Ad Policy

This probably goes without saying, but now that John Edwards is kicking off his presidential campaign with, among other things, an ad on my sidebar I guess I should say that accepting his ad, or anyone else's ad, is not an endorsement.

I would like to encourage further advertisements, however, by emphasizing that I only have a little integrity and paying me money will convince me to post your YouTube video (purely as an informational service to my readers, of course). Thus far, the field isn't really inspiring me to take sides or to feel like I should invest a lot of energy in deciding which side to take. All else being equal, I'd like to avoid the blogosphere being filled with this sort of thing, but I suppose it's inevitable.

Comments

"I guess I should say that accepting his head, or anyone else's ad, is not an endorsement."

I'll bet that's what you told your girlfriend too.

Posted by Drew Miller | December 28, 2006 10:03 AM

Last time it felt like he was running for vice president.

This time it feels like he's running for poverty czar.

I'd prefer if he actually did run for president.

Posted by Linus | December 28, 2006 12:03 PM

I'm leaning towards getting behind Edwards simply to assert the importance of ideology. Please, no more "audacity of hope"!! How much money are you giving poor people?

Barring, of course, Al Gore's entry into the race.

Posted by Marshall | December 28, 2006 12:31 PM

I'd prefer if he actually did run for president.

Ah, but you associate 'running for president' with a particular model of campaigning that Edwards is also running against: one that's tied above all to fundraising and positioning.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 28, 2006 1:11 PM

c'mon, pr meister, what you mean to say is:

"*Officially*, this blog is not endorsing any candidate.
Even in exchange for ad revenues."

Posted by kid bitzer | December 28, 2006 1:40 PM

I was surprised by how ragged Edwards seemed in that clip. Sorry to talk about delivery, but until recently the buzz about Edwards always had to do with how outstanding he was as a communicator. As with the '04 VP debate, I have to say he doesn't strike me as outstanding, just likable and fairly -- note, fairly -- accomplished.

How much attention we should pay to a candidate's communications skills is, of course, another question.

Posted by Kyle | December 28, 2006 2:06 PM

"Ah, but you associate 'running for president' with a particular model of campaigning that Edwards is also running against: one that's tied above all to fundraising and positioning."

That's right. Saint Edwards would never accept cash from corporations or public employee unions or posture on any issue.

I happen to think that poverty (and to an even greater extent the prison state) is an important and neglected social ill, but to the extent that Mr. Edwards has been running for president since November of 2004 it has been a single issue campaign, and poverty will not be the centerpiece of the Democratic nominee for president's primary campaign in 2008.

And Edwards' neglect of national security and foreign policy in the 04 primaries doesn't make me overly-confident that he'll get it the next time around.

What do I think the three most important issues are? Energy independence, a new fair deal for the middle class, and the need to tell the truth to Arab elites: if they don't reform their economies and offer hope and opportunity to their multitudes of restless young men in very short order they will be engulfed by the Iraq wildfire, and may engulf America and the West - reluctantly - in a third world war.

Posted by Linus | December 28, 2006 4:11 PM

"I was surprised by how ragged Edwards seemed in that clip."

Obviously an intentional choice. The campaign could've used any piece of video they wanted. The reasons for that particular choice shouldn't be difficult to figure out.

"Sorry to talk about delivery"

You shouldn't be. Delivery lost us both the '00 and '04 elections. For some reason, Dems seem embarrassed at talking about presentation issues, while Republicans aren't. It's important, important stuff. Folks ought to talk about it.

Posted by Petey | December 28, 2006 6:00 PM

"I'd like to avoid the blogosphere being filled with this sort of thing"

I'm sure linking to that sort of thing is the precise way to keep the blogosphere from being filled with it.

Posted by Petey | December 28, 2006 6:02 PM

I'm sure linking to that sort of thing is the precise way to keep the blogosphere from being filled with it.

Christ, Peter, you're so hard on me. That was a dKos post, a link from me isn't going to mean anything one way or another.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | December 28, 2006 6:43 PM

Well, there's delivery that's offhand and down-to-earth, and then there's delivery that makes you wonder if he can finish the sentence. I wouldn't say Edwards was all the way over to that second pole, but he was closer than I would have liked.

Dems may be embarrassed by talking about presentation issues, but they've always seemed eager to talk about Edwards and presentation, at least until Obama came along. The few times I've seen him, he just hasn't lived up to the hype.

Posted by Kyle | December 28, 2006 6:48 PM

"you're so hard on me. That was a dKos post, a link from me isn't going to mean anything one way or another."

I was mostly being tongue-in-cheek. The irony seemed overwhelming.

And yes, I'm often commenting oppositionally to you, but it's only out of love. And it's only because I assume you won't take it personally.

If I were to just quote things you say that I agree with, and comment, "Yuperooo", we'd both get bored pretty damn quick.

"Christ, Peter"

And Jesus H. Fuckmas, don't call me Peter. (Or Shirley, for that matter.) Petey is not a nickname from some related formal name.

Posted by Petey | December 28, 2006 7:09 PM

I didn't even know you had ads. The amusing thing about ads in the blogosphere is that the kind of readers you want to reach with these ads are the ones most likely to have Firefox and Adblock, thus making them the hardest to reach. The cash would be better spent bribing bloggers, probably.

Posted by guy | December 28, 2006 7:49 PM