December 11, 2007

12/11: Still Not Feelin' The Love

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

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

DEM FIELD: It's A Close One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBAMA II: A Real Progressive?

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

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

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

OBAMA III: In Ur State, Gettin' Ur Endorsementz

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

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

CLINTON: Stickin' With Joe

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

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

HUCKABEE: The Huckabashing Continues

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

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

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

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

HUCKABEE II: The Polls Don't Lie

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

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

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

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

GIULIANI: Down But Not Out

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

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

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

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

ROMNEY: (Sort Of) Going Negative

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

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

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

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

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

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: More Wisdom From Ruffini

Patrick Ruffini offers some interesting thoughts on the GOP race:

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

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

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

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

LEST WE FORGET: Parentheticals You Don't Often See

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

(who happens to be white)

(this is the antagonist)

(whose ATM password is 5900)

(which is Latin for fauxhawk)

(full disclosure: this reporter is racist)

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

(no, not that Robocop)

(who will die on page 248)

(incidentally, this reporter is now single, ladies)

Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 11, 2007 12:53 PM