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.

But starting last cycle Facebook has sought to cooperate with political candidates, and plenty have accepted (Virginia senator Jim Webb, most amusingly). So now some of the 2008 candidates have official pages, none more popular than — drumroll please — Illinois senator Barack Obama.

Not coincidentally, he’s got the fattest “gift box” of all:

At first glance, you’d think it stuffed with saccharine sweet time-wasters. And so it was, when you clicked through, but in more of a… MySpace kind of way:

Other gifts were just plain goofy:

The following gift exemplifies a concept utilized several times, but here most concisely:

And at least one took a small dig at the current DNC chair:

Still, more than a few were on the racy side:

If it does require one, click here.

How about the other candidates on Facebook? John McCain and Mitt Romney either got none or weren’t accepting them, which if so would be just as well — Webb got just two. Hillary got a whole 13, but because it looks as if she’s letting Facebook handle the admin duties on her page, message control… isn’t quite what it could be:

And while not so eyebrow-raising as before, it’s still more than a little amusing:

Well, I suppose it is nice to know he doesn’t regret becoming a member of the U.S. Senate. But has anyone broken the bad news to Wes Clark?

However, I do wonder what is the point of a politician (not seeking national office) devoting staff time to a gimmick like Facebook. It won’t raise money, it won’t get his message out, and even if it does, almost certainly not to his constituents (and certainly not those who actually vote). Perhaps this is his last update until 2012, or at least until the next recess. Meantime, he’d be much better advised to take his official blog off hiatus.

And while I again caution against reading too much of anything into anything that happens with a politician’s social networking page, this (not currently on Webb’s page, but visible on your own, if you’re one of his Facebook friends) still makes you wonder:

That doesn’t make him the first born-again atheist senator, does it?

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.

He’s in a crowded field, facing fellow Southerners Adam Putnam and Marsha Blackburn plus Southern Californian Dan Lungren, and because these things are won and lost behind closed doors (perhaps even doors slightly ajar, if one speaks softly enough) this online whistle-stop is little more than a stunt.

But so far it’s earned cautious praise from Robert Bluey at Human Events and gleeful derision from Alex Pareene at Wonkette — in other words, it’s working like a charm.

And how long has the congressman been a member of YouTube?

Six months is none too shabby — that’s almost half the billion-dollar startup’s young life. (I’ve never met Kingston aide David All, but he must be worth the $6,500 Kingston let Mike Bouchard pay him in September.) Then again, as Senator-elect James Webb’s Facebook wrangler discovered last month, when it comes to social networking, politicians have to be warier of who links to them than most:

Whoops! Borat might be able to get away with saying things like that, but for Rep. Kingston, it may be time to change those account settings.

P.S. Here’s Abbi Tatton from CNN’s “Situation Room” yesterday afternoon, on the YouTube video:

It went to all his Republican colleagues. His office said it’s easier to get people’s attention with a video than a piece of paper.

So apparently it’s not just for the blogger crowd. It’s difficult to see why this would have any noticeable effect on his fellow MoCs — to say nothing of his promises to seek out advice from Hollywood conservatives like Ben Stein and David Horowitz — although one thing it certainly does is put the same visual media in front of both members and bloggers. Whatever problems the message has, it must be worth something to try putting the two camps on the same (web) page.

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

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

But when you click through…

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

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

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

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

Too bad the layout is a snore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So did outgoing Sen. Rick Santorum:

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

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

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

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

Before Halloween? Not quite pathetic; merely lame.

Ditto re-elected Rep. Jan Schakowsky:

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

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

Nice use of Frappr and LiveJournal, too.

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

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

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

404? Well, at least it’s fitting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a. By candidate, prorated salary paid (Democrats)


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

Return to top

b. By candidate, prorated salary paid (Republicans)



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

Return to top

c. By candidate, prorated salary paid (combined)



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

Return to top

d. By candidate, lump sum (Democrats)

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

Return to top

e. By candidate, lump sum (Republicans)


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

Return to top

f. By candidate, lump sum (combined)



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

Return to top

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


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

Return to top

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


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

Return to top

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


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

Return to top

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


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

Return to top

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


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

Return to top

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



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

Return to top

And now, as promised, some additional thoughts:

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

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

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

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

  Wait for 2008.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More to come as necessary.

As the election approaches next week, I thought it would be interesting enough to share their electronic exchanges here. They’ve promised to let me do so as long as I protect their anonymity, and that strikes me as a fair deal. (Just for the record, neither is Not Paul Begala.)

One is a veteran Democratic operative. The other worked for Howard Dean in Vermont. For the purposes of this post, we’ll call them Democratic Beltway Insider and Former Dean Staffer. Will only one survive? Will one trick the other into eating their own liver? Or tie the other’s tongue to a launching spaceship? Read on:

DBI: I know this sounds dumb, but what exactly is the bloggers’ problem with Rahm. He is one of the ONLY democrats who knows how to WIN. Is it because he knocked candidates who had no shot out in the primaries? Puleeze. I think we should have a 3rd party for all these people. The 50 state strategy is a Dean PR sham anyway. In [state redacted], [name redacted] used her 50 state $$ to hire a driver.

FDS: Yes the 50 state strategy is a sham. That’s why suddenly the Dems are competitive in states that 2 years ago all the insiders were saying the Dems should just forget about forever. Admit it, you’re a beltway insider.

DBI: Those races are not in play because Dean gave each state party some allowance money. Those races are in play because organizations like the DLCC, Emilys List and even Move On have been working with state and local candidates for cycles and recruiting. A lot of these races were set up to be competitive totally independent of anything the DNC has done. I may be an insider, but I’ve been around longer than the new DNC people and I remember stuff. Not to mention that Dems haven’t done shit to be competitive other than let the GOP hang themselves – the biggest and best reason that we have races in play that weren’t in 04. Case in point NC08.

FDS: Ok well if those races are competitive because Democratic groups like DLCC and Emily’s List get involved with them, that basically proves the 50-state strategy correct, that by competing everywhere you expand the playing field and give yourself more chances to win. Thank you for proving my point.

DBI: Not really. The DLCC and Emilys List have regional programs they’ve been running for a number of cycles. The DNC is spinning that handing chump change over to state parties is going to revive them – guess again. The reason EL’s plan works is because its not affiliated with the DNC or state parties at all. Talk about insiders and hacks. State operatives are often just small-time crooks.

FDS: Well clearly there is no way I convince you as long as you are have are massively in love with Emily’s list. I simply point to the results:

Pre-Dean: Democrats are a bunch of pansies who refuse to challenge Bush on anything, especially the war in Iraq

Post-Dean: Democrats revitalize their party by trashing Bush, particularly on the war in Iraq, and make the country realize how awful he is, giving Democrats a chance to win in places like Wyoming and Idaho where no one thought they should ever even compete again.

Last I checked Emily’s List has been around for quite a while, I’m not really sure what they did differently in the last three years that totally reversed the political tide in this country. Thank you Howard Dean.

DBI: You are so easy manipulated and that is the point. Dean is taking credit for turning the tide, for fixing these state parties. But what has HE done that you can honestly attribute to HIM and the DNC. I’ll tell you: spin.

You also just changed the point you were trying to make. Are we talking about the 50 state strategy per Dean or about whether Dean is more responsible than Emilys List for the electoral situation Dems find themselves in now?

One point about Emilys List: they made Rahm work for his seat. They poured money and bodies into Nancy Kazack’s primary to beat him, but he still pulled it out. He busted ass and it was impressive. You of all people should respect Emilys List because they began as an outsider group – opposed to the workings of the party. The DCCC was primarying women with men, so Emilys List was started as an alternative to the DCCC so women could run and not be undercut.

Here’s the point, groups other than Dean’s DNC have done Real work for a Long time to find good candidates and build infrastructure in the states. A one-time contribution from Dean that keeps the lights on has very little to do with this “sweep” we’re looking at.

A party chair should be able to Raise Money, or Get Votes, preferably both. I rarely see Dean do either. The value of a chair is to be able to and RAISE MONEY from REALLY RICH PEOPLE.

Wyoming and Idaho…. Yes, ID-01 was also potentially competitive in 2002 and I maxed out to the Dem candidate there, Betty Richardson. She ran a strong campaign and peeled off some Rs. If she had been running in this climate she would have won.

Democrats can really suck a lot. You’re right. But Howard Dean is not the reason they are sucking less. A lot of them don’t listen to a word he has to say. And I would venture…he won’t be around much longer.

FDS: I won’t claim that simply giving extra money and attention to state parties has had a massive impact in just two years, it takes longer than that to have an effect. But this election season is proving the premise behind Dean’s 50-state strategy to be totally right. Some of these states are going to be competitive for Democrats in 2008. Everyone seems to forget that in 2004 when Dean was saying we should compete in every state everyone was calling him an idiot and that all Dems money and resources should always be focused on the 15 swing states.

We’re going to see many more “swing states” in 2008, and more states will be truly competitive again, not because Dean gave $400,000 extra to the Virginia state party, but because the premise behind the 50-state strategy is 100% good long-term political strategy.

It’s just you beltway insiders stuck in the swing state mentality that don’t get it. (Yes I technically live inside the beltway, but I hate everything and everyone, so it’s not an issue for me)

BDI: It can be a great political tactic to jump on a tide, say you thought of it, and take credit for it. I mean, THAT, is like the one smart thing Dean has done.

FDS: Who’s jumping on a tide and SAYING he thought of it? He did think of it and he did start the tide. Oh no wait sorry, I forgot, John Kerry started the tide. He was so convincing with his shrewd and unafraid criticisms of Bush.

BDI: What are you missing about farm team work that I thought I explained. Top of the ticket doesn’t a tide make. Generic ballot – people are saying they prefer Dems right? But they frequently don’t associate their local representatives with the top of the ticket. This is calling ticket splitting and it happens a lot.

Shitting on Kerry is lame. Everyone thinks he sucked. Remember other Dems who won in spite of Kerry? He wasn’t going to fix the party. He was just trying to get the White House – different.

FDS: Dean blazed the trail and made it ok to attack Bush when everyone else was afraid to do it on a grand scale. The reason Dems have a resurgence is because they have been able to show the country how awful Bush is. Name me one Democrat that is more responsible for the party going after Bush than Dean was. Go ahead, name ‘em.

BDI: McCain [Editor's note: Just to be clear, BDI knows well that McCain is a Republican.]

FDS: A) McCain is not a Democrat, B) McCain has gotten closer and closer to Bush each year.

BDI: It’s not ok to trash Bush as a Dem when it wont help you. The political environment has changed only because GOPers have fucked up so bad. Liberal is still a dirty word in middle America. No thanks to Dean. Like I said, talking points aren’t about instinct. They’re about strategy and polling.

FDS: A) It is ok to trash Bush as a Dem when it won’t help you, because that shows you have strength and principles, and if you’re criticisms are right, you can convince people of that in the end.

B) No one would know that the GOP fucked up so bad if someone in the Democratic party hadn’t said they were fucking up. I have still yet to hear you name a Dem who was more responsible for the Dems stopping from shitting their pants and getting the guts to go after Bush.

BDI: A: Maybe in Vermont

B: Rahm Emanuel

FDS: A) Oh lord. Well I stand by my claim that making the strong and principled argument will win people over to your side in the mid-range to long-term. You keep saying that winning a one seat in Arizona-7 is more important than the direction of the party for years ahead

B) Yes that’s right I distinctly remember Rahm Emanuel being all over the news launching heavy criticisms of Bush back in 2003….oh wait, no I don’t.

BDI: A – try that crap in Virginia and see what you get.

FDS: A) We did try it in Virginia and look what it’s got us: Jim Webb about to win a Senate seat, and several Dems poised to win heavy Republican districts

B) I’m still Googling to find those stinging criticism Emanuel was making of Bush before it became safe to. Having some trouble finding them though.

BDI: Not really. Bush and Allen got Webb there. Its not how Warner won. And his effect on the state has been bigger than anything Dean has done.

The whole premise of your argument is unproven and I disagree. You want to take a chance and push a scientifically unpopular msg because you think you’re right and that people will eventually come around to your way of seeing things.

FDS: The premise of my argument is not unproven, it’s been proven already. Bush began dropping from high to crappy approval ratings when Democrats go the balls to go after him.

BDI: And did they go after him because Dean thought it was a cool idea? Or because Bush pushed the public too far, they started to turn on him, it was evident in polling and focus groups, on the ground, etc and Dems concretely knew it was a strong message?

This has been entertaining but I have to sign off and do some work.

FDS: Ah yes, the Dems besides Dean started to turn on him after polling and focus groups showed it would work. Polling and focus groups, polling and focus groups. That’s how you get the country on your side, just don’t do anything at all until the public eventually gets sick of what they have.

Well I think I’ve managed to pretty much refute every single point made here, my job is done. I’m going to spend the rest of my afternoon pouring through Google to see if I can find these stinging criticisms you claim Emanuel was making about Bush while Bush was still popular. It might take a while….or forever.

BDI: Well, I suggest you run a campaign and try to get elected without listening to the electorate. Interesting concept. For a dictator or a Bush.

FDS: No point in trying to convince the electorate that our position is right, let’s just wait until the polling shows they have settled on it by default.

BDI: Sure. Tin ear. Always effective. No accountability to those who may disagree with you. The way to win people over is not to tell them something they aren’t interested in hearing.

Now really. I have to stop. You can send one more email so you can make sure you have the last word ok?

So there you have it. I guess only one question is left: Which one is Itchy, and which one is Scratchy?

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

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

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

Jim Webb, meet Jonathan Frist and Julia Corker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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