Bloggers on the Payroll

"I would be really disappointed if option number two were to happen. I would be crushed if option three did. I was thinking of talking to Peter before writing this, but decided it would be better just to write it because I would feel bad even writing option number three down after I talked to him personally.

"But that possibility must be mentioned because it is a critical question that is likely to face a lot of the prominent bloggers soon - how much do you accommodate the establishment without being co-opted by them?

"There will be a struggle. The establishment won't simply lay down their arms and run into the waiting arms of the netroots and ask for forgiveness. It is hard to get people out of a pattern they're used to. On the other hand, there will be a lot of pressure on the bloggers hired by campaigns to serve their new employers faithfully."

R.J. Eskow isn't wild about the idea:

"While I'm happy for Peter -- she's not the anti-Christ, for God's sake! -- I would be insulted at the idea that the substantive differences that I (and many others) have with Hillary can be resolved through some sort of outreach program . This member of the 'online community' is not going to be persuaded by some 'Internet game plan' that her stand on Iraq, and defense issues in general, is anything but a) unprincipled, and b) poor political strategy.

"I sensed a split in the online progressive community some time ago. On one side of the divide are the Democratic Party activists, who tend to emphasize party unity and success above all. Many of them (though by no means all) are actively pursuing careers in the party, including campaign consultancies. On the other side are issues-driven activists who are motivated by core concerns, chief among them opposition to the war in Iraq."

Turning now to the Beltway furor of the week: What if the banking program, the disclosure of which has sparked calls for the tarring and feathering of the New York Times, wasn't such a big secret after all?

This Boston Globe piece has some interesting details (and yes, it's own by the NYT Co. but is not known for carrying corporate water):

"News reports disclosing the Bush administration's use of a special bank surveillance program to track terrorist financing spurred outrage in the White House and on Capitol Hill, but some specialists pointed out that the government itself has publicly discussed its stepped-up efforts to monitor terrorist finances since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks . . .

"A search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how U.S. authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.

" 'There have been public references to SWIFT before,' said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. 'The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before.'

"Victor D. Comras , a former U.S. diplomat who oversaw efforts at the United Nations to improve international measures to combat terror financing, said it was common knowledge that worldwide financial transactions were being closely monitored for links to terrorists."