11/21: A Pre-Thanksgiving '08 Buffet

A bevy of pre-Thanksgiving '08 buzz dominated the blogosphere 11/20. On the left, an otherwise positive John Edwards (D) reception at Daily Kos was marred by charges of inadequate support for cable exec Ned Lamont (D-CT), and Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) Iraq war stance draws fire from longtime anti-warriors. On the right, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) quietly moves toward joining the race, ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) is welcomed less as a contender than a debate changer, and Cornerites come to grips with conservative GOP support for ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R).

EDWARDS: Heaven, Hell, And In Between On The Daily Kos Comment Boards

Edwards thanked Kossacks for everything they did "to make Election Day a historic victory for Democrats all across the country" and spent an hour answering reader questions on issues 11/20. Topics addressed by Edwards included:

• On his foreign policy experience: "As to foreign policy, what I've been doing for the last several years includes travels to Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Russia; meeting with leaders; speaking and meeting with ordinary citizens and meeting with NGOs and humanitarian organizations. I've also done work with the Council on Foreign Relations and the Asia Society."
• On economic fairness: "A few specifics: raise the minimum wage; universal health care coverage; tax system reform so that income is treated with at least as much respect as wealth; making college available to everyone regardless of wealth (College for Everyone); a trade policy that includes both free trade and fair trade (enforceable environmental and labor protections).
• On energy: "As to energy, it's clear to me that we need serious, long term investment in wind, solar, biomass, biodiesel, biofuels, etc. It's also clear that we need serious conservation, including fuel efficient vehicles. My own view is that it's time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something more than war, and this is a place we should ask people to be willing to sacrifice on behalf of their country."
• On health care: "As to healthcare, it is clear to me that we have a dysfunctional health care system. We have the moral issue of approximately 47 million Americans who have no health care coverage, plus many millions who are terrified they will lost their coverage. The only answer is universal health care coverage.
• On earmarking: "The answer is public financing for political campaigns, and mechanisms for eliminating or controlling earmarks."

Edwards did not escape his Daily Kos experience with out taking criticism for a perceived lack of support for Lamont. Thirdparty from the unofficial LamontBlog and Matt Stoller from MyDD led the recriminations against Edwards anti-Lieberman record.

Not everyone in the Edwards comment thread appreciated the distraction. Sherrylynn summed up the exchange:

To any innocent soul who has happened upon this thread and hopes to learn what Senator and Mrs. Edwards have to say, I recommend that you skip way, way down to the first comment from Senator Edwards. If you do so, you will be spared an unedifying display of unpleasantness and rampant egomania. On the other hand, if you have a taste for endless vituperation, the top portion of this thread will be heaven or, as you may perhaps prefer, hell. If you are only mildly interested in vituperative comments, let me summarize. Apparently some people who worked for Ned Lamont are peeved because Senator Edwards showed up--uninvited--to give a speech too much devoted to poverty and with too few (or possibly no) references to Mr. Lamont. Obviously, Senator Edwards' appearance must have been a real dud ... But get this, these Lamont people are mad because Senator Edwards, whose speech they found so dreadful, didn't come back to campaign for Mr. Lamont a second time. Since Senator John Kerry is lauded as having been much more helpful, wouldn't the simple solution have been to invite Kerry back? I understand he had a bit of free time at the end of the campaign.

OBAMA: Not A Playa' Hata

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) continues to disappointment segments of the netroots especially Atrios who was not happy with Obama's 11/20 call for a "gradual and substantial" reduction of U.S. forces from Iraq. Atrios writes: "The basic content of what Obama is saying, divorced from the larger debate, is fine, but as to how it plays in the current debate it's not fine. It allows us to wait around one more Friedman... and then something will happen. Except it won't happen. Troops will not start coming home 4-6 months from now. And, most likely, 4-6 months from now Obama won't be saying "bring them home now," though I've put him on my little calendar and will make sure to check back then and let you know."

The Huffington Post's Stan Goff also has problem's with Plan Obama: "Obama's so-called plan is to redeploy troops to Iraqi Kurdistan (demonstrating that he knows next to nothing about what is going on there, and how big a role Kurdish leaders are playing in the current occupation-catalyzed civil war). Obama wants to put more forces on the ground in another un-winnable war in Afghanistan. He refused, a la Bush, to give any timetable, and said that any withdrawal should be "gradual and substantial."

On a lighter note, The Plank's Noam Scheiber links to Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Meaudio of Obama apologizing by phone to Daily Herald's Nicklaus Lovelady for calling him a "baby face" in front of Lovelady's then-romantic interest. Says Obama: "Man, I'm calling to publicly apologize for messin up your game"

BROWNBACK: No Waffles Here

Brownback's 11/20 '08 announcement drew limited righty blogger reaction, but Captain's Quarters was paying attention: "An undercurrent of support has existed for Brownback since earlier this year, when it became plain that conservatives had grown disaffected with the GOP. He faces little competition on the right of the GOP field. ... However, Brownback has the same problem as any Senator or Congressman -- a lack of executive experience. Legislators reach compromises, and those come back to haunt candidates on the presidential trail. ... On the other hand, Brownback doesn't appear to have too many of these waffling points on the resume. On abortion, for instance, Brownback gets a perfect 100 from the National Right to Life Committee and a perfect 0 from NARAL. ... It may not make much difference. Most of the oxygen is already getting sucked up by McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich. Brownback may have some name recognition among the politicos and the blogs, but he barely registers among rank-and-file voters."

GINGRICH: A Movement In G

RedState's Dan McLaughlin looks at Fortune's profile of ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich and concludes: "Newt has adequately assessed his main strength as a candidate (his ideas, which are often spot-on and always provocative) and his main weakness (Newt's own unpopularity and personal failings), and is running a "movement" campaign. Will it work? ... Most "movement" candidates end up losing (even ones like Reagan in 1976 who later get the brass ring), and I'm sure that Newt knows that. The key question for an idea-driven "movement" candidate is whether he can gain sufficient traction to compel the ultimate nominee (or future nominees of the party) to adopt some of his ideas.

GIULIANI: Rudy's For Real?

After surveying National Review post-election cruisers, National Review Online's Rich Lowry recognizes that ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) GOP support tends to come from conservatives and not moderates: "it seems he has some real appeal to conservatives based on his rhetoric, persona, and 9/11 performance." Lowry goes on to speculate that Giuliani's candidacy will draw conservative support away from MA Gov. Mitt Romney (MA) and not Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Lowry adds: "And if Giuliani doesn't make it (I think it's very, very unlikely he will), does anyone doubt that he endorses McCain? So he will help McCain in that more obvious way too."

Also at The Corner, John Derbyshire finds "the whole Rudy phenomenon is fascinating" and goes on to stress the importance of how Giuliani would do in the general election: "He'd take LOTS of votes from Democrats. Just how many would depend of course on the strength of their candidate-but in any case, lots more than any other GOP candidate in sight. A northeastern Republican might in fact be the mirror image of those Southern Democrats-the only Dems to have won the presidency in the last 42 years."

MCCAIN: Always More Troops, Always

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) consultant and Ankle Biting Pundits contributor Pat Hynes responded to ABP co-contributer Bull Dog Pundit's charges of McCain flip-flopping 11/20: "Let's be clear: John McCain is pro-life and supports the overturn of Roe v. Wade. This has been his position throughout his career in politics and he has a twenty-four year voting record to back it up. ... I was disheartened to see BDP link to a WaPo story from 1999 to blast Sen. McCain on an inartful comment he made at that time, without acknowledging the immediacy of his correction to the remark."

Back at The Corner, Rich Lowry argues McCain's calls for more troops inoculates him from future war failures: "There is lots of talk about how McCain might be hurting himself by his persistent call for more troops, even as support for the war declines. I kind of doubt it will-if the war really goes south, he will be able to say he had a better idea for waging it right from the beginning. Personally, I think his support for higher troop levels has been far-sighted and courageous-McCain at his best.

ROMNEY: Lowry Flips On Romney Flop

The Corner's Rich Lowry first reported MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) was a "flop" at the American Spectator's 11/17 dinner but later retracted the view after an email from AS senior editor Quin Hillyer:

Rich - PLEASE quote me on this. I have no idea where you heard that Romney "flopped" at the Spectator dinner, but from where I sat, that was absolutely, positively NOT the general consensus. Indeed, just the opposite: Everybody at my table seemed absolutely enthralled and impressed by Romney, and so did the people I heard talking on the way out of the dinner. My wife, in particular, who is not very political, pronounced herself tremendously impressed. It should also be noted that I am NOT a Romney partisan; I have no favorite yet for 2008

John Derbyshirereports that Romney fan in chief Kathryn Jean Lopez managed to survive the flop scare...barely..

DEMS: Southern Dems Will Someday (But Not Anytime Soon) Rise Again

TAPPED's Tom Schaller reports that his "non-southern strategy" for electoral success "simply drives some people batty." TAPPED's Ezra Klein agrees wholeheartedly but also outlines some benefits of forcing the GOP to rely entirely on the region:

But as a more general strategic note, the southernization of the GOP will have pretty massive effects on the Republican Party -- effects Democrats will find fairly congenial. As a combination of Californian emigration, Hispanic immigration, and economic fluctuation continue diluting the Interior West's libertarianism, the region will cease exerting its current pull on the Republican Party's ideology. And as the Elephant becomes ever more reliant on the South, the concerns of the region's dominant constituence -- economically insecure whites -- will continue permeating the top levels of the Republican coalition, eventually forcing a leftward shift as their base continues to demand entitlement security and public spending.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas again attacks suggestions the Dem victory 11/7 depended on conservative southern Dems, but also refuses to give up hope: "We don't want to abandon the South and we won't. But the short-term path for a Democratic progressive majority runs through our coastal strongholds, and then through the swing Midwest and purpling Mountain West. The South is a long-term reclamation project." Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat sees current DNC plans as the perfect way to become competitive in the south without betraying key Dem principles: "Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy is the path that allows Democrats to adapt to the realities Schaller describes while at the same time searching for the effective political prescriptions for the South. As I wrote, the devolution of power to the state parties is the essential component."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Bottom To Top, Not Top To Bottom

Responding to righty blogger Jon Henke's post-election call for increased GOP blog engagement, Shaun Kenny writes:

There's an additional problem to this. Democrats (and particularly the progressive wing) created their blogosphere mostly from grassroots and activist support. Republicans seem to look behind them to political parties and ask them to counteract the left. It can't happen that way. Sure there are things that grasstops can do to help encourage blogs. But when it comes to what Jon Henke consistently called "developing a narrative" for a campaign, the blogs achieve this. Add this narrative into a fundraising schematic, and you have classic copywriting tactics. Build the narrative, get people invested, make the ask. .... We gotta break out.

IRAQ: But What Does Dave's Mom Think?

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links to Program on International Policy Attitudes poll results showing: "74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis want us to leave within a year (the number is 80% for Shiites in Baghdad). By wide margins, both groups believe U.S. forces are provoking more violence than they're preventing, and both groups believe that day-to-day security would improve if we left. Support for attacks on U.S. forces now commands majority support among both Shiites and Sunnis." Drum concludes: "Now, it may be that these views are misguided. But it hardly matters: it's simply not possible for us to occupy the country successfully if a majority of Iraqis actively support attacks on our troops and a vast majority think we're responsible for the rising violence. It's time for us to leave."

At Right Wing News, John Hawkins is reassuring his commenters that he has not given up on the war. Instead he forwards a four point plan:

• 1) Keep training Iraqi forces -- although faster please.
• 2) Take apart the militias.
• 3) Make it clear that no nation unless it is part of the coalition forces will be allowed to send men or materials into Iraq.
• 4) Keep a significant number of American troops on hand for air support, special forces, and logistics even after our troops are no longer policing the streets (Hopefully, we should be at that point by some time around the end of 2007).

RCP Blog's John McIntyre argues David Letterman's recent thoughts on Iraq sum "up the growing feelings of many Americans. Letterman said:

Well, you know in the beginning, here is my position in the beginning and I, I think I - I sort of felt the way everybody did, we felt like we wanted to do something, because something terrible had been done to us. ... So while it didn't necessarily make sense to go into Iraq as it did perhaps to go into Afghanistan, I like most everybody else felt like yes, we needed to do something. And as the weeks turned into months, years and one death became a dozen deaths and hundred deaths and a thousand deaths - then we began to realize you know what? Maybe we're causing more trouble over there than the whole effort has been worth....What I would like would be uh, for uh, uh Americans to stop dying. And for there to be stability in that part of the world. Now if that means an American victory, ok. But I'm not sure that you can have stability in that part of the world with or without an American presence now, uh, so I would do whatever it would take to stop Americans dying.

McIntyre replies: "The good-hearted, but utterly naive sentiment of "I would do whatever it would take to stop Americans dying" in Iraq, will continue to chip away at the public's resolve in the coming weeks and months. And absent a credible plan for victory in Iraq - which right now we do not have - the window for the U.S. to prevent a major loss in this battle of the much longer war is rapidly closing."

LEST WE FORGET: Scarlett Johansson Wants George Bush To Teach Her More About Sex

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham looks at Scarlett Johansson's "We are supposed to be liberated in America but if our President had his way, we wouldn't be educated about sex at all. Every woman would have six children and we wouldn't be able to have abortions" statement and responds: "

Uhh, no, Scarlett. Six children or abortion? You do realize there's a third option, right? Who was your sex-ed teacher, girl? Laura Bush???

See, Scarlett, the thing is that's not what would happen at all. Note that the Bushes themselves managed, somehow, someway, to only have two children, despite being conservative and, hence, completely ignorant of safe-sex practices and contraceptives. Amazing!