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 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."

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.

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."

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."

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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLOGGERS VS. DEMS: Failing Up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Conn Carroll at July 25, 2006 12:17 PM