Micah-

What do you mean when you say that Matt Drudge is a "bottom-feeder?"

His influence in the political world has been noted by smart people like Mark Halperin and John F. Harris.

...And there's certainly nothing on the Left which rivals its impact. Just need a bit of clarification. It's possible I'm reading it the wrong way.

Thanks,
David

________________________________________
David All
The David All Group
http://davidallgroup.com
________________________________________

Oh please, Matt Drudge is well-known as one of the leading muck-rakers in the country.

Anyway, I'd guess Obama's popularity has to do with the fact that younger voters are so much more attracted to him, and they are also disproportionately likely to be YouTube users.

David--
I would never deny Drudge's impact in the political world. But here's a simple question: Do you trust what he posts?
Micah

Whether or not I trust Drudge has nothing to do it. I don't personally read his site - at least not that often.

But millions of liberals, conservatives, and reporters do.
________________________________________
David All
The David All Group
http://davidallgroup.com
________________________________________

As reported first on ValleyWag, there's evidence that Drudge's metrics are grossly inflated. See this post for details.

That said it's clear lots of reporters read him. But I called him a bottom-feeder because he traffics in unsubstantiated rumors. Remember the one about Kerry's affair with the intern?

Micah

Hi Micah,
After a fellow Deaniac, now an Obama supporter, sent me the 1984 link, I saw the Marinucci story you mention. I'd met Carla in Iowa when I was volunteering for the Dean campaign. So I dropped her a line to let her know my theory on the whole thing. I figure this is this year's Swift Boat episode. It effectively tarnishes the two Democratic front-runners: Hillary as Big Brother, and Obama as a business-as-usual politician who will slime his opponents.

Carla wrote back, telling me the Chronicle was trying to track down the identity of ParkRidge47 and asking if she could quote my theory. She also asked if I'd come across much on this "in the blogosphere." So I went looking and found your pieces. I hope you don't mind, but I emailed her the first one, along with your observations about the significance of ParkRidge47's online moniker.

BTW, I was glad to spot your byline again. I've missed you since you stopped writing for The Nation. Are you still doing New York politics and clean money campaigns? Chris Finnie

I remember talking to you while doing some reporting on the Dean phenomenon; great to hear from you. For the record, I haven't formally stopped writing for the Nation; I just don't have much time for lots of freelancing these days! Personal Democracy Forum and TechPresident are my major projects, along with some consulting work for the Sunlight Foundation and occasionally others.

Thanks for sending all that stuff to Carla Marinucci; it looks like she's done a nice follow-up story on ParkRidge47. And definitely stay in touch!

Micah

Well, on behalf of Americans Not Really Caring Until At Least November...

I'm not sure one would classify this as a "powerfully emotional" ad, any more than one can about Apple's ads with Richard Dreyfus giving paens to long-gone American icons in the "Think Different" campaign. Pastiche is not genuine, so you don't form emotion with it.

And again, the end of the "top-down candidate message" is predicted. But why would this commercial cause me to support Obama? Why would anyone support a candidate without knowing what they stood for... in other words, the message?

Also, of course, this subverts McCain-Feingold. The whole brouhaha in 2005 over whether blogging was an in-kind contribution will largely be dwarfed by the issue of partisans dumping massive amounts into anonymous video posts.

Democrat or Republican, I don't want a campaign run by kids. I want an adult in the White House for a change.

I am deeply suspicious of this ad.

The soundbites seem to be completely wrong for the ad. I realize there is a certain irony in the original, which juxtaposes "we shall prevail" with the throwing of the hammer. But in the original, the voice has an obviously evil quality to it. These soundbites are Hillary's explicit attempt to come across as a regular person, having a "conversation" with each of us individually, whereas the original ad speaks of "one people, one will, one resolve, one cause," and "a garden of pure ideology where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory thoughts." Meanwhile, the Hillary soundbite says "I don't want people who agree with me." Also, the image of big brother is dark, and blends in with the dark wall in the original commercial, while the imagine of Clinton is bright white, an aberration in the monolithic room

If I had to guess at the source of this video, I would bet it came from the Clinton campaign. Imagine seeing it without any knowledge of the original. Most people probably don't remember the original all that well. Here is an alternative interpretation of the Clinton video: Clinton is trying to awaken people who have become used to politics as a competitive sport, or partisan war, rather than a discussion, an exchange of ideas, about how to make everyone better off. Hillary says that it's "really good" that "so far, we haven't stopped talking." However, some evil forces don't want you to keep talking. Right before the hammer is thrown, the text on the screen over Hillary reads, "this is our conversation." The next time we see the screen, a smiling Hillary again says she "hopes to keep this conversation going," just before the sledge hammer smashes into the screen. In the original ad, following the initial explosion as the sledgehammer crashes into the screen, we hear a light, cool breeze, suggesting freedom. This sound appears to have been slowed down in the Clinton video, lowering the pitch and suggesting the cold wind of emptiness and despair. By this point we are really wondering who would be so evil as to want to end "our conversation." We then see a bright white screen which says, "On January 14th, the Democratic primary will begin. And you'll see why 2008 won't be like '1984.'" Note that 1984 has a significance in presidential politics quite apart from Orwell's book. 1984 was the year Walter Mondale, running as an unabashed liberal, lost every state in the nation except Minnesota. The white screen, associated with Clinton, promises a different outcome in 2008, until it is covered over by a pitch black screen bearing Barack Obama's web address. It must be he who wishes to end the conversation.