Dear candidates: Enough of your pleas, if you please

A few weeks ago, I started getting e-mail from Hillary Clinton. Her campaign had found my e-mail address on a press list and started sending me messages almost daily. I automatically reached for the "please remove" link, then hesitated. Having a semidirect line to a potential future president might not be a bad thing.

It was a standard-issue news release expressing her opposition to a presidential veto and contained the expected critical talking points.

On the other hand, it represented an unvarnished dispatch from the campaign, explaining her position in a form different from a news story — the message as she presumably intended, so I could draw my own conclusions.

I sought to expand the experience, dusting off an old Web-mail address and joining the mailing lists of the candidates I found interesting. Within days, I had my own presidential news service.

Candidates were sending me news about themselves and their opponents.

For a while everyone was piling on Hillary, a trend reported by the national media a few days later.

Except it didn't quite work out as planned. The messages weren't of the same quality and interest as those from Clinton's campaign, simply because all of the communication coming from the candidates to the public asks for money. This isn't really spam, for two reasons: The cause is relatively noble, and I asked to be put on the list. Still, the never-ending quest for funds makes the message content disingenuous and predictable.

Even so, the information is worthwhile because it comes directly from the source with no additional spin. To subscribe to candidates' musings, search for their name and their official site will appear at the top of the list. Every viable candidate will have a place for you to sign up. If they do not, they have no understanding of technology.

Each campaign sends out messages under several different names, in an informal tone. Sometimes it originates from the candidate, such as one from Barack Obama with "hey" in the subject line. Some are from their friends and cohorts. I found out Sen. Sam Brownback was endorsing John McCain because Brownback wrote me directly. And a day after Obama's associate sent out a laudatory message about a campaign speech with an embedded video link, there was the same message again appended with a note from the candidate's wife.

No matter how busy you are, you will open a message from Michelle Obama, at least the first time. You will take some notice when she says, "I've known Barack a long time, and it's clear to me when he's in his element," even when you know it is canned. I am smart enough to know Mrs. Obama isn't actually writing me, and it didn't take long before she was asking for money.

Then, we saw the Halloween message from John Edwards, with an attached newspaper called "Scary Times." The headline read "Giuliani Elected In Historic Landslide," with Ann Coulter selected as White House spokeswoman. How do we stop this? You guessed it. Send John money.

The experiment wasn't a total washout. I still get a daily digest of information from the candidates and am often ahead of the curve. But there will come a time, next month perhaps, when these fundraising pitches will increase to an irritating roar. I will then issue thanks for the winnowing process and wonder why the candidates can't send out the information and trust us to contribute when we hear something compelling.

It will never happen, because presidential candidates can't afford to be subtle.

If you have questions or suggestions for Charles Bermant, you can contact him by e-mail at cbermant@seattletimes.com. Type Inbox in the subject field. More columns at www.seattletimes.com/columnists.