December 12, 2007

12/12: The Space Between

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

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

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

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

OBAMA: The Ghost of Questionnaires Past

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBAMA II: Inspiring Kids, Annoying Yepsen

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

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

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

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

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

CLINTON: Get A Life

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

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

EDWARDS: Mr. Electable

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

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

GOP FIELD: Last Chance, Last Dance

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

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

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey:

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUCKABEE: Once Pro-Amnesty, Always Pro-Amnesty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ROMNEY: An Early Christmas Present From National Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAUL: A Blogger Endorsement!

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

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Case For Restraint

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

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

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

LEST WE FORGET: Should The Patriots Go For It?

Jim Henley says yes:

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

Matthew Yglesias agrees:

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

Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 12, 2007 12:58 PM