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." The Corner's Cliff May singles out Reid's new statement: "But like it or not, George W. Bush is still the commander in chief - and this is his war." May responds: "Actually, like it or not, it's America's war. Reid is like a sailor who thinks if his ship sinks, only the captain will drown."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff summarizes his thought on the issue: "(1) losing Iraq means having our enemies accomplish their major objectives in that country, (2) so far our enemies haven't achieved them, (3) the only way they likely will achieve them is if we withdraw, (4) therefore, only Democrats like Harry Reid can inflict defeat on us, and (5) Reid's statement was probably an attempt to preempt criticism of Democrats if they force a withdrawal and defeat follows." RedState's Erick Erickson adds: "I do not remember at what point America decided to become a nation of losers. But Harry Reid is just the latest person to wage Osama Bin Laden's propaganda campaign for him and demand that we lose our war against terrorists who would like to kill us."

The netroots are solidly behind Reid, with Atrios even hoping the RNC runs it's new Reid ads "Over and over and over." The Plank's Michael Crowley, however, wishes Reid would defend himself better: "Pressed about that quote on CNN this evening, Reid's main defense amounted to repeating General David Petraeus's argument that the war "can't be won militarily." But that's a very different point. Petraeus was arguing for the necessity of a political settlement--one he still apparently thinks possible. ... I don't think it's at all ridiculous to call the war a lost cause. But hiding behind Petraeus's quote is a lame way to do it; it's a non-sequitur which undermines Reid's legitimate argument. He can do better."

Also drawing netroots fire, David Broder is being attacked for telling NPR that Reid is "verbally just a real loose cannon" and that "about every six weeks or so there's another episode where he has to apologize for the way in which he has bungled the Democratic case." Reactions include:

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Where to begin? With the fact that he turned a question about Republicans into an attack on Harry Reid? That he once again ignores that what Reid said is a sentiment shared by the majority of Americans? That White House and Republican talking points don't reflect the viewpoint of Democrats? Or that the war in Iraq is lost. But perhaps I should begin with a challenge to Mr. Broder to cite the many apologies that Harry Reid has been forced to make as Majority Leader.
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "it looks as if Broder completely butchered his facts in asserting that Reid has had to apologize "every six weeks." I just checked with Reid's office, and they told me in no uncertain terms that Reid has not apologized for any of his remarks during his first four months or so as majority leader. He certainly hasn't apologized for the "war is lost" comment.
• Atrios: "Memo to Dean Broder: the fact that Republicans whine and screech and cry and carry on is not, in fact, evidence that someone has said anything wrong. The whiny ass titty baby party always whines and screeches and cries. It's what they do. The disconnect between elite opinion in Washington and reality continues to grow. It's frightening."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Reform Is Possible

The Corner's Andrew Stuttaford calls reader attention to a Stop Prison Rape Pres. David Kaiser's recent letter to The New York Review of Books, including:

When the government takes away a person's freedom, it is morally obligated to provide the basic necessities he or she can no longer secure independently: food, clothing, and shelter, and also elementary physical protection. DeParle writes, "Since 1980 the murder rate inside prisons has fallen more than 90 percent, which should give pause to those inclined to think that prisons are impossible to reform." We could similarly reduce the incidence of rape in prison.

Stuttaford comments: "And it's about time that a serious effort was made to do so."

LEST WE FORGET: It Ain't Over Til' It's Over

Salon's Rick Ridder and Walter Shapiro break down WH '08 using Yogi Berra quotes, including:

• "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." -- Perhaps because of his baseball background, George W. Bush (aka "the Decider") is a master at this. Regardless of the consequences make a decision, any decision. This is about leadership.
• "Slump? I ain't in a slump. ... I just ain't hitting." This might as well be the slogan of the fast-deflating John McCain campaign. With disappointing fundraising numbers and drooping polls, the defrocked GOP frontrunner is on his way to being benched by Republican voters.
• "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." -- Yogi's succinct restaurant review underscores the risks for Barack Obama if the novelty of his charismatic candidacy begins to fade. At the crest of a wave in the fall of 2003, Howard Dean was collecting major endorsements (Al Gore, unions like the SEIU) on a daily basis. The result? Many prominent Democrats decided there was no room for them in the Dean movement and migrated elsewhere.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:38 PM

April 23, 2007

4/23: The Other Netroots Issue

According to the netroots faithful who track these things, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is the last remaining WH '08er who has not yet pledged to end all permanent military bases in Iraq. Even Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has received a passing grade on the issue. Since Obama's early opposition to the war probably inoculates him from criticism on the issue, it's worth looking ahead to another issues where the netroots may be ahead of their party on public opinion: trade.

Netroots faves Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT), James Webb (D-VA), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) all made re-thinking Beltway consensus on trade part of their critique of inequality in America. And as David Sirota notes, John Edwards has made it clear he intends to separate himself from Obama and Clinton on the issue. If all the Dem '08ers come out equal on the war, Dem base skepticism of DC trade policy might just help Edwards steal the Dem nod from Obama and Clinton.

CLINTON: Celebrity Only Goes So Far ...

MyDD's Chris Bowers is finding more takers for his "inflated poll theory" that most nat'l polls are unintentionally over-representing Hillary Clinton's support by not adequately targeting Dem primary voters for questioning. Justin Guillory of Public Policy Polling explains:

For example, if you were to sample 1,000 voters for a national survey, you might get 400 Democrats and 400 Republicans. Then the primary questions would be asked among those 400 from each party. However, the primary voting population is much smaller than that. ... Primary voters are more ideological and better informed, and would be less inclined to be affected by the draw of Hillary Clinton's celebrity according to Bowers. ... I tend to agree, theoretically.

DODD: No McDonalds For Iraq

Blue Hampshire's Mike caught up with Chris Dodd 4/22 and got him to commit to opposing any permanent bases in Iraq. From Dodd: "Well, my view is you don't need American bases in Iraq. We've got plenty of base capacity in the region."

My Left Nutmeg's Matt Browner Hamlin applauds Dodd: "Senator Dodd and Governor Richardson are moving the discussion to where it needs to be. ... The discussion on permanent bases being held within the Democratic primary field will help determine how the country on whole thinks about what a withdrawal of American forces would look like. Inevitably pro-war Republicans will be driven into a sputtering fury over the thought of not getting to have permanent bases, complete with Halliburton run Pizza Huts and McDonalds.

EDWARDS: He's Screwed No Matter What

Maureen Dowd drove the lion's share of John Edwards related blogging this weekend. The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum ably rounds up netroots reaction:

• 1. Edwards is an idiot. He knows perfectly well that a $400 haircut is exactly the kind of dimwit story our modern media loves to pile on. He never should have put himself in this position. See, e.g., Ezra and Garance.
• 2. It's not Edwards's fault. If he gets an expensive haircut he's a sissy. If he gets a cheap haircut he's pretending to be a working stiff when everyone knows he's not. He's screwed no matter what, so he might as well get any haircut he wants. See, e.g., Matt Yglesias.
• 3. Maureen Dowd is an unbearable prig and should be banished from American journalism. See, e.g., Paul Waldman.
• 4. Edwards did the right thing but then blew it. He should have taken a page out of Karl Rove's handbook and turned the $400 haircut into an attack on Republicans. See, e.g., Gar Lipow.

Drum then weighs in: "In the end, though, I vote for #4."

EDWARDS II: Wedge Issues

In non-Dowd related blogging, David Sirota argues Edwards keynote address to the MI Dem J-J Day Dinner announcing his opposition to a South Korea trade deal will "drive[] [a] wedge between Dem opponents and K Street." Sirota explains: "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are surrounding themselves with and relying on Bob Rubin's Wall Street machine - a machine that exchanges massive amounts of campaign cash for candidates' complicity in a trade policy that includes stringent protections for corporate profits, but no protections for human rights, labor rights or the environment."

Sirota adds: "Edwards knows, in other words, that the trade issue is going to be a major point of contrast for him in the Democratic primary - not unlike it was for Dick Gephardt when he pulled off his Iowa primary upset in 1988."

Also on trade, MyDD's Matt Stoller writes: "Talking about free trade is like talking about deregulation or the free market. It doesn't exist without context. NAFTA was an agreement to create giant prison camps of slave labor South of the border to compete with American union jobs, and prevent either the Mexican or American governments from interfering. Period. It had little to do with tariff reductions. Even Paul Krugman, at the time a free trader, called NAFTA a 'foreign policy' agreement not a trade agreement."

GORE: The Complete Package

Sunday Telegraphreports that Al Gore advisers are preparing for a possible WH '08 run were met with mixed netroots reactions. Sen. James Webb's (D-VA) campaign Netroots Coordinator Lowell Feld writes at Raising Kaine: "I'll tell you, Gore-Obama and Gore-Clark sound really good to me. Bill Richardson as Secretary of State and John Edwards as Attorney General? Those work for me too." Anoodle at Daily Kos was also excited: "I believe he is running. I don't care what he says publicly. ... There is no question, though, that he offers the closest thing to the complete package for the Dems."

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent received swift denials from Gore's camp, including spokesman Michael Feldman: "Pure fantasy." The Huffington Post's David Roberts speculates: "To me this smells like an Edwards guy who's seized on an opportunity to make Hillary look bad. Gore's people don't think Hillary can win! I'll be surprised if there's anything more to it than that."

MyDD's Chris Bowers is also skeptical: "Extremely thin news reports in conservative English newspapers notwithstanding, I have always thought his entry was highly unlikely. ... If he doesn't start the race in front, it is hard to imagine that he would want to enter at all, given that he would already face a significant monetary and organizational disadvantage, on top of a polling disadvantage, to multiple candidates. What would be the point of a late entry if his odds of winning the nomination are low, especially given that a defeat in the 2008 primaries would end any future chance of winning the nomination?"

OBAMA: Sunday Green Sunday

In Iowa City, IA, on 4/22 John Deeth reports the soundtrack for Barack Obama's campaign stop "sounds like the [U2] "18" singles compilation since we're hearing greatest hits." On the crowd Deeth shares, "The organizers I chitchatted with expected roughly 6000. Crowd looks really young, very, very student. Feels more like October of election year than April of the year before."

Later Deeth highlights the Earth Day "chunk" of Obama's speech: "Global warming not open for debate. It's not irreversible - we know what we need to do. Low-carbon fuel standard like California would lower emissions 10% by 2020. We could increase fuel efficiency - 43 MPG would mean 0 oil imports from mid east. Just those two things could reduce greenhouse gases = to getting 90 million cars off road. Cap power plants and reduce emissions 80% by 2050. We can do these things now."

OBAMA II: The More Things Change ...

MyDD's Matt Stoller tracks MSM articles on Alan Solomont who "heads Obama's New England fundraising" and "was registered as a federal lobbyist as recently as ... 2006" who "argue[d] against tougher regulations of nursing homes" and "isn't exactly surrounding himself with the most ethical people ever."

Stoller comments: "I'm not a purist and I know that this is what you have to do to garner the huge sums of money to run for office. ... It's also wise to recognize that people who have profited immensely from the status quo do not necessarily believe that changing the status quo means what we think it means. There are lots of ways to make change happen."

OBAMA III: Nothing To Prove

TPM Cafe's MJ Rosenberg makes the case Obama need not be defensive about any lack pf experience on hi resume: "What you need is intelligence, character and humility. Our greatest President, Abe Lincoln, had a pretty thin resume. Two years in the House and a few more in the Illinois legislature. ... A great President also needs self-confidence. ... We need a President who will not feel that he has to prove anything (like to his father) and who understands that simply by becoming President he/she is, by definition, more accomplished than the rest of us non-Presidents!"

BROWNBACK: Trailing The Toms

IA's Krusty Konservative takes issue with Chris Cillizza's claim that "It's hard to find any neutral Republican observer who doesn't think Brownback will run stronger than expected in next year's Iowa caucuses." KK argues: "while Brownback has been working it in Iowa, I just don't know many people who are excited about his campaign. If Brownback was exciting social conservatives I don't think there would be such an appetite for Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich to enter the race. Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson have more going on in Iowa than Brownback currently has."

ROMNEY: Pretty Much Every Pre-2/5 State Or Bust

SC's Daily Chaser and Race 4 '08 report Mitt Romney picked up victories in Richland and Greenville Co. GOP straw polls. The Chaser on Richland: "Attendants say that at least 200 more people attended the meeting but left after waiting for over 3 hours for the straw poll." On Greenville: "Romney and Huckabee showed strong ground game today in South Carolina's most important county. It's also important to point out that earlier this week we learned that McCain is paying State Senator Mike Fair $7000 for 'Get Out The Vote Consulting.' It looks like Fair was only able to turn out 17 folks to vote. We guess he's a pretty bad investment."

Race 4 '08 comments: "These two wins give Romney first place finishes in 10 out of 16 straw polls for which we can find results. McCain has 4 first place finishes, Hunter has one, and Cox has one."

Back in IA, Krusty Konservative reports: "Apparently the Romney campaign mailed out over 70,000 Mitt Romney DVDs which including commercials, background info, and interviews potential Iowa caucus goers. Then next week they plan on mailing over 200,000 pieces of literature to Iowans. ... It's obvious that the Romney campaign wants to move their Iowa numbers. It will be interesting to see if this investment pays off for the Romney camp. They already have assembled the largest staff in the state. It seems as its Iowa or bust for Romney.

THOMPSON: WSJ Against Charity

AmSpec Blog's John Tabin was unimpressed with Fred Thompson's WH Correspondent efforts to work the room: "Thompson's annoyed-to-be-here demeanor made me think that, in the end, he may decide not to run; if you don't like shaking hands and schmoozing, a presidential campaign probably isn't for you. ... the contrast with Mitt Romney, who I caught up with as he was jovially holding court at National Review's pre-dinner reception, was quite striking."

Pushing back against Wall Street Journalreporting on Fred Thompson's sons role in his father's PAC, RedState's Erick Erickson writes: "Notice they had to lump it all in to make it a really big number because saying they paid him about $48,000.00 a year for five years just doesn't sound as scandalous ... And what is more scandalous? Fred Thompson has given more money to charity than to candidates for public office! Oh, the horror."

IRAQ: Just Doing His Job

Maj. Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) "This war is lost" comment drove blogger commentary on Iraq throughout the weekend. Criticism from the right included:

• via Michelle Malkin, J.D. Johannes from Outside the Wire: "Just back inside some civilized wire (Camp Fallujah) and am reading Harry Reid's declaration on the war in Iraq being lost. The odd thing is that I think there are parts of Al Anbar province where the war may be over and we just don't realize it...
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "If we have already lost in Iraq, then it is irrational to continue funding the war for another year. ... So why do so many Democrats persist in defeatist rhetoric which alienates millions of voters, has little empirical basis, and is inconsistent with their own policy prescription? I think this is another case where the Democrats' Bush-hatred has gotten the better of them.
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel after linking to positive coverage of Reid's comments from Al-Jazeera and Iranian state TV: "Very well done, Mr. Senate Majority Leader. Anything else you'd like to say to your people? After all, it's just between you and your anti-war base - and the whole world."
• NRO's Mark Levin: "Harry Reid ... by word and action is actively undermining our fighting men and women in Iraq. His legislative efforts to starve our armed forces in the middle of a war are as contemptible as anything I've witnessed in my 25 years in Washington."

Reid had plenty of defenders in the netroots though:

• Atrios: "CNN spent all day Friday hyping this "controversy," parading a series of Republicans - with no rebuttals - to talk about Harry Reid's dastardly statements. Keep doing it. People hate Bush and hate this war and the more the Democrats are associated with that view the more support they'll have.
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "Exactly and this applies to funding the Debacle as well. If Democrats will embrace Reid-Feingold it will be a political boon to their fortunes. Let the GOP and Bush wail that Dems want to end the war, or in the false rhetoric they will use - "abandon the troops." The American People want to abandon IRAQ."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Some have questioned his rhetoric and his choice of words, calling it a gaffe. But what if Reid had carefully chosen his words? ... Maybe what Harry Reid is doing is his job as Senate Majority Leader. ... Maybe Harry Reid is forcing the Iraq debate into what the pundits will call politically risky territory because it's where the debate has to go. Maybe, Harry Reid is doing the bidding of the American people, and his patriotic duty, and is trying to lead the way out of Iraq.

MSNBC also came in for criticism, but CNN's Kyra Phillips drew the most negative netroots attention for her reporting on Reid's statements from Baghdad. TPM's Greg Sargent wrote: "Look, given CNN's abysmal coverage of the bogus Pelosi-to-Syria story, you'd think CNN would be trying a little harder this time to avoid complete capitulation to the White House/GOP spin on this story. But the network appears prepared to blow this one, too. In addition to Phillips, the Lou Dobbs show also let a battery of administration apologists unload the most fanciful of GOP talking points at Reid -- that Reid was appealing to the "antiwar left" and that Reid was saying flat out that Al Qaeda had won. No Dems were allowed to rebut these charges.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Million Nights

At The Huffington PostBarry Scheck shares his thoughts as Jerry Miller, who served 26 years for a rape, robbery, and kidnapping he didn't commit, became the 200th person freed by the Innocence Project:

I'm in Chicago for Jerry's exoneration today, and it's impossible not to think about all the other people who have walked out of prison after serving years or decades for crimes they did not commit. These 200 people are a remarkably diverse group - they include a rich man's son in Oklahoma, homeless people, school teachers, day laborers, athletes and military veterans. But mostly they are African-American men without money to hire good lawyers (or, sometimes, any lawyers). Combined, these 200 people have served about 2,500 years in prison - that's roughly a million nights in prison.

LEST WE FORGET: At Least He Didn't Blame Don Imus

Prompted by Newt Gingrich's refusal to back off '99 comments blaming the "liberal political elite" for school shootings, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum writes:

I think Newt Gingrich has finally died and been replaced by a Newtbot. You know, one of those computer games where you type in a few initial subjects and it spits out some related nonsense prose in the style of a famous author. In this case, the author is Newt Gingrich. Or maybe, as in one of those old Superman comics, Newt has died and been replaced by a full-blown Newt robot. Except the power supply is running down and the poor thing is reduced to spouting nonsense in a vaguely Newt-esque style. Or....maybe Newt is still alive, but thanks to an alien virus even he can't talk like Newt anymore. He can only produce a parody of 1994-vintage Newt. That's probably it.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:40 PM

April 20, 2007

4/20: Playing Hard To Get

Joe Trippi's decision to join the John Edwards campaign further illustrates the contrasting approaches Barack Obama and Edwards have taken towards online activism. Edwards has actively courted the netroots, forcefully retracting his Iraq vote, emphasizing issues that matter to them (most notably, economic inequality/poverty), hiring well-credentialed bloggers (Amanda Marcotte), and being the first to respond to their campaigns (led on NV and CBC Fox debate cancellations). Obama, on the other hand, has taken a more hands-off approach, eschewing traditional netroots forums and even telling New York Magazine "increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn't surprise me." While hard-core online activists have rewarded Edwards in Daily Kos and MyDD straw polls, Obama leads the field among MoveOn.org members and outpaces Edwards in nat'l polling. There's no doubt the netroots would support either candidate in the general, but how willing will nominee Obama be to listen to the netroots if he gets there despite them?

DEM FIELD: What Bloggers Want

MyDD's Chris Bowers dusts off the Paul Hackett litmus test for netroots support for Dem candidates and applies it to the current field. First, the test:

• 1. Does 'distance himself' from the party or its leaders, or is he proud to be a Democrat?
• 2. Does he talk like a bureaucrat or like a regular person?
• 3. Does he make it clear that he opposes Bush and the Republicans?
• 4. Does he back down when the corporate press/media or Republican pundits attack him, or does he stand by his words?
• 5. Does he respond to the nationwide reaction of the left blogosphere, or does he assign it to a junior staff member?

Bowers then applies it to the field:

• Obama, despite his record as a legislator, seems to have problems with numbers one and three. There is an underlying "politics of unity and purpose" theme to Obama's campaign, as well as a tendency to triangulate. Also, despite his huge netroots support, there does appear to be a problem with number five from time to time. However, that is more a problem in his words, than in his actual campaign structure or operation.
• Clinton seems to struggle at everything except for number four and number six, although in terms of number five her campaign has improved its netroots and blogosphere outreach. Whatever other complaints we make about Clinton, being lazy, not playing to win, and rolling over to the press are never (or at least rarely) among them. Her problems seem to be grouped into numbers one, two and three.
• Edwards does not appear to have any clear weak points in this test, which is why I imagine he is doing so well in Dailykos and MyDD polls. Of course, I'll probably take a lot of flack for not being harder on Edwards here.
• Richardson's problems seem to center on numbers two and three. He doesn't triangulate, but before Iraq he also never seemed to lead on any partisan fights against Republicans. Perhaps it is a visibility problem.
• Dodd definitely has problems with number two, and his "just give me a chance" campaign theme does not help him much with number six, either. Otherwise, he seems to do well.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas still believes Obama will eventually win the nomination, but still puts labels HRC the frontrunner and writes on Obama: "The strongest movement of the candidates, his campaign's impressive growth continues unabated. However, with increased success comes increased scrutiny as people are starting to take a look at his positions on issues like Iraq and health care more closely. He's been able to avoid specifics for now, and he can probably get away with it for a little bit longer, but soon he'll have to add some substance to his candidacy."

DODD: The Sense Maker

Chris Dodd's corporate carbon tax proposal is receiving high marks in netroots circles. MyDD's Matt Stoller writes: "It's hard not to like Chris Dodd, especially when he keeps making so much sense. ... A carbon tax hasn't been seriously considered since Clinton sold out Democratic members of Congress on the BTU tax in 1993. And now it's in the Presidential race." Daily Kos' mcjoan adds: "This brings the issue to the presidential debate. Good show.

EDWARDS: The Transformer

Des Moines Dem at IA's Bleeding Heartland reports most of the former "Deaniacs" he knows are still undecided between John Edwards and Barack Obama and doubts that news Dean advisor Joe Trippi has signed on with Edwards will make up anyone's mind. However, DMD does allow: "I think the move sends a positive signal about the change Edwards wants to bring to America."

MyDD's Vox Populi is more bullish on the hire: "This is a very significant development. It shows the Edwards campaign is dedicated to the Netroots, and is focused on running a truly transformational campaign. Please stop by the blog and welcome Joe to the campaign. He is a valued asset."

GOP FIELD: Sin City Loves Rudy?

Race 4 '08s HeavyM poured over FEC reports to break down how much each candidate raised for some of the early primary states. Mitt Romney led the pack in almost every state surveyed (IA, NH, SC, and FL) but not NV (where Rudy Giuliani outpaced him).

GIULIANI: The 11th Commandment Indeed

Townhall's Matt Lewis hits Rudy Giuliani for his '96 comments defending Pres. Clinton's veto of a partial-birth abortion ban and criticizing Pope John Paul II for his position on the issue. Lewis comments: "Among Catholic voters, I can only imagine that criticizing Pope John Paul II is about as popular as criticizing Ronald Reagan would be at a GOP convention. But aside from criticizing the late Pope, Giuliani seemed to say that the church should stay out of politics."

MCCAIN: Stick To Your Day Job

SC's Daily Chaser has videos up today from recent John McCain stops in SC. The DC loved his zingers at a VFW in Ladson, SC, but thought his Drudge linked "bomb, bomb, Iran" ditty (to the tune of the beach Boys "Barbara Ann") may have gone "a little too far."

The Right Angle's Ericka Andersen wasn't a fan either: "At this stage in the game, McCain should probably think a little more carefully about his attempts at humor with such touchy subjects. Keep your day job, Senator!"

McCain's slickly produced "pre-announcement video" is receiving wider blogger attention. Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham writes: "I'm not a huge McCain fan, but I am a fan of his pre-announcement video, which is very entertaining. He's miles ahead of what I've seen from the other candidates in the way of Internet video."

ROMNEY: No Other GOPer Has Bloggers Raising This Kind Of Dough

My Man Mitt is "WOW"ed by the $43K his site has raised so far for Mitt Romney in '07 and challenges his readers to help push him over the $50K mark.

THOMPSON: A Convincing White Knight

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein catches a Bloombergstory on Fred Thompson becoming more committed to the pro-life cause after seeing the sonograms of his babies and likes what he hears: "Say what you want about Thompson and abortion, but to the average voter this will likely be a lot more convincing than Romney's contention that he had a change of heart after hearing a Harvard researcher use the word "destroyed" with regard to embryos." RedState's Mark Kilmer argues the Thompson has plenty of time to wait before riding in as the "White Knight" to save the GOP's WH '08 chances.

PROSECUTOR PURGE: Let Us Know When A GOP Sen. Utters The "I" Word

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall argues the "key" from 4/19's AG Alberto Gonzales testimony was Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) call for Gonzales resignation and the strong hints from Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that they agreed. Marshall adds: "He's given people too many causes of termination to choose from. You can want him to go for subverting the federal justice system. Or if that's too much for you to handle you can say he should go for running Main Justice like some ungainly combination of a Young Republicans summer camp and Michael Brown's FEMA. And if even that creates too much collateral damage for you to deal with you can just say he should go for lying about everything that happened."

That said, Marshall urged readers "not get distracted by Alberto Gonzales. He's just a cog." Marshall continues: "In almost every case, what we're talking about here is Gonzales's willingness to take orders from the White House -- most importantly from Karl Rove and President Bush ... Mr. Gonzales is a secondary issue. The real players are in the White House." Others calling for a wider focus to the scandal include:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Of course Gonzales is both a bumbling fool and a liar. ... It's almost a shame that his downfall was this relatively mundane political scandal (though certainly more egregious malfeasance by the administration is likely to be uncovered as the investigation unfolds) and not a result of his crimes against the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, the Magna Carta, the basic rule of law. But I guess we take what we can get."
• TRex at firedoglake: "Yes, Abu is just the latest in a long line of egregious incompetents promoted well beyond their abilities and experience so that the Bush junta can extend its imperial reach to all levels of American society and forward the Republicans' plan to turn our nation into the world's single largest third-world banana republic."
• The Left Coaster's Steve Soto: "As I said at the outset of this federal attorney sacking debacle and again later, if the GOP really wants to make this issue all about voting fraud, then the Democrats should oblige them by turning the sunlight of many congressional oversight hearings upon the GOP's voting fraud and vote disenfranchisement activities these last six years. Democrats should turn the issue against the GOP by highlighting all these activities and push for a 2008 Voting Rights Act that reverses or significantly amends the HAVA and makes election integrity and vote disenfranchisement a major issue in the 2008 election."

Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith liveblogged the hearing in eight parts (I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII), while TPM's Marshall concentrated much of his blogging on US Atty Carol Lamlines ofquestioning .

PROSECUTOR PURGE II: But Can He Spell 'Potato'

Gonzalez had very few defenders among conservative bloggers, most of whom hope Pres. Bush will go against type and move for a new AG:

• The Corner's Byron York: "It has been a disastrous morning for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales ... The major problem with his testimony is that Gonzales maintains, in essence, that he doesn't know why he fired at least some of the eight dismissed U.S. attorneys. ... Throughout the morning, Gonzales insisted that he is the man in charge of the Justice Department, and accepted responsibility for the firings, but his testimony suggests he had little idea what was going on.
• Captain's Quarters: "One can write off Senators like Specter and Graham, but Tom Coburn is part of the conservative backbone in the Senate. That is a clear message to the White House to start placing ads in the paper for the upcoming opening in senior management."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "This guy [John Bolton] should replace Alberto Gonzales as AG.
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I've been watching Attorney General Gonzales testify off and on all day. I am beginning to feel supremely sorry for him. ... He comes across like Dan Quayle in that first press conference after Bush named him as his running mate. I.e, just not up to the job."

Only Power Line's Paul Mirengoff would offer even a limited defense: "As I read it, Gonzales largely delegated the decision making process, but accepts responsibility for the outcomes. I see no inconsistency here, though again I would prefer a more hands-on Attorney General. ... I've seen no account in which the Senators have made much headway in terms of showing that particular decisions were poor or corrupt."

IRAQ: Winning Isn't Everything

Maj. Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) statement that "this war is lost" drew heavy conservative blogger criticism. Reactions include:

• The Corner's Michael Rubin: "A Corner reader writes, "I called his office and asked them for a response that this has now been picked up and broadcast by Iran. Her response... 'I'm indifferent.'"
• Gateway Pundit: "Senate Leader Harry Reid was the latest democrat to echo Al Qaeda on the troop surge."
• Austin Bay (after Reid's later clarification): "It would be refreshing if Reid even had the courage of his defeatist convictions."
• a Michelle Malkin reader: "I am currently serving in my 25th year, did one tour in Iraq, and would willingly go back. I'm at a loss for words. I just wish that he was also."
• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "Well, the insurgents pressed a button yesterday and the desired response was produced by the Democrats' leader in the Senate."

Reid had plenty of defenders in the netroots, however. AMERICAblog's John Aravosis writes: "George Bush lost the war in Iraq a long time ago. And it does no one any favors - neither our troops, their families, nor any other American who cares about the future of our country - to pretend otherwise. ... This is their war, George Bush's war. And they lost this war through their utter mismanagement. ... Rather than admit that truth, and accept the blame and responsibility for their own mistakes, and bring our troops home, they'd rather continue lying to the American people and lying to our troops as they send tens of thousands more of them into an out of control civil war. ... Their ego is more important than the life of an American service member."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Some Of You Have Been Lying

MyDD's Chris Bowers crunches some Opinion Dynamics polling numbers and concludes Americans aren't being truthful with their telephone questioners. OD asked respondents: "Have you already or do you plan to contribute money to the candidate you are currently supporting?" Bowers reports

This question was asked in a survey of registered voters, a population that includes about 170,000,000 Americans nationwide. In the poll, 6% indicated that they had indeed already contributed money to the candidate they are supporting. If this number is accurate, that would mean that 10,200,000 people had already contributed money to the campaign they are supporting. However, as we learned this week, only about 350,000 Americans have actually contributed money to a presidential campaign. That is, um, a bit of a gap between claims of financial support and the reality of financial support in this campaign.

LEST WE FORGET: All The Fake News That's Fit To Retract

Extreme Mortman admires the Washington Post's dedication to fake facts after tracking this correction:

A Reliable Source item in the April 17 Style section incorrectly said that actor Nicolas Cage's son Kal-El was named for Superman's father. Kal-El is an alternate name for the comic-book superhero himself; Superman's father was Jor-El.

Mortman quips: "You can only imagine the stability of Washington Post readers who complained about that one. Of course, it's a little known fake fact that after coming to Earth, Kal-El was bar mitzvahed at Temple Beth El."

LEST WE FORGET II: Join Us For Drinks!!!

The Blogometer and most of the rest of The Hotline staff will be enjoying the improved weather and libations at Union Pub this afternoon around 4 PM. So stop on by if you're in the neighborhood.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:47 PM

April 19, 2007

4/19: All About Priorities

The contrast between the intensity of netroots reaction to the VA Tech tragedy and 4/18's SCOTUS upholding of the partial-birth abortion ban could not be more stark. Following the shootings, there were some token calls for a 'revist' of our nation's gun laws on some sites, but for the most part bloggers devoted their attention to attackingotherbloggers . After the SCOTUS ruling, however, the netroots kicked into activist-high-gear with marches, calls to pressure WH '08ers on the issue, and increased pressure on Dem-allied interest groups that have not been carrying their weight (NARAL). Still yet to be seen on either issue though: calls for the Dem majorities in Congress to take legislative action. That focus is still on Iraq.

SCOTUS: The End Of Roe

The 4/18 SCOTUS ruling upholding the partial-birth abortion ban prompted mostly fervent denunciations from the left and triumphalism on the right. First, the more representative reactions from the left include:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "This decision throws basic abortion rights into question, which in turn brings the right to choose to the forefront of 2008, when Democrats again are going to have to make supporting the right to choose a litmus test, and where we're going to have to fight hard in the primaries for truly progressive candidates who will make protecting the right to make our own medical decisions paramount."
• TAPPED's Ezra Klein: "The Court's decision to uphold the "Partial-Birth" Abortion ban without forcing it to offer exceptions for maternal health is dangerous, both medically and legally. Legally because it opens the door to all sorts of small-bore regulations and restrictions that will, over time, convert abortions into a privilege mainly offered to the white and well-off. ... this decision will mean the effective, if not actual, end of Roe.
• Jack Balkin: "The second point worth noting is that Justice Kennedy invokes what has become the new rhetoric of abortion opponents-- the notion that women often regret abortions and that they are deceived by doctors into having them. ... Elements of this new anti-abortion rhetoric appear in Justice Kennedy's argument that because of a mother's natural bond of love for her child, some women would not have abortions if they knew about the intact D&E process. Therefore Congress may ban the procedure entirely."
• Lawyers, Guns, and Money's Scott Lemieux: "The result of this type of case is a sharp restriction in the reproductive freedom of women without the political benefits of an outright reversal. ... The next time someone claims that overturning Roe would "send the issue back to the states," make sure to point out that they don't have any idea what the hell they're talking about."
• Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake: "There is a reason that Jane and I went to the mat time and time again with regard to both the Roberts and Alito confirmations. ... Because women and their families, who are faced with the horrific, personal, and difficult decisions that this family had to face, should not have to deal with people on the outside of their lives deciding what is best for their moral welfare, with no context whatsoever of the individual details."
• Calitics: "This is a VERY FRIGHTENING DEVELOPMENT which throws women's rights into complete limbo."
• Daily Kos' Adam B: "Chip, chip, chipping away at Casey's "undue burden" test until a woman's right to control her reproductive decisions fundamentally disappears. This is not the last restriction which Republicans will try to pass -- and remember -- the Supreme Court was able to render this decision because the Senate (with Leahy, Byrd and Reid) and House (with 60+ Dems voting in favor) passed this bill. Want to overturn this legislation and prevent worse from coming in the future? Elect better legislators."

SCOTUS II: Victory Laps

Typical reactions from the right include:

• The Right Angle's Elizabeth Kantor: "Thank God. And thank President Bush.
• Right Wing News: "So, let me be the first to say thank you, George Bush, for Samuel Alito. Granted, we conservatives did have to savagely attack him to stop him from putting his flunky Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court, but in the end, he did the right thing. And on days like today, when Alito played a key role, you get to see why the big fight to get rid of Miers and get Alito through Congress was worth the effort."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "It's fair for the conservative movement deserves a lot of credit for today's Supreme Court decision to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion. We worked to elect a president who would make good Supreme Court picks -- and he did. ... I've been saying for a long time now, that conservative bloggers and activists deserve credit for our current Supreme Court.
• NRO's Ed Whelan: "On initial read, this opinion strikes me as a significant victory. In particular, it appears that the Court is disinclined to continue to have special ad hoc rules that uniquely favor those who challenge abortion regulations."
• Captain's Quarters: "Today's ruling is a victory for moderation and common sense. It will not presage any movement for this court."
• The Corner's Yuval Levin after noting Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) criticized the decision: "So he wishes O'Connor could have still been there to overturn the law he supported?"

SCOTUS III: Not The End Of Roe

Small minorities on the left, and larger contingents on the right, argued (for widely varying reasons) the decision really doesn't change that much. From the right:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The good news is that an abhorrent procedure is outlawed. The bad news is that Casey remains good law, and its holding remains elusive. Would a state statute prohibiting post-viability abortions except when the life of the mother was in danger be upheld? Perhaps.
• The Right Angle's Nathanael Blake: "While I'm glad that the court ruled against the plaintiffs (some abortionists and Planned Parenthood), this decision changes very little about abortion in America. It stays within the framework set by the Casey decision, and the ban is narrow and contains exceptions. Abortionists can still kill late-term babies, they just can't do it using this method."
• Ross Douthat subbing for Andrew Sullivan: "it's great to have a victory, any victory, but in the grand scheme of the abortion debate, the pro-choice side is still beating us about forty (or maybe forty million) to one.
• NRO's Mark Levin: "I don't understand what all the fuss is about. The fact is that Anthony Kennedy makes clear that he is open to a case where the litigant asserts a health exception to partial-birth abortion. He makes this clear in several ways, including distinguishing between a "facial" vs. "as-applied" challenge, and all but invites such a challenge. That is, he is soliciting a health-exception challenge."
• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "Careful readers will note what makes only passing appearances, if that, in Justice Kennedy's opinion: the Constitution. ... The ban is not out of the woods, even aside from the opening left for as-applied challenges."

From the left:

• TPM Cafe's Ed Kilgore: "Clearly the replacement of O'Conner by Alito made this result possible. But the failure of Alito and Roberts to join the concurring opinion by Thomas and Scalia calling for a reversal of all these precedents means that a further change in the Court will probably be necessary to produce a more fundamental shift in the constitutional law of abortion rights."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "There's a sense in which this is more symbolic than anything else, since IDX is infrequently used and there are almost always alternate procedures available. But it's not entirely symbolic, and in any case, symbols matter. ... The majority opinion really referred to obstetricians as "abortion doctors" throughout? Apparently so. Wow."

SCOTUS IV: Accountability Time

4/18's SCOTUS abortion decision is serving as a flash point for ongoing netroots criticism of national pro-choice groups with NARAL coming in for the heaviest criticism. Jane Hamsher of firedoglake penned the most widely linked to assault in NARAL pres. Nancy Keenan including:

• I'm sure Nancy Keenan is licking her sweet chops over the latest SCOTUS decision. It is, after all, probably going to be the biggest fundraising opportunity she's had during her tenure at NARAL. Bigger even than Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement.
• And what did they do with all that cash? They sat it and didn't do a damn thing, didn't lift a finger to fight Samuel Alito. Worse yet, when the Gang of 14 decided to vote in favor of cloture, they said that they did not consider cloture votes "significant" and would not be considering them in their scorecard.
• Don't reward failure. Tell your friends. Don't give money to NARAL when they come knocking on your door to tell you that choice is going down the crapper unless you give them a lot of money, because what you'll be giving money for is Nancy Keenan's ability to point her little pinky over tea at Washington cocktail parties and tut-tut over the state of choice in this country at the hands of the fundamentalists

Also attacking NARAL:

• Howie Klein at firedoglake: "NARAL is an insider political clique that has lost its way. There are state offices, like the one in New York, that are fine and effective organizations. The national Inside the Beltway NARAL is not one of us. It's one of them."
• Daily Kos' Turkana: "You had a single mission, and you failed. When the time came for the most important battle to be fought, you backed down. You walked away. You pretended to have taken a stand, but you hadn't. You failed. I won't be attending the event to which I've been invited. I won't be giving you any more money."

MyDD's Matt Stoller isn't thrilled that the Alliance for Justice's press area is still under construction: "Some people think that this ruling will be a rallying cry for the pro-choice groups to organize around. I don't think so. You're either a fighter or you're not. The people that lead these groups aren't fighters."

Atrios also posts a list of "Sitting Democratic Senators who voted for the 'we don't care about women's health' Bill."

GOP FIELD: Wade-ing In On The Issue

The Corner's Byron York grades the major '08er reactions to 4/18's SCOTUS ruling: "McCain's statement laid it on pretty thick, Romney's was concise but strongly worded, and Giuliani's was just concise. Terse, actually. And the question, not from a substance point of view but in terms of simple political style, is: Why couldn't Giuliani have gone about it just a bit more? Put a few words of emphasis in there to stress that he felt strongly about it? If you're going to agree with a decision and endorse it, why not really do it? Gilding his statement a bit, one GOP strategist told me today, would have been "a layup" for Giuliani. Yet he didn't do it."

Fellow CorneriteKathryn Jean Lopez also was tough on Giuliani: "Byron I had two opposing reactions on his under whelming statement: 1) What a missed opportunity for him. 2) Smart of him not to say anything more, he's liable to have screwed it up. "

GINGRICH: 'Cause GOPers Love Protecting The Environment By Further Complicating The Tax Code

Newt Gingrich took to RedState to promote his EcoVision 2007 webcast at American Solutions. Gingrich stressed "the need to develop a green conservatism" and laid out principles for GC including: "Green conservatism believes that we can realize more positive environmental outcomes faster by shifting tax code incentives and shifting market behavior than is possible from litigation and regulation."

MCCAIN: It's True, He's Good At Angering People

Captain's Quarters gives a positive review to John McCain's pro-2nd Amdt. message following the Virginia Tech tragedy: "From the AP report, it doesn't look like McCain used the shootings to make his point until challenged by an audience member ... It does show that McCain has decided to do what he does best: become controversial. McCain never seems as much in his element than when he's angering people by surprising them with a policy position. ... I get the sense that McCain, with his defense of the Iraq war and now of gun rights, has decided to become more himself on the campaign trail. It may not win him enough support to get the nomination, but it will make for a more interesting ride."

While not mentioning his client, Ankle Biting Pundits contributor and McCain aide Patrick Hynes asks fellow conservatives not to "rip [his] head off just for posting the facts" and links to USA Today polling showing 78% of Americans feel that "people now in the country illegally should be given a chance at citizenship." Hynes comments: "Is it possible, just possible that my "enforcement only" friends are deeply, deeply out-of-touch with America on this issue? I mean, honestly: they are on the business end of an 80-20 issue. They might as well support expurgating "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance."

Race 4 '08s HeavyM is still hitting McCain hard for his "choice to skip the county conventions in South Carolina." HM links to a an APstory reporting that former McCain backer Saluda County Sheriff Jason Booth recently "jumped" to Mitt Romney's campaign. HM comments: " McCain's South Carolina organization is in danger right now, and by the time he makes it down there to re-kick off his campaign at the end of this month, he will have missed at least 20 more county conventions and straw polls.

ROMNEY: Early Yard Signs Can Only Lead To One Thing ... Early Yard Sign Stealing!

SC's Daily Chaser was shocked/impressed to find two Mitt Romney yard signs up "on the corner of Huger and Gervais in Columbia" and "6 more locations in downtown." DC adds: "This is a long time out to be starting the sign war. Let us know if you have seen any around your neck of the woods.

THOMPSON: We're NotThe OnlyOnes Who Had 53 Ya' Know

RedState's Erick Erickson corrects Hotline counting skills, claiming 63, and not the Hotline reported 53, House members met with Fred Thompson 4/18. Erickson adds: "And while not all of those 63 came away convinced that Fred is their guy, all of them came away convinced he could be President and that he is in the race. Some were ready then and there to put money on the table or help raise money. On social issues, Senator Thompson proved himself to be solid. On fiscal issues, ditto."

Also, Thompson recently won RedState's WH straw poll with 35% of the nearly 5K votes cast (Mitt Romney came in 2nd with 12%, Duncan Hunter had 10% and Rudy Giuliani had 9%).

DEM FIELD: Fuzzy Math

MyDD'sChris Bowers reacts to a Washington Post story on their poll with ABC that shows Giuliani's lead narrowing and Clinton keeping her lead. But Bowers criticizes the poll for just measuring self-identifying and leaning Dems/GOPers, adding that the word "primary" doesn't appear in the story. He summarizes: "The problem I have is that even though these polls and these articles never actually state they are measuring the Democratic or Republican primary caucus electorate, there is a consistent implication that that is exactly what these polls are doing."

CLINTON: Is The Extreme Makeover Edition Not Going As Planned?

The Plank'sMichael Crowley looks at a new Gallup poll showing Clinton's favorability ratings near an all-time low. Crowley said that he's always assumed if Clinton could re-introduce herself as a "hard-working, wonky moderate who is independent of husband, her appeal will rise to elecatability levels. But if the initial response to Hillary's candidacy has been a rising dislike, well, there's trouble a-comin', I'd say. This may even bode even more ominously for her than Obama's dazzling fundraising."

RICHARDSON: A Blast From The Past

MyDD's Matt Stoller blogs that he's been going through the '90-'94 NAFTA debates "and almost no one in politics comes out well." Stoller would like to remind his readers that this also includes ex-Pres. Clinton and Bill Richardson, "who actually pioneer some of the K-Street whipping tactics Tom Delay later used in the House."

OBAMA: Open The Gates And Issue A Press Release

TPM'sGreg Sargent notes that Barack Obama picked up on Def. Sec. Robert Gates statement "in a smart way -- suggesting that even Gates understands the value of the Dem Congress' efforts to impose withdrawal deadlines on the war." As Kevin Drum, Think Progress and others have noted this morning, Gates was quoted in 4/18's's Washington Post saying that Congress' calls for withdrawal deadlines were helping exert pressure the Iraqi government.

Sargent commends Obama for putting out this statement on the issue: "President Bush has had a long history of ignoring the advice of his commanders on the ground, but let's hope that he follows the advice of his Defense Secretary so that we can finally begin the process of ending the war in Iraq in a responsible way."

IRAQ: Is There A Draft In Here?

The netroots are not happy with WaPo reports that Dems may be "moving" to make their Iraq timetable for "advisory." MyDD's Matt Stoller beseeches, "Please Stop Trying to Sell Us Out on Iraq" and writes: "Progressive activists hate it when Democrats talk to the Washington Post about weakening the Iraq bill. It is not ok to keep floating the idea that weakening the bill makes sense. It is not ok to play around with the loyalty of the antiwar progressives who backed you.

Fellow MyDDer Chris Bowers eases his frustration at the news by calculating coalition fatalities per day grouped by [Tom] Friedman unit (half a year). Bowers adds: "Maybe I just wanted to show that the equivalent of Virginia Tech happens to American soldiers more than once every two weeks in Iraq (and several times a day to Iraqi civilians). ... Maybe I just wanted to mock Tom Friedman, and the idea of "progress" in Iraq. ... Maybe sometimes, with congressional Democrats telling the Washington Post they will cave on a binding timeline and Democratic presidential candidates claiming they will withdraw but their policies indicating otherwise, I just feel helpless when it comes to the Iraq war, and didn't know what else to do."

At The Huffington Post, Rep. John Murtha reports on his recent trip to Ft. Hood, Ft. Stewart and Ft. Bragg, including: "What I found was that the president's policy has forced the military to break its own rotation and deployment guidelines. ... As one soldier put it, "after six months in Iraq, every day is another Groundhog Day." ... The president asks the impossible and the burden continues to fall on the very few. The pressure must be taken off the current force and their families who have already sacrificed so much. If the president insists on continuing the current operational tempo and policy, then he should call for a military draft. That is the responsible thing to do."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Joe Lieberman's Worst Nightmare!

Instapundit posts his theory on why American teens "are doing better than they've done in decades" including "Teen pregnancy is down, along with teen crime, drug use, and many other social ills." TCS Daily. Glenn Reynolds blames "porn and videogames" for "making American teens healthier." From Reynolds:

It should have been obvious. After all, one of the great changes in teenagers' social environments over the past decade or so has been far greater exposure to explicit pornography, via the Internet, and violence, via videogames. Where twenty or thirty years ago teenagers had to go to some effort to see pictures of people having sex, now those things are as close as a Google query. (In fact, on the Internet it takes some small effort to avoid such pictures.) Meanwhile videogames have gotten more violent, with efforts to limit their content failing on First Amendment grounds.

But -- despite continued warnings from concerned mothers' groups -- teenagers are less violent, and they're having less sex, notwithstanding the predictions of many concerned people that such exposure would have the opposite effect. More virtual sex and violence would seem to go along with less real sex and violence.
The solution is thus obvious -- we need a massive government program to ensure that no American teenager goes without porn and videogames Let no child be left behind!

LEST WE FORGET: But Would Arenas Settle For "The Black VP"

Deadspin points us to Mothering Hut which is selling Obama/Arenas '08 t-shirts. Apparently, Washington Wizards superstar Gilbert Arenas already dubs himself "The Black President" and Mothering Hut has saved Obama/Arenas '08 from bothering to come up with their own platform:

• Legislate the No Snub Left Behind Act.
• Promote universal health care.
• Pardon Chico DeBarge
• Pursue alternative energies incentives: offer bacon grease subsidies.
• Offer comprehensive immigration reform: illegal immigrants can fast-track their citizenship by defeating Homeland Security Czar DeShawn Stevenson in a 3-point shooting competition, an initiative that will be dubbed: "I Want To Feel The Face of Freedom."
• Redecorate the Oval Office as an exact replica of the Lt. Castillo office set from Miami Vice.
• Annex Wheaton Plaza. Crush the resistance movement by cutting off edible underpants supply to Spencer Gifts.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:30 PM

April 18, 2007

4/18: The Big Fours?

The Blogometer isn't the only one guilty of using 'the Big Three' moniker to describe the top of both Dem and GOP WH '08 fields, but perhaps it's time we abandon the term for the Big Four. For the GOP, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney are currently considered a cut above the rest. But if online excitement is any indication, Fred Thompson will make a big splash should he announce while also not pushing any of the existing contenders out. On the Dem side, Bill Richardson has steadily gained in most online straw polls, and if the difference between the MoveOn.org members who did and did not listen to him on Iraq is any indication, his numbers will go up as more voters are exposed to him.

DEM FIELD: They Want A Fighter

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong posts a side-by-side comparison of the best and most recent online straw polls:

               DKos    MyDD    MoveOn    MoveOnHP   DFA   Democrats.com   
Edwards        42      43      25        25         24    41
Obama          25      34      28        19         28    18
Richardson     13       8      12        21          8     6
Clinton         3       4      11        7           9     9
Biden           0       1      6         10          2     2
Kucinich        2       1      17        16         10    24
Dodd            0       1      1         4           1     0

Armstrong comments: "Richardson is beginning to happen, crawling out of the lower-tier pack and inching his way onto the radar of blog readers and MoveOn members. ... Richardson is beginning to happen, crawling out of the lower-tier pack and inching his way onto the radar of blog readers and MoveOn members."

Matthew Yglesias links and comments: "I'm intrigued by the fact that Edwards is so much stronger among the netroots than among Democrats at large. In theory, Edwards' electoral center of gravity should be among the white working class and perhaps among older voters."

In Yglesias comments, Hit and Run's David Weigel adds: "The netroots like to be stroked, and he strokes them. Examples: The netroots don't think the elected Democrats are doing enough to end the war, and Edwards says as much. ... The netroots are VERY VERY CLEAR about what they want, and the candidates that notice this and feed them red meat reap immediate rewards."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat tracks Weigel's comments and takes issue with his 'stroked' comment: "is there anyone or any group that does NOT like to be stroked? What does that mean exactly? Does Labor NOT support candidates who "Stroke" them by supporting policies they prefer? Does NOW and NARAL not support candidates that support the policies they prefer? Why is the Netroots unique in wanting to be 'stroked?'"

BTD then goes on to explain why the netroots are falling for Edwards: "The entire Netroots movement was centered on Iraq, but it was not philosophically about Iraq. It was about Fighting Dems. That's why Howard Dean was the Netroots' candidate of 2004. ... John Edwards, the Johnny Sunshine of 2004 (I find it funny that in many ways, Edwards was the Obama of 2004 - the fresh face, the conciliatory manner, the new style), transformed himself into a Fighting Dem, starting with his retraction on Iraq. ... And when Russ Feingold and Al Gore decided to not run, Edwards was well positioned to capture the support of the Fighting Dems supporting Netroots. At the same time, Obama more fully revealed the new politics, nonpartisan persona, he still features to this day. ... But it is also clear that the stagnant Netroots support for Obama is no accident - he has rejected the philosophy of the Netroots. He has "anti-stroked" the Netroots. It would be illogical for the Netroots to support Obama imo."

DEM FIELD II: A New Frontrunner?

MyDD's Chris Bowers looks at recent polling showing Barack Obama closing the gap with Hillary Clinton to 8% and goes on to explain why Obama's post-fundraising bump "could easily self-generate into further bumps." Bowers argues that since "many people don't like supporting candidates who don't seem like they have a good chance to win," Obama's fundraising prowess helped in the polls since it "substantially increased number of rank and file Democrats believe Obama has a legitimate chance to win the nomination."

More Bowers: "Thus, a vicious cycle can start to form for the Clinton campaign, with the end result potentially being Obama stealing the frontrunner mantle. ... It may not happen, and we might instead just come right up to the edge of a major change before reverting back to something approaching normalcy. We will have to see.

DEM FIELD III: Burn Baby Burn

Daily Kos' Miss Laura tabulates the burn rate for '08ers including:

             Closing  Tot Contribs  Operating Exps   Burn Rate
Clinton  $30,974,780   $26,054,302      $5,059,515        19.4%
Dodd      $7,482,467    $4,043,757      $1,313,239        32.5%
Edwards  $10,731,881   $14,029,654      $3,291,632        23.5%
Obama    $19,192,521   $25,709,105      $6,554,783        25.5%
Richardson$5,022,473    $6,246,382      $1,217,057        19.5%

Laura comments: "Obama's burn rate is high given how much money he starts out with - it will be interesting to see if he's spending at a high rate to set up a strong infrastructure early or if he continues to outspend most other Democrats (and on what he's spending)."

OBAMA: Imus Did It!

MyDD has audio and photos from "a somewhat unique if a bit abbreviated fundraising event in Milwaukee, WI," following the Virginia Tech tragedy. Barack Obama "easily sold out" the historic Milwaukee Theater.

Obama's connection of the "verbal violence" of Don Imus to the Blacksburg shootings rankled some left of center feathers. The Plank's Isaac Choitner writes: "If you are one of those people who thinks Barack Obama is the most electable Democrat out there, and if you think he is capable of being a powerful and moving speaker, you still have to face up to the fact that his speeches can be really, really grating. I don't know what is more obnoxious: His "verbal violence" reference to Imus (surely meant simply to capture the zeitgeist), or his attempt to throw in a line from his stump speech about outsourced jobs."

Kausfiles also was unimpressed: "Barack Obama's misguided attempt to connect the Virginia Tech murders with the Imus slur ("quiet violence") and, yes, loss of health care benefits due to layoffs and overseas competition, doesn't come off quite as obscene as you'd expect when you listen to it--because Obama's delivery is too fatigued and subdued, even depressive, to trigger the sense that he's manipulating anybody. Still, it's not exactly evidence of a fresh intelligence, or even basic common sense, at work--much less rising to the occasion."

The Plank's Bradford Plumer, however, was offended: "I'm not sure what, exactly, was wrong with the Obama speech that Isaac cited here, but it's worth noting that the guy seems to be doing something right. The latest Gallup poll has him within striking distance of Hillary Clinton, which seems significant."

GIULIANI: On Tents, Poles, And Keeping Your Hands Off Them

Rudy Giuliani's 4/14 comments that the GOP needs to "get beyond issues" like abortion continued to spur conversation at The Corner. John Podhoretz writes:

One of the most consistent talking points on the Right over the past 20 years has been the way anti-abortion views have been systematically purged from the Democratic party - with pro-life politicians like Richard Gephardt (and Al Gore!) having to abandon their original views in order to seek higher office and denying pro-life pols time at national conventions etc. ... Rudy is saying, plainly, that the GOP can house people with differing views on abortion so long as everyone respects everyone else. ... But it's clear Giuliani is testing the "big tent" aspect of the GOP as never before because he is the most serious candidate for the Republican nomination in 28 years to hold pro-choice views ... The problem is that for many conservatives and Republicans, the GOP might only be a big tent so long as their opinions remain the tentpoles.

The Corner's Rich Lowry responds: "First, your cautionary note yesterday was justified. His comments read better in context. ... On the larger point,if Giuliani doesn't get the nomination, it doesn't mean the GOP isn't a big tent. He's not going to be banned from speaking at GOP conventions. ... Finally, the "opinion" that the government should protect unborn life should indeed be one of the "tentpoles" of the GOP tent. If a pro-choicer wants to come under that tent, wonderful-but he should keep his hands off the poles."

The New York Timesinteractive tool tracking '08er donations geographically also fed Giuliani banter, including:

• Yuval Levin: "the Clinton map and the Giuliani map are essentially identical, but Giuliani's figures are smaller. ... This raises an interesting question. Part of the case for Giuliani, and a very plausible part, has been that he would draw support in areas of the country where Republicans have not been doing well lately. ... But will he draw enough support in those places to actually do better than a Democratic opponent, or only to do better than a different Republican would have?
• John Podhoretz: "Going into the general election, where I think we can all concede the Democrats appear to have a natural edge, the Republican hope is for a candidate who can appeal to independent voters - and who can take advantage of natural Democratic weaknesses should they manifest themselves (especially on national security and economic issues, I would think) and use them to change the dynamic in the weeks before the election. The best Republican candidate would be a candidate who could do that. I think Rudy could do that, and the fact that you can't rule him out winning (say) New Jersey by peeling off swing voters there is an indicator that he presents a specific strategic possibility for the GOP.
• Levin: "Your broader points about Giuliani all make good sense. But I would urge a look at the other side of the equation-the Republican voters you lose with a very liberal Republican candidate. Perhaps Ohio is lost either way (perhaps not). But certainly Indiana, Missouri, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Iowa (all of which went GOP in 2004) as well as a couple of Midwestern states which were close but went to the Democrats are in grave jeopardy for Republicans if social conservatives don't see much of a difference between the Republican and Democratic candidate on their issues."

MCCAIN: Simply Needs SC

An AParticle reporting John McCain's decision to bypass SC "county conventions and straw polls" may be costing him activists and even past endorsements is drawing attention. SC's Daily Chaser comments: "it appears that some permanent damage could be done if he doesn't drop this strategery and start showing up to explain to voters exactly they should vote for him and elected officials should stick with him. Our guess is that we will start seeing some more defections if things keep going this way.

Race 4 '08s HeavyM adds: "Some are even comparing it to his missing the CPAC, Club for Growth, and the Heritage Foundation conferences earlier this year." But also at R4'08, LJ defends McCain noting McCain has won five SC straw polls so far and commenting: "The notion that he is deliberately avoiding conservative conventions is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Just last week McCain attended the Ottawa County, Michigan Convention and South Carolina is at the center of the entire McCain campaign for the Presidency. If he doesn't win the state, he doesn't win the nomination. It's really that simple."

R4'08 also has video and a transcript of McCain's 4/16 speech to The Economic Club of Memphis.

ROMNEY: It Takes A Public Private Partnership

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez fights back against an APstory claiming Mitt Romney once agreed with Hillary Clinton that it takes a village to raise a child. Lopez provides a lengthy transcript of the discussion in question and summarizes: "he was talking about public-private partnerships to the Boston Globe, in a conversation feature, "For City Problems, Future Solutions," 3/1/98, while he was still at Bain Capital."

The Right Angle's Matt Naugle wasn't buying: "This guy just can't shake this flip-flop rap."

PROSECUTOR PURGE: Grand Theories In 90 Seconds

Talking Points Memo is expanding their focus of DOJ politicization past US Attorneys to the DOJ's Civil Rights Division. TPMmuckraker's Paul Kiel describes an aggressive reshaping of the division including, "Many career analysts and attorneys have either been transferred or driven out; their replacements are long on conservative credentials and short on civil rights experience."

Also, Marshall and Kiel promote "Today's Must Read" from The Las Vegas Review-Journal on the 90 second deliberations behind the firing of NV US Attorney Daniel Bogden. Kiel summarizes: "[Kyle] Sampson couldn't say who had put Bogden on the list (even though he was the "keeper of the list") or why. He'd never looked at Bogden's performance, and neither did Alberto Gonzales. The only thing he can remember is that there was 'a general feeling among senior staffers at the Justice Department that a 'stronger leader' could be put in Nevada.' So he was fired. And then the Justice Department told Congress that he'd been fired for 'performance' reasons."

The Corner's Rich Lowry offers his "grand theory" on the purge: "the process was so ramshackle and ad hoc that even those doing the firings don't really know why some of these peopled were fired. (I hear that was basically Kyle Sampson's bottom line in his interview over the weekend with the Judiciary committee.) ... In most Washington scandals, you get a choice of saying you were evil or incompetent-here the incompetence defense seems almost, if not quite, air tight."

IRAQ: WH Now Pro-Debate?

Def. Sec. Robert Gatescomments to reporters in Jordan that "The debate in Congress ... has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited," is being picked up by many netrooters. The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum comments: "Somebody jog my memory here. I know that other people have made this point about congressional pressure before, but never a high-ranking Bush cabinet officer, right? Is Gates off the reservation, or is this is the new party line from the White House?"

Daily Kos' mcjoan links and adds: "If this debate has been helpful, how much more helpful would it be to have binding legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal? That would really bring the Iraqis around, no? All the more reason to support Feingold-Reid."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: 'Cause Who Wants To Drink Conservatively?

Celebrating the creation of the 200th chapter of Drinking Liberally, MyDD's Chris Bowers writes:

Contemporary progressivism has become more than just about our political beliefs, but also about the way we conduct many other aspects of our daily lives. In fact, it is pretty safe to argue that is the increasing prominence of progressive values in our everyday lives--how we work, how we meet new people, how we shop, and how we re-create ourselves on a regular basis--that jump started the political side of the progressive movement, rather than the other way around.

Within the progressive movement, there is probably no organization that better represents the connection between a progressive lifestyle and progressive politics than Living Liberally. This is an organization that helps progressives and liberals connect with one another in a variety of ways that, while not overtly political, often have positive repercussions for progressive politics. By bringing progressives together to drink, laugh, watch movies, eat dinner, discuss books, and many other activities, Living Liberally provides social depth to gatherings of like-minded lefties.

LEST WE FORGET: Stop The Presses! Lola Is About A Transvestite!?!?!

Ann Althouse and Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt both link to Rolling Stone's Top 25 Songs With a Secret which include:

• "Louie Louie" -- The Kingsmen: Though the song was originally written by Richard Berry, the Kingsmen's version was a huge hit and inspired an equally huge controversy when rumors spread the virtually inaudible lyrics were super dirty. The FBI even investigated the potentially un-American nastiness of the song's message (their theories on what they lyrics say are hysterical) but ultimately it was concluded that the song was not bound to defile an entire generation of young minds.
• "Lola" - The Kinks: Thought to be about a beautiful woman, actually inspired by an incident in which Kinks' manager Robert Wace spent a drunken night dancing with a transvestite he mistook for a woman.
• "Rainy Day Women #12 & #35" - Bob Dylan: With its lyrical proclamation, "everybody must get stoned" the song was embraced as a stoner's anthem, but the song is actually about the literal throwing of stones.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:30 PM

April 17, 2007

4/17: "Getting Beyond Issues" Like That

If you were expecting for the netroots to join more traditional Dem calls for increased gun control following the tragedy in Blacksburg, VA, don't hold your breath. At deadline, none of the top five netroots sites (Daily Kos, Eschaton, TPM, AMERICAblog, and MyDD) have called for any changes to gun laws (CLARIFICATION: AMERICAblog does ask for a 'revisit' of guntrol but nothing specific). And don't expect them to either. The VA Tech shootings are serving as an albeit tragic marker in demonstrating just how different Dems are in '07 than they were in '99.

With bloggers in the lead, Dems have gotten past the gun-control issue and helped reclaim majorities with help from netroots backed pro-gun candidates Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA), John Tester (D-MT), and Reps. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) and Heath Shuler (D-NC). As Rudy Giuliani faces heat from social conservatives for telling them they need to "get beyond issues" like abortion, one wonders how many elections the GOP has to lose before they embrace a similar evolution.

GIULIANI: Not The God, Guns, And Gays Candidate

Des Moines Registerreports that Rudy Giuliani's comments to activists about abortion, before his Lincoln Day dinner address ("Our party has to get beyond issues like that") drove heated blogger discussion.

The Right Angle's Nathanael Blake labels Giuliani a "pro-abortion extremist" and adds: "Apparently, we're supposed to just 'get beyond' the murder of 3,000 innocents every day in America and turn our attention to the really big issues, like, in the words of one GOP sell-out, 'fiscal responsibility and good management.' Let the babies die, so long as we can balance the budget. Maybe the left is right, and the GOP is just a collection of tightfisted worshipers of mammon."

The Corner's Rich Lowry shared some similar negative email reaction:

• Doesn't Giuliani's comment that "our party" needs to "get beyond issues like" abortion sound a LOT like Howard Dean's 2004 call for Southerners to stop focusing on "God, guns and gays?" Sounds like Giuliani and Dean are talking from the same script here.
• He's talking about people igunoring their core beliefs. I have respect for him and think he's a great speaker, but as a Christian conservative (ironically, from Iowa) I can honestly tell you that I will not vote for him. Period.
• As an up until now, pretty stalwart Giuliani backer, I must say that the Christie Whittman impersonation ain't gonna win him any points in my book. He better hope Thompson doesn't get in or I suspect he's gonna find out pretty quickly that his poll numbers are mostly a function of his weak opponents.

Cornerites Ramesh Ponnuru and Andy McCarthy then sparred over Giuliani's statement, including:

• Ponnuru: "So Once Again Giuliani is saying that he has deep respect for all those people out there who want to throw pregunant women in jail. Has the mayor actually met any pro-lifers?"
• McCarthy: "Ramesh, I don't want to fight again, but c'mon. ... Rudy's argument is not that the pro-lifers don't have a point. It is that we shouldn't have a stalemate among what he acknowledged were 'very good people' on both sides of the abortion issue that prevents Republicans and conservatives from considering the candidate vis-a-vis all the issues."
• Ponnuru: "I'm not offended by the remark that Giuliani allegedly made about letting other candidates divide up the social-conservative vote: Very few conservative voters who consider social issues top tier are going to vote for him. ... But, again, like you, I do wish he would drop the throw-women-in-jail rhetoric."
• McCarthy: "I don't think it's enough for Rudy to let other candidates divide up the social conservatives ... He's got to make socials understand that he hears and respects what they're saying, and he wants their vote because he's largely with them - and it can't be BS."

Slowly, though the anti-Rudy tide changed as people began putting the Giuliani quote in context. John Podhoretzwarned : "All we have to go on here is a single sentence quoted by a single reporter who assures us he was speaking about abortion and offers no context or elaboration. The reason I have doubts about Giuliani saying something like that so unqualifiedly is that it flies in the face of what he has been doing quietly for two years now, which is to speak respectfully and guardedly about social issues and indicate that while he might not be a pro-lifer himself, he understands how deeply and passionately others feel about the matter."

After reading the Giuliani quote in full some were assuaged:

• Captain's Quarters: "That isn't quite the same as what the Register described in its headline as "Get past social issues". ... Giuliani explained himself clearly enough for the audience member, but apparently not enough for the press. Surprise, surprise."
• Bryan at Hot Air: "That is much better. Soundbites can distort remarks out of all proportion, and that seems to have been the case here. I do dislike the part about being a party that's known for what it's against rather than for, though. Pro-lifers are for the right to life, period. The media has long cast us as being "anti-abortion" because that's a negative spin on our point of view. Fellow Republicans shouldn't use the MSM's shorthand when describing or addressing each other."

Other Lowry emailers seemed to unapologetically support the harsher sentiment played up by the Register:

• Giuliani's absolutely right. Abortion is an issue government should never have got into in the first place. It has destroyed conservatism and allowed leftists like GWB to take over the GOP.
• Personally, I like the direction that Giuliani is taking and support him more now based on those comments. I consider myself a Reagan/Rudy Republican and feel that our party is far too focused on the hot button social issues that cause more smoke than fire in the world of politics today. I understand that the Religious Right is one of the strengths of our party, but they are not the only strength in our party. I would like to see our party move back to our Reaganite roots and away from the compassionate conservatism of the Bush presidency.

GOP FIELD: Not So Rapid Response

Posting at 5pm ET, Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham wanted to know why the Dem big three all had "sensitive and sensible" and non-exploitative posts up on their homepages about the tragedy in Blacksburg, VA, while none of the GOP big three had updated their sites at all. From Ham: "It's not a huge deal. I'm sure all three Republicans will release statements on the events of today, if they haven't already, but not recogunizing a major national event on your website makes you look, at best, out of the loop, and at worst, insensitive."

GOP FIELD II: Seriously Conservative

Race 4 '08s Jason interviewed David Brody of the Christian Broadcast Network's The Brody File including:

• Jason: Is there a common perception you get from your readers concerning the current crop of candidates?
• Brody: The Brody File readers are really all over the place in terms of their views. We get the hard core life and marriage voters; we get the the evangelicals who love Rudy, we get the Romney lovers and haters. It's really a wide spectrum of ideas. The one common theme seems to be that the candidates better take religious conservatives very seriously.

SOUTH CAROLINA: April Straw Polls Bring '08 Primary Victories?

Race 4 '08 explains that "April in South Carolina means time for all of the Republican Party County Conventions" and recounts that "so far, 8 counties have had their GOP conventions, ... Mitt Romney has won 6 of them (Beaufort, Newberry, Charleston, Horry, York, and Orangeburg Counties) and John McCain has won the other 2 (Florence and Greenwood Counties)." R408 then lists dates and times for the 18 more county conventions slated for this week.

SC's Daily Chaser adds to those totals noting that Romney picked up another win in Pickens County while Duncan Hunter won big in Anderson county thanks to Hunter consultant Robert Cahaly who "worked his hometown crowd extremely hard."

The Daily Chaser also recaps funding totals for '08ers from SC, including: Mitt Romney - $174,525; John McCain - $127,565; Rudy Giuliani - $120,650; Duncan Hunter - $18,000; and Sam Brownback - $7,612.

BROWNBACK: He's Got Real Bones

Students for Brownback blogger Billy Valentine posts on Brownback "Gaining Momentum in Iowa" at Race 4 '08. Valentine quotes a good Brownback review from IA College GOP co-chair Don McDowell: "I can safely say that I do like Brownback a lot. He's a very genuine guy and very sincere. There's just not a fake bone in his body."

HUNTER: Ahoy, Matey!

Duncan Hunter talked about nat'l security and "his vision for America" on Captain's Quarter Radio 4/16.

MCCAIN: Against Byzantium

While the Club for Growth is no fann of John McCain's record on taxes, Captain's Quarters thought an overhaul of the "Byzantine" tax code was "a good topic for McCain" since "He has long been a proponent of fiscal discipline, and this flows naturally from his activism on pork and other spending issues."

THOMPSON: Blogger In Chief

Noting that popular interest in Fred Thompson's candidacy already led to two RedState crashes after Thompson posts, AmSpec Blog's Washington Prowler links to ABC Radio's new site devoted to Thompson's 'Opinion and Commentary' here.

DEM FIELD: Mo' Evidence Of Edwards Mo'

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas posted final results for dKos' 4/07 straw poll:

John Edwards 42%
Barack Obama 25%
Bill Richardson 12%
Other 5%
No Freakin' Clue 5%

Edwards and Richardson both gained 4% from their 3/07 straw poll totals, while Obama dropped 1%.

DEM FIELD II: All Donors Favor Dems

MyDD's Chris Bowers examines Campaigun Finance Institute data on Q1 reports and notes:

• First, while small donations to Democratic candidates have greatly increased over the past four years, large donors are still firmly in command.
• Second, Obama completely dominates the field in terms of small donors, as he brought in twice as much from small donors as any other candidate, and over half of all small donor dollars for all Democratic candidates.
• Third, the Republican grassroots, while small, are not keen on the "frontrunners."
• Perhaps the most intriguing, and somewhat saddening, lesson from all this is that Democrats managed to pull ahead of Republicans in fundraising, but they did so on the backs of very large donors. Our $4.2M advantage in small donors is nothing compared to our $16.5M advantage in large donors.

DEM FIELD III: Clinton Leads On Moral Issue

NYC teacher Dan Brown examines the educational policies of each Dem candidate at The Huffington Post and concludes: "Al Gore's line on climate change fits just as snugly for public education: 'It's not a political issue, it's a moral issue.' American children can do much better than they are in school; the under-funding and high-stakes testing yokes of NCLB must come off and some real support must come in. Obama's Innovation Districts and Edwards' Second-Chance Schools can be great things. Richardson's commitment to higher education and Clinton's comprehensive class size reduction and building renovation plans are steps in the right direction. ... In my opinion, of the leading candidates in both parties, Senator Clinton's comments reveal the most clarified, comprehensive, and clear-thinking agenda for the future of public education."

NEVADA: An Opening For Edwards?

Reno and Its DiscontentsMyrna Minx shares a discussion she shared with other Washoe Dem on local '08er campaigun staffing: "If I recall correctly, the Clinton, Richardson, and Edwards campaiguns all have staff working in Northern Nevada although Clinton gets the most bonus points for hiring locals. Everyone present agreed that the Obama campaigun has so far igunored Northern Nevada-a big mistake considering the state Democratic turnout in the 2006 election. ... The consensus of all present was that every hour a campaigun worker spends in Northern Nevada is probably worth at least two hours spent in Clark County. That makes us at least half as important. If Obama continues to igunore Northern Nevada, Edwards has a real chance of placing in second in the Iowa and Nevada caucuses."

PROSECUTOR PURGE: Which US Attorneys Don't Dems Want To Talk To?

Afforded more time by the VA Tech tragedy, the netroots see more more possible fodder in Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) new claims of AG Alberto Gonzalez contradictions, than in ABC News claims that new emails are at odds with previous Gonzales statements. TPM's Josh Marshall points out that the email cited by ABC News is not new and was already discussed in detail at TPMmuckraker.

Marshall gives kudos to ABC news for noticing the email contradicts Gonzales testimony, but then provides more context to the story ultimately concluding that the more pressing issue is not Gonzalez denial of involvement, but the identification of the real reason behind the firing of US Attorney Carl Lam: "The fact that the immigration issue was never raised with Lam by the Department of Justice points strongly to the conclusion that it was not the reason for her firing but the pretext for it."

TPMmuckraker's Paul Kiel explains the significance of Schumer's claims, ex-AG CoS Kyle Sampson privately testified that Gonzales told him about conversations Gonzales had with Pres. Bush about the firings despite Gonzalez claims he does not remember talking to Bush: "The White House has a different version of the conversation -- that it was broader, about three districts (New Mexico, Milwaukee, Philadelphia) where voter fraud wasn't being aggressively pursued. Sampson's version, which has the conversation focusing on Iglesias, implicates Bush much more directly in his removal. So who did Gonzales get this version from? Does he remember that?"

Marshall wraps up weekend talk show commentary in a video here and reports: "Rep. "Conyers (D-MI) wants to talk to USAs Steven Biskupic (Milwaukee), Rachel Paulose (Minneapolis), Larry Gomez (acting USA in New Mexico, Iglesias's replacement), Mary Beth Buchanan (Western District of Pennsylvania) and others."

On the right AmSpec Blog's Quin Hilyer makes hay of reports that Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) CoS also called the DoJ to "inquire" about fired US Attorney David Iglesias. Also, Power Line's Paul Mirengoff makes the case the "alleged contradiction" in Gonzales testimony "is more apparent than real."

IRAQ: From Blacksburg To Baghdad

The shootings in Blacksburg, VA, may have failed to generate calls for more gun control, but they did inspire comparisons to Iraq. Daily Kos' LC Johnson rounds up tragic news in Iraq and concludes: "Let's total the score: At least 65 Iraqis dead in four attacks vs. 22 Americans shot at Virginia Tech. Whoops, forgot the 20 kidnapped policemen. Can you imagine? ... This is horrible and this is tragic and this gives us an idea of what it is like to live just one day in Iraq."

FiredoglakeTRex adds: "This is a terrible tragedy, one that will be haunting us for years to come. Still there is a part of my brain that absorbs this kind of sudden and senseless catastrophe and responds, "Welcome to what the people of Iraq go through every day."

At The Huffington Post, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) blogs in support of the Dems Iraq appropriation funding: "The American people have sent a clear message to Washington: it is time to start bringing our troops home from Iraq. ... Once again, President Bush took to the bully pulpit today and repeated his hollow claims that the provisions in this legislation would somehow undercut our troops. This is nonsense. ... The President will have to decide whether to sigun the bill into law or igunore the will of the American people by holding up this legislation with a veto. If the President chooses to work with Congress, we can reach a bipartisan solution that unites the country rather than divides it, while meeting the expectations and needs of the American people."

Also responding to Pres. Bush's 4/16 statements on Iraq, TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent cites Army times polling to rebut Bush claims "that a majority of the troops want to stay in Iraq until the job is finished." Sargent: "It suggests that the troops are ambiguous on this question, finding that only half thought the U.S. can succeed -- meaning that only half thought the job could be finished, let alone that they want to finish it. The other half, meanwhile, didn't think the "job" could be finished or didn't have an opinion on whether it could."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Death, Taxes, And Calculus

Matthew Yglesias celebrated Tax Day by making the case for a more complicated tax code: "In short, income tax brackets are a bad idea. The flat tax, of course, is a worse idea. What's needed is not a flat tax, but a curved tax, where rates are a smooth function of adjusted gross income. The total amount you owe could be calculated as the area beneath the curve -- an integral of the function. Back in the day, this was impractical because most people can't do calculus so the idea of a series of "brackets" was implemented as a mathematically tractable alternative. Thanks to computers, however, this is no longer a problem and calculating taxes owed according to a single function would be simple even if the function itself was very complicated."

LEST WE FORGET: Save LT

A group of San Diego Chargers fans have started an online petition beseeching EA Sports not to ruin LaDainian Tomlinson's career by placing him on the cover of Madden NFL 08, thus invoking the dreaded "Madden Curse." The site then recaps the fate of past cover boys including:

• Dorsey Levens - RB, Green Bay Packers: After recording 1,034 rushing yards in 1999, his production dropped severely. He only rushed for 224 yards the year after he appeared on the cover.
• Daunte Culpepper - QB, Minnesota Vikings: After appearing on the cover of the 2002 version, Culpepper struggled to a 4-7 start and eventually fell to a knee injury.
• Michael Vick - QB, Atlanta Falcons: Literally days after Madden 2004 was released, Vick injures his fibula and misses all but 5 games of the Atlanta Falcons season. The Falcons ended up with a 5-11 record.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:40 PM

April 16, 2007

4/16: Board Games

Was it Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) in Albuquerque with the phone call? Was it Dick Cheney in San Diego with obstruction of justice? Or was it Karl Rove in the WH with trumped up voter fraud charges? With all the players and motives involved one can hardly blame a person for having trouble remembering what "the real scandal" at the heart of the prosecutor purge story is. As we head into 4/17's Senate Judiciary hearings with AG Alberto Gonzales, will the lack of a coherent narative hinder Dem efforts to push the story forward? Or is keeping already admitted Bush Administration incompetence on the matter at the forefront of attention enough?

PROSECUTOR PURGE: The Missing Link

The Albuquerque Journal's 4/15 article revealing a Sen. Pete Domeneci (R-NM) call to Pres. Bush urging the firing of NM US Attorney David Iglesias is leading netroots attention on the scandal heading into AG Alberto Gonzales' 4/17 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Cmt. Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall underscores the importance of the development:

No one disputes that Domenici's call to Iglesias was at best inappropriate. But there's been a lack of direct evidence that Iglesias's refusal to bow to political pressure led directly to his firing. Now we have that evidence. And it's not Kyle Sampson or even Alberto Gonzales whom Domenici went to to get sign off for Iglesias's ouster. It was right to the president. And the available evidence now points strongly to the conclusion that the final decision to fire David Iglesias came from the President of the United States.

TPM eagerly awaited WH reaction to the AJ story, and after WH spokesman Trey Bohn pointed to earlier Bush statements that he "never brought up a specific case nor gave him specific instructions," a TPM reader wrote in to respond: "You can drive a Halliburton convoy through that White House denial. ... So a call from the President to the Attorney General in which he says, "Pete Domenici called me this morning, says we gotta do something about that U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, Iglesias. Not doing his jobs, not bringing cases fast enough - can you look into that, see what needs to be done?" That would fit within the White House denial."

PROSECUTOR PURGE II: Not So Titanic Tuesday

The renewed focus on the WH's role has some wondering how relevant Gonzalez even is to the story. Matthew Yglesias links to Marty Lederman making the case that Gonzales was the "rubber-stamper" Gonzalez claims he is in his already released opening statement. Lederman argues the focus ought to be on the prime movers in the firings were Karl Rove and Harriet Miers.

More Lederman: "The biggest part of that scandal, by the way, is not the dismissals of the U.S. Attorneys ... It is, instead, the elaborate fiction of widespread "voter fraud," which has not only been the predicate for the enactment of numerous disenfranchising voter ID laws, and the pretext for stopping much-needed voter-registration reforms, but has also resulted in in terrorem prosecutions by the Department of Justice on trivial or trumped-up charges."

Conservatives also expect little light to come from 4/17's hearings. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff writes: "If President Bush still likes Gonzales and has confidence in him, then the Attorney General probably can keep his job as long as he doesn't lay an egg. ... the fact that the "scandal" has so many supposed facets may conspire in the end against the Dems. The scandals that tend to bring people down tend to be about one or two fairly straightforward things. If the Dems successfully can portray this affair as an attempt to derail Abramoff-related investigations or to use the Justice Department to aid Republican politicians in New Mexico, then it will resonate. But it looks like the Dems have no evidence that Gonzales was trying to accomplish these goals. Thus, the Dems probably will have to use a scatter-gun approach."

PROSECUTOR PURGE III: Benign Incompetence

Ex-DOJ lawyer Daniel Metcalfe's interview with Legal Times about his decision to leave justice is being widely cited in netroots circles. TPM'a David Kurtz highlights:

• Ever since the Watergate era, ... the Justice Department maintained a healthy distance between it and what could be called the raw political concerns that are properly within the White House's domain. ... But that strong tradition of independence over the previous 30 years was shattered in 2005 with the arrival of the White House counsel as a second-term AG.
• All sworn assurances to the contrary notwithstanding, it was as if the White House and Justice Department now were artificially tied at the hip -- through their public affairs, legislative affairs and legal policy offices, for example, as well as where you ordinarily would expect such a connection (i.e., Justice's Office of Legal Counsel).
• In my experience over 11 presidential administrations, from Nixon I to what can be called Bush III, there is an unmistakable drop-off in overall appointment quality during a second presidential term -- and this definitely is more so during a Republican administration.

Kurtz comments: "Metcalfe's perspective is worth considering. It is, in some respects, a more benign explanation for some of what we have seen than I might favor." Daily Kos' mcjoan links and adds: "these excerpts on the extreme politicization of the department by poorly qualified Bush sycophants underline precisely why Alberto Gonzales should never have been confirmed Attorney General. And why he should be removed from that office now."

DEM FIELD: The Competence Dodge

Following MyDD's Matt Stoller's "despair" that Barack Obama's foreign policy vision includes a continuing American troop presence in Iraq, Matthew Yglesias argues it is "both understandable and correct that people who are hoping to be president in 2009 want to leave themselves some wiggle room" on the issue. Yglesias goes on to explain why the idea of retaining some U.S. forces in the region comes down to its proper execution: "The issue, to me, is that flexibility is a double-edged sword. In the hands of a good president, it's a good thing. In the hands of a bad president, it's a bad thing. This is why one needs a good president."

Stoller responds: "There are two issues here. One is entirely political and has to do with the meaning of various words as used by our candidates. To me, when a candidate says that he or she will end the war, it means cessation of hostilities. ... If they want to argue that leaving troops in Iraq is a good thing, fine, but be forthright about it. ... The second issue is whether a full withdrawal makes sense on policy grounds. ... The question is whether keeping troops in Iraq, for whatever purpose, is a good idea. ... This is especially true if you think, as Samantha Power does, that American forces should remain to manage the voluntary ethnic cleansing of millions of Iraqis so genocide doesn't happen."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat tracks the debate but argues the more pressing concern is getting the troops out before 1/09: "President Bush is not talking about residual forces - he is sending in MORE troops. We need to stop this Debacle. Right now, Reid-Feingold is the only viable proposal, and no it does not have to become law to end the Debacle. So my main questions now for all pols, activists, etc. is, and will remain for the time being, "do you support Reid-Feingold? If not, why not?"

CLINTON: Making The Case

Mystery Pollster's Mark Blumenthal reviews Chris Bowers claims that national polls are inflating Hillary Clinton's numbers concluding that the evidence is "sketchy and contradictory." Bowers responds: "one aspect of my argument cannot be doubted. By sampling between 40-50% of all registered voters, the vast majority of national Democratic primary polls are not specifically sampling the Democratic primary electorate. As such, these polls should not only be taken with a grain of salt, but should almost be dismissed entirely as useful indicators of the current state of play in the Democratic primary / caucus season."

Also at MyDD, Clinton aide Mike Henry "makes the case for Hillary Clinton" on BlogTalkRadio

OBAMA: Another Reach Around

Barack Obama aide Samantha Power is taking netroots criticism for her preview of Obama's foreign policy vision in which she said: "We're going to hear something very unusual on the left, which is a genuine pride in what America can be again." MyDD's Matt Stoller responds: "Power is owned by the reflexive notion that the left has no pride in America, which makes sense considering that she came from the world of journalism rather than advocacy. Journalists like to think of themselves as liberals who are above politics, a current especially strong in the foreign policy set."

Daily Kos' mcjoan adds: "Excuse me, Ms. Power, but the genuine pride the American left--including every single Democratic presidential candidate--feels for this country and for what we want for it in the future is not "very unusual." It's the driving force for any progressive in trying to take our country back.

In other Obama doubting, MyDD's Mark Adams wonders how real Obama's outsider talk is after reading a Washington Post story detailing Obama's efforts to connect with "wealthy clients of lobbying firms." Adams writes: "This isn't the first time I've come across a story that tells us that Obama is doing a reach around to abide by his stated policy to refuse any more of the PAC or lobbyist money he collected for his senate runs, yet finding a way to access the donations of the wealthy, and give them access too. ... But something of this stinks. I'm reminded of a chief executive who signs a piece of legislation with great fanfair, but once behind closed doors, files a signing statement full of enough loopholes to make the new law meaningless."

OBAMA II: Walkin' On Sunshine

Andrew Sullivan continues his deepening love affair with Obama, highlighting a Chuck Toddarticle on how the Don Imus affair demonstrates how Hillary Clinton is "embracing" identity politics while Obama is running away from it. Sullivan adds: "One more way in which Clinton really does represent the past and Obama the future."

In other positive Obama-blogging, a MyDD commenter makes the case "Why it's a good thing Obama is not the presumptive Netroots candidate." Also Calitics documents a strong Obama presence at the Day of Climate Action in Huntington Beach 4/14: "As the rally was getting started at Pier Plaza, the Obama Grassroots team was setting up a table. And as soon as the march began, Team Obama stayed at the pier to register voters and answer any questions about Barack Obama, the grassroots campaign in Orange County, and what he plans to do about climate change should he be elected as our 44th President. Even though the gloomy clouds were beginning to roll in from the Pacific, it was all smiles for Team Obama!"

RICHARDSON: Died And Went To A Fundraiser

Burnt Orange Report's Todd Hill recounts a recent Bill Richardson fundraiser he attended that was forced into a storm shelter by tornado sirens: "So there I was following the host, practically leading by hand Gov. Bill Richardson to the storm shelter as he was standing next to me when the order came through. ... Considering there was no more then 25 at this event, I felt comfortable knowing if I were to die from a tornado at this point how cool it was that I'm with a Democratic presidential candidate, surrounded by an abundance of liquor, and all the food I could ever want. The downside was it was also a room full of Republicans, so indeed a precious balance of dying happy and dying with political enemies."

GOP FIELD: Boos For Gilmore

First hand reports from IA GOP's annual Lincoln Day Dinner are coming in. Race 4 '08s Kavon Nikrad breaks down the performances of the big three (declared candidates) including:

• Rudy [Giuliani] opened the evening with a subdued but philosophical and substantive speech which outlined that the Republican Party needs to reach out to voters by emphazing what we are for: staying on offense on the GWOT, maintaining a growth economy, and finding market solutions to our nation's problems - not what we are against.
• Mitt [Romney] followed Rudy and somewhat tarnished what was an absolutely spectacular speech by pulling a stunt where the first thing he did upon reaching the podium was to invite his wife and son from their dinner table to the stage for a personal introduction to the audience.
• John McCain delivered an emotional and passionate account of the cost of defeat in Iraq, and deserves special commendation for being the only candidate of the 9 in attendance that clearly defended and allied himself with President Bush.

IA's Krusty Konservative also gave McCain high marks but focussed more on smaller candidates including:

• I know that many of you think I'm a [Mike] Huckabee homer, but I thought Huckabee used Saturday's event to make a very favorable impression on Iowa caucus goers. ... Huckabee is a rock solid social konservative, he also is probably the best speaker in the field outside of Mitt Romney.
• Governor Jim Gilmore used his allotted time to rail against the top three and Fred Thompson. ... I'm sure Gilmore knew it would get a reaction, but I bet he didn't think it would generate gasps and scattered boos.

BROWNBACK: No Federalism Dodging Here

Townhall's Matt Lewis says "the most contentious political battle" within the GOP primary is actually between Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney: "So why do these two camps dislike each other? It's a simple turf battle; Brownback's campaign believes Romney is a poseur on conservative issues -- and worse -- is getting Catholic support that should rightly belong to Brownback. But money talks and while Mitt Romney is an excellent fundraiser, Sam Brownback is a pathetic one."

Lewis closes by wondering if Romney will be hurt by declining to weigh in on a SC proposal to require ultrasound viewings before an abortion. Lewis comments: "Romney is arguing that it is a state's rights issue, while, you can be sure the Brownback folks don't see it that way."

GIULIANI: Let The Courts Decide

Rudy Giuliani appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio show 4/13. Highlights including:

• HH: Now President Bush won the Catholic vote ... Can you keep that majority, given your abortion rights positions?
• RG: Well, I hope that people look at the overall record. ... There are going to be issues you agree on, issues you don't agree on, and then you as the voter have to make the decision what's most important to me right now. What are the big issues? ... And right now, if we predict a year and a half ahead, it looks like the biggest problems we're going to be facing are the terrorist war against us, which irrespective of Iraq, is going to continue, whatever happens in Iraq.
• HH: Would you like to see Roe V. Wade reversed, Mayor?
• RG: I would [hesitates, not indicating agreement] ... what I'd like to see are abortions reduced, and adoptions increased. And I reduced abortions declined about 15, 16% while I was Mayor, I think more than the national average. But most importantly, adoptions went up over 60%.
• HH: But would it be a good day or a bad day for America if Roe V. Wade was reversed by the Roberts' Court?
• RG: Oh, I think that's something the Court has to decide.

MCCAIN: No More Free Media Riding

Libertarian leaning bloggers continue to kick John McCain while his fundraising numbers are down. NY Sun's Ryan Sager writes: "What's worst for Mr. McCain is that a slump like this is likely to feed on itself. Very bad first-quarter fundraising figures + extremely bad polling numbers do not = a successful second-quarter fundraising showing. And with no money and all the free media going against you ... well, you'd better hope those town halls really do the trick."

Hit and Run's David Weigel takes the opportunity to hit campaign finance reform again: "Seriously, McCain's last act in politics is providing a good argument against public financing. If the candidates' purses were being filled up with public or matching funds, Romney, Giuliani and Thompson wouldn't be able to build the advantage they're building over McCain, and come April 2008 or so the party would be stuck with him.

ROMNEY: Are His Grassroots Green?

Bush '04 eCampaign Director Michael Turk voiced some serious doubts about Mitt Romney's "online fundraising" claims at techPresident including: "Romney, with a number of total donors that is on par with or less than the "online donors" of the three Democrats raised more than all of them online? I doubt it. More likely, the campaign is driving their large donors and event attendees to give via credit card on the website in order to pad the online number." Outside the Beltway's James Joyner buys the argument, but fellow techPresident poster Alan Rosenblatt argues Turk is being a little uptight:

With all the attention being paid to how much money the candidates are raising online, I think we need to better understand what "online fundraising" means. Does it just include funds that are solicited and fulfilled online, or does it also include any funds submitted through the candidates' online contribution forms, regardless of how solicited? Or what if people mail in a check based on an email solicitation? You see, this is not such a simple question.

Turk later seconds Rosenblatt's call for better coverage on the topic: "I've been rethinking the operational definition of "online fundraising". While there has definitely been a specific connotation for that term - essentially equating it to "grassroots" fundraising, it appears that many now feel the definition is out-dated." Turk then outlines what reporters should be asking candidates about their fundraising numbers: "specifically, they should ask a) how many itemized donors does the campaign have, b) how many unitemized donors, c) of your total receipts, how much is attributable to itemized contributions, d) how much is attributable to unitemized donors? ... To his credit, Romney was forthcoming with the total of itemized/unitemized donors, but did not indicate the amounts they raised respectively."

ROMNEY II: The PalMITTo State

SC's Daily Chaser offers an explanation for Romney's recent four-for-fiveperformance in GOP county straw polls:

• 1. Romney is climbing within the GOP base and he is picking up support in past McCain strongholds including Charleston & Horry.
• 2. McCain is dropping within the GOP base.
• 3. The GOP base isn't as wild about Giuliani as public polls show the ordinary voters are.
• 4. Although the news wants everyone to believe that the GOP base is unsatisfied with its slate of candidates, these straw polls show otherwise. Only 11% voted for Gingrich or Fred Thompson.

THOMPSON: Not Slowing Down

Fred Thompson increased his lead in Pajama's Media online straw poll from 37% of the field 4/8 to 55% 4/15.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's Like Al Sharpton's Good For Ratings Or Something

Atrios identifies a pattern on MSM coverage of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson related incidents:

• 1) Bigot eruption somewhere
• 2) Lots of people condemn it
• 3) Al Sharpton goes on every teevee program
• 4) The media people turn around and use Sharpton's past as a distraction/excuse for the current bigot eruption

Atrios adds: "If Al Sharpton is an imperfect spokesperson for an issue, and you keep putting him on the teevee to be the spokesperson for that issue, then the obvious conclusion is that this is a deliberate strategy."

LEST WE FORGET: Still Could Have Used Him In Sacramento

WaPo's Dan Steinberg isn't impressed with GW freshman's Monty Singh Harika efforts to garner publicity by declaring for the NBA draft:

Harika says he's friends with a bunch of Colonials; that he plays in pick-up games with them in the student rec center, and also with other students; that he does fairly well in these games; that he is concentrating on basketball to the exclusion of his schoolwork ... He can't technically dunk a ball--he has bad knees from when he used to weigh so much--but he can grab the rim, which ought to come in handy at the next level. I asked if he might be able to compare himself to any NBA stars.

Steinberg followed up with GW assistant Greg Collucci "I feel like if there was a guy who could play in the NBA walking around GW and working out in the Health and Wellness Center, hopefully we'd know," Collucci said.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:45 PM

April 13, 2007

4/13: The Never Ending Story?

Unfired WI US Atty Steve Biskupic is just the latest focal point of netroots blogging on the Prosecutor Purge story. Bloggers are making the case that the recent forceful reversal of a Biskupic-won voter-fraud conviction by an appeals court, best encapsulates what is at the heart of the story: Bush admin. pursuit of frivolous voter-fraud claims for narrow partisan gain at the cost of prosecutorial resources better spent addressing real crimes.

Since MSM coverage of admin. 'scandal' is normally driven by illegality, the Blogometer doubts this story would ever have gotten this far without the resources devoted to it by the netroots. While there still is no evidence, and even few suggestions for that matter, that anything illegal was actually done, DOJ's management competence a completely valid political issue. However, since Pres. Bush won't be on the '08 ballot, the netroots will have to find ways to connect the story to the eventual GOP candidate. TPM's Josh Marshall has repeatedly urged MSMers to ask former US Attorney Rudy Giuliani how he feels about the issue. So far the Blogometer has not seen any takers.

PROSECUTOR PURGE: Might It Be Easier For Waxman To Just Work Out Of 310 First Street?

Following news that the WH may have 'lost' up to 5M emails between '03 and '05, and that counter to Patrick Fitzgerald's order, Karl Rove continued deleting his own RNC well into '05, the netroots are calling on House Dems to go beyond their recent requests for federal agencies to preserve email from RNC accounts.

House Gov. Reform and Oversight Chair Henry Waxmanhas directed gov't agencies "to preserve e-mails received from or sent to non-governmental e-mail accounts used by White House staffers" and "provide an inventory of all e-mails involving these accounts." Bloggers fear that these efforts will not be enough to uncover GOP underhandedness and are urging House Dems to subpoena the entire RNC computer system. AMERICAblog's John Aravosis writes: "They've deleted countless emails to and from senior White House staff in order to hide the evidence of any wrongdoing, and in clear violation of federal law. ... The Hill needs to subpoena the Republican National Committee computer systems, now (it was the RNC that provided the senior White House staff with the emails and blackberrys they used to skirt the law). And then the Congress ought to hit any outside email services used by senior White House staff, in clear violation of White House police and federal law, with more subpoenas."

The Reality Based Community's Mark Kleiman agrees: "There is every reason for the Congress to act to secure those computers immediately and protect the data on them. By the same token, it is urgent to get Rove and his colleagues on record under oath right now, before they know what will and won't prove to be recoverable. Obviously, the Justice Department is not going to investigate this matter, and there is no longer a Special Prosecutor statute. That leaves only the Congress, "the grand inquest of the nation," to uncover the facts."

GIULIANI: A Wink Is Not Enough

Rudy Giuliani's blogging star may be fading as conservatives grow tired of equivocations and start to demand more a definitive defense of their beliefs from Rudy. A Hotline On Call item on Giuliani using federalism to dodge important issues to conservatives drew some defenses of Giuliani but some agreement as well. AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein defends: "I [] think that Giuliani is absolutely right by saying these issues should be left to the states. For instance, I personally find the confederate flag to be offensive because I associate it with slavery, which will forever be the greatest stain on this nation's history. But I understand that that the flag has different meanings for different people, and in no way do I think that the president should have any role in determining whether or not individual states should fly the flag."

But also at AmSpec, Dave Holman agrees with On Call's conclusions, if not their reasoning: "Giuliani's federalism isn't weak for the reasons [On Call] gives. It is fake because it contradicts his support for Roe. By touting federalism, pro-lifers are supposed to take heart that he would promote policies or legal interpretations that would enable some states to restrict abortion. But if he still supports Roe, or at least think it is a legitimate conclusion under any theory of robust federalism, his federalism rings hollow. His continued support for Roe and federal funding of abortion reveals his "federalism" talk as a wink and a nod."

Race 4 '08s Republius also is no fan of "this federalism dodge" since it is "a disingenuous pouring of fuel on the fire." Instead, Republius advises: " The answer isn't to go from the extreme of off the cuff to the other of punting; the answer is to take private time to lay out, important issue by important issue, a comprehensive, coherent, and consistent position in every area before hitting the hustings."

Not on federalism, The Corner's Rich Lowry shares reader email doubting Giuliani's commitment to the war in Iraq, specifically in comparison to John McCain's 4/11 VMI speech: "in discussing the deployment of more troops, Mr.Giuliani has been alone in saying that such a strategy may not succeed, potentially providing him cover should the situation in Iraq deteriorate further. ... In California a few days later, speaking of "the danger of focusing on Iraq too much," he said that complete success there would not win the fight against terrorism, and that failure there would not lose it. Giuliani has a hawkish image which does not seem to be entirely deserved." Lowry comments: "Well, nothing Giuliani said is necessarily objectionable on the merits, but I take your point: he is providing himself more wiggle room than McCain."

MCCAIN: Don't Call It A Comeback

Responding to LA Times new poll showing John McCain falling to 3rd behind Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, The Corner's Rich Lowry wonders if McCain "has gotten himself back where he is psychologically most comfortable-as an underdog, fighting a tough up-hill battle. I hope-at least temperamentally-it liberates McCain and he becomes the "give 'em hell" candidate. "

Lowry explains why he welcomes the new McCain: "I was struck last week in New Hampshire how cheerful and upbeat both Romney and Giuliani were. I don't think that's where the conservative mood is. It's getting more mad and disgusted by the hour (at and with the Democrats, the drift of events in the world, the failures of the Bush administration). That's the sentiment a "give 'em hell" McCain could tap into, and he had an excellent start with his VMI speech yesterday."

Lowry also posts reader email noting that 'McCain's Divorce' from the MSM will make a general election victory more difficult for McCain: "The Media Divorce has huge political implications. McCain's appeal to the center was always built on a media created halo. ... Now that McCain is acting on clear and admirable principle, the halo is being stripped from him, which greatly complicates his appeal to swing voters. Whereas McCain's zealous rhetorical excesses were once lauded as straight-talk, now they are nit-picked."

ROMNEY: The Challenger

Thanks to YouTube's new feature "You Choose '08 Spotlight" Mitt Romney currently has the 3rd most viewed video. YouTube's 'Spotlight' will showcase one WH '08er per week asking YouTubers to answer a specific question. In turn, users can submit video responses to the candidates questions.

Romney asks users: "What do you believe is America's single greatest challenge and what would you do to address it?" You can see user answers here.

TANCREDO: Asked And Answered

The Corner's John Derbyshire asks why "The Corner a Tancredo-free zone?" since "Tom has been a solid conservative for ever. (Ninety-eight percent lifetime rating from American Conservative Union.) He is sound as a bell on every conservative issue you can name, and always has been."

K-Lo responds: "I was at the CPAC speech and recall cringing quite a few times. Tone is not nothing and I'm sorry, but Tancredo can't be - and won't - be the voice of the Republican party or conservatives. "

THOMPSON: No Candidate Turns Down Free Media

Corner readers throw water on Kausfile's rumors that Fred Thompson will announce 5/4: "No way Thompson announces in early May. He has a big movie playing in May on HBO - Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee - in which he plays the President. If he announced before it airs, 1) the network would almost certainly have to pull the movie and 2) he would lose tons of associated free media."

CLINTON: The Committed Are Uncommitted

Noting that the LA Times new poll interviewed "registered voters" without "making any attempt to actually try and poll anything resembling an accurate makeup of the Democratic primary and caucus electorate nationwide," MyDD's Chris Bowers argues that Hillary Clinton's lead is inflated. Bowers explains: "I bet not a single one of these polls makes any attempts to adjust for the primary / caucus rules specific to the state where people are being polled. ... Again, Clinton is weaker among high-information Democrats who are more likely to vote in Democratic primaries than she is among all self-identified Democrats."

DODD: A Late Hour Call

Daily Kos's mcjoan asks if Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama will "step up" to Chris Dodd's call for them to join him "standing up to the president once and for all by stating their support for the Feingold-Reid legislation that sets a firm timetable to end this war by March 31st, 2008." More Dodd: "After more than 3,200 lives lost, tens of thousands wounded and $400 billion spent, it is time to bring an end to a war that at every turn has failed to make America safer. The hour is late. It is time to begin putting our country on a more secure path."

EDWARDS: No Fluff Here

Despite some minor complaints, bloggers continue to note John Edwards' recent rising fortunes. In the complaint department, TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta hits Edwards for his "weak, cautious response" to the Don Imus affair. She blogs: "Edwards missed an important opportunity to show solidarity with the women's and African-American groups that were calling for Imus's ouster -- alliances that he'll need if he makes it to the South Carolina primary and wants to do more than make an appeal to the few white guys who still vote Democratic in that state."

A MyDD commentator took issue with Elizabeth Edwards for her characterization of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supporters as "suffering from Cult of Personality." The commenter fire back: "What on earth does she think her supporters suffer from?" From Edwards: "Maybe this is the warm-up period where we allow ourselves a little fluff and frivolity."

In positive Edwards blogging, Matthew Yglesias makes his case for the inevitability of an Edwards victory: "If I had a choice between leading in national polls (Clinton), leading in fundraising (Obama), or leading in Iowa (Edwards) I'd take leading in Iowa. Money has diminishing marginal returns and Edwards has "enough" fundraising to keep running a major campaign. ... Last, the emerging Obama-Clinton dynamic is making it very likely that Edwards can keep plugging away for the next six months and become everyone's second choice."

At MyDD, Jerome Armstrong notes that recent SRBI polling shows that Al Gore's absence from the race will help Edwards: "The movement of Gore supporters to their number two choice of Edwards is making this a three-way race."

OBAMA: Giving Blogging A Bad Name

Netroots pressure on Barack Obama over Iraq is not fading. MyDD's Matt Stoller hits Obama for ending his 'freeze-out' of Fox News by praising John McCain. MyDD's aiko, however,forcefully defends Obama: "Obama answered questions today before a group of reporters. Brit Hume of Fox News was in the gaggle of reporters and asked a question. Obama answered Hume's question. ... But what really galls me is the rush to judgement. Why the rush to condemn him? ... Obama is going to make mistakes but this crowd is laying in wait. You guys are gunning for him. It is stuff like this that gives blogging a bad name."

While aiko may have put out that fire, others were brewing over Obama's words to CNN: "I am not yet at the point where I am prepared to say that I am going to cut off funding, partly because I spent a lot of time in Iowa, in Illinois, in small communities where every town hall meeting I have I meet with a mother whose son or daughter is in Iraq and they are concerned not only about getting them home but also concerned about getting them home safely and making sure they've got the night vision goggles and the armor and so forth."

MyDD's Vox Populi responds: "What Senator Obama is saying is that it is irresponsible to withdraw funding for the war. He is implying that Democrats who support defunding are not giving proper body armor and equipment to the soldiers on the ground."

Daily Kos' Georgia10 also hits Obama for the CNN interview and adds: "For all his talk of leadership ("I'm committed to finding the 67 votes we need to override this veto"), one would think that Obama would be the first to sign on as a co-sponsor to Feingold-Reid. ... Either you want the war to end in March 2008 (as so many of their bills claim), or you don't. It is fundamentally inconsistent--and frankly, disrespectful to the American voter--to on the one hand boldly proclaim that it should be the policy of the United States to have all or most troops out of Iraq by March 2008, but then refuse to sign on to legislation that would truly effectuate that policy."

IRAQ: We Love Rahm!!!

Dem Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel won a rare round of netroots praise for his memo urging Dems to "remain resolute" behind their Iraq supplemental funding legislation. Daily Kos' mcjoan says Emanuel 'gets it' and The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen writes: "This is the right message at the right time. ... There are probably some Dems on the Hill who are wavering, worried that they'll lose a showdown over war funding with Bush. Emanuel is reminding them that this is no time for backing down - Dems are pushing the right policy and have the country behind them."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: We Hate Jenni!!!

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas agrees with Boing Boing's analysis that the DNC could have done a lot better in their choice for Deputy CEO for Public Affairs for the convention than RIAA's Jenni Engebretsen. Kos quotes Boing Boing: "

The liberal blogosophere is united on many fronts -- not just disliking US foreign policy. We also hate the RIAA -- for suing our friends, for lobbying for laws that suspend due process rights of the accused (the RIAA's favorite law, the DMCA, was used by Diebold to suppress information about failures in its voting machines), and for demanding the right to "pretext" (commit wire fraud) in order to catch "pirates." Worse still, the RIAA are part of the initiative to corrupt net neutrality, imposing centralized controls on the transmission of information across the network.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is This Story Over Yet?

Kansas City Star sports columnist Jason Whitlock on recent events:

I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.

Somehow, we're supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers' wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage. But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction.

LEST WE FORGET: The Blogometer Will See Any Movie With Christopher Walken In It

Can't get enough over the top physical comedy? Then check out College Humor's Will Ferrell Movie Generator which spits out Ferrell movie ideas, like the one below, until you find one you like:

Will Ferrell

plays Norbit Schipper, an egotistical, obnoxious dog trainer at the top of his profession. He and his sidekick, played by Chris Parnell, seem invincible until their dominance is threatened by a new rival. Norbit Schipper's excessive pride causes him to spiral downward to comical lows. When he is at the depths of despair, he removes his shirt and bellows,

Your corn-cob pipe is a stallion, a deviant stallion!

After a wacky training process featuring a surprise cameo by Christopher Walken and a marginally-developed romantic subplot, he enters into a climactic showdown with his rival and emerges victorious - but not without learning a thing or two about friendship.

Estimated Opening Weekend Box Office Returns: $46.1 million

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:38 PM

April 12, 2007

4/12: Clarity.org

If you ever wanted proof that Dems are more in love with their own idea of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) than what Obama actually is, you need look no further than a poll of MoveOn.org members following their online Townhall on Iraq forum. MoveOn allowed all of their members to vote on the question: "Which candidate do you believe would be best able to lead the country out of Iraq?" and Obama won with 28% (John Edwards had 25%, Dennis Kucinich 17%, and Bill Richardson 12%). Among those who actually listened to the debate at House Parties, however, Obama came in third with 19% while Edwards held steady with 25% and Richardson surged to second with 21%. As our coverage below shows, among netroots leaders, Richardson was the hands-down winner of the forum while Obama failed to distinguish himself. Will elite netroots opinion filter through the Dem base, or will Obama coast to victory?

DEM FIELD: They Have Their Work Cut Out For Them

Netroots leaders are using the MoveOn.org Iraq forum as launching pad to "Stop[] the Obama/Edwards/Clinton Charade on Iraq." MyDD's Matt Stoller elaborates:

Of the top-tier candidates, only Edwards is close to articulating a real policy on Iraq, but it's clear from his lunatic statements on Iran that he is in the thrall of the national security state. ... Obama still uses the war on terror frame and on the Moveon call venerated Reagan's approach to diplomacy. That's pathetic ... To Edwards, Obama, and Clinton supporters who let their candidates get away with this, you are letting this happen with your silence and enabling. Stop it. It's your responsibility to stop it.

Fellow MyDDer Chris Bowers voices a very similar message: "I believe that those who wish to lead the Democratic Party are obligated to be truthful with our activists about how large they expect the continued American military presence in Iraq to be if they were to become President. Will their residual forces require 10,000, 30,000 or 75,000 troops? What will those troops be doing, and how long will they be doing it? It is equally an obligation of progressive activists to find out the details of these plans, and be truthful with each other when discussing what each candidate actually means by withdrawal and ending the war in Iraq."

First noting that recent polling shows just as many Americans support removing "most" troops as support removing "all" troops, Bowers urges netrooters not to let "progressive policy elites staffing think tanks, congress, and presidential campaigns" get away with proposing merely a reduction in US involvement in Iraq when they should be ending it. Bowers on why bloggers are part of the problem: "Because we like Edwards or Obama, we have no problem letting them slide on this contradiction, which makes it impossible for us to credibly call out candidates like Hillary Clinton on the contradiction."

DODD: All Aboard The Reid-Feingold Train

For the first time the Blogometer can remember, Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat announced his official support for Chris Dodd. Dodd separated himself from the pack for BTD by not only co-sponsoring the Reid-Feingold bill to defund the Iraq war, but also by calling on "co-aspirants" to join him in trying to make the bill law.

EDWARDS: Yeah, London's Just Like Baghdad

There seems to be some disagreement about whether John Edwards' position on Iraq passes netroots muster. After the Townhall, Team Edwards sent out a clarification of his position including:

When we say complete withdrawal we mean it. No more war. No combat troops in the country. Period. But we're also being honest. If John Edwards is president, we're not going to leave the American Embassy in Iraq as the only undefended embassy in the world, for example. There will be Marine guards there, just like there are at our embassies in London, Riyadh, and Tokyo. And just the same, if American civilians are providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, we're going to protect them.

MyDD's Matt Stoller responds: "But this means combat troops in the country. ... Preventing genocide, protecting an embassy, and protecting humanitarian workers are all good things, though whether they are possible at this point is a different question. But that's not the point of this post. Having combat troops in country just cannot be reconciled with "No combat troops in the country." These two statements are mutually exclusive. Period."

Also at MyDD, Bowers wasn't as definitive: "Leaving troops in Iraq to defend American non-governmental personnel is a bit of a gray area. It certainly does seem different from both "having no residual force whatsoever" and from having a "continuing military mission in Iraq." ... If we are still training Iraqis via American troops in Iraq, and / or engaging in military-backed "counter-terrorism" efforts on the ground, are we really ending the war? I don't think so."

Defending Edwards, Matt Yglesias argues Dem voters shouldn't sweat the details on the war: "John Edwards' statement on what he thinks withdrawal entails seems eminently reasonable to me. ... There is, I note, a certain intrinsic fuzziness here. ... What one needs, at the end of the day, is a president who'll bring in a good team and demonstrate good judgment, not a president who'll make good campaign promises. Better good campaign promises than bad ones, of course, but there's a limited value to these things."

EDWARDS II: How To Look Good On TV Without Really Trying

CyclizenJim Provenzano is not impressed with Edwards' LGBT outreach efforts so far: "It's very nice that his web site officially announces the fact that he has - or, more probably, his people have - met with a group of 35 allegedly important political movers and shakers in our "community." ... The majority of these people are Human Rights Campaign board members or employees."

Provenzano goes over the list in detail and concludes: "So, only 5 of these people are women. Without looking up headshots of these alleged "community representatives," I see few non-Caucasian names. So, basically, Edwards schmoozed with a bunch of A-list rich white guys to consult about how to make him look good on TV."

OBAMA: Yes Or No, Senator?

Daily Kos' mcjoan picked up on John McCain's invocation of Barack Obama's 'no lawmaker wants to play chicken with our troops' line during his VMI address 4/11. McCain told students: "I hope Democrats in Congress will heed the advice of one of their leading candidates for President, Senator Obama, and immediately pass a new bill to provide support to our troops in Iraq without substituting their partisan interests for those of our troops and our country." Mcjoan comments: "Message matters."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat posts Obama's reply, including: "Progress in Iraq cannot be measured by the same ideological fantasies that got us into this war ... The truth is, the Iraqis have made little progress toward the political solution between Shiia and Sunni which is the last, best hope to end this war. I believe that letting the Iraqi government know America will not be there forever is the best way to pressure the warring factions toward this political settlement."

But BTD was not impressed: "Obama "reply" is a nonsequitor. The question is Senator Obama -- do you believe the Congress should, in the face of a Presidential veto of the Iraq supplemental funding bill, immediately pass a new bill to provide support to our troops in Iraq? Yes or no. It seems a simple question to answer. I do not understand why it is so difficult for Senator Obama to give a straight answer to this question."

RICHARDSON: The Sharpest Tool In The Shed

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas has always admitted his fondness for Bill Richardson, and Richardson's 4/10 MoveOn Townhall call for "no residual force whatsoever" allowed kos to go over his resume: "Richardson, in just the last couple of months, has brokered landmark deals in Darfur and North Korea -- efforts that had stymied the Bush Administration through two terms. There is no one in American politics today more respected and accomplished on foreign policy than Bill Richardson. ... Compare this to Barack Obama, who would still leave an undisclosed number of troops in Iraq. ... Of all the top candidates, Richardson is the only candidate who currently advocates a complete withdrawal from Iraq. That he's also the sharpest mind on foreign policy issues isn't a coincidence."

Also impressed:

• The Left Coaster's Steve Soto: "Game, set, match. No trainers, no permanent bases, nada. And among all the presidential candidates on both sides, he is unquestionably the most seasoned when it comes to foreign policy."
• Matthew Yglesias: "Here I was wondering the other day which of our fine Democratic presidential candidates who say they want to end the war in Iraq would propose actually withdrawing our troops from Iraq, clearly promising to avoid the sort of "withdrawal" favored by many Democrats in which tens of thousands of American soldiers are still in the war zone, presumably fighting the war. The answer is New Mexico governor and seasoned foreign policy hand Bill Richardson."

MCCAIN: Not His First Campaign Against Bush

It's still early, but so far John McCain is proving a master at pairing blogging conference calls with other campaign events to flood the zone with his message. To punctuate his Iraq steadfastness the first time around, McCain unveiled his Surrender Is Not an Option online petition. McCain chose to schedule his second blogger call immediately after a red meat speech on Iraq to the VMI. Reviews of the call include:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "What's clear is how he is both distancing himself from Bush's past Iraq policy, while throwing his full support behind the new strategy, with tempered optimism. ... He placed blame on Rumsfeld as well as Generals Casey and Sanchez for past failures in Iraq. "History will judge them very harshly," McCain said. But he had the highest praise for General Petraeus and the rest of the current team.
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "McCain, talking about the war, is deeply impressive. I didn't think much of the 'straight talk express' back in 2000, but in today's conference call, McCain was strikingly blunt and candid."
• Captain's Quarters: "Speaking as bluntly as I have heard in some time, he acknowledged the credibility deficit of the Pentagon and White House on the war. Who does he blame for the credibility gap? McCain pointed out that President Bush has to accept the ultimate responsibility for that as well as for the faulty strategy used up to this year in attempting to pacify the insurgencies. ... Ultimately, though, he blames Donald Rumsfeld for shrinking the military and using too light of a footprint in post-invasion Iraq -- a position McCain has consistently maintained for over three years."
• Outside the Beltway's James Joyner: "The question, though, is how to avoid this catastrophe, or even convince the public that it's not too late to avoid it. ... Essentially, he says that he'll continue to give as many speeches as he can to convince the public. If he were president, he'd go on C-SPAN regularly and give specifics about our progress and work to change public opinion. McCain responded that Bush is decent in the right setting and that he should probably hold a lot of small, informal meetings with reporters where he has a map and points out various spots on the map where we're having success."
• Gateway Pundit: "John McCain says that "He Would Rather Lose An Election Than A War" He also says that he could not believe what he was witnessing when he saw democrats celebrate their surrender vote on the House floor."
• Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "All in all a great conference call by McCain. You can tell he really believes that success in Iraq is necessary but is under no delusions about how hard it will be."
• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "During the call, several bloggers and McCain himself hit on the fact that communicating exactly what's going on in the war in Iraq to the American people in such a way that they have confidence in what they're hearing and confidence in the strategy is key to sticking it out long enough to win. He mentioned bloggers and the Web as important ways of getting out such information, and lauded bloggers for paying closer attention to conditions on the ground in Iraq [more] than most.
• David All: "McCain sounds much, much, much less jovial than he did last time. He's not joking around. It's a good tone for this call and this issue."

GIULIANI: Cliff Jumping

Race 4 '08s LJ tracks recent Rudy Giuliani statements on Terri Schiavo and the Confederate flag and advises: "As a presidential candidate, you seem to be winging it these days - giving off-the-cuff, ill-considered answers to delicate questions. If you keep winging it this way, you're going to fly off a cliff."

ROMNEY: Not The Worst Blog Name Ever

SC's A Daily Chaser helps promote a new pro-Mitt Romney blog, palMITTostate. Founder Alex Stroman explains: "I started the website to create an online community where visitors can get information about Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and his activities here in South Carolina. palMITTostate.com will include information about Gov. Romney, his scheduled visits, and opportunities to get involved with the campaign. The site will also feature original articles, recent news, and YouTube videos concerning the campaign."

F. THOMPSON: No Word On Whether Thompson Reads The Blogometer

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff caught Fred Thompson's 4/11 appearance on Sean Hannity: "He went on to say that his announcement about his medical issue is part of the process of deciding whether to run for president. He doesn't think it should affect any such bid, but wants to see what the reaction of others is. He also is still trying to determine whether he's "the guy for these times." I get the impression he thinks he probably is."

Apparently Thompson is also a blogfan. More Mirengoff: "Thompson just made favorable mention of several blogs, including Power Line. He says he's reading PL and others (Red State, Captain's Quarters, and Instapundit -- apologies if I missed anyone) as he considers whether to run for president."

At The CornerRamesh Ponnuru informs those that were wondering: "Fred Thompson was one of ten Senate Republicans to vote against convicting President Clinton for lying to a grand jury. But he voted for conviction (and thus removal from office) on the obstruction-of-justice charge." Meanwhile, Townhall's Matt Lewis makes clear he isn't on the Thompson bandwagon: "While I am truly happy that he is well, I still count myself as someone who is out-of-touch with the zeitgeist. For example, I am astounded that the mere posting of a doctors note -- saying he's fine -- would bring down a website. ... Heck, he's not even my favorite character on Law and Order ..."

Finally, The Brody File shares some feisty comments with Thompson supporters upset with Brody's mention of Thompson's support for ex-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI):

• "The potential fault in your argument is that we do not know what those "most issues" are. I agree that on the most important issues of the day, Lincoln Chafee was more like a Democrat, but I have checked Fred's record and voting past and he is the right man at the right time for the US."
• "I suspect Fred was talking to a RINO audience. What is Thompsons voting record?"
• "You made the big link to leftie Chafee's voting record, but didn't link Thompson's record which shows demonstrably more conservative stands on the issues."

THE UNDERCARD: But Can They Beat King Hippo?

The Right Angle's Matt Naugle points us to a YouTube featuring video of Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo answering questions spliced together with images and sound from Nintendo's Mike Tyson Punchout. Naugle comments: "Funny stuff! But is it still a debate when the two protectionist conservative candidates agree on everything?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Against Experts

GlobalGiving CEO Dennis Whittle argues against "central planning" in philanthropy at The Huffington Post:

The current system has spent about $2 trillion over the past fifty years with little to show for it. That is because the current system resembles central planning in the former Soviet Union. Most decisions are made and most resources allocated by a relatively few people we call "experts." Programs are designed in capital cities, with little information about what people actually need and want. During and after program implementation, there is little feedback from the field about whether things are working or not. There is no competitive pressure among agencies to deliver the most effective solutions. As a result, massive amounts of funds have been wasted (and sometimes even used to harmful effect).

The current system is terrible. Criminally bad. It is an abomination if you think about what it is supposed to achieve. ... Our mission is to overturn the current system by creating a real marketplace - an open marketplace of ideas, of funding, and of talent. We will spearhead a new paradigm where programs are designed by the people themselves, where anyone can contribute an idea and help fund promising initiatives, and where performance matters.

LEST WE FORGET: We Love It When A Blog Post Comes Together

Unibrow posts YouTubes of their "TOP 20 TV SHOW THEMES" including these top ten: #10 CHIPS; #9 Transformers; #8 Star Trek; #7 Fantasy Island; #6 The Simpsons; #5 Dukes of Hazzard; #4 Miami Vice; #3 Knight Rider; #2 The Greatest American Hero; #1 The A Team."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:40 PM

April 11, 2007

4/11: Out Of Iraq

MoveOn.org is still polling members to determine "Which Candidate is best able to lead the country out of the war in Iraq?" but if early blogger reviews are any indication, Bill Richardson managed to separate himself away from the pack during 4/10's Virtual Town Hall Meeting on Iraq. The Blogometer recently pressed card- carrying netrooter Liberal Oasis about what a candidate would have to say on Iraq to win his vote for BloggingHeads.tv. Bill Scher stressed that the candidate who best convinced him they would leave no permanent troops anywhere in Iraq would get his vote.

Bill Richardson did just that 4/10 telling MoveOners he "would have no residual force whatsoever" in the country. MyDD's Chris Bowers responded: "With perfect clarity, that is exactly the line I have been looking for from Democratic candidates for President." Richardson has steadily improved his numbers in online straw polls, and this position would seem to only bolster that momentum. Will any of the Big Three join in Richardson's pledge?

DODD: Announcement Do-Over, Please?

Taking a break from some well-deserved paternity leave, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas hits Chris Dodd for being the only '08er to announce their candidacy on the Don Imus show: "I'm quite pleased that Imus is finally being shown for the a**hole that he is, but let's not forget that he's no run-of-the-mill shock jock. This guy is a fixture of the establishment. So much so, in fact, that even wannabe "insurgent" candidates like Chris Dodd feel compelled to worship at his feet. It's not as if Dodd didn't know what Imus was about. All of them know what he's about."

EDWARDS: Hit Me Baby One More Time

John Edwards may not have been the clear winner from 4/10's MoveOn.org forum but he did receive high marks for urging congressional Dems to stand firm on their Iraq appropriation fight with Pres. Bush. Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat says Edwards knows "How to talk about Iraq" and highlights this passage: "Congress must stand firm. They must not write George Bush another blank check without a timeline for withdrawal -- period. If Bush vetoes the funding bill, Congress should send another funding bill to him with a binding plan to bring the troops home. And if he vetoes it again, they should do it again."

OBAMA: No Divisiveness Here

Barack Obama scored some points serving up netroots red meat by attacking Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). MyDD's Matt Stoller liked this line: "The idea that the situation in Iraq is improving because it takes a security detail of 100 soldiers, three Black Hawk helicopters and a couple of Apache gunships to walk through a market in the middle of Baghdad is simply not credible and not reflective of the facts on the ground." Stoller also appreciated that Obama "reframed his discussion of the post-veto strategy."

RICHARDSON: Seriously Winning Them Over

MyDD's Chris Bowers explains why Bill Richardson's "I would have no residual force whatsoever" statement on Iraq is "exactly the line I have been looking for" from an '08er: "It is a profound, substantive difference than what we have heard from, for example, Hillary Clinton, when she states that if she is President there will be a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq. This is, in the final analysis, a difference between ending the war in Iraq, and simply decreasing the size of the war Iraq."

Bowers further praises Richardson's foreign policy credentials: "This is a man who, earlier today, brokered a deal with North Korea to allow weapons inspectors back into the country, and who, three months ago, brokered cease-fire deal in Darfur. To use the favorite term of neoliberal hawks, no one alive today is more 'serious' about foreign policy than Bill Richardson."

GINGRICH: The Future Of The Party?

Conservative blogger consensus seems to be that Newt Gingrich did not have "his best day" sparring with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) on global warming 4/10. The Right Angle's Amanda Carpenter labeled her recap of the debate "The Greening of Gingrich" and he "disappointed" GOPers and conservatives "when he declared that human activity was causing the Earth to warm."

Carpenter argues the admission was part of Gingrich's larger long-shot run for the nomination: "Gingrich's concession was expected in many news circles as part of his long-shot strategy to run for President in 2008. He has said since last year he would make a decision to run or not sometime in the fall of this year. He is planning to release a new book, "Contract with the Earth" this November that he co-wrote with conservationist Terry Maples."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein saw not just global warming at stake, but a preview of GOP policy to come: "Because Gingrich is one of the most thoughtful Republicans around, often ahead of his time, it's worthwhile to reflect on what some of his statements suggest about the direction of the Republican Party. What became clear to me very early on in the discussion between two prominent figures from both sides of the political spectrum was that I was not watching a debate about small government vs. big government, but a squabble over how to effectively wield the power of government to prod private enterprise into behaving the way politicians and other experts deem appropriate."

GIULIANI: Shirking On Schiavo

There seems to be some confusion among bloggers about Rudy Giuliani's position on the Terri Schiavo affair. The Brody File takes Giuliani's statement "I thought it was appropriate to make every effort to give her a chance to stay alive," to mean his current position is the same as "Tom Delay and Bill Frist" at the time "this all went down." Brody likes what he sees: "I think this speaks to Rudy's no nonsense approach. He tells it like it is. Love him or leave him. It's so New York."

NY Sun's Ryan Sager takes a closer look at Giuliani's focus on "the point that we should keep people on life support who have asked to be kept on life support" and wonders if Rudy "doesn't even remember what the case was about." More Sager: "If Schiavo's wishes had been known, there wouldn't have been a controversy in the first place. ... The question [was] whether - once the courts in Florida sided with Michael Schiavo as to determining his wife's wishes and best interests - the Florida legislature, Governor Bush, Congress, and President Bush should have all intervened in one family's private medical dispute, turning it into a national media circus."

Sager says Giuliani's camp refuses to clarify Rudy's position "instead referring back to Mr. Giuliani's plea that, 'I think we should let it rest.'" Sager comments: "Unfortunately for the Giuliani camp, neither side in the dispute is likely to let that happen. While the Schiavo case itself is over, the issues of pro-life and right-to-die are - no pun intended - alive and well."

Not commenting on the Schiavo affair Race 4 '08s DaveG argues that Giuliani does not necessarily "need every social conservative vote" to win the nomination. Dave does acknowledge Rudy has been "bleeding" lately he urges Giuliani submit to "a crash course in how to communicate with the average national Republican voter, which is a distinctly different breed from the average NYC Republican voter."

Townhall's Dean Barnett argues Rudy shouldn't change a thing: "The problem here is that Rudy's principal appeal is that he's a tough SOB. If you like him (as I do), it's not because of any soft side that he might purportedly have."

MCCAIN: At Minimum, He's No Liberal

Conservative bloggers continue to say nice things about John McCain, while also clearly stopping short of embracing him. The Corner's Andy McCarthy apologizes to colleague Ramesh Ponnuru for calling him a McCain apologist and thanks him for his NR article. The article reminded McCarthy why he never supported McCain, but also said "McCain is superior to the Democrats currently in the field."

At Power Line, John Hinderaker recommends Jonah Goldberg's op-ed urging better conservative treatment of McCain and concludes: "McCain's courage doesn't entitle him to be President, of course, but I think it does entitle him to a respectful hearing from conservatives. At a minimum, we should stop calling him a liberal."

ROMNEY: Veepstakes Already?

Reacting to new Gallup numbers showing Mitt Romney in fourth behind Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich, The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez floats her ideal '09 GOP administration: "I continue to casually float an early Thompson-Romney ticket. Solves Fred Thompson's initial money and organization problems. They can get Rudy to be their secretary of Defense. John McCain as ambassador to Iraq (by putting someone of his stature there we emphasize how important we think it is to help Iraq succeed). John Bolton as secretary of State. Pat Toomey for Treasury. [Rick] Santorum as DOJ."

Back in IA, Krusty Konservative thinks Romney has "survived the Mitt-Flop moniker" by staying on message on and raising enough money to stay competitive. Krusty concludes: "Right now Romney has the momentum. That being said it's still 4 months till the straw poll. Lots of things can change."

And in SC, A Daily Chaser reports Romney walked away the winner from a Newberry County straw poll. The Chaser adds: "Everyone says that if you win Newberry County, you win the state."

THOMPSON: That Pipe Smoking Must Be To Blame

Within minutes of Fox News' announcement that Fred Thompson would be speaking with Neil Cavuto about his indolent lymphoma, Thompson had a post up at RedState headed: "What You Need To Know." Thompson blogs: "about 2 1/2 years ago when, shortly after a routine physical, I was diagnosed with what the doctors call an indolent lymphoma. Of the 30-plus kinds of lymphoma this is a "good" kind, if there is such a thing. I have had no illness from it, or even any symptoms. My life expectancy should not be affected. I am in remission, and it is very treatable with drugs if treatment is needed in the future--and with no debilitating side effects."

Even before the cancer story broke, The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez was posting selections from floods of pro-Thompson emails hitting her inbox, including:

• I know that Fred's recognition from TV shouldn't matter in something as big as national elections, but I have to wonder how many people would vote for him simply because they saw him on Law and Order or watched Hunt for Red October? ... That beautiful southern drawl of his coupled with conservative talk just makes it all that much better. I don't know if there are skeleton issues, but the complaints I've heard so far, he's pretty much brushed off with a nice flair.
• How many of us are old enough to remember him on the Watergate Committee? The voice was the same. The earnestness was the same. He pursued truth and wasn't prissy about where it led. The actor usually plays himself.
• I'm old enough to remember Fred Thompson on the Watergate committee. He was the one who first questioned Alexander Butterfield about the existence of a taping system in Nixon's Oval Office. After that, the rest was history. Thompson also smoked a pipe during the hearings. Bet the anti-smoking Nazis will resurrect pictures of THAT.

In other positive Thompson blogging, Race 4 '08s DaveG argues Thompson's "cultural identity" as a "true-blue red-stater" will help him "get a pass on many cultural issues that has been given to none of the GOP Big Three." Kausfiles contributes with his "thinly-sourced kf item of the day" pegging 5/3 as Thompson's official announcement.

Not on the Thompson bandwagon, The Brody File reminds readers that Thompson supports socially liberal bad boy Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee in '06. TBF writes: "The last time I checked Chafee was pretty much off the reservation on most Republican talking points: immigration, taxes, Iraq war, traditional marriage, abortion. Shall I go on? ... That may be hard to stomach for Thompson fans who believe he's the true conservative choice if he runs."

IRAQ: An Offer They Must Refuse

The netroots are urging Dems to reject Pres. Bush's Michael Corleone offer to negotiate on Iraq supplemental funding. AMERICAblog's John Aravosis characterizes Bush's offer this way: "He wants to meet with Democrats to work out an agreement over the war funding, provided that the Democrats understand that this isn't a negotiation, that Bush isn't going to change his mind, and that the Democrats will have to accept Bush's position 100%. Really, that's what he said."

Atrios lays out "The Compromise Shuffle" bloggers do not want to see play out: "Democrats loudly proclaim their willingness to negotiate and compromise, even after they've already compromised with themselves. The Bush administration loudly proclaims its unwillingness to do so. ... Broderesque columnists loudly wail about the fact that both sides are unwilling to sit down over tea and negotiate and compromise. Republicans sneak in with what they call a "compromise" which, magically, will be exactly what Bush wants, and won't involve actually compromising with the people who run Congress. Broderesque columnists will loudly praise the non-compromise compromise put forward by the Republican party and the Bush administration. We've been here many times before."

Instead the netroots want Dems to stand firm with the bill they have now:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "There's no need to rush the conference supplemental funding bill. Let [Bush] lie on the floor kicking his feet and holding his breath until he turns blue. It's time the Boy King realizes he doesn't get to call all of the shots on this one.
• Bob Geiger: "It's clear both sides want to fund the troops and nobody, on either side of the Congressional aisle, has suggested leaving troops wanting for the arms, equipment and other supplies they need while stuck in Iraq ... There's no argument over the money. It's all about whether or not the troops will be extracted from an Iraqi civil war or kept there on a Bush-Cheney-McCain timeline that has no end.
• MyDD's Matt Stoller: "Bush wants to have the debate over funding, but the reality is that there is no fight over money because nearly every member of Congress voted to provide money for the military. There is only a fight about whether to end the war or to keep it going. ... If Democrats can keep putting pressure on Bush to end the war, Republicans are going to crack and abandon him."

IRAQ II: War On Civilians, Not Civil War

Rob Bluey rounds up conservative blogger posts about a meeting with official Iraqi spokesman Dr. Ali Aldabbagh at the Heritage Foundation. The Weekly Standard's Brian Faughnan blogs: "His message is that Iraq is making progress on reducing violence and building institutions, and that the premature withdrawal of U.S. forces would help no one but the terrorists."

QandO's McQ adds: "He was asked about whether or not Iraq was engaged in a civil war and his answer was a fairly emphatic "no." As he said, "civil war is not a war against civilians" and, in his opinion, that's primarily where all the violence is pointed by terrorists in an effort to goad Iraqis into civil war."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Bring Back Vilsack!

Hit and Run's David Weigel is shedding no crocodile tears for the slow death of public financing of presidential elections:

Public financing was never truly popular. Its support hovered in the mid-60s when it started; in polls taken since then it has tumbled into the 20s. Support wavered as fringe candidates like Lyndon LaRouche collected government money to run campaigns that had almost no grassroots support. ... In late February former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack dropped out of the Democrats' race and made a glum tour of the pundit circuit, bemoaning how he had to end his quest for a promotion because he couldn't raise money. The implication: An unassuming Midwestern politician who was polling third or fourth in his own state, long before any TV ads started running, deserved as much money as Hillary Clinton. And if taxpayers had to provide that money, so be it.

LEST WE FORGET: Who Hates Cilantro?

Overstated uses Google to identify the ten most hated things on the web (1. Cilantro; 2. Brooklyn; 3. Starbucks; 4. Divorce; 5. Emo kids; 6. Clowns; 7. Cubicles; 8. SBC Yahoo; 9. Haggling; 10. Macs) to create the most unsuccessful personal ad ever:

Part-time clown seeks cilantro-loving emo kid. My house in Brooklyn, my cubicle in Manhattan (selling SBC Yahoo), but my heart is with Austen (die hagglers!). Let's grab a Starbucks or just chat on our powerbooks!

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:37 PM

April 10, 2007

4/10: It's Gonna Get Worse For GOP Before It Gets Better

Discussion over why Dems seem to be dominating online continue to percolate with Patrick Ruffini arguing that "Web traffic (and donations) follows media coverage and the political environment" and the GOP is behind now due to a difficult year. '04 Bush eCampaign Dir. Michael Turk, however, argues that too many in the GOP are "control freaks" who insist on a "scripted and micromanaged" environment that stifles the community building seen in Daily Kos diaries and Atrios comment boards.

We highly respect Ruffini and Turk but argue their analysis of the issue may be too colored by their backgrounds as party and candidate staffers. Too often in their analysis they ask what should the RNC or candidates be doing to better engage activists online. We think this misses the impetus behind the power of the netroots. The DNC did not dream up Atrios, and Howard Dean did not create Daily Kos. While the netroots strongly identify themselves with Dems, they are a separate movement formed after years of frustration over Clinton's impeachment, Gore's loss in FL, and the Iraq war. The Blogometer argues that the GOP is not going to see a potent online force until it spends a similar journey through the wilderness

'08 FIELD: Googling For Undecideds

Blog PI's Bill Beutler looks at which candidates are buying Google AdWords for searches of their opponents' names. First, here's a list of whose ads appear when a candidate's name is queried:

• Clinton: Obama, Giuliani
• Romney: McCain, Giuliani
• Giuliani: McCain
• McCain: Romney, Giuliani

Beutler breaks these results down to show which campaigns are targeting each other. Here's who each campaign has bought Google AdWords for:

• Obama: Clinton
• Romney: McCain, Giuliani
• Giuliani: Hillary, McCain, Romney
• McCain: Giuliani

Beutler theorizes on the strategies behind the results: "Obama's camp believes he can win over Hillary Clinton people (supporters, or those interested enough to Google her name), Romney's team hopes to win over McCain people, McCain aims to pull support from both his GOP rivals, and the Giuliani squad is on a comparative buying spree, to the point of wooing some Hillary supporters. For some reason, nobody is bidding on either Edwards or Obama." Beutler does link to a possible explanation from Oregon Dem consultant Kari Chisholm: "The point of a Google ad isn't to find people who know they're looking for you - they should be able to find you just fine. It's to find people who are looking for something else; and your candidate is the answer to their question."

'08 FIELD II: Branding McCain And Giuliani As 'Generic' GOPers Key

Pollster.com Mark Blumenthal tracks discussion of the Diageo/Hotline poll showing an unnamed Dem beating an unnamed GOPer 47%-29%. Blumenthal notes that the eight questions before the generic ballot question focussed on AG Alberto Gonzales' problems, the job performance of Pres. Bush, and other issues that may have "limited enthusiasm about a Republican vote in 2008."

Blumenthal writes: "We know the Republican "brand" is at a low ebb, with a recent Pew Research Center report showing "leaned" Republican identification at a 17-year low of 35% compared to 50% for the Democrats. In this case, the order of questions may have also primed issues or controversies, further reducing the appeal of a Republican vote. ... Either way, McCain and Giuliani are not perceived as "generic" Republicans, at least not as of today.

GINGRICH: Pro-Nuclear Powered Squirrel

Draft Newt's Matt Keller will be live blogging 4/10's global warming debate between Newt Gingrich and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). The Corner's Jonah Goldberg doesn't think Newt should be debating "losers" while NRO's Chris Horner isn't excited about what he thinks Newt might say: "My guess is that Newt and Kerry will agree that manmade global warming is destroying the biosphere. Where they will disagree is that Kerry will favor mandatory limits on [greenhouse gases] which will save the planet and make us all rich because we're saving so much energy, while Newt will support a long list of techno-geek solutions like nuclear-powered squirrels in wheels that will make us all rich and will also leave us stunned by the man's visionary brilliance."

GIULIANI: You've Got Some 'Splaining To Do!

Rudy Giuliani efforts to mollify conservative trepidations about his views on abortion might be doing more harm than good. Responding to a NRO editorial labeling Giuliani's position "neither logical, moral," Giuliani Policy Dir. Bill Simonresponds by citing Prof. Michael New data showing abortions declined while Giuliani was mayor. Simon writes: "His policies, based on the conservative principles of accountability and personal responsibility, not only led to the reduction of abortions in New York but also a 66 percent increase in the number of adoptions on his watch."

NRO's editors replied: "Like Bill Simon, we admire Professor New. Let's quote him some more on abortion trends during Giuliani's mayoral terms: 'I cannot attribute this decline to any actual policy Giuliani implemented.'" More from the editors: "That a Republican candidate for president promises not to push for federal funding of elective abortion is far from the bare minimum he could do. Will he promise a veto if the Democratic Congress sends such legislation his way?"

RCP Blog's Justin Miller tracks the debate and comments: "It's one thing to be so thoroughly rebuked and quite another to have it done on one of the most-widely read and respected publications on the right. It's clear that the Giuliani team will need to do more to secure the mayor's footing among pro-lifers (without appearing to cave to them) and to get more help from conservative supporters like Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)."

Also on the abortion front, RedState's Erick Erickson hits Giuliani for damage control over a '89 YouTube cited by Hotline On Call. A Giuliani sympathizer notes to On Call that the clip in question which includes, "I have also stated that I disagree with President Bush's veto last week of public funding for abortion," cuts off Rudy's next line: "That I disagree with President Bush's veto last week of public funding for abortions for rape or incest victims."

Erickson calls this Giuliani "backpedaling" "one of the most disingenuous pieces of spin thus far in the GOP primary." More Erickson: "He admits he supported a bill to provide tax payer funding for abortions -- it just so happened that the abortions would have arisen from rape and incest. But go back to point one. Rudy favored unfettered taxpayer funding for abortion in 1989 and he said the same thing in 2007."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein defends Rudy, concurring with On Call that the "abortions for rape or incest victims" line "makes a world of difference." Klein: "The Hyde Amendment bars federal financing of abortion, but still allows it in the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. So, in 1989, he wasn't arguing against the Hyde Amendment, but a more restrictive version of the Hyde Amendment." Still Klein urges Rudy to bone up on the issue: "It may be unrealistic to expect Giuliani to know about every detail of every little item that's making the rounds on the Internet, but when it comes to the abortion issue, which going in he knew would be the most difficult for him to navigate, he should have his position down cold, and be ready to discuss every angle."

The Brody File contributes with email from readers:

• "It's time that evangelicals (like me) determine that we must have other reasons for voting for a man than just his stand on abortion, homosexuals, etc. National security is our prime concern now."
• "Look, as Christians it's a no brainer. We can only support a candidate who is pro life. Where is Newt?"
• "How can Rudy be Catholic and be pro choice? If ever there was an oxymoron, it is this. We are pro Romney!!"

MCCAIN: Iraq Is Not Enough

John McCain continues to receive high marks for his stalwart support of the war in Iraq, but there is still no evidence that is enough to move many conservative bloggers into his camp. At RedState, Pejman Yousefzadeh thanks McCain for his 4/6 op-ed on Iraq and writes: "Whatever else one might say about John McCain--and Heaven knows, I have my disagreements with him--he deserves great praise for being one of the most stalwart supporters of the reconstruction effort in Iraq. His editorial on the subject deserves attention."

Also at RedState, Haystack recaps McCain's message during a "love fest" on Sean Hannity: "America needs to know this can be won, it MUST be won, and that even though it will be long, and hard, and tough...it MUST be done for the future of the Iraqis, AND the American people."

As much as McCain gets credit for Iraq Captain's Quarters seconds Jonah Goldberg's op-ed conclusion that conservatives' grudge against McCain is a "reasoned final position" due to his positions on immigration and free speech.

In SC, A Daily Chaser reports McCain Florence County GOP straw poll, but also claim he has flip-flopped on the Confederate flag.

THOMPSON: Isn't The 'Generic' GOPer Getting Killed In The Polls

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein finds "Breaking News" in revelations that Fred Thompson told Republican Liberty in '94 that the ultimate decision to have an abortion "must be made by the woman." Klein adds: "Thompson now says he is pro-life and calls Roe "bad law." It must also be pointed out that during his 8-year career in the Senate, his voting record was solidly pro-life. But should he decide to jump into the race, they'll no doubt be more scrutiny of his shifting position on abortion."

Race 4 '08s LJ doesn't see the big deal: "I could've sworn I pointed this out weeks ago. ... So, this is pretty old news by blogosphere standards." LJ adds: "Many people are calling Thompson the "flavor of the month" candidate which I think underestimates the passion a lot of conservatives have for him. He's polling better than Romney in most polls without lifting a finger. He has a definite appeal to those who are turned off by Giuliani's liberalism, Romney's questionable convictions and the latent hatred that many conservatives have towards McCain. Thompson, though, is in essence the generic Republican candidate."

DEM FIELD: Edwards Surging

Chris Bowers posts results from MyDD's latest straw poll:

Edwards 43%
Obama 34%
Richardson 8%
Other 6%
Clinton 4%

Obama beat out Edwards in last month's poll 36%-33%.

EDWARDS: Fox Hunter

John Edwards is receiving the lion's share of netroots credit for the death of the CBC/Fox News debate. Daily Kos' mcjoan writes: "We mounted a great deal of pressure on the first debate, but the real pressure on this one came from the African-American community. But there was very little direct pressure on the campaigns themselves, so this is particularly encouraging. Thanks to Edwards for leading, and to Obama and Clinton for joining him. Good show, all."

OBAMA: He Used The L-Word

MyDD's Matt Stoller admits "Obama has a compelling message centering on change and a new way of doing politics" but points out that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) succeeded by voicing a similar theme. Stoller then tracks recent off message comments from Obama and concludes he is losing the 'Bar Fight Primary.' Most galling for Stoller, "Obama in particular is refusing to lead on Iraq, preferring to argue that his one moment of judgment years ago is a good enough reason to trust him now. I do believe that Obama's decision years ago was incredibly brave, but it's not enough anymore." Stoller concludes: "In other words, he talks about how Washington is broken, about the small-mindedness of DC thinking, about the need for freshness, and then at every point when it counts, he sides with the DC establishment."

Talk Left's Bog tent Democrat seconds Stoller's concerns: "I am becoming convinced that what we have seen is what we will get from Obama. For me, that is not good enough."

TERROR POLITICS: Bush Set Me Up

Gore '00 Dep. Speechwriter Ken Baer is receiving netroots scorn for joining MSM criticism of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) diplomatic dialogue with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. Baer argues that while the Speaker has every right to conduct fact finding missions, she should not be "delivering communiques and trying to forge new understandings and agreements" with foreign governments.

For his efforts, Atrios slaps Baer with his Wanker of the Day honors and TPM's Josh Marshall responds: "The simple fact is that senior members of Congress routinely go on trips abroad to meet heads of state and government. When they are sufficiently senior, their trips inevitably have diplomatic dimensions in addition to fact-finding ones."

TAPPED's Sam Rosenfeld documents past Speaker "injections" into foreign policy and Matthew Yglesias finds it "quite remarkable" that a Dem consultant would take such criticism public. Again at TPM, Marshall argues the whole story was a GOP setup from the beginning.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Keep Your Rules Off Of Us

MyDD's Chris Bowers is one of many bloggers completely unimpressed with New York Timescoverage of Tim O'Reilly's efforts "to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate." Bowers writes:

My first reaction to the article is how it demonstrates once again that the established media really, really condescends to the blogosphere. ... Anything that portrays blogs as in need of adult supervision generally gets wide play within the established media. Of course, were it ever revealed just how frequently journalists read blogs themselves, one might quickly wonder who was supervising who.

My second reaction is that, no matter how much many members of the media and political establishment are obviously drooling over the prospect, professional codes of conduct and the blogosphere will never mix very well. While there is no denying that the blogosphere is experiencing a strong degree of professionalization and even super-blog consolidation, ultimately blogging is not a practice over which you can hope to establish broadly accepted rules of engagement. Improvements can be made, but the problem will always remain to some degree.

LEST WE FORGET: Not MySpace

The Smoking Gun posts pdfs of "allegedly posting fake MySpace profiles" that ex-students of a PA high school posted describing their principal as "a boozing, MILF-chasing swinger who thought sex with students should be legal unless "you kill them in the process." While the principal was able to to work with MySpace to remove the profiles in a span of five days, the princpal is suing the students for defamation arguing "the online postings damaged his reputation and left him embarrassed and humiliated."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:27 PM

April 09, 2007

4/9: He's So Running

It may seem quaint to remember now, but there was a time when people (including the Blogometer) were unconvinced Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) was going to run for president. Then Bill Clinton sat down for a lunch with bloggers 9/13, and that was all Team Clinton needed to do to convince us that they were committed to the top prize for '08. The Blogometer has also watched rumors ex-Sen./fake-NY DA Fred Thompson (R) might be making a similar run and up til now we've had our doubts. But now that Thompson is blogging at RedState, we're convinced he's running. And as the Pajamas Media most recent straw poll shows, conservative bloggers are already eating out of his hand.

THOMPSON: Red Meat For RedStaters

Already established in one conservative medium (see his Paul Harvey commentaries), Fred Thompson stepped into the blogosphere 4/7 with a post at RedState titled "The Pirates of Tehran." Thompson blogs: "It is critical that we see this incident as part of a long pattern of behavior -- that will continue as long as the current leadership is in power. ... We need to understand this and use every means at our disposal, starting with serious and painful international sanctions, to prevent Iran's rulers from becoming the nuclear-armed blackmailers they want to be."

Thompson's RedState post is receiving high marks from many leading conservative bloggers, especially for the following dig at congressional Dems and French news agencies: "Some in the West seem part of Iran's propaganda war; claiming that the release of the hostages was a victory that proves the Iranian dictatorship can be reasoned with. To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term 'the global war on terror.' What are we - Reuters?" Raves include:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Fred Thompson serves up red meat at red state."
• Captain's Quarters: "The Pirates of Teheran comes as close as anything I've heard to accurately describing the ruling clique in Iran. ... Read all of Thompson's post, and ask yourself this: could he have picked a better way to enter the race, as far as the conservative blogosphere is concerned? If Thompson really still had not made the decision to throw his hat in the ring, he would not bother posting at Redstate. ... This is a clear indication that he has heard the calls from conservatives and will shortly start working on an exploratory committee."
• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "If after reading that "Pirates of Tehran" blog post and FDT commentary like it, if the right-blogosphere readers could elect[] a president RIGHT NOW I wonder if Fred Thompson's straight talk might just win him the election."

Before Thompson's RedState post was up, Bush '04 eCampaign Dir. Michael Turk, blogging at Kung Fu Quip liked what he had found after looking into Thompson's record. Turk highlights a Thompson address to CATO on the campaign finance scandals of the late 90's and writes: "While I have not yet found any public statements by Thompson on the Cunningham case, Mark Foley, William Jefferson, the constitutional questions raised by the raid on Jefferson's office, and the myriad other scandals of the past few years, I'll keep digging to be sure his CATO speech is consistent with his position on investigations of both Democrats and Republicans."

THOMPSON II: There Are Bigger Issues Than CFR

While support for campaign finance reform remains a major stumbling block for conservative blogger support of John McCain, Thompson seems to be getting a pass on the issue. Race 4 '08s Republius casts George Willcriticism of Thompson over the issue as just the "latest effort of Mr. Will in support of the Giuliani campaign." More Repub: "The one substantive concern with Senator Thompson that Mr. Will threads into his screed is the reminder that the Senator supported McCain-style campaign finance reform and the federal income tax checkoff system of presidential campaign subsidies. Fair enough. However, what Mr. Will fails to tell his readers is that Senator Thompson is becoming a lot more conservative on this issue."

Also taking on Will, AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer urges Will "to get over his hurt feelings about" CFR since "[i]n the great scheme of things, it's just not that big an issue." More Hillyer: "So, forgive me if it sounds rude to my friends on this site, but get over yourselves. There's a war in Iraq, and an evil SOB running Iran, and a KGB brute running Russia, and there are statist, cheap-shot-artists running our own Congress who want to raise taxes, increase regulation, weaken our defenses, socialize medicine, and do terrible things to the judiciary. Start worrying about those real issues, and stop fighting about a bad but relatively unimportant policy choice that Congress and the president made six years ago."

GOP FIELD: There Are Bigger Issues Than Abortion

Defending Rudy Giuliani's federalist position on abortion, NRO's David Frum writes: "May I suggest to my pro life friends that they are looking up a blind alley when they argue over the real inner views of the candidates with respect to abortion? The single most important question pro-life Republicans need to ask themselves is this: What kind of judges and justices would the various candidates nominate, given the likelihood that they will face a Democratic majority Senate?"

Townhall's Matt Lewis responds: "having a Pro-Life president is not only important because of the possibility of overturning Roe - but because a president who believes in a culture of life will support other virtuous things, as well. ... Frum is essentially arguing conservatives should take a pragmatic approach toward elections. This strategy might be sagacious in a "lesser of two evils" General Election environment. But this electoral "surrender strategy" does not seem appropriate at this stage in a primary campaign."

MCCAIN: There's No Bigger Issue Than Iraq

John McCain's decision to launch "a high-profile effort ... to convince Americans that the Iraq war is winnable" is proving highly popular in conservative circles. The Corner's Jonah Goldberg calls "A Vote For McCain is a Vote For Victory" and Race 4 '08s LJ says "McCain is the only candidate in either party (with the possible exception of Joe Biden) who doesn't shy away from discussing the war." More LJ: "You may not agree with McCain's stance on the war, but at least he is putting the health of this country ahead of any political aspirations that he has. That is the true definition of a patriot."

GraniteGrok's Doug Lambert previews what that campaign might look like posting video from a meeting with Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH) and " a group of relatives, friends, family members, veterans, and supporters of our military." Lambert writes: "Certain media covering the event have chosen to focus on the sometimes elevated passion and emotion that this group of close-knit military supporters brought to the meeting, missing the overall message expressed by the group of desiring a united country supporting the troops and the mission to the end-- an end that finishes with victory."

ROMNEY: Ranting For Romney

IA's Krusty Konservative posts a regular feature from state Rep. Chris Rants (R) which 4/8 included a review of Mitt Romney's recent time with the IA state House GOPers. Rants writes: "I know I'm biased (I announced my support of the Governor last fall) but Romney did far and away the best job of any of the candidates to come to our caucus. He handled the questions thrown at him by a pretty tough audience (we are tough on them all) better than any, and left the caucus - even those supporting another candidate - with a new found appreciation of him."

In other positive Romney blogging, SC's Daily Chaser reports Romney won Beaufort County GOP straw and awards Romney the "Best Week Ever" award due to "MO coming off the fundraising news cycle."

DEM FIELD: Always Be Closing

MyDD's Chris Bowers attempts to explain why GOP candidates keep narrowly winning in named "general election matchups between the five top tier, high name recognition, Democratic and Republican candidates" while an unnamed Dem candidate crushes an unnamed GOP candidate 40%-22%. Bowers argues:

First, the Republican coalition is teetering on the brink of total collapse, as less than half of its members are sold on the individuals with the potential to become coalition leaders. Second, Democrats have not yet made the sale to swing disaffected members of the Republican coalition to our side, as otherwise we would maintain our large leads even when names and prompts are included in the question. ... Third ... it means that at the current point in time, progressive and Democratic voters / activists are politically engaged, committed, and self-starting to a degree far surpassing conservative and Republican voters / activists.

EDWARDS: Tax Man

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent reported 4/6 that John Edwards was the first Dem WH '08er to officially pull out of the CBC's scheduled debate with Fox News. Sargent quotes from Edwards email: "we believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective." Sargent comments: "Tough stuff. This'll earn another round of praise for Edwards, who keeps showing he's making a credible bid to be the netroots candidate, and ratchet up the pressure on the other candidates to act accordingly in the increasingly high-stakes battle with Fox.

At Blue Hampshire, MBlair posts her review of John and Elizabeth Edwards town hall on the UNH campus in Durham, NH, including: "Edwards said something quite remarkable in Durham: "the top 300,000 earners in this country now pay less in taxes than the bottom 150 Million Americans." Think about that for a minute. That is not the kind of country I want to live in and it's not the kind of America that the rest of the world needs us to be at this point in time."

Speaking of taxes, TarHeel alerts MyDD readers to Edwards new "weekly Saturday morning podcast" starting with advice "about filing taxes and making it easier for lower income people, or people who do not have lots of brokerage house transactions."

OBAMA: President Of The World

Huffington Post contributors are both trying to explain, and offer advice to Barack Obama. Explainer Dr. Michael Fauntroy blogs: "Obama's success is really an expression of public frustration with the political status quo. The current candidates on the Democratic side, many of whom are very well qualified to seek the presidency, all represent different versions of the status quo. Obama's appearance on the political scene offers hope to millions of Americans who seek something new. How else does one explain his rise to the top of American politics? It can't be about what he has done in office, because he hasn't done anything legislatively to warrant the attention he receives. He's not closely associated with one particular policy issue and hasn't established himself as the "go to guy" on anything."

The Huffington Post's Thomas de Zengotita advises: "He should do a "listening tour." But not in the US, overseas. ... [He should announce] an itinerary, emphasizing that he is traveling as a private citizen, with no intent to represent anything or anybody but himself. His purpose is to listen and to learn. ... But the point is this: the possibility of crowds spontaneously showing up for him in any of these countries is what I am getting at in this post. And with the right preparation it could happen. Think of the impact of that on the primaries. The people of the world--in Japan and India and all those countries, looking to America again as a beacon."

RICHARDSON: Let The Courts Decide

While at Dartmouth College, Bill Richardson told BlueHampshire's Laura what Dems should do about Iraq: "I would have a war powers resolution deauthorizing the war, with timetables and benchmarks. ... there will be a legal fight - the administration will say "well, we don't recognize the war powers act." Then you go to the Supreme Court. That's what I would do, because my sense is that every effort should be made to cut the funding, but I worry about whether we have the votes to do it."

TERROR POLITICS: Sharp Turns On The Road To Damascus

The netroots are pushing back against notedwidespreadMSMcondemnation of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall tracks Israeli coverage of Pelosi's message for Syria and seconds Rep. Tom Lantos' (D-CA) claim that PM Ehud Olmert only backtracked on his cooperation with Pelosi after pressure from the WH. Marshall asks:

The message the Israelis sent to Damascus was intended to convince the Syrians that the Israelis were not planning to attack the Syrians in concert with an American attack on Iran. There was concern in Israel that this might lead to a preemptive Syrian attack. A message like that from Israel to Syria might be very unwelcome to some people in the White House. Did the White House pressure Olmert? If there was no message, why was the existence of the message being discussed by Israeli officials before Pelosi went to Damascus? Will the White House deny pressuring Olmert? And did any of this occur to the folks who write the Post's editorials?

Also defending Pelosi, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) writes at Daily Kos: "We Democrats should've been unapologetic this week defending Speaker Pelosi because the truth was on our side ... They thrive on destroying our leaders - we can't let them. Especially when we've got the moral high ground." Arab American Institute pres. James Zogby also defends Peolsi at HuffPo: "Her critics have been unfair, missing the significance and timeliness of her mission. ... In addition to her official meetings, the visit was most notable for its positive contribution to U.S. public diplomacy, so desperately needed in the Arab world."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Not What They Mean By 'Reality Based Community'

Following Rob Blueyreports that GOP WH '08ers are refusing to release their online fundraising totals, MyDD's Matt Stoller tracks GOPbloggerdiscontent about their party's online prowess including these past thoughts from Bush '04 eCampaign Dir. Michael Turk:

At the RNC and on the Bush Campaign ... We had data that indicated Republicans were more likely to spend money online with e-commerce sites. There was a great comfort with buying online, but that had not extended to giving to campaigns. ... On the GOP side, the sites visited tended toward e-commerce and sites that reflected individual pursuits. On the Dem side, we saw a lot more sites like Blue Mountain Greetings or social sites (blogs, greeting cards, and collective activities). ... Republicans were simply not as interested in virtual networking - they do most of it in the real world.

Republicans are still pursuing a strategy of closed, top-down systems. The people in campaigns still see campaigns as top-down and that's largely due to their perception that our people are not engaged. GOP campaign professionals (and I'm excluding Internet strategists) ignore the fact that people may be disengaged because the few opportunities available for participation in a top-down paradigm are not engaging. The Internet is still, unlike in many Democrat campaigns, being treated as an extension of the communications/messaging apparatus. ... Republicans have not learned the value of including the eCampaign in the candidate's inner circle.

Stoller responds with his own thoughts: "On the other hand ... the internet's rise in politics is part of a larger shift in the nature of our political system that is radically reshaping both parties. The Democratic Party is 'ahead' not in the sense that its masters have learned the new tools, but because the party is becoming much more open and aligned around a left-wing ideology that is ascendant in America. The Republican Party will go through this shift as well, maybe in two years, maybe in four, or six, but it will catch up with modern America. But it's going to be a very different structure with different leaders than it is today, either much more aligned with a Perotista anti-immigrant base or more left-wing and aligned with a multi-cultural America.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Hope For The Sake Of Iraqis

Promising to take "war apologists" "angrily to task for the manifest, manifold failures in Iraq, and the criminally self-indulgent fictions on which those failures were based," '03-'04 Baghdad reporter Tish Durkin shares some thoughts with Huffington Post readers including:

• Those who opposed the war seem to feel that they are the perfect opposite of those who sold the war - and of course, in the important sense of the invade-or-not-to-invade question, they are. But in their collective allergy to any fact that may complicate their position; their proud blindness to the color gray, and their fervent faith in their own infallibility, the two sides have always struck me as very much the same.
• It is not, for instance, true that it was the American-led invasion that opened season on the slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians. Whatever else the Bush administration made up about Iraq, the rank murderousness of Saddam Hussein was not one of them.
• It is not true that the Americans invaded Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people. They did so against the will of Saddam, against the will of those who flourished under Saddam, and against the will of numerous Sunn'is and Christians, most of them utterly blameless for the crimes of the regime, who feared what would happen to them after the Shi'ites got out from under Saddam.
• Finally, what depresses me, and makes me despise so much war criticism even when I agree with it, is that so many of those positing it seem so happy about what's gone wrong. They seem to relish the probability that Iraq will get worse and worse so that they can be righter and righter.
• Like liberals - and thinking conservatives, and sentient beings -- everywhere, I gravely doubt that the troop surge - so little so late -- will do anything to save Iraq. But for the sake of the Iraqi people, I sure hope it does - even if that helps the Republicans.

LEST WE FORGET: The Negotiators

Reacting to immigrant activists complaints that Pres. Bush's new immigration plan is too costly for the undocumented, The Corner's Mark Krikorian shares a joke:

An illegal alien approaches a Republican politician at a bar and asks, "Would you give me amnesty for a million dollars?" "Why, sure," replies the politician. "How about $1,000?" asks the illegal. The politician retorts in horror, "What kind of person do you think I am?" "We've already established that, sir," says the illegal alien. "Now we're just negotiating the price."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:42 PM

April 06, 2007

4/6: Hurting Their Cause?

On the heals of Rudy Giuliani's public-funding-for-abortions flap, The Corner's John Podhoretz argues that none of the GOP big three (or Fred Thompson, should he get in) really cares "about abortion one way or the other." J-Pod goes on to ask: "...will Republican opinion leaders spend the year 2007 making abortion a major battleground in the nominating process? With the mainstream media following along lapping it up...I think if they do, the GOP is sunk." Don't expect conservative bloggers to heed J-Pod's warning.

Not directly responding to J-Pod, Townhall's Matt Lewis argues the blogger driven discussion of Giuliani's abortion position is good for the GOP: "Debate and argument are healthy for Democracy. And as a conservative, I am happy that we are having these fights now -- rather than in the General Election. Imagine if we didn't find out that Rudy Giuliani was in favor of taxpayer-funded abortion until two weeks before the Genereal Election. ... Enough of the hand-wringing. Politics is tough. Get a helmet!"

GIULIANI: Cleaning Up Another Disaster

Rudy Giuliani's efforts to control the damage from his CNN interview admitting he supports tax payer funding for abortions damage control efforts made some head way 4/5. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez posted text of an email sent by Giuliani's campaign to "friends and allies" including: "What I said yesterday is what I've been saying throughout, I think in the last number of months publicly and privately for quite some time ... I also, on public funding or funding of abortion said I would want to see it decided on a state by state basis. And what that means is I would leave the Hyde Amendment in place. It's been the law now, 17, 18 years, it's part of the constitutional balance that I talked about yesterday and the Hyde Amendment leaves the funding issue largely to the states."

All has not been forgiven as far as conservative bloggers are concerned, but they did appreciate the effort:

• Captain's Quarters: "He has the date of the Hyde Amendment wrong (1976, 31 years ago), but if he will not act to end it or expand abortion funding past its limits on the federal level, he may have an argument that will mollify at least some of the people he angered yesterday."
• The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru: "Giuliani's latest statement seems like a significant and welcome climb-down. ... He is even signaling opposition to changing federal policy in the matter, rather than the mere lack of interest in changing it that he had previously expressed. Given the mess he has made of this issue entirely of his own free actions, I think he should probably stiffen that opposition. But then, I thought his pro-life supporters should have insisted on that from the start.

GIULIANI II: The Kids Love Him

Reports from the field continue to trickle in from IA. Race 4 '08sKavon Nikrand has video of Giuliani from Cedar Rapids and blogs: "What struck me the most about Cedar Rapids was the energy Hizzoner showed. After all, this is a man in his sixties who conquered a very serious illness. We walked downtown Cedar Rapids at a fairly brisk pace for over an hour. Mayor Giuliani bounded with energy, which is even more impressive considering that he had flown in from NH after attending an event there earlier in the morning."

Nikrad also reports on a Des Moines stop: "The Des Moines event was a political rally that was very well attended. I agree with Caucus Cooler that the amount of young people in the audience was worth noting (there is no comparison between this rally and McCain's Cedar Rapids rally last month)."

And in SC the Daily Chaser has video of Rudy responding to "two very controversial issues that nearly destroyed John McCain in 2000 - the confederate flag and Bob Jones University." his answers: "On the confederate flag, Giuliani said its a state issue that he should not and would not get involved in if elected President. On Bob Jones, Giuliani said that he did not know if he would accept an offer to speak there because he has not been offered the opportunity. If offered, he would have to consider it. He said that he does not typically turn down speaking opportunities.

HUNTER: A Trade Position Markos Can Love

Race 4 '08s Kavon Nikrad recaps Duncan Hunter's 4/5 blogger conference call, including:

• Rep. Hunter plans to run on a platform of strong national defense, enforcing our borders, and making trade a "two-way" street between the United States and our trading partners.
• Rep. Hunter's trade plan would serve to "level the playing field" in international trade by renegotiating or withdrawing the United States from GATT which prevents the US from refunding the taxes that manufacturing firms pay as other countries do for their own domestic manufacturer's.
• My impression of Rep. Hunter has always been as one of the few honest and yes "real" politicians. This conference call only served to reinforce that impression.

Right Wing NewsJohn Hawkins did not write on the conference call but does post Hunter's "pitch to conservatives on the internet."

MCCAIN: A Good Target

Max Boot's support of John McCain's assessment of the security situation in Iraq is being widely linked to. Captain's Quarters writes: "While he acknowledges that McCain wore body armor and had armed personnel guarding him, Boot points out the obvious -- that McCain makes a good target, but that other assumptions should not be drawn from it."

ROMNEY: Who Knew Hunting Was So Popular in MA?

Revelations that Mitt Romney has only hunted twice in his life, despite claims he is an 'experienced' sportsman, is drawing some righty blogger ridicule. Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit blogs underneath a picture of John Kerry hunting in '04: "Um, Mitt, if you only have been hunting twice, did your cousins really hand you the automatic that you used to allegedly bag the elusive bunny? ... While it's not exactly a "Dukakis in the Tank" moment, do you really want people to think of this picture, but with your face substituted?"

Also in less positive Romney blogging, The Corner's John Hood doesn't like what he's reading about Romney on taxes: "Gotta say that this Des Moines Register account of Romney's speech in Iowa hoisted some warning flags. While I'm very much in the gradual-reform school when it comes to federal taxes, I didn't like seeing Romney call a flat income-tax rate "unfair" and using the term "dream" rather than, say, goal or target to describe a future tax code that is simpler, flatter, and fairer. Giuliani comes across somewhat better in the exchange.

DEM FIELD: If Only They Could Convince 'Generic Republican' To Run

Matthew Yglesias likes what he's reading about the Diageo Hotline poll showing a generic Democrat beating a generic Republican 47%-29%. Yglesias notes that named matchups never poll as favorably for any of the WH '08 Dems, but Yglesias still likes their chances: "Painting your opponent as a member of the political party he is, in fact, a member of seems like one of the less-difficult lines of attack to carry out. Not a no-brainer by any means, but something that can be done. Especially because Giuliani and McCain are both falling over each other to embrace the most important elements of GOP dogma."

EDWARDS: Keep It Simple, Senator

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat fact checks John Edwardssupporters who claim their candidate supports Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) bill to defund the Iraq war. BTD links to Politico coverage showing Edwards spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield "wouldn't say [Edwards] supports Reid-Feingold" and adds: "This is nice and all, but Edwards can and should make it simple - he should say he supports Reid-Feingold and advocates for even TOUGHER measures. But this is too cute by half. KISS Senator Edwards. Keep it simple."

RCP Blog's John McIntyre has good new for Edwards after looking at RCP's poll average: "John Edwards has quietly halved his distance behind Barack Obama for second place in the Democratic field. Just a couple of weeks ago Obama led Edwards by 14 points in the RCP Average (25.7% to 11.7%). Today Edwards has whacked over 7 points off of that deficit and now trails Obama by only 6.7 points, (Obama 22.1%, Edwards 15.4%)."

OBAMA: What To Do With All That Money?

The Reality Based Community's Mark Kleiman argues Barack Obama could, if he wanted to, use his new found largess to win the IA caucus despite "despite not picking up endorsements from local notables." Kleiman explains: "Last time around, 125,000 Democrats turned out for the Iowa caucuses; that matched the previous high, from 1988. So a candidate who turns out 100,000 of his own supporters is going to blow the field away. ... Starting with precinct-level lists of supporters, an organizer hired for the last two weeks before the caucuses ought to be able to round up 50 attendees. So 2,000 organizers ought to be able to turn out those 100,000 voters. ... Let's say a field organizer has to be paid $750/week ... Then 2000 organizers for two weeks would cost $3 million. Double that to include supervisors and supervisors-of-supervisors ... 10,000 vans and drivers for the actual night of the caucuses, and office space. So it looks to me as if the whole thing could be done for $6 million."

The Washington MonthlyKevin Drum doesn't see Obama pursuing the strategy: "In any case, I doubt Obama will try to win Iowa with huge wads of cash anyway. He'll save it for places like California and New York. In fact, if anything, I'd guess that Obama's experience in community organizing is his biggest asset in places like Iowa and New Hampshire."

RICHARDSON: Nothing's Anemic About Bill

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum argues Bill Richardson "deserves a little more attention" for raising as much money as he did with "virtually no name recognition." Drum: "Sure, $6 million looks anemic compared to the three frontrunners, but in absolute terms that's pretty impressive, isn't it? If he keeps it up, he'll have a plenty big enough war chest to wage a serious campaign."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Just When You Thought You Were Out ...

Fresh off their victory over pressuring CNN to identify James Carville as a "Hillary supporter" netrootersarekeeping their targets on the network for Suzanne Malveaux's coverage of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) trip to Syria. Media Matters case against includes: "Since April 2, Malveaux has wrongly and repeatedly claimed that Pelosi had no "standing" and was not acting in an "official capacity," has attacked the trip as "political theater" and a "political stunt," and has parroted the Bush administration's attacks on Pelosi for going to Syria while ignoring the fact that a Republican-led delegation met with Assad on April 1. Most recently, Malveaux asked whether Pelosi's trip was a "big wet kiss to President Al-Assad."

Daily Kos' Bill in Portland ME writes: "In short, enough is enough. This has been a horrendous week for GOP lies and deception validated and amplified by the traditional media. Let's tell 'em to knock it off."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM II: More Of A Step In The Left Direction

The netroots are in full support of DNC's latest efforts to marginalize Fox News by not sanctioning any debates affiliated with the network. MyDD's Chris Bowers still hopes the CBC will re-think their co-sponsorship of a WH '08 forum with Fox: "Also, obviously, the debate with the CBC is still an issue, but this is a good step in the right direction. It continues to raise the issue of whether or not Fox is a legitimate news outlet, and shows that Democrats have grown slightly less prone to shaking the hand that slaps them."

The Huffington Post's Earl Ofari Hutchinson makes the case for sympathy for the CBC: "The CBC Institute, which has drawn direct fire for the deal, needs the money for its educational programs. And it's the height of condescension to think that caucus members compromise their political beliefs by making the deal, or worse that it turns the caucus into a Fox subsidiary. ... The CBC's oft-stated mantra is that in politics there are no permanent friends or enemies, just permanent interests. In inking the deal with Fox, the caucus is merely living up to its mantra. And since that's the way the CBC does business, its interest in Fox and Fox's interest in it makes perfectly good sense."

IRAQ: Far From Over

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has a diary up at Daily Kos urging readers to help support his legislation using "Congress's constitutional spending power to force the President to safely redeploy troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008." Feingold pitches: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did a great job getting the supplemental spending bill through the Senate last week. ... But our work is far from over - we have got to keep pushing to end the terrible mistake in Iraq. That next step has got to be Congress using its power of the purse to end the war. ... By agreeing to cosponsor this measure, and by saying that he will work to make sure this bill gets a vote before the end of May, Harry Reid has again shown his strong commitment to pushing for an end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq."

Min. Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has a different message up at RedState: "Mr. President, Veto This Bill." Boehner writes: "American combat troops are now being used to grease the skids for spinach growers, citrus producers, tropical fish breeders, and the peanut industry. How proud my Democratic friends must be. Can someone please explain why a quarter-billion dollars for the Milk Income Loss Contract Program belongs in a funding bill for troops under fire in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Also at RedState, AcademicElephant recaps a blogger conference call with Major General William Caldwell on "he impact the congressional standoff over the President's emergency supplemental bill will have on our troops." AE reports: "General Caldwell concurred with Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker's assessment that the US Army would begin to feel the funding pinch at the end of April."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Labor Of Love

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner reacts to suggestions in Beccah Golubock WatsonThe Nation article that lefty bloggers should receive more attention from the political funding world:

If, however, one's part-time writing has not attracted a large readership and a passel of advertisers, why is it that The Powers That Be ought to swoop down and fork over some cash to keep you in business? For one thing, you're already in business, meaning the return on investment would be rather minimal. Moreover, almost by definition, the net harm to The Cause of your blog's disappearance from the scene would be negligible.

Moreover, where is the evidence that blogs are going to go away if people can't make a living from them? Most of us blogged for free for years before making more than minimum wage for the time invested. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of blogs being created every day, including small number of readable ones. Where, exactly, is the blogging crisis?

LEST WE FORGET: Pleasuring Others

Mo Rocca posts the winner of his "Explain the Gonzales imbroglio in no more than 25 words" contest, as well as five other entries. The winner and The Blogometer's favorites include:

• Gonzales likely to fire judges... Perhaps he should fire himself... He says he "serves at the pleasure of the president..." He should pleasure somebody else...
• In bizarre love triangle, AG drives non-stop from Texas to DC to fire attorneys not pleasing rival Rove. President pleasured by the service both provide.
• [the winner]: Patriot Act allowed Justice to appoint indefinite replacements. Eight fired seemingly because of failure investigating Dems. White House emails disclosed knowledge after initital, public denial.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:42 PM

April 05, 2007

4/5: At Least He Bought Them Drinks First

While opposition to gay marriage is not a big issue for conservative bloggers, the right to life certainly is for many of them, which makes ex-NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) blog popularity all the more fascinating. While even his supporters admit Giuliani's statement to CNN that he still supports tax payer funded abortions is "not Rudy's finest moment," many still remind readers that Giuliani's new statements still fit into his larger position, since joining the race, that he supports abortion as NY mayor, but supports the Hyde Amndt. banning federal funding for abortions as President. This distinction is wearing thin for many though, perhaps best summed up by Ramesh Ponnuru's frustration with his fellow NRO-Rudy-supporters: "I don't mind that some of my conservative friends are for Giuliani, but I do wish they weren't such cheap dates."

GIULIANI: You Lost Them At Tax Payer Funded

Townhall's Matt Lewis tracks past statements from Rudy Giuliani adviser Bill Simon assuring pro-lifers "that Giuliani now supports the Hyde Amendment, banning public funding of abortion" and then links to video of Giuliani telling CNN he supports tax payer funding for abortion. Lewis comments: "It's one thing to support a candidate who used to be pro-choice. But I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario in which I would vote for a candidate who not only favors the practice of abortion - but also favors taking my money to pay for it." Similar reactions include:

• The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru: "I don't mind that some of my conservative friends are for Giuliani, but I do wish they weren't such cheap dates."
• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez I've gotten the most anti-Rudy e-mail this afternoon than I've gotten since he got in the race.
• The Brody File: "Rudy better hope he doesn' flame out before Super-Duper Tuesday on February 5th when pro-Giuliani states like California and New Jersey come into the mix."
• AmSpec Blog's Phil Klein: "The problem with supporting--or at least being open to--public funding is that it not only rankles social conservatives, but it hurts him among more libertarian-minded voters who may even favor abortion rights, but abhor government subsidies."
• Captain's Quarters: "It's hard to see where conservatives of any stripe -- social or fiscal -- can support Giuliani after this assertion. He won't do anything to reverse abortion, and he wants to use tax money to fund them. If someone can find the conservative in there, as Giuliani argues, they must have to stare very hard into that abyss."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "At some point, you just have to ask yourself if selling out your core conservative principles because Rudy makes you feel safe is really a smart thing to do or is some version of Stockholm syndrome setting in."

While no one was particularly impressed with Giuliani's statements, many still want to give Rudy a chance on the issue:

• Race 4 '08s Billy Valentine: "Does Rudy, a former lawyer, believe in the constitutional right in abortion so firmly that he believes that it is a fundamental right that the government should pay for this right - and that it should be a right that is even held above a citizen's right to property?"
• Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "I'm pro-life and I'm a tentative Rudy supporter. So long as he puts strict constructionist judges on the bench I don't care if he's pro-abortion. ... However, the issue of public funding, to me ... is entirely different than how a person would vote in a state referendum on abortion, and it may cost him votes. But give Rudy credit - he's not backing away from his position even though he has to know it's going to make it tougher for him to win."
• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "Careful parsing suggests that he means only that it's a constitutional right according to the courts -- he throws some ifs in there, and Ted Olson's role as a Rudy advisor certainly calms some nerves. Still, not Rudy's finest moment."

GIULIANI II: Katrina Wasn't Handled Well?

In non-abortion Rudy blogging, reports from the trail remain positive. GraniteGrok's Doug Lambert has video from a Hampton Falls, NH, house party and reports "the level of enthusiasm and the general upbeat, party-like atmosphere was remarkably different from most recent Republican events I have attended since this past November. Rudy is most definitely the Republican "rock-star" of the moment."

Later, Lambert recaps Rudy's conservative pitch, including: "Rudy offered 3 main thrusts for the war in Iraq: Clear, hold, and build. This is the new strategy being implemented by the military as supported by President Bush. ... The other main point repeated several times throughout the event was his desire and ability to make government work. He acknowledged the post-Katrina fiasco and pledged to fix what's broken, much like he did when assuming office as Mayor and then in the aftermath of September 11th."

Also making a case for Giuliani, ex-MD Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R) sat down with RedState's Rob Bluey: "Ehrlich told me Giuliani's record on taxes and other fiscal matters and his strong national security credentials would continue to be his greatest strengths. It was on that note that I asked Ehrlich about Giuliani's performance as mayor. Unlike most people who talk about Giuliani's tenure, Ehrlich deliberately avoided mentioning 9/11, noting the accomplishments the mayor achieved before terrorists struck the World Trade Center."

GOP FIELD: The Meltdown Continues

Conservative bloggers definitely noticed the wide margin Dem '08ers out paced the GOPers in campaign cash. The Corner's John Podhoretz speculates: "It indicates that those inclined to give to Democrats are opening their wallets bigtime while Republican donors are profoundly wary. It's an indication of an intensity gap between committed Dems and committed Republicans. ... this is yet another data point to suggest there has been a GOP meltdown since 2004 and only a really vibrant GOP campaign leading to a very formidable and stimulating nominee can turn things around."

Fellow CorneriteByron York took the opportunity to post a reader email knocking John McCain: "McCain got what he wanted, didn't he? Less money in politics? He just didn't figure it'd all come from him." J-Pod also used news Dems outraised GOPers by $27 mil. to deflect from Rudy Giuliani's bad day: "So by all means, conservatives and Republicans should spend 18 months arguing about the Hyde Amendment. Because that's really going to help."

GINGRICH: Language Skills Hindering Candidate's Progress

Many conservative bloggers are helping Newt Gingrich redeem his "Spanish as a 'ghetto' language" comments by posting video of Gingrich offering a clarification. RedState's Erick Erickson explains: "What he meant was that, in order to get ahead in this country, English is necessary and a lack of English will hinder any immigrant's progress. He recognizes that this was a poor choice of words and has reached out to the Spanish speaking community to clarify what he meant."

Bi-lingual lefty bloggers were notimpressed with Gingrich's Spanish language skills. Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat writes: "I Demand An Apology From Newt Gingrich For issuing this apology. He murdered my first language."

MCCAIN: Baghdad Or Bust

Reacting to Politico coverage of John McCain's plan to mirror Pres. Bush's Pioneers, Rangers and Mavericks fundraising gimmicks, Townhall's Hugh Hewitt offers some advise: "Someone had better talk optics with those folks. The best way for Senator McCain to get any momentum back would be to talk to conservatives about having made enormous mistakes on McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14, and McCain-Kennedy as well as last September. He's a man of extraordinary qualities, but refusing to talk bluntly about his mistakes --or at least defend his positions at length in a full and fair interview with a serious critic-- is the anchor on the campaign, not the naming scheme for contributors."

Also at Townhall, Dean Barnett chafes at suggestions John McCain's fundraising trouble from his support of the war in Iraq: "You've got to be kidding me. Team McCain has actually concluded that he's "under fire" for his steadfastness on Iraq? How could they be so obtuse? McCain's reliability on Iraq is quite frankly the only thing that's keeping him afloat in conservative Republican circles. Or let's put it this way - McCain's not considered viable because of McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy or his reputation as a loyal Republican."

Speaking of McCain and Iraq, RedState's Hunter Baker highlights a Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) blog entry touting McCain's strength on the war: "We have had our differences on issues but never on the object of this journey. ... He has never wavered in his belief in the justice of our cause in Iraq. He was the first leader in Congress to call for a surge of U.S. forces in Iraq. He commands the respect of our generals on the ground and the Iraqi leaders who recognize him as a national leader in America. I think his personal story of heroism and his lineage also give him real currency in the Arab world."

Back in IA Krusty Konservative comments on a McCain release touting his support from 23 IA mayors: "This is obviously a shot at Rudy and his honorary title of 'America's Mayor'. ... This was a smart move on McCain's part because Iowa newspapers will definitely pick up a story about their mayor backing a presidential kandidate. Also, the local angle will attract more passive readers who don't hang on every word that comes out of the beltway media. Right now I don't think the McCain folks care nearly as much about what Chuck Todd thinks as what Chuck City, IA residents think."

MCCAIN II: They Say 'Cheap Date' Like It's A Bad Thing

Ramesh Ponnuru's 'cheap date' line set off a spirited discussion in The Corner over McCain's conservative credentials. Andy McCarthypointed Ponnuru (dubbed by McCarthy as "the conservative movement's chief apologist for Senator McCain") to McCain's law suit against WI Right to Life for their funding of a television ad supporting the appointment of "originalist judges." McCarthy writes: "The Senator - who was instrumental in preventing a parliamentary reform to end Democratic filibusters against the Bush judicial nominees back when the Republicans had a sizable senate majority - apparently thinks it's a violation of law if an interest group advocates in favor of originalist judicial nominees merely getting an up-or-down confirmation vote ... at least if such advocacy would make it harder for pro-abortion incumbents like Senator Russ Feingold to be re-elected."

Ponnuru responded: "Andy, I'm not sure "apologist" is quite the right term here. The points you raise about it seem like real strikes against McCain (although they have to be balanced against the support for McCain-Feingold of Romney, Giuliani, and Fred Thompson)." Back to McCarthy: "'Cheap date' -v- 'apologist' - yeah, I can see why you'd be upset."

ROMNEY: Like Howard Dean?

The Corner has plenty of fresh reports from Mitt Romney on the trail including:

• Rich Lowry from Derry, NH: "Romney emphasizes how he's not in Washington, he has lots of private-sector experience and his specialty has been turning organizations around and getting results. Thus, he positions himself as an outsider and reformer. ... He couples that message with a version of Howard Dean-circa 2003 populism, talking about empowering and strengthening people. ... But Romney's populism has a business-like, technocratic cast."
• A K-Lo emailer from IA: "Attended Romney's visit to Pioneer Hi-Bred (seed/biotech branch of DuPont) ... It was very well attended. About 150 filled the room he was in, and they had overflow rooms I'm told had another 90 in (they piped it in via video feed). I have some non-poliitical, but level headed friends who attended. I've talked to 4 so far and they were very impressed. They did not know much about him at all prior to this event.
• K-Lo herself on a tele-town hall with IAns: "Supports surge. Doesn't want a growing regional conflict, brings up Iran again. Safely talks "stability ... stabilize." No high-minded democracy or freedom talk. "Early" to know how surge is working."

TANCREDO: CO 06 Up For Grabs!

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt is calling either Tom Tancredo or whoever updates his official website a liar after the site accused Hewitt of educating "Tancredo about the merits of supporting an illegal alien amnesty bill" while on Hewitt's radio show 4/2.

Hewitt writes: "I am hearing that some folks will be entering Colorado's 6th District GOP primary, and that Tom's protest campaign could well cost him his very safe seat. If he's serious, he should do what Congressman Hunter has done: Renounce his seat and let the district pick a successor rather than keep a chair warm for him." Captain's Quarters says Tancredo "Is Not A Serious Candidate."

EDWARDS: No Saint

David Sirota makes his most developed plea yet for John Edwards, labeling him the "People Party's" candidate in the same vein as William Jennings Bryan, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Robert F. Kennedy, and Howard Dean.Making his case Sirota examines each of the big threes campaign themes, who they have surrounded themselves with, and who their enemies are:

• On themes: "To date, it's fair to say Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's campaigns have been about themselves. ... Edwards, by contrast, has been extremely disciplined in making economic class issues the central focus of his race (he has also taken a strong, consistent stand on the war first by apologizing for his initial vote, and then unequivocally supporting aggressive efforts to end it).
• On staff: "It's no secret that Clinton and Obama have opted to surround themselves with Wall Street and Washington insiders ... Edwards ... is no saint ... but there's also little doubt that he's surrounded himself with people who have focused on working class issues.
• On enemies: "Frankly, other than Republican partisans, Clinton doesn't seem to have many ideological enemies. Same thing for Obama, and not just because he has a magnetic personality. Obama's Senate M.O. has been to avoid confrontation at all costs - and in my interview with him, he insinuated that such a posture is a deliberate goal. Edwards, by contrast, has real ideological enemies - not a surprise considering that before entering politics, his entire career was based on challenging power."

Sirota concludes: "Edwards has undeniably become the People Party candidate. He is the one who represents the clearest chance for change - real change for the entire country on issues that matter, rather than just a change of parking spots for the circle of former Clinton administration officials, lobbyists and well-heeled professional political hacks who control the Democratic Party in Washington, D.C."

OBAMA: Suddenly, 'A Real Candidate'

Netrooters were uniformly more impressed by the number of Barack Obama's contributors, but they also took joy in noting his overall money victory. Reactions include:

• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas
: "Kudos to the Obama campaign for stressing the number of individuals who are engaging with the campaign, more so than the overall haul of cash. Ultimately, the campaigns that last are the ones that build a movement, not the ones that just squeeze cash from supporters."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "As we like to say here at AMERICAblog, this is huge. All of a sudden, this makes Obama a real candidate."
• The Left Coaster's Steve Soto: "We can cease with any notion that Hillary's nomination is somehow inevitable. With the news this morning that Obama raised the same level of funding as she did, there no longer is any doubt that a significant part of the party wants someone other than her, and wants someone who is clean from the Beltway and the Iraq decision in 2002."
• A TPM reader: "There needs to be some attention paid to the fact Hillary Clinton didn't actually compete head-to-head on a level playing field with Barack Obama. Does any one honestly think Hillary would have raised $26 million without the help of her husband Bill?"
• The Huffington Post's Adam Hanft: "In two months, Barack Obama has been able to accomplish something that Hillary Clinton was unable to do after years of painstakingly constructing a national campaign structure and team: raise money from 100,000 individual donors. In fact, that's roughly twice as many donors than Senator Clinton was able to motivate."
• Jack and Jill Politics' Jill Tubman: "What this tells me is that ordinary people are responding to Obama. I wonder actually how many of them are black folks. "
• TAPPED's Ezra Klein: "A world where a brand new candidate can attract 100,000 donors is a world in which small donor democracy actually can flourish, and the current corporate hammerlock can be weakened, or even rendered obsolete."

Kos also shares these numbers with readers from the Obama camp: "More than 50,000 donors gave $6.9 million online; Over 90% of online donations were in increments of $100 or less; About 50% of online donations were in increments of $25 or less; Over 4,000 grassroots volunteer groups founded on My.BarackObama.com; Over 9,000 blogs started, where people are chronicling their campaign experience; Over 50,000 profiles created by My.BarackObama.com members."

IRAQ: Hope And Accountability

Terry McCarthy's ABC News report on the Iraq surge including: "The locals told us that things are getting better," is being posted widely in conservative blogging circles. Captain's Quarters asks "Was McCain Right?" and RedState's Erick Erickson hopes: "There's no way of predicting the future, but let's hope this ABC News piece on Iraq is the first of many good-news broadcasts we'll be seeing in the coming months."

On the left, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) posts his "Response to the President's Veto Threat" at The Huffington Post: "I have just been informed that the 4th Infantry Division is preparing to deploy to Iraq with only eight months at home and without the appropriate training. This is unacceptable. ... The Constitution expressly places the power 'to raise and support Armies,' and 'to provide and maintain a Navy' with Congress. It is, therefore, Congress' responsibility to raise the revenues for our military and to determine in what manner and by what means they shall be spent. ... For four years, the president has been waging a war without end and without accountability. The Iraq Accountability Act expresses the sentiment of the Congress and the majority of the American people who say it's time for a plan to safely and responsibly end the war."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Everybody Seems To Love Watching The Lakers With Their Dog In Front Of The Fire

For the first time since Daily Kos enabled diarists to post their own blog rolls, Markos ranks the top linked to blogs including the % of users linking to each site: Firedoglake 15.79%; TPM 15.29%; Crooks and Liars 14.93%; My Left Wing 14.00%; Hullabaloo 12.85%; Eschaton 11.20%; Booman Tribune 9.91%; MyDD 9.76%; The Huffington Post 9.33%; Glenn Greenwald 7.39%

LEST WE FORGET: Dates Aren't Debate Clubs?

MSN Match's Robert Harris lists five things men hate to hear on a first date including:

• "My last boyfriend..." - All we can say is, why? ... Whatever you say, all we will hear is, "I'm out with you, but I'm still thinking a lot about another man."
• "Do you mind if I take this call?" - Of course we mind. We won't say we do, but we do.
• "So how do you feel about abortion?" - This type of question is known among men as a litmus test-a touchy topic that women raise to gauge whether we're politically, morally, or spiritually on the same page as them (the death penalty, gay marriage, and the war in Iraq also fit the bill). ... this is a date, not debate club. Let's have fun and save more heated back-and-forths for later.
• "And then I found this cute pair of sandals..." - You're not out with your girlfriends. You're out with a guy, remember? And same as how we wouldn't subject you to talk about stocks or our favorite sports teams, please, do us the same favor.
• "How do you feel about having a family?" - It's not that we don't want families, many of us do-it's just that we like to get to know a woman first. And we like to know you like us as more than just as a potential baby-making machine. After all, where's the romance in that?

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:40 PM

April 04, 2007

4/4: Raising 'The Rock Star' Bar?

While reports of IA crowd reaction to ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) are good, reports on the size of those crowds are underwhelming. Unfair or not, Giuliani is being cast as the 'rock star' candidate in the GOP field, and while that may have been a choice position to be in past cycles, this year it invites comparisons to the Dems rock star, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). So far Giuliani is simply not measuring up to Obama when it comes to turnout. The Giuliani camp never said they planned to make IA central to their strategy, but if Rudy plans to take the big 2/5 states, he better hope his rock star rises.

GIULIANI: 'Rudy The Baptist'

Rudy Giuliani received a few catcalls from grumbling patrons of Cedar Rapids, IA's First Ave. HyVee (known to the Krusty Konservative as the Ghetto-Vee). KK reports GOP precinct rep. Sarah Henderson was not notified of the event "til she read it in the morning paper."

More KK on reports Giuliani's Des Moines stop only attracted 400 to 500: "That size of crowd is comparable to what McCain had a few months ago, but it seems like some people thought he would be able to attract a much larger crowd. ... Overall it seems like it was a good trip, but I really thought he would have packed that gymnasium like Hillary and Obama did on their first visits to Iowa."

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham also found the Des Moines crowds "smaller than [she] was anticipating" but those that were there were "enthusiastic" including a lady who told MKH Giuliani sounded like "a good Baptist preacher." Quips Ham: "Rudy the Baptist? Well, that's one way for him to get the evangelical vote."

Blogging from NH, The Corner's Rich Lowry files these tidbits:

• The Rudy Paradox: One thing I noticed last night was that almost all the questions were on national security-people consider Rudy the national security guy. But his answers on foreign policy and military affairs aren't deeply informed to my ear, making for an odd disconnect.
• Rudy the Good-Natured: "ne notable thing about him on the campaign trail is what a happy warrior he is. He pokes fun at New York constantly, and people love it.
• Overall Rudy Impression: "He's going to be a good candidate on the stump. He's likable, and has authority and star power. What he's going to have to worry about (no big surprise) is his positions on key issues, his past record, and his personal life-those things he doesn't have so much control over."

And in SC, The Daily Chaser reports that three GOP statewide officials and clients of consultant Rod Shealy will all soon be endorsing Giuliani.

MCCAIN: Guess This Friendship Is Officially Over

Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) MyDD claims that John McCain's staff approached him about a spot as VP in '04 drew a quick denial from McCain aides John Weaver and Mark Salter. Salter tells Townhall's Matt Lewis the suggestion is a 'fantasy' and Lewis recounts: "Out of respect for Senator Kerry (they worked together on the POW MIA issue), McCain allowed Kerry to talk with him on three occasions (sometimes this was on the floor of the Senate and sometimes it was over coffee). ... According to both men, Kerry ultimately offered McCain the Vice Presidency and de facto Secretary of State authority to join ticket. What is more, the offer did not involve McCain switching parties."

Some McCain critics couldn't resist the bait. The Right Angle's Matt Naugle writes: "So if this story is untrue, then what would motivate Kerry to lie? ... And regardless of if this story is false or true, the bigger problem for McCain is that this story is entirely believable."

Most conservatives doubted Kerry's version of events, reminding readers that just because something is "seared" into Kerry's "doesn't mean it occurred."

In Iraq related McCain blogging, NH's GraniteGrok's Doug Lamborn shares Team McCain's assessment of the war given to a blogger conference call: "The surge appears to be working. In Anbar province, McCain reports through his advisors, 16 of the 24 Sunni tribes are working directly with us to fight Al Quada."

ROMNEY: Still Working On Step One

Still talking about Mitt Romney's impressive Q1 totals, Townhall's Matt Lewis shares a Romney consultant's explanation of their importance: "Romney has proven his trump card that he's the only viable conservative in the race. ... They apparently feel that if Romney can make this a three-way race, Romney will be able to "out-conservative" McCain and Rudy. They believe these numbers do the trick. So step one was to make it a three-way race. Step two will be to be the most conservative frontrunner. And step three is the nomination."

The Corner's Rich Lowry filed these Romney reports from NH:

• On fundraising: "Two things I hadn't heard before: California was his biggest state for fundraising; and he had 32-33,000 individual donors. He mentioned the California factoid by way of arguing that he hadn't met most of the donors-they're just people who believe in the message of his campaign, he says."
• On CoH: "I'm told that that number will be "at least" $11.3 million, and could go a little north of that. I'm told that would make his "burn rate"-i.e., the percentage that he has spent of the money he has raised-51%. The $11.3 cash on hand would be in the ballpark of what McCain raised in the quarter."
• On Romney generally: "Seeing him on the trail reminds me of something Ramesh said in his McCain cover piece, that all three of the top GOP candidate are, in their own ways, strong. ... Romney is the guy everyone has been writing off and who has had a very tough year (until lately). But he is a very impressive guy-articulate, smooth, likable. If this is the worst of the top candidates, they are a strong bunch indeed."

Lowry also notes movement by Romney in IA polling which K-Lo quickly dubbed "MoMITTum." K-Lo also links to Romney's new "I Like Vetoes" ads up in IA and NH.

CLINTON: 'Bushian' Ideas Abroad, And Wal-Mart At Home

Hillary Clinton's internet dir. Peter Daou took to The Huffington Post to promote HRC's new petition calling for "President Bush not to veto the will of the people on Iraq." From the petition: "Join Hillary in telling him to listen to the will of the people and to Congress, withdraw his veto threat, and begin phased deployment of the troops out of Iraq."

Also focussing on Iraq, Matthew Yglesias argues Clinton's foreign policy don't really differ from Bush's that much: "Hillary Clinton laid out a reasonably clear vision in her January 2006 speech to Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School. The way I read the speech, Clinton has very serious tactical disagreements with the Bush administration, but on some level agrees with the basic Bushian idea that actively seeking the political transformation of the Arab world ought to be America's key priority."

Not on Iraq, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas chose 4/3 to remind readers that Clinton "was once on Wal-Mart's Board of Directors," linking to an '00 Village Voicearticle on the subject.

DODD: Passing The Iraq Test

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat thanks Chris Dodd for stepping up and supporting the Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) bill mandating redeployment of troops in Iraq. BTD adds: "Thank you Senator Dodd. Senator Clinton? Senator Obama? And how about some statements of support from Edwards and Richardson?"

Bob Geiger is also a fan: "Kudos to Senator Dodd for again showing this kind of leadership and joining Senators Feingold, Reid and Kerry -- who endorsed the bill yesterday -- in fighting Bush's goal of stranding American troops in Iraq forever."

EDWARDS: No Trumping Him

Daily Kos' MeanBone trumpets Univ. of IA's new numbers showing 89% of caucus goers found John Edwards electable followed by Barack Obama at 87%. MeanBone comments: "Edwards holds the trump cards in Iowa, both in terms of actual support and potential gains. He already leads among likely caucus-goers, and more of them believe he is electable than they do either of the other top two candidates. He is well-positioned to claim the media's mantle of "winner" at the very start of the race and receive the free coverage that entails."

In other Edwards blogging Matthew Yglesias defends Edwards' health plan from libertarian attacks that it "would deny families the right to choose their own doctor." Yglesias responds: "This is just straight-up false -- nothing in Edwards' plan would do that. Nor, of course, do very many people have the right to choose their own doctor if they want their health insurance to cover it. Under Edwards' plan, however, there will be the choice of "a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare" which would offer such a right."

OBAMA: Bigger Than Jesus

TAPPED's Adele Stan is impressed with art student David Cordero's explanation for his paper mache Barack Obama as Jesus statute. Says Cordero:

All of this is a response to what I've been witnessing and hearing, this idea that Barack is sort of a potential savior that might come and absolve the country of all its sins. ... In a lot of ways it's about caution in assigning all these inflated expectations on one individual, and expecting them to change something that many hands have shaped.

Stan finds Cordero's analysis "on target" adding: "we all want a shot of redemption, and the nomination of Obama would seem to offer that. ... For those who know there's something wrong with the fact that a black person has yet to grace a Democratic presidential ticket, an Obama candidacy relieves us of that guilt. ... And he's so brilliant and adaptable and, so far, unflappable that it's hard to make a case against him. The prospect for superhuman expectations of such a leader do run exceedingly high."

Also in Obama loving, The Huffington Post's Thomas de Zengotita hopes Obama finds "a really smart, funny white woman" to be his spokeswoman and blogs: " He represents a whole new possibility in our politics, in world politics--and possibility is, by its nature, indefinite. ... If Barack holds himself in reserve, he can emerge toward the end of 2007 in a form that could capture the unpredictable contours of that moment.

OBAMA II: He Keeps Good Company

Obama's once impeccable anti-war credentials continue to be assaulted. David Sirota points MyDD readers to a Radar Online tracking off-message past Obama statements, including: "Fast forward to 2006 when he told the New Yorker's David Remnick that senators who saw intelligence reports on Iraq may have been justified in voting for the invasion. 'I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence,' he said. 'And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices.'"

Matthew Yglesias, however, pushes back against claims Obama has not distinguished himself from Hillary Clinton on Iraq, dismissing a TPM Cafe study comparing Obama's and Clinton's voting records by saying: "voting records don't tell you all that much about where politicians' stand." Yglesias argues instead that a candidate's campaign hires tell you more about their foreign policy vision than their actual votes: "Obama appears to have an advisory team drawn disproportionately from the ranks of Iraq War opponents whereas Clinton is the reverse."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: So What Are We, Chopped Liver?

Eric Boehlert's Media Matters piece attacking ex-ABC News pol. dir. Mark Halperin's stewardship of "The Note" is being widely linked to in netroots circles. Boehlert blogs: "the simple truth is that with Halperin at the helm, The Note went all-in on the Bush White House." First though, Boehlert tells readers why the Note mattered:

An inside-baseball daily for a readership dubbed the "Gang of 500" (politicians, lobbyists, consultants, and journalists who help shape the Beltway's public agenda), The Note was labeled in a lengthy, laudatory 2004 New Yorker feature "the most influential tip sheet in Washington." Few disagreed. The Note, committed to obediently reflecting the Beltway's chattering class, remains a central engine that drives conventional wisdom, which The Note clearly idolizes.

With Halperin now gone, Boehlert urges: "Indeed, if The Note wants to maintain its relevance, and if it wants to erase its already-established reputation as a laughingstock among increasingly influential progressives and Democrats, The Note will throttle back on its rampant, worshipful coverage of Republicans before it's too late."

Kos piles on: "Not only were Democrats taking their advice from this crap, but so was the rest of the DC press corps. A single partisan Republican at ABC News (and one that obsessively refreshed the Drudge Report for material) set the tone of the beltway punditry and straight media reporting."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Can't We All Just Get Along?

DLC Chair Harold Ford Jr. went into the lion's den that is TPM Cafe in an attempt to remove the group's "bogey-man status" it has attained "in some parts of the progressive blogosphere." Ford writes: "In fact, the DLC's real political base is among state and local elected officials from around the country--many hundreds of them have gone through our policy development training and attended our annual National Conversations. Contrary to what many think, DLCers are often as frustrated with D.C-based political consultants and pollsters as anyone in the Netroots."

TPM's Josh Marshall notes: "If the comments are any indication, it'll be an uphill battle."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Real Change Has Real Costs

Noting that the John Edwards campaign, Al Gore, Brad Pitt, the Rolling Stones, Coldpay, the Olympics, and the Super Bowl are all claiming to either be carbon neutral now or soon, The Huffington Post's Scott Page shares "an inconvenient truth. ... Like most simple solutions to complex problems, the attempt to balance carbon with offsets is more symbolism than substance." Page explains:

If we all went the way of John and Al, then we'd have to balance out all of the carbon that we're spewing into the atmosphere, not just a few puffs of smoke at the margins. To do that, we couldn't just plant a few thousand acres of trees or open a few wind farms. We'd have to retrofit or shut down all of our coal-powered plants. We'd have to switch to more costly sustainable energy sources. We'd have to replace our gas burning cars and trucks with some alternative mode of transportation. And, we'd have to cut way back on air travel. Those fossil fuels that we did use, we'd have to burn in such a way as to sequester the carbon. These changes would be costly. ... Strong effective leaders take symbolic acts. So like many, I'm proud that John Edwards has chosen to go green. However, if he wants to change America, he must speak truth to power: real change will have real costs.

LEST WE FORGET: Punishment Enough

Picking up on stories from Sweden (where tax authorities refuse to register a couple's child as 'Metalica') and Germany (where the interior ministry is fighting to prevent a couple from naming their child 'Jihad), Michelle Malkin writes: "Ok, while I'm not a fan of either of those names, I am even more creeped out by these European laws regulating what parents name their babies. If they want to name their kid "Pilot Inspektor" or Kal-El, it's certainly cruel and ridicule-worthy. But illegal? Earning the lifelong resentment of their ill-named progeny should be punishment enough."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:04 PM

April 03, 2007

4/3: Opportunity Knocks For Edwards

Netroots doubts about Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) are continuing to grow as Obama proves unable to please them with his current position on the war, and more and more bloggers are beginning to point out that looking forward (and not back to his IL leg. days), Obama seems to have the same position as Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on Iraq. This may be John Edwards' best opportunity to re-establish himself as the anti-war Dem and, correspondingly, the netroots' favorite. Considering how important Iraq is to voters in '08, it's not too early to ask candidates for specifics on how they'd deal with the war if they became president. Will Edwards move past "vague suggestions" and press the frontrunners to substantively "hash out" their differences?

DEM FIELD: Maybe We Should Press Our Candidates For A Debate On Iraq

Reiterating his disdain for Bill Clinton's "flatly unconvincing" attempts to "muddy the waters on" Hillary Clinton's Iraq war authorization votes, TAPPED's Sam Rosenfeld still thinks "we should be able to move on to at least somewhat more specific forward-looking discussions" about what to do in Iraq.

Looking forward, Rosenfeld notes that while HRC's calls for "a residual force in Iraq indefinitely" may "set off some alarm bells among those of us already disposed to find Clinton ... too hawkish for our taste" John Edwards and Barack Obama "have also described leaving some troops in the country following a major withdrawal and/or retaining "over-the-horizon" capacity to redeploy there." Rosenfled concludes: "All of these suggestions are a bit vague. Are there substantive differences between Obama's views on this issue and Clinton's? This is a debate that ought to be hashed out."

CLINTON: Not All About The Benjamins

Hillary Clinton gained few points among bloggers for her fundraising prowess. The Huffington Post's Tony Hendra claims "time was Democrats distinguished themselves from Republicans in being more discreet - even apologetic - about the fund-raising-race." More Hendra: "The message was: unlike Republicans we don't measure everything by money; we don't plump for property over people, we don't choose corporate prosperity at any cost to life and limb. We don't believe that everything - even basic human rights like shelter, education and healthcare - should be a profit center. ... A very smart message even if - once they got into power - they never acted on it."

Arianna is still holding out hope Barack Obama will best HRC in receipts, but also notes that Obama already beat HRC in number of donors: "Obama raised his money from 83,000 donors. Hillary raised hers from about 50,000. So Obama has many more donors and many more who have not given the maximum amount. ... So even if Hillary manages to come out on top in Round 1, as Drudge & Co. all have it, things may only get tougher in subsequent rounds. Is it too much to ask for someone to point that out?"

EDWARDS: A Force To Be Reckoned With

John Edwards is enjoying a recent surge in coast-to-coast netroots love. CaliticsTodd Beeton tracks recent polling and endorsements in the Golden State and writes: "Over the past few weeks it's become quite evident that John Edwards is running for California...and he's running for it hard. The interesting thing about how he's doing it is that, against all conventional wisdom, he's managed to mount an inexpensive stealth campaign made up of campaign stops both conventional (rallies at colleges) and unconventional (an appearance at a Santa Monica Democratic club, a visit with Fresno farm workers and a recent Q&A with reporters in San Francisco, which I diaried with a link to video HERE)

Back in the Granite State, a Blue Hampshire correspondent posts a report from an Edwards stop at Stonyfield Farm Yogurt in Londonderry, NH: "The most interesting moment came near the end of the tour which followed the Q&A with employees. ... A line employee in the QC department reached into her pocket and took out a $100 check and gave it to the campaign. It was an unscripted moment ... It was powerful and [MSNBC's Anne Kornbluth], mentioned it on Keith Olberman's Countdown last eveing in a live feed from Portsmouth. She stated that if that is an indication of peoples' reaction to Edwards he will be remian a force to reckoned with."

OBAMA: Stop Digging

Given an opportunity to distinguish himself as a strong anti-war candidate, Barack Obama failed to satisfy netroots doubts about his current Iraq war stance. Reacting to Obama's Iraq supplemental claification to the New Hampshire Union-Leader that his "object [after a veto] would be explore passing a new version that also has some sort of constraints on the President's actions," DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas responds: "sorry to say, you Obama fans, but [this response] no better than before."

Kos continues: "First of all, he's talking about sending Bush a weaker bill, not the same or a stronger one. Two, he's saying that if Bush vetoes the Iraq supplemental, and Congress doesn't send him some watered-down version, then it's Congress' fault the troops aren't getting funded. ... Does this make Obama a non-starter for my primary vote in 2008? Nah. But it is an important data point."

A clear majority of the 700+ comments to kos' post were running against Obama. Among the most highest rated comments:

• Obama seems to be caving in rather than standing strong.
• Anti-war people (among whom I am one): PLEASE weigh this carefully. Is this really what you want? Is Obama really all that?
• Edwards on the issue: "If the president chooses to veto it, it's the president of the United States who's decided 'I'm not going to provide the funding to the troops leaving Iraq' ... If he vetoes it they ought to send it back to him." - Why can't Obama just keep it simple and to the point?

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat suggests Obama repair the situation by signing on to Sens. Harry Reid's (D-NV) and Russ Feingold's (D-WI) new legislation: "How hard is that? Apparently, it is too hard for Senator Barack Obama at this time. Till then, the Obama Cult needs to suck it up." Kos was also unsympathetic to Obama supporter claims the MSM was mis-reporting Obama: "if only Obama had a way to get his voice out unfiltered to the public. If only he had something, like, maybe, a Web-Site, and on that Web-Site, if only he had something like a, well, a Web-Log. If only he had those things, then he wouldn't be at the mercy of reporters and editors.

Also suggesting Obama may not be "a genuine anti-war candidate" The Nation's Max Blumenthal links to TPM Cafe analyis showing Hillary Clinton and Obama only differed on one Iraq vote while in the Senate and wries: "In no way does [the] study negate the importance of Obama's oppositon to invading Iraq, but it does add some nuance to an otherwise simplistic debate."

OBAMA II: Like Doin' Keg Stands To C-SPAN

Recent Obama doubts are not confined to Iraq. Bleeding Heartland's Simon Stevenson wonders if "anyone else think[s] that it is a big mistake for Obama to not release his numbers." More Stevenson: "If Iowa is any indication, the bumbling Obama campaign likely has no idea how much money they raised this quarter, and won't know for sure until the deadline or even after. The checks are spread all over someone's desk - on top of their list of important phone messages, no doubt."

Commenting on a New York Times magazine item on Obama aide David Axelrod, David Sirota is even more harsh. NYT reports Avelrod likes to run campaigns "hitched to personality rather than ideology" as "a way of reclaiming fleeting authenticity." Sirota responds: "This is really an eye-opening commentary, and not just because it explains [Obama's] sad attempts to portray himself as a conviction politician while refusing to display real conviction on the tough issues that require conviction."

In more positive Obama blogging, Blue Hampshire's Mike was impressed by the crowds Obama turned out in Keene, NH but also notes: "No surprise: There were an awful lot of college kids there. ... But what freaks me out is that the crowd goes rock star crazy for these wonky answers. It's as if I walked into a frat house and people were doing keg-stands to C-Span."

GIULIANI: More Than Just 9/11

Rudy Giuliani surrogates are making the blog rounds pressing the case for their candidate. At Power Line, ex-Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA) pitched Paul Mirengoff on Rudy: "I began by asking how Giulani's campaign looks in Nussle's home state. ... Nussle confirmed that the Mayor will not be camping out in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina. He plans instead to run a national campaign." More Mirengoff on Nussle on social conservaitves and Rudy: "As more information comes out, his popularity among Repubicans seems to be increasing, not decreasing. Nussle suggested that this is because while some of the new information may be viewed as unfavorable, much of it is clearly favorable. ... Americans mostly know Guiiani from 9/11, but as they learn about what he did for New York prior to that date, they respect him even more.

At RCP Blog, Tom Bevan recaps an interview with Steve Forbes on his endorsement. On Giuliani and taxes: "The fact that Rudy did what he did in the most inhospitable environment possible is a testament to his instincts on economic policy and to his ability to push things through when others might have thrown up their hands in despair ... [Rudy appears] Rudy appears "very favorably disposed to radical simplification of the tax code."

On a less positive note, The Corner's Rich Lowry reports from a Hampton Falls, NH, house party that Giuliani "is to middle-age Republicans" what Barack Obama "is to college-age Democrats." However, Lowry was bothered by Giuliani's suggestions that Pres. Bush could continue funding the Iraq war even without congressionally appropriated funds. Lowry blogs: "his statements could be seized on by his critics to argue that he has a dangerously out-sized view of presidential powers."

MCCAIN: Don't Forget Cards - Tigers in '68

Some conservative bloggers copped to "schadenfreude" upon learning of "McCain's disappointing fundraising" totals. Townhall's Matt Lewis resorted to baseball analogies: "McCain's disappointing (his campaigns' sentiment, not mine) fundraising numbers remind me of a baseball series in which one team (with all the big stars) gets off a seemingly insurmountable lead, only to be caught from behind (think Yankees vs. Red Sox, 2004 -- or even worse, Mets vs. Orioles, 1969)."

ROMNEY: A Predictable Step

Pro-Mitt Romney and undecided bloggers all reacted Romney's Q1 numbers. Takes include:

• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Team Romney is enthused by the fundraising numbers and confident they indicate a success story. ... The source also points to Romney's other March wins - with activists in the CPAC poll, National Journal's Republican insiders poll, a well-received Club for Growth speech on economic issues, and "star turn" at the Gridiron - as added signs he is here to stay.
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "It reinforces an image of Romney as a businessman who can run an organization well and will provide him with the money to get his message out and improve his name recognition."
• My Man Mitt: "We can also report that the average donation was $608 which means that there were over 32,000 contributors this go around. One more point: YOU made it happen as well. Fundraisers who signed up through the MMM site help raise $37,000 for the campaign in Q1."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "What does it mean? In one sense, not much; But that will change once specific primary campaigns get underway, and Romney brings those financial resources to bear. ... So Romney's early fundraising success is a step--a predictable one, but a step nonetheless--toward making him one of the favorites for the nomination."

K-Lo also noted some were spreading a line that Romney will become the "John Connally or Steve Forbes of this cycle - spend a lot of money for very little in return." Hugh Hewitt responds: "The problem is, the analysis isn't even remotely persuasive. ... Reagan had enormous advantages going in, and one of them was a willingness to spend his available funds for early wins. He simply wasn't outspent by Connolly."

TANCREDO: Is This A Real Campaign?

Hugh Hewitt pressed Tom Tancredo on the seriousness of his candidacy on his radio show 4/2:

• HH: I'll get right to the chase. Is this a protest candid[acy] or is this is a real campaign?
• TT: No, sir, it is for real. I mean, once you make the decision to do this, to actually announce, you've got to do, you can do everything you can to win the race. And if you just simply say I'm running because of an issue, one issue, and I want to make a statement? Forget about it. I do want to do that, and it is certainly an issue that propels me. But no, you have to do it 100%.

More Hewitt on why he renamed McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Kennedy-Tancredo: "Tom successfully turned up the rhetoric on an issue that matters an enormous amount to a relatively small percentage of voters, and mortgaged the majority to a single issue constituency. Yes, Senator McCain's blunder in co-authoring the ridiculous Senate bill with Ted Kennedy, but it was Tom Tancredo who did so much to make the issue radioactive for conservatives, many of whom overreacted to any idea of a bill that achieved enforcement, border security and regularization."

THOMPSON: Of No Relation To Bush

Noting "one of the biggest obstacles to a late entry into the race by Fred Thompson is the fact that so many key fundraisers have been locked up by other candidates," AmSpec Blog's James Antle links to Nashville Tennesseanreports that Ted Welch is ready to support Thompson if Romney is out. Antle quips: "At the very least, this seems off-message."

RedState's Adam C contributes with five reasons to support Thompson including: 1) Thompson is not a recent convert for political reasons on any major issue; 2) Thompson is not tied to President Bush or the current Senate in any way; 3) Thompson's ability to communicate ideas clearly and earnestly makes many think of Reagan's ability to win over people to ideas that are not necessarily popular; 5) Thompson is probably the most conservative electable candidate.

IRAQ: All Aboard The Feingold Train

Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) new Iraq funding legislation (also endorsed by Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is now the current netroors favorite. At Salon, Feingold describes the effort: "Our bill would require the president to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops out of Iraq in 120 days, with redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008. After March, funding for the war in Iraq would be cut off, with three narrow exceptions -- targeted counterterrorism operations, protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, and training and equipping Iraqi forces."

Positive reactions include:

• Kos: "The Iraq Supplemental + benchmarks + withdrawal plan is extremely popular with voters. If Bush gives them the finger, it'll give congressional Democrats more political leeway in approaches toward ending the war, up to and including defunding."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Reid/Feingold should become the new unity position for Congressional Democrats. Clinton and Obama can demonstrate their commitment to seeing an end to this war and cosponsor the legislation, and Pelosi should sponsor the legislation in the House."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "While many in Congress purport to want to end the Iraq Debacle, only one proposal is an actual proposal which uses the true powers of Congress to end the war- the "Not Spending" Power. The proposal is that of Senators Harry Reid and Russ Feingold. The magic words are the following."

IRAQ II: Stop The Bleeding

Conservative bloogers were quick to point out inconsistencies in Reid's position after he came out in favor of Feingold's bill. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez quotes Reid saying Iraq "is not worth another drop of American blood" and then asks how, if true, Reid can justify "troops [staying] for another year?" Jeff Goldstein links to '05 Reid claims that a timeline is "not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do that."

RedState's Erick Erickson posts a House GOP letter to Pres. Bush "urging him to veto the supplemental appropriations bill passed by Congress, which would slowly bleed our troops to death in Iraq."

IRAQ III: Upon Further Review...

Conservative blogges seem to have lost a heavy hitter in their war against CNN correspondent Michael Ware over his alleged heckling of John McCain at a press conference in Baghdad. After reviewing Raw Story video of the press conference in question, Instapundit says "on this evidence I'm going with Ware over Drudge."

For others, the fight isn't over yet: "By any objective measure, the surge has had a positive effect on Baghdad. Civilian casualties are down sharply since January; execution style deaths are half of what they were; and other killings have declined by almost the same factor. ... Ware's reporting itself constitutes heckling. When a reporter becomes this much of an advocate, he should no longer cover the story. If CNN were a credible news organization, it would reassign Ware.

ID SEN: We're Voting For Larry

ID's 43rd State Blues reports Dems may have a candidate to challenge Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID): "According to informed sources in eastern Idaho, Larry Larocco is set to announce ... The announcement should occur by mid-April."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: If A Candidate Wins IA And NH, But CA Voters Have Already Voted, Do The Victories Matter?

Pairing CA Sec. State Debra Boweninterest in expanding the number of permanent absentee voters with reports that absentee ballots will account for more than 50% of CA's total, Calitics Todd Beeton wonders how much bumps from IA and NH will really matter:

If this holds true and absentee ballots do end up accounting for half of the votes cast, that could mean at least 20% of all voters in California will have voted before the results from Iowa and New Hampshire are known. In other words, considering the growing number of absentee voters in the state, a February 5 primary could actually mean that Iowa and New Hampshire have less impact on the outcome of California's election, not more as some have argued.

LEST WE FORGET: He's Just Not That In To You

Reacting to Matthew Dowd's New York Times confession of falling in love with Pres. Bush, Andrew Sullivan writes: "What Dowd calls a "love-affair" is sometimes hard to walk away from cleanly or even recognize as a nightmare before it is too late." Opinion Journal's James Taranto replies:

Something tells us if we were to ask President Bush to reflect upon his love affairs with Matthew Dowd and Andrew Sullivan, he would look at us as if we'd lost our mind. Sorry, guys, he's just not that into you!
Are we wrong to think that there is something deeply weird about grown men who have trouble distinguishing between politics and affairs of the heart?

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:42 PM

April 02, 2007

4/2: Batter Up!

While some netroots sources have mentioned numbers as high as $35M for Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) Q1 totals, there's a growing frustration in the community that Obama has not done enough to seperate himself from the Dem establishment on netroots bread and butter issues like the war and economic populism. Obama's latest netroots troubles stem from an AP interview where Obama claims Dems will quickly send Pres. Bush a clean Iraq funding bill, should he veto the current Dem compromise. With polls showing clear majorities of Americans support the Dems Iraq supplemental, bloggers are calling on Obama to "step up" and lead on the issue, not "dither" like "a dispassionate observer."

DEM FIELD: Maybe We Should Press Our Candidates On Their Plans For Iraq

MyDD's Matt Stoller doesn't mean "to pick on" Hillary Clinton but links to posts showing Clinton "plans to stay in Iraq with as many as 75,000 troops to do a variety of tasks" and wonders how she gets away with telling fundraiser audiences: "If George Bush doesn't get us out of Iraq by the election, I will."

Stoller asks: "How is it possible for a major party Democratic candidate to continually promise donors an end our involvement in Iraq while simultaneously proposing a plan that will keep us in Iraq?" Stoller does not let the rest of the Dem Field off either: "All of the candidates to a greater or lesser extent are doing this same dance ... We ought to start pressing all of our candidates on their plans for Iraq. Are they going to leave troops in Iraq? If so, how is that ending the war?

CLINTON: Carville Not Defined By Hillary

Following up on netroots all star complaints about James Carville's position as a CNN 'analyst' considering his relationship with Hillary Clinton, TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent phoned CNN for comment and was referred to Carville himself.

From Carville: "I'm not an adviser to her campaign. I'm not being paid by her campaign...I don't get paid. I'm not an adviser. ... I'm not defined by my support of Hillary Clinton." MyDD's Matt Stoller responded: "The reality is simple - CNN should have a variety of non-Clinton supporting analysts in addition to James Carville and Paul Begala. And the channel should identify him clearly as who he is. Otherwise, how are we going to know that Carville is being a neutral political analyst and not a Clinton partisan when he delivers on message digs at Obama on the Situation Room?"

EDWARDS: More Than Symbolically Blue

Noting that John Edwards almost doubled the number of his online contributors between 3/29 and 3/31, MyDD's Jerome Armstrong says Edwards is "on fire" online. Armstrong goes on to praise Edwards for supporting netroots infrastructure by using their preferred online fundraising tool, ActBlue: "That Edwards is using ActBlue to process his contributions is more than symbolic, as those resources are actually what will help to build the progressive netroots movement for the coming election cycles. ... it's an action that goes beyond talking about a movement to embracing the actual movement. That's all the more reason to heap praise on the Edwards campaign."

OBAMA: Shut Up And Lead

For the second time in two weeks Barack Obama is facing netroots criticism, this time for telling the AP Congress will quickly fund the Iraq war without timelines if Pres. Bush vetoes the first Dem appropriations bill since no lawmaker ""wants to play chicken with our troops." Negative reactions include:

• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "What a ridiculous thing to say. Not only is it bad policy, not only is it bad politics, it's also a terrible negotiating approach. ... Obama just surrendered to Bush."
• MyDD's Matt Stoller: "I want to believe that Obama prizes civility, and that he has in his heart progressive instincts. I want to believe he's a movement guy ... But I can't. It's not just that he has not distinguished himself on the war from Senator Clinton and her plan for perpetual occupation ... It's that he seems not to have any sense of how leaders must act in the modern political environment.
• Taylor Marsh: "Mr. Obama goes on to say that, hey, it's not my job to push the president and use my senatorial power to stop a war 60% of the American people want stopped. YOU do it. That's right, America, it's your job to provide cover for the senator so he can then get up the spine to do his job. Because he simply can't stand up and lead on something like this when Mr. Bush will veto it anyway. So get busy, will ya?"
• MyDD's Chris Bowers: "Obama should have rejected the premise of the question he was asked and, instead of talking about process within the Democratic caucus, aimed his response at congressional Republicans who are still supporting Bush on Iraq. ... This is a fight we can win, and not just on symbolic terms either. In order to do so, we need figures like Senator Obama to step up."

Obama was not without his defenders online, many of whom chose to attack the AP: "[T]he AP has some serious Faux-News-like people calling at least some of the shots, and sending out some serious propaganda into our world under the guise of 'news'."

Markos shot back against these claims: "Of course, the AP could've gotten this key passage horribly wrong. ...But if so, the Obama campaign has made zero effort to correct the effort (nothing on their site or blog)." Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat notes Obama has used the same "chicken" line before and takes the opportunity to voice his concerns about Obama: "So all the Obama sycophants who believe the AP is lying need to wake up and stop drinking the Obama kool aid. For months and months, I have been preaching that Obama has been playing a bad brand of politics. ... Obama has talent and a good heart, but he has a politics problem."

OBAMA II: Ignore Mama At Your Own Risk

Jack and Jill Politics Jill Tubman continues to track response to a "viral" email circulating in "most black people's inboxes." Tubman posts an exchange between BlackProf's Spencer Overton (includes video of Cornell West's Obama doubts) and the author of the email, Bacardi Jackson, including from Jackson:

I was moved to write the open letter, not as a work of scholarship or even necessarily for publication, but simply because I was frustrated with the level of the discussions about Obama and desperately needed an outlet. To be clear, my frustration did not stem from black people not supporting Obama. I agree that we are not a monolithic community and should not be sheep. Rather, my frustration stemmed from the repeated shallow critiques of Obama, which did not go to his record, his experience or anything remotely relevant to the question of his qualifications for President. ... I was deeply disappointed to see people I have long admired and respected appear to follow the same old script of criticizing Obama without substance while completely ignoring that the questions being raised about him were problematic and suspect.

Tubman shares some of her own email responses and adds: "Mamas are touchstones in black culture. You ignore a riled up well-networked and well-educated churchgoing black mother to your peril. They have this tendency to vote. But will the Clinton and Obama campaigns (note that Edwards doesn't squeak into this discussion among black folks in the same way) listen and respond?"

GINGRICH: And As Long As We're On The Subject, He Hates Puppies Too

Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit hits back against an AP "hit job" on Newt Gingrich's speech calling for the elimination of bilingual education. BDP wants to know why the article includes a paragraph on Gingrich's extramarital affairs when the speech being covered has nothing to do with 'family values.' BDP also points out the AP is just plain wrong about its assertion that Gingrich has never discussed his divorces publicly: "Gingrich did mention about 2 weeks ago to James Dobson on his radio program that he was having an affair during his second marriage, so it's not true that he has never addressed it publicly."

BDP later updates: "After seeing this AP story, posted 1 hour before the story below, which made no mention of Gingrich's divorce or affairs, I can come to no other conclusion that some editor at AP decided it should be included, even though it had no relevance to the story."

GIULIANI: Party Like It's '76?

Ramesh Ponnuru covered Rudy Giuliani's Club for Growth speech for The Corner, and reports, "the consensus was that he helped himself. ... People liked hearing that he is committed to cutting taxes and spending, although he was no more specific than Romney about the tax cuts and less specific on spending."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle adds that the crowd was impressed with Giuliani's refusal to flip-flop on abortion, but fellow AmSpecer Dave Holman doesn't see how Giuliani can win with a pro-choice position:

Here's the thing: when was the last time Republicans nominated a pro-abortion candidate for president? 1976. That was during the brief period between Roe and the Moral Majority when many evangelical Christians (even the Southern Baptist Convention) embraced the right to abortion. The abortion issue had not yet captivated the Republican Party.

GIULIANI II: More Laura Than Hillary

Greg Pollowitz filed the official Corner review of Judy Giuliani's 20/20 interview including: "The pre interview hoopla of Judith sitting in on cabinet meetings was WAY overblown. From the narrative tonight, Judith was instrumental in getting Rudy through his prostate cancer - explaining the "ologies" as she called them. Radiology, oncology, etc. The idea that Judith would sit in on cabinet/policy meetings was in relation to health care issues, nothing more. ... Overall, I thought it was a good interview. She comes across a lot like Laura Bush, while the pre interview perception was that she was going more like Hillary."

MCCAIN: Best Week Ever!

Even before his trip to Baghdad, Townhall's Matt Lewis was ready to call the week for John McCain. Without mentioning campaign finance reform Lewis writes: "The above interview (along with several others we conducted) made it clear that the issues which have plagued McCain among conservative pundits and "insiders" have not resonated with the voters."

Lewis also recapped positive McCain receptions on conservative talk radio and reminded readers of McCain's new "Surrender is NOT an option" campaign.

ROMNEY: Let Me Talk To My Lawyers

After asking Mitt Romney "if [he] believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review" Cato Pres. Ed Crane was disappointed Romney said he would have to discuss it with "smart lawyers" before he could make up his mind. Race 4 '08s LJ was also not happy with the answer: "This has to be one of the more disturbing answers to a question so far during the campaign. Never mind that such an action would be blatantly unconstitutional, it would also make the US no better than the Soviet Union or Cuba; disappearing United States citizens never to be heard from again."

The Corner's Andy McCarthy was more generous: "To ask whether "the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review" is confusing. Presidents do not have such authority. During times of armed conflict, they have authority to arrest and detain American citizens who are enemy combatants with no trial, but not with no review. ... The Justice Department conceded in connection with the Supreme Court's 2004 Hamdi case (involving an American citizen enemy combatant) that U.S. persons (a category broader than U.S. citizens) are entitled to challenge their detention by petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court agreed that this was the case."

Andrew Sullivan wasn't interested in McCarthy's specifics: "Until a leading Republican commits to the full restoration of habeas corpus for American citizens, whether the executive considers them an "enemy combatant" or not, no one who loves freedom can support the GOP. In fact, any lover of freedom should consider it a duty to defeat them."

In other Romney doubting, IA's Krusty Konservative demotes Romney to third in his IA caucus rankings due to his inability to escape "low double digits for months now despite having put together a solid Iowa staff, and frequently visiting the state." Also, K-Lo says she's ready to abandon the Romney train if Fred Thompson decides to run.

THOMPSON: More Law And Order Comparisons

A video of Fred Thompson speaking at a church in the wake of 9/11 is being spammed at conservative bloggers. Race 4 '08s DaveG raves:

Thompson's faith reminds me of Reagan's. Both are able to evoke things spiritual without sending the message that individuals who disagree with their specific sect are second-class citizens. The manner in which Thompson discusses faith is not only one that would appeal to conservative Protestants, but also to mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and even unaffiliated individuals open to the idea of a higher power. As a consequence, Thompson is able to utilize faith to unite and not divide. You know, like Reagan did.

IRAQ: Another Day In Paradise

John McCain's walk through streets in Baghdad drew predictably unkind responses from lefty bloggers including:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "McCain takes 'safe' stroll in Baghdad market... wearing body armor, flanked by 100 American soldiers, 3 Blackhawk helicopters, and 2 Apache gunships.
• Atrios: "I don't know whether to be more amazed by how full of s**t he is or the fact that some in the media are actually choosing to report on that fact.
• Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz: "In his Dukakis-in-a-tank moment, McCain himself wore a bulletproof vest on his stroll."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Seriously, just how stupid does McCain think we are? Doesn't he realize that this kind of thing just draws attention to exactly how dangerous Baghdad still is? He's accomplished the exact opposite of what he set out to do."

Righty bloggers led with Drudge's coverage of CNN's Michael Ware's "outrageous" conduct at McCain press conference. Reactions include:

• Instapundit: "Ah, professionalism."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Maybe Ware was drunk; that would be consistent with his own description of how he spends his time in Baghdad. But he is an extreme manifestation of an all too common phenomenon--the journalist as advocate rather than neutral observer."
• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "Heckling at a press conference is very rude, and wouldn't be acceptable even from an opinion journalist (I wouldn't dream of laughing in Nancy Pelosi's face during a press conference). That said, isn't it better when guys like Ware let their biases hang out, rather than embedding them in reports that are ostensibly objective?"

In off-type Iraq-blogging, Power Line's Scott Johnson shares the "pessimistic assessment" of one of Power Line's "hometown heroes serving in Iraq." The "Human Intelligence collector" reports:

The Iraqi government and security forces are so thoroughly infiltrated by the Shia militias that you could say that the militias are the government and you would not be far off. ... The careerists in the Army and DoD have leaned that not taking chances and reporting only good news up the chain are the ways to advance their careers. Just look at General Casey. The army is first and foremost a bureaucracy intent on taking its processes, forms, procedures and top down decision making with it wherever it goes. The Army is not flexible enough or well trained enough to win a counterinsurgency. ... We have mismanaged Iraq in ways too numerous to list here for four years. In order to succeed on the ground we would have to scrap everything we have done and start over.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Let Them Eat Cake

Responding to Glenn Greenwald's ruminations on Barack Obama as "the only candidate even thinking and talking about the deeper and more fundamental diseases plaguing how our political system works" MyDD's Chris Bowers writes:

Over the past few days, I have spent a decent amount of time reading about the French Revolution, which I think is somewhat more applicable to the situation facing the progressive movement than is the American Revolution. While in America the revolution allowed a class of individuals already in charge of the most powerful local institutions to break free from a foreign power, in France the revolution took place as a means to wrest control of the most powerful local institutions (the church, the courts, the military, taxes and tariffs, executive power, legislative power, etc) from a class of individuals residing in the same country. Like the French, and unlike our founders, we are fighting to wrest control, not for freedom from outside influence. The former is always a bloodier, more chaotic, and drawn out process than the latter.

LEST WE FORGET: Chuck Norris Could Do It

Tao of Dan calls readers attention to Line 20 of Google Maps directions on how to get to Berlin, Germany, from Queens, NT: "Swim Across the Atlantic - 3,462 mi."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:45 PM

Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.