website statistics

Archive for February, 2007

Dear Political Journalists

Please run a campaign for just one cycle. You’ll learn so much and and you’ll be better at your job. Case in point, Chris Cillizza’s “Battling for Netroots Support” post today:

On Act Blue, one of the premier online bundlers of contributions to Democratic candidates, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) is far and away the first choice. He has received more than 8,000 contributions totaling $900,000. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.) has taken in $287,000, while a draft effort for Sen. Barack Obama (lll.) contributed $17,0000. (Obama entered the race later than some of his competitors, which may explain the relatively low amount of cash he collected.) It’s also worth nothing that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) had received a single contribution for $1 at the end of January. Since then $40 more dollars have come in.

Chris, did you ask John Edwards if that was his campaign’s primary software vendor for raising money online? If he has super lawyers contributing $4,600 dollars per couple, I hardly think the blogosphere considers that “netroots.” If you click through to his page you see his campaign is the big chunk of that $851,249.96.

Now, for the naysayers out there, I agree 100% that Edwards is a netroots candidate with lots of support from that constituency — more so than the other Democrats in the field. But if that $850K is all in $50 dollar chunks, I’ll be the first to strike this entire post and replace it with “I’m an idiot.” You cannot use an ActBlue total without breakdowns as a proof point of netroots financial support.

People who run campaigns know that ActBlue has morphed from a tool used by the netroots to bundle money into legitimate vendor software for campaigns to manage their online contributions, e.g. NGP or Aristotle.

Just one cycle, that’s all I ask. You might even enjoy yourself.

What the Media Can’t Do for Mitt Romney

The Romney campaign has to be pretty happy with liberal historian Rick Perlstein this week, or about as happy as they could be with anyone accusing them of winking at anti-Semitism. On Wednesday TNR Online published an article in which he argued that media reports highlighting complaints about Mitt Romney’s Henry Ford Museum announcement speech will help him connect with skeptical conservatives.

The thrust of Perlstein’s argument is that identity, or “tribal” issues, matter in partisan politics, and the more critical stories about Romney that appear in the elite media, the better he is likely to do with the Republican base. As he summarizes: “Get branded such a villain by our liberal elites, and you also might win a Republican primary.” The logic is sound enough, but Perlstein ascribes too much power to this phenomenon. Just because the “liberal media” is antagonistic toward a Republican candidate is not enough to change the fundamentals, and Romney’s fundamentals are bad.

Let’s start with this passage from his article, where Perlstein turns to the Internet to substantiate his point:

Consider the sarcastic reflection of this denizen of the right-wing website Free Republic:
    Allright, an AP hit piece! The MSM has more acute RINOdar than we. Real RINO’s don’t get rinky-dink MSM hit pieces such as this. This proves that the MSM believes Romney is a conservative, and therefore must be roughed up.
Translation: I used to suspect that Romney was only a “Republican in Name Only.” But now I realize: He bugs the liberal media. By the tribal logic of right-wing identity politics, that is enough–Mitt Romney now can be called a conservative.

This interpretation is overly reductive — even Newtonian. As Perlstein would have it, for every action on the part of the media, there is an equal and opposite reaction from the conservative base. Leaving aside the fact that the Henry Ford story is less a flap than a blip — only the National Jewish Democratic Council made an issue of it, and Media Matters has pronounced the story “ignored” — it assumes that conservatives are captives of their distrust of the mainstream media.

Perlstein’s suggestion that dubious media attacks on Romney could bolster his support on the right almost certainly gets it backward: politicians who enjoy notable support in this regard have already bonded with their base. Presidents are frequent recipients; as the headlines got worse for Clinton and Bush through their two terms, the base rallied around them (although Bush seems to have exhausted that reserve of goodwill). Galvanizing candidates, such as Howard Dean, also can receive this kind of support. Unfortunately for Romney, he is neither.

Perlstein buttresses his case by comparing Romney’s announcement to a controversial 1980 campaign speech by onetime liberal Ronald Reagan. According to Perlstein, Reagan benefited from “all that outrage” over the location: Philadelphia, MS, site of the infamous 1964 Klan murders of civil rights workers. But there are several problems here. As noted above, the outrage about Romney’s speech was very limited and even treated like a joke. As even Perlstein admits of Ford’s Nazi sympathies, “Those memories no longer exist–except to the hair-trigger sensitivities of the likes of the NJDC.” Additionally, those Klan murders are the only reason anyone outside of Mississippi has heard of that particular Philadelphia, whereas the Ford musesum is pure Americana — technological innovation and nostalgia for what technology has made obsolete. And by 1980 Reagan was already a conservative hero, which of course Romney is not.

Perlstein also misses a few things about conservative “tribal” identity. Early in the article he asks:

Some observers wondered if perhaps [spotlighting noted anti-Semite Henry Ford] wasn’t intentional: If you want to prove to conservatives you’re no liberal, what better way than to announce on the former estate of a man who, as the NJDC also pointed out, was “bestowed with the Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle by Adolf Hitler”?

“Nazi” is an epithet hurled at Republicans by liberals; it’s not a badge of honor and not a term that is available to be “reclaimed” like “bitch” or “queer.” Considering evangelical Christians’ close alliance with conservative Jews, their support of Israel above the Palestinians, and the growing perception that the “new anti-Semitism” is a liberal disease, there’s no percentage (in the polls or otherwise) in such a strategy. Bank shots are risky; bank shots that contradict your own beliefs are doubly so. Bank shots opening oneself up to charges of bigotry are dangerously stupid.

Not to mention, I’m not even sure that the Free Republic quote really says what Perlstein thinks it does. The comment at once suggests that the AP can accurately identify fake conservatives, and then implies that the media thinks Romney is a true conservative. Perhaps this commenter agrees with the media, but most Freepers do not. At best, Romney’s conservative credentials are a matter of debate. For example, check out the Free Republic thread responding to this exact same Perlstein article, where one finds a few Romney apologists, but others saying things like:

Strange that he was really pro life after professing to be pro-choice since 1970. And that he thought since Roe V wade was already decided, we should “sustain and support it”. Plus he’s a gun grabber who is now trying to kiss the NRA’s butt. At least with rudy you know you’re getting a liberal. With romney you’re getting a used car salesman who will say whatever it takes to get elected. In 2004 we called that ‘flip flopping’ when a certain democrat did it.

Flip-flopping is a charge Democrats would love to be able to throw back at Republicans in 2008, and Romney is the most susceptible. Romney has made the mistake of trying to persuade social conservatives that he is one of them, despite well-publicized past statements to the contrary. Like John Kerry, he may have flopped in the “correct” direction — but also like John Kerry, he can’t find the words to adequately explain why.

Contrast this with Giuliani’s approach: he too was elected by a left-leaning electorate, is openly pro-choice, and has similar hurdles to overcome. But so far at least, he isn’t trying to sell himself as a Bush-style social conservative. By downplaying his personal beliefs while promising to appoint strict constructionist judges, he’s selling himself as an ally of Bush-style social conservatives.

Even if we do accept Perlstein’s Newtowian politics, there’s so much more dirt out there about Giuliani that all those negative stories would surely generate more reactive reactionary reinforcement for him than Romney. And unlike Romney, Giuliani has never publicly disavowed Ronald Reagan. Among tribal issues, that will matter much more than anything the MSM can say.

This is Why Crazy People Don’t Get Elected

Anyone even remotely connected to politics knows that Dennis Kucinich is a joke. And when you’re a joke, nobody attacks you because it’s not worth their time.

But in this day and age, it’s just too easy to create multimedia, and Jeff Jarvis shows how easy it is to demonstrate that Kucinich is a nut:

This is why people are careful about how they appear and what they say. When you’re normal, this sort of thing doesn’t stick. But when you’re nuts, it works like a charm.

Negative Liberty and Anna Nicole

Philosophers and political scientists like to speak of rights in terms of positive liberty and negative liberty. Liberals generally support the former — freedom to have opportunities, such as access to health care. Conservatives and libertarians tend to support the latter — freedom from government coercion, such as the capital gains tax.

Today, the banner across the top of The Politico’s front page provides an example of negative freedom all right-thinking — and left-thinking — people can support:

An Anna Nicole-Free News Zone

Now, it’s been pointed out to me that The Politico already eschews celebrity “news” as a founding principle, but that doesn’t make it any less of a respite. Cable news is always the worst offender in these situations, but they’ve really outdone themselves this week. MSNBC even pre-empted their mighty “doc block” to cover the Broward county child custody hearings. News may be obsolete in prime time, but damned if they don’t do their share of “news.”

P.S. I am aware that including phrases like “Anna Nicole Smith” and “Britney Spears” can only help Blog P.I.’s search engine referrals, and I’m cool with that. That said, if you found this post by searching for either of these terms, you should be ashamed of yourself.

P.P.S. 69.250.94.154 from Huntingtown, Maryland, that means you.

There’s a Spam on the Presidency, and it’s Growing

I know this is nothing new, but I still got a kick out of this spam comment, which showed up in my Akismet spam filter earlier today:

Anti-Bush spam

The link goes to a parked domain pushing a number of presumably illegitimate travel agency websites. So, even if this spam comment does indeed originate from Russia, they can still move to France if that whole impeachment thing doesn’t work out.

P.S. Bush has twenty-three months left in office — isn’t it time to start thinking about impeaching somebody else?

Blue Harvest?

During the past holiday weekend, I came into the possession of some very interesting-looking computer screen captures. They were taken at ActBlue, the Democratic online fundraising tool and website that for 2008 has matured into a legitimate vendor for two mainstream presidential campaigns.

And the pictures? The screen caps depict a major lapse in network security — one exposing certain member and donor information. In layman’s terms, they left the back door open all weekend. Earlier this afternoon I communicated with ActBlue executive director Ben Rahn, verifying the incident and gathering more information. Here is what went down, based on my limited reporting:

On Friday afternoon, a software developer’s error inadvertantly changed the network security settings, granting administrative-level access to occasional users (i.e., not every account). For example, if you are a normal user and you log in at normal times, this is what the top right-hand corner of the page will look like:

Options for regular ActBlue user

But if you are an administrator — or a normal user this weekend — the top right-hand corner of your page would have looked like:

Options for ActBlue administrator

Anyone who knew enough to be dangerous could get in and change settings or make the site do unpleasant things. But perhaps more worrisome, anyone could now access the Treasury database and start downloading sensitive donor information, in the form of CSV files, showing who had given to whom and how much.

I have a few of these screen shots, just enough to give an idea of what’s there without actually compromising ActBlue further. So, to start, if you click on that Admin link, you would find yourself at the Admin page:

ActBlue Admin page

From there it’s one more click to the Treasury Dashboard showing the actual bank accounts (account numbers blurred, incomplete though they are) ActBlue uses to manage the funds it receives:

ActBlue Treasury Dashboard

And the candidates? Both John Edwards and Bill Richardson use ActBlue to collect their online donations. So here’s the Richardson page:

ActBlue Richardson page

Note the “CSV data” in the furthest-right column. Aside from a prankster turning the site’s color scheme red, that’s where the real trouble lies.

There are a few reasons why this breach is not what it could have been. For one, as Rahn emphasized to me, “To be clear, credit card data is never available from the web site, and thus was never at risk of compromise.” Additionally, CSV (that’s comma-separated values) files can be a bit of a pain, especially if you don’t really know what you’re doing. And of course there is one thing that may have occurred to you already: All of this information will eventually be released to the FEC.

That said, there’s no telling what a rival campaign or unaffiliated opportunist savvy enough to collect and and synthesize this data could do. In the fundraising business, gathering data is difficult. Names, addresses and e-mails would be worth a lot of money to other candidates, political associations or other interested parties. Those names could be cross-referenced against existing lists of donors, and e-mail addresses of known political donors would be a hot property (even if “hot”). Any Senate data would be a huge bonus, because Senate candidates aren’t required to file electronic records with the FEC (and nobody wants to search thousands of PDFs).

So you never know. Maybe it’s something. Maybe it’s nothing. As Rahn told me today:

As it happens, we identified and resolved the problem Sunday morning; it was caused by a developer’s error on Friday afternoon. Your source’s findings essentially describe the “worst case scenario” [that could be caused by this error] … After resolving the prolem we combed through the logs of reports accessed during the window, and the most likely case is that reports were only accessed by those who should have seen them and perhaps a few curious users (such as your source) who might have explored a link they hadn’t seen before and done nothing with the data. However, there is no way for us to completely rule out the contrary cases.

And he assures me that they are “taking steps to ensure that this does not recur,” as one might imagine.

We’ve come a long way since Sandra Bullock pressed Esc and wound up getting chased around “The Net” by a clichéd British villain, and by now most of us are comfortable buying things and donating money online — despite the risks. Security errors are a fact of life. They will be a fact of political life, too.

Only in Chicago

If all politics is local, then all the fun politics is in local elections. Off year contests and early primaries are the best places to find these little tidbits. The big mayoral races, the statewide races in Kentucky, Louisianna, New Jersey and Virginia and many, many other local contests where the real shenanigans still take place.

These are the places where electoral legends are formed. One of my favorites is former Newark, NJ mayor Sharpe James actually having the City of Newark Police tear down Corey Booker’s billboards in the 2002 Newark Mayor’s race.

So, tonight I hear from a friend in Chicago — February 27th Election — who is sitting there waiting to see something from his opponent’s campaign.

A 48-hour filing for the campaign of Mayor Richard Daley.

George W. Dunne Campaign Fund 201 East Chestnut Apartment 20C Chicago, IL 60611 $10,000.00 2/15/2007 Richard M Daley Campaign Comm (2A)

George Dunne was the longtime president of the Cook County Board and Chairman of the Cook County Democratic Party. He passed away in May of 2006.

A friend writes,

Only in Chicago can dead people vote and dead politicians still give money.

George Dunne ia probably smiling in his grave right now.

Update, Thursday: The Chicago Tribune’s Clout Street blog is on the case:

[O]ther beneficiaries of [Dunne’s fund] have included Todd Stroger’s successful bid for Cook County Board president ($5,000); losing Democratic congressional candidates Dan Seals and Tammy Duckworth ($1,000 each); the International Ministry in Chicago ($10,000); and the University of St. Mary’s of the Lake in Mundelein ($3,000).

McCainSpace or MyMcCain? It Hardly Matters

Two days later, I still haven’t been approved for an account at the official McCain social networking tool. I didn’t sign up under my own name, so perhaps that’s part of it — if nothing else, it matches McCain’s antagonistic legislative approach to the blogosphere. But Todd Zeigler of The Bivings Report got through, as he mentions in the comments. Here’s his page:

What McCainSpace, aka MyMcCain looks like

As he points out, all you can do there is donate, er, raise money and… actually that’s it, unless you count an e-mail form as a feature. Want to customize your page? There’s a single text box, a “Welcome Message,” and the McCain campaign reserves the right to edit or delete it. Want to find other users? Too bad. Maybe a widget or two? Sorry, it isn’t that kind of website. Zeigler at least managed to get a Pixies reference cleared as his user name, but if we’re giving McCain’s people credit for not misinterpreting it, that’s damn faint praise.

In fact, the only thing that’s social or Web 2.0 about this website is the name, and they can’t even get that much straight: it’s McCainSpace on the main page, but MyMcCain on the network itself. That should tell us something about how much thought they’ve put into it.

Writing for techPresident last week, David All counted McCainSpace as a positive:

The same web vendors who implemented mygop.com have turned that tool in to a “social networking” tool for McCain’s campaign. Barack Obama did the same thing, and I would expect every other serious candidate to jump in to the water sooner rather than later. The social network effort on a campaign website will help harness the energy swirling around your campaign, and get people coming back to your website as often as possible.

Except MyGOP failed, and the site as it exists most certainly will not harness any energy that may be swirling about. Compare the dashboard/sidebar from McCain’s “network” to the one from Obama’s:

McCain social network dashboard     Obama social network dashboard

For McCain you can donate money, sign up for e-mails, create a page (technically) and e-mail your friends. With Obama you can personalize your profile, find people like you, promote events, create affinity groups, raise money and even blog. And what more can I say about that B&W color scheme? On the main page McCain alone is in color, which is probably supposed to communicate something about him standing out compared to his rivals — but does it really need to be strictly applied across the entire site?

As the Edwards flap goes to show, campaigns should be careful about branching out into the blogosphere, but pretending to have a social network and a blog when you in fact have neither is a mistake, too.

This may be evidence that the McCain campaign, for whatever reason, doesn’t actually want to engage friendly bloggers. But then, McCain doesn’t exactly have a huge base of online support — which may explain this as a defensive stance, à la HRC. (Other possibilities include staff incompetence and vendor incompetence.)

It also underscores earlier observations that Republicans don’t have an online game like the Democrats. The reason for that probably has a lot to do with the fact that in 2004 there was no Republican scrum and hence no proving ground for online Republican strategists. Mike Turk, Patrick Ruffini and Mindy Finn got their feet wet during Bush-Cheney ‘04 and All picked up a Senate campaign in 2006, but so far GOP strategists haven’t had the same kinds of opportunities as Democratic strategists.

This year there are campaign jobs to be had, in site-building and strategy, so the gap should start to close (though in the short run said lag may only be magnified). What is the Republican equivalent of Blue State Digital or EchoDitto? There isn’t one, and it may be 2012 before there is.

Update: And back over to Zeigler, on the McCain camp’s unresponsiveness to yours truly and to Turk, who adds a different (but not necessarily incompatible) explanation for the lag, in the comments here and at his own Kung Fu Quip.

Will Elizabeth Edwards Resign, Too?

Earlier this week, Blog P.I. posed a question: Who was responsible for hiring bloggers in Edwardsville? The logical answer was Matt Gross, Edwards’ chief Internet strategist, and considering the resignations of said controversial bloggers, we idly wondered if Gross would be tendering his resignation as well.

But as the headline above has already given away, we may have blogged too soon — after all, there is someone else at the campaign who is a longtime member of the blogosphere, and it is someone who wields much more power than Gross.

It’s Elizabeth Edwards.

We certainly don’t know for a fact that EE (as we’ll refer to her from here on) recommended Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan for the jobs of blogmaster and blog wrangler (respectively) but we can demonstrate that she would have been in a position to know about them and to make such recommendations. And if it ever did come out that EE was responsible for this mess, it would renew questions about how much control she has over John Edwards’ campaign — and whether it hurts more than it helps.

So let’s get demonstrating:

Going back to at least the 2004 campaign, EE has not just been a mere reader of the blogs but also a commenter at some of the biggest sites on the left.

In April 2005 she took to task several members of the Democratic Underground community for making fun of right-wing radio talker Laura Ingraham’s breast cancer — EE is a breast cancer survivor herself — earning thumbs up from Michelle Malkin and others in the rightosphere.

She may have only commented at Daily Kos eight times from 2004 to 2005, but she was nevertheless one of the earliest to sign up: going by the sequential user ID numbers, EE was the 3,454th person to register; the site now has well over 100,000 registered accounts (not the same as active users).

Now, how much involvement does she actually have with blogs? Last year she told Campus Progress:

I spend a lot of time on the internet. I get a lot of information from blogs, I have a whole list including Talking Points [Memo], Daily Kos, Democratic Underground and more. Sometimes I check out the right wing sites to see what they are talking about. I have a whole folder of sites and I open them all up every day and see what catches my eye. … Sometimes I would post on blogs not under my real name. … But I had to stop doing that after John started running. Now I sometimes participate under my own name. I participate in blogs and newsgroups – not just political ones but other issues too.

Make no mistake, EE knows a lot more about the blogosphere than the average consultant.

And we also know that while she holds no official position with the campaign, she has something of a reputation for usurping the paid consultants’ authority (or so goes the chatter). In December of last year, she appeared in the comments of Illinois-focused ArchPundit to defend herself against claims that she led the ouster of star consultant David Axelrod, who handled Edwards’ media in 2004 (but this time is advising Barack Obama). As ArchPundit’s Larry Handlin put it, during the previous campaign

her handling of consultants and staff was problematic because she tends to micromanage and many would say she cuts people out of the loop. That’s a management problem. It’s also what probably endears her to those who love her and so it’s a double edged sword.

If that’s the case here, then we owe an apology to Matt Gross. Obviously there is no smoking gun evidence that EE was the instigator of the blog hires, but she most certainly would have been in a position to advise (and even make decisions) on the matter. It’s also not unreasonable to think EE would be a more avid reader of pointedly feminist blogs than Gross (not to impugn his feminist credentials). At the very least, she didn’t step in and warn that Marcotte’s rhetoric might be a little too hot for her to serve in a communications role.

Without more information, we’ll file this one under “more than plausible.” But Blog P.I. is not the first to suggest that EE had more involvement here than has been reported. Take this bit from National Journal’s most recent Dem rankings — where Edwards is ranked number three, where he has been since Obama’s emergence:

The 24 hours that elapsed between the MSM’s Blogger-gate stories and Edwards’ nuanced response has become this cycle’s unexplained, awkward Jeanine Pirro gap. We’d blame this on consultants, except Edwards routinely brags he doesn’t listen to them. This one’s on him (or her?).

Commenters at Pandagon seem to think Elizabeth Edwards was behind the decision, too. And in a Feb. 8 diary at Daily Kos, New Hampshire-based MissLaura posted a recent (but pre-controversy) interview with EE on blogs, dKos and the campaign. As MissLaura suggested in that post:

Edwards returned several times to the question of how much control campaign staff would have over what she says publicly, focusing on her efforts to resist such control. However the behind-the-scenes debate over whether to fire or stand behind Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan played out days later, we have to assume that it was at least in part shaped by the presence of a powerful figure who understands blogs and who habitually works against excessive homogenizing.

Others, such as early Dean blogger Dan Conley, have predicted that her blog involvement could be a problem — although not quite like this:

There are two ways to view Mrs. Edwards’ posting on blogs. Some will wonder how wise it is for Edwards to enter this swamp. Every blogger has a sane/insane ratio for political posts … we come to accept it from our peers. But when an aspiring First Lady says something pointed, it’s not just typical Internet chatter, it’s potentially big news. Elizabeth Edwards is extremely smart and a terrific writer … but it’s an incredible high-wire act for someone so prominent to attempt.

Sure, it’s pretty neat that there’s a potential First Lady reading and writing on blogs (on her own, in her own words). It’s proof that whereas all the talk about the downfall of the MSM a couple years back proved false, the blogs certainly have delivered on some degree of democraticization of political media.

But let us observe, as if it even needs pointing out, this development has not always proved beneficial for politicians and political campaigns. No matter what, that’s been the case here. As my former colleague Marc Ambinder points out at Hotline On Call, the controversy

stepped on his health care rollout and has been the dominant theme of his campaign for a week.

Make that two weeks. The Edwards campaign did itself enough damage by waiting too long to decide what to do with their problematic bloggers, and the drawn-out hiring, firing, rehiring and resigning just made it worse. Not to mention, Marcotte’s blog-and-tell for Salon can only delay the Edwards camp from getting back on message. Alas, Edwards will not be on the Sunday shows this week.

Elizabeth Edwards may be the most powerful blog expert advising her husband’s campaign, but assuming this reasoning is on target, she also may not be expert enough.

Note: Additional links and analysis provided by Not Paul Begala.

Update: NPB adds a worthwhile clarification in the comments:

[Marcotte an McEwan] were not vetted and the communications staff was not prepared for the broadside against them. As a former communications guy myself, I can’t tell you how much incomplete information pisses us off. … It’s a legit question that Democrats should be asking of one of their own potential nominees: Why weren’t you ready for a hit job from the right?

Update, Wednesday: Thank you, everyone who commented. Thank you especially, everyone who commented on something other than “good people” and “hit job.” I have approved several comments that are redundant at best, and I will certainly approve others (even on this very post). However, please read through the comments before adding your own, and please only do so if it’s a unique thought. Bonus points if it’s actually about this post, and not the aforementioned comment.

Off Color

In his first post at techPresident, David All has a good summary of John McCain’s just-launched exploratory committee website. And there are more thoughts out there from Brad Levinson, Alison Hayward and Matt Ortega.

Me, I’m just wondering: Has the entire McCain campaign gone colorblind?

John McCain's exploratory committee website, in black and white (literally)

Actually, if John McCain wanted to be inclusive, he would have Joe Biden’s face up there at least twice.

Yes, McCain’s mug is on this site no less than eight times, one more than Biden’s at launch. The difference being: they are smaller and essentially not the same headshot over and over again.

P.S. I’m also unclear on why the “McCain 2008 Blog” is… not a blog:

McCain's 2008 Blog is actually not a blog

Though I’m working on an idea.

P.P.S. I can’t judge McCainSpace until I’m actually, you know, approved. I don’t remember this delay in Obamas space.