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 September 28, 2007 12:41 PM