July 2007 Archives

7/31: Opportunity Knocks

If there's one thing that unites the netroots, it's disdain for DC foreign-policy elites that they feel signed off on Pres. Bush's Iraq war. No figure better represents this hated constituency, perhaps, than Brookings scholar Kenneth Pollack. His 7/30 op-ed, co-authored by fellow Brookings scholar Mike O'Hanlon, which described the progress he saw the surge making in Iraq, dominated netroots conversation 7/30.

Matthew Yglesias was the first of many to articulate his "desire to see an O'Hanlon Primary." In Yglesias words: "Democratic contenders can gain my support by providing assurances that Michael O'Hanlon won't be serving in your administration." As Open Left's Matt Stoller explains on Bloggingheads.tv, Obama is uniquely positioned to capitalize on Pollack/O'Hanlon shunning. Many in the netroots like Obama's call for change in Washington, but so far have not seen anything since he arrived in Washington to demonstrate what that change would be like. Disavowing pro-war think tank types like Pollack/O'Hanlon would be a clear and substantive signal as to how Obama would change foreign policy consensus in Washington. It would also dove tail nicely with the 'Judgment Matters' ad campaign he is currently running on netroots blogs.

DEM FIELD: Will We See A Brotha Brookings Moment?

Netroots push back against Brookings scholars Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon's New York Timesarticle on the Iraq surge's success has left a major opening for Dem '08ers. First, the merits of the netroots case against O'Hanlan/Pollack include:

• TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent: "It turns out that this assessment by O'Hanlon today is in some key ways strikingly at odds with the Brookings Institution's own Iraq Index."
• Matthew Yglesias: "I think the evidence that O'Hanlon and Pollack are wrong here is fairly overwhelming. Statistics don't really corroborate what O'Hanlon and Pollack say, there's no particular reason to privilege "on the ground" knowledge if it was just fed to them by official sources (which appears to be the case), and, most of all, the point of the surge was to change the political situation in Iraq, and they concede it hasn't done that."
• Lawyers, Guns, and Money's Robert Farley: "I assume that Pollack and O'Hanlon are using "Surge Start Date Mojo"; you may have noticed that the "surge" has a magical start date that moves back and forth, depending on when the advocate wants to start counting from. So I'll do them the credit of assuming that they've found a creative way of arguing that civilian casualties have dropped by a third. If you start from the worst month ever, then it's not hard to find improvement. Unfortunately, this puts to the lie everything else they right about finding "stability" in Iraq; stability, it appears, does not include a cessation of bloody massacres, relentless suicide bombings, and an astonishing death rate.
• Think Progress takes on MSM descriptions of O'Hanlan/Pollack as 'vocal critics' of Pres. Bush citing pointing to Pollack's pre-invasion book making the case for the removal of Saddam Hussein and O'Hanlan's early contentions that the war was "going well and why they will soon go even better."

Moving to the political, Atrios awards O'Hanlon Wanker of the Day honors but has no love for the MSM either: "Years later with polls being what they are I can't believe the media still serves us up this shit sandwich." Matthew Yglesias was the first to outline opportunity for Dem '08ers: "I'm going to repeat my desire to see an O'Hanlon Primary -- Democratic contenders can gain my support by providing assurances that Michael O'Hanlon won't be serving in your administration." TAPPED's Farley seconds the sentiment: "I'm wondering whether any of the Democratic candidates will step up and try to win the "O'Hanlon primary" by publicly rejecting his strategic advice."

CLINTON: Still Gonzo For Globalization

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein links to a Los Angeles Timesarticle on Hillary Clinton's effort to lure the Indian firm Tata Consultancy Services to Buffalo, NY. Goldstein notes that only 10 jobs have been created by the project and concludes: "So while Clinton is talking frequently now about economic inequality -- I've heard her rail against astronomical CEO salaries, for example -- she isn't really backpedaling away from her long-time view of economic globalization, which is essentially a positive one."

EDWARDS: Less Cancer, More Poverty, Please

John Edwards 'taking on the powerful' message is resonating in the netroots. MyDD's Jerome Armstrong links to video of Edwards in NH and compares it to "Al Gore's terrific 2000 convention speech. ... I'm of the opinion that the "taking on the powerful" speech by Al Gore during the LA Democratic convention moved millions of people into his column, and was responsible for his gaining double-digit support in the polls at the time."

At firedoglake, under the header 'True Compassion', Christy Hardin Smith first whacks the MSM for limiting coverage of Edwards to "fluff and cancer" and then concludes: "Poverty doesn't poll well as an issue. Most people would rather not think about what they aren't doing to help the least of these in our communities. ... True compassion isn't pointing a finger and assessing blame, it is looking the mistakes that we are making square in the face, rolling up our sleeves and saying how can we do better and how can we help get us there. To help all of us get to higher ground, not just a privileged few, because that is the right thing, the decent thing, the compassionate thing to do. More of that, please."

OBAMA: Sometimes The Best Offense ... Is A Good Offense

TAPPED's Sam Boyd explains that Barack Obama's need to clarify his debate response on talking to dictators shows that Hillary Clinton had the initial upper hand, but that Obama has turned the tide by going on offense sense then: "Yet, in a deeply impressive bit of street-fighting the Obama campaign has managed to turn what originally was a Clinton attack on him into a counterattack on Clinton. On Thursday and Friday both campaigns were going at it. Obama called Clinton "Bush-Cheney lite" and Cliton's campaign called Obama "Naive." ... Today however, I'm ready to call this for Obama. Polling shows more people agree with him than Clinton (though this is probably a pretty hard question to poll fairly since it depends so much on wording) and Clinton's campaign is now on the defensive."

Matthew Yglesias seconds Boyd's Obama-victory assessments but also laments a larger debate not covered by the MSM: "Whether or not either Clinton or Obama ever intended to establish a sharp policy disagreement, there is an interesting issue here -- should the United States abandon its policy of seeking to "isolate" countries we don't like by refusing to talk to them unless they first meet a series of preconditions?"

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum argues Yglesias should blame the candidates, not the media: "On the other hand, Clinton and Obama themselves didn't exactly take the chance to elevate this into a scholarly colloquium themselves, did they? Instead we got Clinton calling Obama "naive" and "irresponsible," and Obama hitting back by accusing Clinton of endorsing a "Bush/Cheney lite" foreign policy. Enlightening stuff, no? Is it any wonder the press covered this as a food fight rather than a serious debate?"

In other pro-Obama blogging, TPM Cafe's MJ Rosenberg links to a 7/30 New York Timesexamination of Obama's IL senate tenure and comments: "[Obama] knows what he wants and makes the necessary compromises and temporary alliances to achieve his goals. This is what he did in Springfield although he hasn't had much opportunity to do the same in the United States Senate, an institution so broken that no one Senator has accomplished much of anything in the few months since the Democrats took over."

OBAMA II: Like King, Kennedy, ... and Reagan

Christian Broadcasting Network's The Brody File posts reader responses to Barack Obama's interview with Brody. Responses, mostly positive, include:

• I honestly respect this man greatly. I used to consider myself a conservative then a liberal but I think I found my spot in the center. I feel that Jesus never wanted us Christians to separate ourselves from others, especially by political party.
• For the first time in my lifetime, it seems as though the most authentic Christian in the race is a Democrat. I don't agree with him on every issue, but I like that he seems to empathize with those who disagree with him and understand where they're coming from.
• Again, as always Senator Obama proves with his answers to your questions why he will be a refreshing change for this country, a true leader who could very well bring us all back together, something this country so desperately needs.
• I don't agree with everything the Senator has said and done throughout his Presidential campaign about I have come to realize that he is that same Dreamer that President Kennedy, Senator Bobby Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and President Ronald Reagan were.
• I thought he was very sincere in his response but that he has little understanding that this nation was founded as a christian nation even though it already had other peoples with other religions while it was founded and I'm sure they knew it. ... They chose to keep this country as a christian nation free to worship God, one God, the God of Abraham, Jacob and David no hindus, no muslims, no buddhist, etc. Why does Mr. Obama think that it should evolve?

GOP FIELD: Not Dead Yet

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini tracks signs from Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani that they night attend a rescheduled Cnn/YouTube debate and comments: "I am cautiously optimistic that there will be a Republican YouTube debate. ... Both candidates are fully on board with the idea that a scheduling conflict is no reason to pass up this unique opportunity to speak the American people."

Also at Townhall, Matt Lewis notes that 76% of Townhall readers do not think GOP '08ers show do a YouTube debate. But Captain Quarters links to a podcast with NRCC chair Tom Cole who does make "a rather impassioned plea for Republicans to engage in the debate."

F. THOMPSON: Not The Second Coming After All

NRO's Jim Geraghty was the first conservative up with Team Fred Thompson's response to their less-than-anticipated $3M fundraising total. From the email: "(1) In his first exploratory month, Thompson raised well over $3 million - more than 10x what Giuliani did in his first month and about 3x McCain; (2) Under FEC rules, you are not allowed to raise funds "in excess of what could reasonably be expected to be used for exploratory activities". Thompson has raised an appropriate amount for an exploratory phase; (3) So far we've utilized no direct mail or telephone fundraising, and we have a burn rate below 20% - far below the other candidates."

Geraghty comments: "It's a pugnacious defense, and almost convincing... until you figure that they probably would prefer to be in the situation where they have to defend raising $5 million or more. Having said that, I wonder how many potential donors are holding off, because they want to donate to an actual, hat-in-the-ring candidate, not a dipping-my-toe-in-the-water potential candidate."

Those unfazed by the news include: Captain's Quarters: "I think that Fred has no reason to panic. In fact, I'm a little suspicious of these themes of impending disaster halfway through the year before the primaries, especially for candidates and non-candidates who draft double-digit support in national polling." Tapscott's Copy Desk: "There is also a technical term for a supposedly high-ranking GOP operative who would so quickly conclude that $3 million raised in 26 days for an unannounced candidate is evidence of "a flop." That technical term is "unvarnished garbage." No truly experienced national political operative would make such a claim, unless he was talking to a reporter looking for a quote that serves somebody's agenda."

Those arguing the less than ideal totals require a more serious rethinking include:

• Race 4 '08s Justin Hart: "I've said this before but I believe that Fred is one election too early to concentrate on the virtual handshake. Romney has hosted approximately 120 in-person fundraising events since January. The average take at these events is probably $150,000+. You do the math. Better yet, Fred better do it."
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "First, they set themselves up for this expectations problem by floating big numbers and even set an initial goal of $4.6M from their big donors. Some loose lips then floated a $5M goal. ... even their strongest supporters agree that communications is not their strongest suit."
• AmSpec Blog's David Hogberg: "I don't see how can he can afford to hold off his announcement for more than another two weeks. The positive buzz he has generated by being a "non-candidate" candidate is over. It has been killed by an inept blunder on abortion that turned what should have been a two-day news story into a two-week one and then the shake up in his staff. Now it is clear they didn't raise enough money in June to be able to say, "Look how good we are doing even though our candidate hasn't entered the race." Indeed, quite the opposite.
• SC's The Shot: "This number is troubling. At this rate Thompson would only be able to raise $9 million per quarter. This figure would be about $3 million dollars less than Sen. John McCain's dismal 2nd quarter figure. Fred Thompson has been blogging a lot lately, but I think it is high time for him to put the keyboard away and bring out the rolodex."

Race 4 '08s DaveG was the most dire, writing under the header "Fred's Fundraising Flop a Rude Awakening for Cocoon Conservatives":

By, "Cocoon Conservatives," I mean the sort of conservatives who think that 2004 was the beginning of a permanent Republican majority, that all the polls are wrong, and that 2006 happened because Republicans didn't support Bush enough, weren't socially conservative enough, etc. These conservatives refuse to recognize that the Bush Coalition - a motley crew of social meddlers at home and idealistic interventionalists abroad, all united under the flag of an evangelical president - is obsolete, busted...

What does all of this have to do with Thompson? Prior to Thompson's release of his fundraising numbers, there was a conventional wisdom starting to develop on the conservative blogosphere that the reason Republican fundraising numbers this year pale in comparison to Democratic numbers is that conservatives are holding tight their purse strings. Conservatives, so went the narrative, were not about to donate one red-state red cent to Rudy McRomney, and would instead hold on to their culturally conservative millions until a True Conservative entered the race. At that point, the floodgates would open, the band would get back together, and a revived Red State Coalition would propel Republicans into office yet one more time. Well, we now know just how much the red-state holdouts are worth.

IRAQ: They're ALl In

As forcefully as O'Hanlon/Pollack were denounced by the netroots, they were also embracedbyconservatives . The Corner even hosted a symposium feature on the article with submissions from John McCain, Peter Rodman, and Michael Yon.

Conservatives paired the O'Hanlon/Pollack article with a Hugh Hewitt interview with New York Times Baghdad correspondent Jon Burns and a Washington Postitem suggesting a positive report by Gen. David Petraeus could split Dems 9/07, to make the case the "tide is turning in Washington."

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez quotes Burns after Hewitt asks if the war is lost: "No, I don't, actually. I think the war is close to lost, but I don't think that all hope is extinguished, and I do think, as do many of my colleagues in the media here, that an accelerated early withdrawal, something which reduced American troops, even if they were placed in large bases out in the desert ... would, in effect, be a rapid, a rapid progress towards an all-out civil war."

Hewitt highlights Burns thoughts on Dem timelines: "[T]he more that the Democrats in the Congress lead the push for an early withdrawal, the more Iraqi political leaders, particularly the Shiite political leaders, but the Sunnis as well, and the Kurds, are inclined to think that this is going to be settled, eventually, in an outright civil war, in consequence of which they are very, very unlikely or reluctant, at present, to make major concessions. They're much more inclined to kind of hunker down. So in effect, the threats from Washington about a withdrawal, which we might have hoped would have brought about greater political cooperation in face of the threat that would ensue from that to the entire political establishment here, has had, as best we can gauge it, much more the opposite effect."

RedState's Mark Kilner links the WaPo item quoting Maj. Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) on Blue Dog respect for Petraeus and comments: "That's not what Nancy wants to hear. It's not what Okinawa Murtha wants piped into his padded cell. The Dem Presidential wannabes aren't going to like it, but if the rational wing of the Democratic Party would rather complete our mission successfully than humiliate President Bush at the expense of our national security, then the anti-Bush/war/GOP "GET OUT NOW!" caucus has a problem."

Finally Jonah Goldberg notes reader reaction suggests his following line may be adopted by WH GOPers come '08: "Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home."

IRAQ II: Only You Can Prevent GOP Stalling In Congress

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) promoted a contest at his Keeping America's Promise site in in a Daily Kos diary 7/30. Kerry asks Kossacks to develop their own 30 second radio ad targeting "Roadblock Republicans" which include: Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY); Norm Coleman (R-MN); John Sununu (R-NH); Susan Collins (R-ME); Liddy Dole (R-NC); and John Cornyn (R-TX).

Kerry pitches: "I'm here today because I don't think this is a time for us to just join a debating society or echo chamber where we talk exclusively to each other; Republicans are denying the Senate a chance to find a new course in Iraq, so what are we going to do about it? I think we need to run radio ads in the states of the most vulnerable of the Roadblock Republicans who stand in the way, making it clear to everyone that those Senators don't deserve to be reelected because of their continued support for the Bush Doctrine of escalation without end."

IMPEACHMENT: Progress Or Distraction?

The netroots are mostly supportive of Rep. Jay Inslee's (D-WA) effort to push impeachment of AG Alberto Gonzalez. Reacting Inslee's introduction of a resolution directing the House Jud. Cmte. to begin impeachment hearings, MyDD's Jonathan Singer comments: "I think that ... the removal of Gonzales would not be entirely out of the realm of possibility. While I don't think it's likely that there would be the 17 Republican votes in the Senate necessary to convict Gonzales, it would not be surprising to see at least some Republicans support the removal of Gonzales." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas adds: "great news and real progress."

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt isn't as sure: "Gonzales is a bigger detriment to the Republicans in 2008 if he remains as Attorney General. He will tarnish Bush's legacy permanently and Republican candidates will face a backlash because of him. If he goes early, voters may get over it by then. I'd rather see the Judiciary Committees spend their time on criminal justice reform legislation like restoring habeas than an impeachment proceeding."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Swinging For The Fences

Daily Kos diarist Eternal Hope makes the case for removing legal corporate personhood:

Under the law, corporations have special rights that you or I cannot have so that they can make the kinds of money that any of us ever dream of. They control our lives, they bust unions, they send our jobs overseas, and they seek to bring in "guest workers" as second-class citizens. They seek to suppress wages so that if we make too much, they can get rid of us and replace us with someone who is willing to work for less.
I suggest that the people who run businesses work and play by the rules that the rest of us play by -- which means that I suggest that we end special rights for corporations and the corporate elites. ... Should we abolish corporate personhood?

88% of the 863 dKos readers responding want to remove corporate personhood.

LEST WE FORGET: 'Cause If You Can't Have Fun At YearlyKos, Then Bill O'Reilly Has Already Won

Anticipating "lazy or unscrupulous reporters" will target YearlyKos conference attendees, a dKos diarist posts his ten point "Unofficial YearlyKos Media Etiquette Guide," including:

• 1. If approached by a member of the press, politely ask them to identify themselves and the organization they represent. Be suspicious of anyone who declines to do so. Also, be suspicious of anyone who asks probing or personal questions that does not volunteer such information. Legitimate journalists are not offended by such inquiries.
• 2.Treat all press with respect, whether it be the New York Times or the Springfield Gazette or MyMamasBasement.com.
• 8. Unless you are an official representative of this web site or the conference, you are not an official representative of this web site or the conference. Always preface your remarks as being your own personal opinions that do not extend to any other person or organization except those which you may actually represent.
• 9. You are an official representative of this web site and conference. This might seem to contradict #8, but the truth is, the aforementioned lazy and/or unscrupulous reporters will seek to attach your remarks and behavior to the web site and conference whether you like it or not. So try to behave in a manner that will reflect positively on your hosts at all times.
• 10. Have fun! This is not a gratuitous appendage so that I end up with a top 10 list. Your demeanor can shape the perceptions of outsiders who are documenting this event. Therefore, if you're not enjoying yourself, the terrorists win.

7/30: Changing Course?

As we noted 7/25, in 1/07 there was a clear opening for Barack Obama to embrace the netroots and tap into their enthusiasm for a more progressive Dem party. With Hillary Clinton so closely identified with the Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)/DLC/pro-war wing of the party, Obama could have joined forces with Sen. Russ Feingold (D) to end the war through de-funding and cemented his anti-war credentials. Instead he chose a more measured path on the war (timelines, some residual forces, etc.) and did not pro-actively engage the netroots community. Now, as more and more are noting that his numbers have flatlined, Obama may be changing course. Using his dictator-meeting exchange with HRC as launching point, Obama has launched a major netroots banner ad buy featuring a 'Judgment Matters' message that touts his pre-Senate opposition of the war and his eagerness to talk to 'our adversaries.' If, as some speculate, Bill Richardson's rise in IA and NH is due to his clear anti-war message (no residual force in Iraq) will Obama's stepped up effort to differentiate himself from Clinton be enough to revive his campaign?

DEM FIELD: This Explains Hillary's Answer Last Week

Open Left's Chris Bowers "was pleasantly surprised to find that 'progressive' is the ideological self-identification with the highest net favorable rating in America" according to Rasmussen Reports. Bowers comments:

Progressivism is winning the day in American politics. That it is more net favorable than the term 'conservative' is a major finding about American politics, and a serious blow to the conservative notion that they are a natural plurality. That progressive is even viewed more favorably than 'moderate' is utterly stunning, since that term consistently leads national polls on ideological self-identification.

CLINTON: Friends In All The Wrong Places

The netroots have begun to notice the nice things some conservatives have been saying about Hillary Clinton, and they are somewhat unnerved. Open Left's Matt Stoller collects pro-HRC sentiments from Fred Barnes, Rich Lowry, David Brooks, and Charles Krauthammer and asks, "Why is the Right Embracing Hillary Clinton?" Matthew Yglesias also picked up on Krauthammer's note, but is more bothered by the fact that HRC satellite campaign site HillaryHub promoted Krauthammer's column. Yglesias comments: "So, yes, congratulations, she's official won the Charles Krauthammer Primary."

Also warning HRC about the company she keeps, a Daily Kos diarist and self proclaimed Jack Abramoff Scandal expert looks at FEC filings showing the Tan family of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) have given $10K since 10/05. The diarist speculates: "It is likely that this new $10,000 to Hillary was given to set her campaign up for fresh attacks after she wins the Nomination. These attacks would draw her into the Abramoff scandal, labor abuse and re-open the entire Clinton's take money form China meme."

CLINTON II: Captain Obvious She Is Not

Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal "unspins" assertions by Clinton com. dir. Howard Wolfson that "80 percent of the country" "believed George Bush was going to do what he said he was going to do, which was to try diplomacy" after he was giving the authority to use force by the Senate in '02. Blumenthal locates an 11/02 Gallup poll showing "a majority of Americans believed President Bush had 'already decided to invade Iraq."

Atrios links and comments: "I have no idea if Hillary Clinton believed that a vote for the AUMF wasn't one more step on the path to inevitable war, but it's wrong to suggest that, you know, most people thought that war wasn't inevitable. ... They weren't marketing a tough inspections regime, they were marketing a war. That was obvious to most sentient beings at the time."

EDWARDS: They're Mad As Hell, And They're Not Gonna Take It Any More

Videos of John and Elizabeth Edwards talking about 'the media' are circulating. TPM Cafe's Andrew Golis links to a YouTube of JE"going Greenwald and railing against the media powers that be" and predicts: "my Spidey-sense tells me liberals are going to really enjoy this video." Reporting from Blogher 07, Jennifer Pozner links to EE taking on media consolidation at The Huffington Post.

OBAMA: Jump Start Needed

Comparing 3/03-12/03 to 3/07-7/07 Open Left's Chris Bowers observes: "Throughout this period of the campaign in 2003-2004, Howard Dean seemed to have a fairly consistently upward climb, starting in the mid-single digits, and ending near 30% ... By way of comparison, in 2008, we haven't seen anything like that sort of movement for three or four months. [Barack] Obama's upward momentum seems to have, for one reason or another, just plain stopped at some point in the early spring."

Bowers attempts to explains: "Iraq is the major issue of the campaign, but it is playing out differently. ... Within the Democratic field, the Obama campaign, in terms of "superior" judgment, and the Richardson campaign, in terms of no residual forces, have both tried to use Iraq to position themselves relative to the rest of the field. So far, it has not resulted in a big change on the national scene, but that does not mean it never will.

Bowers also notes that unlike '06, progressives are not "driving the national conversations on the campaign." Bowers concludes: "If the progressive grassroots was driving the conversation, I simply don't think there is any way Clinton would still have a sizable lead on Obama. His upward momentum would not have stopped three or four months ago, and he would probably be close to tied with Clinton at this point."

Also critiquing Obama's message, MyDD's Jerome Armstrong tracks Obama pollster Cornell Belcher's kind words for Ronald Reagan and comments: "I am not necessarily saying Reagan wasn't able to brand himself as such through the mainstream media, but Reagan was an extremist in both rhetoric and action; and during the run-up to his presidency, he was an rapid partisan Republican. ... Look, I'm not anti-Obama, but praising Reagan as a model of hope for Obama? That's gotta rank up there with one of the most stupidest things I've ever heard a consultant be quoted on in a Democratic primary."

OBAMA II: Not More Religious Than You

The Brody File posted Barack Obama's personal answers to questions Brody submitted to the Senator "a few weeks ago." The Q and A includes:

• Brody Question: The latest Time Magazine poll shows that you are viewed as the "most religious" Democrat and you even out poll a number of Republicans. What do you attribute that to?
• Senator Obama: I don't think it's helpful as candidates or as a country to get into discussions about who's more religious. That sounds a little like storing up treasures on earth to me. I've just always been clear that my Christian faith has motivated me for 20 years and I'm not ashamed to talk about it, or the role that faith should play in our American life.

RICHARDSON: It's The War, Stupid

Working AssetsMark Nickolas tracks Bill Richardson's rise in early primary states including: "As you can clearly see, Richardson's polling average has passed John Edwards in New Hampshire and is on the heels of Barack Obama in Iowa. And between Iowa and New Hampshire is the Nevada Caucus, a state where Clinton currently dominates but where about 10 points separates Obama, Edwards and Richardson."

Matthew Yglesias picks up on Tom Bevan explanations for Richardson's success, but offers his own theory: "The Clinton/Obama/Edwards troika have all, though to various extents, softened their backing for the residuum over the past couple of months, but they could still all go further in this direction -- to where Richardson is, for example -- and at a minimum I hope Richardson keeps gaining support until one of them does. It's obvious that the first instinct of the three other candidates' political consultants was that Democratic primary voters don't really care about the war and can be easily bought off with some Bush-bashing applause lines and misleading rhetoric."

GOP FIELD: Question Control Key

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt and Patrick Ruffini sparred through out the weekend over whether WH '08ers ought to attend the CNN/YouTube debate. Hewitt continued to take the position that the opportunity for CNN to propose 'moonbat' questions to Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani without having to take accountability for their content, made the debate too big of risk for their candidacies. Ruffini argued that GOPers needed to take a longer view, and should attend so that the GOP brand was not seen as techphobic. While Hewitt does have the support of others at Townhall, most conservatives commenting took Ruffini's side. Ruffini even set up savethedebate.com which features an open letter to WH '08ers reading in part:

Republicans cannot write off the Internet. Thus far, the Democratic candidates have dramatically outperformed Republicans online, most alarmingly in online fundraising. We believe this is a direct result of failing to effectively engage the medium and seize the tremendous opportunity of bottom-up grassroots activism. If you approach the Internet from a position of paralyzing fear, you will be out-gunned, out-manned, and out-raised at every turn. It is fundamentally unacceptable to surrender to the Democrats on one of the most important battlefronts of this election.

Those signing with Ruffini include: David All, David All Group; Erick Erickson, Red State; Soren Dayton, Eye on '08; Lorie Byrd, WizBang!; Joe Carter, Evangelical Outpost; Ann Marie CurlingElect Romney in 2008 , Bryan PrestonHotAir , Robert BlueyRobertBluey.com .

Captain's Quarters offers his own compromise: "How can we engage voters in a national forum through the New Media, while keeping the debate substantive and serious? I have a simple solution: have CNN cede the editorial/selection process to the New Media, in the form of the blogosphere. ... CNN would ask bloggers to form a committee to review the YouTube entries. Since this debate is a Republican primary event, the bloggers should probably represent that segment of the electorate -- primarily Republicans, but perhaps with independent/centrist representation as well." [Editor's Note: this is pretty much how YearlyKos is running their Presidential Forum.]

GIULIANI: At Least They Can Agree To Hate Roe

Race 4 '08 interviewed Rudy Giuliani Judicial Advisory Cmt. member/ex-Boston Univ. School of Law dean Ron Cass, including:

• R408: Mayor Giuliani's statement that a Strict Constructionist Judge could either overturn Roe or view it as precedent has been cause for alarm among some conservative court watchers. How would you address the concerns of people who cannot fathom how a judge in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, or Alito could view Roe as rightly decided?
• Ron Cass: Let me give three different responses with apologies because this will take some time. ... So I think that it's fair for Mayor Giuliani to say, look-he isn't asking anyone to pass a litmus test, but he is acknowledging that Roe was wrongly decided. But he is saying that at this point today what judges do with that is something that has to take account not only of the text and construction of the Constitution, but also of precedent.

MCCAIN: Wonder What Changed His Mind On Security First?

Race 4 '08 recaps a 7/28 John McCain blogger conference call including these thoughts on immigration: "McCain got grilled on this one by the questioner. He said that there has been not enough done because people were cynical of border security, which comes from the growing lack of trust that people have in the government. He promised to secure the borders before coming up with a new plan, but is still in favor of temporary worker visas for agriculture."

PAUL: Libertarian Love Lost

Race 4 '08 interviewed Ron Paul including this exchange:

• R408: Why do you think the Republican Party suffered such losses in 2006 of libertarian voters who normally would align themselves with GOP in 2006?
• Paul: my impression from having talked to a lot of people, and it was probably more impressive in New Hampshire because the wipe-out was so great in New Hampshire, the answer was: "The War, The War, The War." It wasn't deficits and the entitlements [which] bother me a whole lot ... in New Hampshire and elsewhere it's always the war. It didn't mean that they took a position; their reason was that the war is why Republicans did so poorly.

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: We Didn't Start The Fire

Kossacks are already celebrating the first victory in their campaign to drive advertisers away from Fox News. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas posts an email from Lowe's to a Kossack:

Dear Lowe's Customer, Thank you for your comments regarding the program, The O'Reilly Factor. Lowe's has strict guidelines that govern the placement of our advertising. ... Lowe's constantly reviews advertising buys to make certain they are consistent with its policy guidelines. The O'Reilly Factor does not meet Lowe's advertising guidelines, and the company's advertising will no longer appear during the program.

Kos comments: "Two can play at this game."

Later Kos asks Home Depot execs: "And by the way, what made Home Depot sensitive enough to pull its ads from BET, but not sensitive enough to pull them from FOX?" Kos also advises: "Remember to be polite when emailing. If your email looks anything like the winger hate mail I'm getting, it won't be effective at all. ... Remember, we didn't start this battle. Bill O'Reilly, going after JetBlue, did. But they aren't the only people who can play this game anymore."

IMPEACHMENT: Not just For Conspiracy Theorists Anymore

Two New York Times items drove impeachment talk through the weekend. The 7/29 editorial advocating impeachment of AG Alberto Gonzalez if a special prosecutor isn't appointed was widelyseconded (although not by Rep. Ellen Taushcer (D-CA), which ruffledfeathers ).

Open Left's Matt Stoller tracks growing elite acceptance of impeachment and blogs:

It's important to frame this by understanding that impeachment is always a political issue, and never a legal one. As such, the important question is not whether the President committed crimes, but whether there is a coalition behind restoring legitimacy to the political system. ... I know of several large advocacy organizations that could send emails to their base on impeachment, knowing that the response level would be high. But the tradeoff for them is to message around impeachment, or message around a policy objective that is more 'achievable'. Resources are not infinite.

It is now conventional wisdom among elite mainstream and liberal pundits that Bush deserves impeachment, but that it 'can't' happen. That they won't write this is to their discredit, but hey, that's punditocracy for you. ....A variety of pieces are snapping into place to have a real fight over Bush's future. I can imagine many ways that this plays out. When Bush refuses to heed Congress on a withdrawal bill, or should he attack Iran, it's going to come to a head.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: TimesEarlyBird

A Kausfiles reader advises the New York Times on how to keep a premium money stream while still tearing down the TimesSelect steel curtain:

[H]ere is a proposal for The New York Times: charge for early access to your stories. I'm sitting here before bed on the West Coast, as I do most nights, reading tomorrow's paper and looking to get an early jump on the news. And I'm quite taken with the lead story about FBI Director Mueller's contradiction of Attorney General Gonazalez's Senate testimony. In fact, I might even pay for the privilege of doing so. Imagine if, instead of posting the full stories for all web users, before 6 a.m. Eastern (and 3 a.m. Pacific) -- though the best specific times are debatable -- only a stub like the one that now appears for non-TimesSelect members who click a link to an Op-Ed column appeared for non-members who browsed to stories that would appear in the next day's papers. The Times could become more aggressive about posting stories to the web as soon as they were ready the night they're closed -- but only fully viewable to those who paid a fee to be a member of this reverse form of TimesSelect.

LEST WE FORGET: There's An Unpopular President In Washington?

Andrew Sullivan points us to a Der Spiegel article on a Uni. of Tubingen German-American Institute program called "Rent an American" which "arranges for American exchange students to visit local schools." 'Rented American' Audrey Bashore shares what a typical session is like:

A student asks the first question: "How do you feel about Bush and the policies of his government?" When Bashore criticizes the administration, another student adds: "No one supports him. He's a liar. We're against his wars." The discussion moves to all the hot-button issues: climate change, the death penalty, gun control, Michael Moore, the Ku Klux Klan. ... Bashore later says she was prepared for these kinds of questions, even if they seemed overly direct and impolite by American standards. Germans, she says, have "strong opinions," and they know what's wrong and what's right -- just like the unpopular president in Washington.

7/27: A Rorschach Moment

Whatever criticism one levels at the format of the CNN/YouTube debate, it has produced a controversy that almost perfectly encapsulates the case supporters are making for their respective candidates. While making their arguments both sides seem to want their cake and eat it too. For Barack Obama supporters, his answer both signals a substantial departure from current Washington establishment foreign policy thinking; but it does not suggest that Obama lacks the experience to do so in a way that does not protect American interests. For Hillary Clinton supporters, her answer shows both a change from Bush-Cheney style non-diplomacy, but also a sophisticated understanding of the complexities involved.

The question for Dem primary voters then, is a change back to '90s-era Clinton foreign policy change enough; or is a more fundamental departure from foreign policy consensus required. More importantly, what, outside of his pre-invasion opposition to the Iraq war, should voters be looking at to determine what Obama's new foreign policy vision is?

DEM FIELD: You Don't Make Friends With Sour Grapes

Matthew Yglesias encourages DLC founder Al From "to look back at this APstory where he attacks the Democratic presidential candidates for snubbing his party, and ponder it just a bit." Yglesias continues: "He could have easily down played the significance of this, graciously noted that the candidates are busy and have other things to do, observed that Hillary Clinton helped found his organization and Barack Obama's top economic advisor is listed on the DLC staff page, and noted that the Democratic line on national security is now the mainstream one. Instead, he attacked the candidates for "tunnel vision." It's not a good way to make friends."

DEM FIELD II: YVAN EHT NOIJ

Blue Hampshire's Mike Caulfield continues his "Policy Straw Poll" series, this time receiving answers from each Dem campaign on how they differ from the rest of the field on military spending. Answers (which all must have a similarly constricted first sentence) include:

• From the Obama campaign: I am the only candidate to lay out a comprehensive vision for how to rebuild the military and responsibly use it to keep America safe in the 21st century.
• From the Gravel campaign: I am the only candidate besides Representative Kucinich who will actually reduce military spending.
• From the Kucinich campaign: I am the only candidate to call for at least a 15% reduction in the bloated Pentagon budget.
• From the Edwards campaign: I am the only candidate who has proposed a bold approach to end not just wasteful military spending but to reform our entire budget for national security.
• From the Dodd campaign: "I am the only candidate with a plan that will both end the war in Iraq and redirect the billions that we are spending on war to improving military readiness.
• From the Richardson Campaign: I am the only major Presidential candidate who believes that we must remove all our troops from Iraq. There should be no residual US forces left in Iraq.
• From the Biden Campaign: I am the only candidate who has made good on this commitment: so long as we have a single soldier in Iraq, we will make sure he or she has the best protection this country can provide, which is why I voted for the emergency spending bill for Iraq.
• From the Clinton campaign: Hillary is concerned about the billions of dollars being spent on outside military contractors. She believes there should be better accountability and controls with the Pentagon?s budget and that we need to reform the Pentagon's acquisition system to rein in weapons systems costs and spending on outside contractors.

EDWARDS: What's With All The Dem Reagan Love?

John Edwards 7/26 tax plan was well received among the netroots. MyDD's Tar Heel hopes to see the following headline in 7/27's papers: "Edwards Proposes Tax Cuts for Most Americans: Same Gains Rate as Reagan." Also at MyDD, RDemocrat blogs: "John Edwards just keeps fighting for the working man. Not only has he proposed lowering taxes on the middle and lower classes, but he wants to simplify the tax code used by working families, to cut down on the hours used to file taxes, and wean them off of using expensive tax services."

The Left Coaster's Steve Soto was also impressed: "John Edwards announced his tax fairness proposals today, and nailed both the substance and the messaging to sell it. He is proposing a new set of savings vehicles for working class wage earners, an expansion of the earned income tax credit, and a middle class tax cut, all to be financed by undoing the benefits Bush has larded upon the wealthy and corporations. It's a good package, and sold with great messaging. I now eagerly await the response from Clinton and Obama."

CLINTON VS OBAMA: Mmmmm, Bush-Lite

The netroots are seemingly evenly divided over who has the better end of Barack Obama's labeling of Hillary Clinton as 'Bush-Cheney Light'. Obama doubters claim any comparison of Clinton to Bush is ridiculous on its face while Obama supporters do see truth in Bush-Clinton comparison's and believe Obama represents 'change' from established Bush-Clinton foreign policy. From Obama doubters:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "We, a lot of times, use the "Republican lite" term, but "Bush Cheney lite" is quite an escalation. And coming from Obama, whose only serious distinction from Clinton comes from 5 years ago, it seems another slip. Does Obama have anything else to back up the differentiating claim since he's been a Senator? Since he doesn't, what does that say about him as a Senator?"
• The Left Coaster's Steve Soto: "I wanted to explore a little further the Obama default position, which I think mirrors perhaps the main objection many in the blog community have against Hillary, aside from the fact that she is a Clinton or may appear too corporate and too Beltway for many of you. ... But Hillary can be elected, and can help the party and progressives get to where they need to be over the next 4-8 years without getting derailed by the right wing media and foreign policy fear machine during that time.
• MyDD's world dictator: Clinton's answer made note of the intricacies of the question, emphasizing key words like 'within your first year' and 'without preconditions'. Her answer was in my opinion more correct to the specific question at hand. ... Never, ever,ever has Clinton ever said she would not use diplomacy. I defy you to point this out. ... Given that Clinton said she would pursue aggressive negotiations with these countries, every time you claim that she stands for Bush/Cheney's stance of no negotiations you are flat out lying Not only are you being blatantly untruthful but you know it."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "Now I have long ridiculed this phony Politics of Hope as silly nonsense that bore no reality to the politics necessary in today's climate. But for Obama to so abruptly abandon the "high road' to attack Sen. Clinton when he has been reticent to be "partisan" in defending Democrats (or criticizing them) smacks of desperation. Obama began with a political (not a substantive) gaffe in the debate and now compounds the error. It further strengthens my view that he is not yet up to a serious run for President."
• MyDD's markjay: "Basically, all my friends thought that [Obama] simply blew it during the debate and that instead of admitting your mistake, you decided to go on the offensive to try to use this issue to attack Hillary--but that you have absolutely no intention of putting your willingness into action if you're elected.

From Obama supporters:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "It's about judgment, stupid, and he's using it to stress the soundness of his own foreign policy judgment (reminding us that he opposed the war from the start) and to make the case that more experience does not mean better judgment. It's a smart strategy."
• The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel: "Her husband's administration generally followed Hillary's approach; during his two terms President Clinton did not meet with Fidel Castro or with Hugo Chavez or with the leaders of Iran, Syria, and North Korea --while generally pursuing a policy of trying to isolate these countries. But what did the Clinton approach actually accomplish? ... In signaling that he was willing to meet with the leaders of these countries, Obama was signaling that the United States has the confidence in its values to meet with anyone."
• The Huffington Post's Steve Clemons: "With all due respect to the frontrunner in the Democratic primary race, Hillary Clinton is wrong on this issue. ... we need a new strategy of constructive, self-interested, tough-minded engagement with world leaders who are consequential to our well-being and interests. So, yes -- Obama is right that Hillary Clinton articulated a Bush-lite strategy."
• Matthew Yglesias: "Here we have Clinton riding what's surely her greatest asset. Everybody knows that the right has a unique loathing for Hillary Clinton so it just seems incredibly implausible that she could have any sympathy for the Bush/Cheney view of the world. Nevertheless, Clinton must know that a lot of people think that the more hawkish faction of the Democratic Party are, in fact, proposing to put put the Bush Doctrine under more competent management rather than actually abandon it. ... I should also note that by most accounts the Clinton campaign is deliberately seeking to woo the vile Cuban exile lobby with this Castro business which most people I know in DC seems to think is very clever of her."

OBAMA: Going Rural

Open Left's Mike Lux looks at Washington Postreporting on Barack Obama's rural IA strategy and has three thoughts:

• Hillary is not popular among rural voters generally, and their neighbors' attitudes carry over to rural Dems looking for a general election winner. Obama's team probably assumes he can take advantage of that.
• Obama's surprising success in appealing to rural Illinois in his senate primary victory in 2004 no doubt gives his team a lot of confidence that he can appeal in small-town Iowa.
• I'm guessing his team assumed early on that Obama's "can't we all just get along" message would play among community-minded rural voters. What I think they are finding, though, is that rural voters are more angry and populist right now than "we can work it out" in nature. I think that's one reason you see Obama moving toward more populist rhetoric.

GOP FIELD: First They Came For Fox...

With some notable exceptions, most conservatives hope that GOP '08ers will participate in the CNN/YouTube debate. Townhall's Patrick Ruffini blogs: "Given the huge earned media hit the Democrats got this week ... I didn't think the GOP candidates would make the political mistake of passing up it up. ... This is a big mistake. The Democrats are afraid to answer questions from Big Bad Fox News Anchors, and the Republicans are afraid to answer questions from regular people. Which is worse? ... It's stuff like this that will set the GOP back an election cycle or more on the Internet.

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt replies: "As we saw with the "insufficiently black" question, the CNN team used the device of the third party video to inject a question that would have embarrassed any anchor posing it. ... That dynamic would change completely in a GOP YouTube debate - they or their counterparts at a different network will be gunning for the Republicans, and the question set will be designed to embarrass or ridicule."

Ruffini fired back: "While I can certainly appreciate the desire to avoid "set up" questions, it is intellectually dishonest to simultaneously attack the Democrats for running from Fox News while raising the red flag at agenda journalism in the form of CNN/YouTube." Hewitt responded: "The GOP candidates skipping such a circus is not the same as the Democrats passing on a Fox News Channel ... In fact I'm all for letting Keith Olbermann moderate a debate of the GOPers because poor old Keith wouldn't know what hit him. It isn't about being willing to go anywhere and answer anything, it is about refusing to walk into a media box canyon where the anonymous MSMers will have had a few days to pick the best thirty body slams from tens of thousand of moonbat-generated videos. Would Patrick recommend the GOP candidates attend a YearlyKos sponsored and nutter-moderated debate? That's what the YouTube Debate, GOP edition will be."

Townhall's Matt Lewis thought Hewitt made a good point about the YouTube format enabling CNN to ask biased questions they wouldn't have to take responsibility for, but most other bloggers urged GOPers to attend:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "The debate Monday night was no worse than the three previous ones and even if it hadn't been, having to endure two hours of talking snowmen is worth it given the endless mileage the Democrats would get from them skipping out. "The GOP can't face the people, the GOP can't handle unorthodox questions, the GOP has no sense no fun" - it's a PR disaster in the making."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I think it would be a mistake if Romney skips [the debate]."
• IA Voice: "I understand the concerns, though. CNN is a lefty news network ... But I agree with Patrick Ruffini, that would be a huge mistake for the candidates to skip it. It's about time that they embrace the internet, rather than run away from it."

GOP FIELD II: If We Can Put Homer In Space Then This Should Be Easy

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin notes that in 7/26's Washington Post story, Fred Thompson compares those who believe in global warming to those who believed the earth was flat in Galileo's time and then examines where the rest of the GOP field stand on the issue. She reports that Rudy Giuliani says we have to accept global warming is happening and that humans are contributing to it, and that an 'Apollo project' is needed to make the US energy independent so we can stop seeing "money going to our enemies because we have to buy oil from certain countries."

Rubin finds Mitt Romney 'more circumspect on the issue, but also on board for an Apollo like project. John McCain has introduced cap and trade legislation with Joe Lieberman. Rubin concludes: "This should make for an interesting debate (preferably one with no snowman) in which not only the candidates' substantive ideas can be batted about but voters can assess in a general election setting who will be the best spokesman for conservative views."

BROWNBACK: Mister Roboto

Michelle Malkin hits Sam 'Swithcback' Brownback for funding 'robocalls' that attack Mitt Romney and Tom Tancredo in IA. Malkin calls the calls "painful to watch" and hopes "the misery ends sooner rather than later. As I said, watching the slow-mo death of a rock-bottom presidential campaign is painful."

Townhall's Matt Lewis defends the practice: "Now, let's be honest. I agree that Brownback cannot win -- and cannot raise money. But there's something more important at stake here. ... Elections are about choices, and voters have the right to make informed choices. And since conservatives surely can't count on the MSM to report the truth, much voter education must come from the candidates. .... Pointing out that Ann Romney donated to Planned Parenthood isn't a scurrilous attack -- it's merely pointing out a fact."

GINGRICH: Oh, So He Was Talking About Us

Townhall's Matt Lewisrounds upreports that Newt Gingrich's 7/23 'pygmie' reference was not meant to describe the current GOP field, but those involved in the nomination process more generally. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff was also at the breakfast were Gingrich made the comments, and as The Blogometer noted 7/24, he also doubted Gingrich was referring to his fellow GOPers.

GIULIANI: Why Do Conservatives Keep Comparing To President's From The '70s?

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein spoke to Rudy Giuliani energy aide/Reagan Energy Sec. John Herrington 7/26 and reports: "Herrington said while developing a specific energy plan is still an 'ongoing process,' there are some basic principles that Giuliani has decided on. "His strategy on this is the more choices we have, and the more sources of energy, the less we can be held hostage to one single source of energy.' ... I asked Herrington to respond to those conservatives who are cynical about any alternative energy plans, because they associate them with the Carter administration, but he said there is a difference. 'Jimmy Crater's solution was the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, a $66 billion boondoggle where the federal government decided to do things,' he said."

THOMPSON: More Waiting Till September...

Conservatives again worried less about the substance of a recent Fred Thompson story, than what the handling of the story says about Team Thompson. The latest episode began when rumors of another Thompson staff defection materialized in the form of departing advance staffer Sam LeBlond. NRO's Jim Geraghty was told by his Thompson source that Marc Ambinder's "ex-Sen. Fred Thompson's lead political advance operative" description of LeBlond was "absolute b***s***!" he was a "junior aide." Geraghty notes that LeBlond is only 23 years old, but later updates: "I should note that I'm hearing a different tune from another Thompson Associate. This individual has been less than thrilled with the developments in Thompson's not-quite-campaign in recent weeks, and this person indicates that LeBlond's activities were significantly more than the First Associate indicated."

Also getting mixed signals from Team Thompson, AmSepc Blog's Jennifer Rubin recounts her communications with Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo, including his original denials that anyone was leaving the campaign, and later explanation that he did not know about LeBlond's imminent departure since he was only an 'intern.' Rubin concludes: "Was I misled or did the campaign spokesman just not have all the facts? I would like to believe it is the latter. It does however sound eerily like the pro-choice lobby snafu. ... We pesky reporters expect that especially in Presidential campaigns we will get honest "yes" and honest "no" and candid "don't know" answers and hopefully not have to play 20 questions with campaign spokesmen to get an answer we can take to the bank. ... It is imperative for campaigns to maintain both the appearance and reality of candor and competence. Otherwise, on really big stuff there will be no reservoir of trust or credibility. Something to think about."

SC's The Shot tracks the story and comments: "Here's the deal guys. You all know we like Mitt Romney. And you all know we dislike John McCain. You also know that we have always said very positive things about Fred Thompson. Why? Because something made us genuinely like Fred Thompson. ... But the more we get to know him, the more we are bothered by this honesty issue. ... Now we see another example. Did another staffer depart the Thompson campaign? Were they high level? Were they even paid? Who knows because the Thompson team can't seem to get their answer straight."

Geraghty later concludes: "Those looking for reasons to bury Thompson will see the recent moves as a sign of a campaign in chaos, with poor lines of authority, disagreement at the top, undefined roles and a lack of organization. Those looking for reasons to believe in Thompson will see the recent moves as growing pains ... While I'm sure Team Thompson would have preferred to avoid all this, I lean towards the latter interpretation... for now. Let's see what happens when Fred announces, and where things stand a month or two from now. If we don't see any improvement in the autumn, then it will be time for the Fred-heads to hit the panic button."

THOMPSON II: Trial Lawyers Need Not Apply?

Reactions to the Washington Post's 7/26 profile titled: "No Easy Verdict on Thompson The Lawyer: Cases Indicate Willingness to Defy GOP Orthodoxy," include:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "The title is just plain silly. A lawyer's duty is always to his client, not to any political orthodoxy. Had Thompson not been willing to "defy GOP orthodoxy" when necessary to promote his client's interest (as where he argued against a search that found incriminating evidence), he would have violated the rules of his profession. Moreover, most of the legal positions the Post actually cites (e.g., having a client invoke the Fifth Amendment, winning reinstatement for an employee) do not defy any political orthodoxy."
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "I frankly think the larger issue for him is not his social conservative credentials (his voting record appears to have satisfied most pro-life advocates) but his legal conservative ones. In addition to opposition to tort reform he, of course, championed and until 4 years ago defended McCain Feingold, an anathema to conservative activists and First Amendment advocates of all stripes. He has also supported affirmative action. It is unclear whether he is sticking with these positions or will be "evolving," but none strike me as the product of what we think of a conservative legal disposition."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Jennifer, perhaps it's the lawyer in you that finds tort reform a crucial issue, but I don't see it having much of an impact on conservative voters. ... To the extent that the conservative base cares about legal issues, it will be more important to them that Thompson has an excellent record on judges, that he escorted John Roberts around during his confirmation hearings, that he has said Roe v. Wade is bad law, etc. When most normal people hear the words "tort reform," they're ready to take a nap."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Who Knew Kossacks Watched That Much Fox News?

The netroots are enthusiastically urging readers to join Brave New Films new campaign targeting Fox News advertisers. At The Huffington PostJim Gilliam explains:

Imagine a world where every time FOX said something truly outrageous, that very day thousands of people across the country called local Fox advertisers (who had already been identified), alerted them of the outrage, and urged them to pull their ads immediately. ... We put together the FOX Attacker tool to do just that... it will become a database of all FOX's local and national cable advertisers compiled by literally thousands of volunteers who are signing up at FOXAttacks.com to monitor local FOX cable advertisers. ... Soon, we'll have a solid, verified database of FOX cable advertisers and we can start calling, and calling, and calling. And winning, and winning, and wining. ... This isn't a boycott, we're just informing FOX's advertisers... nothing is more terrifying to FOX than the truth."

Also linking to the effort Daily Kos' mcjoan posts Stephen Colbert's take on the Daily Kos - Bill O'Reilly dust up, while another dKos diarist urges Kossacks to pressure Fox by urging their local cable providers not to carry fox's new Fox Business News channel.

BLOGGERS VS. MSM II: Stephen Glass' Existence Was Never An Issue

For a fuller tracking of all things New Republic/Scott Thomas Beauchamp, see Memeorandum. Major developments include:

• Beauchamp has his own blog which he started before he was in Iraq.
• He may, or may not, be engaged to a TNR staffer.

While no one doubts his existence, conservatives still doubt the veracity and intention of his claims. NRO's Jim Geraghty blogs: "Over in Turkey, I dealt mostly with Marines who were posted at the U.S. embassy. I wouldn't claim that the sample of a dozen or so I met and drank with over the two years was anything resembling a statistically significant sample of the armed forces. But I can see these young men and women aren't perfect. If I hear an allegation of a Marine having too much to drink and getting into a fight, it doesn't strike me as implausible. They're young men and women, they have hormones, and their job requires certain levels of aggression and fearlessness. But I concur with my reader - a group of American men in uniform "folding in half with laughter" at the site of a man "march[ing] around with the skull on his head" would require a collective sense of sociopathy that I have not seen, and find unbelievable."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's A Chicken And The Egg Kind Of Thing

Matthew Yglesias links to "a fascinating paper by Larry Bartels and Christopher Achen about the ugly reality behind political decision-making" and shares his thoughts on one graph from the paper:

If you ask some different kinds of questions, you'll see that people usually vote for the party that they think reflects their views. One might think this means people are looking at where the parties stand, comparing that to where they stand, and then voting for the party they prefer. Bartels and Achen, however, use their way of looking at the data to argue that this is backwards -- people are committing to a political party, and then having done so simply convincing themselves that the party they're committed to shares those views.

LEST WE FORGET: We Would Totally Accept Any Job That Involved Sitting Next To Elizabeth Hasselbeck Every Day

Under the header "Is it illegal sex discrimination to hire only females to host The View? Ann Althouse links to Ian Ayres' thoughts on whether Rosie O'Donnell could prevail in a sex discrimination claim against The Price is Right:

Title VII prohibits sex discrimination in employment unless the employer can establish what's called a BFOQ or "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification." The EEOC Guidelines do allow intentional sex discrimination in hiring an actor or actress where the sex-specific roles are necessary for the "purpose of authenticity or genuineness," see 29 C.F.R. 1604.2(a)(2). But there is no way that the producers could establish that sex was a BFOQ for being host of "The Price is Right."

The same conclusion probably holds true for hosting "The View." The thought that only women could host a talk show would be difficult to square with existing case law. Probably a dozen different hosts have been employed by The View. They have all been female. There is little doubt that the producers of that show discriminate on the basis of sex in hiring.

7/26: The Honeymoon Is Over

A little over two months ago we looked at some early critical blog reports on Fred Thompson from the campaign trail and asked: "Is The Honeymoon Over?" After surveying conservative reaction to Thompson's recent staff shakeups and money woes we can definitively answer, yes. Thompson's surge-and-then-fade fits into an established pattern for GOP candidates online. So as long as he's able to pull his team together, he should easily stay in the top tier with Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney for some time. Note for Team Fred: A common theme running through criticism of Thompson is a lack of a distinct policy message. Maybe that's why he's been "flirting" with Newt.

GOP FIELD: No Excuses

First admitting he believes "the most likely outcome next November is a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic president," Race 4 '08s DaveG sketches the only route he sees for the GOP to salvage the situation. Dave blogs, "in order for our guys to surpass Clinton, they have to be able to win some combination of a) Kerry voters who don't want to vote for Hillary and b) Bush voters who have ripped the 'W' from their car. What do these groups have in common? Neither of them like President Bush."

To win the Bush refugees over, Dave advises the GOP nominee "to stake out popular conservative positions that win elections ... while also channeling voters' anger at Bush and congressional Republicans." Specifics include: "1) There was no excuse for the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States; 2) There was no excuse for the Administration's handling of Katrina; 3) There is no excuse for the situation in Iraq; 4) There is no excuse for the president's unwillingness to veto a single spending bill; 5) There is no excuse for the president's attempt to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants."

GIULIANI: Keeping Bush And Nixon Out Of Yankee Stadium's Urinals

On vacation when conservative chortling over ex-Pres. Bush aide Michael Gerson's comparison of Rudy Giuliani to Richard Nixon first broke out, The Corner's Peter Robinson notes that Nixon, "gave us a rich profusion of federal bureaucrats and regulations, creating, to note just one of innumerable items, OSHA, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration." Robinson then shares a Giuliani story from his book It's My Party:

The federal government, [Rudy] explained, had just conducted a study of Yankee Stadium, checking it for accessibility to the disabled. The inspectors had found some three thousand instances in which Yankee Stadium failed to meet federal standards. ... "The urinals are too high,' Giuliani continued, laughing. 'The toilet paper dispenser is incorrectly mounted on the back wall of the toilet. Do you believe anybody does this? ... The federal government sent people here from Washington to do this. This is the stupidity they use. They are pointy-headed stupid morons. This is ridiculous! This is ridiculous!'

Robinson concludes: "Rudy Giuliani, a second Richard Nixon? This is ridiculous."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin picks up on Robinson's story and adds: "Apparently the Rudy people liked it so much they linked to their campaign website. If you are trying to make the point that your candidate is the one to take on the federal bureaucracy and is not about to buy into the Beltway mentality, a story like this is too good to be true. It is also very, very funny."

Less impressed with Giuliani, The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru doesn't buy Ronald Brownstein's case that Rudy "is running as a federalist candidate." Ponnuru blogs: "He's no federalist on abortion. Giuliani eventually came out for a federal ban on partial-birth abortion. He used to be for Roe v. Wade, and now refuses to say if it should remain the law of the land. In neither case, then, is he calling for a state-by-state resolution of the issue."

F. THOMPSON: Can't Hardly Wait

Reports of more staff turnover and fundraising woes set off an inspired round of Fred Thompson criticism and defending. Reactions include:

• SC's The Shot: "According to MSNBC, Fred Thompson will report only $3 million on hand. We don't know how true this is, but if it is true, Fred Thompson's campaign is over before it started. With all the buzz about Thompson right now, he should be raising tens of millions.
• AmSpec Blog's James Poulos: "In many ways Fred's phantom campaign has appeared to be too successful, and I don't know about you but a September announcement strikes me as late late late for a very important date. Bottom line is at some point holding off on that announcement does more harm than good. Surely the people on the inside have a better accounting of that than people on the outside. But part of that calculation is the reaction you get in the press...favorable and otherwise."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "When Thompson gets in, most of us expect we will see a savvy, charismatic candidate. But he's taken some lumps in recent weeks, and with each passing week, the expectations for that official announcement speech - when all Republican eyes will be on him - just keep getting higher. ... Perhaps most troubling, Thompson has run into his current (modest) troubles without anyone else in the race really taking a swing at him."
• The Corner's Yuval Levin: "By the time they run for President, most contenders have been in politics in one way or another for some time and have gathered a team of trusted aides who are used to functioning as a group, and who have experience doing so in campaign mode. Thompson doesn't have that (in part because of the peculiar contours of his career) so he's putting it together in a hurry now. ... It's striking how little the Thompson people seem to know about each other. That'll change pretty quickly of course, but it could well change the hard way."
• The Corner's John Podhoretz: "All of this puts me in mind of a great running joke in the 1998 end-of-high-school movie Can't Hardly Wait ... At the beginning of the movie, a rock band forms in the living room to play at the party. As the party goes on, the band begins to squabble about the direction it is taking. The band breaks up around midnight -... Finally, at the end of the movie as the sun begins to rise, the band wistfully reunites for one more number. If Thompson doesn't get into the race pretty soon, all this instability in his ranks is going to turn him into a laughingstock.
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "In the absence of any policy theme or activity by Thompson this now becomes THE story about his campaign. Others offer helpful advice, similar to mine: get a message, do some real interviews and make some news. Unfortunately now all the interviewers will want to talk about is all of this."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I have a suggestion: Instead of all the horse-race, who's in/who's out punditry, how about paying attention to what the candidates actually say and do, and to their actual voting records -- in short, to real substance? ... Thompson isn't imploding. He has surrounded himself with smart people, and he is a very good communicator who is a proven mainstream conservative. He's gonna be very, very much in the mix, and he is well positioned to win the whole thing."
• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "I appreciate the underlying sentiment, Quin, but "paying attention to what the candidates actually say and do" is kind of hard when they don't say or do anything. Jennifer's right: As long as Thompson sits on the sidelines, there's nothing to talk about except for the shakeups in his organization. We can't reasonably be expected to ignore them."

F. THOMPSON II: More Please

Jennifer Rubin's and Quin Hillyer's differing takes on whether Thompson has been diligent enough in promoting his message produced this back and forth at AmSpec Blog:

• from Hillyer: "It's absurd to say that Thompson hasn't said or done anything. Since late February, he has said and done a whole lot of things, in radio and TV interviews, in radio commentaries, and in blog writings, including very erudite debates on federalism with NRO's very thoughtful Ramesh Ponnuru. It is in large part because Thompson has said so much, and said it so well, that he has become a phenomenon of sorts."
• from Rubin: "I agree with much that has been said but must disagree with Quin on one point. I think aside from the conversation you describe with NRO, Thompson has been contentless. His Kudlow interview was a prime example-- other than defending his opposition to tort reform he said he couldn't answer any specific questions."
• from Hillyer: "Not to sound like a total Fred-head, but you must've missed a lot of what he has said. He took a principled stance on Scooter Libby when all the other GOP candidates were waffling. ... His answer to Michael Moore was, of course, very funny, but it also was substantive in that it cut RIGHT to the heart of the matter. And so on. Indeed, his blog writings and radio commentaries have been full of good substance."
• from Rubin: "Quin, we'll have agree to disagree. I've actually covered his speeches and reported on many of them here and elsewhere and what I'm saying is nothing new: a zinger aimed at Michael Moore and a defense of Scooter Libby does not a wonk make. He has set out no tax, energy, spending or health care proposals and has yet to sketch out his ideas on any of these issues, even in broad strokes."

Not linking to the exchange, NRO's Jim Geraghty would seem to come down on Rubin's side: "Fred's appearances this week include another one with Sean Hannity on his tour, and local radio? That's small potatoes compared to the other candidates. ... Imagine if he went out and ripped every foolish comment in the Democrats' debate yesterday. It would have dominated the headlines, and provided a story beyond the personnel shuffle. ... Look, going on Jay Leno is great, and generates a day's worth of talk. Going on Tim Russert would generate a week's worth of talk. Don't like Russert? Fine. Do Larry Kudlow again, or Wolf Blitzer, or anybody on Fox beyond Hannity. Heck, do national talk radio. I think one reason so many Republicans see Thompson as the Great Folksy Hope is his skills as a communicator. So why do we see comparably little of the candidate?"

DEM FIELD: First They Made The Candidates Promise To Work For The Minimum Wage ...

Noting that he originally submitted his challenge on YouTube ("CNN didn't choose it -- maybe Dr. Gupta was making the selections"), Michael Moore asks each WH Dem candidate to promise to forgo all free gov't health care should they be elected. Moore blogs at The Huffington Post: "I want every candidate who said they'd work for the minimum wage as president to work uninsured, too, until health care is universal. And I want the other candidates to join them."

CLINTON: Take No Prisoners

While blogger endorsements for any Dem candidate have been rare this cycle, Hillary Clinton scored the support of The Left Coaster's Steve Soto 7/25. Soto first explains his criteria: "Most capably deal with the biases of the corporate media; Most capably fight the right wing smear machine; Ruthlessly battle the GOP's likely 2008 campaign tactics; Obtain the nomination; and, Most importantly, step into the job in January 2009."

Soto then applies these to HRC: "Among the Top Three, Hillary is 1) electable; 2) the most capable in national security and foreign policy; 3) the most able to address the GOP negligence and abdication of responsibility here at home; and 4) the most able to do the job from the first day in office in January 2009. And she is surrounded with an A-List campaign team that has already demonstrated they will avoid some of the same problems that afflicted the Kerry effort in 2004. She and her team have already demonstrated that they will take no prisoners in dealing with the GOP, will hold the media accountable, and have the requisite toughness and yes, ruthlessness for what is ahead. After 2004, this is critical for me."

Also experiencing a blooming in HRC love, Andrew Sullivan has been posting pro-HRC confessionals from self-described conservative readers including: "As a fellow Republican I have to agree with your reader's comments about Hillary in these debates; she's been hard to hate lately. Just like her husband Bill, she's a very calculating and conniving politician. But maybe that's why she's starting to appeal to some. Her supposed weaknesses are becoming her strengths. After eight years of Bush's off-the-cuff, gut feeling, permanent democratic revolution maybe a politician like Hillary is exactly what the country needs."

OBAMA: Distinguishing On Non Distinctions

The escalating exchange between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over Obama's willingness to meet with rogue regimes is highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses the netroots see in Obama. First, all are in agreement that there is no difference between the candidates on the substance of the issue: both are willing to meet with all world leaders, but would take prudent steps before doing so. From there, Obama supporters celebrate his answer as a sign he is willing to challenge Washington consensus on foreign policy. Obama doubters, however, see a candidate not ready to successfully challenge Washington consensus on foreign policy. Those sympathizing with Obama on the issue include:

• Matthew Yglesias: "One thing I'd note here is that the thing Clinton actually said during the debate struck me as fairly reasonable. Then again, so did what Obama said. ... It does, however, obviously reflect a certain set of beliefs about politics -- specifically that more militarism is always better -- which happen to be the exact same set of beliefs that helped drive so many Democratic elected officials to duck and cover during the initial drive for war. To get the foreign policy right, you need on some level to have someone willing to challenge the hawkish political box. Clinton isn't just failing to do that, she's going way out of her way to reinforce it."
• Atrios: "I'm not saying Obama's judgment about his judgment is necessarily correct, just that the very serious foreign policy people in Washington keep, you know, getting it wrong. The foreign policy establishment ... tries to impose those rules onto candidates, declaring this or that a "foreign policy gaffe," even though it's often only a gaffe to the very serious people who brought us George Bush's excellent Iraqi adventure."
• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "I think Obama can score a lot of points by running against Washington D.C., and I hope he keeps this up. I haven't been too impressed with what all those "experienced" people in Washington have delivered."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "I like the rather overt jab at a foreign policy establishment in Washington, D.C. that keeps getting it wrong. I would still prefer if Obama had a deployment plan that would require fewer American troops in Iraq, and also if he started arguing against frames like the "war on terror" and pre-emptive invasion in a more general sense. ... At its core, Obama's argument is a progressive one, since it emphasizes diversity of experience, rather than hours logged in Washington think tanks, as a means toward achieving better judgment.

Those less than pleased with Clinton's tactics but still giving her the round on political points include:

• The Nation's David Corn: "I can see the ad now: Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, Bashar al-Assad, and Hugo Chavez all strolling into the White House, and a grinning Barack Obama greeting them with a friendly "Welcome, boys; what do you want to talk about?" ... If Obama gets close to the Democratic presidential nomination, pro-Hillary Clinton forces could air such an ad. If he wins the nomination, the Republicans could hammer him with such a spot. And the junior senator from Illinois will not have much of a defense."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "[T]his is politics, not beanbag. Maybe Obama will wake up now and realize that what Clinton did to him is nothing to what Republicans will do to him. HE needs to stop his "above it all" nonsense or he will be eaten alive. Right now he simply is not ready for prime time and has not shown the political acumen or chops to be seriously considered as our Democratic nominee."
• TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent: "Yes, Hillary's criticism of him carried echoes of Bush-Cheney Pelosi-to-Syria claptrap. Nonetheless, agree or disagree with her position, what she actually said was that she wouldn't commit to meeting with leaders of rogue nations in the first year, and rapped Obama for supposedly committing to the same."
• AMERICAblog's AJ Rossmiller: "Fundamentally, this is an example of establishment thinking versus normal thinking. ... His sentiment is absolutely right, but he can't afford to be careless; Clinton is too good to pass up an opening like that."
• The Huffington Post's Conor Friedersdorf: "When I look at those answers, the substance seems almost identical. ... Given the way that campaigns are covered in America Obama's statement definitely qualifies as a gaffe, and Clinton's rejoinder as a shrewd maneuver to take advantage of it."

In other less than positive Obama blogging, MyDD's David Mizner makes the case "Obama is simply not being truthful" about claims his health plan covers all Americans. Mizner blogs: "All of this is not to say that Obama's plan is bad. On the contrary, as [John] Edwards says, it's a "serious" proposal, and there's a case to be made against a mandate. Obama should make it. He should stop mispresenting his plan and argue why the burdens of a mandate outweigh the benefits of universal coverage. But it might be too late; he seems to be stuck with a lie.

IRAQ: That's One Hell Of A Cover

The Plank has posted a statement from the pseudonymous 'Scott Thomas' who wrote the 'Shock Troops' New Republic piece that inspired conservatives to level Stephen Glass-like fabulist charges at the magazine again. Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp blogs: "

I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division. My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier's view of events in Iraq. It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.

Responses from The Corner include:

• Jonah Goldberg: "Isn't this just a bit too precious? The guy writes about how his comrades mock disfigured women, slaughter dogs and wear baby skulls as hats, but he's upset that others have called his and his comrades' character into question? Someone explain that to me. ... In fact, much of the criticism has been that U.S. soldiers would have better characters than those described in his pieces. Sorry: No sale. Scot Thomas Beauchamp may or may not be honest, but he's by no means a victim.


• Mark Steyn: "In English libel law, Private Beauchamp would be regarded as a man with no reputation to defame."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Fox Hunting

The netroots are stepping up their war with Fox News and Bill O'Reilly on a number of fronts. AMERICAblog's John Aravosis identified a billoreilly.com commenter with over 1,000 posts (in other words he is a loyal reader) that once wrote: "If [Hillary] wins my guns are loaded." Aravosis later reports that the Secret Service is now investigating the threat. Aravosis blogs: "Of even greater concern, O'Reilly claims that his Web site is not an open forum, meaning that no one can just walk in and post hate on his Web site. Does this mean that Bill O'Reilly or his proxies approved of the threats against Hillary?"

Attacking Fox and O'Reilly through their sponsors, firedoglake's TRex promotes Brave New Films campaign to pressure Home Depot into dropping its Fox ads. TRex blogs: "Now it's time to get to work. Join with us, the Sierra Club, and MoveOn to put an end to this propaganda and distortion by appealing to Fox's advertisers. Specifically, Home Depot. Why? Because Home Depot says they care about the environment. So we're giving them a chance to prove it by asking them to stop advertising on Fox until it changes its lies and distortions about the climate crisis."

Finally, Crooks and LiarsNicole Belle notes that Keith Olbermann made The Young Turks Cenk Uygur his 'Newsmaker of the Day' for his suggestion that Dems make Fox News correspondents wear a special "opinion media" credential at all official campaign events. Uygur reasons: "Simply put, Fox is a Republican mouthpiece masquerading as fair and balanced news outlet. Even their so-called news anchors and reporters are thoroughly opinionated, slanted, and biased. ... If Fox won't label themselves honestly, it's time for progressives to start doing it for them."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Name Games

Matthew Yglesias explains why he embraces both 'liberal' and 'progressive' labels:

To me, "liberal" denotes a certain political philosophy whereas "progressive" is more like a political coalition. Certain strands of environmentalist thinking are, for example, pretty philosophically alien to my approach to politics, but we're still all part of the same progressive political coalition, opposed to a conservative political coalition that fights any and all restrictions on industry's ability to pollute. More generally, the evidence strongly suggests that the vast majority of people don't have anything resembling a coherent political philosophy. Nevertheless, many of these voters are consistent members of the progressive political coalition out of self-interest, reflex, demographic habit, whatever.

LEST WE FORGET: Breakfast With Bond Starts Next Week!

The Plank's Isaac Chotiner posts the following Matt Damonthoughts on why his Jason Bourne character is infinitely superior to James Bond: "Bond is an imperialist and he's a misogynist. He kills people and laughs and sips martinis and wisecracks about it. ... Bourne is this paranoid guy. He's on the run. He's not the government. The government is after him. He's a serial monogamist who's in love with his dead girlfriend and can't stop thinking about her. He's the opposite of James Bond."

Chotiner comments: "Ugh. Could this be any more self-important? You guys have made three spy movies with no character development!"

7/25: The Shrewd Taming Of The Netroots

Seven months ago we were sure that the netroots would end up being one of the biggest obstacles Hillary Clinton would face on her way to the nomination. Bloggers had recently: 1) installed their preferred choice as head of the DNC; 2) defeated an incumbent Senator and one-time VP nominee in a primary; and 3) played a key role in returning the House and Senate into Dem control. Clinton's '02 vote for the Authorization of Military Force against Iraq had put a target on her back for many in the community and her long time ties to the DLC only exacerbated their mistrust. We were sure that either John Edwards or Barack Obama would solidify netroots support and help use their energy and influence to help topple HRC.

That hasn't happened. Instead HRC slowly built a working relationship with the netroots by astutely avoiding any perceived slights, minimizing policy differences, and seizing all opportunities for common ground. When Bill O'Reilly recently attacked netroots stalwart Daily Kos, Team Clinton quickly moved to defend the community and they kept up the push back 7/24 sending HRC com. dir. Howard Wolfson on to O'Reilly's show to defend HRC's YearlyKos appearance.

This budding partnership is not as odd as it first appears: with Hillary, the netroots get a strong establishment ally willing to defend them; and with the netroots, Hillary gains a formidable bulwark on her left flank. Hillary has made seemingly troubled marriages work in the past. Expect this one to help her in the end as well.

CLINTON: No Sista Soljah Here

Hillary Clinton continued to win hearts and minds among the netroots by sending her comm. dir. Howard Wolfson on The O'Reilly Factor to defend Daily Kos. HRC internet dir. Peter Daou posted this excerpt from the Wolfson at Daily Kos:

I think it's unfortunate that in the last week or so you have cherry picked some comments on the Daily Kos site that you or I or others might find objectionable and decided to smear an entire community - hundreds of thousands of people who go to the site every day, who talk to one another, who participate vigorously in our democracy; and you are urging Democratic presidential candidates to stay away from their yearly conference. And unfortunately with all due respect for you, the days where you can dictate where Senator Clinton and other Democrats go, who we talk to, are over.

Responding to Team Clinton's efforts, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas promotes this comment from a reader: "[O'Reilly] thinks he's destroying kos' credibility when in fact what he is doing is causing all the candidates to stand behind the conference and the web site, and by Hillary being so up front in defending Daily Kos, he is helping people here who don't like her start to rally around her."

Also from the comment boards: "It's not over. A lot of people on this site support Obama and Edwards, but I haven't seen them defend us yet. They'll be at the convention, but they could have done us and themselves some good by defending us a week ago. They're still good candidates, but they blew this round."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat links to Daou's recap of the show and comments: "Peter Daou is the Clinton campaign's internet communications director. One of the folks who get it. It seems clear that Peter has had a voice in the room on this issue. And clearly the Clinton camp listened. This is simply, a brilliant move by the Clinton campaign. To get into a fight with O'Reilly defending the Netroots? To defend partisan Dems, the progressive base, against the noxious O'Reilly? Whatever you think of the Clintons, NO ONE can doubt for a moment their superior ability at the art of politics. And that matters." Crooks and LiarsNicole Belle has the video here.

Tracking 'grudging' praise for HRC on the right (from Andrew Sullivan, Rich Lowry, Byron York, and Kathryn Jean Lopez), MyDD's Todd Beeton blogs: "This on the same day that she's up 3 points in the dailyKos straw poll. Is Clinton proving that she CAN run a primary and general election campaign all at once? It's starting to look like it.

EDWARDS: The More Things Change...

MyDD's Todd Beeton reads John Edwards aide Joe Trippi's post-debate email as a clear sign the Edwards campaign is targeting Barack Obama and not Hillary Clinton. From Trippi's email: "A stark difference between the candidates became clear. When John Edwards said what needed to be said, if we want "real change, big change, bold change...we can't trade our insiders for their insiders." And then urged all of us to stand up for what really matters."

Beeton comments: "What's most interesting is that they managed to communicate all of this without ever actually saying Obama's name or attacking him directly, a similar tactic used by Obama when he decided to make a poverty speech invoking Bobby Kennedy on the very day that Edwards was ending his poverty tour. Message: I'm the candidate with the real credibility on poverty don't listen to that other guy. Edwards is doing the same, making the case that he's the true change candidate. A lot of people expected Hillary to be the target in the debate last night but it looks like the real war that's emerging is between Edwards and Obama for the non-Hillary vote: the vote for change."

OBAMA: What Have You Done For Me Lately?

Pre- and post-invasion Iraq war opponent Open Left's Chris Bowers admits it "will not be a popular position to take online" but goes on to explain why Barack Obama's attempts to rest his foreign policy credentials solely on his pre-invasion opposition to Iraq does not resonate with him and doesn't resonate "with many Americans either." Bowers lists three reasons:

• Don't scold: Currently, between 58% and 64% of the American people think invading Iraq was a bad idea (source). At the time of the authorization for the use of military force, between 58% and 68% of the American people though invading Iraq was a good idea (source). That means that between 16% and 32%, or about one-quarter, of the American public has changed their minds on Iraq since the time of the AUMF. In a real sense, telling Senator Clinton and other candidates they had bad judgment on this issue is very much telling one-quarter of the country they had bad judgment on this issue. People do not like scolding candidates, and that is a large percentage of the electorate to be scolding.
• What is your judgment on Iraq now: While I was in the 30-40% of the public that opposed the war from the beginning, that does not mean I find the withdrawal plans of everyone in that 30-40% equally acceptable, and always superior to the other 60-70% of the country. Far from it, I have repeatedly made it clear that I think Bill Richardson's plan is far and away the best plan. ... The Obama campaign said that it was impossible to know how many troops would be required to stay in Iraq. As someone who opposed the war from the beginning, I clearly and vastly prefer Richardson's plan, which I think shows better judgment on Iraq now.
• Show a Broad Pattern: If a candidate wanted to show that his or her opposition to the Iraq war before the invasion is part of a broad pattern of sound judgment on foreign policy and military matters, then it should be coupled with a statement of general principle on foreign policy and military matters. Just being right on Iraq being wrong does not demonstrate a pattern in and of itself.

Bowers concludes: "I really don't think the AUMF vote narrative is resonating nationwide, and that the Obama campaign needs to try a different tactic. Specifically, that would include an improved redeployment plan, and coupling discussions of the AUMF vote with discussions of general principles on foreign policy. All of that, taken together, would indeed show a pattern of sound judgment on foreign policy and military matters. Unfortunately, right now, this is not a pattern I see any announced candidate fitting into."

OBAMA II: The Education Of Matt Yglesias

Still smarting over the beating his favored candidate took in the MSM over his promise to talk to previously shunned world leaders, Matthew Yglesias devoted three posts 7/24 to defending Barack Obama. Atrios responded to each of them.

First, Yglesias quotes colleague Marc Ambinder, "The press seems to be very keen about Clinton's answer to the dictator meeting question. Whatever "presidential" means to the press -- and it seems to be mean non-pandering, serious, grave and reflective -- Clinton's answer was very "presidential," and then asks: "Marc wonders if "those Democrats who watched the debate on television agree." I'm not sure. I do, though, have a question of my own for him. Doesn't "presidential" in this context, like "serious," just mean "relatively right-wing" rather than 'reflective'?"

Under the header 'Simple Answers to Simple Questions' Atrios responds: "Yes. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions."

Next Yglesias addresses claims that "the little Clinton-Obama exchange over talking to "enemy" foreign leaders" was Clinton "simply trying to underscore her experience level by adding a little nuance to the picture." Yglesias counters: "That seems not to be the case, as she and surrogate Madeleine Albright are using the issue to hit pretty hard at Obama. ... And, of course, if you construe what Obama said to mean that he intends to jet off to Pyongyang without any advance work having been done, I suppose that really would be "irresponsible and frankly naive," but that hardly seems like a fair assessment."

Atrios links and responds: "The audience for this kind of thing aren't Democratic primary voters who aren't necessarily enamored by hawkishness, but the previously mentioned mainstream media who define hawkishness as seriousness. They'll launder the message so that Obama is painted as naive and wimpy. I'm sure it'll all be explained by James Carville on the Situation Room."

Finally Yglesias attempts to link HRC's critique of Obama's answer to 'conservative mediasphere' attacks on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) trip to Syria. Yglesias blogs: "You remember the whole spiel. At the time, I think most liberals -- and, indeed, most Americans -- understood this to be both unfair and also reflective of a pretty weird and wrongheaded underlying worldview. And yet, this is pretty similar to what Hillary Clinton's saying in her criticism of Barack Obama. There's this similar notion that the US can be mortally wounded by perfidious leaders having their photos taken with important American politicians, or that engaging in high-level diplomacy with a country is a reward we offer for good behavior rather than a standard method of relating to the world."

Atrios responds by linking to a recent "stirring defense of direct talks" by HRC and comments: "I'm not claiming there's a direct contradiction here. In the latest round Clinton's talking about presidential meetings, instead of just standard diplomacy. But these distinctions are rather unimportant. Either in general terms it's important to reach out to the leaders of countries we have disagreements with or it isn't."

Also commenting on the Obama "answer on meeting with anathema regimes," TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta shares a "political practitioner friend who's no Hillary Clinton shill" email: "Hillary nailed him...for a...reason, subsumed within the larger distinction between their answers: The Cuba issue. It would be bracing if a Democratic candidate coherently and bravely made the case to change our irrational policy toward Cuba. But that's not what Obama was doing -- he just checked off a list of authoritarian leaders ... If a Dem candidate could shave the GOP Cuban American edge from 80-20 to 60-40, they wouldn't have to worry about Ohio because they'd win Florida."

GOP FIELD: What About Fred?

First explaining why he's already eliminated most of the field (Ron Paul: Do I really need to explain this to anyone?; John McCain: My beef with McCain is his immigration sham he helped to try and pass [and] the McCain-Feingold fiasco; Rudy Giuliani: I just think this guy is a liberal in conservative clothing; Duncan Hunter: I think he's far more valuable to us in Congress than he would be as the President; Tom Tancredo: one-trick pony; Tommy Thompson: when he gets passionate about something, instead of getting that passion across, he comes off as about to have a stroke or something), IA Voice goes on to explain what he likes and doesn't like about the rest of the declared WH '08ers including:

• Mitt Romney: After seven years of Bush mangling the English language and giving speeches that my 8-year old son could give better, I'm certainly ready for an effective communicator as President.
• Mike Huckabee: I like this guy. He's funny, witty, and he's got the added bonus of cleaning up after Clinton.
• Sam Brownback: Mr. Brownback barely makes it to this list, and that's simply because he hasn't done or said anything that would kick him off here as of yet.

GIULIANI: He's Here, He's Viable, Get Used To It

The Corner's John Podhoretz responds to Larry Sabato claims that Rudy Giuliani is only half a contender: "[I]t is really verging on the inadvertently comic to continue to say that the guy who is leading in two Southern states (as you note) and in national polls and is the only Republican in national polls who beats both Hillary and Obama is running behind someone who isn't in the race yet and someone else who is barely in double digits nationwide. As I always say, Rudy may not make it to the convention as the party's nominee. But it doesn't make sense to keep acting as though he's an also-ran. If you want to defeat him, you're going to have to do better than pretending he can't win."

Also talking Rudy, abortion, and polls, AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin Washington Post poll results showing Giuliani up 20 points over Fred Thompson and John McCain and comments: "Giuliani of course still may not win. It is way too early to declare a winner or even a safe bet. Thompson could live up to expectations or McCain could revive or social conservatives could finally rally around Mitt Romney. That said, some pundits are going to have to drop the assumption that the GOP is incapable of selecting someone who is not pro-life."

HUNTER: Doing His Best

Conservative write ups to a 7/24 Duncan Hunter blogger conference call include:

• Race 4 '08s Kavon Nikrad: "He was working late to fight for his amendment to the transportation bill under debate which block the implementation of the NAFTA Superhighway. The proposed highway would form a corridor which would unite Mexico, the U.S. and Canada. ... Rep. Hunter believes that the fight against this Superhighway is more than just an issue of fair trade. Several Chinese companies operate out of Mexican ports that will be serviced by this Superhighway. This is a national security issue.
• IA Voice: "I asked what his thoughts were on the Iowa Straw Poll, why he thought McCain and Giuliani have skipped it, and how well he thought he'd do. Here's what he said about the Straw Poll, which took less than a minute to answer. He said he's been in Iowa recently, been to several fairs, been to a shooting range, etc., and he's looking forward to coming back. He said he's never been to the Iowa Straw Poll before, but he's going to do his best.

MCCAIN: It's Anything But Immigration, Stupid

Conservative write ups to a 7/24 John McCain blogger conference call include:

• Captain's Quarters: "John McCain has gotten back to holding regular conference calls with bloggers, and today he talked about his economic plan for a McCain presidency. ... Me: Fair tax -- can we shift to a consumption tax? McCain says that it would be complicated to determine what to tax. Bread? Milk? We'd be left to taxing Bentleys, "which as you know most bloggers drive". He wants to form a commission to look at the options. Estonia has a 22% flat tax. Why can't we do the same?"
• NRO's Jim Geraghty quoting McCain on other candidates on Iraq: "I don't pay that much attention to the other campaigns, but I do know that some weeks ago Romney suggested we have secret plan for withdrawal. It's pretty hard to keep a secret plan a secret at the Pentagon... I'm in the arena. I'm the one who's fighting, I'm standing for what I believe in. It's a bit ironic, as I was greatest critic of failed strategy of Rumsfeld and Casey."
• Eye on '08: "Rob Bluey asks about last night's Democratic debate. Barack Obama said he would meet with leaders of bad countries. McCain called that perspective "naive". When we sit down with the Iranians, what's the first topic? Israel? Nuclear weapons? Or IEDs that they export to Iraq?"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "I asked Senator McCain about reforming Sarbanes-Oxley ... It was good to hear McCain say he made a mistake in voting for the original legislation in 2002, and that it needs to be redrafted from scratch."
• NY Sun's Ryan Sager: "I asked whether Mr. McCain was still committed to the early state strategy. The senator said he is, though he also said states like Michigan and Florida would be important."

PAUL: Home Is Where The Platform Is

AmSpec Blog's James Antle tracks Andrew Sullivan and Ross Douthat musings on why Ron Paul doesn't run as the Libertarian Party nominee like he did in '88 and concludes: "Paul has gotten much more attention as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. ... Being a Republican has made it possible for Paul to win ten terms in Congress, a feat no Libertarian could replicate. He is planning on running for reelection, something that an LP bid would complicate. Finally, any improvement in Paul's vote totals as a third-party candidate would owe in large part to his early Republican bid. ... Paul is better off as a Republican."

ROMNEY: Absolute Mitt

Mitt Romney sat for an interview with Pajamas Media in Okoboji, IA, where he committed "absolutely" to victory on Iraq and said of the surge: "No one has put forward a Plan B that is superior to that one."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt links and writes: "This is exactly what the GOP Big Three need to say, again and again. Campaign '08 should be a referendum on the necessity of victory victory in Iraq and the broader war, and stark contrast between the Republicans committed to victory and the defeatist Democrats."

In less positive Romney blogging, John McCain aide and Ankle Biting Pundits blogger Patrick Hynes picks up on revelations that Romney aide Will Ritter "claims to be Romney's 'special ops' guy who operates in the 'underbelly of politics'" on his MySpace page and comments: "He joins former Romney staffer Jay Garrity in the society of fake thugs. ... These people are not doing Gov. Romney any favors; I have no idea why the campaign continues to defend them. And as a sharp Romney critic, I am beginning to fear for my own personal safety, what with all these rogue Romney vigilantes running around."

F. THOMPSON: A New Beginning Or The Beginning Of The End?

Conservative reactions to the departure of ex-Reagan aide Tom Collamore from Fred Thompson's campaign include:

• The Corner's Rich Lowry quotes a GOP strategist: "This is a campaign in trouble and it hasn't even started."
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "CNN suggests it is a reaction to conflicts with Thompson's wife who acts as a key advisor. Others, like I, can do no more than speculate but several observations are in order. So far Thompson has lacked a forceful message, has had a tough time handling the first curve ball which came his way (i.e. the pro-choice lobbying snafu) and has set himself adrift until a September announcement while opposing camps begin to slowly beat up on him. If this move cures these problems and sets his campaign on a well defined and aggressive course, it will be all for the better. If not, and this shake up is indicative of an enduring lack of focus and internal rifts, it will be the beginning of a long stumble."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Talked to one of the Thompson Associates. I asked about the CNN report that Collamore departed after clashing with Thompson's wife Jeri. This associate discouraged that line of thought. ... 'You might say we're going through some growing pains. Tom [Collamore] was an operations guy, more of a chief operations officer, not so much a political guy, or a campaign guy, and we're moving past the operations phase. We have office space, we have communications pros, we have fundraising pros, we have our senior strategy team in place.'"
• RedState's Mark Kilmer: "[Collamore's] resignation means that the campaign operation is almost assembled. Call this, touted by some blogger as a sign the former senator now has a top flight organization almost in place, and is almost ready to go forward."

Also, NY Sun's Ryan Sager reads New York's new profile so conservatives don't have to and concludes: "While it's certainly not flattering, I don't think it's terribly damaging. It's not nice to Fred, and is even a little condescending toward his supporters, but it doesn't do much to lay a glove on him."

IMPEACHMENT: Fredo First

Tonsofbloggercoverageon AG Alberto Gonzalez' 7/24 testimony before the Senate Jud. Cmte. By the end of the day, a clear consensus for impeachment had developed:

• Digby: "I famously set forth my reservations about impeaching Bush and Cheney (and paid the price in pieces of my hide.) But I have none about impeaching this guy and I think it might even be (remotely) possible to get 17 Republicans to vote to convict."
• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "Such hubris and disrespect for Congress (including its minority), that I don't think 17 Republican votes to convict are out of the question."
• Hunter at Daily Kos: "If Alberto Gonzales does not have the good sense to resign -- now -- then he needs to be removed. Now. There is no possible excuse for his behavior: there is no possible justification for him remaining in the job."
• Meteor Blades at Daily Kos: "There's a remedy for stonewalling. We all know what it is. Somebody at the House Judiciary Committee ought to be drafting the articles of impeachment right this minute."
• Crooks and LiarsJohn Amato: "The Democrats need to stop worrying about the Republican attack dogs and get this man out. He placed his loyalty for Bush and Cheney above the needs of the country. The only thing missing from his resume is a degree from Pat Robertson's Regent University."
• The Huffington Post's Joseph Palermo: "It is time for Chairman Patrick Leahy of the Senate Judiciary Committee to take the gloves off. ... Only a full on Constitutional showdown this summer can begin to heal the wounds George Bush has inflicted on our republic."
• Jane Hamsher at firedoglake: "The facts and extent of harm must be fleshed out in a formal investigation, the public must be allowed to understand the full nature and extent of what has occurred, and those responsible must be held to account. If not, the ugly beast continues to raise it's ugly head with impunity in the future."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "Impeach Gonzales"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Not Their Theory Of Justice

TAPPED's Ezra Klein objects to Linda Hirschamnclaims that Dems are "wandering around justifying their policies based on Rawlsian appeals." Klein reasons:

Democrats were fighting for an expanded social safety net and a more equal society before the 1971 publication of Rawls' A Theory of Justice, and they were fighting for much the same things, in much the same terms, after 1971. Indeed, Mike Tomasky's "Common Good" approach, which Hirschman identifies as an alternative to the tired Rawlsian rhetoric of yesteryear, is actually a throwback to rhetoric from the 30s, 40s, and 50s, something Mike acknowledges explicitly in his article.
There's lots to criticize about Democrats, to be sure. But an over-reliance on on philosophical first principles just ain't on the list.

LEST WE FORGET: It's True, Congress Does Need More Level 70 Dwarf Priests

Game Politcs links to Pacific Daily Newsreports that Guam state Sen. Ray Tenorio is "a Level-70 Dwarf Priest in World of Warcraft." GP asks: "What if a senator was playing games instead of bashing them? It's already happening in Guam, where Sen. Ray Tenorio (left) is a serious, level-70 WoW player. Tenorio's avatar is a Dwarf priest named Paleray on the Silverhand server. He's a member of a guild, of course, the Knights of the Marianas."

7/24: Killing Them Softly

Unlike CNN, we did not conduct a post-debate focus group, but we did spend an inordinate amount of time in Daily Kos and MyDD debate comment threads and we can confidently say that Hillary Clinton was, again, the consensus winner of 7/23 CNN/YouTube debate. As favorability straw polls conducted by DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas demonstrate, HRC is by far the netroots' least favorite of the big three. Yet somehow after every single one of HRC's debate performances so far, the Daily Kos comments boards read like Clinton campaign press releases.

The strengths that the debates highlight (the depth of her knowledge on the issues, her willingness to take command of the forum, and calm of her presence) all reinforce the campaign line on why she is a better choice than Barack Obama and John Edwards: she is ready to lead now. If Edwards and Obama are losing ground among the only demogrpahics predisposed not to like HRC, what hope do they have with the rest of the electorate?

DEM DEBATE: Joementum's Back!!!

Outside of what has now become an expected dominant performance by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden was the surprise winner of 7/23's YouTube debate. Open Left's Chris Bowers links to Survey USA numbers showing Biden's favorability ratio jumped 38 points among debate viewers. Bowers is slightly dismissive of the reasons behind Biden's newfound popularity, noting that among the "mini-focus" he watched the debate with his "friends all gasped" when they heard Biden mention his wife and daughter "were killed during the early days of his Senate career."

Chris Dodd once again ran his Talk Clock tracking speaking times for each candidate. Barack Obama led the league with 15:11 of air time (HRC had 12:26 and John Edwards had 10:30). Bill Richardson's 9:18 led among the also ran's with Mike Gravel's 4:10 bringing up the rear. Atrios links and makes the case for more time for the little guys: "I appreciate that polls/fundraising are going to impact which candidates generally get the most coverage, but I also think that there's no reason for such things to be reinforced by time given to candidates during debates. At least this early it seems like a good time for the media to highlight "lesser" candidates. Perhaps later they can be weeded out based on some objective criteria."

CLINTON: A Woman Among Boys

Hillary Clinton was the consensus, but not unanimous, winner among independent bloggers, and again won many converts among the Barack Obama and John Edwards favored Daily Kos crowd. First, some representative dKos takes:

• Have to Admit: Hillary I'm an Obama supporter (with Gore in my heart), but holy crap is Hillary good at this. She's a fracking pro, I don't know how anyone could watch this and say otherwise.
• She's been the best in every debate to date. I'm an Obama guy, too, but I have to admit Hillary is a danged good candidate and the "pick of the litter".
• I'm surprised by Hillary. I'm much more impressed by her than I expected.
• I was never a fan of Hillary. Edwards has been my candidate so far. But Hillary is beginning to impress me a lot. She's good, she's loosening up, and she's beginning to kick ass, and not just in debates. I have a growing feeling that she's the only one who can really take the fight up to the rethugs and all their dirty tricks.
• Hillary never misses an chance to take the lead. EVER.
• I think she's closed the sale with me. I have a Gore '08 sticker on my car, but I've about given up on my hopes that he'll run. And now I'm starting to get excited by Hillary. She will pummel whoever the Republicans nominate in the debates.
• I Want to Vote for Sen. Clinton Right Now! Actually, everyone is showing pretty well. Proud to be a Dem.

Other reactions include:

• Matthew Yglesias: "Hillary Clinton is the front runner. She didn't stumble at all, she hit a few high points, and since nobody tried to tear her down, nobody succeeded in tearing her down. Under the circumstances, it's a clear win for her."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Clinton once again gets points for projecting strength and decisiveness without saying "I'm strong and decisive" as well as for her ability to elicit emotional reactions with her responses."
• Andrew Sullivan: "Her response to the dynastic question - a difficult one - was the first time she has ever brought a smile to my lips. She's so much better a debater and performer than she used to be. You know how much I hate to say this: but she destroyed the opposition tonight: out-classing it, out-debating it, and avoiding the usual pitfalls. I wish it weren't so, but it's what I saw. If she keeps this up, it's hers."
• The Plank's Michael Crowley: "But the one who stood out was Hillary. She shows really impressive poise and confidence, and didn't lose her stride even in the face of offbeat questions about her gender and voter fatigue with the Clinton and Bush families."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Hillary was damn good. She's perfected the art of looking presidential. I think they all did well tonight, but I'm not sure anyone shook things up enough to change the rankings."
• The Huffington Post's Howard Fine: What will win votes is the overall appearance- whether, in short, the candidate appears presidential. Hillary was extraordinary in this regard.

EDWARDS: Doesn't Translate Well

John Edwards scored points on health care, but stumbled badly on gay marriage, and ultimately changed few minds. Daily Kos reactions include:

• Edwards cleft palate story. Actually heard this at his speech this past weekend at the YDA convention in Dallas. Didn't translate as well here in debate format. I'm telling you, when he gives it on the stump, it's powerful, powerful stuff.
• I hate to say I was disappointed in Edwards tonight. He did not handle the gay marriage question well at all. He stumbled about supporting civil marriage for gays with some line that he struggles with issue but he won't let his religious beliefs interfere with his duties as president. ... My partner and I watched and our jaws dropped during his response.
• He was good overall. Hillary was spectacular. But JRE won it, and he won it on healthcare.
• It was actually about the "die in vain" question, but he got it. He called out people for complaining about the Iraqi government for going on vacation without also calling out Bush for going on vacation in Crawford at the same time while our troops die.

Non-Kossack Edwards thoughts include:

• The Huffington Post's John Neffinger: "Edwards did not show us anything we have not seen before. He is emotive and smart and engaged, but did not show us the gravitas of a commander in chief on the security issues.
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Edwards was strong but I didn't see much I haven't seen before."
• Andrew Sullivan: "It still frustrates. They still won't actually answer the simple question: Why do you oppose equal marriage rights? I'm sorry but I'm not interested in John Edwards' "personal journey". In fact, I'm extremely uninterested. I want to know what his argument is. He disavows the religious rationale but offers no other. If it's the "ick" factor, let us know. If you can't justify that, then live up to your own convictions. Obama was just as evasive."
• Digby: "I personally thought the best answer of the night went to Edwards, who gave a much better performance tonight than he has in earlier debates. His answer to the health care question was passionate and heartfelt and he made a better case for the need for universal health care in his anecdote than any of the others did. He seemed to me to be deeply engaged."
• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Saddest moment? Edwards saying he was personally against gay marriage because of his Southern Baptist faith. I can't presume to know how Edwards truly feels about marriage equality, but either he has a moral view I deeply disagree with, or he's pandering to an extent with which I'm uncomfortable."

OBAMA: Rookie Of The Year

After Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, Barack Obama received the most nods for winner of the evening. The clear theme running through Obama related comments: he's getting better at this. Those scoring the night for Obama include:

• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "But from what I've seen so far, a highlight was Obama saying he'd meet in person with the leaders of Iran, South Korea, and Syria within the first year of his administration."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "As for a winner, I think Obama gets points for most improved performance, as he finally seems to be translating his rock star rally appeal to the more intimate and time constrained debate format; his answers were quick, forceful and substantive."
• TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta: "Barack Obama owned this debate. He started off with a series of clear, crisp answers that deftly turned questions to his advantage, and he was doing that Obama thing that he does where he manages to look luminous and transcendent, as if he just stepped out of a Wordsworth poem, trailing clouds of glory."
• The Huffington Post's John Neffinger: "Obama is looking more relaxed than he has in the previous debates. He's speaking fluidly, and off the cuff. He looks on top of his game. He's calm and collected tonight. ... Obama did not recapture the magic that brought him here tonight, but he definitely helped his cause."

Daily Kos reactions include:

• I dont understand. Why there's so much distaste for Obama. He's my top pick so far. Perfect mix of idealism and pragmatism if you ask me.
• I like that he seems to look at things with fresh eyes and to take a fresh approach to things. But he does seem to lack a certain depth. I'm thinking especially of his answer about nuclear technology, but I saw it in other answers too.
• Obama: GREAT answer on the minimum wage. because he is finally starting to loosen up and be himself.
• Obama started out so good on Social Security. He knows what it is: "a floor beneath none us can sink." But Barack, honey, there's nothing wrong with Social Security. It's solvent as hell. We don't need a "bipartisan solution" for a problem that doesn't exist.
• Obama is right, political reform is necessary. Obama has made this a central theme of his campaign. We won't have sustained progressive change without political reform. We can make all the progressive policy proposals in the world and we won't have anything but a few short-term victories if the corporate lobbyists still own the debate.Reform is necessary.
• Not impressed by Obama. I like him but he's not ready for prime time.
• Obama did really step it up. I thought he started putting flesh on his "change" skeleton. Time after time he discussed the corporate takeover of government. The change he's bringing is restoring power to the people.

BIDEN: Why Shouldn't We Like Joe Biden?

Usually not a place known for Joe Biden love,many Daily Kos commenters were impressed with Biden, including:

• Biden, on the other hand, impressed me this time. I think he broke out a bit tonight.
• Biden at least gives the impression. Of know what he's talking about when he discusses the logistics of withdrawal. How far he's right, I dunno.
• Tell me again why I shouldn't like Biden?Ok, ok... so yes, he's from Delaware. YES I know he is D-MBNA. YES, he can be very "animated" and a bit of a camera hog... but none of those things are total disqualifiers for me. He's smart. He knows what he's talking about. He's got a strong defense background, he's experienced... So why shouldn't I like him?
• I'm an Obama guy. but I give the debate to Biden tonight. There was a real emotional power behind several of his answers that I found moving.
• The highlight was the automatic weapon guy. Jered Townsend, brandishing an automatic weapon, asked the candidates' position on gun control. Sen. Joe Biden responded 'that guy needs help. I hope he doesn't come looking for me!"

DEM FIELD: Best Of The Rest

Daily Kos reactions to the rest of the candidates includes:

• Chris Dodd: "Dodd has a kid in kindergarten? Oy, veh--how old is he?"
• Mike Gravel: "Gravel took the train, then the bus then he walked in the snow...up-hill...both ways!!!
• Dennis Kucinich: ""Text peace" and Dennis will release the unicorns and rainbows and give you a free pootie."
• Bill Richardson: "SCRAP No child left behind. Nice answer, he now seems to be answering based on what he believes and feels, not on what he had written down on a piece of paper. Good answer! Minimum wage for all teachers, emphasize science, and math."

DEM FIELD II: Still John's Domain

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas conducted the 7/07 Daily Kos straw poll pre-deabte 7/23. John Edwards fell 3 points, Barack Obama gained 4, and Hillary Clinton gained 3 from 6/07's results. The top five vote getters include:

John Edwards 37%
Barack Obama 26%
Hillary Clinton 9%
Other 7%
No Clue 5%

Kos also tried a new question, this time asking for favorability numbers on the top four Daily Kos straw poll vote getters. In order of popularity: Edwards (79% fav/13% unfav/7% und); Obama (70% fav/12% unfav/17% und); Bill Richardson (51% fav/22% unfav/26% und); Hillary Clinton (38% fav/43% unfav/17% und).

DODD: Be Prepared

Anticipating that Chris Dodd would not get as much speeking time as the big three, Dodd filmed answers to the four questions listed as favorites on Community Counts. Crooks and Liars Nicole Belle rounds up all four videos including: On impeachment of GW Bush; What about the non religious voters?; Presidential Debate Question - Fuel Problem; What will YOU do to protect independent voices in the media?

GOP FIELD: Lamest Duck Ever

Talking with conservatives at an American Spectator lunch 7/23, Newt Gingrich painted a bleak picture for the GOP should they fail to distance themselves as far away from Pres. Bush as possible. NRO's Jim Geraghty quotes Gingrich, "If, by this time next year, we're still in the Bush era, we lose." Geraghty adds: "Newt said that if the country is still in the 'Bush era' - meaning that the GOP nominee does not represent a break from Bush's policies - and somehow the Republicans win anyway, "we will be in a shambles." Perhaps surprisingly, Gingrich said the wisest thing President Bush could do on the Iraq debate is 'be quiet.' He recommended Bush let Gen. Petreus and Ambassador Crocker go to Capitol Hill and deal with the Democrats."

BROWNBACK: The Wicked Warlock Of East Kansas

Tracking Sam Brownback attacks on Mitt Romney over the Boy Scouts and MA's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth The Brody File comments: "Quite frankly, I've laid off these stories in the past. But once the Brownback campaign brought them up, it's fair game. It's gone to another level. You had to figure that sooner or later all of this was going to be used by a rival campaign. Brownback's campaign makes the most sense. He is stuck in the second tier and must do well in the Iowa straw poll."

Later Brody shares reader reaction to the Brownback/Romney feud:

• "Does this issue matter? In my hometown, I know a woman who is on the local Scout council and is also a member of Romney's church. I heard her tell her father that this is the issue that makes her the most upset with Romney, her fellow Mormon, and she will not vote for him in the GOP primary."
• "All we hear from Brownback press releases is his attacks on Romney. As a third tier candidate without traction, what is Brownback still doing in the race? Is he the designated hit man for one of the top tier candidates? Is he angling for a VP position? Is his remaining goal in this campaign to bring down Romney? His energy would be better spent attacking Democrats."
• "Is it me, or does Brownback spend more time criticizing Romney than he does talking about his own political beliefs? It seems to me that the only resonating message Brownback has been able to convey is that he can't stand Romney. I wish Brownback would focus his efforts more on his own campaign and less on trying to tear the down the Romney campaign."

GINGRICH: Spider Pygmie, Spider Pygmie, It Does What Ever I Spider Pygmie Does

More than a few conservatives in attendance at The American Spectator's 7/23 lunch with Newt Gingrich left with the impression Gingrich was leaning toward entering the race. NRO's Jim Geraghty blogs: "I wouldn't say it's certain that Newt Gingrich is running for president, but he certainly sounds like a guy inclined to run."

Gingrich wowed the audience with his prescriptions for current GOP malaise, but his attacks on those currently in the field did ruffle some feathers. On Gingrich's genius, AmSpec's David Hogberg blogs: "Gingrich's analysis of the problems with the GOP is one of the best I've heard. No two ways about it. Newt is brilliant. Unfortunately, Newt knows he is brilliant. As a result, he has little control over his ego. If Newt were to run for President, all of his deficiencies as a leader would surely come to the fore again, and the media would have a field day chewing him up. Given how bleak things look right now, the GOP hardly needs the drag that would be the Newt for President campaign."

Also at AmSpec, Jennifer Rubin argues that in or out, Gingrich does have a future in the GOP: "I leave it to others to speculate as to whether Newt will join the race. Either way, he stands to play a key and perhaps decisive role in determining the nominee. If he chooses not to run but to endorse another candidate it could be one of the few endorsements that really matters since it offers the prospect of Newt playing a role in the endorsee's administration. If, on the other hand, he chooses to run he can shape the debates and the race even if he can't win it."

Duncan Hunter aide John Hawkins at Right Wing News, however, was less than pleased by Gingrich's description of the current GOP field as "a pathetic bunch of pygmies." Hawkins responds: "what does it say about Newt that he would be in a distant 5th place amongst the "pygmies" if he got into the race today? ... ne of these guys, not Newt, is going to be the Republican nominee. ... What we don't need is Newt Gingrich standing around, with his nose in the air, telling everyone that the people we're choosing from stink, primarily because they're not him."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff argues that, maybe, the pygmie line was not directed at the other candidates: "The reference to pygmies may or may not have encompassed the current Republican field, but certainly meant the folks who participate in the process of sorting out the field, such as Chris Matthews to whom Gingrich referred several times."

HUCKABEE: Paging Mike Gerson

At BeliefNet, David Kuo shares the following email from "a conservative Christian friend who works in Washington" touting Mike Huckabee: "If you are like me, you are pretty dissatisfied with the current so-called "frontrunners" in the upcoming Presidential election. But there is one candidate that is quietly getting more attention and support that provides the kind of leadership that our country so desperately needs. And that's former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. ... He's a true conservative, but doesn't let himself be defined by divisive conservative issues. Though he is as pro-life as anybody, he often remarks that life does not end at birth and that we have a responsibility to take care of people throughout their whole lives - the children, the poor, and the elderly. And he's not afraid to talk about the typical "liberal" issues like the environment, education, and even poverty."

Andrew Sullivan links and comments under the header 'Bush's Successor': "It's Mike Huckabee: a big spending, Wilsonian, Christianist interventionist. I wonder why Mike Gerson isn't writing his speeches."

ROMNEY: Mitt's Ears Hurt

Watching the Dem debate The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez remarks: "Is it a good sign for Mitt Romney that his name came up multiple times? One assumes they didn't bring up Mike Huckabee for a reason (sorry, Guv)."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Demography Is Destiny

Responding to Cenk Uygur claims that progressive blogs are leading indicators in American politics, Open Left's Chris Bowers looks more closely at blogosphere demographics and Hillary Clinton's relative weak support in the medium and concludes that progressive bloggers are less influential in presidential politics than Uygur suggests. Bowers looks at Pew data and writes: "Virtually every demographic group where Clinton underperforms relative to her national standing also happens to be a demographic group that is over-represented in the progressive blogosphere." Bowers lists:

• Clinton does worse, and is basically tied with Obama, among self-identified liberals than she does among self-identified moderates or conservatives. The progressive blogosphere is teeming with self-identified liberals.
• Clinton does worse, and is basically tied, with Obama, among men. The progressive blogosphere is something like 65% male.
• The younger voters become, the worse Clinton seems to do. While the progressive blogosphere is certainly not young, with an average age of 46, it is younger than the Democratic primary electorate as a whole. Again, this means one would expect Clinton to not perform as well in the progressive blogosphere as she does nationally.
• Clinton is losing to Obama among Democrats with a college degree. Well, 80% of the progressive blogosphere has a college degree, and nearly half have post-graduate degrees.
• Clinton is losing to Obama among Democrats who make more than $100K a year, and barely ahead among Democrats who make $75K-$99K. With a Median annual income of about $80K, once again the progressive blogosphere matches a demographic where Clinton uderperforms.
• Clinton is getting annihilated among seculars. While this is a less explored area of progressive blogosphere demographics, every indication I have seen is that seculars make up an enormous percentage of the blogosphere-possibly as high as 45-50%.

LEST WE FORGET: If Only ...

Cracked.com identifies the "6 Movie Formulas That Must Be Stopped" including:

• Young, Hip, (Read: Black) Guy Invades Typically White World. Who Did It Best: Trading Places. Who Did It Worst: We're calling this one early for Who's Your Caddy? Why It Needs To Stop: If we wanted to see a fast-talking black guy infiltrate a world that still thinks black people will eventually just disappear, we'd watch Trading Places. If we wanted to watch that same exact premise but throw in a rapper or two, we'd watch How High. If we wanted a movie with the same black-meets-white premise, plus rappers and golf, we'd watch The Legend of Bagger Vance.
• Father Is Wronged by Gang; Kills Entire Planet. Who Did It Best: It was a tough call between Man on Fire and Death Wish, but we're giving it to the latter for it's slightly more totally insane approach. Who Did It Worst: Surprisingly enough, Death Wish III. Why It Needs To Stop: Two weeks after Death Sentence disappoints you at the box office, Jodie Foster comes out with The Brave One, the story of a woman who, you guessed it, sets out on a revenge-focused murder buffet after her husband is killed. Two movies. Two weeks. One plot. Oh, except this time it's a woman. So it's different.
• Put Robin Williams in a Comedy, Sit Back and Let Him Work His Magic. Who Did It Best: Death to Smoochy. Who Did It Worst: Our toughest call on this entire list. ...There are just so many awful movies. Why It Needs To Stop: We're at a total loss for the best Robin Williams comedy. Mrs. Doubtfire, maybe? He threw a piece of fruit at Pierce Brosnan. That's gotta stand for something, right? Aladdin gets points because we don't ever actually have to see Williams once, though the same five or six impressions he's been doing his entire career are everywhere. Without a standout winner, it is reasonable to conclude, then, that this formula has never once worked, which is astounding considering it's been used for close to thirty years and shows no signs of stopping.

7/23: An End To Fortune 500 Sponsorship, Or The Beginning Of Partisan Brands?

Is Jet Blue's decision to drop their association with YearlyKos the start of a new era in corporate/pol. party relations? As DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas points out, it is impossible to label the 8/2-5 convention a "hate gathering" since "just about the entire Democratic Party leadership" will be addressing the convention. If anything YearlyKos is just about the most accurate preview of the '08 Dem Convo that you'll see. If those in the netroots follow through with their threats to retaliate by targeting Fox News sponsors (first up, Home Depot), and are successful, will corporations be forced to choose sides or abandon the political arena all together (like Jet Blue did)? And if so, would that even be a bad thing?

DEM FIELD: Favorite Sonless

Browsing through the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, Open Left's Chris Bowers noted that very few bloggers had endorsed any of the WH '08 Dems. Bowers writes: "This is a stark reversal from 2003-2004, when public blogger endorsements of Democratic presidential candidates were the order of the day." Among the reasons Bowers identifies for the lack of blogger enthusiasm for any one candidate, is the desire not to divide the netroots community. More Bowers: "Even though there has so far been a record-breaking amount of activism on behalf of Democratic presidential campaigns this cycle, the progressive blogosphere and netroots community remains profoundly divided on which candidate it supports. ... Since bloggers are ultimately accountable to their readers, a divided community makes a forthright, activist public endorsement impossible for me. I can't represent the community if I start taking unilateral action against the wishes of many in the community."

NV CAUCUS: Our Democracy Needs More Open Bars

Reno and Its DiscontentsMyrna Minx pens a snarky FAQ on the 1/19 NV Caucus including: "Basically, everyone is directed into a large venue where they mill around for hours trying to find out what precinct they belong to and where that precinct meets. Then you spend a few more hours with other members of your precinct yelling and stomping your feet and wishing there was an open bar. Finally, whoever is the most obnoxious Democrat in your precinct gets a chance to compete against other blowhards to represent you and your neighbors (no doubt very badly) at the national convention in Denver next year."

On who will win, Myrna informs: "All that needs to be determined is who the Culinary Union is going to endorse. Otherwise, forget about any other candidate surviving the process besides Clinton. However, if Edwards wins the Iowa Caucus and is endorsed by the Culinary Union, a major surprise could be in order."

BIDEN: Ex-Lieberman Staffers Wanted

Atrios celebrates his first Joe Biden press release by posting Biden's YouTube response to Rudy Giuliani's YouTube spotlight question. Atrios also takes the opportunity to note Biden has hired former Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) aide Marion Steinfels, but decides not to hold it against him since: "Working in his favor is the fact that Lieberman fired her."

CLINTON: Kos Hearts Hil

Acknowledging that single digit online straw poll showings and net unfav ratings among MoveOn.org members tend to reinforce the perception that "Hillary Clinton is not a blogosphere favorite," Open Left's Chris Bowers examines how deep netroots distrust of Clinton is, and actually finds anti-Clinton feelings to be a distinct minority in the community.

Taking a closer look at the MoveOn numbers Bowers notes: "While the above graph shows her with a net negative favorable ratio among regular blog readers, she actually has a +20% net favorable ratio among occasional progressive blog readers. Thus, among all blog readers, she actually has a slightly net positive favorable ration, at 52%-47%." Also combing through Daily Kos and MyDD diaries on HRC, Bowers finds that "anti-Clitnon" entries "made up less than 1% of the articles written on Dailykos and MyDD over the last month."

Bowers concludes: "In the end, this means we might be talking about a very small percentage of the progressive blogosphere that both vehemently dislikes her, and would very much like to see another announced candidate win the Democratic nomination. Even among those people, "stopping Clinton" might not even be a particularly high political priority for them, either now, because it is still almost five months before the earliest possible date for the state of the primaries, or even later, simply because presidential politics is not their chief focus."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas, for one, is clearly warming up to HRC's nomination: "It's not every day that a candidate has as good a week as Hillary just did. ... First of all, she burnished her "anti-war" credentials after a Pentagon official ... essentially accuses her of treason ... Then she burnished her "netroots" credentials by aggressively taking on Bill O'Reilly and defending YearlyKos and Daily Kos. ... Finally, she burnished her "woman" credentials after the Washington Post discovered that -- gasp! -- she has boobs. .. Not too shabby."

OBAMA: The Reluctant Populist?

Open Left's Matt Stoller is beginning to like what he is hearing from Barack Obama. Linking to a Boston Globestory describing Obama's new "populist message" Stoller blogs: "This is very different than the call for universal health care in January. Today, he's directly blaming the lobbyists and industries. In January, he was blaming cynicism and unnamed skeptics. ... Obama has clearly changed his campaign strategy. He's not a natural populist, so this suggests that he has either decided that economic populism will defeat Clinton or that the establishment has accepted that universal health care is going to happen. I think it's the latter, since the neoliberal Hamilton Project people are now beginning to move towards universal health care in return for free-ish trade.

GIULIANI: Apparently, Some New Yorkers Swear Sometimes

Conservatives were not impressed with video from Talking Points Memo showing Rudy Giuliani saying bulls**t at a police union rally in '92. Michelle Malkin blogs: "I've expressed my disapproval before when public figures use profanity in public. But making a big deal out of Rudy's remark at an NYC rally and trying to score some kind of gotcha to embarrass social conservatives who might support Rudy makes the Left-o-sphere look even more ridiculous than they already are."

Ann Althouse adds: "Some people don't like the harsh word "bullsh*t" -- and I'm modifying it here with an asterisk out of my bullsh*t fear of filters - but it's a normal and useful word. I'm sure cops appreciate it. Using it doesn't make you crazy, and I'm positive TPM doesn't think it does. TPM is simply trying to hurt Rudy's chances with conservatives so he won't get the nomination and get his chance to win over liberals."

ROMNEY: He's Fourth, Not First

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff isn't buying Mitt Romney senior strategist Alex Gage's analysis that Romney is the GOP front-runner. Mirengoff argues: "I know this isn't a normal election cycle, but it's difficult to consider a candidate running fourth nationally with only 10 percent support the front-runner. ... I question the thrust of Gage's assessment that Giuliani and Fred Thompson "may be competing for the same pool of voters." For Romney to move up in the "standings" he will have to compete with Thompson for the votes of conservative base members. Giuliani is also competing for these votes, of course, but he seems well-positioned to compete for McCain voters to the extent McCain continues to slip."

F. THOMPSON: A Long Time Ago In A Law Office Far, Far Away

Conservatives continue to downplay the importance of at lest the pro-life angle to Fred Thompson's early '90s lobbying revelations. The Brody File posts portions of an email from Third Branch Conference chair Manuel Miranda, including: "I saw the recent media interest in Fred Thompson's billing of 20 hours while 'of counsel' to a large firm for slight assistance to an abortion group. ... The first thing I thought was that, like Thompson, I couldn't name clients to whom I billed thousands of hours while in practice just a decade ago, let alone the many, some unsavory, clients to whom I might have billed for small consultations on behalf of another colleague's clients."

Brody comments: "It's been interesting to see conservative leaders jump to Thompson's defense on this issue. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council seems OK with it. Miranda is too. Has Thompson become "Teflon Fred"? So far, nothing is sticking. It seems that conservatives are searching for their next "hero" that Thompson is getting the benefit of the doubt for now."

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Your Not Gonna Find This Many Dems In One Place Again Till Denver

Nearly five hours after defiantly tauntingBill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin for failing to force Jet Blue out of their sponsorship of YearlyKos, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas admitted 7/20, that Jet Blue CEO David Barger had pulled Jet Blue's logo off the official YearlyKos site, and disavowed any relation to Daily Kos outside of an initial donation of ten airline tickets to the organizers of the convention.

Markos responded: "As for my part, I'm cancelling my JetBlue American Express card and will be looking at alternative options for my future travel. ... JetBlue wants me to note that they didn't pull the tickets they donated to the event. So the sponsorship remains, but they are too afraid to let anyone know that they donated those tickets. ... Doesn't this seem the worst of all worlds. Will right wingers be appeased considering that JetBlue is still giving yKos free tickets? Way to piss off everyone..."

Later kos addresses O'Reilly's claims that YearlyKos is a "hate" gathering, noting that "just about the entire Democratic Party leadership -- Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin" will be addressing the convention and WH '08ers Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson will all be participating in a presidential forum. Kos adds: "Anyone who tries to claim this is a "hate" gathering is saying, essentially, that the entire Democratic Party is a "hate" party. ... And that's the key -- anyone who claims this event is anything but a celebration of the best the Democratic Party has to offer is simply, to put it mildly, blinded by partisan rage and completely out-of-touch with reality."

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent tracks the story and is encouraged by Hillary Clinton's willingness to join with the netroots in attacking Fox: "Little by little, it's becoming almost de rigeur for Dem primary candidates to forcefully push back against right wing media figures, on behalf of themselves and others, as a way to appeal to progressive Dem primary voters. ... Needless to say, this is a very good development. It amplifies to an untold degree the critique that many of us have been pushing for some time and it generally makes life more complicated for wingnut slime merchants, who, treated regally for two long by craven network execs and others at the big news orgs, had grown accustomed to thinking of themselves as untouchable. "

Kos and MyDD's Jerome Armstrong also single out Clinton for kind words. From Armstrong: "And no such thing as bad list-building, Clinton adds a petition page to 'Tell Bill O'Reilly to stop smearing grassroots progressives.'" From kos: "What's really interesting about this whole affair is that the most aggressive pushback is coming from Hillary Clinton's camp. JetBlue may have just exacerbated their PR problem, but at least we're seeing that the days when Democrats would've followed suit are behind us."

Others in the community noted Bill Kristol's attack on Dems for associating with Daily Kos and responded by pointing to "hate-filled voices" that GOPers are allowed to associate with. The Carpetbagger Report blogs: "And, finally, if Kristol wants to play the guilt-by-association game, and argue that political figures should distance themselves from those the establishment finds too extreme, I think the left should gladly engage in the debate. ... High-profile Democrats are supposed to keep their distance from anyone who dares to say anything intemperate, but Republicans have no qualms about maintaining close professional ties to some of the most vitriolic, hate-filled voices in our public discourse. "

TPM's Steve Benen adds: "Rush Limbaugh, shortly after he publicly mocked a man for having Parkinson's, was invited to the White House. Ann Coulter still draws support from Republican presidential candidates. In 2001, just 48 hours after 9/11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said Americans were to blame for the attacks and said the nation "deserved" the terrorism, but that didn't stop Republican presidential hopefuls from reaching out to them for support. ... And now Democratic candidates are supposed to avoid YearlyKos because Fox News dug up a handful of hot-headed remarks from anonymous commenters? Please."

Open Left's Matt Stoller wants to see the battle over corporate sponsorship joined, and singles out Fox News advertiser Home Depot as a target: "I don't like the argument that your sponsors are responsible for your content, but apparently Fox News does. ... Right now, Home Depot has a target on its back."

IMPEACHMENT: More Contempt, Less Censure

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) coordinated his 7/22 Meet the Press unveilling of his two censure resolutions with a Daily Kos diary defending his decision not to push for impeachment at this time. Feingold blogs: "The last time I posted on Daily Kos, it certainly generated a lot of interest, even though many people disagreed with what I had to say. ... While I still am not convinced that Congress should pursue impeachment, you made some great points about how important it is to hold this administration accountable for its terrible misconduct. ... So, as I announced a little while ago on Meet the Press, I plan to introduce two censure resolutions in the Senate in the coming weeks. ... As far as impeachment is concerned, as I have stated, I do not believe it is the right course of action right now. Censure is a way to formally rebuke the administration for its misconduct so that the historical record is clear, without putting the country through a very trying process."

Always a sympathetic audience for Feingold, the preponderance of Kossacks still believe impeachment is a better course than censure. Reactions include:

• You're good guys, but you're wrong on this. Here's my advice: Take a strong stand on an issue that's important to us where there is a decent chance of meaningful victory if you show leadership. If you lose so be it. But make it meaningful. We don't need another week kneed gesture. It's an embarrassment. Do something meaningful.
• Censure is a nice but worthless gesture. What you did on your last diary, unknowingly or not, was give cover to the House members who would rather spend the next 16 months securing their job then being bogged down in impeachment. Censure no. impeachment yes.
• MoveOn began as a movement to demand censure instead of Impeachment for Clinton's lying about a blow job. ... In other words, by censuring Bush, Senator, you are implying that his crimes and Constitutional abrogations are on a par with Clinton's covering up an extramarital affair (in fact, didn't you sign on to the censure-Clinton effort?).

Also on the netroots wish list for congressional action: inherent contempt proceedings for recalcitrant administration witnesses. Linking to news Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) promises the House will file contempt charges against Harriet Miers for ignoring a Jud. Cmte. subpoena, a Daily Kos diarist hopes that a 'supercharged' inherent contempt finding will "allow the Congressional Sargent at Arms to roll into Texas and arrest Ms. Miers (hopefully at church) after which they could presumably lock her in a cloak room until she 'gets religion.'" If other contempt findings are to follow, the diarist argues, "it may end up being "Impeachment by a thousand paper cuts," in this looming Congressional battle for truth."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat links to Volokh Conspiracy analysis supporting the legal basis for inherent contempt findings and comments: "It seems difficult to see how unitary executive proponents can argue with the power of Congress to commence inherent contempt proceedings while at the same time denying the rights of the courts to review claims of executive privilege. Indeed, Volokh obviously can not. Yet another reason to favor inherent contempt proceedings in the face of the Bush Administration's outlandish assertions."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: We Want You! To Help Draft Our Telecom Laws

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) is working with Open Left in "an interactive approach to drafting legislation" on national broadband policy. Starting 7/24, Durbin will be "engaging in a series of four nightly broadband policy discussions with the online community" looking for "he best and brightest ideas on what Congress should do to promote and foster broadband."

Open Left's Matt Stoller explains the importance of the effort: "At stake is not a set of wonky policy details, but a fundamental vision of how Americans communicate and relate to each other. Is the internet, and broadband access to it, something to be held for people who only live in certain geographic areas? Is the internet a content delivery vehicle offering a wider choice of content than any previous medium, or is it a public space to nurture democracy? The set of incentives put into our airwaves and our national wireline infrastructure is the physical answer to these moral questions. In other words, it's now time to begin to figure out our vision for a universal internet."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: HGH Is Just The Beginning

Slate's William Saletan flags a New York Times article collecting anecdotal evidence that "healthy teenage pitchers and their parents are seeking reconstructive elbow surgery to improve their throwing speed." Evidence from the article includes: "1) One doctor used to do 5 to 10 such procedures per year on high-school pitchers; now he does up to 75. 2) Kids as young as 14 are getting it. 3) A minor-league pitcher "trumped up his symptoms" to get the surgery; other "young pitchers with marginal injuries" are seeking it. Reasons: college scholarships and pro contracts. Objections: 1) The kids don't need it. 2) It doesn't improve throwing speed. 3) The underlying problem is abusive overexertion of kids' arms. 4) Maybe they should stop throwing hard pitches till they're 'old enough to shave.'"

LEST WE FORGET: Best Columnist Ever

Matthew Yglesias examines the career path of the Washington Post's newest columnist:

It's an odd little world we live in. By any reasonable standard, in 2002-2003 Michael Gerson, in his role as White House speechwriter, helped outline a foreign policy approach that, whether you liked it or not, was certainly audacious and new -- taking some strands that had long existed in US political culture and taking them much further than they'd ever gone before. If all this had gone well, Gerson could have left his government job and become a pillar of the Washington Establishment. Since it turned out to be a tremendous failure, instead he got a Council on Foreign Relations fellowship and a Washington Post column.

7/20: Come On In, The Water's Fine!

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin tracks recent attacks on Fred Thompson from rivals, the MSM, and conservative blogs and concludes:

It seems Thompson's opponents have figured out several things: 1) While he is testing the waters they still can unleash the piranhas; 2) Thompson's muddled response to the lobbying issue may have signaled that he is less than adept at this stage in fending off attacks and 3) There is no time like the present to knock Thompson down a peg or two and scoop up some of those McCain voters who may be shopping around for a new choice. This poses an interesting dilemma for the Thompson camp: if he is going to get attacked shouldn't he get into the race, defend himself and define himself before voters start to say things like "oh, he's the lobbyist who likes trial lawyers"? It is rule one in politics that if you don't define yourself, others will.

We couldn't agree more.

GOP FIELD: Not That It Even Matters Who Wins This Nod...

Under the header "Why The GOP Will Lose (badly) in 08," The Corner's Andrew Stuttaford links to Politico coverage of Rep. Don Young (R-AK) berating Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) with, "You want my money, my money ... Those who bite me will be bitten back." Commenting on Young's fight to keep money for native Alaskan and Hawaiian educational programs Stuttaford blogs: "It is not your money, Congressman. It's ours. That a prominent Republican does not understand that rather basic point underscores the problem that the party faces."

GIULIANI: Poll Smoker vs. Poll Smoker

Rudy Giuliani strat. dir. Brent Seaborn posted a lengthy reply to Pollster.comCharles Franklin 's case that recent polling trends show Giuliani will be "the next John McCain." Seaborn points "out a few differences between the McCain and Giuliani trend line" including:

• As the race developed early in the spring, the race quickly but briefly, developed in to a two-way race, and our initial bounce extended into the beginning of this two-way race. The two-way race divided most of the Republican primary vote between 2 major candidates -- the nature of a two-way race generally forces undecided or leaning voters to make a choice between the leading candidates and many broke our way.
• When Mayor Giuliani first announced his candidacy for president, he received a considerable bounce in the polls. We anticipated that the race would close after our initial bounce
• As the race developed early in the spring, the race quickly but briefly, developed in to a two-way race, and our initial bounce extended into the beginning of this two-way race.
• As McCain's trend line declined Mitt Romney's slowly rose and Fred Thompson entered the race. Senator McCain is still a candidate for President and continues to receive a substantial vote share
• Fred Thompson now seems to be the beneficiary of an announcement (or pre-announcement) bounce. And Fred Thompson's entry to the campaign has effectively made this now a four-way race.
• After months as the frontrunner and the addition of a fourth candidate to the GOP primary it is notable that we are in roughly the same spot we were in before our bounce and when this was still a three-way race.

GIULIANI II: Columnists Whose Favorites Live In Glass Houses ...

The Corner's Mark Levin fired back against George Will criticism of Fred Thompson for supporting McCain-Feingold, noting that Will's preferred nominee, Giuliani, has had his own heresies with the 2nd Amendment, life, and marriage.

Turning back to the 1st Amendment, Levin blogs: "As for McCain-Feingold, Rudy was once (and still is?) a strong proponent. As the Club for Growth has written: "Rudy Giuliani's record on protecting political free speech falls woefully short. When John McCain launched his campaign finance crusade on the political stage, Mayor Giuliani was an unabashed supporter, telling CNN's Wolf Blitzer in a 2000 interview: 'I'm a very, very strong supporter of campaign finance reform. A very strong supporter of McCain-Feingold for a long, long time now.'"

MCCAIN: A Job For Ethan Hunt

Captain's Quarters hosted John McCain on his 7/19 podcast, where McCain lashed "out at Harry Reid, calling his suspension of the defense appropriation bill unconscionable" and talked "about his presidential campaign, which is something he refused to do with CNN, taking responsibility for the "failure" but insisting he will not withdraw."

Townhall's Matt Lewis links and comments: "In all seriousness, the media loves to build people up, tear them down, and then build them back up (see Martha Stewart). It would be a great media story if McCain rids himself of his "consultants" and then makes a comeback. ... Already, you can see his press (and blog) coverage is improving (though it couldn't have gotten much worse). Are we witnessing the beginning of a McCain comeback?"

F. THOMPSON: Everyone Gets A Mulligan

New York and Los Angeles Times stories on Fred Thompson's early '90s connections to pro-choice groups are taking their toll on Thompson's reputation, but not his pro-life credentials. The emerging conservative line is that the Thompson's campaign inartful response to the stories says more about his campaign's readiness for prime time than it does about his pro-life credentials. Reactions along these lines include:

• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "If you get the sense this is all a lot of fumbling and stumbling as the great Keith Jackson would say I share that view. People can quibble about whether Thompson was and continues to be candid but one thing is certain. They simply must do better to compete in a presidential election with the opposition they face."
• an email to The Brody File: "The significance of this is not what Fred did 16 years ago. Had he been candid and honest, and explained himself, all would be well. The issue is that Fred lied for political expediency, and allowed others on his staff to do so on his behalf."
• The Brody File: "Lied may too strong a word. It seems like Thompson did what most politicians do. They beat around the bush and try to avoid an outright apology. Because of Thompson's consistent pro-life record in the Senate, pro-family groups will probably give him a pass on that aspect. But Thompson needs to be careful. He wants people to see him as a plain spoken, tell it like it is southerner. But evolving stories like this are normally left to "inside the beltway" Washington insiders."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I am more sympathetic to the argument of a faulty memory, as the "discussion with administration officials" consists of one meeting (a little under two and a half hours, and I'll bet that includes travel time and waiting in the lobby) and two phone calls totalling an hour and twenty minutes. ... So it's about three hours and change of actual lobbying efforts from sixteen years ago. No wonder he didn't remember."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "What on earth was Mark Corallo thinking when he told the LA Times no way nuh uh never happened when he didn't know that for a fact? Did the campaign even think to check the billing records? ... Now, instead, they look like liars."
• Patterico's Pontifications: "OK, that's fine. 19 hours of work done 14 years ago is not something you'd necessarily remember. But the problem is that his campaign issued a blanket denial, when it shouldn't have. That was an unforced error. For that reason, I disagree with my friend John when he says the story merits a "yawn" and nothing more."
• Blog's for Fred's Joe Carter: "When a spokesman for Thompson speaks on his behalf, we need to be able to trust that the message is honest and accurate. It also needs to be conveyed clearly, and not require the nuance of a DC lawyer to differentiate between fact and supposition. ... I don't like being wrong. I don't like having to apologize to abortion advocates. And I really don't like finding I put my own integrity in question. ... I'll chalk it up to miscommunication and put it behind me. My support for Fred Thompson hasn't wavered and I'll continue to do what I can to help him on the road to the White House."

The Corner's Yuval Levin argues the story must mark a turning point for Thompson's approach to the life issue:

Fred Thompson has so far managed to gain the trust of pro-lifers without actually saying anything about either principle or policy-what specifically he believes, or what kind of laws or rules he might support or oppose. He's done it by reference to his Senate record by criticizing Roe v. Wade, and by some vague but welcome platitudes. ... The story of Thompson's lobbying for a pro-abortion group in favor of allowing federally funded family planning clinics to advise patients to have abortions will almost certainly make it impossible for him to sustain that approach to the issue. ... He won't have much trouble making the case that he wasn't a pro-lifer in 1991 but is today. The same is true for a lot of conservatives. But to do that, he'll need to say something about why, and something about what that means to him in practice. Done right, such explanations would only help his chances in the primaries, and probably in the general election too. How he manages the challenge will tell us a lot about his ability to handle himself in the coming campaign.

THOMPSON II: Meep Meep

NRO's Jim Geraghty alerts readers that "somebody who insisted on anonymity" is passing around mid '90s clips of Thompson's support for campaign finance reform with headlines that include: "McCain, Feingold, Thompson Introduce Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Of 1997" and "President Endorses McCain-Feingold-Thompson Bill." Geraghty comments: "Now, I think it's acceptable to note that the person who called this information to my attention would prefer to see a candidate not named Fred Thompson get the Republican nomination. I cannot help but suspect that with Thompson having something of a bad day on other fronts, this individual is attempting to emulate the advice of James Carville, who said that when an opponent is drowning, throw him an anvil."

DEM FIELD: More Litigation For Everyone!!!

At Huffington Post, Jeff Marion writes about last weekend's "American Association For Justice" candidate forum. His impression of the candidates:

• Bill Richardson: "solid, and definitely improved his standing with the crowd."
• Barack Obama: "gave the longest opening speech, and won a lot of support from AAJ members for coming out firmly against caps on damages in claims involving victims of medical negligence."
• John Edwards: Though Obama lives in Chicago, "Edwards had the 'home field advantage' with this crowd." He had a lot "friends and donors" there, who gave him "the biggest ovation of the day."
• Hillary Clinton: "Her presentation was outstanding, and she gave the most wonkish presentation of the day."
• But Joe Biden "was the winner in this forum. Everyone voting in the Democratic primaries needs to take a long second look at Joe Biden."

DEM FIELD II: So If Biden Never Needed Surgery He Would Have No Idea How To Address Health Care?

Blue Hampshire gets into policy and asked the camps to supply a 200-word pitch for their candidate on health care. The submission had to start with the words: "I am the only candidate ..." Without further adieu:

• John Edwards: "... to propose a specific plan that guarantees true universal health care and also gives Americans the option of a public plan."
• Barack Obama: "... who will sign legislation by the end of my first term that will cover every American and cut the cost of every family's premiums by up to $2,500 -- the biggest cost-savings that any presidential candidate has proposed."
• Chris Dodd: "... that has over 20 years of experience getting things done."
• Mike Gravel: "... that has proposed a single-payer Health Care Voucher plan."
• Dennis Kucinich: "... to recognize the single payer not-for-profit comprehensive solution to the problem of providing access to health care is a solution that includes everyone and excludes no one."
• Hillary Clinton: "Hillary Clinton is committed to providing quality, affordable health insurance to every single American."
• Joe Biden: "... who knows first-hand what it is like to survive a life-threatening emergency surgery."
• Bill Richardson: "... who believes that all stakeholders -- government, individuals and business -- must share the goal and the sacrifice of providing universal health care coverage for all Americans."

CLINTON: Kossacks Back After Attack

Kos' McJoan picks up on AP's report about the Pentagon critique of Hillary Clinton, calling it "one of the most outrageous outgrowths of the extreme politicization of government under the Bush-Cheney regime. ... That some lackey apparatchik in the Pentagon would dare to accuse a United States Senator of 'boosting enemy propaganda' is an outrage."

Some other reaction on the left: Todd Beeton: "Classic that the Pentagon would insinuate itself into the presidential campaign in this way, not so subtly questioning Sen. Clinton's patriotism and, ultimately, her fitness to be commander in chief. What else do we expect from a crowd that thinks even drafting a Plan B for Iraq is treasonous." David Kurtz: "How thankful we should be to have brave men like [Defense Undersec] Eric Edelman to stifle debate, to lash us in our moments of weakness, and to encourage us to be oblivious to the reality all around us. Then and only then can we achieve America's true greatness." Big Tent Democrat: "His response is disrespectful, outrageous and he should be immediately fired for his unacceptable behavior. And you can have no doubt that Edelman is not a uniform wearing member of the military, but rather a BushCo hack."

At Open Left, Chris Bowers tries to figure out "just how far ahead Clinton actually is." He says: If she leads in IA, "the nomination is hers to lose"; if she's second in IA, "the nomination is still hers to lose as long as, in New Hampshire, she is more than 11 points ahead" of the IA leader; if she's third or fourth in IA, the nod is hers to lose as long as in Nh she's "more than seven points ahead" of the 2nd place finisher. If she "fails to meet all of the above three scenarios, and thus loses both Iowa and New Hampshire, she can still win the nomination if Iowa and New Hampshire are won by two different candidates, if she finishes second in Iowa, and if she is more than fifteen points ahead nationally." Got that?

Dana Goldstein wrote: "Is it any huge surprise that some lifelong feminists happen to be sympathetic to the candidate who is a lifelong feminist? ... I don't think she's the leading feminist candidate because she's a woman. I think she's the leading feminist candidate because she has always worked her ass off on feminist issues." Matthew Yglesias follows up: "I think it's completely fair for Clinton fans to argue that Hillary Clinton has the strongest record on women's issues of the major candidates in the race and to decide that that's a good reason to support her. On the other hand, nobody should walk away from this conversation with the idea that the image of Clinton as the least-liberal candidate overall is the result of some kind of smear campaign waged against her by male bloggers."

DODD: Pajama Party!

Matt Browner Hamlin, a Chris Dodd staffer, notes at Daily Kos and Open Left Dodd's commemoration of Blogosphere Day. A statement posted reads in part: "I congratulate ActBlue for their continued success as the online clearinghouse for Democratic action." Several other pols weighed in as well and encouraged participation in ActBlue's fundraising push, as we see courtesy of Kos' McJoan:

• Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid: "I am immensely proud that 17 of my Senate colleagues have joined me in using ActBlue to build our Democratic majority."
• Sen. John Kerry: "I'm really excited about the possibilities we have for bringing about that change -- and I'm excited about the partner we have in ActBlue to get it done."
• Retired Gen. Wes Clark: "This isn't just about 2008, 2010, or any specific election. It's about building support for activists, for new ideas, and for candidates from the local to national level."
• Senate Maj. Whip Dick Durbin: "We celebrate the many important ways that progressive blogs have changed our democracy for the better -- while also making sure we nurture and invest in the blogosphere, making it an even greater force for positive change in the months and years ahead."
• '06 CT SEN nominee Ned Lamont: "Our campaign would not have been possible without your support last year. And future underdog campaigns will not be possible without the opportunities for engagement that ActBlue provides."

"Mike Lux notes: "Democrats have trouble being Democrats because of their fear of not being able to raise enough money. ... ActBlue allows regular folks, rather than just special interests, to organize themselves and get in the game." Chris Bowers: "Act Blue was not an operation that lined up several large progressive donors before its launch, but rather simply a great idea that a few enterprising, grassroots progressive activists decided to undertake on their own. As a result of their efforts, now anyone can raise money for whatever Democratic candidates they like, now the blogosphere can quantify its direct fundraising contributions to Democratic candidates, and now Democrats have been able to help eliminate their long-standing financial deficit against Republicans."

EDWARDS: Everybody Hates John

Marc Ambinder's admission (while trying to explain why John Edwards $400 haircut story got more coverage than Mitt Romney's $300 haircut story) that, "the press was trying to bury Edwards," drew wide netroots condemnation of the MSM. Reactions include:

• Digby: "This is exactly this kind of thing that makes people like me laugh when I get lectured by professional journalists about "objectivity" and "ethics." ... Please, please, no more hand-wringing sanctimony from reporters about the undisciplined, unethical blogosphere. Their glass houses are lying in shards all around their feet."
• Daily Kos' DDay: "The media, the Beltway punditocracy in particular, has not learned one iota the lessons of 2000, and will continue to play this high-school crap FOREVER, until their stature dwindles to the point where it doesn't matter anymore. It would be good to let them know that you don't care for this kind of garbage, that as an American you wish to make your electoral choices on the merits and not through their filter. We've grown up since high school. The media hasn't."
• Lawyers, Guns, and Money's Scott Lemieux: "I'm amazed that anyone can see the question of whether or not reporters should use their reporting not to inform readers but to irresponsibly indulge their petty superficial prejudices about the individual candidates as a fairly debatable proposition. This open press corps contempt for Gore defined campaign 2000, and personally I think there are a lot of dead soldiers and Iraqis who think that what a president will actually do in office is more important that his or her suits and haircuts."

In other netroots-MSM-hating, Slate's John Dickerson earned Atrios' 'Wanker of the Day' honors for his insinuation that Edwards new ad narrated by Elizabeth Edwards played on her cancer for political gain. TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent comments on EE's strong reply to Dickerson: "This is noteworthy, because it again shows Elizabeth in her role as front-woman in the campaign's ever-more-frequent efforts to hit back at media figures who criticize the candidate, particularly right-wingers. ... But it's also a function of who Elizabeth Edwards is. Elizabeth Edwards has been known to post on all manner of blogs at all hours of the day and night, apparently not always with the knowledge of the campaign. So I guess we'll be getting lots more of this."

OBAMA: Wonder Why Lieberman Didn't Make This List?

Responding to recent questioning of Barack Obama's commitment to the Dem brand, MyDD's Democratic Avenger blogs: "Nothing drives me more nuts than this idea that some how Barack Obama is not really a Democratic team player or that he runs down the Democratic brand. In 2006 ... no one nationally did more, nor could do more than Barack Obama. ... The following are links to some of the different campaigns that Barack Obama campaigned for while his own seat was not up for election at all."

DA then lists and links to articles on Obama appearances for then SEN candidates Claire McCaskill (D-MO), James Webb (D-VA), Harold Ford (D-TN), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

OBAMA II: Point Taken

Blue Hampshire's elwood checks out Barack Obama's NH visit 7/19. Some of his "random thoughts": "Yes: Obama and Clinton both have 'rock star' status, for better or worse. The only other time I've seen this since I started following the primary closely in 1968 -- except for incumbent Presidents -- was Reagan in 1980, and now we have two at once." Though his stump was "almost entirely" aimed at differences between the Bush admin and Dems, an exception being his statement that the Iraq war "should never have been authorized."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: How Soon Before We See A JetRed?

Michelle Malkin is claiming victory with ally Bill O'Reilly in their battle with Daily Kos over Jet Blue's sponsorship of the blog's Yearly Kos '07 convention set for 8/2-5. Malkin blogs: "Just got word that JetBlue has asked the YearlyKos organizers to remove its name from the nutroots convention's website. For its sponsorship deal, JetBlue apparently donated 10 travel vouchers to YearlyKos. I understand that there are no plans to revoke the vouchers." Malkin also posts the response Jet Blue's CEO David Barger is sending to those inquiring about Jet Blue's relationship with Daily Kos, including:

Thank you for contacting JetBlue with your comment. We have been surprised and disappointed that the donation of JetBlue travel (10 tickets total) to a bloggers convention has been misinterpreted as support and/or agreement with a politically centered website we have absolutely no connection with. ... JetBlue was one of 23 groups to donate items and thus 'sponsor' the YearlyKos convention. JetBlue will have no presence at the conference or any other involvement with the YearlyKos event. We have NO INVOLVEMENT with DailyKos or anything said or represented on that website.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas notes O'Reilly and Malkin's crowing, and argues they have one nothing: "But go to the YearlyKos convention website, and you'll note the JetBlue logo is still there, on the home page. And I've confirmed that yes, indeed, JetBlue isn't going anywhere. They don't plan on caving to pressure from the neanderthals at Fox News."

More from kos on the significance of the dispute: "Remember, this fight is about Fox News' hurt feelings. They wanted Democrats to legitimize their propaganda operation and we squashed those efforts like a bug. This is their way of lashing back, yet no one seems to give a shit. The Dodd and Hillary campaigns used the opportunity to slam Bill O'Reilly and his usual band of misfits. And despite their premature crowing, JetBlue -- the chief target of their ire -- isn't going anywhere."

Open Left's Matt Stoller also paints the battle as part of a larger war: "

The right has an entire system we like to deride, 'wingnut welfare', but Fox News made $300M last year and will be a cash cow for a long time to come. While Josh Marshall and Dailykos are self-sufficient, probably hitting in the $50k/month range for revenue, there is just no comparison in terms of the capital they can invest in ideas. ... one obvious source of reliable support for our movement is the progressive corporate sector. ... That channel is terrified that they will lose advertisers from campaigns like Fox News Attacks Global Warming, and, after the Presidential debate loss, they realized we are a direct threat to them.
The goal of the Fox News attack is not to get Jet Blue to drop its sponsorship, it's to teach other companies a lesson. ... Conservative institutions from Fox News to AEI rely on corporate money, so they know how useful it can be. Expect more of these attacks from the right, because they don't play around. They go for the throat.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Keep It Simple Silly

Describing global warming as "both a climate crisis and a political crisis" Open Left's Matt Stoller quotes economist Robert Shapiroon why cap and trade does not fit into "a progressive value system" including:

By creating tradable financial assets worth tens of billions of dollars for governments to distribute among their industries and plants and then monitor, a global cap-and-trade program also introduces powerful incentives to cheat by corrupt and radical governments. Corrupt governments will almost certainly distribute permits in ways that favor their business supporters and understate their actual energy use and emissions.

LEST WE FORGET: Copy This!

After selling his mistakenly early delivered Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows on eBay for $250, Vodkapundit's Will Collier received a nasty email missive from eBay informing him he had violated copyrights and that his listing had been removed. Collier responded:

Now, this is really, really, really funny. For one thing, regardless of what the nimrod lawyers from The Christopher Little Literary Agency said in their nastygram to eBay, there's absolutely no shred of copyright violation in advertising and selling a legitimate copy of a book. I've no more violated J.K. Rowling's copyright than I've flown around downtown Atlanta on a broomstick.

Oh, and incidentally, I got a nice email from Robin Lenz at Publisher's Weekly while I was typing up this post; she's received the book and is quite pleased with her purchase. So, let's all enjoy a fine laugh at J.D. Nimrod, Esq. and his firm of officious idiots. Nice work, guys. Be sure and bill the good Ms. Rowling for all the many hours you've spent in making yourselves look like utter morons.

7/19: No Passing On Left

Barack Obama clearly has his share of support from the netroots, but it is becoming increasingly clear that he neither shares their view of what it takes to win in our modern political climate, nor wishes to address their concerns in any way. If the netroots stand for anything, it is a strong belief that the best way to protect progressive values is through a fiercely partisan Dem Party. Obama's message of 'hope' and a 'new politics' runs counter to this founding principle. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is under no illusions about the partisan nature of Washington, and her GOP battle scars make her credible on the issue.

Perhaps more importantly, Clinton has been far more adept at reaching out too a skeptic constituency, as her quick defense of Daily Kos from Bill O'Reilly attacks shows. By contrast, Obama's online moves have been at times ham handed and dismissive at others. AS Obama begins to ramp his rhetoric against "the left," one has to wonder where he thinks he is going to find the Dem primary votes to over take HRC.

DEM FIELD: Already More Interactive Than The YouTube/CNN Debate

The Nation's Ari Melber and Drum Major Institute exec. dir. Andrea Batista Schlesinger challenge the netroots to help get involved with WH '08 by submitting questions to the "all-volunteer advisory committee of bloggers, grassroots activists and a few former presidential candidates" that will be advising the YearlyKos presidential forum moderators Matt Bai of the New York Times, Joan McCarter of Daily Kos, and NYU prof. Jeffrey Feldman. Melber and Schlesinger identify three areas they would like to see addressed at the 8/4 forum, including "Corporate Power" "Governing Philosophy" and "Alternative Foreign Policy Doctrine."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong has already submitted a question he'd like to see asked:

In 2004, the media consultants of John Kerry campaign made millions and millions of dollars, mostly from pocketing up to 15% commissions based upon the volume of advertising dollars placed over television. This compares with the retainer model of compensation for media consultants, done by the Bush campaign and 90% of all product advertising today. Will your campaign payments to your media consultants be based on the commission model or will you instead be paying them by retainer fees?

CLINTON: Blessed Is The Peace Maker

Hillary Clinton aides successfully capitalized on Bill O'Reilly's growing feud with Daily Kos over Jet Blue's sponsorship of the 8/2-5 Yearly Kos convention. Clinton Internet Director Peter Daou posted com. dir. Howard Wolfson's statement at Daily Kos, including: "Blogs are the 21st Century version of the public square. Sen. Clinton does not agree with everything said on Daily Kos, but isolating a few comments as a way to smear a blog frequented by hundreds of thousands of people a day is wrong." Wolfson goes on to hit O'Reilly for providing Michael Savage, David Horowitz, and Ann Coulter a forum for their "extreme views." Positive netroots reactions include:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "This statement strikes exactly the right tone. ... I might not use the word "detente" to describe this move, because there hasn't exactly been a war raging between the Clinton campaign and the netroots as of late. But it is a fairly shrewd political move by the campaign, one that, however superficial, could nonetheless engender some positive feelings towards Clinton within those attending the convention."
• TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent: "By way of context, it's worth noting that Camp Hillary is going to great lengths to repair relations with the liberal blogosphere, rolling out Joe Wilson on the liberal blogs, agreeing to appear at YearlyKos, etc., etc. Now comes Wolfson's defense of Kos, which is certainly not the sort of thing your typical Beltway consultant would ordinarily recommend."
• TAPPED's Ezra Klein: "It's a real measure of the netroots' influence that the Clinton campaign is willing to get blasted by O'Reilly in order to rack up some points with the peoples of the internets."

Also related to the story, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis notes that Jet Blue CEO David Barger maxed out to Mitt Romney.

DODD: Me Too

After a Bill O'Reilly producer contacted the Chris Dodd for comment an a follow-up segment on O'Reilly's Jet Blue/Yearly Kos attack, Dodd aide Tim Tagaris posts Dodd com. dir. Hari Sevugan's response to O'Reilly at Daily Kos: "Senator Dodd is proud to participate in the Yearly Kos conference and engage in a free exchange of ideas with this important community. Senator Dodd himself is member of the DailyKos community, having participated in a vigorous exchange of bold ideas prior to the New Hampshire debate in June. At a time when the stakes could not be greater for the nation, we should applaud civic participation, not try to demonize it.

EDWARDS: Is Elizabeth Fatigue Setting In?

Whether it's her Salon interview, recent Planned Parenthood appearances, or latest campaign ads, Elizabeth Edwards is not hitting the home runs she normally does in netroots circles. Recent reactions include:

• The Huffington Post's Joan Garry on the Salon interview: "First off, I like her, I really really like her. ... But I must confess that this morning I find myself questioning her. ... Can a man be a more effective advocate for women than a woman? Can a white person be a more effective advocate for African Americans than an African American? Can a straight person be a more effective advocate for gay and lesbian people than a gay person?"
• Matthew Yglesias on Edwards new ad: ""I've been blessed for the last thirty years to be married to the most optimistic person that I've known," just doesn't seem like the kind of compliment a person would offer her husband. This has been a slightly weird tic of Edwards' going back to the 2004 campaign, telling us how optimistic he is instead of projecting optimism. Which strikes me as odd, since Edwards is actually really good at projecting optimism."
• TAPPED's Sam Boyd on Elizabeth's Planned Parenthood appearance: "They all had slightly different approaches to reproductive rights issues, but basically they agreed. Obama, as usual, had fewer specifics and Hillary talked about health care less, but the idea that John Edwards, who didn't even show up to the event, is somehow uniquely placed to be a women's advocate is ridiculous. Elizabeth Edwards is saying stuff she should know isn't true. I expected more."

EDWARDS II: Not The Next Reagan

TAPPED's J. Goodrich summarizes Marc Ambinder's explanation for why John Edwards $400 haircut story isn't playing as much as Mitt Romney's $300 makeup story: "Only the poor can run for the president of the United States on the platform of fighting poverty." More Goodrich: "If only the poor can fight for the poor, well, the poor are doomed."

Also at TAPPED, Garance Franke-Ruta recounts conversations she had with union members at the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees presidential forum and tries to explain why Edwards is not catching on among those demographics he is seeking to champion: "Part of it is clearly a function of demographic and cultural affinities, in that today's union movement is increasingly organizing female and minority workers -- the precise people who polls show cleaving to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and who apparently aren't separating their identities as union workers from all the other facets of their being. ... Think of it as an impulse roughly the inverse of the one that gave rise to the Reagan Democrats. In the early 1980s, union members were drawn by cultural affinities to the conservative Reagan, even as union leaders opposed him. Today, the minority women who clean unionized hotels or sew garments may be similarly drawn by the promise of a credible female or minority candidate, even as union leaders back the more explicitly pro-union Edwards."

In more positive Edwards blogging, MyDD's Todd Beeton highlights Edwards recent answer to Chris Matthews question, "How do you get back to being the party of regular folk?" Edwards responded: "My party and the Democratic party that I believe in stands up for ordinary people, stands up for the little guy, stands up for people who don't have health insurance, who live in poverty and who don't go to fundraisers." Beeton then quotes from an earlier Edwards speech: "If my party can't be the party of the poor, the elderly, the disenfranchised, why else do we exist?" Beeton comments: "I'm glad he's getting back to this. As I've written before, the candidates are running for the Democratic nomination, they have a unique platform from which to help define the party."

Turning to education, TAPPED's Dana Goldstein likes Edwards three point plan to address school desegregation (1. Give bonuses to schools in affluent communities enrolling low-income students; 2. Create magnet schools dedicated to economic integration by doubling current federal magnet schools funding to $200 million a year; 3. Create a million housing vouchers over five years to help low-income families move to better neighborhoods). Goldstein blogs: "I like these proposals because they hit directly (though incrementally) at the major reason why the schools poor kids go to are so bad: They are funded by the much lower property taxes of poor neighborhoods and cities."

OBAMA: Uh Oh, Here Comes The 'L' Word ...

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein follows up her 7/17 reporting of Barack Obama's Planned Parenthood meeting noting that PP described Obama as a 'moderate democrat' while he was in the IL senate. She also reminds readers that TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta earlier wrote that Obama "has not been willing to stake out strong opinions in" the arena of reproductive rights.

Also tracking the more moderate tendencies of Obama supporters, Big Tent Democrat highlights a MyDD commenters pro-Obama case ("In the future, more and more people are poised to get sick of the terms Republican and Democrat, as they quickly becoming synonymous with bickering and corruption. It seems the good Senator sees this coming. And he is right, by the way") and responds: "Let's be honest, the above highlighted comment is precisely what one Joe Lieberman said a number of times last night. To him, the fight to end the Iraq Debacle is partisan bickering."

BTC continued his Obama critique at Talk Left this time quoting Obama himself from his 7/18 speech in Anacostia: "But there were also some ineffective programs that were defended anyway, as well as an inability of some on the left to acknowledge that the problems of absent fathers or persistent crime were indeed problems that needed to be addressed." BTD responds: "Can't we all just get along? There is an essential dishonesty in Obama's approach. HE acts as if there is only the need to find common ground because Republicans really DO care about poverty and the common man and the Common Good. ... Obama may have an approach that works for an activist, but it simply is inexcusable for someone who wants to be the standardbearer for a political party. A standard bearer for a political party argues why his or her party has the right ideas to combat the problems we face."

MyDD's Todd Beeton seconded BTD's concerns: "I have little to add to Big Tent Democrat's critique, which deals with one of my major misgivings about Obama. Even if Obama were to win the presidency using such a strategy, he would do so by running down the Democratic brand. ... I attended a house party for Obama several weeks ago. Talking with some of the Obama supporters and leaners there, it was clear to me that they were drawn to this post-partisan rhetoric. ... One of the Obama field organizers even said to the group that we tried it Dean's way, sounding angry, and that doesn't work and isn't appealing to people. We need to set a different tone to bring people together."

GIULIANI: We Knew Nixon, And If Anyone's Nixon, It's Your Ex-Boss

Conservatives are advising Pres. Bush's ex-speech writer Michael Gerson to take a closer look at his former boss before labeling others the next Richard Nixon. Reactions include:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "My first reaction was arguably snide: "Gerson, you worked for the president who added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare (the biggest expansion of an entitlement program in a decade), punted on affirmative action, created a new federal department in DHS and at the very least had a sloppy Attorney General and at worst tried to politicize U.S. Attorneys, and we're supposed to believe Giuliani is Nixon?"
• The Corner's John Podhoretz: "Gerson warns that Nixon was a man without an ideological compass. That is true. But it is not true of Rudy Giuliani, who not only has one but used it in navigating the liberal waters of New York City. It is true that Rudy's ideological compass does not point in the same direction as Gerson's on socially conservative matters. ... And in this regard, any voter who decides he cannot in good conscience support or vote for Giuliani because of his views on abortion and stem-cell research is making a principled decision."
• The Corner's Andrew Stuttaford: "Michael Gerson writes that Richard Nixon's presidency could 'hardly be called a conservative success story.' Fair comment, I suppose, but I wonder if Gerson considers that the presidency of George W. Bush has been 'a conservative success story.'"
• Race 4 '08s Gary Matthew Miller: "Gerson's historic parallels are wanting in many important respects. ... In many respects, Nixonomics could have been lifted from the public policy prescriptions of today's Democratic Party. His wage and price controls were disastrous and contravened market mechanisms much like today's proposed "windfall profits" taxes would do. ... By contrast, Giuliani has been the first presidential candidate since Steve Forbes (who backs the Mayor) to clearly and consistently articulate the imperative of low taxes for economic growth and capital creation."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "although Gerson may not appreciate it, Giuliani's positions on social issues have been largely consistent. He has not significantly trimmed his major positions in order to ease the transition from local candidate to aspiring leader of the national Republican party. A talented opportunist might have done so. ... Similarly, Giuliani's positions on economic issues seem both constant and conservative. That's the view of the Club for Growth, which is quite attentive to these matters. I wouldn't expect Rudy to impose whatever the modern counterpart of Nixon's wage and price controls is.

ROMNEY: On Needle Threaders

NRO's Jim Geraghty shares the takes of his "Romney guy" on the GOP field:

• On Fred Thompson: "Thompson's having the same bumps in the road that Romney had in January but he's having it in July."
• On John McCain: "You can't start going up until you stop going down, and for McCain that hasn't happened yet."
• On Rudy Giuliani: "I can't quite figure out what they're doing over there, unless they thought the whole narrative was going to be burn rate. Now they can go brag about how little they've spent, but they're just now starting to staff up in some states ... I know he has his list of twelve, but when you listen to him speak, the only two things he sounds like he really wants to do is turning everything into CompStat and winning the war on terror."
• On primary strategies: "Everybody's trying to do something that's never been done before. Romney is trying to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, and nobody has done that who wasn't an incumbent. Rudy's try to win the nomination by everything else except Iowa and New Hampshire. Thompson? Who knows, he may not even get in in time to really compete in those organization-heavy states. Who knows what his targeting scheme is? Maybe he thinks his process begins in South Carolina. Everybody's trying to thread the needle in a way it hasn't been done before."

F. THOMPSON: Ho-Hum

Conservatives are yawning, again, over the latest revelations on Fred Thompson's lobbying career, this time from the New York Times. Non-reactions include:

• Captain's Quarters: "So it appears that Barnes was the lobbyist, and Fred consulted ... occasionally. I don't think Fred intended to live on $5,000 every 14 months, and Barnes would be the obvious choice for lobbying at any rate. As one of the commenters on this post wrote, this story is a nothingburger."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "[T]he files confirm that Thompson did a de minimis amount of work for the abortion rights group in 1991 and 1992. Nothing in the records contradicts Thompson's statements that 1) he has no recollection of working on behalf of this group, and 2) he is quite sure that he did not lobby John Sununu on its behalf."
• More Hinderaker: "What's interesting, I think, is that the news outlets that are pushing this story are not conservative. They seem to think that the story will somehow discredit Thompson among conservatives, presumably because conservatives are too dumb to understand how law firms and the legal process work. The appropriate response from the right would be, I think, a yawn. So far, that's what we've seen."
• Outside the Beltway's James Joyner: "Today's story, then, is not a big scoop; it merely closes the loop on the story."
• AmSpec Blog's David Hogber: "Given the withering scrutiny Romney has endured for his flip-flopping, you'd think the Thompson camp would be extra careful on these things. Even successful campaigns have a few mishaps. But this will (and should) raise questions as to whether Thompson is ready for prime time."

Also talking Thompson, RCP Blog's Blake Dvorak identifies some reasons why Thompson should announce now (including: "The tease factor. The media will play the game for a while, like any good courtship, but there is a limit. With the pro-choice stories, the Nixon stuff, and egregious attacks on his wife, Thompson can't allow the media to define him before he has a chance to define himself. With Congress out, August is a rough time for the Washington press corps. Best not test their patience."), and some reasons he should announce later ("The Aug. 5 Des Moines, Iowa, Debate ... it's in Thompson's best interest now to miss this debate. Rudy Giuliani was off his game in the first GOP debate and it hurt him for weeks. Any bump Thompson might get in the polls from an announcement could be erased by a poor performance a week later. Besides, every commenter of every GOP debate so far has talked about the "Thompson Shadow" looming over the stage. The best part about a shadow is that it can't screw up a question.")

IRAQ: Is Colbert Ever Off Message?

The netroots seem less than sure Sen. Maj. Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) 7/18 slumber party came off as best it could have. Open Left's Matt Stoller blogs: "The internal communication channels, both from the Senate-side and the coalition-side, didn't seem to be particularly effective from my vantage point. I didn't know what was happening until the last minute, why it was happening, and how to be a good piece of the message. ... When I came home, I turned on Colbert, and he was dead-on, so some of the messaging worked out. That's my very limited perspective, of course."

Looking forward, Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat warns: "Let me be frank -the events of the last days on the Levin-Reed Amendment was about pressuring Godot Republicans to break with Bush's Iraq Debacle. ... These Republicans will never break with Bush's Iraq Debacle. Some believe that September will be the moment, after General Petraeus speaks. This is delusion. What do folks think Petraeus is going to say? Petraeus will STIFFEN Republican resolve, not weaken it."

IRAQ II: ... Speaking Of Petraeus

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt hosted General Petraeus on his radio show 7/18, and highlights the following from Petraeus to his blog:

[A]s you know, we try to avoid body counting, but inevitably, obviously, it is something we keep track of, because we're trying to have some sense of the damage we are doing to al Qaeda-Iraq, its affiliates, other Sunni insurgent groups, and also certainly to the Shia militia extremist elements. And the answer to that in a general sense is that they are losing many, many hundreds of their, of these different elements each month, certainly since the onset of the surge.

No friend of Hewitt's or the surge, Andrew Sullivan responds: "If I were eager to maintain a semblance of military independence from the agenda of extremist, Republican partisans, I wouldn't go on the Hugh Hewitt show, would you? And yet Petraeus has done just that. I think such a decision to cater to one party's propaganda outlet renders Petraeus' military independence moot. ... Petraeus is either willing to be used by the Republican propaganda machine or he is part of the Republican propaganda machine. I'm beginning to suspect the latter."

More sympathetic to Petraeus' cause, AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein comments: "While Andrew Sullivan is a bit hyperbolic in his reaction to David Petraeus appearing on the Hugh Hewitt show, I do believe that it would be better if Petraeus maintained an image of a non-partisan commander capable of rendering unbiased judgments on the situation in Iraq. For those of us who support giving the surge a chance to work, one of the few remaining arguments that is potentially politically viable is that we should give Petraeus the time he asks for. Anything that helps Democrats portray him as a partisan general will make it easier for them to undermine his credibility, and thus harder for Republicans to make the case for the surge."

IRAQ III: Another Role For Hayden Christensen?

Invoking memories of New Republic fabulist Stephen Glass, many conservatives are questioning the authenticity of recent New Republicreports on US troop misconduct in Iraq. Those making the case against TNR's pseudonymous Scott Thomas include: The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb, Townhall's Dean Barnett, Power Line's Scott Johnson, The Corner's

John Podhorertz

, Ace of Spades, and Bryan and Allahpundit at Hot Air.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Let The Good Times Roll

Forbes' Digital Rules picks up on reports "the global economy from 2003 to 2007 has grown about 5% a year" and comments: "It is a quarter bigger than it was five years ago--about $15 trillion a year bigger. That's equivalent to adding a new North America to the global economy. Each year. Wow. ... Somebody tell the candidates running for U.S. president. Global growth is great for humanity--a billion people have departed poverty over the last 15 years."

LEST WE FORGET: How Many Neocons Does It Take To Screw In A Light Bulb?

Inspired by the LA Timesheadline "Pull Out Proposal Lacking a Plan B" Andrew Sullivan solicits his readers favorite neocon jokes and starts with his own: "Why do you never want to date a neocon? Because they always say they're going to pull out and they never do." Other entries can be found here, here, and here.

7/18: Obama vs. Dean

Trolling through the comments at MyDD in response to Jerome Armstrong's doubting of Barack Obama's "the largest grassroots campaign in history" claims, we think Obama defenders are missing the point of Armstrong's criticism. Armstong's main beef seems to be that the Obama campaign tabulates a grassroots supporter in their favor every time someone buys a $5 ticket to an event or a bumper sticker, while Howard Dean's '04 campaign only counted a supporter after they signed up for emails updates, or attended a MeetUp. Obama defenders counter by arguing that only someone who supports Obama would buy his merchandise. It may be true that 99% of people buying Obama gear truly support the guy, but the better question is whether that purchase really signals any future involvement with the campaign. Turning Obamabuzz into actual votes is the only test that can prove if Obama does have "the largest grassroots campaign in history."

DODD: So Is Levin-Reed Un-firm Or Unenforceable?

Blogging that "every additional day we stay-the-course in Iraq more American lives are lost, our standing in the world is further eroded, and our country becomes more vulnerable" Chris Dodd makes the case to Huffington Post readers for his own amendment to the DoD authorization bill that would end "the financing of combat operations, mandate a phased redeployment of combat forces from Iraq, and ensure that the administration actually carries out that redeployment."

Dodd still supports the leadership's chosen change-the-coure amendment, Levin-Reed, but he remains "concerned about aspects of the amendment -- the extended delay in commencing redeployment and absence of any funding linkage to redeployment. ... Based on past experience with this administration -- my fear is that the President would simply ignore the legislation proposed by the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the Senior Senator from Rhode Island." Dodd calls his amendment "a firm and enforceable deadline for the redeployment of our combat troops from Iraq."

EDWARDS: It's The Caring Stupid

Seeking to help those that "cannot follow along in reality" MyDD diarist jsamuel is collecting links and pictures for MyDD readers on John Edwards "The Road To One America Tour." From Edwards' official website Edwards fans can follow along with this interactive road map, get up to the minute updates including blog, summary, and pictures, and even get phone text messages which can be signed up for by texting TOUR to 30644."

jsamuel also explains the purpose of the tour: "He is using this tour as an appeal to the media to bring attention to what he calls his 'purpose in life.' ... John Edwards does what a president would need to do to win support for his ideas and plans. He is arguing with us. He is telling the American public and the media that we need to change."

At TAPPED, however, Garance Franke-Ruta has a lengthy piece titled "What Edwards Doesn't Get About Poverty" with a subhead: "John Edwards's failure to appeal to low-income voters proves the poor want more than just new programs." Franke-Ruta explains: "Edwards' problem is that poverty in today's America, as in New Orleans, has not merely been the result of too low a minimum wage or other defects of bureaucratic liberalism. It is also a consequence of a lack of social and political power among certain groups of people ... Government programs can help reduce the negative consequences of the lack of power, and have a tremendous positive impact on how poor people are able to live. ... But offered a choice between the promise of new programs and political candidates who might enhance their social standing and political power, many poor people are choosing the promise of social change."

Also at TAPPED, Paul Waldman doubts Garance's premise that Edwards poverty focus is even targeted at poor voters. Waldman quotes James Carville: "as a candidate, you must choose to emphasize issues not because they poll well or are objectively our biggest problems, but because they best show the kind of person you are." Waldman comments: "Poverty functions in the same way for Edwards (or at least it should). The political effect is that it tells people something about who Edwards is: that he cares about people who are suffering, that he hasn't forgotten the modest circumstances from which he came, and that he has the courage to tackle big, seemingly intractable problems."

Also attempting to explain Edwards lack of traction, TAPPED's Ezra Klein blames a lack of media attention. The Plank's Jason Zengerle counters with a listofEdwardsmagazinecovers and quips: "I'd imagine Dodd and Biden and Richardson would love to be similarly ignored."

Finally, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis flags a YouTube from a Hickory, NC pastor "upset with Sen. Edwards over gay rights and religious bigotry."

EDWARDS II: Every Issue Leads Back To Poverty

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein reports on Elizabeth Edwards' case for her husband before Planned Parenthood 7/17: "Elizabeth tied John's women's health platform into his support for universal health care and the alleviation of poverty, assuring Planned Parenthood that it would be recognized as a service provider under her husband's plan, that all prescription drug coverage would include regular and emergency contraception, that pharmacists would not be allowed to refuse such drugs to women or girls, and even that abortion would be eligible for federal funding under an Edwards administration."

Goldstein shares: "My only complaint is that Elizabeth seemed to add a caveat onto John's support for abortion rights. "John opposes any ban that does not include an adequate protection for a woman's health," she said. But what about bans that protect women's health, or claim to? Is it okay to erect barriers to abortion in cases when a woman's health may not be clearly at risk, but abortion remains her choice? How about late in a pregnancy?"

OBAMA: Doing It For The Little People

Netroots veterans from Howard Dean's '04 run are still irked by Barack Obama claims that his is "the largest grass-roots campaign in history." MyDD's Jerome Armstrong tracks New York Times and Washington Post write ups on Obama's strategy of "selling $5 tickets to over a dozen mega-events and selling merchandise at events and on his website" to add "tens of thousands of small donors to his total" and responds: "The strategy by Obama's campaign, of broadening the small donors through something more tangible than emails -- tickets and merchandise for campaign events, has played out excellently. They have been able to partly dictate the numerical terms on which the process stories which dominate the year prior to the elections, are played on."

Armstrong concludes: "One of the things that's interesting here is how you are counted as part of the campaign. With Dean in 2003, anyone was counted if they merely signed up their email (640,000 total) or attended a Meetup (160,000 total) during the campaign. For Obama, you have to give money to be counted. ... Yes, if the number of donors is the only metric for self-proclaiming yourself as 'the largest grass-roots campaign in history', Obama has his place in history."

Open Left's Chris Bowers also looks at Obama's small donor base, placing Obama's small donor dollar total sixth all time behind Bush '04, Kerry '04, Bradley '02, Dean '04, and Bush '00. Bowers writes: "As large as Obama's current small donor base is, there is no guarantee he will surpass Dean's totals. Right now, he is about half way there. He will probably pass Dean, but with the earlier primary calendar, he also might not have enough time to do so."

More impressed with the number of Obama's small-dollar contributors, The Huffington Post's David Sirota hopes their presence will "counter the influence that" "Wall Street titans" and Obama campaign contributors Lehman Brothers ($160,760), Citadel Investment Group ($152,150), Goldman Sachs ($103,550), JP Morgan Chase ($101,950) and Citigroup ($61,125) will all have on his thinking on economic positions.

OBAMA II: Obama Is Pro-Family ... Details To Follow

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein reports Obama attempted "to shift the choice debate" while speaking to Planned Parenthood 7/17. Goldstein blogs: "He called for "updating the social contract" with gender pay equity, paid maternal leave, and longer school hours that make it easier for mothers to work. ... As a consequence, Obama -- surprise, surprise -- was somewhat less specific on how he'd ensure access to reproductive health care than Elizabeth Edwards was. ... Obama was clearly more interested in talking about how reproductive rights could fit into a family values agenda."

Also at TAPPED, Ezra Klein hears Obama policy dir. Karen Kornbluh's influence in his 'updating the social contract' language. Klein adds: "So if you want a glimpse of where these ideas are headed, you may want to check out her Democracy manifesto on creating a social insurance system keyed to the needs of modern families, or her Washington Monthlyarticle on the need for workplaces to become more family friendly."

WEBB: The Future Of The Party. (No, Seriously. I'm In The Tank).

The Huffington Post's David Sirota likes what he hears about Sen. James Webb (D-VA) in the Washington Times: "He criticized what he called 'the Rubin wing of the Democratic Party,' after Robert Rubin, former President Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary, saying those Democrats share the same problem as many Republicans." Sirota comments: "This critique from Webb echoes his earlier statements, and regular readers know that I couldn't agree more. Whether it's wages, jobs, outsourcing, globalization, health care or pension protection, the future of the Democratic Party lies in leaders who are willing to take on the fundamental issues of corporate power and wealth concentration in a sustained way - David Broders and Joe Kleins be damned."

GOP FIELD: Mitt Won, We Can All Go Home Now

With the help of some nifty mapping software Andrew Meagher tracks state-by-state traffic patterns to GOP '08 official websites for the past six months, and then totals the number of delegates each candidate would currently receive if they won the states which trafficked them the highest. If clicks were votes, Mitt Romney would be the GOP nominee with 916 total delegates. Fred Thompson came in second with 713, Rudy Giuliani third with 567, and John McCain in fourth with 262.

GIULIANI: Come On In, The Ocean's Fine

The Brody File reports that "supporters" of Rudy Giuliani are pushing back against Mitt Romney's 'Ocean' ad (where Romney promises to "clean up" pornography and violence) with YouTube clips of Giuliani talking about "his record of actually cleaning up pornography from the streets of New York." NRO's Jim Geraghty is getting similar email also reminding social conservatives of Giuliani's fight to ban public funding of a painting of the Virgin Mary using elephant dung. Geraghty blogs: "Will Rudy's accomplishments in these areas counter-balance his stands that irk social conservatives? Well, it raises a question that I've been wondering about since Rudy expressed his interest in running for president: How many social conservatives across the country have visited New York since he became mayor? And how many never would have done so during the bad old days of the Dinkins and Koch years?"

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt links to Geraghty's speculation and responds: "When I praised Romney's "Ocean" ad yesterday, I noted that part of its impact was Romney's willingness to make the social conservative agenda part of his message. Rudy's got a great record on some of these issues as well, but he needs to put them at the center of his campaign to persuade especially the values voter that the toughness with which he pursued the agenda in New York will also mark a White House tenure."

GIULIANI II: Since When Are Lawyer Endorsements So Popular?

Giuliani sought to broaden the scope of the unveiling of his Justice Advisory Cmte pressing not only his strict constructionist preference in judges, but also his eagerness to change the legal system. On the second issue, the inclusion of OverLawyered's Walter Olson particularly impressed conservatives in attendance. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff writes: "In short, Olson is convinced that (1) Giuliani understands that our legal system is given to excess and (2) he doesn't like it. That's not a bad testimonial."

At OverLawyered Olson also makes the case fro Rudy: "I try not to clutter the site overmuch with my personal candidate preferences, but I find the former NYC mayor to be the clear standout candidate in this year's White House pack, despite my disagreements with a number of his stances in the past. Early interactions between the legal advisory committee and the candidate have further strengthened my confidence in the kind of leadership he'd provide in office."

Giuliani faced tougher questions on the strict constructionism question. AmSpec Blog'a James Antle explains: "While it would be nice if the electorate was dominated by principled originalists, we're kidding ourselves if we don't acknowledge that many voters hear "conservative judges" as code words for their policy preferences on abortion, affirmative action, religion in the public square, and crime." Also at AmSpecPhilip Klein recounts that Rudy's surrogates declined to promise Giuliani would make overturning Roe a litmus test for appointments and comments: "Nothing that Giuliani says now could make up for the fact he is pro-choice. However, lining up an impressive list of conservative judicial advisors can help him make conservatives who may otherwise be inclined to support him, comfortable enough that he would appoint good judges, to look beyond his views on abortion. When it was just Olson out there defending him, people could chalk it up to the fact that they are old friends. But rolling out this team shows that the Olson endorsement was not an outlier."

GIULIANI III: A McCain Mirror Or The Fred Factor?

Pollster.com's Charles Franklin looks at recent polling trends and makes the case Giuliani will soon be joining John McCain as an also ran: "Since early March, Giuliani's support has fallen by an estimated 8 percentage points. McCain's fell by 10 points since January. And the rate of decline has been a bit steeper for Giuliani than for McCain. The saving grace for Giuliani has been that he started his decline from a higher point, around 33%, while McCain's slump started down from 25%."

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner replies: "The obvious rejoinder is that the emergence of a new major candidate, Fred Thompson, naturally siphons off support from the others. ... Giuliani's first drop came in March upon Thompson's emergence, losing four points or so while Thompson came in around 10%. ... Whatever the explanation, the fact that Giuliani's numbers have been essentially static, varying only within the margin of error, in the combined averages since early May, would seem to indicate that he's not in free fall."

ROMNEY: This Ad Can't Swim

The inboxes of conservative bloggers seem to indicate that Mitt Romney's 'Ocean' ad is not a home run. RCP Blog's John McIntyre reports: "Yesterday I asked people to send me their thoughts on the Romney campaign's new ad. Here is a representative sample of some of the emails. On balance, sentiment in the emails toward "Ocean" runs around 3-to-1 negative." The Brody File includes these responses:

• "This new Mitt Romney spot that is about to assault the air waves brings back fond memories of really bad PBS PSAs complete with beach, disasterly pathetic voice overs and can we forget the canned Muzak that fills the air of the soundtracks background."
• "Now, the message is sweet and I see where he wishes to take the piece however the whole "our children" "beach/water" metaphor bushed the envelope of really bad Hallmark writing."
• "Amen to this commercial - This seals his commitment to having a strong family value platform. Cleaning this ocean is the most important environmental pollutant to clean.very effective!"

IRAQ: If You Want People To Say The GOP Is Filibustering, Then Make The GOP Filibuster

At deadline it may still be too early to judge the success of Sen. Maj. Leader's Harry Reid's (D-NV) Iraq funding debate slumber party, but judging from the expectations of the netroots going into the night, the event was less than successful. Wishes as to how the night would turn out include:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "The strategy for this maneuver is pretty clear; drive press coverage and force the Republicans to have to pay some sort of price for their obstructionism on Iraq. It was becoming conventional wisdom that every vote took 60 Senators to pass in the Senate instead of a filibustering being an extraordinary event. This was meant to address that problem, and we'll see how the coverage is tomorrow."
• The Huffington Post's Miles Mogulescu: "It's unclear from Sen. Reid's statements if he just plans to keep the Senate in session for one night on Tuesday, and then cave in and move on if he can't, in one night, achieve a cloture vote on the Republican filibuster. If he's serious, and can't achieve a cloture vote in one night, he should keep the Senate in session for as long as it takes to get an up or down vote on the Levin/Reed bill to redeploy the troops. Otherwise, Republican talking points that this is just a political theater stunt will ring too true."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Read the names of all the U.S. military men and women who have died in George Bush and the Republican Party's war. Have Democrat after Democrat continue to read the names. They have all night. Maybe they'll even manage to get through all 3,618 names."
• TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent: "Under Senate rules, Reid would be able to ask the Sergeant-at-arms to go get the missing GOP Senators and bring them back to the Senate. ... Reid hasn't said whether he'll do this. But if he did, imagine the storyline...the Sergeant-at-Arms going out to chase down awol Republican Senators refusing to show up for a debate on the Iraq War. Seems like a narrative that Reid, who likes a bit of drama, might not mind all that much.

Early indications from MSM reports and headlines show Dems did not drive coverage as they hoped. TPM's Josh Marshall details unsatisfactory results from McClatchy, AP, Washington Post, and Reuters.

ABC's Diane Sawyer was singled out for the greatest netroots abuse for telling GMA 7/17 that Reid "vows to filibuster, talking all night to close out all topics besides a vote on Iraqi troop withdrawals." Media Matters explains: "by planning to extend the Senate session throughout the night, Reid is not "vow[ing] to filibuster," as Sawyer reported. Rather, he is highlighting the Republicans' blocking of an up-or-down vote on the proposal; in other words, it is the Republicans who are filibustering the withdrawal proposal by requiring that 60 senators vote for the amendment in order for it to pass."

Crooks and LiarsJohn Amato links and comments: "It looks like there are some reporters who stand to learn a few things.

IRAQ II: Worst Slumber Party, Ever

Few conservatives stayed up to enjoy the Iraq debate, but after the APreported that Reid "loosened up a bit on his plans to teach members of the minority that Democrats set the schedule on the debate over Iraq" sometime around midnight, Captain's Quarters was happy he did. CW blogs: "So what did this accomplish? Nothing. After midnight, most of the Senate disappeared. It turned into nothing more than a huge bluff, and Reid lost."

CQ explains: "Reid counted on Republicans forcing an end to the session by having a single member present to challenge for a quorum. No votes could take place without one, including the instruction motion to the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest recalcitrant members and drag them back to the chamber. That would have allowed Reid and the Democrats to accuse Republicans of dodging the debate, calling them cowards to take the spotlight off of their insistence on retreat. ... but it turns out that Mitch McConnell is a little smarter than Harry Reid. Instead of denying Reid a quorum, the Republicans showed up for the debate, perhaps charged up by John McCain's earlier speech on the floor. Once Reid figured out that the Republicans would not give him the satisfaction of walking out the door, he caved."

McCain's floor speech was also immensely popular among conservatives. RedState's Mike Krempasky blogs: "Where can I donate to McCain's campaign? Keep him where he is, for as long as he wants the seat."

LEST WE FORGET: What Would Harry Do?

Inspired by the Harry Potter Alliance's mission to make sure "sure our Harry Potter-crazed world recognizes the powerful social justice messages in the adventures of J.K. Rowling's young wizards," Open Left's Justin Krebs identifies some progressive themes in Rowling's latest:

• On the evil of torture: Dumbledore begs the Ministry of Magic to rid themselves of the Dementors, saying that a free society has no place for their kind in our penal system.
• On the right to trial: Harry's godfather Sirius Black was held and tortured for 13 years without a trial, and in the most recent volume Stan Shunpike and Mundungus Fletcher were imprisoned without trial despite the Minister's knowledge they may be innocent.
• On the value of diplomacy: communicating with the foreign and frightening Giants proves better option than isolation or violent conflict.
• On racial equality: full rights for "purebloods," "mudbloods" and Muggle-born wizards.
• On worker's rights: Hermione's campaign to empower the House Elves.

7/17: Good Enough

Reading through netroots reaction to ex-Amb. Joe Wilson's 7/16 endorsement of Hillary Clinton, we are reminded that HRC doesn't really need to win over bloggers in order to secure the nomination. She just needs to make sure they view her as an acceptable option. The blogger conference call promoted by HRC Internet dir. Peter Daou featuring Wilson endorsing Clinton was just the latest roll out of that strategy. In just over two weeks, HRC will be attending the Yearly Kos convention, which last year featured an entire panel devoted to the Plame affair. With Barack Obama failing to establish a Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) like progressive voting record in the senate, Clinton needs only to show up to keep the community satiated.

DEM FIELD: Not The Same Lesson Most Netrooters Took From CT SEN

Blogging at The Huffington Post, Alan Dershowitz describes himself as "a liberal democrat" who believes that "if the 2008 election were a referendum between the Republicans and the Democrats, I would have no doubt about the outcome" but also warns "elections are not referenda about parties, about policies, or about history. They are contests between personalities."

Dershowitz claims Dems will still "lose if they listen to the Michael Moore-Cindy Sheehan extremists in their party." Dershowitz concludes: "The Democrats should learn from Ned Lamont's loss to Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. It's easy to win a Democratic primary by pandering to the Hard Left. But winning that way virtually assures defeat in the general election. Any Democratic candidate who wants to be seriously considered for president should stop running for the nomination and begin right now running for the general election. The slogans that help in the primaries often hurt in the general election."

DEM FIELD II: Big Money From Little Donors

Daily Kos' Adam B posts Campaign Finance Institute data on small dollar donations and notes: "Here's the good news: Edwards' percentage haul from $1000+ donors dropped from 77% to 64% of his total, while small dollar donors rose from 15% to 24%. Overall, the percentage of contributions of $200 or less rose from 14% of all Democrats' fundraising to 21%, while the $1000+ gang dropped from 78% to 68% of candidates' overall totals."

CLINTON: Endorsing Hillary, Just Like Joe Wilson Did

Led by "Hillary Clinton's Director of Online Everything" Peter Daou, HRC's campaign did their best to capitalize on Joe Wilson's revered status among the netroots when announcing his endorsement of Clinton 7/16. Hours before the blogger only conference call, Daou sent out "a tantalizing email" promoting a "mystery endorsement." The Washington Note's Steve Clemons took the bait and was not let down by the show: "Wilson and Plame are favorites among the leftish "net-roots." They are a favorite among many bloggers for taking them seriously and for working with them to understand the nooks and crannies of what was real and not in their David and Goliath battle with the White House. ... This will have impact and will shock some. Some lefty bloggers will not abandon Obama and not forgive Clinton for being complicate in the decisions that empowered the Bush White House to wage the Iraq War. But others will now rethink their positions.

Other reactions include:

• Taylor Marsh: "Clinton has come a long way in understand the blogosphere even in the face of huge criticism and sometimes out and out bias on the blogs. ... The '08 selection season is not over by a long shot and I am staying neutral in the primary. But the endorsement of Clinton by Joseph Wilson is a big step for her campaign. ... Clinton is illustrating her ability to engage on all fronts, even where she knows she'll take heat. The strength of Clinton's candidacy continues to expand."
• TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent: "It's interesting, then, to note that the primary reason Wilson cited for backing Hillary is her view of what should happen after the war -- her awareness, as he sees it, of the need to end the war "in a way that preserves some shred of our strategic position in the region." This, of course, touches on the whole residual force debate, which ironically is something Hillary has taken heat for from bloggers and others whom the Wilson endorsement is most likely to impress."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Coming as it does via conference call with liberal bloggers 2 weeks prior to the start of YearlyKos, the Clinton campaign apparently believes Wilson's endorsement will give her a sort of she's-one-of-us cred among bloggers, if only to lessen the boos she gets at the YearlyKos presidential forum. And it just may work."
• Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt: "I agree Hillary has the strength, the smarts and the commitment to be a great President. I believe she will get us out of Iraq. I also think she will appoint excellent judges, improve our health care system and protect social security. ... This is not to say Hillary is the only candidate who fits the bill."
• Bleeding Heartland's Chris Woods: "The campaign seemed like they were genuinely reaching out to the netroots constituency, giving them a big story, and were going to let them break the news. ... However, the blogs didn't get credit with breaking the news. The Clinton campaign didn't direct the traditional or mainstream media to blogposts about the endorsement and then elaborate and what was reported by citizen journalists. ... Maybe I'm just jealous. But it sure seems like if you're going to reach out, make it count and put some force into it. Don't do it half-assed."

EDWARDS: What Did He Know And When Did He Know It

The Huffington Post's Paul Abrams has met John Edwards "on several occasions, and found him to be a thoughtful fellow" but is also "getting very queasy about him as a candidate for President, as he engages in Bush-like statements and explanations." Abrams points to Edwards denial that he knew anything about Elizabeth Edwards call in to Ann Coulter or about EE's call for gay marriage and blogs: "Two campaign strategy decisions, each involving his wife, and he was "surprised"? We have lived more than six years with an administration whose respect for the American people is so low that they consider dissembling to be a virtue. Do NOT go down that path. ... And, I will add something else -- even if, somehow, Edwards were unaware, he should take responsibility as if you had been. It is called leadership, and the quality in our next President that we need the most."

GOP FIELD: Don't Expect Any GOP Candidate To Be On The Same Stage As Bush Any Time Soon

Mark I at Redstate picks up on Bill Bennett's call for a joint GOP WH '08 press conference where every declared candidate would "stand up and say a) they support the troops and their mission; b) they believe in giving Petraeus and Lynch and their boys a chance; and c) that they will do everything in their political power to lead us through to victory, rather than retreat."

Mark comments: "Some may argue that not all of the Republican candidates will want to tie themselves so closely to Bush on Iraq. Others may say that not all of the candidates will agree on the best way forward in Iraq. I say that they must. The Republican nominee will not have a shot of winning the presidency if he presents himself as a watered-down Democrat on the war. The American people would rather vote for the real thing. ... Furthermore, the candidates don't have to agree on a strategy going forward. They only have to agree that Congress's attempts to undermine the troops and the war are harmful and must be resisted."

MCCAIN: Trolling For Staff

Reacting to newsJohn McCain hired NJ state Sen./'06 Sen. cand. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ) press sec Jill HazelbakerAtrios links to past speculations that Hazelbaker was behind pseudonymous postings at BlueJersy attacking Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ).

At the time BlueJersey's Juan Melli even matched up Hazelbaker's IP address with with those of the "troll" poster.

ROMNEY: For Cleaner Oceans

Conservatives largely approve of the strategy behind Mitt Romney's new "Ocean" ad, but some are less than convinced by its execution. Reactions include:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "its visual approach is unique for the cycle. ... The ad appears two days before Romney speaks at the Lincoln Day Dinner in El Paso County, Colorado. El Paso County is home to, among other groups, James Dobson's Focus on the Family and Young Life, two of the region's many evangelical organizations. The message of "Ocean" is one that every evangelical can agree with and applaud."
• RCP Blog's John McIntyre: "I think the ad is clearly a recognition of the changing dynamics in the Republican race as well as a clear attempt to try and preempt evangelical/social conservative support from moving en masse toward Fred Thompson."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I'm sympathetic to the message of the ad, but can't help noting the complete absence of any suggestion as to what steps can realistically be taken to clean up the culture. With the Supreme Court still committed, seemingly, to the view that pornography and pole-dancing are the core activities protected by the First Amendment, and with the ability of a public high school to prevent students from unveiling a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner a 5-4 squeaker, it isn't obvious how any President can deliver much on this issue."
• The Brody File: "Romney has come under a lot of criticism from pro-family groups because they say he didn't do enough to curtail the Marriott Hotel chain from profiting off porn videos while he was a board member. ... Let's be real here. Mitt Romney has the family and the scandal-free resume to pull it off. You won't find Romney's name next to David Vitter's on the Madame's list. Campaign ads like this can distinguish him from the field with social conservatives. This seems to be a step in the right direction."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If you watch it with the sound down, you might think it's about environmental policy. ... It reminds me of the Nissan Infiniti ads that didn't show the car, but instead featured pastoral scenes of landscapes."
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "With so much talk about abortion and which of these candidate's pro-life credentials are stronger and more consistent, Romney is upping the ante. By invoking the "culture wars" Romney can shift the conversation to more favorable ground -- his message about our "polluted" culture, his own devoted family and his battle against gay marriage in Massachusetts. In essence he will be saying, talk is cheap but look who I am and what I have done."

F. THOMPSON: Nothing To See Here

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff attempts to Politico's Jonathan Martin why conservatives were not impressed with the LA Times revelations that Fred Thompson "once lobbied for a pro-abortion group." Mirengoff blogs: "Martin may be the victim of the stereotype liberals have of conservatives -- the same one that caused many non-conservatives to believe two years ago that Rudy Giuliani had no shot at the Republican nomination. ... In reality, of course, conservatives have the wit to make distinctions, even on the abortion issue. Since Thompson's advocacy (if it occurred at all) happened 16 years ago; since it arose in the course of a minor legal representation rather than sua sponte; and since Thompson's subsequent Senate voting record was solidly pro-life, all of the relevant distinctions cut in his favor. "

Not directly responding to Martin, Captain's Quarters expresses similar thoughts: "The LA Times story about his alleged work with an abortion-rights group, which he initially denied and then appeared to retreat on the denial, probably didn't help his credibility. However, the evangelicals will look more at his actual voting record in the Senate than his lobbying activities beforehand, and there he has a solid if not spectacular record. NARAL listed him as a dangerous opponent, while National Right To Life gave him consistently high marks."

IRAQ: But Does He Have Enough Troops To Sustain The Strategy?

Pleased that theircampaign to pressure Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) into forcing the GOP to filibuster on the Levin-Reed DoD funding amendment played some role in Reid's decision to do just that, the netroots are stepping up their campaign to make sure Dems follow through with their threat. Phoenix Woman at Firedoglake blogs: "Call your Democratic Senators. Tell them it is time for Republicans to be exposed ... Yes, Harry Reid's already announced today that he intends to do just that. But let's hold him to that!"

Other positive reactions include:

• Bob Geiger: "With the whole specter of cots being dragged into Senate cloakrooms and the pure theatrics involved, I'm hopeful this will shine a white-hot spotlight on the Senate's Republican leadership and show Americans how the GOP doesn't truly support helping troops and their families at home or extricating them from pointless involvement in the Iraqi civil war."
• Crooks and LiarsJohn Amato: "Sen. Dick Durbin made a passioned plea in Congress on the Iraq war. He called out the Republicans obstructionism on the war and Mitch McConnell's 60 vote straw-man argument. Also, CNN called it a "theatrical" event by the Democratic Party. We're talking about war and hell and these idiots are bringing in Broadway.
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "This is theatrics, yes, but it's theatrics to bring to light the ongoing efforts by the Republicans to block any and all efforts to force a change of policy in Iraq."
• The Huffington Post's Lane Hudson: "This is a welcome development. First, it shows that Reid is ready to play some hardball in order to advance the will of the American people. Second, it will quickly expose the Republicans for what they are: blind supporters of a failed foreign policy that has sacrificed several thousand American lives because we were lied to by an unpopular President."
• Matthew Yglesias: "I don't think this is particularly good political theater, as such, but something needs to be done to highlight the fact that things aren't passing the Senate not because "congress" can't take action or because "the Senate" is rejecting various proposals but, specifically, because the filibuster lets the GOP block the majority's initiatives."
• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: "It's about time on the Iraq filibuster. But it's a very good move. There has been little if any press attention to the fact that senate Republicans are filibustering practically every piece of legislation to come before the senate. But Iraq is the sui generis issue. And the Democrats need to make it clear that the Republicans won't allow anything on Iraq to even come to the floor."
• Atrios: "Should make them do it until the Iraqi parliament comes back from vacation."

Conservatives are unimpressed with the tactic, and The Corner's David Freddoso doesn't even think Dems have the votes to pull it off: "Right now, there are only 50 working Democratic Senators (Tim Johnson D, S.D. hasn't cast a vote yet this year), and there are only 49 if you don't include Joe Lieberman (who I hear isn't really up for this sleepover, whether you want to count him as a Dem or not). ... You need 51 senators for a quorum, in the event that someone makes a quorum call - which any senator can make at any time. So all it takes is one Republican to stay in the chamber, object to anything the Democrats try to do, and then note the absence of a quorum. When the quorum is called, and only 50 senators are present, the Senate adjourns (or at least it can't come out of the quorum call without unanimous consent), and the whole stupid stunt is over before Senator Byrd can even begin his outraged four-hour speech."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum notes Freddoso's point, blogging "it sounds disturbingly plausible." Drum later updates: "[T]his all depends on Republicans unanimously boycotting Reid's all-nighter in the first place (except for one senator to call for a quorum). True enough. But as Freddoso points out, even Republican senators who oppose the war don't have much incentive to help Reid out by showing up for this. It might not be hard to derail it."

Also on the right, Townhall's Hugh Hewitt promotes VetsforFreedom.org efforts to bring "some fresh perceptive from folks who have been there and done the fighting" to Congress and the MSM.

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Does This Mean dKos Is That Big, Or That O'Reilly Is That Small?

Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly has picked a fight with Jet Blue over their official sponsorship of 8/2-5's Yearly Kos convention. O'Reilly ambushed Jet Blue CEO David Barger outside his apartment with "hate"ful quotes dKos commenters and then aired the segment 7/16. Michelle Malkin lends her hand to help O'Reilly linking to the shows transcript, hosting a photoshop contest with Jet Blue's logo, and providing contact info for Jet Blue.

The Kossacks couldn't be happier to be in the fight. On vacation in Greece, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas posts O'Reilly inspired messages from his inbox including: "U/R a dirty rectum licking slime maggot! Born from Karl Marx Feces." Kos comments: "Irony in spades, layer after layer of it. But what can you say when O'Reilly runs the most hate-filled television show in cableland, on the Republican Party's premier propaganda outlet?"

Daily Kos' mcjoan adds: "This is a curious gambit by Fox. Do they really want to get into a corporate sponsor fight? Seems dangerous territory to tread for them. Because if they want to have that fight, we can have that fight." Crooks and LiarsJohn Amato posts video of O'Reilly's show and comments: "FOX and the right has been shaken at its core because of the growth of the netroots and the American people that have finally caught on to the policies they promote. They were so angry at the role the netroots played in discouraging the Dems from participating in their debate that they'll stop at nothing-not even making up ridiculously out of context stories-to discredit those who tell the truth."

IMPEACHMENT: How Much Progressive Legislation Is Bush Signing These Days?

Netroots calls for the impeachment of VP Cheney have reached a level that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) felt the need to post a diary at Daily Kos explaining why he did not support such efforts. Feingold blogs: "I fully respect the anger and frustration many Americans feel with this administration. I share much of it. But on balance, I think Congress's time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation." Color Kossacks unconvinced:

• Senator end the war through impeachment. Bush and Cheney are outlaws! The only way to stop em is to throw em out!
• Low Point For Russ - Never Thought I'd See It. The Russ I know stood up to impossible odds, and when everyone told him he was wrong, he spoke louder. And now he's telling us that impeachment is just too hard. Well gawd damn.
• What else can we do? We can't get anything passed while Bush continues to veto progressive bills sent to him! What's better: two years of a few bills passed but most important ones vetoed, or at least an attempt at correcting this grave misuse of executive power?
• No more bulls**t! No more excuses! We're sick of it. It's time you get on board for justice in America - or be prepared to suffer the consequences.

Not responding to Feingold, Firedoglake's Scarecrow picks up on Charlie Savage's Boston Globearticle reminding "us of a fundamental truth about the history of Congressional efforts to end wars: while there have been many examples of Congress voting to end authorizations and/or to cut off funding for ill-conceived military adventures, such efforts, even when nominally endorsed by the President, almost invariably failed when the Presidency is held by pro-war Republicans willing to ignore the law."

Scarecrow concludes: "What our history tells us is that if Congress truly wants to alter America's policies in Iraq, a winning strategy probably requires removing the war's zealous champions from the White House and encouraging the American people to relegate the Party of Aggressive War to 40 years in the political wilderness."

Finally, The Blogometer erred 7/16 in citing David Sirota as the author of a pro-impeachment post at the group blog Working for Change. Leah Adler made the argument, not Sirota. We apologize for any confusion.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Less Than Historic

Noting that CNN editors will be selecting which YouTube-user videos will be used in 7/23's Dem debate, Kausfiles argues CNN and YouTube are completely missing "what's so innovative and subversive about YouTube--namely the ability of average citizens to put political messages before millions of potential voters without the approval of MSM gatekeepers."

Kaus advises them to rectify the situation: "It's not too late for CNN to save its "unprecedented" format. The debate is a week away. Post all the competing videos on YouTube tomorrow afternoon in a way that easily lets viewers pick the most popular, and commit CNN to broadcast, say, 20 questions from the top 40 submissions at random. No gatekeeping. ... A no-gatekeeper format really would be unprecedented, and will terrify the candidates. Politicians know the sorts of questions CNN editors pick. They can handle those questions. But who knows what an army of partisan geeks in their basements will select? Even if the questions aren't penetrating in themselves, we'll get to see the candidates react to unpredictable events, which will be revealing even if the questions themselves are stupid."

LEST WE FORGET: Moo

After catching an outdoor staging of Hamlet in Hollywood Forever Cemetery, The Huffington Post's Jennifer Ouellette was reminded that the play was her least favorite of Shakespeare's efforts and puts together ten things she hates about Hamlet, including:

• That Damned Indecisiveness. "To be or not to be," blah, blah, blah. No one would ever accuse Hamlet of acting impetuously (apart from accidentally stabbing Polonius through the arras); he's the quintessential procrastinator.
• Shhh! Quiet Please! You know those people who can't sit through a movie without offering some opinion or insight about it? Hamlet is one of Those People. He goes to all this trouble to stage a play to confront his uncle about the king's murder, and then can't shut up during the performance.
• Sacred Cow Syndrome. Hamlet is considered one of the greatest plays in the English language, and every actor knows it. So there's an unspoken reverence upon approaching the role that, more often than not, has a deleterious effect on any given performance. The actor invariably becomes self-conscious, and the audience, in turn, is aware that they are watching a performance -- rather than being transported into an imaginary world.

7/16: If It Happened Once ...

If Barack Obama's stagnation in the polls are any indication, Hillary Clinton has managed to mitigate his early credibility on the war in Iraq (based on his pre-Senate opposition to the invasion), by demonstrating how consistent their records have been on the war since Obama joined the Senate. Those hard-core Howard Dean supporters who energized the party in '04 and '06 have been keeping score since Obama came to DC, and they're not impressed with his anti-war creds. If HRC can change her netroots image from Iraq-hawk to anti-war leader, who's to say a GOPer not forced to back Pres. Bush with votes in the House or Senate couldn't pull a similar trick among the general electorate?

All of the top-tier GOP WH '08ers have been equivocal on their support for Bush's surge at best. With John McCain now an also-ran, the new big three (Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney) are free to shape their own Iraq statements unencumbered by cong. votes that force them to either stand with or distance themselves from Bush. With this flexibility, it's not impossible to picture the Dems' '08 advantage on Iraq squandered by HRC and her '02 vote for the war facing off against a GOPer highly critical of Bush's conduct in the war coupled with a newly energized GOP base. Stranger things have happened.

DEM FIELD: You're Both Right

Tracking the dispute between Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards over how many candidates should be allowed in upcoming Dem debates, Open Left's Chris Bowers is sympathetic to both parties: "No matter how it may end up being portrayed in the media, I think Edwards is right to try and seek new debate formats. The established format of having eight candidates on a stage at the same time providing 60-second answers, in random order, to questions that generally lack focus simply does not work for anyone. Voters do not learn much about candidates. Issues are not discussed in depth. There is no meaningful exchanges between candidates, and candidates themselves have little chance to offer more than sound-bite insight into their ideas for America. These formats are so awful, that even a political junkie like myself can't watch them. We need something better."

Bowers goes on to suggest MoveOn's issue based virtual townhalls would be more informative: "By giving each candidate 5-10 minutes of interrupted time to answer questions on a focus issue--first Iraq, and now global warming--Democratic primary voters can actually learn useful things about each candidate."

CLINTON: Must Change Campaign Song In Deliberative Manner

The Plank's Michael Crowley reports from a 7/16 Hillary Clinton rally in Manchester, NH:

It's true, as everyone says, that Bill overshadows Hillary. He's smoother and warmer and speaks in more natural cadences than his wife. ... At times even Bill seemed to tune out his wife. He would slouch down, elbows on his knees, and slip into a slackjawed daze -- only to snap out of it just in time for the end of an applause line, suddenly looking around with a wistful grin as if whatever it was he hadn't really heard was just marvelous and isn't she terrific? ... It also seemed that the audience craved more red meat on Iraq than it got. Hillary drew roars of approval when she declared that "we have got to bring our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible." But she then stressed that any Iraq exit must be conducted "responsibly and carefully" and "in a deliberative manner," and it was crickets chirping.

Crowley concludes: "P.S. Celine Dion is unbelievably more hideous when blasted over a loud PA system."

EDWARDS: Don't Mention The Haircut

Campaigning separately, John and Elizabeth Edwards stops in Reno, NV, and Anamosa, IA, this weekend. Reno and its DiscontentsMyrna Minx saw EE open the official campaign in office in Reno: "A man that can pick a woman like Elizabeth Edwards as a life partner demonstrates excellent judgment. What an asset she is to the Edwards' campaign."

Back in IA, MyDD's Nate Willems reports from Anamosa's Lawrence Community Center: "Senator Edwards spoke briefly about his new policy initiative on creating "Green Collar" jobs in America before moving to about 45 minutes of questions and answers. ... In talking to the Democrats in attendance, I think there are a lot of 2's (people leaning towards Edwards) with very few 1's (committed supporters). There are also a lot of people who are seriously looking at Edwards and Richardson or Edwards and Obama."

In other Edwards related blogging, Open Left's Matt Stoller takes NBC's Jim Miklaszewski to task for accepting $30k to give a speech for the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, "a speech in which he bashed Edwards for the haircut incident." Stoller tracks established criticism of journos on the lecture circuit, noting NBC's past policy banning such practices and concludes: "Did Miklaszewski break company policy by accepting this speaking fee? It certainly would seem he did ... Anyway, it seems worthwhile to figure out if this practice is a regular occurrence at NBC, and if they've reversed their policy. Is the pay-to-play once again explicit?"

OBAMA: That Is So 2002

Citing polling data showing that positive press surrounding Barack Obama's strong Q2 fundraising totals failed to turn into any gain on Hillary Clinton's frontrunner status, the netroots continue to blame Obama's stalled momentum on his failure to distinguish himself from HRC on Iraq. MyDD's Jerome Armstrong blogs:

Then Obama arrived in the Senate, and for 20 something votes straight, Obama never met an Iraq war-related or funding bill that he would vote against. Obama and Clinton's voting record of supporting funding of the War since then is identical. ... Obama wants to make a preemptive differentiation that only he is prepared to be the Democratic nominee based on his original opposition to invading Iraq. It's as if Obama is trying to become the Dean of '08 in attracting those of us who were against this war from the beginning. But the comparison of Obama to Dean ends in 2003. Dean never supported funding of the war, Obama continually did until the most recent vote. ... If Obama thinks he's going to move primary and caucus voters toward him by making a vote that happened 5 years earlier, given his strident support of funding the war, he's wrong.

Open Left's Matt Stoller voices similar thoughts. First citing poll numbers showing as many as 42% of Dems favored invading Iraq, Stoller writes: "Now, it's far less forgivable that Clinton didn't come out for withdrawal until 2007, and up until 2006 didn't want timetables. But Obama didn't make arguments about ending the war that differed substantially from Clinton's. So both Clinton and Obama fit well within the mainstream of Democratic opinion in 2002-2003 ... Anyway, I just think that it's important to understand why Obama's critique of Clinton on the war isn't working. Lots of Democrats made that stupid judgment call as well, as are willing to forgive a bad decision from five years ago. And Obama's had five years to distinguish himself on Iraq, and hasn't."

Not everyone is being critical of Obama however. AMERICAblog's John Aravosis likes his plan for taking US troops in Iraq and moving them to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border: "Smart move. Bush and the Republicans need to be hit repeatedly on this point. They let Osama slip away. They chose to invade Iraq, where Al Qaeda never was, rather than go after Al Qaeda itself. And now Al Qaeda is stronger. Of course it is, we've ignored them for 6 years - well, other than training them in Iraq."

OBAMA II: A More Experienced Lincoln

Matt Bai's New York Timespiece claiming "Obama ... would set a new precedent for inexperience in the White House" drew strong defenses of Obama's career. MyDD's Jonathan Singer blogs: "[That] statement is demonstrably false -- Abraham Lincoln served just two years in the United States House of Representatives, while Obama will have served four years in the United States Senate by the time the next President is inaugurated."

Matthew Yglesias also took issue: "If Obama is elected to the White House, he will have served eight years in the Illinois State Senate and four years in the United States Senate. In the twentieth century, I count Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan as all having served fewer than 12 years in public office before assuming the Presidency and I count exactly twelve for Warren Harding. To find a President with as few as six years of public office under his belt before becoming President, you need to go all the way back to . . . the current President of the United States so it's not like you need to be a historian to figure this out."

OBAMA III: The Future Of Political Discourse In Our Country

The Huffington Post was the first to post the "latest video from Team Obama Girl." In the current episode, Obama's buxom brunette supporter squares off in a pillow fight with the star of the "Giuliani Girl" video. HuffPo's Rachel Sklar reviews: "Solid outing from Team Obama Girl, and, it looks like, third time's a charm."

WEBB: Still Can Be The Face Of The Dem Party

Sen. James Webb's (D-VA) 7/15 Meet The Press showdown with Sen, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Iraq drew wide netroots praise. Open Left's Matt Stoller blogs: "This is great stuff. It's undeniable. Now, if Reid had made the Republicans filibuster the Webb amendment last week, Webb would have been the face of the Democratic Party. ... Wow."

Webb's forcefulness on the issue even soothed over those with past disagreements. Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat blogs: "I have been tough on Jim Webb due to his refusal to consider using the Spending Power to end the Iraq Debacle and I will continue to be, but one thing I always have believed is that Jim Webb, like Wes Clark, conveys confidence, even arrogance, when discussing national security issues that; something Democrats desperately need as a political matter. Webb does not cower to the nonsense spewed by Republicans with their talking points.

GIULIANI: Less Hating Abortion, More Loving The Constitution, Please

The Brody File makes the case that Rudy Giuliani's "Justice Advisory Committee" led by ex-US Sol. Gen. Ted Olson is his best bet for alleviating any worries social conservatives have about his candidacy: "If I'm Giuliani, I would continue to push judges in nearly every stump speech. When it comes to social issues, abortion isn't a winner for him. When he talks about how he hates abortion and the number of abortions dropped during his time as Mayor, that just doesn't quite do it for pro-lifers. Instead, start figuring out how you can convince voters that you'll be reliable on nominating strict constructionist judges. This strong committee is a start. It gives Giuliani some cover."

F. THOMPSON: Landing The Right Endorsements

The Brody File was deluged with email after posting Southern Baptist Pres. Richard Land's claim that, "It's Fred Thompson's race to lose." Reader responses include:

• "I am a Southern Baptist layman and deacon who is very involved in the SBC. Dr. Land is where I think most of us are right now, we can't come out and flat throw all our support to Thompson because although he stands morally with us he is not a faithful evangelical."
• "I agree with Dr. Richard Land on many things, but not on this one. Supporting a candidate because of popularity seems pretty silly."
• "When Christian "leaders" such as Dr. Land tell us six months before the primaries that it's Fred Thompson's race to lose, while also telling the MSM eight months before the primaries that our highly qualified Christian brother Mike Huckabee has no chance to win, it seems to me that Christians need to find new leaders."
• "[Y]ou can add my voice to the list of those who have taken the time to study the candidates and come to the conclusion that Fred Thompson is the man to back. His positions on a host of issues are very consistent with mine. I'd even say that in reference to nearly all national issues on which I've spoken, he's right there. The few points I've come across on which I might differ with him have been explained to my satisfaction, and then some."

IRAQ: Bring Out The Diapers

A growing chorus of netrooters want Sen. Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to forcer GOPers to actually filibuster Dem Iraq legislation from the Senate floor. Open Left's Chris Bowers makes the case: "This is would be a welcome step and tactical change. No more simply allowing Republicans to defeat Democratic legislation just by holding a cloture vote. It is time to actually make Republicans carry out the filibusters they threaten when they vote "no" on cloture. ... Politically, there is no way we can lose by employing this tactic."

The Huffington Post's Miles Mogulescu is on the same page: "Sen. Reid: It's time to force the diminishing minority of Republican Senators who continue to support Pres. Bush's failed Iraq strategy to "go to the diaper", speak 'round the clock, bring cots and sleeping bags into the Senate chamber, as the American people watch them try to talk to death a vote on an Iraq redeployment bill that a majority of Americans support. ... I predict that the filibuster by these "courageous" Republican warriors will crumble and the Senate will join the House in sending a troop redeployment bill to Pres. Bush's desk."

But there is also growing concern that "toothless" measurers like the Levin-Reed amendment are diluting Dem strength on the issue. A Booman Tribune writer that GOP defections are helping to boost anti-war GOP credibility: "As ludicrous as it sounds, it is the Democrats who are getting the blame for not doing enough to get our troops out of Iraq, even though they have only had a few months and fewer opportunities to do so. And it is the republicans who are getting the small bit of glory for pressuring Bush to change course."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat also worries that Dems are creating too many "safe harbors" for anti-war GOPers to hide in, and pushes for a binary votes on Iraq spending for next spring: "offer the Republicans equitable treatment for the Warner-Lugar Amendment, the same as that given the Reid-Levin binding timelines Amendment. Either both face a cloture vote, or neither. Either both come to the floor for an up or down vote, or neither. Let up or down votes become the Dem mantra on this. Make the GOP create their own safe harbors."

Also, TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent takes Rep. Dan Boren to task for suggesting its the Dems who are moving the goalposts on Iraq.

IRAQ II: Blame Game

Sens. John Warner's (R-VA) and Richard Lugar's (R-IN) new proposal for Iraq was not well received by conservatives. Mark at RedState blogs: "it's not a way forward, but a trip backwards. The Senators introduced an amendment to the Defense Appropriation Bill that would require the president to seek a new Congressional authorization for continued military operation in Iraq. This was a bad idea when Sen. Hillary Clinton proposed a similar amendment, and it didn't get any better once a Republican's name was attached."

More from Mark: "For as much as Sens. Warner and Lugar don't want the United States to lose the War in Iraq, their Democratic colleagues don't want to be blamed for losing it. That is why they can't get the votes to simply cut off the funds for the war. Proposals like this one only give the Democrats cover to continue undermining the war effort with their show votes and political stunts."

IMPEACHMENT: To Impeach, Or Not To Impeach

Bill Moyers 7/13 show discussing impeachment with The Heritage Foundation's Bruce Fein and The Nation's John Nichols drew a fresh round of calls for Dems to begin hearings. David Sirota blogs at Working for Change: "For the last 6 years, we have watched the Bush administration commit illegal crimes from leaking information about Valerie Plame to having an illegal wiretapping program on American citizens. With a crippled system of checks and balances the president and vice president feel they are above the law. They must answer for their crimes and the solution is impeachment. If you haven't spoken out on this issue tell Congress right now to bring impeachment hearings for our two top executive leaders by clicking here. It is critical that we save our Constitution and finally hold our leaders accountable."

At Eschaton, Avedon adds: "It's just my opinion, but everyone in the country really should watch the video of John Nichols of The Nation and Bruce Fein of The Washington Times explaining to Bill Moyers why we should and must impeach them." The Left Coaster's Steve Soto is also on board: "After watching this show, it only reinforces my belief that contrary to Nancy Pelosi's thinking, impeachment shouldn't be off the table, but rather should be the one of the only courses served on the table."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat, however, throws water on the whole idea: "Why not instead of wasting time on an impeachment that will never happen, we instead apply ourselves to pressuring the Congress to use the power the Founders intended as the principal check on the Executive? Why not concentrate on reviving that check? Oh by the way, with the added benefit of actually STOPPING Bush's abuses and follies?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Too Early To Tell

Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal summarizes some findings on polling and cell phones from the annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) and concludes:

So what is the bottom line? Surveys via cell phone are feasible, but much more expensive than landline surveys and with some methodological kinks (like weighting) yet to be worked out. Supplemental cell-phone interviewing is going to be important for the multi-million-dollar government surveys that track health and health related behavior (including some measures that currently show statistically significant bias when the cell-phone only population is missed).

So what do we do about the cell-phone only problem? Those of us who obsessing over political polls need to keep a close eye on the special cell phone surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center and, perhaps, by others pollsters. These will provide invaluable clues as to whether the cell-phone-only problem is creating any sort of consistent errors in political surveys.

LEST WE FORGET: Singing The Blues

Conservative dissatisfaction with Pres. Bush has grown to the point country ditties dissing the texan are being posted at The Corner. John Derbyshire reworks the first few lines of Sammi Smith's and Kris Kristofferson's 'Help Me make it Through the Night' to bring us:

HELP ME GET BACK TO THE RIGHT
Take the W from my car.
Peel it off and let it fall.
Leave the bumper clean and bright
For this sticker from Ron Paul.
It's not me that's changin' sides.
It's more a case of seein' the light.
I've supported Bush too long.
Help me get back to the Right.

7/13: What Have You Done For Us Lately?

Referring back to his pre-Senate opposition to the Iraq war is a compelling argument in his favor, but Barack Obama is quickly learning that there's an upper limit to the number of Dem primary voters who can be converted to his cause by this argument alone. As Obama's initial polling rise has flatlined, sympathetic bloggers are beginning to wonder if his invocation of the past on Iraq jibes with the forward-looking message of the rest of his campaign. MyDD's Todd Beeton blogs: "Perhaps the reason Obama hasn't been able to capitalize more on his early opposition to the war among the most anti-war constituency there is, Democratic primary voters, is that voters sense the inherent conflict in Obama's call to look to the future even as he seeks to remind us of votes that took place in the past."

DEM FIELD: If You're Waiting For Hillary To Answer, Don't Hold Your Breath

Still frustrated by the lack of clear distinctions among WH '08 hopefuls on the most pressing issue in the primary, Open Left's Chris Bowers solicited answers from each Dem campaign on the following two questions:

1--Assuming the current level of violence in Iraq does not decrease, what missions would President XXXX have American troops carrying out in Iraq after his / her first year in office? ... 2--In your best estimation, how many American troops will be required in order to carry out these missions, if any?

Only Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Barack Obama responded to Bowers, and their answers to the question on the number of troops they would leave in Iraq includes:

• Bill Richardson: "In a nutshell, his plan calls for getting all US troops out of Iraq as soon as possible with no residual forces. None."


• Chris Dodd:"I believe these targeted missions-limited in scope, limited in size-can be carried out in such a way that is consistent with the overarching goal of my Iraq policy which is to encourage the Iraqi people to stand up for themselves and their country. And this will not necessitate any permanent bases."


• Joe Biden: "[W]e have to let the uniformed military decide how many troops are needed to safely and effectively carry out the mission. ... If violence goes down and the prospects for a political settlement go up, and we decide to keep a smaller residual force in Iraq to perform the limited missions I described above, the force size could be anywhere from about 20,000 to 60,000. Remember, we need between 5,000 and 10,000 troops just to protect the Green Zone. But the exact number would be up to the military."


• Barack Obama: "Barack Obama wants the size of the American force left in Iraq to be as small as possible, and does not support having permanent bases in Iraq. However, it is impossible to say at this time how big a residual force would have to be."

DEM FIELD II: Better To Be Ineffectual Than To Get People Mad

At The Huffington PostThe Nation 's Ari Melber reports that while MoveOn.org will run a virtual primary for the organization's endorsement 10/07, it is unlikely anyone will capture the prize since MoveOn will require a majority, not a plurality, of approval from members. Melber calls a MoveOn endorsement "the closest any Democrat can get to becoming the official netroots candidate" but remembers that MoveOn failed to endorse Howard Dean after he maxed out at 44% of MoveOn member support. MoveOn exec. dir. Eli Pariser explains that if they endorsed despite a split in membership "we'd end up pissing off 49 percent of our list."

DEM FIELD III: A Bounce To Big

Open Left's Chris Bowers builds off earlier research on the IA straw poll's effect on NH. According to Bowers data, historically a 1st place caucus finish averaged into a 14.5 point bounce in NH polls. 2nd place upped NH numbers 3.2 points, 3rd led to a 3.5 point slip, and 4th place finishers fell 4.4 points.

Bowers then looks at current NH polling and concludes: "Clinton's advantage in New Hampshire is currently so strong that it appears she has a more than reasonable chance to win the state after a third or fourth place finish in Iowa. In fact, while several other scenarios are quite close, she is currently projected to win the state in every scenario, except for a third or fourth place Iowa finish combined with an Obama Iowa victory."

CLINTON: Netroots Tested, "Pop Tart" Approved

Linking to Hillary Clinton Internet Dir. Peter Daou's Daily Kos diary announcing Clinton's attendance at 8/07's YearlyKos convention, Ari Melber notes that HRC is "the last major Democratic candidate to confirm her attendance at the convention in Chicago." TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta comments: "The question is how HRC will approach this audience. My bet is that, rather than going for a soft-sell reconciliation with the netroots, she will make sure to put just enough inflammatory material in the foreign policy section of her presentation that she will ensure she gets booed again -- the kind language she does not generally use with audiences of foreign policy experts, if her speech to the Center for New American Security at the end of last month was any indication -- so as to help cement her image as the centrist in the race, instead of someone who is unelectable because too liberal."

Also at TAPPED, Elisabeth Zerofsky links to David Brookslamentations on the state of women in pop music and sees similarities in HRC's appeal to the young women who Judith Warner claims are HRC's most loyal supporters. Brooks writes on today's pop star: "She's like one of those battle-hardened combat vets, who's had the sentimentality beaten out of her and who no longer has time for romance or etiquette." Zerofsky responds: "This phrase struck me as an apt description of the way people seem to regard Clinton -- and of the way media tend to portray her. But, if you can get past the damning rhetoric and look at the raw qualities of "independence" and "self-sufficiency" Brooks is actually talking about, you can see why these young women admire Clinton the way they do. They see themselves in her."

EDWARDS: Freedom's Just Another Word ...

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong reports John Edwards won the "Largest MoveOn Event Since 2004," their straw poll on climate change. 33% of all MoveOn members voted Edwards climate policy prescriptions the best of the Dem field while only 25% of those who participated in MoveOn house parties chose Edwards.

At both MyDD and Daily Kos, David Mizner explains why Edwards fans are buoyant these days despite a distant third place finish to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the money race:

It will be difficult for John Edwards to win the nomination. No one should be deluded about that; I don't think anyone is. But Edwards supporters (I'll presume to speak for all of us) are more excited than ever. We like the positions he's taking, the rhetoric he's using, the way he's running. If he loses, it will be on his own terms. ... And if amid our excitement you discern confidence, that's because we know his message will resonate with voters as they compare the candidates. Also because we sense in Edwards a freedom that's rare for a top-tier presidential candidate. He's relatively free from the ties that normally bind candidates. Conventional wisdom, the approval of the Establishment, pressure from big donors: none of this is constraining him."

Also in pro-Edwards blogging, TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent makes the case that New York Times is "botching" coverage of Edwards when they assert that Edwards $30 mil. net worth and $400 haircut stories undermine his focus on poverty. From Sargent: " This passage is not factual reporting. It's the reporter's opinion. It is not an observation that Edwards' image has been hurt. This reporter is stating outright that she believes that being rich "stands in sharp contrast" to advocating on behalf of anti-poverty policies."

Finally, Taylor Marsh reports on Edwards "empathy quotient" from a Steel Metal Workers union hall in Las Vegas, NV: "But it was when audience members asked questions that something different happened between the candidate and the people that I haven't seen so far from any other candidate. The equanimity and empathy between the candidate and the people was palpable. ... Whether it was the personal health crisis or talking about the minimum wage, Edwards' ability to hear and respond to the audience, to engage and reach out to them was remarkable. It was also more than a politician looking for votes. Edwards seems to have the ability to touch people."

GRAVEL: He Can't Get No Respect

Mike Gravel posted at Huffington Post on the Human Rights Campaign decision not to invite him to their first-ever presidential debate on gay issues: "To say that I'm shocked is an understatement. I can confidently say, of all presidential candidates, I've been the most outspoken advocate for gay rights. ... One of the top tier candidates would have been comfortable facing an opponent who consistently points out their refusal to embrace true equality for gays and lesbians. HRC simply bowed to the star factor. It's just a shame that this travesty was perpetrated in the name of the LGBT community."

Fellow HuffPosters sided with Gravel. From Sarah Whitman: "Mr. Solomonese, this is ridiculous and embarrassing. Let Mike Gravel have his two minutes on stage with the rest of the candidates. As a lesbian, an activist and most importantly to you, someone who donates money, I have to say there is not a single reason to keep Gravel from the debate." Mark Foley outer Lane Hudson: "This is just nuts. HRC needs to go ahead and let the guy participate."

OBAMA: Back To The Future

Claiming Barack Obama's inclusion of the line "It should never have been authorized" was "a not so subtle dig at his primary rivals," MyDD's Todd Beeton goes on to doubt how much more mileage Obama can get on Iraq by simply referring to his pre-Senate opposition to the war. Beeton blogs: "I've got to think that at this point it's not a matter of merely reminding people that he had the foresight and the good judgment to come out against the war from the beginning -- I think people know that. ... Perhaps the reason Obama hasn't been able to capitalize more on his early opposition to the war among the most anti-war constituency there is, Democratic primary voters, is that voters sense the inherent conflict in Obama's call to look to the future even as he seeks to remind us of votes that took place in the past."

BROWNBACK: Memo ... From: Pot ... To: Kettle ... RE: Your Blackness

Townhall's Matt Lewis posts a press release from Brownback's campaign that officially proposes a new word be added to the dictionary: "Mitt-amorphasis." NRO's Jim Geraghty writes in response he "kinda" likes Brownback, but "you just cannot go after an opponent on flip-flopping when you just voted "yes", then "no" on cloture for the immigration deal in a span of about 13 minutes."

GIULIANI: King Of The Hill

Ed Morrissey posts at Captain's Quarters on Rudy Giuliani's new additions to his foreign policy advisory staff, including "notables" like Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, ex-WI Sen. Bob Kasten and scholar Martin Kramer. "The choices show Giuliani tilting to a solidly conservative national-security approach to foreign policy." The leader of the group, Charles Hill was scheduled be on Morrissey's radio show today.

HUNTER: Fair Play

Duncan Hunter posts at Power Line that there's nothing "fair" about the Fairness Doctrine, which "in practice would censor conservative radio hosts and drive them off the air." Hunter promises that when he's elected POTUS, he would veto such a measure if it ever came across his desk.

PAUL: At Least They Have Hillary In Common

Red State's Erick Erickson writes though he's given Ron Paul flack in the past for his views in 9/11 and Iraq, he still set out to do a podcast with him from the campaign trail. "A raucous crowd met him" in SC and he toured Silicon Valley at the end of the week. Erickson asked him about his opposition to Iraq, his online support in light of his low polls "and what his plan would be....to stop Hillary Clinton."

ROMNEY: The Next Olbermann?

American Spectator's Philip Klein blogs that he's argued for while now that Romney's flip-flopping would be "devastating" in a general election and links to an ESPN clip showing his "flip-flopper narrative has already made it into popular culture."

F. THOMPSON: You've Gotta Fight, For Your Right, To Life Credentials

Romney fan Dean Barnett blogs at Townhall that Fred Thompson's "non-campaign" looked "decidedly not-ready-for-primetime" for this week's lobbyist story. "The dodge that lawyers/lobbyists don't need to share the views of their clients and shouldn't be held responsible for them is a pile of hooey." In terms of message, Thompson's team "are roughly were Rudy and Mitt were when they blundered their way through the winter." Thompson's "campaign" is not doing him or his party any favors by waiting until September to announce -- "it's only fair that he allows" GOPers "to make an informed decision about the man who seeks to lead them."

Meanwhile, Outside The Beltway's James Joyner blogs Thompson seems to "backhandedly acknowledge that the claims that he lobbied for an abortion rights group on a tangential matter...are true in a guest column." But it "wouldn't bother me in the least if the charges against Thompson are true," as "Thompson's views on abortion law have always been somewhat nuanced" and the matter he lobbied for "is hardly a cornerstone issue."

NRO's Jim Geraghty writes he "can't help but wish Thompson offered a clear answer the first time this was asked." Geraghty suggests something like this: "Way back when I was just another Washington lawyer, I was asked by a partner to help out with a client that wanted to loosen the first Bush administration's stance on abortions overseas...This group couldn't even get their phone calls returned from the administration, so as a favor to the partner I made some calls. As expected, they went nowhere...My spokesman erred when he said I did nothing for the group; what he should have said was I did nothing productive."

Race 4 '08's Tommy Oliver posts an e-mail from the Natl Right to Life Cmte Pol Dir Karen Cross on Thompson directing readers to the organization's Web to see his full voting record "against abortion, euthanasia, and experimentation on unborn babies' bodies" -- "an excellent pro-life voting record."

IRAQ: One Vote At A Time

The netroots celebrated the passage of the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act as another sign the debate over the war is trending in their direction. MyDD's Todd Beeton notes: "This is a remarkable improvement over the McGovern amendment, which only had 171 votes for withdrawal in May, and even represents an improvement over the more moderate Iraq Accountability Act, which passed the House with 218 Yeas. While we're making some progress convincing more members to support withdrawal, we're still well short of the point at which Mr. 26%'s veto pen will cease to be a factor."

Daily Kos' mcjoan took the time to highlight the Dem defections on the bill, but still optimistically concluded: "But the vast majority of the caucus has now gone on record as supporting a date certain for redeployment." Open Left's Matt Stoller also notes that "despite the strong antiwar sentiment in the public, the margin of 223-201 in passing the Responsible Redeployment act is smaller than the Democratic margin in the House, which is 231-201" and asks: "I'm curious when the press is going to begin to report on the iron-clad discipline in the Republican party for this occupation. ... It's an important story."

Keeping her eye on the Senate, Daily Kos' BarbinMD thanks Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) for his amendment requiring Pres. Bush withdrawal troops from Iraq "within 120 days" even though "it allows George Bush to waive the requirements" but then goes on to take Levin to task for telling his fellow Senators: "I have not wished this to be debated on an appropriation bill because I don't think we ought to try to have a policy debate and decision when it involves the funding of our troops because I think hopefully all of us want to fund our troops."

Barb responds: "It's hard to say what is most infuriating about that statement. That he once more dismissed using Congress' only weapon against a President gone wild: the power of the purse. Or that he used the Republican talking point that Democrats want to cut off the troops. You know, leaving them in Iraq to pawn their weapons for food while they thumb a ride home. And hasn't he ever heard of a funded withdrawal? This is the bad."

IRAQ II: Victory Does Not Include Defeating Al-Qaeda

NRO's Jim Geraghty has a lengthy post on Tony Snow's 7/12 conference call with conservative bloggers on the interim Iraq progress report, including this snippet: "Asked for victory in a phrase, Snow tried, 'Iraqis able to control the basics of their state, and to provide for their own security and freedoms.' One caller wanted 'defeat al-Qaeda' in there, prompting Snow to give a much longer one. This is not a typical war. Al-Qaeda is not going to come to the table and sign a document of surrender.

Also popular on the right, Instapundit links to Jake Tapper's questioning of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): "TAPPER: Senator Reid, what do you say to critics who say, "Look, the Senate voted, including two of you up on the stage, to authorize the president to use force in Iraq. Is there not a moral obligation of the United States to make sure that the Iraqi people are safe before the U.S. withdraws"? It's very clear that withdrawing U.S. troops might make U.S. troops safer, but it won't necessarily make the Iraqi people safer."

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Doing It For The Children

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan has been warned that if she follows through on her threat to challenge Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) she will be banned from promoting her candidacy at Daily Kos. An already strained relationship between the anti-war Sheehan and the pro-Dem Daily Kos community took a turn for the worse 7/9 when Sheehan posted in a Daily Kos diary:

The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats. Don't tell me the Democrats are our "Saviors" because I am not buying it.

This prompted a front page response from dKos Contributing Editor Trapper John titled: "You Can't Spell "Daily Kos" Without a Big Capital 'D'." TJ blogged: "[T]he purpose of the site is 1) to elect Democrats, while 2) reforming the party, opening it up, and making it more responsive to its members, and then 3) to elect reform Democrats and create a progressive Democratic majority. Therefore, Daily Kos will not endorse or condone non-Democratic candidacies except in those very rare situations -- Bernie Sanders in Vermont is the only one to come to mind -- where there is not a bona fide Democratic candidate running for the office."

TJ's post did not mention Sheehan by name, but community members knew exactly what he was talking about, as did Sheehan who blogged 7/12: "I have been "warned" I can't post here anymore because my potential run for Congress is not on the Democratic ticket. ... I know a lot of you are hostile towards my candidacy. Please understand that I am doing it for your children and grandchildren (and my surviving ones.)"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Not Your Monkey

Atrios mercifully shortens an Open LeftChris Bowers post on the relationship between bloggers and the progressive organizations/Dem candidates they support: "Just to provide a somewhat "shorter Chris Bowers," to an incredible degree causes/organizations/campaigns/hell, even just readers/etc... fail to understand that The Mighty Bloggers are mostly individuals with limited time and resources, and have rather unreasonable expectations about what we should be doing for them."

LEST WE FORGET: Get Over Yourselves

Those tired of sanctimonious Barry Bonds critics now have a fashion outlet for their beliefs. ScrewEverybody is selling t-shirts proudly proclaiming: "Screw Everybody ... I Love Bonds." The Barry lovers ask: "Do you truly believe these so called baseball purist or fans who think Barry's records should include asterisks or that he should eventually be denied entrance to the Hall of Fame? True baseball fans know that the Hall of Fame has plenty of members who cheated - pitchers who The Entrance to the Baseball Hall of Fame changed the make-up of the balls . . . Do you believe that Barry is the only player that may have done something to his body? No pitchers were 'juiced' against him? Come on."

7/12: Whose Free Rider Problem?

Looking at the last 5 months of Dem WH '08 polling, many in the netroots are beginning to worry about how well Hillary Clinton has solidified herself atop the field, and they aren't confused why: her ability to minimize distinctions between and her opponents on Iraq. NBC First Read's Mark Murray asks "Is Hillary Getting a Free Pass on Iraq?" But the better question is: "A free ride from whom?" After all, it was Barack Obama and John Edwards who sat passively on stage while HRC told Dems during the 6/3 CNN debate that "the differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major. And I don't want anybody in America to be confused." Bloggers like Blue Hampshire's Mike Caulfield are doing their best to draw out distinctions on the issues, but really isn't it her rivals' jobs to identify and communicate this message?

DEM FIELD: Not So Minor Differences

Seeking to help voters determine real differences between the candidates on key issues, Blue Hampshire's Mike Caulfield posted the results of his Iraq Policy Straw Poll 7/11. Each candidate was asked "to define what makes them different from the other candidates" on Iraq, beginning their answer with the sentence 'I am the only candidate who...' while promising to refrain from citing their resume. Responses include:

• Chris Dodd: "I am the only candidate with a plan that will immediately begin redeploying our troops from Iraq within 30 days and responsibly end this war by March of 2008. Earlier this year, I was the first and only candidate to co-sponsor the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment, and later this week, I will introduce an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill that expands on the ideas set forth in Feingold-Reid-Dodd."
• Joe Biden: "I'm the only candidate who has a plan not only for getting our troops out of Iraq, but for what we leave behind. Leaving Iraq is necessary, but it is not enough. We have to ensure that as we leave we do not trade a dictator for chaos in Iraq and the region."
• John Edwards: "I am the only candidate who supports an immediate withdrawal -- today, not in four months -- of 40,000-50,000 troops, to trigger Iraqis and regional powers to find a political solution, which is the only way to resolve the situation."
• Dennis Kucinich: "I am the only candidate for president who organized opposition to the Iraq war in Congress, who voted against allowing President Bush to go to war, and who has voted 100 percent against funding the war."
• Bill Richardson: "I am the only candidate in this race who believes we must get all US troops out of Iraq with no residual forces left behind. None. Those who say we should leave behind a residual force must answer this question: how long does that force need to be in place before we can leave? One year? Two years? Five? Ten?"
• Barack Obama: "I am the only top-tier candidate who opposed this war from the beginning and who has energized the grassroots to pressure Congress to listen to the American people and bring the troops home. In 2002, Senator Barack Obama publicly opposed the war because he knew that even a successful overthrow of Saddam Hussein would result in a war of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. The disastrous course of the war has affirmed that foresight."

DEM FIELD II: Cruisin' With The Homies

Open Left's Chris Bowers is concerned tht "for quite some time, there has been only one trend in national polls on the Democratic nomination campaign: complete stability." Bowers links to a Pollster.com graph showing Hillary Clinton cruising over 10 points above the rest of the Dem field nationally and adds: "Although fewer data points lead to somewhat less stable trend lines, the situation in early state polling is not much different. In Iowa, Edwards narrowly leads Clinton, who narrowly leads Obama, just as it has been for months. ... In New Hampshire, since the beginning of the year, Clinton and Richardson are up a few points, while Edwards is down a few points. These slight movement are not much to write home about."

Bowers then explains why the stability worries him: "This stability is not a healthy development for the progressive ecosystem. ... A boring campaign is not good for the progressive ecosystem, because it results in a less engaged progressive rank and file."

CLINTON: Come On And Take A Free Ride

MyDD's Jonathan Singer links to a NBC First Read post headed "Is Hillary Getting a Free Pass on Iraq?" and comments: "all the better for her campaign for being able to somehow spin a position that is at least somewhat to the right of that of much of the rest of the Democratic field into one that looks about the same as that of much of the rest of Democratic field. A campaign that is that politically and strategically deft is one that can win a primary election and one that can win a general election."

Singer is still worried, however, that "her positions aren't the right ones and that she has taken stances in the past that, however politically popular at the time, did not pan out" and pleads for NBC to "run the same story and others like it on its evening news, which is viewed by a few million people. Such a move would probably negate the need for such questions and headlines in the first place."

OBAMA: Too Bad Blagojevich Just Got Re-Elected

Admitted Barack Obama fan Matthew Yglesias still is not impressed with Obama's recent call for merit pay for public school teachers. Yglesias blogs: "This simply isn't much of a federal issue. Presidential primary campaign talk about teachers is always going to be dominated by efforts to court union support precisely because education policy is such a tiny proportion of what a president actually does."

GOP FIELD: Advantage Rudy

Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal admits the data on post-John McCain GOP Field polling is thin (limited to RT Strategies/Cook Political Report) but reports "without McCain in the race, Giuliani's support increases by 7 or 8 percentage points, while none of the other candidates gets a boost of more than 2 points. This means that while Giuliani is the first choice of 20-21% of Republicans, he is the second choice of roughly 35-40% of those who supported McCain in June. So for the moment, a collapse in McCain's support should work to Giuliani's advantage."

GIULIANI: Firefighters Not Catching Fire

Conservatives continued to help Rudy Giuliani push back against firefighter union attacks on his record as NY mayor. Townhall's Matt Lewis reposts a Giuliani email documenting the partisan bent of the union, going back to their 1988 endorsement of Michael Dukakis and leading up to IAFF Pres. Harold Schaitberger's co-chairing of John Kerry's WH '04 campaign.

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein chips in with YouTube clips of Giuliani emergency management dir. Jerry Hauer defending Giuliani's choice on command center location, former IAFF chapter pres. Pete Gorman admittting the cideo was a "political message," and links to "a more detailed response to specific criticisms made in the video."

GIULIANI II: Team Rudy

Giuliani's announced foreign policy team drew rave conservative reviews. Power Line's Scott Johnson blogs: "Yesterday Rudy Giuliani announced part of his foreign policy team. Among the notable stars are Norman Podhoretz, Martin Kramer, Peter Berkowitz, former Senator Bob Kasten, Kim Holmes, and Harvard Professor Stephen Rosen. Perhaps most notable to me is Yale's Professor Charles Hill. Among other things, Professor Hill is a legendary diplomat and the former chief of staff of the State Department. ... These are all stellar appointments. Their support of Giuliani is impressive. ... Over at The American Thinker, Ed Lasky capably profiles the team.

The Corner's Michael Rubin alerts readers to Kramer's excellent webpage and blog.

F. THOMPSON: A Lot Of Clients Chased Him ... And Those Who Chased Him Tended To Catch Him

Fred Thompson posted a lenghty response to the Los Angeles Times stories on his past lobbying work at Power Line, including:

A lawyer who is a candidate or a prospective candidate for office finds himself in an interesting position because of the nature of the legal profession and the practice of law. This is true when the practice was as varied as mine, and it's especially true when the office being considered is the Presidency of the United States. ... The easiest and most generally used tactic when running against a lawyer is to trade off a general perception that most people dislike lawyers. ... A first cousin of this ploy is to associate the lawyer with the views of his client. ... Even if my memory serves me correctly, it would not be appropriate for a lawyer to make such comments. I'm certainly not surprised that such a diverse career is being mined by others.

Power Line's Scott Johnson adds: "We'll probably have a bit more to say on the Democratic attacks on Senator Thompson's professional work, though we will reserve our own comments for subsequent posts. In the meantime, thanks to Senator Thompson for entrusting us with his column on a subject that is close to our hearts."

NRO's Jim Geraghty explains why the LAT has usch little credibility on the issue: "I would note that if the he-lobbied-for-abortion-groups story had come from... well, let's just say a news source that isn't the Los Angeles Times, it might carry more weight among conservatives. ... As it is, the Los Angeles Times, famous for its hit piece on Arnold Schwarzenegger right before the 2003 election, is so widely distrusted among the right that I'll bet more than a few conservatives have concluded that if it comes from the L.A. Times, it can't be true."

F. THOMPSON II: Just A Tease?

Patience for Thompson's impending official announcement is beginning to wear thin. Remarking on CNNcoverage suggesting Thompson will wait till 8/07, IA Voice blogs: "It's like he's approaching this campaign from a Hollywood perspective, trying to make it like an old 1980s sit-com. You know the kind I'm talking about, the shows where the romantic tension is high and the question is "will they or won't they?" Problem is, once "they do", the results almost never live up to expectations ... and once you've rung that bell, it's very hard to unring it. In other words, it could hurt him, playing this "will he or won't he" game."

Hot Air's Allahpundit has similar thoughts: "I think it might be because Congress is in recess in August and he'll have the headlines to himself. If he announces now, his press coverage runs side by side with stories about spiking violence, Republican defections, and disastrous opinion polls, none of which do him any good given his own position on the war. Or maybe he's just doing the actorly thing and building suspense for his grand entrance. I don't know, and I don't much care anymore."

F. THOMPSON III: What Would Buckley Do?

Captain's Quarters is not impressed by Brody File revelations that Thompson argued the GOP should avoid producing an official platform in '96 to avoid an ugly fight over aborion. CQ writes: "Especially after Pat Buchanan's appearance in 1992, Thompson wanted a unified convention, which he knew the Republicans needed to gain any momentum against Bill Clinton. ... So, considering the vulnerabilities it imposes on individual candidates, the arguments and disunity it causes when drafting it, and the complete and utter lack of interest from voters, I think the question should be asked again: why have a platform at all?" CQ later updats with a William F. Buckley article against "platforms altogether."

IRAQ: What's So Bad About National Ice Cream Day?

The netroots continued to attack Sen. Ken Salazar's (D-CO) "Iraq Study Group" bill, hoping to deny GOPers an opportunity to distance themselves from Pres. Bush on the war without actually hindering his ability to prosecure it. AMERICAblog's John Aravosis singles out AP's coverage of the bill and blogs: "This legislation has no more impact than National Ice Cream Day, and for AP to suggest that this somehow implements the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group is absurd. ... Come on, AP, don't just repeat what people tell you. Everyone lies."

A Center for American Progress memo arguing against the bill since "the ISG's recommendations are ambiguous and others have been overtaken by events" is being widely linked to in netroots circles. Daily Kos' mcjoan links and urges: "Beyond the fact that the ISG recommendations are largely now rendered meaningless ... codifying these recommendatons in a toothless sense of the Senate resolution--which Salazar's effort is--achieves nothing to change the course of the occupation. It does nothing to take us closer to a redeployment of forces out of Iraq--indeed, it could result in a never-ending commitment. ... Call them and tell them to vote for both of the upcoming Levin/Reed and the Feingold/Reid amendments."

IRAQ II: Have Any Senate Dems Voted For A Timetable That Passed Either?

Seeking to buck Senate GOP resolve on Iraq, Townhall's Hugh Hewitt notes "that neither Senator Domenici nor Senator Smith has yet crossed the political Rubicon that is support for date-certain defeat. Indeed, no GOP senator up for re-election has yet voted for a timetable that passed." Hewitt advises conservatives not organize yet, but warns: "if enough Republicans defect to allow such a bill to pass, then the course is clear. I can't support someone who doesn't support victory. I suspect there are tens of thousands of Republican activists who feel the same way. ... Even if a GOP senator gets everything else correct, if their vote allows the war to be lost, I don't know how a Republican activist can contribute to or work for their re-election."

At RedState, The Directors have a lengthy post (they even apologize for its length) on Iraq, including:

The war in Iraq is vital to America's national security and to the Global War on Terror. It is a fight which we are not currently losing on the ground, and which we will not lose if we commit to victory. ... Each place that the coalition openly fights against al Qaeda, the citizens and tribesmen join in, standing side by side with Americans - their differences forgotten - and helping to win back their neighborhoods, their cities, and their country. This is the truth about what is happening on the ground - the truth that the American people do not hear, and Ms. Pelosi will not say. ... The Iraqi people do by and large want us there - not forever, but until they are secure enough to take over themselves. ... The American military can win this fight. What is needed is for the American people, and their leaders, to put politics aside in favor of presenting a united front against those who, regardless what concessions we make, will do their utmost to kill us.

Also at RedState, Paul Seale tells the MSM to stop saying John McCain's candidacy failed because of Iraq: "I hate to mention this to you folk in New York and California who run the news departments, but that is not why we Republicans are not attracted to Senator McCain right now. ... most of McCain's fall can be centered on his positions during the immigration debate and a few other areas in the past where he failed to carry the mantle of small government. ... In the end, though, I would argue that McCain's strength is the Iraq war. I would argue that the most qualified person to the Commander in Chief in the GOP field (okay, the entire Presidential field) is John McCain."

IMPEACHMENT: Coming To A Congress Near You?

Harriet Miers invocation of Pres. Bush's direction that she not testify before the House Jud. Cmt. spurred a fresh round of impeachment talk. Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall links to Marty Lederman analysis showing that while Miers is under no leagal obligation to follow Bush's request she honor executive privilege, she is under legal obligation to honor the subpoena. And a Talking Points Memo emailer makes the case that "telling a person not to show up in response to a subpoena - if only to actually invoke the privilege ... is a felony under federal criminal law."

Atrios responds: "Let's impeach the President for lying or committing felonies. Either way." And a Daily Kos diarist tracks news that Dennis Kucinich's impeachment legislation has gained two new co-sponsor's: Reps. Jim Moran (D-VA) and Sam Farr (D-CA).

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: If Only Carbon Trading Were This Easy

Tyler Cowen alerts us to an expanding markety in Europe: driver's license points. Cowen excerpts:

It is the latest ruse on the roads of France: drivers are avoiding disqualification by trading licence points on the internet. Complete strangers are taking the rap for speeding offences in return for up to 1,500 euros (1,000 pounds), and police admit they are powerless to intervene. Even pensioners who have not driven for many years are getting in on the act. ... French officials were unable to estimate the scale of points fiddling. Across the border in Spain, the Autopista.es online motoring site, estimates the black market in points there is worth 30 million euros a month.

LEST WE FORGET: Less Than Meets The Eye

Matthew Yglesias counters Steve White worries that Michael Bay's cozy relationship with the Pentagon makes Thansformers "an apologia for militarism." Ygelsias defends:

Obviously, the film is soaked in enthusiasm for military hardware. On the other hand, the threat from the Deceptacons is quite real. Meanwhile, until the climactic battle with the Deceptacons, the tension in the film within the "good guy" camp. Mostly, the paranoia of the national security apparatus -- represented by the chief of Sector Seven and the guys who want to imprison Bumblebee -- versus the correct liberal view that we need to widen the circle of allies, distinguish between good and bad alien robots, etc. Similarly, the Autobots have a minor conflict between the more hawkish Ironhide and the more dovish Optimus Prime on the subject of killing humans, in which Optimus' more pacifistic stand gets a positive portrayal. All-in-all, I saw a balanced, patriotic, security conscious liberalism not the run-amok nationalism and militarism of the Bush-era GOP.

7/11: What Should Edwards Do?

Considering how flat his attacks on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for not leading on Iraq fell during the Dem debate on 6/3, and the indirect swipes Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) took at him for criticizing what those with actual votes were doing in the Senate, maybe a campaign semi-suspension tour focussing solely on poverty is just about the only counter-programming available to John Edwards while the Senate takes up the DoD authorization bill. Edwards can only apologize for his '03 vote so many times, and unlike most of the '08 field (save Bill Richardson and Mike Gravel), Edwards has no legislative outlet to demonstrate his policy prerogatives on the war. But if Edwards is forced to cede the stage every time the signature '08 issue comes up, how does he expect to gain ground on the big two?

DEM FIELD: Against Foot Shooting

U.C. Berkeley econ prof Brad DeLong is not happy with news that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have agreed to co-sponsor legislation levying duties on Chinese goods should the Chinese fail to revalue their currency. DeLong explains: "Of course, then the candidates will be attacking US consumers (who will pay higher prices for imports), workers in the construction industry, US borrowers (who will then pay higher interest rates to domestic and foreign creditors), and US homeowners (who will see the higher interest rates push down housing prices and reduce their equity). The net short-run effect is surely a minus -- it's not as though we desperately need to swap construction jobs for manufacturing jobs right now, and we surely don't need a more-rapid decline in housing prices right now."

Matthew Yglesias is also alarmed: "The Democratic proposal to slap a punitive tax on Chinese goods and the people who buy them unless the People's Republic re-values its currency to something the US Congress is happy with is a bad idea, and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama shouldn't be supporting it. As Brad says, it's 'a classic threat to shoot ourselves in the foot.'"

CLINTON: It Depends On What Your Definitions Of 'End' And 'Now' Are

Clinton Internet Dir. Peter Daou promoted HRC's 7/10 Des Moines, IA speech on Iraq at The Huffington Post and Daily Kos. Daou titled both posts: "Hillary on Ending the War: 'Not next year, not next month, but today'" and excerpted select lines, including:

• "After more than four years, more than $450 billion, and human costs beyond measure, it is abundantly clear that there is no military solution to the crisis in Iraq."
• "It is long past time that the president ended American combat involvement Iraq's multi-sided, sectarian civil war, fought for power, revenge, and personal advantage."
• "America needs a president with the strength and experience to end this war. I will be that president."
• "No permanent occupation of the country. No more neighborhood patrols. No more being caught in the middle of a war whose side we do not even know we should be on."

Reaction at HuffPo and dKos was mixed. A HuffPo poster pulled another passage from HRC's address ("As President, I will convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my Secretary of Defense and my National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting within the first 60 days of my Administration.") and mocked Daou's header: "That's not next year, not next month, not tomorrow, or not today... that's more like a year and a half away." Other takes include:

• "Hillary is the candidate with the most detailed plan for ending the war. In my opinion, she is the only candidate who will be able to step in to the role of President on Day 1 and end the war as quickly, as diplomatically, and as safely as possible."
• "This now makes her a viable candidate for me."
• She says that she will end the war, have no permanent occupation of the country, and no more neighborhood patrols. ... and last I heard ending the war meant keeping 60k to 70k troops there. And what about the contractors, she made no mention of the 100k plus mercenaries. Come on Hillary, if you mean to end the war, tell us what ending it means to you. From your past comments, your version of ending the war is different from my version of ending it.
• I'm going to do as Hillary has done in the past and adopt a "wait and see" approach. We'll see if she continues this kind of talk.
• No, she didn't apologize for her 2002 vote, and she never will. But it was a tough speech and laid out a plan on what she would do as president if Bush dumps this problem on his successor.

EDWARDS: Clear Frontunner In Race To Be HRC's Poverty Czar

MyDD's Todd Beeton hits back against Anne Kornblut's assertions that Edwards focus on poverty is designed to draw attention away from the "'three H's' that have dogged his campaign -- expensive haircuts, a lavish new house and a stint working for a hedge fund." Beeton links to Media Matters research showing that Kornblut previously characterized Edwards campaign as "focused almost exclusively on poverty." Beeton comments: "I suspect, though, that the campaign would gladly take a million such articles because it's a million more articles that mention poverty than there would normally have been."

OBAMA: Can't We All Just Get Along

Disparate 7/10 critiques of Barack Obama seem to have one theme: Obama has so far failed to distinguish himself policy wise from Hillary Clinton. Posts along these lines include:

• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat after analysing dueling HRC/Obama Iraq speeches in IA: "For me, Obama's emphasis on who supported the war would be easy to understand IF he chooses to lead on ENDING it now. If he does that, he can regain the political high ground on Iraq, which he ceded to Edwards among the Big Three."
• The Huffington Post's Bill Curry: "Before a ballot is cast, the Democratic race is narrowing down to just two horses. ... Some debate it will be then. Obama and Clinton prefer metaphors to risky, boring policy prescriptions. All politicians do, but in message as in money these two chart new territory. ... If your concerns are deeper than just being tired of the Clintons, if you worry that both parties are in hock to the same crowd and can't recall the last time a Democrat made a promise worth keeping, you'll have to act quickly. ... By Columbus Day there may be no second tier.
• The Huffington Post's Dan Carol: "Dear Senator Obama: I think I speak for a great many political pros -- and regular Joes -- in wondering when we will be seeing your next big, bold, audacious move. We're out here hoping, in droves. Yes, it's great that you are winning the money race with record numbers of small donors, but you won't have a truly great campaign until you deliver a message that does more than make the call for hope. In my experience, Americans are desperately seeking to embrace a signature idea that involves them directly in fixing their communities."

A highly popular Daily Kos diary (over 1k comments) goes along way to explaining Obama's popularity despite his failure to stake out any signature ideas. From the post: "Much has been made of Barack Obama's call for a 'new' kind of politics and his disparagement of the 'smallness' of our politics. Amongst some supporters, this is viewed as him playing a healing role in our society and political process. Amongst his detractors, it is viewed as a vacuous, "getting along for the sake of getting along" attitude that opens him up to charges of Liebermanism or hypocrisy when he throws a sharp elbow. ... Both groups are wrong. ... What Obama recognizes is that bitterness and anger aren't bad because they are aesthetically unpleasant--they are bad because they serve to protect those who would stand in the way of social progress in this country. Polarization and division are anti-progressive. They are Karl Rove's game, and we don't win by playing someone else's game."

RICHARDSON: Something For Melissa Ethridge To Quiz Him On

Mark Foley outer Lane Hudson flags a Gay News Watch story on Bill Richardson's recent apology for using a Spanish epithet for gay people while on Don Imus' show sixteen months ago. Hudson blogs at The Huffington Post: "This is incredibly disappointing to me. Governor Richardson has seemed to work very hard to build a solid record on LGBT issues. ... I even attended a breakfast that his campaign had in Washington to woo gay supporters. ... There is no room in this race for any Democrat who harbors any kind of homophobic ideas. It's 2007 and the time for discrimination in any form is over."

GIULIANI: No Fire In This Smoke

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner looks at reports on NY firefighter union criticism of Rudy Giuliani and doesn't see much:

While I fully agree that Giuliani has gotten far too much credit for his role in the aftermath of 9/11 (as well as some other things), this particular set of criticisms is rather absurd. Surely, it's not the mayor's responsibility to test firefighter equipment. And it's certainly reasonable enough to try to get the nation's largest city working again rather than delaying it to recover dead bodies. The decision to keep the command center atop the Towers is more problematic, I think, although there may have been sound logistical reasons for doing so.

MCCAIN: No Joy In McCainville

Politico's Jonathan Martin and Atlantic's Marc Ambinder have must-read insider accounts on the exodus of top staff from John McCain's campaign. Martin notes that Terry Nelson had been trying to resign for weeks and Ambinder reports that both John Weaver and Mark Salter chose loyalty to Nelson over loyalty to McCain.

The Corner's Lowry reports some observer's are blaming Weaver for trying to re-build the Bush 2000 campaign at just the time Bush was falling out of favor with the right.

F. THOMPSON: Driven To Distraction

An old YouTube of Fred Thompson on Sean Hannity generated a discussion of Thompson's pro-life credentials in The Corner 7/10. Ramesh Ponnuru linked to the following Evangelicals for Mitt analysis of Thompson's performance: "Near as I can tell, from looking at it and doing some research, Senator Thompson believes two things on life. First, he thinks the states should decide abortion policy, which would require overturning Roe v. Wade. So far, so good. Second, Senator Thompson himself would not support a ban on abortion in his state. ... And if I'm right, there is an extremely important difference here between Governor Romney and Senator Thompson--because Governor Romney has already said that he not only opposes Roe, but would also support a ban on abortion in his state."

Kathryn Jean Lopez responds: "I think he was inarticulately saying he doesn't want to throw women in jail, right? I think he just didn't say what he would do if he were a state official making the decision as to whether to ban abortion or not. ... He wants to say, I'm pro-life, I hate Roe and want it reversed. Then, when Roe is reversed, the states should decide."

Ponnuru concluded that this position shouldn't pass pro-life muster: "[I]f he doesn't think that abortion should be generally prohibited, which his comment could also reasonably be interpreted to mean, then he shouldn't say that he's pro-life. He can say that he is a great ally of pro-lifers and that he would be with them on every practical issue that is before him. But if he doesn't believe that state governments should prohibit abortion generally, then he's not pro-life."

Also talking Thompson and life, The Brody File flags the following '96 Thompson quote advocating not having a GOP platform at all: ""Does anyone remember what was in the last platform, except abortion? If we get caught up in having a platform debate and stuff like that, we deserve to lose." Brody comments: "[I]t seems pretty clear that Thompson felt abortion was more of a distraction to the party. ... Pro-lifers will take issue with that. ... be warned FDT fans: The other campaigns will be gunning for your guy. I don't think Romney or Giuliani will do it publicly. They have their own abortion issues to deal with. Instead, expect a stealth campaign where stories "pop up" about Thompson's past musings on this issue. They know he's a threat."

F. THOMPSON II: What Happens At Arent Fox ... Gets Front Paged At The LA Times

In more positive Thompson blogging, Mitt Romney hater Soren Dayton reports Thompson was all the rage at the recent Young Republican conference and "was struck by the 'you' language that was coming out him. 'I'm here to thank you', 'I'm here to help you.'" Townhall's Patrick Ruffini also saw significance in being referred to in the second person: "How much of the 50%+ Thompson is getting in blog straw polls ... is due to stuff like this -- flattering the blogosphere, making it about "you?" I'd bet more than a few points."

At NROJim Geraghty prepares readers for yet another Thompson hit piece, this time on Arent Fox lobbying on behalf of Chile in '91 and '92. Geraghty writes: "Allegedly, one primary source for this Times story is the same as the last one: former Congressman Michael D. Barnes (D-MD). ... This raises an interesting question: If you're a current or former legal partner of Barnes, and you have a disagreement with him, what assurances do you have that he won't talk about any of your work or clients to the Los Angeles Times? Do Arent Fox partners make a habit out of talking about their former coworkers to the media?"

At Race 4 '08Tommy Oliver helps rebut Thompson as lazy claims by linking to former GAO Public Affairs Chief Jeff Nelligan's blog. Nelligan worked with Thompson when Thompson chaired the Senate Gov't Aff. Cmt. Also, RedState's Erick Erickson wraps up his interview with Thompson talking fiscal conservatism, Alberto Gonzalez.

IRAQ: It's The Vulnerability Stupid

The netroots are pleased with DSCC efforts to pressure GOP Senators up in '08 with television buys in their home states tying them to Pres. Bush on Iraq. MyDD's Jonathan Singer blogs: "So this is what I'd like to see more of, not only from the party committees but also from the outside groups who purport to want to forward the progressive cause. Begin running ads when an issue is still on the public's mind. Run ads when the momentum is on your side and just a little more of a push could win even more support for your efforts." Open Left's Matt Stoller adds: "Senator Schumer is media savvy, and my read is that this ad is designed more as a statement of DSCC priorities than a real attempt to knock down McConnell's numbers. But stating those priorities, while Democratic elites and liberal groups plan their strategies for 2008, is a critical part of building a narrative of vulnerability."

Also at Open Left, Chris Bowers highlights the efforts Americans Against Escalation in Iraq in pressuring Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) on the war. Bowers blogs: "We saw moderate Republicans wiped out in the Northeast last cycle, it's looking like a new crop of Republicans in suburban districts like that of Kirk are endangered. If only the Blue Dogs and New Dems would wizen up, we could actually stop the war."

TERROR POLITICS: Zero Credibility

The netroots were never a fan of DHS sec. Michael Chertoff, nut following his warnings that Americans would have to go without lettuce if the immigration bill was not passed, conservatives have turned on him as well. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez links to reports of Chertoff's "feeling" there be an attack this summer and writes: "After the immigration debate, excuse me for not trusting this man's gut."

Michelle Malkin was harsher: "Maybe if he hadn't spent so much time, energy, and capital lobbying for the open borders agenda of Big Business and Big Agribusiness, I'd put more faith in Chertoff's concerns-and in his ability to do anything about them. Ideas have consequences. The consequence of Chertoff and the White House's full-throttled push for shamnesty? Severely damaged and diminished credibility at a critical point in the war on terror overseas and at home."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Washington Was Robbed

Jack and Jill PoliticsJill Tubman responds to Ann Hornaday's Washington Postspeculations on why few/no big budget pictures movies have been made about the civil rights movement:

Hornaday gives 'X' it's moment, omitting that it was the performance of Denzel Washington's career, and that he was snubbed for an Oscar for playing a Civil Rights leader so he could get one a decade later for playing a drug dealing criminal who compares himself to King Kong. ... Hornaday's identification of the Nation of Islam as occurring "outside the context of the mainstream Civil Rights Movement" illustrates the white privilege of perspective in history. What Hornaday means by "mainstream" is those aspects of the Movement that included white people. At the height of its power, the Nation of Islam's 'Muhammad Speaks' newspaper was the most widely read black newspaper in the country.

The story of Malcolm X is largely an exclusively black one. And the reason that Hollywood has failed to make a comprehensive epic about the Civil Rights movement is, despite what many Americans would like to believe, the story of the Civil Rights Movement is largely an exclusively black one. This is not to say that whites were not involved, but Hollywood, and by extension our understanding of American history, has over-emphasized the role of white activists in order to exonerate the rest of the country from its participation in, and tacit approval of, institutionalized racism. ... The story of the Civil Rights Movement is the story of African-American courage, dignity and suffering. Telling that story without spotlighting white heroism means engaging years of the willing participation of white Americans in institutional and cultural racism, rather than comforting a white audience with a white hero.

LEST WE FORGET: If You Needed Any Proof The Cardinals' Season Is Over ...

Deadspin points us to one NL fan upset Tony LaRussa kept the NL's best hitter for the past five years on the bench with two outs and the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth:

Unreal. La Russa was trying to prevent the National League team from getting home field advantage. There's no other logic. Mired in the Cardinals misery, La Russa has used his unjust hand to strike out his anger at his fellow National League-mates. He knows how good Pujols is, he's his damn manager. ... Listen, I know he wants as many people to play as possible. There was only one guy left on your bench. He's your own player. He's one of the best people you could ask to have coming off your bench in this situation. Rowand had already hit once. Why would you do this La Russa. Why do you hate the NL so much. I mean, I thought that "This Time it Matters" or something.

7/10: Winning The Enemy Primary

The Los Angeles Times may not be a great foe to have in a general election, but when you are trying to establish yourself as a credible conservative frontrunner, there are few better enemies to have. For the second timein less than a week the LAT is whacking Fred Thompson with a thinly sourced article attacking Thompson's conservative credentials, and again, no conservatives not officially signed up with a rival campaign are buying. As AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein points out, these efforts only "rally conservatives" to Thompson's cause. If Thompson keeps his primary fights confined to Michael Moore and the LAT, he'll cruise to victory.

GIULIANI: YouTube Has A Terms Of Use Policy For A Reason

A YouTube featuring an anonymous driver making fun of Mormons who "assume the missionary position" for two years after high school and describing Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson as an "attractive gay couple" is circulating conservative inboxes. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez comments: "The Giuliani campaign should really make known that it wants that YouTube guy to stop making it look like he's doing an official (albeit amateurish) ad for their campaign (He advertises Rudy's website at the end). Picking on a candidate's religion and another's wife isn't what you want associated with your campaign."

ROMNEY: Aw Shucks, Mitt

The Brody File admits Mitt Romney's Mormonism and flip-flop reputation have hurt, but then explains why Romney continues to gain ground among social conservatives: "Why? Because let's do a quick check of the other candidates. Is there one top-tier candidate that is consistently and pro-actively talking about the culture war in this country? Go down the list. Not one of them is doing it. ... you can also make the case that he's the most "pro-family" candidate out there. He even has the "perfect family" thing going. I feel like every time I see them I start to whistle the "Leave it to Beaver" theme song."

Brody then links to video of Romney talking family values at the Young Republicans 7/8 conference and Race 4 '08s Jason Bonham links and remarks: "Romney really is the only candidate that will argue for all three legs of the stool- not just economy and defense. He is the only one arguing for a platform that includes Strong Economy, Strong Defense and Strong Families. Like it or not, families are the backbone of our society."

Also batting for Romney, Townhall's Hugh Hewitt hits back against "an interesting strategy from the MSM eager for a long campaign" signaling out a Politicostory playing down the importance of the IA caucus. Hewitt blogs: "Expect more 'Iowa doesn't matter as much as it used to under the old calender' talk from every candidate who sees Iowa as a lost cause ... no matter all the spin, Iowa is a key test of the ability to organize and win in a purple state crucial to '08. The GOPers skipping Ames made one mistake. Underestimating the importance of the January caucuses would be a second huge mistake. You can't win a nomination by losing elections."

THOMPSON: Bury This Story At Wounded Times Reputation

Conservatives pushing back against the LA Times 7/7 hit job claiming Fred Thompson lobbied for abortion rights groups believe they have the LAT on the run. NRO's Jim Geraghty notes that National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn pres. Judith DeSarno's recollection that she specifically remembered Thompson reenacting a "cowboy death scene" from one of his movies has been removed from the current version of the LAT story after it was pointed out that Thompson had not acted in a cowboy movie till "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" this year. Also chipping in, Race 4 '08s Tommy Oliver links to then-WH CoS John Sununu's denial of the LA Times claims and comments: "pretty harsh words from Sununu leveled at the LAT, and the group making these accusations."

The Brody File confirms that the Times assertions are gaining zero traction among social conservatives, quoting Family Research Council pres. Tony Perkins: "From what I've heard people are not biting on the story. They consider the source as well as the modus operandi, someone steps forward who is pro-life and is appealing to conservatives and he is attacked for being pro-abortion in an effort to drive a wedge between him and the base." AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein explains the actual impact of the Times story: "a huge coup for Thompson by rallying conservatives on his behalf against the mainstream media."

Thompson himself picks up on that exact message in Part II of his interview with RedState's Erick Ericksonhere . Thompson also defends the decision to remove Saddam Hussein, adding: "we must do everything possible to win the war."

DEM FIELD: It's Almost As If Iraq Will Be A Major Issue In '08

Open Left's Chris Bowers finds it "very difficult to have a useful debate over Iraq ... without comparing not only the specific missions the different candidates would have American troops carry out in Iraq if elected, but also reasonable estimate for how many troops those missions would require. Information like this is crucial both to understanding the differences between Democratic candidates on Iraq, and also to an informed electorate that understands our different options when it comes to Iraq."

More Bowers: "Anyway, one of my first, long-term campaigns on Open Left will be to try and find the necessary information to clear up this matter. ... Almost every day, it seems more and more likely that we will in fact win the White House next year, and so we better start understanding what a Democratic administration would do when it comes to the defining issue of this decade: Iraq. This is one issue where we can't afford to be surprised."

DEM FIELD II: Progressive Is The New Black

Explaining "it is an untenable situation for those on the left and center-left in America to have one political party self-identify as conservative, as they other to self-identify as either 'moderate' or simply 'big tent', Open Left's Chris Bowers tracks each WH '08er website to see who most often self identifies as 'progressive.' Results include:

• John Edwards: 3,480 times. While Edwards' website sports, by far, the most mentions of the word "progressive" of any candidate, it should be noted that most of those mentions come from the Edwards team opening up the campaign website to far more user generated content than any other campaign. In other words, in most cases the term was used not by the campaign, but by a supporter crating content on the website.
• Dennis Kucinich: 379 times.
• Hillary Clinton: 97 times. Many reading this might be surprised to find out that Hillary Clinton uses the term "progressive" much more often than Barack Obama, at least on their respective websites.
• Barack Obama: 17 times. This is surprised me, since I have heard Obama refer to himself as a progressive in multiple speeches, including at Take Back America. However, for one reason or another, the word does not show up on his website very often.
• Chris Dodd: 17 times.
• Bill Richardson: 8 times.

CLINTON: We Love The '90s

MyDD's Todd Beeton takes on 7/8 David Brooks claims that Barack Obama is the clear candidate for 'change' while Hillary Clinton represents politics as usual: "The flaw in his argument is that change doesn't necessarily have to mean something new, it just needs to mean something different from what we currently have. In fact Hillary's new campaign slogan seems to tap into this idea: STRENGTH + EXPERIENCE = CHANGE."

More Beeton: "It's not Washington people hate, rather it's what Washington has become under George W Bush; it seems to me people desperately long to return to a time when Washington worked, as they feel it did during the 90s."

EDWARDS: We Interrupt This Presidential Campaign To Bring You An Important Message

Taylor Marsh sat in a David Bonior conference call promoting John Edwards "Road To One America" tour that traces "the steps of Dr. King's 1968 Poor People's March that started in Marks, Mississippi, as well as R.F.K.'s 1968 200-mile poverty tour that ended in Southeastern Kentucky." Marsh explains: "The goal is to raise awareness of poverty in America, as well as to offer solutions (raise the minimum wage higher and encourage unions), while challenging the press and politicians, especially his '08 rivals, to pay attention to the issue of poverty in America, which hits 1 in 8 Americans."

MyDD's Todd Beeton also sat in on the call and adds: "Bonior made a point to note that none of the stops on the tour would be in an early primary state nor would any of the events throughout the tour be for the purpose of fundraising. ... It'll be interesting to see if they can manage to cover the tour without mentioning haircuts or hedgefunds."

Not talking poverty, Science BlogsBora Zivkovic talked environment with Edwards including what he would do to "persuade the Congress, the private sector and the American people" to choose "quality of life over raw wealth" when tackling "the complex issue of climate change." Edwards responded in part:

I believe America has to lead the way in dealing with the crisis of climate change and global warming. We are four percent of the world's population, but we emit as much as 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. We have no credibility with the rest of the world on this issue right now. We're the worst polluter on the planet. America needs to lead by example. ... Here's what's really important to understand: we can actually turn the crisis of global warming into an opportunity. We can create a new, clean energy economy that creates 1 million new jobs, ends our dependence on foreign oil, and brings rural communities back to life. And ultimately, we can become a leader for the rest of the world.

OBAMA: There's Beef In This Beefcake

One MyDD commentator and Barack Obama supporter wants supporters of other candidates to stop labeling Obama supporters "worshippers." She explains: "The gist of this idea is that because Obama is a charismatic and captivating politician (some might say "rock star"), then his supporters are drawn not to the issues he stands for, but to his star power. I've seen comments that say Obama supporters are blind followers of a media creation." She then moves on to defend Obama supporters:

I realize that some supporters of other candidates feel victimized (Edwards people because of the haircut thing, Clinton people because of the blogosphere's hostility towards her), and may use this forum to give Obama supporters a taste of what they feel they have to go through. ... But what I don't appreciate is the idea that because Obama is a uniquely exciting politician, or because he has a "rock star" quality, then his supporters are shallow or uninformed. The two - charisma and substance - are not mutually exclusive. Liberals always harken back to the days of JFK and RFK - those two were the biggest rock stars politics has ever seen, and we revere them. ... Just because what Obama's saying is exciting or dynamic doesn't mean it has no merit. Indeed, we should be happy that his message is reaching a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise care.

IRAQ: Iraq 4-Evah

TPM Cafe's Spencer Ackerman penned the go to netroots guide for amendments to the upcoming Senate DoD authorization bill. Highlights include:

• The Webb Troop-Readiness Amendment: Webb thinks that highlighting the stress that the increased operational tempo puts on the troops is the most favorable way for Democrats to frame the issue, even if GOPers accuse him of trying to get out of Iraq through the back door of deployment scheduling. ... Watch for what Webb's fellow Virginia senator, defense lion John Warner -- who's uncommitted as to whether he'll seek reelection next year -- says about Webb's bill as a barometer of GOP defection.
• The Levin-Reed Timeline: The big enchilada: getting out of Iraq by a date certain. Many Senate Dems clearly think that the public has coalesced around withdrawal, and even in defeat, they'll get the opportunity to distinguish themselves from Bush and the GOP going into 2008 while hanging the war around their opponent's necks as an albatross.
• The Feingold Funding Cutoff: [I]t will have the likely effect of making Levin-Reed seem like a moderate approach by comparison, and perhaps bolster support for that approach.
• The Clinton Deauthorization: On its own merits, the plan would make Bush spell out the remaining missions for the U.S. in Iraq. ... The gamble is that the more specific Bush gets about the mission, the less able he'll be to retain support for it, either from the congressional GOP or the broader public.
• The Return to the Iraq Study Group: Quite possibly the best option for the GOP to argue that it's winding down the war without repudiating it, because it would allow GOP senators to back away from combat operations in Iraq without committing themselves to withdrawal. While Democrats wouldn't get withdrawal from Salazar-Domenici, they would be able to claim that they successfully won over many Republicans

Whatever netroots support Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) lost with his votes against the Dem compromise timelines last time around, he is rapidly gaining back with the sponsorship of his "troop-readiness" approach this time around. Positive reax include:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "The Webb amendment is the first marker of the "tough" talk by would-be Bush defectors. So Smith, Snowe, Collins, Domenici, Lugar, what are you going to do? Are you going to support the troops by correcting our troop-rotation policy? Are you going to break with the President when it really counts, or continue to rubberstamp his war?"
• Bob Geiger: "[N]o amendment will be more important than the legislation by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA).
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "This is a good piece of legislation, and I certainly hope it passes."

Some in the community still favor Reid-Feingold since "closing the purse strings is the one sure-fire way" to end the war, but Arianna Huffington reports that Barack Obama is supporting the Levin-Reed timeline. Either way, all are united in opposition to the "Salazar Distraction" which "doesn't provide any obstacles to their continued Iraq debacle, but it's a way for a lot of spineless Senators to say they "stood up to Bush" on Iraq."

Bowers does pluck one worrisome nugget from Sen. Maj. Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) press conference introducing Webb's amendment. Reid told reporters: "Feingold-Reid called for American troops to remain in Iraq to do counter-terrorsim to protect our assets in Iraq. To train the Iraqis. There are estimates that that would still leave tens of thousands of troops to stay in Iraq. No one is calling for precipitous withdrawal in Iraq. No one."

Bowers responds: "Wow. This is a remarkable admission, and one that virtually every Democratic politician has avoided like the plague. ... After all, Democrats don't exactly want to go around boasting that they will keep "tens of thousands" of troops in Iraq after claiming for nearly a year that we will end the war once in power."

IRAQ II: It's Almost As If They Don't Trust Bush Anymore

Conflicting reports in conservative circles about the veracity of NY Times reporting on internal WH deliberations on continuing the surge dominated discussion 7/9. The Corner's Rich Lowryconfirmed with at least three sources that the piece was at minimum "exaggerated" while Townhall's Dean Barnett picked up on William Kristol's confirmation that "there are real discussions going on at the White House."

Lowry later urges Bush to "get out with a real forceful statement tomorrow saying he's not caving on Iraq, because part of the political problem he has with Republicans on the Hill is that they remember the Rumsfeld experience-being out front defending a guy that Bush dumped the day after the election. Townhall's Hugh Hewitt then advises GOP Senators: "I don't think there is a more suicidal political strategy than to tell the GOP base you are shifting to Harry Reid's side of the debate and refusing to give General Petraeus even the chance to succeed and report on the success before cutting the legs out from under him and the troops he commands. ... The NRSC is already reeling as long time donors return their envelopes with "not one more dime" scrawled across the request for support. The immigration bill debate was one giant self-inflicted wound, and now the rush to embrace Harry Reid's defeat agenda is another."

VA SEN: Just In Case?

VA Progressive has FEC filings that they believe prove Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) will run to replace Sen. John Warner (R-VA) in '08. Davis paid CampaignSolutions $258 to register the domains TomDavisforSenate.com, TomDavisforSenate.org, and DavisforSenate.org.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Enter Stage Left

The Nation's Ari Melber pens a lengthy introduction for Open Left, the new effort by "two giants of the liberal" (former MyDD front pagers Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller) and "a longtime Washington consultant" (Mike Lux). Bowers explains the venture at MyDD:

What can you expect on Open Left? Well, overall, we are dedicated to building a sustainable, progressive governing majority, not just a Democratic one. In some ways we are quite familiar, in that you know our names and in that we run on Soapblox. In other ways, we are an experiment, trying to bring progressive activists and professionals from "inside" and "outside" the political establishment into regular, thoughtful, and active connection with one another.

The new venture has been mostly warmly received by the community including initial well wishes from Digby, Jane Hamsher, and David Sirota. But as with all new projects there are some grumblings. MyDD's Jerome Armstrong blogs: "OpenLeft gives the Open Diss to MyDD by not including this website in their blogroll, but I'm glad that Chris was able to come on MyDD to tout the launch. ... I tire of all this "movement" language altogether; besides, move over, we are all beached; Obama owns the movement now." Jack and Jill PoliticsJill Tubman also has some blogroll criticism: "The OpenLeft blogroll leaves off orgs like the Urban League, CORE, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, King Center, National Council of La Raza and others that seem to stand still when we need them to strike. I don't see any blogs linked that focus on religion and progressives though I believe Chris that Open Left is a work in progress. It's off to a good start."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Elections Matter

TAPPED's Sam Boyd flags the following Cass Sunsteinruminations :

Imagine that by 2030, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have both resigned, and their successors are much more liberal than anyone serving now on the Court--far to the left of the Court's supposed liberal wing. The new justices believe that the death penalty is always unconstitutional. They argue that the Constitution creates a right to education and very possibly to welfare and housing as well. They think that affirmative action programs are fine, even if they operate as rigid quota systems. They are not merely committed to a right to choose abortion; they say that the Constitution requires government to fund abortions for poor women, even when those abortions are not medically necessary.

Does this Supreme Court of 2030 seem utterly fantastic and unimaginable--a conservative's worst nightmare, a liberal's wildest dream? If so, think again. The court just described is no fantasy. In essence, it is the Supreme Court of 1980. That court consisted of Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, Byron White, Stevens, Potter Stewart, and William Rehnquist (once known as the Lone Ranger).

Boyd comments: "Sunstein's thought experiment reminds us that the Supreme Court changes a lot faster and a lot more than we give it credit for and that we shouldn't expect the court a few decades from now to play by the rules it obeys today."

LEST WE FORGET: We Summarize What Crazy People Say So That The Hopelessly Out Of Touch Sound Less Crazy

Dilbert Blog tells readers "I've often said I have only one special skill. I can look at complicated situations and pluck out the thing that matters. That's the secret to good writing and good comics. ... Your assignment for today is to describe your own job in one sentence, preferably in a humorously derogatory way."

• I'm high school graduate. My latest assignment involved convincing a university that I am worthy enough to pay them lots and lots of money.
• I'm a management consultant. I'll tell you what I do if you pay me a million dollars, supply me with data about what I do, and assign to my command a team of your company's top people who will analyze the data and put it into PowerPoint.
• My job is to remain invisible. When I do my job perfectly, I am invisible. Nothing happens. Servers don't crash. Services don't fail. Users are not affected. The only time anyone in the whole company knows my name is when something stops working. Then they suddenly discover that not only do they know my name, but that they can scream it.

7/9: Obama Is No Dean

While Barack Obama's fundraising totals are impressive by themselves (both in dollars raised and total donors), any comparison to Howard Dean's '04 movement are tenuous at best. Looking at Q1 numbers, MyDD's Jerome Armstrong notes that only a quarter of Obama's funds came from the internet, compared to over half of Dean's. Armstrong also plays up anecdotal evidence that much of Obama's low-dollar Q2 donors came from a strong student-based strategy focussing on paid "concert" like speaking events. If the typical Dean/internet donor was a guy in his 40s with an advanced degree, than it appears the typical Obama donor is a Tufts senior selling Obama tickets outside his dorm.

It is unclear why Obama has not inspired the same voices that fought for Dean, but Grist's David Robert's assessment of Obama's record on the environment may offer a clue: "rhetoric is soaring and high-minded, the policy proposals consensus-seeking and incremental." Daily Kos refugee and Talk Left blogger Big Tent Democrat/Armando makes a similar argument here, specifically that Obama has let others in the field, like John Edwards, outflank him on the left on the war. Something that would have never happened to Dean.

DEM FIELD: Help Us Al, You're Our Only Hope

MyDD's PsiFighter37 posts graphs showing Dem WH '08 data from the past three months from ARG, NBC News, Quinnipiac, CBS News, Fox News, CNN, RT Strategies, and USA TODAY polling and concludes with the following analysis:

• Hillary Clinton remains in a strong position nationally. ... While some polls show her trending either up or down, she still maintains a healthy lead over her closest competitors.
• Barack Obama must find a way to expand his support. While he has made a splash with his entry into the race, along with raising ungodly amounts of money through an amazing base of support, Obama has barely been able to make the kind of permanent dent in Clinton's edge that he needs. ... Obama has not seen the numbers on the national scale (or the local polls, either) that he should be seeing.
• John Edwards is being marginalized and is on the verge of becoming a second-tier candidate. ... He continues to lead in Iowa, but barely - both Clinton and Obama are breathing down his neck, and if he cannot maintain his lead in Iowa and win there, his campaign is dead.
• Al Gore's potential candidacy will have a material effect on this race. If Gore does not enter this race, it will be an immense boost to Clinton's campaign - somewhat ironic, considering that Gore and Hillary Clinton never much liked one another.

DEM FIELD II: Just Obama Being Obaman

Grist's David Roberts asks "How Green Is Your Candidate?" and posts "a quick and dirty rundown of some of the Democratic contenders' stances" including:

• Hillary Clinton dutifully toes the Democratic line on climate change and energy independence, seeing the former as a way to reach young people and the latter as a way to sound tough. She's been somewhat vague on the details.
• Barack Obama's take on energy and climate is, well, Obaman: the rhetoric is soaring and high-minded, the policy proposals consensus-seeking and incremental. ... His main splash in the energy world happened when he came out cheerleading for liquified coal, which coal barons (especially in his home state of Illinois) loved but plenty of other folks hated; he later "clarified" his way back to safety. On these issues, Obama is largely platitudinous and reserved.
• John Edwards is running left. What mixture of genuine sentiment and political calculation is behind that strategy only he and Elizabeth know, but it's translated into far and away the strongest, most comprehensive climate and energy plan among the three front-runners. ... On these issues, Edwards has done his homework and he's not trimming his sails.
• Bill Richardson wants to be the "energy president" and the plan he's put forward is a humdinger. ... On these issues, Richardson has an appropriate sense of urgency.
• Chris Dodd's climate and energy plan has largely been overlooked, much like, um, Chris Dodd. But if anything, it's more ambitious than even Richardson's.

Also on the environment, MoveOn.org hosted a virtual Townhall on Climate Change, and Left in the West invites '08ers to study up on "the Rocky Mountain politics of land, water, the outdoors, and access."

OBAMA: Obamaway

Continuing to distinguish Howard Dean's '04 run with Barack Obama's fundraising success, MyDD's Jerome Armstrong links to Boston Magazinereporting of a Obama call for $5 donations at a rally in Cleveland that author Sasha Issenberg likened to Amway: "[I]t's about getting people to buy in--with the idea that once their dollars are committed, they will be, too."

Armstrong responds: "Yea, it is. I'll disagree with the Obama campaign over whether their innovative fundraising success forms a legitimate basis from which to brag about having the largest/strongest/awesomest presidential campaign ever in presidential history (which is pretty much what Obama's campaign claims), but it does form the basis for a stellar fundraising movement. ... Solomont counted the preliminary take from the event: A total of 5,700 tickets had been sold, bringing in over $700,000, including more than $100,000 from students alone. $100K from students? That's unheard of before Obama, and really points to a breakthrough discovery by the Obama fundraising team-- well-to-do students with disposable income. They've created a network whereby one college individual will use their college network to make the sale on campuses across america."

Armstrong concludes: "As for youth voting, I do not think that is really a factor that will be called into question too much, given the '04-'06 exit polling done that shows such an increase. More youth (18-29) than ever will in the general election for 2008, but their doing so in a democratic primary or caucus is probably debatable until it happens."

WEBB: But What If Webb's On The Ticket?

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff doubts Washington Postanalysis that VA will likely go Dem in '08 for the first time since '64: "One way to look at the prospects for 2008 is to consider the outcome of the 2006 Virginia Senate race. Democrat James Webb won that contest by 9,000 votes. The Democrats clearly will not nominate for president anyone with Webb's appeal to independent Virginia voters, and the likely nominee (Hillary Clinton) won't have anything close to Webb's appeal."

GIULIANI: Why Doesn't Anyone Ever Support The Unfair Tax?

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh hits Rudy Giuliani for purportedly coming out against a flat tax, rationalizing "Our economy is dependent upon the way our tax system operates." PY says he personally prefers a consumption tax, and advises Giuliani: "The design and enactment of a tax reform package that simplifies the tax system should be a no-brainer. Instead, a Republican Presidential candidate somehow seems to think that we ought to stay with the status quo and that we should just content ourselves with keeping rates low."

NRO's Jim Geraghty also followed the story, but notes that there are conflicting reports about whether Giuliani came out against the flat tax or the fair/consumption tax. Geraghty adds his two cents on tax policy: "This is not to say candidates shouldn't support bold, sweeping changes to the tax code, but considering the enormity of the changes the switch-over would bring, "I have to study it some more," does not strike me as an unreasonable answer."

MCCAIN: What Was Your Favorite Moment Of The McCain Era?

Hit and Run's David Weigel reports from outside Ron Paul's 7/8 appearance on This Week: "I just left the scene outside of Ron Paul's interview with George Stephanopoulos in downtown D.C. Before he headed in to the Mayflower Hotel, Paul milled around with a gaggle of around 30 supporters and I asked him if he had more cash on hand than John McCain. "Somebody said we might, when the numbers come in," he said. "At least we're on the up slope, not the down slope." ... And then he confirmed it for ABC News: He has $2.4 million on hand, $400,000 more than John McCain."

ROMNEY: He's Mormon, Not That's There Anything Wrong With That

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt took fellow conservative NRO's Jim Geraghty to task for writing about a Mitt Romney candidacy: "After eight months of covering a Romney campaign, the mainstream media will make the Mormon church resemble Wahhabism without the melanin." Hewitt responded: "I agree some MSMers will try, just as many lefties have already tried to use religious bigotry to attack Romney. ... The efforts of center-right pundits is better spent responding to both the nonsensical attacks and the far more serious expressions of religious bigotry, as well as to the other low blows that will be directed at Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, not in announcing surrender to any or all of them."

When Geraghty responded, explaining he didn't endorse Mormon-bashing but that GOPers should be aware of what will happen if they choose Romney, Hewitt kept up his attack: "A commentary on a candidate's alleged vulnerabilities not coupled to a denunciation of the illegitimate attacks among those vulnerabilities is itself an attack on the candidate because it serves to mainstream the alleged shortcomings, especially the illegitimate ones."

Geraghty did not let Hewitt have the last word, blogging a lengthy rebuttal including: "Look. If Mitt Romney gets the Republican nomination, a good portion of the political discussion in the 2008 campaign is going to center around, "Are Mormons normal?" It's unfair, it stinks, and in a better world, it wouldn't happen. But the opposition is going to push every argument they can to paint this faith as too strange for a President, and a significant chunk of the conservative message effort is going to have to be dedicated to refuting that notion. And the more time spent debating Mormon theology is less time spent on arguments about why taxes should be low, why our policies on terrorism should be aggressive, why the border should be secure, why red tape hurts small businesses, why we should get pork out of the budget, etc."

Also talking about Mormonism, The Brody File apologized and clarified his earlier statement that: "According to fundamentalist evangelicals who read The Brody File, they say it's Jesus, nothing more. Mormons say it's Jesus plus something else. The difference between nothing more and something else is the hang up." Brody explains to his offended Mormon and evangelical readers what he meant: " Evangelicals believe the Bible is the ONLY word of God and that there will be no additions or subtractions. Mormons believe in the Bible AND the book of Mormon. That's what I meant. Evangelicals don't accept that. There's more differences but this is a big one."

More Brody on the impact of the issue: "A lot of Mitt Romney supporters complain that I bring up the Mormon issue too much. You know what? The reality is, for Evangelicals writing in to The Brody File, this is an important topic for them."

ROMNEY II: Can Buy Him Love

RedState's Erick Erickson is not pleased with reports from the Young Republicans "national hedonism convention" that the YR's altered their traditional straw voting rules to allow anyone attending 7/7's dinner to vote (as opposed to allowing only delegates to vote). Erickson titles his post, "The Romney Advantage: Who Needs Grassroots When You Can Afford Astroturf" and comments: "Several people remind me that this is kind of like what happened at the Cobb County GOP BBQ here in Georgia on the 4th. It is a huge annual event complete with straw poll. Romney volunteers loitered around the straw poll ballot table urging people to refrain from voting for Fred Thompson, who still came in first. Romney came in third, behind Ron Paul."

F. THOMPSON: The Virtual War Room

Fred Thompson continues to enjoy strong help from conservatives pushing back against MSM stories designed to sink his candidacy before it even launches. A Los Angeles Timesarticle asserting Thompson lobbied on behalf of abortion rights groups and a New York Timesarticle on his "trophy wife" drew the most fire. Reactions to the NYT piece include:

• Captain's Quarters: "I'm touched, really, by the concern that Susan Saulny and the Paper of Record show for "values voters", a group that normally received little but scorn and ridicule from Pinch's crew. However, these people are not likely to have an issue with a man who spent seventeen years between marriages before marrying a woman in her mid-30s. Thompson's ex-wife speaks well of him, his children seem very well-adjusted, and his current wife is an intelligent and well-spoken woman who will be an asset to his campaign."
• Evangelicals for Mitt: "You see, what concerns evangelicals like us is not what Mrs. Thompson or any other political spouse looks like. I for one am agnostic on the point--all I know is that Mrs. Mitchell is gorgeous. What we care about is whether candidates join us in affirming the sanctity of marriage and will seek to protect it in the office to which they want us to elect them. So, there you have it. The New York Times owes Mrs. Thompson an apology--and I better go see what Mrs. Mitchell's up to."
• Race 4 '08s Tommy Oliver: "I would like the New York Times to introduce me to the staunch Thompson supporters that are "wrestling," or dealing with Mrs. Thompson being an issue. I have yet to meet one."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Note that the Times brands the topic a "less than palatable inquiry," but does not explains why that is the case before offering a defense that the vulgar topic is being discussed "in Internet chat rooms, on cable television and on talk radio." ... The article reminds us that one television host, Joe Scarborough, blundered into this territory and was rightly embarrassed to have done so, but commentators avoided that controversy because it was both an outlier on a low rated show and so very tacky."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Funny, I haven't seen any discussion of this topic, and the Times doesn't identify a single TV show, talk radio program or chat room. I suppose, though, that every conceivable subject has been discussed in one internet chat room or another."

Reactions to the LAT article includes:

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "It's significantly problematic that every person the Times quotes would appear to have incentive to take down Thompson, as he was a pro-life senator and all of these folks are not merely pro-choice, but professional lobbyists in support of that view. If one Republican or pro-life, or pro-Fred source had been quoted on the record, "Yes, Fred did this work and it was significant" then the charge would carry a lot more weight."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Here's the deal: Fred Thompson made one phone call for a friend on a matter pertaining to Haiti and felt compelled to register as a lobbyist. Here, the claim Fred was retained to help an abortion group and yet there is no registration paperwork, there are no logs at the White House on the matter, and the former President's Chief of Staff has no recollection of it. The only two people who do are two fringe lefties. Meanwhile, Thompson has a 100% pro-life rating while in the Senate and is an "enemy" according to Planned Parenthood."
• Captain's Quarters: "The only evidence of this work comes from a copy of the NFPRHA's board minutes from September 14, 1991 that claims that the group had hired "Fred Thompson, Esq. as counsel to aid us in discussions with the administration" to end the rule barring abortion counseling at clinics that received federal funds. ... Now a new bit of indirect evidence has been found. ... Anyone involved in such lobbying has to register with the Foreign Agent Registration Unit at the Department of Justice.Take a look at registrant #2661 in the FARA search system ... That gives some indication that Thompson started lobbying for Arent in October and not September of 1991."

F. THOMPSON II: Is That Where The GOP Money Is?

Right Wing NewsJohn Hawkins theorizes that part of the reason "the numbers so bad" for GOP money totals, is that donors are holding back in anticipation of Thompson's entrance. More Hawkins: "If articles about Fred's lobbyist sons and his alleged lobbying for a pro-choice organization back in 1991 are the best the anti-Fred people can come up with, then the cupboard is probably pretty bare."

Also talking Thompson and money, RedState's Erick Erickson introduces Part I of his phone interview with Thompson by noting that Thompson took in $400k 7/8 in Atlanta, GA, which Erickson claims is more money than either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney raised in the state in Q1.

IMPEACHMENT: All The Cool Kids Are Talking About It

At The Notion, Ari Melber reports that Pres. Bush'd Lewis Libby commutation and coming clash over congressional subpoenas have "put impeachment back on the table" for "influential Democratic activists." Melber cites MoveOn.org's "unprecedented petition calling on Congress to impeach Vice President Cheney if he defies congressional subpoenas" as well as The Nation reporting that "some members of Congress say it is now time to reconsider impeachment proceedings."

Talking Points Memo's Steve Benen notes that not only are pollsters are beginning to include impeachment questions on their surveys, but that sizeable numbers (Rasmussen 39%, ARG 45%, and InsiderAdvantage 39%) are in favor of it. Matthew Yglesias reasons: "insofar as Bush appears determined to use his constitutionally granted authority to shield his subordinates from the consequences of breaking the law, I would say that removing him from the office which grants that authority is something that should be discussed."

Benen agrees: "[T]here's no reason to dismiss the notion as some radical flight of fancy. Reasonable people, debating in good faith, can disagree about the utility, implications, and grounds for impeachment, but as Yglesias put it, the concept should probably enter the mainstream conversation."

At Daily Kos, where impeachment of Pres. Bush was always mainstream, Kagro X links to Charles Pierceruminations on Plamegate as the inevitable consequence of Iran/Contra and adds: "This is, by the way, part of the reason why I think Congressman Robert Wexler's move to censure Bush for the Libby pardon could be an enormous mistake."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Voters Moved

TAPPED's Sam Boyd flags a Joel Middleton and Donald Greenstudy on MoveOn.org's '04 GOTV canvassing operation. Boyd summarizes: "MoveOn organized its canvassing by precinct, so the paper compares turnout between voters living on one side of a street in a precinct that was canvassed and those living on the opposite side of the street in a precinct that was not canvassed. ... Overall, canvassing increased turnout by about 7 percent. The effect was constant across states, highly statistically significant, and, because of the study's design, hard to dispute. Apparently, previous literature tended to assume that GOTV was less effective in what they call "high salience" elections, but the 2004 election was about as high salience as it's possible for an election to be.

LEST WE FORGET: Al Gore Counted To Infinity ... Twice

In indirect tribute to Chuck Norris, a Daily Kos diarist has compiled his own list of "Al Gore Facts," including:

• Al Gore is the only man alive who can save us from Global Warming. Al Gore is that cool.
• After Al Gore is elected, Al Gore will turn back time and erase the last seven years.
• Al Gore will be the first President to win three terms since Roosevelt.
• Republicans want to build a wall on the border. To keep Al Gore out.
• When Al Gore falls in water, Al Gore doesn't get wet. Water gets Al Gore.
• Al Gore didn't just invent the internet. All Gore invented science. And fire.
• When Al Gore is elected, Al Qaeda will follow us home from Iraq. To surrender.

7/3: Between Iraq And A Hard Place

Despite anemic fundraising totals and revelations of drastic staff cutbacks, cases for the eventual comeback of John McCain are still not hard to find . A quick look at the political landscape in light of the commutation of Scooter Libby's jail sentence, however, illustrates just how outlandish a McCain comeback scenario would have to be.

McCain has rededicated himself to being an insurgent candidate determined to take on the "shibboleths" of Washington, pinning his hopes on early wins in IA, NH, and SC. But what kind of 'maverick' story line can McCain possibly cultivate among GOP primary voters? TPM Cafe's Eric Kleefield points out that McCain still refuses to comment on the Libby commutation. If he endorses leniency for Libby, he gets only mild approval from GOP faithful while earning him condemnation from the MSM he heeds to rebuild his 'maveirck' brand. If he comes out against Libby's commutation, he just reminds GOPers yet again that domestically there is nothing the base and McCain agree on. The only issue McCain is strongly identified with is the war in Iraq (where he is now coincidently), and short of clear and dramatic positive results from the surge, its hard to imagine any scenario story where the GOP faithful flock back to his banner.

SCOOTER: Nothing Left To Lose ... Unless ...

Some of the netroots were more surprised than others, but all voiced strong objections to Pres. Bush's commutation of the jail portion of Scooter Libby's sentence. Many are upping pressure on Dems to call Libby to testify before Congress about all of the WH scandals he was involved in. There is also widespread support for beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush based on obstruction of justice grounds. Initial reactions include:

• Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) at Daily Kos: "It is time for the President and his Administration to stop covering up and stop misleading the American people and representatives in Congress. Instead, it is time to restore some openness and accountability in government, which belongs to all Americans, not just his selected few appointees."
• Atrios: "I'm going to be mad tomorrow. I'm going to be mad tomorrow that the elite media (except Keith [Olbermann]) won't point out that Bush's commutation of Scooter's sentence is essentially obstruction of justice. ... Mostly I'll be mad because I have yet to see a prominent Democrat put the phrase "obstruction of justice" out there in relation to this. So perhaps my anger at the media is misplaced.
• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: "This is being treated in the press as splitting the difference, an elegant compromise. But it is the least justifiable approach. ... The only basis for this decision is that Libby is the vice president's friend, the vice president rules the president and this was the minimum necessary to keep the man silent."
• firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "By commuting Libby's sentence rather than pardoning him, Bush insures that Scooter will remain silent and be able to invoke the fifth before before Congress and not risk being cited for contempt. This president's contempt for the rule of law is thorough and complete."
• firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "This is a shameful, self-dealing action which will have long-term political ramifications for the Bush Administration. And it should."
• Working AssetsJustin Krebs: "I can only think of Janis Joplin's Me and Bobby McGee: 'Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.' ... Anyone who thought Bush would be humbled by a mid-term defeat, tanking approval ratings and the desertion of his own party, think again -- the man now has nothing left to lose...he's liable to do anything."
• The Left Coaster's Steve Soto: "The next time you hear a Republican bellow about the Rule of Law when it comes to illegal immigrants, think of their double standard when it comes to rich white Republicans."
• The Nation's Ari Melber: "Libby's special treatment is a microcosm of current U.S. policy. Libby is basically receiving a post-conviction protection that the Bush Administration now routinely extends to many potential criminals in the U.S. government. The administration successfully pushed legislation last year granting immunity to officials who might someday be prosecuted for war crimes or torture. It is a policy that embodies the administration's distinctly un-American view that powerful government officials should operate above the law."
• Matt Cooper at The Huffington Post: "If Bush had the courage of his convictions, he would have been like Jack Nicholson in a A Few Good Men and admitted that he thought Wilson was a jerk and that he believed what happened afterwards was right. Instead, Bush vowed to take action against the leakers. Now with Rove's security clearance renewed in the White House and Libby's sentence commuted, we know what he meant."
• Paul Begala at The Huffington Post: "Mr. Bush is tough enough to invade a country that was no risk to America, causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths and shedding precious American blood in the process. ... But if you're rich and right-wing and Republican, George is a real softie. As George W. Bush demonstrated in giving Scooter Libby a Get Out of Jail Free Card, he is only compassionate to conservatives.

Dem leadership and WH '08 condemnations of Libby commuted sentence are not satiating netroots desires to see Dems excercise their power to check the Bush Administration. Calls for further Congressional action include:

• firedoglake's TRex: "Dear Congressional Democrats Now that most of you have made your statements of dismay regarding the Scooter commutation, would it be too much to ask that you guys stop talking about taking this administration to the woodshed and actually do it?"
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "The man is the worst President in the history of the nation and this is merely confirmation of the contempt he holds for the law, the Constitution, and the American People. Will our Democratic representatives wake up and understand NOW that he will never end the war in Iraq -- that only a Congress that says no to funding the Debacle past a date certain can end the war?"
• more more's BTD: "I think the next step is obvious - he should be called to testify on the myriad of scandals that he was intimately involved with. Technically he can invoke the 5th Amendment, but either Fitzgerald or Congress can grant him immunity - heck, he ain't going to jail anyway. Let him testify about what Cheney has done, especially with regard to Valerie Plame.
• The Reality Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "At this point, there's no reason not to bring Libby in, immunize him, and start asking questions. His Congressional testimony wouldn't be relevant to his appeal. It might prevent a retrial should the DC Circuit reverse his conviction. So what?"
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "More than issuing strong statements, it's time for Congress to investigate this commutation. Grant Libby immunity and find out everything that was behind the leak, behind the lies that took us to war and that started this whole case in the beginning, and behind this commutation."

So far impeachment talk has been relegated to the more activist blogs, but those making the case at Daily Kos include:

• PsiFighter37: "I've been against attempting impeachment of Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of the crew in the White House for the longest time. I even wrote a diary about it almost 7 months ago, arguing from the pragmatic (and probably still-true statement) that we simply didn't have the votes for impeachment. I don't care anymore. Today's heinous commutation for Scooter Libby was the last straw for me."
• wiscmass: "Scooter Libby obstructed justice. He was convicted. He is known to be a participant in either the outing of a covert agent of the CIA in a time of war (which is capital treason by definition, a death penalty offense), covering up for the people responsible for the outing, or both. ... I'm sick of being told "we don't have the votes" -- I get that. We didn't have the votes in 1974 either, but the Democrats voted to impeach anyway because justice and the Constitution demanded it. ... Contact your representatives and demand that they support House Resolution 333 right now -- it calls for the impeachment of Vice Felon-in-Chief Cheney.
• Meteor Blades: "Those who want Richard Bruce Cheney and/or George Walker Bush (and possibly other high officials) impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate should stop pounding on Nancy Pelosi and concentrate on convincing the 23 people pictured below. If impeachment is going to happen, these are the ones who must be persuaded to take action. ... Not Pelosi. She's made her position clear. Not Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. These 23 folks. Every one of them a Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee. Twenty-three who are essential to making impeachment happen. They can vote to hold impeachment hearings."

SCOOTER II: Make Them Pay

Many on the left are citing Survey USA numbers showing 60% of Americans "say the prison sentence should have been left in place" while 21% "agree with the commutation" and 17% "say Libby should have been pardoned entirely."

Matthew Yglesias links and comments: "I hope the Democrats are prepared to ignore the braindead crew at the WaPost editorial board and hang this around the necks of the Republican presidential contenders and congressional leaders. Hay should be made."

Blue Hampshire is already taking Yglesias advise penning an open letter to Sen. John Sununu (R-NH): "Now is your chance to step up to the plate and tell the people of New Hampshire where you stand on the fair and equitable administration of justice. Do you stand with the President and Vice President in giving Lewis "Scooter" Libby a better deal than Paris Hilton got? Do you believe that rewards should be granted for compromising National Security? Or do you believe that, like thousands of Americans are doing today, he should have been required to live with the judgment of a jury of his peers? We await your speedy answer."

SCOOTER III: They Started It

The preponderance of conservatives either approve of Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's jail term, or wanted a full pardon. Minority voices against any leniency for Libby, however, were not hard to find. A favorite conservative talking point in defense of Bush's action: Dems get off easy too sometimes. Specific examples include:

• from Byron York at The Corner: "Amid the overflow of Democratic outrage on Capitol Hill, Republicans are sending around some examples of Bill Clinton's clemency - not the notorious Marc Rich case, but guys like this member of FALN, described in a 1999 press release from the Justice Department."
• from Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner: "[Sen. Chuck] Schumer [(D-NY)] called for clemency for Jonathan Pollard, convicted of spying on the United States. And his conditions for clemency? If three conditions are met: 'no danger is posed to society, real contrition is shown and the sentence is disproportionate to others who have committed similar crimes.'"
• from a K-Lo reader: "I don't pretend to know all the facts - but I do know this - Sandy Berger stole classified documents re: sensitive national security issues and received a $50K fine..."

York also reminds readers that Libby jury Ann Redington told Hardball 3/7 she didn't want Libby to go to jail.

Other positive reactions to the Bush's decision include:

• The Corner's John Podhoretz: "Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice - but even if you accept that these convictions were just, what Fitzgerald did not demonstrate was that any kind of harm was done."
• K-Lo: "I'll admit it. I've been diagnosed with Bush Estrangement Syndrome in recent weeks. I feel a little less estranged tonight."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "While I would have preferred a full pardon, I applaud the president for commuting the prison sentence. The commutation took guts -- one virtue Mr. Bush has in abundance."
• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "Good for Bush. Libby was almost certainly guilty of at least some of what he was convicted for, but there's a good chance that he would have been convicted on fewer counts if Judge Walton had let the jury hear from a memory expert or see the Tim Russert clips that I mentioned near the end of this column. Under the circumstances, it makes perfect sense to reduce, but not eliminate, Libby's punishment."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "This strikes me as an excellent resolution. To my knowledge, it was first advocated by Paul's friend Bill Otis, a former federal prosecutor, in an op-ed in the Washington Post. The idea quickly gained support. I also think the President's commutation of Libby's sentence will go over well with the party's conservative base and will contribute, to some degree, to a restoration of Bush's standing with conservatives."

Dissents include:

• Volokh Conspiracy's Orin Kerr: "I find Bush's action very troubling because of the obvious special treatment Libby received. President Bush has set a remarkable record in the last 6+ years for essentially never exercising his powers to commute sentences or pardon those in jail. His handful of pardons have been almost all symbolic gestures involving cases decades old, sometimes for people who are long dead. Come to think of it, I don't know if Bush has ever actually used his powers to get one single person out of jail even one day early. If there are such cases, they are certainly few and far between. So Libby's treatment was very special indeed."
• Captain's Quarters: "Unfortunately, like Solomon, Bush will probably find neither side satisfied. Critics of the administration and Plame-conspiracy activists want a scalp, and thought they'd enjoy the sight of Libby walking into Club Fed for a spell. Conservatives who believed that the entire investigation was bogus from the start want Libby cleared altogether. ... If Bush wanted to take any action -- and I would have advised against it -- this is as far as he should go."
• Andrew Sullivan: "The bottom line is a simple one, regardless of its origins. Is Libby a perjurer or not? He is. And Bush has nullified the sentence. To please a political constituency. It is hard to think of an action more contemptuous of the rule of law - except for so many decisions made by this lawless president, acting as a monarch."

CLINTON: No Ra-Ra Sisterhood Here

IA's Bleeding Heartland was not impressed with Tom Harkin's email announcing his wife Ruth is endorsing Hillary Clinton: "Thanks a lot, Ruth. If Hillary loses the general to a Republican who puts two or three more Alitos on the Supreme Court, I hope you'll apologize to all women. ... Of the many things that bother me about the Hillary Clinton candidacy, one of the biggest is this idea that women are supposed to back her as a pathbreaker (with the corollary that people who don't back her are sexist or can't handle strong women). Hillary would be a weak general election candidate, and I don't even think she would be the best president out of the current field."

EDWARDS: A League Of His Own

MyDD's Todd Beeton hits back against analysis from MSM blogs including Top of The Ticket, First Read, and The Note, that "the sheer breadth of the gap between the money raised by [John] Edwards and the top two candidates necessitates his demotion from the top tier."

Beeton responds: "But this conveniently ignores two alternate metrics by which the media could have chosen to measure the health of Edwards's campaign. ... First, there's the individual donor primary. While much has been made of Obama's 250,000+ individual donors, little is said of Edwards's passing the 100,000 mark. ... Edwards can also credibly claim to be in the top tier in terms of electability. ... Edwards consistently outperforms Clinton and Obama against the top tier Republican candidates."

OBAMA: They Know Howard Dean, And You Sir ...

Netroots veterans of Howard Dean's '04 run are pushing back against Barack Obamacampaign claims that Obama 250k donors proves he is a stronger grass roots candidate than Dean was. MyDD's Jerome Armstrong has a lengthy examination of the claim, concluding: "The comparison, as far as the numbers go, shows that Obama has set new records for this point in the campaign, but the campaigns are drastically different in origination." Armstrong argues

• Obama has had the advantage of having mainstream media coverage that has been very widespread and positive. It's really only in the liberal blogosphere and on liberal websites, that you see any tough analysis of Obama's candidacy at all. That's something that doesn't compare with Howard Dean, which seemed the exact opposite.
• Dean depended on the internet and small donors; Obama got 70 percent of his 1Q money from $1,000 and up donors. It's on the strength of having such a high-donor base that Obama nearly broke the record that Bush set during the second quarter of 2003, when Bush took in over $35 million.
• One of the things I noticed during the 1Q, is how a relatively small part of Obama's 1Q raised came from the internet. In the 1Q this cycle, is that Obama raised $6.9 million (out of $26 million) over the internet; just above Edwards, who raised $3.3 million (out of $14 million) over the net. In comparison, Dean, who raised about $50M overall for his campaign, had $25M of it come directly over the internet.
• It's not the internet, but instead it's Obama's strategy of having paid events has been the boon needed to skyrocket his donor numbers. I've not seen a story on the phenomenon that he's created, but the paid venues have got to have provided Obama with tens of thousands of donors to add to his overall numbers. It's the speaking-venue donors (similar to a rock concert), not internet donors, that's leveraged the donor numbers for Obama; and alongside the astounding high-donor numbers that have sky-rocketed his total raised, it's combined to create a compelling narrative that gives a strategic advantage to Obama.

Also questioning what Obama's numbers really mean, David Sirota writes at Working Assets:

Barack Obama has very little experience, and, in my honest opinion, has yet to take either many strong, power-challenging positions on key issues, or really tell us what a Barack Obama presidency would be all about (beyond buzzwords like "hope" and "change"). ... I wonder if underneath the genuinely positive and awesome feat of attracting that many new investors in the political process there is a sad commentary on what has become of America's political culture? Is the key to engaging people really just about being a media celebrity who positions himself as a blank slate of nebulous "hope?" ... Bottom line here - Good on you, Barack, for engaging so many new people. It's a truly impressive accomplishment. Now, what does it all mean for the long-haul?

OBAMA II: iBama

Also trying to understand the Obamanom, TAPPED's Ezra Klein links to Chris Hayes' novel comparison:

Why are the chattering classes seeming to tire of Obama as the momentum for him among the grassroots continues to build? Well, I think it's because Obama is like the iPhone. The last thing as hyped as the iPhone was Barack Obama: the ceaseless press, covers of magazines, etc. And the arc of that hype was predictable, after that initial burst, the people who cover politics for a living developed a bit of Obama-fatigure, and they started looking for flaws, or talking about his performances as being underwhelming.

But I think Obama is like the iPhone in a few other ways as well. The iPhone is both an absolutely amazing, breakthrough device and the product of an insane amount of hype and the machinations of celebrity culture. So is Barack: he is both supremely talented and inspiring and the beneficiary of the cult of celebrity. It's the latter, however, that I think is largely responsible for his amazing performance among small donors. ... It's an identity statement, and a desire to be a part of something. When you pay that money, you become part of the Obama Phenomenon. That's what people are buying. Do you think the folks who stood on line on Friday to buy an iPhone were standing online to purchase a piece of consumer electronics? No, they were doing it to be a part of something. Those of us who shelled out the money, likewise were purchasing some small part of the hype and fame-some minor morsel of celebrity for ourselves.

Klein adds: "Fundraising is all about the selling of politics. Generally, that's done by selling votes, support, access, legislation. Obama is showing that there are other products generated by politics and rewarded by voters: Inspiration, hope, belonging. As readers know, I'm a cynic about such appeals, but I'm sure glad my countrymen aren't."

MCCAIN: What Was Your Favorite Moment Of The McCain Era?

NY Sun's Ryan Sager lead the league in coverage of John McCain's 7/2 conference call to discuss hi Q2 fundraising totals including a liveblog of the call and a transcript. Later Sager wrapped up:

The whole thing was a brutal, brutal affair, with Mr. McCain's two top guys - Terry Nelson and John Weaver - sounding just about ready to slit their wrists. ... Mr. McCain has now committed his campaign to an utterly wrongheaded strategy to win the nomination: the early-state strategy. ... So, to recap: 1) We have Iowa, where Mr. McCain has dropped out of the straw poll and badly trails Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and maybe even Fred Thompson, 2) We have New Hampshire, where he's tied for second with Mr. Giuliani, behind Mr. Romney, 3) And we have South Carolina, where Mr. McCain used to lead - but now, because of Mr. Thompson's entry into the race and because of the immigration debate, Mr. McCain could be as low as fourth place. ... Even if Mr. McCain eeked out a win in one of these states, he's utterly unprepared to run in Florida and on February 5. And the compressed primary schedule means there won't be much time to springboard an early win into big fundraising and national TV advertising.

Other reax to the McCain numbers include:

• The Corner's Byron York: "John McCain's top staffers have just finished a conference call with reporters to discuss McCain's latest financial report. It was a pretty unhappy affair. The staff is laying people off, while others are taking pay cuts, and at least one - campaign manager Terry Nelson - will be working without pay."
• The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru: "InTrade now has a market speculating on whether McCain will drop out by the end of the year. It may need to move up the timeline. "
• Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "Friends, this campaign is officially over. There is no way we are going to nominate someone who has to take public funding to take on Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama ($90M COH between them)."
• Michelle Malkin: "Low on cash. Bleeding staff. Swirling rumors of an imminent end. Shamnesty was the final nail in the coffin. So, what will the exact expiration date of the McCain '08 campaign be?
• SC's Daily Shot: "I think overall the McCain Campaign now has no chance of capturing the nomination. I've said from the beginning of this year that any campaign wanting to be on the Republican ticket will have to raise at least $100 million. Twenty-three states will be holding primaries on February 5, 2008, and any campaign that wants a shot at winning to nomination will have to put a great deal of money in at least some of those states."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The conference call that just concluded represented a campaign coming to terms with the dire position they find themselves in. It is quite a turn of events. Held up for years by the media as the inevitable nominee (something that was always bogus), McCain is now forced to run like the insurgent candidate he was in 2000."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty on McCain camp spin that Reagan also faced tough times in '80: "Yup, sometimes troubles are a sign you're the next Reagan 1980... and sometimes it means you're the next Dean 2004, or Lieberman 2004, or Steve Forbes 2000, or Phil Gramm 1996, or Bob Dole 1996, or Bob Kerrey 1992, or Gary Hart 1988, or Bob Dole 1988..."

ROMNEY: Boggieless Nights

The Brody File reports that "some anti-pornography groups" have Mitt Romney in their sites for his involvement with the Marriott Hotels' Board of Directors during the '90s. Citizens for Community Values' Phil Burress wants to know why Romney did not do more to stop the pay-per-view sex videos offered through in-room entertainment in many of Marriott's properties.

Still facing questions about Mormonism, The Brody File reports that "a key official inside his campaign tells me that it's looking more and more likely that he will have to give a major speech addressing his faith." More Brody: "The campaign believes they can overcome this. They don't believe it's a major hurdle. Rather, since so much focus will continue to be on his faith, they figure they better address it sooner or later. As for the timing, who knows."

Moving away from cultural issues, AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein flags a New York Times articles on the individual mandates at the heart of Romney's MA health care plan and comments: "It is hard to imagine anything representing a greater affront to conservative principles than using government to coerce private citizens into purchasing healthcare. ... Even if you are more sympathetic to Romney than I am, I challenge you to read this and ask yourself whether you believe it is consistent with limited government principles."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Blowback

The Huffington Post's Suzanne Nossel looks at the incoming French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, incoming British foreign minister David Miliband, and incoming British minister for Africa, Asia, and the United Nations Mark Malloch Brown and writes:

One of the most improbable and unintended legacies of the Bush administration is an emerging generation of European foreign policy leaders that is more progressive than any in decades. They were chosen by new heads of state eager to move beyond the polarizing politics of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. These top diplomats now have the potential to reshape European foreign policy in ways that will reverberate back to Washington.

While all three have criticized unilateralism and militarism, they also advocate an activist foreign policy. Some liberals in the United States fear that the Iraq war has given a bad name to policies aimed at promoting democracy and human rights. They worry that the U.S. will turn inward and others will shun from a tainted mantle of liberal global leadership. ... Theirs is a values-driven internationalism that is as energetic as Bush's, but more collaborative and diplomatic. If successful, these officials could highlight effective ways to promote democracy and the rule of law in the Middle East--and thus restore general credibility to those goals. ... Whether they prove deft enough to bridge the political chasms and build momentum for more vigorous European global leadership remains to be seen.

LEST WE FORGET: Failing To Out Carbon The Anti-Carbonites

Tim Blair is not impressed with call from "he world's most indulgent people - rock stars" asking fans to take the Live Earth pledge to "take personal action to help solve the climate crises by reducing my own C02 pollution as much as I can." Blair blogs:

Has Live Earth performer Keith Urban sold his Bentleys yet? (Actually, merely selling those 12-cylinder babies won't reduce C02 emissions; he must destroy them.) I've been trying to come up with a violently destructive Gaia-raping stunt for us to participate in on Live Earth day, but it is literally impossible for even several thousand non-millionaires to match Live Earth's own level of eco-vandalism while remaining within their means and the law. ... We've been out-carboned by Big Environmentalism. There's simply no way we can come close to matching the colossal carbon output of Gore and his musical mates.

7/2: Has The Primary Just Begun?

Perhaps more important than the totals ($31 mil. from 154K donors) is the memo Barack Obama's campaign sent out detailing their Q2 fundraising success. As MyDD's Jerome Armstrong notes, the memo "talks a bit tougher" than the rhetoric we've come to expect from Obama, and it targets Hillary Clinton directly without naming her (insinuating she is the "quasi-incumbent" in the race). After months of quietly building a 50 state, 250K volunteer network, is this memo a signal from the Obama camp that the gloves are about to come off now that he has a significant cash advantage. One more warning from Armstrong though, the Obama memo is right to point out that early poll leaders did not ultimately prevail in IA and NH in '04 (Lieberman and Dean), but neither did the leader in money raised and numbers of donors leader either (Dean again).

CLINTON: Don't Write Her Off Just Yet

Mason-Dixon results showing 52% "wouldn't consider voting for" Hillary Clinton renewed some fears about Clinton's general election electability. Matthew Yglesias comments: "Okay, I'm not a fan of "electability" arguments and this result is an outlier, but things like this ought to make people wonder if this is really the front runner the Democrats need."

Talking Points Memo's Steve Benen helps HRC refute the poll, linking to a Newsweeknumbers showing Clinton besting all the GOP WH '08ers in potential head-to-head matchups. Benen adds: "Obviously, something is askew. Either a majority of Americans have ruled out backing Clinton under any circumstances, or a majority of Americans are prepared to support her against a GOP rival. It can't be both. And given that there are more polls for the latter than the prior, I'm not necessarily prepared to write her off as a viable general-election candidate quite yet. ... let's not take one Mason-Dixon poll too seriously."

Back looking at primary matchup numbers, MyDD's Jonathan Singer attempts to blunt CBS News results showing Clinton leading Barack Obama 48%-24%, asking: "But just how deep is that lead? And how much of that lead is indicative of soft, rather than hard levels of support? Numbers of donors are not necessarily great measures of a candidate's strength, but they are one measure. Obama had twice as many first quarter donors as did Clinton, and there has been little indication that she will match his 150,000+ new donors this quarter, even if she is able to match him or top him in dollars raised."

Looking further in the poll Singer adds: "Another measure to look at is enthusiasm for particular candidates. The aforementioned CBS News survey, which gave Clinton a 24-point lead overall, found that her lead in enthusiastic Democratic primary supporters is just 6 points over."

DODD: Just Like Lieberman

Still talking about Chris Dodd's use of the YouTube Spotlight series to call on activists to videotape their interactions with their Senators on the war, MyDD's Melissa Ryan blogs: "When I saw the spotlight one word came to mind: Lieberman. Last year video bloggers caught Senator Lieberman showing his true self on tape time, after time, after time. His victory aside, I think those moments forever changed the public's perception of Lieberman to the point where he can't run for office again. The Dodd campaign is looking for those same sort of defining moments."

EDWARDS: Coming Around On Crack

A summary of John Edwards aides Jonathan Prince and Joe Trippi conference call made the recommended list on MyDD's comment boards. Highlights include:

• The Edwards campaign more than doubled its donor base in Q2, gaining approximately 70,000 donors this quarter,
• Jonathan Prince said they need $40 million before the Iowa caucus. They are well over half way there.
• They raised over 3.5 million online, which was more than last quarter.
• 80% of their contributions were $50 and under.
• Over 30% of the contributions came from states that Bush won in 2004.

At Talk Left, Jeralyn Merritt found Edwards use of $15 fundraisers "refreshing" and commended his "coming around" on "mandatory minimum sentences and the crack-powder cocaine disparity."

OBAMA: Bigger Than Dean

The netroots are still pouring over Barack Obama's Q2 fundraising totals, trying to decided what his $31 mil. from 154K donors really means. Marc Ambinder challenges commentators "to figure out why the 'national' frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, isn't generating as much excitement as her chief competitor." Matthew Yglesias responds: "To me this isn't all that puzzling. Obama's supporters, though numerically fewer than Clinton's, are more drawn from the "high information" segment of the electorate that has both more money to donate and more inclination to do so. Donations would be a great proxy for intensity of support of you were looking at two demographically similar groups of people, but that's not the case here."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong links to Obama manager David Plouffe's email touting Obama as "the strongest general election candidate" and comments: "[The memo] is notable in that it doesn't carry the light language that has been typical coming from the Obama's campaign-- it actually talks a bit tougher and takes on the perceived front-runner status of Clinton. Mainly by showing from history that the polls haven't been predictive of whom is going to win the Democratic nomination in the past. But it would also be instructive to add, following Dean in '04, that neither has the one with the most money been who won either. You do have to reach a threshold to win the nomination, but more money doesn't do you any more good in Iowa. In 2003, Kerry needed just $5M the final three months of the campaign to win in Iowa."

Ambinder reposts Plouffe's email in its entirety, interspersing his own thoughts and reactions to Plouufe's spin, including this reaction to Plouffe's observation that: "The pundits and political insiders questioned whether a new leader and fledgling campaign could compete with the big money and massive organization of other candidates who have been preparing to run for years, and even decades." Ambinder responds: "The irony is that Hillary Clinton's base is said to be among downscale, working-class Dems."

Back at MyDD a couple of lengthy posts both try and explain why Obama will succeed where internet sensation Dean failed before him. Psericks writes: "Obama's campaign has shown itself to be keen on learning from the lessons of the Dean campaign. ... First of all, his base of volunteers isn't on the blue coasts but in Illinois, a neighboring state [to IA], where they have already started a "Sister Cities" program to match volunteers with communities in Iowa and continue to send them back again and again to get to know the community instead of showing up the weekend before the election. Second, both Obama's running behind in the national polls and Dean's defeat are going to keep the campaign grounded. ... In short, Obama is doing everything right. He's building his campaign, training volunteers, encouraging small donors to own a part of the campaign, building connections through its social networking site, raising funds, etc."

Former Obama doubter Howard Park explains how 6/28's debate at Howard University convinced him the movement behind Obama was real: "I saw how students at Howard University were grabbing for Obama signs like starving children would grab for candy. Students are almost always a leading indicator in campaigns. ... The Obama campaign is what generational change looks like and what a movement looks like. He has not been tested yet but it's clear that Obama is not a fad."

OBAMA II: All Obama, All The Time

A couple of weekly Obama updates have sprung up at Daily Kos and MyDD. Icebergslim has been writing his week-in-reviews for almost a month, which features a thorough collection of links to everything Obama from each day of the week along with slim's own commentary including this take on the 6/28 debate: "Debate Showcases Clinton, Obama Rivalry"

At MyDD, lovingj is just announcing "regular Obama weekly news" as well as a new intra-MyDD group the "MyDD Obama Team" which LJ has an official logo for. Not as thorough as slim's efforts, LJ does link to a RCP Blog item arguing a John Edwards exit from the race would help Obama."

RICHARDSON: Can't Get No Respect

Some conflicting reactions to Bill Richardson's failure to top John Edwards fundraising numbers. MyDD's Jonathan Singer blogs: "Those numbers are actually pretty solid for Richardson, and on their face he cannot be disappointed by them. But the credibility of a campaign is not something that is easily replaced when folks start to doubt it. And raising the expectation that Richardson was going to outraise Edwards this quarter and then failing to do so by more than 25 percent will likely make some, myself included, think twice before buying into the campaign's hype."

Matthew Yglesias is more supportive of Richardson: "[W]hile I'm not exactly persuaded Richardson should be the nominee, I am sure I wish he would get more respect and attention. Richardson has staked out the best positions on both Iraq and climate change, and a Richardson boomlet would indicate to the other candidates that these are important issues to their constituents. The effect here on Iraq, in particular, could be large. What's more, in crass terms, Richardson is well-positioned to damage Hillary Clinton in two of her major pockets of support -- Latino voters and voters who place a high value on 'experience.'"

MCCAIN: The Bizarro-Obama

NY Sun's Ryan Sager posts the text from John McCain's last email fundraising pitch under the header "McCain Death Watch" and comments: "John McCain's campaign has just sent out another one of its desperate-sounding fundraising appeals, this one claiming that the campaign is still short of its second-quarter fundraising goals - on the day before the quarter will officially close."

And at The Corner, Mark Steyn reports: "By the way, also from the mailbag, I've had a couple of ostensibly well-informed e-mails suggesting that John McCain will quit the race in the next few days. He's supposed to be in Iraq this week, and presumably, whether he does call it quits or decides to press on, the second-quarter fundraising numbers are somewhere between bad and disastrous."

ROMNEY: Famous Seamus

Initially unnerved by reports of Mitt Romney transporting the family dog Seamus on the roof of a stationwagon in a pet carrier, IA Voice is now less disturbed after doing a little research. Tipped by the Romney campaign's Five Brothers Blog, the Voice searched for the type of "enclosed kennel" the Romney's claim Seamus loved to travel in and concluded: "I did a little internet search, and found this page. ... They could have had something like it for their dog. ... If that's the case, then I'm ok with this story."

LANDSCAPE: The Center Does Not Hold Independents

Matthew Yglesias' brief summation on the Washington Post's 7/1 article on the results of their polling independents was widely linked to in netroots circles. Yglesias blogs: "Big survey, little new information. Many independents are actually partisans. Many others just have no idea what they're talking about. A few really do pay attention and swing anyway. The party that wins more independent votes tends to win elections."

Atrios adds: "That's about right. An important point is that most "independents" don't come close to fulfilling their imagined role as "centrists," where centrism is defined as the Washington Elite Consensus."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Senate Dwellers

Frustrated by last week's SCOTUS decisions, Down With Tyranny takes a critical look at how the new Dem Congress has been performing on progressive issues and doesn't like what he sees. DWT names good guys and bad in the House before moving on to the Senate: " [T]he freshmen there with the consistently best records are Ben Cardin (MD), Bob Casey (PA - a shock, since I expected far worse from him), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Amy Klobuchar (MN), and Bernie Sanders (VT). At the bottom of the barrel we find high hopes dashed by Claire McCaskill (MO) and Jon Tester (MT)."

Not mentioned in DWT's post, but caricatured in an accompanying picture, Sen. James Webb (D-VA) conducted a bloggers conference call 6/29. At Talking Points Memo Spencer Ackerman reports that Webb hopes "to play a leading role in the Dem Congress' efforts to stall the war after the July 4th Congressional recess." Webb "plans to introduce an amendment to the must-pass defense authorization bill that will increase "dwell time," the amount of time troops stay at home before redeployment, to at least the amount of time active-duty troops spend deployed."

Ackerman quotes Webb: "We've reached the point where we've burned these troops out. Our operational policies change from month to month, and it's time for us to stop."

NSA: Gold Stars For Everyone!

The netroots are flagging an exchange between Senate Jud Cmte Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and NBC's Tim Russert from 7/1's Meet The Press. After Russert asked Leahy if he would be willing to hold the WH in contempt of Congress should they defy cmt. subpoena's about the NSA warrantless surveillance program, Leahy responded: "Yes, I would go that far." Talking Points Memo's Steve Benen adds: "If Congress passes a contempt-of-Congress measure, lawmakers would effectively be formally accusing the White House of a crime, which would then be referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for consideration. Russert asked Leahy this morning, 'Are you sure the U.S. Attorney would prosecute?' The chairman responded, 'Well, I think it'd be very difficult for him not to.'"

Daily Kos' Kagro X comments: "[I]t's Russert who gets the gold star from me this morning, for being up to speed about the process. The US Attorney does not have to prosecute. Yes, it would be politically difficult not to, but remember, that's exactly why we are where we are. Senator Leahy has had to issue these subpoenas precisely because the "administration" has been doing such incredibly stupid and destructive things as selectively prosecuting cases for political purposes."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Don't Act So Surprised

Matthew Yglesias takes issue with the Washington Post's decision to endorse the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito and then complain about the decisions they produce:

One wishes, at this point, that the Post would simply endorse the decisions as well. If the Post wants to become conservative on judicial issues, the way it's become conservative on foreign policy issues then it is, of course, free to do so. But hewing to a liberal line when it doesn't matter only adds a veneer of credibility when they put forward conservative views on question that do matter -- who should and who should not be confirmed. They could, of course, redeem themselves by noting the contradiction and swearing that they won't carry water for conservative nominees in the future. I, however, won't be holding my breath.

LEST WE FORGET: In Defense Of Paris

Scott Adams was bemused by some of the angry comments he received after he admitted at The Dilbert Blog to finding Paris Hilton's antics entertaining:

My other favorite comments came from people who angrily point out how wrong it is to be entertained by something as trivial and unimportant as Paris Hilton's life. This raises an interesting question: What the hell are you doing that's so important? You're not only reading The Dilbert Blog, but you're leaving a frickin' comment. How can you afford to take time out from your primary activity of performing free heart surgery on poor African babies?