July 02, 2007

7/2: Has The Primary Just Begun?

Perhaps more important than the totals ($31 mil. from 154K donors) is the memo Barack Obama's campaign sent out detailing their Q2 fundraising success. As MyDD's Jerome Armstrong notes, the memo "talks a bit tougher" than the rhetoric we've come to expect from Obama, and it targets Hillary Clinton directly without naming her (insinuating she is the "quasi-incumbent" in the race). After months of quietly building a 50 state, 250K volunteer network, is this memo a signal from the Obama camp that the gloves are about to come off now that he has a significant cash advantage. One more warning from Armstrong though, the Obama memo is right to point out that early poll leaders did not ultimately prevail in IA and NH in '04 (Lieberman and Dean), but neither did the leader in money raised and numbers of donors leader either (Dean again).

CLINTON: Don't Write Her Off Just Yet

Mason-Dixon results showing 52% "wouldn't consider voting for" Hillary Clinton renewed some fears about Clinton's general election electability. Matthew Yglesias comments: "Okay, I'm not a fan of "electability" arguments and this result is an outlier, but things like this ought to make people wonder if this is really the front runner the Democrats need."

Talking Points Memo's Steve Benen helps HRC refute the poll, linking to a Newsweeknumbers showing Clinton besting all the GOP WH '08ers in potential head-to-head matchups. Benen adds: "Obviously, something is askew. Either a majority of Americans have ruled out backing Clinton under any circumstances, or a majority of Americans are prepared to support her against a GOP rival. It can't be both. And given that there are more polls for the latter than the prior, I'm not necessarily prepared to write her off as a viable general-election candidate quite yet. ... let's not take one Mason-Dixon poll too seriously."

Back looking at primary matchup numbers, MyDD's Jonathan Singer attempts to blunt CBS News results showing Clinton leading Barack Obama 48%-24%, asking: "But just how deep is that lead? And how much of that lead is indicative of soft, rather than hard levels of support? Numbers of donors are not necessarily great measures of a candidate's strength, but they are one measure. Obama had twice as many first quarter donors as did Clinton, and there has been little indication that she will match his 150,000+ new donors this quarter, even if she is able to match him or top him in dollars raised."

Looking further in the poll Singer adds: "Another measure to look at is enthusiasm for particular candidates. The aforementioned CBS News survey, which gave Clinton a 24-point lead overall, found that her lead in enthusiastic Democratic primary supporters is just 6 points over."

DODD: Just Like Lieberman

Still talking about Chris Dodd's use of the YouTube Spotlight series to call on activists to videotape their interactions with their Senators on the war, MyDD's Melissa Ryan blogs: "When I saw the spotlight one word came to mind: Lieberman. Last year video bloggers caught Senator Lieberman showing his true self on tape time, after time, after time. His victory aside, I think those moments forever changed the public's perception of Lieberman to the point where he can't run for office again. The Dodd campaign is looking for those same sort of defining moments."

EDWARDS: Coming Around On Crack

A summary of John Edwards aides Jonathan Prince and Joe Trippi conference call made the recommended list on MyDD's comment boards. Highlights include:

• The Edwards campaign more than doubled its donor base in Q2, gaining approximately 70,000 donors this quarter,
• Jonathan Prince said they need $40 million before the Iowa caucus. They are well over half way there.
• They raised over 3.5 million online, which was more than last quarter.
• 80% of their contributions were $50 and under.
• Over 30% of the contributions came from states that Bush won in 2004.

At Talk Left, Jeralyn Merritt found Edwards use of $15 fundraisers "refreshing" and commended his "coming around" on "mandatory minimum sentences and the crack-powder cocaine disparity."

OBAMA: Bigger Than Dean

The netroots are still pouring over Barack Obama's Q2 fundraising totals, trying to decided what his $31 mil. from 154K donors really means. Marc Ambinder challenges commentators "to figure out why the 'national' frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, isn't generating as much excitement as her chief competitor." Matthew Yglesias responds: "To me this isn't all that puzzling. Obama's supporters, though numerically fewer than Clinton's, are more drawn from the "high information" segment of the electorate that has both more money to donate and more inclination to do so. Donations would be a great proxy for intensity of support of you were looking at two demographically similar groups of people, but that's not the case here."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong links to Obama manager David Plouffe's email touting Obama as "the strongest general election candidate" and comments: "[The memo] is notable in that it doesn't carry the light language that has been typical coming from the Obama's campaign-- it actually talks a bit tougher and takes on the perceived front-runner status of Clinton. Mainly by showing from history that the polls haven't been predictive of whom is going to win the Democratic nomination in the past. But it would also be instructive to add, following Dean in '04, that neither has the one with the most money been who won either. You do have to reach a threshold to win the nomination, but more money doesn't do you any more good in Iowa. In 2003, Kerry needed just $5M the final three months of the campaign to win in Iowa."

Ambinder reposts Plouffe's email in its entirety, interspersing his own thoughts and reactions to Plouufe's spin, including this reaction to Plouffe's observation that: "The pundits and political insiders questioned whether a new leader and fledgling campaign could compete with the big money and massive organization of other candidates who have been preparing to run for years, and even decades." Ambinder responds: "The irony is that Hillary Clinton's base is said to be among downscale, working-class Dems."

Back at MyDD a couple of lengthy posts both try and explain why Obama will succeed where internet sensation Dean failed before him. Psericks writes: "Obama's campaign has shown itself to be keen on learning from the lessons of the Dean campaign. ... First of all, his base of volunteers isn't on the blue coasts but in Illinois, a neighboring state [to IA], where they have already started a "Sister Cities" program to match volunteers with communities in Iowa and continue to send them back again and again to get to know the community instead of showing up the weekend before the election. Second, both Obama's running behind in the national polls and Dean's defeat are going to keep the campaign grounded. ... In short, Obama is doing everything right. He's building his campaign, training volunteers, encouraging small donors to own a part of the campaign, building connections through its social networking site, raising funds, etc."

Former Obama doubter Howard Park explains how 6/28's debate at Howard University convinced him the movement behind Obama was real: "I saw how students at Howard University were grabbing for Obama signs like starving children would grab for candy. Students are almost always a leading indicator in campaigns. ... The Obama campaign is what generational change looks like and what a movement looks like. He has not been tested yet but it's clear that Obama is not a fad."

OBAMA II: All Obama, All The Time

A couple of weekly Obama updates have sprung up at Daily Kos and MyDD. Icebergslim has been writing his week-in-reviews for almost a month, which features a thorough collection of links to everything Obama from each day of the week along with slim's own commentary including this take on the 6/28 debate: "Debate Showcases Clinton, Obama Rivalry"

At MyDD, lovingj is just announcing "regular Obama weekly news" as well as a new intra-MyDD group the "MyDD Obama Team" which LJ has an official logo for. Not as thorough as slim's efforts, LJ does link to a RCP Blog item arguing a John Edwards exit from the race would help Obama."

RICHARDSON: Can't Get No Respect

Some conflicting reactions to Bill Richardson's failure to top John Edwards fundraising numbers. MyDD's Jonathan Singer blogs: "Those numbers are actually pretty solid for Richardson, and on their face he cannot be disappointed by them. But the credibility of a campaign is not something that is easily replaced when folks start to doubt it. And raising the expectation that Richardson was going to outraise Edwards this quarter and then failing to do so by more than 25 percent will likely make some, myself included, think twice before buying into the campaign's hype."

Matthew Yglesias is more supportive of Richardson: "[W]hile I'm not exactly persuaded Richardson should be the nominee, I am sure I wish he would get more respect and attention. Richardson has staked out the best positions on both Iraq and climate change, and a Richardson boomlet would indicate to the other candidates that these are important issues to their constituents. The effect here on Iraq, in particular, could be large. What's more, in crass terms, Richardson is well-positioned to damage Hillary Clinton in two of her major pockets of support -- Latino voters and voters who place a high value on 'experience.'"

MCCAIN: The Bizarro-Obama

NY Sun's Ryan Sager posts the text from John McCain's last email fundraising pitch under the header "McCain Death Watch" and comments: "John McCain's campaign has just sent out another one of its desperate-sounding fundraising appeals, this one claiming that the campaign is still short of its second-quarter fundraising goals - on the day before the quarter will officially close."

And at The Corner, Mark Steyn reports: "By the way, also from the mailbag, I've had a couple of ostensibly well-informed e-mails suggesting that John McCain will quit the race in the next few days. He's supposed to be in Iraq this week, and presumably, whether he does call it quits or decides to press on, the second-quarter fundraising numbers are somewhere between bad and disastrous."

ROMNEY: Famous Seamus

Initially unnerved by reports of Mitt Romney transporting the family dog Seamus on the roof of a stationwagon in a pet carrier, IA Voice is now less disturbed after doing a little research. Tipped by the Romney campaign's Five Brothers Blog, the Voice searched for the type of "enclosed kennel" the Romney's claim Seamus loved to travel in and concluded: "I did a little internet search, and found this page. ... They could have had something like it for their dog. ... If that's the case, then I'm ok with this story."

LANDSCAPE: The Center Does Not Hold Independents

Matthew Yglesias' brief summation on the Washington Post's 7/1 article on the results of their polling independents was widely linked to in netroots circles. Yglesias blogs: "Big survey, little new information. Many independents are actually partisans. Many others just have no idea what they're talking about. A few really do pay attention and swing anyway. The party that wins more independent votes tends to win elections."

Atrios adds: "That's about right. An important point is that most "independents" don't come close to fulfilling their imagined role as "centrists," where centrism is defined as the Washington Elite Consensus."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Senate Dwellers

Frustrated by last week's SCOTUS decisions, Down With Tyranny takes a critical look at how the new Dem Congress has been performing on progressive issues and doesn't like what he sees. DWT names good guys and bad in the House before moving on to the Senate: " [T]he freshmen there with the consistently best records are Ben Cardin (MD), Bob Casey (PA - a shock, since I expected far worse from him), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Amy Klobuchar (MN), and Bernie Sanders (VT). At the bottom of the barrel we find high hopes dashed by Claire McCaskill (MO) and Jon Tester (MT)."

Not mentioned in DWT's post, but caricatured in an accompanying picture, Sen. James Webb (D-VA) conducted a bloggers conference call 6/29. At Talking Points Memo Spencer Ackerman reports that Webb hopes "to play a leading role in the Dem Congress' efforts to stall the war after the July 4th Congressional recess." Webb "plans to introduce an amendment to the must-pass defense authorization bill that will increase "dwell time," the amount of time troops stay at home before redeployment, to at least the amount of time active-duty troops spend deployed."

Ackerman quotes Webb: "We've reached the point where we've burned these troops out. Our operational policies change from month to month, and it's time for us to stop."

NSA: Gold Stars For Everyone!

The netroots are flagging an exchange between Senate Jud Cmte Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and NBC's Tim Russert from 7/1's Meet The Press. After Russert asked Leahy if he would be willing to hold the WH in contempt of Congress should they defy cmt. subpoena's about the NSA warrantless surveillance program, Leahy responded: "Yes, I would go that far." Talking Points Memo's Steve Benen adds: "If Congress passes a contempt-of-Congress measure, lawmakers would effectively be formally accusing the White House of a crime, which would then be referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for consideration. Russert asked Leahy this morning, 'Are you sure the U.S. Attorney would prosecute?' The chairman responded, 'Well, I think it'd be very difficult for him not to.'"

Daily Kos' Kagro X comments: "[I]t's Russert who gets the gold star from me this morning, for being up to speed about the process. The US Attorney does not have to prosecute. Yes, it would be politically difficult not to, but remember, that's exactly why we are where we are. Senator Leahy has had to issue these subpoenas precisely because the "administration" has been doing such incredibly stupid and destructive things as selectively prosecuting cases for political purposes."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Don't Act So Surprised

Matthew Yglesias takes issue with the Washington Post's decision to endorse the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito and then complain about the decisions they produce:

One wishes, at this point, that the Post would simply endorse the decisions as well. If the Post wants to become conservative on judicial issues, the way it's become conservative on foreign policy issues then it is, of course, free to do so. But hewing to a liberal line when it doesn't matter only adds a veneer of credibility when they put forward conservative views on question that do matter -- who should and who should not be confirmed. They could, of course, redeem themselves by noting the contradiction and swearing that they won't carry water for conservative nominees in the future. I, however, won't be holding my breath.

LEST WE FORGET: In Defense Of Paris

Scott Adams was bemused by some of the angry comments he received after he admitted at The Dilbert Blog to finding Paris Hilton's antics entertaining:

My other favorite comments came from people who angrily point out how wrong it is to be entertained by something as trivial and unimportant as Paris Hilton's life. This raises an interesting question: What the hell are you doing that's so important? You're not only reading The Dilbert Blog, but you're leaving a frickin' comment. How can you afford to take time out from your primary activity of performing free heart surgery on poor African babies?

Posted by Conn Carroll at July 2, 2007 12:58 PM