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 August 7, 2007 12:51 PM