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 April 24, 2007 12:38 PM