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 November 26, 2007 01:16 PM