5/23: McCain At New School: Day 4!

One can never really predict when a slow news day will roll around, but when they do it sure helps if you can create your own news ... which is exactly what the Blogometer's top two stories have in common today. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) aide Mark Salter has managed to keep his boss' 5/20 New School commencement speech alive in the blogosphere for a fourth day while Al Gore's movie premiere tour notches more blogger adulation. Also in today's edition: WH'08 news for Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Barack Obama (D-IL); Stu Rothenberg makes new friends; kos shares his dreams; Drudge issues a (gasp!) retraction; and Google turns out not to be a bad guy after all. All that and a new Blogger Spotlight.

New School commencement speaker Jean Rohe prolonged her battle with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) aide Mark Salter at The Huffington Post: "I'd like to say first of all, that I don't believe that anything I've written to the public so far has been quite as nasty to Senator McCain as Mr. Salter was to me. ... You make many assumptions about who I am and what I stand for. You assume that the words shouted from the audience reflected at all times my opinions and values. You assume that I have made myself look like an idiot, which, I can tell you, is just not true. ... Please don't try to bully me anymore."

Also at The Huffington Post lefty Jane Smiley thinks McCain and Salter missed their mark: "From a purely strategic point of view, McCain's assault upon the fortress of liberalism that is the New School was an abject failure. He did not win over anyone, and he defeated and humiliated himself. ...Mark Salter failed him absolutely because it was Salter's job to understand, before the graduation speech, that McCain was unwelcome as the representative of a failed administration and a failed war, and that he is widely seen as someone who may once have had character but for whom the term "roll-away teeth" now applies." Fellow lefties The Carpetbagger Report and feministe gave their fightcards to Rohe.

The Blogometer was not the only one to smell set up. Dem consultant Kirsten Powers at The Huffington Post: "All the hoopla surrounding Sen. McCain being shouted down at the New School can be defined only one way: a brilliant campaign stunt. What could be better for a Senator who is seen by the right-wing base as being too cozy with the Left than to be heckled and rudely shouted down by a bunch of bratty liberal kids in New York City?" Lefty Legal Fiction: "Putting aside the academic debate, the crux of whether Rohe was effective turns on whether her attacks punctured McCain's bipartisan healer schtick or whether, as I say, they bolstered his conservative street cred. Tough call, but I'm going to stick with the latter." James Forsyth at FP Blog: "But for what it's worth, my take is that those people who turn their backs on the speaker are demonstrating that they've failed to absorb one of the key lessons of a liberal education: That you should be open to perspectives different from your own. The act of turning your back is indicative of a closed mind and an arrogant belief that nothing anyone says could possibly make you rethink your position. Having said that, I suspect that the protesting New School students behaved in exactly the way John McCain's advisors wanted them to."

The whole incident spurred a flashback for The Plank'sJason Zengerle who recounted McCain brow-beating him 16 years ago for his "lack of service and patriotism." Not done patrolling the web Salter emailed Zengerle who posted his response: " Senator McCain didn't post that comment. I did. When I speak for him I will mention it. Otherwise, you can assume I speak for myself. ... During the course of a news search I stumbled upon Ms. Rohe's self-congratulatory, look-at-me post in which she claimed she had "torn McCain's speech apart," made him "look like an idiot," etc and the toxic abuse of McCain that followed by readers of her post . She also recounted how he had refused to look her in the eyes before the speech, which only strengthened her resolve. (Of course, before the speech, she had asked to have her picture taken with him, which he consented to, and there they are smiling, arm in arm. Evidently, he forgot to look her in the eyes then as well.)"

Mark Leibovich'sNew York Times Dems-shun-losers article continued to draw fire from lefty bloggers. Reed Hundt at TPM Cafe covers three points the piece missed: "First, Gore won the popular vote and also would have won the vote in Florida had all ballots been counted. ... Second, Kerry lost in 2004 only because he lost the popular vote in Ohio and that he may not have lost but for voting irregularities. ... Third, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, and Richard Nixon are historical examples, if any are needed, of the viability of running again." Also at TPM CafeTodd Gitlin thinks the MSM overlooks its own role in Gore's defeat: "What's missing from this picture is the not-so-incidental part played by, hmmmm, the bold men and women of the Washington press corpse in conferring said pariah status, ridiculing, second-guessing, and trashing certain defeated Democrats as eminently "unlikeable"-- before they were defeated, in fact."

Subbing for the vacationing Josh Marshall, Matthew Yglesias at Talking Points Memo wonders if Leibovich's Gore-haters really exist: "Now, to be clear, I don't want to be doing one of these blogger slams on someone in the MSM. For all I know, there's a deep wellspring of anti-Gore sentiment lurking out there someplace. But I haven't stumbled on it, and I don't see it in the Times piece. Are there Gore-haters out there? Are you one? Inquiring minds want to know." Later Yglesias follows up: "The email is pouring in! I have, in fact, been able to locate some Gore haters. A larger number of emails, however, are strongly pro-Gore. ... I've been a bit surprised, however, to see how prominent a role complaints about the Parents Music Resource Center have played in statements by anti-Gore people."

At The Huffington Post Arianna Huffington's worldwide Gore-premiere-shadowing tour continued to the Cannes Film Festival: "In Washington, the talk was all about 2006. In Cannes, the talk is all about 2008. In Cannes for the European premiere of his powerful global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Gore has been surrounded by adoring crowds and deluged with interview requests. "This is my second visit to Cannes," he said. "The first was when I was fifteen years old and came here for the summer to study the existentialists -- Sartre, Camus... We were not allowed to speak anything but French!"

Margaret Carlson, also at The Huffington Post, thinks America may be ready for a president that prefers Camus to Spies Like Us: "The debut of Gore's documentary comes at a time when some pundits (including me) might wonder if we should give a rest to that old saw about likeability. Maybe Americans prefer to have a beer and burger with the charming frat boy to the student who always does his homework. But is that a wise basis for choosing a president? ...With all the needless death from a ill-conceived war, the wasteful corruption of sweetheart contracts in Iraq and New Orleans, debt and deficits as far as the eye can see, gas prices through the roof with no energy policy in sight, and with a president who delegates to incompetents and cronies, I'm ready to give the class nerd his due and raise a glass to a serious man."

Think Progress quickly smacked down a Drudge Report item claiming Gore and entourage used 5 cars to travel 500 yards: "Think Progress contacted Gore's representatives, who unequivocally confirmed that Al Gore and his associates walked from the Majestic Hotel to the screening at Cannes. Further, Paramount has committed to making the entire tour promoting the film carbon neutral.

Even the pro-carbon National Association of Manufacturers was thanking Gore: "In what can only be a colossal mistake by the Father of the Internet, the official blog site for Al Gore's new movie has on its front page a prominent link to the blog you are now reading. ...Could this be a great show of magnanimity by the Internet's Founder and erstwhile Presidential candidate? Is it a sign, maybe, that even he is getting a little skeptical about all this global warming, uh... cooling, uh... warming stuff? Maybe he's getting ready to throw in the towel on all this "sure is getting hot in here" mumbo-jumbo."

Lefties were universally unhappy with the New York Times 5/23 article on the current status of Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) marriage. Most protested by pointing out GOP infidelities they would like the Times to cover instead. Matt Stoller at MyDD: "Jeb Bush, who is widely seen as the heir to the Bush legacy after positive comments from both his brother and father, has his own problems, with widely circulated rumors about affairs in Tallahassee with none other than then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Atrios: "Twice-married Virginia Senator George Allen faces questions over claimed sadistic treatment of his siblings and his fondness for confederate memorabilia despite his having grown up in California." Oliver Willis: "Where's the big splash story on Rudolph Giuliani's bedhopping, or Newt Gingrich leaving his dying wife? Where are the stories on how Laura Bush crashed into and killed a teenager?" Feministe: "And I'll add that before Giuliani married Judith Nathan, he was married to Donna Hanover, who he also had an affair with during his first marriage to his second cousin (that marriage was annulled after 14 years)."

The Left Coaster was no more happy with the story but hoped it got the issue out of the way early: "The piece is somewhat balanced and not as bad as it could have been. In fact, I could argue that in coming out this early, the piece helps Hillary as an inoculator of sorts. But you will see many posts and rants in the center-left blogosphere today and in the coming days, and rightly so, about why the NYT is slobbering so early over the Clintons again, given their pathetic and eventually empty pursuit of them during the 1990's."

In The Agora reported on a Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) sit-down with IN bloggers:

Bayh's presidential aspirations are no secret. In 2005 alone he visited 22 states, with two visits to both Iowa and New Hampshire. His PAC also raised more money than any other potential Democratic candidate during the first six months of 2005, along with continued fundraising success in '06. He offered a refreshingly candid response about a possible run when he said, "It's no secret that I'm doing all of the things one needs to do" to run for president. ...Bayh's approach on the campaign trail is best summarized in a campaign bumper sticker he suggested to the Des Moines Register: "I kind of like 'Bayh-partisan.'" This theme of partisan reconciliation was echoed numerous times during our lunch today and it will no doubt form the bedrock of his presidential campaign. ... Presidential contenders almost always hold off from too many specifics until the months leading up to the election, but you still have an idea of what's important to them, and the values they'll apply to a given issue. With Bayh the only ideology appears to be a lack of ideology. That may help a him win votes in a red state, but it doesn't instill the type of passion and energy that wins national campaigns. ... In my mind this is Bayh's biggest hurdle, and indeed the challenge facing the national Democratic party. Americans are disillusioned with Bush's leadership, but unsure about their alternative. That attitude will get Democrats a few more House seats and perhaps even a president in '08. But it won't inspire a lasting movement. That is Bayh's challenge.

OBAMA: Well If Hillary's Worried About Him...

Jason Zengerle at The Plank says this line from John HeilenmanNew Yorkpiece , "For some time, the thinking there has been that only two potential candidates have the capacity to toss the chessboard in the air, altering Team Hillary's carefully calibrated plans: Barack Obama and Gore," piqued his interest. Zengerle then writes: "For some reason I had assumed that -- despite heartfelt pleas for him to run--an Obama '08 presidential campaign was not even in the realm of possibility, but evidently some people close to Obama are putting out signals that he is indeed considering a presidential bid. And if you look at the way Obama's acting, he does seem to be laying the groundwork for one. First, there's his Hopefund PAC, which has already distributed close to $2.5 million to Democratic candidates this cycle. ...Spreading money around to Democrats all over the country, making noises about how the Senate maybe isn't the best place for him to affect political change--sounds like a guy thinking about running for president to me!"

Perhaps wanting to test The Rothenberg Political Report's email inbox capacity, Stu Rothenberg writes that a Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) defeat, "unlikely as it may be, would be a sad, sad chapter in American politics."

Lefty kos wasn't about to shed any tears: "Funny how the establishment in DC, of which Rothenberg is one of its biggest defenders, hates democracy. God f***ing forbid that an incumbent have to justify his existence to the voters of his state! What a f***ing travesty! I mean, once elected, an incumbent shouldn't have to answer to the voters, should he? Really, Rothenberg is one of the worst. Like the rest of the establishment apologists for Lieberman, Stu really is angry that their homeboy has to work to keep his job. Those extremist DC insiders don't believe in democracy and quaint notions such as the "will of the people". All that matters is that their country club and cocktail party buddies get a free pass election after election. I swear, DC, with its media and political elite is a cesspool. Time to wipe it clean and start from scratch.

Lefty Chris Bowers at MyDD managed a similar response sans profanity: "Seriously, for an election analyst, Stuart Rothenberg does not seem to actually like elections very much. Stuart Rothenberg is supposed to be a political analyst who does not take sides. However, in this case, he clearly has taken sides, both against Ned Lamont and against democracy. However, as much as Stuart Rothenberg would like it to be otherwise, Joe Lieberman has no right to continue to hold office simply because he is willing to give the middle finger to the same people who elected him in the first place.

Many lefty bloggers linked to Paul Krugman's attack on Lieberman. AMRERICABlog notes: "Here's another reason why it sucks that the NY Times hides their columnists behind Times Select -- Krugman dissects Lieberman today. ...I always thought the whole sanctimonious gig by Lieberman was mostly just an act. It sure gets him on TV. After Lamont beats him, Joe can do TV full time.

Not all bloggers were impressed with Krugman's analysis. Under the header "Krugman blasts Lieberman (unfairly)" former Pres. Bush advisor Greg Mankiw's Blog concludes: "Now suppose my friend Joe offers me some financial advice: "Greg, you should really pay off that debt now, because waiting a year will cost you an extra $7." How should I respond? (a) "Yes, Joe, you are right." (b) "No, Joe, that's not the best way to think about it." (c) "Joe, you are a liar." I think (a) and (b) are defensible points of view. But Krugman chose (c).

The contrast in mood between left and right blogggers could not be greater than when the subject of Election '06 comes up. Lefty kos takes time out of his busy book tour to dream a little dream: "I was daydreaming today of what the 2007 Senate might look like. Not just the possibility of winning it back and having Harry Reid as the majority leader, but the possibility of actually having a new generation of great senators representing their constituents in DC. Just imagine a Senate with: Jon Tester, Montana; Ned Lamont, Connecticut; Bernie Sanders, Vermont; Sherrod Brown, Ohio; Jack Carter, Nevada. ...On this tour I've talked about the short-term goal and the long-term goal. Short term, we work with the Democrats we have in DC. We don't have a choice. But long term, we start replacing the worst of them with good progressives. If we help get those five Democrats and progressives above elected to the Senate, we'll be a lot closer to that long-term goal that we think."

Over at lefty hangout MyDDChris Bowers loves Democracy Corps' latest polls on NJ-07, PA-07, and OH-01: "In the straight-up trial heats that do not include anything except candidate names and titles, Republicans lead all three. However, all three are also competitive. ...None of these elections would currently be considered toss-ups or lean-Democratic, but clearly they are competitive. For races of this tier to be competitive five and a half months before the election, one can certainly see the making of a major national landslide."

Also at MyDD, Jonathan Singer talked with '04 nominee Jerry McNerney who is facing Navy vet. Steve Filson in the Dem. primary for the chance to unseat Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA). Highlights include:

Singer:

Let's move on to a few issues that are pretty central to the Central Valley, I guess you could put it, starting with immigration, which is kind of the big one right now in Congress.McNerney:
Jonathan, I haven't seen too much interest in exporting all of the undocumented people in this country. I haven't seen too much of that, although I have had one or two messages along those lines. Most people are interested in something that's more balanced, and that's certainly where I stand. The Kennedy-McCain approach I think is pretty good and it would be beneficial to our country.Singer:
Let's move from domestic issues to a couple of national security issues starting with Iraq. The situation in Iraq, and even in Afghanistan, appears to be, well, let's just say below the expectations that were set several years when we went into those two countries. Congressman Murtha from Pennsylvania has put forward a plan to set a deadline for redeploying troops - in other words moving them out of the country to neighboring areas. Do you support the plan?McNerney:
I'm 100 percent in favor of Congressman Murtha's plan for several reasons. First of all, I think that we can have widespread, broad support for that approach. ...But really what it comes down to is if we put a public timetable out there, we'll put the Iraqis on notice that they need to be responsible for their own security and it will give them an urgency to find solutions to their differences. Another thing that it will do is it will give the United Nations an opportunity and a motive to get involved in Iraq and be part of the solution. So those two things together I think could end up making that the best possible alternative for our national policy in Iraq.

Righty disenchantment with the GOP bubbles up whenever immigration is discussed. A Human Events article prompts Daily Pundit to write: "The content of this article can be summed up as, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." But the American public is too ignorant (of history, law, and governance) and too stupid and apathetic to stand up to these arrogant would-be rulers, who (rightly) regard those who have trusted them to represent them well as hapless tools who can be safely ignored. Even more disappointing are the Republicans who will swallow this dreck simply because it is being ladled down their gaping throats by Republican Senators and a Republican President." The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler chimes in: "That they managed to screw us so utterly back then was because we didn't know any better. We do now."

Under the header "Cut Their Pay and Send Them Home?" righty Tapscott's Copy Desk comments: " Remember Sen. Lamar Alexander's campaign slogan when he was seeking the White House years ago? I was reminded of that slogan last week while observing the events on Capitol Hill as the House voted to limit the number of bureaucrats taking vacations on official business. Putting a limit on such bureaucratic fun junkets was a good thing but what about the emerging evidence of hypocrisy in the House lobbying reform bill that requires public identification of earmkarks and their congressional sponsors? One small step forward on bureaucrats junkets, two giant leaps backward on the lobbying bill."

Even GOP-diehard Hugh Hewitt has stopped giving to national party organizations: "As I argued on Saturday morning, it is time to start defending the Senate majority so that the next Supreme Court nominee can get through the Judiciary Committee and past a filibuster, and so that we are not saddled with a radically obstructionist Congress just as the confrontation with Iran enters its crucial phase and Iraq its first years of democratic government. I am still refusing to donate to the National Republican Senatorial Committee because of its support for Lincoln Chafee, who never gets the big votes right and whose seniority is a matter of concern."

The Drudge Report pulled back from its Howard Dean supported LG Mitch Landrieu (D-LA) story 5/22. Drudge Report concludes: "DNC Communications director Karen Finney explained: "The DNC does not as a policy get involved in Democratic primaries. ... The only thing that the DNC did was a campaign helping ensure that displaced voters had an opportunity to vote." The DRUDGE REPORT takes Chairman Dean and his spokesman at their word."

Preemptive Karma retorts: "The only reason conservatives take Drudge seriously is because he once scored on the blue dress story. Being 1 for 258,756 is enough to get you carte blanche with the conservative media." And Hullabaloo adds: "Poor, poor Republicans. They are reduced to dragging out that poor old fossilized 90s retread Drudge to falsely smear Democrats again. That's a sad comment on the rightwing blogosphere if you ask me."

Clinton Administration aide Donnie Fowler took to The Huffington Post to highlight a letter sent to Democratic Party leaders by his father former DNC chair Donald L. Fowler. Highlights include: "Recent complaints by some Washington pundits with limited agendas that the Democratic National Committee should withdraw support from state Democratic parties are short-sighted and misplaced. ... One of the long-time shortcomings of the Democratic National Committee has been its control by Washington people whose visions dim south of the Potomac, west of Chevy Chase, and north of RFK stadium. This lack of understanding of anything much about American politics other than the fees of Washington campaign consultants is what has given our party defeats in 2000, 2002, and 2004. We Democrats shouldn't be led down that same bumpy road in 2006 and 2008. ...Investment in state parties is the functional equivalent of research and development expenditures by corporations. To be successful in the future, you must invest resources now. Vast majorities of Democrats outside the Beltway support Governor Dean's policy of reinvigorating state parties. Our message to the DNC: Keep it up. We're on the road to victory."

After reading NewsBusters post on Google de-listing of righty bloggers, plenty on the right were perfectly willing to condemn Google as "Big Brother" "hypocrite" "censors" (see Macsmind, Flopping Aces, and Riehl World View) but most thought Google was just trying to avoid controversy by avoiding discussion of Islam.

Littlegreenfootballs: "As this section demonstrates, I think the idea that Google News excludes conservative sites, while probably true, is only a small part of the problem. The real pattern is that the people who pick sites to be included in the index of Google News are biased against sites that are known for being critical of Islam." Outside the Beltway: "The common thread is not so much conservative politics, per se, but a particular viewpoint toward Islamic radicalism. All of these sites either focus on our at frequently comment in a negative manner about the connection between Islam and terrorism." The Jawa Report: "Seems to me the common thread to all this is that some person(s) gets upset. Then, rather than use their speech, they pull the good old 3rd grade trick, "I'm going to tell!" So Google responds to those complaints because- well, that's what corporations do. Rather than risk (the money) taking a stand you always attempt to make the whiner happy or at least make him think you did."

Today the Blogometer talks to conservative Ian Schwartz, who writes Expose the Left.

What is your full name?

Ian Schwartz

What is your age?

18

Where did you grow up?

Baltimore, Maryland

Where do you live now?

Baltimore

What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?

At this time, I am currently a blogger. However, during the summer I will be employed at the RNC.

When did you start blogging and why?

I started politically blogging -- and my political blog -- in October of 2004, a month before the election. I started to blog for several reasons. One, I read and enjoyed several political blogs. Second, I knew how to blog because I had contributed to a non-political blog in the past. Third, I thought it was a good way to vent/get my political opinion out there and discuss it with others.

What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?

Several ...Novak saying "bulls**t" and walking off the CNN set...Kennedy going nuts on the Senate floor...Maher rationalizing Moussaoui.

Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?

I usually post something small in the morning, however I don't get in my groove until the early afternoon. During the week, normal blogging hours are from 12pm to 12am -- yes 12 hours, with only several breaks to eat. I'm an addict, what can I say. However, on the weekends, I actually have a social life .. and usually write up 6 or so posts in the early afternoon and I will set them to post later in the day so readers see new content.

Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?

Michelle Malkin. No one is spared, conservative or liberal, from her wrath. She believes in conservative values and will call out "conservatives", who aren't being conservatives. ( i.e. President Bush)

Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?

Michael Barone

What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?

Probably Hannity & Colmes , I've enjoyed it a lot lately.

What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?

www.nytimes.com, www.washingtonpost.com, www.washingtontimes.com, www.examiner.com, www.cnn.com, www.boston.com, www.sfgate.com, www.freep.com, www.chron.com, www.foxnews.com

What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?

www.drudgereport.com, www.instapundit.com, www.michellemalkin.com, www.huffingtonpost.com (just for a laugh), www.theonion.com, www.humanevents.com, blogometer.nationaljournal.com, www.rightwingnews.com, www.lucianne.com, www.newsbusters.org, corner.nationalreview.com, www.olbermannwatch.com, www.polipundit.com www.hotair.com, www.fark.com, byrddroppings.typepad.com, ace.mu.nu/

How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?

Hardly, but I will read the Sports section on the weekend.

How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?

For a while I thought that the 'new media' would work against the 'old media' and eventually kill it. But now I see that a lot of the 'new media' is become the 'old media'. For example, there are several blog sites becoming like the MSM, ( i.e. The Huffington Post) I don't like Arianna anyway, but her site reminds me a lot like the MSM.

Anyway, I still think that the new media can over take the old media, just as long as it sticks to its true meaning. The best comparison I can make is the new media is becoming like the current Republican controlled congress breaking away from the Contract with America. The new media has been popular for quite some time that it's breaking from its roots.

In five years, I think that dead-tree will become more unpopular than it already is and the majority will read it online. However, a strong majority of people will know the MSM is biased. As for the 'new media', I believe it will have a strong presence, and traffic will increase 3-fold for popular bloggers.

Mark Leon Goldberg at TAPPED writes: "Just as the Democrats were purged of their southern roots in 1994, so too might an overdue regional realignment visit the northeast in 2006. If, for example, voters in Connecticut remove Chris Shays, Rob Simmons, and Nancy Johnson from office, then November 2006 could be the moment that future historians cite as when the bluing of blue America caught up with the reddening of the red states. To be sure, there are more congressional districts in the south than in the northeast, so I tend to agree with Ezra that it is still a stretch to think that we'll hear the words "Speaker Pelosi" in November. Still, if nutmeggers purge themselves of congressional Republicans, and if Rhode Islanders dump Lincoln Chafee, then an historical moment this will be: The New Englandization of the Democratic party will all be all but complete.

LEST WE FORGET: White Women Can't Rap

OK, such broad generalization's are probably unfair. So let's just stipulate that this white woman can't rap.