1/27: How To Lose A Nomination Fight In 92 Days
2 stories have taken over the political blogosphere in the past 24 hours: 1) John Kerry's announcement that he will go forward with a filibuster of SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito, and 2) Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections now appears even larger than previously thought. It's to those stories we devote most of our blogosphere coverage today; the rest of it concerns blog criticism of the media as well as media criticism of the blogs. Currently, NBC's Tim Russert and MSNBC's Chris Matthews are facing sustained criticism from the left-blogosphere -- far more than anyone at FNC has received in some time. And in an uncharacteristic bout of original reporting, last p.m. we attended an invite-only discussion group about blogging and journalism. Our non-definitive recap is included below, as is an unsolicited commentary on how liberal and conservative blogs think differently about comment boards.
THE ALITO NOMINATION: Swiss Miss?
>> Early last p.m. John Kerry announced from Davos, Switzerland that he would lead a filibuster of Samuel Alito, and that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) would join him. At about 8:30 EST, Kerry posted his 3rd diary this week (see 1/23 Blogometer) to Daily Kos: "Do I support a filibuster? The answer is yes. Yesterday Senator Kennedy and I spoke with our colleagues about it. I don't have a shred of doubt in my opposition to Sam Alto's nomination. I know Senator Kennedy does not either. He has truly been a great leader in the effort to oppose Judge Alito." More: "This was a coup. Miers was removed and Alito was installed to replace the swing vote on the Court. The President gave no thought to what the American people really wanted -- or needed. So it's up to us to think about what America really needs - that's part of the true meaning of 'advice and consent.'" 
The diary picked up 650+ comments by our deadline. Based on our skimming, the responses are running overwhelmingly positive, with many thanking Kerry for standing up in this fight and others criticizing the Dems who either plan to vote for Alito or at least won't back the filibuster.
>> At Hullabaloo CA-based Digby writes offers some advice to his fellow Dems: "I hope some of the comments I'm reading around the blogosphere aren't reflections of a knee jerk cynicism on the part of Democrats who have fallen in love with their assessment that they are superior to their elected leaders. This is a very dangerous state of mind. John Kerry stepped up today. Apparently, that isn't enough for some. He is still a "loser" in their eyes and is to be shunned. He didn't do it soon enough. Or he didn't do it right. Or he is nothing but a political opportunist. I'm beginning to think that some Democrats have gotten attached to their vision of Democrats as losers so they won't be emotionally shattered anymore. That's understandable. It's painful to get beaten. But, the rank and file need to step up too and be willing to lose and not hate ourselves or our leaders for it. How we lose on issues like this makes the difference for the future."
>> Elsewhere, plenty of lefty bloggers are still keeping up the good fight -- Popular liberal bloggers Jeralyn Merritt, Barbara O'Brien, and Patrick Nielsen Hayden encourage people to keep calling Senate offices urging support for the filibuster. They all post phone numbers. But Markos Moulitsas counsels liberals to focus on winning in '06: "[T]he real culprit is the Democratic establishment has done such a piss-poor job of running elections that we only have 44 of them. ... Ahh, you're thinking, we can say 'f--- [TN Rep. Harold] Ford and [PA Treas. Bob] Casey,' right? Absolutely not. Those guys, even if they might vote for an Alito, would vote for Harry Reid as majority leader, and the Dems would control the chamber's committees."
>> The political considerations are not to be overlooked -- Liberal Kevin Drum lays out the risks: "Would this end up hurting Democrats? It might. ... But in politics, if you only fight when you're sure of victory, you're never going to fight at all." Conservative Bill Ardolino rejoins: "Uh huh. How about when you're sure of losing?" At Outside the Beltway, James Joyner notes the Dems who aren't backing Kerry, sifts through the comments at dKos, and calls up a reference to "Team America": "Massachusetts, F--- YEAH!" RedState's Leon H describes Kerry as having "the acute political acumen that led him to crushing defeat against a vulnerable President," an acumen leading him to filibuster a nominee "with public support against him by a 2-1 margin." More: "The only thing that makes this better is that he's launching the filibuster from Europe. And also, that everyone knows his mission is doomed before it begins."
>> Meanwhile, red state Dem Sens. Tim Johnson (SD) and Robert Byrd (WV) have announced they intend to vote for Alito. Liberal Steve Soto: "After a wealthy GOP businessman jumped into a race for his seat this year, Bob Byrd said today he'll vote for Alito. And South Dakota's Tim Johnson, who isn't facing a race of his own" until '08 is "following the same flawed 'kick me again W' political instincts of Tom Daschle." Conservative PoliPundit sees it differently, opining that Johnson "probably doesn't want to be Daschled." Syndie columnist Jack Kelly, at his Irish Pennants blog: "Johnson has chosen to do the right thing. Let's honor him for it." He adds, Byrd "is on board, too. He's up for re-election this year, and he just got a major league opponent, so all he'll get from me is a temporary cessation of white sheet jokes.
>> More filibuster commentary -- Centrist Joe Gandelman doubts whether Dems are wise to listen to PfAW and the like: "Liberal groups arguing that even if it looks like a losing fight Democrats need to fight it to show that they will fight. Have these liberal groups proven to be great strategists for the Democratic Party in recent years or more of an Achilles heel?" Left-leaning Ed Kilgore: "I can only hope Senate Dems make a serious effort to stay focused on the Big Case against Alito during the debate, and not provide the GOP with any negative ad material. It's especially important that they deal with the GOP "obstructionist" talking point by relentlessly reminding people that Bush deliberately picked this fight by giving conservative activists their very own Supreme Court nominee." Right-leaning Jeff Goldstein: "A nearly unanimous party-line vote against Samuel Alito, as I noted elsewhere, bespeaks a broken system of advice and consent; and politicians like John Kerry embody the cynicism and partisanship that has turned the judicial confirmation process into an extension of electoral politics based around ideology and the power to control its spread and influence into social policy." Center-right Cadillac Tight likes Alito, but is open to a successful filibuster for bigger reasons: "I think Alito is a very smart guy, and I think he'd do a great job on the Supreme Court, but I'm not going to go hide in the basement and cry if his confirmation is blocked by a procedural move. There are other judges out there, after all, many of whom could do just as well as Alito. No, I'm actually much more interested now that there's potential for a filibuster, and I couldn't be happier about Kerry putting it together either. Kerry has become one of the biggest sycophants of the far left in the Senate, and he's definitely the one I want pushing this. I think we're long overdue for this fight, and while I'm marginally in the Republican corner, I won't be too upset if the Democrats come out as the victor."
PALESTINIAN ELECTIONS: What Hath "Democracy Whiskey Sexy" Wrought?
Liberal prof/blogger Juan Cole contributes an election recap to Salon titled "How do you like your democracy now, Mr. Bush?" Building on Cole, Marc Cooper writes: "The elections pushed relentlessly by the Bush administration have produced the least favorable results -- for all parties involved. ... Defusing Hamas -- if possible -- will also require what Reagan used to call 'constructive engagement' but of which his political heirs remain blissfully and recklessly ignorant. I can't think of a worse moment to have the Bushies in charge."
At Abu Aardvark, Williams College prof Marc Lynch: "It is an article of faith among virtually all Arabs and Muslims that in 1992 the United States and Europe green lighted the Algerian military coup after the Islamist FIS stood on the brink of electoral victory. This has been taken for a decade and a half as the definitive evidence that the American and European commitment to democracy was a hypocritical farce: democracy only if our allies won." He continues: "Hamas winning and presumably moving to form a government is the first real instance of an Islamist movement on the brink of winning power democratically since 1992. If they take power, we are going to see some major political science propositions put to the test: does power moderate or radicalize Islamist groups? Will they be willing and able to work with non-Islamist parties in a coalition? Will they use their democratic victory to abolish democracy?"
Brad Plumer tries to answer as best he can: "A handful of reasons for optimism: Hamas has mostly adhered to the ceasefire over the past six months, certainly more strictly than Fatah has; at the local level, where it has previously won elections, Hamas has been dealing with Israel regularly and for the most part has focused solely on day-to-day governing and economic development, rather than talking up the virtues of a sharia state. And judging from recent polling, most Palestinians would support a compromise peace settlement with Israel, and increasingly are souring on Hamas' armed wing, the al-Qassam Brigades. Popular opinion could prove a moderating force. On the other hand, this is Hamas." Reporting from Palestinians areas, OxBlog's Patrick Belton relays this encounter: "Talked with [PA spokesperson] Hanan Ashrawi downstairs just now. Not mincing words, she expressed utter disbelief in the Hamas 2.0 hypothesis, said she would not be open to joining a coalition with the party and told me that she thought Hamas would bring the West Bank and Gaza into theocracy. On the other hand, she'd just finished several months of running against the party. Take your pick."
Business consultant Pieter Dorsman of Peaktalk: "There's strong case to be made that Hamas has learned from what came before it. It benefited royally from Arafat's disingenuous approach to peace, not to mention his inability to forge any coherent social-economic policy. ... The purist's message is simple, war and the destruction of Israel, at any cost. The question is who will bear the cost as such an approach would further destroy whatever is left of the Palestinian economy and forever dry up the steady stream of international aid."
Following the elections, ex-Pres. Carter said: "The Palestinian Government is destitute, and in desperate financial straits. I hope that support for the new government will be forthcoming." Guest-blogger Bluto at conservative The Jawa Report picks this up and hits him with it: "Isn't President Peanut just the soul of kindness, at least when it comes to coddling terrorists? Unfortunately, as I pointed out earlier here, it's illegal for Americans to provide "material support or resources" to designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations."
Richard Fernandez of The Belmont Club considers the possible political effects in the West: "The election of Hamas is to some degree a vote against Fatah corruption. One of the chief electoral spoils will be the billions of dollars in international money that have over the years, gone into creating what in the end turned out to be hateful to everyone. In that sense it was a vote against the last 15 years of nonsense. The political investments in Yasser Arafat, which included warm receptions at the White House, the Nobel Peace Prize, half a century of international aid. Oslo. All of that may have been buried today, though it I wouldn't be surprised if those whose international careers depended on it try to resurrect it in zombie-like fashion to totter around in a putrefied state for as long as it can be kept going."
Header at conservative IMAO: "It's Like Electing a More Violent, Dumber Version of the Nazis."
RUSSERT: Arianna Has Such A Crush On Him
On "Meet the Press" last weekend, host Tim Russert hosted frequent guests James Carville and Mary Matalin. At the end of their segment, Russert encouraged Carville to plug his new XM Satellite sports radio show, which it just so happens will be co-hosted by Russert son Luke Russert, currently a college sophomore. On 1/22, frequent Russert critic Arianna Huffington criticized all involved for the "clubby" nature of the political and media elite: "Does Tim think nobody's going to notice that he's having a guest on his "news" show who is making it possible for his son to co-host a national sports radio show before he's out of college? Or, more likely, does he just not give a damn, because, hey, it's all just one big game... hockey, baseball, football, politics, it's all the same thing, right?" Not long after, Mickey Kaus added his own "Lukegate" questions: "It's one thing if a big star uses his connections to get a job for his unemployed son. Connections help. Stars' sons are often talented! But a sophomore in college? Isn't that rushing the connections thing a bit? Does Tim Russert think he's actually doing his son a favor? Does Luke Russert have no spark of honest Oedipal anger?"
Then on 1/26 she fired new shots after learning that he is scheduled to keynote an Ethics of the Media conference at Ripon College. "Inviting Tim Russert to keynote a conference on journalistic ethics is like having Jack Abramoff keynote a conference on lobbying reform, Jim Frey lecture on truth in advertising, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lead High Holy Days services at Temple Beth Israel." She details, courtesy of the Washington Speakers Bureau, what Russert charges for such appearances.
FishBowlDC's Garrett Graff: "[A]ll of these attacks appear to getting under NBC's skin: Yesterday NBC attacked her saying, 'The last time we heard from Ms. Huffington, she was hiring private eyes to investigate reporters'" -- based on a charge from her husband's '94 CA SEN bid. "Interesting, though, that the 'NBC publicity machine,' ... isn't refuting or engaging on the substance of Arianna's attacks." Jane Hamsher: "This is a man whose limber set of 'ethics' was openly and officially mocked by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. Whoever booked this rodeo clown show must be a fan of the theater of the absurd." In a follow-up this a.m., Huffington defends herself against NBC's PR dept., which she says is getting "down and dirty" for bringing back the recurring allegation that Huffington is nursing a grudge stemming from a '94 Vanity Fair "hit piece" about her by Russert's wife, Maureen Orth.
Open Letter To Chris Matthews stepped up the pace a bit on 1/26. Among the posts, they raise an incident from "Imus in the Morning" last week: "Please contact Toyota, Verizon and TurboTax, using the contacts in the column to the left, and ask them how they feel about associating their brand with lewd jokes that demean gays and lesbians. Why? Because Chris Matthews told one, on the air, during an interview with radio host Don Imus last week. Matthews and Imus shared anti-gay jokes they had heard, which we will not republish on this site." But they do link to Media Matters, which does, and also provides video. MSNBC apologized for it earlier in the week, as Open Letter noted on 1/23. Open Letter founder John Aravosis is also waging the campaign at his regular site, AMERICAblog.
Jane Hamsher calls Matthews' interview with L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D) "high camp," especially the part where Matthews describes Mexican-Americans as "natural Republicans": "I think Tweety is losing his grip, the boycott must really be bothering him. Which is an excellent reason to keep the pressure up." Video is at Crooks and Liars.
PAJAMAS MEDIA: Underneath Their Robes
Dennis the Peasant, erstwhile co-founder of Pajamas Media (see 11/14, 11/16, 11/18 and 11/21 Blogometers) received in the mail a copy of the company's advertiser's kit from a "businessman who had contacted Pajamas Media and requested" it. DTP posts the images and dissects PJM's sales techniques, slide-by-slide. He summarizes: "Trying to sell advertising to the moderately sophisticated [with this] kit would be akin to attempt to play game of football without the football." Much of his criticism focuses on the fact that the kit fails to show the advertiser their site will deliver "purchase decision makers."
The kit also claims the "Founders of Pajamas Media debunked the authenticity" of CBS's Bush TANG memos. DTP: "The founders? How about one of the founders... or is Roger Simon now claiming he was in on that whole episode ... Oh, and when we talk about that one particular founder that was actually involved in the Rather Thingy, let's remember that a whole slew of folks, including the boys at Power Line, various folks at Free Republic and commenters at a variety of sites" were equally responsible.
Lawyers, Guns and Money agrees, and mocks the self-reported income numbers: "It's hard to isolate the very funniest thing amidst the ungrammatical gobbeldygook, but I particularly enjoyed the claim that the average Little Green Footballs reader has an average income ... of 'over $105,000.' Yeah, if Warren Buffet reads the site 30 times a day." A Crooked Timber commenter: "I dunno, six figures sounds about right for people living in their stepmother's basement selling used library books on eBay."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Howell's Moving Castle
Last p.m. we had the unique experience of attending an Nat'l Press Club luncheon and discussion hosted by Alex S. Jones, dir. of the Shorenstein Center at the Kennedy School of Gov't at Harvard. Also in attendance were bloggers representing Power Line, AMERICAblog, RedState, MyDD, and others. So too were a number of MSM journalists-turned-bloggers, Beltway media critics and 2 of the minds behind CBS's Public Eye blog. Jones called the group together as part of a new initiative at the school called the Carnegie-Knight Task Force, which plans to issue a series of reports in the interest of strengthening journalism. This discussion group, entitled "A Discussion of Blogging and News Values," was the first of many to be hosted by the task force.
To summarize both sides' point of view, the bloggers in attendance implored the press to "do your job" while the establishment journalists argued that their mistakes did not warrant the harsh response. Both sides understood that evolving media technology has changed the reporting model irrevocably. If the dissolution of "the guild" -- i.e., who gets to be a "journalist" -- doesn't do it alone, the drift of advertising revenue away from newspapers will take care of the rest.
As you might expect from a room full of bloggers and MSM types, things got heated and voices were raised. But what we didn't expect was a surprise guest -- Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell. Howell has been at the focus of an ongoing controversy over corrections and comment standards at the Post, and much of the discussion focused on these controversies. Howell was there to give her side of the story, as well as get some feedback in a (somewhat) controlled environment.
First of all, Howell agreed that she had made a grievous error in describing disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's political donations: "I made a mistake ... and I am heartsick about it." That aside, she also conceded that she had made a mistake by waiting several days to post a correction, noting the practice of running news corrections on Page 2 but running column corrections only in the column. This is a typical arrangement at most newspapers. New York Times public editor Byron Calame has also dealt with the columnist-correction discrepancy in recent months (see 9/19 Blogometer). Howell indicated that she was interested in creating a standard place for all corrections at the Post.
As we mentioned earlier, not everything went smoothly. When MyDD contributor Matt Stoller was given the microphone, he forcefully stated to Howell: "The antagonism here is coming from you guys." Seemingly frustrated by the Post's handwringing over the comments, he shouted: "Nothing happened to you!" At this point Jones asked Stoller whether words could do violence, and Stoller stepped back and changed course.
At one point, Howell said that when she was brought on, the Post had asked her if she would write a blog. She told them at the time, let's see how it goes. Lest these last few weeks' experience turn her off the idea for good, Howell said she was still considering it. She asked the room -- "Should I write a blog?" The bloggers -- including John Aravosis, one of her chief critics -- encouraged her to do so.
Also worth noting: Some present were a bit surprised to hear bloggers Aravosis and Kevin Aylward from Wizbang freely admit the fact that they too delete comments from their boards. Of course, their standards are looser than the Post, which dictates that swearing is expected and substantive attacks are encouraged, but no slander, no copyright violation, and "in general" no personal attacks. Aravosis also volunteered that this last rule wasn't followed strictly, and definitely wasn't followed during the Howell controversy, and for that he also volunteered an apology.
When we get a copy of that Carnegie-Knight report, we'll be sure to share more.
BLOGS VS. THE MSM II: Commentariat Comment Riot
Now, about those comments: a frequent criticism by left-of-center bloggers about right-of-center bloggers came up again -- that conservative blogs don't have comments, whereas the liberal ones do. This certainly isn't the case for all or perhaps even most right-leaning blogs, but there's more than a strain of truth to this. Liberal blogs are on the whole more likely to enable comment boards than conservative blogs.
Among the highest-traffic liberal blogs, it's hard to find someone who doesn't have comments: the Washington Monthly's Political Animal and Crooks and Liars do, Huffington Post does and Tapped just added them. Talking Points Memo does not, although its sister site TPMCafe does. Most of the A-list conservative blogs do not -- Instapundit, Power Line and Michelle Malkin do not, but then Captain's Quarters, RedState and PoliPundit all do. They all have active boards does, albeit not at the level of Eschaton or Little Green Footballs, 2 of the biggest on the left and right, respectively.
Move down into the mid-tier and lower- trafficked blogs on both sides of the political divide, and nearly everyone has comments -- comments are a scarcer commodity, and certainly less of a hassle. In fact, it's often the only kind of feedback a semi-obscure writer gets. A flame war would be less a headache, more a novelty.
As the Post.com chat showed, the difference might well be ascribed to the philosophical differences that make conservatives conservative and liberals liberal in the first place.
Liberal blog readers expect that a blogger make space available on their site to facilitate discussion, whereas conservative argue that anyone can start a blog and it's not the responsibility of the blogger to give others a soapbox. It's their soapbox, of course. The difference here is one of conservatives touting the virtue of ownership and individual initiative vs. liberals expressing a desire for community.
As lefty blog analyst Chris Bowers has observed, that there are more conservative blogs in the upper tiers, although the liberal blogs have in that range attract more overall traffic. Though there are doubtless multiple factors, one reason is because many liberals have gravitated toward these community sites. All those diaries on Daily Kos are people who otherwise might have signed up for a Blogger account and struck out on their own in the blogosphere.
So the online left and the online right tend to have slightly different ideas about what a blog is for, and on this point they're talking past each other. What type of blog should the Washington Post have? Clearly they've decided to have comments, much as they've operated message boards for years. It has not been demonstrated that the comments on the Post.com blog were truly vulgar or spiteful, but if you've seen the Atrios or Firedoglake comment sections, you can imagine a lot of it wouldn't fly on a "family newspaper" site like the Post's. But whether the reader-commenters actually did carry that tone over is something only Post.com knows for sure.
In any case, if it's too difficult to moderate comments, then at least they should implement a registration process. Daily Kos does this on the left, and Roger L. Simon does this on the right end of the blogsphere. Post.com already makes readers register the first time they visit, and it would be easy enough to add another. Anyone who wants can still gain access easily enough, and violators are bannable. It's not a panacea, and the bad actors may well come back -- but it would be a useful step toward promoting more responsible comment board behavior.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Likely Stories
Of these 2 oft-discussed candidacies ... which is the more improbable?
Writing in his voice as the "Bull Moose," DLC's Marshall Wittmann pronounces the nascent ex-VP Gore draft movement the real deal. He appraises the evidence of elite support, and concludes: "The Moose has no insider insight, but he senses a groundswell of support building for the New Nixon -- that is, the New Gore. The momentum may be unstoppable. There could soon be a new Democratic frontrunner. Don't misunderstand the Moose -- he thinks that Gore would be a disaster for the donkey. But, there is an unmistakable pull in the party toward the port side. Filibusters are being hatched in Davos, and the inmates have taken over the asylum. And for them -- Gore's the One!"
For months and months, Brendan Nyhan has been trying to shoot down the notion that John McCain will either a) run for the WH as an independent, and b) win the WH as an indie. Each time it comes up, he's there to stomp on it again. The latest to catch his attention comes from U.S. News' "Washington Whispers": "Sen. John McCain' s white-hot public approval ratings--59 percent in the new Diageo/Hotline poll--are fast giving rise to a new 2008 presidential primary scenario among Washington's political brain trust. If, as conservatives believe, McCain's liberal stands on gays and abortion kill his GOP primary chances, he may ride into the election as an independent." Nyhan points readers to his previous arguments against this possibility, and by now just adds: "It's nearly impossible for third party candidates to win, and the likely effect of McCain entering the race would be to throw the race to the Democrat. How likely is that?"
By now you've surely seen the recut trailer for "The Shining," which re-envisions the horror film as a heartwarming tale of a family's triumph over adversity. But you may not have seen the recut trailer for "Sleepless in Seattle," which... takes the 1993 romantic comedy in the opposite direction.
