11/27: Forever Backing The Underdog?

While it's unclear what alternatives will eventually emerge (ex-Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama for Dems; ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani and MA Gov. Mitt Romney for GOPers), it can safely be said that the respective sides of the 'sphere both will fight their parties' current '08 frontrunners (Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ)). Is blogger preference for underdogs an emerging pattern, or the fluke of a unique cycle absent an incumbent Pres. or VP from either party? In '04, the netroots staunchly supported "outsider" Howard Dean while righty bloggers uniformly backed Pres. Bush, who was unopposed in the '04 GOP primary. But had the blogosphere existed in '00, how would online support have broken down? Al Gore is lefty favorite now, but it seems a stretch to believe he would have been a huge favorite over then-Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NY Knicks). And on the GOP side, it's hard to imagine righty bloggers lining up for McCain.

DEM FIELD: Hillary Haters Or Alternative Lovers?

MyDD's Chris Bowers looks ahead to '08 and wonders what role the netroots will play in Dem primaries without a DNC chair Howard Dean-like standard bearer support. Bowers's acknowledges "[s]everal potential candidates, most notably Clark, Edwards, Gore and Obama, appear to have a substantial amount of online support" but still worries whether "a divided progressive movement in 2008 will result in a dilution of netroots influence over the primary season."

Bowers also "fear[s]" a divided netroots could lead to "a very, very ugly scene online" during the primary season and is not sure whether the netroots biggest '08 impact will be "how they drag Hillary Clinton down," or "how they build a different candidate up." Bowers argues HRC's netroot approval numbers "should be very worrying to any member of her 2008 campaign team" and worries about what an HRC victory would mean "to the influence of the netroots within the Democratic Party."

OBAMA: The Next Ford Model?

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merrit links to a Times Online piece on Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) efforts to connect with evangelicals and asks: "Bible-thumping didn't get Harold Ford elected. Can it help Obama?"

GOP FIELD: It's Nice To See Hugh Hewitt And Chris Bowers Have Something In Common

Apart from selecting their own nominee, MyDD's Chris Bowers announces the netroots second biggest '08 primary priority is "to take McCain and Giuliani down, and significantly tarnish their images among Democrats and Independents." Bowers writes: "If we can succeed in taking out McCain and Giuliani, it would virtually make the Democratic primary the general election. It is in this way that we can virtually win the 2008 election in 2007."

MCCAIN: And You Thought Christmas Came Early

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez quotes Matt Welch's 11/26 Los Angeles Times Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) op-ed, "His father was a drunk, and his second wife battled addiction to pain pills," and comments: "Dear heavens the 2008 campaign has begun." Lopez does see some positive for McCain: "For primary purposes, the senator might be grateful for a bit of it, especially the gay-marriage dig at the end."

PoliPundit's W.C. Varones thinks the article should serve as an important warning to GOPers looking for a general-election winner: "If anyone supports McCain because he is popular among moderates, think again. He is only popular with moderates now because the media fawn all over him when he backstabs conservatives. If McCain becomes the nominee, that will end and the media will turn on him viciously. They'll expose him as the nutjob he is."

ROMNEY: The Hewitt/Sullivan Blood Feud Continues

Andrew Sullivan ended any remaining suspense about his feelings for MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R), linking to his 11/26 Times Online column and writing: "I'm impressed by Romney's fiscal conservatism and healthcare initiative. The rest? Not so much." Earlier Sullivan claimed he was "uninterested in Romney's personal religious practices" but told readers "[p]eople will want to know about secret handshakes, secret rituals, tithing, and so on. Would part of his presidential salary go to the LDS church, for example? Does he tithe already?" Sullivan also identifies questions surounding Romney's belief in a "divine founding" of America including: "So what role did the Mormon God play in founding America? This is an important question for understanding a potential president's political philosophy. And since the theocons believe in bringing religious doctrine into the public square as a basis for political decisions, and Romney is the theocon candidate, how can they object to the dialogue?"

Ann Althouse describes Sullivan's attack on Romney as "an ugly one" and adds: "He [Sullivan] doesn't like social conservatives and the way they use religion, and he sees an opportunity to drive a wedge into them by raising questions about religious doctrine and prodding people to feel hostility toward Mormons. He thinks this is justified because -- he asserts -- the Republicans have won power by styling themselves as a "religious organization." They've used religion to their advantage, so they deserve to have it used against them. But stirring up hostility toward one sect? That is a dangerous thing that goes far beyond the targets you think you're aiming at."

Race 4 2008's Republius claims Townhall's Hugh Hewitt's upcoming book about Romney "is reportedly going to be very favorable to the candidate" and notes the fellow Townhall blogger Dean Barnett "admits that he is an unabashed fan of Governor Romney because he knows him and has volunteered previously for him." R4'08 concludes: "I guess the Hugh Hewitt web site is no longer undecided when it comes to the presidential race of 2008."

And over at The Corner, Jonathan Martin reports Team Romney signed SC GOP consultant Warren Tompkins and writes: "This is inside baseball to some degree, but that Tompkins would sign on so early with Romney is another indicator - and the respected Bandy says as much - that the Massachusetts governor is firming up his role as the chief McCain alternative in the early GOP running. Tompkins and his firm had been seen as leaning in Sen. George Allen's direction earlier this year, before the, ahem, recent unpleasantness."

IRAQ: Who You Callin' Extreme?

Lefty bloggers are not liking much about what they here of the Iraq Study Group. Responses to Washington Post stories on the exclusion of "extreme" views from the committee include:

• Matthew Yglesias: "The more I read about this commission the less I like it. The news that the commission deliberate excluded "extreme" views even though the "extreme" left view has majority support is pretty maddening. The real problem, though, is that as best I can tell the Commission has the wrong mandate. Rather than a group charged with finding an optimal Iraq policy for the United States of America, it's charged with finding a formula that suits the interests of the American political establishment -- of Democrats who backed the war, and of Republicans who'd like to see their political party survive the disaster of George W. Bush. So while they'd like a policy that makes things better, what they need is a policy that can espoused while minimizing embarrassment to said establishment. Unfortunately, the latter goal makes the former substantially impossible.
• Glenn Greenwald: "I'd really like to know what the excluded anti-war "extreme view" is that is the equivalent of the neonconservative desire for endless warfare in Iraq and beyond. ... Is withdrawal -- whether incremental or total -- considered to be an "extreme view" that the Washington "centrists" have not only rejected but have excluded in advance even from consideration? ... There is nothing "centrist" about a Commission which decides in advance that it will not remove our troops from a war which is an unmitigated disaster and getting worse every day.
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "[T]he two proposals getting the most flagpole time at the moment include talks with Syria and Iran (opposed strenuously by Dick Cheney) and the temporary addition of 20,000 soldiers in Baghdad (pretty much dismissed by the military brass as either impossible or useless). The only other alternative is withdrawal, but virtually no one is willing to sign up to that since it would mean expulsion from the Sober Sensible Analyst club. It's just too hard for most of these guys to break ranks and admit in public that the fate of Iraq is no longer something we can control.

Also in lefty Iraq news, Daily Kos' Georgia10 has a list of retired senior military personal favoring withdrawal to counter MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell's 11/26 assertion that: "There is not one military or foreign policy expert who thinks you could actually feasibly do that and second that it would be a good idea." The quote won O'Donnell "Wanker of the Day" honors from Atrios. Also at Daily Kos, Mcjoan celebrates the increased willingnes of MSM outlets to describe Iraq as a "civil war" and Atrios has collected the due dates for various pol/media "Friedmanesque predictions/deadlines" in Iraq, including ("The dates posted are the dates the predictions/deadlines are due"):

• 11/19/06 Lee Hamilton says next 3 months are critical.
• 12/31/06 Joe Lieberman says significant troop withdrawals begin.
• 1/06/07 Senator Warner sez "In two or three months if this thing hasn't come to fruition and this level of violence is not under control," Warner said, "I think it's a responsibility of our government to determine: Is there a change of course we should take?"
• 05/20/07 Obama says reduction should start in 4 to 6 months.
• 06/12/07 McCain sez we're going to win or lose this thing within the next several months.

IRAQ II: Righty Bloggers New Favorite Chairman

Incoming Ways and Means Chair Charlie Rangle (D-NY) rankled righty bloggers with his Fox News Sunday 11/26 line: "If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq." Reactions include:

• Hot Air: "Rangel's neither as prominent nor as unlikeable as Kerry, nor do vets bear him a grudge the way they do Waffles for his Winter Soldier testimony. But they're both talking out of the same ass. In the Kerry/Rangel worldview, American troops aren't the guy who crawls into a lion's cage to rescue the kid inside; they're the guy who's forced into the cage at gunpoint by the gangster who wants something valuable that's in there. Both are sympathetic, but only one's a hero."
• Captain's Quarters: "Charles Rangel has decided to take up where John Kerry left off, only this time he's not kidding about our military men and women being a collection of lazy dolts. The proposed chairman of the House Ways and Means committee and therefore one of the most powerful Democratic leaders in Congress told Fox News that only those with no options for a decent career would enlist in the military."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Better yet, Rangel promises hearings that will prove that American soldiers are dumb, ill-educated and otherwise unemployable! I can't wait. Rangel is a fool, but it's possible to get away with foolishness. It's foolishness plus arrogance that is a deadly combination.

Many on the right also took issue with MSM notation of the length of the current deployment in Iraq surpassing US involvement in WWII. RedState's Academic Elephant wants to know why time is the only relevant metric and points out that the Iraq war's 2,303 US deaths is 290K less than WWII US deaths. Mudville Gazette's Greyhawk notes that the Iraq War would have to last "another 10 or 12 years or so" before it passed the death toll of the Mexican War.

DEMS: Pelosi's Mini-Iraq?

Whether or not incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has unnecessarily divided Dems by not yet announcing an incoming House Intel Cmte chair, the debate has divided lefty bloggers. Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz criticizes Pelosi's "drag-it-out approach" and posts a reader'sassessment of "Pelosi's mini-Iraq":

Don't assume that there's a strategic logic, however inept, behind the delay in the selection of the Committee Chair. If she knew what to do, she would do it. The problem is: a) She hates Harman; 2)Hastings is blatantly inappropriate (and thus will not be selected, no matter how much the CBC squawks); 3) alternative selections to Harman seem strained. ... Therefore, she will likely select Harman anyway--appeasing at least two factions, the Blue Dogs, and the MSM, who will praise her for being centrist and pragmatic, rather than vindictive and "ideological." But she just can't stand the thought of it--thus the delay.

MyDD's Matt Stoller derides the above analysis as "the immediate reaction among white male liberal DC kewl kidz" and argues that Pelosi just "might want someone who ... can do a good job running the Intelligence Committee." Stoller continues: "[T]he single most important thing Pelosi can do is find a a good Intelligence Chair and make sure he or she has the political capital to fix the mess this country is in. Doing so could require time to find a compromise candidate, or to work with the CBC or Blue Dogs to assuage egos or horse-trade other committee assignments. That's what leaders do."

Few on the left are happy with either Harman or Hastings. Kausfiles brother and Stephen Kaus at The Huffington Post links to House and Senate records of Hastings 1988 impeachment for bribery and writes: "Whether the answer is Jane Harmon, Silvestre Reyes or Rush Holt, it is not disgraced former federal judge Alcee Hastings." The Plank's Michael Crowley hits Harman for 2003 statements acknowledging "a growing al Qaeda presence in Iraq" and writes: "I knew that Harman supported the war. I hadn't realized quite how much bad intel she swallowed whole." Matthew Yglesias endorses Holt for the post but also lets us know who he'd choose between Hastings and Harmon if he had to: "But let's assume it's true. Hastings shook some dudes down for $150,000 and ruined three FBI investigations. Jane Harman, by contrast, supported an invasion of Iraq based on bogus intelligence that's costs hundreds of billions of dollars and killed hundreds of thousands of people. Who do I have more doubts about?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Maybe It Was One Of Those 16-Inch Tsunami's

Kausfiles raises doubts about Charlie Cook's claim when '06's "6-point Democratic popular vote win is measured against the GOP's 5-point win in 2002 and its 3-point win in 2004, it clearly constituted a wave." Kaus comments: "Wow. So in 2002, a humdrum, non-wave election, the GOP won by 5 points. But this year, in a "wave election that rivaled the 1994 tsunami," the Dems won by 6 points. See? No wave: 5. Wave: 6! Cook has a powerful way of putting things."

LEST WE FORGET: No Word On Funding For Turkey Fencing

The Right Angle's Mac Johnson takes advantage of the annual WH Turkey pardoning to poke fun at Pres. Bush's immigration policy:

President George W. Bush shocked onlookers today when he misunderstood aides' description of the traditional pardoning of the Thanksgiving Turkeys and instead issued a blanket amnesty for the perplexed poultry. "Apparently he believed they were from Turkey," an anonymous White House source explained. "Hearing that they were there for the dinner ceremony, he assumed they were illegal alien waiters," the source continued. "And so he made them citizens."

"I hope the GOP can count on the votes of 'Flier' and 'Fryer' and all their amigos in the 2008 elections," Bush quipped during a 90-minute impromptu speech extolling the contributions of Turkish Americans to our nation's culture and economy. Further confusing supporters and opponents alike, Bush then made the older bird, Flier, Secretary of Transportation - believing that the bird had served in his father's administration. "Flier is good people," Bush told reporters.