website statistics

Archive for the 'Asymmetrical Media' Category

The CNN/Something Awful Debate

Inspired by the recent CNN/YouTube debate, today’s New York Times asked several media observers to imagine other ways in which the Web 2.0 world might influence presidential politics. I found Matt Bai’s suggestion particularly interesting:

Maybe someday soon the candidates will have laptop computers at their lecterns, and we’ll hang a giant screen behind the stage. Then, as one candidate is talking, the others will use instant messaging to create a kind of scrolling commentary and critique, and all the comments will appear overhead. While John Edwards is decrying special interests, Bill Richardson might type: “Gee, John, what exactly would you call the trial lawyers?” Or Christopher Dodd might write: “Why is Kucinich still talking? LOL.”

It’s a neat idea. This year’s Personal Democracy Forum tried something similar, with audience members’ comments appearing on a screen behind the panelists. That worked all right, though it did distract from those onstage.

For a presidential debate then, the comments would indeed have to come from the candidates — not to mention, they need something to do while they wait five or ten minutes for their next turn.

And what if CNN teamed up with uber-message board Something Awful? Well, I believe it might look a little something like this:

Democratic Debate as co-sponsored by Something Awful

P.S. I also noticed that the Times titled Tom Brokaw’s contribution “Sip and Spin.” Now, I’m perfectly fine with potential presidents answering questions from snowmen, but if you know whence the phrase come — no, not the toy — well, isn’t that a little undignified?

Update: Something Awful has found this post. Of course, they don’t seem to care for it and even rescinded the initial link. But the poster did concede:

The picture is pretty much SA I guess.

And as you can see in the comments, this post has been blessed with one of the most sincere statements a latter-day message boarder can offer. Thanks, guys.

Updated again: Okay, the people on this SA board seemed to like it a bit more.

Bring the Noises Off

Headline at Center for American Progress’ Think Progress blog, June 21:

The ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Myth: Right Wing Falsely Claims Progressives Want To Resurrect Mandatory Balance

Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Fox News Sunday, June 24:

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine? FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

Zing!

When I saw that TP headline last week, I was more than a little dubious. After all, Dennis Kucinich is an outspoken fan of the dead regulation, as are certain quarters of the leftosphere. But little did I expect that this absurd claim would be proved “false” (a favorite word of TP and Media Matters) by such a prominent Democrat, not to mention one known primarily as a moderate.

It reminds me of a brief controversy from earlier this month, where The Politico’s John Bresnahan reported that Harry Reid had called outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace “incompetent.” Bloggers from the call didn’t remember it, accused Bresnahan of making the whole thing up, and when it turned out he hadn’t, they weren’t especially contrite about it.

What’s interesting about all this is that in both cases, prominent representatives of the liberal netroots strenuously denied something that was not only true but arguably even helpful to their side, simply because a political adversary had stated it. In both cases they went overboard, creating more negative press for themselves than if they’d just left it alone.

Think Progress would certainly be right if they merely argued that conservative bloggers talk about the fairness doctrine coming back more than progressive bloggers, but arguing that “progressives” have no interest in using the doctrine as a weapon against right-wing talk radio just won’t fly. And as James Joyner asked at the time, what part of the Democrats’ Senate leader calling a Bush appointee “incompetent” did they not like?

The key difference is that Think Progress tried to maintain a position that most observers knew was not true, then dropped the subject. Bresnahan’s critics, on the other hand, defended a point most probably didn’t know for sure and then, unwilling to end on a retraction, changed the terms of debate instead.

I don’t have a full case to make about what it all means, but it is interesting that here in the span of two weeks we have two examples of the left’s own noise machine being unsure of exactly what sound to make.

Games Ron Paul Supporters Play

At what point does the online support for libertarian Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul do his candidacy more harm than good? That is, when does his obviously devoted online fan base start to turn off uncommitted voters, rather than provide an example to follow? I think we might just be getting to that point.

In few communities has the outsize influence of the Ronbots (borrowing more from “Romneybot” than “Rahmbot” here) been felt more than fast-rising social news website Digg. Digg is a prize target for manipulators — getting listed on the front page all but guarantees a tidal wave of traffic headed toward the submitted link. After repeated revisions to the algorithm, it apparently remains no less vulnerable.

Paul supporters have been moving stories onto the front page for a couple weeks now, and while I found it curious and somewhat amusing, Diggers are quirky and I didn’t find it illegitimate or overly distracting — that is, until this morning.

Check out the top five stories, as of about 7:30 Eastern time:

Ron Paul's outsize Digg support

Those top three are not quite all the same story, but they are certainly variations on a theme. Note also the separation in digg totals with the next two, non-Paul submissions. And considering Paul’s negligible support in meatspace, one gets the distinct impression that the system has been gamed.

Others have suggested that his online support is manufactured. I don’t think that’s the case. Click through the headlines (here, here and here), take a look at the comments and the digging (voting) histories of the users submitting them (here, here and here). They may all be acting in concert, but there’s no reason to believe these are not legitimate members — two of the three submitters signed up last summer.

But even if they are acting sincerely, this is simply not what the vast majority of users go to to Digg for. The website is at its best when it provides variety. Forerunner Slashdot has codified this as “The Omelette,” but Digg manages to create this organically. Most of the time.

To cherry pick just one comment out of the third story, here is user 9Digits throwing up his hands:

I’m an anti-war Republican, and I still find your candidate’s campaign to be goddamn annoying. If these are the type of supporters he’s got, there’s not a chance in hell I’ll vote for him.

This follows the Ronbots’ success in compelling ABC News to add their candidate to an online poll. That doesn’t bother me so much, except as ABC knew well, the poll was about to be freeped. But it also follows Charles Johnson’s decision to delist Paul from his online poll at Little Green Footballs. To whatever degree ABC News has an obligation to create a level playing field, even one that they know will be gamed, Johnson has less of one.

And yet that still says more about the general uselessness of online polls than about Paul’s supporters. Is the backlash unfair? Perhaps it would be, if they didn’t seem so prone to the same kind of vitriol that sometimes still causes trouble for their counterparts on the left.

If Paul’s supporters are willing to take the effort to game online communities not already predisposed to isolationist libertarianism they should be willing to accept the consequences. That certainly means their own ostracism — but it also risks creating the impression that Paul’s support is manufactured. And especially in politics, people don’t like being played.

Probably Elizabeth or: Comment Registration Makes Good Neighbors

Since last week, D.G. Hall (née Joe Tobacco) of Cadillac Tight has been trying to nail down the identities of a couple of interesting commenters on his blog, who abruptly appeared this past week, then just as abruptly left. And you probably already know exactly who one of them is.

Elizabeth Edwards vs. Monty JohnsonThe saga begins with the AP story from last Wednesday, about Elizabeth Edwards’ feud (if it wasn’t one already, it was about to be) with Monty Johnson, a neighbor in Raleigh, North Carolina. Said by Mrs. Edwards to be a “rabid, rabid Republican” (albeit one with a “Go Rudy Giuliani 2008″ sign in his yard, so how much of an extremist could he really be?), Mr. Johnson had once “brought out a gun while chasing workers investigating a right of way near his property,” and maintains a “slummy” lot, to which Johnson replied, “I have to budget. I have to live within my means.”

If nothing else, it was an off-message moment for John Edwards’ campaign and for Elizabeth (or as we like to call her, EE) as well.

Hall noticed the story and posted an excerpt, “wondering” why the leftosphere hadn’t noticed this. On which post, of all people, EE (or someone purporting to be her) left a comment advancing her side of the story:

I don’t hate him. I don’t know him. He is not my neighbor. He invests in property near ours, which, I understand, is under contract for above $1.5M. He owns at least 15 different pieces of property … When workers were hooking up power in the area, the Duke Power folks complained that he had threatened them with a gun when they were in the power easement right-of-way at the street in front of his property … The Rudy sign is fine: it gives us a way to tell people where to turn.

Hall welcomed her to the site and asked for confirmation that she really said of Johnson, “I wouldn’t be nice to him, anyway.” The following morning, EE responded once more:

I would always be nice to someone. (I am a Southerner; we are nice to everyone and particularly nice to those with whom we disagree. And North Carolina is a pretty divided state politically, so we all get a lot of chances to practice that.) He had previously said I wasn’t nice to him. As far as I know, I have never laid eyes on him.

To which another commenter asked:

Ah, but Mrs. Edwards, the question was…Is the above quote accurate?

EE didn’t return, and as of Friday afternoon, that was that. Until yesterday, that is, when the same post received a comment from one Ronda Johnson, claiming to be the daughter of old man Johnson:

Thank you to Mrs. Edwards for her investigative reporting, but she is completely incorrect! It is actually quite scary to myself and the rest of my family that she has went so far as to investigate my father, Monty Johnson! Unfortunately, she is not up to date or accurate at all ! Again, the property on Ivey road sold several years ago in order to keep his current proprty across the street from her where he has lived since his grand daughter was born 9 years ago! He has never owned proprty on Union Grove Church Road, though his son does in his son’s name! The rest of the lot’s and acreage are located right across the street from her and mostly filled with mobile homes! As far as the incident that occurred with Duke Power, Monty was not in town and the sherriff was called and Duke Power made to leave because they were in the wrong! I know because the incident occurred with me! As for her being friendly, well I never seen that! I was volunteer coordinator for Emma,s class last year and couldn’t even get money for a pack of pansies donated by them or for any other project we asked for help or money on! I never even got a phone call returned! John attended 1 party for the teachers birthday and sat directly across from me and never spoke! Though he did maintain a smile the entire time, even while eating! I must say that the silky pony will be the prettiest president we’ve ever had, should he succeed! Elizabeth hasn’t been rich long enough to have rich friends and too long to have poor friends, so I guess the lonely sole will just investigate and pick on her neighbors!

There’s something curious about the fact that every single one of Ms. Johnson’s sentences ends with an exclamation point! It doesn’t exactly come across as a sign of sincerity! Nor does the “silky pony” reference! But you never know, maybe Ronda Johnson reads blogs! After all, Elizabeth Edwards does!

Plus, there is a Ronda Johnson listed (Google her name, or call their new 411 service) as living in Raleigh. Same h-less spelling, too. Hall tried calling it, but couldn’t get an answer.

Hall had also matched EE’s e-mail address to other plausible EE registrations, such as one at My Left Wing. The address (Hall says the account is bouncing now) is probablyElizabeth at johnedwards.com, perhaps mischievously, suggesting the user knew other blog readers would question its provenance. Plus, being a minor scholar of EE’s blogospheric participaticipation, I’d say it certainly sounds like her.

As Hall graciously notes in his wrap-up post, he contacted me and I lived up to the name of this blog by matching the IP addresses to the possible commenters’ probable locations. As he puts it:

1) The IP address for Ronda Johnson resolves to the correct geographical area, and the comment left here matches up nicely with a comment Ronda Johnson left at Bill Quick’s site on April 12th, when this story was breaking. I can’t imagine anyone running around the internet impersonating Mr. Johnson’s daughter, but there is always a possibility someone is doing so. Caveat emptor on this one. 2) The IP address for Elizabeth Edwards resolves to Orlando, FL, which isn’t consistent with Mrs. Edwards’ location. However, John Edwards was in Fort Myers, FL on April 15th (thanks again, William), so it’s entirely plausible that his wife could have been using an Orlando based dial-up ISP to leave those comments. Still, we can’t be sure, so Caveat emptor.

That sounds about right. Could be both, maybe even neither — but it’s probably at least one of them (EE), and someone who knows the other one (RJ). If all is as it seems, an AP story reporting some offhand comments fueled a lingering resentment between two neighboring families, subsequently breaking out into the comment section of an interested but uninvolved blogger.

Heck, they’re practically the Montagues and Capulets of the Research Triangle. Sort of not really. But just think of how it’ll play at the next PTA night.

Bonus observation! Fifteen years ago, there wasn’t a blogosphere to hash out neighborly disputes like this one. But they did have something arguably better.

Tragedy 2.0

Post-Columbine, post-9/11, post-Iraq, are we desensitized to mass murders these days?

Doesn’t seem to be: The tragedy at Virginia Tech has at least captivated the mainstream media, pulling it out of its embarrassing, Anna Nicole/Imus-obsessing doldrums to a hypertensive level not seen since the aforementioned debacles plus Katrina.

Each major media disaster story since at least the dot-com bubble reveals new voices and resources from the online mediasphere, and to the extent that we know to follow them — that we can devise filters to locate them — it helps us understand these things better than we did back when most of the media we consumed was on glossy paper.

And since Drudge and MSNBC and others have already reported the name and online profile of Emily Hilscher, the first victim of yesterday’s horrible awfulness* — and as an antidote to Wayne Chiang, the Asian-American Hokie gun fetishist with girl troubles and a Livejournal account — I might as well share this screen shot from Facebook:

Emily Hilscher on Facebook

Her page is not public, and I suppose it will probably remain as much in the hands of her friends and family. But there are also 27 groups with her name in their main content and with hundreds of members, which grew literally overnight.

Part of me thinks there’s something invasive in writing about this, but ultimately it’s all part of the record. Here there are no candles and no songs — but it’s a digital vigil. It doesn’t convey how it actually feels, but it does show that people feel.

P.S. Via Techmeme, I see Dan Gillmor, Doc Searls and Xeni Jardin have been thinking along the same lines. And somehow, Slate’s Michael Agger managed to write an entire article about the massacre and social networking without a single mention of Facebook. Plus, according to Hotline On Call, producers from ABC and NBC have been posting interview requests to Facebook:

Our thoughts are with everyone affected by the horrific tragedy at Virginia Tech. In our ongoing coverage, we want to speak with people that knew Cho Seung-Hui. We have anchors and producers on campus that would love to meet with you.

Okay, I feel a bit less of a ghoul now.

*I don’t know what else to call it, I’m never very good writing about these things, and I’ve already blown the chance to suspend blogging, which I might as well have because I didn’t have a Benchmark Poll ready to go today.

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.

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.

Hillary in Blogistan: On Blogads, The Netroots and Peter Daou

Hillary Clinton did not wait long after her weekend presidential campaign announcement to step foot in the blogosphere: By Monday her technically fledgling but long-assumed campaign had taken major steps toward engaging web users, starting with her three-night series of half-hour webcasts, which concluded just last evening. Moreover, her camp had sought specifically to engage the dedicated online activists who call themselves the netroots, by promoting the webcasts through the industry standard Blogads service.

Her detractors among those online activists did not wait long, either. At MyDD, one of the leading anti-Hillary sites on the left, Matt Stoller criticized her team for purchasing ads on some conservative blogs:

Why do people like HRC, no matter how often it becomes clear that wingnuts hate us, seek approval from wingnuts?

Before long, another animadversion came from former Nevada [and current online] talk show host (and recent Stoller employee) Taylor Marsh, who was upset to find she had been left out:

It’s not like her team doesn’t know I exist. I find it a little annoying that Clinton’s team thinks that people like me don’t merit advertisement, simply because our numbers don’t reach the one-hundred thousand mark.

We’ll address the specifics of these charges, but in order to do so, first let’s try to describe the buy itself:

Hillary Clinton's first BlogadThe Clinton team can’t or won’t say what they spent on the buy, but on Monday, Blog P.I. went digging through the extensive a la carte ordering page at Blogads to find out where they had made their buys and make a reasonably educated guess about how much they had spent.

While I am quite sure I did not locate every ad on every blog, the initial buy was worth at least $17,026 across at least 45 blogs. The buy comprised political blogs almost exclusively, liberal blogs overwhelmingly, and primarily those with a national reach. Nearly every liberal blog above 50,000 impressions per week picked up a blogad, though a few did not (as we’ll see below) and at least a few regional and small-traffic blogs also were included. The campaign bought some Premium ads (which are guaranteed to be the top ads visible) on liberal sites but generally stuck with the Standard ads, and went with the bargain buys on each of the conservative blogs included. And how many conservative blogs was that? I counted just four: Hugh Hewitt, Power Line, Captain’s Quarters and Wizbang Politics (i.e. not the front page), each worth between 550,000 and 150,000 impressions per week for a total $1,150.

Yesterday Blog P.I. contacted Clinton’s principal blog adviser, Peter Daou, for elaboration. As he explained, the first round was for the webcasts, the second round (which began last night) was for inviting supporters and potential supporters to submit guest blog posts. According to Daou, future buys will focus on particular issues Sen. Clinton wants to highlight, and in states and regions where she will be traveling. The strategy is not fixed, and more to the point, neither are the number of sites. “A blog being excluded has absolutely no implication, except we’ll get there next time,” Daou said. “We’ll try to get as many bloggers as possible.” For anyone who remembers Daou’s last gig, the blog roundup published by Salon which still bears his name, Daou often went out of his way to reach down and pull obscure blogs up into the mix. To be sure, he’s not spending his own money, and cheap as Blogads can be, even Hillary Clinton does not have unlimited funds. But to the extent he can, it’s reasonable to expect that Daou will keep doing so.

·      ·      ·

And on Wednesday night, hours after the final webcast, the ad strategy did indeed shift: At the same time the buy expanded on liberal blogs, it disappeared from the conservative sites. To the Clinton team, it made sense to get attention from the right when the focus was on the webcast, but now that the ads are inviting people to submit guest posts to her site, inviting the “winguts” would indeed be a waste of time. Had they not made this distinction here, Stoller’s gripe surely would have been right.

But here’s the interesting thing: Blogads buys are one-week minimum commitments, though advertisers can change the specific ad as many times as they want — or remove it entirely. This is just what they’ve done: In order to stick to the plan, they have no choice but to pay Power Line and the rest not to run the ad, at least for a few more days (surely someone will compare this to farm subsidies, but no one has; one might say they’re just not into her).

For example, here is a screen shot taken last night, confirming two ads running on Power Line:

Power Line Blogad profile

But here is the Power Line sidebar as of last night:

Power Line blogad now disappeared

Not that the ads necessarily earned anyone’s approval: Dean Barnett, Hugh Hewitt’s co-blogger, took exception and* deemed it a misstep on Hillary’s part:

If Hillary is advertising to reach out to our core audience, she should save her money. I get your emails – I know none of you will be supporting Hillary in the Democratic primaries. … Presidential campaigns are often poorly and profligately run. Howard Dean, for instance, burned through a gazillion dollars getting absolutely no bang for his bucks and couldn’t tell you at the end of the day where all the money went.

Barnett surmised that Clinton’s “purchaser didn’t do his homework and decided that it would be a swell expenditure to run ads here and on Powerline” — but Barnett has been around the blogosphere (and was the Weekly Standard’s go-to guy on the leftosphere) long enough to know who Daou is, and to recognize that Daou would know exactly what to find at Power Line.

To this I will add just one more thing. On Tuesday, veteran Democratic operative and now Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told Hotline’s Blogometer:

We’re on some conservative sites because we’re not ceding any territory. We take nothing for granted.

To me this sounds a lot like the fighting spirit bloggers hold dearly — taking the fight to the other side’s camp. But that isn’t Sen. Clinton’s reputation with the netroots.

·      ·      ·

Now to Marsh’s complaint. Her site is currently worth 42,806 views per week, just below the point where buys were near-automatic. She and Daou disagree on whether or not the campaign attempted to buy on her site, but as I do not have sufficient evidence to make a judgment, I’ll stay out of that question. Rather, let’s look at the circumstances:

hillary blogad secondAs I dug through Blogads earlier this week, I found that liberal blogs with considerably more readers than Marsh were also not included in the initial ad buy: Juan Cole, Sadly, No!, BartCop, This Modern World, After Downing Street and Burnt Orange Report among them. They did not complain, but when the ad focus shifted on Thursday night, some of them were brought into the fold. Now they’re even on the low-traffic personal blog of Matthew Gross, who happens to be John Edwards’ blog adviser. And, yes, Taylor Marsh.

Other blogs that arguably reach the same demographic but were excluded include TV Newser, not to mention some of Clinton’s constituents, Curbed and Gothamist. The latter snub is somewhat notable considering she did buy on Gothamist’s DC affiliate, DCist. Heck, why not buy on Cute Overload? That site reaches a lot of people, and certainly fits with her warm and fuzzy approach. Same goes for Treehugger. It’s these lifestyle blogs that seem to lie beyond the campaign’s purview, while the campaign is “rotating,” as Daou put it, ads throughout Advertise Liberally Blogad network. [Update: Charles Kuffner has a point.]

Additionally, Some of Marsh’s complaints are confusing to me. She wrote, for example:

Single proprietor bloggers may not get the traffic of the gigantic community blogs, but we do a lion share of the work out here as well. … Taking me out of the equation for a moment, shouldn’t Clinton at least help out a few of the small female only blogs, reaching out to females everywhere? You’d think that would be important to her.

Yet Feministing and Pam’s House Blend are just the kind of female-only blogs Marsh describes, and they were included. In fact, Pam’s House Blend along with female-led Firedoglake were among the few sites to pick up Premium ad buys. Similar complaints likewise were off-target. At MyDD, Texas Nate hit Clinton’s camp for not buying on a few specific regional blogs. One was Bleeding Iowa which, so far as I can tell, does not support Blogads.

And to editorialize for a moment, there is something unseemly about complaining that an advertiser did not buy ads on one’s site. Daou and the Clinton team are under no obligation to buy ads on anybody’s site. Yes, Marsh is a member of the netroots in good standing — she has worked for the SEIU and MyDD to cover a labor dispute in Las Vegas — but the same is true of dozens of other bloggers whom Clinton missed on the first round. As Daou said to me, it’s impossible to buy on every site. And at least as of this morning, Marsh has made no acknowledgment of her inclusion in the next phase of the Clinton ad buy.

If it’s not exactly extortion, it does betray the kind of myopic egocentrism that establishment Democrats use — sometimes as an excuse, sometimes not — to keep the netroots at bay.

·      ·      ·

It was probably inevitable that there would be pushback when Hillary Clinton sought to engage the blogosphere. But it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the netroots’ legitimate policy disagreements with her have led to reflexive negative reactions to virtually anything she does.

Hillary Clinton's third and final first-week campaign webcastHere is an example, taken from MyDD this week: In a post titled “Playing the Electability Card,” Chris Bowers interprets a memo by Clinton pollster Mark Penn (as summarized by Newsday) — comparing his candidate favorably to her rivals — as playing the “electability card,” thereby denigrating the Democratic party as a whole and reinforcing Republican stereotypes. Problem is, there’s no Penn quote that clearly says this; the more plausible interpretation is that Hillary has more experience standing up to the kind of GOP attacks Bowers fears could be effective. Most perplexingly, the only Democrat whose “electability” is questioned in the Newsday article is Hillary — and in the second paragraph, no less. Although Penn’s claim that other campaigns are “stalled or falling” is dubious, there’s nothing scandalous about him putting Hillary Clinton in the best possible light. That is his job, after all.

Hillary Clinton’s longstanding position on the Iraq war puts her squarely at odds with the netroots, whose creation and cohesion owes more to the Iraq invasion and subsequent deterioration than any other issue. Short of a full apology, there’s nothing she can do. Even then, Edwards did that a long time ago, and Obama never supported it in the first place (though he never had to actually cast a vote on it).

Clinton’s online campaign must be one largely of damage control — managing expectations and placating bloggers who long ago made up their mind against her. Yet while Marsh and others (such as radio talker Ed Schultz) complain that she is not reaching out to progressives, through the webcast, blogads and forthcoming guest blogs, that’s exactly what she’s trying to do. Whether Clinton can soften the netroots opposition to her is an open question, but considering the uphill battle, it was probably wise to get started on it first thing.

Leftosphere of Influence

The top of Memeorandum at 7:35 a.m. this a.m. leads me to ask: Is John Amato bigger than Keith Olbermann?

Keith Olbermann, John Amato, Crooks and Liars, CNN, Memeorandum

I’m pretty sure the safe answer is “no,” but the truth is, I’m not so sure. And if Olbermann is worth anything like $4 million a year, let alone “north of” that, shouldn’t MSNBC at least send Amato a nice gift basket?

Another hit for Amato’s Crooks and Liars this week is eliciting an apology from CNN for this:

CNN, Barack Obama, Osama bin Laden

The Chicago Tribune hat tips Raw Story, but again, Amato got there first.

I think there are a few lessons to be learned here. For one, conservatives should observe this reminder that the MSM are capable of playing the same dumb jokes on Democrats as sometimes happens to Republicans. Meanwhile, the left as well might consider that when Fox News mislabeled then-Rep. Mark Foley as a Democrat, chances are it was just a mistake.

·      ·      ·

And while we’re on the subject of “Barack Hussein Obama,” a phrase that has peaked but isn’t going away, I wonder if anybody realizes that the first person to use the full construction last year was not GOP consultant Ed Rogers, but actually… Chicago Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet. She is nobody’s conservative, but certain corners of the rightosphere were already way ahead of Rogers.

Another nickname affixed to him these days is “Obambi,” referencing his lack of political experience. In recent weeks, both Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and John Fund of the Wall Street Journal have both referenced the term, crediting it only to a “Chicago columnist.” Which Chicago columnist? How hard is it to properly credit the person responsible?

The papers won’t say. But I will: It’s Michael Sneed, also of the Chicago Sun-Times.

So why does Sweet escape blame for the xenophobic “nickname” while Sneed gets no credit for the innocent one?

In Chicago, the answer might be: People like Sweet a lot more than Sneed (I am not a Chicagoan, but I have consulted with one).

Inside the Beltway, there are a few possibilities, but they aren’t much different. In the case of DC bureau chief Sweet, I doubt they really care/remember. In the case of Chicago-based Sneed, I doubt they really remember/care.

The Time Machine

Are we this good or is Time just that predictable? On October 9, the day Google announced its acquisition of YouTube, we wrote:

[I]t’s only been about 10 months since Time Magazine declined to choose an individual for its much-devalued Person of the Year award, so it only stands to reason they’re back in the hunt. It’s also been nearly a decade since Time named someone (or thing) from the tech industry — Jeff Bezos in 1999 — and more than 20 years since they named the PC its “Machine of the Year.” Also, it’s not an election year, so it won’t be the winner of the presidential election. It’s time for another gimmick!

At left, our Photoshopped prediction from two months ago. At right, Time Warner’s actual latest cover, announced this weekend:

Time POY Prediction: You       Time POY Reality: You

Although Blog P.I. doesn’t make prognostications a regular part of what we do, we have made a few good calls — Not Paul Begala told you here first that Jon Tester wasn’t getting an Appropriations seat, and again relying upon this year’s breakout phenomenon, we did start talking about the “YouTube election” well ahead of most.

But if we can’t even pick a fantasy football team that makes the playoffs, we’re not going to stake our rep on predicting the future. So the answer is yes, they really are that predictable.