Open Left - WA-08

Sad News Overnight Thread

Chris Bowers — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 07:36:09 GMT

It isn't fun to report on bad news, much less on a weekend night after a big victory. However, there are two sad items to report:

Darcy concedes: Darcy Burner has conceded in Washington's 8th congressional district. Darcy writes over email:
"It is likely at this point that Congressman Reichert has won re-election, and while we will certainly ensure that every valid vote is counted, we accept the decision of the voters.

"I would like to thank the thousands of people who put so much time and effort into the campaign, as well as the countless thousands more who went beyond voting to actively participate in our democratic process this year. The election of Barack Obama as our new President will ensure that the change to the direction of our country called for in this campaign is realized in the new year."

This is a victory for local media hit jobs over people power and smart, young leaders. And it is just really, really frakking sad. Darcy's insight, strength and organizing ability will always hold real meaning to me. And she is just a great person, too. It is very rare that I feel a connection with a congressional candidate.
Fifty-state strategy on hold: The DNC organizers who actually form the core of the 50-state strategy at the DNC are being laid off:
A rumor at this point (or rather, someone unwilling to go on record) but what I'm hearing is that the DNC organizers who implement the 50 state strategy are about to be let go. Apparently they will be laid off at the end of the month, and the new DNC chair will decide whether he or she wants to continue the 50 state policy.

Hopefully, the new DNC chair will decide to keep the fifty-state strategy alive. However, I'm not optimistic:
It is worth noting, however, that the 50 state strategy's biggest opponent, for years has been Rahm Emanuel. Rahm's new job? Chief of Staff. Wonder if Obama's ok with this?

I'll guess we will find out. If the organizers get re-hired after Obama selects the new DNC chair, then he believes in the fifty state strategy. If they don't get re-hired, then the only fifty state strategy Obama believed in was the one for his own campaign. I'm strongly hoping it is the former, but Emanuel really was the strongest opponent of the fifty-state strategy.

I'm sorry to be the bring of bad news tonight. However, the fifty-state strategy and Darcy Burner were two big netroots campaigns over the past four years, and these reports needed to be made.

Bad News in WA-08

Matt Stoller — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:33:49 GMT

Reichert has taken a 5000 vote lead, and is even up in King County, which was supposed to be Darcy's base. There are still votes to count, and we have no idea which votes, so it's possible that there are some very pro-Darcy blocs yet to be tallied. Each batch seems to be getting worse for Burner's totals and better for Reichert.

Damn this one hurts.

WA-08: "Both Sides Should Be Very Nervous"

Matt Stoller — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:57:40 GMT

Darcy is currently down by around 1400 votes, around 1%, with what looks like about a third of the vote counted. It's impossible to tell what's going to happen because the uncounted and counted votes are in clumps with distinct partisan leanings. That is, the counted votes are not representative of what the uncounted votes will look like. David Goldstein has the summary of what's going on.

That said, both camps should be very nervous right now. Later today, and possibly tomorrow, after more early absentees are counted, Darcy will likely regain the lead... and then over the next few days, as the late absentees are added to the tally, that lead will likely slowly ebb away. To what degree either of these predictions hold true, if at all, depends on turnout and the partisan composition of yesterday's electorate, neither of which we know enough about yet from the ballots that have been counted in the district thus far.

There's limited context around the data we have so far, and the elongated vote-counting is very frustrating. But you can read whatever you want into the data, since the poll voters skew for Reichert and they have been counted, and the early absentees skew for Darcy, and some of them have been counted. The big clump of votes in the middle is the question.

WA-08: A 600 Vote Difference

Matt Stoller — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:36:18 GMT

Washington's eighth district vote counting is even slower than usual. Right now, Burner is up by 50.39% to Reichert's 49.61%, a very slender 46,068 to 45,347 lead. This one's too close to call, and won't be resolved until Friday at the earliest.

Washington State Report: Rossi Crushed, Reichert Behind

Matt Stoller — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:17:24 GMT

Dino Rossi just came on TV, losing 51-49, and talked about how his campaign will go on throughout the week. Only, King County, Gregoire's base county, hasn't really come in yet. That means that Rossi has a few days of vote counting before he concedes. The trends were good in that race and these results bear that out.

In Washington's eighth, Darcy Burner is ahead by 5100 votes, but the count has not moved for hours and the counting machines are really slow and three hours behind. The trend at the end was against Darcy Burner in this one, and my guess is she'll wind up behind by the end of the night as the more Republican poll voters are counted. Still, with these initial results she's definitely in a good position to take the seat.

... Pierce absentees are coming in, and Darcy lost 1000 votes. That's a really good result.

And CNN is calling it for Gregoire.

Darcy Up 13 point in King County

Matt Stoller — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:23:28 GMT

King County results site is here. Pierce County results site is here. Pierce is far more Republican and has not reported any results. King is Darcy's base and the early votes are her voters.

Dave Reichert
16396
43.15%
Darcy Burner
21594
56.83%

The next drop of voters should be poll-voters, and will probably eliminate her lead entirely.

Darcy Burner Expectations: We Won't Know Tonight

Matt Stoller — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:36:38 GMT

I think this race is going to be very, very close. Though Obama is running far ahead of McCain in this district, if you've been following this site then you've been aware of the aggressive and effective campaign to delegitimize Darcy as both a creature of the netroots and an untrustworthy liar and pump up Reichert as a 'moderate' good guy. Both concepts are absurd, but they have taken hold in certain parts of the district. Reichert, the NRCC, and centrist activist Emily Heffter of the Seattle Times have been able to plant the seeds of mistrust among voters, and we'll see tonight just how much they are going to reap. What does that mean?

Well, it's going to be tight. Additionally, King County's election processes are unbelievably dysfunctional. The county, which is both Darcy's base and provides the bulk of the vote for the district, will count only around 40% of the ballots by the end of the day. By Friday, only about 70% of the ballots should be counted in King County, with the more conservative Pierce County having tallied up its voting totals much earlier. In both counties, the poll votes will be counted today, but most of the district votes by absentee, and the nature of the voting blocs are different depending on when you vote. Like most Democrats around the country, Darcy will have a lead among early voters, but she will probably lose the poll vote that is the first bit to be counted. So she'll wind up behind tonight, even if she's going to ultimately win the seat.
A a certain thresholds, there will be a hand or machine recount, so this race could go on for weeks. My hope is that Darcy puts it away tonight, but I don't think that's very likely. Here's Darcy herself on Dailykos:

I don't know whether we will know the outcome of my race tonight. The good news is that a huge number of people voted early by mail, and the enthusiasm was on our side. The bad news is that both King and Pierce Counties will be counting votes very, very slowly. We're currently expecting to be behind Congressman Reichert in the poll votes because so many of our voters voted early. And those votes of many of our most enthusiastic supporters won't be counted today; many of them won't be counted until late this week or early next week.
To be specific, we'll know the votes of the roughly 100k voters in my district who vote at the polls today, but only about 40k to 50k of the roughly 250k who voted early. Our best guess is that King and Pierce Counties will count 40k to 50k votes per day in my race, which is, obviously, another five or six days of counting.

So there we go. I know people tend to give lip service to the notion that the work doesn't stop the day after election day. In this case, that's actually very true. If the poll vote is at all close, my guess is Darcy takes the seat. If not, hold on to your hats, there's counting to do.

Donor Match on Better Democrats: Two Final Days

Matt Stoller — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:29:52 GMT

Ok, so the big dollar donor match I announced earlier happened with the first $5k, and that money is being moved to candidates as we speak. Congrats, you guys unlocked a bunch of money to great Democratic women. But there's still some money left on the table, since we haven't yet hit $15k that the donors promised to match. This money will be useful for the campaigns; there are last minute cable and TV buys happening and field programs, so if you can put something in, your donations will be doubled.

You can give here. Nearly every woman on the list is in a tough fight, a close fight, and your bit of cash could possibly tip the scales.

The Moment Moderate Republicans Turn into Losers

Matt Stoller — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:53:09 GMT

Reichert just switched up his ad traffic, substituting this ad for his earlier Harvard Hoax ads. His Harvard Hoax ads were a clear attack on Burner's trustworthiness as a candidate, but this ad, titled 'Denise', is entirely different. It's a female union leader named Denise Spencer saying that she's scared of Darcy Burner and only slightly alluding to the Harvard hoax line of criticism. It is, in short, a change of message three days before the election and after a good number of ballots have come in.

Burner volunteers reported a poll last week by someone asking about various lines of attack on Darcy, and it was clear that someone was doing research on the race. My guess now is that it was the Reichert campaign, and they realized the Harvard ad, though sticky and memorable, didn't persuade anyone to vote for Reichert. There are more clear shifts in strategy. After mocking the Burner campaign for sending out two glossy magazine pieces titled 'Darcy' with long articles on Burner's policy ideas and various endorsements, the Reichert campaign has come out with their own magazine mail piece titled 'Reichert'.

It seems like a laughable shift in strategy. There's one other possibility, which is that a swing block - younger female independents and Democrats - could move to Reichert with the right persuasion message. The other possibility is that Reichert just hit his loser moment.

This is a certain moment I've noticed among 'moderates' being challenged by progressives, when these moderates run out of arguments to make and begin to resort to tin-eared attacks. In 2006, Nancy Johnson went after Chris Murphy for letting terrorists make phone calls, and you sort of realized she had turned into a loser. When Al Wynn went after Donna Edwards for not renewing her law license, or Lieberman ran a weird Lowell Weicker bear ad, or Gordon Smith went harshly negative at Merkley for helping rapists, you realized that they just weren't in tune with the voters. That's how John McCain has run his campaign, and it became clear he was a complete failure when Palin gave her interview to Katie Couric. His 'maverick' choice, his brand, had gotten blown out of the water by intrepid interviewer Katie Couric?!?

This loser moment happens for a number of reasons. It's partially an ego thing, where a lot of these candidates simply cannot and will not believe that someone dares to challenge them, let alone some liberal. It's partially that the concept of a 'moderate Republican' or 'moderate Democrat' doesn't actually make any sense in an age of polarization. And it's partially that no one actually knows how to market moderate conservatives in this new progressive environment, and so the marketing is just bad. Usual charges like 'she's a liberal' don't work; it's been so long since liberals were in charge of anything or had a clear brand that it's no longer even an insult.

There's no value in the conservative brand right now, voters trust Democrats on every single issue with the possible exception of terrorism, and terrorism is just not the dominant voting issue anymore. The anti-crime arguments of the 1980s? Gone. The economy? Gone. Health care? Ha! Taxes? Gone. There's really nothing left except character attacks and a weird anti-partisan message. And so that's what we're seeing.

The Home Stretch, or Politics Is a Team Sport

Darcy Burner — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:21:15 GMT

We're in the very last stretch of a marathon. The finish line is just there, in front of us - we're almost there.

Today, Tonia is making phone calls in my office in Bellevue asking people to vote. Today, Nick is calling donors asking them to help with another contribution - and many of you are. Steve is out going door-to-door getting out the vote. I called one of my donors earlier (between meet-and-greets and canvassing of my own) and the housesitter told me she was in Ohio; I left a message wishing her all my best getting out the vote there.

All over this country, we are working to change it. And I believe we are going to succeed.
The big story this election, the one that will have profound implications for the future of our country, is one of participation.

Barack Obama and his team have run a revolutionary Presidential campaign, with unparalleled numbers of donors and volunteers stepping up to help. It's inspiring to watch. But it's not just at the Presidential level: participation in races like mine and Sam Bennett's and Rick Noriega's and Scott Kleeb's and Eric Massa's and Gary Trauner's has been unbelievable.

That participation fills the promise this country was founded on: government of, by, and for the people. We need no rulers other than ourselves.

So to all of you who have donated to my campaign or somebody else's, who have volunteered, who have read about and written about and talked about the choices we face, who have fought for a better country, I say this:

Thank you.

I'm honored to be working shoulder-to-shoulder with such as you, getting our country back on track. We're almost there.

Yes we can.

And yes we will.

Local Media Continues to Pound Darcy Burner

Matt Stoller — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:56:01 GMT

Local Glenn Beck ripoff Ken Schram insults breast-feeding mother.

In most of the country, the wave is breaking hard against Republicans, but in Seattle, the local media, which I'm more and more convinced is and has always been nothing more than a conservative interest group (as Upton Sinclair wrote as far back as 1919), is trying its best keep Republican Dave Reichert in Congress. The Seattle PI, the 'liberal' newspaper in town, came out with its puff piece about Reichert, Reichert seasoned by 4 years in office. Obviously, the Seattle Times used its position to issue a partisan attack on Burner by exploiting a bureaucratic oddity of Harvard. Both papers are collapsing in readership and local political reporting has been decimated by a wave of buyouts and layoffs, but they are still quite powerful.

Reichert is all over TV calling Burner a liar and a fraud using the money from his illegal loan from Media Plus, and local TV personality Ken Schram, a shock jock style reactionary who reminds me of a less intelligent blue state Glen Beck (Schram's compared breast-feeding in public to public urination and embarrassed women who breast feed, leading to a breast feeding rally), spent a few minutes on local TV awarding Darcy a 'Schrammie' for lying about her degree on KOMO. KOMO is one of the stations happily extending credit to Reichert's media buyer. Schram's segment is here, and boy is it ugly. He followed up with a radio show where he bullied and condescended to Darcy. As a quick example, on the show, Schram often snidely said 'Darcy, Darcy, Darcy,', and then wondered why she didn't get a replacement degree after her house burned down. She points out she is running for Congress, replacing everything she owns, Harvard is a huge bureaucracy, and she got the ex-Dean of Harvard to validate her on video, and Schram just continues to call her evasive.

The local Republican press is just jumping all over it. Here's the Bellevue Reporter:

Democrat Darcy Burner is campaigning like she's running against George W. Bush. But she isn't. Congressman Dave Reichert is an independent-minded moderate with strong environmental credentials. That is why both the Seattle Times and the PI, neither of which likes Bush, have endorsed Reichert.
Another reason to support Reichert is that it's not clear who Burner really intends to represent. Reichert believes he's there to support the people back home, not parties and interest groups. But Burner's major constituency seems to be the national network of "netroots" activists who are both liberal and archly partisan. That might fly in Seattle. It shouldn't fly here.
Then there's the issue of character. Reichert has a reputation for being honest and up-front. But twice now, Burner has been caught inflating her job credentials. Two years ago, her campaign misrepresented her status at Microsoft, where she was just a middle manager. And this year she told several audiences that she had an Economics degree from Harvard. No she doesn't, and when the Seattle Times caught her, Burner's instinctive reaction was to attack Republicans for playing "stupid semantic games." That tone - strident, aggressive, diversionary - is classic Darcy Burner. The numbers in this race are close, but they shouldn't be. Dave Reichert by a mile.

This whole attack by the local media and Republican establishment is so egregious that it's comforting to watch the NRCC's latest criticism, a release of this video in which Darcy calls John McCain a 'warmonger'.

Oh, and Reichert is getting obvious illegal donations at this point, a $4000 donation which busts the $2300 cap. No worries, though, he's a Republican and that's fine.

Republican Dave Reichert Says Hi

Matt Stoller — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:42:35 GMT

I spent the evening doing some phone-banking. Reichert sends his best.

Musgrove in Mississippi looks out of reach, but Martin in Georgia is still within the margin of error. Like Sirota, I'm in a writing malaise. I have nothing to say. It's about a week until the world changes.

Ramping Up Personal Paid Media

Chris Bowers — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:46:02 GMT

With only seven days until the polls close, most campaigns have already made their final media purchases for this cycle. However, even though campaigns are winding down their paid media purchases, there is still plenty of time for you to run a low-cost, easily changed, personalized paid advertising campaign for whatever swing state or whatever congressional campaign you wish.

It is time to ramp up the Personal Paid Media campaign. Between now and the election, I will personally run at least 15 of these, and probably closer to 30. In the last twenty-four hours alone, I started three new Google Ad campaigns, all targeted at key congressional races. Check them out in the extended entry.
Here they are:

Here is my ad on the Georgia Senate campaign, which I started at about 3:00 a.m. eastern last night:

As of 6:00 p.m. eastern today, the ad was viewed by 2,851 Georgians searching for information on Saxby Chambliss online, and 17 clicked through the ad. It has cost me $19.16 so far, though I capped my daily spending on the ad at $20.00. It is running throughout the entire state of Georgia on about 20 keyword searches related to Saxy Chambliss and Imperial Sugar.
Here is my ad on the Oregon Senate campaign, which I started at about 3:45 a.m. last night:

As of 6:00 p.m. eastern, this ad was viewed by 2,601 Oregonians looking for information about Gordon Smith online, and 7 of them clicked through. It isn't performing as well as the Saxy Chambliss ad, but I still like it because it's funny (or, at least, I think it's funny).
So far, it has cost me $8.91. It is running on twenty keyword searches across the entire state of Oregon. The searches are related to Gordson Smith and recipes.
Here is an ad on the Washington 8th congressional campaign, which I started at about 5:45 p.m. eastern, today:

In just one hour, this ad was viewed by 190 people, and clicked through twice. The ad is running on fifteen keyword searches for Google and its search partners in the Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area.

Since September 10th, I have run several, McCain focused ads in this vein in a rotating array of swing states (Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Pennsylvania). All total, my ads have been viewed by 103,111 people using search engines (mainly Google) for information on John McCain or one of these congressional campaigns. A total of 413 people have clicked on the ads, and they have cost me $258.01.

Think about that: over 100,000 voter contacts in key swing states and congressional campaigns for only $258. Given that these ads can be targeted only at people in the swing state or congressional district you are targeting, given that their content can be changed at a moment's notice, given that you can spend whatever amount you like on these ads (high or low), and, most importantly, given that you will only reach people who, at the very moment you reach them, are looking for information on the candidate you are targeting, this is a remarkably good deal.

By far the most common political action Americans engage in online is to search for information about political candidates. Now, as long as you have a Google account and a credit card, you can reach these people with your own personal paid media campaign. It is quick. It is easy. And it can fit any budget.

Here is a quick introduction on how you can get started with this campaign:

Run Your Own Paid Media Campaign (Seriously)

And here is a primer on how to maximize the effectiveness of your campaign:

How To Maximize Your Personal Paid Media Campaign

Now, I personally prefer targeting Republicans with negative messaging, because I don't want to interfere with the positive messages Democrats are trying to get out. Also, I tend to use messages where links to local news organizations and / or non-profits can be incorporated into the ad. As much as I would like to try and reinforce campaign messaging, I don't want to just send the people viewing my ads to Democratic campaign websites. I feel a news organization or non-profit website would be considered more trustworthy by undecided voters.

Of course, these are just my personal preferences, and you can do whatever you want with your ads. This is a great way to make a difference in an election even after all campaigns have finished with their own paid media spots. With some financial assistance form BlogPac, I am going to start running ads for all of the candidates on the Better Democrats page.

So, all of you budding media geniuses out there, let's get to it! I'll report back in every day on how my ads are doing, and also start at least three new ads every day. In the comments, we can compare notes on all of our ads, and work to improve our campaigns. Millions of undecided voters are going to be searching for information on the presidential and congressional elections this weekend. Let's reach them, and make a difference!

Canvassing and Tagging Along: Why Trust in Politicians Matters

Matt Stoller — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:47:07 GMT

Over the past few days, the major event in the ccampaign has been Seattle Times reporter Emily Heffter's hit piece on Darcy about her degree (for more on Heffter's approach to journalism, read this comment). Reichert is up on TV with this ad, and with the illegal contribution from Media Plus, he has substantial rotation on TV behind the allegation. Burner's response from former Harvard Dean Harry Lewis is also up.

I had hoped to talk to voters and find out how the attack was resonating,so I went out canvassing today. Unfortunately, nearly every knock on a door elicited no response. The weather's beautiful so people aren't home, and when someone's not home, you leave some lit squeezed in between their door knob and hope they take a glance at it and remember to vote. This is especially true with transient rental communities, where low probability voters reside. It's not clear how the race is shaping up now, with Darcy narrowly ahead in the polls but this last minute smear up on TV.

In the slideshow above, you'll see pictures from a variety of events, including a local school festival celebrating cultures from around the world (represented by their student body, whose parents immigrated from all over the world), a variety of senior centers, and a sustainability fair at a local community college.
The most revealing conversation was with a retired machinist, an immigrant from Taiwan hanging out at one of the senior centers we visited. His property taxes, he complains, have doubled since 2004, and he's incredibly angry at Governor Gregoire. He's not upset that his taxes have gone up, mind you, just that the tax rate has stayed the same even as the assessment value has increased. Property values are falling, but his property is assessed at a higher and higher value, and he's unable to dispute the state on that matter. He feels cheated, and so he doesn't like politicians.

I've seen this attitude in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and now Washington state. People don't like property taxes because they seem arbitrary and unfair, but they aren't willing to shift to an income tax basis even when they want a different tax system because they don't believe the politicians who keep raising their property taxes will implement a new tax properly. At heart, this is a problem with trust in government, and not that government is using money inefficiently. No one is clearly explaining the situation in a trustworthy and clear manner and discussing the trade-offs involved.

As property values deflate all over the country, getting the Federal government to help move the states away from property taxes should be a key goal, or states and municipalities will simply be unable to govern.

Local Media, Darcy Burner and the War over the Obama Franchise

Matt Stoller — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:26:53 GMT

One part of the story in Washington's eighth district I haven't touched on yet was Darcy's role in a major dispute over local media consolidation between the two papers here - the Seattle Times and the Seattle PI. In 2007, she co-chaired something called the Committee for a Two Newspaper town, which ultimately forced the owners of the Seattle Times to pay out $24M and keep the Seattle PI in business. I'll have more on that fight below, because it segues nicely into the overall conflict between the two wings of the Obama power structure - the center right moderates and the populist left progressives.

Buried in the contours of the massive shift in politics we're seeing with the collapse of the conservative movement is a burgeoning fight between center-right establishment, both locally and nationally, and populist progressives. The McCain campaign is falling apart, and the far right is basically playing for 2012, positioning that race as Palin versus Romney and grooming a new generation of right-wing populist Republicans to come at Democrats in 2010. As Sirota shows, right-wing Villagers are freaking out, while the Chris Matthews of the world are mocking McCain/Palin the way they used to call John Edwards gay. It's a stunning reversal. And it's happening on a local level as well, with newspaper endorsements all over the country - even conservative newspapers - going for Obama.
But as I've noted, these forces are organizing themselves to undercut progressives and are seeking to position Obama as a moderate, like Clinton. In Seattle, I'm seeing this play out as a vicious media hit on Burner, a cooperative set of attacks by local Democratic and Republican political consultants (who both served as sources for this Time magazine piece by Amy Sullivan) and the Seattle Times.

The structure here is similar to what you see in DC and around the country. As reported by Josh Feit in the Stranger, some of the political consultants are bought off by AT&T and co, and even some of the 'liberal' ones work for both sides, as Erica C. Barnett showed in her reporting. Burner, who did not come out of this establishment, defeated a Blue Dog Democrat in the primary, using her support from the netroots to first clear the field (of Rodney Tom, a local developer who chose to drop out and endorse Burner) and then win the primary. This primary candidate, Jim Vaughn, then turned around and endorsed Reichert, realizing that he agrees with Reichert "on all the major issues and the only difference I could find was that I am pro choice and Dave is pro life." Vaughn lavished praise on Reichert and the Blue Dogs and noted he was "tired of going to work each day and getting taxed to death (over 50 different taxes in our state) to pay for someone to sit at home and abuse unemployment, the welfare system and worker's compensation."

The Seattle PI, the more liberal of the two major papers, decided to show its bipartisan credentials and endorse Reichert, as did the Tacoma News-Tribune and the conservative Seattle Times. Even liberal journalists like Eli Sanders of the Stranger in the alternate weekly drove an odd sort of anti-netroots conventional wisdom, choosing to overlook polling data to make an anti-Darcy case. Sanders analogized this latest fiasco over Burner's degree to the 'macaca' moment of George Allen, as if a falsified attack from a Republican is equivalent to a long legacy of racist slurs and actions revealed by a bullying comment towards an Indian-American campaign worker. The NRCC is focusing on this race, one of the few incumbents in the country they are spending money to defend, and they have even set up a phone bank in the basement in DC to make thousands of calls out here.

Burner isn't just opposing the DC establishment in terms of issues like FISA and by putting forward plans like a Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq, she's also fighting through this local set of kingmakers. In 2007, she began a stint as a co-chair of The Committee for a Two-Newspaper Town, a citizens lobby (partially funded by labor) to prevent the Seattle Times from putting its competitor out of business.

In the 1980s, the Seattle Times and the Seattle PI struck a deal to combine non-news operations and split the profits in a special Joint Operating Agreement. The Times publisher, Frank Blethen, wanted to get rid of this agreement in 2003, as it would lead to the end of the Seattle PI and allow the Times to become a local monopoly. There was a four year lawsuit between the Blethen and the owner of the PI (Heart). In addition, a citizens committee emerged to fight Blethen, citing a compelling public interest to gain standing in the case and seeking to keep both papers open. The committee successful intervened in the case and Blethen cited them as a reason to settle with the PI.

The net payout from the Seattle Times to the Heart company as part of the settlement to keep the Joint Operating Agreement going was $24 million. That's $24 million that Burner, as one citizen activist among many, helped cost Blethen and the Seattle Times. As they say, don't make someone mad who buys ink by the barrel. Only, Burner ignored this rule just as she ignored the rule to be silent about a bipartisan consensus to enable illegal wiretapping, and fought successfully for a diverse media in Seattle. Now Blethen is getting his revenge via his reporter Emily Heffter's 'scoop' that Burner falsified her degree (a charge repudiated by Harvard ex-Dean Harry Lewis). This hit piece is part of a series of slanted articles going after Burner for, among other things, her association with the netroots. And the local TV stations are extending credit to Media Plus, Reichert's media buyer, who is lending money to Reichert, to let him push this charge around on TV.

The pushback from the progressive populist space has been fierce. Heffter is thoroughly embarrassed by her shoddy reporting job, the Seattle Times changed its headline (without explanation, of course), and a response from Lewis is online. Dailykos is doing its own polling and has helped raise massive sums to aid in pushback. And the volunteer operation here is stuffed to the gills, which will hopefully solidify the Obama vote behind Burner.

But what's important to understand is that the lies from Reichert are not isolated tactical events, but are laundered and pressed firmly by a whole series of interlocking Democrats, journalists, media business executives, and Republicans threatened by progressive populists like us that look to the public and not the good ole boys for legitimacy. At every step, progressive populists are going to encounter this nexus - the consultants, the journalists, the publishers, the magnates, all couched under the rubric of 'moderate' Republicans and 'conservative' or 'Blue Dog' Democrats.

The only way through this thicket is to have these fights and slash through the branches, one at a time. Backing candidates who rely on us and not the establishment network makes us stronger, and them weaker. It's not that we're giving to Burner or Grayson or Franken or anyone else, it's that we're freeing them from having to kowtow to people like Steny Hoyer, Frank Blethen, Michael Bloomberg, and their servants like reporter Emily Heffter. It's a complicated set of steps we've taken, but it's working. Obama has repudiated lobbyists in his campaign, and has acquired massive amounts of power and influence through his ability to inspire trust in the electorate. Unlike Burner, though, he did this both through the networks of the establishment and the progressive populists; he doesn't need any of us to get elected and never did, and he's shown that through his vote on FISA and his whipping for the bailout.

Obama, though, is not just a guy, he's a franchise, a network of people currying favor and looking for jobs and seeking to impose their own stamp on the world through differing ideas about how to govern. And by fighting through these thickets, by helping people like Burner and Merkley into office, we help give Obama and the people in his orbit a little bit more space to make the choice to be a progressive populist.

House Forecast, October 24th

Chris Bowers — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:00:00 GMT

The new House Forecast is up. The current projection is a net Democratic gain of 23-29 seats, up slightly from Sunday's projection of 22-28 seats. If my numbers are correct, the next Congress will feature a partisan breakdown of anywhere from D 259-176 R to D 265-170 R. Here are the category changes:

FL-08 upgraded to "Lean Dem" from "Toss-up"
FL-18 upgraded to "Lean Rep" from "Likely Rep"
ID-01 upgraded to "Toss-up" from "Lean Rep"
MN-06 upgraded to "Toss-up" from "Lean Rep"
PA-12 downgraded to "Lean Dem" from "uncompetitive"

So, not too many changes. Read the entire forecast here.

I was very tempted to upgrade Darcy's campaign to "Lean Dem," but the various smear campaigns being run against her, together with the NRCC's decision to hang in the district, kept it at a toss-up. I say, we help blow through that barrier, by throwing a few bucks her way. Daily Kos has already raised nearly $100K for Darcy in the last 24 hours-let's join in the fun!

And Reichert Exagerrates His Degree

Matt Stoller — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:30:11 GMT

And so it turns out Reichert lied about his degree. You can help Darcy here.

We'll see where local TV pushes this. Reichert's out with an ad.

... I see the ad uses Emily Heffter as a source. Thanks, Emily!

Harvard ex-Dean Harry Lewis Backs Burner

Matt Stoller — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:18:45 GMT

Harvard computer science professor and ex-Dean Harry Lewis went out in a big way for Darcy Burner, taping this video validating her claims about her degree. That doesn't seem to matter to the remarkably malicious media crew in Seattle, as Manuel Valdes of the AP runs uncritically with Reichert's accusations about Burner's degree, who writes that "Harvard officials say that Burner's degree doesn't "indicate anything for economics."

Apparently, ex-Dean Lewis, the official in charge of the process at the time, is not a Harvard official for the purposes of this storyline. It's important to understand the backstory here, and the cooperation between the Reichert campaign and Emily Heffter, because it's a useful illustration of this noxious ecosystem. Mike Shields, Reichert's campaign manager, emailed me the storyline his campaign is pushing: "This issue is very simple: She lied. It's devastating to her campaign, they know it, so they are trying to cover it up with a distraction." One can't really fault Shields for overtly lying; if journalists let him use lies for political advantage, he will.

What's notable is the cooperation here between GOP operatives and supposedly nonpartisan journalists. Lewis himself explains in a comment on this blog that Seattle Times reporter Emily Heffter (whose work Valdes clearly cribs) was hostile and clearly seeking a certain type of response so she could tell the story Shields fed her.

I was surprised and puzzled by the tone. It seemed a simple matter for me to verify that Darcy had an Ec specialization within her CS concentration, and as I noted above, the Registrar would not have been in a position to do that so I was glad to do it. I didn't expect that it would be the reporter's intention to try to discredit the significance of that fact, but that is how I interpreted her odd question about what that Economics specialization would qualify Darcy to do. For some reason the reporter's questions struck me as hostile, so I simply repeated myself and ended the conversation rather quickly after that. But I did explain what a specialization consisted of in terms of coursework.

Emily Heffter has a stock response she is sending to those of you who email her, a response that is as dishonest and superficial as her original reporting.

Thanks for your note. Even Darcy Burner doesn't claim that she actually has a degree in economics, dual or otherwise. I spent quite a bit of time yesterday talking to officials at Harvard about Burner's degree, and they all agreed she does not have a degree in economics. So for me, it comes down to the claim Darcy Burner made in her debates, which you can see on the video. Did she claim to have a degree in economics? Yes. Does she have one? No.
Reasonable people can disagree about the way we played the story or the way I wrote it, but in the context of the national economic crisis, the way Burner characterizes her expertise in economics matters. That's why I wrote the story.
I hope that's helpful.

Despite Lewis's assertions that Burner has substantial and deep expertise in economics, that she has a specialization in economics in the computer science field, and that multiple Harvard graduates and former faculty members back up Burner's characterization of her education and attempt to correct Heffter's description of a system she clearly does not understand, Heffter chooses to characterize Burner's expertise as fictitious. And her justification for her dishonest reporting is that the "context of the national economic crisis" makes Burner's characterization important. One could as easily point out that this context applies to Heffter as well; getting this right is more important than ever, and getting it wrong cheats the voter.

But more than that, the superficial condescending tone obscures a total lack of substance. Heffter is not actually concerned with whether Burner or Reichert has actual expertise on the economy, for if she were she might have reported that Reichert has said that he is not an "economic expert" and that Burner actually has serious chops in the field. Indeed, by couching her email in soothing establishment friendly tones as 'reasonable people' and 'the way Burner characterizes her expertise in economic matters', Heffter substitutes what is essentially a discredited gossip column peddled by GOP operatives using sources that directly contradict the main thrust of the narrative for an actual examination of the region's economic difficulties and the two candidate's different approaches.

Furthermore, Heffter argues that since people care about the economy, whatever she writes and whether it's accurate is mostly irrelevant as long it has the words 'economy' in it. As Lewis indicates, Heffter had a story she wanted to tell. And certainly, you can expect Reichert's campaign or the NRCC to go on the air with this narrative (if they can actually afford to, considering the heat being put on them for the illegal money they are probably using to run ads).

I've focused my blogging on Heffter, but the rest of the journalists around here aren't exactly covering themselves in glory. Joining the anti-netroots and anti-progressive Manuel Valdes, Emily Heffter, and Amy Sullivan, Eli Sanders of the Stranger blames Heffter and Valdes doing sloppy and inaccurate work on ... Darcy Burner. Quite the wankfest.

WA-08: Emily Hefter's form letter

hekebolos — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:12:17 GMT

For those who have been following the story of the Seattle times hitpiece on Darcy Burner (for full backstory, check out this, this, this and this):

Last night, I wrote Emily Heffter a letter about the full piece, which you can read here. I received the following reply from Emily:

Hi Dante:
Thanks for your note. Even Darcy Burner doesn't claim that she actually has a degree in economics. I spent quite a bit of time yesterday talking to officials at Harvard about Burner's degree, and they all agreed she does not have a degree in economics. So for me, it comes down to the claim Darcy Burner made in her debates, which you can see on the video. Did she claim to have a degree in economics? Yes. Does she have one? No.
Reasonable people can disagree about the way we played the story or the way I wrote it, but in the context of the national economic crisis, the way Burner characterizes her expertise in economics matters. That's why I wrote the story.
As for the headline, we changed it later on yesterday and in today's paper. I think the new one more accurately reflects the content of the story I wrote.
I hope that's helpful.

More below.
I was on the verge of thinking that I had actually gotten a personalized, reply, but then I saw this: the exact same reply to a different letter along the same lines.

Tuns out Emily Heffter has resorted to sending out form letters.

Of course, the reply isn't helpful. It's not helpful because statements like this from the person who actually wrote the degree requirements clearly indicate that Darcy was qualified in characterizations, and that the idea of Burner "lying" about her degree qualifications is only true in a world where the quirky terminology and bureaucracy of one of the nation's oldest universities is more important than the actual facts.

So I sent the following reply back:

Actually, Ms. Heffter, it's a hit job. For your reference, here's a full quote from Harry Lewis, whom you quoted in your story, as published on OpenLeft:
"I'm the professor and ex-dean who was quoted in the story, and as it happens, also the guy who wrote the CS degree requirements. At the time Darcy was at Harvard, she would have needed, as part of her CS degree requirements, several courses in a technical specialization area related to CS. She fulfilled that CS degree requirement by specializing in Economics (which meant, by the way, that she couldn't have taken just the easy, non-mathematical Ec courses). So it's not exactly a minor (which we didn't have then, though we do now), and it's also not anything that the registrar would be able to certify (because it's an internal requirement of the computer science faculty). But it's something everyone getting a degree in CS had to do (though other students would have other specialties). The way Darcy is describing herself is accurate."
http://openleft.com/showCommen...
That' the ex-dean whom you quoted in your story--the same guy who wrote the degree requirements.
So, the bottom line is this, Ms. Heffter: your story is false, and you owe a retraction and an apology.

Let's not let the pressure drop on this one, guys. Full-court press until we get an actual apology and retraction.

And the Backstory of the Seattle Times Massive Punkage

Matt Stoller — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:02:25 GMT

So the Seattle Times political department spent yesterday doing two things. The first part of the day involved smirking about a story 'journalist' Emily Heffter was about to publish making false claims about Burner's Harvard degree. The attitude was probably something along the lines of Boo-ya! This was Heffter's Watergate, she busted that Darcy doin' lots of exagerrating. The editors probably said something like, nice job, Emily, you sure showed that you're no liberal media. Do more of that and you may get a raise, and by that we mean your buyout package might be larger when we lay you off.

The second part involved walking that story back out of sheer embarrassment, changing the headline, and acting defensively towards the various academic, ex-students and ex-faculty who pointed out how obviously this journalist and the Seattle Times editors had been punked by Reichert. And indeed, we found out today that's what happened, from Melissa Santos of the Tacoma News Tribune (a somewhat conservative paper) in a post titled 'Reichert camp "shocked" about Burner education claim ... or are they?'
Reichert spokeswoman Amanda Halligan, who posted on this blog (hi Amanda), was revealed as an obvious liar.

Halligan said the campaign has been stretching the truth about Burner's degree to say the ex-Microsoft manager is more qualified than Reichert to deal with the economic problems plaguing America. Voters should now know that's not the case, Halligan said.
She added that the Reichert campaign was "completely shocked" by the revelation in today's Seattle Times.
But Reichert questioned the legitimacy of Burner's claims in a phone interview with me Oct. 10, more than two weeks ago.
He was criticizing Burner for proposing her own plans to fix the economy and withdraw from Iraq, areas he said are outside her realm of expertise.
"She's not only a computer science major from Harvard, she's now an economics major," Reichert said. "And she's also a general."

So Reichert himself was pushing the story two weeks ago to various journalists, Heffter meekly served her role as stenographer, and then Reichert's campaign professed to have learned of it today. Ok then. No one could have predicted that uncritically reporting Republican opposition research on an obviously falsifiable hit job would backfire.

Meanwhile, ex-Dean Harry Lewis points out that Darcy didn't just study economics, she studied non-wussy economics.

I'm the professor and ex-dean who was quoted in the story, and as it happens, also the guy who wrote the CS degree requirements. At the time Darcy was at Harvard, she would have needed, as part of her CS degree requirements, several courses in a technical specialization area related to CS. She fulfilled that CS degree requirement by specializing in Economics (which meant, by the way, that she couldn't have taken just the easy, non-mathematical Ec courses). So it's not exactly a minor (which we didn't have then, though we do now), and it's also not anything that the registrar would be able to certify (because it's an internal requirement of the computer science faculty). But it's something everyone getting a degree in CS had to do (though other students would have other specialties). The way Darcy is describing herself is accurate.

And Matt Yglesias, who went to Harvard as well, chimed in.

Harvard, as you know, is old and fancy. Consequently, it has a lot of old and fancy terminology and procedures that differ somewhat from the American norm. They don't, for example, have "teaching assistants" (TAs) instead they have "teaching fellows" (TFs). You don't live in a "dorm" you live in a "house." Instead of "RAs" there are "proctors" and "tutors." And instead of "majors" there are "concentrations." If I want to communicate some fact about my college experience in a normal way, however, I'll say that "when I was in college I majored in philosophy, Walid Hussein TAed two of my classes, and my dorm was near Noch's." By the same token, there are no minors at Harvard. What Burner did is the Harvard equivalent of doing a joint degree in computer science and economics, though it's not technically called that and the process (which would involve taking an adequate number of economics courses and then writing a thesis that bridges both subjects) is probably somewhat different from what you might find elsewhere. That she chose not to give a tediously detailed description of the academic procedures of her undergraduate institution is just common sense.

Emily Heffter, I tried to warn you.