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 July 30, 2007 12:48 PM