August 30, 2007

8/30: Diluting The Bush Dog Brand

The netroots are not in the habit of listening to us insider-beltway-types, but we're going to offer some advice on their fledging Bush Dog campaign anyway: Don't make Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) the focus of your efforts. As we understand it, the Bush Dog campaign is part of a larger long-term effort to move Dems towards more progressive policies. The initial definition of a 'Bush Dog' after all was someone who had voted both for the Iraq war supplemental and the new FISA bill (and Chris Bowers also demonstrated large numbers of these Bush Dogs also voted for the Bankruptcy bill). Baird's only sin so far has been his recent change on Iraq. We are unaware of a long established Joe Lieberman-like history of undercutting Dems on other key issues. If the netroots wish to establish themselves as something more than an anti-war movement, Baird is not the best candidate to be run out of Congress.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:59 PM

CLINTON: Weapon Of Mass Persuasion

Reporting on Hillary Clinton's decision to deploy Bill Clinton to both IA and NH on 9/1-3, TPM's Eric Kleefeld comments: "Apparently the Hillary campaign still hasn't gotten the memo from all the pundits who keep telling us Bill Clinton and his personal lapses are a liability for Hillary. The reality is that he's been an asset for Hillary's campaign in multiple ways - from fundraising to reminding people of their fond memories of the 1990s."

Open Left's Chris Bowers also notes Bill's stepped up role and blogs: "Bill Clinton might be the ultimate Democratic primary campaign weapon for any candidate." Bowers cites: "I do know that after Bill Clinton campaigned for Hillary in Iowa back in early July, Clinton promptly increased her Iowa standing relative to Edwards according to Zogby, ARG, Research 2000, the University of Iowa, and Strategic Vision. Those five polling firms are the only outfits that took Iowa polls both before and after Bill Clinton came to Iowa, and in every single case they show Hillary Clinton rising."

More Bowers: "I am starting to think that if any Democratic candidate has a chance of defeating Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination, they will have to start making the argument that many of the problems we have faced as a country under the Bush administration were caused, at least in part, by the way our political system operated in the 1990's and earlier. Unless there is a repudiation of the 1990's, it is hard for me to see how anyone except Hillary Clinton will end up as the nominee."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:58 PM

DODD: Not Another Cent

Chris Dodd aide Tim Tagaris took to Open Left 8/29 to explain how the International Association of Fire Fighters endorsement "changes the race" for Dodd: "It's not just what the fire fighters stand for, or the awesome gold and yellow shirts ... it's the organizational skills they bring to the table. As the only union to endorse John Kerry in those heady fall days, you only have to look back to 2004 to see the IAFF has proven they know how to help a candidate win in Iowa and New Hampshire. Remember, John Kerry was down over 30 points in New Hampshire as late as November 2003."

Most bloggers linking accounts of the press conference paid more attention to what Dodd had to say about the $50 bil. Iraq supplemental request Pres. Bush just sent to Congress. From Dodd: "I don't intend to continue to fund the war over there that I think has no end. As long as we're there, I think the Iraqis are not going to come together as a people it's about time we wound down our military presence there."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat comments: "Dodd Leads Again On Iraq Now." MyDD's Todd Beeton blogs: "Chris Dodd, over the course of his campaign, has slowly but surely made the case that he is able and willing to be our fiercest protector on matters both big (the Habeus Corpus Restoration Act and The Gulf Coast Recovery Act of 2007) and small (his strong defense of dailyKos against the attacks of Bill O'Reilly.)"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:57 PM

OBAMA: And He Overturned The Tables Of The Money Changers

Barack Obama's Financial Times article promising to help homeowner's avoid foreclosure by fining subprime lenders that "acted irresponsibly or committed fraud" received strong netroots support. MyDD's Max Fletcher blogs: ""Perhaps most prominently, Obama calls for fines to be levied against predatory subprime lenders in order to rescue homeowners facing foreclosure after receiving loans they could not afford. ... The second part of Obama's plan involves tighter regulation of the lending industry. Here, Obama returns to an old theme, arguing that it will take a reining in of the lobbying industry in order to achieve a reining in of the lending industry."

Daily Kos' Jerome a Paris comments on Obama's call for more regulation: "In fact, this is something that is required on a grand scale for the two industries that intersect in the mortgage industry: the financial sector in general and all industries providing consumer goods and services. ... This is one of the core functions of government - to protect weak and isolated individuals against the abuses of large commercial players."

Fletcher also compares Hillary Clinton's mortgage plan with Obama's: "Clinton's plan, introduced earlier this month, lacks the teeth of the Obama plan in that it doesn't propose fines on predatory behavior. ... Obama's mortgage plan is a strong progressive policy that holds predatory lenders accountable while saving thousands of families from financial ruin."

OBAMA II: Marshalling The Troops

The Huffington Post's Zach Exley continued his series on Barack Obama's field organization efforts. He writes from Atlanta, GA: "No one who attends a "Camp Obama" training weekend can deny that something truly beautiful is taking place inside the Barack Obama campaign. But beauty does not win votes. Is the campaign's innovative, intellectual and emotional training program leading toward electoral power, or just another screaming disappointment for the grassroots?"

TPM Cafe's Andrew Golis summarizes the rest of the article: "In particular, Exley focuses on the teachings of Marshall Ganz. ... Ganz is unquestionably the leader of this new contingent trying to change the party. I first met him when he trained the Dean Campaign's New Hampshire field staff on this new approach in 2003, and worked again with him when he advised the DNC's national field staff in 2004."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:56 PM

HUCKABEE: A Love-Hate Relationship

Conservatives continue to find much to love about Mike Huckabee, but ultimately they can't get past his "Bloombergian nanny-state scold" positions like a federal ban on smoking. Hot Air's Allahpundit favorably links to Huckabee's criticism of Fred Thompson at The Brody File and AmSpec Blog's James Antle blogs: "If I could fuse Giualini's economics with Huckabee's social views, I'd be pretty pleased. Unfortunately, they are both 50 percent leftists. In my opinion."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:55 PM

MCCAIN: If He Was As Pro-First Amendment As He Is Anti-Torture, He Might Still Be In This Thing

NRO's Jim Geraghty posts lengthy portions of a letter John McCain is sending to 250k GOPers in early primary states, including: "I am not naive. I know only too well the tools some governments have resorted to when threatened: indefinite detention without trial, torture of prisoners, and a belief that anything is permissible in dark places where power is the only law. But these tools are not American tools, and the easy way is not the American way. We must remain true to our ideals not in spite of the threats we face, but because of them."

Geraghty comments: "In the letter, McCain lays out the four themes he'll be pounding on from now until the primaries: the War Against Islamic Extremism, Government Reform and Fiscal Responsibility, Healthcare Reform,and Judges. What stands out to me about the letter? Well, McCain would never be so obvious as to throw gasoline on the are-Romney's-son's-chickenhawks fire. He would just obliquely mention that he's 'a father of two soldiers and five other children.'"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:54 PM

ROMNEY: Yes, He Should Hope One Of His Campaign Chairs Gets Arrested In A Public Restroom Every Week

The Corner's Rich Lowry makes the case that the Larry Craig incident actually helps Mitt Romney: "Once he's over the momentary embarrassment of his association with Craiq, Romney is probably helped by this scandal at the margins. When a party is reeling from scandal after scandal - some of them involving gross sexual misconduct and adultery - the wholesome guy who is loyal to his wife and family is going to look more appealing."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:53 PM

ID SEN: Will What Happened In August, Stay In August?

Conservative calls for Larry Craig to resign are not abating. Michelle Malkin writes: "Larry Craig is bad for the GOP. Period. He's a distraction from bigger problems and more important policy debates. He should go away and get some help." RedState's Erick Erickson blogs: "The man pled guilty to the charges based on this incident. He should resign. Where are the other Republican Senators?"

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez predicts the GOP's nightmare may soon be over: "Craig didn't have time to know of or fully process that ethics-investigation letter from Republican leaders yesterday. He's going to resign from his Senate seat before he has to return to chambers (i.e. by Tuesday). I just can't believe he'd go back facing that kind of no-confidence vote from colleagues. I don't think he fully thought through going back to work next week when he went out there, defiantly, yesterday."

There is also plenty of chatter on Craig, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), hypocrisy, and family values. The Corner's Jonah Goldberg shares reader email on the subject: "Using the relaxed standard, are you a hypocrite to support women's rights (Violence Against Women's Act) if you are a serial sexual harasser? How about pushing for tax increases if you pay only the amount the law requires and do not voluntarily pay more? What about pushing for gun control when you have a license to carry a concealed weapon or use armed body guards? No school vouchers when your own kids are in private schools? Propose wind power but not in view of your own home? Stop driving SUV's while living in 20k square foot home? This is fun!"

On the left, Daily Kos' mcjoan is already salivating over a possible messy GOP primary: "Pat Toomey, Club for Growth president and BFF of crazy Idaho Rep. Bill Sali took aim yesterday against Idaho's other representative in Congress and fellow Republican, Mike Simpson, one of Idaho's most popular Republicans. ... I think the odds of having an interesting Republican primary in Idaho next year just got a lot better. ... In the meantime, the Democrats have a solid candidate in the race. This race should go to the front of the pack. The Dems have cleared the field for Larry LaRocco, a seasoned, smart, and energetic campaigner, who also happens to be a Kossack.... Larry LaRocco's diary is up. Go say "hey."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:52 PM

WA 03: The Dreaded 'L' Word

Despite voting against the original authorization for the war and against FISA reauthorization, the netroots are considering making Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) the poster child for their 'Bush Dog' campaign designed to pressure Dems into standing up to Pres. Bush. Open Left's Matt Stoller makes the case against Baird:

What makes him more Joe Lieberman than Ben Nelson? ... Here are the three keys to Baird's Bush Doggedness. 1) Baird serves as a useful idiot: 2) Baird has taken a Broder turn: 3) Baird hides behind American exceptionalism. ... It is extremely unlikely in the near term that we'll ever have another Democratic politician as bad and high profile as Lieberman, but Brian Baird definitely patterns his career after Lieberman. It's all there: the useful idiocy, the Broder turn, and the hiding behind American exceptionalism.

Judging from The Ridenbaugh Press' Randy Stapilus reports on a 8/27 townhall in Vancouver, WA, Baird's constituents may agree with Stoller: "The audience atmosphere was a little Pentacostal ... Cries of "impeach Bush" or "end the war" and similar calls punctuated questions, answers and everything else. In the two hours we were there, not one questioner - out of perhaps 20 - expressed anything other than disgust and outrage at Baird's new take on Iraq. To judge from audience reaction, a portion of the crowd of perhaps 400 to 500 (those that were inside - the room was filled solid and others couldn't get in) supported him, but that portion was surely less than 10%."

Open Left's Chris Bowers adds: "I just got off the phone with Ciaran Clayton, Brian Baird's press secretary. I asked her if he's going to support the $50B supplemental request, and she said 'he probably will'."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:52 PM

IRAQ: Round II

Open Left's Chris Bowers sets the stage for 9/07: "The timeline for the next Iraq funding fight in Congress is now set. Congressional hearings on Iraq will begin in mid-September, including the testimony of General Petraeus on September 11th. Shortly thereafter, the Bush administration will request another $197 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And so, the fight over Iraq funding, which dominated Congress, headlines and the efforts of progressive activists from February through May, will be officially re-engaged."

Bowers the argues that the netroots can best help Dems by whipping the party in favor of including "a binding timeline for withdrawal." Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat notes that Dems and the netroots have been down that road before: "I believe this request provides Congress another chance to set an end date to the Iraq Debacle. The Congress must set a date certain for ending funding for Iraq Debacle operations. If they lack the political courage to say no to this funding request, the Congress must insist that this is the LAST request and that there will be no more funding for Iraq Debacle operations after a date certain. I suggest March 31, 2008."

On the right, Townhall's Hugh Hewitt sums up his major disagreement with The Pentagon's New Map author and ex-John Kerry adviser Thomas Barnett: "I will ask Dr. Barnett back next week, but it seems to me that advocates of his strategy of an even more comprehensive withdrawal have to begin their analysis by asking the people who are there or who have been there recently what they see happening in Iraq. What a folly and a terrible tragedy it would be if the U.S.abandoned Iraq to a paroxysm of sectarian killing far worse than that of 2006, and to another tyrant in the mold of Saddam if it could have been avoided. As long as there is a good, or even "some" chance of that result, we should be supporting the surge."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:51 PM

BLOGGERS VS MSM: What's A Little Assault And Battery Among Friends?

The netroots want Tucker Carlson's head over his 8/28 description of a restroom incident in Georgetown when Carlson was in high school. From Carlson on MSNBC:

I've been bothered in Georgetown Park. When I was in high school. ... I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and -- Hit him against the stall with his head, actually! And then the cops came and arrested him. But let me say that I'm the least anti-gay right-winger you'll ever meet.

After Media Matters posted a transcript of Carlson's remarks, Carlson emailed MM to clarify:

Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.

Several bloggers have characterized this is a sort of gay bashing. That's absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn't angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me.

The netroots were not buying Carlson's second story:

• Louise at Daily Kos: "Fire Tucker Carlson. NOW. When did committing a hate crime become a amusing anecdote to brag about on a national cable news cast?"
• Steve Clemons at Andrew Sullivan: "Read the full transcript (or watch the video clip) which is pretty disgusting, not just because Tucker Carlson, self-described as "the least anti-gay right-winger you'll ever meet", admits to beating up someone trolling for sex in a public bathroom -- but because Dan Abrams and Joe Scarborough just laugh."
• TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "We have a name for beating up gay people for their sexuality Tucker, it's called a hate crime and I'm kind of amazed you can just describe one on TV without consequences."
• Atrios: "There are so many things here from Dan Abrams thinking this is funny* to the fact that Tucker actually went to get a friend so that two could do the job. But also just consider how Tucker would react if women responded to being "bothered" by men by going and getting friends to beat the crap out of them."
• Reno and Its DiscontentsMyrna the Minx: "That's right folks. Tucker just outed all right-wingers as anti-gay. Understand that he's the least anti-gay of the anti-gayers, but there you go. Nobody has to pretend anymore. Thank God."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:50 PM

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: You Are What You Play

Spurred by news of a project that is attempting to merge the web and video games by "developing 'Passively Multiplayer Online Games' where your history of web browsing defines your online character," The Huffington Post's Hugh McGuire blogs: "

All this data we are putting into the web - say, into our blogs and into facebook and elsewhere, could be used for much more than just figuring out what kind of sneaker ads we're likely to want to see. If you have a big enough and powerful enough database, and you felt like tracking more complex things than ad click-thru rates, you could start figuring out how different cues actually affect decisions, actions and opinions of specific people or groups of people.

And you could start correlating profiles with actions. Which in effect is what pollsters do, but with tiny bits of bad data from surveys and focus groups, from a discrete moment in time, and without any way to measure how responses correlate with actions. Whereas the net - and places like facebook - are enormous databases of detailed info about specific people, tracking not just static points of what they like or don't like, but also some of the things they actually do on the net, over weeks, months or years.
And that means, if you have access to that database, you might have a good platform to craft a strategy to make people do what you want them to do.

LEST WE FORGET: Who Will Kick Our Extra Points?

The Huffington Post's Caleb Powers has thoughts on how the US could get a more efficient use out of David Beckham:

Before all is said and done, soccer superstar David Beckham will be motorboating back to England with a quarter of a billion dollars piled up behind him. In his wake will be the burst bubble of American interest in a sport we'll never accept, with all the pundits talking about our "irrational exuberance" for a guy who essentially does the job of the least-respected athletes in normal American sports, placekickers. (If the movie had been "Bend It like Morten Anderson," we could be living in a very different world.)

But what's done is done. Stupid water under the idiot bridge. Now that the United States has leased David Beckham, we should at least send him where he will actually accomplish some long-term good. I'm talking, of course, about Iraq. Not to fight; insurgents wouldn't really care if we tried giving them a yellow card for tripping in Sadr City. Instead, we should send him to Iraq to play soccer. ... I hope this is part of the Petraeus report. For a paltry $250 million, the United States has an obligation to its own people, its marketers, and the rest of the world to put Beckham on a one-way flight to Baghdad. We misplace that kind of money like it was going out of style. And there's nothing David Beckham would hate more than going out of style.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:49 PM

August 29, 2007

8/29: Too Close For Comfort

With Rudy Giuliani firmly ahead in nat'l polls, Mitt Romney has little room for error if he's going to turn early victories in IA and NH into a strong 2/5 finish. So far, Romney has run a tight and disciplined campaign that helps reinforce the 'competence' rationale. But that's what makes Sen. Larry Craig's (R-ID) connection to the campaign so damaging. The Blogometer is not tuned into rumors in Boise but there has long been blogger speculation that Craig could be a liability for a 'family values' focused-candidate like Romney. As much as it pains them to do so, in the future GOPers might want to invest some resources towards finding out if there is anything behind salacious blog rumors.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:07 PM

ID SEN: No Sparing This Square

Sen. Larry Craig's (R-ID) 8/28 press conference denying any inappropriate bathroom behavior did not convince any conservatives to back down from call for his resignation. RCP Blog's Tom Bevan writes: "Craig wants the public to believe his actions in the bathroom of the Minneapolis terminal were somehow misinterpreted or misconstrued by the arresting officer. The problem with this line of argument is that we're not talking about some abstract situation that leaves much room for reasonable doubt in the mind of the public. Everyone in America has been in a public restroom, and everyone knows what kind of behavior to expect there. The sort of behavior described by the officer is way out of the norm and defies simple or alternate explanations like "I have a wide stance." It's just creepy, and everyone knows it."

Also at RCP, John McIntyre notes Survey USA polling showing 89% of IDans are aware of the story and 55% of them want Craig to resign. McIntyre adds: "I would expect the pressure for Craig to resign will only grow until it is clear to him, his best option is to step aside." Only 2% of Michelle Malkin's readers want Craig to serve out his term.

AmSpec Blog's David Hogberg makes his case for resignation: "If the GOP can't figure out that this is time to push aside one of their own so that someone with a clean slate can run in his place, then this party has some huge problems." The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez also sees big trouble for the GOP brand: "I also think that the longer Craig hangs on...it's going to hurt folks who I want in office; the cloud is not just over Idaho. And I think the pile-on may have something to do with that frustration - with yet another elected official (and Republican again) in trouble."

A lengthy Glenn Greenwald post accuses conservatives of hypocrisy for ignoring 10/6 blog rumors that Craig had a history of public restroom dalliances while immediately calling for Craig's resignation after he plead guilty to disorderly conduct. Greenwald blogs: "As always, it is astonishing to observe how the same human brain can accommodate those two opposite thoughts only a few months apart without even realizing that it is doing so." Greenwald later responds to arguments that there might be a difference between ignoring blog rumors and ignoring official police reports: "The outrage at Rogers was not based -- certainly not principally -- on the premise that his report was unconfirmed. The crux of the condemnation, often the exclusive argument, was that Rogers' report about Craig was completely irrelevant even if it were true, because it was only about Craig's private sexual behavior, which should be immune from public consideration."

Townhall's Dean Barnett responded to charges that he was a hypocrite for supporting the ouster of Craig, but not admitted prostitute patron Sen. David Vitter (R-LA): "I don't think it's hypocrisy. By dint of thousands of years of tradition, seeking out sexual liaisons in a Men's Room is a lot more, um, exotic, than doing the same with a prostitute of the opposite sex. That's just the way it is. I don't think it's homophobic or hypocritical to take note of that obvious fact."

At TPM CafePaul Kiel reports Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint against Craig with the Senate Ethics Cmt. From CREW ex. dir. Melanie Sloan: "If pleading guilty to charges stemming from an attempt to solicit an undercover officer in a public restroom is not conduct that reflects poorly upon the Senate, what is?"

Also at TPM, Eric Kleefeld sees little chance of a Dem pick up: "Do Dems have a chance of picking up Larry Craig's Senate seat in the wake of his conviction for disorderly conduct in a public men's room? The short answer: A Dem pickup is not very likely." Daily Kos' mcjoan also sees a Dem pick up as an uphill climb but argues the scandal is just another vindication of Howard Dean's 50 state strategy: "Ground-shifting political events can happen anywhere, and while Alaska and Idaho are still long-shots for the Dems, we have a shot precisely because of the 50 state strategy--because there are now people on the ground to actually take advantage of any opening we get and run with it."

In other Craig related squibs, TPM's David Kurtz links to a CBS affiliates re-enactment of the bathroom scene, The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez notes that Craig opposed renewal of the Patriot Act on privacy grounds, and Jonah Goldberg cracks jokes:

Since prominent liberals feel perfectly comfortable lecturing everybody else about how we all have to reduce our CO2 emissions while they fly private jets, maintain numerous - lavish - homes and in all other ways burn through a whole lot of carbon so long as they buy "carbon offsets," perhaps closeted gay Republicans can buy "gay offsets" which would allow them to privately take the Nestea plunge into a lake of cabana boys so long as they cut a check to the "heterosexual" cause of their choice.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:06 PM

GIULIANI: 2/5 Or Bust

Race4'08s MattC links to reports of Rudy Giuliani's "FL is a firewall" Powerpoint and Politico reports that Giuliani's ad team is focussing on 2/5 states like IL, GA, and OK and concludes: "One of the most exciting and interesting things about this primary season are the completely different approaches the candidates are taking to it. Romney is focusing on all the early states (as shown in his recent campaigning in Nevada and Wyoming), Rudy is focusing on Florida and the February 5 states, McCain is focusing (partly not by choice) entirely on New Hampshire, and Fred Thompson well, who knows what Fred's plan is at this point."

NY Sun's Ryan Sager also picks up on the ad buy story and comments: "Just another data point going to show that the former mayor's campaign is focused on a national primary, significantly deemphasizing the traditional early states."

HUCKABEE: Game On

The Brody File is posting snippets from his interview with Mike Huckabee including Huckabee's thoughts on Larry Craig ("Frankly Americans will forgive us for being sinners") and on Mitt Romney's religion: "I think everybody's faith, their career, their family all of those things are part of what helps people to determine whether a candidate is acceptable to them and whether they want to support a candidate. Should it be the sole criteria? No, it shouldn't. Is it a criterion? It always has been for me in that people have looked at me and said 'do I want to support a guy who's a Pastor?'"

Meanwhile, RedState's Jeff Emanuel is not pleased with Huckabee's call for a federal smoking ban: "Ah, the nanny stater comes out in the second-tier candidate."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:05 PM

ROMNEY: Wait ... Clinton's Not Responsible For Every Moral Failing?

Larry Craig's restroom adventures are sparking criticism of Mitt Romney. Race4'08s Tommy Oliver hits Romney for not seeing this coming: "In an argument I had last night with a prominent blogger ... he said something to the effect of I'd have a problem with this if Romney knew about it beforehand. Well, it seems as though every prominent elected official, not to mention a large portion of the country, were aware of this man's past transgressions. As organized and well researched as Governor Romney's campaign is, if he didn't know about it, then I have seriously overestimated his competence."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin was no fan of Romney's response to Craig's actions: "I fully appreciate he has the unenviable task of disassociating himself from someone whose behavior is utterly repugnant to the social conservatives he is courting. However, the analogy to Mark Foley and Bill Clinton seems wrong and opportunistic. Yes, in the most generic sense Craig, Foley and Clinton all disappointed their families and constituents, but the similarities stop there. Foley's actions preying on minors are in a legal and moral class of their own. Clinton's great wrong was lying under oath, not illegally prowling a men's room. For GOP presidential hopefuls not everything should be about the Clintons and not every failing by a supporter should be used as a springboard to garnish political brownie points in the "I'm holier than the Washington crowd" contest."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:04 PM

DEM FIELD: Feel The Kumentum

Daily Kos is conducting their 8/07 WH '08 straw poll. John Edwards currently leads Barack Obama 35% -29% with Hillary Clinton in third with 8%. Dennis Kucinich (7%) has moved past Bill Richardson (6%).

In other non-live telephone polling, Open Left's Chris Bowers refutes 'buzz' that John Edwards has pulled into a tie with Barack Obama for second place in Rasmussen's tracking poll. Bowers argues that since the eventual winner of IA will receive a strong bounce, the race has always been as tight and muddled as IA's virtual three way tie. Bowers does add though:

Still, Edwards does indeed face a serious problem where, despite his frequent and extremely important advantage in Iowa, he severely lags behind Obama and Clinton in terms of news coverage. Unfortunately for Edwards and Edwards supporters, however, that disadvantage has, throughout the campaign, had very little to do with actually being in third place in the nomination campaign. If Edwards is going to break through the two-person horserace narrative, basically the only means I can see is to educate the national media on the importance of winning Iowa.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:03 PM

EDWARDS: We Want You! For The ABC Army

MyDD's David Mizner is demanding to know "What's the Sphere Waiting For?" after John Edwards "gave a speech saying exactly what progressives want pols to say" 8/23. Mizner notes that there were two higly commented diaries at Daily Kos, "but the reaction from the big blogs was mixed, at best." Mizner blogs: "The reaction of big bloggers to JRE's sublime speech points to a larger issue ... the failure, or slowness, of progressive bloggers to line up behind what Stirling Newberry calls the 'essentially progressive major candidate.'"

Mizner concludes: "Edwards or Obama will likely need a push from the netroots to beat Hillary: make no mistake, to remain neutral, whether you're a union or a progressive blog, is to help Hillary. It's odd to see elite bloggers fretting about Hillary's lead at the same time that they refuse to get behind an opposing candidate. ... A progressive sphere that doesn't back a progressive candidate is less influential than it could and should be."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:02 PM

OBAMA: Growing Pains

Responding to Zach Exley's Huffington Post piece on Barack Obama's field organization plans, Open Left's Matt Stoller casts doubt on Obama's ability to build "a parallel and under-the-radar organization that is community and organizer based." Stoller remembers: "In 2006 during the Lieberman-Lamont primary, Lieberman brought in a 'legendary' New Jersey operative to run a 'legendary' field campaign. They lost by 4 points anyway. In the general, Lieberman basically didn't do field, and he crushed Lamont's 'legendary' field campaign by 10 points."

Stoller then links to other reports from the field on Obama's ground efforts at The Huffington Post. Mayhill Fowler reports from Oakland, CA, suggest independent Obama efforts are having a tough time coordinating their efforts and Glynnis Macnicol Brooklyn, NY, Obama campaign encounter led her to conclude: "Tonight's rather large misstep in terms of crowd expectation and basic organization may just be an example of growing pains in a campaign that is still learning the ropes - or, it may be a sign of stress fractures in structure not fully prepared to go the distance."

In other Obama tidbits:

• Matthew Yglesias finally remembered to post on the importance of "Zbigniew Brzezinski's endorsement of Barack Obama." From Yglesias: "I see this as a significant development. Brzezinski is one of the leading members of what you might call the foreign policy counterestablishment that's slowly emerged over the past four years."
• a Daily Kos diarist sums up Politico coverage of ex-VA Gov. Doug Wilder's kind words for Obama: "Wilder is a prickly and often unpredictable man -- he infamously has supported George Allen in the past -- so his support of Obama's campaign is by no means reflexive or automatic. It indicates Obama is a viable candidate in Virginia -- a must-win state for the GOP in 2008.
• Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt notes that Stop the Drug War is not impressed with Obama's drug policy: "Obama's drug war revitalization plan for New Orleans is the latest step in his successful bid to be the worst on drug policy among the democratic presidential contenders."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:01 PM

HOUSE '08: Burning For Darcy

The netroots easily surpassed their $100k fundraising goal for ex-Microsoft exec. Darcy Burner. The push for cash was timed to coincide with Pres. Bush's $250K haul for Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA). Atrios notes, "At last check, 573 atriots gave $25,194.75, more than one quarter of the goal."

Daily Kos' mcjoan promises to take the "Burn Bush" strategy implemented in WA-08 for Burner national: "We want to take the Burn Bush strategy to every district where a solid, netroots supported Dem candidate is running. What good is lame duck Bush to the Republicans any more, other than as a fundraiser? We want to neutralize his ability to make money for Republicans. We want every Republican who brings Bush in to his or her state or district to raise money to hurt for their efforts. We want to make sure that every Bush visit is highly publicized and no one can just sneak him in without the voters knowing about it."

Also in down ballot blogging, Open Left's Chris Bowers farcically suggests Dems should all stop wasting resources on the WH '08 primary since everybody know Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee in the end. The target of Bowers sarcasm is local opposition to Open Left's 'Bush Dog' campaign which is still collecting information before deciding on which Dems too supportive of Pres. Bush they will target for primary challenges. Bowers argues: "I have to wonder if people don't think presidential primaries are a waste of resources, but think some congressional primaries are a waste of resources, because they don't actually believe that any primaries are a waste of resources, and instead simply favor the incumbent Democrat in the primary to which they are applying the argument."

And on the right, RedState's Mike Krempasky announces that RightRoots.com has re-opened its doors: "And make no mistake - this is the tool that we've been waiting for, hands down. ... The new site is simple, it's straightforward, it's well-designed, and it's open to anyone that wants to help a candidate with an (R). It's not hung up on (distracted by, in my mind) building community, being persuasive, garnering support - or anything else for that matter. It's a transactional vehicle and a hugely valuable piece of infrastructure for conservative activists online. As it should be.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:00 PM

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Just Wait Till They Get Their Hands On Go Dogs Go!

Reminiscing on his Property law lecture from earlier in the day, The Volokh Conspiracy's Ilya Somin links to an old Jonathan Adler post reinterpretation of Dr. Seuss' The Lorax as a classic tragedy of the commons tale:

Viewing the tale of the Lorax through an institutional lens, ruin is not the result of corporate greed, but a lack of institutions. The truffula trees grow in an unowned commons. (The Lorax may speak for the trees, but he does not own them.) The Once-ler has no incentive to conserve the truffula trees for, as he notes to himself, if he doesn't cut them down someone else will. He's responding to the incentives created by a lack of property rights in the trees, and the inevitable tragedy results. Had the Once-ler owned the trees, his incentives would have been quite different - and he would likely have acted accordingly - even if he remained dismissive of the Lorax's environmental concerns.

LEST WE FORGET: How Not To Get Arrested While Pooping

In light of FL state Rep. Bob Allen's (R) and Larry Craig's recent "bathroom mishaps," The Palm Beach Post's Fran Cerabino enumerates four lessons for "guy bathroom etiquette," including:

• Lesson No. 1: If a guy is in an adjoining stall, it's probably not a good idea to knock and then step into the guy's stall. This was one of Allen's major social faux pas. Generally, the rule is one guy per stall ... Allen explained that his visit to the undercover officer's stall was to ask "if he's all right." Allen said he was just checking because there was lightning in the area.
• Lesson No. 2: When in doubt, assume that the guy in the next stall hasn't been struck by lightning.
• Lesson No. 3: Limit your "wide stance" tendencies while using a stall in a public restroom.
• Lesson No. 4: Don't stick your hand under the divider and wiggle your fingers at the stranger in the next stall. He might think you've been struck by lightning.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:59 PM

August 28, 2007

8/28: Campaigns Of The Rich & Famous

With such a small gap between the first four (five if you count FL) WH '08 contests (starting 1/14 in IA and ending 1/29 in SC) it's entirely possible that past polling bumps for early contest winners won't have time to materialize. If so, the 2/5 nat'l primary could prove decisive. As expensive as those 2/5 media markets are, however, don't expect Barack Obama to leverage his cash advantage over the airwaves. AS Zach Exley reports on The Huffington Post, it appears Team Obama would prefer to pour their millions into an unprecented nationwide primary campaign GOTV operation. If you still needed proof that a compressed primary schedule would only allow the top fundraisers to be competitive, this is it.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:04 PM

PROSECUTOR PURGED: We've Only Just Begun

The netroots did take a moment to celebrate the ouster of AG Alberto Gonzales (Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall receiving the lion's share of the praise), but also were quick to refocus their efforts on larger issues. At Daily Kos, Cenk Uygur explains why Gonzales' resignation could never have come with out Karl Rove's earlier departure: "The resignations have nothing to do with spending more time with the family; they have everything to do with Congressional subpoenas and the US attorneys investigation."

Also at DailyKos, founder Markos Moulitsas admonishes the DSCC and DCCC for using Gonzales' resignation in their fundraising appeals: "yeah, I know your investigations were part of the reason that Gonzales quite Justice, but it's sort of unseemly to be taking credit for it and raising money considering that you just voted Gonzales vast new (and unconstitutional) powers before the recess. And I hate to say it, but that ridiculous FISA vote strips much of your credibility on this."

Turning to Gonzales' replacement, Daily Kos' Trapper John argues "it should be assumed that anyone who has served in an appointed capacity in this Administration is loyal to Bush, not the Constitution" and should therefore be disqualified for nomination. At TAPPED, Ann Friedman makes the case against interim AG Paul Clement, Crooks and LiarsJohn Amato takes on Michael Chertoff.

Finally, Open Left's Chris Bowers worries "Technocratic Liberalism" is too focussed on "scalps" and is not making progress on changing any policies: "We get the scalps from the criminals, the incompetent, and the unethical, but we are not changing the policies. I think this is a demonstration of the weakness of the anti-ideological argument many have pushed on the Democratic side for these past few years, not to mention serves as another example of the general ineffectiveness of technocratic liberalism when faced with the ideological, conservative movement. ... We are not doing a very good job of articulating our values in these disputes, and so we end up with a lot of scalps, but also with very little change in the operation of the federal government itself."

PROSECUTOR PURGE II: Gonzales Had A Credibility Problem?

Sympathy for Gonzales was hard to fine among conservatives, but The Corner's Rich Lowry did post an DOJ insider's take: "He decided to leave based on the stress and impact on his family of staying on the job; on the distraction staying would have represented to the department; on the work he had done to get the department stabilized; on the fact that, with a huge FISA fight coming, the department needed someone with 100% credibility leading it."

Ted Olson and Paul Clement are emerging as consensusconservativefavorites to replace Gonzales. Also mentioned: ex-Rep./SEC chair Chris Cox.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:03 PM

ID SEN: Alberto Who?

Conservative reaction to news of Sen. Larry Craig's (R-ID) conviction for lewd conduct was swift and unforgiving. Townhall's Hugh Hewitt urged readers to read the arresting officers report and concluded: "Senator Craig Should Resign. Today."

Some tried to find humor in the situation. Captain's Quarters asked: "How long before Craig checks himself into rehab or finds Jesus?" The Corner's Jonah Goldberg poked fun at Craig's "he said/he said" denial of wrongdoing: "Call me crazy, but I would have thought that it's press flacking 101 not to further sexualize a controversy in which you are denying that sex had anything to do with it. Other great denials might be ... 'This is all a terrible misunderstanding. The Senator is a bus station man.'"

Others took the opportunity to grind axes. RedState's Erick Erickson equated Craig's misdeeds with Rep. Ken Calvert's (R-CA) ethical troubles and blogs: "If we do not clean our own house, the voters will do it for us." Hot Air's Allahpundit noted that Craig "voted yes on shamnesty cloture. Fare thee well, Larry."

Boise, ID, native mcjoan from Daily Kos breaks down the succession possibilities should Craig resign: "The order of succession in Idaho GOP politics would pretty much require that Gov. Butch Otter name his Lt. Gov. Jim Risch, who's been practically foaming at the mouth for this seat in what many Idahoans considered a rather unseemly display. Otter, however, hates Risch, and the two are currently at contretemps that threaten to engulf the whole state party." Mcjoan predicts Rep. Bill Sali (R-ID) will make a move for the seat.

In other Craig fall out, AMERICAblog's Pam Spaulding tracks Mitt Romneys video scrubbing of Craig's presence in the Romney campaign. Also, Talking Points Memo unearths ABC News video from '82 page sex scandal that includes Craig's denial of any involvement."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:02 PM

CLINTON: Revenge, A Dish Best Served Caliente

Open Left's Chris Bowers crunches the numbers on general election match-up polling to determine if there is any evidence to back up claims that Hillary Clinton is less electable than Barack Obama and John Edwards. Bowers concludes: "In short, across the board I don't think that there is any clear evidence pointing to Hillary Clinton as less electable than Barack Obama and John Edwards at this time."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links and adds: "I'd take Obama, Edwards, Dodd, and Richardson (not in that order) before I would vote for Hillary in my primary ballot. BUT, that doesn't meant that "she's not electable" line of attack against her isn't bulls**t. The data definitely does not bear that out. My argument against her, aside from her mushiness on Iraq and refusal to acknowledge her mistake in voting to authorize this war, is that she could hurt Democrats down-ticket. But as for her electoral chances, they are just as good if not better than any of the other top-tier Democrats and probably the second tier as well."

At MyDD, Todd Beeton notes that if Michael Chertoff is selected to replace AG Alberto Gonzales, Clinton opposition to Chertoff's confirmation would serve as "sweet revenge" for Chertoff's role in '90s Whitewater investigations.

CLINTON II: S-CHIPing Her Way To Universal Health Care

Reporting from The Livestrong Forum in Cedar Rapids, IA, MyDD's Nate Willems says Clinton's "best moment" came when she promise to "end the war against science led by the Bush Administration." Also talking HRC and health care at MyDD, George P cites Gallup data showing Dems trust Clinton health care more than any other Dem and adds: "She has done a great job with S-CHIP, and what better "training on the job" for Universal Health Coverage than working on and pushing through that program?"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:01 PM

DODD: We Thought Rudy Was Gonna Get This One For Sure

Open Left's Chris Bowers calls Chris Dodd's International Association of Firefighters "a big score" and scores: "However, the endorsement of the international does not necessarily mean the endorsement of the Iowa locals. ... If this is a blow to anyone else, it is Clinton and Edwards, who had been rumored to be the strongest contenders for the IAFF endorsement. So, I suppose that also makes this good news for Obama and Richardson, both of whom are in double-digits in Iowa.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:00 PM

EDWARDS: Lobster Rolls Are Yummy

Alison Rose Levy shares with Huffington Post readers how she picked actor Tony Shalhoub and his wife Brooke Adams on the side of the road on her way to a John Edwards fundraiser featuring mini-lobster rolls. Levy blogs: "At sunset, the Edwardses arrived and mounted a small platform to address the Vineyard crowd: serious professionals, lifelong liberals, and unashamed patriots. ... At this over-sized party, everyone knew that thousands would gather for Hillary the next night. Encountering this valiant couple, running hard while facing her life-threatening illness, filled the dusk with a passion tinged by poignancy."

Also in Edwards blogging, MyDD's Nate Willems captured Edwards biggest Livestrong Forum applause line: "if we give insurance and drug companies a seat at the table, they'll eat up all the food." At TAPPED, Ezra Klein appreciates Edwards current concern for the number of medical bankruptcies bur also notes that Edwards voted against a Paul Wellstone amendment to the '01 bankruptcy bill that would have created a medical expenses exemption for some debtors. Klein comments: "It's a hard vote to explain. But I'd still like to hear what the Edwards camp has to say."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:59 PM

OBAMA: Takin' It To The Streets

The Huffington Post's Zack Exley has a lengthy post examining Barack Obama's audacious approach to the 2/5 primaries. Team Obama is "building a precinct-level field organization large enough to affect the outcome of Super Tuesday ... aided by email lists, web tools and old school organizing techniques long missing in electoral politics." Exley reports: "Over the past two months, the Obama campaign has staged a number of in-depth, three-day trainings in February 5 states, with more than 1,000 carefully selected volunteers attending. Trainees leave the events organized into teams by Congressional district, charged with building an organization that reaches all the way down to the precinct level."

Team Obama identifies two developments that have made "a hard-fought precinct-by-precinct field battle" in big states like CA possible: 1) "an unprecedented amount of money is now available. The Obama campaign has a mountain of cash on hand and the ability to raise tens of millions more before 2/5"; 2) "use of campaign websites now makes hundreds of thousands of volunteer campaign workers available to campaigns in states before a single staffer is hired to work in them."

Exley reports the second factor still needs some work: "[O]n the Obama campaign, there is still no online system available for the teams graduating from Camp Obama (or the teams they establish below them) to report in their progress back to headquarters. This is a huge missed opportunity to give field directors perfect visibility into the work of every team, anywhere in the country -- visibility that could be used to identify the best field volunteers in the organization for promotion, and to identify problem areas that need special attention from staff organizers."

Obama National Field Dir. Temo Figeroa tells Exley that Obama is still committed to "an early state strategy" but asks: "[W]hat if it's completely mixed results in the first four? Then you go into a battle for delegates. There are a little over 1,500 delegates that are up on February 5. Twenty states! So, for us, we have to prepare: because we have the ability to prepare. We have that luxury because we have the resources and this amazing volunteer base."

OBAMA II: Keep Your Staff On Message, Dude

The Washington Post's 8/27 story on Obama CoS Pete Rouse's success in convincing Barack Obama to vote against John Roberts confirmation despite Obama's respect for Roberts intellect. David Sirota warns: "Memo to self-important Capitol Hill staff and political operatives who think they are the story, not their bosses: Landing a story in the Washington Post about how you convinced your boss to make a decision on a Supreme Court chief justice nominee based purely on personal political calculation is not a way to have your boss look principled, or look like he's a 'Washington outsider.'"

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt also flagged the article but notes: "Of course, other Democrats actually voted for Roberts, including Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:58 PM

RICHARDSON: Mock Interviews Needed

Blue Hampshire's Mike Caulfield was underwhelmed by Bill Richardson's answer to a free trade question in Keene, NH, 8/24: "He's the 'resume' candidate. His congressional experience focussed heavily on Latin American relations. If this is truly a 'job interview' as he has asked us to view it, I would expect just a little of his knowledge of that region to show through in the answer."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:57 PM

THOMPSON: Is 'Generic Conservative' A Winning Message?

Conservative frustration with the tortured roll out of the Fred Thompson campaign is undercutting blogger enthusiasm for the campaign. NRO's Jim Geraghty says his sources place Thompson's announcement date sometime between Labor Day and Gen. David Petraeus' congressional testimony. Current views on the state of Thompson's campaign include:

• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "JMart Has a Point. If he really wants this White House thing to happen, Fred Thompson's September is going to be almost as arduous as General Petraeus's."
• Townhall's Dean Barnett: "I'm a well-known Romney shill ... But I can be silent no more. I would be remiss in my duties here if I didn't offer at least a few words of commentary regarding the Thompson campaign's seemingly endless series of pratfalls, misfires and false starts. ... I'm very worried about entrusting the most complex CEO job in the world to someone or anyone who's never run anything bigger than a six person law firm. ... The indecision, the lack of direction, the organizational incoherence - these are hallmarks of a rookie CEO."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "I think the ludicrous hype Fred himself has nurtured by flirting with conservatives for so long is as much to blame, if not more."
• RedState's California Yankee: "The delay doesn't bothers me. What bothers me is the constant shifting of the date, which makes the campaign look second-rate at best."
• Right Wing News: "If anything, Fred has taken too long to get in already and if he decided to wait until October, it could potentially turn out to be such a big blunder that it could prevent him from capturing the nomination."
• NRO's Geraghty: "In the past couple weeks, as Thompson has focused almost exclusively on fundraising, low-profile radio interviews, and appearances at Sean Hannity's concerts, the conventional wisdom on him curdled after a couple months of good buzz. He went from the next Reagan to a lazy lightweight who wasn't that interested in the job or the work needed to win it ... But his critics and rivals shouldn't fool themselves - the ingredients are there for a very competitive bid for the nomination."

Reporting from the MN state fair, Power Line's John Hinderaker blogs about his brief meeting with Thompson: "He's good; he has a nice, folksy manner, some good lines, a sincere, fatherly demeanor, and comes across as a solid conservative of the border-state variety. ... Yet I still think there is something missing. Thompson gives long answers to questions, and a point often comes where his folksiness gives way to ennui. He rarely shows much--any--intensity. Thomson presents himself as the solution to intractable problems like entitlements and the world-wide Islamofascist threat. Yet one misses the spark of fire, of energy, that would generate confidence that Thompson is really the man to get the job done. Nor does he offer unique solutions to problems; his proposals are, like his persona, of the generic conservative variety."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:56 PM

IRAQ: A Tale Of Two Bloggers

Summing up his recent focus on "surge blogging" The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum writes:

Anbar is good news despite the long-term risk of arming Sunni tribal leaders. Petraeus seems to be doing a good job on the counterinsurgency front (though it's frankly hard to say how much of this is good PR based on a limited number of success stories and how much is genuine widespread progress). And it's possible that violence is down in Baghdad, though I'd rate the odds of that at no more than 50-50. ... On the downside, most of the evidence suggests that violence is following seasonal patterns and is going up, not down. The insurgency seems to be getting worse in the north. Civil war is breaking out in the south. ... The conventional wisdom this summer, after a steady round of dog-and-pony shows from the military, says that although political progress in Iraq is nil (or even in reverse), at least we're finally making some tactical progress on the security front. And maybe we are. But I'm trying to be as honest as I can be here, and it looks to me like the balance of the evidence suggests that this is more hype than reality. As near as I can tell, we're not making much progress on either front.

From Iraq, RedState's Jeff Emanuel reports:

As one of the very few journalists (out of the hundreds who come here) who actually spends time out on the front lines, seeing with my own eyes the gunshots, the IEDs, the school openings, the public clinics, the Concerned Citizens meetings, etc., etc. -- rather than simply sitting in safety and reporting hearsay -- I have personally seen evidence that the 'Surge' is working militarily. ... I have also seen, though, how broken and splintered this country really is, and what a difficult -- and perhaps impossible -- task it is to rebuild it in a way that accomplishes the US's goal of having a stable ally in the war on terror. ... In my opinion, though, it is far too soon to close the books on the idea of Iraq -- both because of the growing portion of the population which does want peace and stability (and is willing to fight for it), and because, like it or not -- and regardless of when or why it came to be so -- a central front in the War on Terror, against al Qaeda and other extremists, is, in fact, Iraq.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:55 PM

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The IRS Definitely Knows What You Did Last Summer

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner ignores Bruce Bartlett's ad hominem attacks on the Fair Tax and responds just to his "nonsensical" ones, including Bartlett's claim that the Fair Tax would require "incredible complexity and intrusiveness of tracking every American's monthly income-and creating a de facto national welfare program." From Joyner:

Gosh, a complex and intrusive system whereby the federal government tracked every American's income? There's no way in hell we'd put up with that in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave! We'd probably give it some Big Brotherish name like Internal Revenue Service to tip us off to how sinister it was.

LEST WE FORGET: Saint Flanders

The Gospel According to The Simpsons author Mark Pinsky tells Relevant Magazine how The Simpsons reflect religion in America better than mot television shows:

One of the chief gifts of the long-running, award-winning series is that the characters' fundamental beliefs are animated but not caricatured. Sincere belief is not questioned. God is not mocked, nor is God's existence questioned. ... More than any other show on commercial television, The Simpsons mirrors the faith lives and practices of most Americans. The family says grace at meals, goes to church on Sundays and reads and refers to the Bible. They pray aloud and believe God answers their prayers. Their next-door neighbor, Ned Flanders, has become the best-known (and loved) evangelical in the country, at least among young people. Still, no one would mistake Homer Simpson and his family for saints. In many ways, in fact, they are quintessentially weak, well-meaning sinners who rely on their faith-although only when absolutely necessary. True to its reputation, The Simpsons is consistently irreverent toward organized religion's failings and excesses, as it is with most other institutions and aspects of modern life.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:54 PM

August 27, 2007

8/27: Hoping For Better GOPers

Like Pres. Bush in '00, a big part of Barack Obama's message in '08 is that he can reach across party lines "to create a more effective relationship between parties." Pressed to name some specific GOPers that he can envision working worth, Obama got his answer two thirds right: Sens. John Warner (R-VA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) are just the type of GOPers least likely to rankle rank and file Dems. The third Sen. mentioned however, Tom Coburn (R-OK), was not a wise choice. Coburn is a bit too outspoken on core Dem issues like abortion and gay rights, for many Dems. Convincing voters he can work with the GOP is not impossible, but citing Coburn as an example is not a good first step.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:14 PM

CLINTON: In Case You Were Wondering Why They Don't Like Her ...

Hillary Clinton's 8/23 claim that she is the best WH '08 Dem "to deal with" a GOP "advantage" if there is a pre-11/08 terrorist attack rankled many in the netroots. Matthew Yglesais calls the comments a "disaster" and blogs: "I think the Democrat best positioned to deal with GOP political mobilization in a post-attack environment is going to be the one who isn't reflexively inclined to see failed Republican policies resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Americans as a political advantage for the Republicans."

Blue Hampshire's Dean Barker advises other campaigns: "I've got three words for Democrats who would emulate that despicable tactic: don't go there. ... By stating it as a Democrat she reinforces the validity of the lie that Republicans own the security issue." A Daily Kos diarist adds: "The fact is that EVERY time a Democrat like Ms. Clinton waves the white flag on the terror issue -- which means, of course, letting the GOP set the terms of that debate -- it becomes harder for the next Democrat to go against that boneheaded 'conventional wisdom.' There's no need to surrender the issue of terrorism to the Republicans. There never was."

Another Kossack says he will no longer vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination. Others find such arguments silly: "Did you learn nothing from 2000? Since when did Clinton become as bad as a Zell Miller or a Joe Lieberman?" A completely unscientific poll of Kossacks find 69% of them do not like HRC personally.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:12 PM

OBAMA: Barack Obama Added You As A Friend ...

Barack Obama's 8/25 identification of Sens. Richard Lugar (R-IN), John Warner (R-VA), and Tom Coburn (R-OK) as GOPers he would reach out to if elected did not impress the netroots. The Left Coaster's Jeff Dinelli notes that Coburn once claimed that 'lesbianism' in Colgate, OK, was "so rampant in some of the schools...that they'll let only one girl go to the bathroom." Dinelli asks: "Would we want a President Obama "uniting" the country with the help of men such as this?" Talk Left's Jeralyn Merrit adds: "What exactly does Obama find in it that makes Coburn worth reaching out to?"

Others didn't like the idea of reaching out to any GOPers. The Huffington Post's Frank Dwyer blogs: "I was appalled to see Barack Obama's nice guy list of good Republicans ... I've been impressed with him and grown to like him, but I'm much more likely to support a Democratic candidate who gives us a list of which Republicans should be going to jail."

Also unhappy with Obama, Bleeding Heartland's Des Moines Dem isn't happy Obama is skipping 9/20's AARP forum in Davenport, IA. She blogs: "even if I agreed with Obama's general strategy to attend fewer of these forums, the last one I'd skip is the AARP forum in Iowa. ... Obama does well with the under-30 crowd, but many (most?) Iowa precincts have a very small proportion of voters under 30. The majority of caucus-goers are likely to be over 50."

In more positive Obama blogging, MyDD's Mike Connery appreciates that Obama's "Generation Obama" program is more inclusive than Hillary Clinton's Women for Hillary efforts and Jack and Jill's rikyrah praises Michelle Obama's 'integral' role in her husband's campaign.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:11 PM

WEBB: Not A Conspiracy Theory Anymore

RCP Blog's Reid Wilson runs down the positives of a Sen. James Webb (D-VA) VP nod including: "He's got national security credentials, he's certainly not "of" Washington, he's from a state Democrats think they can actually win in 2008, and, if he won, his replacement would be chosen by a Democratic governor."

Wilson concludes: "We aim not to spark the whole veep selection discussion up again, but to find it interesting, in a conspiracy-theory kind of way, that Webb is headed to Manchester in October to headline the New Hampshire Democrats' Jefferson-Jackson dinner."

FLORIDA: Hurricane Dean Can't Touch Florida

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas is not impressed by DNC threats to strip FL of their 185 delegates should they hold their primary 1/29/08. Kos writes: "Does anyone really think that Democrats will disenfranchise the delegates of a large swing state, whether it's Florida or Michigan? The DNC is powerless. All it has is bluster. And as soon as we have a nominee, the first thing that person will do is rescind any such decision."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:10 PM

PAUL: But Who Is His Favorite Political Philosopher?

The Brody File asks readers to guess who uttered this sentence: "I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. ... But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do."

Brody reveals: "The answer: Ron Paul. ... So let The Brody File go on record and acknowledge that Ron Paul has come out publicly to declare his faith boldly. He calls it his Statement of Faith. You can read the whole thing here.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:09 PM

THOMPSON: Mourning In America

Conservatives noticed the less than sunny tone of Fred Thompson's 8/24 address to the Midwestern GOP Leadership Conference. Captain's Quarters blogged: "Thematically, Fred will have no problem running a campaign on these principles. ... He may also need to find ways to cast these policies in a more optimistic light ... People appreciate honesty, but Reagan didn't get elected by mourning in America."

Race4'08s Tommy Oliver writes: "All in all, I was personally very pleased with his speech last night. Thompson didn't stand at the podium and deliver punch lines. He walked across the stage with a clipped on microphone, and spoke in an authoritative manner from the heart. That is what connects Fred to his audience."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:08 PM

ROMNEY: Sometimes You Do Roll Out New Products In August

Conservatives were mildly impressed with Mitt Romney's 8/24 health care plan unveiling. Matt at Race4'08 likes the promotion of Medicaid innovation and liability reform, but also highlights Romney's claim that "this can be done without the need for new spending or taxes." Romney skeptic Soren Dayton finds the plan "reasonable" but argues that Romney is playing 'hide the ball' with the money since: "The fact is, to pay for the health care of the sick and the poor, you need revenue. Romney achieved that through a private sector mandate (with a serious solution, which I do not think that I disagree with, in the end). The other option is tax revenue."

Romney's plan also found fans at The Corner. John Hood blogs: "While there were some promising aspects of the plan the former governor shepherded through the Massachusetts legislature a couple of years ago, it contained far too many mandates and regulations. Now, Romney is pitching a national approach to the issue that relies on deregulation, tax reform, and innovative technologies and treatments."

Yuval Levin adds: "These are crucially important reforms that speak to the concerns of middle class families while enabling more effective assistance to the uninsured, and the kind of Federalism Romney now has in mind (which is much like what Giuliani has proposed, and what the Bush Administration has pursued) would make it easier to do that elsewhere. It's a lot smarter than trying for a national version of the Massachusetts plan. But it means that in some crucial ways the president actually has less, not more, power over health care than a governor. And that is as it should be."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:06 PM

UNITY 08: For Something

The netroots are the most dismissive of David Broder's latest column pushing a Unity '08 ticket (this time pairing Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel. Daily Kos' Kagro X blogs: "If you think David Broder has his finger on the pulse of American politics today, then you're just not even living on the same planet as me. Bloomberg-Hagel? Are you kidding me?"

Talking Points Memo's Steve Benen adds: "The column reads like a daydream of a writer who believes a liberal independent and a very conservative Republican will join forces, solve all of our problems, and "get something done." Get what done? It doesn't matter; it'll be something."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:04 PM

PROSECUTOR PURGE: The Resignation Season Continues

A 8/24 Washington Whispers item reporting rumors of an AG Alberto Gonzalez resignation in favor of DHS sec. Michael Chertoff had bloggers buzzing well ahead of 8/27's announcement. Nobody was sorry to see Gonzalez go. Michelle Malkin says she won't shed any tears, but isn't crazy about the Chertoff idea either: "If the administration learned anything at all from the shamnesty debacle, DHS secretary Michael Chertoff would not be the reported leading candidate to replace Gonzales. Looks like they've learned nothing."

At The Corner, Jonathan Adler has no problem with Chertoff as long as he would be easily confirmed by the Senate while Kathryn Jean Lopez likes reports that Paul Clement is also in the running.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:00 PM

IRAQ: Frustration Rising

The netroots continue to act as a vigilant watchdog over Dem movement on Iraq. Following controversy over comments he gave to the Washingtons Post about working with GOPers to find a solution, netroots supported Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) took the time to host a chat at firedoglake 8/24, opening: "I sat down ahead of time and thought through what I wanted to say to the FireDogLake community tonight. ... To start this discussion, let me be clear about where I stand. I want to end this war as soon as possible. In practical terms, that means beginning a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq now and end with a fixed date. ... But in order to force that withdrawal we need to have a veto-proof majority so that we can overrule President Bush. That's why sympathetic Republicans are key to beginning a withdrawal from Iraq and bringing our troops home. We don't yet have that veto-proof majority - but we need to get there."

CaliticsJulia Rosen later commented: "Here are my initial thoughts on his FDL chat which just concluded. I don't think he was ever going to gain a lot from his comments, but the appearance was important. He left a lot folks frustrated, including yours truly with his failure to address repeated questions. He was never going to be able to get to them all, but I believe it may be wise for him to take the time to respond to some of them."

Also on the netroots radar: Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA). Reactions to his post-Iraq visit support for more surge patience include:

• Jane Hamsher at firedoglake: "Brian Baird just cannot seem to soak up enough media attention now that he's donning Joe Lieberman's jaunty fedora and playing the role of chief apostate in the administration's tightly scripted PR war melodrama. ... Baird may be perfectly sincere about his opinions ... But if that's the case, he needs to be aware of the way he's being used in a much larger framework by those who not only do not seek to end the war, but most probably want to expand it. And to the extent that he does not understand this, he becomes a serious problem."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "He ignores the fact that political solutions are nonexistent in Iraq. He has no real information nor real answers. He says six more months. What he expects to happen in six months is not clear. In short, Baird has no actual argument."
• Atrios: "Not having CNN piped into my undisclosed location I've missed the direct exposure to the Most Important Democrat In America, Brian Baird. But I did check the transcripts and discover that until Baird decided that teh surge was teh awesome he'd been on CNN to discuss Iraq exactly... zero times."

IRAQ II: Who's Next?

Watching the 'Sunday shows' Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall concludes the push to remove Nuri al Maliki in favor of Ayad Allawi as prime minister is part of an effort to: "install a strongman government that can get the country in its grip and calm things down. In Allawi's interview with Wolf Blitzer he basically make this point pretty close to explicitly."

Also at TPM, Spencer Ackerman picks up on a IraqSlogger post showing Barbour Griffith & Rogers has been retained by Allawi as "strategic counsel." Ackerman goes on to speculate that both Hazem Shaalan and Muhammed Shahwani may be helping to pay for BGR's $330k fee. Ackerman claims Shaalan is involved so he can clear his name of post-invasion theft charges, while Shahwani is involved with CIA efforts to provide Allawi with a functioning "security apparatus" should he become prime minister.

Ackerman also reveals that, "en different U.S. firms are registered through the Department of Justice's Foreign Agents Registration Act database as having active contracts with various Iraqi factions."

On the right, Power Line's Paul Mirengoff doesn't think Allawi would be a great improvement over Maliki: "On Friday, Charles Krauthammer argued that the U.S. should work with elements in the Iraqi Parliament to bring down the Maliki government. Krauthammer's criticism of Maliki seems well-founded. But because Maliki is a symptom of the problems in Iraq and not their cause, it's difficult to see what would be gained by ousting him."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:57 PM

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Globalization Strikes Again

Wizbang's Cassy Fiano flags news that the theatrical G.I. Joe is going to be a lot different that the cartoon version: "G.I. Joe is now a Brussels-based outfit that stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, an international co-ed force of operatives who use hi-tech equipment to battle Cobra, an evil organization headed by a double-crossing Scottish arms dealer. The property is closer in tone to X-Men and James Bond than a war film." Fiano comments:

Of all things to turn into a liberal fantasy, why did they have to choose G.I. Joe? From what it sounds like, they are taking everything that was great about it, and the Real American Hero line, and ruining it. I mean, this is worse than making G.I. Joe an "eco-warrior" in the early 90s. It is a sad indication of where our country could be headed when making a patriotic movie featuring a Real American Hero is considered a tough sell, and shelved so easily.

LEST WE FORGET: Spartan Pride

The Plank's Jonathan Chait points us to a not-for-family-publication comment responding to Radar Online's ranking Michigan State as the worst school in the Big Ten. A cleaned up version of the Spartan defense includes:

Let me just say to whatever [expletive] pansy wrote this review that he has no [expletive] idea what he is talking about. Drugs, alcohol, sex, and violence, in a beautiful campus setting, makes for pretty damn good education in my book. I am sorry that we aren't some liberal art school where the biggest problems facing male students is how to come out to our roommate and convince him to let us go down on him. Or maybe some west coast, hippie, save the [expletive] whales, follow phish, do-gooders that want to complain about this country all day instead of doing something about it. ... Furthermore the arrest statistics should take into effect the size of MSU (45,000 students), but that doesn't matter. Know why? Spartans like to get arrested!!! It is a rite of passage! The 3rd best Halloween party at MSU every year is in the East Lansing Jail.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:49 PM

August 23, 2007

8/23: An Obama Opportunity

Rep. Jerry McNerney's (D-CA) troubled relationship with the netroots is a case study in the possible trouble a WH '08 Dem nominee will face with the anti-war base of the party. Since his return from Iraq, McNerney has both signaled to the Washington Post on repeatedoccasions that he is "willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need" and tried to reassure the netroots supporters who helped elect him that he's "firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date." This isn't going over well with his netroots supporters.

CaliticsJulia Rosen blogs: "Answer me this, what is possibly gained from trying to negotiate with the Republicans about a specific timeline for withdrawal when they are trying to keep the war going on indefinitely? What exactly do you mean Jerry, when you say that we need to stop being partisan about our withdrawal resolutions? You were supposed to be our Mr. Smith goes to Washington and be a fighter to end this war, not some squishy person in the middle attacking both sides."

At MyDD a Barack Obama supporter blogs about Obama's emphasis on "the importance of building the mandate for a progressive majority -- that progressive changes on foreign policy, on health care, and on judicial appointments rely on building new coalitions, approaching new constituencies, and restoring faith in government." The coming Iraq war debate is a perfect opportunity for Obama to prove he can both deliver on his uniting the country rhetoric and please his progressive base at the same time.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:00 PM

CLINTON: Non-College Graduates Are People Too

TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta files two posts on Hillary Clinton from Clinton, IA. First Garance highlights Clinton's focus on "attracting non-college educated Democratic voters, especially white women who haven't gone to college." From HRC's stump speech: "Let's have more skills programs and apprenticeship programs. Let's help hard-working young men and women who built things like this [gestures around stadium] and keep our economy going, that were going to take care of them as well."

Garance comments: "This statement was met with stronger applause from the audience of several hundred, arrayed in the stands of a Little League baseball stadium, than was her speech's section on making college more affordable. ... After her speech, Clinton was mobbed by people trying to get her autograph and to take pictures with her. I talked with some of them, and found that she is attracting new women into the political system."

Garance also talked to Girl Scouts who were awarded an award for the "Fit and Fabulous" program they run at the local YMCA. Garance noted that some of the girls were sporting "Ms. President Patch" badges, which she discovered were part of an '02 project launched with the WE to change "the way people think about women in leadership roles." Garance comments: "I wonder to what extent the five-year-old patch now acts as a kind of ongoing reminder to everyone who deals with scouts who wear it of Clinton's campaign."

CLINTON II: This Hill Is Alive With The Sound Of Victory

Open Left's Chris Bowers combines Polling Report, Rasmussen and Survey USA numbers to produce general election electoral college totals for Hillary Clinton. Facing Rudy Giuliani Bowers has HRC winning 335-203 (new Dem states include AR, IA, FL, KY, NM, OH, and VA). Facing Mitt Romney Clinton cruises 430-108.

Also talking HRC and electability Clinton Internet Director Peter Daou highlights favorable at The Huffington Post.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:59 PM

DODD: Debate Undermines The Troops

Atrios identifies Chris Dodd as a WH '08er with an acceptable message on Iraq. From Dodd: "Despite the exemplary performance of our troops, we are coming off the bloodiest summer of this misguided war and it should be clear that there can be no military solution in Iraq. It is useless to argue the merits of a specific tactic when the strategy itself is failed. In fact, debating over military tactics when there is no military solution only undermines efforts by those of us who believe that we must change course in Iraq now and begin to immediately redeploy US combat forces so that Iraqi leaders will have the impetus to find a political accord."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:58 PM

EDWARDS: 5K Words Later, And We Still Don't Know Where He Stands

John Edwards 9/07 Foreign Affairs article "Reengaging With the World" drew mixed netroots reviews. The Nation's Ari Melber liked the call for "moral leadership" and a new Marshall Plan for the developing world, but: "The most significant shortcoming in Edwards' article is that he does not say precisely when he would use force as president. The emphasis on "smart power" is a welcome acknowledgment that the administration's crabbed vision of American power has made our country less safe ... But Edwards does not provide a metric, let alone a doctrine, for when to use military force."

Matthew Yglesias had a similar problem but with a different passage. From Edwards: "We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests." Yglesias responds: "Without answering it, these formulae take on a pretty tautological quality. The question isn't would you use force when you thought it was vital to do so, the question is when is it vital to use force?"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:58 PM

OBAMA: At What Point Between IL and DC Do Lobbyists Stop Being Paragons Of Virtue And Turn Into All That Is Wrong With Democracy?

Continuing their series allowing supporters to make the case for their candidate on the front page, a MyDD diarist takes on Big Tent Democratcriticism of Barack Obama's call for civility during the John Roberts confirmation. The diarist writes: "Obama felt defensive about what he felt were polemics against fellow Democratic senators who voted for the Roberts nomination, he was hardly criticizing the right of the netroots or the public to be critical. ... Obama wants to return a sense of civility to the process. I believe this is not just a rhetorical but actually a substantive position. Obama emphasizes that decrying the bitterness of politics in Washington has nothing to do with compromising on progressive ideals."

Also blogging for Obama at MyDD, Max Fletcher writes: "Through his bold policy proposals and refusal to bow to conventional wisdom, Obama has been defining the direction of the race in the traditional media. Other candidates have largely been in the position of reacting to statements and proposals put out by the Obama campaign. ... Barack Obama has offered arguably the most significant proposals to change Washington throughout the campaign. Both his urban poverty plan and his ethics reform proposal offered dramatic departures from current political orthodoxy."

Reporting from IA, TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta notes that all of Obama's IA offices feature a sign reading "NOT paid for by PAC or federal lobbyist money."

OBAMA II: Almost There

The netroots are encouraged by Barack Obama's recent call for changes in Cuba policy, but they want more. TAPPED's Paul Waldman asks: "Barack Obama is getting some flak from his opponents for coming out in favor of some mild alterations in the Cuba embargo. So my question is, why not go all the way and advocate ending the embargo completely? ... The collective cowardice from both parties on this issue is truly stunning. If there was ever a policy that we can all agree has been a complete failure, it's this one."

The Huffington Post's Robert Naiman makes the case the Obama has the mainstream position on Cuba: "But tallying up, of the candidates mentioned: on the travel restrictions, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, and Kucinich would get rid of them; Clinton and Biden would keep them. On remittances, Obama, Richardson and Kucinich would remove the Bush restrictions. Five of the seven support at least some reform; Clinton and Biden support the Bush status quo. Who are the outliers?"

Also at HuffPo, Marilyn Ferdinand attacks Obama's environmental credentials.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:57 PM

GIULIANI: Better Surrogates, Please

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez posts audio of Rudy Giuliani defending his immigration record on Laura Ingraham's show and comments: "I gotta say after listening to Stewart Verdery and Pete King try to defend the former mayor of NYC last week on Bennett's show and listening to a portion of Giuliani himself on Laura this week: His answers aren't perfect, but Rudy is his own best advocate on the issue."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:56 PM

ROMNEY: Can He Introduce Himself Faster Than Opponents Define Him?

Rasmussen polling showing Mitt Romney with higher negatives than Hillary Clinton drove conservative commentary 8/22. Reactions include:

• A Corner reader: "Gee, I wonder why Romney rubs people the wrong way? It couldn't be because he is a computer generated, pandering opportunistic politician who will say anything to a particular audience to get elected."
• a 'Team Romney dude' courtesy Kathryn Jean Lopez: "I haven't seen how the question was posed to survey participants, but most national polls show that voters are still just learning about Mitt Romney, and that as they learn more about him he gathers more and more support."
• The Corner's David Freddoso: "the bad rap on Romney is precisely that "trust" issue, best articulated in a debate question he received months ago: Have you ever changed a position on anything so that doesn't benefit your political ambitions?"
• Soren Dayton: "2004 was a squeaker. Bush won by the skin of his teeth, with something like 90% of Republicans behind him. If Romney is losing 1-in-4, he is in deep, deep trouble."
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "I still think it is early and Romney has time to make his sale. Unfortunately, it is harder to change minds once an impression is formed."

NRO's Jim Geraghty claims that Romney also has the highest unfavorable among the staffs of rival campaigns: "But when the staffers of Romney's rivals talk about the Massachusetts governor, their disdain feels a bit more personal. The grating of their teeth goes up a few decibels. Some say they'll be able to support him in the general election - even though they're absolutely certain their man is going to be the nominee, and so the question is completely hypothetical - but others hint that they won't."

In more positive Romney-blogging, K-Lo highlights strong Romney movement on Intrade: "The most interesting story in the GOP, however, is Mitt Romney supplanting Fred Thompson in second place, with a 27.5 share. After dominating the Iowa Straw Poll and holding leads over Giuliani of nearly 10% in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney's share has nearly doubled since mid July."

Finally, Townhall's Matt Lewis posts an ABC report on Romney telling a NV reporters he would let states decide their own abortion policy despite an 8/6 Romney promise to support a human life amendment to the Constitution. Lewis later updates with a response from the campaign: "Governor Romney ultimately wants an Amendment to protect the unborn. However, he views overturning Roe -- and sending it back to the states -- as a first step. Once it's sent back to the states, you then have a chance to have a real debate and win hearts and minds to the pro-Life cause."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:55 PM

THOMPSON: Not So Foxy

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez quotes from Fox's Steve Brown's report on Fred Thompson's VFW speech: "[Thompson] seemed to struggle at times delivering his speech ... seemed unfamiliar with the applause lines in his own speech." K-Lo comments: "Yikes!"

MyDD's Todd Beeton sees a pattern: "First came Carl Cameron's report that made a point of observing, somewhat contemptuously, that Thompson wore Gucci loafers to the Iowa state fair. Then Cameron reported that Thompson was the only candidate to get around the state fair in a golf cart, evoking the image not of a golfer as much as someone zipping around his retirement community. Now we have Fox News reporting on Thompson's appearance at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention yesterday."

Thompson's problems are not relegated to Fox News. Influence Peddlar notes some striking similar comments made on some righty blogs are all questioning Thompson's health. Ace of Spades advises: "The four bloggers upon whose blogs these comments appear should check the IPs on the off, off, off chance the IP can be linked to a specific campaign."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:55 PM

IRAQ: Danger Zone

The netroots are not encouraged by Washington Post reports that Dems are now acknowledging "recent positive signs on the security front" and instead "increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions." The Huffington Post's Brent Budowsky blogs: "This morning's story in the Washington Post is accurate and conforms to what I am hearing privately. Many Democrats are again missing the first principle of the matter and treating Iraq in political and tactical terms. ... This growing Democratic spin is incoherent. One cannot argue that the Iraqi political system is failing but the surge is succeeding. If the Iraqi political system continues to fail, the surge, or more accurately the escalation, must also fail because, in effect, the status quo ante is that America is today arming all sides in the sectarian war of Iraq."

Open Left's Chris Bowers criticizes those Dems admitting security gains in Iraq: "Iraq has been bloodier during the escalation than during any other time period. ... Are Democratic campaigns still largely unaware of how their statements will be used by the Republican Noise Machine to paint Democratic division in important upcoming legislative fights? The answer to all of these questions is basically yes."

Digby writes off the hope for the 110th and turns her eyes to '08: "Bush will never agree to a withdrawal and I think even if the congress pulled the funding he'd stubbornly keep them there. Therefore, this Iraq debate is political and mostly about 2008. Rather than recognizing that, the Democrats are behaving purely reflexively to patented GOP threats and propaganda instead of building their argument for withdrawal with strength and commitment. In the process they are running a huge danger of demoralizing their base (and the growing number of people who are willing to give them a chance) by capitulating, if not actively embracing, the policies of the most unpopular president in history. They are playing a very dangerous game. Nobody owes them a vote."

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) is still with the netroots though. He blogs at HuffPo: "President Johnson said in 1966, 'the solution to Vietnam is patience.' ... Today, we hear the same misleading rhetoric coming from this Administration.... There will be no real progress in Iraq until key political, economic and diplomatic improvements are made by the Iraqis."

IRAQ II: Back To The Future

The netroots are excited that Ari Fleischer is heading up the 'Freedom Watch' group that will be pouring $15M into ads supporting "President Bush's Iraq war strategy."

MoveOn.org's DC dir. Tom Matzzie blogs at AMERICAblog: "Dear Ari Fleischer, Thank you. ... The revival of your role as salesman-in-chief for the White House's failed war policy is also welcome. We were looking for a way to connect this mysterious 'Freedom Watch' outfit to the White House Iraq PR machine. And then it turned out that you made our job very simple-you are in charge. This is the 'White House Ad campaign.'"

Fleischer's 8/22 "Hardball" appearance also was well received. Think Progress captures video of Fleischer failing to identify the name of the wounded Iraq veteran featured in the ad. TRex at firedoglake blogs: "It took me and Google under 15 seconds to identify the soldier in the ad as John Kreisel, who lost both legs in Fallujah. But you know, I'm sure Ari's very busy right now. He might not have had a whole 15 seconds to get ready to pretend to give a sh*t about anything but providing cover for the White House."

For his trouble, Fleischer also was initiated into Atrios 'Wanker of the Day' club.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:54 PM

BUSH: Vietnam ... Really!?!

Reaction to Pres. Bush's 8/22 speech on Iraq drew predictable reactions from the predictable quarters. The netroots focussed on Bush's Vietnam analogy:

• Talking Points Memo: "But isn't this quite possibly the worst argument for his Iraq policy? Going forty years on, it is not too much to say that virtually none of the predicted negative repercussions of our departure from Vietnam ever came to pass."
• Matthew Yglesias: "I think I (and others) have actually been too easy on Bush's unhinged analogies speech yesterday. He'd like us to believe, I guess, that the crux of the debate about the Vietnam War was that hawks warned that after the war America's collaborators in South Vietnam would suffer, whereas doves naively said the Viet Cong were going to offer flowers and sweets. Back in the real world, though, the essence of the matter was that hawks were warning that the survival of political democracy around the world quite literally depended on South Vietnam staying in non-Communist hands."
• The Left Coaster's Steve Soto: "As for Vietnam, if your claim is that they will follow us home if we leave Iraq too early, and are equating that to Vietnam, when exactly did the Viet Cong land in San Francisco? I think we all missed that, and you apparently gained some valuable insights into history that escaped the rest of us."

Conservatives also seemed to enjoy the Vietnam redux - especially the body count blasts from the past. Townhall's Hugh Hewitt highlights "1,500 Terrorists Killed Or Captured In Iraq Each Month Since January" and asks "Will 10,000 Terrorists Killed Or Captured In Iraq In 2007 Lead The MSM News Tonight ... Almost certainly not."

RedState's Haystack blogs: "In one of President Bush's positively BEST foreign policy speeches since the September 11 attacks brought us to this hell we find ourselves in now, we were reminded via clear, detailed, and somber analogy, of the gravity of our situation in the war against Radical Islam."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:52 PM

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: Dog Tags

Open Left is "officially starting up" their campaign against 'Bush Dogs' (defined as Dems who voted for both the FISA bill and the Iraq supplemental ... although Rep. Brian Barid (D-WA), who voted against FISA and the '02 authorization of the war is also targeted for his post-Iraq visit heresy on the efficacy of the surge).

Open Left's Matt Stoller asks readers for their help in "Step One: Creating a Public Record." From Stoller: "Would you profile one of these Bush Dogs? What we need is a brief profile of the member, their voting record, their personality, and the district and its politics. Is there a primary challenge? Is the member well-suited for his or her district? Did the member do something to mitigate this criticism? Remember, this is not an attack, it's a profile so we can get to know these people and eventually persuade them to do the right thing. It doesn't have to be comprehensive or long, just enough to get a sense of who this person is and how they do their politics."

Bowers later responds to local criticism of their national efforts: "There has, however, been some dissent online, centering around the idea that Matt and I are outsiders "meddling" in other people's affairs. ... I would like to take some time to address all of these issues raised here as clearly and concisely as I can ... All Americans are impacted by all federal votes. ... Ending the conservative governing majority in Washington, and replacing it with a progressive governing majority, requires national activism and a national movement. As such, I endorse the national, progressive, people-powered movement, since I believe it is our best chance to succeed in that aim."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:52 PM

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: 'Cause After Football And Baseball What We Really Need Is Another Fantasy League

Marginal Revolution's Alex Tabarrok forwards Carl Bergstrom's idea for 'fantasy journals' which would consist of "a virtual collection of articles from other journals." Tabarrok comments: "As with fantasy baseball or football the fun part is when fantasy journals compete with one another based upon a common ranking system such as citation counts. Care to go head to head with Steve Levitt (JPE), Robert Moffit (AER) or Ed Glaeser (QJE)?"

LEST WE FORGET: Another Internet Millionaire

Reno and Its Discontent's Myrna the Minx notes that she is "$2.52 away from getting my first $100 check from Google Adsense." More Myrna: "It only took 1.5 years. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Problogger."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:51 PM

August 22, 2007

8/22: A Perfect Statement On Iraq

As Congress prepares for Gen. David Petraeus' presentation to Congress, the four WH '08 Dems in the Senate can learn some valuable lessons on how to talk about the war from reaction to comments they made to the VFW convo. Judging from reaction to Hillary Clinton's remarks, the most important thing to remember is that nothing the Bush admin. ever does in Iraq should be described as "working" whether it's the surge or some other "tactics." Barack Obama had the best line on the new situation in Iraq: "My assessment is that if we put additional 30,000 of our outstanding troops into Baghdad, that that's going to quell some of the violence short-term. I don't think there's ever been any doubt about that." The genius of the statement is that it seems to acknowledge a quelling of some violence, but a close reading shows Obama is only speaking in hypotheticals ('if'). He never says whether he believes Bush's increase of troops is having any positive effects.

The Iraq war is still the biggest issue for the netroots. If Clinton wants to keep them from uniting against her, she is going to have to remember that no good can ever come from saying anything remotely positive about a Bush policy.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:40 PM

CLINTON: This Tactic Did Not Work

The netroots are not happy with Hillary Clinton's admission that changing "tactics" in Iraq is "working." Despite Team HRC claims that the word "surge" never appeared in her 8/21 Veterans of Foreign Wars remarks, most are interpreting her statement as an endorsement of the surge. Reactions include:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Hillary Clinton is upfront that she thinks Petraeus has made progress in Iraq with new military tactics, she's also upfront that she thinks that the surge can't work. She also wants to leave troops in Iraq to continue the military progress Petraeus is making. That's why I don't trust her on Iraq."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "I think this statement from Clinton is a very big deal, and does show her to have a more hawkish "core" than Obama, Edwards or Richardson. ... My main concern here is not whether this specific troop escalation had or has not worked (it hasn't, and both Obama and Clinton are wrong on that front, as the numbers objectively show) ... Rather, it is whether a sizable, long-term military presence in Iraq that arrived via pre-emptive invasion could ever have "worked," no matter what strategies were employed from the start."
• Daily Kos' Down with Conservatism: "While she does say the best thing we can do is bring the troops home, even by acknowledging some sort of success because of the surge just shows Hillary's lack of credibility on the war. If you believe we should not be in Iraq, it doesn't matter if the surge is working or not. ... Democrats who hate the war should think twice before supporting Hillary."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "At the very least, it was an acknowledgment of nominal support for one aspect of the president's escalation policy ... My larger issue with Clinton is when she chooses to reinforce right-wing talking points ... Talk about Bush/Cheney light."
• Mike Gravel at The Huffington Post: "In an attempt to please an audience of veterans yesterday, Hillary Clinton said the surge was "working" and gave a helping-hand to the Bush spin machine ... Endorsing the surge is another example of how Hillary is adopting Bill Clinton's triangulation strategy. After securing the Democratic base, the Clintons always sacrifice their allies to the Right.
• The Huffington Post's Frank Dwyer: "What does Hillary mean by "working"? How is the surge working? Is it the same goal she had in mind when she voted to allow Bush to go to war in Iraq if he wanted to? Is her only regret now that our "tactics" were flawed, i. e., we did not send enough Americans to accomplish whatever the Bush/Clinton goal is right from start? ... I have been thinking I would feel compelled to vote for Hillary if the Democrats nominated ... I'm not sure now how meaningful that vote would really be. And I don't think I'm going to be able to do it."

CLINTON II: The Real Map Redrawer?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas posts SurveyUSA numbers showing Hillary Clinton barely behind Rudy Giuliani in AL and ahead in KY and VA. MyDD's Jonathan Singer links and blogs: "At this point it doesn't look like Kentucky (which last went for a Democrat in 1996) and Virginia (which last went for a Democrat in 1964) are simply in play for the Democrats -- if this polling means anything, Clinton may actually be a slight favor in these two states. Even the polling out of Alabama, which voted the most Republican of the three states in 2004, seems to indicate that Clinton could at least force the GOP nominee to spend money, even if she isn't able to win there."

CLINTON III: It All Depends On Who You're Uniting And Who You're Dividing

Looking at new Zogby numbers from IA, MyDD's Todd Beeton questions Zogby's affiliation with Newsmax but concludes: " the fact that Pollster has added it to its list of Iowa polls, lends it credibility." The numbers show HRC at 30% followed by John Edwards at 23% and Barack Obama at 19%. Beeton notes that these are some of the first results to come after both HRC and Obama have been on the air and comments:

I personally think Obama's ad is quite moving and is an excellent intro ad for him ... But what it also does is call for unity while Clinton's ad picks a fight with Bush, which is an essential difference in the styles of the two campaigns. If Obama doesn't win the nomination I think it will be due in part to something I've been sensing about the Democratic electorate. No matter how many people might say they are sick of partisan bickering ... the last thing Democrats want is to unite with Republicans.

DODD: Gonzo's Got To Go

Netroots all-star provocateurMike Stark blogs at The Huffington Post: "At YearlyKos, after the candidate's forum, I attended the Chris Dodd breakout session and asked a question about impeachment. I left unimpressed with the answer. As you can see, there wasn't any room for wiggle; Dodd was opposed to the impeachment of Alberto Gonzalez." Stark then notes that Dodd recently told the Des Moines Register he leaned toward supporting impeachment. Stark comments: "If you want to see impeachment of Gonzales move forward -- a process that will almost certainly reveal high crimes and misdemeanors in the Office of the Vice President and Office of the President -- I suggest you start telling Dodd to lead on the issue."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:40 PM

EDWARDS: We're Reaching For Our Prozac Right Now

MyDD's David Mizner makes the case John Edwards is doing "amazing" despite "the effort of the elite media to take him down." Mizner blogs: "Recent polls of the first three states have Edwards ahead in Iowa and tied with Obama for second in New Hampshire and Nevada. ... One of the big un-discussed stories of the race is that Edwards is not slipping, a la McCain. On the contrary."

More Mizner on 'elite media' dislike of Edwards: "It's his earnestness that most offends elite journalists. ... Jaded and often depressed, scornful of people fortunate enough to have strong beliefs, journalists think Edwards is a moralizer and hope to lay him low with charges of hypocrisy. They want us to think Edwards is as cynical as they are. But he's not."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:39 PM

OBAMA: Doubling Down South

TPM Cafe's Eric Kleefeld looks at '00 Census data and '04 exit polling from the deep south and casts doubt on Barack Obama's claim that he can move southern states into the Dem column by increasing black turnout. Crunching the numbers Kleefeld concludes:

For Obama's prescription to work out without a significant jump in the Dems' share of the white vote, the black turnouts would not just have to increase significantly. They would have to double. That strikes us as a far-fetched possibility - especially when you consider that a majority of the voting-age population already turned out in these same states in 2004, so a doubling might not even be mathematically possible.

In other Obama blogging, reaction to Michelle Obama's "if you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House" comments were mixed. The Left Coaster's John Patric and Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt both saw a swipe at Hillary Clinton. From Merritt: "I thought playing the "family values" card was a Republican strategy. ... I don't appreciate Obama (or his wife's) personal snipes at fellow Democrats."

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent notes Obama camp denials but concludes: "[I]t's unclear why you'd automatically see the comments in this case as a reference to Hillary. Andrew Sullivan on the other hand, thinks the empress is well clothed.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:38 PM

GIULIANI: Hunting Season Comes Early

Fred Thompson's not so thinly-veiled blog attack on Rudy Giuliani's 2nd Amendment record scored conservative criticism of Giuliani. Fred blogged: "Now, the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giuliani's administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again. Last week, he created a bizarre justification to allow New York City to sue out-of-state gun stores that sold guns that somehow ended up in criminal hands in the Big Apple."

NY Sun's Ryan Sager posted an email Team Giuliani response: "Clearly they're attacking Mayor Giuliani because he's the front-runner. The news here is the first 527 attack is from Fred Thompson and not George Soros."

Instapundit reacts: "A weak ad hominem response from the Rudy camp. This round goes to Fred. ... this issue will hurt him if he makes more responses as weak as this one." Race4'08s Tommy Oliver adds: "Personally, I think Thompson is right on this issue, and it will be a test that Giuliani will have to overcome once the primaries really start to pick up."

GIULIANI II: Why Does Salon Hate Baseball?

Conservatives defended Rudy Giuliani from Salon claims that Giuliani spent more time at Yankee games then at Ground Zero in the wake of 9/11. NRO's Jim Geraghty notes that Salon started their GZ/Yankee clock on 9/17 ignoring all 9/11-9/17 Rudy/GZ time, and also included all of Giuliani's travel time to Phoenix, AZ, in his Yankee support time. Geraghty claims that with these changes, Rudy did spend more time at GZ than at Yankee games.

The Corner's Jonah Goldberg adds: "The only point I think he could have emphasized more is that no New Yorker - as far as I am aware - begrudged the Mayor of New York going to the World Series when the Yankees were playing. ... Only Salon's morally unclouded Hindsight-O-Vision could see the problem six years later as the stark moral shortcoming it was."

Also at The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru reads the Village Voice's Rudy 'takedown' and concludes: "It goes through Giuliani's "five big lies about 9/11." The first three are, if true, pretty devastating. ... It would be nice if the Giuliani camp put out its side of the story. If he wins the nomination, we are going to be hearing a lot more about Barrett's allegations."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:37 PM

HUCKABEE: Inherit The Populism

The Brody File shares Mike Huckabee mgr. Chip Saltsman's claims that Huckabee's campaign has surged since his second place finish in the Ames straw poll: "People actually return our phone calls. They are starting to believe ... We now have thirteen fundraisers on the books with either five or six pending. Half of the money is coming from Arkansas, a good chunk from Texas and strong interest in California."

Just as Huckabee's fortune seems to be changing, conservatives are beginning to cast a more doubtful eye on him. Townhall's Matt Lewis looks at Huckabee's populist message and endorsement of creationism and labels him 'William Jennings Huckabee.' And Soren Dayton identifies past Huckabee statements supporting amnesty and contrasts them with recent suggestions that Huckabee endorses an end to birthright citizenship. Dayton concludes: "There is a powerful coalition of Huckabee, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter supporters out there."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:37 PM

ROMNEY: Jersey's Always An Easy Target

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez notes that Mitt Romney's new ad attacking Rudy Giuliani on 'sanctuary cities' included Newark, NJ, (where three college students were recently murdered execution style by an illegal immigrant). The Corner's Kate O'Beirne defends Rudy's decision: "Giuliani recalls that NYC reported thousands of criminal aliens to federal officials who deported only a fraction of them. Giuliani continues to defend New York's refusal to inquire about legal status when people seek city services, and I think he is persuasive when he argues that making every contact with city officials - including the police and hospitals - reportable was unwise and unworkable in his city."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:36 PM

IRAQ: No Political Progress On Iraq

Recent reports of Dem vacillations on the war have fueled netroots worries that momentum is not going their way heading into Gen. David Petraeus 9/11 report to Congress. Daily Kos' Kagro X links to a US News report that Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) "will no longer vote for binding troop withdrawal timelines" and asks: "Are we going into Magical September -- which was supposed to break Republican backs on the occupation -- losing Democrats?"

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis comments on Washington Post reports that Reps. Baird, Jerry McNerney (D-CA), and Tim Mahoney (D-FL) all were now at least 'more flexible' in their support for the war following a recent visit to Iraq: "As I've written before, General Petraeus is known for his sweet-as-candy ability to lie his way out of any crisis ... Still, it's rather sickening that these Democrats have chosen to go the Joe Lieberman route - letting our troops continue to die for a lie because they don't have the backbone to call this disaster for what it is. ... How utterly embarrassing."

McNerney later clarified his views on his blog: "I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date ("date certain") and uses clearly-defined benchmarks. I am not in favor of an "open-ended" timeline for withdrawal, as some members of Congress have proposed recently." Calitics' David Dayen thanked him: "Good for Jerry McNerney for calling B.S. on his OWN visit to Iraq and understanding that the dog-and-pony Congressional delegations only provide a brief glimpse into conditions on the ground."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:35 PM

LA GOV: If You Thought The Thirty-Year War Was Fun The First Time Around, You'll Love This Ad

The netroots are celebrating a new LA Dem ad attacking LA Gov. cand/Rep. Bobby Jindal (R) for a "How Catholicism is Different" article he wrote for New Oxford Review in 12/96. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas summarizes Jindall's article for readers: "Catholicism is infallible, all other religions are burdened with utterly depraved minds subject to subjective interpretations leading to anarchy and heresy. ... The passages above definitely refer to Protestants as depraved, selfish, scandalous, and heretical. Stupid, too."

Atrios comments: "I think it's refreshingly honest for Bobby Jindal to come right out and express his view that non-Catholics have "utterly depraved minds." This is the kind of religion-in-politics I can get behind."

Conservatives were less amused. Captain's Quarters purchased one of the essay's from the NOR site and finds Markos' summary of the contents lacking: "He also does not call Protestants "intellectually dishonest." He says that it would not be intellectually honest to ignore the teachings of the Catholic Church when studying Christianity. Put frankly, the Louisiana Democratic Party is despicable. Anyone contributing to this campaign should be publicly outed for the bigots they are."

The Corner's Stephen Spruiell purchased the other essay quoted in the LA Dem ad and concludes: "This distortion is even worse. ... Daily Kos approvingly links to the LDP's website and writes, "Jindal can deny [the substance of the ad] all he wants, but fact is he wrote stuff to that effect." Did he? Without taking his words out of context, show us one instance that backs up that claim."

Other reactions include:

• Bryan at Hot Air: "I guess we shouldn't be surprised. The Louisiana Democrats are the same bunch that mismanaged the NOLA levees for years and then planned out much of the politicization of Hurricane Katrina before it ever made landfall ... Democrats would scream bloody murder if anyone, say, attacked Keith Ellison for being a Muslim, and many have screamed at the mere hint that Barack Obama was schooled in a madrassah as a child. But in Louisiana they're playing the religion card in a devious, underhanded, desperate way."
• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "If I were Catholic Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu, I'd hate to have to defend that ad."
• The Corner's David Freddoso: "The ad is an extremely low blow in a year when Louisiana Democrats find themselves cornered and desperate (you may remember, from 2003, the ad where they actually darkened Jindal's skin color, so it isn't unprecedented)."
• RedState's Leon Wolf: "Now, I have read the piece in question (I'm not sure how long that link will work), and I have to agree with pretty much everyone who says that the charges against Jindal wrench his words horrendously out of context. ... Only someone utterly ignorant of theology would honestly make such a mistake - so we are left with the conclusion that the operatives in the Louisiana Democratic Party are either utterly ignorant of theology, or are knowingly misrepresenting Jindal's words."

The Corner's Spruiell also contacted Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-LA) office for a response to the ad: "A spokesman for Sen. Mary Landrieu says the senator, a Catholic, can't comment on the ad because she hasn't seen it. I asked him if she planned to check it out. He said she might, if it comes on a TV when she's watching it. I told him it was available on YouTube. He said that the senator would probably not be commenting on the ad, but that he would send me a statement if her office put one out."

MN SEN: Doggonit, The Netroots Like Him!

Open Left's Chris Bowers is proud to announce that the Blue Majority Act Blue page (maintained by Dailykos, MyDD, Swing State Project and Open Left) has officially added Al Franken to the list of candidates they support. Bowers swoons: "Last month ... I wondered if Al Franken was the best example of a progressive movement candidate we had seen to date, given that his campaign is overwhelmingly people powered (over 45,000 donors so far), he passed the "bar fight primary" with flying colors (more than willing to take the fight to Republicans), he comfortably and repeatedly self-identifies as a progressive, and that he came into politics as an outsider, specifically from progressive media. ... Let's build the progressive movement together by supporting a first-rate movement candidate."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:34 PM

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's All About Priorities

Matthew Yglesias links to American Environics data showing even people who label themselves environmentalists rank three other issues above the environment (gay marriage, abortion, and illegal immigration) when picking a candidate and comments:

The upshot of this and other data, according to the report, is that while there's public eagerness to do something about global warming, it's very tenuous, and people are rabidly opposed to anything that would increase energy costs. Since this is public opinion research, they go on to discuss a lot of ways to try to navigate that terrain, but it's hard for me to imagine any way to seriously curb carbon emissions that doesn't involve some increase in energy costs. It'd be nice, of course, if renewables just suddenly became cheaper than coal and gasoline, but then there's hardly be need for any policy.

LEST WE FORGET: Dorkiest Game Show Ever

Marginal Revolution's Alex Tabarrok says "our system for choosing presidents doesn't work very well" and wants "a way of conveying information to uninformed, unsophisticated voters in a way that is entertaining yet produces information about politicians that is correlated with real skills." He suggests a "So You Think You Can Be President?" including:

• Coase it Out: Presidential candidates have 12 hours to get a bitterly divorcing couple to divide their assets in a mutually agreeable manner. (Bonus points are awarded if the candidate convinces the couple to stay together.)
• Game Theory: Candidates compete in a game of Diplomacy. I would also include several ringers - say Robin Hanson, Bryan Caplan and Salma Hayek. Why these three? Robin is cold, calculating and merciless - make a logical mistake and he will make you pay. Bryan is crafty and experienced. And Salma? I couldn't refuse her anything but presidents should be made of stronger stuff so we need a test.
• Spot the Fraud: Presidential candidates are provided with an economic scenario (mortgage defaults are up, hedge funds are crashing, liquidity is tight). Three experts propose plans. The candidate must choose one of the plans. After the candidate chooses, the true identities of the "experts" are revealed. One is a trucker, another a scuba diver instructor and the last a distinguished economist. Which did the candidate choose?

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:33 PM

August 21, 2007

8/21: The Natives Are Restless

There has been a fair amount of conservativekvetchingrecently over the state of the conservative moment and how bloggers can help. As loathe as they might be to steal a page from the netroots' playbook, sometimes imitation is necessary for survival. In response to Dem concessions on FISA and Iraq supplemental funding, the netroots have begun targetting Dems they believe they can either push left (e.g. Reps. Jane Harman (D-CA) and Ellen Tauscher (D-CA)), or outright replace in a primary (e.g. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)). Meanwhile conservatives talk about reforming earmarks, and urge on DOJ investigations of GOP pols, but no concrete action is taken to discipline their own party members.

The netroots learned (painfully) that their leaders were not going to change their party for them. So, among other projects, they began to get involved in the primary process. How many more defeats before the GOP starts playing the same game?

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:54 PM

DEM FIELD: Iraq 4evah!

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong links to a No Troops Left Behind table showing little difference between Dem 08er positions on Iraq (Dennis Kucinich was not included on the table). Armstrong comments:

There are a couple of reasons why I post this, none of them because I support Richardson (though I certainly could; and I strongly support his position on Iraq). First, I think it's problematic if Biden's position of staying in Iraq for a longer period becomes the de facto position that Obama supports explicitly, and neither Clinton nor Edwards confronts in disagreement. If the Democrats go into '08 fuzzy on getting out of Iraq, we will lose again. The lesson of '06 would be ignored in favor of repeating the mistake of '04. And secondly, getting out of Iraq asap is the lynchpin for Democratic wins beyond '08.

DEM FIELD II: A Kernel Of Truth

Bleeding Heartland's Simon Stevenson notes the IA State Fair's "Cast Your Kernel" straw poll netted results a lot more similar to reality than online straw polling. Stevenson explains: "[f]air attendees were able to drop a kernel of corn into the jar of the candidate they wanted to see as our next President. If you wanted to you could probably go cast a kernel every few hours, but the nature of the event would make it difficult and costly to really stuff the poll."

IA Votes reports that Hillary Clinton netted 33% of the kernels cast, John Edwards 28%, Barack Obama 22%, and Bill Richardson 13%. More importantly, Strevenson notes: "The most important thing of all from this exercise though is the total number cast for each side: 21,438 for Democrats and 14,010 for Republicans. That's better than 60%/40% for the Dems, and shows that even among the rural-and-probably-conservative-leaning Iowa State Fair crowd most people would like to see a Democratic President." [ed. note: Mike Huckabee finished second here too, with 17% to Mitt Romney's 36%, Rudy Giuliani's 14%, and Fred Thompson's 13%]

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:53 PM

CLINTON: Cougar Porn

Portions of Marc Ambinder's review of Hillary Clinton pollster Mark Penn's new book Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow's Big Changes drew some netroots interest. Ambinder notes that Penn wrote these words before Barack Obama's fundraising prowess was evident: "So between the 527-underwriting Mega-Donors and the increasingly powerful Elite Donors [those couples earning more than $300K a year who can easily max out to candidates], we have a new class of givers playing an increasingly important role in politics -- and statistical proof that their heads are nowhere near the voters."

Matthew Yglesias was more entertained by this nugget from Penn's book: "Within the past ten years, the number of women who sought younger male boyfriends has quintupled. These are the 'cougars.'" Yglesias comments: "I'm not sure I understand why they're cougars? Because it's an alternative to being a cat lady?"

Atrios links and quips: "One wishes Mark Penn would stick to what he apparently does best -- inventing new porn genres, or at least new terms for old porn genres."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:52 PM

DODD: Not Even Bloggers Can Help Him

Following reader questioning of his decision not to support Chris Dodd or Dennis Kucinich despite being sympathetic to their issues, Open LeftChris Bowers explains: "Dodd has already been on the air in New Hampshire, and simply has not seen the same upward movement from his advertising that Richardson did. In other words, I don't think Dodd has any traction, and I don't think I would change that. ... as far as Kucinich goes, basically I am in agreement with what Markos wrote back in February.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:51 PM

GIULIANI: Sentenced To Death?

First citing polling data showing 56% of Americans want "to continue building a fence along the Mexican border" (compared to only 31% against) Mickey Kaus casts doubt on Rudy Giuliani's "ID-card for foreigners" plan. From Kaus: "Of course, by applying for the ID card illegals would apparently qualify for the Giuliani semi-amnesty program, which seems to differ only in detail from the Bush semi-amnesty program."

Kaus then asks: "Why is Mitt Romney attacking Giuliani on the relatively complicated issue of whether New York is a "sanctuary" city, when he could attack Giuliani straight up for proposing a Mccain-like semi-amnesty that would give citizenship to illegals? Isn't support for amnesty sort of a death sentence in the Republican presidential primary?"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:51 PM

MCCAIN: All His Roads Go Through Baghdad

John McCain's 8/20 blogger conference produced three news items: 1) Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to testify before Congress on 9/11; 2) McCain is launching a 'No Surrender Tour' "featuring veterans, medal of honor winners, and those who have served in Iraq"; 3) McCain has called for an internal campaign audit.

On the 'No Surrender Tour' AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin comments: "On balance: if you are a believer in the Surge and think we can't leave Iraq yet, you should be gratified to have McCain on your side. However, he is gradually shifting from the role of viable presidential candidate to leader of the war effort. If he is successful in the latter perhaps he regains his standing as a top contender." The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez adds: "Something to Love John McCain for ... His upcoming "No Surrender" tour."

Captain's Quarters also shares this from the call: "McCain expects the Democrats to force a "surrender date" when Congress reconvenes. He wants to see organized demonstrations in support of the war effort. McCain reminds us that he was the "greatest critic" of Rumsfeld and the previous strategy, but that the new strategy "can and must work"."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:50 PM

THOMPSON: What Do Fred and Mark Foley Have In Common?

After looking over ex-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) exposer Lane Hudson's FEC complaint against Fred Thompson, AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin comments: "Having researched and written about this a bit I'd say there's more than a little merit to the claim. However, as a practical matter, the FEC takes eons to investigate these issues so any action or settlement would likely occur sometime into the next president's first term."

Rubin also shares an unsympathetic reaction from a rival campaign: "All the ah-shucks in the world cannot explain the utter hypocrisy of Fred Thompson's interest in transparency and disclosure as a champion of McCain-Feingold-Thompson in the Senate and his apparent interest in skirting the law as he stumbles towards a presidential bid."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:49 PM

IRAQ: Whose Publicity Stunt Is It?

Neither conservatives nor progressives were pleased with news that Gen. David Petraeus will testify before Congress on 9/11. NRO's Jim Geraghty blogs: "In fact, if indeed the Democratic leadership of Congress scheduled Petraeus to testify that day, I cannot help but suspect that they indeed are trying to politicize the anniversary. The all-too-easy soundbites write themselves - "Today, six years after 9/11, we learn that we're failing in Iraq and the Bush administration has made us no safer and blah blah blah." ... I hope they move the testimony up or back a day. It just seems like forcing an unnecessary controversy into a day that's full enough as is."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis claimed the WH picked the date: "Petraeus, who is as big a liar as he is a PR-yes-man, claims that he just chose September 11 by chance. Yeah, right. Be a man, general. You chose September 11 as a publicity stunt. Have the balls to at least admit it. ... You're a yes-man. All you do is sugar coat the bad news and make it good, regardless of the truth, regardless of the cost in American lives. And now you're going to use the 3,000 American dead from September 11 as more of your public relations cannon fodder."

Also in Iraq news, Andrew Sullivan flags a Henry Farrell post promoting a study by two Vanderbilt professors showing: "[T]hat, among Republicans, for about every two Iraq war casualties among soldiers with hometowns in the congressional district, the Democratic swing increased by about one percentage point. Democrats, in contrast, faced no electoral reward or punishment contingent upon their votes on the Iraq war or based on the number of Iraq war casualties in their districts."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:48 PM

IRAQ II: Proxy Warriors

Many in the netroots are disappointed that a New York Timesop-ed penned by soldiers about to return from service in Iraq did not receive as much press attention as Brookings scholars Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon's did. Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent blogs: "Just stunning. ... By any reasonable standard, this should have been big news. A group of soldiers with a first-hand view of the situation stepped forward and publicly proclaimed not just that the prospects for success are "far fetched," but also that the press has been basically misinforming the American people about the situation there. "

Digby speculates on the lack of coverage: "[First], the Dems don't seem to have any kind of apparatus to "catapult the propaganda" (or seemingly any desire to have one) and the second is because I think the right will go into overdrive to present these guys as good and decent patriotic non-coms (who-aren't-all-that-bright-if-you-know-what-I-mean-shhhh.)"

Digby concludes: "I would hope that any Democratic spokesman appearing in the media in the next few days will have the names of these seven soldiers memorized and ready to trip from their tongues at every given opportunity."

Atrios, however, is not as willing to hitch his wagon to these soldier's star: "[W]hile I truly think those on the ground in Iraq should have their voices amplified, I've never personally been comfortable making judgments about which of those voices should be amplified. They aren't my proxy warriors. I have no idea if they're representative and have no ability to make that determination."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:47 PM

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: Much Re-Education To Be Done

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher picks up on Open Left's Chris Bowers burgeoning campaign against "Bush Dogs" ("Democratic House members who have voted el-wrongo on both the war and on FISA") and comments: "Considering how successful progressive primary challenges have been in pushing Ellen Tauscher, Al Wynn and Jane Harmon into less knee-jerk reactionary positions, they're asking people who have representatives on the list to help them get up to speed regarding what's going on in that district." Hamsher recounts her financial support for Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX) and promises: "Me, I'm gonna give Ciro a call. I don't like this and I think it would be good for him to stop by and explain these particular votes to the people online who supported his campaign."

Back at Open Left, Chris Bowers picks up on the following Down with Tyranny case against Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA): "You may have read about Blue America's dispute with Carney. When he was running for office he lied to us about his stance on key issues and 722 of our members contributed to his successful campaign against Republican incumbent Don "The Choker" Sherwood. As soon as Carney was elected he started voting just the way Sherwood would have. We were astounded that we helped elect an out-and-out, across-the-board reactionary."

Bowers then notes that Carney reporters he would support a Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) NY mayor Michael Bloomberg and promises: "Through this statement, Chris Carney has now rendered himself ineligible to hold Democratic Party office in Pennsylvania for the next two years. If he sits on the state committee, which I do not believe he does, I will introduce a motion at the next state committee meeting to have him removed from the committee."

Back on the right, Ace of Spades links to news the DOJ is investigating Rep. Don Young (R-AK) and comments: "Word to the wise if anyone in the GOP cares to listen: When your own partisans (such as myself) are actively rooting for Republican Congressmen to be arrested, you've got a problem. Deal with the problem. Eliminate all earmarks. All of them. And force the corrupt among you -- and you know who they are -- to retire before the next election."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:47 PM

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: No, We Can't All Just Get Along

Linking to Matthew Yglesias thoughts on the growing ideologically purity of both parties, Atrios comments:

And, frankly, the fact that the two parties broadly reflect distinct ideologies is good thing, not a bad thing, even if it makes it harder for David Broder to figure out which dinner parties to go to. The weird New Deal coalition was, well, rather weird, and I don't see why one should be sad that the Democratic party no longer contains a bunch of Dixiecrats. Certainly it's touching when politicians find common ground on unlikely issues, but it isn't especially important. Politics isn't about getting along, it's about getting things done.

LEST WE FORGET: So That's Why We Love Blind Faith

Instapundit points us to EARVOLOTION's Top Ten Bands that Never Existed, including:

• 9. Alvin & The Chipmunks - An animated precursor to the boy bands of the Nineties, Alvin and his brother chipmunks Simon and Theodore were directed, managed and possibly owned by David Seville, Lou Pearlman's fictional ancestor. ... Despite some continued success as a Saturday morning animated series (Alvin once caused controversy by claiming they were "bigger than Mickey Mouse"), the original boy band would have faded into obscurity had the gimmick not taken new life in 1980 with Chipmunk Punk, which contained hyperspeed versions of "My Sharona," "Call Me" and Tom Petty's "Refugee."


• 4. The Blues Brothers - A labor of love, Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi meticulously cultivated The Blues Brothers mythology, mapping out the backgrounds of Elwood and "Joliet Jake" long before they memorialized their story in John Landis' 1980 film. ... Aykroyd and Belushi perfected their Blues Brothers gimmick by entertaining SNL's cast and crew during after-show parties. ... Aykroyd and Belushi believed so heavily that their alter-egos were more than a fad, they were willing to leave the hottest TV show of the Seventies to devote more time to the venture ... but were sadly derailed by Belushi's untimely death in 1982.


• 1. Dr. Teeth & The Electric Mayhem - Even though they didn't know it at the time, children of the Baby Boomers got their first real exposure to Seventies-era rock culture from The Electric Mayhem. Led by Dr. Teeth, an acid-inspired amalgamation of Elton John, Dr. John and other flamboyant rockers, Electric Mayhem served as the house band for Kermit The Frog, Miss Piggy and the rest on The Muppet Show. ... Henson presented The Electric Mayhem without irony. Not only did they look like the freakiest rock band since Parliament/Funkadelic, they acted like it too, with their personalities and laid-back attitudes (well, not Animal) more apropos to a be-in than a children's show. ... Given The Muppet Show's target demographic, The Electric Mayhem indelibly imprinted the colorful world of rock and roll upon millions of young minds, easily making them the most influential rock band that never really existed.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:46 PM

August 20, 2007

8/20: Down Ballot Battles

Considering that even Newsweek's Jonathan Alter got 'shrill' over the Dem capitulation on FISA, it should be no surprise that the netroots are still seething over the vote. Up til recently, however, that anger netted little more than teeth mashing. Open Left's Chris Bowers wants that to change and has identified 16 Dems who are ripe for primary challenges from the left. At the top of the list: Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA 03). We have yet to see widespread support for Bowers suggested plan of action, but unlike the caucuses, the IA primary is almost a year away. In '06 the netroots expanded their reach within the party by successfully challenging Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). If Barack Obama continues to fail to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton in the netroots eyes, look for netroots energy to be focussed on cleansing the party of 'Bush Dems' like Boswell.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:03 PM

DEM DEBATE: Where Can We Buy Some Dodd Sod?

With Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton all walking back previous statements on Barack Obama's inexperience, the 8/19 debate in Des Moines, IA, had a distinct fourth-week-of-NFL-preseason feel to it, nonetheless, MyDD's Nate Willems reports the scene outside made it seem as if the Super Bowl was going on inside:

When I parked my car around 5:45 a.m. ... University Avenue ... was already full of campaign organizers and volunteers dressed in their candidates' shirts, carrying a ton of signs, and doing their 'visibility' work. I have to give the edge to the Obama folks. ... The Dodd contingent was just strange. They had a bunch of male staffers who had sprayed their own hair white. They had somebody dressed in a white rabbit suit wearing a sign that said 'Dodd's Hare' standing on top of pieces of sod they had obviously brought in and named 'Dodd's Sod.' Most interestingly, they had a couple of guys in muscle body suits. Their visibility display really just left me questioning their sobriety."

Drew Westen, Glynnis MacNical, and Rachel Sklar all liveblogged the debate for The Huffington Post, including this exchange:

• Glynnis Stephanopoulos goes straight for the jugular. The big question is does Obama have enough experience? Hillary?


• Drew: Hillary's first response on Obama does a nice job of not taking the bait to look like she's attacking. She looks very magnanimous, and her voice lacks the shrillness of some of her prior debates.


• Rachel: And Obama rises to it! Great joke: "To prepare for this session, I rode in the bumper car at the Iowa State Fair" - funny.


• Drew:George starts by orienting the audience to think of the debate as a two-person debate. The others, particularly Edwards, as well as Richardson, should have challenged that assumption right away.

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt also blogged the morning and concluded: "My final thoughts: Hillary and Richardson really did well today. Biden was better than usual. Edwards was good but failed to break out of the pack. Obama had little of substance to say and didn't seem to get much time. Kucinich and Gravel were...Kucinich and Gravel. Dodd was good."

ChrisDodd.com posted their Talk Clock again (Obama led the league with 13:10 speaking time; Gravel's 4:53 brought up the rear). Also, Andrew Sullivan and Frank Luntz still hate Hillary.

DEM DEBATE II: Kucinich/Richardson '08!

Iraq continues to be the consensus/decisive issue for the netroots, and the netroots continue to be unsatisfied with the answers from their party's frontrunner's on the issue. TPM Cafe's MJ Rosenberg blogs: "I don't want to hear how we can and must stay in. I want to hear how we can get out (Bill Richardson to his credit, did tell us that). America cannot solve Iraq's problems because we caused them. The resistance is to us."

Matthew Yglesias even challenged John Edwards claim that the differences between Dems on Iraq were small: "That's certainly something I'd like to believe, since the people who have positions on Iraq I agree with -- Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich -- aren't people I particularly want to see as president and aren't people with a good chance of winning. But I don't really think Edwards is right. It's true that the Democrats all, in some sense, want to end the war in Iraq, but these plans to leave tens of thousands of residual forces won't in fact end the war. ... Obama, meanwhile, seems to consistently succeed in ducking this debate in favor of returning to his other foreign policy points."

Open Left's Chris Bowers seconds Yglesias' assessment that the issue of residual forces in Iraq "might be the most salient differences between the campaigns right now" and links to news that Gen. Davis Petraeus report to Congress will include a 28K troop drawdown. Bowers worries: "So, now Republicans are going to be able to portray themselves as pro-withdrawal, as well, even though the only reason they are drawing back troops is because they have run out of fresh ones ... This is how Republicans are going to try and mute the Democratic advantage on Iraq in the 2008 campaign. First, they make sure that the war continues, and Democrats were unable to stop it. Second, they argue that they are also pro-withdrawal, as they are withdrawing some troops, and that the Democratic nominee doesn't want to withdraw all of the troops, either. It might just work, too. After all, if the difference between zero troops, and 60,000 troops, is small, then how large really is the difference between 60,000 troops and 130,000?"

DEM DEBATE III: Reality vs. Hope

Open Left's Chris Bowers makes the case that an exchange over Hillary Clinton's coatails encapsulates the choice Dems face between her and Barack Obama. After George Stephanopoulos asked Obama if Dems were right to worry if "Clinton may weigh down lesser candidates" Bowers translates Obama's answer from politician-to-human: "Everyone here can win the general election, but I can win by the biggest margin and with the longest coattails and thus ensure the strongest governing majority. A narrow, swing-state based victory is not enough, and with her high unfavorables that is probably the best Senator Clinton can do." Bowers allows: "At lest to date, polling supports Obama's position on this, although that could change."

Bowers then translates HRC's response to the same question: "Now, here are Senator Clinton's comments on electability when put through the campaign translation device. Everyone up here says they can win. However, after the Republican Noise Machine gets through with them, who knows? We all thought Kerry could win, too. The difference is that I am a Clinton, and I have already beaten that machine. Thus you know I can win."

Bowers then quotes MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "That's it in a nutshell, on Clinton vs Obama: pragmatic partisanship that wins vs the hope for an idealistic bipartisan politics, isn't it?" Bowers adds: "I think this is a potentially crushing blow from the Clinton campaign, one that exposes a weakness in Obama's campaign rhetoric thus far. ... By taking this partisan route, Clinton is able to rile up the base, and take a centrist set of policy positions for the general. Even though I have been leaning in his direction more and more these days, I have to admit that this puts Obama in a real bind, one from which no clear escape is apparent."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:02 PM

EDWARDS: Romney/Edwards '08?

Talking Points Memo's Steve Benen is troubled by the following quote from John Edwards interview with Rolling Stone: "Do you think the American people want the same people who responded to Hurricane Katrina to run their health-care system?"

Benen comments: "For one thing, Edwards is parroting Mitt Romney's position, almost word for word. ... Maybe Edwards was misquoted. Maybe he was kidding and was taken out of context. I'd love to hear an explanation. In the meantime, when leading Democratic candidates repeat misguided Republican talking points on healthcare reform, it's a problem.

EDWARDS II: Between Barack And A Hard Place

Open Left's brklyngrl links to CNN polling showing John Edwards polling ahead of Barack Obama on experience (but still behind Hillary Clinton), and behind Clinton and Obama on change. She comments: "This puts Edwards in a tough spot. He can't really challenge Obama on experience without strengthening Hillary Clinton's position in the election, and he can't really push Clinton on change without strengthening Obama's position. But he also can't afford to let Clinton become the experience candidate and Obama become the change candidate if the election will be dominated by issues of change and experience."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:01 PM

OBAMA: Bowling For Hope

Open Left's Jennifer Fernandez Ancona talked to Harvard prof. Robert Putnam about why he believes Barack Obama can teach other candidates about "what is possible to re-imagine a more common identity." From Putnam: "Obama embodies the fact that people can across connect racial lines -- he wouldn't exist if people couldn't connect."

Also in Obama-love, Matthew Yglesias posts video of Obama playing hoops in high school.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:00 PM

DEM FIELD: Lobbyists Hate Infrastructure (And Puppies And Kittens Too)

Blue Hampshire's Mike Caulfield continued his Policy Straw Poll Series. This time the candidates were asked to distinguish themselves on infrastructure:

• From Obama: I am the only candidate committed to decreasing the influence wielded by Washington lobbyists so that our much-needed and long-overdue investments in infrastructure focus on safety and our long-term competitiveness rather than wasteful earmarks for special interests.
• From Dodd: I am only candidate that has introduced a bipartisan measure to address the critical needs of our nation's major infrastructure systems - a measure that I have been working on for several years.
• From Biden: I am the only candidate who commutes daily on Amtrak and every day I see up close what our infrastructure needs.
• From Edwards: I am the only candidate who has proposed a national broadband policy with a goal of giving all U.S. homes and businesses affordable access to real high-speed internet by 2010.
• From Richardson: I am the only candidate that has actually led a state's infrastructure development.
• From Kucinich: I am the only candidate with a plan that will improve the infrastructure and put 2 million Americans back to work at a living wage in such enterprises as rebuilding schools, designing roads, refurbishing environmental projects, and manufacturing steel for water systems.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:00 PM

GOP FIELD: Asset Or Liability?

Power Line's John Hinderaker predicts that immigration could end up being a winner for the GOP in '08: "With new Presidential contenders in the field, the parties' true positions on illegal immigration will come to the fore. This could be a serious problem for the Democrats. Their presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton, supported the Kennedy-McCain bill and has otherwise looked favorably on illegal immigration ... Rasmussen Reports released new polling data, indicating that 71% of respondents favor requiring foreign visitors to carry a universal ID card, while, by a 58% to 29% margin, respondents favor cutting off federal aid to "sanctuary" cities. What percentage of Democratic voters do you suppose live in sanctuary cities?"

Soren Dayton, meanwhile, argues that the GOP is going to have to change their tone, but not policy, on immigration if they want to make it a winning issue: "Our talk on immigration is not the talk of a people with hope. It is the language of people under siege. This is not good for our party. It strikes me that conservative values and policies are most successful when framed in a positive light. For example, tax cuts and deregulation bring opportunity for everyone. ... A politics that is driven by anger and fear has never been a transformative or a majority politics in America."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:59 PM

GIULIANI: Americans Aren't Pleased With Bush's Competence?

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin reads Rudy Giuliani recent Reason column and summarizes: "'You cannot manage what you do not measure.' That is the Rudy mantra from his time as New York City Mayor and the subject of his column for Reason. ... I think there are several reasons for putting this out. His campaign believes that although Americans know about his role on 9-11 they still do not know about his record as Mayor and they intend to keep telling voters about it. Knowing that conservatives are, like most Americans, not pleased with the level of competency and efficiency in Washington the Rudy camp also will push the argument that going from muddled management to Rudy management would be the biggest change to hit government, well, since Rudy took over New York City."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:58 PM

HUCKABEE: Edwards Lite?

Calling Mike Huckabee the new 'It' candidate, Ankle Biting Pundit's Patrick Hynes promotes Huckabee's 8/19 appearance on WEMJ's 'Meet the New Press' in Laconia, NH. Hynes blogs: "Huckabee is carving out for himself a unique message of social conservatism and economic populism, which I think could have significant appeal among some in the GOP."

NRO's Jim Geraghty also has thoughts on Huckabee: "My rational head says that Huckabee's populism, vague as it is, is a recipe for some bad policies. ... But my gut tells me that when people are afraid of antifreeze in their toothpaste, or lead paint on their kids' toys, they don't want to hear somebody talk about the big-picture benefits of free trade. ... So, the question is, will Huckabee's populist rhetoric win over a larger number of lower and middle class voters than the number of free-marketeers who conclude he's no better than John Edwards?"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:57 PM

MCCAIN: For Some, There Is No Difference Between 'Opponent' And 'Critic'

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner notes liberalbloggerskepticism about John McCain embracing an 'Iraq war critic' label and blogs: "But McCain isn't casting himself as an opponent of the war but rather as a critic of the way it has been carried out. In that regard, his credentials are rather strong." Joyner goes on to link to fifteen articles quoting McCain bashing Pres. Bush's handling of the war starting in 11/6/03 and running through 2/20/07.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:57 PM

PAUL: Alan Keyes Is Also The Only GOPer Obama's Ever Beaten

AmSpec Blog's John Tabin links to Reason reporting of Ron Paul's 81% victory in the Alabama straw poll and quips, "which puts him on track to match the electoral success of Alan Keyes."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:56 PM

ROMNEY: No Safe Haven Here

Bryan at Hot Air summarizes Michelle Malkin's interview with Mitt Romney: "Immigration and border security are now at the center of the GOP presidential race. Hot Air spoke with Gov. Mitt Romney about sanctuary cities, Rudy Giuliani's response to his criticism of NYC's illegal alien safe haven policy, homeland security, ID cards, CAIR, and civil liberties, among other related topics."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:55 PM

THOMPSON: Needs Practice

A CNN story suggesting Fred Thompson supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage drew attention 8/17. Thompson quickly emailed a clarification to The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez including: "I'm afraid CNN story you linked mischaracterized Thompson's comment on gay marriage. ... For the record, the Thompson camp has officially noted that Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He supports the rights of States to choose their marriage law for themselves."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt didn't miss a beat: "Which makes Romney the only top tier candidate who does support the Federal Marriage Amendment. ... This is a huge issue in the GOP primaries with a crucial segment of the electorate --the segment that hates court-imposed social engineering. ... If the defense of traditional marriage is one of your key issues, Fred Thompson can't be your candidate."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin caught the original story and the clarification and sees the incident as more evidence Thompson is not as ready as his GOP opponents: "There is a great benefit to communicating through blogs as he has done -- you can be clear and edit to your heart's delight. ... The retail politics in Iowa and New Hampshire is generally not scripted and very interactive. If you watch a townhall with Mitt or Rudy they move fairly seemlessly from one topic to another with nary a "hmmm" or "ahhh." They've been practicing for months now and each is frankly startling good in these forums. ... It's going to be a big challenge for Fred."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:54 PM

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: Another Battle In IA?

Netroots anger of Dem capitulation on FISA may be moving into concrete action. Open Left's Chris Bowers uses "the two biggest defeats for House Democrats so far in 2007" (supplemental Iraq funding and FISA) to identify 38 'Bush Dogs' who "voted in favor of both bills, and thus are the most likely to capitulate on important fights in the future." Bowers then uses Cook Political report Partisan Voting Index data to identify which of the 38 are most ripe for a primary challenge from the left. From Bowers:

The most egregious offenders are [Reps.] Daniel Lipinski (IL 03), Jim Cooper (TN 05) and Jim Costa (CA 20), who come from solidly Democratic districts. [Reps.] Leonard Boswell (IA 03), Mike Ross (AR 04), John Tanner (TN 08) and Charles Wilson (OH 06) come from districts that, as of 2004, leaned slightly Democratic, and probably lean even more so now. [Reps.] Jason Altmire (PA 04), John Barrow (GA 12), Allen Boyd (FL 02), Henry Cuellar (TX 28), Lincoln Davis (TN 04), Bob Etheridge (NC 02), Mike McIntyre (NC 07), Vic Synder (AR 02) and Tim Walz (MN 01) all come from districts with partisan voting indexes that lean Republican ... Those are the 16 districts where it strikes me that the most pressure, including both potential and real primary challenges, can be successfully applied.

Later Bowers adds: "Considering that Leonard Boswell's district is both in Iowa and lean Democratic, that might be a nice high visibility location to run a primary challenge. It wouldn't even be a waste of money, either, considering that the DCCC is constantly forced to spends money to defend Boswell."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:54 PM

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: And Civil Unions For All...

Matthew Yglesias looks at the gay marriage debate and concludes the government "should really get out of the marriage business ..."

The sanctity of marriage and the legal rights of romantic couples are, at the end of the day, conceptually distinct issues that really ought to be distinguished. ... The way things ought to work is that a couple is granted a civil union (or not) by the state which entails certain legal rights and responsibilities and granted a marriage (or not) by a church, mosque, or synagogue which confers whatever status it is that the relevant faith community deems applicable. There's nothing wrong, even, with having a merged service or giving clerics the power to perform the civil ceremony simultaneously with a religious one (tradition and convenience alike indicate that one shouldn't need two ceremonies), but as a technical legal matter it should stay separate.

LEST WE FORGET: Kathy Griffin Should Host Everything

Best Week Ever identifies the top 10 people they would rather see host the Price Is Right than Drew Carrey, including:

• 10. Kathy Griffin. Who else has the balls to tell rowdy frat guys to suck it? Kathy's the only woman strong enough to suggest changing TPIR catchphrase from "Come on Down" to "Get the f**k over here already, you slow bastard!" Let's admit it: She's the best thing on TV this summer. If she doesn't end up on The View, at least give her a crack at this.
• 2. Whitney Houston. This would be the most amazing gameshow ever. Whitney would not take ess from no one! Taking too long to bid? Whit will crack open the left and right side of your head right open! Plus, we could look forward to a new pricing game, "Digging for Doody Bubbles."
• 1. The Lead Singer of Smash Mouth. Would be a better Price is Right host than Drew Carey. He could spend the entire hour singing "Hey Now, You're an All-Star", while soft-shoeing his way through the Showcase Showdown, and he would be a more enjoyable host than Drew Carey. And that's something to think about, America.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:53 PM

August 16, 2007

8/16: Treat Me Nice

In discussing Barack Obama's 8/15 interview with the Washington Post, Marc Ambinder crystallizes Obama's message: "Obama wants to remind Democrats of the feeling they get when they're at a ball game and the national anthem is played -- a post (or pre) partisan, transhistorical patriotism that is then channeled into the political system as the ultimate expression of Democratic ideals. It's a complex argument, easily and reductively characterized as 'Obama versus the System.'"

Some elements of the message strongly appeal to the netroots, some don't. The part that does is evidenced by DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas recent media tour (including Meet the Press, Charlie Rose, and The Colbert Report). On his tour Markos stresses that Daily Kos and the netroots are not left or liberal, but mainstream ... that they better represent American consensus than traditional media, the Beltway, and definitely GOPers.

The part that doesn't is Obama's 'post (or pre) partisan' style. The netroots do not believe that political power is attained in this country by holding hands around the campfire and singing kumbaya. They believe that sharp distinctions must be drawn with GOPers, and that every attack must be answered. But Obama's partisanship style may be evolving. Remember he has never been in a competitive partisan election (beating Alan Keyes does not count). His negatives may be low now, but no one has ever aired a negative ad against him. As Obama becomes more familiar with being a partisan target (something no one can/need teach Hillary Clinton about) we'll see if he adopts a more netroots line of thinking.

DODD: An Accidental Favorite

Chris Dodd's thoughts on US policy towards Cuba was warmly welcomed. Dodd blogged: "I want to see the peaceful transition to democracy occur on the Island of Cuba in my life time. That isn't going to happen if we continue the misguided policies of the last forty-six years." The Washington Note's Steve Clemons comments: "I view this statement as the kind of truth-telling and honest candor that aspirants to the White House should exhibit in all of their foreign policy and national security commentary. I could not agree more with Senator Dodd's views." Matthew Yglesias is also a fan: "Not that it's going to make him president, but Chris Dodd is making sense."

At Talk Left, Big Tent Democrat explains why he is actively supporting Dodd: "I never expected to be supporting any of our fine Democratic candidates for President at this point, much less Chris Dodd ... I was not shopping for candidates. Indeed, I insisted that the Netroots has spent 2007 too focused on the 2008 horserace instead of being focused on the pressing issues of today, especially the Iraq issue. ... But that actually explains how Chris Dodd won my support. Chris Dodd is leading on the issues of today as well as discussing his vision for the issues of tomorrow."

EDWARDS: The Clinton's II

Elizabeth Edwards chatted with Kossacks from the road in IA 8/15. She starts the conversation: "In just the last two and a half days we have already covered a lot of ground and spoken to a lot of wonderful people as we've traveled from town to town. ... If you cannot make it out to see us in person, you can follow the tour online at johnedwards.com/iowa, but for now, let's just chat."

Reacting to a 8/14 Washington Postarticle on Elizabeth, TAPPED's Kay Steiger blogs: "Elizabeth Edwards reminds me of the kind of active campaigner that Hillary Clinton was in the early '90s -- taking strong stances on the issues, launching attacks on other candidates, and even representing her husband at events targeted at women voters. Obviously, Elizabeth Edwards isn't running for president. John is. But I seem to recall that this model of campaign team worked very well for the Clintons in the '90s."

Open Left's Chris Bowers was more a fan of Edwards new Foreign policy article: "In a lengthy article just published in the journal Foreign Policy, John Edwards really opens up against the "war on terror" frame ... This is the sort of thinking I have been looking for from Democratic politicians on this issue for several years now. Bravo, Senator Edwards."

OBAMA: Pure Foolishness? Jujitsu Master? Or Complete Sweetness And Light?

Barack Obama's 8/14 Washington Postinterview drew mixed reactions from the netroots. Two quotes stood out. First: "Her argument is going to be that 'I'm the experienced Washington hand,' and my argument is going to be that we need to change the ways of Washington." Reactions include:

• TPM Cafe's Max Sawicky: "Today in the Post we find Obama claiming an advantage over Clinton by virtue of his capacity to unify the country. The last thing we need, at a point where the Democrats can establish a decisive margin of political power, is somebody out to unify the country. I fear that Senator Obama is turning into the DLC candidate, in all but name."
• TAPPED's Paul Waldman: "But what Max seems to be missing is that Obama isn't saying he'll unite the country by offering a centrist policy agenda, or acting like he's ashamed to be a Democrat, which would make him the DLC candidate. Obama's unity is not about triangulation. The uncharitable interpretation is that it's all talk, just vague encomia to buying the world a Coke, smilin' on your brother, and so on. The more charitable interpretation is that it's an extremely deft kind of political jujitsu."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "Obama's problem is the notion that he will be the first politican in history who can lead his political party to success while not engaging in partisanship. It is pure foolishness. But what is especially galling is Obama's willingess to be divisive among Democrats while promising to not be divisive with Republicans. It is simply political madness."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "However it was intended, "ideological gridlock" sounds very centrist, and very non-partisan. This, I think, presents a huge opening for the Clinton campaign. Instead of talking about ideological gridlock and post-partisanship, Clinton could emphasize her progressivism and Democratic partisanship, and actually come at Obama from the left."

The second Obama quote drawing attention: "I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can ... I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists ..." Reactions include:

• John Campanelli at Daily Kos: "Keith Olbermann ... questioned whether the following passage ... bolsters Obama's claim of being a uniter or, in fact a divider...of his own party ... Obama concedes that Hillary's reputation for being polarizing results from the unending, well-financed attacks from the Right Wing Noise Machine. ... Despite well documented evidence of such lies and distortions by the Right that has led to the meme that Hillary Clinton is supposedly "polarizing," Obama perpetuates this label."
• a Daily Kos commenter: "The above comment by Obama seems pretty judicious and fair. So, if Hillary camp is indeed reacting to Obama's above comment there characterization of Obama people as Karl Rove seems pretty harsh."
• Andrew Sullivan calls Clinton's Rove-Obama comparison "A New Clinton Low" and blogs: "I'm sure Karl Rove will have plenty of his own talking points next year, if Hillary is the nominee. Clinton's current negative rating is 43 percent. Obama's is 22."
• The Plank's Jason Zengerle: "I guess the Clinton people think Obama has painted himself into a corner with this "politics of hope" thing--and that if he does anything that isn't completely sweetness and light, the Clinton campaign can paint him as a hypocrite. But I think that's a dangerous bet and the sort of hair-trigger response demonstrated by Wolfson serves only to strengthen Obama's original point about Clinton being something of a divisive figure."

OBAMA II: Progressives For For Unilateral Action In Pakistan And Maintaining Crack Cocaine Penalties

Conservative talk show host Michael Smerconish thanks Obama for his unilateral military action in Pakistan comments at The Huffington Post: "Thank you, Sen. Barack Obama. Yours truly, a two-time, Bush 43-supporting political pundit who worked in an appointed capacity in the administration of Bush 41, offers you his gratitude for being the first among A-level presidential aspirants willing to say something substantive about our failure to find Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. We're just weeks removed from the six-year anniversary of Sept. 11, and I, for one, am sick and tired of being fed the same old spin about how the search is nuanced, and sooner or later we will bring him to justice."

Back on the left, two MyDD diarists explain why they are voting for Obama. From Max Fletcher: "It is from my experiences volunteering in low-income neighborhoods, studying theories of community development and social policy, and talking to hundreds of voters in small-town Minnesota and suburban Chicago that I have drawn the conclusion that Barack Obama is the best candidate to lead the Democratic Party and the country in the post-Bush years." The other MyDDer blogs: "Obama's argument is that without reaching out to new voters, without building new coalitions, you might be able to eke out a victory for the presidency, but you will never be able to create change. ... Obama is not advocating a grand compromise with the right, as is often suggested, rather he envisions a working progressive majority, a realignment of political life along progressive values."

Also voting for Obama, The Huffington Post's Trey Ellis explains why he can 'guarantee' the 'black vote' for a Obama will be a landslide: "If the majority of black folks swore O.J. was innocent just because of the color of his skin, the majority of us, when we're alone in that ballot booth, will pull the lever for brother Obama."

Finally, Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt summarizes Derrick Jackson's Boston Globecolumn on Obama's record on drug sentencing: "He used to be against the harsh crack cocaine penalties but now won't commit to doing anything to fix them. It may not be worth the "political capital" it would take."

RICHARDSON: But Does His Blood Boil When You Ask Him If Homosexuality Is A Choice?

From the Wells Fargo campus in West Des Moines, IA, TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta quotes Bill Richardson on immigration: "I don't like the immigration debate. ... My blood boils when I get these questions. Deport them. Get them out of here. ... What we have seen is some ugly threads."

GIULIANI: Funny How Time Slips Away

A Talking Points Memovideo contrasting Rudy Giuliani immigration statements circa '96 with statements circa '07 spurred conservative discussion. The '96 comments include: "We're never, ever going to be able to totally control immigration to a country that is as large as ours." The '07 comments: "We can end illegal immigration. I promise you, we can end illegal immigration." Reactions include:

• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Why did the Giuliani campaign have campaign adviser Stewart Verdery on Bill Bennett this morning arguing that Giuliani has not changed his views on immigration? Toward the end of the interview this morning Stewart made perfect sense: It's a different world now, no one can look at the world through a 1996 lens. But suggesting Rudy hasn't changed his views seems ridiculous - at least if Giuliani means his more recent tough talk."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt quoting NR's John Podhoretz: "[L]ook, basically, the situation is when he said whatever it was that he said that people don't like about illegals, it was 1995, 1996, something like that. I mean, you know, the influx of 12 million had not yet happened. So to be fair, these are different times. Different opinions can be expressed in different times."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "It won't make a huge difference in the discussion of immigration, but I like the point - that since we can't deport every illegal immigrant immediately, then let's prioritize, and get the worst of 'em out first."
• Hot Air: "Giuliani's camp is pretty fast about responding these things, which bodes well for the general if he makes it that far. I think this is a dodge - the best barrier to illegal immigration now as in 1996 has been a fence and more BP agents."
• Ace of Spades: "It should be counted in any politician's credit if he can take a position which he knows is right even when public opinion is arrayed against him. And we can't be entirely sure that a Rudy-Come-Lately to the security-first position isn't simply disingenuously pandering on the issue. We don't know how Rudy will act in the future. We know what he's said before and we know what he's saying now; we don't know what his real stance will end up being."

From the trail in IA, Cyclone Conservative reports on how crowds are reacting to Giuliani on the issue: "He talked about immigration and said that he'd end illegal immigration and expand legal immigration and said that immigrants must assimilate and learn English. Anything Giuliani said about immigration received loud applause from the hundreds who gathered to hear him speak."

HUCKABEE: Was The True Conservative Under Their Noses the Whole Time?

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein sums up a session Mike Huckabee held with reporters: "Perhaps most interesting is that Huckabee made it clear that he was running as a populist and directly against the business wing of the Republican Party. ... He referred to the group as the "Club for Greed" and rejected their portrayal of his record ... In my view, his populist strategy may make some waves ... But ultimately, taking on the small government, pro-business wing of the Republican Party ... is not the pathway to the nomination."

SC's Daily Shot contrasts Huckabee's winning style with the sinking Sam Brownback: "Sam Brownback's holier-than-thou attitude is the embodiment of everything that drives people away from values positions. ... Instead of welcoming converts and folks who are more with you than not, Brownback's team chastises every candidate who isn't 100% with him. ... That message isn't resonating and the best its doing is providing good ammo for Obama or Clinton."

Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite links to Michael Medved's positive take on Huckabee and warns: "If Fred Thompson wants to win this race, he better get in before Mike becomes the new Fred."

ROMNEY: One Flip Flop Even Mitt Couldn't Survive

Power Line's John Hinderaker isn't impressed with ABC News reports that "Romney in Stem Cell Biz, Despite Political Opposition." Hinderaker blogs: "Mitt is in the "stem cell biz"? Sounds like he's carrying out experiments in his garage. Well, not exactly. It turns out that something less than one one-thousandth of Romney's fortune is invested in a company called Novo Nordisk, which carries out some kind of stem cell research."

Much, much more worrisome, NY Sun's Ryan Sager notes the former MA governor also owns some stock in ... the Yankees Entertainment and Sports (YES) network.

THOMPSON: John McCain II?

The Corner's David Freddoso posts excerpts from Fred Thompson's letter to FairTax.org and comments: "Thompson Backs the Fair Tax - Sort Of ... As Ken Hoagland, spokesman for Americans for Fair Taxation remarked to me on Monday, the first attempt to exempt something from the tax (he used bread as an example) will result in 'the tax lobbyists being let back in.'"

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt supports Thompson's refusal to back the group reasoning: "a plan that begins with abolishing the mortgage interest deduction and the charitable deduction will not pass the Congress any time soon."

Finally, Soren Dayton reads David Broder's column on Thompson and concludes he is little more than a warmed over John McCain: "I am convinced that Thompson is not the person that conservative activists fantasize him to be. This seems like supporting evidence."

BLOGGERS VS BLOGGERS: How About 'Corporate Truthtellers'?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas, at both his own site, and The Huffington Post, tries to convince his fellow bloggers to drop the "mainstream media"/"MSM" label since it began as a "right-wing" acronym. Markos blogs: "[I]t's a right-wing pejorative, and I'd rather we not adopt their language and frames. But more importantly, by calling them "mainstream media", we are saying that we ourselves aren't mainstream, and that's not something I'm willing to concede. ... So if not "MSM" (god, that word is like nails on a chalkboard to me!), then what? ... "Corporate media" can work. But my preferred term is "traditional media" -- a nice, neutral, non-negative way to differentiate old media versus the newfangled stuff."

More kos: "But wait, say some, why do we want a "nice" and "neutral" term for those newspaper and television guys? Aren't we supposed to hate them? Absolutely not. We need an effective media, one that reports the truth, whatever it may be."

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: Building From The Pixel On Up

Open Left's Chris Bowers announced the five winners of BlogPac's grassroots infrastructure project grants. And the winners are:

• Precinct Map and Voting History Online Application - This is a project to map every precinct in the state of Washington, along with providing information on how each precinct voted in key elections. Over time, this project has a goal of expanding across the entire nation.
• The Candidate Source internet video project - Candidate Source is a project to transcribe and catalog political content found on video sharing sites like YouTube, including stump speeches, debates, and interviews.
• Black Agenda Report - The Black Agenda Report is a weekly magazine that turns a critical eye on African-American institutions, and also one of the centers of the emerging African-American blogosphere.
• Blogging the Statehouse - Blue Jersey pays Jay Lassiter to directly cover political happenings in the state legislature in Trenton. ... The BlogPac grant will allow this position to become sustainable over the long-term.
• BlogsUnited - We exist to provide a useful and relevant source of information and communication for progressive bloggers working locally. ... We currently do this through a Wiki, a Google Group, social networking nodes on Facebook, DFA link, and a nascent Soapblox Blog.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Save The Nation

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall excerpts the following from a David Corn email: "Postal regulators have accepted a scheme designed in part by lobbyists for the Time-Warner media conglomerate. In short, mailing costs for mega-magazines like Time-Warner's own Time, People and Sports Illustrated will go up less than other magazines or even decrease. But smaller publications like The Nation will be hit by an enormous rate increase of half a million dollars a year."

Marshall comments: "For two hundred years US postal rate has been geared to support independent media and political discourse. It's something small magazine publishes and press theory types understand very well but it's not that widely understood in the general public. If that comes to an end it will be a very big deal."

LEST WE FORGET: A Convenient Truth

Matthew Yglesias makes light of Michael Gerson's recent conversion to green activism: "Gerson somehow manages to parcel blame out evenly between conservative Republicans like Gerson, Gerson's boss, every boss Gerson has ever had in his career, Gerson's colleagues, and Gerson's subordinates all of whom have been fighting serious action on global warming tooth-and-nail and unspecified liberals whose unspecified "hysteria" has contributed to the problem in an unspecified way. ... I, too, believe all that stuff. Inconveniently for me, I've never been a top aide to the President of the United States, which is always a good situation to be in when you'd like to see action taken on a cause."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:40 PM

August 15, 2007

8/15: Only One Big Four?

The immigration spat between Rudy Giuliani/Mitt Romney is shaping up to be a mirror image of the Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama tussle over Pakistan. In both cases the issues capture the best strengths and weaknesses of the candidates involved (Rudy's past liberalism comes back to haunt him on a conservative issue; Romney looks like a flip-flopper; Obama voices change but looks inexperienced; and Clinton looks like a competent, but establishment, pro on the issue). One other similarity: both sides are having two person debates on the issue. No matter how hard he tried, John Edwards could not manage to inject himself into the HRC/Obama spotlight. Similarly, few people are picking up on Fred Thompson's thoughts on immigration. Is it a coincidence that Edwards and Thompson are also probably the most online based campaigns?

CLINTON: Just Win Baby

In an ideal world, Hillary Clinton would not be the netroots first choice in the Dem field. In the real world where the GOP has controlled the WH for the past eight years, Clinton's proven political prowess has earned her enough respect in the community to make her an acceptable nominee. At MyDD, Big Tent Democrat explains:

"Hillary has earned my respect the past six months. ... First and foremost, to date, Hillary has proven herself the most proficient politician in the race. ... Let's stop pretending that Hillary is a secret Republican operative. You merely come across, to me at least, as a blithering fool. Let's stop pretending that the fact that [John] Edwards and [Barack] Obama do not take money directly from lobbyists but do take money from spouses and CEOs and hedge fund managers means something substantively. ... Hillary's political performance the last six months has been exceptionally good. She has reaffirmed her progressive bona fides on issue after issue and neutralized her potential weaknesses with smoothness and aplomb. She rarely makes mistakes. Her performances at the debates have been first rate. She has become a top notch politician."

TPM Cafe's MJ Rosenberg notices that, whatever other faults she may have, "she make Republicans lose it!" Rosenberg tracks WH reaction to Clinton's first campaign ad attacking Pres. Bush and comments: "She drives Republicans nuts. She causes them to lose their sh*t. And, when they attack her as they did this week, she causes pretty much all Democrats to want to rally behind her.I think that is because, although not all of us are Hillary fans, we know that the Republicans despise her because she's an "uppity woman", a liberal, a "sixties" person, a symbol of the diversity that is the Democratic party."

Andrew Sullivan, however, is turned off by her political skills: "So why my continued - almost violent - fear of her as president? The answer, I think, is about character. ... The character issue is really about having a president I can trust, whose words are connected to what he or she actually believes, and a president who can move us past the hideous and growing polarization of the past two decades. The words that come out of Clinton's mouth are like round, honed pebbles on a beach of public relations and focus groups. ... But as long as there is a viable alternative - Obama - there's still hope for something better."

EDWARDS: The Packer Platform

The netroots faithful are lapping up John Edwards IA bus tour. MyDD's DesMoinesDem blogs: "Listening to John Edwards speak outside his Des Moines campaign headquarters yesterday, I was as proud as ever to support his candidacy. ... John Edwards is capable of not only turning progressive ideals into wonderful realistic plans, but he is also capable of advocating for them so that they become mainstream."

Also at MyDDNatasha Chart highlights Edwards 'rural strategy' which includes a ban on meat packer ownership of livestock. Chart explains: "The packer ban is a very important issues to rural districts where agriculture predominates, and [Sen. Paul Wellstone's] championing of it has been cited as one of the reasons why the very progressive Wellstone was able to draw on such a broad base of support."

EDWARDS II: Elizabeth Disenchantment Setting In

Elizabeth Edwards comments that, "We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman," continue to stir controversy in the netroots.

Jack and Jill Politics' rikyrah asked 8/11: "When hasn't this country elected a white male president? ... You'd think, reading the Esquire cover, that the last Four Presidents have been Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson with Condoleeza Rice in there for good measure.

Open Left's Matt Stoller later combined rikyrah's Edwards thought with a Mike Claufield Blue Hampshire post questioning the efficacy of Edwards messaging on poverty and wrote: "John Edwards is talking about poverty, but he's not talking to poor people. He may say that women's rights are related to economic issues, but Clinton is actually framing her arguments around language women use. Edwards is talking as a college educated white guy to other college educated white guys. It's the white man's burden, and while well-meaning, it's a little racist and annoying. I mean come on. There is no conspiracy to keep white men out of the Presidency."

This prompted and angry and highly commented on response by Daily Kos diarist David Mizner: "Matt Stoller's ... recent post ...is shoddy even for him. He accuses both John and Elizabeth Edwards of racism. ... To buttress his charge of racism, Stoller cites the remark made by Elizabeth Edwards. ... The comment made me cringe. Though factually defensible, it's stupid politically and in poor taste. But Stoller goes much farther. ... Does Stoller know what the word means? Does he really believe that the comment tells us that Elizabeth Edwards thinks poorly of black people? That she thinks they're inferior? It's no small thing, to accuse someone of racism, but Stoller, careless or clueless or both, throws the accusation around with abandon."

Claufield later defended his post from Mizner's attack at Blue Hampshire: "So, as you may know, David Mizner decided to misrepresent my diary on Edwards's "Poverty Platform" for lord knows what reason. His post was followed by approximately 400 comments which nicely excoriate me for a post that (judging from our site meter stats) none of them actually bothered to read."

GRAVEL: A Younger Strom Thurmond

Mike Gravel blogs at The Huffington Post: "During last week's historic gay debate, Hillary Clinton dredged up the old states rights argument when justifying her opposition to gay marriage. Apparently she thinks that the second class citizenship of gays and lesbians is a matter for the states to decide. ... By drawing upon the language of states rights, Hillary embraces the tradition of John Calhoun and the defenders of slavery along with Strom Thurmond and the segregationists."

OBAMA: Bombs Away

Barack Obama's "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there," line in Nashua, NH, drew broad conservative attention (Instapundit, Red State, Townhall, Hot Air, RCP Blog, Power Line, Captain's Quarters, and NRO all posted).

MyDD's Jonathan Singer tracked the RNC's response to Obama and scored the round for Barack: "Instead of cowering at the hands of the Republicans, the Obama campaign held its ground and was rewarded with a fact check by the Associated Press that showed that Obama was completely correct with his assessment of the situation in Afghanistan. Indeed, The Politico ... deems this a "win" for Obama."

OBAMA II: A Confidence Gap

The Plank's Michael Crowley singles out what he believes to be the most relevant parts of ex-colleague Ryan Lizza's GQ profile of Obama:

One day this spring, Obama's pollsters were crunching numbers, and they discovered something odd. For as long as Obama has been in national politics, his approval ratings have been stratospheric. His whole campaign strategy rests on translating that enthusiasm into actual votes, turning those who are temporarily enthralled by Obama's celebrity into real supporters.

Now Obama's pollsters were finding alarming evidence that their candidate was vulnerable to the same phenomenon. When they compared the percentage of Democrats who said they strongly approved of Obama with the percentage who said they would vote for him, they found that the latter number was significantly lower than the former. Inside the campaign, aides dubbed this "the Gap." It was a sobering, hard number that quantified the difference between vague enthusiasm and actual votes.

Crowley comments: "As others have noted, I'm not sure that an appearance on the cover of GQ will do a lot for Obama's effort to seem more like a tested leader and less like a celebrity." The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum adds: "This is interesting on its own terms, but I also find it interesting that apparently this was news to Obama's campaign team. This "gap" seems like the kind of thing that perhaps people like me have never heard of, but is common knowledge among political pros. But apparently not. Or at least, not among Obama's political pros."

The Huffington Post's Thomas de Zengotita does not mention the GQ profile, but his post reads like he would agree with the premise: "My days of voting for Nader are over. Not that Obama is a Nader. Still, there's an aura around of him of radical alternative possibility. But I've had enough of radical conceits ... I want a Democrat who can win. ... I could write a book about how much I hate what the Clintons did to the progressive left in this country during the 90s. I loath them for it.... I want to believe in Obama. But, right now, Hillary looks like the warrior."

OBAMA III: This Must Be That 'Character' That Andrew Was Talking About Earlier

Andrew Sullivan shares a reader report from an 80 person 2/19 fundraiser in San Francisco, CA: "He was asked about gay marriage ... In that small setting, without ever saying so outright, Obama made it very clear that his decision not to support gay marriage was political and not principled. In a perhaps anxious attempt to get us to understand his predicament, he drew an analogy. ... In effect he was saying, I can't do this now - I can't even say anything more ... We have to wait. It almost felt as if he was winking at us in some solemn way (I can't say it, but I am with you!)."

Sullivan responds: "The best response is Hannah Arendt's ... She believed that marriage equality was the sine qua non of the civil rights movement. ... We've had some success reorienting the movement, but its natural state of entropy is, sadly, still leftist. I'm unsurprised Obama won't challenge this. But I am quite sure he will be more supportive of gay equality than Clinton."

GIULIANI VS ROMNEY: No One's Finding Sanctuary On This Issue

Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney both drew blood in exchanges over immigration 8/14. Romney hit Rudy for saying, while mayor of New York, "If ... you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city. You're somebody that we want to protect." Rudy hit back pointing out that Somerville, Cambridge, and Orleans, MA, were all sanctuary cities while Romney was governor. There was no consensus winner on the latest "flashpoint between the two frontrunners":

• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "As I've said before, the way Rudy has handled immigration has been nearly flawless. ... What Rudy has done on immigration gives me hope on abortion: he still has room to move right on it while staying pro-choice. To the extent he does, he becomes an even stronger candidate for the nomination and a stronger candidate in the general election where he will have to be firmly to Hillary's right on cultural issues or he'll kick away a key Republican advantage."
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "I think the bottom line is that as to sanctuary cities Romney did exactly nothing. ... The danger of the story -- highlighted by the Mayor of Somerville -- is that voters perceive this squabble on his part as political opportunism. ... this is not the first issue on which Romney has been accused of political opportunism."
• SC's The Shot: "Honestly, we're just a little disappointed that Rudy, who did so much on 9/11, could be so naive that he would INVITE undocumented, illegal aliens into the USA's largest city and offer them protection simply based on whether they're "hard working" or not."
• PoliPundit: "Rudy Giuliani ABSOLUTELY declared New York a sanctuary city for illegals ... I attended a conference where the speaker said that if one of the terrorists from 9/11, who was here illegally, was detained by police in New York on 9/9, under Rudy's policy as Mayor, he would have been released in time to carry out the 9/11 attacks, and that is just plain scary."

HUCKABEE: Buchanan Lite?

Soren Dayton examines Mike Huckabee's rhetoric on foreign policy and concludes he is a "neo-isolationist." Dayton blogs: "Now, I believe that there is a lot of isolationism in the GOP. This was a driving force for Pat Buchanan ... Much of the Ron Paul energy can be linked to this. And Duncan Hunter's campaign could be predicated on that too."

Race4'08s DaveG links and adds: "[There is] a major vacuum in the GOP race for a candidate who can appeal to both so-cons and foreign policy realists, along with perhaps the Buchananite isolationists ... Such a vacuum would provide a tremendous opportunity for a candidate able to unite disaffected old guard Republicans ... Thanks to Ames, the dynamics of the GOP race may be about to change."

ROMNEY: They Do Need Stink'n Badges

Mitt Romney's Doug Gross tells Red State readers how Romney managed to win the Ames straw. Also, Townhall's Matt Lewis has a nuts and bolts account of how the Romney machine rolled out on 8/11, including:

The Romney badges were perforated, and right before you voted, a Romney aide would tear off the bottom part of your badge (the part that had your name on it). By doing this, the Romney folks were able to keep track of which supporters had actually voted. And they were able to spot supporters at the Straw Poll who had neglected to vote.

THOMPSON: 'Healthy, But Not Overwhelming'

NY Sun's Ryan Sager links to Fred Thompson's latest thoughts on the need for "real earmark reform" and comments: "How much is this connecting with netizens? Well, a post put up last Tuesday has 306 comments today. And one needs to be registered on the site as a "friend of Fred" to post or read comments. So, I'd say a healthy response, but not overwhelming."

Also at the Fred File, Thompson linked the 'sanctuary city' debate to the 8/4 killings of three Newark, NJ, college students: "The killers' ringleader was apparently an illegal alien indicted twice in 2007 for felonies ... Why would such a person be set free instead of being handed over to authorities for deportation? The answer is that Newark is a 'sanctuary city' which bans cooperation between local officials and federal immigration officials."

BLOGGERS VS BLOGGERS: Getting GOPers Off The Couch

A Politico story on the GOP/Dem online gap didn't go unnoticed. Open Left's Chris Bowers blogs: "Generally speaking, what we are seeing here are online Democrats taking more action on behalf of Democratic candidates than online Republicans taking action on behalf of Republican candidates. To put it another way, even though studies show that Republicans use the Internet at rates equal to Democrats, Republicans are less politically active online than Democrats."

Bowers then quotes Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "But Free Republic simply could not succeed in the world of the blogosphere, social media, and Web 2.0. The founders made the decision that they were going to hoard as much traffic on their servers as possible ... If you expressed your own opinion when starting a thread, that was a "vanity" and it was frowned upon. And fundraising for candidates was strictly forbidden, except for those pet causes approved by Jim Robinson. Their culture was very anti-blog and anti-original content."

Heritage Foundation's Robert Bluey responds: "There's no question that liberals are more politically active online. However, I find Bowers' assertion that Huffington Post and Daily Kos have excelled because they are driven by a community to be somewhat misleading. Free Republic invented the concept of an online community, and according to Compete, it still tops both in terms of eyeballs. ... Despite all of its success generating traffic and building a community, could Free Republic actually be considered a failure? That's not a question I can answer. ... As it stands now, Free Republic has decided not to evolve. That doesn't mean we don't have the eyeballs. We simply haven't figured out how to activate the community."

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: It's In His Nature

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas recounts his 8/12 Meet the Press debate with DLC chair Harold Ford, including: "I asked Ford to avoid trashing Democrats on Fox News. He didn't promise to do that, and I don't expect him to get off Fox News. But I did hope to impress the importance of denying the conservatives on Fox News the ability to manipulate them into justifying attacks on Democrats. ... This is what I hope the biggest take away is for Ford and the DLC after Sunday. If they can stop being the go-to organization when the media needs a "Democrats fighting each other" story, then we've won. And I don't mean "we" as in the netroots, I mean "we" as in the entire Democratic Party, including the DLC."

But Crooks and Liars has video from 8/13's Hannity and Colmes where Laura Ingraham "made more sense than Ford did" on Daily Kos and centrism. Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher comments: "Harold Ford has a financial relationship with Fox News, and he's happily carrying the water for the Republicans at this point to destroy the only messaging arm the Democrats have. He's not a "centrist" as he was identified on MTP, he's an extremist. If it's hard to take him seriously it's because his overtures are anything but serious."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The 'More Things Change More They Stay The Same' Is More Like It

Captain's Quarters flags a Washington Poststory on lobbyist reaction to the recently passed ethics/lobbying reform bill and comments:

We have heard that the new bill keeps lawmakers from accepting free meals from lobbyists, as though a free $40 steak has been the root of all corruption on Capitol Hill, but it doesn't even do that much. There are over 20 exceptions to the food and gift bans in the bill. ... Lobbyists can't buy a meal unless it's part of a fundraiser, which means that the previous $40 steak can be legalized now by providing a $10,000 check to tenderize it. ... Wow -- what a sacrifice our Congress has made for themselves in this ethics bill! No wonder lobbyists object to it. All Congress has done is to increase their prices, not take them off the market. In a way, it makes it even more easier for the richest interests to buy a Congressman and keep the hoi polloi from shopping at the Capitol Hill outlet store.

LEST WE FORGET: We're Sticking With Bemused

DailyKos' founder Markos MoulitsasMarkos' recap of his Meet the Press appearance with DLC chair Harold Ford included this admission: "They put pillows on my chair so I wouldn't look so short compared to Ford. I alternated between bemused and horrified at the humiliation."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:55 PM

August 14, 2007

8/14: Like Preseason Football, The Ames Straw Poll Is Not Meaningless

Just as the Washington Redskins 4-0 '02 preseason record did not guarantee success in Steve Spurrier's first season with the team (they went 7-9), Mitt Romney's first place Ames straw poll finish does not guarantee him the nomination, let alone the IA Caucuses. But as an NFL scout told Sport's Illustrated's Peter King this week: "I don't care about the score of the game in the preseason. I care only about watching individual players." We should apply the same lesson to Ames. While the final results of the straw poll aren't predictive, underlying stories are.

When we look closer at Ames, we can see some important messaging lessons for GOPers as they draw up their game plans for the contests they really count. First, there is a lot more grass roots support for the FairTax.org's consumption tax than there is for the Club for Growth. FairTax produced at least 20 busses of supporters to the straw poll, while the Club for Growth dumped $85K into television ads attacking Huckabee on taxes. Huckabee's win shows which message better resonates with primary voters (fellow social conservative Sam Brownbacksupports the flat tax ).

Second, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter have positioned themselves as the immigration enforcement candidates. However, Tancredo is much more willing to embrace inflammatory rhetoric on the subject (see his Miami and Havana comparisons below), and is the only candidate in the field advocating an end to legal as well as illegal immigration. IAans awarded Tancredo 14% and fourth place, while Hunter finished ninth with 1%. It's possible that support for Tancredo's positions maxes out at 14% of the GOP base, but judging from Rudy Giuliani's post-straw poll response to Romney attacks on immigration, the issue is on the radar.

AMES STRAW POLL: New Yorkers Really Hate IA

Conservatives continued debating 8/11's Ames, IA, straw poll throughout 8/13. New York Sun's Ryan Sager led the league in IA-hating: "The face of the Republican Party in Iowa is the face of a losing party, full of hatred toward immigrants, lust for government subsidies, and the demand that any Republican seeking the office of the presidency acknowledge that he's little more than Jesus Christ's running mate. The pandering from the stage told the story. ... This all may fly in Ames. But it won't in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the interior West, all of which will be battlegrounds in this presidential election and for many elections to come. Republicans need to broaden their appeal in this tough environment, and the first step is to turn their sights away from Ames and toward the rest of the nation."

Others commenting on the importance of Ames and IA include:

• The Corner's John Podhoretz downplayed Ames: "Getting 14,000 people out to Ames when 23,000 went last time is precisely a mark that Ames is nothing ... if Rudy and McCain and Fred Thompson had chosen to go for it, more than 23,000 people would have shown up. In any case, that 14,000 only counts in terms of Iowa, one of the most unrepresentative states in the union and one whose caucuses are usually unimportant.
• so did Townhall's Dean Barnett: "Since the Ames event wasn't competitive, it became a non-event. Does anyone who knows anything about Republican politics think Mike Huckabee has a chance to win this race?"
• The Corner's Rich Lowry defended IA: "Four years ago, John Kerry was dead everywhere, staked everything on Iowa, won by a few points and was swept to the nomination. Every nominating contest is different, of course, but the experience of past primary seasons is that there is no substitute for winning-success tends to build on success. So I think it's a mistake for some Rudy fans to posit a nominating contest that will stay in neutral for three weeks or so, until Rudy can (theoretically) win somewhere.
• The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru joined Lowry: "Let's not forget, amid the grumbling about Iowa over the last few days, that it is a genuine swing state: It went for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004. It was one of three states to switch. Now maybe Giuliani will change the electoral map completely and put states such as New Jersey and New York in play. In a difficult year for Republicans, however, places such as Iowa and Wisconsin might be more sensible targets."

GIULIANI: No Out Flanking Rudy On Law Order Issues

Conservative reaction to Rudy Giuliani's push back against Mitt Romney's recent stepped up attacks on Giuliani's immigration record include:

• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "It is a misnomer to say New York was a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens. Several Massachusetts cities -- Orleans, Somerville and Cambridge -- did declare themselves as such while Romney was Governor. It appears Rudy, like all mayors, coped as best he could with the influx of illegals while he was also dealing with crime and other metropolitan issues. Did he publicly call on the Feds to do more? It seems so."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "In April of 2006, way before there was even a Giuliani campaign, I wrote that the immigration issue represented a major opportunity for Rudy. Specifically, his record on fighting crime as mayor gives him credibility to argue he's the one to gain control of our borders Even if other candidates are tougher on immigration rhetorically, there's a case to be made that in the real world, Giuliani is the man who could actually get it done."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Team Rudy is spotlighting that their man was tough on border security not just before the most recent Kennedy deal, but before the 1986 deal. ... Hmmm. Emphasizing a consistent record going back decades... that wouldn't be an effort to draw a contrast with a rival accused of being a johnny-come-lately on the issue, would it?"

HUNTER: Unlike Bush's Fake Border Enforcement Efforts

Duncan Hunter answered fifteen questions from Free Republic readers including:

• FREEP: How soon after you take office could we expect to see real results with respect to strong internal enforcement regarding illegal aliens and REAL efforts on sealing the border?
• HUNTER: I wrote the law that mandated the construction of the border fence in California that reduced smuggling of people and drugs by more than 90% in our sector. I also wrote the bill, signed into law on October 26, 2006, which extends the California fence 854 miles across the smuggling routes of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. As, President I will build the border fence, all 854 miles, in six months. If you examine the record throughout my entire career in the US Congress, you will see that no one has put in more effort to force the Federal government to enforce the existing internal laws. As President, I will do so, without question.

ROMNEY: But Which Answer Was Worse?

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru notes Mitt Romney's recent troubles explaining why none of his five sons served in the military and flags a 6/07 Romney answer to a similar question that was equally awkward: "Each of my five sons gave two years of their life to the service of their church and I consider that service to be laudable. But I very highly value those who serve in the military. But it is a volunteer military. And I hope we keep it that way."

Ponnuru comments: "Talk about confusing church and state!"

TANCREDO: Miami Is Nothing Like Havana ... They Have A Much Better Baseball Team

NRO's Jim Geraghty is worried about what Tom Tancredo's strong fourth place finish says about the GOP base since no "squish on illegal immigration" Duncan Hunter finished a distant ninth: "Tom Tancredo has also made stopping illegal immigration his signature issue - but he's a bit more likely to shoot his mouth off, and cause racially-tinged controversies in the process. ... He's called Miami a "Third World Country" and said "there isn't much of a difference" between Miami and Havana. ... Two candidates, both tough on border security, but with two very different styles and approaches. I would call one serious, one reckless. And we see where seriousness gets you."

CLINTON: I-what?

Blogger reviews of Hillary Clinton's first television ad (running in IA) were mixed:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "I have watched it three times now, and it is difficult to describe her first television ad as anything except boring ... If this is the sort of bland, boilerplate stuff we can expect from Hillary Clinton's campaign, then I think there is a real coattail problem for Clinton, just not in 2008."
• Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt: "The Sopranos' video it isn't, but I think it's what plays in Iowa. I don't think Hillary needs to keep pointing out Bush's failures ... he's not running against her. I'd like her to compare the current Republican candidates with Bush and explain how she will be different than them."
• IA's Bleeding Heartland's Chris Woods: "To me, the one place that it does fail is with the background music. I'm sorry, but it just seems cheesy and distracting. The content of the ad, what Clinton says, is the real substance and I think it is quite good for a re-introduction. ... And if she expects to build any more traction with committed activists and Democrats who will turn out in force on caucus day, she'll have to start airing an ad about Iraq."

CLINTON II: Swift Boat Tested

Clinton's first television ad aside, HRC had a good day 8/13. Those with nice things to say include:

• TAPPED's Ezra Klein: "Hillary Clinton proves surprisingly brutal in taking down a questioner who accuses her of supporting socialized medicine -- and she seems to have fun doing it. It's great fun to watch. Clinton has a much more natural fluency with the details of health policy than do the other candidates, and her willingness, in this video, to forthrightly defend universal systems based on the advantages of uniformity and the performance of Medicare is an optimistic sign that she may be more willing to fight on this issue than she's yet demonstrated."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers on polling showing Clinton with higher negatives than other Dems right now: "Further, it should be pointed out that this margin could very well decrease as time goes on, or even be eliminated entirely. For example, immediately after the Iowa caucuses, John Kerry polled better than Hillary Clinton in general election matchups against Republicans. However, after the swift-boating campaign of 2004, Hillary Clinton began to poll better against Republicans than did John Kerry. So, while Clinton does worse than Obama against Republicans now, that does not necessarily mean she will do worse than Obama in the actual election. Polls like these can, and will, change."
• TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent on an advance copy of a HRC letter to the WH demanding Pres. Bush clarify his position on the draft: "The Hillary letter will put pressure on the administration to clarify its position on this hot-button issue, a move that also helps Hillary politically because her aggressive standoff with military brass over Iraq is likely to appeal to Dem primary voters."

EDWARDS: The Edwards Reality Bus Tour

John Edwards 'online guru' Tracy Russo will be guest blogging from Edwards' "Iowa Bus Tour" at Bleeding Heartland for the next week. Russo blogs: "Below the fold, you can find the scheduled stops for the tour. We hope you can join us out on the road! You can also join us online, check out this MySpace group, especially for the Iowa Bus Tour!"

At TPM Cafe, Elizabeth Warren praises Edwards Business Week interview call for more regulation of credit card "tricks and traps." Warren blogs: "Edwards isn't looking for a few quick changes that will leave the industry largely undisturbed. He is pushing for systemic change. There are a lot of issues in play during the primary season, but I am very glad to see John Edwards carry this one forward."

OBAMA: Losing That Change Brand

The Huffington Post's Jennifer Donahue reports from Nashua, NH: "With each town hall meeting in New Hampshire, Obama seems to speak in a more confident, winning voice. His answers are more spontaneous. ... Obama on the stump is not Obama in the debate or Obama sparring through the press with Senator Clinton. The candidate has loosened up, answers questions freely and improvises."

Also blogging from NH, Blue Hampshire's Dean Barker sat down with Obama and eight Upper Valley residents, but came away most touched by a an older women who only recently became politically active. The woman told Obama that after Dems failed to push back against Bush after taking over Congress she has "pulled back" from politics. Barker comments: "In the wake of the Democratically enabled Iraq funding bill, and the likewise assisted, and despicable, FISA bill, I have to wonder if Democrats truly understand that they are losing their momentum with the people every time they back down from a fight with George W. Bush."

At TPM Cafe, Greg Sargent links to CNN polling showing only 27% of Dems say Obama "is most likely to change the country" compared to 40% who chose Hillary Clinton. Sargent comments: "The usual caveats aside -- this is a national poll, etc. -- it's worth noting that this comes after Obama has aggressively sought to link Hillary to the D.C. foreign policy and political establishment, and to argue that he's the race's real change agent."

RICHARDSON: Let's Just Pretend This Whole Episode Never Happened

TPM Cafe's Eric Kleefeld posts Bill Richardson's defense of his 8/10 claim that homosexuality is a choice. Richardson told Sirius radio: "And, I always love the word 'choice.' I'm for freedom of choice, I have in my health care plan a choice where everybody can keep their health care plan. And so I always kind of feel it's a golden word, and I didn't think through what Melissa was asking me."

Kleefeld responds: "Yes, Governor, "choice" really is a nice word. Perhaps one might choose to steer clear of this topic going forward?"

ROVE: Is Turd Blossom The Most Appropriate Nickname Ever?

Conservative reaction to Karl Rove's departure was mixed. His tactical political skills were honored, but a story line on his lasting legacy is far from settled:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Rove is 5 for 6 in the big elections he has skippered, and despite more attacks than any presidential aide in history, he is strolling out of the White House with a smile on his face and the admiration of nearly everyone in the GOP. If he gets bored, there will be plenty of opportunities for him to return to the thing he does best --beating Democrats in November. When he does return, Dems will panic again."
• Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "Today, my hat is off to Mr. Rove for six and a half years of dedicated service to the President he more than anyone was responsible for electing and then re-electing against the odds. Without him, it would have been President Al Gore on 9/11. ... And what of the permanent Republican majority Rove was supposed to build? That's on hold, overtaken by events, and specifically Iraq. It will be left to the next generation to build it."
• Michelle Malkin: "Imagine how much better off the White House and the Republican Party might be now if he had, in fact, left a year ago. Yes, there's the legacy Rove should ponder as he puts his feet up."
• Captain's Quarters: "I'd argue that in this instance, Michelle's making the same mistake as many on the Left do about Rove. Karl Rove did not make policy ... I would agree with her about the lack of political preparation on the Dubai ports deal, but I'm not so sure that Rove was the man to blame for that as much as it was Andy Card and the White House press team."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "I think it might be more a case of unloading some dead weight before the Iraq showdown next month. Bush needs whatever public support he can scrounge up in the interim. This won't hurt on that count."
• Right Wing News: "Rove is generally considered to be a political genius and undoubtedly, he knows a lot about politics and running a campaign. However, his reputation seems a bit undeserved given how disastrous the last two and a half years of the Bush Administration have been."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "The Bush White House initially started out brilliantly in terms of its political operations. Now, those operations are sputtering at best. I might add that I don't want to hear another thing about "compassionate conservatism" ever again, since 'compassionate conservatism' is just politicalese for 'big-government conservatism.'"
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "I think Rove is a cautionary tale for the GOP candidates on a couple of fronts. ... after you win you have to govern. ... Criticism which lapses into disdain for government makes for poor governance. ... Although Republican may not have the same faith in the efficacy of government as Democrats they need to have a committment to making the government we do have effective and minimally competent."
• Andrew Sullivan: "The man's legacy is a conservative movement largely discredited and disunited, a president with lower consistent approval ratings than any in modern history, a generational shift to the Democrats, a resurgent al Qaeda, an endless catastrophe in Iraq, a long hard struggle in Afghanistan, a fiscal legacy that means bankrupting America within a decade, and the poisoning of American religion with politics and vice-versa. ... Rove is one of the worst political strategists in recent times. He took a chance to realign the country and to unite it in a war - and threw it away in a binge of hate-filled niche campaigning, polarization and short-term expediency. His divisive politics and elevation of corrupt mediocrities to every branch of government has turned an entire generation off the conservative label. And rightly so."

IRAQ: Another September Preview

Glenn Greenwald's 8/8 interview with Brookings Scholar Michael O'Hanlon (posted 8/12) about his pro-surge 7/30 New York TimesOp-Ed is being widely linked to in netroots circles. Greenwald comments: "O'Hanlon's answers, along with several other facts now known, demonstrate rather conclusively what a fraud this Op-Ed was, and even more so, the deceitfulness of the intense news coverage it generated." Greenwald highlights this O'Hanlon answer to his question about how O'Hanlon's meetings with Iraqi military and civilian personnel were set up:

Well, a number of those -- and most of those were arranged by the U.S. military. So I'll be transparent about that as well. These were to some extent contacts of Ken and Tony, but that was a lesser number of people. The predominant majority were people who we came into contact with through the itinerary the D.O.D. developed.

Reaction to Greenwald's interview include:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "At what point does the media give up on the so-called "scholars" and "experts"? At what point do they recognize that these are the people that got Iraq wrong from the very beginning, from the WMD to the myth of the purpled-fingered elections to the success of the escalation? How many times do the Very. Serious. People. have to get it wrong to finally lose credibility in the real world?"


• The Huffington Post's David Bromwich: "It turns out to have been an army-guided tour from start to finish. In a political world that valued honesty, the reputations of both men would now be smoking rubble; for it is plain that neither, going into the trip, possessed the slightest local knowledge of Iraq beyond that of a citizen of average diligence."


• firedoglake's TRex: "In short, this "remarkable", "eye-opening" Op-Ed is every bit as spurious and intentionally misleading as Judy Miller's "scoops" in the NYT about Saddam's WMD's. Unfortunately, our national media is so trained to roll over and play dead on command that this patently false representation of the current situation in Iraq was paraded through the city gates and greeted with cheers and accolades and is still being used as a dray horse in the war debate. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, will they ever learn?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Politics Permeates Everything

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat seconds Moira Whelan's thoughts on foreign policy and politics at Democracy Arsenal:

The O'Hanlon/Pollack issue illuminated and many have done a great job digging into the problem we all need to confront. The "Foreign Policy Community" should not be something different and escape accountability or responsibility for Iraq or anything else. The fact is that unlike what some foreign policy specialists would like to believe, these issues have long been partisan because those in charge of the final execution of policy are always partisan. ... Sitting back and expecting that everyone will walk towards the light that is the sound foreign policy as presented by whoever is writing the piece, simply ignores the political realities that exist. Ignoring political realities that exist in other countries is considered irresponsible in foreign policy wonk circles. ... The line between "foreign policy" and "politics" exists only in the minds of some in the Foreign Policy Community.

LEST WE FORGET: Means, Medians, And Patriarchal Master Narrative Cards

Matthew Yglesias pokes fun at those claiming a New York Timesitem explaining how its mathematically impossible for men to have different number of sex partners debunks gender sterotypes suggesting "men are relatively promiscuous, women relatively chaste." Yglesias blogs:

Here's the only problem. When I got my Patriarchal Master Narrative card, I was taught that while men are promiscuous, women come in two types -- virgins and whores. This is perfectly consistent with the basic math saying men and women have to have the same mean number of sex partners. The story just as to be that men have a higher median number of sex partners than do women, and it's a handful of sluts who are making up the difference. Is that accurate? Perhaps not. But these stereotypes are a bit more robust than a simple mathematical screw-up.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:46 PM

August 13, 2007

8/13: Ames' Big Winner

Is it possible the real winner at 8/11'a Ames, IA, straw poll was not even on the ballot (and we do not mean Fred Thompson)? Mitt Romney finished first with 31% and Sam Brownback finished a disappointing third (15%) considering the resources he poured into the event, while Mike Huckabee surprised many with his 18% showing. So where did Huckabee's invisible army come from. Soren Dayton suggests the single issue group FairTax.org may have supplied the ground troops that fueled Huckabee's victory. Huckabee is the only candidate in the field to endorse the group's consumption tax plan (which also reimburses all households for "basic necessities") and the group produced 20-30 busses of supporters to the straw poll. Dayton even suggests the Huckabee campaign was directing supporters in need of transportation to contact the FairTax campaign.

Atlantic's Marc Ambinder has been impressed with the group's showings along the campaign trail, and the group has already tripped up Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson at campaign events. GOPers looking for a populist bread and butter issue might want to consider ending Huckabee's monopoly of support from this group.

BROWNBACK: There's No Place Like Home, There's No Place Like Home

If conservative bloggers have any say in the matter, Sam Brownback will swiftly join Tommy Thompson on the exit ramp off of the road to the WH. After his third place finish in the straw poll, The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez blogs: "I think Sam Brownback ought to consider returning to the Senate."

The diagnosis for Brownback's disappointing finish after pouring in $600K into the poll was also unanimous: his dirty campaign tactics backfired. Townhall's Patrick Ruffini blogs: "This aggressiveness also led them into running the most overtly mean-spirited campaign of the cycle. They haven't been shy about trashing Romney, and unlike McCain, always having their name plastered all over the attack. ... They even questioned Baptist minister Mike Huckabee's Christian bona-fides."

The IA Voice adds: "I've been getting a lot of emails from these guys trashing the other candidates. They ran a very negative campaign, and I thought they were flailing about ... I don't like to see that kind of infighting among Republicans. They can make their case without attacking each other."

HUCKABEE: Mikey Likes It!

Mike Huckabee's surprise second place straw poll showing had many conservatives labeling him the "real winner" of 8/11's contest. Reactions include:

• Captain's Quarters: "the real winner may be the man who spent nothing but time and effort in hopes of breaking out of the second tier. Mike Huckabee showed surprising strength in Iowa ... his strength, and the relative strength of the nonentities that have been Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo in this primary campaign show a real problem for Romney in Iowa."
• Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "The surprise here has to be Huckabee, who reportedly did not bus many people in, and did not have the amenities of Romney or Brownback (air conditioned tent!!)."
• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "I can't shake off how canned all his stories are. But if you're a conservative who doesn't buy Romney and/or resents the slickness and wealth of the Romney operation, there are worse places to park a vote."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Huckabee is dazzling. I've said all along that Huckabee has been the stand out guy in all the debates. He's won several of the debates, even though the media would rather fixate on McCain.
• The Brody File: "We're about to find out if Huckabee can start raising some major cash. What he really needs is for some prominent Evangelical leaders to come out in support of him. That will help him even more with social conservatives looking for a 'sure thing" and one they can count on when it comes to the social issues. If a James Dobson gives him the OK, watch out. That could be game changing in the primaries."

Soren Dayton pieces together some facts (Huckabee had no buses, FairTax had 20-30; Huckabee had little staff and a terrible location; FairTax has tons of people and a good spot; Huckabee is the only candidate to endorse the FairTax) and offers the following hypothesis: "Mike Huckabee's coalition included the FairTax, and they turned out bodies for him." Dayton backs up the story with sn anecdote. A reader in IA contacted the Huckabee campaign to ask how she could get to Ames and was told: "Well, the FairTax bus pick up is such and such. That's how I'm getting there."

PAUL: Not Ready For Prime Time

Despite tickling The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez's "inner idealistic late 80s/90s conservative" with his small government rhetoric, most conservatives were not impressed with Ron Paul's straw poll showing. New York Sun's Ryan Sager was initially impressed with the number of Paul's supporters, but quickly determined that almost all of them were from out of state.

RedState's Erick Erickson was the most unkind, calling Paul supporters "Mostly Anti-War Lefty Hippies" after some Paul supporterssolicited federal intervention to block the voting earlier in the week. Erickson blogs: "Ron Paul has only about 3,000 real supporters nationwide. He's got another 5,000 or so who are just damn dirty liberal hippies in need of real jobs. It's only a matter of time before Cindy Sheehan endorses him."

ROMNEY: Three Yards And A Cloud Of Dust

Conservative reaction to Mitt Romney's straw poll win was split: one camp sought to discredit the entire straw poll; the other portrayed the win as just another step in Romney's deliberate WH '08 strategy. Rudy Giuliani supporter John Podhoretz has a typical Romney-hater reaction at The Corner: "I hate to be nasty, but anybody who takes the Ames Straw Poll results seriously is an idiot. ... The two leaders in the Ames straw poll received a combined total of 7,103 ballots. ... If it's supposed to represent superior organization, then the idea that Romney "did what he had to do" is laughable. I've heard reports that Romney has dropped as much as $4 million in Iowa already. And getting 4,500 people on a bus is all he has to show for it? What am I missing?"

More Romney-friendly reactions include:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Mitt Romney laid out a plan for winning the GOP nomination months ago, and it included, raising the most money, winning some or all of the debates, and winning the Ames straw poll as the key steps to setting up strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, which would at a minimum keep him in the race through the big February 2 showdown, and which might allow him to land a knock-out blow in South Carolina or Florida. ... Over and over again in Romney's professional life you see the goal identified, then the analysis followed by the plan followed by implementation in a disciplined and ultimately successful fashion."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "Where Romney deserves credit is that he has managed to do all the right things to keep himself in the top tier. That's not the faint praise it at first sounds like. ... So his early state strategy has produced leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, along with a win in the Ames straw poll."
• The Brody File: "What this victory says to me is that from day one, the Romney campaign has been extremely organized and active. ... Just like the successful CEO he is, Romney laid the groundwork early for this Straw Poll victory. The Romney campaign is like a fine oiled machine."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "It would have been a disaster had Mitt lost. In a pay to play straw poll, the guy with the most money should win. He out organized and out funded the field and he deserves the credit. Romney is a winner and a real candidate."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "This event will receive much more attention than it deserves, but, for what it's worth, Romney can be said to have achieved the first in a long series of goals."

HRC/LOGO DEBATE: Gays Are Concerned About Issues Other Than Marriage

Whether if it is because few watched the Human Rights Campaign/LOGO debate, or because few of the Dem candidates acquitted themselves well on an important issue to the netroots (gay marriage), debate blogging was light. No candidate won the debate, although Bill Richardson definitely lost. Reactions include:

• The Plank's James Kirchick: "Richardson lost for the simple reason that he's a buffoon and an opportunist--this is nothing new to anyone who's even been remotely watching the race--and his performance on Thursday once again conjured how appalling it was for this man to have represented the United States at the United Nations for nearly two years."
• TPM Cafe's Eric Kleefeld subbing for Andrew Sullivan: "To understand just how bad Richardson's performance last night was ... it's important to realize this: the event was likely never planned around the possibility of a candidate truly losing. ... The way he stumbled over the question of whether homosexuality is a choice was nothing short of disastrous. If any activists were still looking at his resume and feeling tempted, this should just about end it."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "I don't understand why our Presidential candidates don't just say 'Yes, I'm for gay marriage'. It's stupid. ... Obama just criticized Clinton for refusing to call for a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, calling it a 'symbolic insult' to gays. Well, Obama, how about your actual insult to gays in not supporting their right to get married? And you, Senator Clinton? How DARE you call your non-support of gay marriage a 'personal choice'? You're running for President! ... And just to make everyone mad, Edwards sucks on this too."
• firedoglake's TeddySanFran: "I've been asked why I wrote that I wish the questions had been less centered on marriage ... I think, is pretty simple: to be treated the same as everybody else is treated. ...Sure - marriage equality would be great. And while you are at it, America, could we please have job protection, fair housing protection, and legal rights for our families, too?"

DEM FIELD: White Flight

Open Left's Chris Bowers looks at recent Pew and RT Strategies/Cook Political Report polling and concludes: "[John] Edwards and [Barack] Obama are losing the white creative class, leading to Hillary Clinton's recent gains." Nuggets supporting this conclusion include:

• according to Pew, Clinton has gained twelve points on Obama among whites in their polls in March and April (moving from a 30%-22% advantage to a 37%-17% advantage), but only three point among African-Americans (moving from a 46%-36% advantage to a 47%-34% advantage).
• However, among non-whites, Clinton's lead actually dropped slightly from April-July to August, moving from 37%-32% to 40%-36%.
• Clinton's base of support is no longer women, and no longer conservatives. Basically, she has eliminated the "creative class gap" she faced against Obama. At this point, her support only skews heavily among Baby Boomers, those who never went to college, and lower income voters. It is entirely unclear to me what about her message causes this shift.
• Obama's base of support remains the young, the secular, the college educated, and African-American women, but not to the same degrees it once was. Among other things, this actually throws the "history" narrative out the window, or at least allows Obama to strangely corner the market on it. Why are African-American women more supportive of Obama than African-American men?
• Edwards shows virtually no significant demographic skews in his coalition, except that he is less popular among non-whites, and more popular in the Midwest than any other region. This makes me think that it isn't so much that Edwards's poverty message isn't resonating with African-Americans and non-whites per say, but rather than it is mainly resonating with rural and rust-belt voters. His message is connecting to the experience of a certain type of poverty, but not to the widespread urban poverty that is the more common in America.
• For one reason or another, Edwards and Obama are not sealing the deal with the white, urban creative class, and Clinton is using their failure in that regard to further solidify her position in the polls.

EDWARDS: Papa Don't Preach

Speaking of college educated white men skeptical of John Edwards, Blue Hampshire's Mike Caulfield and Open Left's Matt Stoller both describe what bothers them about Edwards poverty message. First Caulfield:

So why pull all these problems under a poverty umbrella? It's pretty simple really. The "poverty problem" is a middle class construction with Christian overtones -- by pulling these together in a poverty platform Edwards gains the right to talk about these in moral terms. It's difficult to talk about the skyrocketing price of milk as a moral issue, but tied to poverty, you can do that. Same with health care, education, childcare, and labor.

This, of course, has been the dream of the Democratic consulting class for a while -- that we on the left can counter the empty moralism of the right with a rousing indictment of our nation's true moral failure: the failure to provide those that fall through the cracks of our economy with enough to live decently.
But it's flawed. It's a pipe dream. ... I think Edwards has some of the smartest policy proposals I've seen. ... Drop the poverty frame, and there's a powerful message to the "bottom 99%" of us that we are more similar than we think, and we should throw our lot in together, not out of charity, but out of common interest.

Stoller adds: "John Edwards is talking about poverty, but he's not talking to poor people. He may say that women's rights are related to economic issues, but Clinton is actually framing her arguments around language women use. Edwards is talking as a college educated white guy to other college educated white guys. It's the white man's burden, and while well-meaning, it's a little racist and annoying."

OBAMA: Chicks Dig Inclusion

An exclusive blogger sit down with bloggers "in the tank" for Barack Obama, is becoming a symbol for why Obama is doing so poorly among non-black women. TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta, who was not invited to the session, has the most definitive report on the event at her personal blog and concludes that only one of the 13-14 bloggers in attendance was a woman.

Franke-Ruta blogs: "Is it that the Obama internet whizzes (and they are whizzes) wandering the halls here are young men who just invite others like themselves to come and meet their candidate? That's often how these things work, alas." MyDD's Melissa Ryan adds: "Women have told me that they're to intimidated to comment and post diaries on political blogs. I think that reluctance comes from a society that discourages women from participating in politics. That's a much larger problem, one that traditional media and political organizations aren't about to tackle."

Open Left's Matt Stoller identifies who is tackling these issues: "Obama's operation is - though ethnically diverse - extremely male ... There is one organization that is willing to tackle these problems, though perhaps not in the way that progressives might especially like. It's called the Hillary Clinton campaign. And right now, it's beating the crap out of all the others."

In more positive Obama blogging, Jack and Jill Politics' rikyrah attended a Women for Obama Event with Michelle Obama, who wowed the "multi-generational Black Beauty" audience dressed in their "Sunday Best."

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: Just As John McCain Shouldn't Be Calling Conservatives Racists, Harold Ford Really Shouldn't Be Calling Kossacks Anti-Semites

Crooks and Liars has full video of DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas Meet the Press appearance with DLC chair Harold Ford. After Markos defended the 'passion' of his commenters, Ford said: "But, but, Markos, in all fairness, your site has posted awful things about Jewish-Americans." Netroots reactions include:

• a Daily Kos commenter: "Are some individuals here anti-Semites? Sure. I defy you to find any diverse group of 130,000-plus individuals anywhere in the United States that doesn't have some anti-Semitic members. But calling us a blog of anti-Semites based on a handful of bad apples is like calling all Christians bloodthirsty psychopaths because of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Interesting, isn't it? When called out for his Lieberman-like habit of trashing Democrats, he responds with talking points straight from the mouth of Bill O'Reilly. Pitiful."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "The theme of the program was much more unites the DLC and the Netroots than separates them. I think that is true. So what are the differences? Kos laid them out eloquently - it is a question of not being afraid to tout Democratic values. Kos argues for contrast with Republicans. The DLC has in the past argued for blurring distinctions. Today, Ford appeared to be abandoning his objection to contrast with Republicans."
• Open Left's Glenn Smith: "For three decades the DLC and other "centrist" advocates used their money to monopolize the Democratic message. And leave the progressive base out in the cold, not spoken to. ... The progressive movement has not just threatened this message monopoly -- it is undoing it. ... Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Competence Dodge Applies To More Than Iraq

Responding to Matthew Yglesias commentary on the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, Atrios blogs:

Opposition to the war in Afghanistan, to the extent that it existed, was premised on the notion that we'd go kill a bunch of people, not help the country afterwards, and ultimately not achieve any strategic goals. Perhaps no one predicted that it would be Iraq that would be the shiny new object which would divert resources, but it certainly wasn't unreasonable to imagine that for a variety of reasons the Bush administration's commitment to reconstruction and aid in Afghanistan would be less than complete.

As has been the case for some many things these past years the choices were never "nothing" or "Pony plan." The choices were always "nothing" or "George Bush's plan." The failure to comprehend that simple fact has prevented members of our very serious crowd of pundits from listening to or admitting to the validity of criticism of so many things. ... For years it's been a verbal tic of many Iraq war opponents to assert "I supported the war in Afghanistan..." as a necessary prophylactic to charges of "unserious peacenik dirty f**king hippie!" The question is dangling, however... "should you have?" At the very least, shouldn't you have tried to open the door to critics who were less than supportive, not because they hate America, but because they were concerned that George Bush would f**k the whole thing up? Because it was hard to imagine that they'd actually go in and rebuild the place?

LEST WE FORGET: Why We Love Jane Hamsher

In a post attacking Bonnie Erbe for writing "Maybe women bloggers should adopt a more 'male' attitude to achieve equality in the blogosphere," firedoglake's Jane Hamsher posts a blurb she received promoting Erbe's PBS show "To The Contrary" on women in blogosphere. Noting that Erbe hosted "a media panel on women in the blogosphere with no actual woman bloggers" Hamsher quips: "People who live in glass houses should f**k in the basement."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:49 PM

August 09, 2007

8/9: A Tale Of Two Fields

So far the GOP and Dem fields have proved to be polar opposites horse race wise. On the Dem side, polling has been steady after Barack Obama's initial media swooning. If anything, Hillary Clinton has slowly built on her lead while the rest of the field has mainly been flat. Also unlike the GOP field, a clear story line has developed among the main contenders. Obama and John Edwards are both competing to be an agent of 'change', while Clinton is selling her 'experience' and hoping a change from Pres. Bush to a Dem WH is change enough.

For the GOP, polling over the last few months been chaotic with John McCain imploding, Rudy Giuliani holding steady, Mitt Romney slowly rising in early states, and Fred Thompson surging late. However, no real story lines have emerged from the field that capture how GOPers will choose between their candidates. They all have their problems, but what are the real distinctions between, say, Giuliani and Romney? Now that Giuliani is contesting IA, that may change. His backward slap at the rest of the field (saying he'd vote for McCain if he was not running) seems to have inspired Romney to hit back on immigration. But what is the overall theme this attack fits into. The GOP race is still under-defined.

One party seems to be deciding what direction their party should go for the next 8 years and the other seems to be deciding who will be the least annoying for the next 18 months.

GOP FIELD: No Surprises

The Corner's John Hood chides those who are surprised by SC's move to stay ahead of FL's 2/5 primary date: "It's been obvious for months that South Carolina was not going to let Florida leap-frog its first-in-the-South primary. It's also been obvious that South Carolina's decision would have a carom-effect on New Hampshire and possibly Iowa. The campaigns have all known about this, and if they don't have plans to adjust strategy and spending to earlier dates, including December ones, they're incompetent. The exact dates may not have been known, but everyone has had the general idea for a while."

Also at The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez speculates that the move hurts Mitt Romney by down playing IA's importance and links to this old NRarticle :

let's review what the Iowa Racket has accomplished for the GOP: It has led to the bizarre proliferation of political novices in the presidential field. It has all but shut down the chances of conservative statesmen to climb the electoral ladder. It has heightened the importance of early money, making it even more difficult for a good candidate to introduce himself. It produces victors who can't win. So why do we keep going back for more?

GIULIANI: Gut Check

NRO's Jim Geraghty wrapped up his email straw poll on how a Rudy Giuliani campaign would effect the number of social conservative GOP volunteers: "[T]his is truly a gut-level issue for a lot of folks, and a lot of readers can justify their stands with passion, eloquence, and compelling arguments.These numbers suggest that while far from all pro-life grassroots Republicans would stay home for Rudy, it's a large enough chunk to concern his campaign and the party as a whole."

MCCAIN: Buddies For Life

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff posted two glowing John McCain posts 8/8, both saying the GOP has "no better friend" than McCain: one post was on property rights; the other on Iraq.

On property rights (the original purpose for the interview) Mirengoff blogs: "John McCain has done a service to the conservative cause by injecting the issue of private property rights into the presidential campaign. McCain's starting point was the Kelo decision ... McCain called this decision "disastrous" and contrary to our Constitution and our system. He found it more in line with the teachings of Karl Marx."

On Iraq: "I asked the Senator whether he agrees with Bill Kristol and others that the political tide is turning here in Washington with respect to Iraq. McCain answered that he doesn't have a clear sense of this one way or another, but he's certain that the military tide has turned in Iraq. He quickly added, however, that this doesn't mean we're looking at 'a day at the beach.'"

ROMNEY: Winnebago's For Peace

Rachel Griffiths, the women who asked Mitt Romney if any of his sons planned to enlist the military, is a Daily Kos diarist and posted her version of the event before the AP first filed their story. The netroots widely linked to the story and Atrios honored Romney with his 'Wanker of the Day' award.

Reaction among conservatives was mixed. Romney defenders included:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The Romney campaign quickly released the YouTube video of the exchange, though given the fundamental inability of the chickenhawk meme to move the average American voter, and the widespread rejection of such logic by the uniformed military, it might have been better to let the "controversy" play out a bit as a way of demonstrating how in the bag the AP is to the anti-war fringe."
• Race4'08s Jason Bonham: "If offering help for a political cause is not supporting your nation, than what is supporting your nation? Only paying taxes and fighting in the army?"
• Right Wing News: "Now, I will grant you that working to get your father elected to political office isn't exactly all that high up on my list of ways to show "support for our nation," but I don't think trying to get a candidate you believe in elected rates a zero on the patriotic "support for our nation" scale either."

Most conservatives, both Romney haters and sympathizers, thought Romney at least missteped:

• Liz Mair at Romney-hate-HQ-Andrew Sullivan: "I entirely agree with the sentiments voiced that Romney's sons campaigning for him is not the same as Iraq-- and that him suggesting it is, is just plain stupid. It takes a certain arrogance to view your candidacy as as important a national struggle as winning an actual war."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Oof. Either this came out wrong or he was caught surprisingly flat-footed by the question; as stated, it sounds awful. For the record, the answer to this question always is, 'Not everyone was born with the courage and commitment to service displayed by the many thousands of left-wing bloggers who enlisted to fight in Afghanistan after 9/11.'"
• Outside the Beltway's James Joyner: "Mitt Romney has given what may be the dumbest answer ever by a presidential candidate. Now, I fully agree with Romney that we have an all-volunteer force and that his sons have every right to decide Army life isn't for them. But, sheesh, let's not pretend campaigning for dad's political ambitions is somehow equivalent to going to war."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "The first part of the answer strikes me as fine - we've got a volunteer army ... While participating in our democratic elections process by volunteering for a campaign is often a good thing, I don't think it ought to be compared to military service... Seems like comparing apples and oranges, to me."

ROMNEY II: Mano E Mano

Conservatives are taking Mitt Romney's attack on Rudy Giuliani over immigration as a sign the field has narrowed down to a two person race. AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein blogs: "Beyond the actual underlying issue, what this says to me is that the GOP candidates are starting to take their gloves off. Perhaps with McCain's chances dimmed and Thompson still undeclared, Romney now has Rudy in his crosshairs. And as far as I can tell this is the first time the Giuliani campaign has really gotten into the mix with a sharp retort.

Townhall's Matt Lewis speculates on the cause in the change of gears: "This seems to be the first time that GOP frontrunners have really gone after each other. Sure there have been dust-ups from second-tier candidates (such as Brownback's attacks on Romney). But in Sunday's debate, Romney had a golden opportunity to go after Rudy on the abortion issue -- and he declined to do so. The only thing that may have changed since then is that Rudy did say he would support McCain (if he, himself, were not running)."

F. THOMPSON: The Summer Of The Sequel Continues

Captain's Quarters thinks Fred Thompson's new 'committee manager' William Lacy is a great fit for the campaign: "Lacy looks like a better fit, in more ways than one. First, Lacy knows Thompson, having run his Senatorial campaign in 1994. He helped Thompson win his one re-election battle in Tennessee, a very successful victory during the Republican revolution that captured Congress. His networking ability and record of success will undoubtedly bring other veterans into the Thompson campaign as well. ... Better yet, Lacy provides Fred with a link to the Reagan administration."

NRO's Jim Geraghty posts a /29 op-ed by Lacy on Thompson's campaign including: "He has no national campaign experience and hasn't been through that large-scale rough and tumble. But he has been tested: In the darkest hours of his political career, when the wheels were about to come off his first campaign, he figured out how to scoop them up, put them on a red truck and drive off into the sunset. ... It was classic Hollywood - a happy ending. I hear they are planning a sequel."

Also, The Brody File posts a memo from ex-TN GOP chair Randle Richardson to Thompson and Lacy explaining that then-TN Christian Coalition pres. John Hanna had "serious concerns about [Thompson's] candidacy.

DEM FIELD: No Fake Seats For Richardson

Blue Hampshire's Mike Claulfield continues his Policy Straw poll, this time asking WH '08ers to distinguish themselves on labor policy:

• From Biden: I am the only candidate to vote for the minimum wage increase that was enacted this fall as part of the Supplemental bill that every other candidate voted against or said they would have.
• From Edwards: I am the only candidate who has participated in over 200 activities during the last three years to support workers across the country.
• From Obama: I am the only candidate whose policies have been shaped by firsthand experience working with communities in Chicago devastated by plant closings and the loss of industrial jobs.
• From Dodd: I am the only candidate who scored 100% on the 2006 AFL-CIO Congressional report card, and I've stood with unions for 32 years.
• From Hillary: Hillary Clinton supports strong environmental and labor standards in trade agreements so that American workers can compete on a level playing field.
• From Kucinich: I am the only candidate who can answer this question without being forced to answer a follow up question for you to know my position on issues that affect the working people in America.
• From Richardson: I am the only candidate for president who has advocated giving organized labor a real seat at the table: when I'm President, I will appoint a union member as my Secretary of Labor.

CLINTON VS OBAMA: 'Anybody But Clinton' Is His Only 'Hope'

Pollster.com/Wisc. Univ. prof. Charles Franklin analyses the claims made by dueling Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama memos and concludes:

Obama enjoyed a nice rise in the polls after he became a candidate following the 2006 election. ... But perhaps he was a "one-hit-wonder" because since April 1 there has been no further upward movement in his national support. If anything there has been a negligible decline to a current estimated support of 22.6%. ... My best estimate of Clinton's current support is 38.8%, a rise of nearly 4 points since the end of April. That four point rise won't sound like much to those accustomed to the noisy variation from poll to poll, but the trend estimator I use has the advantage of aggregating across many polls and hence has a much smaller range of random variability. A move of this much is certainly not negligible.

On the other hand, the Obama memo is quite correct that nomination races are about performance in individual states, not national polls. ... The available state polling substantially agrees with the national polling in putting Clinton ahead of Obama in all five of the first states ... Moreover, Clinton's support is stable or rising in all five states, while Obama has risen substantially in only South Carolina, and perhaps a bit in New Hampshire. In Iowa Obama's support has clearly fallen off, while Nevada and Florida appear essentially flat.

The bright side for Obama is that he still has a considerable upside in public awareness and in favorability, an area where Clinton does indeed seem in some peril among the general electorate. ... The critical question is what happens to the roughly 60% of Democratic voters who currently do not support Clinton. Can they be won over or can Obama (or someone else) become the focus of an "anybody but Clinton" coalition?

Reacting to news that SC may move their primary date up, Open Left's Chris Bowers speculates on what the final primary schedule will look like for Dems (IA 1/4; NH 1/12; NV 1/19; FL and SC 1/29) and concludes: "This is a calendar that greatly enhances the importance of Nevada for Democrats (good for Richardson and Clinton, even for Edwards, bad for Obama)."

CLINTON: Old Fogies Against The Whippersnappers

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas looks at Rasmussen data showing Dems don't believe Hillary Clinton's statement that "lobbyists represent real Americans" but do trust that HRC has not been influenced by lobbyists. Kos comments: "Running against lobbyists -- essentially running against business-as-usual in DC -- is a winner, though Hillary is given more of a benefit of the doubt by both the general public and the Democratic electorate. ... it's clear that Obama and Edwards have seized on the lobbyist defense and will make it a centerpiece of their campaigns moving forward ... And thus two narratives are born -- for the DC-centric candidates (Hillary, Dodd, and Biden) it's 'experience', while for the outsiders (Obama and Edwards) it's 'change'. The negative narratives are, respectively, 'business as usual' and 'inexperience'."

Also looking at Rasmussen data, MyDD's Todd Beeton notes that while Dems have a generic advantage over GOPers on most issues, their specific candidates do not. Clinton, however, does the best: "Notice that Hillary Clinton wins most trusted on all but one issue among all respondents, due in part to the fact that a. she is more popular among Democrats than Rudy Giuliani is among Republicans and b. respondents spread their choices among 4 Republicans and just 3 Democrats. It also reflects the widely held view among her supporters that Hillary Clinton is competent and a problem solver

Open Left's Chris Bowers looks at the latest IA polling and tries to revive his inflated Clinton poll theory: "I am struck by how similar the "least likely" caucus goers in Iowa seem to break along roughly the same lines as national polls. Would anyone bat an eyelash at a national poll showing Clinton 33%, Obama 25%, Edwards 10%, and Richardson 6%? Even though Clinton's number has been higher lately, the similarity is interesting, and might imply that once the campaign heats up post-Iowa, there could be as much flexibility in national numbers as there was in 2004."

Finally, Atrios likes Clinton's mortgages plan, Markos links to Daily Show criticism of HRC on lobbyists, and The Huffington Post's Sara Whitman says she can't for Hillary due to her pandering on GLBT issues.

EDWARDS: We're Getting Dangerously Close To The McCain Zone Here

TAPPED's Tom Schaller thinks John Edwards "did just fine" in the AFL-CIO, but that "Edwards needs to be crushing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama among these voters." Schaller concludes that Edwards is in big trouble: "It's almost Labor Day, and Edwards is slipping in the national polls. He's also now lost the huge Iowa lead he had spent the past two years building up. ... Edwards is not going to win the nomination. That could be a shame for Democrats, too, because he'd be a very hard candidate for the GOP to deal with in 2008."

OBAMA: Going To The Mat For Unilateral Action In Pakistan

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent reports the Barack Obama campaign is sending a vide to supporters highlighting his differences from other WH '08ers on unilateral action in Pakistan. Sargent comments: "That the Obama camp is pushing this vid is another sign that Obama is really shoving all his chips onto this effort to run against the D.C. foreign policy establishment, something which (Obama suggests) includes Hillary and is responsible for engineering our failed foreign policy status quo. It's almost as if Obama is arguing that his willingness to stand up to this establishment is a sign of toughness: They won't push me around. And maybe it is."

Beyond the optics of the Pakistan issue, netroots reaction to the underlying issue remains mixed. Jimmy Carter aide Amitai Etzioni blogs at The Huffington Post: "When Barack Obama was criticized as dovish because he declared himself willing to sit down with the enemies of the state, he responded by turning suddenly hawkish -- calling for U.S. military strikes within Pakistan. ... That is the way Bush was egged on early in his term to seem tough by beating up on Saddam's Iraq. ... I stand with Senator Obama in favoring in principle the extension of this key idea beyond our borders, both in working with our allies and in trying to bring our adversaries into at least some kind of dialogue. It is hence quite disconcerting when he suddenly flashes some claws, especially since they are such a sudden and unbecoming acquisition. Such out of character toughness makes him seem like an opportunistic hack."

With an opposite reaction at The Huffington Post, Cenk Uygur both absolves Obama of any blame for the current rioting in Pakistan that followed Obama's comments, and then makes the case that if Osama bin Laden is captured soon, the credit should go to Obama for stepping up the pressure on Pervez Musharraf.

Finally, TPM posts video from Obama's Yearly Kos breakout session.

BLOGGERS VS BLOGGERS: Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

Matt Drudge linked to news that MyDD founder and 'Crashing The Gates' co-author Jerome Armstrong settled an SEC complaint against him for $30K. Armstrong consented to the judgment without admitting or denying any of the SEC's allegations, except as to jurisdiction.

Conservatives were not forgiving in their reaction to the news and the netroots were unrepentant. One Daily Kos diarist responded to Drudge's item with the header: "Closeted Homosexual Matt Drudge slams DailyKos." The diarist goes on: "Famous self-hating closeted homosexual and right wing propagandist blogger Matt Drudge has taken aim at the DailyKos community today."

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: Is Our Dems Learning?

Dem acquiescence to Pres. Bush's FISA reform legislation still has the netroots ruminating on the overall success of their movement. Open Left's Matt Stoller takes an optimistic view comparing "the nadir of the Democratic Party's history, the October 2002 war vote" to the FISA vote, and finds "a significant shift from earlier Congressional caucuses" in the progressive direction. Bowers concludes: "Today, not only has the party's base grown, intensified and increased its participation, but the party elites have moved much further to the left to go along with that shift than I had realized, rebuffing and embarrassing Democratic leaders on trade, telecom, energy, and the war in Iraq."

More alarmist than Stoller, The Left Coaster's Steve Soto worries that the FISA vote is a preview for 9/07 votes on Iraq: "And if you think that this won't be repeated again when Petraeus issues his report in September, think again. ... White House knows that the Blue Dog Democrats, some of who were elected last year with netroots support, will wet their pants when threatened with the bloody shirt and do whatever Bush wants them to do on the war."

Also taking on the Blue Dogs in the party who voted for FISA, ex-Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) links the Blue Dog's who voted for the FISA reform with Michael Vick's alleged dog torture at The Huffington Post: "We should contact Appropriations Chairman Senator Byrd who in tears raged against Michael Vick for his treatment of dogs. ...We should also beg that pundits and commentators please be equal opportunity critics and split their indignation between Michael Vick and the Blue Dog ringmasters.

Finally, set your Tivo's, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas will be taking on DLC chair Harold Ford on Meet the Press 8/11.

IRAQ: A Mixed Bag

Conservative bloggers played up Gen. David Petraeus' appearance on Alan Colmes radio show 8/7, challenging their opponents to continue 'slander'ing the General. Robert Bluey explains:

Liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald made a mountain out of a molehill last month when he accused the U.S. military of granting an "exclusive" interview with Army Gen. David Petraeus to conservative talker Hugh Hewitt. Greenwald wrote to Petraeus' public affairs officer, requesting to have the general on the Alan Colmes Show, where Greenwald is a contributor. Of course, you wouldn't know anything about Petraeus' appearance from reading Greenwald's blog today. There's no mention of the fact that Petraeus spent 30 minutes talking to a liberal - the same liberal, in fact, whose show Greenwald requested him to appear on as a guest. Go figure.

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat posts a partial transcript including this exchange:

• COLMES: The surge strategy has been referred to by some as the Petraeus Doctrine and when you and Ambassador Ryan Crocker report to Congress on September 15, it would be unlikely for you to report that your own strategy isn't working, right?


• PETRAEUS: Well, I have vowed that I will provide a forthright and comprehensive assessment and I'm not going to pull punches, and I have all along, frankly, reported setbacks as well as successes and we intend to do that when we go back and it will not be an unblemished report. ... The interim benchmark report was not an unblemished report. It's more of a mixed bag.

Finally, Matthew Yglesias links to a Center for American Progress compilation of "various Friedman Unit-esque pronouncements" on Iraq.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: No

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links to Washington Postreporting on a NAEP study showing more high schoolers demonstrated proficiency in economics than reading or math. Drum comments: "Question: how can you be "proficient" in economics if you aren't also proficient in reading and math? Does that make any sense?"

LEST WE FORGET: Bald Android Assistant's Love National Review

The Corner links to Magnificent Bastard's Top 10 Ways To Look Like A Total Tool Bag, including:

• 8. bluetooth headset - 1. Trust us, you're not that important; 2. You're now just one-degree removed from Lando Calrissian's bald android assistant.
• 5. national review magazine - In close association with bad style, bad politics.
• 1. crocs - Here's a good rule to live by: Never wear the same shoes as your 5-year-old nephew.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:52 PM

August 08, 2007

8/8: Just The Beginning?

Dennis Kucinich may have stolen the show, but the developing dynamic between establishment Dems Chris Dodd and Joe Biden teaming up to hit Barack Obama over Pakistan may be a preview of how Obama closes the gap between himself and Hillary Clinton. Perhaps it was just the home-field advantage, but the crowd clearly bought into Obama's response to Dodd in particular. The response was no different on the comment boards of the netroots. If Obama can continue to produce clear distinctions between himself and the DC establishment/HRC (no lobbyist cash, more eager to speak to Americas enemies, more willing to talk openly about use of force in Pakistan), then he just may be able to start consolidating the Anybody But Clinton crowd.

DEM DEBATE: After Going Before The AFL-CIO In Chicago, Hillary Should Demand A NOW Debate in Seneca Falls

Barack Obama claimed his first victory in a Daily Kos "who had the best performance" straw poll 8/7, edging site favorite John Edwards 28%-25%. Judging by the difference between their last regular straw poll performance and the debate straw poll, Dennis Kucinich was the clear winner of the night improving from his 7/23 4% showing, to the 19% of Kossack respondents who thought he won the debate 8/7. Hillary Clinton also made a string impression (17% of respondents thought she won the debate, up from her 9% showing in the 7/23 straw poll).

DEBATE BIDEN: Kissing Babies And Not Dissing Widows ... It's Politics 101

Joe Biden's non-answer to the Sago mine widow's question on mine safety went over as well in the netroots as it did among the labor audience that booed him. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas blogs: "Psst, Biden? When a widow who lost her husband in a tragic job-related disaster asks you question in a labor forum, you don't blow her off. Although really, if any widow asks you any question, it's still best not to blow her off."

The Biden bashing allowed one Daily Kos commenter to get off this line: "Biden has single-handedly f****d more Americans than Wilt Chamberlain with his 2005 Bankruptcy bill. He can talk a good game from time to time, but don't kid yourself - he's playing for the other team."

DEBATE CLINTON: Not Everybody's Girl

For many in the netroots, Hillary Clinton's attack on Barack Obama over his Pakistan comments reinforced everything they don't like about her. Open Left's Matt Stoller blogs: "I'm watching the AFL-CIO debate, and Clinton has made some more major mistakes that open her up to charges of being an elitist and out-of-touch insider. In the argument over Pakistan, Clinton just said that if you are running for President you 'shouldn't say everything you think', and got booed."

Matthew Yglesias had similar thoughts: "That said, on the merits Hillary Clinton's notion that it's inappropriate to debate Pakistan policy in public doesn't really make sense to me. Just deciding that we can trust our overlords to do the right thing -- even if they're Democratic Party overlords -- hasn't worked out extremely well for us in the past. That's how we got into Iraq." A Daily Kos commenter couldn't believe the MSM scored the exchange on HRC's favor: "Who gets booed the way Clinton was booed and gets declared the "winner"? She lost the crowd on several issues, then the crowd loved Obama smacking her ... She didn't tank - but worst performance so far and dealing with the real middle class working dems isn't her forte."

Clinton still found her fans though. Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt makes the case the crowd wasn't even booing her: "I've watched the replay twice. Her answer was done, there were no boos until [Keith] Olbermann interjected asking Chris Dodd to respond. That's when the audience began booing. I think they were booing Olbermann for giving Dodd instead of Obama the chance to respond."

Reno and Its Discontent's Myrna Minx thought Clinton had a strong day over all: "Not only did she unveil the perfect middle class issue today by raising the specter of increasing home foreclosures and excoriating the mortgage industry for its greedy practices ... Clinton then went on to turn the ideas of the "vast right wing conspiracy" and her lack of "electability" back on themselves during tonight's debate. Seriously brilliant. She also endeared herself to many be using the phrase "I'm your girl," particularly those who feel threatened by her gender and assertiveness. Clinton is making it harder and harder for people to label her unelectable.

DEBATE EDWARDS: On Fourth And Ten He Came Up With Nine

Netroots expectations for John Edwards were high and it does not look like he met them. Before the debate one MyDD commenter wrote: "This debate may settle the nomination for good. If Edwards can't complete any deep passes tonight ... he is done." After the debate another Kossack wrote: "I agree with Willy Brown that Edwards did not do what he had to do. If anyone needs the support of labor, it's Edwards. I don't think he's gonna get it after tonight."

Edwards was involved in two memorable moments during the debate, and he did not distinguish himself on either. First, Joe Biden's attack Edwards pre-presidential campaign record on labor did draw blood. Edwards did have his netroots defenders on the issue, but others saw damage done.

Next Edwards was given the opportunity to respond to the most emotional question of the night from, disabled retired steel worker Steve Skvara. AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay liveblogged: "Very compelling health care question to Edwards from a worker who lost his pension and his health care when his company filed bankruptcy. Edwards gave a pretty good answer, but he could have nailed this one." A MyDD commenter was even less impressed: "That was an amazing moment. It was the simple statement "What is wrong with America?" but it said it all. Edwards dropped the ball and ended up giving his stump speech. The man did not want to be blessed he wanted what should be the birth right of every American to have decent affordable healthcare."

DEBATE KUCINICH: Every Leprechaun Has Its Day

Dennis Kucinich far out-performed expectations. Positive reactions include:

• Crooks and LiarsLogan Murphy: "The most outstanding remarks early on in the forum came from Congressman Dennis Kucinich. The question was on China and whether they should be considered a friend or foe. Kucinich brought the house down with his comments, even the other candidates couldn't hold back."
• a Daily Kos commenter: "He really surprised me tonight. I found myself several times getting excited when he would talk, which does not happen that often."
• another Kossack: "Kucinich did not equivocate over NAFTA or the WTO, all out labor, health care and pensions. A solid performance that I though was a stronger one for labor than Edwards."

DEBATE OBAMA: No Lecturing Him On Foreign Policy

However it may play in DC, the netroots scored the exchange over Pakistan as a huge win for Barack Obama. Reactions include:

• Crooks and LiarsLogan Murphy: "The most heated moments from tonight's AFL-CIO forum came when the topic turned to Senator Barack Obama and his claim for the last debate that he would invade Pakistan to fight terrorism, even without permission from President Pervez Musharraf.... Obama stands his ground and jabs Dodd and Clinton for voting for the invasion of Iraq, then turning around and attacking him "for making sure we are on the right battlefield, and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism," which drew huge applause from the audience."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Dodd took a smack at Obama based on a question from Keith about a criticism made about Obama on foreign policy. Obama then gave a very, very strong response -- this was a good moment for him. Obama pointed out that he's getting criticized by people who got us into the mess in Iraq when we went after the people who didn't attack us. Sounded like Clinton's response got booed."
• a Daily Kos commenter: "Obama's smack down of Hillary/Dodd was the grand slam of the evening and he had other good moments."
• another Kossack: "Obama's running an outsider's campaign and all the others took the insider's perspective that even the broadest foreign policy questions are MYOFB. He was in the minority, but on the defensive? Hardly. He was the only one with a policy. As for bringing up the AUMF, Obama skewered Dodd. He's done it before, he'll do it again, every time someone gives an inside the beltway lecture."

LANDSCAPE: Base Jump

Challenged by NDN founder Simon Rosenberg to investigate whether Dems received a greater surge in votes from self-identified Dems or self-identified Independents, Open Left's Chris Bowers crunches the numbers on '04 and '06 exit polls and finds the growth from Dems was 2.41% while the growth from I's was 2.08%. Bowers comments: "This is rather surprising, but it does seem to be the case that Democrats won 2006 just as much by exciting the rank and file as anything else. I am actually kicking myself right now for not realizing this sooner, as it is the sort of statistic I pride myself on digging up. This would have been extremely useful to combat the post-election narrative that Democrats won in 2006 by being centrist, conservative, or in anyway breaking from their own party."

DEM FIELD: Labor Wants To Love A Winner

Labor Research Ass. dir/'06 NY SEN primary challenger Jonathan Tasini explains why labor is hesitant to endorse labor despite their appreciation for his efforts at The Huffington Post: "At this point, the conventional perception is that, if unions went with their heart, they'd endorse John Edwards. But, many of the union leaders are being influenced by the measures that are influencing the media coverage and some public perceptions: polls, money and celebrity. And, as a result, some of the unions might decide to stay neutral for some time and, perhaps, even stay out of the primary fight period. ... The bottom line, however, is that there is a strong desire within labor to retake the White House so, like many of the Democratic constituencies, the labor movement is ready to work hard for whoever emerges from the fray."

CLINTON: Like The Dead, She's Better In Person

Atrios had two unconnected thoughts while watching coverage of 8/7s debate. First, he explains his aversion to Hillary Clinton after seeing Terry McAuliffe on television: "[W]hen I see him on the teevee I realize my resistance to Clinton is largely due to a desire to flush out the Clintonite shadow government and move on to the new. It isn't that I'm strongly opposed to these people, it's that I'm opposed to the permanent Washington floating world and my belief that anything which disrupts the permanent class is, in and of itself, a good thing."

In a more generous post, Atrios allows: "[W]hen people see Clinton in person they're shocked that she doesn't come across as her cold and uncaring caricature. Oddly, she does come across that way on the teevee. It's weird. ... just realized I overstated the case a bit. I don't think Clinton comes across horribly on teevee, but the fact is that in person she's actually really good."

Also criticizing HRC, The Reality Based Community's Mark Kleiman admits Tom Edsall "has forgotten more about the uses of money in politics than I'll ever know" but disagrees with his claim that John Edwards and Barack Obama are just as un-pure as Clinton when it comes to campaign cash: "So I think Edwards and Obama are right, and Clinton is wrong. Her decision to accept lobbyists' checks is part and parcel of her decision to play the existing crooked game by its current crooked rules, just like her decision to employ as a key campaign adviser the CEO of a company with a lucrative union-busting practice."

DODD: Stop Insulting People's Intelligence

MyDD's Jonathan Singer interviewed Chris Dodd, including this segment on Barack Obama and John Edwards claims to take no money from Washington lobbyists:

I found the argument almost insulting to the audience. ... So you're getting money from trial lawyers, and you're getting money from Chicago, Los Angeles... People, this "Washington lobbyists" is a nice bumper sticker, but don't insult the intelligence of people out here. ... As someone who has been an advocate for a long time of public financing, people sort of competing with each other as to how many lobbyist checks they won't receive in all of this misses the point, it seems to me, in many ways. And, again, it's to some degree because saying "Washington lobbyist", as if a lobbyist from every other place around the country is okay and they're the only ones who are wrong is trite and superficial.

OBAMA: How Did Those Strikes Based On Actionable Intelligence Turnout Anyway?

The dynamics between Barack Obama and establishment foreign policy thinking aside, there is little netroots consensus on the wisdom of Obama's Pakistan comments. TPM Cafe's Reed Hundt defends Obama: "Suppose you are the President of the United States. The CIA tells you that they've spotted Osama bin Laden having tea under a tent in Afghanistan. Would you launch an airstrike? Suppose you are told that he's in a factory in Sudan. Would you launch an airstrike? Didn't both situations occur during the Clinton Administration? And wasn't the President criticized for not launching the attack in case one and for launching it in case two? What principle is at work here? Surely hot pursuit of Osama anywhere in the world is or ought to be the American policy."

The Huffington Post's Earl Ofari Hutchinson argues Obama slipped up: "When Obama said that he would talk to America's pariahs ... it made some sense. But unfortunately Obama didn't stop there. He popped off about mounting search and destroy operations in Pakistan, a key U.S. ally. Obama came off as worse than naive and confused. He came off as a walking foreign policy contradiction."

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent tracks Politico coverage of Dem reaction in IA and highlights this voter question: "Aren't you really buying into the George Bush doctrine of fighting terrorism by attempting to hunt down and kill terrorists?"

OBAMA II: No Really, You Look Like Ron Jeremy

While watching post-Dem debate spin Matthew Yglesias mentions: "I hadn't realized until this very segment with Chris Matthews that David Axelrod sports that preposterous moustache -- he should consider a shave."

Not mentioning Axelrod by name, Atrios blogs: "At some point I wish Democratic campaigns would learn that the talents which make you wonderful "senior advisers" or whatever don't necessarily make you a great spokesperson. Find some really smart and beautiful people and train them. It's an acting job."

And as long as were on truly substantive subjects, Obama Girl debuted her latest video at The Huffington Post.

GOP FIELD: Hillary Can Not Save Them

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini reviews the latestroundof GOPworry over how to "reinvigorate our movement online" and warns against assuming that a Hillary Clinton nomination will automatically solve the problem. Ruffini blogs: "

The basic assumption is sound. The online right was ascendant in the Clinton years, just as the online left was in the Bush years. Opposition galvanizes political movements, and not just online. ... But a lot of folks also hoped that we'd be at least partly there by now. ... At this point in the Clinton years, MoveOn had already started. Perhaps the analog to that is the immigration issue, where the right kicked ass. But, again, what did we create with the immigration issue? Where is the million person email list of people who got involved because of immigration, and can now be activated on other issues? It sounds like people were thinking of the right techniques for radio, but not for online. ... And, finally, is there any way this gets started without Hillary Clinton? I've read the same history books, and I don't think the New Right was built on personal animus towards JFK and LBJ - and it thrived in power in the '80s.

GIULIANI: SoCons To Vote, But Not Work For, Rudy?

After reading Soren Dayton worries that a Rudy Giuliani nomination would require "a whole new set of volunteers" since "pro-lifers form a significant portion of the GOP activist base" and "will not volunteer for Rudy," NRO's Jim Geraghty asked his activist pro-life readers: "[W]ould [you] go out and do the similar work for a ticket headed by Giuliani as you have done for Bush, etc., in the past."

Later, Geraghty reports: "I've gotten heavy response from readers so far. I'd put it about a quarter to one third, 'no problem volunteering for Rudy to save the country from Hillary,' one quarter to a third, 'Eh, wouldn't volunteer for Rudy, but I'd focus on GOP pro-life candidates in state/local races' and one half or a bit less saying 'Nope, I'd stay home, no help for a party that nominates Rudy.'"

Turning back to whether he will get the nomination, The Brody File reports form Webster City, IA: "Iowa voters tend to be more socially conservative so it's important that Giuliani speak to their concerns about abortion. But I'm not convinced he has to actually win the argument. ... As long as these voters feel comfortable that the Mayor is sincere in his beliefs to not roll back recent pro-life gains, that may be enough."

The Corner's Rich Lowry observes: "I forget the exact rule, but I believe in recent memory pretty much every Republican leading in the Gallup poll a year out from the convention has won the nomination. The year-out mark is in about a month and Rudy is still holding a solid lead in Gallup. "

HUCKABEE: Forgiveness Not On The Yellow Brick Road

The Brody File sat down with Mike Huckabee in LeMars, IA, and asked him to respond to Sam Brownback demands that Huckabee personally apologize for an email a supporter of his sent out criticizing Brownback's Catholicism. Huckabee responded:

When Christians start attacking each other, it's really unbecoming, but the person who committed the offense did apologize. And when a person who is a Christian asked another Christian brother for forgiveness, the answer is always supposed to be 'yes.' That pastor who sent a private e-mail to two people ... has apologized profusely.

Huckabee also told Brody that the lack of support he is receiving from fellow evangelical leaders "will have a chilling effect on future evangelicals wanting to run for office."

MCCAIN: Even Hillary Gets It

The Corner's Rich Lowry picks up on Hillary Clinton's defense of Lobbyists at Yearly Kos and quips: "Hurrah for Hillary for saying at the Kos convention what John McCain has never seemed really to want to understand: lobbyists represent real people and their interests in Washington."

PAUL: Nobody Would Lose Better

The Corner's John Derbyshire shares an email from an American in Europe making the case that Ron Paul can be a Barry Goldwater-like sacrificial lamb "to remind the party we're here and set up some influence for 2012." From the email:

Only a Ron Paul candidacy has any hope of focusing on fundamentals again, cutting through the web of confusion surrounding them, and eliciting any new, creative thought. ... only a Ron Paul candidacy has any chance of challenging and bringing into question the 'business as usual' attitude of the K Street lobbies, pork-barrel congressmen, and the spiraling bureaucracy. ... Only Ron Paul has the ability to bring a new group of people into politics, people who are committed, like the Goldwater activists of 1964, to taking a different approach to government. Only a Ron Paul candidacy has any hope of bringing new blood and new ideals into politics.

ROMNEY: Purity Fatigue

At Ankle Biting PunditsJohn McCain aide Patrick Hynes says Mitt Romney's nomination "may be inevitable at this point" but argues that Romney's new support for a human life amendment in the GOP platform would be a flip-flop from an earlier promise not to do so. Hynes adds: "Republicans are likely to learn, as Democrats did in 2004, that nominating a man with so malleable a set of principles is a dreadful mistake."

Meanwhile, The Corner's Rich Lowry links to Sam Brownback attacks on Romney's abortion record and comments: "[P]ersonally I find this debate over pro-life purity tiresome."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Ezra Klein Is A Childless 24 Year Old

The Plank's Jonathan Chait links to the following Ezra Klein reaction to data showing Baby Einstein DVDs do not increase baby vocabulary. Klein blogged: "Turns out that plopping your kids in front of the television for hours on end with only an intelligence-enhancing DVD to care for them does not, in fact, raise geniuses." Chait responds:

I hear a lot of this sentiment from people who don't have children: Ha ha! Your attempts to raise super-geniuses have failed! ... But when you're alone with your baby for hours on end, and especially when you haven't been able to sleep more than three hours without being woken up in months, sometimes you want to eat a meal or read the newspaper. You need something to occupy the baby, and a Baby Einstein video -- which tends to make the babies smile and coo -- is better than making them stare at the ceiling for twenty minutes.
The misconception among the childless is that Baby Einstein videos are a tool for hyper-competitive parents. The real hyper-competitive parents are the ones who can overcome a state of total exhaustion to read, play, and tell stories to their baby for hours on end without ever needing a coffee break.

LEST WE FORGET: Mmmmm, Banana Twinkies...

Tyler Cowen shares what he learned reading Steve Ettlinger's Twinkie, Deconstructed: My Journey to Discover How the Ingredients Found in Processed Foods Are Grown, Mined (Yes, Mined), and Manipulated Into What America Eats:

There are entire companies which do nothing but break eggs open for other companies; the largest such egg-breaking company is based in Elizabeth, New Jersey. ... I also learned that a twinkie is about half sugar, sulfuric acid is the most produced chemical in the world, sugar is used to clean out cement mixers, phosphate rock and limestone make Twinkies light and airy, Twinkies' butter flavor is created out of gas, Twinkies contain only one preservative (sorbic acid), and the original 1930 Twinkies were filled with banana flavor, not vanilla.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:37 PM

August 07, 2007

8/7: Is Hope Enough?

On the day John Edwards unveiled his new stepped-up criticism of Bill Clinton's free-trade legacy, he couldn't have scripted a better visual than a concrete plant owner showing up at the Teamsters picket line Edwards was supporting with a "Hillary for President" sign. No one has better embraced labor and populism than Edwards, and his willingness to question establishment orthodoxies on trade and other popular issues uniquely positions him to capitalize on HRC's refusal to disavow lobbyist cash. Barack Obama is currently better branded as an agent of 'change' in the general public (opinion is split between Obama and Edwards in netroots circles). Will Edwards embrace of populism force Obama to move left to retain his 'change' image? Or is 'the politics of hope' enough?

GIULIANI: Single Issue, Pro-Life Voters Don't Eat At Diners

The Brody File is on the trail with Rudy Giuliani in IA and has video of their discussion at a Webster City diner. Brody comments: "He likes his chances in Iowa even though he trails Romney here. By the way, not once during the question and answer session with diner patrons did he get asked any sort of hot button social issue type question."

Following up on Brody File reporting from 8/6 on Giuliani's plans for increasing adoptions, AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin first quotes Brody: "Giuliani needs to hope that this type of talk will satisfy religious conservatives. It's important that when Giuliani delivers this speech that ... he speaks from his heart about how this issue is very important. ... At the end of the day ... lets face it: if Giuliani is solid on judges then that trumps everything else." Rubin adds: "Does he win the single issue pro-life voters? Unlikely. Does he get a chunk of voters who consider themselves to be social conservatives but for whom abortion alone may not be the deciding issue? That's what he's aiming at."

Also speculating on Giuliani's strategy, The Corner's Rich Lowry offers his belated take on 8/5 GOP debate: "

So far this year the race has been a competition between Romney's traditional model (become pro-life, bank everything on the early states) and Rudy's non-traditional model (don't become pro-life, bank it all on Feb. 5) ... But one of the things that has impressed me most about Rudy's campaign is how shrewdly and seamlessly he has slid to the right on key issues (immigration most importantly). There is still room for him to move right on abortion without becoming pro-life and if his campaign is as shrewd on abortion as it has been on other issues, he'll do it. If he can start to talk about his conservatism having three legs to its stool like Romney does, he will have at least minimized a huge strategic vulnerability.

Race4'08s DaveG links to Lowry and makes the case that Giuliani already has three legs to his stool [Romney's legs being social conservatives, foreign policy hawks, and economic conservatives]: "No, a third leg for Rudy's stool, and one that would be quite compatible with his current prongs of Thatcherite economics and a Churchillian foreign policy is best described as the leg of constitutionalism. ... A constitutionalism leg would encompass Rudy's current support for the Second Amendment, as well as his decision to leave marriage laws to the states to work out, as well as his support for conservative judges. Further, it would be the polar opposite of the "strong families" prong, as a constitutionalism leg implicitly suggests that there are limits to state power, while the families prong implies the opposite."

GIULIANI II: They Only Target The Ones They Love

Open Left's Chris Bowers is pleased by progress on his 'anti-Giuliani Googlebomb campaign.' After three weeks a story on Giuliani's non-invitation to speak with a firefighter union is #10 on Google, a Rolling Stone story calling Rudy "worse than Bush" is #25, and a story on Giuliani's Iraq Study Group absenteeism is #26.

ROMNEY: Something That Rhymes With Schmashmortion

As memories of Mitt Romney's Barack Obama line ("I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.") begin to fade, most conservative discussion of the debate has focussed on Romney's exchange with Sam Brownback over abortion. Romney haters Philip Klein and Liz Mair respond:

• Klein at AmSpec: "It's also worth noting the absurd standard that Romney introduced in the debate that the best way to learn about somebody's positions "is not to ask their opponent, it's to ask them." ... I say it's absurd because there's no way he can ever stick by that standard, and when he starts running attack ads, his opponents (whether Republican or, if he makes it that far, Democrat) can use his comments in this debate against him."
• Mair at Andrew Sullivan: "Ultimately, either records matter, or they don't. And if Romney is saying they don't, then I very much hope that in the run-up to the primaries, we will not be subjected to any attack-ads bashing his opponents for votes they have taken, bills they have signed and so on. ... Romney's record just isn't where the majority of Republicans are going to want it to be."

Also at AmSpec, James Antle and Jennifer Rubin weigh in:

• from Antle: "Romney has been bobbing and weaving on abortion ever since he began running for elective office in 1994. Frankly, I think he probably has always held antiabortion views and merely adopted a pro-choice stance to be electable in Massachusetts, but that's only informed speculation from watching him in action for the past decade. But his abortion gymnastics make it hard to trust him on a variety of issues, not just those related directly to life. It cuts to his overall credibility.
• from Rubin: " Romney is saying he was always pro-life personally but regrets not making the leap to advocating a pro-life public policy/legal position sooner. Who wins this duel? I think any candidate not involved in this back and forth."

RCP Blog's Tom Bevan posts a Brownback campaign video response to the exchange, and RedState's Erick Erickson's belated debate review also is tough on Romney: "The most striking thing from this debate is how badly Gov. Romney performed. His dust up with Sen. Brownback was defensive in the extreme and his reluctance to go after Mayor Giuliani immediately on the heels of going after Brownback made him seem wishy-washy. ... What a panderer!"

In more positive Romney blogging, Brody File readers defended Romney's performance on a hidden video taken during a break during an IA talk radio interview. After viewing the video, Brody readers did not agree that Romney was in an 'agitated state' after the host questioned Romney's Mormon faith. From one email: "My personal view is that I like him even more after seeing this. He stood up for himself, was passionate, intelligent, and seems to have a good handle on the meaning of separation of church and state, which is very important to me."

F. THOMPSON: A Campaign About ...

In advance of his upcoming National Review profile The Corner's Byron York shares Fred Thompson's thoughts on recent criticism of his wife: "In the interview, Thompson said criticism of his wife should be directed at him, because she is acting at his behest." AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin responds: "As I have written before, the Jeri story line matters only in so far as it adversely affects the campaign and the appearance that Thompson is the captain of the ship. Interestingly, this is precisely the point that Thompson seeks to address -- declaring that she was acting at his behest."

Rubin also reviewed the relaunch of Thompson's non-campaign website, and she was not impressed: "it is very attractive. The biggest problem: so far there is very little there, there. The only item listed in "principles" is federalism which features a shortened version of Fred discussing what was previously the subject of a blog. It contains no new policy ideas nor substantive recommendations on how to implement federalist principles. ... Other than to satisfy anxious supporters I'm not sure what the purpose of the relaunch was."

In other Jeri Thompson news, NRO's Jim Geraghty shares revelations that Jeri is not in fact a lawyer and predicts: "Does this mean we can expect another round of predictable "trophy wife" articles?"

BIDEN: Where Joementum Never Dies

Blue Hampshire's Mike Caulfield interviewed Joe Biden manager Luis Navarro, including this Navarro explanation on how Biden could pull off the nomination: "So long as the sequential order [of the primaries] is the same, we feel confident that our premise, which is a momentum candidacy premise, will remain intact. If we finish in the top three in Iowa, we will become competitive with whoever is ahead of us because we will have come the furthest in terms of beating expectations. And that earned media will play a much more decisive role at that time than whatever money has been spent up until that point."

CLINTON: It's Almost As If Female Bloggers Sympathize With Her More

Hillary Clinton still has her netroots defenders, but her defense of lobbyist money continued to draw strong netroots criticism 8/6. Thoughts include:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "But I think Clinton screwed up pretty badly and showed her insider elite mindset, and did it on video where it can be exploited by other candidates. Her most significant screw-up was the flub on lobbyists where she defended the profession. Keeping union-buster Mark Penn on staff as chief strategist is one thing, but overtly making the argument that lobbyists are people too, you know, and doing it on video, is brutal.
• Open Left's Mike Lux: "I think she did hurt herself politically with the lobbyist answer, and Edwards and Obama will, if they are smart, use that against her from here on out. I thought she froze on the lobbyist money question, and gave a completely defensive answer, and I wish she had been more honest about it.
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Clinton is right that there are some lobbyists who are indeed working on behalf of good causes ... Certainly this is not an answer that works particularly well on a political level, but it is one that at least ... suggests at least some level of thought. Merely throwing out words like "I think it's a position that John has certainly taken" ... does not. ... And as a result, at least some of the Clinton's luster, particularly that she is a candidate who may not always excite but will rarely if ever let down, may have been lost this weekend.

Beyond Chron's Paul Hogarthwrote about his displeasure with HRC's answers at her post-forum breakout session. Hogarth recounts his question about whether Clinton would be willing to repeal DOMA, the '96 Telecom Act, NAFTA, and welfare reform, and then comments on her answer: "Her answer to my question was absolutely awful. Like her statements in the Debate, it exposed her as an anti-progressive triangulator - and was the tensest moment of the break-out session. If Democrats wake up and realize that the Bill Clinton years (although far better than the Bush years) had some serious issues and we cannot trust Hillary to be a progressive leader to get us out of the wilderness, she can be defeated."

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt was also at HRC's break out session, but she had a much more positive recollection of the event: "Reportedly, there were 350 people who chose to attend Hillary's breakout session over those of the other candidates. That's 1/4 of those who attended Yearly Kos. I think any notion that Hillary was not enthusiastically welcomed at Yearly Kos is wrong. I thought she excelled during the breakout. As you can see from the entirety of the clip (not just my portion) she was cheered throughout." TPM also has video of the breakout session and the lobbyist money exchange.

EDWARDS: A Picture Worth A Thousand Blog Posts

John Edwards netroots supporters are eagerly playing up a Sioux City, IA, Teamsters strike that featured the concrete plant owner coming to greet John Edwards on the pickett line with a "Hillary for President" sign. A Daily Kos diarist notes that while 'Hillary has never endorsed [the plant owner] ... I hope Senator Clinton comes out and walks the picket line also. Those strikers need all the help they can get."

The incident could not have been a better illustration for Edwards stepped up criticism of Bill Clinton's economic legacy. David Sirota blogs: "I'm thrilled to see what he's doing. Edwards unveiled a fair trade agenda in his speech and will be on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight to discuss it. Whether you are for Edwards or not is not important - what's important here is that for the first time, we are seeing the unholy alliance between corporate lobbyists and trade policymakers in Washington get exposed at the presidential level for helping fuel a culture of corruption that is harming America's middle class."

MyDD diarist Tar Heel also tied the NAFTA criticism into the Hillary Clinton-Lobbyist-cash theme: "I think the Hillary machine will hit back hard. I hope Edwards can weather the storm and link in Hillary's ridiculous statement that "lobbyists represent real Americans". My lobbyist is actually writing this diary for me right now..."

DODD: Not To Be Confused With Ronald Reagan

Chris Dodd sat down for an interview with Salon's Glen Greenwald including this exchange on executive power.

• Greenwald: "One of the things that I think could be invigorating about your campaign is that you are making these constitutional issues the centerpiece of your campaign. ... Can you talk about why this assault on the constitution is so fundamentally different than anything that has come before it? You were in the Senate during the Iran-contra scandal under Reagan. What is it about what they are doing now that makes it so fundamentally different?"
• Dodd: "Well, it's so pervasive. I mean, its domestic. It's foreign. And it is has been so calculated on so many levels. With Iran-contra, Reagan wanted to give money to the contras. I didn't like the motivation, but it was very targeted, focused point. But here -- winning elections. And pursuing people or not pursuing people. That takes it to a whole new level. The power of the U.S. attorney is real power. Power. The power to prosecute people is enormous."

The Huffington Post's Dave Johnson also met with Dodd at Yearly Kos and came away impressed: "This is a serious candidate for President who should be receiving much more attention. ... One subject we talked extensively about was impeachment. He said something that will shape my views and helped me understand how a politician at his level has to think about serving the public. ... He said that when he considers how he should be spending his time a key question that he has to ask is how is the average person understanding this. And if the Democrats spend time on impeachment they are open to the Republican lie and spin machine telling the public they are not serving THEM."

OBAMA: Winning Them Over As Dr. Strangelove And Jane Fonda

MyDD's Big Tent Democrat's tracks GOP reaction to Barack Obama's promise to act unilaterally in Pakistan should a high value target present itself, and blogs: "[D]uring the ABC GOP Debate, where the Republican candidates hemmed and hawed and basically avoided the issue. Rudy "Stay on Offense" Giuliani could not even give a straight answer. The Republican on defense on the War on Terror. This is why Obama's statement was absolutely smart politically."

My Silver State's Sven links to Elko Daily Free Press video of Obama in "heavily Republican Elko" 8/6 and comments: "Interestingly enough, the same crowd that applauded his remarks on Pakistan shortly thereafter cheered his statement that the war in Iraq should never have been waged."

TERROR POLITICS: Venting During Summer

The netroots are apoplectic over Pres. Bush's ability to get his FISA reforms passed by a Dem majority Congress. Reactions include:

• Glen Greenwald: "Karl Rove's election strategy prior to the 2006 election was to force the Democrats to vote against the Military Commissions Act and warrantless eavesdropping so that he could run around the country accusing them of being "soft" and "weak" on Terrorism. How did that big, bad, scary "Soft-on-Terrorism" strategy work out? The Democrats crushed the Republicans in an historic election, re-taking control of both houses of Congress, protecting every single one of their incumbents, and vastly increasing their hold over governorships and states houses.
• Atrios: "Haven't said much because I was traveling and sometimes things are just too depressing. But it was wrong for reasons that apparently even Fred Hiatt can understand. These people just don't deserve our support, so we'll focus on supporting the ones who do."
• FBI whistle blower Coleen Rowley at The Huffington Post: "Two of the biggest disappointments contributing to this terribly panic-driven and mistaken vote came from two newly elected Minnesota Democrats: Senator Amy Klobuchar and First District Representative Tim Walz, who were railroaded into abandoning the oath they swore to only 8 months ago to preserve and defend the Constitution. How could the Democrats, who control both houses of Congress, fail to ensure that the FISA courts retain authority over individual warrants rather than having a generalized ex post facto review?
• The Young TurksCenk Uygur: "The Democratic capitulation on the FISA law is one of those things that make you grow even angrier as time passes by. So, as my anger builds for the one billionth time about how no one will represent us, not even the people we voted for, I started to think about two names. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Where the hell are they?"
• Jane Hamsher at firedoglake: "Bush wanted two things - a) the updating of the FISA bill to include the ability to wiretap foreign-to-foreign communications that were routed through the US, which even Russ Feingold said was necessary and b) language that essentially gave him the ability to spy on anyone without a warrant. Why for the love of Mary did the Democrats not craft a bill legislating "a" and when Bush refused to sign it because it did not include "b" did they not scream from the high holy heavens that he was not giving the intelligence community the tools it needed to do its job?"

Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith suggested netrooters "spend some time this week finding out from the various offices what the schedules are going to be for our Senators and Congresspeople for previously scheduled public events. ... And then, we start showing up for the public meetings. ... Let's just call this the "You Work For Us" summer tour, shall we?"

One Daily Kos diarist did just that to Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). She showed up to a town hall in Pasco County, FL, and interrupted Nelson while he was explaining that the administration lied to him about Iraq. She asked: "Then why, when you know they can't be trusted, when you know they lie to you, did you vote for the FISA bill that gives the incompetent Bush administration more power to spy on American citizens?" Nelson did not answer her question to her satisfaction and she concluded: "It was a very frustrating, but rewarding experience. I have long been disappointed in Bill Nelson. Today I got the chance to tell him how I felt."

Also blogging on the issue, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) writes about his opposition to the bill at The Huffington Post: "The sooner that Democrats realize that standing tough on national security doesn't mean giving into the administration, the better off they - and the country - will be." At Raising Kaine, Lowell Feld post Sen. James Webb's (D-VA) explanation for his support of the bill: "There is near uniform, bipartisan agreement on the need to reform FISA to reflect modern telecommunications and information technology. We must do so in a way that safeguards basic civil and constitutional rights. But we must also remember that the terrorist threat to the nation is extremely serious. I remain fully committed to bringing accountability to this process, and to protecting the privacy rights of all Americans."

Finally, Open Left's Matt Stoller blames the ACLU for a the bill's passage and Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat defends them.

BLOGGERS vs MSM: Someone Get Hayden Christensen On The Phone

A Weekly Standard report that TNR author and soldier Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he wrote for TNR were "exaggerations and falsehoods ... containing only a smidgen of truth" has conservative bloggers celebrating. Reactions include:

• The Corner's Mark Steyn: "[I]f that Weekly Standard story is correct, it moves Private Beauchamp into full-blown Stephen Glass territory. In essence, they made the same mistakes all over again - falling for pat cinematic vividness, pseudo-novelistic dialogue, all designed to confirm prejudices so ingrained the editors didn't even recognize they were being pandered to. But this time they did it in war, which is worse.
• Bryan at Hot Air: "So Beauchamp was lying the whole time, and now that he has two entirely different stories, he was either lying to TNR, which probably paid him $50 per article and which can't put him in prison for lying to them (because he's not under oath when he's spouting off to Franklin Foer), or he lied to the Army, which pays his entire salary and can and will put him in jail for quite a while if he lies to them (he is very much under oath when he's being investigated by the US Army - for you liberals, that's what "sworn statement" means)."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Now Mr. Foer is in a no-win situation. Either Beauchamp lied under oath to military investigators, making him a liar and destroying his credibility, and taking down the credibility of the editorial staff of the New Republic, and that of the magazine itself. Transparency is the only thing that can save The New Republic, a trait that is not imbued in Franklin Foer as demonstrated by the way he has handled the Beauchamp affair from the beginning. It is time for him to go."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: They're Gonna Need A Catchier Name Than 'White Non-Christian And GLBT Communities'

Part of a larger discussion about the lack of diversity in the progressive blogospher, Open Left's Chris Bowers recants his previous claim that netroots readership is "disproportionately drawn from some demographics that are often considered predominately Republican: male, white, high-income, non-union members." Bowers explains his new thinking:

While it is true that the progressive blogosphere is disproportionately white, male and high-income, digging a little further into the demographics shows that it is actually very "non-white and / or non-Christian," with a heavy emphasis on the non-Christian side of that formulation. According to a February 2007 survey of MyDD, and to demographic Tuesday polls on Dailykos, the GLBT community represent a large, 14-18% of the readership of those blogs, while "non-Christians," make up an eye-popping 70-75% of the two communities. As such, at least when it comes to Dailykos and MyDD, the demographics of the readership are anything but typically Republican. White non-Christians and the GLBT community alike both vote at around 70-75% Democratic these days, making them core Democratic constituencies. Highly political engaged white non-Christians and members of the GLBT community form the demographic core of the progressive blogosphere, and also represent about 17% of the national electorate.

LEST WE FORGET: On Boogers And Soccer

Part of a larger rant about the troubled state of sports this summer, ESPN's Bill Simmons explains his 'silver lining' in watching David Beckham be forced on the American public:

So what's my silver lining? That people keep stupidly perpetuating the "every kid grows up playing soccer -- those are the kids who become adults and who might buy tickets" argument. You know what else I did as a kid? I gave myself a Muslim name. I ate my own boogers. I seethed because Tom never caught Jerry. I checked my closet every night to make sure an evil clown wasn't there. I left my baby teeth under my pillow because a fairy gave me money for them. None of these things has any correlation to my life now. The fact remains: Americans will never care that Beckham is playing soccer in a league of half-decent guys, just like English people wouldn't care if they had a mediocre baseball league and the London team signed A-Rod.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:51 PM

August 06, 2007

8/6: The Question That Didn't Bark

Sometimes the best way to tell when a Dem WH '08 has made a real gaffe is to see which incidents the netroots don't address at all. With both the Pakistan and US administrations condemning Barack Obama's recent thoughts on using unilateral US force in Pakistan, one would think the issue might come up in the Yearly Kos presidential forum. And indeed, Pakistan did come up. But Obama conspicuously was not asked about it and chose not to offer an answer. The crowd at the forum was largely behind John Edwards anyway, and Hillary Clinton's refusal to disavow campaign funds from lobbyists ruled the headlines. But the Obama campaign better beware; in less hospitable forums than a blogger conventions, he will be pressed on the issue.

YEARLY KOS DEBATE: Holier Than Thou

John Edwards clearly won the crowd at 8/5's Yearly Kos Presidential Forum. Boisterous applause from Edwards answers on cleaning up DC knocked out the live online video feed three separate times. However, for those not watching the debate live or in person, the confrontation between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over accepting campaign contributions from lobbyists dominated post-debate blogging. Talking Points Memo posted video of the exchange.

The preponderance of netroots opinion sided with Obama/Edwards critique of HRC:

• Taylor Marsh: "This line was mocked later in the evening and is going to come back at her: "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans."
• a MyDD reader: "I see this as Hillary's first Gaffe of the primary. Are americans in Iowa and New Hampshire going to believe lobbyists work for them?"
• a Daily Kos reader: "Yikes, Clinton's lobbyist answer was ugly. Not willing to give up lobby $$$. Kos crowd, crickets."
• The Huffington Post's Daniel Brook: "A less hypocritical answer to the question might have looked something like this: "Yes, I am taking lobbyists' donations and I too am concerned about the disproportionate influence wealthy interest groups have on the political process. I have often had to compromise my beliefs for lobbyist cash and that troubles me as a Senator, as a citizen, as a human being. And that's why we desperately need to switch over to a public campaign finance system. But with the system we have, in order to win, I need to take their money."
• David Sirota: "This is about as revealing a moment as you will find on which candidates do - and do not - represent change. ... Clinton actually goes on record bragging that she will continue raking in massive campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists, and claiming that "lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans." Oh really? How about, as just one example, Clinton's vote for the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill?

At first Matthew Yglesias was sympathetic to HRC's reasoning on the issue: "[S]he got the right answer, namely that lobbyists do their jobs because they get hired by people and Obama and Edwards take money from the executives and so forth who do the hiring, so the whole distinction is basically meaningless. As best I can tell, that's totally correct; refusing to take money from lobbyists is just a kind of meaningless grandstanding."

Given enough time rationalize past his original Obama-as-meaningless-grandstander reaction, Yglesias argues: "Worrying about whether or not contributions are corrupting people is rarely going to provide a definitive conclusion and doesn't necessarily tell you much about the merits of a proposal ... The issue is that we should probably assume the people giving the money have some basic level of competence. The health care industry has, over the years, become a major financial backer of Clinton's. It seems they feel that she doesn't pose a huge threat to their interests. ... we have to worry that they may be right."

Those with views closer to Yglesias' initial response on the exchange include:

• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "Blasting lobbyists while taking money from state lobbyists and the spouses of lobbyists, as Obama does, or from certain principals like hedge fund managers, as Edwards does, is certainly disingenuous."
• a Daily Kos reader: "They all have to raise huge sums of money. But if I am offended by all the fine distinctions. 'I can raise money from state lobbyists, but you can't raise money from federal lobbyists.' Give me a break.
• a MyDD reader: "It is well known that Barrack's fundraisers have met with some of K Streets biggest players and asked them for their own personal fundraising contact list and solicited these lobbyists to get checks from their spouses and other family members because they were going to make "an issue" about "refusing" lobbyist contributions. If you think that Hillary is dirty here, whilst Obama and Edwards are clear....well, I think you ought to learn more about how the political system really works in this age.

CLINTON: A Mixed Bag

Non-lobbying related thoughts on HRC's performance include:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "First let me say that this was the first debate in which Clinton faltered. ... Not only were some of her answers uncharacteristically unfocused, but her evasion of the question about stopping the war by simply defunding it and her use of the Bush "we're safer but not safe enough" frame were real low points."
• a Daily Kos reader: "This is weird, but I'm having more respect for Clinton's thoughfulness and a little less respect for Edwards who seems to be playing to the emotions of the crowd."
• another Daily Kos reader: "I've been impressed by Clinton so far I'm still undecided. Previously, I've been undecided/leaning to Edwards; now I think I'm undecided/leaning to Edwards or Clinton."
• one last Kossack: "The more I see of Hillary, the more I am convinced she is POTUS material. I love Obama, I love Edwards but Hillary will be ready to hit the ground running, and with this nation in such dire straits, I am thinking that on the job training may not be a good idea. Obama and Edwards both excellent Veep choices."

EDWARDS: Crowd Pleaser

Supporters and non-supporters alike all recognized that Edwards was the clear crowd favorite:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "John Edwards made a fierce pitch to us that he is the candidate of the netroots, the 2008 Howard Dean (presumably without the whole losing thing) and he made some real headway toward that. He reminded us that Elizabeth is already one of us and soared with his call to take power away from those entrenched interests in DC that he's been fighting all his life."
• Matthew Yglesias: "Edwards is slaying with every answer. The interesting thing is that his answers aren't any different from what I've heard at previous debates. His style, however, seems to me to work much better with a live audience that's allowed to applaud. His emotiveness gets the crowd roaring, and he's really good at surfing on the applause."
• AMERICAblog's AJ Rossmiller: "Edwards just got an amazing response from the crowd when he spoke about cleaning up Washington. ... The crowd loved it. First real standing ovation of the day."
• a Daily Kos reader: "John Edwards clearly did the best. Look at Clinton and Obama's body language in that picture. They didn't want to be there. The corporate media at large wasn't there to prop them up."
• another Kossack: "Edwards keeps hitting the right notes... He's absolutely correct about Big Oil, Big Insurance, and Big Pharma aren't going to give up power voluntarily. I don't know if he's going to make headway in the primaries, but he's improving the debate every time he opens his mouth."

Another popular Daily Kos diarist argued that Obama's 8/2 speech on Pakistan made him largely indistinguishable from Clinton on foreign policy, and went on to announce that if the election were held to day, he would vote for Edwards: "Edwards has not had the same urge as the other top-tier candidates to project hawkishness in his statements on national security. Rather, he focuses more on the root causes that allow terrorists to gain footholds - a long-term view on solving the problem - rather than the short-term solution of what it will take to win the 'war on terror'."

OBAMA: Pakistan ... Never Heard Of It

Obama may not have elicited the same applause as Edwards, but his performance was still well received:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Barack Obama continued to deftly hammer home his recent theme that he is the candidate of change and Hillary is more of the same, but I don't know that he moved the blogosphere in his direction in any significant way with his performance. The fact is he didn't need to."
• a Daily Kos reader: "Obama is, without a doubt, the most specific of the candidates. He just gave an excellent answer on what his white house would look like and what he would change to restore the constitution. Ethics, ethics, ethics is the floor from which our country would function."
• more from Daily Kos: "In my personal opinion, Obama really outdid himself this time, and seems to really have put the awkwardness of earlier debates behind him getting out the powerful, well-thought-out but straightforward answers I've been waiting to hear out of him. ... As a nervous Obama leaner this one answered a few of my reservations and got me closer."
• Taylor Marsh: "One thing I found very odd is that when a question on our relationship with Pakistan came up, Obama was left out of the responses. Considering his recent speech that was just odd. (So is this.) But he didn't try to jump in either. I didn't quite understand it."

GOP DEBATE: Holding A GOP Debate On A Sunday Morning Is Like Holding A Hotline Staff Meeting During Happy Hour

Rudy Giuliani may have made the best impression on conservatives that tuned in for 8/6's 7 AM CST debate, but Mitt Romney's canned line on Barack Obama: "I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week" was the highlight of the event. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez confesses: "I overslept. Almost forgot about the Republican debate. Woke up to Iowans cheering Ron Paul. Hit snooze."

Those calling the debate for Giuliani include:

• AmSpec's Philip Klein: "Rudy Giuliani gave another strong performance. He was able to bat away the social issues question early, and offer strong answers on national security and economic issues. He did a great job of challenging the premise of the questions, attacking Democrats whenever he got the chance, offering a unique perspective on policy, and displaying quick wit."
• a Power Line forum comment promoted by John Hinderaker (who thought the debate was schedule for 7 PM CST): "Giuliani had the most memorable lines, was best at mixing his own experience into his answers, and was really sharp when picking apart the Democratic field. He is so incredibly quick on his feet in this setting."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "I've got to declare Rudy Giuliani the winner today. This is partly because he performed the best, and partly because the other candidates under-performed. ... Rudy has clearly thought-through the questions and answers to a greater degree than the other candidates."
• AmSpec's Jennifer Rubin: "Rudy did something interesting in this debate. He went after the questioner for the built in assumption that raising taxes will give more revenue for things like bridge building. Everyone remembers the Ron Paul moment from the earlier debate and this was not as dramatic but there is a common thread. I think after years of listening to liberal conventional wisdom in New York he is more attuned to hearing the built in fallacies in his critics' and opponents' reasoning and more likely to go after them for it."

NRO's Jim Geraghty also watched the debate, but called it for Romney: "Romney's line about Obama "going from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in the span of the week" will be the soundbite of the day. Romney knows how to land a punch, and he's clearly decided to lay off McCain or any other potential future ally."

Not watching the debate, but still calling it for Romney based on press releases, Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Compare these three releases, and you instantly see that Governor Romney is leading with the strongest set of authorities and quotes when it comes to post-debate analysis, but that Mayor Giuliani is not far behind. ... Senator Strangelove Obama will get the most play across all media, and that's a big plus."

Other debate nuggets include:

• AmSpec's Philip Klein: "I wish there were a way to write this post more diplomatically, but the truth is, I thought Mitt Romney looked like a total buffoon when he was talking about his changing positions on abortion, so I may as well come out and say it. I don't know how I can be expected to take a candidate seriously who says, regarding his past abortion views: "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro choice." What on earth is that supposed to mean? It's hard to think of a statement about abortion that would be any more Kerry-esque."
• The Corner's K-Lo: "I don't know that people believe that he was "deeply opposed" to abortion prior to running in Massachusetts, even if they believe that he might be now. ... I think he'd be better off saying he simply didn't fully understand his political responsibilities to protecting the unborn and fighting for a culture of life prior to being in office as governor. He was wrong and missed some real opportunities and he's determined to make up for lost time."
• also from K-Lo: "Whenever Brownback and Huckabee speak now I am distracted by this Evangelical vs. Catholic sideshow."

GOP FIELD: Still A Better Response Rate Than Polling By Phone

Right Wing News polled 230 right-of-center bloggers and the 59 respondents ranked their 'most' and 'least' desired nominees for '08. The top five faves were: 1) Fred Thompson; 2) Rudy Giuliani; 3) Duncan Hunter; 4) Mitt Romney; 5) Mike Huckabee.

The least favorites: 1) Ron Paul; 2) John McCain; 3) Sam Brownback; 4) Tommy Thompson; 5) Tom Tancredo.

BROWNBACK: The Slimy Yellowbrick Road

Race 4 '08s Jason Bonham links to a Cyclone Conservative post detailing "very misleading phone call"s Sam Brownback's campaign are making. The calls are directed to Bob Vander Plaat supporters and ask them to support Brownback in the Ames Straw Poll, but forget to mention that Vander Plaat is Mike Huckabee's IA state chair. Bonham comments: "Sam, can you please stop all the frontal and backhanded attacks? Other than your supporters, no one likes it. ... From one Conservative GOP'er to another, Sam, clean up the filth in your campaign. Start running a decent and honest fight you promised."

GINGRICH: Newt No Like George

The Corner's Andy McCarthy counters the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's interpretation of Newt Gignrich's "phony war on terror" comments: "If you read what he actually said, however, Newt said that the war is entirely real. What is "phony," he argued, is the administration's approach to the war - including the reluctance to come to terms with the facts that radical Islam is the enemy, that you can't win it in a single theater (like Iraq), and that any serious approach would require real thought about energy independence."

HUCKABEE: For 7-Year Old Tax Experts

The IA Voice sat down for an interview with Mike Huckabee, including this Huckabee explanation on his support for the Fair Tax: "Yeah, the simplest way to describe it is that it takes all of the taxes of productivity and exchanges it for a very simple tax on consumption. It replaces the impossible to understand current tax code with a tax structure so simple that a 7-year old running a lemonade stand could understand it."

ROMNEY: Don't Get Angry Now

Townhall's Dean Barnett posts video of Mitt Romney taking on IA radio personality Jan Mickelson and summarizes: "Mickelson's station, WHO, had a video recorder on the governor that was recording his off-air comments, something that Romney was unaware of. On the air, Mickelson stated that according to Mormon theology, Romney should have been excommunicated from the Mormon Church because he was once pro-choice. Off the air, Romney tried to gently tell Mickelson that he didn't know what he was talking about."

Barnett later comments: "Dirty pool aside, I don't think Romney has looked better at any time during the campaign. Firm, decisive, authoritative - that's the guy I know. ... it was wonderful to see Romney making such a strong case for his candidacy and the proper role of religion in the campaign."

The Brody File tracks the story and comments: "I've always wondered how Mitt Romney would hold up under the pressure of being constantly asked about his faith. Since he' running for secular office, he figures he doesn't need to talk about his Mormonism. ... He's going to need to manage his emotions on this one or it could become a real problem for him."

F. THOMPSON: On Jeri And Cleavage

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez captures conservative sentiment on the Washington Post's 8/5 story on Jeri Thompson: "Of what front-page news value is a piece exploring a potential presidential candidate's wife, including a profile-within-a-profile of one of her ex-boyfriends? If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the Style section with Hillary's cleavage."

YEARLY KOS: Remember The Good Ole Days?

The atmosphere at Yearly Kos '07 definitely differed from '08. Those noticing include:

• TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta: "The first Yearly Kos conference in Las Vegas had two basic story lines. For conference participants, it was, "Wow! So that's what you look like in person!" And for the press it was some mix of "Geez, these people are so much more normal than I expected!" and "Huh, maybe they are a little quirky after all." ... this conference does not feel as grassroots or exciting as last year's. It feels like a cross between the annual Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet conference in Washington, a Bloggingheads.tv marathon viewing session."
• TeddySanFran at firedoglake: "I want the revolutionary, angry, Establishment-challenging, rabble-rousing netroots back. If Netroots Nation sees its new mission as pleasing Traditional Media, or allying with it, or making nice, or merging the two into some amalgam that pleases anyone in the Establishment: then it's not my Netroots Nation. I'll just sit over here on the Left Coast and take well-deserved potshots at people who insult our Constitution, insult journalism, and insult the First Amendment. I'm sure they'll enjoy the cocktail weenies while I do."
• Siun at firedoglake: "With YKOS 2 over, I find myself trying to understand what I've just seen and why I found the experience so disheartening. While I love having time with so many wonderful firepups and FDL colleagues, the acceptance of conventional wisdom frames that seemed so pervasive was maddening. But the meaningless talking points seemed to be all most of the candidates would offer and the challenging netroots-y questions I think we wanted raised were never asked. Questions like: 'What were you thinking Sen. Obama when you spoke of a unilateral attack on Pakistan?'"

Highlights of DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas keynote address include:

I'm given a great deal of credit for our movement's success. But let's be brutally honest - what I've done is... build a website. ... While we were once lonely voices on the outside, people on the inside have discovered that we're not so scary after all, that they don't need to fear us. We'll get our hands dirty. We'll deliver results. And they've learned that, quite frankly, We tend to have a habit of actually being right about things. I had no idea that our country was full of natural leaders, all looking for a way to get involved. I simply built a website. It was you who built the netroots. And together all of us will build a true progressive America.

Finally, Open Left's Chris Bowers takes on PoliticoBen Smith 's claims that the netroots have lost influence in the primary process since '04: "Obviously, I think he is wrong about the blogopshere losing relative power and influence. Last time I checked, one the reasons the blogosphere got behidn Howard Dean was becuase he opposed the war in Iraq and favored universal health care, something few other Demcorats were willing to do at the time. Now, I'm sitting in a room where several presidential candidates, including all of the leading candidates, are directly telling bloggers that they agree with both positions. Yeah, we have really backslid in terms of power.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We Might Be Here For Awhile

Open Left's Chris Bowers posts Pollster.com graphs, one on trends in '03-'04 Dem primary polls and another on how closely people pay attention to campaigns and comments:

The key point here is how these charts match up. Specifically, the rapid change at the end of the 2004 Democratic primary campaign occurred at the same moment when people began to pay far more attention to the campaign. ... The point here is this: don't expect any long-term, gradual improvement for any candidate. National changes in campaigns like this will happen only in large chunks, and as the result of major events. Otherwise, expect the campaign to stay pretty much as it is, and pretty much the way it has been for the past four months, until such an event takes place. ... Basically, unless something major happens, the horserace isn't going anywhere for a while.

LEST WE FORGET: Chappelle '08

RCP Blog's Reid Wilson is watching tourists on Capitol Hill:

Comedian Dave Chappelle made an appearance in the Longworth House Office Building early this afternoon. Dressed in a suit this reporter could only envy, Chappelle's entourage was stopped in the basement, near the cafeteria, as hordes of admiring fans snapped pictures and signed autographs.
One family of tourists walked by, eyed the throng and stepped into an elevator with a few staffers and one scribe too late to an interview to stop. "Who was that?" mother tourist inquired. "That was Barack Obama," said father tourist.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:48 PM

August 02, 2007

8/2: Yearly Kos Presidential Forum 8/4, 1 PM, Don't Miss It!!!

OK, so we were already super excited for 8/4's Yearly Kos Presidential Forum featuring every Dem candidate but Dennis Kucinich and Joe Biden. But after Barack Obama's 8/1 promise to unilaterally act inside Pakistan should a high-value target present itself, we can barely contain ourselves. We simply have no idea how the forum will play out. While John Edwards has been a comfortable favorite in recent Daily Kos straw polls, Obama does have strong currents of support in the community and they were out in force 8/1 spinning the Pakistan comments his way. We also must remember that the convention is on Obama's home turf, Chicago, IL, so this should be considered a road game for all the other candidates. Watch for Edwards to lead the charge against Obama's recent speech, he has the most to gain from a netroots community unified behind one candidate. Remember, Hillary Clinton doesn't need to be the netroots favorite to win, she just needs to keep them at bay.

OBAMA: We Checked, And Our Local Store Does Not Carry This 'Bush-Cheney Lite' Everybody Keeps Talking About

Netroots reaction to Barack Obama's 8/1 Wilson Center speech on foreign policy was mixed. For the most part, the original Howard Dean core of the netroots were more critical of the hawkish nature of the speech, while the more Washington based wonky end of the community was more defensive of it. Obama still has many supporters in all segments of the community, and one diarist at Daily Kos posted a "preemptive strike" anticipating "distortion" on Obama's call for unilateral action against high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan. His defense of Obama was adopted by most Obama supporters: "You won't find anyone in the Democratic field (except Kucinich and maybe Gravel) who would say that if they had a chance to take bin Laden or al-Zawahiri out, they'd hesitate to do so."

From those with Obama:

• TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "It was, indeed, very good and there's a good chance it will be remembered as the moment he finally dispelled worries about his foreign policy experience. ... The most ballyhooed part is the suggestion that Obama might invade tribal areas just across the border from Afghanistan in Pakistan to root out Al Qaeda and even use US troops. Is this a good idea? I don't know."
• AMERICAblog's AJ Rossmiller: "Obama delivered a speech today on terrorism, demonstrating his clear understanding of both the situation in Iraq and the real threats we continue to face abroad. ... The pledge to use actionable intelligence in Pakistan sounds pretty tough, but it's really nothing new. I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on something like this."
• Matthew Yglesias: "Obama didn't use the phrase "war on terror." Obviously, on this score it's John Edwards who got the ball rolling and deserve credit for breaking the taboo, but it's good to see further forward progress on this front, especially since Obama gave a speech that could hardly be accused of ignoring the reality of terrorism, as opposed to the right's conceptual terrorism-related mirages."
• pro-Iraq invasion Andrew Sullivan: "Obama's JFK Strategy: He will not be Dukakized. And his emphasis in his major foreign policy speech today homes in on a key Bush-Cheney failing: al Qaeda in Pakistan. This is something a Republican should be comfortable saying. ... This is the speech of a potential president.
• Oliver Willis: "The Senator is simply echoing the concerns of the vast majority of Americans in that he will actually follow through on the post-9/11 rhetoric to bring Bin Laden and his ilk to justice. If we have to cross Pakistan's border to kill Bin Laden, so be it. ... Sen. Obama proposed a common sense foreign policy alternative to the Bush doctrine of terrorist appeasement. This should be cheered, not derided."
• The Left Coaster's Steve Soto: "Obama calls for redeploying troops out of Iraq and back into Afghanistan to finally do what Bush wouldn't do at Tora Bora. Obama goes further, trying to get to Bush's right by calling for attacks inside Pakistan if necessary to go after Al Qaeda's safe haven. This rankles the foreign policy pros, who rightly argue that such talk undermines Pervez Musharraf and is only a continuation of Bush's "shoot first, think never" world view. But he's aiming to look tougher here than Bush, and to go farther than Hillary would. In the context of a moving campaign and changing narrative, this makes sense regardless of whether or not a President Obama would ever do this.
• Daily Kos' VirginiaDem: "Obama doesn't say "I will invade Pakistan." Or even, "I'll send our best troops into those mountains to blah blah blah." We just says that we'll act. A surgical bombing strike into a region -- that wouldn't be an invasion. ... Senator Obama could "act" against terrorists in Pakistan without inserting troops.

From those with the terrorists:

• a Kossack: "I like Obama, but I do not like this plan too much. I do not support an incursion into a nuclear-armed nation, especially one as problematic as Pakistan. If this is Obama's way of showing he's not naive on foreign policy (as the article suggests), I'm not sure threatening Pakistan is the way to go."
• another Kossack: "Obama, It's Over. You blew it. ... You had just won your debate with Hillary, and then just a short time later you've said something genuinely naive and irresponsible."
• one last Kossack: "This whole Obama speech debate has led me once again to shake my head in wonder at how stupid people are. ... Does Obama really think that any of this will make a difference when we threaten to go against what a leader of a sovereign country wants? ... There is nothing in his speech but force, money to bribe people to like us and more exceptionalism. This is the same BS that Bush used to talk us into the war."
• Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt: "It could be just me, but I'm not in favor of sending our troops in Iraq anywhere but home to the U.S."
• The Huffington Post's Robert Naiman: "Just when some folks might have thought that Barack Obama was a real alternative, given his full-throated defense of the common sense notion that the U.S. should, in fact, talk to countries that it doesn't like, he tries to burnish his Empire credentials in response to the attacks by Hillary's people by saying that the U.S. should invade Pakistan, even without the Pakistani government's permission. Never mind that (a) this would be a blatant violation of international law (b) it could go very, very badly (c) lots of innocent people would die and (d) such statements actually undermine the Pakistani government's efforts to suppress violent Islamic militancy."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "This is a speech where he contextualizes his policy on fighting terrorism in virtually exactly the same manner that Republicans have for some time. ... No Democrat running for President tells the country that he will deploy more troops to Afghanistan and conduct military strikes in Pakistan without Pakistan's approval in order to appeal to the primary electorate. ... Republican win when the terrorism frame is foregrounded, and Democrats are not able to vaccinate themselves against attacks by appearing hawkish themselves."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "[T]his is basically a continuation of the Bush-Cheney doctrine of endorsing unilateral pre-emptive military attacks abroad, lighter perhaps, but certainly not the mentality that would pull us out of the mideast quagmire. ... Heck, even Clinton has the opportunity to move to the left of Obama over the issue of a the US launching a unilateral pre-emptive attack inside Pakistan.

The Pakistan portion of Obama's speech even had The Washington Monthly agreeing with the following passage from The Corner's John Podhoretz:

Obama is full of it. This country is never -- never -- going to stage a major military action against Pakistan. Every serious person knows the United States won't invade Pakistan, even with Special Forces - since the reason we cancelled the proposed action against Al Qaeda in 2005 is that it was going to take many hundreds of American troops to do it. This isn't 15 people dropping like ninjas in the darkness. It's an invasion, with helicopters and supply lines and routes of ingress and escape. It would have had unforseen and unforeseeable consequences, but it would have been reasonable to assume the Pakistanis would have turned violently against the United States and hurtled toward Islamic fundamentalist control.

Drum comments: "I understand the political imperative to sound tough, but on a substantive level there's less here than meets the eye."

Daily Kos contributing editor Meteor Blades hopes Obama's speech starts a larger foreign policy discussion among the netroots: "Over the past few years, we've been more or less united around getting out of Iraq and staying out of Iran, but when the talk turns to the details, and when we go further afield, our differences cannot be submerged. ... What is desperately needed among progressives of all stripes as well as their Democratic allies is a full-throated discussion of the entire panoply of foreign-policy issues, starting with an intense focus on what to do about the military-industrial-congressional complex that was first described nearly half a century ago."

A poll attached to Meteor Blades diary show 57% of respondents support "what Senator Obama said about going after bin Laden," 15% disagree, and 20% are undecided.

DEM FIELD: Thanks For Playing By The Rules, HRC

Blue Hampshire's Mike Claufield posted his latest Policy Straw Poll, this time on education. Candidates choosing to distinguish themselves from opponents include:

• From Kucinich: I am the only candidate to introduce a bill calling for Universal Pre-Kindergarten.
• From Dodd: I am the only candidate to offer a comprehensive proposal to reform No Child Left Behind, which every parent recognizes the next President must fix immediately.
• From Edwards: I am the only candidate with a proven plan -- that I call College for Everyone to pay for one year of public-college tuition, fees, and books for every young person in America willing to work hard and stay out of trouble.
• From Obama: I am the only candidate who will work with parents and teachers to break through the political stalemate in Washington and improve our education system for the 21st century.
• From Clinton: As President Hillary Clinton will make education a priority and fight to improve the quality of every child's education, from preschool through college.

CLINTON: The Ultimate He Said, She Said

IA Independent's Dien Judge reports Monroe County Dem chair Joe Judge received a poll call 7/31 "asking him for his opinion on the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate answers of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama." From Judge: ""The poll caller quoted directly the debate responses from Obama and Clinton and then asked me which candidate I agree with."

IA's Bleeding Heartland's Des Moines Dem links and comments: "There's been a lot of debate in the blogosphere over who was helped by this dispute. If Clinton tries to keep this story alive in her speeches and/or campaign ads, it's a safe bet that her internal Iowa polling showed it was a winner for her. If she doesn't bring it up much in the future, we can assume that the polling showed most Iowans agreed with Obama."

For what it's worth, TPM's TW Farman reports that the YouTube contributor, Stephen Sixta, that asked the original debate question is now "sickened" by the controversy his question caused, but also "wholeheartedly agrees with Obama." From Sixta: "I realized that [Clinton] was going to use the presidency in a more traditional way and that Obama would be more dynamic about it. And that was the key to the question - 'are you open?'. That's the basic difference. It was a yes or no question. He said 'yes.' She said 'no.'"

DODD: He Can Watch The Segment Air With Kossacks In Chicago

After Chris Dodd taped his segment with Bill O'Reilly, but before it got bumped by the MN bridge collapse, official Dodd blogger Matt Browner Hamlin promoted Dodd's defense of Daily Kos. Hamlin quotes Dodd post O'Reilly: "I hope that our discussion today reminds Bill that a free press is at the very heart of this nation's values. The blogosphere is enormous - and to exploit such a tiny fraction of it in such a way is ludicrous, especially considering that Bill himself has said some things in the past that he may not want distorted... Democrats aren't going to be lectured to about the crudeness of language or civility of discourse by Bill O'Reilly."

GIULIANI: RudyCare

The slow roll out of Rudy Giuliani's health care plan continues to draw positive conservative reactions. AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin calls the plan 'Milton Friedman Care' and blogs: "It is an impressive attempt to get away from government mandates and toward a market based system of health care based on individual choice and responsibility. Who loses? According to one of his advisors: plaintiffs lawyers." RedState's Pejman Yousefzadehh writes: "I want to see more specifics of the plan ... But I am pleased to note that granting incentives to people who purchase their own insurance either through tax breaks or through vouchers and opposing government mandates that require people to purchase health insurance."

NRO's Jim Geraghty notes that some Giuliani supporters are 'gleeful' to see Barack Obama adopt Giuliani's "the terrorists war on us" line when addressing foreign policy. Geraghty quotes the relevant Obama passage: "Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us."

Finally, Charlie Rose promotes his upcoming interview with Giuliani at The Huffington Post: "In a thoughtful interview, GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani talks about his executive experience, his policies about abortion and his response to terrorism. He also talks about his love for his third wife, Judith Giuliani."

MCCAIN: How McCain Can Get His Groove Back

NRO's Jim Geraghty hears rumors John McCain "will be focusing on earmarks, spending, and corruption in the coming days" and reacts: "I hope he names names. Any candidate who pledges to punch out Republican Congressman Don Young (R-AK) for indignantly berating opponents for trying to take "my money" will likely pick up my vote.

ROMNEY: Judging Judy

Townhall's Matt Lewis links to Vanity Fair's profile of Judith Giuliani and comments: "I've never met Judith, but I have talked to close associates who have been at meetings in which she accompanied Rudy. In short, they couldn't stand her. As far as I'm concerned, given the choice between Ann Romney and Judith Giuliani, Ann Romney will win every time. So if it comes down to the spouses, I guess I'm a Romney fan..."

F. THOMPSON: Yeah, What's Happening To Southwick Is Exactly Like The Salem Witch Trials

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez promotes Fred Thompson's blogging in support of Judge Leslie Southwick's nomination to the 5th Circuit. Thompson blogs: "You've probably never heard of Rebecca Nurse, but bear with me for a moment. Nurse arrived in Salem, Massachusetts in 1640. There, despite being known as a woman of virtue and piety, she was accused of being a witch. On July 19, 1692, she was hanged. Now almost 315 years to the day later, one of Nurse's descendants is suffering through a witch hunt of a more modern variety. I'm talking about Judge Leslie Southwick."

At AmSpec Blog, Philip Klein makes the case for Thompson as a VP: "I know this might come across as a slap in the face to Fredheads, but the more I think about it, the case for a Vice President Thompson is pretty compelling. All of the attributes that Thompson supporters tout in their man (his charisma, his persona, his star power, his communication skills) would make him the ideal candidate to return the vice presidency to its historically symbolic role."

AmSpec's Lawrence Henry responds: "I was as enticed as anyone by Fred Thompson's prospects -- up to about a month ago. But I'm afraid that, for Thompson, The Moment -- to do you-know-what or get off the pot -- has passed. Hard to see that moment coming, but when it's gone, you really know it's gone."

IRAQ: Pre-Season Preview

Just like the NFL teams in training camp positioning themselves for the real thing when the league kicks off 9/07, bloggers from the left and right are ardently working to frame the debate before Gen. David Petraeus testifies before congress that same month.

Conservative preparations for 9/07's Congressional showdown over Iraq include: 1) defending the credibility of Gen. Petraeus; 2) highlighting as many arguably pro-surge MSM sources as possible (this includes both defending the Ken Pollack's and Michael O'Hanlon's of the world as well as promoting the less impeachable John Burns); and 3) tracking possibleDem defections on the issue.

Netroots pre-9/07 priorities include: 1) destroying Gen. Petraeus' credibility byportraying him as a partisan hack ; 2) attackingallpro-surgeMSMsources ; and 3) refocusing the deabte away from any perceived gains in military progress in Iraq and onto the agreed uponlack of any political progress .

IMPEACHMENT: Elections Have Consequences

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)[DLC chair Harold Ford's old seat] has a diary up at Daily Kos announcing his support of Rep. Jay Inslee's (D-WA) resolution calling for a Jud. Cmte. investigation into the impeachment of AG Alberto Gonzalez. Cohen writes: "I realize many of you have been following the ongoing developments concerning the potential impeachment of AG Gonzales. As my staff and I research the specific grounds on which to impeach him, I welcome your input."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: More Enforcement, Or Bigger Fines Needed In Mumbai

Tyler Cowen points us to a Sydney Morning Herald article describing an unusual market that formed in Mumbai, India:

"My favourite ticketing system was in Mumbai, India," Kim enthuses. "No one actually buys a ticket, but you can buy 'ticket insurance' from private entrepreneurs who work at the entrance of the station. The 'ticket insurance' is about half the price of a regular rail ticket. It gives you a guarantee that, in the extraordinary event that you are booked by a railways inspector for taking a free ride, your fine will be paid. A relative was once booked and the ticket insurer paid the fine exactly as promised.

LEST WE FORGET: Can The Beckhams Go Home Now?

Uber lists the Top Ten Worst Celebrity Reality shows including:

• #9 Coming To America - Cancelled immediately after Victoria Beckham discovered that everyone might soon realize she was ugly and pretty uninteresting.
• #5 Hey Paula - It's simply a brilliant PR move to do a reality show that shows you having a nervous breakdown every episode when people already think your an alcoholic trainwreck
• #1 Britney & Kevin: Chaotic - This show was even bad by UPN standards. And we both know that's saying all you need to say about this show. Besides the usual redneck jokes about Britney and K-Spend.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:42 PM

August 01, 2007

8/1: An Accountability Moment Indeed

Any claims that Daily Kos is a "hate site," especially from Bill O'Reilly, are just plain silly. Yes commentators sometimes have potty mouths and less than nice things get said. However, unlike Barack Obama, we are pleasantly surprised by some of the quality analysis we read at Daily Kos everyday. And as Liberal Oasis, Bill Scher points out, they have clearly made positive contributions to Dems. That said there are certain elements in the community that we believe should worry Dems. Mike Stark and his 7/31 incident at O'Reilly's home ought to keep netroots leaders up at night.

Stark's actions are not just comments in some diary. Stark has an established history of intentionally provoking physical confrontations. He is the same blogger that was involved in an altercation with ex-Sen. George Allen's '06 campaign staff. Many in the Daily Kos community seem to believe they can distance themselves from Stark by simply pointing out he doesn't 'officially' represent the site. This distinction is not gonna fly in mainstream public opinion, nor should it. Stark receives both community affirmation and financial support from Daily Kos' commenters. But for the community, he would not be acting out in this way. Unless Stark is reigned in his antics will continue during the general election season and now is the time for the netroots to decide if he is really an asset or not.

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Oh This Is Gonna End Beautifully

Daily Kos diarist Mike Stark took the Daily Kos/Bill O'Reilly feud to another level 7/31 posting pictures of his trip to O'Reilly's house where he confronted O'Reilly in his driveway while he retrieved his morning paper, delivered copies of O'Reilly's sexual harrassment lawsuit to all his neighbors, and plastered O'Reilly's neighborhood with signs with statements like "Bill O'Reilly: PERVERT."

Stark explains his actions: "After O'Reilly provided an "accountability moment" to the JetBlue CEO at his home, I decided to provide O'Reilly with his own accountability moment at his home." Later Stark pitches: "One last thing. This project cost me a weeks time and hundreds of dollars. If you're inclined to support good behaviour, I've got a PayPal link up at CallingAllWingnuts.com. See y'all at YearlyKos!!"

There has been no official reaction from DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas or any of the editorial dKos staff, and community response has been mixed (one poll diary showed 40% of Kossacks thought Stark's actions were "a good idea" while 60% thought it was "a bad idea"). Community sentiments supporting Stark include:

• Bravo, Mike!Anybody who traffics in the "politics of personal destruction" ought to get a generous helping of his own dish served up to him. If O'Reilly thinks we're a hate site, he ain't seen nothing yet.
• Mike Stark did a hilarious act that showed someone how it feels to be confronted like he enjoys doing to many other people. I would have been proud to be affiliated with an act like that. Keep up the good, and sometimes funny, work, Mike.
• I sent $100 to you and I've got value from it every time you've posted something to make me laugh since then. I'd rather fund you than any politician any day.
• Crooks and LiarsSilentPatriot: "It's about time someone pulled this crap on O'Reilly."
• You are relentless. And that's why we all love you so much.
• I've read all the concerns from other members commenting here about us sinking to his level, and this situation is different.It's one thing if an honorable opponent states his case and you disagree with it and counter with your own. But nothing about Billo is honorable.
• Listen up people and yes I will take a tone with you if you don't mind. Where have you been for the last seven years? Maybe you haven't figured it out yet but this is a fight to the death. Maybe they don't want us literally 'dead' but they want us silenced, they want us powerless, they want us afraid. And I for one refuse. So congrats Mike Stark, keep up the good work.

Arguments against Stark's behaviour include:

• Now, we all dislike Bill O'Reilly. The man is as big of an asshat as they come. But, knocking on his neighbor's doors to hand out copies of his sexually charged testimony? Standing in his drive-away ambushing him as he comes out for the paper? I'm sorry, but I believe this is flat out wrong. It makes us all look exactly like the "wingnuts" that Mike says he's going to bring down.
• This gives me a similar sinking feeling that I get when I see coverage of protestors picketing the homes of abortion providers. The stalkers feel eminently justified...It's not exactly the same, of course, revealing the address or not makes a difference, but it's WAY too close for comfort.
• I've supported Mike in the past. I'm not with him on this one. Period.
• I don't like the idea of using piss poor and obnoxious tactics to prove that piss poor and obnoxious tactics are wrong. It never ends well.
• Had Mike Stark gone to O'Reilly's house and just attempted to do an interview, that would have been justifiable and defensible. But he chose to harass O'Reilly's neighbors, and fill the whole block with offensive and near-pornographic material (no matter that O'Reilly originated this material).What Mike Stark did to O'Reilly's neighbors was wrong.
• I get outraged when people go to abortion docs houses. I feel outraged when people like Michael Shiavo were accosted at their houses. If anyone showed up at my house for any reason, I'd be over the moon livid. Even the mafia don't harass each other's families. I do believe we should respect the sanctity of each other's "safe zones." Our homes, our gynecologist's offices, whatever.
• Mike is being applauded? By some, yes. By others, he's being castigated. That's the larger point here, that Mike DOESN'T speak for DKos, and the reaction around here couldn't be a clearer indication of that. However Billo chooses to depict things tonight, the truth is the truth. The DKos community is hardly of a single mind in all this.

GOP FIELD: GOP To Bush ... Drop Dead

Responding to Larry Kudlow reporting on Karl Rove predictions that economic populism will dominate '08, The Corner's Andrew Stuttaford comments: "You say that Mr. Rove's suggestion in response to this is that Republican candidates "sharply contrast" GOP plans with those of their opponents. Fair enough, I suppose, but it would be interesting to know where he thinks that immigration falls into this equation. It's worth remembering that a relaxed attitude to mass immigration is widely seen as something that has hit blue collar wages. What then would Mr. Rove advise in that respect?"

Also talking immigration at The Corner, under the header "State GOPs to Bush: Drop Dead" Mark Krikorian covers a RNC "resolution rejecting the president's legalization approach to immigration.' Krikorian quotes an unidentified RNC committeeman: ""If some see in this that we aren't toeing the line 100 percent, then so be it." Krikorian comments: "which is pretty close to "drop dead" coming from a "normally reliable ally" of the president."

GOP FIELD II: You're Either With Them, Or You're With The IRS

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin advises GOP '08ers to better prepare for the Americans for Fair Taxation group that id testing GOPers at major campaign spots. Rubin explains their mission: "The Fair Tax advocates have been doggedly following candidates and trying to get their "Fair Tax" pledge which envisions throwing out the entire IRS code and replacing it with a single rate sales tax." Rubin then tracks John McCain's and Fred Thompson's responses to the fair taxers and concludes: "The Fair Tax folks are extremely well organized, plan to bird dog candidates throughout the campaign and will be holding a large rally in Ames before the straw poll. So candidates be warned: have your answer ready when they show up at your next event."

GOP FIELD III: Shootin' The Moon

NRO's Jim Geraghty weighs in on the ongoing dispute over GOP '08ers should participate in a CNN/YouTube debate, countering Hugh Hewitt worries that CNN will select unfair video questions: "[W]here [Hewitt] sees risk, I see opportunity. Wouldn't we love to see a Republican candidate respond to a 9/11 "Truth"er? I suspect if Anderson Cooper tried the usual "your questioner was in the audience here tonight" schtick with that question on Rudy Giuliani, Rudy would jump into the audience and kick his ass himself. ... I think almost all of the candidates could take a ridiculous question from Moonbat America and handle them with ease."

Also, Big Head DC passes on rumors that FL FOP chair Jim Greer's "apparent man-crush on Anderson Cooper" may be responsible for some of the scheduling conflicts top tier GOPers are citing for reason's they can't attend the originally scheduled CNN/YouTube debate: "According to insiders involved in the Florida debate, "Greedy Greer" conveniently forgot that the GOP made an agreement with FOX News Channel to have FNC's debate in October serve as the first debate in the state for the 2008 race. Greer, who has yet to pass up a media opportunity, heard rumblings that CNN wanted to bring its YouTube debate to Florida for GOP candidates."

GIULIANI: Will Rudy Handle Moore As Well As Fred Did?

Electability was a focus for Rudy Giuliani blogging 7/31. AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein cites new Gallup data showing Americans "trusted Rudy Giuliani and John McCain to handle the Iraq War slightly better than any of the leading Democrats." Klein comments: "To me, this poll also reinforces the electability case for Giuliani. If Republicans have any chance of winning in 2008, they have to choose a candidate whose own brand transcends the Republican brand, which is badly damaged. The public's trust in Giuliani extends beyond his signature issue of terrorism (in which 69 percent trust him, more than any candidate on any issue)."

NRO's Jim Geraghty, however, was less impressed with suggestions that endorsements from Reps. Jim Geralich (R-PA) and Phil English (R-PA) showed Rudy could be competitive in the Northeast: "Yesterday a Rudy supporter from the NYC tri-state area tried to persuade me that Rudy would carry New Jersey, as he is loved by all those who left during the Dinkins, Koch, and earlier eras of out-of-control crime, drugs, corruption, and dysfunction. (See The Bronx is Burning on ESPN.) It's a tempting thought, but I've seen Republicans fall short too many times in the Garden State to ever get my hopes up again."

Finally, challenges Giuliani "Could You Please Help Our 9/11 Heroes" at The Huffington Post.

HUNTER: Fun While It Lasted

Right Wing News' John Hawkins announced his consultant relationship with Duncan Hunter is over 7/31. Hawkins explains: "[I]t's worth noting that it was a friendly, planned exit. In fact, I put in my notice roughly 30 days ago. As to why, well you have to understand: when I started, I only intended to work for 90 days. ... It was a great experience, I enjoyed it a lot, and now, more than ever, I am convinced that Duncan Hunter would be the best candidate that the GOP could run in 2008."

MCCAIN: Let The Re-Branding Begin!

Kausfiles notes that Thomas Edsall's advice on how John McCain should change his message sounds an awful like his new employer, Arianna Huffington, might want McCain to sound. Instead of turning on Pres. Bush as Edsall advises, Kaus posts a McCain friends advice to run against the media. McCain should say:

A fan of McCain's current messaging, The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez like what she says at McCain's official website: "I just happened upon John McCain's website and "war leader" jumps out as what he's running for right away. He even uses the I-word. By contrast, Rudy and Mitt are all smiles. I know everyone wants to do morning in America (and Senator Gathering Storm certainly did not help himself with his doom-and-gloom approach), but we do have to defeat some evil here."

PAUL: Keeping It Real

The Corner's Lisa Schiffren thanks Ron Paul for livening up the GOP field: "I certainly understand the temptation of supporting Ron Paul. That pure, small government, libertarian world view is wonderful -- and it is what drew so many Reaganites to politics in the 1970s and 80s, when big government ideology was entirely dominant. ... The real problem with Paul, as a political actor, is not that he isn't doing well in this race. It is that he has maintained such ideological purity in his years in office that he has been consistently ineffective. ... Still, it is good to have his voice in the debates, reminding the GOP what the real standards are, or should be, at a time when so many of our political leaders believe in the chimera of a large conservative government."

ROMNEY: Always And Forever

NRO's Jim Geraghty has some criticisms of Mitt Romney's new ad touting his immigration record in IA and NH: "I'm finding the timing curious - not wrong, just curious - wouldn't this ad have been more effective during the whole immigration deal debate? Doesn't this seem a little after-the-fact?" Geraghty later updates with a response from Team Romney: "We did air an earlier immigration ad in Iowa and New Hampshire during the middle of the immigration debate. And in Iowa particularly, immigration is a huge issue then, now and tomorrow."

John McCain aide Patrick Hynes posts video of ex-NH speaker/Romney NH co-chair Donna Sytek admitting Romney will have trouble winning NH in the general election.

F. THOMPSON: Southern Pol Receives Most Of Money From ... The South!

The Corner's Byron York singles out some noteworthy names from Fred Thompson's IRS filing, including: John McLaughlin; Swift Boat Veterans for Truth leader John O'Neill; Doug Feith; AEI chief Chris Demuth; ex-Sens. Howard Baker, Bill Frist, and Alfonse D'Amato; John Dowd; George Terwilliger; Peyton Manning; and Eugene Volokh. AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin notes: "On the donor side, so far he seems to have regional appeal largely limited to the South. By rough tabulation $2.68M --roughly 79%-- came from states in his regional backyard (Tenn. with $1.67M; Texas, VA, FL, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, NC and Alabama comprising the rest). More details as we continue to read on."

In other Thompson blogging, The Brody File readers defend Jeri Thompson, SC's The Shot is not impressed with Thompson's maneuvering on the Fair Tax, and Race 4 '08s Jason Bonham explains what he sees wrong with the Thompson campaign: "1. His supporters have made Fred the God of all things conservative2008, and he gladly accepts it; 2. His lack of an official campaign gives some credence to the laziness charge, but more importantly it has turned him into a paper tiger."

CLINTON: Battered Candidate Syndrome

Previously established Hillary Clinton doubter Andrew Sullivan explains why he supports Barack Obama over HRC: "Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. ... Obama is different. He wasn't mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn't carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. ... The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement.

TAPPED's Ezra Klein links and seconds Sullivan's conclusion: "You don't live through such experiences without scars, without lessons. Some say those lessons will make her more effective in office. Possibly true. But there's also an argument to be made that those were the wrong lessons ... Her actions are not those of someone who trusts in her capacity -- or even sees it as her goal -- to change the ideological tenor of the country. There's an argument to be made that she's right. I'm just not convinced."

EDWARDS: Conservatives Not The Only Ones Feminizing John

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein accuses John Edwards of "hiding behind his wife" arguing: "Most people who meet Elizabeth feel overwhelming respect for such an intelligent, witty, well-spoken woman who refuses to let cancer take over her life. But let's be honest. Elizabeth isn't running for president, John is. ... Is this a successful campaign strategy for John? Yes, because his wife is likable and eloquent. She helps the Edwards campaign neutralize the threat of another, equally compelling candidate spouse. But I can't help thinking that there's something a bit disingenuous about the idea that we elect a couple to the White House instead of an individual."

TAPPED's Steven White respond: "The main point of Dana's post -- that John Edwards is hiding behind Elizabeth on certain controversial issues -- is certainly true. He shouldn't get a pass on bad positions just because his wife is more progressive. But the examples Dana uses to critique John are slightly unfair, as some commenters have pointed out. Elizabeth's support for marriage equality doesn't undo John's quibbling." Fair enough. But Obama and Clinton also oppose gay marriage, so it looks like the Democratic frontrunners are each quibbling on gay rights in their own individual ways."

OBAMA vs EDWARDS: A Cleavage-Free Zone

TAPPED's Ezra Klein recommends David Brookslatest column comparing John Edwards and Barack Obama's poverty policies. Key Brooks graph: "Edwards emphasizes programs that help people escape from concentrated poverty. Obama emphasizes programs that fix inner-city neighborhoods. One helps people find better environments, the other seeks to strengthen the environment they are already in."

Klein concludes: "In this case, Brooks' description of the research is accurate The largest experimental demonstration of economic integration was the Moving to Opportunity Program ... Their outcomes were closely tracked and the results were tremendously disappointing." More Klein: "What I don't really understand is Brooks' preference for the Obama model. The Harlem Childrens' Zone, as Brooks points out, hasn't generated any conclusive data yet, and, more importantly, "there are 4,000 community development corporations around the country and they have not lifted residents out of poverty." So that seems like a fairly untested approach, too."

Also talking Obama v. Edwards, David Sirota blogs: "For a while now, I've told reporters, political operatives and friends that I talk politics with that the most interesting fault line in the Democratic presidential primary will be between Edwards and Obama. The former has created a gravitational pull in the race to become the change candidate juxtaposed against the Establishment candidacy of Hillary Clinton and her Washington machine. ... now, Obama is taking Edwards more seriously, trying to match -- if not one-up -- Edwards in the race for the populist mantle."

Sirota then links to news the AFL-CIO will not be endorsing and comments: "Labor's decision to withhold its endorsement to this point has been very smart. Letting the candidates prove themselves ... has impacted the overall presidential debate, which has impacted the broader national political conversation. ... But that shrewd decision and the potential for labor to more permanently instill populist economics into Democratic presidential politics will be lost if labor goes down the path it now seems to be headed."

OBAMA: They Don't Know How Cars Work, But They Know Yours Is Broken, And They Want You To Let Them Fix It

TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent posts the key line from Barack Obama's new 'Take It Back' ad running in IA and NH: "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." Sargent then compares it to a similar line from John Edwards circa '03: "I haven't spent most of my life in politics, which most of you know, but I have spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change Washington."

Sargent then explains why the lines are so similar: "David Axelrod was Edwards' media adviser then, and he's advising Obama now."

Bleeding Heartland's Chris Woods isn't sure if ethics will resonate with IA voters, but does like the ad personally: "Maybe I'm just naive or way to focused on other issues like Iraq but to me the clean campaign Obama is running just makes logical sense and should be what all the campaigns are doing, and then other issues should become the real focus. Either way, it is just a TV ad, and a good one."

OBAMA II: Pro-Sanity

NV assemblywoman Sheila Leslie (D) tells Reno and Its DiscontentsMyrna the Minx why she endorsed Obama: "Stopping the insanity in Iraq is my personal top priority in selecting the next president. I believe Obama is the strongest candidate in that area and that counted for a lot with me. ... Young people are excited about him, and if he engages our youth, well, that itself is reason to vote for him. On Clinton; I worry still about her electability, and as far as Edwards is concerned, I've been somewhat concerned about his campaign so far."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Can Big Green Help Us All Be Greener?

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum excerpts from a Amory Levinsinterview :

About a third of our army's wartime fuel use is for generator sets, and nearly all of that electricity is used to air-condition tents in the desert, known as "space cooling by cooling outer space." We recently had a two-star Marine general commanding in western Iraq begging for efficiency and renewables to untether him from fuel convoys, so he could carry out his more important missions. This is a very teachable moment for the military. The costs, risks, and distractions of fuel convoys and power supplies in theater have focused a great deal of senior military attention on the need for not dragging around this fat fuel-logistics tail - therefore for making military equipment and operations several-fold more energy efficient.

Drum comments: "The Apollo program gave us Tang, so why can't the Iraq war give us fuel-efficient vehicles? It would be nice to get some benefit out of it, after all."

LEST WE FORGET: Go Niners!

With the NFL and WH '08 heating up Tethered Swimming compares some WH '08 campaigns to NFL franchises including:

• Sam Brownback - Cleveland Browns - He's a grand old conservative the same way the Browns are a grand old football franchise. The locals love him but nobody else cares about him at all and that, in a nutshell, is the problem. At least no one thinks he moved to Baltimore.
• Rudy Giuliani - Cincinnati Bengals - His offensive capabilities are vast and proven, but too many of his teammates run afoul of the law in embarrassing and distracting ways. The money and the prestige make him a tempting pick but he's got a lot of baggage. That baggage, and the distractions that come with it, will be a lot harder to carry come January.
• Mitt Romney - San Diego Chargers - Top to bottom he might be the most complete candidate in the field and they might be the most complete team in the conference. Nevertheless, a spectacular, fiery defeat lurks on even the brightest day, whether you are a Mormon or Marty Schottenheimer.
• Barack Obama - New Orleans Saints - He and they are both new, flashy, out-of-nowhere media darlings. That's all well and good, but they're in the big game now and it's time to prove that the Cinderella stories can stand up to tougher competition. Obama and the Saints have the tools and the talent, but now it's showtime.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:37 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.