I'm really annoyed to be writing about this, but I blame...well, I should blame
David Postman for bringing it back up, but for consistency's sake I'll blame Joel Connelly. This was begun as a comment on
Postman's blog post regarding the "liberal critique of
Burner's first tv spot" - or what I call
Matt Stoller's hate-fest on things which he does not understand. Postman's coverage, usually strong, was..."eh" (*update: Postman is following up in the comments thread, seeking deeper info/opinions than he originally wrote. So his coverage regains it's "strong" rating ;-). But Stoller deserves a punch to the nards.
Stoller
and others in the national blogosphere seem to have decided a netroots endorsement implies ownership over these campaigns, and an obligation for all the campaigns to be run identically, according to the wishes of the netroots.
This ignores local complexities and realities. It's well past time for the netroots to start growing up, and recognize that structure and organization on a grand scale - as well as the micro, local scale - has its place. We can't just run things by blog dictat and expect this race to be the same as that race, or that candidate to be the same as this candidate.
The reality is, Darcy Burner still has to introduce herself to much of the electorate in the 8th. I expect her to run a different race, and different ads, than, for instance, Jon Tester, who is also netroots endorsed and challenging an incumbent. Burner is a political newcomer, challenging someone with incredibly high name recognition, but low...shall we say, IQ manifestation. Dislodging Reichert will be difficult, but name recognition will prove just as important as grasp of issues. Tester, to stick to my example, is the Montana State Senate Majority Leader, and is challenging a powerful incumbent Senator who's been softened up by a nonstop barrage from the state Democratic party. Tester gets to hit issues right away; he's not really introducing himself. Burner has a different electorate, lower name recognition, and a lower "issues" bar to clear.
The ad, in short, was not targeted at people who are pissed off at Bush or Reichert, or people who know who Darcy is. The ad was targeted at those independent voters that Darcy will need, and to whom she has not yet been introduced. Is it an astoundingly powerful ad? No. It wasn't supposed to be; it was supposed to say, "Hi, I'm Darcy, I'm nice and you'll like me." Nothing more, nothing less.
If you live in Washington's 8th CD, or you blog responsibly, you get that. If you're Matt Stoller or, unfortunately, Jane Hamsher, apparently you just ignore any local details and shriek that all is lost because Darcy didn't run the ad you wanted, and draw that ever-useful negative spotlight right onto a race that doesn't need that kind of nonsense. So, from a local who lives in the 8th, let me offer a big "Please shut the fuck up" to Matt and Jane. Ask around about local issues and what's needed on the ground. Heck, just ask NPI what they think, apparently. Responsible blogging requires following up with people involved in issues before going on this type of rant. It involves knowing your place - if you're writing about national things, have at it. If you're writing about local things where you're from, have at it. If you're writing about local things someplace where you don't live and aren't involved - do some research or stop and think first.
Responsibility isn't a one-way thing; it has roots and branches. The netroots/bloggers have a right and responsibility to be involved with campaigns, offer advice and criticism, and deserve a voice in strategy. Campaigns have a responsibility to listen to the netroots like any other constituent, understand what they add, and appreciate their involvement - whether that means adopting netroots ideas or just thanking them for their hard work, campaigns need to decide how symbiotic the relationship should be to remain helpful. But if the netroots is going to be taken seriously and lay claim to political influence, we have a responsibility to write using good methods and common sense: Sometimes you need to know when to shut up. You need to be self-critical and know when you're talking out your ass, and be willing to stop yourself.
Burner has been talking about Iraq for nearly a year on the campaign trail, and will certainly address it in her ads. If Stoller was on the ground here, he would know that, but he is not. Campaigns require some planning, foresight and strategy, beyond simply going on the attack. There are phases to go through, and Darcy is entering the mass-introductory phase right now. The netroots needs to start understanding that you cannot run local campaigns in a "one-size fits all" way, and understanding different types of strategy. It's also got to learn that support does not equal ownership. No doubt, the netroots has proven its worth and deserves a voice, and should be listened to. That should never be mistaken to imply that the netroots has absolute authority over direction of campaigns. The idea of a "netroots-approved strategy", as Postman calls it, sounds no less dangerous than a "talk-radio-host-approved strategy". Campaigns should work with us, not for us and not against us.
Finally, if Stoller truly doesn't understand the concept of an "introductory" or "bio" campaign ad as an opening salvo, perhaps his worth as a political thinker is overstated. As I said in another comment on this goofiness: tempest in a teapot, begone!