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 ra