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 and bravely made the case to change our irrational policy toward Cuba. But that's not what Obama was doing -- he just checked off a list of authoritarian leaders ... If a Dem candidate could shave the GOP Cuban American edge from 80-20 to 60-40, they wouldn't have to worry about Ohio because they'd win Florida."

GOP FIELD: What About Fred?

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

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

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

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

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

HUNTER: Doing His Best

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

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

MCCAIN: It's Anything But Immigration, Stupid

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

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

PAUL: Home Is Where The Platform Is

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

ROMNEY: Absolute Mitt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMPEACHMENT: Fredo First

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

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

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Not Their Theory Of Justice

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

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

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

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

Posted by Conn Carroll at July 25, 2007 12:38 PM

Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.