1/31: Favorite Son No More?

Up 'til now, John Edwards has posted comfortable leads over his WH '08 rivals in online straw polls, but with the continuedheathehas beentaking over his 1/22 comments that "All the options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon," an opening for the hearts of netrooters has developed. Sen. Barack Obama has capitalized on that opening by calling for a withdrawal of troops. As popular as Edwards' focus on poverty is in lefty 'spheres, this is a movement whose core (think Howard Dean '04 and Joe Lieberman '06) centers around opposition to the Iraq war. With DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas saying Obama is "the first of the top-tier presidential contenders to clear" the bar on the Iraq issue, will the netroots begin to coalesce around the Illinois Senator?

OBAMA: Leading At Last?

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent was the link of choice for lefty bloggers announcing news of Barack Obama's 1/30 Iraq legislation. Sargent writes: "Here we go. Barack Obama is introducing binding legislation mandating the phased removal of combat brigades from Iraq to start in a few months, with the goal of getting "all" -- we repeat, "all" -- removed by March 2008." AMERICAblog posts video of Obama's floor statement from Politics TV.

Glowing Obama reviews include:

• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "This isn't a wussy "stop the escalation" measure, nor some half-measure like "withdraw some troops but not all" (which appears to be the Edwards position). ... it's an indictment of DC that Obama's obvious stance is actually a sign of "leadership."
• The Left Coaster: "It is relatively specific and goes beyond anything Hillary has ever said, and sounds better thought-out than what Edwards has come up with. It will be a winner with the base and with independents, and will cause problems for Hillary. But screw that; it's the right thing to do."
• MyDD's Matt Stoller: "This is great. Obama isn't just calling for withdrawal, he's introducing legislation to make it happen."
• DailyKos' AdyBarkan: "Obama's introduction today of a bill to end the war in Iraq is not only the best substantive bill he's backed since entering the Senate 2 years ago, it's also by far his best political move since then."

Not everyone was sold on the genuineness of Obama's proposal. The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum first outlines Congress' war powers: "Congress can declare war, it has certain military rulemaking powers, and it can fund and defund a war. But that's it. Like it or not, Congress simply doesn't have the power to manage specific operational aspects of a war."

Drum concludes: "I can't help but get the feeling that this bill is carefully crafted to sound a lot more agressive than it really is. If Obama is serious about getting us out of Iraq, why not include the one thing that everyone agrees is a bulletproof way of accomplishing his goal?"

The Reality Based Community's Mark Kleiman begged to differ: "[I]f I read Obama's statement correctly, he means that it won't reduce funding for troops currently in Iraq; it will forbid adding new ones, and it will mandate a systematic withdrawal by a date certain. Clearly the Congress has the power to limit not only funding but troop levels, and it has the power to order the Pentagon to plan and execute a withdrawal. Congress's inability to control operations in detail stems from its lack of capacity, not any Constitutional limitation. That's the brilliance of the Obama plan: it puts the operational responsibility where it belongs, but it dictates an endpoint."

OBAMA II: Black Like Who?

At The Huffington Post, GMU ass't. prof. Michael Fauntroy looks at "the latest turn in the Barack Obama for president circus ... how well he will do with African American voters." Fauntroy writes: "While the "Black enough" question is silly and can be seen as an insult to African Americans because it suggests that only certain kinds of Blacks can represent other African Americans, the truth is that it may be a legitimate concern for the top tier Democratic candidates. If Obama can't nail down his "base," then he can't be a serious contender."

Fauntroy reminds readers: "This isn't the first time Obama has had to deal with questions about his political-racial purity. During his first run for Congress in 2000, his opponent, incumbent Representative Bobby Rush, employed a well-worn tactic among entrenched Black incumbents: He suggested that his opponent wasn't "Black enough" to represent the voters of the district. Rush won and Obama continued to serve in the state senate."

TAPPED's Mark Schmitt looks back further into Obama's Chicago days. Schmitt links to a '95 Chicago Reader article on Obama's days as a community organizer following first black mayor Harold Washington's tragic death. Schmitt concludes: "Anyone who argues that Obama is somehow not "really" black or properly connected to traditional black politics should try to think of him in the context of post-Washington Chicago. ... We've never had a major political leader who struggled with those challenges -- not just of how to get elected but the more fundamental question of how to make a difference."

Also looking at Obama, Kos links to an Upright Citizen's Brigade video of Obama choosing a campaign poster. It's long, but the Obama character finally settles on: "Barack Obama: the non-threatening well-spoken but with a streetwise edge black guy; his mother's white so he's not black black." The Obama character then adds: "get your bumpersticker today...this will go great on a hybrid...I have a position on that too."

CLINTON: Not Your Average JoeMentum

MyDD's Chris Bowers wants to dissuade readers of any notion that Hillary Clinton's current lead in polls is "a figment of name recognition" similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) lead in similar polls at the same point four years ago. Bowers compares national name recognition and trial heat numbers from 2/03 and 1/07 and concludes: "If you think all other candidates need to do is introduce themselves, then you are just wrong. ... While not insurmountable, Clinton's national lead over everyone not named Obama is far more significant than Lieberman's lead was in early 2003, and as such will be far more difficult for other candidates to overcome."

Also at MyDDMatt Stoller marvels at "the most right-wing candidate" in the field's ability to "manipulat[e] the local press into giving her headlines" like: "Clinton Campaigns Against Troop Surge."

EDWARDS: For Withdrawal Before It Was Cool

Netroot's dissatisfaction with John Edwards foreign policy positioning continues to grow following his 1/22 statement that "All the options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon." A 1/31 Daily Kos diary titled "The Common Thread of Edwards on Iraq" concludes: "I have other reservations about Edwards but right now this is the biggest one: can he take an unpopular opinion and stick to it?"

Following the introduction of Obama's troop withdrawal legislation Team Edwards phoned Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall to make sure the influential blogger knew Edwards had been "calling for complete withdrawal of all combat troops for more than a year."

Pandagon contributor Amanda Marcotte announced 1/30 she will be joining the Edwards campaign. Marcotte explains her choice in candidates: "Two major reasons. ... He's the only candidate that isn't falling for the same tired line about moving to the center and is actually talking about issues that matter, like poverty. ... The other reason I'm joining the campaign is because I think that they really understand the growing importance of the internet in politics."

BROWNBACK: Gone Left

Linking to Politico analysis of GOP unhappiness with the current crop of '08 hope fulls IA's Caucus Cooler takes issue with the suggestion that Sam Brownback could emerge as the "credible conservative alternative." CC comments: "But the problem with Brownback is that he's gone left on the War and already held the pro-amnesty position on immigration."

GIULIANI: Are The Cornerites Changing Horses?

"For what it's worth" the Corner's Rich Lowry shares ex-Rep. Jim Nussle's reasons for supporting Rudy Giuliani, including: "Perfect" has become the enemy of the "good", and we saw that borne out during this past November's elections. ...I have chosen to support Mayor Giuliani because I believe we need to embrace the ideals and the values that unite us. ... Rudy Giuliani is the results Republican our country needs."

Also at the Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez shares pro-Rudy thoughts from a "rare pro-life, Hollywood hawk" following a Los Angeles, CA fundraiser: "When he talks about the war on terror he does so more clearly than anyone I have heard including the President. ... Rudy did an immigration bit that was "to the right of everyone else except maybe Tancredo. He talked about immigration in terms of national security. ... If he says that he would appoint judges of like mind then I think he can skate on the abortion issue because it does come down to the judges."

HUCKABEE: A Few Tools Short Of A Full Skill Set

The Brody File worked the phones to get "reaction within Evangelical circles" on Mike Huckabee. The reviews from one "mover and a shaker" are not encouraging: "Mike is a wonderful guy. I am personally friends with him. Having said that, the nature of the global issues facing the next President are such that a unique skill set is needed. One that includes broad international experience. I am not sure Mike has the experience."

MCCAIN: Not The McCain He Was Hoping For

TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta sites the departure of ex-Howard Dean webmaster Nicco Mele from John McCain's campaign as just the "latest evidence of [McCain's] dwindling bipartisan appeal." Franke-Ruta explains: "Turns out the McCain Mele knew and admired from his pre-Dean Common Cause days wasn't the one running this go-around."

Back in IA, Krusty Konservative explains that the "conservative heartburn" of GOP caucus goers caused by the mere mention of McCain-Feingold or the Gang of 14 has just one solution: Iraq. KK writes: "While everyone seems to be running away from Iraq, McCain is embracing it. ... The media always seems to think that [c]onservative voters are only [c]oncerned with judges, abortion and gay marriage. While those issues are extremely important, they also care about illegal immigration, and national security. In fact, I'd bet that most pro-life, pro-traditional marriage men, also support the war in Iraq."

Sounding a similar note, The Brody File reports a "a very influential social conservative leader in Iowa that has joined the McCain team" tells him McCain plan to win over social conservatives by showing "he's been solidly pro-life, strong on the war on terror and tough on wasteful spending."

ROMNEY: A Buiness Conservative?

Admitting that NRI summit goers needed "more than what they got" from Mitt Romney on Iraq, the Corner'sKathryn Jean Lopez says Romney came off as "a smart business guy who may be conservative." Lopez concludes: "It's going to take some consistent confidently conservative rallying. I (as you might imagine) think he's capable of it - and not just because he's a smart businessman - but time will tell."

Romney's pro-life conversion story also drew Corner attention. One K-Lo reader was not impressed: "I'm a Mormon, so I should be Romney's natural constituency, but that speech just didn't sit well with me. It never came together. It was recipe conservatism, not conviction conservatism. ... The part about his conversion to pro-life causes was particularly unconvincing."

A Rich Lowryreader , however, found Romney's account persuasive: "Pro-lifers greatly enjoy learning about that moment when it clicked for pro-life converts. Each pro-life convert has his or her own story about what it was that caused them to see the light. Governor Romney's account makes perfect sense."

HAGEL: Anti-War First, Or Anti-War Too

Chuck Hagel continues to find few friends on either side of the blogosphere aisle. Kausfiles muses that Hagel "didn't start making quite so much noise about the war until after Sam Brownback came out against the surge, putting Hagel's position as the only 2008 antiwar GOP candidate in jeopardy."

Further to the left, Down With Tyranny says Hagel "is a far right Republican who has rubber stamped virtually every stinking turd the Bush Regime has sent careening down the pike." DWT also reminds readers: "Many have forgotten that Hagel's first senate election was a dress rehearsal for GOP vote theft on a grand scale."

And The Huffington Post's Cenk Uygur wants to know "Who is Chuck Hagel?" although he seems to be pretty sure he knows already: "He voted for the Military Commissions Act that stripped legal residents and very possibly all United States citizens of habeas corpus rights, allowed for secret trials that do not conform to our military code of justice and let the president define torture. The worst bill for civil liberties in our lifetimes."

IRAQ: Locking Up The Benchmarks

A 1/26 NBC Nightly news segment on troops in Iraq saying they are "increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war" is on virtually every righty blog the Blogometer covers. RedState has the video at the top of every blog post under the header: "Senator Hagel Needs To Watch This (So Do You)." RS's California Yankee writes: "NBC reports on how some troops react to criticism of the war. I can't fault their logic when they complain that you can't support the troops if you don't support the mission."

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner "understand[s] the frustrations" of young soldiers but offers a minority opinion on the right: "Some wars are controversial and it's a vital part of our political process that debate not be stifled."

At Townhall, Hugh Hewitt is still smarting over GOP insistence on benchmarks for Iraq. Hewitt writes: "The Congressional Republicans' demand for "benchmarks" is becoming the GOP's equivalent of Al Gore's demand years ago for "lockboxes," --an empty term originally intended to convey seriousness of purpose while disguising empty policy prescriptions, but which, by the sheer implausibility of the pose, became a term attracting deserved disdain."

Fellow TownhallerMatt Lewis responds: "But it is important to distinguish between Sen. John McCain's proposed resolution and the proposals of Sens. Biden and Warner. In fact, McCain's draft resolution is a powerful defense of the surge. ... I wonder what Hugh would make of the fact that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney advocated for benchmarks and a timeline on the Northern Alliance Radio Network just this weekend."

IRAN: Bogus Or Belli?

Captain's Quarters notes CNNcoverage of possible Iran involvement in the recent attack on U.S. forces in Karbala and comments: "What happens if the US concludes that Iran did indeed conduct this mission against American servicemen? It would be an act of war ... The Bush administration might be tempted to retaliate with some air strikes, perhaps selected especially for the nuclear program Iran seems keen to pursue at all costs."

Earlier Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall asked: "When the bogus 'Iran incident' happens that becomes the predicate for a military attack on Iran, what will it look like?" Later linking to the same CNN item, Marshall adds: "[E]ven our feeble knowledge here at TPM is enough to tell us that when we start hearing catch-alls like 'Iranian-trained' for anything that happened in southern Iraq, we're dealing with meaninglessly vague words meant to bamboozle and hoodwink. Remember too this incident occurred in Karbala, where the Badr Brigade is headquartered."

In related news, TPMmuckraker posts Sen. Jim Webb's (D-VA) 1/29 letter to Sec/State Condoleeza Rice asking for a 'yes' or 'no' answer to his 1/11 Senate For. Rel. Cmt. question to her: "Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take unilateral action against Iran, in the absence of a direct threat, without congressional approval?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: He Who Builds On The People, Builds On The Mud

Under the header "Electorate Hungry For Vague Aphorisms" MyDD's Chris Bowers links to Pew polling showing "between 46% and 67% of the electorate wants politicians who both "are willing to compromise" and "are willing to stick with positions, even if unpopular." Bowers comments:

Huge percentages of the country also want to see compromise in general, but don't want to see compromise on specific issues. The next time the public doesn't like someone because s/he or is a "flip flopper," perhaps they should look themselves in the mirror. More importantly, the next time a pundit or reporter states that the country is looking for compromise and bipartisanship, they should note that the country doesn't know what exactly it wants compromise on, and that they also like leaders who stand on principle.

LEST WE FORGET: Probably Not The Only Consultant Who's Had Similar Thoughts

Dem consultant Garry South stopped by Calitics to respond to blogger Brian Leubitz suggestion that '08 Dem hopefuls should avoid the veteran strategist. South writes:

Your rantings and ravings are those of a petulant child and a political zealot, Brian. I see you were at the Berkeley Seminar but didn't have the cojones to come up and introduce yourself and confront me with your fantastical charges during the entire two days. I guess you prefer to slink around and hide behind the Internet.

Here's my final word: When you have actually run and won a campaign electing a Democrat to any office at any level, instead of just sitting at your computer composing bile and bilge and hitting "send," come back and talk to me. Until then, you can kiss my . . . baby.