April 30, 2007

4/30: A Study In Contrast

Hillary Clinton may currently lead in recent CA polls, bit if the crowds at the CDP convention in San Diego, CA, are any indication, that will eventually change. The blogger coverage ofn the CDP offered up a rare glimpse of more establishement versus netroots takes on the campaign as the more established poltical operatives at California Majority Report (e.g. ex-Gray Davis aide Jason Kinney and CA Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez dep CoS Steven Maviglio) blogged alongside the less experienced Calitics crew. The CMR bloggers were much more skeptical of Obama (noting, more than once, his decision not to face reporters), but both groups noted that the record attendance at the convo was decidedly pro-Obama.

CDP CONVO: WH Edition

According to The California Majority Report "a tremendous surge in energy and enthusiasm" among CA Dems led to an "all-time delegate attendance record" with "2,264 of the 2,801 CDP delegates registered" showing up in sunny San Diego, CA, for the 4/28, 4/29 proceedings. CMR hosted an online straw poll asking "Which prez candidate gave the best performance at Convention?" and Barack Obama was the run away winner:

Barack Obama      35%
John Edwards      27%
Hillary Clinton   14%
Bill Richardson   11%
Dennis Kucinich    6%
Chris Dodd         4%
Mike Gravel        3%

CMR's Jason Kinney filed a typical post reporting strong HRC organizational strength but also plenty of true Obama love: "Clinton exceeded expectations by attracting a strong outpouring of delegate support. Obama's love was a virtual flood. His army of floor volunteers outnumbered Clinton's the way the Persians outnumbered the 300, the way Woodstock outnumbers a local poetry slam. Our intrepid camera-toting team was given an exclusive heads-up about Obama's entry point on the floor, was perfectly positioned and alone in greeting him, then was immediately stempeded by Obama-worshipping delegates."

CDP CLINTON: Tepid At Best

The netroots may like Hillary Clinton more than Joe Lieberman, but they're not in love with her either. Reactions to Clinton's performance include:

• Calitics' Todd Beeton: "while there was some excitement on the floor in anticipation of Hillary's speech, mostly among young women, there was very little as she was actually speaking. ... You sort of get the sense that she's written off a certain segment of the Democratic primary electorate and she made no effort to win them over today."
• Dday at Calitics: "Hillary's speech was going fine, IMO, until she got to Iraq. Then she lost the crowd ... I can't tell you how many delegates I saw yelling "Impeach Bush! Impeach Cheney!" and then holding up their Hillary signs. I don't think her support is as soft as the netroots think."
• Calitics' jra: "I hate to say this, but seeing Hillary up on the big screen at the CDP convention is totally giving me flashbacks to the now infamous 1984 parody ad. ... I say this not to be mean, but just to marvel at the impact of this new media environment. ... So far I am not wowed by Hillary's speech, and I would say the reaction of the crowd is tepid at best."
• Blogswarm at Calitics: "Senator Hillary devoted barely any time to Iraq in her CDP Convention speech. She didn't admit she made a mistake, even though she had the perfect opportunity. Really, I'm shocked by what she didn't say. ... When she finally mentioned Iraq, she lost the crowd. I really don't see how she can campaign in this environment without admitting her mistake."

CDP DODD: Not Obama

CaliticsLucas O'Connor describes the scene as Chris Dodd took the stage 4/28: "Way different than Clinton and Obama. No tour through the crowd, just straight from the wings to the mic. I don't think anyone even really listened to the intro that Torres just gave him. Everyone's still coming down from Obama...tough draw for Chris Dodd."

Dodd also sat down for a bloggers interview. California Majority Report's Matt Jones found him to be an "amazingly good listener" and "a genuinely compassionate man." Dday at Calitics was also there and shared Dodd's thoughts on how to break through the "Hillack Clintobama.." A summary of Dodd:

Dodd believes in an almost architectural way to build an organization, by making the underlying structure solid. Iowa and Nevada, he said, are all about organization; getting people to stay in caucuses for two hours and horse trade with their neighbors requires it. And in New Hampshire, he's a fellow New Englander. His crowds are "decent-sized". And people seem to have an "amnesia about the last election," where Kerry's organization in Iowa was solid enough to help him win that race.

CDP EDWARDS: Also Not Obama

CaliticsJohn Beeton liveblogged John Edwards 4/29 address, commenting: "As you might expect for a Sunday at 10am time slot, the crowds and energy that accompanied Obama to the stage are not present for Edwards, but it also allows him to work the delegate crowd as Barack was not able to. He just took the stage and he's being greeted by a standing ovation. This place loves this guy."

Also at Calitics, Lucas O'Connor says the tone of Edwards post speech presser "was completely different" than HRC's 4/28 and shares Edwards position on immigration: "spoke briefly of earned citizenship for illegal immigrants with a fine and english language requirement."

CDP OBAMA: Magic

California Majority Report's Dave Rand argues that "while Hillary won the key endorsements, and probably displayed a more disciplined campaign operation, from where I was sitting, it was Obama that generated the most enthusiasm." Obama generated by far the most enthusiasm from where the Blogometer sits as well:

• Caliticsatdleft: "Yesterday, something amazing happened. Barack Obama came to speak at the convention, and I was able to see him up close. ... And I saw the magic of Obama right there, as all of us were mesmerized and blown away.
• CaliticsLucas O'Connor: "Obama's taking the stage now, and the reception is way different than when Hillary hit the floor this morning. Hillary had her supporters in place for her entrance, but folks are in full sprint to get a picture of Senator Obama. This is what genuine enthusiasm looks and sounds like."
• unidentified young woman as reporters by Calitics' jra: "Oh my God! I shook his hand! I'm never washing this hand again!"

Some more establishment bloggers weren't as bowled over. CA Ass. Speaker Fabian Nunez Dep. COS Steven Maviglio writes at California Majority Report: "While the "Best Convention Speech" award goes to Senator Barack Obama, there was plenty of grumbling among the press corps about the Senator's failure to put himself in the shark tank with reporters while he was at the convention. As noted here, every other candidate was open and available for a grilling by the press. Not Obama. His handlers kept him at bay. The protectionism of Obama seems to being done for one reason: his handlers don't want him to slip up, be forced to talk detail, or take away what he says in his impressive stump speech."

CDP RICHARDSON: For A Passenger's Bill Of Rights, By The Way

Bill Richardson sat down for a group session with bloggers 4/28. Calitics' Hekebolos "transcript of sorts" includes this give and take:

• Blogger: 49% of Californians feel they're falling behind. How would you address that feeling?
• Richardson: I believe we have to have policies - I was on an airplane, and by the way, we need a passenger's bill of rights. But I'm sitting with this woman, and she said that she was in the middle class and felt like she was paying for both the poor and the rich. What I'd do is use the tax code to reward companies that create jobs. I'd raise the minimum wage. 'd focus on California's strengths.

DEM FIELD: Dems Are All A Like Except When They're Not

MyDD's Chris Bowers tracks recent polling and comments: "There simply no longer appears to be any regional blocks to speak of in the Democratic Party. Sure, there are slight differences, but we are only talking about 5-10% at most. Even among demographic groups in the party, with few exceptions Pew's recent poll showed the difference among those groups was under 10%. The entire list of "very few" exceptions includes: regular blog readers (pro-Edwards and Obama), conservative Democrats (pro-Clinton), African-Americans (anti-Edwards), Dems under thirty (pro-Obama), those who never attended college (pro-Clinton), those with incomes over $100,000 (pro-Obama), those with incomes under $30,000 (pro-Clinton), and seculars (pro-Obama, anti-Clinton)."

Also commenting on the field, MyDD's Jerome Armstrong reviews candidate netroots outreach including: "There's nothing happening in the way of outreach to Democratic-leaning blogs on Barack Obama's website that I can see. Nothing. It's a neat closed-walled website out of 2003 with fancier appliances. ... I know there are Obama fans here who feel the need to come in defense of their candidate. That's fine. I find his non-existent online outreach strategy very pre-2003, and you are free to defend it. Just don't mimic the latest about how Obama is the new Reagan, because the latter knew how to work with his base." Later Armstrong seems to retract based on evidence that Obama has embraced Twitter.

CLINTON: Weak In The Wrong States?

Moving on from his "Inflated Poll Theory" hobby horse, MyDD's Chris Bowers identifies some new Hillary Clinton stories evident in recent polling:

• Clinton has a northeast base: There are nine states were multiple polls have shown Clinton ahead by an average of more than double digit margins since the start of February ... Six of these states are in the northeast, and one of them, Florida, has a large northeast emigre population. Clearly, Clinton's strength is to be found in the northeast.
• Home states: There are four states with multiple polls since the beginning of February where Clinton is trailing: Illinois (to Obama), Iowa (to Edwards), New Mexico (to Richardson) and North Carolina (to Edwards). All but one, Iowa, is a homestate for one of Clinton's main competitors.
• Early States: The other area where Clinton is somewhat weaker is generally found in early states. In addition to the four states where she trails, multiple polls have shown a single-digit race in five states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Back in one of those early states, Reno and Its DiscontentsMyrna Minx reports from HRC's 4/29 town hall in Reno, NV: "If I had to choose one word to describe Clinton's town hall in Reno this morning, I would choose "impressive"-surprisingly so. ... The town hall is clearly her best venue-she can show off her confident presence, her obvious intelligence, the with and breadth of her political experience, her eloquence, and her attractiveness. Yes, that's right, Hillary looked absolutely fabulous in a green suit that just happened to match Hug High School's colors."

Down in Texas, The Burnt Orange Report's Todd Hill notes that Clinton secured 54% of the vote in a Tarrant County Dem beans and cornbread straw poll fundraiser 4/26. Hill comments: "That's kind of surprising to me only because the most visible grassroots organization in the county is Barack Obama's, but none the less, impressive for Clinton."

DODD: A Better Half

Jackie Dodd won some fans with her comments prior to 4/27's JJ Dinner in Columbia, SC. SC '08 writes: "Chris Dodd only spoke briefly, but upon his departure his wife Jackie addressed the crowd more at length. Her comments really put the race in perspective from her family's point of view, and explained why she thought her husband would make a great president. No canned one-liners, no written remarks and no podium."

EDWARDS: Consensus Departer

MyDD's Matt Stoller congratulates himself for being the first blogger "to note the importance of Edwards not raising his hand when asked whether there is a Global War on Terror" and adds: "For a major candidate, this is a very significant departure from the bipartisan consensus, and I only wish that Edwards had noted it with more than a raised hand. Indeed it's going to be tough for him to escape his answer, so he should embrace it."

MyDD's Nuevo Liberal responds by citing some past Edwards comments and commenting: "While the current version of Edwards ("Edwards 3.x") is apparently exciting to many in the blogosphere, it turns out that the former avatar of Edwards ("Edwards 2.x") was, as with the war, at the forefront of championing the GOP/neocon frame, "GWOT"."

Also at MyDD, Peter from WI makes the case that Edwards is the only candidate in the field who can carry on Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy in '08: "Clearly, John Edwards has thrown down the gauntlet to other candidates and declared that he will campaign for the hearts, minds, and votes of citizens in places outside the friendly confines of the 'blue' states and 'swing' states."

RICHARDSON: Rocket Man

Instapundit links to news of the first successful launch at a commercial spaceport in NM and comments: "Bill Richardson deserves a spot of credit, too, as he's been good about pushing the New Mexico spaceport."

GOP FIELD: Thompson's For The Taking?

GOP Bloggers is in the middle of their April straw poll. With 5461 ballots cast Fred Thompson is blowing away the field with 55% of the vote.

Back in IA, Krusty Konservative has ranked the GOP IA staffs from worst to first: 1. John McCain; 2. Mitt Romney; 3. Tommy Thompson; 4. Holding for Fred Thompson (I'm not joking. If/when Fred Thompson jumps in the race I'm confident that he will be able to put together a solid staff.); 5a. Tom Tancredo; 5b. Rudy Giuliani; 5c. Sam Brownback; 8. Mike Huckabee.

KK also comments on Giuliani's latest internal polling: "I can already tell you what Rudy's phone surveys will tell him. The majority of past caucus goers are pro life, a third are planning to attend the Straw Poll, and most haven't made up their mind on which they are going to support. If Giuliani wants to take Iowa seriously he should stop making stupid phone calls and put together a top notch staff in the state. Until he does that, Rudy has no chance in Iowa."

MCCAIN: Non-Cheerleaders Not Welcome?

Power Line's John Hinderaker reports on a 4/27 John McCain blogger conference call: "McCain takes generally solid positions on domestic issues, but for the most part, he doesn't seem to want to distinguish himself on those issues. ... I infer from this that McCain will rest his case for the Presidency on foreign policy. On domestic issues, it seems that he will take a consistently conservative line (with the notable exception of campaign finance and maybe one or two other issues), but he won't make a serious effort to distinguish himself from the other candidates on those points."

At Townhall, Dean Barnett makes the case against his exclusion from the call: "One of McCain's liabilities the past few years has been his tendency to cozy up exclusively to "friendlies" in the media. I think this habit caused his "fighting back" muscles to atrophy, and is one of the main reasons why his campaign hasn't excelled at bailing since it began taking on water. ... In other words, the McCain campaign would do well to reach out to people who haven't pre-qualified themselves as cheerleaders."

At The Corner, Andy McCarthy notes McCain's 4/29 disavowal of torture on Fox News and then reminds readers that in '05 McCain admitted "extreme measures," could be justified in a ticking bomb scenario but that no written exception should be adopted. McCarthy concludes: "That is a perfectly respectable position. ... But, it is just plain bluster to argue, as McCain continues to insist, that coercion never works and he doesn't care what anyone else says. As his answer on the ticking-bomb demonstrates, even he doesn't believe that."

THOMPSON: Loves Football

A YouTube of a Fred Thompson rally hosted by Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) is making conservativeblog rounds . Instapundit shares reader email: "It was filmed and edited by my fifteen year old Grandson, Matthew Matheson. I was late in picking him up so he missed the first part of the rally. He makes and designs web sites and has all the latest technology and software to work with. He is young, but very good. Who knows? He might start making political commercials for the candidates."

And Thompson's Paul Harvey commentary on the "decidedly political turn" player personnel decision have taken in the NFL is up at NRO.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: No Danke Schoen

Dem pollster Doug Schoen is having a rough day in the blogosphere thanks to some unstudied blog outreach and a recent health care op-ed. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas posts the entire text of an email promoting Schoen's new book "The Power of the Vote" and comments: "These people are obviously so freakin' stupid that they've never heard of setting up a diary on Daily Kos. But beyond that, these morons think that blogs sit around pining for "guest blogs" by tired Liebercrats like Doug Schoen. They think people outside of their DC cocktail party circuit give a shit about then. It's so pathetic it's hilarious."

MyDD's Chris Bowers piles on: "I received exactly the same email Markos posted on Dailykos, word for word ... It is so utterly out of touch with the world of the blogosphere that it is hard to fathom. ... I emailed the guy back, linking to a recent article I wrote ripping Doug Schoen ... I received an email back explaining that Schoen was not exactly blog savvy or something, and needed help in that regard. Yeah, no kidding."

Ezra Klein hits Schoen for an RCP post titled A Healthcare Agenda for America: "It's almost a parody of the pernicious Democratic consultant. There's no core convictions, no policy preferences, no belief in Democratic ideas, no thoughts about how to lead public opinion, a fetish for bipartisanship, a willingness to ignore the ongoing sins of the Republicans and abandon popular progressive legislation, and an attempt to convince the Democratic Party that it's actual position is weaker than it is and compromise must start now. ... This is very genuinely one of the worst opinion pieces I've ever encountered."

MyDD's Matt Stoller helps Ezra out: "Schoen is a paid contributor to Fox News, and didn't disclose it in his interview when he was on the radio bashing Moveon during the Fox News/Nevada Democratic Party scuffle. Oh, and both the way, he's done a lot of work for pharma, and tends not to disclose it in editorial pieces unless pushed very hard. Schoen was a very important pollster in the 1990s, business partners with Hillary Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn until fairly recently. People like him are the reason the party is so messed up."

And speaking of Penn, Matthew Yglesias comments on WaPo's A1 profile: "To make a long story short, though, if you think the problem with the Democratic Party is that it's insufficiently inclined to support wars, you'll like Mark Penn. If you think the Party is insufficiently friendly to the interests of major corporations and wealthy individuals, you'll like Mark Penn."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's The Message, Stupid

Atrios links to Bill Moyers segments with TPM's Josh Marshall and Comedy Central's Jon Stewart and comments:

Left of center blogs filled various connected vacuums which were created by a triangulating-against-itself-Democratic party, a media with a "no liberals on TV or radio" rule, and the post-9/11 media prostration to the Bush administration and its complete abdication of its responsibility with respect to the Iraq war, all of which followed its campaign 2000 prostration to the Bush candidacy. Overall what blogs have been able to do is create an unfolding political narrative which has been largely absent elsewhere. Sometimes it's about emphasizing different things, sometimes it's about combating DC conventional wisdom, sometimes it's about highlighting things which are being ignored. But taken all together it's about telling the story of politics in a different way.

While there are other elements - fundraising, various types of activism, etc... - day to day the power of the blogosphere is that it offers up a competing version of political reality, in opposition to the Russert/Matthews/Dowd version and in opposition to the Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox News/Heritage Foundation version.

LEST WE FORGET: Jobs Americans Won't Do

The Corner's Mark Steyn critiques ex-Dep. Sec. State Randall Tobias "no sex involved ... is now using another firm that uses 'Central Americans'" response to the burgeoning DC Madam story: "When your government career self-detonates, it's best to stick to the old line about resigning in order to spend more time with your family rather than resigning in order to spend more time with a brand new escort service."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:38 PM

April 27, 2007

4/27: An Odd Couple

If you had Hillary Clinton and Mike Gravel in your office's debate pool on "who will improve their netroots standing the best" well, congrats ... we sure didn't. Simply by showing up sans horns and pitch fork, HRC impressed bloggers with her toughness and smarts. Meanwhile Gravel stole the show from traditional netroots favs Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson by serving up the most vocal and progressive foreign policy vision. While Gravel's new online fans uniformly admit he has no chance, could Orangeburg be the beginning of a thaw in netroots coolness to HRC?

SC DEBATE: Gravel, Clinton Up - Edwards, Richardson Down

Daily Kos hosted a "Who won the debate, if anyone?" straw poll:

Biden      3 %
Clinton   12 %
Dodd       1 %
Edwards   18 %
Gravel    10 %
Kucinich   4 %
Obama     17 %
Richardson 5 %

Laura at Blue Hampshire compares regular dKos straw polls to 4/46 debate winner straw poll to tease out who really benefitted from the Orangburg debate: "if we compare tonight's debate poll with the regular straw polls, Hillary Clinton and Mike Gravel emerge as the major winners, going up by 9 and 10 points, respectively. ... Edwards, the consistent winner in the regular Daily Kos straw polls, was a loser in this debate, garnering only 19% as opposed to his recent 42%, and Richardson also slid substantially. Aside from Richardson, all of the lower-tier candidates improved on their straw poll performances - Gravel most notably but Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich as well."

The highlight of the night for many was the exchange between Gravel and Obama on Iran. Crooks and LiarsLogan Murphy posts video of the moment and comments: "Senator Barack Obama was asked a question about global warming and when his answer strayed into the area of terrorism, Dennis Kucinich took the opportunity to challenge Obama on a past statement that nothing was off the table when it came to Iran. Not one to pull any punches, Mike Gravel wasted no time in making his views on Iran crystal clear." A highly rated comment on Daily Kos reads: "Gravel and Kucinich are helping to move the goalposts. Kucinich and Gravel speak truth to power..."

TAPPED's Sam Rosenfeld argued Gravel and Kucinich served a different purpose: "I think it was obvious, by the way all the other candidates repeatedly jumped at the chance to change whatever the subject was at hand and readdress remarks about terrorism and the use of force made by Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, that they considered those two candidates to be invaluable tools for "see, we're not like that" differentiation. Everyone could make the easy points about being against this war, not all wars always, reiterating the seriousness of the threat of transnational terrorism and the legitimacy of force in the face of real threats, etc."

CLINTON DEBATE: Not The Devil After All

• Daily Kos' OneCharmingBastard: "Man, she's tough as f***ing nails and smart as a whip - as much as it pains me to say it, she'd be one amazing President.
• Daily Kos' WhyWhat: "Hillary is not the Devil some of Kossacks make her out to be."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Okay. Still doing a public speech rather than speaking to the public."

DODD DEBATE: Exceeding Expectations

• Daily Kos' teacherken: "The one who in my mind has done the best job of exceeding expectations is Dodd, although I don't think it does him any good."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Damn impressive. The only one who hits me as presidential this evening. Speaks well. Knows his stuff. Sincere."
• Daily Kos' klnb: "I am more and more impressed with Senator Dodd. He's smart - he's well-spoken - and he's ... uh... smart."

EDWARDS DEBATE: If He Did So Well, Then Why The Bad Debate Polling?

• Daily Kos' LNK: "A+ to Edwards for mentioning next generation who are being wooed by the terrorists....That we should use more tools than bombs....Bring next generation who are on the fence, bring them over to our side."
• The Blue State: "John Edwards wins first debate. John Edwards - Most straight-forward in his answers. Clearly came off the best. He had a lot riding on this debate, and came up big."
• Daily Kos' Georgia10: "I also LOVED Edwards' line about asking the American people to be patriotic about something other than war. Brilliant."
• MyDD's Benstrader: "I have no problem with Edwards's pause and saying he couldn't think of one person, but then his response was "My Lord" and with a shrug. I think it was a bad question, but it was a softball, and he could have knocked it out of the park and said his wife for the courage and conviction she has shown in absolutely tragic times."
• MyDD's David Mizner: "Edwards gave the best answers--"we need weapons other than bombs"--but his delivery could have been sharper, more energetic. He needs to bring some of his stump energy into the debates. And I'm pretty sure he didn't raise his hand when asked if he believed there's a global war on terror--that shocked and pleased me."

GRAVEL DEBATE: Give 'Em Zell!

• MyDD's Winston Smith: "Winner is Gravel. Winning for him is relative, of course, since he is struggling to break into the third tier. He might have been able to do so tonight. We'll see if he breaks out of the 0% margin of error."
• Daily Kos' Frandor55: "Gravel To Be Guest On Daily Show? ... Stewart has to get this guy. He is entertaining.
• MyDD's Fitzy: "But, while I agreed with a lot of what he said, he came across as a progressive Zell Miller. ... But for calling himself an "elder statesman," he came across more like the old lady that writes long, rambling letters to the editor every day.
• The Plank's Michael Crowley: "Mike Gravel, doing his earnest best to destroy the Democratic party's image. Can't someone intervene to get him out of future debates?"

OBAMA DEBATE: Better At Set Pieces

• MyDD's littafi: "I thought Obama and Richardson were trying to sound hawkish."
• MyDD's adamterando: "As far as Obama. I really didn't like his response about Iran. To me it felt like September 2002 all over again when he said we know that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. Do we really know that or are we being fed a line again because a bunch of hawks want to go to war?"
• Lane Hudson at The Huffington Post: "Most people probably wondered why he was engaging the crazy guy from Alaska. Obama also maintained the status quo. ... He was not able to connect real policy proposals with his gifted transformational speaking style.
• Daily Kos' teacherken: "Obama not as a effective as it is hearing him in person, or when he gives a set speech."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Looks young, too young. Doesn't sound very comfortable."
• Blue Hampshire's Laura: "Obama didn't need this as badly, but I at least was left with the sense that he should have been better prepared, not for the subject matter but for the form. However, he distinguished himself on a few answers, as when he called out Brian Williams' use of an out-of-context quote about Palestinians - he responded firmly and with great control."

RICHARDSON DEBATE: Swing And A Miss

• MyDD's nevadadem: "Richardson clearly lost, any idea of him getting traction in the blogosphere war really shot down I thought."
• TAPPED's Scott Lemieux: "I like Bill Richardson, and hope that he becomes a viable candidate in the primary. But his choice of "Whizzer White" as his ideal Supreme Court Justice in tonight's debate is...odd. Myself, I would prefer a justice who was on the right side of (just for starters) Roe, Miranda, and Bowers."
• MyDD's Fitzy: "Bill Richardson disappointed me tonight. I still like him a lot, and he's got the best resume in America. But with his experience and his knowledge, I honestly expected him to run circles around everyone else with policy questions."

DEM FIELD: The Young, Rich, And Educated Love Obama

Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal emailed Pew's analysts for crosstabs that could help shed light on Chris Bowers' Clinton Inflated Poll Theory and writes and the chart he received back:

Two findings stand out: Among Democrats, Barack Obama gets a higher percent of the vote (27%) among those paying a lot of attention or paying some attention (28%) than among those paying little or no attention (19%). ... So what do these results say about Chris Bowers' theory that national polls are overstating Hillary Clinton's lead? The evidence here is mixed, at best. Obama certainly does better among more attentive voters, although that finding is not particularly surprising given his rapidly growing name recognition in recent months. However, Clinton also does better among the most attentive Democrats. Thus, her margin over Obama among those who pay "a lot" of attention (11 points in the combined March/April data) is actually a few statistically insignificant points higher than her margin among all Democrats (9 points in March, 10 points in April).

Bowers was also all over the Pew poll at MyDD: "First, it is useful to note that Clinton's advantage over Obama among liberal and moderates is negligible, but her edge among conservatives is enormous. Second, Obama holds a gaping lead among seculars--and even Edwards is tied with Clinton among seculars--but Clinton holds the edge among all other religious demographics. Many of the other patterns we have seen are also replicated here: younger voters, wealthier voters, highly educated voters, and male voters all skew toward Obama much more heavily than do other demographics. There clearly seems to be a cultural and class based divide between Clinton and Obama supporters, at least right now."

DODD: Leading the Way

Chris Dodd Blog Outreach Coordinator Tim Tagaris promoted Dodd's campaign war room at MyDD where anybody could ask Dodd questions in real time directly from the SCSU debate. TechPresident's Joshua Levy comments: "Tim - you guys are leading the way on this. I think the other candidates will have to follow suit."

EDWARDS: We Think Armando Wants Him To Endorse Reid-Feingold Or Something

John Edwards followed up his debate performance with a diary at Daily Kos on "The Question I Wasn't Asked." Edwards goes on tell Kossacks "What should we be doing - right now - to end the war in Iraq?" From Edwards:

Both houses of Congress have now passed funding bills that reflect the will of the American people that we must end the war in Iraq. ... With so much at stake, Congress must stand firm. ... If Bush vetoes the funding for our troops, Congress must send the same bill back to the president -- and they should do this again and again--as many times as it takes for Bush to understand that the American people are right and the war must be brought to an end.

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat responds: "Mr. Edwards seems to believe this bill ends the Debacle. It simply does not. The March 31, 2008 date is advisory, not mandatory. I repeat, it does not end the Debacle. ... The goals of Reid-Feingold, announcing a date certain for not funding the Debacle, is the way to end the war. Edwards does not mention Reid-Feingold in his statement. I must say that what this appears to be is a political play from Edwards to put his rivals on the spot. It may be smart Presidential politics but I find it wrong. I think less of Edwards today.

OBAMA: The Meta Campaigner

While Barack Obama's debate performance may not have wowed, his pre-debate pronouncement on the Iraq supplemental definitely did. TPM's Greg Sargent quotes Obama: "We are one signature away from ending the Iraq War." Turneresq at Daily Kos responds: "Barack Obama comes with a great frame (which I hope he repeats tonight) with respect to putting the pressure (and responsibility) on Bush, should he decide to veto this bill. ... Use that quote again and again Sen. Obama. The frame is absolutely perfect for you to use. This should be the first sentence out of your mouth tonight at the debate. Believe me, the mileage you will get out of it will be great."

Meanwhile, TAPPED's Ezra Klein has thoughts on David Brooks recent Obama item: "Brooks's concrete insight here is a good one: As my colleague Garance has noted, Obama has a tendency to lapse into "meta" campaigning, wherein he spends his time on the podium talking about the experience of campaigning and the practice of politics rather than whatever his ostensible subject is. This can, at times, lead to trenchant insights, and at others, obscure his actual thoughts on the topic at hand. It's worth keeping an eye on."

BROWNBACK: All The Cool Kids Are Doing It

The Corner's John DerbyshirenotedSam Brownback recent "reversal reversal on that atrocious Senate immigration bill" and comments: "Out on the stump, these guys-who thought about immigration for about ten minutes total in the previous 60 years of their lives-are getting an earful from conservative voters. I can't believe how far the issue has come in just a couple of years. Even birthright citizenship is in play."

GINGRICH: Newt, Unplugged

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham posts video of a Newt Gingrich Heritage Foundation speech in Philadelphia, PA, and comments: "Newt gets raw on the Republican Majority, all the '08 candidates, and the federal government." From the video: "The GOP lost in '06 because we earned it. ... To pretend that the current AG should stay in office beyond noon tomorrow is to betray the nation."

GIULIANI: Is Rudy The New Mitt?

Rudy Giuliani is taking heat from more libertarian minded conservatives for his stated opposition to NH's recently passed civil union law. NY Sun's Ryan Sager calls it "a shocking departure from his previously stated position" and Race 4 '08s DaveG writes: "Team Rudy should never begin to think that the answer to liberal views on abortion is a hardline agenda on gay issues. Such a move will only turn off gay-friendly libertarian-conservatives and moderates while doing little to move pro-life social conservatives."

Andrew Sullivan adds: "That's from the New York Sun. So he was in favor of ending the discrimination by civil unions before - and he isn't now. Romney isn't the only flip-flopper, is he?"

Also tracking Giuliani evolution, The Brody File excerpts Life News coverage of Giuliani on partial birth abortion including: "Giuliani insisted that his recent support for the partial-birth abortion ban and the high court's ruling upholding it was consistent with his past opposition to the ban. ... He said he shifted his position on the ban when lawmakers adopted "more scientific language" in the life of the mother provision in the bill in 2003." Brody adds: "You can read more here but let's just cut to the chase. Giuliani has "evolved" on partial birth abortion just like other candidates on other issues."

MCCAIN: McCain-Lieberman Much More Likely Than Kerry-McCain Ever Was

The Corner's Larry Kudlow promotes an upcoming interview with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) with this nugget: "One question I asked Mr. Lieberman was whether he's ready to switch parties yet? Whether that might be an effective action to help win the war? He gave a very interesting response to that question and he left the door open to supporting Sen. John "Backbone" McCain for President."

Also, RCP Blog's Tom Bevan posts a screen capture of a McCain "Surrender Is Not An Option" banner ad at Daily Kos and writes: "I'm afraid John McCain won't be getting any signatures for his petition from this advertisement."

ROMNEY: Looking To Represent A New Constituency

Mitt Romney received praise for his attacks on Dem '08ers refusal to debate on Fox News. RCP Blog's Tom Bevan writes: "Why other Republican candidates didn't jump on this angle right away is beyond me, because in addition to being obvious and true, it plays well with the base on a number of levels." Race 4 '08s Jason adds: "Yes the Demo's are wimps, we saw it last night. Actually last night seemed like a game of softball."

At The Brody File, readers defend Romney after Brody posted past quotes from Mitt on his support of Hate Crime legislation:

• I am not completely happy w/Romney, but I think he's the most electable of the current crop of nominatable republicans. I am somewhat concerned about his past statements too, but am more and more convinced of his sincerity.
• If you want to know what a true believer in Christ believes, you ask the believer, not their detractors. In this case, many have misinterpreted or miscast Governor Romney's positions on Gay/Lesbian Rights. He is an advocate for all Americans, seeking to eliminate discrimination of any kind.
• We shouldn't concern ourselves so much with what someone said in the past as what his current comments and pledges to us are. Keep in mind when you delve into Mitt Romney's political past that he had to represent a different constituency then.

IRAQ: Victory Defined

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) took to Daily Kos 4/26 to defend Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) from attacks over his recent "this war is lost" comments. Kerry writes: "They're at it again. When I came here to Daily Kos and supported Speaker Pelosi when she was attacked by the right-in, I said, "They thrive on destroying our leaders - we can't let them." I take no pride in my prognostication. Now they're going after my friend and Majority Leader Harry Reid. And once again, it's up to us to defend him."

At RedState, California Yankee continues the right's attack on Reid by noting recent Harris Poll data showing VP Cheney's 25% approval rating is higher than Reid's 22%. CY comments: "The WSJ noted that this was the first time since this polling series began that all of the political figures and institutions included in the survey received negative performance ratings. Speaker Pelosi saw her approval rating fall to 30 percent in April from 38% in February, shortly after she was sworn in."

Also in Iraq blogging, Crooks & Liars posts Americans United for Change's new ad that will run "this weekend in DC in response to Bush's threatened veto."

And from Iraq, RedState's Jeff Emanuel posts a photo of a placard in Rear Admiral Fox's office on the desired "End State" for Iraq. The sign reads:

Iraq at peace with its neighbors with a representative government that respects the human rights of all Iraqis and a security force sufficient to maintain domestic order and to deny Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists.

Emanuel comments: "So this is what "victory" in Iraq looks like. ... So, how realistic is it? That's a good question - the only consensus appears to be the fact that what is needed most, beyond what is being done, is more time. Unfortunately, thanks to the political cycle, this is precisely what we do not have.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Couldn't Dean Have Coordinated Something Here?

Instapundit whacks the Dem Field over an APitem reporting: "A flock of small jets took flight from Washington Thursday, each carrying a Democratic presidential candidate to South Carolina for the first debate of the political season. ... No one jet pooled, no one took commercial flights to save money, fuel or emissions." Instapundit comments: "Couldn't they have "jet pooled" to cut down on carbon emissions? Or, you know, flown commercial with the hoi polloi? "

LEST WE FORGET: He Says Crappy Music And Shallow Materialism Like It's A Bad Thing

After John Derbyshire started a disco fever debate with his thoughts on Saturday Night Fever, Jonah Goldberg shares this reader thought on the era:

Your reader who "grew up with an entire neighborhood of Tony Maneros" is right on the money. There was a huge cultural backlash, at least in NYC, to SNF and the "disco culture" in general. One of the biggest reasons, besides the crappy music and the shallow materialism of the designer jeans crowd, was that the rush to disco practically wiped out live music in small venues. Once upon a time every bar and grill had a decent to excellent live band in on Friday and Saturday nights. This disappeared overnight during the disco craze. Why pay a band when you can get a guy with a sound system an a bunch of disco records for 25% of the price?

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:41 PM

April 26, 2007

4/26: The Next Reagan?

The Blogometer would not be the first to compare Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) to Ronald Reagan, and if Obama continues to warm even conservative critics, we won't be the last. As gifted a politician as Obama may be, however, there's still room for improvement. And the netroots just may be the folks who help him get there. Following Rudy Giuliani's claim that "America will be safer with a Republican president," Obama chastised Rudy for taking "the politics of fear to a new low" and claiming, "America's mayor should know that when it comes to 9/11 and fighting terrorists, America is united." The netroots liked that Obama hit back at Giuliani quick, but they wish he would have been more combative: stressing how Dems would protect America better instead of focussing on 'unity.'

Reagan may have benefitted from a sunny optimism, but he also never missed a chance to remind Americans he'd better protect them than Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale. Maybe Obama can take a suggestion from the netroots and move past his 'new politics' to make the argument that he's the candidate who can best secure the country.

DEM FIELD: Trending Towards A Big Three?

MyDD's Chris Bowers posts his most recent Dem primary polling average:

Date Clinton Obama Edwards Others / Unsure
Apr 24 35.7% 28.4% 17.6% 18.3%

Bowers comments: "One thing I will note is how Edwards and Obama were stuck at a combined 38.3%--41.6% for a long time. However, over the last ten days, they have quickly risen to a combined 46.0%, mainly at the expense of others/unsure, but also, to a lesser extent, at the expense of Clinton. That strikes me as a particularly important trend in the campaign, one that is an entirely new development and that impacts every single announced candidate."

CLINTON: The Price Of Endorsing HRC

CaliticsBrian Leubitz hits CA Ass. Speaker Fabian Nunez (D) for endorsing Hillary Clinton: "HRC refuses to admit that she was wrong to vote Yes for Iraq, and that will be her albatross as the war gets even worse. ... To me, this endorsement gives a big middle finger to the grassroots and especially the netroots. So, will it work? Ultimately, I doubt quite seriously that this changes more than a handful of votes. ... If she wins, maybe such an early endorsement from Nunez gets him a swank job if the term limits deal goes down."

At MyDD a diarist notes the Intrade betters have lowered HRC's chances of winning the Dem nod by 6 points "mostly to [Barack] Obama's gain."

DODD: First In Cool

MyDD's Matt Stoller again promotes Chris Dodd's call for a carbon tax, this time forwarding MoveOn.org's call for all WH '08ers to support a similar plan. Stoller writes: "A carbon tax is a way of pricing this ability appropriately. It's a useful and important tool that we need to begin discussing to seriously deal with the problem."

Looking ahead to 4/26's NBC debate, Mike at Blue Hampshire promotes the Dodd campaign's real time live-stream from inside the debate war room which allows bloggers to embed a stream on their blog just like a youtube clip. Mike comments: "So we're going to do this, because it's frankly one of the coolest ideas I've seen in a while. For a future debate, I could imagine we'd have multiple diaries where you could wander into different candidates war rooms during the debate. But for tonight, it's Dodd, because it's his team that grabbed the brass ring here and rethunk it."

EDWARDS: Plain John

MyDD commentator Sarah Lane explains why she thinks "Edwards Can Seal the Deal" after listening to him and Elizabeth on the Ed Schultz Show:

Edwards can explain complicated policy proposals with ease. Edwards can talk about his bold, progressive policy proposals without coming off as a socialist. He can talk about Universal Health Care without putting people off. ... He doesn't over explain his ideas and he doesn't gloss things over with fancy adjectives. He tells it like it is, simply and plainly.

OBAMA: Don't Reject That Kind Of Politics

Barack Obama received mostly high marks for his attack on Rudy Giuliani's claim that "America will be safer with a Republican president." The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen quotes Obama: "Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics. America's mayor should know that when it comes to 9/11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. ... The threat we face is real, and deserves better than to be the punchline of another political attack."

Benen then gives Obama a B+ for his words, commenting: "This didn't strike me as whining; it seemed rather on-point - Rudy's wrong, here's what I would do differently. It could have hit Giuliani harder, but not bad." Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat ("This reaction from Obama is noteworthy to me because he may finally be learning that playing nice with Republicans gets you nowhere.") and TPM's Greg Sargent ("It's worth pointing out that Obama deserves much credit for going after Rudy first and getting this whole thing rolling. There's way too much tiptoeing around Rudy out there, and such timidity only serves to allow his 9/11 halo to keep on gleaming.") were also impressed.

Some on the left thought Obama didn't hit back hard enough, though, arguing he should have made a case that America would be safer with a Dem president instead. The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum writes: "So instead of complaining about how mean Giuliani is, why can't Obama and Clinton just tell us what they'd do? ... Whining just reinforces the message that Democrats are wimps. The real way to be "hard hitting" is to explain why Giuliani is wrong and what Democrats would do instead - and why the average Joe and Jane would be safer and better off without guys like Giuliani bumbling recklessly around the globe leaving a stronger al-Qaeda and a weaker America in their wake."

The Plank's Isaac Choitner argues there is a real opportunity for debate on the point: "Terrorism is an important issue, and politicians can and should be arguing about which/whose strategies will keep America more secure. Every time Republicans mention how much more they "get" terrorism than the Democrats, well, they may be wrong, but they are by no means out of bounds. Democrats have been saying for a good four years now that Iraq has made America less safe. This is the debate we should be having."

OBAMA II: No Dove

As bloggers continue to chew on Obama's 4/22 foreign policy address, the more hawkish it sounds to them, with the usual suspects liking the speach more or less accordingly.

The Plank's Jonathan Chait points out that Obama's anti-war stance differs from some liberals who emphasized process ("it would be okay to invade Iraq, but only if we obtained the consent of the UN") and instead criticizes the war "as a strategic misallocation of resources." Chait writes: "Obama positioned himself between the neoconservative idea that anti-Americanism is not a problem and the left-liberal idea that the United States has no right to flout world opinion ... Obama was not consenting to the principle of a UN veto, so it shouldn't be surprising that he disavowed that idea yesterday."

More critical of Obama, Brian Beutler and Matthew Yglesias both came out against his call for an increase in the number of soldiers in the armed forces. Beutler: "I've long believed that our military and our military budget are dangerously oversized and that the fact of that enormity has been a dangerous recipe for a violent American foreign policy. And I believe that if, after pulling out of Iraq, Obama adds 100,000 servicemen to our military, even if Obama uses that military wisely and morally for his four or eight years, it will eventually aggravate that phenomenon."

Yglesias in agreement: "The more I think about this idea, the less I like it. I could imagine forms in which I'd support something along these lines, but the budgetary costs involved are staggering and the strategic rationale is thin. The political rationale, by contrast, is clear but also kind of tawdry and misguided. I don't think you're ever going to convince voters that the Democrats are the authentic party of militaristic nationalism."

OBAMA III: Black Like Reagan

Obama continues to receive positive comparisons in conservative circles to Ronald Reagan. At TCS DailySean Higgins writes:

It has been clear ever since Barack Obama's star-making speech at the Democrats' 2004 convention that he has a unique ability to move the party faithful. What is it? I think the answer is this: Obama is the black Ronald Reagan. Given Obama's liberal political views, I realize this claim will prompt guffaws from many Reagan fans. But hang with me on this. ... Of all the candidates running, only Obama truly exemplifies one of Reagan's most popular characteristics: his sunny optimism. Reagan rarely spoke in terms of despair or defeat and instead argued that things can be better. ... And this is what helps distinguish Obama from other Democrats: the relative absence of anger, resentment, and bitterness in his rhetoric.

GOP FIELD: Briar Patch Time

Townhall's Dean Barnett makes the case GOPers should take up Arianna Huffington's offer to host an 'internet debate' hosted by Charlie Rose:

I think the Republican candidates should seize the opportunity to address Arianna's collection of misfits and outcasts. ... Such a forum would provide a priceless opportunity for the Republican candidates to seize the high ground and look big as they scold their critics who would look (and in truth are) juvenile and small. ... Additionally, the more prominent the Netroots become, the better it is for the Republican Party. What happens in the Netroots would disgust most Americans. ... The Republican candidates have the chance to confer a new level of legitimacy and prominence to the Netroots. They should seize it."

MCCAIN: Just An Old Hobbyhorse

Many bloggers listening to John McCain's 4/25 WH '08 announcement thought the following passage was an attack on Rudy Giuliani:

When Americans confront a catastrophe, natural or man-made, they have a right to expect basic competence from their government. They won't accept that firemen and policemen are unable to communicate with each other in an emergency because they don't have the same radio frequency.

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez responded: "I'm surprised he went right for Rudy in his official announcement. But, of course, I'm not surprised he'd want to get Rudy out of the way - and making his 9/11 image less untouchable by hitting it from the get-go is one way to start working on that." NY Sun's Ryan Sager added: "As I've mentioned before, I don't think much of these 9/11 families who have it in for Rudy Giuliani and their wildly unfair attacks on the former mayor. Frankly, it's a little disappointing that Mr. McCain is picking up this line of attack."

K-Lo later posts a denial of an attack on Rudy from "a Senate staffer with ties to McCain" who wrote: "this issue of communication between law enforcement, etc. on 9/11 is an OLD hobbyhorse of his, dating to his time as Chairman of the Commerce Committee. That problem is not a Rudy problem...the problem was caused by the availability of federal spectrum. Given he follows this criticism with similar challenges to the federal government's incompetence on both Katrina and Walter Reed, as well as his past history on the issue, I don't think it is entirely fair to read this as a slam at Rudy."

Otherwise, reactions were positive, including from Power Line's John Hinderaker: "McCain's speech tries to be both somber and optimistic. Again, I think that will be the tone of his campaign as well. I don't doubt that McCain can do somber; it remains to be seen whether he can convince Republican voters that his is the positive vision of the future that they are looking for."

ROMNEY: We Guess That's Kinds Better

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez sheds light on Jason Roe's departure from Mitt Romney's campaign: "Roe ... was previously Tom Feeney's chief of staff. Tom Feeney has come up this week from the FBI. Roe's wife works for Rick Renzi, who yesterday resigned from all his House committee assignments. So evidently Roe has a few things other than Romney to worry about."

At Townhall, Matt Lewis hits Romney twice. First Lewis suggests Romney's recent nuclear trafficking speech may be too similar to a recent WaPo op-ed; and later Lewis doubts Romney's recent conversion to the free speech cause: "Ultimately, I guess, the real question comes down to whether or not you believe Mitt Romney has legitimately changed his mind on issues like abortion and campaign finance reform -- or if this is the case of a very good business man who has adapted his positions to fit his audience ..."

THOMPSON: A Celebrity With Dignity

Townhall's Matt Lewis argues the only thing fueling Fred Thompson's campaign is his 'style' since: "1. His popularity has more to do with discontent over the current crop of GOP candidates than with him, and 2. His record, while fine, is not substantially more conservative than the other candidates." Lewis concludes: "In short, while that "tough guy" schtick may have worked in the past, I'm just not sure it will sell in today's world."

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru responds with a limited defense of Thompson: "[Lewis] gives, I think, short shrift to the way Thompson has managed to become a celebrity without losing his dignity. In our culture, that should count as an accomplishment."

Lewis then follows up with reader email: "I totally agree with your take on Thompson. The last candidate with a resume this thin was John Edwards. Although a lawyer Thompson tends to get every legal issue wrong-campaign finance reform, affirmative action, tort reform, etc. He was entirely AWOL over the last few years when others have been fighting for party and country."

PROSECUTOR PURGE: Connect The Dots

Responding to reader queries on why the sudden explosion in Jack Abramoff related raids, TPM's Josh Marshall makes the case for a connection to the US Attorney firings:

I think it's now quite reasonable to conclude that the turnaround is related to the fact that Gonzales and his crew are flat on their backs and aren't able to block them any more. ... It may seem like a leap. But there's more circumstantial evidence for it than you might think.

We already know, for instance, that Main Justice made Carol Lam wait months for permission to issue indictments against the crooks and bribers in the Cunningham investigation. Today we learned that DOJ sources are coming forward to say that Main Justice was playing a very similar game in Arizona with the Renzi investigation. And remember, that US Attorney, Paul Charlton, got canned just like Lam.

We now have some good evidence of a pattern of 'soft' obstruction of Republican corruption investigations by officials at Main Justice -- in the Cunningham-Lewis-Wilkes-Foggo investigation and the Renzi probe. If that's their MO, it shouldn't surprise us to learn they've done the same in the Abramoff probe.

The Corner's Byron York responded to Marshall's earlier suggestions that the Purge and Abramoff scandals are connected, essentially arguing, "It's a complicated case, and complicated cases take a long time."

IRAQ: On Broder, Reid, Evil, Patraeus, And Trump Cards

The netroots continued their full throated defense of Maj. Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) recent comments that the "war is lost." MyDD's Jonathan Singer cites poll data showing the Americans agree with Reid and firedoglake's Jane Hamsher notes that Reid has a 90% approval rating among Daily Kos readers.

Also on the left, David Broder is being savaged for his 4/26 op-ed labeling Reid "The Democrats' Gonzales." TPM's Josh Marshall writes: "I really don't know whether I find it more painful or amusing to watch David Broder's quickening decline. But I'm going to go with amusing. Because clearly there's some deep streak of evil within me that gets a kick out of watching one man struggle so desperately for relevance and even coherence."

On the right, Captain's Quarters is 'fact checking' myths floating around the blogosphere including:

• MYTH #1: General Petraeus Says The War Is A "Lost Cause" - FACT: General Petraeus Sees "Positive" Signs in Iraq
• MYTH #2: General Petraeus Does Not Know What Is Happening In Iraq - FACT: David H. Petraeus:Four-Star General, Commander, Multinational Forces-Iraq
• MYTH #3: General Petraeus Says There Is No Military Solution - FACT: General Petraeus Believes "Improv[ing] The Security" With "Additional Forces" Is Necessary To Achieve A Political Solution
• MYTH #4: General Petraeus Does Not Support the Surge - FACT: General Petraeus Testified In His Confirmation Hearing That 'The Additional Forces' For The Surge Were 'Essential'
• MYTH #5: General Petraeus Does Not Need Immediate Funding - FACT: The Army Chief Of Staff Stated 'Draconian Measures' Will Begin Without Funds In April

Back on the left, Arianna Huffington is sick and tired of Petraues being used as an Iraq debate trump card: "As soon as you mention Petraeus, it's game over. Why continue talking? He's a one-man cavalry, riding to the rescue armed with a Princeton PhD and a successful stint in Mosul. The pro-war crowd's olive drab savior -- able to confer military absolution on America's greatest foreign policy disaster with the wave of his hand."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Declare Victory And Go Home?

Seeing the Forest's Dave Johnson wants to know, "What Does 'Win' Mean In Iraq?" Johnson continues: "Bush says we need to 'win' the Iraq war. Can someone explain what that means? Didn't we 'win' on 2003 when Saddam Hussein was overthrown as the president of Iraq? If we 'win' who surrenders? If we 'win' who 'loses?' Who are we fighting 'against' in Iraq? Can anyone answer these questions?"

LEST WE FORGET: Rove And Cheney Are So Hard Core

MyDD's Matt Stoller points to Davey D's MySpace page defending Cam'ron and his 'Stop Snitching' ethos which led Busta Rhymes' to not cooperate with police investigations into the killing of his own bodyguard. Davey D admits "Hip Hop came off looking pretty bad" but then turns his guns on DC:

Also we didn't hear about the No Snitching ethos that seems to be practiced by our very secretive Vice President Dick Cheney and Presidential aid Karl Rove. We can talk about the lack of snitching around important issues like the War in Iraq, the firing of Federal Judges. Hell let's look at 9-11. Also we shouldn't forget how Cheney went into Stop Snitching mode after he shot his homeboy in the face. The Cheney bunch are the epitome of 'Stop Snitching' . They hold that position much harder then Cam'ron or any other rapper. And yeah try getting too deep into some of these guy's illegal business and you might wind up missing like anyone else.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:48 PM

April 25, 2007

4/25: What's Old Is Not Quite New Again

The Corner (and, thanks to Jonah Goldberg,its readers too ) finally weighed in 4/24 on the growing debate about why the 'Right' is not as successful online as the netroots. Goldberg voices skepticism that the right is as far behind in online fundraising prowess as '08 would tend to indicate (Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is succeeding online because "he's succeeding everywhere else, too"), but does allow that the left's pole position in online infrastructure (Google and Wikipedia) is worrisome.

The Blogometer is already on record arguing that recent history (Clinton impeachment, FL recount, Iraq war) are a better explanation for the left's current online advantage, but Right Wing NewsJohn Hawkins makes a good point as well: the traditional right-wing noise machine (our words not his) including Rush Limbaugh, National Review, Sean Hannity, etc. aren't committed to GOP activism the same way big-time netroots bloggers are (in other words, Chris Bowers wakes up every morning thinking about what he can do that day to help get Dems elected, Rush wakes up and tries to be entertaining). Until either traditional conservative online destinations (The Corner, The Right Angle, and Townhall all have old media roots) become more activist in nature, or a separate righty blogging community emerges (like the netroots did), we expect to see the left's dominance online continue.

DEM FIELD: Neocons At The Beach

Mike at Blue Hampshire alerts readers that with Chris Dodd and Barack Obama recently committing to "no permanent bases" in Iraq, the entire Dem WH '08 field is now on record supporting the policy. Mike comments: "We can quibble over the wiggle room in what the candidates said, but the fact is the quotes from all are clear enough that they will have to defend any changes as reversals of stated policy. ... statements like these are fudgeable, but they provide a beachhead in to the larger discussion of whether we will continue the neocon vision of using bases in Iraq to leverage other Middle East change."

CLINTON: Mind The Gap

Hillary Clinton celebrated Equal Pay Day by guest blogging at firedoglake. HRC writes: "If men in this country were paid just 77 cents for every dollar that women were paid for the same work, what do you think would happen? Mass protests? Editorial outrage? Immediate Congressional action? I think all of the above. And more. But women have been paid less than men for decades, and we are still fighting for this fundamental inequity to be remedied. ... I introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act in Congress to help close the pay gap. It would toughen the penalties for violating the Equal Pay Act, to stop discrimination in the workplace. It makes sure the government enforces equal pay in its contracts, so that we're leading by example."

DODD: Instapundit And Andrew Sullivan On Board For Carbon Tax Too

MyDD's Matt Stoller reviews '08er positions on global warming and announces his intention to vote for Chris Dodd to reward his support for a carbon tax. Stoller explains why the 'cap and trade' system favored by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards isn't for him:

The 'cap and trade' system is the other model, and the main sponsors are Joe Lieberman and John McCain. This system sets an overall cap on carbon emissions, creates a fixed set of carbon credits which add up to this cap level, and then allows companies to trade credits with each other. There really is no upside to this system, though proponents will argue that it does have a firm cap on carbon emissions. The down sides are that industries will cheat, price volatility will be really high, counties will cheat and the system privileges insiders.

EDWARDS: Smurfs To Darfur

TAPPED's Mark Leon Goldberg praises John Edwards for his 4/23 plan on Darfur: "If enacted, it would mark a significant departure from the current administration's go-easy approach. (Which, if you hadn't noticed, is failing miserably.)" Goldberg adds: "The Edwards plan is to basically use the full weight of American diplomacy to press Khartoum into accepting UN peacekeepers. ... There is only so much security that an additional deployment of 3,000 blue-helmets can provide. Getting that larger deployment on the ground in Darfur should be the real focus of American diplomacy."

OBAMA: Same Product ...

Reactions to Barack Obama's 4/22 4/22 address to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs continue to roll in the netroots consensus seems to be: blah. Takes include:

• Talk Left's Big Democrat: "My quick read of Obama's speech showed me largely nothing remarkable in it. It seemed a boilerplate Democratic speech on foreign policy."
• The Left Coaster's Steve Soto: "He is trying to lay out an overall framework that assures the Wise Men that he belongs, which makes sense politically when you are aiming to give the media a reason to sanction you. Yet Clinton's team or even 41's team could have written it. ... it's a safe play for him. But it doesn't set him apart from anyone else either.
• Taylor Marsh: "It's a good effort, even if it seems like the same old, same old to me."
• Matthew Yglesias: "Obama didn't go on to draw any broader programmatic distinctions between himself and other Democrats, preferring to stay within the formal "positive vision" framework..."
• MyDD's Matt Stoller: "What's striking about the speech was no so much what he said, but the reaction. There wasn't one. This was supposed to be a grand pronouncement with a new vision for foreign policy, and yet, the speech could have been ripped out of John Kerry's campaign, Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, or for that matter, Jimmy Carter's.

More impressed than most, TAPPED's Ezra Klein, who has not read the speach in full yet, highlights Obama's explanation for why he opposed the war as an IL state legislator in '02 and comments: "Obama doesn't say he opposed the war because of a nagging skepticism towards Hussein's WMD capabilities, nor because this administration wasn't competent enough to pull such a conflict off. Rather, he opposed it because it was the wrong war, focused on the wrong threats, and stemming from the wrong ideology. ... And that understanding -- which neither Edwards nor Clinton have demonstrated -- says quite a bit about where Obama's foreign policy instincts diverge from theirs."

OBAMA II: ... New Packaging

First noting that the US "confronts a crisis in leadership, a paralysis not seen since the waning days of Jimmy Carter" brought about by a president who "has permanently stained the moral tradition of this country by the indelible evil of torture. And in all this, he has made the United States far weaker than it was seven years ago," Andrew Sullivan endorses Obama as the ideal figure to "rebrand" America.

From Sullivan: "By replacing one of the most globally despised and domestically divisive presidents in American history with a young leader half-Kansan and half-Kenyan, America would be saying something to the world: Bush-Cheney is not who we are. America is not what it has come to appear to be. ... The simple existence of Obama as a new president in a new century would in itself enhance America's soft power immeasurably, ... Obama would mean the rebranding of America, after a disastrous eight years. His international heritage, his racial journey, his middle name: these are assets for this country, not liabilities.

A MyDD diarist shares similar thoughts while explaining why he is leaning towards Obama despite preferring John Edwards on domestic policy and Bill Richardson on foreign policy: "He's running because we must fix our broken politics in order for us to solve our problems and take care of each other as a community. I like the frame, and it works for Obama. Using "hope" as a frame places him as the real heir to Bill Clinton ("the man from Hope"), and thereby attacks the strength of Hillary Clinton. Obama's logo (a sunrise) also very subtly places him as the heir to Ronald Reagan as well ("Morning in America"). The voters seem to love this, as they "hope" that they can put the two horrible terms of George W. Bush behind them."

Even card carrying conservatives are arguing an Obama candidacy would be good for the nation. AmSpec Blog's James G. Poulos writes: "Confronting a non-Hillary does not leave Republicans with the luxury of framing the election as a battle of age-old hatreds, crony machines, and worst nightmares. This, I daresay, would be an unmitigated good for American politics. There is no doubt in my mind that having Obama instead of Clinton at the top of the Demo ticket in '08 would elevate the national game in every way conceivable, and any Republican candidate worth his salt ought to see that as a prime time to shine."

AmSpec's Philip Klein adds: "He has the ability to make liberalism sound appealing in the way Reagan made conservatism sound appealing. When I talk to conservatives who are dismissive of Obama, I am reminded of that Bob Dylan line: Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is."

Not everyone is yet under Obama's spell. Picking up on Politico coverage of Obama's Equal Pay Day speech, Kausfiles writes: "Obama has apparently just endorsed one of the worst ideas of Carter era liberalism, "comparable worth," which would have lawyers and judges deciding what every job is "worth" according to some bureaucratic, non-market criteria that would inevitably punish "unskilled" manual work--i.e, the very workers who are screwed the most by globalization. ... Even Hillary doesn't endorse it."

RICHARDSON: Not Enough Blame To Go Around

MyDD's Chris Bowers tells readers what he doesn't like about Bill Richardson's new TV ads running in IA and NH: "What I don't like about the ad is that it does not blame Republicans for Iraq ... Saying you will "work with both parties" on Iraq I don't think accurately characterizes the current political difficulties in ending the war in Iraq. ... Overall, there are two problems with both of these ads: over-emphasis on bi-partisanship, and a complete lack of self-identification as a Democrat."

BROWNBACK: Three States Are Better Than One

Students for Sam Brownback's Billy Valentine thought Brownback "was awesome" at 4/23's Boston College debate with Chris Dodd. At Race 4 '08 Valentine highlights Brownback on Iraq:

In a moment of agreement, both Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, and Brownback, a Kansas Republican, urged President Bush to work with Congress to devise a solution that will meet his demand for continued funding of U.S. troops in Iraq while promoting a diplomatic solution to quell insurgent violence and reduce the military death toll. ... Brownback revealed he told Vice President Dick Cheney last week, during a White House meeting the senator requested, that the administration should consider a "three-state, one-country" solution in which Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis live independently but under the banner of a federal city in Baghdad.

GIULIANI: Iowa Or Bust, Literally

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner writes on Giuliani's comment that if a Dem was elected in '08, America would risk another terrorist attack on the scale of 9-11. Joyner opines that he's "troubled by the use of a paraphrase rather than a direct quotation for the key assertion here." More: "Presuming the reporting is accurate, however, it's a silly and irresponsible thing to say."

Krusty Conservative gives Giuliani some "unsolicited advice" to either go for IA or skip it all together: "There is no upside to being a part time candidate in Iowa and here's why: It's a caucus state, not a primary state." Krusty argues that because caucuses need motivated supports and a massive staff effort, Giuliani must do the "especially important task" of turning out non-traditional caucus goers. But he encourages Giuliani to come to IA and "play" hard because he thinks he "can do well," but that he's "not doing the things he needs to do right now to win Iowa."

HUNTER: Open For Business

CQposts two transcripts from Duncan Hunter's appearance on CQ radio. Ed Morrissey asks Hunter whether he sees NAFTA/CAFTA as "primarily a problem with the Chinese" or part of a larger problem with trade policy for American businesses. Hunter replies: "I see first that we've signed a dumb trade deal with the rest of the world.... We made a dumb business deal with the rest of the trading world, but beyond that, China is cheating on the deal that we do have because the're devaluing their currency 40%. What that is, is a government subsidy of 40% to every product that they make, and that is killing American industry in this country."

MCCAIN: But He Was, After All, In The Navy

Town Hall'sMatt Lewis writes under the header that McCain's camping is "Spending Money (On Consultants) Like a Drunken Sailor," which is why he found the news that he replaced fundraising consultant Carla Eudy interesting. Per FEC reports, Eudy earned $20K/month in consulting feeds and writes "that's a lot of money for a third-place finish." Though Eudy wasn't the only high-paid McCain consultant, "her fee was indicative of a campaign that spent almost half of what they raised." Lewis finishes: "While Senator McCain prided himself on being a Spending Hawk, his campaign was, in fact, spending money on consultants like 'a drunken sailor.'"

NY Sun'sRyan Sager opines on McCain's appearence on the Daily Show which looked "pretty rocky" as the "entire segment was about Iraq." Sager blogs: "To Mr. McCain's credit, he didn't try to duck any of the questions, and he's made a full-on embrace of the mission in Iraq the central organizing principle of his campaign - come hell or high water." When John Stewart "scoffed at the surge," McCain's response was "pitifully weak," saying: "I don't know that that strategy will succeed, but we do have a new strategy." Sager calls McCain's situation "pretty hopeless," but "there's not much else he can say."

Bivings Report's Zeigler blogs on McCain's Web site revamp, calling it "better from a usability standpoint." The site dropped the black/white scheme "in favor of some color" and "got rid of the little video rollover effects that would surprise and annoy visitors." But he summarizes: "However, it is a little too cluttered for my taste."

Sen. John Thune (R-SD) posts on Red State in support of McCain, recalling that their families' history together goes back more than 50 years as his father serviced under McCain's grandfather in World War II. Thune: "John McCain's bond with his brothers-in-arms has motivated his longstanding advocacy on their behalf, and it has reassured my support of his campaign to be our next president."

ROMNEY: Not Backing Down

NRO'sDavid Frum blogs on how Vin Weber"hailsMitt Romney's so-called plan to control the growth of federal spending." But Frum says his plan is like trying "to lose weight by cutting back on one's consumption of lime-flavored Lifesavers." To not cut what Romney calls "non-defense discretionary spending," is to say he wants to leave 80% of the federal budget off limits when in reality, "the federal budget problem cannot be fixed unless the American healthcare problem is fixed." Though Romney is "ideally placed" to address healthcare, he has "edged away from his own greatest accomplishement" this year as his consultants tell him his health care plan won't appeal to GOP primary voters. Frum: "I have to believe that Mitt Romney and Vin Weber know better than this. At least I hope they know better. So why don't they do better?"

Also at NRO's The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru disputes Frum writing Romney "talks about getting entitlements under control all the time." Though he's been less specific about how to do that than cut non-defense discretionary spending," he's been "more specific about both than any of the other candidates..." Also, Frum's "criticism" that Romney is "backing away from his health-care plan" is an "overplayed story" as Romney has not, to Ponnuru's knowledge, "ever say that he would use the legislation as a national model."

F. THOMPSON: Who Knew Arthur Branch Was Such A Wonk?

Real Clear Politics'sBlake Dvorak on Fred Thompson's recent op-ed in NR: "But what we're witnessing here is the rare instance of a potential presidential candidate debating political philosophy with the some of the nation's top conservatives (in this case, NR's Ramesh Ponnuru), as opposed to rival candidates." Dvorak deems it a a "substantive debate" and his guess is that "conservatives will love this, whether they agree with Thompson or not, because so few candidates are willing (or able) to do it." Dvorak calls it a "good strategy" for Thompson to show that despite being out of the political scene, "he's still very much a student of politics and not just an actor who saw politics as a diversion."

American Spectator'sPhilip Klein blogs on a YouTube video from Thompson's '94 Senate debate. Thompson's response to a question about whether he supports/opposes law "that prohibit abortions for convenience" is that he does not believe the federal govt ought to be involved in that process, not through federal funding and states should be able to have "reasonable controls" on some things. Klein writes that if this represents statements typical of Thompson's "pro-choice" stage, "I think he'll be able to handle the abortion issue rather deftly." And "if anything, the clip shows Thompson has been a longtime advocate of federalism."

PROSECUTOR PURGE: Scandal Harmonic Convergence

TPM's Josh Marshall breaks down the importance of an AParticle reporting Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) aide Brian Murray contacted purged US Attorney Paul Charlton weeks before the '06 election after local media reported Charlton was investigating Renzi in connection with Jack Abramoff. Marshall writes:

Unlike what happened with David Iglesias, Charlton's chief investigator did report the contact to the Department of Justice, as DOJ regs dictate. ... Now, here's the key: after all Congress's document and information requests to DOJ, the Justice Department had not revealed the Renzi-Charlton contact. For some reason, they've held that back. ... So basically what we have here is a classic scandal harmonic convergence -- new nuggets about the Renzi scandal and the revelation that another of the US Attorney firings may be tied to an investigation of a Republican lawmaker. At a minimum, the DOJ has concealed critical information about the story.

PROSECUTOR PURGE II: Bloch That Investigation

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merrit warns fellow netrooters not to get their hopes up over Office of Special Counsel's investigation into Karl Rove since Pres. Bush appointee Scott Bloch is set to lead the effort. Merrit links to a David Corn article in The Nation quoting Gov't Accountability Project's Adam Miles on Bloch's tenure on DoJ's Task Force for Faith-based Community Initiatives: "By most measures, his tenure has been an absolute failure." Corn concludes: "It is a dizzying situation. The investigator investigating officials who oversee the agency that is investigating the investigator. Forget firewalls. This looks more like a basement flooded with backed-up sewage--with the water rising."

At Talking Points MemoJosh Marshall posts 4/7/06 video of Rove identifying six vote fraud 'hot spots' to the GOP National Lawyers Ass. Marshall adds: "Of those six 'hotspots', the US Attorneys from three ended up on the chopping block."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Playing Catch Up

An Robert Coxitem on the cost to the GOP of conceding Web 2.0 to Dems set The Corner's Jonah Goldberg on a long discussion of conservative online prowess. Goldberg's initial reaction included: "Now, I haven't read a lot about Web 2.0, but it sounds an awful lot like a buzzword for people to justify hiring people who use phrases like 'Web 2.0.' Still, the stuff about Google and Wikipedia is very interesting, and I think Cox makes a very good point about how the lefty blog infrastructure has entrenched itself in the web infrastructure - i.e. things like Google and Wikipedia - to the Right's detriment."

Goldberg later shares reader feedback on the issue including:

• "[T]he bulk of Cox's piece is, to use the technical term, horse honkey. Web 2.0 has little to do with anything he's talking about... he just heard the buzzword and feels that the left is beating the right on the Internet. ... The lefty blogosphere is excited because they feel that they were singularly responsibly for the shift in power last year, so they are giving more money because of this excitement (and their passionate hatred for Bush)."
• "Conservatives seem to more than hold their own on blogs. We're weak on social networking, mostly because of the age skew - young people are more likely to hold liberal views ... A far more serious problem for conservatives is how we communicate with people who aren't political junkies ... we need counterparts to MoveOn and its ilk that can succinctly and persuasively communicate meaningful information to largely disinterested voters, and do so using the tools and tones appropriate for our target audiences."

The Corner's Peter Suderman than weighed in: "The Democrats are indeed trouncing the Republicans in their use of these tools [but] I'm not sure it's quite as big a problem as has been suggested. Right now, Obama is extremely popular ... on Facebook and MySpace. But what does that really tell us? Not much more, I think, than that he plays well to the Get Involved youth activist types that are clearly going to go for candidates like Obama anyway. It's a pretty small subset of the population."

Not at The Corner, Right Wing News argues the left is able to outraise the right online because they have a bigger audience than conservative blogs and ask more often. RWN then explains why lefty blogs have bigger audiences: "#1) The left has been angry because they've been out of power and have sought out liberal information sources to find out how to get back into power. The same thing happened on the right in the Clinton years. #2) The right is structured differently than the left, in part because talk radio has captured a significant part of the conservative audience."

More Hawkins: "That means that if we want to compete numbers wise with the left, we either have to wait for the Democrats to take over and wait a few years for the audience in the blogosphere to really take off -- or talk radio and the big non-blog sites are going to have to make up the gap in size between the left and right side of the blogosphere in fund raising. ... And, if you think about it, why couldn't they? Why couldn't Rush Limbaugh, Lucianne, Free Republic, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, National Review, etc., etc., raise money for the GOP?"

IRAQ: Save us Joe!

Conservative bloggers continue to hit Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) most recently over his admission to CNN that "he will not believe David Petraeus if Petraeus reports progress in Iraq as he's expected to do." Townhall's Dean Barnett adds: "In other words, in addition to his declaration of defeat last week, Reid has now in essence called General Petraeus a liar."

There is even movement on the right to persuade Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to 'fire' Reid for his previous "the war is lost" statements. Those involved include:

• Hyscience: "I besiege you Senator Lieberman to keep your word and switch sides and become a Republican, in the dire necessity of wresting power, and the Senate Majority Leadership, from Reid and his defeatist Democratic ilk."
• The Astute Bloggers: "The time is now, Senator Lieberman! Fulfill your promise, and your commitment to our troops in the field, switch Parties now, become a Republican, end the impasse about the war funding, and wrest the Leadership of the Senate from infamous Harry Reid, the Democrats, and America's enemies!"
• Wizbang's Lorie Byrd: "There was a time, not so long ago, that Lieberman expressed concern about the Democrats' position on Iraq. Now that so much has happened, including his majority leader declaring the war lost and congressional threats to defund the mission, what will he do? ... What would it take for Joe Lieberman to break ranks with the Democrats in the Senate and fire Harry Reid?"

At The Right Angle, Amanda Carpenter asked ex-House Maj. Leader Dick Army how GOPers ought to handle Dems attempt to override Pres. Bush's veto of the Iraq war supplemental: "The President has already gotten a letter with enough Republican signatures that say the President's veto will be sustained. The President has got two points to make on this. One, that he's not going to tolerate the kind of free-spending earmarks and extraneous things attached to the supplemental. And, two that he is not going to accept Democrats dictating the terms of how he'll conduct the war. So, I'm sure he'll make the veto and I'm sure it will be sustainable."

IRAQ II: Rahm And The Netroots ... Together At Last

Dem Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel successfully reached out to the netroots to help promote his 4/25 address to the Brookings Institution on Bush Administration malfeasance. TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent summarizes: "That common thread: On every conceivable policy front, the administration and the GOP have placed party before country, and government has become politicized to its core. Rather than casting the administration's manifold failings as simply the result of incompetence, Emanuel will argue that they're really driven by nothing more than all-pervasive partisanship -- the imperative of putting party before country, always, without fail."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis picks out some of his favorite Bush crimes: "A 24 year-old with a background in commercial real estate was hired by the Authority to reopen and manage the Iraqi stock exchange. ... The daughter of a prominent neoconservative was tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion annual budget. Nothing was free from political influence."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Consultants Suck

In the middle of his diatribe against the term 'Web 2.0' The Corner's Jonah Goldberg shares this story: "My dad used to regale me with the monumental hucksterism of the McKinsey types who would come in and draw a lot of boxes on the grease board and drop a lot of buzzwords about Maximizing Core Mission This and Shedding External That. At the end Pops would say something like: "So we should sell more of the stuff we're good at selling and less of the stuff we're bad at selling" and the 23 year-old would exclaim, "Exactly!" "For this we needed a consultant?" would be my Dad's response."

LEST WE FORGET: What Was Your Favorite Moment Of The Coreys Era?

Comedy Central Insider notes Corey Haim and Corey Feldman are gearing up for a comeback with an A&E series and asks their readers what question they would most like to pose to the Coreys. Results include:

• Should vampires be given a license to drive? - 7%
• Are Goonies really good enough? - 16%
• Ever have a three-way with Jami Gertz? - 5%
• Will you ever dream a bigger dream? - 5%
• Ever have a three-way with Michael Jackson? - 38%
• Teddy DuChamp vs Lucas: who wins? - 27%

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:44 PM

April 24, 2007

4/24: Why Obama Will Win

Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) 4/22 address to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was received warmly, but not enthusiastically, by the netroots. They liked his emphasis on the need to solve global problems by cooperation and leadership and his de-emphasis on the threat terrorism poses. But they didn't like his plans to leave some forces in Iraq or his call for a larger military. MyDD's Matt Stoller said the speech was straight "from the Clinton playbook."

And that's exactly why Obama will win the Dem nod. Whether its his rock-star quality or '03 anti-war position, whatever the reason, the netroots just trust him more on foreign policy even if his actual positions are indistinguishable from Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY). So even though Matthew Yglesias says "the idea of maintaining a semi-permanent counterterrorism force in Iraq is a very bad idea" he's still eager to give Obama some "wiggle room" on the issue since he's "pretty confident that Barack Obama and his team would exercise good judgment in this matter." With his anti-war credentials beyond reproach, Obama will have way more flexibility to appeal to undecided primary voters as events in Iraq unfold.

DEM FIELD: Don't Be So Pushy

MyDD's Chris Bowers is touting a Garin-Hart-Yang poll reported by a Columbia, SC NBC affiliate showing Hillary Clinton at 24% with Barack Obama with in the margin of error at 23% and John Edwards further behind at 16%. For Bowers, the poll is just more evidence supporting his "Inflated Clinton Poll Theory," which argues that most polls inflate Clinton's support by under-sampling hard-core Dem primary voters, who Bowers claims are less likely to be HRC supporters.

More Bowers: "If I had to guess, my first reaction is to say that this poll is the most accurate reflection of where the race stands in the Palmetto state. Not only does it not push undecideds, but the underlying implication of the Inflated Clinton Poll Theory is that Clinton and Obama are virtually tied. Thus, I am obviously pre-disposed to trust polls showing a tied campaign."

DODD: He Gets To The Point

Blue Hampshire's Mike posts audio from Chris Dodd's Keene, NH, campaign stop and comments: "I liked the speech, partially because in this age of conversational candidates it's nice to hear a good, old-fashioned I'll-talk-you-listen speech. It's relaxing. You don't have to dig through phrases to find the point."

OBAMA: Clinton Without The Clinton

Barack Obama's foreign policy address to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs is receiving passing marks in netroots circles, but is also being portrayed as not substantively different from establishment Beltway thinking. Reactions include:

• MyDD's Matt Stoller: "It's good speech, what I would expect from a brilliant neoliberal. ... his plan leaves forces in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda. ... There's a lot to like here, though it's not so much a progressive vision ... It's from the Clinton playbook."
• Matthew Yglesias: "The "vision thing" is what Obama's good at, and I think it's on display here. ... The section on when to use force is fuzzy, and manages to not distinguish Obama's view from things Edwards or Clinton could also espouse.
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "On the whole, I thought it was a pretty good speech, one that set out a much-needed vision not 100% obsessed with terrorism and nothing else - though I'd add the caveat that it's actually easier to make a good foreign policy speech than a good domestic policy speech. Why? Because people expect policy details when you talk about domestic stuff, but not so much when you talk about national security."
• The Washington Note's Scott Paul: "The themes he strikes are good: in particular, he discusses the importance of America's standing in the world and the need to solve global problems by cooperating, leading by example, and taking stock of the needs and aspirations of others. ... I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see a bit of energy isolationist rhetoric in what is largely a very globally oriented outlook on the energy situation."

RICHARDSON: Who Knew Candidates Could Be Intelligent?

Dean at Blue Hampshire doesn't watch TV, and Des Moines Dem at IA's Bleeding Heartland only watches The Colbert Report, so neither of them have actually seen Bill Richardson's new ads on air, but they have watched them online. Des Moines Dem races: "My favorite line: I approved this message because being stubborn isn't a foreign policy.'" Dean likes the one with stone walls since "it looks like it could have been filmed down the road from me."

More towards the center, Ann Althouse shares her Richardson epiphany: "The other day, I turned on the radio in my car and heard someone discussing some important foreign policy issue, and I was impressed by his intelligence and expertise. After the segment ended, I was amazed to hear it was Bill Richardson. I hadn't been able to tell that I was listening to a presidential candidate."

HUCKABEE: Skunky

Mike Huckabee received some kind words from those who attended the American Spectator's Newsmaker breakfast. The Right Angle's Ericka Anderson wrote: "Huckabee articulated a strong candidacy, advocating his consistency in voting records and relevant experience running as a Republican in a very Democratic environment. He's not a frontrunner now but you never know what can happen in the next 17 months."

AmSpec's James Antle reported: "at today's breakfast Huckabee presented himself as a fiscal conservative. He didn't mention Arkansas' tax increases during his administration but emphasized his record of broad-based tax cuts. He said he has always supported the Bush tax cuts, a subtle dig at John McCain and (to a lesser extent) Mitt Romney, and wants to make them permanent."

Those not in attendance were a little harsher. AmSpec's Quin Hillyer, who covered Huckabee in AR, calls him "a bit of a skunk in a rose garden" and "not a fiscal conservative." He said Huckabee "has the attitude that, in effect, his own rectitude automatically extends to everybody in his entire administration and that anybody who questions the ethics of any of his underlings is therefore a lying muckraker." AmSpec's John Tabin quips: "If Giuliani is "left-of-center," what does that make Huckabee? On taxes and spending, Huckabee is easily to the left of Giuliani -- and every other Republican candidate."

MCCAIN: Maybe That's What They Want?

Posting video of MoveOn.org's 'emergency' ad against John McCain for his "bomb, bomb Iran" song, RCP Blog's Tom Bevan comments: "Doesn't the left understand that hyperventilating over McCain like this only endears him to Republican voters?"

ROMNEY: He's No Ron Paul

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham talked to Mitt Romney in IA 4/20 and highlighted the portion of their conversation on gun control:

• MKH: Now, you supported an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts. This tragedy is being used to push the renewal of the federal assault weapons ban. What would your stance be if that comes up again?
• MR: Well, you know, the weapon used here was not an assault weapon, so I'm not sure what the relevance is. And, that's what we have to recognize. The people who want to remove Second Amendment rights will look for everything they can. ... look, we've gotta fundamentally recognize the need to protect the right to bear arms and the fact that there are people who are trying to remove that right inch by inch, and we're gonna have to defend against that.

At The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru recommends a Vin Weberarticle claiming: "More than any other candidate, Governor Romney has outlined an aggressive agenda to cut the size of government while transforming it to meet this century's challenges." Ponnuru comments: "Well, Ron Paul would probably be more aggressive, but compared to McCain and Giuliani Weber is right."

Race 4 '08s LJ links to Hotline On Call reporting that "Mitt Romney's South Carolina field operation is probably paying for delegates to state conventions." LJ comments: "In the most status quo, old school, inside-the-beltway fashion possible, the Romney campaign has basically purchased its recent straw poll results in South Carolina; buying an entire presidential nomination will hopefully prove to be a lot more difficult."

F. THOMPSON: Fighting On Their Turf

Fred Thompson took to RedState to respond to a Ramesh Ponnuru article NRO article attacking Thompson for siding with trial lawyers on tort reform. Thompson: "While [Ponnuru] referenced my conservative voting record he took issue with two instances when I voted against "tort reform." He noted my stand on federalist grounds but thinks I must have a mistaken view of Federalism and that conservatives may want to ask me a few hard questions. ... This hardly constitutes the stuff of a major dispute, but I would submit that the problem is not so much my mistaken view of Federalism as much as it is his lack of commitment to the principle."

IRAQ: Every New Beginning Comes From Some Other Beginnings End

The netroots have largely signed off on the compromises necessary for Dems to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the Iraq supplemental bill. AMERICAblog's John Aravosis breaks down the deal: "Basically, it's the House benchmarks and the Senate timetable for withdrawal. You'll recall that the Senate bill, as passed, gave a date that the withdrawal needed to begin rather than a date by which the withdrawal needed to be completed. This final bill does the same."

Daily Kos' mcjoan seems to be on board: "The binding dates stay in for the first set of benchmarks, though the ulitmate withdrawal date of March 31, 2008 is still a goal.' It's a good thing they kept the binding dates in, ensuring a Bush veto. Otherwise he might have been tempted to take this money, all of it, and run, and the Democrats would have been in the very unfortunate position of having funded Bush's war with little in return. ... Now it's up to Bush to say whether he will "support the troops" or will continue to hold them hostage to a failed policy."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat voices the minority opinion: "Well, it now seems that Dems are NOT capable of sending a supplemental funding bill that requires withdrawal from Iraq to Bush's desk. Apparently, there will be no fight on the conference report. ... What happens if Bush does not veto? Where does this ingenious strategy go from here? ... I think it becomes increasingly clear that the Dems' Iraq supplemental funding strategy has been a big mistake."

On the right, The Corner's Kate O'Beirne reports the GOP ranks are 'united' and adds: "They are certainly troubled by the negative public opinion and the uncertainty of progress in Iraq, but the Republican Senators and House members I've spoken with in the past week are convinced that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have overplayed their hands. Some are looking forward to Nancy Pelosi's overture to them when, after a veto, she is unable to pass a modified supplemental bill without GOP votes. Could it be that the armchair generals leading the Democratic forces went to war with the White House without an exit strategy?"

At RedState Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX) notes Dems skipped an earlier briefing with Gen. Petraeus, invites them to an upcoming briefing, and urges: "We owe it to our troops, to the Iraqis and to this country to see Iraq through to success. As we know well by now, the consequences of a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous to the region and would also likely increase our commitment to that area of the world indefinitely."

Also at RedStatered oakster links to a poll showing NE AG Jon Bruning (R) leading Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) 47%-38% in a possible GOP primary and writes: "This should force Hagel's timetable. It also demonstrates that at least one challenger recognizes that challenging anti-war incumbents may be good politics."

IRAQ III: No Apologies

Conservative bloggers continue to attack Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for his refusal to back away from comments that "The war is lost."