December 14, 2007

12/14: The Least Worst Choice?

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

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

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

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

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

DEM DEBATE: Not With A Bang But A Whimper

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

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

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

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

DEBATE EDWARDS: Mr. Brightside

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

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

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

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

DEBATE CLINTON: Like A Rock

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

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

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

DEBATE OBAMA: Good Enough

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

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

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

DEM FIELD: C'mon, Nobody's Perfect

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE TOP TIER

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

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

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

THE SECOND TIER
None

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

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

CLINTON: Gone, Billy, Gone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUCKABEE: Feelin' The Hate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ROMNEY: The Consensus Choice?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why Journalists Get Debates Wrong

The New Republic's Noam Scheiber explains:

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

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

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

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

Live free or give me a reasonable alternative!

Peace through pragmatism.

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

It's noontime in America.

Some taxation, some representation.

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

Hooray for prudence!

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

Who wants peanuts?

Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 14, 2007 12:53 PM