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 April 18, 2007 12:30 PM