Making blogging pay

Well you mentioned Unions and the NYT, so by Google parameters you get this

(On immigration Obama floats this view on immigration)

SEN. OBAMA: Look, I think it?s possible for us to be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. That?s what we?ve always been and that?s what we have to continue to be. And that?s why I?ve worked in the Senate and will work hard as president to make sure that we?ve got comprehensive immigration reform that has strong border security. We need to make sure that it?s orderly, that we don?t have thousands of people pouring over our borders or overstaying our visas. But we also have to make sure that employers are held accountable, because right now employers are taking advantage of undocumented workers. (Applause.) They don?t have benefits. They don?t -- aren?t paying the minimum wage. That is equally important. They?ve got to be held accountable.

(My comments at the bottom)

(On Pakistan this exchange)

MR. OLBERMANN: Senator Dodd, last week you have said that Senator Obama, quoting you, ?His assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused?; you added, ?He should not be making unwise categorical statements about military options.? What, in your opinion has been confusing?

SEN. DODD: Well, let me say on these matters here, I?ve spent 26 years on the Foreign Relations Committee dealing with these matters here on almost every major foreign policy debate; words mean things. We?ve got to be very careful about language that?s used in terms of the danger and harm it can do to our nation.

My view was when you raise -- issues are being raised about Pakistan, understand that while General Musharraf is no Thomas Jefferson, he may be the only thing that stands between us and having an Islamic fundamentalist state in that country. And so what I?d like to see him change -- the reality is if we lose him, then what we face is an alternative that could be a lot worse for our country.

I think it?s highly responsible -- or irresponsible for people who are running for the presidency and seek that office to suggest we may be willing unilaterally to invade a nation here who we?re trying to get to be more cooperative with us in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

So my views -- and I say this respectfully to my friend from Illinois here -- I think it was wrong to say what he did in that matter. I think it?s important for us to be very careful about the language we use, make it clear that if this United States is going to build the relationships around the world, we?re going to have to do so with allies, in some cases allies that we may not particularly like.

MR. OLBERMANN: Senator Dodd, thank you.

SEN. OBAMA: First --

MR. OLBERMANN: Senator Obama -- yes, you?ve taken some hits here from us, so yours is the last word on this subject.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism. (Cheers, applause.)

And, Chris, respectfully -- and you and I are close friends -- but the fact is you obviously didn?t read my speech. Because what I said was that we have to refocus, get out of Iraq, make certain that we are helping Pakistan deal with the problem of al Qaeda in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But, Chris, if we have actionable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives, including bin Laden, and President Musharraf cannot act, then we should. Now, I think that?s just common sense. I don?t know about you, but for us to authorize -- (cheers, applause) -- (inaudible) --

MR. OLBERMANN: Senator --

SEN. OBAMA: -- where the people who attacked 3,000 Americans were not present -- which you authorized -- and then to suggest that somehow we should not focus on the folks that did attack 3,000 Americans --

MR. OLBERMANN: Senator Obama, we?re well over -- we?re well over time. (Cheers, applause.)

Senator Clinton, I must ask for your -- Senator Clinton -- Senator Clinton, give me your response to this. We?re going to -- I?m going to give you both a chance here, but, Senator Clinton, please give me your response to what we?re hearing tonight.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals. And it may well be that the strategy we have to pursue on the basis of actionable intelligence -- but remember, we?ve had some real difficult experiences with actionable intelligence -- might lead to a certain action.

But I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists who are in bed with al Qaeda and Taliban. And remember, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The last thing we want is to have al Qaeda-like followers in charge of Pakistan and having access to nuclear weapons. So you can think big, but remember, you shouldn?t always say everything you think if you?re running for president, because it has consequences across the world. And we don?t need that right now. (Chorus of boos.)

MR. OLBERMANN: Senator Dodd -- I owe Senator Dodd a response. Your name was invoked in several of these answers. Please take 30 seconds here.

SEN. DODD: Well, I just want to say, look -- and Barack, you know, I?ve certainly said, look, I made a mistake in that vote in 2002. I don?t deny that. But when you make a mistake, as you run on something like this, I think if I had the courage, I made a mistake on the vote in 2002; if you?re making a mistake today, you ought to stand up and say so.

It was a mistake, in my view, to suggest somehow that going in unilaterally here into Pakistan was somehow in our interest. That, I think, is dangerous. And I don?t retreat from that at all.

SEN. OBAMA: Keith, I?m sorry, but --

MR. OLBERMANN: Go ahead.

SEN. OBAMA: -- this came to me, and so let me just be clear about this.

MR. OLBERMANN: All right, Senator Obama, 30 seconds, and then I have to stop this.

SEN. OBAMA: I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with Musharraf, because the biggest threat to American security right now are in the northwest provinces of Pakistan and that we should continue to give him military aid contingent on him doing something about that.

But the fact of the matter is that when we don?t talk to the American people -- we?re debating the most important foreign policy issues that we face, and the American people have a right to know. It is not just Washington insiders that -- (cheers, applause) -- are part of the debate that has to take place with respect to how we?re going to shift our foreign policy. This is a seminal question.

MR. OLBERMANN: Gentlemen, I have to end this segment here because we are --

SEN. OBAMA: It?s a fundamental question

On immigration, Obama talked about enforcing the law and going after the employers, but he did not state his record to the crowd. The crowd didn't get that Obama meant only enforcing minimum wage (illegals certainly can't get insurance, or is he now suggesting that?). Geez....why didn't the Union boo that?Obama did not mention his failed proposal to burden the recent immigration bill with a condition to prevent employers verifyimg a worker?s legal status. Of course, he accused Hillary of being irresponsible for not revealing the delicacies of diplomacy and force regarding bombing or invading Pakistan with the very same public. Perhaps he felt some things a particular crowd shouldn't hear.

On the matter of Pakistan, Obama refused to admit he did say that we should move our troops from Iraq to the battlefield of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He completely ignored Biden?s remarks that hitting OBL with actionable intelligence is already the law of Congress. Obama only talked about AQ being on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. He didn?t say hitting ?inside? Pakistan. Obama also ignored Hillary?s question of what to do about Obama?s ?violent Islamic extremists? getting nukes should Musharraf fall. He simply avoided a far more dangerous problem, but instead thought conducting some delicate diplomacy behind the door as JFK and Reagan advocated with positive results, some kind of dishonesty. On immigration, Obama failed to answer honestly, because he was standing in front of the Union. He also failed to answer the criticism over Pakistan, by twisting his former statements, placing terrorists on the border and ignoring the obvious present policy to get OBL anywhere if actionable intelligence is available.

Sorry for the tangent, but I didn't pay the NYT for the info and I wonder what Unions will do for bloggers....Would we have to pander as much as these candidates?

UPDATE Mushy's reaction, Mr. Obama Again, if Obama reads the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, or Reagan's negotiations with Gorby, he would understand the proven merit of discussing some things behind the door. The Kremlin's public comments about US missiles in Turkey nearly broke the delicate deal and JFK lamented having too much discussed in public. How dishonest of JFK. Does Barak think Bush should have posted his warning to Musharrah after 9/11 in the NYT? His misdirection blast at Hillary to get boos for her, was a low road to avoid reasonable questions he did not answer.

UPDATE #2

An example of the discretion I was referring Obama to consider as long as he alludes to JFK and Truman. Who decides what is discrete or dishonest? How can the American people answer that in real time without showing one's hand? I say this only to suggest to Obama (though he's building up quite a verbal record containing contradictions AND decent nuggets of truth); there is still time to root out what is inconsistent from what is partisan, what sounds convienent from what is most likely.

UPDATE #3

Well, this must give Obama pause, and reconsider the merits of discretion Remember, the Union members cheered his rebutal to Hillary (Obama's team was rather quiet)....

Again, Sean and Pat, thank you for allowing this aside a bit of bandwidth after seeing the debate last night and remembering recent discussions about questionable strategies and pandering answers (from both sides to be fair).

Pat, if a better thread presents itself, please move this to whereever. Again, Sorry to disturbs Sean's excellent post about Blogs and money, with this remote tangent.

Thanks?

You could run it like PACER - x cents per page. So you'd have an x cent charge for the front page, most (not quite all) posts would be "click for more" and then another charge for clicking thought.

Still, I agree with Sean (after a fashion) about motivations. I don't blog with the hope that it'll pay the bills, as long as it pays for itself. For me, the purpose is to develop my own thoughts and views, to make arguments and participate in the national debate, and as our readership has grown, to point out interesting stuff that readers may like.

The problem for the New York Times is that it liked to think of its product as a gourmet meal, one that people would pay to read. Now they're thinking it's a happy meal - acknowledging that they have the same basic product as lots of other outlets, but arguing that their brand has value. The only value the NYT adds is as a central clearinghouse, a place you go to find out what you're going to find out today. But even that's now being displaced by sites like memeorandum and metafilter. Unfortunately, what the New York Times has isn't a gourmet meal or even a hamburger - it's water, a "product" that you can get anywhere, and isn't really that distinguished from any other news outlet. Their columnists are okay, but they don't