August 03, 2006

8/3: Live By The Blog...

... die by the blog? That might be the question as CT SEN heads into its final (unless they're not) days. A graphical gaffe by Natural Born Killers producer and cable exec Ned Lamont (D) supporter Jane Hamsher at firedoglake put the Lamont campaign on the defensive, at least temporarily. As a daily observer of all things CT SEN, Lamont's quoted response, "I don't know anything about the blogs. I'm not responsible for those. I have no comment on them," rings a little untrue. That said, while it's entirely possible Lamont never reads blogs, he definitely knows who Hamsher is. Hamsher files multiple eyewitness reports from the Lamont campaign daily, has appeared in and produced many YouTube videos with Lamont, and accompanied him to the Colbert Report taping in NY this week. With Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson giving him cover, the event will probably hurt Lamont little, but should serve as a warning to all candidates who want to fuel their campaigns on netroot power.

It all started innocently enough. Natural Born Killers producer and progressive activist Jane Hamsher at firedoglake, who has been embedded with cable exec Ned Lamont's (D) campaign in CT since 7/4, scrapped together tidbits from previous firedoglake posts, slapped on a new graphic, and cross-posted at The Huffington Post. Problem was, the graphic she chose to spice up her reporting included a blackfaced Sen. Joe Lieberman (D).

Conservative blogger queen bee Michelle Malkin pounced: "I am so sure the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP and the civil rights brigade will be protesting this disgusting use of blackface in political discourse. Oh, wait, never mind. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are campaigning against Lieberman, too."

Malkin later added: "For those of you who aren't familiar with Hamsher, she's a bottom-feeding blogger who has been the prime mover and shaker for Lamont in the blogosphere. A wealthy Hollyweirdo, she moved to Connecticut to "cover" the campaign and has raised tens of thousands of dollars for the Lamont campaign. Here she is, elite Hollyweird liberal who loves putting people in blackface, pretending to speak on behalf of black voters."

The righty blogger pile on had begun:

• Hot Air: "From the genius who brought you the term "Rape Gurney Joe." No one's surprised anymore that this crap goes on within the halls of Tolerance, least of all from Hamsher, who's not only the first to demagogue race when it helps her side but who's become famous precisely because she's so vicious. She's the left's answer to [Ann] Coulter, minus the ambiguity about whether she means what she says. And about ten million fans."
• Wizbang: "Coziness with bloggers like Hamsher (and several million of his own dollars) helped propel Lamont from nowhere into a tight race for the Democratic nomination U.S Senator, but that coziness comes with a price. When one of their biggest boosters has a Kos-style "Screw 'Em" moment like this, they have little choice but to distance themselves; potentially alienating their biggest boosters..."
• Ace of Spades: "I'm less annoyed by the actual picture than the odious double-standard that she and like-minded leftists can do this sort of thing without fear of criticism because they're "on the right side," when, were a conservative to do this, Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan would have their next month of posts mapped out."
• Ankle Biting Pundits: "Disgusting, but typical of liberals when election time comes around and their desperation for power overrides their alleged monopoly on 'racial sensitivity'. And since the nutroots are supporting Lieberman's opponent, Ned Lamont, it's likely no one on the left will criticize the author, Jane Hamsher(who is white), and call for this racist picture to be taken down. What say you, Ned Lamont? Is this the kind of support you want?"

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt and National Review Online's Byron York both drew attention to Lamont's response to the matter: "I don't know anything about the blogs. I'm not responsible for those. I have no comment on them." Neither bought the excuse. York quoted from a Hartford Courant article on Lamonts Colbert Report appearance: " Lamont arrived with an entourage: His wife, Annie; their campaign driver, Marc Bradley; a blogger, Jane Hamsher; and Bill Hillsman, the creator of his offbeat ads..."

Jason Zengerle at left of center TNR was initially unimpressed by the story until the saw local media coverage: "So much for my sense of what the Lieberman campaign should and shouldn't be crying foul about. At least one local newscast in Connecticut is giving the blackface story some serious play. Here's a report from WTNH in New Haven. Note how in the accompanying video the reporter warns viewers that the image they are "about to see is very, very offensive, and that's putting it mildly." That can't be music to the Lamont campaign's ears."

Crickets could be heard across the major progressive blogs and pro-Lieberman LieberDem noticed: "The progressive blogosphere's silence on it is deafening. There's something very, very wrong when it's the progressives who are silent about someone posting a JPG of the most racist thing someone could do with Photoshop, giving conservatives an opening to posture about tolerance. ... It all really begs the question - do the Lieberman and Lamont camps really think that the IQ of black voters is so low that they will actually respond positively to these things? What the hell are they thinking?"

Not all lefty blogs ignored the issue. Peking Duck: "Why do liberal people who are really smart sometimes do things that defy common sense, throwing red meat to the wild-eyed right-wing hyenas? That's exactly what Jane Hamsher did today, offering herself to Michelle Malkin on a silver platter. Stupid. The American Street: "On that point, I have to concur. Whatever analogy Jane's trying to make with that graphic is not readily apparent and because the use of blackface in minstrel shows has long been deemed as insulting, I think she's made a gaffe that requires correction. As she's not part of Lamont's staff, however, it's important to avoid making conclusions about Lamont based on a media error."

National Review Online's Steve Spruiell reported from Bridgeport, CT, that Rev. Jesse Jackson absolved Lamont of any sin: "That's really low-level stuff. This campaign is really about the war. This is really about trade policy. This is really about health care. That's not this campaign. [Lamont] did not commission that. At this point in the election, you're going to have all kinds of distracting stuff."

By 5 PM 8/2 Hamsher offered a limited apology at firedoglake but showed no signs of giving up the fight: "I sincerely apologize to anyone who was genuinely offended by the choice of images accompanying my blog post today on the Huffington Post. ... To the extent that rightwing Republicans like Michelle Malkin are trying to harm Ned Lamont with this ginned up controversy by "defending" his opponent with these absurd charges of racism - I regret it and I invite them to take it up with the person who did it, namely me. I answer to nobody and I operate entirely on my own volition. If you have a problem with something I've written, you know where to find me. ... But perhaps it's also time people started asking why the Republicans suddenly feel they have a dog in this fight in the first place. ... Perhaps they have come to admire what seem to be ever increasing Rovian tactics, such as that flyer accusing Lamont of being a racist (which inspired the satirical graphic in the first place.) Whatever it is, it certainly should give Connecticut voters pause as they consider whether they are really voting for a Democrat in the Democratic primary on August 8th.

Unfazed by 8/2's dust up Hamsher was back posting on firedoglake at 3:34 AM with news that: "Lamont Leads Lieberman 54% to 41% in New Poll." Hamsher further commented on Quinnipiac's numbers: "Polling for this race is an exceptionally difficult thing to do, given that an August primary of this intensity has little precedent among other things. These numbers could be awfully optimistic so it isn't time to let the effort down and think the battle is won. They need volunteers really badly to come to Connecticut this weekend to work on the campaign." Connecticut Bob also did not want to pop the champagne quite yet: "I may be crazy but I'm NOT going to post the latest Q-poll numbers here People who might ordinarily be moved to vote for Ned will see he has a huge lead and decide their vote won't be needed."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas went to bed before the numbers were released but passed on this nugget: "But the word is that Lamont's internal numbers show their guy with a narrow lead, while Lieberman's own numbers show him with a narrow lead. Split the difference, and this race is tied, no matter what the Q-poll might say. The unofficial Lamont Blog was more upbeat: "The trend is as clear as these things get. Lieberman was up 55-40 (+15) in June, Lamont was up 51-47 in July (a dead heat), and Lamont is up 54-41 in August (+13). That's pretty much a straight line of Joementum. And Connecticut Democrats like Ned more and more (he's +10 in favorability since July)."

Political Punch noticed the poll captured what a one issue race this is: "Though there's a big push from Lamonsters to say this is not just about the war --Quinnipiac says otherwise, with 44% of Lamont voters supporting their man because of his support for the war in Iraq, and 50% saying that's one of the reasons. Those are big numbers for one issue, especially when 65% of Lamont voters say they will be pulling the Connecticut lever not FOR Ned, but AGAINST Joe. And 85% of the voters say their minds are made up!"

Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake wrote 8/2: "Jane [Hamsher] just phoned from the WalMart rally. Sources are telling her that Little Jimmy Olson, Cub Labor Leader, is responsible for Lieberman's appearance at today's WalMart rally. Seeing how Little Jimmy Olson planned the whole thing and all, it seems that he got his knickers in a snit when Lieberman decided to stay home and work on his new ad campaign. Word has it that Olson got on the phone with Lieberman directly and told him to "get his ass down here NOW" - and since the AFL-CIO has only endorsed Lieberman until the primary, Joe came hopping like a scared rabbit."

Stephen Spruiell at National Review Online noted that Lieberman supporters "outnumbered their counterparts in the Lamont camp by about two-to-one" and chanted "Let's Go Joe, Let's Go Joe," after Lieberman responded to a pro-Lamont heckler saying: "Let me answer that lie with a fact. My campaign received a check from Wal Mart last February. But we sent it back a week later!" Lamont spoke after Lieberman and "went on a tirade about "corporate America" and said that it "won't take me 18 years" to stand up to Wal Mart - a reference to Joe Lieberman's tenure in the Senate. He didn't address the issue of Lieberman and Wal Mart's PAC."

Progressive Matt Stoller at MyDD has video of Lieberman's speech and reports: "The Wakeup Walmart event was packed with Lieberyouth, 50 or 60. I took this picture of a kid wearing 'The Hug' button and holding a Lieberman sign. Apparently Clinton hugging Lieberman is not doing it for Lieberman. He must be the only one."

Over at My Left Nutmeg Maura asked her reader to comb through FEC reports for Wal-Mart/Lieberman items. Met00 later posted FEC details on Walton family donations to the DSCC Building Fund and the New Democrat Network. Met00 then writes: "Really hard for a sitting member of the Democratic Senate to be sitting on stage badmouthing Walmart when one of the founders gave the DSCC $50K. I'm sure Joe will be able to stand up and show the letter he wrote saying that it shouldn't have been taken. I mean he only had the last 4 years to consider it. ... Now Joe, please explain why your New Democrat Network had no problem taking Wal-Mart money while you stand up to the evil company now..."

Greg Pollowitz at National Review Online responds: "Patty Murray of Washington was head of the DSCC when Wal-Mart sent in the $50K. The DSCC, I assume, cashed the check and spent the money. The standard that is being set for Lieberman is one that cannot be met by any Democrat in the Senate. I guess now that this is an issue, Schumer and every other Democrat who has ever received a contribution from Wal-Mart will be happy to return the funds, including any compensation Hillary Clinton received while she served on Wal-Mart's Board of Directors."

Progressive bloggers are up in arms over a Credit Union Legislative Action Council mailing which touts Joe Lieberman as "one of the first Senators to stand up to George W. Bush's dangerous plan to privatize Social Security." Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe has a copy of the mailing here. Connecticut Blog comments: "This is a BIG FAT LIE and everyone knows it. Millionaire Joe Lieberman was ONE OF THE LAST Democrats to oppose President Bush's proposal to scrap Social Security. ... Although this mailing didn't come directly from the Lieberman camp, you can bet the house he gave the green light to publish it since he's ran around the state stating the same thing."

Meanwhile the conservative Worldwide Standard reports that "five members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who had previously agreed to campaign with Sen. Lieberman this Sunday in African-American churches, have apparently backed out of their commitments. I'm told that anti-war groups put heavy pressure on the members to cancel their appearances in Connecticut. The Left's intimidation of Democrats who'd like to support Sen. Lieberman seems to be working in the final days of the primary campaign."

Back in CT Stephen Spruiell at National Review Online quotes Lamont on national security, "Our nation is stronger when we work with our friends and negotiate with our enemies."

Under the header "Tom Delay hearts Joe Lieberman," progressive media watcher Crooks and Liars posts video of Tom Delay on "Hannity & Colmes" announcing his support for Lieberman. C and L writes: "I'm sure the Democratic voters of CT will be totally swayed by his late entry into the campaign and some are saying privately that it's the turning point in the race."

Back at DailyKos, Markos Moulitsas links to an impressive collection of clips of GOPers "working on [Lieberman's] behalf." Kos posts a partial list of those featured: "Dick Cheney, George Bush, Scott McClellan, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Steve Gill, Pat RobertsonWilliam F. Buckley , Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, David BrooksCarl Cameron , Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson, Fred Barnes, Oliver North, Ed Rogers, and Ken Mehlman.

TNR's Jonathan Chait described the video as "one of the most effective and convincing pieces of propaganda I have ever seen." Chait goes on: "It shows that Lieberman's relationship with the GOP is not just traditional bipartisanship. ... Lieberman has friendly relations with the most noxious and unhinged elements of the conservative movement, and the relationship is symbiotic. ...On the other hand, there's still the issue of what happens if (and, it now appears, when) Lieberman goes down. I've had a running debate with several of my more liberal friends. They all insist that Lieberman is a special case, and defeating him will not be followed by wider attempts to cleanse the Democratic Party of all moderating influences. This post, from one of the more prominent liberal bloggers, is not reassuring:

Oh, and DC Democrats should be very afraid. If white progressives, disaffected union members, and blacks strengthen the informal alliance that's being created in this campaign, there's not a Democrat anywhere in the country who can't be beaten in a primary. That's not to say it's going to happen often; it won't. It's just to say that Democrats in Congress now have a potential dagger coming at them from the left, which they've never experienced before.

Kos also made waves on the left with an email purportedly from the Princeton College Republicans seeking to organize a trip to help Lieberman. Kos writes: "Lieberman's campaign will be offering lodging accommodations and food for College Republicans. We have, well, our people-powered army." Hullabaloo links and writes: "I certainly hope it isn't true that Joe Lieberman's campaign is actively courting the College Republicans to help with their canvas this week-end. There are some groups that really should be beyond the pale. ...It's offensive that these people are coming out to help Joe Lieberman win a Democratic primary, and every Democrat in Connecticut should be appalled. But it is plain stupid to let these people anywhere near a Democratic campaign. Joe's consultants should be very wary."

Wonkette takes the opportunity to snark: "Are the people who quit Katherine Harris' campaign going to work for Lieberman? Where else would one find such a monumentally dense staff?"

Not all progressive's wanted to make a big deal of the issue. PsiFighter37 at My Left Nutmeg writes: "I'm posting this at the request of a fellow Penn student of mine who works for the Lieberman campaign. ... Earlier today, it was posted at Daily Kos and LamontBlog that someone with the Princeton College Republicans had suggested that they organize to go to Connecticut and help out Joe Lieberman with the primary. ... While these kids coming in are out of state, none of them are part of the College Republicans - my contact personally vetted everyone to ensure that they were not part of CR or another GOP-affiliated group. Furthermore, the campaign never offered to bus in the College Republicans; this was their own idea to 'infiltrate' Lieberman's campaign, if you will. These are unpaid volunteers in the 16-21 age range whose only accommodations are sleeping quarters in a college dormitory. So I would ask that we drop this issue and don't try and make any more hay out of it."

Hartford Courant columnist Kevin Rennie got progressive bloggers talking with a report on Political Wire that Lieberman "will shake up his campaign staff if he loses Tuesday's Democratic primary to challenger Ned Lamont. ... Expect Lieberman to can anyone who was associated with 2004 Kerry campaign and replace them with a team of pungent veterans who will take the fight to Lamont. As Lieberman tours the broiling state, you can almost hear the gloves coming off in preparation for a fight to the finish in November."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas linked to the post and announces his intentions should Lieberman stay in the race: "IF Lieberman loses, and IF he stays in the race as an independent, he will continue to harm the Democratic Party up through November. ... If Lieberman bolts the Democratic Party and becomes and independent, Harry Reid will be under intense pressure to immediately strip Lieberman of his committee assignments. Those are reserved for Democrats and loyal allies (e.g. Jeffords or Sanders). Let the Republicans give their committee seats to their favorite Democrat. That's the last thing Reid needs right now, but it'll happen if Lieberman stays in the race.

Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake passes along a readers thoughts on the Political Wire item: "Rennie's listening to someone trying to help Lieberman duck blame for staff departures. If Lieberman loses the primary and campaign (or staff) people leave, it's probably because they believe in their party and don't want to run against a Dem, not because Lieberman doesn't want them around.

This report by Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on small-fundraising in the Dem field lead caught the eye of Tom Schaller at TAPPED who picked up on the fact that "small-dollar fundraising is expensive. This is especially true when done by direct mail, which is why Clinton is raising a lot but spending a lot to raise it. She can afford the direct mailers' overhead, of course, allowing her to bleed her challengers. This may be why [Sen.] Bayh and [ex-VA Gov.] Warner don't seem to be bothering with the little donors, or at least have not emphasized them yet. Still, Feingold's example shows that it can be done. If Feingold had Bayh's big-donor capacity -- the Indiana senator has $11 million cash on hand, a figure that caught me by surprise, given how little media attention Bayh receives -- or vice versa, that would be a lethal fundraising combination. For the moment, however, the only person with that dual capacity is Clinton. And the only person with the latent capacity, in my humble view, to match Clinton, small dollar-for-small dollar and large dollar-for-large dollar, is a certain summer blockbuster movie star."

TAPPED's Ezra Klein was listening to poor press coverage of a Dem health care proposal when he "realized I should probably stop complaining about such superficial wire stories and use my position at a political magazine to actually, y'know, do something about it. Today comes the first attempt. I spent fifteen minutes chatting with Sen. Russ Feingold this morning on his new health proposal, which would offer a big pot o' money for a small number of states to create universal health programs. Better yet, I recorded the call and got ace editor Alec Oveis to stick it online. You can listen to it here. We'll try to get a transcript of it shortly. If you guys like it, I'll make this into a regular thing. So do let me know if it's informative. We in the blogosphere are always claiming that the press should do a better job allowing smart leaders to explain their plans for the country, but we all too rarely recognize that we can fill the void. If response is good, I'll schedule interviews with [Rep.] Pete Stark, [IA Gov.] Tom Vilsack, and John Kerry to talk about their new plans. I'll also expand the feature beyond health care and just bring on interesting thinkers, writers, and folks whose ideas deserve wider play. But first I need to know if you folks are down. So check it out and let me know."

Kevin Hayden at American Street says when "Lieberman ran for the top job [WH '04], [Al] Gore publicly supported Howard Dean, one of the two candidates who opposed the Invasion of Iraq. Despite that, if Gore were to speak up now on behalf of his old running mate, it'd likely be persuasive, which could make the difference in a very close race. Gore's silence on this race is deafening. ... Gore's silence validates the sense that Connecticut Democrats have, that Lieberman's shift rightward is an abandonment of his base on several core issues. Gore could sink Lieberman outright if he publicly announced for Lamont. That he hasn't only indicates that he's settled into the dignified role as an elder statesman of the party and is willing to let Connecticut voters exercise their own judgment, while he felt it equally important to refuse that impartial role when Joe pursued the top national office."

Byron York at The Corner notes that "for some reason, Gallup has just released a poll on the favorable/unfavorable ratings of Al Gore. Forty-eight percent of those surveyed say they have a favorable opinion of Gore, while 45 have an unfavorable opinion, and eight percent have no opinion. Even after Gore's recent media blitz, the numbers are basically unchanged from December 2002, when Gore had a 49-45 rating. They are down from August 2001, when Gore's rating was 52-42. But they are better than December 2000, at the height of the Florida recount, when Gore dipped into negative territory with a 46-52 favorable/unfavorable rating. In general Gore's ratings in recent years are well below what he scored while in the White House. In October 1997, his rating was 53-38; in August 1996, it was 61-27."

Matt Lewis at Human Events Online asks "How important do you think it is for Sen. Frist's ambitions that this [TN SEN] seat remains Republican? I think this is yet another test he must pass. If this race remains in the GOP column, Sen. Frist's campaign for president goes on. If not, his aspirations are, at best, on the ropes."

Human Events Online updates us on today's "exciting and divisive battle for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate between two staunch conservative and former Members of Congress Ed Bryant (W Tenn Jackson) and Van Hilleary (Middle Tenn Mufreesboro). They are facing the more moderate, former Mayor of Chattanooga and wealthy real estate developer, Bob Corker who is the frontrunner after heavily outspending them in a television campaign. A last minute poll showed both conservative candidates gaining as they attacked Corker for his past opposition to anti-abortion laws and support of tax increases, as well as charging that Corker's businesses had not paid taxes and hired illegal aliens. Corker still appears to be leading by at least 15 points due to a split in the conservative vote between Bryant and Hilleary, as well as the strong support he is receiving from his home region of East Tennessee (which has almost half of the Republican vote)."

TMP Muckacker's Paul Kiel crunched the numbers and found that "every single contributor to the Pennsylvania Green Party Senate candidate is actually a conservative -- except for the candidate himself. The Luzerne County Green Party raised $66,000 in the month of June in order to fund a voter signature drive. The Philly Inquirer reported yesterday that $40,000 came from supporters of Rick Santorum's campaign (or their housemates). Also yesterday, we confirmed that another $15,000 came from GOP donors and conservatives. Only three contributions, totaling $11,000, remained as possible legit donations. Today, I confirmed that those came from GOP sources. Joe in DC at AmericaBLOG says the contributions were made to "steal the election for Santorum by splitting the liberal vote. I want to see Rick Santorum speak out against this immediately, and then I want to see the Green Party candidate return the money and pull out of the race. Thanks to the Green Party and Ralph Nader we've had two Bush presidencies. Enough already. But this one really takes the cake -- 100% of the campaign funded by Republicans? Is that what the Green really stand for? I somehow doubt it."

After progressive bloggers have run Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) out of the party its pretty clear that Peter Beinart and the New Republic is next. How else to explain populist David Sirota's latest attack on Beinart posted at not only his own Sirotablog, but also DailyKos, MyDD, and The Huffington Post.

Sirota writes: "The New Republic was one of the strongest and most aggressive voices pushing for the invasion of Iraq. Their editor, Peter Beinart, led the charge, attacking Democrats who dared to question the move. He and the magazine have yet to seriously consider how easy it is to advocate for a massive military operation based on lies when the advocates themselves never have to face the blood-and-guts consequences of their advocacy. Now, of course, the New Republic and Beinart would like everyone to forget their record, as Beinart pushes a new book trying to position himself as a "liberal" foreign policy guru and a chest-thumping "hawk."

Sirota then quotes from a letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education from Second Lt. John Renehan about a letter he wrote to TNR praising Beinart for honesty but also challenging TNR to send one of their to join the army. Renehan reports that TNR ran the portion of his letter praising Beinart, but cut the challenge.

Sirota comments: "The netroots have labeled people like Beinart and his "hawkish" friends in the punditocracy as members of the 101st Fighting Keyboard Brigade - authors/insiders/operatives who are "very enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it." The fact that members of the 101st would resort to selectively editing an Army lieutenant's sincere letter to the editor in order to dishonestly heap praise on themselves and avoid facing the tough questions about their behavior tells you all you need to know about how unprincipled these people really are. In their comfortable bubble, war is all just a fun little political game based on Washington's false definition of "strength" as a politician willing to sit in their guarded, air conditioned Beltway office and call in airstrikes and ground assaults - regardless of the consequences for the targets or America's national security."

AFP reports: "Malaysian parents will no longer be allowed to give their children names deemed unsuitable by authorities, a report says." Among the band names: Zani (male adulterer), Woti (sexual intercourse), and Karrupan (black fellow). Also, "parents could not name their babies after colours, animals, insects, fruits or vegetables."

Posted by Conn Carroll at August 3, 2006 12:34 PM