September 05, 2007

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

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

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

DEM FIELD: Distinctions Wanted

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

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

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

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

EDWARDS: Just Bust A Move

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

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

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

OBAMA: Like Jimmy Carter, But Taller

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

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

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

RICHARDSON: For Pete's Sake

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

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

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

CALIFORNIA: Gray Skies Are Here Again?

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

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

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

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

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

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

MCCAIN: At Least No One Asked Him About His Underwear

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

ROMNEY: What Would Milton Do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IRAN: All Quiet On The Right Wing Front?

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

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

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

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

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

IRAQ: We Partially Made Our Deadline Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Conn Carroll at September 5, 2007 12:47 PM