website statistics

Archive for the 'Hotline' Category

The Cult of Chuck Todd

Hey, I’m as big a fan of Chuck Todd as anyone*, and the Viva Chuck Todd blog from Cerebral Itch is inspired:

Viva Chuck Todd blog header

Especially the e-mail interviews with his grandmother in Florida. But now this is really getting out of hand:

Chuckolytes Unite behind Chuck Todd, whatever that means.

(Click the image to visit the site.) I’m not even sure what “Chuckolyte” is supposed to mean. Is it a play on “electrolyte”? Is it supposed to sound like “chocolate”? Not that either would make any sense. Nor have the folks behind Cerebral Itch explained what it’s supposed to mean. [Update: Via the "Viva Chuck Todd Editorial Dept." in the comments, it is a play on "acolyte." Makes sense now, but a little convoluted.]

A former fellow Hotliner asked the other day what Chuck thinks of his newfound following. I haven’t asked, and I’m not going to bother him with this. This is partly because my answer was: I’m sure he’s aware of it, but I’m also sure he isn’t paying it that much attention.

I will give them this — the graphics are all pretty good, even this weird, stylized icon of the best goatee in cable news:

Chuck Todd icon

*Arguably bigger, since he gave me my first paying job in Washington.

The Gestalt of The Politico

The Gestalt of the Politico

The Politico is produced just a couple floors below the office whence I type these words, and its staff has counted more than a few of my fellow former Hotline colleagues. Heck, I’ve got two of their promotional coffee mugs in my kitchen cupboard at home. So I take great interest in this American Journalism Review article on its first two years in existence. Here’s how it begins:

When veteran Washington Post political reporters John Harris and Jim VandeHei urged their bosses to create a Web site strictly dedicated to politics, management didn’t jump at the idea.

Less than two years later, Politico, the venture they envisioned – and left the Post to take on – is a success, and a politics-only site is “under study” at the Post, according to Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr.

“The proof is in the figures,” says Harris, Politico’s editor in chief. In May, it had 3.5 million unique visitors and 25.1 million page views, according to Nielsen/Net Ratings. Editor & Publisher ranked Politico the 10th-most-visited newspaper site that month.

Although Harris would not reveal revenue or advertising numbers, he says Politico’s operations are already self-sustaining and the Allbritton Communications-owned publication should be profitable next year. Print advertising provides about 60 percent of its revenue, VandeHei says.

Under normal circumstances, nobody expects print ventures to be profitable in a short period of time. The last few years have been anything but normal, with newspapers in particular hemorrhaging readers and surgically removing staff writers.

Yet the Politico seems more relevant than ever. Though it is not without its flaws, perhaps this is what makes it so timely. And if it really is just a year from profitability, that’s a good sign for the news industry, right?

Not so fast, says Ezra Klein, in a post at The American Prospect:

Here you have this forward-thinking, primarily virtual venture to create a political news organization that marries old-school reporting values to the speed and the immediacy of the web and it actually works. A year-and-a-half after launch, it’s getting 3.5 million unique visitors per month and 25 million page views. And yet not only is it unprofitable, but 60 percent of its revenues come from advertising in the 27,000 circulation print version. In other words: Politico got the online readership it dreamed of, but it hasn’t come even close to figuring out how to monetize it.

This makes sense. After all, massively popular websites like Facebook, Digg and MySpace can’t figure out how to make money off their audiences — why should a news site? Especially why a news site that’s entirely about politics? Everyone knows that politics isn’t where the money is. Consider, for example, how James Joyner subsidizes his high-minded Outside the Beltway blog with the lower-brow Gone Hollywood.

But not so fast again, says Kevin Drum, at The Washington Monthly:

But there’s another way of looking at it: without a website, The Politico would be dead in the water. If, instead of being almost profitable, it were still hemorrhaging a few million bucks a year with break-even years away, there’s a pretty good chance Allbritton would just shut it down. …

Bottom line: Print gets you respect and big dollar advertisers. The web gets you buzz and a nice chunk of additional revenue. The future — part of it, anyway — belongs to those who can successfully combine multiple media platforms into a single profitable whole. So far, it looks like The Politico has done that.

The premise is more complicated, but fair: the whole point of The Politico was to create an online-offline (and even televised) news hybrid. The Albrittons wouldn’t have bankrolled it in the first place without a website. And I do like the takeaway: the print and web editions can be mutually reinforcing.

This works in a glorified company town like Washington, where lobbying firms and trade associations are always there to buy an ad in the hope of influencing lawmakers and their staff. If this model is replicable in Chicago or Cincinnati or Corvallis, I’m not sure how.

Plus, it’s more than a little discouraging for anyone thinking about trying to create an online-only news organization. Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo do more newsgathering than any twenty of the top political blogs on the right, but they’re still a far cry from being a true professional news organization like The Politico.

All that said, we need more Politicos. I wonder what David Simon would have to say about it.

The Battle of the Bills: Blog P.I. Does Bloggingheads.tv

This past week I spent about an hour talking through a tiny iPhone bluetooth headset on Skype and staring at the built-in iSight of a MacBook Pro while talking to Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis. I did so at the invitation of Conn Carroll, who usually holds down the righthand slot on Bloggingheads.tv, while he was celebrating his fifth wedding anniversary (congrats, by the way). Bill was an upbeat, friendly debate partner, and so far it looks like the loyal Bloggingheads commentariat doesn’t want to kill me.

The show plays like a funky, freewheeling, not-ready-for-cable TV “Crossfire” with less point-scoring, featuring a recurring cast of quirky political bloggers and policy wonks. I’ve been a constant viewer/listener back to when it was just Bob and Mickey figuring it out as they went along.

I should warn, around the middle there are audio-video sync problems, so this might be a good time to subscribe to the audio-only Bloggingheads podcast in iTunes.

The New Hotlineness

I’d been hearing the rumors for a few weeks but, finally, the new National Journal site design has had its debut. But on a Friday?

In Washington, bad news always gets released on Fridays. The idea is to bury it just as the week’s traditional news cycle is winding down — as reporters are racing to get out of, or heading out on the, town.

Is that what’s going on here? Here’s the page specific to The Hotline, so you be the judge:

The New Hotline website design on National Journal

It’s certainly much more modern than the National Journal website of old (see below right). You can’t tell from the screen shot, but there is just as much actual content on the page; it’s just been pushed below the fold. Now it resembles nothing so much as a wonkier version of Slate (which has had its own disastrous redesigns, not that I’m calling this one disastrous).

But that red is so neon it looks like it belongs on the cover of Wired, and for the moment it clashes badly with the colors of the sponsor’s advertisement.

Classic (Old) Hotline website designIt also looks odd next to the darker red, which is more representative of the colors used across the site. Indeed, click over to Congress Daily and National Journal (aka “The Magazine”) and you may think you’re losing your eyesight.

On the other hand, I count two links to my old online column/daily blog report, The Blogometer, apparently the only National Journal feature with two links on this particular page. That alone is enough to get a thumbs-up from me.

Well done, National Journal!

McCain Adviser Making Life Difficult for McCain

Man, is this ever an interesting month for campaign memos. First Mike Henry’s missive about Hillary skipping Iowa and now this little bombshell from McCain adviser Mark McKinnon (hat tip: Political Wire).

The casual reader might wonder why strategists put their names on documents that, if made public, could eventually hurt them or their client’s standing. Reasons vary, but ultimately internal memos should have something to do with the candidate winning.

Speculation abounds John Mercurio at Hotline is a leading proponent) that Henry’s memo was leaked on purpose to lower expectations, but let’s assume that it was in fact a legitimate memorandum. Henry might have been tasked with the responsibility in the campaign or he might have long been the main proponent and was the victim of an internal fight over strategy.

But McKinnon’s memo is something all together different. He basically gave notice that he won’t help his client win if he faces a certain opponent.

McKinnon wrote that while he opposed Obama’s policies, especially on Iraq, he felt that the Illinois senator–as an African-American politician–has a unique potential to change the country. Therefore, McKinnon argued, he wanted no part in any efforts to tear down Obama’s candidacy.

Say what you will about Henry’s memo damaging Clinton, at least it advocated for a way to win the Iowa Caucus. McKinnon is laying down a marker that says “I won’t help if you run against him.” That essentially tells donors that one of McCain’s top advisers isn’t 100% on board with his campaign. It also signals to independents (and reporters) that Obama is a guy who crosses party lines.

True or not, that’s not a strategist’s job. It’s to help your client win. Henry’s name to paper makes sense; McKinnon’s does not.

First! or: Hotline Doors Don’t Actually Revolve

Breaking across IM windows, e-mail boxes and newsrooms throughout Washington…

NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP ANNOUNCES NEW EDITOR IN CHIEF OF THE HOTLINE WASHINGTON — National Journal Group, Washington’s leading publisher of political and policy news and analysis, announced today that Amy Walter will be the new Editor-in-Chief of The Hotline, National Journal’s daily briefing on politics and elections. Walter, currently a Senior Editor of The Cook Political Report, will join the staff of The Hotline on June 4.

I may be turning into a chronicler of my former employer, but really, I just wanted to beat FishBowl.

P.S. The permalink says 11:13, but let the record show that it was more like 11:27.

P.P.S. Yes, I realize that this is a remarkably insubstantial and glaringly hypocritical subject for my first post in two weeks — and I embrace the fact.

Wisdom Before it Was Conventional

Yesterday was the end of an era in Washington, and though it did not pass unnoticed, I would be remiss if I didn’t note that yesterday’s edition of The Hotline was the last one edited by Chuck Todd, who will soon assume the duties of political director at NBC News.

It’s hard to underestimate the magnitude of this change.

When I arrived as an intern at the tail end of the ‘02 cycle, the Hotline was purely an insider’s accessory — wielded by consultants and congressmen in green rooms, lobbyists in cabs and Hill staffers on lunch break. Chuck himself would show up occasionally on the late, lamented “Inside Politics” while most of the staff would check out shortly after deadline, off to fill another watering hole until starting over again at 4:30 a.m. the following day.

But Chuck had bigger things in store for The Hotline, including plans to expand its influence and reach non-subscribers. For one, The Hotline struck an agreement with liquor distributor Diageo to conduct regular opinion polls (alas, no cases of Crown Royal ever appeared on the third floor of Watergate 600). The public debut of The Blogometer was part of this plan, as was Hotline On Call, now one of the top Beltway news blogs (Marc Ambinder writes it, but Chuck hired him to write it). Once CNN had canned “IP” Chuck appeared more regularly on MSNBC, which eventually struck a deal to share and promote content from Hotline and National Journal on a new website, politics.msnbc.com. Then early this year he launched another project he’d been working on for a long time, the Hotline Political Network. And already he’s walking away, on to another challenge.

Of course, I owe a lot to Chuck. He gave me some of my best early assignments — covering the 2003 California recall, the collapse of the Howard Dean campaign, and then of course the blog beat — it was Chuck who realized this blogging hobby of mine could actually have some value to The Hotline. So I feel pretty safe saying I wouldn’t be doing what I am now without him.

Which brings me to the fun part of this post. While I can’t say I made Chuck Todd famous, I can say that I brought him to a new level of public recognition. A year before Time Magazine made “You” their Person of the Year (ahem) they had another gimmick running: anyone could submit a photo on the Time website and upon approval, your picture would play for a few seconds on a Times Square billboard. Me, I uploaded Chuck. And I still have the picture:

Chuck Todd, Times Square Person of the Year

Update: The Hotline doesn’t have a replacement new editor yet, so what does the masthead look like?

Chuck Todd, Goatee Model

We’ll see if NBC News will agree to let him continue in that capacity. But today’s Last Call, now that was the final indignity:

Chuck Todd, Overserved

Will Elizabeth Edwards Resign, Too?

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

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

It’s Elizabeth Edwards.

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

So let’s get demonstrating:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update: NPB adds a worthwhile clarification in the comments:

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

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

Republicans For McCain?

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

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

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

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

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

Total Republicans Independents Democrats
Strongly favor 17 31 23 3
Somewhat favor 15 26 12 7
Somewhat oppose 9 10 12 7
Strongly oppose 53 25 49 79
Neither favor nor oppose (not read) 4 6 3 2
Don’t know/refused (not read) 2 2 1 1
Do you favor or oppose Senator John McCain’s proposed strategy of increasing the number of American troops in Iraq by as many as 20,000 troops over then next few months?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martin’s First Thesis

Starting today as political reporter for National Review’s The Corner is my erstwhile Hotline colleague and freelancing maniac Jonathan Martin, who got off to a running start this afternoon with a detailed report on the GOP minority leader’s race. If there’s anything wrong with the post, it’s only that it sets a high bar for future reporting:

Political Washington today is focused on three fronts. On one end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Topic A remains Iraq, and the forthcoming Baker report and Gates hearings. Up the Hill, members return to the Capitol today for a lame-duck session that will be dominated this week by leadership contests. Everywhere else, the focus is on the above and the fast-developing ‘08 road to the White House news (Vilsack in, Feingold out, McCain putting his first toes in the water). Because I’ve got a weakness for Hill leadership contests, I’ll start there with the House Minority Leader race. First off, all these contests differ from the last one we saw (for Majority Leader in January) in that the candidates aren’t, at least for now, circulating names of supporters. That will probably come as good news to those of you who don’t care to follow the preference of every obscure rank-and-file member, but is sad for those of us who like to keep score at home.

He’s a good writer and great reporter, not to mention a bit of a throwback — he likes to start off his day with an actual broadsheet newspaper. And I hope Jonathan will forgive me for revealing his darkest blogging secret: In spite of his new job, the truth is he was no fan of the blogosphere until the 2005 Virginia governor’s race, when he first discovered that there were some blogs he liked — and quickly realized that blogs were essential for keeping score at home. And now, the conversion is complete.