RK ARCHIVE - Joe Trippi on the Deluge of Money to 2008 Candidates

It has also been a bit puzzling; why the incredible surge of money, and why so early? Wasn't the internet supposed to de-emphasize the role of money in politics? Or is the blogosphere actually fueling citizen activism and INCREASING contributions to political candidates earlier than ever, by a newly engaged, possibly even angry, population? It will be interesting to hear what Joe Trippi has to say. You can call in at (646) 652-4803.

P.S. For more on this subject by my friend and co-author (yes, I'm going to be writing a book on the netroots) Nate Wilcox, see here.

Comments

The explosion of money in Presidential politics (Lowell - 4/5/2007 9:23:43 AM)

In large part driven by a newly engaged, energized citizenry that is getting involved earlier and more intensely than in years, driven no doubt by the Iraq War and the "Worst President Ever," but also (I would argue) by the blogs and the internet in general. What do you think?

Desperate Measures are required (Teddy - 4/5/2007 12:12:06 PM)

and a lot of people appear to have reached that conclusion recently, as I myself did four years ago, when, instead of going into retirement, I realized that the only way to stop the insanities of Bush and his coterie was to get involved. I could not turn my country over to the next watch in its present condition, and it wasn't going to change unless I did it myself.

Is the blogosphere contributing to this surge of involvment? Yes, it is, largely because the mass media has failed miserably in the primary function of the Fourth Estate. The Internet, blogs, raising money on the Internet have filled the vacuumn left by the abdication of both the print press and television-radio from serious presentation and investigation of current events and politics. Now that the "old media" have turned themselves into dumbed-down entertainment and are uncritical purveyors of republican talking points, where can an interested or conscientious citizen find out what's going on? Only through the blogs and the Internet.

Just curious... (Detcord - 4/5/2007 2:27:45 PM)

"...largely because the mass media has failed miserably in the primary function of the Fourth Estate."

I actually agree with this but I'm curious as to what you consider their "failure." What "vacuum" did they leave? I only ask because studies like the one at UCLA continue to point out how far the media leans left (see link)
http://www.newsroom....

Failure of mass media (Teddy - 4/5/2007 3:31:13 PM)

is my personal opinion based on over 70 years of reading and listening to the media. To me there has been a definite deterioration in amount and depth of coverage of "current events" and of serious investigative reporting, all of which has been replaced by sound bite news, obvious uncritical repetition of the talking points and catch phrases of one political party, and what can only be described as the lowest common denominator in entertainment which takes up well over 95 percent of air time or column inches. As for the "left bias" that recent studies claim to find in the media, take another look at Media Matters and its daily recitation of slanted, biased remarks and presentation of events. While it may still be true that on the street reporters are more liberal and seek to report honestly, the policies of the editors and publishers are more and more right-leaning... and on the street reporter are a dying breed, look at the pink slips given out at the L.A. Times. I date much of this increasing tabloid style so-called reporting to the arrival of Rupert Murdoch in the American media.

Got it...thanks. (Detcord - 4/5/2007 4:05:06 PM)

I agree with the lack of depth. I read more than watch for that very reason. Much of the sound bite news is simple laziness and a reporters view that they have to simple provide succinct issue summaries without any analysis of what they are reporting. In a way, I'm glad they don't since few seem capable of objectivity (pick your paper). Media Matters is an interesting source to check in with now and then but this is one of the few forums in which you can cite them and not be giggled out of the room. They're hardly objective and have a definite progressive agenda. That's why I usually put more weight into university studies or professional organizations when they look at some of these issues. Even foreign journalists occassionally do a decent job with American subjects at times, not quite in the deTouceville category but not bad.

Media Matters (Teddy - 4/5/2007 6:35:52 PM)

deliberately has a progressive bent in order, I suppose, to offset the relentlessly right wing bent of the rest of the press, and they do a good job in their (perhaps too)detailed analyses. They pick up on the lop-sided, fake "balance" of Fox, the phony and, as you say, lazy quotes of reporter after reporter, repeating whatever spin comes from the Rove gallery. After checking their comments for a while you do begin to see what they mean about the endless slanting of news, one example recently being the way the Pelosi trip was presented by the majority of news outlets, stating as fact that Pelosi was meddling where she ought not to, and completely ignoring the presence of Congressman Wolf and other Republicans who also visited the Middle East at exactly the same time... it was okay for Republicans to go but not for the Speaker, who is second in line for the presidency? Also, the endless repetition of already debunked attacks on Obama, another example. So much of what we hear is clearly nothing more than pass-through of White House or Rovian talking points, being passed off as true with not one iota of impartial examination of the actual facts.

I also have a problem... (Detcord - 4/5/2007 8:32:08 PM)

...with Pelosi going, not because she isn't entitled to go but precisely because of her position not party. The fact that she was in the party opposite of the President is noteworthy but not as troubling. The press releases from the White House all said all travelers were asked not to go but if you're on a tourist visa, they really can't stop you. A little hypocrisy on the party thing? Yeah, maybe. My issue with it has more to do with prcedent than anything else. There was a Democratic Speaker for 40 years from 1955-1995 and not once did one of them presume to assume a foreign policy role for Republican president's like Ike, Nixon or Ford. Jim Wright and Tom Foley would have never dreamed of poking a stick in Nixon or Bush Sr's eye by doing this and even Gingrich didn't try to usurp Clinton's foreign policy prerogatives by assuming a Secretary of State role. Like I said, just a bad precedent and clearly something that's going to come back and haunt future administrations and confuse the daylights out of our friends and allies.

Why the surge of money? (Susan P. - 4/5/2007 7:01:02 PM)

It's simple: we're Americans, we want our country back. The huge wave of small contributors and the tilt away from the media-crowned front runner show that a huge number of citizens have decided to become directly involved. And yes, the internet absolutely played a key role in providing information and simplifying that involvement.

P.S. A book on the netroots? Will there be an online edition?