September 07, 2007

9/7: Leaders Wanted

We don't want to sound like a broken record here, but Barack Obama is foregoing perhaps his last opportunity to unite the netroots against Hillary Clinton by failing to lead Dems against Pres. Bush's latest Iraq supplemental. Why is this uniquely Obama's opportunity? 1) The netroots are not going to embrace HRC until the only people in the race are her and the GOP nom; 2) he's the only WH '08er in the Senate with the track record and star power to lead the fight (sorry Chris Dodd); 3) John Edwards is not in the Senate. So far, it appears as though Obama firmly believes he does not need netroots support to beat HRC (and if we had to choose, we'd probably pick Oprah over Markos too), but as both state and nat'l polls continue to flatline (or worse) for Obama, maybe he ought to consider reaching out to new constituencies that are desperate for strong leadership.

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

Netroots frustration on impending Dem capitulation on Iraq is beginning to concentrate on frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas blogs: "Yo Obama and Clinton -- 'leadership' isn't waiting until the last minute to cast a vote against this pre-emptive capitulation. Leadership means taking a firm stand NOW, and then fighting for it in the media, on the campaign stump, and in Congress. You weaseled out of showing such leadership on the last supplemental. Please don't be weasels again. Dodd shouldn't be the only candidate currently in the Senate demonstrating leadership."

At The Huffington Post, Miles Mogulescu makes a similar plea: "In non-election years, political parties often lack a national spokesman who can garner the same kind of media attention as the President. But even without a nominee, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have that ability, particularly since as members of the Senate, they can actually do something besides make speeches ... This is a test of Presidential leadership. If Hillary and/or Obama fail it, they have no right to be the Democratic nominee for President."

MyDD features a popular diary with the same message: "Where are Hillary and Obama when it comes to leading on the issue of Iraq? I have seen Senator Dodd's statement and [John Edwards] statement, but where are the speeches in Congress of Hillary and Obama? I am sure I must have missed their big speech on the house floor today. Oh yeah, I forgot they don't lead in Congress. They wait for someone else to lead first. ... Obama says he wants to be the change candidate. I don't see no changes taking place in congress as of today. Maybe Obama wants to be the change candidate when it is politically expedient to have change. So folks there you have our great leaders who are afraid to lead.

DODD: Okay, It's Not The IAFF, But It Is Another Step In The Right Direction

Chris Dodd's leadership against Pres. Bush on Iraq and civil liberties is netting him more and more netroots support. Blue Hampshire's Dean Barker joins Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat as official Dodd endorsers. Barker explains: "The third major reason I am convinced I have made the right choice to go with Dodd is that on many issues, but most emphatically the war in Iraq, he has been leading right now. As early as last December, when I saw him at State Senator Peter Burling's house, he was opposing the surge in the most strident terms. And Senator Dodd neither flinched nor waited to see which way the wind would blow to speak out strongly against voting for more funding for this nightmare of a war."

Firedoglake's Siun is not making any endorsements, but she does have praise for Dodd's "Write Your Senator" web tool calling for no funding without a redeployment deadline. Siun approvingly quotes Dodd: "It is clear that half measures are not going to stop this President or end this war. I cannot and will not support any measure that does not have a firm and enforceable deadline to complete the redeployment of combat troops from Iraq. Only then will Congress be able to send a clear message to the President that we are changing course in Iraq, and a message to the Iraqis that they need to get their political house in order."

OBAMA: Maybe They Should Address Their Letters To Oprah

Since few in the netroots ever had Hillary Clinton as their preferred candidate, Barack Obama's failure to lead on Iraq is engendering the most disappointment. The most commented-on diary at Daily Kos 9/6 was titled "Take the damn ball, Senator Obama" and featured an open letter to Obama, including:

Senator Obama, in your short time in the public eye you have shown great wisdom, judgment, and vision. Your greatest strength is the ability to fuse pragmatism with idealism. ... You alone of any major candidate running in either party had the prescience and honesty to oppose invading Iraq. You understood the disaster that would unfold. This gives you credibility--as well as intellectual and moral authority-- that no one else on the national stage possesses. ... Senator, you're either moving forward or you're moving backwards. Relative to other candidates, you're moving backwards on Iraq. How on earth is it even remotely possible that Hillary Clinton, a clinical study in opportunism when it comes to Iraq, is perceived amongst primary voters as essentially indistinguishable from you? ... Do the right thing and the smart thing. For your nation, your party, and yourself. Step forward, demand the damn ball, and be prepared to accept the consequences one way or another.

Daily Kos reaction to the letter includes:

• I like your optimism. But I can't keep my pessimism at bay. Somehow, Senator Obama raises my expectations every time I hear him speak, and then severely disappoints me with his lack of action.
• You perfectly described the primary reason why I haven't jumped on the Obama bandwagon. Obama's approach is built on a faulty assumption about how honorable the opposition is. Far too much of the Republican party has been taken over by the toxic arrogance of DeLay, Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al. for conciliation to be a viable strategy. It's just asking to be tricked and slapped down repeatedly.
• Until Obama starts leading the charge on Iraq funding bills and Constitutional issues like FISA, I can't find it in me to support him.

A similar open letter is available at MyDD:

It is my belief that the first candidate to stand in front of several hundred thousand people in DC and protest this war will be the nominee. This is a time for guts not speeches on the Senate floor or votes. This is a time for you to stand with the anti-war movement.

OBAMA II: Oprah ... Obama ... Obama ... Oprah

Jack and Jill PoliticsJill Tubman calls Oprah Winfrey "some kind of moral authority for the nation" and comments on Winfrey's Barack Obama endorsement:

It's true that I personally held Oprah partly responsible for the mess we are in today. For allowing George Bush to kiss her on national television during his first go at the White House and offering a "neutral" position so as not to offend any of her Red State viewers. I bet even she has to wonder what the world might look like had she spoke her mind. 8 years later, she's deciding to play a different, high stakes game. Will the campaign-seasoned Clintons triumph or will they go the way of the beef industry?

Arianna Huffington posts ABC Good Morning America and NBC Today Show video featuring Arianna Huffington on how big a deal the Winfrey endorsement is.

GIULIANI: Well, Those Tablets Are Pretty Heavy

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein went back and checked the transcript just to make sure, "that in last night's debate Giuliani made no mention of his 12 Commitments. This strikes me as odd. He spent the summer rolling out details on his commitments and has gotten positive reviews. This seems like something he would want to discuss at every opportunity ... Also, he was criticized for speaking too much about his accomplishments in NYC last night, but had he also mentioned the the 12 Commitments it would have emphasized the fact that he is not stuck in the past, but forward looking."

HUCKABEE: Smoke On The Busboy

NRO's Jim Geraghty was both "reassured and unnerved" by a Mike Huckabee blogger conference call explanation of his position on smoking. Huckabee told bloggers: "Certainly, I don't believe that we as a government have a right to tell people what to do or not do. The issue is one of workplace safety. ... In Arkansas I signed a bill that banned smoking in certain public areas and businesses, but not in bars/restaurants, because those were places consumers could more easily choose to go to or not to go."

Geraghty responds: "I sympathize, I don't like cigarette smoke in my workplace, but I don't think it's an issue for Congress and the President to resolve. Secondly, if he really thinks it is an issue of workplace safety, why would Huckabee subject waiters and waitresses, busboys, bartenders, and hosts to cigarette smoke?"

ROMNEY: Would 'Prudent Humility' Fit On A Bumper Sticker?

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru found conservative reaction to Mitt Romney's 9/5 debate Iraq war skepticism "a little dismaying." Ponnuru blogs: "Do conservatives really want to tie themselves to the position that the surge is not only working, but that there can be no doubt on the score and that anyone who acknowledges the existence of doubt is a heretic? As for Romney's looking forward to a possible troop drawdown-something Bush has also done!-what's our bottom line there? Do we want troops there forever? Is that what conservatives should want Republicans to campaign on next year?"

The Corner's Andy McCarthy responds to the idea of supporting a troop draw down for the purpose of helping a GOP WH '08er: "[I]t would be a false victory and a terrible national security strategy. It would premise success on a continued misapprehension of the nature and extent of what we are up against, and it would signal that we will lose the war, which, as Sen. McCain says, is a lot more important than losing the election."

K-Lo adds her two cents on Romney and Iraq: "We all know I'm partial to him, but I think there's a certain prudent humility to his approach, even if it sounds awkward at the moment ("wait for Monday," essentially...)."

ROMNEY II: Where The Men Aren't

It took a day, but Mitt Romney's "we have to have concern for both lives" answer on abortion is proving to be a bit of a winner. The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez writes: "That strikes me as a really healthy and helpful way to be addressing the issue. ... I don't know who's going to win this nomination, but I know I'd like Republican nominee who opposes legal abortion and who understands why - that we must protect the sanctity and dignity of human life. And that there are real people - both who were not allowed to be born, and who are walking among us - who have been harmed the 'choice' the liberal feminists and their fellow-travelers have put so much of their energy into."

The Corner's Kate O'Beirne echoes K-Lo's sentiments but wants to see more from Romney: "Agree that Romney gave an effective response to the question about women and abortion, but have long thought that pro-life politicians pay too little attention to men and abortion. Mitt Romney is perfectly suited for calling necessary attention to the irresponsible men who bear responsibility for so many abortions. When the decision to have an abortion is made, the woman is too alone too often. Male irresponsibility plays a large role in our abortion rate and Mitt should say so."

Even Andrew Sullivan took a break from his Romney hating: "If the pro-life movement were less prohibitionist and more aspirational it would win more converts."

THOMPSON: Ronald Reagan Is Not Walking Through That Door

Fred Thompson's Des Moines, IA, campaign kick off event received mixed reviews. NY Sun's Ryan Sager called it a "a whimper of a start" and reports other media types called the showing 'pathetic' 'small' and 'low energy.' RCP Blog's Tom Bevan notes the campaign claimed 450 people showed up, but he guessed the number was "more in the 250 range, and a decent percentage of folks in the room (perhaps 20-25%) were members of the media."

Cyclone Conservative seemed to buy into the Team Thompson numbers: "This was an extraordinarily well planned event and very professional in nature. There were also, I would estimate, somewhere between 350 and 400 people in attendance, which definitely brought a smile to the Senator's face and no doubt some added optimism to the blossoming campaign of the former Law and Order star."

The Brody File noted early reviews of Thompson "didn't seem too kind" but moved to defend the candidate: "The reviews on Thompson didn't seem too kind to him on his opening day but let's remember a few things. First of all, Thompson is being saddled with this idea that he's the next Ronald Reagan. The problem here is that there was only one Ronald Reagan and his public speaking skills were impeccable. Thompson isn't quite there yet. It's an unfair comparison. ... I think it's fair to say that Thompson needs to probably bring some more pop and energy when he delivers his speeches on the stump. But you can't change the guy. He is who he is. What works for him is this plain spoken, southern style. That has its own charm."

THOMPSON II: On Fred & Astronauts

AmSpec bloggers took note of the high ratings for the 9/6 GOP debate and made the case Fred Thompson may have reached less primary voters with his Tonight Show appearance than the Fox broadcast did. AmSpec's John Tabin blogs: "The Tonight Show scored a 4.7 Nielsen rating on Wednesday night, which if I'm doing my math right translates to about 5.3 million households. ... presumably there's an overlap between the Fox News audience and the people who tuned into Leno just to see Fred; Brit Hume mentioned the Thompson appearance, after all. It's quite possible, even likely, that Thompson reached fewer Republican primary voters than the debate did, but of course there's no way to know for sure."

AmSpec's Jennifer Rubin adds: "If Leno's audience is a cross section of America then about half the viewers are registered to vote. Phil is likely right-- the NH debate probably had more registered voters(who else would suffer through one of these?) watching than did Leno."

Also speculating on the Thompson announcement, NRO's David Freddoso suggests Thompson timed his announcement so that he could "avoid filing financial disclosure forms for the third quarter of the year, which all the other candidates will have to fill out. In that case, no one will get a look at the campaign's finances until January." The campaign responded through The Corner's Steve Spruiell: "When asked specifically why the campaign picked Sept. 6th, [Todd] Harris repeated that the timing of the announcement was dictated by a carefully planned unfolding of events, and that any correlation with FEC deadlines was coincidental."

That caused Freddoso to retort: "'Carefully Planned' for Sept. 6 ... I love that phrase. I wouldn't blame the guy for doing it, though - it's genius!"

Back at AmSpec, Jennifer Rubin shares an email from recently forced out Thompson staffer Jim Mills: "As far as I can tell -- the only people who haven't worked in the Fred Thompson press shop this summer are Larry Craig and that woman astronaut who wore those diapers cross country." AmSpec's Quin Hillyer responds: "I do think that forcing Mills out was sort of the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of indicating that the Thompson team wasn't merely in flux as it organized, but seems in permanent flux, right up to and probably at least a little bit past the announcement itself."

IRAQ: No Bush Dog Left Behind?

The netroots are urging their readers to vote in a MoveOn poll asking MoveOn members if they should "support primary challengers against some Democrats who side with the president on Iraq?" From MoveOn's email survey:

Back in January, many of us were excited about the new Democratic Congress and all the progress we could make. And together, we have made real progress on minimum wage, children's health care and even renewable energy. But in some critical issue areas the Democrats have failed us - usually because too many of them were afraid to fight. Just last month, Congress capitulated to President Bush and politics of fear over wiretapping. And we've all been disappointed and frustrated by the way Iraq policy has been handled. We have to work together to make sure that Democrats are held accountable to their voters. But the question is, should we use primary challenges as a way to hold them accountable?

Matt Stoller links to the MoveOn poll and a MyDD diarist makes a direct connection between Open Left's Bush Dog campaign and MoveOn's primary challenge poll: "The Bush Dogs must be brought to heel, and taught to sit on command. They are wild dogs now, but not for long. The only way to teach these bad dogs to behave and act like Democratic Hounds lies in the primary challenge. MoveOn is running a campaign to do this."

Also at Open Left, Chris Bowers seconds Archpundit's identification of Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL-03) as a promising first target: "Lipinski is entirely out of step with his district. Let's find someone who is a better fit."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Meet The New Boss

Wonkette's 'Ask a Lobbyist' answers the following reader query: "Are the new lobbying laws the legislative hand job they appear to be or is there actually going to be the fundamental change in the way lobbyists operate?"

Well, let me turn this around on you. Do you think that lobbyists will operate significantly differently because they have to file quarterly instead of semiannually? Do you think that Members and staff will treat lobbyist significantly differently now that we can't treat them to meals at Union Pub or T Coast or even some nice place? Do you think forcing all receptions to be plate-less will really affect a Member's vote one way or the other? ... In my opinion, the legislation is designed to make Members' constituents feel they've done something; to make lobbyists' lives more of a pain; and to affect mostly the little crap that some staffers felt made the really low salaries more tolerable. But, maybe it is really groundbreaking ethics reform. You tell me.

LEST WE FORGET: Finally, A WH Campaign Jonah Goldberg Can Get Behind

The Huffington Post's Marty Beckerman admits facebook groups advocating Captain Jean-Luc Picard for President "are farcical in nature" but then goes on to make the case Picard would at least be better than Pres. Bush:

Bush invaded Iraq as soon as the reactionary political atmosphere proved conducive; he did not take the time to plan strategies for occupation or exit. However, Picard has a far more cautious approach to foreign policy and greater skepticism of nation-building. "History has proved again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well-intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous," Picard says in the TNG episode "Symbiosis." Picard criticized "cowboy diplomacy" by name in "Unification," supposedly the first modern usage of this disparaging phrase. Instead of losing his temper and acting brashly, Picard follows the United Federation of Planets' Prime Directive of nonintervention unless a hostile situation has no possible peaceful outcome, in which case he would respond swiftly and ruthlessly, emulating Colin Powell far more than any neoconservative. According to Lieutenant Commander Data, a human-like android, Picard has an 83 percent likelihood of action when faced with such emergencies. He might not qualify as a battle-hungry Klingon but he certainly isn't a Kucinich voter either.

Posted by Conn Carroll at September 7, 2007 12:47 PM