Say hello to RealClearPolitics.com's Reid Wilson.

What word do you routinely misspell? Prefered, benefited, anytime I can't figure out if there should be two consonants before the "ed." But I got Cazayoux down.

What's the name of your cell phone ring? Missed call.

What time did you get up this morning? 5:30 or 6. I was tired, I don't remember.

When did you last cry and why? After Pennsylvania primary, when a continuing Dem race ensured that my developing twitch, lack of sleep and returning heartburn were here to stay.

How many emails do you receive a day, roughly? 200. I made the mistake of asking Ken Spain to put me on all his email lists. He took me literally. Thanks, Ken.

What's your favorite letter? B. Always the easiest to use in bad illiteration.

What single person played the biggest role / had the biggest influence on your journalism career? Chuck Todd. Gave this stupid kid right out of college the opportunity to prove myself, then taught me all I know. So blame him.

When's the last time you volunteered? Where? Too long ago, when volunteer extraordinaire Nora McAlvanah brought us to Sam's Inn, a place for people who need it come to get help. We cooked dinner. A source of some of my best memories from my Hotline days.

Who is your favorite active journalist? I feel bad picking just one. There's no better analyst than Chuck Todd, and there's no better color man than the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza.

Read the rest when you click below...(and see previous FishbowlDC interviews: Julie Mason, David Shuster, Joe Curl, Alex Pareene, Peter Beinart, Jonah Goldberg, Megyn Kendall, Ana Marie Cox, Jim Brady, Howard Mortman, Amy Argetsinger, Jose Antonio Vargas, Chuck Todd, Tom Gottlieb, Kelly Ann Collins, David von Drehle, David Lat, Mark Leibovich, Zain Verjee, David Plotz, Paul Kane, Karen Travers, Mark Halperin, Hugo Gurdon, Greg Kelly,Ken Rudin, John Dickerson, Anne Schroeder, Spencer Ackerman, Bret Baier, Bob Sellers, Greta van Susteren, Danielle Jones, Jonathan Salant, John McCalla, Pam Hess, Ryan Grim, Marc Ambinder, Marty Kady, Jack Shafer, Annie Lou Bayly, Jerry Zremski, Charlie Cook, Dave Hughes, Howard Fineman, Katie Tarbox, Mark Segraves, Chris Cillizza, Tom Sietsema, Bill Triplett, Robin Givhan, David Brody, Norah O'Donnell, Carl Cannon, Jordan Lieberman, David Folkenflik, Molly Henneberg, Ernesto Londono, Brody Mullins, Aaron Blake, Martha Raddatz, Andrew Sullivan, Christina Bellantoni, Shane Harris, Nora McAlvanah, Adam Nagourney, Erin McPike, Mike Memoli, Ju-Don Marshall Roberts, Arthur Delaney, Chris Mincher, Rachel Sklar, Laura Sullivan, Jeff Kosseff, Matthew Cooper, Scott McCrary, Dan Reilly, Jennifer Griffin, Ari Shapiro, Jonathan Kaplan, Rick Klein, Mike Allen, Olivier Knox, Erik Wemple, Nathan Burchfiel, Andrea Mitchell, Mike DeBonis, Anne Kornblut, April Ryan, Amy Morris, Keith Koffler, Mark Silva, Ann Compton, Mark Knoller, Betsy Fischer, Katherine O'Hearn, Pamela Brown, Beverly Kirk, Wendell Goler, Glenn Kessler, Susan Page, Michael Crowley, Claudia Milne, Kelly Dinardo, Bruce Becker, Michael Rogers, Paul Schur, Diana West, Eric Nuzum, Bill Adair, Jonathan Ward, Jennifer Sergent, Jeffrey Goldberg, Ken Silverstein, Dana Milbank, Mark Murray, Katherine Lewis, Joe Mathieu, Chrystia Freeland, Sam Youngman, Christopher Dorobek, Greg Mitchell, Candy Crowley, Steve Chaggaris, James Pindell, Linda Kramer)

Also, drop us a line to let us know who else you'd like FishbowlDC to interview. They must work in the Washington area and you must include their email address.

continued...

Earlier today, Howard Kurtz held his weekly chat where he covered such topics as Tim Russert's "declaration" that the Democrat nomination has been decided, the negative coverage of Hillary Clinton and the aftermath of the cyclone in Burma/Myanmar. Some excerpts:

Baltimore: Howard, what did you think of what my friends and I call the "Russert Declaration" last Tuesday? I'm of course speaking of his delphic utterance that "we have a nominee." In seems as if the media collectively is throwing in the towel and declaring the whole race over. Now, it's one thing to report that Hillary would have a very tough time winning the nomination, but to declare the race over? Or stating that "we're not going to West Virginia"? By saying such things that affected the course of events, Russert and others weren't merely acting as observers, they were acting as participants -- which I find troubling.

Howard Kurtz: Welcome to the world of punditry. Tim Russert is paid to be a political analyst, so if he wants to offer his judgment (as did Bob Schieffer, George Stephanopoulos and numerous others) that there is no way for Hillary Clinton to overtake Barack Obama, I have no quarrel with that. What I do have difficulty with is straight-news journalists rendering the same judgment when the primaries aren't over and there is at least the possibility that unexpected events could prompt the superdelegates to decide this thing in Hillary's favor. What some of these organizations have done is not so much declare Obama the nominee but simply move on to long profiles of him, analyses of how he will match up against McCain in the fall, speculation about who he'll pick as his running mate--all effectively signaling to readers and viewers that the primaries are no longer worth paying attention to.

...

Clinton Media Coverage: Why is it unreasonable for Clinton to have more negative coverage? She claims 35 years of experience, which gives a lot of material to cover. I'd like to see some reporting on the previous instances of wives succeeding husbands in high office, both domestic and international, and get some feel for how it usually works out. Clinton has claimed executive experience based on being the spouse of a former president. Has any other world leader gained office with the same claim? How well did he or she lead?

Howard Kurtz: Of course her claims of "experience" by virtue of being the president's wife should be tested, and were, in many media accounts. (Her unfortunate tale of Bosnian sniper fire followed a debate over whether her many foreign trips as first lady were substantive or largely ceremonial.) And yes, her long public record gave journalists more targets to shoot at than Obama's thinner resume. But none of that excuses the media from responsibility to provide a rough balance in the scrutiny of competing candidates.

...

Washington: I don't want to appear uncaring or flippant, but for all the stories about how we (the U.S. or the U.N.) simply should go into Burma (Myanmar) and take care of people's needs because the government is unresponsive, it's awfully hard to think how many people believe our government wasn't responsive. And because it's a sovereign country, like ours, how would we feel if "foreigners" simply came in and did the job?

Don't I remember correctly that we didn't allow people and foreign ships or aircraft to simply come in after Katrina, and didn't we simply stockpile supplies donated from around the world under the guise of "the food doesn't meet USDA or other specifications and therefore can't be distributed"? And didn't a lot of donated supplies simply stay at warehouses? I'm not justifying Burma's or their general's actions, but like it or not, it's their country. Would we similarly plan on simply "entering and helping" North Korea despite their repeated famines?

Howard Kurtz: But the U.S. clearly has the resources to respond to a major catastrophe (whether it does effectively is another question), and just as clearly, Myanmar does not. I don't think it is too much to say that tens of thousands of people may die of starvation and disease because of the military regime's refusal to allow much outside aid. Plus, the Burmese rulers have tried to ban journalists -- only a couple of western correspondents have gotten in, and reporters for the BBC and CNN were deported -- which has meant a dearth of pictures and first-hand accounts of this almost unimaginable tragedy. That is one reason why it seems more remote than, say, the Asian tsunami.

FishbowlDC hears that Roll Call has put the finishing touches on a website redesign and you can expect to see it sometime this summer. (Oh, and yes, most of the content will remain behind a subscription wall.)

Some interesting comments by WashingtonPost.com Executive Editor Jim Brady during the Digital Hollywood conference.

Brady, executive editor of The Washington Post's online division, said during a panel discussion at the Digital Hollywood conference here that he would like to see a technology that could identify people who violate site standards--and if need be--automatically kick them off for good.

There's an interesting debate to be had over this concept. On the one hand, Brady's position would allow the site to prevent some of the crazy stuff that is said on washingtonpost.com.

On the other hand, it does fly in the face of, what has been up to this point, the spirit of the Internet: Anonymity and unbridled free speech and movement.

But maybe Brady has a point: Is it time for that spirit to be reined in a bit, all in the name of civility? Or are we barking up a First Amendment tree that no one wants to touch?

Let us know your thoughts:

From the Hotline's Friday Feature:

For 16 years, Matthew Tully has covered gov't and politics in locales ranging from Gary, IN, to DC. He arrived at the Indianapolis Star in '02 and was named the paper's political columnist in '05. Tully began his career as a reporter for the Post-Tribune in Gary. He joined Congressional Quarterly in '97, where he covered the U.S. Senate and reported on topics ranging from the Clinton impeachment trial to the political aftermath of the '01 terrorist attacks. But today he's our Friday Feature ...

If you could go to any live concert tonight, which one would it be?

Any Elvis Presley concert from the 1970s. If I had to specify one, probably his show at Madison Square Garden in 1972.

Read the rest here.

Earlier today, Howard Kurtz held his weekly chat where he covered such topics as the pundits that predicted the end of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid following her loss in Iowa, Howard’s ranking as the 34th most influential pundit in the U.S., and the alleged feud between Arianna Huffington and Tim Russert. Some excerpts:

Oviedo, Fla.: Came across a January issue of Time magazine with a story about how Sen Clinton was "over" and other deathwatch words of "wisdom." Here we are approaching mid-May with the same thing being said about North Carolina and Indiana. Is this "she's dead now" chorus impossible to mute? There doesn't seem to be any particular harm in the race going this way, does there? The fact that it isn't all preordained is less canned, less rote than normal. Good. Can't the bloggers and others just wait and watch?

Howard Kurtz: Some pundits have been writing Clinton off since she lost Iowa. Somehow she refuses to stay dead. Now it's true, as we get closer to the end of the primaries, that the math works against Hillary and the only way she can catch Obama is to persuade enough superdelegates to in effect overturn his lead among pledged delegates. But we should have learned by now about the danger of premature obituaries.

...

Kettering, Ohio: So you were only 34th on the list. Just wait until next year, when the swimsuit phase is part of the competition!

Howard Kurtz: I'll start working on my abs now, just in case.

...

Somerdale, N.J.: Howie, is it true that Arianna Huffington has been disinvited from MSNBC because she criticizes Tim Russert? I read that she was supposed to go on "Morning Joe" and "Countdown," but her invitation was canceled.

Howard Kurtz: That's what Arianna Huffington says; I don't know if she was booked on those programs or not. I had seen her with Keith Olbermann and Dan Abrams, so it's a bit surprising if she's not on now. Fortunately for her, she's been able to promote her book on CNN, Good Morning America and elsewhere.

Via Wonkette's keen eye:

The WaPo's Dana Milbank confirms what we suspected earlier: That his "blog" is anything but.

From his washingtonpost.com chat:

Odenton, Md.: Is it Rough Sketch or Washington Sketch? Are you trying to toughen up your image after last week?

Dana Milbank: A very interesting and important question, Odenton.

Rough Sketch --- or, "Rough Sex," as Chris Cillizza has dubbed it --- is the name of my blog. Except that it isn't a blog. It is just a place you can go to see the various things I've written for the newspaper or for the web, or done on video. This is confusing because it uses blogging software and looks exactly like a blog, even though I don't update it every five minutes and interact with you, the beloved reader. Hopefully this confusing answer has cleared up everything. Mission Accomplished?