July 31, 2006

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."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:25 PM

July 28, 2006

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."

Posted by at 12:52 PM

July 27, 2006

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."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:19 PM

July 26, 2006

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?

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:30 PM

July 25, 2006

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."

<