March 22, 2006

3/22: Dawn Of The Red

With the week's events largely focused on multiple Pres. Bush pressers, the latest debates have been more blogocentric -- with the right either scoring a long-term victory and/or completely ceasing to matter, and the left either rising again to influence the media-political landscape, or just making themselves sound silly.

Thanks to the Washington Post's launch of a conservative blog, the paper and its dot com counterpart finds themselves re-fighting battles from late 1/06, when ombudsman Deborah Howell's error in favor of GOPers aroused the activist attention of liberal bloggers (see the 1/18, 1/23 and 1/26). The Dem analysis goes, a) the media gives into the conservatives' complaints, who b) continue complaining anyway, as they seek to subvert rather than improve the media. Not to mention, the Post has a Bush-sympathetic editorial this a.m., and it draws some fire from the left as well.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers -- who focus on foreign issues much more than the left does -- are swarming on an anti-racism poster prepared by the U.N. Human Rights commis. which makes curious use of puzzle pieces and a Lego. The building block empire is based in Denmark, which leads many to think the U.N. is making a subtle allusion to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy (see previous coverage). Many on the right, and some on the left, are also following the case of an Afghan man who faces possible execution for converting to Christianity -- a situation also recalling the cartoon furor. The Blogometer generally avoids issues that do not pertain to Beltway politics, but these debates are worth the summary.

Plus, we cover the IL primary coverage, a bold claim from the left about the right-blogosphere's importance (or lack thereof), and the intriguing results of Daily Kos' latest WH'08 straw poll. And check out the job listing while you're at it.

DOMENECH: The Republican Noise Machine, Washington Edition?

In yesterday's edition we noted the launch of the Washington Post's latest blog, Red America, written by ex-Bush appointee/ex-Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) speechwriter/RedState co-founder/Regnery editor Ben Domenech. We should have looked around for comment, as it didn't take long for the left-blogosphere to take note, and offense, and made it the story of the day. It's possible we've gone overboard with a story that naturally appeals to us as blog- and media-centric, but it's a genuine swarm and recalls the Post's troubled period in late 1/06. The Post has long been viewed by lefty bloggers as GOP-leaning, -sympathetic, or -cowed -- similar to conservatives' dislike of the New York Times -- and to them Domenech's hiring is proof positive that the Post has serious problems.

As many involved in the controversy linked back to Eschaton, we're pretty sure Duncan "Atrios" Black hit first, directing readers to ask Post reporter Tom Edsall (in that a.m.'s live chat) "if they have any plans to hire a 'Blue America' blogger." The very 1st question addressed was indeed about Domenech. Edsall replied: "The hiring of Ben Domenech of RedState has provoked a firestorm, if the volume of questions this morning is any measure. ... I am told that this is part of the Post's web operation's efforts to provide diverse views." Edsall notes that he has no hiring power; in fact, Edsall works for the Post, not Post.com. The distinction is easily lost to many if not most, particularly as the Post.com is how the vast majority of bloggers read the Post in the 1st place.

Crooks and Liars noted that the anti-Post.com columnist Dan Froomkin and anti-Post reporter Dana Milbank sentiment among conservatives, widely believed on the left to have precipitated Domenech's hiring, was voiced early on by ex-BC'04 blog guru/now-RNC eCampaign dir. Patrick Ruffini -- and that the Post's John Harris adopted this criticism "as his own." Tapped's Greg Sargent cites Domenech's assertion that the MSM treats conservatives as an "alien and off-kilter group," responding: "Domenech's MSM-bashing, of course, is belied by his own apparent hiring. ... Indeed, one way to think about the right's 'media-is-liberal' campaign is as a kind of crude protection racket." NRO's Steven Spruiell disagrees with Sargent "Domenech didn't 'bash' the media for being liberal. He simply pointed out" what an '04 Pew poll showed, that nat'l journalists describe themselves as liberal more often than conservative. Sargent colleague Garance Franke-Ruta makes the point that Domenech is more of an "operative," unlike Froomkin, who has a reportorial background. She says the liberal blogger equivalent of Domenech would be AMERICAblog's John Aravosis; the conservative equivalent of Froomkin would be The Atlantic's Ross Douthat. In addition to the bloggers, Media Matters' David Brock wrote a letter to Post.com's Jim Brady, which was covered by Editor & Publisher. Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher writes a "letter" to Brady as well, although much heavier on the insults: "Oh, lordy Jim. I have to tell you, if I'd been writing a send-up of a right wing blogger I could not have done a better job. You went straight to the Red State racist woodpile and extracted a full-on jingoistic feces flinger to feature on the Post web site, an unrepentant GOP operative without a shred of journalistic credibility. Nice touch. Because he balances out what, Froomkin's IQ?"

Sargent also e-mailed the Post with a few questions, and Post.com's Hal Strauss replied via spokesperson Eric Easter. A Sargent question: "Was the hiring of Ben Domenech motivated by a desire to placate right-wing critics upset with Dan Froomkin's frequent criticism of George Bush or upset with the recent Dana Milbank appearance poking fun at the shooting episode involving the vice president?" Straus: "When WP.com launched Opinions we said we wanted this new area to be about a variety of voices across a broad spectrum of political and cultural thought. Ben Domenech's Red America is simply another reflection of that effort. ... Subsequently we returned to spokesman Easter and asked him if WashingtonPost.com intended to hire a liberal blogger to act as a counterpart to Domenech. In response, he referred us back" to Straus' answer.

Most of the early conservative reaction was little more than welcoming the Domenech blog, including Jeff Goldstein and Ed Lasky at The American Thinker, who wrote: "I am tempted to quote Bob Dylan and note that 'the times, they are a changin'.' But the New York Times, often abbreviated as 'the Times' isn't changing. However the Post is." But MRC's NewsBusters was 1 of the early responders to the liberal complaints, and noted that a couple participants of Post humor columnist Gene Weingarten's live chat also complained about the hiring: "The devoutly liberal Weingarten's perfectly reasonable response: 'One solution -- this is crazy, I know -- might be not to read it.'" T. Longren wrote: "The launch of this new blog has apparently upset some liberals. Not sure why, I thought these types were all about 'letting people choose' and providing un-biased information. I guess that only applies to media outlets they deem to be 'conservative.'" Don Singleton, on the distinction between reporting and opinion: "We would rather have some conservative editors and reporters. ... WaPo is filled with Left Wing editors and reporters. Try for a Fair and Balanced news room, and you can have [back] your token right wing blogger."

Some on the left have moved on to focus on Domenech's previous writings, specific views and even his upbringing. Your Logo Here collects a number of links to and excerpts from Domenech's mostly-retired personal blog, Ben Domenech Online. and Pharyngula, which tags him a "creationist" and makes an issue of his home-schooling -- 1st noted by Atrios, who located a CNN transcript from '97 featuring the Domenech family. Lefty economist Max Sawicky doesn't defend Domenech, but does defend home-schooling. Also lefty economist Brad DeLong was among several to take issue with DeLong's referencing of "Red Dawn" -- a cult classic among conservatives, but not regarded by anyone else as a great movie. With tongue-perhaps-in-cheek, DeLong offers an alternate theory -- that the Post is making the right look bad by hiring Domenech, whom he describes as "an unarmed man in a battle of wits." As for "Red Dawn," at Domenech's own RedState the comment thread on the post about his debut contains a small debate about the film's merits (or lack thereof).

Meanwhile, Jack Abramoff-minded reporter-blogger Josh Marshall brings in a whole new angle: "[I]t turns out the Domenech family came in for a number of Bush administration appointments. Not only Ben, but Ben's dad, Doug, who was White House liaison to the Department of Interior. Or to put it more colloquially, White House guy to make sure Jack Abramoff got what he wanted with the Indians and the Pacific Island stuff." Markos Moulitsas adds: "I wonder if the Post thought their lame efforts at "balance" would result in such tragic hilarity. I wonder how the paper's staff are feeling about their paper's credibility right now." Brendan Nyhan, former co-editor of non-partisan spin-unspinning blog Spinsanity, recalls debunking a Domenech claim in 6/02 that Bush had earlier said he'd hit the "trifecta" for running deficits.

Donklephant's centrist Justin Gardner had been looking forward to the blog as a "meditation on what it means to be a red-stater," but was dismayed at what he actually found the 1st post to be a "very partisan shot at the MSM." He writes: [T]his is the trap that so many in the blogosphere fall into. They think just because the extreme left brands red staters as crazy, it must also mean that the media does too. Because after all, many reporters self-identify with liberal values so they must be extreme too." More: "Ben, that horse is dead. Quit beating it or else you're going to become very uninteresting in very short order." In part of a longer post, moderate Joe Gandelman tries to sort out the competing interests, going back and forth between lefty and righty perceptions of bias.

This a.m. at Red America, Domenech ironically acknowledges his critics at Red America: "I'm happy that no one's engaged in any ridiculous hyperbole, unfounded accusations or unintentionally hilarious name-calling. We can all agree that such things lower the quality of debate on the Internet, play to the worst side of our knee-jerk partisan nature and have no place in the modern public square. I look forward to engaging you in a serious, respectful discussion on the issues that matter most to the future of our nation." Some have noticed that Red America has no comments, only a link to e-mail the Post. Referencing the flood of allegedly abusive e-mails the Post received following the Howell controversy, he writes, the site "is sure to spark responses from a few fringe members of this Internet political community, who might be motivated to deluge comment systems with offtopic concerns (or perhaps go after other members of the Washington Post family, who have nothing to do with this blog -- silly, I know, but I'm told it happens)."

BUSH: Hardcore Encore

On 3/21, Bush took unscripted questions for the 2nd time in 2 days -- 1st at a Cleveland hotel, and yesterday from reporters in the WH press briefing. It's certainly one of the bigger topics, and also one both the left and right are following about equally.

The Washington Post has an editorial on Bush's pressers, stating in the 1st graf that Bush "should hold more news conferences. In his hour-long exchange with reporters at the White House yesterday, he was considerably more effective in explaining and defending his commitment to the war in Iraq than in the three carefully worded speeches he has delivered in the past week," also praising his "sometimes blunt, sometimes joking and sometimes unpolished way," which "sounded authentic." Although the editorial is unsigned, John Aravosis assumes it was written by Fred Hiatt -- lefty bloggers consider him a stealth right-winger at the paper. He writes: "More editorials from the conservative establishment media lavishing raspberries on Bush and his Iraq policy. I guess 2,000 American dead and a civil war isn't enough of a disaster for the Post. Then again, they own this war as much as Bush does, and they know it ... The war is over. We lost." Conservative Betsy Newmark agrees with the Post, adding: "And he should call on Helen Thomas every single time. The sight of her sparring with him and interrupting him before he could get a couple of words out of his mouth did more to remind people of what they like about Bush than any of those speeches that he gives around the country that few people hear about because the media will only show a couple of seconds. But they all wanted to show that interchange with Helen Thomas. It was great." Bark Bark Woof Woof cites Bush's exchange with Thomas on pre-war intel, asking: "So the question comes down to this: is the president deliberately lying and hoping that the American public has such a short-term memory that they won't remember what was going on three years ago, is he so thick in terms of his knowledge of international politics that he conflates religious fanatics in Afghanistan with a secular Iraqi dicatorship ... or is he just delusional? I would prefer to find out that he is just lying. That would mean that at least he is aware of the facts of the case and chooses, for his own political fortunes, to prevaricate."

Foreign policy hawk OxBlog's David Adesnik notes his prior criticism of the rhetoric from Rumsfeld and Cheney on Iraq, but thinks Bush's take is "[m]uch, much better": "He did not speak about the insurgents' "desperation" or invoke unhelpful analogies between Iraq and Nazi Germany. Instead, he made the case for how Americans and Iraqis working together can beat the insurgents." Although he hedges his praise a bit: "I agree that the new strategy represents a significant improvement. But it is also interesting to note the President's assertion that the old strategy was still in place -- and failing -- in November 2004. The same month Bush was re-elected. I don't recall from that time much talk of a failed strategy. Interestingly, public approval of the President's strategy was much greater back in November 2004." Kevin Drum writes of Bush's word choice: "The phrase 'open-ended commitment' is the right one to use. It's the logical equivalent of refusing to set benchmarks for withdrawal, and it's not something the American public is very comfortable with. An open-ended commitment during the Cold War was one thing, but Iraq is quite another. An open-ended commitment there sounds way too much like Vietnam."

On a tangent -- As we noted on 3/20, AP's Jennifer Loven wrote an influential (and controversial) report citing instances of Bush using "straw man" arguments in speeches. To the left, it was commendable reporting. To the right, it sounded like a "DNC memo."

Liberal The Carpetbagger Report notes Bush attributing a belief that people in other countries don't deserve the same rights as Americans to "people," and adds: "Yes, Bush gave those rights-denying enemies of freedom a lashing of a lifetime. If this reflected reality in even a tangential way, it'd really be impressive." Conservative Captain's Quarters also references the Loven piece, noting, if Bush uses "strawmen, then apparently the practice isn't limited to Bush. A few of Loven's colleagues use them as well, as evident in the President's press conference this morning" -- he quotes a few from the transcript, including one reporter who opens a question: "There are some in Washington who say..."

UNITED NATIONS: The Poster Service

As mentioned above, this Internet-posted advert/poster U.N. Human Rights commis. poster has caused a lot of commotion on conservative blogs.

Conservative Steven Taylor disagrees with the general thrust of arguments: "First, I would note that the Lego is the one being left out. If the goal was to attack the Danes, surely a bunch of Legos would be shunning a black puzzle piece. That would make more sense if the Legos are supposedly represenitng Danish intolerance, yes?" == Michelle Malkin disagrees completely: "With all due respect, those giving the U.N. the benefit of the doubt and advocating this benign interpretation are looking at the graphic bass-ackwards. The puzzle pieces represent unity and tolerance; the red LEGO represents a blaring, non-conformist, and unacceptable 'shape of racism.'"

JunkYardBlog's Bryan Preston sides with Malkin: "Unity is such a buzzword these days that you can't escape it. ... Unity for its own sake, not unity toward any worthwhile goal like stamping out the likes of bin Laden and Zarqawi, but unity in a non-judgemental let's-all-hold-hands-and-sing-kumbayah context." == So does Jan Haugland: "The UN denies it had any such intentions. I doubt it had anything to do with the LEGO Company, but it is hard to believe this is anything but a dig at Denmark, using its most famous international symbol." == Liberal No More Mr. Nice Blog does not, and provides a reason for Haugland to doubt: Malkin thinks we should all buy Danish products to prove we don't stand with the cartoon rioters (OK, fine so far). Beyond that, however, she says that the use of a Lego in this ad makes this a 'vile poster portraying Denmark's most famous company as racist.' Michelle, you're nuts. Just so you know, Michelle -- Legos have been part of UNHCR anti-racism ads since at least 1994."

Elephants in Academia has a novel take: "I don't think this is the Commission's intention, but their ludicrous picture actually makes a good point. There is a dark and deadly subculture of racial discrimination spreading thought the world, and that LEGO is not part of it. It is completely out of place in such company."

Agora gives more reason for suspicion of the U.N.'s human rights body re: Denmark -- namely, a U.N. official recently criticized the cartoons' publication, or in Eugene Volokh's words, "demanding speech restrictions." == In the Bullpen ties the 2 together: "The United Nations should be against censorship, but instead they are promoting the very self-censorship the cartoons were supposed to help eliminate. The UN should be promoting Democracy whose core values are a free press, free speech and free expression. Throwing in a Danish company, Lego, by suggesting that it is Lego that is racist forgets the entire free press, free speech and free expression ideas of a Democracy."

AFGHANISTAN: High Infidelity

A case touching on the same themes as the Jyllands-Posten is the case of Afghan man Abdul Rahman, a Christian convert who faces death because of it -- as per sharia law. Conservatives are leading the way in getting word of this story out, and not a few criticize the Bush admin., although not in the full-throated manner as would the left.

Conservative-columnist-recently-turned-blogger Debbie Schlussel: "Yup, that Afghanistan. The one where our mostly Christian taxpayers sent a boatload of money and soldiers to install democracy and freedom. Clearly, nothing has changed from the days of the Taliban." Like the U.N. story, it's right up Malkin's alley, and she covers it in multiple posts, 1st on 3/19, and more yesterday here and here. Heritage's Mark Tapscott asks, "President Bush said nothing about Rahman during his news conference this morning. But then none of the mainstream media reporters there asked him about it, either. Where is Bush? Where are the mainstream media? Where are the men and women of faith in Congress? Where is Secretary of State Rice?"

There may be a way out, as Jihad Watch reports via AP and comments -- Hamid Karzai's advisers are "floating this idea" of declaring the man mentally unfit to stand trial "to extricate the Karzai government from the tight place this case has put it in. It is a common view among Muslims that only someone who is insane, corrupt or under immense pressure would convert from Islam to Christianity, so this angle will make sense to those in Afghanistan who want Abdul Rahman's blood."

Liberal Booman Tribune finds strange bedfellows: "The right-wing blogs are flogging the story of Abdul Rahman for all its worth. This time, they have a point. ... At a minimum Rahman should be offered exile and a comfortable life anywhere it is still legal for him to be alive. No government should take away freedom of conscience for its citizens. I don't care what the Koran says."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Tales From The Crypt

MyDD's resident blog analyst Chris Bowers declares in a provocative header: "There Is No Right-Wing Blogosphere Anymore." He argues: "There is almost nothing in the way of an independent right-wing blogosphere operating outside of existing, established news media outlets." He says most major right-wing bloggers "have now been incorporated into the established news media apparatus," most recently Domenech joining the Washington Post. Most "A-List" "progressive bloggers," on the other hand, "are working with other emerging progressive institutions: MoveOn, Air America, Media Matters, etc. While conservative bloggers are looking to be absorbed within established institutions, progressive bloggers continue to build new ones. ... The right-wing blogosphere is dead. Long live the progressive blogosphere."

It meets a bit of disagreement in the comment section, but most concur. One commenter: "I think it's the nature of the right wing blogs that they would die out. I think blogs and the communities they create are a viral event. This by definition would favor those who think with a more flexible thought process." Another writes, "sure hope you are wrong about this elegy, for that would make the Web so much less interesting."

Perhaps not surprisingly, it does get significant pushback from the right -- Sigmund, Carl and Alfred: "Apparently, the 'progressives' have slain the right- because conservative bloggers have made a big enough impact on the MSM, who, like most Americans, have found their message compelling." RedState's Trevino says Bowers is "apparently unaware that his thesis is more or less one of crushing defeat for his side." Hugh Hewitt has precisely the opposite take: "In fact the blogging movement remains vibrant and far more productive on the right than on the left, where the leading blogs continue to spread venom and habits of expression and thought that are ruinous to the short-, medium- and long-term interests of the Democratic Party. Not only is the center-right blogosphere stronger and deeper than it was even a year ago, its counterpart is falling deeper and deeper into an abyss wherein very little in the way of logic or fact penetrate." Mick Stockinger at UNCoRRELATED: "If the left took time out from patting themselves on the back for their prodigious comment streams, they might recognize something ominously important about their conservative brethren--we don't comment, we link. Its such a subtle difference but with enormous importance."

WHITE HOUSE '08: Fein And Dandy Like Sour Candy

This week Daily Kos held its latest WH'08 straw poll; voting has closed and Moulitsas has posted final results. Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) censure resolution has clearly paid off in terms of liberal netroots support -- in a wide-open field, he nearly pulls down a majority of the 11K+ voters, with 48%. Runners-up were ret. Gen. Wesley Clark and ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner, far behind at 15% and 11%, respectively. NY Sen. Hillary Clinton finished with just 2% a few more places back. At the top, the order is unchanged from the 1/05 poll, but Feingold's lead was considerably slimmer at the time. Feingold, Clark and Warner then picked up 30, 22 and 12. HRC actually had 1 point more at that time, down from a high of 10% in the summer of '05.

DEMOCRATS: With Numbers Like These, Why Don't We Hear More Pelosi-Bashing?

There were 3 other concurrent polls, asking readers to rate the job performances of DNC chair Howard Dean, Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid, and House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi. Dean clearly has lost none of the appeal he held as a WH candidate, and perhaps has seen his stature rise among the activist left more generally since taking over -- his job approval was 89% yes, 9% no -- and 16K+ voters participated, more than any other. Reid received an adequate 50% to 32%, but Pelosi performed dismally, with 19% approving and 67% disapproving. About 13.5K voted in each of their polls.

ILLINOIS PRIMARIES: Point By Point

Hotline On Call has the latest results. Some highlights:

Lefties are upset with Iraq war vet Tammy Duckworth's (D) narrow victory in the IL 06 primaries over '04 nom. Christine Cegelis. Like the TX 28 primary see 3/8 Blogometer), Bowers provides a big chunk of the coverage at MyDD. He learns from the loss:

• The Dem "establishment is weak. I haven't seen this much establishment support line up against someone [Cegelis] since" DNC chair Howard Dean. "Considering the massive amount of fundraising, big name support, advocacy group support, free media, and direct DCCC contributions, Duckworth will finish way, way under 50%. The Democratic and progressive establishment, even the vaunted Chicago machine, is clearly losing the ability to control and influence its own base."
• Noting that Cegelis concentrated on turnout: "Strong ground games in primaries and other low turnout elections work." Ex-Rep. Ciro Rodriguez's (D) "ground game in TX-28 was weak." Iraq war vet Paul Hackett's (D) "in OH-02 was strong." Businessman Ned Lamont's (D) "ground game in CT [against Sen. Joe Lieberman (D)] could result in an enormous surprise."

The Almighty Ajax agrees with Bowers' frustration at the DCCC: "Maybe I'm a parochial clod with dung on my shoes, but I flatly resent the DCCC airlifting in a gimmick candidate." Philosopher's Armchair's Steve, who supported college prof. Lindy Scott (D), doesn't like that his candidate wasn't ever considered by the MSM: "Being ignored is the worst form of insult, worse than hatred." We The People and Bowers want the DCCC to pay $75K for a recount, just to "make nice." Musing's Musing is over the loss: "I just hope the district will unite behind the eventual winner, because this would be a huge pickup."

The Republic of Biloxi is mad about the GOP Gov primary: "With Judy Baar Topinka's primary victory over conservatives Jim Oberweis, Bill Brady, and fiscal conservative/social moderate Ron Gidwitz, we are assured a spirited race of business as usual versus more of the same." American Moderate Party's Peter sees it differently and likes the result, "particularly because Baar-Topinka is a moderate Republican - so she resonates with voters. Incredible, really, that the IL GOP has found a candidate for a high profile race after the debacle that was Alan Keyes for Senate." Dan Conley, on the Dem primary: Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), "are you listening yet? Some guy off the street just picked up 30 percent against you in the" Dem primary. "Okay, he had some experience. But no one who voted for Edwin Eisendrath took him seriously. His ads were terrible. His resume is thin. The one thing he had going for him is that he isn't you."

There's not much buzz on the IL 08 GOP primary, where banker David McSweeney (R) beat out atty Kathy Salvi 42%-33%, or on the IL 03 Dem primary, where Rep. Dan Lipinski (D) shrugged off two challenges, netting a majority.

:LCRR_KHS is just peeved about how backward IL is: "That 'new' system of voting where you expect me to fill ovals and WRITE on my ballot? Could it be any more stone age?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Singularity Is Over Here

Not one, but many -- there's a lot of interesting stuff in Mickey Kaus' stream-of-consciousness review of Glenn Reynolds new book, "An Army of Davids." Here's one especially happy thought: "I'm especially not persuaded, for example, that when technology puts greater and greater destructive power into the hands of smaller and smaller numbers of individuals it won't ultimately lead to some sort of doom. Imagine a rowboat with ten people, of varying religious beliefs, all of whom have their fingers on the trigger of a personal nuclear device. They try to get along and run a little society. How many times will this scenario result in a big explosion? More often than not, I suspect."

LEST WE FORGET: Have It Your Way

Let's see what's on the menu today:

• The meat-and-Steelers-loving folks at A Hamburger Today claim victory in their quest to create a -- wait for it -- Roethlis-Burger, and they have video to prove it.
• Wuzza Dem depicts Chris Matthews interviewing actor/conspiracy buff Richard Belzer and actor/apparent 9/11 revisionistCharlie Sheen .
• Fafblog commits "six counts of treason in this article alone."
• Steve from The Sneeze thinks his wife may have cheated on him with "Hot Dog Eating Champion Takeru Kobayashi," but possibly Augustus Gloop.
• Spoiler alert! Tony Soprano dies. Kind of.

This one's on us.

NOTES AND ERRATA: While Supplies Last

Job Opening: The Hotline is seeking a staff writer to take over The Blogometer. Applicants must consider themselves regular consumers of political blogs (min. 2 years reading them, also must be a fan of blogs), be familiar with nationally read blogs from across the spectrum; know how to use blog search engines/aggregators (such as Technorati and Memeorandum); be able to quickly analyze and synthesize developments in the news as well as summarize ongoing blog activity with brevity, clarity and accuracy. Excellent writing and time-management skills are also a must. As with every Hotline position, we don't expect our writers to not have an opinion, we just expect them to keep it out of their work. Interested applicants should send their resumes to jvu@theatlantic.com.

Posted by at March 22, 2006 12:45 PM