July 2006 Archives

7/31: CT SENometer

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas wrote early 7/31: "Those of you who are tired about reading about the Connecticut Senate race might as well take Daily Kos off your reading list this week. This is the stretch run, and while I'll still talk about other things, expect A LOT of "CT-Sen" tags." The Blogometer has occasionally received criticism for being the "Kosometer" but with just over a week to go 'til primary day, we have to admit to thinking the exact same thing. Virtually all of the big traffic lefty sites feature daily comments on the race, and once sporadic righty attention has also picked up the pace. The worst (best?) part is that the coming of 8/8 will probably not signal the end of CT SEN infatuation. Win or lose the postmortems will continue for some time and if cable exec Ned Lamont (D) wins, the race could be the top Blogometer story straight through November.

CT SEN I: Gray Lady Endorses Not-Lieberman

DailyKos diarist DemFromCT let Kossacks know at 1:00 PM EST 7/29 that the New York Times would be endorsing cable exec Ned Lamont (D) over Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) for the 8/8 primary. DemFromCT argued that the endorsement from "the pillar of northeast establishment" would make it difficult for Lieberman to paint "Lamont supporters as far-left blogger-driven fringe people." DemFromCT explains that "a vote for Joe is a vote for uncritical war (present and future)," and that the Lamont campaign is an opportunity "to have the debate on the war we never had ... and it's not going to be pretty for the people that took us there."

Talking Points Memo contributor DK noted the editorial "pulled no punches" in its critique of Lieberman's "warped version of bipartisanship." Christy Hardin Smith at progressive firedoglake believes the NYT exposes Lieberman to be "a more distinguished version of a concern troll, with his constant need to prop up the Bush Administration at every turn by scolding anyone in his own party who dares to question or disagree."

Richard Just at left by pro-Lieberman TNR asks: "Does The New York Times editorial page have amnesia?" and looks at NYT endorsements of NY mayor Michael Bloomberg and Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT). Just rejects the Times Liberman-as-Bush-enabler explanation and argues: "it's less about political substance than about raw betrayal. This is the troubling world view of many left-wing bloggers--who tend to treat liberalism as if it were a team rather than a political philosophy--and it is the world view that the Times has implicitly backed this weekend."

Ex-Lieberman aide Dan GersteinLieberDem has a lengthy critique of the Times endorsement as well including: "What was equally telling was the Times' minimalist appraisal of Ned Lamont. In endorsing a candidate for U.S. Senate in a time of war, the nation's preeminent newspaper could only muster two sentences on the challenger's qualifications -- one of which highlighted his inexperience. ... The truth is we don't know what Ned Lamont is, though by all appearances he seems to be more of a dilettante and an opportunist than a liberal or a moderate. And for the Times to blithely overlook that troubling fact, and tout the candidacy of a cypher who is clearly unqualified to be a U.S. Senator out of pique with Joe Lieberman's civility, suggests that Grey Lady has sadly been seduced by the Kossacks and blinded by the same anger that animates them."

CT SEN II: Back In The Home State

Maura at My Left Nutmeg read The Hartford Courant endorsement of Lieberman and couldn't believe that Lieberman spokeswoman "Marion Steinfels wasn't sitting alongside the author dictating each word." Worst of all for Maura is the Courant's dismissal of "the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq as a single issue." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas deals with the Courant endorsement by highlighting the Courant's recent history: "The Hartford Courant (which endorsed Bush in 2000 and 2004) goes with Joementum."

Matt Stoller at progressive activist MyDD is now in CT for the duration of the campaign. He reports: "Lieberman's got a fierce ground game, renting practically every van in the state. If you're a Democratic in Connecticut, it's likely you'll be hearing many times from the Lieberman campaign." Meanwhile, Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake campaigned with Lamont and "superstar" Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) at a Temptations concert on the New Haven Green 7/29. Hamsher notes: "I doubt even Bill Clinton himself would've been treated like the hero Waters was by the largely African-American audience."

Connecticut Blog sees a big difference between Waters' CT appearance and the pro-Lieberman Sens coming to the state: "Passing on taking a train, Joe Biden (along with Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii) flew into Connecticut as quiet as possible to support Joe Lieberman at another one of his unannounced events. Why are senators like Biden coming into Connecticut under a cloak of darkness, because Joe Lieberman is RADIOACTIVE. Unfortunately for senators like Biden, Salazar (ultimate betrayal) and Inouye), blogs have changed the way people view politics and get their news. Like Barbara Boxer, people won't forget the sheepish actions of these senators. At the very least, they should be strong enough to make their plans public.

Stirling Newberry at TPM Cafe amplified a Maura from MyLeftNutmeg post decrying Lieberman fliers found in car windshield wipers in Stamford, CT, that "imply that Ned Lamont is a racist." Maura describes the fliers as "The front of the flyer had a picture of Lieberman with Clinton and mentioned Lieberman's civil rights accomplishments of 40 years ago. ... The back was about Ned Lamont cancelling his membership in the expensive Round Hill Country Club in Greenwich, including a quote from the New York Times in which Ned acknowledged that most of the members of the club were white." Newberry comments: "Lieberman's campaign has crossed the line from electioneering to smearing, and may well, depending on the manner and content of the fliers, have ventured beyond the line of legality." Maura then adds in Newberry's comments section: "What makes me even more worried than these flyers is the whisper campaign that accompanies them. First it was hearing that leaders at black churches in Hartford and New Haven were telling people that Ned Lamont owned "millions" of shares of Halliburton. Then last night in New Haven a couple of people were saying that they heard there was a rumor going around that Ned Lamont's grandfather was a founder of the KKK."

CT SEN III: Thought From The Right

Founder of conservative activist RedState Erick picks up on a weeks-old story on "Howard Dean's brother, now running Howard's PAC while Howard is away at the DNC" giving money to Lamont's campaign and comments: "I guess I missed this side avenue for Dean's 50-state strategy. If you are a ranking incumbent Democrat who dares to be critical, Dean will sick the lefty netroots and his PAC on you. I wonder if Harry Reid is starting to get worried about his next election? " Over at RCP BlogRyan Sager posts video of Lieberman's Clinton ad.

MCCAIN: They Draw The Line At Vodka Shooting

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) scored no points with conservative bloggers from 7/29's New York Timesarticle on his relationship with Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). RudyBlogger at RedState writes: "Read this well, because it goes to the heart of why McCain would be a lousy nominee against Hillary. He'd pull his punches. Rudy [Giulliani] wouldn't." Rose Billings at Human EventsRight Angle Blog ads: "The Times story also claims that Hillary initiated a vodka-drinking contest with McCain and a few other senators during a trip to Estonia in 2004. Kind of unsettling, if you ask me. Being pro-campaign finance reform and anti-tax cuts is one thing, but doing shots with Hillary is quite another. Run, Rudy, run!"

Ryan Sager at RCP Blog looks at the current push to revamp the presidential public-financing system and notes: " half of McCain-Feingold is absent from the current push. McCain, who can raise tons of private money -- remarkably, one has to note, for a "reformer" -- presumably wants to skip public financing. Feingold, who can't and who's involved in the current push, would be a direct beneficiary of the new system (talk about an appearance of corruption)." Dem atty Bob Bauer at More Soft Money Hard Law speculates on McCain's absence from the new public financing proposal: "A far more serious problem for McCain is the reception awaiting this proposal in the Republican primary electorate. It is a problem with two troublesome aspects for McCain. First, there is the powerful strain of antagonism within his party toward campaign finance regulation generally. ... Second, those voters suspicious of McCain on this issue are quite taken with him on another-responsible government spending, including opposition to generous slabs of "pork"-but the new presidential campaign finance proposal, unlike McCain-Feingold, would commit the government to the support of political campaigns."

ROMNEY: Immigration Already An '08 Issue?

The Caucus Cooler reports from Ames, IA, Commonwealth PAC's 7/29 event: "Romney gave a terrific stump speech. Started off by talking about the Olympics and then his recent trip to Iraq. ... He then took 5 questions, some of which seemed extremely staged, and he wasn't as impressive. He fumbled the immigration question a bit - not in that he gave the wrong answer, just that the answers didn't seem very polished especially given the fact that those are 2 questions you should be expecting."

VA SEN: Two Touchdowns And A Field Goal Back With Plenty Of Time On The Clock

Ex-Navy Sec. Jim Webb's (D) Netroots Coordinator Lowell FeldRaising Kaine looks at the Mason-Dixon poll and acknowledges, "At first glance, a 16-point lead for Allen doesn't sound very good for Webb," but goes on to highlight some Sen. George Allen (R) reasons to worry:

• "For an incumbent like Allen, with 97% name recognition (according to the poll), to be under 50% is very, very bad news."
• "People simply don't know Jim Webb yet. As Brad Coker, Mason-Dixon managing director, said, "It's only July ... undecided voters tend to go more for the challenger than for the incumbent."
• "Overall, we're right where we've been for weeks now, with an 8-10 point for George Allen in the dog days of summer. Sort of like Tim Kaine last year, come to think of it. And, just like last year, my guess is that Allen's lead will narrow sharply by October, to 0-5 points. At that point, it's anyone's ballgame."

Conservative Captain's Quarters looks at the same numbers and declares: "Webb probably damaged his chances in a recent debate when he admitted he had no idea what or where Craney Island is. Allen used it to brag about bringing home some pork, which doesn't speak well for Allen, but he scored an important point about Webb's lack of depth regarding Virginia's economy and politics." CQ the warns against complacency: "Allen still has not topped 50%, which provides some cause for anxiety. Allen can't afford to let up. However, if the Democrats counted on Virginians to end Allen's career, it looks like they're in for some disappointment." Right Angle Blog also has thoughts on the poll results including: "Webb was leading in only one area - the moderate-liberal Northern Virginia area, where Webb had support from 43 percent of voters compared to Allen's 37 percent."

BLOGGERS V. BELTWAY I: All Out War

Chris Bowers at progressive activist MyDD looks at CT SEN admits: "Whether or not this is what we intended (and I know, for my part, it kind of was), the Connecticut Senate primary has now turned into an all-out war between the establishment and the progressive movement. Within the Democratic Party, the stakes could hardly be higher, as this campaign has become a symbol of what the progressive movement can (or can't) accomplish. ... This is nothing less than a massive, nationwide movement on the part of the political, media and corporate establishment to keep the progressive movement from taking an ownership position over the Democratic Party, and leaving the media, political and corporate establishment in charge."

In a later post at MyDD Bowers highlights a specific example with a direct link to CT SEN: "If you want to know why Democrats keep losing, don't offer advice, follow the money and get your hands dirty. You see, Democrats aren't losing because they are stupid. Democrats are losing because a significant portion of the operative class is paid to undermine successful populist positions. ... Carter Eskew was the chief strategist for the Gore campaign in 2000, and his colleagues at the Glover Park group include Joel Johnson, a top Clinton White House advisor on communications and policy, Joe Lockhart, who was Clinton's spokesman from 1998-2000, and Howard Wolfson, a key Hillary Clinton advisor. If you're looking for a more accessible sense of who these people are, it's the senior team type characters from the West Wing. They all went into lobbying after the Clinton show was canceled. This is a HUGE problem. ... How does this machine tie directly into Connecticut? Well, Carter Eskew is Lieberman's ad man."

BLOGGERS V. BELTWAY II: The Only Thing McCain And Buchanan Have In Common?

Right Wing News polled 225 right-of-center bloggers on whom they considered to be their "Least Favorite People On The Right" and 45 blogs responded.

16) Debbie Schlussel (5)
16) Michelle Malkin (5)
16) Dennis Hastert (5)
15) James Dobson (6)
12) Ted Stevens (7)
12) Olympia Snowe (7)
12) Bill Frist (7)
11) Andrew Sullivan (9)
9) Bill O'Reilly (10)
9) Chuck Hagel (10)
8) Jerry Falwell (14)
7) Lincoln Chafee (15)
6) Ann Coulter (17)
5) Arlen Specter (19)
3) Michael Savage (22)
3) Pat Robertson (22)
1) John McCain (26)
1) Pat Buchanan (26)

BLOGGER V. BLOGGER: Just Kidding

Inspired by the recent Patrick Hynesblogswarm ex-VA Gov Mark Warner consultant Jerome Armstrong took to MyDD to defend his role in an SEC investigation, bloggers working for candidates generally, and his astrological past. Beltway Blogroll has a useful set of highlights and here is Armstrong's full explanation of his astrology dabbling:

"The whole astrology matter is really just a lark that I have to laugh at myself with along with the crowd. You know, I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian family, and that whole mind set took some years in my late teens and early twenties to let go of holding as the absolute truth. Having had that experience, I came out of it with a sense or realizing that you can think you know it all, and not know it, and to not take one's own system of thought so self-righteously serious. Writing the articles under a pen name, associated to me the lack of seriousness with which I approached the matter of looking at politics through the astrological spectrum with, but to others I guess they thought I was hiding the matter. Obviously they don't go away, but I had them deleted from the site to make the issue clear about their relative weight in my political thinking. I found the whole accusation that it was a secret bizarre, given how anyone who was around MyDD during the 2001-2002 early blogging breakout days here, would have seen me linking to those writings as things I did. A bit arcane and strange... ok, live and let live and if you need a laugh on my behalf, feel free... just watch out for the beam."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: How To Be The UnLieberman

Under the header "A Tale of Two Primaries" mcjoan at DailyKos compares Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) reaction to a progressive challenge from cable exec Ned Lamont (D) with Rep. Jane Harman's (D-CA)reaction to Marcy Winograd announced primary challenge. McJoan writes:

"Jane Harman, ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, had come under extensive criticism from the left. Her support for the Iraq War and her February 12 appearance on Meet the Press in which she expressed support for the NSA warrantless wiretapping program, energized the the progressive left to work against her. Winograd earned the endorsements of "Progressive Democrats of America, Southern California Americans for Democratic Action, the Western Region of the United Auto Workers union and a half-dozen presidents of local Democratic clubs."

"How did Harman respond? By trying to reach out to progressives and by listening. That included creating an account here at Daily Kos. In what were some often heated exchanges, Harman interacted with this community. And she listened to us. On June 1, the week before the California primary, she wrote:"

Now I know that many Kossacks don't agree with me on every issue, and many of you may even be supporting my primary opponent. But you may be surprised at how much we do agree on. You and I agree that the Bush Administration hyped and selectively released intelligence to build the case for war in Iraq. ... You and I agree that the drumbeat towards war in Iran must end.

"When confronted with a primary challenge from the left of her party, Rep. Harman understood that she had lost touch with an important component of her base. And she understood that she needed to find out why, needed to begin a conversation with those party activists and with the netroots community. Not only did she post diaries, she stuck around to comment. Not all of us agreed with her responses, and were adamant in telling her so. But we had an honest exchange of views and, amazingly, she began to take a harder line against the Bush administration. She came back to being a Democrat."

LEST WE FORGET: This Is Either A Really Good Idea, Or A Really Bad One

Captain's Quarters highlights a plan for peace between left and right MN bloggers from EckerNet.com: "Ok, I hope to be putting together a Battle Royale of the Blogosphere on a field of combat. Yes, I'm trying to put together a Minnesota Blogosphere Paintball game. The particulars are yet to be decided (or even thought about) but for now I am trying to gauge interest. Preferably I would like to have the teams be the Right side of the Blogosphere vs the Left side of the Blogosphere. So hopefully we can get enough interest from both sides."

CQ comments: "Ironically, shooting each other with paintballs seems a hell of a lot more responsible than obsessing over sock-puppetry to the point where bloggers deliberately antagonize one another, or than sending sicko suggestions about a blogger's two-year-old child, or engaging in DDOS attacks against ideological rivals. It certainly beats calling each other childish names instead of relying on rational argument, and that includes in the comments section here."

7/28: All Quiet On The Washington Front

It's almost August in the nation's capital. The House spends today madly voting before kicking off a five-week campaign sprint, while the Senate will spend one more leisurely week before taking a break. The city's clearing out. Everyone at the Blogometer's place of employ glances at the clocks, waiting for publication so we can all run home. It is, in the end, likely to be a slow month.

Anticipation of that slow-down is taking a toll on the blogosphere as well. The CT SEN battle is so quiet it doesn't even make our lead (okay, except for that), and instead of obsessively covering that race, we take a stroll around the blogosphere to check in on the lesser-watched races.

If August is slow, and therefore without much news, journalists will be more likely to pontificate. If we had to pontificate, by the way, we'd say that a certain Rep. from NoVA (R-Orange Line) may be hearing a little more about a story from today's Washington Post. Just a few bloggers have picked it up so far, but we're sure others will follow. Then again, maybe it's just the heat.

CONGRESS: Minimum Effort

The New York Timesreports that Congressional GOPers could allow a vote on raising the minimum wage as early as today, giving moderates something to campaign on when they get home for August recess. Righty Sundries Shack details reasons -- economic and social -- why the minimum wage shouldn't be raised, and concludes: "The Republicans have learned a trick the Democrats mastered decades ago: You don't need to actually bring a cogent argument to the table when you can simply take money from some people and give it to others in order to buy their votes in November." Mark Kleiman sees a political aspect to the move as well: "Whatever one's views on the merits of increasing the minimum wage, for the House Republican leadership to schedule a vote on it now suggests that their electoral panic is deeper than they have let on." == Joe in DC says word on the street is that "the GOP will definitely offer several poison pills to undermine the legislation. The Republicans spend a lot and energy screwing over the poor. Someone should suggest legislation that members of Congress make the minimum wage."

DEMOCRATS: Do Not Give This Man Whiskey

Peter Beinart continues his crusade for a "fighting faith" of liberalism on the op-ed page of the Washington Post, writing that Dems have finally hit on "their own approach to post-Sept. 11 foreign policy.... It's called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine sensitivity to America's allies and propounds a broader, more enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay. It's jingoism with a liberal face." There wasn't a great deal of reaction this a.m., but the lefties who opined weren't happy. Rising Hegemon's Attaturk asks "While all those so-called panderers like Howard Dean were opposing the launch of the Clusterf*** formerly known as Iraq, what was brave, brave, prime fightin' age Beinart doing? Oh, yes, decrying people like Howard Dean who were opposed to the invasion of Iraq as being not just a mistake but counterproductive to terrorism." Nitpicker says Beinart has a four-part plan for Dem victory:

"1. Support Arab leaders who back Hezbollah2 . Support Bush's plan to hand over ports to Dubai3 . Support an amnesty for insurgents who attack our troops4 . Just, in general support Bush and his war, which would mean siding with a minority of Americans"

Righty Blue Crab Boulevard suspects Beinart "just got himself dropped from a number of Democratic politician's Christmas card lists. I also rather think he doesn't give a fig. Writing in the Washington Post he describes what he sees as the new Democratic party policy. Pander and run. It's a brutal assessment. This is as rough as it gets in assessing the party strategy up until now. Beinart is tough as heck on the Democratic 'leadership' -- and with good cause. What they have been doing is shameful, sleazy pandering. Mostly playing to the left, the Pelosi-Reid strategy is to be against Bush -- even if it screws allies. That one of Pelosi's strongest allies is the execrable John Murtha pretty well wraps it up. Read this whole thing. It is as good as it gets."

CNN reports on Dems' "New Direction For America" strategy. Hotline On Call (go team!) analyzed the potential for the Dems and their message to hold up until 11/06. Writing at The Huffington Post, Sen Min Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) gives a human touch to his party's platform. == Righties, meanwhile, started right in attacking the plan's weaknesses. Brian at righty Iowa Voice said he could read the headline and know what the Dem plan is: "increase taxes, increase spending, impeach Bush, dismantle the Patriot Act and the Dept. of Homeland Security, return to the old welfare system, and surrender in the war on terror." Dangerous Dan said at the "Democratic website, you can't find a single detail on any one of them; at least I couldn't. If you can find some, please share them with me." Pamela Leavey at The Democratic Daily is sharing the details that she found here here and urging Dems to "get out and get involved." == AmericaBLOG's Joe in DC says the GOP's '06 "strategy is a disaster -- it's literally killing people."

REPUBLICANS: Run For The Broder

Washington Post's David Broderwrites that an old friend who helped build the Southern GOP is so angry he can barely stand to vote for his party. That touched off a debate over the role of the party and the Pres. in the 11/06 elections, with a side controversy over Broder's sanity. California Conservative thinks it "sounds like the rantings of another misinformed blueblood RINO. ... Broder needs to get out into the heartland because he's convinced himself that the Washington, DC GOP is the majority. ... Politics are driven now by the activists, not the bureaucrats. It's also disappointing to hear Broder believe the canard that the Bush administration caters only to the Religious Right. It's stupid to think that that's accurate. If the Bush administration only cared about the Religious Right, then the GOP would be a minority party." == On the contrary, DemFromCT at The Next Hurrah thinks the press is "catching on not only to the fact that this guy [Bush] isn't so popular, but that he's not going to ever be popular again. it changes the narrative, and since we're so close to November, it's unlikely that the narrative is going to change. Americans want a Dem Congress; Dems are both more motivated and (apparently) more numerous than their political opposites, and the Republican Congress, the Bush agenda, and WH freedom from oversight are all at risk. I hope it's not too late to salvage something from the political and governance wreckage caused by this President." Moderate amba at Donklephant wasn't as sure of the 11/06 outcome as the righties and lefties were, but is sure that "whichever party nominates a centrist, defensively hawkish, fiscally and socially sane candidate will win -- unless of course it's Hillary Clinton."

ISRAEL: Well, He Got Them To Shake Hands, At Least

Clinton Sec/State Warren Christopherwrites that instead of continuing to support Israel's campaign in Lebanon, the U.S. must press for an "immediate cease-fire" between Israel and Hezbollah with negotiations on "longer-term arrangements" following the cession of violence. Yoss at lefty Deny My Freedom thought it was a "devastating" critique of the Bush admin and has "said for the last week or so that the options for Democrats on this issue were limited at best. But as the days go on, and the deaths continue to mount, it has become clear that there is an alternative to silence, both for this administration and for the Democrats in Congress." == The Corner's Mona Charen writes "This is the Christopher who spent most of his time in office cooling his heels in the outer office of [ex-Syrian leader] Hafez Assad. (His successor spent most of her time importuning Yasser Arafat.) That worked out really well, didn't it? He now counsels (surprise!) that we must use our prestige to force an immediate ceasefire. There you have it. Calling all Jewish Democrats: This is what you'll get with the next Democratic president -- pressure on Israel not to defend herself." Israel Matzav notes that the Israelis haven't requested a U.S.-negotiated ceasefire as Christopher said they did during his tenure and that "Bush recognizes what Christopher's former boss and Kerry would not recognize: that anytime the United States shows support for Israel, most or all (and I say most because Tony Blair has been mostly decent in this crisis) of America's 'closest allies' are critical. When the allies need America again, the 'reputation' will be irrelevant. The United States is and for the foreseeable future will remain the leading power of the Western World. Support for Israel shows a moral decency that many of America's 'allies' are lacking. It should be praised, not criticized." Soccer Dad picks apart the piece by "clueless" Christopher, graph-by-graph. The righty pile-on continued at It Shines For All and The American Thinker.

WH '08: Just Asking, Anyone In Favor Of A Permanent Ban On "Draft This Guy" Blogs?

Captain's Quarters informs us that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "has quietly removed himself from campaign-finance reform efforts in Congress. After infuriating conservatives with his efforts to impose speech limits -- and with the mostly unsuccessful efforts to muzzle the blogosphere -- McCain's name no longer appears on a public-financing campaign bill that he had at one time co-authored. The Senator wants to avoid looking like a hypocrite if he chooses to waive public funding, as both George Bush and John Kerry did for the 2004 primaries, in his 2008 run for President. His reformer partner in the House, [Rep.] Christopher Shays [R-CT], tried to give him some cover by telling The Sun that he would not advise anyone to agree to public financing in the current system."

Romney Report thinks the resignation of Big Dig/Transit chief Matt Amorello was a "big day" for Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) and that he showed his "business and law acumen, [when] Mitt pointed out provisions negating the possibility of a 'golden parachute' for Mr. Amorello. ... Mr. Romney's intelligence and experience provide him with a solid understanding he is able to clearly articulate. It is this characteristic I believe will be most beneficial to him in the presidential primary."

Giuliani Blog wants to "refresh everyone's memory, Mitt Romney has campaigned in the past on the belief that abortion 'remains safe and legal'. If it was so easy for Mitt to flip his abortion stance, (so much so that Lifenews now groups him with Pro-Life candidates in this piece), why are people so skeptical of Rudy's chances should he change his position?"

The New Republic features a story that argues the real split in the Dem party is between Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and DNC chair Howard Dean, with HRC as the insurgent to Dean's establishment. Kitty at DailyKos attacks HRC and Bill Clinton of not being "on the same page as Dean, the DNC or the netroots. They are playing the old trianglization [sic] game. This time with their own party. They just don't understand the the GOP came to power by respecting and using all of their constituency & organizations. Hillary is hoping to marginalize [sic] Dean (DNC) and split the blogesphere [sic] to come to power.

Meanwhile, last p.m.'s Kos poll asked what bug respondents would plant in HRC's ear, should they have the chance. 32% responded with "tell me again what you stand for," while 30% wanted to tell her not to run. Just 1% wanted to tell her to make a WH bid. That's half the number who voted for "Forget Bill -- take me now ... now!"

New West Network reports ex-Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) is going to MT for a Raise Montana rally on 8/8. "Edwards will be talking about Montana's minimum wage fight, perhaps part of a larger stump speech should he be eyeing the presidency."

Righty WILLisms talks Dem bumper stickers and noticed that ex-Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA) "has no union label on his stickers. It's likely part of his 'moderate' image he so carefully cultivates. Then again, he's not officially running, and the stickers are all part of a manufactured 'draft Warner type of movement."

Big Lizards applauded Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and other Dems for voting in favor Child Custody Protection Act that makes it illegal to "transport a minor girl across state lines to procure her an abortion in violation of state parental-notification laws."

Righty Mark A. Kilmer says Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) was "utterly confused" by UN amb. John Bolton during his confirmation hearings yesterday.

SHEEHAN: Minute 16?

One of the right's favorite boogeymonsters is back in the news as Cindy Sheehan took insurance money from her son's death and used it to buy a piece of land. In Crawford, TX. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram details the transaction and the history of Sheehan's relationship with the family who provided her a base during recent protests, while AP fills in details. == PoliPundit calls it a "nightmare in Crawford." Expose the Left: "Absolutely disgusting. She is using her son's blood to pay for land that she will use to shout her anti-Bush, anti-American slogans with her Hugo Chavez loving friends." Sister Toldjah uses virtually the same language. == Michelle Malkin just wants to know if there's a Jamba Juice in town. AllahPundit says she'll use the property "to house the world's largest banana split." Blue Crab Boulevard, meanwhile: "Sheehan reportedly celebrated the closure on the property with a barbecue chicken and jalapeno pepper pizza made into a smoothie in accordance with her strict fast." == The Right Angle takes a more political approach: "If Bush really is avoiding Crawford because of Cindy and her crazy crew, it's because the man is just plain smart, not scared. Of course, it's hard to believe the president pays much attention to her in the first place."

IN THE STATES: Good News? We're Fresh Out Of That

As if Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) doesn't have enough trouble as it is, DNC chair Howard Dean took her on, comparing her to Stalin. AP reports that Harris now wants an apology from Dean. TPMmuckraker header: "I Knew Josef Stalin, Josef Stalin was my Friend, and I, Sir, Am No Josef Stalin." The All Spin Zone: " It's really hard to read this kind of crap with a straight face. Really. Really, really."

This week's flap over MD LG Michael Steele's (R) supposedly off-the-record/on-background comments to reporters at a DC steakhouse admitting his ties to the GOP hurt more than help (see WBAL for a post-frakas interview with Steele) have some claiming conspiracy. Conservative Outside The Beltway notes that Steele's camp knew the leak would be posted and calls the dust-up "quite odd." Taegan Goddard reports on an email sent between the Steele camp and WaPo writer Dana Milbank that shows the campaign knew what was up. BTW, how did MD Dems get their hands on that?!? == The News Blog: "To pile on would be like beating a puppy for sport. I mean, what a total lack of character. ... Al Sharpton could beat him for Senate." Kos writes: "Hapless. It looks like the WaPo wasn't in the mood to take the blame for Steele's big mouth."

Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-MI), a moderate who snuck through a primary crowded with conservatives in '04, is 10 days away from a rematch with '04 candidate Tim Wahlberg (R). RedState, firmly in Wahlberg's camp, is counting down the top 10 reasons to kick Schwarz out.

In VA, Rep. Tom Davis (R) is the subject of a Washington Post piece suggesting he's connected to a consulting company which helps technology firms get gov't contracts. The firm was founded, the piece notes, just months before Davis took over as chair of the House Gov't Reform Cmte. TPMmuckraker's Justin Rood calls the piece "fascinating" and remains skeptical of Davis' innocence. Ed Copeland follows the story as well.

CT SEN: No Lead For You!

Not much going on in the Nutmeg State today, though Genghis Conn reports on a visit to oft-overlooked Suffield by cable exec. Ned Lamont. Lamont, he writes, "is a good public speaker, although this didn't come across as well on television during the debate, and he has a kind of intense, personable charisma that people seem to like. He still doesn't quite seem like the kind of man who could possibly bring down one of the most prominent Democrats in America. Which maybe is why he's been so successful."

Apparently a staffer for Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) showed up at the speech with a video camera. Connecticut Bob thinks the way the staffer was treated is illustrative of the two campaigns' different approaches: "Joe Lieberman is anxiously keeping nearly all of his appearances a secret until the last minute, and when he DOES appear in public, he has an army of staffers, volunteers, and hired muscle there to keep those pesky voters away from him (which sometimes isn't even enough to stop a determined blogger with a video camera!). But when a Lieberman staffer shows up at a Ned Lamont speech, he's not only allowed to set up his camera and have access to the event, but is also politely acknowledged by the candidate, in the very best tradition of good sportsmanship and fair play."

INTERVIEWS: Weekend Reading, Anyone?

RedState features an interview with RNC chair Ken Mehlman, while Kos' Susan G sat down with Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND).

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: McCain, Or Machiavelli?

Mickey Kaus admits this is more "conspirogism" than "syllogism," but try this on for size:

• The Republicans will only swallow hard and nominate John McCain if they are really scared of losing in 2008.
• If the Republicans do very badly in the 2006 midterms they will be really scared of losing in 2008.
• A big reason they might do very badly in the midterms is that President Bush's misguided "comprehensive" immigration semi-amnesty has demoralized conservative voters.
• One of the main people pushing Bush to pursue a misguided immigration semi-amnesty is John McCain.

LEST WE FORGET: Really, This Is Getting Beyond Absurd

One week after we learned about a new "Panda Awareness" wrist band (you know, because no one in this town is paying enough attention to little Tai Shan), local blog DCIst brings news of the Mosquito Awareness wrist band. "The next time we shake our fists at the feisty devils, let it be with a blue silicone bracelet around our wrists. We call this bucks well-spent, plus shipping is free! ... (True, the bracelets don't immediately cure the bites per se, but let's think about the longterm benefits.)" More: "Broadcast to all local mosquitoes, or apparently just femme mosquitoes : Listen up. No more planting your proboscis into our fat thighs, and thinking you can run away with our sweet blood in your abdomens. We're tired of people thinking our body acne is still an issue."

7/27: The Best Policy

Righty bloggers seem to have forgiven Ankle Biting Pundits founder Patrick Hynes for not disclosing his connections to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) early and openly enough. Lefty bloggers are chalking the episode up as just another example of conservative skullduggery, but Hynes never had much of a chance of wooing them over to McCain's camp anyway. The lesson here: in a medium as wide open and fast paced as the blogosphere, honesty may always be the best policy, but it also matters how quickly you get your story out there.

BLOGGER VS. BLOGGER: Will McCain Now Push For Blogger Spending Limits?

Jim Geraghty at National Review Online called out Ankle Biting Pundits founder Patrick Hynes for not disclosing his paid consultant relationship with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) 7/26. Geraghty had heard rumors of Hynes' McCain employment, but Team McCain denied any relationship. Geraghty then saw an New Media Strategics release announcing Hynes' role as McCain consultant. Geraghty goes on to criticize Hynes for anti-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) Ankle Biting Pundit posts he made since joining McCain's staff.

Geraghty finishes: "I don't think Hynes is a bad guy. ... There's no reason to think that anything Hynes wrote is anything less than his unvarnished opinion; but his readers ought to be informed that McCain is not just his favorite presidential contender; he is, ultimately, a client."

Hynes responded both in an email to Geraghty and at Ankle Biting Pundits: "Jim Geraghty at National Review's TKS beats up on me today for not disclosing my relationship with Straight Talk America earlier than I did. In retrospect, I think he is right. ... I ought to have disclosed my relationship with Straight Talk America earlier. The reason I didn't do so is because I was not being paid 'to blog'. I have been a political consultant for fifteen years. That's what I was doing for Straight Talk America: providing political consulting."

Hynes' righty blogger friends were quick to forgive. Ryan Sager at RCP Blog: "Hynes is handling this correctly. There's basically no excuse for not disclosing the relationship earlier. And his past comments about similar scandals on the Left now look awfully hypocritical. But, unlike on the Left, it's not all deny, deny, deny. He handled something in the wrong way, and now he's saying so forthrightly." Tim Chapman: "I think Hynes is handling the whole thing quite well." Instapundit: "Hynes acted as go-between on our podcast interview with John McCain; I didn't realize he was actually being paid by McCain's PAC. Not sure it would have mattered, really, but I would have liked to know."

Less affiliated bloggers pointed out a little hypocrisy in Hynes position. Wonkette's David Weigel: "But Geraghty skips the best part of this - Hynes' reaction to the 2005 news that Daily Kos blogger Markos Moulitsas had served as a consultant for Howard Dean while keeping up his blog." Beltway Blogroll (go team!): "The controversy surrounding Hynes is even more interesting in light of some of the criticisms he has leveled against top bloggers on the left. He has been particularly critical of [Matt] Stoller. At The Channel Changer, a blog of his focused on competition in the communications industry, Hynes has called Stoller a "suspected paid Google/MoveOn shill" in the battle for "network neutrality."

Back on the right, Ryan Sager at RCP Blog takes the opportunity to dig at McCain: "isn't McCain the one always hyperventilating about "circumvention" of campaign-finance laws. He and his pals even wanted to clamp down on the Internet recently to prevent bloggers from coordinating with campaigns. And now this is what his PAC is up to? Very odd."

The kerfuffle did not escape DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas' attention: "Ha ha! Conservative blogger was a paid shill for John McCain and failed to disclose it. He was also one of the jokers who criticized me for working for Howard Dean in 2003 -- even though I DID disclose the arrangement." Atrios piles on.

CT SEN: The Championship Round

Matt Stoller at progressive activist MyDD picks up on a WTNH item reporting that Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D) campaign is busy producing a TV ad with footage from ex-Pres. Bill Clinton's Waterbury, CT, visit. Stoller writes: "Lieberman's meltdown has stopped. This is going to be a dogfight from here on out." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas echoes Stoller's "meltdown" line and laments: "Bill Clinton is doing whatever he can to rescue Lieberman from defeat. He may pull it off, as the Clintons and their lobbyist and establishment and DLC friends band together in common cause against Lamont's people-powered army." My Left Nutmeg notes that Lieberman will have an infusion of cash to run the ads since cable exec Ned Lamont recently triggered the FEC's millionaire exemption rule: "It's an ironic provision in this case, since Joe Lieberman still has far more in his warchest than Ned Lamont and has FAR outspent Ned Lamont, whose campaign has turned down donations from corporate lobbyists and corporate PACS, the bread and butter of Lieberman's campaign wealth. And now because Ned has invested his own money in the campaign, Joe Lieberman can go back to the corporate trough and collect more $2,100 $4,200 checks from executives of pharmaceutical companies, energy companies, and defense contractors."

Lamont's Internet comm. dir. Tim Tagaris stopped by MyDD to announce: "If this were a prize fight, we'd be in the middle of the 'championship rounds.' He goes on to ask readers to participate in Lamont's "Family, Friends and Neighbor Program" which allows users to "send a postcard with a personalized message from you to your family, friends and neighbors in Connecticut. Later, follow up with phone calls to your get-out-the-vote list reminding your network to vote for Ned on August 8." Atrios also plugs the program and comments: "It's gonna come down to turnout at this point."

Connecticut Blog and Connecticut Bob both have media of a Lieberman "robo call" going out to CT Dems. Connecticut Blog has just the audio, while Connecticut Bob has added "commentary and sound effects" to a video that pokes fun at both Clinton and Lieberman.

Spazeboy has video of Lamont speaking at a Central Connecticut State University candidate forum and comments on Lieberman's absence form the event: "Senator Lieberman was not confirmed to attend, and unsurprisingly did not attend. Senator Lieberman has passed up three opportunities to speak publicly in New Britain in as many months. The first was on May 11 when the NAACP held a candidates forum at CCSU. At this event, Lieberman's campaign manager spoke in his stead and it is my understanding that Lieberman himself had committed to attending. The second was on June 22, when Senator Lieberman was expected to attend the monthly New Britain DTC meeting - at this event, a representative from the Lieberman campaign spoke briefly. The third was today at CCSU - I saw no representative from the Lieberman campaign."

DailyKos diarist SimpleMan reports on a Pomfret, CT, Lieberman appearance: "That's right, Lieberman canceled at the last moment because he thought BLOGGERS might have showed up and started asking QUESTIONS. While I make it a policy never to harass candidates no matter how obnoxious they might be, I saw too many Lamont buttons and stickers at the event to guess that Lieberman would have been received cooly at best if he had had the guts to show up." Connecticut Blog links to SimpleMan and blames the MSM: "Good grief. Joe Lieberman is now afraid of BLOGGERS who ask questions? How pathetic but I'll bet my soul this will be the new line of attack from the Lieberman campaign and if yesterday was any indication, the mainstream media will jump on the bandwagon soon enough. We're ambushing him with our cameras and our questions? Maybe if the mainstream media did their job, we wouldn't need to be on the frontlines asking the real questions that really matters to people."

Finally progressive Matt Stoller at MyDD takes the time to thanks Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) for her CT appearance for Lamont: "African-American politics is hugely fascinating and not at all well-understood by most white Americans. This alliance, of African-American progressives like Waters and white good government progressives, could be enormously powerful. Combined with the youth vote and a majority of Hispanics, that's a majority progressive country right there. In the more immediate short-term, if Ned Lamont wins, it will be because CBC member Maxine Waters decided that taking a political risk and bucking the party was the right thing to do. ... Last week, Maxine Waters was a progressive hero."

CT SEN II: Keeping Their Eye On The Ball

The unofficial Lamont Blog picks up on a ctnewsjunkie.com story reporting Lieberman's campaign spokeswoman Marion Steinfels describing the independent signature collection effort as "just no ones focus." Lamont Blog wonders: " So are Lieberman campaign workers collecting signatures to create the Connecticut for Lieberman party or not? Are Democratic donors paying for Joe Lieberman to hire workers to collect signatures to help him leave the Democratic party? How much do they earn per signature? So many questions..."

FEINGOLD: Never Met A Dem Health Care Proposal He Didn't Feel Ambivalent About

Ezra Klein at TAPPED finds Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) new health care proposal "rather vague." Klein allows "there's a certain savviness to this proposal ... that it seeks national coverage through a piecemeal, but powerful, mechanism." But ultimately Klein is still "on the fence."

GOP '08: Why Doesn't The GOP Just Save Their Cash For The General?

Jonah Goldberg at National Review's The Corner forwards a reader's prediction on '08 based on patience:

In 1976, it was Ford's turn. Reagan was 2nd.
In 1980 is was Reagan's turn. GHW Bush was 2nd.
In 1988, It was GHW Bush's turn. Dole was 2nd.
In 1996, it was Dole's turn. 2nd place didn't factor.
In 2000 it was GW Bush's turn. McCain was 2nd.
In 2008 it will be McCain's turn.

MCCAIN: Lefty Bloggers Don't Like Iraq War Supporters

The Carpetbagger Report knows "there are still a few Dems out there who like [Sen.] John McCain [(R-AZ)]," and he wants to put a stop to it." Carpetbagger goes on to list recent proof that McCain is no moderate: "

• First, McCain sat down with Jon Stewart on Monday, defended a "stay the course" approach in Iraq, and praised Bush for acknowledging previous mistakes over the course of the war - acknowledgements that appear to exist only in McCain's imagination.
• Second, McCain announced his opposition to legislation that would allow Congress to sue Bush over "signing statements." Asked for an explanation, McCain said, "I think the president will enforce the law." (There was no indication McCain was kidding.)
• And third, McCain criticized congressional Democrats being right about Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. It's clearly the worst of the three.

ROMNEY: They're The Coolest

Before the Hynes/McCain episode broke, Evangelicals for Mitt felt the need to respond to a Ankle Biting Pundits item claiming: "Romney Caught Playing the Kos/Armstrong Blogger Game." EFM writes: "I actually had to laugh. When some of us joined a Romney Yahoo listserv over a year ago, we never thought we'd be accused of professionalism. But, as I surfed the net today, I noticed that it is true that Gov. Romney already has the best presence on the web."

EFM also notes: "In an ironic twist, Jim Geraghty reports today that the Ankle Biting Pundit himself Patrick Hynes is actually a paid political consultant working for Sen. John McCain. He's already offered a mea culpa for not disclosing this, so I won't pile on.)

MN SEN: This Commercial Is Not Brought To You By The Letter R

Ryan Sager at RCP Blog posts Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-06) latest TV ad and notices a detail missing: "It seems Michael Steele isn't the only Republican Senate candidate this year trying to shake off the scarlet R ... You might notice it doesn't use a certain word. It starts with an R ... Instead, the ad focuses entirely on Kennedy's family. For instance, here're his kids: "Dad likes to help people. He's principled, independent, just not much of a party guy. I meant he doesn't do whatever the party says to.

VA SEN: If Not Webb, Then Who?

National Review Online's Greg Pollowitz posts video of the Sen. George Allen (R-VA)/ex-Navy Sec. Jim Webb debate and responds to Webb netroots director Lowell Feld's defense of Webb's resignation from the Reagan administration with a question: "If Jim Webb was correct and the budget of the Navy should not have been reduced, then who was wrong? You see, you can't just say Defense Secretary Carlucci was wrong. Carlucci serves at the pleasure of President Reagan. So, was Reagan wrong, too?

OH GOV: Blackwell Gets Flake-y

TAPPED's Sarah Posner updates us with a new addition to the Ken Blackwell (R) campaign, "Floyd Flake, the minister and former Democratic congressman from New York who launched a burgeoning career as a closet Republican back in 1998 with a speech to the Republican National Committee, recently became the co-chair of Ken Blackwell's gubernatorial campaign. Blackwell, who is a leading light of the GOP effort to cultivate more black candidates (ones who won't make ill-advised and politically suicidal comments to reporters, that is) surely thought he was burnishing his credentials with black voters by bringing Flake on board. Although he spent ten years in Congress as a Democrat, he turned to the free-market ideology that is the bedrock of Blackwell's campaign, when he's not pandering to the theocratic right. But will black voters be swayed by Blackwell's recent crass attempt to make inroads in a Democratic stronghold, where many felt he disenfranchised them in 2004?"

IMMIGRATION: They Named Names

Kausfiles gives the rundown of the righty camps on immigration, complete with rosters. Kaus "hadn't realized the schism on the Right over immigration reform had gotten down to the drawing-up-lists stage. Fun! Here's the wary conservative Enforcement First list. And here's the pandering ... sorry, I mean the pragmatic conservative Comprehensive Reform list ('promoted by the White House Public Affairs Office,' according to John Fonte.) It's Pod vs. Frum! Kemp vs. Newt! .. Who would have thought a canyon-like fault would open up between Shelby Steele and John McWhorter (or, for that matter, between John McWhorter and Heather Mac Donald)? The National Review is split. The 'Likudniks' are split! The Hudson Institute is split. The American Conservative Union is split. The Hoover Institution is split. The Manhattan Institute is split. Even the Wall Street Journal ed page alumni association is split. Here's a partial scorecard..."

Enforcement First: William Bennett, Robert Bork, William F. Buckley, Ward Connerly, John Fonte, David Frum, Frank Gaffney, Newt Gingrich, Jonah Goldberg, Victor Davis Hanson, David Horowitz, David Keene, Roger Kimball, Mark Krikorian, Michael Ledeen, John Leo, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Rich Lowry, Heather Mac Donald, John O'Sullivan, Daniel Pipes, Phyllis Schlafly, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele.

Comprehensive: Jack Kemp, George Shultz, Jean Kirkpatrick, Tamar Jacoby, Grover Norquist, Jeff Bell, Bill Kristol Arthur Laffer, Linda Chavez, Lawrence Kudlow, John Podhoretz, John McWhorter, Max Boot, Vin Weber, Richard Gilder, Ed Goeas, Martin Anderson, J.C. Watts, Ed Gillespie, Clint Bolick, Steve Forbes.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We're Guessing Tom Friedman's Not On His Speed Dial

Sierra Club's Carl Pope takes to The Huffington Post after the Doha round of trade talks failed and proclaims: "Globalism Is Dead." Pope writes:

"We need to be clear: What is dead is not the reality of globalization -- the removal of technical barriers to the ever more rapid transmission of information, goods, services, and people. The Internet will not stop spreading. Satellites will still beam Al Jazeera past the censors in places like the Sudan. The thousands of miles of fiber optic cable laid in the 1990s will still make it possible to call anywhere in the world for free on Skype. And Boeing and Airbus will continue competing with new generations of jumbo jets."

"No, globalization will not go away. But globalism was different. Globalism was a particular fantasy -- an ideology that promised, when the Cold War ended, that we could all become free and prosperous if only we would worship the speed that new technology made possible and, in particular, that speed with which capital that's been freed from governmental and societal constraints could move. That ideology has collapsed. It just couldn't deliver. ... Fundamentalist ideologies, like globalism, are delusions. But unless we find something more authentic to offer as a way to deal with modern complexity, including the complexities of climate, oil, and energy, things could get much, much worse."

LEST WE FORGET: The Simpsons Are Back In India?

Boing Boing forwards along this Hindustan Times item describing Homer's Indian twin: "On several occasions, the cops had to intervene to rein in the monstrous eater. Once college students took sweet revenge on a restaurateur with Rappai's help. He took an "unlimited meals" coupon and emptied the day's food -- three buckets full of rice, one bucket of fish curry and 10 kg cooked meat -- in no time. Finally, law-enforcers had to be called in to end his sumptuous feast."

7/26: Bloggers 1, MSM 0

If there was some type of race to nail down who Dana Milbank's 7/25 mystery GOPer was, the blogosphere won it before it really began. Patrick Gavin at FishbowlDC had MD LG Michael Steele (R-MD) at 7:34 AM and The Corner spent most of the morning already dissecting the fall out for Steele while the MSMers spun their wheels nailing down a story that already wasn't.

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Guess Who's Not Going To Talk On Background Anymore?

Dana Milbank's 7/25 Washington Sketch set off a blogswarm guessing game. FishbowlDC's Patrick Gavin managed to get his correct guess, MD LG Michael Steele (R-MD) posted with the earliest time stamp (7:34 AM). After analyzing similarities between the Milbank piece and a 5/29 Robert Novak column on Steele's opinion of Pres. Bush's Hurricane Katrina response, Jim Geraghty at National Review Online posted his Steele guess at 9:54 AM.

By 9:55 AM Wonkette had a "Milbank Mystery Chiller Theater" poll up. Steele ended up in first followed by Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R), and "a figment of Milbank's imagination" in a close third.

At National Review's The Corner Geraghty's analysis was enough to get John Podhoretz to announce at 10:16 AM "the guy it really is sounds like a crab cake." Cornerites continued to all but say Steele's name until 8:15 PM when Kathryn Jean Lopezreported "this afternoon, Michael Steele's campaign admitted on the record that he had been the candidate in question (including to me). A few of us at NR knew right away when reading the piece early this morning that it was Steele, because (among other things) he had said much of what he said at his Monday lunch at Charlie Palmers during an off-the-record session at NR World Headquarters a few weeks ago."

Lopez went on to provide the official Team Steele line: "Talking to the campaign earlier today, a spokesman who was at the lunch said he considered the piece a misrepresentation of the overall tone of the lunch. Steele, he said, didn't "berate" the president over lunch, he "didn't spend 90 minutes attacking the president." He "was critical, sure," but he also praised the president on "growth of the economy, record-low unemployment," and his speech to the NAACP, among other things. Steele "would absolutely welcome" the president campaigning for him again and has been "grateful" for his support so far."

As the guessing game raged on, Cornerites mused on how the episode would play out:

• John Podhoretz: "By the way, I can't for the life of me understand what purpose it served Mr. Crab Cake to participate in this unattributed talk with reporters. If talk like this would help him with his potential voters, then he should do it openly. If it wouldn't help him with his voters, then it does come across as a kind of preemptive whining about how difficult a race he has. Given the nature of his red state, the race would have been tough under any circumstances."
• Kathryn Jean Lopez: "He's done some of this on the record. I'm guessing they just made a quick bad decision. A shame, but he'll overcome ... but it will still be tough race.
• Ramesh Ponnuru: "Just a hunch. Steele sets up an off-the-record meal with national reporters in order to try to persuade them that he can win the race, so that their coverage will reflect that view. In the process of making that case, he explains that he understands that being tied to Bush is a liability in Maryland and that running with a capital-R would not be smart. If he didn't make such points, the reporters would think that he was in denial about things that a successful candidate would know. But because he made those points, they became the focus of one of the stories arising from the meal-which didn't help him at all.

The left also played Sherlock Holmes. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas wrote: "So my vote is George Voinovich of Ohio. Not only has he betrayed frustrations before being whipped back into line (he originally opposed Bolton at the UN before flipping), but he lives in a state where Bush is radioactive. One more clue -- the Ohio Republican Party is a disaster, collapsing under the weight of dramatic, high-profile scandals and outright theft of the public trust." Over at TNRJason Zengerle guessed: "My money's on Tom Kean, Jr." TAPPED's Ezra Klein wondered what the fallout would be: "ABC News confirms that the man behind the mask is Maryland's Michael Steele. I wonder how the rest of the GOP feels about him publicly blasting the party to reporters, feeding the Bush-is-unpopular and GOP-is-doomed narratives, while hiding behind assured anonymity."

CT SEN: Howard Stern Has Nedrenaline!

The progressive blogosphere is still buzzing over Pres. Clinton's 7/24 Waterbury, CT, appearance for Sen. Joe Lieberman (D), but not about anything that went on inside the event. Rachel Weiner at TPM Cafe reports: "A Ned Lamont supporter and blogger named Beau Anderson, a.k.a. Spazeboy, was barred from attending the big Clinton-Lieberman event, even though he had a ticket. We've now spoken with Marion Steinfels, Lieberman's campaign spokeswoman. She tells us that although Spazeboy had a ticket (which was apparently given to him by someone else), his name wasn't on the list, and no one whose name wasn't on the list was admitted -- ticket or no ticket. "You had to have your name on the list, for security reasons," she told us. "Every ticket had a number and the name corresponded." It appears that the person at the door recognized Spazeboy and knew his name wasn't on the list, and thus barred him."

The unofficial Lamont Blog quoted the end of an early version of Weiner's post: " We're not going to call Steinfels a liar, but maybe she should do a little research of her own. It seems suspicious that the Lieberman campaign could know he wasn't on a list of 2,000 before he even got to the actual entrance." Lamont Blog notes that Weiner later edited the end to read: "Clearly, there are still plenty of unanswered questions here."

The episode received wide attention across the lefty blogosphere, including Chris Bowers at MyDD who compared Lieberman campaign "tactics" to Pres. Bush's. Natural Born Killers producer, and progressive activist, and birthday girl (7/25) Jane Hamsher at firedoglake re-enacted the ejection with Spazeboy in this video.

Meanwhile in NY, media mogul Howard Stern spent 3 minutes talking about the race on his Sirius Radio show. Joementum has a complete audio of the segment and transcribes these Stern thoughts:

"Lieberman's looking a little too Republican with all his religious ranting and morality crap. ... I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican you gotta admit the President's been running the war horribly. And the fact of the matter is that Lieberman's there [as] his biggest cheerleader. He oughta put on a dress and [expletive] jump up and down."

Bloggers were also still talking about Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) Lieberman endorsement. CT progressive Maura at firedoglake bemoaned the position Lieberman has put Dem women Sens in: "At that moment, it seemed to me to illustrate how little progress women have made in the Senate. Lieberman has suggested repeatedly that Democrats who oppose the war are undermining our national security and undermining the future of the party. However chummy they and their spouses may be in private, in public Lieberman has essentially undercut Boxer's authority and questioned her patriotism for criticizing Bush. Yet here she was praising him effusively, calling him "Sir Galahad". I couldn't help but think it analagous to a woman whose spouse badmouths her, undermines her in public, cheats on her, but buys her flowers every once in a while, so she tells her friends he is romantic."

Matt Stoller at progressive activist MyDD looks at a recent uptick in Lieberman's Survey USA approval ratings but is not surprised: "[The data] makes sense considering the flood of single issue mail, Bill Clinton coming to town, huge TV spending by Lieberman, and liberal stalwart Barbara Boxer stumping for the incumbent. ... This is in fact a fight between the entire machine of the Democratic party and the new progressive movement. We should not assume that they bring no firepower or loyalty to the table." Stoller also includes video of Lieberman's first finance chair Carl Feen endorsing cable exec Ned Lamont.

Over at The Huffington Post Campaign for America's Future co-director Robert L. Borosage describes Clinton's trip to CT as an effort "to try to fend off the DLC's worst nightmare - Ned Lamont's primary challenge to DLC stalwart Sen. Joe Lieberman." Borosage admits that Lamont's candidacy is "fueled by the fundamental issue of Iraq" but argues that "this is not a one-issue campaign, and Lieberman is not a one-issue Republican knock-off. Rather, he personifies the DLC's policy of pushing off Democrats and capitulating to the Right." Borosage heralds the Lamont campaign as "a rising tide in American politics - a growing progressive movement ready to ignore the gatekeepers; shed the timid, accommodating positioning represented by the DLC."

Also at The Huffington Post, under the header "Memo to Lieberman: 'Real Democrats' Don't Run as Independents if They Lose" queen bee Arianna writes: "Not spitting in the face of Democratic voters should be Item One on any "Are You Are A Real Democrat?" check list." The post prompted Michael Crowley at TNR to pull out a 1995 Los Angeles Times article detailing Huffington coziness with then House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and notes: "By July 2000, Huffington had shifted to a pox-on-both-houses populism. "I have become radicalized, but it's not as though I'm suddenly praising the Democratic Party. Both parties are equally bankrupt, equally at fault," she told Time magazine. (Lieberman, meanwhile, was furiously at work trying to, er, maintain Democratic control over the White House.) Six years later, Huffington has decided she can speak with authority for "real" Democrats. One might forgive them for not listening too closely."

Finally, from the right Tom Bevan at RCP Blog looks at Lieberman's gay-rights record and argues Lamont supporters doth protest too much: "Look at Lieberman's voting record as determined by the largest gay & lesbian interest group, the Human Rights Campaign. Out of the seven votes they deemed most important last year, Lieberman voted for the HRC supported-position on six of them. Only eight Democrats in the Senate voted for all seven, putting Lieberman in the same company with Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, and ahead of Senators like Jim Jeffords, Tom Harkin, Dianne Feinstein and, oh yeah, Chris Dodd. ... I understand the desire of the Lamont folks to try and make their candidate out to be more than a suit stuffed with antiwar anger and a resentment against Lieberman for not hating George Bush as much as they do, but the effort to attack Lieberman on other issues where he has a solidly progressive voting record makes them look even more like a group of hardcore ideological purists."

CLINTON: HRC Unambitious?

The progressive blogosphere was underwhelmed by Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) 7/25 DLC's American Dream Initiative. TAPPED's Ezra Klein writes: "None of the plans are particularly inspirational, and the health care section is packed with the usual pabulum about electronic medicine, small business buying pools, and giving kids insurance. All the easy stuff, in other words. This is the problem many of us have with Hillary. She can focus press attention at will, but she uses her powers for, at best, mediocrity. So the press will report today on a Democratic plan to do nothing interesting and ignore one that would actually solve the health care crisis."

At The Huffington Post Drum Major Institute leader Andrea Batista Schlesingercriticized also wanted more: "Advocating for the middle class isn't inherently some kind of political compromise or centrist bargain, ala the Democratic Leadership Council. ... Just because you're talking about the middle class doesn't mean that your policy initiatives must consist only of tax credits and deductions that apply to a narrow income range. Advocating for the strengthening and expansion of our middle class shouldn't just be political code for "I'm inoffensive." It should mean that you're willing to do whatever it takes to create the economic policy that will directly benefit the overwhelming majority of Americans."

The Huffington Post Campaign for America's Future co-director Robert L. Borosage describes the initiative as "characteristically cautious," and finishes: "Its health care proposals would do nothing for most uninsured Americans and little to control prices. It says nothing about empowering workers to organize and little about holding CEOs accountable. It skimps on any investment agenda, while promising to don a permanent budgetary straight jacket. It fails to call for either fundamental tax reform or rolling back any of Bush's top end tax cuts, while offering up a bushel of new tax credits and write offs."

The Democratic Strategist's Scott Winship urged progressive to stress their agreements with DLC: "It remains to be seen how DLC critics will react, but to my mind, there is far more here that they should embrace than reject. To begin with, the initiative was undertaken cooperatively not only with the moderate Third Way, but with the Center for American Progress and the Howard Dean- and labor-friendly NDN."

The plan prompted a discussion at TAPPED over which education problem progressives should care about the most. Matt Yglesiaswrites : "The thing of it is that as you can read in Third Way's report (PDF) on "The Politics of Opportunity," Americans are already quite well-educated: "American students spend an average of 13.8 years in formal education-more than any other industrialized nation in the world except Norway." ... There's a real education problem in America concerning our large number of high school dropouts who, economically, end up doing quite poorly."

Ezra Kleinresponds: "it's worth noticing that the obsessive focus on college education bespeaks a certain cowardice and calculation in Democratic circles. College is a cost that primarily affects the middle class and the well-to-do but, particularly in the private context, is hefty enough that it can be burdensome for both. Talk of making it more affordable, while ostensibly aimed at subsidizing the poor, is really a poll-tested way to speak to the politically potent middle- and upper-income quintiles -- it's a way for the Democratic Party to speak up the income ladder, where the votes are."

Garance Franke-Ruta later notes: "Regarding Matt's and Ezra's contentions that Democratic initiatives to strengthen and build the middle class by making it easier and less expensive to attend college are less important than focusing on high-school drop-outs, I'd just like to note that Hillary Clinton is probably taking this approach because Democratic presidential candidates have in the past two elections lost college-educated and college drop-out voters as a group, even while they consistently won high-school drop-outs."

EDWARDS: Is NH The Rubber Stamp State?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas weighed in with his opinion of the DNC's new '08 primary schedule: "They've got to be celebrating over at Edwards' HQ, because this map is designed to give him a huge boost. Caucuses, unlike primaries, really are exercises in organization. Witness Kerry's victory in Iowa in 2004. And Nevada is a serious labor state. In fact, labor is essentially the organizing arm of the Nevada Democratic Party, especially UNITE-HERE's Local 226 of the Culinary Union. It's 60,000 strong, and firmly behind John Edward's candidacy. ... Next is NH, with Kerry, Hillary, and Feingold fighting for supremacy. Edwards makes the required cursory efforts, but instead focuses on South Carolina, which is close to being home-field advantage. And for all Edwards knows, NH may follow suit as in 2004 and rubber stamp the Iowa decision. The media boost for the winner of Iowa will be HUGE, with the media essentially coronating the winner. It's the problem with the 24-7 media environment."

MCCAIN: Tight Rope Walker

Ryan Sager at RCP Blog posts video of Sen. John McCain (R-NV)7/24 Daily Show appearance and comments: "Conservatives should especially watch that ever-present McCain tension: between wanting to say what will make the crowd love him more and wanting not to hack away at President Bush."

MN SEN: Not As Bad As They Said He Was

Machiavel at conservative RedState posts Rep. Mark Kennedy's (R) newest TV ad and writes: "This is why, more often than not, Republicans win. We tend to nominate regular people for elective office. ... The ad is funny, touching, human, and touches a responsive chord. It's a reminder than in elections, personal attributes and values trump detailed policy agendas."

Also on the right Captain's Quarters links to new Survey USA numbers showing Hennepin Co. Atty. Amy Klobuchar (D) up only 5 points on Kennedy and then takes the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's Minnesota Poll to task: "Mark Kennedy's campaign laughed off the Strib's ridiculous reporting last week; now the entire state is in on the joke that the MinnPoll has become. One wonders what fairy tales the Strib will dream up next."

VA SEN: I'll See Your NYT And Raise You A Naval Post Graduate Thesis

Ex-Navy Sec. Jim Webb's (D) Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld at Rasing Kaine responded directly to National Review Online's 7/24 use of a 1988 New York Timeseditorial to attack Webb's exit from the Reagan administration. Lowell cites "a 114-page thesis on the subject of Webb's resignation as Navy Secretary" by Bradly Hanner at the Naval Postgraduate School that concludes: "Webb's insistence on maintaining the United States' Navy's force structure in the face of Secretary of Defense Carlucci's unwillingness to do the same, led to his resignation. His opposition to the reduction in force structure was rooted in his fundamental belief that it was unwise for the United States, as a maritime nation, to undercut a service upon which it relied so heavily." Feld comments: "No sign of "pique" there, just principle."

Sen. George Allen (R) comes in for some not so friendly conservative fire from libertarian GOPer Ryan Sager at RCP Blog: "The GOP majority in Congress (and the White House) has become extremely comfortable with the trappings of power. Sens. Allen and Burns are quintessential big-government conservatives, and increasingly symbols of what's wrong with the current Republican Party. ... For instance, in a recent debate, presidential hopeful Sen. George Allen of Virginia bragged about securing a $671.3 million expansion of Craney Island, adding 580 acres and "offering a boost for a future port there."

HOUSE ROUND-UP: Preempitvely Speaking

Joel Bleifuss of In These Times reports on MoveOn TV campaign targeting GOPers Rep. Deborah Pryce (OH-15), Rep. Nancy Johnson (CT-05), Rep. Thelma Drake (VA-02), and Rep. Chris Chocola (IN-02). The ads "expose the lawmakers' fealty to the corporations that fund their campaigns," and Bleifuss reports on RNC efforts to get local stations to pull the ads.

Progressive Preemptive Karma is in the midst of a House election preview. Previews of top house races in PA, VA, NC, and FL can be found here; OH, IN, and MI races here; KY and OH races here; IA, WI, and MN races here; and IL and NE races here.

Progressive hangout MyDD's heaviest poster Chris Bowers announced he has signed on with Rep. Brad Miller (NC-13): "It is absolutely my pleasure to be working with a progressive Democrat and a real friend of the netroots. I hope this campaign will allow the emerging North Carolina netroots scene to really show its stuff, and to send professional wingnut Vernon Robinson to yet another electoral defeat. It will be like campaigning against Ann Coulter, only Vernon Robinson is probably worse.

OH GOV: So You Mean We're Getting A Reds-Giants World Series?

Robert B. Bluey at Human Events Online was part of an interview with "Ohio gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell (R.) [who] dropped by the HUMAN EVENTS/Heritage Foundation weekly bloggers' meeting, bringing with him an upbeat and positive message about his chances in November. When I asked Blackwell if he could win despite the sour mood toward Republicans in Ohio, he told us about the energy of the conservative base and the turnout he expects from the African-American community." At the Townhall BlogMary Katharine Ham was also in on the interview and highlighted Blackwell's desire to "work on jump-starting the economy with changes in tax structure, regulatory structure, torts, and K-12 education. He addressed mostly the first three with us." Blackwell said:

• "There's no more important job for the next governor of Ohio than getting the economy going."
• "We've put too many roadblocks in the way of incoming capital."
• "We have a regulatory environment that is redundant and red-tape-filled."
• "Right now, Ohio is still in the Top 10 of the 50 states in terms of lawsuit abuse."

"Blackwell pointed out that [Rep. Ted] Strickland's Congressional voting record, 'almost mirrors that of Nancy Pelosi, so this will be a campaign about Ohio values vs. San Francisco values.'"

OK GOV: Istook Took It

The OK primaries were yesterday and Rep. Ernest Istook (R) handily defeated oil tycoon Bob Sullivan and two others, though Sullivan grabbed 26%. Dales of RedState "picked Istook as a sleeper to win in November for the RedState prognostication contest. Between the four candidates on the GOP ballot today, (with 1871 of 2249 precincts reporting) there were approximately 138,000 votes tallied. In the Democratic primary, the two candidates (with the same number of precincts) tallied 225,000 votes. Yes, I know that OK has a major Democratic advantage in registration, and yes I know that the closed primaries means that independents (who trend conservative in Oklahoma) could not vote, but those are daunting numbers when one considers that Henry's approval ratings are healthy. Istook faces an uphill battle."

CA GOV: Looks Like His Best Sequel Since T2 (Effects Still Hold Up, No?)

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas reports a new poll carries bad news for Treas. Phil Angelides (D) against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), with 45% of likely voters backing Arnold, 37% backing Angelides and 15% undecided. Kos admits that the "the California Republican Party's ads using Steve Westley's words against Angelides was pretty brutal. While the GOP has spent $12 million in ads, Angelides has responded with a measly $1.2 million. The California Democratic Party has finally gone on the air this week."

KS GOV: Jayhawk Phenom

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas thinks Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) is continuing to "lead the revitalization of her state's Democratic Party." Sebelius has banked nearly $2.1M. "And she is a phenomenon. First elected because of the split in the state's Republican Party between moderates and the 'evolution didn't happen' loons, Sebelius wasn't content to serve out her term. Instead, she's tirelessly worked to bring over those disenchanted moderates over to the Democratic side (including a former state chair of the Republican Party). In a state that was hopelessly Republican just a short four years ago, she has methodically made the case for the Democratic Party and worked to win new converts. It's nothing short of remarkable. Sebelius is a rock star, and my favorite for the veep nod in 2008."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Matthews Sans Glue

RadioBlogger has Chris Matthews coming "unglued on the Imus In The Morning program." Radio Blogger provides an excerpt of audio and a full transcript from Matthews' Imus bit and writes: "Listening is fine, but you need to really read what he had to say." 07-25matthews-imus.mp3"

BLOGGERS VS. MSM II: Buchanan: Anti-Israel, Anti-Reagan

GayPatriot says Pat Buchanan has done worse than call "Israel's military actions against Hezbollah 'un-Christian.' John Podhoretz called the one-time Nixon aide's comments 'anti-Semitism' while the more diplomatic Glenn Reynolds declined to say what he'd 'call Pat Buchanan.' As you may recall, in his celebrated speech to the Republican National Convention that summer ['92], not only did he make angry statements, but he spoke far longer than the time allotted to him, thus, delaying the speech of the man who was to speak later that evening, a man whose ideas Buchanan once claimed to have championed -- Ronald Wilson Reagan. ... But, apparently indifferent to delaying Reagan's speech, Buchanan, in his arrogance, rambled on and on, his angry remarks hurting his party. On that day in 1992, Pat Buchanan, in deed if not in word, abandoned contemporary conservatism and cast his lot with those on the extreme fringe, his hateful words contrasting so clearly with Ronald Reagan's optimistic vision."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Thorough Defense Of Lieberman's Record

LiebrDem admits to a '90s flashback when reading blogger attacks on Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): "whenever I read this list of charges, I was reminded of Snopes.com's debunking of the ridiculous Clinton Body Count." The body count was a ridiculous laundry list distributed by GOPers in the 1990's listing dozens of people connected to Clinton who had died over the course of his political career. It was a crock, and Mikkelson did a masterful job of exposing it as such. Here are what Mikkelson cited as the rules of thumb in creating such laundry lists."

• List every vote or statement that Lieberman has made that even remotely suggests he is not progressive. It doesn't matter what his stated position on the issue is, or how he ultimately voted on the issue in question. The longer the list, the more impressive it looks and the less likely anyone is to challenge it.
• Play word games. Make sure that not voting for a filibuster on a bill is framed as "supporting" that bill.
• Make sure every vote or statement by Lieberman that you can dredge up is offered as evidence that he is a Republican, without regard to the context and relative significance of the vote/statement in question.
• If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to explain why all the Democrats who know Lieberman best - Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Larson, John Lewis, etc - are still going around endorsing him and talking up his progressive credentials. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it.
• Most importantly, don't let facts and details stand in your way! If you can pass off the fact that he has never proposed a bill on something as evidence that he is against it - do it! If a critical vote contradicts your theory, claim that particular vote was "irrelevant."

LEST WE FORGET: Have A Nice Day!

Extreme Mortman looks at the following washingtonpost.com online discussion fawning:

• Michael Abramowitz: "That's an interesting observation."
• Jeffrey Birnbaum: "Well, Sanibel, as usual, you put your finger on it."
• Jeffrey Birnbaum: "Well, Sanibel, as usual, you put your finger on it."
• Jim VandeHei: "Good political eye, Louisville."
• David Broder: "Your arguments are perfectly phrased."
• Marc Fisher: "Even more fabulous."

Mortman "is so inspired by these niceties, I'd like to take a whirl at being so cheerful to be around. So here's a fake question and how I would respond, if Extreme Mortman chatted at washingtonpost.com.

Question: Don't you know they carefully pre-screen the questions? And you yourself have selectively edited the answers to make a flimsy, juvenile point! What are you - a lunatic? Answer: A lovely question. Thank you for being so nice. I agree. Makes sense. You're right. You're smart. Want my lunch money?

7/25: CT SEN Or WH'08?

Reading the reactions to ex-Pres. Bill Clinton's speech and the speculation as to why he gave it, the story quickly becomes less about Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and cable exec. Ned Lamont (D) and more about Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) WH ambitions. How much of Clinton's Lieberman speech was a preview of HRC's stump speech we won't know, for awhile. But for the moment, Clinton has blunted big league progressive blogger criticism of Team Clinton (DailyKos diarists are a major exception) while test running themes to help HRC move past her Iraq differences with those same bloggers.

CT SEN I: Bill Clinton Supports Dems

CT progressive bloggers mostly refrained from criticising ex-Pres. Bill Clinton for his Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) endorsement. Instead they stressed Clinton spokesman Jay Carson's statement that Clinton would support the winner of the Dem primary in the general election. The Official Ned Lamont Blog writes: "We look forward to campaigning both with him and Senator Clinton this fall."

The unofficial Lamont Blog noted Clinton's kind words for cable exec. Ned Lamont (D) and suggests Lieberman "could take some pointers in campaigning from the Big Dog." The Official Lamont Blog, on the other hand, was no fan of the way the Clinton event was run: "Unfortunately, a few Lamont supporters were turned away at the door from the Lieberman event. One, a blogger, reported literally having his ticket ripped out of his hands by a Lieberman staffer. ... Kind of reminds me a President Bush's highly scripted, invite-only events during the 2004 election."

Unlike their CT counterparts, Kossacks were not happy with Clinton. Under the header "It's Time to Dump Clinton" DailyKos diarist LithiumCola writes: "Clinton was a good President, but he is now useless, and a liability." Comments to the diary ran solidly against Clinton. Opinionated Ed had a typical take: "In my opinion Bill Clinton is getting in the way of the netroots transformation of the Democratic Party. So if he is not going to lead or follow, he will be trampled as collateral damage."

Both before and after Clinton's appearance, many stories surfaced explaining Clinton's appearance on Lieberman's side. Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake rounds up what she's heard:

• 1. [HRC] is afraid that if the marauding left is successful at defeating Lieberman, she'll get caught in the anti-war wake so she dispatched Bill. ... (Colin McEnroe and Lowell Weicker favor this one, as does Maxine Waters)
• 2. [HRC]'s big New York money is the same as Lieberman's big New York money and they leaned on her hard to support Joe. Rather than alienate the liberal terrorists and jeopardize 2008, she sent Bill. (Leading Connecticut Dem)
• 3. Bill and Hillary are now one person who have the ability to act as two. Hillary can appease the angry left by saying she'll support the winner of the Democratic primary, and Bill can salve the Lieberman crowd. Have it both ways, baby. (Digby)
• 4. Bill is an adult child of an alcoholic who just wants to be loved (Gilliard).
• 5. It's all Bill's idea, he loves Joe and wouldn't be anywhere other than by his side during campaign season. They've always been close, you know. (Joe Lieberman)

Jan Frel at Alternet Blog adds another explanation: "Enter a conversation I had this morning with a really smart guy who I talk to who is the Democratic nominee in a congressional race against one of the worst, most venal, House Republicans I've ever witnessed. He explained Bill's campaigning for Lieberman this way: Lieberman was furious that Hillary came out and said she'd support the nominee, so he looked in his ever-shrinking rolodex and called up AIPAC, remembering that Hillary Clinton's rep with the 'Israel Lobby' isn't quite the A-grade she wants it to be for her 2008 campaign."

At The Huffington Post, Ariana Huffington also saw Clinton's performance as HRC '08 damage control: "Among his observations was the rather baffling assertion that the war in Iraq is the "pink elephant in the living room." This expression traditionally refers to "a question or problem that very obviously stands but which is ignored for the convenience of one or other party." But just who exactly is ignoring the war? Certainly not anyone involved in the Lieberman-Lamont race. In fact, it's the defining issue of the campaign. The only ones who'd love for Iraq to be an ignored pink elephant, of course, are Lieberman's supporters and a certain other notable backer of the war who shares Clinton's last name. So perhaps the pink elephant reference was just a case of wishful 2008 thinking on the former president's part. "Convenience," indeed."

CT SEN II: Also In The Nutmeg State

Connecticut Bob and Maura (the same Maura that met Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) in a pub 7/10) pressed Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on choice issues after Boxer's endorsement of Lieberman 7/24. Video of the exchange can be found on YouTube. Boxer did not escape the event unscathed. Connecticut Blog commenter The Docwrites : "Boxer just lost my support. Another DINO to be ousted." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas labeled Boxer's CT trip "a profile in cowardice."

Also on YouTube out of CT: A "Greatest Hits" montage of Lieberman clips set to Avril Levine; video of Lamont campaigning in Waterbury, CT; and video of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) from 7/23.

Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake writes up her 7/21 appearance on Colin McEnroe's radio show with ex-Sen. Lowell Weicker: "Lowell Weicker was a titan. His character was evident and watching his struggle of conscience play out was one of the most memorable dramas of my childhood. ... And there is probably nobody who is enjoying the spectacle of the Lamont/Lieberman race more than Weicker. Since Lieberman gained his Senate seat after beating Weicker in 1988 in an ugly battle, it is with no small amount of satisfaction that he is watching Holy Joe having to fight for his political life. ... Weicker said he did not think the current battle between Lieberman and Lamont was a battle for the soul of the Democratic party, he said he thought it was a battle for the future of America, and definitely a referendum on the war that would have far-reaching implications should Ned defeat Lieberman on August 8.

CLINTON: Deja Vu All Over Again?

Greg Sargent at liberal hang-out TPM Cafe looks at Hillary Clinton's 7/23 DLC speech and notes that while there are some similarities between HRC and Bill Clinton ("It's the American dream, stupid.") the parallels between the two "aren't perfect." Sargent writes: "What's more, the left was less organized and more demoralized when Bill launched his national campaign than it is now; anything approaching Bill's fledgling experiments with triangulation then obviously carry far more political perils today, given the makeup and motivations of the Dem primary electorate right now -- note the hammering Hillary's taken from the left both for her support of the war and for her dalliances with cultural conservatism. With this in mind, it's interesting to note that Hillary's speech was less consciously about defining herself against previous Democratic failures rooted in excessive liberalism than Bill's was."

Matt Lewis at Human Events Online also made HRC/Bill distinctions: "Still, give Clinton credit for having another Sister Souljah moment, and standing up to an important constituency in his party. He is taking on the liberal bloggers. And ironically, this is the kind of maneuver that inspires his admirers to love Bill Clinton. Hillary, for example, would never have thought to make this move. She would have hung old Joe out to dry. Not Bill. Not when there's a chance to work his magic."

GORE: Jump On In, The Water's Fine

Tom Schaller at TAPPED believes Al Gore "has myriad advantages working in his favor this time around, including: a major issue/theme to run on; nationwide name recognition; fundraising ability; a wistful what-might-have-been popular sentiment to fill his sails; and his own, more relaxed attitude. Not to mention, he's already been through the political vetting wringer (how many more bogus "invented the internet" barbs can the media deploy?)." Schaller concludes: "Gore should stop pussyfooting around and jump in. If he dances around too cleverly he may trip over himself--and that would be a tragedy for a political career which already features one tragedy too many."

Conservative critic of Pres. BushAndrew Sullivan reports on his latest visit to the cinema: "I finally saw the Gore movie yesterday. It's thoroughly persuasive about the reality of global warming and the contribution of carbon dioxide emissions to it. I'd recommend it strongly to anyone. Its blindspots were, however, obvious. No mention is made anywhere of the fact that Al Gore was a very powerful vice-president for eight years in a critical period for this issue. His fulminations against others' indifference would have been a little more credible if he'd at least addressed and explained his own failure to do anything when he was able to. It's also striking that Gore could have used the movie to argue for a serious increase in the gas tax - and he didn't. The movie's final recommendations - recycle! write your congressman! ride a bike! reset your thermostat! - were truly lame after the alarm of the rest of the movie."

GIULIANI: It's Rudy Day At The Corner!

The National Review's cover story on ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) spilled over onto National Review Online 7/24. John Derbyshirewrites : "Every conservative I meet has SOMETHING against Rudy. (Me? His insouciance towards illegal immigration.) I don't think all those little discontents add up to one big discontent, though. Political arithmetic doesn't work like that. If I'll give him a pass on immigration, why would not conservatives of a different kidney give him a pass on their pet grievance? Leadership, as Kate quotes JPod saying, carries a lot of weight, and will carry much more if the WoT get more fraught. People will trade a lot for it. Enough to make Rudy president? That's the question."

Kate O'Beirnefires back: "Giuliani's strongly held opinions on immigration reform require a rather large pass. He cheered when a federal judge overturned California's Prop. 187 (restricting benefits to illegal aliens) and hoped that the popular referendum and court decision would be "markers of the start and end of this most recent wave of anti-immigrant sentiment." That particular position represented a marriage of judicial activism and pro-immigrant demagoguery. Woops. Did I mention marriage?"

Ramesh Ponnurunotes: "His chances of winning the nomination will go up if Bush makes another solid appointment to the Supreme Court."

MN SEN: Not A Good Year To Not Beat Bush

Chris Bowers at progressive activist MyDD looks at the a new DSCC poll showing Hennepin Co. DA Amy Klobuchar (D) up 16 points on Rep. Mark Kennedy (R) and asks: "In 2000, when Kennedy first ran for Congress, he won a squeaker with 48% of the vote in a district that Bush won by 13.8% in that same year (see district 2, 1992 redistricting data, in link). In other words, he under-performed Bush by over 13 points in 2000. He also under-performed relative to Bush in 2004. Now, when Bush currently has a 34% approval rating in Minnesota, we are supposed to throw away all polling on the race and believe that Kennedy isn't getting shelled? How can someone who consistently under-performs Bush possible be competitive in a state where Bush has a 34% approval rating?"

VA SEN: It's The Attitude, Stupid

National Review Online's Greg Pollowitz watched the 7/22 Sen. George Allen (R)/ex-Navy Sec. Jim Webb (D) and noted a "Jim Webb is not a Democrat theme" developing. Pollowitz writes that on health care, judges, trade, and immigration Webb showed that he was "not aligned with the Democratic party as a whole."

Pollowitz found "Webb's strongest performance in the debate was on his next question to Senator Allen on why Senator Allen hasn't done more to help the Iraq veterans and suggested that Allen should immediately propose a bill in the Senate to create a modern day GI bill. This was Webb at his most passionate and he was able to score some points here." But ultimately Pollowitz believes Webb will lose do to his past "opposition to Bill Clinton and Chuck Robb."

Over at The Huffington PostThe Nation contributor Ari Melber argues progressive blogger support for Webb stems less from policy coherence, then from "attitude and potential for victory he brings to the race." Melber writes: "In a summer campaign season punctuated by talk of purges and ideological purity, online enthusiasm for Webb's candidacy tells a different story about blog activism, raising fundamental questions about the netroots' emerging electoral strategy."

Following up on his debate reportage Pollowitz digs into the New York Times archives for a story on Webb's views on women at the Naval Academy as well as an editorial questioning Webb's reasons for resigning from the Reagan administration.

HOUSE LANDSCAPE: It's The Money, Stupid

Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly and Ezra Klein at TAPPED both look at Jonathan Krasno's new article "The Redistricting Myth" at The Democratic Strategist and largely agree:

• Drum: "There are two big problems with Krasno's theory. First, there are several trends that have converged to make incumbents so safe today, and money is only one of them. Second, money isn't concentrated just for the hell of it. There's a limited amount to go around, and there's a pretty good case to be made that modest funding in lots of races simply doesn't work. If you're going to beat an incumbent, you need lots of money. ... That said, though, I think Krasno has a point here: "It is tempting to conclude that parties are merely responding to political reality. That is certainly true, but it is also true that parties and other big players help create that reality." This isn't an excuse to fund every challenger out there, but Krasno is right that lack of funding helps to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. It would probably be a good idea to spread the wealth around this year a little more than usual."
• Klein: "Indeed, incumbency confers a series of important advantages that have little to do with the map lines. Constant coverage of events, speeches, legislative achievements, and general do-goodery is a big one, as is the ability to fundraise, draw on established political machines, convince the party structure to provide needed resources, and airlift big name supporters. Meanwhile, the parties have begun deploying much more targeted strategies during elections, concentrating resources in a handful of highly contested districts and leaving the average challenger to get slaughtered by the better-known, better-funded incumbent. Redistricting has emerged a convenient way to sidestep calls for a wider playing field, allowing Democrats and Republicans to shrug away complaints with a nod towards the insurmountable deviousness of those shadowy gerrymanders."

GOV LANDSCAPE: Pretty Optimistic For A Guy Pessimistic About November

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas looks at the top 17 possible Dem Gov wins for '06 and writes: "There are currently 28 Republican governors and 22 Democratic ones. According to my projections, we'll have, well, a lot more Democrats. Between 27-31." Kos' top ten (with analysis omitted for space) include:

1. New York (R-open)
2. Ohio (R-open)
3. Massachusetts (R-open)
4. Alaska (R-Frank Murkowski)
5. Maryland (R-Bob Ehrlich)
6. Arkansas (R-open)
7. Michigan (D-Jennifer Granholm)
8. Colorado (R-open)
9. Minnesota (R-Tim Pawlenty)
10. Illinois (D-Rod Blagojevich)

BLOGGERS VS. DEMS: Failing Up?

Matt Stoller of MyDD criticized a cog in the vast Dem machine, only to expand his attack on the triangulation politics of Bill Clinton in the '90s. Stoller read a post from the "Washington Post's blog 'The Fix', by Chris Cillizza, on a newish group trying to put itself in the center of 2008 called The Third Way. ... Third Way is a total disaster in every conceivable way; the President, Jonathan Cowan, was an advocate for privatizing Social Security. Cowan wasn't just an advocate, he went to the mat for Bush's scheme, going so far as to say that 'this entire discussion is really a discussion that's at the heart of whether there's a future for the Democratic Party."

Stoller continued: "But back to Matt Bennett, who is today's featured insider. Bennett has basically been a disaster in every role he's ever taken. He was the Communications Director for the Wesley Clark campaign in 2004, and effectively took a powerful netroots driven movement campaign and destroyed it through incoherent corporate-driven messaging. Americans for Gun Safety entered into this debate as the sort of DLC of the gun control movement (or as they put it, a bipartisan centrist group), and rather than opposing the NRA's extremist policies, criticized both sides equally. The group reinforced the cultural stereotypes that Democrats were afraid of, and completely gutted effective organizing strategies around gun control in urban and suburban areas. Today, gun control isn't an issue on the national radar despite terrorists being easily able to obtain firearms, with Americans for Gun Safety having played doormat to an utterly ascendant NRA. The NRA totally won the debate, thanks to Bennett and Cowan's stellar work."

Stoller finishes: "This is about the strategy of triangulation, which is in today's world another word for appeasement of extremists. The legacy of Tony Coelho and Bill Clinton is the legacy of triangulation and compromise, only their descendants don't really get what this legacy really meant. Clinton and Coelho were successful with this strategy, pushing progressive policies through a right-wing Congress (or in Coelho's case, beating Republicans in elections throughout the 1980s). Only, their political heirs don't get that compromise only works with extremists if you are negotiating from a position of strength. You can't triangulate from a position of weakness. And you can't triangulate if your base is corporate money, though you can make a lot of cash and get a lot of quotes in the newspaper while progressives loses."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Live From Berkeley!

The Political Punch has the transcript of DailyKos' founder Markos MoulitsasNightline interview up. Highlights include:

TAPPER: How long did it take before you realized that your blog was actually becoming a force, that a lot of people were reading it?MOULITSAS: I don't know. It's happened fairly gradually over time. And I still don't think it's as much of a force as people think it is. I know that blogs are trendy. I know that liberal bloggers are kind of the talk of the town right now, and God knows there's been plenty of ink spilled on how relevant we are and how we don't win anything, yet if we're so irrelevant and we don't win anything, I'm not quite sure why they keep talking about us. If we're irrelevant, just shut up and, you know, talk about what is truly relevant

.

TAPPER: What races are you involved in now? Obviously Lieberman in ConnecticutMOULITSAS: There are two races that we're particularly excited about in 2006. One of them is the Senate race in Montana, and the second is the senate race in Virginia.

TAPPER: You said to a Swedish newspaper, Swedish magazine, "I wouldn't want to be senator or congressman. I'm able to influence politics much more effectively doing what I do. The only way I could exert more influence would be if I were president." I mean, there's a certain acknowledgement in that quote that you have a certain amount of influence.MOULITSAS: There is influence. But actually, that quote really doesn't speak too much to how powerful I am. It speaks to how not powerful the average senator or the average congressman really is.

TAPPER: A comment a lot of people cite as an example of the harshness of your rhetoric on your Web site is after four contractors were killed in Fallujah, you wrote these are mercenaries making money off the war, screw them. And I wonder if you regret having written that?MOULITSAS: Yes, I don't regret that at all. I mean, the blogs are a raw, emotional medium, and they are what they are. And they're not measured conversation, they're not edited, they're raw. And at the time, the context, the reason I was so angry is that same day that those four mercenaries were killed, five U.S. Marines were also killed, and they were completely ignored by the media, by the traditional media. And I wear combat boots, my allegiance is with my brothers and sisters in uniform, not with people who are there to profit from the war.

TAPPER: What do you think is going to happen in November?MOULITSAS: I'm actually very pessimistic about November. I know the numbers indicate that Democrats should make big gains. I think if you look at the numbers in 2004, John Kerry should've won. The numbers, I don't think, mean as much because Republicans are far more effective at motivating their voters, their supporters, to come out and vote. They have, like I said, much better election machinery.

LEST WE FORGET: He's Not A Handsome Man ...

...but the Blogometer supports Area 51's efforts to get the St. Louis Cardinals to retire the number of Willie McGee.

7/24: It's '08 Already?

The '06 elections are still more than 100 days away, but 7/24's blogosphere makes it feel like it's already '08. From reactions to the DNC's early-primary schedule to GOP straw polls, all eyes are on the future. Even the 'sphere's two biggest SEN races have '08 implications with Sen. George Allen (R-VA) as the "default candidate" on the GOP side, and possible Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) implications, no matter how ex-Pres. Bill Clinton's trip to CT today goes.

'08 DEM LANDSCAPE: Viva Las Vegas!

Progressive Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at Hotline On Call's (go team!) DNC early-primary schedule and has five thoughts:

• Unlike SC, the southern state chosen to have a primary shortly after NH, NV has no tradition as an important, early state in the nominating process. This could lead to a more unpredictable, and potentially less establishment-friendly, state of play in the caucus.
• Because it is a caucus, and because it is on Saturday, you can expect extremely low turnout. Like #1, this could again favor the progressive movement in this state.
• This year, the presumptive Democratic nominee for US Senate is Jack Carter, who for all his establishment pedigree, has become something of a movement candidate. ... I'm not sure if either of these candidates fall into the A-list of movement candidates ... but they are not bad. The progressive movement in NV seems to have real teeth.
• Las Vegas is not only a heavily unionized town, but it is a town heavily dominated by the Change to Win coalition. Again, another new, rising progressive power has some real teeth in NV.
• What this could all add up to is an important state in the nominating process that is very favorable to the progressive movement. ... In one scenario, a progressive movement candidate could target a strong second in IA, leading to a victory in NV, that could propel that candidate into near-frontrunner status in just one week.

KERRY: Psychic In Chief

Righty bloggers are highlighting Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) "If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," criticism of Pres. Bush from a campaign stop for MI Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D). Don Surber comments: "Maybe Sen. Kerry - who lost by 3 million votes - thinks he would have dazzled Hezbollah with his waffling like he did on Iraq." Wizbang adds: "OK, Which part would he have prevented? Would he have prevented Hezbollah from being terrorists and kidnapping 2 Israelis or would have have held some Svengali type mind grip on the Israelis and prevented them from retaliating? This is the exact reason the voters of the United States did not elect him."

WARNER: Dawning Of The Age Of Aquarias

Kausfiles picks up on Slate colleague's John Dickersonprofile of ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner noting that Warner is supporting Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) against blogger-fav cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D) and asks: "After all, Kos snipes at Sen. Dodd and Senators Boxer and Biden for their support of Lieberman in the primary. How is Warner any different?" Kaus concludes that DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas friendship with Warner employee Jerome Armstrong must be the answer.

Dales at RedState offers a more obscure explanation poking fun at Armstrong's past: "Through 2008, Uranus would conjunt his natal Pisces Chiron, while Saturn would transit over the natal Uranus. And we all know that it will be Uranus, with its sudden, unexpected awakenings, rebellions, and lightning-like strokes, that will intermittently clamor for our attention in the next four.* ... * Actual astrological terms and phrases, as the link demonstrates, from paid Warner consultant Jerome "Vis Numar" Armstrong!"

Back on the left side of the 'sphere Nancy Scola at progressive activist MyDD pumps Warner's Forward Together PAC by highlighting House Dem candidate use of the web: "Charlie Melancon, running for re-election in LA 03, has a full-color downloadable walk card (.pdf format) that supporters can print and hand it out door-to-door in his district in the southeastern part of the state. Darcy Burner, a first-time candidate in WA 8, lets volunteers add "Doorbelling for Darcy" events right to Outlook using vCal. Diane Farrell, in CT 04, has a running tally of the cost of the Iraq war. ($297,121,600,300 as I write this.) Farrell has also begun a weekly podcast, now in its second week."

'08 GOP LANDSCAPE: The Default Candidate

Right Wing News tabulates results from a GOPbloggers straw poll based on Gallup's latest "acceptable nominee" question.

The Top Tier Candidates
George Allen: 69% acceptable and 18.3% unacceptable = +50.7%
Newt Gingrich: 63.1% acceptable and 28% unacceptable = 35.1%
Rudy Giuliani: 57.6% acceptable and 33.2% unacceptable = 24.4%
2nd Tier Candidates
Mitt Romney: 50.9% acceptable and 34.6% unacceptable = +16.3%
Tom Tancredo: 45.2% acceptable and 38.7% unacceptable = +6.5%
Sam Brownback: 37.1% acceptable and 41% unacceptable = -3.9%
Mike Huckabee: 35% acceptable and 40.9% unacceptable = -5.9%
3rd Tier Candidates
John McCain: 21% acceptable and 68.7% unacceptable = -47.7%
Bill Frist: 18.6% acceptable and 66.8% unacceptable = -48.3%
George Pataki: 12.2% acceptable and 71.3%% unacceptable = -59.1%
Chuck Hagel: 10.6% acceptable and 70% unacceptable = -59.4%

RWN goes on to comment: "Unfortunately for McCain, independents and Democrats don't get to pick the winner of the Republican primary, conservatives do, and they don't like McCain. Conservatives do seem to like Rudi, but his support of gay marriage, abortion, and gun control (among other left-of-center positions) will keep him from winning. Romney? It's seems highly unlikely that any Republican who has done what it takes to thrive in a state as liberal as Massachusetts is going to be prove his conservative bona fides to the base. ... So, unless someone new enters the field, there's only one candidate left standing at the top of the heap, almost by default: George Allen."

GIULIANI: Is Dressing In Drag Ever A Good Idea?

John Miller at National Review Online writes If you like the cover of the current NR, then you'll love this short video of Rudy Giuliani. Something tells me it won't play in Peoria.

ROMNEY: The Party Of Tolerance

Conservative Power Line dips into the wording of a 7/3 Los Angeles Times poll to debunk the papers chosen "A Mormon for President, Voters Balk" headline. Power Line the question used by the pollsters ("Just thinking about a candidate's religion, do you think you could vote for a Mormon [or Jewish, or Catholic, or Evangelical, or Muslim] candidate.") and writes: "Thus, contrary to what the Times reported, the poll does not show that 37 percent of those questioned would not vote for a Mormon candidate; it shows that 37 percent of those questioned would not vote for a Mormon candidate if they thought only about that candidate's religion."

Power Line goes on: "The story also neglects to mention that, while half of the Democrats who expressed an opinion said they would not vote for a Mormon if all they thought about was religion, independents and Republicans showed less prejudice. About 60 percent of independents who expressed an opinion, and more than 70 percent of opining Republicans, were prepared to vote for a Mormon even if they thought only about his religion. Thus, Romney's religion would appear to be less of an obstacle to his nomination than one might infer from the Times' story, which quotes a political science professor who states that religious-based resistance to Romney "among Southern Baptists" could be a "huge problem."

CT SEN I: Party Of Privilege?

DK ar Talking Points Memo becomes the latest blogger to write Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) out of the Dem Party. But he doesn't make him out to be a GOPer either: "There are three parties in American politics. The third is the Incumbent Party. By that, I mean the peculiar (though certainly not inexplicable) tendency of the interests of incumbent elected officials to merge or align in a way that starts to erase the traditional partisan divide between them and creates a different kind of divide between them and their respective Republican and Democratic constituencies. Sad to say but Joe Lieberman has become a member of the Incumbent Party. Ned Lamont's candidacy is as much about opposing an Incumbent Party candidate, as it is a litmus test on the Iraq War."

Chris Bowers at progressive activist MyDD thinks the same incumbent mind set that has captured Lieberman has infected much of the Beltway Dems as well: "There is a connection between the sense of privilege Lieberman and Lieberman supporters feel, and between his terrible campaigning. ... It is actually a problem that is a serious detriment to the Democratic Party's electoral success. Because so many Democratic elected officials, staffers and consultants feel they are entitled to their positions, rather than viewing those positions as something they have to earn and justify. ... Lieberman's campaign has been terrible precisely because he feels he is entitled to his Senate seat, and isn't accountable to anyone. When even having to campaign becomes offensive to you, you are probably going to suck at campaigning. ... If you don't like campaigns, then get out of politics."

Connecticut Blog reports on Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) campaigning for Lamont in Waterbury, CT, and has video of state Rep. Peter Tercyak (D-CT) and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) campaigning with Lamont at a stop in New Britain, CT. Over at firedoglakeNatural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher reports that Tercyak: "jammed last night with his band comprised of other state reps. Chris Donovan, Ken Hewitt and Andy Woodcock called - yes - "The Bad Reps" at the Quality Time Cafe in Meriden. Lemme tell you, you haven't lived until you've heard the CT house majority leader belt out "I Wanna Be Sedated." My Left Nutmeg chips with video of WTIC's "Afternoons with Bruce and Colin" show featuring: "an impromptu interview with Jane Hamsher asking both [Lowell] Weicker and [Colin] McEnroe to share their thoughts on the Lieberman-Lamont race. The result is quite revealing by both men."

Perhaps anticipating Bill Clinton's trip to CT, Political Punch reports: "In my previous incarnation as a columnist for Tina Brown's Talk Magazine, I profiled Mr. Lieberman and found tensions between him and more traditional Democratic constituencies long preceding his fights today with liberal antiwar forces inside and outside of the Nutmeg State. In fact, they were between himself and then-Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore -- during the time that Lieberman was Gore's No. 2. At issue: Gore's populist slogan "The People Versus the Powerful." Lieberman didn't like it. And he refused to say it. Causing tensions between him and Gore's chief campaign consultants in Nashville. ... It should be noted that Lieberman wasn't the only high-profile Dem who thought Gore's approach wrongheaded. Then-President Bill Clinton thought it was "bullsh-t," according to sources close to Clinton, and blamed Gore's loss on that approach to no small degree."

CT SEN II: It Was Senator Feingold In The Billiard Room With The Knife!

In anticipation of his CT visit to support Sen. Joe Lieberman (D), mcjoan at DailyKos penned an open letter to ex-Pres. Bill Clinton including: "You are a kind and forgiving man. It takes a good man to forgive one who had scolded, berated, and chastised you, and come to his assistance in his time of need. ... However, in the event that the people of Connecticut choose Ned Lamont as their candidate on August 8, I hope you will use your considerable influence with Senator Lieberman, witnessed by your presence in the state next week, to urge the Senator to change his mind about betraying the Democratic party and the Democratic voters of Connecticut. If Senator Lieberman loses this primary, I hope you will help him make the decision to recognize and accept the will of the Connecticut voters and bow out as graciously as his years of service and the dignity of the Senate seat deserves."

The liberal and pro-Liberman LieberDem responded: "The Lieberhater crowd has repeatedly said that Lieberman "stabbed Clinton in the back" by daring to make that speech, and have used the speech to argue that Lieberman was a disloyal Democrat who helped push the GOP drive towards impeachment. Such a charge could easily be dismissed as patently false without exposing the implicit hypocrisy behind it. Lieberman never supported the impeachment efforts. He voted to dismiss the charges and end the trial every time such a motion came before the Senate, and he voted against both counts during the impeachment trial (here and here). many have actually credited Lieberman's speech as providing the Democrats with the position that allowed them to save the Clinton Presidency: Separate the legitimate questions about his personal conduct from the illegitimate legal attacks."

LieberDem then went on to spread the anti-Clinton label around: "But even if we were to accept the absurd characterization of Lieberman's actions as "stabbing Clinton in the back," then Russ Feingold stabbed Clinton in the back, twisted the knife, and shot him with an Uzi. Among Democrats, Feingold was the most persistent and vocal critic of Clinton and the greatest Democratic proponent of continuing the GOP investigations throughout the period from 1997-1999. During the Lewinsky scandal in particular, Feingold was Clinton's strongest and earliest Democratic critic. And yes, this is the same Russ Feingold who is a hero of the progressive blogosphere."

Mcjoan at DailyKos quickly shot back at Lieberman and offered a limited defense of Feingold: "Lieberman's speech was huge news and provided cover for Republicans and the media to continue the impeachment witchhunt. Indeed, Lieberman expressly stated that the Senate should await partisan Special Prosecutor Ken Starr's report before deciding on a course of action, a course of action that could have included impeachment and removal of President Clinton. Crooks & Liars has a clip of the speech that is an illustrative reminder of exactly how scathing Lieberman's speech was. ... To put it plainly, I think Russ Feingold was wrong every step of the way in the Clinton/Lewinsky saga. But Russ Feingold did not deliver a speech on the Senate floor intended to garner the approbation of Republicans and the media. Feingold's criticism of Clinton stemmed from his personal sense of disappointment and principle, not for grabbing attention. Indeed, Feingold's position on the Clinton impeachment garnered almost no coverage at all. Funny how that worked out."

At deadline, LieberDem had the last word: "The truth, of course, is that we have absolutely no way of knowing what Lieberman and Feingold's motivations were. All we can do is judge them by their words and actions. On that basis, no reasonable person could say that Lieberman's actions were somehow more critical or disloyal than Feingold's. Lieberman made one speech criticizing Clinton's personal conduct; Feingold said he was open to impeachment, said Clinton 'disgraced himself,' and was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans on the key motions which could have ended the impeachment trial's public humiliation of Clinton."

SENATE LANDSCAPE: Blame Chafee

Conservative bloggers had a uniform reaction to a New York Times 7/23 article cataloguing NRSC financial woes. Matt Lewis at Human Events Online: "But, if there is any room for criticism of the NRSC -- and Senator Dole's leadership -- it lies in their unwavering support of liberal Republicans, such as Lincoln Chafee. Granted, it may be part of the NRSC's charter to support all Republicans, but to what degree they support these candidates is a matter of discretion." Hugh Hewitt agrees: "The New York Times wants you to believe that its Senator Dole's fault that the NRSC is far below its fund-raising goals. Two words: Lincoln Chafee."

Hewitt goes on to differentiate his criticism of Chafee and the CT SEN race: "Facile comparisons with the lefty netroots campaign to unseat Joe Lieberman ignore the Connecticut senator's long term status as reliable Democratic vote, standard bearer in '00, and spokesman for core Democratic values. He's being purged because of a single issue. Chafee, by contrast, does not stand with the GOP on any crucial issue except on the issue of organizing the chamber, and if his vote ever became critical to that exercise, at a minimum the GOP would be under threat of a Jeffords jump at any time.

VA SEN: Everyone Agrees With Me Too

National Review Online's Greg Pollowitz declared Sen. George Allen (R-VA) the winner of the 7/22 pre-debate yard sign battle: "The battle before the debate has begun. George Allen's campaign has blanketed the one road that leads to the debate site with campaign signs. There are no signs whatsoever for Jim Webb's campaign. As a matter of fact, I've yet to see any sign or bumper sticker for Jim Webb on the entire drive down from NYC."

Progressive phriendlyjaime at Raising Kaine found it "a reeeeeeeeal shocker" when the Richmond Times Dispatch went with a "Allen Takes First Round" headline. She went on to report: "Remember, I was there, and AT BEST it was a draw for Allen. And yes, I spoke with writers-they all agreed with me."

Also at Raising Kaine, Webb Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld rounds up coverage of the debate including: "The Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star says "no clear winner in Senate debate." The Washington Post's Robert Barnes says that Webb proved he could "stay on the same stage with Virginia's genial conservative," but did not succeed in "putting the incumbent on the defensive, scoring headlines and promising a furious fight to come." The Charlottesville Daily Progress quotes Virginia Tech political analyst Robert Denton said Webb "did relatively well for a newcomer...didn't get defensive...kept his cool."

Raising Kaine rounds out there Webb coverage with a Jamie Martin post comparing the Allen/Web race with other SEN races: "Even though Allen has twice the name recognition, Webb only trails Allen by 10 points (less than what Kaine trailed Kilgore). The two most competitive races this year are similar: Pennsylvania - Casey (D) leads by 9. Ohio - Brown (D) leads by 9."

HOUSE LANDSCAPE: Blame Pelosi

DK at Talking Points Memo looks at the current environment and asks: "But what if the Democrats lose again? Is anyone quietly angling to replace Nancy Pelosi? The rest of the House Democratic leadership? It's a fair question. If you can't bring it home for the Dems in this political environment, then you should probably go home."

CA GOV: A "No Comment" First?

National Review Online's John Pitney Jr. notes a bump in California First Lady Maria Shriver's campaign road and point a finger. Shriver came to Watsonville, CA, "to encourage poor families to use food stamps to buy healthy fruits and vegetables" when a group called the Brown Berets drove her away, shouting "You're not welcome here" and "racist." Pitney links to a New West Notes report describing a similar incident "in the 2003 recall campaign, where Democratic dirty trickster Bob Mulholland had union members disrupt her first campaign event. Mulholland, now working for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides, refused to comment on the latest incident."

MIDDLE EAST: The Big Eight

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt looks at the eight votes against 7/20's House resolution supporting Israel and notes five of the seven Dems voting no "Conyers, Dingell, Rahall, Stark and Abercrombie are ranking members --and presumptive chairs if Democrats regain a majority in November-- of Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, Resources, the Health Subcommittee of Ways and Means, and the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of Armed Services, respectively. If Democrats win in November, all these gavels fall into hands of Members who voted against Israel even as she was under a massive and continuing barrage of terrorist rocket attacks."

Over on the left Matt Stoller at MyDD looks through his email and laments that while he's "honestly not sure what Israel should do," he is diappointed with "the extremist AIPAC crowd" for whom "anyone who doesn't believe in indiscriminately killing Arabs should go join Hezbollah." Stoller worries that Pres. Bush's inaction on the violence could harm American citizens: " At any point, Bush could stop Israel from attacking Hezbollah, as Reagan did in 1982. Bush is doing nothing. As a result of this combination of quiet encouragement through logistics and intentional diplomatic impotence, American citizens will be held accountable for Israeli actions. Maybe Israel is doing the right thing, and maybe not. But we should at least have the debate with all the facts on the table, since it's not just Israel that will wear the consequences."

Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly is also frustrated with Isreal's behavior: "Israel's military strategy continues to baffle me. As Gideon Levy puts it, Israel "claims it has declared war on Hezbollah but, in practice, it is destroying Lebanon." It remains unclear whether this was part of the plan all along or merely the all-too-predictable result of lofty political promises leading to improvised escalation, but it's quickly beginning not to matter. A war against Hezbollah is justifiable, whether wise or not, but a war against Lebanon isn't. Israel will gain nothing from continuing it."

Also on the left, Cenk Uygur at The Huffington Post asks: "How Many Civilians Do You Have to Kill Before You Become a Terrorist?" Uygur goes on: "The United States and Israel love to throw around the word "terrorist." It's hard to name any of our enemies who we have not called a terrorist yet. I was led to believe that a terrorist was someone who killed innocent civilians for their military or political goals. ... Are Israel's enemies not allowed to fight at all? If they have to audacity to challenge Israel in any way, do they automatically become terrorists? Is arguing with Israel also an act of terrorism? These days I wouldn't be surprised. I imagine they'll call it verbal terrorism. Sorry, I didn't mean to give them any ideas. Was the resistance to German occupation in France during World War II a terrorist operation? Oh no, that's right, they were on our side, so they couldn't possibly be terrorists. They were freedom fighters."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Not Another Immigration Debate

The Volokh Conspiracy's Ilya Somin uses a 7/22 Wall Street Journal account of the division between libertarian Milton Friedman and his wife Rose over the Iraq war as a jumping off point to examine how Iraq has divided other libertarians as well:

"The dissension in the Friedman family would be unimportant if not for the fact that it mirrors a broader split within the libertarian community over the war. Just looking at the major libertarian websites and blogs for example, Instapundit and Techcentralstation have strongly supported the war (as have most of us here at VC), whereas Liberty and Power and others have opposed it. So too has the most prominent libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute. The commentators at Reason, probably the leading libertarian magazine, are internally divided among themselves."

"I do not as yet have a definitive explanation for the intra-libertarian split. One possibly theory is that this disagreement tracks the longstanding division between those who endorse an absolutist interpretation of libertarian principle versus those who take a maximizing approach. Wars clearly lead to violations of rights to life, liberty, and property. ... A second possible explanation is more autobiographical than ideological. It is possible that those libertarians who embraced the ideology primarily out of hostility to the various works of the US government are more likely to be antiwar than those who came to it primarily because of personal or familial experience with statist and socialistic governments elsewhere."

"Certainly, anecdotal evidence suggests that immigrant libertarians are more likely to be pro-Iraq War than native-born ones. ... If you are highly focused on the evils of oppressive regimes and political movements outside the US, you might be more willing to countenance the use of American military power to destroy or contain them than if you have regarded the US government itself as the main threat to your freedom."

LEST WE FORGET: Imagine No Bloggers ...

In response to National Review Online's "50 greatest conservative rock songs," Raising Kaine has put together a list of the "50 greatest Progressive (as in, politically not musically "progressive") rock songs." The top ten include:

1) "If I Had a Rocket Launcher" (Bruce Cockburn)
2) "Welcome To The Occupation" (REM)
3) "Cuyahoga" (REM)
4) "Fall on Me" (REM)
5) "Imagine" (John Lennon)
6) "Working Class Hero" (John Lennon)
7) "Ohio" (Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young)
8) "Keep on Rockin' in the Free World" (Neil Young)
9) "Born in the USA" (Bruce Springsteen)
10) "Bullet the Blue Sky" (U2)

7/20: Can't Live Without 'Em?

Perhaps the Blogometer thinks too highly of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) blog outreach dir. Peter Daou's influence in the progressive blogger community, but Pres. Bill Clinton announced early this a.m. that he'll campaign for Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) but at deadline the Blogometer could find little criticism about Team Clinton. Meanwhile, Lieberman suffered through a fresh round of blog-bashing thanks to vague TPM Cafe posting suggesting he was considering a run as the GOP nominee. No doubt if Lieberman had a "Daou," that person would have nipped that story early. Finally Robert Bluey at The Right Angle surveys the conservative blogger community for candidates to fill a Daou like role for '08 GOP hopefuls.

CT SEN UPDATE: Kossacks React

The major CT bloggers (Spazeboy, My Left Nutmeg, Connecticut Blog, Connecticut Bob, and Lamont Blog) are wrapping Bill Clinton's announcement that he is campaigning for for Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) into their Quinnipiac poll posts. Most claim Team Lieberman chose to play the "Clinton card" only now that he is behind in the polls. The silence on the front pages of the major national blogs is deafening. Nothing on DailyKos' or MyDD's main page. Atrios has a one line link to a Jane Hamsher post that was originally about the Quinnipiac poll.

Meanwhile DailyKos diarist are not staying silent. A sampling of DailyKos diarist opinions:

• Ivan: "It's on! The Clintons have chosen their side, and I have chosen mine. We have to demonstrate that we can beat the Republicans our way, not the Clinton way. We can rant and rail against the Clintons, the DLC, Lieberman, and the lot, but unless we win elections, it's all academic.
• GiveMeLibertyOrDeath: "This is so infuriating and once again self-destructive for the Democratic public image and any hope of putting out a real message."
• shergald: "Remember that Clinton is part of the DLC movement, which believes that the country has moved right and that a centrist Democratic thrust is necessary to achieve electoral success. That meant compromise with the right. And who else has been more willing to compromise with the right: Lieberman."
• Hesiod: "I have always been suspicious that Bill and Hillary are playing Good Cop/Bad Cop on various issues. Hillary herself can't come out and endorse campaign for Joe Lieberman in the primary. But her husband can. And, this way they get to play both sides against the middle. She benefits from being a "good democrat" who won't disrespect Connecticut Democratic primary voters, and Bill can go out and campaign for Joementum so as not to alienate "moderates."
• CTLiberal: "Awww Bill Say it ain't so...I'm disappointed in him. I agree with your premise that Hillary and Bill are playing both sides..."
• Billy Shears: "More proof that the Clintons are obsolete as a political force. Let's dispose of them in the same dustbin we will put the Bush family in."
• oldjohnbrown: "What on Earth is he thinking? Sometimes I wonder if he is. I remember when Dean became DNC chair, Clinton in his speech for the occasion remarked something to the effect that 'nobody here disputes that NAFTA was good for the economy.' There's no way he didn't know that Dean did exactly that."
• Paleo: "I hope this is the final straw for all the remaining Clinton defenders on this board. The guy lives to screw the left. And he campaigns for a Holier than though Joe who condemned him during the Lewinsky affair. While the left was defending him!"
• JoeOhioan: "Is this really a big surprise? I mean, politicians are nothing if not incumbent protectors. And Clinton is just another politician, after all is said and done. A brilliant man, a great leader, and all that. But still a politician. Hell, not only a politician, but married to a politician. Married to an incumbent."
• ActivistGuy: "Triangulator Bill knows he would have done to Joe what Joe did to him if the roles had been reversed. Holy Joe just laid a Sister Souljah moment on Bill is all. Peas in a pod. Very natural endorsement.
• John Campanelli: "I don't have a problem with this I still think Lamont will win. But by bringing out the big guns in the form of the Big Dawg, Democrats simply make Lieberman that much more obligated to the party. If he does anything that flirts with the Republicans, party leaders can say, "We did all we could to help you and yet you still turn to Republicans to maintain your seat?" It would send the message home that Lieberman is devoted more to himself and not the party.
• IndyScott: "It's On Days Like This That I really think we have to consider a new political party and let the Democratic Party destroy itself."

CT SEN: A New Front Runner?

Progressive bloggers are celebrating Quinnipiac University's latest poll showing cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D) ahead of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) 51% to 47% among likely Democratic primary voters. The Political Wire quotes Douglas Schwartz: "Lamont is up, while Lieberman's Democratic support is dropping. More Democrats have a favorable opinion of Lamont, who was largely unknown last month, and see him as an acceptable alternative to Lieberman. But Lieberman's strength among Republicans and independents gives him the lead in a three-way matchup in November."

Greg Sargent at progressive hang-out TPM Cafe manufactured a mini blogswarm 7/19 after he asked the Lieberman campaign: "Will Lieberman or will he not rule out running on the GOP line if he loses to Lamont in August and it's offered to him?" Sargent wrote: "The question has been posed to Lieberman campaign deputy press secretary Noah Kores, and the campaign is mulling it." Sargent's "mulling it" line quickly flashed around the progressive blogosphere as if Lieberman had issued a press release announcing he was switching parties.

Under the header "Lieberman mulls running as a Republican" DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas writes: "I wish it was hyperbole. It's not." ConecticutBlog writes: "WTF!?! Joe's thinking about running as a Republican? Okay, at this point, how can any true Democrat in Connecticut vote for this guy in the primary?" Chris Bowers at MyDD: "I can't wait to see Lieberman's "Democratic" defenders support this move. Then, when he runs as a Republican, I can't wait to see those great defenders of personal responsibility (and no accountability) blame his party switch on someone besides Holy Joe." Swing State Project: "Now, I don't know if this press secretary A) made an unbelievable [mess up] that will later be repudiated, or B) leaked something that should've been kept private or C) is part of a campaign with a death wish for the August 8 primary. I do know, however, that there's no use in taking chances when you're betting on Joe Lieberman's integrity."

Some more responsible progressives tried to figure out exactly what happened. TPM Cafe commenter Maura in VA asked Sargent: "When you say, 'The question has been posed to Lieberman campaign deputy press secretary Noah Kores, and the campaign is mulling it,' does that mean you actually REACHED Noah Kores and he said the campaign is mulling it?" Sargent never responded on that comment board, nor in his follow up post reporting that "Lieberman would 'absolutely not' run on the GOP line."

The lefty but pro-Lieberman LieberDem sums up the episode: "The TPM Cafe blog ran a piece earlier today saying that Lieberman was "mulling" a run on the GOP line. The person who wrote the initial post did not speak at the time to anyone other than a rather low-ranking member of his press staff. DailyKos and other outlets quickly picked up on the piece, saying that Lieberman was "mulling" a GOP bid. ... Such a claim was obviously bogus from the start. The reality is that the people at TPM were simply unable to get a hold of someone sufficiently empowered to speak for Lieberman, and so speculated that the non-response of the staffer somehow meant Lieberman was "mulling" becoming a GOPer. I doubt even the Kossacks bought into the story; they just wanted another excuse to get "Lieberman" and "Republican" in the same sentence for the umpteenth time."

Natural Born Killers producer and progressive Jane Hamsher adds these highlights two new CT SEN You Tube efforts. At firedoglake she interviews Lamont on why he loves public appearances, CT-04 nominee Diane Farrell (D)'s new Iraq focus, Lieberman's negative ad campaign. At The Huffington Post Hamsher posts a video of Lamont criticising Lieberman for being "all Iraq all the time" and for not supporting Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) censure resolution. Also she writes: "The starling admission by Lieberman communications director Marion Steinfels that she doesn't even watch the powerful YouTube videos made by Lamont's supporters that have spread like wildfire through the internet and done so much damage to the Lieberman campaign. Joe's answer to the beating he's taking from video bloggers? Don't watch them, and pretend they don't exist."

Finally TNR's Jonathan Chait announces his support for Lieberman is wavering: "The view that Lieberman is unique is starting to seem more persuasive to me. ... while Democrats disagree on how to make the best of the Iraq fiasco, Lieberman is left as basically the only Democrat who doesn't think the Iraq war has been a fiasco.

LANDSCAPE '06: Feeling Blue

USA Today's 7/16 article on '06 primary turnout has DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas feeling "pessimistic." Kos writes: "Democrats are so afraid to lead and inspire, that rank and file Democrats are unmotivated to turn out. And it won't matter how poorly Republicans do, and how many Republicans tune out of the electoral process, if we can't get our own people to vote. ... It's not too late to motivate and inspire Democrats, and there's evidence that national Democrats have gotten the memo and have ratched up the rhetoric."

Fellow activist Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at the same article and sees more positive news: "Clearly, turnout is down overall. However, that does not mean turnout id down among every demographic group. Look for two groups to buck the trend in particular." Bowers identifies young people and immigrants as two groups voting more heavily but also warns: "There is a key similarity between these two demographic groups: both have fluid partisan loyalties. While both may lean toward Democrats, those leanings are not guaranteed at all."

LANDSCAPE '08:

Conservative Captain's Quarters notes a new wrinkle to Gallup's latest '08 polling: "A new Gallup poll measures the viability of potential presidential candidates in 2008, and it contains a number of surprises. Gallup did not ask respondents to endorse one particular candidate but instead to indicate their acceptability or unacceptability as a potential party nominee." CQ pays attention to the candidates negatives: "Dick Cheney rated 61% to take the prize in unacceptability, but others show large hurdles in gaining traction among Republican voters. Jeb Bush, George Pataki, and Newt Gingrich all have majority-unacceptable ratings, and the latter has made clear that he's seriously considering a run at the nomination. Of the 13 candidates listed, Giuliani and Rice have the lowest negative ratings, 25% and 29% respectively. George Allen, one of the conservative favorites, has an acceptable/unacceptable rating of 36/35, but has 29% undecided. Only Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee have more unknown votes."

Other reactions from the right:

• Shot In The Dark: "What is most notable in the Republican data is the substantial proportion of party supporters (41%) who would consider McCain an unacceptable nominee for their party."
• Right Wing News: "First place among Republicans is Rudi, with 73% acceptable rating and only 23% calling him unacceptable. Those are nice numbers that have a lot to do with his charisma, leadership, and the well deserved tough guy rep he gained by cleaning up New York. But, can an adulterer who supports gay marriage, gun control, and abortion come out on top in a Republican primary? It seems highly unlikely."
• John McIntyre at RCP Blog: "Interestingly Giuliani also leads among the potential field as the candidate Republicans find least objectionable, with only 25% describing Giuliani as "Not Acceptable." McCain polls in the middle with 41% saying he is "Not Acceptable, " though that is better than Romney, Frist, Gingrich, Brownback and Jeb Bush."
• Evangelicals For Mitt: "If you actually read the stats, roughly 4 in 10 Republicans disapprove of virtually every real would-be candidate. The only exceptions are Allen (whose 35 percent number is nothing to write home about), Rice (who is not running), and Rudy (whose social liberalism is not widely known). Suffice it to say our party is not in a genial mood. As the true agendas of both Mayor Guiliani and Gov. Romney become more widely known, the former's numbers will tank and the latter's will soar.

On the left, Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at the results for the Dem field: "One thing to note about this poll is that when people have never heard of someone, they seem to break toward "unacceptable" on that person. For example, according to Pew, in April Russ Feingold only has a 28% name ID nationwide. However, 70% of the people responding to this poll seem to have an opinion of whether or not he would be an acceptable choice. The same problem seems to be affecting Warner and Vilsack. ... Given that, who are these numbers really bad for? Wesley Clark, John Kerry and Howard Dean (not that Dean was considering running). All three have pretty high name recognition (69% for Dean, 74% for Clark, and 99% for Kerry). All three also have high "unacceptable" ratings: 40% for Kerry, 49% for Clark and 54% for Dean. Who are these numbers good for? Edwards, Clinton and Gore, but especially Edwards. The guy has a much lower name recognition than either Gore or Clinton, yet higher acceptable ratings. It still blows my mind that more people don't take him seriously in 2008. He could really run the table--and I say that as a supporter of someone else."

BLOGGERS VS. GOP: Daou's Doppelganger

Robert Bluey at The Right Angle notes Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) "has already hired her own "blog adviser" -- a job that each presidential campaign will have to fill," and asks "Where does that leave Republicans? ... Here's my list of eight potential "blog advisers" who could fit the Daou/Armstrong model on the right." Bluey goes on to plug: RedState co-founder Mike Krempasky; Bush-Cheney '04 eCampaign manager Chuck DeFeo; Washington Examiner editorial page editor Mark Tapscott; RNC eCampaign director Patrick Ruffini; RedState managing editor Erick-Woods Erickson; Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) "spokesblogger" David All; Human Events contributor Matt Lewis; and APCO Worldwide's Spencer Whelan.

GIULIANI: Acceptable Doesn't Win Elections

The Corner's Anthony Dick doesn't think Gallup's new poll should be great news for ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani: "I don't think it's quite right to say that the poll really demonstrates that 'Rudy has the most appeal among Republicans.' Rather, the poll merely shows that more Republicans find him acceptable than any other candidate. In an election, there's an important distinction to be drawn between being merely widely 'acceptable' and actually 'having the most appeal': You can be considered 'acceptable' by a lot of people without being the first choice of a single one of them. So even though Rudy might be just plain 'acceptable' to most Republicans, it still might be the case that all of them have a stronger preference for someone else."

Also at National Review Online, Greg Pollowitz keeps track of who Giuliani has campaigned for: "Rich posts over in the Corner that, "The Reed camp blames John McCain for playing payback for his 2000 primary defeat with a campaign of leaks, and the press, of course, was happy to pile on." Reed did have one friend during the primary, however ... Rudy."

MCCAIN: This Might Matter If Immigration Is Still An Issue By Then

Evangelicals For Mitt thinks the Beltway is overplaying Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) UT Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. endorsement: "Huntsman likes McCain's take on immigration, which the vast majority of the conservatives who will be voting in the 2008 GOP primaries abhor. And we're supposed to view this move, then, as something that "strikes deep into the political base of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, another of the potential contenders for the Republican nomination?" Sorry, but no."

ROMNEY: Mitt And Me

Libertarian GOPer Ryan Sager at RCP Blog notes a Salt Lake Tribune story reporting that filmmaker Mitch Davis is forming a 527 to fund a movie about Mormonism and MA Gov. Mitt Romney. Sager quotes the SLT: "Davis' campaign -- which he acknowledges likely will start with donations from sympathetic Utahns -- could end up helping Romney make his religion a non-issue or end up reinforcing the cultish image many Americans have of the faith." Sager comments: "I'm going to guess the latter. Here's Davis's IMDB page, which also has information on a religiously themed project he has out in 2006.

OH SEN: Where There's Smoke ... There's Swift Boaters?

Tom Bevan at the right-leaning RCP Blog is not impressed with the Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) campaign's use of doctored world tower images in an attack ad: "Apparently some moron thought it would be a good idea to add computer generated smoke to a pictue of the towers. ... I hate to beat a dead horse over the issue of fairness and hypocrisy, and I know Republican outrage was already at ear-shattering levels over the DCCC video, but how much louder do you think they would have screamed if Democrats had not only used images of fallen soldiers in a political video, but had doctored them to enhance the effect?"

TPM Muckraker picks up on an AP report that "the ad was created by Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, the same shop that produced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads in 2004." TPM Cafe has video of the ad.

RI SEN: Chafee Fall No Laffey Matter?

Patrick Casey at National Review Online posts Rasmussen Reports latest RI poll showing Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) at 41% to ex-AG Sheldon Whitehouse's (D) 46%. Casey also notes: "Rasmussen is wary on polling for the Republican Primary, as it is an open primary that allows independents to vote, but does note that Chafee's primary opponent Steve Laffey polls better with Republicans (61%) than does Chafee (52%), and that Chafee is viewed favorably overall by only 46% of the Republicans. ... If Laffey does win the primary, which is entirely possible, he will have two foes other than Whitehouse to worry about. The first is the NRSC itself which has little credibility now in Rhode Island and whose ads against Laffey will be used by the Whitehouse campaign. The second is the Providence Journal which will be as in bed with Whitehouse then as it is in bed with Chafee now."

VA SEN: Jimmy Webb Goes To Washington

Tom Schaller at the liberal TAPPED shares a rumor he picked up from a DSCC fundraising event in Nantucket: "Donors were very impressed by candidates Sherrod Brown (OH), Claire McCaskill (MO) and Jon Tester (MT), but that Virginia nominee Jim Webb fell flat. Somebody close to Webb told me that, to put it rather bluntly, Webb just isn't good at the ass-kissing that (some) Democratic donors expect."

Schaller admits to "a grudging respect for candidates who don't prostrate themselves to donors," but also wonders if Webb is going to have to change his tune to succeed against Sen. George Allen (R): "Still, if the recent cash on hand numbers are any indicator, for all his other political and personal assets, if he isn't prepared to do a little groveling, Webb ($424K) is simply not going to come close to having the kind of advertising monies he will need to upend a suddenly not-so-invincible George Allen ($6.6M that's for million). This may be a sad statement about contemporary politics, but it is what it is."

STEM CELLS: This Probably Isn't The Pork Barrell Spending McCain Was Talking About

The progressive blogosphere were quick to portray Pres. Bush as the enemy of science and sick people everywhere following his 7/19 veto of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. DarkSyde at DailyKos captures the tone: "If and when the day comes that a cute kid stands up and walks away from his wheelchair for good, the President and the right-wing culture of death are going to appear about as appealing as the theocrats who imprisoned Galileo." The Reaction hits a similar note: "Well, Mr. President? You talk about "a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect," which must sound nice to your base, but all you prove with this veto is that you are closed off - politically and morally - to the possibilities of science and to a beneficial (and hopefully benevolent) technology that will save the lives of the living."

Also on the left The Carpetbagger Report noted how quickly the Beltway can move when it wants to: "For a slow-moving bureaucracy, Republicans in Washington sure can move quickly when they want to. It's almost as if Republicans are counting on voters forgetting all about this as the election season moves forward. It'll be up to Dems to make sure they don't." Meanwhile AMERICAblog wonders why Bush keeps his conservative base in the closet: "Seriously, how many times does Bush have to treat the religious right and its agenda like pariahs before they get the picture? Remember how during the gay marriage White House speech Bush hid the leaders of the religious right from the TV cameras?"

Many on the right cried foul at MSM coverage of the issue. The Anchoress: "It never fails that when the press discusses things like President Bush vetoing this bill, they leave out the word EMBRYONIC. They want the world to think that Bush is a "Christian who is afraid of science," and so they always discreetly forget the EMBRYONIC part, leaving casual readers to think the president is against adult stem cell research, in general which is not at all true." Confederate Yankee: "Frankly, I'm with the President on this one: I'm against killing human embryos to create cancer, when adult stems cells are already clinically proven to work." Power Line: "But the politics of the issue are deadly for conservative Republicans. Because of poor reporting and misleading headlines, I suspect that most Americans do not understand that "embryonic stem cells" is not synonymous with "stem cells," nor are they aware of the considerable doubts among many scientists about the benefits of this research."

Other conservatives spun the veto as a principled stance against run away spending. RedState: "It is fitting that the President's first veto would erase a bill to increase spending. Somehow, many in the Republican Party who are opposed to increased spending have a blind spot on this morally divisive issue - perhaps some are merely opposed to increased spending on programs they dislike, and change their minds when it's something that social conservatives care about."

Pro-stem cell research libertarian Ronald Bailey at Hit and Run wonders if GOP blocking of federal funding has actually slowed any research: "The restrictions probably have slowed research a bit because researchers have had to build completely new infrastructure using private donations and state funds in order to avoid mixing federal funds from their other research. In other words, stem cell researchers who want to work on new stem cell lines have to find money to pay for new standalone labs, new microscropes, new petri dishes, and so forth. On the other hand, President Bush's limits on research have provoked an outpouring of private and state funding that I have argued previously may well exceed whatever federal funding might have otherwise been available." Meanwhile the reliably conservative and anti-embryo user Captain's Quarters also sees little impact from the lack of federal funds: "The lack of federal funding should make little difference, if the science is sound for hESC. It's not, or at least it isn't commercially viable, which is why researchers want the federal government to pay for it. Pharmaceuticals won't underwrite it because adult stem cells and umbilical-cord stem cells have had much more success. They have produced actual medical treatments, where hESCs have had little real success."

REED: Platonic Ideal Of Hypocrisy

The GA LG post-mortems continued on the left and right. At National Review's The CornerRich Lowry passes along the official Ralph Reed explanation: "Once the Abramoff stuff exploded, it was going to be a very tough road for Reed. Glen Bolger did a poll for the campaign in January showing that it was possible for Reed to win, but his negatives were very high and he would have to squeak by. ... Reed's connection to the Abramoff stuff had broken back in the summer of 2004, so it couldn't have been predicted that it would be such a huge deal even now. But it was. The Reed camp blames John McCain for playing payback for his 2000 primary defeat with a campaign of leaks, and the press, of course, was happy to pile on. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran dozens and dozens of stories about the scandal. Outside liberal groups might have spent upwards of a quarter-million on the race."

Erick at conservative RedState weighs in: "The Abramoff scandal weighed Reed down. When Casey, at the end of the race, decisively made the case that "Ralph Reed's values are for sale," there was no where left for Ralph Reed to go. Few people, including yours truly, thought Casey could be a giant killer. But now we know he is."

The Moderate Voice broke focussed on the corruption charges as well: "The significance of this loss can't be understated: (1) There was a time when Reed and the group he represented was considered the can't-lose wave of the GOP political future, (2) Reed was considered sort of the Karl Rove of the Christian Coalition - a guy who had the credentials, the job title and the political smarts to rise...and rise FAST, (3) This shows that there CAN be some political fallout from the corruption scandals of the past few years, (4) This shows that GOPers can't simply assume voters will simply dismiss or ignore allegations of corruption and people who seem to be ethically challenged."

The left was happy to see Reed go. Atrios writes: "From my memory, Reed is a symbol of the dawn new era in the media, where anyone cloaking themselves in (Christian) religion was treated with obscene deference. He was a political operative from the beginning, yet I remember him back in the old days being treated with reverence as he'd make the talk show rounds. I'm not sure how important it is in the grand scheme of things, but it'll be nice to see golden boy go down." Fellow lefty Legal Fiction: " I've said my peace on this many times, but Reed's gambling tactics are about as close as one can get to the Platonic ideal of hypocrisy."

BLOGGERS ON BLOGGERS: Not Everyone Is Obsessed With Politics?

Turns out not all bloggers are hung up on pols, stars and tech: a Pew Poll finds that the "ease and appeal of blogging is inspiring a new group of writers and creators to share their voices with the world. A national phone survey of bloggers finds that most are focused on describing their personal experiences to a relatively small audience of readers and that only a small proportion focus their coverage on politics, media, government, or technology."

Mystery Pollster notes that footnote #2 in their latest report on Internet activities. The wording of the question changed slightly. In earlier studies, they asked: 'Do you ever use the internet to read someone else's web log or blog?' In this latest study, they asked: 'Do you ever use the internet to read someone else's online journal, web log or blog? [emphasis added]' As I read it, absent a side-by-side experiment testing the two versions of the question, we cannot be absolutely certain that the increase is real and not the result of the change in wording."

MyDD'sChris Bowers was struck by "how the demographics of the blogosphere as a whole were very different than the demographics of the political blogosphere. ... By way of contrast, the median age for members of the progressive political blogosphere is much higher -- in the mid-40's. There are more men than women in the progressive blogosphere, with men currently making up over 60% of the progressive blogosphere, but that ratio is slowly approaching equity. ... While there is no really good data on race / ethnicity within the progressive political blogosphere, it is a safe bet that we are no where that diverse."

Romenesko at Poynter points out copyright protections are being ignored because though "Just over a third of bloggers polled say they engage often in journalistic activities such as verifying facts and linking to source material, according to a Pew Internet & American Life Project report. Sixty-one percent say they rarely or never get permission to use copyrighted material."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Purpose of Think Tanks, And The Internet

On 7/19 The Corner's John Miller "blegged" his readers for help finding a Milton Friedman quote on the importance of think tanks. On 7/20 a reader sent along this quote from Friedman's 1982 Capitalism and Freedom: "Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable."

LEST WE FORGET: Tent Pitching

Right Wing News sat down with NV Gov. candidate and ex-porn star Mimi Miyagi. Highlights include:

John Hawkins: When did you start getting into politics and what drew you to the Republican Party?Mimi Miyagi: I am an avid supporter of bearing arms since 2001 ... I love the people in the (Republican Party). I have been to some of the Democratic parties here and there, but the positivity, the upbeat attitude of the Republicans was more for me.

John Hawkins: So, you kind of thought the Democrats were pessimistic and negative?Mimi Miyagi: ...I don't like all the mudslinging and a lot of the things they say about the Republicans really (aren't) true. The Republican Party is about individualism, it's about freedom, it's about lowering taxes. That is something I truly believe in.

The Right Angle links to the post and asks: "The GOP is known to have a big tent, but maybe not this big."

7/19: Less Embarrassing in GA?

The conservative blogosphere had much more to celebrate after 7/18's GA primary. Many on the right were happy to see Ralph Reed's unpleasant ties to Jack Abramoff swept off of GA's radar, especially since state Sen. Casey Cagle's (R) bruising ads would have given Dems a gift they could capitalize on this fall. For the progressive blogging community many hoped that 7/18 would be Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D) last day in the news. Though pleased she did not win, no one on the left is excited about a high-profile runoff either.

GA LG: A Stunning Defeat

Few tears were spilled in the conservative blogger community over Ralph Reed's (R) loss to state Sen. Casey Cagle (R). A Peach Pundit commenter writes: "I can't believe the stomping that Reed just got this is a hard lesson (pill) for him to swallow. ... But, I'm sure most of you are pleased, he'll never run statewide again." Ryan Sager at RCP Blog writes: "The defeat seems fairly stunning in its magnitude, given that polls just a few days ago had the two men tied." Chris Farris and Jason Pye both live-blogged Cagle's election night party.

Washington Times assistant national editor Robert Stacy McCain has a very lengthy post at his blog Donkey Cons on the race that includes this explanation of Reed's defeat: "After reading that [Matt Continetti's article, "Money, Mobsters, Murder" in The Weekly Standard], I felt sure that Reed would have to quit the race. No way, after he had sold his soul to the casino lobby, could Reed count on the support of conservative Christians in Georgia. I remembered how they'd fought all-out against the Georgia lottery, and I felt sure they'd resent Reed's involvement in that wretched scandal. That was the same time when WORLD Magazine came out with an article examining Reed's [Jack] Abramoff connections. People outside the evangelical world don't understand how much impact that had on Reed. WORLD is to the Christian homeschooling community what Newsweek is to the rest of America. I don't know what their circulation is, but they've got a real strong readership among homeschooling leaders, and those people would otherwise have been expected to be strong activists for the Reed campaign."

GA-04: Diebold Strikes Again!

While most progressive bloggers hoped Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D) would lose her three-way primary battle, some just saw it as another case of the DLC keepin' the progressive community down. DailyKos diarist zumbi50: "Before polls were open two hours, reports began coming in that votes in suburban Atlanta's Diebold black box machines --- purchased and defended by DLC Democratic candidate for governor Cathy Cox with absolutely no paper trail or means of independent verification --- are switching Democratic primary voters votes from McKinney to her opponent Hank Johnson. Election officials in one precinct told a voter who complained her vote had been switched to look out in advance next time."

KCinDC at Dem activist Swing State Project felt the need to address the Diebold rumors: "McKinney supporters have already set up the explanation for any loss: Diebold machines. The problems are (1) the Republican vote manipulators they talk about certainly have no interest in replacing McKinney with a saner Democrat, since she's such a great "evil" Democrat for them to rile people up about, and (2) if you're going to program the machines to steal votes, you don't show the voter that the vote is being switched -- you simply have the machine display one candidate on the screen and record the vote for another, with the voter never being the wiser."

Also at Swing State, Mark hoped a McKinney loss in the 8/8 run off would just be the beginning: "Seriously though, getting rid of McKinney would be second only to purging William Jefferson on the cut-out-the-cancer-o-meter. Although the Dems are unlikely to hail the defeat of McKinney on the grounds that it may alienate African-American voters, but it sure would be a good poke in the eye regarding the way voters in each party treat their bad apples."

Conservative bloggers did not ignore the race and were happy to note who attended McKinney's election night party. Peach Pundit: "Cynthia spent the evening dancing with war protester Cindy Sheehan, doing the electric slide, jamming with her tambourine.

GA GOV: So Did She Endorse Or Not?

Lefty blog Politics 101 was not impressed with Sec/State Cathy Cox's (D) concession speech to LG Mark Taylor (D): "Sour grapes," quotes one general assembly member. "Many who stood at the Taylor victory party tonight echoed the same sentiment after hearing Cathy's excuse for not endorsing her party's nominee. How unfortunate it is that Cox was unable to except her defeat more gracefully. Tonight Cathy Cox needed to step up, endorse the Democratic Party's candidate and commit herself to Democratic victory in November; by not doing so Cathy has hurt the very party she sought to lead."

Also from the left though, Liberal Lucidity thought Cox was a team player: "Cathy has asked her supporters to put aside our animosity and unite to defeat Perdue. If this is something that she can do, it's something that I can do. And it's just what you would expect from a leader of the standard of Cathy Cox. Now the task is to finish the job that we all started out trying to do as Democrats. And that's to return a Democrat to the governor's mansion."

FRIST: Blogger In Chief

Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) unveiled MedicalMatters.org. Frist explains: "Obviously, health care is an important issue for me, and it is issue that I feel needs a meaningful and comprehensive debate. It is also an issue where the Republican view of health care often differs greatly from the Democrats. This blog will also highlight and discuss these differences. My hope is that the MedicalMatters.org blog will help sustain a focus on health care challenges and health care solutions in ways that the occasional news story in your Sunday paper or on the evening TV newscast cannot."

GINGRICH: Newt-water

The Heritage Foundation hosted a Newt Gingrich/conservative blogger meeting 7/18. Right Wing News paraphrases his best Gingrich takes: "Newt suggested blockading Syria and perhaps sending our special forces in with the Lebanese army and kill Hezbollah. He also said, contrary to what you might hear, we're not bogged down in Iraq. We're the most powerful nation on the planet and we're capable of doing more if need be. ... Even though Reagan won the Cold War, he didn't do it with military power. He was very careful about the application of military power. However, he actively supported nascent democratic movements all across the world, which is something the Bush Administration is not doing well enough."

The Right Angle posted Gingrich quotes including:

"The correct answer to Hezbollah today is: Destroy it. Don't negotiate. ... Because the Kerry resolution, and the Murtha statements and the Howard Dean shrill cries of "leave now" -- all of those things are echoed throughout the Arab world. So if you're the current leader in Lebanon, you're a little cautious about how much you trust the Americans to keep their word and do it."

Mary Katharine Ham at Townhall.com also had many quotes including: "There's a Hezbollah training camp in Paraguay, there's a group in North Carolina, we caught a cell crossing the border. They're all funded by the Iranians. ... Reagan was asked his philosophy on the Cold War, and he offered four words - 'We win. They lose.' Reagan didn't win with a radical application of American military power."

MCCAIN: Odds-On Favorite

At conservative hang-out The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru forwards some interesting odds from tradesports:

1. Odds of McCain winning if nominated: 60%
2. Odds of a different Republican winning if nominated: 41%
3. Odds of Hillary winning if nominated: 38%
4. Odds of a different Democrat winning if nominated: 57%

Ramesh comments: "One implication is that we are better off w/out McCain than they are w/ Hillary."

ROMNEY: Ask And Ye Shall Receive

Tom Bevan at RCP Blog looks at Boston Phoenixarticle speculating that the Big Dig could be MA Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) Katrina and asks: "I'm interested in knowing what readers in Massachusetts who've been following it closely on the local level think. It seems to me the story could work to Romney's advantage, in that it provides an opportunity for him to demonstrate leadership in the aftermath of a tragedy and a crisis of some magnitude. As I said, I invite readers who live in Massachusetts or have been following this story closely to email me their thoughts on the subject."

Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner does not link to Bevan's item (there is no evidence she even saw it) but does post a reader email including: "By taking over the Big Dig, he's taking a big political risk. What happens to his presidential aspirations if the fix he proposed yesterday doesn't work? As he demonstrated yesterday, clearly (a) Mitt cares more about getting the problem at hand resolved than his own personal advancement (b) Mitt possesses a level of smarts way beyond most of us."

CT SEN: If Corey Dillon's Not Healthy The Patriots Are Gonna Need To Buy A Ground Game Too

At Political Wire Guest contributor Kevin Rennie of the Hartford Courant reports: "At least two prominent Republicans think that if [Alan] Schlesinger can be nixed from his spot on the ballot, it should be given to Senator Joseph Lieberman if he loses the August 8th primary to challenger Ned Lamont."

Natural Born Killers producer and progressive Jane Hamsher at firedoglake reports from CT: "Some think that the GOP will try to put a strong candidate on, others that they are clearing the way to endorse Holy Joe. I find that when I ask folks familiar with local politics that they seem to be split about 50/50 in their predictions. Nobody would be surprised if one of those was Chris Shays, who has already endorsed Lieberman. Shays had been forcing his Democratic anti-war opponent, Dianne Farrell, into silence over the issue in the past by forcing her to run against Lieberman if she tries to speak out against the war." At TPM Cafe, Greg Sargent found the idea "extremely implausible, to say the least," and asks: "Who the heck knows who the "two prominent Republicans" are and why they're leaking this? Nonetheless, I'm curious: Has anyone asked Lieberman if he'd rule it out?"

Picking up on a Hotline On Call (go team!) item reporting Lieberman's hiring of Tom Lindenfeld "to put together an organization to call, identify and inspire Lieberman primary voters" DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas describes the effort as "Lieberman's army for hire." Chris Bowers at MyDD adds: "Scared Lieberman has no volunteer ground game, moles in his camp and will damage other Connecticut Democrats in order to save himself."

The Political Punch has gone through Lamont;s FEC filing and found some noteworthy contributors including: "George Soros donated $1,000. ... Singer/director/actress/diva Barbara Streisand has also given Mr. Lamont $1,000. ... Jackson Browne, making sure Lamont won't be "running on empty," gave $500. ... A whopping $250 came from Alexandra Paul who you may know as Lt. Stephanie Holden on the TV show "Baywatch." ...and then there's Maude!! Which is to say legendary 1970s TV producer Norman Lear also gave $1,000."

The Official Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate Campaign Blog posted three new "Man on the Street" ads. Titles include: "The Issue" [ed. note: It's Iraq]; "Who's Joe?;" and "Where's Joe?." And in celebration of "Blogosphere Day" The Official Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate Campaign Blog (see Thought of The Day) announced that "Ned will match all contributions made online dollar for dollar between today and primary day."

Over at liberal hang out The Huffington PostAri Melber notes that conservative pundits are not only attacking Lamont, but blog readers everywhere: "Democratic Senators don't usually get this much support from conservative pundits. ... Of course, being propped up by [Dick]Morris and [Sean] Hannity only hurts Lieberman's standing among Connecticut's Democratic primary voters, who have already heard their Senator is too cozy with the Right Wing. Yet the pundits are not simply praising their favorite Senator, they are deriding his critics, deploring bloggers and ridiculing blog readers -- that means you."

Ex-Lieberman aide Dan Gerstein at LieberDem checked out Jane Hamsher's latest contribution to The Huffington Post and chose to highlight a commenter questioning the anti-Lieberman campaign: "I don't think Lieberman is the issue. Maybe he deserves a challenge. But if his record really was the issue, there wouldn't be all the juvenile bs: the "joey" and the "holy joe" and all the teenager venom leveled at him. It is all so personal, so hateful. Liberal means open minded. I would like to see a progressive movement that cares about people. And acts like they care about people, not power. These "net root" people aren't liberal. They are simply totalitarians from the other side of the spectrum. And they are truly scary in their viciousness."

SEN LANDSCAPE: Do Their Bucks Match Their Bite?

RedState takes a look at fundraising numbers in what it calls the 7 most competitive races: AZ, MO, MT, OH, PA, RI and VA. In each, the incumbent GOPer has a significant edge, and overall, the GOP had $40.3M to the Dems' $16.1M. "This is obviously a huge funding gap that the Democrats will have to try and overcome by using resources from their campaign committee. Although I don't know if a 24.2 Million dollar shortfall will be something that they can make up so easily. ... [I]t looks like these Senate Republicans are poised to hold their seats as incumbents this fall."

On the issue front, Kos can't believe "[w]hat a gift Bush will hand us" with the stem-cell research bill veto. "We'll get another vote to override. And even if it fails (I have a hard time seeing four pickups amongst that list of rampant wingnuttery), it will once again force Republicans to publicly oppose policy that is supported by a 2 to 1 margin amongst the American people." He also lists 7 races, the same as RedState's except NV replaces RI, as top pickup opportunities.

Meanwhile, Kos separately notes that Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) was in "the scary Bay Area, home of that liberal Nancy Pelosi" to raise money. And he compares Burns' event to one for his Dem challenger, state Senate Pres. John Tester. "Tester hung out with real people for $35, while Burns played exclusively with the kind of people who could afford $2K a pop. ... Burns was hanging out with the kind of people with which he feels most comfortable, while Tester was showing us why he is a true people-powered hero."

At NRO's Sixers blog, Greg Pollowitz thinks the OH Dems' response to Sen. Mike DeWine's (R-OH) attack ad may backfire. It says: "DeWine failed us on the intelligence committee before 9/11." Pollowitz: "Senator DeWine is responsible for 9/11...this will go over well in Ohio."

HOUSE LANDSCAPE: Dems Playing With The House's Money?

DemocraticLuntz compiled a list of Dem candidates with $100K or more, and GOP candidates who outraised their Dem foe. "These numbers are very encouraging, to say the least. What's even better is the overwhelmingly large number of Republican incumbents/candidates for Republican-held open seats who were outraised by their Democratic opponents during the second quarter." The list is 32 candidates long.

MyDD's Jonathan Singer spotlights possible ethics problems facing Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC). According to The Hill, he used earmarks to create an overseas study program for Russian business students coordinated by a friend/ex-business partner, an ex-KGP general's wife. " Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.) used earmarks to create an overseas study program for Russian business students coordinated by his friend and business partner, an ex-KGB general's wife and onetime English teacher. "It is bad enough for Congressmen to stick unneeded earmarks into legislation. But when earmarks go to fund pet projects in another country -- projects controlled by friends of the Congressmen, projects that could potentially benefit the Congressman -- a line has been crossed. ... If Taylor does not address these allegations -- and fast -- this election is going to slip away from him before he even realizes it and the Democrats will be one seat closer to taking back the House."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Happy Blogosphere Day To You Too

With help from Salon The Official Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate Campaign Blog explains the birth of Blogosphere Day:

"On Monday afternoon, July 19, Stephen Yellin, a 16-year-old politics junkie and frequent contributor to the lefty blog Daily Kos, noticed an intriguing development in Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional District, an area to the north of Philadelphia. The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call was reporting that Jim Greenwood, the district's popular, moderate Republican congressman, had unexpectedly decided not to seek reelection, meaning that his House seat was now up for grabs. This is the sort of news that sets partisans like Yellin jumping for joy, and so, of course, he blogged about it."

"Did he ever blog about it. Within hours the combined action of dozens of blogs raised over $30,000 for the otherwise anonymous Democratic candidate running in PA-8, Ginny Schrader. Her campaign went from 0 to 60 in the span of a few hours, fueled exclusively by the blogs. The next few days were a roller coaster of speculation. Would the DCCC find a more "suitable" candidate to run against Republican Mike Fitzpatrick? The blogs fought back, they provided Ginny the seed money to launch a credible campaign, a campaign no one had dared to run in a district many thought was a lost cause. At the end of the day, not only did the DCCC relent in finding another candidate, but to their credit, supported Ginny with resource down the stretch."

LEST WE FORGET: Whatever Happened To Better Dead Than Red?

Under the header, "Best Argument for Communism Ever" The Corner's John Podhoretz writes: "Paris Hilton earned $7 million last year, according to Forbes."

7/18: Storm Warning?

Well it wasn't on social issues as E.J. Dionnepredicted , but an internal GOP fight might just be upon us. George Will's 7/18 broadside has produced limited blogger reaction so far, but it's still early. William Kristol has a very well-established MSM vehicle to fight back with, but the Blogometer will continue to monitor how the debate plays out on the right side of the 'sphere. Meanwhile, while there's plenty of Middle East commentary at lefty sites like TAPPED and The Huffington Post, the granddaddy of them all (DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas) takes a pass on the recent violence and other bloggers have noticed.

MIDDLE EAST I: Nuclear Catfight

Reaction to George Will's 7/18 William Kristol bashing op-ed has spread slowly throughout the blogosphere. Under the header "George Will Goes Nuclear" The Corner's conservative John Podhoretz believes "this may prove to be the most discussed op-ed of the year." Also on the right, Outside the Beltway can't wait to follow the discussion: "His column is not all that surprising since Will made a similar argument on last Sunday's "This Week." What is surprising, however, is the utter disdain with which Will dispatches his criticism. ... As expected, libs are loving this. But - I must admit - so am I: There's nothing like a good catfight to spice things up a little."

On the left, The Washington Note has the most linked to reaction so far: "His five-whack, scathing assault on Kristol and The Weekly Standard rises from a frustration and raw honesty rarely seen (but increasingly more so) among those who count themselves friends of conservative presidents like G.W. Bush. ... Applause to George Will for this brave and important piece." The Reality Based Educator adds: "It is important that we on the left acknowledge Will's points here and publicize them."

Middle East II: Bush Is A Liar And An Idiot, But The Netroots Aren't Serious

Righty Digital Rules claims "the Netroots Left, especially the Kossacks, have nothing to say on national security" beyond hollow Bush bashing and argues: "Pointing out Bush's weaknesses might be a legitimate starting point for the out party, but alone it won't get Dems anywhere past a schoolyard protest." DR then check the top ten DailyKos posts and reports: "Nothing on Israel. Nothing on Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah. Nothing on Iran's nuclear program. Nothing, even, on the G-8 Summit. And we're to think that the Netroots Left is a serious political player?"

Not responding to Digital Roots but still on the same subject, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas explains to his readers why he does not comment on Middle East violence: "Me? I grew up in a war zone. And there was one clear lesson I learned -- there will never be peace unless both sides get tired of the fighting and start seeking an alternative. ... It doesn't matter what we bloggers say. It doesn't matter what the President of the United States says. Or the United Nations. Or the usual bloviating gasbag pundits. When two sides are this dead-set on killing each other, very little can get in the way. And I, for one, sure as heck have no desire to get sucked into that no-win situation. I just hope that war-fatigue sets in at some point."

Fellow progressive blogger Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly was not impressed with Kos' pronouncement: "It's one thing for an individual blogger to feel inadequate to the task of commenting on any particular subject, but I don't think that means it's OK to throw in the towel entirely and give everyone else a pass at the same time. As past officeholders have shown, it does matter what the president of the United States says (and does), and it does matter what the UN and other international actors say (and do). After all, even if they can't pull lasting peace and harmony out of their back pockets, they always retain the possibility of making things worse. (See Bush, George, 2001-2006, op cit.)"

DEM LANDSCAPE: YearlyKos Attendees Gain Ground

Tired of online straw polls that showed Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) "would win any poll [by a] huge [margin] that did not include Gore, and that Gore would win any poll huge no matter who else was included," Chris Bowers suspended progressive activist MyDD polling for four months. Now they're back and the results looks a little different:

Wesley Clark 546 (27.2%)
John Edwards 522 (26.0%)
Russ Feingold 444 (22.2%)
Mark Warner 311 (15.5%)
Not Sure 47 (2.3%)
Bill Richardson 41 (2.0%)
Hillary Clinton 40 (2.0%)
John Kerry 18 (0.9%)
Evan Bayh 17 (0.8%)
Joe Biden 10 (0.5%)
Tom Daschle 3 (0.1%)
Tom Vilsack 3 (0.1%)
Chris Dodd 2 (0.1%)

GOP LANDSCAPE: The Lunatic Primary

Newt Gingrich's 7/16 Meet The Press appearance caused a flurry of WH'08 analysis over at conservative hang out The Corner. Rich Lowry broke down the field with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as the obvious frontrunner: "My quick '08 handicapping is that McCain continues to be the front-runner. His candidacy squeezes out Giuliani, who probably wouldn't have a chance anyway. Frist appears not to be going anywhere. That leaves Romney and Allen competing to be the non-McCain conservative, and Romney has had a good couple of months. But I'm hoping Newt runs, just because he's always interesting and will surely develop at least a few ideas that the eventual nominee will want to filch." John Podhoretz wasn't buying an early Rudy exit: "The "McCain squeezes out Rudy" scenario would make more sense if Rudy weren't tied with McCain at 30 percent or so in most Republican primary voter polls. That indicates the two of them aren't niche candidates but rather the two candidates with the broadest appeal. No squeeze there."

Romney fan Kathryn Jean Lopez added a reader's opinion: "The secret beneficiary of all this Newt emergence is your guy Romney. After 8 years of Bush, the emphasis this time around is going to be on SMART. Two of the smartest guys around are Newt and Rudy, but they are probably unelectable, for various reasons." Andy McCarthy thought the whole discussion was a bit premature: "I really think there is no serious public consideration of GOP '08 right now. The 30-30 split reflects that Rudy and McCain are the best known names, that's all. Only lunatics like us are jockeying now. What was the name Bill Clinton polling in 1990?"

GINGRICH: Cannon Ball!!!

Under the header "The most important Republican voice in the country?" The Corner's Rich Lowry forwards along two pro-Gingrich reader emails:

"He's still a bit of a loose cannon prone to rhetorical grandiosity and he's a tad too enamored with his own intellectual/articulate capabilities for my taste ... but I hope he gets into the GOP race if for no other reason than to force McCain and others to either thoroughly explain where they stand on various issues."

and

"Newt is almost the only national GOP figure who thoroughly explains issues from a conservative point of view (I suppose there are a few issues upon which one could quibble about that - but, again, which ones exactly?). Unlike all of the others, he also doesn't make me cringe by saying something stupid or missing an opportunity to jump on a bad liberal argument. He KNOWS what he is talking about."

John Podhoretz was unimpressed: "Wait a sec. This is Newt we're talking about here. Remember Newt? The most disliked man in America? He's a very impressive strategist, a little too enamored of himself as a thinker, and a politician whose ability to turn people against himself was unparalleled."

MCCAIN: McCain Takes Manhattan

Also from The CornerKathryn Jean Lopez reports from Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) Manhattan Institute appearance: "You got the impression while delivering the speech he might be phoning it in ... but not so once he got to the topic of Israel.He spoke passionately about their right to defend themselves, and his disappointment in our European allies who would call on them to restrain themselves. They should restrain themselves, sure, McCain said in his biggest applause line at the event, but "only in keeping with what they need to do to protect their security." ... He was good."

CT SEN: Yard Sign Primary Over Already?

Conservative bloggers are taking a growing interest in the Sen. Joe Lieberman/cable co. exec Ned Lamont Dem primary. Under the header "Winning the Yard-Sign War in CT" Tom Bevan at RCP Blog links to some first hand blogger reports.

Kevin Rennie also at RCP Blog writes: "Connecticut politicians love lawn signs. And they are everywhere for Lamont. The Lieberman campaign woke up recently to find itself badly behind in the anecdotal war over how many signs each side could plant. His campaign had to deploy majordomo and longtime aide Sherry Brown to gin up the lawn sign effort. It was a sign of the parlous state of his campaign that Brown made calls and delivered individual signs to supporters. Picture Susan Estrich stopping at your house in 1988 to stick a Dukakis sign in the grass. Dire is the word that comes to mind.

Bevan also links to a Politburo Diktat account: "My dad lives near Manchester, Connecticut. While Connecticut is a blue state like its neighbors New York and Massachusetts, Manchester is an ordinary, middle-class, small American city. It's not Berkeley; it's not Ann Arbor. As we drove along Center Street Saturday evening, I counted six Lamont signs. None for Lieberman. One of my dad's neighbors, Walt T., is a long-time Democratic party regular, the type of guy who dabbles in town politics and writes letters to the editor of the local newspaper. He's not exactly a 20-something nutroots blogger. I was dismayed to see a Lamont lawn sign on Walt's lawn, too."

Back on the left Ned Lamont's official blogger this time at MyDD posts a picture of a banner-holding Lieberman supporter and comments: That's right, that huge banner says, "I want YOU to release your tax returns." Creative, and important [/snark]. Here's the deal with that line of attack. This is a total distraction, and allows their campaign to keep asking "what does Ned Lamont have to hide?" The answer is ... nothing. Ned has agreed to release his tax returns. Then they asked for the last five years of tax returns. It will never end with them until they get Ned's third grade report card and find out Ned got a "B" in History. They want to talk about ANYTHING but the issues.

Still reporting from CT, the Los Angeles based Jane Hamsher at firedoglake tells her readers about "a secret meeting" 7/16 between Rep. John Larson (D) and "CT-AFL/CIO's John Olson (not-so-affectionately known locally as "Jimy Olson, Cub Labor Leader" for his diminutive stature)." Hamsher believes the parties agreed "to go really, really sleazy and desperate on Ned Lamont."

Finally, My Left Nutmeg tracked down video of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) pronouncement from San Diego State University's DemocracyFest that she was going to CT to campaign for Lamont because of his anti-war stance.

MO SEN: Show Me The Stem Cells

Progressive Jonathan Singer at MyDD sat down with Aud. Claire McCaskill (D). Highlights include:

Jonathan Singer: We learned this week that the Senate will soon bring up a vote for funding for stem cell research. Even if the bill passes - and it seems that it has enough votes to do so - President Bush has pledged to veto the bill. As Senator, how would you differ from Jim Talent on this issue?Claire McCaskill: Obviously, Jim Talent and I have a much different view of stem cell research. Jim Talent has always seen stem cell research as an issue that involves criminalizing scientists and patients and doctors and even families of patients. ... I have been a big supporter of stem cell research.

Singer: The issue of immigration appears to be one that isn't going to be solved during this Congress. So likely it will still be around for the next Congress. If elected, what type of approach would you take on the issue?McCaskill: I think that they've really, in an effort to divide the nation and galvanize their base with another kind of wedge issue, the right wing of the Republican Party has tried to use the immigrants as the whipping boy of this cycle. I think what we really need to do are, yes, we need to increase border security for a lot of reasons and yes, we need to enforce the law. I'm a former prosecutor. But what they're not talking about is the reason why this immigration is occurring. This immigration is occurring, these people are not coming across the border for a vacation, they're coming to get a job. So if we're going to get to the root of the problem, we've got to start with enforcing the law against employers.

Singer: What do you believe America should be doing in Iraq?McCaskill: My opponent is a stay-the-course, a mindless stay-the-course Senator. Back in May, I gave a very lengthy national security speech where I called for the redeployment of troops within a two-year framework. When given the choice, I would have voted for the Levin-Reed amendment, but I do believe we need to set a framework of 24 months, give or take six months, to completely redeploy.

OH SEN: Dem Trade Policy Redux

Populist David Sirota at The Huffington Post believes the key for a Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) defeat of Sen. Mike DeWine (R) lies in Brown's anti-trade leadership. Sirota takes the AP to task for suggesting that voters did not respond to anti-trade messages in 2004: "Really? Voters didn't respond? Doesn't that assumes they would be responding to something? Because last I checked, neither party's presidential candidates offered up any message whatsoever on trade other than feeding us the standard Friedman-esque World-Is-Flat B.S. line. ... That silence was a real tragedy. According to the Associated Press's own exit polls on Ohio primary day, seven in 10 voters in Ohio voters blamed foreign trade for taking away jobs. Those 7 in 10 voters didn't "not respond" to trade when the general election came - they had nothing to respond to and thus voted on other issues."

GA LG: Not The Endorsement He Was Looking For

Back from summer vacation firedoglake contributor TRex wishes she could vote in the GA GOP primary 6/18: "As a registered Democrat, I can't cast my vote in the Republican primary for Lieutenant Governor, so I am having to issue a plea to others to please, please, please vote for Ralph Reed against his primary opponent Casey Cagle. Georgia needs Ralph Reed. Not to actually get elected, but to be the poster boy for Republican corruption, our own Baby Abramoff, a giant stinking albatross around the neck of the Georgia GOP.

NC-11: This QB Is A Strong Runner

Lefty election site BlueNC reports Rep. Rep. Charles Taylor's (R) and Ex-NFL QB Heath Shuler's (D) fundraising totals:

4/13/06 - 6/30/06 Charles Taylor: Total Contributions (other than loans) 172,819.85. Cash On Hand At Close Of The Reporting Period 237924.47 [sic] Heath Shuler for Congress: Total Contributions (other than loans) 313,563.84 Cash On Hand At Close Of The Reporting Period 668,745.43

VT-AL: Make Sure This One Doesn't Slip Away

MyDD's Jonathan Singer is "fairly skeptical towards claims tha[t] the Republicans have a shot at picking up the House seat being vacated by Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. But a new survey released by GOP pollster Public Opinion Strategies has caused me to be slightly less optimistic than before." State Sen. Peter Welch (D) leads Nat'l Guard adjutant gen. Martha Rainville (R) 45-42 percent, margin of error +/-4.6%. "This is a Republican poll, so the results should be taken with at least a grain of salt. But according to the firm's website, it has polled in Vermont before -- in 2002, during the successful gubernatorial bid of Republican Jim Douglas -- so the numbers should not be dismissed out of hand. At this point, I tend to agree with the rating this race has garnered from the Cook Political Report (.pdf): 'Leans Democrat.' That said, we should keep an eye on this race through election day to make certain that it doesn't get away from us and make it that much more difficult to retake the House this fall."

WA-08: Good, But Still A Long Way From $1M

Lefty HorsesAss is glad to report the "official second quarter results are in and Democratic challenger Darcy Burner reports $590,561 in contributions compared to GOP incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert's $569,077. And once again Burner spent less to raise more, closing the all important cash-on-hand gap to about $340,000. Burner now sits on $770,000 in reserves compared to Reichert's $1.11 million."

WY-AL: Wait, People Power Isn't A "Blog Thing"?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas believes school board commis. "Gary Trauner is turning the Wyoming political world upside down. [...] Now, his Q2 numbers look far better than his incumbent opponent's." Trauner has $235K CoH vs. $218K CoH for Rep. Barbara Cubin (R). "Looks like Wyoming is producing another people-powered Democrat. And note, this isn't a 'blog' thing. People-power isn't about technology, it's about, well, people."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: KY Dems Don't Like Free Stuff

Progressive activist Bluegrass Report is frustrated with the performance of the Kentucky Democratic Party (KDP):

"First, despite the fact that the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance (KREF) recently cited KDP for failing to file a mandatory report providing details about its fundraising events (most notably the Hillary Clinton fundraiser), Democratic Party leadership opted against calling its quarterly Finance Committee meeting in conjunction with last week's state central meeting. Notwithstanding KREF's concerns and the obvious financial problems the party is experiencing, it simply decided not to call a meeting of the only body within the party that has any oversight authority over its finances."

"Secondly, there is a story in the current issue of U.S. News & World Report about the success of the DNC's "50-State Strategy" which a multi-million dollar program where the DNC hires and trains staffers for each state party in the country. As I understand the program, Kentucky was to receive two DNC-paid staffers. But word on the street is that KDP managed to fill just one of the two -- free -- slots. Unfortunately, since the party chose not to schedule a Finance Committee meeting, no one seems to know the status of these hires, but it's time Democrats got some answers. Specifically, who -- if anyone -- are presently filling those two DNC-paid roles?"

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: We Won't Fail

Chris Bowers at the progressive MyDD wasn't impressed with the Washington Post's 7/17 article on The Democracy Alliance: "The article does not really report anything all that interesting about the group. It contains two typical aspects of any process story about Democrats: that we are supposedly in turmoil / disarray and that we are too left-wing. It says that some people are irritated about who has gotten he funding and who hasn't, but when we are talking about this amount of money, is that surprising in the least? There would simply be no way to distributed money in this amount without some people being unhappy with how it was distributed."

Bowers continues: "I am not saying that it isn't worth writing about, because I believe it most definitely is. What I am saying is that most of these process stories miss the point of the emerging new progressive politics. Here are the points, as I see them: 1. We are not changing just for the hell of it. We are changing because our old ways led to nothing but defeat. 2. We are not simply replicating the conservative movement through mirror institutions. Instead, we are crating new institutions with fundamentally different operating principles than currently exist int eh conservative movement. 3. We wont' fail because we are too "left-wing."

NSA: Listen Up

Rep. Jane Harman took to The Huffington Post to promote her Lawful Intelligence and Surveillance of Terrorists in an Emergency by the NSA ('LISTEN') Act. Harmon first criticized the recent deal Sen. Arlen Specter struck with Pres. Bush on the NSA's communication monitoring program: "Senator Arlen Specter is a careful lawyer who has been one of the few Republicans willing to take on the President when he sees an executive branch power-grab. That's why I was so disappointed to read his legislation on the NSA program. Not only does it fail to force the President to comply with the law, but it actually authorizes the President to make an end-run around FISA and gives him a blank check to conduct warrantless spying on Americans."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Go West, Young Man

Adam C at RedState links to a recent Ryan Sager article arguing "that AZ, NM, CO, NV, WY, ID, UT and MT are about to become the new "swing region," as "the libertarian wing of the Republican Party looks at its options as "the Republicans become more Southern and less Western." Adam C adds:

"Goldwater conservatism came out of the West. Reaganite conservatism came out of the West. The libertarian emphasis on individualism and personal responsibility made the Mountain West the original Republican Stronghold. It took an alliance with the social conservatism in the South to win a majority, but neither group constitutes a majority in and of itself."

"It remains to be seen if Democrats can capitalize on this abandonment of small government ethos. It seems that Gov. Schweitzer of MT and Sen. Salazar of CO are part of a recent trend toward pro-gun, moderate Democrats who can win in former Republican strongholds. But if Republicans were to go back and embrace the ideals of the 1994 revolution that focused first and foremost on limiting government, they could win back a lot of ambivalent voters these days. They could also expand their majority into a functioning 55% that could solve the major problems in the country including the activist judiciary, the looming fiscal crisis from Social Security and Medicare, and the ongoing War on Terrorism."

LEST WE FORGET I: The GOP School Of International Relations

Pres. Bush's candid 7/17 remark reminded Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly of another GOPer:

"John McCain on Iraq: "One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, 'Stop the bullshit.'"

George Bush on Lebanon: "What they need to do is to get Syria, to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over."

Drum comments: "No wonder Bush and McCain are so friendly these days. They both have the same finely nuanced view of world affairs."

LEST WE FORGET II: Seperated At Birth CT SEN Edition

Those of you familiar with the major players in CT SEN must stop by Connecticut's Bob casting call for "Lamont - The Movie!" Cast includes: Philip Seymour Hoffman as Lamont Campaign Manager Tom Swan; Rowan Atkinson ("Mr. Bean") as uber-smarmy Lieberman Manager Sean Smith; Abe "Fish" Vigoda as former Senator Joseph I. Lieberman; and a young James Stewart as Ned Lamont

7/17: War Room 2.0

The lion's share of blogger attention is being devoted to developments in the Middle East 7/17, but non-foreign policy items could still be found through out the weekend, especially as Q2 reports trickle in. Perhaps most noteworthy was the rapid response from Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) blog outreach director Peter Daou following a New York Times article that many progressive bloggers interpreted as an HRC condemnation of Dem stances on social issues. Thanks to Daou's quick emails and solid progressive reputation, a BLOGGER VS. HRC story morphed into a BLOGGER VS. MSM by day's end.

CLINTON: So That's What Blog Outreach Directors Do

A 7/16 New York Timesarticle quoting Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) as saying "We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base," was taken by many progressive bloggers as HRC criticism of Dem legislative priorities. Bloggers quickly moved to condemn HRC for her apostasy but were then quickly contacted by Team Clinton to set the record straight. The Suburban Guerilla reports: "Peter Daou, who's Clinton's blog advisor, writes to tell me the Times story was uniquely misinterpreted by Anne Kornblut, that this is Hillary's standard stump speech and that if you go back and read it again in context, she's speaking in the "we" part as what the Republicans do, not the Democrats. Which does make a lot more sense."

Under the header "Journamalism" Atrios writes: "Grrrr. Kornblut makes it even worse by implying that Democrats are the ones bringing up gay marriage, when it's the goddamn Republicans who are doing so."

Daou's work is still far from over though. Ed Kosner at progressive hangout The Huffington Post was so turned off by the "abusive" HRC criticism elicited by his previous post he wonders if HRC and Dems should set their sites a little lower: "Unless Mrs. Clinton manages somehow to disarm all this over the next eighteen months, the smart course for her - and the Democrats - would be for her to be the vice-presidential candidate in 2008. That way, she could show herself to the country without being the white-hot center of the race. ... With Hillary running for vice president, her admirers could flock to the ticket, and voters who'd had enough could vote Democratic, rationalizing that as Veep, Mrs. Clinton couldn't do all that much mischief."

GORE: Civil Unrest As Major Achievement

Hill Street Blues writer and Associate Professor Terry Curtis at The Huffington Post looks south of the border and sees the type of leadership he wishes Al Gore possessed: "What if Al Gore had been more like Mexican presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador? What if he had not merely demanded a recount in Florida but encouraged Democrats to pour out into the streets, rather than discouraging them? ... I'm willing to concede that hundreds of thousands of people could have poured into the streets and the Supreme Court would have still handed the White House to W. But even if the Mexican rightist does take office, by calling his followers out into the streets, Obrador has already accomplished something essential that Gore failed to do: he has made it clear that in a completely divided country, the right cannot pursue a unilateral agenda without engendering civil unrest. And that, by itself, is a major achievement."

GIULIANI: Superman Returns

At conservative hang-out RedStateSlimJim is not happy with ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani's record on abortion, but comes away agnostic on Giuliani's candidacy: " Rudy's record on abortion isn't just bad. Rudy's record is apocalyptic. Rudy makes Romney look like Pat Robertson. ... In short, no pro-lifer in their right mind could consciously vote for Rudy. And yet? I love the guy. God help me I do think the world of Rudy Giuliani. And it all has to do with 9-11. You see, I live in New York City. ... For those of us shell shocked in New York City Rudy was the only one we could look to for support. And he never let us down. During the crisis and well after it he was always there. He went to countless funerals and worked round the clock. He was our superman. So while I cannot support the Mayor as a Presidential candidate during the primaries I can't bring myself to oppose him either."

MCCAIN: Bay State Favorite

Power Line notes fellow conservative apprehension with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) but concludes McCain's imperfections are outweighed by his invincibility: "Hugh Hewitt sometimes says of John McCain that he is a great American, a lousy Senator and a terrible Republican. McCain certainly has his faults, but I think that formula overstates them. While he differs with most conservatives on important issues like immigration and freedom of speech, he is rock-solid on defense, is a genuine spending hawk, and has been conservative on social issues. That's not perfect, but it's far from lousy, as his 80% 2005 rating from the American Conservative Union attests."

PL continues: "But there's no denying that one reason lots of conservatives - like me - wouldn't mind seeing McCain as the Republican nominee in '08 is that no Democrat currently on the scene has the chance of a snowball in a warm place of beating him. Evidence: Rasmussen Reports currently shows McCain leading Hillary Clinton 44% to 43% in Massachusetts."

CT SEN: Fun With Filings

Progressive bloggers are making the most of Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D) Q2 FEC filings. Matt Stoller at MyDD has two posts on the subject first noting that Martin Frost reported his employment as "US Congressman" for a 9/25/05 $1000 donation despite his '04 reelection loss; that "Andre Agassi gave a full double max $4200;" and that "many of Lieberman's big donors (and there really are only big donors) come from the finance, technology, and defense related fields, and in particular the executive class. Lamont sees more from entertainment, media, academia, and engineers." Later Stoller reports that a donation from Choicepoint's CEO "raised [his] eyebrows as well."

Meanwhile L.A.-based activist Jane Hamsher reporting from CT at firedoglake lauds the local press for being "light years ahead of their national counterparts when it comes to covering this race." Hamsher links to a Hartford Courantarticle on Lieberman's record as well as a Journal-Inquirerstory on Lieberman donations from "the military industrial complex."

Over at LieberDem ex-Lieberman aide Dan Gerstein notes Bill Clinton's defense of Lieberman from the Aspen Institute conference and asks: "All of which raises some obvious questions. Does this make Bill Clinton, whose positions track pretty much across the board with Joe Lieberman, a shill for the President Bush and the Republicans? Are the angry Lieberman-haters now going to suggest Bill Clinton is a disloyal Democrat? If not, how can they justify this obvious double standard?" Pro-Lamont Matt Stoller at MyDD picks up on the same story but isn't phased: "I'm not surprised or even disappointed that Bill Clinton is out for Lieberman. He was an exceptional politician, but he's also part of the past."

More to the liking of the left, ret. Gen. Wesley Clark took a swipe at Lieberman in a DailyKos chat while pledging to support the winner of the Dem primary: "I am a proud member of the Democratic Party, and I believe it is our party's responsibility to support the will of the Democratic primary voters in Connecticut. I personally look forward to supporting the candidate CT voters elect as the Democratic nominee. Though, as an aside, I must say I find it ironic that Senator Lieberman is now planning a potential run as an independent after he continually questioned my loyalty to the Democratic Party during the 2004 presidential primary."

Finally Mystery Pollster takes the time to put to rest rumors of Lieberman sponsored push polls: "While public polls have been few and far between in the Connecticut Democratic primary, reports of "push polling" have been bubbling up through the blogosphere. I have seen two sets of reports. The first round drew the usual over-the-top rhetorical blasts. Calls received in Connecticut in late June were described as by supporters of Ned Lamont as "Lieberman push polling" (here, here and here), as well as "Lieberman's Latest Dirty Trick," and "the sleaziest of campaign tactics" (by Kos himself)."

MP continues: "The most recent and interesting report comes from a correspondent of BranfordBoy on the blog My Left Nutmeg. The respondent took detailed notes on all of the questions and concluded, "today, I received my first recognizable Push Poll." The report is worth reading in full, because this call was almost certainly an internal campaign poll and not something that deserving of the label "push poll" (a point echoed -- to their credit -- by both My Left Nutmeg and the Connecticut Blog)."

MN SEN: Pickin' On The Videographer

Conservative and MN denizen Captain's Quarters doesn't think too highly of Minnesota Poll's 7/16 poll showing Hennepin Co. Atty. Amy Klobuchar (D) with a 50%-31% lead over Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-06). CQ: "It's helpful at this juncture to recall the MinnPoll's history in predicting elections. Over the last twenty years, the poll has miscalculated Republican support every election cycle, getting increasingly worse as time goes on while overestimating Democratic support. ... If you get the notion that the Strib skews its polls against the GOP, you'd be correct. In the last twenty years of elections for President, Senate, and Governor, the Strib has underestimated Republican support by an average of over seven points. The only race in which they did not underestimate Republican support was in 1990, when they picked Rudy Boschwitz to beat Paul Wellstone for the Senate."

Captain's Quarters also came out for AM 1280 Patriot Picnic listener-appreciation day where he interviewed Kennedy. The podcast can be downloaded here and CQ previews the broadcast: "One light moment of the interview came when we realized that his opponent, Amy Klobuchar, had sent a videographer to record Kennedy's appearance. Andy Aplikowski notes that the videographer did not get chased away as did Ben Goldfarb at a Klobuchar event. Mitch asked him what he thought about the physical assault on Goldfarb while we were live on the air, and the poor guy barely muttered a "no comment." The crowd, of course, loved it, and we let the fellow do all the recording he wants. Republicans, after all, have nothing to hide."

From the opposite side of the spectrum DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas provided his own update on the race: "Mark Kennedy, the Republican candidate for Senate this fall, raised a massive $1.6 million in the second quarter. Lucky for us Democrats, the Democratic nominee, Amy Klobuchar, bested him with a $1.8 million quarter. What was a nearly a $1 million cash-on-hand advantage for Kennedy has shrunk to $500K after this quarter. Kennedy has $4 million CoH. Klobuchar has $3.5 million.

NE 03: 50 State Vindication?

Ryan Anderson at progressive activist MyDD highlights an Omaha World Herald report showing rancher Scott Kleeb (D) ahead in COH $277k to state Sen. Adrian Smith's (R) $105K. Anderson writes: "What's amazing about these numbers, however, is that Smith's advantage even in funds raised during this time would be nearly obliterated were it not for a last minute campaign stop by Dick Cheney which netted him a cold $85,000. In fact, it now appears that Cheney's fundraising stop was absolutely nothing short of what I reported it to be a month ago: A sign of desperation from a campaign verging on bankruptcy."

Also monitoring the race DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas takes the opportunity to take a swipe at his beltway foes: "This is what the DNC 50-state-strategy is all about. Dean's DNC is spending $120K/year for three organizers in the state, money that Schumer and Rahm would prefer be spent on b******t television ads by ineffective beltway consultant firms."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: No. 14 With A Bullet

Progressive Chris Bowers at MyDD looks opensecrets.org recent PAC report and declares blogger-backed Act Blue the "Top PAC for Democrats." Bowers writes: "In this election cycle alone, more than 5.8 million dollars has been raised for Democratic candidates via Act Blue. That is more than three times the amount raised for Democrats than by any other Political Action Committee in the 2005-2006 cycle. ... Now, Act Blue still has a long way to go to catch up to the largest PAC's in terms of total receipts (it would rank around 14th on that list--MoveOn.org comes in at an impressive 3rd). Also, if one were to add up all of the various union PACs, labor still raises more money for Democrats than does Act Blue. However, whatever qualifiers are thrown in front of it, the rapid rise of Act Blue is quite an achievement. It remains a very significant piece of the new, emerging progressive infrastructure and is an important facilitator of the people-powered progressive movement."

DEMS: Cut 'N Run To Video

Conservative bloggers took a victory lap after Fox Newsreported the DCCC pulled an ad using "flag-draped coffins and a phony mug shot of Tom DeLay" from their website. NRO's Stephen Spruiell writes: "Good. Maybe this time they can avoid offending veterans, doctoring photos and admitting that the best politician in the Democratic party left office six years ago." Captain's Quarters has similar thoughts.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Just Like America -- But Older, Whiter, Richer, And More Secular

Scott Winship at The Democratic Strategist continues his look at "netroots" demographics this time looking at Pew Research Center data on "Dean Activists." Winship reports that "the response rate in this survey leaves much to be desired" but still felt comfortable concluding the following:

"The netroots was also unrepresentative in terms of race. While 80 percent of Americans and 70 percent of Democrats were non-Hispanic whites in 2004, 90 percent of Dean activists and netroots members were. Blacks and Hispanics were quite underrepresented."

"Among Americans as a whole and among Democrats, half of adults had no more than a high-school education in 2004. One in four was a college graduate. Contrast this with the netroots' seventy-percent college graduation rate, which was possibly lower than the rate for Dean activists as a whole. ... These educational differences, not surprisingly, are reflected in income differences as well. While a third of American families and forty percent of Democratic families had less than $30,000 in income in 2004, that was true of only 15 percent of Dean activists and netroots members. In contrast, 30 percent of Dean activists and 20 percent of the netroots had family incomes greater than $100,000. Just 10 percent of Democrats and Americans were that well off."

"Protestants made up four in ten white Americans in 2004, split evenly between evangelicals and non-evangelicals. They accounted for three in ten white Democrats but just one in five white members of the Dean activists and the netroots. Barely any were evangelical. In fact, four in ten white members of the Dean activists and the netroots were secular -- four times the incidence among white Democrats or Americans as a whole."

LEST WE FORGET: Who Did You Exploit Today?

Matt Stoller at MyDD tickled the Blogometer's funny bone with this YouTube entry from MTV2 Sesame Street parody show Wonder Showzen. The clip shows a darling little girl ambushing poor Wall Street laborers with questions like:

When did you sell your conscience?
Can you justify capitalism in three words or less?
Do you need this napkin to wipe the blood from your hands?
When the revolution comes where will you hide? ... and
Do you want to go fight the power with me later?

7/14: The Hundred-Storyline Story

Apparently no one has anything to do during the summers, which allows everyone to comment on everything. And on days like today, there is no shortage of subjects on which to opine. While we type, the Tanzanian Ambassador to the UN is adding his two cents to the current flame-up in the Middle East, and we're sure hundreds of other bloggers are busy developing their own. That story in itself is enough to take up the entire Blogometer, and while we were tempted, we tried to restrain ourselves. It remains, however, one of those stories that can never be done justice because of the swarm it has generated.

Also in the news, it seems a former aide to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) has conveniently tied up one of the sen's biggest critics as the two fire back and forth about that critic's employment history. Further proof is offered that Americans love lawsuits -- or that one ex-ambassador just can't stand to be out of the news. And at least a few bloggers help answer a question we're interested to see play out: What if Sept. 11th becomes someone's liability?

All that and a little weekend cowbell in today's Blogometer.

MIDDLE EAST: A Thousand Little Pieces

As tensions between Israel and much of the Arab world rise once again, the righty blogosphere is taking note, in a big way. A number of angles of the story are being followed, so we'll try and break them out.

The Dumb Ox leads off our coverage with a statement that represents much of the rest of the blogosphere's beliefs: "Israeli action is not aimed at a 'reprisal' (Reuters) for Hezbollah's killing and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Israel's attacks in Lebanon are aimed at isolating Hezbollah assets for their subsequent destruction. There will be no retreat until that task is accomplished in our humble opinion. Hezbollah's attacks and threats, some 70+ missiles launched into Israel since the invasion -- 2 killed and over 40 wounded -- and Euro-U.N. pleading will not and ought not prevent Israel's simple self-defense." Obsidian Wings sounds a more moderate note, detailing the conflict step by step, and concludes that some of this, at least, should be preventable by the U.S., if only. He concludes: "We currently have an administration that simply does not know how to do diplomacy. For all the talk about how Bush has now embraced diplomacy, I haven't seen any sign that this administration has any skill at it whatsoever, or that this 'embrace' involves anything more than the realization that the one tool this administration does like to use -- military force -- is off the table for now. And even if the administration had some skill at diplomacy, it has so thoroughly squandered the respect it would need to draw on at a moment like this that it would be very unlikely to succeed." And, says Legal Fiction, while Israel may have gone over the top, it "obviously ... has to do something. And I'm not saying that it shouldn't kill these people to defend itself. But there's a big difference in targeting terrorists and bombing the Beirut airport. Because the surrounding countries are such impotent jokes, they can get away with that for many decades to come probably. But that won't last forever. At some point, it has to stop. For Israel's own sake." Isreallycool is live-blogging the conflict from Israel, while Power Line's Joel Mowbray is sending dispatches from the region.

Yesterday's US veto of a UN resolution sponsored by Qatar condemning Israel's "disproportionate use of force" in attempts to get several kidnapped soldiers back has drawn comments from across the spectrum. TigerHawk: "This was a good veto to cast. It seems to me obvious that Israel's use of force has been extremely measured, all things considered. Indeed, it has not yet been sufficient to coerce the return of the soldiers held hostage by Hamas and Hezbollah, so whatever its proportionality it is manifestly inadequate." Michael J.W. Stickings: "This is one case where I agree wholeheartedly (well, almost) with the U.S. and find the U.N. to be, as some find it often to be, an apologist for terrorism and authoritarianism. ... I don't want to see Israel use excessive force (or the wrong kind of force) in Lebanon as it tracks down its enemies, and I certainly don't want this offensive to escalate into a broader war in the Middle East, but criticizing Israel for defending itself and for refusing to stand idly by as its enemies plot its demise makes little sense to me. You may not always approve of what Israel does, but at least show some understanding of Israel's predicament and some empathy for the Israelis themselves." European Secular Blasphemy, noting that while the US was alone in voting against the resolution, Britain, Denmark, Peru and Slovakia abstained: "Why didn't they vote against? It's rather simple: don't shoot at Israel and it will not shoot back! Would any European nation restrain from responding militarily if rockets were raining down on their civilians? Of course not! The mere thought is absurd. But Israel is obviously required to lie down and die whenever they are attacked." == Righty Stephen Spruiell parses the resolution and reaction by a certain US ambassador to the UN: "And then we have John Bolton, fighting the creation of incentives for terrorists. Did I read somewhere that moustaches are making a comeback? All of a sudden I feel like growing a solidarity 'stache." == Outside The Beltway, meanwhile, thinks the veto is ironic. Atlas Shrugs has a petition for supporters of Israel to sign.

Counterterrorism Blog notes that a missle that hit the Israeli city of Haifa, about 18 miles south of the Lebanese border, was manufactured in Iran. Kesher Talk, on Hezbollah's inability to control it's own troops: "As all the world now knows, rockets launched - presumably by Hezbollah from Lebanon -- have hit Israel for the first time. What is less known is that the Hezbollah leadership is denying responsibility for it." == The Jawa Report thinks an attack on Haifa is a bigger deal than the media is reporting. An Unsealed Room relates Haifa to Dallas: "Let me try to describe exactly how the Hezbollah's missiles hitting Haifa was crossing a huge psychological red line for Israelis. Imagine for a minute that there were terrorist groups sitting in Mexico. Every once in a while, they acted up, and there were incursions into small towns in southern Texas -- a missile was lobbed, the citizens had to go into bomb shelters. It would be horrible, everyone would wring their hands, every attempt possible would be done to stop it. ... Now compare that to a situation in which those terrorists got hold of longer-range missiles. They started firing into downtown Houston and downtown Dallas. And no one can tell if they might just start aiming for San Diego or Los Angeles. ... At this point, there will be no such thing as 'overreaction' when it comes to the average Israeli. The rubicon has been crossed."

Meanwhile, many bloggers siezed on a report that the Saudi gov't has blamed Hezbollah for the conflict. Liberty and Justice summarizes.

The Washington Post reports that Hezbollah attacks on towns and outposts in northern Israel may be costing the group support in Lebanon. Former AP reporter Christopher Allbritton, who now splits time between Lebanon and Iraq, writes: "[W]here to go from here? More fighting, it looks like. Israel today is starting to make bellicose statements about 'enforcing 1559' (which calls for the disarming of Hizbullah and other militias) and not letting Hizbullah back near the border (by a new occupation of a 1-km-wide 'security band' on Lebanese territory). This is a recipe for chaos, violence and renewed civil conflict, and it's very real and very close. But for Israel, keeping a bunch of weakened scorpions in a bottle may be exactly what they want. It's a crime that it's the Lebanese people who will get stung." Democrat Taylor Marsh, on 1559: "Lots of luck on that one. It's not going to happen, because as others have said, Hezbollah seems to be mirroring Hamas." == Carl in Jersualem: "If the result of this war is that the Lebanese government re-asserts control over the South and Hezbullah is no longer there, I think the IDF would withdraw and Israelis would be pleased. Of course, getting Hezbullah thug Hassan Nasrallah to agree to withdraw from the Southern border area is going to take a lot of doing. And that's why Israeli jets are bombing Dahiya." == Dan Drezner thinks varying coverage by US papers shows a lack of understanding of the story by the media.

Those keeping an eye on blogosphere reaction and rounding up MSM news include OPFOR, Assorted Babble, Marc Schulman (and here), War and Piece, Atlas Shrugs, Hot Air, The American Thinker, Blogs of War, Protein Wisdom

MIDDLE EAST II: The Iranian Connection

Anticipating spreading of the crisis, Iran has warned Israel not to lash out at Syria, which, according to Lebanon, is behind the recent Hezbollah attacks, according to Haaretz. QandO thinks Iran's involvement "would probably mean an increase in Iranian support for Hezbollah and it wouldn't surprise me if it somehow meant increased attacks on coalition forces in Iraq in an attempt to have the US to pressure on Israel to back off." Blue Crab Boulevard: "If I were [Syrian Pres.] Bashir Assad, I would not feel real confident right now, though. Psychos [Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] intent on bringing about the end of the world don't make real reliable allies." == DEBKAfile reports that Iran's Nat'l Security Advisor has flown to Damascus and will remain until the crisis has passed, and that Hezbollah acted on orders from Tehran. Hyscience summarizes. == Weighing in from an entrenched righty position, Mere Rhetoric: "On the same day that Iran threatens to declare war against Israel, the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany reveal a package deal that would give Iran nuclear reactors. That is all." Joe Gandelman: "Has The War On Iran Begun?" One of his commentors: "we're all gonna die in like 3 years. watch." == Captain Ed, meanwhile, is one of the few righties who questions Israel's tactics, though he questions whether the country is acting in its own best interest: "It seems that the likely outcome of this war will be an Israeli victory, and a weakened Lebanon that will fall back into Syrian control. It seems like a mistake to me. Hopefully, I'm wrong, but I fail to see how destroying a nascent liberal democracy on its northern border makes Israel any more secure." == Bryan at Hot Air questions the timing of Iran's involvement in the situation: "At the very same moment that Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist groups that ultimately answer to Iran, egg on war with Israel, which Iran's president has threatened to annihilate a few times over the past few months, North Korea is creating major turbulence on the other end of the world that just happens to involve a couple of US allies. North Korea had Iranian scientists on hand for its July 4 missile tests, indicating that Pyongyang never had any intention of doing anything other than launching those missiles -- including the big Taepodong-2 -- knowing full well what the international reaction would be. The Iranian reaction was apparently more important." == Right Side of the Rainbow follows talk of Iranian involvement. == Via The Moderate Voice, The Israel Project details Iran's connections to Hezbollah.

RCP's Robert Tracinski thinks this is just the beginning, and a number of bloggers jump on his conclusion that the current conflict is much larger than Israel, Lebanon and Gaza. His main point: "Iran is so desperate for war with the West that it is bringing the war to us, openly and willfully initiating a regional conflict that may soon involve three of Iran's proxies -- Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria -- fighting against America's proxy, Israel. The danger for us is that, in seeking to avoid an unavoidable war with Iran, we have allowed Iran to start the conflict on terms that it believes will be most favorable to it." New York Sun's Twersky heads: "War on Iran Has Begun." Strata-Sphere agrees and lays out the plan: "We need to keep control of the terms in this dance. We cannot let Iran start manipulating us into awkward and exposed positions that they can exploit. The fact is we need some regional allies outside of Israel." == Dr. Sanity: "In all this, Iran is counting on the appeasement of both the UN and the EU; and they haven't been disappointed, have they?" == Digby: "I would not find it suprising for the Bush administration hard liners to work in concert with the Israeli hard-liners to gin up a crisis that ends up "requiring" action against Iran. It is to the political advantage of both groups to do so." Riehl World View has a decidedly different take on things: "If Iran strikes directly at Israel with a missile, they run the risk of a tactical mushroom cloud over Iran, possibly even Tehran. The biggest disappointment in all this so far is Bush and Rice talking about restraint. If that was anything other than a diplomatic flourish, Bush should get the hell out of the White House and let someone who wants to lead in." == Once Upon A Time thinks the Israelis "want a wider war. They've already decided to attack Iran. ... Is it too early for a drink?"

PLAME: Worst Kept Secret

This morning, ex-Amb. Joe Wilson and his wife, ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame, discussed their civil suit against VP Cheney, his ex-CoS, Scooter Libby, and Karl Rove. Word of the suit broke late yesterday, and seems to have received more attention from the righty 'sphere today than the left. A quick scan of the links at Memeorandum, and at some of the other big blogs generates only a few "hooray, let's finally get the truth"-type statements from Plame supporters, and far more "bring it on, idiots" celebrations from the right.

In Search of Utopia: "I am glad to see her doing this. The administration officials who did this knew what they were doing. They may be able to escape the law, but I think a civil court will relish the opportunity to look at this in a whole differn't light." Captain Ed: "Let's put Plame on the stand and really get to the heart of what she hoped to accomplish by promoting her husband for this task. I'd bet the lawsuit gets dropped in a New York minute -- and if not, the record of Wilson's prevarications should easily sink it."

The Next Hurrah: "the most intriguing bit about it will be the way that the named parties -- Cheney, Libby, and Rove -- attempt to counter this without ruining the story they've been telling in the criminal complaint. That tension, I think, explains the Novak bonanza this week. They sent Novak, not Rove, because Rove can't, yet, tell his side of the story without risking legal jeopardy." But a cautionary note: "Everything I've heard says that these kinds of cases are hard to win. So this may be more worthwhile for the way it exposes these thugs than any justice that will be done." == Chuck Keller at TPM Cafe: "She may win. She may be compensated. The culprits may even be punished. But it's too late for justice." == PoliPundit: "It's almost as if the Wilsons are just trying to keep the story that nobody cares about alive, even if it means they will be fully discredited in the process." == NRO's Mark Levin: "Yes, it will be a distraction to the vice president, but it will also be a great opportunity for Cheney and Libby's lawyers to pursue aggressively discovery."

Needlenose wonders: "Does this (along with the recent announcements by Karl Rove and Bob Novak) imply that Plamemania special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has given up any intention of prosecuting anyone for the Plame leak itself, and so has told Joe & Valerie to proceed without fear of interfering with any criminal trial?" Talk Left tries to figure out the timing, and guesses "there must be a three year statute of limitations lurking somewhere." Novak's original column was published 7/14/03.

Flopping Aces is among those on the right who give the complaint a thorough vetting. "I'm no lawyer but a law school student could drive a semi-truck through the holes in this suit." Tom McGuire gives his usual thorough take. == The Strata-Sphere: "Reading the filing all I see is a lot of hallway office gossip!" == Blue Crab Boulevard: "The discovery phase will likely be more embarrassing for Plame and Wilson than they will ever believe possible. I think Joe and Val just got themselves enough rope." The Reality-Based Community sees all these analyses, and says: "It doesn't seem to have occurred to them yet that their fantasy version of the events surrounding the outing of Ms. Wilson might be false, and that the act of bringing the suit shows that the Wilsons are confident that their reputations will survive whatever might come out."

MyDD and others on the left are linking to the Wilsons' Legal Support Trust. And just for good measure, some gratuitous shots at the Wilsons. Gateway Pundit rounds up photos of Wilson and Plame, always smiling, wondering just how distraught they really are. Ankle Biting Pundits says Plame has jumped the shark. "Honestly, about the only thing they haven't done to draw attention to themselves is launch a reality show."

CT SEN: Surrogate Cat Fight Goes On. And On. And On.

As the Blogometer reported on 7/13, the dust-up between Dem populist David Sirota and Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D) ex-comm. dir. Dan Gerstein continues. Originally Gerstein of LieberDem called Sirota a "fraud" with "chutzpah" for interviewing with Lieberman in '03 and now attacking him. Sirota thinks "the fact that Gerstein would write such a lie in black and white shows the depths of the desperation Lieberman's camp has reached." He then lays out what he claims is the real story.

Gerstein writes Sirota "does not in the slightest disprove anything I said about his seeking jobs with Lieberman.

Forward magazine's Kesslerreports : some Dems are nervous that "hawkish Jewish" Dems who see Lieberman "as their standard-bearer will either abandon the party or sit out" the election if Lieberman goes down. Steve M. at lefty No More Mister Nice Blog calls the possibility "nuts -- or at least it was until it appeared in print. Now, right-wingers will seize on this notion, repeating it endlessly, running it through the noise machine, until it becomes conventional wisdom. Once that happens, some Jews around the country might actually believe that rejecting their local Democrat is an appropriate response to a (nonexistent) anti-Semitic attack. If all this really is traceable to a Lieberman campaign spinner, then this person is willfully spreading memes that can damage the Democratic Party, just to save his candidate's hide. I've been skeptical about the value of the anti-Lieberman campaign at a time when we're desperate to get to 51 in the Senate, but this really pisses me off." LieberDem's Matt Smith doesn't agree with "ill-begotten sentiments that Jews should vote for Lieberman just for the sake of supporting home cooking. But from a purely strategic standpoint, it's difficult to deny that a prolonged, vitriolic assault on Lieberman would disaffect some Jewish voters who traditionally vote Democrat." Ryan Sager at righty-hangout RCP Blog believes "since 9/11 that a significant number of Jewish voters ought to be realigning to the Republican Party. The situation is, in some ways, analogous to the southern white realignment toward the Republican Party in the 60s and 70s. Southern whites had a historical attachment to the Democrats, but the Republicans more naturally represented their interests. Today, the home of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism -- not to mention weakness in the face of Islamic terrorism -- is on the Left, not the Right. Yes, the Right still has Pat Buchanan. But charges of 'dual loyalty' and the like are now far more common among, say, the denizens of Daily Kos and Democratic Underground than they are anywhere else. Supporters of Israel have no place in a 'netroots' Democratic Party."

WIRETAPPING: Arlen Specter, Admin Ally?

The New York Times' Lichtblau reports that the Bush admin has agreed to allow the FISA court to review its NSA wiretapping program, subject to approval by Congress. Strata Sphere loves the bill, but still isn't fond of the Old Grey Lady. Prawfsblog thinks the bill is no good, and analyzes it along with a similar measure introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) earlier in the week. == Some on the left lambast Sen. Jud Cmte chair and bill sponsor Arlen Specter (R-PA) who had once been the program's chief GOP critic. Carpetbagger Report header: "Specter, true to form, caves on NSA surveillance." The Anonymous Liberal: "Specter is, evidently, a terrible negotiator because the White House got just about everything it could possibly want out of this deal." Balkinization: "[W]hat does Specter do in the wake of the momentous Hamdan decision, which put all the cards in Congress's hands? He introduces a bill, with Administration blessing, that gives the Administration everything it ever wanted, and much, much more." Glenn Greenwald agrees. == The Horse's Mouth and Kevin Drum each note that the bill gives the admin the option of submitting the program to FISA, not requiring its submission. == Crooks and Liars has video of CNN's Jack Cafferty going off on the compromise. Always a funny sight. And The Rude Pundit is truly rude. Bill in Portland Maine has a nice tongue-in-cheek rundown of just how the admin is treating Specter.

VOTING RIGHTS ACT: Living To See Social Security

The House defeated some controversial amendments introduced by Southern GOPers seeking to amend the Voting Rights Act, which lefty bloggers called no less than a triumph of good over evil. DownWithTyranny tagged the amendments' sponsors as "KKK-Republicans," calling them a "cabal of extremist Southern Republicans determined to destroy the Voting Rights Act with a series of killer amendments was beaten back and the Act was extended by an overwhelming margin: 390-33, with most Republicans joining all the Democrats in favor. Only the most vicious, unrepentent [sic] GOP racists and hard-core xenophobes refused to join in authorizing the extension." Steve Soto at The Left Coaster wrote, "Note the White House's lame support of the 'intent' of the extension, but they can't bring themselves to support the extension itself. They don't want to piss off that cracker base. I suspect that [DCCC chair] Rahm Emanuel [D-IL] can use that in swing districts this fall." Steve Gilliard at THE NEWS BLOG thinks House Jud Cmte chair James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) "saved the GOP from itself. Because the redneck coalition was trying to kill the Voting Rights Act, unaware of what kind of tool it would hand the Dems. Sensenbrenner shot down every one of their arguments and tossed their bull**** in their face. The fact is that Georgia is in federal court over their new voter ID poll tax law. It was slapped down twice so far. And these racist pigs had the nerve to say there was no problem? Why all they needed was a Stars and Bars and some butternut uniforms to show where their hearts were. These guys just don't care about a fair and just America, where everyone can vote, and even the GOP called them on it."

GIULIANI: How Soon Will It Be Called "Swift Boating?"

A new book reportedly calls ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani's preparation for and actions during 9/11 a "grand illusion," attacking Giuliani for putting the Office of Emergency Management in the World Trade Center, making political appointees the heads of crisis-management-and-response units and did not help cross-communication between response services. Atrios writes that "second perhaps only to John McCain, Saint Rudy gets more scrutiny-free tongue baths from the media than just about everyone. This is all due to the incredible ability he showed on 9/11 to get on TV and appear calm and in charge which, while admittedly welcome after the president failed even that meager test of leadership, said little about his ability to actually oversee the competent management of an emergency." Greg Sargent at The Horse's Mouth wants us to "Keep this in mind: He recommended not one, but two disastrous choices to head the Department of Homeland Security. There was of course his former Police Commissioner, Bernard Kerik, whom Rudy aggressively lobbied for behind the scenes until his nomination imploded amid a spectacular fireworks show of ethical problems. But let's also remember that Rudy enthusiastically championed the current Homeland Security chief, Michael Chertoff, who worked for Rudy way back when Giuliani was U.S. Attorney. Chertoff, of course, was a key architect of the Bush administration's disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina."Shakespeare's Sister takes the book's claims to heart and now thinks she "may have to interrupt my McCain Can Blow Me Campaign to sling a little mud in Giuliani's direction when this tome hits bookstores. I never thought I'd see the day that another potential GOP nominee wound me up as much as McCain." RCP Blog's Ryan Sager only notes that "there will certainly be more where this comes from."

BUSINESS OF THE BLOGOSPHERE: Just Call Him Boss-Man

National Journal's Beltway Blogroll sat down with RedState CEO Erick-Woods Erickson to talk business.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What Happens When Blogs ARE The MSM?

Newsbusters links to an iMedia analysis of blogs, which finds that blogs "are redefining how people experience the web and, in many ways, have helped precipitate the shift towards user-generated content on the internet." Some more interesting tidbits:

• "Visitation to blogs continues to grow rapidly," with a 56% increase during the past year to 58.7M visitors.
• Google's Blogger.com is the "top blog network."
• People between the ages of 12 and 17 are 21% more likely than average to visit blogs, while those 18 to 34 are 14% more likely to do so.
• Blog visitation "skews to higher income households."

LEST WE FORGET: There's Only One Cure

It's a miserable day in the world, so we'll lighten up your weekend by offering you a cure. In fact, there's only one cure, and that's more cowbell! (QT version here)

ERRATUM

The Blogometer's 7/13 post comparing Hugh Hewitt's style of discourse with DailyKos and MyDD may have misled some readers. Instead the Blogometer was highlighting a similarity in an argument used by both sides, namely that the left does not like Sen. Lieberman because he tends to enforce conservative critiques of liberals and that many on the right don't like Sen. McCain because of his willingness to enforce liberal critiques of conservatives (an example, McCain's attacks on talk radio and the religious right that Hewitt mentioned in his 7/13 post).

7/13: A Contrast in Styles?

Looking at Hugh Hewitt's latest anti-Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) rant, the Blogometer was struck by how similar it sounded to DailyKos and MyDD critiques of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Like his lefty doppelgangers, Hewitt is more upset with a prominent Senator from his own party because of that Senator's willingness to buy into opposition attacks on his own party. Also attempting to mimic the left, Patrick Casey at NRO takes the NRSC to task for siding with Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) in his contest with Cranston Mayor Steven Laffey.

Meanwhile the best trafficked blog on the right, Instapundit hosts a civil discussion with McCain on a wide range of topics. While the two have their differences (campaign finance reform being the biggest), Instapundit chooses to disagree on that subject and instead highlight their agreements (limiting GOP spending).

MCCAIN: Don't Blog Angry Now

Righty traffic king and libertarian Instapundit nabbed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for his weekly podcast, The Glenn and Helen Show (Helen being Instapundit's lovely and talented wife Dr. Helen Smith). Highlights include:

• McCain's opening line: "Well it's hard trying to do the lord's work in the city of satan."
• McCain on his pod cast appearance: "Glenn is such a powerful and influential American I thought this would shore up any ambitions I might have for the presidency." (followed by laughter from all)
• On the biggest issues of '06: "Iraq, immigration, and for the GOP base spending."
• On Iraq: "It's long, it's hard, and it's tough. ... The consequences of failure are profound. When we lost Vietnam and come home the Vietnamese didn't come after us. That's not true with Al-Qaeda."
• On Iraq debate in Sen: "I was very pleased with th debate we had in the Senate a few weeks ago. You had a Dem resolution that basically called for a time for withdrawal or "withdrawal" and we were able to prevail in the debate by saying look we're all for withdrawal. No one is against withdrawal but its got to be determined by how we leave not when we leave and we got overwhelming votes."
• On immigration: "Forty or Fifty years of failed federal policy has put us into this situation where we have broken borders and 11 million people walking around our country. ... We all agree its a national security issue. Where we differ with our House friends is that they believe [enforcement] is enough and we believe you gotta have a guest worker program and somehow dispose of, in a humane fashion, these 11 million people."
• On spending: "I think it would be very helpful if Pres. Bush vetoed the next App. bill that had a single pork barrel item on it. ... I thought a terrible mistake we made was the passage of the Medicare prescription drug bill because it added huge unfunded liability onto the medicare system.
• On FL Gov. Jeb Bush: "Bush has been incredibly successful governor of the state of Florida. And they're ahead of literally most every other state on education. Jeb Bush knows education better than anybody I've ever talked to just about."
• To bloggers: "Keep up the good work. Don't get too angry and please try not to get too personal. I pay attention to the criticism as well as the scant praise and I think this is an incredible new exciting method of communicating and it makes every person a publisher that wants to be."

Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt hadn't caught McCain's podcast yet but did have a response to a preview of McCain's up coming Esquire profile:

"Senator, I have said this on the air and in print many times: You are a great American, a lousy senator, and a terrible Republican. You are a great American, and I will stand up in any room you enter, and applaud as long as anyone because of the service you have rendered and sacrifices you have made. But you are a lousy senator, and I offer up McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, the Gang of 14 and your vote on the Marriage Amendment as four evidences for my judgment. The legislation was not bad because you worked with Senator Kennedy, by the way, but because it was lousy legislation."

"You are a terrible Republican because of personal attacks on your opponents like this latest one on talk radio hosts and the "religious Right." You repeatedly refuse to debate your Republican critics or answer their questions. You are a regular on Hardball where only softballs are pitched underhand, but you are as rare as rain in California in August when it comes to appearing on center-right programs. While I understand your reluctance to engage anyone who has made personal attacks on you, most of the criticism you receive --and all of it when it comes from me-- is about your policy choices and your political decisions. You confuse such criticisms with personal attacks, and lash out at other Republicans."

FEINGOLD: No Progress In NO

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) took to The Huffington Post to persuade more Americans to help Hurricane Katrina victims: "After Banda Aceh in Indonesia was devastated by a horrific tsunami in 2004, the people there faced the challenge of rebuilding and restarting their lives. ... I visited Banda Aceh earlier this year on a trip to Indonesia, and earlier this week I visited some of the neighborhoods ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. ... I was struck by what the people in Banda Aceh and New Orleans had in common, both because of what they went through, and because of the incredible resilience they have shown in the wake of those tragedies. What I saw in New Orleans, New Orleans East, the 9th Ward, St. Bernard Parish, and Lakeview, was that in many ways, despite people's tremendous efforts, there has been less progress in those areas than there was in Banda Aceh a year after the tsunami. It is something I will never forget. ... Almost a year after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, after more than 1,500 people were killed and countless lives were disrupted, our fellow Americans do still need us, and we still need to stand by them as they rebuild their lives."

OBAMA: Unframeable

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) sat down with DailyKos contributor PastorDan for his spinoff site Street Prophets to defend his 6/28 Call to Renewal conference call that was not well received by the progressive blogging community. Highlights include:

Q: What were you trying to accomplish with your speech?A: I have gotten frustrated at times in observing the public debate, seeing the degree to which the conservative right has been able to dominate the conversation about religion and politics, and to determine what it means to be a good Christian. Part of the reason they've been able to do that because progressives have not engaged the faith community as effectively as we could.

Q: What would you like to see come out of the speech?

A: To some degree the speech has already accomplished what I intended, which is a conversation, a robust and fruitful one, hopefully.One of the points I was trying to make in the speech is it's not enough for progressives simply to say "leave your religion at the door" or "keep it private" - because that's not what conservatives do.

Q: One of the charges that people have laid against your speech is that it was unnecessarily critical of the Democratic party.A: Which I found misplaced - some of it that response had to do with people reading the AP story that came over the wire instead of reading the speech. If you look at the speech, I was far more critical of the religious right, and give a vigorous defense of the separation of church and state.

Q: I've heard that same kind of critique from people who are secular. What I found a little more compelling was the notion that portraying progressives or the Democratic as being unfriendly to people of faith buys into Republican framesA: This idea that somehow - that any time that Democrats or progressives engage in self-reflection we are adopting a Republican frame - the popularity of this George Lakoff critique of everything we do, I think hampers us from being able to improve our game. You know, I love Lakoff. I think he's an insightful guy. But the fact is that I am not a propagandist. That's not my job. My job and my intent in delivering a speech like this is I'm trying to speak truthfully as I can about what I see out there. If I'm restricted or prescribed in my statements because the media or Republicans - or Democrats - are going to interpret what I say through the Republican frame, I'm not going to spend a lot of time saying very much.

Chris Bowers at progressive activist MyDD wasn;t mollified: "While it is true that my criticism of Obama last month was based not on something he actually said, but rather on something that the AP reporter wrote about him, it doesn't stop me from feeling used. As a union organizer for the IFT, I was one of the ground troops for Obama's campaign during the 2004 Illinois Senate primary, and his victory turned out to be the first electoral victory for a progressive movement candidate in the netroots era. It was a great, great moment, and using the new movement was critical to his success in that primary. Whether I am right or wrong in feeling this, it makes me feel as though he used us to get into office, and now he is Sista Soljuh-ing us through liberal strawmen to improve his national image. Frankly, I think he is running with the wrong people in DC, and he needs to remember that the progressive movement is his friend, not the New Republic."

CT SEN: Maybe They Should've Just Hired Him

Dan Gerstein of the pro-Lieberman LieberDem isn't terribly happy with populist David Sirota for his op-ed suggestions that Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) doesn't represent CT Dems. Gerstein asks: "Now what standing and credibility does Sirota have to make either claim? Well, he spent most of his limited adult life working in Washington -- including a stint with the lone socialist in Congress -- before moving to Montana. To my knowledge, the closest he's come to spending any meaningful time in Connecticut is interviewing for a job in Joe Lieberman's Senate office (with yours truly) and in his Presidential campaign in 2003."

Gerstein goes on: "Yes, that's right: the same guy who is viciously attacking Joe Lieberman as the great Satan of the Democratic Party actually sought not one but two jobs from the target of his hatred, and did so at time when all of the supposed sins that Sirota is attacking Lieberman for now were well known. The polite term for that would be chutzpah. Some one less charitable might call Sirota a fraud. But in fairness to Sirota, he isn't just attacking Lieberman. He has accused Bill Clinton and Barack Obama of being bad Democrats as well. That alone should resolve any question about Sirota's qualifications for discerning what a mainstream Democrat is, be it in Connecticut or anywhere else."

At deadline there was no response at SirotaBlog.

Progressive and Natural Born Killers producer Jane Hamsher at firedoglake is still following up loose threads from the 7/6 Lieberman/cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D) debate: Joe has evidently got a bug up his ass about Annie and Ned Lamont's tax returns ... and he's polling about that too. So Joe Conason quite fairly asks this morning - why won't Lieberman release the tax returns and financial information regarding his pharmaceutical lobbyist wife Hadassah? It's especially relevant in light of Holy Joe's big bucks donations from Big Pharma and his enthusiastic support of regressive drug legislation that hurts consumers, especially old people. I'd just like to remind everyone that Hadassah's firm, Hill and Knowlton, are the ones who completely fabricated the story about Iraqi soldiers snatching babies out of incubators and killing them during the first Gulf War. That's some high moral ground."

Progressive Matt Stoller at MyDD is impressed with how CT SEN is demonstrating the power of the netroots: "We've shocked DC to the core and challenged every major interest group and Senator to figure out where they stand on Lieberman. I went to an American Prospect breakfast this morning with Chuck Schumer, and he refused to talk about Lieberman flat-out. ... The firepower lined up against us is remarkable. The DSCC, the Connecticut Democratic Party, Sierra Club, NARAL, League of Conservation Voters, Planned Parenthood, AFL-CIO, SEIU, CWA, NALC, NAGE, Food and Commercial Workers, Teamster's, Firefighters, Carpenters, Postal Workers, IBEW, Human Rights Campaign, 40+ Senators, John Lewis, etc. ... We did not make this happen, the voters of Connecticut made it happen. But we created some space, as we do for all our political pushes."

MT SEN: Headlining With Pearl Jam

DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas promotes his favorite SEN candidate, state Senate Pres. Jon Tester (D) who is "swooping into Silicon Valley next Monday to scoop up some campaign cash, and if you live in the area you can do your part to help out people-powered Jon Tester. The first is a low-dollar event, where the future Senator from the great state of Montana will pour you a beer for a modest contribution (I think it'll be $35)" at Washington Square in San Francisco. "The second event is for those with a few more clams in your pocket, but, as a bonus, you get to meet Pearl Jam" at Pier 39 in San Francisco with tickets going for $250. "I'll be at both events. You locals please mark it on your calendar. ... It's a meet-and-greet. Get autographs and pictures taken with the folks from Pearl Jam and, of course, Jon himself."

PA SEN: Rick's No Philospher-King

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru can't figure out why Sen. Rick Santorum (R) gave a speech attacking libertarianism and he "can't imagine this kind of theoretical intervention will win him any votes; I think he thinks that what he has to say is just too important to go unsaid. He is mistaken. He quickly gets out of his depth when he tries to play the role of the philosopher-statesman. It's not his strength. That said, Pennsylvania is a pretty pro-big government state. As disheartening as it is, bragging about pork will probably help Santorum. Attacks on libertarianism as a philosophy, on the other hand, will probably baffle most people."

RI SEN: Voters Might Screw NRSC For Screwing Laffey

The NRSC has filed a complaint with the FEC over a mailing paid for by the city and sent by Cranston mayor Steven Laffey (R) sent to Cranston residents about cutting their taxes. Laffey is mounting a righty challenge to Sen. Lincoln Chafee, whom Patrick Casey at NRO's midterm hangout, Sixers notes has been "crying about Laffey's raising property taxes in Cranston while hoping that people don't remember the context in which that was done (he had no choice by law - municipalities, as opposed to the federal government, can't run cash deficits), or are too lazy to research it. Laffey releases the real tax facts to his constituents, something that they are entitled to know, and Chafee and the NRSC freak because their charade has been blown. ....the NRSC is in real danger of having many Republicans and conservative independents in Rhode Island give a 'screw-you' vote to the NRSC and Chafee (and for [Sheldon] Whitehouse [D]) in the fall. Looking at this, why should anyone donate to an NRSC that stands for nothing except the quest for power, and is now indistinguishable from the Democrats? Why should anyone take them (or Chafee) seriously?"

DCCC: Debate Or Exploitation?

A new DCCC fundraising video using flag-drapped coffins drew mixed reactions from righty bloggers. Among the incensed:

• Erick at RedState: "This is outrageous. This is disgusting. This is why the Democrats must lose in November. They refuse to hold sacred the lives of American soldiers. Instead, their dead bodies are instruments of fundraising for the DCCC. But remember, we cannot question their patriotism."
• Ankle Biting Pundits: "The Democrats' landslide must not be working out as planned, because the DCCC has just unleashed the most appalling wed video since MoveOn.org's "Bush is Hitler" ads. My guess is the backlash against this video will be so strong, it will have a similar effect on the electorate as well: so repulsing them that they turn enmasse against Democrats everywhere."
• Stephen Spruiell at NRO: "I find two things about this ad very revealing. First, here again we see the Democrats' trope the the men and women of the U.S. armed forces are helpless victims of the Bush administration, as opposed to incredible warriors who are committed to winning in Iraq, making America safer and ensuring that the fallen have not died in vain. America should be proud of its heroes; the Democrats see their sacrifice as just one of many things that's wrong with America, like high gas prices."

Others on the right welcomed a debate on Iraq:

• Ryan Sager at RCP Blog: "The GOP held its national convention in New York City in 2004 for a reason, to highlight 9/11. It left the party open to criticism that it was "exploiting 9/11." But 9/11 defines our modern era, so the criticism rang hollow. For Democrats opposed to the Iraq war, the pictures of coffins symbolize the human toll they believe isn't justified by the mission in Iraq. We, as conservatives, are likely to disagree with this -- but it's a perfectly legitimate piece of political message-making."
• Tom Bevan at RCP Blog: "The war in Iraq is the defining issue of our time, and the Democratic party is vehemently opposed to it. Soldiers are, in fact, dying in Iraq on an almost daily basis. So why can't the Democrats show a split-second visual depiction of that reality? What are they supposed to do, show a graph of the U.S. casualty rate to depict the sacrifices we're making in Iraq? Not mention them at all?"
• Captain's Quarters: "The DCCC certainly invites criticism with its use of that imagery, but we should be careful with our moral outrage. The Democrats have every right to campaign on a belief that the Iraq War has failed, all evidence to the contrary. Part of that argument involves the loss of American life, and like it or not, that is certainly a rational basis on which to argue the war's value. My objection to this does not come so much from their use of the imagery, but from their inability to provide a coherent argument about how to proceed with a war against terrorists by running away from the biggest operational network of Islamists."

IMMIGRATION: Flor De Caca

The Corner's conservative John Derbyshire was not impressed with Karl Rove's performance in front of La Raza ( which can be heard here): "There was an odd little contradiction. At one point Rove seemed to claim that Mexicans just want to stay here a while to save money, to start a business in Mexico (which, said Rove, costs $5,000). Five minutes later he was talking about "Illegal immigrants who have roots in America... who want to stay..." What happened to those sojourning entrepreneurs, Karl?"

Derbyshire also had plenty of unkind words for Rove's host: "[Rove] got a big cheer at the end when he mentioned Bill Richardson, though. Why? Because Richardson is half-Mexican. It's race, race, race. That's why they call themselves "The Race." As La Raza's sister organization Mecha says: "For those in the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing." Race, race, race—-that's what these people are all about. This is an outfit the administration wants to court?"

Right Wing News notices some recent MSM claims that the Senate immigration bill is popular among the GOP base and wants to put those rumors to rest:

"Let's take a few moments and break down the popularity of the House Bill Vs. the popularity of the Senate Bill in a number of different ways, shall we?"

• The Wall Street Journal quotes a poll by the "Tarrance Group?" Well, let me quote a poll by Zogby. According to the Zogby Poll, 69% of Republicans, 87% of "very conservative" Americans, and 72% of "conservative" Americans support the House Bill.


• I've seen literally hundreds of comments from readers across the blogosphere saying they will sit out the election if the Senate Bill passes, but not a single person saying the same about the House bill.


• I've received about 8-12 "chain emails" suggesting that Republicans sit out the election in 2006 if the Senate bill is passed, but not a single person saying the same about the House bill.


• I polled right-of-center bloggers on their preference between the House and Senate bills and 88% said the House Bill, "would be best for America" while 91% said the House Bill, "would most benefit the Republican Party in the 2006 elections."


• The bottom line is that the Senate's Bill is about as popular as gun control or gay marriage with the Republican base. They don't like it, they don't want it, and no matter how much lipstick you slap on the pig, it's still not going to start appealing to them.

VOTING REFORM: Let's Hope Voting Is Different Than Buying Cigarettes

Voting Rights advocate Spencer Overton at MyDD congratulates a federal distirict court for blocking enforement of GA;s phot ID requirement for the 7/18 primary. Overton explains: "Voting is different than flying, buying cigarettes, and other activities that require photo ID. For example, it makes sense to prevent 1000 legitimate travelers without ID from boarding an airplane to stop one terrorist who could blow up the plane, but it doesn't make sense to prevent 1000 legitimate voters from casting a ballot in the off chance that we'll stop one improper voter. Such an approach moves us away from rather than closer to the objective of democracy--ascertaining the will of the people. Based on the current evidence, a photo ID is likely to result in more rather than fewer erroneous election outcomes.

Overton continues: "Further, fake IDs are very accessible. While a photo identification requirement would exclude millions of legitimate voters, ineligible individuals determined to cast a ballot would still be able to vote (to the right is a phony ID a Bush daughter allegedly used to buy alcohol).

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Just For The Record, The Blogometer Is Pro-Breast

Nick Gillespie at Reason Online has a report on the front lines of our nation's intelectual property battles (where he sides with his decidedly non-fellow religous brethren): "Our story thus far: CleanFlicks is one of several companies that clean up sex and violence and foul language in movies and then sell the bowdlerized versions (which are clearly labeled as such) to their mostly religious customers. Among the sanitizers' most widely reported edits was the redaction of Kate Winslet's breasts from the arty scenes in James Cameron's Titanic."

"Such simple acts of repurposing content ran afoul of, among others, the Directors Guild of America, which claimed that such actions infringed on moviemakers' copyright protections. Now, according to an account at E! Online, "a federal judge in Denver has ordered several companies to cease and desist from editing out movie content they find offensive."

As for the case just decided in Denver: I have no problem with gratuitous nudity (is there any other kind in a movie?), foul language, and graphic violence; but I'm squarely on the side of the easily offended CleanFlicks' customers. They are doing precisely what technology is there for: to create the sort of art, music, video, and text that an individual or group of individuals wants to consume.

By all accounts, the CleanFlicks-type outfits weren't ripping off Hollywood in any way, shape, or form-they were paying full fees for content-and they weren't fooling anyone into thinking their versions were the originals; the whole selling point of CleanFlicks' Titanic is that it spared audiences the original movie's brief moment of full-frontal Winslet. CleanFlicks was simply part of a great and liberatory trend in which audiences are empowered to consume culture on their own terms-not the producers'. Big content providers may have prevailed in this specific case, but the sooner they understand and adapt to a much larger and more powerful cultural dynamic, the better they'll be at serving the audiences who are increasingly in control of what they watch, listen to, and read.

LEST WE FORGET: Minor League Baseball Rules

Deadspin reader Trevor from Corona, Calif. follows up on Deadspin coverage of the Lake Elsinore Storm's 6/30 Tom Cruise Bobblecouches giveaway:

"At first, it was tough to tell whether or not they were making fun of Tom Cruise & Scientology. The LA Times article was ambiguous (mentioning that there was a booth to provide information on Scientology), and knowing that the secret Scientology headquarters is just 15 miles away in Hemet, it seemed very probable that they were actually promoting Scientology. Glancing around at the crowd, I noticed a fair amount of attendees who seemed out of place for a baseball game. They had lost looks on their faces - Scientologists perhaps? I made it a point to keep an eye on them throughout the game."

"In the middle of the 4th inning, the jumbotron cleared up the mystery. All of a sudden, I look up to see the "Tom Cruise won't come out of the closet" South Park episode. They are showing the scene when he firsts goes into the closet in Stan's room. Classic! I quickly glanced at my "Scientology suspects," and there seems to be some level of confusion amongst them. To my chagrin, they muted the sound once Tom entered the closet. Not sure of what just happened, my suspects weren't fazed."

"Fast forward to the middle of the 6th. South Park back on, sound on full blast this time. And oh yes - we got the goods. A good 2-3 minutes of Mr. Cruise being persuaded to come out of the closet, including the John Travolta scene. Keep in mind that this is Lake Elsinore, Calif.: a place where people really like to hate gay people. Combine the Jumbotron scene with a crowd full of gay-bashers, and any Scientologists in the crowd would get a bit uncomfortable. Sure enough, I noticed at least five different groups of people grabbing their bobbleheads and leaving the game in disgust. It totally made my night."

7/12: Calm Before The Storm?

The blogosphere's left is far more active in campaigns then their counterparts on the right, so the Blogometer may make it seem like only liberals and progressives have internal fights while the right coasts merrily along. Everyone's focus on CT SEN only worsens the situation, but as the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne Jr. points out 7/11, the post-Bush vacuum may change all that. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is no GOP uniter and the righty blogosphere has not come close to coalescing around an alternative. Additionally, the biggest bloggers on the right traffic-wise (Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan, Kausfiles) are all decidedly less socially conservative than the traditional GOP base (represented on line better by The Corner and RedState). Maybe, just maybe, Dems and the 'spheres left could benefit by having their big proxy fight in '06 (ie CT SEN) instead of in '08.

GOP '08: His Heirlessness

Conservative bloggers were amused by E.J. Dionne Jr.'s 7/11 op-ed handicapping the GOP WH field. Ankle Biting Pundits was "tickled" by Dionne's assertion that the GOP is on the cusp of "a far more searching philosophical battle than are the Democrats." ABP looks at Dionne's ex-NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani example and concludes: "Giuliani is a true anomaly. But for 9/11, no one would be talking about his prospective presidential aspirations. That means - let's be clear - that the present Giuliani boomlet is a validation of his leadership style, not his ideology, which is decidedly "New York" on social issues and, I can say with confidence, would never see him through to the GOP nomination. So let us dispense of the GOP in philosophical crisis talk."

Also taking on Dionne from the right Ryan Sager at RCP Blog acknowledges that "Bush has no heir" but that "with Bush's poll numbers where they are, nobody really wants to be his heir." Sager then looks at the major GOP hopefuls: "McCain is really the only Republican who benefits right now from tying himself to Bush. He's already known as Bush's antagonist, so he won't be tied to the administration's failures. ... The most anti-Bush candidate is probably Newt Gingrich, who has been highly critical of the administration recently. ... Rudy and Mitt are both somewhere in between. Both support the president intensely, but both stand ready to paint themselves as 'problem solvers' who (by implication) will actually get something done in Washington, D.C., where Bush has failed."

ROMNEY: Bush III?

Progressive Ezra Klein at TAPPED also read Dionne's column but focuses entirely on MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R): "[Romney]'ll shift the terms of the health care debate left, forcing his opponents to counter with similarly productive and substantial proposals. But remember, George W. Bush ran as a uniter, not a divider, too, and we saw how that turned out. So it's worth not being too quick to take Romney at his word. ... So Romney may live up to his genial, compromising rhetoric, but his experience in Massachusetts, much like Bush's in Texas, isn't telling enough to confidently draw a conclusion. State politics are very different from national politics, and Romney's state is even more different than most."

MCCAIN: Hemlock Needed At RedState

Trying to police his own, Ryan Sager at RCP Blog notes "a discussion" over at conservative activist hang out RedState on "whether John McCain's breaking under torture in North Vietnam is something his political opponents (conservatives, that is) can use against him. It's a disgusting idea. And it's likely to backfire on the person who tries it."

Posted on a diary away from the main page, Socrates at RedState does lead of his diary writing: "I do not yet know who I support for President in 2008, but I know I that do not support John McCain. From all the evidence of his public life, he lacks the fortitude, the executive experience, and the strength of conviction needed in a President. ...McCain broke under pressure in Viet Nam, both to reveal such details of his mission as would help him gain medical treatment and by signing what he describes as a confession of war crimes. Not all prisoners revealed the details of their missions or signed such confessions. If we must elect a Viet Nam POW, it would be from the pool of those who upheld their nation's honor that I would like a president chosen."

The following comments at RedState are uniformly negative and hardly qualify as a discussion. RedState commenter SlimJim: "Criticizing McCain for "breaking under torture" is beneath redstate.com. One would expect this kind of hatred at Daily Kos. Someone should consider banning this Socrates."

CLINTON: Mmmmmmm, Bush-Lite

Arianna Huffington's unhappiness with the Clinton family does not end with Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). Huffington highlights Bill's comment from Aspen that Democrats "ought to be whipped if we allow our differences over what to do now over Iraq divide us," and asks at The Huffington Post: "Is he serious? He makes it sound as if the debate over the war is petty squabbling on the level of whether one should wear white after Labor Day." Huffington continues: "There is no way a politician as savvy as Bill Clinton could be this clueless about just how seismic a division Iraq is for Democrats, so I can only assume it was the guilt talking -- the former president trying to make up for the wrong-headed advice he's been giving Hillary about adopting a Bush-lite, "centrist" stance on the war." ... One thing is certain: papering over Democratic differences on Iraq is no longer possible. Let Democrats fight it out and choose. And, if they want to be a majority party again, let's hope they choose to reject the Hillary-Lieberman-Humphrey war-apologist wing of the party, and take a decisive stand on Iraq. Bill Clinton can't be allowed to whip the party into submission."

CT SEN I: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

The MSM aren't the only ones that can't get enough of the Sen. Joe Lieberman (D)/cable co. exec. Ned Lamont match up. Conservative bloggers are loving every second of it too. Thespis at RedState writes: "

"There is a fascinating political primary race going on in Connecticut for the US Senate seat currently held by Joe Lieberman, and Lieberman seems to be the gift that keeps on giving for conservatives. This primary battle is rich in political drama as the Democrats play out all of their frustrations on the stage in Connecticut. Just like their multiplicity of tortured views on the Iraqi War, the national Democrats have no well matched unison on all things Lieberman, and appear to be in total chaos as the mid-term elections grow near. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have typically nuanced positions in this primary race scheduled for August 8. Hillary supports old Joe now, but will support Ned Lamont if he wins the democrat primary. Kerry says he doesn't get involved in primary races, but has actively selected and supported candidates in primaries in the past. In other words, Kerry voted for Joe before he voted against him."

Back on the left, a pro-Lieberman voice has finally established a web presence the unofficial Joe Lieberman Blog reports: "John Lewis (D-GA), the greatest living leader of the civil rights movement - and my Congressman when I was growing up - endorsed Sen. Lieberman today, even as the Senator filed papers to collect signatures for a possible run in November as an independent Democrat. Please, Lieberhaters, I'm begging you - try and tell me that John Lewis is only endorsing Lieberman because he is part of a "Washington insider" effort to cling to power. Try and tell me that John Lewis is "out of touch" with progressives because he backs Joe Lieberman. Just try and tell me that John Lewis is abandoning his principles by campaigning for a pro-war Democrat, or that he is a Democrat In Name Only."

Over at the also unofficial Lamont BlogTparty isn't happy with a 7/11 Danbury News-Times headline "Lamont: My appeal goes beyond bloggers." Lamont Blog responds: "This is a ridiculous lede for an article about a candidate who is at 40% in the polls, and is scaring the crap out of an incumbent 18-year senator to the point where he thinks he stands a very good chance of losing the primary. Of course Ned Lamont's appeal goes "beyond bloggers." How many of us are there, anyway? Ask Joe if his internal polling tells him Ned's appeal goes "beyond bloggers."

The Lieberman/Lamont fight continues to divide otherwise common-caused progressive bloggers as well. Ed Kilgore's New Donkey seeks to educate MyDD's Chris Bowers on the DLC's Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) non-involvement: "the DLC has nothing at all to do with Case's challenge to Akaka, which is, best I can tell, mainly about Akaka's advanced age (81) and the possibility that he could be replaced at some point during the next six years by a Republican appointee. Now I don't expect Chris Bowers to read this blog regularly, but he's pretty influential in some circles, and insofar as he seems to have lurid ideas about the DLC's trans-Pacific reach, he might want to actually find out if this DLC- goes-after-Akaka story line has any basis in reality. It doesn't."

Bowers wasn't about to take the lecture sitting down: "First, I want to say that I respect Ed Kilgore as well ... However, if I am to take his words to their logical conclusion, it would appear that the DLC is not only not actually supporting Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, but that they are opposed to the idea that any candidates receive any resources or help from people who live outside of their district. That is fine. ... However, I don't know a single federal candidate that follows this philosophy, including Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman has raised 79.6% of his money in this election cycle from out of state donors. Unless Lieberman returns all of that money, will the DLC now decry the national effort on behalf of Lieberman to thwart the sovereign rights of Connecticut Democrats to choose whomever they want? Interestingly, Ned Lamont has actually raised a far great percentage of his money in state than Lieberman, simply because Lamont is significantly self-funded."

CT SEN II: The Pollsters Take CT

Mystery Pollster bemoans the fact that "for all the attention paid lately" to CT SEN "public polls on the race remain few and far between." MP explains: "That scarcity may owe something to the huge challenge of selecting "likely voters" for a rare summer primary in Connecticut where turnout is largely unknown. This is the sort of race that gives pollsters nightmares. Contested statewide primaries in Connecticut are relatively rare, as party nominees are typically chosen by state party conventions. ... The most recent "hotly contested" primary, at least according to the Advocate, was a September 1994 primary in which 26% of Connecticut's registered Democrats cast ballots."

MP goes on to urge all pollsters working the race to be as open as possible about their methodology: "The one thing we do know with some confidence...is that the assumptions the pollster makes about turnout matter a great deal to the results. Or at least they did in early June, when Quinnipiac had Lieberman leading by 25 percentage points (57% to 32%) among all Democrats, but by only 15 points (55% to 40%) among the smaller subgroup of "likely voters." ... Presumably, we will see more polls released in Connecticut over the next four weeks. Hopefully, the pollsters will tell us a bit more about how they select "likely voters" and about how those likely voters compare to all registered Democrats in their samples.

Fellow poll guru Political Arithmetik also looks at the race but uses Survey USA approval ratings as a proxy for a Lieberman/Lamont question: "It is incredibly rare to see a Senator more popular among opposition partisans than within his own party. Yet that is increasingly the case for Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Since late in 2005, Lieberman's approval rating among Democrats has dropped from around 70%, to the mid-50s. While slowly trending down recently, Lieberman's job approval among Republicans remains in the upper 60s, while job approval among independents has fallen to the mid-to-upper 50s, as has overall approval. Much of this has to do with opposition to the war and Lieberman's support of it, and an angry and vocal group of Democratic activists and bloggers. Of the 34% of CT Democrats who say Lieberman does not deserve to be reelected, the largest group (30%) cite his support for the war as the primary reason."

PA concludes: "In any case, it is ironic that Democrats are locked in a fight over the renomination of a Senator who looked like a shoo-in six months ago. It would be ironic indeed if Democrats pick up the six Republican seats they need to take back the Senate, only to have forced one of their own out of the party. An independent Joe Lieberman might possibly decide which party controls the Senate in 2007. Wouldn't that be interesting."

MT SEN: Victories Are Good For Victors (Except When They're Not)

Ignoring his 7/10 CA GOV tiradeDailyKos ' founder Markos Moulitsas pumps the latest Rasmussen poll numbers showing state Senate Pres. Jon Tester (D) at 50% to Sen. Conrad Burns (R) 43% by writing: "Nice post-primary boost for Tester (more proof that primaries are generally a good thing for the victorious candidates)."

PA SEN: Like Rats On A Sinking Ship

Following up on a Cato-at-LibertyDavid Boaz piece attacking Sen. Rick Santorum (R) for being "a porker, an earmarker, and Senator Pothole," and for declaring himself "against this whole idea of personal autonomy" Jonah Goldberg at the conservative hang out the Corner responds: "I know this is a pretty pro-Santorum forum, but I must say this scored more than mere glancing blows. .. I agree that radical individualism is bad, but I don't see how by conceding this point I have to believe that the State therefore has a writ to impose its vision of civil society wherever it sees fit."

VA SEN: The Blueing Of Virginia?

Raising Kaine links to a precinct by precinct maps of Fairfax County colored red and blue corresponding to Bush/Kerry in'04 and Kilgore/Kaine in '05 (Courtesy of patrickottenhoff.com). The maps demonstrate a distinct blueing of the county and RK asks hopefully: "And as goes Fairfax, so goes Virginia?"

HOUSE LANDSCAPE: Tally Totalling

James L. at Dem-activist Swing State Project promises to tally up Q2 fundraising totals as he finds them so far he has:

CO-07:
Ed Perlmutter (D): $300k raised ($515k cash-on-hand)
Peggy Lamm (D): $243k raised
Rick O'Donnell (R): $305k raised ($859,000 cash-on-hand)
MN-01:
Tim Walz (D): $198k raised ($250k cash-on-hand)
Gil Gutknecht (R-Inc.): $190k raised ($800k+ cash-on-hand)
NY-20:
Kirsten Gillibrand (D): $500k raised ($750k cash-on-hand)
John Sweeney (R-Inc.): $479k raised ($1M cash-on-hand)
WA-08:
Darcy Burner (D): $581k raised ($754,800 cash-on-hand)
NE-01:
Maxine Moul (D): $310k raised ($360k cash-on-hand)
NE-03:
Scott Kleeb (D): $203k raised ($277k cash on hand)

PA 07: Thanks For The 20K

Joe Sestak for Congress at DailyKos takes the time to thank the Kossacks: "Netroots-endorsed Fightin' Dem Joe Sestak recently announced that he has raised $700,000 in the 2nd Quarter - beating his opponent, career politician Curt Weldon by almost $300,000! ... The Democratic candidate for Congress in 2004 raised $27,000. By comparison, the Netroots have raised almost $20,000 for Joe just this cycle, for which we are incredibly grateful!"

110th CONGRESS: Chicken Countin'

David Kowalski at progressive activist MyDD uses a "Progressive Punch Score" to size up progressive gains at the cmte chairman level should the Dems take the House in 11/06: "Overall, the 24 Democrats have a Progressive Punch score of 84.15, meaning they cast a "progressive" vote 84% of the time. Current Republican chairs cast a progressive vote just 8.90% of the time. Although this is not a strong a switch as the move from Pelosi (score of 93.62) from Hastert (in the 4s IIRC), it is close."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Choosier Dems Choose Lamont

The major natl pro-choice orgs have not been able to steer clear of progressive blogger anger stemming from CT SEN. Progressive and Natural Born Killers producer Jane Hamsher at firedoglake pens a faux-open letter from Planned Parenthood in protest over the org's Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) endorsement: "I know there were a few raised eyebrows over our recent endorsement of Joe Lieberman for the US Senate over his solidly pro-choice opponent, Ned Lamont, especially given Joe's recent comments telling rape victims to take a hike short ride. ... We want you to know we have only begun to plumb the depths of what we're willing to do to insure that the threats to choice in this country persist and the cash register keeps churning. Screw all the "little people" we have in clinics across the country whose lives are increasingly on the line as anti-choice nutjobs become emboldened by the actions of people like you - they just do not understand How Things Are Done."

Others piling on from the left:

• Matt Stoller at MyDD: "In allowing Senator Lieberman to not filibuster Alito and still backing him for his reelection campaign against a reliably progressive candidate, the leaders of NARAL and Planned Parenthood have decided to throw away their political capital."
• Taylor Marsh: "The militancy of both groups is annoying to people like me. But then when they're militancy is required, they take a powder. They're absolutely worthless to our political cause. That both groups have walked away from women who are victims of sexual violence makes me furious."
• feministe: "I have a lot of respect for Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, but I have to ask: What the hell are you thinking? I'm really, really disappointed in NARAL and Planned Parenthood today. I realize they have to make political decisions, and perhaps they feel it's in their best interest to support an incumbent who they think has a better chance at winning. But this should be about standing up for women, and backing the candidate who will do the most to support our rights and liberties."

IMMIGRATION: VRA Meets Immigration

The conservative Right Angle reports on Rep. Steve King's (R-IA) efforts "to advance his Voting Rights Act amendment to end the federal government's foreign-language ballot mandate. In short, King said his amendment would remove the unfunded federal mandate that requires localities to provide foreign-language ballots. King would rather put that decision in the hands of state and local governments.

All is not well in righty land however. Right Angle explains that "standing in [King's] way are House GOP leaders, several of whom voted against a similar amendment from Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) last month. Voting against the Stearns amendment were: Maj. Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Maj. Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), Judiciary Chair James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Govt Reform Chair Tom Davis (R-VA). Right Angle encourages readers: "If your congressman hasn't signed King's letter or voted against the Stearns amendment, call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or send your congressman an e-mail voicing your support for King's amendment."

TIP OF THE DAY: Deputizing Bloggers

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas suggests an easy way for campaigns to help bloggers help candidates: "Suggestion for campaigns -- see that picture of Jon Tester by his tractor in the post below? Those sorts of pictures really allow bloggers to spice up posts. Yet most campaigns don't have them. They may have pictures of the candidate campaigning, but those are usually poorly lit, poorly staged, and simply not very attractive. So take a couple of professional pictures. Not just a headshot, but also a couple between 200 and 400 pixels wide. Some vertical, some horizontal. And label them "for bloggers" so we know it's okay to grab and use them."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: One Of The Big Boys

Inspired by (what else) CT SEN Scott Winship at The Democratic Strategist wants to know "how influential will the netroots be in elections" and attempts to answer the question by using "size as one indicator."

Using a post-election survey from 2004, I defined "the Democratic netroots" as those adults who "regularly" get "news or information" from "Online columns or blogs such as Talking Points Memo, the Daily Kos, or Instapundit" and who are either self-identified Democrats or liberals. Blogs were one of twelve media sources that were asked about, and each of the twelve was a separate question (so respondents didn't have to choose between competing sources). Rather than answering that they consulted a source "regularly", respondents could say that they did so "sometimes" or "hardly at all.

What does your gut tell you when you think of the percentage of adults that can claim membership in the Democratic netroots? The answer, according to this survey, is 1 percent. One percent of adults translates into 2.24 million people. At first glance, one percent may sound pathetic. But let's provide some context. Since one strand of the blogosphere debate has compared the netroots with various special interest groups, it might be instructive to consider how large those groups might be. Take a look:

Union members: 15.7 million
NOW: 500,000 contributing members
NARAL Pro-Choice America: 900,000
Sierra Club: 750,000 members
National Resources Defense Council: over 1 million members
ACLUL over 500,000 members
Human Rights Campaign: nearly 600,000 members

It's difficult to make comparisons because these groups do not include all activists in a given issue area. Plus there's obviously substantial overlap among the groups. But it's safe to say that there are more Democratic netroots activists than civil liberties or gay-rights activists, at least as many as there are feminist activists (and hence probably minority activists), but fewer than there are environmental activists or (especially) union members. Given the influence these groups have had on the Party, it seems reasonable to conclude that the netroots really is a force to be reckoned with.

LEST WE FORGET: Who Doesn't Hate Tim McCarver?

kausfiles brother Stephen Kaus took to The Huffington Post to list five (and then six) things he doesn't like about Major League Baseball's new TV deals with FOX and Turner Sports:" 1. Tim McCarver. The worst national announcer in the history of baseball will continue to deface broadcasts of Saturday games and post season games. McCarver could not shut up if his life depended on it. The Giants hired him to do a few telecasts and he was run out of town quicker than Crazy Crab. He was fired by both the Mets and the Yankees, but somehow he has stuck at FOX. Joe Buck is passionless and annoying, but McCarver is so bad that one does not realize it. Check out shutup timmccarver.com.

Also included on the list: 2. Less ESPN; 3. Blackouts; 4. No HD; 5. Less Braves; and "UPDATE: watching the All-Star Game, I realized there is a reason number 6: Jeanne Zelasko. Spare me!"

7/11: The Future Is Now

Plenty of pixels continue to be spilled over why progressive bloggers are singling out Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) for ex-communication and what this means for Dems everywhere. But CT SEN is also serving as a preview for what awaits all WH'08 hopefuls as the blogosphere continues to mature (and we use that term loosely). Those who want to know how the future will look need look no further than a tiny Irish bar in Stamford, CT, where a local blog diarist crashed a Lieberman campaign stop and managed to get her face-to-face exchange with Lieberman captured on video by the local news. The clip is now on YouTube and can be seen by junkies from IA to NH. Lieberman comes out decently in this edit, but next time a fellow blogger with a less than balanced agenda might be behind the camera and the results could definitely be worse. How will campaigns respond to the threat/opportunity of every campaign misstep/victory instantly captured and spread for all to see?

CT SEN I: That's What You Get For Campaigning In A Pub>

A 7/10 Stamford, CT Irish American Dems' campaign stop for Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) did not run as smoothly as planned. Besides Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE) no-show My Left Nutmeg diarist Maura made the most of her Lieberman face-time, asking: "You mentioned how Irish American Democrats are great supporters because they're not fair-weather friends, and I totally agree. So why are you being a fair-weather Democrat, saying you'll only respect the results of the Democratic primary if you win?" NECN caught her question and Lieberman's response on video available here. Maura on the whole experience: "I was really shocked at how much attention my comment got, since I didn't shout it out to get attention during Lieberman's talk, but rather approached him one-on-one. Apparently, some Lieberman staffers told reporters who were talking to me that I was a Lamont campaign plant, which is completely untrue."

Fellow progressive Spazeboy posts more local TV coverage here and adds: "What troubles me is that the Lieberman campaign tried to paint Maura as some kind of plant by the Lamont campaign. Don't get her wrong, she is a proud supporter of Ned Lamont but she doesn't take her marching orders from Lamont HQ. I received the same kind of treatment from Marion Steinfels at the diner event where I met Joe 31 days ago in Bristol."

ConnecticutBLOG passed on some other event lowlights: "Lieberman snuck in the back door rather than face the couple of people outside with anti-Joe Message signs; Only 20-25 people showed up for the event. There were more Lieberyouths there (at least 30) than guests; Lieberman's staff were trying to sell the story that Biden missed the train because he returned late from Iraq." Atrios wasn't buying the train excuse either: "Rumor is Biden's a no show to stump for Lieberman, claiming he missed his train. If true that's hilarious. There's a train from Wilmington to Stamford about every 45 minutes in the morning."

ConnecticutBLOG also has video of cable co. exec. Ned Lamont's (D) latest TV ad asking Lieberman to stop negative campaigning and mocks Lieberman's choice of party name for his indy run: "Joe Lieberman's new party name (drumroll please): Connecticut for Lieberman. Oh, I can see it now Sen. Lieberman (Lieberman-CT)."

Matt Stoller at progressive activist MyDD compares SUSA approval/disapproval ratings for Lieberman from 12/05 through 6/06: "These numbers are rather remarkable. While Democrats are abandoning Lieberman, with a 27 point swing against him, Republicans are abandoning Lieberman almost as quickly. About a quarter of Democratic voters have changed their mind about Lieberman, and slightly more than one eighth of independents and Republicans have done the same."

CT SEN II: All Or Nothing For The Netroots

Left-of-center TNR's Jonathan Chait looks at CT SEN and sees no good outcomes for Dems: "Consider the scenarios. If Lamont wins the primary and the general election, which is akin to drawing an inside straight, then the direct effect is positive. But, as I argued in my previous Lieberman/Lamont column, if you defeat Lieberman, "he'll play the same role as before, only this time with the power of martyrdom behind him: the virtuous anti-Democrat, too good and honest for his party." And that's the liberals' best-case scenario! If Lieberman wins the primary, or if he wins as an independent, then he retains his perch, and is likely to be even more alienated from liberals than ever before. If Lieberman runs as an independent and allows the Republicans to pick up the seat, then it's a huge net loss. ... In summary, I think there are two important ramifications to the Lieberman/Lamont primary fight. The short-term one is how it will affect Lieberman's role within the Democratic Party. As I argue above, I think the effect is likely to be negative. The longer-term question is how it is likely to effect the campaign by Markos Moulitsas and others to reshape liberal politics along Norquistian lines, and I find that troubling as well."

Chait isn't the only one on the left concerned about the post-CT SEN world. Obsidian Wings has no love for Lieberman but "when you're trying to retake the Senate, I'm mystified by the logic that suggests weakening one of your own candidates would be a good thing. The Democrats already need just about everything to break right for them in November to retake one or both chambers of Congress. Had they left Lieberman alone, his seat was rock solid; there's no way on Earth the Republicans could run anyone who was going to take down Lieberman. Now there's a very small possibility the Republican could win if Lieberman and Lamont split the vote just right, and a better possibility that Lieberman will still be Connecticut's senior senator in January 2007, but with a sizeable chip on his shoulder regarding the treatment he's received from the netroots."

Ezra Klein at the liberal TAPPED notes Chait's admitted dislike for Lieberman and wonders why Chait refuses to find common ground with the the Kossacks: "But Markos isn't up for re-election, Joe Lieberman is. And he's battling it out with this dude named Ned Lamont. And Chait appears to agree that Lamont is a better guy than Lieberman, and would carry a less objectionable ideology and political style into the Senate. Yet he can't support him. Because he doesn't like Markos, who's shown neither an interest nor appetite for imposing his antiwar views on the party. It's just a remarkably strange approach to the issue. ... Indeed, for all the theorizing over why the Netroots have gone after Lieberman, the answer is easy: They oppose him because he opposes them. And reading Chait, it's hard to believe that his stubborn opposition to a blogospheric crusade he supports on the merits doesn't rely on exactly the same grounds."

But for some on the left the race will still always be about Iraq. Middle Earth Journal: "They make it sound like this is a personal vendetta against the man, Joe Lieberman. This is where they miss the mark. For most of us it's not. It is a vendetta against the failed ideology that got us bogged down in the quagmire in Iraq, is losing the all important war in Afghanistan and making the world a much more dangerous place by antagonizing the rest of the world community.

From the right Silflay Hraka notes that the stakes are high for both Lieberman and the Kossacks: "Having so obviously targeted Lieberman, the netroots/nutroots/Townhouse crew must now defeat him, or risk being seen as irrelevant, especially considering their dismal electoral record thus far. National races are one thing, but If the LeftNet cannot elect a candidate of their own choosing in a Democratic Primary in one of the most liberal states in the Union, then they can't win elections, period. If that happens, it should become obvious to one and all that the Emperor has no clothes."

Also on the right NRO's Jim Geraghty suggests no such drama could ever be repeated on the GOP side: "Imagine if the conservative bloggers got together and decided to focus an inordinate amount of their energy and rhetoric upon defeating ... Arnold Schwartzenegger. Or Chuck Hagel. Or Olympia Snowe or Arlen Specter. Many conservatives don't like their stands on this issue or that issue; Pat Toomey got plenty of grassroots support a few years back. But the rage-to-irritated-tolerance ratio is positively milquetoast compared to the lefty "netroots." ... Even if you take the least conservative Republican lawmaker on the national scene, Lincoln Chafee, the disdain rises to making the face that you make when you smell sour milk. Many on the right would really like to see Chafee defeated in this year's primary. But there's no equivalent "Rape Gurney Joe" nickname, no Powerline guys popping up in his challenger's Mentos-ad-esque commercials, no damning the incumbent for intolerable "rudeness" because he interrupted his opponent."

LANDSCAPE'08: As Long As You're Passing Around Cash ...

Progressive Chris Bowers at MyDD picks up on this On Call (go team!) footnote tabulating WH'08 hopeful leadership PAC gifts to '06 Dem camps and sees an opportunity to pass the plate around: "Speaking of fundraising and currying favor, any and all Leadership PACs are welcome to donate to BlogPac. Email me at chris@mydd.com for details. You won't actually get any beneficial posts or positive coverage from doing this. Also, I have known my favorite potential candidate for well over a year, and that ain't changing. However, your money will be used to defend the netroots and increase our political efficacy. If you think helping the netroots will help your future campaign, your money will be well spent."

GORE: Death Of A Salesman

The left's Whiskey Bar skipped Pirates of the Caribbean II and finally saw Al Gore's (D) An Inconvenient Truth so he could bring us this review: "The film taught me a few things I didn't know about global climate change, but I was actually much more interested in what it had to say about Al Gore or rather, what Al had to say about himself and his 20-year crusade to convince America to accept climate change for what it is: a potentially civilization-ending crisis. ... But there is something tragic, even a little pathetic, about Gore's stubborn faith in the ability of facts and reasoned argument to save the world. The scenes of him schlepping through airports alone, laptop in hand, on his way to yet another city to show his slides to another room full of college students or environmental activists hit the edge of bathos. They make Al look too much like Willy Loman.

CLINTON: The UnCOLA

Lefty huh-zah's all around for Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) introduction of a bill linking congressional cost-of-living increases with a minimum-wage hike. TNR's Mike Crowley: "Politically, this is a great fight for Democrats: a Gingrichian, populist issue that can stoke anti-ruling party anger. On the other hand, the Abramoff-DeLay-Cunningham (and William Jefferson) scandals suggest to me that members of Congress and their aides should earn substantially more money so they're less susceptible to wining and dining and outright bribery. Pay-raise demagoguery hardly advances that cause. In this case, however, if it might help minimum-wage workers, I say it's worth it. P.S. Does Hillary's co-opting of a signature Feingold issue suggest she's taking him seriously as a 2008 primary opponent? I'm guessing so!"

TAPPED's Ezra Klein finds the policy behind the bill "nonsensical" but "as a political gambit, it's brilliant. It pits the sympathetic worker against the loathed congresscritter, underscores the Republican majority's reprehensible unwillingness to raise the wage above its current 50-year low, and will, by virtue of being a potent political club, make it easier to extract increases and maybe an eventual automatic mechanism in the minimum wage. It's good politics that could lead to good policy, and it's the sort of political savvy that Democrats need to display more often."

Not all is well for HRC in lefty blogland. Robert Weissman at The Huffington Post was not pleased with a Financial Times report on HRC's ties to Wall Street: "OK, let's concede that it's true that politicians in New York can't easily ignore Wall Street. This, however, is not that. ... this "cozying up" is about more than fundraising, too: It is to make sure that Wall Street understands that a Hillary Clinton administration would be their friend. In other words: A focus on deficit reduction over public investment in needed infrastructure and services. More corporate-friendly trade deals. No meaningful support for labor on issues that might affect labor-management power relations. An obsession with inflation at the expense of raising workers' wages. Tax policy that's gentle on the corporate bottom line."

WARNER: Let's Call It A Tie And Go Home

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas highlights the neck and neck race between Atty. Bill Winter (D-CO 06) and John Courage (D-TX 21) for a $5,000 contribution from ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner's Forward Together PAC and urges his readers to vote and contribute.

Courage and Winter then teamed up for an open letter to Warner (posted at Burnt Orange Report and Square State) "formally requesting a visit from you--please come join us for a fundraiser in Texas for John Courage as well as one for Bill Winter in Colorado."

MCCAIN: On The Cover Of Teen Beat

On Call (go team!) excerpts Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) upcoming Esquire profile sent conservative bloggers into a tizzy. RedState commenters used the opportunity to push their favorite alternative. Adjoran: "What this shows is that, more than anything else, McCain is concerned about Guiliani. He feels he can hold his own on the right against Rudy, and is anxious to fight for those voters he perceives as the Mayor's base. If he were more worried about Allen, say, he would be playing different cards." Oz: "This is the kind of thing that has me saving my pennies so that when 2008 rolls around I have $2000 to give IN THE PRIMARIES to Romney or some other conservative."

Evangelicals for Mitt didn't want to be left out: "That is apparently how our "friend" John McCain described folks like us to Esquire, whose forthcoming issue includes what promises to be a breathless, teenage girl-esque cover story on him. He also seems to think the the GOP of, well, Ronald Reagan, Chuck Colson, and George W. Bush is betraying the legacy of Lincoln and not being a "big tent."

CA GOV: One Out Of Two Dems Can't Be Wrong

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas sees everything that is wrong with Dems at work in CA Gov: "This is what the slash and burn Democratic gubernatorial primary in California wrought. The California GOP is now running an ad that resurrects the entire quotes from Steve Westley's attack ads. The tagline? "Quotes from Democrat Steve Westley about Phil Angelides." The announcer signs off the ad, "What if Steve Westley was right?" It was so f****** obvious, and the reason I was turned off by the primary. They did the California GOP's dirty work for them. And did it better, and more effectively, than anything the Republicans could've ever put together on their own."

Meanwhile righties are in love with the Terminator's message discipline. NRO's John J. Pitney Jr. "On Thursday, Governor Schwarzenegger told the Sacramento Bee that new taxes are off the table: "I totally rule it out. I will not raise taxes." Now his campaign has a snappy new Internet ad making the point that Democratic opponent Phil Angelides will do the opposite."

KY GOV: Block This!

Gov. Ernie Fletcher critic BluegrassReport filed a federal lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky 7/10 over the recent targeting and censorship of BluegrassReport.org in the state capitol. The complaint does not seek monetary damages but does allege that the administration's actions are an infringement of rights under the 1st Amendment and Equal Protection Clause and asks that the government's ban of BluegrassReport.org be declared unconstitutional and access be restored. Bluegrass believes the issue "has significant national implications as it involves the unconstitutional efforts by government to discriminate against non-traditional media, like the blogs. In this case, the mainstream newspapers' websites were not blocked, but non-traditional media like mine were. They did so with no standards or policy guidelines in place and implemented in a non-sensical and arbitrary manner. This is fertile constitutional ground since the blogosphere is such a recent phenomenon, but the courts have already begun according blogs with media protections (as has the FEC) and historically are quite sensitive to targeting of non-traditional media, often comparing them to the early American pamphleteers."

GA LG: Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate

Conservative Tom Bevan at RCP Blog has a fantastic round-up of Ralph Reed (R)/Casey Cagle (R) GA AG developments including "a brass knuckle tough" Cagle new ad, equally tough Reed ads, links to a Zell Milleraudio of phone calls in support of Reed, and finally an Insider Advantage poll showing the race a dead heat.

SEN LANDSCAPE: Looking To '08 Already

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas tells Kossacks they need six Senate seats to take over the Senate and breaks the possible pickups into three tiers:

Tier one
1. Pennsylvania
2. Montana
3. Missouri
4. Ohio
5. Rhode Island
Tier two
6. Virginia
7. Tennessee
Tier three
8. Arizona
9. Nevada

Kos goes on to handicap '08 Senate races including "Minnesota: Coleman (R) will get challenged by local-boy-done-good Al Franken."

PA-12: Swift Recap

The left's Taylor Marsh has a thorough study of GOP attacks on Rep. John Murtha (D) up at Patriot Project titled "The Swiftboating of John Murtha." Over at Marsh's regular home Dem activist Bob Geiger comments: "If you only have time to read one thing this week, Taylor's article has got to be it."

DEMS: It's The Ideas, Stupid

Kenneth Baer and Andrei Cherny write in the Los Angeles Times: "Americans are ready to listen to an alternative. Now is the moment for Democrats to offer a set of breakthrough ideas that will create a governing majority for a generation. But this will happen only if they are willing to be more than the railroad conductor making sure the trains run on time, and instead put America on a new and different track." Cherny follows up at Huffington Post. "The fact of the matter is that the biggest divide among Democrats today isn't between centrists or liberals, its between Democrats who want to put forward a big agenda to America and those who want to just slide by on the other guys mistakes. ... These Democrats are like the 98-pound weakling who lives in fear of the school bully. They will say anything to avoid being stuffed into a gym locker."

Matthew Yglesias: "When it first started, I thought the meta-debate over the need for big ideas was pretty fun. At this point, though, I'm prepared to surrender to the power of Baer and Cherney if they'll just tell me about an idea rather than an idea about the need for ideas." == Ezra Klein says the piece "makes me want to bang my head against a wall -- which isn't a new idea, but an old one that should probably be implemented more often. ... I'd prefer if Democrats hewed to economic theories that stuck reality rather than tried to conjure up some fresh paradigm just for the sake of it." == Ron Chusid at The Democratic Daily says Baer and Cherny "overemphasize the role of big ideas in the success of the Republicans. Rather than bringing them success, it is these big ideas which may cost the Republicans their majority."

Corrente: "This little exchange illustrates the division of the Left in 'merka (and in the blogosphere): liberals vs. progressives. On the Ezra Klein side, we have people content to say 'Vote democratic! We're not corrupt and incompetent like the Rethuglicans!'. ... But is running on competence and efficiency enough to win elections? The last two elections have proven otherwise."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: You're A Liberal If I Say You Are

Scott Winship at the new Democratic Strategist believes that "a lot of people really are liberal, but the term has been made into a dirty word by conservatives. If you ask people about their policy preferences and values, liberals would be in the majority." To back this claim up Winship looks at NES data from 2004 and weights "questions from the survey related to values and values-laden issues; foreign policy and national security; economic and social policy; and fiscal policy" so that he could determine how many voters were fake conservatives and really "operational liberals." Winship found:

"Based on my weighting scheme, the country is evenly split between operational liberals and conservatives. Adults are conservative on foreign policy and national security (52 to 48) and values (62 to 38), but liberal on economic/social policy (57 to 43) and fiscal policy (60 to 40). Consistent with the idea that liberal is a stigmatized word, just 56 percent of operational liberals self-identified as liberal, while 30 percent self-identified as conservative. In contrast, 79 percent of operational conservatives said they were conservative."

LEST WE FORGET: Pennsylvania Has A Bikini Team?

Admit it, if you were in Pittsburgh last night to celebrate the All-Star game you stopped by The All-Star Ball With The Cansecos! In case you weren't Deadspin reports that you missed a night with: "Jessica Canseco, Jose Canseco, two Playboy Playmates and the Pennsylvania bikini team. (That team is rife with roiders, by the way.)"

7/10: It Keeps Coming Back To Iraq

Progressive bloggers bill of particulars against Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) is lengthy and includes many non-Iraq items, but following a day of horrific mob violence in Baghdad, many could not resist hitting Lieberman with their favorite club. While many MSMers play CT SEN as only about the Iraq war, some have started to deviate from that line and recognize that progressive blogger hate for Lieberman stems more from his continuous rhetorical betrayals of Dem criticism of Pres. Bush (this WSJ piece being exhibit A). Lieberman's visible role as Bush's go to for Dem Iraq-war support is really Lieberman's problem, not his support for the war per se.

CLINTON: Triangulator-In-Chief

Longtime gay rights activist and San Francisco resident Michael Petrelis takes Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) to task for not articulating a position on gay marriage while "in San Francisco, of all American cities." Petrelis quips: "This ain't leadership in my book. And speaking of books, I looked up 'triangulating wimp' in the dictionary and your name and photo were what I found."

Conservatives were also closely monitoring HRC's reaction to NY's gay marriage ruling. Right Angle Blog quotes an HRC spokesperson: "Senator Clinton supports full equality for people in committed relationships, including health insurance, life insurance and pensions, and hospital visitation and believes we have to keep working to reach those goals." RAB then comments: "Not exactly the Gettysburg Address of gay rights. Did she condemn the decision? Or does she support it? She could have been talking about anybody in a 'committed relationship,' including elderly heterosexual couples or Chelsea and her latest boyfriend."

Ed Kosner at lefty hang out The Huffington Post thinks trust is HRC's biggest liability: "Brains and focus aren't Hillary problem. For all her fervent admirers, there's so much twitchy calculation in her run for the Presidency that many, many people feel she simply can't be trusted. One moment, she's backing ridiculous legislation to ban non-existent flag-burning - a Bush lollypop for conservatives. The next, she's hiring a lefty blogger. ... Triangulation or cognitive dissonance? It hardly matters. ... To succeed...Hillary Clinton will have to stop being a dervish, find a groove - and stay in it.

EDWARDS: Interest In Edwards Up 521%!

Progressive Jonathan Singer at MyDD likes John Edwards' (D) recent focus on predatory payday lenders (which, Singer notes, can "charge up to a 521 percent annual rate on short-term loans" in OR). Singer writes: "Not only is it good policy to reign in predatory lenders, it is good politics, too. There has been polling conducted on this issue, and while I can't get into the details of it, suffice it to say that the vast majority of voters -- and even the vast majority of Republican voters -- are in favor of capping the interest rates that predatory lenders charge So I really hope Senator Edwards continues to hammer away on this issue throughout his (possible) bid for the Democratic nomination."

GIULIANI: Five Out Of Eight Presidents Can't Be Wrong

Right of center Roger Simon would love to see ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) candidacy move the GOP left on social issues: "Suppose Giuliani actually stands by his views and the Republican Party - enough of it anyway - moves toward him and he actually gets the nomination without altering those positions. ... It would certainly make things easier for the Republicans in the general election with a candidate (the hero of 9/11) outflanking the Dems in almost every important direction. And the public would get what it seems to want - someone socially liberal but strong on defense. That would constitute a sea change in American politics. Of course, I could be a dreamer, as someone once said. But I'm not the only one."

Dales at righty hang out RedState looks at past presidential contests and wonders if America is as socially liberal as Simon thinks. Dales counts all five post-Watergate pres. wins as social conservative victories and discounts the two GOP losses: "In 1976, it was not exactly clear which candidate was more liberal on social issues -- Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford. As the transcript of the 9/23/76 debate shows, those issues were mostly on the back-burner. ... In 1992, Bill Clinton was the more liberal of the candidates on social issues, but he did not run on his social liberalism -- in fact, he famously tried to keep his entire campaign focused on economic issues, with the slogan "It's the economy, stupid." Dales concludes: "Depending on how one tallies the 1976 and 1992 elections, the score is anywhere from 5-3 in favor of the more socially conservative candidate to 5-1-2. Either way, the evidence is against the proposition that Americans yearn for a socially liberal President."

Over at The Corner conservative Kathryn Jean Lopez notes that Giuliani ex-wife Donna Hanover has a "Love and Sex" column at AOL and comments: "This could be a small problem for rudy!" Some past Love and Sex column titles: Donna's Podcast: Rediscovering Long-Lost Love; Is it OK to hook up with an ex just for sex?; Tips for approaching an ex I'm still attracted to; Is it normal to have feelings for an old love?

ROMNEY: The Race For Rangers

Jjfuller72 at RedState pours over a 7/6 Washington Postpost on WH'08 hopefull courtship of Pres. Bush Rangers. JJ looks at Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) catches and writes: "Notice anything interesting? They are all from D.C. and/or Texas! The Bush team is obviously strongest in D.C. and Texas. I do not see this as coincidental since, although McCain is oft called a "Maverick", his political record puts him more in line with a northeastern GOP Senator than a Texas-styled GOP Senator." JJ compares MA Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) commitments and notes: "This group is the largest and most geographically diverse of all." JJ concludes: "Although Bush seems to have pointed the closest in his political machine in McCain's direction, it looks like the financial donors are thinking more independently. This Bush-McCain "back-room deal" of trading support will not sit well with the media or the GOP electorate . . . it may just turn out to be McCain's "back-fire deal."

Over at right of center RCP BlogTom Bevan follows up an earlier Romney post with some reader reax: " First, from a reader in Mississippi: I go to a very fundamentalist Southern Baptist Church. We have a membership of two thousand. We have had studies on the Mormon church. To put it very mildly, we consider it a devilish cult. ...Next from a Mormon reader in Utah: I bristle at the notion that Mormon beliefs, as touching the President of the United States, would be perceived as somehow wackier, less believable, more harmful, less worthy than say Catholicism, Protestantism, or any other major American religion."

The Corner's conservative John J. Miller highlights the pro-Romney Evangelicals for Mitt. EFM exists: "because we want a president who shares our political and moral values and priorities, can win in 2008, and can govern effectively thereafter. ... We believe we have found just a person in Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts. He's not just a candidate evangelicals can support-he is the best choice for people of faith. It's not even close. ... Yes, Gov. Romney is a Mormon. We are not. According to the liberal media, this is an unbridgeable gap, and evangelicals will never turn out to support a faithful Mormon like Mitt Romney. As usual, the media have it wrong. ... Let's leave the absurd religious litmus test to the Democrats."

Ryan Sager at RCP Blog is not impressed: "There's a new group blog, Evangelicals for Mitt. ...The main activity right now seems to be closing their eyes, sticking their fingers in their ears, rocking back and forth, and murmuring over and over: "There is no Mormon problem ... There is no Mormon problem."

CT SEN: No More Joes

Progressive bloggers are attacking Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) for a new TV ad featuring a fake Ned Lamont (D) bumper sticker. The unofficial Lamont Blog calls the ad "an obvious attempt to deceive voters." Liberal Oasis notes that the sticker features the web address www.nomorejoe.com is now defunct but was owned by GOP consulting firm Highground, Inc. as part of a GOP primary campaign against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio against Dan Saban that summer. Spazeboy.net has posted the ad on YouTube.

Even conservative bloggers are scoring this one as a strike against Team Lieberman. NRO's Greg Pollowitz: "But at a time when Joe is running as fast as he can from the Republican party, a stupid mistake that ties him (albeit, by total coincidence) to a consulting firm that has done work for the Republican party, is not good news for Joe."

Progressive and Natural Born Killers producer Jane Hamsher at firedoglake reports from the Tom Joyner radio show that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA-35) will be coming to CT to campaign for Lamont. Hamsher notes that Waters is is "the chair of the 72 member, all Democratic 'Out of Iraq' caucus" and is "going to thoroughly enjoy watching Maxine Waters come to Connecticut on behalf of Ned and show a patronizing old gasbag like [David] Brooks how it's done."

CSPAN's 7/8 Washington Journal saw The Nation editor and pro-Lamonter Katrina Vanden Heuvel square off against ex-Pres. Clinton aide and Lieberman supporter Lanny Davis. Ramsfan at DailyKos offers a decidedly one-sided account of the affair including: "Mr. Davis couldn't have been more obnoxiously pro-Lieberman if he was on Joe's payroll, often interrupting callers or dismissing them as "liars" or "bigots" when they didn't serve his purpose of selling Joe as a progressive Democrat. ... It was all very on-message, accusing Lamont of flip-flopping on the war issue, of being a "Reagan Democrat", of "making fun" of Ted Kennedy (a tad desperate? I'd say so)."

Princeton liberal Talking Points Memo caught the CSPAN rerun and offered this review: "I watched just enough of the Lieberman-Lamont debate and Davis' CSPAN appearance to pick up on the Lieberman campaign's new theme that you just can't rely on Lamont because he's all over the place on a withdrawal plan for Iraq. I don't know whether that's an accurate criticism of Lamont (I suspect it's not), but it doesn't strike me as a winning formula for Lieberman: you can't trust this guy to fix the problem I created. If you need help getting your car out of a ditch, would you turn to the guy who just drove it in there or to the stranger who stops to help?"

Also following up on 7/6's debate DailyKos'withoutApurpose looks at Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) numbers and attacks Lieberman's 31,000 CT jobs saved claim: "[BRAC] reduced contracts for Electric Boat (EB), a sub manufacturer. At the time, EB employed 11,800, of which about 20% would have been impacted. ... So, let's do the math. 8,500 + (11,800 * 20%) = 10,860. That's only about 1/3 of 31,000. So where did the bigger number come from? According to an Electric Boat Press Release, the 31,000 number is an economic estimate of total job loss impact for Connecticut AND Rhode Island.Of the 2,360 layoffs planned for EB, 1/4 of these were to be in Rhode Island."

Progressive Suzanne Nossel at The Huffington Post looks at what CT SEN impact beyond '06: "What interests me is how the contest ties into a larger debate underway about how big the progressive tent should be when it comes to foreign policy: where should boundaries be drawn so that we can compete in moderate and even conservative strongholds, yet still emerge the base and stand for something that is clear to voters. ... This is shaping up to be one of the principal dilemmas progressives will face leading up to 2008. ... The crux of Lieberman's problem is his unwillingness to acknowledge the severity of what's happened in Iraq, and to demand accountability for it. ... No matter what they believe we must do next, any candidate who doesn't come to grips fully with the folly of Iraq risks political oblivion."

Left-of-center TNR's Michael Crowley also looks beyond '06 and wonders if the experience will change Lieberman: "Should he lose the Democratic primary but get elected as an independent, I wonder what kind of Joe Lieberman will emerge. It's possible he'll feel humbled by his near-death experience, and work to mend fences with the left. But Lieberman's public comments make him sound far more appalled than chastened by his left-wing critics. A likely result, I'd guess, is that his voting record grows more conservative. And if it's possible, the left will learn to hate him even more."

Progressive atty The Ham Hock of Liberty is tired of MSM-type finger waving over blogger interest in CT SEN. He writes an open letter to Jon Chait, Joe Klein, Lee Siegel, Richard Cohen: "So, for your own sakes, please consider trying to understand the new media environment a little better. As far as I can tell, none of you does actual investigative reporting, just opinion. Now that instantaneous worldwide publishing is available to just about anyone, you can no longer expect to have an audience simply because of your names, or your employer. There is simply no point in attacking the blogosphere because it speaks out and supports politicians with whom the writers and readers agree, and criticizes those with whom it does not agree. If you continue to perceive this as "fascism" rather than the epitome of "democracy," the next few decades are going to be very unpleasant for you." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas is also in a populist mood: "My biggest lesson I've taken from the Connecticut primary is how much the beltway elite hate democracy and the plebes who demand a say in it."

NOT CT SEN: Everyone Is Obsessed With Me

Progressive Chris Bowers at MyDD compares Google News item numbers on Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT)/cable co. exec Ned Lamont (D), Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)/Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey (R), and Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)/Rep. Ed Case (D-02) and notes: "The Connecticut Senate primary has drawn nine times the national attention of the Hawaii and Rhode Island Senate primaries combined." Bowers offers two explanations:

"First, as ineffectual as some reporters would like to claim the progressive blogosphere is, clearly the media and political establishment are obsessed with us. The Connecticut Senate primary is the race the progressive netroots are focused on, and so the political and media establishment are focused on it as well. Whether they love us or hate us, they are fascinated by the progressive netroots, and are clearly following our lead."

"Second, the Connecticut Senate primary upsets the natural order to American politics over the last few decades. Progressives are not supposed to be on the attack. Progressives are definitely not supposed to be on the ascendancy. For a right-winger to unseat a moderate or a liberal, well, that is just how things are supposed to work. Thus, it seems perfectly normal for Ed Case or Stephan Laffey to pose serious challenges to more moderate opponents. The conservative movement and the DLC are supposed to win. Progressives are supposed to sit in the corner and enjoy losing."

VA SEN: It's Not About Iraq Unless It Is

Lefty VA bloggers were glued to their TVs for This Week's dueling Sen. George Allen (R)/ex-Navy Sec. Jim Webb (D) interviews. Anonymous Is A Woman writes: "Although, I really liked that the show began by contrasting Allen's cowboy boots with Webb's combat boot, I was unhappy at how ABC characterized Webb as the anti-war candidate who won the Virginia Democratic Primary based only on that issue. ... In fact, the major issues dominating the blogosphere were whether Webb could be a loyal Democrat (from the Miller campaign) versus whether support for outsourcing and guest worker programs were proper Democratic values (the Webb campaign's issue)."

The more established progressive Raising Kaine had a different take: "In particular, I was impressed by Jim Webb's willingness to call out the Bush administration on their biggest lie of all -- they don't intend to leave Iraq, and they never did. That's a key point, to me. Discussing how we got involved in Iraq isn't simply Monday morning quarterbacking (to mock George Felix Allen with a football analogy), but rather goes to the broader point of an overall doctrine for using military force."

Raising Kaine also offers a first hand account of 7/8's American Legion convention in Chesterfield County. Despite admitted Webb bias RK reports: "There were several times during his[Allen's] comments, particularly on the "no retreat, but success in Iraq" theme and the "the opponents of this amendment call it free speech, but its not speech! It's an action!" comment on the flag amendment--that the audience applauded. ... Right off the bat, Jim made note of the time constraints he'd been asked to observe (12 minutes) and the fact that Allen had taken quite a bit more. He started by saying his talk to this group wouldn't be political because in matters of security and war, and in talking about service to our country, we were all Americans."

Greg Pollowitz at the conservative NRO noted APstory on the convention reported, "At the close of Allen's remarks, Legion officers singled him out for a special ovation for supporting a constitutional ban on burning the American flag." Pollowitz thought this was great news for Allen: "If the special ovation that Allen received at the American Legion convention is any indication, Virginia veterans want their politicians to support a flag burning amendment. This bodes well for Allen in November.

MN-05: That's All So Last Decade

Power Line doesn't buy a 7/9 Minneapolis Star Tribunecolumn claiming negative coverage of state Rep. Keith Ellison (DFL) is due to religous bigotry and racism. Power Line counters:

"Ellison has been the beneficiary of the Star Tribune's double standard, not its victim. If Ellison were white and Christian, surely the Star Tribune would have reported: that Ellison's involvement with the Nation of Islam extended far beyond the 18-month period in the mid-1990's to which Ellison has admitted, that Ellison was in fact a local leader and spokesman of the Nation of Islam, that Ellison defended the "truth" of an attack on Minneapolis Jews as "the most racist white people," that Ellison affiliated himself with convicted murderer and Vice Lords gang leader Sharif Willis until Willis was convicted and returned to prison for crimes involving "a senseless display of terrorist tactics" in 1995, that Ellison supported the Vice Lords gangbangers charged (and subsequently convicted) with the murder of Minneapolis police officer Jerry Haaf ("We don't get no justice, you don't get no peace"), that Ellison has attacked law enforcement authorities in outrageous terms, that Ellison has demanded that Symbionese Liberation Army terrorist Sara Jane Olson be freed, and that Ellison has expressed concern for the continuing freedom of convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur (on the lam in Havana and recently named to the FBI's most-wanted domestic terrorist list)."

TX-22: Back To Sugarland

Left leaning Election Law Blog thinks Texas Democratic Party v. Bensiker is sound and breaks down GOP options: "(1) DeLay may run for office again (then potentially resign, allowing the governor to call a special election to name a replacement), a step DeLay is considering; or (2) DeLay withdraws, and Republicans support a write-in candidate. My quick look at the Texas write in rules make this look like a possible strategy, but there may be wrinkles I don't see at first glance. Even though the district is a Republican one, it will be hard for Republicans to mount a successful write-in campaign, especially if legal proceedings drag out for a while before the party unites behind a write-in candidate and explains to voters how to cast a write-in ballot."

Progressive bloggers were in full celebration mode. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "There's a reason DeLay tried to pull this bait-and-switch gambit -- because he didn't think he could beat Nick Lampson. Democrats are better off with DeLay on the ballot than some clean, fresh-faced Republican. Especially now that DeLay would have to explain to the district's voters why DeLay was so keen on giving the district the middle finger so he could become a Virginia resident. This is now back to being one of the top Democratic pickup opportunities in the House this year." Jonathan Singer at MyDD: "Immediately prior to DeLay's announcement that he would resign his office and not seek another term, the Cook Political Report rated this race a "toss-up", one of the Democrats' 10 best pick-up opportunities in the House. Following that announcement, Cook moved the race into the "likely Republican" column, a switch that will no doubt have to be reversed should DeLay indeed run."

IMMIGRATION: California To Be Next Quebec?

Kausfiles looks at Tony Horwitz 7/9 pro-amnesty New York Times op-ed and writes: "Current pro-legalization dogma assures us that there is no reason to worry about of Quebec style separatism or Kosovo-style irredentism in the Southwest. Horwitz shows why there are plenty of reasons to worry. The stronger the prior Spanish claim the worse the danger--and the more reason to get control of the border, and of the cultural composition of the next generation of immigrants, before it's too late."

Conservative Corner king Jonah Goldberg also hasn't canceled his subscription to the Times yet and applauds a 7/9 magazine piece showing no consensus on immigration's economic impact: "I kind of like the fact that the numbers are euivocal because it puts immigration issue in the realm it belongs: politics. Ultimately immigration is not primarily an economic issue, it's a political-cultural one. And that's every bit as legitimate as economics. The problem is that most America elites are uncomfortable or inept at making public policy on such grounds, and the press is just incompetent in covering such debates honestly. It just can't break out of the "racism" versus "tolerance" paradigm."

Not to be left out of the immigration debate, Jonathan Singer at progressive activist MyDD looks at media coverage of recent GOP immigration hearings and concludes: "If the Republicans believe that they can throw red meat to their nativist base while at the same time continue to court Hispanic voters, they are in for a rude surprise.

ETHICS: The Devil Made Me Do It

The pro-Dem Senate Majority Report looks at recent court filings in the Shaun Hansen NH phone jamming case and reports: "Hansen may offer an affirmative defense at his upcoming fall trial, arguing that the phone jamming scheme which his company carried out had the seal of approval of both the Republican National Committee and the White House." SM notes the Hansen's lawyers have identified Public Authority as a possible affirmative defense and quotes te filings: "Hansen may assert at trial that he and his business had performed services for GOP Marketplace in the past and, based on its name and the type of work the business had been contracted to perform, he reasonably assumed that GOP Marketplace was a governmental entity or at least that the activities that his business was being asked to perform had been approved in advance by the national Republican party."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: CT SEN Good For Unity08?

The Moderate Voice hopes Dems excommunicated by progressive bloggers will find a new cause in Unity08:

"The whole, bitter battle over Joe Lieberman is symptomatic of the kind of bitter partisanship which has led to the creation of Unity08 and makes the idea behind it attractive, even to those who in the end might not even be able to bring themselves to vote for a third party. There is clearly a movement by a segment of the Democratic party to "take back" the party. What that means is "take back" the party from the Clintonistas, who essentially tried to take back the party from McGovernite influences to a more JFK-style oriented politics where the party would try to win elections (and did) by getting a large chunk of Democratic votes, plus centrist votes and votes from Republicans who unhappy with their own party."

"Just as the Republican party in recent years has shrunk the size of its tent, some Democrats seek to shrink the size of theirs, too. You'd think that in 2006 - a year when it appears that with a semblance of party unity, cohesive message, and careful organization - the Democrats could take back one or more houses of Congress, what do we see? Some Democrats declaring Lieberman and his kind as the first-priority political enemy."

"(a) The Democrats' focus is perilously off and it could get worse, which will make their ostensible goal in November (getting one or both houses of Congress) more elusive. (b) Polarization isn't just Democrats versus Republicans, it's polarization within parties where those who aren't pure enough (in both parties) are being essentially told in some cases: "You're either with us or against us. Totally. And if not totally, get lost." And you know what? They just might."

LEST WE FORGET: Never Have So Many Owed Their Lives To So Few

Erik at RedState pokes fun at a Georgia State Senator Brian Kemp latest direct mail piece in his bid Commissioner of Agriculture. The item shows Kemp shopping for cereal with a young girl and reads: "In Georgia, our Agriculture Commission is responsible for protecting our food supply from a terrorist attack." Erik comments: "Perhaps if he had left off "from a terrorist attack," I would have taken the piece more seriously. As it is, though, thanks for the laugh."

7/7: Those Who Live In Glass Houses...

The Blogometer was once told a great story about a king who lived in a two-story grass hut when all others around him lived in one-story abodes. The king was cruel, and forced his subjects to build him a copper throne. When he got tired of it, he made them build him a silver throne and stored the copper one on the second floor. His rear end quickly stopped enjoying the silver throne, so he commissioned a gold throne and put the silver one next to the first throne, upstairs. Once gold began to bore him, he flogged his people until they built him a platinum one. Finally, as he sat in his platinum throne, his second floor collapsed, and the first three thrones -- gold, silver and copper -- crashed down on his head, killing him. Which just goes to show that those who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones.

We have a larger point here, and it revolves around the current issue splitting large portions of Dems from what should be its natural base at this moment -- angry activists ready to go out and vote for anyone with a "D" after their name. But bloggers want the best of all worlds, as last night's CT Sen debate shows, and the previous week of events surrounding one entrant's promise to seek independent status if he loses the primary, as well as blog reax to both candidates. They've asked for their thrones -- an anti-war candidate, party purity, promises from party leaders to support a potentially weaker Dem nom over a decades-old friend and usual ally and similar promises from 3 top CT recruits Dems need to win to have any shot at taking back the House.

The debate, in the minds of many political analysts, was pretty one-sided. And it should be -- a veteran pol who's debated as a VP candidate versus a neophyte businessman? But bloggers took the spanking poorly, and those supporting Lamont all note the incumbent's perceived rudeness. In fact, one, in the course of pointing out his rudeness, used a seven-letter word that we felt compelled to edit. Can the blogosphere grow a thicker skin? Can they win a race against an incumbent? Or will they blow their '06 momentum on a seat that, almost no matter the outcome, will remain a Dem seat, instead of spending their energy on seats they might actually pick up for Dems? Is Ned Lamont the throne that begins the hut's collapse?

Stow thrones, throw stones, it's all the same.

CT SEN: Thursday Night Fights

7/6's lively debate between Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) and businessman Ned Lamont had the entire lefty blogosphere -- and a surprising portion of the righties -- watching. Washington Post has a complete transcript of the debate. Spazeboy has all kinds of video. Hotline's Jonathan Martin reviews the debate -- as well as blogger reaction.

Those who think Lamont won the debate frequently charge that Lieberman was "rude" to Lamont. Atrios calls his round-up "Angry Joe." DownWithTyranny!: "Wow, imagine if the mellow Joe we saw 'debating' his pal Dick Cheney in 2000 would have been as aggressive and assertive then as he was tonight in his rude front attack on Democrat Ned Lamont. But of course, George Bush's and Ann Coulter's favorite Democrat has a lot more practice and experience attacking Democrats than he does attacking Republicans (who he generally kisses)." Firedoglake: "Can anyone tell me if they witnessed Lieberman thanking Ned Lamont for the debate? I have heard from more than one source now that he did not, and I must say if that is true, it is appalling. What a poor sport." More (with video): "Lieberman came off as a rude Republican a******, with nothing in the tank but personal attacks." Kos, meanwhile, was clearing brush while watching the debate: "For Lieberman, it's all about power. And he'll be as vicious, as rude, as boorish, and as dishonest as he needs to be to cling to it." One of Kos' 400+ commentors liveblogging through an open thread asks: "Did Joe get botox?" Matt Stoller: "Lieberman kept interrupting and rebutting, but really didn't make any effective points. He started off angry, and ended angry. He didn't thank Lamont for showing up, which is sort of one of those little courtesies you show people in debates." Stoller also fact-checked many of Lieberman's claims. And My Left Nutmeg recalls Lieberman's assertion that he tied for 3rd in NH during his '04 WH bid, and David Sirota recalls one of The Blogometer's favorite movies ever. Copeland Institute: "Honestly, I don't think either of them came off particularly well, though the display of Lieberman's arrogance and annoyance lit up the screen brightly." Lamont fan Crooks and Liars has video of the post-debate analysis on MSNBC and thinks the coverage was fair. TruthDig critiques the two candidates' net outreach and says Lamont is the clear winner.

Lamont's campaign posts a debate fact check, offered a Debate Headquarters last night as well as a post-debate spin room.

Some, however, thought Lieberman, the much more experienced candidate, carried the day. Lefty Ezra Klein: "Lieberman won. No other way to put it. He pummeled Lamont. Even his body language had transformed -- I always assumed him a relatively gaunt, small-framed guy. Tonight he looked one shot of jack away from ripping off Lamont's head and eating his brains. Lamont, for his part, appears to have never had media training. Staring at the camera is the first thing you're taught, yet his eyes were darting about like a pup transfixed by a fly. He looked small, nervous, and unsenatorial." And, says lefty Brad Bauman: "I can't help but feel that activists in my wing of the Democratic Party may be making a big mistake in throwing its support behind Lamont. ... Sure I want to spit every time I think of the warm embrace and kiss that Joe shared with Bush on national television. Sure it infuriates me to think he voted for Gonzales' confirmation (even though he wasn't alone) and yeah, I am mad as hell that he continues to be a strong supporter on an illegal, immoral war that has done more harm to our republic and our standing in the world than anything we have ever done but Joe Lieberman is a Democrat, a loyal Democrat who has served our party and his constituents well in the Senate, has been a consummate gentleman, is deeply devout in his beliefs and frankly, deserves to be treated much better than this." It shouldn't surprise anyone that many of those who agree situate themselves in the middle or on the right side of the blogosphere. New Haven Independent: "So far in the campaign, Lieberman, as the targeted incumbent, has been on the defensive. Not so Thursday night." Ryan Sager: "I admit I came in as a Lieberman supporter (one of his many conservative supporters). But in my first prolonged exposure to Lamont I found him deeply unimpressive." Righty Blue Crab Boulevard: "At the end of it all, my reading is that Lieberman beat heck out of Lamont." Outside The Beltway, which live-blogged the debate: "Without much reflection, it's easy to call this debate for Lieberman. Despite his sometimes overzealous aggressiveness, I think anyone listening carefully would agree that Lieberman defeated Lamont handily with those silly little things called facts with which Lamont was curiously light."

Joe Gandelman rounds up the debate's key points, and those of MSM coverage afterwards. He concludes, noting that Lieberman was looking for knockout punch lines (erm, no pun intended): "So you think this was Lincoln Douglas quality? There you go again......" Hot Air live-blogged the debate, while RedState's Mark Kilmer, calling Lieberman a liberal, is rooting for Lamont: "When the fringe is successful in combating the middle, the party is not healthy. The Democrat Party is ill. Whether the disease be terminal depends on the persistence and the success of the lefty Nutroots and the other alternate-universe sorts."

In other CT Sen news, Arianna Huffington asks: "What the hell is Barbara Boxer thinking?"

WH '08: Say It Ain't Joe

Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE) statement, reported in OnCall, that one must have an Indian accent to enter a 7-11 or Dunkin' Donuts in his home state has drawn criticism, though mostly tounge-in-cheek from those who think Biden had no shot to begin with. RedState's Leon Wolf: "Thus ends the 2008 Presidential Campaign of Peter Griffin Joe Biden." Michelle Malkin: "There are plenty of reasons to roll your eyes when Biden opens his mouth. This doesn't make my list." Adam Graham: "On the bright side, it won't really destroy anyone's political career over an Un-PC mark given that Biden's going to lose in 2008 regardless." Irish Pennants: "Slow Joe may not be a laugh a minute, like Al Gore, but he's close." Jonathan Leffingwell: "I don't have to ask what the reaction would be from the MSM and the left (pardon the redundancy) if a Republican said such a thing, do I?" Rhymes with Right agrees: "I'm curious -- where is the uproar? Where is the outrage? Certainly this is much more offensive than Trent Lott's courtly compliment to a centenarian." Ankle Biting Pundits offers a round-up of other things you can't do without an accent. Some are pretty offensive, but our favorite is just funny (unless you're French): "You can't enter into a surrender pact unless you have a French accent."

BUSH: Reminds Us Of Letterman's Great Old "Larry King Looks Like An Owl" Bit

The birthday boy sat down for a Larry King grilling yesterday, and some bloggers took note of a few choice statements. Truthdig noted Bush's saying that he doesn't have intelligence briefings on Sundays, "Presumably because that's the day the Lord takes a break from those updates, too." The One With Aldacron, on Bush saying he'd "rather be judged as solving problems and being correct, rather than being popular": "Well, we all know he won't be judged as being popular. As to solving problems and being correct ... in his fantasy world, perhaps. " Crooks and Liars quotes Bush as saying he doesn't know Mexico Pres-elect Calderon, and then quotes an interview with AP in which Calderon says he's met with Bush "several times." Rooks Rant: "All I want to know is-did Bush manage to resist the urge to snap King's suspenders? You know that Ignoramus was thinking it the whole time." The Heretik: "All Larry King interviews end the same way. Questions always remain for the subject and questions about King's questions will have no answer." Newsbusters quibbles with the New York Times' Alessandra Stanley's assertion that Bush only went on "LKL" to boost "ever-sliding ratings in the polls."

IRAQ: The Missing Link?

Fox News' Ray Robinson reports that an Arab regime, possibly Iraq, "supplied how-to manuals for Arab operatives working throughout Afghanistan before 9/11, and provided military assistance to the Taliban and Al Qaeda." Captain's Quarters wonders if this pre-9/11 find is evidence of a Taliban/Saddam link. "It's not exactly a smoking gun, but it provides yet another piece of evidence towards that conclusion." Iowa Voice: "It's rapidly becoming clear that Saddam was connected to al Qaeda, he had lied about not having WMDs (despite what the libs tell you, the munitions found ARE WMDs), and was more than likely making plans to restart his WMD programs." Confederate Yankee: "This document, of course, will be contested by those who refuse to believe that Saddam supported terrorism. ... For the rest of us, however, every document that Ray Robinson's team translates helps to build a picture of a Baathist regime every bit as dangerous as we thought it was."

The New York Timesreports Southern Poverty Law Center claims that recruitment difficulties has caused officers and officials to turn a blind eye to "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" who have joined the U.S. Army, with some serving in Iraq. The racists' goals are to recieve military training for a future "race war." The SPLC has called on Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld to "appoint a task force to study the problem, declare a new zero tolerance policy and strictly enforce it." Righty Gateway Pundit doesn't believe the report because "First of all, military recruitment is up this year despite the best efforts from the Left and John Murtha. So, the New York Times ought to write a correction for that misrepresentation, alone. Show us one! Just one! I've never even met a Neo-Nazi or a Skinhead in my entire life, but I am supposed to believe there are thousands in the military?... Please!" Fellow righty Marc Shulman at AMERICAN FUTURE says Gateway is using "Curious logic, indeed. I've never met a Tanzanian, so I suppose that means there aren't any." Blue Crab Boulevard doesn't dismiss the claims out of hand, believing "If there are members of the military who are also members of "hate groups", they should be discharged. But reports like this from issue groups like the SPLC probably have a great deal more to do with the group's fund raising efforts than with reality these days." Chris in Paris at lefty AMERICAblog says to deniers that if they "pretend like it's not a problem, it must not exist, I suppose. With the desperate attempt to fill the ranks of the military, standards have really dropped as we can see with the latest rape charges in Iraq and now this horrifying story about hate groups who are joining the military despite regulations against them. .... Rummy has nothing to say about it so far, but I wouldn't expect him or anyone else in the administration to complain, as long as they get their numbers or close to the target numbers."

SECURITY: What A Bunch Of Hacks

A number of bloggers follow up on the Washington Post's report on Thursday that a gov't consultant was able to "crack the FBI's classified computer system and gain the passwords" to FBI employees, incuding dir. Robert Mueller, using programs "easily found on the Internet." Outside The Beltway clarifies a bit, noting that "this was not an Internet hack into the system, but rather a government contractor encouraged to hack the system by a local FBI office." Daniel Drezner: "The administration seems to be obsessed with protecting data from journalists. I'd much prefer it if they were obsessed with protecting their data from hackers." Bark Bark Woof Woof: "What that tells us is that the biggest threat to American security isn't Osama bin Laden; it's a bored teenager with a computer who could hack into the FBI faster than he could download the latest edition of Girls Gone Wild."

NORTH KOREA: Kim Jong-Il Brings Us Much Aloha

Reuters cites unnamed U.S and Japanese sources who claim North Korea's failed Tapeodong 2 missile was headed for Hawaiian waters. Righty bloggers' ears all perked up, and many say Plan B should soon become Plan A. with many considering an attack on N. Korea. Captain's Quarters thinks if the report is correct, "it will increase pressure on the White House to pursue a tougher line on Pyongyang and its missile tests -- perhaps even pushing us towards the risky policy of hitting the launch sites before any more ICBMs fly. .... That shows that the North Koreans represent a direct threat to our territory. Wizbang echoes: "The US may have to destroy any ICBM's that are positioned on the launch pad for fueling. Just because the first Taepodong missile failed quickly, doesn't mean NoKo won't get the technology right eventually." FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog wants to go Cold War on N. Korea because the UN "will not vote for any type of punitive sanctions. Russia and China love Kim Jong-Il sticking a finger in the eye of the United States. America must DETER North Korea much as it did during the Cold War with the old and failed Soviet Union. The United States can bargain from a position of strength and let Kim Jong-Il know that should another provocative action occur towards the United States that there will be swift and deadly retaliation." Ace of Spades reports that "some (according to the commenters) say the missile is 'merely' alleged to have been aimed at the waters near Hawaii. Which isn't much more comforting. If true, that's still an act of war."

Joe in DC at the lefty AMERICAblog mocks Pres. Bush as "the great statesman, (who) can't get China and Russia on board with his strategy for North Korea. ... because the President invaded Iraq, he has to be passive confronting the other threats. What a mess." Bush said the world expects Kim Jung-Il to "adhere to international norms." Liberal Blah3 tells Bush to "fill in your own list. Just for starters: Tossing aside the Geneva Conventions. Torture. 'Extraordinary rendition.' Guarantees over WMDs. The cost of the war. The length of the war. Getting warrants for wiretaps. And to quote Yul Brynner: 'Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera!'"

COULTER: iThenticate? No, YOU Thenticate!

The Blogometer has avoided recent Ann Coulter kerfuffles because there has been little serious news to them, regardless of cable news' infatuation with the leggy blonde. Today, though, we're covering a different part of the story. On 7/2 the New York Postreported that "John Barrie, the creator of a leading plagiarism-recognition system, claimed he found at least three instances" of "textbook plagiarism" in Coulter's newest book, after he "ran the book's text through the company's digital iThenticate program. ... Coulter did not respond to requests for comment." Now, Editor & Publisherreports that the Universal Press Syndicate, which runs Coulter's newspaper columns, said it will see what it can find on its own and may use Barrie's software to investigate.

Much of the blogosphere's reaction comes from the left, which thinks Coulter is getting her comeuppance. Righties are largely silent. Jeff Jarvis, who was "talking with an editor I know about the Coulter Cerfuffle [sic], shaking my head that we in media are such idiots for falling into her spider's web and giving her just the publicity she wants for saying the next outrageous thing. No, the editor said, it's actually a conspiracy: Media are loving it, for they get another alleged controversy and lots of ink and link and hot air on-air. It's a conspiracy, a conspiracy of cynics." ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES wonders if the accusations are "what gets the establishment media upset with one of their favorite interviewees and not her exhortations towards violence or her inability to answer any questions without turning them into some hare-brained accusation, well,...I forgot how to complete that sentence. I've lived too long in a world where values are upside down." Similarly, Eric Boehlert of the Huffington Post's Eat The Press believes the accusations against Coulter and "begs the question, how long is Universal Press Syndicate and its clients going to put up with Coulter's complete -- and I mean complete -- abandonment of journalistic standards and professionalism?"

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Blood On Malkin's Hands?

Hit and Run's David Weigel noted the suicide of UC-Santa Cruz Chancellor Denice Denton, and noted that Michelle Malkin had nothing to say about it, even though she had previously posted her contact information and urged readers to call the "capitulationist chancellor." Malkin responded: "Weigel attacks me for not saying anything about Denton's suicide. Crikey. If I had said anything, his ilk would have jumped all over me for not having the compassion to keep quiet about her various scandals and corruptocrat ways and let her loved ones mourn in peace."

Naturally, it can't end there. Weigel responds: "She refuses to consider that because she doesn't enjoy getting hate mail, maybe the people she embroils in hate mail campaigns don't like it either. Most of the time they shrug it off and move on. This time Malkin attacked a woman who was already seriously troubled, and who later killed herself. Some people would put two and two together and feel a twinge of guilt for piling on this woman. Malkin didn't." Greg Sargent: "Malkin also defended herself by saying that, no, she hadn't described UC Santa Cruz as 'traitorous'; she'd merely described it as 'seditious.' What a relief -- Malkin went easy on her." John Amato thinks Malkin is auditioning to be the next Ann Coulter. Ace of Spades HQ: "Malkin states the obvious: she didn't kill Denice Denton. Her own troubled psychology did."

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: Lefties Pile-On Zengerle

According to the Boston Globe, Kos/Armstrongate may not be significant because of what actually did or didn't happen, but because it "may be a benchmark in the blogosphere's entrance into mainstream politics, as blogs begin to face the same level of scrutiny as traditional media outlets." Then again, it's still about The New Republic's Jason Zengerle fighting with the Kos and MyDD. Zengerle also claimed "death threats" were made to him after he started fighting with Kos and Armstrong. The big lefty blogs are raging at Zengerle. Steve at THE NEWS BLOG writes that "The Globe article makes Zengerle out to be a victim, when in reality, he victimized several people, including me, by his sloppy, inaccurate writing, I can't really call it reporting. But the underlying premise ... was that Kos is taking money from pols for support. God, what a f****** stupid transposition of reality. Kos gives money to pols. Most of the current ads on his site are for media products and unions. ... As for some secret alliance with Jerome Armstrong, uh, Armstrong had his own site, MyDD, which is also quite popular. He never was a part of Daily Kos. So why isn't MyDD pushing Warner? TAPPED's Matthew Yglesias thinks Zengerle can't be offended by Kos' accusations that TNR is "The Joe Lieberman Weekly" because the magazine explicitly committed itself to the advancement of Liebermanism in an unsigned editorial. Atrios says Zengerle hasn't provided "any actual examples of the claimed death threats. It's certainly possible that Zengerle got them, but everyone always claims they get them whenever bloggers get annoyed at their dishonesty and nobody ever seems to produce them. Personally I'd suggest forwarding them to the FBI and having people arrested. Oddly that never seems to happen either."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: In Case You Didn't Agree With Ned Or Joe ...

Ex-DNC press sec. Terry Michael posts what he calls "a libertarian Democrat manifesto." He writes: "Since the end of the Sixties, the party that boasts the oldest continuing national committee in the world, formed in 1848, has been experiencing a problem not uncommon to venerable institutions: a loss of brand equity. ... People still vote Democrat, of course -- they still buy the product -- but the old-time Democratic religion lost its revivalist energy sometime after Nixon resigned and Carter failed. Nowhere is that reflected more than in the abandonment of our party's old auxiliary label, liberal, which all but disappeared in the 1970s and was replaced by the soft, safe descriptor: progressive." He suggests replacing one "L" word for another -- libertarian instead of liberal -- saying it "can inspire a 21st Century base and attract many voters who have come to believe both parties may be obsolete, and are seeking an alternative. We are going to get a new party in America, but not by addition. It will be in a way Shirley McClain might appreciate -- through reincarnation."

LEST WE FORGET: Philosophers, Always Good For A Laugh

The Blogometer wishes it had read more philosophy in college. It read some, but it always felt like there was more to find. For those of you who feel the same way, this Friday we offer The Philosophy of Kissing. Our favorite: The Nietzscheian Kiss: "She/he who does not kiss you, makes your lust stronger."

Truer words were never spoken. Which reminds the Blogometer that it really ought to buy its girlfriend some roses.

7/6: You Don't Remind Me Of Anyone And We Love Gum

As The Blogometer plows through the CT SEN 'swarm, we're reminded of that Seinfeld episode where George is told his girlfriend Janet looks just Jerry and then spends the rest of the episode looking for any reason besides looks to justify the relationship. Cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D) would not even be running were it not for the Iraq war (Lamont describes a pro-Bush Iraq Sen. Joe Lieberman WSJ editorial as "decisive" here) yet as the two candidates head into 7/6's debate pro-Lamont bloggers are pushing every issue but Iraq. Why? Are they afraid the MSM will portray Lamont as a one-issue candidate? Or that they will? Either way the blogging left is demanding that all Sen Dems commit to supporting the winner of the 8/8 Dem primary. Not even traditional blogger favorites like Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) are safe.

CT SEN: You're Either With Us Or Against Us

Progressive bloggers have taken to channeling Pres. Bush's infamous 11/6/01 line substituting only "in the fight against terror" with "in the fight against Sen. Joe Lieberman (D)." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas sets the tone: "This has now become a question for every Senator. ... On the right side: Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold. On the wrong side: Ken Salazar." Populist David Sirota wants his readers to "contact your Democratic U.S. Senators and ask them what their position is." Even Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is targeted. Matt Stoller at MyDD: "I bet that Obama, who went to Connecticut to stump for Lieberman, really wishes he didn't have to choose. I imagine it'll be tough for him to go with Lieberman, since Obama's stump speech has as its central plank the importance of voting. But then again, he voted for the Oman trade deal. He's somewhat of a maverick himself."

Kos promises to keep score as Sens commit: "Those who would support the Democratic nominee: Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Bob Menendez. Those who would support a Lieberman independent bid: Ben Nelson, Ken Salazar. ... Why is this important? Because there are people who are sick of clubby DC disrespecting the Democratic rank and file. There are those in DC who understand and respect the fact that power resides with the people, and that the will of the voters must be respected. Then there are those who value power above all else, who don't think they should remain accountable to their constituents, and who will support the efforts of their colleagues to subvert the will of the people in order to keep their incumbency protection racket intact." Salazar's announcement drives The American Street to ask, "Does The Democratic Party Deserves to Die?" and writes: "Something has to give. I'm tired of doing all the giving while my party flips me off."

The unofficial Lamont Blog wants everyone to understand that bloggers are not trying to drive Lieberman out of the party: "No one - certainly not Ned Lamont - is trying to 'force' Joe Lieberman out of the party. Ned has repeatedly challenged Joe to stay in the party and support the primary winner (that's what members of parties do, Joe). Lamont supporters want Joe to remain a Democrat. We just don't want him in the Senate anymore. Please understand the difference."

Meanwhile Jane Hamsher at firedoglake is worried what a contested general would do to down-ticket Dem chances: "There are three tight races for congressional seats here in Connecticut, and the concerns of those involved in all levels could not have been clearer. If the Democrats resolve their ticket in August and move forward with a consolidated party effort toward November, the races are tough - particularly Diane Farrell's - but winable. If Joe defies and divides the party, sucks all the oxygen out of the race, hijacks all the money, media time, volunteers and resources to this specific contest it's going to be tough going in November. Make no mistake about it - Joe Lieberman's decision to run as an independent could throw three Congressional seats to the GOP, and destroy Democratic hopes to take control of the House in the fall.

When progressive bloggers aren't making sure elected Dems commit to supporting the Dem primary winner they are busy explaining that the primary is not about Iraq:

• Jane Hamsher at firedoglake: "I actually think this is great, because one of the big reasons I came to Connecticut was to counter the ridiculous notion that opposition to Lieberman was "all about the war." Boxer stumping for Lieberman and saying how wonderful he is on women's issues in a state where 78% of the population thinks that emergency contraception should be available at Catholic hospitals (including 74% of Catholics) could be the perfect opportunity to telescope attention onto the issue."
• Atrios: "Look, people, opposition to Lieberman isn't just about the Iraq war. It's about him "compromising" Democratic principles when he didn't have to, it's about selling out women, it's about thinking "bipartisanship" involves selling our your party so that Tim Russert will pat you on the head for your bravery, it's about dishonesty on things like the Bankruptcy Bill, and now it's about his contempt for the Democratic voters in his own state."
• Kos: "It's not just about the war. Lieberman and his allies keep talking about this race as though the Iraq War is the only issue on the table, and they keep talking about the party needing to be tolerant of his war cheerleading and not have a litmus test on the issue. Howgwash. Litmus test? What litmus test? The Democratic Party establishment is firmly behind Lieberman. ... Lieberman's problem isn't with the party. It's with the voters."

Michael Tomasky at liberal hang-out TAPPED is worried about how the MSM will portray a cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D) primary victory: "If that happens, certain MSM liberal and centrist pundits will start writing immediately about how the Democrats have lost their soul, gone radical, cashiered the last good man (I know, but they will). That will set a tone: Virtue will triumph only if Lieberman pulls it out." Tomasky then outlines three steps necessary to make sure this doesn't happen: "First, other Dem senators must follow Hillary's lead (and come on, folks, give her props) and say they'll support the Democrat. Second, Lamont himself -- and this is the bitter medicine for some who are supporting Lamont thinking that he's some kind of 1970 protest candidate -- needs to reassure the power elites that he is not some kind of one-issue extremist. Third, centrist Democratic organizations in Washington that might be tempted to follow the line of the above-noted MSM pundits need to be persuaded that the operative adjective is not centrist, but Democratic."

The DLC's Bull Moose looks at Dem division over Lieberman and casts doubt on the entire progressive blogger project: "Over and over again, the lefty bloggers contend that their major objective is not an ideological one but rather a partisan one. They claim that they want to win. Badly. The Moose begs to differ. It is not the goal of the left to prevail, but rather to purify. That is what the Great Lieberman Purge Attempt is all about. Actually, this is very much an ideological movement that is driven by a neo-isolationist, MoveOn.org, Pat Buchanan-lite imperative to rid the Democratic Party of the centrist hawks. ... Let's be clear - these bloggers are the left-wing equivalent of the Freepers. ... The left's agenda is not to defeat the Republicans, but to purify the party. That is their great conceit."

Conservative HRC watchers have been intrigued by HRC's stance on the Lieberman issue and promise to monitor her future actions closely. Right Angle: "While Sen. Clinton says she supports Lieberman's Democratic candidacy in theory, and her HILLPAC has given $10,000 to his re-election campaign (as her PAC gave to all Democratic Senate candidates in cycle), an appearance in the state on his behalf would speak volumes, especially to the antiwar segment of the party. We will be watching Hillary closely to see if a 30-year friendship warrants a visit in the next few weeks."

OBAMA: No Straw Man Or Cowardly Lion Found Here

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has been criticized by lefties for endorsing a myth about Dems and liberals being hostile to religion or religious people. Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly writes that Obama hedged and did not use a straw man argument because as "it turns out that in a speech of 4,600 words -- mainly about his own religious journey, the liberal message inherent in the Bible, and the importance of the separation of church and state - he really only discussed liberal attitudes toward religion in four places.... The plain fact is that he was careful in his speech and also plainly correct: 'some' liberals are uncomfortable with any mention of religion in the public square, and he thinks this is too bad.... It's a funny thing. When I post about religion, I usually get two kinds of comments. The first is people telling me that I'm falling into a conservative trap by even entertaining the idea that some liberals are contemptuous toward religion. The second is snarky liberal secularists telling everyone else to take their stupid myths and shove 'em where the sun don't shine."

Meanwhile, if some lefties don't cut Obama slack for his religion remarks, his work with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to create a searchable, online data base of Congressional spending should bring back that loving feeling on the left, and even help him with righty bloggers like W.C. Varones of PoliPundit who thinks though the pair sounds "like a country act...Obama and Coburn is actually a Senatorial duo with a great proposal.... Coburn is already one of my favorite Senators. And I know that Obama has his lefty problems, but he does the right thing pretty often. Sunlight is the best disinfectant!"

GIULIANI: Nipping At Newt's Heels In His Own Backyard

The Blogometer notices that Rudy Giuliani has been getting some great blogosphere press on the right recently. GiulianiBlogger at Red State touts Giuliani as the conservative alternative to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and points to a straw poll in Newt Gingrich's Cobb County, GA in Congress: "What does come as a surprise is who comes in a strong second in this pivotal suburban county, the GOP heartland of Georgia:"

2008 President
Newt Gingrich 132 (38.7%)
Rudy Giuliani 73 (21.4%)
George Allen 59 (17.3%)
Mitt Romney 35 (10.3%)
John McCain 31 (9.1%)
Bill Frist 11 (3.2%)

"Another day, another poll showing Rudy besting McCain (and most of the field) with the rank-and-file."

HI SEN: Like A Bizarro Ned Lamont

If CT has the most interesting Dem primary, HI is a close second with Rep. Ed Case (D) challenging Sen. Daniel Akaka (D). Dem blogger James L at Swing State Project believes Case is "kind of like a bizarro Ned Lamont. His bid for Governor in 2002 drew support from a deep reservoir of discontent with the atrophied Hawaii Democratic Party, while the old guard watched him with an unfriendly eye. While he lost a close primary, he won election to the House on Nov. 30, 2002 in a special election following the death of Congresswoman Patsy Mink. However, in Congress, Case has left a mediocre-to-disappointing record, ranking as 164th in the Democratic caucus on progressive issues. Akaka, meanwhile, is ranked 12th in the Senate. I'm not in favor of litmus tests or ideological rigidity, but replacing an anti-war incumbent with someone who boasts about how he would have voted for the Iraq War Resolution (had he been in Congress at the time) is borderline insane. If Akaka is knocked out on the Sept. 23 Democratic primary, we may be finding ourselves taking one step back for the step forward that we may get with Ned Lamont. ... I wonder when folks like Ken Salazar and Ben Nelson will fly down to help out Akaka."

PA SEN: No Timetable Here

Treas. Bob Casey (D) was interviewed by Johnathan Singer at MyDD. Casey largely avoided specific answers, speaking in general tones and waxing about the need for a senator who can be "independent." Other highlights include:

Singer : "One concern that many in the progressive blogosphere have about your campaign is your stance towards social issues, particularly the issue of abortion. To what extent will these social issues drive your actions in Congress? Or, put another way, would you seek a spot on the Judiciary Committee or other committees that are very focused in the battle over the social issues?"Casey : "Despite all the division about it there is, their honest differences, I think there's a great consensus in this country, whether it's from the left or the right or the middle, that most Americans and most Pennsylvanians want to reduce the number of abortions, want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.... And I also don't support litmus tests for judges and presidential candidates like Rick Santorum, who will always support the Republican candidate for President, I always support the Democrat even when that Democrat disagrees with me on an issue like abortion or any other issue...."Singer : "Let's move over to an international issue, Iraq specifically. Where do you come down? Do you believe that we should set a timetable? Do you support the Levin-Reed amendment that would have called on the White House to begin withdrawing troops in the next year? Or do you see a different path that should be taken?"Casey : "I don't support a timetable or any kind of immediate withdrawal. At the same time, I don't think what the President has been saying in the last couple of months - or frankly in the last couple of years - is acceptable. ... So I think the most important responsibility of any US Senator right now, any Senator in the next term of Congress when it comes to war and the horror that can be visited upon our troops in combat, is to make sure they're getting all of the help that they need no matter what the cost, and that requires Senators who are going to be truly independent...."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Labor's Newest Enemy?>

After looking at three 7/5 The Hill articles covering CT SEN, labor support of GOPers, and lefty blogger support of DemsTAPPED 's Garance Franke-Ruta sees "the emergence of real power struggle within the Democratic Party between old and new interest groups in key races this fall." Franke-Ruta compares the labor backed GOP candidates in one article with the progressive blogger backed candidates in the others and notes: "That's at least three contests -- the races against Weldon, Shays, and Gerlach -- where the Netroots are going up against, or potentially going to impact, races where the unions are backing Republicans."

GFR then asks: "Can the Netroots make up for the defection of the unions to the Republican camp in these key races? So far they haven't developed a strategy to try, but if they did, I would think they could -- at least when it comes to fundraising. And maybe they should. ... Now, I'm not at all sure that the Netroots can make up for labor's GOTV efforts, since so many blog readers (and, presumably, donors) are based in places like California and lack the local networks and appropriate geographic placement to swing elections on the ground ... Right now the Netroots vs. Unions dynamic seems to have sprung up somewhat by accident. Netroots leaders should seriously consider making it real by design."

Left-of-center Noam Scheiber at TNR picks up on Franke-Ruta's observation and asks a slightly different question: "To my mind, the really interesting question isn't whether the Netroots will help offset the occasional defection by a traditionally Democratic interest group--by definition, the occasional defection doesn't happen that often. ... The really interesting question is whether the Netroots is eroding the influence of these interest groups within the Democratic Party. ... If the bloggers continue to gain influence within the Democratic Party, I don't think it's crazy to expect that the traditionally Demcoratic interest groups like labor, abortion-rights advocates, and environmentalists will lose some of theirs. Influence tends to be pretty zero-sum."

Scheiber finally wonders if this development is good for Dems generally: "I can see the arguments on both sides. On the one hand, politicians in a party where the Netroots eclipse the traditional interest groups will be less likely to fall on their sword over any one issue, which is probably a good thing. It's obviously less than ideal to be perceived as a captive of special interests. On the other hand, I think the trend ultimately gives Democratic politicians less flexibility, because while the Netroots care less about any particular issue than the corresponding interest group, they tend to favor candidates who are more outspokenly liberal in general. ... I think Kos would probably say he'd support a moderate Democrat in a district where only a moderate could win; he's basically just after the most liberal electable Democrat in any given state or district. But I think that's too easy. If we knew how liberal a candidate could be and still win, there would be no problem. But we don't, so often times you've got to err in one direction or the other."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Jeffersonian Libertarian Democrats

Right before YearlyKos, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas unveiled his description of what he wanted Dems to become: Libertarian Democrats. Ex-DNC aide Terry Michael has now seemingly seconded Markos' call for a new Dem label in his lengthy manifesto: "Re-claiming our Jeffersonian liberal heritage, with a back-to-the-future re-branding of the Democratic Party." Highlights include:

You might reduce the resulting GOP brand, which helped produce Republican victories in seven of the last ten national elections, to this: "Government bad. America good. The marketplace will provide. In God we trust. Meritocracy, but not equal outcomes, for all." ... What's the story behind today's Democrat brand? I continue to be a partisan Democrat, but I'm not sure. I believe it's something like: "Government isn't all that bad; look at Social Security and Head Start. America isn't always that good; we try to impose our will on a multi-cultural world. The marketplace is full of bad guys who need to be restrained, including their greed-driven political speech. Hey, we're religious, too. And, not just equal opportunity for all, but re-distributive social justice entitlements for special 'minority' victims, because, except for me and my friends, racism endures."

Believe what you will about each message, the Republican story had clarity going for it. The Democratic narrative - as I have caricatured it, but I think accurately - sounds like a Hillary Clinton or John Kerry speech, a little of this, a little of that. ... We Democrats need something radically different from those two tired story-lines. And we need to stop fooling ourselves that we lose because the GOP outguns us with money and tactics. Former Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe, in the 2004 cycle, did the party a huge favor by putting to rest that nonsense. We're losing because of message, not campaign cash.

We need a new story. Here's a rough cut, a little more than can fit on a bumper sticker, assembled around the three fundamental issue frames of politics - economic, social, and foreign policy: "Government: assure liberty by staying as far away as possible from our bank accounts, our bedrooms, and our bodies. Spread pluralistic democracy and free markets by example, understanding that neither can be planted by force on political real estate lacking indigenous cultivators for their growth. Restore the moral authority of mid-20th century "civil rights," fashioning public policy around individuals, not tribal identity groups."

LEST WE FORGET: Either Way, Ruppert Always Wins

Slate has a bit of fun with a parody of what a Rupert Murdoch MySpace page might look like. Blog entries include: "Warren Buffet=Communist" "The Simpsons vs. Family Guy: Either Way, I Win" "I Killed Arrested Development - and I'd Do It Again, Nerds."

Ruppert's interests include: Media, "Journalism," Politics, union-busting/French-bashing(same difference-ha), Rugby. He's like to meet: Consumers 14- to 34-years-old, clever estate attorneys, someone with a business plan for this claptrap.

7/5: Daou's Early Returns?

The Blogometer can't remember the last time we read anything positive about Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on DailyKos but barely two weeks into blog outreach director Peter Daou's tenure and already HRC is being praised as a model Dem. Some have pointed to pre-MSM reports of HRC's position from progressive firedoglake as proof of Daou's early influence on HRC. Now as talented as Daou is, nobody is suggesting he masterminded Sen. Joe Lieberman's blogger troubles just to benefit HRC, but if HRC's announcement was orchestrated by Daou, the episode does demonstrate what a value respected bloggers can be to a WH'08 candidate.

CT SEN: No More Kissing Likely In This Race

'Bastard', 'coward', and 'traitor' are just the reprintable names progressive bloggers hurled at Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) following his 7/3 announcement that he would be collecting signatures for an independent run should he lose the 8/8 Dem primary to cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D).

The Left Coaster speculates that the 'Leaverman campaign has internal polling showing Lamont winning the Dem nod but not the general and concludes: "Joe had better hope that the Democrats don't retake the Senate anyway in 2006 or 2008, because if he jumps ship, wins his race, and sees the Dems win back the Senate anyway, he'll be on his own Joe-island." Meanwhile, My Left Nutmeg looks at CT election law and doubts Lieberman can get his 'independent Democrat' party designation on to the Nov. ballot: "Sec. 9-453u. (Formerly Sec. 9-378m). Reservation of party designation. ... (c) The statement shall include the party designation to be reserved which (1) shall consist of not more than three words and not more than twenty-five letters; (2) shall not incorporate the name of any major party"

From a parade in Willimantic, CT summer sojourner Jane Hamsher at firedoglake reports "people responded really enthusiastically to Ned, and Joe is increasingly becoming a state joke." Hamsher includes video of a popular Bush/Lieberman-kissing float. Crooks and Liars posts video and a transcript from Lieberman's 7/3 interview with John King on CNN. Matt Stoller at MyDD looks at pro-Lieberman op-eds in CT papers and notices "the messaging is subtly changing. Lieberman is having his surrogates talk about him as a JFK Democrat unafraid to use force, and the voice of the abandoned Democrats who left the party years ago because of liberal intolerance towards the 'middle' of the country. ...I think Lieberman's making a last ditch effort to threaten the party base with electoral disaster if they don't pick him. This Thursday is the first debate, and we'll see what happens then. These Op-Eds though read to me like they are targeted at independent voters, not Democrats. I mean, if you were going to pander to independent voters in Connecticut, you'd probably talk about excessive partisanship and how the Democratic Party abandoned independent voters."

The unofficial Lamont Blog wondered how other Dems would react to the news: "In addition, Joe has just created a world of [stuff] for his supposed friends Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney, and Chris Murphy. I wonder what they all think of this. This is how he treats his friends. This is how he treats his party." Fellow progressive The Agonist described the events as "Schumer's nightmare scenario," and threatens: " The DSCC will take a big fundraising hit and one day soon he may find himself facing a primary challenge. He's in a safe Democratic seat - it doesn't need to be held by someone like him - and he made a big mistake when he messed around with Spitzer."

Dem activist Chris Bowers at MyDD echoes possible trouble for the DSCC: "If the DSCC backs anyone except the Democratic nominee, they better be prepared for real consequences. Do not abandon your own party and break your own rules and then expect the plebs who have been playing by those rules to sit quietly and accept it." Populist David Sirota urges readers to stop the DSCC before they make a mistake: "It's time to take action. Call the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee at 202-224-2447 or email them here. Tell the party's insiders in Washington that they should issue an official statement immediately promising to uphold their own mission statement, back Connecticut's Democratic Senate nominee and not back someone who, after losing a Democratic Party primary, would leave the Democratic Party in order to cling to power."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas highlights reports from a My Left Nutmeg commenter reporting Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) still supports Lieberman and concludes: "Message to Dodd -- Democratic primary voters like to support loyal Democrats. Looks like you just failed that very, very simply litmus test."

Not everyone on the left had unkind words for Lieberman. At TPM CafeReed Hundt writes: "Senator Lieberman has every right to become an independent. When Senator Jeffords did so in 2001 he was hailed by the left for his principles. When Senator Shelby left the Democrats in 1993, it only made sense for his constituents and himself." No stranger to progressive blogger scorn, the DLC's Bull Moose 'salutes' Lieberman and worries what the primary fight means for Dems everywhere: "By collecting signatures to run as an independent and a Democrat, Joe is sending the message that a narrow slice of the electorate and a left wing ideological cabal are not going to decide who is going to be representing the state in the U.S. Senate. But, the national Democratic Party should be deeply concerned. An organized national campaign is now underway to purge the party of centrist hawks. Howard Dean did not win the party's nomination, but the Deaniacs, kossacks and the MoveOn crowd are in the ascendancy - for the moment. And that fact should make the Republicans gleeful."

Lieberman's announcement and the subsequent lefty blogger reaction did not go unnoticed by the opposition. Right of center Ann Althouse notes lefty use of the 'Sore Loserman' tag and asks: "Isn't it strange to see Democrats cursing him with the very wordplay that drove them up the wall in 2000?" The conservative Captain's Quarters looks at current and past Poole analyses showing Lieberman "at almost the dead center" of the Dem caucasus and concludes: "If the netroots think that Lieberman has moved outside of the base, perhaps that reflects more on their perspective than on the reality of Lieberman's performance."

CLINTON: Champion Of Progressive Bloggers Everywhere

A full day before the APreported that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) would not support Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Jane Hamsher at firedoglake blogged: "sources say that Hillary Clinton believes that it's important to respect the will of Connecticut voters and that she will commit to support the Democratic candidate - whoever that is - in November." This led mcjoan at DailyKos to speculate: "Hmmmm, I wonder if Peter Daou had anything to do with this? Now this is how a Democratic Senator should respond to this race."

For the first time in recent memory HRC praise emerged other progressive blogger sources:

• Matt Stoller at MyDD: "Senator Clinton has a good heart ... She is a good Democrat who wants to see Democrats take control, and doesn't understand why going to war in Iraq based on lies is problematic and triangulating on contraception is bad."
• Atrios: "Good for Clinton. Ideally leading Democrats would be rather repulsed by Lieberman's "have it both ways" strategy, but I recognize that right or wrong supporting incumbents is so ingrained in Washington culture that it's almost impossible to dislodge. Given that, this rather unequivocal statement by Clinton is quite refreshing."
• David Sirota: "She should get a lot of credit for coming out and making this announcement. Yes, I know - it is a pretty low bar to give Democratic Senators credit for saying they will support the Democratic Party Senate nominees. But the dynamic of this race is shaping up to be the Washington Establishment vs. The Rest of Us and Clinton is firmly taking the side of The Rest of Us."
• Upper Left: "Probably the most significant non-monetary contribution a Clinton has ever made to building the Democratic Party. Small penance for the substantial damage of Clintonism, perhaps, but an important, and, frankly, bold move by Hillary."

While pleased with HRC's Lieberman announcement, Atrios was not happy with a 7/2 James Carville and Mark Penn WaPo pro-HRC op-ed that failed to disclose Penn's current status as HRC's "chief strategist." Atrios writes: "The worst thing that could ever happen in the world, according to many Beltway types, is that a blogger could be paid by a campaign and not disclose it. Of course, paid consultants/strategists appearing in the media without fully disclosing their client lists is something which happens all the time. For the record I'm for disclosing such arrangements, I'm just tired of bloggers being held to a standard which doesn't apply anywhere else in the universe."

GIULIANI: Not As Squishy As McCain

Ryan Sager at conservative hang-out RCP Blog points to a RedState online poll asking "whom people would support if the primary came down to Rudy v. McCain." Sager explains how unscientific these polls are but admits "informal polls do represent the self-selected, politically active types." When Sager last looked Giuliani was up 815 to 18%. The unofficial Giuliani Blog looks at the same poll and argues: "It might sound counterintuitive as all hades, but conservatives are much more likely to support Rudy if it comes down to these two men. It all comes down to the fact that, no matter what the issues are, conservatives simply cannot bring themselves to trust John McCain. No amount of insidery game playing by McCain's staff will be able to fix this."

MCCAIN: A Clean Break

Alex Massie at left-leaning The Plank believes an '06 GOP debacle would provide the best set up for an '08 Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) run: "Despite his trenchant support for the war and his general foreign policy hawkishness few of the other leading Republican candidates save Giuliani and, to a lesser extent, Romney can offer a break with Bushism and a new direction for the GOP. Which in turn means that the bleaker things are for Republicans and the more dissatisfied the electorate seems with Bush's GOP then the easier it will be for McCain to present himself as an important type of Republican--the kind that can still win."

ROMNEY: Having His Cake And Eating It Too

Tom Bevan at the conservative RCP Blog questions MA GOV Mitt Romney's (R) strategy for wooing southern evangelicals: "By positioning himself as a social conservative and wooing evangelicals this way, Romney forecloses the option of defusing the faith issue with a JFK-style pronouncement that it won't affect his politics. ... Romney is trying to win over voters who explicitly want a candidate's faith to be part of what drives their policy decision-making, so he is inevitably going to have to deal with some hard questions about his religion. ... Romney's plan is to try and minimize any detailed discussion about the peculiarities of his faith and also try to minimize the extent to which the issue will hurt him in the South by winning early contests. Part of this strategy relies on Michigan moving up the date of its primary to coincide with South Carolina and also possibly closing it to independents, giving Romney a potentially decisive boost against McCain. ... Though I remain skeptical of Romney's chances I will say this: he's very impressive in person and can be very persuasive. If anyone has a chance of clearing the Mormon hurdle, Romney is as good a bet as you're likely to find.

VA SEN: Webb Also Thinks Of Bush As Truman

Greg Pollowitz at the conservative NRO wonders if ex-Navy Sec. James Webb thought his 6/30 Dem weekly radio address through: "He brings up Truman and how it took Republican Dwight Eisenhower to "bring the Korean War to an early and honorable end." ... Webb is comparing himself, and the Democratic Party, to Dwight Eisenhower and at the same time, calling Harry Truman a failure. ... Now, back in 1952, Truman decided not to run again, although he was able to, because of extremely low poll numbers. Eisenhower went on to crush Adlai Stevenson in anything but a normal election for the Democrats. What's funny is that since 1952, Truman has enjoyed somewhat of a bounce in his popularity. ... o what is Webb actually saying here? Bush is as incompetent as Truman in '52? I hope that's what he means. Following Webb's analogy, Bush will be remembered as one of the greatest Presidents of all time."

IMMIGRATION: It's '96, All Over Again

Right of center Kausfiles looks at seemingly contradictory results and spin from CA-50 and UT-03 and sees similarities to the '96 welfare debate: "Brian Bilbray ran on a platform of opposition to illegal immigration. Meanwhile, Chris Cannon ... also ran on a platform of opposition to illegal immigration. ... It's all eerily reminiscent of the welfare debate, in which anti-welfare candidates sincerely bashed welfare and pro-welfare candidates insincerely bashed welfare. We know how that turned out. This could be why House Republicans don't seem to be interpreting Cannon's win as a reason to abandon their enforcement-only position. It's also why, when you encounter the quotes from Democratic leaders in WaPo (Sample: "Republicans want to use this like Willie Horton in 1988 and gay marriage in 2004" -- Sen. Schumer) you can smell their fear."

Right Wing News published the results of their email poll of 225 righty bloggers. Highlights include:

• Do you believe that if the Federal Government cracks down on businesses hiring illegal immigrants and makes it very difficult for "undocumented workers" to get a job, that the vast majority of illegals currently in the United States will self-deport? A) No (31% -- 15) B) Yes (69% -- 34)
• Would you support a proposal to ban immigrants caught in the United States illegally or trying to enter the United States illegally from ever becoming citizens of the US or being part of a guest worker program? A) No (34% -- 17) B) Yes (66% -- 33)
• Currently, babies born to illegal immigrants in the United States automatically become US citizens. Would you prefer to see that practice stopped or continued? A) I'd prefer to see babies born to illegal immigrants in the US automatically become American citizens. (12% -- 6) B) I'd prefer that babies born to illegal immigrants in the US not be given automatic citizenship. (88% -- 43)

ETHICS: The Abramoff Wives

TPM Muckraker follows up on a 7/3 Roll Call story detailing the timing of Jack Abramoff charity Capital Athletic Foundation payments to Rep. John Doolittle's (R-CA-04) wife Julie. TPMM explains: "One of our favorite aspects of the Jack Abramoff investigation is "the Wives Club," as investigators call them -- the klatsch of wives who picked up checks for their powerful lobbyist and lawmaker husbands so they never appeared to be holding the bag. ... The timing of those payments just happen to coincide with John Doolittle (avowedly anti-gambling) providing a couple favors for Abramoff's tribal clients. It's the starkest evidence yet of a quid pro quo between Abramoff and Doolittle."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: YouTubers For Truth

YouTube fan James Kelm wonders what effect the site will have on WH'08: "While on one hand internet video could be employed as an effective communications tool, on the other hand it could be a threat to those who ignore it. Few would argue that John Kerry's "I voted for the amendment before I voted against it" quote did not play an important role in the past presidential election. Traditionally candidates have faced opposition campaigns which, at best, deployed a small number of operatives to monitor their opponents' media appearances. In the near future, candidates will have to learn to perform in an environment where the opposition could have a million eyes and ears. A misstep could easily be recorded on camera or phone, uploaded by Joe User, amplified by bloggers, then repeated by the mainstream media in a matter of hours. Think of it as 'The War Room' meets Web 2.0."

Kelm also has questions for the FCC: "How (or if) does McCain-Feingold campaign reform legislation apply to internet video? Will the advent of free speech in the form of internet video postings be restricted? How would the courts view videos spread virally to thousands (or millions) of viewers shortly before an election? To the extent that internet video lowers the cost for a group to release messages and content, is the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" an indicator of where campaigns are headed?"

LEST WE FORGET: Totally Tubular

Yourish.com pokes fun at Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) with a PowerPoint presentation featuring quotes from Stevens' now infamous "the internet is a series of tubes" speech.