Jeff Jarvis is doing the Phil Donahue thing surprisingly effectively as moderator. He asks: Has Dean’s success been due to his blog? Dan Gillmor says it’s three things: A candidate who has a message that appeals to people. Second, the campaign’s being run by Joe Trippi, a guy who “totally understands techhnology.” Third, they had the “amazing insight” inside the campaign that they shouldn’t try to control the Web activity they’d engendered.

Jeff asks if we want the candidate to be led by blogs. Room sentiment seems to be that we don’t want blogs to be an ad hoc polling system that guides the candidate’s policy. Eric Folley, the DNC blogger guy, says that we get from candidates’ blogs turns of phrases, ways of putting ideas, etc.

Dan says that we should have blogs that really drill in on issues, telling us what all the campaigns are saying.

Chris Lydon wonders whether blogging reflects social realithy which consists of individuals with complex ideas and resistant to labels.

Chris from MeetUp asks how this scales. I respond that the campaign blogs are really ways for us citizens to form conversational communities with other citizens, and that’s the only way it scales. Andrew (lost his last name) asks if there are Meetups for undecided people. (Seems like a great idea.)

Jeff asks what happens if you “give up to control to gain power” (Glenn Reynolds) and someone puts up a blog supporting a candidate that is wildly wrong? Eric from the DNC guy says you can’t control it. Scott Rosenberg of Salon says that this is only a “problem of understanding.” The “problem goes away if everyone understands that blogs are not controlled.”

Someone asks: What would have happened if the Willy Horton ad have been launched in the age of the blog? Interesting question, but I have to leave to go hear at least some of AKMA’s session…

Categories: Uncategorized dw