website statistics

Archive for August, 2006

Joe Versus the Volcano

Hear that? That’s the sound of the “anti-incumbent mood” becoming CW talking point #1 through November. The three primaries lost by incumbents tonight, in Connecticut, Michigan and Georgia had almost nothing at all to do with one another, but maybe that only reinforces the argument.

Also, here lies the end of the political media’s perception that the netroots haven’t won anything, although conservative bloggers will probably hold them to a win in November. That seems likely enough, if not in Connecticut, then also very possibly in Montana. Not getting a dozen unknown congressional candidates into the group of 435 over the last couple of years will fade from the public consciousness, and probably from the blogospheric one, as well. Of course, no blog can “win” an election — their contribution to GOTV efforts is not as notable as their contribution to the framing of political debates. And that much they’ve done.

I always get in trouble with predictions, but I don’t think Joe Lieberman is a lock for the fall — as the primarhy winner, Ned Lamont will be legitimized to non-primary voters, while Lieberman may indeed start to look like a Sore Loserman. Yes, some Republicans might cross over to support him in the fall — but wouldn’t this anticipation send more Democrats into the Lamont camp? If I was a lefty blogger, I’d say so. [Update: Already one has gone the other way, but I get the impression he wasn't old enough to be registered in Conn. when he lived there.]

The lights went out for another incumbent, Cynthia McKinney in Georgia, which wasn’t very surprising. The leftosphere didn’t want to claim her, while the rightosphere openly encouraged her opponent, Hank Johnson. That’s about what happened when Denise Majette bested McKinney in the primary four years ago, when conservative bloggers cheered on the anti-McKinney. Both Majette and Johnson campaigned as moderates, though Majette all but gave McKinney the seat back during her Katherine Harris-esque run for the Senate two years later.

And lastly, moderate Republican Joe Schwarz got bounced in Michigan. It’s a win for the reconfigured Club for Growth, and I suppose you could say the reconfigured Red State is already 1-0. Sorry, GOPProgress.

P.S. And about that picture… is that more this The Kiss or this The Kiss?

The YouTube Election

A few weeks ago, Time.com headlined a piece by Ana Marie Cox “The YouTube War,” referring to Iraq. Not long after, at Hit & Run, Jesse Walker called Lebanon the “first YouTube war.” I won’t get in the middle of that dispute, and I won’t get in the middle of the Lamont-Lieberman debate, but I will say this much: No matter what happens in Connecticut tonight, this Senate primary is going down as the first YouTube Election.

In the 2004 presidential campaign, while blogging was the next big thing, political web ads were first seeing wide use. MoveOn also encouraged people to make their own television ads, which were available on their site, created some controversy, and almost made it to air during the Super Bowl.

Meanwhile, it’s been a standard practice for campaigns to send a tracker — an intern with a video camera — on the trail with the opponent, hoping to capture something worth turning into an issue. It had to be something pretty remarkable, because the only way you could get it to people was on the local news, or in a campaign ad. The former is unreliable, and the latter is expensive. So aside from the debates, virtually all televisusal contact between voters and candidates is controlled by the campaigns.

That will probably remain the case for awhile, but the plummeting costs of online video means we’re seeing more of it than ever, and more of it is coming from private citizens, many of them political novices. Video-blogging still trails the text-based version, for reasons I probably don’t need to go into. But the result was there was one Evan Coyne Maloney, one John Amato and one Ian Schwartz. Now, the YouTube platform lets anyone do what they did before, and at no extra charge they provide a highly flexible distribution channel — viewers can watch videos on the site or as embedded on any blog that chooses to host it.

Search “Ned Lamont” at YouTube, and you’ll get 230 results. Search “Joe Lieberman” and you’ll get 187 results (as of this moment). That’s a bit surprising, when you consider that Lieberman has been a national figure for years and Lamont is not (yet) a household word.

The most interesting of these were shot on a handheld camera by local Connecticut bloggers, such as CTBob (blog, YT), Spazeboy (blog, YT) and ctblogger (blog, YT). They interviewed Lamont, plus visiting politicians and movie stars, made their own ads, not to mention parody ads and in the most compelling video of all, even quizzed Joementum himself:

To be sure, many YouTube videos related to the campaign are simply television segments (most likely posted in violation of copyright laws) such as Lamont’s recent interview on The Colbert Report. But even that counts. First, they’re making information available that the networks can’t rebroadcast on demand. Second, if you’re not in Connecticut, you can still see what the local television coverage is like. Remember, in the blogosphere all politics is national.

By 2008, it’s conceivable that there will be more homebrew ads on the Internet than official ones emanating from the Beltway, and video bloggers will almost surely break stories before the national media does. I don’t mean to suggest they will become more watched than the traditional campaign ads or national media. They won’t, but like blogs now, they will have an influence — especially among campaigns and the media.

For earlier ruminations on YouTube and campaigns, see James Kelm and Abstract Dynamics. Earlier in the year, they were asking what YouTube could mean for campaigns. Looks like they’re already getting answers.

Apparently MyDD Doesn’t Stand For “My Defensive Driving”

If it turns out that a couple of prominent Democratic bloggers are injured or worse during a car accident in Connecticut this week, well, we can’t say we weren’t warned:

Braking Blue (aldon)

(A little campaign levity during Lamont Week.) I was just on the phone with Tim Tagaris who cursed a blue streak as he slammed on the brakes, cut off again by Matt Stoller as they raced down to the big rally in Greenwich.

Posted at 08/04/2006 04:53:53 PM EST – #

Red State is the New Black

Red State screenshot

So what to make of Red State’s new look, debuting this morning along with the site’s long-planned move to the Drupal platform? One thing is for sure: No website overhaul can be truly complete until the sidebar is moved from one side of the page to the other. By moving theirs rightward, Red State has fulfilled this requirement and remains directionally consistent.

Viewing the site in Firefox, my reaction to the layout is somewhat mixed: Trebuchet works well in the sidebar, but the Trebuchet post headlines seem a bit too generic (the thick underline doesn’t help). And in our opinion those headlines should be dark red by default, not on mouseover. The best new thing the layout has going for it, methinks, is the alternating red and dark red links to RedHot entries. The very top looks good, too, especially the integration of the search bar. Plus, next to Slate’s convoluted redesign, almost anything looks good by comparison.

The list of recent comments is gone, which isn’t that big of a deal, but any reduction in navigation options can’t quite count as progress. Still, the introductory post gives reason to think the site’s actual functionality will be overall much improved.

And most interestingly, Diaries are now called “Spotlighted blogs.” This isn’t that big of a deal either, though on the plus side it may help the site establish an identity separate from Daily Kos (which it has self-consciously emulated, right down to using the same Scoop platform) but will surely also perpetuate the mistaken idea that a single post constitutes “a blog.” If the use of “entries” and “posts” dwindles to nothing, I’m holding Red State partially accountable.

Update: Clicking back an hour or so later, I notice the author names on each post have now been hyperlinked, and they’re in red — which makes the thick post headlines more tolerable, and suggests other unannounced tweaks may be in the pipeline.

Not Black Like I’m Not Either

Note: Post updated below.

Today James Taranto and Michelle Malkin caught Jane Hamsher attaching to her Huffington Post column a Photoshop job of Bill Clinton standing a Joe Lieberman in blackface. Taranto: “Are there no limits to the racism of the ‘progressive’ left?” Malkin: “I am so sure the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP and the civil rights brigade will be protesting this disgusting use of blackface in political discourse.” Mark Coffey has an open letter to Arianna.

So then: The picture disappeared from the site within hours, and the comments — many, but not all sent by Mr. Taranto and Ms. Malkin — filled up with comments critical, sarcastic, but you wouldn’t say abusive. And yet, every single comment was flagged abusive, even: “Good post—and right on target. But the picture isn’t helpful, though God knows Holy Joe would put on blackface if it pleased Bush.” Not to mention: “There should be a feature that would let us flag this article as abusive.”

Tonight, if you go to Firedoglake right now, the top post, “About That Graphic…” begins:

I sincerely apologize to anyone who was genuinely offended by the choice of images accompanying my blog post today on the Huffington Post. It’s also important to note that I do not, nor have I ever worked for Ned Lamont’s campaign. However, at their request, I removed the image earlier today.

Unfortunately, Senator Lieberman’s campaign has used this in attempt to hurt Ned and score political points, mustering their own faux indignation in attempt to further distract from the issues important to the voters of Connecticut.”

She rejects “absurd charges of racism,” but then she also concedes: “I regret it and I invite them to take it up with the person who did it, namely me.” It’s not quite a Mel Gibson apology, but at least she didn’t call on Malkin and the Lieberdems to meet with her and help her to heal. I digress.

It’s unfortunate, inasmuch as the actual bloggers in Connecticut have been helping make this race the most exciting of the year. And not just their blogging, but also their extensive use of YouTube.

A couple days ago I explained how foolhardy was the NRSC’s attempt to tarnish Jon Tester by association with a troll at Daily Kos. It’s not always fair to use bloggers in campaigns, but Hamsher is not a nobody, even if she sometimes sounds like a troll.

If nothing else, the artwork sure was a non sequitur: Yes, the column is about old Joementum, but the point of contention was Wal-Mart, not race. The only hint that is still available on the site is the credit to somone named Darkblack who appears to be a regular contributor of artwork to Firedoglake; one of FDL’s distinctive features is the submitted artwork, including plenty of Photoshop work. (Plus, this HuffPo column also appears to largely be a quotation from Digby, but that might just be the sponsored ad mucking up the layout.)

I’m no fan of Ms. Hamsher’s Coulter-left (or Malkin-left) style, but I think at least this time she realizes her HuffPo photo was the kind of thing she herself would have seized on and flogged mercilessely if the blackface was on the other site*.

Update: The Courant gives it a few column inches; Dan Balz gives it a few more.

TPM Muckraker’s headline — “Lieberman Attacks Blogger Over Blackface Pic” — gets it exactly backward. Matt Stoller thinks the best term for Hamsher’s graphical selection is “edgy.”

Filling in for Reynolds, Ann Althouse pegs it as a “sorry if you were offended form of apology with the extra oomph of implying that a lot of the offense was bogus and an immediate descent into justification for giving offense.” TPM and Stoller are just glad to help.

The pro-Lamont bloggers actually based in Connecticut are sticking to the program, at least on the page. Yet independent Genghis Conn, on the other hand, catches Lamont going from “I’m very appreciative of the blogs.” to “I don’t know anything about the blogs.” Ouch. One Jane Hamsher comes along, and this is the thanks you get?

[Update: Jump removed to accomodate updates.]

*Actually, the one place where it is still up is Malkin’s blog.

Update: Only now, Slate is using it to accompany Dickerson’s take on the “bizarre Lieberman blackface scandal,” quoth the editors. Actually, so is Football Fans For Truth. Malkin has not just the blackface picture, but Steve Gilliard’s “Sambo” photo, a Tim Kaine had to extricate himself from late in the 2005 VA GOV campaign. So I’m just asking here, when is it considered outrage, and when is it evidence? So I understand it that Hamsher and Huffington are not allowed to post it — so what rules apply to others? Is it robbed of its power because it’s already been held out for criticism?

Nothing out there about Slate’s usage just yet. Will there be an email campaign to Jacob Weisberg?

P.S. Dales is right to point out the blackface photo is still up on Firedoglake, insofar as it’s still in a public folder. Of course, what’s important to remember is that it was there in the first place.

Easy As ABC? The Rightroots Get Ready To Find Out

Note: Post updated below.

I’ve been anticipating the GOP answer to ActBlue for some time now — a year now, at least. But when it finally arrived on my laptop Tuesday morning, I was a little confused. I had pictured something that blatantly (and wisely) lifted ActBlue’s concept wholesale. But that isn’t quite what it is — not yet, at any rate.

What we see now is a site named ABC PAC and a small group of privately-organized bloggers billing themselves as the Rightroots. ABC does the actual bundling for the slate of candidates endorsed by the RightRoots. The analogy is to ActBlue hosting pages for the Netroots Candidates or Blue America slates, each sponsored by a different set of bloggers. The immediate difference is that ABC/Rightroots debuts as a closed system. If you want to sign up and create your own slate, well, patience.

The ABC principals are ex-RNC eCampaign director Mike Turk, the prime mover; former Reagan adviser and McGuire Woods consultant Frank Donatelli; Jason Torchinsky, formerly an attorney at DoJ; and Chuck DeFeo, who recently bloggified Townhall.com and mostly just lent his name to this project. Turk hired Becki Donatelli’s Campaign Solutions to host the site and process credit cards, and through her, Frank and his old PAC became involved. An entity called the ABC PAC has existed almost exclusively on paper (and FEC.gov PDFs) since 2004. Republican operatives Donatelli, Craig Shirley and Charlie Black used the name to petition the FEC when BCRA was still being sorted out. Turk tells Blog P.I. they liked the name because “ABC” telegraphs ease of use, and indeed convenience was another reason to take an existing committee out of mothballs rather than filing as a new one.

Once they went live, John Hawkins from Right Wing news approached Turk about combining their efforts. Comprising the Hawkins-led Rightroots bloggers: Ed Morrissey, Kevin Aylward, Robert Bluey, Mary Katherine Ham, and Pat Hynes, each of whom posted their own announcements yesterday.

As of this writing [update: Danny Glover has more] the blog-friendly Rep. Jack Kingston and Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist have added their names to the Rightroots group. Kingston — who has put more stock in his blog guy, David All, than pretty much any other GOP member of Congress — has promised to donate $14,000 if the Rightroots can raise $26,000 by Friday midnight. With $12,070 raised so far, Kingston might not have to follow through on that — although a late-night arm-twisting session reminiscent of the 2003 Medicare vote wouldn’t be too surprising.

According to this Dave Weigel snark, half of the listed House candidates are already NRCC-supported. In other words, they seem to be hedging their bets against finding themselves in the uncomfortable situation I alluded to yesterday, and as Weigel puts it, of backing “their own loser candidates.”

But will it work?

Turk calls ABC and Rightroots a “proof of concept,” to see if the rightosphere will respond to online fundraising appeals like the leftosphere has. Thanks in large part to blogs like MyDD, Eschaton and Firedoglake, ActBlue has raised $1.2 million overall since it went online 26 months ago, with 11 of the many ActBlue “slates” (some are for just one candidate, such as Paul Hackett) surpassing $100,00 in donations each.

But conservative bloggers have never truly had campaign politics in their bloodstream like the liberal bloggers do. Their highest-traffic bloggers are busy sparring with Cindy Sheehan and watching the Middle East, while the left’s highest-traffic blogs have been raising money since their earliest days. The GOP does well in direct mail and telephone fundraising, but the RNC’s MyGOP project is dead in the water just months after its debut.

Polls tell us there are more self-identified conservatives in the general population than liberals, so this should mean conservatives should be able to raise more, even if not right away. But do blog demographics match up? MyDD netroots expert Chris Bowers, for one, doesn’t think so. As a veteran number-cruncher, he estimates that warm bodies in the left-blogosphere outnumber right by as much as 3-1.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Bowers is gloating about the slow start. He characterizes it as “failing,” and is already using past tense:

There was no way for people to start their own fundraising pages or create their own slate of candidates. Instead of being able to give to every candidate for federal office, every party committee, and to candidates in several states not running for federal office, the only options available to people not in control of the page were to give to a fixed slate of around 18 candidates. Further, there were no links available to local blogs covering the race, candidate websites / official blogs, volunteer pages, or lists of campaign events. In short, this page offers only one way to become active in the 2006 elections: donate to their officially endorsed candidates.

As previously noted, Rightroots is the only slate available; other interested parties have been told they’ll just have to wait. I’m told that eventually it will be brought up to parity with ActBlue: Bloggers will have a personal ID with the site to track their accounts, and ABC PAC will make it possible to donate to any federal GOP candidate (right now only high profile candidates are listed).

The other problem the project has right now is a lack of transparency. While digging around I was able to discover that there is no overlap between ABC and the Rightroots membership, but for those outside the circle, it isn’t obvious where one ends and one begins. ActBlue offers an extensive FAQ and other information; ABC merely offers an under-written About page.

It turns out that Campaign Solutions is doing the back end at cost — the only overhead is site development and FEC reporting — but right now there’s no way to tell they aren’t taking a cut. Turk says transparency documentation is in the works: “As an independent PAC, we want to be fairly transparent so people will trust the donation will get to the candidate.”

Still, it’s perfectly obvious that they launched it before they were really, actually ready to go. I’m told that ABC is hoping to roll out tools comparable to ActBlue’s before November, but nobody is giving a date for when it will actually happen.

As yet, a proof of concept is really all it is: It’s more like a shareware demo that only lets you play the first level. Yes, it’s a big step for the conservative blogosphere in terms of catching up to the liberal netroots’ activist infrastructure. But only that. If the leftosphere is (I apologize in advance for using the term) Web 2.0, then the rightosphere is still figuring out 1.0.

P.S. If they wanted to be ActRed.org, they would’ve run into one obstacle: ActBlue’s Ben Rahn owns it. Bonus fact: ActRed.com is also taken, apparently by someone in France.

Update: Machiavel is right — the fundraising did pick up today, and Kingston will definitely be chipping in the 14 grand, and crawled the first day or so. Rightroots jumped over this bar — and in August, so not too shabby. So I withdraw gibes. While Bowers clearly doesn’t want it to work, I’m only saying the PAC site must improve to work over the long run. Also in my defense, I watched the Rightroots fundraising total inch slowly upward on Tuesday and Wednesday morning, and the the Rightroots ABC page says “(Candidate Totals Updated Daily).” Sounds like “once daily.” So how about a fundraising bat?

Elective RINO-plasty

Red State is one of the few conservative blogs to specialize in Republican activism, and now, guided by newly-minted CEO (but longtime contributor) Erick Erickson, the site has moved into territory only the liberal activist blogs have traversed: Supporting a primary challenge. In their first outing, Erickson & co. are teaming up with the veteran primary fight encouragers at Club for Growth to support former state Rep. Tim Walberg against liberal freshman Rep. Joe Schwarz in Michigan’s 7th district.

Red State, like almost all conservative blogs, has questioned the wisdom of Ned Lamont’s challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman (not to mention the liberal blogs for supporting it). But they share a few things in common: First of all, both seats are assumedly safe for the squabbling side. Second, both incumbents are talking up their experience, their ability to bring jobs to the state, and their endorsements from traditional interest groups close to the party. This might work with the wider electorate in each race, but it isn’t working with the online activists. For Lieberman, his Democratic opponents just don’t care: His support for the Iraq war and his palling around with Bush dwarf all other issues. For Schwarz, his Republican critics are in no mood to hear it, either. His RINO tendencies are numerous, though there isn’t an issue as galvanizing as the Iraq war [Udpdate: In the comments, I'm told the major fault here line is abortion. I can believe it, but it's still not the issue that Iraq is]. The closest thing might be the conservative bloggers’ conscious crusade against pork barrel politics. But Schwarz has generally voted the right way on taxes, and is in fact trying to attack Walberg as a tax-raiser. They aren’t buying that either, but also, Tim Walberg’s internet profile is in no way comparable Lamont’s.

Since Erickson first threw down against Schwarz on July 27, he’s been working his way through 10 reasons why Red Staters should get behind Walberg: Schwarz’s opposition to drilling in ANWR, support for Medicare-subsidized Viagra, association with an anti-Republican gay rights organization, and pro-Kelo position on eminent domain, as well as his reliance on Democrats for support.

But there’s little excitement about Walberg evident on the site. Erickson’s first post collected just 27 comments and only two pledges to donate modest sums (and the Club doesn’t make fundraising figures immediately available). The subsequent posts have averaged about four comments each, well below what most front-page posts accumulate. Of course, starting 11 days out from the primary is just too late to have any kind of real impact. The lefty blogs were about a month out when they got involved in Ciro Rodriguez’s challenge earlier this year, and that wasn’t enough.

Republican blogger activists have a long way to go in catching up to their Democratic counterparts, and today they took a big step (more on this later) [Update: It's here]. But after hitting the liberal netroots over and over with their poor electoral track record, are the Republican netroots prepared to respond if they start going 0-fer themselves?

The Revolution Will Not Be Verified

Stephen Colbert has long had it in for my home state of Oregon, alternately tagging it “California’s Canada” and “Washington’s Mexico.” We Oregonians are used to being ignored by most states and certainly the East Coast, except when we decriminalize marijuana, legalize assisted suicide, our senators grope their female colleagues, or our figure skaters take out a contract on their competition. So Colbert’s mock disdain is more than welcome.

Last night he took another whack at the Beaver State in the context of lampooning Wikipedia’s open-editing policy and bias toward triviality — “Any website that has a longer entry on ‘truthiness’ than on Lutherans has its priorities straight.” — and purported to change the entry related to his Oregon fixation, live on the air: “Now, Oregon is Idaho’s Portugal is the opinion I’ve always held. You can look it up.”

But did he really change it? That’s what the Wikipedians have been talking about since 11:41 p.m. EDT last night.

In fact, somebody with the username Stephencolbert did in fact make that very edit (as well as another one mentioned in the segment) about four hours before it aired on the East coast. Of course, the allegedly careless Wikipedia administrators are taking no chances; if you click over to “Stephencolbert”’s User Talk page, you’ll see this:

At Wikipedia, we appreciate your interest in the project, but your username matches a well known public personality and has been blocked. To protect against impersonation, please provide confirmation of your identity to regain access to this account. User:Tawker has sent an emailed request and left a voicemail with the Colbert staff requesting confirmation, let him know and this account can be re-opened.

For what it’s worth, I’m a fan of Wikipedia, and the complaints Colbert jestingly cites are fairly well-addressed in the current issue of The New Yorker. Though the site is imperfect, it’s highly perfectible. And Britannica will never collect its own List of neologisms on The Simpsons, which I require.

P.S. For more high quality Wikipedia humor, don’t miss last week’s edition of The Onion.