Jason Rosenberg. He's the DNCC Director of Online Media and the one who set up the blogger credentialing process.
I exchanged e-mails with Jason in December about the credentialing process, specifically about using Technorati as opposed to BuzzLogic. All I got from him were little pats on the head, thanking me for keeping him on his toes:
I appreciate your intellectual sparring. It keeps me on my toes. If a blogger wants to make their case using buzzlogic or buzzsaw or any number of ranking tools they can.
We are looking for bloggers who have a great reach and following. But we are also looking for bloggers who are influential. So we are asking
bloggers who don't have a large following to justify themselves by talking about their influence.
I reminded him that my initial question was why DNCC is using Technorati and not BuzzLogic as a criterion for awarding blogger credentials because that is what the application asked for, not whether a blogger could use alternate rankings
to make their case.
Then Jason got testy:
Since this announcement was made more than six weeks ago, we've heard only positive things about the process. No one has suggested that we use one over the other. We chose Technorati because of its reputation.
If you're looking for someone to contact, Jerome, start with Jason.
He doesn't have any papers from his time in the state senate to "cough up"
Actually there are records, available available via public records requests from various state agencies.
Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun Times, Nov. 10:
At a news conference, I asked Obama, "Do your state Senate papers still exist? If they do, just where are they? And would you ever intend to make them public to be responsive to some requests?
"Nobody has requested specific documents," Obama said.
'I don't have archivists'
However, the Chicago Tribune reported it has asked for documents from Obama's Springfield years and never received a response.
The Chicago Sun-Times has also been asking about Obama's papers. Records from Obama's office -- if he kept them -- would potentially show appointments with lobbyists, policy memos, meetings, etc., items the state would not have.
Sen. Obama finesses his lobbyist ties ( The Hill, Apr. 19, 2007)
Obama liked PAC money before he didn't like it ( The Swamp, Nov. 28, 2007)
Obama's Oil Spill
Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick. ( FactCheck.org, Mar. 31, 2008)
Since January 2005, he has given three times as much to federal candidates (sitting Senators and Representatives and, possibly, challengers) as Sen. Hillary Clinton (HILLPAC). Those incumbent Democrats are super-delegates in August. And how many of those donations are to Democrats who haven't yet endorsed a candidate?
This continued claim that he refuses to take money from PACs and Washington lobbyists is disingenuous. Obama takes money from both lobbyist clients, and from the lawyers who represent them, i.e., who lobby on their behalf. He takes money from corporations that lobby Congress. When Obama talks about not taking lobbyist money, he is insulting the voters' intelligence.
I work for a nonprofit too in Washington, DC. And you probably know just how hard it is to find people to work in nonprofits.
My point is that the Obama campaign is in a position to offer an actual fellowship...
As usual, the Obama campaign is playing with words. "Fellowship" makes the job sound more important than "unpaid internship." And you're right: "fellowship" implies there is some stipend attached to it. After all, graduate "fellowships" are paid.
nolalily is wrong: Obama has no legislative accomplishments.
I don't care how many Republican asses he kissed to get cosponsors for his bills, if the bills haven't been passed and signed into law, they aren't accomplishments because nobody is helped by bills that don't become laws.
But Obamaphiles are too starry eyed to notice that important detail.