Capitol View®

Who’s speaking?

The other day a news script crossed my desk; I don't even remember what it was about other than it was some political food-fight, only the one doing the talking in the news script wasn't a candidate, it was a candidate's surrogate.

Years ago, we had a sort-of "occasional" policy that if it involved a candidate, we wanted the candidate on the record (Update 3:15 p.m.: The more I think about it, the more I think this was not a policy at MPR, but was a policy where I worked in Boston), not a surrogate. It was a nice try but ultimately a losing battle since, among other reasons, 99.9% of all political stories would disappear if the candidates had to be the one to lob the grenades.

It's getting worse in the era of blogs and other new tools. The "I'm Candidate XYZ and I approve of this message" law that attached a candidate to what was being said was also a nice -- if ineffective -- try because one of the new tenets of politics is don't let the candidate get dirty; let someone else do that, thus absolving the candidate from any charge being hurled. Deniability, in other words.

As I said a week or so ago, I'm interested in how the relationship between blogs and campaigns works as it's clear that partisan blogs have a role to play in getting stuff "out there" and, if they're having the best day of their lives, picked up by the mainstream media.

That relationship issue took a new turn a few days ago when Minnesota Democrats Exposed head writer Michael Brodkorb, a former GOP spokesman in Minnesota, took a paying gig with the Mark Kennedy campaign. However, we haven't been told yet what that gig involves. Michael has only said that what he posts on his blog are his opinions.

Maybe. But in the Klobuchar-Kennedy battle, who's doing the talking? If, for example, I read on MDE today -- as I obviously have -- "MN GOP: KLOBUCHAR RAISES BIG MONEY WITH