website statistics

Archive for the 'Campaigns' Category

Why I Deserve Your Money*

Chris seems to have a problem with people like me getting money from the blogosphere:

[T]he same Democratic political consultant structure that the netroots seek to reform… is actually being funded, reinforced, and strengthened by the netroots.

Like I’ve argued before, I think I’m pretty good at this. My full-time job is helping Democrats win. I love politics, I work hard, I’m pretty good at figuring people out and the clients I help elect support most of your agenda. Where we differ is that I think Mark Pryor should get some leeway. He’s from a red state after all; he needs to vote the way his constituents want (he does, after all, represent them). I do a little more top-down management than bottom-up, but I fully support both methods. I also see flaws in both methods. And, we agree more often then you would think, e.g. Joe Lieberman should get a swift kick in the junk for undermining the Democratic party.

Bloggers see overall numbers like $1.85 billion and get mad that political professionals get all that money. Hey, I do it, too. Ever see a piece of crap car commercial on TV and think about the money wasted on that advertising firm? Ever say to yourself, “I could do better than that!”?

There’s one problem with that kind of armchair quarterbacking: it’s a selective view. You need to judge the entire body of work a firm produces, what actually went into the production (clients drastically ruin (and improve) work all the time), the amount of material to work with and a whole host of other factors.

The point is this, Chris: we get paid well because that’s what the market has dictated. Nobody gets forced into using a particular pollster, mail firm or TV firm. We have to go pitch clients, cold call people that qualify for the ballot, and we face some pretty fierce competition in the industry every day. Lots of new firms have been opening up because there is a ton of business at the state and local level that was never there before (by the way, that’s where the real money is). And the Internet is making more information available all the time. More information equals more informed decisions.

Do people make money and viability decisions based on which firm you pick? Absolutely. Anyone who’s a consistent giver knows brand name firms. Just like you know Miller Lite but you might not know the Dead Guy.

Experience, name and reputation mean something in this world. That’s why the big firms have big market share and that’s why they make big money. And this notion that we don’t support the same principles and goals is just bullshit. We just don’t listen to everything you and the so-called netroots say (something which I don’t even think really has a good definition yet).

That said, I do agree with you on a major point. I think you deserve a lot more money than you guys are getting for your work:

Matt Stoller, has previously written about examples of full-time progressive movement activists who receive little or no compensation for their work. … local progressive bloggers typically lose money on blogging every year, even as they help transform local media and activist scenes. … As a handful of progressive bloggers are criticized for picking up the occasional establishment consulting job, the progressive netroots as a whole funnels exponentially more money into the establishment while receiving virtually no help in return when it comes to building our movement. … I am also pissed off at the Democratic and progressive establishment that is funded with our dollars, but which refuses to fund us in return.

I’ve said before, you deserve better because you provide a service (the part about leaked polling numbers). We politico/consultant types love politics and you provide us with discussion material all the time. Before, we had to wait for Meet the Press to air, or catch our updates from Inside Poltics. We had to subscribe to Roll Call, the Evans-Novak Report or (those of us that worked for rich lobbyists or big NGO’s) National Journal and CQ.

You’re providing most of this stuff for free and we should find a way to support good advertisers that are catering to what we want. I promise you this: when I start my own political consulting firm, I’ll buy a Blogad. And I have a feeling that one day, when you get a pitch from my firm for a race you may be running, you may just think I deserve a buck or two for my services.

*And, to be fair, why you deserve mine.

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.

Not a Sincere Bone…

Politicians in Washington tend to develop reputations. McCain is the maverick, Kennedy is the liberal lion and (one of my favorites), the most dangerous place in all of Washington is between Chuck Schumer and a camera.

Hillary has one, too, and her people absolutely go berserk if you say it in front of them: She doesn’t have a sincere bone in her entire body.

Stuff like this gives us ammunition:

Hillary Clinton uses the armrest

Notice how she’s been giving interviews in a living room setting, on a couch, with her elbow up on the armrest. This is supposed to convey a warm family scene with her kicking back and inviting you, the viewer, into her home.

Now, I dare anyone in Hillaryland to tell me that she’s just doing this on her own and that her political team didn’t consciously decide to portray her in this new way to give her the humanizing, “woman’s touch” look for her presidential run. It’s so obviously contrived it’s funny.

Is it any wonder why we’re so cynical?

Update: This is exactly what I mean.

She and her advisers need a living room scene in order to “humanize” her. What more proof do we need that people don’t think she’s sincere?

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.

The XYZ of ABC?

Last August conservative bloggers joined with Alexandria-based Campaign Solutions to address the GOP’s weakness in online fundraising. Already they were two years behind the Democratic pioneer in this space, ActBlue. The result was ABC PAC and Rightroots, and when I reviewed it upon launch, I found a lot to be desired:

Rightroots is the only slate [of candidates] available; other interested parties have been told they’ll just have to wait. I’m told that eventually it will be brought up to parity with ActBlue: Bloggers will have a personal ID with the site to track their accounts, and ABC PAC will make it possible to donate to any federal GOP candidate (right now only high profile candidates are listed). … As yet, a proof of concept is really all it is: It’s more like a shareware demo that only lets you play the first level.

Mike Turk, the GOP strategist most responsible for putting the site together, responded in the comments:

ActBlue has been in development for two years, and already raised north of six million dollars. To compare the functionality of a site that has been online for less than two full days, and which publicly states it is trying to put together funds for further development to a site like the one ActBlue is today is a bit disingenuous. … Given full funding, full functionality and a full catalog of candidates, ABC PAC has the potential to meet and exceed what ActBlue has done - and we plan to do so.

It seemed to me that ABC could have debuted with more functionality than it did — it should have built upon what ActBlue had pioneered — but his response was fair. However, I kept checking back throughout the fall, and while the fundraising numbers attained respectability, the ABC website itself never improved. (Disclosure, however, did improve — the front page of ABC now gives an idea of how your money will be handled.)

My main point the first time around was that ActBlue was a Web 2.0 kind of site, like a Facebook for progressive fundraising. You could sign up for your very own account, compile your own slate of candidates, keep track of your progress and follow the rankings. Not only that, but there was plenty of reading material about how ActBlue works. ABC, on the other hand, appeared to be ony a few pages deep, everything was locked down, nothing was customizable, and the only interactive feature would perhaps be watching the figures change.

Flash forward a couple months, and the situation is even more dire for online Republican activists. First, here’s a screen capture from ActBlue’s front page as of last night:

ActBlue front page, 2007 YTD

Now let’s compare that to the front page of ABC PAC, taken at the same time:

ABC PAC front page, 2007 YTD

Note the figures. Yes, it’s all this cycle. The top 5 presidential candidates on ActBlue have received about $434,000, while all candidates on ABC PAC have collected exactly $298.

The stark difference continues as you explore each site. ActBlue’s page for the ‘08 presidential contest provides plenty of options for supporting a candidate, on the site and off, and also-ran apparent runner Dennis Kucinich has raised just $20 shy of ABC’s top recipient. Edwards is the clear fundraising leader, because his own campaign is making use of ActBlue’s infrastructure. If you go to his website and click “Contribute” under the “Take Action Menu,” you will be redirected to to ActBlue.

By contrast, it doesn’t seem anyone has linked to ABC in over a month. Will one of the just-hired GOP blogger consultants persuade one or more of their candidates to use ABC PAC? They can’t, at least not without talking to the Donatellis first. But why would you even bother? The website is boring, an obvious corporate job without even the faintest sign of the social networking tools that make ActBlue so cool.

And what of Rightroots itself, the monopoly blogger slate from the ‘06 cycle? It is no longer linked off the main page, and if you punch in the URL yourself, you’ll find a generic ABC page thanking you for your support:

Because of you, ABCPac was able to raise almost $300,000 for Republican House and Senate candidates, online! … We are currently in the process of expanding and improving our web site and will be announcing our new efforts in the coming months.

Maybe that’s true. But if that assurance was available somewhere besides an orphan page, I’d be inclined to take it more seriously. Besides, ABC doesn’t need to get a little better to be useful. It needs to get a lot better. Currently, there is no baby to throw out with the bath water.

As of now, putting ActBlue and ABC side by side is like comparing the Wii to a Tiger Electronics handheld. ABC isn’t even playing the same game as ActBlue, and it is far from clear that it ever will.

Update: For further discussion and debate on this topic, see (in chronological order going back nearly a week) Patrick Ruffini, Mike Turk, Rob Bluey and Todd Ziegler.

Bloggers vs. the MSP

Between binge drinking, sleeping, waiting for my Wii to get here (seriously, I was ready to fight my little cousins for playing time on Christmas Day — this thing is awesome) and catching up with our TiVo’d shows, we campaign people finally have some time on hand to think about what we just went through. Campaign life doesn’t give you a lot of time for a good diet, exercise, nor reading fiction, and certainly not reflection.

The Daily Kos diary “Begala: Dean ‘an a**hole from Vermont’,” which appeared yesterday, is a great example of one thing I’ve reflected on several times while reading the litany of blogosphere postmortems (especially the ones about races I was involved in): the deep divide between bloggers and mainstream professionals — let’s call them, us, the MSP.

To suggest the 50-state strategy is a big reason that the field expanded, as dKos contributor ScottforAmerica does in this post, is utter delusion. However, to suggest it had nothing to do with wins across the country, as he says Paul Begala did, is also dead wrong.

But as an MSP myself I am always going to be more sympathetic to the man whose name I have borrowed than, say, ScottforAmerica. Why?

Because Paul had to make his living doing this, as do I. For all I know, Scott is seeing his 3rd election cycle — maybe. Scott likely has never worked as a professional consultant, likely never had the benefit of seeing 10-20 races a cycle and learning the lessons that come with them. He’s probably never worked on a presidential campaign and maybe never even walked door-to-door as a regular volunteer or a ground level employee.

Maybe he has. I don’t know him. And not to single out Scott per se — this lack of serious political experience is true of most bloggers.

That said, Scott is bringing some nerve/backbone, new blood and determination to these contests. That fresh outsider-looking-in perspective is something I have absolutely loved in the past 4 years, something people like my quasi-namesake cautioned against.

I understand why Dems said “me too” with Bush and the GOP in 2002 and I think it was solid advice based on the strategies and polls we had at the time. But being wrong because the game changed on you doesn’t preclude you from being wrong. We got whooped in 2002. Scott also has his ideas about what works (e.g. 50-state strategy) that I don’t think are correct, but I don’t have data yet to absolutely dissuade him.

So, what does this mean? From my MSP perspective, I get pissed at the smug, know-it-all, cavalier attitude of bloggers like Scott because I feel like this post attacks me just as much as Paul Begala. The ending is really what gets me:

A new Democratic Party took a giant step forward today, a Democratic Party proud of it’s values and it’s principles, and one that won’t be afraid to stand up for our beliefs…anywhere. Unfortunately for Begala and Carville, they aren’t part of it.

You think Paul Begala and James Carville are not proud of the Democratic Party’s values and principles? That they are afraid to stand up for themselves? You think they argue against “50 state” because they just hate Dean and that they are scared of devolving power outside of the professional structures? Do you really think they never wanted to win, have completely sold out to corporations and are just fine with leaving a party in charge that is sending kids to die in the sand?

And right here is where I get offended. You, Scott the Blogger, perceive this struggle as a battle between the elite and the masses. This obviously puts me on the elite side, so I consider your swipe directed at me too. I’m pretty sure you hate me for no other reason than my being one of these elites. You blame me for losing to Bush in 2000 and 2004 and you will find every excuse to not look at historic things, like say, 9/11, to explain how R’s won in ‘02 and ‘04. You don’t think Iraq played as much of a role in ‘06 as the 50 state strategy. Heck, I’ll bet that if you ran for congress and I gave you my resume, you’d throw it away because it doesn’t have a list of the diaries I’d written or “netroots”-backed candidates I’ve worked for in the past.

And that is what bugs me: you hate me for being a professional, for making money doing this and, most of all, for not sharing your “damn them all to hell” and “if DC said it, it must be wrong” attitude. You claim to speak for the masses when you say these things but I’m pretty sure that you don’t know who the masses really are (here’s a hint: they don’t blog regularly).

So, in the upcoming power struggle for the leadership of this party (and it’s coming) we will have to see who’s really better at this game, Bloggers or the MSP. It’s the pros vs. the amateurs, the top-down vs. the bottom-up, the big guy vs. the little guys.

It’ll be interesting to watch and even more fun to play. Better bring your A-game, Scott. I’m pretty good at this.

Merry GOP-Round

It’s been a busy few weeks for Republican bloggers in Washington: since late December, a number of Republican aides and activists have changed jobs, created new partnerships or relaunched old ventures. Let’s take a walk:

  • Start with Jon Henke, the Virginia delegate to QandO who this summer took on the thankless task of trying to save George Allen on the very Internet that would eventually do him in. His next job might not be much easier, but it should at least be a little more stable — on January 1 Henke officially announced he’ll be joining the Republican Communications Office of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell as New Media Coordinator. His family will be following him from Richmond, and I hear he could use some tips on finding a place in DC.
  • My headline references one childhood amusement, but let’s invoke another: If there’s a game of musical chairs being played, it’s over at Heritage. Last year Mark Tapscott, Director of the Center for Media and Public Policy, decamped for the Washington Examiner editorial page. Shortly thereafter, Tim Chapman took the job, fresh off a stint at Townhall during its late-middle period. Now he too is moving on, to assume the role of Senior Communications Adviser for Sen. Jim DeMint. Taking his place as of February 1 will be Rob Bluey, current online editor of Human Events. Replacing Bluey will be TBA, a hotshot young go-getter straight out of… okay, I know you know what TBA means.
  • There probably are not very many new media consultants working for presidential candidates at the moment — Pat Hynes (McCain) and Peter Daou (Clinton) come to mind first — but now there is another: Just a few weeks ago, when ex-Gov. Mitt Romney did not yet have to put an “ex-” before his title, the likely presidential contender hired the blog coordinator of then-Sen. Bill Frist’s VOLPAC. Bluey had the story first, reporting Romney’s acquisition of Stephen Smith, not to be confused with Stephen A. Smith.
  • A development of a different sort is the relaunch of PatrickRuffini.com. When Ruffini accepted the job of eCampaign director for the Republican National Committee in 2005, the first casualty of the job was his popular and beautifully-designed personal blog — by his choice, not the RNC’s. (Doing right by your job and your blog is no easy task, I’ll tell you what.) But as of the new year, PatrickRuffini.com is back — and back, and back, and back — with a sidebar blog, retooled 2008 Wire and a tech blog called Overclocked. If you’ve had to take this one out of your aggregator before, you’ll probably enjoy putting all these new feeds back in this time.
  • Maybe the most interesting development is the creation of the David All Group. All has made a name for himself doing creative work, mostly on behalf of Rep. Jack Kingston. I believe All’s firm is the first Republican strategy firm in Washington predicated on social media and the blogosphere. At launch, the site features a blog where All comments on politics and technology, which is already more than a perfunctory product demonstration — see, for instance, his in-depth, screen shot-laden (extra points) recap of how the “macaca” controversy unfolded. But something else caught my eye — the business address. I’m not quite an expert on Capitol Hill, but I was pretty sure the listed address was on a residential block. And I’m still a journalist, kind of, so…
    David All Group, located in residential Capitol Hill
    Yup. I don’t know if it’s his home address (and I don’t blame him for not returning that e-mail query) but it’s certainly somebody’s residential address.
  • A much more complex story is the recent sale of community site RedState to Eagle Publishing. That one will get its own post, soon enough.

Oppo Knocks?

Anybody who watched the Virginia Senate race this year knows that Senator-elect Jim Webb ran a savvy Internet campaign. He hired bloggers, leveraged YouTube, played bloggers and the press off each other and off soon-to-be former Sen. George Allen.

But we may just now be learning how savvy his campaign really was: Last evening, conservative Virginia blogger Shaun Kenney posted this unsourced but possibly legitimate report:

If you are a Virginia blogger, chances are that the Webb campaign has an opposition research book on you. Bloggers that made the cut include Chad Dotson, Jim Hoeft, Ben Tribbett, Waldo Jaquith, Josh Chernila, Lowell Feld, Jim Riley, J.C. Wilmore, Jon Henke, and a host of others. These are not your typical background checks either… a significant amount of money was spent crafting the kind of opposition research one would typically find on a candidate running for public office. It seems as if the Webb campaign made a strategic decision to unleash this opposition research if something damaging came out against their candidate, simply to personally slander the blogger making the claim.

Slander might not be the right word here; assuming the dirt was true, “smear” would probably cover it just fine. Many of Kenney’s commenters wanted proof. None has surfaced as yet, but they did get the next best thing in an apparent confirmation from liberal Virginia blogger Ben Tribbett, who is Not Larry Sabato:

What I have been told by some reliable sources is that Shaun’s report is very close to reality. However, I am hearing that the list of bloggers researched is “smaller” than Shaun’s list, while the amount of information compiled on those bloggers chosen is “very large” … The staff involved can not keep their story straight. One person pointed out they had a report done on them, and we should feel complimented, and another denied any such thing existed. I’m hearing “yes” on J.C. Wilmore, Jon Henke, myself and Lowell Feld, and working on confirmation on others. If this list stays slanted to the Democrats, we can assume these reports were generated for potential retribution instead of proactive research.

That bloggers in opposing political camps are giving credence to the story is what makes it credible, and the Webb campaign targeting bloggers in opposing political camps is what makes it interesting. (There is another reason why this story is notable, and we’ll get to it shortly.) Of course, let me add that right now this story remains purely a rumor. Repeat: There is no actual evidence to support these claims, only the integrity of the bloggers involved. End disclaimer.

It might come as a minor revelation that political campaigns would look into the backgrounds of bloggers who oppose them, but as long as the oppo research stays on safe legal ground, there’s nothing particularly controversial here. But what of the supposed research into Webb’s allies — and employees? Feld heads up Virginia’s biggest liberal blog, Raising Kaine, and was employed by Webb as netroots coordinator. Why on Earth would he want to risk alienating his chief ally in the blogosphere?

Easy: To protect himself. Everybody who follows politics at least casually knows about oppo research, but the flip-side of that seamy-but-crucial campaign activity is what’s called self-research.

It shouldn’t be too surprising that the Webb campaign would do this, if they did this. Recent history gives us good reason to assume that politicians are wary of bloggers, certainly more so than traditional volunteers (who do not make a point of expressing their opinions in public).

Recall not just the blackface controversy in this year’s CT SEN race — after which Ned Lamont unconvincingly blurted to reporters: “I don’t know anything about the blogs” — but also the infamous “screw them” moment in 2004, where then-rising blog star Markos Moulitsas callously dismissed the deaths of American contractors in Iraq.

Some Virginia bloggers assume this research might have been used for character assassination, but what’s more likely is the Dem-side research was done to decide whether to hire Feld in the first place, and whether to associate with other bloggers. Do we really expect that a Senate campaign wouldn’t do this kind of due diligence?

There is certainly some political risk in doing so; bloggers often don’t like being part of “poltics as usual,” and that’s certainly what this is. If Webb really was cagey enough to research not just his opponent’s allied bloggers but his own as well, many think that would put him over the line from “shrewd” to “paranoid.” Indeed, it would be highly cynical of Webb to imagine that Feld might turn around and start attacking him before the race concluded. But it’s less cynical to think that someone not on his payroll — Tribbett, Jaquith, Wilmore — might do so. In politics, cynicism pays. And where it comes to the blogosphere, right now every campaign is making it up as they go along.

Wilmore, who writes The Richmond Democrat, does not think that this is necessarily Webb’s doing:

I don’t think this story is about Jim Webb. I think it’s about Jessica Vanden Berg, and it seems to me that this is really two stories. The first story is that the Webb campaign did oppo research on Republican opposition bloggers. To me this only makes sense. Members of Allen’s “A-Team” and “B-Team” had certainly injected themselves into the political process and were fair game. For my part, I know for a fact that I was oppo’d by the Allen campaign. I have no complaints on that score … The second story is where the controversial part of this incident lies. Did Jessica Vanden Berg authorize opposition research on prominent Democratic bloggers who were allied to (and in some cases employed by) the Webb campaign? Were research dossiers or “books” compiled on some of Webb’s key supporters? It’s an important question. It implies that we were considered threats to the Webb campaign, which is odd, because most of us were involved, to some degree or another, in getting the Webb campaign off the ground. … No, it seems unlikely to me that we were perceived as a threat to Jim Webb. But were we a threat to Jessica Vanden Berg? Were we were oppo’d for that reason? Did Vanden Berg — feeling threatened by the dialogue occurring on our blogs — authorize oppo research on us to shore up her own position within the campaign?

He followed up, e-mailing Vanden Berg for confirmation or denial. And a denial he got:

We don’t have an opposition research on you. We don’t have any opposition research books on any people who blog.

And that’s what also makes this story interesting. This denial rules out more than just oppo on Jaquith, Wilmore, Feld, Tribbett and other Webb supporters, but Allen’s A-Team members including Dotson, Riley and others. The Webb camp didn’t do any research on anyone who blogged the campaign? Not even on Henke — a paid adviser to the Allen campaign?

This answer is either untenable or too revealing. Maybe they weren’t so savvy after all — perhaps we’re only finding out that they were lucky.

In any case, this one started in the blogosphere, but if these questions are to be resolved, the MSM just might have to step in.

P.S. Henke has published his own oppo file, to the best that he can recall:

When I was about 5 years old, I stole a quarter from a girl named Jennifer Weidler. It was a Bicentennial quarter, which I thought it was very cool-looking. I’ve always regretted that.

P.P.S. It’s also worth noting that Tribbett is no fan of Vanden Berg’s, though it may be immaterial to the facts in this case.

P.P.P.S. Also worth noting, a contributor to Raising Kaine, not Feld, added today:

My sources at the campaign are saying this simply isn’t true.

He probably means transition team, as the campaign has concluded. That said, it would be nice to know how many sources each blogger is citing, and which of them actually worked with Vanden Berg.

Newt Gingrich is Not Running for President

No, that’s not exactly what he said, but whether he meant to effectively drop out of the presidential race or not, that’s just what he did this week in New Hampshire. Amidst the controversy surrounding his calling the Iraq war a failure this week, this tidbit has fallen through the cracks. So let’s get down, reach as far as we can, and maybe we can knock this back into reach:

A few minutes ago, the MSNBC chyron announced that Gingrich won’t decide on a presidential run until next September. The sound was off and they’ve moved on to other segments, but I believe they’re referring to this report by James Pindell:

Gingrich said he is more concerned with injecting ideas into the campaign than himself. Monday night at a First Amendment dinner in Manchester and again Tuesday morning he said he will not consider running for president until September 2007, a relatively late date.

The third quarter of 2007 is way too late to start playing the staffing game — by that point every other candidate will have already signed up the top rung of advisers. That’s not to say a candidate couldn’t get in late and still succeed; if Wes Clark had been a better candidate, he might have pulled that off. But it’s not clear Gingrich is this kind of candidate, either. If Gingrich is waiting that long, then he’s not seriously thinking of running for president. Worse, he doesn’t even realize he should be making people think that he actually is.

NY Daily News 1995 Newt Gingrich Cry Baby coverThis must come as a disappointment to the thousands of conservative blog readers who made him their top choice in the latest GOP Bloggers straw poll, but it couldn’t have come as much of a surprise. Like the liberal bloggers for whom Russ Feingold was a runaway straw poll favorite but would probably have ended up supporting Hillary (not likely) or Edwards (more likely) even if Feingold hadn’t dropped out, by September of next year conservative bloggers will likewise be deciding to reluctantly support McCain (see: Hillary), Romney (see: Edwards), or Rudy Giuliani (it depends), regardless of what Gingrich does.

Gingrich’s candidacy — in the works at least since Mr. Clinton’s Wild Plane Ride — has always been premised on the idea of promoting conservative ideas within the context of the election, not on actually winning electoral office. Issue candidates are a time-honored part of presidential politics, so this is not duplicitous in of itself.

But issue-based candidacies only work if you actually make moves like you’re going to run — see Dennis Kucinich in the last cycle, who ran a threadbare but earnest campaign through 2003, or Duncan Hunter (who has already announced that he will run) on the GOP side this time. But Gingrich won’t even think about putting a team together until nearly a year from now, which at that point will be less than six months from the Iowa caucuses.

Running a credible presidential campaign is about creating a presence — momentum, or the appearance thereof. Newt Gingrich, needless to say, will not be creating any of this. If Gingrich won’t even bluff, the media won’t play along.

Update: Via Political Wire, the suspicion that Hillary Clinton might not run for president gets a boost from a QC Times report saying Clinton isn’t staffing up in Iowa. If true, then this wide-open free-for-all nomination race only continues to thin out.

A (NZ) Bearish Take on the New Republican Leadership

The Senate Republicans chose their leadership today, and while no one was much surprised or upset by Mitch McConnell’s ascension to Minority Leader, the return of Trent Lott to the whip position — which he held a decade ago, before becoming leader and then becoming the first major public figure to be brought low by the blogosphere — is not pleasing anyone. The leftosphere excepted, of course.

On Friday the House GOP votes on its leadership, and if conventional wisdom holds, the rightosphere may find the results even more disappointing.

Perhaps hoping to forestall the expected defeat of conservative favorites Mike Pence (for leader) and John Shadegg (for whip), pseudonymous GOP blog organizer NZ Bear — first known for his link and traffic ratings (which he compiled as a hobby long before Technorati went into business) and later for leading the Porkbusters effort — put together a successful series of conference calls wherein leadership contenders submitted themselves to the questions of conservative bloggers. (These were covered most diligently by Blog P.I.’s Higgins, Extreme Howard Mortman.)

Some of the questions were drawn from a concurrent project — the collection of nearly 300 reader-submitted questions, which were subsequently voted on by 1,135 bloggers and blog-reading individuals.

The conference calls have now concluded, and the vote is back in the hands of the House GOP caucus (where, come to think, it actually always was). But I thought it would still be worth grabbing the top- and bottom-ranked questions, as they give a pretty good insight to what the rightosphere thinks is important (and unimportant) for the 110th Congress.

First, the three most popular:

    Question: Will the GOP support a “no earmark” policy. If not, why not? Popularity: +564 Question: Will you actually defend yourselves in the mainstream media, and assign some members to a continous media communications task, or instead allow the MSM to paint you however they wish, especially to independent voters? I realize that Lynne Cheney is not an elected official, but her recent CNN interview is quite instructive. Popularity: +506 Question: What is your position on immigration? Specifically: 1. Are you in favor of funding and building the 700 mile fence on the Southern border? 2. Do you support stronger enforcement of criminal laws and civil sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants? 3. Are you for or against an expanded guest worker program and how/when would you implement such a program? 4. Do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants currently living in the US and, if so, what specific provisions do you support? Popularity: +413
There are a few irregularities here; that last one asks several distinct questions, whereas the second entry — besides possibly being planted by Dick Cheney — is really more of a complaint than a query. However, the hot-button concerns above are definitely expressed more coherently than the not-so-hot-button issues at the end of the long list:
    Question: Since, after Nov. 7, the GOP is toast this election cycle, what brand of butter do you prefer, and will that preference change after more toast becomes available after the election cycle ending in 2008? Popularity: -37 Question: Please stand up…don’t hide…and grow some ball’s..in other word’s be for the GOP Popularity: -41 Question: Will you make it a goal to make the party more appealing to moderate secular voters or will you continue the policy of reliance on the Evangelical movement? Popularity: -56

Whoever submitted that last question can be legitimately unhappy that it was deemed even less popular than the practice of spelling “balls” with an errant apostrophe.

While we’re on the subject of conservative blogger discontent with the GOP’s post-election moves, here’s what they think of the White House’s endorsement of Florida Sen. Mel Martinez over outgoing Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele to be chairman of the Republican National Committee, according to a poll conducted by Hot Air:

Rightosphere overwhelmingly favors Michael Steele to Mel Martinez for RNC chair

The right-blogosphere could have a couple of long years ahead of it — at least.