6/12: Ana Marie Is Our Hero

It seems at least once a week someone at Swampland (be it Joe Klein, Dick Armey, or Ana Marie Cox herself) manages to get in a tizzy with the netroots over something, fueling a blogswarm that generates links and traffic to all sites involved. On 6/11 the instigating honors fell to John Edwards advisor David 'Mudcat' Saunders, who sent the netroots fuming with a post denouncing the "Metropolitan Opera Wing" of the Dem Party. Saunders has since apologized in a post much less widely linked to than his original. But give him and Cox time ... we bet they'll be fighting with the netroots again in no time.

DEM FIELD: Notorious HRC

MyDD's Jonathan Singer notes the LA Timesnew poll shows John Edwards and Barack Obama out performing Hillary Clinton in head-to-head match ups with GOPers and speculates: "While I think this is largely a factor of Clinton's near universal name recognition, which any Democratic nominee would have by the time voters decide the next President in November 2008 (and thus it is not necessarily the case that Clinton would be a weaker general election candidate than either Edwards or Obama), these numbers do seem to undercut the notion shared by many Democratic primary voters that Clinton is the most "electable" candidate in the race."

CLINTON: Outscoring Jobs Clinton Staffers Won't Do

Today in anti-Hillary Clinton blogging, the netroots attack HRC for being opportunistic on trade, for not committing to Univision's WH '08 debate, and for letting Chris Lehane do her anti-Barack Obama dirty work. On trade Clinton's '06 Sen. Dem primary opponent Jonathan Tasini reacts to Clinton's rejection of trade with South Korea at The Huffington Post: "There is a caveat to her apparent position ... because support for such deals is not polling well among Americans. Until candidates reject the very concept of so-called 'free trade,' we still have a long way to go. The problem isn't that the so-called 'free trade' agreement with South Korea, or other countries, is out of balance, as Sen. Clinton seems to indicate in her statement. The fundamental problem is the basic underpinnings of so-called 'free trade.'"

On Team Clinton's claim they would skip the Univision debate since it was not sanctioned by the DNC, firedoglake's Pachacutec blogs: "I'm a little confused by the Clinton camp's statement, since Clinton attended the Sojourners Faith & Politics Forum, which was not sanctioned by the DNC. She is also reportedly attending the NAACP debate on July 12 and the Tavis Smiley debate on June 28. Neither of these are sanctioned by the DNC. It's one thing to decide not to attend the Univision debate, conducted in Spanish, because you can't, well, speak Spanish. ... But the campaign's stated reason for not attending insults the intelligence of everyone involved. This dog ate my homework shit just doesn't fly."

On Clinton using Lehane to attack other Dems MyDD's Matt Stoller blogs: "Lehane is regularly used by reporters as a quote machine, speaking unofficially for the campaigns in a 'hands-off' manner so Clinton spokespeople don't have to say it. When Lehane says something, you can pretty much be assured that it's coming from the Clinton campaign. ... If Clinton wants to draw attention to Tony Rezko's history with Obama, if she and Mark Penn really want to open up that can of worms, they should have enough principles to come out and say it in the open. ... But I don't think it's fair to spread rumors like this in print using surrogates who are clearly on your time under the guise that they are unofficial and neutral observers when they are obviously such pushers of pro-Clinton spin."

EDWARDS: Dragged Into the Mud

Guest blogging at Swampland, John Edwards aide David 'Mudcat' Saunders ruffled netroots feathers with a post attacking "those Democratic bloggers" that make up the 'Metropolitan Opera Wing' of the Dem party "who talk of tolerance but the only true tolerance they ever exhibit is for their own pseudo-intellectual arrogance."

MyDD's Chris Bowers penned the most linked to netroots response:

Maybe it is just because I am an irony-loving Gen X type, but there is so much of this type of bizarre, self-contradictory language in Mudcat's post that I think it should be considered a work of true paranoid genius. Start an exchange of ideas by telling people to go to hell. Attack the metropolitan, pseudo-intellectual wing of the Democratic Party by defending Joe Klein. Dismiss John Edwards's biggest area of activist support in the name of rural southern whites. Decry intolerance by stating "I don't care what the "Metropolitan Wing" of my party thinks." Call others pseudo-intellectual without ever sourcing a single stereotype you use. Say you have no problem with incivility in politics, and then lash out against the political blogosphere for being incivil. Claim others are being hypocritical while doing everything I already listed here. Somehow, manage to do all of this in 600 words while maintaining a straight face.
Remarkable stuff. I haven't seen a Democratic consultant be more open with their paranoia concerning, prejudices toward, and general ignorance of, the political blogosphere in some time. This is a post for the ages.

Daily Kos' Miss Laura adds: "If he wants to make a strong argument for why the Democratic party should give respectful attention to rural voters (in any region of the country) I'm all for it. But trying to do so by furthering exactly the kinds of culture wars bull that Republicans specialize in is not ok."

It didn't escape MyDD's Matt Stoller that Saunders works for Edwards: "I appreciate Edwards, his statements on the FCC, and his attack on the war on terror. ... The reason I can't get behind him is because he has still not created a coherent framework around which he bases his decisions. ... Edwards is trying to run a populist progressive but without blaming anyone. In a world full of villains, you can't convince people you're going to change things unless you have the courage to say who's to blame and how you're going to beat them. ... Who does he blame? I don't know. I do know who Mudcat blames. Us."

MyDD's Bowers adds: "I'm sure it will help the Edwards campaign to have staff members blasting the progressive blogosphere, which leans toward Edwards more than any other demographic in the entire Democratic Party. I'm also sure that there will be calls to have Mudcat fired now for openly insulting said demographic, just as there were for Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan when they said naughty words."

OBAMA: The Buzz Is Back

Many in the MyDD community were not happy with Matt Stoller's 6/11 post on declining Barack Obama 'buzz.' A MyDD contributor in Greenville, SC shares his 'personal experiences' that don't jibe with Stoller's appraisal:

I have attended two "official" campaign organizing meetings in Greenville; the first, shortly after his announcement, drew approximately 75 people. ... The second meeting I attended was last Saturday in preparation for the "walk for change" national canvass. The meeting was at the main branch of the downtown library and about 50 volunteers were present in addition to the "official" campaign staff. Again, I was kind of blown away by the enthusiasm and professionalism of the folks running the show. ... This is a true people powered, bottom-up movement, and I'll just continue to do my thing and we'll see where the race stands in the weeks and months to come.

RICHARDSON: Get Whitey

IA's Bleeding Heartland links to Bill Richardson's new ad promoting his work on global warming as Gov. of NM and comments: "Environmentalists are an important voting bloc in Democratic primaries. I know some environmentalists for Edwards and some for Obama, but most are undecided. I think many would consider Richardson as well, so he is smart to be emphasizing this aspect of his resume."

And at The Huffington Post, Mike Stark celebrates Richardson's endorsing his idea of "another alphabet department within the DOJ for corporate crooks and bureaucratic bamboozlers" that would go "after greedy white men that just can't get enough without resorting to ripping the rest of us off."

MCCAIN: Straight Talking Himself Right Out Of The Race

New video of John McCain promising IAans he is also upset that a border fence has not been constructed is providing yet another excuse for conservatives to slam McCain on immigration. Ace of Spades notes: "Trouble is, while McCain really says he 'gets it' about the two miles of the promised 850 miles of fence being built, he's made his real feelings clear earlier, stating 'I think the fence is least effective [element of border security]. But I'll build the goddamned fence if they want it.'"

IA Voice links to McCain blaming 'more conservative, anti-immigrant' lawmakers for the defeat of the immigration bill and responds: "Normally, at this point, Republican Presidential candidates are trying to convince people they are the conservative candidate. ... And no matter McCain's support for the bill, he has to know that most conservative voters do not support the immigration bill. So what does he think he's accomplishing by 'blaming' conservatives for the bill's demise? He's basically paying the candidates a compliment in the eyes of their base supporters."

F. THOMPSON: Flower Child

George Will's latest Newsweekcolumn comparing Fred Thompson to Holland's 1630s tulip mania is drawing mostly negative reaction among conservatives. Reactions include:

• Captain's Quarters: "Thompson is a lot more than 99 percent charm. His speeches and writings have very clearly defined his driving philosophy as a federalist, and his track record as a reformer needs no apologetics to anyone except Will. He has to answer for his record on campaign-finance reform as well as the rest of his votes and actions, of course, but that's what all candidates have to do when they run for President."
• The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru: "At this point, repeating that Thompson is lazy, without going into the charge, is symptomatic of journalistic laziness. People who expect Thompson's "bubble" to "pop" because of his laziness are, I'd wager, going to be disappointed."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "On the one hand, Thompson has been leading a one-man crusade to return something resembling sanity to the presidential selection process. ... And yet, one of the results of this slow, gradual opening is that expectations for Thompson are through the roof. Will he have to blow the doors out the back of the auditorium in his announcement speech in order to meet expectations?"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The Thompson boom has so far been based much more on style than substance, whereas anybody who understands Reagan (see his diaries), knows there was much more to him than an actor who played the role of a president. ... As I have argued before, Thompson supporters have made the case for him on the basis of his style and a belief that he is a "true conservative" who can fill the vacuum in the current field. Now that he's by all indication a serious candidate, it's time to make a much more substantive case for Fred.

IRAQ: Everyone's A Critic

Stu Rothenberg's 6/7 Roll Callcolumn congratulating Dem leaders for playing the Iraq supplemental vote "like a Stradivarius," has angered those in the netroots advocating a firmer Dem committment to end the war. Reactions include:

• MyDD's Matt Stoller: "To truly understand how ignorant this is, just take a look at this pretty graph put together by the Washington Post last week. ... The Democrats lost twelve points among independents and eighteen points among liberal Democrats, leading to an overall slide of ten points. From a twenty four point lead in leadership over Bush in April, the Democrats now sit at parity with him. If you are politically craven, this was a terrible move.
• MyDD's Chris Bowers: "leaving aside actual polling numbers for a moment, there are other reasons why catering to mythical, center-right swing voters and other 1990's chimeras should not always be the number one priority of the Democratic leadership. For one thing, swing voters don't contribute money, they don't volunteer for campaigns, they don't challenge right-wing media narratives, they don't keep Democrats active and energized to vote, and they don't expand the electoral playing field."
• Arianna Huffington: "This sclerotic framing is wrong on every level: moral, strategic, and psychological. ... With America stuck in the Iraqi tar pit, the last thing we need is for Democrats to de-evolve into invertebrates and slither back into the sticky muck from which they only recently crawled."

IMMIGRATION: Life's Not Fair

A Center for Equal Opportunity Chair Linda Chavezarticle at National Review admitting "there are good and decent people who oppose the current immigration bill for reasons that have nothing to do with disliking Mexicans" but reminding conservatives that "it is also dangerous to win the immigration debate by stirring up racial or ethnic animosities by playing to the prejudices of that small group of Americans who are motivated by racism and nativism," is generating discussion at The Corner. Chavez' piece singles out John Derbyshire and Heather Mac Donald for admonishment.

Derbyshire responds:

[T]here are people who do like Mexicans, and also people like me who have no opinion about Mexicans in the grand collectivity at all, but who, in both cases, think it's a really bad idea to let the 40 percent of Mexicans who want to come live here, come live here. That would be 43 million people. Ask yourselves ... Does the U.S.A. need another 43 million people? One-seventh of our current population? If it does, would it be a good idea to take them all from one place? A place right next door to us? With ... A historical claim on our territory? Then ask yourself if a person who poses these questions out loud must ipso facto be a person who 'hates Mexicans.'

The Corner's Roger Clegg adds: "Yes, we must have secure borders, especially post-9/11. Yes, we must defend American culture, not multiculturalism, and we ought to spell out what this means. Yes, a little un-p.c. humor can be okay (How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb? That's not funny).
But conservatives in the public eye have a special responsibility to be above suspicion when it comes to sounding anti-minority or associating with those who are. The criticism we get when we don't meet that responsibility may not be fair. But, as conservatives of all people know, life's not fair.

IMMIGRATION II: If Bloggers Could Legislate

MyDD's Matt Stoller admits "there is no coherent progressive position on immigration" but does argue: "What is clear is that if progressives are going to play on immigration, we need a strategy and a set of arguments. My gut says that this is going to require linking immigration and trade ... Our current immigration 'problems' cannot be disassociated from NAFTA ... In other words, if there's a 'grand bargain' to be struck on immigration, it should address the millions of Mexicans and Americans thrown into poverty by our trade policies, who then become immigrants or dispossessed. "

On the right Townhall's Hugh Hewitt suspects "the immigration bill is beyond repair" but outlines what a possible successful strategy might look like: "(1)bring over one of the big critics like Senator Sessions or Senator DeMint, (2)hide Lindsey Graham and every other Republican who has blasted the base as "nativist," (3)put a detailed plan out to build much of the fence in 24 months, (4)put out a detailed plan on the Border Patrol and related agencies build-up (4)make very clear that no probationary benefits --none-- kick in until the triggers are pulled, (5)there are no automatic benefits for any illegal from a country of special concern."

Also Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) thinks we should do something.

PROSECUTOR PURGE: No Confidence In No Confidence

Netroots support for Senate Dem efforts to pass a no confidence resolution in AG Alberto Gonzalez appears mixed:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "this vote should be considered just the beginning, more than just a procedural vote to put some Republicans on the spot. It should be considered a critical step forward in building the case to remove Gonzales from office. ... It can't end here. We can't have another colossal Dem cave-in to match the Iraq supplemental. If they are serious in having no confidence in Gonzales (and who couldn't be, outside of Bush?) then it's time to begin the process for the next step: impeachment.
• Down with Tyranny: "Gonzales should be subjected to a full on impeachment trial, not a charade meant to embarrass him and make him feel badly. If Reid can't get anything done, he should step aside and let the Democrats elect someone who can."
• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: "Not that it would have altered the final result. But one of the reasons for the relatively low vote tally in favor of the Gonzales no-confidence resolution was that presidential candidates Biden, Dodd and Obama didn't bother to show up."

Blogging at The Huffington Post, ex-Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) argues Dems should skip straight to impeaching Pres. Bush: "Opening the impeachment front is as important to the winning of the peace in Iraq as the launching of the Normandy invasion on D-Day was for WW2. ... Nothing would focus the American mind and foster clarifications like an impeachment proceeding. Impeachment permits a consolidation of all of the evil blunders."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Identity Politics

Commenting on Joe Klein's recent exchange with Dick Armey at Swampland, Atrios comments:

As an aside, one of the more amusingly revealing comments by Joe Klein recently was when he expressed his belief that both he and Dick Armey were playing within the 40 yard lines. It's very important for Joe Klein's identity to believe that's where he, and all sensible people, are playing. It's also very important for people like Dick Armey to con people like Joe Klein into thinking that they're just quibbling about the details. But the fact is that Dick Armey is selling a vision for this country which is radically different than what mushy centrist Joe Klein supports. That he fails to see this after all this time, even as he constantly fights the dirty f***ing hippies who live under his bed, is hilarious.

LEST WE FORGET: You Say "Settling" Like It's A Bad Thing

Inspired by Slate's Wedding IssueRamesh Ponnuruadmits that like many conservatives he tends to think the "too-romantic conception of marriage has reduced its stability" but even he can't endorse Corinne Colbert's 'anti-romantic' feelngs. From Colbert's "This I Believe" essay:

My husband is not my best friend. He doesn't complete me. In fact, he can be a self-absorbed jerk. We're nearly polar opposites: He's a lifetime member of the NRA who doesn't care for journalists, and I'm a lifelong liberal with a journalism degree. On the other hand, he doesn't beat or emotionally abuse me. He doesn't drink or chase other women. He's a good provider. So I'm sticking with him. Some people would call that "settling," like it's a bad thing. But I believe in settling.