In a post entitled "Out for Awhile," The Moderate Voice's Pete Abel grapples with a dilemma that has afflicted several high-profile bloggers, how to walk away from the keyboard:

Shortly after I started blogging in the fall of 2006, I was surprised by the anxiety I felt whenever I faced an extended absence from this voluntary practice. Eighteen months later, I'm still surprised by that emotion. Worse: I can't explain it. There's not a shred of logic behind it. I don't get paid to blog. The world will survive just fine without my voice. So why do I experience this addict's withdrawal?

I have a feature today on the main CQ Politics site about how the Capitol Hill leadership offices are all now employing full-time staffers to conduct blogger/Internet outreach as part of their communications strategy. 

Former Washington Post sports writer Michael Tunison was fired by the paper on Wednesday after disclosing his identity, and publishing pictures of himself intoxicated, on the Kissing Suzy Kolber blog (warning: not family friendly).

Tunison's firing has generated the sympathy of some sports blogs, and an evasive reasoning from Tunison himself who argued:

Upon sacking, I was told that I brought “discredit to the paper” with my choosing to drink at bars in my free time. Any good journo knows to keep the flask in the desk

Of course, "choosing to drink at bars in my free time" has nothing to do with why Tunison was fired. Tunison and his supporters may not like it, but news publications like the WaPo have standards of conduct that are often more stringent than typical employers, especially when it comes to freelancing. This Editor and Publisher piece outlines the WaPo's rules explicitly:

The official Post stylebook includes the following references to freelance work and standards of behavior:

“This newspaper is pledged to avoid conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest, wherever and whenever possible. We have adopted stringent policies on these issues, conscious that they may be more restrictive than is customary in the world of private business. In particular:

•We work for no one except The Washington Post without permission from supervisors. Many outside activities and jobs are incompatible with the proper performance of work on an independent newspaper.

•Our private behavior as well as our professional behavior must not bring discredit to our profession or to The Post."

As a blogger/reporter, several of my friends were surprised that I chose to not defend Tunison's conduct. But this is not a case of his free speech being limited, or being punished for having "fun in his free time." Working for a publication like The Washington Post is an exceptional opportunity, not a constitutional right. Every professional publication I've worked for has had clear guidelines about freelance work and outside blogging.

I've turned down several opportunities to do fun, outside projects because of those guidelines, as I'm sure is the case with countless colleagues. But it's also true that every publication I've worked for has awarded me ample opportunity to engage in freelance activities that provided a creative outlet that did not compete with my primary work duties. The difference between Tunison's experience and the experience of someone like me, is that I always sought prior permission before engaging in said freelance activities. I also never posted posted pictures of myself drunk, or otherwise intoxicated, while simultaneously referring to my current employer as the arbiter of a "dying medium." Whether Tunison was being paid for his outside work is irrelevant. The WaPo was well-within its rights to fire him, even if Tunison or his sports blogging friends think it was an unnecessary move.

The Huffington Post has video of Dick Cheney joking about the presidential campaign from last night's Radio/TV correspondence dinner.

The Nation's Ari Melber has a post today on how bloggers have pushed Cliff Schecter's new anti-John McCain book, "The Real McCain," up the Amazon.com rankings without much help from the traditional media:

Since its launch last week, "The Real McCain" shot to sixth on Amazon's list of political biographies, right between tomes by Jesse Ventura and former Pentagon official Doug Feith. Yet there has been no paid advertising for the book so far, and Schecter has not done any major TV appearances to promote it. Instead, web sales are driven by liberal bloggers, who have promoted the book and talked up the new allegations. Shechter netted over 250 blog mentions last week alone, according to Technorati. And that's no accident.

The rationale sounds an awful lot like the one employed by conservative activists who have made best-selling authors out of people like Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg and many, many others. While their political differences are broad, the commonality is the belief that only through a nurtured relationship with their respective communities can these voices receive the prominence that their fans believe they deserve.

But a presence in the blog world does not guarantee success in the larger publishing world. Markos Moulitsas' "Crashing the Gate," moved a modest amount of books, as did Ana Marie Cox's first novel, "Dog Days." However, both were viewed as having sold less-than-expected, considering the authors' large web presence. Other efforts have largely been ignored by the book buying public, illustrating that simply choosing to write about Internet-related subjects does not mean the author comes with a built-in audience. One standout example of a strong blogging presence equaling large book sales has been Andrew Sullivan's recent "The Conservative Soul." Sullivan's earlier publishing efforts were much smaller affairs despite his longstanding presence in the DC media scene. His fellow Atlantic blogger, Matthew Yglesias, has his own book coming out this month. Yglesias is one of the more well-read bloggers out there today, so it will be interesting to see if that audience translates into paying customers.

Finally, Schecter's anti-McCain book may not be getting much mainstream attention, but Fox News did ask the senator directly about some of Schecter's allegations:

Earlier today it was reported that Washington's most-popular/notorious political gossip blog, Wonkette, has been sold by Gawker Media's Nick Denton. In an email to the Politico, Denton says the sale was made to the site's current editor Ken Layne. From the email:

WONKETTE is being spun off to the managing editor, Ken Layne, former founder of one of the web's very first news sites, Tabloid.net. The title will become part of the Blogads network of political sites, which includes Daily Kos, among others.

Why these three sites? To be blunt: they each had their editorial successes; but someone else will have better luck selling the advertising than we did.

Now that the move is complete, it's not surprising that Denton would take a small dig at his former property. But it's also a fairly accurate financial assessment. While Wonkette has retained a large readership for several years, it's always been the traffic runt of the larger Gawker empire, despite being one of the company's signature properties. For Denton, this was the smartest time to sell. As he noted, traffic is up. But it's also an election year, and who knows if that readership spike will be sustained once the presidential campaign is over? Most likely, it won't.

But the move could also be good for Wonkette as a singular enterprise. Freed from the constraints of Gawker's aversion to taking politics seriously, the site can retain it's foul-mouthed humor, while potentially embracing a more sincerely enthusiastic approach to Washington's political and social scene. As Slate's Troy Patterson wrote last week, political satire is often at its best when playing a watchdog role, rather than simply reducing the subject matter to its lowest common denominator.

Patrick Gavin says it would be a mistake to discount the site's longevity:

Around town, we always hear "Wonkette's not what it used to be" but, to be fair, we've always heard that: We heard that when Ana Marie Cox was there ("not as funny as she used to be"), when Alex Pareene and David Lat took over ("not as funny as Wonkette used to be") and also with the current leadership (again: "not as funny as it used to be") so we're not entirely sold on the "slippery slope" theory since we've pretty much always found it funny.

Click this link for a larger version

Ground Game plays a supporting role in this detailed post from Blog P.I. on the rise of Twitter spam. Long story short, I have a Twitter account that I use occasionally to promote Ground Game posts and other items. I have a small list of friends and colleagues who follow that account. But over the past few weeks, I have received about two dozen unsolicited "followers," all named after presidential candidates, followed by a numerical identifier, i.e. "RudyGiuliani52 is now following you on Twitter." Blog P.I. adds:

You know, if these were simply attached to RSS feeds and genuine aggregators of political news, I wouldn’t mind so much. Yes, the aggressive, untargeted following is certainly annoying. But these accounts do not drive traffic to the sites where the words originated. This also makes the creator’s intent all the more inscrutable; they aren’t saying anything, they aren’t promoting anything, and they aren’t updated by hand. The only thing it’s good for, maybe, is souring users on Twitter.

Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling is introducing a bill called the Blogger Protection Act of 2008, which seeks to put a 2006 FEC decision into law, that allows bloggers to comment on federal candidates and issues without being subjected to campaign finance laws. Online fundraising efforts will still be subject to traditional regulations, but speech would not be regulated.

From the Hensarling release:

As you know, regulations can be changed without congressional action, and there's no telling what a future FEC might decide to do. Furthermore, the FEC is currently defunct because of the vacancies and a lack of quorum. Therefore, we shouldn't put the freedom of bloggers in the regulatory hands of the FEC. Congress should protect them in law. 

While most of our coverage here specifically concerns the intersection of blogging and politics, there is the occasional non-political blogging story that merits attention. In this case, the story of Philadelphia's Jesse McPherson, who recently had his Xbox 360, TV and laptop stolen. Adding insult to injury, after purchasing a new Xbox, McPherson received a threatening message through the Xbox server from the alleged thief demanding a ransom for the safe return of his stolen goods. After the authorities failed to offer the 26-year-old engineer much assistance, he submitted his case to the news aggregator Digg:

Jesse was shocked to find over 7000 users had launched the event to the top digg's main page. After a barrage of threatening messages to the admitted thief's account from random Xbox Live users and dialog with the brave thief's own mother (His mommy got involved? Ultimate bad-ass!), Jesse's Xbox 360 console was returned in working condition (the Powerbook was also returned on a separate occasion).

Howard Kurtz takes a look at BlogTalkRadio, a slowly emerging vehicle for bloggers, or anyone really, who wants to launch their own free talk radio program over the internet:

A year and a half after New Jersey businessman Alan Levy launched the venture, BlogTalkRadio is averaging 2.4 million listeners each month for programs that range from politics to the paranormal, along with sports, finance, food, religion and romance. The Pentagon recently started two shows on the network.

The question is whether this is a flash in the pan that appeals mainly to geeks and those with a need to talk to someone -- anyone -- or whether, like blogs, online radio could explode in popularity.

Soren Dayton, a member of John McCain's online communications political shop, has been suspended for circulating a fiery YouTube video on Barack Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright through his Twitter account.

I reported earlier on Ezra Klein's Twitter mishap.

Dayton, like Klein, is a talented writer and contributor in DC's blogging scene. It's unfortunate to see any young voice in the political debate taking the fall for participating in a medium that is still in the embryonic stages of being understood by political campaigns. Bloggers, writers and independent voices shouldn't have to operate in a climate of fear. Then again, when you work for a political campaign, it's probably always best to play it as safe as possible.

Blog P.I. has more thoughts on Dayton, etc.

Edward Wasserman writes in the Miami Herald about online commenting etiquette. I do think he'd have a bit more credibility writing about the internet if he weren't still using a Hotmail account, but I guess it's not quite as bad as AOL:

In this case, the extreme license given individuals to vent, dissemble, excoriate and indulge their hates verbally, winds up destroying the expressive freedom that other people, less bold and less opinionated, need. Venturing an opinion, even a sound one, just isn't worth the risk. The overall result is a less expansive, less robust sphere of expression -- and sound, worthwhile thoughts aren't shared.

Three more videos for you, courtesy of CQ Poitics' video producer Andrew Satter. Hope you enjoy. Conversation with Ari Melber: Conversation with Chris Bowers: Conversation with Tracy Russo:

Some video highlights from today's blogger panel at the Take Back America conference in Washington. One-on-one interviews with the panelists to come shortly...

Earlier today I was at the annual Take Back America conference, hosted by the Campaign for Americas Future. It's the liberal counterpart to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. Today's agenda included a panel discussion by five leading voices in the online progressive community: Ari Melber, Chris Bowers, Tracy Russo, Digby, Terrance Heath and Pam Spaulding. Highlights after the jump...

The AP's David Bauder looks through the Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual State of the News Media report and relays a few interesting findings: the internet is making journalists work harder, but we don't seem to mind, and this:

Most news Web sites are no longer final destinations. The report found that many users insist that the sites, and even individual pages, offer plenty of options to navigate elsewhere for more information, the project found. Rosenstiel said he's even able to reach Washington Post stories through the New York Times' Web site. In another unexpected finding, citizen-created Web sites and blogs are actually far less welcoming to outside commentary than the so-called mainstream media, the report said

There's a new entry in what has been a long-standing feud between the readers of the conservative website Little Green Footballs and the netroots' standard bearer, Daily Kos.

LGF points to an entry by Kos diarist "professorfate," entitled, "The United States needs to be invaded - not just invaded - occupied," for Americans to give up their alleged colonial aspirations. From the post:

Unfortunately, America is at a point that to be able to really feel again, to regain that compassion, it needs to be invaded and occupied in the same way that we have invaded and occupied Iraq. Then there might be a greater chance that Americans will be more reluctant to accept the invasion of another country. Maybe seeing and feeling the same level of destruction that we have inflicted on Iraq, at least the American public will understand why invading another country is unconscionable except in the most dire circumstances - which means after that country has directly attacked the United States. And that has not happened since World War II.

Yes, it's a ridiculous post based on unsound reasoning. But what LGF failed to note is that he post only has 61 comments as of this posting (not very much for a Kos entry) and the majority of those are critical of the post. In fact, there are currently more than 200 posts at LGF commenting on the Daily Kos diarist's post. With its own mixed history of being on the receiving end of unfounded allegations, you'd think LGF might have shown a little more restraint on this one.

I've already posted today on the bad habits of aspiring bloggers, but now comes news that even those with good blogging habits may find it difficult to secure a large readership. According to a new poll released today:

Only 22 percent of people responding to the poll said they read blogs regularly, meaning several times a month or more, according to the survey conducted by Harris Interactive.

The poll also refutes the notion that bloggers, and their readers, are all unemployed college students. It turns out that most blog readers, like those who vote, tend to be senior citizens:

While blogs are largely considered the realm of young people who are most Internet-savvy, only 19 percent of people ages 18 to 31, and 17 percent of those ages 32 to 43, regularly read a political blog, the poll said.

The generation most likely to read such blogs are those age 63 or older, 26 percent of whom said they do so. Also, 23 percent of those ages 44 to 62 read them, the poll said.

Also of interest - while liberal blogs drive the most traffic, readership is apparently split nearly as closely as the nation's great political divide:

Roughly an even number -- 22 percent of Republicans and 20 percent of Democrats -- regularly read blogs, while 26 percent of independents do the same, the poll showed.

Tonight's homework for yours truly: Right Wing News scribe John Hawkins outlines the habits of not very successful bloggers. The abbreviated version:

1. They're just not very good
2. They don't cover interesting material
3. They're not unique enough
4. They don't network
5. They don't promote their work
6. They're not consistent enough. They take days off.
7. Dong their initial promos too early
8. They don't link out enough
9. They don't post enough each day
10. They don't hang around long enough

The SurveyUSA polling firm's blog has just posted an interesting breakdown of how all 50 states would vote if the presidential election were held today. In both scenarios, John McCain loses a relatively close election. However, when I looked at the 50 state breakdown in a Clinton vs. McCain pairing, a number of very questionable results jumped out.

The Obama vs. McCain states look much more believebale, with Obama taking 280 electoral votes to 258 for McCain.

According to the SurveyUSA polling, Clinton beats McCain with 276 electoral votes to 262 for McCain. But here are the states that jumped out to me as questionable at the very least:

*Arkansas: Clinton carrying the state by 11 points? Sure, it's her "home" state, but what about Huckabee's influence?

*McCain carrying Colorado and Hillary carrying Florida? I would guess the reverse in each case is more likely, as they are in the Obama vs. McCain results.

*McCain narrowly carries Iowa -- this is just too close to call. Neither Clinton nor McCain are particularly popular here, but I'd give her the edge thanks to major issues (Iraq, economy) trending against the GOP.

*McCain carries Missouri and Michigan? Both are certainly possible, but again, far from locks.

*McCain carries Oregon by six points? Please. I'm from Oregon and there's basically no way this happens. Historical precedence, the issues and voter demographics all weigh heavily against this far-fetched scenario.

*McCain carries Virginia by 10 points? With the recent Democratic ascension in the state? Unlikely.

*McCain carries Washington by 2 points? Again, who was being polled here? Every Republican in the state? This state hasn't gone GOP since Reagan's re-election. It would take a historically disastrous Clinton campaign for McCain to even think of carrying the state.

Sat down yesterday morning (on my couch, in true blogger form), for a group podcast discussion with Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard, Michael Brendan Dougherty of the American Conservative and "Inside Washington Weekly" host David White, of the Americas Future Foundation.

We discussed the ongoing Democratic primary race, the New York Times/McCain story and a few other items along the way.

And yes, to crouch blogger vernacular, I "smeared" the great director Jim Jammusch by referring to his 1995 masterpiece "Dead Man" as "Dead Man Walking." In my defense, both films came out the same year and Dead Man Walking is a pretty good description of the film, Dead Man. But as a cinephile who once surprised/disturbed the unflappable Chuck Todd by knowing William Friedkin's birthday, even though I've never seen the Exorcist, I'm a little disappointed in myself...

Via Terry Heaton's PoMo Blog, CNN American Morning producer Chez Pazienza has been fired over objections to content included in his personal blog, Deus Ex Malcontent (warning: foul language abounds):

According to Chez, he was terminated for violating network policy by not running what he was writing through their vetting system. So he was fired not for blogging but for the content of his blog. “It’s not that I’ve been writing,” he wrote in an email. “It’s WHAT I’ve been writing.”

Was Pazienza unjustly fired? I'm guessing not, based on standard corporate policy. Nonetheless, it's a very tough balancing act finding exactly how far into the blogging wilderness a paid professional can venture. I can speak from personal experience, having allowed my creative muse to idle on the eponymous ericpfeiffer.net for more than a year. While it would be wonderful to have an outlet to pontificate on my non-political interests, it doesn't seem worth the risk to my role as a professional writer. Pazienza went a different route, deciding that his principles as a writer outweigh the risk to his day job as a producer with a major cable news network. I applaud him for that courage and conviction, and his personal blog really is a fun read. If CNN was truly savvy, they'd find a way to make Pazienza's creativity and rise in the blogosphere work for them.

Still, based on the initial evidence, it seems CNN was certainly within their rights to view the situation differently. As some are fond of saying, freedom of speech gives you the right to say whatever you like, but it does not protect you from the consequences of said speech.

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint stopped by the Heritage Foundation today for the weekly Conservative Bloggers Briefing, hosted by Heritage’s web guru, Rob Bluey.

“I think for the first time in the past year, we are beginning to see the power of blogs,” DeMint told the crowd, which included visiting activists from more than 30 states.

DeMint said the influence of conservative bloggers has grown to the point where their agenda now shapes the programming decisions of conservative talk radio. In fact, DeMint said his office has even begun circulating some of its press releases directly to the blogosphere, circumventing the mainstream press.

Specifically, DeMint gave conservative bloggers credit for defeating a comprehensive immigration bill earlier this week. “The bloggers took it apart, showed people what was really in it,” he said. “We could not have done it as just a couple of senators.”

Looking forward, he said bloggers will be instrumental in pressuring lawmakers over the Iraq funding debate, “Just help us expose what is really going on here,” he said.