To wit, it’s been a rough day for the Obama administration — and I’m not just referring to former Dallas mayor and U.S. trade representative-designate Ron Kirk’s tax issues — I refer also to their web team. First, an article in the Washington Post from Jose Antonio Vargas about the setbacks they’ve experienced in the transition from campaign to White House. For example:

Beyond the technological upgrades needed to enable text broadcasts, there are security and privacy rules to sort out involving the collection of cellphone numbers, according to Obama aides, who acknowledge being caught off guard by the strictures of government bureaucracy.

“This is uncharted territory,” said Macon Phillips, White House director of new media, which was a midlevel position in previous administrations but has been boosted by Obama to a “special assistant to the president.”

Phillips hails from Blue State Digital, although Vargas curiously omits that detail. Instead, he gives Phillips a chance to defend himself:

“WhiteHouse.gov,” Phillips said, “is not like BarackObama.com or Change.gov. We’re not running a campaign anymore. To us here, WhiteHouse.gov is not just a Web site. The new programs that we will roll out are more than just URLs. They are new ways to engage with citizens. Stay tuned.”

Phillips called the site “an ongoing experiment.”

At least, I think that’s what he did. Vargas uses the second half of the article to survey David Almacy, who held a similar position in the Bush White House, and Obama allies. It closes out with this quote from Andrew Rasiej, known best in Washington as co-organizer of Personal Democracy Forum:

“A lot more questions need to [be] addressed: Where do you insert the public comment portion in a bill? Do you start five days before the president signs it? Or do you start the moment Congress passes it?” asked Andrew Rasiej, founder of the political-tech site Personal Democracy Forum. He served as an adviser to the Obama transition’s technology, innovation and government reform group. “As of right now, the comment section is like a black hole. Of course it’s not enough by the standards of the Internet as we know it today.”

This morning after the story went up, Rasiej was moved to respond at TechPresident (which is really the active website; since it launched, the PDF brand has been primarily associated with the annual conference), with a diplomatic tone suggesting he was concerned about coming off too negative, which can be boiled down to the following sentence:

There was one more sentence in what I said to Jose that followed, but it was left out of his piece. I added, “But they will get there.”

But that may have been the highlight of Phillips’ day, because later this afternoon CNET’s Chris Soghoian reported that the Obama campaign web team has abandoned its YouTube channel for Akamai video distribution that made the top story on Techmeme. Soghoian explains the decision was in response to complaints by privacy activists:

The White House’s decision to move away from the Google-owned video-sharing site will likely be met with praise by privacy activists and could mark the beginning of a real backlash in response to Google’s insatiable thirst for detailed data on the browsing habits of Web surfers.

I wonder if this wasn’t done more to protect the White House than viewers on the site; after all, wasn’t this essentially the problem with President Obama’s apparently successful bid to keep his BlackBerry — that the data went through someone else’s servers? That said, I can’t see a White House video intended for public consumption ever being as sensitive as the president’s e-mail messages. [Update: I was right that it didn't make sense -- National Journal says it's not true.] Meanwhile, Vargas explains some of the limitations making Phillips’ job harder:

[T]here have been limitations. For some time, the site was not permitted to link to third-party sites whose URLs did not end in .gov or .mil, according to David Almacy, Bush’s Internet director from 2005 to 2007.

Some restrictions persist. For example, to comply with the Presidential Records Act, which mandates the preservation of all White House written communication, a Web page must be archived whenever it’s modified, slowing down a typically quick process of building new pages and refreshing the site.

Being president is hard work. Complying with the many, many regulations surrounding White House communications is harder. Some of them are good ideas meant to ensure transparency, but others are surely outdated like the third-party site link ban.

I realize that this White House is not exactly a big fan of deregulation, but maybe this a deregulation of communications protocols online is something they should consider. It might even put them back on Twitter.

Last week I traded a series of Twitter “@ messages” with Jay Rosen, the NYU journalism professor, blogger and media critic. The first one asked:

Maybe you know. Q: why doesn’t Politico have a Ben Smith for the White House? Bets on whether they’ll get one if Obama wins?

He’s got a point. The Politico lists the organization’s designated blogs on its front-page in this order:

Ben Smith on Dems, Jonathan Martin on GOP, Shenanigans on Gossip, The Scorecard on Campaigns, The Crypt on Congress, Michael Calderone on Media, James Kotecki on whatever.

The Politico is literally blogging about “whatever” but not about “the White House.” So I guessed, in fewer than 140 characters:

Smith-Martin are a package deal, covering both primaries. Politico: more campaign, less governing? But that’s a great idea.

Prof. Rosen suggested in turn:

How about a PI post? Politico columnists for the Dems, Reps, Congress, Media, Gossip, Campaign trail, but no White House?

To which I replied:

Mike Allen certainly covers the WH. But not in blog form, true. Have friends down there, so I can ask. Possible PI post indeed.

And so I did, getting in touch with a half-dozen or so current and former Politico writers, asking for their thoughts on background. I also made an effort to get VandeHarris on the record, but they did not return e-mails by my less-than-rigorously self-enforced deadline.

So here’s what I could piece together:

• When the Politico launched a little under two years ago, the presidential campaign offered the biggest opportunity first. Politico was first conceived as a newspaper to be called Capitol Leader — “Yet Another Newspaper Aimed at Capitol Hill” as the Washington Post had it. The Executive branch wasn’t even in the picture until John Harris and Jim VandeHei were.
• As noted above, the newspaper that did emerge hired the much-acclaimed, much-accosted former White House reporter for Time and WaPo, Mike Allen. He writes big stories, is in good with Drudge, and produces content on a daily basis like everyone else. The format of his output is a secondary matter.
• Most everyone I talked to seemed to assume that no matter who won the presidential election, Politico would increase their White House coverage after the election. After all, it’s the logical continuation of the campaign stories they are covering now. Some said they thought a blog would be involved, and no one volunteered the opposite.

One thing that occurs to me is that other major newspapers have blogs covering the White House as a beat, as do regional newspapers with Washington correspondents, but none of them command major audiences (even when they resort to Olympics T&A).

People care about the big stories that emanate from the White House, and they’ll get that from every newspaper and every political blog inside the Beltway, but few are looking for the day-to-day minutiae. Bush is a lame duck, interest has waned even in some of the bigger stories, and other national newspapers have moved their White House correspondents to the campaign trail.

The answer given reminds me a bit of the response I got in the summer of 2006 when I first wrote about the opening for a “Republican ActBlue”, viz., just wait. It may be worth noting, the person who did finally create one was not yet working on it at that time.

So, yes, the Politico will probably have a White House blog next year. Whether Politico writes the one that Jay Rosen is hoping for remains to be seen.

Photograph by David Boyle in DC via Flickr.

Novak’s column in this morning’s Post, about Barack Obama’s current overseas travel, affords us the chance to put them together. Here he is on Obama’s recent shift centerward:

Since clinching the nomination, Obama has been cautiously executing a Nixonian post-primary pivot toward the center. He weathered the outrage of his “net-roots” bloggers over his vote for the national security wiretapping bill.

Really, “net-roots”? This is even worse than the Washington Post’s habit of hyphenating the term; when I last mentioned this in March 2007, the term didn’t warrant scare quotes. And I’m pretty sure the punctuation is Novak’s, as I think I’ve been told the Post doesn’t hold opinion writers to the stylebook it applies to the news pages.

On the other hand, if you’re part of the netroots, you have to be at least somewhat pleased that Robert Novak recognizes your political clout — to say nothing of your existence.

N.B. Elsewhere in today’s paper, Jose Antonio Vargas’ report from Netroots Nation refers to them simply as “Netroots,” and that of course is sans quotation marks. As long as “Internet” continues to require capitalization, I’m fine with this formulation.

Had the Republicans lost their two special election contests to replace deceased GOP House members, one would see the papers filled with analyses of the coming debacle for Republican hopes in 2008. Now that they have won both handily, expect most to either ignore the races altogether or chalk up the wins to local Republican strength.

Indeed, about the closer-watched Ohio election the Washington Post merely ran an AP story on A02; the Viriginia story ran on B05 in the Metro section. Neither buried, but neither featured. Had Weirauch had won, the anti-Republican mood of ‘06 would seem to be continuing. So it’s kind of funny where the Post chose to cut off the wire report:

But Democrats had high hopes about Weirauch’s chances against the younger Latta. This was her third run for the House, and last year, against Gillmor, she received the biggest share of the vote — 43 percent — of any Democrat in the district’s history.

I noticed the same dearth of barking from the blogs, too. Here’s everything the Memeorandum algorithm deemed significant this morning:

And the whole story was off the page by the beep of twelve.

Daily Kos featured just one recap of the special election, which seemed very bitter even after explaining how the NRCC had spent a big chunk of its cash on hand:

The Republicans are still trying to pretend that 2006 was an aberration. Yet they have to go all-out, it seems, to hold the ground they already have.

Yes, I was hoping for a better performance in this district. Yes, I’m disappointed.

Meanwhile, the RNC’s Jason Richardson said nyah in a post for GOP.com and at RedState, focused not on the party committees, but on the extra-party support apparatus:

Weirauch had heavy support from the DCCC, Daily Kos, Act Blue, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, Harry Reid, and EMILY’s LIST. We were severely out-manned in Ohio and Virginia and this is what they have to show for it? We came to the game to win. All in all, the liberal blogosphere should take heed: You’re not as powerful as you think and it’s about results not PR.

To be sure, these were retentions and the Virginia election was never much of a contest. But the Ohio race between Republican Bob Latta and Democrat Robin Weirauch was a focal point of both parties in recent weeks, with both parties’ house committees pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the district. Online, Slatecard and Big Red Tent both spotlighted the race and sent out fundraising pleas; Slatecard raised $1,908 from 21 supporters. Meanwhile Weirauch apparently collected more than $93,000 from ActBlue, some $15,600 raised by the Daily Kos/Open Left-backed Blue Majority and $12,300 by Wesley Clark’s WesPAC.

One race was obviously a dud and the other would prove to be one, too. It’s hard to nationalize a special election, and there was no Paul Hackett. In fact, there was barely an Iraq debate — though the Democrat in the Viriginia race, Philip Forgit, was an Iraq veteran. So the leftroots raised more money, but the rightroots (if not Rightroots) ended up with the win. But neither the leftosphere nor rightosphere owns this win or loss. This race just wasn’t won or lost online. And if it was a status quo election, Republicans have to be pleased with that.

Update: I somehow managed to miss Eric Pfeiffer’s understated observation, posted just after the beep-beep of twelve-thirty:

Bloggers Respond With Restraint to Yesterday’s OH/VA Special Elections

At least.

As a District resident and fan of the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons, it’s a gloomy day. But as a subsciber to the Washington Post, it’s even worse. Here is an e-mail alert I received barely two hours ago (at 8:48 a.m. to be specific):

I realize that this e-mail alert generally aims to highlight news and opinion from the print edition, but this is obviously one of those times when they should have updated it with information from the web edition. Obviously. Methinks the Post will be getting some angry e-mails about this one.

P.S. My fantasy football season is over, realistically if not mathematically. So what the hell. Here’s my act of solidarity:

If you find this less a sign of respect than either creepy or funny, well, you’re probably right.

A survey of political bloggers showed that 94 percent of them had never been out of the country or read anything other than a Harry Potter book.

Unfortunately for Cohen, it doesn’t necessarily work.

P.S. Yes, I realize the headline of this post is, itself, in-cohen-rent.

Democratic candidates for federal office have seen more than $25 million come through the web site ActBlue — some of which will eventually flow to the Democratic National Committee for use during the general election. Republicans, meanwhile, have seen just a tiny ripple of activity on the ABC PAC web site — $385 raised for the presidential candidates to date — which is supposed to be ActBlue’s direct competition.

Sure, at one time it was supposed to be. But as this blog and other blogs have pointed out, it’s never had the kind of support such that it should actually be spoken of in the same sentence. Not to mention that several journalists, including Mosk’s colleague Chris Cillizza, have (apparently ignorantly) misrepresented what ActBlue means to different Democratic candidates.

Mosk’s brief report is of a piece with this, not knowing or bothering to differentiate between the two websites. Is it fair to point out that Democrats are doing better with their independent online fundraising tools? Absolutely. Is it fair to compare ActBlue’s total fundraising figures over three cycles compared to ABC’s (admittedly underwhelming) year in existence? Not without explaining the situation, it’s not.

But it gets worse:

Now there is a new effort to change that. R. Rebecca Donatelli, a pioneer of Internet fundraising who help raise some of the nation’s first online dollars for John McCain in 2000, has revealed she and partner Michael Palmer are working on a new, and she hopes improved, version of ABC PAC to launch this fall. While she continues to work on behalf of McCain, she said she is optimistic the improvements to ABC PAC will help all of the Republican candidates. Given the numbers they are posting on the site right now, it would be tough to make things worse.

This “new effort,” as Mosk doesn’t adequately explain, is a second go at the same operation by the same person responsible for ABC’s ineffectiveness. Worse, though, Mosk is apparently unaware of other new ventures by GOP activists in the same space. Even before Mosk’s posting, there were two new efforts gearing up to do same thing:

• Big Red Tent, created by a couple of Austin GOP consultants, supported by RedState
• Slatecard, created by DC GOP “modern media” evangelist David All, still yet to launch

Both sites have yet to prove themselves, sure. But considering that Mr. Mosk was moved to write a post about ABC PAC, isn’t this worth an correction? Or better yet — another post?

There was a time, back in 1998 or so, when AOL was synonymous with email for most ordinary folks. That time, of course, is long past. But AOL’s tireless flacks are trying to bring it back with a press release outlining which cities’ residents are most addicted to email. Surprisingly, Washington, D.C. comes in first.

Surprisingly? As I got into the elevator on my way out of work this afternoon, I almost hesitated to take out my iPhone, for fear of seeming conspicuous and tech-obesessed. Never mind: the man and woman already aboard were tapping away, two-thumbed, at their CrackBerries.

And then this, from Jake Tapper at ABC News:

[T]he Washington Post has … obtained a fundraising letter from Clinton taking issue with Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan’s style-section story about Clinton’s cleavage.

Yeah, I “obtained” that as well. By opening my inbox.

Here are a few of the unnecessary sneering asides that mar Miroff’s article:

“Fairfax County Harboring Illegal Aliens” was the title of a recent, and typical, Letiecq posting…

…to dismiss Black Velvet Bruce Li as the rantings of a fringe extremist underestimates Letiecq’s reach and appeal…

…fanning anti-illegal immigrant sentiment — and providing a venue for raw, sometimes bigoted views…

…he points to his neighbor’s house, emanating loud salsa music, where he believes two “illegal aliens” are living. He doesn’t have proof of this, of course, but pronounces his assumption as fact anyway.

I could even be persuaded that Miroff’s reference to Letiecq’s “French Canadian” background is an underhanded effort to induce thoughts of hypocrisy in the Post’s “elite” readership.

Would the Post have cast Letiecq in such a negative light if he had been a liberal?

Actually, yes. On Saturday, April 15, 2006, the Post gave the same treatment to Maryscott O’Connor, who runs MyLeftWing.

Loud, crass and instantaneous…

…can one person sitting alone in a living room, typing her fingertips numb on a keyboard, make a difference? …

…on it goes, every day, around the clock, on Web site after Web site…

…it is where O’Connor finished her evolution from lost soul to angry soul…

Even the accompanying photographs and opening paragraphs of each article are strikingly similar. Here’s Miroff today:

Illegal immigrant ice cream vendors might be spreading leprosy in Manassas. Prince William County has been infiltrated by “unassimilated marxist radicals.” Manassas Park police covered up the predations of five Hispanic men who gang-raped a woman in the street in June.

These claims, among others, have been made in recent months by Greg Letiecq, whose popular blog, Black Velvet Bruce Li, offers “Blog-Fu for Prince William, Manassas and Manassas Park politics” — often making up in passion what it lacks in proof.

And Finkel last spring:

In the angry life of Maryscott O’Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O’Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.

Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O’Connor’s reputation is as one of the angriest of all. “One long, sustained scream” is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day.

But did Miroff pull actually his punches? One difference between the profiles is that Finkel quoted liberally (so to speak) from related blog postings, which were more lurid than the quotes O’Connor supplied. O’Connor: “I’m insane with rage and grief. But I also feel more connected than I ever have.” A Kossack: “I feel like I’m being molested everytime I hear [Bush's] voice.” In comparison, Miroff only alluded to unsavory comments on Letiecq’s website. Whether this is because the quotes were insufficiently awful or unquotable in a family newspaper, I can’t say.

So maybe Letiecq actually got off easy. Or maybe, considering how the leftosphere rose up in righteous outrage to defend O’Connor, Letiecq missed his opportunity to becoming a rallying point for immigration-focused bloggers.

Meanwhile, Letiecq is off for the weekend but has a note about the article on his site. As a non-resident of Virginia, I don’t read his site much and can’t evaluate Miroff’s assertions based on my own impressions. But if this comment section is at all representative, it does seem those elitist Posties can give as good as they get:

# Anonymous said on 22 Jul 2007 at 7:08 am:

How can you tell you are in a French Canadian town in Maine? By the maple syrup taps on the telephone poles

Sometimes it seems as if the Post can’t cover bloggers as crazy people, they won’t cover them at all.

P.S. I’m not saying that the title of this post should be taken literally, but consider David Von Drehle’s twinned profiles of conservative Betsy Newmark and liberal Barbara O’Brien in July 2005. They were portrayed as pugilistic, yes, but certainly not crazy. Where did that article run? W12.

A: Because it’s using the same interface as the Washington Post’s Customer Care Center, powered by Right Now Technologies.

In case you were wondering.