RELATED: Charles Krauthammer Gushes Over Tim Tebow: ‘I Love This Guy! I Love This Story!’

The item from Mike Allen’s Playbook, via Politico:

TIM TEBOW, ON POSSIBLE FUTURE IN POLITICS (to golf commentator Dave Feherty on a “Feherty Live” special from the Super Bowl, airing on the Golf Channel at 10 p.m. tonight): “I don’t know — it could be something in my future. If it’s something I care about, possibly.”

Tebow is only/already 24, so he technically has to wait a year to run for Congress. He has said in many interviews that football is only a conduit to helping people, so this makes perfect sense. And he’s already more popular than many other presidential candidates today.

The full interview airs on the Golf Channel (which is apparently covering football this weekend) tonight at 10 PM.

The chatter commenced anew thanks to NewsMax‘s recent article claiming Gov. Christie would decide “in days” whether he was running for President after a “hush-hush powwow” between top Republican donors and the New Jersey governor. The context of the piece is even more bizarre than the rumors that the governor is thinking about it. It is apparently Indiana governor Mitch Daniels– the great Republican hope that never was– who is pushing for Christie to jump in. Christie has both publicly noted he finds the current GOP field unsatisfactory and that he really, really has no interest in running for president, can everyone just leave him alone now?

No, apparently; they can’t. The whispers culminated in this breathless report leading this morning’s Politico Playbook:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s debate stumble provided an opening for Ken Langone, co-founder of The Home Depot, to renew his effort to use donor pressure to lure New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie into the GOP race. Langone has been making calls to potential donors and bundlers, urging them to hold back on jumping to Perry or Mitt Romney, arguing that Christie might run. Christie is still reluctant, although the donor persistence is something the party hasn’t seen in 30 years. A person familiar with Christie’s mind phoned Playbook after Maggie Haberman and others disclosed the new frenzy:

“There are three reasons [Christie probably won't take the bait.] One is: He genuinely believes that he’s not prepared on an issue and substance basis to address all of the things you have to address as a candidate, and he’s leery of learning on the fly. Two, the performance of Perry shows the dangers of late entry: It’s right in front of him. And while others use that as a reason for him to GET in, for him, it’s the opposite – it’s the reason that validates his decision NOT to get in this late. And the third is that … you sit and look at the map … and the path for Chris Christie [to get more delegates than Romney] is difficult to chart … If he gets in, the first thing he has to do is beat Perry and establish himself as the REAL anti-Romney. And the path to doing that is difficult: Perry’s not going to just drop out.”

For most of the election cycle, the Christie rumors had been treated as something of a childish obsession in the party arising out of the desperation of not having sufficiently “electable” (whatever that means) candidates in the top tier– akin to the bizarre floating around of names like Rep. Paul Ryan and former New York governor George Pataki during the time Perry was still considering a run. As Jon Stewart put it then in a moment of “even broken clocks are right twice a day” brilliance, the candidates were like trendy toys an increasingly impatient mother bought her children, with none meeting the demands of the child (“Before I get you anything, where is your Ron Paul?!” Stewart’s “mother” demanded to a child begging for a “Perry”).

But the Christie phenomenon is something different inasmuch as it has proven not to be ephemeral. For every other “candidate” being tossed into the fray without consent, a short “no, I’m not interested” has been enough to dissuade the mysterious donors that start up these rumors in the first place. It worked for Rep. Ryan and Pataki, and people mostly stopped talking about Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump after they declared the Republican nomination wasn’t for them (though, to be fair, media exhaustion had just as much to do with the latter). Gov. Christie, on the other hand, has to deny the rumors about once a week, finally giving up with the realization that the only possible way to the buzz around his “campaign” would be to kill himself. This may be evidence that he would be a much more formidable candidate in the election, but by promulgating– both publicly and in surreptitious “donor” meetings– the idea that not even the Republican base would vote for the 2012 nominee if he isn’t Chris Christie, the party does itself a disservice. Independents respond to passion more than anything from parties they perceive as jaded, and no one in the past two decades has channeled that passion more efficiently than Barack Obama. As Donald Rumsfeld famously proclaimed, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want to have, and Republicans need to let go of the idea that loudly griping that their army isn’t good enough is no way to win a political war.

So, no, Christie is probably not even going to bother swatting these rumors down; he’s too busy saving the hospital that birthed yours truly and moonlighting as a campaign strategist to this sixth grader– the job New Jersey taxpayers pay him to do, and the job that he needs to excel in to give these rumors any weight in the first place. And while some candidates with flimsy resumes– yes, we’re looking at you, Herman Cain– think they can waltz into the presidency unprepared while others with actual political experience, but maybe less charisma, get shunned, should these almost certainly false rumors be just that, Christie will only wisely emerge as a more formidable candidate in 2016 or 2020, and for Republicans, it should be well worth the wait.

While no formal announcement has yet been made, Politico’s Mike Allen reported earlier this morning that an announcement was imminent, citing an anonymous source “This is just about done. Staff is being deferential to Pete, but he is totally on board with this plan and is looking forward to getting his old office back.”

Who is Bill Daley? He has recently been the Midwest chairman of JPMorgan Chase and current Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s brother. Nick Wing at Huffington Post claims that there has been some questions on the progressive side of the political spectrum on Mr. Daley, writing that Daley “raised some eyebrows this week when prior comments were uncovered suggesting he was an opponent of two landmark Obama administration initiatives — health care reform and consumer protection.”

Not only does Mr. Daley have deep roots in Obama’s home city of Chicago, but he’s thought to have a very strong pro-business point of view, evidenced by his previous role as Commerce Secretary under President Clinton.

Watch the announcement from Fox News below:

Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin report:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele plans to announce his reelection plans on Monday evening, and key supporters expect him to drop out of the hotly contested race, top Republicans tell POLITICO.

A new chairman will be elected next month, during the committee’s winter meeting.

Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor, has built no known reelection team or structure, making a campaign unlikely in the face of competition that grows fiercer by the day. But allies said Steele has not revealed his plans, and the chairman has been nothing if not unpredictable.

Republicans reaped heavy publicity in January 2009 when they chose Steele as the party’s first African-American chairman, but he has proven to be a poor fund-raiser and gaffe-prone messenger.

Challengers for his job include Wisconsin Republican Chair Reince Priebus; Ann Wagner of Missouri, a former co-chair of the RNC; Maria Cino, a longtime Republican official who is backed by former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie and former Vice President Dick Cheney; Saul Anuzis, former Michigan Republican chairman; and Gentry Collins, who was RNC political director until last month.

Read the full story here.

Network sources tell Playbook that Keith Olbermann was suspended because he refused to deliver an on-camera mea culpa, which would have allowed him to continue anchoring “Countdown.” Olbermann told his bosses he didn’t know he was barred from making campaign contributions, although he is resisting saying that publicly. Olbermann may not hold as many cards as he thinks. He makes $7 million a year and MSNBC’s prime time is not as dependent on him as it was before the addition of Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell, who make considerably less.

MSNBC’s ratings certainly back up the last line about Olbermann not holding as many cards as he thinks, something Steve Krakauer pointed out on Friday: “Rachel Maddow is getting better ratings than Olbermann in the key A25-54 demographic, and Lawrence O’Donnell isn’t far behind. Olbermann is no longer the center of the strategy either – as the network has unveiled a vibrant, massive new campaign “Lean Forward” which focuses on half a dozen members of the MSNBC talent pool.”

As for whether a public apology would solved all of Olbermann’s problems at the network? History suggests otherwise. Back in 2008 David Shuster apologized on air for his “pimped out” remarks and still faced a two week suspension. So perhaps the likelier scenario is that Olbermann was offered a reduced suspension for an on air apology and turned it down. That said, Olbermann is no David Shuster and his absence on the network, despite any inner strife at MSNBC is huge.

On a lighter note, and while cable fans wait to see where Keith lands, enjoy some of Olbermann’s, er, greatest hits courtesy of 23/6.

Interviews with advisers to the main 2012 presidential contenders and with other veteran Republican operatives make clear they see themselves on a common, if uncoordinated, mission of halting the momentum and credibility Palin gained with conservative activists by plunging so aggressively into this year’s midterm campaigns. (See: Sarah Palin wreaking havoc on campaign trail)

There is rising expectation among GOP elites that Palin will probably run for president in 2012 and could win the Republican nomination, a prospect many of them regard as a disaster in waiting.

Many of these establishment figures argue in not-for-attribution comments that Palin’s nomination would ensure President Barack Obama’s reelection, as the deficiencies that marked her 2008 debut as a vice presidential nominee.

Mike Allen notes in Playbook this morning that he and Jim VandeHei “discussed the piece for several days with a top aide to Palin, who e-mailed yesterday: “After reflection, I don’t want to talk about this before the Tuesday election.”

Politico has seemingly had the long knives out for Palin of late. Two weeks ago they published a long-ish piece on why Palin was making the GOP nervous because she was disorganized. Perhaps they can start a news series for 2011 called the GOP establishment comes to terms with its Frankenstein.

Meanwhile, Palin, herself, weighed in on the Politico piece and its anonymous sourcing on Greta Van Susteren last night.

Palin: These are the brave people who want to lead the nation and run the world. And but they’re not brave enough to put their name in an article.

Greta: You’d think in this article there’d be one named source. These are two veteran journalists but they take you apart limb, by limb, by limb. With nothing but descriptions of anonymous sources.

Palin: That’s why I don’t talk to some of these reporters who are a part of this yellow journalism world of not using name sources. I think it’s very unprofessional…I learned back in the day that who, what, when, where, why of journalism. You report that facts; you let other people decide what their opinion is going to be. So having unnamed sources in an article like this is very, very, disappointing, you know. And it doesn’t do anybody any good. It doesn’t educate anybody. [Greta: Horrifying!]

As we all know, Sarah Palin is a stickler for the facts. Meanwhile, Palin also notes that she finds it surprising that Politico claims “I haven’t faced criticism. Holy geez: Where have they been the last couple of years?” Presumably what they mean is that she hasn’t actually faced the press outside her Facebook page and cushy Fox News gig. Something she’d eventually have to do if she ran for president, which she is probably not going to do. Watch below.

Although the story reads as if Ambinder had been cultivating Mehlman for years, it’s also evident that Mehlman timed his coming-out story to coincide with his sponsorship of a $5,000 a person fundraiser for American Foundation for Equal Rights, the folks behind the challenge to the anti-gay marriage law in California.

Mehlman, a master at controlling the story and staying on message, didn’t just blurt out his story to Ambinder in an un-planned fashion.  It now appears that a number of people knew about the story even before Mike Rogers went public with the rumor of the coming-out expose that Ambinder was planning. Like all “coming out” stories involving well-known people, it was well-orchestrated by people surrounding Mehlman although there is no evidence he was shopping the coming-out story around to anyone besides Ambinder.

Politico, The Advocate and Huffington Post soon had interviews with Mehlman and admit they knew about the story for at least a couple of days. Here’s what Advocate reporter Kerry Eleveld said in her piece, that went up on Advocate.com Thursday morning.

Mehlman had first discussed his coming out story with Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic, but he had reached out to The Advocate in advance of its publication and made a point of offering his second interview on the matter to an LGBT news outlet.

But if The Advocate got the second interview, they weren’t the first to go live with a follow-up story and interview.  Instead, HuffPost’s Amenda Terkel had an interview up a few hours after the Ambinder story went live based on an interview she did that evening.  Her story was followed quickly by a story by Mike Allen at Politico, who also talked to Mehlman after the Ambinder story went live.

Nico Pitney, national editor at HuffPost, told Mediaite that media outlets learned about the Mehlman announcement “a few days earlier” but that there was never a doubt that Ambinder would break the story.

Rogers, who has been working at outing Mehlman for years, is taking credit for pushing The Atlantic to go at least two days earlier than they wanted with the story. He suggests that Ambinder wanted to dump the story out on a Friday to make follow-up harder and, according to Rogers, so “apologists like Dustin Lance Black and Chad Griffin time to support Ken publicly.”

But Ambinder denies that he was waiting until Friday with the story.  Linda Douglass, The Atlantic’s head of public relations, told Mediaite that the story went live on Wednesday because that’s when the story was done. And in a chat today, Ambinder also dismissed Rogers’ version of the timing.

Very curious how quickly people become interested in the meta-representation of reality (the mechanics behind the story) than the story itself. The story was published when it was published. I talked to Ken late last week and early this week, and wrote the story, had it edited, and then pushed it out.

In 2006, Ambinder wrote about the challenges that Mark Foley scandal created for gay Republicans, including the lavender mafia that surrounded Foley and reached into the Republican establishment. A well-connected openly gay reporter, Ambinder would have the connections inside the web of gay Republicans to convince Mehlman to give him an exclusive.

Ambinder insists that he didn’t know that Mehlman was gay until he admitted it last week, although they had discussed gay-related political issues for many years. In his chat, he said “I haven’t found a single person who says that Ken outed himself to them earlier.” As to the worst keep secret in D.C., Ambinder said  “If I outed everyone I suspected was gay, I’d be a bad person, firstly, and very very busy, secondly.”

In an interview today with the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz, Ambinder said if he’d known that Mehlman was gay he would have outed him.

“I would have reported it because he was in power at a time when the Republican Party was whipping up anti-gay sentiment to get votes,” Ambinder told Kurtz. “I’m very squeamish about outing anyone. That squeamishness certainly would have gone into the equation. But there would have been a clear and compelling reason. Even though outing would have encroached on his personal dignity, which would have made me uncomfortable, it would have been the right thing to do to hold someone in power accountable.”

Apart from underlining how few actual political candidates the GOP has in its line up, this appears to be an admission that Obama see his main opponent to be the (admittedly very powerful) conservative media. Of course, in the real world this is exactly who Obama is battling, but it’s strange to see it formalized in a book title, not to mention a questionable strategy. As I recall, the last time the Obama administration declared war on the conservative media it did not work out so well for them, in so far as the end result was them running from the specter of Glenn Beck straight into the Shirley Sherrod debacle. It should probably be noted that in the new forward Plouffe says “I can tell you that the president is not concerned with his reelection. He is focused on leading the country forward. We have no reelection campaign in the wings.” Something I we can all agree is less than 100% believable.

Of course, perhaps Plouffe just wants to sell some books. Something that Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin have all proven overly adept at.

Congrats to White House Correspondents’ Board on its hard work: AP moves to Helen’s center seat, Fox to AP’s front-row seat, NPR to 2nd row.

It’s an interesting shuffle and no doubt some speculation will go into why Fox, who pushed hard for Thomas’s seat, was not in the end totally successful. That said, they have been moved up to the front row (a scenario Tommy Christopher predicted back in June). Says the Upshot’s Michael Calderone: “The idea of moving the AP — which normally gets the first question at presidential press conferences — was under discussion in recent years, long before Thomas retired.”

Bloomberg, who also pushed hard to be considered, remains in the second row, and NPR, who made a late move for the spot, has been bumped up from the third row to Fox New’s current spot. Other shuffles via Calderone include:

The Financial Times will now get a regular seat, while U.S News & World Report—a news organization that has been scaled back in recent years—lost its seat. The foreign press pool also now gets a permanent seat.

Also, Politico and American Urban Radio Networks moved up to the third row. The Washing Times, which has cut back significantly in the past year, moves from the third to fourth row.

Update: Fox is apparently pleased with the decision. From Bill Sammon, Vice President of News and Washington Managing Editor, FOX News: “We are pleased with the decision of the White House Correspondents’ Association and look forward to working with our colleagues in the front row and the rest of the James S. Brady briefing room.”‬‪

Update again: Major Garrett twitters: Those of us who will sit in the front owe a debt to Jim Angle, Carl Cameron, Bret Baier and network that supported them.

The focus of the investigation will be two-fold. One is finding out whether the company was criminally negligent and did not take the necessary precautions to protect the environment. Second, did they make false statements to regulators, something CBS reports, some senators already have accused BP of doing to to win approval for the rig. The latter will likely receive increased attention from both the media and the White House, in so far as if Justice can prove false statements were made it will give backing to the administration’s claim they were mislead early on by BP.

Meanwhile, Politico points out that BP is “under no obligation to keep quiet.” Meaning we could see dueling press conferences in the next few weeks as both sides struggle to ‘win’ the narrative. One suspects that as much of a bruising as President Obama is taking over this the country is still likely to side with him over BP. And last night George Stephanopoulos reported that despite AG Holder’s refusal to name names, as it were, “it’s pretty clear they have BP in their sites.” Watch below.

Blumenthal, the current Attorney General of Connecticut is, or was, considered the favorite in the upcoming election to replace Chris Dodd when he retires later this year, and has on numerous public occasions spoke about his experiences in Vietnam. This from the NYT:

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.

The deferments allowed Mr. Blumenthal to complete his studies at Harvard; pursue a graduate fellowship in England; serve as a special assistant to The Washington Post’s publisher, Katharine Graham; and ultimately take a job in the Nixon White House.

In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, he landed a coveted spot in the Marine Reserve, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam. He joined a unit in Washington that conducted drills and other exercises and focused on local projects, like fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive.

Also, he was never captain of his Harvard swim team. Oy. Suffice to say, this raises a whole slew of uncomfortable questions. The first being, why is this only coming out now? (Actually, the first is probably ‘what the hell was he thinking?’) Blumenthal has been fairly prominent figure in Conn. political circles for years…did no one think to verify this sooner? Apparently not. Another being, in the age of the Internet did Blumenthal really think he could make it through to election with this storyline intact? There’s only so much “I may have misspoke, I don’t recall” you can get away with before a Lexis-Nexis search does you in.

Of course, it may not have been the Internet or the New York Times that did Blumenthal in. This morning Mike Allen speculated that Linda McMahon, the former World Wrestling executive seeking the Republican nomination, may have had a hand in it.

Who handed Ray the knife? Reporters had their suspicions when Linda McMahon, the former World Wrestling executive seeking the Republican nomination, sent a ‘**BREAKING NEWS** alert with the full text of the story 31 minutes after The Times’ own 8:51 p.m. ‘Breaking News Alert.’ In case we missed it?

Politician lies about Vietnam War service and gets done in by former World Wrestling exec…this is definitely a storyline you could not make up. Blumenthal will be giving a presser later this morning. One suspects he might have suddenly come to the conclusion overnight that he needs to spend more time with his family, however thus far Blumenthal is condemning the NYT story calling it an “outrageous distortion” and asserting that he will stay in the race.

Update: Times stays mum on whether Blumenthal scoop relied on campaign oppo research [Yahoo]

But is even a master aggregator a Washington power broker? (Allen breaks some stories too, but that’s not the reason he became a cover boy.) Or is he a symbol of the clout of Politico, whose fast-paced metabolism has upended the established journalistic order headed by, yes, the New York Times?

There’s another possibility: that the story was written from deep within the Beltway bubble, by and for Washington insiders. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But it means Allen’s influence may be contained to a limited sphere, like the ruler of a tiny island kingdom.

And then in an effort to make his point Kurtz pulls three rather long blog excerpts from other Washington insiders whose conclusion dovetails with his (Marc Ambinder, Ian Shapira, Jeffrey Goldberg), namely that longform, investigative journalism is still way more important than some cobbled together daily newsletter. Yes it is. Same as the New Yorker is obviously far more important than People…but which are you more likely to pick up and scan in the waiting room?

Kevin Drum of  Mother Jones typified the reaction, saying Allen’s Playbook represents the “groupthink” that already permeates Washington’s cool-kids set, adding “[f]or years I’ve avoided reading Playbook (and The Note and First Read) solely because everyone else does read them.”

Allen, who has successfully avoided ideological labels, was  largely hit by left-leaning journalists and pundits who view his success as evidence of too much ambition and desire for celebrity.  Sarah Posner, who is a contributor at the American Prospect and an editor for Religion Dispatches, tweeted:  “If Times felt need to profile how journalist works, I would’ve been interested in different people — ones who wouldn’t've wanted a profile.”

But the criticism wasn’t just on the left.  Mark Hemingway at the conservative Washington Examiner noted Leibovich’s lengthy disclosure that Leibovich and Allen go way back, titling his critique “Great moments in media sycophancy.”

While some questioned how many would actually read the whole thing, Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post did the heavy lifting, surmising “the fecund womb of the New York Times magazine has birthed into the world Mark Leibovich’s seventy-kabillion word essay on Politico’s Mike Allen, which I think is titled “I Was Told There’d Be Cheap Media Narratives” or something.”

And where would Politico be if it wasn’t providing some meta-commentary on the story about Politico. Patrick Gavin gushes that the profile is “interesting,” “well-written” and “honest.” He later noted a classic reaction from an unnamed Washington Post rival, “WaPo loses the morning? Big buzz on a profile (in an old Post rival) by a former Post star about another former Post star, who now stars for a new Post rival, started by former Posties.” His colleague Ben Smith calls Allen’s Playbook “an unusual phenomenon” because “it’s so collegial, warm, and small-towny in a city whose inhabitants are, in reality, trying to destroy one another.”

One of the best reactions came from Christopher Weaver, of the Kaiser Health Reports, who tweeted: “How many scoops weren’t revealed today b/c reporters were busy reading the new Mike Allen profile?”

FIRST LOOK — “BLACKBERRY BREAKFAST” — N.Y. Times national political reporter Mark Leibovich’s 8,100-word cover story of Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, “THE MAN THE WHITE HOUSE WAKES UP TO: Mike Allen and the Politico-ization of Washington … The Insider’s Insider”: “Playbook has become the principal early-morning document for an elite set of political and news-media thrivers and strivers. … [M]any in Washington … [describe] Allen with some variation on ‘the most powerful’ or ‘important’ journalist in the capital. … Allen’s ‘data points’ … have become the cheat sheet of record for a time-starved city in which the power-and-information hierarchy has been upended. … ‘He is part mascot and part sleepless narrator of our town,’ Tracy Sefl … told me by e-mail. … ‘Washington narratives and impressions are no longer shaped by the grand pronouncements of big news organizations,’ said Allen … ‘The smartest people in politics give us the kindling, and we light the fire.’ … … Playbook has become the political-media equivalent of those food pills that futurists envision will replace meals. … [T]he Playbook community … includes a former president, two former vice presidents, C.E.O.’s and network anchors … If … Axelrod can’t read the papers before rushing off to the White House, he will scroll through Playbook during his six-block ride to work … [Leibo:] I read Playbook every morning on my BlackBerry, usually while my copies of The New York Times and The Washington Post are in plastic bags. … [John] Harris readily acknowledges that Politico is ‘not for everybody,’ and [Jim] VandeHei said they have begun focusing their recruiting on New York, because ‘the city produces reporters who are fearless, fast and ruthlessly competitive.’”

[h/t Patrick Gavin]

The story, by Mark Leibovitch, just went live on the Internet and one suspects the less flattering aspects of it may not have made it to Playbook this am [update: nope, nothing terrible]. Allen, who does wield enormous power in Washington, has drawn fire in the past for sometimes being little more than a mouthpiece to pols (and/or Dick Cheney) who want to get their arguments out there without having to answer any questions. Will update once I have read.

UPDATE: From the piece:

• [Politico] wants to “win” every news cycle by being first with a morsel of information, whether or not the morsel proves relevant, or even correct, in the long run — and whether the long run proves to be measured in days, hours or minutes. [Yes.]
• Allen — who is childless and owns no cars or real estate — perpetually picks up meal and beverage tabs for his friend-sources (the dominant hybrid around Mikey). He kisses women’s hands and thanks you so much for coming, even though the party is never at his home, which not even his closest friends have seen. It is as if Mikey is the host of one big party, and by showing up anywhere in Washington, you have served the Playbook community and are deserving of the impresario’s thanks (or “Hat Tip” in Playbookese).
• Money quote (why this profile was written): “As a practical matter, here is how Allen’s 10 stories influence the influentials. Cable bookers, reporters and editors read Playbook obsessively, and it’s easy to pinpoint exactly how an item can spark copycat coverage that can drive a story. Items become segment pieces on “Morning Joe,” the MSNBC program, where there are 10 Politico Playbook segments each week, more than half of them featuring Allen. This incites other cable hits, many featuring Politico reporters, who collectively appear on television about 125 times a week. There are subsequent links to Politico stories on The Drudge Report, The Huffington Post and other Web aggregators that newspaper assigning editors and network news producers check regularly. “Washington narratives and impressions are no longer shaped by the grand pronouncements of big news organizations,” said Allen, a former reporter for three of them — The Washington Post, The New York Times and Time magazine. “The smartest people in politics give us the kindling, and we light the fire.”
• While most Playbook subscribers live around Washington, significant numbers work on Wall Street, in state capitals and at news and entertainment companies on both coasts. Major retailers (Starbucks) and obscure lobbies (Catfish Farmers of America) pay $15,000 a week to advertise in Playbook, a figure that is expected to rise.
• UM: “Allen is known as a legendary hoarder and pack rat. At The Post, enormous piles of yellowing papers, clothes, bags and detritus leaned ominously above his cubicle. While reporters are rarely neat freaks (I remember hearing rumors about Nixon-era sandwiches that are still being excavated from David Broder’s office), Allen’s work areas have been egregious. It got so bad at Time, where Allen was given his own office, that it became difficult to even open the door. His chair was raised at a crooked angle, as if it were not touching the floor, and the debris rose so high in some places that it blocked a portion of light coming through a picture window. Colleagues took pictures, as if the place were an archaeological site. It was disturbing to those who cared about Allen, especially after a photo of the office in a seemingly uninhabitable state made the rounds of the press corps and George W. Bush’s White House.”

Gibbs followed up this tete-a-tete with a (taped) appearance on Reliable Sources this morning where after a few quick nods to the SCOTUS selection process Howie Kurtz quickly turned the talk to Fox News and the cable news cycle in general. This exchange in particular was rather humorous since I am always interested in how people can dislike strongly something they never watch.

KURTZ: How much cable news does the president watch?
GIBBS: Very little, and…
KURTZ: How does he know how bad it is?
GIBBS: … that makes — well, he watches — you don’t have to watch much of it to watch — to watch the — the world wide wrestling impact of how issues are bantered around.

Some impressive backpedaling there. Meanwhile, is the White House softening in its approach to the ‘wrestling’ that goes on on Fox News? Gibbs’ remarks regarding the news network are bordered on genteel compared to some of the criticism we’ve heard from the administration in the past (and from others outside it today).

KURTZ: Let me ask you about Fox. The — the White House campaign against Fox News. Did that end when Fox’s Bret Baier was invited into the Oval Office who a lot of people have called, “The interrupt-athon interview?”

GIBBS: Well, I’ll let Fox determine whether or not they got out of that interview what they wanted to get out of it based on the fact that — I mean, I think the uniqueness of having an interview with the president is getting a chance to sit as close as we are and getting that insight.

I mean, he could – this is the last interview the president did before something as historic as healthcare passed. I don’t think historians will look back on that interview and think, “Boy we really got a sense of what the president was thinking right before such a historic achievement”…

GIBBS: Howard, I’ll say this. That — that we are, as you said, we — we live in a town in which you have to play the game. And — and we’re happy to put guests on. We’re happy to do interviews. Obviously I take questions from their correspondent each and every day in the briefing. I — I don’t think many people have to watch Fox to understand the — the political slant that they have.

KURTZ: You mean the news coverage as well as the opinion shows?

GIBBS: Here’s a good example. The president signed the START treaty last week. And there was a lot of debate about whether us reducing our nuclear warheads was making this country less safe. And then the anchor disappeared. And for several seconds there was a 1960s video footage of a nuclear test and a mushroom cloud. Now what you didn’t see was — you — you didn’t see in any of that where the last time we are familiar with seeing pictures of START treaties being signed, are that of Ronald Reagan. Or when the president makes a pledge to end nuclear weapons on our planet. Now what you didn’t see was — you — you didn’t see in any of that where the last time we are familiar with seeing pictures of START treaties being signed, are that of Ronald Reagan. Or when the president makes a pledge to end nuclear weapons on our planet.

[...]Well, again, their [Fox News] stature is largely elevated by the people that listen. Again I — I think it’s one of those things where if you’re not — you know, you have in all — I think in a lot of different phases of the media people can make statements that aren’t checked, right? The media in some cases covers the food fight, but doesn’t necessarily check who started it and whether they started it for a reason that was legitimate or not.

Short version: Cable news segments are too short, Fox News coverage has a political slant, the cablers turn everything into a shout fest. Nothing new, or all that terrible here! To that point, it’s probably worth noting that the White House and Fox have been on comparatively good terms for a while now, the Baier interview being more of a recognition of that than a starting point. Actually, perhaps the most interesting part of the segment was what Kurtz didn’t ask Gibbs, namely, how does he feel about all the recent criticism of him from inside the press corps ranks. Video of the segment below.

Frum, who was supposed to appear on Countdown last night and canceled, unloaded to Politco’s Mike Allen instead, asserting that it was “donor pressure” following the ‘Waterloo’ post that led to his dismissal. From Politico:

‘There’s a lot about the story I don’t really understand,’ Frum said from his iPhone. ‘But the core of the story is the kind of economic pressure that intellectual conservatives are under. AEI represents the best of the conservative world. [AEI President] Arthur Brooks is a brilliant man, and his books are fantastic. But the elite isn’t leading anymore. It’s trapped. Partly because of the desperate economic situation in the country, what were once the leading institutions of conservatism are constrained. I think Arthur took no pleasure in this. I think he was embarrassed. I think he would have avoided it if he possibly could, but he couldn’t.’

So perhaps the economic state of journalism these days more than the state of the GOP. More from Allen.

We talked at length afterward with an AEI official in an effort to get a specific response to Frum’s charge. But the group apparently doesn’t want to get into a back-and-forth with Frum, and stuck to this earlier statement from Brooks, blaming Frum for his departure: ‘David Frum is an original thinker and a friend to many at AEI. We are pleased to have welcomed him as a colleague for seven years, and his decision to leave in no way diminishes our respect for him.’

This is followed by some speculation that perhaps the real problem was how little time Frum spent at the office. Though the timing is really just too convenient for that to be anything more than a small contributing factor.

Glenn Beck

The letter was as backhandedly sweet as Van Jones’ meek attempts to claim he loves Beck, noting that Beck’s purple tie remarks have made them harder to find and noting that the smock comes from nurses “whose care you have received.” Which put Beck to mind of a tender clip from The Godfather, think horse head (“I don’t know why I thought of the big union boss”). It also gave him an idea: maybe he should express his gratitude to his favorite White House affiliates with t-shirts, too! The answer to your question is no, Che Guevara does not appear, but Chairman Mao does! Jones got a “Marxist” t-shirt, while Anita Dunn, Ron Bloom, and “anybody at the White House” got the slightly more elaborate “I Heart Mao” design. But Stern’s was the most special of all. Video below. Special Mediaite surprise below that.

At the end of the show, Glenn had a present for us, too! Proving he’s still keeping tabs on Mediaite Beck gave us something better than a t-shirt: air time. Beck read a block quote directly from Mediaite post from yesterday on the White House’s reasoning for granting Bret Baier an exclusive interview (credit goes Mike Allen at Politico for getting the original quote). And then, just as we had suggested (sort of), picked up his Mao phone and reminded the president he could call anytime. Vidoe below.

President Obama sits down at the White House this afternoon with Bret Baier, anchor of Fox News’ ‘Special Report’ and former chief White House correspondent. A White House official: ‘Many of the falsehoods and myths about health reform gained traction with Glenn Beck and others on FOX, so the President is returning to the scene of the crime to make the final sale. As we have said, we will work with Fox where it serves our communications interests, and this does.’ The interview is sure to have a huge echo effect because of past White House criticism of Fox, and is a creative way to break through the health care white noise. Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer offered the interview to Baier on Monday.

So, President Obama is sitting down for an interview with Bret Baier because Glenn Beck (and, you know, others) have been pedaling falsehoods. Why not just call the Mao phone direct? Again, I kid. But seriously, it’s an interesting admission of how much power Beck wields over the President’s media agenda that his name would get specifically dropped by a White House official. This is not the first time, the White House has made public its dislike of Beck before, but this is the first time I recall them publicly admitting taking action as a result of him.

Related: Surprise! Some People At Fox News Are Jealous Of Glenn Beck’s Success

The recent spat of West Wing speculation, particularly about Rahm Emanuel and over the weekend David Axelrod, is apparently causing Obama to worry his staff will get distracted from the task(s) at hand. Via Politico:

“Don’t get absorbed in the Washington finger-pointing and intrigue,” the president told his senior advisers during a recent meeting, according to one top aide.

He “certainly let us know that we should keep our eye on the ball here and not get distracted by the games of Washington,” the aide said.

The season of turmoil, which has erupted just as Obama is pushing for final health care votes that could determine his domestic legacy, is the most vivid example of how the discipline of the campaign — which prided itself on a tight-knit culture and aides who stayed aloof from the who’s-up, who’s-down obsessions of the press and the Washington political class — has frayed under stress.

Of course, the article then goes on to repeatedly point out how and why Obama’s team are actually the ones fanning the intrigue flames. Think the West Wing isn’t reading? Thing again.

Update: Maybe he just wants them to stop reading Drudge.

Anyway! Bush was talking this morning at a “closed-door Bush-Cheney alumni reunion breakfast” according to Politico’s Mike Allen, who quoted 43 thusly:

“This is going to come as quite a shock to people up here that I can write a book, much less read one.” He says former Vice President Cheney is not coming, as originally planned, but “is feeling well” and “has a fierce constitution.”

More 43: “I have no desire to see myself on television. I don’t want to be a panel of formers instructing the currents on what to do. … I’m trying to regain a sense of anonymity. I didn’t like it when a certain former president — and it wasn’t 41 or 42 — made my life miserable.” (I’m lookin’ at you, #39! The one thing the “formers” agree on: They don’t care for Jimmy Carter.)

Call it what you will, but isn’t a new public strategy a form of reinvention?

“There’s a sense of impatience and frustration about the state of the economy, but also about the nature of how Washington works,” Alexrod is quoting as saying in Mike Allen‘s Politico Playbook. “That was true in 2008, and it’s true now. The president is as determined to deal with those things now as he was then.”

On Massachusetts, Alexrod was aware, but not panicked, as seems to be the administration’s overall line: “It just reminded us that we’ve got to be at the top of our game,” he said, reiterating, “There’s no reinventing any message here. It’s a reaffirmation of a message.”

The new push to reaffirm the message of this president was perhaps teased yesterday, when we noted Obama’s strong words for the Supreme Court in the wake of their decision on campaign finance, a ruling Obama called “devastating,” vowing to right their wrongs. As noted by Playbook, Obama “road-tested his message” at a Friday town hall in Ohio “when he said 20 times that he will fight for average Americans.”

The new push will be especially pronounced in the media today and through the first days of the week as the administration preps the press — and massages the narrative — in the lead-up to Wednesday’s State of the Union address. With a fire lit underneath them, and an apparently cohesive strategy, this week may signal a turnaround for Obama after a few too many rough news cycles and as the 2010 midterm elections approach.

The big question obviously is whether Brown’s victory, which shifts the balance in the Senate, signals the end of health care reform. Plenty of doomsdayers yesterday were predicting that much and continue to do so today, though as a number of people have already pointed out the Dems still have a 59-41 majority which is, you know, not exactly the end of the world. A line of thinking I suspect we will be hearing more of in the next few days. In the meantime a quick look at reactions.

David Axelrod:

We’re familiar with the vote that was cast today: Some of the same sentiment that propelled [Brown's] campaign, propelled ours — the sense that this economy doesn’t work particularly well for middle class, working people … You overlay the fact that we’re in a recession — the deepest since the Great Depression — and people are understandably agitated. There is a restiveness — and I think it’s been intensified by the economy and by the recession — that is real. There were many factors that were peculiar to this race, … and let’s give Brown his due: He ran a spectacular campaign.

Sarah Palin:

ThankUMass!ScottBrown supporters worked their butts off&Indpendents chose2send DC a message!The rest of America appreciates what MA just did.

Andrew Sullivan:

These are emotional times on all sides. I feel myself slipping into fury too often, and the blogosphere is currently red-hot. But Brown’s speech does remind us that it should be possible to be civil to one another, even during these intense times.

Politico:

Republican Scott Brown’s eye-opening victory in Massachusetts Tuesday has unmistakably framed the problem for President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party: The same forces of disgust with establishment politicians and hunger for change in Washington that vaulted Obama to power 14 months ago can be harnessed with equal success by people who want to stop his agenda in its tracks.

Big Government:

Though the Republicans are ostensible winners, the meaning of this victory may be lost. The vote, by most accounts, was anti-Coakley and largely in opposition to D.C. Democrats’ over-reaching plans to regulate and legislate our economy into the ground. But that buck won’t stop at the president’s desk…Now, victory by Brown suddenly gives the White House the best gift they could hope for: the threat of Republican resurgence and the cover he needs to start governing again from the center — where most Americans assumed Obama would spend his time.

Adam Nagourney/NYT

As a result, Mr. Obama will spend the first anniversary of his inauguration watching Democrats tangle in an unseemly quarrel over who lost Massachusetts — Ms. Coakley’s pollster, Celinda Lake, called the Huffington Post four hours before the polls closed to blame Democratic leaders in Washington — and contemplating a political landscape that has been thoroughly upended in the course of only 10 days. The implications are sure to be far-reaching, and the result leaves Mr. Obama with a long list of tough choices.

Ed Morrissey:

The wildest of these fantasies, and surely not one meant terribly seriously, promotes Scott Brown as a candidate for the Republican nomination for President in 2012. Brown is a formidable presence, as Martha Coakley and the Democrats discovered too late, but do we really need another former state Senator with next to no experience in national politics on a major-party ticket?…The elimination of Martha Coakley means that Democrats will throw a stronger candidate against him in two years, although Coakley was the one candidate who had won statewide office and had the largest constituency. The circumstances that allowed Brown to win a decisive victory yesterday may well change significantly by 2012, although so far the White House and Congressional leadership seem to indicate it won’t.

In this week’s issue Ken Auletta takes a look at the relationship between Obama and the press (a relationship that has perhaps been subjected to more scrutiny in the last two years than even that of Brangelina) but also explores how the sea change that the media industry itself has undergone (enter Twitter, etc.) combined with the nation’s fascination with Obama may have resulted in a different sort of leadership from Obama. Saya Auletta:

“The news cycle is getting shorter—to the point that there is no pause, only the constancy of the Web and the endless argument of cable. This creates pressure to entertain or perish, which has fed the press’s dominant bias: not pro-liberal or pro-conservative but pro-conflict.”

Auletta talks to all the big wigs for the piece: Chuck Todd, Jake Tapper, David Axelrod, Peter Baker, Anita Dunn, Rahm Emanuel, etc. Alas, the article itself is behind a paywall, but here are a few highlights. This remark from David Axelrod who was a political journalist himself before becoming and adviser feels particularly apt (for all media not just the political sphere):

“There are some really good journalists there, really superb ones. But the volume of material they have to produce just doesn’t leave a whole lot of time for reflection.”

That is putting it mildly. NBC’s Chuck Todd notes “we’re all wire-service reporters now” (also known as ‘the Twitter effect’). There’s also this nugget regarding Mike Allen of Politico, who more than anyone has picked up where Mark Halperin left off at The Note, and is be driving this newly accelerated news cycle.

While most newspapers have drastically curtailed their travel budgets, there has been a Politico reporter on nearly every one of Obama’s domestic and overseas trips. Mike Allen, Politico’s chief White House correspondent, has become one of Washington’s most influential journalists. By seven each morning, Allen, a former correspondent for the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Time, posts ‘Playbook,’ his account of what he thinks the major news stories of the day will be. … To insure that the White House gets a shot at featuring its version of what’s important, officials e-mail and telephone Allen starting at 5 A.M.

Including apparently Dick Cheney. Interestingly, there’s also an admission that one of the reason’s Sarah Palin’s ‘death panel” remark was able to take hold is that the White House thought it too idiotic to deal with. One imagines they won’t be making that same mistake going forward.

When Sarah Palin claimed that the Democratic health-care bill would institute “death panels” to determine who received care, “we thought it was absurd,” [Dan] Pfeiffer says, “and there was a perhaps naïve view on our part that, if a major political figure says something that is entirely untrue and ridiculous, the press would treat it as untrue and ridiculous.”

If you a subscriber you can read the whole article here. If you’re not, well then, the newsstand awaits!

.

During a segment on Hardball yesterday Chris Matthews suddenly took what was a routine conversation with Politico’s Jonathan Martin about Cheney’s recent criticisms of President Obama and turned it into a rather pointed criticism of Politico’s seemingly cozy relationship with Cheney. Matthews wanted to know whether Dick Cheney has “a thing for Politico” and why it often feels like Cheney uses Politico “the way he’d use Drudge, or somebody.” (Snap!). Here is the exchange (h/t Think Progress):

Matthews: I mean, he’s got his own news conduit.

Martin: You know, we aggressively report on both sides.

Matthews: It’s not reporting. He feeds you this stuff. … I do like Politico. He’s feeding you guys this crap.

[Not content to leave it there, despite the fact Martin is looking less than pleased about this line of questioning, Matthews returns to it]

Matthews: What’s he call up and say? “I got a hot one for you, Jon. Can you take — what’s your email address?” Is that what he does?

What Matthews is referring to is Dick Cheney’s well-covered criticisms of President Obama many of which were first pubbed as exclusives by Politico. The most recent of which was last week’s accusation that Obama is “trying to pretend we are not at war.” That quote was part of a Mike Allen exclusive, which went unchallenged and unfact-checked by Allen who printed the quote in full with zero commentary. Rachel Maddow later took care of the fact-checking bit. Is Politico about to get a taste of their own meme medicine? If Mike Allen suddenly interrogates Cheney the next time he hands them an exclusive we shall have our answer. In the meantime, it all makes for great traffic, and traffic pays, yo.

This is from the chapter on Sarah Palin (though I assume she factors in to more than one) captures the McCain campaign right before it made a left turn into Bizarro world. Here senior McCain staffer Nicole Wallace (whose relationship with Palin turned out to be somewhat rocky) recounts the first time she was contacted by a “real” reporter regarding the maternity of Trig Palin.

“’I will never forget the first phone call I got from a real reporter, from a real newsroom, about the maternity of the infant,’ Nicolle Wallace said. ‘He started asking me about amniotic fluid, and whether or not it had leaked … I said, ‘Are you asking me to respond, on the record, to a charge that amniotic fluid came out of her [body]?’ He was so mortified, he hung up.’”

Clearly that mortification did not last very long for most of the “real” press. There’s also an interesting tidbit on more tears from Hillary Clinton, this time off camera and in reaction to a cabler describing Chelsea as being pimped out. It apparently fell to Chelsea to reassure her mother she was fine.

You know the drill, loyal, smart, and attractive readers: below is a list of our nominees for the top site of 2009, including The Business Insider, Ars Technica, Politico, and Talking Points Memo. Vote for your favorite, or leave any deserving candidates you think we left out in the comments:

Ars Technica: In the tech web, Ars Technica is a bit of an oddity. A Web-only publication acquired by Condé Nast in 2008, it’s neither an online distribution arm for a flesh-and-blood magazine, like Wired‘s or PC Mag‘s websites, nor is it quite fair to call it a blog, like the also-excellent Engadget and Gizmodo. But whatever taxonomy one wants to lump Ars into, it excels. It’s not just that the staff knows their gadgets, though they do: Ars is also the rare tech publication that can authoritatively cover the law and policy affecting technology. And serious MacHeads know that when John Siracusa has something to say about Apple, they’d better listen.

The Business Insider: Even in a web culture of numbers, numbers, numbers, The Business Insider stands out for its freakish speed and volume of posts. According to Google Reader, it clocks 522 posts a week: compare that to Gawker’s not at all shabby 246/week or ABC News’ 480/week. Of course, TBI’s staff size is a tiny fraction of the likes of ABC’s, but with Dan Frommer on the tech beat, Nick Carlson on the media and advertising beat, and John Carney and Joe Weisenthal on business and finance, with occasional backup from EIC Henry Blodget, it’s a question worth asking: who needs squads of reporters, anyway?

The Daily Beast: It’s taking more money than most web ventures to get off the ground: AdAge‘s Simon Dumenco passed on reports that it would spend $18 million in its first three years. But in the year-and-change since its launch, Tina Brown‘s Daily Beast has become the web’s closest thing to a high-end glossy, drawing star-studded columnists (Meghan McCain, Christopher Buckley), stirring up lively nationwide debate (listing America’s smartest and dumbest cities), and meeting the required meta-enabling quota (slideshows!). The Daily Beast’s most promising innovation may not be on its website at all: Beast Books, its rapid-publishing imprint, could just be the vehicle to translate highbrow web chatter into cash flow.

The Huffington Post: The designation that The Huffington Post got in media write-ups as recently as last year — “a left-wing political blog” — sounds about as out-of-date in 2009 as calling Nintendo a card company. In one short year, the site has ballooned in size, traffic, and scope, sprouting new verticals (Books, Tech, Sports) like dandelions. Old-timers can complain with some justification that in its expansion, HuffPo has traded some of the righteous fire in its belly for sleek, streamlined, traffic-driving content. But the site’s traffic powerhouses — among them founding editor Roy Sekoff, media editor Danny Shea, senior features editor Katherine Thomson, and news slideshow wizard Anya Strzemien – have reshaped the site into a formidable force.

Mediabistro: Mediabistro, every day, is simply a great resource. It may not be the flashiest shop in media, but is it ever servicey — thousands receive its daily Newsfeed email with essential morning media headlines, its various blogs cover a wide range of beats, often as industry leaders (GalleyCat, TVNewser) and they are constantly offering ways for people to grow from, learn about, and break into the biz. I may be biased here, because I got my start at MB — its January 2002 “Boot Camp for Journalists” class was my first contact with New York media (and with Mediaite Senior Editor Glynnis MacNicol!) but I have seen too many other people rise through those ranks not to appreciate what they have to offer there. And here comes our Victor Kiam moment: We also owe them a hat-tip for providing Mediaite with said Senior Editor MacNicol and TV Editor Steve Krakauer. Definitely their greatest contribution to 2009. Thanks guys! - RS

Politico: Some might balk at Politico’s inclusion as a ‘site’ — it does, after all, have a DC-area print edition. But Politico has made its name by adhering to the giddy, caffeinated 24-hour online news cycle. It’s the rare publication with enough feet on the ground to do it, and media-transfixing scoops like this year’s revelation that David Axelrod met with Roger Ailes are proof of the payoff. But it’s not all frenetic shoe-leather reporting: columnist/bloggers like Ben Smith, Mike Allen, and Michael Calderone regularly shape the debates of the day.

The Root: This year, any talk of Slate’s sibling publication The Root must inevitably circle back to its editor: Henry Louis Gates, Jr., also known as the Harvard professor half of the infamous “beer summit” in the White House Rose Garden, alongside Cambridge police officer Sgt. James Crowley. But that’s selling the site short: since its launch at the beginning of 2008, The Root has established a distinctive voice not only about African American culture, but about the great debates of our time. Given the homogeneity and groupthink that occasionally afflict media, The Root’s perspective is a welcome one at the table.

Slate: Slate has become such a constant in the online arena that it’s easy to underestimate its importance. If Microsoft hadn’t taken that gamble way back when in the mid-90s, who’d've known that a smart, sprawling, literary site could also be one of the most-read sites on the whole Internet? Slate occasionally takes its drubbings for its aggressively contrarian theses (the rock band Creed is “seriously underrated”): the #slatepitches Twitter hashtag is a good place to find them from time to time. Hope this contrarian stance doesn’t blow your mind: for raising the level of online discourse and keeping the bar high, Slate is still a major player.

Talking Points Memo: The crown jewel of the Bush-era left-leaning political blogs, Talking Points Memo has sent sparkles of hope into the hearts of many old-school journalists by proving that actual reporting will occasionally get its just rewards, even on the Internet. Even in its impressive expansion (TPMDC, TPMMuckraker, TPMCafé), TPM has had the integrity not to grasp at the Balloon Boys of the online news cycle, maintaining a focus on politics, policy, and mostly hard news that has been rewarded by an engaged, affluent, educated readership. This year, TPM’s Josh Marshall made waves by putting out an ad to hire a publisher (the position hasn’t been filled yet): The Awl’s Choire Sicha mused that this could finally ease the struggle between editors and publishers that has gone on for eons.

The Wrap: It’s hard to believe that entertainment and media news site The Wrap only launched this January: in terms of its impact, it feels like it’s been around for much longer. This year, The Wrap’s Sharon Waxman established some serious cred by laying the site’s reputation on the line to call an NBCU-Comcast deal before anyone else. She was treated with derision by Nikki Finke and with skepticism by many outlets (including ours) — but as time has told, she was right. Scooping the entirety of business and entertainment media about a multibillion dollar merger: not bad for year one.

Related: Who Is The Top Magazine Editor of 2009?
Who Is The Top Online Editor of 2009?

‘There are over 400,000 individuals in the Terrorist Screening Data Base (TSDB), the main identities database within the U.S. Government for international terrorism. The TSDB is a subset of the 550,000 individuals contained in the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), which is the Intelligence Community’s central repository of information on known and suspected international terrorists. Less than 4,000 of the names in the TSDB are on the ‘No Fly’ list and another 14,000 names are on the ‘Selectee’ list, which calls for mandatory secondary screening. There are established criteria for both the no fly and selectee lists. After the suspect’s father spoke to the US Embassy in Lagos, Nigeria the US government took action and shared the information with relevant agencies across the government which resulted in a TIDE record being created for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in November 2009. It was decided that there was insufficient information at that time based on existing watch list criteria to include him in the terrorist watch list, the no fly list or the mandatory secondary screening list, thus he was not ‘watch-listed’ as of 25 December 2009.’

Emphasis mine, because that is the sort of disclosure that is alternately going to result in accusations of too much political correctness at play, and/or the evils of government bureaucracy, or both (ahem, Glenn Beck). Press Secretary Robert Gibbs appeared to acknowledge the bureaucracy part at least on This Week yesterday noting that “these procedures are several years old” and Thursday’s incident had “precipitated both a watch listing review and a detection capabilities review” neither of which sound like the sort of thing that bear results anytime soon. So in the meantime probably be prepared for excess random security restrictions and extra, extra long lineups, and at least a few false alarms.

Pic via.

So yes, even for Sarah Palin this is a bit strange (also, one imagines, both messy and smelly.) Politico’s Playbook caught up with the former governor and this is what she had to say for herself:

Declaring that she ‘was honored and proud to run with him,’ the former Alaska governor pushed back hard last night against a report that she had disrespected Sen. McCain by blacking out his name on a sun visor she wore on the beach….Palin tells us she was just trying to ‘be incognito’ and shield her children and husband, Todd, from paparazzi: ‘I am so sorry if people took this silly incident the wrong way. I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago. So much for trying to be incognito.’

Someone send the woman a hat, or something.

THE WHITE HOUSE CONSIDERS THE MOTIF OF MUCH OF THE U.S. COVERAGE TO BE ASININE. A senior administration official: “American leadership was absent from this region for the last several years, despite the fact that it is increasingly central to our economic growth and our security. President Obama put our alliances on a firmer footing, reasserted our leadership in the region, and continued to advance a complicated bilateral relationship with China that will play a large role in shaping the 21st century.”

And this from David Axelrod, who apparently felt the need to point out that the trip to China was not about ticker-tape parades:

DAVID AXELROD, surrounded by White House reports after the two-question “news conference” at South Korea’s Blue House: “The goal on this trip was to lay a foundation for economic progress, to open up markets for American goods, to lay a foundation for progress on mutual security issues, … to lay groundwork on climate change. … Though the president is demonstrably popular in all these countries and polling reflects that, we didn’t come halfway across the world for ticker-tape parades. … So we believe it was a successful trip. … We didn’t have expectations that Barack Obama arrives in China or anywhere else and things change overnight.”

It’s not clear which coverage in particular the White House is upset with — Fox is not singled out — though, there does seem to be a bit of a ‘walk on water’ expectation that follows Obama wherever he goes. Perhaps instead it is just the pervading tone that Obama was too deferential to his hosts on this Asian trip as opposed to, say, merely trying to find some common ground. Considering the week we’ve had in the media, I think it’s safe to say Obama coverage hasn’t really made it ‘asinine’ quite yet.

Well, first of all, let me say that I have never used Twitter. My thumbs are too clumsy to type in things on the phone.

Really? Isn’t this the President who refused to turn over his Blackberry? Hmm. At any rate, the ban on Twitter is providing something of a challenge to the Twitter happy press corp, who over the past 24 hrs have been attempting to access the site through various means. This from today’s Playbook:

DESPERATE TIMES CALL FOR DESPERATE MEASURES – With Twitter blocked from our laptops here at the Shanghai filing center (Burton, don’t be getting any ideas), @JakeTapper is tweeting from his ‘Berry. @EdHenry found a workaround with TwitPic: ‘We’re fighting the power.’ @ChuckTodd figured out how to update through his PING.FM account. Chuck e-mails from the transmission pool next door: ‘i posted a ‘if you can see this update on twitter/facebook’ let me know… and got deluged with friendly acknowledgments. The revolution can still be twittered thanks to the ping dynasty!’ (Also blocked: bit.ly, which is why we’re using tinyurl as our URL shortener today.)

A number of member’s of the press corp have twittered out that they aren’t sure whether their tweets are getting through because they can’t access the site, says Time‘s Michael Scherer: “Twitter is blocked in China. I won’t know if anyone sees this message (sent from cell phone) until we get to South Korea.” However, it seems so far, so good. Below is a look at the tweets coming from the top Twitterers currently traveling with the President. (It updates every time the screen is refreshed.)