Jessica Vanden Berg
There is a story up where Webb campaign manager Jessica Vanden Berg claims they controlled macaca and only notified the bloggers after the Washington Post published it. How is this possible since it showed up here 24 hours before the Post covered it. Is Vanden Berg a total liar?
I guess it's time to tell the real story and how Vanden Berg totally mishandled it and almost threw the scandal that won the election away.
More to come...
SHOCKING UPDATE: Shaun Kenney has released a very damaging story about the Webb campaign. If true I am appalled.
UPDATE #2- I've been speaking with sources tonight- and this appears to have some truth behind it, although I can't yet confirm the breadth of the story...
UPDATE #3- I'll have more information nailed down in the morning.

I have a feeling the shit is about to hit the fan...
Posted by: | December 13, 2006 at 04:21 PM
No, even worse. God help us, but I foresee a Ben Tribbett Ego Stroke!
Posted by: Doug in Mount Vernon | December 13, 2006 at 04:26 PM
Does anyone really believe that the Webb campaign didn't push this story?
They would have been negligent in their duties not to.
Posted by: Rowhey | December 13, 2006 at 04:26 PM
I think the issue here is that NLS got the story BEFORE the Post reported. Part of the Post's reasoning in reporting it was that "on a popular Virginia blog, Sen. Allen was seen" ... giving the story legs, legitimzing it, and making it appear that the Webb folks were not behind this.
Would the story have been picked up in the Post in Vanden Berg just pushed the story on her own? I'm not sure they would have.
Posted by: | December 13, 2006 at 04:29 PM
Soo, just wondering, if this is true, how come you are claiming that the Webb campaign 'fed' you nothing??
Like I said on Mason Conservative, I know someone who worked on the Webb campaign for the last 2 months, and from what I understand, you were telling the truth (about getting nothing from the campaign).....?....
Posted by: Terry | December 13, 2006 at 04:31 PM
Vanden Berg is greatly understating the role the Allen campaign had in keeping this story alive. Public Relations Damage Control 101 textbooks have a new case study that they can use for purpose of illustration for years to come.
The Webb campaigns role in this was not insignificant--and I do give them credit for doing some coordination with new and traditional media. But you simply can't understate the utter boneheadedness of Allen's actions, or that of his campaign.
Posted by: JPTERP | December 13, 2006 at 04:38 PM
The story said it appeared on the Post ONline Edition first.
Obviously it was on this blog before the print edition. The question is, did it appear on WaPo ONLINE first or this blog?
Obviously it was on this blog before the print edition.
Posted by: | December 13, 2006 at 04:40 PM
Look at my link and what order the Post story came in it. Those updates were over the course of an ENTIRE DAY.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | December 13, 2006 at 04:41 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...I find this interesting. Unbeknownst to all but Thadd and another blogger, I was on the phone with Ben on Sunday night before the story and video broke. I knew about the story at that point. It was early, maybe 7 or so.
The WaPo played a huge art in the scandal, it gave a blog story credibility, sure; but the attention it got HERE was much bigger.
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | December 13, 2006 at 04:42 PM
10!
I know it is early, but this is going to be a big thread :)
Posted by: | December 13, 2006 at 04:47 PM
Anon 4:29 PM--I am 100% sure that the Post ran the story because of the story's content, not because of a blog helped to legitimize the story (a 2008 presidential contender points into camera and belittle a 20 year old constituent with bullying language that contains racist overtones--AND it's all done tape! That's definitely news).
NLS, helped to build up anticipation for the video the night before with bloggers; and I think he helped play a role in creating a quick dissemination of the YouTube clip. The YouTube story became another angle to this story as well.
Posted by: JPTERP | December 13, 2006 at 04:51 PM
I have no doubt that Ben had this story before the WashPo. What I find amusing, however, is that a Webb staffer is now quoted as saying the Webb campaign was pushing this story. If my memory serves me correctly, the Webb campaign mouthpiece, Ms. Denny, was on the record stating that the Webb campaign was not pushing the story.
Someone is lying here. Was it Ms. Vander Berg or Ms. Denny?
Posted by: Rowhey | December 13, 2006 at 04:55 PM
The Washington Post and NLS launched the Allen video clip nearly simultaneously on their sites.
NLS had the first "tease" about a big story, and the following morning he recap of the event.
The Post had the first quotes from Dick Wadhams.
I think the Post gave the story a degree of credibility that played a role in local TV and cable TV coverage, and MSM coverage in general later in the day.
The blog, internet angle was just one of the quirks of the story that gave journalists another interesting angle to pay attention to.
Posted by: JPTERP | December 13, 2006 at 04:56 PM
Rowhey, the Webb campaign was not pushing the weeklong coverage. It was pretty clear that they had a role in breaking the initial story.
Allen's campaign provided the fuel for the remaining days of coverage. I think anyone in PR would understand that Allen's troubles were compounded 1000% by his campaign.
Contrast this with the way that Allen's campaign handled the "Jewish heritage" story a month later. Much better damage control. The story was basically gone from the headlines within close to 72 hours.
Throughout the fall campaign it didn't help that Allen the candidate kept making inappropriate statements whenever he was off script.
Posted by: JPTERP | December 13, 2006 at 05:04 PM
JPTERP,
I agree with you on all counts.
I only point out to diametrically opposing statements -- those of Ms. Denny and those of Ms. Vander Berg.
Both statements cannot be facially true. If one is correct, the other is a lie.
Which one is it? I want to know how you feel about it because I don't honestly know.
Posted by: Rowhey | December 13, 2006 at 05:08 PM
Obviously the campaign provided the video (and the volunteer who captured the video). But putting trackers on your opponent is hardly an original idea. Putting the video on YouTube was another obvious step.
The WaPo was very helpful in introducing the story to the mainstream news cycle.
But let's face it folks, this would not have become "viral" were it not for NLS.
Further, the talking points being "fed" to bloggers by the Webb campaign were not that pivotal. After July I mostly stopped using them--I found I could write much better on my own.
Oh well, it's like a friend of mine always says: success has a thousand mothers.
Posted by: The Richmond Democrat | December 13, 2006 at 05:38 PM
To answer your question, yes.
Posted by: James Young | December 13, 2006 at 05:40 PM
"It's surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit."
Abraham Lincoln
Posted by: Harry Landers | December 13, 2006 at 07:01 PM
Rowhey, if you agree with me on all counts, then you have the answer to your question in the first two sentences.
Question: Was the Webb campaign pushing the Macaca story in the press turning it in to a week long story?
Answer: No.
Question: Did the Webb campaign bring this story to the attention of local media initial?
Answer: Yes, obviously.
The statements are easily reconcilable.
If you're looking for a case of lying by omission, a much more obvious and clear-cut example would be the media strategy of the U.S. president who once said: "We do not torture".
Posted by: JPTERP | December 13, 2006 at 07:02 PM
What? I thought Jessica forgave the blogs for winning the primary in spite of her sluggish self.
Posted by: | December 13, 2006 at 07:22 PM
This doesn't seem to be generating quite the degree of 'outrage' you might've hoped for, does it Ben?
Perhaps you should step it up a notch and take on Jarding.
Posted by: | December 13, 2006 at 07:38 PM
well, aren't we a self-centered little person? Oh, I guess that is what blogging is all about....
Posted by: Interested Observer | December 13, 2006 at 07:45 PM
So what, from what I am hearing, this is becoming more and more of a common practice. Furthermore, why WOULDN'T a campaign want to know everything they could about people who may have an influence on the campaign.
Posted by: Terry | December 13, 2006 at 08:01 PM
I am appalled, APPALLED that the Webb campaign has no file on me. :P
Posted by: Kenton Ngo | December 13, 2006 at 08:23 PM
Does this mean we can call him "Tail-Gunner Jim?"
Posted by: MC | December 13, 2006 at 08:53 PM