December 03, 2007

12/3: The Winds Are Shifting

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

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

DEM FIELD: There's A New Leader In Iowa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBAMA II: The Kids Are Alright

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

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

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

CLINTON: Going Negative

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

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

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

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

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

CLINTON II: Her 9/11 Moment?

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

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

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

EDWARDS: Someone Pay Attention To Me!

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

ROMNEY: It's Time For "The Speech"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ROMNEY II: It's Not All Bad News

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

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

AmSpec Blog's James Antle doesn't think Romney is necessarily doomed if Huckabee wins Iowa: "I've made the case that a Mike Huckabee win in Iowa over Mitt Romney would benefit Rudy Giuliani. I still think that, but I'll revise the prediction: It depends on how well Giuliani himself does. If Giuliani performs respectably in Iowa and South Carolina, and either wins or places a strong second in New Hampshire, Huckabee will probably doom Romney (and Huckabee and Ron Paul together may doom Fred Thompson). But if Giuliani can't do better than a distant third in any of the early states, or manages to do worse than that in any of them, Romney may not have to run the table to remain competitive -- or for the race to remain open."

MCCAIN: The Real Deal?

GraniteGrok's Doug Lambert follows up the New Hampshire Union Leader's endorsement of John McCain with his own thoughts about McCain: "Senator McCain, when you get to interact with him directly, is the real deal. Whether he is discussing an area in which you agree with him or not, he has beliefs, convictions, and knowledge of the facts that make you, at the very least, respect his position -- all the while knowing there's no BS in the mix, either. This alone makes for a compelling candidate for president...His general knowledge on just about any topic thrown his way is nothing short of impressive. During the frequent blogger conference calls, McCain reports on conversations he has recently had with any number of important players in a given issue. When it comes to the war, McCain speaks directly with the generals, as well as the political leaders both here and abroad. One gets the feeling that he could easily assume the job of Commander-In Chief on day one."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan also links to the Union Leader's endorsement and writes: "My only qualm with [the Union Leader's] assessment is the notion that the best way ahead in Iraq is an indefinite continuation of the occupation. But on this, I still trust McCain's judgment more than I do Romney's or, God help us, Giuliani's. And he was right in predicting tactical success for the surge, and I was too pessimistic."

Soren Dayton reports on the back story of the Union Leader's endorsement: "For a while people thought that Mitt Romney was going to get this endorsement. It was long the conventional wisdom that Judd Gregg would go with Romney, and Joe McQuaid, the UL editor, is very close to Gregg. In fact, NH sources tell me, McQuaid called Gregg to tell him about the endorsement, as a courtesy and recognition of their long friendship. Unfortunately, the Romney campaign had no such deference to the friendship. They leaked the story to Drudge and started moving around negative material on McCain. Typical Romney scorched-earth tactics...What happens if the UL really goes after Romney? An extended attack on Romney's credibility could do a lot of damage. And there's plenty of material."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Too Much Quirkiness?

Always the contrarian, Mickey Kaus wonders:

"Obama and Huckabee lead their respective races in Iowa. Suppose those two actually win their parties' nominations. Wouldn't an Obama vs. Huckabee race be so quirky it would have a good chance of attracting potential third-party or independent candidates? Candidates more experienced and less of a semi-revolutionary 'stretch' than Obama, less 'socially' conservative than Huckabee, more fiscally conservative than either of them, and maybe less filled with Broderesque compassion for illegal immigrants? Candidates who are more boring?"

LEST WE FORGET: A Fool And His Money...

Scott Adams suggests a way to make casinos more efficient:

"I noticed yesterday in Las Vegas that many of the casinos have ATMs amongst thousands of slot machines. The casinos hopes you will take your money out of one machine, carry it several feet, and put it in another. There's something about the change of ownership in your money that is considered entertainment. And judging from the crowds, people can't get enough of it...I believe B.F. Skinner would agree with me that there is room for even more efficiency: The ATM and the slot machine need to be the same machine. The casinos lose a lot of money waiting for the portly gamblers with respiratory issues to waddle from the ATM to the slot machines. A better solution would be for the losers, euphemistically called 'players,' to stand at the ATM and watch their funds be transferred to the hotel, while hoping to somehow 'win.' The ATM could be redesigned to blink and make exciting sounds, so it seems less like robbery."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 3, 2007 01:00 PM