New Media, New Politics?

Feeding Back

The blog has been a busy place since the election! Judging from what you guys have written it looks as if the blogosphere gave itself about 24 hours to react to the news before moving on to think about what's next. Whether its in victory or defeat, it looks like the 24 hour news cycle relentlessly moves on.

The right-of-center blogs clearly spent the last week doing some serious soul searching. Kevin caught their first steps here, but then rightly noted that they almost immediately moved swiftly on to criticizing the new president elect here. But as Megan points out here, by the end of the weekend they seem to have settled on something of a middle way, focusing on ways they might organize themselves as the party of opposition for at least the next 2 years. Given that Obama isn't likely to make much news between now and the end of the semester, there should be plenty of room for this debate to unfold over the next few weeks.

A few specifics that caught my eye...

+ Alex catches Glenn Reynolds offering a limited defense of Obama here. Having watched the political philosophy of his blog evolve over the two terms of the Bush administration, I'm curious to see if this post is the beginning of a new trend. 

+ So far, there appears to be very little post-election focus on Palin in your right-of-center blogs posts, and I'm curious as to why. Not only has she been in the news quite a bit over the past few days, but RedState has begun something they are calling "Project Leper,"  an effort (original manifesto here) they have claimed they will carry into 2010 and beyond. I'd love to see some thoughts on this.

+ And last but not least, I really don't know how you guys missed this gem from PowerLine:

Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn't raise his standards, he will exceed Bush's total before he is inaugurated.

I don't think you have to be a lefty to get a laugh out of that, do you?

Over on the left-of-center 'sphere, well... Left-of-center people, where you at? No discussion of the Emmanuel pick. Almost no discussion of the departure of Dean from the DNC. No discussion of what comes next. C'mon guys... wake up!

News blogs: The week kicked off with two great posts from Griffin and Matt that did some serious analysis of the analysts. Matt then kept things going with two more posts (here and here) that were followed nicely by one from Jessica here. You guys are all did very solid analytical work this week - keep it up!

Elite Media group: Although you guys had several nice posts just prior to the election, like the left-of-center people you've slacked quite a bit since then. One post from Paul is all we've got here, and although it is a great summary of the events of the past week, its hard to have a conversation going with only one post.

And last but certainly not least, the HuffPo group of one: Molly notices a move towards gossip on the front pages of the site. I wonder... is this a reaction to lack of "real" news, or is this something the site plans to do more of in the coming months? Worth watching, for sure....

Some questions to think about as you move forward this week:

+ Conventional wisdom: What are the conclusions the various groups have reached about why Obama won and McCain lost? And what are they predicting Obama will do in his first few months in office? 

+ Looking Forward: Are the left and right of center blogs doing anything to organize for the first few months of the Obama Administration? How do they see their role now that "everything" has "changed?" And what if anything have the elite bloggers said they plan to do with their sites in the months to come?

+ Shirky: How does what you've seen on your blogs over the past few months fit with Shirky's analysis? Be specific.

It takes a village...

Kevin pointed out the other day that the right-of-center blogs have started to critique president-elect Barack Obama's presumable cabinet appointments instead of continuing the trend of looking into the future of the Republican Party. This seems to be continuing as more leaks from the Obama team reveal possible cabinet contenders. However, not every blog is in agreement over potential appointees. 

Obama's Attorney General frontrunner, Eric Holder,  is the first victim over at Hot Air. Apparently 9 years ago, Holder spoke with NPR about how the government should regulate Internet communications. He cited Columbine, saying that the Columbine killers could have found some of their venom through Internet access, as well as a bomb recipe or two. He asserted that if the government can regulate pornography, then it can also place some "reasonable restrictions" on the tubes. This, HA contends, is a limit on the First Amendment, which basically says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech.

We apparently will have an incoming administration blissfully ignorant of the Constitution they will swear to defend.  Barack Obama couldn’t articulate a coherent statement on gun rights despite his supposed status as a Constitutional scholar, Joe Biden couldn’t figure out what Article I actually establishes, and now Eric Holder hasn’t read the First Amendment.  

The interesting thing is that HA especially worries about what form Holder's “reasonable restrictions” might be:  'Perhaps, say, regulating content in the blogosphere?" 

HA also takes some time to criticize Hillary Clinton with the prospects of her becoming Secretary of State increasing as the days pass. In surprising twist, however, HA advocates for her acceptance of the position. WHAT!?! Before your brain explodes, the reasons aren't that they think she'd do a great job. Rather, they contend that she would be extremely beneficial in providing content to the conservative blogosphere, especially HA. Good to see they've got their (and our country's) priorities straight.

With the sole exception of the ‘Cuda, she’s the only inexhaustible supply of blogworthy drama on the political landscape. Four years of Hot Air content hang in the balance. She must accept.

So a Clinton appointment kind of seems like a win-win situation, no? Liberals get someone they respect and like (well, most of them) and conservatives get someone they love to attack. According to today's news, they better get used to it since news reports claim that Clinton has accepted the position. 

PowerLine also focuses on cabinet positions, especially Mrs. Clinton's. After doubting that Obama would actually offer her the position, PL now thinks it's pretty much in the bag (sorry for the colloquialism), thanks to news sources, like CNN and NY Times. PL also mentions the news of retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones as President-elect's top choice for the national security adviser. Compared to other cabinet positions, PL seems happy over this choice, saying it's a "good sign." During the campaign, Jones made an appearance with John McCain. While he technically didn't endorse him, most people saw that gesture as such. From what I know of him, I agree with PL (surprise!) and think the pick of Jones could be both beneficial to Obama and the country, especially one that's trying to escape extreme partisanship.

PL also questions Obama's appointments of Washington insiders after promising change. They explain the switch to the current state of affairs in the country: 

Now, with the economy in such dire condition and a panic mentality setting in, the case for appointees with familiar names, or at least a solid Washington pedigree, seems more compelling than ever.

Ross Douthat takes a somewhat different, yet interesting, approach to Obama's likely cabinet, instead focusing on how his appointments will reflect his presidency. In a previous post and this one, he contends that Obama may earn a "strange new respect" among some right-wing hawks. While he doesn't believe Obama will swing to the right, he does, however, believe that conservatives fears of an dove-like (contrasting with the hawks) administration will be alleviated, especially with the choice of HRC for State. 

Rather, I think there was an assumption among many on the right (and in some precincts of the left) that he would swing to the left once in office. That assumption always seemed to me more rooted in paranoia and/or wishful thinking than in Obama's actual rhetoric and proposals, and I think that the hints we've gotten about his personnel choices to date bear my assumption out. 

Regardless of what the right-of-center blogs think, Obama needs a strong administration to help the country out of its current mess even if he relies on some Washington elites. As they say, "it takes a village..." But in this case, it may take the Capital City...

Two narratives merge into one...

Since the election, elite media political coverage has entirely dropped the critiques of Barack Obama's character and past associations.  The McCain campaign narrative that originally made such accusations has simply vanished.  While this might not initially seem like much of an observation - one guy won, the other lost, end of debate - I think that this raises a rather obvious question but one with potentially serious consequences: Where did the Obama critiques go?  What if the sometimes extremely serious attacks on Obama's character and associations were true?  Right now they have been entirely dropped from public consciousness due to the elite media's decision to do so.  What does this say about the relationship between American politics and the media?  There are a couple of options here.  

1)  The attacks were false to begin with.  Elite media organizations hopefully did not have much faith in them if they dropped the coverage of possible serious issues concerning the President-Elect of the united States immediately after the election.  If this is true, then clearly the elite media feels that they are forced to cover whatever drivel both sides of a campaign put out with some degree of suspension of disbelief.  This is not a good thing!  What happened to journalistic integrity?  Journalists as arbiters of truth?  Blind advertising of campaign rhetoric by seemingly independent media is certainly detrimental to American democracy.

2) The attacks were true but elite media organizations passed along the criticisms merely as a xerox of campaign rhetoric.  If they are just passing along campaign rhetoric then whether the attacks are credible or not, American democracy is again done a disservice.  If they're true the American people go on in ignorant bliss of a dangerous truth.  If they are false then the media should never have presented the claims of the McCain camp as such.   Clearly here the media is not fulfilling its vital role of information dispenser.  The media should put more of their collective resources into investigative reporting to get to the bottom of such claims and if they are real, bring attention to them, and if not, let them die. 

3) The attacks were true and the elite media believed them to be so.  Then WHERE THE HELL IS THE COVERAGE NOW?  Just because there is no two-sided debate or angry complainer (as seen in the earliest stages of the coverage - or lack thereof - of the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond fiasco) the elite media world is ignoring a potentially serious problem?  Again the ball is dropped here.  In this scenario the American people go on without knowing the truth about their leader - bad news.

The only claim I can think of that tempers this argument is that the news media drops such attacks in the spirit of patriotism after the election - Why attack the man who is supposed to unite all Americans?   I'll tell you why.  Because this is a free country where independent thought is encouraged and our independent press should provide the facts regardless of political ramifications and allow the American people to be the ultimate judges.

food for thought. 

The Internet Revolution

While I am usually an elite media blogger, I wanted to comment briefly on one of Andrew Sullivan's blog posts from yesterday. In this blog post, he makes the claim that Obama would never had won had it not been for the internet. I had always known this in the back of my head but never really cared to say it out loud. There were so many aspects to this election that were revolutionary. Most of all the fact that we elected to the White House a man who has two years of work on a national scale behind him (keep in mind that I am an Obama supporter). Not to draw undue significance from his middle name, but when you think about the anti-Muslim sentiment abound in this country after September 11th, it really makes you proud to think that just seven years later, the vast majority of Americans were able to overlook his middle name (something that could have never happened in 2004) to elect the first African-American to Congress.

At the same time, his entire candidacy is based on the ability of the internet to reach widespread audiences instantaneously. From the beginning, he was able to build support on his platform of "Hope" using Will.I.Am's youtube video "Yes We Can." He organized supporters through a part of his website, My.BarackObama.com, where you could learn about phone banks, rallies, house parties, etc. Finally, and certainly equally important, he was able to get an unbelievable amount of money through the internet. It is impossible to imagine those same donors taking the time to send in those donations online. When you think that he was able to garner support, gather supporters and collect money from those supporters, it seems painfully obvious that the internet was the sole force standing behind his candidacy. Well, other than "hope" and "change."

The News Blogs: Hoping for a Little More than Just Speculation

I know I’m not alone in being thankful that this election is over. As someone interested in the U.S. government's actual decisions, I’m tired of all this political stuff. Does the government stop to make way for the new president? We must remember that before January 20th, Obama can’t actually make any policy changes. (Don't get me wrong; I'm waiting for that day just as much as the rest of you.) So what Obama supporters and bloggers with nothing to report are left with are rumors, speculations and leaks – the all too political part of Washington that we’d like to forget, or at least, I would.

The Fix’s post, Barack Obama and the Culture of Leaks, discusses the difference between democratic candidate and president-elect Barack Obama. The truth is, during the campaign

Obama made news on his own schedule rather than on the schedule of the horde of reporters -- The Fix included -- who were constantly working for even the small morsel of news. (Left unsaid was the implicit contrast with his two opponents -- Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain -- whose campaigns tended to dole out tidbits of information -- and dirty laundry -- to reporters more frequently.)

However, looking at the current transition, Obama cannot say he has been making news on his own schedule. Each day, a new leak leads to speculation and questions regarding Obama’s new cabinet. As the Fix says, these leaks have “left some people wondering whether the self-proclaimed 'No Drama Obama' is gone.” As Cillizza has discovered, the political lifestyle in Washington thrives on leaked information.

“It's the era of the Internet, what do you expect?” asked a former Clinton White House senior adviser not involved in the transition process... While the increase in leaks as Obama goes from candidate to president may not have any long term impact on his presidency, it does show that no candidate -- no matter how committed to changing Washington -- can change certain parts of the Beltway culture.

The era of the Internet? That's true. Just because we have the infinite space of the Internet doesn't mean we have to fill it with garbage, and incorrect information. Am I the only one wondering why everyone cares so much about all this speculation? Especially sometimes when it's flat out wrong? Even some of or news bloggers (From The Atlantic and Swampland) have had to apologize for incorrect information.

At least some bloggers can stray away from the speculation to talk about something REALLY important. Today, Swampland reports Obama's work out schedule for the past 5 days. And he has averaged 90.8 minutes a day at the gym. That's a lot of time for such a busy guy. Real important stuff here, folks.

Rather than discuss the news blogs attention to the ever-exciting speculations… Huckabee in Iowa, what does that mean for 2012?... today’s big one: Neopolitano in Homeland Security? (The Atlantic, Politico’s Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith)… I’d rather focus on the few stories that the blogs have taken time to think about and analyze.

Ben Smith links to his own story for Politico, Obama’s First Gamble, on his blog. He quotes different political figures, weighing the positives and negatives of Hillary taking “the most important job in his administration”. The conclusion of this piece is clear. Picking Hillary Clinton as the new Secretary of State is a huge risk. What is left to the Obama camp: do the benefits outweigh the possible costs? We’ll have to wait to find out.

Marc Ambinder from The Atlantic offers another thoughtful piece, Obama And A New Liberal Consensus, discussing Obama’s professed bipartisanship and the prospect of Republican’s holding positions in the White House. Ambinder offers a unique thought: if Republicans contribute to Obama’s policies, it will/might be harder for Republicans in Congress to oppose them. He cites our historical liberal consensus, between the 1930s and 1960s, and reminds us that Republicans in that time recognized the political reality and supported liberal ideas to protect American interests.

[Obama] seems to want to mainstream Democratic philosophies and the Democratic worldview, rather than focusing on pure party-building (though he's certainly built up the party as well). It's a long-term strategy, and a far more ambitious one than people seem to realize.

And finally, something I mentioned in class. Politico’s Jonathan Martin reports on the RNC chair candidate paying homage to Dean's 50-state strategy. Republicans sent out a new proposal to the members of the RNC citing Howard Dean’s “Fifty State Strategy”, which had a lot to do with utilizing the Internet to reach voters in all states. Have the Republican’s finally realized that they can’t deny the power of the internet? The results of the election should have really made that point clear.

That's all for now. Happy weekend everybody!

Niche-Carving

Based on a read of today's posts, the right-of-center blogs continue to solidify their role as checks on the Obama administration. The more I think about this, the more I think it makes sense. It is clear that the right-of-center blogs are not going to simply pontificate as to how to revive conservatism while Obama goes wild, enacting all sorts of frivolous progressive ideas like health care and education. But, in addition, since the right-of-center blogs firmly believe that the mainstream media is in the tank for Obama, they can carve out a niche for themselves as the last remaining skeptics. Just read this Power Line post that includes an argument for secession from the mainstream media. Who else is going to torpedo Obama's Cabinet appointments, if not RedState and Hot Air?

Let's focus first on the potential appointment of Tom Daschle at HHS. Unsurprisingly, they're pretty skeptical over at RedState:

Evidently, Daschle comes replete with conflicts thanks to past lobbying efforts and puts the incoming Administration--with its jeremiads against the lobbying culture fresh in the minds of voters--in an awkward spot. What exactly is going to be the use of having an HHS Secretary whose past work in the health care industry is going to cause him to recuse himself from addressing a whole host of important health care related issues?

Instapundit, always witty with his criticisms, argues that the Daschle pick is in violation of the Obama "change" mantle, linking to an article by Kevin Freking, and remarking:

“President-elect Barack Obama promised the voters change but has started his Cabinet selection process by naming several Washington insiders to top posts.” Hey, you can’t spell “change” without a D-A-S-C-H-L-E!

Well, Obama's pick of the first black Attorney General has received even more scrutiny, especially at Power Line. Of their many posts blasting Holder, this one is particularly tough:

I'm not seeing anything to like about Eric Holder as our next Attorney General. What I see is one-third standard-issue leftist -- on "hate crimes," on racial preferences, on criminal rights, on terrorist rights (see this NRO editorial) -- and two-thirds unprincipled opportunist.

It's the unprincipled opportunism that makes Holder so unpalatable. Obama was never going to nominate other than a standard-issue leftist for this job.

Instapundit is not any kinder, linking to an article about Holder's support for mandatory minimums and calling him "Eric Holder, Fierce Drug Warrior" and remarking:

Oh, goody.  You’d think that the Obama election would at least bring some relief on this subject, but noooo...

Hot Air has taken it upon themselves to lampoon Penny Pritzker, who was supposedly being vetted for Obama's Commerce Secretary post before withdrawing herself from consideration. Their headline "Good News: Likely Obama Nominee for Commerce Notorious for Subprime Lending" is certainly inflammatory, and the content is no better:

It’s a testament either to The One’s loyalty (she was his finance chair) or to his absolute confidence that the Democrats are bulletproof on the Fannie/Freddie meltdown that he’d consider rolling the dice on this confirmation. Pritzker, you see, was securitizing subprime mortgages long before securitizing subprime mortgages — and driving the economy into a ditch — was cool...

And of course, who could forget that Obama is considering appointing Hillary Clinton, once-loathed by the right-wing, for Secretary of State? Interestingly, this appointment is drawing less criticism for Clinton and more for Obama from the right-of-center blogs. Power Line describes the "respect" they have for Clinton, arguing:

During the campaign, Clinton took more sensible positions on foreign policy and national security issues than Obama did. For me, the question was always whether the differences were real or opportunistic. Clinton for years had staked out a mostly centrist position on issues relating to national security. I assume she did this at least in part to position herself where she thought she might well need to be in 2008. Obama staked out a different position, the one that would assist him with his political agenda as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Illinois and later, perhaps as a long-shot presidential candidate.

When I argued in class last night that the right-of-center blogs were spending a lot of time criticizing Obama, Alex asked me what had he done that they could attack. It's clear that they are content to attack him for rumored appointments, hypocritical policies, and even, for his campaign strategy against Hillary. These folks are far from resigned to their fate, and they are quickly carving out a niche as a check on the newly minted president-elect...

The Lieberman Compromise of 2008

The first thing I'd like to address is Ben Smith's post about Joe the Plumber, quoting the increasingly influential and popular Tufts Daily.

From the Tufts student paper:
Q: There has been a tremendous amount of speculation about your political future. Web sites such as joewurzelbacher2010.com and others envision you challenging Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D-Ohio] for her seat in the House. Is there any truth to these rumors?

A: No. Marcy Kaptur is so entrenched in this area, I do not believe [anyone] could actually win against her. People around here for whatever reason love her to death. No one actually has ever come close in how many years to take her seat. Also, if I were to run for Congress, it [would be] a very big sacrifice. I would not take it lightly or as a sense of entitlement as some congressmen do. I would actually represent the people. I would be out there day to day, talking to people and finding out what is going on. I would really work hard....

Q: Various reports have also leaked the idea of you becoming a country musician. Is there any substance to this speculation?

A: No. I will dispel all the rumors I have heard. First, I will not be the new bachelor on ABC’s show. Second, I will not be a country music star. Most people pay me to stop singing — and not to sing. I will not be on a reality show; reality is what happens every day and not what happens when someone sticks a camera in your face.

Also, Jonathan Martin decided to cite the newest name in late-breaking news.

A key early endorsement for the Louisiana governor?

From the Tufts student paper:
Q: The Republican Party was dealt another devastating blow [on Nov. 4]. In your opinion, what do you feel the party needs to do in order to successfully regain control of the government? Also, what should disappointed conservatives like yourself do following the election? 

A: The party should remember that they are conservative Republicans — that has been forgotten. They no longer hold to their ideals. They blow with the wind on just about every public opinion poll. So they are not right-wing; they are trying to show that they’re middle or even left-of-middle sometimes. You have to remember two years ago, the Democrats loved John McCain. That is not what this is about. If you’re a party, you have to stick to your ideals. The frontrunners in the Republican Party have definitely seem to forgotten that. Governor [Bobby] Jindal of Louisiana seems to have the right idea. We have got to get back to the grassroots of the Republican Party and not apologize for being conservative 

In other news, JTheP won't be pursuing a country music career.

This actually brings me to my first thought of the day. I made a hypothesis a few weeks ago (to myself, not on the blog) that the political hype of the election cycle would fade away until 2010. Maybe I was under this impression because I rarely hear this type of political back-and-forth when there isn't an election soon. First of all, I never looked at blogs before. The blogosphere never stops. Second, there's ALWAYS an election soon. All of this American Government 101 stuff is coming back to me: the horse-race mentality, politicians pandering to the electorate, etc. And even Joe the Plumber, a fifteen-minute fame who, for no explicable reason is getting more airtime, has to get his opinion out there every other day.

News blogs have also decided to comment on the Lieberman decision. With the relative wrist-slap the Senate Democrats awarded Senator Joe Lieberman (Independent-CT) for his ecstatic support of Senator McCain in the presidential election, people are wondering if President-Elect Obama will suffer any of the angry windfall from rabid liberals begging their Democrats to slaughter Lieberman. Senate Dems voted overwhelmingly to allow the senator to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. News blogs went nuts. Swampland called it a "slap on the wrist" (see above), and Chris Cillizza offered a little detail that's just too good to overlook.

According to a Democratic source with knowledge of how the meeting transpired, Lieberman appeared remorseful but did not ever say he was sorry for his actions; he claimed that several of his comments on the campaign trail had been misinterpreted by the media. 

Right...the media misinterpreted your appearance and speech at the Republican National Convention as a sign of your support for the Republican candidate. I can't stand politicians blaming the media for doing their jobs. However, it is interesting to think about what their job now entails, in a world with light-speed news and free online videos. Senator Lieberman couldn't help but show the country where his loyalties laid. But perhaps it was the focus on his support that upset him. Politicians are getting worried that everything they say and do will be criticized over and over and over and over by 24-hour news shows, blogs, and, sort of, newspapers.

Enough of that, I say! The media's role has changed because there has been a revolution in the way technology can report on the day's events. And if you're not ready to accept that, you need to step back and strategize again. Politicians always get angry at the media for paying attention. Remember those Alien and Sedition laws? Newspapers were getting a little too...good?...at their jobs, so politicians took action.

Back to the Lieberman decision. All sources point to Obama's style of politics and say no, he won't be blamed for any of the fallout of the decision. They argue that all of the rage will be laid on Senate Democrats like Harry Reid. Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic said it best:

[W]e can adjust to new realities.  One of them is that Obama found new ways to ascend to the summit, ways that don't involve rewarding pressure groups, ways that didn't even involve the netroots elites (although it certainly borrowed/stole/used the technological gridwork that they spent years building.) 

Many on the left spent most of of 2008 questioning Obama's campaign, strategy, tactics, debate performances, obama's responses to this or that event.

Those voices have quieted; Obama won by seven points and two hundred electoral votes. He's going to get the benefit of the doubt.

Dick Cheney... indicted?

When I got back from the Celtics game tonight (110-101!), a few strange headlines confronted me upon opening CNN.com. They ranged from the old ("Clinton Still Millions in Debt...")to the mildly surprising ("Begich Claims Victory over Stevens") to the most shocking thing that I've seen in the last eight years ("Texas Grand Jury Indicts Cheney, Gonzales"). We'll start with the old: this has been the case since she lost the primary. Why is it any news that Hillary Clinton is still in debt? However, at the same time it's good to see that Barack Obama raised $800,000 to donate to pay off her debt. I was sort of hoping for him to do that during the campaign as a show of good will, but it never transpired.

Now, the mildly strange: Begich wins. After all that hubbub about whether Sarah Palin would shed her maverick image once and for all and join the "Washington crowd" with their "Georgetown cocktail parties" by getting herself appointed to the Senate. Now that Sen. Stevens is gone, she can retain her "maverickiness" (to quote SNL) and be the same old Sarah that drops the g's off the end of words and throws words like "goshdarnit" into interviews like it's her job. While I understand that Sen. Stevens is a crook and a convicted felon, I sorta feel bad for the guy. He's 85 years old as of yesterday. Boy did the state of Alaska give him a nice birthday present. At least now he can do whatever it is that old people do in Alaska (icefish? icegolf? hunt moose from a helicopter?). In all seriousness though, it's a shame that his Senate career had to end like this. The man did great things for his state and, while he was also thought of as corrupt, he thought of Alaska first and foremost in his mind when making a decision. But now, it seems fairly likely that the Dems will get 60.

Finally, my "what just happened" moment: when I saw the headline on CNN.com that Dick Cheney was indicted, I asked myself why there weren't parties on the streets of Tufts campus (circa Nov. 4th-5th). And then I read the actual article. It seems like the DA from a small town in Texas, Eddie Lucio, (voted out of office by over 70% of his constituents) has used his last few weeks in office to right a few wrongs. Michael Cowen, a representative of another of the indicted probably put it best: "Now, with only a few weeks left in his term, Mr.Guerra has again chosen to misuse his position in an attempt to seek revenge on those who he sees as political enemies." In this same press release, he referred to Guerra as a "one man circus."

In other news...

Hillary Clinton is getting wide praise from Dems and the Repubs alike for the role of our next Secretary of State. Today, her advisors said that she is torn about giving up her Senate seat. If she were to give up her seat for the post in the Obama administration, her fate would inextricably be tied to Obama's success in office. If he is successful as president, she will be the clear frontrunner in eight years. If his presidency is unsuccessful, she will never be the President of the United States. Others have argued that the main thing holding up Hilary now is her husband. A few people have asserted that Bill Clinton's finances are the main obstacle to his wife's position in the administration. While Dems say that this is untrue, it would certainly explain the delay.

In President-elect Obama's only public appearance today, he stressed the need to attack global warming. "Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all,” Mr. Obama said. “Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.” In a refreshing breath from all the broken campaign promise of the past, he reiterated his campaign promise to reduce climate-altering carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050 and invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies. While some may argue that this will hurt our already faltering economy, I tend to agree with Obama on this one. If the restrictions imposed on businesses are not too overbearing at first, I think that this provides a great opportunity to create new jobs in order to sustain our economy, not stunt its growth. These are the types of solutions that I am hoping we will get out of this new administrations: pragmatic solutions that both confront the harshities of our world and seek to improve our economy. Those are my hopes for the next four years.

Overall, some honeymoon-esque coverage plus GOP past/future

In some of the blogs below, it sounds like Obama is getting called out on a few things (I'm talking about Alex Hoffman's blog about outspokenness in the media- something that is more aggressively done and apparent because of blog use-  that places more pressure on future presidents to be accountable for their actions). However I noticed that in the past few days, news blogs are comparatively tame. Even coverage of the Shapiro/Ayers interview- which leaves definite room for Obama critique- was surprisingly fair. Ben Smith's review highlights a passage that laughs at Ayers' comparison betwen Hyde Park and Wasilla. While its kind of "funny", Ayers' comment is hardly the most groundbreaking part of his interview.  Swampland's coverage is also very bipartisan, but includes more detail and a better synopsis of the conversation. 

"It's notable because Shapiro and Ayers go way back, as "guys in the neighborhood" in 1968 at the University of Michigan, but also because it gives one of the clearest pictures yet of Ayers' view of the 2008 campaign and the legacy of his violent activism. "

Obama's spot on 60 minutes was also received well by Swampland, calling his interview "seemingly obvious but all-too-rare, refreshingly non-ideological declaration about how best to govern." Id say that's bipartisan plus! 

Jon Martin from Politico asks just how bad? He and others blog about the future of the Republican party as much or more than Obama related discussion. These talking points are also fairly laid out, I mean...no one's arguing that the GOP is in rough shape. Some of his observations...

"Since 2004, they've gone from 55 Senate seats to no more than 43 once this year's last winners are determined, and from a 29-seat edge in the House to a 30 seat hole—and now they've lost the presidency, too. 

They differ, though, on whether the heavy losses Republicans suffered in the past two election cycles were a result of unique circumstances and the ever-swinging political pendulum or structural problems that could keep them shut out of power for years to come. "

Martin also includes a rare McCain- bashing speech by South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint. Why haven't more conservatives vocalized similar opinions about McCain (because you know there are more out there with the same views)? Martin thinks its out of respect, there is no doubt that this past election was McCain's last attempt. 

And then there is the Clinton question. Is it true? Will Hillary have a specific role in Obamas administration?  Secretary of State has been thrown around as a potential position. Anyway, there is little hard evidence, so this explains why fewer blog posts on this topic. Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic gives the latest news about an attempted secret mtg between Clinton/Obama exposed. 

That will be a big discussion point when there's more info. 

Elite Media cycle slows

After the initial burst of enthusiasm in the immediate aftermath of the election, where every elite media website was scrambling to be the first to release the latest poll numbers, their theories on why the Democrats dominated and the GOP limped across the finish line, and of course comment on the historical significance of Obama's victory, it seems that the elite media, at least in terms of politics, is starting to wind down slightly as it looks to the future of the new president-elect. 

A prime example of this slowing of the political news comes courtesy of the McClatchy website, where the homepage, once struggling to fit all of the new stories on its front page as the election race sent the 24 hour news cycle spinning out of control, now features no articles at all related to the election or to Obama, and in order to read the latest happenings of the political world, readers have to go to the politics homepage. And this is not to say that it has been a particularly busy day in terms of other news, in fact, one of the front page stories is about the fact that scientists still are unable to figure out why people itch, whilst another headline discussed the problems with eco-urinals (they're complicated, and they stink apparently). Was there really nothing to report in terms of politics today? Once I moved to the politics page, I found the same articles which have been floating around the mainstream media for a few days now, namely the latest additions that Obama has made to his cabinet and the fact that they are all fellow Chicagoan politicians. Reporter Steven Thomma remarks that although this is not an unusual step for a new President to take, it seems that Obama is determined to set a new tone with his Chicago team, a city which has long tried to shake its reputation of corruption and fraud but has never had anyone in the President's cabinet.  

In other news sites, the main stories circulating are that of the first meeting between McCain and Obama since election day (articles here and here), and how the vetting of Bill Clinton by the Obama team could prove to raise some problems for his wife, who is currently under consideration for a position on Obama's cabinet as secretary of state (see here and here). Before the election and obviously immediately after, it seemed as though the Elite Media was so eager to report as many things as possible that the headlines would change every time I refreshed a page, and stories rarely overlapped from website to website unless it was something particularly important. Now, I feel as though I could just browse a couple of sites out of the list of the Elite Media and feel as though I had not missed anything significant from the sites that I didn't visit. Overall, it seems as though the mainstream news is taking a break during what John Harwood of the New York Times so aptly describes as the lazy, hazy days of Presidential Transition before the chaos of the blogosphere is once again sparked as the new President is sworn in at the beginning of next year. 

The Future of Politics now that "Everything has Changed"

As we discussed in class last week blogs might be the new way to spread thoughts and ideas about certain issues.  When the blogs take a stance on a certain current event it could determine the direction in which it is framed in public perception.  Now that Obama has won the elctions and congress has an overwhelming democratic majority let us analyze how the right-of-center bloggers and predict the future of politics. So much of blogging is predictions and what better time to make bold predictions than in a time of limbo when the Bush dynasty is coming to an end and the first African American getting set to take office. 

Andrew Sullivan posted four times today about the possibility of HIllary Clinton stepping down as NY senator and taking a cabinet position.  Each article gives another reason of why Hillary might not want to be secretary of state. 

1. Obama's destruction is necessary for Clinton's revival and if she is part of the administration destruction would hurt her too.

2. Sullivan mentions Ken Silverstien's top five reasons she shouldn't do it.

3.  Sullivan quotes Nate Silver-If Obama doesn't do well she will have trouble separating herself from him if she wants to be president in 2016

4. This might put Bill into the spotlight and reveal some of his sketchy antics

So after taking a look at all these different reasons why Hillary shouldn't join the O team does Andrew Sullivan not want her to be secretary of state?  I really can't say, because thats not the point.  He is just analyzing the many different political outcomes of her making the move. To give all these different points of view of a scerario that is likely to happen it useful and gives people a lot to think about when examining her political motives and political goals versus her personal desire to be in the cabinet. 

Hot Air's take on the future of politics is more focused on criticisms of Barack. They focus a lot of accountability of campaign "promises".  Robert Dahl wrote an article about the myth of the presidential mandate where he argues that during the election process candidates can promise what they want to gain support of the electorate but in the end they don't usually follow a specific mandate. Maybe with the accessibility of media and fast news cycles, right of center blogs will put pressure on presidents to follow through with their words.

 Already Morressey of hot air criticizes Obama for not following his promises of the campaign and his presidency hasnt started yet. In a recent post he asks "Is Obama Moving Away From Interrogation Reform?"

"Both Barack Obama and John McCain want to have greater restrictions on the use of harsh techniques, although they differed on a bill that would have placed the CIA under the same set of restrictions as the Department of Defense.  Now, though, aides to Obama now hint that Obama may not agree to using the Army field manual as the outer limit of CIA interrogation techniques:"

In a second article Morrissey writes that Obama the same guy who criticized taking money from special interest lobbies in the campaign now:

" ...has tapped a number of lobbyists for high-profile positions in the transition team, and most of them will likely end up with significant leadership roles in the coming Obama administration"

Articles like these, although they are written from a partisan stand point, might be a revolutionary change that puts more accountability on presidents and puts more authenticity on the democratic process ensuring people that they get what they vote for. Simply reminding people what the president once said and what he is doing now is a reminder to all that maybe we dont get who we voted for.

Powerline has some prediction of its own.  Scott seems to be furious and terrified about the new democratic majority passing set to pass some questionable legislation.  

"The proposed legislation that a Democratic Congress with enhanced Democratic majorities stands poised to pass ranges from the destructive to the abominable and the tyrannical. Indeed, much of it -- like, for example, the Fairness Doctrine -- is all of the above."

In contrast to Sullivan's and Morressey's recent posts about the future this post about the future just criticizes some democratic left wing policies that might pass soon. As I mentioned before Sullivan discuessed various political impolication of Hillary's move to state, and Morressey's goal is to examine how Obama's will differ from his promises. Scott's article is more simmilar to any opinion article about why he disagrees with the left.  

So what have we learned today?  Well to sum up my post we have learned that looking into the future at a time like this can be productive or unproductive depending on which route you take.  The Morressey route is great because it emphasizes accountability and honesty. Sullivan's is productive because it takes an analytical standpoint of HIllary's next move.  Scott's is less effective, I get it Scott, you're a conservative and your pissed about the democratic majority, thanks.