So the White House responded to John Harwood's report about progressive criticism being part of an "internet left fringe" with a denial and this statement from Senior Communications Adviser Dan Pfeiffer:
That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we've held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth.
Let me add to it Greg Sargent's commentary in his post quoting Dan:
But it seems clear by White House actions - the hiring of Internet outreach staff, the frequent blogger conference calls, the elevation of Huffington Post at press conferences - that the White House sees the blogosphere as playing a valuable role of sorts.
Dan and Greg miss the point entirely. There is a difference between "playing a role" via things like conference calls, and respect. Pointing out that you work with a community is different from having respect for them. It reminds me of the kid who used to sit next to me in French class, and I would help him conjugate his verbs, and it was the only time in the entire day he was exceedingly nice to me. The rest of the time he made fun of me in front of everyone.
The White House uses the blogosphere and other progressive online institutions to disseminate positive information, form positive relationships, and spin opinion. That doesn't bother me. So does the No On 1 campaign in Maine and any other campaign with a good internet outreach operation. The difference is that the No On 1 staffers I know and work with respect and appreciate our work, and say so. The White House- and Obama campaign during 2007-08- uses online progressive institutions, then pisses on them frequently in public. There's a difference between being used, and being used and respected. The White House has yet to figure this difficult notion out.
STATE BLOGS
