Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the second annual YearlyKos Convention in Chicago, where over 1500 members of the “progressive netroots” – a term that encompasses Democratic bloggers and internet activists – gathered to celebrate their successes and discuss what comes next. The conference provided the opportunity to meet some of the leading voices in the left half of the blogosphere as well as a chance to see some fantastic panels and presentations on what we can look forward to, technologically speaking, in the campaigns of the future.

As we hoped, it also turned out to be a great way to introduce MixedInk within the political sphere. We believe our platform could have a major impact on politics; the people I spoke with seemed equally excited. Looking back a year from now, I think we’ll find that the seeds for several pivotal partnerships were planted in Chicago.

Not surprisingly, one of the coolest moments of the conference was the candidate forum, where 7 of the 8 candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination took questions from moderators and the audience on domestic policy, foreign affairs and general personal and political philosophy. The fact that this forum attracted such a high profile group of leaders speaks to the power that the progressive netroots have accumulated.

Regardless of one’s political outlook, a presidential primary debate like this is guaranteed to be compelling theater; there’s a 50% chance (or greater, if you believe current polls) that you’re watching the next US president. But this was no ordinary presidential debate.

The moderator, Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine, opened by saying, “We do normally ask that applause and reactions be kept till the end. We’re making no such request today [laughter]. I fear it’s too late, but I’m gonna ask you to remember that we are on a tight timeline and trying to get along with the program, and to the extent that you could limit the interruptions we would appreciate it…” This narrow opening was all the crowd needed.

Bai would soon regret having given the crowd free reign, and said as much joke that he was losing control [updated based on Matt's comment - see below]. This group refused to play the role of the passive audience. People acted pretty much the same as they might while watching an event like this on TV in the comfort of their homes – only now, the candidates could actually see and hear them.

Applause, laughter, jeering, hissing and booing all flowed freely. Senator Edwards, a crowd favorite, was constantly interrupted by applause, though he didn’t seem to mind. At one point, when facing a tough question, Senator Clinton made a stalling remark as she tried to come up with the right to say, and the crowd laughed at her outright! It was the sort of the remark a candidate might slide by with in a typical debate without someone to call it out, but this crowd wouldn’t tolerate even a hint of evasion. And Senator Dodd was booed loudly when he tried to explain his vote for Republican Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. The crowd even broke into song at one point – it was announced that Senator Obama was celebrating his birthday, so the audience serenaded him with a poorly coordinated (though very affectionate) rendition of Happy Birthday.

At first, all of this struck me as highly undignified. It was like a vaudeville show instead of a presidential debate – I half expected people to start throwing rotten tomatoes! Did the audience want our candidates to be treated like entertainers? We Americans are used to debates where candidates speak in paragraphs comprised of neat little sound bites memorized in advance, moderators tightly control the conversation, and audiences are powerless to interfere. Traditionally, they are opportunities for the candidates to tell us their positions on the issues and to compare and contrast their views with each other, without any interference from voters.

Gradually, I began to see the merits of this more participatory format, as I realized it was an offline translation of the blogosphere’s core principles. This crowd of online activists rejects the model of candidate as untouchable, deity-like avatar and instead treats its candidates as real people. If there’s no TV screen between us, why must we continue to act like we are separated from them by sound-proof, one-way glass?

The existence of the political blogosphere itself is premised on the notion that citizens should have a right to express opinions that matter – beyond merely voting once every four years. Flowing from this, the crowd seemed to stake the claim that we have the right to interact with our politicians through direct conversation, whereby they observe our reactions and respond in real-time – conventional notions of debate etiquette be damned. The netroots believes we can learn more about who a candidate is in this type of interactive format than from the canned speechifying that is a conventional debate.

This re-imagining of the debate structure is part of a seismic shift in our politics (and our media, and our consumption patterns, and…) toward a technology-enabled, two-way exchange of perspectives. We envision MixedInk as another tool in citizens’ arsenal – along with participatory debates like this one, blogs, YouTube videos, and a range of other platforms – to make their voices heard and to ensure their voices matter.

You can find video from the event, along with plenty of other YearlyKos footage, here.

An edited version of this post was published as a diary on Daily Kos

UPDATED: Matt Bai was kind enough to respond with an email. He gave me permission to republish what he wrote:

Hey David, thanks for the kind words and for sending me the link. I love what you wrote. I take strong exception to only one thing, which is your assertion that I regretted my announcement to the crowd and said as much. Couldn’t be less true. I was a big proponent of letting the crowd express itself, and I thought (and still think), as you do, that it was one of the best things about the forum. I completely agree with you–this is exactly the kind of wall the Internet helps us break down, and while some of my colleagues in the media found it “creepy” (I think that’s what Ana Marie Cox quoted someone as saying), I thought it was really fun and a lot more interactive. It also made me feel more at ease on stage. I did joke that I was losing control at one point, but I wouldn’t have changed a thing.

Thanks for writing.

In addition to being a terrific writer, Matt Bai is part of a small minority of journalists that understands the transformation that’s taking place. It’s no wonder he was selected to moderate the YearlyKos forum as a representative of the mainstream media.

This entry was posted on Friday, August 10th, 2007 at 7:09 am and is filed under Uncategorized, YearlyKos, debates, elections, media, politics, user-generated content. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.