I love this idea. I'm not entirely clear on whether it started with an idea from Atrios, or a decision by a dean supporter to take direct action. Possibly both happening separately, fusing and erupting into a little movement.

Here's what I do know. Just before Christmas, Jodi Wilgoren wrote an NYT piece that really pissed off a lot of the Dean supporters. I happened to be messing around on the Dean blog that day, and people were just in an outrage. Not because of the one piece, so much, as because of the endless string of jackass reporting. With so many jackasses writing such crap, a fair number of it was destined to rain down on the Dean camp to begin with. Add the fact that he refuses to pander to him, and that most of them are freaking clueless about his rise to prominence, and you have a pretty ugly situation.

For some reason, tempers ran high enough that day, that a person who posts under the name "Vet 4 Dean" posted this (comment? diary post, I think), at Kos:

Earlier today on DFA [the Dean blog, aka, Dean for America ], there was a good bit of discussion of the latest piece of "journalism" committed by Ms. Jodi Wilgoren in the NYTimes.  

Well, I decided it was time to lose my blogging virginity and created The Wilgoren Watch.

Any advice -- up to and including "Geez, what the hell are you thinking?" -- will be appreciated.  Please be gentle with me.  ;-)

Meanwhile, Atrios was bouncing around the idea of a wider Adopt A Journalist program. I'm going to take the liberty of posting his entire followup post on it from tonight:

There's an idea I put out there in the middle of the holidays. A bunch of people subsequently emailed me, etc..., and I pretty much ignored them. Not because I was being rude but because I was fairly busy and most importantly as I said in the original post I Don't Want To Organize It.

But, look, here's the idea - start a blog, pick a journalist, and follow them. Don't just follow them day to day, but be in depth about it. Archive all of their work, look for inconsistencies across their own writing. It doesn't have to be all nasty criticism. Criticism can be both good and bad - it's important to remember that.

Anyway, some had emailed me about setting up a centralized database/website/etc... I tend to think such a top down approach is a bad idea, at least at first. First we need volunteers - and the best way to do it is just start doing it. Once you've got it going, email me and other bloggers once you have some interesting stuff up. Once people seem to be working it consistently, I'll set up a special section in the blogroll and will encourage others to do the same. If there's duplication of effort - great! Eventually blogs can merge or whatever, it isn't a problem.

As for journalists - mostly what I'm talking about are people covering the '04 campaign, and mostly what I'm talking about are straight journalists and not the pundits. The pundits get plenty of attention - it's fun, but frankly we all overestimate their influence. One lowly scale AP reporter probably has a lot more influence than William Safire.

Jay Rosen of NYU has been following this idea. But, my plea is - Just Do It! I'm happy to support it, but I can't organize it.

Rosen has an interesting semi-chronology of the germination at the link above. My favorite passage:

Jan 6. Reporter Alan Judd of the Atlanta Constitution emails PressThink: "The idea of 'tracking' individual campaign reporters--as on Wilgoren Watch--is absurd. The people behind such efforts would be satisified with nothing other than stories effusively praising Howard Dean and blasting Bush as the great satan. What they advocate isn't press criticism, it's stalking."

What a turd. Journos who spend their careers stalking politicians, movie stars and victims of tragedies tend to have the thinest skins when anyone suggests examining their work.

I love this idea. Only wish I had time to adopt one. But I'll link to it once it gets going, and support it with encouragement any time I can.

I had high hopes for the D.C. primary, which will actually usurp New Hampshire's position as the first, this year.

Unfortunately, they settled for a compromise where it's nonbinding. It still could have been important, but five of the major candidates withdrew their names from the ballot. Weasels. All that's left are Sharpton, Braun, Kucinich and Dean.

Dean will win easily, but it won't mean much.

The W Post has a somewhat interesting commentary today on why it failed, and how it could have been a powerful moment in the drive to end the disenfranchisement of DC voters. (I can't believe they still have no representation in Congress. They have more people than Wyoming. Imagine of we just took away Wyoming's senators and congressman.)

Also a Rueters piece.

Zogby published its tracking poll of Iowa today, so we'll be able to see how each candidate jockeys in the final eight days--and most importantly, how they're trending. (The tracking poll is taken nightly. After the first three nights, the total of those three nights is reported; then each day, the latest night's numbers are added, and the oldest lopped off. So you always get a three-day total, and they publish how it moves each day.

Starting numbers, courtesy of Kos (who does not link to a direct source):

Dean 25
Gephardt 23
Kerry 15
Edwards 14
Undecided 14
Lieberman 3
Clark 3
Kucinich 2
Sharpton 1
Braun 1

Very, very close at the top. And Kerry's dream of beating Gephardt for second appears to be just that. When did Edwards move up so far, though?

The main thing to keep in mind in watching these numbers all week, is that caucuses are notoriously hard to poll for. Only about 4% of the population is expected to turn out. It can last three hours, usually on a cold winter's night. And it's not a secret ballot: you have to openly declare your vote, and try to convince your friends and neighbors to change.

So no one ever knows who will turn out, and that can mean everything.

Gep would seem to have an advantage there, since other polls have showed his support most solid (those who back him do so most definitively). But Dean supposedly has an army of 2,000 showing up next weekend, for a last-minute blitz. (Me included. Info on how to join us here.) Granted, I'm biased, but I can't help thinking that will do a lot for the final Get Out The Vote push. (Update: The Dean blog is saying they've got 3,500 volunteers coming to Iowa. I have heard conflicting reports.)

Enough to tip the balance? No telling.

Update:

Reuters story on the poll has some good info on internals . . .

Dean led among the very liberal, independents, young voters, the college educated and singles, while Gephardt led among union households, those with less than a college education and lower income voters.

. . . and on the surprising Edwards rise:

The survey also found growth for Edwards, who gained strength during the course of the three days and earned the endorsement of the state's largest newspaper, the Des Moines Register, on Sunday.

"Edwards has picked up a lot of steam each night," Zogby said.

I was stunned by Edwards' increase. Since when did anyone start rallying behind him in any state?

Poor Kerry. More bad news. Not only is he out of the race for second, Edwards appears poised to pass him.

After raising expectations with the beating-Gep for second scenario, a fourth-place finish would sink him even worse. Heading into his humiliation in his homeland the following week. Poor guy. Will anything ever go right for him?