Hillary Clinton arrived in Chicago on August 4 facing a delicate
problem. Like most of the other Democratic presidential candidates,
she’d accepted an invitation to participate in a debate put on by
YearlyKos, the annual blogger convention thrown by the popular liberal
website DailyKos. But unlike the other candidates, Clinton had
hesitated—or, at least, her campaign had hesitated—when she
was asked to participate in a separate “breakout” session where
YearlyKos attendees could ask her questions in a small-group
setting.
On the evening of August 2, as the conference opened, organizers
announced that Clinton would not be attending her breakout session. The
crowd booed. Critical headlines popped up throughout the blogosphere.
Which immediately raised a question: If a Democratic presidential
candidate gets booed at a conference of liberal bloggers and then
slagged on a bunch of liberal blogs, does it matter?
This was no inconsequential question.
It touches on a long-running debate within the Democratic party over
how much influence blogs do (and should) have over the party’s politics
and politicians. If you asked the “Kossacks” at the Chicago convention,
of course, there was no limit to the amount of clout they think the
Democratic netroots deserve. But top Democrats haven’t always agreed,
and with Fox commen-tator Bill O’Reilly making it harder for them by
spending the days before the conference spuriously attacking DailyKos
as a “hate-filled” site that “rivals the KKK and Nazi websites,” people
like Clinton were in a bind: Embrace the conference wholeheartedly and
risk being painted as kowtowing to rabid (or worse) bloggers, or keep
some distance and risk the wrath of the lefty blogosphere.
In a sign of how important the affections of liberal bloggers have
now become, Clinton ultimately chose the bloggers, breakout session and
all. Her hesitation had drawn an attack from Barack Obama (whose
campaign noted that he was attending the conference even though it was
his birthday). Once that hit the blogs, her camp quickly reversed
itself, saying Clinton had directed her staff to rearrange her schedule
so that she could have her in-person chat with the bloggers after
all.
There was tension in the air as Clinton walked into her breakout
session on the morning of August 4. She was preceded by three aides,
including Peter Daou, her director of internet outreach, who looked
extremely nervous and reminded the crowd, again, that Clinton intensely
wanted to be at the breakout session and had upended her schedule to
make it happen. If any audience members’ feelings were soothed, it
didn’t show. National media filled the back of the room, wondering if
Clinton would be booed again, or face harsh questions about her vote on
the Iraq war, a frequent subject of lefty blog criticism.
But when Clinton entered, she clearly had already sensed (or been
briefed on) the bloggers’ biggest weakness: their intense desire for
recognition and validation.
“I’m aware that not everyone [in the liberal blogosphere] says nice
things about me,” Clinton said right off the bat. “Let me start by
saying something unexpected, and that is thank you. Thank you for being
so involved in helping create a modern progressive movement in
America.”
With that bit of self-deprecation and obeisance to the bloggers, the
tension began to drain out of the room. The crowd of about 300 asked
Clinton about health care, NAFTA, welfare reform, DOMA, and
telecommunications law. They were wonky questions, and Clinton gave
wonky answers, obviously aware that people who come to conferences of
political bloggers tend to be… wonks. By the end, it was clear that
she’d charmed the Kossacks in much the same way she’s said to have
charmed other smallish rooms of people over the last few
years—with humility, an ingratiating manner, well-timed flattery,
and a clear command of just about any policy issue that gets thrown at
her.
There were no boos and no questions about the Iraq war. Instead,
there was simply an awed politeness and safe, respectful
questions—leading to some speculation at the conference that the
Clinton camp had somehow planted the questioners, or that Daou, with
his blogosphere savvy, had known by sight which questioners to call on.
But even if that’s true, nothing could have stopped the famously direct
bloggers from shouting out a question or interrupting the session to
press Clinton on some other uncomfortable matter. But none did.
Which raises another question as the campaign marches forward, the
bloggers arm in arm, for now, with Clinton: Are the members of the
lefty netroots really as tough and critical minded as they sound
online? Or are they just like the caricature they often paint of
beltway journalists—a bunch of people pining for audiences with
powerful politicians, and willing to toss aside their usual adversarial
tone in exchange for a little validation of their self-importance?
