July 11, 2007

7/11: What Should Edwards Do?

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

DEM FIELD: Against Foot Shooting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBAMA: Can't We All Just Get Along

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

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

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

RICHARDSON: Something For Melissa Ethridge To Quiz Him On

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

GIULIANI: No Fire In This Smoke

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

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

MCCAIN: No Joy In McCainville

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

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

F. THOMPSON: Driven To Distraction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IRAQ: It's The Vulnerability Stupid

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

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

TERROR POLITICS: Zero Credibility

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

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

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Washington Was Robbed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Conn Carroll at July 11, 2007 12:43 PM