May 03, 2007

5/3: Having Their Cake And Eating It Too

It's hard to feel sorry for Barack Obama's recent netroots trouble following his staff's utilization of MySpace's terms of use agreement to wrest control of a supporter's pro-Obama MySpace page. While all campaigns are struggling to find the right strategies to deal with user generated media, Team Obama has shown that they know when to use what few rules exist to their advantage, and when to not get involved. As the Blogometer reported earlier, YouTube's terms of use policy afforded Obama every right to remove the anti-Hillary Clinton video painting her as 'Big Brother' since Obama's official campaign logo was featured prominently in the ad. At the time Obama chose not to exercise his ability to control a negative user generated media message directed at another candidate. Now that negative user generated messages might be coming his way, Team Obama is suddenly very eager to exercise control.

OBAMA: What We Have Here Is A Failure To Negotiate

Barack Obama campaign efforts to justify their take-over of the MySpace Obama page started by Obama supporter Joe Anthony in '04 are not going smoothly. Obama New Media Dir. Joe Rospars posted an explanation for the campaign at Daily Kos under the header "Our MySpace Experiment." Rospars recounts discussions about Anthony joining the staff in Chicago ("But Joe seemed to prefer to volunteer part-time from the outside with the campaign") and a process of codifying Anthony's relationship with the campaign while ensuring that the campaign would have full access to the page. After MySpace began promoting its "Impact Channel" the site took off in popularity, and Rospars says the administration of the site became a full time endeavor.

Rospars then claims: "Unfortunately, at that point, Joe changed the password on the profile, and didn't give us the new one, like he had done in the past. This changed the previous dynamic, and we could no longer access the profile at a moment's notice if need be. We asked Joe what was needed to restore access, and subsequently we received the list of itemized financial requests that have been discussed elsewhere."

Rospars then describes the campaign's worry that they had no control over their "official" MySpace presence and their subsequent utilization of MySpace policy (politicians, musicians, and other public figures have the right to their own name, e.g. www.myspace.com/barackobama) to wrest control of the site from Anthony. Rospars concludes: "At the end of the day, this is all new for everyone ... We're going to try new things, and sometimes it's going to work, and sometimes it's not going to work. That's the cost and that's the risk of experimenting."

While Rospars explanation did receive a significant number of positive responses (e.g. "Obama did NOTHING wrong This was overblown by over zealous supporters of a certain other candidate."), his failure to adequately answer questions in the comments section lost some initially supportive community members. PsiFighter37, who previously authored a diary supportive of Obama on the issue, pointedly asked Rospars: "why did the campaign not negotiate with Anthony on a different price? I don't think it was fair of him to change the password without notification and then submit financial demands, but it does seem as though he did do some work, at the very least, in support of the campaign. To me, I think a little compensation could be deserved."

Rospars responded: "The reality is that there are hundreds of thousands of volunteers taking time off work, putting off other projects, or otherwise upending their lives to build this movement. There's no way to fairly compensate any of them financially (although each one deserves it)." PsiFighter was not satisfied: "Hate to say it, Joe, but you didn't answer my question. I'll ask again - did the campaign straight-up tell Anthony to name his price?" The Blogometer could not locate a response from Rospars.

PsiFighter's view that the campaign was right to want control of the site, but should have made a better effort to accommodate Anthony is the consensus in and outside the Daily Kos community. Similar reactions include:

• randomperson26 at Daily Kos: "I disagree with what the campaign did. You can't say you are a campaign of regular people, when you do something like this to a supporter. It has left a bad taste in my mouth for sure."
• TechPresident's Micah Sifry: "Sure, Anthony's $39,000 proposal seems high, but the Obama campaign didn't even try to negotiate him down to something more reasonable.
• MyDD's Chris Bowers: "That Anthony changed the password changes things a bit, but I still think he should be compensated for the amount of work he has done. ... Also, I don't like the "we are making this up as we go along" part of the explanation
• Jack and Jill Politics' Jill Tubman: "Above all, it makes me continue questioning where I will put my vote. I won't forget this, that's for sure, because it says a lot to me about how Obama really treats the everyday people supporting him behind the scenes. This type of disrespect for others and corner-cutting -- faking it til you make it -- can often trickle down from the top management."
• The Huffington Post's James Boyce: "What's going to stop Barack Obama from realizing his dream, and his potential? His old school consultants that play by long dead rules. ... A young man believes in Barack Obama and builds the MySpace political success story of the year. And Barack steals his work. (Your name is on the door Barack.)"

TechPresident's Sifry also casts doubts on elements of Rospars tale: "But what strikes me as odd about it is Rospars' claim that Anthony's "list of itemized financial requests" came unbidden, after the workload on the page exploded and Anthony cut off the campaign's password access to the site. Rospars would have you believe that Anthony was in effect extorting the campaign by withholding access, but my notes of my conversations with Obama staff, which were "on background" make clear that Anthony only produced that proposal at the request of Chris Hughes."

OBAMA II: Let He Who Has Not Paraphrased Cast The First Stone

A post at the MoJo Blog has drawn attention from both Instapundit and The Corner. At issue is a Jonathan Stein post relating a friend's investigation of an Obama fundraising letter selective quoting from a pre-invasion Obama speach. Stein's friend investigated what was missing from the text and discovered it included Obama's admission that Saddam Hussein "has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity."

Stein comments: "Is Obama still the only major candidate who opposed the war from the beginning? Of course. Is he being a bit of a politician here? Again, of course. I'll forgive him this one. I'd say it's interesting, but not a major sin."

DEM FIELD: Score One For The Little Guys

MyDD's Chris Bowers compares past ARG polling in NH, SC, and IA, to the latest results to identify winners and losers from 4/26's Dem debate: "Clearly, the big "winner" after the first debate was anyone but Clinton, Obama and Edwards. In Iowa, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson went from a combined 5% in March to a combined 15% in late April, while Clinton, Edwards and Obama dropped from 83% to 69%.

EDWARDS: A Warrior Against The War On Terror

John Edwards scored big netroots approval for a series of foreign policy address' delivered while on a swing of the Pacific Northwest 5/2. Reporting from Everett, WA, and Portland, OR, respectively:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "He urged Congress then to do what he is urging Congress to do in the ads he released today: keep sending back a bill with timelines for every Bush veto, and to keep its backbone and stand firm against Bush. All easy to say when you're out of Congress, but urging that his counterparts still in the Senate will hopefully heed."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "The point that stuck out most profoundly to me came when Edwards spoke about the so-called "Global War on Terror." ... Edwards laid out his first television ad of the campaign in which he calls on Congress to send back legislation to President Bush that would set a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq."

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent posts the new Edwards ad and reports: "According to the Edwards campaign, a new version with all the new voices will at some point be posted on the Web -- the idea being that the effort will snowball as more and more people add their voices to the chorus. Seems unique to us." The Nation's Ari Melber on Edwards anti-GWOT stance: "John Edwards continued his frontal assault on President Bush's Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), telling a Portland audience that he opposes the policy and the "Bush language" that justifies Iraq, torture and Guantanamo. Edwards is not only trying to distinguish himself from the Democratic frontrunners, who said they "believe there is a war on terror" in response to a simplistic question at last week's debate."

Admitted Edwards skeptic Matthew Yglesias links to Singer's post on Edwards speech and comments: "here's no question that what he's been saying lately has been very congenial ... What I'm really waiting for, though, is a clearer explanation of how and why it is Edwards came to revise his views over the years."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat makes the case Edwards embrace of Reid-Feingold is the real headline of the day: "Edwards joins Senator Chris Dodd in supporting Reid-Feingold. Senator Clinton? Senator Obama? Senator Biden? Governor Richardson? Senator Gravel? Congressman Kucinich? Time to step up. Setting a date certain for NOT funding the Iraq war is the only way to end this Bush/McCain/Lieberman/GOP Debacle. It is what the American People want. The American People support Reid-Feingold."

GOP DEBATE: What Would An Agnostic Think Of The Cardinals Draft?

Crooks & LiarsSilentPatriot reminds readers that the Politico will open their site to online voting for a second round of questions after the debate has begun. SP explains: "The #1 most popular preliminary question is bound to be asked no matter what." The question C&L urges netrooters to vote for: "What would an atheist think about Pat Tillman's death?"

BROWNBACK: Don't Confuse Him With Ted Kennedy

Sam Brownback Blog Outreach Coordinator Leon Wolf hosted a Power Line Candidates Forum discussion on immigration, beginning: "As I have talked with Republican activists, particularly online activists, about the candidacy of Senator Brownback, one issue consistently comes up: immigration. Specifically, Brownback is often faulted for his support for ... McCain-Kennedy."

More Wolf: "It is important to note at the outset that the Senator never said at any point that the provisions of McCain-Kennedy were the only approach that he would support. In fact, during the debate over McCain-Kennedy, the Senator expressed his support for the bill in the full knowledge that the House was moving towards the passage of a bill authored by Rep. Sensenbrenner which was a substantially better bill."

Few were buying Wolf's explanation, including: "No sale. If the Brownback campaign is really listening to Republican activists, it must know that our problems with CIR are not being addressed here." - "Senator Brownback, Your three primary goals sound like amnesty of the 80's. Where will we be with your plan in 2025?"

ROMNEY: Heeeeeere's Mitt!

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez posts highlights from Mitt Romney's 5/2 Tonight Show appearance and Townhall's Hugh Hewitt recommends readers read Prof. John Mark Reynolds"On Faith" forum asking: "Should Christians Vote For Mormons?"

THOMPSON: Life Is Too Good

Working off a Jonathan Martinitem noting Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain all favor "some form of earned citizenship or guest worker status for illegal immigrants," The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru writes: "Sounds as though Fred Thompson has an opening here."

Also blogging on Thompson, Instapundit recommends a recap of Thompson's '04 Sen run. The Right Angle's Ericka Andersen and AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein both positively review Thomspon's 5/1 Hannity and Colmes appearance.

Duncan Hunter consultant John Hawkins wonders at Right Wing News, "Does Fred Thompson Have The Work Ethic He Needs To Be President?" Hawkins writes: "Well, look at it from Fred Thompson's perspective. He has a reputation as a guy who doesn't particularly enjoy campaigning and let's face it: he has a pretty good life. He has a successful career as an actor, lots of money, and probably a good bit of leisure time to spend in a nice house with his attractive wife."

IRAQ: Never Surrender!

The Netroots are not happy with the Washington Postheadline : "Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable". MyDD's Jonathan Singer explains why: "While one can argue as to whether the Democrats were elected in 2006 to end the war in Iraq it is clear that a strong majority of Americans favor setting a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq (57 percent, according to a recent Gallup poll; 59 percent according to a recent Pew Poll; 64 percent, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll; etc.). As such, there is real risk for the Democrats in not going far enough rather than going to far to end the Iraq War."

More Singer: "And on a meta level, headlines like this from The Post spell trouble for the Democrats. ... whenever the Republicans hit the Democrats and the Democrats don't hit back effectively ... it makes the Democrats look weak, both as related to the specific issue but also more broadly. By backing down so quickly on this issue, the Democrats don't exactly exude strength."

At Daily Kos Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) is launching an Act Blue fundraising effort targeting select "Roadblock Republicans" in the hopes "they'll rethink supporting the President over the change of course our troops deserve." Sens. Norm Coleman (R-MN), John Sununu (R-NH), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Min. Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are all targeted. Kerry writes: "just as Jim Webb defeated the supposedly undefeatable George Allen -- no Senator is safe if they defend a broken policy rather than stand for change."

At The Huffington Post Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) urges fellow Dems not to abandon "binding language in the bill requiring the President to begin redeploying troops from Iraq." More Feingold: "There's a lot of talk right now about Democrats getting the President to sign a bill that only has benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. But we're long past the point when just setting benchmarks was enough. ... The next step to ending the war isn't to give in, but to step up the pressure on the President."

Daily Kos' Kid Oakland urges Dems to appoint Sen. James Webb (D-VA) as their "point man" on the issue and The Left Coaster's Steve Soto urges Dems to ditch any effort at a second bill and let GOPers find the votes necessary to fund the war.

IRAQ II: We Don't Think 'Iraq Surrender Act' Is The Official Title

Conservative bloggers have all rallied around Rudy Giuliani aide Patrick Ruffini's effort "to keep the pressure on elected officials to stand by our troops and stand for victory in Iraq." Ruffini promotes the effort "We win, they lose" at Townhall reporting: "Our first action is a petition against Congress's reckless actions on the Iraq funding bill. But this isn't just any petition. Bloggers will receive credit for the signatures they refer, and can boost this effort by embedding the petition directly on their blog."

Rob Bluey also promotes the cause at RedState posting the text of a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) beginning: "Congress has passed and President Bush has vetoed H.R. 1591, the Iraq Surrender Act of 2007. This legislation, which you worked to pass, sets a timetable for surrender. It pulls the rug out from under our troops. That is shameful and wrong."

IRAQ III: Cry Havoc And Silence The Blogs Of War

A US Army regulation requiring all communications receive prior approval from a supervisor has conservative bloggers up in arms about the impact it will have on mil bloggers. Reactions include:

• Captain's Quarters: "The Army should be concerned about the operational security of the mission -- but without those voices engaging the American public, the mission may be lost here at home."
• BlackFive: "In my mind, this reg will accomplish the exact opposite of its intent. The good guys are restricted and the bad continue on...
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "I find this decision to be so amazingly ill-informed about how the milblogs have served the war effort and the cause of the military as to raise real doubts about the military's ability to ever get ahead of the enemy in the information war."
• Michelle Malkin: "The Army disarms itself"
• Instapundit: "Frankly, the "official" communications efforts on this war have been largely lame and ineffective, and most of the good stuff has come from milbloggers. I understand the importance of security, but this is going to do much more harm than good. Really, this is a bad idea."
• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "How to Lose the Information War for Good: The Death of Combat Blogging."
• Outside the Beltway's James Joyner: "This policy is incomprehensibly stupid."

LEST WE FORGET: The Truth Is Out There

Did you also think the collapse of the steel girders Oakland's MacArthur Maze was fishy? Then 4/29 Truth.com is for you! Clues pointing to a massive government conspiracy include:

• "G-A-Y" is spelled "429? on a standard American telephone. The attacks occurred only 8.5 miles from the notorious Castro Street homosexual district. COINCIDENCE?
• The name "Macarthur Maze" has 13 letters. Element 13 is Aluminum, an ingredient in Thermite. Aluminum oxide was discovered all over the scene, indicating a massive thermal event involving large amounts of aluminum. Unlike hydrocarbon fire, aluminothermic reactions can fuse steel or destroy it entirely. The police refuse to question Custom Alloy, a pro-aluminum corporation based within easy artillery range of the overpass.
• The crash occurred in one of the most liberal locations in America - at the highway connecting Berkeley to San Francisco.

More from the truthers: "Finally I must apologize to those who have written to me to say that this is "too soon", that the widows of 4/29 (if and when they are eventually discovered) must be allowed the dignity to grieve before this "tragedy" is exposed for the sinister plot it is. Their compassion is understandable but I ask you: will the Evildoers say it is "too soon" to strike again? The gloves are off. We must speak truth to power before they attack again."

Posted by Conn Carroll at May 3, 2007 12:42 PM