AOLington Post? Did Huffington just jump the shark?

$315 million from AOL to Arianna Huffington is a real eye-opener, and Zennie's written recently about how various blogs (including this one) are valued, but AOL has a history of getting things wrong, and this is surely a case of strange bedfellows (but hey, it's politics, right?) Consider that AOL's primary revenue stream remains their old-school subscribers, the messy divorce from Time-Warner, and the way their local news theory is - well - sputtering, thus far. Now AOL evidently hopes to capture the unpaid contributors and eyeballs that followed the drama of the 2008 elections. Good luck with that.

In an investor's ideal world, I suppose, they'd expect the HuffPo loyalists to stay interested, and the AOL subscribers to stay, and the buzz to generate more interest and more readers - right? More interest, more readers, more ad revenue, happy investors. It could happen, but I don't see it. Instead, AOL will further tarnish the already slipping HuffPo brand, driving HuffPo's core readers elsewhere (maybe here?) without significantly altering the AOL reader's habits. These are two utterly different groups of internet users.

The kind of folks who were enthused about what Huffington seemed to be about during the 2008 campaign cycle (and make no mistake about it, the rise is tied to Obama, Clinton, McCain and the most-watched campaign in history) are the sort of people who have disdained the AOL model since before the country had even heard of Monica Lewinsky. They'll go elsewhere, and AOL will be left holding the bag.

In fact, it's already begun. As reported Monday in the immediate wake of the wedding announcement, former Essence Editor Angela Burt-Murray is now out of the HuffPost "Global Black" lineup. So, perhaps part of the appeal to AOL was Arianna's ability to come to terms with BET co-founder Sheila Johnson in an attempt to lure more African-American readership, but if you know why Ms. Burt-Murray departed Huffington's fold so soon after the AOL announcement we'd love to hear about it here, since AOL doesn't have the best track record in that department.

It's a triumph for Ms. Huffington, who has been very savvy in building and executing her business model. She sold out at a very opportune moment - and $315 million is a handsome profit - a remarkable return on investment. As such, this may even represent, or spark, the next hot wave of interest from big investors; it's clear that many stalwart media companies would benefit from some infusion of newer know-how, and tying their brand to an up-and-comer. But this unlikely union may well be the beginning of the end for HuffingtonPost's Happy Days.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community. You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.

Ms. Huffington Shills a Book She Didn't Write / Jossip

Ms. Huffington Shills a Book She Didn't Write / Jossip Jossip slams Arinna Huffington's new book on blogging.

Arianna Huffington - The Web Killed Karl Rove Politics

 At the Web 2.0 Summit, where web tech people get together to discuss the ever changing nature of the advance and use of the Internet and Internet technology , Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington summed up why President-Elect Barack Obama prevailed over Senator John McCain:

"The McCain campaign didn't have a clue," said Huffington in a reference to technical rather than intellectual deficiencies. "The Internet has killed Karl Rove politics."

I'm sorry I missed Web 2.0, but I'll catch the Expo.  But the matter of just how the Internet killed Karl Rove politics bears exploration.  In brief, the Internet allowed the free and rapid transfer of information between people, thus allowing a single episode of rumors and negative information that would have altered the course of a campaign in the past to be 1) quickly countered and 2) replaced by new news in the cycle.  That leads to a related point: the news cycle is now in less than a day, it's more like a six hour process.  Thus, news that's really a day old has been repeated again and again online often before it hits the newspapers the next day.  


That didn't happen in 2004, and so Karl Rove's "divide and conquer" strategy worked.  Not today.  

Mayhill Fowler An Ememy of The Obama For America Campaign

This is my letter to the Obama Rapid Response Team

Hello ORR,

Just some FYI. The person behind the installation of the "video" with Senator Obama's comments on the plight of Pennsylvania small towns is Mayhill Fowler. She's an Oakland resident of 61 years old who I first met online via Amanda Michel of The Huffington Post.

At first, our emails were fine as I wrote about videoing her -- we both live in Oakland But as her coverage became obviously anti-Barack, I not only backed off, I stopped contacting her, except to tell her that she was being biased.

All of her coverage at the time was pro-Hillary and Anti-Barack. Plus, she had the nasty habit of quoting Barack or any supporter without taking notes or using a camcorder. That habit was SO BAD she pissed off key members of the Obama For America campaign in Northern California.

Nuts.

Also, my Huff Post articles were pro-Obama and I was open about it. But they -- the Huff Post -- had a WEIRD tendency to promote Mayhill's anti-Obama coverage over my pro-Obama work, which also attacked Clinton.

Thus, I stopped submitting work to the Huff Post because of that, plus the fact that my interest is in building my blog network and not Arianna's. I love Ariana and I've copied her here, but all's fair in the Internet business.

My point was to tell the world the other story and that was being slowed, so I concentrated on using better "SEO" systems than the Huff Post, to rank higher -- it's worked. One thing I've learned is that once a person in this business finds the right formula, all of the beneficiaries of the "old" way give way to the new.

This will be true for the Huff Post, as much as any other website. You can't sit still, and yet they do. Just how is something I know. It's not that I don't respect the Huff Post -- in fact, I love it -- but I did not like the Mayhill matter. It stuck in my craw and fueled me to make my own news and not contribute to their content, or try to.

Meanwhile Mayhill pressed on. To her partial credit, this article has some evidence which I frankly think is good for the campaign. Barack's a speaker of the truth and the fact is that small towns in Pennsylvania have really been hit hard. He's right to talk about where they're coming from and it should spark conversation. Like the "race" issue, we will come out on top in the end. We're fighting against people who use dishonesty as a weapon -- I've learned that the best counter is honesty.

Also, I suspect that Mayhill's getting some assistance from Huff Post, but if so it's small. That $10 million they got is not going into the pockets of editors and writers as it should -- bully for me!

In closing, if you want to contact Mayhill yourself here's her email:
JuneHill@aol.com

As Scooby Do would say "Rotsa Ruck Roy!"
Dear

As

--
Zennie Abraham, Jr.
Chairman and CEO
http://www.sportsbusinesssims.com
Sports Business Simulations
510-387-9809
SBS Online Marketing at http://www.sbson.com

Arianna Huffington - My Email To Arianna On Lousy Dem Debate Article

Hi Arianna,

Normally, I enjoy the Huff Post, but this article makes my BLOOD boil. Which one? This one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080115/democratic-rdp/

"Clinton, Obama Vow to Bury Race Debate"

Why does the write refer to John Edwards as "the only white male in the race'? So freaking what? And why do your editors select headlines that focus on Obama and race and insult Obama?

I didn't see the debate -- I was at MacWorld -- but everyone I talked to, half not with any candidate in terms of preference -- said "Obama won."

Why in heaven's name are you all so afraid to point out when he does well, and why are you letting your new editor continue to inject racism into the campaign.

This is a real low for the Huffington Post.

Best,

Zennie

Arianna Huffington's Beautiful Article On Obama's Win

This is a great and emotional and heartfelt article by Arianna Huffington is one that should read again and again.

Obama Wins Iowa: Why Everyone Has a Reason to Celebrate Tonight

Even if your candidate didn't win tonight, you have reason to celebrate. We all do.

Barack Obama's stirring victory in Iowa -- down home, folksy, farm-fed, Midwestern, and 92 percent white Iowa -- says a lot about America, and also about the current mindset of the American voter.

Because tonight voters decided that they didn't want to look back. They wanted to look into the future -- as if a country exhausted by the last seven years wanted to recapture its youth.

Bush's re-election in 2004 was a monument to the power of fear and fear-mongering. Be Very Afraid was Bush/Cheney's Plans A through Z. The only card in the Rove-dealt deck. And it worked. America, its vision distorted by the mushroom clouds conjured by Bush and Cheney, made a collective sprint to the bomb shelters in our minds, our lizard brains responding to fear rather than hope.

And the Clintons -- their Hillary-as-incumbent-strategy sputtering -- followed the Bush blueprint in Iowa and played the fear card again and again and again.

Be afraid of Obama, they warned us. Be afraid of something new, something different. He might meet with our enemies. His middle name is Hussein. He went to a madrassa school. A vote for him would be like rolling the dice, the former president said on Charlie Rose.

And the people of Iowa heard him, and chose to roll the dice.

Obama's win might not have legs. Hope could give way to fear once again. But, for tonight at least, it holds a mirror up to the face of America, and we can look at ourselves with pride. This is the kind of country America was meant to be, even if you are for Clinton or Edwards -- or even Huckabee or Giuliani.

It's the kind of country we've always imagined ourselves being -- even if in the last seven years we fell horribly short: a young country, an optimistic country, a forward-looking country, a country not afraid to take risks or to dream big.

Bill Clinton has privately told friends that if Hillary didn't win, it would be because of the two weeks that followed her shaky performance in the Philadelphia debate.

But it wasn't those two weeks. Indeed, if we were to pinpoint one decisive moment, it would be Bill Clinton on Charlie Rose, arrogant and entitled, dismissive and fear-mongering. And then Bill Clinton giving us a refresher course in '90s-style truth-twisting and obfuscation -- making stuff up about always having been against the war, and about Hillary having always been for every good decision during his presidency and against every bad one, from Ireland to Sarajevo to Rwanda.

So voters in Iowa remembered the past and decided that they didn't want to go back. They wanted to move ahead. Even if that meant rolling the dice.

Again, this moment may not last. But, for tonight, I am going to savor it -- and cross my fingers that it may stand as the day that fear as a winning political tactic died. Killed by an "unlikely" candidate -- as Obama called himself again and again -- who seized the moment, and reminded America of its youth and the optimism it longs to recapture.

Huff Post Live Bloggers: Iowa Democratic Debate Boring

The Huffington Post hs three people on site in Iowa to blog about the debate. I participated in this as an AOL Instant Messenger user for the CNN / YouTube Debates, but not this time. It's Sunday morning and too early for one who needs his rest: me. Plus, I'm on the West Coast, where this program's going to be pre-recorded so I can see for myself when I'm awake. If I get up.

There's a pattern emerging with these debates. Barack Obama's being painted as the different candidate as much by his challengers as himself. Hillary Clinton's pressing the obvious fact she's a woman. John Edwards makes long statements of feeling, but always misses the soundbites. And the rest are, well, the rest.

I don't think the debates themselves are boring, just the way ABC does it. Remember their fake experience at videoblogging? Well, they entirely ran away from it this time, thanks to me and Newbievids. But hey, they could have improved on the video format, but that's for another blog post.

Heres' the Huffington Post Live Blog text...

Welcome to yet another installment of HuffPost's Debate Liveblog Series ™ — where we watch the debates and critique the candidates in real time. Today we're joined by nonverbal communication specialist John Neffinger, Political Brain author and language expert Drew Westen, and HuffPost/Eat The Press contributor Glynnis MacNicol (with occasional piping up by me — your moderator, ETP editor Rachel Sklar). We are instant-messaging our comments to each other in real time, except for Drew, who will add in his comments later this morning when the debate is broadcast at his local affiliate (learn to stream, ABC!). It will be a fluid and chatty session — refreshed consistently over the morning. So keep checking in — in the meantime, here are some introductory thoughts by our panel!

John: So, here we are again. Another few days, another debate.
Rachel: I know! Did you hear that Obama said he's going to stop the insanity and pull out of the debates?
John: I did -- official, mandatory debates only from here on out.
Rachel: Apparently it's in a memo by Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. (Hee hee, "Plouffe.")
Glynnis: Yes - which will either give everyone else the opportunity to do the same...or give Hillary the opportunity to have way more face time
John: Looking back over the debates so far, was this format necessarily favorable to Hillary for some reason, or did it just work out that way?
Rachel: Interesting. Well, it's certainly been favorable to her visually - the eye picks her out of the lineup instantly. That was driven home watching the GOP debate
John: She is the only candidate who can get away with wearing pink. Er, coral.
Drew: We're certainly getting a good picture of how he is or isn't being coached for the debates. It looks too much like it's from Shrum handbook and not enough from Obama's natural style.
John: That's right, very cerebral. Only in the most recent AFL-CIO debate did Obama regularly display any facial expression whatsoever.
Glynnis: I think it has to be said only a small slice of the population is getting a fuller picture of things from these debates...I can't imagine a lot of people are tuning in at 9am on a Sunday in August. Which is why soundbites are smart i.e. "I'm your girl!"
Rachel: Ha, good point. Yet bizarrely ABC claimed that they had a great audience for this last week (even though it was still beaten by "Meet Russert's Giant Head").
Glynnis: On a side note - Karl Rove is doing all the morning shows except "This Week."
Rachel: Oh! That's so interesting! A subtle undermining of the Dems even in retirement.
Glynnis: I think everyone should take a lesson from Kucinich's Chicago performance -- had any of the top three candidates played to the crowd so well, I think it could have defined them better in the mainstream media, "I'm your girl!" notwithstanding.
John: You also mentioned earlier Glynn, given how few people are watching these debates closely, memorable moments (on the upside or downside) are what matter here.
Glynnis: I think that Edwards is going to be the one under the gun tomorrow...he has some 'splaining to do regarding Katrina and mortgage foreclosures.
Rachel: What???
Glynnis: Short version: he has investments with a company that is currently foreclosing on poor people's houses in New Orleans.
Rachel: Yikes. Talk your way outta THAT one, Mr. War On Poverty!
(see the rest of our pre-debate chatter here — the debate starts....now!)

THE DEBATE

Glynnis (9:05:37 AM): Welcome to the first Democratic debate ...from Iowa. George runs through the lineup by talking about Iowa poll support Biden and Kucinich are tied at 2%. Gravel has none.
Rachel (9:06:40 AM): Which gets a rather uncalled for laugh, I think. Shame on you, George.
Glynnis (9:05:55 AM): Stephanopoulous goes straight for the jugular. The big question is does Obama have enough experience? Hillary?
Glynnis (9:06:10 AM): She's wearing a taupe suit. Not showing up so well on the background of red white and blue.
Rachel (9:06:40 AM): I know - her first fashion misstep!
Rachel (9:06:47 AM): Where is the Vogue-sanctioned Huma when you need her?
Glynnis (9:07:19 AM): Biden dodges the question a bit.
Rachel (9:07:49 AM): "Is Senator Obama ready?" George leads with a challenge, to everyone.
John (9:08:00 AM): Hillary began her morning with a nice warm smile today. Is she our girl?
Rachel (9:08:17 AM): And Obama rises to it! Great joke: "To prepare for this session, I rode in the bumper car at the Iowa State Fair" - funny.
Glynnis (9:08:18 AM): Richardson dives in with taking it back to himself: "Clinton has experience, Obama has change. I have both." First laugh from the crowd.
John (9:08:58 AM): I was wondering whether this Pakistan disagreement would be left to lie. George Stephanopoulos goes right for it.

Note that George has set up a direct confrontation between Hillary and Obama here. The disagreement on the facts you can read about in the paper — what "wins" these confrontations in this setting is body language and tone. Hillary is not only firm, but slightly angry and disapproving when her integrity is challenged — her posture stiffens and her brow furrows and she raises her voice. She is not going to stand for attacks on her or her positions.

Obama, by contrast, attempts to take the high road. His response minimizes the disagreement rather than sharpening it as Hillary does, and while he stands firm, he projects serenity instead of toughness, looking disapproving only fleetingly. This shows a form of strength, and is a valid strategy if your toughness has already been established. But next to Hillary it is not clear that he is showing quite enough toughness, enough firmness. She makes clear with her body language when she objects to something. With Obama, you often have to listen closely to what he says to know where he objects.

Why is this so important? Remember the Swift Boaters. The specific facts of the Swift Boat accusations were not the issue. The issue was that when John Kerry's was challenged personally on his integrity, he would not stand up for himself. How then could Americans trust him to stand up for them? This is a dangerous world, and voters are looking for a leader who will stand up for all of us when our enemies challenge us.

Rachel (9:09:30 AM): Wow, that is an interesting way of looking at it. Obama is on the hook to show strength today, since he's the one taking all the heat right off the bat.
Glynnis (9:09:53 AM): Does this line of questioning strike anyone else as strange? Why is everything being viewed in the light of Obama?
John (9:10:36 AM): Very strange... but now George is going after Hillary's flip-flop on the nuclear option being on the table. George is stirring the pot here.
Glynnis (9:11:07 AM): The lighting at this debate is terrible on all the candidates. Everyone looks a bit orange.
Rachel (9:11:26 AM): Wow, it's an actual debate!
Rachel (9:11:30 AM): This is a nice change.
John (9:11:40 AM): Well done George.
Rachel (9:11:48 AM): I will add that the lineup has changed - Hillary is now stuck on the end
Rachel (9:11:55 AM): Good day to wear the bland beige suit.
Glynnis (9:11:55 AM): Hillary is off to the very right of the stage, at the podium usually reserved for Kucinich
Glynnis (9:12:22 AM): George is grinning. He knows he's stirring it up.
Glynnis (9:12:37 AM): Oh John Edwards!
John (9:13:56 AM): Edwards opens on a sunny note: "How about a little hope and optimism?" Unfortunately, we're talking about terrorism and national security, where a big sunny smile does not demonstrate the strength to handle this stuff.
Glynnis (9:14:11 AM): George is trying to turn this debate into a Obama Clinton showdown. Why aren't the other candidates reacting by pointing out they are all still in the game!
Glynnis (9:15:42 AM): Gravel is back! "I think they are all wrong" "Cheney should be committed"
John (9:16:04 AM): Oh brother. When you hear "Here's what I would do...." you know you're listening to Bill Richardson.
Glynnis (9:16:19 AM): Everyone sounds like they have a cold. Perhaps the lack of summer holiday is catching up with them.
Rachel (9:16:42 AM): There's a Bush/Iraqi parliament joke in here somewhere.
Glynnis (9:17:01 AM): George now brings it back to Karl Rove.

John (9:17:14 AM): Now George invites Obama to take a shot at Senator Clinton based on her soaring negatives in the polls. True to form, he is much too gentlemanly for that.
Glynnis (9:18:05 AM): They just did a crowd shot and there is a woman asleep in the audience.
Rachel (9:18:28 AM): I'm your guy!
John (9:18:30 AM): If they did a whole-stage shot, they might catch somebody napping up there too.
Rachel (9:18:32 AM): And nobody reacted!
Glynnis (9:18:40 AM): Obama has slipped into "hopeful" platitudes.
Rachel (9:18:41 AM): Obama is doing well today.
Glynnis (9:18:54 AM): George is trying to press him for details.
Rachel (9:18:58 AM): I'm not sure they're platitudes - and he's certainly not alone in THAT, anyway.
Rachel (9:19:09 AM): (Cf. Edwards, Richardson.)
John (9:19:28 AM): Yeah, Obama tried that at a moment when George was itching to cut him off. Wrong moment if he was trying to make that his soundbite.
Rachel (9:19:55 AM) has left the room.
Glynnis (9:19:58 AM): Edwards jumps in now : "America wants change in the most serious way"

[Technical difficulties courtesy of AIM - yay, Drew gets to fill this part in!]

Glynnis (9:29:09 AM): The questions have moved on to Iraq.
Glynnis (9:30:59 AM): Joe Biden is looking good. The fact that he isn't forcefully jumping in to the questions, however, seems to drive home that conclusion of the last debate that he is now vying for an alternate position.
Glynnis (9:33:03 AM): Hillary says getting out of Iraq is dangerous and people don't like to hear this. She says she doesn't want to oversell the evacuation.
Rachel (9:33:12 AM): She sounds strong and authoritative here. Dropping facts like a vandal.
Rachel (9:33:33 AM): (Um, not a good time for a Vanilla Ice lyric?)
Glynnis (9:33:34 AM): Gravel wants to make it clear that he disagrees with everyone!
Glynnis (9:34:24 AM): I like how Clinton and Obama are looking at him as though they are taking Gravel seriously.
John (9:34:39 AM): Yes, let's talk about the Turks. Hillary is going into the details just to show off that she can speak about them fluently.
Glynnis (9:35:22 AM): Edwards concedes that he understands that George is trying to create a fight up here. If George continues to be so aggressive I think that he is going to unite the candidates against him.
John (9:35:57 AM): Richardson now directly challenges Hillary, saying that Hillary has talked about leaving non-combat troops behind in Iraq without combat troops to protect them.
Glynnis (9:36:20 AM): Well, now Richardson is questioning Clinton and Obama. Richardson sounds good on pape, but is awkward visually.
Rachel (9:36:23 AM): We don't need no civil wa-a-ar!
Rachel (9:36:34 AM): (Um, not a good time for a Guns N' Roses lyric?)
Glynnis (9:37:43 AM): Biden may be so far down in the polls that it's safe for everyone to agree with him. The other candidates seem to be turning him into the wise old sage.
John (9:38:05 AM): He is awkward visually. When Richardson emphasizes his question: "What is the purpose of the residual force?" he holds out his hands and nods from his waist, and for a moment he looks like Bluto Blutarski.
Glynnis (9:38:14 AM): But George wants to bring it back to Obama and Clinton.

Glynnis (9:40:10 AM): Oooh. Obama starts out all friendly and then drops in the point that he wishes all the people on this stage had considered these points earlier!
Rachel (9:40:12 AM): "Nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney" - brilliant point.
Rachel (9:40:22 AM): And man does he sound authoritative.
Rachel (9:40:31 AM): Something is different about Obama today. He has it.
Glynnis (9:41:02 AM): Obama just turned his lack of experience into a positive...just as Hillary turned her "negatives" into a positive.
Glynnis (9:41:49 AM): I agree. Obama seems to be at the end of his rope with the "lack of experience" comments.
John (9:41:51 AM): He is doing pretty well today. I wonder though if any of this rises to the level of a clip that anyone not awake right now will ever see.
Glynnis (9:42:50 AM): Kucinich says the Democrats on this stage have to take responsibility for this war. The camera cuts to Hillary and she nods.
Glynnis (9:43:21 AM): George isn't even pretending that the other candidates matter.
Rachel (9:43:52 AM): I'm just a caveman, I don't understand your world...
Glynnis (9:43:59 AM): Apropos of nothing. Hillary is really good on stage. So polished.

Rachel (9:44:48 AM): Oh, gosh. John Edwards, talking about the death of his son, and Elizabeth's cancer. Wow.
Rachel (9:45:03 AM): This is a sobering reminder of what this man has been through. What his family has been through.
John (9:45:39 AM): Hillary nodded very empathetically when she had the question re-read to her. That was her answer right there.
Glynnis (9:45:42 AM): And now she manages to turn a question about a personal God into an answer about her experience. "If I wasn't a praying person before I got to the White House I would have been after a few days."
Glynnis (9:48:32 AM): Obama is owning this question. He takes it out of the personal sphere and equates prayer with the ability to effect change.
Rachel (9:48:52 AM): Nice ice-breaker from Kucinich!
Glynnis (9:49:18 AM): Kucinich is funny! "I've spent the last twenty minutes praying you were going to call on me."
Glynnis (9:49:36 AM): He is also the only candidate to refer to specific Biblical passages.
Rachel (9:50:37 AM): I think Dodd is a wonderful speaker. And there's his trademark Kelly green tie! (He favors those.)
John (9:50:41 AM): Matthew 25, every liberal's favorite Bible verse, will not impress evangelicals.
Rachel (9:51:03 AM): I rather like Genesis 38:10, but that's just me.
Glynnis (9:51:22 AM): George isn't even pretending to be representative of the larger viewing public. He is showing his colors as a Washington insider here.
Glynnis (9:54:09 AM): Somebody needs to do something sharp soon! Or John is right, this Sunday morning August debate won't even make a wave in the MSM.
Glynnis (10:00:41 AM): This debate is not furthering a whole lot in my opinion except to strengthen Obama's decision not to participate in them anymore.
Rachel (10:01:04 AM): Yikes. This ain't no snowman!
Rachel (10:01:48 AM): I'm gonna say it: This is a boring debate.
John (10:02:21 AM): Joe Biden just brought down the house with one of his trademark "I'm a big-mouthed idiot" jokes.
Glynnis (10:02:51 AM): Yes, we love Joe Biden and his self-deprecation!
Rachel (10:01:04 AM): Well, you do, Biden girl!
John (10:04:37 AM): Obama has a good response here, highlighting his speech to Detroit automakers telling them we need to raise fuel efficiency. It was a good moment that has not gotten all the attention he had hoped.
Glynnis (10:04:52 AM): Edwards is far from owning this debate, but I think if he can hang in there until Feb/March I think he could be the alternate for those independents that Hillary supposedly alienates.
John (10:06:13 AM): That's interesting: despite his stumbles, Obama has been leading the race for the not-Hillary candidate. But at this point maybe there will be room for a not-Obama not-Hillary candidate as well.
Glynnis (10:07:09 AM): Richardson says he is not the "scripted candidate" alluding perhaps to his homosexuality is a choice remark at the LOGO forum.

John (10:08:04 AM): Richardson saying he is "averaging about one mistake a week" is endearing, but not a compelling case for supporting him.
Glynnis (10:08:40 AM): Especially not when he follows it up with talk about nukes and Iran.
Glynnis (10:09:58 AM): Despite all of George's antagonism, the candidates seem to be going out of their way to point out how they agree with eachother.
John (10:10:30 AM): Everyone except Hillary.
Rachel (10:10:52 AM): What? She kicked that off from the very beginning, talking about building herself up and not tearing others down, taking it back to being a united force agains the GOP. C'mon, give our girl a little more credit.
Glynnis (10:12:52 AM): Considering this debate is being held in Iowa (some of the most privileged voters out there) they are very tame! Perhaps everyone there really is in church.
John (10:13:48 AM): Richardson is strong on education here, with a nice ringing response that does not sound canned. But the camera catches him looking sad and out of sorts for several long seconds after George cuts him off.
Rachel (10:13:57 AM): As in the GOP debate, George let's them talk, so it's telling when he does actually cut someone off. Perhaps he was doing Richardson a favor, cf. Melissa Etheridge ("I don't think you understood my question..."). God, that just never gets old.

John (10:14:07 AM): Glynnis, you were wondering if Gravel was going off the cliff..?
Glynnis (10:14:25 AM): Gravel is speaking truth to power. We are 46th in literacy in the world he points out. And then somehow makes it about nukes...
Glynnis (10:14:38 AM): ...and then goes right off the cliff
John (10:14:46 AM): Even he was chuckling at how disjointed that was after George finally brought the curtain down.
Glynnis (10:16:21 AM): Biden says regarding education: "don't tell me what you believe in, show me your budget."
Glynnis (10:17:56 AM): Richardson excessively laughs at Gravel's response before responding himself. Badly timed, and makes Richardson look like the silly one.
John (10:19:20 AM): Gravel aside, all of these people have a coherent, strong story to tell on education. I wonder what any of them could actually get done on education as President.
John (10:19:26 AM): Would any one them make it a priority? Would they have any political capital or budget left after a bruising health care fight?
Rachel (10:19:34 AM): Obama looks prescient here - this debate seems like a tipping point of non-relevance. When's Karl Rove on?
John (10:19:56 AM): Good question.
Glynnis (10:20:04 AM): Can we watch Karl Rove after this?
John (10:20:18 AM): Okay, the final question - what decisive moment shaped your character?
Rachel (10:20:30 AM): I would like to see some of Obama as an angry young man here, frankly. He doesn't move the needle much on showing emotion.
Glynnis (10:21:02 AM): With his working class ties and his radical plans...
Rachel (10:21:59 AM): Nice! This is the song-droppingest liveblog ever.

Glynnis (10:22:47 AM): Guess what? John Edwards father worked in a mill...had you heard?
Rachel (10:22:49 AM): Aw. That was a nice story about Edwards' dad. Today he's connecting with me. I think a lot of Americans would connect with that notion, the notion of self-improvement and aiming high - it taps into the upward striving element of the American Dream.
Glynnis (10:23:19 AM): Hillary on feminism: She owns this answer.
Rachel (10:23:24 AM): HILLARY IS A SISTA!!!!
John (10:23:25 AM): Wow. How is it that these people speak in public for a living, and are asked for a compelling personal story from their lives, and can't come up with anything memorable?
Rachel (10:23:35 AM): (Note how she folds in people of color.)
Glynnis (10:23:48 AM): ...and she does by alluding to the women's movement. I really think she needs to play this angle a bit more.
Rachel (10:23:54 AM): I'm sorry, I was inspired by that last interchange. John, I think these are actually quite compelling personal stories. I'm with them.
Rachel (10:23:57 AM): Which is the point, right?
Glynnis (10:23:58 AM): And then she brings it back to her mother. Nice.
Glynnis (10:25:23 AM): She says thirty years ago she could never have imagined herself as president. And then refers to the women's movement/civil rights movement
Glynnis (10:25:49 AM):...and then takes it to a personal level by saying how much she owes her mother, who never got a change to go to college.
Rachel (10:26:07 AM): Like I said: Inspiring. Look at all these candidates, running for president - something their parents could never have dreamed of doing. That, right there, is the best of America. (Says the Candian. But still.)

Glynnis (10:26:35 AM): Okay! Impressions on the whole?
John (10:26:43 AM): Thanks for that. What I could see was that she said it with a warm smile, which we are now seeing more regularly from her.
John (10:28:53 AM): Yeah, she does. And she is now showing us real warm smiles occasionally too.
Glynnis (10:29:17 AM): However, I don't think that we learned anything new from this debate. If anything, this debate seemed like a bit of an ego exercise for George Steph..perhaps a metaphor for the media in general as far at these debates are concerned
Glynnis (10:31:16 AM): I think it's interesting though what wasn't mentioned. No 9/11 mention despite yesterday's fire at ground zero. No mention of Obama opting out of futher debates.
Glynnis (10:31:28 AM): ON TO ROVE!
John (10:31:42 AM): Should we liveblog him? We can follow him from channel to channel.
Rachel (10:31:52 AM): Neat timing — to pass off gracefully to NBC.
John (10:33:34 AM): The only thing I saw new here was Hillary being warmer. George started strong, trying to start arguments, but Hillary swatted away his challenges.
John (10:33:39 AM): And no one -- not George, not her rivals -- would hold her feet to the fire either on the substance of the Iran/nukes issue or on the separate issue of why she would accuse Obama of things she had done herself.
John (10:34:35 AM): There were some good substantive responses along the way, but nothing for the highlight reel.

Thomas B. Edsall, Huff Post - Mark Penn Lawsuit May Harm Clinton Campaign

Earlier. I reported on Mark Penn's health care company ties and how they have provided a problem for Senator Clinton's credibilty during the Presidential Run. Here's a new development.

Pollster vs Pollster: Nasty Polling Company Lawsuits Threaten to Become Diversion for Clinton Campaign
July 9, 2007 11:49 PM

Judges and juries will decide who is right and who is wrong in the legal battle between Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's chief adviser, and a group of former employees of Penn's polling firm.

Regardless of the outcome, the lawsuits themselves reveal the corporate underbelly of Penn, Schoen and Berland, a company that celebrated the dissolution of its partnership with spying, double-crosses, back-biting, broken promises, and bitter legal accusations.

At a time when Democratic primary voters are particularly suspicious of electronic eavesdropping and wiretaps by the federal government under the Patriot Act, Penn's involvement in corporate spying, legal or not, is likely to hurt his political standing.

No one emerges from these dueling lawsuits with clean hands.

In a nutshell, Penn is accusing two former business associates, Michael Berland and Mitchell Markel, of violating a non-compete agreement they had with PSB by setting up their own polling and market research firm. One of those former associates has counter-sued, charging that Penn and his subordinates electronically invaded his BlackBerry email in order to illegally monitor private messages.

PSB, a highly profitable political and business consulting firm once owned by Penn, Douglas Schoen and Berland, became a major political force after President Bill Clinton anointed Penn as his chief pollster and strategist in the 1996 re-election campaign. Since then, Penn has played the same role in Hillary Clinton's two successful Senate campaigns, and in her current presidential bid.

Over the past six years, PSB has undergone major corporate restructuring. In 2001, it was acquired by Burson-Marsteller, a giant public relations company, which, in turn, was taken over by an even larger conglomerate, WPP.

Penn stayed on, and has since become CEO of Burson and continues to be president of PSB. Schoen and Berland left at the end of 2006, after fulfilling an agreement to stay with PSB for five years. Court documents show that Berland was paid $15.5 million for his shares.

At this point, the tale gets messy.

On April 7, 2007, Markel, a PSB vice president, resigned, telling the Chief Operating Officer, Jonathan A. Gardner, that he was going into the family's bagel business, according to a written statement Gardner filed in federal court in New York.

Markel also took with him his Cingular BlackBerry, telling Gardner that he had purchased it, according to Gardner. Even though "I did not agree with him [Markel], I allowed him to keep the device but required him to change the telephone number associated with the device," said Gardner.

Less than a month and a half later, however, Gardner became deeply suspicious: "I received a chain of emails in which Markel responded to an email directed to his PSB address, even though he was no longer with PSB." Gardner summoned PSB's technology chief, Merrill Raman. Raman then discovered that even though Markel's PSB "network and email credentials had been disabled," he was still connected to PSB's "RIM/Cingular account," according to Gardner's sworn account.

Raman then counterattacked, and secretly bugged Markel's BlackBerry. "Raman immediately set up a 'blind carbon copy' (bcc) of Markel's outgoing mail on the RIM/Cingular account. This ensured that as long as Markel's BlackBerry device was connected to PSB's RIM/Cingular account, all emails sent from his Blackberry would be bcc'ed to" an email address created by Raman, according to Gardner. In other words, a copy of all of Markel's outgoing email, unbeknownst to him, went to PSB.

Gardner additionally decided to examine the personal computer Markel had used while working at PSB. There, according to his statement to the court, Gardner found what he claimed was a plan by
Markel and Berland for Markel to set up a company, Global Insights & Strategies, which would go after PSB's clients, in direct violation of non-competition agreements applying to all PSB employees for a
year after leaving the firm.

"Through these emails, I discovered that Berland had been working with Markel in a competitive business that was set up by Markel immediately following Berland's departure from PSB....[W]hile Markel was still an employee of PSB, Markel formed the new business and set up a website for it," Gardner said.

Emails collected from the computer and through the bcc address provided evidence, according to Gardner and PSB's lawsuit, that Markel and Berland were doing business with or soliciting work from at least five of PSB's clients, including the National Hockey League, Quest, and Estee Lauder.

In its lawsuit, PSB contends that Berland, Markel and two other former PSB employees engaged in "an orchestrated and illegal plot to sabotage PBS's business in New York by soliciting PSB's most significant clients."

PSB is asking the court to order Berland, Markel and Global Insights to stop all such solicitation, to award compensatory and punitive damages, and to force Berland to pay back $11.2 million of the $15.5 million he got for his shares.

Markel and Global Insights quickly came back with a countersuit demanding "equitable relief and damages" from PBS, Penn, Gardner and Raman for "illegal interception, use and disclosure of plaintiff's personal electronic communications without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent," in violation of the Federal Wiretapping Act and the New York Penal Code.

Markel contends in the suit that PSB had no grounds to invade his BlackBerry account, that "each and every email sent and received from Markel's BlackBerry since on or about April 18 was charged to Markel's personal Cingular account and paid for by Markel, [that from] April 18, 2007, Markel did not use any PSB account, Cingular or otherwise."

No trial date has been set for the two lawsuits, but the court battle is likely to take place in a few months, just as the early caucuses and primaries heat up. It is not a diversion welcomed by the Clinton camp.

Hillary Clinton -Arianna Huffington Points To Senator's Problem With Hiding The Truth

This article is a must read as it distills the Carl Berstein book in a way that's not been done on CNN or any other news program. It also forms the perfect foundation to explain what I'm starting to call "The Peter Paul Affair."

Arianna Huffington: Hillary's disturbing secrecy problem
By Arianna Huffington
Tribune Media Services
Article Last Updated: 06/28/2007 06:01:56 PM MDT

I spent the weekend reading A Woman in Charge, Carl Bernstein's biography of Hillary Clinton (OK, I know I'm late) while being simultaneously bombarded with fresh evidence of the Bush/Cheney administration's pathological obsession with secrecy.
Historians will be debating for decades what the worst element of the Bush White House was - but at the root of the entire cancerous structure is George Bush and Dick Cheney's shared fixation on secrecy. Their mutual contempt for the public's right to know knows no bounds. Witness the VP's absurd attempt to escape oversight by claiming he's not part of the executive branch, or the endless legal maneuvering to keep the administration's abuse of detainees hidden from scrutiny.
As a result, it's pretty safe to say the central question facing Democratic voters in the presidential primaries is: Which candidate will be most effective at rolling back the Bush years? On issue after issue, the Democratic contenders are doing everything they can to highlight their differences with Bush.
But when it comes to the issue of secrecy and an administration operating in the shadows, there's an argument to be made that the candidate least likely to turn on the lights is Hillary Clinton. Her lifelong commitment to secrecy is one of the main themes of Bernstein's book.
"Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth," writes
Advertisement
Bernstein. "She has often chosen to obfuscate, omit and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share."
Or, as Bernstein summed it up on the "Today Show," "This is a woman who led a camouflaged life and continues to."
It's not just that she's a private person. There are plenty of public servants who are zealous about guarding their personal lives and equally zealous about keeping their public lives - and public policies - transparent. But, like Bush and Cheney, Clinton seems devoted to secrecy for its own sake.
As Bernstein shows, what was most shocking about her handling of the health care fiasco during her husband's administration wasn't that she kept the plan secret from its critics, but that she kept it secret even from those who would have been champions of the plan had they known anything about it.
This passion for concealment is a pattern that, as Bernstein demonstrates, has been repeated throughout Clinton's life. It was there in the head-scratching decision to hide her college thesis from public view because it was about radical organizer Saul Alinsky. It was there in her refusal for 30 years to admit that she had failed the bar exam the first time she took it. It was there in the way she glossed over in her memoir her summer internship at the law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein - one of the most renowned left-wing law firms in the nation. It was there in the way she handled the Whitewater and Travelgate investigations, which, as Bernstein told me, "ended up unnecessarily prolonging them."
Bernstein quotes Clinton lawyer Mark Fabiani as saying of Hillary and Whitewater: "She would do anything to get out of the situation. And if that involved not being forthcoming (in releasing documents and other materials), she herself would say, 'I have a reason for not being forthcoming."' And he reports that then-White House adviser George Stephanopoulos described Hillary's responses to the various scandals of the Clinton presidency as "Jesuitical lying."
And it has been there in the way Hillary's camp has attacked Bernstein's book, saying, among other things, "Is it possible to be quoted yawning?" and deriding it as old news: "Nothing more than cash for rehash." This assessment stands in stark contrast to the majority of reviews, including the one in The Los Angeles Times by Ron Brownstein, who called it "a model of contemporary political biography . . . an excellent book: thorough, balanced, judicious and deeply reported."
"Hillary Clinton and her advisers apparently don't want people to know her real story," Carl Bernstein told me. "That is particularly sad because the authentic picture of her life is so much more compelling than the tired, airbrushed and sanitized version they keep serving up and refining. The campaign's official response to A Woman in Charge - even before they had seen the book - is the kind of thing I would have expected from the Nixon White House or the Bush White House, not a Clinton presidential campaign committed to a new openness and transparency."
I actually found Bernstein's book to be a very humanizing portrait of Clinton, which is why her camp's reaction struck me as excessive and misguided. It's as if Hillary and those around her have such an idealized view of her they feel the need to vanquish anything that contradicts the faultless fantasy. No imperfection is allowed.
On the campaign trail, Clinton talks a lot about her experience in the White House - clearly we're meant to factor those eight years in when evaluating her fitness to return. But reading the Bernstein book made me feel like she has taken away all the wrong lessons about being in power. Her tendency to hide and obfuscate appears to be a learned behavior.
So the question facing Democrats - and, indeed, the country - is whether we want another presidency cloaked in secrecy, deception and denial. ---