September 28, 2007

9/28: Commitment To Excellence

The Oakland Raiders motto 'Committment To Excellence" may seem silly when compared to the current shape of the franchise, but for decades Al Davis' 'Just Win Baby' mentality made the Raiders one of the premier franchises in the league. Netroots reactions to John Edwards decision to accept matching funds (thus limiting the total amount of money he can spend before 9/08) epitomizes this ethos. Edwards has won virtually every Daily Kos straw poll held, and the community has always been supportive of his anti-poverty, anti-war on terror message. Yet, Edwards has continued to fail to unite the community behind him. Now we may know why: they like him but they don't think he can win.

WH FIELD: We're Covering The NV And FL Contests, The Rest Of You Can Freeze To Death

Marc Ambinder reports "there is, among the leading Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, remarkable unanimity about its most likely shape." The probable calendar:

Jan. 5: Iowa caucuses (both parties)
Jan. 8: New Hampshire primary (both parties)
Jan. 12: Nevada caucuses (both parties)
Jan. 15: Michigan GOP primary; Dem beauty contest
Jan. 19: South Carolina primary (both parties)
Jan. 29: Florida GOP primary; Dem beauty contest

DEM FIELD: Confidence Is High

Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal highlights "one of the biggest and most noteworthy shifts" in CNN/WMUR New Hampshire primary poll. While "Hillary Clinton's share of the vote has increased four points (from 39% to 43%) since June, we see a 17-point increase (from 37% to 54%) in assessments that she has best chance to win in November. ... These results are consistent with similar findings from the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal national survey of Democrats, which show the percentage choosing Clinton as the Democrat with the "best chance to defeat the Republican candidate" growing from 39% to 54% from April to September."

CLINTON: 'Hillary Hates You'

Netroots disappointment with Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of 9/26's Lieberman-Kyl amendment recommending the State Dept. designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization continued to surface 9/27. Reactions include:

• Taylor Marsh: "Clinton's vote yesterday on the Lieberman-Kyl legislation was a very bad vote. Last night [John] Edwards called her out on it. It wasn't as bad as the Iraq vote many Democrats in the Senate cast, including Edwards, but it's certainly how the Iraq war began. It also gives Republicans the opening they're hoping for. This is an ominous development."
• The Huffington Post's David Bromwich: "By granting Vice President Cheney's wish (a distant dream in 2005) to put the Iranian guard on the U.S. terrorist list, the Senate has classified the army of Iran as an army of terrorists. The president, therefore ... has all the support he requires for asserting in his next speech to an army or veterans group that Iran is a nation of terrorists. ... Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to press the army toward war with Iran. This was an important step, for her, and a vote as closely considered as her vote to authorize the bombing and occupation of Iraq."
• The Huffington Post's Miles Mogulescu: "Hillary Hates You. She thinks you're weak. She has no respect for you ... How else to explain her vote for the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment, which designates Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization?"

DODD: Best Email Ever

The Huffington Post's Zack Exley enjoyed Chris Dodd's last minute Q3 email fundraising pitch. He posts the text of an email from Dodd and comments: "That email really is a beautiful--and impossible--thing. That email from Dodd is a wonderful way to signal the start of a new kind of truly sincere conversation between candidate and supporter (I like to imagine that this email was actually dashed off by Dodd himself after Tim Tagaris had somehow snuck onto the bus and made an impassioned plea to the Senator to just begin writing to his supporters as he would to any friend or colleague)."

EDWARDS: Should He Stay Or Should He Go?

John Edwards is reaping some rewards for the distinction he drew with Hillary Clinton on residual troops in 9/26's MSNBC debate, but the netroots would like to see more. Reactions include:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: " am very happy that John Edwards has now put a number to his residual force plan: 3,500 to 5,000 ... Edwards still missed a big opportunity last night. While it is useful that he is drawing a distinction between his residual force plan than that of Clinton, it simply is not as effective a distinction as it could have been had he said "no residual troops," ala [Bill] Richardson."
• Liberal Oasis: "Without taking a pledge to get all troops by Jan. 2013, Edwards' is drawing a very fine distinction, which may limit the political impact."
• Matthew Yglesias: "To me, this is clearly preferable to more ambitious plans involving tends of thousands of soldiers. I wonder, though, if it's really possible. ... The logic of the situation is that either you stay in Iraq in force, or else you give up on trying to use the US military as a tool for influencing political developments in Iraq and you leave."

EDWARDS II: Just Win Baby

John Edwards only fed netroots doubts about his viability by announcing he will accept public financing. MyDD's Jonathan Singer comments: "I don't mean to be crass, I do not mean to denigrate campaign finance law, but there is simply no way I could support John Edwards based on his decision to accept public financing, thus placing a cap on the overall amount of money he can spend before the Democratic Convention in late August. ... I simply do not believe that the Democrats can afford to give up on one of the greatest advantages they have going into the 2008 presidential election -- fundraising."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas was equally critical: "Boy this is stupid. ... Any Democrat that agrees to forgo this advantage in a primary instantly suffers an "electability" hit, a misguided effort to turn a liability (relatively poor fundraising) into a positive."

The Edwards campaign later contacted Kos to clarify their position. Kos summarizes:

• 1.) the cap doesn't apply to field, and only 50 percent of advertising counts against the spending cap ($54 million). So they think they'll have plenty of money to get through a primary season that will be over February 5, and have enough to last through the summer;
• 2.) the article was wrong -- they're taking the Obama approach for the general election. That is, they'll opt into public financing only if the Republican nominee does as well; and
• 3.) even if they're short on money, the 527s can pick up the slack over the summer. So even if it's $7 million, they'd still have another $45 million left over in the cap, while still able to raise money for field work.

Kos was not won over: "Maybe someone can go back and look at the 2004 burn rates and see how much flexibility that amount would give the campaign. But it still makes me nervous, especially since we're operating in a cycle where we could turn the tables on the Republicans and swamp them over the summer with a wave of small-dollar money."

EDWARDS III: No Word On Whether The Bloggers Wore Briefs

John Edwards became the first WH '08 candidate to participate in the MySpace/MTV Dialogue. MySpace paid for a number of bloggers to attend the event including:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "It's going okay. Edwards is his usual informed, casual self. He's doing well, but still hasn't done anything, said anything, that's going to knock Hillary out of first place in he polls."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "MySpace paid for me to be in New Hampshire, so I figure the least I can do is put up a thread linking to their forum with John Edwards today."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Edwards tried to draw distinctions with the other leading candidates, noting for instance that, at least in his opinion, the healthcare plan being put forward by Barack Obama was not fully universal. But more to the point of this particular post Edwards also attempted to show a difference with Hillary Clinton, whose plan he contends is based on his. In short (and I'm going off of memory rather than a transcript), Edwards said that whereas Clinton would allow insurance companies to come to the table, he did not believe that this was a wise strategy."

Not at the MTV event, but still talking Edwards and health care, The Huffington Post's Peter Dreier blogs: "Edwards acknowledged that winning health care reform won't happen simply by inside-the-Beltway maneuvering. On that playing field, the drug companies, the insurance industry, and the hospital and HMO chains have the money and the upper hand. ... Edwards scored the biggest audience response at the Dartmouth debate when he promised to cut off health insurance coverage for members of Congress if they don't pass universal health care reform by July 2009."

OBAMA: Cursed By The Smaller Intellects Of 'Normal People'

Those in the netroots who are sympathetic to Barack Obama are clarifying their wish that Obama would communicate his message more clearly. Those on message include:

• Matthew Yglesias: "Watching the primary campaign, it keeps seeming to me as if Barack Obama is making arguments that, while fairly clear to me, must go over the heads of at least half of political junkies, to say nothing of normal people going about their lives. ... I like Obama and I like what I think his campaign stands for. But it's ridiculous to expect members of the press -- even sympathetic ones -- to make his arguments for him. If he wants people to vote for him rather than for Hillary Clinton, he needs to spell out some reasons why."
• Atrios: "I agree with Matt that Obama is too subtle. Like Matt, I think I can read between the lines, but it also isn't exactly crystal clear to me. Certainly not so crystal clear that he can expect members of the press to clarify them for people."
• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "Obama can't expect to remain a cypher and have people understand what he means. He seems incapable of going on the attack, apparently fearful that it will drive up his negatives. But you don't act like a frontrunner (staying above the fray) unless you ARE the frontrunner. And right now, he's not."
• an Andrew Sullivan reader: "I just saw Barack Obama speak in Washington Square - and I was underwhelmed. Obama spouted cliches at the crowd: Hope, Optimism, A Better America. You could tell that people wanted to like him, but he wasn't giving people a reason to connect with him. ... Obama can only win if he makes this connection with people, empathizing with their hopes, and telling the stories that show what kind of a person he is."
• Fire Dog Lake's Swopa: "Obama's problem is that he's staked his campaign on a personal image of being an uplifting, bipartisan uniter ... We've tried the likable-guy approach, and it got the country stuck in the ditch in any number of painful ways. So the candidate people are likely to vote for is the one who gives the best sense of being ready to roll up their sleeves and start digging us out."

RICHARDSON: We Think He May Have Found An Issue To Run On

The Huffington Post's James Boyce sat down with Bill Richardson 9/27. On Iraq, Richardson told Boyce, "I will end this war and get our troops out." Boyce comments: "It's a message that, having been in NH at the debate last night, seems like it might be getting across. In fact, the Governor himself thinks that last night was his strongest performance to date because he was more successful in bringing the Iraq issue on the stage and bringing the differences between himself and Senators Clinton and Obama front and center."

GOP DEBATE: How Does He Know They Weren't Watching The Office?

NRO's Jim Geraghty was among the few conservatives to watch and report on PBS' 9/27 debate. Geraghty comments on Tavis Smiley pointing out that none of the frontrunners bothered to show up: "You know, the constant lambasting for not being here could really hurt those four candidates... if any Republicans are watching tonight. I mean, I'm pretty sure the folks in the Corner are watching the season premiere of Grey's Anatomy."

Other Geraghty nuggets: "Forty-eight percent of African-Americans in Arkansas voted for Mike Huckabee? ... Sam Brownback wants a national apology for slavery and segregation."

GINGRICH: Are You A GOP Consultant? Then Newt Thinks Your Stupid

Rob Bluey and Captain's Quarters both liveblogged Newt Gingrich's Solutions Day speech.

From Bluey's account of Gingrich's remarks: "Americans agree on five big issues - 1) immigration (no one should get away with breaking the law), 2) national security and defense (we must defend our allies and defeat our enemies), 3) saving Social Security for future generations, 4) healthy economy and healthy environment (using innovation and new technology rather than regulation and litigation), and finally 5) religion in the public square (deletion of God from our society)."

From Captain's Quarters live blog: "I'm back in the Media Center, where the two journalists who covered this noted that Gingrich relied on Republican issues -- border security, immigration, entitlement reform, and so on. However, I think they missed the point. Their polling shows that while these issues may get identified with Republicans inside the beltway, a large majority of people believe that these are issues that need priority solutions. The key is to find solutions that can either bridge or bypass the partisan bickering."

CQ also talked with Newt for BlogTalkRadio. Highlights include: "Let me be clear. I think Republican consultants are mostly very stupid. I think they have no education. I think they have no sense of history. ... If I throw away African Americans, and then I throw away Latinos, and then I throw away suburban women, and then I throw away people under 40, and then I throw away everything north of Philadelphia -- there's a morning where Republicans can't get to a majority."

Townhall's Matt Lewis also posts audio of an interview with Gingrich an notes: "He says he will decide whether or not to run by Oct. 21. His announcement would be an hour speech on CSPAN. He feels announcing on Leno or Letterman is unserious."

RCP Blog's Blake Dvorak links to a National Review editorial encouraging Gingrich not to run and dissents: "Even though NR believes that Gingrich won't win the nomination, the former Speaker ... would immediately vault into the first tier, if not by poll numbers than by how he can control a lot of the debate. Fact is, next to Gingrich, some of the other candidates would look like lightweights in the realm of policy and ideas. ... although NR doesn't say it explicitly, I see a bit of an anti-Rudy message underlining its anti-Newt editorial."

GIULIANI: Cell Controversy Continues

The Brody File has videos up of his 9/27 interview with Rudy Giuliani. On the NRA cell phone incident, Giuliani explains: "My wife calls me when she gets on a plane. ... Sometimes if I'm in the middle of a very, very sensitive meeting, I don't take the call right then I wait. But I thought it would be kind of nice if I took it at that point, and I'd done that before in engagements, and I didn't realize it would create any kind of controversy."

Other video titles include, "Giuliani Says 'I Pray to Jesus'" and "Giuliani Thinks He's the Only Republican Candidate That Can Win California."

MCCAIN: One Free Live Man

Townhall's Matt Lewis, The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru, and AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein all linked to John McCain's new television ads 'Live Free' and 'One Man'. Klein blogs: "The two ads do a good job of emphasizing McCain's greatest strengths--his courage, heroism, experience and fighting spirit. They are filled with clips and images from his time as a POW and meeting with Ronald Reagan."

Also impressing conservatives, Race4'08s LJ spells out what he likes about McCain's National Reviewarticle calling for energy independence: "That's one thing, among many, that I admire about John McCain. He understands that it's one thing to talk about developing more domestic energy sources and another thing to actually get it enacted. To achieve real change, the nation as a whole must be called upon to act. As McCain says, not because it's easy, but because it's hard."

ROMNEY: Against Punchlines

Mitt Romney pitches his new 'Change Begins With Us' theme at RedState: "The blame for Washington's failures lies not just with the Democrats but with Republicans as well. We have to put our own house in order. We can no longer be a party of big spenders with ethical standards more fitting of a Jay Leno punch line. We can no longer pretend our borders are secure. When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses. It's time for change in Washington and change begins with us."

At The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez links to Team Romney's ad contest winner and asks, "Did They Poll Test the Word 'Acquiescence'?"

At Townhall, Hugh Hewitt promotes MyManMitt's effort to raise $75k for Mitt Romney, writing: "The decentralization of the Romney fundraising plan has been extraordinary and very effective. MittRomney.com is the hub, but the number of spokes extending from it is remarkable, and the volunteer effort it presages for the primaries and the general beyond is very good news for the GOP."

Fellow Townhaller Dean Barnett is underwhelmed: "virtual fundraising remains a freak-side show compared to its real world equivalent. ... Republican candidates don't care about what we do in the conservative blogosphere; they care about what we say. They respect our message machine because of what that message machine may say, not simply because it's there. ... Ideas matter. Online activism and action alerts? Not so much."

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini responds: "Is Dean actually implying someone should never bother to contribute under $100 to a campaign (psst... at the evil, top-down RNC, where I used to work, that's where we got most of our money)? Or that one shouldn't bother to volunteer? ... The bottom line is this. I'm concerned about the message we're broadcasting to everyone in our movement when we suggest that activism is somehow unworthy of us."

At RCPBlogTom Bevan looks at Romney's 4% decline in RCP's NH poll average and comments: "Should Mr. Romney be worried? Yes. Is it time to hit the panic button? Not quite. The linchpin of his strategy is a win in Iowa, and right now the big lead he's built up in the Hawkeye State over the summer appears to be holding." Later Bevan posts Romney strategist's Alex Gage memo downplaying expectations: "By no means do we expect to win both Iowa and New Hampshire - no Republican in the modern era ever has."

THOMPSON: Not The Savior They Were Hoping For

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff comments on Jonathan Martin's piece titled "Evangelicals Turn on Thompson" blogging: "This report reminded me of a very socially conservative acquaintance who, opposed to Giuliani and McCain and unimpressed by Romney, asked me for months when Thompson was going to get into the race. Shortly after he entered, she had another question for me: 'Do you think Duncan Hunter has any chance?'"

At AmSpec Blog, Jennifer Rubin picks up in reports Thompson did not know lethal injection had been found to violate TN's constitution and comments: "in truth he lives in McLean Virginia and has no more reason to be up on that case than to know about Terri Schiavo or disaster insurance in Florida. Hey, he's happy with his poll numbers and "doesn't see anything out of the first few weeks but good news" so why start learning stuff now."

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: Not Dancing With The Ones That Brought Them

The list of issues the netroots are frustrated with Congress over is growing. By no means the most important, but possibly the most visible, the netroots feel betrayed by the Senate and House condemnations of MoveOn. Open Left's Matt Stoller looks at which Dems MoveOn worked for in '06 and reports: "Since they voted to condemn Moveon's ad, they have neutralized Moveon's ability to help them. And how did our candidates do from the netroots page? Not well. Hodes, Walz, Murphy, McNerney, Sestak, Webb, and Tester all voted badly. Every. Single. One."

Open Left's Chris Bowers links and adds: "most House Democrats probably don't think they need the netroots anymore. While we were all a fine and acceptable stopgap fundraisinging measure when Democrats were in the minority, and facing nearly a two to one fundraising deficit again Republicans, now they are in the majority and thus recipients of far more corporate PAC cash than ever before. ... So no, many of them don't care about their activist base."

Others frustrated include:

• The Huffington Post's Harry Shearer on Iraq: "We haven't even put a dent in it. It's arguable that the laughably low approval rating the public gives the Democratic-run Congress is attributable to that body's failure to move the ball one inch down the field. Worse, the Democratic leadership has looked feckless, confused, spineless and outmaneuvered at every turn by the administration and its Republican allies, frightened though the latter may be to be tied to the war come next election day."
• David Sirota on NAFTA: "There is a tiny silver lining to all this. Knowing that the Speaker of the House clearly does not listen to labor, environmental, human rights, anti-poverty and religious groups who oppose the deal, nor does she listen to her own rank-and-file Democrats who ran against NAFTA; nor does she listen to the American people who voted against NAFTA in the 2006 election - at least we know who Pelosi does listen to: David Broder."
• Glenn Greenwald on FISA: "As I've noted several times, there are few things which Congress could do to further advance the Bush administration's evisceration of the rule of law in general -- and specifically to protect Bush officials from accountability for violating eavesdropping laws -- than enact a law providing this amnesty for past lawbreaking. ... On issues of intelligence, judiciary and oversight, Feinstein really has become the new Joe Lieberman, repeatedly siding with the right-wing of the Republican caucus on key issues and thus actively enabling the worst abuses of the Bush administration."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: More Pissed Off People Wanted

"[M]mulling over the contradictions in the way people answer various poll questions" The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum argues, "something like 30% who want to stay in Iraq, 30% who want to get out, and 40% somewhere in the middle who aren't really sure what to do. ... Here's why it matters: we're not going to get out of Iraq until a sufficient number of people get pissed off enough about it to demand action - and we're kidding ourselves if we think a casual answer to a poll question counts as "pissed off." Support for withdrawal is almost certainly not as deep or as wide as a quick glance at the polls suggests, and that's why congressional Democrats haven't worked up the gumption to defund the war. They don't think there are enough voters firmly on their side."

More Drum: "Conservatives are making a persuasive and spine-chilling prediction of disaster if we leave. Liberals are just saying our presence isn't accomplishing anything. That's not enough. Instead of merely claiming that we're not doing any good in Iraq, we need to make persuasive arguments that we're actively doing harm. ... When we argue that the surge isn't working, we're playing on conservative turf. We're accepting their frame for the debate. We need to stop, and instead start making positive arguments of our own that conservatives have to parry. It's the only way we're going to turn the leaners into genuine war opponents."

LEST WE FORGET: It's A Man's Prerogative

Following news from the Capitol 9/27, The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez quips, "Republican Men Fear Committment. Larry Craig. Denny Hastert. Just make up your minds - preferably before you hold press conferences."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:41 PM

September 27, 2007

9/27: Talkin' About A Revolution

Another Dem debate, another Hillary Clinton victory. Again HRC scored points with netroots doubters by commanding the forum (this time scoring her most points by deftly turning away a ticking-bomb scenario question). As well as Clinton did, however, John Edwards may have previewed the line of attack best suited to topple her: her 9/26 vote in favor of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) sponsored amendment encouraging the State Dept. to name Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Edwards and Barack Obama have both been searching for a concrete example of how they differ from HRC on foreign policy and this ought to be an effective one, especially in netroots circles.

NH DEBATE: A Giant Step For Edwards?

Bloggers supportive of Bill Richardson's 'no residual forces' position on Iraq were pleased with MSNBC moderater Tim Russert's early focus on the issue. Fire Dog Lake's Siun writes: "Surprisingly - Tim Russert actually asked the question - and pushed for answers. ... I still heard only one 'get them all out' amongst the major candidates."

Open Left's Chris Bowers was initially disappointed from reports that none of the frontrunners would commit to pull all combat troops out of Iraq by 2013.

After later reading a transcript of the exchange, Bowers notes that [John] Edwards actually named a troop level that Bowers found acceptable. From Edwards: "I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops." Bowers comments: "This is progress. This is a very small residual force plan not only made clear, but couple with a direct contrast with [Hillary] Clinton ... this is a big step forward for Edwards."

Blue Hampshire's Colin Van Ostern notes that among Dartmouth students voting at open-vote.com, Hillary Clinton was the clear winner of the debate. At deadline, with 603 students voting 31% thought Clinton won, 25% like Obama, and Edwards came in third at 19%.

The results were flipped at Daily Kos where 33% had Edwards winning, 19% had Obama, and 13% chose HRC.

Candidate specific reactions include:

DEBATE CLINTON: Someone's Slept On The Couch Last Night

• The Huffington Post's Glynnis Macnicol: "Hillary looked the frontrunner she is. She was steady and strong and certainly not backing down in the [large] face of Russert's fairly consistent badgering."
• IA Independent's Douglas Burns: "Hillary Clinton is both the most sure-handed and quick-footed in the Democratic debates. ... When MSNBC moderator Tim Russert pointed out that HRC had an apparent difference with her former president husband on a torture question, she responded, ... 'Well, I'll talk to him later.'"
• The Plank's Michael Crowley: "I didn't see anything likely to change the dynamic of the race. And that's bad news for anyone not named Clinton."

DEBATE EDWARDS: Break On Trough

• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Russert is turning the discussion on universal health care into a referendum on HillaryCare. Then he points out to Edwards that when he ran for president in 2004, he didn't support universal health care, saying it would be too expensive. That's a hard hit against Edwards, and nobody's made it so clearly before."
• The Huffington Post's Glynnis Macnicol: "I think Edwards owned his part of the debate. He was forceful and clear in the time he was given, without ever letting things get at all nasty. I think this was a real break out for him."
• The Plank's Noam Scheiber: "[Edwards] came out of the gate taking issue with what he described as Clinton's willingness to leave combat troops in Iraq for the indefinite future. And, in perhaps his best moment of the debate, he warned that Clinton's vote on a Joe Lieberman-sponsored Senate resolution targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard represented a serious lapse in judgment. But, despite his forcefulness, Edwards came off as controlled and reasonable."

DEBATE OBAMA: Defiantly Low Key

• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: "I saw ... Russert asking Barack Obama if he would support Israel attacking Iran if Israel thought it was endangered by the Iranian nuclear program. The question was framed a bit better and more sharply. But that was the gist of it. Weak answer. Obama didn't come down one way or another; he just rambled. Not impressive. ... the consensus, seems to be that Obama had a bad night. And I have to agree. I was a little pained to see it. But he did seem unfocused and slow on his feet. If this was the first time I'd seen him, I wouldn't have had a very good impression."
• The Huffington Post's Glynnis Macnicol: "[Obama] wasn't weak, per se, but he didn't stand out, and right now that is arguably worse.
• The Plank's Noam Scheiber: "At times Obama reminds you of the guy who calls out the name of the class bully from across the cafeteria, only to lose his nerve and mutter something harmless once the bully struts over and stares him in the face. ... There was almost an element of defiance in his low-key performance, as though he were saying: 'This is the strategy I'm going with, so lay off.' His aides later underscored this impression."
• a Daily Kos commenter: "He is so underwhelming in these debates....he talks like a uber Senator, and his vaunted charisma is nowhere to be seen. He won't go after Hillary either... What a disappointment."
• another Kossack: "Obama just gave the most moving answer of the night - he's exactly what our country needs. If all you do is teach fear and division and conflict - you get people who are fearful, divided and conflicted. We need to stop all that and teach people hope and tolerance etc. That is Obama, and that is why we - meaning our country and the world - need him desperately."

CLINTON: We're Gonna Go Ahead And Predict This Vote Ends Up In At Least One Ad

Picking up on reports of a 400k + member anti-Hillary Clinton Facebook page, Open Left's Chris Bowers explains why he will not join it: "considering the differences between them are not particularly large in terms of policy, electability, or connection to the establishment, why would I be anti-Clinton and not also anti-pretty much the entire Democratic field? There are differences, but those differences are nowhere close to being large enough to justify being anti-Clinton at all costs. ... What are the gaping differences that make Clinton utterly unacceptable and [Barack] Obama acceptable?"

Later commenting on news Clinton voted for a Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) sponsored amendment encouraging the State Dept. to name Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization Bowers updates: "Well, this level of saber-rattling against Iran is an undeniably wide gap between at least Clinton and [Chris] Dodd / [Joe] Biden. I have to say, Dodd certainly is voting the right way ... I really wish he would get more traction in Iowa and New Hampshire--he deserves a much larger place in the discussion."

EDWARDS: Too Clintonian?

Two Huffington Post items whacked John Edwards 9/26. First, Tim Frasca looks at short comings in Edwards health care plan concluding: "Edwards does call our current system immoral although he doesn't say people have a 'right' to be cared for when sick. But the current discussion is too politically disemboweled to build the momentum for actually achieving the profound change Edwards says we need. The soothing sounds coming from him and his competitors so far only show at best a Clintonian aptitude for obtaining power, not for actually changing the course of events once they get it."

Later, Sam Stein reports on the fate of some Edwards commissioned video shorts originally shot for Edwards pre-announcement One America Committee PAC. Stein notes that the webisodes were originally planned "with the apparent goal of bringing transparency to the political process" but now they have disappeared from the public domain and the Edwards campaign would only allow Stein to view them in the presence of an Edwards staffer. Stein concludes: "Edwards declared in the one webisode still public, 'not based on some plastic Ken doll you put up in front of audiences.' I'm still waiting to see."

OBAMA: Probably Should Have Just Skipped That Secure Fences Act Vote Too

The Huffington Post's Dan Kowalski points readers to an ImmigrationProf Blog discussion of Barack Obama's position on immigration and summarizes: "Beyond the platitudes we've heard before, the nugget that struck me hardest was the Senator's rationale for voting for the Secure Fence Act. He says he voted for it even though it sends two strong messages with which he disagrees - that Mexico is "not our friend" and that an enforcement-only approach can work - because 'restoring order in the border region is necessary to winning the American people's support for full reform.' ... That's disingenuous (a word Obama loves) at best, because he knows that no fence, long or short, will restore 'order' on the borders. Moreover, it's a candidate's (and a President's) job to lead and persuade, not hide behind 'safe' votes. And as I've argued before, trying to "secure the borders" first is putting things backwards."

In more positive Obama blogging, Open Left's Matt Stoller approves of Obama spokesman Bill Burton's statement that Obama would have voted against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today, but also blogs: "I was talking to a relatively connected religious liberal upset at Obama's failed outreach, and it struck me as fairly similar in organization structure to those others have been experiencing. He talked about how the progressive religious groups are flowing to Hillary. My problem with Obama is partially this, but it's mostly how little he differs from Clinton. This is a difference."

GOP FIELD: Mittmentumless

WMUR's latest NH poll numbers showing Mitt Romney with only a 24%-23% lead over Rudy Giuliani had conservatives speculating on Romney's viability. AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein blogs: "If true, this is an ominous sign for Romney, whose strategy is contingent on building momentum by winning the early states. ... these numbers cut into one of the central arguments made by Romney supporters all year--that although he has lower name recognition than his chief rivals, the more people get to know him, the more the like him. These results would suggest just the opposite."

NY Sun's Ryan Sager comments: "The only plausible explanation I can see is that Mr. Giuliani's MoveOn.org gambit has worked splendidly. Of course it was all a bunch of bogus fake outrage. But it kept Mr. Giuliani in the news, and it kept him in the news on the attack against Democrats."

Back at AmSpec, Jennifer Rubin comments:

1) The RCP averages have shown a decline in Romney's lead recently from nearly 12% to under 5% so this is not an isolated poll. 2) Romney is on the air in NH with paid TV ads. The others are not on TV although Rudy has radio ads up. So the poll movement happened while Romney still enjoyed a TV ad monopoly. 3) This has nothing to do with Thompson's entrance that I can see- McCain and Rudy are the ones taking the votes away. 4) Did Romney's recent debate performance, considered one of his weakest, and McCain's strong one contribute to this? Perhaps NH voters do actually watch debates. 5) Romney is stressing a strong social conservative message and recently has been emphasizing the gay marriage issue in Iowa. This may not mesh well with fiscally conservative NH voters with a streak of libertarianism.

GOP FIELD II: The GOP in '08! Catch The Excitement!

Right Wing NewsJohn Hawkins links to Gallup data showing Dems enjoying a 53% to 38% favorability rating over GOPers and lists the reasons why: "1) George Bush is wildly unpopular; 2) The American people are tired of the war in Iraq; 3) The GOP base is extremely dispirited; 4) Liberals have been out of power for a long time and the American people have forgotten what a disaster they are when they're in charge (although Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Company are working hard to remind them); 5) Although the House got an attitude adjustment in the 2006 elections, the Republicans in the Senate are still arrogant, have mediocre leadership, and were foolish enough to spend months fighting their biggest supporters over illegal immigration; 6) Ethics scandals and spending are still a problem. Think David Vitter, Ted Stevens, Larry Craig, and Don Young."

Hawkins is not completely pessimistic: "Will this situation improve significantly by election time in 2008? I expect that it will, but probably not enough to allow the GOP to go on the offensive in 2008. At best, we can hope to hold the presidency, only lose or gain a handful of seats in the House, and only lose a seat or two in the Senate."

At The Corner, Larry Kudlow links to America's Majority Foundation polling showing "Policies that induce mass fear in illegal aliens induce mass anger in legal aliens because of ties of family culture and a shared media communication." Kudlow warns: "Any discussion of mass deportation or criminalization is a disaster. This is tough stuff. GOP: Be warned."

PAUL: Truthers Of The World Unite!

RCP Blog's Blake Dvorak links to Detroit Free Pressreporting on the preponderance of 9/11 Truthers among Ron Paul's Mackinac Island, MI, supporters and advises: "If Paul has any hope of influencing more Republican voters with his message, he would be wise to disassociate himself from these nutjobs. That means more than a simple press release or statement from a spokesman. It means saying it out loud."

THOMPSON: Who's The Real Candidate Here?

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez posts Fred Thompson spokesman Todd Harris' post Dem debate statement and asks: "When will we see a bullish Thompson, not just a bullish communications director?"

BLOGGERS VS MSM: Oh The Story Is About Hypocrisy Alright

Conservative blogs forced an apology out of MSNBC David Shuster after Shuster errantly identified the wrong fallen soldier to ambush Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) with. While discussing the MoveOn ad 9/24 Shuster asked Blackburn "What was the name of the last solider from your district who was killed in Iraq?" When Blackburn could not answer, Shuster sprung: "Okay, his name was Jeremy Bohannon. He was killed August the 9th, 2007. How come you didn't know the name?"

RedState's Erick Erickson comments: "First, I'd note that the only reason David Shuster knows Jeremy Bohannon's name is because it was convenient for Shuster to use Bohannon's dead body to score points against a Republican. That's exactly what Blackburn has been critical of the New York Times, MoveOn.org, and others doing."

Unfortunately for Shuster, NewsBusters found out Bohannan did not actually live in Blackburn's district. When emailed about the discrepancy Shuster replied: "the story was about Blackburn's hypocrisy... it wouldn't matter whether the soldier's name was David Shuster or Crazy Water. she didn't know the name, period."

NRO's Stephen Spruiell responds: "Hypocrisy is pretending to care about the death of an American soldier, when really he's just a prop in your gimmicky audition for your own show on MSNBC."

Shuster later apologized on MSNBC 9/26: "I identified who I believed to be that fallen soldier, a Tennessean killed in Iraq last month. But according to Pentagon documents, that young man came from a town inside a neighboring congressional district, not from Representative Blackburn's, and for that, I apologize for that mistake."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What Him Worry?

In a conversation with Cass Sunstein on "The State of the Blogosphere" Instapundit explains why we shouldn't worry about divisiveness online:

That people are hardwired to rain scorn on some outgroup, and that we've replaced Jim Crow and pre-Stonewall era gay bashing with people who say nasty things in blog comment sections. To the extent that this is true, it's probably a good thing, since blog comment sections tend to have very modest impacts on the rest of the world, and are easily avoided by those who dislike them. Plus, it may be that flame-wars are sufficiently cathartic to make more serious conflict less likely. Is this really the case? I hope so, but I'm not entirely confident that it's so. So here's another: The people shouting about politics are not representative. The readership of political blogs overall probably doesn't exceed a few million (it's hard to say how many readers overlap multiple blogs). Of this readership, most are passive, and don't even post comments. Even fewer blog. And most of those reading blogs do so as a way of killing a few minutes' time at work. So the passion level on the screen may not translate into equal levels of passion in real life.

LEST WE FORGET: Doing The Jobs Actual Candidates Won't Do

Watching the 9/26 Dem debate, TAPPED's Dana Goldstein observes: "Edwards is doing it again! In the last debate, John Edwards said he was against gay marriage, but his wife Elizabeth supported it. This time, he tells us his daughter Cate supports gay marriage. He bets his 9-year old and 7-year old will probably someday support gay marriage, too. Wow. Obama jumps onto the bandwagon! He hasn't personally talked to his daughters about gay marriage, but, "My wife has." What's going on? Is gay rights spouse's work?"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:44 PM

September 26, 2007

9/26: Our Magic Eight Ball Says...

From what we hear in this town, David Brooks is correct when he reports that "many Democratic politicians privately detest the netroots' self-righteousness and bullying." Unfortunately, there is also much in his 9/25 column that does not ring true to this netroots observer. To support his argument "that if you want to understand the future of the Democratic Party you can learn almost nothing from the bloggers" Brooks marshalls three distinct arguments: 1) netroots-hated Hillary Clinton is beating 'the netroots candidates; 2) HRC has rejected the netroots 'slashing' style of politics for Mark Penn centrism; 3) and the netroots are losing policy battles.

While no one mistakes HRC for the netroots ideal candidate, the truth is no one in the Dem field does either. John Edwards may win Daily Kos straw polls but he's never come close to a majority. Barack Obama does out poll Clinton in the community, but Obama's commitment to avoid 'divisive ideological politics' is antithetical to netroots experience. If anything, Hillary best epitomizes netroots political instincts. She was the first candidate to dispatch a surrogate to defend Daily Kos from Bill O'Reilly attacks. She's earned endorsements from netroots heroes fmr. Amb. Joe Wilson and ret. Gen. Wesley Clark. They know HRC will never back down from a partisan fight.

As for Brooks' case that the netroots are losing policy battles, as Matthew Yglesias points out, on troop levels in Iraq, global warming, and universal health care, the party (and Hillary) are all further to the left than they were four years ago. Now we're not expecting Dems to start writing the party platform off of dKos comment boards, but we do know it will be much further to the left in '08 than it was in '04, and we're also willing to bet that trend will continue into '12 and beyond.

CLINTON: Her Royal Highness

Open Left's Matt Stoller posts the second half of his 9/20 interview with ret.-Gen. Wesley Clark, including this answer to the question, "How long do you think residual troops will remain in Iraq under a Clinton Presidency?"

There's no way of knowing because the problem in Iraq is Iran. And you can't deal with Iraq unless you're willing to deal with Iran and the Bush administration is not facing reality. ... So I don't think there's any way of knowing how long it's going to take to work against the strategic challenge of Iran. First we have to get someone in office who will face it.

Later Stoller slams HRC's "disgraceful statement on Iran" but also adds, "I'm picking on Clinton, but Edwards and Obama aren't significantly different."

Obama fan Andrew Sullivan, however, surveys Clinton's Sunday talkfest performance, and forecasts the end of democracy in America: "The conservative Washington Establishment is swooning for Hillary for a reason. ... Hillary is Bush's ticket to posterity. On Iraq, she will be his legacy. They are not that dissimilar after all: both come from royal families, who have divvied up the White House for the past couple of decades. They may oppose one another; but they respect each other as equals in the neo-monarchy that is the current presidency. And so elite conservatives are falling over themselves to embrace a new Queen Hillary, with an empire reaching across Mesopotamia, a recently deposed court just waiting to return to the salons of DC, a consort happy to be co-president for another four years, and a back-channel to the other royal family."

The Huffington Post's Martin Lewis takes a different tack, arguing against "self-righteous (self-lefteous?) diatribes against Hillary" and reminding readers "it shouldn't make a difference to any other voters who are Democrats, left-leaning, liberal, progressive or independent. For one overwhelming reason. ... it's the SCOTUS stupid!"

EDWARDS: Already Served His Purpose?

Matthew Yglesias looks at news the SEIU will withhold their endorsement for now and argues that they have "already found a way to be extremely influential in this race." From Yglesias: "Everyone's noted the similarity of the major candidates' health care plans and the fact that Edwards led the way in this regard. But it's worth saying that before there was Edwards, there was SEIU saying it would only consider endorsing candidates who devised a specific plan for universal health insurance. That's what created the conditions for Edwards' bold stroke and also what made it necessary for the other candidates to play catch-up once Edwards' plan was unveiled."

OBAMA: The Magic Is Gone

Picking up on Politico reporting that the unofficial Facebook group 'One Million Strong for Barack' has been surpassed in membership by 'Stop Hillary Clinton' Open Left's Matt Stoller proclaims, "Obama Movement, Chances in NH, Dead." Reminding readers how Obama forced control of a pro-Obama MySpace page out of the hands of an amateur supporter, Stoller continues: "Obama had a movement, and killed it. ... Were Obama or Edwards to lead on stopping the new FISA bill from passing, there might be some movement from them. Clinton's fear-based campaign is weak, and she's not creating a particularly strong coalition. The environment will probably swamp those dynamics, but she is vulnerable if Obama or Edwards were to bother taking advantage of it."

RICHARDSON: Anti-Kabuki

It is unclear how many people Bill Richardson is winning over with his new television ads featuring bloggers talking about the importance of the 'residual troops' issue, but many appreciate the effort. Matthew Yglesias blogs: "I'm not sure why Bill Richardson thinks putting netroots activists in his ad attempting to raise the issue will help him, but I'm glad he's raising the issue. ... One fears that Richardson may have committed too many gaffes at this point to gain traction, but I hope this ad helps him and forces the other candidates to start addressing this issue." The Left Coaster's Ken Camp writes: "Don't be fooled by the kabuki dance or rhetorical gymnastics of the other candidates. Residual troops equals stay the course, and that's simply unacceptable."

Open Left's Mike Lux, however, still has questions about the strategy, including: 1. What happens to the Kurds? 2. If the U.N. and other countries really get engaged in 2009, and a peace deal is forged, do we refuse to send troops in as peace keepers? 3. What about humanitarian workers? 4. What about reconstruction? 5. What conditions will be different in January 2009?

WEBB: Shutting The Back Door

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) earned wide netroots acclaim 9/25 for his attack on the Lieberman-Kyl amendment to the DoD appropriation bill. TPM's Josh Marshall directs readers to Thinks Progress video of Webb's floor speech and describes: "As Webb notes, Kyl-Amendment is a cleverly worded back door use of force resolution against Iran."

Crooks and LiarsJohn Amato blogs: "Sen. Webb went on the offensive today and denounced the Lieberman/Kyl amendment as warmongering and a big fat, wet kiss to the 'William the Bloody' Kristol wing of the GOP - including the star of the Neocons: Dick Cheney. Lieberman is setting the stage with all his Iran amendments that have the sole purpose of bringing the US into war with Iran. This must be defeated and I implore the Democratic Party to vote this down. A big shout out to Jim Webb for standing up against this amendment."

GOP FIELD: The Chris Matthews Standard

Conservatives appear ambivalent about the decision of their WH '08 frontrunners to skip PBS' Morgan State debate. NRO's Jim Geraghty defends the decision citing four 'problems' the debate presented: Problem One: It's on PBS. As one Republican strategist told me earlier this year, 'our voters watch Fox News.' ... Problem two: It's at the end of the fundraising cycle. ... Problem three: There are too darn many of these debates, and with the exception of the YouTube debate, the debates have been getting really predictable. ... Problem four: Moderator Tavis Smiley. I like Tavis Smiley. But he's not shy about his views. He wrote a book entitled, 'Hard Left: Straight Talk About the Wrongs of the Right.'"

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez later defends Smiley: "He's about as objectionable as a moderator as, say, Chris Matthews ... And honestly, though I will certainly never agree with Tavis on a whole host of issues, I always find him fair, likable, and able to be reasoned with when I go on his show."

Captain's Quarters comments: "I don't think that the refusal to attend the PBS debate has to do with inherent racism, but rather a sense that no short-term benefit will arise from engaging blacks during the Republican primaries. It's an unfortunate calculation. We have messages of empowerment through free enterprise and market-based solutions for education that could resonate, if only our leadership would engage African-American voters early and often."

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner adds: "Like President Bush routinely snubbing the NAACP convention, this action undoubtedly reinforces the preexisting stereotypes about the Republican Party. On the other hand, it's far from clear that showing up at these debates will do much to change those preconceptions. With the black leadership fully in the pocket of the Democratic Party and willing to run vicious smear attacks against Republican candidates, it's not hard to see why the GOP frontrunners made the cost-benefit calculation they did."

GIULIANI: Just Don't Be Hillary

NRO's Jim Geraghty comments on Rudy Giuliani's relationship with the NRA: "By the way, while I think Rudy Giuliani did himself some good in his appearance Friday, I don't want to oversell it; what he did was assure gun owners that if it comes down to him and Hillary Clinton, he's a much better alternative to her, who gun owners more or less view as the Antichrist. Giuliani will probably be the first choice of a quite limited number of gun owners; what his efforts to reach out to NRA members now assures is that they won't stay home or vote third party in 2008."

HUCKABEE: Compassionate Nannies Wanted

Mike Huckabee sat down with RCP Blog's Blake Dvorak who asked him to explain why he was trailing non-social conservative candidates Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in SC. Huckabee replied: "Well, the numbers that you're talking about really are reflecting two things. One is the money being spent by the candidates on paid advertisements; two is the amount of exposure they're getting and free media because of their celebrity status. But when we go head-to-head, I end up winning. So for us it's always been about the trajectory of momentum which for us has been upward very consistently and if you look at some of the numbers of the so-called frontrunners, they're polling behind where they themselves were before. Ours have continued to go up, they can continue to level off or slip backwards."

Also reading the RCP interview, David Harsnyi comments on Huckabee's response to accusations he supports a nanny state: "If you wanna read unadulterated BS from a presidential candidate, take a look at this Mike Huckabee's interview ... There has never been a candidate calling himself a conservative who has so blatantly endorsed meddling policies on personal choice - though 'compassionate conservatism' came close."

MCCAIN: Wait, They're Willingly Comparing Themselves To Kerry?

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff comments on Des Moines Register suggestions that John McCain is attempting a John Kerry like comeback: "First, there was no real distance between Kerry and the Democratic base. ... McCain has distanced himself from the Republican base on a number of important issues, most notably immigration and campaign finance reform. And no one doubts his sincerity on these matters. ... Second, the Democratic base forgave Kerry's opportunistic vote on Iraq because it believed, foolishly, that he was electable. It's conceivable that most Republicans would overlook non-conservative positions McCain has taken for the same reason except for one thing -- there's an alternative to McCain who has at least as strong an electability claim, Rudy Giuliani."

ROMNEY: Did Anyone Like That ACLU Line?

AmSpec Blog's James Antle responds to Jonathan Martin thoughts on the challenge Mitt Romney faces in establishing himself as a conservative while running as a 'change' GOPer at the same time: "To my mind, Romney's biggest problem isn't that he's trying to sell himself as a conservative reformer. It is that he doesn't have the biography/record to back up his new conservative image, forcing him to lean more heavily on issue positions and rhetoric like ACLU vs. U.S.A. -- the kinds of things that detract from his image as a competent CEO type when it comes time to appeal to swing voters."

BLOGGERS VS MSM: Who Rejected What?

David Brooks' 9/25 column extolling the virtue of Hillary Clinton's rejection of "the bloggers, billionaires and activists on the left who make up the 'netroots'" was a huge hit among said bloggers. Reactions include:

• Glenn Greenwald: "No matter what polls or elections show, Brooks' overriding goal is to "prove" that "most Americans" favor a "hawkish" foreign policy whereby America will rule the world by military force, most importantly in the Middle East. ... The reality is that Brooks' claims in this regard are completely, demonstrably false: huge (and increasing) numbers of Americans believe we are far too militaristic and involved in trying to rule the world. But Brooks, like most Beltway pundits, cares only about enforcing Beltway orthodoxies, no matter how unpopular, not about the facts."
• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "Here he delimits what positions Clinton (or any other Democrat) can take and be seen by the Beltway crowd as legitimate, and points to the fact that she's saying what he wants to hear on the Sunday morning talk shows as evidence that that's what she really believes ... and anything else she says risks "drifting into cuckoo land." What she says to us when she comes to YearlyKos or sends her communications director to O'Reilly to defend the netroots is pandering; what she says when she's talking to Brooks and his ilk is what's truly in her heart. Or so the column goes."
• Fire Dog Lake's TRex: "Completely unencumbered by facts, research, poll numbers, and in fact, virtually free of the craft of writing altogether, Brooks projects his own feelings about the state of the American political mind on to a mythical construct he calls 'most Americans', conjecturing that since he is The Cosmos, all Americans must be as frightened and alarmed by the netroots as he is. Never mind that poll after poll demonstrates that the American people are disgusted with Congress's current "appease the Republicans at all costs" tack."
• Matthew Yglesias: "When the centrist strand in Democratic thinking came to represent school uniforms, promises to balance the budget each and every year of the Gore administration, and backing the invasion of Iraq that was one thing. If, instead, we're going to get universal health care, action to halt global warming, and diplomatic engagement with rival powers in the Middle East, that's a very different thing. If Brooks wants to call that latter thing a defeat for the netroots because dKos diarists sometimes find themselves disappointed, well, then I think that's a kind of defeat people can live with."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "[I]t would be interesting to know which ones Brooks thinks Hillary is moving away from the Netroots on. Universal health insurance? Global warming? Brooks has let his hatred of bloggers cloud his judgment. What is the lesson for the Netroots here? I think it is plain. Do not get bogged down in judging success by personalities and candidates. Judge success by your influence on the policy positions that become the mainstream of the Democratic Party."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum also takes Brooks to task, but also warns against netroots cherry picking of polling data as well: "Unfortunately, answers to poll questions come in a vacuum. They don't show what people think once the other side has a chance to get a few licks in. ... Here are two examples. First, withdrawal from Iraq. A recent New York Times poll showed that 65% of respondents want to withdraw either some or all of our troops from Iraq. Hooray! The country is with us! But then the Times asked a follow up question: "What if removing troops meant Iraq would become more of a base of operations for terrorists, then would you still favor removing U.S. troops from Iraq, or not?" ... Guess what? Of that 65%, only 30% still favored removal. That's a huge drop based on a single hypothetical, and in a real campaign that hypothetical would practically blanket the airwaves."

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: FISA Pre-Fallout

The netroots are gearing up a pressure campaign to stiffen Dem spines on FISA. The Huffington Post's Art Levine blogs: "[T]he template for any final legislation could be set as early next week when the Senate Intelligence Committee begins mark-up of a bill that seems likely to give the Bush administration -- and telecom companies -- much of what they want. That's why activists and citizens need to make their voices heard as soon as possible to derail a permanent FISA "fix" that could be worse than the six-month temporary legislation passed in August."

Open Left's Matt Stoller warns: "The DCCC and DSCC need to be aware of what's going to happen when this legislation passes, which is that online fundraising is going to drop as it did in July. Only this time we're going to organize around it and try and actively seize those revenue streams to pursue primary challenges, since it's obvious that Democratic leaders are simply out to lunch."

Not commenting on FISA specifically, Open Left's Chris Bowers picks up on Gallup polling showing more Americans trust Dems to protect the country and asks: "Now, I have a question for liberal hawks: during the time when Democrats gained on, and eventually overtook, Republicans on national security, did Democrats become more hawkish? As I remember it, during these five years Democrats have gradually and greatly increased their opposition to things like the Iraq war, FISA and the Patriot Act. Even though we are still losing votes on those issues, we are doing a lot better than we were a few years ago."

Poking his lefty colleagues in the eye, RedState's Erick Erickson blogs: "Just another example of Harry Reid being Mitchslapped around the Senate Floor, in a review of the more than 300 votes that have been cast in the Senate this year, Harry Reid voted with Mitch McConnell 60% of the time. So, who is the real Senate leader?"

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY II: How To Sell Bush On SCHIP

Already opposed to Dem plans for extending SCHIP, conservatives are rallying support against the bill around a provision in the bill that would provide health care benefits to illegal aliens. Michelle Malkin warns: "Shamnesty Watch: SCHIP loophole - New health care benefits for illegal aliens? ... If it looks like shamnesty and quacks like shamnesty, it is shamnesty."

Robert Bluey outlines Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) GOP alternative and Power Line's Paul Mirengoff comments: "The virtue of this plan is it covers the population targeted by the Democrats, but instead of forcing them to drop their current coverage and go on a government plan, it provides assistance to enable them to keep their current insurance plan."

Back on the Dem bill a Corner reader teases: "Perhaps NRO ought not be publicizing the fact that SCHIP as written would cover illegal aliens? I mean, if someone is reading at the White House and passes that info on to the President, I can easily imagine him changing his mind on a veto."

At Open Left, Chris Bowers looks at Democracy Corps showing independents support expanding SCHIP 62%-28% and blogs: "I am starting to think that Democrats are in a strong electoral position lately simply because they want to win the elections more than Republicans do. If you cared about winning elections, you probably wouldn't veto health care for poor American children and continue a wildly unpopular war that just cost you Congress."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Give Me Coffee Shops, Or Give Me Death!

Blogging on the coolness of Seattle and Portland, Ezra Klein writes: "Cities like Portland and Seattle are trying to create a livable city to retain and attract a certain type of resident. Namely, educated, young, white people. Portland's 78% white, Seattle's a bit under 70%. So you structure the city thus that there's lots of educated white people bait, including cafes, bookstores, wireless internet spots, bike trails, etc." Megan McArdle responds:

Here's the primary difference between liberals and libertarians in a nutshell: it would never have occurred to me to assign the city government a dominant role, except perhaps for Portland's greenbelt, which seems like the result of a pretty conventional coalition of environmentalists and property owners whose home values were driven up by the artificial supply restriction. ... Nor does the government in Seattle operate coffee shops, wireless hotspots, or bookstores that I am aware of. Those things are operated by private actors trying to make a profit - no government intervention required, or as far as I know, offered.

LEST WE FORGET: Maybe Working With Charlie Sheen Is Torture

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz reports on CBS' next reality project:

Fresh on the heels of their reality show "Kid Nation," in which children are sent to perform hard labor on a ranch with no adult supervision, CBS announced today that it was readying a new reality show in which children are sent to the federal detention camp at Guantanamo. ... The new program, called "Kid Detention" is expected to be ready for broadcast in time for November sweeps, with the following promotional slogan: "One detention camp. Forty kids. No lawyers." ... In an attempt to rebuff such criticism, CBS spokesperson Carol Foyler told reporters, "Nothing worse is going to happen to those kids than if they were on 'Two and a Half Men.'"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:46 PM

September 25, 2007

9/25: Any Given Sunday

The Sunday talk show circuit may seem like an odd place to pick up netroots support, but Hillary Clinton may have done just that 9/23. It was not anything she said in particular that won the netroots over (if anything they still strongly disagree with her on a host of issues from insurance company involvement in health care to condemning MoveOn to the veracity of her promise to end the Iraq war), but the fact that she dominated every forum she engaged. Clinton has steadily gained in the Daily Kos monthly straw poll; from 3% as recently as 4/07 to 11% today. If HRC does win the nomination, and then picks a netroots favorite son to fill out her ticket, we should expect to see a once skeptical online community highly energized for her candidacy.

DEM FIELD: No Stuffing This Ballot Box

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas conducted the sites 9/07 straw poll 9/24. To thwart "various candidate fan sites, message boards, and list-servs" Kos cut the voting after the numbers stabilized. Results from 9/07 and 8/07 include:

                  9/07  8/07
Edwards      39     34
Obama          21    29
Clinton          11      8
Dodd              7      2
Kucinich         6      7
Richardson    1      6

Concerned over Bill Richardson's drop in the poll, Open Left's Chris Bowers asked Kossacks why they voted for their candidates considering "there does not appear to be a huge number of policy differences between the candidates who are receiving a significant amount of online support" particularly Bowers is concerned about "Richardson dropping in the Dailykos straw poll, despite his stance on no residual forces."

Later Bowers reports: "one of the most common responses was that people were looking for 'leadership.' I want to point out that among the entire 2008 field, no one has successfully led Congress on Iraq so far in 2007. ... In fact,Levin-Reid, Reid-Feingold and the Webb amendment are all actually losing votes as the year progresses. ... Successful leadership is actually causing the debate to bend in your direction, and gathering support where none previously existed. According to this criteria, when it comes to the impact of the 2008 Presidential field on the Iraq fight in Congress, no one has done that."

CLINTON: The Sultan Of Sunday?

While Hillary Clinton did disappoint some bloggers on some specific issues (The Huffington Post's Jamie Court wants to end private health insurance and Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher isn't happy HRC condemned MoveOn), her overall performance wowed many in the community. MyDD's Todd Beeton writes:

The pundits fell right into the trap she set, putting voice to the exact message Clinton wanted them to: she's "strong," "responsible," "presidential." She played them like a fiddle. Clinton appears to be banking on a slightly different lesson: that in fact running down the middle is a winning strategy as long as you convince people that your positions are sincere and come from a place of strength, not weakness, a feat Clinton appears to be accomplishing, if the reactions to her Sunday talk show appearances are any indication.

Talking Point Memo's Ben Craw was also a fan: "2008 Democratic frontrunner Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) took the airwaves by force Sunday morning, flexing her political might with appearances on all five Sunday talk shows. And her dial was turned to 11 the entire time, flooding the zone with details of her recently unveiled healthcare proposal, denunciations of the Bush approach to Iraq, and a wall-to-wall drumbeat of determination to become the next President of the United States."

On the right, Townhall's Patrick Ruffini watches HRC's Sunday show lap and channels Open Left's Chris Bowers' blurring worries:

By telling us in the most explicit terms yet that she will not withdraw from Iraq in 2009, she must believe she has the nomination wrapped up. And she is beginning to protect her flank from what I have long believed to be our most lethal argument against her. ... The Clintons have promised Democrat primary voters that they will "end the war" once Camelot is restored. Which begs the question that our nominee should begin asking on February 6th, "Okay. When?" Our best argument against Hillary is not that she will end the war. It's that she won't.

EDWARDS: The Spirit Of NCLB

Netroots reaction to John Edwards 9/21 education plan are beginning to trickle in. The Huffington Post's Dan Brown is a huge fan: "As a teacher and voter, I am hugely impressed with John Edwards' comprehensive education agenda, unveiled over the past weekend. ... The Edwards initiatives indicate that he "gets" the needs of children and teachers, an encouraging bellwether. ... He proposes higher pay for teachers -- particularly strong veterans -- to teach in high-needs schools. This will fuel a redistribution of resources that will help lift up poor and suffering neighborhoods."

Matthew Yglesias is also sympathetic but also notes: "On K-12, I think he pulls the nice political trick of loudly denouncing No Child Left Behind while actually proposing further reforms that are fairly consistent with the spirit of the law, aimed at improving a flawed-but-worthy effort rather than backsliding away from the concept of accountability." The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum is still reserving judgment: "A 'West Point' for teachers? I'll hold off on endorsing that idea until it gets fleshed out a little more."

In less positive Edwards blogging, The Huffington Post's Marc Cooper sees SEIU's 9/24 failure to endorse Edwards as a "major reversal" for the campaign. From Cooper: "The SEIU leadership seems anxious to make some sort of endorsement and will be meeting again in the second week of October where the matter is likely to be reconsidered. In the interim, the third quarter fund raising totals of each campaign will be disclosed and most guesstimates figure that Obama will be showing twice or three times the amounts garnered by Edwards. 'We love John,' said the SEIU official. 'But politics is all about winning.'"

Open Left's Mike Lux reports that "Obama and Clinton staffers" he's talked to share SEIU's doubts about Edwards ability to be a factor: "I don't think anybody is counting him out in Iowa, but my sense is the Clinton and Obama staffers are skeptical that even if he wins Iowa, he may not have the ability to sustain a campaign too far beyond Iowa."

OBAMA: Applied Topically, Barack Also Cures Cancer

Marc Ambinder introduces the latest strategy memo from Barack Obama's manager David Plouffe, writing:

In private, Obama likens himself to Reagan, according to some of his friends. He believes that the very act of Americans choosing to elect him would amount to the biggest foreign policy advance of the past 20 years, would immediately change the way, say, a young boy in Lahore views this country, would crush the propaganda gains of radical Islam since the end of the first Gulf War, would heal the scar that serves as a reminder of America's original sin (slavery), would directly engage the mass Muslim world in a way that no one who voted for oil or empire could, and ... you get the idea.

Plouffe's memo goes on to make the case polls are underestimating Obama's real support:

First, young voters are dramatically less likely to have caucused or voted regularly in primaries in the past, so pollsters heavily under-represent them. Second, young voters are more mobile and are much less likely to be at home in the early evening and thus less likely to be interviewed in any survey. Third, young voters are much less likely to have a landline phone and much more likely to rely exclusively upon cell phones, which are automatically excluded from phone surveys.

Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal responds:

Each of the Plouffe's three arguments is at least theoretically plausible, particularly in Iowa, but hard to prove or disprove conclusively with the data available. ... Pollsters will argue and disagree among themselves about the best way to model and weight likely voters in a state like Iowa. We will not be able to resolve those arguments here. ... Although Plouffe may be cherry-picking an unusually favorable result, the national surveys consistently show Obama doing better among younger voters. But how much is the age difference in Iowa and how much do the Iowa polls (or any of the other early states) vary by vary in their age composition? Who knows?

Open Left's Mike Lux blogs on Obama's strategy: "Obama's team is clearly more focused on capitalizing on the excitement among young people and people who haven't attended the caucuses before, and getting them to turn out. Paul Tewes, their state director, mentioned to me that they did an analysis of 2000 caucus-goers vs. 2004 caucus-goers, and found only 23% overlap. ... Obama's strategy, which is highly risky but has a very high reward factor if it works, is to excite and enlist people who've never gone to the caucuses before. ... if they are able to bring in a lot of newbies, they would win."

Also in IA, the IA Independent's John Deeth reports pollster John Zogby is a big Obama fan. From Zogby: "Obama has an incredible understanding of the issues. This is just an incredibly smart guy."

RICHARDSON: A Right To Know

Bill Richardson enlisted the help of Open Left's Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller as well as Fire Dog Lake's Siun to produce his new television ad 'Get Our Troops Out'. Bowers pitches:

Despite what other Democrats are telling you, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in particular, you cannot end the war and still have American troops in Iraq. That simply does not make any sense. ... I am thrilled to be working with Bill Richardson on this issue. While this ad is not an official endorsement of Bill Richardson's candidacy, it is an endorsement of his no residual forces plan for Iraq. It is an endorsement of his leadership on the issue.

Siun adds: "At the very least, our candidates owe us clear, transparent information on their Iraq plans. As voters and as party activists, we certainly have a right to know if they plan to leave tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. It's time for all the campaigns to tell us: How many troops would you leave behind in Iraq?

MyDD's Todd Beeton comments: "Richardson has a side-by-side comparison chart over at GetOurTroopsOut.com that sums up their stated positions (or lack thereof.) Richardson deserves credit for demanding clarity on this issue where the other candidates have refused to provide it."

GIULIANI: Going For That Vaunted 'Johns' Demographic?

Townhall's Matt Lewis swings by Rudy Giuliani's website and notices: "Despite the prostitution scandals, Rudy Giuliani's website hasn't scrubbed Sen. David Vitter references from his website. In fact, a David Vitter op-ed from March 28 is featured as one of Rudy's most viewed links. It would be interesting to know if this was an oversight, or a matter of Rudy sticking by Vitter ..."

HUCKABEE: Up With Mike

Robert Bluey helps promote Mike Huckabee's "Vertical Day" designed to share "with voters our ideas, our hopes for America and the challenges facing us." Bluey "was blown away by all the activity on the blog for Vertical Day. With posts by former Speaker Newt Gingrich, South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley and many other guest bloggers, it's well worth your time to check out the site. Here's video of Huckabee discussing Gingrich's debate pledge."

ROMNEY: In Mitt They Don't Yet Trust

Townhall's Dean Barnett was unsettled by what he read from the GOP's Mackinac Island cattle call: "For Republicans hoping to hold on to the White House, it was a chilling weekend. ... Everyone knows where I stand in this campaign - I'm a Romney guy. I know him personally and have for a long time. ... During his Mackinac speech, Mitt said that he would move the 'In God We Trust' from the back of our currency to the front. He also assured the gathered Michiganders that he'd 'make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA.' These comments bother me a lot, probably more than they bother most people, even ones who don't support Romney. ... Mitt is better than this - I know it, and that's why I support him. But the rest of the country hasn't known him for over a decade. If the rest of the country gets to know the guy I know, he'll be a political force. If they get to know a guy who talks about what side of the coin 'In God We Trust' should go on, it will be a different story."

Also blogging on MI and Mitt, NRO's Jim Geraghty's asks, "In Michigan, what is the Romney name worth in terms of support?" Geraghty elaborates: "I've heard Mitt-backers say that fond memories of his father have given him a deep reservoir of support, and that this is in fact the blue state Romney has the best shot of winning over to the red column. ... I asked Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis for his take, and he said, 'I think if you are older than 55, you probably have some 'good memories' of Governor Romney, and there are a lot of people over 55 in Michigan. If you're older than 47 or so, you may have still met Romney, like I did as a cub scout. So it will help with name ID and probably help build a positive impression.' ... Watching Romney greeting voters on C-SPAN about a week or two ago, I remember one woman coming up and telling him he was the spitting image of his father."

THOMPSON: Didn't Social Conservatives Already Have A Whole Field Of Candidates They Weren't Really Happy With?

The Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land has come to Fred Thompson's defense after recent attacks by Focus on the Family Founder James Dobson. In an email to The Brody File, Land writes: "I've received phone calls and emails from Southern Baptists about Senator Thompson. They are all furious at Doctor Dobson. They just feel that first of all there was a mischaracterizing of his positions. Do I wish that he supported the marriage protection amendment? Of course I do. To say that he is for 50 different views of marriage in 50 different states is a gross mischaracterization of his position. Secondly, do I wish that he attended church every Sunday? As a Baptist pastor, of course I do. But does that make him a person of unbelief? That's harsh and unwarranted."

Brody comments: "The split between Dobson and Land on Thompson is a microcosm of what's going on right now within the Evangelical movement. There are those who think Thompson is the guy and others who don't." Race4'08s Tommy Oliver links and adds: "Whether you agree with Dobson or Land or don't like any of them; with the failing health of Billy Graham, Pat Robertson's slow slide from prominence, and the death of Jerry Falwell, we are witnessing a power struggle between the religious powers that be. One one side, you have Land, Bauer, Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, and some others. On the other side, you have James Dobson, most likely Robertson, and others who have remained in the background thus far."

Brody revisits the subject again, reporting: "I've been told that some evangelical leaders will be meeting with Thompson this week. Part of the discussion will focus on his position regarding a federal marriage amendment. ... One person close to the process told me, 'Support has stalled because of his stance on the federal marriage amendment. ... There were high expectations. He not only did not make these expectations, he did poor coming out But if he comes around on marriage, he can potentially do it.'"

Brody then quotes American Values pres. Gary Bauer on concerns "that social conservatives may be looking too much for perfection." From Bauer: "Politics at the end of the day is getting 50 percent plus one and I'm afraid that our movement in the last couple of years has been using an approach that will make us feel better about the purity of our positions but is shrinking our movement."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Case For Partisanship

A reader dissents from Andrew Sullivan's dream of an unpolarized polity:

There seems to be an assumption that politicians are divided, but Americans wish to be more united. The problem is: we are the divisions. There is no "us" (citizens) and "them" (national politicians). The pols reflect our divisions. ... Obama is an exceptional man for all of the reasons you have articulated on your blog. But I am not convinced that Americans want to be brought together. They may not want things to be as divided as they are now, but we still are divided on many key issues. And we're divided on what we should care about: economics vs values, for instance. Remember: It was just 3 short years ago that 61 million people voted for GWB --- well after it was evident that his presidency was a disaster. The fact is, Hillary vs Rudy may be exactly what the electorate wants.

LEST WE FORGET: Rexy Not So Sexy After All

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas circa 1/29/07: "I'm fascinated at the crazy, fact-free narratives formed around Grossman's "problems". It's not unlike politics. Once the media has latched on to its narrative, it seems nothing will shake it loose. Nothing, that is, until Grossman leads the Bears to a Super Bowl victory. At that point, they can put the "Grossman sucks" narrative on hiatus until training camp this fall."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas circa 9/25/07: "What the hell is Rex Grossman still doing on a football field? And damn, is Tony Romo a stud or what? Sigh... Well, I'll always have the Cubs and their impending first round playoff loss."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:37 PM

September 24, 2007

9/24: We're Just Not Seeing It

Fred Thompson may have succeeded in driving more traffic to his site than any other GOPer, but we are just not seeing any big name blogger excitement to match those traffic numbers. If anything, the more the conservosphere gets a look at Thompson, the less they like what they see. Thompson was roundly panned for his 9/22 address to the MI GOP, and the Heritage Foundation's Robert Bluey was the harshest: "It was like watching Bob Dole - without the Viagra."

There is still little doubt that many GOPers are underwhelmed by their options, but as The Corner's David Freddoso explains his 9/22 performance is "still more proof that the demand for Thompson appears to outstrip the supply."

MACKINAC: No Room At The Inn

The Corner's David Freddoso and RedState's Rob Bluey both filed first hand accounts of the MI GOP's 27th biennial conference at Mackinac Island 9/21-23. Freddoso sets the scene: "The long, oddly shaped dining room in Mackinac Island's Grand Hotel was packed. State GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis grabbed me before the speech to remark, 'We've got so many people here that we've literally run out of seats. I had to give mine up for one of our donors.'" Bluey adds: "The highlight of the weekend for me was watching six presidential candidates court Michigan Republicans."

Mitt Romney again met expectations nailing down a victory in the Hotline sponsored straw poll, but his speech received less than stellar reviews. First hand reports from Freddoso and Bluey and reactions from conservatives not in attendance include:

MacGIULIANI: It's Possible MoveOn Is His Biggest Asset Right Now

Freddoso: "Near the end, he began discussing Iraq, and ended with a fierce condemnation of MoveOn.org. One must give Rudy credit for cleverly jumping on this controversy and milking it for all it's worth."

Bluey: "This was the first time I watched a Giuliani speech in person. I was impressed. He stuck to the themes that work in his favor - lower taxes, less spending, tough on terrorists and hard on Hillary. If you're not sold on Giuliani, you very well may be after seeing him live. He was sharp, funny and lit up the room with electricity."

More Bluey, declaring Giuliani a 'winner' of the weekend: "By focusing on Democrats - and emphasizing his appeal in traditionally blue states - Giuliani showed why he's the man to beat."

MacHUCKABEE: Blame It On The McRain

Freddoso: "Word is that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won't be here today because he missed his flight. He said that he didn't want to take a private plane because he said that then he'd have had to pay the full rate under McCain-Feingold."

MacMCCAIN: Don't Call It A Comeback

Freddoso: "[H]ow about McCain finishing second, ahead of Giuliani? ... His finish is especially interesting in this context. AG Mike Cox, his former state chairman, dumped McCain on Monday. I guess many of the Republicans at Mackinac don't see things as Cox did."

MacROMNEY: The New York Yankees Of The GOP Field?

Freddoso: "Romney Falls Flat -- Bombs, Even ... He was very slow winding up, and the speech has a lot of really, really lame applause lines. I couldn't take much more after this one: 'I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA.' Yes - as previewed earlier - he actually did say that. I wish they'd given Huckabee his seat on the plane."

The Corner's Lisa Schiffren responding to Freddoso suggestion Romney 'bought' his straw poll victory: "The Mackinac results make sense even if you don't say that Romney paid for the most people to come. He is as close as Michigan has to a native son in this race."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin on the same topic: "To some extent Romney is a victim of his own success. He rounds up supporters, transport and registers them and gets 300 plus votes. That's a sign he has active volunteers, paid staff and a base of support. His opponents sneer that he "paid" for his votes but this is how a straw poll works. Since we have an open primary in Michigan others who have money have a more level playing field through paid media."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The GOP needs to put some blue states into play to avoid having this be a wholly defensive attempt to hang on to the Bush states of 2004. A Romney candidacy puts Michigan very much into play, and probably Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine as well."

MacTHOMPSON: Viva Fred!

Bluey: "My high expectations for Fred Thompson were met with bitter disappointment tonight after listening to a boring and uninspiring speech ... It was like watching Bob Dole - without the Viagra."

Freddoso: "The majority who are paying attention are really looking for an applause line - perhaps, to put it harshly, for something that will keep them awake. ... It's still more proof that the demand for Thompson appears to outstrip the supply. It would be nice to see him speak with a bit more energy."

More Bluey on Thompson as a 'loser' of the weekend: "It's hard for me to put Thompson on this list, but I've heard too many bad things about his speech not to include him. ... I also had one observer tell me that he gave the wrong speech to the wrong audience; had he used that same laid-back approach before an audience in Tennessee, it might have turned out differently."

More Freddoso: "There are high expectations for Thompson. He is starting late, and he has to inspire people if he wants the nomination. Simple as that. If he's going to run around the country giving speeches that put people to sleep, then he might as well go back to Law & Order."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "Thompson both on the speech reviews and straw poll results demonstrates why pundits have been harsh -- he needs to get his act together and fast. (And there is still no evidence of a public schedule for Thompson for this upcoming week.)"

GIULIANI: The Real Law & Order Candidate?

Rudy Giuliani received mostly positive reviews for his 9/21 NRA address, but still left some questions unanswered. The Brody File blogs: "But where Giuliani really seemed to hit the mark was in his remarks about enforcing the law. The crowd wanted to hear that and Giuliani delivered plenty of it."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Rudy did pretty well for himself - judging by the applause lines, gentle laughter at some points, and standing applause as he exited, the NRA delegates will walk away respecting him, and maybe even liking him, but not loving him. ... But the NRA crowd is a staunch tough-on-crime crowd, and so Rudy's pledges of 'No plea bargains, no exceptions, you go to jail' for violent offenders resonated well."

But not everything went smoothly. Right before the cell phone call from his wife, Giuliani noted the language of the 2nd Amendment included 'the people shall be secure' ... problem is that language is from the 4th Amendment (the 2nd reads "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." NRO's Geraghty comments: "All in all, Rudy probably made an error, quoting the Fourth Amendment when he meant to recite the Second. But it's not like he language of the Fourth Amendment was completely irrelevant to the point he was making; he was discussing the similar language of the amendments."

The Corner's Mark Levin later comments: "So, what exactly is Giuliani's position on the Second Amendment now? Can his supporters explain it with a straight face?"

Later Brody draws comparisons between Giuliani's gun control and life positions: "It's pretty simple. When it comes to guns and abortion, Rudy Giuliani has the same theme: common ground. Look at what he says about both issues ... Did you notice how on both sensitive subjects he's trying to emphasize common agreement and respect for differing viewpoints?"

ROMNEY: Not Another CEO President

Captain's Quarters is no fan of Mitt Romney's new campaign 'Change Begins With Us' campaign. CQ asks, "Will Criticizing Republicans Help Romney?" and answers: "It seems doubtful. Primaries get won through optimism and positive messaging, and Romney has become too involved in campaigning against other Republicans. ... It's a good message in specifics, but not in a general application. If Romney has a problem with specific Republicans, then he should name them and the areas in which the excessive spending went."

Power Line's John Hinderaker also comments on the new message: "I don't find the ad particularly controversial; certainly its sentiments will resonate with most Republican primary voters. ... It seems to me that one of the sub-plots of this complicated Republican primary season has been Romney's failure to catch on with the party's rank and file. His numbers in national polls have really gone nowhere. ... I think that Mitt Romney would make an excellent President. Unfortunately, I think we may be finding out that he lacks some of the skills necessary to be an excellent candidate. If that's correct, it will take more than a new ad campaign to connect with the Republican rank and file."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt responds: "John did note Romney's leads in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan, which is to me the complete answer to John's question --Romney is doing "better" because his plan is rolling out as he had hoped: Romney is betting the campaign on the idea that demonstrated success in consecutive actual votes as opposed to polling will catapult him past Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. ... Romney has in fact built the leads in the early states that he needs, and will spend the next three months defending them. He's doing exactly what he set out to do."

THOMPSON: Reagan Still Not Walking Through That Door

Fred Thompson's stump speech line, "This country has shed more blood for the liberty of other countries than all other countries put together," continued to generate discussion at The Corner. Leaving aside the merits of the debate, Mark Steyn sums up the bottom line after quoting from Ronald Reagan's '84 Normandy speech: "I know everyone wants Fred to be the new Ron, but I miss the old one's generosity of spirit."

Thompson also continues to struggle to separate himself from McCain-Feningold. The Corner's David Freddoso links to Thompson's latest attempt to differentiate between limiting soft money and violating the First Amendment and comments: "This is a lot like the answer he gave on Laura Ingraham, although it is better. But the answer is still problematic - it is a logically inconsistent answer. You CANNOT limit soft money without placing those restrictions on free speech. This is why they put the limitations into the bill."

Finally, NY Sun's Ryan Sager picks up on a growing gender gap in the GOP field: "In the latest Insider Advantage poll in Florida: 'Republican men back Thompson over Giuliani 31% to 23%, while Republican women back Giuliani over Thompson 25% to 16%.'"

CLINTON: Not A Drag

A 9/22 Washington Poststory on a 7/21-8/5 poll by Joe Biden pollster Celinda Lake drew wide netroots condemnation. Post authors Chris Cillizza and Shailagh Murray claimed the poll showed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama trailing Rudy Giuliani in 31 swing districts and "potentially serving as a drag on those lawmakers' reelection chances."

Open Left's Chris Bowers did attack the story's authors, but did reassure readers "Clinton Would Not Hurt Democrats Down Ballot." From Bowers: "[T]his poll shows the exact same 6% edge for freshman Democrats in the named generic ballot no matter if the local nominee is tied to Clinton or Obama. I think the key here is that the freshman Democrats are weakened not by the attack that connects them to any specific Democrat, but rather by the attack that they will be a tool of someone outside the district. In other words, it isn't tying Democratic candidates to Hillary Clinton that hurts them, but tying them to anyone from outside the district who is perceived as having different values."

Others were less kind. Matthew Yglesias blogs: "So Joe Biden's pollster, Celinda Lake, did some push polling about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, then leaked it to The Washington Post which produced this story ... why did Lake do this? ... Under the circumstances, her willingness to engage in dirty pool against the front-runners is remarkable."

Atrios adds: "So why is "Democratic pollster" Celinda Lake running push polls about Obama and Clinton? Why are Cillizza and the Devil running them as news? More importantly, why isn't Cillizza telling us that Celinda Lake works for the rival Biden campaign."

Not everyone in the community took the poll with a grain of salt. MyDD commenter and John Edwards fan Vox Populi jumped on the article as evidence that, "With Clinton at the top of the ticket, the Democratic incumbents in swing districts go from a large lead to a very narrow lead. She is the one person who can excite Republican voters like none of their candidates can. Democrats, we cannot risk that. Our Congress is at risk if we do."

CLINTON II: Residual Doubts

Hillary Clinton scored mixed reviews for her 9/23 Sunday show tour. On the plus side, she promised to vote against funding the Iraq war. Hurting Hillary: condemning MoveOn and committing to keepingresidual forces in Iraq .

DODD: Accept No Substitutes

Chris Dodd's official bloggers Matt Browner Hamlin guest posted Dodd's explanation for voting against the Levin-Reed amendment to the DoD appropriation bill at Blue Hampshire: "There seems to be a little bit of confusion about what, exactly, Levin Reed actually would have accomplished. The short answer is ... nothing. That's why Senator Dodd voted against the legislation earlier this morning."

OBAMA: On Belly Buttons

Andrew Sullivan quotes from his latest pro-Barack ObamaTimes Online column: "Clinton, in other words, represents payback for the Democrats and liberals after the Bush era, just as Giuliani is emerging as the inheritor of the Bush legacy of divide and rule. Right now, Obama remains to the side, offering Americans something else: not payback, but a new page."

Atrios responds: "Silly Sully. After all these years, he still has no clue about US politics. Hint to sully: the body politic does not reside in your belly button."

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: Never Reinforce Right Wing Talking Points

The netroots are still smarting over the Senate's 9/20 vote condemning MoveOn's 'Gen. Betray Us' and believe the resolution is key to understanding why Congress has an 11% approval rating. The Huffington Post's Drew Westin blogs: "If the Democrats in the Senate were worried about the impact of the headline of the MoveOn ad, which attacked the general's recounting of the facts on the ground less effectively than the text of the ad, they have just amplified it by reinforcing that the central theme of the Republican message on Iraq from the start: that opposition to the war is an attack on the military, when in fact the Iraq war, by all accounts, has done nothing but weaken our military, strengthen the foothold of terrorists abroad, and undermine our national security."

My Left Nutmeg's tparty links and adds: "Half the party just voted to condemn a single act of free speech on the part of one of their allies, and all criticism of members of the military in general. Democrats had already lost their entire base - now they just told them to "f**k off" in no uncertain words. There's no point in standing up for someone who won't stand up for themselves. And Democrats and "moderate" Independents around the country are getting this message loud and clear, even if the D.C. insider class isn't."

MyDD's Melissa Ryan links and comments: "Progressive activists across the country worked their butts off to get the current Congress elected. ... We don't expect them to always agree with progressive organizations or their strategic tactics but we do expect that those disagreements won't become a taxpayer funded floor show. The Moveon vote was a complete misuse of power. Shame on every Democrat who voted in favor of it."

Also at MyDD, Todd Beeton posts text from MoveOn's latest email announcing their goal to raise $1 mil. to "dramatically expand" their ad campaign.

Finally, Glenn Greenwald singles out Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) as a "symbol of the worthless Beltway Democrat." More Greenwald: "Feinstein is a 74-year-old divorced Jewish woman currently on her third husband ... She has as secure a political position as any politician in the country. ... And yet, her votes over the last several years, and especially this year after she was safely re-elected, are infinitely closer to the Bush White House and her right-wing Senate colleagues than they are to the base of her party or to the constituents she allegedly represents. ... She long ago ceased being driven by the political values which serve as props for her campaigns, if she was ever driven by them. And that is the story of so many of the Beltway Democrats."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Color Coding Destiny

Commenting on the Red/Blue divideBlog PI's Bill Beutler remembers "that in elections prior to 2000, the colors were not standardized across the television networks, and they also switched colors between the parties." Beutler than makes the case that the reverse of current color assignments would never have been tolerated:

For most of the 20th century, the color red was associated with Communism, and for reasons that scarcely need explaining, it carried a decidedly negative association in the West: Better dead than red, after all. The American left certainly had its share of Stalinists, and anti-Communists on the right didn't hesitate in extending the term.

Likewise, the color blue is sometimes associated with nobility in Europe and the upper class in America, particularly in the Northeast - I refer to the term blue blood. The stereotype of rich, right-wing industrialists who cannot identify with regular Americans has probably been used against every Republican candidate since Lincoln. The recognition that this can be a political liability is what led Mike Huckabee to recently describe himself as 'a blue-collar Republican, not a blueblood Republican.'

LEST WE FORGET: We Interrupt This Thrilling College Football Game...

Via Deadspin we find Loser with Socks recaps a video capture of the last minutes of the Georgia Bulldogs OT win overtime win over the Crimson Tide:

It was one of the weirdest comments I have ever heard in a broadcast. It's not like it was a blowout and there was nothing to talk about. ... Mike Patrick randomly bursts out with, "Britney Spears, what is she doing with her life?" [Todd] Blackledge responded with like "Britney?" Then Patrick said something else about Britney Spears and then Blackledge asked him if she was at the game and then Patrick said "I's sure she's watching or that he's sure that she's a football fan." Blackledge played it off pretty well and thankfully they had to get back to calling a close game.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:46 PM

September 21, 2007

9/21: Nobody's Moving On Past Anything

On 9/18 we tried to explain that while some in the netroots may not have been terribly pleased with MoveOn's word choice, they agreed with the sentiment behind their 'Gen. Betray Us' and that Dems should be ready to expect similar incidents in the future. Well Senate GOPers managed to keep the story alive for yet another day by forcing a vote on whether or not the Senate should condemn MoveOn's ad. Since we can guarantee that MoveOn will pull more stunts that Senate GOPers disapprove of in the future we offer this handy guide to Dems on how to handle such situations.

First, and this really is the most important rule, from Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "You don't help the right wing out by repeating their talking points, ever. Why was this so hard to grasp?" And second, if you're going to try and duck the issue by claiming you don't have time for "stunt[s] designed only to score cheap political points" then don't vote for substitute cheap political stunts mere hours before.

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: They're Mad As Hell...

The netroots are hopping mad over the Senate's vote to condemn MoveOn's 'Gen. Betray Us' ad. However, even some Beltway types are weighing in for the netroots. Paul Begala blogs at The Huffington Post: "Too many Democrats still think Mr. Bush's presidency is on the level. Let's be clear. Mr. Bush is not leading a serious, sober discussion about public discourse during a war. He wants to divide progressives and score political points. We should not let him. Throughout his career he's been willing to tolerate and benefit from vicious lies about military men. We should not concede that he is legitimately angry now." Netroots reactions include:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "We already know that Republicans are a gang of psychotic criminals. The lesson I'm drawing from this episode is any non-progressive Democrat may and often will betray us at any time."
• Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz: "Correct me if I'm wrong here. But by my calculation, more U.S. senators (72) voted today to condemn a newspaper ad attacking Gen. Petraeus than voted yesterday (56) to lengthen the time off troops get from the frontlines in Iraq, thereby reducing individual soldiers exposure to actual attacks. Am I missing something, or is that about right?"
• Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "It's not just MoveOn that is having their wrists slapped, it's all of us. All of us who stood together and had the temerity to fight their precious comrade in comity, Joe Lieberman."
• Open Left's Mike Lux: "I know that not everyone in the progressive movement was totally comfortable with the MoveOn ad about Gen. Petraeus, but whatever you thought, the right wing is now coming for them with all their hounds baying. This censure resolution in the Senate is a load of crap, designed to intimidate and silence strong dissent on the war."
• Reno and Its DiscontentsMyrna Minx: "Today, our dear senators easily managed to vote against an ad run in the NYTimes by MoveOn.org, but yesterday they couldn't muster enough votes to rescind habeas corpus or demonstrate their support and care for our troops by giving them more time between tour of duties, because the price the troops are paying is so small that they would be demeaned by such efforts to relieve them. How can you get more cowardly?"
• The Huffington Post's Ian Welsh: "The fact of the matter is that Petraeus's testimony to Congress was based on statistics that are, effectively, lies. ... By lying to Congress Petraeus effectively betrayed the US. He also betrayed his men on the ground. ... The honeymoon is over, and the Democrats who did this will reap what they sowed. Both they, and the netroots will be worse for it, but there is no way out - the real betrayal, in the end, was of the base, by these Democrats."
• Working Assests' Justin Krebs: "The Senate is filled with cowards, many of whom have just -- in the words of the controversial ad -- betrayed us. McCarthyism is back...who wants to be censured next?"
• The Huffington Post's Lane Hudson: "MoveOn has done more than anyone else in this country to bring an end to the war. Anyone. ... But, the Democrats in Congress didn't take the time to look past the baseless finger pointing and elementary name-calling. Instead, they gave in to cowardly instinct and said a big "F@*# YOU" to the millions of Americans who call themselves a part of the Netroots Movement and have worked side by side with MoveOn to end the War."

Daily Kos diarist Mike Stark blogged: "I've been waiting for this moment - it's been a long time coming. In preparation, I registered the domain names, WeAreYourBase.com, SpeakWithOneVoice.org [and] .net and I've researched the cost of purchasing NotOneRedCent.com." Stark goes on to explain his plan: "We are forming a donors' union and going on strike. ... each donor will promise to give NotOneRedCent to elected Democrats or organizations that give money to elected democrats. Instead, they will promise to use their money to contribute to progressive organizations and candidates that, as proved by their record, support the furtherance of progressive ideals.

Crooks and LiarsNicole Belle seconds Stark's idea: "In fact, I'm going to take the money I would have donated to Democratic campaigns and donating it to MoveOn so that they can redouble their efforts. Let those gutless Democrats in the Senate who once again caved to Republican framing know, 'I will fight back.'"

CLINTON: She's Got Their Back

Commenting on Gallup data showing GOPers give Congress a higher approval rating than Dems, Open Left's Chris Bowers blogs:

You know, I have to admit, that outside of the residual forces disaster, Hillary Clinton is rapidly moving up in my rankings of Democratic candidates for President. Say whatever else you want about the Clintons, but they don't take bulls**t Republican attacks lying down or cowering in a corner. And if there is one thing I can't stand right now it is Democrats who won't stand up for themselves, who stab their allies in the back in order to appeal to D.C. elites and Republicans, and then ask us to keep fighting for them. At least Clinton fights back, and hard, whenever attacks are directed her way. That is a big plus in my book.

OBAMA: Condemnation Condemnations

Barack Obama may have escaped netroots scorn for failing to vote against the Senate resolution condemning MoveOn, but by voting for Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) substitute resolution condemning political attacks on anybody who ever served in the military, Obama opened himself up to charges of rank opportunism. Open Left's Matt Stoller pulled no punches:

In Dante's Inferno, the Opportunists were 'the people who refused to take sides on the whole good vs. evil thing, but just looked after themselves. As a result, they're doomed to forever run after a banner while being stung by wasps and hornets... These people aren't technically in hell. They're not evil enough to be in hell, so they're in the vestibule of hell.' ... Obama didn't take a vote on the Moveon condemnation, but an hour earlier he voted for the Boxer amendment. What a sad spectacle of a politician.

The Huffington Post's Ian Welsh also swiped Obama: "Obama ducked the vote. He was there for the one before, then ran out. Frankly that's exactly what I expect from Obama. He doesn't like making hard choices or fighting."

OBAMA II: Too Cool For School

TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta had a series of posts 9/20 on Barack Obama's decision to skip 9/20's AARP forum in Davenport, IA. First Garance writes: "The AARP matters in Iowa this year more than it ever has, not just because so many older voters caucus, but because it is conducting a campaign along with the SEIU and the Business Roundtable ... My unscientific impression in Iowa was that the local AARP chapters functioned like social clubs for elderly women and were extremely vibrant, especially in the smaller towns. ... Obama's absence at the AARP forum is a real missed opportunity to reach that critical constituency, which will also be holding AARP-organized debate watch parties tonight."

Later Garance fits Obama's AARP snub into a larger critique: "Obama has made the attack on special interests a big part of his stump speech ... Obama has maintained a greater distance from traditional Democratic interest groups, as well, and his campaign seems less interested than either Clinton's or Edwards' in reaching out to people who are not part of its "transformational" strategy. He doesn't seem to mind dissing people who he doesn't think are useful or part of his master plan, and I have to wonder if, in Democratic primary politics, that's not partly responsible for his declining numbers, because it turns transformational politics into the worst form of transactional political organizing, where the campaign refuses to reach out to groups and people who they think won't matter on the ground."

However, Garance also notes Obama is not above pandering: "Also worth noting is that Barack Obama will be holding his own forum with seniors tomorrow in Ames, Iowa, and that this week he released a plan to eliminate income taxes for seniors who earn less than $50,000. That promise is likely to end taxes for the vast majority of seniors in Iowa, considering that if you make $60,000 a year out there you're pretty close to rich."

At The Plank, Noam Scheiber reads Marc Ambinder coverage of Obama's outreach to seniors and comments: "When you listen to Obama, watch his ads, talk to various campaign staffers, you get the sense that they're running a general election campaign, not a primary campaign where the idea is to appeal to partisans. ... Maybe the thinking is also that, by running a general election-style campaign, Obama persuades voters he's electable (that is, he would appeal to the independents who decide general elections), which then causes strategic-minded primary voters to embrace him. But this strikes me as a little too clever and convoluted."

WEBB: The Last Thing He Needs

Netroots fav Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) was among the 'cowards' who voted to condemn MoveOn's 'Gen. Betray Us' ad. TPM's Greg Sargentwrites, "Jim Webb, who just yesterday was a Netroots hero, voted for it, even though the last thing he needs as a military guy is cover on something like this."

GOP FIELD: Think Tank Tussle

First noting that The Heritage Foundation can not endorse a candidate, Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite has begun keeping track of Heritage 'heavyweight' endorsements. Mitt Romney claims ex-Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO) and Matt Spaulding, while Rudy Giuliani has nabbed Steve Forbes, Nile Gardiner, Kim Holmes, and Bill Simon. Garthwaite concludes: "Perhaps there is more parity than many of us of were led to believe in the battle for the hearts and minds of conservatives. Landing two of the top dogs on foreign policy at Heritage is nothing to shrug off."

GIULIANI: We Can See Churchill As A Yankee Fan

NRO's Jim Geraghty notes that Rudy Giuliani's London trip has scored the campaign some good headlines including Geraghty's favorite from USA Today: "Churchill in a baseball cap?" Less impressed with some of the substance of the trip, The American Scene's James Poulos is no fan of Giuliani's suggestion that NATO open membership to countries regardless of their geographic location. From Poulos:

On what basis will American citizens accept going to war if India is bombed (by, uh, our non-NATO ally Pakistan)? How are we to respond according to the NATO charter every time Israel suffers an attack? ... Even a stalwart pro-Israeli strategist with an ounce of common sense can recognize the vast benefits to be derived from permitting broadly divergent foreign policies between very close allies.

Reading a 9/21 New York Timesarticle on Giuliani's post 9/11 image, AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin wonders if "many of us, me included, are over thinking the race." She explains: "He is doing well in part because people had an emotional, visceral reaction to what he did that day and the days following. ... Very few politicians get an opportunity to bond with voters like that and that goes a long way. Does it mean others can't win or that this event trumps all other issues? No, but it is an advantage and an explanation for the continuing affection he enjoys in unexpected places like South Carolina."

THOMPSON: Not Sweating Dobson Doubts

Fred Thompson is scoring mostly positive reaction from James Dobson's promise not to endorse him. Instapundit quips: "James Dobson doesn't like him. That's gotta be worth, what, five percent?" NRO's Jim Geraghty doesn't even think its news: "Shouldn't The Headline Be, 'Dobson Says He Still Won't Support Thompson'?" NY Sun's Ryan Sager explains: "Average voters seem to trust him as a social conservative. But the people who run the big social-conservative groups know that his agenda is less absolute than their own. I suspect the average voters are more important in this equation, as far as winning primaries, which would explain why the Thompson folks don't seem all that worried."

In other Thompson blogging, RedState's Erick Erickson looks at polling in FL and SC showing Thompson trailing only Rudy Giuliani and is ready to declare: "It really is Rudy v. Fred now." Race4'08s Tommy Oliver recommends conservatives check out Thompson's Senate report Government On the Brink: The Root Causes of Federal Waste and Mismanagement. And Right Wing News blogger and former Duncan Hunter advisor John Hawkins explains why Thompson is his second choice:

Fred's the most conservative of the top tier candidates and the only one of them I would trust to take a security-first approach to immigration. ... On the other hand, Fred has shown a LOT of "ring rust" since he got back in the political arena. By that, I mean he's out pacing the 2004 version of Howard Dean in the unforced errors department; but luckily, so far, he hasn't made any crippling mistakes. He also isn't doing much to dispel that whole "lazy" rap that was laid on him over the last few months. Still, he should be fully up to speed soon and if he can make it to that point without seriously hurting himself, he should be fine -- I think.

DEMS: GOPers Love Nancy The Most

TPM's Eric Kleefeld notes: "In the latest Gallup poll, more Republicans approve of the job Congress is doing than there are Democrats who approve. According to the poll, 37% of Republicans approve of Congress' performance, compared to 23% of Democrats and 14% of independents, with an overall rating of 24% approval and 71% disapproval."

Kleefeld then speculates: "This is odd, of course, considering that both houses have Democratic majorities. But on second thought, the current Congress has passed President Bush's funding requests for Iraq, passed his FISA bill, and has given the White House exactly what it wanted on a host of other issues. So what do Republicans really have to complain about?"

Open Left's Chris Bowers links and adds: "Really, it makes sense, since the conservative governing majority in Washington has not been stopped by Democratic control of Congress. FISA was passed into law. The Iraq war has escalated, without any conditions being attached to it. Liberal political speech is condemned on the floor of the Senate. Republican filibusters are at a record high blocking everything in sight, and when that fails there is still Bush's veto to whip Congress into line. Effectively, Washington is still governing to the benefit of Republicans, and to the disgust of Democrats and Independents."

Daily Kos' mcjoan blogs: "The Democrats in Congress read the same polls we do. They know that the majority of the people want them to take control in Iraq, want this war to end. Want Congress to fight Bush. They understand the obstacles, but they need to see the fight. ... But I guess old habits born of fear and too long in the electoral wasteland will take some time, effort, and a lot of primary challenges to change. ... If you don't want this war to last 10 more years, keep telling them what we want them to do. Fight back. No more funding for Iraq unless it's for withdrawal."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's Almost As If Some People Stoke Racial Issues For Their Own Profit

Freakonomics Blog's Steven Levitt previews his new paper:

It details the rise and fall of the Klan in the 1920s. Incredibly, the Klan had millions of members at that time, and most of them were reasonably well-educated. Based on a variety of data sources, we argue that, despite its size and education levels, the group nevertheless had little measurable impact on society or politics. It was, however, an incredible engine for generating profits for Klan leaders.

LEST WE FORGET: Governmental Incompetence - Our Only Hope

Cracked lists the '8 Most Common Sci-Fi Visions of the Future' and explains why they will never happen, including:

• #8 An Oppressive Totalitarian State - Why It Will Never Happen: Governments have been evolved and advanced to achieve stunning levels of incompetence that Orwell could hardly have imagined. Sure, we did wind up with wall monitors in our homes, but they display mostly porn and advertisements.
• #6 A Sprawling Urban Hell-Slum - Why it Will Never Happen: The Gillette Fusion, through its innovative five-blade technology and aloe strip, guarantees a close, smooth, sexy shave every time. Gillette: the best a man can get! (Gillette executives: Please make all checks payable to Michael "The Danger Zone" Swaim).
• #4 An Invasion by Friendly Aliens - Why it Will Never Happen: It's an irrefutable scientific fact that a species cannot evolve to dominate its planet unless it is made up of merciless killing machines. Any civilization with access to the resources necessary to reach us, has, by definition, gained that access by slaughtering its biological competitors. If they turn up here tomorrow, it's only because they've found out, say, that our ground-up spleens are an afrodisiac for their women.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:42 PM

September 20, 2007

9/20: Time To Swing For The Fences

When Barack Obama was riding his initial post-announcement wave of popularity, his detractors pointed out that there was little that separated him substantively from his Dem rivals, and that Dems should really wait to see what his policies were like before jumping on board. Well, after hearing from Obama on foreign policy, health care, and now taxes the verdict is in: ho-hum. It's not that Obama's policies are wildly unpopular, it's just that, in the words of The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum they are too "cautious and mainstream." As exciting as Obama is in person, many on the left just don't believe Obama is offering "innovative approaches to challenge the status quo." If Obama is gonna turn his campaign around, his policies are going to have to start matching his rhetoric.

DEM FIELD: Troop Levels In Iraq Not A Factor

Returning to DC from Sen. Tom Harkin's (D-IA) steak fry, Open Left's Mike Lux reminds readers that issues rarely play a role in elections: "we forget that politics is at least as much about things like instinct and passion and charm and fun and eloquence and well, that indescribable gut feeling people get about candidates. ... Take the residual troops issue, a big issue for the OpenLeft.com community. Richardson and lately Edwards, have tried to emphasize their differences between their position and that of Obama and Clinton, but in spite of the overwhelming intensity of all the folks I talked to in terms of their opposition to the war, that issue hasn't gotten through at all."

Besides 'gut feeling' Lux also named identity politics as a key factor for many Dems: "Many of Hillary's supporters were thrilled at the idea of a woman being President, and a lot of Obama and Richardson supporters mentioned their candidate's background and race as really positive reasons to be for them."

CLINTON: The Last Day Of Health Care Plan Reax We Promise

Open Left contributor and ex-Clinton WH aide Mike Lux identifies the "three major political decisions" that distinguish Hillary Clinton's current health care proposal with her '93 effort:

• 1. Emphasize the "do no harm" element. The first thing in her proposal is to announce, emphasize, repeat and hammer home the idea that if you like your current health plan, you are free to stick with it.
• 2. Keep it simple. The "health alliances" we proposed in 1993-94 were hideously complicated contraptions. ... The new plan doesn't create new agencies or cooperatives, thusly, it is a whole lot easier to explain.
• 3. Buy off small business. One of the major reasons we lost the fight in 1993-94 was the white heat of opposition from the small business community that freaked out about an employer mandate.

Also looking at differences between this plan's approach and the last one, Joe Conason at Working Assets: "Rather than emphasize differences in detail that fascinate specialists but bore voters, both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama tried to claim that they are more likely to achieve success than Mrs. Clinton, who has admittedly failed once in this quest. She anticipated that rather obvious line of criticism by acknowledging how much she has learned in the past decade or so, displaying at least a bit of the suppleness that was always among Bill Clinton's greatest assets. ... This refreshing approach contrasted sharply with the old stereotypes of secrecy and arrogance that haunted her previous effort, and, perhaps more importantly, girded her against the inevitable assaults from the right."

CLINTON II: Why Must Everyone Always Blame The Lobbyists?

Responding to observations that "Clinton's stated position on Jerusalem is to the right of longstanding U.S. policy," TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta notes HRC "took the same position in her 2000 Senate contest" and adds: "I should also note that there is a uniform opinion among the people I know who follow ... Middle East policy making in Washington (both Arab and Jew) that Clinton does not really believe her stated position on Jerusalem, which would seem to preclude a peace process."

TAPPED's Ezra Klein then connects HRC's complexity on the issue to "a coalition of savvy activist groups and wealthy advocates who're singularly committed to guaranteeing continual American support for a Likudnik view of Israeli politics, and are particularly powerful in New York politics. I'd suggest, for linguistic convenience, that we call this "coalition of activist groups and advocates" a 'lobby,' and distinguish them from other lobbies by saying the name of their issue (Israel) before we say 'lobby,' but then I'd get called an anti-Semite."

DODD: Leader Of The Pack

A contributor to the group blog The Left Coaster explains why he is endorsing Chris Dodd: "Leadership. On every issue, from Iraq, to the growing climate crisis, to the rule of law, Chris Dodd has done more than talk the talk of a Presidential candidate - He has led."

EDWARDS: Just Win Baby

SEIU Local 790 organizer/Left in SF blogger Robert Haaland reports that John Edwards won a straw poll of SEIU members, but will have to wait for the Executive Board's decision for at least a week. TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta comments: "The SEIU leadership has refused to formally identify the straw poll's winner, but two less senior sources in positions to know confirmed the result Haaland reported."

More Franke-Ruta: "My sources tell me that there is and has long been great enthusiasm for Edwards at the level of the SEIU leadership, and, now, with the support of the membership running in his favor as well, the main concern some people have is that he may not be able to win the primary, let alone a general election contest. After the experience of endorsing Howard Dean last cycle, SEIU leaders want to back a winner as well as someone who supports their agenda."

OBAMA: Too Incremental

John Dickerson's "Time To Panic?" Slate article inspired a wave of Barack Obama speculation and Hillary Clinton inevitability talk at TAPPED 9/18. Dana Goldstein was the first to comment:

John Dickerson gets it right: As I reported, Obama rocked the house at the SEIU candidates' forum Monday, but that kind of soaring rhetoric and shouting, activist delivery isn't enough to get him elected. ... Dickerson suggests several tactics to help Obama overcome the growing feeling of inevitability around Hillary Clinton. First, he could attack Clinton more explicitly, or dig deep and publicize any dirt on her he can find. Alternatively, he could take the high road and let John Edwards roll in the mud with Hillary. Lastly, he could renew excitement by beating the rest of the field in fundraising again this quarter. The problem is that we've seen Obama try all of these strategies already, to no concrete jump in his poll numbers.

TAPPED's Ezra Klein responds: "what struck me about Dickerson's article suggesting the Obama campaign begin to panic about Clinton's apparent strength is how weak Dickerson's suggestions were. ... one thing the Obama campaign could do is start bringing out some bolder policy. Their health plan was less impressive than either Clinton or Edwards' offerings, their plan for withdrawal from Iraq was rather typical for the race, and their new tax plan is, well, incremental is almost too generous."

Scott Lemieux concludes it is unlikely Obama can turn things around in time: "What allowed Kerry to come out of nowhere was concerns about Dean compounded by the inept, undisciplined endgame to his Iowa campaign. Clinton, whatever else one can say about her, is a very disciplined campaigner; she'll be very, very difficult to haul down from behind. ... both Obama and Edwards will stay in long enough to prevent a single anti-Clinton candidate from emerging until it's too late. This is unfortunate, given that I think she's both the least progressive and the weakest presidential candidate of the three."

OBAMA II: Too Cautious

Blogging on Barack Obama's tax policy proposals continue to be light, and what is there is not positive. Matthew Yglesias thought the speech itself was good, but found "the policy follow through is a little lacking." Yglesias has some criticism for each plank of the plan, including: "The first plank, which would be a new kind of refundable tax credit, has a worthy impulse but seems poorly designed. The tax credit situation is already very complicated. The right thing to be doing is streamlining it."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum also comments on each part of the plan and on Obama's promise to eliminate all income tax for seniors with income under $50k Drum responds: "[This] is just special interest group pandering. There's no reason a senior citizen making $45,000 should be exempt from paying income tax."

Drum then explains why the tax plan is just another reason Obama is "losing" him:

He's an inspiring speaker, and given the realities of how presidents exercise power that's no small thing. But he sure is cautious to a fault. His big foreign policy speech was fine, but cautious and mainstream. His big healthcare speech was fine, but cautious and mainstream. And now his big tax speech is....just cautious and mainstream. I really want to hear something big and controversial from Obama, something that demonstrates a desire to shake up the status quo. But he just doesn't seem to be willing to take any chances. That's a shame.

GOP FIELD: Rudy Skates On Immigration Criticism From Both Sides

Robert Bluey responds to Michael Gerson's latest column admonishing GOPers for not following Pres. Bush on immigration: "Gerson once again argues that politics (winning more Hispanic votes) is more important than principle (following the law). ... But what's perhaps most absurd is Gerson's comparison of the illegal-immigration debate to the civil-rights struggle of the 1960s. He notes that Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was so symbolic that blacks stopped supporting Republicans. Outlawing segregation in 1964 is far different from rewarding lawbreakers in 2007. But in Michael Gerson's mind, winning the Hispanic vote is much more important. He apparently sees no problem using bad public policy to advance the establishment GOP's political agenda."

Soren Dayton uses the article to bash Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson on immigration: "So why have McCain, Brownback, and, to a degree, Huckabee, maintained their positions? My gut is that it is because their positions are deeply grounded in their values and, in particular, their religious values. Some people, myself included, view immigration reform as a moral issue. And a simple one. And a deep one. ... However, the position of Thompson and Romney are different. They are weak. They are insincere for transactional reasons. They are simply acting out of politics."

GIULIANI: For Those Of You Wondering Who The Left Is Really Afraid Of

Open Left's Chris Bowers celebrates the progress of his Googlebomb campaign against Rudy Giuliani noting that two of their targeted stories have made it into the top ten results. At #8 - Rudy Giuliani is worse than Bush. At #9 - Fire fighters letter to Rudy Giuliani. Bowers adds: "Some may ask why I am not Googlebombing Mitt Romney or John McCain. The simple answer is that I don't find either of them threatening in a general elction, so I do not want to take action that would hurt their chances of winning the Republican nomination."

Also in Giuliani blogging: The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez reports that Pres. Bush may have taken a veiled swipe at Giuliani when Bush named "be comfortable with your family" as a trait people should look for in a president. The Corner's Jonah Goldberg responds: "In fact, the more I think about this, the more annoyed I'm getting. ... The real problem with statements like this - when released to the public - is they make conservatives sound otherworldly and almost bizarre in their priorities. Character matters, a lot. But come on."

Giuliani's trip to England is going over well. Townhall's Matt Lewis blogs: "Not only does this trip help portray him as as a statesman -- and remind folks he of his "Churchillian" 9-11 image -- it also allows him to dominate the headlines for yet another week. The message is clear: while his opponents are pandering to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, Rudy is already acting as a diplomat."

HUCKABEE: The Next Chris Dodd

The Brody File comments on Mike Huckabee's 'Value Voters' straw poll win: "This is another notch in Huckabee's belt. He did very well in the Iowa straw poll, has done well in the debates and now this. If he could just write himself a cool $10 million dollar check, he'd be in business."

NY Sun's Ryan Sager adds: "For social conservatives, "values voters," "pro-family" voters, etc., is Mr. Huckabee becoming the safe, throwaway alternative? Much as the International Association of Fire Fighters gave its endorsement to no-shot candidate Chris Dodd, might social conservative groups unwilling to endorse Mitt Romney (because he's a flip-flopper) or Fred Thompson (because he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment) go with Mr. Huckabee?"

ROMNEY: Turning Red States Purple?

Right Wing News looks at Mitt Romney's standing in national polls and worries about his general election electability: "Not only is Mitt hovering around 10% in general polling, his polling numbers in individual match-ups against the Democrats are horrible! ... One of Mitt's selling points is supposed to be that he can go into a handful of key blue states and put them in play. That may be true, but if he's putting states as red as Kentucky and Alabama into play for the Democrats, it's not worth it."

In more positive Romney blogging, NRO's Jim Geragthy likes Romney's new 'Change Begins With Us' which includes these lines: ""We can't be like Democrats - a party of big spending. We can't pretend our borders are secure from illegal immigration. We can't have ethical standards that are a punch line for Jay Leno."

Geraghty comments: "Kudos to Romney for taking on the GOP's image problems head on. ... The spending demands that led to the Bridge to Nowhere, Bush's in-your-face disregard for the base's opinion on amnesty and border security, and the ethics of the Larry Craigs, Mark Foleys, and other creeps have seriously tarnished the Republican brand. ... Romney's hitting his party's failures from the right."

THOMPSON: GI Vladimir

The Washington Post did Fred Thompson a huge favor 9/18 when they took issue with Thompson's assertion that the US had "shed more blood for other people's liberty than any other combination of nations in the history of the world" by claiming that that title belonged to the Soviet Union.

Captain's Quarters comments: "It's a ludicrous, almost ghoulish argument in the face of what followed World War II in Europe. ... Thompson knows of what he speaks. The Washington Post should be embarrassed by their historical and rhetorical illiteracy, and should offer an apology for calling Thompson a liar." NRO's Jim Geraghty adds: "The Thompson campaign is having a good laugh at the Washington Post."

Also at NRO, Thompson pollster John McLaughlin spins Geraghty on why Thompson will win: "To win the nomination, you have to say what Republican Party wants to stand for and represent and Fred's doing that the best. The other thing is, Fred's got a record as a senator, and everybody agrees it's conservative. He went to Washington as part of the Republican Revolution, the class of 1994. The interesting part about other candidates putting out position papers is that they're doing it because they have to undo their statements and votes of the past."

The Brody File looks at Thompson's video response to Hillary Clinton's health care plan and reviews: "Hey, let's face it. Don't expect a lot of detailed policy proposals from the guy. The reason people like him is because he comes across as guy who tells it like it is and is likeable in the process. ... Don't underestimate this emotional appeal Thompson has with people. He comes across as sincere. If they believe you, that's half the battle."

SENATE LANDSCAPE: What Do OJ, Monica, Bush, And The Politico All Have In Common?

The netroots are turning the the defeat of three "major measures via filibuster threats" 9/19 into a rallying cry for a push for a 60 vote Senate majority. Talking Points Memo's David Kurtz recaps: "habeas corpus for enemy combatants, a House member for DC, and the Webb Amendment on troop rotations. It is part of an unprecedented use of the filibuster by Senate Republicans in the 110th Congress."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links to a McClatchy chart showing "Republicans aren't just obstructing legislation at normal rates. They're obstructing legislation at three times the usual rate."

Looking ahead to '08, Open Left's Matt Stoller takes issue with Politico reporting that " For the past couple of decades, the most successful national Democrats have been practitioners of defensive politics." Stoller responds: "I have no problems if candidates want to inoculate themselves by carefully framing controversial issues, but it is a loser mentality to play defensive politics. Democrats, stop listening to the VandeHeises and the Harrises of the world, and get rid of the culture of caution."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas also swipes the same Jim VandeHei and John Harris article including their claim that Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "might pull back from fights over ... spending on social programs." Kos responds: "Yes, there's a desire to fund the programs Democrats care about as opposed to the programs Republicans care about. Don't forget that Bush presided over the largest expansion of our government since LBJ."

Atrios later names VandeHei and Harris his "Wankers of the Day" and adds: "One can draw a straight line from OJ to the Clinton impeachment to the war on Gore to President George Bush to the Politico. It's all the same."

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: A Profile In Courage

Kossacks are coming to Rep. Jim Moran's (D-VA) defense after Moran told a California-based Jewish magazine that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is "the most powerful lobby and has pushed [the Iraq] war from the beginning. I don't think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all."

Daily Kos diarist Steven D tracks House Maj. Leader Steny Hoyer's (D-MD) denunciation of Moran's comments and responds: "Practically no one thinks it would be a smart idea (much less legally justified) for American forces to attack Iran outside of Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney, and AIPAC obviously. ... But dare to speak the truth about AIPAC's influence on American foreign policy as it relates to Iraq, and they will quickly send in my opinion, the House Majority Leader will be "asked" to verbally attack you. I can only assume that Hoyer didn't act on this information on his own."

Rabbi Michael Lerner later implores in a separate dkos diary: "We ask you to contact Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Cantor to let them know your feelings about the issues below ... We have just learned that Congressman Waxman is circulating a petition demanding Congressman Moran apologize for his comments in Tikkun. Please call Waxman ... It took tremendous courage for Congressman Jim Moran to tell Tikkun magazine of the power and influence of AIPAC and other sections of the Israel Lobby."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Just Think Of Them As An Afternoon At The Theatre

Tyler Cowen shares a snippet from his latest Forbes article:

Frequent meetings help a business apply bonuses and yearly evaluations with greater precision. Evaluations are inherently problematic. The natural human tendency is to feel slighted or get upset at anything less than a perfect evaluation. By contrast, meetings reaffirm the value of the individual to the company. When the time comes for the boss to offer criticism or dock a bonus, a worker who has been to many meetings is more likely to take the feedback in a constructive spirit and respond with improvement rather than resentment.

Cowen comments: "In other words, meetings are fundamentally a form of "social theater" and should be analyzed as such."

LEST WE FORGET: Since God Knows All, Is Service Of Process Still Required?

At Dilbert Blog, Scott Adams flags news that a NE man is suing God to make a point about frivolous lawsuits and comments:

I sure hope it goes to trial. Imagine how interesting that would be. First, how do you select a jury of God's peers? Compared to the Almighty, even Buddha is just a guy who should use the stairs more often. The entire jury would end up being doctors who sometimes play God, and arborists, who can, sort of, make a tree, if they have acorns. That's the best you can do. ... God's public defender wouldn't be able to claim his client didn't perform the acts of God for which he is accused. I mean, they're acts of God, ferchrissake. And the defender can't prove his client wasn't there. He's everywhere. God has a well-documented history of smiting humans, the motive, and the opportunity. That's a strong case.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:51 PM

September 19, 2007

9/19: Why The Taser Bro Has Done Us All A Favor

Those under the delusion that the tasering of that FL student is a "iconic turning point" "in the annals of a closing society" need to get a hold of themselves and study up on the incident. The kid involved has a long history of taping practical jokes and by eye-witness accounts only fought police when the cameras were on him. Taser Bro is not a free speech martyr: he is just the latest example of traditional media rewarding abject narcissism at the cost of public political discourse.

Unfortunately Taser Bro is not an isolated incident, and unless the media wises up fast they should expect more and more campaigns to shut off candidates from the public in response. For example, in '06 blogger Mike Stark, who was tackled by ex-Sen. George Allen (R-VA) staffers, admitted that he attended Allen events for the sole purpose of hoping to cause embarrassing altercations. For every macaca video out there that sheds justifiable light on a candidate, there are going to be ten provocateurs seeking to disrupt public events in the hopes of becoming the next YouTube hero. The next time someone disrupts an event, before anyone gives them a second of coverage, let's first ask if this is just another Taser Bro.

GOP FIELD: An Annoying Waste Of Time

NRO's Jim Geraghty interviewed pollster Scott Rasmussen about the GOP field. Rasmussen told Geraghty, "Every poll has seen Fred Thompson gaining ground, so that's a common point among all the polls ... When you include people not following the race closely, the candidate with the biggest name ID is going to win out. The tighter you draw the screen on your pool of respondents, the better Thompson performs."

Rasmussen adds: "We just did a poll last night that showed 58 percent of voters saying everything that has been going on with the campaign so far has been generally annoying and a waste of time."

GIULIANI: These Crazy Kids Really Are Perfect For Each Other

NRO's Jim Geraghty posts text from Rudy Giuliani's latest radio ad including: "Why is MoveOn attacking Rudy Giuliani? Because he's their worst nightmare." The Brody File handicaps the exchange: "This is a classic strategy for the Giuliani campaign. Keep the focus on Moveon.org, Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the "'fill in the blank' liberal. He wants to change the debate from 'Giuliani can't win the nomination because he's a social moderate' to 'Giuliani is the only Republican that can beat the Democrats.'"

Also in Geraghty land, speculations on Giuliani's trip to London to meet Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill's granddaughter Celia Sandys: "I had been talking about endorsements that matter on the Republican side, and I could only think of two that would really make people stop and react: Nancy Reagan and Margaret Thatcher."

MCCAIN: Not Quite An Endorsement

NRO's Jim Gearghty comments on Pres. Bush's appearance in a video as part of John McCain's 'No Surrender' tour: "Appearing in a video backing John McCain's "No Surrender" rally isn't really the same as coming out and endorsing McCain... but it kinda feels like an endorsement of McCain by former President George H.W. Bush. Let's put it this way: If George H. W. Bush strongly preferred one of the other candidates, don't you think he would have avoided doing this?"

ROMNEY: Not Quite Hillary

Mitt Romney pol. dir. Sally Canfield hosted a conference call 9/18. NRO's Jim Geraghty transcribed her answer to accusations that Hillary Clinton's health care plan closely resembled Romney's MA effort: "Governor Romney had a plan created for Massachusetts, based on what we faced in the state. It was the right plan for the state, wants other states to take different paths based on their circumstances. The only similarity between the Hillary plan and the Massachusetts plan is that they both use the words 'individual mandate.'"

Not on the call, AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin responds: "Well, aside from the words they both really did include individual mandates, right? Yes, they use the same term, were crafted by the same advisor (Jonathan Gruber of MIT) and involve the same path of coercive enforcement and government drafted insurance policy requirements. Wouldn't he have been better off saying he learned his lesson the hard way and now understands why a pure market based plan is better?"

In other Romney blogging, The Brody File comments on Romney's new IA radio ad supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment: "This is the way Romney will try and differentiate himself from his three main rivals. Giuliani and McCain are flat out not for a federal marriage amendment. Fred Thompson is for one but it stops short of a one size fits all approach. He would leave the marriage question ultimately up to the state legislature. This is significant for the Romney campaign. This is one issue where he can make hay."

THOMPSON: Not Quite A Social Conservative

Reviewing Fred Thompson's website, AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein notices: "One thing that struck me was that it reinforces my view that he seems to be running more as a federalist than as a social conservative. He doesn't include a separate section describing his views on abortion, mentioning it only as part of his section on "appointing judges faithful to our constitution." Also ... he doesn't mention anything about the constitutional amendment on marriage that he proposed. I'm not saying there's anything wrong in this, it is just interesting that, he really doesn't seem to be making a hard push on social issues."

Race4'08s Gamecock came out in favor of Thompson 9/18: "Fred can win. Fred is right. Fred has a clear-eyed view of the world, a great presidential demeanor and articulately expresses his conservative principles and policies."

Back in IA, Cyclone Conservative explains why the IA GOP has invited Fred Thompson to speak at the 10/27 Reagan Day Dinner: "Senator Thompson wasn't in the race at the time of the April Lincoln Day Dinner, but his star-power will be an attraction to a group of Iowa Republicans who have heard an awful lot of media speculation but not a whole lot from the Law & Order star. If Fred can deliver an energizing, motivated speech then I think he is likely to do himself a whole lot of good."

DEM FIELD: Apparently, Hillary Is Officially The Frontrunner Now

Open Left's Chris Bowers adds Rasmussen's latest numbers to his NH poll average and finds Hillary Clinton beating Barack Obama 37% to 18%. Bowers explains the significance: "[W]ith a 19.0% lead, that means Clinton has reached the firewall point in New Hampshire, where even in the event that she finishes third in Iowa, she would still (narrowly) be projected to win in New Hampshire. That makes this poll a very big moment for the Clinton campaign, as it is actually the first time since February where she is clearly in the driver's seat for the nomination."

CLINTON: We're Not Expecting Any Video Out Of Jones Day's Offices

Lefty blog opinion of Hillary Clinton's health care plan continues to be positive, while what criticism that is being made of it can also be made of the other candidates plans. At The Huffington Post California Nurses Association exec. dir. Rose Ann Demoro blogs: "The biggest failing of this plan, like the Romney and Schwarzenegger schemes before it and like most of the other Democratic candidates' proposals, is the abject failure to challenge healthcare industry price gouging and runaway costs."

Open Left's Matt Stoller says the plan is 'fine' but is much more impressed with Clinton's language selling it particularly her line on insurance companies: "They're attacking me before I even put my plan out there. And I frankly carry that like a badge of honor. Because we're right and they're wrong." Stoller comments: "I am deeply skeptical of Clinton's political judgment, but this is great. Opposition from insurance companies should generate political capital for progressives, since insurance companies are so widely loathed. It sounds like Clinton gets this."

In less positive HRC blogging, TAPPED's Ezra Klein and TPM Cafe's MJ Rosenberg both hit Clinton for pandering to AIPAC in her position paper on Israel and Palestine. Rosenberg writes: "I wonder if Hillary is the hawk she is pretending to be. The ridiculous brouhaha over her Suha Arafat kiss (a brouhaha only among the Jewish right) has produced a hawkish course correction. I have to believe that if she is elected, she will push her husband's Clinton parameters (two states, settlements taken down, shared Jerusalem) and that the position paper is a campaign document that will be flushed if she is elected."

Some are also picking up on John Edwards aide Joe Trippi's attack on HRC for her 9/18 fundraiser at Jones Day. MyDD's Tarheel sets the scene: "Close your eyes and imagine that George Bush in 2003 was having a fundraiser ($1,000 a plate or $25,000 minimum for bundlers) to line his re-election war chest and the kicker was you would get to have small breakout sessions with Republican committee chairs who oversee appropriations for your business. ... Apparently, Hillary is having such a fundraiser today ... I'd really love to see someone sneak in a video camera and expose these type of meetings."

DODD: For Moral Standing

Chris Dodd official blogger Matt Browner-Hamlin asks for help passing the "Leahy-Specter-Dodd Amendment" to the Defense Authorization bill that would "restore habeas corpus and help us regain our moral standing in the world" in a guest post at IA's Bleeding Heartland.

Netrooters fighting with Dodd include: Open Left's Matt Stoller, Fire Dog Lake's Christy Hardin Smith, Working Assets's Will Easton, and Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt.

EDWARDS: Some Lobbyists Are Just More Equal Than Others

Still reporting from SEIU's conference, TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta was amused to hear John Edwards 'jazzing up' conventioners for the SEIU's 'Lobby Day'. Franke-Ruta blogs: "John Edwards has made it very clear that he thinks lobbyists are the bane of the American political system, and will prevent needed healthcare reform. ...The SEIU has worked with: Bond & Co.; Clark & Weinstock; Colling Murphy Swift Hynes Selfridge LLC; Robert Giroux; Jennings Policy Strategies; the Nueva Vista Group; Bill Lynch Associates; and Tighe Patton Armstrong Teasdale. ... I seriously doubt that the Edwards campaign has a problem with any of this SEIU activity, either, despite his anti-lobbying stance."

In less amusing Edwards blogging, MyDD's David Mizner flags a positive review of Edwards post Pres. Bush address from The Atlantic's James Fallows. Fallows blogs: "Of the three Democratic responses to the president in this hour on CNN -- Jack Reed, Barack Obama, plus Edwards -- Edwards was by a mile the most impressive. To apply the Man from Mars perspective: if you'd heard of none of these politicians before, based on this sequence you'd immediately assume that Edwards was the dominant one from either party (including the actual president)."

At TAPPED, Ezra Klein credits the progressive bent in Hillary Clinton's health care plan to Edwards existence: "Any politician who proposed an overly cautious or incremental plan would lose voters to Edwards. Barack Obama's plan, which was decidedly broad and ambitious by the standards of 2004, received criticism (some of it from this writer) for merely getting near to, rather than actually achieving, universality. In the absence of Edwards' plan, it would almost undoubtedly have been lauded for its vision."

OBAMA: Thinks He's Too Good For The Rest Of Us

Reading Maureen Dowd, The Nation's Eric Alterman thinks he has identified the narrative the MSM will try and shoehorn Barack Obama into: "Dowd mocked Obama's 'ranting about Washington pundits' by pointing out that he frequently graces the covers of magazines. This is quite a trick when you think about it. The media elite put Obama on magazine covers, and then the same media elite insist he is inauthentic for having appeared on magazine covers." The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links and adds: "So that's that. Barack Obama Thinks He's Too Good For The Rest Of Us. I guess we can look forward to seeing this meme spread far and wide. I can't wait."

Whether or not Obama does think he's too good for the rest of us, MyDD's Todd Beeton notices a change in Obama's rhetoric the demonstrates he is not too good to embrace the Dem label: "Obama has been an amazing communicator of the values that make us Democrats and it's always frustrated me that he never makes that connection rhetorically -- that he's avoided stating why he's a Democrat proudly. This is the first time I've seen him do this, if I'm wrong please let me know, but this appears to be a shift, one that I heartily welcome. On one level, of course, he is starting to sound more like Edwards and of all times to do so, a speech in front of the SEIU is it."

Netroots reaction to Obama's tax plan was light, but Andrew Sullivan was not a fan of the unveiling: "He gave a pedestrian speech that he appeared to have barely read. The speech itself was poorly constructed, with a surprisingly interesting Lincoln quote tacked on too late to rescue it. Afterwards, the hacks were grilling his frontman on how these proposals dealt with the AMT, how they fit in with his methods for financing his healthcare plans, and so on. The fact-sheets we were promised didn't materialize. ... I was bored. If I'm bored, and I'm paid not to be, what will be the response of the people Obama is trying to reach?"

IRAQ: There's No Place Like Home

Netroots blogging 9/19 is squarely focussed on supporting Sen. James Webb's (D-VA) Dwell Time Amendment that requires a "1:1 deployment-to-dwell ratio for active units and members." Webb pitches in an email posted on Daily Kos: "This amendment is vital to the continued morale and effectiveness of our Armed Forces, which are breaking under the strain of unprecedented long deployments in combat zones. Please email your Senators before today's vote."

Six GOPers have been singled out for pressure by the community: Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), George Voinovich (R-OH), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), John Warner (R-VA), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Arlen Specter (R-PA). Webb's VA colleague, Warner is receiving the lion's share of netroots scorn for allegedly backing off of possible support for Webb's amendment after receiving WH promises a few thousand troops would be coming home before Christmas.

Warner earned Atrios' "Wanker of the Day" honors and Daily Kos' Kagro X reasons: "John Warner sentences troops to death."

Also popular in netroots Iraq-blogging, a Pew Poll showing: "By nearly two-to-one, more say Democratic leaders in Congress are not going far enough, rather than too far, in challenging Bush's policies in Iraq (42% vs. 22%). A quarter of Americans believe that Democratic leaders are handling this about right." Daily Kos' DemFromCT comments: "So, do you think the media and the pundits will now reflect the reality of the situation? Do they have enough polling data? Don't hold your breath. Regurgitating conventional wisdom is much easier to do than doing your homework."

IRAQ II: In Their Dreams

Conservative blogging on the DoD appropriation bill is more focussed on immigration than the war. Michelle Malkin warns: "Shamnesty Watch: Keep the heat on the DREAM Act ... Only 18 Senators have committed to voting no." The Corner's Mark Krikorian is also on the case: "Look, even I might go along with amnesty, at some point down the road, for illegal kids who've lived here continuously from the age of, say, five - after we have a judge-approved, functioning, proven enforcement regime, and eliminated most of the family chain-migration categories for future legal immigration. But the DREAM Act amnesty isn't anything like that."

More Iraq focussed conservative blogging includes:

• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham on Vets for Freedom 9/18 Capitol visit: "McCain got the most enthusiastic reception of anyone except perhaps Joe Lieberman, who really brought the house down. ... This Vietnam Vet grabbed me to chase down Lieberman for this picture. Lieberman got the most raucous welcome and cheers during his speech, which was a doozy."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff on Fareed Zakaria's surge analysis: "Like Zakaria, I believed that our need for a politically sustainable presence in Iraq trumps our need to police Baghdad. Thus, it seemed to me that reducing our presence in Baghdad might be the way to go, since it would reduce our casualties and enable us to bring some troops home, and thereby stem growing anti-war sentiment at home."
• Hot Air posts video of Young America Foundation's Jason Mattera confronting Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) for "repeatedly accusing the Haditha Marines of murdering Iraqis 'in cold blood.'"
• RedState's Erick Erickson posts audio from a phone interview with Reps. Tom Price (R-GA) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) on "Gen. Petraeus's report and how it has united the GOP and divided the Democrats." More Erickson: "As Congressman Blunt noted, the Democrats pre-emptively ran away from Gen. Petraeus and it hurt them. Now the Dems are slowly walking back to Petraeus in an attempt to score points against the White House -- trying to have it both ways."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What Would Al Gore Eat?

Grist's David Roberts asks at The Huffington Post, "Should citizens of conscience become vegetarians?" and answers:

To me, the answer to this question is pretty obviously yes. I don't see how it can be seriously argued.
Depending on your inclinations, you can heed the health arguments, the moral arguments, or the environmental arguments (regardless whether you agree with the UN study that meat production is the No. 1 contributor to global warming, it is obviously a very large contributor, never mind CAFOs' horrid effects on land, air, and water). Taken together, these arguments strike me as dispositive. It is not possible to participate in industrial animal farming with clean hands.

Add to all this the fact that unlike giving up a car, moving closer to work, or retrofitting a home to be more energy efficient, giving up meat involves virtually no cost or inconvenience. Eating meat is entirely an aesthetic choice, based on taste and habit. Taste and habit are not convincing counterweights to the arguments against meat. So yes, you should eat less meat; ideally you should eat none. You ought to be a vegetarian.

LEST WE FORGET: Why Mrs. Blogometer Can Get Away With Just About Anything

The Washington Post quotes a psychologist on marriage 9/14: "A man can have all these problems with his wife, but when we fix the sex life, the other things go away." The Plank's Michelle Cottle responds:

Have truer words ever been spoken? Seriously. Men are simple creatures, God love 'em, especially when it comes to their personal lives. Just give them more nookie and--whammo!--they become infinitely more pleasant to live with. Throw in a cheerleading costume and a can of whipped cream and you can damn near convince the little darlings to do anything.

Many women find this single-mindedness annoying. But I say, "Work that angle, ladies." Don't worry about that extra three pounds you've put on since the baby came, or that dent you put in the car, or those long hours you've been putting in at the office. With just a little extra effort in the bedroom--or, for additional style points, on the hood of his car!--you can make your lover forget about all the annoying stuff you do on a regular basis. ... Now if only I can get down to the costume store before Chris figures out what really happened to his new i-Pod.

CORRECTION: We're Sorry

A 9/18 story identified Working Assets contributor David Sirota as the author of questions Dems should ask AG nominee Mike Mukasey. The post should have been attributed to Working Assets contributor Will Eaton.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:46 PM

September 18, 2007

9/18: They're Here, They're Opinionated, Get Used To It

If you're expecting MoveOn and their netroots allies to apologize for the 'Gen. Betray Us' ad, don't hold your breath. If anything, expect only more of the same. And if you think criticism from traditional media or Beltway Dems will temper their behavior, it's time to re-orient your thinking. Bottom line: The netroots blame you for allowing the country to get into Iraq and therefore don't think too highly of your advice. The netroots are a great source of energy and ideas for Dems, but they also come at a cost: They aren't going to stick to establishment talking points.

DEM FIELD: It's Not Hard To Say You're Not Sorry

The more the establishment media criticizes MoveOn's 'General Betray Us' ad, the more the netroots are defending MoveOn's decision to run it. Open Left's Matt Stoller tracks quotes from NBC pol. dir. Chuck Todd ("MoveOn is sort of like this old friend of the Democratic Party ... they get a little drunk and obnoxious, but you'll still, you're afraid to criticize them") and NYT's Frank Rich ("This left-wing brand of juvenile name-calling is as witless as the "Defeatocrats" and "cut and run" McCarthyism from the right") and responds: "Though their work is often good, both Rich and Todd are acting here like lapdogs to the Georgetown cocktail circuit. ... It's really sad to see 'journalists' or liberal columnists discuss the ad as if it overshadows the issue at hand, which is a horrific occupation and a civilian and military leadership that betrays the country by justifying it."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to Stoller's analysis and adds: "It's nothing we haven't heard from the 'grownups' inside the Beltway. The only difference is that it's not us teenagers who bankrupted the family and burned down the house. It was the supposed grownups. And yet we're supposed to defer to their so-called 'wisdom'? Pretty darn silly."

UC Berkeley prof. George Lakoff tells Huffington Post readers why he is no fan of Rich's take either: "MoveOn's "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad has raised vital questions that need a thorough and open discussion. The ad worked brilliantly to reveal, via its framing, an essential but previously hidden truth: the Bush Administration and its active supporters have betrayed the trust of the troops and the American people. ... Thanks to their making it a national issue, we can now proceed to discuss their Betrayal of Trust on the national stage they have conveniently provided."

Arianna Huffington seconds Lakoff's interpretation: "Was the MoveOn ad blunt? Yes. Did it go for the jugular? No doubt. But while the way it chose to make its points can be debated, the accuracy of those points cannot. ... Does anyone really doubt why the president hid behind Petraeus' medals and sent him on a week-long talk-show tour to sell a policy he could no longer peddle himself? So, yes, betrayal is certainly the operative word."

Also blogging at The Huffington post, Beth Arnold blogs: "I hadn't seen the ad in The New York Times, but I'd caught it on the Internet. I'd thought that at least somebody in this country -- thank you MoveOn.org! -- wasn't going to lean over and take it anymore in the wham-bam-without-any-thank- you-ma'am way the American people have been treated since the Bush/Cheney duo has been in power."

Back in NV, Taylor Marsh is no fan of Barack Obama's admission to NBC's Brian Williams that "if they had asked me, would have suggested that we focus attention on George Bush, the commander in chief." Marsh comments: "There's a lesson in this for Obama and the Edwardses, but also for other Democrats who just don't get what MoveOn.org accomplished with their daring. They expanded the conversation and blew out the parameters so that we could bring on the facts about the actual violence in Iraq, as well as what wasn't being accomplished during a time when Mr. Bush was parading General Petraeus in front of the public as his credibility shield because he no longer has any himself."

Open Left's Stoller picks up on Marsh's post and adds: "The key narrative of the last seven years is betrayal. In this episode, Clinton and Richardson gets this, but Obama and Edwards somehow do not.

CLINTON: Not Too Cautious, Not Too Ambitious, But Just Right

Blogger reviews of Hillary Clinton's health care continue to roll in and they continue to be mostly positive. The gold standard in netroots health-care wonkery Ezra Klein briefs: "The short answer is that it's a very good plan, similar in style and scope to Edwards, substantially better than Obama's." Later he elaborates:

Clinton's plan is of the "individual mandate" variety, in which universal coverage is achieved by mandating that every American purchase health care. In order to ensure that that's both possible and affordable, the Clinton plan creates a few new coverage options, reform the insurance industry, limits coverage costs to a percentage of income, and washes your car. ... Okay, it doesn't wash your car. It does open the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program to everybody ... Throwing the doors to that program wide open is the most basic and ubiquitous of coverage solutions. ... More importantly, the plan also creates a new public insurance option, modeled off, but distinct from, Medicare. That's a big deal: The public insurer offers full coverage and is open to all Americans without restriction. Public insurance is what I feared her plan would avoid, and instead, she embraced it wholeheartedly.

Other reactions include:

• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I have to say that I agree with Ezra: although the three leading Democratic presidential candidates have proposed healthcare plans that are similar in a lot of ways, Hillary's strikes me as not just substantively as good as any of them (and better in some ways), but also the politically savviest and most practical of the lot."


• Matthew Yglesias: "I feel like Clinton is drawing close to checkmating her opponents. I'll have to wait and see what more expertish people have to say about this proposal, but it certainly has the look and feel of a decently ambitious proposal in a way that really undercuts some of the main arguments that have been made (including by me) against her."


• The Huffington Post's RJ Eskow: "It's not likely to change anyone's mind about her candidacy, or about health care reform, but at the overview level it's well-designed and thorough. Her plan is solidly in the center of Democratic proposals. ... At first review, it reinforces the sense that she and her staff are knowledgeable, highly competent, and incrementalist in their approach.

There were some doubters. The Left Coaster's Steve Soto blogs: "From where I sit, there are two legitimate concerns with the approach. First, I agree that consumers and labor have a right to question how balanced a final Clinton universal health care approach will be. ... Second, I am still troubled by an individual mandate and the efficacy of tax credits if working Americans can't afford the insurance premiums in the first place."

Fire Dog Lake's TRex was by far the unhappiest: "I am wildly underwhelmed. First we need to get something out of the way. For you to proclaim that your plan provides, "Universal Health Care" is a decided misnomer. "Universal Health Insurance" might be more like it. ... Universal Health Care is what they have in England and Canada and Spain and Germany and Japan and, well, every civilized nation in the world but ours. It's single payer health care provided free of charge with no need for interference by a greed-crazed insurance and pharmaceutical industry. Is that so freaking hard to understand?"

CLINTON II: Now All They Need Is A Consensus Candidate

Despite her "strengthened .... position in national and early state polls over the past couple of months," Open Left's Chris Bowers wants readers to know that "for all of [Hillary] Clinton's national poll advantages, and all the strategizing that many people are engaging in, the path to defeating Hillary Clinton for the nomination is pretty straightforward: defeat her in Iowa and New Hampshire."

Bowers reasons: "in order to survive a double defeat from a single candidate in both Iowa and New Hampshire, she would have to be ahead of that candidate by at least 33% in national polls before the Iowa caucus. ... The truth is that Clinton's supposedly enormous advantage in the campaign is held together by only a few thousand voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. If either Obama or Edwards were to flip 7,500 Clinton supporters in Iowa, along with 12,500 Clinton supporters in New Hampshire, than that person would take command of the nomination campaign. That is it. That is all that really needs to be done."

And at MyDD, a diarist pitches: "For those of you who dedicated to preventing Hillary from becoming the nominee and who are willing to work together, please do the following: 1) Send an email to nothrc at gmail dot com. Leave your user name and I'll respond. 2) Post a comment in this diary confirming that you sent me an email. We can salvage MyDD together."

DODD: Only You Can Help Restore Habeas

Chris Dodd capitalized on Constitution Day 9/17 by asking bloggers to join his fight to restore Habeas Corpus. Dodd guest blogs at Taylor Marsh: "I pledge that if elected I will restore the Constitution of the United States in my first hour in office. I won't wait until then to take action and I'm committed to leading to restore the Constitution from my place in the Senate. This week I am working with my colleague Patrick Leahy to restore habeas corpus and I'll need your help."

Fire Dog Lake's Christy Hardin Smith writes: "The Senate will again take up the Habeas Restoration Act. Sens. Leahy and Dodd are asking for our help. While restoring the rule of law and voting to uphold the principles written into our nation's constitution ought to be a given, it, unfortunately, has not been the last few years."

At Open Left, Chris Bowers shares conclusions from their Habeas Corpus Polling Memo: "A solid 63% majority of American voters say they favor passage of legislation that would "give Guantanamo detainees the legal right to have their detention reviewed in federal court, and require the government to demonstrate that it has a lawful reason to imprison them." Only one-third (32%) of voters express opposition. This level of support for habeas is more impressive still when one considers that survey participants had been informed that the detainees are 'accused terrorists.'"

EDWARDS: And If They Don't Pass His Minimum-Wage Hike, He'll Drown Their Children's Puppies Too

John Edwards' 9/17 promise to "cut off health care for the president, Congress and all political appointees in mid 2009, if a universal health care plan for all Americans has not been passed by then" was a hit among many Kossacks, but less so among wonkier netroots circles. The most popular Daily Kos diary 9/17 writes on Edwards promise: "It seems quite appropriate to ask all the presidential candidates whether they too will support the Edwards proposal. ... John Edwards challenge to the political class changes the very character of the national discussion. The time has come to demand that every member of Congress agree to give up their coverage at a date specified in 2009, if all American citizens do not have cradle to grave, affordable and guaranteed healthcare. We've been asking where are our leaders, this, my friends, is leadership."

There were some dissents among the commenters, including: "some other posters point out that this would be unconstitutional to do. Edwards is going to win nothing by proposing radical, unconstitutional, and un-humanitarian things like this. I've seen desperate people do desperate thing before in politics but this is over the top. Seriously." But pro-Edwards comments (like the following: "I would suggest the un-humanitarian thing is for congress to receive health care, on the taxpayers dime, is a bit un- humanitarian.") were much highly rated.

Matthew Yglesias notes, "Not to get too wanky here, but I'm pretty sure this violates the 27th Amendment to the constitution." TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta comments: "I just don't think it's a good management practice to threaten revoke the health insurance of public servants and their families as a legislative pressure tactic."

OBAMA: Expert Experts Needed

Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt reports that the Barack Obama campaign has begun reaching out to bloggers. She was contacted 9/17 by Zack Edwards of the Nevada Barack Obama campaign to answer the following questions: "Question One: Should bloggers be considered journalists? ... Second question: Should bloggers have access to press passes through the same outlets as traditional media? Should they accept press passes?"

More concerned about Obama's over reaching out to academia, Open Left's Chris Bowers comments on a Chicago Tribunearticle reporting that Obama has assembled a policy team of at least 700 'experts': "Given this, it certainly isn't surprising that the policy proposals coming from the Obama campaign are always in line with the most mundane, non-controversial policy ideas of the Democratic establishment. ... I think Obama's academic instincts are taking over here. coming from academia myself, I can say that in many ways it is the opposite of a political movement. ... This is the main reason why the Obama vs. Clinton narrative to this point has focused on personality issues, including the ever tiresome "change" verses "experience" argument. Neither campaign represents a challenge to the institutional status quo in the Democratic establishment."

SEIU: Bathroom Reporting Is Becoming Quite The Fad

TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta wraps up her 9/17 SEIU conference blogging: "Despite the tremendous outpouring of enthusiasm for Barack Obama from the conference's audience of union leaders and regular members earlier in the day, member after member predicted that loyalty would trump enthusiasm, and that John Edwards, the candidate who has most assiduously courted labor, would win the SEIU's straw poll, and eventually the powerful and activist union's nod."

Other SEIU blogging highlights include:

• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein on Edwards: "A key distinction emerges between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton; Hillary discussed the history of labor in terms of the creation of the middle class, Edwards portrays it as a fight against poverty: 'The greatest anti-poverty movement in American history is the organized labor movement.'"
• Goldstein on Clinton: "Unlike her rivals, Hillary doesn't direct any veiled barbs at her fellow Democrats. She keeps the focus on President Bush, which goes over well with crowd. ... Carefully tackling trade, Clinton talks about legislation she has introduced in the Senate to review trade bills every five years to reassess their fairness."
• Goldstein on Obama: "Barack Obama is a natural in front of this crowd. He's shouting, they're standing, the room is roaring. ... In the ladies' room, a middle-aged white woman, hands clasped, exclaimed, 'He is just so inspiring! He's gonna bring a change!'"
• TAPPED's Kate Sheppard on Chris Dodd: "Senator Chris Dodd took the opportunity to highlight his labor-related achievements in his 26 years as an elected official and called for a renewed commitment to middle class America. ... Most of his proposals drew thunderous applause from Monday's crowd ... He managed to come off not as a career politician, despite more than a quarter century in office, but rather a populist who understands where SEIU's members are coming from."
• TPM's Eric Kleefeld on Bill Richardson: "It seems Bill Richardson has no shortage of gaffes. Addressing SEIU today, Richardson thanked them for their applause: 'Thank you, AFSCME!' That's right, Richardson named the wrong union. And it gets worse. SEIU, unfortunately, is an organizational rival to AFSCME in many states, and SEIU's audience responded to Richardson's opening line by shouting, 'S-E-I-U!'"

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas comments on Richardson: "These aren't Howard Dean-style "gaffes", in which the pundits pound someone for telling the truth (like "capturing Saddam won't make us safer"). These are the sorts of mistakes that are made from poor preparation and lack of concentration. Or something. All I know is that high-level politics requires a bit more care."

GOP FIELD: After Red Light, Green Light, The Candidates Played Duck, Duck, Goose

The Brody File reports from the 'Values Voters' debate in Ft. Lauderdale, FL: "The debate was noteworthy because of who was not there. Absent were Romney, Giuliani, Thompson and McCain. All of them had the dreaded 'scheduling conflict'. Let's be honest. They weren't there because they didn't want to be on the hot seat."

Brody then lists some questions featured in a "lightning speed round where candidates activated a green light for a yes answer and a red light for a no answer" including: "Will you consider impeachment in cases of judicial activism? ... Do you agree that multiculturalism is weakening American culture? ... Will you de-fund Planned Parenthood? ... Would you veto any legislation that re-institutes the fairness doctrine? ... Would you nominate strict constructionist judges?"

Brody concludes: "[S]kipping this event is a gamble to a certain extent, especially for Thompson and Romney. Both of them are competing hard for the 'social conservative" crowd. Some conservative pro-family voters very well may see this as a slap in the face."

GOP FIELD II: Other Than Bush And Iraq, Things Are Going Great

Right Wing News explains why he is one of the few conservative bloggers not pessimistic about '08: "Yes, the GOP is "in the dumpster," but not only are the Democrats heading towards the same place, they're falling much faster than the GOP. ... In 2006, being a Democrat was probably worth 5-8 points in most elections. Now, it's probably worth 3 or 4 points. By the time the election rolls around in 2008, the way things are going, it may not be worth anything or it could even cost Dem candidates points. ... Now, the war and President Bush are keeping the GOP from really taking advantage of the Dems' woes and rapidly turning things around, but that shouldn't be a problem for us in 2010. Hopefully, this will be the last down election that the GOP has for a while."

GIULIANI: Who Studied Iraq?

NRO's Jim Geraghty argues MoveOn's new ad attacking Rudy Giuliani for not joining the Iraq Study Group will carry little weight since only 46% Americans approve of the ISG and another 32% have no opinion. Geraghty also notes that the ISG supported the surge and concludes: "So MoveOn is criticizing Rudy for not joining a group that made a policy recommendation that they denounce. Brilliant."

MCCAIN: John The Maybe Baptist

The Brody File tracks AP and McClatchy reporting that John McCain may be a Baptist or an Episcopalian and comments: "Maybe this is a big deal to some people. That's fine. My take simply is, 'Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?' Getting into what denomination you belong can be seen as divisive. But maybe McCain the Baptist will help him."

ROMNEY: Hillary Lite?

Some conservatives are blaming Mitt Romney's MA health care policy for making it easier for Hillary Clinton to sell her universal health care plans. Soren Dayton asks: "Especially if Mitt Romney is the nominee, how do conservatives argue against this? Now Matt Drudge, who seems to be a Romney fan, highlights a different issue, the $110b per year price tag. So, one strategy is going to be price tag. After all, that really is a lot of money. But once we have abandoned the principle of freedom that is inherent in the mandate issue, aren't we just, to quote Churchill, haggling over price?"

Similar thoughts at AmSpec Blog from Jennifer Rubin ("You can argue about the specific differences and point to some of the market innovations in Massachusetts but on the big issue-- government mandates-- press and public will have a hard time figuring out why Hillary's plan is so much "worse" than Romney's CommonWealth plan") and Philip Klein ("Again, by ceding so much ground to liberals, Romney's Massachusetts plan has made it much more likely that we'll see a Hillary-style healthcare plan at the national level").

ATTORNEY GENERAL: Is FISA Enough?

The Corner's Mark Levin and Kate O'Beirne appear to be the biggest name holdouts in supporting Mike Mukasey's nomination for AG. Levin cedes the Mukasey will probably be good on nat'l security but worries: "I wasn't going to post anything else on Mukasey, but come on guys and gals, there are gaping holes in what we know about him, and his supporters aren't helping matters. ... I don't minimize the importance of his other areas of responsibility, either. And I find no elucidation of his views or record on these matters that his supporters are willing to bring to us."

O'Beirne doesn't think Mukasey will be anymore effective on national security than Ted Olson would have been: "General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by the Senate. Many of those Senators who voted "aye" just months ago now deny that the good General has any credibility at all. ... And, sometimes advocates of the cause of conservatism have broad-based support because there is broad-based agreement that said advocate can be counted on not to do much of anything to advance that cause. In Washington, there is no broad-based support for advancing the conservative cause and hard-fought confirmation battles reflect that reality."

The Corner's Peter Wehner responds: "But it strikes me the Petraeus example strengthens my point. Last week, in the debate between Petraeus and leading Democrats, it was a wipe-out: Petraeus won. And one of the reasons he won - apart from his compelling testimony - is that Republicans were able to point out that Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the Senate earlier this year and he was widely praised by Democrats. We heard that point made repeatedly because it was effective."

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh, AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin, and Hot Air's Alllahpundit are all onboard to support Mukasey.

On the left, Will Eaton identifies some promises he wants Dems to extract from Mukasey, including: "Appoint an independent counsel to investigate the US Attorneys scandal, Call for the closure of Guantanamo and the end of coercive interrogation techniques, Present a report to congress no later than March 1, 2008 on White House interference in Justice Department matters."

And at The Huffington Post Center for Constitutional Rights staff attorney Shayana Kadidal identifies three reasons Mukasey 'will suck': "First of all, this is a guy who despises the legal left. ... Point 2: He is a guy who is obsessed with national security and views it as being diametrically opposed to civil rights. ... Point 3: For someone who was a federal judge, he seems to have a very limited view of the role of the judiciary in enforcing the rule of law."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Don't Stay In School

Tyler Cowen plugs Peter Bernstein's and Annalyn Swan's All the Money in the World -- How the Forbes 400 Make -- And Spend -- Their Fortunes quoting:

In the first Forbes 400 [1982], oil was the source of 22.8 percent of the fortunes, manufacturing 15.3 percent, finance 9 percent, and technology 3 percent. By 2006 oil had fallen to 8.5 percent and manufacturing to 8.5 percent. Technology, however, had risen to 11.75 percent and finance to an extraordinary 24.5 percent.

The average net worth in 2006 of Forbes 400 members without a college degree was $5.96 billion; those with a degree averaged $3.14 billion. Four of the five richest Americans -- Bill Gates, casino owner Sheldon Adelson, Oracle's Larry Ellison, and Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen...-- are college dropouts.

LEST WE FORGET: Better Late Than Never

In honor of Tony Snow's last day, Extreme Mortman posted his top ten favorite Snow - Helen Thomas exchanges including:

• Q The United States is not that helpless. It could have stopped the bombardment of Lebanon. We have that much control with the Israelis.
• MR. SNOW: I don't think so, Helen. Helen Thomas from NPR
• Q We have gone for collective punishment against all of Lebanon and Palestine.
• MR. SNOW: What's interesting, Helen
• Q And this is what's happening, and that's the perception of the United States.
• MR. SNOW: Well, thank you for the Hezbollah view.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:54 PM

September 17, 2007

9/17: This Is How You Do It

Team Clinton's handling of the controversy surrounding MoveOn's "General Betray Us" ad is a case study in how she has stayed on the right ('correct') side of the netroots while still positioning herself well for the general election.

As Elizabeth Edwards takes heat for telling bloggers "Someone who's spent their life in the military doesn't deserve 'General Betray Us,'" Hillary Clinton is receiving plaudits for waiting until Rudy Giuliani attacked her and then turning the issue into Giuliani's support for Bush. Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher was, perhaps, Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) fiercest critic in '06. But following Clinton's tale on the MoveOn ad she writes: "Bravo. Hillary seizes the opportunity to pivot and attack -- forcing Rudy into embracing George Bush and his horribly unpopular war. She sticks the landing. ... Democrats should take their cues from Hillary Clinton when asked about their efforts and seize the opportunity to wrap this war around the exposed necks of the GOP."

CLINTON: The Burkle Connection

Hillary Clinton continued to maximize the impact of her netroots friendly endorsements (think former Amb. Joe Wilson) with her blogger conference call roll out of former Gen. Wesley Clark's endorsement. Favorable reactions include:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Wes Clark was the first, and maybe last, Presidential candidate I ever really believed in. ... He is the shift of the professional and military class towards the Democratic Party, a Jim Webb type figure with less of an economically populist capacity for messaging. ... I don't support Clinton, I don't support her policies, and I don't expect to support her candidacy in this primary. But if Clark believes that she can meet the challenges necessary to be a President who can help America, then that is something I have to take very seriously."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Pretty big endorsement. I've long stated that a Clinton/Clark ticket would be the strongest were Clinton to become the nominee."
• Matthew Yglesias: "This seems pretty significant to me, at least in the little corner of the universe where I operate. ... Clark didn't say anything earth-shattering but it's a useful reminder/signal/whatever that a President Clinton would, in fact, expand her circle of foreign policy thinkers beyond the group of hawks who was with her in 2002-2003 and looked set to be the dominant influence in a Clinton administration."

The Plank's Michael Crowley notices: "In the past week or so Hillary Clinton has scored two interesting endorsements: Wesley Clark and Magic Johnson. The former NATO general and ex-NBA star could hardly have less in common, right? Wrong. Two words: Ron and Burkle."

CLINTON II: Meeting The Mandate Mandate

Early netroots reviews of Hillary Clinton's health care plan are positive:

• Open Left's Elliot Perry: "As a community/ political organizer devoted to progressive politics, I am admittedly dubious to the candidacy of Sen. Clinton. Largely because of her failure to get back in the batter's box ... Nevertheless, through her campaign for leader of the free world she's finally stepped back to the plate with a new plan ... it appears to be much like SB 840, which many of us have campaigned for here in California."
• TPM Cafe's Maggie Mahar: "Although the mandate will be controversial, I think it is key to creating a sustainable, affordable system that can offer high quality care to everyone. To achieve that goal, we need everyone in the same pool--young and old, sick and healthy, all making an equal contribution to the fund."
• Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt: "Like John Edwards and unlike Obama, her plan will call for mandatory insurance for all Americans. It will be much more streamlined and less complicated than the plan she introduced while Bill Clinton was President."

DODD: You've Got Mail

Daily Kos' SusanG urges readers to pick up a copy of Chris Dodd's new book Letters from Nuremberg: "When current senator and presidential candidate Chris Dodd and his family stumbled across a treasure trove of letters from his father, Thomas Dodd, written home to his wife during his prosecution of the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials, he did the world a tremendous and timely favor by publishing. For if ever we could use a reminder of the necessity of keeping a steady and true moral compass when dealing with seemingly inexplicable human cruelty, it is now."

EDWARDS: Speaking Of Betrayal

Elizabeth Edwards did her husband no favors on a 9/10 media conference call when she told participants: "Someone who's spent their life in the military doesn't deserve 'General Betray Us.'" Taylor Marsh blogs: "[T]alk about a gift to the wingnuts. Why do some Democrats always cave when things get tough? Mrs. Edwards couches it in terms of her military family. Well, I've got military in my family (one deceased) and the one thing you never do is stab one of your own in the middle of a nasty fight, and if you're looking at the media coverage on this lately it's clear we're in one. ... Whether you like or don't like the MoveOn.org ad, once it turned into a them vs. us battle leading Democrats need to understand the game, toughen up and close ranks. It's political fighting 101. "

Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher links and types an open letter to EE: "Dear Mrs. Edwards, You're a smart woman. ... So here's the rule. You never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a hammer to beat the left with. Just. Don't. Do. It."

Open Left's Matt Stoller adds: "Part of building an effective movement is knowing when an attack is an attack on surrogates, and when it's an attack on ideas. Moveon and its 3 million members were standing up for integrity in military leadership, public debate, and Congressional oversight. There's a reflexive instinct to shy away from heated arguments among Democrats, so I'm sympathetic to those who threw Moveon under the bus, as I have been thrown under the bus by good people at certain points. It happens. It's politics. till, it's important to recognize this as an error, and not do it again."

OBAMA: Have You Been Obamitized?

The netroots are pleased Barack Obama finally fell in line with their call for no further Iraq funding without a timeline:

• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "This is the rhetoric I've been looking for. Chris Dodd has been crystal clear on this. Now Obama has joined that club."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Criticism Works. This is a step forward for Obama, who previously had not committed to a course of action. We'll see where he goes from here, and this can only help his campaign. It's also a step forward for the push to end the war."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "Big props to Senator Obama. Hurrah!"

Reporting from the field, The Huffington Post's Mayhill Fowler describes her meeting with a Humboldt State student for Obama:

When I asked her why Obama, I got the expression, the shift in gaze to somewhere over my shoulder, that I often receive in reply to this question. Clearly, she had been Obamitized, so I knew generally what she was going to say. Her words also encapsulate much that I've found to be significant about the Obama Campaign itself. ... All the elements are here: the personal, almost mystical connection to Barack Obama, often beginning with that convention speech; the importance of the Internet for this presidential race; the Obama Campaign's emphasis on each volunteer's "story" (translation: the dignity and worth of every single American that the Democratic Party hasn't really believed in since the Depression); the sharing of stories leading to the transformative experience of Camp Obama; the acceptance of differences between Democrats and Republicans, balanced by an acknowledgement of common goals--core to Barack Obama's message and the man himself.

DEM FIELD: Edwards Did What Now?

IA Independent's Douglas Burns reports from Sen. Tom Harkin's (D-IA) Steak Fry: "Hillary pulled out the best line of the day ("The era of cowboy diplomacy is over. America is back.") Obama's team orchestrated some powerhouse optics. Edwards did that lawyer-leaping-from-the-John-Grisham-novel-to-face-the-forces-of-capitalism's-excesses-for-those-Americans-bogged-in-the-backwater thing."

MyDD's Todd Beeton reports from his couch: "John Edwards is echoing the rhetoric we heard from him at the YearlyKos debate: taking Washington back from the entrenched special interests, not replacing corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats and returning the power to the people. C-SPAN keeps cutting to supporters in the crowd who brandish signs and cheer him on. Seems as though his support is the most enthusiastic."

GIULIANI: Some Pictures Worth A Thousand Free Media Points

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez posts photos of AG nominee Mike Mukasey swearing in Rudy Giuliani and comments: "I think it's a safe bet the Giuliani campaign is looking really forward to a few hours from now when the media has more than these photos from the Giuliani family scrapbook to use with AG stories."

MCCAIN: Irony Free

Power Line's John Hinderaker introduces video from the first days of John McCain's 'No Surrender' tour: "Much has been written about McCain's comeback. The comeback is real, but McCain has little money, and it is easy to write off his chances. Still, there are very few men who can play the hero--be the hero--without the slightest trace of irony, and John McCain is one of them. If he goes down, it will be with both guns blazing. No retreat, no surrender. And that's a message that lots of Americans like."

Hot Air is a big fan of McCain's call to "throw MoveOn.org out of the country."

ROMNEY: His Bluntness

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt promotes Mitt Romney's letter on Iran's Pres. Ahmadinejad visit to the UN: "Iran's president routinely predicts the destruction of Israel in terms that can only be understood as advocacy of genocide. He should be banned from the U.N.'s podium, and Mitt Romney has sent a letter to the U.N. to that effect. Romney demands what ought to be automatic and obvious: The indictment of Ahmadinejad for the advocacy of genocide. This is blunt but necessary talk, and all the presidential candidates should echo Romney's call for resolute action now."

THOMPSON: When You Come To Tax Policy Fork In The Road, Take It

Fred Thompson's first video response to blogger submitted questions addressed tax policy. The Captain's Quarters reader asked: "Between the Flat and Fair tax, which do you feel would have a better chance or being enacted and would a Thompson administration make reforming--not applying Band-Aids or allowing more bad re-writes of the same terrible rules--the tax code a priority?" Thompson answered: "Yes."

RedState's Haystack comments: "This is a really good beginning...check the front porch, baseball hat setting." Some of Captain's Quarters readers were also impressed: "I'm leaning more and more in Fred's Direction. If he keeps this up, he may, just may get my vote." Some were not: "I was disappointed with Fred's answer. He acknowledged the problem but did not offer any ideas or solutions of his own to the problem."

At The Brody File, Brody posts his 700 Club story that will air 9/17. And at AmSpec Blog, Jennifer Rubin picks up on New York Timesreporting on Thompson's "sparse" schedule. Rubin later hears from Thompson spokesman Todd Harris: "Thompson will have fundraising events in Texas, Tennessee and Florida and public events in Florida, Michigan and DC."

Rubin later updates: The actual schedule was just released and is sparse. No discrete public "events" until a speech to the NRA on Friday in DC. ... Not clear is whether they don't have the advance teams yet to set multiple events and a substantial schedule or whether in fact they have a candidate that needs to,well, let's say 'pace' himself."

ATTORNEY GENERAL: All About FISA

The roll out of Judge Mike Mukasey's nomination for AG may have begun as early as 9/11 when NRO's Andy McCarthy posted a NRO item titled: "Judge Mukasey Would Make a Stellar Attorney General." When Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol broke the story 9/15, he cited McCarthy's article and blogged: "While it's unfortunate that the first thing many conservatives will hear about Mukasey is that his home-state senator Chuck Schumer has praised him, that shouldn't disqualify him. ... The most contentious fights over the next year are likely to be on war-on-terror issues. And as Andrew McCarthy (no liberal softy on such matters!) explained on National Review Online, Mukasey is first-rate on these ... Judging also by what Mukasey has written and said outside the courtroom about the Patriot Act and related matters, we can be confident he'll be effective at making the case before Congress and the public for tough legislation and sound policies on national security issues."

AmSpec's Philip Klein, Captain's Quarters, and The Corner's Peter Wehner all are inclined to support Mukasey. Wehner blogs: "Judge Mukasey is outstanding in every important respect. He oversaw the trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and in doing so enhanced his reputation as one of America's finest trial judges (after establishing a reputation as one of American's finest prosecutors). Nominated as a federal district judge by President Reagan, Judge Mukasey has written persuasively and insightfully in defense of the Patriot Act; was respected by those who worked with him; and is the embodiment of legal excellent. He would be an outstanding attorney general."

Lingering opposition to Mukasey comes from three sources: positive statements about him from Alliance for Justice pres. Nan Aron and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY); conservative frustration that Pres. Bushdidn't want to fight for prospective nominee ex-SG Ted Olson; and a political asylum case titled Dong v. Slattery.

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez posts a description of the Dong case: "Mukasey denied political asylum in the United States to a Chinese man who had fled the communist nation. The man claimed political persecution by Chinese authorities after he and his family violated China's one-child, forced-abortion policies. ... The man's wife was forced to undergo an abortion, and he claimed he would be severely punished for helping his wife try to defy the communist policies if he was deported to China. Ruling against the man, Mukasey reasoned that, under the law, he should uphold the Board of Immigration's denial of asylum."

Lopez later updates with thoughts from a 'conservative Senate aide': "As to the asylum ruling, that sounds awful, and I can't imagine what it was like for the family. But if conservatives are concerned based only on the thumbnail sketch mentioned in the press and because abortion was involved, then we need to rethink our whole position on upholding the rule of law. ... Conservatives can't argue for an unbiased nominee only when he rules our way. We can't say that upholding the law trumps personal opinion, and then be upset when upholding the law trumps our personal opinions."

IRAQ: Show Us The Polling

The netroots are pushing back hard against suggestions from Penn, Schoen, and Berland's Doug Schoen that "Democrats should continue to strike a bipartisan tone and refocus the debate to other international and domestic issues." Schoen explains at The Huffington Post: "The electorate has had it with the war in Iraq -- close to two thirds want an orderly withdrawal of troops to begin immediately. That being said, the American people understand that to withdrawal completely and unilaterally without a clear strategy for pacifying the country is risky."

Open Left's Brklyngrl responds: "If Doug Schoen has data showing the American public prefers that Democrats work with Republicans even if it means not ending the war (which it does), he should show it to us. Otherwise I'm going to be forced to conclude that he's lumping a bunch of unrelated findings together to arrive at the conclusion he himself prefers."

Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher adds: "Is he completely witless? Democratic approval ratings in Congress plummeted after they rolled over on the supplemental and the public perceived that they were ineffectual in doing what they'd been elected to do - stop the war. Scratch the bit about the gum, I think you have to have a certain IQ to be ambulatory. Has anyone ever actually seen Doug Schoen walk?"

Moving on to specific strategies for ending the war, Digby seconds Mark Kleiman's suggestion that Dems force GOPers to keep filibustering Sen. James Webb's (D-VA) amendment requiring troop deployment times do not surpass their time at home. Digby writes: "The Webb Amendment is powerful. It will support the troops in the most direct manner possible, making it law that they be allowed to have a reasonable break between deployments. The military families will all support it. ... Forcing the Republicans to filibuster something that gives the troops a break seems like excellent politics to me. I'd be interested in hearing from some of you legislative mavens out there about this. Why wouldn't it work?

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's True, Breeders Do Like Sports

Planning on where to catch the Eagles/Redskins MNF game, Matthew Yglesias muses: "The logical candidate would seem to be Nellie's, a newish sports bar that just opened up this summer. Nellie's is, however, not just a sports bar, but a gay sports bar. Now, all else being equal, I guess my inclination would be to avoid the local gay sports bar and head for the local conventional sports bar, except . . . Nellie's is the only sports bar in the neighborhood. So what I'm wondering is what does one do under the circumstances to keep the gay sports bar gay? After all, breeders like sports, too, and it (a) sounds like a great place to watch a game and (b) has a "somewhat remote location from the vortex of DC's urban gay culture" so isn't going to just turn into a heterosexual sports bar?"

LEST WE FORGET: We're Gonna Go Ahead And Not Pick Up Ishtar On DVD

The Huffington Post's Toby Barlow notices some similarities between the second Iraq war and the Warren Beatty bomb Ishtar, including:

• Like George Bush, the film maker and the stars were at the height of their popularity going in.
• Both had a hot female sidekick whose name is kind of hard to spell. George Bush had Condoleezza Rice, Warren Beatty had Isabelle Idjani.
• Both were very expensive productions involving shooting in the sand.
• Both were critical disasters with the media and both were flops with the public.
• Despite initial high hopes and great enthusiasm at the outset, both have just tiny cult followings today. The War in Iraq has Bill Kristol; Ishtar has, um, me. (Because to be fair, it's actually a pretty great movie. If it's ever released on DVD you'll see what I mean. Vincent Canby even put it amongst his best films that year.)

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:48 PM

September 14, 2007

9/14: The Generic Republican

Fred Thompson wants you to know he's a big fan of federalism. Which is not that bad a plan considering how popular the concept is in conservative circles. The problem is that winning the nomination of the party that won the Civil War eventually requires candidates to get specific about which issues ought to be federal and which issues ought to be local. Does Thompson think marriage should be a local or federal issue? We don't know. Does Thompson think drug policy should be a local or federal issue? We don't know. Does Thompson think end of life issues should be a local or federal? We don't know. And apparently, neither does he.

GIULIANI: Like Fish In A Barrel

Rudy Giuliani's discount New York Times ad countering MoveOn's 'General Betray Us' one was a big hit among most conservative. Townhall's Hugh Hewitt posts excerpts from Giuliani's appearance on his radio show including: "I thought the MoveOn.org ad was disgraceful. I think that it is just another indication of what the Democratic Party has become. I mean, MoveOn.org is one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party."

RedState's Erick Erickson had the most effusive praise: "This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how the game is played. This is why I would have no problems with Rudy Giuliani getting the Republican nomination. This is leadership on the issue."

AmSpec's Jennifer Rubin also liked the move while NRO's Jim Geraghty thought the ad "hits all the right notes" but did not like the idea of giving money to the NYT. Hot Air's Allahpundit, however, thought Giuliani should have invited the other WH '08ers to add their name to the copy.

THOMPSON: Not A Details Kind Of Guy

Conservatives were not impressed with Fred Thompson's "I don't remember the details of it" response to a question about the Terri Schiavo case. Michelle Malkin blogs: "This was a case on fundamental matters of ethics, end of life issues, and the definition of personhood and humanity...and Fred punts the question? ... Take a stand, Fred."

The Brody File warns: "It goes to the larger question about Fred Thompson. Nobody will doubt that he's a pretty solid conservative throughout the years. But the life issue was not an issue he pushed. That's never been his thing. He's come in with this reputation that he's going to be the candidate that social conservatives will galvanize around but the jury is still out. More days like that in Florida and the jury may return a verdict Thompson doesn't like."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin has similar thoughts: "'I don't know enough' can't be the standard response to questions on the stump--and this was one that was obviously going to come up. ... He is trying to position himself to the right of Romney on social issues and amplify the notion that Romney is a flip flopper and untrustworthy to carry out the goals of social conservatives. However, it appears he's really not to the right of Romney on a number of social issues. That's fine but then the message is useless or just confusing and needs to be retooled."

NY Sun's Ryan Sager followed up with a statement from Thompson spokesman Jeff Sadosky: "While he believes in the sanctity of life, he also believes that it was a decision for the family to make under state law, so there was no role for the federal government to play." Sager comments: "Thus, this would be an implicit criticism of Congress and President Bush for federalizing what should have been a state issue. Along with gay marriage, this now makes two issues where Mr. Thompson's commitment to federalism is putting him at odds with the religious right."

Also reading between the lines, AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein likes what appears to might maybe be Thompson's position: "Like most conservatives, I found the Schiavo case to be a tragedy and thought that the Florida courts should have erred on the side of life. But I also thought that the federal government had absolutely zero role in the matter. And I'm glad that Fred did not feel the need to pander on this one."

THOMPSON II: The Sizzler Candidate

George Will's column critical of Fred Thompson's campaign roll out generated conservative discussion throughout 9/13. The Corner's Mark Levin notes that many of Will's objections to Thompson could also be made about Rudy Giuliani and wonders why Will supports Giuliani anyway. Rich Lowry raises similar concerns and shares a reader email:

Will is in the midst of about a five year jeremiad about the banal Dobson/Falwell influence on the GOP and conservatism. ... Thompson's church attendance admission should be evidence of authenticity, but Will somehow summons it as evidence for the opposite. ... Thompson needs to do a better job of explaining his [campaign finance reform] evolution, but Will is making much out of the speck's in Thompson's eye while ignoring the beams in the eye of his preferred candidate.

Jonah Goldberg also weighs in on Thompson's image as a Washington outsider: "Fred was a co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. He was a muckety-muck lobbyist. He handled the inside-game (masterfully) in the Roberts confirmation process. You can score these facts as you see fit, but I don't think they add up to him being Mr. Outsider. Moreover, I still can't shake the sense that a great many of Thompson's fans are sold on the sizzle as opposed to the steak."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff notes that Thompson isn't the only WH '08er with a tortured history on campaign finance reform and adds: "The only other point Will makes is that Thompson doesn't attend church regularly. Will sniffs that 'going to church is, of course, optional -- unless you are aiming to fill some supposed piety void in the Republican field.' But Thompson isn't attempting to fill a piety void, he's attempting to fill what some see as a 'conservatism' void."

THOMPSON III: A Fair Weather Federalist?

Cato's tax policy dir. Chris Edwards is "pleased that Fred Thompson has thrown his hat into the ring" since Thompson "has been talking and writing about his belief in federalism." Edwards explains: "Federalism "is a tool to promote freedom" as Thompson puts it. So for the supposed heirs to Ronald Reagan who are running for president, let's hear more about expanding our freedom by cutting the federal government down to constitutional size."

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh is also a fan of Thompson's deployment of the f-word: "Fred Thompson could certainly go places with his emphasis on federalism. For one thing, he would do the body politic a great favor in reminding it that the concept is not dead, that it is part and parcel of our Constitutional and national tradition and that we ought to revive and revisit the idea to help pave the way towards resolving some of our tougher and more intractable political debates."

Rand Simberg wonders, however, if Thompson's federalism love extends to opposition of federal marijuana raids: "So is he a federalist, or a fair-weather federalist?"

DEM FIELD: A Little More To The Left Please

All eyes are on Senate WH '08ers as the latest legislative fight on Iraq heats up. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas blogs: "Right now I'm focused on the presidential candidates serving in the Senate, since they have a direct say in how that debate is shaped. Does anyone think Reid would stand in the way of Obama and Clinton if they both demanded a hard line on the supplemental?"

Kos later adds: "We need Democrats to promise NOT to support any supplemental which does not have binding withdrawal timetables. Who has promised this? ... Dodd: Yes. Obama: No. Clinton: No. ... The language from Clinton and Obama is definitely headed in the right direction, but hasn't gotten to this final point."

BIDEN: He's Second In IA!

Linking to IA Independent reporting on IA House maj. leader Kevin McCarthy's endorsement of Joe Biden, TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta keeps score: "Joe Biden is now in second place, with 8 legislator endorsements to establishment favorite Hillary Clinton's 16, which also puts him ahead of Barack Obama."

CLINTON: It All Depends On What Your Definition Of 'Ending The War' Is

Open Left's Chris Bowers reads LA Times polling showing pluralities of Dems in IA, SC, and NH believe Hillary Clinton would be "the best at ending the war in Iraq" and is "left with a tremendous feeling of hopelessness and disempowerment." Bowers explains:

Hillary Clinton does indeed promise to end the war. On the section of her website entitled "ending the war," there is a version of the refrain she has often used in the campaign. ... Now, I don't think it is possible to end the war while still keeping tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq. I also don't think politicians who say they will end the war but also say they will keep troops in Iraq are being honest with Democratic voters. However, the fact is that there has not been a meaningful debate on residual forces among the candidates or in the media thus far. As such, there is not reason for me to expect that the argument will resonate with many Democrats, at least yet.

EDWARDS: Well, First If You Don't Count All The Dems Olbermann Interviewed Before The Ad Ran

John Edwards MSNBC as following Pres. Bush's Iraq address has been widelyposted among the netroots. Daily Kos' Tracy Joan blogs: "Edwards' comments marked the first time any presidential candidate has used a national televised address to speak to the American people about President Bush's refusal to change course in Iraq."

OBAMA: Politico Not Controlled By Israel Lobby After All

The netroots are pushing back against criticism of Barack Obama foreign policy advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski over his support for profs. Stephen Walt's and John Mearsheimer's book The Israel Lobby. TAPPED editors spent 9/13 debating whether "editors at The Politico choose a particularly ominous looking photograph of Z-Big in order to hammer home the idea that he's a shady, anti-Israel influence on the Obama campaign, as opposed to a seasoned foreign policy expert lauded in many Washington circles for his sensible take on the Middle East." Dana Goldstein concludes: "I just don't think the good people at The Politico were thinking all that hard about it."

TAPPED's Matthew Duss comments: "If Brzezinski thought that helping to negotiate the single most significant and long-lasting peace treaty in Israel's history, in which the preeminent Arab state recognized Israel, and removed the threat of a united Arab front against the Jewish state, had immunized him against charges of being "anti-Israel," well, think again, friend."

TAPPED's Ezra Klein comments: "One alternative explanation for the Politico article is that the Israel Lobby isn't really pulling the strings, but being conveniently used by the media to preemptively discredit Zbigniew Brzezinski and drive him from the race. His name is really much too hard to spell or say with any regularity, and it was sort of us or him."

At TPM Cafe, MJ Rosenberg answers Alan Dershowitz' call to dismiss Brzezinsk: "Cool. Second degree Mc Carthyism! Obama didn't do anything. Brzezinski didnt do anything. But Walt and Mearsheimer wrote a book the lobby does not like and so Brzezinski must go down for not condemning it."

OBAMA II:

An AP story reporting Barack Obama predicted "that Congress won't directly challenge President Bush's plans and will focus instead on putting a ceiling on the number of troops deployed to that country" drew netroots attention. At first the story caused DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas to ask: "Is there anything Obama will fight for? Because at this point, I don't even get the sense he's fighting for the nomination."

Contacted by the Obama campaign, Kos changed his tune: "The Obama campaign has a real case that the AP lede isn't quite accurate. Obama did predict that the Senate doesn't have the votes, but also urged people to contact their congresspersons to try and change things. So it wasn't so much 'resignation', as it was 'help us change this.'

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat argues Kos had it right the first time: "Obama did and said everything the AP reported. Obama did not commit to NOT voting for a bill without timelines. He did not commit to fighting to stop any such bill. Frankly, Kos unfairly slams the AP here. This is indeed preemptive capitulation from Obama. The full statement makes this clear."

Also parsing Obama's words, Obama fan Matthew Yglesias squints hard enough and long enough at Obama's 9/12 Iraq speech to find something he likes on Obama's position on residual forces: "The key shift here being that the training mission should continue "if -- but only if -- Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian." In other words, in the real world, the training and equipping mission will not continue but if a miraculous pony happens to emerge then that's a different story."

DEM FIELD: Like Arianna, HuffPo Readers Love Obama

Arianna Huffington urges readers to check out the The Yahoo News/Huffington Post/Slate Democratic candidate mash-up and highlights the following: "Hillary Clinton made news when she took a hard swipe at Barack Obama and John Edwards as "inauthentic" for slamming her for taking money from lobbyists while they accept money from the people who employ those same lobbyists. ... The money moment from Obama -- both figuratively and literally -- was his handling of Rose's question about the role money plays in today's politics, particularly in light of the Hsu scandal. 'You know, Charlie,' he said, 'money is the original sin of politics. And when you're running for president you're going to do some sinning when it comes to raising money, because otherwise you can't compete.'"

MyDD's Todd Beeton thought the "wholly unscientific candidate poll" included on the page was the most noteworthy: "[The poll] currently shows Obama ahead with 37%, Clinton at 31% and Edwards at 12%. This is surprising, not that Obama is so strong, he shines with this format, but that Clinton does so well and Edwards doesn't."

Jeff Jarvis was not impressed with the effort: "Sorry, Arianna, but your much vaunted presidential mash-up debate has been made into a pathetic insult to the voters thanks to Yahoo's decision not to allow us to remix the raw video. I urge you and Slate to force Yahoo to make good on your promise to turn this into a real mash-up. All we end up with here is an opportunity to passively watch Charlie Rose and Bill Maher ask the candidates questions on the usual topics."

IRAQ: At Least It Was Well Written

Conservative reactions to Pres. Bush's 9/13 address include:

• NRO's Kimberly Kagan: "Senator Jack Reed gave the Democratic response, and the contrast with Bush's speech was striking to those who paid careful attention. Bush addressed the situation in Iraq with detail and nuance. ... Reed spoke only in generalizations. ... That contrast highlights once more what is really the key question of the upcoming political debate over Iraq: Whom do the American people want to run this war, Congress or the people who know something about it?"
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I was not able to watch President Bush's speech tonight, but have read it. It was, I think, a great speech. Once again, the President, instead of retreating in the face of his enemies, has upped the ante and taken his case to the people. President Bush laid out the case for engagement in Iraq in a way that most will find compelling. And he postured the surge as an opportunity for pro-war and anti-war factions to unite."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "In a sense, though, Bush's speech is anti-climactic and almost superfluous. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker appear already to have done enough to buy the administration's policy six more months. Indeed, the Democrats aren't seriously disputing that the surge has achieved substantial military success. In his response to Bush, Senator Jack Reed did not deny anything Bush said on this score. ... He certainly didn't openly advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq by any date certain."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "As is often the case, President George W. Bush did not deliver as good a speech as he and his speech-writing team had written -- but tonight's speech was definitely well written, and it was not badly delivered. The overall impression, I think, was pretty good."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Four minutes of highlights for you including the surprise announcement of the night - plans for an 'enduring relationship' with Iraq, presumably on the model of South Korea, that will involve a 'security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.' That's an odd thing to announce now, when he's trying to reap the political benefits of a (very limited) withdrawal, but there you go."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "I have to say that however necessary it may be to remove 30,000 troops by next summer ... the return to said conditions makes me tremendously nervous and causes me to worry that we may lose all the we have gained through the surge. I really would like to see more evidence that the Iraqi security forces are up to the challenge of filling in for the departing Americans who made up the surge and as of yet, that evidence has been lacking."

IRAQ II: Seoul Or Bust

Netroots reactions to Pres. Bush's 9/13 speech include:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "With the president's speech tonight it appears we are back to the supposed 'Korea analogy' for the occupation of Iraq. We've been in Korea for more than a half century, as we have been in Japan and Germany. ... And fundamentally why was this sustainable? Because the US troop presence was a defense against a perceived greater threat -- either the Soviet Union or the Soviet Union and China. We might add that this is also the premise of our military presence in the Balkans. On neither count is anything remotely like this in Iraq."
• Atrios: "Remind me again how many US troops die in South Korea every year? I'm pretty sure this war has been rhetorically modeled after every conflict we've been involved in, except perhaps the War of 1812."
• Taylor Marsh: "Again with the mission creep. I don't know how many times Mr. Bush has expanded our goals in Iraq, but what he's offering tonight takes it around the bend and back again. ... Korea is the model? Only in Bush's little mind. We haven't taken serious casualties in Korea since the late 1960s. Does anyone believe casualty rates will plummet with Bush's new Operation Enduring Nightmare?"
• Andrew Sullivan: "He seemed almost broken to me. His voice raspy, his eyes watery, his affect exhausted, his facial expression almost bewildered. ... The case was so weak, the argument so thin, the evidence for optimism so obviously strained that one wondered whom he thought he was persuading. ... This is what Bush cannot recognize: there is no Iraq. There are no Iraqis. ... The president's stunning detachment from this reality tragically endures - whether out of cynicism or delusion or, more worryingly, a simple intellectual inability to understand the country he is determined that the United States occupy for the rest of our lives."

IRAQ III: No, We Can't All Just Get Along

The netroots are not encouraged by Washington Postreports that "Democrats Push Toward Middle On Iraq Policy." Michael Cohen blogs at Democracy Arsenal: "I understand that Democrats love to pass legislation as a sign that they are getting something done. But if it has no chance of getting past the President's veto pen what exactly is the point? ... At the very least, applying maximum political pressure on some of the Senators up for re-election might actually clear some of these jokers out of the Senate ... But instead Democrats are taking the Rodney King approach - 'can't we all just get along.' Its just further evidence that when it comes to wielding political power, Democrats don't get it."

Matthew Yglesias adds: "The worst thing imaginable would be for Democrats and vulnerable Republicans alike to join hands in passing a meaningless bill that does nothing but give political cover to members of congress who, when the rubber was hitting the road, did nothing but insist on a blank check for the president."

Open Left's Matt Stoller targets 'Bush Dog' Rep. John Tanner (D-TN) for his quote in the piece: ""When these soldiers, sailors and airmen are buried, they're not buried as Republicans or Democrats. ... I care a hell of a lot more about them than I do about partisan politics." Stoller responds: "Antiwar proponents are portrayed as irresponsible, irrational, and strategically unsound partisans that will not put aside their instincts to save the lives of solders. Tanner says what [the Post] wants, and [the Post] writes as conventional wisdom what Tanner believes. It's a nice trick. And Tanner is willing to go the mat to beat back those crazy anti-troop liberals that actually want to compel Bush to withdraw troops, since that apparently is partisan politics."

CT SEN: Don't Miss The Next Hotline/Diageo On WH '88!

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas commissioned a poll on the Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) cable co. exec Ned Lamont (D) race. If the election were held 9/10-12/07 Lamont would win 48%-40%. Netroots lessons learned include:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "This show, I think, the importance of having an honest and open debate about residual troops in Iraq before the next Democratic nominee is decided. Many Democrats and Independents who voted for Lieberman now regret that vote, almost certainly because they feel suckered on Iraq."
• David Sirota: "this poll should remind us why new and alternative media are so important. We have to continue to develop as many communications resources to get the real story out about all politicians of all parties - Republican, Democrat and Connecticut for Lieberman."
• Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "That Ned was willing to enter the race last year when the geniuses at the head of the Democratic Party were telling everyone to shut up about the war, put his own money into challenging the war lobby by beating its own toad prince in the primary and then fighting him and his Democratic Senate buddies in the general, is to his credit. He awakened the shiftless and the recalcitrant up to the reality that the party's voters wanted their candidates to do more than smile, kiss babies and be Not Republican. We want them to end the war."

IRAQ IV: Well Tanned, But Still Not Radioactive

The netroots tried their best to get broader MSM coverage of a Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) quote made on CNN. The original exchange includes (bolds from TPM's Greg Sargent):

BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We're making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

Sargent pitches: "Note that Boehner is specifically answering a question about troop deaths here -- which he calls a "small price," should we win the war. It's really uncanny how often those who aren't sacrificing anything for the Iraq war, aside for perhaps their health in the polls, are willing to (a) Describe the very real sacrifice being made by others as not being such a big deal while simultaneously (b) Describing the sacrifice others are making as their own.

Other netrooters quickly piled on:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Bush needs to be asked to comment on what Boehner said, every single Republican presidential candidate as well. This guy needs to be radioactive."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "This guy really is a clueless craven, yet well-tanned, bastard."
• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "Where are the Democrats on Boehner's callous remarks about 4,000 dead being a "small price" to pay for this war?"

DNC chair Howard Dean, DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen, and John Kerry all heeded netroots calls to attack Boehner. Kerry blogs at The Huffington Post: "What a stunningly cavalier statement about the lives of the young men and women who serve our country. Where is Representative Boehner's apology? And where is an Iraq policy equal to our soldiers' tremendous sacrifice?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Because Bloggers Are Never Motivated By Ego

Atrios recounts:

At some point not all that long ago I was chatting with a member of Congress who was a bit peeved because bloggers were hostile to the member during the campaign. I was surprised by this, because while lefty bloggers certainly can be hostile to Democratic politicians, I didn't remember that they had been hostile to this one. I said as much, and the member backed off and said that the discontent existed because the campaign had gotten relatively little attention from bloggers, which was true. The conversation finished with a quote something like, "Well you know, politicians. We just want to be liked." ... I was taken aback by that because it wasn't really something that had ever occurred to me before. Sure we all want to be liked, but it hadn't really occurred to me that this was a key motivator of politicians. I doubt it is for all, but I suppose it is for some.

LEST WE FORGET: Someone's Had Too Much To Drink

Fire Dog Lake's TRex watches MSNBC:

You know, watching Chris Matthews is like watching an inebriated friend and trying to figure out if he's too drunk to drive home, mentally weighing whether or not you should get into the evil tug-of-war that can be the separation of a drunk and his car keys. ("I'm fine!", "No, you're not fine, you're drunk. You'll get yourself killed or someone else, and I'm not coming to bail you out of jail.", "Godammit, f**k you, gimme back my keysshhh!")

You watch your friend closely after a certain number of beers, checking for signs of uncertainty in the gait, wobbliness, or bleariness. It's so hard to tell with this guy. One minute he's talking sense and you think, "Oh, he's alright." But then you turn your back for a moment and when you look again, he's got his pants around his ankles and he's trying to cop a feel off the waitress.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:49 PM

September 13, 2007

9/13: Counter Programming Progress

The past two times Iraq has been the focus of attention in the Senate (the 5/07 supplemental, and the 7/07 DoD authorization bill) John Edwards has struggled to retain relevancy while his office-holding counterparts soaked up the coverage. In 5/07, Edwards took hits from Russ Feingold for sniping from the sidelines and few in the nat'l press corps were impressed with his 7/07 poverty tour. This time around Edwards may have found the right recipe for staying on topic while not stepping on any toes. His 9/7 speech promoting a Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO) has been a hit in the blogosphere. And whether by design or accident, the coverage has rolled out for almost a full week now. True, the platform of a Senate seat might be a more ideal vehicle for fighting Pres. Bush, but reminding potential supporters about fundamental ways you differ from your opponents on foreign pol. while they appear to be getting closer and closer, is a decent second best.

CLINTON: Z-Big's Travel Agent More Qualified Than Hillary

Following Barack Obama's 9/12 Iraq speech The Plank's Michael Crowley elicited a Zbigniew Brzezinski attack on Hillary Clinton's claim that she has visited 82 foreign nations: "I would say my travel agent has probably been to more than 82 countries, but that doesn't qualify my travel agent to be secretary of state or president." More Z-Big hope-bundles include: "Being First Lady is not the same thing as showing, on her own, that she understands what is really at stake in a situation, and to understand it early on, and not to understand it when a lot of other people have belatedly reached the same conclusion."

DODD: In Many Ways, Doddmania Never Left

Chris Dodd scored two Iraq related hits among the netroots 9/12. First Atrios quotes Dodd's attack on Barack Obama's 9/12 Iraq speech under the header 'Doddmania.' From Dodd: "I was disappointed that Senator Obama's thoughts on Iraq today didn't include a firm, enforceable deadline for redeployment ... Senator Obama has a gift for soaring rhetoric, but, on this critical issue, we need to know the substance of his position with specificity. Without tying a date certain to funding how does he plan to enforce his call for an immediate redeployment?" Atrios simply comments: "Indeed."

MyDD's Todd Beeton links to Dodd and blogs: "I do think Dodd scored today because just as he successfully distinguished himself from the front-runners, he also drew a line in the sand between standing strong and capitulating in order to incentivize his colleagues to do the former. Hopefully they'll listen."

Atrios also was a fan of Dodd's opposition another Levin-Reed amendment in any Iraq related legislation. Daily Kos' mcjoan links and adds: "Stop a bad bill in the Senate. Chris Dodd makes it easy. Seriously, the Dems need to hear from us in the kinds of numbers that the Republicans got during the immigration debate. Their phones never stopped ringing. Call your Congressperson and your Senators and tell them no more funding without a strict timetable for withdrawal."

EDWARDS: Against Shady Informalness

Talking Points Memo's Ben Craw posted part two of his 9/7 interview with John Edwards 9/12. Craw pitches: "In today's episode of TPMtv we bring you Part II of our interview, in which we talk to the former Senator about how soon he would drawn down US troops in Iraq, what he thinks of the Petraeus progress report, and how he has evolved as a presidential candidate."

Also blogging on Edwards and foreign policy, Crooked Timber's Henry Farrell weighs in on Edwards proposed Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO): "My first reaction to this is that it's going to be extremely difficult to pull this proposal off. It's really, really hard to get states to cooperate on intelligence and internal security stuff - much harder in practice than to get them to cooperate in waging war. ... These doubts aside, I think that this is a worthwhile proposal for two reasons. First - it clearly puts the emphasis of combatting international terrorism where it should be - on policing and domestic intelligence. ... Second, it may over time bring various rather shady existing forms of informal cooperation between intelligence and security services into the light, and make them more accountable to democratic authority."

Finally, New America Foundation' William Hartung blogs at TPM Cafe on Edwards 5/07 address to the Council on Foreign Relations: "[O]n at least one issue -- national security -- John Edwards has set himself apart from his two main rivals, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. ... Perhaps Edwards' most important contribution to the discussion has been his thorough critique of the whole notion of a 'Global War on Terrorism (GWOT).' ... To his credit, Edwards has also refused to get into a 'bidding war' over who can propose larger troop increases for the U.S. military, noting that 'the numbers approach only gets us into the same problem as the president's approach' unless there is a clear idea of 'what the troops will actually be used for.'"

OBAMA: For Those Of You Keeping Score At Home, He Wants Troops In Iraq Longer Than He Did Before

Barack Obama did not deliver anything new in his 9/12 Iraq speech to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton on Iraq. For some, the speech was even a step backwards. The Left Coaster's Jeff Dinelli notes: "Obama will vow to have all combat brigades withdrawn by the end of next year. That's the big plan? Problem: he already voted with Hillary last January to have everyone out by the end of March, '08. Once again, Hillary was far stronger in her comments today, and she didn't need a week-long build-up." Open Left's Matt Stoller adds: "Obama in his plan today moves the withdrawal date back eight months from his stance in May, which is a right-ward move."

Other less-than-positive reviews include:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Despite the decisiveness with which he opposed the war back in 2002 and the clarity with which he now declares the urgency of beginning withdrawal, his speech did lack both when it comes to a timeline for the completion of withdrawal and on the issue of residual troops, both of which attracted criticism from his rivals. ... Is Obama's lack of specificity on the topic telegraphing his openness to a compromise bill without a hard deadline for withdrawal of combat troops?"
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Obama Squanders A Major Opportunity on Residual Forces ... To be blunt, I don't really know how pulling out all combat troops would "sharpen that distinction." At all. As far as I can tell, every single Democrat running for President is talking about removing all combat troops. ... Considering that he opposed the war from the start, Obama is a position to really seize the mantle of progressive foreign policy in this campaign. However, he will be unable to do that as long as he continues to favor a significant residual force of at least 40,000 troops that is roughly the equivalent of Clinton's plans."
• Taylor Marsh: "Obama's suggestion of a new Constitutional convention, which "should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached" is rife with problems and the inherent overreach that the nationalistic Iraqis will hate. It's silly, frankly. What are we going to do lock the door?"
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Obama Is Done ... Only a strategy that brings progressives, African-Americans, and young people can block a Clinton nomination, and that requires a real withdrawal strategy on Iraq and some real leadership. Obama, with his recent speech and his Oprah obsession, has now made it quite clear that his strategy is targeted at elites and that he will not pull this coalition together. ... At crunch time, Obama is almost always absent, or even on the other side."

Not everyone hated the speech. Blue Hampshire's Elwood blogs: "The speech is very eloquent - in a way that cheers me in terms not only of his strengths as a candidate, but also of his thoughtfulness and willingness to challenge conventional wisdom. ... I want to see Obama demonstrate that he won't embrace the Beltway because of his supposed inexperience."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas called the speech 'good' and especially liked Obama's attack on "the pundits and politicians who let this monstrosity happen."

GIULIANI: Nashua Or Bust

A Rich LowryCorner post making the case that Rudy Giuliani needs to win in NH if he wants to win big in FL and on 2/5 drew counter analysis from campaign field operatives. A "NH Romney Guy" writes in: "I think you've missed a few things with your Secret Plan. First - The Mayor has advertised here in New Hampshire - not only on the radio, but he has also dropped several mail pieces. Second - According to Real Clear Politics, in December the Mayor led Governor Romney by double digits - the Mayor was well known in the State going into the race. It was Governor Romney who had to make up ground. ... What's happening is that New Hampshire residents are responding to the Governor's message and his commitment to play in New Hampshire."

An IA Rudy Guy then reports: "It's tough in Iowa after Mitt spending literally millions of dollars here, mostly of his own money. ... To win the Iowa caucuses, Rudy needs about 32% of the caucus goers or 33,000 people. That's the goal. Rudy's campaign is spending the next two weeks on raising money, and then are going to start spending money like crazy. They've purposely not spent hardly ANY money, ala Romney BECAUSE no one pays attention this early. ... They ARE nervous though about Romney's spending, although they consider it to be crazy."

Finally, Lowry summarizes thoughts from a GA friend: "Rudy is raising something like $350,000 in three events there today. That's one day in one state. Is there any way that Thompson is going to come anywhere close to that kind of fundraising pace?"

HUCKABEE: Whose Line Is It Anyway?

The Corner's David Freddoso was not the only conservative that helped the Club for Growth continue their Mike Huckabee vendetta, linking to their new 'TaxHikeMike' website.

At Townhall, Matt Lewis notes that Huckabee has been stealing lines from Newt Gingrich (on FedEx and tracking immigrants) and Colin Powell (Pottery Barn rule).

MCCAIN: The Sunniest Of Warriors

Instapundit links to coverage of John McCain's latest conference call and comments: "One thing you've got to say for John McCain -- his outreach to the "new media" crowd has been excellent." Those on the call report:

• Robert Bluey: "McCain told me he would like to see Bush on television once a week talking about the situation on the ground in Iraq. ... McCain also told me Bush should acknowledge that mistakes have been made in order for the American people to regain trust in him. Before people accept the fact that U.S. forces are making progress, McCain said they must first hear from Bush that errors were made in the past."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "John McCain was "feeling it" during his blogger phone conference today. ... I asked McCain whether, in light of Gen. Petraeus's concession that parts of Baghdad remain under the control of Shia militias and dominated by fear, he thought the recommended troop reduction was a pure military judgment, or at least in part the product of political calculation and concerns about manpower. McCain said Petraeus has committed to him that if he needs more troops he will ask for him."
• Soren Dayton: "First, John McCain is not as tired as he used to be. ... He talked about being on the bus with his POW buddies. That seems important for him psychologically. ... McCain is the most comfortable of all the candidates on either side in simply talking about the war."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "I asked the Senator if Republican candidates had a responsibility to be leaders in terms of supporting the surge, because the American people are taking their cues from our leaders. McCain said he can't control how others run their campaigns, but that he believes candidates do have the ability to influence foreign policy debates.
• AmSpec's Jennifer Rubin: "He is in a positively sunny mood and thinks events are now on his side. Although he says the No Surrneder tour is "more important" than the campaign it frankly is his campaign and is going to early primary states of Iowa, NH, and SC--the states he's identified as must wins."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty quotes McCain on whether the US should "take out" al-Sadr: "I agree with you, when they first had a warrant out for his arrest, back in 2003, I met with Bremer and Sanchez and I said 'get that guy.' There was some worry that would stir up the Shiites. It's well chronicled in Fiasco and Cobra II. Now he's bouncing back and forth to Iran. He stays in well-populated areas. I'm not that tactically proficient about the situation on the ground, but it is important to arrest him and put him on trial for murder.

THOMPSON: McCain Lite?

George Will's "Fred-bashing column" is getting plenty of conservative play. The most quoted excerpt appears to be: "Thompson, contrary to his current memories, was deeply involved in expanding government restrictions on political speech generally and the ban on issue ads specifically. Yet he told [Laura] Ingraham 'I voted for all of it,' meaning McCain-Feingold, but said 'I don't support that' provision of it. Oh? Why, then, did he file his own brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold McCain-Feingold, stressing Congress' especially 'compelling interest' in squelching issue ads that 'influence' elections?"

In more positive, Thompson blogging, RCP's Blake Dvorak notes Fred08 led the league in traffic last week, and adds: "Not sure if this means much. Thompson after all did post his highly anticipated announcement video on his site." Other Thompson quick hits include:

• NY Sun's Ryan Sager: "According to a number of Jacksonville-area Republican donors I've spoken to in recent days, the former Tennessee senator's unimpressive early organization and late entry into the presidential race have led to a group of power players signing up with Mr. Thompson's chief rival for the social-conservative vote: the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.
• Instapundit: "Is Fred a fizzle? He's had a lot of time to put together a well-oiled machine, and from what I can see he hasn't done so. Since putting together an effective team is a major part of being a successful President, I think that's a bad sign."
• AmSpec's Jennifer Rubin: "Yesterday I posited that Romney and Thompson were a study in contrast, but maybe the greater contrast is McCain and Thompson. McCain : spits details, is raring to go and leaves no doubts as to where he is on any issue(not always a good thing in his case). Thompson : Not any of that."
• The Corner's Seth Leibsohn: "Re: Fred Thompson Not Regularly Going to Church ... Going to church matters, of course it does. I don't think it matters much ... Here's the test: Assume you are a social-values voter, perhaps a religious social values voter, and it's 1980 and all you knew of the two major candidates was that one was from the South, married to the same woman all his life, considered himself "born again," and was a regular church going member of the Baptist church whose sister did evangelical work while the other was a divorced, non-church going former actor who lived in California. Okay, given that's all you know, where's your vote going?"

IRAQ: How Do You Solve A Problem Like Iraq?

A 9/11 Juan Cole post on the harsh consequences Dems face should they fail to force significant troop reductions before Pres. Bush leaves office continues to drive netroots posting. Cole blogged: "If the Democrats cannot prevail in withdrawing before Bush goes out of office (and they cannot), and if they then rapidly draw down the troops on taking office in 2009, they face the real prospect of a "Gerald Ford meltdown" of the sort that occurred in 1975 when the North Vietnamese and their VC allies took over South Vietnam." Reactions include:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Though 2008 is looking like a good election, with a probable Democratic President and expanded Democratic majorities in both houses, it's fairly likely that, for the reasons Cole outlines, we're going to get crushed in the 2010 midterm elections, and the next President will be a one-termer. ... Primaries or not, by 2010, many of the Bush Dogs will be gone. It's just a question of how long Democratic strategists remain in their deluded state of believing that, though the world has changed since 2000, the electoral map has not."
• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: "I understand that there's a lot of very bitter disappointment in the Democrats over ending the war. I agree with some of it. But I doubt much of anything that happens from this point will efface, wash away or even substantially diminish the central fact that this is on George W. Bush's moral and political dime, and sustained from day one till today by the Republican party. "
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Now, I'm going to disagree with Juan on two grounds. First, I'm not convinced Vietnam really hurt Ford much. ... Second, the Iraq war is even more clear cut. It's so plainly George Bush's debacle ... That said, though, Juan's scenario is utterly plausible. Things very well could go that way. Dems may not have the votes to defund the war, but I sure hope they're at least thinking hard about how to keep Republicans from pinning the blame on them for its inevitable ghastly conclusion."
• The Huffington Post's Art Levine: "The current Democratic weakness in opposing Bush's war could have fatal long-term consequences for the party -- as well as for our troops -- now that Democrats have largely abandoned efforts to push for firm timelines on withdrawal. By allowing the war to drag on with over 100,000 troops likely to be in place by next November, the party is dooming itself to long-term disaster, unless Congressional Democrats find the will to effectively oppose the war."

Many in the netroots are more hopeful than cole about Dem prospects at forcing a pre-'09 withdrawal. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas strategizes: "Pass a supplemental bill with a withdrawal deadline. Let the GOP filibuster. If it comes to the point where the troops are being harmed from lack of funding, pass one-month supplementals -- keep forcing Republicans in vote after vote to stand with Bush and his hated war."

Also at Daily Kos, Meteor Blades recommends the Center for American Progress withdrawal plan and advises Dems: "In other words, fully fund a withdrawal. And make it a rapid and complete withdrawal. ... Unless Democrats can pull together to get a bill on the President's desk that funds the troops with the proviso that the money be used to start withdrawing those troops, and with a fixed date for completing the withdrawal welded to that bill, everything else going on now amounts to little more than political theater." Kossacks are already organizing against HR 3087.

IRAQ II: You Probably Think This Post Is About You

Iraq war supporters are not crazy about Pres. Bush's decision to insert himself into the Iraq debate with his 9/13 televised speech. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez seconds Charles Krauthammer analysis: "It's too bad the White House couldn't have left the story of the week be Petraeus's testimony, not Bush's final imprimatur."

Mickey Kaus also wishes Bush would take it easy: "Is it really a good idea, from President Bush's point of view, for him to give a prime time address today about Iraq? Seems like Bush speeches haven't convinced anybody of anything for several years now--especially about Iraq, but also about Social Security reform and immigration reform. ... Or is Bush too legacy obsessed--or just plain vain--to cede the lead role to Petraeus?"

VA SEN: The 11th Commandment Is So Passe

RedState's Erick Erickson makes it clear he will not support a Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) for Senate campaign: "Given the choice between Mark Warner and Tom Davis, I'd go with Mark Warner. ... The difference between the two is that with Mark Warner, you only have to figure out who the Democratic interest is to know which side he'll be on. With Tom Davis, you have to figure out who the highest bidder is to know which side he is on."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why We're Still There

Univ. of WI prof. Charles Franklin identifies three questions that have been consistently asked through out the war: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" ... "All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?" ... "Do you think going to war with Iraq was the right thing for the United States to do or the wrong thing?"

Franklin continues: The long run story these question tell is of decreasing support for the war, from quite strong support initially to low levels today. ... So why doesn't public opinion force an immediate end to the war? One reason is because the public is more equivocal as to motivation than to performance, and more equivocal still as to solutions. ... Anti-war forces can correctly point to substantial majorities who are critical of various aspects of the war. But change in Congress also requires that Republican members perceive that opinion against the war is so overwhelming that it is time for them to also abandon ship. That mark in public opinion has not been reached. So long as a substantial minority (say 40%+) support the current policy (or at least oppose a rapid withdrawal) then Republicans can count on a public that is too divided on the issue to pose the certainty of electoral catastrophe.

LEST WE FORGET: We Thought People Like Homer & Tony

The Corner's John Podhoretz points us to Kurt Anderson observations on the current state of the GOP:

The Republicans are being rapidly rebranded as a party of men who exemplify the least attractive, most pathetic aspects of the gender-they are the stubborn, arrogant, lazy, incompetent (Iraq, Katrina), hypocritical, crude, nasty fathers, Homer Simpson crossed with Tony Soprano, the kind of men who snarl and posture as old-fashioned patresfamilias but don't come through when and where it counts. The GOP is becoming the deadbeat-daddy party.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:01 PM

September 12, 2007

9/12: Advantage Rudy

The very real feud between Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney over PhonyFred has settled who Thompson's entry into the race benefits the most: Rudy Giuliani. Romney has always had fervent conservosphere detractors (e.g. Soren Dayton), but Thompson spokesman Todd Harris is quickly turning off manyconservatives as well. Now Giuliani does have his doubters (e.g. Ramesh Ponnuru), but no seems hell bent on his destruction either. As mentioned above, Romney has his online detractors, but a bevy of committed simpaticos as well (MyManMitt, Hugh Hewitt, K-Lo). With RedState's Erick Erickson officially off the Thompson bandwagon, it is safe to say there is no firm conservative blog support for Fred.

GOP FIELD: Welcome To The Race Al Sharpton!

Mitt Romney took the biggest hit from revelations that ex-SC GOP exec. dir./Romney consultant Wesley Donahue was behind the PhoneyFred.org website, but Fred Thompson did not escape spotless either. Manyconservatives quoted Thompson spokesman Todd Harris' release on the matter: "There is no room in our party for this kind of smut. ... Mitt Romney will do anything, say anything, smear any opponent and flip flop on any position in order to win."

Instapundit also posted an email from Romney aide Stephen Smith, including: "The site has no direct affiliation to our campaign, and we had no knowledge of its development. ... The person responsible is not an employee of ours, but we took immediate action to make sure it was clear the site was not affiliated with the campaign." Instapundit comments: "I've dealt with Stephen before, and I have no reason to doubt him, but there's also no reason to doubt that this is an embarrassment for the Romney campaign." Townhall's Matt Lewis also took Romney's explanation at face value, while Race4'08s Kavon Nikrad thinks Romney should have apologized.

Others were much tougher on Romney, but longtime Romney hater Soren Dayton easily led the league, remarking on Harris' statement: "Glad someone finally said it ... [he] what everyone has been thinking for a while." SC's FITSNews makes the case for the firing of Donahue business partner/Romney consultant Warren Tompkins: "Forgive us for asking the obvious question, but whatever happened to firing somebody because they're doing a ridiculously sh*tty job? Obviously despite all its talk of corporate culture, working on the Romney campaign is a lot like working for South Carolina's Department of Education ... you can completely suck ass and keep getting buckets of money."

NRO's Jim Geraghty also warns unofficial Romney bloggers at MyManMitt to stop leaving threatening comments at Dayton's site: "'You will pay when we are running the show!' is not an inspiring message heading into primary season."

Not everyone was impressed with how Team Thompson dealt with the situation either. Captain's Quarters blogs: "the personal nature of the criticism on Mitt Romney himself only extends the damage to the Republican brand and creates hard feelings and divisions among voters that we frankly do not need. Regardless of who wins the nomination, we need all of the candidates as credible advocates for the Republican ticket." Race4'08s Jason Bonham comments: "Thompson is excellent at playing the victim, he's done it in every campaign so far. He makes Al Sharpton look like an amateur."

Also scoring the match, AmSpec's Philip Klein blogs: "What Thompson has going for him in this fight is that of all the top tier candidates, he is the best-positioned to make the calculating, flip-flopper label stick to Romney. ... Romney would be much better off hitting Thompson on the executive experience and tangible accomplishments front. He can subtly connect this to the frustration conservatives have with Bush-i.e. do they want to repeat the mistake of nominating a lovable dude who infuriates liberals but lacks managerial competence?"

At The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez shares another Harris email, this time on Thompson's gains in national polls. From the memo: "This week's round of new national polls is extremely encouraging. All are trending up for Fred Thompson." Lopez later updates with a Romney response: "National polls would matter a great deal more if there was a national party primary. But there isn't one."

ROMNEY: Is There Daylight Between Bush And Paul On Iraq?

The Corner's David Freddoso promotes his NRO online article on Mitt Romney and Iraq under the header "Disowning a War" and blogs: "Is Mitt Romney an anti-war candidate? Not really. But sort of." Highlights from his article include:

• In the most recent New Hampshire debate, Romney was markedly cautious on Iraq, drawing ire from some conservative commentators and Sen. John McCain. But more importantly, Romney spoke repeatedly of the Iraq surge (which he endorsed) as a tactical means of ending the war and bringing troops home as quickly as possible. This has been a staple of his recent war rhetoric, in contrast to his more hawkish rivals, who all say explicitly that they would do it all over again.
• Romney's spokesman, Kevin Madden, did not discourage the idea that Romney does not share their view or that of Bush. "Any candidate that can convince the American electorate that they represent a real change is, I think, always going to be at an advantage," he said. "That doesn't necessarily mean criticism [of Bush] What it does represent is a recognition that even in the last eight years, there have been some things that could have been done better."
• Romney may be leaving a door open, in case he wins the nomination, to say that while America still cannot run from Iraq, he would probably not have become involved to begin with, knowing what he knows now. Such a position would be invaluable when debating Senator Clinton, who spoke out for and voted for a war that 57 percent of Americans now say was a mistake.

NRO's Jim Geraghty links to Freddoso and shares: "One staffer with a rival campaign has been urging me, at length, to write that Romney is the anti-war candidate in the race. When told, 'He's even less a supporter of the war than Ron Paul!' I urged the staffer to switch to decaf." Geraghty did examine Romney's statements on the war and found a strong preference for the word 'if' when Romney spoke about the surge. Geraghty also notes: "Romney has made comments suggesting he's open to Sen. Joseph Biden's plan to partition Iraq. This position isn't totally unheard of in GOP circles but it's opposed by the Bush administration and not wildly popular among Republicans.

AmSpec's James Antle also comments on Freddoso's piece: "I think Dave Freddoso is on to something here -- while mostly operating within the pro-surge, anti-withdrawal framework, Republicans are a bit more divided on Iraq than the Ron Paul against the world debates suggest. And even though Mitt Romney basically agrees with John McCain and Rudy Giuliani on the way forward in Iraq, these differences may have relevance to how they would handle foreign-policy questions likely to come their way as president."

THOMPSON: Osama Would Not Be The First Terrorist For Whom Thompson Helped Obtain Due Process

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru links to a TNR story n Fred Thompson's old law firm's representation of alleged Libyan terrorists under the header "Fred Thompson, Terrorist Lawyer." Instapundit notes that Thompson was working as criminal defense lawyer for the alleged terrorists, not a lobbyist.

Over at RedState, Erick Erickson hits Team Thompson for their suggestions that Osama bin Laden should be tried with due process of law, but blames Thompson spokesman Todd Harris, and not the candidate. Erickson also adds: "The departure of Mark Corallo from the Thompson campaign was a sure sign that what dazzled so many of us from the Thompson non-campaign was going to fizzle. And so it seemingly has with a mistake that should not have been. The Thompson non-campaign extravaganza is starting to take on the appearance of a same old-same old Johnny Come Lately campaign non-event."

CLINTON: Video Saved This Candidate's Star?

The Left Coaster's Steve Soto thought video of Hillary Clinton's Gen. David Petraeus questioning made her look better than the transcript, but he still is sorry he didn't see Clinton: "1. Asking any tough questions about the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad; 2. Asking how we are dealing with the Shiite-on-Shiite civil war in the south; 3. Asking what assurances there are that things will be any better in the spring; 4. Why we seem to be priming for a war with Iran without presenting evidence to the UN." Soto concludes: "In other words, it's Democratic business as usual.

DODD: A Message In A Blog

Chris Dodd asks at The Huffington Post: "Is Petraeus' Testimony Relevant to the Debate on Iraq? ... By every measure, the surge has failed - to secure Iraq, to help forge political reconciliation there, or make America safer. ... The debate we should be having is not on how we change tactics, but how we change policy. ... We need to send a clear message to the President and the Iraqis that it is time for a change of course. That is why I have stated that I will not support any measure that does not include a firm, enforceable deadline for redeployment. I urge other leaders in the party to join me."

EDWARDS: How To Stay Relevant While Senators Debate Iraq

Positive reviews of John Edwards 9/8 call for a Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization continue to trickle out of the netroots. Matthew Yglesias blogs: "I think this is a very good idea. As Edwards says, "it's important to note that CITO is not a panacea, nor will it be perfect." This is a much more appealing vision of America's relationship with the world than you tend to see nowadays -- one's that's optimistic and looking for opportunities, rather than one seeking conflict and sowing fear."

Talking Points Memo's Ben Craw pitches in with Part I of his 9/8 interview with Edwards about CITO. Craw pitches: "TPMtv caught up with the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate following his speech and talked to him about the "global war on terror" slogan, his new international anti-terrorism initiative, and what he would do if America had actionable intelligence about terrorists inside Pakistan."

In less positive Edwards blogging Grist's David Roberts informs Huffington Post readers: "One of the most meaningful steps the U.S. can take to fight climate change is to forbid construction of new coal plants unless they capture and sequester their carbon emissions. Most enviros seem to think that John Edwards has also called for such a moratorium, and have lauded him for it. Only he hasn't. ... Edwards would require that all new coal plants be compatible with sequestration -- that they be IGCC plants, which make CO2 easier to separate and bury -- but he would not require them to actually sequester their emissions."

OBAMA: Now That Would Be Audacious

Details of Barack Obama's 9/12 Clinton, IA, address are already leaking out. TPM's Greg Sargent has some excerpts and summarizes: "Obama, clearly, is seeking to expand his indictment of the D.C. political and foreign policy establishment, amplifying his argument that for all their Washington experience, many Beltway elite figures were unable to exercise sound judgment and oppose the Iraq folly. Also noteworthy ... Obama's direct targeting of the D.C. punditry."

Also following early buzz on the speech, MyDD's Todd Beeton blogs: "Obama's statement yesterday was a less than auspicious beginning, considering the fact that while it stressed immediacy of the need to withdraw troops there was a conspicuous absence of an end date for withdrawal, leading some to speculate that perhaps Obama is leaving himself room to embrace an open-ended bill."

At Daily Kos, Meteor Blades dreams his ideal Obama speech: "I'd like to see Senator Obama phone up all the other presidential candidates tonight and invite them to stand with him on the podium in Iowa and deliver a unified front on Iraq. United against the Cheney-Bush regime, united for a rapid, well-thought-out withdrawal that could have all but a handful of the troops out of Iraq by election day, 2008, and the remaining handful gone a year later. United behind a bill which supports the troops by fully funding that withdrawal. I'd like to see all the candidates accept Senator Obama's invitation whatever that does to their schedules."

Obama already scored points with some for criticizing the date of the hearings (to close to 9/11) and for the following question: "If we're there the same place a year from now can you please describe for me any circumstances in which you would make a different recommendation and suggest it is now time for us to start withdrawing our troops? Any scenario. Any set of benchmarks, that have not been met."

IRAQ: When Someone Asks You If You Are A God, You Say: Yes!

Gen. David Petraeus' answer to a GOP senator's question became the highlight of the day for most lefty bloggers 9/11. When Sen. John Warner (R-VA) asked Petraeus if the current Iraq strategy "is making America safer" Petraeus responded: "I don't know." Reactions include:

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "This is HUGE. HUGE. Petraeus just completely undermined Bush's rationale for the escalation of the Iraq war. ... If the Bush/Petraeus "course of action" is not ultimately making us safer, what the hell are we doing in over there? And, why are Republicans sticking with Bush's plan that doesn't make us safer?
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "The moment with Warner was enough to make Tweety go postal and ask the questions that every Senator and ever citizen watching the exchange has to ask: if our ongoing presence in Iraq meant a miracle were to occur and we somehow managed to win in Iraq (whatever that would mean), we wouldn't be any safer, then why in the hell are we still there."
• TPM's David Kurtz: "Perhaps it was just a moment of uncharacteristic befuddlement for the general, but if the answer to that question isn't a resounding yes, then, even on the Bush Administration's own terms, it's time to start loading up the troop carriers in Kuwait and bring our people home."
• VoteVets Jon Soltz at The Huffington Post: "General Petraeus was given an order - find a military solution for Iraq where there is none, and without concern for troop overextension or the larger war on terror. ... When one looks at the grander scale, past just the military in Iraq, the picture is dismal, and becoming a critical danger. Unwittingly, General Petraeus just confirmed all of that in the exchange above, today."
• Andrew Sullivan: "He's fighting a war that he hasn't even decided is vital or even beneficial to the security of the United States. That's how lost we are in mission creep. That's the depth of the hole in which Petraeus has been ordered to keep digging."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "And you know what? It is not Petraeus' call to decide what the mission is. It is the job of the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States to argue for his own policy. But it is the job of the Congress to decide whether it will fund the policy the President recommends."

IRAQ II: Apparently, The Surge Is No Hoax

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) made some blogging rounds 9/11 in support of the surge. Inhofe guest blogged at Captain's Quarters: "Yesterday I announced www.ReadHisReport.com, an open letter from myself and all those who sign it calling on my fellow Senators to simply read General Petraeus's report in full before they make rash statements about Iraq. Please take a moment to visit the site and sign the letter. ... I also encourage you to visit www.VictoryCaucus.com to sign their petition in support of our troops. Victory Caucus is a great way to stay on top of the news from Iraq and monitor the progress of our military strategy."

Inhofe also sat down with Michelle Malkin to talk about Petraeus testimony and the MoveOn "General Betray Us" ad.

Also in town, Amb. Ryan Crocker aide Kirk Johnson sat down with conservative bloggers on 9/11. Robert Bluey enumerates Johnson's main points: "1. The "surge" has been especially effective in reducing civilian casualties in Baghdad, although less so in the rest of Iraq; 2. Sectarian casualties are only a fraction of total civilian casualties, and such numbers lack meaning in ethnically or religiously homogeneous communities; 3. Violence statistics collected by the military should be viewed as a lower-bound estimate because they tend to miss smaller incidents."

IRAQ III: Not The Timetable They Were Hoping For

The netroots are already pushing back against possible 9/14 headlines describing Pres. Bush's anticipated end to the surge as a troop 'withdrawal.' Reactions include:

• TPM's David Kurtz: "As part of the surge-week PR offensive, the President will make a primetime address Thursday announcing that he intends to bring the surge to an end next summer. That means 30,000 U.S. troops will be rotated home without replacements. The White House--and most press reports--will describe this as a troop withdrawal, which is true in a very narrow sense. But this can't seem to be repeated often enough, if credulous press reports are any indication: the surge was only ever designed to be temporary and could not be sustained for any longer than next summer without seriously compromising overall U.S. military readiness."
• Atrios: "I don't know what he's thinking giving the enemy a timetable, but there it is."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "[T]his is pretty rich. Everyone on the planet knows perfectly well that we're not withdrawing these troops next year because we've achieved some grand success on the ground in Iraq. We haven't, and Bush knows it. We're withdrawing them because the Army has no operational choice."
• Matthew Yglesias: "Obviously, this is BS. We're returning to pre-surge troop levels next year because the surge was a surge -- something temporary -- because the military lacks the logistical capacity to further prolong it."
• The Huffington Post's Chris Weigant: "Democrats in Congress have to quickly decide what to do about this state of affairs. Because if they do nothing, the Republicans are going to run next year on the following slogan: 'Trust us to take care of national security -- we are bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq, but we're doing it in a sober, reasonable, and adult way; by listening to the counsel of generals and taking their advice seriously. Democrats have obviously proven they do not have what it takes to put America's interests before politics, and we do.'"

Already looking ahead to Dem legislation on the Iraq supplemental, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas looks at Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) legislation on the issue and labels him: "Lieberdem Lipinski."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We Won, He Lost

Instapundit links to James Pethokoukis analysis of Osama bin Laden's efforts to "smash the American economy." Pethokoukis blogs:

Overall, the American economy is, adjusting for inflation, $1.65 trillion bigger than it was six years ago. To put that gigantic number in some perspective, the U.S. economy has added the equivalent of five Saudi Arabias, eight Irans, 13 Pakistans, or 15 Egypts, depending on your preference. And while 9/11 did cause the stock market to plunge, the Dow is 37 percent higher than it was on Sept. 10, 2001, creating trillions of dollars of new wealth for Americans. What's more, the unemployment rate is 4.6 percent today vs. 5.7 percent back then. Not bad at all.

LEST WE FORGET: Free Kathy Griffin

Dlisted reports that Catholic League pres William Donohue is attacking Kathy Griffin for the following statements she made while accepting her Emmy for her show "My Life On The D-List." Griffin said: ""A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. ... This award is my god now!"

Dlisted responds: "The Catholic League needs to spend less time watching the Emmys worrying about comics and more time worrying about their priests touching little kids. Seriously! Mind your own business! Jesus and God probably had a laugh over that joke over a cold beer. It's a joooke!"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:52 PM

September 11, 2007

9/11: An Iraqless '08?

As much as bloggers from all sides are focussing on Iraq this week, it doesn't appear as though any of the candidates are succeeding in gaining ground on the issue. On the GOP side, Mitt Romney has been quick to close any "apparent" gap that might have opened up between him and the rest of the field on Iraq policy during the 9/5 NH debate. And despite John McCain's all surge-all the time focus, he has said nothing to indicate he had a problem with Gen. David Petraeus' indications he will draw down troop levels by next spring.

On the left, it does not appear Barack Obama or John Edwards are going to say the magic words ("no residual forces") necessary to rally the netroots behind them. Without impeccable anti-war credentials, neither has a chance to stop Hillary Clinton. Moving to the general election, some in the netroots worry that a lack of Dem resolve in Congress, Dem frontrunner insistence on leaving residual forces in Iraq, and summer '08 headlines about Pres. Bush bringing troops home will combine to neutralize current Dem advantage on the issue. If these trends continue, a troubled economy just might be the big issue in '08.

IRAQ: Which Classical Greek Philosopher Will Chris Matthews Compare Markos To Today?

The netroots are not optimistic about chances Dems will significantly effect Pres. Bush's Iraq policy before 1/09. Gen. David Petraeus previews include:

• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "No one trusts Petraeus or his White House-authored "report". The testimony today is irrelevant. They want out. We all expect Petraeus to claim that we've "turned the corner" and that all we need is another "six months". ... The only question is whether Democrats will give Americans what they want -- a tough line in favor of withdrawal -- or whether they'll collapse as they did last Spring."
• Atrios: "This has been said a million times in a million different ways, but the whole point of this exercise is to ensure that Bush's war continues until it's time for him to cut brush permanently. The surge can't have worked because then it could start ending, and the surge can't be not working because then it would a tragic waste of lives and money, so the surge is working just a little bit.. but might work a little bit more soon!"
• The Huffington Post's Thomas de Zengotita: "You are shocked that Bush is still getting his way on Iraq? Hello. Wake up. Don't be distracted by honking and blathering from Democrats. Nothing is going to happen because Democrats don't want the slightest shred of responsibility dangling from their designer-label lapels for Iraq policy in the next 12 months. ... The main thing most Democrats want -- from the US Senate to every state legislature -- is to make sure that this disaster is hanging like an anvil around the Republican elephant's neck when election day comes. That's the game. The rest is shell. Too bad about the dying."

There were also plenty of complaints about the MSM, including:

• The Huffington Post's Karen Kwiatkowski: "No matter the station or the channel -- CNN, FOX, or PBS -- all I heard was lies about our occupation of Iraq repeated mantra-like by a swarm of the mentally lame posing as independent reporters and commentators. ... By God, I felt like an Iraqi myself today. I'm sorry to say it -- I wanted to throw something at frightened occupiers only because I couldn't get close enough to really hurt the arrogant cowards that lead them."
• Fire Dog Lake's Phoenix Woman: "Watch as the MSM continues to pretend that there is no objective right or wrong and that any conflict between Democrats and Republicans, Iraq war opponents and supporters is nothing more than "he said, she said" ... No acknowledgement that Petraeus is Bush's sockpuppet, reciting a "report" written by the Bush White House. No acknowledgement that Bush and Petraeus have done this same dog-and-phony show before. ... And certainly no acknowledgement that the general public isn't buying the Bush-Petraeus con job."
• Media Matters: "Media Matters has compiled some of the most pervasive myths and falsehoods advanced by opponents of withdrawal in service of the "surge is working" message, which many in the media have been complicit in perpetuating."

There was also plenty of specific criticism of Petraeus' testimony. Posts include:

• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall on Petraeus' civilian death count numbers: "But no one asked the general why the White House and/or the Pentagon won't release the actual data, where it comes from and how it's counted. ... I don't pretend that these statistics are the be all and end all of what we should be looking at in Iraq. They're not. But they have taken on an outsized focus because they're the only thing the administration has seen fit to focus on. And yet we're asked to take on faith how the numbers are assembled even though there's ample evidence -- both circumstantial and direct -- that they're distorted to suit the administration's agenda.
• TPM Muckraker's Spencer Ackerman on Petraeus' defense of his 9/04 op-ed claiming progress in training Iraqi security forces: "In Petraeus' telling, all was going well with the Iraqi security forces until the 2006 al-Askariya mosque bombing in Samarra and the sectarian slaughter that ensued. That's a quite a simplified version of events. What it omits is that sectarian murder occurred all throughout 2005 with the imprimatur of the elected Shiite government."
• Marshall, again, also on the 'Samarra Dodge': "I won't say that this wasn't a major catalyzing event. But administration officials have increasingly seized upon it as a critical turning point of the occupation, which it quite simply was not. ... But this argument doesn't square with any of the available facts. Pretty much everything we see began to happen in 2003, actually very soon after the invasion proper. It was all visible by the fall of that year. And every metric has been more or less downhill ever since."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis on Petraeus' claim that "no one would have dared to forecast" improvement in Anbar: "Not an outright lie, but still he's twisting his own words. He spun Anbar positively in January, now he's trying to pretend like the positive developments in Anbar are some kind of huge surprise that we had no inkling of back in January."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "The surge was always intended primarily to target Baghdad, and in Baghdad U.S. troop strength approximately doubled, from 17,000 to 34,000. Frankly, with an increase like that, you'd expect some pretty tangible results. ... And yet, at best, we've seen only a modest drop in violence in Baghdad. So what we're seeing is not a case of too few troops to make a difference. It's worse. We increased troop numbers dramatically and deployed them more effectively, and it still barely made a noticeable difference."

Others focussed on the lack of political progress in Amb. Ryan Crocker's testimony:

• Ed Kilgore: "Wasn't the whole point of the "surge" to make quick progress towards a political settlement in Iraq possible? Doesn't everyone pretty much admit that no such progress has been made, whether or not the security environment has improved? If that's right, and it is, then how much does it really matter (other than for humanitarian reasons) whether or not violence has gone marginally up or marginally down, or (as seems likely) has been temporarily shifted from one battleground to others?"
• Matthew Yglesias: "[I]t's really not clear why the details of General Petraeus' presentation on the military state of play in Iraq matter at all. The question of the surge, and of the military presence more generally, is whether or not the presence is creating a situation where the presence will no longer be needed in order to avoid the Potentially Catastrophic Consequences of Withdrawal. As long as we have a situation where the day after we leave, the Catastrophic Consequences of Withdrawal will come to pass, then we may as well just leave tomorrow."
• Andrew Sullivan: "Ryan Crocker's testimony was far less cogent than Petraeus' because he has almost nothing substantive to point to (except some photo-ops in the last couple of weeks). And when he does make an assertion - that the current situation reminds him of America's civil rights struggles, for example - one tends to shudder at its inappropriateness, or gape at its vagueness."

In other Petraeus related posting, a Daily Kos diarist tracks these 'Hardball' questions directed at DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas by Chris 'Tweety' Matthews: "Tweety: Well done, Markos, well done, because that's something that Colin Powell said a couple of months ago - I heard him say that - that there's gonna have to be this reduction in force anyway by the end of next spring and all he's doing is declaring that a policy." and "Tweety: I know, you served in the Marines [ed. note: Markos served in the Army]... Let me tell you, you are Archimedes here. You found the lever and you are working it to move the world, sir. You are moving the Democratic Party. Thank you sir for joining us."

Also at Daily Kos: video of Hip Hop Caucus pres. Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr. being 'attacked' by six capitol police outside the Cannon Caucus Room.

IRAQ II: Code Pinko

The lion's share of conservative blogging on Petraeus' testimony were concerned by MoveOn's full page New York Times ad tagging him "General Betray Us." Reactions include:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis quotes Rolling Stone: "For God's sake, it's not even clever. A bad pun driving a despicable message. Listen: General Petraeus may well be carrying water for the Bush administration - But to impugn the patriotism of a man who is doing what the commander in chief has asked him to do - try to win the war in Iraq - is as despicable as Dick Cheney questioning the patriotism of those Americans who want us to redeploy from Iraq."
• Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) at RedState: "On a day when partisanship should be put on hold to the extent possible, the leftist group MoveOn, whom I know y'all have dealt with before, bought a full page ad in the New York Times that disgracefully attacks a decorated four-star commanding general and questions his commitment to his country."
• RedState's Mark Kilmer: "It was childish beneath the dignity of adult Americans, much less a four-star general in the U.S. Army, a commander entrusted with the operation and care of our nation's soldiers."
• The Corner's Michael Yon: "The responsible parties are those at the New York Times who accepted money and prostituted their pages to print tabloid-level rants. There are some excellent writers from the New York Times who have covered Iraq: Rich Oppel; Dexter Filkins; John Burns; Michael Gordon. But one more advertisement like the one that was published on 10 September - the one that Times editors must have known to be filled with falsities - and I will not read the New York Times again for a long time to come, if ever."
• Confederate Yankee following up on ABCNews reports MoveOn paid $65K for the ad: "And while I don't claim to understand the intricacies of New York Times advertising sales, their own rate card (PDF) seems rather specific that Advocacy ads, which the MoveOn.org ad most clearly was, are sold at $167,157 for a full-page, full-price nationwide ad. ... If Tapper's numbers are correct, MoveOn.org paid just 38.89% of a full-cost, nationwide ad, or a 61.11% discount off of a full-rate ad. While I'm fairly certain that nobody pays "sticker" prices, 61% off seems a rather sweet deal."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "I believe the repulsive ad by MoveOn.org in the New York Times this morning is a defining moment for the left and all the Democratic senators, representatives and presidential candidates who have accepted MoveOn.org money and support in the past. For MoveOn.org is it a moment of searing clarity that reveals them to be as divisive and as repugnant as Joe McCarthy was at the time of his 1954 fiasco in the Army-McCarthy hearings."
• Ace of Spades: "I seriously hope the MoveOn crowd remains tone deaf enough to continue this line of attack. It will be entertaining to see the dem candidates distancing themselves from MoveOn.org."
• Captain's Quarters: "It's drearily predictable. It's also absolutely despicable. It's character assassination of the lowest order. Demeaning the military in this fashion damages the nation and gives comfort to our enemies. I question MoveOn's patriotism and their timing."

Conservatives also made an efforts to tie Code Pink anti-war protesters to Dems:

• Michelle Malkin: "Here it is the face of the Democrat Party. They've done virtually nothing to disassociate themselves from it. They made their bed. Lie in it. Ambassador Crocker was also interrupted by the Pinkos. Cindy Sheehan was arrested. Amateur hour in the House continues."
• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Code Pink Quotables: "How can you thank him (Petraeus) for his service when we're slaughtering Iraqis every day?"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "The hearing was, in multiple respects, a fiasco which cannot reflect well on the already-unpopular Democratic leaders of the House."

Some on the left defended the MoveOn ad. Matthew Yglesias: "the basic point of the MoveOn ad -- that it doesn't make sense for the public or the congress to make policy on the basis of secret data that's at odds with publicly available assessments as well as work by the GAO, CIA, and DIA -- is eminently sensible. Petraeus' slides are just random pictures with no sourcing, it's ridiculous." The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Republicans are making a big mistake by spending all their TV time this morning complaining about accusations that Gen. Petraeus is cooking the books in his assessment of progress in Iraq? Repeating the accusation, even if it's only to denounce it, is still repeating the accusation."

Others didn't: "What I must condemn is the use of the phrase "General Betrayus" by Move On in its ad today in the New York Times. This inexcusable use of the detestable Republican tactic of labelling those who disagree with you as "traitors" is something I have long objected to and I must, in good conscience, strongly condemn Move On's use of this deplorable tactic."

IRAQ III: When Does A 'Draw Down' Become A 'Withdrawal'?

Rep. Gary Ackerman's (D-NY) questions to Petraeus ("If Iraq is part of the overall war on terror, and the war on terror cannot be won in Iraq alone, how can we think of drawing down our forces at this stage?") generated the most substantive discussion among conservatives. Thoughts and the exchange and other opinions on Petraeus' call for a 'draw-down' include:

• The Corner's Andy McCarthy: "It may be politically expedient to talk about drawing down, but it doesn't make national-security sense if the war is broader than Iraq. If I could, I would ask: Does the recommendation that we draw down assume that we will reach some sort of diplomatic settlement with Iran? Other than the politics, I don't understand the rationale of draw-down."
• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "Andy, on the rationale of the draw-down Petraeus discussed today, part of what's going on I assume is that Petraeus is accommodating the Joint Chiefs who are very worried about the strain on our forces."
• The Corner's Kate O'Beirne: "My impression is that the projected drawdown is not in reaction to Capitol Hill politics but instead reflects the need to balance competing military priorities, i.e. more to do with the Pentagon than with the Congress."
• back to McCarthy: "Iran is the catalyst of terror not only in Iraq but well beyond. The national security of the United States is primarily about winning the overall war on terror, not stabilizing Iraq. We have 160,000 troops on Iran's doorstep, and yet Iran provokes. Regardless of whether the tune is being called by politics, the Joint Chiefs, the President, or the man on the moon, how does it help us suppress Iran, or win the overall war, to draw down our troops in Iraq while Iran is unaddressed?"
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Ackerman was trying to make a debater's point -- since we're planning to draw down our forces, Iraq must not really be part of the war on terror. ... Iraq's role in the fight against global terrorism does not imply a particular fixed level of troops in that country, particularly given the competing demands on our forces."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzafdeh: "I have very strong doubts that by next summer, the situation will have improved to the point where the surge can come to an end and if they are, it will be because of the strain their continued deployment would place on the American military.
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The most fundamental question, I think, is whether the troop surge is producing results. If it is, then the Democrats' defeatism is misplaced and most likely politically motivated. If it isn't, then we've tried everything and should either get out or, more plausibly, give up on Iraqi democracy and install a relatively friendly tyrant. ... If we assume the statistics are reasonably close, it seems clear that the surge is succeeding, so far."

In conservative action items, Michelle Malkin and Instapundit both urge readers to sign the Victory Caucus pledge urging GOPers "to resist calls for a premature withdrawal from Iraq and to support America's troops under the new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, as they implement a bold new strategy designed to bring a successful completion to their mission."

RedState chose to focus on the MoveOn ad, urging readers to call Dems and get their comments on the ad.

IRAQ IV: Are You An Enabler Too?

Fire Dog Lake, Open Left, and Glenn Greenwald teamed up to create Stop the DC Establishment petition which reads:

By signing this petition, you are demanding that reporters acknowledge Petraeus's long record of errant judgment in Iraq. You are also demanding that politicians to heed the public will and vote against this occupation, by refusing to vote for any bill that funds the war that does not contain binding timelines for withdrawal that compel Bush to remove troops. Anything else enables the occupation of Iraq until at least the end of Bush's Presidency. Enough is enough. The noxious stew of DC 'experts', journalists, and political leaders of both parties that keep troops in Iraq needs to hear our anger.

The petition will be delivered to "the Democratic leadership in Congress." Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher pitches: "It's time for the media to cease treating his statements with open-mouthed credulity, and for politicians in both parties to stop being rolled by the elaborate PR campaign he is leading on behalf of the administration." Open Left's Matt Stoller adds: "While it's fun to think that Iraq is Bush's war, the reality is that the war is enabled by Democrats, Republicans, DC press, think tank experts, and a whole slew of lobbyists which together comprise a noxious DC establishment. They puff up figurines like Petraeus, they shovel billions into the sand and into the hands of dishonest military contractors, and they live in comfortable sinecures at places like Brookings."

DEM FIELD: Don't Disarm Their Biggest Issue

Open Left's Chris Bowers warns Dems that GOPers are more and more able to "thoroughly blur the differences between the two parties" on Iraq. Bowers notes that "among both members of Congress and Presidential candidates, the vast majority of Democratic plans to re-deploy out of Iraq leave substantial amounts of residual forces in the country" and that "according to a Diageo Hotline poll from July (PDF), only 37% of Americans believe Rudy Giuliani would continue the war in Iraq, while 37% believe he would end it within a year or less ... In every case, a majority of Americans are unaware that major Republican presidential candidates want to continue the war in Iraq at its current level. The blurring has already begun."

Bowers concludes: "The escalation will end next summer, simply because we will run out of troops to deploy to Iraq. However, it could still look like withdrawal has started, and that Republicans are in favor of it. ... We are not yet in a position where the differences between the two parties has been truly blurred on this issue, but it isn't hard to see how that could happen in the future unless we change our tactics now."

DODD: Gauntlet Thrower

Chris Dodd's leadership on Iraq is continuing to win netroots praise. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to Dodd challenging Barack Obama to reject Levin-Reed and comments: "Dodd throws down gauntlet to Obama ... We know that all the candidates want legislation with a deadline, but the question is whether Hillary or Barack would vote for a supplemental that does not include such deadlines. It's a damn good question."

EDWARDS: Business Finisher

MyDD's desmoinesdem explains why she likes to hear John Edwards focus on New Orleans: "I do not have a clue how much talking about NOLA, and poverty generally, helps the Edwards campaign. For every Iowan who tells me they appreciate Edwards' efforts to focus our attention on these issues, there is an Iowan who tells me Edwards is being foolish or naive, because most voters don't care about poor people. ... One thing I do know: when John Edwards has visited New Orleans, the national media have had no choice but to cover the story, and in doing so, they have reminded Americans that we have unfinished business there."

OBAMA: So Close...

Early indications are that Barack Obama's 9/12 Iraq speech will fall just short of meeting netroots standards. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to early previews of the speech and asks: "What about timetables? Nothing on that...

A Daily Kos Obama supporter who worries "Obama has lost almost all of his edge on the Iraq issue" spells out what she would like to see in Obama's new policy: "1) What does he say should be done NOW, not in 2009, to start bringing troops home. Just saying "they need to come home" is a platitude, not a plan; 2) What will his reaction be to the Petraeus and Crocker testimony? How will he challenge the sell-job conducted by the administration? 3) How will his policy proposals differ from his legislation? His legislation was about withdrawing troops under Bush, not necessarily what he would do himself. Also, we should look for specificity and commitments; 4) How will he use this to separate himself on a forward-looking basis from other candidates? Everyone knows he got it right from the beginning, but now he has to show his superior judgment all over again. Especially important is drawing a clear distinction between himself and Hillary. Will he do this? "

OBAMA II: Yes, Who Would Jesus Vote For?

The Brody File has threevideos up from Barack Obama's 9/8 faith forum in Cedar Rapids, IA. Brody reports: "You could say the point of these faith forums is to ultimately bring more people on board to vote for Barack Obama. While that is true, the people putting this on have an even larger goal and an even bigger heart. They really want to engage in a discussion of the issue in the first place and really delve into the deeper meaning of how someone's faith can play a role in shaping one's politics. In the video above, they pose the following question: 'Who would Jesus vote for?'"

GOP FIELD: Advantage Rudy

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin surveys GOP website for 9/11: "If you go to the Rudy website you will not see his usual political messaging and photos. There is a message "we will not forget" and a quote from his October 2001 speech at the UN ... Given Rudy's unique role in the 9-11 proceedings, it seems on balance a wise move. ... The other GOP contenders' websites today are telling. Romney's looks like it does every other day--a sunny and smiling photo rotating with banners for his ad contest. Too glib, too frivolous for the events yesterday and today? McCain's is dedicated to fighting Islamic terrorism with a timeline documenting his efforts to correct the failing war strategy. And Thompson's has an initial entry page with his photo and announcement video, but lacking any instantaneously clear message other than 'I'm here.'"

HUCKABEE: Would You Like Some Sunshine With your Pat Robertson?

AmSpec's James Antle tracks Ross Douthat's defense of Mike Huckabee's social conservatism and adds: "Frequently, the positions taken by the religious right poll better than the religious right itself. That's because prominent religious rightsters are often seen as intolerant, given to extreme or offensive public pronouncements, hostile or alien to mainstream culture, and enmeshed in a religious subculture that many Americans don't relate to. Huckabee, a gifted speaker with a generous personality who usually chooses his words carefully, doesn't play to type. It is possible the American people would accept a platform championed by a candidate like Huckabee even though they would reject if it were associated with, say, Pat Robertson."

PAUL: Truthers Of The World Unite!

The Corner's Stephen Spruiell posts video of "9/11 Truthers for Ron Paul Picket NR World Headquarters!" and adds: "It's not everyday that I show up for work and find protesters in front of the building, but that's what happened today."

ROMNEY: Surprisingly, We Can No Longer Access The Site

Mitt Romney took hits from Captain's Quarters, Race 4'08 and Soren Dayton for supporter Warren Tompkins 'phoneyfred.org' site. Dayton was the roughest on Romney: "This is another in a long list of thuggery and illegality of Romney associates and campaign staff. Including Romney's former Director of Operations Jay Garrity, Romney's former national finance co-chair, Romney's other indicted former national finance co-chair, etc. And then the Romney campaign threatens voters if they do things like ask questions."

THOMPSON: I Say, I Say, That's Just Not Nice

Fred Thompson took heat from conservatives for insisting Osama bin Laden receive 'due process' before he was killed. Ankle Biting PunditsBull Dog Pundit blogs: "Quite simply, this is pathetic." The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez comments: "I think Senator Thompson might change his answer for next time." AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin adds: "Yes, we want check and balances, we want some legal oversight and I agree that when pushed to its limits executive authority may be lost or circumscribed but do we have to Mirandize OBL? A jury of his peers? The mind reels."

Also, Andrew Sullivan has decided Thompson reminds him of Foghorn Loghorn.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Penny For Your Gedanken

An Andrew Sullivan reader writes: "The problem with the pro-life movement isn't merely that it is prohibitionist, but that its fundamental position cannot be formulated in any fashion that is coherent to someone, except that they first accept some bit of magic that turns a few cells into the moral equivalent of a person. ... The philosophical gedanken often used to exhibit the absurdity of this position is whether, caught in a burning fertility clinic, and able to save only one, you would choose to rescue a child? Or a tray holding thousands of viable embryos, ready for implantation into would-be mothers?"

LEST WE FORGET: Forget The Children, Women And Embryos First!

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru responds to the above Sullivan post with a reader email: "[W]ould it be too flippant or simplistic to simply refer to the old "women-and-children-first" maxim? Even though the maxim may be dated (and is now considered by some to be sexist, I'm sure), I think it is clear to most it that never implied that it is permissible to kill adult males."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:50 PM

September 10, 2007

9/10: We Should Know Soon...

We hear Barack Obama is billing his 9/12 IA stop as a major speech. If Obama comes out strongly against the surge, against the Iraq supplemental, and against any residual forces in Iraq, look for the netroots to quickly coalesce around him as the consensus 'Anybody But Hillary' candidate. For every little bit that he equivocates, however (unfirm withdrawal dates, unspecified troop levels left behind), he will fail to solidify the anti-HRC vote around him. If that happens, John Edwards and Bill Richardson stand the most to gain. Edwards recent speeches on a new approach to terror have been warmly received among lefty bloggers and Richardson's firm 'no residual forces' stance has long been has best (and recently only) selling point. If Congress ends up signing off on another Iraq supplemental, the netroots will be dying to unleash their frustration on somebody. The candidate who best channels this anger should have a decent shot of challenging HRC.

IRAQ: It's Deja Vu All Over Again

Netroots counter-Gen. David Petraeus messaging is cohering around three discernible talking points: 1) Petraeus is just a tool of a larger WH PR campaign; 2) recent polling shows the public already does not believe Petraeus and wants out of Iraq; 3) Petraeus call for troop level decisions to 'be put off for six months' is exactly what war supporters have ben saying since 11/30/03.

Two weekend items drove netroots talking points undercutting Petraeus credibility. First, came Washington Postrevelations that WH aide/ex RNC chair Ed Gillespie has helped set up "a rapid-response PR unit" to sell the surge. Talking Point Memo's Josh Marshall writes: "Now, it isn't exactly a big surprise that a Gillespie-run public-relations team in the White House would be fully integrated into Gen. Petraeus' team, but it does reinforce what observers have known for quite a while now: Petraeus is a part of the president's political operation. That's not necessarily a criticism. It is, however, a realization that Petraeus' testimony is not that of a neutral, dispassionate observer."

Also popular among Petraeus detractors, Fox News' Chris Wallace's 9/9 announcement that Petraeus would give an exclusive interview to Fox News 9/10. AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay comments: "Everything, well almost everything, you need to know about the report this week from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker is summed up in this one factoid: The duo will be doing spin for an hour on Fox News tomorrow night. ... Besides all the lies and cherry-picking that's already been exposed, nothing should diminish the cred of Petraeus and Crocker to the real world more than knowing they need a full hour on GOP-TV to tell their 'story.'"

On the polling front, Glenn Greenwald is one of manybloggersciting a Washington Post showing "a strong majority (53-39%) believes that Gen. Petreaus' report 'will try to make things look better than they really are' (rather than 'honestly reflect the situation in Iraq'). ... Moreover, huge majorities continue to believe that the war was not worth fighting (62-36%) and that the U.S. "is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq" (60-36%)."

Greenwald comments: "The P.R. campaign to persuade the country that the Surge is Succeeding has been as intense and potent as any P.R. campaign since the one that justified the invasion itself. While this campaign has worked wonders with our gullible media stars and Democratic Congressional leadership, it has failed completely with the American people.

Matthew Yglesias adds: "It's worth emphasizing in this regard how much the high regard in which Petraeus is held is a purely inside phenomenon. ... So while Democrats should certainly be respectful when he testifies, there's no reason to be super-deferential. If some other Bush administration appointee showed up and said some stuff that didn't seem to be true, Democrats would give him shit about it and the public would expect them to. This situation, at the end of the day, isn't really any different."

Also cited: The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links to a New York Times/CBS poll asking, "how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of troops in Iraq" and summarizes: "77% of the public wants us to leave Iraq within 24 months. Good job, public!"

Not citing any particular numbers '04 Bush strategist Matthew Dowd blogs at The Huffington Post: "The public does not see withdrawal from Iraq as a signal America doesn't support the troops. In fact, the public sees removing the troops from harm's way and having them in a place where the mission is supported, welcomed and understood as the most proper way to support our troops."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to Dowd and comment: "I've never fathomed why Democrats are so fearful of this? You support the troops by keeping them stuck in a hopeless war? No, you support them by bringing them home safe and sound to their families. It should be an easy enough concept to grasp, but then again, for a crowd obsessed with what David Broder says about them, it's apparently not so easy."

Finally, Petraeus' call for a six month delay in troop level decision making is also being mocked. The time frame fits perfectly into the widely popular netroots phraze 'Freidman Unit' which mocks New York Times columnist Tom Freidman's habit of asking for six more months before judgment on Iraq is made. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas blogs: "Six months. It's always six months."

IRAQ II: At Least Something Changed In The Last Eight Months

Conservatives are well aware of netroots attacks on Petraeus, which they see as coordinated with the MSM. Defenses of Petraeus include:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The Democrats' pre-emptive attack on General David Petraeus, and his yet-unseen report to Congress, is really pretty stunning. The New York Times and other liberal media outlets have led the way; The bottom line is that the Democrats have irrevocably committed themselves to defeat, and, since it is politically impossible (i.e., unrewarding) for them to change their minds, the facts on the ground in Iraq no longer matter."
• The Weekly Standard's Pete Hegseth on MoveOn.org's 'General Betray Us' New York Times ad: "Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.
• The Corner's Cliff May: "So they are implying that Petraeus has betrayed the country - that he is a traitor. And what is the nature of the betrayal? That he refuses to accept defeat at the hands of al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias in Iraq."
• Gateway Pundit: "General Petraeus was approved by the US Senate 81-0 less than 8 months ago! Who changed?... Petraeus or the Dems?"
• Right Wing News: "You can find these smear jobs all over the place on the left -- and they're more than a little ironic. After all, it was the Democrats in Congress who confirmed Petraeus and demanded that he come before them on 9/11 to testify. ... It's really shameful that the left is trying to do this to a decent, talented general, whose only crime is winning a war that the Democrats are heavily politically invested in losing."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "What do you call a community whose Senate members voted unanimously to confirm General David Petraeus as the commander of coalition forces in Iraq, stated that they looked forward to his September report concerning the effectiveness of the surge and then, right before the report was to be delivered, started sliming him by accusing him of lying for the White House? Why, you call that community "reality-based" of course."

Also popular on the right: The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez posts a Hill staffers observations on positive trends in public opinion on Iraq and Ace of Spades links to a anti-war strategy conference call transcript featuring Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Ace's Chad comments: "I really enjoyed the disappointment that was expressed in Pelosi. It warmed the cockles of my cold Republican heart."

DEM FIELD: Anti-Warrior Wanted

Netroots frustration with Dem WH '08 positioning on Iraq has reached a breaking point for some. Open Left's Chris Bowers rounded up candidate statements on Iraq and concluded: "These proposals for residual forces seem to be coming off a Democratic foreign policy assembly line. ... Until either Edwards or Obama starts emphasizing differences from Clinton on future Iraq plans, it seems reasonable to assume that those differences do not exist. That possibility should send shivers down the spine of every progressive activist in the country."

Later, Bowers links to Center for American Progress redeployment plan and concludes: "Notice how similar this plan looks to "no residual forces," and how it once again provide troops estimates to go along with specific, proposed missions for American troops? I know that some people think making troop estimates in Iraq is too hypothetical an exercise. However, it seems like every think thank is willing to do it, and only elected officials / campaigns are wary. ... Basically, at this point, I am done asking campaigns questions about their proposed residual forces in Iraq. If they will not do so on their own, then it is time to start applying numbers to their residual force plans for them."

Also at Open LeftMatt Stoller acknowledges strong netroots antipathy towards HRC, but dismisses the efforts of some progressives to get Edwards and Obama to unite under one ticket ("It just doesn't seem remotely realistic"). Instead Stoller urges "Edwama" supporters to try and push their candidates left on Iraq: "I wouldn't try to cut a deal with the other side, what I'd do is try to force my candidate to argue for no residual troops. Bringing either Obama or Edwards into the genuine antiwar camp is the most likely strategy to beat Clinton in the primary. ... Now is a good time to do this. It would be easy to use the Petraeus report or the supplemental in November to change one's mind."

DEM FIELD II: Dios Mio

The Huffington Post's Marc Cooper was not impressed the Univision's Spanish debate: "Almost everything about it was a dud, rendering the entire exercise little more than a gimmick. ... The huge live Miami audience, even more than usual in these sort of events, were reduced to mere props. Not even token questions were allowed from the floor. Worse, Univision allowed no other reporters, other than their own two star anchors Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas, any form of participation. ... While the questions were supposedly culled from those submitted earlier by Univision viewers, the chosen queries were uniformly non-confrontational and conveniently open-ended - the sort of questions pols dream of. The candidates might as well have been tele-transported to an underhand soft-ball batting cage for 90 minutes."

BIDEN: Pulling Pages From Wrong Playbook

Joe Biden scored some points by bashing Gen. David Petraeus on Meet the Press 9/9, but lost any gained good will when he admitted he would vote for the new Iraq supplemental. Crooks and Liars Logan murphy blogs: "When asked by host Tim Russert if he would vote to cut off funding for Iraq if President Bush refuses to accept a withdrawal date, Biden moves directly to the 'cutting off funding means you don't support the troops' mentality pulled straight from the pages of the RNC playbook. Instead of speaking the truth, that it means appropriating funds to begin a safe and smart withdrawal from the country, not abandoning out troops, Biden instead says he won't vote to cut off funding and chooses to chastise Democrats who support it.

EDWARDS: The Anti-Itch Candidate

John Edwards 9/7 'New Strategy Against Terrorism' speech received strong netroots reviews. Matthew Yglesias blogs: "His idea to build a new, global, multilateral organization focused on terrorism scratches the same itch that's led a lot of people to talk about a Concert of Democracies but it's a much better idea on the merits. ... Long story short, though, it's really good."

The Left Coaster's John Patric was also a fan: "This John Edwards speech on how to handle terrorism is so sensible and reasonable that the Republican Wide-Stance Neo-Con Macho Men might feel compelled to invade a Middle Eastern land just to distract attention. It's that good."

OBAMA: No Word On Obama Girl's Position On Iraq

Open Left's Brklyngrl hopes Barack Obama steps up his opposition to Pres. Bush's Iraq supplemental soon: "I'm baffled by Senator Obama's reticence in stating his views on the supplemental. Since he voted against the last supplemental, I assume he must not support this one either. So why not just say so? Or better yet, why not say so loudly and often so as to put some pressure on Republicans, Democratic leadership, and wavering Bush Dogs. Or by loudly supporting any of the options discussed here, including pushing for the Webb amendment and raising taxes to pay for any additional funding. ... So why not you, Senator Obama? His supporters, and anyone else who would like to see him take a stand, may want to call and tell him so."

At The Huffington Post, Brendan Spiegel defends takes aim at the New York Times 9/9 article on Obama's '00 challenge to Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL). Spiegel blogs: "The article plays into the Clinton-scripted characterization of Obama as idealistic, inexperienced and not ready for prime time. ... In fact, Obama's unsuccessful challenge in 2000 played a large part in establishing him as a presence in the Illinois political scene and paving the way for his historic 2004 Senate campaign. Without the name recognition, connections and fundraising ties he cultivated in the 2000 race, Obama would not have been positioned to break out of the crowded Senate primary when he ran in 2004."

RICHARDSON: Richardson In Name Only

Matthew Yglesias links Bill Richardson 9/8 op-ed 'Why We Should Exit Iraq Now' and admits: "I'm really not sure that, all things considered, I would want to see Bill Richardson be president of the United States. But as long as he's the only one publishing op-eds feature clear calls to actually end the war in Iraq I would, at a minimum, definitely tell a pollster that I'm voting for Richardson hoping to, if nothing else, try to prompt the other Democrats into shifting in favor of his position."

GOP FIELD: No Word On Cosmo The Wonderdog's Preferences

For those that are curious, The Corner's Jonah Goldberg has not yet picked a favorite candidate yet, but assigning numbers to each candidate based on "how much I agree with them, how much I would like to see them as president and my gut estimate of how likely it is they would win in the general" John McCain and Rudy Giuliani lead the pack at 55%.

GIULIANI: He's Innocent

Rudy Giuliani 9/7 admission to Glenn Beck that immigration, "is not a crime. I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime" drew little conservative response. Race4'08 and Townhall's Matt Lewis both asked "Didn't Rudy just lose the nomination?" but no one made a strong case against him. Defenses were more common. Race4'08s Kavon Nikrad blogs:

Did Rudy once say that illegal immigrants have done nothing wrong? Did he say that we should do nothing about the problem? Did he propose that we encourage more people to cross the border illegally. Absolutely not. ... if you are a person who is looking for a real solution to our nation's immigration crisis, then take a look at what Hizzoner has proposed to solve the problem: seal the borders (thereby ending illegal immigration), identify every single person in this country illegally, deport the criminals (drug dealers, gang-bangers, and security risks), make those who remain learn English and assimilate, and then begin the debate as to what should be done with the remaining people.

MCCAIN: Surging On The Surge

Early posts indicate John McCain's decision to run on the surge will be a hit among conservatives. Power Line's John Hinderaker blogs: "Front and center at the moment is national security, which is McCain's strongest suit. This week, McCain will embark on a No Surrender Tour of a number of states. "No surrender" sums up pretty well our view of the conflict between civilization and Islamic radicalism. ... We haven't endorsed a candidate, and may never do so; or maybe we will ultimately disagree. At the moment, though, McCain is mounting a comeback. And I would say, don't make your choice without taking a good look at a candidate who has proved his mettle under conditions a heck of a lot tougher than the halls of the United States Senate."

THOMPSON: Ryan Leaf Or Peyton Manning?

Conservative skepticism of Fred Thompson continued through out the weekend as bloggers made unfavorable historical comparisons to the newcomer. Outside the Beltway's James Joyner picked up on Obsidian Wing comparisons between Thompson and '04 Dem candidate Gen. Wesley Clark: "Perhaps the second hardest career progression is that of a quarterback moving from college to the NFL. ... Thompson (and Clark before him), though, are like the rookie who missed training camp because of injury or a contract holdout. I can't think of a single case where one of those guys did well his first season."

At AmSpec Blog, Jennifer Rubin puts recent Thompson rhetoric nest to a mystery speaker and asks: "Who is it? Jimmy Carter from his malaise speech. The difference between just diagnosing problems and leading a country forward is the difference between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan."

Also doubting Thompson, The Brody File links to AP reports on whether "prominent Evangelical leaders" will back Thompson and responds: "I can tell you that in my dealings with these leaders the article is correct. These leaders would probably like to endorse Thompson but by no means is this a done deal. His marriage amendment stance will be an issue." On marriage, Brody also points out Thompson doesn't have his facts straight yet.

Finally, NY Sun's Ryan Sager advises to skip 'sleepy' early events and confine himself to 'peppy' evening events.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We're Definitely Cleaner, At Least

Mike Treder links to BBC reports that human skull size has increased 20% in the last 650 years and asks: "So, does it seem plausible to you that humans today might be, say, 20% smarter than our medieval ancestors? Could that, if it's true, be a contributing factor to the explosion in scientific discovery, technological progress, and improved living conditions over the last half millennium?"

LEST WE FORGET: We Hear Britney Might be Available For That Jenna Jameson Role

Cracked identifies some of "The Easiest Acting Roles Ever" including:

• R. Lee Ermey as Sgt. Hartman in Full Metal Jacket: You remember Lewis Gosset Jr.'s badass drill sergeant from An Officer and a Gentleman? Well R. Lee Ermey was the guy who coached Gossett Jr. on the role. Stanley Kubrick then hired Ermey, a retired drill instructor himself, to do the same thing with Full Metal Jacket. ... R. Lee Ermey is Sgt. Hartman, always will be, and God help the man who disagrees. Or not, because God's afraid of him, too.
• John Belushi as Robert "Bluto" Blutarsky in National Lampoon's Animal House: There's a reason every fraternity in America has that poster of Belushi in his "College" sweatshirt, chugging a bottle of Jack Daniels. He was the patron saint of college partiers. Unfortunately, Belushi's own real-life tragic end served as a reminder to a generation of frat guys: that shit you were doing at 22 isn't so funny at age 33.
• Courtney Love as Althea Leasure Flynt in The People vs. Larry Flynt: So why was Love tapped to play Althea, the wife of human porn factory Larry Flynt? Well, Althea grew up an orphan, then became a stripper, then picked up a crippling drug habit, then got married to a prominent figure in the industry ... see a pattern here?

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:51 PM

September 07, 2007

9/7: Leaders Wanted

We don't want to sound like a broken record here, but Barack Obama is foregoing perhaps his last opportunity to unite the netroots against Hillary Clinton by failing to lead Dems against Pres. Bush's latest Iraq supplemental. Why is this uniquely Obama's opportunity? 1) The netroots are not going to embrace HRC until the only people in the race are her and the GOP nom; 2) he's the only WH '08er in the Senate with the track record and star power to lead the fight (sorry Chris Dodd); 3) John Edwards is not in the Senate. So far, it appears as though Obama firmly believes he does not need netroots support to beat HRC (and if we had to choose, we'd probably pick Oprah over Markos too), but as both state and nat'l polls continue to flatline (or worse) for Obama, maybe he ought to consider reaching out to new constituencies that are desperate for strong leadership.

DEM FIELD: Feel Free To Lead Anytime Now ...

Netroots frustration on impending Dem capitulation on Iraq is beginning to concentrate on frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas blogs: "Yo Obama and Clinton -- 'leadership' isn't waiting until the last minute to cast a vote against this pre-emptive capitulation. Leadership means taking a firm stand NOW, and then fighting for it in the media, on the campaign stump, and in Congress. You weaseled out of showing such leadership on the last supplemental. Please don't be weasels again. Dodd shouldn't be the only candidate currently in the Senate demonstrating leadership."

At The Huffington Post, Miles Mogulescu makes a similar plea: "In non-election years, political parties often lack a national spokesman who can garner the same kind of media attention as the President. But even without a nominee, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have that ability, particularly since as members of the Senate, they can actually do something besides make speeches ... This is a test of Presidential leadership. If Hillary and/or Obama fail it, they have no right to be the Democratic nominee for President."

MyDD features a popular diary with the same message: "Where are Hillary and Obama when it comes to leading on the issue of Iraq? I have seen Senator Dodd's statement and [John Edwards] statement, but where are the speeches in Congress of Hillary and Obama? I am sure I must have missed their big speech on the house floor today. Oh yeah, I forgot they don't lead in Congress. They wait for someone else to lead first. ... Obama says he wants to be the change candidate. I don't see no changes taking place in congress as of today. Maybe Obama wants to be the change candidate when it is politically expedient to have change. So folks there you have our great leaders who are afraid to lead.

DODD: Okay, It's Not The IAFF, But It Is Another Step In The Right Direction

Chris Dodd's leadership against Pres. Bush on Iraq and civil liberties is netting him more and more netroots support. Blue Hampshire's Dean Barker joins Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat as official Dodd endorsers. Barker explains: "The third major reason I am convinced I have made the right choice to go with Dodd is that on many issues, but most emphatically the war in Iraq, he has been leading right now. As early as last December, when I saw him at State Senator Peter Burling's house, he was opposing the surge in the most strident terms. And Senator Dodd neither flinched nor waited to see which way the wind would blow to speak out strongly against voting for more funding for this nightmare of a war."

Firedoglake's Siun is not making any endorsements, but she does have praise for Dodd's "Write Your Senator" web tool calling for no funding without a redeployment deadline. Siun approvingly quotes Dodd: "It is clear that half measures are not going to stop this President or end this war. I cannot and will not support any measure that does not have a firm and enforceable deadline to complete the redeployment of combat troops from Iraq. Only then will Congress be able to send a clear message to the President that we are changing course in Iraq, and a message to the Iraqis that they need to get their political house in order."

OBAMA: Maybe They Should Address Their Letters To Oprah

Since few in the netroots ever had Hillary Clinton as their preferred candidate, Barack Obama's failure to lead on Iraq is engendering the most disappointment. The most commented-on diary at Daily Kos 9/6 was titled "Take the damn ball, Senator Obama" and featured an open letter to Obama, including:

Senator Obama, in your short time in the public eye you have shown great wisdom, judgment, and vision. Your greatest strength is the ability to fuse pragmatism with idealism. ... You alone of any major candidate running in either party had the prescience and honesty to oppose invading Iraq. You understood the disaster that would unfold. This gives you credibility--as well as intellectual and moral authority-- that no one else on the national stage possesses. ... Senator, you're either moving forward or you're moving backwards. Relative to other candidates, you're moving backwards on Iraq. How on earth is it even remotely possible that Hillary Clinton, a clinical study in opportunism when it comes to Iraq, is perceived amongst primary voters as essentially indistinguishable from you? ... Do the right thing and the smart thing. For your nation, your party, and yourself. Step forward, demand the damn ball, and be prepared to accept the consequences one way or another.

Daily Kos reaction to the letter includes:

• I like your optimism. But I can't keep my pessimism at bay. Somehow, Senator Obama raises my expectations every time I hear him speak, and then severely disappoints me with his lack of action.
• You perfectly described the primary reason why I haven't jumped on the Obama bandwagon. Obama's approach is built on a faulty assumption about how honorable the opposition is. Far too much of the Republican party has been taken over by the toxic arrogance of DeLay, Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al. for conciliation to be a viable strategy. It's just asking to be tricked and slapped down repeatedly.
• Until Obama starts leading the charge on Iraq funding bills and Constitutional issues like FISA, I can't find it in me to support him.

A similar open letter is available at MyDD:

It is my belief that the first candidate to stand in front of several hundred thousand people in DC and protest this war will be the nominee. This is a time for guts not speeches on the Senate floor or votes. This is a time for you to stand with the anti-war movement.

OBAMA II: Oprah ... Obama ... Obama ... Oprah

Jack and Jill PoliticsJill Tubman calls Oprah Winfrey "some kind of moral authority for the nation" and comments on Winfrey's Barack Obama endorsement:

It's true that I personally held Oprah partly responsible for the mess we are in today. For allowing George Bush to kiss her on national television during his first go at the White House and offering a "neutral" position so as not to offend any of her Red State viewers. I bet even she has to wonder what the world might look like had she spoke her mind. 8 years later, she's deciding to play a different, high stakes game. Will the campaign-seasoned Clintons triumph or will they go the way of the beef industry?

Arianna Huffington posts ABC Good Morning America and NBC Today Show video featuring Arianna Huffington on how big a deal the Winfrey endorsement is.

GIULIANI: Well, Those Tablets Are Pretty Heavy

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein went back and checked the transcript just to make sure, "that in last night's debate Giuliani made no mention of his 12 Commitments. This strikes me as odd. He spent the summer rolling out details on his commitments and has gotten positive reviews. This seems like something he would want to discuss at every opportunity ... Also, he was criticized for speaking too much about his accomplishments in NYC last night, but had he also mentioned the the 12 Commitments it would have emphasized the fact that he is not stuck in the past, but forward looking."

HUCKABEE: Smoke On The Busboy

NRO's Jim Geraghty was both "reassured and unnerved" by a Mike Huckabee blogger conference call explanation of his position on smoking. Huckabee told bloggers: "Certainly, I don't believe that we as a government have a right to tell people what to do or not do. The issue is one of workplace safety. ... In Arkansas I signed a bill that banned smoking in certain public areas and businesses, but not in bars/restaurants, because those were places consumers could more easily choose to go to or not to go."

Geraghty responds: "I sympathize, I don't like cigarette smoke in my workplace, but I don't think it's an issue for Congress and the President to resolve. Secondly, if he really thinks it is an issue of workplace safety, why would Huckabee subject waiters and waitresses, busboys, bartenders, and hosts to cigarette smoke?"

ROMNEY: Would 'Prudent Humility' Fit On A Bumper Sticker?

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru found conservative reaction to Mitt Romney's 9/5 debate Iraq war skepticism "a little dismaying." Ponnuru blogs: "Do conservatives really want to tie themselves to the position that the surge is not only working, but that there can be no doubt on the score and that anyone who acknowledges the existence of doubt is a heretic? As for Romney's looking forward to a possible troop drawdown-something Bush has also done!-what's our bottom line there? Do we want troops there forever? Is that what conservatives should want Republicans to campaign on next year?"

The Corner's Andy McCarthy responds to the idea of supporting a troop draw down for the purpose of helping a GOP WH '08er: "[I]t would be a false victory and a terrible national security strategy. It would premise success on a continued misapprehension of the nature and extent of what we are up against, and it would signal that we will lose the war, which, as Sen. McCain says, is a lot more important than losing the election."

K-Lo adds her two cents on Romney and Iraq: "We all know I'm partial to him, but I think there's a certain prudent humility to his approach, even if it sounds awkward at the moment ("wait for Monday," essentially...)."

ROMNEY II: Where The Men Aren't

It took a day, but Mitt Romney's "we have to have concern for both lives" answer on abortion is proving to be a bit of a winner. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez writes: "That strikes me as a really healthy and helpful way to be addressing the issue. ... I don't know who's going to win this nomination, but I know I'd like Republican nominee who opposes legal abortion and who understands why - that we must protect the sanctity and dignity of human life. And that there are real people - both who were not allowed to be born, and who are walking among us - who have been harmed the 'choice' the liberal feminists and their fellow-travelers have put so much of their energy into."

The Corner's Kate O'Beirne echoes K-Lo's sentiments but wants to see more from Romney: "Agree that Romney gave an effective response to the question about women and abortion, but have long thought that pro-life politicians pay too little attention to men and abortion. Mitt Romney is perfectly suited for calling necessary attention to the irresponsible men who bear responsibility for so many abortions. When the decision to have an abortion is made, the woman is too alone too often. Male irresponsibility plays a large role in our abortion rate and Mitt should say so."

Even Andrew Sullivan took a break from his Romney hating: "If the pro-life movement were less prohibitionist and more aspirational it would win more converts."

THOMPSON: Ronald Reagan Is Not Walking Through That Door

Fred Thompson's Des Moines, IA, campaign kick off event received mixed reviews. NY Sun's Ryan Sager called it a "a whimper of a start" and reports other media types called the showing 'pathetic' 'small' and 'low energy.' RCP Blog's Tom Bevan notes the campaign claimed 450 people showed up, but he guessed the number was "more in the 250 range, and a decent percentage of folks in the room (perhaps 20-25%) were members of the media."

Cyclone Conservative seemed to buy into the Team Thompson numbers: "This was an extraordinarily well planned event and very professional in nature. There were also, I would estimate, somewhere between 350 and 400 people in attendance, which definitely brought a smile to the Senator's face and no doubt some added optimism to the blossoming campaign of the former Law and Order star."

The Brody File noted early reviews of Thompson "didn't seem too kind" but moved to defend the candidate: "The reviews on Thompson didn't seem too kind to him on his opening day but let's remember a few things. First of all, Thompson is being saddled with this idea that he's the next Ronald Reagan. The problem here is that there was only one Ronald Reagan and his public speaking skills were impeccable. Thompson isn't quite there yet. It's an unfair comparison. ... I think it's fair to say that Thompson needs to probably bring some more pop and energy when he delivers his speeches on the stump. But you can't change the guy. He is who he is. What works for him is this plain spoken, southern style. That has its own charm."

THOMPSON II: On Fred & Astronauts

AmSpec bloggers took note of the high ratings for the 9/6 GOP debate and made the case Fred Thompson may have reached less primary voters with his Tonight Show appearance than the Fox broadcast did. AmSpec's John Tabin blogs: "The Tonight Show scored a 4.7 Nielsen rating on Wednesday night, which if I'm doing my math right translates to about 5.3 million households. ... presumably there's an overlap between the Fox News audience and the people who tuned into Leno just to see Fred; Brit Hume mentioned the Thompson appearance, after all. It's quite possible, even likely, that Thompson reached fewer Republican primary voters than the debate did, but of course there's no way to know for sure."

AmSpec's Jennifer Rubin adds: "If Leno's audience is a cross section of America then about half the viewers are registered to vote. Phil is likely right-- the NH debate probably had more registered voters(who else would suffer through one of these?) watching than did Leno."

Also speculating on the Thompson announcement, NRO's David Freddoso suggests Thompson timed his announcement so that he could "avoid filing financial disclosure forms for the third quarter of the year, which all the other candidates will have to fill out. In that case, no one will get a look at the campaign's finances until January." The campaign responded through The Corner's Steve Spruiell: "When asked specifically why the campaign picked Sept. 6th, [Todd] Harris repeated that the timing of the announcement was dictated by a carefully planned unfolding of events, and that any correlation with FEC deadlines was coincidental."

That caused Freddoso to retort: "'Carefully Planned' for Sept. 6 ... I love that phrase. I wouldn't blame the guy for doing it, though - it's genius!"

Back at AmSpec, Jennifer Rubin shares an email from recently forced out Thompson staffer Jim Mills: "As far as I can tell -- the only people who haven't worked in the Fred Thompson press shop this summer are Larry Craig and that woman astronaut who wore those diapers cross country." AmSpec's Quin Hillyer responds: "I do think that forcing Mills out was sort of the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of indicating that the Thompson team wasn't merely in flux as it organized, but seems in permanent flux, right up to and probably at least a little bit past the announcement itself."

IRAQ: No Bush Dog Left Behind?

The netroots are urging their readers to vote in a MoveOn poll asking MoveOn members if they should "support primary challengers against some Democrats who side with the president on Iraq?" From MoveOn's email survey:

Back in January, many of us were excited about the new Democratic Congress and all the progress we could make. And together, we have made real progress on minimum wage, children's health care and even renewable energy. But in some critical issue areas the Democrats have failed us - usually because too many of them were afraid to fight. Just last month, Congress capitulated to President Bush and politics of fear over wiretapping. And we've all been disappointed and frustrated by the way Iraq policy has been handled. We have to work together to make sure that Democrats are held accountable to their voters. But the question is, should we use primary challenges as a way to hold them accountable?

Matt Stoller links to the MoveOn poll and a MyDD diarist makes a direct connection between Open Left's Bush Dog campaign and MoveOn's primary challenge poll: "The Bush Dogs must be brought to heel, and taught to sit on command. They are wild dogs now, but not for long. The only way to teach these bad dogs to behave and act like Democratic Hounds lies in the primary challenge. MoveOn is running a campaign to do this."

Also at Open Left, Chris Bowers seconds Archpundit's identification of Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL-03) as a promising first target: "Lipinski is entirely out of step with his district. Let's find someone who is a better fit."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Meet The New Boss

Wonkette's 'Ask a Lobbyist' answers the following reader query: "Are the new lobbying laws the legislative hand job they appear to be or is there actually going to be the fundamental change in the way lobbyists operate?"

Well, let me turn this around on you. Do you think that lobbyists will operate significantly differently because they have to file quarterly instead of semiannually? Do you think that Members and staff will treat lobbyist significantly differently now that we can't treat them to meals at Union Pub or T Coast or even some nice place? Do you think forcing all receptions to be plate-less will really affect a Member's vote one way or the other? ... In my opinion, the legislation is designed to make Members' constituents feel they've done something; to make lobbyists' lives more of a pain; and to affect mostly the little crap that some staffers felt made the really low salaries more tolerable. But, maybe it is really groundbreaking ethics reform. You tell me.

LEST WE FORGET: Finally, A WH Campaign Jonah Goldberg Can Get Behind

The Huffington Post's Marty Beckerman admits facebook groups advocating Captain Jean-Luc Picard for President "are farcical in nature" but then goes on to make the case Picard would at least be better than Pres. Bush:

Bush invaded Iraq as soon as the reactionary political atmosphere proved conducive; he did not take the time to plan strategies for occupation or exit. However, Picard has a far more cautious approach to foreign policy and greater skepticism of nation-building. "History has proved again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well-intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous," Picard says in the TNG episode "Symbiosis." Picard criticized "cowboy diplomacy" by name in "Unification," supposedly the first modern usage of this disparaging phrase. Instead of losing his temper and acting brashly, Picard follows the United Federation of Planets' Prime Directive of nonintervention unless a hostile situation has no possible peaceful outcome, in which case he would respond swiftly and ruthlessly, emulating Colin Powell far more than any neoconservative. According to Lieutenant Commander Data, a human-like android, Picard has an 83 percent likelihood of action when faced with such emergencies. He might not qualify as a battle-hungry Klingon but he certainly isn't a Kucinich voter either.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:47 PM

September 06, 2007

9/6: Law & Disorder

Without his Law & Order fame, Fred Thompson probably would not even be in the race, but it is also possible that the contrast between the scripted, made up, well lighted Arthur Branch, and the live, admittedly wrinkly Thompson could cost him the race before he even gets going. More than a few conservatives voiced concern over Thompson's appearance last night, and there is a strong possibility that voters will also be underwhelmed by the non-Arthur Branch version of Thompson. Perhaps more importantly, a 'bad-manager' meme seems to be taking hold among likely Thompson converts. AmSpec Blog's Quinn Hilyer's sentiments are perfectly representative: "I like him. He has tremendous potential. ... But he still has yet to prove that he can actually run an organization. ... his staff turnover has gone beyond initial growing pains into a serious indicator of something not-quite-right -- at the very least, of a callousness about the lives of individuals who would otherwise serve him."

THOMPSON: Power Shortage

Conservative reaction to Fred Thompson's Jay Leno announcement were mixed at best. Before Thompson even taped the segment there were complaints about the forum. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez linked to Rush Limbaugh's disapproval ("there's a more dignified way of doing this") and comments: "If you're a Republican who wants to be president, you really don't want Rush down on you (John McCain feels that pain).... and before you even get in at that." Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham took issue with the Thompson explanation that more 'regular people' would be watching Leno than the GOP debate: "That's true. They don't, at least not this early in the process. But you know who does? Regularly voting, passionate, involved conservatives and Republicans in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina."

Reactions to Thompson's actual performance include:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "[T]he appearance on Leno [was] rather underwhelming. I thought he was perfectly likeable, but not necessarily presidential. He didn't do anything to live up to the enormous expectations by emitting the star power, charisma, or communication skills that have been the basis for much of the enthusiasm about his candidacy."
• The Corner's Cliff May: "Jay Leno's questions were not stupid but they also were not "sophisticated." They were the kinds of questions likely to be asked by the tens of millions of people who watch entertainment rather than news. The people who skip the editorials and go for the sports and style sections And those voters are, almost by definition, swing voters."
• Ace of Spades: "He looks kind of frail and is definitely not bringing the rock star quality I had hoped for. Too think, and the thinness ages him. If he lost weight to run for president, he might want to think about adding back a few gravitas pounds."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "The Upsides: Thompson is a likeable figure ... but he looked a lot lighter than I'm used to seeing. I know he's no spring chicken, but he looked old."
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "Perhaps Thompson had not counted on the classlessness and sheer stupidity of the show on which he was appearing but that would fall into the category of bringing things on oneself. Did he really compare favorably to his competitors tonight? ... Criticizing the format from the Leno couch seemed particularly galling."

Thompson's web video announcement opened to warmer reviews but Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham worries about Thompson's word choice: "Fred 'intends to run for president.' Is that like how [Larry] Craig 'intends' to resign?" Ha."

Also, Captain's Quarters and Right Wing News are soliciting their readers to participate in Thompson's promise to answer blogger questions daily via video.

NH DEBATE: Iraq, Immigration, And Taxes

John McCain was the consensus winner of the 9/5 NH debate, but many conservatives didn't see anything that would change anybody's mind. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez blogs: "McCain won. Rudy was good. Romney wasn't bad. Fred wasn't there. Nothing changed." Townhall's Matt Lewis ("But the bottom line is that tonight's debate lacked truly great moments") and Captain's Quarters ("The New Hampshire debate has finally ended, and once again, nothing will really resonate past the next couple of days") both seemed to agree.

It did not seem as though anyone missed Thompson. The Corner's Seth Leibsohn blogs: "Has anyone over the past hour and a half said, 'I really wish Fred were up there, I'd like to hear his answer.' That's Fred Thompson's challenge in the next three weeks: the necessity for his campaign, which arguably was much greater four and five months ago before these candidates got their campaign and debating sea legs."

Riehl World View tracked the Fox News 'People Meter' and notes: "Putting the candidates aside for a moment, what I saw was that when the message was win in Iraq, it didn't matter which candidate was saying it - the numbers for both conservatives and moderates went through the roof. And the stronger the talk, the higher the mean number. The only other issues that came close were immigration and taxes - the more talk there was of lower taxes, the higher the meter went. And moderates, as well as conservatives, wanted straight, tough talk on illegal immigration, as well."

Besides the big three, Duncan Hunter inspired the most postings. Specific candidate reviews include:

DEBATE GIULIANI: If You Get Caught Between GOPers And New York City...

• Right Wing News: "He really choked on the immigration questions ... He also spent an inordinate amount of time talking about his success as Mayor of New York which is understandable given his background, but it seemed a little Mickey Mouse given that he's running for President."
• The Corner's John Podhoretz: "Rudy just had his best debate moment ... going head-on at his greatest potential weakness, his messy family situation, and essentially asking voters to note that he did his job well regardless of personal difficulties. It's the only answer he can give, really, and it was very nearly perfect. ... Whether it will work we won't know until this is all decided."
• The Corner's David Freddoso: "[I]sn't he the one who made his private life into a public matter? I don't know anyone else who has ever called a press conference to separate from his wife and introduce his mistress...
• The Corner's Mark Hemingway: "I'm pretty sure I saw a tumbleweed blow across the stage during Giuliani's response to the question about his family values."
• Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "Rudy needs to stop constantly bringing everything back to what he did in New York City. Yes, it was impressive, but he sounded like Johnny One-Note."
• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "NYC Overkill. Rudy is suffering from it tonight."

DEBATE HUNTER: He's Good Enough, He's Smart Enough, And Doggone Kate O'Beirne Likes Him

• The Corner's Kate O'Beirne: "I would like to see the debate field depopulated except for Duncan Hunter. His chances aren't any better than the other also-rans but he's not as irritating. He's smart and sober. My bias? I like him."
• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Duncan Hunter shined in the second tier. Really smart guy with really in-depth answers, especially on Iraq and Iran."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Duncan Hunter nearly avoids being in the final category, but come on, Congressman. You're not going anywhere. This ain't the preseason anymore. Everybody watching respects you, but if you were gonna catch fire, it would have happened by now."

DEBATE MCCAIN: Never Give Up! Never Surrender!

• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "I think McCain won ... His answers on Iraq and Iran were passionate and deeply informed. It also helped create the impression that he had the upper-hand tonight that Giuliani and Huckabee gave him props three times. Combine all this with the fact that he was relaxed, feisty, and fluid, and it was a strong night for him."
• The Corner's Seth Leibsohn: "McCain's night so far....a lot were saying McCain was toast for the last few weeks, if so, I don't think he's burnt toast. He's looked more fresh and sounded more clear than any debate this year and he's finally relaxed."
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain helped himself tremendously -reminding us why it is better to have an experienced, sober adult at the helm of American foreign policy.
• The Brody File: "McCain looked like a very strong commander in chief. He had a game plan going in to let people know he's the man to lead in Iraq and beyond and if the military surge keeps working and political reconciliation begins to take hold, he may be in a position for a comeback."
• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "It's worth noting, too, that he's about to go into weeks this month where we will be seeing his best face - no surrender - and often. That will make it a little easier for people to forget what his numbers have looked like and how much money he doesn't have in the bank."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "At the height of the McCain-is-on-the-verge-of-dropping-out talk, I argued that once the intensity of the anger over the immigration bill died down, and the conversation shifted to Iraq, McCain would have an opening to recover, especially because he was facing lower expectations. I think we saw that tonight."
• The Corner's David Freddoso: "McCain is doing well, but he still has the same problems on immigration and taxes, and he's been called out on both."

DEBATE ROMNEY: Ron Paul Lite?

• The Corner's David Freddoso: "Romney is glad the surge is working, but he wants it to give us an opportunity for a drawdown soon. He might be the one guy, aside from Ron Paul, who understands that the GOP nominee has to promise to get us out of Iraq if he is to have a prayer of winning."
• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "McCain scores against Romney: hones in on a weak spot in his rhetoric and drives it home. All of Romney's body language says he's uncomfortable with the war. Probably his worst moment in any of the debates."
• AmSpec's Jennifer Rubin: "Romney needs to react in a human way to voters -- the military father was mad and asked for an apology and Romney seemed indifferent."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Romney: It wasn't just me - his answers on Iraq just seemed a little off, not his strongest performance."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Romney seemed defensive and, at times, evasive. His answers on Iraq were rambling. When the deputy sheriff in the restaurant called him out for not articulating an "end game" strategy, Romney was unable, I thought, to take advantage of the opportunity."

HUCKABEE: Better Than They Used To Be

The Brody File posts his The 700 Club package on Mike Huckabee and asks readers: "Let me know what you think about Huckabee and his chances."

DEM FIELD: Rude Awakenings Ahead

Open Left's Chris Bowers divides the Dem Field's positions on Iraq into three categories:

• No residual forces outside of embassy protection: Richardson, Kucinich. This would require 5,000 to 10,000 troops, though possibly less, depending on the size of the embassy each would decide to maintain in Iraq.
• Residual forces for embassy and personnel protection: Edwards. This would require between 5,000 and 10,000 troops for the embassy, and probably a similar number outside of the embassy. So, 10,000 to 20,000 seems likely.
• Residual forces for counter-terrorism, Iraqi troop training, personnel protection and embassy protection: Clinton, Dodd and Obama, plus Biden conditionally. This will require roughly 40,000 troops, plus the number of advisors for the Iraqi military, plus an indeterminate amount of mercenaries private contractors. The Biden plan might require as few as 20,000, depending on the circumstances.

Bowers concludes: "I have to admit, given the criteria I laid out for presidential candidates last week, this causes me to swing away from leaning Obama toward leaning Edwards. However, I am still not ready to make an endorsement."

Later Bowers uses Diageo / Hotline produced a poll to show "Democrats Grossly Misinformed On Candidate Plans For Iraq." After crunching the numbers Bowers concludes:

Overwhelming majorities of Democrats, 76% and 71% for Clinton and Obama respectively, think that Clinton and Obama will engage in much more thorough withdrawal from Iraq than their plans actually indicate. Why do Democrats think that Clinton and Obama will withdraw all troops in nine months, when they have both clearly stated that they are actually in favor of option #2? Probably because Clinton and Obama keep saying that they will end the war, but rarely mention that they want to keep some forces in Iraq to, as Obama says on this website ... Unless something changes in the next few months, voters will be in for a rude awakening when they find out that virtually every candidate for President with a real chance of becoming the nominee of either major party, save possibly Edwards and definitely save Richardson, are way more hawkish on Iraq than they are believed to be.

OBAMA: Learning Curves In All The Right Places

Media MattersEric Alterman looks at the foreign policy teams surrounding Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and concludes:

I think it's fair to say that here Clinton really would be Clinton II and if you liked that, you'll like this. It's the Democratic Establishment, for better and for worse. Obama's faces are fresher and more open to questioning the verities of the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations. ... Obama's refusal to endorse the war, his early embrace of Samantha Power during his first year in the Senate and his association with Sarah Sewall and Larry Korb, mentioned above, speak extremely well both of his self-confidence and his willingness to look at problems anew. An Obama presidency may have a steeper learning curve than a Clinton presidency in foreign policy, but it may learn more worthwhile things.

Meanwhile, TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta seconds doubts that Obama is shoe in for Al Gore's endorsement: "Yes, there are commonalties between the two, but taking all the chatter I've heard over the past year into account, I would have to say that there are doubts in Gore circles -- which may or may not have any impact on the former vice president's eventual decision -- about Obama's electability, as well."

IRAQ: The Man (Who Will Be Back Later) With A Plan

John Kerry has posts up at Daily Kos and The Huffington Post exclaiming "The Escalation Didn't Work." Kerry blogs:

The entire Iraq policy of George W. Bush has failed since the fall of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad. ... I chaired a hearing on the GAO Report yesterday, the report that stated that Iraqi civilians overall aren't any safer, that the political benchmarks aren't being met in Iraq, that, in short, none of the rationales for the escalation in Iraq have come to pass. ... But the main question is: what can we do about it? ... I'll be back with some specific actions from time to time because concerted action by many people toward a single goal gets the best results. But do as much as you can all the time. Drop by your representatives' office and let them know your feelings. Write, call, fax, email, get in contact any way you can.

Atrios has a slightly different but simpler plan: "I don't know what it'll take to make Democrats understand that they can oppose this hated president and this hated war and get away with it. They can keep sending him the same funding bill over and over until he signs it, going on the teevee every night fretting that the preznit wants to leave our troops in Iraq without food and bullets."

Open Left's Chris Bowers notes that private contractors outnumber US troops in Iraq and suggests: "One possibility I have been considering today would be to craft two distinct supplemental funding bills. The first bill would appropriate some of the money directly to the armed services. The second bill would appropriates the rest of the requested funding to private contractors and the reconstruction effort only on the condition of a binding timeline for the withdrawal of 90% or more of all private contractors from Iraq. ... the 78 members who are, quite frankly, too scared to keep sending conditional appropriation bills back to Bush would no longer have to worry about 'denying funding to troops in the field.'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Do It Yourself, Or Don't Bother

Election Geek explains why he is no fan of most candidate blogs:

Did you read the blog post on the candidate Web site where the blogger gushed over the candidate and outlined the talking points of the campaign? So did I, over and over and over again. I have to be honest, I follow a lot of blogs but I almost never read the blog sections of the candidate's sites. I cannot imagine most of you do either.

The problem with these blogs isn't entirely the fault of the bloggers but the premise, which is you take a bunch of people and have them write positively about a campaign. There is no excitement there, no room to grow, no running dialogue ... Blogging to me is an intensely personal thing. It is a writer using a medium to connect with people, to share thoughts, facts, opinions, and in some ways a stream of consciousness which points to music, art, literature, moving pictures and sounds that the author comes in contact with in their daily lives. Bloggers are reporters and are also personalities we connect with, grow with, get to know. Blogs are an awesome tool for a candidate to reach out to people but from what I have seen few if any are really utilizing them.

LEST WE FORGET: Colts! Saints! 8:30 PM Tonight!

Deadspsin has had already had their fill of NBC contributor Tiki Barber:

Barber's so good on air that you can almost forget that everything he says pretty much marks him an a**hole.
Listen, we're no big fans of Tom Coughlin, but Barber's continued thrashing of the Giants coach -- even going so far as to say he'd still be playing football if it weren't for Coughlin -- is self-aggrandizement in its worst form. Neverminding that Barber, pre-Coughlin, was a fumbling machine; mostly, we just are amused by the fiction that poor little Tiki had his love for the game taken away by the screaming man with the headset. Barber knows what he's doing; these little New York media feuds are exactly what keeps people like Barber with their names headlining everything. It's a crock.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:52 PM

September 05, 2007

9/5: They're Just Not That Into Edwama

If you thought conservatives were unhappy with "Rudy McRomney", you might want to pay attention to growing netroots frustration with "Edwama". Some, like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting co-founder Jeff Cohen, urge the community to unite behind either John Edwards or Barack Obama since both "would likely appoint a cabinet quite different than the corporate Clintonites one would get from Hillary [Clinton]." Others, like Open Left's Matt Stoller, refuse "to be intellectually dishonest ... and pretend there are distinctions so that I can advocate for a non-Clinton named candidate." Specifically Stoller admits: "I don't want to endorse someone who wants to keep troops in Iraq."

If either Obama or Edwards want netroots help in winning IA, they are going to have to join Bill Richardson's call for no residual forces in Iraq. Otherwise it appears the netroots are content to watch HRC take the nomination.

DEM FIELD: Distinctions Wanted

FAIR co-founder Jeff Cohen worries at The Huffington Post, that the netroots failure to stop Hillary Clinton's 'coronation' may be exposing them as a 'paper tiger.' Cohen identifies three reasons why netroots support has not coalesced on an ABC alternative: "1) They "misunderestimate" the potential hazards of another Clinton White House. ... 2) They want to be Democratic "team players." ... 3) There's no Dean campaign to unite them - just 'Edwama.'"

Cohen concludes: "If Clinton coasts to the Democratic nomination without need of Netroots support, the "elite Washington insiders" ... will be laughing - ad commissions in hand - all the way to the bank." Not linking to Cohen, but borrowing the 'Edwama' term, Open Left's Matt Stoller explains why he is not fighting Clinton harder:

I know lots of people want the grand netroots to make our grand endorsement of the one true Presidential candidate and thereby rock the foundations of the universe, but, um, speaking only for every person who has ever blogged, ever, anywhere, I'll point out that by and large I don't want to endorse someone who wants to keep troops in Iraq. And I certainly can't get excited or advocate for someone who thinks that we should continue our merry adventure abroad, regardless of how much I dislike Clinton, because as far as I can tell Edwama have the exact same position as Clinton. I'm not going to be intellectually dishonest that way and pretend there are distinctions so that I can advocate for a non-Clinton named candidate, but even if I were to throw away my credibility that way you wouldn't believe me and I wouldn't change one person's mind.

Matthew Yglesias is also unhappy with the current state if the Iraq debate in the Dem field: "Honestly, this doesn't seem like brain surgery to me -- the chance-taking, things-shaking-upping position to take would be to join Bill Richardson in calling for a real withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The fact that none of the main three candidates have engaged with each other on the Iraq issue and, instead, all seem to have combined to prevent efforts by Biden (from the right) and Richardson (from the left) to make this a big deal seems pretty weird to me."

EDWARDS: Just Bust A Move

Following John Edwards Labor Day endorsements from steelworkers and miners, TAPPED's Tom Schaller says it is "time for Edwards to bust out." Schaller reasons: "He's worked hard to appeal to the union base of the party, and his domestic themes are the strongest, most pro-labor of any candidate in the field except Dennis Kucinich. ... [He] enters a crucial period between now and Halloween. He somehow needs to shake things up. He should take some chances -- perhaps a junket to Afghanistan ... There's not room in the Democratic primary for two Hillary-alternative candidates, and if Edwards wants to steal that mantle from the far better funded Barack Obama, now's the time for him bust some moves."

For many at MyDD, Edwards is already their ABC-fav. NovelistDavid Mizner explains why he's an Edwards man: "Why Edwards? Because he rejects neoliberalism. Because he preaches enlightened populism. Because he's running to the left. Because he would fight the amorality of the Market with the morality of progressivism. Because he opposes the Global War on Terror. ... Because he would win. But one reason rises above all others: the stated and demonstrated rationale of his campaign is to fight inequality."

Also at MyDD, Edwards fan Des Moines Dem has photos from Edwards 9/3 Labor Fest speech at the IA State Fairgrounds. She blogs: " Edwards got huge cheers during the shortened version of his stump speech, especially when he talked about key elements of his universal health care plan and his views on trade policy (he mentioned that he had opposed NAFTA and CAFTA)."

OBAMA: Like Jimmy Carter, But Taller

Looking back through Time Magazine archives, Open Left's Matt Stoller was struck by the similarity in rhetoric between Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter: "Carter at the time was a cipher who pledged honesty and reform coming after a corrupt and divisive President, couching his soothing ideas in conservative rhetoric. It's not too much of a stretch to think of Obama as very similar. ... there are obviously big differences between the candidates. But I think Obama's language is triggering some subtle signal planted there by Carter's Presidency in the Democratic electorate that blinks 'vague reformer, do not trust'."

Stoller later updates: "The more I think about it, the more tiresome 'honest outsider' rhetoric really is. McCain, Bush, and Bradley all ran on this rhetoric in 2000, touting their willingness to challenge the status quo while being creatures of it." Not linking to Stoller, Obama fan Andrew Sullivan posts video of Carter foreign policy advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski endorsing Obama.

Back at MyDD, Jonathan Singer notes Marc Ambinder reports that Al Gore is "pretty confident that he will endorse a presidential candidate" and seconds Ben Smith's guess that Obama would be the most likely recipient of the honor. Singer comments: "It certainly would be an interesting development to see Gore endorse Obama -- or anyone else aside from Hillary Clinton, for that matter -- as such a move could limit the former First Lady's ability to claim the greatest stake in ownership over the successes of the Clinton-Gore administration of any of the candidates currently running."

RICHARDSON: For Pete's Sake

Bill Richardson's "Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary," joke is only reinforcing growing netroots consensus that he is "not ready for prime time." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas acknowledges that Richardson was just trying to be funny but still concludes: "Richardson is really becoming the buffoon of this campaign."

MyDD's Todd Beeton agrees and documents his atrocities: "whether it be his choice of Roe dissenter Justice Byron (Whizzer) White as a model Supreme Court Justice, his refusal to call for Gonzales's resignation because he was hispanic, to his response at the Logo/HRC forum that homosexuality is a choice, Richardson has demonstrated a keen ability to stick his foot in his mouth."

Markos later wishes: "There's a nice Senate race just begging for his entrance in New Mexico. His style is clearly a great fit for his state, and it deserves non-senile, non-corrupt representation in the Senate. I know it's just a pipe dream, but I'm losing respect for Richardson the longer he remains in this presidential race. And as the highest-profile Latino in American government, I'd rather that not happen."

CALIFORNIA: Gray Skies Are Here Again?

CaliticsBob Brigham tries to rally netroots concern for the Presidential Election Reform Act by comparing its current polling support with support for ex-Gov. Gray Davis (D) recall. Brigham blogs: "The similarities between the 2003 recall and the current electoral vote swindle are quite stark (and not only because it is the same people using the same language about a right-wing power grab in an election where nobody knows the turnout). ... Comparing the two initiatives' benchmark polling, the only good news is that the GOP isn't yet salivating over this to the degree they were in the recall. ... Clearly, we are in far, far worse shape initially with Democrats than we were when we lost the Governor's mansion."

GIULIANI: J - E - T - S, Jets, Jets, Jets For Rudy

NRO's Jim Geraghty is no fan of Rudy Giuliani's website redesign. The new look includes Giuliani MySpace, FaceBook, and LinkedIn groups but Geraghty blogs: "If I were them, I'd be organizing Former Jets for Rudy, starting with Boomer Esiason." A "tech-minded staffer of a rival" emails in: "They call this a blog? It's an aggregator... It's a bit like a Digg-clone, which simply links stuff and tracks how many people followed the links."

At Townhall, Matt Lewis picks up "Liberal filmmaker / liberal activist Robert Greenwald" new site The Real Rudy. Lewis describes: "The site encourages readers to vote on Rudy's worst offense. For example, is it flip-flopping on abortion or looking bad in drag -- you decide!"

HUNTER: It Depends On What You're Definition Of 'Mostly' Is

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru is still busy refuting New York Times claims that the GOP field "have mostly publicly rejected evolution." Ponnuru identifies only Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo as Darwin haters. On Duncan Hunter Ponnuru review his statements and concludes: "I don't think Hunter's comments amount to a rejection of evolution; he is just arguing for theism and declaring it compatible with evolution."

MCCAIN: At Least No One Asked Him About His Underwear

John McCain's "Thanks for the question, you little jerk," response to a high school student who asked him if he was worried he might die or get Alzheimer's was a big hit among conservatives. Power Line's John Hinderaker calls McCain "funny and irreverent" and Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham blogs: "Steady under fire, McCain is."

ROMNEY: What Would Milton Do?

Race4'08's Matt C posts video of Mitt Romney's new ad running in SC and wonders: "This will be his first major media buy in the state, and it will be interesting to watch his poll numbers as a result."

Turning to policy, The Corner's Peter Robinson says Romney's MA health care plan is already "demonstrating the usual signs of government intervention: rising costs and completely unexpected consequences" but goes on to defend Romney's national proposal: "They strike me as the best proposals any candidate has yet advanced. ... the proposals center on the simple notion that people who buy health insurance on their own ought to get the same tax break as people who buy health insurance through their employers. Romney's proposals have caught flack from some on the right, largely because the proposals would permit consumers to deduct all their out-of-pocket health care expenses, a change in the tax scheme that would create incentives to overspend. But this is a charge that has already been anticipated-and by no less a figure than Milton Friedman."

Talking foreign policy at NRO, Jim Geraghty looks at a Drudge linked story quoting Romney saying "Iraq is a mess" but argues there's little new there: "I don't think it's much more than a stray comment aimed at establishing a bond with a questioner. If you listen to the rest of Romney's answer, it's pretty much standard-issue fare for Republicans on Iraq at this point ... Is there anything in that comment that we wouldn't hear from the other GOP candidates?"

THOMPSON: Maybe He's Just Participating In The Netroots Boycott Of Fox Debates?

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin tracks Fox News coverage critical of Fred Thompson's decision to skip 9/5's NH debate and speculates: "Is this Fox just annoyed their debate is getting snubbed or is Fox reflecting gathering MSM and blogosphere opinion that the New Hampshire debate duck wasn't such a good idea? Since Fox is hosting the debate I'm figuring a few of the candidates tomorrow get a softball down the middle on what they think of Fred's absence."

Also critical of Thompson, Townhall's Matt Lewis hopes Thompson does not try and use "his laidback image to his advantage" on the campaign trail. Lewis explains: "Fred Thompson is running to replace George W. Bush, a president thought to be intellectually uncurious. Elections are about change, and the next president will, to some extent, be a reaction to this one. ... My advice to Thompson is that once he gets in -- to hit the ground running ... hard. He needs images of him working long and hard, around the clock, to woo voters."

Back at AmSpec, Rubin notes that yet another Thompsons communications aide is leaving, this time Jim Mills, and promises: "I for one am entering no more contact info for Fred Thompson communications folks into my Blackberry."

Finally, NRO's Jim Geraghty shares Thompson's strategy as told by a 'Thompson associate': "you have two candidates, two frontrunners, whose game plan doesn't involve winning Iowa... We want to perform well in Iowa, perform well in New Hampshire, win South Carolina, win Florida, and sweep the South. ... We think we've got the best communicator in the field. We're going to know whether that's true really soon."

IRAN: All Quiet On The Right Wing Front?

Netroots chatter about an imminent Bush Administration invasion of Iran has definitely increased recently. First a Daily Kos diarist Maccabee posted about a phone call he received from an American aircraft carrier on deployment, revealing that the United States Navy is about to attack Iran. Others in the Daily Kos community picked apart the details of his story, and DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas even admonished his readers "believe everything you read on the internets."

Rumors circulated by NYU prof. Barnett Rubin were much better received. George Packer picked up on the Rubin's claim that the Office of the Vice-President is set to "roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects."

TPM's Josh Marshall links and comments: "I've written before that there is a very real threat that the Bush administration could go for double or nothing and launch a major military campaign against Iran in the next 18 months. But I had largely discounted this weekend's rush of rumor and sketchy details about the possibility of an imminent attack. ... But maybe I've dismissed this too quickly."

Later Marshall links to Spencer Ackermancoverage of how such a war would be rolled out: "President Bush's decision to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group provides an opportunity. If the IRGC, Iran's alternate military, is a terrorist group, Bush could claim authority under the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan to take action against Iran without Congressional approval."

Andrew Sullivan is also a believer: "A third war - started by Washington - is a real possibility. Since the president believes he needs no Congressional authorization for this, there may well be no checks on him, barring a military revolt."

IRAQ: We Partially Made Our Deadline Today

The netroots were quick to trumpet the findings in GAO's Iraq progress report specifically highlighting that the Iraqi government failed to meet 11 of the US determined 18 benchmarks, and partially met only 4. VoteVets chair John Soltz notes at The Huffington Post: "it quickly became evident where the White House pressured for change from the original version leaked to the Washington Post. In last week's Washington Post story, it was reported that the GAO study would say that Iraqis have failed to meet 15 of 18 benchmarks. In today's report, the GAO sticks with only three benchmarks met, but now has a new grade for benchmarks: 'Partially met.'"

Turning to security, Think Progress notes: "Contrary to claims made by Gen. David Petraeus that sectarian violence has decreased dramatically, the GAO report is unable to report any progress on this front. ... it notes that 'average daily attacks against civilians' has remained unchanged."

Also on the security front, The Washington MonthlyKevin Drum posts a chart on monthly troop deaths in Iraq and concludes: "Bottom line: you should be skeptical of any claims about reductions in violence unless they take seasonality into account. So far, though, I haven't seen any credible claims of reduced violence that even mention seasonality, let alone adjust for it. That should tell you something."

Moving to Congressional action, Open Left's Matt Stoller is not impressed with bipartisan efforts to end the war. He links to reports on Sen. Norm Coleman's (R-MN) call to bring 5K troops home by 12/07 and comments: "5000 troops, wow. That's amazing. So we'll only have 35,000 more troops in Iraq than we had just after the public voted to end the war in November, 2006. Awesome. How bipartisan."

The lack of progress on moving more GOPers in favor of withdrawal seems to have moved DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas into the defunding camp: "Republicans need 60 votes in the Senate to pass any funding bills, while Democrats can single-handedly squash any efforts in the House. If Republicans don't compromise on a withdrawal timetable, there's no impetus to pass a funding bill. And without funding, there's no war."

ID SEN: We're Sure Leno And Letterman Don't Want You To Leave Either

The netroots are ecstatic over reports that Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) may be reconsidering his decision to resign from office. Reactions include:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Because what could be more fun than the prospect of Republican Larry Craig staying in the Senate race in Idaho? I say stay Larry Craig. ... The Idaho Democrats need you! Particularly Larry LaRocco."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "By now you've heard Larry Craig is thinking of not resigning. That's a big deal. When the conservative machine cuts a public figure's head off, it always stays cut off. ... But wow, this is a breakdown of discipline."
• firedoglake's TRex: "Please, Senator Craig, by all means, you must appeal. ... I think I speak for everyone in Lefty Blogistan when I say that it is you, Senator Craig, who symbolize everything that the Republican Party stands for, and that no one would be better suited to carry the water torch for the GOP in Idaho in the coming election cycle."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: 'Cause God Forbid Our 20-Year-Old Interns Should Share A Drink With Us

TAPPED's Sam Boyd quotes from a study on youth alcohol use: "If youth received alcohol from a parent or other adult relative, the respondents reported consuming fewer drinks on the last drinking occasion and were less likely to report binge drinking within the previous 2 weeks. ... Further, youth who reported drinking with their parents on the most recent drinking occasion indicated that they drank fewer drinks."

Boyd comments: "It's always nice when things you believe are backed up by actual evidence. ... When you think about it this makes sense. Learning limits with alcohol takes time and adults who have experience with it can make sure that things don't get out of hand. Of course, the fact that the law prevents young people from drinking in other situations where moderation is encouraged (restaurants for example) only increases the importance of parents. Mainly though, this is yet another example of how our country's uptight approach to drugs and drinking is simplistic and counter-productive."

LEST WE FORGET: Apparently Stan Doesn't Spend Enough Time In Airport Mens Rooms

Right Wing News identifies their Top Ten South Park Episodes Of All-Time including:

10) Episode Title: Korn's Groovy Pirate Ghost Mystery

Summary: On Halloween, the boys are plagued by fifth graders and the town is overrun by pirate ghosts. Music group Korn assists and sings "Falling Away from Me."

Notable Quotable: DJ: Well, here's some kids enjoying the Halloween haunt now. Hey, boys, what do you think of cozy FM's Halloween haunt so far? Stan: This one time, like eight months ago, I saw two guys kissing in a park. And that was the gayest thing I'd ever seen until I saw the cozy FM Halloween haunt.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:47 PM

September 04, 2007

9/4: This Is It

We know the IA caucuses are still scheduled to take place over five months from now, but there's a palatable sense in the netroots that this month's Iraq debate in Congress will prove a make or break month for Barack Obama. As some are beginning to notice, Obama's support on social network sites has begun to plateau (and if the 'Million Strong for Barack' facebook group flatlining at 330K is any indication, they are also falling short of expectations). Calls for either Obama or Hillary Clinton to lead the fight against continuing the surge through 5/08 are sprouting up at some ofthe biggestnetroots sites . If Obama is looking for the most effective way to kick off the fall campaign with a boost of anti-war momentum, leading the fight against the surge (and for a pull out of all troops) would be a sure fire way to do it.

DEM FIELD: Feel Free To Lead Anytime Now ...

The Israel Lobby author John Mearsheimer's 8/28 warning to the American Political Science Assoc. that, "The stab-in-the-back narrative that's being prepared by the Republican Party will succeed in scaring a Democratic president and Democratic congress from taking any decisive steps to end the war," drove netroots calls for stepped up Dem leadership. Matthew Yglesias blogged:

This is what happens, it seems, when realists discover domestic politics as an influence on foreign policy. That said, the fault to a large extent lies with ourselves. We're right now in the midst of a presidential primary campaign which is when, as we all know, politicians need to "pander" to the insidious liberal base. And thus far, activists and voters alike are signaling that they're willing -- eager, even -- to be tricked by wannabe nominees rather than hold them accountable. If the Democratic primary electorate is happy to take statements about "ending the war" or "withdrawing combat troops" at face value even when they're immediately followed by quiet reassurances that troops will stay in Iraq for counterterrorism (i.e., combat), training (i.e., combat), and force protection (i.e., combat) then it really is hard to see where pressure to end the war is supposed to come from.

Atrios links and adds: "And while the Senate Leader is technically Harry Reid, the real leaders of the Democratic party at the moment are Senators Obama and Clinton. ... They have a prominent platform and a large megaphone which they could use not simply to inspire voters but to browbeat their colleagues, plot a course of action, enlist their supporters into helping push through a legislative agenda, etc. They could, you know, lead instead of campaign. The former might even help the latter. That's assuming they want to."

Open Left's Matt Stoller follows the story and posts: "[O]ur own dear leaders Hillary Obama are refusing to lead, especially on Iraq, where they will obviously, upon assuming office, steadfastly maintain the occupation albeit at a lower level. I find this puzzling for Obama since he's younger and presumably not affected by Vietnam, so all I can assume is that he's basically a very smart political hack and not much else. Clinton is just kind of conservative. Anyway, the point of their blog posts is that these are our nominees, and we're letting them get away with tricking us even as we feed them money and that kind of sucks.

Daily Kos' mcjoan advises the field: "Don't run on past decision or judgements. Don't run on what you're going to do about Iraq in 2009. Run on what you are doing now, in 2007, to lead us out of Iraq. Show us that leadership, now. That doesn't go for just the presidentials, but for every incumbent Democrat who is going to be asking for our vote in 14 months."

Also looking at lower-tier options Open Left's Chris Bowers hopes Bill Richardson can push the field left on Iraq: "Many would argue that the entire purpose of Dennis Kucinich's campaign is to push the party to the left on issues such as Iraq. However, it has actually been Bill Richardson who has seen his support in Iowa and New Hampshire rapidly rise by putting "no residual troops" at the center of his campaign. ... While Clinton, Edwards and Obama have yet to state how many troops they will leave in Iraq, if the current pro-Richardson trends in Iowa and New Hampshire continue, before long they will have no choice but to do so."

DEM FIELD II: Labor's Love Won

Open Left's Chris Bowers celebrated Labor Day with an updates union endorsement scorecard:

• Edwards: United Steel Workers, United Mine Workers of America, International Brotherhood of Carpenters. 2.3 million combined members.
• Clinton: United Transportation Union, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. 800,000 combined members.
• Dodd: International Association of Firefighters. 271,000 members

Bowers adds: "Of course, the size of a union is not the only way to measure its political effectiveness. The Fire Fighters, for example, are widely regarded as a key endorsement despite their somewhat smaller membership." Bowers then lists future union endorsements:

• SEIU, 1.8 million members: Probably Edwards, Obama or no one.
• AFSCME, 1.5 million members: Could be any of the top three
• Teamsters, 1.4 million members: Could be any of the top three
• American Federation of Teachers, 830,000 members: Probably Clinton
• UNITE-HERE: 450,000 members: Probably Edwards

Also blogging union endorsements, Bleeding Heartland's Simon Stevenson asks for help compiling a chart of union size and strength in IA: "Unions report their size using different metrics to fluff up their apparent importance. Of course, it is not all that unlikely that some of the membership numbers are misrepresented, as well. Still, this is a pretty good rough approximation of the most important labor unions in Iowa, at least for the top 5 or so, their sizes, and their track records."

CLINTON: Strange Brilliance

Open Left's Chris Bowers is not a fan of Hillary Clinton's new line: "I want to work within the system. You can't pretend the system doesn't exist." Bowers comments: "[I]t appears Hillary Clinton has started using a new stump speech that trumpets her status as an insider and her willingness to compromise with Republicans. Those are not exactly her words, but they are pretty darn close."

Looking back to '06 MyDD polling, however, Bowers wonders if the new message just might work: "[T]he electorate does not really believe that one party or one individual is going to bring about any sweeping change in Washington. Given this, I have to wonder if there might be a strange brilliance behind Clinton using this sort of language. While most candidates seem to talk of igniting grandiose change in Washington that never happens, perhaps voters will hear what Clinton is saying and be relieved by her honesty."

Also worrying about HRC's establishment tendencies, The Left Coaster's Steve Soto's previews a Mother Jones article on Clinton's participation in "bible study and prayer groups since she came to Washington in 1993." Soto blogs: "But what may startle people, including her supporters, is that the group she has associated herself with since 1993 which sponsors these groups as well as the National Prayer Breakfast is very conservative and exclusive. Known now as the Fellowship, it is a group that reporter Sharlet knows very well given his past investigative pieces in Harper's Magazine several years ago, and a Rolling Stone piece about Sam Brownback in 2006. Digby has written about this group as well."

In more positive HRC blogging, a MyDD diarist posts from Portsmouth, NH: "My wife and I arrived about 3:30 in the afternoon. ... The crowds were already forming so we hopped in line. Thank god we did. By the time the gates opened at 6:00 pm, the line stretched around four sides of an entire city block, five or six wide."

OBAMA: When Anti-Cynicism Isn't Enough

Open Left's Matt Stoller looks at Barack Obama's Facebook and MySpace numbers and asks: "What's Happening to the Obama 'Movement'?" Stoller shows that Obama's "growth rate on Facebook is much slower at this point than Clinton or Edwards" and that his 170K friends on MySpace "is actually about the same as the number volunteer Joe Anthony put together."

Stoller theorizes: "The 2004 campaign produced a burst of innovation, of political entrepreneurs who came into the process with new ideas and new tactics. Largely this group coalesced around Howard Dean or Wes Clark, both of whom articulated a different model of politics and argued the Iraq War was a symptom of a broken political and cultural system. The Million Strong for Barack group suggested that was possible here too, but it's not clear to me what kind of argument Obama is making except that cynicism is a bad thing."

Not linking to Stoller, MyDD's Todd Beeton notes that Obama has stepped up his "critique" and concludes: "Clinton is clearly driving the debate at this point and Obama here appears reactionary AND stuck in reverse. The fact that he returns to the same language he was using in March tells me he really hasn't come very far in building a case for his candidacy rhetorically. Where's the forward momentum on this day, that is supposed to represent a new phase in the campaign? For someone as inspiring as Obama is, I'm not feeling terribly inspired."

OBAMA II: Frame Job

A Jewish Week article on Barack Obama's Iran-divesment bill is rankling those in the netroots most concerned about Bush Administration push for war. Open Left's Matt Stoller blogs: "Now, I'm very worried about a possible attack on Iran. In many ways, it's the single most destructive policy choice remaining before the Bush administration ... That Obama is pushing for sanctions and not war is largely irrelevant, since Bush is actually the President and what he needs for an attack on Iran is precisely the legitimacy Obama is affording him. ... With this Op-Ed Obama has just increased the leverage Cheney has in the White House because it's clear that the only thing Obama and Cheney disagree on with respect to Iran is how to put pressure on the regime."

Coverage of the Iran-divesment bill even has Obama fan Matthew Yglesias disquieted: "So, okay, I don't think Obama's trying to grease the skids for war. At the same time, his Daily News op-ed did get the head and subhead 'Hit Iran where it hurts: Democratic presidential hopeful takes a get-tough stance against tyrant of Tehran.' Writers don't pick their own headlines, but you've got to imagine that the campaign signed off on that framing on some level."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer was more forgiving: "There is a key distinction here, however. There is a great deal of room between raising the possibility of waging war against Iran and talking about ways to change Iran's actions using the diplomatic tools at America's disposal ... to say that empowering the American government to stop investing in a company like Halliburton, which is using foreign subsidiaries to engage in commerce in Iran, helps lead the cause for war against Iran is, at least to me, a stretch."

TX STRAW POLL: Duncan Checks In

The crew at Townhall featured extensive coverage of the TX GOP 9/1 straw poll. Duncan Hunter finished first with 534 votes followed by Fred Thompson (266), Ron Paul (217), Mike Huckabee (83), and Rudy Giuliani (78). Mary Katharine Ham explains Hunter's victory: "Hunter won because he showed up and shook hands, old-school style, all day yesterday and all day today. Only activists who've attended past conventions were allowed to vote, and they were receptive to his message and his commitment to the crowd."

Hugh Hewitt explains what the results mean for the rest of the field: "The center of the party is unaffiliated, but not unenthusiastic about the race ahead, just undecided. To the MSM struggling to figure this all out: It's the campaign, stupid. They want to see who has the energy, message and the skills set to beat Hillary."

More Townhall coverage includes Duncan Hunter Addresses the Texas Straw Poll Crowd, Hewitt Interviews Duncan Hunter, Hewitt Interviews Ron Paul, and post poll analysis from Hewitt, Ham, and Matt Lewis.

THOMPSON: 'Mainstream' Better Not Be Code For 'Compassionate'

Conservative bloggers continue to be unimpressed by the roll out of Fred Thompson's campaign. NY Sun's Ryan Sager picks to bones with a Thompson pollster John McLaughlin memo:

[1.] The McLaughlin memo cites 38% of GOP voters saying they're "not satisfied" with the current crop of candidates. How many of these folks are including Fred Thompson in this crop? I'd guess a lot, since the same poll offers Mr. Thompson as one of the choices. [2.] The McLaughlin memo uses 1996 and 2000 as examples of elections where voters decided at the last minute. But didn't the prohibitive frontrunners win both races, as expected? Especially in 2000? Doesn't seem like a great couple of examples...

Also parsing Thompson releases, RedState's haystack worries about Thompson manager Bill Lacey's use of the phrase "mainstream conservative" in Thompson's announcement announcement. Haystack blogs: "For Thompson to use "Mainstream Conservatism" in his presser, we need to watch VERY closely for one of two things. Will he be talking to us about Conservatism, or will he be talking to us about being in the mainstream? [read Bush's Moderate Conservatism of the last 6 years] OR, will he be talking to us about what REAL Conservatives, by and large and in the largest of numbers and percentages demand he (or any of the other candidates for that matter) will be fighting to bring BACK to 'Mainstream America?'"

IRAQ: For Those Of You Keeping Score At Home

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum worries that "the liberal blogosphere and the liberal establishment" have already "been outplayed" by Gen. David Patraeus heading into 9/07's congressional Iraq war debate. Drum blogs:

Petraeus has been slowly and methodically carrying out an extremely disciplined military campaign with a very precise goal: gaining support for David Petraeus and the surge. ... He's keenly aware of the value of both the media and public opinion, and he did what any counterinsurgency expert would have counseled in his circumstances: he unleashed a hearts-and-minds campaign aimed at opinion makers and politicians. ... And it's worked. Even though there's been no discernible political progress, minimal reconstruction progress, and apparently no genuine decrease in violence, he's managed to convince an awful lot of people that the first doesn't matter, the second is far more widespread than it really is, and the third is the opposite of reality.

Drum examines details of Patraeus hearts-and-minds campaign including Potemkin villages in Baghdad and claims that troop fatalities are down (Drum produces a graph showing troop fatalities trending down from 5/07, but higher than 8/06).

At Talking Points MemoGreg Sargent identifies five ways in which the MSM was complicit in the Petraeus' PR push: "(1) Big news orgs repeatedly twisted the words of Democrats who had returned from Iraq to make their assessments sound more positive than they were; (2) Big news orgs shifted the definition of the success of the surge from a political goal to a military one; (3) Many news organizations gave tons of coverage to outside experts who said the surge is working, while giving little to none to people who said it wasn't; (4) Multiple news outlets repeatedly and falsely described the September Iraq assessment as representing the sole judgment of Petraeus, echoing White House propaganda; (5) News orgs and pundits are now baselessly asserting that the White House is "confident" that it will "win" the September showdown with Dems over Iraq."

Also at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall marvels: "Even with the power of propaganda and a befuddled media, it amazes me that we can be going into a major military policy debate with so little clarity on a few basic statistics upon which much of the debate is going to turn."

Finally, Atrios saves us all the trouble of reading newspapers this month by revealing how the debate will end: "1) Democrats, to court Republicans, agree to declare a bit of victory ('situation improving...'); 2) They compromise on a bill which suggests very strongly that maybe, just maybe, if security conditions "continue to improve" that Bush should consider, if he wants, bringing some troops home. But, you know, nothing that constrains his authority as Supreme Leader to do whatever the hell he wants; 3) Since troop levels can't be sustained, this is in fact what happens beginning April so that by November of 2008, the number of troops in Iraq is just about precisely what it was two years (!) previously, when the awesome surge began; 4) Everyone owns the war now."

IRAQ II: At Least No One's Making In Vietnam Comparisons

Conservatives are seemingly confident heading into 9/07's Iraq debate in Congress. The Corner's Victor Davis Hanson describes the stakes: "I don't think in American military history there have been too many occasions when so much has rested on the shoulders of just one commander ... like it or not, in the political sense of maintaining the war, we are in a Sherman-like make or break decision at Atlanta (taken 143 years ago today), or a Ridgeway moment in Korea, where only a gifted commander like Petraeus can instill the leadership necessary to restore support at home through his success abroad. ... there is the eerie feeling far more than just Iraq is at stake right now in the next few weeks, but rather the nature of the entire Middle East and the American global role even beyond the region."

Conservative reaction to Pres.. Bush's 9/3 visit to Anbar province was uniformly positive:

• Mark at RedState: "Indeed the entire visit was marked with over-the-line symbolism by the president. First, there was the landing, in Anbar Province, once a vast no go zone for the US Military. Then there was the high powered delegation. Three cabinet level officials and the top military advisor to the president. Top that off with the outdoor nighttime speech and it is clear that the images designed to emerge from this surprise visit are designed to stress the improvement in security."
• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Fred Kagan says the president's visit to Anbar today is potentially 'The Gettysburg of This War.'"
• Jules Crittenden: "It is a shrewd political act directed at the nation as much as it is directed at Congress, and with the Democratic line already beleaguered and breaking, it could have a significant effect on the latter even as it delivers what the former has always wanted, a sense this is possible and worth it. ... How can anyone look at what has happened this year in Iraq and not call the cooperation of the Sunni tribes political progress?"
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The anti-war hysterics will hate this, but the American people will understand: Winning is in the country's interest, and that's what the surge is delivering."

Michelle Malkin warns that the followings weeks "will bring a historic clash of activists" and urges readers to sign the Victory Caucus' 'Stand by the Mission' pledge which reads: "We, the undersigned, call on our national leaders and fellow citizens to resist calls for a premature withdrawal from Iraq and to support America's troops under the new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, as they implement a bold new strategy designed to bring a successful completion to their mission."

Bush's promise to start bringing troops home if the security situation continues to improve sis not escape notice. Allahpundit writes: "Note also the opening Bush leaves himself to draw down troops if the security situation continues to improve. He'll have no choice but to draw them down starting next summer, so expect the situation to improve rhetorically, if not in fact, by then.

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat also picked up on Bush's promise: "I'll believe it when I see it, but whatever ends the Iraq Debacle is fine by me. Let Bush declare victory. Just end the Debacle."

VA SEN: A New Hope ... For GOPers

Conservatives are not crazy about Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) or ex-Gov. Jim Gilmore (R) as options to replace retiring Sen. John Warner (R-VA). The Corner's Mark Levin blogs: "These are not politicians around whom you can build a movement or party. As I see it, the primary is wide open."

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini suggests Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) is the "best hope" to retain the seat. Ruffini reasons: "He's the most talented member of the Virginia delegation. ... He hails from the Richmond suburbs, maybe the state's pivotal region. ... Cantor's conservative record would be a marked improvement over John Warner. ... He has one of the most obscenely high cash-on-hand totals in the House. That could scare off opponents."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Sugar And Spice And Everything Nice ...

Slate's Tim Harford looks at research on gender and education from Israel's school system and summarizes:

Boys benefit from being in a classroom with girls, but girls do not benefit from being in a classroom with boys. ... Boys pollute the educational system, it seems, for a number of unmysterious reasons: They wear down teachers, disrupt classes, and ruin the atmosphere for everyone. And more boys are worse than fewer boys, not because they egg each other on but simply because more of them can cause more trouble in total.

A social planner might thus conclude that all education should be single-sex. The difficulty is to combine this perspective with the principle of parental choice. I have the answer: a congestion-charge-style tax on parents who insist on polluting girls' education with their testosterone-fuelled little monsters. The money could go toward hiring extra teachers-and riot police.

LEST WE FORGET: Dorkiest NFL Preview Ever

Colts fan-blogger 18to88 posts a fair and balanced preview of the AFC comparing each team to a Star Wars character, including

• New England, 11 - 5: Emperor Palpatine - Keeps Darth Vader (below) on a tight leash. Used to be terrifying, but now is just old and wrinkled.
• Baltimore, 12 - 4: The Death Star - Incredible defense against a large scale attack, but has a tendency to implode.
• Cleveland, 3 - 13: Jawas - They are small, brown, and constantly trading for junk.
• Colts, 11 - 5: Luke Skywalker - You aren't sure he is going to get it done in the end, but you can't imagine the story ending any other way.
• Chargers, 14 - 2: Darth Vader - Very frightening, but never lived up to its incredible potential.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:38 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.