July 13, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

DEM FIELD III: A Bounce To Big

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

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

CLINTON: Netroots Tested, "Pop Tart" Approved

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

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

EDWARDS: Freedom's Just Another Word ...

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

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

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

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

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

GRAVEL: He Can't Get No Respect

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

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

OBAMA: Back To The Future

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

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

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

GIULIANI: King Of The Hill

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

HUNTER: Fair Play

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

PAUL: At Least They Have Hillary In Common

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

ROMNEY: The Next Olbermann?

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

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

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

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

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

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

IRAQ: One Vote At A Time

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

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

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

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

IRAQ II: Victory Does Not Include Defeating Al-Qaeda

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

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

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Doing It For The Children

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

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

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

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

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Not Your Monkey

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

LEST WE FORGET: Get Over Yourselves

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

Posted by Conn Carroll at July 13, 2007 12:41 PM