July 31, 2007

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.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:39 PM

July 30, 2007

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.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:48 PM

July 27, 2007

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.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:37 PM

July 26, 2007

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!"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:47 PM

July 25, 2007

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 a