Luckily, he’s not up for election—well, not technically.

Michael "Mickey" Kantor, American politician
(Photo Credit: Wikipedia)

Today a video excerpt of the movie "The War Room" went viral in a matter of hours after being posted on YouTube. The video showed former Clinton White House staffer and current Hillary Clinton campaign advisor, Mickey Kantor, during the 1992 Presidential race, saying "Those people are shit," and another phrase that is under dispute and at the heart of Kantor’s threats of libel litigation.

The first questionable statement was reported by the video uploader and those who spread it around to be in reference to the people of Indiana. In numerous reports, Kantor denied that was the case and claimed to be referring to pollsters. The second statement, which immediately followed the first, was somewhat unintelligible in the original footage. Confirmed as altered by the film’s director, D.A. Pennebaker, the video in question made it appear Kantor said, "How would you like to be a worthless white n*gger?"

Which both doesn’t make sense and is incredibly offensive. It’s difficult to find the video now because YouTube has removed it. If the video posted at DigitalJournal.com is still there, it seems to be from the original and, to my ears anyway, seems to confirm other interpretations that Kantor actually said, "How would you like to be in the White House right now?"

Kantor told the HuffingtonPost that what he said was indecipherable, but he would never have used that word and used his and his parents civil rights work as his defense. Right after calling the video libelous, this curious passage appeared in the report:

Kantor said he was in the process of contacting "the best" libel lawyers to approach YouTube.com about the process of removing the video from its site. He suggested that The Huffington Post, too, should not print even his defense, as it would be an advancement of a non-story.

 "I don’t need to be defended," he wrote. "When you write it, what you are doing is extended the libel."

In all that civil rights work he did, he must have overlooked freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which is weird because they’re first on the list. The press can, actually, talk about the event all they want and shouldn’t have to fear being bullied into not talking about it because it’s uncomfortable for a person who arguably could be called a public figure. It is news, it is fair game, and it is fit to print.

At least eight news organizations thought so too, according to current stories on Google news, including the Huffington Post, and around 600 bloggers so far. Good luck in keeping the legitimate story quiet, there Mickey, and in a court that doesn’t throw it out. You’ll definitely need the best libel lawyers to make that argument for you.

Trying to keep something quiet once it’s hit YouTube and Digg.com is like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. The good news is that the truth came out rather quickly in this case. Journalists did their skeptical duties, and even Diggers were quick to raise the flag that the story was inaccurate. YouTube responded appropriately, also.   

In this case, trying to keep it quiet just brings on the Streisand Effect, which makes it worse. If left alone, the truth would have been told with the controversy and all gone away by Monday.

It also brings up a point the Clinton campaign wouldn’t want brought up: The guilt-by-association politics Obama has had to put up with as the Clinton camp gleefully shakes hands in the background. Should we believe then that Kantor’s remarks are a reflection of how Hillary Clinton plans to deal with the media? What was a good question to George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson in Philadelphia should be good here as well, right?  
 

Values And Egos Inflate: The Bubble Returns

Bubble. There, I said it. Just two years ago, a half-billion dollars for MySpace seemed a bit on the frivolous side. But now it’s obvious News Corp. got in on something before the rest of the media world caught on, especially as Facebook, with a fraction of the audience, demands a steeper and steeper price.

But, say supporters of these valuations, it’s not just the size of the audience or the annual revenue taken into account, but the margins of profit they bring in. Online properties, especially Web 2.0 properties, are so low-cost to run compared to brick-and-mortar one that it’s not unreasonable for them to sell for as much as 100 times earnings. 

Critics were blisteringly quick to point out Henry Blodget’s unpardonably sinful Wall Street history of inflating values just before the dotcom bust – the term "gasbag" came up in one place, in lieu of bubble. Blodget argued Tuesday that Google shares could hit $2,000 one day.

This number, even as we remember the flack analyst Jim Cramer got flack for suggesting GOOG might reach $800, earned no shortage of scorn (and attention); TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington called for Blodget to be "muzzled."

In an ironic twist, Douglas McIntyre, editor of 24/7 Wall Street crunched numbers suggesting blogs like TechCrunch and The HuffingtonPost were worth upwards of $100 million to outfits like CNet or the Washington Post, as big media organizations look to find less expensive ways to build a loyal, sustainable audience.

Blodget concurred with that valuation; Arrington decided Blodget shouldn’t be muzzled after all; and Howard Lindzon, creator of CBS-owned Wallstrip, thought it quite funny "the lamest asshat on the internet" (he means Arrington) was buying into the hype.

Potshots aside, are we or are we not looking at (or standing within) the next dotcom bubble. If so, will it burst?

Lindzon seems to have his umbrella ready. "We just started another bust in real estate," he tells WebProNews. "This is another side book and may not end until the China Olympics. Obviously the global new wealth is not as sophisticated about the dangers of asset bubbles and it will be especially ugly when it ends."

Cynthia Brumfield, president of Emerging Media Dynamics, Inc., seems to agree these valuations are bubblish, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

"I do think these valuations are over-the-top but I don’t think a ‘bust’ is imminent," she said. "For one thing, Facebook and Huffington Post are privately held companies and individual and institutional investors in general will probably be spared the rude smack of any ultimate come-down in value. 

"They might feel a trickle-down effect in the sense that Microsoft, for example, might have to write-off some portion of its investment in Facebook, but that loss will be blended into a very big company. As for Google, investors are already forewarned that it might be overvalued even at today’s prices, and that doesn’t seem to spark much fear."

Even then, eBay’s not so happy about the $2.4 billion they shelled out for Skype – and they were warned rather loudly then. How many overpriced purchases can the major players afford to make?

The answer to that may be relatively simple. There is an echo of Brumfield’s assertion that the Microsofts and eBays of the world can afford to overpay in the words of McIntyre. They can afford it because the cost of running Web 2.0 companies is virtually nil.

"We know that Huffington raised $10 million from Softbank and other VCs," said McIntyre. "With the election year about to begin, Huffington’s pageviews, advertising, and value are only going to rise. Is $100 million the right number? No one knows that, but I think $75 to $150 [million] is not even close to wild, especially given the strategic value that a strong online brand could have for a company like the Washington Post."

An online property bringing $1 million annually, for example, could pull in 100 times revenue because of the relative low cost of operation.

"What people don’t want to look at is the value of these brands and how inexpensive they are to run compared to traditional media. The margin leverage is tremendous."