techPresident - Off the Bus - Comments

this just in... Cindy McCain

alicescheshirecat — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:44:43 -0400

this just in... Cindy McCain also created the internet while taking sniper fire

Obama and the Netroots

Luigi Montanez — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:18:35 -0500

It's definitely true that Obama hasn't courted the Netroots, hasn't needed the Netroots, and if he wins tomorrow, won't need the Netroots moving forward. It's also true that his campaign has built a much more broad, and powerful, coalition than the Netroots can ever hope to be.

But the problem I see, as a partisan Democrat and a small-dollar donor to the Obama campaign, is that while Obama has positioned himself to take down the Clinton machine and obliterate McCain come November, he's not leaving behind any coattails behind for the hundreds, even thousands, of down-ticket Democrats that will be on the ballot with him.

True, it's still the primary season, and the Obama campaign has every right to focus on their candidate rather than the party. But at this point, they've shown no hint that they at all care about party building if they were able to finally put down Clinton. Movement building? Definitely. Party building? Not so much.

"love" and "funny"

Joshua Levy — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:50:47 -0500

To be clear, I wrote that I "love that name," not that it was funny. But you're right that we shouldn't single out peoples' names based on how where they come from.

That said, I don't think I questioned Mr. Tobaccowala's achievements or made fun of him; in fact, I called him an astute observer.

funny names

Peter Pasi — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:47:15 -0500

Not to be a killjoy, but I really see nothing funny about Mr. Tobaccowala's name. If someone were named "Baker" or "Shoemaker" or "Carpenter" we wouldn't make fun of them. But wait, those are European names, and Rishad is just a South Asian who has distinguished himself as a very smart and accomplished person in his industry. So it's OK to make fun of him.

Off the Bus

Jon Garfunkel — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:16:24 -0500

I'm still failing to see how "Off the Bus" is any different from any other blog/press coverage... Amanda and Zack are nice folks, I've met them both, but under what sort of metrics is their coverage better?

There's no way to view the archives, so it's very difficult to compare. The Nevada caucus coverage is telling:

On January 18th, "psericks" (who he?) blogs:

"On the eve of the Nevada caucus, the Clinton campaign is again betting against voter turnout, making encouraging statements about a lawsuit that would have shut down nine caucus locations and disenfranchised tens of thousands of shifts workers just hours before the caucus --- with little chance to make other plans to participate."

(psericks was merely repeating what he read in that ol' standby of horserace coverage, the MSM-- specifically, the Las Vegas Sun.)

But, after the caucus, Zack Exley was telling a different story:
"Before the mainstream media descended on Nevada, I spent several days with the Clinton campaign there in early December. The field campaign, led by State Director Robby Mook and field director Marlon Marshall turned out to be an incredible example of passionate, yet cool-headed management and results-focused organizing. ... Meticulous organizing and good management by the local Clinton Nevada staff have made the difference."

Obviously, Zack had put a lot of time into this story (a habit of the ol' MSM) and couldn't quite abandon it (another MSM habit). But the rest of Off The Bus was making the case that it was dirty politics that would put Clinton over the top (Meanwhile, as was reported elsewhere, Obama still won in the delegate count.)

I read the NYT coverage as well. It briefly noted the lawsuite, as well as this point: "The campaign took on an increasingly negative tone, with phone calls identifying Mr. Obama as 'Barack Hussein Obama' and Spanish language radio ads suggesting that Mrs. Clinton 'does not respect our people.'"

Aha, this is interesting. So I go Google around, and learn about anonymous robocalls, and their inconsistent enforcement at the state level. Elsewhere on Off the Bus I read about the whisper campaign against Obama in S.C.-- via flyers handed out through church membership.

So here's what I'd like to see: something like UPenn's FactCheck.org, but strictly covering dirty tricks and rumor campaigns, and using investigative journalism skills to figure out who's behind them.

Cup o' Joe

shelbinator — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:57:36 -0400

I think if snagging a few minutes outside of a press event counts as Barack Obama's response to the Why Tuesday? challenge, then certainly cornering Joe Biden outside of a coffeeshop and getting some answers out of him counts as well.

Noted

Joshua Levy — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:59:10 -0400

Danny - thanks for the correction.

Advisory role at Heritage's media center

AirCongress — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:43:46 -0400

Hi Josh,

I just wanted to clarify for your readers (as my original post says) that I'm an adviser to Heritage's Center for Media and Public Policy, not to the Heritage Foundation. The center's core mission has been to offer nonpartisan training in computer-assisted research and reporting.

Under Rob Bluey, the center also has been working to help journalists and bloggers understand each other better. And Rob has been a leader in the Open House Project's bid to help bloggers and others who work in online media get credentials to cover Congress, an issue that is important to me.

My advisory role is limited to such efforts that are focused on the intersection of old and new media, a topic that I discuss regularly at Beltway Blogroll.

Danny