Neil's post on Markos seems to have set off something of a clamor, so let me quickly address it. Looking through the e-mails I've gotten, I think folks need to separate between two types of speculation: fair, and unfair. There's no reason to believe Markos is in any way benefitting financially from Jerome's association with Warner. Speculation to the contrary is unfounded, and in my opinion, scurrilous (and those who engage in it are rapscallions and scallywags).
But Neil's actual point seemed sound to me. There's no doubt that Kos views Warner rather warmly. Warner was, after all, the only presidential aspirant afforded the honor of addressing the entire YearlyKos convention (and yes, yes, Gina did much of the scheduling, but I have trouble imaging that Jerome's name didn't open any doors there). I know for a fact that he wasn't the only one who wanted to. Meanwhile, Richardson, Clark, and Vilsack were ghettoized to panels and others simply didn't show. That's a bit odd, is it not? What made Warner more important than Western governor Bill Richardson (our future, according to Markos, is in the West, right?), or former general Wesley Clark?
Maybe nothing. My likeliest guess is that Jerome is simply savvier than the competition and fought to get Warner a prime spot, using his influence and early awareness to secure the position. But there were plenty of places where the other contenders could go, and none were afforded the opportunity. So do spare me indignation over the fact that some folks happened to notice the inequality in pulpit -- it was a tad weird. And it's stranger still because Warner, for all his technocratic charm, tends to disagree with the blogosphere on the few issues it actually is ideological about: censuring Bush, blasting Republicans, withdrawing from Iraq. He's not quite the likeliest choice in town. That doesn't mean he's not Markos's choice, or Jerome's, for perfectly sound reasons. But it's worth pointing out.
Jerome, now, is a consultant. He's a public consultant. His job is to raise the profile of the man who employs him. He's obviously excellent at it. He's possibly a true believer. It's not strange to assume he may have convinced his best friend that Mark Warner is a worthwhile candidate. And so, as the primaries roll gear up, it's worth trying to understand where folks are coming from, and through which prism their punditry should be evaluated. What I've always loved and appreciated about the blogosphere is that there's so little pretense to objectivity, such easy admissions that we support candidates, and believe in policies, and fight for ideals. That makes it a more honest realm than mainstream punditry. Markos is a good guy and a powerfully positive force, but he's as subjective and biased as anyone. Neil, an Edwards supporter, is arguing that that's led him to support a candidate ideologically unsuited to the netroots. That strikes me as a fair point, and one that should be seen as coming from the subjective prism of an Edwards supporter.
Larger point: these are just the opening salvos. As the primaries heat up and allegiances cement, the blogs really will be ripped apart by warring partisans, all the more so if folks refuse to divulge, but nevertheless exhibit, their preferences. My guess is that, going forward, transparency is the best policy, and we'd all be well-served by a willingness to calmly accept (and even respond to) speculation about the thought processes driving our commentary.
Update: Got some better info on how the speakers were chosen here.
