Personal Democracy Forum 2008
Note by David GalielDavid_Galiel:
Conversation via Skype:
"Using the technology we are talking about" - Andrew
Skype window comes up, showing Edwards home (nice floral couch) but no guest - ah, here is Elizabeth, walking in the frame, candid moment., someone comfortable with authenticity rather than carefully staged events.
Andrew asks about her article, "Bowling 1, Health Care 0", about the focus of the media on trivialities rather than substance important to the national debate.
In her opinion, online media did a better job than traditional media - the mainstream press compresses everything no matter how much it really takes to explain it, it's all packaged to fit the tv soundbite or the column inches in print.
Wonders how many people really take advantage of new media "people think going to CNN.com means new media". Discusses generation gap/digital divide, young people grow up with tech, older citizens do not, have to be educated and exposed to technology and new media. Advocates more public terminals, more access, more public education geared towards generation that is not tech-native. She thinks to an extent it will just have to wait a generation. Even someone like her who uses the Internet a lot - "I don't carry a laptop around, I still spell "are" A-R-E not "R" - relates to the technology differently than her children
(my note: I like to say that our children are naturally-born citizens of the Internet; many of us in the room are, at best, naturalized citizens - the natives can spot the difference instantly; most people of our generation (I'm 48) who are online are immigrants; they may learn the language well enough to get by, but they will always be marked by their accent, and they will always be "translating" their thoughts and metaphors from the Old World.)
She talked about the tricky decision about how to choose who to invite into blogger calls and conferences and to invite "on the bus", the discussion about "arming your enemies", wondering how to set criteria for evaluating bloggers - different than evaluatingg traditional media.
Asked about Obama opting out of public funding. She was not part of the discussion about it, but thinks he has already proven his appeal to the grassroots, so if that was the basis of this decision, that was not necessary as he already proved that. If it was to be the candidate of change by not being beholden to big funders, he didn't need to do that - he is open to charges of changing his mind. Doesn't think he will pay a lasting political price for his decision, and certainly McCain is not in a position to call him on it given the range of issues McCain has changed his position on.
She doesn't think this new grass-roots funding model will replace traditional big-funder system, but may exist alongside it. Says in the beginning, to get started, you need to appeal to a few people who can write big checks.
She talks about the capacity and problems of using the massive, distributed email list Obama has developed in governance and increasing voter participation - makes the point that many on the list are small donors, will be asked to move to a new level of participation by becoming activists, it's a different way of participating, remains to be seen if it can be done. Notes that, in the past, politicians have been reluctant to spend their political capital on anything but promoting their careers. Hopes that next president will not use it that way (criticizes Bush for not using political capital after 9/11 to help move the political culture in the country).
Remembers days when you could write the federal government to request information and you would get a booklet from Pueblo Colorado. There was a lot of publicity and PSA's to raise awareness about the availability of these resources. Even though so many resources are available online, she doesn't see the public at large being informed about the fact that it is available, where to find it and how to look it up.
Gives example of how useful it would be if the government made it available for us to see all the info about prescription drugs that are available for other consumer products - what the ingredients re, where they come from, what they cost in different places, etc.
More information will equip citizens to become political activists - rather than just being vaguely enraged about things, knowing what the issues are and how to change them.
Asked if she thinks an "internet czar" would be useful in the next administration, cabinet level. She doesn't think that is necessary, but would like to see directive to every agency to institute certain public information policies related to transparency, making sure information is genuinely useful to the public, resurrecting some of Jimmy Carter's ombudsmen system and rejiggering it for a new media world. A government-wide commitment to informing the public as part of their core mission.
Andrew: "the internet is the only organism with a memory older than itself" - does she think that the dynamic of YouTube and other "constantly on" citizen debunking will force politiicans to be more transparent and less unauthentic. She isn't hopeful, thinks some people just have dishonesty or exaggeration deep in their psyche (make oblique reference to Clinton and Bosnia).
She was surprised when Obama asked her to work with his campaign on health care, didn't expect it but was delighted with opportunity to advocate for real means to achieve universal health care.
Asked why, since John endorsed Obama, why she hasn't expicitely done so - and what advice she would give Obama for the general election. She didn't go to Michigan with John to endorse, had promised Clinton she would stay out of the race. This morning was the first time, on Good Morning America, when she was asked about it, she said she would work as hard as she knew how to make sure that he was the next president - enormously important, not by any means ensured. Poll numbers are good, but lived through 2004 thinking they had won and finding they had not. Expects a lot of nasty "incoming" from McCain campaign and folks not officially affiliated with the campaign. Says she is personally getting anti-Obama email that is "pretty inflammatory". Hopes that Senate and House seats will not be as close.
Given the circumstances, tempting to sit back and think it's a done deal, but it would be a terrible mistake. Doesn't think she needs to tell the Obama campaign this, they know it and she sees evidence of how they continually press.
The promise of change that he represents puts an extra burden on him and an added responsibility to live up to their promise. She would like to see more informal conversations, talking about his past as a community activist, to personalize the experiences he had. Negate the perception about a "gulf" between him and regular people.
Andrew assures her that Obama campaign folks in the audience are, as we speak, likely transmitting her advice to the candidate. He says that she was invited because of all the political figures this year, she was the one who was recognized, across the political spectrum, as being someone who really got it. Audience applauded.
Audience questions: notes that she and her husband started conducted podcasts to continue communicating their message, what are plans in the future?
She says when campaign assets and email lists are released from audit for this use, they will continue to use those resources to campaign on behalf of the issues that are important to them, to build a grass-roots organization that they and their supporters believe are important. Recognizes that people's attention will be split between now and the election, so they have to be careful about the requests they make so as not to deflect attention or energy from the general campaign.
Questioner notes John's campaign started with focus on what happened in New Orleans, asks if they will go back there and bring attention back. She says definitely yes, John is working with an organization doing work in New Orleans, and keeping public attention focused on that is a priority of her's and John's.
Andrew asks if she personally will get back to being heard on blogs, social networks, live blog, notes she has her own constituency and wonders how she intends to continue the conversation with them. Says she is chiming in occasionally, not doing as much live blogging, will be participating in the WonkRoom site, will be her home for the time being, but will cross-post on other blogs as well.
Questioner notes that after Dean came Democracy For America; asks if, after the Edwards campaign, there will be something similar, an "Elizabeth Core"?
She likes model of OneCore, because it uses the internet to get people to actually do things offline. Notes that she does participate in a lot of sites using a pseudonym, because she would not be able to participate freely using her own name. but, she uses this mostly to gather information and gain a better understanding of how her message is getting through and how effective these programs are.
Andrew asks about Facebook and other social networking; she says they are better when you don't have celebrities involved; wants to see real networks vs. fake networks where people join just to be affiliated with a personality.
Questioner asks: what does it mean to get citizens involved in civic participation, government and governance when they are consumed with worry about mortgages, putting food on the table? She says that is an important question and threatens civic participation, worries about alienation of citizens from candidates and government. Likes video town halls and internet chats where more people have an opportunity to have their question asked or concerns addressed. But doesn't have magic answer; the people who are most affected by what happens to government are least able to participate. Says one of the responsibilities is to go to where these people live.
Asked who the best poverty reporter is in the US, says New York Times reporter (initial JD, didn't get the name)
Thinks online campaign polls are a waste of time, skewed, small sample, just direct people to independent polls.
Asked about the danger of the echo chamber online. Points out that it exists in traditional media as well. Need to have more communication - have to solicit dissenting opinions - don't just ask "if you agree, call us, write us", but welcome disagreements.
John Edwards walks in the house - wonders of unscripted Internet spontaneity, called over to the screen. Asked about the transforming features of the Internet.
He says it has already transformed things, allows Obama to opt out of public funding and engage millions of small donors, then talks about how it will help him compete against "Bush (long pause) - excuse me, John McCain".
Elizabeth is thanked for her participation, Andrew invites all 1,000 of us to drinks in the lobby.
"Using the technology we are talking about" - Andrew
Skype window comes up, showing Edwards home (nice floral couch) but no guest - ah, here is Elizabeth, walking in the frame, candid moment., someone comfortable with authenticity rather than carefully staged events.
Andrew asks about her article, "Bowling 1, Health Care 0", about the focus of the media on trivialities rather than substance important to the national debate.
In her opinion, online media did a better job than traditional media - the mainstream press compresses everything no matter how much it really takes to explain it, it's all packaged to fit the tv soundbite or the column inches in print.
Wonders how many people really take advantage of new media "people think going to CNN.com means new media". Discusses generation gap/digital divide, young people grow up with tech, older citizens do not, have to be educated and exposed to technology and new media. Advocates more public terminals, more access, more public education geared towards generation that is not tech-native. She thinks to an extent it will just have to wait a generation. Even someone like her who uses the Internet a lot - "I don't carry a laptop around, I still spell "are" A-R-E not "R" - relates to the technology differently than her children
(my note: I like to say that our children are naturally-born citizens of the Internet; many of us in the room are, at best, naturalized citizens - the natives can spot the difference instantly; most people of our generation (I'm 48) who are online are immigrants; they may learn the language well enough to get by, but they will always be marked by their accent, and they will always be "translating" their thoughts and metaphors from the Old World.)
She talked about the tricky decision about how to choose who to invite into blogger calls and conferences and to invite "on the bus", the discussion about "arming your enemies", wondering how to set criteria for evaluating bloggers - different than evaluatingg traditional media.
Asked about Obama opting out of public funding. She was not part of the discussion about it, but thinks he has already proven his appeal to the grassroots, so if that was the basis of this decision, that was not necessary as he already proved that. If it was to be the candidate of change by not being beholden to big funders, he didn't need to do that - he is open to charges of changing his mind. Doesn't think he will pay a lasting political price for his decision, and certainly McCain is not in a position to call him on it given the range of issues McCain has changed his position on.
She doesn't think this new grass-roots funding model will replace traditional big-funder system, but may exist alongside it. Says in the beginning, to get started, you need to appeal to a few people who can write big checks.
She talks about the capacity and problems of using the massive, distributed email list Obama has developed in governance and increasing voter participation - makes the point that many on the list are small donors, will be asked to move to a new level of participation by becoming activists, it's a different way of participating, remains to be seen if it can be done. Notes that, in the past, politicians have been reluctant to spend their political capital on anything but promoting their careers. Hopes that next president will not use it that way (criticizes Bush for not using political capital after 9/11 to help move the political culture in the country).
Remembers days when you could write the federal government to request information and you would get a booklet from Pueblo Colorado. There was a lot of publicity and PSA's to raise awareness about the availability of these resources. Even though so many resources are available online, she doesn't see the public at large being informed about the fact that it is available, where to find it and how to look it up.
Gives example of how useful it would be if the government made it available for us to see all the info about prescription drugs that are available for other consumer products - what the ingredients re, where they come from, what they cost in different places, etc.
More information will equip citizens to become political activists - rather than just being vaguely enraged about things, knowing what the issues are and how to change them.
Asked if she thinks an "internet czar" would be useful in the next administration, cabinet level. She doesn't think that is necessary, but would like to see directive to every agency to institute certain public information policies related to transparency, making sure information is genuinely useful to the public, resurrecting some of Jimmy Carter's ombudsmen system and rejiggering it for a new media world. A government-wide commitment to informing the public as part of their core mission.
Andrew: "the internet is the only organism with a memory older than itself" - does she think that the dynamic of YouTube and other "constantly on" citizen debunking will force politiicans to be more transparent and less unauthentic. She isn't hopeful, thinks some people just have dishonesty or exaggeration deep in their psyche (make oblique reference to Clinton and Bosnia).
She was surprised when Obama asked her to work with his campaign on health care, didn't expect it but was delighted with opportunity to advocate for real means to achieve universal health care.
Asked why, since John endorsed Obama, why she hasn't expicitely done so - and what advice she would give Obama for the general election. She didn't go to Michigan with John to endorse, had promised Clinton she would stay out of the race. This morning was the first time, on Good Morning America, when she was asked about it, she said she would work as hard as she knew how to make sure that he was the next president - enormously important, not by any means ensured. Poll numbers are good, but lived through 2004 thinking they had won and finding they had not. Expects a lot of nasty "incoming" from McCain campaign and folks not officially affiliated with the campaign. Says she is personally getting anti-Obama email that is "pretty inflammatory". Hopes that Senate and House seats will not be as close.
Given the circumstances, tempting to sit back and think it's a done deal, but it would be a terrible mistake. Doesn't think she needs to tell the Obama campaign this, they know it and she sees evidence of how they continually press.
The promise of change that he represents puts an extra burden on him and an added responsibility to live up to their promise. She would like to see more informal conversations, talking about his past as a community activist, to personalize the experiences he had. Negate the perception about a "gulf" between him and regular people.
Andrew assures her that Obama campaign folks in the audience are, as we speak, likely transmitting her advice to the candidate. He says that she was invited because of all the political figures this year, she was the one who was recognized, across the political spectrum, as being someone who really got it. Audience applauded.
Audience questions: notes that she and her husband started conducted podcasts to continue communicating their message, what are plans in the future?
She says when campaign assets and email lists are released from audit for this use, they will continue to use those resources to campaign on behalf of the issues that are important to them, to build a grass-roots organization that they and their supporters believe are important. Recognizes that people's attention will be split between now and the election, so they have to be careful about the requests they make so as not to deflect attention or energy from the general campaign.
Questioner notes John's campaign started with focus on what happened in New Orleans, asks if they will go back there and bring attention back. She says definitely yes, John is working with an organization doing work in New Orleans, and keeping public attention focused on that is a priority of her's and John's.
Andrew asks if she personally will get back to being heard on blogs, social networks, live blog, notes she has her own constituency and wonders how she intends to continue the conversation with them. Says she is chiming in occasionally, not doing as much live blogging, will be participating in the WonkRoom site, will be her home for the time being, but will cross-post on other blogs as well.
Questioner notes that after Dean came Democracy For America; asks if, after the Edwards campaign, there will be something similar, an "Elizabeth Core"?
She likes model of OneCore, because it uses the internet to get people to actually do things offline. Notes that she does participate in a lot of sites using a pseudonym, because she would not be able to participate freely using her own name. but, she uses this mostly to gather information and gain a better understanding of how her message is getting through and how effective these programs are.
Andrew asks about Facebook and other social networking; she says they are better when you don't have celebrities involved; wants to see real networks vs. fake networks where people join just to be affiliated with a personality.
Questioner asks: what does it mean to get citizens involved in civic participation, government and governance when they are consumed with worry about mortgages, putting food on the table? She says that is an important question and threatens civic participation, worries about alienation of citizens from candidates and government. Likes video town halls and internet chats where more people have an opportunity to have their question asked or concerns addressed. But doesn't have magic answer; the people who are most affected by what happens to government are least able to participate. Says one of the responsibilities is to go to where these people live.
Asked who the best poverty reporter is in the US, says New York Times reporter (initial JD, didn't get the name)
Thinks online campaign polls are a waste of time, skewed, small sample, just direct people to independent polls.
Asked about the danger of the echo chamber online. Points out that it exists in traditional media as well. Need to have more communication - have to solicit dissenting opinions - don't just ask "if you agree, call us, write us", but welcome disagreements.
John Edwards walks in the house - wonders of unscripted Internet spontaneity, called over to the screen. Asked about the transforming features of the Internet.
He says it has already transformed things, allows Obama to opt out of public funding and engage millions of small donors, then talks about how it will help him compete against "Bush (long pause) - excuse me, John McCain".
Elizabeth is thanked for her participation, Andrew invites all 1,000 of us to drinks in the lobby.
