I’ll leave the reviews to others, but 24 hours after both stories hit the web, how are they doing in terms of measurable attention? Newsweek provides two metrics that we must assume are the most accurate, simply because they are based on internal numbers, even though Newsweek does not provide actual numbers. I understand why they don’t release them, but if the Digg-ification of the Internet continues apace, they will eventually. So which of the two was e-mailed more than the other?

As we see, this was a clear win for Rove. As of about 10 p.m. on Monday night, Rove’s piece has been e-mailed more often — but we still don’t know by how much. Second, Newsweek’s list of the top 10 most viewed stories:

Even without precise figures, this one paints a clearer picture: Rove is at number one, and Kos is nowhere to be found. Short of a Chris Bowers Google bomb, Rove is the greatest and most powerful.

How can this be? Kos is arguably at the zenith of his fame, with appearances on The Colbert Report and Meet the Press earlier in the year, still reigning as one of the RNC’s favorite bogeymen. Rove on the other hand is out of the White House and for all anyone knows, out of national politics. It may say something about Time readers just not knowing who Kos is, but I’m operating under the assumption that the online version of Newsweek reaches what IPDI has termed the “Poli-fluentials.” To be sure, time will tell. One possibility is that Kos, with his eminently Internet-based platform, stands to do better over the long run. But I also ran the Newsweek column’s permalinks through Technorati to find out how many times each had been linked by another blog. It wasn’t close. At all:

Rove – 108
Kos  -  23

Ouch. Then again, if you look at the top blogs linking to both articles (results above are sorted by authority) a clear majority hail from the left. Maybe the left still remains more interested in Rove than the right is in Kos.

Another possibilty is more subjective, but I’ll offer it anyway: Maybe Kos just isn’t that interesting a writer. Like more than a few in my line of work, I’ve been perusing Matt Bai’s “The Argument” lately, and Bai does little to conceal his skepticism of Moulitsas’ political knowledge. Now, I have read both articles, and I did find Rove’s much more interesting. But don’t take my word for it — the blogosphere seems to agree. I have also seen both speak in a public setting, and perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising, but the seasoned campaign veteran was certainly more compelling than his younger upstart opponent. And there was the time when Kos got a tryout with ideo-journalistic Washington, but didn’t quite make the cut.

An aside: Last week I went with my colleagues and associates Jon Henke, Leslie Bradshaw and Jesse Thomas to see Rove co-keynote Yahoo’s Citizen 2.0 midday bash with Max Cleland (!) at the Willard Intercontinental. They’ve already written about it in detail, but I can’t help noting that their study merely put a slightly different gloss on the IPDI report linked above, i.e. “Citizen 2.0″ has replaced “Poli-fluential.”

Just about Rove, however, I must say: His arguments and observations were as well-honed as any “Internet expert” I’ve seen address a political crowd. And Rove knew what he was talking about: He recalled early computer hard drives he owned, admitted to his membership in the Apple cult, delivered a paean to Moore’s Law, and mused about the long-term effects of TiVo and time-shifting. He spoke of the Allen/Webb race (though he didn’t use the word “Macaca”) and cited studies of the blogosphere like any contributor to TechPresident. That’s why I was a little surprised and disappointed to see Michael Bassik dismiss him as “Not Citzen 2.0″ when in fact the definition given by Yahoo! makes Rove almost the perfect example. I was less surprised to see Think Progress willfully misinterpret the goings-on, but Henke has that one covered. Say what you will about Karl Rove, but don’t say he’s not a geek.

On the other hand, he did mispronounce “Kos.”

P.S. This is as good a time as any to share this photo, taken with my iPhone, of Karl Rove taking a picture of me with his iPhone:

The man on the right is former Senator Cleland. Believe it or not, they got along like old chums. My guess, and it’s just a hunch, is that Cleland is better at hiding his thoughts and feelings than his boisterous persona suggests. The man on the left appears to be from an Aphex Twin video.

P.P.S. What if Rove turned to blogging? Tom DeLay’s occasionally updated blog is in relaunch limbo at the moment, which provides not the best precedent (despite my own pleasantly surprised initial reaction) but then DeLay was never known as a thinker, either, and left official Washington under considerably less triumphant circumstances. So I think Rove could do well, and I bet he would even write it. If he consented to participate in rightosphere activities like appearing on Heading Right Radio (warning: automatic audio), he could quickly become one of the most influential voices on the Internet. But even then, I’m not sure he’d be the most influential voice on the right.

P.P.P.S. Then again, we haven’t even begun to address the matter of which fledgling columnist Google thinks is the greater and more powerful.

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.

First up, Allen’s late-starting and now late official blog, Allen HQ, written by Jon Henke. Though Allen conceded yesterday afternoon, his campaign blog is still under the impression that V must be GOT:

Joe Lieberman’s victory was apparent on election night itself, and his campaign blog reflected the fact:

But when you click through…

Huh? That’s it? (Actually, this isn’t a big surprise — Olly pointed out several weeks ago that Lieberman’s blog was saddled with that line imploring one to “READ THE FULL BLOG POST” regardless of whether there was more to read or not (Note: These screen shots were taken last evening; the site is now kaput)).

And how about his challenger, the August primary victor, Ned Lamont?

It would seem Lamont’s contract with blog consultant Tim Tagaris ran longer than Allen’s with Jon Henke.

Bob Casey was a big winner — maybe the first-declared Democratic pickup, and his bloggers have kept it up since then, expanding its focus to congratulate other candidates:

Too bad the layout is a snore.

Bill Frist may or may not still be running for president, but his blog appears to be still active:

Too bad nothing on the blog he sponsors is necessarily reflective of Frist’s actual opinions. [Whoops. Definitely our bad. See the comments. So, uh, too bad there's no actual blog on the main page?]

James Webb’s campaign blog looks as if it might continue on:

But like Casey’s blog, and Webb and Casey both, it’s a tad on the boring side.

Same goes for newly elected Montana Sen. Jon Tester, Webb’s sort-of-lookalike:

Larry Grant did not win his campaign to represent Idaho’s first district:

Grant’s campaign was actually more successful than one might expect, winning 45% in very conservative ID 01. Add points for hosting the official campaign blog on Typepad — very bloggy. Subtract points for pretending the official campaign blog was the work of the “grassroots” — not very bloggy.

Mike Bouchard failed to unseat Sen. Debbie Stabenow in Michigan, but he did succeed in posting one final message to his official blog:

So did outgoing Sen. Rick Santorum:

That underlined text? Not links, just emphasis — a staple of this particular campaign site, and no others on this list. Makes you wonder if the blog was written by the same people responsible for his fundraising letters.

Rep. Mark Kennedy lost his Senate bid to Senator-elect Amy Klobuchar, which is why the headline on his latest post will make you do a double-take:

Note the date and content; Kennedy’s is one of several campaign blogs that seem to have been abandoned prior to the election. But by more than a month? Pathetic.

Another pre-election abandonment, perhaps more surprisingly, was successful Senator-reelect Bob Menendez:

Before Halloween? Not quite pathetic; merely lame.

Ditto re-elected Rep. Jan Schakowsky:

Though SchaBLOGsky is a pretty good title, almost as cheesily amusing as Jim Webb’s “WebbLog.”

At least Ohio Gov-elect Ted Strickland managed to keep his staffers blogging into November:

Nice use of Frappr and LiveJournal, too.

And Debbie Stabenow, like Allen, managed to get through to election day — but no further:

I submit that failure to post a thank-you note after the campaign’s conclusion is a passive statement of a lack of commitment to engaging the political blogosphere. Maybe most people will never notice, but it can’t leave a good impression on those who do.

Worse, though, is the statement made by the current state of the blog promoting failed House candidate Bill Winter in Colorado:

404? Well, at least it’s fitting.

Last week Danny Glover, my former colleague at the National Journal Group, went through the FEC reports of candidates for federal office to report just how much their campaigns were paying the bloggers and new media coordinators in their employ.

It was a fascinating and useful article, though it could have used a sidebar or two breaking out the details. Who is the best-paid campaign blogger? Which campaign spent the most? What would these bloggers make if prorated to a yearly salary?

So with the help of Olly Ruff, my capable and mathematically-inclined co-blogger, we’ve done just that. And then some. Before we get started, some disclaimers are in order:

By “prorated salary,” we mean that monthly (approximate) salaries have been prorated to annual salaries; these figures are not meant to indicate the blogger actually made or will make this amount. Jon Henke of QandO, for example, has only been with the Allen campaign for a few months. Likewise, “lump sumps” refer to larger payments made at irregular times. They could be one-off or recurring. These figures are not meant to indicate an annual rate. Unless otherwise noted, numbers are from 2006.

It is also worth remembering that some of these advisers are bloggers, some are more senior advisers, and some are both. Additionally, some advisers may keep other jobs — Daou still does The Daou Report for Salon, but no longer writes commentary there; David All is merely on loan from a similar position with Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA).

Like a poll, this is a snapshot and only a snapshot. We didn’t have the time or resources to go back and look at how long each blogger had actually worked for a given candidate, so the prorated numbers should be taken with a dash of Morton’s. All numbers come from Glover’s piece, and if we haven’t made it clear already, some are approximate.

All right, that should do. Here’s how we’ve broken it down:

   Candidates
a. By prorated salary paid (Democrats)
b. By prorated salary paid (Republicans)
c. By prorated salary paid (combined)
d. By lump sum (Democrats)
e. By lump sum (Republicans)
f. By lump sum (combined)

   Bloggers/Advisers
g. By prorated salary (Democrats)
h. By prorated salary (Republicans)
i. By prorated salary (combined)
j. By lump sum (Democrats)
k. By lump sum (Republicans)
l. By lump sum (combined)

After the charts, we’ll share a few notes and observations. Just as you can click on the links above to take you to a specific chart, you can also click here to read those. Let’s go:

a. By candidate, prorated salary paid (Democrats)


Candidate	Campaign	Blogger/Adviser	Payment/Expenditure
Sen. Hillary Clinton	NY SEN incumbent	Jesse Berney; Peter Daou1	$15,600; $60,000 (by way of FOH/HILLPAC)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow	MI SEN incumbent	Laura Packard, Aaron Hofman	$44,400; $26,400
Rep. Jan Schakowsky	IL 09 incumbent	Alex Armour	$38,400
Treas. Bob Casey	PA SEN Rick Santorum	Jon Jones	$33,600
State Sen. Jon Tester	MT SEN Conrad Burns	Andrew Tweeten	$31,200
Sen. Robert Menendez	NJ SEN incumbent	Scott Shields	$34,860 (up from starting $30,744)
Rep. Ted Strickland	OH GOV open	Jesse Taylor	$24,600
Atty Larry Grant	ID 01 open	Julie Fanselow	$15,600
Atty Bill Winter	CO 06 Tom Tancredo	Aaron Silverstein	$10,200

Return to top

b. By candidate, prorated salary paid (Republicans)



Candidate	Campaign	Blogger/Adviser	Payment/Expenditure
Sen. Rick Santorum	PA SEN incumbent	Mindy Finn; Luke Bernstein	$52,800; $51,600
Rep. Mark Kennedy	MN SEN open	Michael Brodkorb	$55,200
Sen. George Allen	VA SEN incumbent	Jon Henke2	$27,600
Sen. Bill Frist	WH’08 (prospective)	Stephen Smith	$22,400 (by way of VOLPAC)

Return to top

c. By candidate, prorated salary paid (combined)



Candidate	Campaign	Blogger/Adviser	Payment/Expenditure
Sen. Rick Santorum	PA SEN incumbent	Mindy Finn; Luke Bernstein	$52,800; $51,600
Sen. Hillary Clinton	NY SEN incumbent	Jesse Berney; Peter Daou	$15,600; $60,000 (by way of FOH/HILLPAC)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow	MI SEN incumbent	Laura Packard, Aaron Hofman	$44,400; $26,400
Rep. Mark Kennedy	MN SEN open	Michael Brodkorb	$55,200
Rep. Jan Schakowsky	IL 09 incumbent	Alex Armour	$38,400
Sen. Robert Menendez	NJ SEN incumbent	Scott Shields	$34,860 (up from starting $30,744)
Treas. Bob Casey	PA SEN Rick Santorum	Jon Jones	$33,600
State Sen. Jon Tester	MT SEN Conrad Burns	Andrew Tweeten	$31,200
Sen. George Allen	VA SEN incumbent	Jon Henke	$27,600
Rep. Ted Strickland	OH GOV open	Jesse Taylor	$24,600
Sen. Bill Frist	WH’08 prospective	Stephen Smith	$22,400 (by way of VOLPAC)
Atty Larry Grant	ID 01 open	Julie Fanselow	$15,600
Atty Bill Winter	CO 06 Tom Tancredo	Aaron Silverstein	$10,200

Return to top

d. By candidate, lump sum (Democrats)

Candidate	Campaign	Blogger/Adviser	Payment/Expenditure
Rep. Sherrod Brown	OH SEN Mike DeWine	Jerome Armstrong; Tim Tagaris	$100,000 (2005-2006); $17,000 (2005)
Ex-Navy Sec. James Webb	VA SEN George Allen	Abraham (Josh) Chernila; Lowell Feld	$7,700; $3,600
Sen. Jon Corzine	NJ GOV ‘05 won	Jerome Armstrong; Matt Stoller	$39,000; $31,000
Ex-Gov. Mark Warner	WH’08 withdrawn	Jerome Armstrong	$65,000
Sen. Joe Lieberman	CT SEN incumbent	Dan Gerstein	$21,000 (Sept 2006)
Cable exec Ned Lamont	CT SEN Joe Lieberman	Tim Tagaris	$21,000 (Jul-Sept 2006)

Return to top

e. By candidate, lump sum (Republicans)


Candidate	Campaign	Blogger/Adviser	Payment/Expenditure
Sen. John McCain	WH’08 prospective	Patrick Hynes	$31,500
Sheriff Mike Bouchard	MI SEN Debbie Stabenow	David All	$6,468 (Sept 2006)

Return to top

f. By candidate, lump sum (combined)



Candidate	Campaign	Blogger/Adviser	Payment/Expenditure
Rep. Sherrod Brown	OH SEN Mike DeWine	Jerome Armstrong; Tim Tagaris	$100,000 (2005-2006); $17,000 (2005)
Ex-Navy Sec. James Webb	VA SEN George Allen	Abraham (Josh) Chernila; Lowell Feld	$77,00; $3,600
Sen. Jon Corzine	NJ GOV ‘05 won	Jerome Armstrong; Matt Stoller	$39,000; $31,000
Ex-Gov. Mark Warner	WH’08 withdrawn	Jerome Armstrong	$65,000
Sen. John McCain	WH’08 prospective	Patrick Hynes	$31,500
Sen. Joe Lieberman	CT SEN incumbent	Dan Gerstein	$21,000 (Sept 2006)
Cable exec Ned Lamont	CT SEN Joe Lieberman	Tim Tagaris	$21,000 (Jul-Sept 2006)
Sheriff Mike Bouchard	MI SEN Debbie Stabenow	David All	$6,468 (Sept 2006)

Return to top

g. By blogger/adviser, prorated salary (Democrats)


Blogger/Adviser	Payment/Expenditure	Candidate	Campaign
Peter Daou	$60,000 (by way of FOH/HILLPAC)	Sen. Hillary Clinton	NY SEN incumbent
Laura Packard	$44,400	Sen. Debbie Stabenow	MI SEN incumbent
Alex Armour	$38,400	Rep. Jan Schakowsky	IL 09 incumbent
Scott Shields	$34,860 (up from starting $30,744)	Sen. Robert Menendez	incumbent
Jon Jones	$33,600	Treas. Bob Casey	PA SEN Rick Santorum
Andrew Tweeten	$31,200	State Sen. Jon Tester	MT SEN Conrad Burns
Aaron Hofman	$26,400	Sen. Debbie Stabenow	MI SEN incumbent
Jesse Taylor	$24,600	Rep. Ted Strickland	OH GOV open
Jesse Berney	$15,600 (by way of HILLPAC)	Sen. Hillary Clinton	NY SEN incumbent
Julie Fanselow	$15,600	Atty Larry Grant	ID 01 open
Aaron Silverstein	$10,200	Atty Bill Winter	CO 06 Tom Tancredo

Return to top

h. By blogger/adviser, prorated salary (Republicans)


Blogger/Adviser	Payment/Expenditure	Candidate	Campaign
Michael Brodkorb	$55,200	Rep. Mark Kennedy	MN SEN open
Mindy Finn	$52,800	Sen. Rick Santorum	PA SEN incumbent
Luke Bernstein	$51,600	Sen. Rick Santorum	PA SEN incumbent
Jon Henke	$27,600	Sen. George Allen	VA SEN incumbent
Stephen Smith	$22,400 (by way of VOLPAC)	Sen. Bill Frist	WH’08 prospective

Return to top

i. By blogger/adviser, prorated salary (combined)


Blogger/Adviser	Payment/Expenditure	Candidate	Campaign
Peter Daou	$60,000 (by way of FOH/HILLPAC)	Sen. Hillary Clinton	NY SEN incumbent
Michael Brodkorb	$55,200	Rep. Mark Kennedy	MN SEN open
Mindy Finn	$52,800	Sen. Rick Santorum	PA SEN incumbent
Luke Bernstein	$51,600	Sen. Rick Santorum	PA SEN incumbent
Laura Packard	$44,400	Sen. Debbie Stabenow	MI SEN incumbent
Alex Armour	$38,400	Rep. Jan Schakowsky	IL 09 incumbent
Jon Jones	$33,600	Treas. Bob Casey	PA SEN Rick Santorum
Andrew Tweeten	$31,200	State Sen. Jon Tester	MT SEN Conrad Burns
Aaron Hofman	$26,400	Sen. Debbie Stabenow	MI SEN incumbent
Scott Shields	$34,860 (up from starting $30,744)	Sen. Robert Menendez	NJ SEN incumbent
Jon Henke	$27,600	Sen. George Allen	VA SEN incumbent
Jesse Taylor	$24,600	Rep. Ted Strickland	OH GOV (open)
Stephen Smith	$22,400 (by way of VOLPAC)	Sen. Bill Frist	WH’08 prospective
Jesse Berney	$15,600 (by way of HILLPAC)	Sen. Hillary Clinton	NY SEN incumbent
Julie Fanselow	$15,600	Atty Larry Grant	ID 01 open
Aaron Silverstein	$10,200	Atty Bill Winter	CO 06 Tom Tancredo

Return to top

j. By blogger/adviser, lump sum (Democrats)


Blogger/Adviser	Payment/Expenditure	Candidate	Campaign
Jerome Armstrong	$204,000	Jon Corzine; Sherrod Brown; Mark Warner	NJ GOV ‘05 (won); OH SEN Mike DeWine; WH’08 (withdrawn)
Abraham (Josh) Chernila	$7,700	James Webb	VA SEN George Allen
Tim Tagaris	$38,000 (2005-2006)	Sherrod Brown; Ned Lamont	OH SEN Mike DeWine; CT SEN Joe Lieberman
Matt Stoller	$31,000	Jon Corzine	NJ GOV ‘05 open
Dan Gerstein	$21,000 (Sept 2006)	Sen. Joe Lieberman	CT SEN incumbent
Lowell Feld	$3,600	James Webb	VA SEN George Allen

Return to top

k. By blogger/adviser, lump sum (Republicans)


Blogger/Adviser	Payment/Expenditure	Candidate	Campaign
Patrick Hynes	$31,500	Sen. John McCain	WH’08 prospective
David All	$6,468 (Sept 2006)	Mike Bouchard	MI SEN Debbie Stabenow

Return to top

l. By blogger/adviser, lump sum (combined)



Blogger/Adviser	Payment/Expenditure	Candidate	Campaign
Jerome Armstrong	$204,000	Sen. Jon Corzine; Rep. Sherrod Brown; Ex-Gov. Mark Warner	NJ GOV ‘05 won; OH SEN Mike DeWine; WH’08 withdrawn
Abraham (Josh) Chernila	$7,700	Ex-Navy Sec. James Webb	VA SEN George Allen
Tim Tagaris	$38,000 (2005-2006)	Rep. Sherrod Brown; Cable exec Ned Lamont	OH SEN Mike DeWine; CT SEN Joe Lieberman
Patrick Hynes	$31,500	Sen. John McCain	WH’08 prospective
Matt Stoller	$31,000	Sen. Jon Corzine (won)	NJ GOV ‘05 open
Dan Gerstein	$21,000 (Sept 2006)	Sen. Joe Lieberman	CT SEN incumbent
David All	$6,468 (Sept 2006)	Sheriff Mike Bouchard	MI SEN Debbie Stabenow
Lowell Feld	$3,600	Ex-Navy Sec. James Webb	VA SEN George Allen

Return to top

And now, as promised, some additional thoughts:

• So, which blogs are they running, anyway? Here’s the list of blogs sponsored by the aforementioned campaigns.
• AllenHQ
• Blog of Joe
• Bob Casey Blog
• Blogs from VOLPAC
• Born Fighting: The WebbLog
• Grassroots for Grant
• Mark Kennedy for U.S. Senate
• Menendez for Senate Blog
• Mike Bouchard Blog
• Official Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate Campaign Blog
• Running with Rick Blog²
• SchaBLOGsky
• Stabenow Blog
• Strickland Blog
• Tester Time!
• Winter for Congress
• Which candidates have hired new media consultants but do not have blogs? They are none other than McCain and Clinton, whose 2008 presidential campaigns have yet to get underway (assuming they both run, which in the latter case is no certainty). Among the campaigns concluded, the only one still active is Mark Warner’s Forward Together Blog; currently it’s giving updates on Warner’s travels campaigning for Jim Webb.
• Corzine Connection and Sherrod Brown’s Grow Ohio, however, are more than defunct — not only are they no longer online, they cannot be found at the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. nor in Google’s cache.

  Additionally, Corzine was elected to New Jersey’s governorship a year ago, put away the blog with his campaign site then, and for what it’s worth, has battled back from low approval ratings without a presence in the blogosphere. Yet Brown shut down his site not long after announcing for Senate; he understandably shied away from the ’sphere, as it seemed to cause him nothing but headaches.

• Clearly, and none too surprisingly, Democratic candidates are hiring more bloggers and new media advisers than Republicans. (They are also more enthusiastic about paying in lump sums.) It seems to me that if your party is on the outs, you’re more likely to embrace new methods of reaching people than if you’re already in power and relatively complacent. The exception is if you’re an outsider in your own party (read: McCain), or behind in your own race. Santorum has been spending like there’s no tomorrow (about $11,000/month on bloggers alone) — and in his case, there probably isn’t.

  The only question is why more Republicans didn’t start blogs this time. Well, Allen didn’t until he had no choice, and more than a few vulnerable Republicans this time didn’t find themselves in real trouble until late (Chris Shays), can’t really face up to the scrutiny (Don Sherwood) or both (Curt Weldon).

  Wait for 2008.

• And it isn’t just Santorum who’s putting down a lot of money. Republicans may have hired fewer bloggers than have Democrats, but on the whole they’re paying them more. This may have something to do with fundraising, and especially the fact that all bloggers listed here are incumbents — even though Rep. Kennedy is running for the Senate, he of course has been in Washington for some time already. But if you’re going to be a Democrat heading off to work for a member of your party, it’s highly advisable that you write for MyDD first.
• There is sure to be a fallow period after the election; between Nov. 8 and sometime next year, chances are there will be very few candidates employing bloggers — because the only “candidates” will be those mulling a run at the White House.

  But a year from now, the numbers will surely return to this level, and in 2008 it’s highly probable many more bloggers and new media this-or-thats will be working for various incumbents and challengers. Blogging may be well-entrenched in the mediasphere, but politicians have been slower in recognizing their utility.

• And because we are never entirely above cheap shots here at Blog P.I. there is one additional moral to be divined from these numbers: Astrology works.

What do you think? Any angles we’ve missed? Let us know in the comments.

P.S. I think we knew this would happen:

1. The most significant update concerns Peter Daou. As Danny Glover corrects at Beltway Blogroll today, Daou draws a $3,750 monthly check from Friends of Hillary in addition to $1,250 from HILLPAC. This moves Hillary Clinton into first place as among Democrats in spending (second overall only to Santorum), and Daou to number one among consultants in terms of compensation.

Another note: This is in addition to Daou’s consulting for other clients including Media Matters and the AARP, but since we’re just talking about electoral campaigns, we’ll leave them aside. As noted above, these numbers are not meant to be taken as the individual’s total salary.

2. I’ve added a note to Henke’s name (which Olly had put in but I took out) noting that this number here is almost certainly off. Of course, we might’ve added this to virtually all of the numbers, but Henke being the last-hired among the goup here, there was even less information to go on. Just FYI.

3. I also goofed and listed SantorumBlog as the official campaign blog. The actual official blog has now replaced it in the list above.

More to come as necessary.

Now Webb has set aside writing novels for politics, and by the dictates of modern web campaigning, he can be found in another “book.” That is to say, Facebook. (Thanks, I’ll be here all week.)

Having graduated from college two years before the company was founded, I haven’t been a Facebook user in the past. Only this morning, after getting a tip about the contents of Webb’s account, did I register for an account. So here is the very top of the front page of his profile:

And here’s why I logged in — wouldn’t you like to know what kind of issue/lifestyle groups this possible junior senator from Virginia belongs?

Jim Webb, meet Jonathan Frist and Julia Corker.

But what of it? As a dispassionate observer, I say not much. It’s not clear to me that Webb intentionally signed up for this group (and others like it, though they are now lost to history (and by history I mean the servers at Facebook HQ)) in the first place and something must be said for the fact that the screen shot I provide is Webb leaving the group.

If someone wanted to press the issue (like maybe a certain current junior senator from Virginia) they probably could, though they’d have to monitor Webb’s Facebook page for longer than I have. And if Webb’s commercial storytelling is relevant to the campaign, why not his social networking?

* Even Allen’s new media coordinator Jon Henke, writing at the campaign-sponsored Allen HQ blog, sounds a little non-committal about whether Webb’s fiction is relevant:

Democratic blogger Andy Borowitz said of Scooter Libby’s book, “Read into it what you will.” Whether voters think what Webb has written is relevant or irrelevant, so be it. Nevertheless, it is part and parcel of the public record he has cited, so let the voters judge for themselves.

I’m not sure “Democratic blogger” would be the first description I’d use for Borowitz — to the left of Scrappleface, okay; co-creator of “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air,” sure; a wannabe one-man The Onion, most definitely.

But I digress: Though Henke has taken some lumps for changing his tune to align with his current employer, I think this time he might be doing more than just harmonizing.

Besides giving the Webb library a boost at Amazon, I don’t know what this line of attack accomplished besides making Allen look desperate. If anything, it seems more likely to create a backlash against substance-free negative tactics. Their internal polls must not look very good.

Update: A Republican campaign staffer points out to me that Facebook created pages for every major federal candidate this cycle. Guess who else has one? That’s right: George Allen. But it doesn’t appear that the campaign has done anything with it.

THOMASINA: [T]he enemy … burned the great library of Alexandria without so much as a fine for all that is overdue. Oh, Septimus! — can you bear it? All the lost plays of the Athenians! Two hundred at least by Aeschlylus, Sophocles, Euripides — thousands of poems — Aristotle’s own library brought to Egypt by the noodle’s [Cleopatra's] ancestors! How can we sleep for grief?

SEPTIMUS: By counting our stock. Seven plays from Aeschylus, seven from Sophocles, nineteen from Euripides, my lady! You should no more grieve for the rest than for a buckle lost from your first shoe, or for your lesson book which will be lost when you are old. We shed as we pick up, like travellers who must carry everything in their arms, and what we let fall will be picked up by those behind. The procession is very long and life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it. The missing plays of Sophocles will turn up piece by piece, or be written again in another language. Ancient cures for diseases will reveal themselves once more. Mathematical discoveries glimpsed and lost to view will have their time again. You do not suppose, my lady, that if all of Archimedes had been hiding in the great library of Alexandria, we would be at a loss for a corkscrew?

In the meantime, we have ample evidence that mere cliché will be repeated often and unembarrassedly as long as it remains useful. Illustrations below the fold:

The New Republic, Oct 18:

Los Angeles Times, Sept. 6:

New York Times [$], Aug. 20:

Rolling Stone, Aug. 16:

Blog P.I., August 8:

Connecticut Local Politics, July 24:

Sure, it’s no Archimedes’ screw, but it has life in it yet.

P.S. I can’t say I completely agree with Roy Edroso’s recent first take on the play, but his post is nevertheless absolutely recommended.

Sure, why not? That whole “video” thing was just getting in the way — nobody actually believed Google was storing all those clips of The Colbert Report on magnetic tape, I hope.

I won’t pretend to know whether Google is ever going to see the $1.65 billion they just put down on YouTube ever again, but I will pretend to know what this is going to mean for news consumers toward the end of the year.

You see, it’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! And, in this year of the Lamonsters and Macaca and Lonelygirl15, I have a guess as to what it will be:

P.S. Of course, other questions remain, including all of the important ones. Such as what does happen to Google Video? And what will Mark Cuban say now? Actually, he’s already sounded off at Blog Maverick. And though still sees a rocky future ahead for the proud new parent company (he calls them “crazy”), he offers a small concession, in his semi-literate way:

And what if Im completely, absolutely wrong and no one sues anyone ? That everyone just loves the fact that their content is available to tens of millions of viewers and advertisers and Youtube and Google definitely qualify to be protected behind the Safe Harbors of the DMCA ?

That Im an idiot and it really is different this time, and the content companies have all recognized that ?

Well, I’m ready for that too. I went ahead and registered www.effingreat.com because thats how much fun its going to be using Filesanywhere.com features to support a “load everything you own and share it with world” website.

I will host in the same way as Youtube and Google. Upload in the same, dont ask, dont tell approach. I will sell ads however they do.

This seems rather petulant for a man worth upwards of a billion dollars. On the other hand, that’s billionaires for you. [Update: Rex Hammock, commenting on the same post, calls Cuban "an expert on crazy. And I think I mean that as a compliment."]

In the tech blogosphere (which, to be fair, is the original blogosphere) most of the discussion so far is mindless chatter, though Michael Arrington sat in on the joint conference call and took notes.

P.S. Valleywag is calling the acquisition GoogTube. With all due respect, I like mine better. And yet, Robert Scoble’s typo repetition is actually better than what either of us came up with.

P.P.S. Not Paul Begala suggests Gtube:

He may be onto something.

Update: More substantively, now that it sounds like Google Video will remain and YouTube will continue to be called YouTube, I expect that YouTube will be relieved of pressure to compete with Apple’s iTunes Music Store — which by now is hardly an accurate name* — and can continue on its path to becoming the MySpace of video. Google Video, meanwhile, with its longer videos, higher resolution, downloadability and monetization, now must compete with iTMS.

Schmidt/Brin/Page vs. Murdoch and Jobs? That should be fun.

* I have since been informed that with the release of iTunes 7, the iTMS is now simply called the iTunes Store. Still not quite right.

For instance, this passage caught my eye from today’s Washington Post, on the Jewish question at Monday’s debate between Webb and George Allen:

Yesterday, [Allen manager Dick] Wadhams accused Webb’s campaign and liberal bloggers of anti-Semitism for raising the issue of the senator’s religious background.

Bloggers, some of whom are on Webb’s staff, spent yesterday writing furiously about the debate question and Allen’s answer. “What does Allen have against Jews?” one headline read on a national liberal blog.

“Introducing religion at all into the debate was inappropriate. It makes no difference what anybody’s religion is,” Wadhams said.

That “national liberal blog” happens to be Daily Kos, and the blogger quoted is Markos Moulitsas himself. If there is any blog or blogger whose opinion is liable to be cited by name in a political newspaper, it would be this blog and blogger.

That Kos and dKos is is reduced to a “national liberal blog” — months after the Post and virtually every political news outlet lavished attention on the related Yearly Kos conference — puts into perspective just how much (or how little) the blogosphere is part of the debate even three years after the Dean campaign.

Are the blogs worth consulting? From time to time, certainly. Is it worth differentiating among them? It appears not.

Engage like-minded bloggers to get them behind your campaign. Let them bash the Post for you. Hold conference calls with them. Grant interviews to bloggers. Write entries for their sites and respond to readers when you do. Hire a blog expert to connect with online activists. Those are the kinds of things smart candidates already are doing.

Consider the advice taken. On Friday morning, Richmond-based blogger and former radio personality Jon Henke announced he would be joining Allen’s re-election campaign as a Netroots coordinator:

Obviously, this will change my focus quite a bit, but I will continue to blog at QandO whenever possible, generally on the issues and stories in this very important Virginia Senate race.

As a right-libertarian, Henke generally supports Republicans, but he can’t be pegged an apologist, and has on occasion sided with liberal bloggers over conservatives. I haven’t met Henke in person, but in correspondence going back more than a year, he’s struck me as serious and thoughtful. He’s a good get for them.

As often is the case with newly-created positions related to the blogosphere, even Henke isn’t completely sure how he’ll spend his working hours, but his mission includes “helping to close the strategic blogosphere gap.” Says Henke, via e-mail:

The leftosphere is very good at getting their campaign message to bloggers, getting bloggers to talk about the campaigns and spreading the muck through back channels. The Allen campaign wants to establish some outreach to supportive bloggers and to make sure our side of heard when the Leftosphere is smearing us.

The hire is too late to be damage control, but it should be insurance against future controversies. Allen isn’t the only candidate hurt this year because their media consultants are unsuited to the strange new landscape of user-generated media. (How many have even heard the term “Web 2.0″?) The Allen camp’s multiple revisions of what “macaca” meant is a good example. The breakthrough, if there was one, came from Chad Dotson, a conservative blogger unafilliated with but sympathetic to the campaign. Henke too had Allen’s back, although either one could have ignored the situation. Now the Allen camp has a go-to guy in Henke, and that’s important.

Henke’s widely-read blog is certainly an asset, but that too raises new questions: Henke says he is not proscribed from writing about anything in particular, but he’s also in the odd position of having two co-equal bloggers at QandO. While Dale Franks and Bruce McQuain are supportive of his decision, the possibility exists that they will disagree about some campaign-related issue yet to arise. Henke tells me: “I will not — can not — tell them what to write and what not to write.”

The flip side is that it recalls the issue of whether Democrats Mark Warner and Sherrod Brown hiring Jerome Armstrong meant getting positive coverage from Armstrong pal Markos Moulitsas as well. Of course, there were never any serious allegation of quid pro quo there, only suspicions. Because Henke is the lone QandO contributor who actually lives in Virginia, my guess is that the other two will follow his lead a bit but largely focus on other matters — and you can be sure the lefty blogs in Old Dominion will keep an eye on it.

Also worth noting: Compared to the disclosure issues surrounding John McCain’s web consultants, Henke and the Allen campaign have handled the announcement in an entirely appropriate manner. Henke suspended his own blogging after the 28th, while discussions were ongoing with Allen’s camp, then announced the change in his first post back, and has since added a disclaimer to the bottom of each post:

“Jon Henke is the Netroots Coordinator for the George Allen Senate campaign.”

Interesting, then, that Pat Hynes and Nicco Mele are PR and campaign veterans — yet they were outed by reporters, and ended up looking less professional because of it. Hynes and Mele had certain imperatives from their other jobs that conflicted with their blogging disclosure, but as a hobbyist turned pro, Henke didn’t have to contend with the same issues. He also benefited from having so recently seen what not to do. And though it’s more a case of avoiding a pitfall than doing something especially brilliant, it bodes well enough for Henke that he passed this test.

Lizza doesn’t add a whole lot to the discussion, though he does wring his hands in a manner of which previous commentators have declined:

Some political analysts say that YouTube could force candidates to stop being so artificial, since they know their true personalities will come out anyway. “It will favor a kind of authenticity and directness and honesty that is frankly going to be good,” said Carter Eskew, a media consultant who worked for Senator Lieberman’s primary campaign. “People will say what they really think rather than what they think people want to hear.”

But others see a future where politicians are more vapid and risk averse than ever. Matthew Dowd, a longtime strategist for President Bush who is now a partner in a social networking Internet venture, Hot Soup, looks at the YouTube-ization of politics, and sees the death of spontaneity.

I don’t know the answer to this question; my fallback response is: Some of both. More interesting, I think, is why the two consultants split on the question. Some might guess that Democrats are quicker to embrace new campaign techniques whereas Republicans are slower to deem them necessary, and there may be some truth to that. The GOP had no GOTV strategy to speak of until 2002, although they’ve more than caught up since.

But I think it has less to do with party ideology than recent party (or factional) fortunes, and you’re more likely to embrace (and talk up) a new technology if you need it to deliver for you. In 2004, Dowd helped fend off an unprecedented new media assault on President Bush, so he’s got all the more reason to downplay its positive effects. But there’s also iconoclasts like John McCain, who face uphill battles inside the Republican party, and as of late has been courting conservative online activists to that end.

What interesting things Lizza does have to say about YouTube’s impact is arguably just as true about mere text-based blogging:

These days journalists are concerned not just about being cut out, but about being part of the show. Reporters often suffer the wrath of bloggers in the same way politicians do. At a recent conference of political bloggers in Las Vegas, reporters more than once reminded one another to be discreet in their conversations because anything overheard was fair game for bloggers to post.

Now, as the campaign trail turns into a 24-hour live set, members of the press corps may find themselves starring on YouTube. “At least one big-time journalist will have their career or life ruined because some element of their behavior that was heretofore private will be exposed publicly,” predicted a senior adviser to a potential 2008 presidential candidate.

If you think YouTube is necessary for that, well, tell that to Dan Rather.

And Lizza’s “to be sure” section is particularly weak:

Then again, YouTube’s impact on politics may be exaggerated. For one, the site’s users are generally young and not highly engaged politically.

“Most social networking sites cater to younger audiences, 18 to 24,” says Michael Bassik, vice president of Internet advertising at MSHC Partners, which advises candidates on media strategies. “For the most part, it’s not political conversations taking place there.”

And maybe the Allen video wasn’t all that shocking after all.

Jeff Jarvis, author of the BuzzMachine blog and an Internet consultant to The New York Times Company, doesn’t think all that much has changed.

“Is it news that politicians say stupid things?” he asks. “Of course not.”

As for the former point, arguing that just because political videos don’t draw the same traffic as, say, that especially compelling video where a young woman took one picture of herself each day for three years is a straw man if I’ve ever seen one (and I suspect Lizza has quoted Bassik out of context). All such a video has to do is be “out there,” and YouTube undoubtedly accomplishes that.

As for the latter, well, tell that to Senator Allen.

P.S. Ohio’s Psychobilly Democrat makes a similar argument to that of my penultimate paragraph, noting: “The networked natured of blogs, that one links to another’s content, makes the blunders more accessible to more people across greater ranges of space.” To which I would add, it’s more evidence that all politics is national.