Consider the following excerpt from the Journolist mailing list ([1]). The date is August 29, 2008 - the day that Sarah Palin was selected as John McCain's running mate - and those on the list were discussing how to oppose her:

Suzanne Nossel, chief of operations for Human Rights Watch, added a novel take: “I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views.”

(Jonathan Stein, then of Mother Jones) loved the idea. "That's excellent! If enough people - people on this list? - write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket,” he wrote.

As I read it, the point isn't that Stein was proposing how to attack Palin: he worked for a leftwing magazine (note: he's no longer with the magazine: motherjones.com/authors/jonathan-stein) so attacking Palin was a natural thing to do. And, it's not that he was trying to rally others to support a campaign. The salient point is that he knew that Journolist could be used to conduct a campaign. It doesn't matter that the campaign doesn't appear to have gone anywhere. (As I recall; if you can find reporters or bloggers spreading his line please do leave a comment.)

What matters is that he knew one of the functions of Journolist. As an example - and not calling those on the list criminals of course - if you were a criminal, you wouldn't suggest joining into a conspiracy to rob a bank with your local priest or grocer. You'd only suggest such a plan to others known to you to be of a criminal disposition. Stein knew there was a chance that the others on the list - including mainstream media reporters - might pick up on his talking point.Consider the following excerpt from the Journolist mailing list ([2]). The date is August 29, 2008 - the day that Sarah Palin was selected as John McCain's running mate - and those on the list were discussing how to oppose her:

Suzanne Nossel, chief of operations for Human Rights Watch, added a novel take: “I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views.”

(Jonathan Stein, then of Mother Jones) loved the idea. "That's excellent! If enough people - people on this list? - write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket,” he wrote.

As I read it, the point isn't that Stein was proposing how to attack Palin: he worked for a leftwing magazine (note: he's no longer with the magazine: motherjones.com/authors/jonathan-stein) so attacking Palin was a natural thing to do. And, it's not that he was trying to rally others to support a campaign. The salient point is that he knew that Journolist could be used to conduct a campaign. It doesn't matter that the campaign doesn't appear to have gone anywhere. (As I recall; if you can find reporters or bloggers spreading his line please do leave a comment.)

What matters is that he knew one of the functions of Journolist. As an example - and not calling those on the list criminals of course - if you were a criminal, you wouldn't suggest joining into a conspiracy to rob a bank with your local priest or grocer. You'd only suggest such a plan to others known to you to be of a criminal disposition. Stein knew there was a chance that the others on the list - including mainstream media reporters - might pick up on his talking point.

---------------
[1] dailycaller . com/2010/07/22/
when-mccain-picked-palin-liberal-journalists-coordinated-the-best-line-of-attack/2/

[2] dailycaller . com/2010/07/22/
when-mccain-picked-palin-liberal-journalists-coordinated-the-best-line-of-attack/2/