blog was started when I began writing a book about political blogs: BLOGWARS: THE NEW AMERICAN POLITICAL BATTLEGROUND. Now, finally, the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blogwars-Political-Battleground-David-Perlmutter/dp/0195305574" target="_blank">book is out from Oxford University Press</a>.</p><p>More about the <a href="http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/AmericanPolitics/PoliticalCommunicationMediaStudi/?view=usa&ci=9780195305579" target="_blank">book on OUP's site</a>.</p><p>Some early publicity: </p><p>--Interviewed by Ohio public radio--it is <a href="http://www.wosu.org/news/openline/?archive=1&date=02/29/2008" target="_blank">available on podcast</a>.</p><p>--Excerpted on the &quot;<a href="http://page99test.blogspot.com/2008/03/david-perlmutters-blogwars.html" target="_blank">page 99 test&quot; blog</a>.</p><p><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: verdana; mso-fareast-font-family: 'times new roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'times new roman'; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa"><font style="color: #000000" color="#000000"></font></span></p>--Reviewed by Joseph Rosenbloom in the <a href="http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2008/02/10/clicks_and_politics_the_impact_of_the_partisan_blog/" target="_blank">Boston Globe.</a>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/1/26/dole-institute-of-politics-to-host-panel-discussion-on-milit.html"><rss:title>Dole Institute of Politics to host panel discussion on military blogs</rss:title><rss:link>http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/1/26/dole-institute-of-politics-to-host-panel-discussion-on-milit.html</rss:link><dc:creator>david.d.perlmutter</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-01-26T14:53:20Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Blogs &amp; Marketplace of Ideas Political Roles Bloggers Play Blogs &amp; Warfare</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Update! The <a href="http://doleinstituteblog.org/milblogs-yesterday-and-today/" target="_blank">progam video is now available.</a></p><p><a href="http://www.news.ku.edu/2008/january/17/milblogs.shtml"><span class="sizeGreater20"><strong>Dole Institute to host panel discussion on military blogs</strong></span> </a></p><p>LAWRENCE &mdash; As a follow-up to a successful program in early 2007 on political Weblogs, the <a href="http://www.doleinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Dole Institute of Politics</a> in Lawrence, KS, will host a panel discussion about another dynamic and growing community on the Internet: military blogs (also known as &ldquo;milblogs&rdquo;). </p><p>Blogs from the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan have allowed readers at home to connect with soldiers, contractors and civilians who are serving their countries, and they have forced the Pentagon to rush headlong into this 21st century medium. </p><p>Milblogs began to appear shortly after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. They saw a dramatic increase in usage following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. According to Joshua Patterson, a KU graduate student studying journalism, Milblogging.com had indexed more than 1,800 military blogs in more than 30 countries as of Dec. 1, 2007. </p><p>&ldquo;Milblogs and soldier blogs are often gripping and graphic firsthand accounts of the author&rsquo;s life and experiences,&rdquo; said Jonathan Earle, interim director of the Dole Institute. &ldquo;This program will give our audience a window onto a new and fast-changing part of the so-called &lsquo;new media.&rsquo; I can&rsquo;t recall a similar program anywhere else in the country.&rdquo; </p><p><strong>The program will begin at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 29, at the Dole Institute. It is free and open to the public. </strong></p><p>Like last year&rsquo;s <a href="http://doleinstituteblog.org/104/" target="_blank">&ldquo;Blog to the Chief&rdquo; </a>program at the Dole Institute, this discussion will be moderated by David Perlmutter, associate dean of KU&rsquo;s William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications and author of the books &ldquo;<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Visions-War-Picturing-Warfare-Cyberage/dp/0312200455/ref=sr_1_1/102-0354885-0886546?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186489089&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Visions of War</a>&rdquo; and &ldquo;<a href="http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/AmericanPolitics/PoliticalCommunicationMediaStudi/?view=usa&ci=9780195305579" target="_blank">Blogwars.&rdquo; </a>The panel will feature Charles J. &ldquo;Jack&rdquo; Holt, chief of New Media Operations for the Department of Defense, and leading military bloggers Ward Carroll, editor of Military.com; and John Donovan, lead blogger of Argghhh! The Home of Two of Jonah&rsquo;s Military Guys. </p><p>Holt is a career Pentagon civilian employee. He served with the National Guard at the National Guard Bureau and was deployed to Hungary, Croatia and Bosnia. The New Media Outreach program, which he leads, studies how new technologies inform the public of defense policy and operations. </p><p>During his 20-year Navy career, Caroll served in four F-14 squadrons, accumulating more than 2,800 flight hours in operations that included five extended aircraft carrier deployments to hostile regions. Carroll has worked as a writer and cartoonist for Approach magazine and is the author of five books, including &ldquo;<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Militia-Kill-Ward-Carroll/dp/0451219015/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201359627&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Militia Kill</a>.&rdquo; He currently blogs at Defensetech.org and his personal site, wardcarroll.com. </p><p>Donovan is a retired soldier who served for 20 years as an artillery expert, military historian, training and simulations expert and weapons of mass destruction response planner. He currently works as a defense contractor for the Army, working on everything from simulation development to operational analysis. He has worked on projects ranging from developing an analytic personnel management model to future Army concepts, structures and equipment. As a blogger, he covers military affairs, firearms, military history and politics. </p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/1/26/hillary-clintons-critical-choice.html"><rss:title>Hillary Clinton's critical choice</rss:title><rss:link>http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/1/26/hillary-clintons-critical-choice.html</rss:link><dc:creator>david.d.perlmutter</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-01-26T14:46:56Z</dc:date><dc:subject></dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Last week an op-ed of mine was published in the CSM. Unofortunately mauch of what&nbsp;I wrote&nbsp;has come to pass.</em></p><p><strong><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0115/p09s01-coop.html" target="_blank">David D. Perlmutter, &quot;Hillary Clinton's critical choice: Attacking Obama could push youth away from politics.&quot; Christian Science Monitor, January 15, 2008, p. 9.</a></strong></p><p>Sen. Hillary Clinton will soon make a decision about the direction of her campaign in the South Carolina Democratic primary on Jan. 26. Her options are either to play nice and perhaps lose, or to go on the attack and win. </p><p>In a tight race against Sen. Barack Obama, Senator Clinton may choose the latter. Her recent remarks about the words and actions of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. were probably a trial balloon to gauge the impact of going negative. But in so doing, she could alienate several major Democratic constituencies &ndash; African-Americans and youth &ndash; perhaps for a generation to come. There is no limit to the politics of destruction possible in South Carolina. George W. Bush set a precedent for that in 2000 by shredding John McCain, who had won New Hampshire. </p><p>Until her poor performance in Iowa, Clinton had been banking on South Carolina votes. Bill Clinton had proven his &quot;comeback kid&quot; status in 1992 by winning South Carolina and other states, mostly due to African-American support. In 2006, Clinton allies pushed forward the South Carolina primary so it would come on the heels of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. They hoped that winning there would clinch the nomination after New Hampshire and Iowa victories. </p><p>But now, Clinton's African-American &quot;constituency&quot; in the South has someplace else to go: to a truly viable black candidate. Hence the strategy behind carefully crafted Bill and Hillary statements that 1) the campaign would not go negative in the Granite State and 2) the press was being too easy on Senator Obama. Notice was given, it seemed: If only slightly veiled critiques of the junior senator from Illinois don't do the job, we will unleash old-fashioned attack ads. </p><p>The problem is that the lessons of Clinton's New Hampshire strategy are mixed. Besides the seminegativity, she also showed a very human face. Which tactic was more influential? Or was the combination of both the critical factor? </p><p>If she went on the attack, Clinton would be breaking with Democratic presidential politics of the past &ndash; to treat African-American candidates gently and avoid alienating black voters. In 1988, when the Rev. Jesse Jackson debated Al Gore and Michael Dukakis, both white candidates saw no advantage in being negative toward him. Mr. Jackson was popular among a key constituency and had little chance to win anyway. </p><p>Technology is another liability. In old-style negative campaigning you could localize your stabs by, for example, running attack ads in one district or sending out smearing mailers to certain groups. But with the advent of blogs and YouTube, all politics is global. Any anti-Obama ad will be seen by the whole country. What might work in rural South Carolina might be embarrassing when watched online in Santa Barbara, Calif. </p><p>And, of course, when you sling mud there is a backlash. Clinton has worked hard to make herself appear genial yet serious in more recent speeches and in ads. An attack-dog stance will hardly raise her own approval rating for the general election. </p><p>But do the Clintons and their allies have any choice? Each additional state that Obama can win will dampen questions about his own electability. Does Clinton want to fight him in every state or win the nomination early? </p><p>While the Clinton campaign is concerned about the current election, bigger questions should be asked. In going negative with Obama, something else is at stake: the next generation of Democrats. </p><p>Entrance polling, anecdotal evidence from voter interviews, and simple observation of rallies suggest that many Obama voters are truly excited about him. Of the record 239,000 Democratic voters in the Iowa caucus, 22 percent were under 30 years old &ndash; also a first. Even more remarkable, among this group, Obama won 57 percent of the vote; Edwards, 14 percent; and Clinton just 11 percent. </p><p>The Clinton-Obama demographic divide is a generation gap we have not seen in Democratic Party presidential politics for, well, generations. Howard Dean, the &quot;youth candidate&quot; of 2004, scored just 25 percent of the under-30 vote in Iowa, while John Kerry got 35 percent. </p><p>In short, Obama is a &quot;first love&quot; for many young, potential new Democrats, and they are the future of the party. What would happen if they walked away in disgust from their initial engagement with politics because things turned bitter and dirty? </p><p>Right now there is a struggle in the Clinton campaign about what New Hampshire meant. Her choice, to go positive or negative, or both, may determine the fate of her campaign. But the fallout could also affect the makeup of the Democratic party for a generation to come. </p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/1/26/should-book-authors-blog.html"><rss:title>SHOULD BOOK AUTHORS BLOG?</rss:title><rss:link>http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2008/1/26/should-book-authors-blog.html</rss:link><dc:creator>david.d.perlmutter</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-01-26T14:43:16Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Blogstyle BLOGWARS--the Book Blogs &amp; Big Media</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I begin my new <a href="http://www.oup.com/us/?view=usa" target="_blank">Oxford University Press</a> book <a href="http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/AmericanPolitics/PoliticalCommunicationMediaStudi/?view=usa&ci=9780195305579" target="_blank">BLOGWARS</a> by claiming, only half facetiously, that there are good reasons <em>not</em> to write a book on political blogs and the rise of interactive social media's role in campaigns, elections, and public affairs and policy-making. My analogy is that d escribing political blogging in a book that took three years to research and write and another year to publish is like reporting a NASCAR race with stone tablets. I think I captured the origins of politicking via social media like blogs (and now YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, etc.) through October 2007, and so far my predictions of the 2008 race have been pretty good. New stuff is happening so fast, though, that it's hard to keep up. </p><p>But that is the point: A blogger's work is never done, nor, I hope, is that of a student of blogs. Bloggers cannot coast or rest on their laurels; their readers will abandon them or, worse, ask why they are failing them. <em>Blogs are always unfinished, their work always to be continued, revised, and extended later. </em>Books are supposed to be different. In a sense all books are orphans. Only in some screwball comedy movie is it possible for an author to change his mind and run into bookstores and add new material. </p><p>With BLOGWARS, however, Oxford Press' author's blog and the Internet allow me to &quot;follow up&quot; in a way that previous generations of authors could only do in second editions. In a way, it has to be so. The age of the author writing the non-fiction book and walking away from her re aders is dead: long live the<em> afterpost!</em> I say this knowing it is against the instincts of most authors, including me: When I finish a book (BLOGWARS is my seventh) I want to walk away and be done with it&hellip;but that model of authorship can't sustain itself anymore. If you want to write non-fiction nowadays you have to keep writing it long after the bookstores have your tome on the shelf. </p><p>I say &quot;non-fiction&quot; because I think fiction authors have higher ground to stand on when it comes to terminating a book's paper and virtual life. Have you ever read a great novel, been very satisfied by its conclusion, and then felt betrayed when an author comes out with a sequel, which you wonder was a product more of paying a mortgage than respecting the creative muse? There is a sense of finality about literature, and there should be. I have no interest in reading <a href="http://www.melville.org/hmmoby.htm" target="_blank">&quot;Moby-Dick: The Adventure Continues&quot;</a> and I certainly don't want to see &quot;new chapters&quot; of an old novel added by authors or hired hacks. </p><p>But non-fiction is about uncovering truths as we know them, and every subject, whether the sex lives of the Hittites or political blogs, has new facts emerging that readers should know about. And, of course, readers have information that often can help the authors clarify their knowledge. </p><p>So, non-fiction authors have a duty to keep at it, and the blog is the most efficient vehicle for such interaction. </p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item></rdf:RDF>