December 20, 2007

12/20: A Backlash On Backlashes?

As we've discussed on numerous occasions, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama are polarizing figures in the blogosphere. Huckabee's recent poll surge spurred a barrage of criticism from conservative bloggers who don't trust Huckabee on immigration, taxes, and foreign policy. The harsh criticism of Huckabee, in turn, spurred a backlash from social conservatives who feel that the GOP establishment expects evangelicals to be seen but not heard.

Similarly, many progressive bloggers (as well as NYT columnist Paul Krugman), think that Obama's conciliatory rhetoric reveals a disturbing naivete and an unwillingness to play hardball with the GOP. Others (such as Matthew Yglesias) think that Obama's speeches demonstrate his ability to win over opponents and build a dominant political coalition. Chris Bowers, who falls into the former category, summarizes the issue thusly:

"The rhetoric Obama uses clearly can be interpreted in different ways by different people. For me, it is the single biggest turnoff of his entire campaign. On its ideological and partisan implications, I don't believe, trust, or even want what Obama describes on unity. For many others, it seems to be the strongest selling point for his candidacy, at least on the multicultural pluralism it promises. It doesn't seem like it is possible to have one without the other when it comes to Obama, but figuring out which part of Obama's rhetoric one favors more does indeed seem like a progressive Rorschach test."

GOP FIELD: A Faction War

Noting that Rudy Giuliani has lost his national lead in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey writes: "In part, this reflects the decreasing impact of Iraq on the election. In the beginning of the year, the buzzword for the Republicans was 'competence', and the main focus for that was Iraq. The surge had not started, and the situation appeared to have spiraled out of control...Republicans wanted a tough candidate with a proven record of competence, and at the time seemed willing to compromise on almost everything else to get it. Twelve months later, that deal appears dead. With Iraq heading in the right direction, and with Democrats in total disarray against a President who doesn't look much like a lame duck, Republicans have decided that policy matters after all. In fact, it matters so much that the debate over policy has morphed into a faction war over the past three months, and it has at times threatened to alienate key parts of the conservative coalition."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt still sees a two-person race between Mitt Romney and Giuliani, with Romney in the driver's seat: "The various threats (Huckabee in Iowa, [John] McCain in New Hampshire) to the Romney plan and the various premature obituaries penned on the Giuliani plan all overlook the fundamental fact that more than 50% of the GOP is pledged to either of these two men. That is because these are the two candidates who can beat Hillary or Obama. None of the other three have shown themselves capable of raising the money, the energy, or the coalition to manage that task...Absent a major mistake between now and February 5, Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee. If he does stumble badly, Rudy will be there to take Romney's voters and the nomination."

HUCKABEE: Splitting The Conservative Coalition?

Yesterday we discussed how the conservative bloggers at NRO's The Corner are fiercely denying the charge that they are opposed to Huckabee because he's an evangelical. As Jonathan Adler wrote:

"I am probably one of Huckabee's more strident critics here on the Corner, but let me stress that it is not because he is an evangelical...I happily support evangelical candidates (or candidates of whatever religion) who espouse sound policy views."

Beliefnet's Rod Dreher sees a double standard:

"It's funny, but when it looked like Rudy Giuliani, a social liberal, was going to be the nominee, we didn't see many, if any, establishment Republican opinion leaders freaking out over what kind of danger to the future of the party and the nation he represented...I think it's fair to say that it was assumed that Giuliani would be a sound representative of the Republican Party, and that the social and religious conservatives would do like they always do and get in line. Pat Robertson sure did.

But lo, it turns out that the candidate who's caught fire comes straight out of the religious/social conservative wing of the coalition, and he is unsound on issues most important to the fiscal wing. It's not supposed to work that way. Nobody at the elite level seems to expect the economic conservatives to suck it up for the sake of party unity. What does that say about the place of social conservatives in the party all these years?

I don't want to overdo this. I think it's perfectly fine to be worried about Huckabee's vagueness, and his unpreparedness. I'm worried about these things too, which is a big reason why I can't say I'd vote for him...Still, it's hard to shake the belief that the real problem with Mike Huckabee, as far as the establishment is concerned, is that he's not clubbable."

NRO's Andrew Stuttaford disagrees: "Much as I enjoy Rod Dreher's writing, his piece is all too typical of the Huckabee-as-victim meme that is now beginning to surface...The idea that social conservatives are not taken seriously by the GOP hierarchy is, quite simply, nonsense: how else to explain, for example, some of the twisting and turning we have seen from Messrs Romney and Giuliani in recent months?"

Like Dreher, RedState's Erick Erickson thinks the GOP establishment is being unfair to evangelicals: "The other day I said all the attacks on Huckabee come across as so anti-evangelical, so anti-southern, and so anti-social conservative that the attacks are doing nothing but helping Mike Huckabee. I expect him to go up in the polls even further as a result of the establishment New York-Washington Corridor of Mainstream Intelligentsia and parts of the New York-Washington Corridor of Conservative Intelligentsia attack his Christmas ad...Seriously? Christians can't talk about their faith in an advertisement that they are paying for?...Sometimes a 'Merry Christmas ad' is just a Merry Christmas ad made all the more refreshing because the candidate is not afraid of his faith. And sometimes the criticism lodged at the candidate reveals yet again that while many in the establishment right want evangelicals in the coalition, they just really don't want them in leadership positions or talking prominently about their faith."

Huckabee himself echoed Erickson's phrase about "the New York-Washington Corridor of Mainstream Intelligentsia" during an interview with CBN's David Brody:

"There is a level of elitism that has existed, the chattering class if you will, who lives in that corridor between Washington and Wall Street and they sort of live in their protected world, and frankly for a number of years many of them thought of people like me -- whether it was because we were evangelicals or because maybe we were out from the middle of America. They were polite to us. They were more than happy for us to come to the rallies and stand in lines for hours to cheer on the candidates...But when they got elected, behind closed doors, they would laugh at us and speak with scorn and derision that we were, as one article I think once said, 'the easily led.' So there's been almost this sort of, 'it's okay if you guys get a seat on the bus, but don't ever think about telling us where the bus is going to go'."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff doesn't like Huckabee's (and Erickson's) argument: "This self-pitying nonsense is an insult to Republicans, and demonstrates further why Huckabee should not be the party's standard bearer. First, Huckabee overlooks the fact that George W. Bush, though not a preacher, is a born-again Christian. If Republicans like [Rich] Lowry wanted to keep Christian conservatives at arms-length why did they support Bush so firmly? The notion that evangelicals have somehow been excluded from the Republican discussion is ludicrous. Second, the quickness with which Huckabee conflates criticism of his record and his policy statements with antipathy towards evangelicals is telling...Huckabee seems to believe he deserves a 'pass' by virtue of his status as an evangelical and the fact that evangelicals have supported Republicans."

NRO's Mark Levin agrees with Mirengoff: "Mike Huckabee is now becoming a very divisive figure in the Republican party. It's not his faith or his Merry Christmas commercial that many conservatives question (I certainly don't), but it's his record as governor and his stated positions on the war, foreign policy generally, taxes, spending, and illegal aliens. And exposing his positions is a natural part of the primary process. He is now using his faith as a defense for populist/liberal/misguided policy positions and implying that those who disagree with him are challenging his faith -- or more accurately, dismissing Evangelicals."

Levin continues: "How did Huckabee become the spokesman for Christians anyway? When did this happen? A few weeks ago he was a little known governor from Arkansas with 2-percent national support among Republicans. Now, he's a spokesman for an entire religion, or part of it anyway. (Also, I am not part of the Wall Street crowd, a neo-con or whatever, in case he or anyone on his staff is wondering. Just an old-time Reaganite.)"

HUCKABEE II: Facing A Roadblock In SC?

NRO's Jim Geraghty thinks Huckabee's Iowa surge may not carry over to South Carolina: "Recent history suggests that Iowa Republicans have a history of falling hard for the candidate who wears his religion on his sleeve the most...[but] it's going to take more than a sweet-talking Southern Baptist preacher to turn heads in the upstate of South Carolina. People there will not blindly follow him because he wears the Cross on his sleeve...Compared to Iowa, South Carolina's Republican voters look establishment: their winner has always gone on to be the nominee. And faith-on-their sleeve candidates tend to be afterthoughts."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle thinks Geraghty is right: "Iowa is more populist, less hawkish, and and more receptive to candidates who emphasize social issues while South Carolina has a religious right that is more divided, more integrated into the party establishment, and more hawkish on issues of national defense...Iowa has tended to be where socially conservative candidates have peaked while South Carolina is where the party establishment has circled the wagons against insurgent candidates. Since 1988, S.C. is essentially where George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, and George W. Bush won the GOP nomination, while Iowa has been the best state for Pat Robertson, Alan Keyes (and Steve Forbes), and, if present trends continue, possibly Mike Huckabee...It will be interesting to see if Huckabee succeeds where Pats Robertson and Buchanan failed."

MCCAIN: Credit Where Credit's Due

Glenn Reynolds links to a YouTube video from 2000 in which McCain expresses concern about Vladimir Putin's autocratic tendencies. Reynolds writes: "In our podcast interview earlier this week, John McCain delivered a lot of I Told You Sos. This YouTube video from 2000 suggests that he might add his assessment of Time Man of the Year Vladimir Putin to that list. I have my problems with McCain on domestic policy issues, but on national security and foreign policy he's good, and this video makes you wonder how he would have done had he won in 2000."

RedState's Erick Erickson also links to the video and writes: "A lot of criticisms of NR's endorsement of Romney revolve around them barely touching on foreign policy matters. For as much as Romney is a domestic guy, McCain really is our foreign policy candidate...Ivan's gone crazy again and the State Department seems more interested in capitulating to the Axis of Evil than dealing with resurgent commies in South America, China, and Russia. We might need a cold warrior like John McCain to fight the second coming of the Commies."

Soren Dayton also praises McCain: "Look what McCain said in 2000 about Putin. (H/T Instapundit) The guy understood what Putin was. President Bush, who got many things right in our foreign policy, got Russia horribly wrong. If he had more experience, he might have gotten it right...So when we have these discussions about people's foreign policy credentials, we should at least give credit where credit is due. Experience, at least in McCain's case, would have mattered. As we look forward, we need to remember that. When people attack Mike Huckabee for his foreign policy but praise Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, or Rudy Giuliani, we should remember something fundamental. Their foreign policy statements are ghost-written. John McCain's aren't. That's a real difference."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "It is now clear that McCain was right all along about the Surge. And aside from showing how much Bush and McCain have aged in the last eight years, this video demonstrates that McCain also had a better sense of who Time's 'Person of the Year' -- Vladimir Putin -- really was..."

DEM FIELD: It's All Tied Up

Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks Obama and Huckabee are the frontrunners for their respective party nominations: "I consider these the gutsiest predictions I have made in over three years. Predicting an Obama vs. Huckabee general election is not the easiest thing to do right now. Literally hundreds of people have personally told me how disappointed they were in my 2004 primary and 2004 general election predictions, and so I made it my business to never be wrong again."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer notes that Obama has tied Hillary Clinton in two SC polls and concludes that the race has tightened: "No doubt this is going to be a brawl over the next few weeks, with several possible outcomes -- perhaps as many as 18 permutations of results out of the first three states, though probably a bit less -- depending on what happens over the next 13 days before Iowa, what happens in Iowa, how the ABC News/Facebook debate shakes out after Iowa, and what happens in New Hampshire. Some of the top prognosticators may still believe that we still have a significant favorite on the Democratic side, but looking at the numbers out of the early states and the vast number of possibilities, I just don't see it anymore -- I just don't see any candidate holding a greater than 50 percent shot at getting the nomination at this point."

Open Left's Mike Lux offers a cautious Iowa prediction: "From what I hear from Iowans, and read about the race, my best guess right now is that Obama wins, [John] Edwards is second, and Hillary is third, and that the top three stay pretty close together. But things could change in a heartbeat, there are still a remarkably high number of undecideds, and the caucuses are extremely unpredictable."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong thinks "it's all about turnout": "Basically, if it's all the tried and true 2004 caucus goers, plus another 25% or so, that Edwards has the advantage. If it winds up being a blown out caucus that has greater than 50,000 more attendees than 2004 (most of the polls are working off this assumption), then Obama wins. If it's somewhere in the middle, bigger than what would be usual but less than what's being projected in the polls, then it's [HRC]...The big '?' is weather. A snowy cold night will depress turnout. Right now, snow is being projected to begin just after Christmas and getting heavier as the year ends."

OBAMA: A Progressive Rorschach Test?

In an interview with TPM Election Central, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman ramps up his case against Obama:

TPM: "Some, including Matthew Yglesias, have argued that this focus on Obama's conciliatory rhetoric obscures the fact that Obama would still more likely prove a genuinely progressive president than Hillary would be."

Krugman: "What evidence is there that she would be especially bad for the progressive movement? For what it's worth, Hillary's actual policy proposals are more aggressive than Obama's."

TPM: "What other things gave rise to your current critique of Obama?"

Krugman: "When Obama used the word 'crisis' about Social Security it gave me a little bit of a sense of, 'Hmmm'...To have Obama sort of sounding like the Washington Post editorial page really said among other things that he just hasn't been listening to progressives, for whom the fight against Bush's Social Security scare tactics was really a defining moment. Among the Dems he seems to be the least attuned to what progressives think. It's a tone thing. I find it a little bit worrisome if we have a candidate who basically starts compromising before the struggle has even begun."

TPM: "But surely there's something to the argument that the skills to build coalitions, to win over moderates on the other side, aren't without any importance. Should we really take tone and rhetorical skills out of the equation entirely?"

Krugman: "No, but there aren't any moderates on the other side...The Democratic nominee is still going to be running on a platform that is substantially to the left of how Bill Clinton governed, and the Republican is going to nominate someone to the right of Attila the Hun. You want the Dem who's going to make that difference clear and not say things that will be used by Republicans to say, 'Well, even their candidate says...'"

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum shares Krugman's view: "Krugman's fear seems to be that Obama is expecting that he can charm and negotiate his way out of this inevitable confrontation, and won't be prepared when that turns out not to work. Edwards and Clinton, by contrast, since they harbor no illusions, will be willing to play hardball from day one. That doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be out on the hustings every day during their first term hurling populist invective at pharmaceutical companies and the insurance industry, but it does mean that, like FDR, they'll be willing to use every lever of power they can think of, both public and private, to get their way."

In a move that certainly won't help endear Obama to the netroots, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter comes to Obama's defense: "[Krugman's] attack on Barack Obama on December 17 was wrong on history, wrong on politics and wrong on what the future holds for Obama's 'big table' idea...Krugman says that pundits like me who reject sharp anti-corporate rhetoric and prefer cooperation are 'projecting their own desires onto the public.' We'll see. But last time I checked, millions of Americans still work for corporations or aspire to do so and bashing them wholesale is a loser politically. It works sometimes in Democratic primaries with a heavy labor vote (though not for Dick Gephardt). But not in general elections. To call Obama 'anti-change,' as Paul Krugman does, is anti-common sense. Leadership requires a mixture of confrontation and compromise, with room for the losers to save face."

Meanwhile, The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias endorses the idea (first articulated by Kevin Drum) that the Dem primary has become a sort of Rorschach test, in which people project their own desires and fears onto the top three candidates: "I read this from Krugman: 'being president isn't at all like being a state legislator.' Exactly, I thought. Krugman has found an example of Obama doing his job as a state senator well, and decided to simply assume that he doesn't understand that being president is different from being a state senator. I see the reverse -- I see a guy who was an effective state senator, which I see as evidence that he'd be effective in other roles as well. It's a pure rorschach issue."

Chris Bowers agrees with Drum's Rorschach thesis: "When I hear Obama's rhetoric, to me it comes off as distancing himself from DFHs, appeasing the Washington Elite Bi-Partisan Consensus, and compromising before negotiations even begin. To others, like Frank Rich, it sounds like Obama is opposing himself from conservatives who have long worked to divide the nation along various cultural lines...I'm pretty sure that both interpretations are correct."

RICHARDSON: What About Iraq?

Bill Richardson posts a diary entry on the Huffington Post: "Some of my fellow candidates have decided to stop talking about Iraq. I'm not sure if they think the surge is working, or just that their polls tell them it is simpler and safer to follow the media's lead and just forget our brave troops and what this war is costing us. Well, I believe that 'easy' isn't necessarily right, so even if I'm the only person speaking the truth on this issue, I'm not going to stop."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: McCain/Giuliani '08?

Campaign Standard's Richelieu envisions another crazy scenario:

"McCain finishes fourth in Iowa, but still ahead of the rapidly fading Rudy Giuliani. McCain will still get a small bounce out of that, and he's been climbing steadily over the last four weeks in New Hampshire. Rudy's decline -- rumors abound that the Giuliani machine has run out of money -- is a godsend to McCain in New Hampshire. Perhaps McCain can upset Romney and Huckabee there and start surging into Michigan and South Carolina...

Rudy continues to drop in the polls. His campaign is indeed broke. The media continue to hammer him on ethics. He finishes a dismal fifth or even sixth in Iowa. Polls show him third or worse in New Hampshire. With his campaign broke and without money to run TV ads, Rudy faces a stark choice. He can either run and badly lose the next four contests -- NH, MI, SC, NV -- and then collapse in Florida. Or he can make huge brazen move to capture the entire race.

On the Saturday after the Iowa caucus, Rudy Giuliani drops out of the race and strongly endorses John McCain. McCain surges and wins New Hampshire. A national McCain surge accelerates. McCain campaigns with Rudy at his side, who is obviously the frontrunner now for vice president on a McCain/Giuliani security-and-competence ticket. In 24 hours Rudy goes from doomed to Superman. With McCain likely to only serve one term, Vice President Giuliani enters 2012 as the GOP frontrunner...

Crazy? Sure. Rudy hates to quit. But he also has a big card to play, and if the next two weeks don't break his way, a very big move may not be so dumb after all."

LEST WE FORGET: David Lee Roth, America's Secret Weapon

The New Republic's Jason Zengerle:

"Matt Yglesias notes the role the Red Hot Chili Peppers played in the torture of Abu Zubaydah. Which sent me on a search for the specific music U.S. troops played when they were trying to flush Manuel Noriega out of the Vatican Embassy in Panama back in 1989. According to Wikipedia, the number one song in the Noriega psyops rotation was Van Halen's 'Panama.' Kind of an obvious choice in hindsight."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:55 PM

December 19, 2007

12/19: Iowa Surprise 2.0

Throughout the year, the media devoted so much attention to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that John Edwards often seemed to get overlooked. But now there are signs that the political winds might be blowing in the ex-senator's direction. His Newsweek cover story, his solid performance in the Des Moines Register debate, and David Yepsen's recent column all contribute to the impression that Edwards has momentum in Iowa. Furthermore, Obama's recent criticism of Edwards' senate record suggests that the Obama campaign views Edwards as a threat. Edwards has long been the netroots' favorite candidate, and his online supporters are working hard to support their guy. Will Edwards surprise the political world (again) by repeating his strong '04 finish in Iowa?

EDWARDS: The Ultimate Closer?

MyDD's desmoinesdem: "When Bill Clinton tells Charlie Rose that Edwards may win Iowa, and Obama criticizes Edwards by name at a campaign stop in Iowa, I suspect that their internal polling is showing a surge for Edwards...Edwards is peaking at the right time, just before Iowans get together with their friends and relatives during the holidays. He gave a great performance at the Des Moines Register's debate last week, and his television commercials speak to activist Democrats' desire for a candidate who will fight for our values. I have been saying all year that Edwards would start to pull away as undecided voters made up their minds. Although the race is still tight, I think Edwards is in a great position to shock the political establishment on January 3."

MyDD's david mizner: "It wasn't supposed to be this way, with Edwards still in the thick of the race. Clinton and Obama had planned to out-spend and out-celebrity him into oblivion...But it's clear now that Edwards will be a serious threat to the end. So Clinton and Obama have to try to tap into his support, which, by most accounts, is increasing."

Obsidian Wings' publius: "Posts like this reinforce my growing view that Edwards is in a much stronger position in Iowa than the polls show. Specifically, Edwards benefits from the 15% threshold in a couple of ways: (1) he's the most popular 'second' choice; (2) his rural organization makes it less likely that he'll come in under 15% in many precincts."

Reflecting Obama supporters' concerns about Edwards, Daily Kos diarist (and Obama supporter) Geekesque argues that Edwards can't beat HRC: "The bottom line is that if it's Edwards vs. Clinton in the end, Clinton will run him over with resources, appeal to African-Americans, a political machine that has been built up over two decades, and overwhelming advantages in support going in...Edwards is a distant, distant, distant third in the non-Iowa Early States. He's behind both Clinton and Obama by double digits in New Hampshire, more than twenty points in South Carolina, and by more than thirty points in Nevada. Even with a not-so-surprising win in Iowa, it's very, very, very difficult to see him turning that into a win in New Hampshire, a state that does not match up well with his populist themes, and which shrugged its shoulders at his momentum coming out of Iowa in 2004 to the tune of 12%."

Daily Kos diarist (and Edwards supporter) McSnatherson fires back: "John Edwards effing well CAN beat Hillary...Money has a strictly limited value, whatever K Street might like you to believe, and momentum counts for a hell of a lot more. And as noted, John Edwards is excellently poised to take that momentum...if Edwards wins Iowa, I'd be quite surprised if he doesn't pick up SC (the state where he was born, incidentally) and Nevada as well. New Hampshire I'll concede is iffier, if only because I know less about it."

Meanwhile, the latest InsiderAdvantage Iowa poll -- which shows Edwards with 30%, HRC with 26%, and Obama with 24% -- is adding to the excitement of Edwards' online supporters:

Daily Kos diarist jsamuel: "This poll gives credence to what people have already seen happening in Iowa since the Des Moines Register Debate."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "If you want to take all your stock from one poll, that the pundits are not blowing smoke when they talk about the Edwards being the 'sleeper' in Iowa."

Open Left's Chris Bowers supports Edwards, but he thinks this poll might be an outlier: "Why is this survey more favorable to Edwards? It could be because of an Edwards surge, but it could also be the result of the poll projecting that only one in eight caucus goers will be under the age of 45. Not only is that wildly inconsistent with 2004 entrance survey results for Iowa which indicated one in three caucus goers were under the page of 45, but it is also certain to drag down Obama's numbers given that he has consistently performed well among younger voters."

Jerome Armstrong: "Polling in Iowa is bizarre...For me, I'll wait for Zogby's last poll to bank on, especially in regard to second choices -- where he nailed it in '04."

OBAMA: With Compliments Like These...

The backlash to ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey's controversial comments about Obama continues in the liberal blogosphere:

TPMCafe's M.J. Rosenberg: "It was an intentional effort to remind Iowans and New Hampsherites that Obama is not really 'one of us.' Think about it. All [Kerrey] had to do was to say how cool it is that we have a candidate like Barack Obama, who is African-American, grew up in Indonesia, whatever...But why use a middle name Obama never uses. A middle name that appears only a right-wing websites as a slur...All of a sudden, the race tightens and suddenly Obama's race is an issue. Who woulda thunk it? I guess America has not gotten as far as I thought it had."

TAPPED's Tom Schaller: "Try to imagine that, say, operatives close to Barack Obama campaign, or some major politician who has endorsed him, took a cue from former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey and went on television making allegations about Clinton's sexuality, adding insincerely that, of course, if those allegations were true, they might actually be an asset to Sen. Clinton, given the importance of gay issues in America today. What would happen? Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson's head would explode so violently it would need to be surgically re-attached to his shoulders. And rightly so. It would be wildly inappropriate, something worthy of a conservative front group. But Team Clinton is doing it because, well, when everything is at stake anything goes."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I was just barely willing to give [Kerrey] the benefit of the doubt about his 'Obama's Muslim father' remarks -- largely because I think he's substantively right about this -- but his 'secular madrassa' comment simply can't be spun as sincere even if you're bending over backward to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he really thinks he's helping Hillary with the nonsense, he's sadly mistaken."

Meanwhile, TAPPED's Sam Boyd thinks Kerrey's controversial remarks actually help Obama: "Barack Obama must be thanking his lucky stars for Bob Kerrey who referred to Obama's education in a 'secular madrassa' (which is makes about as much sense as secular seminary) yesterday. It continues the theme of nasty attacks against him and makes him that much more the victim."

OBAMA II: Winning The Hearts Of Documentarians Everywhere

Blue Hampshire's Dean Barker thinks it's a big deal that filmmaker (and NH resident) Ken Burns has endorsed Obama : "A Ken Burns endorsement in New Hampshire is big news; Senator Obama should count himself as lucky to have it. But the even bigger story riding on top of this is why the Walpole documentarian decided to speak out. He says we need 'a leader who calls upon on each and every one of us to heed the better angels of our nature and not -- and not -- our basest fears.' Clearly this is a reference to the Senator Clinton's terrible, awful, not very good last week, courtesy of Billy Shaheen."

Meanwhile, Sam Boyd wonders: "Can a nine-part documentary about Obama's life be far behind?"

CLINTON: Smart As A Whip

Edwards and Obama may be more popular among the Kossacks, but HRC still attracts considerable support from prominent liberal bloggers:

Steve Clemons thinks HRC compares favorably to Obama: "I am convinced of something about Hillary Clinton's commitment to use every lever and every aspect of government machinery to push her legislative and policy work that I'm disappointed to say that I can't find as strongly in Barack Obama's profile. My concern has to do with the fact that as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations' Subcommittee on Europe, Obama has held zero hearings...while I want Hillary Clinton to get more creative (and Nixonian, in the good sense) in looking at foreign policy deal-making through a different lens, particularly on Israel/Palestine matters and Cuba...I want to commend the fact that she does work every aspect of the legislative machinery and knows these policy issues well."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum is also leaning toward HRC: "Hillary is smart and well-briefed, she is level-headed, and the evidence suggests that over the past seven years she's gotten pretty good at working with Republicans to get things done in the Senate. I like those qualities and would like to see them in a Democratic president, so I'm happy to project them onto her. Conversely, anybody who thinks that Obama or anyone else is going to overcome the influence of big corporations via sneakiness and stealth is living in a dreamworld. It may be possible to do a deal with conservatives and their lobbyists on various issues, but they aren't going to be conned and they aren't going to be fooled. Unfortunately, I have a deep fear that maybe Obama really does believe he can do that."

HUCKABEE: The Backlash To The Anti-Huckabee Backlash

The bloggers at NRO's The Corner are defending themselves against charges that they dislike Mike Huckabee because he's an evangelical Christian:

NRO's Jonah Goldberg posts an email from a reader, who writes:

"I recall a good number of 'how Rudy can reach out to social conservatives' columns on NRO and elsewhere. Why aren't there any 'how Huck can connect with fiscal conservatives' columns being written? Well, the obvious answer is that Jon Chait is right, and the GOP leadership and conservative chattering classes are using social conservatives. Consequently, they would be ok with Rudy, but ill at ease with Huck. But, if (as I think you've argued) Chait is wrong, then the NRO folks ought to start with the carrots."

Goldberg responds: "This sounds sort of good at first, but ultimately I don't buy it. One point I would make is that the timing is different. Huckabee was a nobody in the race for most of the last year and social conservatives had other candidates they were more comfortable with for a bunch of reasons. This surge comes awfully late in the game and most people have committed themselves one way or another and it's asking a lot of declared supporters [of other candidates] to start writing passionate appeals to another on how he can win. Indeed, it is not the job of Huckabee opponents to write articles on how he can reach out to fiscal conservatives. It's the job of Huckabee supporters who are otherwise dismayed by his sketchy views on economics (or whatever) to coax him toward more traditionally conservative -- and therefore more unifying -- position. Most of the articles this reader has in mind were written by [Rudy] Giuliani supporters or by fence-sitters who wanted to move him to the right."

NRO's Rich Lowry: "One of the things that amazes me is that pro-Huck e-mailers will say we just don't want an evangelical to lead the party and be president. As if they never heard of the famously evangelical George W. Bush, standard bearer of the GOP and President of the United States."

NRO's Jonathan Adler: "I am probably one of Huckabee's more strident critics here on the Corner, but let me stress that it is not because he is an evangelical, nor is it because I support another candidate (Fred Thompson). I happily support evangelical candidates (or candidates of whatever religion) who espouse sound policy views. My inital complaint about Huckabee was that there was nothing particularly conservative about him other than his views on a handful of social issues...Neither his record nor his rhetoric suggested that he believed in limited government, economic liberty, federalism or personal responsibility."

NRO's Victor Davis Hanson also denies the charge that conservative intellectuals are being unfair to Huckabee: "I [have] been reading some of the reactions to the negative appraisal of NRO writers to Huckabee's Foreign Affairs essay -- the gist of it being he was unfairly ganged up on by supposed neo-cons and other purported East-Coast elites. Maybe, but I wrote my worries over his piece from a farm in Selma, California without reading much of anything by anyone else. I don't have anything against Huckabee and think he must be pretty savvy and sophisticated to have come so far without a lot of money, media connections, or endorsements...But his essay in Foreign Affairs is flawed, poorly written, terribly argued, and self-contradictory -- and since we don't know much about his ideas on foreign policy, it was a bad start."

Meanwhile, a number of conservative bloggers are criticizing Huckabee for making his faith such an explicit part of his campaign:

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I think that no matter how politically and tonally brilliant is Huckabee's 'Christmas' ad, it is a horribly cynical use of Christianity for overtly political purposes. Pretending to offer an escape from politics, it is instead purely and entirely political ad, deliberately designed to use Christianity to gain votes."

NRO's David Freddoso: "I do wish he'd stop swinging his cross around (figuratively!) quite so liberally when his goal is to win an election. If Huckabee is a good Christian, I'm happy for him. I want to be a good Christian, too. That doesn't mean I can turn a blind eye to his tax-increases or support of a national smoking ban."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "The constant religious references have the potential to be more detrimental to [Huckabee] at this point than helpful because they've been so overdone that they're coming across as exploitive...Huckabee would be wise to spend less time making religious references and more time trying to appeal to voters on foreign policy, immigration, and on issues of fiscal conservatism. If Huckabee wants to seal the deal in a race this competitive, he is going to have to expand his appeal and address the concerns people have about his electability in a general election, about his being too soft, and about his being a nannystater. At the moment, he doesn't seem to be making a lot headway on that front."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "It seems to me that the larger problem is one of evangelical identity politics -- a certain number of evangelicals starting to view themselves as an identity/interest group rather than voters with concerns about particular issues. It was on display during the Harriet Miers debacle, when supporters of her nomination used her faith as a reason conservatives should trust her. It's a helpful trend for Mike Huckabee, but less so for evangelicals and their conservative allies."

THOMPSON: Killing Terrorists, Protecting Borders, Punching Hippies

John Hawkins posts a homemade Fred Thompson campaign ad, "Kill, Protect, Punch" and writes: "If Fred wants to win the election, all he has to do is put this in constant rotation in Iowa and his victory would be guaranteed...or he would actually drop into last place. One or the other."

RedState's Mark Kilmer: "Well, here's the Fred Thompson campaign commercial for which we've all been waiting. The music is pretty bad, otherwise it would be ideal. And there's still time for Fred to use this gem."

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham links to the video and writes: "Fred's been doing some seriously cool stuff to endear himself to conservatives. First, it was the anti-hand-raising revolution staged against Carolyn Washburn of the Des Moines Register. Well played. Then there was the tough-guy 'you want a piece of me?' apologies post. After that, Allah pointed out a devilishly clever answer on the dopey AP survey question: '"What's your most treasured keepsake?" Fred: "Trophy wife"'...Fred's having fun with this and razzing the media at the same time. It's what conservatives wanted to see from the candidate from the beginning -- the wise cracking and the confident charm of a performer coupled with solid conservatism and the assist of some star power to win a general election."

Townhall's Matt Lewis thinks the tide is changing for Thompson: "One thing is clear: Anyone watching Iowa had better not write Fred Thompson off just yet..."

In that vein, Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey discusses the possible implications of first- or second-place finish in Iowa for Thompson: "A Fred surge will force some recalculation, none of it pleasant for any of the candidates. If Fred can manage a late surge that pushes him into first or second in Iowa, he could gain some significant traction for South Carolina especially. If he pushes Mitt Romney into a third-place finish in Iowa, that would seriously damage Mitt's momentum and could provide an opening for John McCain in New Hampshire. That helps Rudy in Florida, but only if Huckabee doesn't take up the slack."

Meanwhile, RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh endorses Thompson: "I want a candidate who espouses small government, federalism, free markets, free trade, a brave and unabashed message of capitalism and consequential, weighty and creative solutions to the many foreign policy and national security dilemmas facing the United States. That's why I am supporting Fred Thompson for President."

In more negative Thompson-blogging, NRO's Rich Lowry thinks Thompson needs to make a move in IA, fast: "I was talking to a Fred guy a week or so ago who said the Thompson campaign is divided about whether a Huck victory in Iowa helps or hurts them. I'd have to say that it helps in that it keeps Romney from running the table early and therefore it keeps the race alive. But it clearly hurts in that Huck steals Fred's folksy Southern mo-jo. Huckabee is already leading in what was supposed to be Fred's must-win state of South Carolina (tied with Romney in the latest Rasmussen poll, with a double digit lead over Fred). If Huck actually wins Iowa, doesn't he get even more of a bump over Fred in South Carolina? Huck might lose some momentum in New Hampshire, but Fred is going to lose even more. So how is Fred going to make a strong third or even a second in Iowa work for him, as long as Huckabee wins there? Fred better come up the middle in Iowa very fast and far."

Ed Morrissey agrees: "One thing's for sure: if we don't see a Fred surge in Iowa, he's probably out."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Reassessing The Caucus System

Ezra Klein thinks the planned Iowa entrance poll is a bad idea:

"It seems to me that the plans for an 'Iowa entrance poll' -- like an exit poll, but tracking how Iowans intend to caucus, rather than how they actually did caucus -- has the possibility to totally destroy the caucuses. Imagine if the networks spend the night reporting that a plurality of Iowans decided to vote for Barack Obama. They report the win, there's much talk of what it means, everyone gets all excited. Then, Bill Richardson fails to make the 15% threshhold for viability and releases his caucusgoers to Clinton. Meanwhile, John Edwards, who's been amassing support in the disproportionately influential rural counties -- 25 caucusgoers in a small precinct have the same influence as 2,500 in a big one -- sees his strategy achieve terrific results. So Clinton comes in first, Edwards second, and Obama ends up in third -- even though a plurality meant to vote for him.

That will, for one thing, blunt the impact of Clinton's win. But won't it also trigger a wholesale reassessment of whether this caucus system makes any sense at all?"

LEST WE FORGET: Harry Potter Fans Unhappy With Time's Choice

Wonkette's Jim Newell is not happy that Time selected Vladimir Putin as its 2007 Person of the Year:

"Time's editors continued their annual assault on reason this morning by selecting Russian frienemy Vladimir Putin as its Person of the Year. Impossible to relate the lameness of this selection; It's doubtful more than 17% of Time's readership know who Putin is. And what was so special about him this year? He had awkward dealings with the US and might be leaving power soon? Yeah, that's what we call 'any year.' Why no [J.K.] Rowling? I mean she only wrote about THE BATTLE OF HOGWARTS AND MAGICAL GOBLINS AND...YOU KNOW...COOL SHIT LIKE THAT. No biggie, though."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:51 PM

December 18, 2007

12/18: Loaded Language

Liberal bloggers are up in arms over ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey's recent statements about Barack Obama, in which he used provocative language while ostensibly complimenting the Illinois senator:

"I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims and I think that experience is a big deal."

Whether or not Kerrey made these statements in good faith, he made the mistake of echoing the language that certain right-wing pundits use to describe Obama -- an unforgivable offense in the eyes of the netroots. Several bloggers are already calling on Hillary Clinton to denounce Kerrey's comments. Coupled with Bill Clinton's recent statements about George H.W. Bush helping HRC, are HRC's surrogates hurting her campaign more than they're helping it?

OBAMA: Damned With Faint Praise...

Liberal bloggers reacted angrily to Kerrey's statements about Obama:

Atrios: "Bob Kerrey blows the racist dogwhistle."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Get it? Kerrey isn't repeating slurs that have been used, non-stop, by GOP operatives (and Hillary's own staff) knocking Obama for having the middle name of one of the most hated men in America and for having family members who are Muslim. Oh no. Kerrey is complimenting Obama, and is simply repeating racist anti-Muslim slurs against Obama in an effort to praise him. Kerrey comes not to bury Obama, but to praise him...Look, I get that politics is hardball. And trust me, I want people like Hillary and her team working on behalf of the Democratic candidate because they're the only people in the party who know how to fight like Republicans...But still, something about this being used against a fellow Democrat doesn't feel like hardball politics. It feels slimy. Am I wrong about this?"

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "In a perfect world, one without bigotry, it would be a good thing to stress Obama's multicultural background for an important job as president. So the sentiment, on its face, isn't a negative one. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in one where 'muslim' is synonymous with 'terrorist'. And Obama's 'experience' with his Muslim family ended when he was two, so I'm not quite sure how that's supposed to be relevant to anything. So back to the original question -- was Kerrey expressing honest praise for Obama, or was he engaging in insidious dogwhistle politics? I'll leave it up to you guys to decide, but do note that context might be important: He made these comments while endorsing Hillary Clinton."

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "The people generally most likely to refer to 'Barack Hussein Obama' are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and most of the right-wing blogs. And yet, there was Kerrey using it, ostensibly as an accolade...I don't have reason to doubt Kerrey, necessarily, and I don't want to get to a point in which every innocent comment is scrutinized for some kind of hidden agenda-driven meaning. But there's a context here, and I still think the Clinton campaign needs to be careful about pushing the envelope."

Daily Kos diarist Junglered1: "'Obama. Muslim. Obama. Hussein.' Effectively, that's what Hillary Clinton supporter, former Sen. Bob Kerrey was saying today...This is what you can expect from Hillary Clinton for the rest of the election and if for some reason, she wins, the rest of her tenure in office."

Kerrey continued to discuss Obama during an appearance on the Situation Room with John King:

"There is a smear campaign going on, and people acting as if he's a 'Islamic Manchurian candidate' and I feel it's actually a substantial strength. He is a Christian, both he and his family, are Christians, they've chosen Christianity...I've watched the blogs try to say that you can't trust [Obama] because he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa. I feel quite opposite. I think it's a tremendous strength whether he's in the United States Senate or whether he's in the White House."

Think Progress: "Note to Kerrey: Barack Obama never attended a 'secular madrassa' -- an inherently contradictory term because a madrassa is, by definition, a religiously-based school. The claim that Obama attended a madrassa didn't come from blogs, but rather from right-wing outlets."

Matthew Yglesias: "It's hard to express how odious I find Bob Kerrey...he's now following up on his 'Barack Hussein Obama' remarks by alleging that Obama attended a 'secular madrassa' whatever that's supposed to mean. The Obama campaign's been pretty successful at painting Team Hillary as unduly nasty and, frankly, the stuff they were dishing out previously was child's play compared to this BS."

John Aravosis: "Kerrey isn't just trying to slur Obama and make Americans wonder whether Obama has terrorist ties -- I mean, using the phrase 'Islamic Manchurian Candidate'? -- but it's also incredibly racist. Kerrey is race-baiting Muslims, American-Muslims, implying that Obama is one of them, and we all know that no one good wants to be one of them, nudge nudge wink wink...Kerrey is doing the dirty work of the Clinton campaign, or he's a rogue agent spreading racism in their name. Either way, the Clinton campaign needs to stop this, now."

The Nation's Ari Melber: "While campaigning on behalf of Hillary Clinton this week, former Senator Bob Kerrey became the fourth Clinton supporter this month to raise a false smear against Barack Obama...Kerrey has assiduously wrapped the smears in complimentary language, yet that approach may also suggest how deliberately he is pushing each message...Clinton should disown Kerrey's comments immediately. Given the stakes in this election and the costs of (even a perception) of lying character assasination in Iowa, I think both the Clinton and Obama campaigns would be better off without Kerrey's 'complimentary' smears."

OBAMA II: Mess With The Krugman, You'll Get The Horns

The New York Times' Paul Krugman, perhaps still angry from his recent dust-up with the Obama campaign, rips Obama in his latest column: "Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world. Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate."

Krugman's critique of Obama -- which mirrors Atrios' recent critique of Obama -- was warmly received by Obama's netroots critics:

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Clinton and Obama both think that you can sit down and negotiate with these people, that they are reasonable and data-driven and deal in good faith. But they are not. They operate from a calculus of raw power, and evidence doesn't matter to them...Without a leader willing to fight, the President will be swallowed up into a vast complex of decisions he just has to make, all of which are somehow strangely conservative, coincidentally. Of all the candidates, only [John] Edwards is running a race on this dynamic."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Now we've got a battle between Obama and Edwards over whether corporate drug & Pharma lobbyists should be invited to the table (Obama), or battled (Edwards), to enact healthcare reform...There is a solid frontal attack now that is working against Obama on both the political and the policy side. That is, he's not battle-tested for the general election against Republicans, and that he's not ready to battle for progressive reforms as President. The political side of the frame had been gaining a foothold over the past two weeks, and now we see the policy side gain a foothold, surprisingly, by Obama defending having the lobbyist groups at his table. The way it's framed, Edwards wins this battle easily."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias acknowledges that Obama's campaign provoked Krugman's wrath, but he thinks that Krugman is being unfair: "Barack Obama reaps the harvest of his campaign's idiotic decision to start releasing oppo research on Paul Krugman as the latter unloads on Obama, slamming him as 'the anti-change candidate'...Krugman's spot-on in his argument that what the Des Moines Register sees as the problem with John Edwards is, in fact, what's good about Edwards. But I think he's let his taste for revenge (understandable! I'd be really pissed if I were in his position, too) undermine his perspective on the objective realities. As John Edwards himself has said the most dramatic contrast between his vision of sweeping change comes from Hillary Clinton, not Obama...Similarly, it's objectively true that the next president's ability to bring about big-picture change in American domestic policy will be limited by his or her ability to secure Republican votes for his or her agenda. I wish that this wasn't the way that American political institutions work, but it is. I like Edwards' rhetoric about taking down a corrupt power structure a lot more than I like Obama's kumbaya talk, but any president will face the same institutional set-up and the real limits it imposes."

TAPPED's Scott Lemieux also thinks Krugman is being too hard on Obama: "I agree with Matt that 1) it was stupid of Obama's campaign to pick a fight with Paul Krugman, but 2) Krugman's point is very misguided. I don't think that Obama's rhetoric about transcending old politics tells us much about how he'll actually govern. Bush in 2000, after all, didn't campaign as a 50%+1 conservative who would increase party polarization in Congress, but that's what he did. Obama's using this kind of rhetoric because 1) it's effective, and 2) he's very good at it. What actually matters, however, is the substance of his policies and record, and on that count he's clearly superior to Clinton."

Ezra Klein addresses the distinction that Krugman and Atrios see between Obama and Edwards: "Obama, as far as I can tell, is hoping that his immense personal charisma and persuasive capabilities will help him gather the stakeholders and power players in a room, dazzle them with smart restatements of their positions, and then elicit agreement on his priorities. That doesn't seem terribly likely to me, but it's at least a plan...I can't figure out what the Edwards plan is. How do you fight like hell to change the power balance in the system? What's the pressure point? The vulnerability? I've heard some suggest campaign finance reform, but that has to pass Congress, first, and Congress is where the system exhibits its most profound rot...This is actually what worries me about Edwards. I'm not convinced his calls for change are connected to an actionable theory of change."

CLINTON: There He Goes Again...

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Bill Clinton's recent claim that HRC will send George H.W. Bush on an around-the-world mission after she becomes President:

TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "Bill Clinton might have just done it again -- saying something in the home stretch that will cause Hillary's campaign a whole lot of trouble...do Democratic activists really want to hear that someone named George Bush will be recruited to assist in Hillary's foreign policy?"

Firedoglake's Attaturk: "First, I'm sure Bush pere will happily go around the world to publicly acknowledge his namesake is a 'gargantuan tool'. Second, I'm equally confident the Democratic voting base is delighted at the prospect of a Bush Family rehabilitation tour (i.e. Oligarchies have to stick together). Third, I'm sure Hillary Clinton appreciates Bill making it look like the latter is calling the policy shots."

Daily Kos diarist bobdevo: "Has Bill Clinton gone totally nuts?"

DODD: Man of the Hour

Opponents of the new wiretap bill won a temporary victory yesterday as Chris Dodd's filibuster of a measure granting retroactive immunity to telecom companies forced Senate maj. leader Harry Reid to pull the bill from the floor. Liberal bloggers, who had pushed Dodd to take this stand, praised the CT senator for his leadership:

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Chris Dodd showed tremendous leadership. He stood by his principles and wouldn't back down, even in the face of opposition from members of his own party who were in the tank for the telecos and the Bush Administration. Well played, Senator Dodd."

Daily Kos' mcjoan: "From what I've heard from Senate offices, the volume of constituent calls on this issue was huge...It made a difference...thank you Senator Dodd."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "I should underscore that the idea for Dodd's hold originated with blogs and was prompted by blog readers urging Dodd to announce one (which he did within hours). That has had a genuine, direct impact on this process...Chris Dodd took a principled stand today, sacrificing his presidential campaign and alienating his long-time colleagues to do so, and he won. He demonstrated what 'leadership' is in action, rather than 'rhetoric.' Acts of that kind on our national political stage are rare indeed."

Digby: "While the 'Lieberman for Lieberman' senator from Connecticut may have spent the day preening all over the television shilling for war and Republicans, the Democratic senator from Connecticut, Chris Dodd, was acting like a patriot."

The Left Coaster's Turkana: "The leadership Senator Dodd has shown deserves our support for him to be president."

MCCAIN: Getting A Second Look?

With the media buzzing about John McCain's recent endorsements from Joe Lieberman, The Boston Globe, and The Des Moines Register, conservative bloggers are devoting more attention to McCain's candidacy:

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "I've been noticing among conservative acquaintances, a reconsideration of McCain going on that none of them would have considered this summer...My friends don't dislike [Mitt] Romney but he's failed to convince them he's sincere about his policy conversions or that he can win in a general. They dislike [Mike] Huckabee on fiscal policy and think he'd be a dangerous economic liberal squish and class warrior in the White House. The Fred campaign, which many were hoping would rescue them their doldrums this summer, failed to spark (although things have been looking more lively for him lately). And, the latest Rudy scandal (Judy and the NYPD) seems to have solidified doubts they were willing to overlook about America's Mayor in the face of the Hillary juggernaut. Who's left? An experienced senator who's potent in a general election if he can get past the primary, and who's great on the war and good on spending...if [McCain's] being reconsidered among some of my staunchly conservative friends predisposed to actively dislike him, he's got a damn sight more voters reconsidering him in Maverick-friendly New Hampshire in these crucial couple of weeks."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti: "Lieberman's endorsement of McCain adds to the emergingstoryline of the Arizona senator's resurgence in New Hampshire. It probably won't make McCain any new friends on the right, but those voters who dislike McCain because of his conservative heresies on certain issues aren't going to vote for him anyway. Surely the New Hampshire independents who want to change the way Washington works -- the same folks who helped McCain score his upset win in 2000 -- will look positively on this endorsement, however."

CBN's David Brody: "John McCain has had a real good run. Endorsements by The Des Moines Register and The Boston Globe over the weekend and the Manchester Union Leader are important. But what may be even more important is the narrative that is beginning to form. That narrative is that while Romney, [Rudy] Giuliani, [Fred] Thompson and Huckabee duke it out, McCain continues to stay above the fray...that he's become the elder statesman and the voice of reason on the war. Combine that with this idea out there that McCain may be the one to bring both political parties together and maybe it will be John McCain who becomes the 2008 version of 'The Comeback Kid'."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez still prefers Romney: "I admire Senator McCain and have even, like others here, flirted with the idea of him as the Republican nominee. But he's not the most viable conservative in the race -- I doubt the Boston Globe and Des Moines Register would have endorsed him if he were. Romney is."

NRO's Mark Levin has irreconcilable differences with McCain: "John McCain has been weak on homeland security, joining with numerous liberal Democrats to argue for closing Guantanamo Bay, applying the Geneva Conventions to unlawful enemy combatants, extending certain constitutional rights to detainees, limiting tried and true interrogation techniques, and conferring amnesty on illegal aliens...He aggressively opposed the Bush tax cuts, even after they were scaled back...His role in McCain-Feingold goes well beyond merely voting for it (he was its primary crusader). He organized the Gang of 14, which I contended at the time and still believe effectively killed Republican efforts to kill the Democrat filibustering of judicial nominees...I think there's a bit of cult of personality associated with McCain's backers. He's unquestionably a war hero and a man of great courage. But he is wrong on so much that I have trouble understanding how the Manchester Union Leader can not only back him, but will now campaign for him."

HUCKABEE: A Christmas Story

Huckabee's new Christmas-themed ad is generating a lot of positive buzz in the conservative blogosphere:

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Huckabee dons a sweater, and comes across as warm and likable and says he empathizes with voters who are sick of hearing political ads...It's a nice way of communicating an above the fray image, and subtly suggesting that voters should tune out the negative attacks that are being directed at him, especially in Iowa. He also reinforces his shared values with the base of voters who he is trying to appeal to."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I don't think it's any big secret that I've got my gripes with Mike Huckbee, but his latest ad, going up tomorrow in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant...It's soft, warm, and pleasant. In fact, no matter how the presidential campaign turns out, I'd watch a Mike Huckabee Christmas Special. Everybody's been wondering how the campaigns can work and spread their message through the holidays without seeming Grinchy. This is one way that I think will work."

NRO's Rich Lowry: "The more I think about it, that Huckabee ad may be the most subtly brilliant wedge ad ever...it's bound to kick up a fuss, but in the ensuing fuss, Republican caucus-goers are going to side with Huckabee at least 80-20. So Huckabee is teeing up a controversy that's bound to benefit him, at the same time he can plausibly say, 'I didn't mean to kick up any controversy -- I was just wishing people Merry Christmas.' You can almost hear him saying it already. You've got to give him credit -- he's nothing if not very shrewd."

David Brody: "The ad comes across as warm and sincere. I mean he had the whole Christmas theme going on: the red sweater, the 'birth of Christ' line, a Christmas tree, and the music in the background...what we're seeing here is that Mike Huckabee seems to be doing exactly the opposite of what Romney is doing. Romney is going negative by pointing out Huckabee's record. Huckabee won't do a negative ad. at least not yet. The campaign tells me that going negative is ultimately going to hurt Romney. Will Huckabee's ad strategy work?"

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "The former governor got a jump on the non-political political advertisement rush, and he'll get the credit for improving the tone for the holidays...Huckabee needs to keep using the personality push in Iowa, because it seems to have worked in generating the surge he's gotten in the Hawkeye State. It will emphasize his warmth and his easy, one-of-us appeal."

NRO's Mark Steyn: "This 'Merry Christmas' thing is ingenious. In essence, it's playing the secular media off against his GOP rivals in order to solidify his base. I'm no Huckabee fan but, like Peter, I think he's been amazingly nimble and very sophisticated -- as a campaigner, I hasten to add: the policy's another matter."

HUCKABEE II: Worse Than A Democrat?

While conservative bloggers are impressed by Huckabee's campaign ads, some of them will not vote for him under any circumstances:

Ace of Spades: "If Huckabee gets the nomination, I'm voting Democratic. It's not just an idle threat; I just won't vote for him and in fact won't even vote third party or stay home. I'll vote for the Democratic candidate, even Hillary. I won't be a party to selling out everything the party is supposed to stand for to a liberal ideology. If we're going to have eight years of liberal rule, I'd rather the Democratic Party be governing, so at least they can take the blame."

Dan Riehl: "[Huckabee] is slick but doesn't even look competent. And if Republican primary voters are that stupid, they deserve to lose next Fall. To pass over McCain, Thompson, Romney and Giuliani ONLY because someone's slick and a Jesus Freak, which makes him your average televangelist -- forget it. I will hold my nose and either vote for the Democrat because I prefer to know what I'm getting, even if I'm getting screwed, or a Third Party conservative if one comes up. I am done voting for Republicans who don't represent what I believe in, low taxes and small government."

Glenn Reynolds: "Honestly, I think I'd vote for Edwards over Huckabee, though I'd feel dirty the next morning...Basically, I believe that both would have similar socialist/populist programs, but that Republicans would combine against Edwards' programs, producing useful gridlock. On the other hand, Dems would be only too happy to go along with Huckabee's programs, and too many Republicans might do so too, out of party loyalty...Plus, the more I watch him operation, the more Clintonian his campaign seems. Edwards', on the other hand, is just inept, which suggests that he wouldn't be very scary in office. And both would probably be equally Carteresque in foreign policy."

ROMNEY: Stronger Than You Think?

Soren Dayton thinks Mormon voters will give Romney a big boost in the IA caucuses: "Assuming that, under normal circumstances, Mormons participate in higher numbers, perhaps 20% would normally participate in the caucus, (just a guess) that would mean 2,800 votes. Romney will be beating that by at least 2.5x. That means that Romney will be increasing the universe of caucus-goers by approximately 4,200 people...The bottom line is that Mitt Romney will win a caucus that looks close. Romney starts with 5-7% of the vote. Any attempt to play down Romney's chances in Iowa is just a game, the expectations game."

Jim Geraghty is skeptical: "Don't Mormon Iowans have every bit as much chance to show up in a poll as anybody else? It's not like running a phone bank to reach out to the Amish. And if Romney's sliding in the polls beforehand, doesn't that suggest that even with this base of hard-core, definately-will-show-up supporters, he's still in more trouble than he was a month ago or six weeks ago?"

Meanwhile, Townhall's Matt Lewis characterizes the IA race as "organization vs. insurgency": "I can't help but believe Romney's team is dramatically more sophisticated [than Huckabee's]. The question then is whether or not a well-run organization designed to drag every last Romney supporter to the polls will always out-perform an organic group of supporters who aren't as well organized, but are true-believers who may be more inspired."

ROMNEY II: So Many Tears

Romney's recent public displays of emotion aren't generating much sympathy from conservative bloggers:

Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "How many times is Mitt Romney going to cry in public? Moreover, why is he blubbering so much now? Did some focus group conclude that he needs to come across more like a girlish metrosexual? Is he having an emotional breakdown? Is the poor dear just too much of a sensitive soul to be President?...Whimpering like a little wussy in public doesn't exactly engender confidence that Romney has what it takes to be President of the United States."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "Romney is finding coverage rougher and is pulling a page from the playbook of the Clinton (Bill's and now Hillary's) -- getting misty eyed. (I'd get misty eyed too if I spent $8M, or whatever the total is up to now, to find myself trailing Huckabee and hearing footsteps from Thompson.)"

PAUL: Another Blogger Endorsement!

After endorsing Barack Obama in the Dem race, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan joins NRO's John Derbyshire in endorsing Ron Paul in the GOP race: "The Paulites' enthusiasm for liberty, their unapologetic defense of core conservative principles, their awareness that in the new millennium, these principles of small government, self-reliance, cultural pluralism, and a humble foreign policy are more necessary than ever -- no lover of liberty can stand by and not join them. He's the real thing in a world of fakes and frauds. And in a primary campaign where the very future of conservatism is at stake, that cannot be ignored. In fact, it demands support. Go Ron Paul!"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: How Should Ron Paul Spend His Money?

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat has an idea:

"Here's what he should do: Invest heavily in New Hampshire and Iowa, as he's already doing, and see if his support in those states rises high enough to promise him a meaningful role in the GOP nominating process (and some delegates to take to the convention). If it does, great. But if he can't break 7 percent in a libertarian-friendly state like New Hampshire, I think he should strongly consider bowing out of the GOP race early, before too many 'sore loser' provisions kick in, and pouring the rest of his money -- and all the enthusiasm he's generated -- into a third-party run as a Libertarian. The Giuliani-Clinton race that would have provided the ideal ground for such a bid looks less and less likely, but even in an Obama-Romney race (or any of the other permutations) Paul would still have more than enough oxygen for a national campaign. He's not going to have a better chance to take his message to the big stage, and if he isn't going to be a significant force in the GOP primary campaign, there's no good reason to have the Ron Paul Revolution die in mid-summer when it can last deep into the fall."

LEST WE FORGET: Sometimes It's Best To Dress Down

Jezebel sees a case of hypocrisy:

"Note to all you socialists out there: Best not criticize capitalism on television while wearing a Gucci and Louis Vuitton outfit. Case in point: Venezualan Minister of the Interior Pedro Carreno, who did just that and was then left speechless when a reporter called him out on it. Best of all, the event was captured on camera. Touche!"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:57 PM

December 17, 2007

12/17: A State of Flux

The topsy-turvy GOP primary is confounding the expectations of conservative bloggers. Less than two months ago, The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes declared that it was now "a two-man race" between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. A number of prominent conservative bloggers, including Hugh Hewitt and Ed Morrissey, agreed. But Mike Huckabee's remarkable surge, coupled with Giuliani's fall in national polls, has forced conservative bloggers to recalibrate their expectations. Since the majority of conservative bloggers find Huckabee's fiscal record and foreign policy views unacceptable, many bloggers are joining the National Review editors in throwing their support behind Romney. Others are holding out hope for Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or even (gasp!) John McCain to emerge from the fray as the mainstream GOP alternative to Huckabee.

GOP FIELD: Changing Every Day, In Every Possible Way

NRO's Rich Lowry dissects the GOP race: "There is now obviously an evangelical backlash going on in Iowa and there will probably be a backlash against the evangelical backlash in New Hampshire. That means someone else besides Huckabee probably wins there. If it is Romney or McCain, he becomes the candidate of the Republican establishment. He will stand a very good chance of ultimately vanquishing Huckabee because he will represent the conservative mainstream better and, besides, insurgents usually lose in the GOP...[Giuliani] probably has to finish at least a strong second there to stay in healthy shape. If he's second, he has to hope that Huckabee mortally wounds the winner of New Hampshire, Romney or McCain, in South Carolina. If that happens, then it's a Huck v. Rudy race...Finally, there's Fred. All this could be scrambled if he has a great next three weeks and, say, finishes, a strong second in Iowa."

Meanwhile, Townhall's Patrick Ruffini thinks it's "Romney's race to lose": "The surging candidates (Huckabee and McCain) are flaky and/or can't win. This empowers the institutional frontrunners, Rudy and Romney. And Rudy is in trouble. Huckabee has solved Romney's expectations game in Iowa. A win for Romney out of the Hawkeye State translates to a big win and momentum. A narrow loss is within expectations. Only a double digit loss or third would significantly damage Romney...Now at 15% in the national polls, [Romney] has demonstrated an adequate-enough base of national support to be able to leverage big wins into the nomination...unless Rudy manages to turn the election into a referendum on leadership-in-a-time-of-crisis in the next three weeks, at least how it stands now, say hello to Mitt Romney as our nominee."

ROMNEY: Mitt Meets Tim

Although Romney's appearance on Meet The Press is getting positive reviews from the usual suspects, Tim Russert's barrage of questions about Romney's numerous policy shifts have reminded many conservative bloggers why they dislike Romney.

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "There wasn't much of major news value, which is good news for Romney, but those who watched who haven't been following the election that closely thus far got a crash course in the staggering number of issues Romney has altered or reversed his prior positions on."

Soren Dayton: "It has turned out that Mitt Romney's Meet the Press appearance appeared decent at the time, but mistakes seem to be coming out of the woodwork. First, there was Romney's lie about the NRA endorsement. He claimed that he had received it in 2002. He hadn't. Just made it up. Second, he claimed that '...every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as a Governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life.' Fred Thompson's campaign sent out a press release basically blowing that up...I just can't wait for the video mashup of the 2007 statements against his actual record."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "One exchange stands out. He was asked about running as a moderate against [Ted] Kennedy. The sequence is long but you can read it for yourself. He repeatedly rejects the 'premise' that he ran in 1994 or in 2002 as anything other than a rock ribbed conservative. If you have spent any time studying those races, watching the debates or reading press accounts you know that's just hooey. Not even Romney claimed at the time to be a conservative...Given the voluminous public record nicely preserved for all of us via Google and YouTube, it's unclear why he hasn't been more candid on all of this and just come right out and said: 'I was trying to get elected in Massachusetts for goodness sakes' or 'I really have changed on a bunch of issues in the last few years.' It is the pretense of consistency that is so unsettling. Does he not remember or he thinks we're too dim to 'look it up'?"

Michelle Malkin: "As I've said with other candidates: Caveat emptor, people. Caveat emptor."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti: "Romney did well, considering the circumstances...What was most striking about Romney's interview, though, was the way in which his flipping on issues in a conservative direction actually helped him articulate his policy positions and vision of the American future. Russert spent most of him time asking personal or political questions not necessarily related to what Romney wants to do if he becomes president. Such was also the case with Russert's interview with Giuliani. But the advantage Romney had over Giuliani was that he was able to pivot from 'Yes, Tim, my position has changed' to 'Now let me tell you where I stand ...'. This is much harder for Giuliani, since it is difficult to transition from a discussion about one's alleged corrupt protege to a disquisition on corporate tax policy."

In more positive news for Romney, Power Line's Paul Mirengoff sees Robert Bork's endorsement of Romney as more evidence that Romney is becoming "the choice of mainstream conservatives": "[Bork's] endorsement is less significant as guidance for undecided conservatives than as evidence of how undecided (non-evangelical) conservatives are likely to break."

HUCKABEE: Getting An "F" In International Relations

Huckabee's Foreign Affairs essay is earning a lot of negative reviews from conservative bloggers:

Philip Klein: "Huckabee's essay is startling in its incoherence, and it has something within it to scare off any faction of the conservative movement."

NRO's Peter Wehner: "Governor Huckabee's article in Foreign Affairs, while fine (if largely conventional) in some respects, is fundamentally unserious; on national security matters, he is likewise."

NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "I don't know much about Mike Huckabee, but found his aw-shucks Foreign Affairs essay strange to say the least."

Paul Mirengoff: "Previously, enemies like Iran have starred in the Huckabee foreign policy narrative as a misguided family member to whom we have petulantly refused to speak. Now the U.S. is portrayed as an immodest high school student who may be to blame for his own unpopularity. Put aside Huckabee's flirtation with 'blame American first' thinking; the superficiality with which he approaches world affairs is stunning. Huckabee's analogy of the U.S. to the arrogant school boy is not just sophomoric, it's affirmatively inapt."

Meanwhile, Matthew Continetti analyzes the essay's political implications (or lack thereof): "One of the overarching questions of the 2008 election is whether it's about war or about peace. If it's about war, then Huckabee's goo-goo foreign policy probably won't resonate with voters, Republicans or otherwise. If it's about peace, though, will a Foreign Affairs essay few people actually read matter much at all?"

MCCAIN: Getting A Shot Of Joementum

Several conservative bloggers discussed the significance of Sen. Joe Lieberman's endorsement of McCain:

Jennifer Rubin: "If there were not an active Democratic primary with a candidate like [Barack] Obama who is very attractive to Independents I think the Lieberman endorsement would be huge. As it is, it keeps McCain in the news and does give him a 'rise above the fray' sense."

Philip Klein: "It will make the Brooks-Broder crowd swoon, for sure, but it should be intersting to see how it is greeted in New Hampshire. It could help McCain make the pitch to independents, and combined with his endorsement by the Union Leader, reinforce the idea that he is the one Republican who can appeal to everybody and win in a general election. Also worth noting that Lieberman came in a distant fifth in the 2004 New Hampshire primary."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Lieberman certainly has the respect of Republicans who see national security and the war on terror as the primary issues in this election...However, the endorsement also emphasizes a few other issues with McCain that has kept him from winning the confidence of GOP primary voters...Lieberman has risked much for the war, but otherwise he has little time for conservative policy, especially on domestic programs...McCain wants to win New Hampshire, and this could help there. Outside of Lieberman's back yard, it's not likely to help much, and could remind Republicans of trust issues over the years with McCain."

Meanwhile, the Democratic netroots were not surprised by Lieberman's cross-party endorsement:

MyDD's Melissa Ryan: "I'm not surprised really. He's been hinting at doing this since losing the primary last year...A year later, I'm still proud that CT Democrats had the good sense to get rid of him."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "People are outraged about Lieberman's endorsement of McCain. That's kind of silly. The days when Lieberman actually mattered are on the wane. Yes, we know he promised the voters of his state that he would fight to elect a Democratic Senate and president. Yes, he backstabbed them. But really, we knew that about him already. Is anyone really surprised?...The endorsement means little. The voters of New Hampshire proved in 2004 that they wanted little do with ol' Joementum (with his meager 9% results). But what this does is fully and openly expose Lieberman for who he is -- the disloyal backstabbing ass we targeted in Connecticut in 2006."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Big surprise. Lieberman lost his mind, and his loyalties, long ago. All that he's interested in now is starting as many wars in the Middle East as possible. And in that regard, Lieberman is right to pick McCain. No one can guarantee getting us into more wars than another Republican candidate."

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "However 'bipartisan' the Beltway press wants to portray Lieberman's endorsement of McCain, the audience right now that McCain and Lieberman care about is Republican primary voters. That means that they must think Lieberman has appeal to Republican primary voters, and given his strong support from Republicans in Connecticut and constant praise from George Bush and Dick Cheney, Lieberman probably does. But if Lieberman really had cross-party appeal, he'd endorse the Republican nominee during the Democratic or Republican conventions or before the general election, when general election voters are making up their mind. It's telling he chooses his moment to maximize appeal to Republican primary voters and minimize it to anyone who isn't."

The Nation's Ari Melber: "Lieberman's move confirms his critics' longtime argument that he is a 'Democrat in Name Only,' while McCain looks desperate by leaning on backers beyond the G.O.P. base in the homestretch of a partisan primary."

Firedoglake's Phoenix Woman sees Lieberman's endorsement of McCain as an affront to Hillary Clinton: "It shouldn't surprise anyone that Joe Lieberman has repaid Hillary Clinton's and Harry Reid's sticking up for him and his committee memberships in the wake of his primary loss to Ned Lamont by -- you guessed it -- spitting in her face by endorsing John McCain for president...Obama and [John] Edwards have got to be chuckling right now. They both knew that there was no way in the world that Short Ride Joe would ever endorse either of them, but it was pretty much assumed that Lieberman, who painted himself as a good friend of the Clintons despite his calculated and self-serving betrayal of them, was going to be in Hillary's camp. Then again, while this will of course lower Hillary's credibility with the Village's Kool Kids, all of whom officially worship Lieberman, it may actually help her with the netroots, if not the Democratic base itself."

GIULIANI: On The Brink?

Patrick Ruffini thinks Giuliani is in serious trouble: "As stunning as the Huckster's rise and McCain's slow comeback has been Rudy's collapse nationally and in the states he needed to maintain plausibility for February 5th...The likability-minded conservatives who kept Rudy at improbable highs for so long are finally jumping ship...Rudy can still win, in the sense that this race is so crazy open right now that anyone can win. This is not his political obituary. But things have pretty seriously slipped away from him in the last three weeks, and unlike Hillary he has no margin for error and never did. His down arrows need to flip to up arrows -- and fast."

NRO's Jim Geraghty follows up Ruffini's post with his own thoughts: "Giuliani may be running a post-9/11 campaign at a moment when the voters and media have decided to inaugurate the post-post-9/11 world...Maybe Giuliani has to remind the Republican electorate that foreign policy crises are a near-certainty for the next president."

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat thinks the early state expectations for Giuliani have increased: "The smart thinking when the Giuliani campaign unveiled its Florida strategy was that Rudy needed a strong-but-sneaky second-place in at least one of the early states, if not more than one, to have any chance at taking the nomination. At this point I'd go further: No matter who wins Iowa, Huck or Romney, Rudy needs to finish ahead of Mitt in New Hampshire -- either by coming in second to McCain or winning outright -- or else he's going to drop completely off the map before Florida rolls around. The combination of the Huckabee surge and the 'Mormon speech' media blitz has made this feel more and more like a two-man race, and Rudy has to shake up that dynamic somehow."

NRO's Mark Steyn: "Rudy's decision to be a 1-800-CANDIDATE, unrooted in any of the early voting states but looking to his national numbers to sweep him through to Florida, looks increasingly foolish."

DEM FIELD: Fixing The System

Atrios sums up the netroots' view of the Dem race:

Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.

Atrios also offers a warning to the future Dem nominee: "Whoever does become the Democratic nominee had better plan to win the general election. If they screw it up, they will become the most hated political figure in Democratic circles for years, like Mike Dukakis only 1000x times worse. If you can't manage beat one of these clowns in the wake of Mr. 24%'s reign of error..."

Meanwhile, Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks Obama is currently the Dem frontrunner: "With Clinton only leading in one of the four polls in the current Iowa averages, and with Clinton slightly closer to Edwards than Obama in the those same Iowa averages, Obama moves back in front in the overall campaign. With only 2.4% separating the top two contenders in New Hampshire, I simply don't see anyway that Iowa won't be decisive in the results of the nation's first primary. Momentum would have to cease to function in the nomination campaign altogether for Iowa to not determine New Hampshire's results. And if back to back victories in Iowa and New Hampshire aren't enough to put Obama over the top nationally, I'll eat my hat."

CLINTON: The "Register" Has Spoken

Numerous liberal bloggers analyzed the significance of the Des Moines Register's endorsement of HRC.

Matt Stoller: "I expected an Obama endorsement, but this isn't really a huge surprise. What does not really thrill me is the reasoning involved. If policy proposals don't matter, and the register was just looking for someone with a long resume to take over the job, Bill Richardson comfortably surpasses any other candidate in the field, including Clinton, and yet he isn't even mentioned in the article."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer thinks the newspaper's endorsement is significant: "This seems to be a big deal to me. Similar to the endorsement Clinton received from Iowa Democratic Congressman Leonard Boswell, the Register endorsement could help stem the meme that Clinton's support is lagging in the Hawkeye state, a meme that is not only hurting her there but also could potentially hurt her nationwide as the veneer of invincibility can no doubt be helpful in a campaign (even if that veneer also comes with downsides like excessively high expectations)...there seems to be a very strong possibility that this endorsement will, at the least, help Clinton regain some of the momentum she had clearly lost in this key early state."

Ezra Klein agrees: "The Des Moines Register endorsed Hillary Clinton today, which seems potentially important. My sense is that it's less so for the actual vote implications -- the high-profile endorsement of a well-known frontrunner is less meaningful than the high profile endorsement of an overlooked also-ran -- than that it gives her a bit of momentum back after a tough week against Obama."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, on the other hand, does not consider the endorsement significant: "Newspapers are dead, and their endorsements don't mean squat. The whole 'John Edwards got 2nd because of the DMR endorsement in '04' was a revisionist attempt by the media to explain why they were so misled into reporting that [Howard] Dean would win Iowa (think [David] Yepsen), when it was really just that they were terrible predictors who had no clue how to look at momentum or read polls, plenty of which was to be found that pointed to Edwards doing well before the DMR endorsement -- which meant very little at the time. All that said, the counter by Obama's team in getting the Globe endorsement out just before the DMR for Clinton happened, was great political coverage that equalized the storyline."

Armstrong also offers some more general thoughts about endorsements: "To date, Wes Clark's endorsement of Clinton is the overall most important one in my mind, simply because [he] went to bat and looks the role of VP candidate in waiting. The Leonard Boswell &Bruce Braley endorsements of Clinton and Edwards seem pretty important, but largely inconsequential. Really, the two endorsements that swamp all others are from John Kerry and Al Gore. Either of those would get a lot of notice -- who knows, maybe they'd help persuade someone too."

CLINTON II: The Heat Is (Officially) On

With less than 3 weeks to go before the IA caucuses, the netroots are increasingly going after HRC:

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias is disturbed by ex-U.N. Amb. (and current HRC advisor) Richard Holbrooke's description of HRC as "more assertive and willing to use force than her husband": "This kind of thing is why I think we can do better than President Hillary Clinton. I mean, if those were just the words of some guy you could discount them, but he's one of her top people."

Markos Moulitsas is also disturbed: "She's more likely to bomb countries than Bill [Clinton] was? Where do I sign up??? Actually, her Iran vote made this clear, and is the main reason she is unacceptable as our nominee."

Matt Stoller explains why he has problems with HRC: "One, she is just like Bush on foreign policy...Two, Clinton tends to surround herself with lobbyists and wealthy special interests. I have noted this in the telecom realm, and I think it could bite her, but it's true in all areas of policy...Three, the Clinton's have, how to put it, real character issues. I haven't written this before, because I don't believe in going after family members unless they make themselves an issue, but Chelsea Clinton, despite the opportunity to do anything she wants, chose to be a hedge fund manager. What does that say about the Clinton family commitment to public service?"

The Huffington Post's Paul Jenkins rips the Clintons: "Why We Wish The Clintons Would Just Go Away: "Because they surround themselves with people like Mark Penn and James Carville ([Karl] Rove-like figures, just dumber and more duplicitous than Karl), and rather than making the Clintons look pure by contrast, they make them look even sleazier...Because they lie more often than they tell the truth, and we can't take it anymore...Because they live on another planet, one where attacking a candidate's kindergarten record is appropriate and useful preparation for a general election...Because the Clintons are angry that America doesn't just roll over and elect her president the way New York rolled over and elected her senator..."

Liberal bloggers are also defending Obama against Bill Clinton's criticisms of the Illinois senator on Charlie Rose. Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell summarizes the ex-President's criticisms:

"Later [Clinton] said that his friends in the Republican party had indicated that they felt his wife would be the strongest candidate, partly because she had already been 'vetted' -- another subtle slap at Obama. [...]

He also hit back at the charge that experienced politicians had helped get us into the Iraq war, saying that this was 'like saying that because 100 percent of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery I'll get a chef or a plumber to do it.' [...]"

Markos Moulitsas: "So why does Bill think Hillary would be better than Obama? Because his Republican friends told him so. So Bill is now Hillary's attack dog. Classy."

Matt Stoller: "There's so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to start. The notion that his Republican friends, who are of course political elites, should matter, and that he has Republican elite friends from whom he accepts electoral advice, is weird. And the idea that voting for the war is some mark of expertise is just horrible. More to the point, Bill Clinton lied to all of us, and he will do it again. In 2006, he promised to endorse Ned Lamont, and then on Larry King he said that it didn't matter if Lieberman or Lamont won since the Democrats would control the Senate either way. It does matter, as we're seeing today, doesn't it?"

Matthew Yglesias: "This is pretty aggravating. Hillary Clinton was elected to the United States Senate in 2000, before which she'd never held elective office. Barack Obama was elected to Illinois Senate in 1996, and to the United States Senate in 2004. It's true that Obama doesn't have a ton of experience in elective office compared to Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd or Joe Biden, but there's a perfectly reasonable case to be made that he has more experience than Hillary Clinton does. Meanwhile, this line on the war seems like a pretty pathetic dodge. Nobody's actually suggesting that because many members of congress voted the wrong way on the war we should elect a television commentator instead...If Clinton's going to run on her alleged greater experience, surely it's fair to point to the content of that experience and ask whether or not it's all good experience."

CLINTON III: How 'Bout Dem Negatives?

Matt Stoller notes that HRC is less popular today than she was during the 1990s: "There are two possible explanations for this. One, the right-wing smear machine is more effective today than it ever was, or two, Clinton has created more problems for herself than she had in the 1990s. I suspect that both explanations are true, but it really doesn't matter when thinking about who is a good candidate. A chunk of voters who liked her have decided they don't like her as she is running for President. While Edwards and Obama have seen their disapprovals rise, neither has had their favorabilities drop. Basically Republicans are getting to know them, and as they do they decide they disapprove of them. This is natural; Republican voters disapprove of Democrats. It is different with Clinton; she is turning off voters who previously liked her in the late 1990s and even earlier this year."

Ezra Klein, on the other hand, isn't sure that HRC's negatives will necessarily hurt her: "Hillary Clinton's detractors like to argue that she can't win because her negatives are hard rather than soft -- meaning that people have already made up their minds about her and are not movable on the subject. But history suggests that opinions are rarely set in stone...Sadly, there's no real way to predict whether attitudes toward Hillary Clinton will harden, lift or sink. The conclusion of most of the pollsters I spoke to was that she was both the Democrats' safest candidate -- in the sense that her campaign was the least likely to implode, make foolish missteps or be rocked by unexpected revelations -- and simultaneously the least likely to preside over a transformative election or enter office with a massive mandate."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum agrees with Klein: "How will Obama look after nine months on the receiving end of the right-wing slime machine? A big part of his appeal to Democrats depends on whether you think he'll come out of the other end of the campaign with the same high negatives as Hillary or whether he'll manage to stay five or ten points below her. My guess: if Obama gets the nomination, his negatives will never quite reach Hillary's level, but by November they'll only be three or four points lower. Personally, I doubt that that will make a difference. Either one of them has what it takes to win."

EDWARDS: Too Harsh For The DMR

In its endorsement of HRC, the Des Moines Register took a shot at Edwards:

"Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the 'positive, optimistic' campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."

Several liberal bloggers are pushing back against the Register's criticism of Edwards:

Chris Bowers: "I see. Musn't upset the powers that be. I guess positive, optimistic rhetoric actually means making those in charge feel comfortable. At least that has been made plain now. The failure to challenge the status quo is actually what has always bothered me about newspaper endorsements."

The Nation's John Nichols: "Edwards was dismissed this time because, apparently, he has gotten too serious about addressing the fundamental challenges facing the nation...now that Edwards is not just delivering vague speeches about 'two Americas' but actually addressing the role that corporate power plays in fostering economic and social inequity, he's too 'harsh' for the Register."

Ezra Klein is more sympathetic to the Register's criticism: "On some level, that's actually a fair critique. Edwards has offered strident demands for change without articulating a theory of how you create change. 'Taking back power' from corporate interests and greed sounds really great, but it's not clear how he means to do it...After all, as Edwards himself says, they're not going to give it up willingly. And while strengthening unions and creating social democracy would be great, you still need Congressional assent -- and that's where corporate interests concentrate their political power. So it's all a bit vague."

That said, Klein thinks that Edwards' populism is authentic: "I hear a lot of folks arguing that this 'new' Edwards is somehow inauthentic, that his moderate record in the Senate represented the 'real' him while all of this is simple pandering. I think it's quite the opposite...whatever else Edwards is -- a panderer, a political neophyte, a smooth-talking lawyer, someone with nice hair -- his life path has amounted to an intensive course in anti-corporate populism, and that this rhetoric and approach actually fits much better with his history than does his record from the couple of years he spent in the Senate."

OBAMA: Who Needs Paul Krugman When You Have Frank Rich?

New York Times columnist Frank Rich's latest pro-Obama editorial, in which he praises "the inclusiveness preached by Obama-Oprah," has generated some talk among the netroots:

Jerome Armstrong: "There are many that say 'Obama doesn't pander' but that claim rings hollow whenever you hear Obama, as he gets close to any sort of faith/religious/evangelical event. Obama wouldn't give the secular warriors the time of the day, and you'll never hear Obama call out the fundamentalists, like Howard Dean did in 2003, for all the problems they've created in this country. Which is fine, it seems to be a part of his 'brand' that he's cultivated to overcome accusations that he's too liberal. Obama is similar to Tim Kaine in this regard. Kaine had a record that was much more liberal than [Mark] Warner, but was able to shed Republican attacks through use of his faith."

Daily Kos diarist PLS: "The country [has] had a belly full of the Lee Atwater/Rove style of politics, the politics of 'fear and smear' which arguably reached it's nadir under the Bush administration. That isn't what America is all about, at least the America we were all raised to believe in. Obama calls us back to 'the better angels of our nature's', and thus is the perfect anti-Bush candidate out there. Frank Rich is right, a vote for Obama is 'a Vote for faith in America itself'."

DODD: Netroots Champion

Today, Chris Dodd will lead a filibuster on the floor of the Senate to stop passage of a bill granting retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who participated in the Bush Admin.'s warrantless wiretapping program. The netroots are praising Dodd for his efforts and asking why HRC and Obama aren't demonstrating similar leadership on this issue.

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Go Dodd."

Crooks and Liars' Nicole Belle: "Senator Dodd? Thank you, thank you, thank you."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Where are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during all of this? Having previously issued statements promising to support Dodd's filibuster (statements issued to placate the brewing anger over their silence on this issue), they are evidently too busy running around Iowa giving speeches boasting about what Great Leaders they are and therefore have been far too busy to do anything to take a stand for the rule of law or to impose accounability on the years-long lawbreaking by our government and their telecommuncations partners...Imagine the prominence this issue would have received and the heightened prospects for derailing amnesty which would have accrued had Obama and/or Clinton devoted the slightest 'leadership' to these efforts."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Next Generation?

Rich Lowry theorizes:

"Even if Obama and Huckabee don't win their nomination fights, they represent a changing of the guard in African-American (from Sharpton/Jackson-style leadership) and evangelical politics (from Falwell/Roberston-style leadership). They will be leaders for years to come and will be less hard-edged and vested in the disputes of the past than their predecessors. They will have cross-over appeal (Obama, among whites; Huckabee, among the media -- unless he actually wins the nomination). And they are both are winsome guys. You don't have to be a fan of their presidential candidacies -- I emphatically am not -- to acknowledge that this changing of the guard is a most welcome development."

LEST WE FORGET: Marathon of Mirth

Slate reprints John Dickerson's 2005 piece on White House Christmas parties:

"During the holidays, the president is a virtual prisoner in the White House. He and his wife will perform this grueling act of cheer at 26 holiday parties between Dec. 4 and Dec. 20. There's one for the diplomatic corps, members of Congress, the Secret Service, and top military brass. Invites also go out to political donors and allies across the country. The last evening is reserved for the White House staff -- the plumbers, electricians, cooks, and butlers who hang the president's towels when he leaves them on the bed and polish his floor. For most of that period, the Bushes will have 'two-a-days,' hosting one party from 4 to 6 p.m. and a second from 7 to 9. [...]

The 9,500 guests will consume roughly the same menu of ham, turkey, lamb, cheeses, and gnocchi from an enormous candlelit table in the State Dining Room. The first lady's office reports that when the last guest collects his coat, 30,000 Christmas cookies, 10,000 petit fours, 1,100 truffles, and 2,100 pounds of sweet potatoes will have disappeared. [...]

The parties run with the precision and efficiency of a military parade, while making an effort to have you feel like you're the only guest invited for the night. Smiling, uniformed military personnel appear at every turn, directing you to the coat check or staircase or bend in the hallway. They're glowing and you almost forget that they'd pin you like a bug if you tried to scramble upstairs to the residence."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:53 PM

December 14, 2007

12/14: The Least Worst Choice?

Most liberal bloggers believe that all of the Dem candidates did well during yesterday's Des Moines Register debate. To the extent that there was a "winner," the consensus seems to be that it was John Edwards (as the CNN and Fox focus groups would appear to confirm). However, several bloggers think that Barack Obama, the guy with the mo', benefited simply by avoiding any major showdowns -- just as Mike Huckabee did the day before.

On the GOP side, Huckabee continues to be the target of blogospheric vitriol . The most scathing criticism comes from National Review editor Rich Lowry, who compares Huckabee to Howard Dean and declares that Huckabee's nomination "would represent an act of suicide by his party."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff sees the National Review endorsement of Mitt Romney as evidence that conservatives, alarmed by Huckabee's rise and Rudy Giuliani's falling poll numbers, are beginning to rally behind Romney:

"Romney is looking more and more like the choice of mainstream conservatives...[he] would have sealed the deal with mainstream conservatives much earlier, but for the moderate to liberal positions he took on key social issues as a Massachusetts politician. When those positions came to light, many conservatives backed off, waiting for an alternative. Some evangelicals eventually found that alternative in Mike Huckabee. I'm thinking that a majority of conservatives as a whole are going to bite the bullet and go with Romney."

Michael Novak's and Mona Charen's recent pro-Romney statements -- coupled with the non-stop withering criticism of Huckabee in the blogosphere -- makes us think that Mirengoff's prediction may turn out to be prescient.

DEM DEBATE: Not With A Bang But A Whimper

The Huffington Post's Daniel Nichanian: "It was a good day for all the candidates. Hillary Clinton looked enthusiastic and ready to discuss substance, Edwards was back to his sunny 2004 image, and Obama was more poised and presidential than ever. But in a stunning reversal, it was Clinton who was trying to score points against her rivals rather than the other way around."

TAPPED's Kate Sheppard: "With little interaction between the candidates, there wasn't a whole lot of excitement. Many expected this to be Hillary Clinton's chance to slow Obama's surge there, but both seemed to bring an equally toned-down, reserved posturing today. At the same time, it also didn't seem to do much to help Obama in the surge department."

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "There were no bombshells, no fights, no digs at each other. In fact, they supported each other."

RCP Blog's Tom Bevan: "Overall, the takeaway from today's debate is that the status quo reigned, and as a result Barack Obama solidified his position as the leader of the field heading into the final three week stretch."

DEBATE EDWARDS: Mr. Brightside

Daniel Nichanian: "John Edwards in particular has changed a lot. He was the one driving the anti-Clinton attacks in prior debates, but Clinton has lost her inevitability in the past month and she has tumbled down in a toss-up in all early states. Edwards no longer needs to get her down; instead, he focused on improving his own image and looking presidential and optimistic...Three weeks from the caucuses, it's time for the sunny Edwards who promises to fight for every Iowan, the Edwards that surged in the last weeks of 2004."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "John Edwards actually did step it up today I thought, combining his Washington crusader rhetoric with his new more mellow Iowa-friendly persona; my only complaint would be that he repeated the same themes and language in every question to a distracting degree. While I agree with Marc Ambinder that it allowed him to weave his answers into 'a larger argument,' there was a bit of a broken record aspect to his answers for me."

Daily Kos diarist Universal: "John Edwards' fantastic performance in today's final Iowa debate was one of the better showings I can remember for any candidate of either party since at least Bill Clinton in '92 or '96. Edwards was sharp, smooth, witty, and 100% on message. And it was a great, stirring message."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias, on the other hand, was not a fan of Edwards' performance: "For me, the best cure for developing pro-Edwards leanings is always to actually watch him in action: I find his persona self-righteous and a bit annoying, but the evidence has consistently been that most people don't feel that way, and this afternoon's focus groups are no exception."

DEBATE CLINTON: Like A Rock

Daniel Nichanian: "It was clear from her posture how much has changed since the last debate. Instead of appearing calm and above the fray, she was eager to show her enthusiasm. She came across as determined, which is sure to help with viewers, but it was also obvious that Clinton was more nervous than usual. And she was the one who took digs at her opponents."

Todd Beeton: "Hillary Clinton, after a lifeless first half hour, returned to her impressive debate style for the final two-thirds and I thought probably did herself some good, if indeed this debate is potentially 'seismic.' I thought she appeared presidential and pretty well embodied her 'strength and experience' rhetoric with her answers today; I don't know that the same can be said of Obama."

The New Republic's Michael Crowley: "Hillary once again emphasized her experience, and made several references to the successes of the 1990s, especially when it comes to the economy. But I thought I noticed -- as I did with her new TV ad this morning -- signs of concern that Iowans may still have trouble seeing Hillary as a 'real' person...On a more positive side Hillary displayed her usual mastery of policy, as when she discussed the Medicare cost crisis."

DEBATE OBAMA: Good Enough

Daniel Nichanian: "Barack Obama stayed away even more from anything that could be interpreted as an attack. He has always been uncomfortable with staging big contrasts at these debates, and he is clearly happy to not have to do so now that momentum is on his side. He also got a nice moment when he jumped in on behalf of Joe Biden who was asked by the moderator whether he was uncomfortable talking about race after a number of controversial comments."

Michael Crowley: "Perhaps my thinking is tainted by the context of the past few days, but I thought I saw a more confident and relaxed Barack Obama today. In other debates I've gotten the feeling Obama felt a bit psyched out. Today he had the almost cocky air of a winner."

Todd Beeton: "I was surprised that Barack Obama didn't step up his debate performance today I have to say; while he looked more relaxed than he usually does at these things, his answers did not project the confidence of someone with all the mo' and unlike on the stump, he still hasn't found his debate voice (although he did score with the invitation to Hillary to advise him.)"

DEM FIELD: C'mon, Nobody's Perfect

A day after Chris Bowers offered a lukewarm endorsement of Edwards, Atrios offers his own lukewarm endorsement: "I suppose from my perspective the best thing that could happen in this awful primary race, barring some completely weird upset, is that John Edwards wins the Iowa caucus. It isn't necessarily because I support him, but because he's consistently received the worst press from the Villagers, who swing from outright hostility to ignoring his campaign. If nothing else it'd force them to write a new storyline."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias thinks these bloggers are being too hard on Edwards and Obama: "Chris Bowers says he'll vote for John Edwards. Markos says it's Barack Obama. I agree with both of them. The difference is that while both of them are unenthusiastic about their choices, I'd be pretty enthusiastic with either. The trouble is that I think a lot of people set their expectations for politicians too high, and then wind up unduly disappointed when reality strikes home. To me, one of the signal characteristics of this race is that thanks to the competition she's faced and to her own political skill, Hillary Clinton has really raised her game and become a much more progressive figure than I'd expected she would be at the beginning of this process...Still, I think we could do better with Edwards or with Obama."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum agrees: "I confess that [Kos'] attitude puzzles me. I guess it's human nature to obsess more than we should on flaws and weaknesses, but honestly, these three are all pretty damn good Democratic candidates...[they] are all solid liberal candidates; all of them are pretty good at inspiring their own base; and all of them seem to know how to run a campaign. I'm still dithering about who to support, but while I have issues with all three of them, I'm mostly dithering because they're all really good and the differences between them are, frankly, pretty small. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

That said, Yglesias prefers Edwards: "If you made me choose, I'd agree with Chris that Edwards' willingness to embrace progressives and the progressive movement deserves to be rewarded over Obama's aloofness."

DEM FIELD II: Hillary's Still On Top...For Now

In his latest Dem Cattle Call, Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas ranks the candidates:

THE TOP TIER

1.) Hillary Clinton
Another rough week, and there aren't many more until the first votes are cast. She's facing a surging Obama in Iowa and New Hampshire, and even South Carolina is starting to close (with most polling done before the Oprah event)...Further creating problems for her New Hampshire image, four staffers were caught sockpuppeting Blue Hampshire. These aren't the mistakes made by a confident 'frontrunner' campaign, and those are certainly not the numbers of an inevitable frontrunner...but I'm sticking with Hillary at the top. Obama is coming on strong, but with Iowa essentially tied, I worry about the ability of his young college student supporters to get to Iowa to caucus before their dorms are open, not to mention their lack of caucusing experience (which killed Dean in 2004). All else being equal (including the poll numbers), this might be enough to give Iowa to Hillary."

2.) Barack Obama
You know things are going well when it's a good thing you're accused of being a drug dealer.

3.) John Edwards
He's polling third in Iowa, but close enough that his reputedly solid ground game should keep him in it. If Hillary and Barack go nuclear on each other, he could pull a [John] Kerry and slip in. However, so far only Clinton seems to be going nuclear. And the more voters look for an anti-Clinton, the less well he does. Obama seems to be locking up that constituency.

THE SECOND TIER
None

THE REST
The rest of the field is now inconsequential. Their only relevance is who their supporters will select as their second choice in Iowa.

Meanwhile, Ezra Klein thinks HRC is in trouble: "When the rationale for your campaign is that you're the frontrunner with the experience to win, losing your lead in the polls doesn't only put you in second place, it actually shreds the argument for your candidacy. What we're beginning to see here is how underdeveloped the arguments for Clinton were when separated from her aura of inevitability."

CLINTON: Gone, Billy, Gone

Billy Shaheen stepped down as co-chairman of HRC's campaign after making comments about Obama's past cocaine use. In addition, HRC personally apologized to Obama for Shaheen's remarks. Nevertheless, the backlash to Shaheen's comments continues in the liberal blogosphere.

Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "I'm now undecided. But if Team Hillary keeps this shit up, I'll be solidly in the 'Anyone But Hillary' camp...this ugliness is officially a pattern with the HRC campaign -- supposedly the most professional, experienced, and disciplined on either side. First it was Wolfson's slimy innuendos (Obama is corrupt), then Hillary attacking Obama's character (Obama can't be trusted). Then there were those Muslim e-mails (Obama/Osama?). And the kindergarten spots (Obama is a liar). Now Obama's a drug dealer. Stay classy, HillaryCo!"

TAPPED's Adele M. Stan: "Here, we find Shaheen, as Clinton's surrogate, not simply mining a rival's past for unflattering information, but deploying that information in a way that he likely knows will evoke a racial stereotype of the black drug-thug in the minds of voters who have never known actual black people."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "In Shaheen's resignation letter he says his remarks were entirely his own and not anything directed by the Clinton campaign. Which would probably be more believable if Clinton camp hadn't spent the better part of the week pushing the cocaine story. While it's possible that Shaheen was just an operative who went too far of his own accord, it's also true that it probably doesn't hurt Clinton in the long run to have the suggestion planted -- in 2004 the percentage of caucus goers who were over 55 was 64% in Iowa and over 50% in New Hampshire. Likewise, I'm sure her embrace of Slummy Joe Lieberman and his dire warnings about video games had nothing to do with pandering to oldsters. It's all just a happy coincidence."

Markos Moulitsas: "[HRC's] New Hampshire co-chair Billy Shaheen was forced to resign after 'wondering' whether Obama had been a drug dealer (a charge so tactless, classless, and politically unwise that we must hope it doesn't rub off on his wife's critical Senate race)."

Blue Hampshire's Dean Barker: "How do you try to stop the momentum of Oprah [Winfrey], Carol Shea-Porter, and in-state polling trends? You wonder aloud if 'Republicans' will question whether your African-American rival peddled cocaine. Though the campaign moved quickly to distance itself from the remark, the genie is out of the bottle. Because today the chattering classes and newshour bobbleheads won't be talking about health care plans or the fact that we actually have a race on our hands in the Granite State. They'll be saying the words 'drug dealer' and 'Barack Obama' over and over again in discussing this, while lots of low-info voters without the time for context come home after a long day's work, cook dinner, and overhear a snippet or two on the TeeVee. That's how."

Tony Newman, the director of media relations for the Drug Policy Alliance Network, criticizes HRC in the Huffington Post: "The fact that Obama used drugs in his youth only humanizes him. I believe that it will backfire for Hillary and her campaign to try to 'Willie Horton' Obama on the drug question...Not only is her campaign trying to take down Obama with drug baiting, she is also backwards when it comes to our racist drug laws...Hillary Clinton is the only major Democratic presidential candidate who did not support the Sentencing Commission's unanimous vote this week to apply recent sentencing reductions for crack-cocaine offenses retroactively...Hillary is tone deaf and living in the past."

Meanwhile, Ezra Klein echoes many pundits in suggesting that the dust-up actually helps Obama: "Shaheen may have really helped Obama. By tossing the allegations out in a clumsy and transparent way, he put them in the public consciousness in a mild way and accompanied by widespread rebuttal and denunciation. In doing, he may have inoculated Obama a bit. By exposing the electorate to these charges in their weak and treatable form, it may be harder for the GOP to deploy them in a more damaging, sinister fashion."

HUCKABEE: Feelin' The Hate

NRO's Rich Lowry savages Huckabee in his Townhall column: "After many false prophecies, Dean circa 2008 has finally arrived. He is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Not because he will inevitably blow himself up in Iowa. But because, like Dean, his nomination would represent an act of suicide by his party. Like Dean, Huckabee is an under-vetted former governor who is manifestly unprepared to be president of the United States. Like Dean, he is rising toward the top of polls in a crowded field based on his appeal to a particular niche of his party. As with Dean, his vulnerabilities in a general election are so screamingly obvious that it's hard to believe that primary voters, once they focus seriously on their choice, will nominate him."

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer seconds Lowry: "Wow. In one of the most effective take-downs I have seen from a columnist in quite a while, National Review Editor Rich Lowry just blows Mike Huckabee to smithereens. The column is particularly devastating for two reasons: because it is superbly well written, and because every word of it is wise and on target."

Paul Mirengoff continues to go after Huckabee: "In a post-debate interview with CBN News last month, Mike Huckabee claimed that he is uniquely qualified to lead the war on terror because he has a theology degree...The notion that a theology degree constitutes a special qualification for fighting the war on terror is only marginally more coherent than Huckabee's joke in which he substitutes a night at the Holiday Inn Express for foreign policy experience...now Huckabee is denying that he has a theology degree...In any case, Huckabee's background as a student of religion -- whatever its scope -- seems more relevant to his ability to hold his own in a discussion of religion with the New York Times than to his ability to conduct foreign policy."

NRO's Lisa Schiffren also excoriates Huckabee: "Hey, Huck, welcome to the show. Stop whining and face the music. You're not just a warm up act anymore. People want to know what you think. Everyone wants a real opinion from you. Some substance. It's not like being a preacher, or a local politician...This is serious. You're not in Little Rock anymore. It's hard Huck, when your decisions matter. Like back home, you were just trying to be nice to that castrated guy who had raped a few women. He had served some time. Why couldn't they forgive him? You could. You have a good heart. Lots of Christian love. So you pardoned him. And what did he do then, Huck? What if you make a call like that on Iran, Huck? Or Iraq? Or Osama?...That bait shop on the lake -- it's looking good. You'll be surrounded by nice neighbors, real Christians, and you can be the smartest guy in the room. You can go out running every morning. Remember Huck -- Jesus wouldn't be dumb enough to go into politics. You were right on that one. Maybe it's not what he wants from you either."

As a social conservative, NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru is troubled by Schiffren's attack: "Hicks vs. City Slickers: If conservatives decide to make the primary campaign turn on thatquestion , they will be doing themselves enormous and pointless damage. They will also make it a drearier and dumber campaign than it already is."

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat agrees: "Lisa Schiffren['s] post on Huckabee...might as well have been titled 'Go Back to Dogpatch, You Stupid Hillbilly!'"

In a separate post, Douthat offers his own critique of Huckabee: "In considering Huckabee's run for the Presidency, it's worth making a distinction between being qualified and being prepared. The obvious rap on Huckabee is that he doesn't have the qualifications necessary to occupy the Oval Office...I tend to think that's wrong, and that Huck is just as qualified for high office as most of the primary contenders in both parties...But when it comes to preparedness, to the hard work of scaling up one's understanding from state-level challenges to national issues that any aspiring candidate needs to do, Huckabee is way out of his depth...Set him off on health care or education or what-have-you in the context of Arkansas politics, and he's got enough juice to make you think: Here's a guy who might make a good President. But widen the focus to the nation as a whole, and you're left thinking: Here's a smart guy who hasn't come close to doing his homework. For a charming also-ran with a chance at the Vice-Presidency, that wasn't a problem. For someone leading in Iowa, it is."

Meanwhile, the new anti-Huckabee ad, sponsored by the anonymous website HuckabeeFacts.com, is generating a lot of buzz in the blogosphere.

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Devastating...Though Huckabee may dispute that he played a role in Dumond's release, it cannot help him to have the victim's mother say, 'If not for Mike Huckabee, Wayne Dumond would have been in prison and Carol Sue would've been with us this year for Christmas.'"

RedState's Erick Erickson: "I have said for weeks that a commercial on Wayne Dumond would be very damaging and the commercial is."

RedState's krempasky thinks the ad's creator needs to show himself: "I don't think this ad is out of bounds, and I believe that it's a legitimate issue. (for the record, I also kind of like Mike Huckabee and certainly have nothing against him) But -- for the record -- whomever is responsible for this ad has made a tremendous mistake. 'Huckabee Facts' - the username on YouTube, is trying to do this completely anonymously. Huh? Are you kidding me? It wasn't a cheap ad to make, and it WILL COME OUT. If you've got a beef w/ a candidate -- stand up and say so. But if you're trying to put the knife between the ribs, you might have just missed, because you've given Huck the perfect opportunity to talk, not about the substance, but about your 'dirty campaign trick.' Well done."

HUCKABEE II: Time For Some (Much-Needed) Blog Outreach

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey interviewed Huckabee on BlogTalkRadio's Heading Right Radio. Some of Huckabee's more notable quotes were:

• On his competition's practices: "Mitt Romney had ten people...a television crew in my home town of Hope, Arkansas...Frankly, I hope they talk to everyone who knew me."
• On clemencies and executions: "If I'd have known then that I was going to run for president, and I was more interested in my political future than taking my job seriously and being responsible and operating with integrity, I wouldn't have ever -- I would never have done a clemency."
• On Mormons qualifying for the presidency: "It shouldn't have anything to do with whether people vote for Romney or not."
• On questions about religion: "Interestingly, I think I have been asked far more in-depth questions about my faith than Mitt Romney or anybody else has."
• On immigration: "Every person who lives in this country ought to live with his head held up, and not in fear of each other or our own government...The laws are broken. Fix the law, fix the border, and then if people do come back, they'll come back with an actual permit."
• On federal government: "It's not just that people should hate all government; we need some, just not a whole lot. But what we do have ought to be functional, and that's what we don't have."

ROMNEY: The Consensus Choice?

Townhall's Mona Charen endorses Romney: "He is refreshingly articulate, exceedingly well prepared and self-disciplined, clearly an excellent manager with both private and government experience, happily married with a large, supportive family, and well within the mainstream of conservatism on every major issue. His nomination would not divide the base. He is just the sort of candidate people complain that they never get."

Lisa Schiffren, a Giuliani supporter, isn't sold: "Mona's second look at Mitt Romney has convinced me that he would make an excellent Secretary of the Treasury. And he should probably be put in charge of FEMA at the same time. All that skill at turnarounds should not be wasted. But he still looks a little wooden and corporate to me for world class leadership...I'd have no problem voting for Romney. I just don't think he can beat Hillary."

Paul Mirengoff: "For some time, Rudy Giuliani has justifably been considered the Republican frontrunner, though not a terribly convincing one. As Giuliani continues to slip slowly in the polls, I'm beginning to think that Mitt Romney can now claim this (perhaps dubious) distinction. That's because Romney is looking more and more like the choice of mainstream conservatives. The best evidence is the National Review endorsement...National Review's analysis may well exemplify (rather than influence) the thinking of a critical mass of conservatives. In the past month or two, a number of my most conservative friends have come around to supporting Romney for basically the same reasons National Review cited. Today, we learn that the estimable Michael Novak has, as well...I'm thinking that a majority of conservatives as a whole are going to bite the bullet and go with Romney."

Later, Mirengoff puts forth a scenario in which Romney loses Iowa but still wins the nomination:

"Let's start with Iowa. Here, I assume that Huckabee wins, though not by double digits. This, of course, constitutes a blow to Romney but its force is mitigated somewhat because (a) his defeat is no longer unexpected and (b) Hillary Clinton's defeat on the Democratic side draws most of the attention.

Next comes New Hampshire. Here, Romney wins and by a good margin, thanks to the fact that non-Republicans (those who would likely support McCain or Giuliani) vote overwhelmingly in the suddenly-interesting Democratic contest. Romney's win...leaves him in a solid position to compete going forward...The same cannot be said for Fred Thompson and John McCain.

So it's now a three-man race. The attacks on Huckabee have failed to derail him...However, his support has peaked at between 20 and 25 percent nationally. In a three-way race, this won't be enough.

That leaves Giuliani and Romney. Whichever of these two candidates commands, by then, the most support nationally will translate that edge into the delegate support needed to capture the nomination...

By late January, in my scenario, Mitt has overtaken Rudy because most conservatives who were previously undecided or who supported Thompson or McCain have concluded that Romney (flawed though he is) is more conservative than Giuliani."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why Journalists Get Debates Wrong

The New Republic's Noam Scheiber explains:

"Talking to other journalists after the debate, I got the impression that they weren't so excited about Edwards's performance. (That was true of me and Mike [Crowley], too.) So a lot of us were surprised to hear the cable networks' focus groups proclaim him the winner. But this may be one of those instances of political journalists being a horrible proxy for ordinary voters.

It's not that we in the media thought Edwards was lousy -- to the contrary, most thought he was as crisp as ever. It's just that all the material was pretty familiar. If, on the other hand, you were tuning in for the first time today, you could easily have been impressed with his coherence and forcefulness. The man is just a damn good trial lawyer. And the kinds of people he used to persuade in courtrooms are precisely the kinds of people who'll decide the outcome of the caucuses. I still think he takes second (or better)."

LEST WE FORGET: The Lesser-Known Slogans Of Political Moderates

McSweeney's Kate Johansen and Katie Bukowski have the list:

Live free or give me a reasonable alternative!

Peace through pragmatism.

Let's all keep our opinions to ourselves for a while!

It's noontime in America.

Some taxation, some representation.

What do we want? Rational discussion? When do we want it?...What works for you?

Hooray for prudence!

We request change in a reasonable amount of time after comprehensive discussion of the options!

Who wants peanuts?

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:53 PM

December 13, 2007

12/13: The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Debate

Conservative bloggers were disappointed by yesterday's Des Moines Register GOP debate, which they called "appalling," "awful," a "snore-fest," and "the worst debate yet." Most of the complaints centered around the moderator's perceived liberal bias, her decision to not ask questions about Iraq or immigration, the restrictive format (which prevented the candidates from engaging each other), and the unwelcome presence of Alan Keyes.

The consensus in the blogosphere is that Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney had very good nights, Mike Huckabee survived, and Rudy Giuliani and John McCain were hurt by the absence of Iraq-related questions. But while most conservative bloggers (as well as Frank Luntz' focus group) were impressed by Romney's performance, did he do well enough to stop Huckabee's momentum in Iowa? Several conservative bloggers suspect that Huckabee, simply by avoiding any damaging attacks, may prove to be the real winner of yesterday's debate. As Soren Dayton writes:

"Huckabee dodged a bullet. It could have been a great opportunity for everybody to whack at him. It was probably the last opportunity for people to do that. And it didn't happen."

GOP DEBATE: A Disaster Of Epic Proportions

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Saying I hated this debate is like saying George Soros can spare some change. The retired brigadier general who was on Hillary's gay and lesbian steering committee was bad. This one was...egregious. Appalling. Extraordinarily frustrating. Alternately an uncontrolled circus and a banal snore-fest...This was a disastrous format, with insane time limits on candidates, all mismanaged by a brusque, snippy moderator who seemed to think Iowans did not want the candidates to finish their sentences."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "That debate was horrible. That lady actually made me miss Anderson Cooper."

Human Events' Jennifer Rubin: "[This was the] Republicans' worst debate yet...[The moderator's] attempt to limit responses (in the tone of an annoyed school marm) to 30 or 60 seconds, her march down the row of speakers without encouraging any interaction...[and] her demand that each contender recite a New Year's resolution (for his opponents no less), reduced the entire affair to the level of farce."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "This was by far the worst debate yet. The questions were not only skewed to the left, not only almost entirely neglected foreign policy, but they were so broad as to allow the candidates to fall back on talking points. Also, there was no room for back and forth between the candidates. Absolutely awful."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "We got a series of campaign slogans, not a debate."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Allowing Alan Keyes to smash the china, while refusing to ask about headlines like waterboarding, the CIA tapes, the NIE and of course Huckabee's insinuation about the LDS Church was comically unprofessional."

Conservative bloggers also didn't understand why debate moderator (Des Moines Register editor Carolyn Washburn) refused to ask questions about Iraq and immigration:

The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "From the outset, Washburn announced that the candidates would not be discussing either Iraq or immigration. Swell! It's the biggest debate of the season, so let's take the two biggest issues off the table."

Jennifer Rubin: "We knew we were in for a rough afternoon when [the moderator] declared up front that she wasn't going to bother much with Iraq and immigration. No reason to discuss two of the issues conservatives care most about and one of which is the source of intense conflict between the candidates, right?"

Geraghty: "The debate organizers decided no questions on Iraq (what the hell?!?)...just because the media isn't as interested in hearing about Iraq now that the casualties are down, doesn't mean the issue doesn't matter. Thompson got one question on the NIE, why not everybody?"

GOP DEBATE II: The Greening Of The GOP?

Michelle Malkin is upset by the GOP candidates' apparent receptiveness to the idea that humans cause global warming: "Fred Thompson earned his gold medal for refusing to follow Schoolmarm's order for a show of hands on an inane global warming question...the rest of the leading GOP candidates' responses to Schoolmarm's global warming query demonstrate a rather disturbing greening of the party. And not just mild green. But bright, neon, Gore green. Total enviro-nitwit-ization. Can these guys really belong to the same party as stalwart, anti-fearmonger Sen. Jim Inhofe?...No effort to challenge the fundamental premise of the question. Just Gore-approved soundbites and cheery 'have our eco-cake and eat it, too' platitudes. No full-throttled attack on radical eco-fear-mongering and the manipulation of environmental science for political gain. Not even a mild-mannered 'Well, the science isn't settled and there is by no means a consensus'...Bad enough we have border control cross-dressers leading the GOP presidential pack. Must the Republican nominee also be a Gore-in-GOP clothing, too?"

Power Line's Scott Thomas: "And to think this was the Republican field seeking to appeal to Republican voters before accommodating their positions to the general electorate. Ouch!"

Philip Klein: "Answering that believing global warming is a man-made phenomenon cannot help either [McCain or Giuliani]."

THOMPSON: Right Said Fred

Dean Barnett: "The winner was Fred Thompson. Fred came to play. He also had the obvious moment of the day when he took on the officious moderator, refusing to go along with one of those idiotic 'raise your hands' questions...He was serious, thoughtful, and authoritative. It was a wonderful day for him."

Jim Geraghty: "Winner: Thompson. Don't know if it will be enough, but he ought to get at least a little bump out of this. The moment he basically told the moderator where she could stick her 'show of hands' question -- well, I was inspired."

RedState's Erick Erickson: "Had the Fred on stage today been around these last few months, he'd be winning. I really do think he won this debate."

NRO's Mark Hemingway: "Seriously, it's like Thompson came to the debate in Des Moines today to do two things: Kick butt and chew gum. And it appears he's all out of gum."

Philip Klein: "Fred Thompson was the only candidate who stood out. He was funny, charming, and peppy. Here was a guy who wasn't afraid to speak hard truths, and who displayed knowledge of the policy issues -- especially on entitlements. But the moment of the debate, the moment that will be talked about should he defy expectations and go on to win the nomination, was when he refused to raise his hand at the behest of the moderator. This demonstrated conviction, showed he was able to stand up for his principles, that he was a man who valued substance, a leader rather than a follower, and somebody who is running a different kind of campaign. In short, today Thompson was everything that conservatives had hoped they'd be getting when he announced his candidacy."

ROMNEY: Nice Job, Governor

Ed Morrissey: "It's clear that Mitt Romney won this debate. Huckabee didn't hurt himself, but Romney had eloquence, poise, and serious content in his performance. He looked presidential and sounded even more so. He also seemed spontaneous and good-humored, mixing it up with Fred Thompson and keeping it light. He never really went after Huckabee, choosing more to focus on his own record."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Mitt won -- sounded presidential, competent, made a case for himself, and was optimistic, but realistic, about the threats we face. He's hit his stride."

NRO's Rich Lowry: "A strong performance. The risk for him was seeming small in fights with Huckabee. The format saved him from that. The emphasis on the economy, education and other domestic, non-hot button issues benefited him. He seemed in control, substantive and positive. If there was a winner, it was Romney."

Jennifer Rubin: "Romney had arguably his best debate so far, appearing confident and well versed particularly on education, but without an opening to confront Huckabee it was a largely missed opportunity."

Dean Barnett: "Romney continued his fine run. Actually, the overly dry format played to his advantage. His wonkiness shines through on virtually every issue, and because there was no interplay, this debate was all about the wonkiness."

Hugh Hewitt: "It was the collective reaction of the Frank Luntz focus group on the Fox News Channel that was most riveting. Watch it for yourself. Romney swept nearly the entire room. If that group reflects the GOP primary electorate, Romney helped himself immensely today."

Meanwhile, conservative theologian Michael Novak has endorsed Romney: "I have been supporting [Romney] privately for weeks, though I was trying to avoid supporting anybody publicly. But the attacks upon Romney's religion have been a last straw...Romney is a good, executive-keen man, and without this mud he would earn the respect and love of the American people on his own."

HUCKABEE: Treading Water

Jennifer Rubin: "In the Mitt Romney vs. Mike Huckabee contest, which is of course where the Iowa action is, there was very little excitement and virtually no conflict. Given the moderator's refusal to focus on a prime source of dispute (immigration) the two were left to make short, canned speeches without addressing one another. Given Huckabee's frontrunner status currently in Iowa this worked to his advantage. Certainly he did nothing to damage his prospects. His appeals on education and on healthcare and his plea for the 'ordinary guy' stuck closely to his populist themes."

Jim Geraghty: "Treaded Water, No Gain, No Loss: Huckabee. The time limits got in the way of his usual rhetorical smoothness...But he's a good debater, and rarely if ever turns in a bad performance. But maybe I kept waiting for him to point to Romney and shout, 'Hey, look, it's one of those MORMONS!'"

Erick Erickson: "Huckabee is Alan Keyes without being a whacked out egomaniacal nutter. He did well, as usual."

Rich Lowry: "Could this be the moment when people begin to focus seriously on this race and his folksy vacuity on a lot of answers just doesn't cut it? I don't know the answer to that, but he seemed at his weakest in the harsh glare of a relentlessly substantive and sober debate. I believe he would have been better off fending off attacks from rivals with snappy comebacks. Not today."

Meanwhile, NRO's Andrew Stuttaford sums up much of the conservative blogosphere's attitude toward Huckabee as of late: "Ugh. The idea that Gov. Huckabee could conceivably be the GOP's presidential nominee is simply appalling, and so, while I'm on the topic, is the notion (that I've seen floated around here and there) that he could be a vice-presidential pick. Just say no."

MCCAIN: What'dya Mean, No Questions About Iraq?!?

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Is it just me or has McCain failed to shine tonight? He's usually very good in debates, and it would have been helpful to him in N.H. to do well tonight, but the moderator nixed Iraq as a topic, which held him back considerably."

Erick Erickson: "McCain looked tired, but continued to be adult. How refreshing it was to hear him willing to talk down ethanol subsidies, etc. Maybe he is the guy we're going to need to unite behind if Fred can't pull it out."

Rich Lowry: "Rudy/McCain: Nothing wrong with their performances. But just didn't seem big factors and were hurt by the emphasis on domestic issues."

GIULIANI: Not In His Element

Jennifer Rubin: "For Rudy Giuliani it was a solid outing as he delivered his message of fiscal conservatism and leadership and calmly responded to the moderator's huffy inquiries about New York City accounting practices...However, since foreign policy was entirely ignored neither he nor John McCain had much opportunity to shine."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "Giuliani was just okay."

KEYES: He Has Them Right Where He Wants Them

James Antle: "Alan Keyes did what he needed to do today. He protected his place as the sole candidate in the tier above John Cox and Hugh Cort but below Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter."

DEM FIELD: It's Anyone's Game

Open Left's Chris Bowers offers his thoughts on the Dem race: "Not only Iowa, but also New Hampshire and South Carolina, are very close now. If [Hillary] Clinton wins Iowa, it is hard to see how she doesn't sweep the other states, too. It is interesting that [Barack] Obama seems to be making up ground in both New Hampshire and South Carolina, but has recently become stagnant in Iowa. The three-way Iowa campaign might be the main reason for that, or it could be that Obama's potential upward momentum stops once he enters into a tie with Clinton. If Obama wins Iowa, it looks like he is in a position to sweep, too. Then again, since bounces don't last forever, even in the event of an Iowa and New Hampshire sweep by Obama, the eleven and eighteen-day periods before Nevada and South Carolina respectively might allow Clinton time to recover in those states. Florida also seems like a possible state where Clinton can recover if she slips in other early states, given her enormous lead there...If [John] Edwards wins Iowa it is anyone's guess what happens in New Hampshire and afterward (especially with a 1-2-3 Edwards-Obama-Clinton finish in Iowa)."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong thinks we're in for a long primary battle: "The early contests looks good for Obama. Sure, there's a slim chance that Edwards could be the benefactor of Clinton & Obama duking it out, but it hasn't turned out that way to date. Obama could take 3 out of the first 4 DNC-sanctioned states, or even a sweep. I don't think though that would clinch it for him, he'd need to win MI (impossible) and FL (not likely) to not leave an opening for Clinton to re-emerge. Argue all you want that those contests don't have delegates, the Clinton campaign will have a legitimate argument that they've got those delegates. So it goes onto Feb 5th...No one, the media especially, is going to want this to be over quickly. In 2004, it was a contest of who was going to beat Bush, and the quicker we got to Bush being the focus the better, was the opinion of most voters...That dynamic isn't at play this time, especially given that the Republican contest is so tangled. It's going to be a long hard-fought contest."

Meanwhile, MyDD's Todd Beeton sets the expectations for today's debate: "Throughout this campaign, debates have proven seismic for [HRC] to the extent that her lead was essentially earned and lost based on her performance during them and so [today] is a perfect opportunity for her to try to shift things yet again, to re-establish voters' confidence, which has been shaken over the last month or so. To accomplish this, she needs to shine and she needs Obama to stumble, and if he doesn't, then she needs to trip him up. This is risky, of course, not only because she could potentially alienate Iowa voters who tend to detest attacks, but also because her campaign has been so inept at the whole attacking thing recently. This is an especially strange development for a campaign that a. has exhibited such message discipline for so much of the year and b. has basically pitched Clinton as an effective political fighter...Obama on the other hand will likely act the part of the front-runner and avoid saying or doing anything controversial; the wild card is Edwards. On one hand, he's been playing Mr. nice guy recently...But if he sees an opening, I could see him piling on Obama; he has a lot to gain from an Obama fall as traditionally Obama's supporters cite Edwards as their second choice and vice versa. But taking down Obama is going to be difficult as the upward momentum is clearly his."

DEM FIELD II: The Lack Of Enthusiasm Is Palpable!

Edwards and Obama both increased their support in the latest Daily Kos straw poll, garnering 39% and 30%, respectively. They were followed by Dennis Kucinich and HRC at 8% each.

Markos Moulitsas: "I voted 'Obama' this time, not necessarily because I support him, but because the alternatives are no good. Hillary? Yeah right. Edwards? If he hadn't taken public financing, I'd probably go for him (and who doesn't have a crush on Elizabeth [Edwards]?). But I refuse to vote for a guy who will be broke for about seven months in 2008 while the other side beats the crap out of him...That doesn't mean I think Obama walks on water. Far from it. The guy is going around idiotically attacking Paul Krugman, dancing with homophobic preachers, and while his rhetoric is beautiful upon first listening, an hour later you're left wondering if he said anything of substance at all (and the answer is usually 'no'). But this became 'process of elimination' for me. I don't 'support' Obama, I just plan on voting for him. And at the end, I'll just be excited to bid adieu to the primary wars and get enthusiastically behind whoever wins, wether it's Obama, Edwards, or Clinton."

Open Left's Chris Bowers, on the other hand, favors Edwards: "Even though I am clearly obsessed with Barack Obama, since I write five times as much about him as I write about any other Democratic candidate, I was already leaning toward Edwards anyway. It has been an extremely difficult decision making process, but I want to have someone in the top tier to cheer for the night of the Iowa caucuses. If Clinton will attack Obama for being too liberal, and Obama will run away from the charge rather than meeting it head-on, then yeah, I'll cheer for Edwards."

In a later post, Bowers elaborates on his choice: "No one has really thrilled me, and so deciding who to vote for becoming an intellectual argument based on process of elimination. I wanted Clinton to show me more progressive policies, and generally speaking that just didn't happen. I wanted Obama to stop rhetorically distancing himself from the left, and instead he seems to be distancing himself from the left even more so these days. I wanted Edwards to excite me, but I have to admit that never really happened...And so, it became an intellectual argument, where through a combination of policy positions and willingness to be identified with the left, I currently side with Edwards. I understand the electability arguments around Edwards and public financing, but they don't really resonate with me anymore."

Bowers also explains why he couldn't bring himself to support Obama: "In my gut I always wanted to support Barack Obama...he interests me more than the other candidates, and I was always looking for an intellectual argument that worked for me enough to support him in the primaries. It just didn't happen, however. Over the past four years, I have consistently worked to try and build progressive power, and to stop Democratic tendency to distance itself from the left. As such, in a contested primary where other candidates are either equal or superior on policy, I'm not going to work for the candidate who does more to distance himself from the left than all the other candidates in the field. That conflicts with my sense of pride, my political goals and with simple intellectual consistency. In short, it is a predominantly emotional response that cancels out my predominantly emotional, gut-level excitement for Obama."

CLINTON: Off Come The Gloves

The Huffington Post's Thomas Edsall reported on 12/11 that HRC's allies are "quietly rais[ing] Obama's cocaine use." On 12/12, HRC's New Hampshire co-chair Billy Shaheen (who is the husband of ex-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen) explicitly mentioned Obama's drug use in an interview yesterday with The Washington Post. The Post reports :

"'The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use,' said Shaheen [...]

Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use -- which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire -- with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was 'young and irresponsible.'

Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would 'open the door' to further questions. 'It'll be, "When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?"' Shaheen said. 'There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome.'"

The Obama campaign immediately denounced Shaheen's remarks, and the HRC campaign denied having "authorized or condoned" the comments.

TPM's Greg Sargent is surprised by the remarks: "A top Hillary campaign official attacked Obama for candor and contrasted that unfavorably with Bush's handling of such questions? Seems like an unorthodox approach in a Dem primary."

Firedoglake's Jame Hamsher: "Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire co-chair Bill Shaheen basically calls Obama a drug dealer. Of course, Clinton knew nothing about it (*cough*)."

Jerome Armstrong is not sure that the attack will work: "Obama just pulled ahead with a poll in New Hampshire, and that coupled with this wide open attack by Clinton campaign officials, suggests that they believe it's got enough of a stick to it that after it's run its news cycle, the negative residue would be a net negative for Obama; but it's just as plausible, given the coupling of the attack with the sinking poll numbers, that Clinton getting hammered stagnates her numbers, or even causes them to dip further."

Obama's online defenders were up in arms over Shaheen's comments:

Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Apparently when a campaign is losing ground every day to their opponent, some think that trotting out a Republican line of attack will stop the bleeding...It's hard to say which is the most offensive part about this 'concern' from Shaheen. Perhaps that he ignores that it was Obama himself who opened the door when he wrote his autobiography, and that he has used that chapter in his life to convince young people that drugs are a waste of time...Or perhaps it's that Shaheen talks about Republican dirty tricks as he himself is engaging in them. Or maybe it's the implication that Obama should follow George Bush's lead and be secretive and dishonest. Does a Clinton co-chair really want to stay that course?"

BarbinMD was not satisfied by the HRC campaign's denial that it had "authorized or condoned" the remarks: "So, the comments were not authorized or condoned, but then again, they weren't condemned, were they? And will Billy Shaheen, who is no political innocent, pay any price for his comments? Or was this a directed hit from a floundering campaign?"

Daily Kos diarist Geekesque: "If any couple in the history of American politics is morally and logically disqualified from throwing mud based on indiscretions in the past, it is Bill and Hillary Clinton...Only in Clintonland is honesty a fault. They prefer the Bush approach to the Obama approach. Laughter is the only appropriate response to the Clintons' claims Hillary is running as an agent of change. Same old garbage, same old garbage cans. And spare me the 'the Republicans might use it' crap. No one is buying that. This is what bad, dishonest, unethical people do when they're desperate. And, if you don't think this was planned by Hillary herself, note that the buzz about 'electability' and Clinton operatives have been raising this whispering campaign angle for a few days. This was no bad apple."

Daily Kos diarist byteb: "'Our gal' is getting down and dirty now. Somehow I'm not surprised."

Daily Kos diarist turneresq: "I'm still pretty angry about the antics by their campaign. Number one, as a black male, who sees the thinly veiled racism in saying that he will be attacked as a drug dealer (although it is only the Clinton Campaign that has inferred this so far; no republican used this in his senate race in 2004, and NOBODY has even implied as much to date). Number two, as a defense attorney that has seen many persons of color turn their life around after problems with drugs and unfortunately many fall through the cracks."

CLINTON II: Trouble In Hillaryland?

Slate's Mickey Kaus giddily speculates about a potential Clinton staff shake-up in the way that only he can: "Little did I know that the idea of a 'backup' campaign staff is an idea that's been bubbling around in Hillaryland for at least a year. Obviously, current campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle is the main target -- she holds that position manly because Hillary knows she won't leak, I hear. She's now in charge in Iowa, which sets her up for the fall if Hillary should lose the state....I'm told there have been at least two unsuccessful coup attempts aimed at Solis Doyle -- one by former Hillary chief of staff Maggie Williams, the second by strategists [James] Carville and [Paul] Begala. It wouldn't be surprising if the latter were available to step in as the white knights to save Hillary should what she calls the 'best staff in the country' fail in the early going."

CLINTON III: I Wanna Be Bobby's Girl

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. writes a Huffington Post diary entry in which he likens the Clintons to the Roosevelts: "Hillary's supporters should be heartened by the fact that intense hatred is often accompanied by equally strong support. Roosevelt won four landslide victories against his opponents and crafted the architecture for the most humane, successful, generous features of modern American government. They can also take comfort in Hillary's proven ability to transform intense hatred into loyal support. I recently toured upstate New York's traditionally Republican counties which she has transformed through leadership and political acumen, into rock solid Hillary Clinton strongholds."

OBAMA: At The Top Of Craig's List

Craig Newmark, the founder of the popular website craiglist, endorses Obama on the Huffington Post: "I'm not an American 'exceptionalist'; I'm a customer service rep, and have spoken with thousands of people in the US and overseas. Everyone wants Americans to be the good guys again. We need someone who can credibly remind and lead us back into good guy-ness, in terms of of our actions and how we're perceived everywhere. Leadership means that you need to be able to bring out the best in people. Barack's the guy to do that."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Cardinal's Take

Campaign Standard's Richelieu offers his thoughts on the state of the GOP race:

"As bad as the Des Moines Register debate was, complete with a wild-eyed Alan Keyes and the hopelessly smug School Marm moderator, it is still a big thing in Iowa. My guess is the biggest impact will be negative and it will be on Rudy's campaign. Giuliani's strategy has been to work hard under the surface to engineer a 'surprise' third place finish in Iowa, which would catapult him into New Hampshire five days later. Yet Rudy was weak in this vital Iowa debate and Fred Thompson was strong. Which means Rudy's third place hopes for Iowa are fading; good news for both McCain's ambitions for a New Hampshire upset and Fred Thompson's attempt to get back in the race by beating both McCain and Giuliani in Iowa with a strong third place showing. Meanwhile Huckabee was a little underwhelming -- his style may be wearing a little thin; he has the polished Arkansas political habit of speaking to voters like they are slightly dense 9th graders -- and Mitt Romney did very well, the best he's been in a long time."

LEST WE FORGET: Universal Warning Signs

The Onion lists the "Most Popular Suspicious Behaviors":

27% -- Counting exact number of steps between every two points
13% -- Handling labeled sandwiches in work refrigerator
11% -- Googling "how to build a bomb, hypothetically"
12% -- Referring to car as "terrestrial transport"
17% -- Suddenly being fluent in German
20% -- Triple eyebrow raise

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:53 PM

December 12, 2007

12/12: The Space Between

We've spent a lot of time discussing the hostility that leading bloggers seem to feel toward Mike Huckabee and (to a lesser extent) Barack Obama. However, we would be remiss in not pointing out that both candidates have their online defenders -- particularly Obama. Yesterday's Politico article entitled "Liberal Views Could Haunt Obama" provoked passionate defenses from Matthew Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Jason Linkins and others. This response, coupled with the numerous pro-Obama diaries on Daily Kos and the pro-Obama comments that always appear beneath posts critical of the Illinois senator, makes us skeptical of Jerome Armstrong's suggestion that the "dissonance growing between Obama's campaign and among progressive partisan Democrats" might doom him in a general election.

While Huckabee has far fewer online defenders than does Obama, he has a powerful one in RedState's Erick Erickson, who wrote yesterday:

"It really does feel like a elite pile on against Huckabee. Some of it is, I think, deserved. But the level of it -- the hostility in the tone against Huckabee -- is not deserved."

It will be interesting to see whether Huckabee's immigration plan, which earned him plaudits from NRO's Mark Krikorian and the endorsement of Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist, will make him any more acceptable to conservative bloggers. Based on Michelle Malkin's and Allah Pundit's recent anti-Huckabee rhetoric, we suspect that it won't.

OBAMA: The Ghost of Questionnaires Past

Mike Allen and Ben Smith's Politico article, "Liberal Views Could Haunt Obama," has generated mostly scorn among liberal bloggers (with the notable exception of longtime Obama foe Jerome Armstrong). The article refers to a questionnaire that Obama filled out as a state Senate candidate twelve years ago, which indicates that Obama "took unabashedly liberal positions: flatly opposed to capital punishment, in support of a federal single-payer health plan, against any restrictions on abortion, and in support of state laws to ban the manufacture, sale and even possession of handguns."

Obama's campaign, meanwhile, asserts that Obama "never saw or approved [the questionnaire]. It was filled out by an aide who has conceded she never got Obama's sign-off. Some of the answers accurately reflect Obama's position. Others do not."

The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins accuses The Politico of bias: "The Politico seems to imagine that they've hit on something that will limit Obama's appeal with voters, but the only thing the piece reveals with any certainty is that Obama's views will limit his appeal with the people who write for The Politico...As they indulge themselves in full-blown editorializing, here's how Allen and co-author Ben Smith describe 'liberal' positions. They are positions that 'haunt' and are 'high minded' and 'extreme'...Really, the whole piece is just relentlessly dumb."

In a post sarcastically titled, "Breaking: Obama's a Liberal," The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias writes: "I guess Politico was looking for a way to endear Barack Obama to Democratic primary voters by revealing that he has liberal views on some issues. Or, as they put it, 'Liberal Views Could Haunt Obama.'...Obama, like essentially all politicians from big cities, was a proponent of very strict gun control and, again like all politicians who move to start representing broader constituencies, has now softened his view (see, e.g., Rudy Giuliani's similar evolution)."

Ezra Klein: "According to The Politico, these 'liberal views could haunt Obama.' Yes, particularly if major media outlets bring them up as documents worth taking seriously, rather than dismissing them as a pandering document published in the year of the Macarena. Say what you will about Obama, but with two books to his name and a speaking style that trends towards the endless, the guy hasn't given us an insufficient quantity of contemporary guidance as to his opinions, judgments, and qualms about public policy issues. It's true that, if the media wants to haunt him with old documents simplifying policy positions from a decade ago, they can. But don't use the passive voice. Let's not pretend someone wearing a sheet is a real live ghost."

Obsidian Wings' publius: "Hillary Clinton apparently joined the Politico staff this week, writing a longish (for the Politico) piece attacking Obama as -- wait for it -- too liberal. This devastating, devastating piece is based on a single questionnaire provided to a random voter group in Illinois in 1996...If Clinton, err, I mean Mike Allen and Ben Smith wanted to do something other than water-carrying for oppositional research teams, they might, you know, provide some other public statements corroborating the wild communist positions in the questionnaire. They provided, however, exactly none."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, on the other hand, writes that the piece only confirms his fears about Obama's candidacy. Just last week, Armstrong wrote: "If Obama gets the nomination, it's going to be disgusting to watch as he turns against progressives in his bid for the middle." After reading about Obama's liberal questionnaire answers, however, Armstrong writes: "All have the right answers from the POV of a liberal, but these are all deal-killers among conservatives. Just his positioning on guns puts into very questionable status such states such as West Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, along with the entire southwest/rocky mountain region...in black and white like this, I question as to how his 'mainstream democratic' viewpoints play out in a general election."

Echoing Chris Bowers' post from yesterday, Armstrong also elaborates on his concerns with Obama's candidacy, which he sees as a "personality movement" (as opposed to Edwards' and HRC's "progressive partisan movements"):

"Obama has no experience of the hostile and polarized political environment that he'd enter were he to win the nomination, and he has distanced himself from partisan Democrats during his campaign for the nomination. I don't think it's spin to question how Obama might actually do once he confronts Republicans on the campaign trail, instead of across the table in those bipartisan negotiations he longs for making happen...

Edwards, who has been through this in 2004, realizes the value of partisan alliance and has positioned himself accordingly, through both message and online tactics. Clinton, who has been through the battles in the 1990's, relishes the chance to go to battle once again, this time with a partisan online movement behind her.

For Democrats that think about how a campaign might position itself best to win, the question really comes down to this: Do you believe that this nation is going to transcend partisan politics in 2008?

If you believe that's true, and are willing to bet that personality-based politics can rise above partisan-politics, then you are probably betting on Obama's campaign strategy. If you think like me, that a campaign having it's partisan-base in order is the number one priority, than you are in alliance with the campaign strategies of Edwards and Clinton. It's really a question of weather the Democrats are going into battle in 2008 as Obama's personality movement or as a progressive partisan movement."

As usual, a number of Obama supporters at MyDD disputed Armstrong's assertions. Here is a sampling of their comments:

General Sherman: "So first Obama is attacked because he's not progressive enough, and now he's being attacked because is too progressive. Sorry Obama doesn't speak the language of the blogosphere. And why should he? Normal people with real lives are connecting with him. He can afford to leave you people behind."

upper left: "It is ironic that after months of you and other JE supporters harping about how Obama is insufficiently progressive, you choose an article that is all about how Obama is an unrepentent liberal. Rather than being reassured by the article that Obama really is a progressive, you are now trying to turn this into an electability issue. I gotta give you credit, you are consistent: you criticize Obama no matter what he does or says."

Benstrader: "If Obama gets nominated, what are you supposing the partisan base is going to do? Sit at home and let Rudy/Romney/Huck win?"

Max Fletcher: "If [Obama] gets the nomination, he will have the full support of the Democratic and progressive community behind him, as would any other candidate. Just because he isn't running with the Howard Dean 2004/John Edwards 2008 rhetoric doesn't mean everyone in the party who likes that style is just going to decide not to be engaged in the process after he wins. Many of the people who were Dean supporters in the 2004 primary worked just as hard for [John] Kerry during the general."

Meanwhile, Edwards supporter David Mizner reads the Politico article and wonders what happened to "the excellent progressive [Obama] used to be": "[Obama's] selling unity and hope, yet what he's proposing to do wouldn't create much of either. It's progressive policies, not good intentions or expressed desires, that create unity and hope. Obama wouldn't even roll back Bush's tax cuts for the rich; he'd keep them in place until they expire in 2011. Very unifying. The unacceptable status quo -- in which the powerful are way too powerful -- will only be strengthened if it is ratified by a black 'liberal' president. That's my fear."

OBAMA II: Inspiring Kids, Annoying Yepsen

Although he acknowledges that "it's legal," The Des Moines Register's David Yepsen is very upset by the Obama campaign's efforts to encourage non-native Iowans who attend college in Iowa to attend the caucuses. Yepsen's column from yesterday, in which he alleges that Obama is trying to turn the Iowa caucuses into the "Illinois caucuses" and that an Obama victory would be "tainted" by his student voter mobilization efforts, provoked considerable anger from bloggers.

Rock the Vote Executive Director Heather Smith issued a statement on the Rock the Vote blog: "Over the past week, several campaigns, candidates and political reporters have stated that college students who moved to Iowa to attend school should not vote in the Iowa caucuses. These statements are a frustrating and disappointing attempt to suppress the student vote, and are also legally incorrect. According to the Iowa Secretary of State, all Iowa students have the right to vote in the town where they attend college in Iowa. To tell students that they can only vote in the town that they came from, rather than in the town where they live, is a clear effort to disenfranchise student voters."

Daily Kos diarist Michael Connery: "I've said it four or five times already, but I'll say it again. These students have the legal right to caucus. They pay taxes in Iowa. They live in Iowa 9 months a year for at least 4 years. Some of them will stay in Iowa permanently. No one should actively dissuade them or try to muddy the waters and confuse them about their rights to caucus...David Yepsen has turned his nativist rant on the purity of the Iowa Caucus into a column in today's Des Moines Register, in which he continues to make not-so-veiled threats against the Obama campaign for violating the purity of the caucus...So it's all perfectly legal, but it's shady because Obama is doing it on a larger scale than other campaigns? That's ridiculous."

Chris Bowers is also disgusted by Yepsen's article: "The elitism of this article, against students, against Ron Paul supporters, against people from Illinois, is infuriating...In fact, I am so irritated by this, that if I can figure out a way to get there, I have decided to participate in the caucuses myself."

In other news related to Obama's voter outreach efforts, MyDD's Todd Beeton attends an Obama fundraiser in L.A. and comes away impressed: "The cheers for him as he entered were uproarious and throughout what seemed like the extended remix of his stump speech, he had the whole place in the palm of his hand; they hung on every word, standing as they sensed a rise in his voice and silent as his tone grew solemn. In April, Barack seemed to be more flash over substance, here he seemed a master of both; in September he seemed to be going through the motions, but here he seemed to revel in every word. It really does seem that, as far as his stump speech anyway, a more crucial tool in Iowa and New Hampshire than in California to be sure, Obama does appear to be peaking at just the right time. Whether or not he can manifest the excitement he genuinely generates into activism and actual votes is the central question of Obama's candidacy and to its credit, his campaign seems to be doing all it can to ensure the answer is yes."

CLINTON: Get A Life

The Huffington Post's Thomas Edsall reports that "Clinton allies [are] quietly rais[ing] Obama's cocaine use."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher doesn't really care: "Personally I don't want to elect some pill gobbling freak but I'm delighted that a politician can and will admit to having lived a life before they entered politics, hell I'm happy they even had one. And given how stupid that whole 'didn't inhale' thing played out, you think the Clinton campaign wouldn't want to go there. Oh well, it's not like the Republicans wouldn't mention it, maybe they're doing him a favor so he can claim it's 'old news' on down the road."

EDWARDS: Mr. Electable

Matthew Yglesias is surprised by the new CNN poll, in which John Edwards does the best against the GOP candidates in head-to-head matchups: "It's hard to know what to make of this sort of polling (except that as a white man, I'm patting myself on the back) since the events of the campaign really do change things. How much does Edwards' relative cash shortfall matter as an electability issue?...But despite the uncertainty, I think you do need to count this as a serious point in Edwards' favor when you combine it with the considerable merits of the policy positions he's staked out."

Yglesias' Atlantic colleague Ross Douthat writes: "I'd posit three possible (and by no means mutually-exclusive) explanations. First of all, most voters' image of Edwards was formed in the '04 race, when he ran as a more centrist candidate than he's become this time around; thus despite having move steadily leftward over the last three years, he's still perceived as the least liberal of the Democratic front-runners by the general public. (Democratic primary voters, who are presumably paying closer attention, have a more accurate assessment.) Second, he's a Southern white male, and even if the percentage of swing voters who would rule out voting for a woman or a black man is relatively small (and it might be large-ish), his race and sex alone would still presumably give him a slight boost. Third, he's received considerably less press attention than Hillary and Obama over the last six months, and in a year when a generic Democrat would presumably trounce a generic Republican, he's presumably still a more 'generic' figure than either of his better-publicized opponents, and thus a better vessel for undecided voters to pour their anti-GOP animus into."

GOP FIELD: Last Chance, Last Dance

Several conservative bloggers laid out their expectations for this afternoon's GOP debate:

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "It is hard to overstate just how big [today's] GOP debate is; it's in Iowa, will be broadcast three times in 24 hours...I thought Fred Thompson disappeared in the last debate. His task won't be easier with the stage cluttered with yet another also-ran cluttering the stage in the form of Alan Keyes...[Huckabee's] going to be attacked early and often. He's perhaps the most skilled wordsmith in the group; he had better have good, quick rebuttals to all of the target areas: Wayne Dumond, tax increases, economic populism, 'Holiday Inn Express,' foreign policy experience, 'Christian Leader', forces that are 'not human', the DNC belief in his glass jaw...For John McCain, a lot of mudslinging could ultimately benefit him. He always seems a little above it all, or seems to have no patience for the usual back-and-forth...He can make the 'Thompson argument plus,' i.e., 'I've worked on the goals of each major group of conservatives, and I can beat Hillary all over the electoral college map.'"

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey:

"Mike Huckabee -- The surprise frontrunner in Iowa has to have a great performance again today. Iowa is the only foundation he has for a credible run at the nomination...No mistakes, connect emotionally, and seem reasonably conservative.

Mitt Romney -- The other candidate with the most to lose here has to go on offense against Huckabee's record, but without the attacking quality of the last debate's contretemps with Rudy Giuliani...He has to stay focused and ignore Rudy while gently gunning for Huckabee. It'll be a tightrope act.

Rudy Giuliani -- All Hizzoner has to do is stay out of the way and look presidential...Rudy needs a good performance, but not a great one, and will do best if he's not the central focus.

John McCain -- McCain hasn't seriously competed in Iowa, and this debate won't make much difference in this state...If he relaxes and enjoys himself, he's probably golden.

Fred Thompson -- Put simply, Fred has to show up and take control of this debate. He has to own the stage. Anything less, and he's out of the race altogether. Despite a large following at his entry, he hasn't shown up in the primary contests thus far. If he plays analyst instead of candidate, he's toast."

Campaign Standard's William Kristol: "John McCain and Fred Thompson [have] a big opportunity. In [today's] debate, they can go presidential. They can draw a contrast with the squabbling governors and mayor next to them on stage. It is, after all, a wartime election, even if voters occasionally forget it. There are, after all, big domestic issues at stake, like entitlement reform and the courts. Thompson and McCain are lagging in the polls, but they are (now more than ever, ironically) the most presidential candidates in the race. Can one of them pull off an upset by refusing to pander and to squabble, by refusing to stoop to (try to) conquer?"

HUCKABEE: Once Pro-Amnesty, Always Pro-Amnesty

Conservative bloggers, who don't trust Huckabee at all when it comes to illegal immigration, are shocked by the news that Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist has endorsed the former governor:

Michelle Malkin: "We are entering Alice in Wonderland territory. Yeah, you read it right -- the founder of the border control group, the Minuteman Project, is endorsing open-borders-turned-expedient enforcement convert GOP candidate Mike Huckabee."

Hot Air's Allah Pundit: "What better choice for a border enforcer than a guy known for blaming opposition to comprehensive immigration reform on 'racism or nativism'?"

Later, Malkin writes another post ripping Huckabee: "Despite a long gubernatorial record opposing employer sanctions and pushing tax-subsidized illegal alien education benefits, Huckabee won Gilchrist's support by unveiling a last-minute, tough-sounding homeland security plan. Trouble is, Huckabee has downright and longstanding contempt for his new bedfellows of convenience...It's Gilchrist and those who allow themselves to be snowed by Huckabee's cynical conversion who'll be sorry and deep in apology debt, I guarantee you."

Meanwhile, the bloggers at Power Line continue to rip Huckabee over the Wayne Dumond affair:

Paul Mirengoff: "Why Huckabee thought Dumond had gotten a 'raw deal' is beyond me, and Huckabee has failed to provide a plausible explanation."

John Hinderaker: "This deserves to be Mike Huckabee's Willie Horton moment. Just as the furlough of Willie Horton, a murderer who was never slated to be released from prison, revealed the vapidity of Michael Dukakis's liberalism, Huckabee's fuzzy-headed sympathy with serial rapist Wayne Dumond reveals the shallowness of Huckabee's approach to issues of public policy."

RedState's Ericka Andersen questions Huckabee's electability: "Besides his questionable stances on these key issues -- and as much as I like him personally -- I don't see him beating Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the national election."

Erick Erickson comes to Huckabee's defense: "It really does feel like a elite pile on against Huckabee. Some of it is, I think, deserved. But the level of it -- the hostility in the tone against Huckabee -- is not deserved."

ROMNEY: An Early Christmas Present From National Review

The Editors at National Review endorse Romney: "Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest."

Paul Mirengoff: "To oversimplify only a little, the National Review's case boils down to this: (1) only Romney, McCain, and Thompson can hold the conservative base together, (2) McCain isn't as conservative as Romney, (3) Thompson lacks Romney's administrative experience and has not even convinced voters that he wants to be president. It's not a bad case but, among other matters, I believe it glosses over the fact that holding the base together, while most likely a necessary condition for winning the election, is not a sufficient one. To satisfy the 'viability' prong of National Review's stated test (nominate the most conservative viable candidate), the nominee will also need appeal beyond the base. The editors don't show that Romney has that appeal, and given the campaign he's been running it's not clear that he does."

Ed Morrissey: "I disagree with some of their arguments, even if not necessarily with the endorsement itself. I believe the risk of Giuliani pulling apart the conservative coalition to be a lot lower than they propose, as well as with Huckabee. Both ran their jurisdictions with at least a center-right cast, if not as outright conservatives, despite having majority opposition in their legislative bodies. If we speak hyperbolically about any heterodoxy, it does not bode well for 'big tent' thinking, and without moderates and independents, we will not win any national elections."

Soren Dayton: "They seem to be saying that Romney has checked all the boxes and checked them best...in a time that most conservatives think the war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror is the number one issue, National Review doesn't discuss the issues and reverts to check boxes. What does that tell us about the conservative movement?"

Erick Erickson: "NR is endorsing Mitt. I thought they had months ago just reading over there. Is anyone surprised?"

Meanwhile, Jim Geraghty predicts that Romney will mention the NR endorsement during today's GOP debate: "What's the over/under on the number of times Mitt Romney mentions his endorsement by the editors of National Review? I'm guessing twice, at least once to defend himself from an attack from another candidate."

John Hinderaker: "I think the NR endorsement is a real coup for Romney. Endorsements in general are overrated, but if there is one endorsement a conservative would like to have, it's probably NR's. Sort of like Oprah on the left."

PAUL: A Blogger Endorsement!

Andrew Sullivan is not the only prominent blogger who likes Ron Paul. On the same day that the National Review editors endorse Romney, NRO's John Derbyshire announces for Paul: "As for the notion, which I admit I settled on in my July piece, that there is no way Paul could win: Well, possibly so, but Paul is good enough, and his ideas are good enough -- and close enough to Buckley-Goldwater conservatism -- that those of us who cleave to that conservatism ought to take the wonderful opportunity offered by a presidential campaign to help promote them to the electorate. If you think that our efforts against jihadist terrorism constitute World War Four (I don't), you will not want Ron Paul for president...If, however, you think that much of the underbrush that has grown up around our national institutions this past 40 years needs to by pulled up by the roots and burned, before it chokes the life out of our Republic, then Paul's your man."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Case For Restraint

Ezra Klein thinks Dems need to reframe their foreign policy views:

"In recent years, Democrats have largely bought into an essentially militaristic approach to international affairs. 'Foreign policy' is largely another way to say 'war policy.' It is not foreign aid, or global warming compacts, or trade, or the assiduous improvement of multilateral institutions. It is war, and toughness. That's why, in part, humanitarian calamities that can theoretically be solved through the deployment of troops (like Darfur) attract so much more attention than those that can be eased through the deployment of resources (like malaria).

But this is bad ground for progressivism. If the essential question on foreign affairs is how easily voters can imagine you at war, leaders who emphasize belligerence, rather than cooperation, will be in demand. The willingness of the nominee to explicitly argue the opposite case -- that belligerence weakens us, restraint strengthens us, and that foreign policy is far more than readiness for a fight -- is going to be critical, not necessarily to the immediate shape of their agendas will take, but for the shape of the country's approach to international issues in coming years."

LEST WE FORGET: Should The Patriots Go For It?

Jim Henley says yes:

"Idiot sports radio personalities -- and I apologize for the redundancy -- constantly ring variations on The Patriots realize that the real prize isn't going undefeated, it's winning the Super Bowl. Nonsense. Somebody wins the Super Bowl every year. The NFL has had 41 of the things and they don't look like they're going to stop staging them any time soon. There are plenty of Super Bowl champions. There's only one post-merger, undefeated champion. Why pass up a chance to make history?"

Matthew Yglesias agrees:

"I couldn't say I want to see the Patriots go 16-0, but I'd certainly like to see them try their best to do it -- no resting of starters, no saving it for the playoffs, etc...Everyone knows the Super Bowl become a bit of a joke, a meta-event above and beyond everything and everyone that, at this point, feels only vaguely football-related. A 15-0 team playing its last game, by contrast, is something every football fan in the country will want to see."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:58 PM

December 11, 2007

12/11: Still Not Feelin' The Love

The amount of attention that Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama have been receiving lately is testament to the fact that with rising poll numbers comes more scrutiny. Unfortunately for both candidates, much of the attention -- at least in the blogosphere -- has been negative. As we mentioned last week , most conservative bloggers are uncomfortable with Huckabee's positions on a wide range of issues, most notably illegal immigration, taxes, and foreign policy. Social conservatives are a smaller presence online than they are in talk radio, and this is reflected in Huckabee's relative lack of popularity in the conservative blogosphere. On the left side of the blogosphere, Obama continues to be the subject of a lot of negative posts in the days following his campaign's dust-up with Paul Krugman. In one post, Open Left's Chris Bowers puts his finger on what we believe is the essential difference between the consensus-focused Obama and the more partisan netroots:

"It is clear that all of the good things about Obama come in a package that views contemporary American politics from a fundamental different perspective than does the new wave of progressive activism that has risen in the last decade...If Obama really believes that he is somehow post-ideology, post-partisan, and capable of bringing contemporary Republicans to actually engage in real compromises over legislation in good faith, then I can't help but think that, despite his background, he is oddly naïve. Rather than believing that the contemporary manifestation of the Republican Party can be brought to the negotiation table in good faith, I think the best way to negotiate with them is to reduce them to below pre-1994 levels in Congress and without the aid of the Bush Dogs, which means 42 or fewer US Senators and 175 or fewer members of the US House."

DEM FIELD: It's A Close One

Looking at recent polling suggesting that HRC is viewed as the most electable Dem in IA and NH, Chris Bowers writes: "This has enormous implications for the nomination contest. First, on a positive note for the Clinton campaign, it indicates that a large percentage of the electorate could turn her way toward the end, if they are deciding on electability. Second, I think it washes away any doubt that Obama will take a commanding national lead should he secure wins in both Iowa and New Hampshire...If Clinton were to lose the first two contests to the same candidate, her currently dominating lead in the electability category will disappear faster than the Republicans' once-enormous edge on national security. Nothing tests electability like actual elections, and if candidate X loses to candidate Y in consecutive elections, no one perceives candidate X as the more electable choice anymore. Such a shift would be devastating to Clinton, since electability is the category where she holds the largest lead among the electorate."

Open Left's Matt Stoller thinks that HRC's electability edge will help her pull out a victory in the end: "I would still give the edge to Clinton, since fear is a very powerful motivator for the electorate and the most primal urge among Democratic voters is to win the general election, not to have a fresh face in there. Obama's coalition, whether he likes it or not (and he doesn't like it), is the [Ned] Lamont coalition. It's creative class whites, African-Americans, younger voters, and independents."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer links to the latest CNN/Opinion Reseach poll showing HRC leading Obama by only 10 points nationally and writes: "An indication that the trend we've seen in the early states of a real tightening in the Democratic race is beginning to occur nationally, where Clinton has previously seemed immune to such a trend, could further undercut the notion that Clinton is a strong favorite to secure the Democratic nomination. Whether or not that would be a good thing for the Clinton campaign (i.e. whether it's preferable to lower expectations or to continue to maintain a veneer of strength, for example) is best left for another post...."

Stoller also expresses his disenchantment with both HRC and Obama: "I don't really understand this Presidential primary. All the candidates look very similar. I like Obama's open internet stuff, I think his Social Security and post-partisan stuff is dangerous. I like Clinton's energy policy, but her top-down autocratic hawkish style is worrisome. My hope is that liberal cultural and political trends are so strong that leadership can come from outside the Presidential forum."

OBAMA: Hate It Or Love It, The Underdog's On Top

It was Obama Day yesterday at Open Left, as Bowers wrote three separate posts dissecting the Illinois senator:

In light of the recent Obama-Krugman dust-up, Bowers explains "what really bothers [him] about Obama": "It is certainly disturbing that Obama is attacking a leading progressive voice in a media system where progressive opinion journalists are few are far between. What is even more disturbing is that this is not the first time the Obama campaign has considered doing this. Back during the Donnie McClurkin fiasco, it has been confirmed to me from multiple sources that the Obama campaign was preparing opposition research papers of this sort against one of the progressive bloggers who were speaking ill of him at the time (Update: I have edited the previous sentence for the sake of clarity and accuracy. I know two separate things, and conflating them is a bit of speculation on my part. First, I know that about a year ago, someone was conducting oppo research on most major progressive bloggers, but I don't know who. After I heard about oppo being prepared against one blogger a couple months ago, I speculated that meant the earlier oppo was conducted by the Obama campaign as well. That is purely speculation on my part. Take it for what it is worth). When I heard about that, Obama temporarily dropped to last place in my personal choices on Democratic candidates. This is a campaign that appears willing to go negative against a wide range of progressive media figures should those figures step out of line and criticize Obama campaign decisions."

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign denied Bowers' charge that it put together oppo documents on progressive bloggers, telling TPM's Greg Sargent, "This is absolutely not true."

Later, Bowers apologized for making an accusation that he was not willing to substantiate: "[I] apologize for bringing it up in the first place. I could have made my case effectively without it. Also, I should have realized that bringing it up in public would require proof, the revelation of which would be worse than just letting the whole issue be."

Bowers also writes that the mainstream media is largely responsible for Obama's recent rise in the polls: "Overall, the willingness to attack progressive media figures, the poor blogosphere outreach, the willingness to triangulate against left-wing strawmen, and incessant, beltway-pundit friendly talk about the need to 'fix' Social Security, combine to paint a pretty stark picture of the Obama campaign's relationship with progressive media and new progressive institutions. That is to say, he doesn't like those new institutions, and is instead making friends with the more established media infrastructure. Obama actually seems to be doing a good job in this area, as he receives significantly more positive media than any other Presidential candidate. Certainly, showing a distaste for the dirty hippies and real concern over the need to 'fix' Social Security can make you a lot of friends among media figures who have the ability to sway public opinion. Obama's improvement in the polls over the past six or seven weeks must be strongly connected to the media favoring him, for some reason, about all other presidential candidates, Democratic or Republican."

Stoller agrees that Obama's rise is media-driven: "The press is writing the narrative of [a] stumbling frontrunner, and Oprah is a genuine rock star bringing glamor to a surging Obama campaign."

Bowers' post about Obama generated a lot of comments -- many from Obama supporters -- which prompted Bowers to "offer some clarification": "The notion that bloggers are upset because their asses aren't being kissed or because someone is disagreeing with them is nonsense. There are few people in America who are more regularly criticized in public than bloggers...The problem arises when a candidate attacks specific members of new and progressive media from the right, and does not do the same to establishment media figures, since it presents a worrying pattern. The problem gets worse when that same candidate also happens to be the person who seems to have the best chance of enacting our desired new, progressive media policies into actual legislation. To top it off, that candidate seems to have the most support among the members of the new progressive media community. What is a new progressive media figure to do in that circumstance? It isn't an easy question to answer. I feel personally stumped."

Many Obama supporters responded to Bowers' second post as well. Here is a sampling of their comments:

Bobby Wallace: "A handful of bloggers do not represent 'Progressives'. Barack Obama is a progressive, however you define the term. So it isn't that he 'disagrees with progressives', it's that he disagrees with you."

proudlonghorn: "Chris, I love ya but goodness...Is this what it has come to? New Progressive Media and how a democratic candidate performs in this regard in terms of being 100 percent perfect? If there's one candidate who has consistently fought against the grain of the establishment and inspired a new generation of potential Democratic voters this cycle, it's definitely Barack Obama. For that alone, I give him and his campaign tremendous credit."

howardparks: "I was really turned off by your earlier post today which set a new standard for detached insular blogger introspection...I agree that the Obama campaign has been uneven in terms of blogger outreach but this thing is not about bloggers and who can kiss up to them the most, it's about people, and change, and peace and giving this country a new start...Maybe Obama's blogger outreach sucks, if so, thet should get thier [sic] act together. His people outreach, however, looks darn good to me."

Digby, on the other hand, shares Bowers' concerns about Obama: "Running to the right on health care and social security combined with the anti-gay gospel singer, taking Robert Novak smears at face value, repeating [Hillary Clinton biographer] Jeff Gerth lies and now going after Paul Krugman, leads me to the niggling awareness that this is a conscious, if subtle, strategy. Any one of those things could be an accident, and perhaps some of them are. But taken as a whole, conscious or not, liberal fighters in the partisan wars are being sistah soljahed...Obama is a tremendously exciting and talented politician and I would vote for him against any Republican out there without blinking an eye. But as a certified DFH, I really wish he weren't running this way."

Bowers responds to Digby's post: "Personally, I don't think it is a strategy, but rather simply who Obama is and what his campaign is. This was always how Obama acted, even before his campaign for President began, and even before he entered the Senate. As Steve Benen has pointed out, this is actually what Obama's famous 2004 convention speech was like. Obama hasn't changed, his public record was just comparatively thin before the campaign began allowing people to interpret him in manifold ways...Whatever Obama is doing, it seems to be working, at least right now. Perhaps, for others, the very good things about Obama are outshining the negatives I see. His background before politics, his opposition to the war, the promise of cultural change he appears to embody, his excellent energy, media, and election reform policy proposals--indeed, there are quite a few things to like about Obama."

OBAMA II: A Real Progressive?

Unlike Stoller and Bowers, The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias is confident in Obama's progressivism: "I know that to some liberals, Barack Obama's rhetorical style bespeaks a lack of commitment to progressive values. I don't see it that way. I've always seen it as a pretty transparent trick. He says he's not one of those liberals, he doesn't call people 'wingnuts,' he understands the conservative point of view, blah blah blah, and then here comes his agenda of tax hikes, tons of new spending, ambitious carbon emissions curbs, less invading of other countries for no reason, gay equality, etc. And, remarkably, you keep seeing conservatives eat it up, discerning something incredibly 'new' and 'exciting' in a combination of conventional liberal policy views with vaguely conciliatory rhetoric."

In other Obama news, Newsweek's Howard Fineman writes that Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama "outshone" Barack at their SC rally: "'I'm the third best speaker on the stage,' the senator said. Unfortunately, he was right...Whether by instinct or design, the thin-as-a-rail, youthful looking Obama looked somehow innocent as he appeared -- a man-child in this setting, doted over and presented by two powerful, commanding women (his wife and his endorser)."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas thinks Fineman's criticism of Obama is unfair: "'Unfortunately'? Why would that be unfortunate? Obama is clearly not uncomfortable in the presence of strong women. That speaks well for him, regardless what the Finemans in the media might think. This media obsession with manly men, whether from Fineman, or from Chris Matthews, or from whoever, is both ridiculous and pathetic. What, would Obama have scored had he strode out in a wife-beater shirt, clocked his wife and pushed Oprah off the stage? Would that have salved their pathological craving for musky man-scent and testosterone? These people are ridiculous."

OBAMA III: In Ur State, Gettin' Ur Endorsementz

Jonathan Singer analyzes the news that U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) has endorsed Obama: "Shea-Porter has quite the grassroots organization, which she used last year not only to knock off Republican Congressman Jeb Bradley in a race few thought she could win but also to defeat Democratic state Rep. James Craig, who had quite a bit of institutional backing and, again, who few thought she could defeat. If Shea-Porter puts some or all of the support of her grassroots organization behind Obama, it could be a big deal. Beyond that, there is a certain symbolism that looks good for Obama in having the support of both Democratic members of Congress from New Hampshire...Clearly Obama already has momentum in New Hampshire -- and one can't imagine having the backing of both [U.S. Rep Paul] Hodes and now Shea-Porter is going to hurt much."

Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) endorses Obama in a diary at the Huffington Post: "Barack Obama represents a bridge to the future. He embodies the hope and new direction that our country so desperately needs. As I've watched Senator Obama campaign for the presidency, I am convinced that he is a real agent of change; a man who can lead our nation in a new and positive direction."

CLINTON: Stickin' With Joe

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher is angry with HRC for joining Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) in calling for a review of the video game ratings process: "Do we suppose Hillary sat down and actually played Manhunt 2 on the campaign trail in order to arrive at this conclusion, or did she just take Joe's word for it, much like she did when she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that others have quite rightly pilloried her for?...One wonders at what point she will stop following Lieberman over the cliff."

In more positive HRC news, Derek Shearer, who served as Amb. to Finland in the Clinton Admin., calls HRC an "agent of change" in a Huffington Post diary: "I have spent forty years in progressive movements and democratic governments, first as a student activist then as an official in state and local government, and later as a federal official and US diplomat. I would not stake my reputation on supporting just an other politician. I know Hillary, I trust her and I am certain that she is one person who will be the leader that our time demands."

HUCKABEE: The Huckabashing Continues

NRO's editors examine Huckabee's foreign policy positions and conclude: "Conservatives should have worries about the depth and soundness of Mike Huckabee's foreign-policy views."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff, who rippedapart Huckabee's foreign policy views last week, continues to go after him: "Mike Huckabee's wrong-headed foreign prescriptions threaten to outstrip our ability to report them. Today, I learned that in 2002 Huckabee asked President Bush to lift the embargo against Cuba. Although there are colorable arguments on both sides of this issue (the better ones favor the embargo, but that's for another post), it's clear that Huckabee didn't bother to weigh them."

Meanwhile, NRO's Jim Geraghty notes that Huckabee is getting a lot of negative attention from Matt Drudge: "If you wanted to argue that Matt Drudge is not a fan of Huckabee, you could make a pretty strong case. Yesterday he spotlighted a message from 1998 that Huckabee said, 'I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ'...As we all know, Drudge's site is a major source of what gets talked about on talk radio, Fox News, etc. This message is going to bounce around the conservative world a lot in the next 24 to 48 hours..."

RedState's Erick Erickson comes to Huckabee's defense: "I realize this story about Huckabee in Utah is supposed to turn my stomach against him, but I find it oddly compelling me toward liking the guy even more -- even more from a small government perspective...It seems clear Huckabee recognizes that government is a problem, not a solution. It's clear he recognizes that government is an unyielding leviathan. I don't have a problem with that at all. If I keep seeing hit jobs like this and the AIDS quote against Huckabee, I might take a real liking to the guy."

HUCKABEE II: The Polls Don't Lie

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini declares that Huckabee has gone from being a spoiler to a contender:

"Huckabee has moved from niche regional contender to (for now) bona-fide national frontrunner. He is now within 1 and 2 points of Rudy Giuliani nationally in two national polls released this evening (with a decent post-speech bump for Mitt). This is the first time anyone has gotten so close to Rudy in a non-Rasmussen poll (which uses a very tight likely voter screen -- itself ominous for the Mayor). Huck is now overperforming Fred [Thompson] at his peak.

This is no longer just an Iowa deal. Huckabee leads in South Carolina. He can win Florida. He can play in Michigan with the help of the unions, and the Wolverine State has a habit of awarding unorthodox primary wins.

With Huckabee no longer content to play foil to Mitt Romney, he becomes a threat to Rudy. Rudy's recent dip in the RCP average coincides precisely with Huck's meteoric rise. Sooner or later, both Mitt and Rudy will have to deal with Huckabee."

GIULIANI: Down But Not Out

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru disagrees with Ruffini's assertion about the threat posed by Huckabee: "[Giuliani's] polls may have dropped, but I think he's in better shape to win the nomination than he was when the polls were better for him. The best chance to beat him was for one other candidate to win a bunch of early states before the Jan. 29 and Feb. 5 primaries, where he is doing very well. His support might fall in those states if a strong candidate emerges from those earlier primaries. But a mixed result in those early states -- say two or three different candidates win in them -- will leave his support in the later states intact, I think. And Huckabee's surge in Iowa makes it much less likely that anyone is going to dominate those early primaries. Advantage Rudy."

NRO's John Hood agrees with Ponnuru: "Huckabee's rise is good news for Giuliani, about whose Iowa prospects no one had high expectations in the first place. The biggest threat to him was a conservative alternative winning the early states and going one-on-one with him in Florida and on Super-Duper Tuesday. A Romney loss in IA and mixed results elsewhere is all good for Rudy. He's in it for the long haul."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti: "At the moment Giuliani's problem is that he's on defense. To stay strong heading into Florida on January 29, Giuliani needs to go back on offense. It may be time to dust off his "12 Commitments", which seem to have been gathering dust over the last few months."

Patrick Ruffini thinks Giuliani needs to emphasize national security in order to distinguish himself from Huckabee: "The rap on Rudy is that he talks about 9/11 incessantly. If only that were so, he'd be doing a lot better. The reason Rudy has remained so strong for so long is not that he cut the welfare rolls in New York City, it's not because he kicked the squeegies out, and it's not even the dramatic reduction in crime he's best known for...[it's] because of his performance on 9/11 and what that said about his ability to lead in a crisis. Why he hasn't run a campaign that is singularly evocative of that theme -- just as Mitt has glossed over his experience as a turnaround artist -- is baffling. Rudy's message seems to have devolved into a 1996 Bill Clinton school uniforms message, just as Mitt's has become a conservative panderfest. Rudy needs to seal the deal on national security. Unlike [John] McCain, who is Mr. Iraq, he can broaden it to toughness on Iran and the broader terror war. The central theme of a Rudy-Huck fight will be 'Who do you trust as Commander-in-Chief?'"

ROMNEY: (Sort Of) Going Negative

A number of conservative bloggers commented on Romney's negative ad against Huckabee:

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "Well it's about as nice an attack ad as you can get. Starting by calling Huckabee a good family man, the ad obviously wants to avoid offending those 'nice' Iowans...Is the ad so timid as to lack impact? Perhaps but it is a step, maybe the first, in trying to return to non-family issues. Romney (I think correctly) sees family issues which were the core of his Iowa appeal before the Huckaboom will not help him against Huckabee. Time to get back to immigration, taxes and foreign policy? Sounds like a good idea."

CBN's David Brody: "Romney has no other choice. He can't go after Huckabee on marriage or life so immigration is pretty much his only play that could resonate. But Romney is in danger of not playing 'Iowa Nice'."

Patrick Ruffini: "It's unlikely this alone will do it, but the idea here is to start a drumbeat of negative buzz and scrutiny of Huckabee that crests just in time to eeke out a narrow win or loss on the 3rd. Since Iowa is effectively a two-man race right now, Romney's people are probably betting they can evade the murder/suicide scenario."

Ruffini also offers Romney some advice: "Mitt Romney's progress in the polls has been plodding at best because he appeals to people's heads and not their hearts. My advice to Mitt simple: let people get to know you. Talk about the Olympics, talk about your business successes, talk about how you've turned around everything you've touched -- and go light on the policy stuff. Do an ad straight to the camera and say, 'I'm not the flavor of the month -- but if you want someone who has the real world experience to turn things around, I'm your guy.' On conservatism, tell people you've got 'the whole package' -- and scratch the awful, elitist 'three legged stool' metaphor. Rudy's a social liberal. Huck's an economic liberal. Mitt's just right."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: More Wisdom From Ruffini

Patrick Ruffini offers some interesting thoughts on the GOP race:

"GOP primary voters feel passionately about two things: values and the war. Huckabee has cornered the market on the first. His success is not about ideology, but identity. For his voters, he's a Christian first, and a conservative second. Attacking him on conventional conservative issues won't undermine his core support because it has nothing to do with being a conservative.

And McCain, poised ominously for a comeback in New Hampshire, is on track to win the second by default, despite his narrow focus on Iraq, the weakest link in our national security message.

Can Romney reassert himself as the best all-around conservative when people believe he's a conservative of convenience? Can Rudy steal back the national security issue?

The survival of the GOP's conventional frontrunners hinges on the answers to these questions."

LEST WE FORGET: Parentheticals You Don't Often See

McSweeney's Eric Karjala offers a list of "Rarely Used Parenthetical Statements":

(who happens to be white)

(this is the antagonist)

(whose ATM password is 5900)

(which is Latin for fauxhawk)

(full disclosure: this reporter is racist)

(product may contain peanuts, based on Schrodinger's paradoxical thought experiments using quantum superposition)

(no, not that Robocop)

(who will die on page 248)

(incidentally, this reporter is now single, ladies)

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:53 PM

December 10, 2007

12/10: A Fractured Relationship

We noted last Monday that there appears to be a disconnect between the netroots rank-and-file -- who, if Daily Kos straw polls are any indication, overwhelmingly oppose Hillary Clinton -- and the bloggers with the most prominent platforms -- who generally seem comfortable (if not enthusiastic) about HRC's candidacy. However, perhaps the real story here is not so much HRC's ability to appease the leading netroots bloggers, but Barack Obama's pattern of repeatedly disappointing and angering them. Obama's rhetoric about unifying the electorate and transcending politics never made him a perfect fit for the netroots, and his campaign's mistakes (such as the Donnie McClurkin incident and the more recent Paul Krugman dust-up) have only compounded his issues with Jerome Armstrong, Jane Hamsher, et al. But now that Obama's message seems to be resonating with Iowa voters, will the 'roots be willing to listen?

DEM FIELD: HRC, Back On Top?

Although he wrote last Saturday that he considered Obama the frontrunner for the Dem nomination, Open Left's Chris Bowers now gives HRC the edge: "The last seven media polls out of Iowa show Obama ahead in three, and Clinton ahead in four (although in two of the polls where Clinton leads, Obama actually leads among all voters). Clinton also leads in the [John] Edwards internal poll from Iowa. And yes, I include internal polls in the means. So, while Obama is now clearly in position to take both New Hampshire and South Carolina should he win Iowa, and close enough in Nevada that a double Iowa--New Hampshire sweep should be more than enough there, I can no longer say with an certainty that Obama is ahead in Iowa. Until Obama regains a clear Iowa advantage, Clinton will remain the frontrunner."

OBAMA: Taking On...Paul Krugman?

After New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote two op-eds criticizing Obama's health care plan, the Obama campaign fired back by releasing a memo that accuses Krugman of being inconsistent. Krugman responded by accusing Obama's campaign of launching a "personal attack": "Here's what I said about the Obama plan when it first came out...And I was prepared to leave it at that -- Obama's plan was weaker than his rivals' because it wasn't universal, but I hoped that he would fix that in practice. But then Obama started attacking his rivals from the right, denouncing their proposals using exactly the same false claims that conservatives will use to try to derail reform in the future. And now, having been caught out on the facts, the Obama people respond with a personal attack, lifting quotes out of context to pretend that I never had problems with the plan. Something is very wrong here."

A number of liberal bloggers are questioning both the substance of Obama's push-back against Krugman and the strategic wisdom of challenging someone who's as respected in progressive circles as the NYT columnist.

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, a frequent Obama critic, thinks Obama's attack on Krugman reflects a troubling willingness to attack progressives: "It's obvious that Obama feels comfortable attempting to trash the credibility of progressives like Krugman. It's even more disturbing when coupled with the admiration that Obama holds for Republicans in his post-partisan quest...Is Obama just plain ignorant of the fight we've faced this decade in going after Krugman? Why is he going after the Clinton and Edwards plans to push forward the idea of universal coverage? Does he really have no clue that using the term 'crisis' to describe Social Security is Rovian? It's mistakes like these that make me think that if Obama gets the nomination, it's going to be disgusting to watch as he turns against progressives in his bid for the middle, and as he says, that's the way he'd govern too."

Ezra Klein, who's frequently criticized Obama's health care plan for its lack of a mandate, is surprised by Obama's attack on Krugman: "Something's really gone off the rails when the Obama campaign decides to release an oppo document on Paul Krugman. It's not only the actual attacks that are weak (most of them rely on misinterpreting one comment, then misinterpreting the next, then pretending there's a contradiction), but, seriously, it's Paul Krugman. Arguably the most progressive voice in American media. When I argued that the campaign should take the gloves off, I really didn't expect their target, in this document and in the health care fight more generally, would be progressivism. What in hell is going on over there?"

Atrios is also surprised: "Normally I get pretty excited when Democrats take on the media, but this is just weird."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum understands the Obama campaign's need to push back against Krugman's criticisms, but questions the substance of the push-back: "Krugman has been hitting Obama pretty hard lately, and I can understand why the Obama campaign has hit back: Krugman is extremely influential among likely Obama voters, and they can't afford to just let his grumbles sit there unanswered. What's more, Krugman isn't some kind of progressive Delphic oracle. It's OK to fight back against him. Still, attacking Krugman as inconsistent, as they did on Friday, is indeed bizarre. He hasn't been. What's more, although it's true that Krugman prefers the Edwards/Clinton approach on both healthcare and Social Security, his complaint isn't primarily with the substance of Obama's plans anyway. Rather, his complaint is with Obama's rhetoric, which has been fundamentally an attack from the right that will only make it harder for progressives to fight similar-sounding right-wing attacks in the future."

Open Left's Matt Stoller, who actually agrees with Obama that mandates are bad policy, nevertheless thinks Obama's attack on Krugman is foolish: "The Obama campaign offers a weird attack on Paul Krugman, calling him inconsistent in his attacks on Obama's health care plan. Krugman is perfectly consistent, as Ezra notes. It's a strange fight to pick, since it forces Krugman into a position where either his credibility is damaged or he responds. More to the point, Krugman isn't running for office. Is Obama looking for more opponents or something?"

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat (via an email to Jeralyn E. Merritt) uses the incident to explain why he prefers HRC to Obama: "Krugman PUSHES ALL THE CANDIDATES from the progressive point of view. Including Hillary. Barack Obama has a history of attacking progressive voices. The Hillary Clinton campaign, as it has all this year -- attending Yearly Kos, fighting [Bill] O'Reilly, skipping Fox Debates, etc. -- understands that Dems do not all agree on the issues but welcomes ALL Democratic voices, especially progressive voices. Barack Obama prefers to attack Democrats instead of fighting for Democrat values against Republicans. Hillary Clinton knows who the REAL fight will be with."

Taylor Marsh, an HRC supporter and perhaps Obama's harshest online critic, delivers a scathing broadside against Obama at the Huffington Post: "Obama's audacity of a smear against a leading progressive shows no political conscience whatsoever. This comes as no surprise to me. Skipping out and not being counted where it matters on the issues is what Obama's been doing all year...Mr. Obama has no compunction of going after the leading progressive economist, Paul Krugman, because Obama's loyalty is not to Democratic principles, but to his own agenda, which at it's core can be summed up in four words: Let's Make a Deal."

OBAMA II: Who Cares What Oprah Says?

In response to this weekend's considerable media coverage of the Obama rallies featuring Oprah Winfrey, several of Obama's netroots critics are downplaying Oprah's influence and criticizing her political views.

Jeralyn E. Merritt doubts that Oprah can sway black voters in SC: "Can 'the nation's wealthiest African-American woman' have an impact on the voters of a poor state like South Carolina? The race card is already in play. African American supporters of John Edwards are calling the Oprah-Obama tour a publicity stunt...People will turn out in droves to see her, but I doubt it means they'll buy the candidate she's selling."

Jerome Armstrong accuses Oprah of helping to elect Bush in 2000: "Back during the end of September 2000, when Gore had Bush on the mat following the bounce from the LA convention and the RATS ad, it was Oprah that picked Bush up off the ground. 'My pleasure,' he purred when she thanked him for the kiss. The establishment media went gaga after Oprah embraced Bush. That's what I know about Oprah and her politics."

A number of the commenters at MyDD pushed back against Armstrong's post. Here is a sampling:

royce: "You're really reaching, Jerome. Would this diary appeared if Oprah was campaigning for Kucinich or Clinton or Edwards?"

Jim Engler: "Wow, three anti-Obama posts on the front page....Record?"

jello: "next, jerome is going to critique obama's kindergarten and 3rd grade essay."

jbsloan: "Jerome, who's paying you? The anti-Obama bias that is coming through in your posts is so strong that it makes me doubt your authenticity."

Meanwhile, Blue Hampshire's Delegator disagrees with Merritt's appraisal of Oprah's influence: "I find it amusing when pundits or other campaigns try to minimize the affect that Oprah will have on this race. Oprah is the rare case of a celebrity whose endorsement has a huge upside but essentially no downside...nobody I know dislikes her. She's not like a Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, or even George Clooney, all of whom alienate some people by wearing their politics on their sleeves."

OBAMA III: Dividing The Netroots

In addition to Jerome Armstrong's four negative posts about Obama, several other leading netroots bloggers have taken Obama to the woodshed this weekend.

Taylor Marsh: "Barack Obama has no ideological compass. He doesn't care if it's a progressive honestly pointing out the flaws in a policy plan. All Obama cares about is the aura of him, because he has no ideological center...Obama is, while also being willing to do whatever he can to get elected, cannibalizing his own and our ideals as he goes; bringing as many people along as he can, including conservatives who will have no allegiance to what progressives have worked for over decades to achieve. That's because Obama's loyalties are not to Democratic or progressive causes."

The Left Coaster's eriposte:

"Sen. Obama has shown a tendency to either say nothing on controversial matters, or vote 'present' or skip controversial votes, or enlist the help of controversial supporters for winning votes, and claim later that his position was different from what the vote or position entailed or what the supporter believed...

Sen. Obama has shown a very strong tendency to repeatedly use false right-wing frames to negatively describe the left or Democrats in sweeping fashion on a number of issues. He has also exhibited a significant comfort level with the use of false right-wing frames to discuss policy or criticize other progressives or Democrats, even while he misleadingly criticizes Sen. Clinton for allegedly enabling Bush and the right with her vote on Kyl-Lieberman.

The voting records of both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton are very similar and much more progressive than Sen. [Joe] Lieberman's. However, contrary to the false, yet common knee-jerk linkage of Sen. Clinton with Sen. Lieberman, Sen. Obama's rhetorical history has a lot more in common with his mentor Sen. Lieberman, whom he went out of the way to support prior to Ned Lamont's win in the Democratic primary..."

Obama is not without his online defenders, however. Daily Kos diarist PsiFighter37 fires back at Obama's netroots critics in a diary entry entitled, "The blogosphere's problem with Barack Obama":

"In the past couple of days, there have been some particularly incendiary pieces written about Barack Obama by prominent bloggers within the netroots community...One thing to highlight, though, is that it's Obama -- and only Obama -- that has been the target of these kinds of irrational attacks. Neither Hillary Clinton or John Edwards have been targeted in the same manner. Why?...

There are a couple of reasons that Obama is taking a couple of hits. First, the blogosphere is once again stepping into the trap of becoming little more than a group of purity trolls. None of our candidates are perfect, but we're letting that be the enemy of pretty damn good...The netroots needs to understand this about Obama: he's not going to ever be the person who comes out and says he's sick of listening to religious fundamentalists running the country. That's not his style. But that doesn't mean he's not the most progressive candidate with a serious chance of winning the presidency in a generation. Netroots activists need to stop fooling themselves into believing in a definition of 'progressivism' that is false. Howard Dean would not have governed as a liberal if he were elected, and he certainly didn't govern as one when he was Vermont's governor. Hillary Clinton is no liberal, either in rhetoric or in governance...

In the end, the blogosphere needs to accept Barack Obama for who he is. He is not going to pander to you, nor is he going to work within the frameworks that are already set up by the netroots for how outreach on the Internet is supposed to be done. But he's doing a pretty damn good job of setting up a movement of hundreds of thousands of Americans across the country that want something different. Just because he may not be doing it our way doesn't mean he's not a progressive. It just means that his belief about what progressivism is -- in the political sense and in the activist sense -- is different.

And maybe, just maybe, he's right."

GOP FIELD: Univision Debate? Yawwwwn...

Conservative blogger reactions to the GOP Univision debate ranged from boredom to mild disgust:

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "How many people watched this? Does it matter? The only goof was [Mitt] Romney's healthcare answer. The rest was fine, I guess, but a bit too much of a pander-fest for my taste."

RedState's Ben Domenech: "It really wasn't a particularly riveting debate -- Ron Paul got booed for being Ron Paul, [Fred] Thompson had a couple good one liners, Mitt had to give a convoluted explanation about his hiring/firing of the landscaping company, but Craig Romney gave some pretty good spin about it (in fluent Espanol!) afterward to the reporters, nothing really out of the ordinary."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Last night I found myself in absolute agreement with Tom Tancredo as I turned on Univision...and saw no English subtitles or other manner to figure out what the Republican candidates were saying, beyond lip-reading...Without any English simulcast, I'm not sure what the point of this debate was."

Michelle Malkin: "For the most part, the Republican candidates played along and failed to reject the underlying identity politics premise that Hispanics are a monolithic voting bloc (as if anti-Castro Republicans in Florida share anything in common with reconquista punks in souther California)...Ok, when's the Tagalog-language Filipino debate? Vietnamese-language debate? Hindi, anyone?"

HUCKABEE: The Hits Just Keep On Comin'

Mike Huckabee's 1992 statements about wanting to isolate AIDS patients are providing small government conservatives in the blogosphere with yet another reason to distrust him:

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "The idea that Mike Huckabee as U.S. Senate candidate in 1992 would have advocated the draconian step of quarantining AIDS patients is appalling. It not only displays a shocking ignorance, but is further evidence of authoritarian tendencies in Huckabee that we have already seen in his support for big government, nanny state policies, such as a national smoking ban in workplaces."

NRO's Jonathan Adler: "In 1992 Hucakbee supported an AIDS quarantine, despite the lack of any real public health justification for such a step. Today he supports a federal smoking ban in public places. This causes me to wonder: Is Huckabee willing to throw the idea of limited government out the window any time there is a plausible (or even not so plausible) public health argument for doing so?"

GIULIANI: He Survived A Mob Hit And MTP

Conservative bloggers are giving [Rudy] Giuliani mostly positive reviews for his performance on "Meet The Press":

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Rudy Giuliani went toe-to-toe with Tim Russert this morning and emerged not only unscathed but the stronger for again demonstrating that in a general election showdown with either Senator Clinton or Obama, the mayor would be up to the 24/7 MSM's slash-and-burn attacks."

RedState's Mary Kilmer: "On MTP, Rudy Giuliani was splendiferous, and anyone who disagrees is not to be trusted as a human being whose soul is not a clod. (No, I'm not a, per se, Giuliani supporter.)"

Campaign Standard's Richelieu: "A confident and gregarious Rudy Giuliani yesterday on Meet the Press. He's near-bulletproof in the chair, a testament to his many years spent learning to survive New York's Darwinian media pit. Still, it was mostly an hour of tough sledding. Rudy didn't get much chance to sell his wares. Instead he was bobbing and weaving like a trapped middleweight as Tim Russert piled on the questions. Rudy pushed back hard and fought Russert off several times; his survival technique was to dance and filibuster."

Jennifer Rubin: "I suspect the Rudy people are very pleased he survived without incident. I thought it was a waste of the hour."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Race Nobody Can Win

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat ponders:

"So the latest polls have Mike Huckabee up an implausible nineteen points in Iowa and four points nationally. But he can't win, right? I mean, he's vulnerable on practically every non-social issue, he has a variety of skeletons in his closet, his policy team seems more or less nonexistent, he still doesn't have any money, and he has most of the GOP establishment united against him. He doesn't have a prayer -- or maybe that's all he has.

Except, of course, that none of his rivals can win either. If you look at the field, every candidate seems to have near-disqualifying weaknesses (a point Larison has been making for months, I believe), which helps explain why nobody seems capable of getting above 30-35 percent in any national or state-level poll. [John] McCain is still poison to a large chunk of the base and probably doesn't have enough money to capitalize even if he wins New Hampshire -- and if he loses there, he's cooked. Mitt Romney is running on a record that would have made him a moderate Democrat in any state except hyper-liberal Massachussetts. Rudy Giuliani is running on a record that would have made him a moderate Democrat in any place except hyper-liberal New York City. Fred Thompson is more ideologically appropriate, but he's lived down to his lackluster record as a politician by running a remarkably lousy and (perhaps unremarkably) lazy campaign. Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul."

LEST WE FORGET: The Crucial Potterphile Voting Bloc

The New Republic's Christopher Orr writes:

"Barron [YoungSmith] reminds me that Mike Huckabee's 'Phoenix' metaphor isn't his only recent statement suggesting an affinity for the oeuvre of J. K. Rowling. As he pointed out on Tuesday, Huckabee has also described his FairTax proposal as 'like waving a magic wand.'

It's obvious that the former governor of Arkansas is trying to signal to the crucial Potterphile voting bloc that he is one of them -- but subtly, in order not to annoy his fundamentalist base. In the coming days and weeks, keep an eye out for comments along the lines of 'Mitt Romney's immigration plan sounds about as workable as a flying car,' 'If my opponents attack me, I will hit back like a whomping willow,' and, of course, 'If you help me win this nomination, I promise you I will go on to beat She Who Must Not Be Named.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:10 PM

December 07, 2007

12/7: Well, How Did He Do?

Conservative bloggers' reactions to Mitt Romney's speech were largely positive. Most bloggers felt that Romney spoke well and looked "presidential." However, bloggers were split as to what the ultimate impact of the speech would be. Romney's fans (such as Hugh Hewitt and Kathryn Jean Lopez) believe that Romney did a masterful job of re-introducing himself to the electorate and making a personal case for his candidacy. Other bloggers are doubtful that Romney's appeal to evangelical Christians -- emphasizing their shared faith and downplaying their doctrinal differences -- will succeed in convincing them to support him over Southern Baptist Mike Huckabee. NRO's Jonah Goldberg summarized the views of these doubters when he wrote:

"It would have been a great speech had he already won the nomination. But there wasn't a whole lot in there about why he should get the nomination in the first place...I still think he needs to sell evangelicals willing to overlook his Mormonism (but are still concerned by it) why they should vote for him over the much easier pick of Huckabee. And for that he needs to talk about electability, taxes etc. He didn't mention those things today, and he won't have another venue like that again before the voting starts."

ROMNEY: His Day In The Sun

The positive reactions to Romney's speech ranged from lukewarm to rapturous.

CBN's David Brody: "The speech was sweeping, lofty and presidential. He looked natural and spoke passionately. Mitt Romney didn't just look like a President today. He sounded and behaved like one too...if Romney really wanted to make a concerted pitch to Evangelicals in Iowa, he would have played to them more. He didn't. Instead, he came off looking presidential. It felt like a pre-inaugural speech or a State of the Union with faith as the main topic."

Hugh Hewitt: "Mitt Romney's 'Faith in America' speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst. On every level it was a masterpiece. The staging and Romney's delivery, the eclipse of all other candidates it caused, the domination of the news cycle just prior to the start of absentee voting in New Hampshire on Monday -- for all these reasons and more it will be long discussed as a masterpiece of political maneuver."

NRO's Mona Charen: "That was perhaps the best political speech of the year. It was well-crafted and delivered with conviction and -- this is unusual for Romney -- considerable emotion. I thought his contrast of the empty cathedrals of Europe with the violent jihadis was particularly adroit. He managed to make this a speech about patriotism as much as about religion. Brilliant."

Kathryn Jean Lopez: "No longer is [Romney] that guy you're not sure believes anything. He's a decent, successful, experienced exec who gave a stirring speech about American greatness and wouldn't apologize for being a man of faith. A whole host of people seem to be giving him another look, have a newfound respect. The speech strikes me as a grand success."

RedState's Hunter Baker: "Overall, this speech showed tremendous sophistication on religion and politics. I'm not a Mitt supporter. But he listened to someone who understands the issues well. A+++ for this one. Attaboy, Governor Romney."

Beliefnet's Rod Dreher: "It was a very good speech, probably the best that can be expected of a presidential candidate seeking to lead a pluralist democracy. It won't solve his problem with evangelicals and others who find his theological beliefs disqualifying. But he made a respectable -- and to me, quite persuasive -- case for why their concerns are misplaced."

Other conservative bloggers, while praising Romney's delivery, were dubious that the speech would help Romney's candidacy:

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Most of those whose votes Romney seeks will accept the line he seeks to draw between religious faith generally (relevant) and specific church doctrine (irrelevant). Our Founders certainly did, as Romney points out. However, Romney is giving the speech because there are more than a few such voters who are not inclined to accept that line. The speech, which is eloquent and even moving in places, should help Romney with some of these voters, but probably not many."

NRO's David Frum:

"To be blunt, Romney is saying:
It is legitimate to ask a candidate, 'Is Jesus the son of God?'
But it is illegitimate to ask a candidate, 'Is Jesus the brother of Lucifer?'
It is hard for me to see a principled difference between these two questions, and I think on reflection that the audiences to whom Romney is trying to appeal will also fail to see such a difference...
Had he focused instead on simply arguing that presidents need only prove themselves loyal to American values, he would have been on safe ground. Instead, he over-reached, super-adding to his civic appeal an additional appeal to voters who demand faith in Jesus as a requirement in a president. That is an argument that will not work -- and a game Mitt Romney cannot win."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "[Romney] simply cannot elide the profound theological differences between the LDS church and mainstream Christianity...if you are appealing to religious people, especially fundamentalists, on the basis of faith, you cannot logically then ask them to ignore the content of the faith. The religious right have tried to do this with the absurd neologism, the 'Judeo-Christian tradition,' as if the truth-claims of Christianity and Judaism are not, at bottom, contradictory. But the 'Mormon-Judeo-Christian tradition' is a step too far even for those who have almost no principles in using religion for political purposes. I think it's a tragedy that a man of Romney's obvious gifts should be reduced to this. But he asked for it; and the petard he has been hoist on is his own. If you want a religious politics, you'll end up with one. That's why Huckabee is the natural heir to the Rove project. And why Romney is falling behind."

RedState's California Yankee: "Romney would have better off not giving any speech related to his faith. All he accomplished was to reinforce the fact that that he is Mormon."

RedState's Ben Domenech: "If I had to guess? This speech gives Romney a small bump, but a month from now, few people think of it when casting a vote one way or the other."

Several bloggers were surprised that Romney chose to include the following two lines in his speech: "Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."

NRO's Jim Geraghty called it "the worst line of Romney's speech": "I think those are the wrong words from a guy accused of flip-flopping and shifting his positions from left to right to run for the nomination of a conservative party."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "I think whoever thought these lines were a good idea may be queasy about now...This is where some self-awareness would have helped the Romney Team -- if you understand the biggest problem for your guy (credibility/conviction) you shouldn't advertise it in neon lights in the most picked over speech of the campaign."

A number of bloggers on both the left and right felt that Romney's speech alienated non-believers:

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum:

"I can't tell you how much this pisses me off. I'm well aware that this is par for the course among Republican politicians these days, and Romney is doing nothing more than engaging in what's become routine conservative disparagement of those of us who aren't religious. But the cowardice and pandering here is just phenomenal. Not only does Romney not have the guts to toss in even a single passing phrase about the nonreligious, as JFK did, he went out of his way to insist that 'freedom requires religion,' that no movement of conscience is possible without religion, and that judges had better respect our 'foundation of faith' lest our country's entire greatness disappear. And that was just the warmup.

I know, I know. He's just doing what he has to do. Evangelical base and all that. But I'm not religious, and yet, mirabile dictu, I still manage to support freedom, have a conscience, and understand the law. It's repellent to suggest otherwise."

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham had a similar reaction: "I liked it, but wondered that there was no mention whatsoever of those with no faith at all. They're not a huge voting block, but many of them are patriotic Americans who respect their religious neighbors (not you, Michael Newdow). It would have been nice to hear that they make up part of the symphony as well."

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "It would have been nice if Romney, while making room for people of all faiths in this country, could have also made some room for people with none."

Andrew Sullivan: "In order to appeal to evangelicals, he places himself on their side against the other: the secularists. But that is simply another form of the religious test. By insisting on faith -- any faith -- as the proper criterion for public office, Romney draws the line, oh-so-conveniently, so as to include Mormonism but exclude atheism and agnosticism."

Kathryn Jean Lopez doesn't see what all the fuss is about: "Isn't the freedom to choose not to believe implicit in the freedom to believe? There's no establishment of religion here -- you can not believe. It just seems a given. And I'm fairly confident that is where the Romney speech was coming from -- not from a desire to create or foster or enforce a theoconcracy."

Finally, in a passionate post, RedState's Leon H. Wolf expressed his disgust for GOP voters who won't vote for a Mormon:

"I can't think of anything that's stupider, from a political perspective, than sending a message to one of the most loyal segments of your voting base that they are some sort of second-class citizens: fit to vote, but not actually to govern. It dismays me that there seem to be a lot of people (even here) who either outright think that or are sympathetic to the position, and I'm probably powerless to change that...I encourage everyone to think long and hard about what that attitude means, and what it's likely to get us down the road. We're not electing a pastor, we're electing a President. And if you think some Mormon beliefs sound crazy, you ought to consider how more mainline Christian beliefs sound to someone who hasn't grown up with them, and ponder whether the Bible might actually have something to say about that in the second half of 1 Corinthians 1.

I understand that there are valid reasons that some people don't want to vote for Romney that have nothing to do with his Mormonism, and that's fine. I just wish we could avoid what the media said we couldn't: the rejection of a candidate by a significant number of Republicans because of his religion -- a religion, by the way, that votes overwhelmingly Republican."

HUCKABEE: Shooting The Messenger?

After the Huffington post published two articles by Murray Waas that documented Huckabee's role in pushing for a serial rapist's release, Huckabee called the Huffington Post "one of the most left-wing blogs in the blogosphere" and accused it of "exploit[ing] people's pain for political purposes."

Last night, the website's founder Arianna Huffington fired back at Huckabee on her blog: "The way that Mike Huckabee has handled the furor caused by the Huffington Post's coverage of his role in the release of Wayne Dumond, a serial rapist who went on to rape and kill at least one other woman, has been very revealing. And troubling. It has exposed the dissembling reality behind the charming, articulate, more-preacher-than-politician facade -- and has called into question both his judgment and his integrity. Huckabee's response has been to fudge the truth, point the finger at everyone in sight, and -- that old standby -- blame the messenger...[But] no amount of denials and mudslinging by Huckabee can make the devastating evidence -- and what that evidence reveals about him -- go away."

Meanwhile, several conservative bloggers took a break from writing about Romney's speech in order to rip Huckabee on this issue:

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "Mike Huckabee keeps falsifying and falsifying, and shifting more and more blame, in the case of rapist Wayne DuMond. Do we really want such a weasel as president? I mean, this is a guy who refuses to accept responsibility for his own mistakes."

Paul Mirengoff: "Although Huckabee disclaims responsibility for the decision that granted Dumond parole, there's no dispute that this is a result he favored...[this] raises serious questions about Huckabee's judgment. In addition, there's the question of whether Huckabee is telling the truth when he claims that he did not influence the board that voted to grant Huckabee parole."

HUCKABEE II: God's Candidate?

Huckabee's comments suggesting that God is responsible for his recent rise in the polls are generating a lot of mockery on liberal blogs (and on a few conservative blogs too):

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Did God want you to let that convicted rapist go too?"

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "What arrogance. I don't know how to read this in any other way than Huckabee thinks he is God's chosen candidate in the Republican primary, and God is smiting the other candidates as a result."

Jim Geraghty: "Wow. Huckabee's been endorsed by both Chuck Norris AND Jesus Christ."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "If Huckabee's god has chosen him as his favored candidate, will that mean that this god isn't 'all powerful' when Huckabee crashes and burns?"

TAPPED's Paul Waldman: "[I]s Huckabee just saying that God is giving him a temporary bump in the polls, only to send his campaign crashing down later, in order to demonstrate to His earthly subjects the danger of hubris and the importance of early fundraising?"

In spite of all the mockery, MyDD's Jerome Armstrong still thinks it's "Huckabee's race to lose": "Given that polls are now coming out showing that he can also win in the general election against either [Hillary] Clinton or [Barack] Obama, I'd guess that he's going to be a little tested in the coming weeks. If he weathers that storm with a win in Iowa and then follows that up with a win in South Carolina, he's got the nomination wrapped up."

Armstrong also thinks that the new Rasmussen poll of Arkansas voters, which shows Huckabee leading HRC 48-42% and Obama 54-35%, "ought to clam up Obamafans that say he can win in Red States, or those that claim Clinton has a plan other than winning Florida, for the Presidency...There's a lot of '06 hubris out there among Democrats that believe we already have the '08 election locked up for President. That in large part explains why so many Democrats want to make this upcoming election even bigger, by making it a historical statement. More polls like that one coming out of Arkansas ought to at least sober up that viewpoint. I'm not saying that [John] Edwards is the answer (you know who I thought could win), just that we will not walk away with the '08 race against Huckabee -- he will be very difficult to defeat."

HUCKABEE III: A Bright Spot

While the majority of Huckabee-related posts in the past few days have been harshly critical, Huckabee received a bit of good news yesterday in the form of praise from NRO's Mark Krikorian, who likes Huckabee's immigration plan (although it should be noted that Huckabee's plan is modeled after Krikorian's).

Krikorian: "Huckabee has a new immigration plan out, and it's way, way better than anyone would have expected from him...this is a big deal if Huckabee actually campaigns on this."

Hot Air's Allah Pundit questions the sincerity of Huckabee's views: "Note the footnote emphasizing that this is modeled on a plan by Mark Krikorian, something that will buy Huck instant immigration cred with conservatives while also making them wonder if that isn't the whole point -- that perhaps he has no firm convictions on the issue and is cribbing from Krikorian to make him viable on the right on the hottest policy issue there is."

Krikorian thinks conservatives shouldn't hold Huckabee's past views against him: "I understand the reaction, given his track record, but we should always be happy to accept converts; as the Boss has said, 'Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.'"

CLINTON: The Candidate For Union-Busters?

HRC is taking some heat from liberal bloggers due to the fact that her consultant Chris Lehane is now working for the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers as it attempts to put down the writers' strike.

Open Left's Matt Stoller wants HRC to sever all ties with Lehane: "Lehane is a Clinton surrogate. He works to get her elected, the campaign feeds him talking points, and he uses them...As for Clinton, this is just another version of the Mark Penn problem, her campaign consultant who works for union busters, Columbia death squads, etc. Hillary Clinton herself is mostly supportive of the writers, though comparing the statements shows that Clinton actually says less than either Edwards or Obama. The pushback I'm going to get on this post from the Clinton campaign is going to be along the lines of 'Clinton supports the WGA', though I find the people she associates herself with incredibly distasteful. Strike breaking is not ok. Clinton knows this. And that's why she should sever all ties with Lehane and Fabiani and put out a statement announcing this."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias quips: "Clintonite spinmeisters Lehane & [Mark] Fabiani go to work for Big Media to help them try to weather the Writer's Guild strike. Presumably, Mark Penn's union-busting practice was unavailable."

Daily Kos' Miss Laura: "'Democratic' consultants Chris Lehane and Mark Fabiani are going to work for the AMPTP, trying to help break the WGA strike. I know this is something I'll remember next time a candidate hires either of them."

OBAMA: He's Got The Mo

MyDD's Jonathan Singer links to the new Strategic Vision poll showing Obama leading in Iowa and writes: "These moves from two weeks ago are all within the margin of error for the poll, as is Obama's lead, so as is almost always the case with these things, one need remember not to place excessive attention on the results of a single poll. That said, looking at the trend of all polling out of Iowa, one cannot help but come away with the sentiment that Obama is on a steady rise in the state while Clinton is nearing or has already hit her peak in the state."

Meanwhile, Open Left's Chris Bowers is impressed by the news that Obama's campaign is moving its rally with Oprah Winfrey to a football stadium in Columbia, SC in order to accommodate more people: "Even if people are mainly turning out to see Oprah, this rally is turning into the best voter contact mechanism the Obama campaign could hope for in South Carolina. Directly speaking to, say, 60,000 people, as he is endorsed by one of their favorite media figures, is hard to top. More effective than any paid media campaign I could think of in the state. Imagine if Oprah cut out the middle-man and just ran herself!"

EDWARDS: Rising In The Granite State

Chris Bowers sees good news for Edwards in NH: "My suspicions of a faster Edwards increase were correct. Over the last three weeks, Obama has risen 0.8% in New Hampshire, while John Edwards has risen 3.1%. His rise is to such an extent that, in the even of an Edwards, Obama, Clinton 1-2-3 finish in Iowa, I would slightly favor John Edwards to win both New Hampshire and the overall nomination."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Stop The Iowa Madness

The New Republic's Michelle Cottle thinks we ought to do away with the Iowa caucus:

"I suppose you could argue that anyone who can't be bothered to put in the time necessary to participate in this grand and glorious display of democracy in action doesn't deserve to have their vote count. But that seems a little harsh, considering that the deck is heavily stacked in favor of certain groups who simply have more free time to spend two hours twisting their neighbors arm at these bizarre gatherings -- say, old folks without small kids at home or who don't have to get up for work the next day or who don't have piles of schoolwork to be done.

Iowa's caucus system, as [The Politico's Roger] Simon explains , was originally set up to favor party insiders who devoted large amounts of time and money to the cause. Today, it continues to give an unhealthy amount of clout to a vanishingly small fraction of folks in an already wildly unrepresentative state.

I say kill it before we reach the point where a dozen or so septuagenarian farmers wind up all-but-deciding who the Democratic nominee will be."

LEST WE FORGET: Eco-friendly Kangaroo Farts

Scott Adams reports:

"Scientists have discovered that kangaroos don't fart as much as cows. This is more important than you might think. Cow flatulence is actually a big contributor to global warming. Scientists think they can isolate and transfer the stomach bacteria from kangaroos to cows to make the cows digest more efficiently. Problem solved.
...When I hear a story like this, my first reaction is 'How can I invest in this trend?' I'm going to buy stock in companies that make fence posts, because when the cows get kangaroo bacteria, and it works the opposite way the scientists think, the current fences won't hold them in. Cows will be hopping around like The Incredible Hulk."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:50 PM

December 06, 2007

12/6: Huck Haters

Conservative bloggers continue to pile on Mike Huckabee, criticizing his positions on everything from illegal immigration to Iraq. Meanwhile, the latest revelations about Huckabee's role in a serial rapist's release have created an additional headache for Huckabee in the blogosphere -- although the harshest attacks seem to be coming from the left, not the right. Ironically, Huckabee's blog outreach team is probably grateful that Mitt Romney's speech is about to become the hot topic in the conservative blogosphere and temporarily take the focus off of Huckabee.

HUCKABEE: This Story Isn't Going Away

Huckabee is taking heat from bloggers on both the left and right (but mostly the left) for his role in pushing for the early release of a convicted rapist named Wayne Dumond, who would later rape and murder another woman. Today, The Huffington Post's Murray Waas reports that Huckabee's former aide has confirmed the ex-governor's role in encouraging the Arkansas parole board to release Dumond, "directly contradicting" Huckabee's claim that he "did not ask [the board] to do anything."

NRO's Byron York: "The bottom line is that Huckabee was dreadfully wrong about Dumond."

Michelle Malkin: "Huckabee's Willie Horton is convicted rapist Wayne Dumond. Unlike the Romney case, Huckabee played a direct role in events that led to Dumond's release."

Hot Air's AllahPundit thinks this case illustrates Huckabee's philosophical contradictions: "What makes Huckabee such a fascinating character is that he so often seems to pit two traditionally conservative values against each other: Christianity on the one hand and law and order on the other. It's the same with his immigration position, where he wants (or so he says) to get control of the border while also happily encouraging illegals to immigrate with the prospect of scholarships or tuition breaks...Using Christianity as a shield for some of his more liberal positions may help in a pinch but there's a segment of the base that already has qualms about the explicitness with which he's touting his religion as a political asset. If he's pushed on Dumond and invokes the spirit of mercy as justification, is it going to spook even mainstream conservatives?"

Liberal bloggers have been even more critical of Huckabee:

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Huckabee basically helped secure the guy's release because the convict had raped a distant relative of Bill Clinton -- and being a distant relative of Bill Clinton, the right-wing attack machine said the woman who was raped wasn't credible (even though the guy was convicted), and they demanded that the rapist be set free because, after all, he only raped a Clinton. Well, it seems that Governor Huckabee agreed. He set the rapist free, and then the guy molested and murdered another woman. But even better? Huckabee now denies that he had anything to do with the release of the rapist/murderer. Funny, then why did Huckabee meet with the parole board on behalf of the rapist/murderer? So now we know the real Mike Huckabee."

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "This painful, tragic story isn't exactly new; Huckabee watchers have been talking about it for years. Even this year, his critics couldn't imagine why this scandal hadn't knocked Huckabee out of contention for the Republican nomination. But he wasn't a credible candidate, and the political world didn't take the story seriously. Now that there's evidence, not only of Huckabee's awful judgment, but also of his blatant dishonesty, expect to hear the name Wayne Dumond quite a bit more. It should, if there's any justice at all, ruin Huckabee's chances."

TPM's Josh Marshall posts an email from a reader: "I've seen the Wayne Dumond affair referred to as Huckabee's 'Willie Horton' problem...But this case is only superficially like Willie Horton...Mike Huckabee championed the release of a specific convicted rapist who, once release, raped and killed a woman in Missouri. The furlough policy advocated by Mike Dukakis led to the furlough of Willie Horton, who raped a woman in Maryland and stabbed her fiancee. But Mike Dukakis had never heard of Willie Horton, whereas Mike Huckabee was well aware of the crimes and dangers posed by Wayne Dumond."

Atrios, who's been writing about this story for years, observes: "One joy of the Huckabee campaign is that it provides an opportunity for the liberal media to finally tell you the story they never bothered to during the 90s -- just how batshit insane Clinton haters were...Dumond was let go because right wing lunatics believed that Bill Clinton sent his goons to castrate an 'innocent' man because one of his 'alleged' victims was a distant relative. That this story was, you know, pretty much insane didn't stop it from getting regular play in the conservative press."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Atrios and I and other bloggers tried to make this an issue when Huckabee was running for governor in 2002, but we were but wee insignificant specks and our writings about the case got read by few. Now, as Atrios notes, the best part about the Huckabee boomlet is that this story is finally getting its deserved airing."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "A stark reminder both of how crazy the craziness was in anti-Clinton circles and also of how influential it was. This is a giant country, so there'll always be a certain number of nutters out there. But in the 1990s, the Clinton conspiracy theorists were in the driver's seat, getting governors to release rapists and people died. Appalling stuff."

HUCKABEE II: Under Siege

Huckabee's rise to the top of the GOP field has made him a target for conservative bloggers who distrust his record and positions:

NRO's Mark Steyn: "One of my big problems with [Huckabee is] his complete philosophical incoherence. Where does Huckabee draw the line on his compassion? When he tries to draw it rhetorically, as with his answer that state scholarships for illegals are a grand idea but federal scholarships would be gilding the lily, he sounds absurd. And in practice, in Arkansas, there were no brakes on it at all: He just got dragged along by the illegal-normalization agenda like any Dem would."

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "We now see more and more that Huck is the diametric opposite of Rudy Giuliani on every issue under the sun...Rudy is a tax cutter and a fiscal conservative; Huck is a tax hiker and a big spender. Rudy is tough on foreign policy; Huck has no clue about foreign policy but his tendency is to be Jimmy Carter-like. And of course, in the one area where conservatives may give Huck the advantage, Huck is pro-life while Rudy isn't...Somehow, I believe Rudy's assurances more about how he will be operationally pro-life because he will appoint conservative judges than I trust Huck's assurances that he won't raise taxes -- or, indeed, his assurances on anything, because for a preacher, he sure does have a tendency toward falsehoods. Anyway, the lesson is this: If you want a wooly-headed guy in the Oval Office who is inclined to be weak against criminals and weak against terrorists (close Guantanamo, etc.), then vote for Huckabee."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "It turns out that Mike Huckabee's lame discussion of foreign policy with Don Imus was a repeat performance. Huckabee previously appeared with Imus on October 26, 2006. At that time, he embraced James Baker's recommendations for dealing with the situation in Iraq, and threw in his 'Holiday Inn Express' joke. Baker, it will be recalled, recommended large scale troop reductions, reliance on negotiations with Iran, and pushing Israel to make concessions. So, while Huckabee's jokes haven't evolved, his thinking about Iraq has. He's progressed from James Baker (have Iran bail us out) to Colin Powell (we broke it, we own it). But he's still nowhere near John McCain (let's defeat our enemies)."

NRO's Jonah Goldberg posts an email from a reader who wants to know why Goldberg and the other NRO bloggers have so much "hostility" toward Huckabee. Goldberg writes: "I think what Huckabee represents -- as I wrote here -- is compassionate conservatism on steroids. I don't know that I'd call it post-conservatism so much as paleo-progressivism (a term that pops up in my book). If carried to its logical conclusion Huckabeeism is rightwing progressivism. If I have to choose between leftwing progressivism and rightwing progressivism, I'd probably choose rightwing progressivism on most issues and leftwing progressivism on a few issues. But I don't want to have to make that choice. I don't think I will have to either."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan agrees with Goldberg, but thinks he is underestimating Huckabee's chances of winning: "Once the Bush Republicans signaled that they had stopped supporting or believing in limited government conservatism, the potential for paleo-progressivism expanded exponentially. Huckabee's charm may be one of those contingent historical wrinkles that tips the balance. I fear the consequences."

Townhall's Matt Lewis thinks the recent attacks on Huckabee have been excessive: "I've been a Mike Huckabee critic for literally years. But even I am surprised at the level of animadversion he has received in the past week from other campaigns, reporters, and bloggers. Sure, you could argue that when you're in the big leagues, as he now is, you have to be ready to hit fast balls. But much of the recent criticism seems a bit petty to me. I'm all for attacking him for being a fiscal liberal, but much of the criticism this week has not been on the issues, but rather on somewhat contrived stories."

NRO's Rich Lowry attributes Huckabee's rise to the "revenge of the evangelicals": "Remember how evangelicals had 'matured'? Remember how the war on terror had replaced social issues?...Part of what seems to be going on with the Huckabee surge is evangelicals sticking their thumbs in the eyes of the chattering class -- we're still here, we still matter, and we still care about our signature issues. Remember the lack of excitement in the Republican race, especially among dispirited social conservatives? Well, now there is some excitement, and it isn't over free market economics or the war on terror, but a candidate who doesn't speak compellingly about either of those things but instead about social issues."

Jonah Goldberg adds: "The perception that things are on a good (though by no means perfect) path in Iraq (and, if the NIE is to believed, Iran) might be giving conservative voters a sense of freedom to flirt with the other candidates. The conventional wisdom wasn't wrong that without the war on terror Rudy Giuliani's campaign is hopeless...if there were another terrorist attack it would be terrible -- politically speaking -- for Huckabee and Ron Paul and a boost for Rudy and John McCain."

ROMNEY: Today's The Big Day

In the final hours before Romney's big speech, bloggers offered their last-minute thoughts:

Beliefnet's Dan Gilgoff echoes David Brody's advice to Romney when he writes: "The big question for evangelicals: Will [Romney] own up to the distinctions between Mormonism and traditional Christianity, even as he argues that members of both traditions share many political values? Some evangelicals say that Romney's refusal to so up to this point has alienated Christian conservatives who might otherwise support him. They also say that his attempts to paper over differences between Mormons and other Christians have exacerbated his broader authenticity problem, due largely to Romney's reversal on hot button social issues."

RedState's Erick Erickson, who's currently supporting Fred Thompson, doesn't think the speech will help Romney: "[Romney]'s a manufactured candidate and it is starting to show. When he makes immigration a big issue and the Boston Globe outs his landscape team, he fired them. When Huckabee starts gaining ground with social conservatives, the group Romney tried to get, he says this campaign will not be on social issues, but flies to Texas to give a speech on faith. It's all too accumulated and transparent now...Huckabee talking about faith is working. Romney is incapable of doing it. We saw how he reacted to the Bible question in the YouTube debate."

TAPPED's Ezra Klein is disgusted by what he perceives as Romney's intentions: "What Romney's speech today seeks to do is construct a new 'us versus them.' Where Huckabee was having some success making the us equal 'Christians' and the them equal 'Mormons,' Romney is making the us equal 'believers' and the them equal 'atheists.' The bet is that voters hate 'secularists' more than they're unsettled by Mormons, and that if Romney can set himself up as the foremost opponent of atheists in public life, that will be more important than precisely which version of Jesus he believes in, or how many planets he'll be given to rule after his death. It's a speech calling for tolerance, that hinges on a public display of intolerance. It's classic Romney, and totally disgusting."

DEM FIELD: It's A Walk-Off

Two of the netroots' leading political prognosticators, Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas and Open Left's Chris Bowers, disagree on who's currently leading the Dem race. Moulitsas thinks it's HRC (barely), while Bowers thinks it's Obama (barely).

Moulitsas ranks the Dem candidates "as they would end if Iowa started today":

1.) Hillary Clinton
"...a rash of new polls showing Obama surging in Iowa are obviously critical to how this thing plays out. But the composite poll scores still favor Hillary, and with commanding leads in Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and other following states, her 2-point Iowa lead might be enough to hold off an Obama surge if the elections began today...What I can say with a certainty is that Hillary is in trouble, and her front-runner status has never been more precarious than today. Under assault from her opponents, from a hostile media, and from activists who are seizing on substantive missteps (her Iran vote the biggest amongst them) to paint the picture of an establishment Democrat who didn't just vote to give Bush his Iraq war, but hasn't learned from those mistakes even today."

2.) Barack Obama
"His surge is real, and several polls now show him in the lead in Iowa and within striking distance of New Hampshire. Better yet for him, he appears to be solidifying his position as the anti-Clinton candidate. No matter how well Hillary does in various places, she never gets a majority. If those who oppose her consolidate behind a single candidate, she's in real danger. But Obama's supporters are of the younger variety and that presents several potential dangers. One, they may not vote in sufficient numbers. But two, in Iowa, students won't be back by January 3rd, so they may not even be in the state to caucus and if they are, they might not have anywhere to stay..."

3.) John Edwards
"Edwards is only narrowly trailing the big two in Iowa, and there's much talk about him having the best field operation in Iowa. With Barack and Hillary taking aim at each other, Edwards has to be hoping he can replicate Kerry's gameplan from 2004 -- slipping into the lead after the two Iowa frontrunners (then Gephardt and Dean) nuke each other into oblivion...But even if he ekes out a narrow victory in Iowa (or a big one, for that matter), Clinton and Obama will still have more money than god to continue to fight in subsequent states while Edwards will have to husband his scarcer resources (no matter what his campaign spin team argues)."

Meanwhile, Bowers crunches the poll numbers and writes: "The five-poll average in Iowa, including only polls that started collecting data on November 26th, [is] Obama 27.2%, Clinton 25.8%, and Edwards 23.2%...I believe that a 1.4% Obama advantage in Iowa, combined with a 9.6% Clinton advantage in New Hampshire, would result in Obama sweeping the two states."

Bowers also links to Charlie Cook's latest column, in which Cook writes, "The bottom line is that Obama has to show strength beyond Iowa if he is to beat Clinton and win the Democratic nomination."

Bowers disagrees: "I feel that both [Howard] Dean and [Wesley] Clark supporters made the same claim in 2004 that early state momentum doesn't matter as much, when the opposite ended up being the case. Maybe I am just basing this on a gut feeling that momentum from early state wins will matter as much as ever, but given just how difficult momentum is to predict, perhaps a gut feeling, combined with past experience, is as good an indicator as anything else. It has been 16 years since any candidate did well after being shut out of wins in Iowa and New Hampshire."

CLINTON: The Mud Is Flying

A day after the HRC campaign accused the Obama campaign of "bullying" voters over the phone, the HRC campaign "acknowledged that an Iowa county chair volunteering for the campaign passed along the now-notorious email that smears Obama as a Muslim."

Daily Kos diarist (and Chris Dodd supporter) Justus first reported receiving the emails in her diary at Daily Kos: "Over the past week or so, I have received two of the most hateful hit pieces on Obama parroting right wing talking points. One was forwarded to me from a Clinton county chair. The other was from a person who claimed to be a former Obama supporter, but a little work with Google revealed she had been posting pro-Clinton comments for several months on websites covering the campaign. They both repeat the Obama/Osama crap, and the 'madrassa' charges. And there is the conclusion that Obama is a mole whose intention is to make a Muslim revolution in the US...it is my guess that this Rovian operation is being done with the tacit approval of the campaign, but of course, this is just a guess, as there will likely be no publicly available proof of their origin."

HRC web guru Peter Daou immediately responded on the Daily Kos thread: "There is no place in our campaign, or any campaign, for this kind of politics. A volunteer county coordinator made the mistake of forwarding an outrageous and offensive chain e-mail. This was wholly unauthorized and we were totally unaware of it. Let me be clear: No one should be engaging in this. We are asking this volunteer county coordinator to step down and are making it clear to every person involved in our campaign that this will not be tolerated."

The Nation's Christopher Hayes: "Ben Smith at the Politico has acquired a copy of the email itself and discovered that it was also sent to a Clinton campaign staffer. Which means the campaign knew that one of their country chairs was sending this around."

Daily Kos diarist AlyoshaKaramazov also wonders if higher-ups in the HRC campaign were responsible for this email: "The next thing for us to do is tie this rogue county chair to directions from campaign leaders. If it exists."

Meanwhile, in other attack-related news:

Daily Kos diarist psericks thinks HRC needs to stop criticizing Obama for encouraging college students to attend the IA caucuses: "Honestly, I thought the Clinton campaign would drop this charge quickly. Arguing that college students shouldn't be able to register to vote on campus is so obviously wrong...Instead, Clinton has now joined in personally, charging that Iowa college students shouldn't be able to register on campus...The Clinton campaign needs to drop this."

Markos Moulitsas is not a fan of the latest HRC Iowa ad, in which Wesley Clark says, "I see that Hillary's opponents have started to attack her. That's politics. What this country needs is leadership."

Moulitsas: "Of course it's 'politics'. It's called a presidential campaign. Clark's ad itself is 'politics'. Few things annoy me more in politics than politicians who decry 'politics'. I can see attacking 'politics as usual' or any related formulation thereof. But politics itself is what it is -- a necessary process by which we choose our leaders. To whine about 'politics' being used against a politician is asinine and moronic. If Clark and Clinton would prefer that 'politics' not be used against her, then she should resign from, you know, politics."

TAPPED's Sam Boyd thinks HRC is making a mistake by launching all of these attacks on Obama: "Her mixture of legitimate criticisms (his lack of experience, his health care plan, his social security mess) with illegitimate ones (the bogus leadership PAC story, the baseless ad-hominem attacks on his character) seems to me more likely to make voters ignore everything she says and it makes her look petty, mean and vindictive...There's a fine line between tough and mean, as [David] Corn points out, and I think Clinton doesn't seem to know where it is. That makes me worry not just about her attacks on Obama, but whether she's quite as politically astute as she's made out to be (with obvious implications for a general election)."

Finally, RCP Blog's Tom Bevan wants to know when HRC will unleash the real dirt on Obama: "According to Robert Novak's item a few weeks back, her campaign says it is sitting on some salacious dirt on Barack Obama. So why try to engineer an Edwards victory in Iowa to hurt Obama's chances when her shadowy surrogates could just do it right now by dumping the dirt on Obama? Unless the dirt doesn't exist."

OBAMA: Losing The Jane Hamsher Primary

While most of HRC's recent attacks on Obama have generated nothing but scorn among liberal bloggers, her latest attack -- in which she criticizes Obama for voting "present" on a series of abortion measures when he was in the IL Senate -- appears to be gaining some traction, at least with Jane Hamsher.

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong thinks this attack will be effective: "It's not surprising that NOW is going to try and help Clinton; afterall, they have endorsed Clinton. But the opening provided by Obama's 'present' votes on abortion in the State Senate of Illinois gives them substantive issues to move beyond being pro-Clinton to being anti-Obama...It's single-issue politics and not particularly helpful to a big tent strategy, but among democratic primary & caucus voters, particularly women, it seems like a pretty big opening for groups like NOW and Emily's List to go after Obama."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher thinks Obama lacks political courage: "Obama wanted to take credit for opposing the bellicose Kyl-Lieberman bill -- a vote he ducked. He then said he ducked the MoveOn vote because it was political theatrics -- even though he showed up and voted 'yea' on the politically theatrical Barbara Boxer bill that very morning. Now he wants us to think he's pro-choice because he ducked yet again and voted 'present' on important abortion legislation, ostensibly to 'give cover' to Democrats in vulnerable districts who couldn't afford to vote 'yea' themselves. Oh please. Would this pass muster if Obama had voted 'present' on important civil rights legislation to give cover to Democrats who lived in districts with lots of bigots? Somehow I don't think so."

Pam Sutherland, President and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, tells the Chicago Sun-Times that Planned Parenthood worked with Obama on developing this strategy of voting "present": "The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did."

Hamsher thinks this is a stupid strategy: "Illinois Planned Parenthood is standing behind this stupid 'present' strategy like it was some kind of brilliant tactical move. But then again, Planned Parenthood national told their membership to thank Joe Lieberman for his [Samuel] Alito vote. This smells a lot like NARAL endorsing the 'fetal pain' torpedo that right-to-lifers were trying to launch into the abortion debate in order to give cover to Democrats who didn't want to take a side on a potentially divisive vote. It's a chickenshit move to give cover to people who don't want to take a stand, and the fact that pro-choice organizations engage in this kind of ass-covering rather than defending the rights they're given big money by their membership to uphold is largely why people think their opinion on these things is worth squat these days."

Later, Hamsher elaborates on her critique of Obama in a Huffington Post diary entry: "Barack Obama: Profile In Courage Or Political Opportunist?...He openly rejects partisanship and wants everyone to join together in a message of hope, but that tactic seems to depend on ducking out on tough issues and letting others take the arrows one inevitably takes when standing on principle -- and then trying to re-write history when it becomes clear which way the wind has blown."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Danger Of Theological Litmus Tests

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat offers some advice to religious conservatives:

"I think it's perfectly understandable that evangelical Christians would feel more comfortable voting for Huckabee than for Romney because they share a theological bedrock with the one and not the other...But these sort of choices, however understandable on an individual level, are problematic when they start defining a political coalition: The more religious conservatives appear to be treating theological issues, rather than the political issues they inform, as crucial election-season litmus tests, the more they'll shrink their tent[,] alienate potential friends, and provide ammunition to the theocracy-shouters. If social conservatism is going to matter in American politics over the long run, then evangelicals would probably do well not to disqualify a Mormon from high office in advance, even if they choose not to vote for him when other alternatives are available."

LEST WE FORGET: Those Problem Lawmakers

The Onion reports:

"Seating Chart Revised To Put Problem Senators Up Front

After several incidents of bipartisan name-calling and disruptive filibustering, Senate president Dick Cheney announced Monday that the congressional seating chart has been revised to put problem lawmakers up front. 'I was hoping it wouldn't have to come to this, but Mr. [Sen. Dick] Durbin (D-IL) and Mr. [Sen. Jim] DeMint (R-SC), among others, have shown they're not mature enough to handle sitting in the back,' said Cheney, who reportedly made Durbin read a secret bill out loud in front of the entire assembly after he was caught passing it to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA). 'I'm not going to let a few bad apples ruin lawmaking for the senators who are here to work.' Cheney added that, if the behavior problems persist, the whole Senate will be made to come into the Capitol Building to legislate on weekends."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:55 PM

December 05, 2007

12/5: Huck-A-Boom A Bust On-Line

As Mike Huckabee's poll numbers increase, so do the attacks on his words, positions, and record. Today, conservative bloggers are taking Huckabee to task for his ignorance about the NIE report on Iran and his role in a serial rapist's release. These two damaging stories will certainly not improve Huckabee's reputation among conservative bloggers, who already distrust him because of his fiscal record and his positions on immigration and torture. If Huckabee manages to win Iowa and claw his way into a two-person race with Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, it seems increasingly likely that conservative bloggers will rally behind his opponent.

GOP FIELD: Understanding The Huckaboom

RCP Blog's John McIntyre thinks that Romney and Giuliani's squabbling has hurt both candidates: "I suspect the voters have been very much turned off by the recent nastiness between Giuliani and Romney. Huckabee has been one clear beneficiary and he just today passed Romney in the RCP National Average, dropping the former Massachusetts Governor all the way to 5th (which is effectively last). And John McCain, the guy who was anointed the media front runner a year ago and then left for dead over the summer, has quietly moved back into 2nd place in the RCP National Average for the first time since June 11th and is now the candidate I would call the dark horse to win the GOP nomination."

NRO's Rich Lowry agrees: "It seems foolish of Romney to have gotten tangled up in a fight with Rudy Giuliani. There is only so much time and energy a candidate can devote to attacks without tarnishing himself and Romney wasted his time and energy on Rudy. His campaign allowed itself to get seduced by Rudy's national numbers into taking him on, when the most important obstacle to Romney's early-state strategy was Huckabee. Romney took his eye off the ball. Now it's going to be even more ticklish for him to try to drag down Huck in Iowa."

GOP FIELD II: So What So What So What's The Scenario?

Conservative bloggers continue to speculate about the possible outcomes of this topsy-turvy GOP race:

The American Scene's Noah Millman speculates: "There's a very reasonable prospect that the Iowa returns are: Huckabee in first, Romney a close second, [Fred] Thompson and Giuliani competing for third. That's what the polls look like now, anyhow. Romney is probably strong enough and well-known enough in New Hampshire to hold onto the state after a strong second-place in Iowa. But if his defectors split between [John] McCain and Huckabee, you could see a New Hampshire finish that is Romney in first, McCain in second, Huckabee a close third, and Giuliani in fourth. I don't think that's a set up for a two-man Giuliani-Huckabee contest. It could be Romney-Huckabee, Romney-Giuliani, Romney-McCain, Huckabee-McCain -- there would be lots of options ... Bottom line: if you are a stop-Giuliani Republican, I think you can spin a positive story out of the rise of Huckabee even if you think Huckabee loses a two-man race with Giuliani."

NRO's David Freddoso links to yesterday's Rasmussen tracking poll, which shows Giuliani tied with Huckabee at 18%, and writes: "Now the whole field is leveling off. Only 11 points separate Rudy -- who is tied for the lead -- from Ron Paul...Many people here have asserted that Huckabee's success comes as Giuliani's benefit. But is that necessarily true? Given how polls are looking in the early states and nationally, I wonder whether Giuliani will have the strength he needs by Feb. 5. If he performs 'pretty well' but fails to clean up that day, we could well end up with no clear leader and a brokered-convention scenario next year."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "It would be easy to see a scenario that features Huckabee winning Iowa, Romney winning New Hampshire, Rudy winning Michigan, and then Fred hanging around long enough to win South Carolina, which would mean that there would be 4 viable candidates going into Super Tuesday, when more than 20 states will vote."

HUCKABEE: Like Fred, Only Better

Several conservative bloggers are noting that Huckabee is filling the role that Thompson was supposed to fill but didn't:

Commentary's John Podhoretz: "Huckabee is filling the role Fred Thompson entered the race in September to fill. He is the socially conservative Southern pro-life candidate with a silver tongue and a pleasingly low-key affect. It was Fred Thompson who was supposed to overtake Mitt Romney in Iowa, and it was Fred Thompson who was supposed to be a force to reckon with in national polls in December. But as a candidate, Thompson has proved to have all the spark of a wet firecracker...Somebody was going to occupy that Thompson space. The question was whether one of the three top-tier candidates -- Giuliani, Romney, or McCain -- would manage to convince that portion of the Republican base to make common cause with him. The answer, it seems, is no."

Rich Lowry agrees: "Fred Thompson famously was going to run a different sort of campaign, and he has, without much in the way of results so far. It's Huckabee who has run the successful different sort of campaign. He hasn't raised any money -- in fact, despite lots of criticism in the press, he has always preferred doing yet more media interviews to raising money. He has very little organization to speak of in the organization-state, Iowa...He has thrived on exactly what was in theory going to boost Fred -- superior communications skills that have shined in the debates and in interviews; good gut political instinct; Southern charm and an inherit likeability; a very grounded sense of authenticity. Plus, the grass roots enthusiasm of social conservatives. Maybe this means -- despite my skepticism -- Fred wasn't wrong to think he could run a different sort of campaign. Huck proves it's possible."

Soren Dayton has a slightly different take: "While I see the logic in all of this, I do think that something else is going on with Huckabee. After all, Fred supporters didn't want a soft-on-immigration populist who could change the party. They wanted to keep the whole game together. Somehow, I don't think that's Huckabee's game."

That said, neither Podhoretz nor Lowry thinks that Huckabee can win:

Podhoretz: "I said two weeks ago that the Republican race was down to two men, Giuliani and Romney. I still believe that is the case, because while Huckabee's surge has given voice to an important segment of the GOP's electoral pie -- pro-life evangelical Christians primarily -- his candidacy does not offer much, if anything, to any mainstream Republican voter who is not part of that segment...Say Giuliani melts down this month, owing to more revelations about the intersection of his private life and his public duties. Or Romney melts down, in part because Huckabee's rise means he will lose Iowa and therefore make it impossible for him to win every early state and thereby 'slingshot' his way into the nomination. Huckabee won't be there to pick up the pieces, because he speaks to a different electorate. But John McCain will..."

Lowry: "I agree...Huck has filled the Thompson space; it's still likeliest that Romney or Rudy will win; but if Romney and/or Rudy meltdown, there's an opening for McCain."

Campaign Standard's William Kristol, on the other hand, thinks Huckabee has a definite shot: "Huckabee's surge, if uncontested, is likely to continue for at least a while. One question is, which one (or possible two) of the other candidates can reverse his downward trend, create his own surge, and pick up some momentum? The other question is, can any of them afford to go negative against Huckabee? On the one hand, going negative usually has at least a short-term negative effect on the negative-goer. On the other hand, if Huckabee wins December as he did November, he'll probably win the nomination."

HUCKABEE II: A *Huge* Skeleton In The Closet

Yesterday, CBS News published an article explaining how Gov. Huckabee lobbied for the release of a convicted rapist who would later rape and murder another woman. Today, The Huffington Post published a long, detailed account of Huckabee's role in lobbying for the rapist's release. In the article, journalist Murray Waas reports:

"While on the campaign trail, Huckabee has claimed that he supported the 1999 release of Wayne Dumond because, at the time, he had no good reason to believe that the man represented a further threat to the public. Thanks to Huckabee's intervention, conducted in concert with a right-wing tabloid campaign on Dumond's behalf, Dumond was let out of prison 25 years before his sentence would have ended...But the confidential files obtained by the Huffington Post show that Huckabee was provided letters from several women who had been sexually assaulted by Dumond and who indeed predicted that he would rape again -- and perhaps murder -- if released."

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "This detailed, convincingly irrefutable column today on the Huffington Post...should, if there is any justice, destroy whatever credibility Mike Huckabee has left. It shows that Huck utterly ignored a boatload of evidence from other rape victims of now-infamous rapist/murdered Wayne DuMond that DuMond was dangerous and vicious and would likely rape again. And it tells of serious efforts at a cover-up by Huck directly and by his campaign aides in 2002. Frankly, on substance, it is the single most devastating news story of this entire election cycle, for either party...In substance, it is WORSE than the Willie Horton case, because the governor's (Huck's) involvement was so personal and so specifically directed at freeing DuMond. This is serious, serious stuff, and it shows a serious, serious lack of judgment."

NRO's Byron York calls it "the story Mike Huckabee dreads" and writes: "Huckabee doesn't duck talking about [convicted rapist Wayne] Dumond or the larger clemency issue. But he doesn't enjoy it, either, given that it was unquestionably the worst thing that happened while he was governor. Now, with the press spotlight shining on him, he has no choice but to explain himself."

RedState's Erick Erickson: "The Dumond thing has the potential to be devastating because it is only a matter of time before Dumond's victim's mother appears in a television commercial attacking Huckabee, using Huckabee's own words against him."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "This story is another big problem for Huckabee."

HUCKABEE III: NIE? What NIE?

Huckabee's admission last night during a dinner with reporters that he was not aware of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran is generating scorn among conservative bloggers:

Byron York: "Beyond doing nothing to resolve doubts about his foreign policy qualifications, the exchange underscores the fact that Huckabee doesn't really have much of a campaign, in the sense that Giuliani and Romney have campaigns, with teams of advisers and carefully-thought-out policy positions. In important ways, he has been flying by the seat of his pants, relying on his unequaled talents as a retail campaigner. But now that he is leading in Iowa, and moving up nationally as well, the deficiencies of his campaign might come more and more into the spotlight."

Townhall's Mary Katherine Ham: "I know the Huckabee campaign doesn't have that much cash, but use some of that new front-runner influx to get the man a Blackberry. That's a big blow to any candidate's credibility on national security."

Hugh Hewitt: "This is a pretty astonishing admission of cluelessness on the part of Governor Huckabee."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers continue to rail on Huckabee:

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "When it comes to foreign policy, Huckabee more closely resembles another former governor, Jimmy Carter. It was Carter, not [Ronald] Reagan, who viewed foreign policy as an extension of his own character and personal principles. Carter stood for a foreign policy 'as decent as the American people.' Reagan stood for defeating our enemies. When Huckabee frets about how Gitmo is making us appear to foreigners, when he asserts that 'we broke Iraq,' and when he says he's qualified to be commander-in-chief because of his character rather than because of his understanding of our enemies, it's pretty clear that his foreign policy roots extend nowhere near the fertile soil of Reaganism."

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I would add that Huckabee's moralistic approach extends to domestic policy as well. To take just two examples, Huckabee has expressed sympathy for the idea of a national ban on smoking. From a moralistic perspective, this may make sense: smoking is bad, so let's ban it. But Huckabee shows no understanding of either the basic freedom issue involved, or the implications for federalism of adopting this kind of measure on a national basis -- presumably on the theory that smoking affects interstate commerce. Similarly, Huckabee reacted emotionally and moralistically when he advocated providing scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants. Surely, Huckabee said, we shouldn't punish children for the sins of their parents. But this moralistic approach fails to even consider the consequences and public policy implications of the approach Huckabee advocates."

AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "Am I the only one who finds Huckabee viscerally unappealing? There's nothing endearing to me about a cross between a diet guru and a televangelist selling condominiums in Heaven, which is how Huckabee strikes me. The guy's so full of crap I can smell it wafting out his ears."

AmSpec Blog's Shawn Macomber: "Maybe a portion of the Republican electorate wants their very own right-wing Jimmy Carter to piously preen and moralize as he embraces class war rhetoric and nanny state regulations, but I'd rather go with someone Bill Clinton isn't so wild about."

ROMNEY: The Return To Sanctuary Mansion

Today, The Boston Globe published an article reporting that illegal immigrants continued to work on Romney's lawn as recently as last week. The article began:

"Standing on stage at a Republican debate on the Gulf Coast of Florida last week, Mitt Romney repeatedly lashed out at rival Rudy Giuliani for providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants in New York City.

Yet, the very next morning, on Thursday, at least two illegal immigrants stepped out of a hulking maroon pickup truck in the driveway of Romney's Belmont house, then proceeded to spend several hours raking leaves, clearing debris from Romney's tennis court, and loading the refuse back on to the truck."

Most conservative bloggers responded to the article by defending Romney and criticizing The Boston Globe's investigative tactics:

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "My question is: Do we really have to stake out presidential candidates homes? It's a wonder anyone decent runs for office."

Erick Erickson: "It is deplorable that a newspaper would stand outside the man's private home and harass people working at his home to score a partisan shot against him. That's really pitiful. Made more so because you and I both know they were harassing the workers who looked hispanic solely because of their appearance."

Michelle Malkin: "The answers are loud and clear: It isn't 'harassment' when liberal MSM journalists spy on illegal aliens...if it will embarrass a Republican presidential candidate. It isn't 'stalking' when liberal MSM journalists snap photos of your lawn and conduct two-month-long recoinnasance missions...if it will embarrass a Republican presidential candidate...Watch as they exploit this report and then turn around and attack everyone other than liberal MSM journalists who advocates the repeal of sanctuary gag orders or uses the same basic investigative techniques to report a story."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The illegal immigrant yard worker story is of zero consequence to voters. Romney's 60 and on the road running for president. Ann Romney's on the campaign trail as well...The kids are grown and gone. Romney ordered the company not to employ illegals. It did so anyway and he fired the company when informed of it. Trying to make that a big story is simply laughable, and the fact that The Globe staked out the Romney home for three months tells a lot of center-right voters just how invested in beating Romney the left wing agenda journalists at The Globe -- and elsewhere -- are."

Other conservative bloggers analyzed the political ramifications of the report:

Byron York: "The question that's Romney's action raises is how could he keep using Community Lawn Service after the controversy over illegal workers arose last year?...Now, it turns out Romney was still using the company even after he knew it was a problem. Perhaps he'll get points for giving them another chance, but the bottom line is he is now re-embarrassed by an issue that embarrased him a year ago."

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "You have to wonder what Romney was thinking using the same company that got him in hot water the year before. You would think he would have had this kind of thing squared away before he became an active candidate. It's not like he's ever at the house overseeing these guys, but that's no excuse. This is exactly the kind of treatment any candidate can expect...The other immediate results is that this gives retrospective legitimacy to Rudy's gutsy 'sanctuary mansion' attack from the last debate...This has validated an initially controversial attack and given it a new set of legs."

ROMNEY II: All Eyez On Me

Conservative bloggers continue to discuss Romney's upcoming speech:

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Maybe Romney will give a brilliant speech; maybe after it, any further questions about his faith will seem awkward, forced, and snide -- er, more awkward, more forced, and more snide than they already are...But it's easy to see this not working out well. I fear that a little too much 'I love my faith, you love your faith, we're all one happy family under God,' will leave Romney sounding like Barney the Dinosaur. My personal taste would prefer a little bit of anger in this speech, a bit of what we saw when he got into it with that radio talk show host in Iowa. I think it's okay for Romney to tell us that his faith and his relationship with God is his business (and His business), and that he'll ask for our vote, but he won't subject himself to a theological SAT."

CBN's David Brody: "Maybe the most important thing Romney can do Thursday is to just be himself. By all accounts, from people who know him, he's a warm, loving, family man type of guy who likes to joke around. But on the campaign trail we see 'Metric Mitt' who has a reputation of not doing the best job emotionally connecting with voters...Bottom line: this is a great opportunity for Mitt Romney to not only look presidential but to show that he's genuine as a person. But if the speech is the same old lines that we've heard on the campaign trail before (just repackaged differently) then it may just leave Evangelicals and others in the same place."

NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "The people Romney needs to win over believe that there should be more, not less, room for religion in public life. He won't gain votes by calling them bigots -- no matter how gently -- either. And the last thing Romney can afford to do is backpedal on his religious faith. That would be a flip-flop too far. What he needs to do is reject the Kennedy comparison entirely and sell his candidacy on its own merits. Electability is still more important than theology to most Republicans, and that's where he should take his stand. Instead, he's heading to Texas to play a game he can't win."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "My bet is that his speech will be a Neuhaus-ghost-written defense of religion's centrality to politics. I doubt a great deal that he will address all the conventional LDS-specific issues many evangelicals have. Romney clearly doesn't want to talk about that at all, and I don't blame him. But once you make your appeal on the grounds of faith to a religiously-based party, it's tough to keep to secular reticence and privacy on the subject."

CLINTON: Throwing The Kitchen Sink At Obama

Hillary Clinton's increasingly sharp attacks on [Barack] Obama have provoked a mini-backlash in the liberal blogosphere:

Daily Kos diarist Bob Johnson: "Are Clinton's internal poll numbers sinking like a rock? I don't know what else would account for the sheer inanity of the attacks on Obama that Camp Clinton has produced the last few days."

CQ Politics' David Corn: "Until the caucus-goers of Iowa speak, there is no way to know if Clinton's DEFCON-1 assault on Obama will succeed or backfire. But the Clinton attacks do say something about Hillary Clinton. She's adopting a whatever-it-takes strategy, mixing legitimate criticisms with truth-stretching blasts...If the Clinton campaign throws anything it can against Obama -- with little regard for accuracy or decency -- that will reflect her own character and values. It could, to turn her words against her, be a disqualification for the job. Clinton is playing with fire. In explaining to reporters that she will be tougher on Obama, she said, 'Now the fun part starts.' That was tasteless. It's a remark that certainly can -- and will be -- used against her. And some Democratic voters might worry that the comment reveals too much desire for (political) blood."

Daily Kos diariest Geekesque: "People have wondered why Hillary Clinton's campaign has been so strident and angry over the past week or so. Why remind people of what they don't like about Clinton -- that she is polarizing, thrives on conflict, and is a generally negative figure. David Corn pokes around and gets the answer: the Clinton people hate, hate, hate, hate Barack Obama. So, this latest episode of 'When Hillary Attacks' is not about strategy -- it's about the emotions of fear, anger and hatred."

Blue Hampshire's Mike Caulfield is taken aback by the latest HRC fundraising email, which accuses Obama's campaign of push-polling and voter suppression techniques: "Of all the emails I have got this season, none has made accusations of this breadth and magnitude of a primary opponent. Time will tell if the campaign chooses to pursue these allegations, or simply use them for fundraising purposes. But this, combined with the investigation of Obama's kindergarten record yesterday point to a campaign engaged in two-fisted battle, with a surprising tone-deafness to the shrill transparency of their techniques."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Rich Lowry is amazed by HRC's abrupt shift to attack mode: "Extraordinary. She's lost some altitude nationally, and a little ground in Iowa where it's always been a pretty close race, so nothing seems to suggest a need to break the glass-as in 'break the glass in case of emergency.' But there's broken glass scattered over the place and she's taking the fire ax to Obama's campaign. What does the Clinton campaign know about this race that we don't?...Her campaign has apparently concluded she can't do much more to sell herself and has to rip down Obama. This, of course, risks confirming all the negative attitudes about her, kicking away all the work she's done this year to try to soften her image, and puncturing her own sense of inevitability."

Lowry continues: "What's fascinating is how all the roles have reversed in the race: Clinton who was above responding in kind to attacks is now throwing the kitchen sink at Obama; Obama who had been attacking Hillary is trying to adopt something of her above-it-all attitude toward the fray; [John] Edwards who had launched the harshest attacks on Hillary is getting out of the way of the Clinton-Obama feud. The stakes are still higher for Obama and Edwards in Iowa than for Hillary; she can lose there and fight another day, whereas that will be harder for them (impossible for Edwards). But the stakes are still huge for Hillary. If Obama wins Iowa, you can see a clear path to the nomination for him...Hillary is probably going after Obama so hard in Iowa because she can afford to have Edwards win there in a way she can't with Obama."

RCP Blog's Steven Stark thinks there may be "a method to Clinton's negative madness": "So why go negative? There are two possible reasons. The first is that Clinton would much rather face John Edwards in the later primaries than Obama. It's true that in a three-way race, attacks usually hurt both the attacker and attackee, benefiting a third candidate. Yet that may be perfectly acceptable to the Clinton campaign on the theory that if Edwards does well in Iowa, he still ultimately doesn't have the resources or the support to run a true national campaign on February 5th. The second possible reason is that Hillary is a woman. We're in untested waters here in presidential politics, but it may be that when a woman attacks a man, voters don't see it in quite the same way as when one man attacks another."

CLINTON II: The Joke's On...Us?

Bloggers are incredulous about HRC pollster Mark Penn's claim that the HRC campaign's "Kindergarten Attack" on Obama was a joke:

TAPPED's Kate Sheppard: "Hillary Clinton pollster Mark Penn says their attack on Barack Obama's kindergarten-era presidential ambitions was just a joke. Well, I was laughing, but I think it was more in the 'laughing at them' category than 'laughing with them.' Consider me skeptical. I'm guessing they saw how poorly it played and are trying to find an out."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Who knew the Clinton press shop had such a dry sense of humor? But the really remarkable thing is that after Mark Penn told Joe Scarborough the whole thing was just a gag, he went on to complain that it had been blown all out of proportion. 'The spin machines are so hyped up,' he said. Mark Penn is complaining about overactive spin machines?"

The New York Times' Patrick Healy is also doubtful: "In rather head-spinning fashion, Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign is now saying that it was only joking when it noted on Sunday that one of her rivals, Barack Obama, wrote an essay in kindergarten titled, 'I want to become president'...Pardon me? When reporters traveling with Mrs. Clinton in Iowa on Sunday received the information about Barack-as-kindergartener, it was presented quite seriously. The press release disclosing the information (see below) made no mention that it was a joke, nor was it written in a tongue-in-cheek way...Moreover, Clinton advisers on Sunday sounded deadly serious when they referred to the kindergarten essay."

EDWARDS: Getting Himself In Trouble

One week after HRC angered the netroots by declaring that she would offer Colin Powell a job in her administration, Edwards joined Bill Richardson in promising to include Republicans in his Cabinet. Edwards said, "I want people around me who will say, 'You're wrong about this, and you could do grave damage if you do it. Mr. President, you need to change your mind.'"

TPM's Eric Kleefeld suggests that Edwards' promise "could help him appeal to more independent voters."

Open Left's Chris Bowers strongly disagrees: "Earth to Richardson and Edwards: America is voting for Democrats in order to remove Republicans from powerful governmental positions, such as cabinet posts. And putting Republicans in your cabinet would not distinguish you from Bush, whose cabinet has quite a few Republicans. Having Republicans in the cabinet is part of the problem...Given that Republicans have a favorable rating of 40% or lower in every poll not taken by Fox this year, and that about 30% of the country self-identifies as Republican, it strikes me that bowing to have Republicans in your cabinet is about the best way I can think of to not appeal to independent voters."

Firedoglake's Blue Texan is similarly confused by Edwards' reasoning: "The idea that an Edwards administration can only avoid serious policy mistakes if it contains Republicans is, on its face, totally absurd. Does Edwards really think he can't find a handful of strong, smart, capable Democrats who disagree with him on stuff and won't hesitate to tell him so? Really? Even worse, it really makes absolutely no sense at all in a political climate where the public prefers Democrats to Republicans by a margin of 14 points...This just reeks of 1990s/DLC Stockholm Syndrome. I'm really over Democrats who say we need Big Grownup Republicans to save us from irresponsible flaky selves. It's bad for the Democratic brand. It's bad politics. Can you imagine Rudy or Willard or Thompson making such a pledge? I can't."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: They're Just Like You And Me

AmSpec Blog's Shawn Macomber is tired of all the talk about the "weirdness" of Mormonism:

"The 'specifics' of Romney's faith are no more outlandish than the 'specifics' of any other religion. If an atheist wants to lecture on the weirdness of Mormonism, fine. Anyone following a book they believe is divinely inspired, however, is going to have to work pretty hard at not seeming bigoted or, dare we say, jealous -- the recruitment rate and cash reserves of the Church of Jesus Christ these days are nothing to sniff at, after all -- since no Mormon belief is any crazier than what Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or Protestant beliefs look like to someone outside of those faiths. If you're an evangelical who buys into all the great and miraculous events of the Old and New Testament you need not convert to Mormonism to recognize the miracles of the Book of Mormon are not so excessive in comparison. Not by a long shot.

...More than one pundit has posited Mitt Romney must tread softly tomorrow to avoid giving the impression that he's calling those among the religious right who harbor these prejudices bigots. Happily, I am not running for president and therefore not bound by the same constraints."

LEST WE FORGET: The Only Show That Matters

We heartily second Matthew Yglesias' recommendation that you check out HBO's The Wire:

"Season four of The Wire is now available on DVD and it's the perfect gift for any decent person out there. Of course, you won't want to run out and buy season four unless you've seen seasons one, two, and three, so keep that in mind. But if you've never seen the show, you have to see the show. You have to stop reading this post right now, open up your Netflix queue, and sign yourself for disc one of season one and then come back.

Okay, back? It's the best show on television. The best show in the history of television. And with season five ready to start airing in about a month, it's by far the best show that's currently still on. So you need to watch it. Okay? Okay."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:30 PM

December 04, 2007

12/4: Two Candidates, Two Challenges

The two topics that are currently generating the most discussion in the conservative blogosphere are Mitt Romney's upcoming speech on his Mormon faith and Mike Huckabee's meteoric rise in both national and Iowa polls. Conservative bloggers are divided over Romney's speech: some think it will provide a great opportunity for Romney to "grab the media limelight" and "really introduce himself nationally," while others think that Romney will only hurt himself by drawing attention to his Mormonism. As for Huckabee, conservative bloggers are impressed by his debate performances and his ability to compete with Romney in IA despite being heavily outspent, but they remain wary of his fiscal record and his ability to fight terrorism. Until Huckabee manages to assuage the concerns of conservative bloggers on these two issues, he is unlikely to combine his popularity surge in Iowa with a similar popularity surge in the righty blogosphere.

ROMNEY: The Moment, You Own It, You Better Never Let It Go

The lively discussion about Romney's upcoming speech about his Mormon faith continues in the conservative blogosphere:

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "I think the speech is actually a pretty cool opportunity for a candidate who doesn't have huge name recognition, to tell his story, and introduce himself in a personal way, deeply entrenched in rich historic rhetoric. But I also think that it might be more useful for Romney in the general -- to really introduce himself nationally. Of course, you have to get there first, dontcha?"

Campaign Standard's Richelieu: "I think a strong case can be made for the Romney speech. Romney's faith is the big elephant in the room for a lot of primary voters. Ignoring it is no strategy for dealing with it, especially as Mike Huckabee puts personal faith in the center of the campaign with unabashed rhetoric and even television commercials proclaiming himself the Christian candidate. I don't see how Romney hurts himself by facing the faith issue. While I think it would have been better to do such a speech earlier in the year, I see little downside...Grabbing the media limelight now with a big move gives Romney a defining moment, which entails a certain risk, but also provides a very big opportunity."

Townhall's David Limbaugh: "I think it's a mistake for Mitt Romney to give 'the speech'...Huckabee's Christian credentials are doubtlessly helping him with many Christian conservatives. But I don't think Mitt's Mormonism is driving Romney voters to Huckabee. If Romney's Mormonism didn't bother them before Huckabee surged, it isn't bothering them now. This is not to say that Romney's Mormonism isn't a potential liability for him. I think it is, but not among those who have already been supporting him. The more attention he draws to his religion, the more of a liability it will become. He should leave well enough alone."

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "The conventional wisdom seems to be that Romney's decision to make a big speech about faith was a mistake -- although the conventional wisdom until he made that decision was that he should do it. It all depends on what he has to say, of course. But it strikes me that there are more ways to screw this up than to get it right."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti: "My suspicion is that a speech, even if it's 'the speech,' won't be enough to persuade voters who dislike Romney because he's a Mormon to give the former Massachusetts governor a second look. Short of Romney's conversion, nothing will persuade those voters."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "I will be surprised if the speech Romney gives on Thursday will have much to do with theology, but I expect it will have a great do to do with political theory."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "Contrary to advice from David Brody, Romney seems not keen at all about describing with any specificity -- even any generality -- his faith. This I think is perfectly appropriate under most circumstances but neatly highlights the dilemma he faces. If: 1) he says his faith informs who he is and all he does and 2) his faith is not one most are familiar with (and some are downright uncomfortable with) can he simultaneously say 'but I'm not going to tell you anything about my faith'? Well sure he can say it, but with such an approach whose minds will he put at ease?"

In a later post, Jennifer Rubin predicts that Romney will avoid focusing on Mormonism and instead talk about faith more generally: "After some comments from Romney and his advisors I think it is looking like The Speech is not a speech about Mormonism at all. He says its not a JFK re-do on nondiscrimination and he will not talk about Mormonism per se in any detail (Prediction: he will not use the word 'Mormonism' or say 'Church of Latter Day Saints'). Rather he is going to give what for any other Republican would be a standard speech which goes along the lines of: 1) The Founding Fathers believed in God; 2) The foundations of our country are inextricably linked to the Judeo Christian tradition; 3) Great movements from abolition to civil rights to pro-life were inspired by people of faith; 4) I'm a person of faith: 5) I support the same policies that you who are people of faith believe in: marriage and the sanctity of life."

HUCKABEE: Trying To Appease Fiscal Cons

Grover Norquist, president of the influential group Americans for Tax Reform, talked to CBN's David Brody about Huckabee:

"[Huckabee] has signed the pledge and he has promised to veto and oppose any efforts to raise income taxes if he was President. And at the debate he said that he would support the veto of any tax increase, so that was good too...Now, Club for Growth has been rough on him because of his period when he was governor...It's one of these things that as governor he's had a bad track record on taxes and spending, but as a candidate for President he is running as someone who will not raise taxes in the future and who is talking about fundemental tax reform such as going to a retail sales tax or the so-called fair tax. So some people say 'If you've changed your mind, we don't like you,' but that's not my position...I think we should accept converts. That's what winning looks like.

I would prefer to hear from Huckabee a little bit more about how his tax increases were a mistake. Ronald Regan raised some taxes and he said and that was a mistake...I'm not sure I've quite heard that from Huckabee.

I will almost certainly support the Republican nominee against Hillary [Clinton] or [Barack] Obama. The things that I think are slighly problematic are some of [Huckabee's] criticisms of international free trade. Not understanding free trade is scary. It's a populist applause line but it means that you're not thinking about serious things."

Brody observes: "As I listened to Norquist's tone over the phone, his tone wasn't harsh towards Huckabee at all. His words weren't either. You get the sense that while Huckabee hasn't been a model student, Norquist is banking on the future and that pledge is a big deal to him. Huckabee's challenge is to decide how far he will go in defending those tax increases. It'll be hard for him to pivot and say all of those were a mistake...Also, my guess is he'll take issue with being labeled a 'convert' but the fact that Norquist did not attack him like Club for Growth, that would be considered a positive development for the campaign."

Ramesh Ponnuru: "Norquist is surprisingly favorable [to Huckabee]."

NRO's Jonathan Adler: "If Grover Norquist is surprisingly favorable about Huckabee, George Will was surprisingly harsh in yesterday's column."

In related Huck-bashing, NRO's Rich Lowry rips Huckabee's tax plan in his New York Post column: "Mike Huckabee isn't running a substance-free campaign based on biography and applause lines. No, the former Arkansas governor has the distinction of advocating the most radical -- and politically unsalable and substantively daft -- proposal of any major presidential candidate. It's the so-called FairTax: It would eliminate the income and payroll taxes and replace them with a (supposedly) 23 percent national sales tax...Huckabee adopted the plan when he was unknown and languishing far back in the polls. It probably seemed a cheap way to inoculate him from his history as Arkansas governor: his tax hikes outweighed his tax cuts by half a billion dollars."

RedState's Erick Erickson offers his thoughts on Huckabee's problem with fiscal conservatives: "The Huckabee 'problem', if you will, perplexes me. Not a day goes by lately without someone on the right criticizes him on economics...At the same time, I can't really get that worked up about Huckabee supporting a tax increase to fix roads in Arkansas. The only people who could ever get worked up about that are people who have never been through Arkansas. The stark contrast in Arkansas pre-Huckabee and post-Huckabee is compelling...I give Mike Huckabee real credit for what he has pulled off, particularly in the face of just about every prominent conservative pundit I can think of, save Rush Limbaugh, beating the hell out of him for his ethics, his temper, his economics, his populism, etc. Dude is winning. Let's just accept it. And screaming about his economic plan isn't really hurting him with evangelicals right now who are more interested in saving the pro-life cause from Rudy than in salvaging a coherent conservative economic policy."

Erickson goes on to offer some advice to Huckabee: "Here's the thing though, Huck...If you want me to believe you are more than a Gerson [Ger-son' n. a Republican who likes to spend other people's money to feel good about himself in the name of social justice], you are going to need to make the case. Robert Novak, John Fund, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, the Club for Growth, etc., etc., etc. right now beg to differ with you. And you can't muddy them up in my eyes. But you can tell all of us what your fiscal policy would look like.* Heck, come blog about it here. We're happy to have you, Governor. But regardless of where you go, you need to start speaking. Romney is doing a 'Come to Jesus' meeting on his faith to shore up support with evangelicals. You best do the same with fiscal-cons, because most of us have known the Club for Growth a lot longer than we've known you. And we trust them. *Don't say 'Fair Tax,' because we both know it ain't gonna pass in the next four years with the present make up of Congress."

HUCKABEE II: The Other Conservative Critique Of Huck

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff's distate for Huckabee has to do with the ex-governor's national security positions, not his fiscal record: "My main objection to Huckabee -- the reason why he's my fifth choice out of five -- is that I lack confidence in his ability to fight terrorism. It's not just that he lacks experience in this realm, though that's certainly the case. The real problem is that he's too moralistic (which is not the same thing as moral). My first clue came when he said during an early debate that we need to remain in Iraq because 'we broke it.' Not because we need to defeat al Qaeda; not because we need to limit Iranian influence or avoid a devastating defeat at the hands of terrorists; but because we injured this formerly peaceful state. Huckabee's exaltation of moralism (in this case dubious) over policy calculation was difficult to miss. Now we learn (but are surprised) that Huckabee opposes waterboarding and would close the Guantanamo Bay detention center."

HUCKABEE III: Striking Fear Into The Hearts Of Dems

Last week, we quoted Open Left's Mike Lux's statement that he considers Huckabee "by far the best general election candidate on the Republican side."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas is also worried about Huckabee, but he expects the Club For Growth to hit him hard: "I always feared Huckabee's potential, though was heartened by his utter inability to raise any money. Well, he's gotten a serious boost from the 1-2 punch of the YouTube debate and the Sex on the City scandal...[His] lack of money has allowed Huckabee to fly under the radar. That will now likely change. And he won't have to contend with just his opponents in the race. Expect the Club for Growth -- Huckabee's arch nemesis -- to go in big against Huckabee any moment now. Perhaps not in Iowa, but it would make sense for them to build a firewall against Huckabee in tax-adverse New Hampshire."

Campaign Standard's Dean Barnett thinks Huckabee's money troubles are being overstated: "If Huckabee wins Iowa, his fundraising will get an enormous boost. If he wins Iowa, odds are Huckabee will have more cash on hand than any of the other candidates the day after the New Hampshire primary. Even more important, he'll get a helping of free media worth more than all the cash in all of the other candidate's coffers. Although it seems obvious, money is merely a means to an end in politics. The 'end' is getting votes. Right now, Huckabee seems to be doing the best where it counts the most."

Meanwhile, NRO's Jim Geraghty talks with pollster Scott Rasmussen about Huckabee's rise:

Rasmussen: "I think it's more a reflection of the field in general than Huckabee personally. Had anybody else resonated with GOP primary voters, this would have been impossible. What Mike Huckabee is doing is validating the dream of [Fred] Thompson's supporters -- that there was a vacuum or void in the race, but Thompson didn't grab it for whatever reason. It's not a one day blip. Each individual night in our tracking poll [Huckabee] was ahead of others in the race for in second place...My expectation is that other campaigns are going to aggressively highlight different aspects of his record. He will show us if he can stand up to it or not. If he does, this race is more wide open than anybody can imagine."

GIULIANI: Getting Good With Grover

While Grover Norquist had moderately nice things to say Huckabee, they were nothing compared to his effusive praise for Rudy Giuliani.

NRO's Byron York quotes a letter from Norquist to Giuliani that was just released by the Giuliani campaign:

"In looking at the records of all the Republican candidates, yours clearly stands out. You cut the income tax, business taxes, sales taxes, property-related taxes, and nuisance taxes. You are the most successful tax cutter in modern New York history and, on balance, the most successful tax cutter in the Republican field today. If you are elected president, I will look forward to working with you to reduce and reform taxes, restore fiscal discipline, increase government transparency, and pursue pro-growth policies that will improve America's competitiveness in the global economy."

York comments: "Glowing. But why did Norquist, who has not endorsed any candidate, write the letter to Giuliani? The answer goes back to the CNN/YouTube debate, in which Norquist asked the candidates whether they would 'promise to the people watching this right now that you will oppose and veto any efforts to raise taxes as long as you're president?' Giuliani, who has not signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, said, 'Yes, I would.' Since then, both Norquist and the Giuliani campaign have been in touch. Today, Giuliani wrote a letter to Norquist re-affirming his commitment to cutting taxes...In response, Norquist wrote back the letter released by the Giuliani campaign."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "For Giuliani, perhaps the most helpful aspect of the letter is that it is a shield against any future attacks or questions about why he didn't sign the American's for Tax Reform pledge."

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "Say what you will about Giuliani's conservative outreach, but fiscal conservatives have been unusually kind to the Hizzoner. First there was the Steve Forbes endorsement. Then the glowing Club for Growth report. And now this. Giuliani and Huckabee are the ying and yang of the GOP field. One is strong on fiscal issues and weak on social ones. The other is...the opposite. Unlike discerning minute differences in the shades of gray between Clinton and Obama, a Giuliani-Huckabee final would give Republican voters a real choice about the future direction of the party. That is, if Huck can topple Mitt in Iowa..."

DEM FIELD: More Iowa Speculation

TPM's Eric Kleefeld speculates about the electoral impact of the Univ. of IA's announcement that it won't keep the dormitories open during the winter holiday: "One might initially think this is bad news for Barack Obama -- after all, he's relying on heavy support from students -- but on closer inspection it's actually a wild card that could help or hurt any of the candidates, and in fact stands to reward whoever has the strongest organization among students...Counter-intuitively, this does not lessen the power of student areas in the caucus. Caucus participants actually vote for delegates to the state Dem convention, where the presidential delegates will then be picked. Those state delegates are apportioned according to a function of population and Democratic performance in the area -- and it has nothing to do with how many people actually show up on caucus night. As such, the power of student areas will remain the same even as the number of people participating in the caucus falls. The bottom line: Those students who do show up will have a disproportionately heavy weight when they vote..."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "This is yet another challenge for the campaign organizations, especially those of Obama and Clinton who need to expand the caucus universe if they want to win. While this development would appear to hurt Obama more as he does especially well among younger voters, TPM argues that's not necessarily so. At the very least, it's yet another factor of the student vote the Obama campaign is going to have to address and is further evidence of the importance of the on the ground organization to winning the caucus."

Meanwhile, Mike Lux offers his impressions about where things currently stand in Iowa:

1.) The Obama surge feels real to me. Obama's team on the ground is feeling quite optimistic about things, and they weren't even downplaying things the way most campaigns do who are trying to keep expectations down. Most of the people I talked to while I was there predicted Obama would win, and they give him some clear momentum.

2.) I think Hillary is hanging in there solidly. She still has a great organization, which is not losing any steam, and AFSCME and EMILY's List both have impressive independent expenditure campaigns working hard and at a big volume. She's keeping things very close, and if Obama stumbles at all, or she catches a lucky break, she still has a solid shot at winning.

3.) My theories about [John] Edwards fading don't seem as likely to me after my visit. His organization still seems just as strong as my last visit, and in some conversations with folks from rural Iowa that came in for Saturday's Heartland Presidential Forum, I get the impression that he is still the strongest of the three in rural IA, which is important.

4.) [Joe] Biden has more momentum than [Bill] Richardson or [Chris] Dodd going into the final month, and is picking up traction in some places around the state. I expect him to finish fourth , but he has a very long way to go to pull off a shocker and get into the top three -- he's not surging by anywhere near that much, not yet at least.

CLINTON: Getting Nervous?

HRC's increasingly aggressive attacks on Obama continue to draw criticism from liberal bloggers:

Ex-Clinton Labor Sec. Robert Reich condemns HRC's attacks in a blog post entitled, "Why Is HRC Stooping So Low?": "I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old friend...Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage...Then asked whether she intended to raise questions about O's character, she said: "It's beginning to look a lot like that." I just don't get it. If there's anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC's campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she's been doing. All is fair in love, war, and politics. But this series of slurs doesn't serve HRC well. It will turn off voters in Iowa, as in the rest of the country. If she's worried her polls are dropping, this is not the way to build them back up."

Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Is HillaryCo getting a little desperate?...We've seen this kind of sleazy smear by innuendo from [HRC comm. dir. Howard] Wolfson before, during the phony OMG-Obama-will-meet-with-dictators! controversy. Politics is a contact sport, but tactically, I don't think this is going to work for Hillary. It plays into Obama's efforts to paint her brand of politics as the kind we want to leave behind, and by making the attack personal, it drags her down from her inevitable front-runner perch."

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein is angry that HRC's campaign is criticizing Obama's campaign for "recruiting out of state college students": "This is pretty gross. Democrats should support the rights of young people to vote where they live the majority of the year -- or really, wherever it's easier for them to get to the polls and they're inspired to do so. Clinton's pander to Iowa old folks on this matter proves she has despaired of competing with Obama for the college student vote. Campus progressive groups, including the College Democrats, have long made it a priority to register students to vote and encourage them to get involved in city and state politics where they attend school. I imagine even Hillary's hard-core student supporters will be dismayed by this move."

TAPPED's Ezra Klein agrees that HRC's attacks on Obama's youth mobilization efforts are "a bit unseemly," but he doesn't find those attacks "nearly as odd as the repeated e-mails trumpeting the fact that, in kindergarten, Obama wrote an essay entitled 'Why I Want to be President,' thus disproving Obama's claim that he's 'not running to fulfill some long held plans.'"

Klein thinks the HRC campaign is in panic mode: "This actually strikes me as the Clinton campaign in full scramble. Till now, I've been immensely impressed with the discipline of their attacks. Everything -- everything -- was narrative based, dedicated to furthering impressions of Obama as inexperienced. Over the last week or two, however, the campaign has moved into a full-court press, attacking Obama on anything and everything, in the hopes that something will stick. The focus on the inexperienced narrative has dissipated, giving way to attacks on policy (Social Security and health care), ambition, etc. Some of these assaults are fair, some aren't, but the scattershot fusillade has certainly grown more desperate and less controlled, reflecting, I'd bet, the sentiments of the campaign. Additionally, you have the campaign e-mailing out Iowa polls that show them ahead, which they've not done till now. They're worried."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Um, seriously, the Clinton [campaign] is attacking Barack Obama based on an essay he wrote in kindergarden. They follow up with an account of something he did in third grade! I suppose you have to respect the commitment to counterpunching and oppo research (Obama says he wants a new kind of politics, but wouldn't share his toy truck with little Jimmy when they were five -- how can we trust him now?) but surely someone must have said 'won't this look dumb?' when it was suggested."

TNR's Jason Zengerle: "Stay tuned for the Clinton campaign's next damning revelation about Obama, in which the Clintonistas accuses him of recycling his kindergarten 'I Want to Become President' three years later. Barack Obama: Ambitious and a Self-Plagiarizer! Developing..."

TAPPED's Tom Schaller: "It looks like Howard Wolfson and company are starting to reach a bit. Now they're citing an essay Barack Obama wrote in third grade! What's next, his middle school yearbook haircut as an indictment?"

Atrios, meanwhile, is tired of the back-and-forth between HRC and Obama: "I admit I really don't care about what Clinton said about Obama, and what the Obama camp responded with, and what the latest Iowa polls say, blah blah blah."

CLINTON II: Lay Off Her, MSM

With a new AP article raising questions about HRC's "electability" and a new New York Times article examining HRC's (allegedly) short coattails, several bloggers have come to her defense.

The Washington Note's Kevin Drum links to the NYT article and writes: "I'm actually open to the idea that Hillary Clinton might not have downticket coattails that are as strong as Barack Obama's. But if you want to convince me of this, you really need more than a few Kansas Republicans shedding crocodile tears, some allegedly 'privately nervous' House Dems, and a survey -- the only piece of actual evidence in the entire article -- that concludes just the opposite. Just sayin'."

Jason Zengerle: "Is Obama really more 'electable' than Hillary? Frank Rich certainly thinks so. Andrew Sullivan does, too. As for me, I'm not so sure. The crux of Rich's argument seems to be that Obama (unlike Clinton) disarms conservatives -- pointing to the kind words people like Peggy Noonan and Rich Lowry have had for him -- and that Obama's race would actually be an advantage in a general election campaign, in that it would prompt the GOP to engage in their cynical brand of racial politics, which in turn would drive white swing voters into the Democrats' corner. I hope those two things are true, but color me unconvinced for the moment. But I think the biggest doubt about Obama in a general election campaign has to be the (gulp) experience question -- not about whether he's experienced enough to be president (I think he is) but whether he's experienced enough to run a sufficiently tough general election campaign?"

Over on the right side of the blogosphere, Ramesh Ponnuru thinks HRC is more electable than people think: "I keep hearing Republicans crowing about Hillary Clinton's 'high negatives'...But I remember talking to a Bush strategist right after [John] Kerry had clinched the Democratic nomination in 2004. At the time Kerry had low negatives, and the strategist was pleased. Kerry wasn't crushing Bush in head-to-head match-ups even with those low negatives, he pointed out. And by the end of the campaign Kerry's negatives would be a lot higher. As people who were neutral or even favorable toward Kerry turned against him, his numbers against Bush would drop. It made sense. But Clinton is in the opposite position. She's doing pretty well in match-ups with Republican candidates even with her high negatives -- and it would be hard to drive those negatives up much."

OBAMA: Tough Enough?

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Were Obama to win the Democratic nomination, could he win the national election? I'm constantly surprised by Republicans I meet who really like Obama. I think he has great cross-over potential for picking up Republican votes. But, there are some potential potential hurdles. To what degree will Obama's race be a problem with some voters? And does Obama, or his team, have the experience to take on the Republican attack machine? Just look what the Republicans did to John Kerry. Say what you will about Hillary, but her people know how to fight. Having said that, Obama seems to be besting Hillary, or at least starting to, so perhaps he knows something she doesn't."

On a related note, The Onion asks a crucial question: "Which candidate would you prefer to get in a bar fight with?"

EDWARDS: Don't Misunderestimate Him

MyDD's Jonathan Singer links to the latest IA State Univ. poll, which shows Edwards in second place overall and in first place among likely caucus-goers' second choice, and writes: "Even as Clinton and Obama have traded the 'lead' in Iowa over the past few months, the general narrative to spring from the polling of the state is that it's a 3-way tie. The reason for this, beyond the fact that many of the polls show the top three candidates within the margin of error, is that while Edwards may poll in 3rd place consistently, the internals such as his support among previous caucus-goers and his strong second choice support, in addition to a strong ground organization, have led to a perpetual offshoot of this narrative, namely that if the caucus were held tonight, John Edwards would win...Questions remain, of course: is the claim 'John Edwards would win if the caucus were held tonight' more than just merely a narrative and will it be as true on January 3 as it appears to be today?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Understanding The Netroots

After examining some quantitative data showing which stories have received the most coverage in the liberal blogosphere, Open Left's Chris Bowers contrasts the liberal blogosphere with the MSM:

"It seems to me there are two key differences between our coverage of the 2008 campaign and coverage provided by other media outlets. First, the blogosphere is focused on a three-way campaign between Clinton, Obama and Edwards, instead of a two-way Clinton vs. Obama duel. Secondly, we actually focus much more on policy and legislation than does other media (even though I still think our horserace analysis is superior to that of the established, national media). Of particularly interest, I think, are the issues we focus on: military and foreign policy, energy and global warming policy, media reform and restoring checks and balances to governmental institutions. All of this is centered around the collapse of elite institutions in the United States, and eliminating all of the underlying causes of the Iraq war: media complicity, unitary executive, privatized military, neo-con foreign policy, and the oil-based economy. The reason I find this fascinating is that Matt [Stoller] and I have often argued that the failure of establishment Democrats and progressives / liberal institutions to prevent catastrophes like the Iraq war is the main cause of the rise of the progressive netroots. This is a position that seems to be justified by our areas of policy focus."

LEST WE FORGET: What Happens In Space...

From a recent article in The Guardian:

"'The issue of sex in space is a serious one,' [French scientific writer Pierre Kohler] says. 'The experiments carried out so far relate to missions planned for married couples on the future International Space Station, the successor to Mir. Scientists need to know how far sexual relations are possible without gravity.'

He cites a confidential Nasa report on a space shuttle mission in 1996. A project codenamed STS-XX was to explore sexual positions possible in a weightless atmosphere.

Twenty positions were tested by computer simulation to obtain the best 10, he says. 'Two guinea pigs then tested them in real zero-gravity conditions.'"

NRO's John Derbyshire is shocked: "Twenty? You mean...there's more than one? Aren't any of these astronauts Republicans?"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:58 PM

December 03, 2007

12/3: The Winds Are Shifting

With the release of three consecutive polls showing Barack Obama's rise in Iowa, liberal bloggers are beginning to alter their perceptions of the Dem race. The netroots' resident polling expert, Open Left's Chris Bowers, has gone from calling Obama's campaign "done" five weeks ago to declaring Obama "the frontrunner for the nomination". Obama saw his support increase dramatically in the latest Daily Kos straw poll, rising from 16% in October to 27% in November. Yet the bloggers with the loudest megaphones -- Markos Moulitsas, Jane Hamsher, Matt Stoller, etc. -- remain lukewarm (at best) about Obama's candidacy. Stoller epitomized the leading bloggers' lack of enthusiasm about Obama when he recently wrote: "I'm (mildly) more supportive of Obama and [John] Edwards than Clinton."

Back in '03 and '04, the netroots actively mobilized behind Howard Dean and (to a lesser extent) Wesley Clark. This year, they've remained on the sidelines, content to critique the candidates from afar and lobby them on various policy issues (e.g., FISA). What will it say about "the vaunted influence of the netroots" (to borrow Patrick Ruffini's phrase) if Obama manages to defeat the mighty Hillary Clinton without their help? And if HRC (who received 9% in the latest Daily Kos straw poll) survives Obama's mini-surge and wins the Dem nod, can her victory really be viewed as anything other than a defeat for the netroots?

DEM FIELD: There's A New Leader In Iowa

In a post entitled, "Trying To Figure Out Iowa," Chris Bowers examines the impact of various factors on the '04 IA caucuses and draws some conclusions:

"In short, here is how I would rank the importance of the various factors in Iowa polling:
1.) Trend, which currently favors Obama and is not so great for Clinton. This matters a great deal, and could account for more than a 10% swing.
2.) Second place choice, which currently favors Edwards and is not so great for Clinton. This could account for a 5% swing.
3.) Previous caucus attendance, which currently favors Edwards and is not so great for Obama. This could account for a 2-3% swing.
The factors that don't seem to matter much at all are caucus goers who have supposedly made up their minds, which currently favors Clinton, and organizational, 'most certain to vote' strength, which currently favors Edwards. All told, it would be my guess that Edwards and Clinton are roughly tied in Iowa right now, with Obama a little bit out in front."

Meanwhile, Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher links to a Des Moines Register article attributing Obama's rise in Iowa polls to his and Edwards' attacks on HRC for her vote in support of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. Hamsher writes: "A couple of things stick out. One -- I'd still like to see any indication made by Obama prior to the vote that he opposed the Kyl-Lieberman bill, because I just did not hear it. He doesn't get to campaign now on opposing it after sticking his finger in the wind -- at the time, many were watching that vote as a way to measure how sincere his desire to challenge the foreign policy establishment really was. He didn't vote. For him to pretend now that his opposition was full-throated and sincere is probably the most cynical move I've seen on the Democratic side of the ticket in this campaign. And two -- we told you, everyone. Don't have anything to do with Joe Lieberman, ever, at any time. He's a toxic little waste pile of a man who will lay an instant load of political cooties on anyone he comes in contact with."

OBAMA: Back Then They Didn't Want Me, Now I'm Hot They All On Me

Five weeks ago, during the height of the Donnie McClurkin fallout, Bowers wrote a post entitled, "Obama Campaign Post-Mortem": "Barring a miraculous victory in Iowa, I think that Obama is done and Clinton is the nominee...Seriously, I think it would take a miracle for it to change. From the start, Obama was the only one with a real chance, but now has just suffered too severe a blow with the white, progressive creative class that he needed to win the state. After five months of losing ground among this group, the vicious, deserved, and nearly blogosphere-wide criticism of Obama today seems like too much to overcome. It is the nail in the coffin for his campaign. He just can't win the primary without those voters, and I don't see how he gets them back now."

This weekend, Bowers did a 180 and declared Obama the Dem frontrunner: "Today, for the first time in the eleven-month history of the Democratic nomination campaign, it seems to me that Barack Obama has become the frontrunner for the nomination....As I noted in the post below this one, more than any other factor in Iowa, I believe the trendline breaks all ties, and right now Obama has the trendline in his favor. Obama also has an advantage on Clinton in what I believe is the second most important factor in Iowa, second-choice support. So, while it is a narrow lead, right now the odds are that Obama holds a lead in Iowa...I think odds are that if Obama wins Iowa, he would also win New Hampshire...When one considers the further momentum boosts Obama would receive from victories in all of these early states, February 5th would turn into a real rout, sealing the nomination then and there. Put all of this together, and yes, I currently see Obama leading the Democratic nomination campaign."

In other positive news for Obama, Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas posts the results for the latest Daily Kos straw poll -- which show Obama increasing his support by 11% -- and comments: "Wow, big shakeup in the numbers. The [Chris] Dodd boomlet is over, as people start focusing on the candidates most seen as serious contenders. His 14 points drop is almost entirely made up by Edwards and -- more dramatically -- Obama. There's no doubt Obama is surging in Iowa and elsewhere. Is this increase in support a sign that people are rallying around him as the "anti-Clinton"?

Obama's mini-surge has a few bloggers wondering whether he has peaked too soon:

RCP Blog's Steven Stark: "Obama's mini-surge has come awfully early, giving his opponents ample time to answer back. John Kerry and John Edwards surged later in Iowa last time -- and that was ages ago technology-wise, in a year when the race was not nearly as intensely covered as now and few had Blackberries. It's not that Obama won't win Iowa. It's that to do so, he's going to need a second and a third act."

Slate's Mickey Kaus: "Because people -- I'd say voters as well as reporters -- are comfortable processing information at a faster pace, there is plenty of time for Obama and [Mike] Huckabee to wear out their welcome and fade. There is time for them to fade and come back. And fade again..."

OBAMA II: The Kids Are Alright

On Friday, The Des Moines Register's David Yepsen criticized the Obama campaign for encouraging Iowa college students who aren't from Iowa to participate in the caucuses: "While it's legal for college students to register to vote in Iowa to do that, this raises the question of whether it's fair, or politically smart. No presidential campaign in memory has ever made such a large, open attempt to encourage students from out of state, many of whom pay out-of-state tuition, to participate in the caucuses...Asking people who are 'not from Iowa' to participate in them changes the nature of the event. And trying to pack the caucuses with people from Illinois might taint Obama's showing...If he wins the Iowa caucuses with Illinois votes, his victory would be discounted by his opponents and media people."

Naturally, the HRC and Chris Dodd campaigns followed up Yepsen's blog post with their own criticisms of Obama's youth outreach efforts.

MyDD's Mike Connery is disturbed by these attacks: "As far as I'm concerned, this is advocating voter disenfranchisement. These students live in Iowa for at least 9 months a year for 4, 5, 6 years. For all intents and purposes, Iowa is their home, and elections in Iowa affect their lives far more than an election in their 'home' state. Pundits like Yepsen celebrate Iowa for its 'retail' politics, and embodying the best characteristics of our democracy. If thousands of young voters want to experience that first hand and participate, it's outrageous for Clinton, Dodd, Yepsen or anyone, to discourage them from exercising their legal right."

CLINTON: Going Negative

Matt Stoller welcomes HRC's recent attacks on Obama's character: "As a general rule, I like arguments about policy when a candidate ties them to character. That's what [Al] Gore and Kerry didn't do to [George W.] Bush. This is very good development. There has been no negative critique of Obama from anyone, and it's useful to see what happens when tested. And Clinton hasn't had to take anyone down, so it's useful to see what she does when tested. As Mike Lux said, the Clintons are at their best when their backs are up against a wall. While I wouldn't call Clinton's back up against a wall, it's not looking like she's leading anymore, at least according to OpenLeft's very own Chris Bowers."

On the other hand, HRC's recent press release -- which alleges that Obama has wanted to be president ever since he "wrote an essay titled 'I Want To Be a President'" in kindergarten -- has generated considerable scorn in the blogosphere.

In a post that has generated over 1,000 comments, Daily Kos diarist Geekesque takes a sarcastic look at the HRC campaign's "explosive revelations": "Obama was writing essays in kindergarten? He's smarter than I thought. So smart, that he was plotting his run for President at the age of five. This essay, written during the early years of the Lyndon Johnson administration, is clear proof of his decades-old plot to install himself in the White House...With campaigns like Clinton's, the Colbert show could go on despite the WGA strike."

Chase Martyn: "Never mind the fact that in elementary school, almost every student across the country probably writes something about what they would like to be when they grow up, and I'd bet a good percentage of them say they'd like to be president. I'm sure I wrote something as a six- or seven-year-old saying I wanted to be president. I'm not sure if that means I'm opening up myself to charges that I have been planning to run for president since then, but I guess all is fair in the last month of the Iowa Caucuses..."

RCP Blog's Tom Bevan: "The subject of ambition is one that neither Clinton or Edwards can touch -- for obvious reasons. Campaigns are all about finding the proper openings against your opponents and exploiting them, but the Clinton camp -- perhaps in a sign of their growing concern over their inability to make anything stick to Obama -- seems surprisingly tone-deaf in its choice of attacks."

CLINTON II: Her 9/11 Moment?

MyDD's Todd Beeton thinks HRC's widely-praised response to Friday's hostage crisis will help her in NH: "On Friday, the hostage crisis in Hillary Clinton's Rochester, NH campaign office gave us the first (hopefully last) crisis situation by which to judge any of the candidate for president on this intangible, but psychologically potent 'how he/she handles a crisis' test. And if the media response is any indication, Clinton passed with flying colors...it provided an opportunity for her to display qualities both widely associated with her (i.e. strength and composure) as well as qualities that are not usually associated with her (i.e. warmth and a sort of maternal protectiveness.)...I'll be interested to see the first NH polling taken since Friday night. My feeling is that we're likely to see numbers break in Clinton's direction, at least in the short term, at a time when she needs it most."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis agrees, but thinks the event might have happened too early to have a real impact: "I'm not convinced that she'll get that big a bump, but you never know, in New Hampshire at least, she might get a small sympathy bump, and that can't hurt. Except that she needed the sympathy bump in January, when folks in NH are actually voting. Yet again, Hillary may have peaked too soon."

NRO's Mark Hemingway, naturally, is disgusted by HRC's positive press coverage: "Good grief. I couldn't finish the rest of the [AP] article, but I hope [author Glen] Johnson went on properly described the lustre of her halo, the snowy doves randomly alighting themselves on the Senator's outstretched arms and how merely hearing Hillary's words of compassion regarding this difficult situation allowed the blind to see."

EDWARDS: Someone Pay Attention To Me!

MyDD's Jonathan Singer discusses the significance of Rep. Bruce Baley's (D-IA) endorsement of Edwards: "As a lot of folks have noted before, endorsements don't necessarily make a terribly large impression on voters decisions directly. However, the Braley endorsement does do at least a couple of important things for Edwards. First off, this could be the big piece of news in the statewide media Tuesday, and perhaps more importantly it could prompt the national media to remember Edwards, who they have been perhaps too quick to forget given their focus on the scuffles between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. What's more, a Braley endorsement could bring some of the organizational support and expertise that helped put Braley in Congress last fall. All in all, tomorrow should be a good day for the Edwards campaign."

ROMNEY: It's Time For "The Speech"

Conservative bloggers are buzzing over the [Mitt] Romney campaign's announcement that Romney will deliver a long-awaited speech (which political junkies already refer to as "The Speech") about his Mormon faith on Thursday.

Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "The speech seems like a straight up political business decision to me. The Mormon issue has always been there. It hasn't been under the radar. Every news article mentions it. Every book about Romney mentions it. Every article about Romney on Townhall is followed by a debate over his religion or his change-of-mind on gay marriage and abortion. Even our own Hugh Hewitt titled his book with the rhetorical question: A Mormon in the White House? It's the elephant in the room. The question of whether anyone should have to give such a "faith speech" is irrelevant -- disappointing but irrelevant -- and the Romney campaign realizes that."

Soren Dayton: "Romney is now clearly in 2nd in Iowa. There is now clear evidence that Romney's religion is hurting him in Iowa, something that we predicted early on based on the strange makeup of the caucus electorate. This is probably the clearest evidence yet that the Romney campaign understands how precarious its position is in IA. It will not be enough to simply attack Mike Huckabee in Iowa. Romney will have to find a way to build trust over their barrier of his religion. This is probably his last chance, and it is a...hail mary."

NRO's Yuval Levin sees differences between Romney's speech and John Kennedy's 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association: "Kennedy's speech was very much a general election move (it was delivered in September, less than two months before the election), and its purpose was roughly the opposite of that which Romney is seeking. Kennedy's speech was a case for a strict separation of church and state -- he promised essentially to keep his religion out of his politics entirely. Romney seems to have a more complicated challenge: he needs to persuade people who believe a man's religious convictions do and should make a difference in the sort of leadership he offers that his convictions are like their convictions."

Power Line's John Hinderaker isn't sure this speech is a good idea: "For Romney to give a speech on his religion may just open the door to, and legitimize, further attacks on his religion by his opponents. Further, the more Romney couches his speech in terms of 'separation of church and state,' the more his opponents can claim that scurrilous attempts to impose a religious test are really legitimate discussions of public policy."

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat is also skeptical: "Put me down in the 'it's a big mistake' camp. The speech should have been given at the very beginning of the primary season, or after Romney won the nomination; it doesn't make sense to give it in response to Mike Huckabee's rise in the polls. Huckabee is vulnerable on all sorts of issues, and Romney has the money and the infrastructure to make sure that every GOP primary voter in America -- let alone Iowa and South Carolina -- knows all about the tax increases and the ethics complaints and the softness on illegal immigration and all the rest of it. Going after Huckabee on these issues probably wouldn't prevent the Arkansas governor from consolidating his current level of support, but the right line of attack should be able to stall his momentum in states like New Hampshire and Michigan and South Carolina, where Romney is well-positioned even if he loses Iowa. But instead of making the conversation about issues where Huckabee is vulnerable and Romney isn't, the Romney campaign has guaranteed that for the next two weeks at least and probably beyond, the media conversation will be about, well, Mormonism."

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "On the surface of it, Romney shouldn't have to give a Mormon speech any more than Obama should have to give a Muslim speech. Chatter about both candidates' religions seem to linger just under the radar, amongst die-hards who are probably lost to both...Perhaps the Romney campaign knows something we don't? That Mormonism is a bigger deal on the ground than we are given to believe from press reports? Could Romney supporters believe that his recent slip in the polls in Iowa is attributable to a backlash against his Mormonism? If so, that would seem to be a highly dubious reading of the Iowa electorate. But Romney's speech is likely to create its own new reality on this front."

On a related note, RedState's Erick Erickson theorizes that Romney's team must have conducted the anti-Mormon calls over Thanksgiving week and found evidence that Romney's Mormonism will hurt him, thereby necessitating this speech: "I posited, and under sustained yelling in my inbox backed down from, a theory over Thanksgiving that this poll was a legitimate poll ascertaining whether or not Mitt Romney's faith was the reason he had apparently reached a ceiling of support in New Hampshire and Iowa...I bring this all back up because three weeks after the stories of this polling surfaced we discover tonight that Mitt Romney is finally going to give that speech on faith that Robert Novak and others have been writing about for months and months...the results of that polling gave the Romney camp all the data points needed to finally show their MBA grad of a candidate that there is a real need for the speech he is about to give."

CBN's David Brody thinks that Romney needs to acknowledge the differences between Mormons and Evangelicals: "If Romney wants to grab those crucial Evangelical votes in Iowa and elsewhere, he will earn their respect and come across as honest and authentic if he acknowledges the differences between the two religions. Evangelicals, for the most part, don't want him to lump Mormonism and Christianity into the 'we're all the same' category. I know Mormons feel differently about this but I'm just giving it to you straight. Values wise the two religions have a lot in common and I'm sure that will be a big part of his speech. But Evangelicals would trust him more, appreciate him more and respect him more if he came clean about the differences. I'm not saying he needs to do theological bullet points here. Of course not. But a little more would go a long way."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin is not sure that this would be a wise course of action: "I wonder whether Romney is ready for or wants weeks of discussion about the doctrinal differences between his religion and others."

Conservative bloggers also discussed the effect that Romney's speech will have on this week's media cycle:

NRO's Byron York: "Romney's speech instantly becomes the political story of the week, barring unforeseen news...Whether that is good or bad for Romney remains to be seen. As for other campaigns, the announcement complicates the story of Huckabee's rise -- on the one hand, it diverts some attention from it, but on the other it creates speculation that it was Huckabee's rise that forced Romney to give the speech. It will also probably direct some attention away from Rudy Giuliani's mayoral security expenses, so the Giuliani people can't be too unhappy with that. As far as [Fred] Thompson and [John] McCain are concerned, it probably sucks up needed oxygen."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "McCain must be cussing. Could you blame him? The Union Leader could have been the Monday political 2008 story, at least."

ROMNEY II: It's Not All Bad News

Examining a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll showing Romney maintaining an 8-point lead in NH, John Hinderaker writes: "Mitt Romney continues to hold a perceptible lead over very formidable competition. I think Romney could make an excellent President, but I've been concerned about whether his political skills are up to the challenge of a national campaign. So far, though, you have to give him credit for a very strong effort in New Hampshire."

Hugh Hewitt (shockingly!) concludes that Romney is "rising": "The GOP electorate is a very informed electorate and recognizes that only two candidates are viable in a race against either Hillary or Obama, and in that the race between Giuliani and Romney, Romney is pulling away bit by bit. Both candidates have late-arriving challenges. Mike Huckabee's MSM-fueled lift in Iowa has already begun to dissipate, but the number of daggers out for Rudy in the press are drawing blood."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle doesn't think Romney is necessarily doomed if Huckabee wins Iowa: "I've made the case that a Mike Huckabee win in Iowa over Mitt Romney would benefit Rudy Giuliani. I still think that, but I'll revise the prediction: It depends on how well Giuliani himself does. If Giuliani performs respectably in Iowa and South Carolina, and either wins or places a strong second in New Hampshire, Huckabee will probably doom Romney (and Huckabee and Ron Paul together may doom Fred Thompson). But if Giuliani can't do better than a distant third in any of the early states, or manages to do worse than that in any of them, Romney may not have to run the table to remain competitive -- or for the race to remain open."

MCCAIN: The Real Deal?

GraniteGrok's Doug Lambert follows up the New Hampshire Union Leader's endorsement of John McCain with his own thoughts about McCain: "Senator McCain, when you get to interact with him directly, is the real deal. Whether he is discussing an area in which you agree with him or not, he has beliefs, convictions, and knowledge of the facts that make you, at the very least, respect his position -- all the while knowing there's no BS in the mix, either. This alone makes for a compelling candidate for president...His general knowledge on just about any topic thrown his way is nothing short of impressive. During the frequent blogger conference calls, McCain reports on conversations he has recently had with any number of important players in a given issue. When it comes to the war, McCain speaks directly with the generals, as well as the political leaders both here and abroad. One gets the feeling that he could easily assume the job of Commander-In Chief on day one."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan also links to the Union Leader's endorsement and writes: "My only qualm with [the Union Leader's] assessment is the notion that the best way ahead in Iraq is an indefinite continuation of the occupation. But on this, I still trust McCain's judgment more than I do Romney's or, God help us, Giuliani's. And he was right in predicting tactical success for the surge, and I was too pessimistic."

Soren Dayton reports on the back story of the Union Leader's endorsement: "For a while people thought that Mitt Romney was going to get this endorsement. It was long the conventional wisdom that Judd Gregg would go with Romney, and Joe McQuaid, the UL editor, is very close to Gregg. In fact, NH sources tell me, McQuaid called Gregg to tell him about the endorsement, as a courtesy and recognition of their long friendship. Unfortunately, the Romney campaign had no such deference to the friendship. They leaked the story to Drudge and started moving around negative material on McCain. Typical Romney scorched-earth tactics...What happens if the UL really goes after Romney? An extended attack on Romney's credibility could do a lot of damage. And there's plenty of material."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Too Much Quirkiness?

Always the contrarian, Mickey Kaus wonders:

"Obama and Huckabee lead their respective races in Iowa. Suppose those two actually win their parties' nominations. Wouldn't an Obama vs. Huckabee race be so quirky it would have a good chance of attracting potential third-party or independent candidates? Candidates more experienced and less of a semi-revolutionary 'stretch' than Obama, less 'socially' conservative than Huckabee, more fiscally conservative than either of them, and maybe less filled with Broderesque compassion for illegal immigrants? Candidates who are more boring?"

LEST WE FORGET: A Fool And His Money...

Scott Adams suggests a way to make casinos more efficient:

"I noticed yesterday in Las Vegas that many of the casinos have ATMs amongst thousands of slot machines. The casinos hopes you will take your money out of one machine, carry it several feet, and put it in another. There's something about the change of ownership in your money that is considered entertainment. And judging from the crowds, people can't get enough of it...I believe B.F. Skinner would agree with me that there is room for even more efficiency: The ATM and the slot machine need to be the same machine. The casinos lose a lot of money waiting for the portly gamblers with respiratory issues to waddle from the ATM to the slot machines. A better solution would be for the losers, euphemistically called 'players,' to stand at the ATM and watch their funds be transferred to the hotel, while hoping to somehow 'win.' The ATM could be redesigned to blink and make exciting sounds, so it seems less like robbery."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 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.