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 reaso