website statistics

Archive for January, 2007

The World Wide Webb

Win or lose, most candidates retire their campaign blogs and related online efforts soon after (and, surprisingly often, before) election day. But Sen. James Webb appears to be pushing on. To wit, the Facebook entry I commented on in late October is still being updated.

And while not so eyebrow-raising as before, it’s still more than a little amusing:

Sen. Jim Webb's updated Facebook page

Well, I suppose it is nice to know he doesn’t regret becoming a member of the U.S. Senate. But has anyone broken the bad news to Wes Clark?

However, I do wonder what is the point of a politician (not seeking national office) devoting staff time to a gimmick like Facebook. It won’t raise money, it won’t get his message out, and even if it does, almost certainly not to his constituents (and certainly not those who actually vote). Perhaps this is his last update until 2012, or at least until the next recess. Meantime, he’d be much better advised to take his official blog off hiatus.

And while I again caution against reading too much of anything into anything that happens with a politician’s social networking page, this (not currently on Webb’s page, but visible on your own, if you’re one of his Facebook friends) still makes you wonder:

Sen. Jim Webb removes "Faith" from his Favorite Activities

That doesn’t make him the first born-again atheist senator, does it?

What Brownback Can’t Do For You

At The Bivings Report this weekend, Todd Zeigler rendered a pretty devastating assessment of newly-minted presdiential candidate Sam Brownback’s online fundraising pitch: The e-mail came from an e-marketing firm (whose website, incidentally, should be profiled by Web Pages That Suck) and Brownback.com itself is currently hosted on the domain of a web design company. The actual Brownback website looks professional enough, but that’s the nicest thing that can be said.

Zeigler’s unflinching verdict:

When you combine all these problems together, you end up with an email/web program that seems more like a Paypal scam than official campaign correspondence.

And I concur. I’ve been rebuked before for criticizing political sites that weren’t ready for primetime, but we’re talking the launch of a U.S. senator’s presidential campaign here.

Rosslyn Metro EscalatorRelatedly: Leaving work today, as I descended the Rosslyn Metro station’s Everest-esque escalator, coming up the opposite escalator was a small army of intermediate school students in blue ski caps, toting matching “Brownback for President” signs. It reminded me more than a little of Howard Dean’s not-so-perfect Perfect Stormers in Iowa circa January 2004.

I had to wonder: Where were they going? I sure hope it was Ruby Tuesday’s, because the Rosslyn neighborhood of Virginia is strictly a business district. If it was a rally for the benefit of WJLA-TV’s cameras, it sure isn’t reflected on their website.

And I almost feel like I’m piling on unfairly by mentioning that Brownback’s announcement was buried on Page A08 of Sunday’s Post. But not quite.

As Not Paul Begala noted this weekend, the first day of your campaign is supposed to be your best. Since Brownback’s campaign already faces steep odds, he’d better be hoping this aphorism is wrong, too.

Register Your Discontent! II: Speculating About The Speculators

Domain Registration Options

In our previous installment, I went digging through WHOIS to determine the availability of domains calling for the impeachment of 2008’s crop of presidential contenders. It may be too early to consider any of them locks for their respective party nominations, but it turned out that it’s not too late to plan for their removal from office.

I’m not sure these observations are worth much, but obviously I believe they are worth a blog post:

  • According to the available information, it appears that none of these domains were registered prior to 2003 and most were snapped up in just the last year, which suggests that all the the resgistered domains in fact refer to the each candidate, and not say, other people named Clark or Paul. This seems to be true even of ImpeachKerry.com and ImpeachKerry.org, but it is also possible they were previously maintained through another registrar.
  • The biggest category of registrations are those with no identifiable owner: They are controlled through private registration intermediaries Domains by Proxy and the more obscure Domain Discreet of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. These include all the Edwards sites save one, ImpeachHillary.org and ImpeachHillary.net, ImpeachKerry.com and ImpeachKerry.org, ImpeachBrownback.com and — for some reason — ImpeachPaul.com.
  • Which campaigns might have secured some of these domains? I found no smoking gun evidence, but if any, most likely John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. The registration of three Edwards-related domains through Domain Discreet — on different days but within two weeks of each other last December — is at least chin-stroke worthy. The .org, however, was registered 10 months earlier and through Domains by Proxy. If any one candidate is most likely to be hoarding domains, it’s Edwards — but that isn’t saying much. Clinton knows a thing or two about impeachment, but that’s about it.
  • The identifiable registrants for Hillary Clinton’s sites are split among three individuals. I attempted to contact each, but as yet none have replied. Norman Livingston of Boynton Beach, FL owns ImpeachHillary.biz, but he seems to be un-Googleable. Michael Miller of Cincinnati owns ImpeachHillary.info, and there is an outside chance he is Republican lawyer and former Franklin County Prosecutor Michael Miller, although it would be quite a commute to Columbus. ImpeachHillary.com — the one domain which could conceivably fetch twenty-five large in a future online auction, belongs to another Miller: Mark L. Miller, a San Diego attorney and family man — apparently neither the Republican money man nor the Kentucky state police commish.
  • Meanwhile, Obama sites are like potato chips — you can’t have just one. In late December, Michael Meder of Emeryville, CA helped himself to .net and .org. Then a few days after Obama’s announcement, Robert McKee of Austin, TX picked up .us and .info.
  • The exception is ImpeachObama.com, which was registered to an entity called Registered to Protect From Squatters on July 15, 2004 — two weeks before Obama delivered his famous convention speech. The constitutional visionary here goes by the name DomainGoon, and he’s a pro, controlling ImpeachGilmore.com, ImpeachBiden.com and ImpeachVilsack.com as Script Registrations. (He — really, what woman would call herself “goon” anything? — maintains other prized domains, such as abughraib.com, registered two days after the April 2004 “60 Minutes II” report.) I believe it’s fair to credit him with ImpeachClark.com and ImpeachPataki.com — those are owned by a company called Sunlane Media LLC, which shares the same Encinitas, CA address and contact information as Script Registrations. Most of these were registered in the second half of 2006, but ImpeachBiden.com was picked up in December 2004, the day after Biden told Don Imus: “I’m going to proceed as if I’m going to run.” And ImpeachClark.com was registered Sept. 11, 2003, the week before Clark threw his hat into the ring the last time. The guy is good.
  • John Wall of Cincinnati ties with DomainGoon for the most impeachment domains, but has the clear edge in both candidate and TLD prestige: ImpeachMcCain.com, ImpeachRomney.com, ImpeachRichardson.com, ImpeachGiuliani.com, ImpeachGingrich.com and ImpeachGingrich.net. All but Romney were registered on June 19, 2005 — the exception was registered on the surprisingly late date of December 2006.
  • ImpeachBiden.org belongs to someone named Daniel Cook of Chicago, who has owned it since November 2005. According to Amazon’s social network 43 Things, Cook or someone with the same “cookforpresident” handle wants to “have sex a lot,” “have sex today,” and “have sex eight times in one day.” As yet (if 43 Things is up to date) he has accomplished none of these things. Just saying. Also, I don’t know which Cook is being referred to, but my money is on Dane Cook. Which would explain a lot, but not the interest in Joe Biden.
  • Mini-tycoons include Joseph Culligan of Miami, FL (ImpeachMcCain.org, ImpeachMcCain.net) Charles Wallace of Spokane, WA (ImpeachKucinich.com, ImpeachEdwards.us) and Barney Schlacks of St. Louis, MO (ImpeachRomney.net, ImpeachGiuliani.net).
  • None of the sites are earnestly in opposition to the candidates named, most of the domains lead to parked pages with ad links and some don’t load at all, but there are some unusual ones.
  • ImpeachClark.com, oddly enough, leads to Hated.com, which seems like the political version of a parked domain — it’s a guide to a number of popular liberal sites such as BartCop and Raw Story, but only links one true blog: Bill Scher’s Liberal Oasis.
  • ImpeachMcCain.com features apparently-original text previewing McCain’s ‘08 bid, and almost feels like a tribute site — with a photo gallery! — but also features conspicuous Adsense and makes sure to quote McCain’s infamous Chelsea Clinton joke.
  • ImpeachGingrich.com and .net both redirect to AboutEating.com, the website of a culinary celebrity in Wall’s hometown of Cincinnati.

And that’s about all I found. If I’ve missed anything important, let’s hear it in the comments.

Republicans For McCain?

Last Thursday at MyDD, Jonathan Singer compared registered voters’ attitudes toward President Bush, John McCain and the planned Iraq “surge” in the latest poll from Diageo/Hotline/Financial Dynamics [PDF]. His conclusion:

Independents are actually less likely to support escalation if it is framed as McCain doctrine than they are if it is framed as President Bush’s. They are the only partisan group to do so. Even Democrats are slightly more likely to support the increase in troops if it is listed as McCain’s plan than they are if it is listed as Bush’s. … In case you needed confirmation that the number of Independents supporting John McCain is decreasing rapidly, this may be it.

Well, maybe. I am sympathetic to the view that McCain will not command the kind of support from Indies that he enjoyed in 2000, but the margins are not wide enough to warrant such a conclusion, and the commenters seem to agree. But as we’ll see below, there is another story to be interpreted from this question, one which confounds my own expectations.

Below I have reproduced the charts Singer relied upon, with the sole difference being that I have Turnerized the table frames we’ll be discussing:

Do you favor or oppose President Bush’s proposed strategy of increasing the number of American troops in Iraq by as many as 20,000 troops over then next few months?


Total Republicans Independents Democrats
Strongly favor 17 31 23 3
Somewhat favor 15 26 12 7
Somewhat oppose 9 10 12 7
Strongly oppose 53 25 49 79
Neither favor nor oppose (not read) 4 6 3 2
Don’t know/refused (not read) 2 2 1 1

Do you favor or oppose Senator John McCain’s proposed strategy of increasing the number of American troops in Iraq by as many as 20,000 troops over then next few months?

Total Republicans Independents Democrats
Strongly favor 21 34 24 9
Somewhat favor 16 32 6 9
Somewhat oppose 10 9 15 7
Strongly oppose 44 16 34 70
Neither favor nor oppose (not read) 4 4 10 1
Don’t know/refused (not read) 6 6 10 4

If we combine the strongly/somewhats across the board and account for the opinion-deficient, we find Republicans supporting Bush on the issue 57-35-8, whereas Independents oppose his plan 35-61-4. For McCain, the same question yields 66-27-10 Republican support and 30-49-20 opposition from Independents. The numbers themselves should be taken with a grain of salt, but the patterns are notable.

First of all, the poll confirms others showing that the surge is unpopular, and even among Republicans support is lukewarm. Another conclusion from the above tables is relatively unsurprising: Republicans support Bush more than Independents do.

Putting aside Singer’s point for the moment, there is one more conclusion left unaddressed: Republicans support the surge when associated with McCain over Bush — and by a 9-point margin.

That’s good news for McCain, for whom the big question has been whether he can actually win the nomination; Independents are supposed to be his natural constituency, while he is weak with registered Republicans. But Republican angst about Iraq is on the rise, and the rank-and-file will be looking for the candidate most able to reassert leadership on the war — and on this issue, he actually bests the Republican commander-in-chief. That sure can’t be bad news. However, it would be nice to see how McCain stacks up against the other Republicans. Alas, Romney is the only one tested (fav/unfav only) and across the board, 49% of everyone has never heard of him.

Singer’s conclusion is correct on the face of it: Independents support Bush more than McCain, or more appropriately, oppose him less. But his readers correctly note that while Indies know they don’t like Bush on Iraq, a statistically significant 20% have no particular opinion on the issue vs-à-vis McCain. That could mean they’re on the fence now, but are open to being persuaded by McCain.

Or maybe that McCain Googlebomb just needs a little more time?

Register Your Discontent!

Ownership rights to impeachbush.com sold on eBay earlier today for a cool $25,200. The new owner, first-time buyer azmo-bargain, is anonymous. The seller was another eBay unknown, somebody named Jody Denise. He or she registered the domain in May 1999 but never did a thing with it.

This gives me an idea. With the 2008 presidential race stepping up a notch this past week, I wondered: What’s available to the aspiring impeachment activist or politically-aware cybersquatter?

To answer this question, I ran a series of impeachX.com domain searches at Network Solutions. For the purposes of this exercise, I went off the list of legitimate candidates from Politics1.com (sorry, St. Michael Jesus Archangel). In the case of Sen. Clinton, I assumed any impeachclinton domains would be related to her impeached husband. Past a certain point, there were several domains for whom no candidates had any associated registrations: .tv, .ws, .bz, .de, .co.uk and .eu. Mostly to save column space, I have Photoshopped them into oblivion.

I then organized the list in descending order from the candidates nobody expects to be impeaching to the most likely candidates for impeachment starting in 2009. Where candidates had an equal number but different domains registered, I defaulted to NetSol’s order of premium-ness. All other ties were decided by the alphabet.

Without further ado, here is the complete list:

Network Solutions domain registrations related to Mike Gravel, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Al Sharpton, Tom Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, Wesley Clark, Jim Gilmore, Dennis Kucinich, George Pataki, Ron Paul, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton

Alas, this doesn’t tell us who registered these sites or when, to say nothing of why. Which campaigns were already wise to domain-hoarding? Who do the speculators like? Are any of these sites unrelated to 2008? Are any of them even active? I’ll try to answer those questions later this weekend.

A Sign of Things to Come

So Hillary is in. Campaign lore says that your announcement is the best day you have in a presidential campaign. All the rest is downhill until you win or lose.

And what else happens today that will be right next to her announcement in every major newspaper tomorrow? 13 soldiers killed in a helicopter crash. The Internet already reflects that reality:

Hillary and Iraq on Google News

As Kerry was haunted by his 2002 vote to authorize the war in the 2004 campaign, Hillary Clinton will be haunted by this war every single day. Obama said in 2002 that the war wasn’t the right thing to do, and while many anti-war bloggers haven’t made much of the fact, at least some have.

The war in Iraq and the events on the ground are constantly driving the Bush presidency. No matter how much he tries, he can’t escape it. Given how close 41 and 42 have become, it’s more than a little ironic that those same events will be driving her campaign for the presidency. Days like today are just a hint of what she will have to face every day of the primary, until she wins or drops out.

Myth Busted: Oprah Winfrey and the 9/11 Ticket Agent “Suicide”

9/11 Suicide Myth and Michael Tuohey    9/11 Suicide Myth and American Airlines    9/11 Suicide Myth and Mohamed Atta    9/11 Suicide Myth and Oprah Winfrey

In mid-September 2006, a moderately amusing slapfight broke out among Brendan Nyhan, then writing for The American Prospect, and various contributors to top-shelf lefty blog Eschaton. To most rubberneckers, it looked like a case of one academic/moderate type accusing an activist/progressive type of going overboard in criticizing President Bush, and it was just rorschachy enough to leave alone. But the basis for the disagreement was another story. As I wrote at the time:

I’m distracted from whatever I was going to say about it because… the incident giving rise to the debate — the alleged suicide of a ticket agent who had checked in Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz al-Omari on the way to crash Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center — appears to be an urban legend, hoax or mistake.

I looked hard. I scoured the Nexis database. I studied the 9/11 Commission Report. Whatever is the Google equivalent of an oceanic trench, I dove into it. But I found no independent verification of the unsubstantiated story of an American Airlines agent supposedly so filled with grief and misplaced guilt that she took her own life. Yes, I did find the incident mentioned in a couple news and magazine stories, but they all shared the same source: US Airways employee Michael Tuohey, who had kickstarted this horrific buzz by telling the tale on “The Oprah Winfrey Show.”

Even after I collected my findings and hit “Publish,” I had intended to follow the story. As a reader correctly noted in a comment on that post, “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.” But a bit of resistance from American and a lot of work-related obligations conspired (as it were) to keep me from getting to the bottom of it.

And then, just this afternoon, the following e-mail dropped into my inbox (emphasis added):

William,

I stumbled on to your blog today as I was doing an Internet rumor search. You’ll easily guess what rumor I was tracking down. ABC’s Nightline called today asking about a rumor that an American Airlines agent in Boston had checked in Mohamed Atta and then killed herself later out of guilt. I couldn’t remember the name of the US Airways agent who had fabricated the rumor and that is how I came upon your blog – through the omniscient Google, of course.

Because of privacy policies, I can’t give you a ton of information. However, I can tell you that the American Airlines agent who checked in Mohamed Atta is alive.

I realize this is coming to you several months after your blog string, but you’ve now got this for closure.

Best regards,

Tim Wagner
Spokesman
American Airlines

Being the natural skeptic, I checked the headers on the e-mail address, and found no evidence of spoofing — indeed it came from aa.com. I then consulted the same Oracle at Mountain View, which returned no shortage of confirmation that Tim Wagner is in fact a spokesman for American Airlines.

Throughout the afternoon I’ve traded a handful of e-mail messages with Wagner, getting permission to post this and pressing for any more available details. Unfortunately, there isn’t much more to add. Despite his first writing that Tuohey “fabricated the rumor” as mentioned above, he doesn’t know what Tuohey’s motivations were for telling this story about Atta’s alleged suicidal ticket agent. One would have to ask Tuohey. And while I had never heard of Tim Wagner until today, I find him credible on the main point of fact. He would know that.

So, I still don’t know whether to properly categorize this as “urban legend, hoax or mistake,” but now I do know it is one of the above.

It’s a Two Way Street, Chris

Chris Bowers, today:

If someone thinks you are stupid, they will never think of you as an equal. If someone doesn’t think of you as equal, they will always believe they should hold more power than you. Thus, if there are people in the progressive ecosystem who think the netroots are stupid, those people will always want to marginalize the netroots within our broad coalition.

I will simply comment that there are just as many netrooters who do the same thing right back to the broad progressive/liberal/Democratic community. Consultants, interest groups and elected officials alike.

I’m not rationalizing what’s done to you and the netroots or what’s done to us (though I hardly speak for those institutions). Just pointing it out.

Let The Eagle Soar: Behind The RedState Acquisition

Even as many bloggers have moved into the professional media world, fewer independent blogs have been picked up wholesale by a larger media group. Andrew Sullivan moved his blog over to Time in early 2006, and years earlier, Mickey Kaus moved his Kausfiles over to Slate. But both are solo bloggers who had a pre-existing relationship with those publications.

Rarer still is for a group blog to be bought out — but this past month, that’s just what’s happened at RedState. If anything, that deal less resembles those mentioned above than the Washington Post’s acquisition of Slate from Microsoft two years ago.

Eagle & RedState LogosIn mid-December, the conservative community group site announced it had agreed to be purchased by Eagle Publishing, the parent company of Human Events, Regnery Publishing, Evans-Novak Political Report, the Conservative Book Club, among other movement conservative publishing enterprises.

RedState already had undergone several changes since its launch in 2004 as a 527, including a switch from RedState.org to RedState.com in 2005 to create a for-profit entity that could accept advertising. This was followed by a major redesign and relaunch in the middle of last year, whereupon founding director Erick Erickson was hired/stepped up to run the site full-time. Most of the ad revenue went to him, which was just enough to get by on. But it brought RedState to another crossroads: Paying Erickson stretched the site’s resources too thin to develop and expand the site further.

About a year ago the site’s directors — Erickson plus Clayton Wagar, Mike Krempasky and Ben Domenech — started looking ahead once again, this time with an eye toward a merger. They entertained offers from a few different entities — whose names, alas, I was not told — but questions lingered about whether those groups and individuals understood the site.

The first talks with Eagle, in late spring or early summer of 2006, started out no more serious than those with suitors who had come and gone. But that soon changed. Chiefly, Eagle promised to:

  • Respect the brand and not change it fundamentally
  • Invest in the property long-term, with an eye toward financial viability
  • Keep Erickson and hire Wagar as a consultant to make sure of it

As Erickson told me: “They made it clear to us, we see you as your own brand.” And Eagle’s Group Publisher Stephen O’Connor confirmed, they didn’t “want to break something that’s fixed.”

The formal process began in mid-summer, and sometime in the fall an agreement was hammered out for an undisclosed sum. RedStaters themselves earned a share of the proceeds — and not just the site’s directors, either. About 20 contributors overall, including site co-founder and former director Josh Trevino, did as well. (Some were unable to accept the money on account of job-related ethical considerations.) “Nobody’s going to afford a Bentley,” said Domenech. More like “a few car payments.”

·      ·      ·

So what will change? For one thing, Erickson now has a boss in Eagle’s e-business head, Stuart Richens. Upon the initial announcement, the plan was for Human Events online editor Robert Bluey to be a liaison between RedState and Eagle/Human Events — mostly to rope Erickson into their editorial meetings. However, as noted here recently, Bluey will soon depart for Heritage. Now Erickson will work directly with Richens, who like himself and Wagar, is based in Georgia.

Although Krempasky and Domenech retain no official oversight of the company, they will remain with Erickson and Wagar as directors — along with recently-elevated directors Jeff Emanuel and Thomas Crown — but only for making editorial board decisions, not running the business. Erickson wrote in a subsequent announcement, “In the past, we’ve used the terminology ‘Directors’ and we will probably continue to do so.” The titles will remain the same, though it won’t carry the same legal meaning.

When I spoke to principals from Eagle and RedState in mid-December, there were no existing plans for writers from the Human Events site to cross over to the other, but already that’s been the case: Human Events has a regular feature, “Today on RedState” which sends traffic in that direction, while Bluey had a post on RedState just yesterday.

Is there overlap between Human Events and RedState? Both sides believe there is not: While both are obviously online conservative group efforts, they see Human Events as news editorial content whereas RedState is user-generated. Eagle is a publishing house with different labels, and RedState would just be the newest addition.

·      ·      ·

RedState on ScoopRedState on DrupalFor a long time, RedState was thought of as Daily Kos for the right, in terms of being a community politics site, down to using the same content management system. And they too were conscious of this debt, although where dKos is a purely grassroots site, RedState aimed to be more tightly organized. Their mid-summer move from Scoop to Drupal could be seen as one step in that direction. However unintentional, their acquisition by Eagle seems to represent another.

Eagle assures me that RedState members will not start getting regular e-mails (if you’re on their list, they can send a lot) but their interest in RedState is related: RedState has a database of registered users, and they’re always picking up more.

Eagle’s business model is similar to other ideological publications with a limited, but highly self-selected subscriber base. That base of members (with contact information) is valuable, and candidates, campaigns and organizations will pay good money to rent them. Subscribe to the Washington Monthly, wait a few weeks, and in addition to each monthly issue you’ll get the occasional fundraising plea from the William J. Clinton Foundation. Likewise, Eagle rents its lists to such groups on the right, and with more than 20,000 open accounts at RedState, that’s not a bad place to start looking.

Based on their own data, RedState claims their readers skew “a good decade and a half younger” than those at Daily Kos, and certainly younger than those at FreeRepublic. Often ex-military, married with kids, RedState sees a traffic uptick after work hours, perhaps suggesting their readers include a large number who don’t sit in front of a computer all day. While online demographics are notoriously difficult to measure accurately, it seems plausible they have a unique political audience. On the other hand, if they are younger, they might not have quite as much money.

Yet now, Eagle’s resources enable RedState to do move in new directions. More than just a wannabe Daily Kos, by now it’s in a new category: a reciprocal relationship between new media and old. This kind of thing is not entirely new — AOL paid Jason Calacanis some $25 million for Weblogs, Inc., while the New York Times Co foolishly plopped down more than $400 million for About.com — but those have more in common with dot com-era gambles rather than synchronistic strategic acquirements.

Those companies just wanted ad revenue, but Eagle’s acquisition actually strengthens its brand — again, not unlike the Post and Slate. So if at some point in the future (let’s say) the New York Times Co. decides to buy Huffington Post, it will owe less to any success with About.com and more to deals like Eagle-RedState.

P.S. Human Events has found its new editor, replacing both now-at large Terry Jeffrey and Bluey in his online capacity: NRO contributor and Bush 41 dep. Undersec of Defense, Jed Babbin. U.S. News’ Washington Whispers whispers:

One of Babbin’s first tasks: Beef up the paper’s website and capitalize on Internet holdings like RedState.com.

Can You Digg It?

No, not The Rock — that’s BA-ROCK.

As most readers of Blog P.I. should know, Digg is an Internet phenomenon that drains bandwith by the bucket because of how much traffic it can send to an unsuspecting site which happens to post something the tech world instantly loves. So, this is a pretty big deal:

Obama's announcement on Digg

3800+ diggs (plus 500 comments and counting) is more than I’ve seen for any story about any political candidate, and many more than “internet savvy” John Edwards — to whom, it seems, Diggers have not taken a shine. In fact, in just a few short hours, Obama’s announcement could well become the top political story on Digg over the last 365 days.

But what’s the conventional wisdom? Bloggers don’t like him.

Maybe Diggers just don’t know politics. Read the site long enough, and you’ll notice there is a lot Diggers don’t know. But then again, maybe it’s the bloggers who just don’t digg what everyone else does.

Update: By late Sunday the 21st, the story has just shy of 6,000 diggs and more than 600 comments. That’s nothing compared to the 20,000+ diggs for the announcement of the iPhone, but this is Digg we’re talking about.