11/30: The (Least) Trusted Name In News?

In the conservative blogosphere, the fall-out continues over CNN's use of Dem questioners at Wednesday night's CNN/YouTube GOP debate. Townhall's Hugh Hewitt called the debate "a major milestone in the accelerating collapse of credibility of the MSM," while RedState's Directors called for firings and a boycott of CNN. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's battle over their respective health care plans has sparked a lively debate in the liberal blogosphere over the efficacy of health care mandates.

GOP FIELD: Still The Clinton News Network?

The Save the Debate coalition -- a group founded by conservative bloggers Patrick Ruffini, David All, Soren Dayton, and Robert Bluey which sought to encourage the GOP candidates to participate in the CNN/YouTube debate -- issued a statement harshly criticizing CNN:

"CNN's flawed editorial process in choosing the questions asked of the candidates marred an otherwise lively debate and betrayed the trust of the Republican candidates and the YouTube user community. In the most glaring example, a questioner affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign was given a soapbox to berate the Republican candidates at the debate -- when even a cursory web search of the individual would have revealed his clear conflict of interest.
A YouTube debate should strive to minimize the media filter rather than highlight it. Instead the selection of questions for the Republican CNN/YouTube debate highlighted CNN's selection bias.
We strongly encourage YouTube and other new media platforms to refrain from working with CNN on future debates."

RedState's Directors also issued a harsh statement:

"This debate was not about Republicans asking the Republican candidates questions. This was about CNN abusing its position to push a Democratic agenda. This has all the markings of a set up and heads should roll at CNN.

In the meantime:

1.) Republican candidates for President should boycott CNN.

2) Republican viewers should boycott CNN until they fire Sam Feist, their political director; and David Bohrman, Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate.

3) One or more of the Republican candidates should demand a do over wherein we can have a substantive debate about substantive issues that exclude CNN's agenda, which is clearly out of touch with the Republican party, and the drivel we saw from YouTube."

Michelle Malkin sees a double-standard: "Had GOP candidates somehow been able to insert their operatives and supporters into a Democratic debate, and had, say, Fox News failed to vet the questioners and presented them as average citizens, both Fox and the GOP would be treated as the century's worst media sinners."

Hugh Hewitt: "CNN is of course going to the mattresses, just as every MSMer does when the collision with their own bias and/or incompetence arrives. But like Rathergate, the YouTube/BoobTube debate is already a major milestone in the accelerating collapse of credibility of the MSM."

Human Events' Jennifer Rubin: "Not that many years ago, CNN was known widely as the 'Clinton News Network.' They apparently want to renew their credentials -- or expand their services to the entire Democratic Party. This debate placed CNN in the role of director of Democratic media operations. Simply put, it is propaganda to represent the questioners as unbiased and unaffiliated voters when they are not."

Other conservative bloggers think that people are overreacting:

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Although conservatives are rightly outraged by the biased questions, I also believe some of the consternation is overwrought...Bad questions sometimes tell us more about the candidates than good ones do. For example, we learned that Mike Huckabee can take a bad question and still make lemonade (if he can do it now, imagine what he could do to the press corps)."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "CNN's main failure, and the only real 'plant', was General Keith Kerr. They didn't just allow his question, they flew him to the debate, and then allowed him almost as much screen time as Duncan Hunter to make a speech. Kerr serves on Hillary Clinton's steering committee on GLBT issues, a fact that he apparently failed to disclose to CNN, who didn't bother to use Google and spend ten minutes vetting him...The other questioners had ulterior motives in asking their questions...[but] the questions themselves weren't outrageous and certainly can be expected from the campaign trail, especially in the general election. In this loose format, questions can come from anyone -- just like a real town-hall forum -- and candidates should be prepared to answer them."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "I watched the debate last night and frankly didn't have a serious problem with CNN except with respect to Gen. Kerr. The fact that a questioner once interned for Rep. [Jane] Harman or for CAIR seems immaterial. The questions reflected a cross section of points of view, some liberal and some conservative, and it was helpful for Republican voters to see how the candidates dealt with them (I thought they did well)."

Meanwhile, NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru thinks that the controversy over questioners benefits [Rudy] Giuliani: "I said that yesterday was a good day for Giuliani, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. I think today is another one. The buzz among conservatives is about CNN's perfidy -- and not about his answers on abortion and guns. If I were Giuliani, I'd make sure to denounce CNN myself."

GOP FIELD II: 'Cause We All Love To Speculate....

NRO's John Hood posits three scenarios for how the GOP race might turn out:

• "Romney the Hare. He wins Iowa convincingly, with about a third of the vote. Giuliani and Thompson are in the low- to mid-teens. The size of his victory generates a wave of free media coverage, aided by his subsequent win in the small but well-timed Wyoming caucuses on Jan. 5. Romney then dominates New Hampshire on Jan. 8, generating another media boost. In the next state, Michigan on Jan. 15, Giuliani had enjoyed a narrow lead going into January, but now Romney -- with Michigan family ties and lots of momentum -- overtakes him to win. Four days later, Nevada and South Carolina vote. He wins both. The other candidates have already dropped out or give up after Jan. 19. It's a two-man race with Giuliani going into Florida on the 29th. Now that all other conservative challengers are gone, Romney unifies the anti-Giuliani vote and wins Florida. It's over.
• Giuliani the Tortoise. With all but Romney and Huckabee essentially conceding Iowa, its results are underplayed. Giuliani's December ad campaign in New Hampshire pushes him into the mid-20s in the state -- not enough to win, but enough to shave Romney's margin and give Giuliani a Bill Clinton-like 'victory' as second-place Comeback Kid. A week later, Giuliani competes in a larger state where his national reputation and cultural affinity are helpful. He wins Michigan. A week later, he wins Nevada and is competitive in South Carolina (it would probably help if Thompson, otherwise winless, takes South Carolina and weakens Romney). Finally, Giuliani gets to Florida, parts of which are essentially a suburb of Manhattan, and wins comfortably. Then comes Feb. 5. It's over.
• Thompson the Possum. The Republican primary electorate is quirky and quarrelsome. A continued Huckabee surge in Iowa robs Romney of a convincing win, yielding a loss in the expectations game. In New Hampshire, [John] McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani do better than expected, Romney worse. He barely ekes out a victory. In Michigan, Romney sputters and both McCain and Thompson pick up anti-Giuliani votes, yielding a narrow Giuliani win but no clear momentum. Then comes Nevada and South Carolina. With Romney's collapse, conservatives edge towards Thompson. He comes in a strong second in Nevada and wins South Carolina. Given its historical importance, the South Carolina result gets more attention, and the media declare it a two-way race between Giuliani and Thompson. The Southerner then competes strongly in the Southern -- by which I mean northern -- part of Florida, upends Giuliani, and moves into Feb. 5 with momentum. It's not quite over, but the patient sleeper has supplanted the frenetic hare."

Campaign Standard's Richelieu posits a fourth scenario:

"Could [Huckabee] actually be nominated? I think he could, and his chance now is better than Thompson's and rivals McCain's, being somewhere between a long- and medium-shot.

Let me sketch one potential scenario: Huckabee wins the Iowa caucus (which is what would happen if the election were today). Romney is second. Rudy is third and Thompson fourth. Huckabee surges into New Hampshire and his communications skills help him ride the wave perfectly...The results are muddy. Huckabee narrowly wins New Hampshire by fewer than 900 votes over Romney. McCain is third, closely followed by Giuliani. Thompson is fifth and drops out.

The next week Romney narrowly beats Huckabee, now fueled by enough Internet money to run television, in Michigan. McCain runs a distant third. The media labels Huckabee's close second place finish a 'win' in a state where he has no organization. Huckabee beats the wounded Romney four days later in South Carolina. McCain drops out after a second disappointing third place finish, narrowly ahead of Giuliani, whose campaign announces they are making a final make or break stand in Florida, as they have always claimed in their brilliant Master Plan. Seeing Romney as his main opponent in Florida for the regular Republican vote, Giuliani uses his final cash on hand to launch a very tough television attack on Romney...McCain endorses Rudy. Romney interjects another $5 million in personal funds into his campaign and launches a blistering TV counterattack on Rudy. Ten days later, Huckabee wins the Florida primary...Romney finishes second. Rudy, now lagging in every February 5 state poll except New York, drops out, refusing to endorse either remaining GOP candidate. On February 5, Huckabee sweeps, losing only Connecticut, Utah, and Delaware to Romney, who then leaves the race.

On February 7, presumptive nominee Mike Huckabee pledges a campaign of 'compassion, comparison, and civility' against presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama. New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg announces the formation of an exploratory committee for an independent presidential campaign. Rumored budget: $1.5 billion. The cover of TIME magazine screams: 'Tsunami 2008: The Year of the Upset.'"

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat is dubious: "The general scenario makes sense (in long shot sort of way, obviously), but as to the details, I just can't see Huckabee, momentum or no, scraping out a victory in New Hampshire. That said, I don't think he needs to win in New Hampshire to stay competitive; what he needs, as the Cardinal's broad sketch suggests, is for both Romney and Rudy (or one of the two, plus McCain) to keep whaling on one another, and largely leaving him alone, till Florida and perhaps even beyond. I'm with Ramesh; I think Giuliani beats Huckabee in a two-man race, and I think that Romney does as well. Which means that Huckabee can only hope to win if both the current front-runners stay in and beat each other up in the hopes of being the last man standing - which, fortunately for him, they're both deep-pocketed and ambitious enough to do.

HUCKABEE: So Hot Right Now

Campaign Standard's Dean Barnett warns politicos to stop underestimating Huckabee: "[Wednesday night's debate] heralded the arrival of Mike Huckabee as a force in this race. Not a spoiler, not a wildcard, but a force. Huckamania is still running wild...A personal note to all my sophisticated East Coast friends: Don't wait for the Christmas rush -- stop underestimating Huckabee now. Unless the other guys can be a lot more effective at landing some leather on him than they were [Wednesday] night, he may win Iowa by 20 points."

RCP's John McIntyre also sees Huckabee as a threat: "The GOP race is usually characterized as either a two-person contest (Giuliani vs. Romney) or a wide open field among the five viable candidates (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee and McCain). However, what we are fast approaching is a three-man race between Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani...What we have developing is Huckabee stepping in and filling the void in the GOP field that was available to Thompson in the summer -- a void that his inept campaign has been unable to fill. So perhaps instead of the Tennessean sinking the Romney campaign it could very well be the Arkansan...An important signal to watch for over the next month will be whether Huckabee overtakes Romney in the national polls leading up to Iowa. If that were to happen concurrently with Huckabee continuing to head toward a win in Iowa that would be an important tell that Republican voters are moving toward ultimately a Huckabee vs. Giuliani showdown."

Many conservative bloggers are unhappy about Huckabee's rise, however. NRO's Andrew Stuttaford writes: "[Huckabee is] a 'disaster' on trade, taxation (historically speaking, at least), nanny state issues and, for that matter, rather basic scientific knowledge. His polling is fascinating. How he does will be another very interesting indicator of how much further the GOP will move in the direction of becoming an Americanized version of Europe's Christian Democrats."

ROMNEY: The Last, Best Hope For Traditional Conservatives?

Paul Mirengoff discusses the significance of ACU Pres. David Keene's endorsement of Romney: "I look at endorsements not for guidance on how to vote, but for a sense of how things may break. When Romney received early endorsements from congressional conservatives like Senator [Jim] DeMint, it told me that he was a serious contender for the conservative vote, and so he has been...Keene's endorsement is evidence that, late in the day, conservatives realize that this may well come down to a race between Giuliani and Romney, two men who governed as centrists, and that, as I wrote yesterday, it may make sense to prefer the top-tier condidate who now commits to conservative positions down the line to the one who says, in essence, 'I was a great mayor; take me as you find me.'"

Mirengoff later adds: "Keene's endorsement may reflect concern among traditional conservatives with the traction Mike Huckabee seems to be gaining among social conservatives. Traditional conservatives combine social conservatism with economic conservatism, as Romney does in his current positions. Huckabee is strong on the former but much less so on the latter."

Hugh Hewitt agrees with Mirengoff's assessment: "The announcement builds on a strong performance last night, and reinforces the sense that conservatives have to choose now to back Romney or tacitly agree to a Rudy nomination."

THOMPSON: Anyone Seen His Campaign?

NRO's Mark Steyn writes: "I've no handle on what it is [Thompson] thinks he's doing. Every time I see a Fred policy plan, he seems to have by far the best ideas, and the necessary zeal for reform, on taxes, Social Security and much else. But every time you see him in these TV debates he has the listless air of a bored grandparent at a dreary school play. And seeing him live in person isn't that easy to do. I get campaign e-mails about New Hampshire appearances by John McCain and Mrs Clinton and lots of others...What's the strategy here? Why does he have great ideas but no campaign?"

Campaign Standard's Stephen F. Hayes agrees: "Steyn is right that Thompson's campaign is, um, lacking. Each morning I have delivered to my inbox 'First Read', an excellent collection of news and nuggets about the 2008 election compiled by NBC political director Chuck Todd. Among many other features, First Read includes a candidate-by-candidate preview of the day's campaign events. As often as not, there is no mention of Fred Thompson. On some of these days, he is off doing private fundraisers. But there is little question that Thompson does far fewer public events than any of the other serious presidential candidates. Which is odd."

GIULIANI: Scandalous Behavior

The Democratic netroots are still buzzing about Ben Smith's Politico article revealing that Giuliani "billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons." ABC News' report that Judith Nathan used an NYPD driver and car as her "personal taxi service" has only added more fuel to the fire. Josh Marshall's team at Talking Points Memo is, naturally, all over it . This mini-scandal provides a taste of future lines of attack that Dems will likely employ against Giuliani should he become the GOP nominee.

AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. The GOP front-runner is in BIG trouble. He's got a major scandal on his hands -- having taxpayers finance his affair probably won't go over so well with the GOP voters. Just imagine how insane the right wingers would be if a Democrat pulled a stunt like that and also tried to cover it up. So, let's get cranking."

Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "Rudy may play at Law and Order, but does he consider himself above the law when it suits him? We're just barely getting through eight years of another President whose commitment to the rule of law (see Alberto Gonzales) was pretty shaky. Now we have Rudy, patron of the indicted Bernard Kerik, Rudy of the taxpayer-funded tryst, to consider in a job interview for the most powerful position in the world where judgment is key and ethics matter?"

Firedoglake's Jame Hamsher: "I really hope Rudy does not implode before getting the nomination, and I'm not being an insincere concern troll here. Really, I think Rudy is tied inextricably to the Bush Administration's policies and history, and when you combine that with his lack of on-camera skills and his tendency to be a brittle asshole when challenged, all the things that make the lizard brains love him will over time repulse large numbers of the electorate. Huckabee or Romney have the opportunity to run as reform candidates -- that option is not open to Rudy. George Bush hangs like a giant anvil around his neck."

Daily Kos' MissLaura uses the occasion to revisit Wayne Barrett's August article in The Village Voice, which suggested that Giuliani wanted to locate the city's emergency command center in the WTC in order to use it as a love nest for himself and Judith. MissLaura writes: "It would be inaccurate to say that Giuliani insisted on siting the emergency command center in WTC 7 so he could get it on with Nathan -- the decision had been made before he met her. But then, Nathan was not the first woman Giuliani was rumored to have had an affair with while in office, and there's no reason to believe he invented the practice of expensing adultery just for her. In fact, I bet there's more of this to uncover still earlier in his time as mayor, if some investigative reporter were to start digging. For now, what's absolutely clear is he spent taxpayer money to visit his girlfriend in the Hamptons and turned the emergency command center for the entire city into a cartoonishly over the top love nest in which to carry on an affair."

DemFromCT wants the national press to join the local NYC press in investigating Giuliani's record: "If the national press had any sense, they'd start paying more attention to Rudy's actual record than they are doing now (which, outside of NY, is not paying attention at all). That includes Rudy's record on 9/11, including the location of the emergency operations center, the radios the NYC firefighters didn't have and the health issues and air quality issues right after 9/11 and how they were handled. I don't really care if 'that might affect the outcome'. That's what a journalist's job is, and it's about time they did their job as well as Ben Smith has."

OBAMA: Are The Netroots Finally Getting His Back?

As HRC continues to attack Obama's health care plan and Paul Krugman rips Obama's plan in his New York Times column, Obama has found an unlikely advocate: Open Left blogger (and frequent Obama critic) Matt Stoller:

"[HRC's] plan is no more or less universal plan than Obama's plan. Neither would sign up everyone automatically, but at least Obama doesn't require a massive Orwellian nightmare to enforce the purchase of private insurance by those least able to afford it. Obama's response so far has been to say that he doesn't think the problem is that people can't afford health care insurance. What he should really be doing is attacking, and saying 'This is not an honest representation of of either her plan or mine, and it's the same tactic that caused her first attempt at universal health care to collapse. How is Senator Clinton going to force everyone to sign up for health care insurance? She's mentioned forcing citizens to have a health care insurance card in order to get a job, which is a crazy intrusive idea that is not acceptable. She needs to be honest about the health care situation, because it's not as simple as she is making it out to be. And she has the scars to know better.'...Mandates are horrible policy and they are really easy to demagogue as big government and big insurance companies cooperating with each to screw the consumer...That this is not obvious to the groups and politicians whose goal is to universalize health care, or even really debated, suggests that there is a lot of organizing work that needs to be done before progressives can move forward on the health care front."

Meanwhile, TAPPED's Kate Sheppard criticizes HRC's accusation that Obama's plan "betrays" Democratic principles: "So do all Democratic health care plans, past and present, that differ from her current plan amount to 'betrayal'?"

OBAMA II: Smeared By...The Washington Post?

The netroots are furious about yesterday's Washington Post front-page article which discusses rumors that Obama is a Muslim.

Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Yesterday, Politico's Ben Smith nailed Rudy Giuliani for nailing his mistress on the taxpayer's dime. And in today's Washington Post, what kind of coverage does this major, investigative piece receive? Three sentences buried in the middle of their debate coverage. So, what is their big story of the day? 'Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him.' Yes, a front page story about rumors. Actually, calling them rumors gives them too much credence. It would be more accurate to call them blatant lies, yet the Washington Post has decided to give them a national platform."

TAPPED's Matthew Duss: "Today, the Washington Post demonstrates how 'respectable' news outlets keep these rumors moving in the media bloodstream...At no point in the article is there any indication that these rumors, which are nothing more than lies designed to stoke base cultural prejudices, have been exhaustively investigated and disproven...Of course, we also get the requisite denials from Obama's defenders, all of which creates (and is designed to create) the impression that there is 'controversy' where there is only gossip, 'questions' where there is only innuendo. Stay classy, Post."

Daily Kos' Hunter: "The [Washington Post] publishes completely false smears against Obama -- truly, the most poorly premised and written article I have seen since half past forever. Akin to what the Swiftboat Vet stories would have been, if the Swiftboat Vets had not even been seasoned Republican operatives but just 'some paranoid guy ranting incoherently from his South Carolina basement.'"

Digby: "That's the Washington Post recycling anonymous wingnut email trash and calling it 'rumors.' I guess we should be grateful that the paper allowed Obama to 'dispute' and 'deny' the 'charge' but considering that he isn't a Muslim, it might have been a teensy bit more responsible if they'd simply written that it's a lie and let it go at that. Instead, it blandly suggests this will hurt him more than the Romney since the polls show that even more people won't vote for a Muslim than a Mormon --- failing to note that Romney is actually a Mormon and thus could be expected to suffer from these prejudices more than someone who isn't actually a Muslim!"

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "This is about as low as I have seen an Establishment paper go. This is shameful stuff."

EDWARDS: We Like You, We Just Don't Like Your Mandate

In the NYT op-ed that we mentioned earlier, Paul Krugman praises John Edwards' plan for enforcing his universal health care mandate, which requires that individuals "show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care." Liberal bloggers -- with the notable exception of Ezra Klein -- were much more critical of Edwards' proposed enforcement mechanism.

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "First, do we really want the IRS enforcing healthcare mandates? That's not what the IRS is for, and Americans are (rightly) suspicious of using the IRS as a quasi-police agency to enforce whatever federal law the current administration feels like using it for...Second, a Rube Goldberg enforcement program like does nothing except highlight the absurdity of individual mandate healthcare plans in the first place. If you're really this serious about getting every man, woman, and child in the country enrolled, why go through all this? Why not just do it like Medicare, where the funding mechanism is the existing tax system and everyone is enrolled automatically? It amounts to the same thing and it's cheaper, easier, and less intrusive. Third, this is a political loser. Do we really want to treat people who don't sign up for healthcare like deadbeat dads and Chapter 11 refugees by garnishing their wages? Unless I'm way off base, this is just not going to go over well. Republicans will have a field day with it."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I'm in total agreement with Kevin Drum's criticisms of John Edwards' now-more-detailed individual mandate plan. And I should say that I don't think this is a problem with Edwards as such. Other advocates of an individual mandate have mostly evaded the flaws of Edwards' plan by just avoiding discussion of how this is supposed to work in practice. I think that in a whole variety of ways, it's just a fundamentally flawed approach."

Matt Stoller: "So at the end of the day, if you don't have health care, your wages will be garnished or your credit will be damaged because a collection agency will see to it that you buy your insurance. You might even go bankrupt! And since it's called a mandate, we'll need a new IRS-like bureaucracy to handle all of this, but it won't be the IRS since a mandate is not a tax, it's just a required fee you pay to a private company...Politically, this is a very attractive situation for the health care industry. If the industry can simply prevent the government entity from existing while retaining a universal mandate in the final plan, what they will essentially be creating will be a privatized tax system that moves money from individuals to insurance companies from the current crop of the uninsured by government fiat."

Ezra Klein thinks these guys are being too critical: "I think folks are overlooking the political merits of the individual mandate. I'm quite open to the idea that the best electoral move is to mention the principle and refuse to define its enforcement (though I also think politicians should be rewarded for being truthful), but setting it against an actual government enrollment program, where everyone is simply signed up through taxes, sort of misses the point....The individual mandate will still face hurdles as we argue over enforcement, but it basically trades away certain amount of economic efficiency in order to evade the political implications of nationalizing health spending."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: You Call This Mudslinging?

Open Left's Chris Bowers doesn't think the current Dem primary race is nearly as nasty as the '04 one:

"One of the things that strikes me about this campaign is how it turned with such comparatively modest attacks on Hillary Clinton. I remember undergraduate Clinton supporters leaving the debate and complaining about how everyone was ganging up on her, upon hearing which I barely restrained myself from telling them about what happened to Howard Dean when he was winning. Yes, studies have shown that she receives significantly more negative media coverage than Barack Obama, at least lately. However, what she is facing this campaign is absolutely nothing compared to the insane, hateful, venomous attacks Howard Dean faced. Here is an ad that some unions and fellow Democrats ran against Howard Dean in Iowa back around this same point in the 2004 campaign. No Democrat has faced attacks even close to that severe this time around...I've received some anti-Clinton email along these lines from right-wing wackos, but here we have the standard line, from both sides of the aisle, that was thrown at Howard Dean. It is blistering, full of hatred, overtly connects Dean to Osama Bin Laden and, in many cases, was funded by his own party. 'Playing the gender card,' as bad as it is, really doesn't approach this level of negative attack."

LEST WE FORGET: Entire Blogosphere Stunned By Blogger's Special Weekend Post

The Onion has the latest:

"In what is being called a seminal moment in Internet history, a rare weekend post by 25-year-old blogger Ben Tiedemann on his website bentiedemanntellsall.blogspot.com rocked the 50 million-member blogosphere this Saturday. The landmark post, which updated nearly every member of the global online community on the shelf Tiedemann was building, was linked to by several thousand sites, including Daily Kos, Digg, and The New York Times. 'Wow, what a special treat this was for all of us,' said Talking Points Memo head blogger Joshua Micah Marshal, who, along with all other bloggers, checks Tiedemann's site every day just in case something monumental occurs. 'I thought I was going to have to wait until Monday to find out if Ben decided to put [the shelf] in his bedroom or the living room. The pictures were great, too.' Within two hours of going live, Tiedemann's 15-word post received 34,634,897 comments."