Lieberman has already endorsed McCain, and in fact did so long before it was apparent that McCain would land the GOP nomination. In the Wall Street Journal article featured, Lieberman continues to make the case for his longtime colleague. Hagel has not yet endorsed Barack Obama, but it seems increasingly likely, as the Huffington Post article by Sam Stein just below suggests.

One more thing: Out of the blogs listed as following the two stories, a non-trivial majority are liberal or non-partisan reporter blogs. And there’s another imbalance: I see conservative bloggers supporting the Lieberman op-ed, and liberal bloggers criticizing it. Meanwhile, there are plenty of liberal bloggers supporting the article about Hagel, but no right-leaning bloggers weighing in on the same. I’ll grant that this is a very small sample, but I mention it because it’s a pattern I recognize: the leftosphere is more active than the rightosphere in contesting the opposing side’s storylines.

Then again, the left has had no small amount of practice going after Lieberman, while the right has ignored Hagel for awhile. Which may itself be part of the problem, and something to correct sooner rather than later.

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.

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. Then 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?

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.

YearlyKos seems so long ago doesn’t it?

Yet it was only five months ago when I asked you for three things:

1.    Call Republicans and their friends in the media on their crass and hypocritical political games
2.    Make it clear where Democrats stand
3.    Never give up

Thank you for doing all of this and more. Because of you, no attack went unanswered. Because of you no lie avoided the truth. Because of you no distortion became a distraction to Democrats.

If the sheer obsequiousness of the post doesn’t make you ill, consider this YouTube video, shot exclusively for the diary:

If there’s anything noteworthy about the content of Reid’s post, it’s that Daily Kos diarists are not allowed to post YouTube videos, and Kos has in the past made a point of not giving politicians special treatment, yet here Reid has somehow obtained permission to post this video in his first-ever diary at Daily Kos. Hmm.

But the fun doesn’t really start until you get into the comments. You don’t have to get very far, either, before you see:

Tough crowd. To be fair, a good number of Kossacks — perhaps even a majority — responded favorably, many even cheered him on (perhaps opening themselves to accusations of obsequiescence) or defended Reid against his detractors. And boy, does he have detractors:

The cult of personality around Harry “Keeping the Powder Dry in Perpetuity” Reid is truly mystifying. No one has betrayed Democratic principles more, yet Kossacks act like he’s Paul Fucking Wellstone.

Not to mention:

And what, Harry, did you do for Dems in CT?

Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.

Remember that the next time to put your hand out for anything from CT Dems.

Hope you and Joe and Bill and Hill and Chuck and Barack and Harold enjoy each other’s company.  Yuck!

And:

we could have unified around a REAL Democrat…NED LAMONT but i think you and others in DC didnt have enough faith is us to deliver the majority

for me THAT is one of the real shames of this election…..that we worked so damn hard to take back control of congress and the people who will benefit from our hard work didnt trust us enough to back our choices for candidates…or our belief in Howard Deans 50 state strategy.

And:

If Reid had done what he had to do he would have brought the full weight of the DC Dem establishment to support the rightful Dem nominee.  Not supporting Lamont is a failed strategy. I don’t give a rats ass about maintaining a relationship with Lieberman because even if nominally he sticks with the Dems, he is still going to stick it TO the Dems when it comes to his positions and votes.

Bullshit that supporting Lamont would not have made a huge impact on Lamont’s chances for today.

That said, Lamont WILL win today.

This, from the “reality-based community”? Credit goes to certain Kossacks, like Big Tent Democrat and cedubose, for trying to keep the peace. And the best line goes to lotlizard:

Ladies, please! Don’t squeeze the Chairman.

But by then, the thread had already been wrecked. And here’s the thing: Joe Lieberman is going to win today, and he’s going to be more powerful than ever before. Lamont will be gone, but Reid will still be the Democrats’ leader. And if this is how his ostensible allies will receive him, why bother?

This isn’t politics. In fact, you could say it’s the opposite: It’s impolitic, and it disregards the fact that, when they’re not out making nice to their various constituencies, politicians tend to hold grudges — more so than most people, even.

At this rate, watching the netroots come to terms with the reality of their team handling the responsibilities of political power promises to provide a great deal of inexpensive entertainment.

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.

Also not looking too bad: My question at the time, about what the Lamont primary victory — then hailed by some as the first breakthrough win for a netroots candidate — about what this would mean:

Could it be that what seemed less than 100 hours ago like the first major gate-crashing will actually end up building more barriers between Beltway Democrats and the party’s online activists?

Keep that in mind as you read excerpts from yesterday’s Matt Stoller classic, “Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In The Front”:

Why did Lamont let Joe get away? Well there are a number of reasons, but among the most prominent is the total abandonment of Lamont by the party establishment. And let’s be very clear – this is not Lamont that they are abandoning, it’s the party primary voters that they are abandoning. …

Make no mistake, these DC Democrats are only our temporary allies. They have total contempt for the rules of the party, and they cheered Joe after he faced us in the primary. It is no longer reasonable for them to call for party unity, because they no longer have any legitimate claim to call themselves leaders of the party. They may be leaders for the next few decades simply due to inertia, but it’s very clear that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are liars who think nothing of insulting Democratic primary voters who play by the rules. …

The American people know this. They know that Democratic Senators aremoral lepers, weaklings, and that is the only reason we aren’t furtherahead when the Republicans screw everything up. The Democratic Senateleaders will sell us out at every opportunity, be it torture, Iraq, Alito, Lieberman, the Bankruptcy Bill, or stopping war with Iran. They aren’t poll-driven, they aren’t fear-driven, and they aren’t driven by strategic differences. They are simply driven to beat us down, their voters, by any means necessary. …

We can win this fight, as the polls are tightening. But it would be a whole lot easier without that knife in our back.

Leaving aside the obvious question of which side the Stollerites are supposed to be bleeding from, there’s enough hyperbole here to last until the first big straw poll.

As I’ve demonstrated previously, Stoller’s over-reliance on self-righteous anger and quick imputations of bad faith to his political opponents (even those ostensibly on his side of the fence) makes him seem less a sharp-tongued political street brawler and more like a circus clown exaggerating his act.

And as usual, the response in the MyDD comments is mixed. A contingent protests that Stoller is being unreasonable, but his sentiments are shared by a larger set. Meanwhile, Stoller’s hyperventilation obscures what is actually a pretty interesting question to pick apart: How did Lamont lose his momentum, and what explains Senate Democrats’ reluctance to join the netroots in the War on Lieberman? I recommend this thread, which includes MyDDer Chris G gamely trying to explain to the wounded ‘roots that it’s not all about them:

Dem leaders are not trashing Lamont, and they’ve expressed their support. but by “cutting loose” Liberman [sic], and trashing Liberman, as you suggest, they run the risk of the following: Liberman winning nonetheless, and organizing with the GOP.

Quite. Senate Democrats are too worried about being stabbed by Joementum in a 50-49 split to carry out any personal vendetta against the netroots. It’s not personal. It’s politics.

Still, as for MyDD, it’s a marked improvement from last week’s poll-frustrated Conn. voter-bashing thread:

A bunch of idiots do live in CT. What a fucking embarassment.

Now that’s what I call people power.

Another interesting thing about the philosophical and political differences between the Beltway establishment and Democratic-aligned bloggers is the split opinions about Barack Obama. If you don’t know that Obama ‘08 is in its ascendancy at the moment, then you must be in a persistent vegetative state. With Republican newspaper columnists Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks offering genuine praise of the freshman Democrat, it becomes all the more clear that his surge is a media-driven sensation. Though hyped excessively by celebrity-obsessed reporters, Barack Obama has demonstrated, potentially, a very broad appeal. Yet there is one group seemingly impervious to his charms: the netroots, of course.

First, note Stoller’s derogation of Obama above. It’s not the first time; Stoller has a long history of badmouthing Obama going back to the 2004 convention in Boston, where he was disinvited by Terry McAuliffe’s DNC from continuing on as a coordinator after writing that Obama hadn’t said “anything really interesting or useful.”

But also note the comments from others in the threads below the post. Here’s one, from a former Hillary Clinton supporter (somewhat rare among liberal bloggers in good standing) no less:

I do know one thing: I do not support Obama for any office. He has ZERO spine. He didn’t even want to filibuster Alito when even Hillary was among the first to advocate filibuster for BOTH Alito and the Alito-with-pretty-blue-eyes, Roberts.

And this one:

I wouldn’t go so far as to call Obama a liar, but he HAS been a major disappointment. He’s got one of the safest Senate seats around, having romped to a landslide victory in what was a dreadful year for Democrats nationwide, and he’s done next to nothing to advance Democratic values, choosing instead to scold Democrats for, among other things, not being religious enough.

Well, Barack, let’s talk religion, since it’s one of your favorite subjects. When the torture bill came out, where the hell were you? … Mr. Obama, I still have some hope for you, but your silence on the torture bill means that you have abdicated any credibility in lecturing ANYBODY on “moral values”. You’re not a whole lot better than Republicans in that regard.

Maybe Krauthammer and Brooks know something the MyDD crowd doesn’t? In any case, Obama is not without his defenders:

In fact, I would like to see in print where Obama promised to come to CT and campaign for Lamont. He has publicly supported Lamont, but just because he supports Lamont publicly does not mean he has to bad mouth Lieberman. … But please if you can provide written proof on where Obama has lied about CT, I would love to see. Until then, I have to chalk it up to your irrational dislike of the man.

In the meantime, you have to wonder: if Washington Democrats’ lukewarm support for Ned Lamont is tantamount to treason, what would the netroots say if Barack Obama actually got the nomination in 2008? Or Clinton/Obama?

P.S. It’s worth remembering that only a week ago, Stoller posted a comparatively thoughtful essay titled “Why Barack Obama Should Run for President.” Was he being disingenuous then or is he being exciteable now? It’s hard to tell, but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the answer is both.

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.