The Morning Buzz
What do you get when you combine the right-wing echo chamber with a complicit mainstream media, a confused presidential campaign and netroots credibility in the balance? An absolute flood of discussion.
I'm not crazy enough to try to summarize all of the commentary on the Edwards blogger issue yesterday, but suffice it to say pretty much everyone chimed in on this one and it's not over yet.
A few other things got people talking...
Michael Crowley and Sam Rosenfeld each had thoughts on the lameness of the Senate in light of their failure to pass even a non-binding resolution in the midst of a war, Garance Franke-Ruta followed up on whether Edwards is pandering, retreating, or just lost on Iran by pointing out that Israeli hawks still seem happy, and Mark Schmitt jumped back into the conversation he started yesterday on health care by going back to the history books to discover that policy positioning during a campaign doesn't have much to do with policy proposed when elected.
Good morning, Andrew.
I really think this can be a good feature to add to the cafe but think it would be more useful if modeled after The Carpetbagger mini report than Atrios or Instapundit. I find myself avoiding the latter two because they mostly just throw up links with little or no clue to where they lead. Your first paragraph today is like that. The second one is better.
It does look like this Edwards campaign may not be any more ready for prime time than the last one. Too bad.
The one thing I did like about Edwards' last campaign was his policy papers. Mark Schmitt may be right about the history of policy positioning but I hope he is wrong about its future. The internet removes many of the historic filters between candidates and voters. We no longer have to depend on the interpretations of the gang of 500 to find out what candidates' positions are. I like that. Now we just need candidates with the courage to really declare their goals.
Can we use this thread to share what we've read too?
February 8, 2007 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, good point. It's better to summarize with links and some understanding of where they are going.
And yes, share what you're reading!
February 8, 2007 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that more and more of the big media outlets are becoming, if not overtly partisan, then at least very casual in their fact checking.
In the past the big dailies and the big networks had an obvious pro-business stance. This was the traditional mainline Protestant Main Street Republican world view. Even the "liberal" NY Times traditionally sided with business interests.
Fox has changed the landscape. Their success has caused others like CNN to adopt a more rapid-paced, partisan news style. This seems to be happening more and more even as the country is starting to question the objectivity of the media.
I'm guessing that the big media firms are in a panic and doing whatever they can to forestall a total seizure of control by the Dems in 2008. Such a prospect may lead to legislation that they find distasteful. Some things that may surface include rollbacks of the media cross-ownership rules, the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, charging for broadcast licenses and stiffening renewal licensing requirements, and an examination of copyright and restrictions on media copying.
By allying themselves so fully with the present administration they are playing a dangerous game. If the Dems get total control there may be some politicians interested in payback for all the slander they have undergone. The K Street group has already realized this and started to suck up to the Dems in congress.
One of the ways we can see this bias in action is the speed with which personal attacks against members of congress and prospective candidates appears. Just since the beginning of the year there were the disparaging stories about Polosi's committee assignments and now the airplane issue. Clinton, Edwards and Obama bashing are all now standard fare as well. It appears the effort is to knock off the strongest candidates as early as possible and thus weaken the Dems chances at the presidency.
As I said, a risky strategy.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
February 8, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Thoma’s Economist’s View has some of the most interesting things to read on the internet. Today he excerpts and links to James K Galbraith who reminds Ben Bernanke that the boomer retirement is not exactly a surprise.
It's a great read by a great writer.
February 8, 2007 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, kind of like Today's Papers from over at Slate.
February 8, 2007 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew: thanks for this new TPM Cafe feature. You've taken me to spots that I ordinarily would not have visited, which is great!
I must confess though, that I'm now even more uncertain about Edwards, whom I was previously inclined to like. The blog flap aside, it's his Iran stance - whatever it truly is - that has me really concerned. Of course, he must be aware that one of his rivals, HRC, has been spouting a tough on Iran stance for a while now, so perhaps he felt he had to match her, in order to attract some of the big campaign donors. This all may be yet another argument for public funding of campaigns, but it's made Edwards look less appealing for the time being. Perhaps any '08 Democratic candidate is really being put in a no-win situation, between the diametrically opposed expectations of the monied interests and the netroots. At least regarding Iran this appears to be the case. Too bad - many of his other positions are just what we need.
Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery
February 8, 2007 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
And waves of blogysteria where a statement like this one: Edwards STANDS UP UPDATE: War is declared (Daily Kos):
And it took 24 hours ... do you realize that is more than 1400 minutes ... and more than 86,000 seconds! !! !!! And all Edwards is doing right now is criss crossing the country fund-raising! Why didn't he put that on pause for a couple of days to rush home to North Carolina to to quell an outburst of blogysteria. After all, given the present modest demands of Presidential politics, what's a couple of lost days fund raising here and there.
February 8, 2007 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink