June 25, 2007

6/25: Anonymous Attack Accountability

The Blogometer always sympathizes with blogger bemoaning of MSM attacks on anonymity in the blogosphere. Bloggers rightly point out that pseudonymous posters are just as accountable, if not more so, for their postings as journalists are for their copy and unlike professionals, bloggers rarely use anonymous sources. That said, nature of the web does make it easy for people to attack candidates in ways their rivals never would. Already we have seen a Barack Obama supporter anonymously attack Hillary Clinton via YouTube and now a HRC supporter is gaining notoriety for returning the favor in blog form. While both Clinton and Obama seem content to allow these attacks to go forward without an effort to put a stop to them, it would be hard for each campaign to control the creative efforts of all their online supporters. However, unless government regulation is to be the answer, candidates must assume some responsibility/control for the more notorious unauthorized efforts. Otherwise we should expect a flurry of web based Swiftboat style attacks as consequential primaries draw close.

DEM FIELD: Over Before The Super Bowl?

Tabulating recent polling from key early primary states, MyDD's Chris Bowers concludes: "It's all about Iowa. If [Hillary] Clinton were to win Iowa, she will probably run the table. She probably would even be OK if she finishes in second in Iowa, as long as [Barack] Obama isn't the winner. ... [Bill] Richardson's continued rise, as he now surpasses the 5% threshold even in Florida, is also interesting."

CLINTON: Tangled Webs Wove

The netroots are beginning to pick up on others' complaints about anti-Barack Obama site HillaryIs44.org. MyDD's Stephen Cassidy links to Prof. Bainbridge's questioning of the site's possible link to the Hillary Clinton campaign and adds:

As I noted, on www.Hillaryis44.org there is a denial of any nexus with campaign. Yet, in web terms a link exists. If you click on the contributions link on www.Hillaryis44.org, you are sent to HRC's campaign website. This may be a specifically designated campaign contributions page to track donations from www.Hillaryis44.org as the URL varies slightly from the main contributions page on HRC's website. ... Also relevant, the site is content rich and updated regularly. It does not appear the work of one person, but a team. I doubt these people are working for free. Someone or organization is paying for the operation of the site.

DODD: With Liberty And Mandatory Service For All

Positive reactions to Chris Dodd's 6/23 National Service Plan speech include:

• BuckeyeStateBlog: "Installing a Democratic president will help us gain the cooperation of the international community once again - but it's not the end all be all. ... That's one of the reasons I like what I'm hearing out of Dodd with this national service plan, not only is it the right thing to do, but it's also the smart thing to do in terms of American self interest in the long run."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "The cause of national service is one that interests me, particularly as someone who is patriotic but who believes that patriotism need not only be expressed through military service (of course not denigrating military service). As such, I am pleased to see that Chris Dodd is making a similar call during this year's Democratic primaries. ... The AP also notes that both John Edwards and Barack Obama have promoted or proposed service plans of their own, but from my understanding the Dodd plan appears to be more universal in its nature than any of the two other plans -- and more like the [Wes] Clark plan from '04."
• Blue Hampshire's Mike Caufield: "Yesterday I watched as Chris Dodd announced a bold, practical public service initiative from the steps of Nashua's City Hall. ... Yesterday, talking about his public service initiative he proposed many ideas in his refreshing no-nonsense manner. But the one that stood out was mandatory community service for graduation from high school. ... Hard medicine for some, to be sure. But good policy."

EDWARDS: Most Effective Anti-Poverty Center Ever

Netroots push back against the New York Times 6/24 article on John Edwards use of his anti-poverty nonprofit organization as a vehicle to keep him in the news to further his presidential ambitions, has failed to coalesce into a coherent attack. For some, the Times failed to "prove" the piece's "central assertion." For others, the article presents nothing "an even mildly cynical political sophisticate" didn't already know. Leading reactions include:

• TPM's Greg Sargent: "The Times' piece didn't prove its central assertion against Edwards in any way, shape or form. In endeavoring to support its central reported assertion, the case it built against Edwards relied largely, if not entirely, on circumstantial evidence."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "In short, the lede of a NEWS article is an OPINION. Simply egregious journalism. The Times can not defend that lede. Apparently it has chosen to ignore the problem."
• TAPPED's Ezra Klein: "[S]houldn't the question of ends enter in here? ...Given that the sum of money we're talking about is $1.3 million, how has this not been an extraordinarily effective anti-poverty center? Granted, among its methods were to enable a national politician to continually raise the issue's profile through his personal advocacy, but isn't that what folks donating to a John Edwards poverty center were expecting? ... If you care about poverty, this seems like $1.3 million well spent."
• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "As long as the Times refuses to even look into the possibility that this was "an extraordinarily effective anti-poverty center," they are not doing responsible journalism."
• Daily Kos' TomP: "Last Friday's New York Times front page hit piece was just the latest in the MSM's attempt to misdirect people from the real issues. ... Just as Franklin Delano Roosevelt was attacked as a traitor to his class, the MSM will attack John Edwards as a hypocrite, a phony, because he does not fit the conventional wisdom."
• AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "How dare John Edwards create an organization to fight poverty in a time of war. Instead of setting up an organization to combat poverty in America, he should have been using the state of Massachusetts to fund his trips all over the US to build his political network at great taxpayer expense. ... This attack on Edwards is a yawner."
• Matthew Yglesias: "In particular, there's nothing at all here that's scandalous if you're an even mildly cynical political sophisticate, since it was always clear if you were paying attention that Edwards' outfit existed, in part, to test the viability of a 2008 presidential bid."

Some otherwise sympathetic Edwards supporters, however, see Edwards reaction to the article as more evidence Edwards is not ready for prime time. Firedoglake's Pachacutec blogs: "Okay. Let's cut the bulls**t. Your anti-poverty agenda is heartfelt and really meaningful for what ails America. Your willingness to call bulls**t on the "war on terror" is genuinely courageous. But you're too gentle, so far, to be trusted. It's time to get your hair mussed. ... The questions for you, if you really want to pay the price to make the changes you say you want to make, are: can you "hit" a woman? Can you beat up, politically, on a black man and not feel guilty about it? If not, please, stop wasting people's time and money."

EDWARDS II: So Close, Yet So Far

Elizabeth Edwards is again proving top be the more popular Edwards in netroots circles after telling the San Francisco Chronicle, "I don't know why somebody else's marriage has anything to do with me, I'm completely comfortable with gay marriage." AMERICAblog's John Aravosis blogs: "Wow. ... Pillow talk matters. I want my civil rights, I don't want to be on the receiving end of constant triangulation. Mrs. Edwards will be a force for good, at least as it concerns the civil and human rights of gay and lesbian Americans."

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt was less impressed with EE's explanation ("He has a deeply held belief against any form of discrimination, but that's up against his being raised in the 1950s in a rural southern town") for why JE does not support gay marriage: "I don't like that excuse. He seems to have broken the chains of the rest of his southern taboos, why not this one?"

OBAMA: Let Obama Swim

After noting "the last few weeks haven't been good for the [Barack] Obama campaign," The Political Brain author Dr. Drew Westen blogs advice for Obama at The Huffington Post: "On the stump, Obama can be electrifying. ... But if you have electricity, the last thing you want to do is pull the circuit breaker and start explaining the fine points of transistors, electrons, and electrical engineering. Yet that's exactly what Obama has done in his recent debate performances. ... Obama would do a lot better to take a leaf out of [Ronald] Reagan's book than to retrace the journey of the long list of Democrats who have drowned on the dispassionate river: Let Obama be Obama."

Reports from recent "electrifying" Obama stumps on faith, immigration, and ethics include:

• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "Senator Barack Obama gave another speech on faith and politics. I like this one ... This is the way to discuss the way the Right has exploited religion in politics. ... Obama has learned some lessons it seems. This is a very good sign. Obama becomes much more viable in my mind with this change in political tone."
• The Brody File: "To me though, the criticism of the religious right was a small part of the speech. I saw it more as an uplifting speech that can bring people of faith together. For example, Obama talked about how God should not be removed from the public square."
• On Obama telling a United Church of Christ crowd that "his is a nation of laws and we cannot have those laws broken when more than two thousand people cross our borders illegally every day" MyDD's Melissa Ryan blogs : "At that point Obama lost the crowd. The fevered ovations turned into muted polite applause. While he did get back some of the enthusiasm towards the end of his speech the Senator never managed to regain the fevered excitement and momentum he had built with the attendees. ... Democrats need to redefine immigration as an issue. Candidates have to focus more how reform affects families and communities. It's also essential to divorce it from national security. Yes, securing our borders is important. But what about the estimated 12 million people already living here?"
• Jack And Jill Politics' Jill Tubman on Obama's new ethics plan: "Ok, I'm Getting Legitimately Excited About Obama ... This is unequivocally hot. I'm always excited by people who change the game. Obama here is attacking some of the underlying threats on our system of democracy. He's vowing to change those practices which corrupt our political system."

OBAMA II: Smells Like Teen Spirit

Responding to Jerome Armstrongconcerns that Obama supporters were not "part of the movement" and that therefore Obama was not "a movement candidate," MyDD's Jennifer Fernandez Ancona writes: "A movement candidate in 2008 is one who is both saying the status quo isn't going to happen anymore, and has the largest number of people involved. Right now, it's Barack Obama. ... And you want to know what's politically and strategically significant, for those of us who care about long-term movement-building, about the people who are drawn to Obama? ... They are young: The Millennial Generation is as big as the Baby Boomers. They are decidedly more progressive than older generations, and the most diverse. They are the future of this movement."

Also at MyDD, Mike Connery worries what will happen to those young Obama supporters should Hillary Clinton capture the nomination: "Right now, the youth vote is with Obama. He's riding the youth wave, and that manifests itself in a number of ways ... So what happens if Obama doesn't get the nomination? Will that generate another negative youth vote narrative in the media? Have we made enough progress among the political class to avoid blowback in terms of the attention that campaigns pay to our generation? I'm not sure."

F. THOMPSON: Five Out Of Five Girlfriends Can't Be Wrong

A London Timesstory on strong Fred Thompson support among women he used to date drew mostly positive attention. RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh blogs: "There isn't a dollar amount you can put on that kind of publicity. And to be perfectly honest, if I were running the Thompson campaign, I would get the ladies mentioned in this story to do a commercial together for Thompson."

Power Line's John Hinderaker admits he finds "the whole Fred Thompson boom rather annoying" but links to the item and allows: "I still have reservations about Thompson's lighting out for Hollywood rather than serving his country in a time of war and crisis, but it doesn't appear that skeletons in the closet need be one of them."

Reacting to Hinderaker, fellow Power LinerScott Johnson blogs: "Like the strengths of the top three candidates, Thompson's strengths are self-evident. ... What about his weaknesses? In my view, his foremost weakness is his likely lack of appeal to independents in states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota. Anticipating Thompson's announcement in the next week or two, I wonder which of the top four candidates would run strongest against a Clinton/Obama ticket. It is not evident to me which Republican candidate is the one, but it is not evident to me either that it is not Thompson."

IMMIGRATION: Titanic Tuesday

Conservatives firmly believe the first Senate cloture vote scheduled for 6/25 is the only vote that matters in stopping the immigration compromise. Right Wing News details the stakes: "This is not a vote on one amnesty, folks; it is a vote on whether we're going to have a string of amnesties, whether we're going to secure the borders or not, and whether your children's futures are going to be thrown away to line the pockets of corrupt businessmen and pad the vote totals of the Democratic Party."

The Corner's Mark Krikorian seems to have assumed the role of anti-compromise whip and has identified the 32 "pretty solid No votes for cloture" as well as the 12 Senators "leaning against the bill itself but so far are leaning toward the cloture motion - which means, in reality, that they would be helping pass the amnesty." The dirty dozen include: Sens. Kit Bond (R-MO), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Richard Burr (R-NC), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Kent Conrad (D-ND), John Ensign (R-NV), Carl Levin (D-MI), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Jim Webb (D-VA).

Kausfiles notes that past compromise supporter Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) does not support the current bill and will probably be away campaigning 6/25 (thus effectively voting 'no' on cloture). Krikorian later notes that Sen. Thomas Barrasso (R-WY) has also committed to vote no.

At Hot Air, Allahpundit gleefully links to Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) tanking approval numbers and renews his call to defeat the compromise leader: "We can do this, people. We can make it happen. We'll dial up Kos, get him to guarantee a Blue Dog challenger (the only kind who'll stand a chance in Carolina anyway) and for once the netroots shall be united. Exit question: Dare we deal with the devil?"

Finally, Kausfiles fact checks Tim Russert's faulty understanding of what the bill actually would do, and mocks Fox News for holding "another no-holds-barred discussion between a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform (Feinstein) and ... a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform (Lott)!"

LANDSCAPE: Distraction Or Opportunity?

John Judis and Ruy Teixeira write about '06 in the recentAmerican Prospect : "[T]his election signals the end of a fleeting Republican revival, prompted by the Bush administration's response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, and the return to political and demographic trends that were leading to a Democratic and center-left majority in the United States."

Democratic StrategistEd Kilgore responds in part: "It's become commonplace for Democrats and others to observe that 9/11 (and later, the runup to the Iraq War) made national security a suddenly preeminent public concern, to the benefit of Bush and the GOP. But Judis and Teixeira go further, suggesting a psychological process they call "de-arrangement" ... some readers of this article may well conclude that Judis and Teixeira are too quick to dismiss the post-9/11 national security climate as ephemeral, and insufficiently attentive to the counter-measures power-hungry Republicans might take to expand their own ideology-bound base into a coalition of their own."

Daily Kos' mcjoan links to Kilgore and adds: "I share that concern, but with a different angle--should the Democrats be able to find a way to take decisive action in getting us out of Iraq and refocus security efforts on actually effectively combatting terrorism, we might see the kind of realignment in American politics that the New Deal brought. But there's also the real danger that incrementalism and inability to act decisively in Iraq could lose the gains we made both with Independent and younger voters who are not necessarily habitual voters."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Two Internets

MyDD's Mike Connery points us to Danah Boyd observations on demographic trends at popular social networking sites:

The goodie two shoes, jocks, athletes, or other "good" kids are now going to Facebook. These kids tend to come from families who emphasize education and going to college. They are part of what we'd call hegemonic society. They are primarily white, but not exclusively. They are in honors classes, looking forward to the prom, and live in a world dictated by after school activities.

MySpace is still home for Latino/Hispanic teens, immigrant teens, "burnouts," "alternative kids," punks, emos, goths, gangstas, queer kids, and other kids who didn't play into the dominant high school popularity paradigm. These are kids whose parents didn't go to college, who are expected to get a job when they finish high school. Teens who are really into music or in a band are on MySpace. MySpace has most of the kids who are socially ostracized at school because they are geeks, freaks, or queers.

LEST WE FORGET: Trent And Rosie Sitting In A Tree...

Reacting to Sen. Min. Whip Trent Lott's (R-MS) assertion that "If the answer is 'build a fence' I've got two goats on my place in Mississippi. There ain't no fence big enough, high enough, strong enough, that you can keep those goats in that fence" a Jim Geraghty reader responds:

Right, senator. Fences don't work. That's why no ranches use barbed wire, why no prisons are surrounded by high walls, why pricey residential communities never have security gates, and why there aren't traffic barricades to protect government buildings from car and truck bombs. Because fences don't work. Goats can find a way around them. ... Trent Lott is to fences what Rosie O'Donnell is to metallurgy.

Posted by Conn Carroll at June 25, 2007 12:53 PM