November 30, 2007

11/30: The (Least) Trusted Name In News?

In the conservative blogosphere, the fall-out continues over CNN's use of Dem questioners at Wednesday night's CNN/YouTube GOP debate. Townhall's Hugh Hewitt called the debate "a major milestone in the accelerating collapse of credibility of the MSM," while RedState's Directors called for firings and a boycott of CNN. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's battle over their respective health care plans has sparked a lively debate in the liberal blogosphere over the efficacy of health care mandates.

GOP FIELD: Still The Clinton News Network?

The Save the Debate coalition -- a group founded by conservative bloggers Patrick Ruffini, David All, Soren Dayton, and Robert Bluey which sought to encourage the GOP candidates to participate in the CNN/YouTube debate -- issued a statement harshly criticizing CNN:

"CNN's flawed editorial process in choosing the questions asked of the candidates marred an otherwise lively debate and betrayed the trust of the Republican candidates and the YouTube user community. In the most glaring example, a questioner affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign was given a soapbox to berate the Republican candidates at the debate -- when even a cursory web search of the individual would have revealed his clear conflict of interest.
A YouTube debate should strive to minimize the media filter rather than highlight it. Instead the selection of questions for the Republican CNN/YouTube debate highlighted CNN's selection bias.
We strongly encourage YouTube and other new media platforms to refrain from working with CNN on future debates."

RedState's Directors also issued a harsh statement:

"This debate was not about Republicans asking the Republican candidates questions. This was about CNN abusing its position to push a Democratic agenda. This has all the markings of a set up and heads should roll at CNN.

In the meantime:

1.) Republican candidates for President should boycott CNN.

2) Republican viewers should boycott CNN until they fire Sam Feist, their political director; and David Bohrman, Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate.

3) One or more of the Republican candidates should demand a do over wherein we can have a substantive debate about substantive issues that exclude CNN's agenda, which is clearly out of touch with the Republican party, and the drivel we saw from YouTube."

Michelle Malkin sees a double-standard: "Had GOP candidates somehow been able to insert their operatives and supporters into a Democratic debate, and had, say, Fox News failed to vet the questioners and presented them as average citizens, both Fox and the GOP would be treated as the century's worst media sinners."

Hugh Hewitt: "CNN is of course going to the mattresses, just as every MSMer does when the collision with their own bias and/or incompetence arrives. But like Rathergate, the YouTube/BoobTube debate is already a major milestone in the accelerating collapse of credibility of the MSM."

Human Events' Jennifer Rubin: "Not that many years ago, CNN was known widely as the 'Clinton News Network.' They apparently want to renew their credentials -- or expand their services to the entire Democratic Party. This debate placed CNN in the role of director of Democratic media operations. Simply put, it is propaganda to represent the questioners as unbiased and unaffiliated voters when they are not."

Other conservative bloggers think that people are overreacting:

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Although conservatives are rightly outraged by the biased questions, I also believe some of the consternation is overwrought...Bad questions sometimes tell us more about the candidates than good ones do. For example, we learned that Mike Huckabee can take a bad question and still make lemonade (if he can do it now, imagine what he could do to the press corps)."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "CNN's main failure, and the only real 'plant', was General Keith Kerr. They didn't just allow his question, they flew him to the debate, and then allowed him almost as much screen time as Duncan Hunter to make a speech. Kerr serves on Hillary Clinton's steering committee on GLBT issues, a fact that he apparently failed to disclose to CNN, who didn't bother to use Google and spend ten minutes vetting him...The other questioners had ulterior motives in asking their questions...[but] the questions themselves weren't outrageous and certainly can be expected from the campaign trail, especially in the general election. In this loose format, questions can come from anyone -- just like a real town-hall forum -- and candidates should be prepared to answer them."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "I watched the debate last night and frankly didn't have a serious problem with CNN except with respect to Gen. Kerr. The fact that a questioner once interned for Rep. [Jane] Harman or for CAIR seems immaterial. The questions reflected a cross section of points of view, some liberal and some conservative, and it was helpful for Republican voters to see how the candidates dealt with them (I thought they did well)."

Meanwhile, NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru thinks that the controversy over questioners benefits [Rudy] Giuliani: "I said that yesterday was a good day for Giuliani, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. I think today is another one. The buzz among conservatives is about CNN's perfidy -- and not about his answers on abortion and guns. If I were Giuliani, I'd make sure to denounce CNN myself."

GOP FIELD II: 'Cause We All Love To Speculate....

NRO's John Hood posits three scenarios for how the GOP race might turn out:

• "Romney the Hare. He wins Iowa convincingly, with about a third of the vote. Giuliani and Thompson are in the low- to mid-teens. The size of his victory generates a wave of free media coverage, aided by his subsequent win in the small but well-timed Wyoming caucuses on Jan. 5. Romney then dominates New Hampshire on Jan. 8, generating another media boost. In the next state, Michigan on Jan. 15, Giuliani had enjoyed a narrow lead going into January, but now Romney -- with Michigan family ties and lots of momentum -- overtakes him to win. Four days later, Nevada and South Carolina vote. He wins both. The other candidates have already dropped out or give up after Jan. 19. It's a two-man race with Giuliani going into Florida on the 29th. Now that all other conservative challengers are gone, Romney unifies the anti-Giuliani vote and wins Florida. It's over.
• Giuliani the Tortoise. With all but Romney and Huckabee essentially conceding Iowa, its results are underplayed. Giuliani's December ad campaign in New Hampshire pushes him into the mid-20s in the state -- not enough to win, but enough to shave Romney's margin and give Giuliani a Bill Clinton-like 'victory' as second-place Comeback Kid. A week later, Giuliani competes in a larger state where his national reputation and cultural affinity are helpful. He wins Michigan. A week later, he wins Nevada and is competitive in South Carolina (it would probably help if Thompson, otherwise winless, takes South Carolina and weakens Romney). Finally, Giuliani gets to Florida, parts of which are essentially a suburb of Manhattan, and wins comfortably. Then comes Feb. 5. It's over.
• Thompson the Possum. The Republican primary electorate is quirky and quarrelsome. A continued Huckabee surge in Iowa robs Romney of a convincing win, yielding a loss in the expectations game. In New Hampshire, [John] McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani do better than expected, Romney worse. He barely ekes out a victory. In Michigan, Romney sputters and both McCain and Thompson pick up anti-Giuliani votes, yielding a narrow Giuliani win but no clear momentum. Then comes Nevada and South Carolina. With Romney's collapse, conservatives edge towards Thompson. He comes in a strong second in Nevada and wins South Carolina. Given its historical importance, the South Carolina result gets more attention, and the media declare it a two-way race between Giuliani and Thompson. The Southerner then competes strongly in the Southern -- by which I mean northern -- part of Florida, upends Giuliani, and moves into Feb. 5 with momentum. It's not quite over, but the patient sleeper has supplanted the frenetic hare."

Campaign Standard's Richelieu posits a fourth scenario:

"Could [Huckabee] actually be nominated? I think he could, and his chance now is better than Thompson's and rivals McCain's, being somewhere between a long- and medium-shot.

Let me sketch one potential scenario: Huckabee wins the Iowa caucus (which is what would happen if the election were today). Romney is second. Rudy is third and Thompson fourth. Huckabee surges into New Hampshire and his communications skills help him ride the wave perfectly...The results are muddy. Huckabee narrowly wins New Hampshire by fewer than 900 votes over Romney. McCain is third, closely followed by Giuliani. Thompson is fifth and drops out.

The next week Romney narrowly beats Huckabee, now fueled by enough Internet money to run television, in Michigan. McCain runs a distant third. The media labels Huckabee's close second place finish a 'win' in a state where he has no organization. Huckabee beats the wounded Romney four days later in South Carolina. McCain drops out after a second disappointing third place finish, narrowly ahead of Giuliani, whose campaign announces they are making a final make or break stand in Florida, as they have always claimed in their brilliant Master Plan. Seeing Romney as his main opponent in Florida for the regular Republican vote, Giuliani uses his final cash on hand to launch a very tough television attack on Romney...McCain endorses Rudy. Romney interjects another $5 million in personal funds into his campaign and launches a blistering TV counterattack on Rudy. Ten days later, Huckabee wins the Florida primary...Romney finishes second. Rudy, now lagging in every February 5 state poll except New York, drops out, refusing to endorse either remaining GOP candidate. On February 5, Huckabee sweeps, losing only Connecticut, Utah, and Delaware to Romney, who then leaves the race.

On February 7, presumptive nominee Mike Huckabee pledges a campaign of 'compassion, comparison, and civility' against presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama. New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg announces the formation of an exploratory committee for an independent presidential campaign. Rumored budget: $1.5 billion. The cover of TIME magazine screams: 'Tsunami 2008: The Year of the Upset.'"

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat is dubious: "The general scenario makes sense (in long shot sort of way, obviously), but as to the details, I just can't see Huckabee, momentum or no, scraping out a victory in New Hampshire. That said, I don't think he needs to win in New Hampshire to stay competitive; what he needs, as the Cardinal's broad sketch suggests, is for both Romney and Rudy (or one of the two, plus McCain) to keep whaling on one another, and largely leaving him alone, till Florida and perhaps even beyond. I'm with Ramesh; I think Giuliani beats Huckabee in a two-man race, and I think that Romney does as well. Which means that Huckabee can only hope to win if both the current front-runners stay in and beat each other up in the hopes of being the last man standing - which, fortunately for him, they're both deep-pocketed and ambitious enough to do.

HUCKABEE: So Hot Right Now

Campaign Standard's Dean Barnett warns politicos to stop underestimating Huckabee: "[Wednesday night's debate] heralded the arrival of Mike Huckabee as a force in this race. Not a spoiler, not a wildcard, but a force. Huckamania is still running wild...A personal note to all my sophisticated East Coast friends: Don't wait for the Christmas rush -- stop underestimating Huckabee now. Unless the other guys can be a lot more effective at landing some leather on him than they were [Wednesday] night, he may win Iowa by 20 points."

RCP's John McIntyre also sees Huckabee as a threat: "The GOP race is usually characterized as either a two-person contest (Giuliani vs. Romney) or a wide open field among the five viable candidates (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee and McCain). However, what we are fast approaching is a three-man race between Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani...What we have developing is Huckabee stepping in and filling the void in the GOP field that was available to Thompson in the summer -- a void that his inept campaign has been unable to fill. So perhaps instead of the Tennessean sinking the Romney campaign it could very well be the Arkansan...An important signal to watch for over the next month will be whether Huckabee overtakes Romney in the national polls leading up to Iowa. If that were to happen concurrently with Huckabee continuing to head toward a win in Iowa that would be an important tell that Republican voters are moving toward ultimately a Huckabee vs. Giuliani showdown."

Many conservative bloggers are unhappy about Huckabee's rise, however. NRO's Andrew Stuttaford writes: "[Huckabee is] a 'disaster' on trade, taxation (historically speaking, at least), nanny state issues and, for that matter, rather basic scientific knowledge. His polling is fascinating. How he does will be another very interesting indicator of how much further the GOP will move in the direction of becoming an Americanized version of Europe's Christian Democrats."

ROMNEY: The Last, Best Hope For Traditional Conservatives?

Paul Mirengoff discusses the significance of ACU Pres. David Keene's endorsement of Romney: "I look at endorsements not for guidance on how to vote, but for a sense of how things may break. When Romney received early endorsements from congressional conservatives like Senator [Jim] DeMint, it told me that he was a serious contender for the conservative vote, and so he has been...Keene's endorsement is evidence that, late in the day, conservatives realize that this may well come down to a race between Giuliani and Romney, two men who governed as centrists, and that, as I wrote yesterday, it may make sense to prefer the top-tier condidate who now commits to conservative positions down the line to the one who says, in essence, 'I was a great mayor; take me as you find me.'"

Mirengoff later adds: "Keene's endorsement may reflect concern among traditional conservatives with the traction Mike Huckabee seems to be gaining among social conservatives. Traditional conservatives combine social conservatism with economic conservatism, as Romney does in his current positions. Huckabee is strong on the former but much less so on the latter."

Hugh Hewitt agrees with Mirengoff's assessment: "The announcement builds on a strong performance last night, and reinforces the sense that conservatives have to choose now to back Romney or tacitly agree to a Rudy nomination."

THOMPSON: Anyone Seen His Campaign?

NRO's Mark Steyn writes: "I've no handle on what it is [Thompson] thinks he's doing. Every time I see a Fred policy plan, he seems to have by far the best ideas, and the necessary zeal for reform, on taxes, Social Security and much else. But every time you see him in these TV debates he has the listless air of a bored grandparent at a dreary school play. And seeing him live in person isn't that easy to do. I get campaign e-mails about New Hampshire appearances by John McCain and Mrs Clinton and lots of others...What's the strategy here? Why does he have great ideas but no campaign?"

Campaign Standard's Stephen F. Hayes agrees: "Steyn is right that Thompson's campaign is, um, lacking. Each morning I have delivered to my inbox 'First Read', an excellent collection of news and nuggets about the 2008 election compiled by NBC political director Chuck Todd. Among many other features, First Read includes a candidate-by-candidate preview of the day's campaign events. As often as not, there is no mention of Fred Thompson. On some of these days, he is off doing private fundraisers. But there is little question that Thompson does far fewer public events than any of the other serious presidential candidates. Which is odd."

GIULIANI: Scandalous Behavior

The Democratic netroots are still buzzing about Ben Smith's Politico article revealing that Giuliani "billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons." ABC News' report that Judith Nathan used an NYPD driver and car as her "personal taxi service" has only added more fuel to the fire. Josh Marshall's team at Talking Points Memo is, naturally, all over it . This mini-scandal provides a taste of future lines of attack that Dems will likely employ against Giuliani should he become the GOP nominee.

AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. The GOP front-runner is in BIG trouble. He's got a major scandal on his hands -- having taxpayers finance his affair probably won't go over so well with the GOP voters. Just imagine how insane the right wingers would be if a Democrat pulled a stunt like that and also tried to cover it up. So, let's get cranking."

Daily Kos' DemFromCT: "Rudy may play at Law and Order, but does he consider himself above the law when it suits him? We're just barely getting through eight years of another President whose commitment to the rule of law (see Alberto Gonzales) was pretty shaky. Now we have Rudy, patron of the indicted Bernard Kerik, Rudy of the taxpayer-funded tryst, to consider in a job interview for the most powerful position in the world where judgment is key and ethics matter?"

Firedoglake's Jame Hamsher: "I really hope Rudy does not implode before getting the nomination, and I'm not being an insincere concern troll here. Really, I think Rudy is tied inextricably to the Bush Administration's policies and history, and when you combine that with his lack of on-camera skills and his tendency to be a brittle asshole when challenged, all the things that make the lizard brains love him will over time repulse large numbers of the electorate. Huckabee or Romney have the opportunity to run as reform candidates -- that option is not open to Rudy. George Bush hangs like a giant anvil around his neck."

Daily Kos' MissLaura uses the occasion to revisit Wayne Barrett's August article in The Village Voice, which suggested that Giuliani wanted to locate the city's emergency command center in the WTC in order to use it as a love nest for himself and Judith. MissLaura writes: "It would be inaccurate to say that Giuliani insisted on siting the emergency command center in WTC 7 so he could get it on with Nathan -- the decision had been made before he met her. But then, Nathan was not the first woman Giuliani was rumored to have had an affair with while in office, and there's no reason to believe he invented the practice of expensing adultery just for her. In fact, I bet there's more of this to uncover still earlier in his time as mayor, if some investigative reporter were to start digging. For now, what's absolutely clear is he spent taxpayer money to visit his girlfriend in the Hamptons and turned the emergency command center for the entire city into a cartoonishly over the top love nest in which to carry on an affair."

DemFromCT wants the national press to join the local NYC press in investigating Giuliani's record: "If the national press had any sense, they'd start paying more attention to Rudy's actual record than they are doing now (which, outside of NY, is not paying attention at all). That includes Rudy's record on 9/11, including the location of the emergency operations center, the radios the NYC firefighters didn't have and the health issues and air quality issues right after 9/11 and how they were handled. I don't really care if 'that might affect the outcome'. That's what a journalist's job is, and it's about time they did their job as well as Ben Smith has."

OBAMA: Are The Netroots Finally Getting His Back?

As HRC continues to attack Obama's health care plan and Paul Krugman rips Obama's plan in his New York Times column, Obama has found an unlikely advocate: Open Left blogger (and frequent Obama critic) Matt Stoller:

"[HRC's] plan is no more or less universal plan than Obama's plan. Neither would sign up everyone automatically, but at least Obama doesn't require a massive Orwellian nightmare to enforce the purchase of private insurance by those least able to afford it. Obama's response so far has been to say that he doesn't think the problem is that people can't afford health care insurance. What he should really be doing is attacking, and saying 'This is not an honest representation of of either her plan or mine, and it's the same tactic that caused her first attempt at universal health care to collapse. How is Senator Clinton going to force everyone to sign up for health care insurance? She's mentioned forcing citizens to have a health care insurance card in order to get a job, which is a crazy intrusive idea that is not acceptable. She needs to be honest about the health care situation, because it's not as simple as she is making it out to be. And she has the scars to know better.'...Mandates are horrible policy and they are really easy to demagogue as big government and big insurance companies cooperating with each to screw the consumer...That this is not obvious to the groups and politicians whose goal is to universalize health care, or even really debated, suggests that there is a lot of organizing work that needs to be done before progressives can move forward on the health care front."

Meanwhile, TAPPED's Kate Sheppard criticizes HRC's accusation that Obama's plan "betrays" Democratic principles: "So do all Democratic health care plans, past and present, that differ from her current plan amount to 'betrayal'?"

OBAMA II: Smeared By...The Washington Post?

The netroots are furious about yesterday's Washington Post front-page article which discusses rumors that Obama is a Muslim.

Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Yesterday, Politico's Ben Smith nailed Rudy Giuliani for nailing his mistress on the taxpayer's dime. And in today's Washington Post, what kind of coverage does this major, investigative piece receive? Three sentences buried in the middle of their debate coverage. So, what is their big story of the day? 'Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him.' Yes, a front page story about rumors. Actually, calling them rumors gives them too much credence. It would be more accurate to call them blatant lies, yet the Washington Post has decided to give them a national platform."

TAPPED's Matthew Duss: "Today, the Washington Post demonstrates how 'respectable' news outlets keep these rumors moving in the media bloodstream...At no point in the article is there any indication that these rumors, which are nothing more than lies designed to stoke base cultural prejudices, have been exhaustively investigated and disproven...Of course, we also get the requisite denials from Obama's defenders, all of which creates (and is designed to create) the impression that there is 'controversy' where there is only gossip, 'questions' where there is only innuendo. Stay classy, Post."

Daily Kos' Hunter: "The [Washington Post] publishes completely false smears against Obama -- truly, the most poorly premised and written article I have seen since half past forever. Akin to what the Swiftboat Vet stories would have been, if the Swiftboat Vets had not even been seasoned Republican operatives but just 'some paranoid guy ranting incoherently from his South Carolina basement.'"

Digby: "That's the Washington Post recycling anonymous wingnut email trash and calling it 'rumors.' I guess we should be grateful that the paper allowed Obama to 'dispute' and 'deny' the 'charge' but considering that he isn't a Muslim, it might have been a teensy bit more responsible if they'd simply written that it's a lie and let it go at that. Instead, it blandly suggests this will hurt him more than the Romney since the polls show that even more people won't vote for a Muslim than a Mormon --- failing to note that Romney is actually a Mormon and thus could be expected to suffer from these prejudices more than someone who isn't actually a Muslim!"

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "This is about as low as I have seen an Establishment paper go. This is shameful stuff."

EDWARDS: We Like You, We Just Don't Like Your Mandate

In the NYT op-ed that we mentioned earlier, Paul Krugman praises John Edwards' plan for enforcing his universal health care mandate, which requires that individuals "show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care." Liberal bloggers -- with the notable exception of Ezra Klein -- were much more critical of Edwards' proposed enforcement mechanism.

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "First, do we really want the IRS enforcing healthcare mandates? That's not what the IRS is for, and Americans are (rightly) suspicious of using the IRS as a quasi-police agency to enforce whatever federal law the current administration feels like using it for...Second, a Rube Goldberg enforcement program like does nothing except highlight the absurdity of individual mandate healthcare plans in the first place. If you're really this serious about getting every man, woman, and child in the country enrolled, why go through all this? Why not just do it like Medicare, where the funding mechanism is the existing tax system and everyone is enrolled automatically? It amounts to the same thing and it's cheaper, easier, and less intrusive. Third, this is a political loser. Do we really want to treat people who don't sign up for healthcare like deadbeat dads and Chapter 11 refugees by garnishing their wages? Unless I'm way off base, this is just not going to go over well. Republicans will have a field day with it."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I'm in total agreement with Kevin Drum's criticisms of John Edwards' now-more-detailed individual mandate plan. And I should say that I don't think this is a problem with Edwards as such. Other advocates of an individual mandate have mostly evaded the flaws of Edwards' plan by just avoiding discussion of how this is supposed to work in practice. I think that in a whole variety of ways, it's just a fundamentally flawed approach."

Matt Stoller: "So at the end of the day, if you don't have health care, your wages will be garnished or your credit will be damaged because a collection agency will see to it that you buy your insurance. You might even go bankrupt! And since it's called a mandate, we'll need a new IRS-like bureaucracy to handle all of this, but it won't be the IRS since a mandate is not a tax, it's just a required fee you pay to a private company...Politically, this is a very attractive situation for the health care industry. If the industry can simply prevent the government entity from existing while retaining a universal mandate in the final plan, what they will essentially be creating will be a privatized tax system that moves money from individuals to insurance companies from the current crop of the uninsured by government fiat."

Ezra Klein thinks these guys are being too critical: "I think folks are overlooking the political merits of the individual mandate. I'm quite open to the idea that the best electoral move is to mention the principle and refuse to define its enforcement (though I also think politicians should be rewarded for being truthful), but setting it against an actual government enrollment program, where everyone is simply signed up through taxes, sort of misses the point....The individual mandate will still face hurdles as we argue over enforcement, but it basically trades away certain amount of economic efficiency in order to evade the political implications of nationalizing health spending."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: You Call This Mudslinging?

Open Left's Chris Bowers doesn't think the current Dem primary race is nearly as nasty as the '04 one:

"One of the things that strikes me about this campaign is how it turned with such comparatively modest attacks on Hillary Clinton. I remember undergraduate Clinton supporters leaving the debate and complaining about how everyone was ganging up on her, upon hearing which I barely restrained myself from telling them about what happened to Howard Dean when he was winning. Yes, studies have shown that she receives significantly more negative media coverage than Barack Obama, at least lately. However, what she is facing this campaign is absolutely nothing compared to the insane, hateful, venomous attacks Howard Dean faced. Here is an ad that some unions and fellow Democrats ran against Howard Dean in Iowa back around this same point in the 2004 campaign. No Democrat has faced attacks even close to that severe this time around...I've received some anti-Clinton email along these lines from right-wing wackos, but here we have the standard line, from both sides of the aisle, that was thrown at Howard Dean. It is blistering, full of hatred, overtly connects Dean to Osama Bin Laden and, in many cases, was funded by his own party. 'Playing the gender card,' as bad as it is, really doesn't approach this level of negative attack."

LEST WE FORGET: Entire Blogosphere Stunned By Blogger's Special Weekend Post

The Onion has the latest:

"In what is being called a seminal moment in Internet history, a rare weekend post by 25-year-old blogger Ben Tiedemann on his website bentiedemanntellsall.blogspot.com rocked the 50 million-member blogosphere this Saturday. The landmark post, which updated nearly every member of the global online community on the shelf Tiedemann was building, was linked to by several thousand sites, including Daily Kos, Digg, and The New York Times. 'Wow, what a special treat this was for all of us,' said Talking Points Memo head blogger Joshua Micah Marshal, who, along with all other bloggers, checks Tiedemann's site every day just in case something monumental occurs. 'I thought I was going to have to wait until Monday to find out if Ben decided to put [the shelf] in his bedroom or the living room. The pictures were great, too.' Within two hours of going live, Tiedemann's 15-word post received 34,634,897 comments."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:59 PM

November 29, 2007

11/29: Huck-A-Mania

Most conservative bloggers agree that Mike Huckabee won last night's CNN/YouTube debate, primarily due to his "genial," "funny," and "good-natured" personality rather than the actual substance of his positions. Bloggers also offered praise for John McCain, while giving mixed reviews to Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney and negative reviews to Rudy Giuliani. Many bloggers expressed surprise that Huckabee was able to avoid being the target of attacks for most of the night. With only 35 days before the IA caucuses and a new Rasmussen poll showing Huckabee surging ahead of Romney in IA, isn't it time for Romney to take Huckabee down a notch? Or does he fear that he will turn off Iowans by going negative?

GOP DEBATE: Talk About Mixed Reactions

The debate produced a fascinating split in the conservative blogosphere. Several bloggers (Richelieu, Jim Geraghty, Fred Barnes) felt that the preponderance of questions about immigration, guns, and gays made the GOP candidates look bad. Others (John O'Sullivan, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Matt Lewis, Ed Morrissey) believed that the YouTube questions raised important issues (such as immigration) that the MSM tends to downplay or ignore.

First, the critics:

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Not the best debate. One of the worst, actually. Based on the tone and answers given tonight, you would think that the Republican Party seethes with a blistering resentment of immigrants, with only the briefest of pauses to distinguish between those who are illegal and legal. You would think that the only tax plan that they like is the Fair Tax, and that they would like to somehow eliminate all taxes and let somebody else figure out how to fund the parts of the government that are actually needed. Guys, I thought we were small-government conservatives, not no-government anarchists."

CampaignStandard's Richelieu: "What a depressing debate...a good night for for the lowest denominator, a bad night for the GOP. America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers as well as various one issue activists hammering their pet causes. My cheers went to a listless Fred Thompson who easily qualified himself to be president in my book by looking all night like he would cheerfully trade his left arm for an early exit off the stage to a waiting Scotch and good Cuban cigar."

Campaign Standard's Fred Barnes: "It was chiefly the questions and who asked them that made the debate so appalling. By my recollection, there were no questions on health care, the economy, trade, the S-chip children's health care issue, the 'surge' in Iraq, the spending showdown between President Bush and Congress, terrorist surveillance, or the performance of the Democratic Congress. Instead there were questions...on the Confederate flag, Mars, Giuliani's rooting for the Boston Red Sox in the World Series, whether Ron Paul might run as an independent for president, and the Bible...By my count, of the 30-plus questions, there were 6 on immigration, 3 on guns, 2 on abortion, 2 on gays, and one on whether the candidates believe every word in the Bible. These are exactly the issues, in the view of liberals and many in the media, on which Republicans look particularly unattractive."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Machine-gunning immigration questions was an absurd way to spend the first 35 minutes of the debate...Lou Dobbs is making a fortune banging the anti-illegal immigration drum and talking up the threat of the North American Union. It is clear who had a great influence on this debate's design, and it wasn't a serious political journalist."

Other conservative bloggers didn't find the debate questions nearly that bad:

NRO's John O'Sullivan: "I can't help thinking that some of the sterner and anxious posts about it on the Corner and from Richelieu -- that stuff about it making the GOP look like a band of knuckle-dragging Know-Nothings -- are a little too pious. The debate was vigorous; some of the exchanges were very tough; and the audience reactions were boisterous. But it was all highly entertaining...And the clashes between the candidates on immigration (in contrast to the same topic as handled by the Dems) represented the real division of opinion between Americans on this topic."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Once again we watched a debate and saw we have some talent there on the Republican stage. Yeah, the questions could be silly or a CNN producer's caricature of what Iowa conservatives care about, but some of them happen to be important issues all the same. I would have liked more of a focus on the war, but all in all, it wasn't a disaster, especially for a YouTube debate."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "The real winner tonight was CNN, YouTube, the GOP, and the American people. Yes, there were some stupid questions. But there were also some very, very good questions on important topics such as immigration, that would not have been asked by typical MSM moderators."

NRO's Lisa Schiffren: "I am impressed by the questions. If they are representative, then the GOP base is concerned with the right things: immigration, taxes and spending."

Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "The folks at CNN and YouTube certainly matured in their presentation of their groundbreaking debate format since July...The questions, videos, and the candidates' responses were less goofy, less gimicky, more intelligent and relevant this time around."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "The most apparent result was that CNN and YouTube did their homework. For the most part -- with a few glaring exceptions -- the network eliminated the silliness and stuck to substance. The questions hit hot topics and sparked some fierce debate. With a couple of exceptions, Republican fears of crypto-Democratic hit questions failed to materialize, and the candidates responded substantively to the rest."

GOP DEBATE II: The Plants Are Sprouting Up Like Weeds

After determining that several of the debate questioners were declared supporters of Dem candidates, conservative bloggers blasted CNN for inadequate vetting. As Ed Morrissey summarizes: "CNN and YouTube had weeks to select the questions for last night's debate...Yet within minutes of the debate, bloggers discovered what CNN missed -- that one prominent questioner flown to Florida by CNN worked on the campaign of a Democratic rival, and that at least three other questioners have declared support for Democratic candidates."

After initially praising CNN for its "coherent and well-framed" questions, Michelle Malkin discovered that Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, who asked the candidates a question about gays in the military, is a co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's National Military Veterans group. Malkin wrote: "I take back my compliment of CNN. The politics of planting rules again. Sheesh."

Glenn Reynolds: "Once again, CNN demonstrates an inexplicable failure to background-check pro-Hillary questioners...Try Google, next time. It's not that hard!"

Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Serving as the host of an intraparty debate, CNN has shown itself unable or unwilling to serve as an honest broker."

While critical of CNN, Ed Morrissey doesn't think the Dem questioners ruined the debate: "Bad journalistic practices? Definitely yes. But does that negate the questions themselves? I don't think so. The CNN/YouTube format closely parallels that of the traditional town-hall forum. For the most part, attendees do not get vetted at these events either, nor should they. After all, while a primary usually involves voters of one party, the entire nation has a stake in the selection of the nominees."

DEBATE GIULIANI: A Stumble?

CBN's David Brody: "I can't quite put my finger on it but he seemed sluggish tonight. He's normally pretty sharp but the energy level wasn't there. He operated as the human punching bag tonight with Romney attacking him, Thompson attacking him and even You Tube videos attacking him."

Ed Morrissey: "Rudy was a puzzlement. I understand his desire to fire back at Romney, but he chose a poor battlefield on which to fight. He used the 'sanctuary mansion' personal attack, expecting Romney to know the immigration status of other people's employees who did work at his house. Rudy did better later in the debate, but for at least the first half, he seemed off his game."

Matt Lewis: "Rudy was mediocre, but probably benefits from the fact that Huckabee and Thompson did well (presumably, their success hurts Romney). His closing line about the Yankees was humorous, but his opening skirmish with Romney about Romney's hiring illegal immigrants seemed personal."

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Rudy hit his stride in several places, but was overall, not as good as he usually is. He was confronted more boldly by voters on some of his socially liberal positions than he usually is by the press, and his answers were a little less than stellar. He made great points in places, but he took a lot of flack in the process."

DEBATE ROMNEY: Mixed Results

Hugh Hewitt: "Romney Won Debate And The Spin."

Scott Johnson: "Best performance: Mitt Romney."

Soren Dayton: "Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney? They looked bad. Bad."

Jim Geraghty: "The knives were out for [Romney] from the starting gun...The gays-in-the-military answer looks like yet another flip-flop...He didn't fall apart under this barrage, but every major candidate on that stage wants Romney knocked out first, and so he's got a big bulls-eye on his back from here on out. Easy to see his negatives rising week by week if every debate offers an extensive retrospective of his every flaw and position change."

NRO's Kate O'Beirne: "Romney's performance is his strongest in the series."

Matt Lewis: "Mitt Romney was probably was the one who most under-performed tonight. He didn't seem 'on.' In addition, he often seemed holier than thou. Some of his answers seemed to be pandering. Other questions reminded us of his past record. And some of his answers -- like the one about the King James Bible and gays in the military -- just seemed odd."

Michelle Malkin: "Romney looked strong and energetic, with one stumble on the Bible question."

David Brody: "He started off strong by going after Giuliani on sanctuary cities and seemed to have the upper hand. Yet Giuliani's line about Romney's 'sanctuary mansions' was a dagger. Romney tried to recover but the damage was done...Another stumble came when he was asked about the Bible being the literal word of God. Romney first answered that it was the word of God. But when pressed to say whether every word was true, he hesitated. Hesitation doesn't score you points with Evangelicals in Iowa. Overall, a shaky night."

AmSpecBlog's Philip Klein: "For part of the debate, I thought Romney came off quite well, both in his initial exchange with Rudy and doing a better job of deflecting the flip-flopper charge on abortion. But I thought he got crushed by McCain on the torture question, though as I stated, he may benefit from the fact that the Republican base agrees with him. On the bible and South Carolina flag questions, I thought he stumbled, and reinforced the impression that he can't take a firm position on anything."

RedState's Ben Domenech: "As for Mitt Romney -- both Bill Bennett and Kate O'Beirne think he did well. I have a really hard time seeing that. I think he got the better of the first exchange, but seemed to be getting his questions at a bad time (either having to echo those who came before or defending his Massachusetts record for the umpteenth time) throughout the night, and I think it was certainly not a helpful night for him."

DEBATE HUCKABEE: It's (Past) Time To Stop Ignoring Him

AmSpecBlog's Jennifer Rubin: "Huckabee won the night. He has mastered the art of appearing engaging and almost sweet but resolute on social issues. In a 90-second debate answer he sounds perfectly solid on other subjects like taxes. Remarkably, except for a minor scuffle with Romney on college scholarships for illegal alien kids, no one went after him. The time has passed where the other contenders can just hope he'll go away on his own and I suspect they will come after him next time."

NRO's Byron York: "I suspect that [Huckabee] has helped himself more than any other candidate on stage tonight. He's clearly on the rise in Iowa and South Carolina, and perhaps elsewhere, and my guess is that people who are considering supporting him liked what they saw tonight."

Kate O'Beirne: "[Huckabee] stands out on stage (and seemed to get more than his share of time tonight) not because of the substantive content of his answers but because he is refreshingly witty and seems extremely good-natured. People like the guy. Mitt Romney had a really good night, but it would have been even better if Huckabee hadn't had such a good one too."

David Brody: "It was Mike Huckabee who may have had the best night...Whether you agree with him or not, it seemed like every issue he talked about Wednesday had a well thought out, coherent argument behind it. When he speaks, the tone and words flow harmoniously...Huckabee really didn't come under attack tonight...It was a night where Huckabee could have been a major target. Instead, he continues to move right along."

Jim Geraghty: "I don't necessarily like how his candidacy is turning into a litmus test for the strength of social conservatives versus fiscal conservatives. But time and again, he's the smoothest, funniest, most natural campaigner on the stage, and that goes a long way."

Ed Morrissey: "Who won among the candidates? I'd have to lean towards Mike Huckabee. He steered clear of personal attacks, allowed his natural personality to emerge, and used his sense of humor to great effect. If people wonder why Huckabee has made a major move in Iowa, they saw why."

Fred Barnes: "[Huckabee] knows how to conduct himself in TV debates. He's genial, funny, extremely likable, and not very substantive. He seems to understand that a CNN-You Tube debate is not a serious forum at which serious people discuss serious issues. So he doesn't get worked up, and this posture works."

Matt Lewis: "Mike Huckabee is such a good debater that even when he's mediocre, he's still pretty good. As always, he did well and was humorous ('Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office...' was a great answer)."

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "Huckabee actually won. I wasn't a fan of his previous debate performances, but he dialed down the schtick. This was a debate performance he needed at a critical time."

Mary Katharine Ham: "Who Won? I'm giving it to Huckabee. He's always good in debates, always well-spoken. He parried attacks on his fiscal record well, deflecting with a lot of talk about the Fair Tax. He also got the chance to point out that he had signed the no-tax pledge, which is better than several others have done. He's riding a high, he came across as sensitive and smart, and was able to obscure his non-conservative record."

Red State's Erick Erickson: "Mike Huckabee scored the debate points on rhetoric and is the winner of this debate. He did really well. He showed up Romney. He showed up Rudy. If Mike could convince me he's actually a free market guy, I'd be tempted."

DEBATE MCCAIN: We Respectfully Won't Vote For You

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Senator McCain is making a dignified exit from national politics, and though I disagree greatly with his policies, he is a great American."

Philip Klein: "Even if you disagree with him on his position on torture, it's hard not to respect where he's coming from. He also came across as a real grown up on the stage...The trouble is, McCain still seems to rub a lot of conservative voters the wrong way. At the Values Voters Summit, I thought he gave a masterful speech, during which he made an emotional case against torture, but the audience members I spoke to after had a different view."

Mary Katharine Ham: "McCain was strong on spending and the war, and decent throughout, but came across as a little more dour than usual. I could have used just a bit more of his jokes, which are usually good, to lighten the tone. Many of his answers were moving, but won't necessarily play well with his audience -- immigration and torture, specifically. Conservatives will continue to respect him, but he wasn't working it for me tonight, except on the war and spending."

Matt Lewis: "The bottom line is that I think McCain got his message out tonight -- that he has the experience needed at this time in history. In short, he was 'Presidential.'"

David Brody: "McCain is always sharp on the war yet Ron Paul stood up to him. McCain's best moments were in that context."

Campaign Standard's Stephen F. Hayes: "John McCain was strong on Iraq, as he always is, though he reached a bit by trying to engage Ron Paul on the issue. His answer on waterboarding will probably resonate with even those people who disagree with him."

DEBATE THOMPSON: It's Probably A Bad Sign When Your Best Debate Moment Is Your Ad

David Brody: "Fred Thompson's best moment was probably his campaign commercial where he slammed Romney on abortion and Huckabee on taxes. But he seemed to be more in the background tonight. If Thompson wants to make a serious move, he'll need better debate performances in the future."

Campaign Standard's Terry Eastland "The best performance wasn't turned in by one of the candidates. No, the Oscar goes to that Thompson ad. It doesn't introduce Thompson -- he doesn't even speak. The ad features Mitt Romney when he was pro-abortion rights, and Mike Huckabee when (as governor of Arkansas) he was agreeable to increasing various taxes. The ad closes by pitching Thompson as the authentic conservative in the race. It's a well-done ad, and it indicates how Thompson believes he can pull off a top-three finish in Iowa: attack Romney and Huckabee (the two are atop the Iowa polls) where they have evident vulnerabilities; get them on the defensive; force them to explain themselves."

Stephen F. Hayes: "Fred Thompson clearly sees Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as his main competition. He chose to use his 30-second YouTube spot to show old footage of Romney supporting abortion rights and Huckabee backing tax hikes. It was incredibly effective, mostly because of the way Thompson handled himself afterwards. When the video was finished, Anderson Cooper asked: 'What's up with that?' Thompson laughed heartily and said: 'Just wanted to give my buddies a little extra airtime.' Then everyone else laughed."

Matt Lewis: "My bet is getting this negative information out is a lot better use of his time than merely putting out some puff-piece."

Patrick Ruffini, who watched the debate from the hall, had a different take: "Fred's attack spot was off place. Giuliani won the battle of the YouTube ads."

Jim Geraghty agrees: "Thompson gets 30 seconds of free time, and uses all of it to showcase quotes from Romney and Huckabee? I just don't think it reflected well on him."

Ed Morrissey: "Fred Thompson did well enough to get a wash, but he needs to start doing something impressive. While his answers were fine and supportable, none of them were particularly memorable. He's the kind of man people want to support if he'd give them something to work with, but thus far, he's more analyst than candidate."

Jennifer Rubin: "Thompson was fine but sort of invisible which is baffling for a professional performer. I like him more and more as the campaign goes on but find him incapable of projecting the energy and dynamism a president or a presidential candidate requires."

Thompson supporter Erick Erickson is starting to worry: "I think Fred held his own. He did well. But he did not shine and he needed to. I did think his YouTube clip made the point he needed to make. If Fred doesn't do something soon, though, and soon as in in the next two weeks, I think he'll flat line. Don't make me have to find a new guy, Fred."

HUCKABEE: Dems' Worst Fear?

On the left side of the blogosphere, Open Left's Mike Lux is impressed by Huckabee's Iowa surge but scared by what he perceives to be Huckabee's general election strength: "I am always pleased when populist economics shows up in a political campaign, even when it comes from a Republican and even if the candidate's policy prescriptions generally suck, as is the case with Huckabee...I am also thrilled at the idea of an all-out civil war between the Christian fundamentalist wing and the economic-royalist wing of the Republican Party primary with Huckabee and, say, Giulani, as the two finalists after the smoke clears from the early states would definitely set such a conflagration off...But what scares me the most about Huckabee is that I just think he is by far the best general election candidate on the Republican side. Unlike Giuliani, McCain and Romney, he unites and excites the GOP voting base. Unlike Thompson, he is a thoughtful and articulate candidate on policy, and has real accomplishments he can point to from his time in public office. He's warm and charming and optimistic, and doesn't sound like the hardliner he is on social issues. Watching him charm and entertain Stewart, Colbert and their young, urban, liberal audiences was astonishing to me."

DEM FIELD: It's Back To Iraq

It felt like deja vu in the Dem race yesterday, as Bill Clinton's claim that he opposed the Iraq War from the start returned the war to the front of the debate and "ignited a kind of research war" between the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder wonders why Bill Clinton chose to make this dubious claim about Iraq: "Mr. President -- your wife is going to be in Iowa tomorrow. She is supposed to talk about health care. You don't want to step on her message by claiming that you opposed the Iraq War from the beginning! We're in the era of instantaneous fact checks...within 10 minutes of your comments, they're everywhere, and if you want to walk them back, it's not like calling Ron Fournier to walk back an AP story!"

TPM's Greg Sargent analyzes the significance of the flare-up: "Hillary has often said that she voted for the war because she wanted to give the President more leverage against Saddam Hussein, something she said at the time would make war 'less likely'...But if at the time you had figured out that Bush and Blair were going to war no matter what happened, as many argued, you understood that placing trust in Bush and Blair -- and hence authorizing Bush to use force -- was the same as supporting certain war. The Obama campaign is largely premised on the notion that the Clintons -- and Hillary, in particular -- should have figured this out, and that her failure to do so should be a factor in deciding whether she should be President. If you view our pre-war history through this prism, as Obama does, whether people said they opposed the invasion, as Bill did in certain venues, was in many ways beside the point. In this view, the only thing that constituted genuine opposition to the war was an unwillingness to grant Bush/Blair the trust or authority to wage it."

Bill's claim opened some old wounds for Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Maybe my memory is faulty, but in the run up to the invasion liberation of Iraq, I remember hoping that both of the Clintons would say something -- anything -- as W. drove the car off the cliff. They never showed up...What the hell are the Clintons thinking? Hillary's weakness is Iraq. So Bill steps in it...on Iraq?"

OBAMA: Failing To Make The Case?

On a similar topic, Washington Post columnist Peter Beinart analyzes Barack Obama's inability to use HRC's war vote against her: "Recent American history is littered with candidates who were right about war and weren't rewarded at election time...So what's Obama to do? He has to convince voters that his original antiwar stance still matters, that it's the key to understanding what makes him and Clinton different now. That's why Obama keeps trying to connect Clinton's Iraq vote to her recent vote designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group, suggesting that once again she is giving Bush the green light to launch a war. Unfortunately for him, history doesn't generally repeat. The Iran resolution was rewritten to avoid any suggestion of military force precisely because Senate Democrats don't want to make the same mistake twice."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias calls Beinart's analysis "very smart" but complains: "When [Obama] tries to engage in an intra-party argument about foreign policy, people like Peter Beinart...ignore what he's arguing in favor of making arguments about why his arguments aren't penetrating...it seems to me that the role of a journalist who's attuned to the small ins-and-outs of these debates is precisely to convey to readers things they might not otherwise pick up on, not to merely explain that people aren't picking up on stuff. And there's the rub, the differences in the positions Clinton and Obama have staked out have been subtle, but the differences keep lining up the same way."

CLINTON: Not Winning The Hearts Of Netroots

Yglesias, who's becoming one of the blogosphere's most frequent critics of HRC's foreign policy views, examines HRC's positions and concludes: "I think all the evidence points in one direction: Obama would pursue a more restrained foreign policy, more inflected by the strains of realism and internationalism that have come to predominate among the dovish camp in American politics whereas Clinton would pursue a more militarily expansive one, more in line with the thinking of the establishmentarians who got us into war with Iraq and have since come to kinda sorta regret but don't really think they were wrong."

Open Left's Matt Stoller offers what has become a standard netroots critique of HRC: "Clinton believes that if you prepare, present the evidence, and work the system, you will win. She has to believe it, because her entire career is premised on huge barricades between insiders and the public that are larger than the barricades between Republicans and Democrats. She may wish in her heart that the world worked differently, she may wish in her heart that making a strong progressive case to the public would bring great change, but she doesn't operate that way. She offers jobs to Colin Powell, a man who helped destroy Bill Clinton, she ratifies the Iraq war and refuses to consider her own huge and obvious complicity with the last seven years of our foreign policy. It's a huge problem."

EDWARDS: Is This The Beginning of Second-Choice Speculation?

The Chicago Tribune's The Swamp reports that John Edwards prefers Obama to HRC:

"The differences between Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) and myself are much more dramatic than the differences between Sen. Obama and myself," Edwards told reporters after receiving the endorsement of the progressive group Caucus for Priorities, which seeks a reallocation of defense dollars into social programs.

"Down the line," Edwards said, on issues such as "What we would do in Iraq? What we should be doing about Iran. What we should be doing about corrupting influences in Washington and a broken system, (there are) really big differences between Sen. Clinton and myself."

Open Left's Chris Bowers is surprised by Edwards' statement: "Of all the attacks I have seen so far in this nearly year-long campaign, the latest one from Edwards might be the most interesting of all...Iowa is very close, so close that even a minor deal like the one Edwards and Kucinich made in 2004 could swing the state. Even leaving potential caucus-day deals aside, if both Edwards and Obama were to start attacking Clinton instead of each other, or at least if they were to start attacking Clinton more than they were attacking each other, then Clinton would be in real trouble in Iowa. For Edwards to come out and basically say that he prefers Obama to Clinton is one of the most unusual moves I have ever seen from a presidential candidate. If Obama were to say pretty much the same thing, then Clinton would be in real trouble in Iowa. Not only would she face attacks on several fronts, but it could also exacerbate her problem as a second place choice, where she already finds herself in third."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Online America Vs. Offline America

Jim Geraghty questions the usefulness of YouTube debates:

"Talking before the debate with an adviser to one of the Republican campaigns, we wondered if one of the themes that might come out of the evening was the difference between Online America and Offline America. I'm a guy who spends probably way too much time on the Internet, so I guess I'm part of the online one. But the kind of people who hear about the YouTube debate, and who go and get a web camera or digital recorder of some kind and record themselves asking a question and then hope that it gets used...it's a certain kind of person. Engaged, probably passionate, perhaps outspoken, enjoying the spotlight. Perhaps a little smug admiration in their own self-evident cleverness. I'm not certain that this pool of voters is brimming with GOP primary voters...Before this debate, I was in Patrick Ruffini's camp, in that I thought a YouTube debate was worth trying. But afterwards, I'm skeptical that this needs to turn into a new campaign tradition. The freakishly-bizarre-to-valuable-question ratio was all out of whack, much worse than the Democratic debate, I would contend."

LEST WE FORGET: Huck The Rock Star

The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg links to a YouTube clip of Mike Huckabee laying down the bass line on Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Free Bird" and analyzes Huck's stage presence:

"He's got that little leaning-back thing going. And that little upward gesture with the guitar neck. Cooler than your average former Republican governor -- maybe even as cool as your average former Arkansas governor of either party. If Huckabee's star keeps rising, a fierce debate over his chops versus Bill Clinton's will inevitably erupt. I don't propose to take sides; unless you're an expert, it's hard to compare tenor-sax apples to bass-guitar oranges. Clinton has the shades and the hair, I know that much. But if you close your eyes and open your ears Huckabee more than holds his own, in my unschooled opinion."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:03 PM

November 28, 2007

11/28: Mitt's Muslim Mess

Conservative and liberal bloggers alike are buzzing about Mitt Romney's alleged statement to an Islamic businessman that he "cannot see that a Cabinet position would be justified" for a Muslim, based on the percentage of Muslims in the U.S. Romney quickly disputed businessman Mansoor Ijaz's account of their exchange, but Ijaz stands by his telling. To make matters worse for Romney, TPM Election Central just dropped another bomb: apparently two NV GOPers had asked Romney a similar question several months ago and gotten a similar answer, which one of them even described as "racist." Will this hurt Romney among IA GOPers, who are not exactly sympathetic to Muslims? And will the topic be raised during tonight's CNN/YouTube debate?

GOP FIELD: Will The Snowman Get To Ask Another Question?

Several conservative bloggers laid out their expectations for tonight's GOP CNN/YouTube presidential debate.

NRO's Jim Geraghty writes: "Fred Thompson needs to get his groove back, and stop his slide. Romney has been knocked around like a pinata these past few weeks; he needs to demonstrate that he's the kind of guy who can take a pounding and bounce right back up. Rudy Giuliani's got to reassure folks that his victory won't lead to a social conservative revolt; similarly, Mike Huckabee's got to reassure folks his victory won't lead to a fiscal conservative revolt. John McCain seems to have been on a roll lately, but is it going to be enough to accomplish more than a nice finish in New Hampshire? And finally -- I'll take "Sentences I Never Thought I Would Write" for 400, Alex -- will Ron Paul start looking like a serious candidate, with a constituency in the GOP too vocal and large to ignore?"

Townhall's Matt Lewis predicts who will shine and who won't: "Once again, with candidates like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo still in the debate, it'll be hard for anything much to be accomplished. Nevertheless, I think this format benefits certain personality types, just as the famous '92 Town Hall debate benefited Bill Clinton over George Bush, 41. John McCain stands to do well. As a participant on his semi-weekly blogger calls, I can attest to the fact that he is used to taking any and all questions, sometimes coming out of left field...Remember, while McCain was the first to sign-up for the YouTube debate, Mitt Romney was the one who wouldn't commit. Fortunately for him, Romney has also been holding 'Ask Mitt Anything' Town Hall's, which should have helped prepare him for this. Still, I think there is a chance he could have a bad night simply because he views the format as beneath him, and that's bound to show. Rudy Giuliani is more guarded by his staff, so he's not as practiced, but he's quick on his feet and his humor can be disarming. He will probably do well. Ron Paul is the 'internet candidate,' but not because he knows about the internet. My guess is he will do just okay. Look for Mike Huckabee to do well, and Fred Thompson, I think, could go either way."

AmSpecBlog's Jennifer Rubin adds: "[Tonight's] debate will likely be a brawl with the Rudy-Romney face off on crime, taxes and healthcare as well as the Judge Tuttman story still brewing not to mention the Muslims in the cabinet story...Romney will likely be in everyone's line of fire (who doesn't benefit from having him lose in Iowa?) so how well he withstands the onslaught may help voters decide just how tough he is."

Lastly, Townhall's Patrick Ruffini is pleased that the GOP candidates are finally embracing Web 2.0: "Four months ago, there was a real danger our candidates would get left permanently behind when it came to the dominant medium of the 21st century. The YouTube snub seemed to symbolize an indifference to competing with Democrats in a key strategic battleground. Today, our candidates are getting it. Mike Huckabee is reinventing his campaign and surging in Iowa with help from his bloggers. Fred Thompson did get it for a while...until he sacked key new media savvy staffers like Mark Corallo and decided to run an uninspiring cookie cutter campaign. Mitt Romney crowdsourced admaking with results better than his traditional media team. And let's not forget rhymes-with-Pon-Raul."

GOP FIELD II: Bloggers Prefer Fred And Rudy

RightWingNews' John Hawkins emailed 61 conservative bloggers and asked them various questions about the GOP candidates:

Which candidate would you most like to see as the nominee?
(1.) Fred Thompson (46%)
(2.) Rudy Giuliani (31%)
(3.) Mitt Romney (7%)
(4.) John McCain (8%)
(5.) Mike Huckabee (3%)

Which candidate do you think is most likely to capture the GOP nomination?
(1.) Rudy Giuliani (76%)
(2.) Fred Thompson (13%)
(3.) Mitt Romney (12%)
(4.) Mike Huckabee (0%)
(5.) John McCain (0%)

Which of the candidates do you believe is the most conservative?
(1.) Fred Thompson (66%)
(2.) Mike Huckabee (19%)
(3.) Mitt Romney (7%)
(4.) Rudy Giuliani (5%)
(5.) John McCain (3%)

GraniteGrok's Doug Lambert observes: "The one thing that is rather striking, given the conservative nature of the bloggers participating, is how poorly Mike Huckabee fared. Beyond that, Fred Thompson did quite well, as did Rudy Giuliani. While there is little surprise that Fred would do well in a poll of conservative denizens of the online community, Rudy Giuliani's continued strength within this group is notable as well."

GOP FIELD III: Rudy And Huck Go Together Like Bread And Butter

NRO's Rich Lowry: "These pieces in Time and the New York Sun point out something that's been increasingly evident over the last few days: how nicely Rudy and Huck's strategies mesh. They both are attacking Romney for a lack of authenticity, with Huck blasting the former Massachusetts governor on social issues and Rudy blasting him on everything else. Together, they've got all the ground covered. The division of labor works geographically as well -- Huck is threatening Romney in Iowa, which could weaken Romney in New Hampshire, where Rudy is increasingly vested in a strong finish (so much for the old Florida and Feb. 5 strategy). At the end of the day, I'm sure that the Rudy folks would like nothing more than for Huck to win the 'conservative primary' within the Republican primary and emerge as the alternative to Rudy. Huck would be the weakest anti-Rudy contender. This seems so obvious that if I were a calculating Rudy donor who had already maxed out for my guy, I'd be tempted to send some money Huck's way."

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru rejoins: "I've heard some talk about a [Giuliani-Huckabee] ticket. They would balance each other nicely: Put them together, and you've got one conservative."

NRO's Lisa Schiffren is not so sure about a Giuliani-Huckabee ticket: "Yes, they have those somewhat complementary positions on social issues. And there is much data to the effect that the vice-presidential candidate is neither much of a hindrance nor help to a ticket. But these two are so far apart that it is possible that Huckabee's Evangelical voters would dismiss him as an opportunist/sell out for running with Giuliani. And all of those secular moderate ethnic/pro-defense blue state voters (in California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc.) with whom Rudy is said to have a serious chance, will dismiss him out of distaste for putting the preacher on the ticket. That would be a perfect illustration of 'too clever by half.'"

Later, Lowry reproduces yesterday's Hotline analysis, which observed: "If [McCain] and Huckabee trip Romney in IA and NH, it'd be a huge boost for Giuliani. And the more volatile the early-state scramble, the better life is for the 2/5-lovin' Rudy." Lowry notes: "Along these lines, I was talking to an unaffiliated GOP strategist the other day who argues persuasively that the likeliest scenarios are that either Romney runs the table in the early states and wins the nomination or Rudy is the nominee."

On the left side of the blogosphere, The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias agrees: "It's striking when you get down to it exactly how helpful the Huckabee Surge has been to Giuliani. This is particularly noteworthy because the two candidates represent basically opposite tendencies within the conservative movement. It wouldn't shock me if you saw maxed-out Giuliani donors cutting Huckabee checks. Certainly, I think it'd be a savvy play."

Yglesias also wonders: "In retrospect, it all sort of makes you wonder why social conservatives didn't just get behind Huckabee in the first place, rather than blessing Romney's preposterous conversion to religious right values and trying to drag Fred Thompson into the race. Sure, Huckabee's not well-liked by the economic hard-right, but cultural conservatives' objections to Giuliani didn't stop his backers from pushing him on the party. If Huckabee had just a modicum of money and institutional support, I think he'd be a formidable contender, but he's got neither."

ROMNEY: He's In Quite A Pickle

Soren Dayton looks at Romney's "Muslim mess" and breaks down the repercussions for the candidate: "This may open the door to a more open discussion of Romney's religion. If he is discriminating on the basis of religion -- perhaps even a wrong-but-politically-useful position in an Iowa Republican caucus -- then why can't other people drill down on his religion? Arguing 'no bigotry' is a lot easier than arguing 'bigotry for me but not for thee.' A combination of hypocrisy and implausible repeated non-denials is good material for a feeding frenzy. At the same time as he's getting drilled for other things. There's a lot of bad synergy going on right now for Romney."

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder offers Romney some advice about dealing with the media: "Romney does not seem to relish being forced to deny the story -- perhaps he finds it too absurd to bother with -- but such lack-of-relish shows, and it's leading reporters to try and parse his statements. Answering the subject by challenging the premise and challenging the credentials of the person who made the accusations are debating techniques, but they won't the get media to leave the story alone."

Romney is now without his online defenders, however:

NRO's Andy McCarthy empathizes with Romney: "I am feeling Mitt Romney's pain. I have debated Mansoor Ijaz -- in an 'Opinion Duel' organized by NRO. I repeatedly found that he accused me of saying things I hadn't said while he took positions that were unresponsive, at times incoherent, and consistently wedded to an agenda which he pursued no matter the course of the debate...I think, within the confines of his agenda, he means well, but I would not take him to the bank as a raconteur."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey declares: "Ijaz is no disinterested bystander or impartial analyst, not even for Muslim audiences. He was a bundler for the Clintons, attempting to torpedo a leading Republican candidate with a smear of bigotry...The Christian Science Monitor owes its readers an explanation of Ijaz' background and motivations. Allowing a Democratic operative to launch that kind of smear from the CSM without noting his connections to the leading Democratic frontrunner and the party amounts to journalistic malpractice."

Power Line's Scott Johnson looks at some of Romney's other statements about hiring people "regardless of religion, race or ethnicity" and concludes: "Governor Romney may not have given a satisfactory answer to Ijaz's question at the fundraiser, but that it was at most a slight misstep with respect to which he deserves the benefit of the doubt."

Liberal bloggers, of course, were only too happy to pile on the ex-governor:

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Of all the presidential candidates, Mitt Romney should be the very last one to publicly endorse discrimination on the basis of religion."

Think Progress' Faiz Shakir: "Note to Romney: As a Mormon running for President, you're going to need to come up with a better justification for religious bigotry against Muslims."

AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris: "He's the guy who cries 'foul' when anyone discusses his Mormon faith (that he can't stop talking about) but he doesn't mind making a bigoted remark about Muslims. During our so-called war on terror, no less. How insulting, careless and downright offensive."

Daily Kos' Trapper John: "It's just out-and-out bigotry for Romney to say that he would apply a religious test when selecting cabinet appointees, and that he would specifically apply that test against an oft-maligned religious community. It's reprehensible, it's transparently an attempt to score points with retrograde GOP primary voters, and Romney should henceforth be shunned by anyone claiming to respect religious freedom."

ROMNEY II: Ignore Huck (And Chuck) At Your Own Peril

The Politico's Jonathan Martin examines a new Romney direct mail piece sent to Iowans which claims that Romney is the only one of the "four leading Republican candidates" to support a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Martin observes: "The former governor pointedly ignores Mike Huckabee, who has emerged as his most serious challenger in the Hawkeye State and who supports the ban."

Jennifer Rubin: "Given Huckabee is clearly the second place guy in Iowa as well does it make sense for Romney to ignore him in his first 'contrast' mailing on social issues? It would seem at some point Romney is going to have to either say 'I'm better on social issues' and take value voters away from Huckabee or say 'I'm better on everything else' in a Rudy like appeal (politics is filled with irony) but ignoring the elephant in the room seems foolhardy in light of where they stand in the polls."

Marc Ambinder sees challenges for Romney in Iowa: "Savvy consultants look at two numbers to project whether, if a particular election were held today, their candidate would win. One is the head to head -- and Mitt Romney still leads, narrowly, in Iowa polls. The second is intensity -- and here, Mike Huckabee's surge breaks over the walls that the Romney Iowa organization has spent so many months carefully building. Every consultant would rather be behind by five points in the head to head match ups and ahead by double digits in terms of the level of intensity."

Rubin adds: "There is an element of class and geography at work here -- Romney is the millionaire from Massachusetts and Huckabee is the neighbor from Arkansas. In that regard the Club for Growth crusade against Huckabee, regardless of the merit of the Club's arguments and their impact nationally, may do little to harm and indeed may help Huckabee as he plays the local underdog under attack from Wall Street."

GIULIANI: Making A Push In New Hampshire

Marc Ambinder reports: "According to a tally of New Hampshire television advertising kept by one of the campaigns, Rudy Giuliani has boosted his spending in the state by 60% for the upcoming week starting tomorrow."

AmSpecBlog's Philip Klein makes some observations about Rudy's chances in NH after spending 3 days in the state: "I got mixed signals on how Giuliani is doing in the state. His crowds were thin at some events, but respectable at others. When he actually got out in public -- as he did during a stroll down Main Street in Nashua on Saturday and at a holiday parade in Salem on Sunday -- people seemed to adore him. They raced up to greet him, get his picture, shake his hand, ask for his autograph, and the crowd often broke out into cheers of 'Ru-dy!' This suggested to me that now that Giuliani has decided to compete seriously in the state, taking out television ads and doing the up close retail campaigning that voters expect, he has a lot of room to grow. At the same time, there's reason to be skeptical as to whether his celebrity status will translate into actual votes on Jan. 8. Outside one diner stop, a guy asking Giuliani to sign two magazine covers from when he was Time 'Man of the Year' was undecided, as was a teacher holding a Rudy sign who told me she wanted him to autograph it for her class."

THOMPSON: Emphasizing The Wrong Things?

Hot Air's Allahpundit critiques two new ads released by the Thompson campaign: "I like the second half of the first clip -- he really is the most stalwart conservative among the big four, a point he should be hammering at every turn. The first half and the second clip in its entirety are devoted to pushing his background as a crusading attorney fighting for what's right, a noble and notable credential although it's not obvious to me why it does him much good...He should stick to the 'true conservative' stuff and start hitting the fact that while Rudy and Mitt are throwing punches and Huckabee's chattering about faith, he's rolling out one policy proposal after another."

RedState's Erick Erickson sees hope for Thompson: "Fred has reached that interesting point where none of the other campaigns take him seriously, yet he's starting to make inroads in Iowa against Huckabee, who can't afford to spend too much time fighting off Fred when he's trying to unseat Romney."

PAUL: The Dark Horse In New Hampshire

Philip Klein shares his thoughts on Paul's chances in NH: "Don't underestimate Ron Paul. His signs are ubiquitous in the state, and his supporters are as enthusiastic in person as they are in over the Internet. If his message resonates anywhere it should be New Hampshire, where he has several constituencies to pull from. There is not only a strong libertarian streak that runs through New Hampshire, but anti-war independents will be able to vote in the Republican primary. This is also a state that Pat Buchanan once won, and Paul could tap into some of those type of voters, given his foreign policy and immigration views. Don't forget that this is a state in which Republican Sen. John Sununu opposed the PATRIOT Act, so a lot of Paul's stances that get him dismissed as a kook among Republicans in other parts of the country, will resonate in New Hampshire. Now that he has millions of dollars to spend on TV ads, he can get his message out."

CLINTON: A Hawk In Sheep's Clothing?

TAPPED's Ezra Klein is not happy about Hillary Clinton's hint that she would give Colin Powell a position in her administration: "I know we're all supposed to like Powell because, without ever saying so, he hinted, that maybe, just maybe, when he was helping to sell the world on the Iraq War and fool Hillary Clinton about those weapons that didn't exist, he had some qualms about what he was doing, and much later, concluded that he'd played a critical role in engineering one of the greatest foreign policy disasters of all time...But you know what? Bringing back key members of the Bush foreign policy team probably won't restore our standing in the world. It's the sort of thing the Washington Post editorial board likes, but little more."

Matthew Yglesias agrees: "If Clinton's looking to assuage people's doubts about her foreign policy judgment, this seems like a terrible way to do it. A lot of Clinton's pro-invasion advisors are too obscure for most people to recognize. But Powell was the public face of the Iraq sales pitch. He's also a man who did have enough independence from his commander-in-chief to undermine her husbands efforts to bring gay equality to the military when Bill Clinton was president and Powell was in uniform. But as Secretary of State he raised some skeptical questions about the war, heard some answers, and then not only hopped on the bandwagon, but used his leverage as someone with a reputation for skepticism to make the sales pitch all the more effective."

Atrios registers his disapproval by naming HRC his "Wanker of the Day."

In a separate post, Ezra Klein unfavorably compares HRC's foreign policy views to Barack Obama's: "What separates Obama from Clinton is approach. Clinton is, at least in public statements, harder line than Obama. She's more enamored with our ability to solve problems militarily, less skittish about the costs of bombing Iran, totally unwilling to concede that the theory underpinning the invasion of Iraq was a mistake (her regret is that the weapons didn't exist, not that she was conceptually wrong)."

OBAMA: The Oprah Effect

Time's Mark Halperin doubts that Oprah Winfrey can help Obama win the nomination: "So yes, expect loud, rousing rallies in all three early voting states when Oprah Winfrey comes to town with her friend Barack Obama in early December, with gobs of media attention, raucous crowds, emotion and great pictures. But don't expect those events to do anything productive to allow Obama to get over the biggest hurdle standing between him and the White House. American voters are not looking for a celebrity or talk show sidekick to lead them. Obama is an intelligent and thoughtful potential President, but Winfrey's imprimatur is unlikely to convey those traits to many undecided voters. In that respect, Winfrey's events might even be -- dare it be said -- counterproductive."

Halperin thinks that "a more important event for his chances of winning" was yesterday's New Hampshire forum featuring a number of foreign policy heavyweights: "None of these Obama supporters are, of course, as famous as Oprah Winfrey -- or particularly famous at all. But their validation -- that Obama's brand of experience and his foreign policy vision make him qualified to lead America's military and protect the nation's national security -- could well do more for Obama than anything a talk show host (even a talk show host as powerful as Winfrey) can do."

TAPPED's Kate Sheppard disagrees: "It's true that the backing of leading foreign policy thinks is more important -- for the voters who pay close (or any) attention to the candidates' foreign policy plans. But I'm guessing the overlap between those voters and the Oprah crowd is pretty small. So the idea that Oprah's endorsement -- which is less likely to drive away the foreign policy fans than the minute details of his foreign policy proposals are to draw in the Oprah lovers -- is a bad thing is at best wishful thinking. Sure, we don't want to live in a country where a talk show host has more sway than the former national security adviser, but that doesn't make it so."

OBAMA II: Boxed In?

Considering that Jesse Jackson endorsed Obama eight months ago, Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks it's noteworthy that Jackson implicitly criticized Obama for "ignoring African Americans" in his most recent column. Nevertheless, Bowers feels sympathy for Obama's predicament: "I think it is pretty fair to say that if Obama did talk explicitly talk about race in a public way, even once, he would immediately face the same wrath Hillary Clinton faced for supposedly playing 'the gender card.' Obama would be instantly accused of playing the 'race card.' All of these attacks would also sound similar, if reversed, for when John Edwards is attacked as a rich guy talking about poverty. Women can't talk about gender without playing the '[gender] card,' blacks can't talk about race without playing the 'race card,' and anyone who talks about the plight of a demographic group to which they do not belong, such as rich people talking about poor people, then that person is a hypocrite. It really is a nearly perfect, conservative, media system to prevent anyone from talking about race, gender or poverty in America."

Bowers continues: "If Obama did bring up race more explicitly, he would immediately face a withering line of conservative African-American figures trotted out by the Republican Noise Machine to supposedly refute everything he said. Obama would then be pressured to retract or refute his words in some fashion, or at least tack on a call to African-Americans to behave themselves better (or something along those lines). Obama seems to be making a choice that he can instead indirectly allude to race through his bio and presence, and as such rise in the polls instead of facing direct media assault. This is certainly an interesting choice, resulting in an interesting dynamic where Rev. Jackson clearly wants Obama to talk about race more explicitly."

EDWARDS: The Progressive Choice

Edwards supporter David Mizner articulates the views of many in the netroots community when he argues that the outcome of the Dem primary "will have a huge impact on the battle between the two wings of the Democratic Party, the PPs (progressive-populists) and the CCs (centrist-corporatists.)...An Edwards victory would be a jolt to the central nervous system of the Democratic Establishment...An Edwards loss would be a loss for the progressive wing of the party. Never mind that the loyalties of progressives are divided, the MSM and the Democratic establishment would claim that the loss demonstrates the folly of trying to appeal to progressives. Of running left."

BIDEN: Top 3 Finish In Iowa Means "I'm Going To Win"

Following Monday's interview with John Edwards, CBN's David Brody sat down yesterday with Joe Biden. They discussed, among other topics, HRC, Giuliani, and Biden's chances in Iowa:

• Biden: "My problem with Hillary is she's not decisive enough. My problem with her is she's not straightforward enough in saying this is what I'll do."
• Biden: "[Giuliani] knows so little about foreign policy he confuses terrorists cells and organizations with countries. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before this war. Al-Qaeda became a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. It didn't exist until Bush went to war. Even our own intelligence community says that. But these guys buy into this silliness that if you don't fight them in Baghdad you're going to fight them in Boston. Give me a break...I can hardly wait to debate these guys. The only guy on that side with any knowledge about foreign policy is John McCain."
• Biden: "If I come out of Iowa one, two, or three, I'm going to win this nomination because you have a catapulting effect and I don't have to, how can I say it, I don't have to go way out of my way to make the case that I'm qualified to be president."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: When Bloggers Collide

Patrick Ruffini disputes Chris Bowers' criticisms of the Republican netroots and offers his own harsh critique of the Democratic netroots:

"Rather than pointing fingers at Republican experimentation and innovation, Bowers would do better to examine the netroots' failure to evolve since 2003, their staggering failure to inflict so much as a scratch on Hillary Clinton's inevitability, and the fact that their online energy has been drained to celebrity-minded forums like Facebook and MySpace and in-house campaign email lists where candidates are free to ignore them. When Barack Obama, your best hope for defeating Hillary Clinton, feels free to flagrantly blow you off, what does that say for the vaunted influence of the netroots?"

LEST WE FORGET: Famous Second Bananas

NRO's Jonah Goldberg thinks of "movies where the second banana was funnier/better than the lead actor":

"Tommy Lee Jones overwhelmed Steven Seagal in Under Siege. Bill Murray stole every scene in Kingpin. Harrison Ford crushed that guy who played Luke Skywalker. Jonathan Winters outclassed Robin Williams in later seasons of Mork & Mindy (not a movie, I know, but Winters's genius never gets enough respect). But this dynamic is actually common in sitcoms (think the Fonz in the early years, Benson on Soap, Dietrich on Barney Miller, etc). Personally -- and I know this controversial -- I think James Caan was better than Al Pacino in The Godfather. Almost every movie Schwarzenegger was in he was outperformed by his sidekicks, most notably Tom Arnold in True Lies. De Niro in Angel Heart. Brad Pitt in True Romance? (okay maybe not, but it was close). Pacino in Dick Tracy."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:02 PM

November 27, 2007

11/27: Ratcheting Up The Rhetoric

The battle between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney has gotten noticeably nastier during the past few days, with the two candidates taking turns calling each other hypocrites and comparing each other to HRC. The back-and-forth between the two candidates -- and the substantial media attention it has received -- is lending weight to the growing sense among pundits and bloggers that this has become a two-person race. Politicos will undoubtedly be anticipating fireworks when Romney and Giuliani take the stage at tomorrow night's CNN/YouTube debate.

GOP FIELD: A War Of Words

In an article examining "why war broke out" between the Giuliani and Romney campaigns, NRO's Byron York suggests that Romney's campaign may have instigated last weekend's dust-up with its "steady stream of criticism": "It appears that Romney, the sunny and positive optimist, has been a bit more persistent and bare-knuckled in his attacks on Giuliani than Giuliani, the tough-guy veteran of rough-and-tumble New York politics, has been on Romney. That doesn't mean the attacks were illegitimate, or false, or out of bounds; in fact, nearly all were based on at least a few facts and involved issues, like immigration and taxes and social questions, that are important to Republican voters. But it's hard to deny that in the last two months, Romney has kept up a fairly steady stream of criticism of Giuliani, more than the other way around."

NRO's Andy McCarthy thinks Romney crossed the line by bringing up Giuliani's multiple marriages: "I am a declared Rudy guy who likes Mitt, so I'm not enjoying the cross-fire. But after reading Byron's piece, I gotta say I'm surprised -- and offended -- that Mitt claims voters are worried about a candidate who has 'been married more than once.' Like Ronald Reagan, I've been married twice. So have a lot of people. It's to his great credit and good fortune that Mitt found the right person at a young age and has obviously enjoyed an enduring, wonderful marriage. But, y'know, Bill Clinton's only been married once, too. Does Mitt really think there is upside in playing this game? I think he's gonna turn off many more people than he'll appeal to. It's not the sort of thing people base their vote on, but I liked him less after reading it than I did before."

NRO's Jim Geraghty finds the back-and-forth tiresome: "Maybe because it's after Thanksgiving, voters really are tuning in with greater intensity now, but to those of us who have been watching this campaign from the start, it's a lot of old stuff -- post-Thanksgiving leftovers. Are there any GOP primary voters who really have no idea Giuliani was a social liberal as New York mayor? Are there any out there who haven't seen differing comments between Romney's campaigns in 1994 and 2002 and his comments on the trail today? Looking at each guy's level of support -- are there many supporters who will really be dislodged by the 10,000th version of the argument, 'Rudy's not a real conservative' or 'Mitt's a flip-flopper?'"

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff writes: "Given the plausibility of their competing attacks, the main beneficiary would seem to be John McCain, who sees his two key New Hampshire rivals tarred, and who probably wins points for declining to attack them with comparable gusto."

GIULIANI: Worried About Mitt-mentum?

Yesterday we linked to Hugh Hewitt's declaration that the GOP contest has become a two-person race between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey looks at Giuliani's escalating rhetoric and agrees: "Given the attention these negative attacks receive, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that this has become a two-man race. Romney has targeted Giuliani for quite a while, while avoiding confrontation with any other campaign. Giuliani's return volleys endorse the notion that Romney has developed into his chief rival, at least strategically; he also has avoided engaging in extended verbal brickbats with John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Mike Huckabee, who has gathered considerable strength in Iowa lately."

Morrissey goes on to consider the significance of Giuliani's attacks on Romney in light of Giuliani's campaign strategy: "In that sense, the news of Giuliani's attack has much more significance. It shows that Team Rudy [is] still worried about opening-act momentum in the primaries despite his insistence that the big-state strategy will suffice. Rudy leads in Florida, New York, and California, which will deliver a big chunk of what he needs to win the nomination -- but if Romney takes Iowa and New Hampshire, those states may take a second look at Romney and his organizational strength."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti concurs: "What is going on here? Both candidates spent the weekend in New Hampshire, where Romney leads and Giuliani and John McCain are about tied at second. With a little over a month before primary day, more than half of New Hampshire Republicans remain undecided. The resources that all three campaigns are pouring into New Hampshire suggest that Giuliani's so-called 'Feb. 5 strategy' of minimizing Iowa and New Hampshire and playing up Florida and other big states is no more; the compacted primary schedule really has increased -- not minimized -- the importance of the first two contests."

ROMNEY: Stronger Than People Think

Yesterday we linked to Powerline's Paul Mirengoff's analysis of the GOP race, in which he wrote: "Polling data suggests that, at least in Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney may occupy his own space. In other words, it may be that Romney has his own core of solid support, such that gains by other candidates, even Huckabee, don't come at his expense."

At the other side of the political spectrum, TPM's Josh Marshall takes a look at Charles Franklin's Iowa polling chart and draws the same conclusion: "We've given a lot of editorial attention to Huckabee's surge in Iowa and the consequences it could have for Romney. I still believe that. But the graph makes pretty clear that the issue is Huckabee's surge, not any drop off in Romney's support. He's still rising, albeit at a slower pace...I can't look at these numbers without thinking that Romney's in a much stronger position than people think."

HUCKABEE: Teflon Man

Linking to Robert Novak's take-down of Huckabee, Townhall's Matt Lewis theorizes why Huckabee continues to rise in GOP polls despite his "fiscally liberal background": "Obviously, Huckabee is fortunate to be competing against a field of candidates whose social conservative credentials are, at best, questionable. His superficial attributes; his ability to speak well (as a pastor, this is his metier) have also been a tremendous resource. But I believe there is one last ingredient which is helping him, and that is the fact that it is harder to comprehend fiscal issues, and thus, harder to indict him (and easier to indict his opponents). 'Abortion is murder,' is a bumper sticker message that is easy to understand. Arguing the byzantine differences between 'Monetarist' doctrine versus 'Keynesian' orthodoxy, by contrast, requires a bit more time and knowledge."

Later, Huckabee's Director of Research Joe Carter emails Lewis to dispute his analysis: "Hey Matt, I have an even better reason why the attacks aren't sticking: they aren't true. It's disappointing that conservatives have been duped into believing the Huckabee is a 'fiscal liberal.' He (sic) record on spending and taxes is better than any of the candidates in the race who have actual records of governance. The tax burden under Romney was (sic) the spending under Rudy were much higher than under Huckabee. Are we going to hear conservatives limning them as a 'fiscal liberals?'"

HUCKABEE II: Playing The Mormon Card?

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder wonders if Huckabee's latest ad is surreptitiously designed to start a dialogue about Romney's Mormon faith: "On first watching, the assumption is that Huckabee is drawing a bright line between himself as a candidate of faith and the titular national frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, as a candidate who lacks that bearing. That may be too broad a reading. In Iowa, of course, Giuliani is nowhere and Mitt Romney, he of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is everywhere...Is Huckabee playing the Mormon card, even unwittingly? Hard to say. His campaign says absolutely not. And intent matters, of course. But this being a postmodern political world, so does reception: it depends on the extent to which the targets of his television ad are aware that Romney is Mormon and are prone to object to it."

The Politico's Jonathan Martin also views the ad as an attack on Romney: "There is, of course, the just-barely-veiled swipe at Mitt: 'I don't have to wake up every day wondering what do I need to believe,' he says in the spot before 'authentic conservative' flashes on the screen at the end. And then there is the reminder that Huck is one of them as he opens by declaring that faith defines him before the words 'Christian Leader' flashes on the screen. The overall message: Don't settle for anything but that unadulterated old-time religion (as it were)."

RedState's California Yankee comments: "Huckabee's new ad...may highlight his beliefs and appeal to his evangelical targets in Iowa, but it will frighten more voters in the end...Is Huckabee on the path blazed by Pat Robertson in 1988, when Robertson finished second-place in Iowa then stalled?"

MCCAIN: Watch Out For The Underdog

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini looks at a new direct mail piece sent to NH households that pushes McCain's environmental credentials and writes: "This is going to sound crazy, but I've got a simple message for my friends in the Rudy, Mitt, Fred, and Huck camps: watch your backs for John McCain...This is McCain 1.0, going back to the well of New Hampshire independents who were so generous with their votes last time. The 2000 primary showed how it could work. This time, McCain only needs a fraction of the independents he got last time to make the same dramatic impact. This development is something to be taken seriously. McCain only works as a stealth candidate. Positions like these are what killed his frontrunner status. But if he can sneak up on you from the back of the pack..."

RedState's Erick Erickson agrees: "We should all stop underestimating John McCain now. He's going for the independents in New Hampshire, again, and might throw a wrench in Romney's plans...And as much as I detest these global warming pushes, they are working with independent voters."

In other McCain-blogging, Marc Ambinder was one of several political reporters who had lunch with McCain in Arlington yesterday. Ambinder reports that McCain:

• "Acknowledged that 'immigration hurts' him in South Carolina but was confident; said his campaign had begun to gel in New Hampshire; acknowledged that in Iowa, 'we have a great deal of work to do.' McCain returns to Iowa and NH next week and is in SC tomorrow. Admitted that he had to 'do really well' in New Hampshire in order to survive the campaign."
• "Said he remained friends with Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, said he's taken a real shine to Mike Huckabee, and said he doesn't know Romney enough to be friendly. Huckabee, McCain said, was 'the genuine article.'"

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru, a McCain supporter who also attended the lunch, reports: "[McCain said:] 'As far as I know, the mayor of New York has never been to Iraq' -- and didn't attend meetings of the Iraq Study Group."

NRO's Mark Levin, a Giuliani supporter, retorts: "What exactly is [McCain's] point? That Rudy isn't interested enough in what's going on in Iraq to go there or to have attended ISG meetings, or that you had to go to Iraq and attended ISG meetings to understand how to fight this war, or what?"

PAUL: Maybe He's Already Won...

Patrick Ruffini examines the Ron Paul phenomenon: "Libertarianism in the GOP took a big hit on 9/11, and it's slowly coming back, with Ron Paul as the catalyst. Its underlying ideals still have appeal well beyond the cramped confines of the LP. If it's possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian, then sign me up...Some campaigns can win big without ever coming close to winning an actual contest. Pat Robertson's 1988 campaign signaled that Christian Conservatives had arrived in the GOP. Ron Paul is doing the same for libertarians. This is not a counterweight to the religious right per se, since Paul is identified as pro-life, but it does potentially open up a new army of activists on the right not primarily motivated by social/moral issues."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan sees contradictions in Ruffini's ideology: "You can see some of the many competing and contradictory themes within contemporary conservatism in Patrick Ruffini's blogpost on Hewitt's blog today. His heart is with libertarianism; but his head is with the Bush security state and current Republican coalition. When the two conflict, his brain hurts...No, you can't be a pro-wire-tapping libertarian. You can be for wire-tapping with judicial safeguards, but that's not Bush's mojo."

OBAMA: Volunteer If You Want To See Oprah

While announcing the Iowa events featuring Oprah Winfrey, Obama's campaign "said tickets to the Iowa events will be given first to precinct captains, then campaign volunteers, then to supporters and undecided caucus-goers. It said volunteers can be guaranteed a ticket by completing a four-hour volunteer shift or attending local caucus training before the event."

Edwards volunteer desmoinesdem thinks this is "a counter-intuitive way of doling out tickets": "Obama's campaign seems to have calculated that if they can get hundreds of supporters to step up their involvement by becoming precinct captains or volunteering for at least four hours, that will eventually bring in more caucus-goers than they would win over by putting several hundred undecided voters in front of Oprah. On the other hand, isn't the whole point of Oprah's visit to excite and win over women who may not ordinarily be engaged in politics? Maybe having her address a roomful of fired-up Obama volunteers is not the best use of her star power."

CLINTON: Time To Turn The Tables On Obama?

The Left Coaster's Steve Soto thinks HRC should try to increase the pressure on Obama by portraying him as the front-runner: "How well would [Obama] hold up if he suddenly became the front-runner? What would happen if Hillary exploited today's questionable Zogby polls, and shifted the race by putting the pressure (and expectations) onto him by suddenly making him the leader, with her in pursuit? Why not openly talk about his fast rise to the top, how his relative inexperience appeals to people, and how she admittedly can't talk it up like he can?...Hillary should be ready to tell voters that if they think Obama is better able to do these things, then they should vote for him, and make the voters confront their leap into the unknown with Obama as the front runner. Do it with humor, and not bitterness, but do it as a sign of being comfortable in your own skin. And portray yourself as being ready to earn their vote, not because you are a Clinton but because even though you may not be this year's new model car, you know the road well and can get home."

EDWARDS: Can He Compete In The South?

CBN's David Brody interviewed John Edwards in New Hampshire yesterday. They discussed, among other topics, Edwards' appeal in the South:

• Edwards: "I'm the only Democrat who has actually won in a red state. I was elected against an incumbent Republican backed by the Jesse Helms political machine, a very powerful, very effective machine. I grew up in small town rural America. What Democrats always need to do to be successful is we have to be competitative in those places. When I go to rural areas whether it be in iowa, new Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, across the South -- when people hear me talk it sounds very familiar to them -- I don't just mean the accent -- I do talk like this, but beyond the accent, I think they sense that I understand what their lives are about."
• Edwards: "I won the South Carolina primary in 2004, and I was way behind in the polls at this stage in 2004. I think all that has to happen in South Carolina is voters there need to be reminded where I'm from -- that I was born there. That I understand the closing of plants, the loss of jobs, the rural economy. Those are all things that I grew up with, and I understand them in great and intimate detail because I have lived them, and I've seen what it's like with my own family."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Horse-Race On Stilts

Linking to Jason Zengerle's New York Magazine article about America's fixation with "electability," Slate's Mickey Kaus writes:

"One reason the 'electability' issue has become so prominent -- why 'presidential primaries have become an electability bonanza,' as Jason Zengerle puts it -- is that the mainstream press likes it when electability is the issue. For one thing, 'who's electable' is a Neutral Story Line -- it seemingly doesn't require reporters and publications to take stands or sides. You can write dozens of 'Is Hillary Electable?' stories without letting on what you think about, say, government-guaranteed health care. It's harder to write 'Will Hillary be a Good President?' without doing that. Second, 'electability' questions -- like the traditional 'horse race' questions -- are in political reporter's analytic wheelhouses. Indeed, 'electability' questions are 'horse race' questions. They're the horse-race on stilts! Or, rather, they're the horse race 'process' turned through some serendipitous alchemy into candidate 'substance.' ... P.S.: I don't think 'electability' is a bogus concern in the primaries. But I think Iowa's discredited caucusers are lousy at spotting it. Howard Dean was a much more 'electable' candidate than John Kerry (and, in retrospect, than John Edwards)."

LEST WE FORGET: Face It, You're Rich

After reading Sunday's Washington Post article about the growing number of DC suburbanites hiring "lifestyle managers," The American Scene's Matt Frost writes:

"Upon consideration, though, the real story seems to be the amount of cognitive dissonance involved among the DC suburbanites who are buying these services. In places where wealth is considered part of the landscape, like Brentwood or the Upper East Side, it's assumed that the rich have servants. But the fusty Washington suburbs have until now supported an unostentatious cadre of bright but relatively underpaid bureaucrats and functionaries. After 9/11, with the heaping of the nation's wealth into the warfare/welfare state and its camp followers, the real money has arrived. Culturally, though, the idea of employing a steward, majordomo, chamberlain, butler, grape-peeler, whatever is still beyond the pale, so these workers have to define themselves with a new, insipid vocabulary. Enter the 'Lifestyle Manager.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:52 PM

November 26, 2007

11/26: She's No Lieberman

Back in September, FAIR founder Jeff Cohen wrote a passionate editorial for The Huffington Post in which he urged the netroots to unite against Hillary Clinton. Cohen opined: "If Clinton coasts to the Democratic nomination without need of Netroots support, the 'elite Washington insiders' denounced by [MoveOn Executive Director] Eli [Pariser] will be laughing -- ad commissions in hand -- all the way to the bank. And they'll be ridiculing the Netroots as a paper tiger."

With less than six weeks remaining before the Iowa caucuses, Cohen's plea has gone unanswered. While Hillary may not be the netroots' preferred candidate, most liberal bloggers are generally comfortable with the prospect of her as the Dem nominee, and nearly all of them admire the political skills she has demonstrated in her campaign thus far. The reality is, none of the Dem candidates universally inspire the netroots in the way that Howard Dean did in '04. The netroots may not love Hillary, but it doesn't appear that they will launch any major effort to stop her.

DEM FIELD: Where's The Trust?

While reporting the results of his July straw poll, Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas boasted: "I'm enjoying watching the campaigns without any emotional investment in any of them. It's quite liberating." Today, Open Left's Chris Bowers explains in a long, personal post why he, too, has little invested in who wins the Dem primary: "When the nomination is decided, I don't think I will lament the loss of any of the six candidates who don't win. Even leaving specific issues aside, this is because, at some fundamental level, I don't really trust any of them...If I am going to really put myself on the line for a candidate, I have to trust that person even when I disagree with him or her. When it comes to the current crop of Democratic candidates, I just don't trust any of them strongly enough to volunteer for them during the primary. With only a few weeks to go, it is hard for me to see that change now."

EDWARDS: What Does Yepsen Know Anyway?

In a recent interview with Fox News, The Des Moines Register's David Yepsen sounded very pessimistic about John Edwards' chances in Iowa: "I think if you're John Edwards, you're thankful this is going to be over with on January third. John Edwards has not been doing well lately, he's slipping a little in these numbers. That's not a good trend line for him. He's got to get this thing over with fast...If I were Edwards I'd be worried about sagging so far it could enable [Bill] Richardson to take third place."

Steve Benen is surprised by Yepsen's grim forecast: "I don't doubt that Yespen knows more about this than I do -- he saw John Kerry's 2004 surge long before most of the national reporters picked up on it -- but it's really surprising to think that Edwards has slipped so badly, he's more likely to drop to fourth than climb to first...Given the unpredictable nature of the caucuses, it's probably silly to dismiss Edwards' chances; there's just too much time left. But what happened in the summer that caused Edwards' support to start dropping? Was it the haircut story? The talk about his huge house? How does a leading candidate go from first to third in a span of three months without a scandal or something shocking to spur the change?"

MyDD's Todd Beeton thinks that Yepsen might be lending too much credence to the recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showing Barack Obama surging in Iowa: "Certainly the ABC/WaPo poll from July looks like an outlier that inflated Obama's support, so why wouldn't this one be the same?...I have to say, there's been an inordinate amount of coverage of the ABC News/WaPo poll, as journalists seek out the latest tale to tell (this one being Obama rising above Clinton in Iowa.) Since David Yepsen has a reputation for being such an Iowa oracle, it's odd to see him falling right in line, so I have to wonder is he just promoting the latest most interesting narrative to emerge out of Iowa, even if it is based on one poll, or is there something on the ground informing his observations. If it's the latter, we should see some hardening of Richardson's numbers in subsequent polls, as his overtaking Edwards is one prediction of Yepsen's not borne out in the ABC/WaPo poll...yet."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong notes that Yepsen wrongly predicted that Dean would win on the day of the Iowa caucuses and concludes that Yepsen's forecasts can't be trusted: "It was the day of the caucus, and Yepsen still thought Dean was gonna win? LOL, I wish he were right! I was about as hardcore a Deaniac as they came, and thought that Dean would win even as late as the Sunday before the caucuses. But when I saw that we were doomed in the Monday polls for second choice, even I realized our chances were not looking good. So regarding the status of Edwards, I wouldn't listen to either the 'dean' of the Iowa press, or the Obama's camp spin."

In related Iowa caucus-blogging, Beeton recalls how the Iowa race was shaping up at this point in 2003 and writes: "So, what's the take away looking ahead to Jan. 3 & 8, 2008? First, beware a surge even this close to Iowa caucus day -- an ascendant candidate may still peak too early. And second, it's about the final two weeks, stupid. The wild card this year, however, is that those final two weeks encompass the Christmas/New Year period. We're in unchartered territory for a presidential election here, which may render any lessons we try to glean from 2003/4 moot. In the end, it's a fair bet that, because of holiday distractions, we're unlikely to see the same volatility in late Dec. 07 as we saw in early to mid Jan. 04, which could make the mid-December period the most decisive of all."

CLINTON: Comfortable In The Kitchen

Linking to a Howard Kurtz column about HRC's rapid-response team, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis admires HRC's political skills: "Like her or hate her, Hillary Clinton's people know how to fight back. It's a lesson that Democrats should take to heart and replicate. I'm still not convinced that Hillary is proactive enough on issues that matter to her, on things she actually believes in rather than things her pollster has come up with, but when they're attacked they know how to fight back. I don't think Obama's people have that same knowledge. As for Edwards, Obama and Clinton are so focused on beating up each other that Edwards has gotten somewhat of a free pass (well, from everyone except the New York Times)."

On a similar note, Markos Moulitsas examines a SurveyUSA poll showing HRC polling better than Obama against the various GOP candidates and writes: "Hillary is clearly not 'unelectable' as her shrillest detractors would have us believe...Sure, much of that has to do with name recognition, and Obama's numbers would improve where he to get the nomination (as would [Mitt] Romney's, whose numbers are generally in the gutter), but isn't everyone who knows Hillary supposed to hate her? Obviously not. I happen to think that she wouldn't be the best representative of the Democratic Party of the future, but I also don't think she'd be a disaster -- either on substance or electorally. Any arguments that she's a guaranteed general election loser stem from willful ignorance, not a reality-based look at the facts."

The Huffington Post's Paul Loeb, on the other hand, is not at all comfortable with the idea of Hillary as the nominee: "Because the Republican candidates show every indication that they'd continue Bush's disastrous approaches to the world, I'd vote for Hillary if she became the nominee. But I'd do so with a very heavy heart, and a recognition that we'll have to push her to do the right thing on issue after issue, and won't always prevail. We still have a chance to select strong alternatives like Edwards (who I'm supporting) or Obama. And with Republican polling numbers in the toilet, this election gives Democrats an opportunity to seriously shift our national course that we may not have again for years. It would be a tragedy if they settled for the candidate most likely to shatter the momentum of this shift when it's barely begun."

OBAMA: Choose Your Battles Wisely

Last week, Time's Karen Tumulty wrote an article examining the sudden emergence of Social Security as a key issue in the Dem primary: "Social Security has always been an issue that united the Democrats like no other. But suddenly, the most successful and popular government program in history is a subject of fractious debate in their party's presidential primary. Barack Obama suggests that Hillary Clinton is refusing to engage in 'a real, honest conversation' about the challenges that lie ahead for the program. And Clinton is accusing Obama of buying into 'Republican scare tactics.'"

The netroots, of course, are disgusted that Obama has decided to make Social Security a campaign issue, which furthers (in their view) the right-wing talking point that the system is in crisis. Digby calls it "great news for Republicans" and writes: "I assume this is an attempt to shore up the elderly vote in Iowa and New Hampshire, but the ramifications of that short term strategy are quite severe. After their ignominious recent defeat on this issue, even if they are unable to move to privatization, the Republicans are thrilled that the Democrats have inexplicably given them opportunity to demagogue it again so soon."

Atrios offers a more explicit criticism of Obama: "Awesome that Social Security is now a central campaign theme. Given that Obama's now ruling out benefit cuts or the raising of the retirement age that leaves...a tax increase."

GOP FIELD: Breaking Down The Race

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt echoes Fred Barnes and declares that the GOP race is now a contest between Romney and Rudy Giuliani: "Republican voters believe Hillary will be the nominee and that she will be extraordinarily tough to beat. They also know it will require an enormous amount of money and energy to beat her. The vast majority of them know this political context limits their choices to one of two candidates: Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. There isn't going to a stampede to [Mike] Huckabee or a Fred [Thompson] Revival, period. If Romney can deliver three or four early wins and back it up with the cash he has amassed plus much of his own on February 5, he will be the nominee. If he can't, Rudy will be the nominee."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff also notes Romney's strength: "I've written that the Republican side of the presidential race can be viewed as consisting of two semi-finals -- one between Rudy Giuliani and John McCain and the other between Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and/or Mike Huckabee. However, polling data suggests that, at least in Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney may occupy his own space. In other words, it may be that Romney has his own core of solid support, such that gains by other candidates, even Huckabee, don't come at his expense...It's not difficult to imagine the existence of a sizeable core of voters who are solidly behind Mitt. This group would consist of Republicans who are looking for a combination of administrative experience/aura of competence plus down-the-line conservative positions, and who are not concerned about past positions, speculation over electability or the candidate's religion."

Meanwhile, CBN's David Brody takes a look at the recent skirmishes between Romney and Giuliani and writes: "Folks, this is about New Hampshire. Giuliani winning Iowa is a pipe dream so the Mayor must show strength somewhere and therefore must put a dent in Romney. Their best shot before February 5th is in independent New Hampshire. That's why you're seeing all this back and forth venom between both sides the last few days especially as it relates to who's the most fiscally conservative candidate. Giuliani may not have to win New Hampshire but a third place showing isn't exciting and could lead to a new narrative forming in early January that Giuliani is in a world of trouble. The last thing the Giuliani campaign needs is Mitt Romney with a head of steam heading into Florida. If that happens, at that point, expect to see a heavy dose of Ann Romney, the five kids, the hallmark music, everything."

ROMNEY: Haunted By The Ghost Of Willie Horton

The controversy over MA judge (and Romney appointee) Kathe M. Tuttman's decision to free a convicted felon who has just been accused of murdering a couple in WA is causing Romney a major headache.

AmSpec Blog's James Antle writes: "While the lurid details of the case and the Massachusetts connection make Willie Horton comparsions inevitable, and while Mitt Romney's characterstic dodges in response to this horrible event deserve criticism, some perspective is in order. This differs from Willie Horton in some significant ways...[Michael] Dukakis vetoed a bill that would have kept offenders like Horton behind bars. This case pertains to a single decision by one judge Romney appointed, a decision that Romney could not have reasonably forseen. Kathe Tuttman did not have a reputation as someone who was soft on crime or indifferent to victims at the time of her appointment."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin agrees and thinks that Romney's mistake was appointing Tuttman because of her gender: "This is precisely why executives should NEVER make nominations or tout nominations for affirmative action reasons --it forever taints the nominee and the nominating executive, calling into question the merits of the former and the judgment of the latter."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Ramifications? Well, Romney's going to get a lot of questions about it, and he's going to be left with that answer, that her record suggested she would be tough on crime. He's going to be asked, 'If you could be wrong in your assessment of her, could your assessment be wrong on other appointees? How about a Supreme Court justice?'"

THOMPSON: Outfoxed?

Conservative bloggers had mixed reactions to Thompson's combative interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, in which Thompson alleged that Fox News is biased against his campaign.

RedState's California Yankee is not impressed by Fred's interview performance: "Fred didn't come off well in the exchange, which reminded me a little of Bill Clinton's temper tantrum during a Wallace interview."

Jennifer Rubin is also critical of Thompson: "With Hillary's attack on Tim Russert and the general griping about debate moderators I think we have set a record in this primary season for candidates who whine about the media. It does appear we have a thinner skinned crop of candidates this time out -- or that their campaigns have overestimated the mileage they will get out of complaining about media bias. There are certain fixed rules in politics and one is: if you are complaining about your coverage and media treatment you are losing."

Jim Geraghty "[hasn't] seen enough evidence to back the argument that Fox News is in the tank for anybody this cycle," but he doesn't think Thompson was making that claim in the first place: "When you watch the whole exchange, Thompson and his argument don't come across as all that bad. He doesn't make the Fox-is-unfair argument in and of itself; he says that some Fox commentators, like many in the media, said he entered the race too late and can't win, and cites his second-place standing in national polls as a sign they've written him off too early."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins, on the other hand, thinks Fox News has it out for Thompson: "Many Inside-the-Beltway Republicans, including the ones at Fox, have come across as being very hostile to Fred Thompson. Maybe that's because they've succumbed to the same cultural forces that have convinced Republicans in Congress that you have to abandon your conservative principles to win elections. Maybe they're just biased towards Northeastern pols like Romney and Giuliani, because they're living in that part of the country. Maybe most of them had already picked their candidates before Fred got in the race and they're reluctant to change horse mid-stream. But, there has definitely been a weird disconnect between the conservative punditocracy and the conservative grassroots on Fred Thompson. The punditocracy doesn't like him, while he seems to be the single most popular candidate by a good ways amongst conservative activists."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why We Love The Horse Race

Linking to Mark Halperin's op-ed in yesterday's New York Times, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum speculates:

"Campaigns are boring. When you cover a candidate every day for months on end, listening to interchangeable stump speeches hundreds of times and being bustled around like cattle to anonymous coffee klatsches and flesh pressing events 16 hours a day, you're going to seize on almost anything to break the monotony. The candidates mostly won't talk to you, after all, and there are only so many times you can write 3,000-word thumbsuckers comparing the various healthcare plans on offer. What's more, the code of objectivity in American journalism actively prevents reporters from writing about whether the various nominees 'have what it takes to fill the most difficult job in the world.' That would be too much like taking sides. Unless and until that changes, they'll continue to relieve their boredom by writing about supposedly more neutral topics like polls, insider strategy, and what 'many people' are saying."

LEST WE FORGET: There's No Place Like The Garden

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias reminds us of the greatness of MSG:

"Went with my dad to watch the Knicks beat the shockingly woeful Bulls and whatever one may say about Isaiah Thomas or the Knicks, there's no question that the crowd at Madison Square Garden is light years better than anything DC has at the Verizon Center. The level of intensity and spontaneity and fan understanding of the events on the floor is off the charts. It's easy to see why the owners want to build a new facility with more and better luxury boxes and sightlines, but they've got a pretty good thing going with their fanbase and their home crowd despite the crappy teams, and they'd better not screw it up."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:16 PM

November 20, 2007

11/20: Dirty Phone Calls

Yesterday's Mark Hemingway article on NRO, which investigated that rumor that Mitt Romney's supporters paid for the anti-Mormon phone calls in order to gain sympathy for their candidate, provoked angry denials from both the Romney campaign and TargetPoint Consulting. In the conservative blogosphere, however, the speculation and finger-pointing continues unabated. It remains to be seen whether this scandal will have a lasting impact on the race or will simply blow over in the next couple of days.

ROMNEY: Overplaying The Bigotry Card?

The Directors at Red State accuse misguided Romney backers of funding the calls: "Today, we want to be clear that whatever the case is, we do not blame Mitt Romney personally for these phone calls...And as for Alex Gage and the Romney associates who are apparently behind these efforts: in a campaign where the faith of your candidate has been respected by the overwhelming majority of voters and activists, you've managed to create out of thin air the kind of bigoted attack that cheapens the process and expects the worst of the American people. Nice strategy, folks. We hope you're happy."

The Red State Directors also take a direct shot at Romney defender Hugh Hewitt: "Most of us here at Redstate have favored candidates in the presidential primary, and even The Directors of this site have different views. But most of us do not so willingly lose our objectivity at the drop of a hat that we cannot see reality beyond our preferred campaign's or judicial nominee's spin."

Soren Dayton examines Romney spokesman Kevin Madden's increasingly vague statements of denial and writes: "You can smell the rubber of the backtracking."

Campaign Standard's Richelieu, on the other hand, suspects the Huckabee campaign: "At the bottom of all this, I think, is a trembling pollster connected to the Rudy, Thompson, Huckabee, or Ron Paul campaigns or a sympathetic 527 group, who conducted this poll and is now terrified to admit it...My guess is Huckabee. He's raising more money of late and has probably begun doing polling work now which better-funded campaigns already did earlier this year; those other campaigns' devious Mormon testing is already in the can."

ROMNEY II: The Best Choice For SoCons?

In more positive news for the Romney campaign, Redstate's Leon Wolf explains why he is endorsing Romney: "The bottom line for me right now is that for all my personal naysaying and doubting, I have to admit in the end that Romney has worked the hardest, run the smartest campaign, and outlasted all other Republican comers save Rudy, and we all know how I feel about Rudy. In the end, if I had to choose between seeing Romney and Rudy standing, it wouldn't even be a close call. When I examine the field, I see only one candidate left standing with a reasonable shot of winning the White House who would govern as a conservative, and that candidate is Mitt Romney. So from now on, I'm tossing in with him, for better or worse."

Wolf also addresses Romney's shift on social issues: "I'm going to maintain some intellectual honesty about all of this. I think a lot of his positions are staked out based on his estimation of what the voters he needs want. That's not exactly the most comforting feeling in the world, even if you're in the group he needs at the moment (as us SoCons are). But I have to think at this point that, at least on abortion, he doesn't have another flip left in him, and I think he knows it. So that's good enough for me."

At The Corner, K-Lo takes a similarly pragmatic view of Romney's record on social issues: "I'd like Romney to relay to people what I've long understood his story to be: He was a businessman. Abortion wasn't really his issue. He said what he needed to say to get elected in Massachusetts -- that he would not change the laws (and yes, protect a woman's right to choose -- gag) and when he faced issues he never really cared to make his political career about -- life, marriage -- he studied them like he studied business and law, and he changed his mind."

Meanwhile, NRO's Byron York interviewed Romney for an article about former governor's efforts to convince so-cons that his conversion to the pro-life cause was genuine. During the interview, Romney asks frustratedly at one point, "I changed my view. Is that so difficult to understand?"

K-Lo likes what she sees: "I like, even, that he gets a little testy, too with Byron ('I changed my view. Is that so difficult to understand?'). It shows he cares."

MCCAIN: Time To Give Up On Iowa?

Last Friday, Time's Ana Marie Cox wrote an article in which she asks why McCain is still spending time and resources in Iowa when most analysts agree that he must win New Hampshire.

Campaign Standard's Richelieu dismisses Cox's article as "hopelessly uninformed" and writes: "...as every serious political journalist and campaign manager knows, is that one of the biggest drivers in New Hampshire is what happens the week before in Iowa. With the New Hampshire primary highly likely to occur just five days after the Iowa caucus, Iowa's 'bounce' effect on New Hampshire is certain to be stronger this year than ever before. You have to truly know very little about presidential primary politics -- which seems these days to be a first rate media credential -- to think a candidate can prosper by building a sand castle in New Hampshire and then ignoring the inevitable 50-foot tidal wave days later that brings three big surfers from Iowa."

Campaign Standard's William Kristol disagrees: "I wonder if Richelieu is being too clever by half. For one thing, he underestimates, I suspect, how hard it would be for McCain to snatch third in Iowa. For another, this year's nominating dynamics could turn out to be more complicated than the usually reliable "three tickets out of Iowa, two out of New Hampshire." The way this year seems to be shaping up, I'd say Romney and Huckabee almost have to take the top two places in Iowa, given their strategies. Thompson probably needs to be in the top three. Giuliani can probably afford a respectably close fourth...As for McCain, getting third in Iowa over both Giuliani and Thompson would be tough. Rather than invest in Iowa TV ads and fall short, I'd be inclined to put all my chips on New Hampshire."

THOMPSON: Dropping Like A Rock In The Granite State

We've already written about Fred Thompson's failure to gain any traction in the conservative blogosphere. Last night's UNH/WMUR/CNN poll, which shows Thompson's support among likely NH GOP voters at 4% (down from 13% in September), really drove the point home for several bloggers.

In his endorsement of Romney on Redstate, Leon Wolf writes: "For a while, the Fred Thompson campaign gave me hope for someone who might be a little more solid on the [abortion] issue, but looking at the polling right now leads me inescapably to the conclusion that Fred Thompson is toast. He's not polling any higher than third in any state right now, and Romney has even moved into second in the crucial state of Florida. I just don't know that Thompson has what it takes to get back up off the mat right now."

At The Corner, David Freddoso notes that 50% of NH GOPers will not support Thompson "under any circumstances" (up from 30% in September) and comments: "An ominous trend in NH for Thompson." In a separate post, Freddoso observes: "One important caveat about Thompson's numbers is that his people don't expect to do well in New Hampshire. There's a lot of market saturation there, as Romney, Rudy and McCain (and now Paul) are all super-active in the state, spending tons of money. Thompson must spend his money on Iowa and South Carolina -- that's always been his only way of winning."

Freddoso also posts an email from a reader suggesting that GOP southerners never do well in NH: "I remember in particular Senator Phil Gramm, who's Texican drawl in 1996 was genuine, but must certainly have sounded off-key, even like a 'put-on' in New Hampshire. First Affinity with Gramm, among New Englanders, was not possible. It takes conscious effort for some New Englanders to overcome the First Impression that Southern Accent doesn't equal perhaps deliberate ignorance...With a field like this, Senator Thompson has to win outright and strong in Conservative and early Red States that don't share New England's unconscious prejudice against Southern people."

Mark Steyn agrees that NH voters tend to be turned off by southern accents, but he doesn't think that explains Thompson's decline in the polls: "I don't think Fred has an accent problem up here. He has a no-show problem. You can't win the NH primary unless you show up for it. You don't need to win it if you're the establishment candidate with all the money and all the endorsements (like Dole in '96 and Bush in '00). But that's not Fred Thompson, and I don't understand his reluctance to get in the game."

The netroots, of course, were only too happy to note Thompson's troubles.

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas links to a CQ article that reports that many of Thompson's House backers are losing faith in their candidate. Markos writes: "Fred Thompson was supposed to bail out the listless GOP presidential field. Somehow, that hasn't necessarily been the case."

TPM's Eric Kleefeld also links to the CQ article and writes: "Remember that Thompson was endorsed by many of these people before he'd even declared his candidacy, because conservatives had been looking for a stronger candidate. And so far, they're not getting it."

TPM's Ben Craw is even harsher: "One of the great stories of the 2008 campaign has been the non-story of Fred Thomspon, his almost complete irrelevancy to the progress, discussion and direction of the campaign so far."

CLINTON: Too Hawkish For Progressives?

Kevin Drum links to a Hillary Clinton endorsement by Princeton Univ. historian Sean Wilentz on Andrew Romano's Newsweek blog and writes: "Wilentz is making an argument against Barack Obama (a Stevenson-like candidate) and in favor of Hillary Clinton (a political candidate). And it's a good one. Every four years the press falls in love -- momentarily -- with a candidate who strikes them as a fresh voice. Someone who tells people what they don't want to hear. Someone who doesn't waffle or hedge. Someone who's a truth teller. But these candidates never win. Never. Bradley and Tsongas didn't win, and neither did John McCain or Gary Hart or John Anderson. That's because most people want to vote for someone who agrees with them, not someone who stands aloof from their most deeply held beliefs."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias is not convinced by Wilentz' argument: "[Wilentz] explicitly draws the conclusion that Clinton is like Kennedy and Obama is like Stevenson and that this is the reason to support Clinton. This doesn't make a ton of sense to me....the reality of the Kennedy Administration -- as opposed to the Myth of Camelot -- is precisely what makes people leery of Clinton. A 50%+1 win followed by a domestic agenda that goes nowhere in congress and a drift toward foreign policy disaster driven in part by a unshakeable fear of looking soft on defense."

In a separate, longer post, Yglesias elaborates on his anxieties about Clinton's foreign policy views: "The basic reality is that each and every time the candidates stake out a position on something, Clinton takes a less-liberal line. Then each and every time Obama starts getting traction with the argument that Clinton is too hawkish, she backtracks and makes the argument that there's no real difference here. And it's true that if you look at any one thing with a microscope, the "no difference" argument can be made to stick. But it's the pattern that matters -- the initial support for Iraq, the more hawkish caste to her advisory team, the 'naive and irresponsible' line, the meager carrots she's prepared to offer Iran, her weird position on nuclear disarmament, her campaign's courting of CANF and AIPAC, her vote for Kyl-Lieberman -- all point in the same direction and it's a frightening one."

Over at TAPPED, Ezra Klein echoes Yglesias' concerns: "Matt's anxiety about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy program is well-put, and widely-shared. She has not sought to convince anyone that statements like 'We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table,' are general election posturing, or should be taken to mean something other than 'if diplomacy fails, I will bomb Iran in order to disrupt their nuclear program.'"

Drum acknowledges Yglesias and Klein's concerns, but he still does not see a substantial difference between Clinton's foreign policy views and Obama's: "As Matt and Ezra say, the biggest progressive beef with Hillary Clinton is that her foreign policy is too hawkish. That's how I feel too, though trying to define what any of us really mean by this is maddeningly difficult. To a large extent, after all, the biggest difference between Hillary and Barack Obama is simply that Hillary refuses to tie herself down. Basically, she wants maximum freedom of action when she takes office, and in the case of foreign policy this isn't necessarily a bad thing to want."

OBAMA: This May Not Be The Wisest Line Of Attack...

TPM's Greg Sargent links to a Newsday article indicating that Obama is beginning to use the allegation made by Hillary Clinton biographers Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta that the Clintons had a "20-year-plan" to win the presidency first for Bill, and then for Hillary. Sargent comments: "It's hard to see how the use of Gerth's allegations could possibly play well among Dem activists. Many of them dislike Gerth for his role in 'breaking' the Whitewater story and see Gerth's book as an anti-Hillary hatchet job."

Open Left's Chris Bowers doesn't understand why Obama is embracing a line of attack that (a.) echoes a GOP talking point, and (b.) is not (at least in Bowers' view) particularly damaging to Hillary: "...unlike most attacks against Hillary Clinton from Democrats in this primary campaign, this one actually does echo Republican lines of attack against her. It has been a long-term claim from conservatives that the Clinton's have had a plan in place to make Hillary Clinton President...[but] why is it a negative that Clinton has been preparing for this for twenty years? Is there something wrong with having a life plan, or dreaming of being President? If there is, I'm not sure what all of those career days in high school and college were for."

On the other hand, Bowers does have mixed feelings about the "unprogressive" nature of a second Clinton presidency: "...it is not exactly as though the Clinton's come from a wealthy family. Bill Clinton grew up in a single parent home in Arkansas and went to the local public school, for crying out loud. That is hardly the stuff of aristocracy and privileged pedigrees. Further, Hillary Clinton would be the first woman President, and women are by far the largest demographic group in the United States to never have a representative in the Presidency. That would quite obviously, at least in one way, be progress...Still, the idea of a Clinton dynasty feels fundamentally unprogressive to me in a way that Hillary Clinton herself can do nothing to avoid."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Trouble For Hillary In Iowa?

With the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll pointing to potential trouble for Hillary in Iowa, Slate's Mickey Kaus gleefully speculates about what could happen if Hillary's Iowa numbers fall: "In, say, 25 days, with Hillary behind by 10 points and not gaining ground, she starts deemphasizing the state -- pulling out staff, campaigning elsewhere, effectively conceding Iowa and choosing to make her stand in other states. Humiliating, but not as humiliating as trying and losing -- and Hillary is a cautious type. She also doesn't seem like a late surger. Her aides will convince her she doesn't need Iowa to win -- focusing on Iowa in the first place was just an attempt to land a knockout punch. The punch having missed, she'll settle in for the full 15 rounds. ... She could even make some mischief by having some of her Iowa troops vote for the anti-Hillary candidate she wants to keep alive (who looks like [John] Edwards at the moment but may look like Obama by January)."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff points out: "The good news for Clinton is that she doesn't need to win the Iowa caucus."

LEST WE FORGET: Anyone Watch The AMAs?

The Hater's Amelie Gillette takes a look at "Award Shows You Didn't Know (Or Care) Existed, 2007":

"I'm not sure what the point of the American Music Awards is -- to induce seizures, to remind everyone that Celine Dion still exists, to give Americans a soundtrack for their collective depression that prominently features Alicia Keys, a Fergie medley, and a bluegrass version of 'Irreplaceable' -- but the best part about it is that it's live! Anything can happen! Of course, nothing really does, except for the guy from Rascal Flatts saying something about 'cockin' that may or may not have been a song lyric."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:50 PM

November 19, 2007

11/19: Here Comes The Mud

With 45 days to go before the Iowa caucuses, the mud is starting to fly. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spent the weekend exchanging barbs over rumors that the Clinton campaign is sitting on "scandalous information" about Obama. On the GOP side, the leading candidates denied being behind recent IA and NH phone calls attacking Mitt Romney and invoking his Mormon faith. Naturally, the blogosphere has been buzzing with speculation about these two latest scandals.

DEM FIELD: It's All About Iowa

IA Independent's Chase Martyn carried out an un-scientific evaluation of the Dems' IA campaigns "based on impressions we received from activists, everyday caucus-goers, event attendees, and pundits about the quality of each campaign's on-the-ground organization, the likelihood of each candidate's supporters actually attending a caucus, second choice support, and -- at the most basic level -- gut feelings and guesses." He concludes that "If the Democratic caucuses were held tonight," the results would be:

1.) John Edwards 2.) Barack Obama 3.) Hillary Clinton 4.) Joe Biden 5.) Bill Richardson 6.) Chris Dodd 7.) Dennis Kucinich 8.) Mike Gravel

MyDD's Todd Beeton thinks Martyn is underestimating HRC's support: "The implication here is that Clinton's lead in the polls out of Iowa is hollow, which I find to be an intriguing conclusion for a couple of reasons. First, while Clinton's lead has been narrow (and shrinking of late), it has been consistent. The other thing about her polling strength is that it was completely earned. Throughout the spring and summer, Clinton polled regularly in second or third place; for the past month, while second third have been fluid, her lead has been remarkably stable. So, while I'm not in Iowa, nor do I claim to be an expert on the complexities of the Iowa caucus, my gut tells me that, were the caucus to be held today, Clinton would probably end up in second and Obama in third."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong observes: "On the Democratic side, for every 1 ad that Edwards has run, Obama has ran 9, and Clinton has ran 5, and yet, when you look at who regularly attends the caucuses, John Edwards has the lead; and even among those polled is right there in the mix. I think given Obama's huge spend at this date, he's probably reached his ceiling of support in the state...If Obama comes in 3rd in Iowa, he's not recovering. The media will totally write him off, and Edwards will face the task of following up. If Edwards finishes 3rd, he's done, and Obama will have a one-on-one against Clinton in NH. If Clinton finishes 3rd, it's probably better for her than if she finishes 2nd, as then the story will still be a 3-way race (and that probably favors a comeback for her in NH)."

On a related note, The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder asks, "Will Obama turn out young voters in Iowa?" and breaks down the various arguments. He observes (among other things):

"Pro: College kids will be back home and will be distributed throughout the state, thereby magnifying their effect on other precincts. (The scenario: four IA State Univ. students don't caucus in Ames; they caucus in Adair County, where they live, and have a disproportionate effect on their particular caucus meeting). (The political director of the IA Dem party agrees with this argument).

Con: It's much harder to track these kids and to make sure that, when they're back home, they do caucus.

Pro: Obama has more money than any other credible challenger in history; his campaign is not making the same mistakes that Howard Dean's made; Obama is a much better presence on the campaign trail than Bill Bradley and Gary Hart ever were;

Con: There is no historical precedent for changing the demographic composition of the turnout universe that radically."

OBAMA: Meet My Rapid-Response Team

The Chicago Sun-Times' Robert Novak set off fireworks in the Dem race when he wrote in his Sunday column: "Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed." Obama immediately issued a strong rebuttal in which he denounced "the old 'Swift boat' politics," while Clinton's campaign denied being involved and chastised Obama for "echoing Republican talking points." Editor & Publisher breaks down the story here.

Time's Mark Halperin offers his take: "Obama's fast and aggressive response statement is a truly striking move. Instead of ignoring a weekend item by a conservative columnist, the campaign decided to create another moment in which it forcefully challenges Clinton and her association with the 'old' politics of Washington. It is a tough call-to-arms for his supporters. The campaign's response also -- whether intended or not -- just might insulate Obama from any actual revelations, allowing his campaign to claim that anything that comes out is the product of the 'politics of personal destruction' engineered by the Clinton political machine."

Time's Joe Klein is disgusted by Novak's role in the scandal: "Journalists are continually bombarded with rumors, often scurrilous. They are not news. Rumors only become news when they are confirmed, cross-checked and responded to by the target of the attack. There are two possible reasons why Novak is peddling unconfirmed crap: (a) he is getting too old to do the actual legwork long-associated with his column (and respected even by those of us who find his views reprehensible) or (b) he has simply abandoned all pretense of being a journalist."

Talking Points Memo's Steve Benen agrees with Klein that Novak's column is "a textbook case of media irresponsibility" and writes: "A few observations. First, Novak's column smeared both Clinton and Obama, and the two campaigns proceeded to make it worse by spending the entire day bickering over what was, as a practical matter, a dumb column devoid of any substance. Second, I guess Obama's rapid-response operation is finally up and running -- and Clinton's rapid-response operation is on hair-trigger alert. Third, any talk about a Clinton-Obama ticket seems quite silly in light of recent events. One gets the sense that the two campaigns genuinely dislike one another."

Digby thinks Obama and Clinton played into Novak's hands: "We don't know exactly what happened here, of course, but Democratic campaigns should know better that to ever use Robert Novak to try to score points either way. His item, (just like Rove's from earlier in the week) was a twofer, virtually designed to make both candidates look bad -- and, frankly, both of their responses only reaffirmed that impression."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis smells hypocrisy in Obama's indignant response: "Now, I'm sure the Clinton campaign is quite adept at pulling many a trick, but for Obama to pull the 'I never!' card -- well, let's just say, yeah he has."

OBAMA II: Fewer Slogans, More Specifics

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall, responding to an interesting Reed Hundt post , offers what has become a familiar netroots critique of Obama's campaign: "What's the premise of Obama's campaign? I hear less triangulating, more principle (which basically means the same thing), change, etc. But those are slogans. To make these work politically I think Obama would have to say, Clinton is the cautious Democratic politics of the past. It was good in its day. And I respect all that Sen. Clinton has accomplished for our party. But I'm about something different and that's why X, Y and Z. Perhaps it's something dramatic on climate change. But that's not the point. I'm not running his campaign. But I think you need policy specifics that demonstrate the point."

Later, Marshall adds: "My disappointment with Obama's campaign to date is that it's really, ironically, been pretty old politics to me. And I mean that in this sense. Going back several cycles, you've often had some version of the Gore v. Bradley campaign in 2000. One candidate who's the establishment party figure and another who talks about new stuff and change and principle and generally whets the appetites of the party's cerebral types but then never quite delivers with anything specific and gets crushed by the well-oiled campaign of the establishment candidate. I've seen different versions of this in Mondale/Hart, Clinton/Tsongas, Gore/Bradley. And the same result every time."

DODD: You Can't Please Everybody

MyDD's Melissa Ryan offers a passionate endorsement of Chris Dodd: "He's a fighter, a man who realizes it isn't enough to be right on the issues you have to fight the good fight. Chris Dodd isn't paying lip service to fighting telecom immunity, restoring Habeas Corpus, and ending the war in Iraq. Chris Dodd isn't paying lip service to domestic issues like the mortgage crisis. Chris Dodd is fighting the good fight and engaging citizens in the process every step of the way."

Daily Kos' Devilstower, on the other hand, is angry that Dodd told Wolf Blitzer that he valued nat'l security more than human rights at the Dem debate: "The job of the president is to defend the Constitution. The Constitution first, the Constitution last, the Constitution always...Sitting aside the Constitution is the defeat of the nation, and any man or woman who doesn't understand that, should not be president. Was Blitzer trying to trap Dodd? Yes, and unfortunately, Dodd went for the bait."

GOP FIELD: Whodunit?

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder thinks it is "unlikely that Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson or any top-tier challenger to Mitt Romney had anything to do" with the anti-Romney phone calls: "Think about the reward. Would the questions asked by the firm elicit any meaningful data for the campaign who wrote them? Would the relative reward of a few dozen voters changing their minds about Romney because of his Mormonism be worth the avalanche of embarassment and ill-will that would accrue to the candidate who authorized the phone calls?"

Soren Dayton examines the various theories and declares: "My money is on the third-party group. The density of connections suggest someone in the Romney political network."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt, an avowed Romney supporter, thinks otherwise: "I suspect either extreme anti-Mormons unaffiliated with a candidate or a left wing 527 that is trying to take Romney out before it becomes obvious that the attack is coming from that direction. If as I believe the left understands Romney to be the anti-Hillary and the strongest candidate against her in the general, now would be the time to take him down via appeals to religious bigotry."

GOP FIELD II: If You Want Ideological Purity, You Won't Find It Here

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff examines the perils of relying solely on "electability" or "ideology" when deciding which GOP candidate to support: "Polls pitting Republican contenders against Hillary Clinton a year before the general election are not reliable. For one thing, they likely overstate the gap between the electability of well-known candidates like Giuliani and lesser known candidates like Romney...But it's also possible to outsmart oneself by selecting a candidate based on ideology. That's because perceived ideological differences among candidates may be more apparent than real. This risk seems particularly pronounced in this year's Republican race."

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru examines the "four distinct styles of flip-flopping" of the leading GOP candidates and concludes: "If I had to judge the matter, I'd say that Thompson and Giuliani go about their flip-flopping with a bit more dishonesty than Romney and [John] McCain. But if you want edification, look away from the whole field."

After receiving angry e-mails from Fred Thompson supporters who disagreed with his article, Ponnuru defends his contention that Thompson has not always been pro-life: "Some readers object that it is an unduly narrow definition of 'pro-life' that denies the label to someone (such as the Thompson of the mid-'90s) merely for saying that he does not think abortion should generally be banned. And it is true that a person who favors keeping abortion legal can be an ally of pro-lifers in many, many battles, as Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is and the late Senator Paul Coverdell was. But the basic debate over abortion has always been whether it should generally be legal or generally be prohibited. People who want it to stay legal are called pro-choicers. That's what Coverdell and Hutchison were, and it's what Thompson was. If Thompson still thinks that states should keep abortion legal, it's what he still is."

GIULIANI: What About Roe?

NRO's K-Lo thinks that Giuliani "definitely helped himself" by speaking to the Federalist Society Convention, but wonders why he didn't mention Roe v. Wade: "When Rudy went through a litany of 2nd Amendment, racial quotas, and keeping America's courtrooms safe for the Ten Commandments, I figured Roe-wrongly-decided had to be next. Nope."

In related Giuliani-blogging at The Corner, Romney-supporter Mark Steyn doesn't see why Giuliani would be more electable than Romney: "I can't see why, after solid wins in IA and NH, GOP primary victories in, say, Connecticut or Rhode Island would be beyond Mitt Romney. New Hampshire isn't exactly a 'socially conservative' bastion, and Mitt did manage to get himself elected in Massachusetts."

In another interesting post, NRO's Lisa Schiffren questions the power of the early primary states in the nominating process: "As many have said before me, neither Iowa nor New Hampshire, for different reasons, is terribly representative of anything but (some of) their neighboring states...I dunno -- to me it seems clear that the ability to appeal to a wide audience over time is a better indicator of who voters will respond to in an election, than the ability to organize the especially committed in states that conduct these quadrennial exercises. Ideally your candidate can do both -- as Hillary has been doing. The gap in our guys performance is what suggests trouble ahead."

MCCAIN: Probably Not The Endorsement He Wanted...

Andrew Sullivan follows up his endorsement of Barack Obama in the December issue of The Atlantic with an endorsement of John McCain in the Times of London. Linking to his column, Sullivan writes: "Compare two potential races next year: Clinton vs Giuliani or McCain vs Obama. One would bring out the worst in us; the other would move this country forward in desperately needed ways."

K-Lo links to Sullivan's column and teases: "Something Ramesh and Andrew Sullivan can agree on? John McCain for president."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Enough With The Reagan Nostalgia

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini thinks GOPers need to look forward, not back: "Look -- I unequivocally believe that Reagan was our best President since Lincoln. I spent my best time in college studying the Reagan Revolution. But the fact that we're turning our Presidential debates into a Reagan drinking game diminishes both Reagan and those who would hope to succeed him as conservatives in the White House...Incessant Reagan nostalgia tends to feed the notion that we have nothing new to offer the country; that when in doubt, we go back to the well of twenty years ago, to when it all began, rather than devise creative solutions for the future...None of the people running for President are Reagan. Let's just accept that and move on. If conservatism requires the second coming of Ronald Reagan to make progress, then we are in deep trouble."

LEST WE FORGET: The Chief Export Of Chuck Norris Is Pain

Mike Huckabee's new campaign ad. For more illuminating facts about Chuck Norris, visit Chuck Norris Facts.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:39 PM

November 16, 2007

11/16: Not Dead Yet

In a 6/28 post titled "After McCain" we wrote: "Is there a single issue, outside of Iraq, that conservatives agree and identify McCain with? Short of a dramatic 180 degree turn on progress in Iraq, what series of events could possibly end in a McCain candidacy? With the Senate immigration bill now dead, McCain may be able to stabilize his downward spiral, but what on earth could possibly start moving his numbers in a positive direction?" Well guess what: even long time critics of the war are beginning to admit things are looking better. And, especially in NH, things are looking better for McCain too. If voters begin to believe that the surge (which John Edwards used to call 'McCain's surge') is working, then McCain could end up having the only 'war on terror' credentials strong enough to trump Rudy Giuliani.

DEM DEBATE: The Rich Get Richer

There were no K.O.'s last night, but most seemed to give the night to Hillary Clinton on points. Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall blogs: "For me, there were three key moments in the debate -- the opening skirmish, which I think largely defined the debate, Hillary's answer to Campbell Brown's 'gender card' questions and the final tete a tete over Social Security. Of those three, two were Hillary's. Obama also had a moment when he went after Blitzer over his constant invocation of the presumption that no significant problems can ever be solved. But it was too fleeting."

Daily Kos readers gave Obama the win (26%), but HRC (20%) polled well above her last straw poll showing (9%). John Edwards under performed raking in only 17%.

DEBATE CLINTON: The Empire Strikes Back

Positive HRC reviews include:

• TAPPED's Adele Stan: "Hillary got a good one in just by saying Campbell Brown's first name when the one female questioner among the three asked the frontrunner what she meant in her address to the students of her alma mater ... Translation: Like, really, just between us girlfriends, are you gonna tell me you don't know what it means to crack an all-boys club?"
• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "Apparently Hillary Clinton's answer on gender is going to be the most replayed of the debate. And she did rock that answer."
• Taylor Marsh: "Hillary Clinton was on fire tonight and she came out with the energy and intent to prove to her opponents that she wants the job of president and she's going to fight for it. Fight she did tonight."
• TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta: "Clinton is back in business, and she's feeling fine. ... Whatever was going on over the past few weeks with Sen. Clinton now looks like a minor blip -- a change in the weather cold, rather than a sign of any deeper weakness. She's back to herself, and back to being in fine form. The tone for the rest of the debate is set."
• The Huffington Post's John Neffinger: "Unless there is a brief moment or two of Hillary being disagreeable right at the get-go, most of the memorable moments were pretty good for her."
• The Left Coaster's Jeff Dinelli: "Hillary was so prepared for the "Boys Club" non-issue that when Edwards followed by again claiming she's the only one taking lobbyist money he was loudly booed."
• The Plank's Noam Scheiber: "Hillary was back to her usual steady self after the brief vacation from history that was her previous performance. She made no mistakes, stuck up for herself when she had to, showed enough humanity to prove she's a member of the species."
• Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt: "Favorite political line: Hillary saying she understands they're attacking her not because she's a woman but because she's ahead."

Less positive HRC takes:

• The Huffington Post's Robert Naiman: "It's very unfortunate, to say the least, that Senator Clinton is still pushing the claim that Iran is responsible for the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq when even the Bush Administration is moving away from it."
• David Sirota: "In the video above, you will find a very short clip I put together after tonight's Democratic presidential debate. ... Really, what an offensive statement Clinton made to the millions of American and Mexican workers who lost their jobs and saw their wages destroyed thanks to NAFTA ... You want to talk about showing how utterly out of touch you are, that's how you do it - you laugh and say you barely remember the debate over the very trade deal that is destroying America's middle class."

DEBATE OBAMA: We'd Move To California For The In-n-Out Burgers

Positive Obama impressions include:

• IA Independent's Douglas Burns: "Barack Obama tonight turned in his strongest presidential debate performance and exposed a clear regional difference with front-runner Hillary Clinton. Is $97,000 a lot of money? In most of Obama's Illinois and just about all of Iowa the answer to that is "yes," which makes Obama's position on the question of whether to raise or lift the cap on Social Security taxes more reasonable to Hawkeye State voters than the New York shape-shifting of Clinton."
• Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "'This is what I expect from Mitt Romney or Rudy Guliani ...' Obama had a good point in the midst of all that (i.e., those with the top 6% income are not exactly in the 'middle' of anything) but Jesus they booed him like he'd compared her to Hitler."
• The Plank's Josh Patashnik: "It may be shameless regional pandering, but Barack Obama might just have locked up my vote tonight when he was discussing illegal immigrants: 'They're coming here to work, not to go to the In-n-Out Burger.'"
• The Plank's Noam Scheiber: "He was focused, energized, tough, charismatic--pretty much everything the press had accused him of not being in previous debates. ... Like Hillary and Edwards before him, Obama did stumble somewhat over illegal immigrant driver's licenses, something Hillary's spinners gleefully highlighted after the debate."
• Andrew Sullivan: "Obama was a solid B+, started strongly and then petered out. He blew the illegal drivers' license question and the polarization question. He really is uneven in these things."
• TAPPED's Kate Sheppard: "I think Obama made a good point: Licenses are wedge issue. It's not about the licenses -- that's become an issue because states and municipalities are struggling with public safety issues in the absence of reasonable immigration policy."

Negative Obama takes include:

• Taylor Marsh: "Obama had a horrible time with the driver's license question, dodging it, which he knew the minute he answered was trouble, but it was completely convoluted and he couldn't get out of it."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Obama on how he'd bring everyone together after he was elected: 'I would convene a continuous advisory meeting including both Democrats and Republicans.' A continuous advisory meeting? Yeesh."
• Daily Kos' Trapper John: "Wolfie, being a dick, presses on licenses. Obama equivocates, doesn't give yes or no answer. Wow. I can't believe it. He's right that it's trivial in the scheme of immigration policy, but he knows how this very issue and the failure to give the questioner a yes or no answer tripped up Hillary."
• TAPPED's Adele Stan: "Barack Obama just posed a challenge to Hillary Clinton on Social Security ... That, combined with Obama's weak answer on the question of driver's licenses for undocumented workers, seemed to leave the contest's Number 2 man somewhat diminished."
• Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt: "Waffler: Obama playing slip and slide on drivers' licenses for the undocumented. Four chances and wouldn't answer the question."

DEBATE EDWARDS: Mud Supplier

• The Huffington Post's Glynnis Macnicol: "I think Edwards is functioning as a great foil for Hillary. He is supplying the "mud" so to speak that is entirely lacking from Obama, and gives her something to react against without having to take him on directly."
• Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt: "Least likely to have gained new support: Edwards. But he gave a great answer in response to a question from the audience on racial profiling. Said when he is President, there will be no racial profiling, no illegal spying, no Guantanamo, no torture."
• The Plank's Noam Scheiber: "Edwards, he was his usual sharp self. He was solid when asked how he could accuse Hillary of double-talking after shifting his own position on several issues since 2004."

OBAMA: Crisis Over?

MyDD's Jonathan Singer caught up with Barack Obama in Mountain View, CA, and asked him why he used the word 'crisis' when talking about Social Security. From Obama: "It is a long-term problem. I know that people, including you, are very sensitive to the concern that we repeat anything that sounds like George Bush. But I have been very clear in fighting privatization. I have been adamant about the fact that I am opposed to it. What I believe is that it is a long-term problem that we should deal with now. And the sooner the deal with it then the better off it's going to be."

Singer comments: "In all it's not everything that I wanted to hear. But perhaps more importantly, Obama had the opportunity to hear that folks don't want him talking about a non-existent "crisis" in Social Security. And hopefully, he will pay heed to that sentiment."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum links and adds: "This is clever rhetorical jujitsu. No, we bloggers don't like the Republican "crisis" framing, but we also hate the idea that Republicans often get to set the terms of debate in American politics. By casting his use of Republican language as a demonstration of independence from Republican language, Obama is demonstrating that he's really one of us even when he's supporting a policy we don't like. I'm impressed - even if I hope he doesn't make a habit of this."

IA CAUCUS: The Krugman Primary

IA Independent's T.M. Lindsey talked to Paul Krugman in Iowa City, IA:

• Iowa Independent: "What question would you ask the presidential candidates?"
• Krugman: "You have a pretty progressive program laid out. Why should I believe that you actually go through with it? How can I be sure that you're not just saying this to get the nomination? How are you going to overcome the power of money and deal with what will be a no-holds-barred, last-ditch-effort opposition from the Republicans? What will you do to fight for progressive issues?"
• Iowa Independent: What factors prompted or motivated you to ask these questions?
• Krugman: I'm concerned that Hillary Clinton is getting a whole lot of money from interest groups who think they are buying something. Barack Obama seems to me to have this tendency, looking for compromise where there is no compromise -- Social Security being the issue I'm really worked up about right now.
• Iowa Independent: What about Obama's plan for Social Security?
• Krugman: He's buying into the Republican language of a "Social Security crisis" and highlighting their talking points. They're wrong. He's looking for something that sounds like its reasonable middle ground. He's listening to inside-the-beltway pundits, but this is just the wrong issue.
• Iowa Independent: By doing this, do you think he's somehow compromising the progressive agenda?
• Krugman: I view it as more of a symptom. I know Obama would not privatize Social Security, but I believe that it's not a good sign that he would lend credence to the fear mongers.

GIULIANI: The 9/11less Candidate

Ad Age looks at Rudy Giuliani's first effort: "1. He embraces the fact he's from New York while pointing out the common perception held by many Red Staters -- it was, indeed, a hellhole; 2. That of course, lets him brag about cleaning up the place, which made New York a little bit like the rest of the country; 3. He does all this without mentioning 9/11; 4. He makes another obvious point, but one often overlooked by candidates. He says he's not perfect. ... It's not going to win him any fans in NYC. In fact, it's likely to drive them insane with rage and fury. But those aren't the people he's trying to convince."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti links and comments: "Wheaton's third point - that nowhere in the ad does Giuliani mention September 11, 2001 - is key. Here's a prediction: When Giuliani does put up a television spot that mentions 9/11, a political firestorm will break out."

HUCKABEE: Apparently Taxes Are An Important Issue In A GOP Primary

Soren Dayton looks at CBS polling out of IA and comments: "The numbers suggest something more. Huckabee is way out ahead of Mitt Romney on 'is a conservative', abortion, and 'shares my values.' But on 'agree on issues', immigration, and 'right experience', Huckabee is struggling places. I suspect that the 'issues' thing is really about taxes. There has been a lot of mail going out, phone calls, and people have run ads against Huckabee. Huckabee's experience number can be moved with some good bio ads. I am however, struck by Romney's abortion number. This confirms the word on the street from Iowa. Romney's voter base is the country-clubbers. They may well be moderates."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti adds: "Romney has the money and the will power to make sure likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers know about Huckabee's differences with movement conservatives on tax and immigration issues. This would hurt Huckabee's chances ... and also open space for a movement conservative whom lately people seem to have forgotten about."

On that anti-Huckabee taxes YouTube, AmSpec Blog's John Tabin blogs: "in it, Mike Huckabee pleads with the Arkansas state legislature for tax increases on anything they might be willing to tax. Huckabee responded to this by falsely claiming that he was only asking for tax hikes to cover education spending that was mandated by an Arkansas Supreme Court decision. In fact, the special session dealing with the court's mandate came several months after the speech."

PAUL: More Than An Eccentric Libertarian

Power Line's Scott Johnson comments on Andrew Walden's "The Ron Paul campaign and its neo-Nazi supporters" article: "Before catching up earlier this week with some of the information that Walden collects in this column, I thought that Paul was simply an eccentric libertarian. I was mistaken."

ROMNEY: Anti-Flavor Of The Month

Hugh Hewitt plugs the transcript of his 11/15 interview with Mitt Romney with excerpts including: "

• HH: Mike Huckabee's the flavor of the month. He surged up in Iowa. What are the differences between you and Governor Huckabee?
• MR: Well, you know, we have the views that are similar or the same with regards to abortion and same sex marriage, but we feel very differently about subjects like taxes and immigration.

The Brody File blogs: "The Romney campaign may be disappointed because they didn't get the endorsement from National Right to Life but maybe the organization had a look at the following videotape. If you go about three and a half minutes in, Romney is seen distancing himself from being endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life during a debate while he was running for Governor in 2002. ... This is what is known as political baggage. It also speaks directly to why Romney has some problems with pro-lifers, especially at the grassroots level."

THOMPSON: A Buffet Buffet

The Corner's Larry Kudlow previewed his 11/15 interview with Fred Thompson: "The former Tennessee senator was in good form. He attacked Warren Buffet's tax-hike proposal on the rich as totally wrong, and Buffet himself as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party. He agreed with Dick Armey that the GOP will lose if it departs from the first principles of limited government and lower tax rates."

Also at The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru defends Thompson's social security plans from Brookings claims that his proposed price indexing "would break the historic pact with senior citizens." Ponnuru blogs: "Wage indexing, the status quo policy, started only in 1977. So getting rid of it would not break any promise made when the system was created."

THOMPSON II: Somebody Somewhere Must Have Found This Endorsement Credible, Right?

The National Right to Life Committee continues to take heat for their Thompson endorsement. Townhall's Hugh Hewitt highlights criticism from The Plank's Chris Orr. Orr looks at NRLC exec. dir. David O'Steen's Thompson as "best positioned" to beat Rudy Giuliani explanation and comments: "I hope this is a (highly lame) rationale for a decision that was made on other grounds, because the alternative is that the folks at NRLC have all lost their minds. It's not merely that Mitt Romney is vastly better positioned to beat Giuliani for the nomination than Thompson; at this point, you could probably make the case that even John McCain and Mike Huckabee have a better shot."

Daniel Larison was less kind: "It's official: the rationale for the NRLC's endorsement of Fred Thompson makes no sense. It would be one thing to endorse Thompson on the grounds that he has a solid voting record, or that he is more reliable and trustworthy than the other leading candidates. But this appeal to his potential as the Bane of Giuliani seems as wrong as it gets."

The Brody File shares relevant emails from his inbox:

• From Pam: The NRLC endorsement of Fred really fried me! Not only because I thought Romney was the best choice, but because Thompson is anything but a true-blue lifer.
• From Kathleen: It should've been Huckabee! He's so clear and consistent on his stand. Thompson hasn't always been so...
• From Anonymous: Fred Thompson may say he is personally pro-life, but his conversion has not gone far enough to the point where he is willing to LEAD the nation toward the day that we can end abortion on demand. He specifically has rejected the Human Life Amendment.
• From Chris: I can't tell you how disappointed and disgusted I am by this endorsement. ... Mike Huckabee, who is constantly moving up in the polls, was there for the taking. They could've rallied around the true pro life candidate, but they sold out and endorsed a former abortion rights lobbyist who opposes a federal ban on abortion.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: So Long And Thanks For All The Fish

Today marks the last day of our tenure as Blogometer. So instead of inflicting someone's elses thoughts on you for the 3000th time, we'd like to share our thoughts on the most crucial issue this nation faces: the travesty that is the Bowl Championship Series. We could harp on how all of the university presidents in the major conferences are thieves and liars for propping up this sham, but instead we want to offer a solution, so here goes.

The Sun Belt and Conference USA would merge into a mega conference. On Christmas Day the WAC champ would play the Mountain West champ in Las Vegas and the MAC champ would play the ConferenceUSA/SunBelt champ in Orlando. On New Years the Pac 10 and Big Ten champs would play in the Rose Bowl, the Big 12 and ACC champs would play in the Orange Bowl, the SEC and Big East champs would play in the Sugar Bowl, and the winners of the Christmas Day games would square off in the Fiesta Bowl. The following would week would feature two semi-final games and the next week would be the national champion.

This plan preserves the importance of in season conference rivalry games (since playoff spots are given only to conference champs), offers every team a chance at the title, settles the championship on the field, and still allows all the big conference non-champions to participate in that huge slate of meaningless bowls (which, since we have a problem, we would still watch). Of course all this leaves out Notre Dame, but really, they need to suck it up and join a conference (we suggest they take Navy and Army and join the Big East).

LEST WE FORGET: Speaking Of The NCAA...

Deadspin enjoyed First Read's Hillary Clinton as UNLV circa '91. Deadspin the extends the analogy to the rest of the field: "Namely, Hillary is Larry Johnson of UNLV, Obama is one of the Duke guys (back when Duke was likable) and John Edwards is Bobby Hurley. (We suspect this makes Kucinich a latter-day Josh Heytvelt.) We're not sure we understand the analogy, but we loved reading about the UNLV Larry Johnson. Man, that guy, when we were that age, seemed like the most unstoppable force on earth; it almost seemed sadistic to force those skinny white boys to bump up against him. Sorry, we'll say it: We miss Jerry Tarkanian. We really do."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:36 PM

November 15, 2007

11/15: A Case For Gotcha

Tim Russert has been something of a punching bag among the netroots since 10/30's Dem debate and we think the bad rap is completely undeserved. Matthew Yglesias blogs: "Russert's interview methods obscure the good ideas of people who have good ideas, but also obscure the bad ideas of people who have bad ideas, drawing all political conversation into a miasma of substance-free posturing." Really. We must be watching completely different campaigns because it's the canned campaign speeches and soft ball interviews that seem to be best lend themselves to "substance-free posturing." Cutesy debate enders aside (like UFOs) Russert's questioning gets to the heart of the matter.

Just look at the moment still driving news a full two weeks after the debate: Russert's questioning on NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (D) drivers' license plan for illegal immigrants. Hillary Clinton's evasive answer went to the heart of many Dem primary voters worries about her (see Lawrence Lessig below) and immigration is guaranteed to be an issue in the general election. Now Barack Obama is drawing a strong policy difference with HRC on the issue, coming out in favor of the licenses 11/14. Sounds like a real issue that highlights key differences between the candidates to us. The only actual example of questioning Yglesias wants to see more of is on the Dem candidates global warming plans, but everythingwe read says they're identical. Talk about a recipe for "substance-free posturing." Let's hope Wolf Blitzer follows Russert's lead tonight.

CLINTON: This Issue Is Gonna Be On The Table Through 11/4

Hillary Clinton's decision to come out against drivers' license for illegal aliens is only driving away more netroots support. A Daily Kos diarist summarizes: "Hillary Clinton has triangulated herself into a pretzel, providing great material for Republicans to use against her on the topic of illegal immigration in the general election, if she makes it that far. This is exactly the kind of thing that hurt John Kerry in 2004, and allowed Republicans to provide a caricature of a politician that didn't really stand for anything. The thing with Hillary is, it truly is beginning to appear that she doesn't. "

TPM's Greg Sargent notes Barack Obama was "quick" to get a response out: "When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it's easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them."

HRC sympathizer Jeralyn Merritt at Talk Left blogs: "I'm disappointed to see that Hillary Clinton has now come out against drivers licenses for the undocumented. Her advisers think this will take the issue "off the table." I think it opens her up to new attacks in tomorrow night's debate for being inconsistent. She said at the last debate she wasn't particularly familiar with the proposals. I assume she is now. That's what makes her statement so disappointing."

OBAMA: No Karma For The Chameleon

With Hillary Clinton floundering on immigration and authenticity, Barack Obama made huge gains in netroots circles with his new technology plan and an endorsement from Stanford law prof. Lawrence Lessig. Open Left's Matt Stoller blogs: "Today, Obama is throwing down the gauntlet on a internet freedom, telecom lobbyists, and on opening up government in general to the public. It's some genuinely radical stuff, and it includes the use of blogs, wikis, and openness in government hearings. ... I am now leaning towards Obama in my choice for President, with a second choice of Edwards."

At his own blog, Lessig explains why he chose Obama: "But the part that gets me the most about Senator Clinton is the eager embrace of spinelessness. I don't get this in Democrats generally. ... Our party seems constitutionally wedded to the idea that you wage a campaign with tiny speech. Say as little as possible. Be as uncontroversial as you can. Embrace the chameleon as the mascot."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links and comments: "Yeah, that pretty much sums up the problem with Hillary."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat is not willing to let Obama off the hook so easy: "Kos writes about Lawrence Lessig's endorsement of Senator Barack Obama and I think both Kos' reaction and Lessig's endorsement are troubling in that they ask next to nothing of Obama while being too willing to embrace the false Media narrative regarding Hillary Clinton. ... Is anyone pretending it does not describe Barack Obama? To endorse an endorsement of Obama that, in its core argument, is an attack on failings that Obama possesses is ludicrous. If people want more from Hillary's challengers, and by extension, more from Hillary, they simply can not let the Hillary challengers off the hook."

Later, however, BTD does credit Obama for stepping up on immigration: "This is Barack Obama's finest moment in this campaign. And Senator Hillary Clinton's lowest. ... I have said that if I were to vote today, I would vote for Barack Obama. Prior to this, it would have been a reluctant vote in his favor. Now it would be a proud vote for Obama. This is the promise he has shown now manifested in REAL leadership."

OBAMA II: It Depends On What Your Definition Of Opposition Is

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) attempts to take Barack Obama's Iraq war credentials down a peg at The Huffington Post: "I thought Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time and have been fighting to get the Administration to stop its failed policy and bring our troops home. ... Senator Obama has been trying to use his early opposition to the 2002 authorization to use military force as a way to bring attention to his campaign. And that's fine -- that's politics. ... But he should be more careful, because his record doesn't always line up with his rhetoric. ... When it comes to ending the war, the question needs to be: Which candidate has the experience, maturity, skill and ability to safely get our troops out of Iraq and bring this sad chapter in our history to an end? I believe Hillary Clinton not only wants to end the war, she can end the war. If I didn't believe that, there is no way I would be supporting her."

Ret. Gen. Tony McPeak then responded, also at HuffPo, first noting that Obama told Wolf Blitzer in '04 that he would have voted against the war had he been in the Senate: "Hillary Clinton made a different choice. For starters, she refused to even read the National Intelligence Estimate that was made available to Senators before the vote for war ... Barack Obama, on the other hand, opposed the war in Iraq in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. ... If the American people are looking for who has the strength and experience to end the war, they should look very carefully at who had the strength and experience to get Iraq right from the beginning. Because the Clinton campaign may be able to plant Senator Clinton's questions, but they can't change her record, or Senator Obama's answers.

Commenting on the latest Iraq appropriation, Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat is still not convinced on Obama's Iraq war leadership.: "If Lawrence Lessig is right about the willingness of Senator Barack Obama to stand up to the Beltway Establishment, then here is a chance for him to prove it. Prove something to those of us who want the Iraq Debacle ended Senator Obama. Prove Lessig right. LEAD the fight to end the Iraq Debacle NOW."

OBAMA III: Help Us Obama-wan Your Our Only Hope

At a recent visit to a UC Irvine history class, The Huffington Post's Jon Wiener reports Seymour Hersh told the audience Barack Obama represents "the only hope for the US in the Muslim world, " since only he "could lead a reconciliation between the Muslim countries and the US."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum reads similar thoughts in reader comments at Slate and concludes: "This might be the single most compelling reason there is to vote for Barack Obama. All of the Democratic candidates would improve America's substantive position in the world, but Obama goes a step further by being the only one who would improve our standing just by being who he is. Food for thought."

DEM FIELD: Primary Season's Almost Over

Pollster.com's Mark Blumnethal rounds up blog and Politico reports on suspected push polling in IA against Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and concludes: "If the "poll" included just the five questions above, it fits the profile of the a real so-called push poll, again, not a poll at all but a negative "advocacy call" masquerading as a legitimate survey. ... The pollster may be testing negative messages against Hillary (the front-runner) and whomever the respondent supports. A Republican group paying for a poll like this might be testing to see what kind of messages would work best against Hillary and whomever Democratic respondents lean towards."

DEM FIELD II: Why Edwards Is Still Popular Online

David Sirota takes Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to task for their 'kabuki' dance on free trade:

Clinton has raked in so much corporate cash that she was recently celebrated on the cover of Fortune Magazine. Obama, meanwhile, is Wall Street's darling, according to campaign finance reports. These contributions to both candidates come from industries that have a stake in preserving the NAFTA-style status quo - and, as anyone who has worked a day in politics knows, big campaign checks come with an expectation of complicity. And so this is what we get - a kabuki dance from candidates who pray that voters are too dumb to figure it all out.

MCCAIN: Surging On The Surge

Power Line's John Hinderaker is ready to call John McCain officially "back" writing: "It's no secret that I like McCain a lot. He is a life-long and thorough-going conservative, a man who has grappled publicly with every important issue of our time, a man whose courage, dedication and intelligence are beyond question. ... He got on the wrong side of the illegal immigration issue, along with President Bush and others, but has since moved back toward the Republican center."

RedState's Adam C also sees a McCain resurgence: "Anecdotally, many Republicans I know who would have disavowed McCain as a RiNO only 6 months ago have regained respect for the Senator. ... This is somewhat born out by the unscientific data collected in this interesting RedState preference diary. Despite being barely ahead of Huckabee for 4th in first place votes, McCain is neck-in-neck with Romney for 2nd place overall."

McCain held a blogger conference call 11/14. Reports include:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein quotes McCain on Iraq: "I do appreciate the fact that when the surge started, when we were at a low point in the Iraq situation, Sen. Edwards called it the 'McCain surge' and the 'McCain strategy' ... I hope he'll keep calling it that. I haven't heard him call it that lately."
• Soren Dayton quotes McCain's response to Leon Wolf's question whether McCain would appoint judges who would overturn McCain-Feingold: "Of course. I voted for Roberts and Alito. I don't know a single Republican Senator who would vote for the nuclear option. I am proud of the gang of 14. I am proud of my support for strict constructionist judges. There was going to be a lot of money spent on ads Some people were going to make a lot of money in that fight. If you don't like the Gang of 14, I am not your man."
• Wolf on McCain's answer at RedState: "It's nice to hear McCain say "Yes" in response to whether he'd nominate a Justice who might overturn BCRA, but if he wants to reel in primary voters like me who are more or less open to persuasion right now, he needs to make us believe it. And right now, I'm not sure that I do. So all in all, I was kind of disappointed by his answer
• Captain's Quarters: "McCain sounded pretty feisty today, and I think did very well. ... About the unwillingness of foreign service officers to go to Iraq: he thought they agreed to serve the nation in any capacity. He thinks that's indicative of serious problems at Foggy Bottom, and should be addressed immediately."

MCCAIN II: We'll Take Creative Web Attacks For A Hundred Alex

Conservatives are enamored with a new quiz show-style game on John McCain's website. Townhall's Patrick Ruffini reports: "A user who answers 'Rudy Giuliani' on question 7 of the game -- "Which candidate is the best general election candidate the Republican Party could nominate?" gets this answer: "The nomination of Rudy Giuliani would likely lead to the formation of a third party made up of social conservatives. He would also likely get "swift boated" by fireman (sic), police officers, and even victims of 9-11 who are upset with his performance." ... This is the first time that I am aware of that a Republican candidate has hyped the idea of a third party in the event of a Giuliani nomination."

NRO's Jim Geraghty also picked up on the negative messaging at the heart of the game: "The answers are funny, sometimes bordering on mean. When asked, 'which candidate held Sen. Clinton accountable for attempting to waste taxpayer dollars on a museum for the cultural and pharmaceutical event', if you pick Obama, the answer is 'Barack Obama has been unable to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for anything. The correct answer was John McCain.'"

HUCKABEE: His Ears Are On Fire

NRO's Jim Geraghty posts text of Fred Thompson latest IA ad and comments: "Subtext: Sure, that Huckabee fella seems good on life issues. But he's a squish on illegal immigration."

Geraghty also shares a new Team Romney associate's take on Mitt Romney's next move: "From what I hear, Team Romney is taking Governor Huckabee's surge very seriously. Huckabee's support for tax increases will become known far and wide throughout Iowa over the next sixty days. While concern about social conservative issues (and I include immigration in this basket) tend to be more top of mind for Iowa Republicans than fiscal conservative issues, it will be interesting to see if the Huck's Iowa surge continues after Iowans are 'fully educated' about his enthusiastic support for Clinton-like tax increases in Arkansas."

THOMPSON: Frame Job

The National Right to Life Committee's Fred Thompson endorsement continues to spark controversy among conservatives. Responding to a Washington Times article repeating Paul Weyrich assertions that "Thompson people were engaged with the National Right to Life people in financial dealing," NRO's Jim Geraghty blogs: "I like the Washington Times, I have friends who work there, and think they're usually a fine journalistic institution - but I wince at letting a guy make an accusation like that without any evidence in the news pages."

At Townhall, Matt Lewis explains why Thompson's Meet the Press rhetoric was so much more damaging than the positions he took: "Clearly, the insinuation that girls could be charged with a crime for having an abortion has ruffled more feathers than Thompson's comments about the GOP platform. ... Many pro-Lifer's are obviously sensitive to having "one of their own" use an argument which has been successfully employed by their opponents. ... So it's no surprise ardent pro-Life activists resent having a Republican -- much less the fellow who was endorsed by the NRLC -- bolster the argument."

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: Keep 'Em Busy

The Blue America PAC (led by Fire Dog Lake, Down with Tyranny, Crooks and Liars, and Digby) are teaming up with The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights to hand Dem Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) a "Accountability Moment."

Howie Klein explains: "A few weeks ago Democratic Party insiders under the aegis of the DCCC held a training session in Chicago for a couple dozen of their favored candidates. Afterwards several of the participants, disgusted, let Blue America know that Rahm Emanuel delivered an ominous message demanding that they "move to the right" on immigration. ... The ad you see above is even now being translated into several languages and customized for various communities. Many people feel that if Congressman Emanuel is busy kissing babies in Chicago he won't be meddling with matters of national importance he knows nothing about and he won't be interfering in congressional races around the country on behalf of Blue Dogs, Bush Dogs and assorted reactionaries."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: There's More To Life Than Politics?

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti excerpts form the 2008 Almanac of American Politics:

Polls show that public opinion on the state of the economy is so highly correlated with party identification that one must conclude it is less an assessment of objective conditions and more a matter of supporting the home team. Republicans complained about the vibrant economy in Clinton's second term; Democrats complained about the vibrant economy in Bush's second term. Macroeconomic numbers no longer move political numbers.

Continetti comments: "A similar partisan divide can be seen in foreign policy polling. Overall, however, the staggering statistic I take away from the above passage is that the United States has experienced noninflationary economic growth in 95 percent of the last 25 years. And yet we see the reemergence of "inequality" rhetoric. Why? Something tells me it has more than a little to do with political polarization."

LEST WE FORGET: Does This Mean John Lithgow Is Actually From This Planet?

The Haterquotes St. Lawrence Univ. prof. John Barthelme on ABC's sitcom Cavemen: "The commercials were clever, but the sitcom is just a tremendously missed opportunity. They're just young guys with hair that talk about chicks." The Hater snarks: "Seriously, Prof. If there's one thing I expect from my sitcoms, it's scientific accuracy. When will Hollywood create a Neanderthal character that is true-to-life?"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:47 PM

November 14, 2007

11/14: Are Huck And John Rudy's Best Friends?

We agree that the big story out of IA this week is Mike Huckabee's surge in recent polling. We still don't think he will win, but that does not even matter. As long as he finishes anywhere close to Mitt Romney, he will be THE story on the GOP side of the ticket until the next contest is held. Considering that a Hillary Clinton IA blow-out is unlikely, Romney will be, at best, headline number three. Romney faces a similar challenge in NH, where John McCain is surging. A strong second place showing makes McCain (always an MSM favorite) the feel good story out of NH leaving Romney some delegates but no real buzz heading into SC. We liked's Romney's early state strategy months ago, but as we get closer to game time it appears that the best laid plans of mice and men...

DEM FIELD: The MSM Wanted A Race, And They Got One

Some of those who declared Barack Obama DOA following the anti-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin incident are now backing off those claims in light of the damage recent attacks from Dem WH '08ers, the GOP, and the MSM have inflicted on HRC's poll numbers. Open Left's Matt Stoller looks at CBS numbers showing weakening support, higher unfavs, and low IA caucus second choice numbers and comments: "Clinton is a well-liked figure in the Democratic Party, so the fact that her unfavorables are much higher than Obama and Edwards could simply mean that the press has focused aggressively on her failures as a candidate, and that she's been attacked by both Obama and Edwards. Her unfavorables are going up, her supporters are getting nervous, and other candidates' supporters don't want to back her. In other words, the negative attacks are working."

Looking at similar numbers, Open Left's Chris Bowers blogs: "I boldly proclaimed that Barack Obama had already lost the 2008 presidential primaries because I believed he had lost the primarily non-Christian, progressive creative class vote that had served as his base early in the campaign. ... I still don't think it is possible for him to win without that vote. However, at the time I thought he had basically lost that vote with a series of events that culminated, but did not start, with the gay-bashing McClurkin event in South Carolina. Now, it seems to me that maybe he just pissed them off with that event, but he didn't lose them for good. ... the progressive creative class has decided that it still prefers Obama to Clinton no matter what Obama may or may not have done wrong so far."

Stoller later follows up: "I'm becoming increasingly skeptical that there is any grand coalition building going on here, or that the progressive movement or the creative class is at all relevant to this election at this point. It looks to me like the press is picking our nominee, as usual. Obama could have sown up a grand coalition, he did not, so now it's all about the media."

More Stoller: "What is very clear is that if you are pleased with the shape of the race of the last two weeks, you should be careful and temper your joy. The press is a wild, unpredictable, vicious, and easily bored group of gossips who do not like progressives, Democrats, labor, or any of us. And despite what you may or may not think, they do not like your candidate. Since Obama and Edwards have faced little negative attention over the past few months, there's a lot to work with."

CLINTON: 'Brilliant' 'Bush-esque' 'Retail Campaigning

The netroots are largely laying off attacking Hillary Clinton over the planted question story. Open Left's Chris Bowers does allow: "This is bad. This is a real scandal. This is Bush-esque. Seven years ago, I probably wouldn't have believed a student making allegations like this, but I now I do. And this statement of plausible deniability from a Clinton staffer on the incident doesn't inspire me with a lot of confidence."

However, there is also a fair number of HRC defenders out there including ex-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) outer Lane Hudson at The Huffington Post: "The recent media intrigue over allegations of 'question planting' in the audience of Hillary Clinton rallies and town hall meetings is ridiculous and lacks insight. ... Anyone who has seen Hillary in action knows that she is, quite possibly, the smartest, hardest working candidate in history. ... The Clinton campaigns have always been known for their mastery of the press and spinning issues. What is happening here is that they have taken the talking points to the audience. If you ask me, it's quite brilliant."

More HRC defending from Seacoast Progressive Alliance's Chaz Proulx: "I seldom criticize a fellow Democrat publicly, but John Edwards' recent attacks against Hillary Clinton have gone way over the line. In particular I'm talking about his response to the 'question planting' incident in Iowa. ... Retail campaigning is nuts. That's why it's so much fun, and that's why you won't see a top tier candidate capitalize on opponents' staffers' mistakes very often in a primary. There is an unwritten code for good reason -- it can happen to anybody. Blowing an isolated incident out of proportion is disingenuous by default. ... John Edwards has not only ignored the code."

EDWARDS: Why Stop With Their Health Care?

After clearing up some early constitutional issues, the netroots lined up in support of John Edwards' new IA ad promising to "take away" the health care of Congress and his cabinet:

• Ezra Klein: "The Edwards Campaign says that it will take the form of a bill sent to Congress, which seems constitutional, though everyone says it would be impossible to pass. But would it be? That's the part I don't understand. Why wouldn't the Democratic leadership want to use this legislation to hammer away at Republicans? ... Meanwhile, I find the liberal outrage and bewilderment over this bit of populist symbolism to be very unsettling. At base, Edwards is doing something very simple: Dramatizing the inequities in our health care system."
• Crooks and LiarsNicole Belle: "Wow. That's a statement I can get behind."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "I like this ad, as it creates a real sense of conflict with the powers in DC. Edwards makes the argument that if 50 million people don't have health care insurance, then Congress shouldn't either. Rhetorically, it's a continuation of his Two America's theme, and it's quite populist. In the last five polls about priorities, health care is a close number two or three to Iraq and the economy among voters."
• MyDD's David Mizner: "Voters in Iowa and elsewhere will gobble it up. That's one thing that impresses me about that Edwards campaign: he's seeking to the win the support of primary voters, not the Establishment. The same can not always be said of Obama, whose talk of a social security crisis seemed designed to please pundits."
• Matthew Yglesias: "It's all good rhetoric, I'll give them that."

EDWARDS II: George Plays Gotcha Too!

IA Independent's Douglas Burns reports that Edwards told the western Iowa Spanish-language newspaper La Prensa on drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants: "I haven't changed my mind. ... I've always thought that we want anyone driving on the road in the United States to have the training, the education, the licensing." Burns goes back and looks at what Edwards told ABC's This Week and comments: "If Not Outright Switch Edwards' Licensing Position Spectacularly Nuanced."

OBAMA: So Close Yet So Far

If Barack Obama wanted to he could close the deal with many in the netroots by coming out against residual forces in Iraq and leading the fight against more Iraq supplemental funding in Congress. Open Left's Chris Bowers blogs: "If I were to endorse someone who overtly favored residual forces at this point, it would invalidate most of the work I have done in the primaries so far ... I also have serious problems with what I perceive to be Obama's insider elitism. However, I can't ignore that one of he two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination is potentially the best identity vessel for my ideal progressive coalition to come around in the history of American politics, bar none."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat writes: "Now that Senator Barack Obama has regained his footing in the Presidential race, it is time for him to go for the win - by demonstrating leadership on the issues NOW! Certainly, but it will take more than pointing to the 2002 AUMF vote. It will take leadership NOW. Strong leadership from the Senate. Strong leadership that insists the Congress not fund the war without timetables for withdrawal."

OBAMA II: Wake Up Call

Michelle Obama's 11/13 NBC interview drew commentary. The Huffington Post's John Ridley highlights Mrs. Obama's belief "that soon the straggling blacks will 'wake up and get it'" and vote for her husband. Riley comments: "For Michelle Obama to claim that in terms of voting for her husband black America will one day 'wake up and get it' is to imply that any person of color who does not vote for Obama is somehow slumbering or stupid. ... Instead, I would say that Obama needs to earn his votes through consistency of message. He can't pass himself off as an agent of change, then pander to the homophobic crowd. He can't claim to stand against the war, then continually vote for its funding. He can't send mixed messages as to whether or not America would actually use its nuclear arsenal to protect itself."

Jack and Jill PoliticsRikyrah defends her: "I don't have to read any articles about Obama and the Black community - I live Obama and the Black community. ... I have my own family and our discussions about Obama. The generational split is pretty evident: I, my sisters, my cousins, 50 and younger, we were on board with Obama from the beginning. We've actually had to discuss, to debate, to convince our older relatives about Obama."

GOP FIELD: It's Gonna Be Close

Looking at recent polling, Pollster.com's Charles Franklin comments: "The rise of Mike Huckabee in Iowa is correctly seen as a big polling story. With limited money Huckabee has climbed into second place in the Iowa polls, and currently enjoys the sharpest upward trajectory of any Republican candidate there. ... The other bit of news from Iowa is the failure of the Thompson campaign to launch. For all the high expectations built up in the pre-campaign campaign of Thompson, Iowa voters have failed to respond. The trend has even taken a bit of a turn down in recent weeks. ... And the picture only gets worse for Thompson in New Hampshire where his trajectory looks like a failed rocket launch, now at less than 5% support.

Looking at just CBS' new poll, The Corner's David Freddoso notes: "1. Fred Thompson is not doing well, despite an ad in Iowa that's been running for a week. Give it more time, says adviser John McLaughlin; 2. McCain has surged, tying up with Giuliani in New Hampshire; 3. Ron Paul is catching on in New Hampshire, too."

GOP FIELD II: Rudy's Yin To Huckabee's Yang

NRO's Jim Geraghty blogs: "At what point do the bids of Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee - two sides of the economic-social conservative coin - become less about the candidates themselves and more as proxies for the social conservative wing and the economic conservative wings of the party? ... If Huckabee gets the nomination - probably the longest shot to gain the GOP nomination in a generation - it will be a shining success for social conservatives ... If Giuliani gets the nomination, we will see a thousand newsweekly articles about 'The Death of the Christian Right.'"

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt approves of Geraghty's analysis: "The built-in problems for Giuliani and Huckabee are that they each are viewed with great suspicion by one of the three Republican parties: the party of national security, the party of wealth, and the party of faith."

HUCKABEE: The Leadership Can Stick It

Townhall's Matt Lewis posts Mike Huckabee's reaction to the National Right to Life Committee's Fred Thompson endorsement: "I am disappointed by this decision but I also know that the very grassroots activists across America who have made the National Right to Life movement a success will continue to join my campaign. I am thankful for their continued dedication and support."

Lewis comments: "Translation: He got the hot-shot leadership, I'm getting the members ... This is similar to what Republicans often say when Labor Unions endorse Democrats. And you know what? There's a lot of truth to it."

MCCAIN: For The Surge Before It Was Cool

RCP Blog's Tom Bevan defends John McCain against netroots attacks over a video showing McCain calling a woman supporter's question, "how do we beat the bitch?" "excellent." Bevan writes: "The implication of those pimping the video is that by calling it "an excellent question" McCain is somehow endorsing the woman's language, but he quickly follows that remark by telling the crowd 1) that he's ahead of Clinton in a recent general election poll and 2) that he very much respects Mrs. Clinton and anyone else who might win the Democratic nomination."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti links to David Brooks reminding readers, "While others stood by the failing Rumsfled-Abizaid-Casey strategy in Iraq, McCain - as early as September 2003 - pushed for the administration to send more troops to Iraq and adopt a counterinsurgency strategy there." Continetti comments: "Seems to me like that's a pretty strong case for McCain's candidacy."

PAUL: Bloggers Of The World Unite!

Wonkette pens an open letter to "whoever runs things at Redstate.com: "We don't care for your website. ... We may not like your internets, and you may not like ours, but we must work together to destroy a mutual enemy - illegal alien spambots, a.k.a. Paultards. ... We were impressed with your recent banning of Paultards. We have one or two that we kind of like, but we try our best to ban the others. ... This is a call for internet bipartisanship. We must bipartisan...ly declare war on the Paultards!"

The 'whoever' that runs things at RedState replies: "Dear Wonkette, Agreed. Bombing starts in five minutes."

ROMNEY: Scum Happens

Defending earlier thoughts on how Mitt Romney's Mormon faith could cost him, The Corner's David Freddoso posts an email from IA pro-lifer Meg Crawford: "I like Governor Romney. I have some reservations about his commitment to the right to life. He assures me now that he is pro-life, that he's been pro-life...but I still have some concerns about where he was when he was governor. I can't quite commit to him yet. There's something in me that just says no."

Also talking Romney and faith Hot Air's Allahpundit blogs: "There's a huge open question about how solidly conservatives would be willing to line up behind Mitt on the religious issue if he's attacked for it. Most will do so ... but the fact is that there are parts of the right-wing base even now who are warning him not to go around pretending like he's one of us. The left may sense an opening there to peel some of them away; the trick would be to cast enough aspersions on Mormonism to scare off those voters without casting so many that even centrist Democrats become disgusted by the tactic. ... The task for Hillary et al. would be to legitimize that calculus in voters' minds and get them to thinking where Mormonism falls on the spectrum between Dianetics and the Bible. A scummy tactic but not hard to imagine."

In more positive Romney blogging, NRO's Jim Geraghty looks at positive Romney numbers in IA, N, and SC, and concludes: "Because we're seeing an effect in several states where there is advertising, and not just where Romney picked up a big endorsement, I suspect the ads are what is driving the Romney surge. I would also note that we've seen little, if any, change in Romney's national numbers during this time."

In less positive Romney news, RedState's Erick Erickson notes: "[O]ne of the things that shored up a few folks wavering on the Romney v. Fred issue was this "menu" of services under the Romney Healthcare Plan in Massachusetts that charges just $50.00 for an abortion ($100.00 under the "Low Premium Plan"). It's one thing to hear about it, but it's a whole different ball game to see it printed in stark black and white on a menu."

THOMPSON: The Mystery Continues

Following the National Right to Life Committee's Fred Thompson endorsement, National Review sent NRLC some written questions to clarify their thinking. From the exchange:

• NRO: Did you hear what he had to say on Meet the Press the other day? He sounds like someone who buys into the conventional wisdom criticisms of pro-lifers: We want to "criminalize" women - throw them in jail. As Bob Novak put it, Senator Thompson "revealed astounding lack of sensitivity about the abortion issue." Are you schooling him or are you confessing we really do want to throw desperate women behind bars?
• NRLC: Neither National Right to Life nor Fred Thompson supports criminal penalties for women who have had abortions.
• NRO: Is the Thompson endorsement an indication that the National Right to Life Committee is abandoning its support for a Human Life Amendment?
• NRLC: National Right to Life continues to support a Human Life Amendment (HLA) as a goal. However, National Right to Life also knows that it will take a change of 25-30 Senate seats to even pass a Human Life Amendment out of the U.S Senate where a two thirds vote is required -not to mention, the required two-thirds vote in the U.S. House and three fourths of the states to ratify. It is very, very unlikely to happen in the next presidential term, and the President does not have a vote in the amendment process anyway.

RedState's Erick Erickson reports: "Thompson himself, I'm told, persuaded the NRLC in writing, giving himself very little room to later go squishy. ... One of the NRLC guys said they really liked seeing in writing, from Thompson, one point that I have been harping on as well. Thompson apparently made the case that candidates saying they'd appoint originalist judges was not enough. Thompson said the President needed to make sure key executive appointments who could affect abortion policy did, in fact, embrace and believe in the culture of life (I'm told he listed several departments by name). Having said that for a good while, I'm glad to see a candidate make the case. Contrast that with Rudy who says he'd pick the most qualified people. ... I'm also told that Thompson brought up Planned Parenthood's funding under Title X and said, in effect, he would cut it off."

MD 04: Stand By Your Man

NARAL pres. Nancy Keenan defends NARAL's Rep. Al Wynn (D) endorsement at The Huffington Post: "Congressman Wynn's consistently pro-choice voting record since his election in 1992 gives him the edge in our endorsement in this race -- and is why he's earned our endorsement in previous election cycles, too. ... In the 15 years that he has represented his district in Congress, Congressman Wynn has voted pro-choice 126 times on 127 votes that dealt with women's reproductive health. ... We stand with those who stand with us -- and Congressman Wynn has steadfastly done so during his 15 years in Congress. His voting record reflects his commitment to a woman's right to choose."

BLOGGERS VS MSM: If You Can't Beat 'Em

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas posts a Newsweek press release announcing his new gig as 'contributor for the 2008 presidential campaign' and comments: "Yeah, there's a lot of heads exploding in wingnutlandia today over this bit of news. But Newsweek is "balancing" me out with someone that should make heads on our side explode. Announcement on that name is still a couple of days off."

IMMIGRATION: Blogging The Posts Americans Won't Do

Noting that "no fewer than 1,400 pieces of legislation related to immigration had been introduced among the 50 state legislatures" through this year and that "of these bills, 182 in 43 states became law--most of which are contradictory, probably unconstitutional, and nearly impossible for businesses to follow" US Chamber of Commerce pres. Tom Donohue blogs at Huffington Post:

This action reinforces the need for a balanced, comprehensive federal solution that embraces the following four principles. First, Congress and the president should act immediately to address the pressing shortage of visas. ... Second, we need the systems, technologies, and infrastructure to secure our borders and give businesses the tools they need to easily and accurately verify the eligibility of their employees. ... Third, we must recognize that a large part of the solution to our longer-term immigration and border challenges is the continued economic development of Mexico and Latin America. ... Finally, we should not stop the flow of immigrants to our country but, rather, allow it to continue and even expand--prudently, sensibly, and lawfully. We need workers, and it makes far greater sense to normalize the undocumented immigrants already here than to send them back and start over.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why Does Tim Hate The Earth?

The Huffington Post's Laurie David and Gene Karpinski lament:

This past week, NBC completed its Green Is Universal campaign -- a week-long effort to educate and engage the public by infusing its programming with environmental themes. The effort resulted in everything from Matt Lauer reporting from the Arctic circle to Al Gore making a cameo appearance on 30 Rock parodying himself. Throughout the week, global warming was front and center. And then there was Tim Russert.

How bad have Tim's interviews been? Over the past ten months, presidential candidates have made 16 appearances on Meet the Press. In the nearly three hundred questions he has asked the candidates, not once has he uttered the words "global warming." Not once. At the two debates Mr. Russert has moderated, he has found time to discuss a national smoking ban, the drinking age, Bible verses, baseball, and even UFOs but not once did he ask how candidates would address the climate crisis.

LEST WE FORGET: Mmmm, Sacrilicious

WSJ's Law Blog draws our attention to a footnote in a employment contract case. At issue: "Whether an employee's mere act of continuing to report for work after the effective date of her employer's arbitration program constituted acceptance of a valid and enforceable contract to arbitrate all employment-related disputes." The majority found the employee's conduct did constitute acceptance of a contract, but Judge Boyce Martin dissented: "A unilateral contract is one where an offeror 'reasonably expects to induce action of a definite and substantial character' from the offeree.' Implicit in this understanding is that the offeree is aware of the significance of the act performed. Without a signal that she understands that a contract is being made, how is one to know if she has truly accepted?" The authority for Judge Boyce's argument:

Homer Simpson talking to God: "Here's the deal: you freeze everything as it is, and I won't ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign. [no response] OK, deal. In gratitude, I present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you, please give me no sign. [no response] Thy will be done." The Simpsons: And Maggie Makes Three (Fox television broadcast, Jan. 22, 1995).

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:47 PM

November 13, 2007

11/13: They Were Never That In To Him

We enjoyed the Washington Post's 11/12 article on the troubles the then nascent Fred Thompson campaign faced this spring and summer, but we did want to comment on one line in particular. Michael Shear quotes a former Thompson staffer: "There was an irrational exuberance for Internet campaigning. When this exaggerated faith in the Net collided with reality, the impact was pretty severe. Once the real campaign began, an organization that placed no premium on having a real campaign was ill prepared to deal with it."

We agree that it was unrealistic to believe a successful campaign could exist entirely online, but we also think it should be made clear that Thompson was simply never that popular among online conservatives to begin with. Yes his Michael Moore/Cuba video was popular and yes his he had some key online sympathizers (RedState's Erick Erickson leading the pack), but he was also no where near as widely popular online as Howard Dean was in '04. From day one colleagues would ask us if we saw any strong Thompson movement online. We never did. Some day there may be an Dean like GOP phenomenon, but WH '08 is not that year.

THOMPSON: The Official Anybody But Rudy Candidate?

The Nationals Right to Life Committee's endorsement of Fred Thompson spurred more talk about what this means for NRLC than it did about Thompson speculation. Reactions include:

• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Fred seems like a real gamble - that would either give him a kick with some pro-lifers or make NRL look a little irrelevant if it doesn't. Huckabee would certainly be safer."
• Soren Dayton: "This is a shocker to me. ... My understanding is that the internal debate revolved around (1) stopping Rudy and (2) whether Mike Huckabee was an acceptable endorsement either together or separately. My understanding is, additionally, that John McCain and Mitt Romney were deemed not acceptable because of their positions on stem cell research. But it is news in its own right that an anti-HLA candidate is NRLC material."
• The Corner's Kate O'Beirne: "It's unclear to me what ruled out Mitt Romney. It can't be that the folks at NRLC frown on his pro-choice past because their ranks have many converts to their cause - including Bernard Nathanson. ... It appears that a "viability" calculation prevented an endorsement of Mike Huckabee. But Romney has Huckabee and Thompson beat on "viability" for the nomination."
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "I'm not sure I understand why National Right To Life will be endorsing Thompson. It can't be betting on the winner/getting on the bandwagon. ... This certainly makes for a perfectly fractured pro-life leadership so pro-life advocates can I suppose claim that anyone who wins did so with their help."
• The Corner's David Freddoso: "As Kathryn notes, there is a danger that Fred is already toast, and that would take a lot of power out of their endorsement."
• Captain's Quarters: "The NRLC's selection may be even odder than Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, especially considering that Thompson spoke of his opposition to a Constitutional amendment banning abortions ... Thompson does have a strong pro-life voting record -- but then again, so do Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter. ... One has to wonder whether their constituencies will follow along, or see both as cynical ploys for better access later.
• The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru: "So is this the first time the NRLC has endorsed a presidential candidate who opposed a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution?"
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The NRLC's Thompson endorsement shouldn't come as a surprise. ... Some have questioned why they would endorse a candidate who opposes a human life amendment, but as far as I understand, the NRLC has long advocated an incremental approach on the abortion issue."
• Freddoso, again, looking ahead: "Of the top 5 GOP candidates, who do you think the NRA will endorse? ... If the answer is Thompson, and there is certainly no guarantee it will be, then FDT will have pocketed 2 core conservative GOP endorsements while having done... not much - that you can report on anyway."

GIULIANI: Results Matter

Conservatives commenting on a conference call with Rudy Giuliani manager Michael DuHaime and pollster Brent Seaborn include:

• RCP Blog's Tom Bevan: "The main point that DuHaime drove home is that Rudy Giuliani is the only candidate who will enter February 5th with a big block of delegates (201, or 1/5th of the total at stake) more or less locked down. If things go as planned, regardless of the outcome of the early contests, when the dust settles on February 6, Rudy Giuliani will emerge as the delegate leader in the Republican race. ... DuHaime conceded they're pursuing a non-traditional path to the nomination, but suggested the calendar this year makes such alternatives very possible. In their view the early contests will not serve to slingshot anyone so much as they will serve to eliminate certain candidates and Rudy, DuHaime said, is not one of the candidates in jeopardy of being eliminated."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "This seems like a plausible scenario -- more plausible than the view that, because no one since Estes Kefauver in 1952 has won a string of early primaries yet lost the nomination, a string of early wins by Romney will end the race."
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "Their main message: if you count the delegates and don't buy into the "Iowa/NH momentum trumps all" theory, Rudy is well positioned to take the nomination. ... Bottom line: they continued to stress that Rudy has "multiple paths to victory" and declined to label their effort as only a "February 5" strategy. We'll find out in a couple of months whether they are right."

In less positive Giuliani blogging, Campaign Standard's links to Giuliani comments defending Giuliani friend/ex-NYC police commissioner Bernie Kerik record in NY and blogs: "It's an interesting - almost Clintonian - argument: Don't judge the man, judge the performance. It's an argument Giuliani has made before. And as his private life receives additional scrutiny over the next two months - and it will - we will probably hear this line again."

For those looking for resources on the Kerik/Giuliani connection, Talking Points Memo has a "mega-Kerik scandal list here."

HUCKABEE: The Headache That Won't Go Away

Commenting on The Club for Growth's latest Mike Huckabeehit jobRCP Blog 's Tom Bevan blogs: "You knew this was coming: a chubby Mike Huckabee tells the Arkansas legislature - which was overwhelmingly Democratic, by the way - in 2003 that he's kosher with raising taxes on tobacco to generate revenue. I'm not sure this is the poison pill Huckabee's opponents think it is, however."

Cornerites seemed to agree. David Feddoso comments: "Boy, oh boy. Does the Club for Growth have it in for Mike Huckabee." K-Lo adds: "The good news for Huckabee is that most Republican candidates campaigns sent me that video this morning - some more than once. He's a headache they really want gone."

RedState's Erick Erickson tracks Evangelical Outpost's Joe Carter's continued efforts to discredit CFG and writes: "CFG has been bashing the mess out of Huckabee for his record in Arkansas. Joe is firing back, pointing out a donor to CFG is also a huge porker. ... I understand where Joe's coming from on this, but would suggest he might want to refute the message instead of trying to discredit the messenger. ... Let's all be honest - on social policies, there are few if any candidates better than Mike Huckabee. ... But, we need more than the social conservatives to win this thing and Mike's message on executive salaries and carbon offsets scares the crap out of the business community."

PAUL: There's A War Going On Where Now?

Listening to XM Radio, Instapundit reports: "Driving home this afternoon I heard a Ron Paul radio commercial on XM and he's downplaying the war issue, which was his big schtick not long ago. Now it came third, after "amnesty" on immigration and uncontrolled federal spending. And the commercial never used the words "Iraq" or "war" -- it was all about opposing "nation-building" in foreign countries. Apparently the Paul campaign shares my view that the improving situation in Iraq can be turned into a plus for Paul's candidacy, not a minus, if the issues are pitched right."

ROMNEY: Not Messing With A Good Thing

Commenting on AP reports that Mitt Romney is not planning to give a Mormon speech, Campaign Standard's Terry Eastland blogs: "My sense is that he'll not give such a speech so long as he continues to receive endorsements from evangelical pastors and theologians - evangelicals being the least inclined among religiously defined groups to support a Mormon for president. Of importance here is that Romney's evangelical endorsers can speak in terms Romney himself cannot."

RCP Blog's Jay Cost adds: "If Romney is not going to give such a speech - we can infer that his advisers believe that the speech will not increase his share of the vote. Indeed, they might even believe that it will diminish it. To me, this makes intuitive sense. At this point - Romney seems to be doing well with evangelicals in certain regards. ... giving the speech would only draw attention to the one major difference between Romney and Christian conservatives. If they are starting to support him, why do that?"

CLINTON: Edwards Last Best Hope

David Sirota is up in multiplelocales hitting Hillary Clinton for first promising a 'time out' on trade deals but then promising to vote for the Peru trade agreement. Sirota writes: "Sure, I guess technically the two statements don't contradict each other - just like I guess you could technically debate what the definition of "is" is. ... No, I'd say this is talking out of both sides of the mouth."

At The Huffington Post, Katrina vanden Heuvel asks: "Isn't it Time for Mark Penn to Leave Burson-Marsteller?"

EDWARDS: He Didn't Start The Fire

Ben Smith's report that John Edwards strategist Joe Trippi was seen cheerleading Barack Obama chants of "Ready to go. ... Fired up!" fueled growing conspiracy talk on where his loyalties truly lie in the campaign. The Plank's Noam Scheiber (who dismissed the idea) comments: "I'm not sure I'm any closer to buying the idea of Trippi as a double-agent, but, at the very least, he's got a little 'splainin' to do this morning."

Matthew Yglesias adds: "Of course, while it would be inconceivable to me for Trippi to be hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign, one could imagine Barack Obama capturing the nomination and hiring Trippi for something or other so maybe Trippi has perfectly good reasons for playing footsie like this."

OBAMA: Thatcher, Reagan, Bush ... Obama?

Andrew Sullivan's Barack ObamaAtlantic piece is not exciting sympathetic voices:

• Charles Kaiser: "The bottom line here is that Barack is Andrew's latest infatuation. The fact that Sullivan's previous love objects have included Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan ... makes this endorsement slightly less exciting for the rest of us. Personally, despite some of his missteps, I'm still pulling for Barack."
• Ankush at Ezra Klein: "I should've taken Charles Kaiser's advice and skipped Andrew Sullivan's cover story for The Atlantic, about how Barack Obama is the second coming of Christ. It is a stunningly bad piece of work -- reductive, overwrought, bloated, and, perhaps above all, patronizing. ... The remarkable thing here is that I'm an admirer of Obama's, so I'm hardly opposed to people writing about how much they like him. But The Atlantic can do better than this -- much better than this."
• Atrios on Sullivan's "national consensus": "In other words, there's a sensible middle just waiting to be united around stuff... stuff Andy Sullivan believes! It's the "extreme haters on both sides" - those who don't agree with Andy Sullivan about stuff - who prevent the national unity torch from growing large. And if only there were a charismatic candidate who Andy could project all his hopes and dreams into then that candidate would be the uniter! Until he disappoints, and Andy gets a new crush.

More direct doubting of Obama from Ari Melber, this time on Iran: "Obama's Iran resolution aims to check the executive branch in two strokes. First, it purports to define the boundaries of past congressional action. Second, it reiterates the constitutional fact that the president cannot start a war without congressional approval. The first goal is likely to backfire and the second is irrelevant."

RICHARDSON: 2013 Or Bust

The Left Coaster's Ken Camp plugs Bill Richardson's new website 2013 Is Too Late playing off of Hillary Clinton's, Barack Obama's, and John Edwards' failure to commit to withdrawing all troops from Iraq before the end of their first term. Camp pitches: "Unless the war in Iraq is ended as Governor Richardson promises, you can forget the promises other candidates have made regarding universal healthcare, significant action on climate change and the reforms necessary to give our children the finest education system in the world. The money won't be there."

NM SENATE: So Um, Apparently Markos Doesn't Like Martin

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas posts internal Rep. Tom Udall (D) numbers showing Udall comfortably ahead of Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez and comments: "Everyone wants Chavez out of the primary, suggesting he run for one of the House seats opened up by this Senate race. Me, I'd rather see Chavez' career destroyed by Udall in this primary once and for all. The last thing we need is his corrupt ass in Washington in the House, stinking up the Democratic brand and making Latinos look bad. So I hope he's stupid enough to stay in the Senate race. I'll have fun seeing him go down in flames."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Luck, Strategy, And People Skills ... Not Bad Things To Have On A Campaign Either

Monopoly fan Tim Darling posts a "Surefire Strategy" to win at the classic board game and comments: "Monopoly is a game of luck, strategy, and people skills. No strategy will guarantee you a win; that's one of the reasons Monopoly is so interesting. In any given game, a newcomer can beat a lifetime champion. Still, there are a few strategic tips that came out of the computer simulations that will help you best play the odds: you may not win any given game, but in the long run, you'll come out ahead. The "people skills" element isn't captured here. But as a general rule, think about what your opponents want and see if you can engineer a trade with them that's a win/win for you both. That type of negotiating is as vital in Monopoly as it is in real life."

LEST WE FORGET: The End Is Near

The Huffington Post's Dave Hill catches up on his science reading:

Shockwaves rippled through the scientific community and also through most of my apartment today when I read a story on the Internet about a hammerhead shark in Omaha, Nebraska that had experienced a "virgin birth," which is to say that it totally gave birth to a baby hammerhead shark without ever having been banged before.
Scientists from all over the world have been studying the case of the virgin shark birth around the clock and have come to the conclusion that the female hammerhead shark of Omaha gave birth to the baby hammerhead shark through a process known in medical circles as parthenogenesis, which is a Greek word that apparently means "hammerhead shark birth in the absence of hammerhead shark banging, especially when the hammerhead shark in question is totally not a ho even though everyone used to think that but whatever." Greek is a seriously efficient language.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:33 PM

November 12, 2007

11/12: You Win Some, You Lose Some

The story of Barack Obama's entire relationship with the netroots could be seen in the mere nine hours that encompassed his 11/10 Jefferson-Jackson Dinner speech and his 11/11 Meet the Press performance. As much as they love the charisma he exudes when on stage by himself, and as much as they like his anti-Washington change message, he continues to disappoint on important issues to the community. First among them: Social Security. The netroots (Talking Points Memo in particular) spent a considerable amount of effort in '05 arguing that Social Security is not in crisis. Obama only losses support among bloggers when he frames his plans based on the assumption that is in serious peril.

Perhaps more damaging though is the loss of Obama's credibility as an anti-Iraq war leader. We first noticed chinks in the Obama-Iraq armor when we noticed a Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) press aide making sure Daily Kos readers knew some pro-Obama statements made by Feingold 3/06 did not apply to Obama's more recent Senate record on the war. Watching MTP 11/11 David Sirota blogs: "Obama wasn't just silent in 2004 on the war, he was silent in 2005, too. ... His people admit he could have been the moral leader against it, but decided not to, essentially out of deference to the Senate club's etiquette." We admit to having a overly netfocussed take on WH '08, but we believe that if Obama had Feingold's Senate record on Social Security and Iraq, this race would be a lot a closer.

DEM FIELD: If The MSM Wants A Race, They Will Get A Race

Looking at pre- and post- 10/30 debate polling, Open Left's Chris Bowers blogs: "Clinton is down, and her supporters seem to have moved to other candidates at roughly the same proportions as those candidates stand in the polls. ... it seems that Clinton was dropping a bit even before the debate. ... This tells me two things. First, there is a significant amount of potential movement left in the early state electorates, and a well-executed campaign combined with a little luck can still defeat Clinton ... Second, this is going to be a long and painful general election campaign no matter which Democrat wins, since the established media is still as potent as ever. Any notion that we have this general election in the bag, or that we have made significant inroads as an influence competitor to the established media, need to be strongly reconsidered now."

Commenting on similar data, MyDD's Todd Beeton writes: "Clinton still holds significant and largely unchanged leads on the experience and electability questions ... Obama has closed the gap on the "Able to bring change" question considerably ... Also, while this question wasn't asked in September, so there's no trendline, the Clinton team has got to be worried about the responses to the "Who's most trustworthy" question in the November poll. Here Obama leads with 26% to Clinton's and Edwards's 19%. This is where the whole "double talk" narrative may have really hurt her.

CLINTON: Amateur Hour

Hillary Clinton came in for only light netroots criticism on news that her campaign planted a questioner at a campaign stop in Newton, IA. Crooks and LiarsNicole Belle writes: "Now, I personally find the whole notion of planting reporters ridiculously cowardly on either side of the aisle, but the hypocrisy of these right wingers kills me. After all, if the media starts to castigate Hillary for planted questions, then they'd really have to respond to their own complacency as far as loyalty oaths to attend Bush town hall meetings and that most famous of planted reporters: Jeff Gannon."

Taylor Marsh adds: "Whether it's "at least one question" or "questions" as ABC reports, this is as stupid as it gets. An amateur mistake that you wouldn't expect from the Clinton team. The campaign will have to take this one on the chin. They deserve to."

Daily Kos' TomP wonders: "I wonder how long this has been going on? How many questions were planted? Remember Yearly Kos? A few people who attended her session told me that it looked like the questioners were pre-selected at her break out session. ... Why does this matter? It's a funny story, but by itself does not mean a lot. Campaigns try to manage their message."

CLINTON II: Percussionists For Hillary

Reporting from the Des Moines, IA, Veterans Memorial Auditorium on the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Garance Franke-Ruta comments on Hillary Clinton and her supporters: "Could Hillary Clinton have been any more stilted? I sat myself in the chilly balcony area with her supporters, where her junior campaign staff refused to say anything to me when I tried to make friendly small talk, not even telling me what they did, and the on cue beating of yellow noise-makers provided a background of loud, impersonal percussion. Her supporters had the miscellaneous appearance of the genuinely downtrodden or socially forgotten, unlike the hale and hearty college students and lively, well-to-do middle-class families in Obama's sections. Other than a few chants of 'Hillary, Hillary,' her supporters restricted themselves to beating their noise-makers mechanically."

OBAMA: Best With Stage To Himself

Netroots reaction to Barack Obama's J-J Dinner speech were uniformly positive:

• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Obama clearly had the best speech last night. What I liked most about it was that Obama finally seemed to find the right balance between being a unity candidate ... and throwing anti-Republican red meat to the base while at the same time actually expressing pride in being a Democrat. ... Did you notice that not once did Obama use his tired 'turn the page' line? ... Last night he debuted a much better slogan: 'change that America can believe in.' This line takes Obama's two strengths, the perception that he's a candidate of change and that he's honest and trustworthy, and merges them."
• Garance Franke-Ruta: "Barack Obama, on the other hand, finally gave the speech his supporters have been waiting for him to give all year. If anyone comes out of this dinner with The Big Mo, it will be him."
• Matthew Yglesias: "This seemed very strong to me. At times Obama's had difficulty combining a sufficient degree of partisan outrage against George W. Bush with an articulation of the idea that merely returning to the pre-Bush status quo isn't good enough. At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, he threaded the needle pretty nicely."
• TNR's Michael Crowley: "Barack Obama's speech at tonight's Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa took him back to the roots of his stardom. ... Obama appeared onstage alone, before a roaring auditorium crowd, delivering an oratorically ambitious speech. ... Obama also had the advantage of speaking last, giving his appearance an extra air of crescendo."
• Andrew Sullivan: "I also believe that it is good for the republic that the Democratic party regain its nerve and its soul again. Only Obama can do that. Only he still believes.
• IA Independent's Douglas Burns: "With more than 9,000 people in attendance Obama earned the loudest ovations, most sustained applause, and when he was first introduced, near the beginning of the dinner, the auditorium hit its energy apex. ... In the western reaches of the balcony Obama supporters filled the arena with timed back-and-forth chants of 'fired up, ready to go.'"

Despite Obama campaign insistence otherwise, some in the community claimed significant numbers of Obama supporters had been bussed in from IL. The Left Coaster's Jeff Dinelli: "Last week I noticed locals inviting people to sign up for a November 10th bus trip to Iowa. It was a puzzling idea, since the University of Illinois football team wasn't playing in Iowa yesterday ... Someone told me it was "some kind of a political trip," so I called around to a couple of Democratic offices and found out it was a Barack Obama supporter trip to the Jefferson Jackson fundraiser in Des Moines."

IA Independent's Burns also noticed some IL influence: "When Obama addressed the crowd, near the end of the night, he received some strong applause when he mentioned his experience in Chicago -- a clear sign that some had made the trip from the Windy City. ... The Obama campaign should have had its people remain silent during any reference to Chicago. Minor thing, though."

OBAMA II: The Social Security 'Crisis' Crisis

As great as Obama was 11/10, his 11/11 Meet the Press performance reminded many why Obama has failed to consolidate netroots support behind him. The two biggest issues hurting Obama: his claim that Social Security is in crisis, and his lack of leadership against the Iraq war. On Social Security:

• The Huffington Post's Dave Johnson: "Barack Obama is echoing the right's destructive narrative about Social Security being in crisis. ... Barack Obama, please realize that you are assisting the right's efforts to get rid of Social Security. Their strategy is to make the public think that the program is in trouble and then sweep in with their "solution." ... IS your heart in the right place? Social Security is not in trouble. Stop saying it is."
• Taylor Marsh: "Anyone thinking Mr. Obama is the anti-Hillary, so to speak, needs to pay attention and find another candidate. Quickly. ... Obama ... wants to hold hands with the wingnuts to save some fantasy Social Security 'crisis.'"
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "The exchange with Russert on Social Security was particularly damaging because Obama has made a point of calling out Senator Clinton for not speaking forthrightly on the so-called Social Security 'crisis.'"

On Iraq, David Sirota blogs: "Obama wasn't just silent in 2004 on the war, he was silent in 2005, too. ... So here's what I wonder: Is it a laudable thing that Obama basically kept quiet in 2004 for, as he basically said, the good of the Democratic ticket? Or is damnable, and should he have continued to push his party to stop the war?" Sirota later updates with a passage from Marc Ambinder's recent Atlantic article on Obama: "He could have been the moral voice, the moral authority on Iraq," one of Obama's closest advisers told me. "But he was just a freshman senator. It would have been presumptuous of him to take that lead."

Sirota comments: "Now, I have to say, that is pretty screwed up - and damnable. A war is going on - one that Obama opposes. His people admit he could have been the moral leader against it, but decided not to, essentially out of deference to the Senate club's etiquette. Without commenting on the original question of whether his silence in 2004 was laudable or damnable, I have to say that this Atlantic Monthly excerpt makes his silence in 2005 damnable, to say the least."

GOP VP: McCain - Lieberman Would Be Kristol's Dream Ticket

Bill Kristol's suggestion that the eventual GOP nominee embrace Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) as their VP was not warmly embraced. The Corner's Peter Wehner was the least dismissive: "It's an intriguing idea - and it would certain scramble the political chessboard. Whichever party wins in '08, let's hope Joe Lieberman plays a pivotal role on national-security matters. In the entire political world, there are not many who are better, or politically braver."

Also at The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru didn't see the point: "I'm not sure what the case for putting him on the ticket is. To prove that Republicans are willing to reach out to Democrats whom most Democrats hate? To show that Republicans are the hawkish party? I think people already know that."

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner blogs: "The idea, frankly, is baffling. Yes, Lieberman is a foreign policy hawk. He's probably even a neocon. Even to the extent that out-of-favor agenda is somehow the path to retaining the White House, however, it makes no sense to chose a backup quarterback who would install an entirely different domestic policy game plan were the starter to go out."

HUCKABEE: SoCon's Mr. Right All Along?

Reports that James Dobson is likely to endorse Mike Huckabee soon have some conservatives claiming Huckabee may be consolidating social conservatives. Soren Dayton blogs: "Friday, a bunch of Southern Baptist leaders endorsed Mike Huckabee. Now, Huckabee is a Southern Baptist pastor, so this might not seem surprising, but Huckabee is on the moderate side of the SBC world. ... That sounds like a consolidation of the religious right in a way that could be worth a good 5-10% in places like Iowa and South Carolina. ... Earlier on, I said that it seemed that the religious right had dated Mitt Romney, but decided to marry Fred Thompson. It appears that I spoke to soon. It seems that Fred might have jilted them at the altar, and they found a new person."

RedState's Erick Erickson reports from GA: "On the way out of church today, three different men in the church cornered me to ask me if I liked Huckabee. I told them I was afraid of his economic policies, but very much personally liked the guy. That was good enough for them. They'd heard Dobson was coming out for him. These guys have been sitting on the fence not writing checks. That sound you hear this week is the sound of evangelical Christians getting their checkbooks out."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt sees enough movement Huckabee's direction to warn: "[E]verybody likes Mike, but very few people --and zero political professionals who aren't on the payroll-- think he stands a chance against Team Hillary despite his claims to have been successfully battling the Clintons in Arkansas this past decade. The idea that a country tired of an evangelical former Texas governor in the White House who has pushed unpopular immigration policies might be persuaded to be enthusiastic about evangelical former Arkansas governor who is also pro-regularization of illegals is not just far fetched. It is hallucinatory.

MCCAIN: Nothing Succeeds Like Access

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff road on John McCain's Straight Talk Express 11/10 - 11 and explains: "High on the list of the grievances expressed against McCain by some of our conservative readers is the perception that he became the darling of the mainstream media during the 2000 campaign by expressing disdain for conservatives to reporters. ... After this weekend, though, I can offer a simpler explanation for why members of the mainstream media like McCain - the extraordinary access he provides and the good cheer with which he provides it."

Later Mirengoff reports from Barrington, NH: "McCain discusses four topics before moving on to questions: health care for veterans, Pakistan, spending, and Iraq. Pakistan seems like an odd choice. ...Later McCain will tell us that the only topics he always includes in his speeches are Iraq and spending, and that he likes to add subjects that are new and topical. ... Now it's question time. McCain had told us that he almost always gets questions about health care, immigration, and Iraq, and all three subjects come up early."

More Mirengoff: "The crowd clearly likes McCain, but I don't sense he has definitively won over the room. Take this for what it's worth, coming as it does from someone who until this weekend had zero experience on the campaign trail - I believe lots of people up here simply haven't made up their minds. Given the state of play, that's probably what McCain is hoping."

Also in NH, GraniteGrok posts excerpts from an internal campaign memo on McCain's strength in the state: "As more and more voters tune in to the race, we expect to have the same success converting undecideds into supporters. We need to grow our local organizations and turn your friends and neighbors into supporters too. If this conversion rate holds, we'll be taking the lead for good on, or even earlier than, January 8 - when we EXPECT the Primary to be held."

THOMPSON: He's Not Ron Paul

Fred Thompson's Social Security plan continues to receive positive conservative reviews. Captain's Quarters blogs: "Thompson's bold move on Social Security might put pressure on the rest of the field to start formulating their own detailed solutions." AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer writes: "From a conservative economic standpoint, the plan is not perfect. But it would mark a HUGE improvement over what we have now. It would extend the solvency of the system by many decades, and it would bolster private savings and investment."

NRO'sJim Geraghty reports "based on a cryptic message" that Thompson fans may be preparing their own Ron Paul like one day online fundraising push for 11/21.

The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez, however, posts an email from Draft Thompson's Tommy Oliver: "It's not some big fundraising day. It was an idea thrown out by a few of us who are in no way affiliated with the campaign. It was picked up in our forums and it's a day thrown out by just some of his supporters. Please stop referring to it like it's something the campaign is planning, because it's not. Using something his supporters planned to place more expectations on him is not fair to his campaign."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: In Related News, Alex Rodriguez Will Not Play For Less Than $350 Mil.

Marginal Revolution's Alex Tabarrok's brother explains why unions are so powerful in the entertainment business:

...unlike in most other unionized industries, it's the INDIVIDUAL members of the unions in the entertainment industry that the management / owners want to work with. For example, Tom Cruise is a member of SAG, and if the studios and producers want to make a film with Mr Cruise, and we all do, we have to come to terms with SAG. Similarly, Steven Spielberg is a member of the DGA, same issue. Though writers are not household names, it's the same issue, there are specific individuals who the studios want to be writing their TV shows and screenplays. It doesn't matter if Joe or John or Mary is stacking the boxes, flipping the burgers or ringing the cash registers so management can easily hire a non-union member to do the same job, in the film business we need to work with specific individuals who happen to be union members. Thus the power of those (comparatively) few empowers them all.

LEST WE FORGET: Some Might Argue His Descent Into Overwrought Obama Hagiography Is Already Complete

AmSpec Blog's John Tabin quotes Andrew Sullivan at length including: "I covered the Clintons for eight years. The one thing I learned about them is that they lie. It's reflexive to them; after decades of the lying that tends to infect the households of addicts, they don't have a normal person's understanding of truth and falsehood. They have an average sociopath's understanding of truth and falsehood."

Tabin predicts: "Say what you will about Sullivan, we can at least expect that, if Hillary wins, his attacks will be just as over-the-top as they've been in the Bush years. (If Obama were to win, I'd put money on Andrew following his mercurial Bush-era pattern exactly: descending into overwrought hagiography in the early years and then, at some point, turning on a dime.)"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:52 PM

November 10, 2007

Politics - Parallel Party Pushes Democrats

the following article appeard in National Journal's 11/10 print edition

After President Bush vetoed an expansion of a children's health program on October 3, Democratic leaders ramped up pressure on Republicans to override his rejection. A loose-knit army of online bloggers sprang into action -- but with a different focus. They targeted five wayward House Democrats who had not promised to vote with their party. After a flurry of telephone calls and newspaper advertisements, three of the five Democrats backed the override.

"We felt there was a little bit of hypocrisy in the Democrats' tactics," activist Howie Klein told McClatchy News Service. "Here they were with this expensive campaign to draw attention to Republicans who voted against the bill, but no one was saying anything about the Democrats who voted against it."

Whipping congressional votes into line is normally the province of political parties, but the aggressively liberal bloggers who nip at the heels of the Democratic Party are doing it. In fact, they have found that the Internet lets them run a parallel political operation without much money. And they often act without support from party leaders, as when MoveOn.org's September ad criticizing Gen. David Petraeus as "General Betray Us" forced Democratic presidential candidates to defend the U.S. commander in Iraq.

Freelance liberal activists -- who have dubbed themselves "the Net-roots" -- have usurped a broad range of traditional activities, says Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California (San Diego). In the textbook The Logic of American Politics, Jacobson and colleague Samuel Kernell list these functions of modern political parties:

* Recruit and train leaders.

* Help combine varying interests and groups into coalitions and help channel and constrain political conflict.

* Help foster political participation.

Each of these tasks has been taken on by Internet activists, Jacobson says. "The Net-roots are not the first group to do so," he adds. "Their efforts reflect the nature of the party. The Democrats are a diverse coalition. Competing factions within it are always trying to bring the party closer to their agenda."

Conservatives blog, of course, but none embraces the Net-roots label. Their touchstone is still talk radio more than the Internet.

When asked why they became political activists, many liberal bloggers cite a perceived lack of "progressive" voices in the media during the 2000 recount fight and the 2002-03 run-up to the Iraq war. They say that despite conventional wisdom about the "liberal" media, conservatives have successfully "worked the refs" for years. In fact, many liberal bloggers admire the message machine that conservatives have developed. In a Meet the Press interview to promote his book, Crashing the Gate, DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas described the conservative echo chamber this way: "If they want to reach the Wall Street base, they can talk to them through The Wall Street Journal editorial board. If they want to reach religious voters, they can talk to them through The 700 Club. Blue-collar workers: Rush Limbaugh and AM radio. They have the ability to reach everybody at any moment in time."

Net-roots are part of a broader echo chamber on the left. Washington think tanks Media Matters and the Center for American Progress have strong Web presences that often provide initial news items, which then spread through such hubs as Eschaton (whose primary author, Duncan Black, is now a Media Matters senior fellow), DailyKos, and Talking Points Memo. Moving west, Arianna Huffington's The Huffington Post provides a new-media platform for Hollywood voices, including Alec Baldwin, Laurie David, and Harry Shearer. The Huffington Post also serves as a blogging point of entry for Democratic lawmakers ranging from Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. People who don't read blogs pick up items through cable shows such as Countdown With Keith Olbermann and The Colbert Report. (From the purists' point of view, Jon Stewart's The Daily Show is too often off-message.)

Some blogs, such as Howard Dean consultant Jerome Armstrong's MyDD, put a sharp focus on electoral messaging. In 2006, bloggers coordinated links to articles critical of GOP candidates so that Google searches of a candidate's name would return a negative story close to the top of the page. This "Googlebombing" campaign was the brainchild of then-MyDD contributor Chris Bowers.

MyDD also performed more traditional message research. Seeing an opportunity to gain early insight into voter sentiment in 2006, MyDD raised money from readers to commission a poll of people who had voted in a June special election in California's 50th District in which Republican Rep. Brian Bilbray defeated Democrat Francine Busby, a women's studies professor. At the time, many bloggers, particularly those at Talking Points Memo, believed that Republican corruption was going to be the issue to ride in the autumn. MyDD's polling showed that most voters did not view one party as more trustworthy than the other. The group wrote a memo urging all Democrats to run against the Iraq war, based on the poll finding that 63 percent of Republicans believed that Bush had made significant mistakes in Iraq.

Like the parties' official campaign committees, the Net-roots began the 2006 and 2008 election cycles by trying to identify House and Senate races where they could best help Democrats. However, instead of choosing the candidates with the best polling numbers and fundraising prowess, national Net-roots blogs such as DailyKos, MyDD, and Swing State Project relied on local blogger buzz to pick candidates -- often based on such factors as a candidate's early opposition to the Iraq war, veteran status, or embrace of economic populism.

That led to several contested primaries. On the House side, the party openly campaigned against Net-roots favorite and 2004 nominee Jerry McNerney, instead supporting the more conservative Steve Filson, a former Navy pilot. McNerney defeated Filson handily in the California primary and went on to oust Republican Rep. Richard Pombo in the general election. Local blogs (notably Raising Kaine) gathered signatures and fundraising pledges to persuade Jim Webb to run for Senate in Virginia. They helped Webb to defeat the more experienced, establishment-backed telecom lobbyist Harris Miller in the primary and Republican Sen. George Allen in November.

Another theme in Moulitsas's Crashing the Gate is the need for Democrats to shift power away from single-issue advocacy groups, such as labor unions and those supporting abortion rights or the environment, and toward a broader progressive movement. This came to pass in the elections of Webb and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., who as strong supporters of gun rights could have been snubbed by establishment liberals.

Beltway consultants are also a frequent Net-roots target, and no organized Net-roots effort went after them more effectively than MyDD's AdWatch series critiquing 2006 Democratic candidates' television and radio ads. Unlike traditional media assessments, which focus on the veracity of ads, MyDD's efforts compared them with their California polling results. One of the most common blogger criticisms of early 2006 ads was that they were not partisan enough. Bloggers insisted that candidates clearly identify themselves as Democrats and hit Republicans hard for not holding Bush accountable.

Perhaps the most impressive 2006 Net-roots project was the "Use It Or Lose It" campaign, which pressured House Democratic incumbents in safe seats to transfer campaign cash to help challengers. Bloggers at MyDD, who spearheaded the drive, say they channeled more money to challenger races ($2.3 million) than they collected in their direct fundraising efforts through ActBlue ($2.2 million).

Labor unions are the classic example of independent forces performing party functions; they have been recruiting candidates, funding media campaigns, and turning out voters for generations. In 2006, the unions went up against the more independent Net-roots in the Connecticut Democratic primary fight between Sen. Joe Lieberman and cable executive Ned Lamont. Largely because of his success in securing jobs at the Groton naval base, Lieberman won the endorsements of the state AFL-CIO, Teamsters, and National Association of Government Employees. Lieberman lost to Lamont in the primary but, with labor support, he won the general election as an independent -- leaving Democrats with one less reliable vote in their Senate caucus.

Net-root endeavors such as the Connecticut campaign and the "General Betray Us" ad have often angered traditional liberals. New York Times columnist Frank Rich, a fierce Bush critic, described the ad as a "left-wing brand of juvenile name-calling" that "allowed the war's cheerleaders to hyperventilate about a sideshow."

The bloggers have not backed down. Promoting a video of Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., facing constituent hostility over his support of the Iraq troop surge, Open Left's Matt Stoller wrote, "Slowly, we're going to make this our own damn party." Jacobson warns, however, that such efforts "may make the party less viable by turning off moderate voters. Conservatives outnumber liberals in the electorate by a wide margin, so Democrats can't succeed without attracting most of the moderates."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:21 PM

November 09, 2007

11/9: Why Aren't They All (Or At Least The Better Funded Ones) Doing This?

Following the initial hits and then push back from the Hillary Clinton/no tip story, we are amazed that more campaigns do not have dedicated war room destinations like Team Clinton does. Now, we don't necessarily see a need for both Hillary Hub and The Fact Hub, but if you have the resources of say ... Barack Obama ... why not have a designated online destination for your online supporters to go for campaign approved instantaneous rebuttal to unflattering MSM stories?

DEM FIELD: Advantage Edwards

Responding to Hillary Clinton's announced vote for the Peru Free Trade Agreement David Sirota blogged: "Hold on to your hats, folks - this presidential race is about to get interesting." However, as Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat approvingly notes, Barack Obama has also announced his support for the deal: "I agree with Barack Obama on this issue. Anti-NAFTA rallying cries have been fun for some, but have little to do with where the bulk of non-petroleum US imports have come from -- China, Japan, South Korea and India. In essence, just as anti-immigration fervor reveals the ugly side of Know Nothing populism, blind opposition to free trade does as well."

Also linking trade and immigration (but siding with Sirota and not BTD), Open Left's Matt Stoller writes: "With the most recent election returns, it's clear that immigration isn't a Democratic killer. Both Progressive States new memo and Harold Meyerson point out that it's the economic anxiety caused by free trade agreements that causes the immigration backlash. ... Simon Rosenberg has been pushing on the other side of the immigration argument, making the push for Democrats to solidify the Hispanic vote. And that's smart, but such a strategy requires the coherence of going against corporate written trade agreements."

DEM FIELD II: You're Either With Bill Or Your With Hillary

Open Left's Chris Bowers links to AP reports of John Edwards distinguishing his Iraq position from Hillary Clinton on the grounds that the troops he would leave behind for counter terrorism missions would be based in Kuwait and not Iraq and responds: "I think he is correct to assert that there is a big difference as to where the troops are based. Personally, I think it is a bad idea to continue to conduct these missions in Iraq at all, since they serve as a key terrorist recruiting tool."

Bowers continues: "And it is kind of irritating that Obama remains so enigmatic on this subject. It would be much easier for both Edwards and Obama to successfully attack Clinton on this subject if they held Bill Richardson's position on Iraq."

CLINTON: She Did Survive

TAPPED hosted a debate on Hillary Clinton's electability claims 11/8. Tom Schaller started things off: "Why are Edwards and Obama not challenging Hillary on this claim? Has she, in fact, proved she knows how to beat the Republicans? ... She surely has a lot of experience fighting them, but that does not mean she knows how to beat them? ... Bill Clinton fought the Republicans but the GOP was stronger, not weaker, when they left office in 2001 than the Republicans were when the Clintons arrived in 1993.

Dana Goldstein responded: "While I think there's a lot to be said for this argument as historical interpretation, I don't believe it's a winning campaign strategy. "Progressive institution-building" has become a major concern for liberal funders, journalists, and politicos, but the average Democratic primary voter simply isn't thinking about it."

Ezra Klein then sided with Schaller: "Clinton's presidency abetted the rise (and, to be sure, fall) of Newt Gingrich, saw the Democrats lose the Congress for the first time in 40 years, failed to produce a successor, and ended with the ascendance of George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, and so forth. ... In other words, the Clintons didn't beat the villains. They simply survived them."

EDWARDS: This Just In ... Television Works

Open Left's Mike Lux reports: "New polling I've seen this week seems to show Edwards' TV ads have stabilized his situation and kept him within shouting range of Clinton and Obama. One of those same polls also shows confirmation of what I had seen from some private polls that Edwards is strong enough in the 2nd choice race to pick up a lot of ground on caucus night. This combination of factors has Edwards' position much strengthened."

OBAMA: The Man With The Plans

Commenting on Barack Obama's new focus on pension plans AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris writes: "As a 40-something year old, I ask, what the heck is a pension plan? I remotely know a few old time IBMers who have pension plans but that's about it. I can't think of a single person in my group of friends of my generation or younger who will ever see a pension plan. ... There's plenty to work with around individual retirement plans and that's our future, so talk to us. We're listening, but need to hear something better than problems that have existed for decades and are about the past."

In more positive Obama blogging Matthew Yglesias likes Obama's "continue funding for Pakistan in the Foreign Operations bill in the areas of counter-terrorism funding, public education, health, micro-enterprise development, humanitarian assistance, and democracy and rule of law programs" plan. Yglesias adds: "Basically, you'd be pressure the Pakistani military to pressure Musharraf to get back on a path to civilian rule. As I say, seems like a decent idea for the short-term."

GOP FIELD: Good News For Rudy

RedState polled readers on "What should be our top specific policy interest for the GOP POTUS candidates?" The top three vote getters: Appoint strict constructionist judges - 35%; Use all measures to stop Iran from going nuclear - 13%; Make the Bush tax cuts permanent - 11%

GIULIANI: Bad News For Rudy

There was not a ton of conservative commentary on the indictment of Rudy Giuliani friend/ex-NYC police commissioner Bernie Kerik, but what there was was not positive. Michelle Malkin blogs: "The grass-roots conservative base is sick and tired of cronyism and open-borders arrogance-two traits that dominate the Bush White House, two traits on naked display in the intertwined fates of Rudy Giuliani and Bernie Kerik, two traits that dangerously undermine public confidence and public safety."

NRO's Jim Geraghty writes: "I actually think the Bernie Kerik factor is "priced-in" to Giuliani's numbers. The moral and legal failings of Kerik have been out there since 2005, and in that time, Giuliani has become and has held his position as frontrunner in the GOP field."

In more positive Giuliani blogging, reactions from Pat Robertson's endorsement are still trickling in. The Corner's Kate O'Beirne reports: "Just back from being with some committed conservatives, veterans all when it comes to ideological battles. The consensus was that Pat Robertson's endorsement helps Rudy - not because he commands the allegiance of the "easily led" but because it provides a significant "Exhibit A" rejoinder to the charge that Christian conservatives simply won't support Giuliani."

The Corner's Larry Kudlow adds: "Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani is huge. It tells social conservatives that it's okay to vote for Rudy. It also shows that evangelicals are divided on the race. There's no monolithic movement in favor of any major candidate. This is really important. It means no third-party candidacy from the Christian right."

Finally, The Brody File reminds us why he hasn't commented on the Robertson nod: "I know a lot of you are wondering why I haven't written about the Pat Robertson endorsement. Let me explain. Since CBN is a non-profit 501c3 organization and does not support or oppose candidates for public office, I simply cannot comment on it through CBN television or Internet outlets."

ROMNEY: Bounce Or Thud Out Of IA?

The Corner's David Freddoso looks at recent polling showing Romney up in IA and NH as well as gaining ground in SC and comments: "If he wins those three, he will win Florida and do well enough on Feb. 5 to take it away. We'll have to see what the next poll looks like in Michigan, but I'm feeling more confident about the first part of my prediction."

RCP Blog's Steven Stark links to Marc Ambinder reports that Mike Huckabee "is essentially moving into Iowa for the next two months" and comments on Romney's chances: "That means that for all intents and purposes, Iowa now looks like it is in the process of getting reduced to a Huckabee vs. Romney contest, with the winner getting the pole position to become the alternative to Giuliani or McCain. ... the better strategy now might be for the others simply to write it off and head elsewhere. If all Romney does is beat Huckabee in Iowa, what kind of bounce will he get out of that?"

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff is also seeing cracks in Romney's IA-NH armour: "Assume that Romney wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, and let's throw in another early state or two (say, South Carolina and/or Michigan). Would this make Romney unstoppable? Lots of astute folks seem to think so, but I'm not sure. Much would depend, I suspect, on how Romney is faring in the head-to-head match-up with Hillary Clinton at that point. ... it may be quite difficult for Romney to seal the deal with Republicans unless either he gets significantly closer to Hillary in the head-to-head or Hillary pulls away from Giuliani and McCain.

THOMPSON: A Full Minute Man

Campaign Standard's Richelieu adds his two cents on Fred Thompson's IA ad buy: "Solid first spot from Big Fred Thompson. The spot that counts is the :60, which is a smart but expensive move. ... The :30 version is weaker; Fred needs the time the :60 gives him. ... Although Thompson is vulnerable on the 100 percent pro-life stuff - he has yet to clearly explain what specific pro-life legislation he'd support at the state level - the overall message in the ad is strong and the spot is very well produced. It will do him plenty of good among Iowa caucus goers."

At NRO, Jim Geraghty failed to catch the Country Music Awards despite a tip from a 'Thompson Associate' but looking at coverage, he is not impressed with Thompson 'buzz'. Geraghty writes: "While Thompson's attendance has been mentioned - he was a guest of John Rich of Big & Rich, who apparently has "Vote Fred 08" on his guitar - he didn't appear to make a huge splash."

NM SENATE: What More Does Tom Want?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas commissioned a Research 2000 poll for NM Senate likely candidates including the following matchups:

Rep. Heather Wilson (R) 45
Albuquerque Mayor Marty Chavez (D) 42

Rep. Heather Wilson (R) 44
LG Dianne Denish (D) 43

Rep. Heather Wilson (R) 38
Rep. Tom Udall (D) 55

Markos comments: "Run, Udall, Run!" MyDD's Jonathan Singer links and adds: "Lo and behold, Tom Udall, who has been subject to a robust draft effort, is by far the strongest Democrat looking at this open seat race. ... With Udall seemingly the strongest candidate -- and a strong progressive, to boot -- and Marty Chavez already going negative even before Udall jumps in the race, the time is right to head over to DraftUdall.com or the Draft Udall Act Blue page to show your support for the Congressman and to let him know you want him to run."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why Centrism Will Never Die

Commenting on Blue Dog centrism, Atrios blogs: "Let's be clear that "centrism" is, for the most part, a cosmetic pose for the benefit of Beltways journalists who know that The Most Important Thing Is To Be A Centrist."

More Atrios: "In terms of what those centrists actually support in terms of policy, I'd say there are roughly 3 kinds of things. Occasionally they live up to their name and push through genuine compromises between left and right. More often than that they push fake "split the baby" compromises which achieve nothing genuine but have the appearance of doing "something." ... And, most often, "centrism" is used as a cover for what amounts to bipartisan endorsement of corruption in the name of furthering the Might and Majesty of the establishment powers."

LEST WE FORGET: Follow The Nerdherd

Following links from The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, we find tips from superstar chef Anthony Bourdain on how to find the best restaurant for you in new cities: "take the city you want to go to and just google up some restaurant names that serve the dish you're after. Then go to chowhound or another foodie site, and rather than asking about restaurants, you put up an enthusiastic post talking about how you just had the best whatever you're looking for at one of these restaurants. ... At that point, what drivingblind likes to call the nerdfury will begin. Posters will show up from nowhere to shower you with disdain, tell you how that place used to be good but has now totally sold out and - most important to your quest - will tell you where you would have gone if you were not some sort of mouth breathing water buffalo."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:41 PM

November 08, 2007

11/8: A Pat On The Head

Reading over conservative reactions to Pat Robertson's Rudy Giuliani endorsement, we are convinced the nod will help Giuliani more among GOP primary voters concerned about Giuliani's general election chances than it will with social conservatives. Nobody seems to believe Robertson still carries much weight among rank and file evangelicals (the names James Dobson and Rick Warren keep coming up in that regard), but what the endorsement does show is that Giuliani can win over socon leaders with his promise to appoint only constructionist judges. If Giuliani can show that it is unlikely any social conservative leaders will mount a campaign to keep their supporters at home 11/08, the stronger he establishes himself as the most likely to beat Hillary Clinton.

GIULIANI: Which Body Builder Will Endorse Rudy Next?

Rudy Giuliani won mixed reviews from conservatives for his Pat Robertson endorsement. First the good:

• The Corner's Rich Lowry: "Just talked to a top social conservative. He says, hinting that more prominent social cons will end up going with Rudy, "There's plenty more where this comes from." ... On conservative evangelical voters and Giuliani: "If Rudy is the nominee, they're going to vote for him-period."
• Hot Air: "If anything, the Robertson endorsement is more significant than the [Paul] Weyrich endorsement that the Romney camp won earlier in the week. Both endorsements strike me as wiser than the threat to either sit home or support a third party bid if Giuliani is the nominee."
• The Corner's John Miller: "The Robertson endorsement of Giuliani is a reminder that the Evangelical interest in politics and public policy goes beyond abortion - for many, the war on Islamofascism has a religious dimension. ... Many secular Republicans believe that Giuliani is the best anti-terror, national-security presidential candidate. That some Evangelicals agree with them, and are willing to forgive differences on domestic matters, is less of a shock than it may seem at first."

The bad:

• Captain's Quarters: "While I'm certain it will help Giuliani make the sale to some social conservatives, it strikes me as rather bizarre. After all, Robertson inhabited the lunatic-fringe Right for quite some time before he suggested assassinating Hugo Chavez in 2005. It's not exactly the kind of statement that lends itself to an image of practical, tough leadership that Rudy normally projects."
• Riehl World View: "I'm not an evangelical Christian and have never cared much about who Robertson endorses. If anything, I'd rather see him out of politics than at the side of a perspective Republican nominee. And while I realize Rudy needed the help with the Christian Right, Robertson abandoned his principles to support Rudy. That's a fact and not surprising to me. The surprise could be that this hurts Rudy more with Independents than he might think."
• The Corner's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "From one D.C. vet: "opportunism in the pursuit of power trumps principle." ... UPDATE: Said D.C. vet e-mails: "Google Charles Taylor Pat Robertson."
• Laura Ingraham via NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I like all the Republicans running, I really do ... but get out! ... Here's my view: get ready to be thrown off that train at 65 miles an hour because that's what's going to happen to Pat Robertson. That's my view."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "Is Pat Robertson A Sell-Out? Robertson, the son of a senator, has always been more of a political operator than James Dobson. ... The religious right has for years been split between idealists and those who favor a frontrunner strategy in the GOP nomination race to ensure a place at the table."

And the ambivalent:

• Campaign Standard's Richelieu: "Pat Robertson has taken some time off from claiming to set astounding weight-lifting records and decided to shoulder what could become an even heavier burden: convincing Christian conservatives that Rudy Giuliani shares their values on social issues. ... I think in the long run a Robertson endorsement will prove a very mixed blessing. First, it will put Rudy and abortion in the spotlight. ... Second, the more pro-life-centric candidates will see this endorsement as a blatant attempt at a daylight robbery of "their voters" by Rudy and his New York heist crew. ... Third, Robertson is at heart a carny and a flake. Rudy will now have to wear him like a hat, gathering unwelcome media attention."
• The Corner's Yuval Levin: "It's worth noting that Robertson has actually been praising Giuliani for a long time, and saying he should be president since at least 2005. That doesn't make it any less weird, though."
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "I would question the impact of any one person's endorsement. If Paul Weyrich lines up for Romney and Robertson for Rudy and Right to Life folks for Thompson is it all a wash? And after all, when real voters get to see the candidates live(granted, most don't) as they did at the FRC's Value Forum, sometimes they just choose who they like, in that case Huckabee."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Here a call from a Christian publishing executive to yesterday's show matters. The exec coolly noted that when trying to sell books in the Christian market, the key "influencers" in terms of importance are (1)the Southern Baptist Convention, (2)James Dobson, (3)The Willow Creek network, (4)Rick Warren and his network of 450,000 pastors, and (5)Pat Robertson. With the top four on the sidelines, Robertson clearly has to help Giuliani in the primaries, right? Well, it can't hurt, but neither do I think it helps very much."

The Corner's Byron York scored a post-endorsement Giuliani interview. When asked if social conservatives would believe in his pledge to appoint strict conservatives to the court Giuliani replied: "If I was going to try to fool them, I would just change my positions."

NRO's Jim Geraghty tracked down Gary Bauer for his reaction: "Those leaders who are endorsing are going through the same thought process that a lot of conservatives around the country are wrestling with ... it's clear to everybody that a Hillary Clinton presidency with Democratic control of the House and Senate would be a disaster no matter what kind of conservative you are."

Bauer on whether socons will turn out for Giuliani: "He's the toughest candidate to do that on. It would require a sell job that goes beyond anything he's done up until now. It probably would mean very specific assurances on a handful of key things that people that would want to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt. But I think it can be done."

MCCAIN: We Didn't Even Know Brownback Still Existed

Bill Kristol "writes from the road" with his reaction to both the Pat Robertson/Rudy Giuliani and Sam Brownback/John McCain endorsements: "McCain got the better of this one. Brownback is a human-rights-supporting representative of much that is admirable about religious conservatism. Robertson is a currying-favor-with-dictators voice from the past. Does Rudy really want his support?"

Townhall's Matt Lewis comments on McCain's score: "But regardless of why Brownback endorsed McCain, his endorsement could help McCain with social conservatives in places like Iowa -- and also help provide an actual Iowa organization for him to use. If McCain finishes second or third in Iowa, and then first in New Hampshire (which is not beyond the realm of possibility), who knows what happens?"

IA Independent's Jay Wagner reports, however, that "Brownback Supporters Say They Won't Automatically Support McCain." More Wagner: "Iowans who supported Brownback's bid seemed content with the decision to endorse McCain, but none of the activists interviewed by Iowa Independent said it would immediately translate to support from them."

At RedState, Adam C tries to explain McCain's recent resurgence: 1) McCain polls better against Clinton than any other Republican, including Rudy. ... 2) McCain staunch support of the mission of our troops in Iraq has rekindled some love (and muted some of the hate) that conservatives have felt toward the Senator. ... 3) McCain's heroic story still lends him unrivaled credibility on military affairs and unequaled respect among those who disagree with him on some issues. ... 4) As the Republican candidates all seem to be flawed in some respects, Republicans seem to be reevaluating McCain. ... 5) Sen. McCain is increasingly and surprisingly likely to be a candidate that doesn't cause a chunk of Republican voters to run to a third party. ... On immigration, McCain always supported increased border security and a path to legalization for current illegal immigrants."

THOMPSON: Tourniquet Needed

RedState's Erick Erickson admits he's a "Fred guy" and then goes on to advise the Fred Thompson campaign: "First, Fred needs to stop the bleeding of social cons from his ranks based on his Meet the Press appearance and his comments. It's not what he said so much as how he said it. ... What I take issue with Fred on is focusing on the girl getting arrested for the abortion. That plays in to every anti-life stereotype ever made about the pro-life community. He should know better. His record reflects that he does. So, again, first Fred needs to stop the bleeding and firm up social conservative support. ... Second, Fred needs to beat Huckabee down in Iowa."

GOP FIELD: The Corner Is Not In Anyone's Corner

Responding to an emailers accusation that The Corner shows "barely covert support" for Rudy Giuliani, another Corner reader emails Jonah Goldberg: "Lemme see. K-Lo's for Romney (as am I-full disclosure). Ramesh is for McCain. You're still neutral, as is Rich Lowry, as is Mark Steyn (I believe). Derb (in his less lucid moments) seems to be a Paulistinian."

Goldberg adds: "I agree, though this does leave out John Pod (now sadly departed from the Corner), Rick Brookhiser and Andy McCarthy, all of whom have put their chips on Rudy. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. I could live with a Giuliani win, perhaps (time will tell) happily. But, the idea that NR or even the Corner is monolithically behind Rudy is simply not true and certainly runs counter to many of the complaints we've gotten from other readers."

Over at RedState, Erick Erickson explains why he sees WH '08 as a Mitt Romney/Rudy Giuliani competition only: "Mike [Huckabee] and Fred [Thompson] are going to be fighting each other for the serious social conservatives. Fred did himself no favors on Sunday in a discussion I actually thought was very good. Evangelicals who were readily committing to Fred are now breaking up with him and flocking to Mike. What Fred could have solidified, he's not going to have to fight for with Mike. That means Mike and Fred are going to spend their time fighting each other for a set of voters who may get so fed up that they stay home.

CLINTON: What The MSM Giveth...

First establishing that Hillary Clinton's "decline" in recent polling began before 10/30's MSNBC debate, Open Left's Chris Bowers blogs: "In short, Clinton is now down a bit because the press told everyone for several days that, because of the attacks, poor debate performance and by "playing the gender card," she should be down. And so, they can move on from the boring, played-out inevitability narrative. .... I imagine most people reading this blog are either happy that Clinton is somewhat down. ... However, they should be careful what they wish for. In this case, what appears to be a Clinton drop in the polls was largely fueled by the same media machine that, most of the time, happily reinforces Republican narratives as conventional wisdom.

Matthew Yglesias agrees: "Readers are probably aware that I'm not exactly heartbroken over the apparent tightening of the Democratic primary race in the polls, but I agree with Chris Bowers that the main causal mechanism here appears to be a fundamentally unfair media narrative."

Pushing back against the MSM narrative, TPM's Greg Sargent makes the case that the AP mischaracterized Bill Clinton's "Swiftboat" defense of HRC.

CLINTON II: If Ever There Was A Love Hate Relationship

Author David Mizner posts a diary at Daily Kos asking: "Why has the Blogosphere Accepted Hillary?" Mizner asserts: "Bad but true: the blogosphere has not, and will not, oppose Hillary Clinton."

Singled out in the diary, Chris Bowersfires back : "However, in this case, I felt the need to speak out because of the hilarity of the argument presented. I mean, seriously, using Matt Stoller as an example of someone who has accepted Clinton, and isn't sufficiently speaking out against her flaws? Seriously? Matt has actually appeared in a television commercial attacking Hillary Clinton, something which I think can be said of about ten people in the entire country this cycle."

Mentioned in Mizner's diary as a reliable anti-Hillary voice, David Sirota blogs on HRC and trade: "My guess is that Clinton will vote against the first part of the NAFTA expansion -- the Peru Free Trade Agreement. ... my guess is that what's going on is that she has told the lobbyists, corporate executives and other Big Money interests financing her presidential run that she'll stay quiet in the lead up to the vote ... Then, when its clear the deal is going to sail through because folks like her haven't stepped up and been leaders, she'll quietly cast her vote against it ... what this really is is Triangulation 2.0. And, as I said, it's unprincipled and smarmy -- the opposite of, ya know, leadership."

EDWARDS: Trippi As ABC Mastermind?

John Edwards stepped up anti-Hillary Clinton rhetoric is beginning to inspire some conspiracy theories. The Left Coaster's Jeff Dinelli blogs: "Only six months ago advisor Joe Trippi joined the Edwards campaign, and the argument could be made this new pitbull strategy for Edwards has at least a little to do with Trippi's presence. ... Here's the catch: Trippi is close friends with Obama advisor David Axlerod. The theory goes something like this: Axlerod and Trippi decide Edwards can't possibly win, so Axlerod sends Trippi to Edwards' campaign to put on a full-blown attack, and like a suicide bomber, Edwards blows up his own campaign, dragging Hillary down in the process with a rallying cry of 'Hillary Must Not Win.' ... Hey, stranger things have happened."

OBAMA: Let The Boomer Battles Begin

The Brody File has video his interview with Barack Obama in Bettendorf, Iowa. Subtitles include: Obama on Gay Marriage, Abortion; Obama on Hillary; Obama on Importance of Iowa; Obama on Controversial Muslim Email; Obama on Gay Marriage, Abortion; and Obama on Romney and the Republicans.

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat praises Obama's consistency on immigration and licenses: "The one candidate who spoke clearly and correctly on this issue was Barack Obama. He explained very well why offering drivers licenses to undocumented aliens is good policy. He refused to pander to the xenophobia still present in the Democratic Party. Good for Obama. I hope he sticks to it in the face of this ugly side of the Democratic Party."

Andrew Sullivan notes that Obama has adopted "the central thrust" of Sullivan's Obama slurp-a-thon. Sullivan quotes from a 11/7 Obama speech: "I think there's no doubt that we represent the kind of change that Senator Clinton can't deliver on and part of it is generational. Senator Clinton and others, they've been fighting some of the same fights since the '60's and it makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done."

Oh, and Andrew still really, really hates Hillary.

11/6: Immigration Matters Except When It Doesn't

Looking at results from VA KY ME OH NJ NY MS and PA DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas blogs: "Republicans have Louisiana and Indianapolis. We've got the rest of the country." Judging from the critical nature of most conservative blogging, Markos appears to be right. Robert Bluey responds to the RNC's post-11/6 memo touting victories in LA Gov., MS Gov., and defeats of Dem sponsored ballot initiatives and responds:

It certainly sounds impressive. But aside from Jindal's win and the upset victory in Indianapolis, I'm not exactly seeing how these results translate into a good things for the GOP in 2008. After all, the RNC glossed over the two major setbacks on Tuesday - the loss of the governor's mansion in Kentucky and the Virginia Senate. ... Instead of gloating, I'd rather see the RNC use its resources to recruit candidates and raise money - two areas where Democrats are significantly outpacing the GOP.

Patrick Ruffini was also highly critical of GOP efforts, focussing on NoVA: "First: It's time to fire the consultants who ran the same ImmigrationTaxesImmigrationTaxes cookie cutter race in every district, using the same message that killed Jerry Kilgore in Northern Virginia two years ago. Second: Cutting and running from the GOP is even worse. Jeannemarie Devolites Davis' anti-gun ad flopped, leading to the most lopsided unseating of the night. Didn't 2006 teach us that there is no refuge for the Chafees and DeWines of the world when the GOP fails to advance an aggressive agenda? ... It's time to say what needs to be said. Whether they were running to the right (Cuccinelli) or to the left (Devolites Davis), Republican Senate incumbents were running campaigns out of touch with the Northern Virginia electorate, whose bugaboos right now are traffic congestion and education."

Moving to more specific issues, Fire Dog Lake's Pachacutec links to WaPo and NYT stories downplaying the impact immigration had on the election and blogs: "Sorry, but until I see real data that says voters in NY were actually moved to vote based on immigration or opposition to Spitzer's plan, I'll remain of the opinion, confirmed by results all over and from the past, that the scary brown people code language moves votes among the racist fringe and not among Democrats, nor among liberal/progressives. These are not votes we're ever going to get and trying to pretend we should want them is political malpractice and moral suicide."

Also reading the NYT, Mickey Kaus quotes from the article: "In most of those areas where Mr. Spitzer's licensing proposal moved to the forefront of the campaign, Democrats were able to cauterize the issue by publicly breaking with the governor, harshly criticizing the plan and in some cases threatening to join lawsuits challenging it." Kaus comments: "Similarly, immigration semi-amnesty didn't stop Dems from taking control of the U.S. House in 2006 partly because many Democrats distanced themselves from the proposal."

Also parsing the results for immigration nuggets, NRO's Jim Geraghty reports: "A Virginia Campaign Spot reader noted that even the Democratic ads made their candidates sound tough on illegal immigration. The issue requires contrast to be electorally powerful; maybe voters aren't convinced that local Democrats will be any different on the issue than local Republicans."

The Corner's Mark Krikorian adds: "The center of the contest for the senate was Fairfax County ... Immigration just wasn't all that salient there, but where it was salient, it worked: the chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors, for instance, who led the high-profile effort to pass a tough anti-illegal immigration ordinance, easily won reelection ... Message for 2008 candidates: immigration is a political winner when it's highly salient, but it can't compensate for a lackluster campaign."

On the left, TAPPED's Ezra Klein reports: "Was just on a conference call about yesterday's elections in Virginia, and the consensus, at least among the assembled Democratic pollsters, was that the immigration issue had really flopped for the Republicans, and actually harmed them. The pollsters said that the election became a contest between, on the Republican side, an issue, and on the Democratic side, a leadership style. So the Republicans ran on a crackdown and the Democrats ran on problem solving, technocratic governance, etc. The latter won out."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas links to WaPo's right of NoVA and comments: "Here we have evidence that the issue wasn't a killer -- traditional Democratic issues trumped immigration -- while Republican demonization of those scary brown people will kill their long-term electoral prospects by alienating key, fast-growing, immigrant communities. In other words, while the issue is a certain long-term loser, it doesn't even have short term benefits for the GOP.

MD 04: They Did It For Nancy

The Color of Change, MyDD, Swing State Project, Americablog, Dailykos, Digby, Firedoglake, Atrios, Crooks and Liars, DownwithTyranny and Openleft coalition reached their $100K goal for Donna Edwards 11/7. Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher writes: "I would also like to give special thanks to Nancy Pelosi for turning her back on Matt Stoller. Way to go. Really, without that brittle, frosty smile and rude dismissal of someone who really is just trying to take part in the democratic process, it just would not have been so easy. This one's for you, Madame Speaker!"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Where Would The Writers Be With Out Them?

Commenting on a law suit filed by five conservative authors against Eagle Publishing over book sales, Atrios comments: "[I]t's hard to perceive Regnery's basic operating model as being anything other than beneficial for the authors involved. It's basically what crazy people like me used to point out until we stopped bothering, that they use, uh, interesting practices to force their books onto the bestseller lists so as to give them maximum publicity/free advertising and promotion. And now the authors are upset. Funny."

LEST WE FORGET: Now That's A Gender Card

Reuters asks Borat who he favors for WH '08: "I cannot believe that it possible a woman can become Premier of US and A - in Kazakhstan, we say that to give a woman power, is like to give a monkey a gun - very dangerous. We do not give monkeys guns any more in Kazakhstan ever since the Astana Zoo massacre of 2003 when Torkin the orang-utan shoot 17 schoolchildrens. I personal would like the basketball player, Barak Obamas to be Premier."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:43 PM

November 07, 2007

11/7: Change Agent Wanted

Parsing down ballot results from 11/6, First Read notes and asks: "[I]t seems the electorate may be showing signs of simple distrust in government. Voters don't think government can accomplish the things it claims it can do with extra money, whether that money is a loan (as in New Jersey), new taxes (in Oregon), or simply shifting tax dollars (in Utah). Is it voter anger or distrust? And how will voters define change? Anecdotally, one can sense the yearning for some outsider white knight when it comes to the presidential but do any of the current candidates fit this mode?"

In a not unrelated story, Glenn Greenwald attempts to explain the Ron Paul phenomenon: "While Barack Obama toys with the rhetoric of challenging conventional wisdom, Paul's campaign -- for better or worse -- actually does so, and does so in an extremely serious, thoughtful and coherent way. And there are a lot of people who, more than any specific policy positions, are hungry for a political movement which operates outside of our rotted political establishment and which fearlessly rejects its pieties, even if they disagree with some or even many of its particulars."

We couldn't agree more. There was a huge opening for Obama to connect with voters distrustful of establishment government, but for whatever reasons he has failed. Change is clearly the name of the game in '08 and so far no one is capturing it.

GOP FIELD: What About Men Voters Searching For The Right Woman?

Kate O'Beirne hosted a National Review sponsored "Women Voters and the Right Guy" forum 11/6 at the National Press Club.The panel included Barbara Comstock of the Romney campaign, Karen Hanretty of the Thompson campaign, Jill Hazelbaker of the McCain campaign, and Katie Levinson of the Guiliani campaign. AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin reports: "[I]n a nutshell we saw a microcosm of the race: Romney is running on the three legged stool while his opponents make the argument he is not a credible messenger. Rudy runs on leadership while his opponents focus on his positions on social issues. Thompson runs on an aura of comfort and McCain on foreign policy expertise. Now, if the candidates were only as polished, likeable and effective as these advisors the GOP would have 2008 in the bag."

GIULIANI: First They Came For The Street Vendors...

Davis Adesnik pokes fun at TNR's John Judis' case that Rudy Giuliani exhibits "a reluctance to cede power and a contempt for the democratic process." Adesnik blogs: "It reminds me of that famous poem by Martin Niemoller about the Third Reich. First they came for the street vendors, and nobody protested. Then they came for the jaywalkers and nobody protested. Then they came for the Art Museum and nobody protested. Finally, they came for me and there was nobody left to protest."

At The Corner, Rich Lowry critiques Giuliani's 'two stool' (free-market economics and a strong national defense) electoral strategy: "He ... proposes fundamentally changing the successful Republican coalition of the last 30 years. Why is he doing this? Well, maybe he really believes it. Otherwise, it is self-destructive and unnecessary. Rudy's speech at the Values Voters summit a few weeks ago shrewdly emphasized all his common ground with social conservatives. He should be saying that there are three pillars to the GOP coalition-free market economics, national defense, and social conservatism-and he's going to keep them intact, even if he doesn't always agree with the social cons. But he's not."

MCCAIN: Don't Call It A Comeback

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti links to a recent John McCain anti-ethanol speech in IA and comments: "A friend notes that this speech may be laying the predicate for McCain's abandonment of his Iowa campaign. If McCain then devotes his full resources to New Hampshire, this friend further notes, it is possible he will repeat his 2000 victory and - depending of course (as assumed) on the Iowa result five days before - be in a position to capture the Republican nomination. It's a risky strategy. But the reward is great."

At The CornerDavid Freddoso notes Team McCain "is excited over two new national polls that show him moving ahead of Fred Thompson. His problem, of course, is money.

At Open Left, Chris Bowers links to recent polling showing that while "overall Democrats support withdrawal by a 95% - 4% margin" 12% still believe McCain "would do the best job handling the situation in Iraq." [among GOPers McCain (33%) finishes behinds Rudy Giuliani (36%) on the same question] Bowers laments: "This is very disheartening. If voter education in one of our smallest and most heavily targeted states on the biggest issue of our time is this difficult, or even rendered impossible because of the willingness of so many people to set aside their own judgment, then what is to be done?"

PAUL: Who Will Pass The Paul Test In NH?

Even after his impressive 11/5 fundraising haul, conservatives are still not embracing Ron Paul, but they are busy handicapping how he might affect the race:

• The Corner's David Freddoso: "So here's what a good run by Ron Paul looks like: He runs ads and spends a lot of time in New Hampshire. ... Meanwhile, Hillary becomes a prohibitive favorite on the Democratic side, and so the unaffiliated voters decide they will skip their boring primary and vote for Paul in the GOP primary. ... At that point, Paul's supporters run another big Internet fundraiser ... Other conservative candidates (Thompson, Tancredo, Huckabee) fizzle in New Hampshire, and Paul (along with Romney, probably) becomes one of the beneficiaries."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "There are two ways Paul could affect the race ... First, any top-tier candidate who finishes behind Paul in New Hampshire or Iowa will face increased pressure to depart from the race, even if Paul didn't actually take votes from them. Second, a respectable showing by Paul will create a narrative that a critical mass of Republicans have turned against the war, even if much of his support doesn't come from traditional Republicans."
• The Corner's Mark Steyn: "The more it looks like Hillary's a shoo-in, the more "independents" will be minded to cast their vote in the more turbulent Republican field. It doesn't matter if half your support is from anti-war liberals if enough of them turn out to make mischief in the GOP primary."
• The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru: "I keep reading posts about how Ron Paul will, in a general election, primarily appeal to the antiwar Left and thus help Republicans. But don't forget that Rep. Paul is a pro-lifer, and single-issue pro-life voters might not have anywhere else to go next fall."

Most taking a second look at Paul, still do not like what they see:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "it's an anti-war candidacy and little else. Notice how during debates, he routinely turns questions about domestic policy - normally meat and drink for a libertarian - back to Iraq The only other seriously distinguishing feature of the campaign is that it's nutty. ... Again, the only only distinguishing feature of Paul's small government platform is its nuttiness - the gold standard, the Federal Reserve conspiracy stuff, etc."
• Hot Air: "The gold standard stuff is not a schtick. ... he's a Bircheresque crank who happens to be running as a Republican, and who is allowing himself to be an empty vessel for whatever crankery isn't otherwise represented by any of the other candidates."
• Campaign Standard's Sonny Bunch: "At every 9/11 Truth event I've been to over the last six months, at least one speaker has called on their fellow conspiracy theorists to support a Ron Paul candidacy. ... Twice in the span of one week last September, I found myself in Lafayette Park - once to attend an 9/11 Truth rally, and once to attend an anti-war protest sponsored by ANSWER. Both times I found Truthers campaigning for Ron Paul."
• Ross Douthat: "[H]is remarkable fundraising success is good news for extremists everywhere. I don't mean to use extremist pejoratively; I just mean that the entire apparatus of national politics in this country, from how the parties are organized to how the media covers election, has evolved (or been intelligently-designed, perhaps) to exclude anyone who deviates too far from what's understood in Washington as the political mainstream.

THOMPSON: Two Thumbs Up

Fred Thompson's first television ads brought out the Siskel and Ebert in conservatives:

• Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "'Strength, Conviction, Honesty' is the tagline for the ad. Why different from his campaign's tagline, 'Security, Unity, Prosperity?' I guess "conviction" and 'honesty' are digs at Rudy and Romney, but what of 'strength?' There's something to be said for brand consistency, and this tagline is so similar to the campaign's tag, it's a little confusing.
• Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti: "I like this new Fred Thompson ad and believe it may resonate among likely Iowa GOP caucus-goers. Why does Thompson always bounce his head up and down while he is addressing the camera? He had a similar tick back when he announced his candidacy in September. Maybe he's trying to lock up the Bobble Head vote."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "I think both ads do an effective job of communicating his message, and could remind people why they liked him in the first place. He just needs to back it up with a more effective overall campaign."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "this seems like a very Iowa-centric ad. There are an awful lot of senior citizens in this ad - the coffee shop patrons, the folks sitting on their front lawn, the farmers. Is there some polling suggesting that Thompson does best among older voters?"

CLINTON: Kyl-Lieberman Lives

Push back against netroots fav./HRC endorsee/fmr. Amb. Joe Wilson's 11/4 Huffington Post essay defending Hillary Clinton on Iran has been slowly mounting. Posts from 11/4 through 11/7 include:

• The Huffington Post's Sam Sedaei: "I have a great deal of admiration for Mr. Wilson's courage ... But despite his reasoning, the fact is that by voting for [Kyl-Lieberman], Senator Clinton has managed to squander the possibility of ever having a chance of being taken seriously in diplomacy with the Iranian regime. (Usually when you call a country's army "terrorists," they're not going to want to make deals with you). ... As I have said before, any Iran policy that does not have the clear distinction between the pro-western and secular young population and the religiously fanatical regime at its core will fail miserably."
• The Huffington Post's Mona Gable: "I'm having trouble with Hillary....Her waffling on Iran and her macho posturing. You can't be leading the charge in the Senate to declare Iran's revolutionary guard a terrorist organization one minute, flinch when you get attacked for being so transparently calculating, then claim that, well, you were really just misunderstood."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "But where Wilson is dead wrong is in the belief that there was any positive merit to [Kyl-Lieberman]. The simple fact is the Bush Administration can not be trusted on anything or at any time. These are not normal times where the Congress can work with the President on such issues. ... Clinton was very wrong to vote in its favor."
• The Washington Note: "The problem is that the Bush administration exploits opportunities that the Congress gives. ... I think Hillary Clinton is sincere in her view that designating the IRGC a terrorist entity helps diplomacy. I disagree."

EDWARDS: Attacking On Style And Substance

Reporting from IA, The Huffington Post's John Deeth says John Edwards is offering "as much criticism for Democratic rival Hillary Clinton as he [does] for the Bush Administration." Deeth catches up with Edwards strategist Joe Trippi who explains: "We're here to keep making the clear differences between us and Hillary Clinton. On Iraq, she wants to continue combat missions, we want to end it. In Iran she's bought into the terminology of the Bush administration of the 'global war on terror', and Bush is already using that. Her vote to call the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization was a mistake. We wouldn't have done that, Biden didn't, Dodd didn't."

Back in DC, TAPPED's Ezra Klein is impressed by the Edwards on Clinton attacks he is seeing in his inbox: "The Edwards team's attacks on Hillary are getting very sophisticated. Now that they've decided on a weakness -- the double talk -- they're hammering all their policy differences within that framework. ... Those are, of course, precisely the questions Clinton has been brilliantly able to muddle and slip through. Now that her evasions are an issue, however, the other candidates can make her non-answers exactly as dangerous as her answers."

Back in IA, The Huffington Post's Sam Stein: "as part of an increasingly aggressive push to make up ground in the race, he has staked out a position on immigration that is to the right of his chief primary opponents. ... In recent trips to Iowa, Redlawsk noted, Edwards has highlighted aspects of his immigration policy that go over well with the Iowa crowd. He has been greeted with applause for declaring that illegal immigrants should learn English as a perquisite for citizenship. ... Edwards' opposition to granting driver licenses to illegal immigrants appears to fit this mold."

ELECTION DAY: Purple Haze

Progressives are celebrating their new control of the state senate in VA and conservatives are celebrating a sweep of top offices in MS.

Those looking for a definitive answer on how immigration affected the races will have to wait. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas and Raising Kaine both claim Dem victories in northern VA show purported GOP strength on immigration is all bark and no bite. Other reports from Kossacks in NOVA and NY suggest otherwise.

On 11/6 TAPPED's Garance Franke-Ruta previewed two NOVA races that might turn on immigration: state senate district's 27 and 29. In both cases the more pro-immigration candidate won.

MD 04: Rage Against The Machine

Open Left's Matt Stoller links to news House Dems are "quietly preparing to give the president enough spending flexibility to keep the war going" and pitches readers on the importance of donating money to Donna Edwards: "While we've had success in electing Democrats, and success in knocking off incumbents, we have not yet knocked off a Democratic incumbent with a progressive challenger. When we do that, it will be immensely powerful, because we will have inserted into the incumbent club of Congress someone who beat their system. We will show local officials all over the country that it's possible to run against the machine, and win. And we will make it clear that progressives who govern will be rewarded, while Democrats who ignore the public will face costs."

By midnight, Atrios announced they were only $1.5K short of their $100K goal.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Civilization Not Always So Civilized

Tyler Cowen previews Randall Collins' new book, Violence: A Micro-sociological Theory:

The main argument is that people are not as predisposed to violence as we might think. ... People are more naturally tense and fearful, sometimes full of bluster but usually looking to avoid confrontation unless they have vastly superior numbers on their side. ... The greatest dangers of violence arises from atrocities against the weak under overwhelming conditions, ritualized violence enacted in front of supportive audiences, or clandestine terrorism or murder. ... most political violence does not follow from centuries-old grudge matches, but rather from recently fabricated, dynamically dangerous social ritual interactions. Violence can appear on the scene rapidly but it can vanish as well, so there is hope for Iraq.

LEST WE FORGET: Venison Is Not Legal Tender

Jezebel watches Judge Judy so we don't have to:

Every once in a while, the magic of a Judge Judy case will come not from JJ herself, but from kooky litigants in her court. In the clip above, a woman, from what I'm guessing is the backwoods of Louisiana, is suing her sister and former neighbor for the cost of repair to her car. The defendant - an amazing rubber-necker - borrowed the car, hit a deer, thus killing it, then took it home, and ate it. She tried to make amends for the damaged car by offering some of the meat to the plaintiff and was very offended when the plaintiff declined. The sisters have since been in a huge fight that the defendant likened to the Hatfield-McCoy feud. Seriously, why isn't there a banjo playing in the background the whole time?

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:35 PM

November 06, 2007

11/6: Sagebrush Rebellion 2.0

We continued to be fascinated by the mystery that is the Ron Paul campaign. While Paul set a new GOP single day fundraising record 11/5, he still sits at only 2.6% in Pollster.com's national average. That said, Paul's strongest states (MI -- 4.5%, NH -- 3.7%, IA -- 3.5%, and CA -- 3.2%) are all early primary states. Looking at RonPaulGraphs.com's instant Per Capita Donors (donors per million in population) map, however, we were struck by how closely Paul's strongest donor states matched up with those where the federal government owns more than 25% of all land. Is it really that much of a surprise that Paul's financial support is strongest among those that have to put with the feds as their landlord?

GIULIANI: Stand By Your Man

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti reports on a 11/5 telephone interview with Rudy Giuliani where he praised retired Judge Michael Mukasey for showing "a lot of courage" through his confirmation hearings. From Giuliani: "We should not be politicizing these issues that are issues that require very delicate definitions. ... Nobody wants torture. American agents don't seek to torture anyone."

HUCKABEE: If A Huckabee Attacked In The Forrest And Nobody Responded...

Conservatives thought Fred Thompson responded effectively to Mike Huckabee's 11/5 attack on Thompson's abortion and marriage opinions, but also argued Thompson's need to respond to Huckabee underscored his weakness in early primary states. Hot Air posts video of Thompson responding to Huckabee on Fox and comments: "Thompson manages to pound Huckabee into a fine powder without ever coming across as harsh or even particularly angry. It's as solid an appearance as I've seen Thompson deliver since the official announcement that he's running."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin comments on the exchange: "Yes, Thompson's attack on Huckabee's immigration and economic record was well framed, but perhaps was the first recognition by a top tier candidate that Huckabee is worth going after ... Huckabee's movement both nationally and in Iowa poses a problem for Thompson. Should Thompson finish out of the money and Huckabee second in Iowa, Thompson's first tier status might be called into question."

Similar thoughts from The Brody File: "This is all good news for Huckabee because when other candidates start paying attention to what you're saying and actually respond in kind, you know you've arrived."

MCCAIN: Immigration Convert Surges

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff links to evidence of a John McCainpollingsurge and diagnosis: "These results represent progress for McCain. They are attributable, I think, to his strong debate performances, the improvement in Iraq since his preferred military policy was adopted, and his commitment, finally, to a secure-the-borders-first immigration policy."

PAUL: By All Means, Let's Celebrate An Attempted Assassination

Reportsvary, but it appears Ron Paul supporters, encouraged but not directed by the campaign, raised at least $4M 11/5 in conjunction with Guy Fawkes Day which QandO's Bryan Pick reports: "was recently depicted in the movie 'V for Vendetta' as a day of (individual, then popular) revolution against an oppressive state." Reactions to Paul's haul include:

• The Corner's David Freddoso: "I don't care what your politics are -- that's a sign that he needs to be taken more seriously. The test, of course, will be in how wisely the money is used..."
• Outside the Beltway's James Joyner: "[A]s impressive as it is to harness to thrill of a focused event and the enthusiasm of a hard core of supporters, it's unlikely that this haul will catapult Paul into serious contention for the Republican nomination. There just aren't enough people who truly want to do things like shut down the Department of Education."
• Hit and Run's David Weigel: "Even if you don't like Paul, you have to gasp at what's happening in the GOP race. There are three phenomenons running in tandem: Paul's fundraising, Huckabee's cash-strapped poll surge, and McCain's running-on-fumes poll comeback. Anybody working for the Rudy-Fred-Mitt power trio has to wonder why the Republican base is so hungry for these other choices."
• Soren Dayton: "Ron Paul's support is a protest vote. There are a lot of Republicans right now who are really angry. Republicans are furious with their party. In 2004, Dems were furious with theirs. ... Here's a hypothesis, but a difficult one to test. To some extent, Ron Paul supporters support him because he is a variety of the "Republican wing of the Republican Party". People who hate the war can support Ron Paul. People who hate the spending can support Ron Paul. Those are the primary places where the GOP is losing its base right now. And the part of the base that is leaving right now are the ones who are rich and online. Just like some of the Deaniacs."

ROMNEY: Did Paul Finally Pick A Winner?

The Brody File posts a press release announcing Paul Weyrich's support for Mitt Romney and comments: "Let me start by saying that Paul Weyrich is a huge name in the social conservative movement. ... His claim to fame is that he was one of the co-founders of the Moral Majority. ... by getting a social conservative guy like Weyrich on board, it gives the Romney campaign a big leap forward to be able to say that Romney is serious about moving a pro-family, traditional value agenda as President. It's not about the amount of influence Weyrich has today. It's about how his name is synonymous with traditional values conservatism. That's the payoff more than anything else."

Townhall's Matt Lewis also sees the endorsement as a big deal: "Weyrich's endorsement implies conservative leaders have finally given up hope of finding the perfect candidate, and have settled for Romney as the better alternative to Giuliani and Thompson. ... Weyrich is a highly-respected conservative movement leader, and my guess is his endorsement will create a sort of domino effect. ... Could conservative heavy-weights like Richard Viguerie, Morton Blackwell, and Phyllis Schlafly be far behind?

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti, however, notes Weyrich doesn't exactly have a winning track record: "In 2000, Weyrich was for Steve Forbes. ... In 1988, Weyrich endorsed Jack Kemp, who lost the nomination to George H.W. Bush. And in 1980, Weyrich backed John Connally over Ronald Reagan.

Romney also had troubled pushing back against NROJim Geraghty 's claim on abortion that, "Fred Thompson can say something that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani can't, which is, "look at my record." The Corner's Byron York looks at a Team Romney response that includes a cite to an 10/29/02 AP article which shows Romney supporting parental notification laws. York also notes: "But reading deeper into the article shows Romney reportedly arguing strongly that he was just as pro-choice as his Democratic opponent, who was once pro-life, had become pro-choice, and was accusing Romney of advocating a pro-life position, something Romney denied."

THOMPSON: There Is No Pleasing All Conservatives On This Issue

Fred Thompson's federalist approach to abortion is pleasing some conservatives and alienating others. Reactions include:

• The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru: "He objects to a Human Life Amendment on federalist grounds. I don't really mind that he takes that position, but I would like to know whether he wants to move toward a legal regime where unborn children are protected from abortion even early in pregnancy. I couldn't quite figure out where he stands on that question from his answers on 'Meet the Press.'"
• RedState's Ericka Anderson: "His belief that life begins at conception means that life in the womb is as abundant and real and valuable as yours and mine. If that is the case, such life should be protected equally. By rejecting a Human Life Amendment, Thompson, by default, places the life of the unborn child on a different level. He essentially says that child is not as worthy of protection as a child one hour out of the womb."
• Volokh Conspiracy's Jonathan Adler: "I have no idea whether Thompson's positions will help or hurt his electoral chances. But I also suspect I am not the only one who finds this apparent commitment to principle refreshing."
• Instapundit: "Sounds good to me."

The Brody File posts Team Thompson's new Grassroots Director Shannon Royce response to the Brody File concerns social conservatives may have been turned off by Thompson's 'MTP' performance: "I am confident that on both life and marriage he would use the bully pulpit to support pro-life policies and to support marriage as the union of one man one woman." Brody also comments on the addition of Royce: "Royce is a real nice addition to Thompson's staff. She is well respected within pro-family circles. She's been the Executive Director for the socially conservative "Arlington Group" and has been actively pursuing a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-family policy agenda for years. Maybe most importantly, she's well connected within Evangelical circles."

DEM FIELD: It Ain't 2012 Yet

Open Left's Matt Stoller posts an image of "a mailer going out in Western New York" which reads: "Democrat County Legislators Want To Make It Easier For Illegals And Terrorists To Get Driver's Licenses!" Stoller adds: "I spoke to a New York state party insider who told me that candidate numbers have been dropped ten points in local elections to be held tomorrow because of immigration, across all major voting blocs. The right-wing speaks entirely in coded language about tribalism, and it's beginning to hurt our candidates badly. MA-05 may not have been a blip."

Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher links and comments: "I hope someone can explain to me the wisdom of piling on Elliot Spitzer for some perceived lack of decorum when he tried to implement a policy of giving drivers' licenses to undocumented immigrants. If there's some tactical brilliance going on here, I confess it escapes me. This is going to be an ugly battle -- as Stoller says, possibly a preview of 2008 -- and I do think it's going to be one of those issues where we all hang together or we hang separately."

Also talking immigration, TAPPED's Dana Goldstein links to E.J. Dionneworries on immigration and proposes three Dem talking points on the issue: 1. Remind voters that George W. Bush and the GOP were so focused on Iraq that they failed to protect our borders in any meaningful way; 2. Emphasize the staying power of the American Dream -- despite all our troubles post-9/11, people around the world still hunger for the American way of life; 3. Talk about values-driven immigration policies. Refuse to penalize the children of undocumented immigrants. Support a path to legalization for immigrants already here in the U.S. that keeps families together. ... The emphasis should be on making more immigration legal immigration, a proud American tradition.

TAPPED's Ezra Klein links and adds: "I'm with Dana on being pretty concerned about the role immigration will play in the coming election. Not only is it an increasingly acute -- and motivating -- concern for voters, but it's quite literally the last issue area in which polls show Republicans with the lead. ... I'd add a bit to her argument: You will, I'm convinced, need to win the border security debate before you can get into any of the more humane issues of paths to citizenship and protecting children. And while saying that Bush and the Republicans have failed for eight years may have some impact, we won't be running against Bush, Instead, my hunch is there's room for an argument saying that the modern GOP won't ever get serious about staunching illegal immigration because their main supporters large corporations, like the supply of cheap labor."

In a not completely unrelated story, Open Left's Chris Bowers notes: "Michael Dukakis is widely viewed as having lost by a major landslide, while John Kerry is widely viewed as having lost a narrow election. However, looking through exit poll data, it appears that the two candidates performed almost identically among one of the larger demographic groups in the electorate: white voters."

More Bowers: "Broad demographic changes that rendered the electorate both less white and less Christian had a significantly greater impact on the changing outcomes of the 1988 and 2004 election than did the quality of the candidates running, the issues of the time, or the strategies employed by the campaigns. ... With [20112's] electorate, even a Democratic candidate with the skill of Michael Dukakis or John Kerry could win, and no Iraq war or economic downturn would be necessary."

CLINTON: A Cap And Trade Landslide

Reviews of Hillary Clinton's climate plan are filtering in:

• Gristmill's David Roberts: "It is thoughtful, comprehensive, and though disappointingly conventional in a few areas, inspiringly bold in others. With the release of Clinton's plan, all three Democratic frontrunners for the presidency now have visionary, far-reaching energy plans that would fundamentally reorient the country away from carbon-intensive energy and toward energy efficiency and renewables.
• TNR's Bradford Plumer: "The broad outlines are just as audacious as what Edwards and Obama have proposed. She'd aim to curb U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 -- a goal urged by a growing number of scientists and green groups -- through a cap-and-trade regime, with the pollution permits auctioned off rather than given away for free. That last bit is a key design point, and would help avoid some of the problems plaguing Europe's emissions-trading system."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "The question uppermost on my mind was whether HRC would support either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade plan, since this is frankly the only part of the standard liberal agenda on energy that's really very risky to endorse. I'm told that both are essentially the same thing in practice, so it's no surprise that the leading candidates, now including Hillary, have all chosen the cap-and-trade route, which raises energy prices but doesn't include the dread word taxes."

RICHARDSON: So Take That

Possibly responding to impressions his defense of Hillary Clinton during 10/30's debate was an audition for a VP slot, Bill Richardson blogs at Open Left:

I was surprised that what many people "took away" from my statements was that I must support Senator Clinton's positions because I thought some of the attacks were out of line. So, let me set the record straight. I deeply disagree with Senator Clinton on many issues, just as I do with the other candidates. For starters, Senator Clinton thinks we can fix No Child Left Behind; I believe we need to scrap it. I believe we must create a New Energy Revolution whereas Senator Clinton's positions are simply not bold enough on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and moving to alternative energy sources. ... Most importantly, I disagree with Senator Clinton's belief that we cannot end the war now and get our troops out.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We Love The '80s

Admitting that Walter Mondale's Hillary Clinton endorsement may induce "a decent amount of snickering" since "Mondale did suffer the second worst electoral defeat of any Democrat since 1924" Open Left's Chris Bowers posts an '84 Mondale campaign video and notes:

This video presents almost the exact same issue set as the current Democratic Party presents. Two older woman talk about poverty at 0:20 and 0:30 in the video. Another older woman talks about protecting Social Security at 0:40 in the video. A diverse group of children are interspersed between these women. Outsourcing manufacturing jobs comes in at 1:00. The economic struggles of rural Americans comes in right after that, and a variation on the "people versus the powerful" or "two Americas" them immediately follows that. Republican connections to corporations and the wealthy are attacked starting at 1:47 in the video.

Bowers concludes: "The Democratic message from the 1980's hasn't changed, it has simply been repackaged to better conform to the standards of contemporary mass media. ... What has changed has not been the Democratic Party, but rather the country itself. With the contemporary electorate, Dukakis would have probably defeated Bush Sr., Carter would have probably defeated Reagan, and even Mondale would have probably been within single-digits of Reagan."

LEST WE FORGET: The Dreaded 'B' Word

Open Left's Matt Stoller reports from a Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) fundraiser in NYC:

I went up to Pelosi after her odd speech to ask her in person about her support for Al Wynn. I said 'I helped organize a fundraiser for Donna Edwards', and I was about to talk about retroactive immunity and ask her to take this as a sign of frustration, as well as to tell her how proud she makes me as the first female Speaker of the House. But the moment I mentioned Al Wynn, Pelosi's whole face abruptly changed, her smile melted away, and she got hostile and said in an icy voice 'I know about that.' She then turned away to talk to someone else. That's happened to me only one other time in politics, when I said to Jerry McNerney that I was a blogger.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:31 PM

November 05, 2007

11/5: Tenacious D

We often get calls from MSMers asking for examples of how Hillary Clinton has successfully managed netroots opinion during the Dem primary. This weekend was a classic example. In light of a New York Times Magazine article claiming the "vast majority" of people "who think about foreign policy for a living" support Obama, Netroots fav./HRC endorsee/fmr. Amb. Joe Wilson took to The Huffington Post 11/4 as surrogate hatchet man. Wilson says Obama's approach to Iran "seems to me to misunderstand diplomacy" and appears "to be based more on the politics than the substance."

Wilson's Obama take down is not the nail in Obama's coffin, but is just the latest example of an ever vigilant Team Clinton countering any anti-HRC narrative at every turn.

CLINTON: She's Got Mad Skills

The netroots have noticed recentpolling shows Hillary Clinton actually improved her numbers against her Dem rivals despite what many in the MSM billed as a rough debate performance 10/30. The Left Coaster's Steve Soto blogs: "Hillary had an off night in Philly, and guess what? No one noticed or cared. She is still rising within her party at a time when Rudy is dealing with a demoralized party that isn't wild about him. She is seen as more and more electable by her own party, and she does better and better against her rivals as time goes on."

Open Left's Matt Stoller voices frustration over the way Dems attacked HRC: "There's a large untapped group of people who believe that the Republican Party leadership is a gang of criminals and that the Democrats need to stop them and haven't. No one is talking to this group of people. Instead, the arguments at the debate centered on attacking illegal immigrants, going after a Clinton for spinning, and attacking Hillary Clinton for being a political woman. Yeah, ok, these are great arguments to use in a Democratic primary. ... I don't want Clinton to win. ... But I'm not a fool ... Clinton is a bad candidate, but there's very little difference between Obama, Edwards, and Clinton, except that Clinton is a more skilled politician."

Less impressed with Clinton's skills, The Huffington Post's Steve Rosenbaum announces his decision to release his documentary on the '04 John Kerry campaign: "I spent the better part of 2004 directing a documentary about the Kerry campaign that you haven't seen. ... What we saw, and videotaped, was deeply troubling. ... I was afraid that releasing it would somehow be unfair. Like kicking a guy when he's down. But in the past few weeks - something happened. ... My phone started ringing. ... They were scared. They had a desperate feeling that it was groundhog day. That increasing the Clinton campaign had shifted from a candidacy of ideas to a platform of platitudes. It came home to roost when Hilllary did what is fast becoming her 'double flip flop' - at first supporting drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, then didn't, and then wasn't sure. ... It's time to show the film."

OBAMA: The Choice Of A New Generation

James Traub's 11/4 New York Times Magazine article "Is (His) Biography (Our) Destiny?" on Barack Obama drew wide netroots discussion. The article describes Obama as "the true bearer" of a "post-post-9/11 strategy" that offers "different tools for different situations, rather than only the sharp edge of a blade" and is supported by the "vast majority" of people "who think about foreign policy for a living." Harvard prof. Joseph Nye is quoted saying Obama's biography, "would do more for America's soft power around the world than anything else we could do." Reactions include:

• Matthew Yglesias: "Traub really nails the difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in terms of their supporters in the world of foreign policy ... Back in 2002 the conventional wisdom said that anyone who wanted to be elected president had to back [the war]. ... Obama represents a break from that; a turn toward people who think a different way, who probably aren't as famous but just might know what they're talking about, and perhaps even more important than that to people whose thinking isn't hobbled by an unwillingness to break with past positions."
• Ezra Klein: "If I were going to decide on Obama, this is exactly why. Insofar as there's a real hope for a new foreign policy, I think it lies with Obama. That's not to say Edwards' policies on this are bad, but what moves him is, as far as I can tell, economic injustice at home, so I think his foreign policy would be a bit secondary."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "For the rank and file of professional, progressive foreign policy types who were opposed to the Iraq war from the start, the Obama campaign is the equivalent of the 2002 Nancy Pelosi leadership, 2003 Howard Dean presidential, and 2006 Ned Lamont Senate campaigns were for much of the activist rank and file. However ... the cultural gap between wonks and hacks, between insiders and outsiders, and between professionals and the grassroots have prevented it from gaining the same traction as those earlier campaigns."
• Open Left's Paul Rosenberg: "There is, however, something more that's missing. Quite simply, Obama is missing a counter-hegemonic position that challenges the "war on terror" narrative. He is not the leader here. Edwards was the leader in challenging the narrative frame, and Richardson was the leader in making a decisive commitment to withdraw from Iraq. This is not a minor matter."

OBAMA II: Sometimes, 80 Percent Of Politics Is Knowing When Not To Show Up

Barack Obama doubters and Hillary Clinton netroots assets are actively pushing back against Obama messaging on HRC's Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment. Netroots fav./HRC endorsee/fmr. Amb. Joe Wilson blogs at The Huffington Post:

Senator Barack Obama was absent when the vote on Kyl-Lieberman was taken, though that has not prevented him from criticizing colleagues who participated in the debate and voted for it. He has also opted not to sign the letter to the president. ... Rather than reinforcing diplomatic options, his actions have the effect of eschewing diplomatic efforts to bring the Revolutionary Guard to heel, while placing all his bets for peaceful coexistence with Iran in the future on his own charisma and charm. ... As one who practiced diplomacy on behalf of our country for decades, including as the acting ambassador in Iraq during Desert Shield, where I personally confronted Saddam Hussein and his henchmen, Senator Obama's approach seems to me to misunderstand diplomacy.

Senator Obama's criticism of the vote and refusal to join with his Democratic colleagues on the letter to the president appear to be based more on the politics than the substance. The entire Senate was notified a day beforehand about the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. If he truly had a sense of urgency on the issue he should have made a point of participating in the debate and voting, when he would have had the opportunity at the time to air his substantive disagreement with his home state colleague Senator Durbin, rather than waiting to raise the issue afterwards in a purely political context and using it as a campaign tactic.

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat hits on a similar theme responding to Frank Rich's 11/4 criticism of HRC's vote: "Senator Barack Obama, despite being informed that K-L would be brought up for a vote, left Washington for a trip to New Hampshire. IF K-L is all Mr. Rich is cracking it up to be, then Barack Obama has a similar problem. ... One assumes, if Rich REALLY believes what he wrote (as opposed to just doing a Hillary hit piece) - he has to have reached a similar disqualification of BOTH Clinton and Obama. Maybe there was not enough space for the Obama section of his piece."

ROMNEY: Only Conservative Mormons Need Not Apply

The Corner's Ramesh Ponnuru posts a reader's email addressing Mitt Romney's general election viability in light of his Morman faith: "[I]t wasn't a problem when he was elected governor of MA. If left-liberals are the most hostile anti-Mormons in the country, and if they elected Romney Governor even after having just had three prior controversial GOP governors, I'd say that it isn't really that potent a factor.

Ponnuru responds: "I suspect that it is true that liberals react more negatively to Mormonism when it is attached to a socially conservative candidate, such as Romney today, than to a socially liberal one, such as Romney in 2002. (That is to say, I suspect that liberals would react more negatively to a pro-life Mormon than to a pro-life Episcopalian.)"

THOMPSON: Not The Dream Boat SoCons Thought He'd Be

The balance of conservative opinion on Fred Thompson's 11/4 Meet The Press performance is best summed up by NRO's Jim Geraghty: "A ground rule double." Thompson exceeded expectation with his command of the issues, but have done some lasting damage among social conservatives with his refusal to support the Human Life Amendment. Reactions include:

• The Brody File: "Fred Thompson came into this presidential race as the one candidate social conservatives may be able to embrace. It hasn't quite worked out that way. First there were problems with his position on the federal marriage amendment. ... Then he ran into problems about his Church attendance and now he doesn't support this human life amendment that is part of the GOP platform. ... The marriage issue hurt him and the human life amendment could too."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Senator Thompson hit exactly the right note on Iran on this morning's Meet The Press, and Tim Russert did a great job in giving the looming confrontation with Iran the time it deserves."
• Campaign Standard's Richelieu: "Measured by the traditional standards of Sunday morning political theater, it was an uneven performance. ... His answer on abortion in particular will come as an uncomfortable revelation to some of his more conservative supporters. ... To my ear it sounds like a pro-life manifesto written by a joint committee of conservative constitutional lawyers and the board of NARAL. ... But I left the interview feeling entirely comfortable with the idea of Fred Thompson being president of the United States. He is informed, thoughtful, and struck me as a decent man trying to navigate the increasingly ridiculous idiom of American politics with all of its trapdoors, over-simplification, and litmus-mania."
• NRO's Geraghty: "Every once in a while Thompson slipped up but overall, Thompson was measured, modest, serious, and completely at ease. After a couple of debates, it's odd to watch a man not trying to squeeze his talking points into an answer, and instead speaking in paragraphs, conversational and informed."
• AmSpec's Jennifer Rubin: "Those looking for a smash performance will likely be disappointed but neither was there a wipe out."
• Right Wing News: "Anyone who has ever read RWN knows that I am adamantly pro-life. ... I would not mind seeing a Constitutional Amendment passed that banned abortion except in the case of the mother's life being endangered. However, as I've written before, that's simply not going to happen ... That's why I don't find Thompson's position on this issue to be troubling. To the contrary, it's actually a little reassuring in a roundabout way."
• Bryan at Hot Air: "Clintons take note, had to answer some tough questions asked by host Tim Russert. ... Fred is falling back on federalist principles to arrive at the point of being pro-life but not supporting the HLA. The question is, will this become a problem with social conservatives?"

THOMPSON II: What Is Old Is New Again

Conservatives were eager to push back against The Washington Post's front page story on Thompson "close advisor" Philip Martin's 24 year-old criminal history. Most offensive to conservatives was WaPo's above the fold comparison of Martin to Hillary Clinton tied fundraiser/criminal Norman Hsu. Jules Crittenden blogs: "Martin has a criminal past. Hsu's is a criminal present. Can't get good copy-editing help these days."

Captain's Quarters adds: "Front Page News: 24 Years Ago ... There's a rather large difference between a man who did his probation, cleaned up his act, and contributes positively to his community, and a man who runs $60 million Ponzi schemes to funnel money into the Democratic Party while remaining a fugitive from his first conviction."

MD 04: Fall House Cleaning

As of 1 PM 11/3, the netroots had taken over $70K through Act Blue for Donna Edwards. The fundraising drive came in response to an 11/3 fundraising event for Rep. Al Wynn (D) hosted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher pitches for the last $30K: "If anyone needs more convincing, please watch the above video as Donna eloquently decimates Al Wynn over Iraq, the repeal of the estate tax, bankruptcy, Schaivo, protecting oil and gas companies and other regressive votes that have supported George Bush and kept ordinary Americans from getting health care."

Open Left's Matt Stoller drives home the importance of Edwards 11/3 endorsement from EMILY's List: "This is a big and welcome development for both Donna and Emily's List, which did not back her last cycle. Emily's List has been a bit skittish about taking on establishment power since backing Nancy Kaszak against Rahm Emanuel in 2002 in the Democratic primary, so it's wonderful that they decided to back Donna against Al Wynn. It's unusual for this group to take on a sitting incumbent, and it is wonderful news."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas reports that Progressive Maryland "which waged a successful living wage campaign in Maryland despite Al Wynn's opposition" also endorsed Edwards. Kos adds: "Donna Edwards is building a true movement, despite the efforts of Al Wynn, Nancy Pelosi, AFSCME and others to protect the prerogatives of the establishment elite. We don't just need more Democrats, but we also need better Democrats. So join this movement and let's start cleaning house!"

NM SEN: All Signals Go

In light of news Rep. Tom Udall (D) is reconsidering his decision not to run for ret. Sen. Pete Domenici's (D-NM) seat, MyDD's Jonathan Singer urges readers to check out the new Draft Udall site: "[I]t really looks cool. ... this relaunch from DraftUdall.com provides a good opportunity to remind folks that now's the time to send Congressman Udall a clear signal that we think he should run by making a small, but meaningful $5 contribution to his campaign through ActBlue and signing the petition asking him to run."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Macroeconomists Just Make Stuff Up

Tyler Cowen blogs: "The housing sector is down twenty percent and the price of oil is flirting with $90 a barrel, maybe $100 to come. Yet the quarterly growth rate was just reported at 3.9%, led by surges in consumer spending and exports. It is wrong to think we have turned the corner, but it is also wrong to think the doomsayers have been giving accurate predictions."

LEST WE FORGET: Do Keep Us Updated On The IRS' Response

Daily Kos contributing editor Meteor Blades blogs: "Since Congress, particularly the congressional leadership, refuses to do so, my wife and I are personally defunding the war and occupation of Iraq. We refuse for the foreseeable future to surrender the portion of our taxes that pays for U.S. imperialism and the militarization which backs it up. ... We will, as we always have, file our 1040s. But we will refuse to pay 15% of what Washington says we owe it. We do this not because we have any illusion that two citizens holding back a few dollars will stop the war, the building of empire, the commission of atrocities. We do it because we cannot hold up our heads and continue to be accomplices in the schemes of those for whom "democracy" and "freedom" are buzzwords and "liberation" is a cruel and perverted joke."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:52 PM

November 02, 2007

11/2: Dems Biggest Ally In '08

The Washington Postdocuments rising concerns among Dems about immigration as an effective wedge issue in '08, but we do not think they should be concerned. As The Corner's Mark Krikorian points out, DHS sec. Michael Chertoff was quite willing to "Ride[] to the Rescue" of NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer when his drivers' license for undocumented migrants plan faced complications complying with the federal Real ID Act. GOPers will no doubt get some mileage out of the immigration issue, but it is going to be impossible for them to fully capitalize on it as long as Pres. Bush is the titular head of their party.

DEM FIELD: Carrots And Sticks

Reactions to Barack Obama's "New Iran Approach, floated in 11/02's New York Times are still filtering in, but it appears Hillary Clinton had the upper hand among the more undecided elements of the netroots for much of 11/01. The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reported early in the day that Obama declined to sign a letter signed by thirty other Dem Senators "warning President Bush not to take offensive military action against Iran without the consent of Congress." The letter "was spearheaded" by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) and was signed by Clinton. Stein received the following statement from Team Obama on the letter:

Senator Obama admires Senator Webb and his sincere and tireless efforts on this issue. But it will take more than a letter to prevent this administration from using the language contained within the Kyl-Lieberman resolution to justify military action in Iran. This requires a legislative answer and Senator Obama intends to propose one.

MyDD's Todd Beeton tracks the developments and comments: "The thing is, there is a legislative proposal out there already, the Webb Amendment (co-sponsored by Clinton, you'll recall,) which would require Bush to get congressional approval before using any force on Iran. ... it seems to me that Obama's absence from the list of signers actually undermines his credibility on the issue further. He did, after all, miss the vote on the original resolution, although he did say subsequently that he would have voted No."

The Left Coaster's Jeff Dinelli (who is more pro-HRC) blogs: "This, my friends, should be a freakin' Deal Breaker for Obama. For the past month he has been ruthlessly attacking Clinton for her vote on Kyl/Lieberman. Did the amendment take us a step closer to war, Sen. Obama? Then why the hell did you refuse to sign this letter? ... Can someone please explain what the hell is up with Obama? No vote on the MoveOn.org ad. No vote on Kyl/Lieberman, which is Soooo important to him he hasn't talked about anything else in the last month. No signature on this Webb letter. ... Where are this guy's convictions?"

Later TPM's Greg Sargent looks at dueling Obama/Clinton campaign memos on Iran. From Obama's:

The current debate about the wisdom of Senator Clinton's support for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment points up significant differences in Senator Obama's approach to the use of force in Iraq as compared with Senator Clinton's approach.

From Clinton's:

Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton. Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006. Nevermind that he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April...

Sargent comments: "This latest "memo match" is in sync with the larger battle between the two candidates, in which the Obama camp argues that there are real differences between the candidates, while the Hillary camp claims that Obama's efforts to do this are largely (but not exclusively) self-contradictory attack politics."

Obama partisans are very pleased with his 11/02 NYT interview. Mark Kleiman highlights the following from Obama: "We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith. I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hell bent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior and there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior."

Kleiman proudly comments: "I wonder how long the 'Obama is running an excessively cautious campaign' meme will survive moves like this one? Too long, I suspect." Matthew Yglesias also links and adds: "Barack Obama opens up a clear policy difference with Hillary Clinton ... This doesn't necessarily sound incredibly different from Clinton's strategy ... but it's pretty different. The difference, in particular, is that as Flynt Leverett has argued in a non-campaign context the "grand bargain" approach might work, whereas Clinton's approach won't work."

MyDD's Beeton looks at Obama's competing legislation on Iran and blogs: "I'll be curious to see how this is substantively different than the Webb amendment and thus, whether it will actually get a floor vote; I suspect it won't and if that's the case, I'm not sure how this helps Obama. Sure it's more substantive than a letter but if it's essentially the same as an amendment that Senator Clinton co-sponsored, isn't he susceptible to claims that he's just playing follow the leader?"

CLINTON: Don't Tell Anyone But We Also Love The View

For the most part, the netroots seem to be rallying around Hillary Clinton in light of MSM narratives that she stumbled 10/30 in the face of combined attacks by her Dem rivals. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas admits 10/30 was "not her best performance" but wouldn't call it a 'fumble' either. More kos: "The same people who have been telling us for years that Hillary was inevitable, are now apparently hoping for a real contest. If so, then good. We need one of those anyway. Maybe, if we're lucky, we'll even get Hillary to explain to us why she wants to be president."

Fire Dog Lake's Swopa responds: "Markos is dead wrong when he says today that Clinton hasn't provided "a rationale for her candidacy" - her rationale is her experience, combined with her ability to take a punch. And that appeals to millions of ordinary Democrats who not only know how much heavy lifting will be needed to get America out of the ditch, but also remember what happened to John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Al Gore."

Others defending Clinton include:

• The Left Coaster's paradox: "Even I will vote for Hillary Clinton if this keeps up much longer, men who abuse women because they can't get their own lives together give me nothing but the utmost loathing and disgust, especially when they use Republican talking points to do it."
• Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "We need a little straight talk from Hillary's opponents on REAL progressive issues. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton does not provide the most straightforward answers. But those folks living in glass houses need to clean up their act before they start casting stones. I want to hear about issues first. Not Hillary. Speak to the issues and then contrast with Clinton. Do not put the cart before the horse."
• TAPPED's Garance Franke Ruta: "A source inside the Hillary Clinton campaign says that they regularly watch ABC's The View (I hear it's one of those shows popular with the ladies). That being the case, Joy Behar must have made them very happy this afternoon."

OBAMA: Will They Be Home For Christmas?

The Huffington Post's Denise Wheeler and Alycia Dolan look at the effect the 1/3 IA Caucus date may have on Barack Obama's chances: "Nearly a third of the University of Iowa's 30,000 students come from out of state, as do 20 percent of Iowa State's enrollment of 27,000. ... Although a majority of the out-of-state students live in neighboring states such as Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska and Illinois, and many of whom are within a half a day's drive to Iowa, there's no guarantee they'll pull the plug on their winter break and make the trek back in time. ... And it's precisely the youth vote that could make or break the chances of an insurgent candidate like Obama."

Also at HuffPo, Neil Nagraj links to a Project for Excellence in Journalism study on '08 coverage and argues: "Far from being supportive of the Obama candidacy, the press coverage has hurt his campaign by refusing to focus on substance and confirming false charges of inexperience against him."

DODD: Why Are You The Coolest Candidate Ever?

Chris Dodd posts three questions he wishes he had been asked at 10/30's debate at The Huffington Post: 1. Less than two weeks ago, Senator Dodd, you announced you would filibuster any FISA legislation that included retroactive immunity. Why are you opposed to amnesty? 2. Do you think waterboarding is torture? 3. You were the first Democratic Senator to announce your opposition to Michael Mukasey's nomination. Why do you think he isn't qualified to be Attorney General?

RICHARDSON: Staying Out Of Iran By Getting Out Of Iraq

Bill Richardson blogs at The Huffington Post: "Senator Clinton voted to enable George Bush when she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Senator Obama, skipped the Iran vote entirely. ... Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate and work with us for peace. But it is a tried and true method of laying the groundwork for another war -- a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world. ... When it comes to Iraq, I want all the troops out, now. If the president won't do it, we need to convince Congress to stand up -- go to www.getourtroopsout.com to join us."

GIULIANI: Not Sam Brownback

Reactions to Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) endorsement of Rudy Giuliani include:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I see this as a natural alliance of moderate, but strong-on-defense Republicans. Some will find significance in the fact that Coleman is pro-life; his endorsement may help Giuliani in that regard, although no one thinks of Coleman as a member of the "religious right." Maybe so, but I think it mostly reflects the fact that abortion is not the all-consuming issue among Republicans that many reporters want it to be."
• AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "With Gov. Rick Perry, Tommy Thompson and now Coleman, Rudy may be making some headway in getting pro-life well known Republicans on board. It's not Sam Brownback, but it's a start."
• AmSpec's Philip Klein: "It must be pointed out that Coleman hasn't always been the favorite of conservatives, and is viewed as a moderate Republican. This year, he opposed the troop surge in Iraq and voted for SCHIP. His most recent ACU rating is 68. No doubt it's nice to have the endorsement, but I'm not sure it wins Giuliani much with conservatives."

ROMNEY: The Longer They Wait, How High Does The Bar For This Speech Get?

A "former Fred Thompson advisor known for his strong connections in the conservative Christian world" tells The Brody File that new Mitt Romney convert Bill Wichterman "will strongly encourage the former Massachusetts Governor to give a 'Mormon speech.'" Brody adds: "Anyhow, yes Romney needs to make the speech. Is this a no-brainer at this point?"

NM SEN: Looks Like They Got Their Man

The netroots are excited over news Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM) is reconsidering a run for retiring Sen. Pete Domenici's (R-NM) seat. Heath Haussamen goes as far as to report: "has moved beyond simply reconsidering whether he should run ... He's now trying to put the pieces in place for a Senate run." These developments come on top of news that LG Diane Denish will not run.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas comments: "I've got Research 2000 polling this Senate race next week, with results to follow the following week. We'll have a good idea if that SurveyUSA poll showing Udall blowing away the competition is solid, as well as the first numbers of a potential Denish candidacy (which will be important if Udall decides to pass after all)."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why Do Dem Consultants Hate The Environment?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas posts email from an old friend complaining about the "deluge" in mail he gets after contributing to a candidate and comments:

It really is infuriating. I blame direct mail consultants who charge per piece sent. They must love these growing contributor lists because they get to send more crap to people who OBVIOUSLY prefer to donate online. I get direct mail from campaigns and it goes straight into the shredder and recycling bin. ... So here's what I'm going to do -- starting in December, I will NOT FUNDRAISE for any candidate who does not pledge to stop direct mail to people who contribute via ActBlue. ... It's a waste of money, and it's degrading to the environment. I'm tired of it. People are tired of it. And if campaigns won't listen, then I'm through with them.

LEST WE FORGET: You Get What You Pay For

The Corner's Jonah Goldberg links to The Telegraph's explanation for why they listed Frank Luntz as the 17th top conservative in America: "Close to Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, it would be hard to name a prominent GOP political operative or member of Congress of the last 20 years who has not been advised by Luntz."

Goldberg quips: "That may well be true. But it would be fairly easy to name a prominent GOP political operative or member of Congress who has never asked for Luntz's advice, but got it anyway."

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:44 PM

November 01, 2007

11/1: The Whole Point Of Debating

Since we are already on record defending Tim Russert, we have to admit that we fail to see what his big crime was in 10/30's MSNBC Dem debate. First let's review some words the netroots are throwing at him: 'vicious and unbalanced' 'nakedly sexist' 'sexist thug' and 'hack'.

The strongest case against Russert we can find is that almost half of the questions he asked 10/30 "had to do with either Hillary or Bill Clinton ... with 22 of the 25 being abjectly hostile." Defining 'hostile' is inherently subjective, but even taking these numbers at face value, so what? HRC is the frontrunner and this isn't little league.

More importantly though, we don't see any good arguments that any of the questions were bad. Some have argued that the Russert's National Archives question was unfair since "It's also standard operating procedures for all presidents." But isn't there a Dem candidate in the race whose whole campaign is about changing DC's "standard operating procedures"?

And the most illuminating question of the night came from Russert, as well, on undocumented migrants and drivers licenses. This may have been a gotcha moment, but why is that so bad? All indications are that the GOP is going to make immigration a major issue in '08, so wouldn't it be nice to know if the Dem frontrunner is prepared to defend against the issue? If we want the debates to be more than just joint press conferences, we should expect some tough questioning ... especially for the leader of the pack.

CLINTON: It Never Hurts To Defend Other Dems In A Dem Primary

Hillary Clinton's defense of NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (D) plan to give undocumented migrants drivers' licenses earned her wide netroots respect. Reactions include:

• Ezra Klein: "I thought it was a damn good answer. She did seek a couple sidesteps and refused to give a flat yes or no, but she defended her reasoning on the issue, accurately explained the forces and pressures behind Spitzer's decision, and refused to offer the truly craven evasive answer of a simple "no." ... I thought it was one of the night's better moments."
• TAPPED's Kate Sheppard: "While others have criticized it, I think she gave a decent response to what was posed as a "gotcha" question. It would be hard - catastrophic even - for Clinton to come right out and say that she wants all illegal immigrants to have drivers' licenses. Her "It makes a lot of sense" response helped spin it to a way to point out the gross failures of immigration reform and the burden it puts on states and municipalities to deal with some very real problems."
• Taylor Marsh: "The drivers licenses question at the end obviously surprised Clinton. But when explaining Spitzer's plan Clinton once again showed something that her opponents do not get. She is willing to go to bat for our guy in New York, Elliot Spitzer, who has been trying to deal with the immigration challenge he's facing as governor."
• Fire Dog Lake's Jane Hamsher: "[S]he's the one who had the courage to try to defend Eliot Spitzer last night (and more forcefully today), despite the fact that he's politically toxic at the moment and she knew she'd only take s**t for it. Her opponents decided to seize the opportunity to attack her rather than defend Spitzer, and now the media is circling and calling her 'shrill.'"
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "I'd like to do something I don't do too often on this site: Defend a policy position undertaken by the Democrats ... No doubt this isn't the most popular move at this juncture. But with a bit of explanation and political capital (and real capital) invested in making the argument, I think there are a lot of people -- particularly the large proportion of Americans in favor of a path to legalization or citizenship for illegal immigrants -- who could be swayed."

Not everyone was sold on the fact that Clinton had in fact endorsed Spitzer's plan. TPM's Greg Sargent posts Team Clinton's statement on the issue: "Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform."

Sargent parses: "It's almost too obvious to point out, but this just isn't an expression of support for Spitzer's proposed policies in any way. It even falls short of overt support for Spitzer in general -- it says she supports governors "like" Spitzer who are faced with policy conundrums of this sort. ... I'm generally less sympathetic than other people to the constant complaints that Hillary won't say where she stands on key questions. But this one's puzzling to say the least."

CLINTON II: We Seem To Remember Clintons Doing Well When The Economy Is The Issue

In non-immigration HRC blogging, MyDD's Todd Beeton links to Democracy Corps analysis showing economic anxiety will important to voters in '08 and comments: "More than any other Democrat running, Hillary Clinton has devoted her campaign to communicating an "I feel your pain" message about the economy, through her ads ("Invisible," "Trap Door," and "There For You" in particular,) through her "Middle Class Express" bus tour and in debates such her response last night on the AMT question."

The Huffington Post's Jon Weiner, however, reports that Paul Krugman is not sold on HRC as the answer. From Krugman: "We hope we're about to elect FDR but we might be about to elect Grover Cleveland. ... He was what they called a 'Bourbon Democrat' ... He wasn't that different from the Republicans at the time."

In more positive HRC news, ret. Gen. Wesley Clark blogs his support at Blue Hampshire: "I am supporting Hillary for president because she is the right person to lead the country toward a safer, more secure future. The world has reached a critical point, and we need a leader in the White House with the courage, intelligence and humility to navigate through many troubling challenges to our security at home and abroad. Hillary Clinton is that leader."

OBAMA: No Word On Whether The Great Pumpkin Is Real Too

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall explains why Barack Obama's plan to "'fix' the non-existent Social Security crisis" is both bad policy and politics:

The problem on the political side of the equation is that the enemies of Social Security have spent a couple decades arguing that the Trust Fund doesn't exist or that it is simply a bookkeeping device with no true financial meaning. ... If we start pumping a lot more money into Social Security coffers now it will by definition go into more government bonds, which is another way of saying that it will go toward funding our current deficit spending. ... If there is any sense in which the 'Trust Fund' is not 'real' it is that it must be paid back from general revenues. And that will only be harder the more other debt we're running up. So rather than solving the problem, I think we're actually enabling it.

The second problem is that we need a national agreement or consensus that the Trust Fund is real, that it will be honored, and have the debate about the future of the program on that basis. ... Lifting the payroll tax cap while Social Security is still running a big surplus not only solves a problem that doesn't exist it enables the very policies that put the program in danger.

GOP FIELD: Drivers' Licenses Are Just The Tip Of The Iceberg

Human Events conducted an email poll of its 32K subscribers, 1,984 of who responded to the question: "If a Republican presidential primary were held in your state today, which of the candidates would you vote for?" Results include:

Fred Thompson 25%
Rudy Giuliani 20%
Mike Huckabee 19%
Mitt Romney 13%
Duncan Hunter 8%
Ron Paul 8%
Tom Tancredo 5%
John McCain 2%

HE also asked subscribers to "Rank the following issues (values, healthcare, education, media bias, illegal immigration, taxes, right to life, War in Iraq, size of government, competence in government, and homeland security) with 1 being the most important and 10 least important." Illegal immigration won. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff links and comments: "Whatever the precise dimension of the present conservative tent, all Human Events readers have a good case for inclusion. But whether they constitute a representative sample, I don't know."

In related news, Matthew Yglesias links to Democracy Corps analysis showing "to independents the entrance of too many immigrants into the country is overwhelmingly the top priority. And, indeed, independents see pretty much everything as more important than Iraq."

GIULIANI: Hog Wild

Rudy Giuliani made sure conservatives knew he made the talk radio rounds hitting Hillary Clinton on immigration 10/31. AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin posts the following exchange from Glenn Beck's show:

• GLENN BECK: "Did you watch with your mouth opening thinking, 'I don't even know what that answer about driver's licenses even means from Hillary Clinton?'"
• MAYOR GIULIANI: "You know, she was being attacked all night for taking different positions in front of different audiences and then by the end of the night, she took different positions in front of the same audience. It was pretty amazing. I mean, in politics I've never quite seen that before. ... My answer to it is no. Of course you don't give out driver's licenses to illegals. Among other things, it'll make it even more difficult to deal with all the fraud, all the forgery that's going on."

NRO's Jim Geraghty sums up Giuliani's Sean Hannity appearance: "the dominant topic of discussion was (what else?) Hillary's comments on offering driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Giuliani sounded as happy as a pig in... well, you know what."

In other Giuliani news, AmSpec's Philip Klein documents the AP, Andrew Sullivan, Talking Points Memo, and Keith Olbermann all falsely accusing Rudy of claiming Dems would invite Osama bin Laden to the White House. In fact, Giuliani actually referred to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The AP and Sullivan have corrected, TPM and Olbermann not so much.

HUCKABEE: Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt hosted Mike Huckabee on his 10/31 radio show and reports back: "[F]rom my audience on air and in e-mail is not good at all. The neo-Willie Horton case isn't the problem, but the answers on illegals who turn 18 are being very poorly received, as is the governor's endorsement of an anti-federalist one-size-fits-all-states workplace smoking ban."

MCCAIN: What Sort Of Shell Has A Nut Like This?

NRO's Jim Geraghty summarizes a John McCain 'Strategy Memo' making "the case that their man is the one who is most electable where it counts." From Geraghty: "In a nutshell, they say that there are three states where McCain performs better than Giuliani where both lead Hillary significantly: Arkansas, Kansas and New Mexico. There are four states where McCain beats Hillary, but that Giuliani loses: Virginia, Washington, Ohio and Kentucky. ... And their central point is the states that Giuliani performs better than McCain - New York and California, are two states where Hillary is way ahead anyway. ... Is the argument compelling? In its broadest outlines, yes."

ROMNEY: Marriage Brings Them Together Today

The Brody File broke news that Fred Thompson religous outreach aide Bill Wichterman will be moving to Mitt Romney's campaign. Brody explains: "Bill Wichterman left the Thompson campaign because Thompson DOES NOT support the federal marriage amendment. At least the version that is on the table now. Mitt Romney does support it. Wichterman liked that fit. Who can blame him?"

NRO's Jim Geraghty got wind of the switch from his "Thompson Associate" who also predicts "an endorsement of Mitt Romney by James Dobson in the near future."

THOMPSON: If It's Sunday...

Fred Thompson took to RedState to capitalize on Hillary Clinton's endorsement of drivers' licenses for undocumented migrants: "While Hillary Clinton was speaking out both sides of her mouth at last night's debate over the issue of drivers licenses for illegal aliens, what went unsaid is that this is a recipe for increased voter fraud. ... I think we have to quit inducing people to come and stay if they're illegal."

NRO's Jim Geraghty was excited to announce Fred Thompson will be appearing on Meet the Press 11/4: "I'm enough of a geek to set my DVR for this Sunday ... Semi-seriously, while Thompson is enjoying ignoring the Washington press corps, he could do himself a lot of good on Sunday morning by looking prepared, knowledgeable, direct, and unflappable."

AmSpec's Jennifer Rubin mocks: "And for those of you who think Thompson isn't working hard enough, his campaign puts out an email to inform us he is having a breakfast in Nevada on Thursday and doing Meet the Press on Sunday. That's it. Sounds like the first two hours of a Romney day."

BLOGGERS VS BELTWAY: What We Have Here ...

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) took to Daily Kos 10/31 to respond to Daily Kos diarist accusations that her willingness "to grant retroactive immunity to TelCos" is due to ease her "troubled soul." Harman blogged:

What rubbish! For those like me who insist that the President's domestic surveillance program must comply fully with the Constitution and the 4th Amendment, the only way for Congress to get there is with a veto-proof majority. That's why I'm working with Republicans. Got a better idea? ... In my view, the question of retroactive immunity cannot even be considered until Congress is fully informed about what happened and under what authority.

The community responded:

• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "Is the only way for Congress to force the president to comply with the Constitution and the 4th Amendment to garner a veto-proof majority? Why? ... did we just see a United States Congresswoman tell us that bits and pieces of the Constitution could be killed off unless we can get 67 Senators and 290 Representatives to spare them?"


• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Harman's arguments are just weird. The President is breaking the law, and the solution is to... change the law so that he's no longer breaking it? I don't get it."


• the original dKos diarist: "You ask me if I have a better idea about how to proceed. 1. I want you to tell us what you know about whether the Government conducted illegal warrantless surveillance under the Program from 10/2001- 3/2004; 2. Then I want you to tell us that it was unconstitutional, anti-American, and wrong; 3. Then I would like you and the rest of Congress to stand up in public and say that illegal Warrantless Surveillance of Americans is wrong; 4. I want to see full investigations of the illegality of the Warrantless Surveillance program and those who authorized it, and a pledge that it will never happen again; 5. I want a moratorium on extra-FISA wiretapping and FISA-related legislation until the illegality of the program is disclosed and remedied, in full."


• Daily Kos' buhdydharma: "Representative Harman, It's Just a Misunderstanding. You see, we think George Bush is a criminal. While evidently you don't. And we don't think that our Representatives and Senators should aid and abet criminals."

MD 04: Better Dems Wanted

A who's who of the netroots is shooting to raise $100k for Donna Edwards in response to a House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) 11/3 fundraiser for Rep. Al Wynn (D). Open Left's Chris Bowers documents Wynn's atrocities: "Wynn voted for the war in Iraq, the repeal of the estate tax, was a cosponsor of the bill gutting net neutrality, the Bankruptcy Bill, and the 2005 Energy Bill. He's really the epitome of the corrupt Democrat who gives cover to the right-wing to enact legislation."

Those helping Edwards include: Swing State Project, Color of Change, Down with Tyranny, MyDD, Atrios, AMERICAblog, Crooks and Liars, and Fire Dog Lake.

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas challenges: "Wanna take on the establishment? If we want to be relevant in the political world, we have to go beyond just electing more Democrats -- as important as that might be -- and start working for better Democrats. ... Nancy Pelosi will be fundraising for Wynn on Saturday, There's no greater example of the inherent corruption of the system than a supposed progressive House Speaker taking time to raise money for a sleazebag like Al Wynn."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Coalitions In The Making

IA Independent's Dien Judge links to National Wildlife Federation polling showing "69 percent of Iowa hunters and anglers believe global warming is occurring. Of those respondents, 58 percent believe that human activity is a least a contributing factor to global warming, and 52 percent believe that the United States is doing too little to address the issue. ... Among likely Republican caucus attendees who were polled, 51-percent of them believe that global warming is occurring. And 90 percent of likely Democratic caucus attendees believe in global warming."

Judge comments: "The old stereotype says that these camouflage and blaze orange-clad sportsmen have just one thing on their minds -- guns. But while it is true that they are ever-vigilant in protecting their right to bear arms, sportsmen also care deeply about the environment."

LEST WE FORGET: None Of These People Ever Ride Our Metro

Slate points us to this Craig's List rant on one NY subway rider's list of "hooligans" that annoy him on the subway:

• Lady that fans herself with a piece of paper in the train car with broken a/c: Look lady, the air is hot. Not just your air but everyone's air. We are all breathing in each other's nasty hot breath and germs and here you go creating a gust of hot wind.
• Ghostfarter: OK, I know it may be hard to hold it, but if you had diarrhea this morning of course your farts are going to reek! ... Hey if one clipped out, OK - it's happened to the best of us but you try to move around a bit and circulate. Don't just stand there and poof out stinker after stinker while you read your paper!
• Lady that hugs the pole on a crowded train: Are you f**king blind!?? There are other people riding the train with you jerk but yet you proceed to make sweet love to the silver pole. Can we maybe hold on for a second TOO so we don't break and ankle??!!!

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:50 PM

Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.