Both comments were idiotic slip-ups by politicians who are not racists that were way overplayed by the media. The Post had an obsession with covering macacca and the controversy over who used what racial slur 40 years ago and very little on how Webb voting or Allen voting would affect key issues. There is nothing dishonest about putting the two in the same category. Suggesting that Obama is the first "articulate" and "clean" Black candidate for president is an extremely offensive and ignorant thing to do, as was Allen's mocking a political opponent with such a racially charged term. Both men showed remorse for their mistakes, and it is not fair to judge either as a racist. How would you or I appear if the most idiotic and inaccurate statements that came out of our mouths quickly became public and faced the scrutiny of media organizations? These faux controversies distract from the important consequences of supporting or opposing a candidate for public office.

Kevin,
Just a response to part of your comment. The Biden and Allen phrases were on two completely different levels and it is dishonest to speak as though they were parallel.

The vitriolic attempts by partisan groups to capture, twist, and take out of context any moment that could possibly politically damage a political opponent does nothing to serve our democracy. Do Joe Biden and George Allen really harbor deep racial prejudices? Does John Kerry regard soldiers serving oversees as unintelligent? These fishing expeditions present distorted concepts about candidates for public office and consume ridiculously unwarranted coverage in the media when voters should be finding out about the policies that candidates are proposing and the potential consequences thereof.

Just a final reminder to everyone posting that Markos' suggestion will somehow damage or debase politics: gaffes, slipups, and narrative flubs are ALREADY videotaped and run over and over on the teevee by the traditional media. Except that for the last 15 years the traditional media has ONLY run flubs from Democratic candidates; Republican candidates and politicians are off-limits for this treatment (see McCain; Bush for examples). Markos is simply suggesting that YouTube be used to even the playing field.

Man With No Name

During the 2002 election run-up and campaign, a worker for Repbulcan candidate, now Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ CD1) taped every moment during every public event. Isn't it reasonable for both sides to do this?

As glad as I am that George Allen's "macaca" moment got him out of the Senate, I don't think that this call to arms is necessarily the right thing to do. "Blunders" can often happen to good candidates, and I don't think we'd like the pot calling the kettle black if the tables we turned on us progressives for relatively minor mistakes, such as Sen. Joe Biden's misrepresented remarks about Sen. Obama or Obama himself reporting tornado deaths in Kansas at 10,000 (actually 12).

If it's genuinely a candidate that does not deserve to hold office, by all means, go after him/her. But not all Republicans are bad.

Since when is it anti-democratic to hold office holders and candidates for office responsible for what they say about relevant topics in a public forum? This is not a stain on a blue dress, after all. Statements made by office holders/seekers may very well impact how we are led. Their utterances are an important indicator of their fitness to serve.

The ponderous question Cillizza posed is the answer to why the MSM is devolving into irrelevancy. It seemingly does not know what to ask--or doesn't care to know.

It is not going to have much impact. We as an electorate understand that the current political parties are ethically and morally bankrupt. Every poll indicates a "plague on both your houses" mentality is the majority opinion in this country when it comes to the 'pubs and dims. So the problem isn't really that we can't recognize a pig snout down in a trough, the problem here is there is little difference between the two pigs and no viable third option.
The Kos set out to get Dims elected and he may well achieve his goal, but in the end politicians and through them the levers of power in the federal government will still be for sale to the highest bidder.

I hear you dc geek. Big Brother. Cellphone camera's, youtube, myspace. Fox news owns myspace. do the math. Cell phones are everywhere now. The last ten years, republican rule. This is there plan. Facists cowards sell-outs. The right are the ones who are un-american. They are the one's trampling our rights. They are the one's selling the country out. Let's ship them all the austrailia. We can start to build this country up again, after all the damage they've done the last 80 years.

I don't believe the Kos comment was intended either to guarantee accountability or inspire candidates to not be CANDIDates. Rather, he's encouraging Democrats to engage in the same subversive tactics that have worked so well for Republicans for years.
Remember "I voted for it before I voted against it?" Forget the fact that an actual "flip-flop" (either the electronic device or the footwear) goes from one state to another AND BACK AGAIN, unlike a simple one-time change of mind by a responsible, thoughtful, non-dogmatic human being.
The Neocon philosophy has always been "stay the course," meaning to never rethink anything.
Guess they all learned everything they will ever need to know long before Kindergarten, apparently a virtue highly-regarded by tens of millions of American voters.

I think this is somewhat bad for the political process. This ensures that every candidate for everything will be completely controlled and only say politically expedient things. As it is now, most politicians say whatever it takes to be elected. This will ensure that every pol will be robotic in hopes of not stepping on the toes of any constituency. Politics is supposed to be a battle of ideas, but with constant footage of politicians, it will ensure that all politicians sound alike and say nothing no matter how much they talk. It will blow staements wayy out of proportion. Everything a politician says will sound just like the next, offending no one and saying nothing.

Like opposition research, video taping an opponent's public event is here to stay. It's part of the game. A game fewer and fewer qualified people want to play. And now, harmless missteps are slickly edited, posted and viewed as fact. And there's no way to correct the record. It's character assassignation via YouTube. Afterall, this is generation who gets most of its news from Comedy Central. Now, campaigning is becoming a joke. My advice for those running for office: smile your on "candidate camera."

I don't work for Kos, particularly when he orders rank and file to play a petty game of gotcha.

Politicians are human, and they are sure to say somewhat embarrassing statements at times, especially through a long, grueling campaign. Obama committed a gaffe recently when he said 10,000 people had died in a tornado in Kansas when it was really only 10. The statement was likely a consequence of being tired, as he himself later pointed out.

Capturing a small misstatement on tape and spreading it via the Internet is petty and doesn't help the political process. However, racial comments such as the "macaca" incident reveal the candidate's true personality and should indeed be publicized.

I don't think that the recordings are a bad thing. The biggest danger is not that politicians will be scripted all of the time. A good politician can stay on message without appearing to be a robot. The danger is that remarks will be taken out of context.

Also remember... Even after Macaca-gate, some in Virginia saw Allen as a positive, rather than a negative. So all the cameras do, is give us a truer picture of the candidate in the mass media environment.

What can we say, Chris? Unfortunately, the Youtube world is here to stay. Might as well complain about the weather, for all it will change things.

Let's be honest, the MSM went to sleep, a long time ago, we need somebody to the take that responsibility.

The only upside to this strategy will be that candidates might realize that they can not be the persona they want to SHOW 100% of the time, and start being who they really are. Then our elected officials will do what they promise, because that's what they believe in an what got them elected. And then, we will not be able to complain because the politician promised something and did something different. If things go wrong, it will be our collective fault. And may be then we will be able to get together and do whatever is necessary to fix what needs to be fixed.

If candidates are videotaped, the ones who do not devolve into macaca-dom will fall into two categories. (1) Those who rely on scripted speech and refuse to speak naturally. (2) Those who are comfortable speaking naturally but simply don't have macaca-ness inside them.

Believe it or not, viewers can tell the difference between (1) and (2) very, very easily.

And Americans dislike scripted politicians.

So while videotaping will unquestionably decrease the AMOUNT of natural, unscripted speech out there, it will increase the VALUE of natural speech for those capable of it.

Would like to see the followup to the March 29 Wag the Blog.

I believe that if activists do tape everything that is said and post items on YouTube it will make politicians less accountable in the long run but that these activists are not wrong in their efforts. The reason for reduced accountability is that all candidates and following that all public officials will have embarrassing soundbites that often don't have substantive policy implications. If the focus on elections, the vehicle of representative accountability, are dominated by non-policy related gaffes then attention will be taken away from substantive policy stances for which officials can actually be held accountable for.
As I said, though, the efforts of activists to "expose" what candidates are publicly saying is perfectly respectable as a way of expanding the forum of discussion. Rival activists should try and present some of the more appealing clips of their favored candidates to counter this.

No tapes!

No cameras!

No camera phones!

Even better, no reporters!

Nothing good comes from them!

I am tired of "gotcha" politics. I would rather have a discourse on the issues. Or better yet, have the candidates explain what they feel "the issues" really are. But in this era of fast-food journalism, candidates live and die by the sound bite. In reality, the serious candidates ARE filmed and recorded at every stump. I am not sure this changes anything.

Bokonon - Everything Hillary has done for the past 20 years is a political calculation. No wonder she restricts cameras at her campaign events...she stands to be damaged far more than any other candidate by Youtubing.

Remember, as her critics have cited, she's passably smart, but barely competent. Recounting how her (in)famous Wellesley College commencement speech came to fruition, Buchanan notes that Hillary had to pester classmates for ideas.

She didn't have enough of her own -- and instead stayed up all night "to piece a speech together from a communally written text." It shows.

"Words have a funny way of trapping our minds on the way to our tongues but there are necessary means even in this multi-media age for attempting to come to grasps with some of the inarticulate maybe even inarticulable things that we're feeling."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1833535/posts

re: Viet Nam service in the National Guard -

For the entire 60s and into the early 70s NG duty was considered the more honorable way to avoid 'Nam. However, one of my classmates joined the FBI as an honorable alternative, and some men joined local PDs.

There were dishonorable choices, of course.

Athough NG duty was honorable, please understand that the sons of the rich and powerful got the plum NG appointments. That is how it was.

Bokonon, you were the one who used the phrase "tough on terror" -
I used "jihadis" in response. I truly think Sen. Clinton was thinking about Saddam, not the Jihadists, when she voted.

Bokonon, I really think that view oversimplifies history. To pressure Iraq in 2002 to permit inspections again and to pressure the UN to actually hold its members to the sanctions were worthy goals and the authorization and troop buildup actually caused positive movement by Iraq and the UN, right up to the fortnight before the invasion when it became clear that the Administration would not take "yes" for an answer.

Sen. Clinton would have never hesitated to give that authority to any other President.

But you are suggesting that because:

1. the vote was too close to be reliably counted in Florida in 2000 and Gore's legal team failed to challenge the statewide count;

and

2. the Supreme Court did not refuse jurisdiction of G. v. B. under the Constitution which would have permitted the Republican Congress to cast Florida's electoral votes for Bush absent a complete statewide recount;

that, therefore, Sen. Clinton was trying to appear gratuitously tough on jihadis by giving this President the same authority she would have granted any other.

Re: Peter Principle

"It's highly disingenuous, although typical, of Cillizzat to imply that this is all Moulitsas's doing. The truth is that videotaping the opposition candidate's every move was a tactic pioneered by Republicans, and is now routinely used by campaigns in both parties. Long before George Allen's "macaca moment" there was the case of Francine Busby -- Democratic candidate to replace disgraced GOP sleazebag Duke Cunningham -- who was crucified in the media for an offhand comment about illegal immigrants, caught on tape by a GOP campaign operrative."

Actually, the videotaping tactic was first successfully used in 1994 by Democrat Senator Harris Wofford in his unsuccessful re-election bid to then Rep. Rick Santorum.

The results of that original effort at candidate tracking can be seen here: http://santorumexposed.com/video/santorum94ss.wmv

Dear Chris:

I echo Kathleen's comments one hundred percent. You seem to have slipped the phrase "private moment" into your blog post in order to dramatize your loaded question: "...Or does it rob regular people of ever getting to know the 'real' candidate because overly guarded politicians let nothing genuine slip for fear they are always being watched by a camera?" The question itself belies your -- and a lot of the main-stream media's -- bias toward protecting politicians. Markos never said "private" at all. He merely stated "appearance." An appearance means a rally, a photo-op, a press conference. It does not mean a trip to the laundromat.

Re: the National Guard in Vietnam - I did not know that. There definitely was a rush to join the Guard to avoid the draft. I know people who tried to do it. I also know that it took political pull to get in as the war wore on.

Still, 8,000 or so out of well over 500,000 are decent odds. I did find some information that said most Guard units were not well trained and many did not do well in Vietnam.

The post-Vietnam, volunteer force depends much more on the Guard and reserves than the old draft force did.

Mark in Austin - you say "it is good to review how Sen. Clinton prepared for her vote on Iraq, because it is good to know all we can about the candidates. In this instance, however, ... she could be excused from reading the NIE whle still favoring giving a sitting President rather open ended authority."

I agree that Saddam was a bad actor and not one to be trusted. The fact remains that the NIE (pretty accurately, as it turns out) predicted the consequences of the US invasion.

I don't think - even in 2001, given what was already known about the 2000 election in Florida - Hillary can be forgiven for trusting that THIS president would provide accurate, complete, and unbiased information about the situation in Iraq. There were many vocal skeptics even then, but they were ignored by the media, the public, and the Congress in the aftermath of 09.11.

Her failure to read the NIE is perhaps understandable, but given the responsibililties of her position as Senator, it is inexcusable. We have a right to expect that those we elect inform themselves as fully as possible about a situation before voting on it.

Whatever else is said of Hillary, she neither lazy nor unintelligent, so we have to assume that this represents a deliberate decision that it was more important for her - and her future political aspirations - to be seen as 'tough on terror' than to make the most informed vote possible.

cc now limiting his blog. He's checking all posts, big brother style, before putting them up. He is Bill O'Reilly in sheeps clothing. Any independant thinkers should not be on this site. this is a fishbowl. CC is a facist. Good luck to all of you.

Thanks for the information, Jim D.

I agree with the majority of posters that all public appearances of candidates are already recorded and that adding more recorders would be a basic non-event, save, perhaps, for the opponent's eyes at "small gatherings of the faithful".

I also agree that the line between public (and personal appearances should be respected.

Is there some reason that a liberal blogger looking for dirt on conservative candidates or vice versa) is newsworthy? What am i MISSING?

Everything is already captured. The question is who decides what gets published. When reporters on the Straight Talk Express had McCain supposedly permanently on the record, they didn't run every profanity, every off the cuff remark.

Tim Russert is, by default, off the record, according to his testimony in the Libby trial, when talking to sources.

One reason Markos (and, you know, at this point you should understand that the founding Great Orange Satan could log off, forever, and DailyKos would continue to have great content) has been successful is that the readers are the content filters. You don't have John Harris or Bill Keller deciding whether John Edwards' or Mitt Romney's dye job is more newsworthy.

So when you talk about citizens capturing video of events, you're not talking about the capture. You're talking about the publication. And this is why the whole DFH and Vinny in his mother's basement narrative comes from. The maccaca video went right to the heart of who George Allen is. Contrast that with the staged, formulaic and nearly contentless debates that the traditional media superintends.

The traditional media is about scripting and storylines. Markos is calling for an end to scripting and storylines--for actual people speaking in their own voices as our representatives.

"Does taping every public and private moment of a politician force them to be more accountable for their words and actions?"

This is a misrepresentation. dKos called for taping of every APPEARANCE...that a public thing, you know. Don't you think that everyone has a right to see a candidates public appearances? Why wouldn't it be fair game?

Anyone ever look at Meet the Press programs with tubby timmy? He plays gottcha every segment. Kos suggesting every speech etc be taped is no different than what the MSM is already doing except they edit out & freely alter what is said to meet their political aims. I can't stand timmy's ignorance when he goes back years to "GETTEM". If we have open minds many of our ideas and beliefs change.So you GO KOS, taping them at least gets us the truth & not some form of spin from the cnn, foxy etc boys.

". . .we ask The Fix community whether Kos's call to arms is good for the political process. Does taping every public and private moment of a politician force them to be more accountable for their words and actions?"

I ask you Chris why you had to spin Kos' statement. He suggested taping "appearances" you translate that to "every public and private moment" suggesting candidates would be hounded even in private. This is not what Kos' was suggesting. Why did you do that?

JimD - You're usually right on the money factwise, but a post yesterday about National Guard service was off. My guess is that an incorrect statement in Wikipedia may be at fault.

During Vietnam National Guards units were called up and some were deployed there.

From the Guard's website: During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam.

yes, jimd, but of those who identify as "conservative," what percentage really believe that bush and the republicans have taken a classically "conservative" (i.e. fiscally stingy, individuals' rights, as few government mandates as possible) approach?

I would think any candidate for a major office would expect that they are being recorded at public events.

Taping presidential candidates in small venues campaigning among the party faithful might reveal some very conservative or very liberal (depending on the party) statements that would not go over well with the swing voters. Interestingly, that could potentially hurt the Democrats more since polls show only about 20% of the electorate self-identify as liberal and 33% self-identify as conservative.

You've stretched what Kos was saying.

"Every public and PRIVATE moment" are your words. What Kos was advocating was recording of every campaign appearance.

It's already done by the professional press, and the understanding is that they are quite selective. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. All Kos advocates is democratizing the process.

Taping private moments, which was tried by Obama's first Republican opponent in '04, is something else again.

You seem to be operating under the false assumption that the current system allows us to see a genuine side of the candidates.

What we have now is the scripted politics, taping everything allows us to get past that artificial wall that all candidtates erect between their real personality and the voter.

Accountability is a good thing.

Markos' call was not for private or "unguarded" moments, but understood by those of us who traffic the progressive blogs as a call to expose -- objectively and without slant -- the candidate's own positions and opinions, both stated and more importantly, those he's unwilling to state to a broader audience. If Markos (and the rest of us) think that immeasurably helps candidates we support, it's not because we think we can "spin" that process, but because we know without doubt or question that we stand in the mainstream of public opinion, and the more of their true positions the public hears, the less support they have.
It's not about "gotcha" politics -- the other side started that game in the 90's, and continues it today, usually by distorting if not outright fabricating the supposed "gotcha" moment (Anyone remember the stories about Sen Clinton "snubbing" Gold Star mothers? Or that Sen Durbin "called our troops Nazis"?).
It's about showing a true picture, in context, of their own words and deeds. No one took Senator Allen out of context for his "macaca" moment, or the fumbling, evolving excuses for it that came later. That was all him, and shown unedited and commercial-free.
It is not "gotcha" to catch someone in inconsistencies, racial pandering, fear mongering or outright lies. These were, in fact, once functions of mainstream media -- including this very publication -- that now exists more on the "angry fringe" of progressive blogging than anywhere else. That is exposing truth, and it's a hard stretch to say that will ever do anything but help in our political process.

The main stream media is part of the political process, but the new technologies ends CONTROL of the political process by big money, big-mouthed politicians, big media, etc.

Isn't it time that WE THE PEOPLE are brought back into the political process? With gerrymandering and electorial "irregularities", voting alone doesn't do it anymore.

In an age where the administration believes it can spy on anyone, anytime without a warrant, it's about time WE start watching THEM.

This is just about the worst idea I have ever read. Politics under Rove and Carville has become so coarse as to be obscene. What counts is not some public verbal misstep but the character of people. Cheapening politcis to this level has stiffled civilized and thorough discourse and has excluded genuine discussion of issues. As a consequence, at this late date, we really don't have the foggiest idea of where Obama or Hillary or McCane or Thompson or Guiliani or anyone else really stand of import issues. It's silly and it's destructive. Why one earth would we want to copy the devices of the operatives that have so divided and harmed this country?

I think it is a good idea to tape Republicans, Democrats, and other people who run for elected office. It is a good way to see if people are keeping their campaign promises.

A book that discusses how elected officials and others manipulate people is

Artful PERSUASION

How to command attention, change minds, and influence people by Harry Mills

I discuss Veterans, other military issues, and other topics on http://www.myspace.com/kennethstremsky

I ran for United States Senate from New Hampshire in 2002.

I hope people will check out my website and tell other people about it.

For years candidates have spoken in "dog whistle" code and to friendly audiences so they could guarantee they are "one of the club."
The GOP obsession with clubs, (Club for Growth, Federalist Society etc) make taping everything they do essential for those of us not in the club, but being pandered to. Remember the 2000 GOP Convention with break dancers and a veritable rainbow on the stage? If there had been more candid moments, the truth would've been seen earlier.
We have Katrina to thank for not having anymore rainbow GOP conventions, and George Allen to thank for a Democratic Senate.
That is the power of video, and it should be harnessed.

Mark,

To partially answer your question about Afghanistan - no mainstream politician opposed it. The Congressional authorization for the use of force passed the Senate 98-0 and the House 420-1. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) was the lone dissenter. Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and Jesse Helms (R-NC)were the absentees.

I do not remember any current presidential candidate being lukewarm about the Afghan war.

Other people have already said it, but it sure bears repating...
Your question - your argument if you indeed have one - is that political candidates who are constantly being watched are constantly on guard, forced to never let anything "real" slip by their lips because it could ruin their political career.

What this means is that most of our successful candidates, pre-You Tube, have been something other than "real."

Doesn't that annoy the Hell out of you more than the prospect of a candidate forced to live with cameras on his or her nose 24/7? This idea that we've all come to live with and accept, that politicians are never honest and forthcoming with their bosses, the taxpayers? They are always putting on a show, and we never know where they really stand? Have we become so complacent with our views towards politics that people could take umbrage with someone who dares attempt to destroy that facade as kos is?

If candidates feel like they can't be themselves in front of a camera, those people have no business running for office. Period. If they have something to hide, they either need to own it and accept and argue why he or she would still be a good candidate regardless, or bow out. They'll either need to become completely at ease with the cameras (which requires them to either be themselves ro a raging sociopath), or find another line of work.

I don't find anything wrong with videotaping politicians or candidates during official/campaign appearances-- they are in the public eye and their words are "out there" for all to see and hear.

However, there should be a line between those moments that are "in public" and moments that are not. Should we tape pols at the grocery store squeezing the Charmin? Or taking their kids to the zoo, or putting flowers on a parent's grave, on the off chance that they'll say something that can be used against them later?

There should be a common stand for respect and decency. It can't be one-sided... but it has to begin somewhere.

Yes...In order to combat the right wing dominated media it is imperative for citizen journalists to engage in the process. Maybe Kos's call is part of the political process.

Yep. Tape everything they say, and use it against them. Over and over. If the MSM had taped some of Bush's creepier stuff and played that over and over rather than focusing on haircuts and blueberry juicers, maybe we wouldn't be in the fix.

If politicians are going to say one thing to their fans and another to the voting public, the voting public has a right to know that. The press has been great about unilaterally deciding all conversations with pols are "off the record" unless explicitly stated otherwise-- Tim Russert actually said that-- and the result is that the press knows all sorts of things it doesn't share with the public. Hence many in the press knew that Rove leaked Plame's name... but pretended it didn't know this until the reporters were compelled by sub poena to tell the truth that they should have shared with the rest of us.

If citizen journalism is what it takes to get the truth out, then I'd suggest this says a lot about the failure of the MSM. Good for Kos and everyone else who cares about the truth and not just access to the powerful.

I think you went a little futher than Markos did in framing your question to include filming candidates private lives.However,I think documenting what candidates say and how they act is a good thing.If a lot of this is done and posted on the net,it limits the ability of the media to serve as a gatekeeper for the public.It therefore limits the media's ability to control information available to the public.Given the widespread failure of the media at large to provide accurate information in the runup to the war this is a good thing.

Since we have lost all faith in the Main Stream Media actually reporting on incidents like George Allen's M... moment and any other revealing things a candidate might do, I think this is an excellent idea.

As to its effect on the political process, get over yourself. What effect do you think you've had on the political process? And is any of it any good?

A sad day in america. We're getting to the point where everything will be recorded. They have a security system that recognizes faces on scan. Everything will be on video, everything. This is George Bush's America

Chris: Unfortunately, to win in a race, this is the kind of tactic one needs to employ. However, we (the general public) constantly criticize the canned response and evasion techniques used by our candidates. We scream at the TV "Just answer the question!" Though we crave someone who is "real and authentic", that often means tripping on words and mispeaking now and again. Barak Obama, for instance, is so popular now because he seems to be just that: authentic in his ideals and honorable in his intentions.

Political campaigns are now wars of atrition. No longer about ideas and vision, the winner is determined by being the last man or woman to screw up big.

definitely pro-tape everything here. its a false question to ask whether a politician knowing they might be taped will make them somehow less able to speak freely. as if politicians speak freely and candidly, ever, in the first place. now, if "speaking freely" means unleashing some kind of insulting racial tirade, then yeah, absolutely taping is good. lets find out who those people are and get them out of office ASAP. and what else could it mean? has anyone, anywhere, ever seen a complaint they didn't feel they had gotten a satisfying answer to a question from a politician because there was someone there with a video cam which made it impossible to be candid? what a ridiculous claim that would be, and anyone who made it should be laughed at most thoroughly. its a completely false question in the first place. and anyways, these are supposed to be public servants. their time is our money. they answer to us, the electorate, and they better well remember it. if this helps them remember, then so much the better.

Kos seems to be advocating MORE of the muck provided by the media of stories focusing on haircuts which substitute for discussion of the issues and actual positions and proposals of the candidates.
Nowhere has they been a discussion of haircut costs of OTHER candidates - nor the costs of their Botox injections.
Hillary has had almost 15 years to perfect her universal healthcare plan, but hardly mentioned the issue until she announced her candidacy for prez. And now - she and Obama FINALLY release their plans which is a virtual copy of John Edwards' plan released months ago which the public never heard because - well - the haircuts are so much more important.
Oh - and let's don't forget the bias. Why tell the public that while Rupert Murdock's Fox News was making a killing bashing Hillary - he was giving her a HUGE fundraiser last year - and a News Corp fundraiser next month - when all the media has to do is focus on haircuts to dumb down the public?
Better to focus on haircuts rather than air news about Edwards' successful programs implemented to instill self-reliance by providing college scholarships to students from working poor and middle class families who wouldn't be able to attend otherwise.
The media distracts us with triviality to evade discussions of issues that conflict with the bottom line of their corporate clients. And the people lose again.

I remember reading Markos' post, but I don't remember him advocating "every public and private moment of a politician" should be taped. That sounds a bit extreme. Is he really advocating that people should sneak into John McCain's home and tape him taking a shower? Or, perhaps, are you exaggerating a tad Chris?

In general I don't see anything wrong with taping public appearances by politicians. Allen and his "Macaca" comment gained traction because it showed us someting important about the kind of person he is. It's a side he showed only to select audiences who he knew were friendly to his worldview, but kept hidden from the rest of us.

If the increased scrutiny means that candidates have to be more careful about hurling racial epitaphs, I'm okay with that as well.

The "macaca" moment did in George Allen only because he was such a halfwitted candidate to begin with. He had a free ride in Virginia for so long, that once he was confronted with something that needed explaining, he bumbled and stumbled like a 4 year old trying to explain to Mom why he wasn't the one who broke the crystal vase.

I am old enough to remember the complete on camera meltdown Richard Nixon had in 1962 when he lost the governorship of California. (That was the famous moment when he addressed the press directly and said, "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around any more because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.)

Yet Nixon went on to twice win the presidency because he was ruthless and smart, if nuts.

What I am saying, ultimately, is that the camera will do some folks in and others will find a way around it.

As someone who has volunteered for political campaigns and attended campaign rallies, I can tell you that operatives from other campaigns *already* video tape every public appearance by the opponent.

What kos suggested doing has simply been part of the political process for years, only this time individual activists are getting involved, hopefully catching and publishing things that a bureaucratic campaign might miss.

I guess the question on my mind is why WaPo staffers never expressed any outrage when staffers from opposing campaigns were video taping public appearances by politicians. Is that bad for the political press? Chris, this IS the political process.

An earlier poster wrote that Kos's plan is "warfare". As though that is a bad thing. In case you hadn't noticed, the Republicans have been treating politics as warfare for some time now. Like, oh, a dozen-plus years. Democrats have not fought hard enough against a party that has been running this country systematically into the ground. Time to start. This is war.

I've never heard you utter a peep about how Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity constantly demonize Democrats and utter complete lies about them that millions of listeners believe. Tell me, do you think that's 'bad' for the political process?

Do you think that VP Cheney frequently appearing on a radio program where women are called 'hos' and 'feminazis' and environmentalists are called 'eco-terrorists' is 'bad' for the political process? Please stop covering for the republicans' dirty tactics and trying to demonize democrats.

On a practical level, things like this can really go either way. It could be endearing for a candidate to be "real" by making mistakes, provided that he/she has the ability to shrug it off, and provided they're not absolutley abbhorent mistakes. The best way to show you're not a walking sound bite is to say something that a walking sound bite wouldn't say. Also, the public often rallies around around those who it feels are being unfairly attacked, and I wonder if the blogoshpere has enough discretion not to create that impression. Additionally, you could also get a "little boy who cried wolf" effect. I'm guessing that a lot of comments that the dailykos crowd finds to be damaging won't be perceived that way by a lot of other people. The more stuff of that nature you out out, the less significance people will likely attach to the medium/forum in general.

On a practical level, things like this can really go either way. It could be endearing for a candidate to be "real" by making mistakes, provided that he/she has the ability to shrug it off, and provided they're not absolutley abbhorent mistakes. The best way to show you're not a walking sound bite is to say something that a walking sound bite wouldn't say. Also, the public often rallies around around those who it feels are being unfairly attacked, and I wonder if the blogoshpere has enough discretion not to create that impression. Additionally, you could also get a "little boy who cried wolf" effect. I'm guessing that a lot of comments that the dailykos crowd finds to be damaging won't be perceived that way by a lot of other people. The more stuff of that nature you out out, the less significance people will likely attach to the medium/forum in general.

What's wrong with DK's announcement? In fact, let's tape every second of every appearance by all officials/candidates, Republican or Demcorat. Wouldn't you love to see another "Macaca"?
http://political-buzz.com/

One might argue that the "Macaca" George Allen is the real George Allen, and thanks to the media that was afraid to ever follow up on rumors that he used the n-word frequently or spit on his wife, we never learned the real story. It took a normal guy to flesh out George Allen, not a bunch of overpaid court stenographers.

This is nothing but a call to maximize the smears against Moulitsas' political opponents. His phrasing regarding building narratives about opponents leads me to believe that a lot of context will be intentionally thrown out.

'Two Republican presidential candidates today criticized the ABC News report Tuesday about the CIA's covert plan to destabilize the Iranian regime.

"I was shocked to see the ABC News report regarding covert action in Iran," Mitt Romney said as he opened a session with reporters in Tulsa, Okla.

Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., called for an investigation into who leaked the information and "condemned" ABC News for "running the story which could jeopardize American lives."

The ABC News story reported that President Bush had given the CIA authorization to conduct a nonlethal covert action against Iran involving propaganda, disinformation and the manipulation of Iran's international banking transactions.'

I see mitty hairboy and tommy tancrazy would like to destroy the free press when it reports on illegal and dangerous activity by the US government...

When they start manipulating international banking transactions, they are endangering the stability of the entire world's financial transactions... all over Iran's oil. There just isn't anything bush/cheney wouldn't do for control of ALL middle eastern oil. They will likely end up starting WW3, and that's just fine with them...

Nobody is calling for all public and private moments to be videotaped. But there's nothing wrong with all public moments being videotaped.

If a candidate picks their nose in the privacy of their own backyard, then it's rude and an invasion of privacy for the press to publish pictures of it. But if they pick their nose in public at a baseball game, then the people who weren't at that game have a right to know that this is an uncouth person who probably cannot be depended on to behave properly in front of foreign dignitaries.

To, er, give a hypothetical example of something that might have changed an election if youtube was five years older.

Robbed of "genuine" moments?
If a "genuine" moment involves them being a homophobe or a racist -- then IMNSHO I think ALL their constituents have a right to know that -- don't YOU agree?

This is absolutely bad for the process. All candidates should be aloud to have one persona that they display for the public and then a completely different one where they will actually reveal their true self in front of the 200 people who really matter because they showed up at their fundraiser or picnic. If you can't be everywhere a candidate is I guess that just means you shouldn't be priveledged enough to hear what they are really like and only have access to the official pr.

Honestly, what exactly is wrong with taping all appearances. If the candidate truly had nothing to hide it might be a good idea to tape themselves whereever they are so more people can see the real them. If what we disover when we watch our political class very closely is more 'macaca' then not it is not the fault of the videotaper but the candidate. And if they were always like that and the sunshine reveals it good riddance we needed to clean up anyways.

'The IRS plans to expand a controversial program that uses private debt collectors to collect back taxes, despite criticism from Congress and its own tax advocate.

Congressional investigators say there have been hundreds of complaints about repeated and abusive phone calls from debt collectors participating in the IRS program. Among those who have filed complaints are people in nursing homes, wives of servicemen in Iraq and low-income taxpayers facing economic hardship.

"It's bad enough having to owe the Internal Revenue Service, but to be harassed by private collectors is just not fair," said Congressman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which held hearings on the program this week. Rangel has threatened to enact legislation to close the program if the IRS fails to do so on its own.

Critics also charge the IRS program has led to widespread confusion and frustration among taxpayers.

Under the rules of the program, collectors cannot say they are working for the IRS and are calling about a tax matter without first receiving proof of a taxpayer's identity. This has led to complaints from consumers saying they have received calls that sound like scams from collectors who have pressed them to provide social security numbers without identifying the purpose of the call.

Nina Olson, the National Tax Advocate of the IRS, is helping to lead the campaign to repeal the program, which she says has cost $50 million more in administrative costs than it has collected in back taxes.

While the Defense Department has pushed extra equipment to units in hurricane-prone states in part to compensate for what has been ordered to Iraq, an ABCNews.com investigation has found many Plains and western states have few if any helicopters on hand to respond quickly to a disaster.

"We're on the ragged edge" in Nebraska, the state's adjutant general, Roger Lempke, told a panel of concerned U.S. lawmakers Thursday, describing the absence of helicopters in his state. Nebraska's contingent of Blackhawk helicopters are deployed in Iraq, leaving few aircraft for disaster relief missions at home.

The central and western United States faces a summer of predicted above-average wildfire activity and an unusually high spate of tornado activity.

Nebraska's situation is not unique.

Kos suggested taping every "appearance" of GOP candidates. The word appearnace is clearly used to denote public appearance and utterance. The question "Does taping every public and private moment of a politician force them to be more accountable for their words and actions?" is therefore biased by including an action that goes far beyond the original suggestion.

BAGHDAD, May 22 -- Gunmen wearing police commando uniforms abducted several western civilians from a Finance Ministry compound in Baghdad today, Iraqi and American officials said, renewing questions about whether elements of Iraq's government are playing an active role in the spread of violence.

The American military also announced the deaths of eight more American soldiers, all of whom died Monday in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad.

And in the capital, two car bombs exploded in congested urban areas, killing at least 22 people and wounding more than 50.

'Chris is soliciting comments on his post, but of course, I have the luxury of responding here, which was really part of Chris' point, I think. And since there's nothing at all wrong with that, I'm happy to oblige.

Is Markos' call "good" for the political process?

My response: The question makes no sense. Markos' call is the political process.

There's room for debate, of course, about whether it was simply always the nature of the political process, and the only thing that's changed is the access of ordinary citizens to the mechanisms by which "unguarded moments" (if there still are such things) in politics can be captured on video and disseminated nationwide. And there's even room for debate over whether the quarters from which the call itself came is or isn't something new.

But from my perspective, the idea that anything Markos, YouTube, or any other "new media" did has fundamentally changed the political process is rather ridiculous, especially when we're asked a question like that from a professional media that has been engaged in the gotcha game for ages.'

And another thing: forget the politicians. What about me? Everyone I know has become a damn journalist! I'm afraid to go the bar these days in case one of my friends catches me doing something embarassing on camera- something they might choose to share with, oh, I dunno, a million people who would be more than happy to spend their time going over my own personal humiliating moments.

Random people come up to me and take pictures of me to post online. Random people. What in the hell is that? That freaks me out beyond all reason. I hate YouTube and Facebook, the whole world's the damn paparazzi now. Is this Big Brother or what? Is it just me?

And another thing: forget the politicians. What about me? Everyone I know has become a damn journalist! I'm afraid to go the bar these days in case one of my friends catches me doing something embarassing on camera- something they might choose to share with, oh, I dunno, a million people who would be more than happy to spend their time going over my own personal humiliating moments.

Random people come up to me and take pictures of me to post online. Random people. What in the hell is that? That freaks me out beyond all reason. I hate YouTube and Facebook, the whole world's the damn paparazzi now. Is this Big Brother or what? Is it just me?

> The tactics advocated by Moulitsas, which I
> admit seem to have little to do with
> evaluating the quality of a candidate's
> thought and record, were learned from the
> Republicans during the Reagan years, and
> were largely the invention of Lee Atwater.
> It is completely understandable for the
> Democrats to feel that they have no
> recourse other than to play the same game.
> But it DOES represent a further degradation
> of our political system -

I agree with your comments but I observe you are leaving out the role of the traditional media. It is the media that has decided to run with the Republicans' attack videos and narratives. Without play in the traditional media the Atwater/Rove video clips would have been useless. This is another bypass of the traditional media and, not surprisingly, they don't like it.

MWNN

A California makes a good point. it's no longer just the DC establishment that decides which parts of a politician's campaign get to be seen by the public.

You are no longer the kingmakers and gatekeepers. Get used to it.

The guy who said it earlier wins the prize

Remember how Bush "campaigned" with closed events and no unscripted questions. Also note what Hillary is doing.

This is modern politics folks because the politicians are scared whatever they say will be on youtube.

So there will be no more debate it will be perfectly scrubbed candidates which is a consultants dream but terrible for the democratic process.

2 closing things

1. you can tell Obama has newer staff because he has made several harmless errors (example the tornado miscounting)

2. Mccain will never be scripted

The thing that makes Obama and McCain so appealing to indepdentents is there ability to actually speak unscripted.

However the consultants and party bosses hate uncertainty and will do their darndest to drive out fresh viewpoints. They did it to McCain in 2000. Hillarys people will do it to Obama this year. It looks more and more that Romney is willing to spout off the conservative talking ponits verbatim so he will propably take down McCain.

So in 2008 it will be Romney vs Clinton and just like with Bush we will never find out what the actual candidates think because everything will be vetted through polls and consulants all because of the fear of being genuine and heaven fobid messing up and then the nutjobs on both sides immediately posting on youtube.

RIP the democratic process

Bokonon, it is good to review how Sen. Clinton prepared for her vote on Iraq, because it is good to know all we can about the candidates. In this instance, however, we know the previous history and she could be excused from reading the NIE whle still favoring giving a sitting President rather open ended authority. That is not to say she will be excused, but she could be. She knew the history with Saddam since Gulf War I well.

Let me capsulize it from the Blair-Clinton experience: after Gulf War I, UN Resolutions authorize US and UK to control Saddam - thus the no-fly zones, buildup of Persian Gulf fleets, etc. '96 exit of inspectors coupled with massive German, French, and Russian violations of UN trade sanctions w/ Iraq made Blair push Clinton to invade, on the assumption that UN mandated control of Saddam would at some point be untenable because of UN incapacity to enforce sanctions. But in '98 the Lewinsky matter and impeachment made invasion look like "Wag the Dog" so air strikes were called instead. I am not making this up, therefore:

there is no way Sen. Clinton was not voting for authorization in 2002. No way.

What I want to know is who did not support the Afghan incursion wholeheartedly, and if any current candidate called for it even ahead of the Administration.

Dean Scream[sic] anyone? The traditional media has always had the ability to show as much of the uncensored actions of all the candidates as it has desired. It is just that for the last 15 years (or more) the traditional media has decided that it is good and acceptable to show the gaffes and foibles of Democratic and liberal politicians and candidates - but those of Republican politicians and candidates are utterly off limits (Dean non-scream vs. McCain's never-revealed temper).

This is just a change in the media narrative that the traditional media doesn't like but can't control.

MWNN

Chris: what's new here. The Republicans have done it for years. What do you think Rove's oppo research unit (Goodling!!) did? Robocall and attack ads. No, Kos is just evening out the playing field. You write as if this something new. The only thing that is new is that the technology is in everyone's hands and not in the hands of oppo research outfits only.

Way back in 2004 they called the "Macaca Moment" the "Dean Moment"; the difference is that in 2004 the media collectively decided to accept and re-broadcast a clip with the context-providing audience noise filtered out. And we got to see and hear it over and over and over again.

By contrast, I NEVER saw Senator Allen's 'gaffe' broadcast on a major station. Not once.

In other words, the only thing YouTube changes is who controls which on-tape slip-ups and gaffes are broadcast to the public. In 2004 it was a relatively small number of executives and producers that controlled virtually all of what the public saw and read. Now the citizens have an alternative.

I'll go so far as to say that in 2004, it's likely that the Macaca moment would have disappeared into the mainstream press editorial wastebin. I won't elaborate on the national consequences of that scenario.

Go YouTube!

This is precisely the thing we DON'T need in the political process. If anything, it will encourage candidates to market themselves as if they were a new car...Pick me! I have the most horsepower, and the best looking body! It's only when the election is over do you realize that the other models out there have more legroom and better fuel economy, but hey, they don't look as good as me!

We'll wind up with a campaign - months and months of it - in which every stop and event on both sides is the same as the one before.

And don't forget, what is good for the goose is always good for the gander. Democrats and progressives are not the only ones who know how to use technology.

If anything, the Democrats are more at risk for this kind of strategy, since they are more likely to speak off the cuff than the Republicans.

Chris Cillizza is either ignorant of how dailykos works or he is jeolous. To begin with, kos does not have that much influence. His site is used a lot and consulted a lot, not because of kos but because of the openness of the site itself. The 187 hits mentioned by Cillizza is very average at dailykos, where it is not unusual for a diary to get several hundred hits. So stop trying to put down kos and start reading what is said. That's where the power and influence lie.

I think this is definately bad for the democratic process. Media coverage of political campaigns has always been sensationalistic and scandal-obsessed. Now we have a legion of partisan amateur journalists running around with camera-phones hoping to catch a politician making some politically incorrect remark.

Why don't we focus more on policy positions in America? All this focus on "gotcha!" journalism will just divert attention away from the issues. Instead of paying attention to the thousands of hours a candidate spends extolling substantive ideas for the country, the American electorate prefers to make its decisions based on the embarassing 30-second verbal gaffes and fumbled moments that happen to make their way onto YouTube.

I think the netroots are good for American politics in that they democratize media and allow ordinary people to enter a published political discourse. But this movement will only be good for the democratic process if the participants (namely us) can be objective and focused on the issues. Otherwise all these blogs, the Daily Kos included, will simply add to a national discourse that is already woefully rife with scandal-obsession, sensationalism and knee-jerk political claptrap.

What happened to the power of persuasion? Forget the 30-second soundbites! Let's concentrate on the issues!

'Or does it rob regular people of ever getting to know the "real" candidate because overly guarded politicians let nothing genuine slip for fear they are always being watched by a camera?'

What a stupid and disingenious thing to say, CC. Not to mention naive. As if republicans hadn't been doing this for years, as if they hadn't spent vast sums doing oppo research on Dems. Please. Markos is only helping Dems to level the playing field a little.

The right has had tremendous grassroots organizing ability for years through talk radio. Now the left is starting to get up to speed on its own with the internet.

But you give Markos too much credit. You demonize him in the same way that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity do. He's just one guy among many, however effective he is, however telegenic. There are an army of bloggers, many of whom have quite large audiences.

The point is, it isn't George Soros or Markos or whomever. It is a very large and very motivated groundswell of activists who are simply fed up and have the energy and motivation to change the direction of this country. More than 75% of people polled recently feel it's moving in the wrong direction.

I know you and other comfy and well-fed DC insiders republican country clubbers don't like it, but there it is.

The 'real' candidate is what they say behind closed doors. 'macacca' was not a slip. And that is exactly the kind of thing we need to know.

Moulitsas is cynical, but right - absent campaign reform, what most voters remember about any one candidate are the "gotcha" moments. (e.g. who can remember the issues and platform put forward by Mike Dukakis in 1988? What everyone remembers is Willie Horton, that and the ridiculous photo of him riding in a tank.) Unfortunately, this kind of stuff is what wins elections nowadays.

Andy R, your point is well-taken. Republicans are not the enemy. Those who attempt to force policies on the rest of the country which result in a socially divided, economically unequal, less well-educated, environmentally decaying, increasingly debt-ridden nation are the enemy. You must, however, admit that from 2000-2006 that role has been played by the loud, obnoxious, and disrespectful arch-conservative faction dominant in the GOP throughout that time, so a casual observer can be forgiven for confusing the two.

The tactics advocated by Moulitsas, which I admit seem to have little to do with evaluating the quality of a candidate's thought and record, were learned from the Republicans during the Reagan years, and were largely the invention of Lee Atwater. It is completely understandable for the Democrats to feel that they have no recourse other than to play the same game. But it DOES represent a further degradation of our political system - further distancing voters from the information they need to cast an intelligent vote, and / or attempting to confuse them with issues emotional, irrelevant, or both. I agree with carnguy when he says "it isn't politics, it's warfare."

This is yet another argument for electoral and campaign reform, but absent that, our market-based campaign system will ensure that elections will be won as much if not much more by slick packaging, cheap shots, undocumented / unprovable 'Swift Boat'-esque allegations which nevertheless receive lots of airtime, and so on. Is Moulitsas right to suggest that Democrats play by the same rules? Yes and no... yes for the welfare of the Democratic Party, no for the welfare of our electoral system.

And Golgi, thank you for continuing to remind CC about the Obama stuff. I'm glad you provided the link, and I too would like to see a follow-up. Maybe Chris could do that instead, the next time he's tempted to blog about Hillary's campaign song, or Hillary's latest campaign trip, or Hillary's anything not policy-related. It's interesting and sad that Obama is held to a much higher standard on this blog in terms of laying out his actual policy proposals... VERY VERY little has been said / is known about Hillary's ideas, just fluff. I would also like to see some comment on the allegation that Hillary didn't bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq - which warned of much of the exact situation we're dealing with there now! - before voting to allow Bush to invade. Wouldn't anyone else like to hear more about this?

What "slips" out is the real candidate.

Any schmuck can deliver a speech. We get to know the real candidate when they are tired, angry, frustrated, or feeling particularly smug.

Would you marry after one date? Of course not; you need to get to know someone in good times and bad, before you can reliably judge their true character.

Tape everything. Or you'll wind up buying a pig in a poke. Cillizza's just upset because we've begun to cut out the middle men, of which he is one.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.globalresearch.ca

http://www.theinternationalforecaster.com/trainwreck.php?Id=172

At least 11 members of Congress are under investigation as well as 10 former members of our last Congress.

First there is Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) for accepting large contributions from convict Jack Abramoff and for his wife receiving commission on campaign contributions.

Tom Feeney (R-FL) who received campaign contributions from Abramoff as well as lavish trips. He is also being pursued for his homosexual pursuit of congressional pages.

Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) for his real estate transactions. He sold land in Monrovia, California and made a $10 million profit. Instead of paying a 31% tax he claims he was forced to sell under eminent domain, which Monrovia and other buyers of other properties he sold, said was not the case. He claims capital gains tax rates.

Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) is subject to two Justice Department investigations. The first is a land swap deal. The other is ManTech, Int., a supplier of mercenaries and one of Renzi's largest contributors, which currently employs his father, and has more than $450 million in contracts at Fort Huachuca Army Base. The FBI raided Renzi's wife's insurance business.

Michael Aaron Lay, is under indictment for illegally casting a ballot in two 2004 congressional primary runoffs in which his boss, Re. Pat McHenry (R-NC) was a candidate. It was not legal for him to vote in the district. The phony residence used is owned by McHenry.

Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons is under investigation for corruption in accepting cash and gifts in exchange for defense contracts. The charges stem from when he was a congressman. Gibbons will probably go to jail.

The stories go on and on as political corruption reaches new heights in America.

The prospect of the George W. Bush, Presidential Library being built on the campus of Southern Methodist University received a boost as voters in University Park, Texas passed a proposition that paves the way for the city to sell a piece of parkland to the University. The vote was 1,782 to 420 for.

Gallup sees approval of Congress at 29%; Bush at 33% and both ratings are slightly below their 2007 averages.

Our elitists in Washington are escalating the scam known as the war on terrorism. A new phase of psychological warfare is underway. You can spot the rhetoric and propaganda ten miles away. The idea is to instill fear and paranoia. Americans must be prepared for homeland terrorism that is a figment of Washington's imagination.

The latest case is six foreign born Muslims who were allegedly going to attack soldiers at Fort Dix and assault a Pennsylvania naval installation. There may have been a conspiracy to carry out such attacks, but we find it coincidental that this plot comes at a time when Washington is besieged by multiple political crises'. It is not only Mr. Bush and the administration - it is also the Cabinet and Congress. The public is truly unhappy with almost the entire lot. The Virginia Tech massacre has all the trappings of a Manchurian Candidate victim.

What concerns us is that very high level government and military and military officials are preparing homeland security plans, which include Martial law and a suspension of civil liberties.

A panel of 41 security experts sees a possible terror strike causing catastrophic destruction and death and a disintegration of government order as the social order unravels. The objective of this panel is to maintain order and to control the civilian populace. We believe there is small chance of an extremist terror attack. The real problem is a false flag operation - a government orchestrated attack - to form a dictatorial government out of chaos. We believe this is aggressive promotion of the suspension of civil liberties and the imposition of Martial law. Referring to history we can only expect the worst from the elitists when today we are under attack by government in every quarter. The government is our enemy. Of course, all these plans are being hatched behind closed doors and the public knows nothing of what is really going on.

There are 50,000 homes for sale in Phoenix and at the height of the housing boom there were 4,000.

The US does not plan to buy more oil for its strategic petroleum reserve until after the peak demand summer driving season. We do not understand this, as crude oil storage facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma are all full, due to bottlenecks at the refinery. If they are full why is our government not purchasing this oil stuck in storage?

Mortgage applications fell for the first time in four weeks as the index fell 0.8. The 30-year fixed rate mortgage rose 3 bps to 6.13%, down from 6.6% a year ago. The purchase index fell 1.4%. Refi apps rose slightly.

Industrial production rose 0.7% in April. Capacity utilization rose to 81.6%.

In the South Carolina Republican debate, MSNBC had Ron Paul at 48%, Mitt Romney 18% and Giuliani at 17%. The ABC News Poll had Paul with 18,569, Fred Thompson 299, Mitt Romney 265 and Giuliani at 254. Ron Paul ran all over the opposition. The long shot initialed an exchange with Giuliani implying US policy in the Middle East had contributed to the attacks in NYC and Washington. He said the CIA was right to teach about blowback and the US cannot do what we want around the world without inciting hatred and a response.

Evidentially the public isn't as brain dead as we thought. They saw the difference between a bunch of tired old political retread hacks parroting the same old lines they are fed by their elitist handlers. Paul is the man with a clear vision of what is wrong with this country and he knows how to solve our problems. This has the Illuminists terrified.

In spite of the voting, CNN & MSNBC declared either McCain or Romney the winner. This is par for the course and that is because Ron Paul will not support the policies of world government. This is a perfect example of how media fixes elections.

We kept wondering why Bill Gross was always so wrong about interest rates. We suspected he was in the back pocket of the Illuminists and now we are sure. His company, PIMCO, the world's largest bond fund, owned by Allianz, has hired Sir Alan Greenspan as a consultant. Greenspan will communicate regularly with PIMCO executives on economic issues and his insight on interest rate policy. This also means the Illuminists from behind the scenes will control PIMCO and Gross will end up being a figurehead. The elitists have to control PIMCO, which holds $680 billion in bonds. This year and since last June, PIMCO has been in the bottom 20% of its peer group after having bested 97% in the previous ten years.

Southern California home sales plunged to a 12-year low in April, suggesting that the region's real estate slump is far from over. Prices rose 6.1% from a year earlier to a median $505,000 driven by an up-tick in Los Angeles Country, masking declines in Riverside, San Diego and Ventura Counties. Demand is not there and supply continues to build.

April sales fell 28.9% yoy and 12% from March. Sales dived 45.1% in Riverside and 46.7% in San Bernardino Counties. Sales are now declining not only in lesser expensive homes, but in expensive homes as well. Median prices in Riverside fell 1% to $409,000, but rose 2.8% in San Bernardino. A year earlier they rose 9.4% in Riverside and 18.4% in San Bernardino. Los Angeles was up 5.9% yoy and unchanged from March. Los Angeles accounts for 35% of all sales and sales fell there 22.2%.

Orange County's median was flat at $629,000, a 0.2% decline from April 2006, and unchanged mom. Sales fell 24.7%. In Ventura County, prices fell 2.4% to $572,000 as sales dropped 11.7% yoy. In San Diego, the median price slipped 3% to $490,000 for the slowest rate of decline since August. Sales fell 13.5%.

The pace of existing home sales slowed in the first quarter by 6.6% and the median price nationwide slipped 1.8% to $212,300. Sales were 6.4 million versus 6.9 million annualized for 2006. Mortgage lenders foreclosed on 62% more homes in April yoy. Prices fell from $216,100 in 2006.

The west is finally getting hit hard with sales off 11.9% or 1.8% below a year ago at $336,200.

Existing home sales fell I the South 7.3%, 6.1% in the Midwest and the Northeast rose 1.2%.

The Gallup Poll reports only 25% of Americans now say they are satisfied with the state of their country, down 8% in just one month. Satisfaction has averaged 43% since 1979. Forty-five percent of Republicans are satisfied and only 12% of Democrats are, and that is with Democrats now controlling Congress. That means Democrats are livid with what the Democrats they elected are doing or not doing. As we said last year except for 5% of Congress throw them all out. We had about 55 incumbents get thrown out last November, but as you can see it wasn't good enough. Perhaps the dumb Americans are finally getting the message.

Over a three year period $1.4 trillion mortgages will go into foreclosure and Ben Bernanke tells us, "the slowdown in the housing market has further to run, but it won't have an impact on the rest of the economy." He must be referring to the Martian economy.

It seems like there is the potential for this to be good or bad. If these new technologies can make candidates more accountable, that's obviously a good thing. But I think what we're more likely to see is candidates being much less likely to go off script and to actually say much to voters, speaking only in carefully crafted sentences that won't really let us get to know that person. Every speech will just be soundbites and rhetoric, and candidates will be afraid to actual reveal anything of value from fear of saying something stupid.

The "Montana" incident was blogged earlier the same day on Kos's site:

MT-Sen: Montana GOP can't find candidate
by kos
Mon May 21, 2007 at 10:34:16 AM PDT

Remember this tirade by the Montana House majority leader?

Well, the leaking of that onto the internet, and its subsequent jump to Montana media, killed Democratic Sen. Max Baucus' strongest potential opponent (after Rep. Denny Rehberg).

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/21/131611/441

I don' think it can be a bad thing. Worse case scenario, candidates don't say something dumb because they are on guard all the time. It will show their ability to control themselves during a very stressful time. I think that is good information to have.

Does anyone have a tape of their candidates in late 2001 on where they stood on invading Afghanistan?

I want my next President to have been someone who was enthusiastic about the Afghanistan incursion; at that point I believe President Bush was decisively correct.

To be for the Afghanistan action now is not enough. S/he must have been for it in late 2001, to give me hope that s/he has the will to lead.

We have so focused on the Iraq blunder[s] that we may have forgotten that a President does have to be willing to use force in the right circumstances.

Does KOS have tapes from 2001? Do you?

When all is said and done, I believe the answer to your question will be a resounding yes, Kos's call for everything to be videotaped is GOOD for the political process. In the same way that a free press is a fundamental pillar to democracy, showing candidates in their true colors will expose the embarassing slips of EVERYONE, and let the most egregious faux pas of the most secretive and phony politicians bubble to the surface. It stands to reason, then, that progressives (read: Democrats) like Markos Moulitsas know that on balance, Republican candidates of the Right-Wing Authoritarian variety (i.e. Bush, Cheney, Nixon, etc) whose entire existence is based on extreme secrecy will be exposed, and therefore suffer far more backlash from the American people than Democrats who get filmed swearing, telling an off-color joke about a blonde, or stumbling around drunk one night after a campaign rally. Let the cameras roll!

More videotaping will help candidates whose sincere personal views reflect those of mainstream America.

It will harm candidates whose sincere personal views are out of touch with those of mainstream America.

So all in all, the more candidates are videotaped, the more likely that extreme candidates will have to stay in their own homogeneous districts where their extreme opinions ARE mainstream.

It would be nice to see a followup on comments from the March 29 Wag the Blog.

I've long felt that we should videotape everything, not just before but after a candidate is elected as well. The job of president is a 24 hour one and every action brings an impact - even the most private as occurred with Clinton and Lewinsky which mushroomed to obsess the political process for years. Similarly, a 24-hour tape of Bush would put to rest all the questions about what input he really had when he made decisions and so on. Unlike the Truman show, it would only be available years later but at least it would be available - as part of the historical record of the country. This would put an end to the endless arguments and expensive (and frequently speculative and inconclusive) investigations about the Executive.

Do I think this would shape the actions of a President? Of course, and for the better. Currently, meetings and decisions can be denied or at least shaped and spun. I would prefer the truth.

Chris, the problem is that all Kos is doing is catching up with the GOP whose use of opposition research in the past campaigns has been a key ingredient in their success. I don't know why the media slept through all of those years when the GOP was routinely using opposition research to discredit candidates. The Swiftboat technique that was used in 2004 and the charge that Max Cleland--a triple amputee war hero--was soft on terrorism are just two of the more prominent examples.

The answer is no, it isn't good for our political system but singling out the activists on the left who have now exceeded the successes of their right wing counterparts is a bit late now. You journalists long ago missed the boat by not speaking out early when the GOP was doing this sort of thing. Its an arms race now and no one wants to be first to lay down their arms.

It's highly disingenuous, although typical, of Cillizzat to imply that this is all Moulitsas's doing. The truth is that videotaping the opposition candidate's every move was a tactic pioneered by Republicans, and is now routinely used by campaigns in both parties. Long before George Allen's "macaca moment" there was the case of Francine Busby -- Democratic candidate to replace disgraced GOP sleazebag Duke Cunningham -- who was crucified in the media for an offhand comment about illegal immigrants, caught on tape by a GOP campaign operrative.

That being the case, Kos was simply reminding the Dems that they can't afford to hold back -- not in the competitive sewer that is our duopolistic "democracy."

Cillizzat should stop reading right-wing morons like Jarvis and at least TRY to think these issues through for himself -- lest he end up in the ethical coma ward, like his colleague Howie Kurtz.

I think the Kos' approach is misguided because it assumes that everything that politicians say is of equal importance. Of course American politics has turned all sorts of 'ordinary' events into political ones but that doesn't mean that every time a politician opens their mouth they are campaigning. How is anyone supposed to develop serious policies if the first time they talk about a subject they are worried that a mistaken sentence could come back to bite them later on.
Kos' plan is the ultimate expression of a culture of political spin where what we expect from politicians is not serious dicussion but doggedly consistent positions. His plan isn't politics, its warfare.
Also, what makes him thinks that this will get one over on the Republican candidates - surely even some Republicans know how to use a video camera...

I think candidates and their staffs will be more or less able to prevent the recording of events they wish to be private; I've read, for example, that cameras are checked at the door of many Clinton events, and only a hired photographer takes any pictures or video.
The good thing about recording and posting whatever is available is that it makes the candidate more accessible to people who are less inclined or able to donate the money necessary to see special appearances. People I think already tend to doubt the sincerity of politicans or trust in their candor, whether they are meeting them in person or watching them on a screen. This development merely lets them hear more of what a candidate is saying; what they make of it is up to them.

The thing is dry fish as much as we like to think that everyone uses the internet and youtube, it just isn't true. Alot of folks go to youtube everyday, but not nearly as many as watch Katie Curic (sp?) on CBS everyday. Taping everything will add a new dimension to the campaign but for a clip to really make a BIG impression then it has to be picked up by the media oligopoly that you mention.

If you want to absolutely define vanilla campaigning and learn nothing at all about where individual candidates are coming from, there is no better way than this idiodic proposal. We have already paved the presidential path with eggshells and have reason to regret it.

I would agree with the 'tape everything' philosophy but I'm less concerned with "mac@c@" (misspelled on purpose because it's a slur and therefore we should be casually repeating it) moments than with toppling the ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/FOX/MSNBC monopoly on televised political coverage. More interesting user generated video is a powerful competitor in the political news content marketplace.

Whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not, this is the wave of the future.

In essence, I'm in favor of it. What the "Macaca" incident revealed was an underlying truth, rather than an aberration. No longer will candidates feel so comfortable using "wink, wink" code words to appeal to voters' more base instincts.

Furthermore, I don't believe that videotaped gaffes, in and of themselves, have the power to destroy a campaign. What these incidents can do, however, is expose the actual individual underneath all the handling and the spinning. And that's a good thing.

What happened in Montana? I tried to find it on Daily Kos (first time I visited that site).

One of the comments on the March 29 Wag the Blog, of which the title was "Is Hope Enough?" was from Judge C. Crater:

"[This post reminds me of] what we saw R's do in 2004: avoid learning ANYTHING about the D candidate so that any R manufactured factoid would stick to them. "Oh, I don't know what Kerry stands for, he's a weakling" is being updated to "Oh, I don't know what Obama stands for, he's a weakling" through carefully maintained ignorance. Ms. Pickler generates this spin and The Fix reproduced it without bothering to look at Obama's website just a few keystrokes away. A retraction seems in order."

I don't have a problem with campaign events being video taped and put all over the web. My problem with it is why just Republicans? If KOS really stands for progressive values you should hold everyone accountable, including the democratic candidates. That is the problem with Moulitas. He isn't interested in raising the discourse of politics in this country he is interested in fighting the republicans.

In my opinion the republicans aren't the enemy. They are our fellow countrymen and we should try and convince them we are correct, not demonize them or their views.

You ask if taping the candidates causes them to be accountable or forces them to hide their real feelings? We've seen little enough of the "real" candidates over the years. My belief is that the "macaca" moment WAS the real candidate which had been carefully hidden from most of the voting public for years. So I vote YES to taping them and catching them in their lies and half-truths.