MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: July 29, 2007

« July 22, 2007 - July 28, 2007 | Main | August 5, 2007 - August 11, 2007 »

August 4, 2007

Presidentials at YearlyKos — Are We Done Yet Edition

I am so very tired — physically, metaphysically, everything. Barack Obama will have a hard time impressing me here at this small group event.

"Changing political parties is not enough," says Obama. We need to change the way Washington does business. The main thurst of his campaign stated, he opens the floor to questions.

Education comes up first. Obama says he won't vote to reauthorize No Child Left Behind unless serious changes are made to give underprivileged students better opportunities.

Next, trade. Obama has a conventional response about how trade agreements can't serve corporations; they have to serve American workers and the environment. He does point out that the speech he gives to environmentalists about fuel efficiency standards is the same speech he gives to auto executives in Detroit. Sometimes they don't like it; tough.

Obama is asked about coal, and his previous support of it. He talks about how much he supports renewables (a lot), but won't abandon coal. He says that there are coal miners in Illinois and throughout the Midwest, and he cares about their jobs. That's an unnecessary thing to say here, but kudos, I guess. He says the biggest objective in defeating global warming is working with the Chinese and Indians.

"I'm skinny but I'm tough." That's funnier without context. Is he a chicken wing?

He mentions that all the criticism he's gotten from the foreign policy establishment in the last few days. These are the same people who collectively got us into the biggest foreign policy disaster in ages, he says, and they are challenging my experience? He says he'll take on these folks; he relishes fights like those.

Katrina is brought up — the questioner mentions the short shrift the rebuilding of New Orleans got at the group debate earlier. Will there be a WPA or Marshall Plan for the Gulf Coast? Obama says there will be someone in his administration that reports to him once a week on the progress of the rebuilding there. Also, he says, if we had a cleaner politics, less corrupted by silly contracting handouts, we could get this rebuilding going.

Other stuff, blah blah, politics, helping people, etc etc. Have I mentioned how tired I am? This conference has slayed me: three days of nonstop wonkiness is hard to take for any mortal.

Canadian Controversy Over Mother Jones' Article of a Doctor's Account of Cpl. Megeney's Death: The Editors Respond

There's a lot of controversy in Canada over the Mother Jones article by Dr. Kevin Patterson, "Talk to Me Like My Father: Frontline Medicine in Afghanistan," published in our July/August issue.

This 7,000 word diary of Dr. Patterson's time serving at the military hospital at Kandahar Air Field culminates with a scene in which Dr. Patterson (a Canadian) is on call when Canadian Cpl. Kevin Megeney, who'd just been accidentally shot by another soldier in his own tent, was brought in to the ER. Cpl. Megeney arrived unconscious, his pupils fixed and dilated. Dr. Patterson and the other doctors at hand tried to do what they could—including opening his chest with a "clamshell incision"—but the bullet had entered his heart.

The controversy started when the The News—a community paper that serves Pictou County, Nova Scotia, where parts of the Megeney family live—reported that George Megeney, Cpl. Megeney's uncle, was upset that Dr. Patterson described the methods used to try to save his nephew, and did not disguise his identity:

"Had he not identified Kevin, it would have been bad enough," he said. The use of the soldier's name – and lack of permission from the family to identify him – has Megeney questioning the author's ethics.

He said the first the family heard of the article was when he and Kevin's parents received a letter from Mother Jones advising them that the magazine was publishing a story with graphic content about the death, and offering to send them copies of the magazine prior to publication.

Which is more or less correct. But what The News failed to report (in part because it didn't talk to us or Dr. Patterson) in its initial article was that I spoke to Cpl. Megeney's mother at length by phone and that even after reading the article, some members of the immediate family wrote us to thank us for publishing the article and Dr. Patterson for doing all he could to try to save Cpl. Megeney. Here's the response that I posted on our website after a few people who'd read The News article wrote in to express their outrage:

As the co-editor of Mother Jones, I would like to make a few things clear in regards to the part of this story that involves Cpl. Kevin Megeney. First, we sent a letter to Cpl. Megeney's parents, uncle, and sisters, ahead of publication, informing them that this 7,000 word diary of a doctor's month of service at Kandahar Air Field did contain a scene involving the tragic death of their son. That it was written by a doctor present when Cpl. Megeney was brought in for emergency surgery, and that it would likely be disturbing to those close to him. We offered to send it to them or any intermediary they would like if they thought it would be too disturbing to read it themselves.

I then spoke with Mrs. Megeney by phone at length. She assured me that the family would like to see the article, and that she was a nurse and would read it before any other members of her family; she said it would help to have closure to know more about what happened. We heard from other members of the family who also wanted to read it, and some whom, after they did, expressed the desire to write to Dr. Patterson "to express my appreciation to him for exhausting every effort to save [him]." They asked that we link to Cpl. Megeney's memorial site, which we were already planning on doing, so our readers would have a chance to express their condolences [they've since asked that it be removed. See below].

As to the question of anonymity: The death of Cpl. Megeney was an extremely well covered story in Canada. There was no way to write about the incident and not have it be instantly clear to any member of his family or any member of the Canadian press, or anyone who'd followed the story who we were talking about simply by omitting his name. So we felt it would be false anonymity at best. Doctors can and do publicly talk about how patients die when the story is already in the news--consider press conferences following tragic accidents. And there was certainly nothing in this account that disparaged Cpl. Megeney, who served his country admirably and died in a tragic accident.

This was an extremely emotional story to work on. The account of Cpl. Megeney's death was particularly poignant, but there were many other stories in there of death and injury to soldiers and civilians that are hard to read. But in our opinion for the greater public to live in denial about what happens in a war does a disservice to those soldiers who serve and the civilians who are affected.

I could go into greater detail about our correspondence with the Megeney family, but I'm not going to. They have the right to disagree amongst themselves or to change their minds, individually or collectively, about their reaction to the article. And they have a right to express those views publicly. Their loss and their grief is their own.

But now, perhaps emboldened by (or having stirred up) this controversy, the Canadian military has announced that it will investigate if Dr. Patterson—who is a veteran of the Canadian army but went over there as a civilian because the Canadian army (like our own) is running out of enlisted doctors—violated any military rules or ethics by writing about the event. (No one, I might add, is questioning the factual basis of the article, which was rigorously fact-checked. Just whether it was okay to recount the facts.)

Now, I can't look into the military's heart and know why it is investigating Dr. Patterson. But I can say that in multiple conversations I've had in the past 24 hours with various members of the Canadian press, they've all told me off the record that they a) thought the article was great, sensitive to all parties, and responsible b) an antidote to the sanitized coverage of the war c) that the Canadian military was mostly upset because this kind of realistic account of the war (or any war) "hurts recruiting," and d) they get upset whenever they can't control the press. Particularly around a friendly-fire incident, as the Pat Tillman incident has taught Americans quite well.

I can however speak to Dr. Patterson's character, which is being maligned by some on various comments boards. I've known Dr. Patterson for nearly a decade. In addition to serving Canada in the military as young man, he took the risk to go to Afghanistan and treat allied personnel and Afghan civilians. He's also worked in Inuit and tropical communities treating TB patients (which he wrote about in "The Patient Predator" for Mother Jones; the reporting inspired his novel Consumption, which has just come out to rave reviews.). In sum, he's not only a great writer, but a truly fine human being. Were I, or anyone I loved, sick or injured, I could only hope to come under the care of someone as compassionate as he.

And on the subject of compassion: At the Megeney family's request, we've removed the link to Kevin Megeney's memorial site as some people on our site—that means you, "Jackie"—were using it to mock the family. Those posts have been deleted and we will continue to monitor. I would ask any visitor to our site that no matter what your feelings about the war in Afghanistan or Iraq that you not conflate your political opinions with other people's loss.

You can read more about the controversy at the Globe and Mail here and subsequent comments, where I've weighed in, but that has mostly deteriorated into a shouting match about the war itself here. A CBC radio interview with Dr. Patterson can be found here. And an account by the (Nova Scotia) Chronicle Herald, is here. More from The News here and here. And of course people have weighed in on our site here.

You can also view a photo essay by Canadian photographer Lana Slezic on the plight of women in Afghanistan. And CNN terror analyst and Taliban expert Peter Bergen lists ten reasons why the war in Afghanistan is starting to look more like Iraq here.

Live-Blogging the Big Forum (Circus?): The Candidates Meet on Stage

Next up, a forum of the presidential candidates. I'll try my best to live blog. When the candidates were introduced a moment ago, there was a standing ovation with wild applause. In fact, Barack Obama got a standing ovation from a portion of the crowd when it was announced that today is his birthday – some people even sung.

This is going to get rowdy.

Obama says we have investments we have to make in the American people, and balancing the budget won't keep him from making those investments. That means health care, education, etc. will not be compromised. Edwards made this point earlier, and I applaud them both for making it. Balancing the budget is a seductive idea but at its core, not a progressive one.

Edwards kind of ignores his first question in order to say that he is in favor of big change. He says, "Who will be about change? Who is the candidate for change?" That's how he's trying to distinguish himself from the more moderate Clinton (who has already been in the White House for eight years), and the incrementalist Obama. Biggest applause so for.

Both Dodd and Clinton say we need to open up our media environment. More voices, less consolidation. Dodd says DailyKos is valuable because it gives people an alternative to the mainstream. Kucinich finally gets a question and uses his opportunity to speak to mention that he is the only candidate who supports non-profit, single-payer health care. This may be the only forum on the campaign trail where that's is roundly embraced.

Edwards says he'll close Gitmo on his first day as president. No more torture, no more black sites. And transparency on the war on terror should come hand in hand with transparency in government. He calls for every candidate to stop taking money from lobbyists, as he and Obama already do. Massive applause, standing ovation.

Kucinich: impeach Cheney, and if Bush doesn't end the war, impeach him too. People love it. Like I said, this may be Kucinich's best venue.

Soft power: Edwards suggests making primary school available to 100 million children worldwide, primarily in Africa and the Muslim world. That will change how the next global generation perceives America. Expensive, but interesting. Oh, also, Edwards says "global war on terror" is a bumper sticker slogan; Clinton says it isn't. Just so you know where they stand on that all-important issue.

Asked if they would hire a White House blogger as president, the candidates all say yes. Edwards says that his would be named Elizabeth Edwards. Gravel says he would do it himself.

Big dustup over money from lobbyists: Edwards calls again from the Democratic Party to stop taking it. Senator Clinton tries to get around the issue, but the moderator asks her straight up if she will continue to take money from them. She says yes, and then has a hard time explaining herself. She actually defends lobbyists because they represent "nurses, social workers, and yes, corporations that employ lots of people." Then Obama jumps in and says all sorts of bad things about lobbyists and gets a standing ovation.

Parallel live-blogging! Standing ovation ends it.

The Presidentials Land at YearlyKos — Hillary Clinton Edition

The secret service cars are out front and the mainstream media has shown up in force, so you know it's time for the big boys. Hillary Clinton, who is up first, provides the most compelling story lines here at YearlyKos. As Kos himself admitted in a press conference a few moments ago, "Her negatives in this community are fairly high." She isn't seen as a true progressive, nor as someone willing to stand strong for her principles when it is politically inexpedient. But as Kos admitted, Clinton has moved strongly in the last year to engage the netroots and bring down those negatives.

Will she get hit for being the most moderate of all the candidates, or will she get kudos for trending in the right direction? Or, as has the case been throughout this convention, will the crowd be polite, respectful, and almost bland? Stay tuned…

Update: Half an hour into HRC's speech. The senator is continuing the netroots lovefest started yesterday by the mainstream media. "Let me start by saying something unexpected," she said. "Thank you. You have built the modern progressive movement in America. What you have done in a real short amount of time is fight back against the right wing noise machine."

"We have suffered from a real imbalance in the political world," said the senator, and that doesn't just mean the right has more organizations, think tanks, and media outlets than the left. The right actually runs what they have better. "The fact is, they were better organized, more mission-driven, and better prepared," she said. The netroots are remedying the problem and giving the left a chance.

But the bloggers, says Clinton, don't just right the balance of power, they also benefit the candidates on the left that they occasionally, or sometimes frequently, criticize. "I think it makes those of us who run for and hold office a little sharper," said Clinton. "It's nice to have some accountability and new ideas coming in."

But Hillary's not ready to embrace the blogosphere fully, not yet. "I actually read blogs," she said, "but don't tell anybody. Don't let anybody know that." The question, of course, is, why not?

Hillary Clinton just got an excellent question: it identified four pieces of legislation passed by the Bill Clinton administration as part of its triangulation efforts and asked her if she would support repealing them, as she has supported repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Welfare reform, NAFTA, and the Defense of Marriage Act were on the list.

Clinton had a tough balancing act to perform. She couldn't abandon the work of her husband, which she was often intimately involved with. But she couldn't embrace the legislation without looking overly non-progressive and out of touch/date. She acquitted herself well. She mentioned the parts of each law that worked and the parts that didn't. She was knowledgeable on the details, and tied the laws to new issues that are in everyone's shared comfort zone.

Oh, she just said she is in favor of universal broadband access — that's red meat for this crowd. She's quite good at this, isn't she? This has been a friendly little session...

Kos: "We Are in the Mainstream of America"

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, known to webbies and the folks here in Chicago simply as Kos, doesn't have a direct connection to YearlyKos. Though the event bears his name, it was started by followers of his website, DailyKos.

Because of his high-profile spats with Bill O'Reilly and others, Kos is often the center of attention on the blogosphere, but he's remained mostly out of sight here at the McCormick Center. In a press conference today — one of his few ventures into the spotlight; a speech tonight will be another — Kos specifically pointed out that the focus is the 1,500 folks in attendance, the "super-engaged activists" that are rapidly changing politics and campaigns.

"This really is democracy in action. This is regular Americans using technology to get engaged in politics," said Kos. Never one for understatement, he continued, "And anybody who attacks that, I think, hates democracy. I think it's that simple."

While fiery rhetoric like that won't keep Kos out of the spotlight for long, what's far more important is opening up the system, he says. "For those who want to engage, [the blogosphere] is the ideal medium. Before, if you wanted to be engaged in politics, you were limited to writing a check, or watching a 30 second political spot, or voting on election. Maybe you got to lick envelopes. Now people are realizing that they have a say in politics." And it's probably most important for those that live in deep red or deep blue states. "[The political establishment] would only pay attention to you is if you were in a battleground district. You had activists nationwide who wanted to engaged, but were shut out of the process." Now, through Politics 2.0, the people are a part of that process.

And the people want change. Asked what he wants to hear from the presidential candidates appearing later today, Kos downplayed the importance of his opinion and his priorities. But he did say, "I want to make sure they understand that there is a hunger for change. And that is not necessarily about working together and bipartisanship. This is about changing the country, taking it in a new direction."

And that's not so radical. "At this moment in time, we are in the mainstream of America on iraq, on health care, on education, go down the list," said Kos. The polls indicate he's right — the country wants out of Iraq, it wants expanded health care, it wants stem cell research and reproductive choice. Maybe the mainstream doesn't want to be associated with Kos and his claims that his opponents hate democracy, but they are far closer to him and the Kossaks than they realize. With the trails being blazed here in Chicago, they can let the power-holders know.

Democratic Party Bails on Simply Unable to Attend YearlyKos

Four of the Democratic Party's heavies cancelled their much-anticipated group session this morning at YearlyKos. Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel are unable to attend, we're told, because voting has been held open over the weekend on an energy bill in the House. Question: Don't Pelosi and Emanuel schedule things like voting on bills? Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, after all.

Sens. Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid are unable to attend for unspecified reasons. Such a shame. The establishment and the netroots got along so well at yesterday's Time party.

Update: I just spoke to a House staffer in DC who tells me Pelosi and Emanuel's absense here in Chicago is entirely legitimate. The energy bill, with important renewables amendments included, needs to be passed immediately, because congressmen are slowing drifting out of DC for the August recess. Pelosi could pass the bill today, or perhaps not at all. No explanation on Schumer and Reid.

Second update: Word on the street is that Reid and Schumer were in session until late last night and couldn't make their travel arrangements to get to Chicago. Kos, the man behind DailyKos, just mentioned at a press conference that he doesn't mind the lawmakers being absent to hammer out bills. "That's more important than for them to be here. The Democrats are the party of governing, the Republicans are the party of obstruction, and that's playing out right now." I'll have more from Kos' presser later today.

August 3, 2007

YearlyKos Attendees: Normal!

Want to point you in the direction of two bloggers who have made good points about the atmosphere here at YearlyKos. First, Matt Yglesias:

...it's not even totally clear to me that's there's an especially logical or organic connection to bloggers and blogging in play here. Obviously, that's the causal origin of the gathering. But bloggers are interested in the issues, and an awful lot of what's going on here is just around issues -- foreign policy, telecom policy, education, church/state issues, whatever -- issues that activists care about whether on- or off-line.

That sounds completely right to me. Some events and seminars here are about blogging, but just as many, if not more, are just about policy, the realities of politics in the world today, and various social issues.

The other, Hendrik Hertzberg:

I was expecting this crowd to look weirder. Not hippie weirder, though I did expect a bit of that, but nerdy weirder. So I was surprised at how extraordinarily normal everyone looked. The left, if I may use that radioactive word, sure has changed since "my day," i.e., the nineteen-sixties and early seventies... No chaos at YearlyKos. No "sweet smell of marijuana," as the straight papers used to refer to it. No demands for revolution. No denunciations of bourgeois democracy. The Democratic National Committee Chairman is listened to respectfully and cheered enthusiastically.

Yup. People are a bit pudgy, a bit bald, and a bit odd: just like most Americans, dare I say. The group here is less diverse than America at large, and much less diverse than Democratic voters as a whole, but that's the only substantial observation to be made about the crowd here in Chicago.

Insurance Companies Continue to Screw Katrina Victims

Victims of Hurricane Katrina have been screwed so many times. First it was by the local government, then by the federal government, and finally by insurance companies that have been weaseling out of their obligations to policyholders from the start. Yesterday, insult was added to injury when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that insurance companies, including some of the big dogs like Allstate and Travelers, don't have to pay for losses caused by flooding. The policies only cover wind and rain damage.

The shady dealings are sort of fuzzy. Apparently, many of the homeowners were assured that their policies provided full hurricane coverage. Also, some of the houses and businesses were destroyed by wind and rain hours before waters breached the levies and flooded New Orleans. Katrina victims may still have a chance for mercy. The case will head to the Louisiana Supreme Court next, and there are several similar civil suits waiting in the wings.

—Celia Perry

Reno's Makin' Mix Tapes

When Song of America, a three-CD, 50-track journey through centuries' worth of American music hits record stores in September, it comes with a stamp of approval—and an executive producer credit—from former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno.

No, seriously. Reno put together a bona fide, red-white-and-blue mix tape. To learn more about Reno's music compilation, read the rest of this post on our Arts & Culture blog, The Riff.

Bloggers and MSM: Can't We All Get Along?

Can bloggers and the mainstream media get past their prejudices against one another, and the bitter invective that is a product of that prejudice, and work together to enrich both their work?

That's the question at this panel, "Blogs and the MSM: From Clash to Civilization." Speaking are Mike Allen, chief political correspondent for Politico; Jill Filipovic from Feministe; Jay Carney, Time Washington bureau chief; and Glenn Greenwald, author, pundit, and blogosphere superstar.

Allen claims that the days when the MSM thought the bloggers were pajama-wearing wahoos are over. There was initial suspicion on both sides, because motives were unknown and everyone looked new and strange. But now, says Allen, we're heading towards an increasingly symbiotic relationship.

Greenwald takes a very different (and less conciliatory) tack. He points out that while many establishment journalists blog (see Time's Swampland) and many bloggers have been co-opted by the traditional media (see Greenwald's work for Salon), there is still a vast difference between how the groups approach the government (reverential vs. skeptical) and how willing they are to state the truth when it is harsh (for example, no establishment media actually stated the NSA wiretapping program was a violation of an American law, which it was, when it was revealed). Greenwald followed Allen and Carney's kind words for the blogosphere by ripping the media, Time and Politico specifically, at great length.

Take home point from Greenwald: Journalists think bloggers want them to become partisan. Actually, bloggers just want journalists to be adversarial and skeptical.

Now they're opening the floor to questions — Allen and Carney are going to get killed. I've got a question for Carney, but the lines are about ten deep at each microphone, so I'm not going to get a chance to ask it. I'll put it here: "Time magazine's columnists currently include Joe Klein, Bill Kristol, and Peter Beinart, all men who supported the war in Iraq. My question is, how badly does one need to screw up to lose plum media positions?"

The mainstreamers here are really laying it on thick. Allen just spoke at length about how bloggers help keep journalists honest and accountable. Carney says the top editor of Time is a huge proponent of Time's staffers engaging with the blogosphere.

Greenwald doesn't let up. He hits the mainstream press for being too cozy with the people they cover, and for reporting the claims of the administration without evaluating them. That is, when the administration claims 2+2=5 the media feels an obligation to include the claim in their stories, along with an opposing expert that says 2+2=4. Why not do more factchecking?

One fun anecdote. Carney, asked about his budget and staff, says that Time's Washington bureau has a "modest staff of 13 or 14 correspondents." Politico, according to Allen, has 50 staffers who cover Washington. Heavens. The new Mother Jones DC bureau is/will be seven folks, plus interns. And we'll do just fine, thanks.

Update: We've just had like eight straight questions bashing the mainstream media. Just think of every dissatisfaction you've ever had with the press — I promise you they've come up.

Doctors Who Deny IVF Are Not Choosing Life

Doctors refusing to perform abortions. Standard. (The procedure isn't even taught in medical schools.) Doctors refusing to provide fetal tissue for stem cells, pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions. All of these things happen based on peoples' belief that providing such services threatens unborn life. And as much as I don't agree with these decisions, I get it (sort of). If these people feel, really feel, that lives are threatened by their action, then following through is a difficult choice.

But how about when doctors refuse to perform, not abortions, not stem-cell procedures, but in vitro fertilization, which actually helps create life? The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case in which two doctors refused a woman IVF treatment because she's a lesbian. Which means that they felt that Guadalupe Benitez and her partner (whom Elizabeth Weil wrote about for Mother Jones last year) did not have the right to the life they hold so dear.

The case, which began in 2001 with Benitez claiming that the doctors violated California's anti-discrimination laws, is seen as one of the most controversial the Court has heard in years. The doctors were not refusing a service—they routinely performed IVF on other patients—but instead cited religious beliefs in this specific instance. The court could find that doctors will have to take an "all-or-nothing" approach, which would mean loss of lucrative IVF business if such doctors stick to their religious standards.

The doctors' defense all along has been that they didn't perform the procedure because Benitez is unmarried. (Benitez has said, under oath, that the doctors told her it was because of her sexual orientation.) Okay, so let's give them their defense for a sec. Do they then support gay marriage so that newborn life can be cherished? And how come they have religious objection to IVF for unmarried women, but are fine with assisting in the production of up to a dozen excess embryos per woman they treat? These embryos now number half a million nationwide; they're sitting frozen in storage and are most likely destined to be destroyed.

The Choose Life argument doesn't wash when the same moral high ground is used to deny it.

Some Good News for "Dollar Bill" Jefferson

Today, "Dollar Bill" Jefferson received the first bit of good news he's had in some time, at least since August 2005, when the FBI descended on the Louisiana congressman's home and turned up $90,000 in alleged bribe money stashed in his freezer. A federal appeals court ruled today that the bureau's subsequent raid of the lawmaker's congressional office in May 2006, an unprecedented move which sparked outcry from Jefferson's colleagues on both sides of the aisle, was unconstitutional and infringed on the independence of Congress. ''The review of the Congressman's paper files when the search was executed exposed legislative material to the Executive,'' the court ruled. ''The Congressman is entitled to the return of documents that the court determines to be privileged.'' Jefferson's not out of the woods yet. Far from it. According to the Justice Department, it didn't rely on the documents in question when making its case against Jefferson, who was indicted on 16 counts in June.

The New Bosses Congregate at YearlyKos

I'm sitting in a YearlyKos panel called "Evolution and Integration of the Blogosphere." The panelists are the blogosphere's heavy hitters: Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers, now of OpenLeft, formerly of MyDD; Duncan Black of Atrios; Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and the John Edwards controversy; Ali Savino, co-founder and Program Director of the Center for Independent Media; and Amanda Terkel of Think Progress. Basically, all the folks we quasi-attacked in Dan Schulman's piece entitled "Meet the New Bosses."

Bowers, moderating the panel, begins by describing the entrenched nature of the top of the blogosphere: the most-viewed 50 progressive blogs have remained constant the last two years and hot new bloggers are just becoming diarists or contributors to these blogs. And, lest we here at MoJoBlog forget it, those 50 blogs get 95 percent of the blogosphere's traffic.

Some panelists reject the idea of a blogosphere establishment, even in the face of Bowers' facts, but Stoller makes the only legitimate point: the growth of the blogosphere may have occurred a few years back because the Bush Administration was so nasty and the mainstream press was so unwilling to expose the truth. There was a space for blogs. But now the press is critical of the administration and there is slightly less need for blogs. I'll consider that. Savino, perhaps more willing to accept Bowers' point than the rest, points out new bloggers' best hope: local blogs and niche blogs.

In my mind, the facts are irrefutable: the blogosphere isn't really the wild frontier with thousands of disparate voices that some people think it is. It has its own hierarchy, and even those who advocate opening up the voices in American democracy are content to perpetuate that hierarchy if they are at the top of it.

Man, I am never going to get on Townhouse.

Had a long section about diversity of the blogosphere that got deleted by our blog software. Basically, Bowers made a point that we made in our Politics 2.0 package — the blogosphere skews white, male, high-income, and well-educated. What can we do to bring in new voices?

Various responses from the panel. Savino points out that there is serious diversity on the blogs, just outside of the realm of politics. Arts bloggers, culture bloggers, gossip bloggers, and bloggers on urban and race issues are less monolithic demographically, and all can be tied to politics if the left-leaning political blogosphere reaches out to them. Stoller makes a point that many people are making here at YearlyKos: broadband penetration has seriously slowed in this country, and fewer and fewer people of color and people in rural communities are getting high-speed internet. If we can remedy that problem, we might address the blogosphere's diversity issues.

Other topics that come up: reaching Spanish speakers, who are increasingly important politically; how campaigns treat bloggers vs. press; other stuff. When's lunch?

Iran Launches English-Language News Channel

If you prefer that your news come from the mullahs in Tehran, try Press TV. The channel is funded by the Iranian government, but claims it will operate without interference from the state. Press TV's "vision," as spelled out on its website:

1- To break the global media stranglehold of western outlets.

2- To bridge cultural divisions pragmatically.

3- To highlight the versatility and vitality of political and cultural differences, making up the human condition.

What's Up With Nouri al-Maliki?

If you're wondering why the Iraqis haven't met those pesky benchmarks, today's Washington Post provides an explainer. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki hails from Iraq's Dawa party, a secretive Shiite organization that was forged in opposition to Saddam's regime. It is tight-knit and suspicious of outsiders, even (and perhaps most especially) those belonging to competing Shiite political groups. According to the Post:

Maliki, observers say, is trying to compensate for his party's frail position against his Shiite rivals. Unlike influential Shiite clerics Moqtada al-Sadr or Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the Dawa party controls no militia and has a small grass-roots following today.

"He's trying to strengthen the Dawa party at the risk of marginalizing other political groups," said Wamidh Nadhmi, a political analyst.

And divisions among Shiites pale in comparison to the chasm that has developed between them and the Sunnis. Much has been made of the recent American effort to enlist Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar Province and elsewhere to assist in the fight against foreign al Qaeda fighters. The strategy appears to be working (at least for now), but the Post article notes that it is also fueling Shiite paranoia:

Maliki and his advisers are already mistrustful of new U.S. alliances with Sunni insurgents and tribal leaders who have turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq. Where the Bush administration sees a success story, Maliki and other Shiites worry that the United States is empowering groups still determined to overthrow their government.

It does make you wonder... If we arm, equip, and train Sunni tribesmen to fight al Qaeda and organize Sunni "neighborhood watches" to help protect them against Shiite death squads, it might earn us their short-term appreciation and deter them from attacking U.S. troops. Then again, it might fuel the civil war that many people believe will follow our departure from Iraq. This is surely not lost on American planners. General Petraeus recognized the risk, telling a reporter: "You have to make sure that the neighborhood watch doesn't end up watching someone else's neighborhood." Good luck.

August 2, 2007

Democrats' Ground Game for 2008 Revealed at YearlyKos

Earlier today at YearlyKos, the Democratic Party's plan for winning the 2008 ground game was presented to interested activists, bloggers, and members of the media by the DNC's new political director, David Boundy.

The Democrats' number one priority is to "organize everywhere," an unsurprising fact to anyone familiar with DNC Chairman Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy. The second priority is to "count everything," which means that any get-out-the-vote (GOTV) tactic from this point forward must be measurable. Boundy asked how many people in the room had held up signs on a freeway. Several attendees raised their hands. "How many votes do you think you got from that?" he asked. No one answered, some laughed nervously. "We're not doing that anymore."

Boundy claimed that local activists constantly approach him with new widgets that improve canvassing or direct mailing. He responds to them, "How do you know?" "Well," they say, "we used it in my state and we won three state senate seats." But if the local organizer can't prove quantitatively that his or her widget was responsible for victory, Boundy isn't interested in working with them. "If I don't know how I'm going to gain votes from what you are doing, I'm not going to do it," he said. "You can work with someone else. Hopefully the Republican Party."

If the party/D.C./establishment arrogance inherent in any of this rubbed the people in the room the wrong way—they were, after all, local activists, who probably thought they were helping the party by developing new tools in the absence of institutional support—it was washed away by the sense that the Democrats are finally getting their act together and developing a GOTV machine that rivals Karl Rove and the Republicans.

Building that machine anew—and Boundy admits it is a work in progress—instead of using a holdover from 2000 or 2004 likely has serious advantages because the rules have changed since even a few years ago. Cable and TiVo have reduced the importance of television advertising, satellite radio and mp3 players have lessened the impact of radio ads, and caller ID and cell phones have damaged the power of robocalls, push polls, and other forms of direct phoning. (The cell-only generation is a factor here: 15 percent of Americans don't have landlines; in the mid-30s-and-lower age demographic, that number raises to 40 percent.)

So TV, radio, and phone don't work. Mail doesn't work either because voters, particularly in battleground states, get direct mailings from presidential candidates, gubernatorial candidates, senate and house candidates, local candidates, interest groups, and so on. In short, so much mail the only reasonable thing to do with it all is toss it in the recycle bin. Besides, paid contact is frequently ineffective and/or costly. Boundy's numbers show that a party needs 389 mailings to gain a single additional vote, at a cost of $75, and it needs 460 more phone calls, at a cost of $127.

The answer, Boundy believes, lies in a return to the simplest forms of campaigning: door-to-door canvassing, house parties, and other forms of human interaction.

In order to better execute their human-based ground game, the Democratic Party has developed the best voter file it has ever had, and a web portal that allows any candidate at any level to access it.

The information in the voter file is all standardized across years and states, meaning a presidential candidate—and they are all using it—can see trends in Iowa from 2006 to 2007 to 2008, or compare numbers from New Hampshire and Florida. But perhaps more importantly, a candidate running for Congress in Wisconsin knows every Democratic voter in his or her key counties. The hope is that excited volunteers from those counties will feed info about their friends to the DNC, get info on other locals back from the DNC, and then head out into the neighborhood and make fact-to-face contact with the whole bunch. If done efficiently, this approach is far more effective and far less costly than other methods of spreading the Democratic message.

The corollary to all this is that if mail comes from local people, it gets read. If it comes from a national organ, it becomes political mail that goes into the recycle bin. Thus, giving those excited volunteers customizable templates to do their own mailings is key to maximizing the value of the Dems' campaign dollar. Local activists, aware of issues in their areas, can change the headlines, text, and pictures on Democratic campaign fliers, and then mail them from the local post office. They can send the results back to the DNC for evaluation, and feed information about responsive members of the community into the national voter file.

An attendee objected to Boundy's presentation at this point, citing the fact that people know their neighbors less and less these days, and make and keep their friends online more and more. For that, explained Boundy, there is a second arm to the Democratic outreach program. How that internet arm is linked to the on-the-ground arm is unknown, but the connection is in development. The problem with focusing purely on online outreach, said Boundy, is that online activists tend to stay in their own "virtual idea cul-de-sacs." That is, they preach to the choir.

In a convention devoted to and organized by the internet wing of the progressive movement, such an emphasis on walking precincts and face-to-face contact may seem a little out of place. But the activist and bloggers in attendance seemed not to mind: as long as they were able to continue doing their thing on the web—and huge portions of this conference are devoted to helping bloggers do their thing better—they were more than happy to cede the important work of ground organization to a traditional party organ like the DNC.

Minneapolis Residents Look for Answers

Minneapolis was my home for four years, as it was for many of us who just graduated from the University of Minnesota this May. Some of us have moved away, but wherever this community resides now, we share something in common. We’re worried about Minneapolis. I used to cross the Minneapolis bridge that collapsed last night every week and never once gave the safety of the bridge a second thought. It’s a big, sturdy bridge. I didn't think there was anything to worry about.

But I guess I was wrong. I read that the bridge collapsed minutes after it happened and immediately sent text messages to two of my best friends who still live in the area. Thankfully they were safe; one had actually yet to hear about the disaster. I was not alone in this panic. Minneapolis friends and families flooded house and cell phone lines so much that area phone numbers reportedly weren’t working. Some, like me, were able to connect with people but the not-so-lucky ones are still painfully waiting for a snippet of any news at all.

Today, divers searched through submerged debris, citizens poured over news reports, and officials made plans to investigate similar bridges in the area. Police are planning to put the bridge back together, as if made of puzzle pieces, to determine what caused the collapse. Bush has made $5 million available to the city to remove debris and organize traffic and is planning on visiting the site Saturday. And, in the meantime, people want answers, and they’re not getting them.

But there are some places where people can start to look for answers. My former student newspaper, the Minnesota Daily is providing up-to-date news, photos, videos, and commentary on the developing situation. I highly encourage you to turn to some of the most thorough and comprehensive coverage available right now, coming from whom some consider to be unlikely candidates: students.

—Anna Weggel

Chiquita Secrets Unpeeled

Front-page stories in today's Washington Post and Wall Street Journal detail the latest news from the a Justice Department probe into Chiquita's dealings with Colombian paramilitaries. According to the Post:

On April 24, 2003, a board member of Chiquita International Brands disclosed to a top official at the Justice Department that the king of the banana trade was evidently breaking the nation's anti-terrorism laws.

Roderick M. Hills, who had sought the meeting with former law firm colleague Michael Chertoff, explained that Chiquita was paying "protection money" to a Colombian paramilitary group on the U.S. government's list of terrorist organizations. Hills said he knew that such payments were illegal, according to sources and court records, but said that he needed Chertoff's advice.

Chiquita, Hills said, would have to pull out of the country if it could not continue to pay the violent right-wing group to secure its Colombian banana plantations. Chertoff, then assistant attorney general and now secretary of homeland security, affirmed that the payments were illegal but said to wait for more feedback, according to five sources familiar with the meeting...

Sources close to Chiquita say that Chertoff never did get back to the company or its lawyers. Neither did Larry D. Thompson, the deputy attorney general, whom Chiquita officials sought out after Chertoff left his job for a federal judgeship in June 2003. And Chiquita kept making payments for nearly another year.

Hills, a former SEC chairman, as well as several other Chiquita executives, are now the targets of a criminal investigation and could be indicted for their part in the scandal. As the Journal reports:

In years past, the admission might have been enough to get Chiquita off the hook. Companies and their executives who reported wrongdoing and agreed to cooperate often have enjoyed lenient treatment. Many received a "deferred prosecution" in which no charges were filed unless they committed additional crimes.

But things didn't work out that way for Chiquita—or for Mr. Hills and some colleagues... The investigation illustrates the recent posture taken by U.S. authorities to prosecute aggressively even when companies turn themselves in for breaking the law. Critics say that strategy could cause difficulties if companies decide they suffer no worse by waiting to get caught.

The case highlights the difficulty of doing business in a place like Colombia, where bribery, kidnapping, and assassination are all too often the tools of the trade. Chiquita executives apparently believed that if they stopped making payments to the AUC, an umbrella organization for Colombian paramilitaries, they would be putting their employees' lives at risk.

The company's internal financial records characterized the money provided to the paramilitaries as "payment for security services." This puts a polite face on things, but doesn't stray too far from the truth. The protection payments were business as usual in Colombia, where paramilitaries demand cash from businesses in exchange for leaving them alone. Chiquita maintains that the arrangement, though illegal, was necessary to safeguard its employees and facilities.

But the Colombian government isn't buying it. According to the Post:

The attorney general of Colombia, Mario Iguaran, and other Colombian officials have dismissed Chiquita's assertions that it was a victim of extortion and paid AUC to protect its workers. An Organization of American States report in 2003 said that Chiquita participated in smuggling thousands of arms for paramilitaries into the Northern Uraba region, using docks operated by the company to unload thousands of Central American assault rifles and ammunition.

Iguaran, whose office has been investigating Chiquita's operations, said the company knew AUC was using payoffs and arms to fund operations against peasants, union workers and rivals. At the time of the payments, AUC was growing into a powerful army and was expanding across much of Colombia and, according to the Colombian government, its soldiers killed thousands before it began demobilizing.

More news to come as the story develops. In the meantime, click here for an earlier post about Drummond's recent legal troubles in Colombia.

YKos Gossip: FCC to Weigh in on Murdoch-WSJ Deal?

FCC Commmissioner Michael Copps told Yearly Kossacks this afternoon (at a session organized by our friends at Free Press) that he wants the FCC to review the sale of the Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch's NewsCorp has several relicensing applications currently in front of the FCC, so Copps figures it's a good time to take a look at what legal authority the agency has to weigh in on the deal, and do their duty to protect the public interest.

Most of Copps' talk had to do with how corporate influence over U.S. telecom policy has put this country way behind others in broadband penetration (not to mention speed). He mentioned that a recent report by the International Telegraphic Union (the U.N. agency that deals with telecom and communications matters) puts the U.S. behind Estonia and tied with Slovenia in broadband penetration.

— Steve Katz

Obama Has G.I. Joe Moment

Last night, Obama put to rest accusations that he can't be "tough" like the other hawks regarding foreign policy: He'll unilaterally attack Pakistan if General Musharraf is not doing enough to "take out" the "terrorists." To be fair, he did argue for making military aid to Pakistan conditional and that democracy in Pakistan should figure in as a top priority with our dealings with the "biggest non NATO ally."

But, what's most striking about Obama's speech is that if one were to read it without knowing it was penned by one of the "Democratic" front runners—one who is supposed to be a viable alternative to the centrist, and often hawkish, Democrats many find uninspiring—you'd think this was a rational and "compassionate" Republican talking.

I'm wondering if Obama's campaign managers are whispering in his ears, "Tell the American public that if push comes to shove, you too can be jingoistic." Well, regardless of what their strategy is, it's not a good one. A little note to BHO: Progressively becoming less progressive will only lose you votes.

The way the candidates have spoken (and continue to speak) to the American public make it seem like we are afraid of real change and that a radically different approach to how we deal with the international community is out of the question. And this is truly unfortunate, because carrying out air strikes to weed out terrorists usually ends in the loss of many innocent civilian lives, which in turn only angers people even more.

—Neha Inamdar

Bridge Collapse: Whose Roads Are They Anyway?

Not that long ago, I rode my bike to work along Minneapolis' West River Parkway—underneath the I-35W bridge—every day, so it was particularly heartbreaking to watch CNN last night, with all that footage of twisted steel and crumpled concrete, the exhausted and frightened voices on cell phones. (And there's still more Minnesota in me than I knew—my first thought was, "Thank God it's not January.")

This morning, my inbox was full of messages from friends and relatives, assuring everyone that they are okay, noting how "every day we have is a gift." But some of my friends were also angry, and one raised a point that hasn't been picked up in the national press. She wrote,

Earlier this year, in February, the state legislature wrote a bill that would have raised the gas tax by five cents per gallon. [Congressman James Oberstar (D-Minn.), chair of the ultra-powerful Transportation Committee] had gone to the statehouse and told legislators that if they passed the bill, he'd match it with fed funds—for a total of up to $1 billion. The bill passed the House and Senate by large majorities, but Pawlenty vetoed it, citing his longstanding, budget-devastating promise of no new taxes. Instead, the governor floated a plan to pay for improvements with bonds, otherwise known as loans.

Of course, this money wouldn't have come through in time to fix 35W, and if it had there's no saying it would have been spent on improving an old freeway bridge in the city rather than build a new interchange in the suburbs. But the point is, there are only three ways of dealing with roads, bridges, and public transit (remember transit?): Decide, as a society, that we need them and will pay for them; let them fall apart; or turn them over to the private sector. The first is what we did in the great public-works era from the late 1800s to the 1970s; the second is what we've done since; and the third is what we seem about to do, as Dan Schulman and James Ridgeway documented in Mother Jones a few months ago.

Privatization sounds sweet: Companies will take these old roads off our hands, and pay us for them!. And that would be great if it worked. But to make roads profitable you have to charge tolls, and to throw off enough profit for private investors, you have to charge tolls a lot higher than the state would. So privatization means new and higher tolls; upgrades only for roads in profitable places; and, overall, more money for less service. There is a lot more collapsing in the nation's highway system than a single bridge.

Republicans Candidates Remain Completely Substance-Free

TAPPED has had their finger on an important aspect of the presidential campaigns.

Obama, we're told, only recently started to show some substance. Yet, by this standard, every major Republican candidate is about as substantial as tissue paper in a tornado. I'm not the first to notice this, but I was still taken aback by just how little Republicans seem to care about even appearing as if they have any ideas when I started poking around their websites.

Basically, the Republicans duck every significant issue, from Iraq to healthcare. When Democrats stop bashing Bush and turn their attention to their Republican counterparts, they'll have lots of material to work with. For more details (or lack thereof) see this post.

Princeton Prof Raps, 'Edutainment to the Fullest'

Outspoken Princeton professor, decorated scholar, and bestselling author Cornel West recently released a political hip-hop album that features songs about topics like September 11th, racial profiling, the "N" word, and the Bush administration. It's no wonder that Never Forget: A Journey of Revelations has been slugged "Edutainment to the fullest."

With a spoken word delivery backed by hip-hop beats, West reminds me of Gil Scott-Heron, a political spoken word artist from the 60s and 70s. Similar to Scott-Heron and also the 70s spoken word group the Last Poets, West's CD skewers our nation's political and ethical choices through music. But with guests like Prince, Andre 3000, Black Thought, Talib Kweli, and KRS-One, this album has a more current sound.

In an NPR interview about the CD, West explained that "A paradigm shift is taking place in hip hop. It's going back to the best of the tradition, by connecting with young folk…In the end it's about dignity and respect." And I think 2007 is ripe for it.