October 31, 2007

10/31: 2/5 Can't Get Here Quick Enough

Watching the Dem WH '04 debates we remember thinking that the longer the Dem primary lasted, the better it would be for the eventual nominee. With no GOP primary to cover, every debate was two straight hours of Pres. Bush bashing and the free media gained by the candidates was incalculable. Watching 10/30's Dem debate we came to the conclusion this primary can not end quick enough for the Dems ... especially if Hillary Clinton eventually prevails. Every male candidate on the stage last night attacked her relentlessly. And the GOP debates are no different. As strong a candidate as HRC is, and as able as her staff is, we have to wonder just how much damage the constant attacks from all seven Dem candidates and all five GOP candidates will do in the coming months.

DEM DEBATE: The City Of Sisterly Unlove

Like everyone else, bloggers noticed that 10/30's Dem debate in Philadelphia was a 'Get Hillary Clinton' session from the beginning. TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta blogs: "OK, this is now everybody -- and I do mean everybody -- against Clinton. It makes her look brave for just standing there, this small determined woman being attacked by three men on either side of her, two male moderators, and the entire male Republican field. Each of the critics on his own would be more effective, but taken as whole, the optics of this are uncomfortable."

For most of the evening, Clinton received passing marks from the netroots, until Tim Russert pressed her on immigration. MyDD's Todd Beeton blogs: "The consistent thread throughout the debate was clearly Clinton's "double talk." Both Obama and Edwards attacked her on it early on and she exhibited signs of it in a couple of answers, but she might have escaped unscathed if not for her response to the illegal immigrant driver's license question. There, she basically proved the criticisms true."

Edwards won the Daily Kos debate straw poll (as always), but this time that assessment was shared by most others watching the debate. Candidate specific debate reactions include:

DEBATE BIDEN: A Noun, A Verb, And Joe Biden Walk Into A Bar

• Crooks and LiarsLogan Murphy: "Senator Joe Biden came away with one of the more memorable lines from tonight's Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC when he took a shot at President Bush and went after Rudy Giuliani and his lack of qualification to be president."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "My favorite part so far was Biden's tirade against Giuliani, calling him the most unqualified person ever to be President. I don't like Biden, but I loved that answer."
• TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta: "Joe Biden says he's not running against Clinton, but to be the leader of the free world, then makes the toughest, most direct case against Rudy Giuliani by any candidate on the stage, while still managing to get in a few jokes and laughs from the audience."
• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: "Okay, I may have to endorse Biden after this tear against Rudy. Right, the least qualified man running for president since George Bush. Actually, this whole answer is pretty great. Not really being in the race is sorta liberating."

DEBATE CLINTON: A Licence To Kill?

• The Left Coaster's Steve Soto: "Perhaps she was frayed from being the sole target of attention tonight, but Hillary showed some flaws tonight. This wasn't her best debate, perhaps because she was constantly defending herself from a gang of men: her opponents and Tim Russert.
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "She sounded like she agreed with NY Governor Spitzer that illegal immigrants should have drivers licenses. ... But, then Clinton said she didn't agree with Spitzer ... So, I think she thinks that Spitzer is trying to do the right thing...but she doesn't agree with him...or something like that. ... that immigration answer from Hillary Clinton was bizarre. I still don't know what she said."
• TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta: "Mark my words: Chris Dodd's attack on Clinton for supporting "the privilege of a driver's licence" for illegal immigrants, even though she said that's not, in fact, what she supports, is going to have legs.
• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: "Not sure what I think about the Hillary/drivers' license exchange. It does seem like a typically bogus hedge. ... Here's the thing with Hillary. Not always inspiring answers. But, man, she never flubs an answer. Simply unflappable. Like a machine. And I mean that as a compliment."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "There's no question that Hillary's answer was unusually spineless, especially since she had had plenty of time to think about this. ... Still, is this really a killer moment? If it is, the bar has really gotten pretty low. I doubt very much that Hillary is going to win or lose the election based on straddling the issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. In a Republican primary maybe, but not a Democratic one."
• a Daily Kos commenter: "HRC made her first obvious mistake of the campaign on the immigration issue. Her position on the issue was secondary to the fact that, as Edwards promptly noted, she changed it in 2 minutes."
• another dKos commenter: "I think this will prove to anyone paying attention that hillary is absolutely not viable as a presidential candidate. period. She will never treat us like adults. She will always have the mommy attitude that she'll do what's best for us and she doesn't have to treat us with the respect to be honest and let us decide for ourselves."

DEBATE DODD: Expecting That Nativists For Pot Endorsement Any Day Now

• IA Independent's Chase Martyn: "Dodd engaged Clinton in what may have been her worst moment of the night, when he forced her to very obviously equivocate on the issue of giving driver licenses to undocumented immigrants in New York. This fit perfectly into the theme of Clintonian "doublespeak" that defined the majority of the debate. But it also put Dodd in the unfortunate position of attacking a policy that has strong support among many progressive bloggers ... Still, the increased attention will work to his advantage."
• Daily Kos' Miss Laura: "I have to give Dodd a quick shout out for drawing attention to the problem of mass incarceration for minor drug crimes."
• a Daily Kos commenter: "Had my conversion moment tonight when I heard Dodd came out for decriminalization. That's all I needed to hear - he's my candidate! Yay!"
• another dKos commenter: "I was MUCH more disturbed by Dodd on immigrants ... Dodd came off less like a "leader" and more like my stodgy, old, angry uncle - basically, it seemed like he was pandering on that, and to all the wrong people."

DEBATE EDWARDS: If Anyone Played Rocky Last Night...

• Andrew Sullivan: "The winner was clearly Edwards. He was concise, aggressive, completely right about Clinton and always on point. He seemed unafraid to take her on, while Obama was still playing a too-careful defense."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Edwards is having a good night."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I think Edwards had a better debate than Obama did, especially when it came to scoring points at Clinton's expense, although I don't think either of them "won it" per se."
• TNR's Noam Scheiber: "Edwards struck me as more compelling, for two reasons. First, his delivery was far more confident and focused. Edwards cut immediately to the issue of Clinton's honesty and kept pounding her over and over again."
• Matthew Yglesias: "I wasn't really watching after the first half hour or so, but it seemed to me that Edwards was doing a better job than Obama of landing blows on Clinton and that something about the dynamic of so many different candidates slamming HRC was weird."
• The Nation's Ari Melber: "John Edwards had the strongest showing, pounding Clinton as the status quo candidate. ... Edwards repeatedly presented himself as the most credible "change" candidate."

OBAMA: Float Like A Butterfly, Sting Like A ... Butterfly

• Matthew Yglesias: "Insofar as people fear that Obama may not have the requisite instinct for the jugular, I don't think he was allaying that fear."
• TNR's Noam Scheiber: "Obama backed into his attack almost apologetically ... he said at the outset, sounding a little jittery. ... He looked relieved after his opening salvo and conspicuously didn't invoke Clinton's name during his next few responses. It was a though, having finally proved he could challenge Clinton to her face, he was eager to resume his usual posture."
• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Obama doesn't looks so comfortable on the offensive. Obama responded somewhat bumpily, painting himself as the underdog in a complicated Rocky metaphor that went, um, right over my head."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "If this debate was about Obama stepping it up, as his own telegraphing and the media anticipation led us to believe, he didn't, and that's only good for Edwards."
• Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "Obama says he's going to end the bickering between parties. Which will easily be accomplished, I suppose, when the wingnuts crush him like a bug."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Was this the new, more aggressive Obama? Yes it was! I'd say he landed a few jabs, but nothing serious. He needs to work on his aggression skills."
• Andrew Sullivan: "As someone who thinks Obama is still the best bet for real change in this election, I kept feeling underwhelmed by his performance. You wait for him to go in for the kill ... and ... he ... never ... quite gets there."

DEM DEBATE II: A General Election Preview

Conservative reaction to 10/30's debate include:

• The Corner's John O'Sullivan: "In the last moments Hillary began to crash ... What this little thing demonstrates is that immigration is the issue that the Democrats know is their Achilles Heel. ... Is there any reason why the GOP as a whole should not now come down firmly on the side of a genuine immigration reform that would reduce immigration, legal and illegal, emphasize skills and English language proficiency more than at present, and force employers to obey the law."
• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "A Republican strategist watching would have been heartened by the naive liberalism on display tonight-heartened, at least, as long as he didn't focus on the fact that the one adult on the stage is the one who's probably going to win."
• O'Sullivan again: "What depresses me about tonight's debate is not merely that Hillary Clinton is the strongest and most adult person on the stage-it's also the possibility that the same thing might at least look true if she were parachuted into the GOP debate."

OBAMA: Happy Gays Are Here Again

In the wake of the Donnie McClurkin fiasco, the netroots are still trying to determine why Barack Obama has continued to fall behind Hillary Clinton after his initial announcement bump. Open Left's Chris Bowers explains that originally he had hoped Obama could form "a combination of the Jesse Jackson coalition in 1988 and the Howard Dean coalition of 2003" or as Bowers calls it "the coalition of non-whites and non-Christian Democrats."

Bowers declines to guess why Obama's support has fallen among the non-white side of the coalition but does guess as to why he hasn't caught on among "the progressive creative class." Bowers writes: "Frist, he kept attacking extremist liberal strawmen, which is basically an attack on the progressive creative class. Second, he kept talking about unity and reaching across the aisle during a time when conservatives and Republicans were repeatedly shooting down consensus legislation in the Senate."

Also articulating their Obama doubts, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum blogs: "When you get down to it, I guess I'm sympathetic toward Hillary but really, really wishing that Obama would give me a good reason to change my mind and support him instead. But he just never does. ... And his Kumbaya campaigning schtick leaves me cold. Worse than that, in fact: it leaves me terrified that he just doesn't know what he's up against with the modern Republican Party and won't have the instinct to go for the jugular when the inevitable Swift Boating commences."

Matthew Yglesias links to Drum and comments: "In particular, if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee, I want to see a Democrat who will, enthusiastically, smear him ... Someone who's in it to win it, and isn't trying to prove anything other than his (or her) ability to win the election. Hillary Clinton is that person and I'm not so sure Barack Obama is."

At The Huffington Post, Rod McCullom blogs: "If you're wondering why the Barack Obama campaign is losing traction among black voters .... look no further than the meta-messaging presented in the New York Times interview with Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny. ... The senator rehashed his all-too-familiar "change" rhetoric and says "now is the time" to distinguish himself from the Democratic front runner and accused her of trying to ... obfuscate ... and avoid the big issues. ... Blah, blah, blah. It's like going to the club on a Saturday night and watching another guy publicly announce that "now is the time" to put his arm around the neck of a hot babe standing nearby--or, in our case, a hot man--and ask for a kiss. Geez, just grow a pair and just do it."

Also, AMERICAblog is selling Obama t-shirts with slogans including: "Obama cured me! (of wanting to vote for him)"; "Happy Gays are here again"; and "Bigots for Obama."

GIULIANI: One Of Many

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt hosted Yale prof. and Rudy Giuliani foreign policy advisor Charles Hill on his show 10/30 to "counter the idea that anyone thinks for Rudy." When Hewitt asked if Hill's recent NY Sun quote was designed to distance Giuliani from Norman Podhoretz, Hill responded:

The intention to the questions that were being asked was simply to clarify that Mayor Giuliani has a lot of advisors, and Norman Podhoretz is one of the senior advisors. And we really admire the work that he's done, the thought positions that he's taken, deeply felt and well worked out. We want to hear from his, and we do on a regular basis. But he's one of many advisors that are part of the process that we go through.

In other Giuliani blogging, Robert Bluey thanks Giuliani for hist Law of the Sea Treaty opposition, The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru gives Giuliani a pass on campaign finance reform, and Right Wing News fails Rudy on immigration.

HUCKABEE: Keeping Huck In The Tent

RedState's Erick Erickson explains his "problem with Huckabee" by first quoting the former AR governor: "CEOs get paid 500 times what the average worker does, but they are not necessarily 500 times smarter or harder-working, and that is wrong." Erickson follows up: "I've asked Mike Huckabee about this statement - it's one he made in a Human Events editorial meeting I participated in. He said, at the time, that the government should not get involved in setting wages. But it's only a little step from preaching what he's preaching, to getting elected and doing something to take action."

More Erickson: "Mike Huckabee is a good man. And he is a social conservative. But next to social conservatives, I'm willing to bet that the entrepreneurial class is the second largest voting block in the Republican coalition. And they do not like economic populism, which is what this amounts to."

Other conservatives, however, are beginning to come to Huckabee's defense. Evangelical Outpost's Joe Carter reminds readers that Ronald Reagan "reneged on a campaign promise and signed into law the single biggest tax increase in the state's history" and adds: "If the Club for Growth had been around in 1980, Reagan might not have become President. The influential fiscal conservative group would surely have done everything in their power to prevent the Gipper from gaining the nomination. They would have attempted to derail Reagan's campaign just as they are now doing to Gov. Huckabee."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff links to Carter's analysis and comments: "the shots being directed at Huckabee now that his popularity has increased seem unfair. Specifically, the suggestion that, except on social issues, Huckabee is a populist liberal in the Bill Clinton mode strikes me as far-fetched. ... Republicans looking for the strongest economic conservative probably won't find their man in Huckabee, and it's natural for Huckabee's rivals to hammer his lack of purity in these matters ... Conservatism may be a shrinking tent, but I hope there's room in it for Mike Huckabee."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: There Is Only One Finite Resource On Any Campaign

TAPPED's Mark Schmitt links to Garance Frane-Ruta suggestion that a scheduler is a lower-level staff position and responds:

I don't know a lot about campaigns, but I know one thing: the scheduler is not, or should not be, a "low-level staffer." The scheduler is key. He or (usually) she controls the campaign's most important and finite asset: the candidate's time. Media buyers, "strategists," pollsters are a dime a dozen, and they all come with big egos and big price tags. A great scheduler, however, one who can balance all the political and personal obligations, and use the candidate's time in a savvy way that positively reinforces the message, is a brilliant and rare thing.

LEST WE FORGET: Does This Mean Knowing Is No Longer Half The Battle?

Townhall's Matt Lewis links to news that 'G.I. Joe' will stand for "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity" in Paramount Pictures new film and quips: "Even our cartoons are losing their sovereignty."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:39 PM

October 30, 2007

10/30: Friends No More

On 12/5/06 DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas surveyed what was then the Dem WH '08 primary calendar and proclaimed: "If Obama runs, he wins." Ten months later, on the tail of problems surrounding Social Security and a gospel controversy, Markos blogs: "Unfortunately, the more he stumbles, the bigger the Clinton blowout could be. Her juggernaut advances steadily while her opponents flail. We truly are losing a real choice this primary season, and that's not a good thing."

We do not think that Markos' prognostication skills should be derided here. Kos believed that Obama would run a very different kind of campaign than he actually wound up running. So did we. We thought Obama would embrace the netroots as allies and use their help to defeat Clinton. Instead, Obama has rejected their combative style of politics and has prioritized other constituencies at almost every turn. Now, if Obama is going to win the nomination, it is going to be without their help. And frankly we do not see how that is possible. It is not that the netroots are kingmakers for Dem primaries, but if you are going to run against an establishment candidate, we can't imagine anyone succeeding without their help.

OBAMA: Other Than That Barack, How Did You Enjoy The Show?

All might have been forgotten or forgiven between Barack Obama and the netroots over gospel singer/'gay-basher' Donnie McClurkin's appearance at an Obama Columbia, SC, gospel concert 10/28, but the fact that McClurkin emceed the event and reportedly "turned the final half hour of the three-hour concert into a revival meeting" became the last straw for many in the community. Reactions include:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Obama's anti-gay religious right activist used the opportunity Obama gave him last night to preach his hate to thousands of African-Americans. That's just great. And the white preacher who Obama picked to help explain to the audience that gays aren't minions of Satan? CNN reports that he said nothing at all -- just a short little prayer, then he left. ... So, in the end, Obama let his "best" and "favorite" artist slam gays to thousands of African-Americans, in his name, and neither he nor his hand-chosen white gay preacher said anything in response. Class act, that Obama campaign."
• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "It's an all-out implosion by the Obama campaign. This truly is indefensible."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Obama's not a homophobe, he is probably more comfortable around gay people than any presidential candidate and he has a great record on LGBT rights. It is a significant incident though, because it's about priorities. ... This looks like Obama is giving a wink and a nod to bigots. ... It's not about positions and it never has been about positions, it's about constituencies and identity, and prioritizing your values. And it's not an accident, it's a choice."
• Atrios: "A fascinating thing about Democratic politics is that progressive activists, especially those in marginalized groups, are expected sit down and shut up and take it because they're supposed to be smart enough to know that nods and winks to bigots are just crass political maneuvers that candidates make to court votes."
• Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "Obama's message of hope and bipartisanship stays positive by letting proxies do his dirty work for him. Sorry, no sale here."
• Pastor Dan at Daily Kos: "I tried to defend -- or at least recontextualize -- Barack Obama's association with Donnie McClurkin the other day, but the latest revelations are just too much. Clearly, Obama has thrown his lot in with defending a bigoted fathead. I kept hoping that he would take the appropriate steps to distance himself from said bigoted fathead, without much luck. If anything, he's even more tightly wrapped up in McClurkin now."

Obama's campaign did not help their cause by giving MSMers a three-page memo which included the following in all caps: "MCCLURKIN DOES NOT WANT TO CHANGE GAYS AND LESBIANS WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR LIVES AND HAS CRITICIZED CHURCH LEADERS WHO DEMONIZE HOMOSEXUALS." AMERICAblog's John Aravosis responds: "So David Duke's only problem, per the Obama campaign, is that he vilifies the happy Jews and the happy blacks? Keep digging, guys. Obama keeps making clear that he hasn't learned his lesson, he doesn't understand what he did wrong, and he will continue to coddle those who attack our community so long as it wins him votes and money."

The memo even led Open Left's Chris Bowers to stop defending Obama: "This isn't simply a mistake, despite what I first wrote. If the Obama campaign is not only keeping McClurkin as the headliner of the concert, but also issuing memos defending his views, producing videos endorsing McClurkin before the event, and then allowing McClurkin to emcee the event, it is pre-meditated, not a mistake."

OBAMA II: Kicking A Campaign When They're Down

The netroots do not have a problem with Barack Obama's social security policy prescription (restructuring the cap on payroll taxes), but his rhetoric acknowledging there is a social security problem that needs to be 'fixed' is antithetical to netroots thinking on the issue. Atrios explains:

I imagine some readers who haven't been hanging around these parts for all that long might have justifiably been puzzled at the reaction to Obama's decision to try to make dealing with Social Security his signature attack on Clinton. It's true that Obama didn't assert that there was some huge crisis. But the fact remains that he put the idea out there that Social Security had a "problem" which needs to be fixed and that any serious presidential candidate needs to address the issue in clear detail. So what's the big deal?

Beating back George Bush's plan to kill social security was probably the first major victory for the broadly defined netroots movement. ... Beating back the steady stream of misinformation about the nonexistent crisis was done throughout the blogs, on Media Matters, etc. ... So, anyway, having someone suggest that Social Security is a problem which needs to be dealt with by any serious candidate is like the bat signal for people like me. There is no problem with Social Security. None at all. Whatever broader fiscal time bombs exist have absolutely nothing to do with Social Security.

Those with similar reactions include:

• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: "If Obama is hoping for an issue to gain traction with vis a vis Hillary, he's really muffed it picking Social Security. In itself the idea of removing or significantly restructuring the 'cap' on payroll taxes is a good one, at least one with a lot to recommend it. ... But what Obama is doing is buying into the false idea that Social Security is in some sort of crisis."


• DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "We spent most of 2005 fighting the Bush administration and its minions in Congress on this very issue, and battled the media and the politicians on this very frame. There is no social security crisis that must be "fixed". Sure, the system could be improved to be less regressive, but what the hell is Obama doing using scare-mongering language on social security?"


• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "That Obama is using the need to shore up Social Security as an attack on Clinton, well, this makes me want to say that I'm disappointed that Obama is abandoning the politics of hope. ... On another level, I just feel bad for progressive Obama supporters. It's simply awful to watch a person that you thought was great and progressive betray and embarrass you for political gain, and move into a more authoritarian direction.


• The Huffington Post's Dave Johnson: "Obama is running ads reinforcing the right's bamboozlement that Social Security is running out of money! ... I know that Senator Obama's heart is in the right place and he has no intention of harming Social Security. But this ad is a mistake that could backfire. Please stop running this ad and please change the language."

OBAMA III: What Was Your Favorite Moment Of The Obama Era?

The combination of the McClurkin/social security issues has inspired some in the netroots to write post-mortems for his campaign already. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas blogs: "I once wrote a post titled something like "if Obama runs, he wins". The fat lady hasn't sung yet, so I might still prove prescient. But I'd be shocked if I was."

Later Kos adds: "This is truly an epic flameout by the Obama campaign, engaged in actions that are completely indefensible. ... Obama isn't the be-all savior for what ails our country. No one is. If there's a message I thought we were successfully delivering in the netroots is that it was up to US to move this country in the right direction since we couldn't depend on our so-called "leaders". This sort of hero worship of several of our candidates (Edwards, Obama, and even Hillary) is somewhat creepy to begin with, but serves little more than to set up the inevitable disappointment."

Open Left's Matt Stoller congratulates the netroots for avoiding the Obama swoon: "I'm really proud of how we stood up for our values and ourselves, and didn't rationalize away Obama's pandering. It's how a healthy movement should act. ... It's an important precedent to set, that values are the driving force behind what we do, not incoherent notions of strategy. That is what divides us from DC insiders, that we react badly to acts of betrayal, that we don't let our leaders throw us or our gay brothers and sisters under the bus. That is what brings us strength and credibility, that we stand for something and lead."

Finally, Open Left's Chris Bowers explains why he should have seen Obama's "eventual downward slide" coming:

• Barack Obama was never going to run as a partisan progressive or Democrat, and was always going to chastise progressives in right-wing frames whenever he was challenged by the left. His past statements showed a pattern of this behavior that should have been obvious.
• Given his relatively high support compared to his name ID, and his natural base among both working class African-Americans and the under-50, progressive "creative class" of the Democratic Party, he clearly had the best chance to defeat Clinton from the start of the campaign. In fact, he might have had the only realistic chance.
• Unless the underwent a dramatic transformation, bullet point #1 was always going to destroy Obama's chances with the under-50, progressive "creative class" in #2, which would in turn destroy his ability to defeat Clinton. The only candidate with a clear shot to defeat Clinton was always going to repeatedly undercut and otherwise press the "self-destruct" button on his own coalition. In the end, the result would be Clinton domination as the Obama coalition scattered among the rest of the field.

CLINTON: It Takes A Woman

Garance Franke-Ruta links to analysis showing Hillary Clinton's campaign has more women in 'senior positions' than most other Dem campaigns and comments: "[I]t's not like there was some huge population of female strategists out there the various campaigns were competing for and Clinton just happened to snap them all up. Clinton created, on her own, a cadre of female strategists to serve her political needs, by spotting talent in the women around her and promoting them up the political food chain. No other candidate can say, for example, that their campaign is being managed by their female former scheduler."

Matthew Yglesias links and adds: "It also might be worth noting in this regard that I think almost everyone would agree that Clinton's had the best-run campaign -- free of mistakes, and seemingly drawing blood on those occasions when they've felt the need to attack."

EDWARDS: Trading Up?

John Edwards continued opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement is popular among the netroots. Jonathan Tasini blogs at The Huffington Post: "Aside from the ethical and moral opposition to so-called "free trade," Edwards is making a very smart political choice for the Democratic Party. I recently pointed out a nationwide poll that showed that a majority of REPUBLICAN voters oppose so-called "free trade." Do we need to put flashing lights on that fact for those Democratic Party leaders who would still prefer to side with the corporate insiders, as opposed to the voters?"

David Sirota adds at Working Assets: "The move, consistent with Edwards' economic populist campaign, drives a wedge right through the heart of the Democratic presidential primary. ... You can be sure we'll be hearing a lot of noise about how this deal is supposedly great for average Americans and Peruvians alike. But remember, no major labor, human rights, anti-poverty, environmental, consumer protection or religious group in either the United States or Peru have endorsed the deal."

GOP LANDSCAPE: Or Maybe The Fed Is Really That Unpopular

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini links to Rasmussen data showing Hillary Clinton beating Ron Paul 48% - 38% in a head-to-head matchup and remembers: "At this point in '04, the named Democrat (Kerry, Dean, Clark, etc.) was losing to Bush by 10-15 points; the generic Dem by 6-7 points. The Republican field is similarly muddled this time, and not a lot of people are paying attention to the Republican race. So the Republican nominee has a good opportunity to pick up ground against Hillary post-February 5, who remains largely untested in this campaign. ... Hillary not breaking 50% against a guy who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve is a leading indicator of her fundamental weakness in the general election."

GOP FIELD: Ceding Taxes To Rangel?

The Corner's Larry Kudlow looks over Rep. Charlie Rangel's (D-NY) tax plan and blogs: "Mr. Rangel's willingness to buck his party and consider a lower capital-gains tax is another reason why I believe the House's top taxman deserves just a little more praise, and a little less criticism, than he's been getting from my brethren. ... And by the way, where are the Republicans on full-scale tax reform? We also need to hear from the Republican presidential candidates on their ideas for full-scale tax reform. Let's get specific, fellas. ... The time has come gentlemen."

GIULIANI: Not Ready To Trust Him Yet

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru pushes back against Frank Rich and Matt Frank claims that Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton do not differ on abortion: " They're wrong. Giuliani favors restrictions on federal funding, real parental-consent laws, and bans on partial-birth abortion, and Clinton doesn't." Also at NRO, Giuliani foreign policy advisor David Frum looks at Giuliani's record cleaning up New York and predicts social conservatives and Giuliani are just "friends who haven't met yet."

Hot Air's Allahpundit isn't ready to buy Frum's argument: "I won't deny that there's something to Frum's analysis. Rudy took on the entrenched liberal interests in New York, a city that was nearly written off as ungovernable before his tenure, and won. ... [but] he's given us reasons to suspect that he'll govern as a sort of tough liberal who could go in almost any direction, and he has given us reasons to fear that no matter how conservatively he may govern, he'll derail himself and let us down with some kind of personal scandal. ... Maybe Rudy is a social con's friend. If so, he has some courting and convincing to do yet."

THOMPSON: Sun Rises In East, Sets In West

Fred Thompson pollster John McLaughlin tells NRO's Jim Geraghty that "Immigration is big in Iowa." More from McLaughlin via Geraghty: "The mainstream media ran down our immigration plan last week, saying it was unrealistic and too tough. Our voters love it. We've gotten nothing but positive response."

IA CAUCUS: Hold The Phone

Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal looks at the Univ. of IA's new poll showing Hillary Clinton edging Barack Obama 29% to 27% and Mitt Romney beating Rudy Giuliani 36% to 31% and notes: "[I]t used an open-ended vote question, the same screening questions and sampled from a list of telephone numbers drawn from listed telephone directories (i.e. not a registered voter list and not using a random digit dial methodology). ... The problem with that is that it projects to a "likely caucus goer" universe of nearly half the adults in Iowa -- more than a million. ... So this poll is sampling a considerably broader population of Iowa adults than has turned out to attend past caucuses."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We're Surprised No One Thought To Blame Bloggers

Tyler Cowen links to a Stanford study showing gerrymandering has not led to increased polarization, and then summarizes another polarization hypothesis from a Harvard study:

[P]olitical extremists are most active when they fear that the extremists from the other side might win. Each candidate requires those extremists for support and resources, and when a candidate wins he or she then must polarize to some extent. If you think of the extremists as motivated by fear of the other side, in a lopsided district they are more likely to stay at home and keep their mouths shut, thereby allowing the candidate to straddle the center. It's a close race that brings out the partisans and gives them some measure of ex post control.

LEST WE FORGET: The Boys Are Definitely Right About #3

The Corner's Michael Ledeen passes on a story from a "overseas penpal" about a Spanish teacher who divided up her class to debate whether 'computer' ought to be a feminine or masculine noun. The boys argued computers were female because: 1. No one but their creator understands their internal logic; 2. The native language they use to communicate with other computers is incomprehensible to everyone else; 3. Even the smallest mistakes are stored in long term memory for possible later retrieval; and 4. As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself spending half your paycheck on accessories for it.

The women countered: 1. In order to do anything with them, you have to turn them on; 2. They have a lot of data but still can't think for themselves; 3. They are supposed to help you solve problems, but half the time they ARE the problem; and 4. As soon as you commit to one, you realize that if you had waited a little longer, you could have gotten a better model.

Ledeen reports: "The women won."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:44 PM

October 29, 2007

10/29: Not So Fast, Pundits

The recent Mike Huckabee polling surge has caused many pundits to announce -- perhaps prematurely -- that the GOP presidential contest is now a five-person race. The Weekly Standard'sFred Barnes disputes that premise in a new editorial entitled, "The Two-Man Race: Only Rudy and Mitt Have Credible Scenarios." Barnes' editorial has provoked an interesting discussion in the blogosphere, with a number of prominent bloggers agreeing with his assertion that the GOP nominee will most likely be Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney.

GOP FIELD: The Big Five? More Like The Big Two

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt (an avowed Romney supporter) agrees that the GOP race is now a contest between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney: "The reality is dawning that a vote for anyone other than Romney or Giuliani is a diminished vote, one that assists either Romney or Giuliani. A vote by a [John] McCain supporter for McCain instead of his or her second-choice Giuliani hurts the mayor. A vote by a pro-life activist for Mike Huckabee helps Giuliani by not helping the pro-life Romney. Clarity over the nature of the race and the dead-end nature of the Huckabee/[Fred] Thompson/McCain efforts should begin to impact the early races in a decisive fashion through November."

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall also sees a two-person race: "I'd discount [McCain's campaign] as a collapsed candidacy, Thompson's as a joke waiting for its punch line." Marshall links to a New York Times article depicting South Carolina as the pivotal contest in the GOP race and writes, "South Carolina is where the white evangelicals -- en masse -- come into play. If Rudy can't win there, the importance of his strong plurality showings on the national level probably fade quickly, both as an indicator and as a reality, since Romney will likely pick up the support of others who throw in the towel. If Rudy can win there it probably means the lifers will trade their principles on abortion for beefed up aggression abroad."

NRO's Rich Lowry is not ready to rule out Thompson and McCain just yet, but he agrees that Giuliani and Romney are the frontrunners: "It's not a five-man race. There are four candidates who can possibly win, and only two of them (Rudy, Romney) have clear paths to the nomination."

GOP FIELD II: Because Everyone Loves Rankings...

Right Wing News'John Hawkins emailed 225 conservative bloggers and asked them to rank the 5 candidates they would most like to see as the GOP nominee and the 5 candidates they'd least like to see as the GOP nominee. Among this group of bloggers, Fred Thompson is the most desired GOP nominee and Ron Paul is the least desired:

Most Desired GOP Nominee 1.) Fred Thompson 2.) Rudy Giuliani 3.) Duncan Hunter 4.) Mitt Romney 5.) Mike Huckabee 6.) John McCain 7.) Tom Tancredo 8.) Ron Paul 9.) Alan Keyes 10.) John Cox

Least Desired GOP Nominee 1.) Ron Paul 2.) Alan Keyes 3.) John McCain 4.) John Cox 5.) Tom Tancredo 6.) Rudy Giuliani 7.) Mitt Romney 8.) Duncan Hunter 9.) Mike Huckabee 10.) Fred Thompson

GraniteGrok's Doug Lambert links to the poll results and observes, "Rudy Giuliani continues to poll very well, even in groups that one might consider rather conservative, like those reporting in to John's survey."

Not every conservative blogger finds Giuliani palatable, however, as The Right Angle's D.R. Tucker demonstrates: "With all due respect to Rudy Giuliani, the prospect of the former New York mayor becoming the GOP Presidential nominee for '08 is simply too much to bear. ... The fact that a liberal Republican such as Giuliani has even made it this far is an ignoble indictment of the extent to which we have abandoned our commitment to Reagan principles. By all rights, Giuliani should be a discredited candidate on the level of Ron Paul, not a frontrunner in many polls."

In a separate post, Hawkins ranks the GOP candidates based on their positions on illegal immigration:

1.) Tom Tancredo 2.) Duncan Hunter 3.) Ron Paul 4.) Fred Thompson 5.) Mitt Romney 6.) Rudy Giuliani 7.) John McCain 8.) Mike Huckabee

Hawkins: "Keep in mind that I am a staunch foe of illegal immigration, opposed the Kennedy/Bush amnesty bill, and am steadfastly opposed to comprehensive illegal immigration reform, amnesty, or rewarding illegal aliens for breaking our laws. The closer a candidate is to my position on the issue, the higher grade I gave him."

GIULIANI: Getting Good With Brownback?

Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent quotes a statement by Sam Brownback's Iowa political director suggesting that Brownback is warming to the idea of endorsing Giuliani. Sargent observes: "So, here a top political supporter of Brownback is saying that Brownback and 'many of his supporters' think Rudy has the best chance of defeating Hillary, and hence may be able to overlook his pro-choice views. If true, that suggests that Rudy's argument may be working among at least some social conservatives."

Josh Marshall is not surprised: "I've told a number of people over the last few days that for all the talk of this evangelical third-party candidacy if Rudy gets the nomination, I'll believe it when I see it. Sam Brownback, a big pro-lifer, appears to be laying the groundwork for a Rudy endorsement. It makes a hypocrite of one or the other of them. Probably both. But I bet you'll see others making their peace as well, especially if Romney doesn't, can't make the sale."

Meanwhile, NRO's Jim Geraghty thinks it's a bit too early to assume that Brownback will endorse Giuliani: "I'm not going to pretend that I know what's going on in Sam Brownback's head, regarding his meeting with Rudy Giuliani, but I think that until the Kansas Senator utters the words, 'I endorse,' the outrage is a little early."

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein is fed up with people calling Giuliani pro-choice: "It's great fun to taunt social conservatives with the fact that the Republican front-runner is 'pro-choice' and 'supports abortion rights.' But we're getting to the point where claiming so much is just, well, not factual. 'Pro-choice' politicians don't 'reassure' Sam Brownback that they'll appoint 'strict constructionist' justices to the Supreme Court following the model of John Roberts, as Giuliani did yesterday. ... Giuliani has become anti-choice, and the only way to protect and expand reproductive rights at the federal level is to elect a Democrat to the White House."

MCCAIN: Give Him A Break, People

On Friday, Blogometer quoted Mickey Kaus' statement that he doesn't buy McCain's new position on immigration:

"I'm continually amazed by the Cheap Date Conservatives I run into who think McCain has somehow convincingly changed on immigration."

Soren Dayton thinks Kaus is being unfair to McCain: "How does this not apply to the entire field?...You have Romney supporters running around saying that their candidate, whose position isn't even recognizably pro-life, is the candidate for pro-lifers. You have Thompson doing a complete 180 (540?) in a matter of months on immigration. People are giving the candidates free passes on this stuff. Why is Kaus so surprised this time? At least McCain is honest about it."

CLINTON: The Incumbent?

Digby believes that the GOP candidates are running against Hillary Clinton in order to portray themselves as agents of change trying to defeat an unpopular incumbent: "I don't know if anyone's noticed, but George W. Bush is being disappeared from the presidential campaign and everyone's running against incumbent Hillary Clinton ... we see a very odd subliminal narrative taking shape in which the blame for the nation's failures of the last seven years is being shifted to Clinton (and the 'do-nothing' Democratic congress) as if the Codpiece hasn't been running things since 2000."

MyDD's Todd Beeton shares Digby's concern and writes: "I wish Democrats would do more to tie all of the GOP candidates to Bush, making the case that a vote for any of them would be akin to voting for Bush's third term. Instead, the Republicans are pretending Bush doesn't exist and, if we're not careful they just may get voters, on some strange subconscious level, to believe it."

OBAMA: Taking The Gloves Off

Sunday's New York Times article about Obama's announcement that he will begin to go after Hillary more forcefully generated a lot of discussion in the blogosphere. Andrew Sullivan welcomes Obama's newfound aggression and writes: "Obama needs to be far more aggressive -- but not hostile to Clinton. She just isn't right for this critical moment in American history, too inherently divisive to bring this country back together in an extremely perilous time, too cautious to effect real change, and still too spooked by Republicans to do what is needed in Iraq. There's still time to stop her. But it's running out."

NRO's Jonah Goldberg is more dubious about Obama's strategy: "So Obama is announcing, once again, that he's going to highlight the differences between Hillary and himself. Good for him. I hope he does. But, he's said this before. Isn't it possible that there really aren't many differences between the two of them? Or any difference that may exist aren't necessarily helpful to Obama? What, beyond the war vote, are these grand differences?"

Kevin Drum is also dubious, and suggests that Obama try a new strategy: "This is good, but I have my doubts that trying to be 'clear with the American people' on these particular subjects is going to do the trick. As Obama says, Hillary Clinton is 'very deft politically,' and I don't think that's going to change. We've already seen Obama try to get some mileage out of the rather narrow differences he has with Hillary over Social Security, Iraq and Iran, and there's just no there there. There are differences, but they're too small to build a campaign on. What Obama needs is a brand new issue."

In a later post, Drum suggests two issues that Obama could embrace:

(1) Propose that the United States unilaterally offer to reopen its embassy in Tehran. Ditto for Cuba and North Korea (and Bhutan, I suppose, though I don't really know what the deal is with them). Make the point that we live in dangerous times, and diplomatic relations should be used as a way of more effectively dealing with the world, not as a way of making self-righteous statements of approval or disapproval about specific regimes.
(2) Propose a specific list of Bush administration executive orders that he would rescind. No shilly-shallying, just a flat promise to revoke them. Possibilities include the orders governing torture, military commissions, and FISA. If he wanted to be even bolder, he could categorically promise to halt the use of presidential signing statements.

OBAMA II: Anatomy Of A Campaign Mistake

Open Left's Chris Bowers writes a long, thoughtful post about the Rev. McClurkin fallout: "The Obama campaign made a couple of mistakes that resulted in getting caught in a discussion it would rather not have and which no presidential campaign is equipped to handle gracefully. I don't think that this means Obama is any less dedicated to reaching out to any of these groups, and I certainly don't think it means Obama's campaign is bridging any major divides within the progressive ecosystem. I think it means that the Obama campaign screwed up with inadequate vetting, and it has justifiably pissed off a lot of members of the GLBT community. Sometimes, a rose is just a rose, and a mistake is just a mistake."

Andrew Sullivan agrees: "I don't think the use of an anti-gay Gospel singer on a muscial tour is a big deal. I don't believe it was done deliberately. Which means it was a staffer mistake. Here's one key test for the Obama campaign: has that staffer been fired yet? Who has been held responsible and fired for such an unforced error? If we are to be reassured that Obama can do what Bush can't: hold people responsible for mistakes, we need to know who did this and when they were let go."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's All About The Nuances

The Politico's Ben Smith, on the Clinton-Obama matchup:

"What we have here, again, is a primary in which there are virtually no differences between the candidates on paper; and so the contrasts between their approaches to issues, and the nuances of their answers to question, become surrogates for the questions of character and capability on which voters will wind up deciding. That's the heart of Obama's case here -- that Clinton's caginess, not the substance of her views, makes her unready to lead; Clinton's attacks on Obama's foreign policy answers is a similar form of attack."

LEST WE FORGET: It's A Good Day To Be A Boston Sports Fan

Matthew Yglesias: "So when I sat down to watch the Redskins-Patriots game yesterday afternoon, I was under no illusions that the ultimate outcome of the game would be anything other than a Skins defeat, but wow, what domination. I had read, of course, about how good the Pats were and seen the highlight reels, but this was the first game of theirs of watched this season and it was a thing to behold -- I find myself seized by a vague, nameless horror so mystical and well-nigh ineffable that I almost despair of putting it in a comprehensible form. Good luck, Colts...."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:53 PM

October 26, 2007

10/26: Say No To Amnesty: The Sequel

When historians look back on the major political battles of 2007, "amnesty" may be the word that stands out the most. First wielded by conservatives as they sought to kill the comprehensive immigration bill, the term is now being used by the netroots as they seek to stop the Senate from granting retroactive immunity to telecom companies.

CLINTON: Where Do You Stand On Telecom Immunity?

Yesterday, the leading liberal bloggers sent a letter to Sen. Harry Reid and the Senate Judiciary Committee in which they encouraged them to "join Sen. [Chris] Dodd's leadership efforts to stop legislation that would allow [telecommunications] companies to escape liability." Dodd, who has seen his popularity among the netroots skyrocket after declaring that he would filibuster the bill, also launched a whip count on his website.

Hillary Clinton is taking heat from the netroots for failing to join Dodd in forcefully condemning the bill. When asked about the bill, Clinton said:

"I haven't seen it, so I can't express an opinion about it, but I don't trust the Bush administration with our civil rights and liberties, so I'm going to study it very hard, and as matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forth that would convince me differently."

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Clinton's ridiculous statement on amnesty for telecom companies is generating mockery and disdain from all sides."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Is it a coincidence we haven't heard anything convincing from Hillary Clinton, who took in $87,130 in telecom contributions in the 2006 cycle -- more than anyone else currently in the Senate?... By making an unquivocal statement and bring attention to the matter, she could create a groundswell of public support that puts pressure on other Senate Democrats to respect the rule of law. Then again, maybe that's the problem."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis took a break from bashing Barack Obama over his ties to Rev. McClurkin in order to praise him for supporting Dodd's filibuster: "In the 'good' Obama news category, he announced that he's supporting Senator Dodd's filibuster of the telecom immunity bill (the bill that would give Verizon, AT&T and other companies immunity for having helped the government illegally spy on innocent Americans). And that's good. Hillary, on the other hand, is being less good, and folks are being urged to contact her and urge her support for the filibuster."

OBAMA: Stuck In A Moment He Can't Get Out Of

The firestorm in the blogosphere surrounding Obama's decision to campaign with gospel singer Donnie McClurkin continues unabated. Yesterday, The Huffington Post's Michael Roston published "an open letter signed by 16 LGBT and black religious leaders [that] says that Obama is reaching out to bring blacks and homosexuals together." The letter states that "Barack Obama is constructing a tent big enough for LGBT Americans who know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being, and for African American ministers and citizens who believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters."

Aravosis immediately criticized the letter and repeated his call for Obama to fire McClurkin. He cited the following passage in the letter as "the most important":

At the same time, while Obama has said that he 'strongly disagrees' with Pastor McClurkin's comments, he will not exclude from his campaign the many Americans including many in the African American community who believe the same as Pastor McClurkin.

Aravosis: "Great, so we're to believe Obama would not exclude anti-Semites or racists from his campaign either? Well, would he? Someone needs to ask him that question - Senator, are you saying that you would welcome anti-Semites and racists into your campaign, even though you strongly disagree with them, because you believe in some kind of big tent of bigotry?"

Other liberal bloggers were similarly critical of the Obama campaign's response:

• Atrios: "Because anti-gay bigots exist in the African-American community, it's okay for Obama to embrace them? Not understanding."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Seriously, could Obama's campaign come off looking more inept with their handling of the McClurkin mess? It sure doesn't inspire confidence."
• Matt Stoller: "If there were a comedy of errors involving racism, homophobia, paternalism, single-issue groups and Bob Shrum, this is what it would read like."

GOP FIELD: It's Now The Big Five

NRO's Jim Geraghty explains "How Each of the Big Five Can Win The Nomination":

• Mike Huckabee: "First, he has to do very well in Iowa. Huck's got to make a heck of a splash, win outright, or place a close second or third. From there, he's got to do something to maintain that momentum in New Hampshire, even though it's not the most fertile ground for his type of appeal. By 'something,' I'm thinking a respectable double digit finish. Then move on to South Carolina and win."
• John McCain: "If the field narrows to Giuliani, Huckabee, and himself, he can probably close the deal as the consensus candidate, the man who won't infuriate social conservatives or fiscal conservatives, the man acceptable to both the Club For Growth and the Family Research Council...To get there, he needs Thompson and Romney, the two guys who can also contend for that, 'I Can Unite the Party' title, to stumble early."
• Mitt Romney: "For now, his mission is to just 'keep on truckin', although it would be nice for his national poll numbers to get up a bit...Losing either Iowa or New Hampshire will hurt him badly -- probably not enough to drive him out of the race, but blowing a longtime, and pretty significant lead will get him compared a lot to this year's New York Mets."
• Fred Thompson: "For now, he's just got to meet expectations in Iowa, which is to place a respectable second or third...I have an easy time picturing the race coming down to Rudy and Not Rudy, and the Not Rudy candidate winning in the end as Republicans conclude they're just not comfortable with a candidate with Giuliani's flaws on abortion, guns, and gays. It's in Thompson's interest that he be seen as the most viable Not Rudy candidate as quickly as possible."
• Rudy Giuliani: "When you've led all the national polls, most by quite a bit, for much of the year, you're sitting pretty...Besides sweeping his most friendly territory on [Feb. 5th] -- NY, NJ, CT, CA, Delaware, Illinois -- Giuliani needs the Not Rudy candidate to come out of the Not Rudy mini-primary bruised."

MCCAIN: Let's Chat

McCain participated in a conference call with a number of conservative bloggers yesterday in which he discussed torture, Iran, Judge Southwick, and the DREAM Act. Reactions were respectful, if not overwhelmingly positive, although Power Line's Paul Mirengoff declared that McCain's comments "left me thinking that maybe I supported the right guy in 2000 after all."

Soren Dayton writes: "The theme of the call really seemed to be communication. John McCain has made clear repeatedly that he would do more than the Bush administration to communicate. He would talk more about Iraq. About the deficit. About immigration. About global warming. About judges. He believes that he would be able to get through to people if he just explained. In that sense, he seems much more like Reagan or (Bill, but not Hillary) Clinton."

During the call, McCain criticized Giuliani's statement that he wasn't sure whether waterboarding was torture. Townhall's Matt Lewis reported that McCain "compared this statement to Mitt Romney's saying he would consult lawyers before striking an Iranian nuclear facility as both examples of 'inexperience'."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey adds: "McCain says that waterboarding is opposed by most of the retired military generals, and he considers it torture. It's a matter of keeping the moral high ground and understanding what kind of country we have."

Although McCain left for Iowa before the DREAM Act vote took place, Mirengoff reports that "McCain told us that he would have voted against cloture (i.e., in favor of preventing a vote) because he 'got the message' this summer that Americans want the border secured before we 'go on to the rest.' McCain would deem parts of the border secure when the governor of the relevant state so certifies."

While McCain's apparent change of heart on immigration satisfied Mirengoff, Slate's Mickey Kaus was not convinced: "But if--as border fence opponents constantly remind us--nearly half of illegal immigrants are here because they overstay visas, not because they sneak cross the border, why should the governors of border states be the ones who decide if the borders are secure?...I'm continually amazed by the Cheap Date Conservatives I run into who think McCain has somehow convincingly changed on immigration."

McCain also defended his participation in the "Gang of 14" compromise on judicial nominations. Jim Geraghty quotes McCain: "And I'm glad we didn't use the 51 vote standard that we would have had under the nuclear option, now that we see the obvious consequences for a Democratic president and a Democratic majority."

MCCAIN: Digging Up The 60s

McCain's new Woodstock ad has spurred an interesting blog conversation about the cultural divide that has helped define modern American politics. Soren Dayton calls the ad "clever" and writes, "Is John McCain signaling sympathy and awareness of the cultural DNA of the culture wars? Is this a way to get past the seeming divide between McCain and social conservatives?"

On the left, Matt Stoller notes that the ad "is generating good buzz among Republicans because it combines Hillary Clinton, Woodstock, drug use, the culture wars of the 1960s, and Vietnam...The GOP has lived off of the fumes of the civil rights backlash for a decade or so, and their whole mythology is built around fighting a liberal establishment that transparently doesn't exist."

Atrios links to the ad and writes, "I really don't understand that generation. I cannot imagine that 40 years from now I'll view every single political issue through the lens of some brief period in my youth. I don't even do that now."

Matthew Yglesias responds: "The real reason people of a certain age see everything through the prism of the Baby Boom Youth Experience is, obviously, that there are just so damn many baby boomers that they're able to get away with it. The cohorts right before and right after the baby boomers are just too small to form an insular and self-referential circle. My generation is really big, and someday we'll be as annoying as the boomers are today, but for now too many of us are too young and obscure to inflict it on others."

THOMPSON: Growing On Andrew?

It's been clear for a while now that Andrew Sullivan favors Barack Obama and Ron Paul in their respective primaries, but is Fred Thompson beginning to win him over? Andrew quotes a statement by Thompson in which the candidate appears to break with Cheney's view of executive power:

Thompson agreed that he didn't share the views of Vice President Cheney when it comes to the supremacy of the executive branch.

"No, I think the constitution in times of war, especially, is very definitive about that," he said. "The president is the commander in chief, but the Congress has the power of the budget. The power of the purse. So everything has to go through that prism. So it's divided power in the constitution. Our founding fathers divided that up. Divided it up at the federal level, the idea being that things like Watergate should be made very difficult to happen. So no one branch of the government can misuse power."

Sullivan: "I have to say: he's growing on me."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Power of the Press

Matthew Yglesias points to a Noam Scheiber post on the influence of press coverage and observes:

"...[If] Huckabee finishes a reasonably close second to Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucus...[w]ill that be covered as 'Romney wins, on to New Hampshire!' or will it be covered as 'Huckabee Surging, Chaos on the Religious Right!'? The choice of narratives could have a big impact on the ultimate outcome, and it will be made by a fairly small number of reporters and editors who mostly refuse to even acknowledge that they're actors in the process and not just observers of it."

LEST WE FORGET: NY Times, Moving Up In The World

Mickey Kaus reports: "In a desperate bid for respectability, the struggling New York Times has begun an association with the prestigious bloggingheads.tv start-up. David Corn puts on a jacket and tie for the occasion."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 01:01 PM

October 25, 2007

10/25: Fighting For The Conservative Label

Discussion of Mike Huckabee's rise in the GOP field is generating some major soul searching on what the GOP and conservosphere should look like in the post-Bush era. After talking to bloggers and conference attendees at the Values Voters Summit, Evangelical Outpost's Joe Carter blogs: "Right-leaning bloggers are out of touch with a large portion--if not the majority--of conservatives in America. ... The top four issues that voters said were important to them are "life" (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, embryo destructive research, etc.), marriage, tax cuts, and permanent tax relief for families. Aside from tax cuts, these issues are rarely talked about by the bloggers on the Right. Three out of four issues are ignored--and this is just the top of the list. ... Anyone who thinks tax reduction is essential while abortion and marriage are secondary or unimportant cannot rightly be considered to be conservative, at least not by the standards of the American conservative tradition."

NRO's Jim Geraghty responds: "I think 'secondary' and 'unimportant' are miles apart. The two terms are not synonymous. I can care about abortion, and prefer pro-life candidates, but still think that al-Qaeda trying to kill Americans is the primary issue and challenge for the next president. Secondly, if conservatism is trying to figure out what its top priorities are heading into the post-Bush era, I think the conversation is not helped by declaration, 'if you don't rank abortion as high as I do on my list of priorities, you're not a conservative.' You can say, 'you're a bad conservative, or not my kind of conservative' - but there's a big difference between saying that we must agree on views and we must agree on the exact order of priorities."

HUCKABEE: He's Just A Poor Boy

The longer the spotlight shines on Mike Huckabee, the more negative reviews he gets from the more established elements of the conservative blogosphere. The latest hit on Huckabee centers around his assertion that most Declaration of Independence signers were clergymen. The Corner's Andrew Stuttaford links to evidence refuting Huckabee's claim and comments: "Now, gotcha can be a tedious, pedantic game, but this particular error is, I think, quite revealing of the way in which Mike Huckabee sees this country. You can like that vision, or not, but you cannot deny it."

Instapundit is on the same page: "What could he be thinking? How could anyone who knows anything about the signers of the Declaration of Independence think that? I haven't looked at the video to see if maybe he misspoke or was misquoted, but the sheer absurdity of this statement would argue in favor of that. Or, alternatively, in favor of voting for someone who knows something about the basics of American history."

In other less than positive Huckabee blogging, The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru examines "Huckabee's Protectionism" and Rich Lowryinvestigates claims that Huckabee does not use speechwriters. Lowry also posts a reader email:

Mike Huckabee represents a type of candidate never before seen in the Republican Party (unless you count Strom Thurmond after 1964). Mike is sui generis for us, at least in our generation. But his type has long been known to and found within the Democratic Party: Southern Poor-boy Populist Demagogue. Think Huey Long or George Wallace, James K. Vardaman, or 'Pitchfork' Ben Tillman, to name the most salient examples of this genus.

But not all is bad for Huckabee. Matthew Anderson, Justin Taylor, and Joe Carter write at The Evangelical Outpost: "Because we are pragmatic idealists we are endorsing Gov. Mike Huckabee. For several months we have admired the scrappy campaign of Gov. Huckabee but believed it would be a wasted effort to support him with our time, energy, and finances. ... We can no longer sit idly by and allow the campaign of a worthy candidate and an honorable man to flounder for lack of support. ... We hope that you will join us in careful deliberation of Gov. Huckabee's candidacy."

ROMNEY: George Allen Hamilton Cleaver

Mitt Romney new "Business World" ad is getting strong reviews. Townhall's Patrick Ruffini blogs: "As if on cue, Team Romney releases an ad that pivots a little bit more to bio. This is good. You need to talk issues as they relate to your experience and your values. But I think people need to hear more about the Olympics experience and the business experience straight up."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti is also a fan: "Slowly, Mitt Romney is rediscovering the rationale for his campaign: a Washington outsider with significant business experience who governed successfully a heavily Democratic state. Over the last year, Romney's large, unwieldy crew of consultants, media types, and pollsters have focus-grouped the candidate to the point where he's become a strange mix of George Allen, George Hamilton, and Ward Cleaver. The turnaround artist has disappeared. Now it looks like he may be resurfacing."

OBAMA: The Politics Of Hope 101

The Huffington Post's Earl Ofari Hutchinson looks at Barack Obama's response to protests of his decision to campaign with gospel singer Donnie McClurkin and blogs: "Politicians do two things better than anything else. The first is they are masters at saying whatever it takes to get elected. The second is they obsessively crunch numbers; and the only number that counts is the number of votes they can get to put them over the top. ... Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama is a fast study of a well-meaning politician that's cultivating those talents."

More Hutchinson: "Obama has looked hard at the numbers in South Carolina and elsewhere, and knows that there are a lot of socially conservative blacks who loathe gay marriage and any talk of gay rights. Their votes can make or break Obama's national efforts. McClurkin can help, and help him in a big way. He's black, popular, and an outspoken evangelical. Obama can have it both ways with him. He can publicly denounce his views, which he has, while latching onto to his crowd pulling coat tails. ... It's crass, cynical, but it's politics baby pure and simple. And that's all the more reason to keep the heat on Obama to dump McClurkin."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis continues to lead the league in Obama/McClurkin bloggin and he is not pleased with Obama's decision to placate progressives by adding a gay preacher to the gospel tour: "Would Obama put a Klansman on stage so long as he brought a black minister or a rabbi up there too? I'm just not getting the equivalence here: One bigot = one gay guy, and then everything is okay. How many gays balances one bigot, Senator?"

Oh, and Andrew Sullivan dismisses the whole issue as "politics" and just wishes Obama would "get better at it."

In more positive Obama blogging, Open Left's Chris Bowers corrects Harold Meyersonclaims that Obama voted for the '05 bankruptcy bill and MyDD helps announce a new blogger Facebook collaboration called One Million Strong.

BLOGGERS VS MSM: Blogometer Mailbag!

Readers wrote in to disagree about our 10/24 claim that RedState's Ron Paul supporter ban was similar Daily Kos' Cindy Sheehan ban. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas emails: "No it's not. Paul is a Republican. A site devoted to Republicans has decided to prohibit talk of a fellow Republican. Sheehan is not a Democrat, yet she's launched an independent bid against a Democrat. So on a site dedicated to supporting Democrats, those diaries are not allowed. Just like diaries supporting Ralph Nader in a presidential bid would not be allowed. Or Rudy Giuliani. If Sheehan was contesting Pelosi in the primary, she'd be allowed to post about her "campaign". The two situations are not analogous."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat writes: "You got that story completely wrong as far as I know. The ban was on promoting an independent bid against Pelosi. ... Last I looked, Paul was running in the GOP primary. If Kos, whose disdain for Kucinich has been made clear, banned Kucinich diaries, you would have a point. OR if Paul ran as an independent. As it is, you got the story completely wrong."

We responded: "We stand by the comparison. Kos doesn't like Kucinich but Paul supporters have been much more of an administrative headache to RedState than Kucinich supporters have been to Daily Kos. At the end of the day, both Sheehan and Paul were seen as more trouble than they worth to the ultimate goals of the respective sites. Are there differences between the two situations: yes. But we think the impetus behind both decisions is similar enough to make the comparison.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We're Number 6! We're Number 6!

Data Mining blog points us to a Carnegie Mellon study examining:

Given a water distribution network, where should we place sensors to quickly detect contaminants? Or, which blogs should we read to avoid missing important stories? These seemingly different problems share common structure: Outbreak detection can be modeled as selecting nodes (sensor locations, blogs) in a network, in order to detect the spreading of a virus or information as quickly as possible.

The top ten blogs on their list include: 1) Instapundit; 2) Don Surber; 3) Science Politics; 4) Watch for Weasels; 5) Michelle Malkin; 6) Blogometer; 7) The Modulator; 8) Bloggers Blog; 9) boing boing; 10) Eschaton

LEST WE FORGET: The Federal Humor Commission

The Corner's Mark Krikorian looks at news that Stephen Colbert's SC WH '08 run may run afoul of FEC regulations and comments: "Whatever you think of the guy, this kind of stunt has a long pedigree in American politics, with previous gag presidential runs by Will Rogers, Eddie Cantor, and, most famously, Gracie Allen, who ran as the candidate of the Surprise Party. The idea that this would somehow be illegal is beyond absurd."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:55 PM

October 24, 2007

10/24: Not A Debating Society

Some think RedState's decision to ban Ron Paul newcomers from their site shows conservatives are "frightened" of Paul. Annoyed is closer to the truth. RedState's Leon Wolf explains to Paul supporters: "you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be."

RedState's new policy ("If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul.") is actually very similar to the decision DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas made concerning Cindy Sheehan when she announced her decision to run against Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Many in the traditional media reported Daily Kos had banned Sheehan from the site, but that's not the case. They just banned any and all Sheehan diaries relating to her anti-Pelosi efforts.

The important thing to remember is that both RedState and Daily Kos have similar specific goals: electing members of their respective parties. When members of their respective communities become more of a hindrance than a help to those goals, we should not be surprised when they are asked to leave.

GOP FIELD: When Hating Is Not enough

Following 1021/'s GOP debate RCP Blog's Tom Bevan posted video from a Fox News focus group hosted by Frank Luntz and described: "Watch the reaction Luntz gets as he quizzes the group on why they nearly spun the favorable dials off the hinges when the GOP candidates started attacking Hillary Clinton ... The visceral reaction Hillary generates is not unique to Florida Republicans. Indeed, the anger and fear she arouses in most Republicans at the thought of her winning the White House is clearly the force that is sustaining the strength of Rudy Giuliani's candidacy. ... If that match up does in fact come to pass, it'll be a ferocious political war unlike any we've seen before."

Noticing similar sentiments in his coverage of WH '08, Reason's David Weigel, writing in The American Conservative, documents GOP hopes that HRC will unify the GOP the way Bill Clinton did in '92 but remembers: "Yet for all of that outrage, Republicans lost that election to the Clintons. And the hope that voters will see what they see and reject what the Clintons stand for resembles the plan Democrats clung to in 2004. ... If the linchpin of a 2008 campaign is unifying Republicans in the cause of defeating Hillary, it might be enough to stitch together most of the conservative movement-but not enough to win."

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner links and adds: "While negative campaigning and pointing out the weaknesses of one's opponent can be quite effective, there hasn't been a presidential election in my lifetime decided on that basis. Drawing a contrast with Hillary Clinton will be effective in mobilizing the base. But Republicans won't keep the White House if they don't inspire the public with a positive agenda of their own."

Also looking beyond Hillary-hating, Soren Dayton blogs: "The economy is going to be a serious issue. Hillary Clinton is, essentially, taking Iraq off the table as a general election issue. She is going to run on health care and the economy. And the field is being set. And the economy is tanking in important swing states. And we are silent."

HUCKABEE: Bush Lite?

If you needed more proof that Mike Huckabee is officially a top tier candidate, look at the explosion in Huckabee related (although not always positive) blogging. The Corner's Rich Lowry shares reader reaction to his "The Joy of Huck - Enjoy it while it lasts" article including:

• I think it's worth considering: Huckabee is a Republican John Edwards (the 2004 edition). I don't mean that as an insult at all. Some silver tongued Southerners become Baptist ministers, some become trial lawyers. Both J.Ed and Huck have admirable up-from-working class stories, both speak the language of regular folks, both shore up potentially suspicious constituencies, and both have excellent stump speeches that are nonetheless laced with gauzy flimflam.
• Here's the other thing - he's a September 10th candidate. Never speaks of - or has any clue about - foreign policy. He'd be great if he were running 91 or 92 like his fellow Hope native. More economic anxiety and less nat'l security worry.
• Gov. Huckabee didn't get any media coverage for his foreign policy speech at CSIS. Let me give you the link of the transcripts and video of his speech. By the way, his answer in the debates on the situation between PKK and Turkey was right on the money. If I remember your article, you also said that he doesn't have speechwriters and debate consultants. Now that's a genuine guy speaking from the heart and his OWN head.

Other Huckabee thoughts include:

• The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru: "He seems to combine some of Pat Buchanan's bad ideas with some of George W. Bush's. He's the protectionist compassionate conservative. No thanks."
• Campaign Standard's Richelieu: "The good news for Mike Huckabee is that he's been discovered by the national media. That's also the bad news. ... Disbelief in Darwinism, support for a semi-baked consumption tax scheme as a replacement for the income tax, and a wobbly fiscal record as governor are a few of the more controversial aspects of Huckabee's thin record that soon will be subjected to strict scrutiny."
• Campaign Standard's Terry Eastland: "At the Values Voter Summit, held this past weekend in Washington, Mike Huckabee gave a speech that confirmed his status as the best orator among the Republican presidential candidates. ... What struck me about the speech was not just that it gripped the audience, but that it was more explicitly religious than what Huckabee normally offers on the stump."
• Right Wing News: "In the last 9 elections -- at a minimum -- the more likable candidate has won and Huckabee beats Hillary hands down in that category. Also, the fact that he's a Governor, not a Washington insider, would also be a huge advantage. If you ask me who was more electable in a general election, Huckabee, Romney, or Rudy, I'd take Huckabee over either of them by a good margin. ... However, the downside of Huckabee is that he's essentially George Bush with charisma when it comes to domestic issues. He is not a small government guy or a fiscal conservative, he doesn't seem to be a movement conservative, and he's not someone who can be trusted to be tough on illegal immigration."

ROMNEY: Too Cute By Half

Mitt Romney's "Reagan Zone of Economic Freedom" was not received well by conservatives. Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti blogs: "Free trade contributes to global economic growth and lower prices. It promotes peace. It's worth championing on its merits, and Mitt Romney, as one of the best businessmen in America, is well equipped to make the case for trade. But the gimmicky idea of a "Reagan Zone" smacks of a consultant-driven campaign."

The Corner's Rich Lowry concurs: "One wonders if Romney is ever presented a silly idea by his consultants that makes him say, "No, sorry, I can't do or say that-it's not dignified and that's not who I am"? Or when they tell him to pledge, say, "to get God back on the front of the coin!" does he just go out and do it, no questions asked? ... Mitt Romney is a good man and a talented politician, but the very slickness of his campaign threatens to overwhelm its appeal."

Also in Romney blogging, Townhall's Matt Lewis talks to IA GOPers and asks, "Is Romney Losing the Iowa Expectations Game?" 'Top Iowa Republican activist' Ed Failor tells Lewis: "Due to the amount of money Romney has spent, he's sort of Muhammad Ali and the rest of them are Jerry Quarry -- and if Quarry lasts all 15 rounds, Ali's not the champ." Lewis adds: "By raising expectations that he will blow everybody away in Iowa, Mitt Romney may have created an atmosphere in which a mere win may not be satisfying..."

Finally, Townhall's Hugh Hewitt calls Ryan Lizza's New Yorker profile of Romney "an unintentionally funny piece" with a "perfect pitch for Beltway-Manhattan media elites struggling to understand the dynamics of a GOP race they simply cannot fathom."

THOMPSON: That Sanctuary City Issue Is Here To Stay

Fred Thompson received passing grades for his 10/23 immigration plan. The Corner's Mark Krikorian blogs: "Thompson's new immigration platform is more hawkish than I expected. Not only does he understand the attrition argument, but his specifics are pretty good too: mandatory electronic verification of all new hires, enable Social Security cooperation with immigration authorities, withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities."

Captain's Quarters also finds little to quibble with: "This is basically the Duncan Hunter position, which relies on border security and tough enforcement of existing laws. That applies to the illegal immigrants themselves as well as the companies that hire them. Fred wants to eliminate the "magnets" that draw illegals to the US -- relatively easy border crossings, jobs, and sanctuary cities. Most Republicans will like this plan, although it hasn't done Hunter much good so far. It doesn't get as punitive as Tom Tancredo, at least not in tone, and it addresses the issue with rationality, at least in part."

After Thompson's plan was released, conservative inboxes were hit with opposition research on Thompson's immigration record. None scored any damage. NRO's Jim Geraghty digs into the Rudy Giuliani's specific attacks:

First, hitting Thompson on voting to approve emergency medical care? I'm not going to hold that one against him, you can't let anybody, even an illegal immigrant, bleed out in the street. And prenatal and postpartum services? I wouldn't vote against those if I were a pro-lifer. ... And immunizations aren't the first place I'd crack down on public services for illegal immigrants. Driver's licenses, like Governor Eliot Spitzer wants to hand out? That gets my blood stirred. Vaccinating people for Hepatitus, Polio, Influenza, German Measles? Okay, I admit, I'm a squish on that. ... And didn't New York City offer all the same services?

DEM FIELD: Following The Dodder

Mere hours after "MoveOn and a dozen top progressive blogs" announced their intent to pressure Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "into publicly declaring their support for Chris Dodd's threat to place a hold on and filibuster" any Senate FISA bill that included amnesty for telecom companies, both campaigns released statements signaling they would comply. Statement parsing includes:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "I don't want to diminish the utility of Obama and Clinton coming out against this bill. But at certain moments in history, principled clarity is what's required in a political leader. ... I suppose clarity isn't required all the time, but it is surprising that neither Clinton nor Obama could offer clarity on such an obvious matter."
• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "The question is, will they insist on a bill that goes the distance and unequivocally oppose any legislation that provides amnesty to telecoms? ... Both leading candidates should join Chris Dodd in firmly vowing to oppose any bill that gives retroactive immunity to law-breaking phone companies who helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.
• The Nation's Ari Melber: "Obama and Clinton must show Democratic voters that they can effectively confront Harry Reid, reject Bush's veto threats and pass a strong intelligence bill with accountability and warrants -- not amnesty. If they can't succeed and lead their own political party, why should anyone expect them to lead the country?"
• Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "Neither of these statements is as definitive as it should be, nor as clear on the important principles at stake. And both statements leave wiggle room - in Clinton's case far too much. What does she stand for? What will she risk to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution? I honestly can't tell. It's agonizing to ponder how Clinton and her aides must have agonized over the wording of that statement."
• Glenn Greenwald: "And the "substance" of the statements issued both by Obama and Clinton is no more impressive than their obvious reluctance to get anywhere near this issue. While both of them suggest that they might support a filibuster to stop telecom amnesty, both statements are couched in the sort of amorphous, equivocating hedging that is the currency of the principle-free, cynical-game-playing Beltway insider."
• Atrios: "Chris Dodd has put out a simple position: he'll do what's in his power to stop any bill which gives telecom companies retroactive immunity for their Bush administration sanctioned law breaking. In contrast, Obama and Clinton have put out mush.

CLINTON: Don't Expect To See Her At The Returns Desk

Michael Tomasky's maiden Guardian interview with Hillary Clinton generated debate on just how much Pres. Bush gained executive power a Pres. HRC would relinquish. Thoughts include:

• Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent: "Camp Hillary is clearly happy with the interview, perhaps because it cuts against the power-mad Hillary stereotype and because her condemnation of the Bush-Cheney abuses of executive power will resonate with Dem primary voters. ... The promise of a review of these abuses is clearly newsworthy, though unfortunately the interview is short on specific suggestions as to what areas she might be willing to relinquish power in."
• Matthew Yglesias: "Basically, she's telling liberals she'll roll back executive power but she's not committing herself to doing anything in particular. Basically, I wouldn't count on any future administration voluntarily relinquishing the powers Bush has seized. Maybe some future congress will take power back, but people don't do that kind of thing voluntarily. That's what Clinton's telling us."
• TAPPED's Ezra Klein: "Now, Clinton doesn't specify which powers she'll give up, and it's sort of one of those devil in the details type things, but it's an interesting admission."
• The Nation's Ari Melber: "This is an important and informed critique of administration abuse. But Clinton's impressive historical grasp of the problem is still crabbed by her diplomatic knack for avoiding specifics."

Not reading Tomasky's item, The Huffington Post's Jon Weiner reports similar concerns from Carl Bernstein during a Nixon Library discussion of his new book A Woman in Charge. Bernstein tells Weiner: "Hillary's fear of humiliation, her fear of secrets being revealed, absolutely permeates her life. ... Do you think she wants to open the papers of Bill's presidency, which include all the material on her role? ... Do you thing Democrats in Congress would demand repeal in the face of Hillary's opposition?"

OBAMA: They Will Not Go Quietly Into The Night

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis is following through on his promise to blog "Much more ... All week," about Barack Obama's refusal to cancel campaign appearance with "homophobe" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin. Aravosis posts reader emails including:

• Obama's done in my book. What kind of Democrat who believes in equality for all travels with and hires for his 'entertainment' a homophobic jerk? So I guess his audaciously hopeful for ya as long as you're straight? What a phony.
• Kiss my money and my vote goodbye! If I want to be marginalized, treated like a criminal, etc, I'll look to the republicans.
• Obama is a con man because on the one hand he strongly disagrees with McClurkin's views but doesn't take any responsible action. On the other hand he states a lot of rhetoric about equal rights to cover his true ideology. All talk, but no action, makes him a liar!

Later Aravosis adds: "Obama really needs to explain why it's okay for him to ask last week for a Justice Department official to be fired for making a racially insensitive remark, but when a notoriously homophobic gospel singer "declares war" on gays and says that gays need to be cured, suddenly Obama is all Mr. Nice Guy and refuses to "fire" the bigoted singer from hosting a concert for Obama's campaign."

More Aravosis: "Hey, so I'm wondering what kind of protests we can plan at Obama campaign stops? They need to be whimsical, bitchy, and embarrassing as hell. All suggestions are welcome. Maybe carry signs saying 'I am a man.'"

The Huffington Post's Paul Jenkins dissents: "With all the ruckus about Barack Obama's cozying up to Donnie McClurkin ... you'd think that none of the Democratic candidates have been pandering to the homophobic vote ... For instance, Hillary Clinton recently trumpeted her friendship with Harold Mayberry ... her press release on the meeting/endorsement left out the fact that Mayberry believes homosexuality to be comparable to thievery."

IMMIGRATION: Dream Unweavers

Conservatives are gearing up to fight Senate passage of the DREAM Act on grounds the bill would give amnesty to up to 2.1 million illegal aliens.Mickey Kaus objects to the bill on grounds it will serve as a "kids magnet" encouraging further illegal border crossing. Responding to those who point to a cut off date for eligibility for the program Kaus responds: "The bill still acts as a magnet, of course, because a) future illegals know that if they come now another compassionate DREAM Act is likely to be passed in future years, and b) there are ample possibilities for fraud--claiming that you were here before the deadline and daring the authorities to disprove it."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff adds: "This is amnesty legislation. No amnesty of this sort should be considered until the government demonstrates that it can control our borders." Michelle Malkin identifies fence sitting Senators and urges her readers: "Start dialing and push them the right way."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We Wonder How Closely The Draft Coincided With Boomer Activism

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum looks at Tom Friedman's recent column on the lack of youth activism and Courtney Martin's defense of her generation and responds:

As a 40-something (and only barely that), I can't say what's really going on here - but then, neither can Tom Friedman, can he? But I can say that I heard pretty much the exact same complaint about quiet kids in the 80s and then again in the 90s. Michael J. Fox's Alex Keaton was the supposed icon of the Reagan era, when kids just wanted to head to Wall Street and make money, and we all remember the generic "slacker" who was the icon of the 90s.

But look: it's not the 80s, 90s, or 00s that are unique here. What's unique was a single period of about ten years from the early 60s to the early 70s. The kind of activism we saw from young people during that decade hadn't been seen for a century before that and probably won't be seen for a century after it. It was sui generis, and pretending otherwise is silly.

LEST WE FORGET: You Can Make Friends With Haagen-Dazs

Dilbert blog continues his missions to "provide to hetero male readers of this blog ... how to obtain sex from women who are too good for you" by linking to new research showing "that the part of your brain in charge of self-control is a common resource that helps you avoid any kind of temptation. Using that part of the brain to resist one sort of temptation essentially tires it out, making it harder to resist other forms of temptation."

Dilbert blog continues: "Let's bring this research into the real world and see how it holds up to the rigors of anecdotal observations. ... I recommend hanging around car dealerships and trying to score with women who are walking from the showroom to their new cars. Those women are completely out of self-control. With a little bit of game, you should be able to slip your key in the ignition before she does. You should also date women who are on diets. Half of your work has been done for you by Haagen-Dazs."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:37 PM

October 23, 2007

10/23: The Big Five vs. Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs

Just recently as a few weeks ago the two WH '08 fields could sill both described as contest between the big threes (Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson for the GOP and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards for the Dems). Now that's all changed. Considering Huckabee's "rock star reception" at the Values Voters Summit, and McCain's recent debate success, the GOP field has become a wide open race between five credible contenders: Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani, Romney, and Fred Thompson. National Review's Byron York examines each candidate's chances and concludes: "There are still more than ten weeks to go before the first voters head to the caucuses in Iowa. After this weekend, it is a big and wide-open race."

Things have moved in the opposite direction on the Dem side. Clinton's dominance in recent polling (CNN pegged her at 51% 10/17) has freed Dem primary voters from only considering Obama and Edwards as the only alternatives to Clinton. Open Left's Chris Bowers looks at Chris Dodd's rapid rise in online straw polls and comments: "it might also show that growing numbers of the blogosphere are starting to view both the Edwards and Obama campaigns as long shots too, so if you are going to support a long shot there is no need to restrict your choices to the second tier."

CLINTON: Smear Tested

IA Independent caught up with Hillary Clinton in Carroll, IA, 10/20 and got responses to four questions including, "On Sept. 12, 2001, I think most Americans assumed that by Oct. 20, 2007, there would have been another major terrorist attack on our soil. ... In your estimation, why hasn't that happened? Has the Bush administration maybe done some things that are good to prevent it or was the threat exaggerated from the beginning?"

Clinton responded: "They've attacked many other places. They've attacked American targets, and I think there are lots of reasons at work here. ... They're also very patient. Just because we haven't been attacked doesn't mean that they're not engaged in doing whatever they can to bring that about. ... There is nothing fancy about them. We've got to figure out how to be smarter."

Also talking HRC and foreign policy, Open Left's Matt Stoller notes HRC needs to update her Iraq issues page since it still touts her sponsorship of a bill de-authorizing the Iraq by ... 10/11/07. Fellow Open Lefter Chris Bowers tracks HRC's statements on her Iraq AUMF vote and concludes: "I feel exhausted by this battle of attrition between progressives and Clinton over the way she votes on Iraq and Iran. If it is this difficult to push her on public statements on she votes on Iraq and Iran, [how] difficult will it be to actually influence her to change policy in those, or other, areas? ... At some point, Clinton is going to have to develop a language to accurately and succinctly describe where she stands on these issues, or else the trench warfare will continue indefinitely."

At TAPPED, Ezra Klein tackles the perception that HRC is more polarizing than her Dem primary opponents: "At this point in the 2004 cycle, John Kerry's unfavorables were between 13% and 20% -- by the time the election rolled around, he was in the mid-40s, posting numbers pretty comparable to Hillary's. ... So that's the question: Not whether Hillary Clinton is more polarizing right this second. ... But whether she'll be more polarizing than John Edwards after eight months of haircut and hedge fund smears, or Barack Obama, after an election full of madrassa insinuations. Clinton's numbers probably reflect the end point of that process -- she's been smeared with maximum energy and efficiency for 15 years now. Edwards and Obama haven't, but if either captures the nomination, the GOP's attack machine will boot up, and do to them exactly what it did to John Kerry.

DODD: No Really ... You Heard It Here First... Doddmania Is Here!!!

Chris Dodd's promise to filibuster the Senate's FISA bill over telecom company surveillance immunity has catapulted him into second place in Daily Kos' 10/07 straw poll. Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher blogs: "Dodd wiped the floor with everyone in the latest Kos straw poll, taking 21% of the vote (up from 7% last month). Edwards dropped by 8%, Obama by 5%, and Hillary by 2%. Dodd raised $150,000 in donations from small donors in twenty four hours last week after his decision to filibuster. ... Reward good behavior."

The Nation's Ari Melber blogs on the impact of Dodd's dKos rise: "Endorsements don't cut ice in the blogosphere, of course, so those posts probably don't convert many readers. But they do legitimize Dodd as a viable candidate - a hurdle he's had trouble surmounting. When a politico like Moulitsas validates an underdog candidate, his readers are more likely to take a second look."

Open Left's Chris Bowers looks at Dodd's inability to make similar gains in other online straw polls and comments: "I think it shows quite clearly that the blogosphere is not of one mind on anything, and isolated islands and fragmentation might be emerging to a degree they did not in the past. ... it might also show that growing numbers of the blogosphere are starting to view both the Edwards and Obama campaigns as long shots too, so if you are going to support a long shot there is no need to restrict your choices to the second tier."

TAPPED's Sam Boyd, however, doesn't see what the big deal is: "Basically, I just don't get his campaign. What's his elevator pitch? Sure, he's somewhat more liberal on some issues than the big three candidates and he has a longer record on them, but that's hardly enough to make it clear that he's the best candidate."

OBAMA: The Wheels Are Coming Off

Barack Obama has failed to quell growing netroots concerns over his campaign's inclusion of gospel singer Donnie McClurkin in Obama's "Embrace the Change" SC gospel concert tour. Earl Ofari Hutchinson posted the first netroots criticism of Obama's decision to include McClurkin blogging: "Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama ripped a page straight from the Bush campaign playbook with his announced upcoming three date barnstorm tour through South Carolina with notorious gay basher, gospel singer Donnie McClurkin." After weathering strong criticism through 10/22, Obama finally issued a statement late 10/22 "strongly denouncing" McClurkin's views.

From Obama: "I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."

Obama's failure to disinvite McClurkin from the tour left his netroots critics upset:

• The Huffington Post's Earl Ofari Hutchinson: "How hard will Obama fight as president for tolerance, specifically against anti gay bigotry? This is the supreme litmus test for any candidate that purports to champion diversity and tolerance. It's even more of a test, or ch