9/4: This Is It

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEM FIELD II: Labor's Love Won

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

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

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

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

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

CLINTON: Strange Brilliance

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

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

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

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

OBAMA: When Anti-Cynicism Isn't Enough

Open Left's Matt Stoller looks at Barack Obama's Facebook and MySpace numbers and asks: "What's Happening to the Obama 'Movement'?" Stoller shows that Obama's "growth rate on Facebook is much slower at this point than Clinton or Edwards" and that his 170K friends on MySpace "is actually about the same as the number volunteer Joe Anthony put together."

Stoller theorizes: "The 2004 campaign produced a burst of innovation, of political entrepreneurs who came into the process with new ideas and new tactics. Largely this group coalesced around Howard Dean or Wes Clark, both of whom articulated a different model of politics and argued the Iraq War was a symptom of a broken political and cultural system. The Million Strong for Barack group suggested that was possible here too, but it's not clear to me what kind of argument Obama is making except that cynicism is a bad thing."

Not linking to Stoller, MyDD's Todd Beeton notes that Obama has stepped up his "critique" and concludes: "Clinton is clearly driving the debate at this point and Obama here appears reactionary AND stuck in reverse. The fact that he returns to the same language he was using in March tells me he really hasn't come very far in building a case for his candidacy rhetorically. Where's the forward momentum on this day, that is supposed to represent a new phase in the campaign? For someone as inspiring as Obama is, I'm not feeling terribly inspired."

OBAMA II: Frame Job

A Jewish Week article on Barack Obama's Iran-divesment bill is rankling those in the netroots most concerned about Bush Administration push for war. Open Left's Matt Stoller blogs: "Now, I'm very worried about a possible attack on Iran. In many ways, it's the single most destructive policy choice remaining before the Bush administration ... That Obama is pushing for sanctions and not war is largely irrelevant, since Bush is actually the President and what he needs for an attack on Iran is precisely the legitimacy Obama is affording him. ... With this Op-Ed Obama has just increased the leverage Cheney has in the White House because it's clear that the only thing Obama and Cheney disagree on with respect to Iran is how to put pressure on the regime."

Coverage of the Iran-divesment bill even has Obama fan Matthew Yglesias disquieted: "So, okay, I don't think Obama's trying to grease the skids for war. At the same time, his Daily News op-ed did get the head and subhead 'Hit Iran where it hurts: Democratic presidential hopeful takes a get-tough stance against tyrant of Tehran.' Writers don't pick their own headlines, but you've got to imagine that the campaign signed off on that framing on some level."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer was more forgiving: "There is a key distinction here, however. There is a great deal of room between raising the possibility of waging war against Iran and talking about ways to change Iran's actions using the diplomatic tools at America's disposal ... to say that empowering the American government to stop investing in a company like Halliburton, which is using foreign subsidiaries to engage in commerce in Iran, helps lead the cause for war against Iran is, at least to me, a stretch."

TX STRAW POLL: Duncan Checks In

The crew at Townhall featured extensive coverage of the TX GOP 9/1 straw poll. Duncan Hunter finished first with 534 votes followed by Fred Thompson (266), Ron Paul (217), Mike Huckabee (83), and Rudy Giuliani (78). Mary Katharine Ham explains Hunter's victory: "Hunter won because he showed up and shook hands, old-school style, all day yesterday and all day today. Only activists who've attended past conventions were allowed to vote, and they were receptive to his message and his commitment to the crowd."

Hugh Hewitt explains what the results mean for the rest of the field: "The center of the party is unaffiliated, but not unenthusiastic about the race ahead, just undecided. To the MSM struggling to figure this all out: It's the campaign, stupid. They want to see who has the energy, message and the skills set to beat Hillary."

More Townhall coverage includes Duncan Hunter Addresses the Texas Straw Poll Crowd, Hewitt Interviews Duncan Hunter, Hewitt Interviews Ron Paul, and post poll analysis from Hewitt, Ham, and Matt Lewis.

THOMPSON: 'Mainstream' Better Not Be Code For 'Compassionate'

Conservative bloggers continue to be unimpressed by the roll out of Fred Thompson's campaign. NY Sun's Ryan Sager picks to bones with a Thompson pollster John McLaughlin memo:

[1.] The McLaughlin memo cites 38% of GOP voters saying they're "not satisfied" with the current crop of candidates. How many of these folks are including Fred Thompson in this crop? I'd guess a lot, since the same poll offers Mr. Thompson as one of the choices. [2.] The McLaughlin memo uses 1996 and 2000 as examples of elections where voters decided at the last minute. But didn't the prohibitive frontrunners win both races, as expected? Especially in 2000? Doesn't seem like a great couple of examples...

Also parsing Thompson releases, RedState's haystack worries about Thompson manager Bill Lacey's use of the phrase "mainstream conservative" in Thompson's announcement announcement. Haystack blogs: "For Thompson to use "Mainstream Conservatism" in his presser, we need to watch VERY closely for one of two things. Will he be talking to us about Conservatism, or will he be talking to us about being in the mainstream? [read Bush's Moderate Conservatism of the last 6 years] OR, will he be talking to us about what REAL Conservatives, by and large and in the largest of numbers and percentages demand he (or any of the other candidates for that matter) will be fighting to bring BACK to 'Mainstream America?'"

IRAQ: For Those Of You Keeping Score At Home

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum worries that "the liberal blogosphere and the liberal establishment" have already "been outplayed" by Gen. David Patraeus heading into 9/07's congressional Iraq war debate. Drum blogs:

Petraeus has been slowly and methodically carrying out an extremely disciplined military campaign with a very precise goal: gaining support for David Petraeus and the surge. ... He's keenly aware of the value of both the media and public opinion, and he did what any counterinsurgency expert would have counseled in his circumstances: he unleashed a hearts-and-minds campaign aimed at opinion makers and politicians. ... And it's worked. Even though there's been no discernible political progress, minimal reconstruction progress, and apparently no genuine decrease in violence, he's managed to convince an awful lot of people that the first doesn't matter, the second is far more widespread than it really is, and the third is the opposite of reality.

Drum examines details of Patraeus hearts-and-minds campaign including Potemkin villages in Baghdad and claims that troop fatalities are down (Drum produces a graph showing troop fatalities trending down from 5/07, but higher than 8/06).

At Talking Points MemoGreg Sargent identifies five ways in which the MSM was complicit in the Petraeus' PR push: "(1) Big news orgs repeatedly twisted the words of Democrats who had returned from Iraq to make their assessments sound more positive than they were; (2) Big news orgs shifted the definition of the success of the surge from a political goal to a military one; (3) Many news organizations gave tons of coverage to outside experts who said the surge is working, while giving little to none to people who said it wasn't; (4) Multiple news outlets repeatedly and falsely described the September Iraq assessment as representing the sole judgment of Petraeus, echoing White House propaganda; (5) News orgs and pundits are now baselessly asserting that the White House is "confident" that it will "win" the September showdown with Dems over Iraq."

Also at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall marvels: "Even with the power of propaganda and a befuddled media, it amazes me that we can be going into a major military policy debate with so little clarity on a few basic statistics upon which much of the debate is going to turn."

Finally, Atrios saves us all the trouble of reading newspapers this month by revealing how the debate will end: "1) Democrats, to court Republicans, agree to declare a bit of victory ('situation improving...'); 2) They compromise on a bill which suggests very strongly that maybe, just maybe, if security conditions "continue to improve" that Bush should consider, if he wants, bringing some troops home. But, you know, nothing that constrains his authority as Supreme Leader to do whatever the hell he wants; 3) Since troop levels can't be sustained, this is in fact what happens beginning April so that by November of 2008, the number of troops in Iraq is just about precisely what it was two years (!) previously, when the awesome surge began; 4) Everyone owns the war now."

IRAQ II: At Least No One's Making In Vietnam Comparisons

Conservatives are seemingly confident heading into 9/07's Iraq debate in Congress. The Corner's Victor Davis Hanson describes the stakes: "I don't think in American military history there have been too many occasions when so much has rested on the shoulders of just one commander ... like it or not, in the political sense of maintaining the war, we are in a Sherman-like make or break decision at Atlanta (taken 143 years ago today), or a Ridgeway moment in Korea, where only a gifted commander like Petraeus can instill the leadership necessary to restore support at home through his success abroad. ... there is the eerie feeling far more than just Iraq is at stake right now in the next few weeks, but rather the nature of the entire Middle East and the American global role even beyond the region."

Conservative reaction to Pres.. Bush's 9/3 visit to Anbar province was uniformly positive:

• Mark at RedState: "Indeed the entire visit was marked with over-the-line symbolism by the president. First, there was the landing, in Anbar Province, once a vast no go zone for the US Military. Then there was the high powered delegation. Three cabinet level officials and the top military advisor to the president. Top that off with the outdoor nighttime speech and it is clear that the images designed to emerge from this surprise visit are designed to stress the improvement in security."
• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Fred Kagan says the president's visit to Anbar today is potentially 'The Gettysburg of This War.'"
• Jules Crittenden: "It is a shrewd political act directed at the nation as much as it is directed at Congress, and with the Democratic line already beleaguered and breaking, it could have a significant effect on the latter even as it delivers what the former has always wanted, a sense this is possible and worth it. ... How can anyone look at what has happened this year in Iraq and not call the cooperation of the Sunni tribes political progress?"
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The anti-war hysterics will hate this, but the American people will understand: Winning is in the country's interest, and that's what the surge is delivering."

Michelle Malkin warns that the followings weeks "will bring a historic clash of activists" and urges readers to sign the Victory Caucus' 'Stand by the Mission' pledge which reads: "We, the undersigned, call on our national leaders and fellow citizens to resist calls for a premature withdrawal from Iraq and to support America's troops under the new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, as they implement a bold new strategy designed to bring a successful completion to their mission."

Bush's promise to start bringing troops home if the security situation continues to improve sis not escape notice. Allahpundit writes: "Note also the opening Bush leaves himself to draw down troops if the security situation continues to improve. He'll have no choice but to draw them down starting next summer, so expect the situation to improve rhetorically, if not in fact, by then.

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat also picked up on Bush's promise: "I'll believe it when I see it, but whatever ends the Iraq Debacle is fine by me. Let Bush declare victory. Just end the Debacle."

VA SEN: A New Hope ... For GOPers

Conservatives are not crazy about Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) or ex-Gov. Jim Gilmore (R) as options to replace retiring Sen. John Warner (R-VA). The Corner's Mark Levin blogs: "These are not politicians around whom you can build a movement or party. As I see it, the primary is wide open."

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini suggests Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) is the "best hope" to retain the seat. Ruffini reasons: "He's the most talented member of the Virginia delegation. ... He hails from the Richmond suburbs, maybe the state's pivotal region. ... Cantor's conservative record would be a marked improvement over John Warner. ... He has one of the most obscenely high cash-on-hand totals in the House. That could scare off opponents."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Sugar And Spice And Everything Nice ...

Slate's Tim Harford looks at research on gender and education from Israel's school system and summarizes:

Boys benefit from being in a classroom with girls, but girls do not benefit from being in a classroom with boys. ... Boys pollute the educational system, it seems, for a number of unmysterious reasons: They wear down teachers, disrupt classes, and ruin the atmosphere for everyone. And more boys are worse than fewer boys, not because they egg each other on but simply because more of them can cause more trouble in total.

A social planner might thus conclude that all education should be single-sex. The difficulty is to combine this perspective with the principle of parental choice. I have the answer: a congestion-charge-style tax on parents who insist on polluting girls' education with their testosterone-fuelled little monsters. The money could go toward hiring extra teachers-and riot police.

LEST WE FORGET: Dorkiest NFL Preview Ever

Colts fan-blogger 18to88 posts a fair and balanced preview of the AFC comparing each team to a Star Wars character, including

• New England, 11 - 5: Emperor Palpatine - Keeps Darth Vader (below) on a tight leash. Used to be terrifying, but now is just old and wrinkled.
• Baltimore, 12 - 4: The Death Star - Incredible defense against a large scale attack, but has a tendency to implode.
• Cleveland, 3 - 13: Jawas - They are small, brown, and constantly trading for junk.
• Colts, 11 - 5: Luke Skywalker - You aren't sure he is going to get it done in the end, but you can't imagine the story ending any other way.
• Chargers, 14 - 2: Darth Vader - Very frightening, but never lived up to its incredible potential.