website statistics

Archive for the 'Internecine Battles' Category

Addressing Black Liberation Theology, or Not

Published by William Beutler on March 19, 2008 in Barack Obama, Internecine Battles, Religion, Rhetoric and White House '08. 6 Comments

Since Barack Obama’s “major speech on race” yesterday I’ve talked to several people, mostly Obama supporters, who thought the speech was brilliant. Even Charles “The Bell Curve” Murray thought it was tremendous. But most of Murray’s colleagues at National Review had a much different reaction, and even some non-aligned pundits are skeptical that Obama accomplished what he needed to.

The speech was about race, but I don’t believe this is the real underlying problem in the Jeremiah Wright imbroglio. One aspect of the controversy is religion, but I don’t think this is it exactly, either. Rarther, the problem is a combination of race and religion, and it doesn’t take an expert pundit to recognize that’s a dangerous combination.

As I noted in a previous post, it would be a cruel irony if the upshot of Obama’s campaign was a widening of suspicions between blacks and whites. If so, this will happen by white voters having to confront a strain of Christian thought which they are currently unfamiliar with and may not like very much once they do. And whether this strain is a prevailing belief among blacks or not, even those who do not subscribe to it just may take the opposite position out of perceived racial solidarity.

Now, I don’t claim to know much about Black Theology, other than what Wikipedia tells me (not much). I also do not know how representative Wright’s views are of the wider black electorate, but Newsweek has demonstrated that Wright’s views are not a fringe minority among prominent African-American clergy.

That said, here is the quote from its most prominent scholar, James Cone, making the rounds of the blogosphere:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

This version of the quote originated in the Asia Times, and previously appeared only in in academic books. It stands to reason that this heretofore obscure quote is going to get more significant play. Note the screen capture below of recent popular keywords on Free Republic:

Free Republic Freepers discussing Black Liberation Theology

No doubt Obama supporters and Democrats generally would dismiss the Freepers as populating the “fever swamps” of the right. But they’d be unwise to ignore them — and already, pro-Clinton bloggers are starting to pick up on it.

Unfortunately for Obama, his speech was not about religion. The words “liberation” and “theology” do not appear in the text of his remarks.

Obama should have gotten out in front of Wright’s anti-American rants long before this week, but he apparently chose not to address them until he was forced to do so. Likewise, he should have used Tuesday’s speech to address Black Liberation Theology itself. Too late now.

Assuming Obama wins the Democratic nomination, and that is still the way to bet, the only question now is whether this will happen during the primary or the general.

Feud for Thought

Published by William Beutler on February 13, 2008 in Barack Obama, Blog Fights, Hillary Clinton, Internecine Battles, Netroots, New York Times and White House '08. 1 Comment

On Monday evening, Big Head DC pointed to a blog post by ardent Hillary Clinton supporter Taylor Marsh, accusing left-liberal Talking Points Memo of carrying out a

Classic hit job

against the New York Senator. Over the last 24 hours, I’ve seen a few more examples of this Clinton-Obama feud playing out across the leftosphere. For exampe, here’s Big Tent Democrat (aka Armando of Daily Kos) on TalkLeft:

Josh Marshall seems incapable of taking Hillary Clinton’s words at their face value. It seems clear that TPM is intent on ignoring the important part of this story, the pattern of sexism at NBC. This remains a very disappointing episode for TPM, both as a question of journalism and simple decency.

But Marshall isn’t the only progressive blogging entrepreneur taking friendly fire; here’s former Edwards staffer Melissa McEwan at Shakesville:

Dear Arianna, I know you hate Hillary Clinton and everything, but do you—mother to two daughters—really believe that the best way to undermine her candidacy is by giving Stephen “Mickey’s Brother” Kaus space on your pages to unleash a misogynistic tirade against Hillary, that manages to simultaneously dismiss the concerns of women everywhere who have raised red flags over the sexist treatment of Hillary by the media?

And then there is the extreme difference of opinion over Paul Krugman’s latest anti-Obama jeremiad, wherein he accuses the Obama campaign of being like “Nixonland,” after a 1956 Adlai Stevenson quote. Ironic, considering not just the Clinton campaign’s duplicity (say, campaigning in Florida) but also the existence of the term Hillaryland.

From Tennessee Guerrilla Women, Kevin Hayden and Susie Madrak agreeing with Krugman to Hilzoy, State of the Day and Ron Chusid pretty much going WTF, the left is split along Obama-Clinton lines, and they are split almost evenly.

But are they split so badly they cannot put their differences aside once the nomination has been decided? I doubt it. Their ire is not directed at the other candidate as it is directed at the other candidate’s supporters. Rifts may persist among the bloggers themselves, but it’s difficult to see how that translates into weaker support for the eventual Democratic nominee.

Barack Obama and the Souljahsphere

Published by William Beutler on December 11, 2007 in Asymmetrical Media, Barack Obama, Campaigns, Democrats, Health Care, Internecine Battles, James Webb, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere, Netroots, New York Times, Oppo Research and White House '08. 1 Comment

Yesterday afternoon, Chris Bowers at Open Left tore into the Obama campaign, ostensibly for releasing a “fact check” calling attention to contradictory statements about Obama’s health care plan by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, which Bowers erroneously called “oppo”:

It is certainly disturbing that Obama is attacking a leading progressive voice in a media system where progressive opinion journalists are few are far between. What is even more disturbing is that this is not the first time the Obama campaign has considered doing this. Back during the Donnie McClurkin fiasco, it has been confirmed to me from multiple sources that the Obama campaign was preparing opposition research papers of this sort against some one of the progressive bloggers who were speaking ill of him at the time …

This is a campaign that appears willing to go negative against a wide range of progressive media figures should those figures step out of line and criticize Obama campaign decisions. Given that, I became personally worried that an Obama nomination would, at some point in the future, result in a public smear campaign, possibly directed by the a new White House communications department, against me and / or many of my friends and colleagues.

Bowers no doubt reserves the right to criticize President Obama, but apparently believes he and his ideological allies are above reproach. Look, the instinct to react negatively to criticism is not unsurprising or even wrong. But Obama is merely asserting himself against a critic who had praised him before. That’s not unsurprising or wrong, either. But rather than address the specifics, Bowers’ response amounts to “Do you know who I am?” Or more accurately: “Do you know who he is?”

Ezra Klein at least acknowledges there is substance to the debate:

It’s not only the actual attacks that are weak (most of them rely on misinterpreting one comment, then misinterpreting the next, then pretending there’s a contradiction)…

yet he can’t escape progressive identity politics, either:

…but, seriously, it’s Paul Krugman.

And in any case, that isn’t Bowers’ problem. Trust me, conservative bloggers are ignored by Republicans more than progressives think they are by Democrats. Bowers just perceives any slight from those more powerful as unfair marginalization — when in fact it is actually the opposite.

It’s difficult to imagine conservative bloggers being terribly upset about a Republican campaign rebutting — not even collecting or distributing oppo on — say, David Brooks. Perhaps Paul Krugman simply has a reputation among the left unrivaled by any major commentator on the right, among the right. Or maybe Brooks isn’t the right analogy. Nobody speaks of him as the “most conservative voice in the mainstream media,” only the most conservative voice on the NYT op-ed page. Are the left’s celebrated public figures more important to them than any celebrity on the right? If so, is this because contemporary progressives have fewer established wins than the right, and hence a more grievance-based, underdog mentality? If so, this would explain why an attack on one might be considered an attack on all. So maybe there is no analogy. Among conservative bloggers, no one’s ego is dependent upon Republican campaigns genuflecting to George Will, Charles Krauthammer or Jonah Goldberg.

Is there anyone who would qualify? Probably Glenn Reynolds and Ed Morrissey, maybe Michelle Malkin and perhaps even Hugh Hewitt (although his influence has been sliding badly as of late). But here’s the key thing: This doesn’t hold if the campaign has a point.

If a Republican office-seeker responded unfairly to a salient criticism from a conservative blogger (or even columnist) on an issue that conservatives thought important, then sure. If Malkin criticizes a Republican candidate, only for the candidate to point out that Malkin had praised the same candidate on the same issue before — as is the case with Krugman — then she would take her lumps like anyone else. She’d have some knee-jerk defenders, but no one would write, “seriously, it’s Michelle Malkin.”

After all, Bowers’ other complaints about the Obama campaign are more reasonable. Among them he notes “the poor blogosphere outreach, the willingness to triangulate against left-wing strawmen, and incessant, beltway-pundit friendly talk about the need to ‘fix’ Social Security” are things that would annoy conservative bloggers — not about reforming Social Security, of course, but perhaps advocating amnesty-first, enforcement-maybe immigration reform.

Yet his main grievance is that Obama might push back against critics from the left, including that special class, bloggers. As to that point, a few hours later, TPM’s Greg Sargent checked in with the Obama campaign, which denied collecting oppo research on multiple bloggers:

The Obama campaign put together oppo docs against progressive bloggers hitting the campaign over the mess surrounding antigay folk singer McClurkin? That’s a strong charge — but the Obama camp is denying it. I checked in with a campaign spokesman, who told me: “This is absolutely not true.”

If it turns out that Bowers was correct in that they were researching just one blogger and their denial refers to more than one bloggers, then his complaint would be better justified. Until then, Bowers’ insinuation that liberal bloggers are above the political fray is silly and further evidence that, like all practitioners of identity politics, consider themselves a protected class. They are not. If you attempt to influence political campaigns, you’re in the fray and subject to scrutiny like any other political actor from dark horse challenger to 527 chieftain. Last year, bloggers in Virginia faced up to this fact, when rumors swirled that then Senator-elect Jim Webb had collected information on conservative and liberal bloggers alike. Those charges were denied and never substantiated, but it was plausible and it should have been a wake-up call.

Then again, in an update a few hours later, Bowers revealed that he was, in fact, just overreacting:

This isn’t about kissing blogosphere ass, Joe Anthony, the tone that Obama takes on the campaign, the specifics of the Krugman fight, the use of left-wing strawmen, how to change Republican behavior in Congress, or that Obama doesn’t have a right to disagree with progressives. Or at least, isn’t about the specifics of any of those cases, but instead about the broad and contradictory pattern to which they point. This is about trying to make sense of a strange and contradictory relationship that contains so many good things and so many bad things all at the same time.

It’s not you, it’s me? Well, at least that clears things up! Meanwhile, a clearer-headed, more insightful, more sensible take from Digby:

Perhaps [responding to Krugman is] the smart move. It has long been known by just about everyone who matters that the rank and file activists of the Democratic party are a huge liability. And anyway, where are we going to go? Mike Huckabee? Ron Paul? We have no choice. So, no harm no foul. Running to the right of even Hillary Clinton on health care and social security and using GOP talking points and symbolism is probably all upside. … Obama is a tremendously exciting and talented politician and I would vote for him against any Republican out there without blinking an eye. But as a certified DFH, I really wish he weren’t running this way. Paul Krugman most certainly is not the enemy and neither am I.

Unfortunately, she updated later to agree with Bowers. But at least Digby understands that they’ve been Sister Souljahed. It’ll happen to conservative bloggers, too. And while it might not be easy, they should consider it a sign they’ve arrived.

Does Markos Moulitsas Need President Bush?

Published by William Beutler on December 9, 2007 in Atrios, Barack Obama, Daily Kos, Hillary Clinton, Instapundit, Internecine Battles, Karl Rove, Lamont v. Lieberman, MSM, Netroots, Newsweek, Rhetoric and William Beutler. 0 Comments

A couple weeks back, I covered first-week reaction to the twinned Newsweek columns by Markos Moulitsas and Karl Rove. The early returns showed that Newsweek.com readers were much more interested in Rove than Kos. I ventured a few guesses why — among them Markos’ uninspired prose and unintriguing arguments — but as Roy Edroso pointed out in the comments, another reason is that Rove, as a former White House adviser, would simply be a more interesting read. Indeed, he led with a compelling anecdote, even as the rest of the piece was fairly unsurprising.

But even before Moulitsas’ column debuted, I think another blogger nailed the risks inherent in Markos’ accepting the assignment in the first place. That blogger was Kenton Kelly, mild-mannered Ohio accountant turned wild-mannered critic of Pajamas Media, better known as Dennis the Peasant. From his post on November 19:

I have difficulty believing Markos can pull off the very difficult task of reconciling the requirements of expressing himself as a movement partisan to two very different audiences: Netroots members and undecided voters. Each is going to have differing expectations as to what they will get out of those columns. Netroots are, I’ll wager, looking for what they’ve come to expect out of Markos; fire-breathing, uncompromising, take-no-prisoners advocacy of progressive policy positions. Understand that what I am not suggesting here is that his Netroots audience expects him to drop f-bombs and excoriate progressivism’s enemies by name as he does at DailyKOS. What they will be expecting, however, is that Markos not give an inch on issues because of any sort of tactical considerations. Expressing open contempt for triangulation and compromise on the issues is, after all, a large part of Markos’ modus operandi.

Walking that fine line between staying uncompromisingly true to Netroots’ core ideals and supporting whomever the Democrats nominate is going to be a difficult task. Unless the Republican candidate flames out immediately after receiving his party’s nomination, it is a certainty that at some point in the race the Democratic candidate is going to have to tack from left to center to gather enough votes to win. This is the precise point in time when things are going to get dangerous for a movement partisan. That’s because Markos has been quite explicit in his distain of the centrist strategies of the Democratic “establishment”. The much reviled Bob Shrum would be just the sort to swallow such a centrist shift as a matter of practical political necessity. How can Markos approve of such a shift when it comes (and it will) without drawing the ire of his supporters?

If Markos chooses to explicitly reject a centrist shift by the Democratic candidate in his Newsweek columns, how does he do so without alienating undecided (i.e., centrist) voters? At some point the decision is going to have to be made by members of the Netroots movement, and by Markos, as to whether there will ever be a time where ideological purity can coexist with the practical needs of daily politics. By this I simply mean that at some point - and I would argue that point is very close at hand - the Netroots movement will have recruited all they can recruit, and converted all they can convert, using the message and tactics they now employ. When the moment arrives where a decision between continued purity and continued growth, what will be Netroots’ response?

Now, I don’t really think Markos matters that much to undecided or moderate voters. Of the factors that will determine their ‘08 vote, Moulitsas’ pronouncements will be very far down the list, even as he’ll be in the relatively high-profile pages of Newsweek. But it will certainly be fascinating to see how individual lefty bloggers and their adherents, including the Kossacks, will react when the nominee inevitably stakes out positions problematic (even anathema) to the activist base. Brooking no compromise is a key identifying feature of the capital-N netroots; some will go along and others will protest. And Moulitsas, with his new perch, will bear the brunt of this scrutiny.

We’ve already seen a bit of this as Matt Stoller, Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher have put pressure on the so-called “Bush Dog Democrats” (i.e. Blue Dogs) — especially on Iraq — while other prominent bloggers have largely avoided the specific accusation. A year from now, this cleavage will be much more apparent.

The whole Dennis — er, Kelly — post is worth reading, and I won’t quote the whole thing here (à la the late Steve Gilliard) and so deprive him of what meager traffic Blog P.I. directs (we’re nothing if not not Glenn Reynolds), but I must address his penultimate paragraph. As he wrote,

the events of the last two years have brought into question widely held assumptions about how much political influence Netroots and Markos Moulitsas actually wield. His attempt to unseat Joe Lieberman ended in spectacular failure, with Lieberman waxing Ned Lamont by 10 percentage points in a three man race. And for all the proclamations of victory after the congressional elections of 2006, what has become very clear is that many of the newest congressional Democrats have absolutely no interest in backing a Netroots agenda. It is not hard to come to the conclusion, after watching Speakers Pelosi and Reid suffering repeated defeats trying to push an explicitly progressive agenda, that perhaps assumptions of Netroots’ influence have been, shall we say, unduly optimistic. This impression was reinforced when most of the Democratic presidential candidates chose to skip 2007’s YearlyKOS convention. [Note: He's wrong about this, especially as the candidates avoided the DLC meeting entirely, but it doesn't negate his overall point.] You could certainly draw the additional conclusion, after listening to the exasperation voiced by congressional Democrats from David Obey to Steny Hoyer, that many Democrats view Netroots as much an impediment as an ally in advancing Democratic policies. How a column in Newsweek helps Markos in convincing the political class of the Democratic Party that he can deliver the goods (and is worth the trouble he causes) is beyond me.

Although Markos is no longer slagged by conservatives as going electorally “oh-fer” (despite Lamont’s loss to Lieberman, Kos et al. did back a slate of winners in ‘06) it’s very much an open question as to whether netroots issues are succeeding among Democrats. It’s not so much an open question as to whether elected Democrats are implementing their policy vision (such as it is), hence the anti-”Bush Dog” activism.

Another outstanding question is how Moulitsas and his fellow “progressives” will keep the coalition together past — and even into — the 2008 race, regardless of the policies adopted by the eventual nominee (i.e. Clinton, who never had them, or Obama, who has not always impressed them but has seen a surge (so to speak) among Kossacks recently).

As someone who reads Daily Kos much more often than non-leftroots bloggers, I can attest that a not-insignificant number comprise those who are not necessarily traditional liberals, let alone leftists, but have joined the community based on their opposition to Bush and the Iraq war. The effort in/occupation of Iraq will obviously continue beyond Bush’s presidency, but even the war has receded as an issue — at least in the general population if not on Moulitsas’ website. No wonder, as Dennis/Kelly pointed out afterward, Moulitsas insisted in his first Newsweek column that the imperative for Democrats in 2008 is to make Bush the issue.

Without Bush to kick around anymore, Markos will have a much harder time keeping his constituency together.

Rightroots, Big Red Tent and Slatecard: An Assessment

Published by William Beutler on December 3, 2007 in Blog Consultants, Brick-and-mortar consultants, Campaigns, Charts and Graphs, Fred Thompson, Internecine Battles, Online Campaigns, Online Fundraising, Republicans, Social Networking, Startups, Trend Tool, Twitter, White House '08 and William Beutler. 4 Comments

Logos for Slatecard, Rightroots and Big Red Tent

Online fundraising startups are a longstanding interest of Blog P.I. In our year and a half, we’ve devoted more than a few posts to the subject, including the progressive, Democrat-supporting ActBlue, the conservative, Republican-aligned newcomer ABC PAC/Rightroots, attendant security issues and flawed coverage often (but not exclusively) in the Washington Post. The last time I wrote about it, Rightroots had relaunched, and two similar Republican fundraising startups — Big Red Tent and Slatecard — were announced and on the way shortly.

Now, all three have been up for more than a month, which I think is enough time to make an early comparative assessment.

For those playing at home: Rightroots is a reboot of the ABC PAC/Rightroots slate that saw a trial run fairly late in the 2006 cycle, controlled by McCain adviser Becki Donatelli, former Giuliani Patrick Ruffini and Mike Turk, an outside adviser to the Thompson campaign. Big Red Tent is an outside-the-beltway venture by a pair of Austin, Texas web consultants Ryan Gravatt and Brad Jackson. Slatecard is the brainchild primarily of ubiquitous DC Internet guy David All and web developer Sendhil Panchadsaram (who strangely has no website that I can find).

Last weekend, I signed up for each one and made some nominal contributions. Since then, I’ve continued poking and prodding. I thought about putting together an elaborate chart comparing their features side-by-side. Perhaps in a future post I will, but for now, but I don’t think that gives as clear a picture of what I thought about them. Instead, this post collects my observations, with screen captures. It’s a long one, so I’ve tucked the rest of this post below the fold. Follow me…

Continue reading ‘Rightroots, Big Red Tent and Slatecard: An Assessment’

McCain Adviser Making Life Difficult for McCain

Published by Not Paul Begala on June 7, 2007 in Barack Obama, Brick-and-mortar consultants, Hotline, Internecine Battles, John McCain and White House '08. 1 Comment

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.

The Next Lieberman?

Published by William Beutler on March 28, 2007 in Chuck Hagel, Internecine Battles, Lamont v. Lieberman, Primary fights and Republicans. 4 Comments

Nobody would confuse Sen. Chuck Hagel with a loyal Republican. It’s not that he’s a “maverick” like John McCain. It’s worse — he’s a turncoat. What’s more, Hagel has broken with his own party on the same issue as his mirror image in the Senate, the Iraq war’s number one fan, Joe Lieberman.

His ruminations on impeaching President Bush this weekend and decision last night to cross party lines and vote with the Democrats to set a timeline for an American troop withdrawal from Iraq only underscores this perception, and could hasten a process that Swing State Project’s DaveSund envisioned earlier this week:

Like Lieberman, he’s a staple on the Sunday morning talk shows, advocating a war strategy that is diametrically opposed to his own party. But if you lined them up side-by-side, I doubt that you’d find many issues which they’d agree on. Their similarities begin and end with how they are reviled by the rank-and-file of their own party. … So, just kind of picture this: Nebraska Republicans, increasingly upset at Hagel’s continued criticisms of Bush, line up behind Bruning. Not elected Republicans, of course. The Nebraska Republican establishment will be firmly behind Hagel. [Attorney General Jon] Bruning, surprised by the enthusiasm of his supporters, preempts Hagel’s late summer announcement by announcing that he will, indeed, run for Senate regardless of Hagel’s intentions. Hagel decides to run, setting up a showdown in May of 2008.

A lot has to break just right for this scenario to play out. First, Hagel has to decline a presidential bid — it’s hard to see how he could run as a Republican, more plausible but no less quixotic to assume the (still theoretical) mantle of Unity08. Lieberman is Hagel is LiebermanThen he would have to decide to run for re-election, which is not guaranteed. Then Bruning would have to renege on his promise not to challenge Hagel for the GOP nod. And finally, the Nebraska GOP establishment would have to stand by their incumbent. But it sounds like it could happen, even if only because it’s happened before.

Now, I don’t think Hagel is disliked by conservatives as much as Lieberman is disliked by Democrats. For one, conservatives have had their way on the war — except for everything after the invasion, of course — and Hagel has been an irrelevant nag. Until now, of course. Conservatives may be unhappy with the direction of the war, but it’s very unlikely a significant number of them will move in Hagel’s direction, and less likely still they would reward Hagel for being right, even if he is.

Right or wrong, Hagel is a prime target for Republican ire not just in his own state but nationwide: he sold out the party and sold out on the war. If he gets primaried, Bruning could be the next Ned Lamont. Well, almost:

There is one key difference, of course: if Hagel loses the Republican nomination, he can’t run in the “Nebraska for Hagel” party. Nebraska law expressly forbids running for the same office after losing the primary.

If anything, this makes a primary challenge only more likely. If the intraparty fight could extend from May to November, Bruning and other Republicans may decline to prolong the split as the party aims to unify and focus on the presidential election. Assured that no matter what, it would be over well before the national conventions, what’s the downside?

The De Vellis Files

Published by William Beutler on March 22, 2007 in Barack Obama, Blog Fights, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Internecine Battles, White House '08 and YouTube. 3 Comments

Just as quickly as the Hillary/Obama/Apple/1984 YouTube spot made the NBC Nightly News and questions were raised about the identity of its creator, the anonymous “ParkRidge47″has been identified and has already made a now-cursory stop at Huffington Post:

Hi. I’m Phil. I did it. And I’m proud of it.

He’s Phillip de Vellis and he’s now formerly with Blue State Digital. They made the right call in letting him go, already handling this with more confidence (not to mention web savvy) than EchoDitto did with their resident McCainiac, Nicco Mele. Apart from getting fired, de Vellis will probably emerge a winner. Unless, of course, Hillary Clinton actually wins the presidency.

But this isn’t the first time Phil de Vellis been suspected of surrepititous intra-party hacking hackery. The name stuck out to me because I reported on that alleged subterfuge early last year, when de Vellis was with the Sherrod Brown Senate campaign. The details are too tedious to recount here, but an IP address associated with the Brown campaign was identified as the source of some nasty comments — and some Ohio bloggers accused de Vellis of being responsible.

You can read the full back story here and here, but this will do:

[C]omments from anonymous users with names like Thisblogishorseshit and JewsforJesus started making antagonistic comments. Both suspected Brown’s new Internet spokesperson and blogger Philip de Vellis. (Brown oversees the pro-Dem blog Grow Ohio.) De Vellis was a recent hire, and had been dispatched to put Brown’s side of the story on the blogs. They couldn’t prove de Vellis had done so. Their evidence was circumstantial at best — with one big exception.

[Blogger Russell] Hughlock compared the IP address on the comments to the IP address from e-mails he’d previously received from de Vellis — and found an exact match. We contacted the Brown campaign ourselves about it, and while they were reticent to discuss accusations made by bloggers aligned with their opponent, they did take partial responsibility for the postings. De Vellis denied being the author, and pointed out the IP address listed on the comments serve the entire staff of about 30, but the campaign has acknowledged that the comments did indeed originate from their office. De Vellis said he was certain no one on Brown’s Internet team had posted any of the messages, but said: “We haven’t done an in-depth investigation.” Rather, the Brown campaign quietly circulated a policy memo: Interns and staffers may no longer contribute to any blog save for Grow Ohio. This is a direction other campaigns will follow, lest they have to learn the same lesson.

Who knows if De Vellis was responsible for the furtive comments back then. But I’d say the last sentence holds up pretty well.

P.S. Buckeye State Blog, who remembers him as well but not fondly, doubts de Vellis’ authorship claim: “Phil claims he made it? I say don’t buy everything you read.”

P.P.S. Joe Tobacco points out in a comment on this post and at Cadillac Tight that Jerome Armstrong points out today that he personally hired de Vellis for the Brown campaign. He stands by de Vellis, and is unhappy with Blue State Digital for letting him go:

I know the founders of Blue State Digital, and this was a petty move on their part– an over-reaction to say the least. Phil’s a big reason why Sherrod Brown kicked ass in Ohio in 2006, he made a remarkable video adaption, and BSD could have simply said they accept his resignation.

As I argued last summer, statements like this lead me to doubt Armstrong is as savvy as he’s given credit for. And just like that time, one only need look to the first comment of that very MyDD post for a more practical assessment:

This baseless, pointless ad divides the Democratic Party, and undermines Clinton’s chances if she eventually wins the nomination.

And as to the firing itself, Krempasky is spot on:

[W]hen it became clear that an employee made the video, given their client base and relationships - it makes total sense to sack him.

Does Armstrong understand that Obama is more important to BSD than Phil de Vellis? Maybe Armstrong didn’t give it that much thought. But maybe that’s why it’s so easy to dismiss him.

What the Media Can’t Do for Mitt Romney

Published by William Beutler on February 25, 2007 in Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Internecine Battles, MSM, Mitt Romney, Oppo Research, Primary fights, Republicans, Rhetoric, Roe v. Wade, Rudy Giuliani and White House '08. 4 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Elizabeth Edwards Resign, Too?

Published by William Beutler on February 17, 2007 in Asymmetrical Media, Blog Consultants, Blog Fights, Blogging Officials, Brick-and-mortar consultants, Daily Kos, Democrats, Elizabeth Edwards, Hotline, Internecine Battles, John Edwards, Online Campaigns and White House '08. 42 Comments

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.