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 September 27, 2007 12:44 PM