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 August 15, 2007 12:55 PM