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 April 12, 2007 12:40 PM