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 April 3, 2007 12:42 PM