Yesterday in the Discussosphere
This is the inaugural post for what may become a regular feature here in at TPMCafe: a survey of the previous day's discussion in the liberal (and occasionally conservative) blogosphere. Rather than trying to summarize a whole day's work, I'll focus only on the issues that generated engaged discussion and actual disagreement. Kinks, such as the possible lameness of the feature's name, will be ironed out as I go.
It was another bad day in the blogosphere for Joe Klein. His sole defender in a debate with Arianna Huffington over whether or not he opposed the invasion of Iraq, Andrew Sullivan, could only muster the consolation that at least he's not Mickey Kaus. Kevin Drum wonders why, if Klein is being honest that he opposed the war in private, he didn't have the courage to say so more forcefully in public. Atrios would like to see Klein turn his answer to that question into a column.
The political wisdom of policy details in presidential politics was the Big Think Topic of the Day.
It all started with Mark Schmitt pleading with Democratic presidential candidates not do as John Edwards did and reveal the details of their plans for universal health care. It's bad politics, he argues, and the congress won't actually care besides. Kevin Drum disagrees, and argues that if you can win despite the details and the "fear button," you've got yourself a policy mandate. Steve Benen sides with Mark, and points out that history shows that voters don't actually care about details (or a lack thereof). Matt Yglesias throws in his two cents, arguing for Medicaire for As Many As Possible as a pragmatic alternative to either details or vagueness. Kevin Drum jumps back in to argue for a "golden middle" in which principles and mechanism are clear but the details are left for governing. Mr. Health Care himself wraps things up by arguing that you need enough of an outline that congress doesn't turn your mandate into a Frankenstein policy of special interest parts.
Finally, in another example of discussosphere turned news, the New York Times today picked up on the supposed controversy over whether or not the Edwards Campaign should employ two bloggers who has moments of unfiltered inappropriateness in their long history of writing. Micah Sifry did a good job of summarizing the issue on Monday.
With Andy Stern preparing to make news on health care again today, I suspect we'll see more on that front, let me know what you see.
Time mag's Swapland does give insight into MSM. It also sheds light on just how lightweight many MSM practitioners happen to be.
Klein is certain that his writings were critical of the Iraq war prior to and during it's prosecution. It is a delusional point of view.
One of his colleagues, Jay Carney appears to have been run off the Swampland blog because factual errors were caught (easily) in his initial posts. Carney's response was to attack those who pointed out his error.
One over-riding characteristic of both Klein and Carney has been to define critics as "lefties" or other similar terms. These terms are used for those on the left, while rightwing critics on the site, who have decribed Klein especially in the most derogatory of terms never experience the same type of venom.
The site is eye-opening with respect to getting a closer view of the thinking of these "strange" MSM-types.
February 7, 2007 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really like the idea behind this feature. (Especially because there's hardly time for blogging in recent days...)
The name........? Hmmmm.
Another post from yesterday I thought was important, but maybe didn't generate the level of buzz to make the cut, was Bowers post on Entry Costs. It's a good read, certainly for anyone interested in the meta-topic of the blogosphere, and where it's headed.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 7, 2007 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's iron out the lame name quickly... otherwise someone will hijack and cleverly brand the idea, which seems like a good one.
Not sure how easy it will be to find a snappy, generic name when you have grouped the bitchslapping, egocentric discussion (Klein-Huffington) with the more constructive variety of discussion (healthcare politics). And there are outright wars which occasionally break-out (see Juan Cole versus Jonah Goldberg for example), which produce new levels of vitriol.
Maybe you need something like the Richter Scale or the Saffir-Simpson Scale - so you say, okay we got a Cat 3 Blog Storm, Klein pretending he was anti-Iraq War and generating a ton of turbulence; meanwhile, David Broder started a major Cat 4 blog storm with his Dems are anti-military column yesterday, and we saw mild Cat 1 activity as Dem netroots discussed healthcare politics.
So, you know, it's like a weather report - and you can maybe even make reference to the odd tornado passing through some wingnut trailer-park.
Just an idea, maybe others can build on it.
February 7, 2007 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of suggestions:
Such a focus would turn this particular column into something loosely modeled on Book Review dot Com, and, MHO, would serve a very useful purpose.
aMike
February 7, 2007 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This sounds like a different idea than what's proposed, but it's also a good one. I like the topical approach.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 7, 2007 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Concentrate on lesser known, but well written blogs.
Suggestions? If they're lesser known he might not even know them. I know I sure don't know more than maybe 20-30 blogs off the top of my head all told.
Also stay away from regional or local blogs. Subject specifics blogs sure, but on a (inter)national site like TPMCafe, focusing on say what people are saying in Kentucky (unless its about the Governor's race where the GOP electorate is proving as confusingly nearsighted as Jefferson's electorate down in LA) is not going to be very interesting for many people.
February 7, 2007 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great idea; I don't have nearly the time for blog-reading that I did when I worked for myself (funny how that didn't really work out, in the end), so I'm all in favor of digests.
Speaking of which, here is an impossibly comprehensive competitor (but importantly different) to what I hope will be a daily feature at the cafe.
February 7, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here are some places where I prowl when I'm feeling curious and prospecting:
As I'm rather talking off the top of my head (if not through my hat), I'm thinking of the device Josh frequently uses on Talking Points Memo. He turns the readership into researchers on everything from stands politicos are taking on certain issues to how the MSM are treating stories he thinks either underreported or misreported.
This column could work the same way: Andrew could pose a topic of some sort and ask us to see what's being said about it hither and yon. (If you prefer hither, I'll take yon... I'm not particular) :-)
We could either e-mail him links or suggestions (the TPM procedure, I gather), or post them ourselves...realizing that the latter poses some risk of comment kidnapping. What do you think?
aMike
p.s. Years ago when I had cable installed in the house it went into the living room, where the TV perches. I had dialup to connect to the Internet and that was in my home. Then when dsl service came in, I hooked into that--also in the office. The end result is I probably haven't watched television an hour in the past year. That's where I developed my prowl around addiction.
February 7, 2007 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the idea of working with you all to come up with these summaries every day, but I'm interested not just in individual folks thoughts (at least for this feature) but the give and take. For that reason, I doubt I'll do much work going outside of this core of blogs. I'm open to a different model, but the essential thing for me is to summarize the conversation that's happening, not try to democratize it as well.
I'd love to hear from anyone, though, if they see an interesting conversation happening. If you come across something feel free to email me.
February 7, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
GlobalVoices is an amazing project, but I think your description of them as "impossibly comprehensive" is a very apt one.
February 7, 2007 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is it that you don't think Hedge's book isn't getting attention?
February 7, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck with your new project. It is a good idea. As to its name, why not Caffeine Buzz? or since it is yesterday's maybe DeCaf Buzz?
Like aMike, I will probably have already read most of the sites if those you linked to are indicative so why not do something similar with the right side of the blogosphere? How about you read them so I don't have to.:-)
February 7, 2007 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your desire for general clarity, but TPMCafe feels far too "elite" as it is.
I guess the point is there are often several important conversations going on at once that the big boys might not catch right away.
February 7, 2007 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, and I'm happy to look elsewhere. I just wanted to make my basic intentions clear.
February 7, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
DeCafe Buzz is good. I like that one.
I hear your point on the fact that you may have already read them, but I don't think we can assume all Cafe readers (and all future Cafe readers) are as much junkies as we are...
February 7, 2007 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did I say that? What I was suggesting was not that the book wasn't getting attention at all, or that it wasn't getting attention in the main stream media like the New York Times, but asking what kind of attention was it getting in Blog conversations. I gave three examples of the kind of thing I'd find useful here. I could have chosen a different book. I just happened to choose that one.
Your original post suggested to me that you were interested in feedback. I don't think the response I gave was either mean-spirited or critical, or that suggestions I made were to be considered anything more than that...suggestions to be taken or not. For the life of me I cannot understand why it deserved your reply.
aMike
February 7, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't mean to be offensive at all, I was honestly wondering what you meant in light of what I saw as the book getting very good attention. I didn't realize you meant blog attention, so my apologies.
February 7, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear your point on the fact that you may have already read them, but I don't think we can assume all Cafe readers (and all future Cafe readers) are as much junkies as we are...
Think of it this way: some, like me, are going through withdrawal. You could be our blog methadone.
February 7, 2007 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
About a year ago I bought a nice swivel chair for my computer "work station". The chair now has a seat as hard as steel. And, I don't do much surfing of blogs. I read this one very regularly, and First Draft regularly, but I have dropped all of the others I used to visit. I do spend time on my hobby forums, too, to be honest. So, my point is, how does anyone find the time to actually look at the dozens, at a minimum, of worthwhile blogs just on this side of the aisle?
The above is a windy way of saying I really like the idea behind this new "table". Full speed ahead!!
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 7, 2007 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although I am more of a slacker than Hoppy, I must confess something similar happened to me - I started hanging out here, and ended up not going to any of the other blogs I used to read. A compliment to the Cafe (and also a testament to my laziness).
February 7, 2007 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too. I have a few other front-page must reads, but it's mostly here.
Definitely only dive into the comments here at the Cafe.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 7, 2007 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
DeCaf Buzz is terrific!
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 7, 2007 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a great idea, Andrew...and my vote goes to DeCaf Buzz too (thanks Emma!).
Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery
February 7, 2007 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink