I'll take the first answer and give you any odds you want.
I saw your comment at Zonkette about campaigns that hire Teachout. I think you're exactly right.
This has been one helluva navel-gazing affair. One the one hand, yeah, it's an amazing thing that blogs have exploded this last year, and a news of blogger on the payroll of a political campaign makes the Washington Post and Meet the Press. And yes, Kos and the other guy shouldn't have taken it lying down. Write the journalists, write Russert, explain and demand a retraction.
But at the same time, I think bloggers have been overreacting to what a mention on MTP or an article really means. What percent of the electorate gives a rat's ass if a blogger got campaign money? It's probably hardly measurable. Hell, out of everyone I've mentioned blogs to, maybe 3 of them I didn't have to explain that blogs have something to do with politics. Everyone today knows what a blog is, relatively few think they're anything but livejournals.
Even the Armstrong WIlliams thing has been quiet, in terms of what your average voter is getting. And if this fake news story kept WIlliam's name on MTP one more time, I think it was worth it. The average person will not remember they saw anything about some bloggers in a week or a month, much less which bloggers and which blog, but they will remember the Administration is paying pundits It's almost too bad for us that Kos did disclose his payments, assuming that if he hadn't then the press would make a bigger deal out of the scandal, and therefore giving the story more airtime. A blogger accepting a bribe versus a professional journalist? Dean versus Bush? To the average voter? That would be a net gain.
Definitely the former. Was it a coincidence that the post that started it all was only the second ever on a then-anonymous blog, yet it still got picked up by instapundit two days later? Unlikely.
And Michael, I disagree. There was no possible way to spin the Armstrong Williams arrangement before this came along. Now Republicans can say that everybody does it, so what's the big deal?
Just like with the truthfulness of the campaign ads last fall -- the degree of deceitfulness was not remotely comparable between the campaigns, but the issue never got traction because the media felt obliged to point out that both candidates had misled.
The real problem will be if this crap prevents the Social Security Administration as GOP mouthpiece story from going anywhere.
Let the Repubs get on TV and work their jawbones, talkin about how the left has bloggers on the take! bloggers! They'll look like a bunch of fools. Some people are blinded enough by partisanship that they can't see the difference between small and big, but most people aren't. And while they're getting puffed about bloggers!, all most people are can take to bed is that fact that their president is paying people just like the ones they watched complaining aboug bloggers.
The reason I find the analogy with the campains insufficient is that it doesn't have the same big/small relation. The deceiftuflness between the two wasn't equivalent, but the candidates were fairly equal. As much as we like them, Kos is in no way equivalent to Armstrong Williams, and Dean, never a nominee, is in no way equivalent to Bush, and a campain isn't equal to an Administration. Repubs will make real fools out of themselves trying to equate the two.
Given the outcome of the last elections, I suggest that MOST people are blind to common sense and will in fact see that there is some sort of equivalence between AW and bloggers such as KOS--even if the latter chose to disclose their affiliation while they were being paid.
The last election has proved that either: people in general are complete idiots/imbeciles or that there is rampant fraud in the electoral process...
I tend to assume people are fools rather than knaves. Zephyr's mini-CV on her site tends to support that assumption.
"The last election has proved that either: people in general are complete idiots/imbeciles or that there is rampant fraud in the electoral process..."
Believing this sort of thing not only leads, of course, to losing elections, but to deserving to losing elections.
Because it's pretty much going to be the same people voting in the next election, you know, and the one after that, and, strangely, if you approach people with the view that they're imbeciles, you are a tad unlikely to be able to a) understand their views and reasoning and motivations, and thus unlikely to be able to b) analyze how to persuasively respond to said views, reasoning, and motivations, and thus c) are going to lose again, whining and gnashing about how those idiots just don't understand how superior *my* opinions are, and how personally superior My Kind Of People are.
Either you believe in democracy, or you don't. Declaring everyone you don't understand to be inferior in intelligence -- hey, it turns out there is something to "liberal elitism," doesn't it?
As for Teachout, I don't know enough about her to have a strong opinion, so I'll lean more towards the kinder presumption. And, again, of course, it's always the wisest solution to assume someone is a traitor!!! than misguided or inadequately explained, and so, again, the best strategy for winning an election being finding all the traitors and casting them out, we'd best add her to the list of purgees.
I probably deserve to be cast out, as well; heck, if all proceeds as apparently desired by some, we could get the Democratic Party down to about the number of people who signed the Port Huron Statement, and, heck, we'll be completely pure and righteous at last!
I could add the only slightly cynical snark that anyone who devoted a year or so of their life to Howard Dean is, by definition, unbelievably naive.
But I mean that in as almost a good way as not.
Almost.