May 02, 2007

5/2: New Kids On The Block

Beltway DC's continued struggles embracing the realities of our online world were on display 5/1. First, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign upset some in the netroots with their rough appropriation of a grassroots supporter's Obama MySpace page. While the campaign had every right to be concerned that the the official sounding url of the page could have easily led to voter confusion down the road, the campaign still could have handled the supporter with a lighter touch. As some point out, the campaign probably would not have balked at the supporters asking price for the site had he been an established political professional.

But it is the exact concern of lack of professionalism that brings us to our second story, Jonathan Chait's TNR piece on the rise of the netroots. Chait's article has received mixed reviews in the community so far, including some common criticism that the line between the established opinion journalism Chait practices is just not that far away from the results focussed activism of bloggers. For more on the professionalization of bloggers and what it means for the Beltway, check out this Bloggingheads.tv interview with MyDD's Chris Bowers.

OBAMA: WhoseSpace?

Barack Obama is receiving some light, for now, criticism for the unsavvy handling takeover of Los Angeles, CA, paralegal Joe Anthony's Barack Obama MySpace page. TechPresident's Micah Sifry has the definitive account of the incident, including:

In November 2004, Joe Anthony, a paralegal living in Los Angeles, started a unofficial fan page for then-newly-elected Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) on MySpace.com. ... By the time of Obama's official campaign announcement in late January, Anthony's Obama profile ... already had more than 30,000 friends ... Yesterday, the profile had just over 160,000 friends.

Sifry reports that Obama's campaign formed an informal relationship with Anthony as his page grew, but began to want more direct control when they became concerned about some minor inaccuracies on the site as well as legal issues surrounding podcasts linked to on the site. Team Obama then moved to bring Anthony on in an official capacity eventually offering a one-time consultant fee for control of the site, but were "shocked" by Anthony's $49K asking price.

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong comments on the offer: "Yea, $49K to deliver 160,000 supporters; that's .32 cents each for opted in and engaged activists. A bargain. [The amount was actually up to $44K] $50,000 is what it takes to advertise on the Liberal Ad Network for two weeks. It's a minor expenditure in the grand scheme of things."

After rejecting Anthony's offer, Obama staffers then went to MySpace officials who turned control of the site over to the campaign and locked Anthony out. Sifry quotes MySpace VP for public affairs: "We felt under the circumstances that Senator Obama had the right to the URL containing his name and to the official campaign content that was provided, but that the user should retain the basic elements of the profile, including the friends who had been accumulated."

Sifry comments on the episode: "However one parses those accusations (more below), the Obama campaign's reputation as the most net-savvy of 2008 has taken a big hit."

Anthony posts at his own MySpace page: "Apparently the message here is, as an individual, if you have too big of an impact, you're just a liability. This is how Obama lost my vote, and one of his strongest supporters."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas also followed the story: "Shitting on your biggest supporters is generally not a wise thing to do. Lucky for the Obama campaign, they can quickly make this right, and I'll be shocked if they don't." MyDD's Armstrong adds: "This seems like it was bound to happen with Obama's top-down campaign structure as it grows by leaps and bounds. With much of that energy coming from a bottom up movement that's responsible for that growth, the campaign moves in to take control of the decentralized action."

OBAMA II: Either A Best Chance For Peace Or More Of The Same

A Daily Kos diary titled "Neocons love Obama" stirred strong debate for a second day at Daily Kos. Dkos diaristWelshman responded: "I was appalled and angered yesterday by the diary that took the words of one of the Democratic candidates and juxtaposed them with neocon language to discredit that person. I am not writing, however, in defence of Barack Obama here. To me, he is one of an excellent field of Democratic candidates and I would not want any of them to be attacked in this way." Welshman goes on to defend America's image abroad, but commenters on his diary did defend Obama:

• FishOutofWater: "I tend to give Obama the benefit of the doubt here because it is easy put his words in the context of the present administration ... Obama is correct to say that America can not abandon its leadership role in the world. World leadership, however, comes from the power of persuasion of allies, not the power of a gun at an Iraqi's back."
• extradish: "I resented that Obama was singled out. Of the top tier democrats -- Obama, Clinton, and Edwards -- I give Obama the best chance of directing a sane and peaceful foreign policy."
• itsbenj: "Obama is not a warmonger, and he has NO intention of initiating unnecessary military conflicts! come on people, we DO know this for a fact!"

But there were also Obama critics:

• bleeding heart: "One interpretation I have made is that Obama's style, frequently described [my paraphrase] as "high on rhetoric and eloquence but low on substance" is a challenge he will have to confront. If any "side" can take Obama's words and turn them into their own ideals, well, it could be Obama's clever campaign approach designed to broaden his appeal or it could come back to haunt him, especially if demands for specificity are placed before him."
• DelicateMonster: "My problem with Obama ... [has] to do with two things really: 1. Legitimizing militarism 2. Legitimizing American exceptionalism. Both are 'isms' that the Neocon's avidly embrace, and, in fact, if you examine the 'isms' closely you can't have a neocon (at least of the variety of seen hereabouts) without both of these tendencies in abundance.
• a gnostic: "Folks, don't EVER forget that the neo-con movement was born out of the "liberal hawk" movement: the neo-cons are former conservative Democrats who became Republicans. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are representatives of the Washington DC Establishment, of the "interests," of the lobbyists, of the puppetmasters."

DODD: Just Beloved

Blue Hampshire's mbair posts video and reports from a '06 Ned Lamont appearance on behalf of Chris Dodd in Portsmouth, NH: "Ned came to discuss why he thinks that Dodd is the best choice for the nominee and why he thinks the NH voters should give Dodd "a fair shot."

BH quotes Lamont: "I'll tell you a couple of things about Chris Dodd. He's been in Connecticut politics his whole life. I'm a guy who said that we need new energy, but Dodd is a guy that has gotten better in Washington DC. He's gotten better and you hear that where ever you go around the state of Connecticut. He's just beloved."

EDWARDS: Is This Transformation Less Than Meets The Eye?

John Edwards' choices in foreign policy advisers continues to draw criticism in some netroots circles. Matthew Yglesias takes issue with E.J. Dionnecharacterization of Edwards as having "decisively thrown in his lot with the party's antiwar wing." Yglesias responds: "It's important to recall where Edwards was back in 2003-2004, namely left of Joe Lieberman on Iraq but right of John Kerry or Hillary Clinton and running a campaign full of wonky centrist policy proposals including the creation of a domestic intelligence service." Yglesias then lists some names on Edwards foreign policy team and comments: "Except for [Peter] Beinart, these names aren't well known in the progressive blogosphere, but the others aren't folks with netroots-friendly views, either."

MyDD's Matt Stoller is also unconvinced by Edwards post-'03 'transformation' singling out Edwards embrace of Michael O'Hanlon as "particularly awful." Stoller reports: "As recently as a few days ago, O'Hanlon was on the Hugh Hewitt show ... O'Hanlon's interview on Hewitt's show is nauseating for its unrealistic tone and deference to neoconservatives."

RICHARDSON: Can't Get No Satisfaction

CaliticsBrian Leubitz posts video of a blogger interview with Bill Richardson from 4/29 and comments: "Gov. Richardson knew his stuff. The guy is no empty suit. ... On some issues, Governor Richardson spoke with a voice that progressive activists will take heart in. On others, well, we were not as satisfied. To start with the good, Mr. Richardson has said that he would like no residual force left in Iraq. ... On the other hand, I was somewhat less comfortable with his rhetoric on taxes. To me, taxes are the price you pay for a pleasant society. I don't think the good Gov. is truly willing to publicly acknowledge that."

GIULIANI: They're Not Buying What Hizzoner Is Selling

NRO'sRamesh Ponnuru writes on Byron York's interview with Giuliani aide Anthony Carbonetti, who said this on his boss' gaffe last month on taxpayer funding for abortion: "If a reporter says, would you ban all federal funding for abortions, in the back of his mind, he knows that the Hyde Amendment does allow for rape, incest, and life-of-the-mother abortions. Most people don't realize that the Hyde Amendment does those things. They think it's a ban on all funding."

Ponnuru writes that's a "nice try," but a clip of Giuliani in '89 shows him saying: "We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion because she lacks resources." Ponnuru blogs that politically speaking, Giuliani "has mishandled this question from the start, and his campaign is, amazingly, still carrying on that tradition."

AmSpecBlog's Philip Klein blogs Giuliani "framed immigration" as a natl security issue this AM at a Latino Coalition conference in Georgetown. After speaking about terrorism, Giuliani said with 12M people here illegally, it's like looking for "a needle in a haystack" to find those who came here to work versus sell drugs or plot terrorists.

Bull Dog Pundit blogs that as a "tentative" Giuliani supporter, the campaign should have taken his advice not to put J. Giuliani "front and center in the campaign...especially in light of this video in which Rudy intimated that because" his wife worked in pharmaceuticals "for years," he considered her an "expert" on bioterrorism/germ warfare and relied on her for his consulting business. Bull Dog Pundit pleads: "Rudy, please, please stop it."

ROMNEY: Moving Heaven And Battleship Earth To Find Osama

Townhall.com's Mary Katharine Ham blogs on Romney's response that "Battlefield Earth" is his favorite novel, writing its author is "freaky-deaky religion-leader L. Ron Hubbard of Scientology fame." Though Ham appreciates the "slightly more authentic answer," though not sure "it's politically smart" because a "bunch of people" are going to say: "Eh, he likes L. Ron Hubbard? That's a little freaky." Instapundit also comments: "He must be telling the truth. Who would make that up? And why?"

NY Sun's Sager writes that though he hasn't read "Battlefield Earth," he suggests that for a candidate facing the "Mormon Question" that "perhaps it would have been best not to list a cult classic right up there next to the Bible." That said, "you certainly can't accuse him of pandering here."

Townhall.com's Dean Barnett remarks on Romney's comments to the AP that "It's not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," namely Osama Bin Laden. Barnett argues that the "real story is the differing views of defense and the war that McCain and Romney offer." Though the AP did mischaracterize Romney's remarks, "it's still fairly clear that he puts less of an emphasis on catching bin Laden than McCain does. And that's good." McCain's view is part 9/10 and 9/12 in that the "emphasis on capturing one man specifically to punish him for 9/11," as NRO's Byron York implies, "is redolent of that misguided philosophy even though it's well intended."

THOMPSON: Nice Guys Get In The Race Last

Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds writes on the news that Thompson would run an "unconventional campaign" if he goes for it. Reynolds blogs that a combo of the Internet and the "Feiler Faster Principle" means Thompson can still do well even if he gets in late, and "with people already getting tired of the front-runners in both parties, this just might be a smart strategy."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: They Say Propaganda Like Its A Bad Thing

The New Republic continued their post-Marty Peretz make over with a lengthy article by Jonathan Chait on "How the netroots became the most important mass movement in U.S. politics." A stark departure from their '06 cover "Blah Blah Blog," MyDD's Matt Stoller sums up Chait's article this way: "He portrays us as a disciplined group of vicious propagandists, liberals with attitude who win regardless of the obstacles put in our way by more detached liberals and party regulars. We emulate the right in our strategic ruthlessness, and promote partisanship above all. I just don't think that's right." More Stoller, and other reactions include:

• Stoller: "Basically, we're a group of people who feel very betrayed by the leadership of our country, our media, and our party. We care about ideas because bad ideas implemented tend to kill lots of innocent people, and we don't like that. We are liberal because we believe in liberal ideas, and by and large, we've been proven correct. ... Let me clarify a bit, since some of you think that the piece is good. It's not. It's dishonorable and quite silly."
• Eric Alterman guesting at TNR: "I found myself nodding in agreement through most of the piece at points I hadn't realized before as Chait's argument crystallized my thinking in ways that only the best opinion journalism can do. ... On the other hand--and this is also endemic to the best and worst of almost all opinion pieces but particularly at TNR--Chait's piece is actually empirically empty. ... I didn't notice a single point of evidence in the analysis that could not be argued away."
• Atrios: "[H]e doesn't quite seem to understand what the word "propaganda" means. Honest but persuasive speech which employees legitimate rhetorical tools not meant to deceive doesn't qualify as "propaganda." ... I'm all for high minded academic research, though I'm not sure what that has to do with largely fluffy political opinion magazines, but I do object to those who imagine that they think their grand thoughts without concern for outcomes. It's grotesque absurdity that pundits and opinion journalists spend their time writing about things even though they don't care about the outcomes."
• Garance Franke-Ruta: "My other main quibble is with Chait's account of the intellectual history of the blogosphere, which strikes me as incomplete. ... Sure, Rick Perlstein's book has been read by some prominent bloggers, such as Jerome Armstrong and Markos, and it's influenced a lot of contemporary liberal intellectuals. ... More frequently, I've heard bloggers reference the accounts of pre-revolutionary media in Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (seriously), technology books such as Stephen Johnson's Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software, and David Brock's The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How it Corrupts Democracy
• MyDD's Chris Bowers: "It actually isn't nearly as bad as one would expect such a piece to be ... I think Chait fundamentally misunderstands both the way many prominent progressive bloggers approach the world of "political ideas," and the means by which we are held accountable for our writing. ... while Chait is correct that the activist blogosphere is generally focused on achieving politically positive results, he seems to miss the fact that that in order to achieve politically positive results, it is necessary to engage in political strategy that is based on solid ideas."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "It is a quite good piece and Chait has some interesting things to say, but he gets a lot wrong. ... The Netroots believes that wishing everyone played nice don't make it so. And this partisan warfare is what we have. TNR, so "muscular" and ready to support wars, has been at the center of Democratic political unilateral disarmament. It has been at the center of the Democratic political weakness because it did not accept the political world as it was. Jon Chait was quite guilty of that as well."
• Eli at firedoglake: "I think I may have missed a memo somewhere. Are we rabidly ideological? Absolutely. But propagandists unconcerned about intellectual honesty? Um, no; I think Chait has us confused with someone else - most of the big-name (and smaller-name) liberal bloggers I know of are actually pretty scrupulous, at least as far as my poor biased lefty brain can tell. It's kind of our brand."
• Matthew Yglesias guesting at TNR: "Chait's characterization of the netroots' beef with The New Republic and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) seems deliberately obtuse. In particular, Chait--in a bit of unsubstantiated overstatement--thinks that the netroots considers "any criticism of any part of the Democratic Party or its activist base from the right" to be "treasonous." Rather, the primary issue is that netroots activists and TNR have major, persistent, principled disagreements about foreign policy."

IRAQ: Can Only Get Uglier

MyDD's Tracy Joan points readers to John Edwardsofficial site to help people find MoveOn.org "emergency rallies in hundreds of cities nationwide, calling on Congress to stand firm against the president's veto." Also at MyDD, Curt Matlock posts video of Sen. James Webb's (D-VA) response to Pres. Bush's veto highlighting this Webb line: "We won this war four years ago. The question is when we end the occupation."

Jonathan Singeradds: "The fact that it was President Bush, not the Congress, who made the decision to withhold funding for American troops in Iraq cannot be left unsaid. The Democratic Congress provided the necessary funds for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to do their jobs and it was President Bush, trying to make the political statement that he favors an unending American presence in Iraq, who is keeping those funds from the troops."

On the right, Right Wing News' John Hawkins posts a rough transcript of a blogger conference call with Tony Snow before the veto including this exchange: "Q: How are the troops effected by the lack of funding?A: It's not hurting the troops currently. We have been shifting money around for it. In two weeks, it will become more problematic though."

At RedState Rep. Jeb Hensarling writes: "They say that you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. Yet, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and the Democrat caucus are really trying to test the validity of that claim. ... Are they are so far removed from the reality of the world we live in that they think al-Qaeda is an entity that operates in dozens of other nations in the world except in the place that Osama Bin Laden has called "the center of the war" with America?"

Also at RedState, Erick Erickson blogs: "I question the Democrats' seriousness. I question the Democrats' patriotism too. ... The Democrats say they support the troops, but they have consistently sought since 2002, to undermine the efforts of the troops, the military leadership, the cause, and protective measures the Bush Administration has implemented to keep this nation safe -- from terrorist surveillance to unionization of the Department of Homeland Security to the Patriot Act. You're damn right I question their patriotism.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Bubblicious

Tyler Cowen comments on Daniel Gross' new book Pop! Why Bubbles Are Great for the Economy:

Bubbles leave behind an economic infrastructure that spurs later growth. The telegraph and railroad bubbles of the 19th century gave birth to modern communications and transportation. The fiber-optic bubble of the 90s paved the way for YouTube and MySpace. Might we need a "green bubble" to solve current energy problems?

LEST WE FORGET: How Is This Different Than Real Life Exactly?

Commenting on Webkinz, a stuffed animal that comes with a code kids can use to activate an animated character in an online world that looks like your stuffed animal, Scott Adams makes the case for a similar product at Dilbert Blog: "

I think single women would want an online boyfriend they could totally control. But here's the hook: The online boyfriend is a "project." If you don't sign into the system regularly, your online boyfriend will start dressing with clothes from the 80's, smoking, gambling, staying out late, and flirting with other women. It's the "owner's" job to make the virtual boyfriend eat right, exercise, look for a job, and trim his nose hair. If he scratches his crotch or passes gas during an online dinner party, he gets no virtual sex for a week.

Posted by Conn Carroll at May 2, 2007 12:35 PM