December 17, 2007
12/17: A State of Flux
The topsy-turvy GOP primary is confounding the expectations of conservative bloggers. Less than two months ago, The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes declared that it was now "a two-man race" between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. A number of prominent conservative bloggers, including Hugh Hewitt and Ed Morrissey, agreed. But Mike Huckabee's remarkable surge, coupled with Giuliani's fall in national polls, has forced conservative bloggers to recalibrate their expectations. Since the majority of conservative bloggers find Huckabee's fiscal record and foreign policy views unacceptable, many bloggers are joining the National Review editors in throwing their support behind Romney. Others are holding out hope for Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or even (gasp!) John McCain to emerge from the fray as the mainstream GOP alternative to Huckabee.
GOP FIELD: Changing Every Day, In Every Possible Way
NRO's Rich Lowry dissects the GOP race: "There is now obviously an evangelical backlash going on in Iowa and there will probably be a backlash against the evangelical backlash in New Hampshire. That means someone else besides Huckabee probably wins there. If it is Romney or McCain, he becomes the candidate of the Republican establishment. He will stand a very good chance of ultimately vanquishing Huckabee because he will represent the conservative mainstream better and, besides, insurgents usually lose in the GOP...[Giuliani] probably has to finish at least a strong second there to stay in healthy shape. If he's second, he has to hope that Huckabee mortally wounds the winner of New Hampshire, Romney or McCain, in South Carolina. If that happens, then it's a Huck v. Rudy race...Finally, there's Fred. All this could be scrambled if he has a great next three weeks and, say, finishes, a strong second in Iowa."
Meanwhile, Townhall's Patrick Ruffini thinks it's "Romney's race to lose": "The surging candidates (Huckabee and McCain) are flaky and/or can't win. This empowers the institutional frontrunners, Rudy and Romney. And Rudy is in trouble. Huckabee has solved Romney's expectations game in Iowa. A win for Romney out of the Hawkeye State translates to a big win and momentum. A narrow loss is within expectations. Only a double digit loss or third would significantly damage Romney...Now at 15% in the national polls, [Romney] has demonstrated an adequate-enough base of national support to be able to leverage big wins into the nomination...unless Rudy manages to turn the election into a referendum on leadership-in-a-time-of-crisis in the next three weeks, at least how it stands now, say hello to Mitt Romney as our nominee."
ROMNEY: Mitt Meets Tim
Although Romney's appearance on Meet The Press is getting positive reviews from the usual suspects, Tim Russert's barrage of questions about Romney's numerous policy shifts have reminded many conservative bloggers why they dislike Romney.
AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "There wasn't much of major news value, which is good news for Romney, but those who watched who haven't been following the election that closely thus far got a crash course in the staggering number of issues Romney has altered or reversed his prior positions on."
Soren Dayton: "It has turned out that Mitt Romney's Meet the Press appearance appeared decent at the time, but mistakes seem to be coming out of the woodwork. First, there was Romney's lie about the NRA endorsement. He claimed that he had received it in 2002. He hadn't. Just made it up. Second, he claimed that '...every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as a Governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life.' Fred Thompson's campaign sent out a press release basically blowing that up...I just can't wait for the video mashup of the 2007 statements against his actual record."
AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "One exchange stands out. He was asked about running as a moderate against [Ted] Kennedy. The sequence is long but you can read it for yourself. He repeatedly rejects the 'premise' that he ran in 1994 or in 2002 as anything other than a rock ribbed conservative. If you have spent any time studying those races, watching the debates or reading press accounts you know that's just hooey. Not even Romney claimed at the time to be a conservative...Given the voluminous public record nicely preserved for all of us via Google and YouTube, it's unclear why he hasn't been more candid on all of this and just come right out and said: 'I was trying to get elected in Massachusetts for goodness sakes' or 'I really have changed on a bunch of issues in the last few years.' It is the pretense of consistency that is so unsettling. Does he not remember or he thinks we're too dim to 'look it up'?"
Michelle Malkin: "As I've said with other candidates: Caveat emptor, people. Caveat emptor."
Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti: "Romney did well, considering the circumstances...What was most striking about Romney's interview, though, was the way in which his flipping on issues in a conservative direction actually helped him articulate his policy positions and vision of the American future. Russert spent most of him time asking personal or political questions not necessarily related to what Romney wants to do if he becomes president. Such was also the case with Russert's interview with Giuliani. But the advantage Romney had over Giuliani was that he was able to pivot from 'Yes, Tim, my position has changed' to 'Now let me tell you where I stand ...'. This is much harder for Giuliani, since it is difficult to transition from a discussion about one's alleged corrupt protege to a disquisition on corporate tax policy."
In more positive news for Romney, Power Line's Paul Mirengoff sees Robert Bork's endorsement of Romney as more evidence that Romney is becoming "the choice of mainstream conservatives": "[Bork's] endorsement is less significant as guidance for undecided conservatives than as evidence of how undecided (non-evangelical) conservatives are likely to break."
HUCKABEE: Getting An "F" In International Relations
Huckabee's Foreign Affairs essay is earning a lot of negative reviews from conservative bloggers:
Philip Klein: "Huckabee's essay is startling in its incoherence, and it has something within it to scare off any faction of the conservative movement."
NRO's Peter Wehner: "Governor Huckabee's article in Foreign Affairs, while fine (if largely conventional) in some respects, is fundamentally unserious; on national security matters, he is likewise."
NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "I don't know much about Mike Huckabee, but found his aw-shucks Foreign Affairs essay strange to say the least."
Paul Mirengoff: "Previously, enemies like Iran have starred in the Huckabee foreign policy narrative as a misguided family member to whom we have petulantly refused to speak. Now the U.S. is portrayed as an immodest high school student who may be to blame for his own unpopularity. Put aside Huckabee's flirtation with 'blame American first' thinking; the superficiality with which he approaches world affairs is stunning. Huckabee's analogy of the U.S. to the arrogant school boy is not just sophomoric, it's affirmatively inapt."
Meanwhile, Matthew Continetti analyzes the essay's political implications (or lack thereof): "One of the overarching questions of the 2008 election is whether it's about war or about peace. If it's about war, then Huckabee's goo-goo foreign policy probably won't resonate with voters, Republicans or otherwise. If it's about peace, though, will a Foreign Affairs essay few people actually read matter much at all?"
MCCAIN: Getting A Shot Of Joementum
Several conservative bloggers discussed the significance of Sen. Joe Lieberman's endorsement of McCain:
Jennifer Rubin: "If there were not an active Democratic primary with a candidate like [Barack] Obama who is very attractive to Independents I think the Lieberman endorsement would be huge. As it is, it keeps McCain in the news and does give him a 'rise above the fray' sense."
Philip Klein: "It will make the Brooks-Broder crowd swoon, for sure, but it should be intersting to see how it is greeted in New Hampshire. It could help McCain make the pitch to independents, and combined with his endorsement by the Union Leader, reinforce the idea that he is the one Republican who can appeal to everybody and win in a general election. Also worth noting that Lieberman came in a distant fifth in the 2004 New Hampshire primary."
Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Lieberman certainly has the respect of Republicans who see national security and the war on terror as the primary issues in this election...However, the endorsement also emphasizes a few other issues with McCain that has kept him from winning the confidence of GOP primary voters...Lieberman has risked much for the war, but otherwise he has little time for conservative policy, especially on domestic programs...McCain wants to win New Hampshire, and this could help there. Outside of Lieberman's back yard, it's not likely to help much, and could remind Republicans of trust issues over the years with McCain."
Meanwhile, the Democratic netroots were not surprised by Lieberman's cross-party endorsement:
MyDD's Melissa Ryan: "I'm not surprised really. He's been hinting at doing this since losing the primary last year...A year later, I'm still proud that CT Democrats had the good sense to get rid of him."
Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "People are outraged about Lieberman's endorsement of McCain. That's kind of silly. The days when Lieberman actually mattered are on the wane. Yes, we know he promised the voters of his state that he would fight to elect a Democratic Senate and president. Yes, he backstabbed them. But really, we knew that about him already. Is anyone really surprised?...The endorsement means little. The voters of New Hampshire proved in 2004 that they wanted little do with ol' Joementum (with his meager 9% results). But what this does is fully and openly expose Lieberman for who he is -- the disloyal backstabbing ass we targeted in Connecticut in 2006."
AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Big surprise. Lieberman lost his mind, and his loyalties, long ago. All that he's interested in now is starting as many wars in the Middle East as possible. And in that regard, Lieberman is right to pick McCain. No one can guarantee getting us into more wars than another Republican candidate."
Open Left's Matt Stoller: "However 'bipartisan' the Beltway press wants to portray Lieberman's endorsement of McCain, the audience right now that McCain and Lieberman care about is Republican primary voters. That means that they must think Lieberman has appeal to Republican primary voters, and given his strong support from Republicans in Connecticut and constant praise from George Bush and Dick Cheney, Lieberman probably does. But if Lieberman really had cross-party appeal, he'd endorse the Republican nominee during the Democratic or Republican conventions or before the general election, when general election voters are making up their mind. It's telling he chooses his moment to maximize appeal to Republican primary voters and minimize it to anyone who isn't."
The Nation's Ari Melber: "Lieberman's move confirms his critics' longtime argument that he is a 'Democrat in Name Only,' while McCain looks desperate by leaning on backers beyond the G.O.P. base in the homestretch of a partisan primary."
Firedoglake's Phoenix Woman sees Lieberman's endorsement of McCain as an affront to Hillary Clinton: "It shouldn't surprise anyone that Joe Lieberman has repaid Hillary Clinton's and Harry Reid's sticking up for him and his committee memberships in the wake of his primary loss to Ned Lamont by -- you guessed it -- spitting in her face by endorsing John McCain for president...Obama and [John] Edwards have got to be chuckling right now. They both knew that there was no way in the world that Short Ride Joe would ever endorse either of them, but it was pretty much assumed that Lieberman, who painted himself as a good friend of the Clintons despite his calculated and self-serving betrayal of them, was going to be in Hillary's camp. Then again, while this will of course lower Hillary's credibility with the Village's Kool Kids, all of whom officially worship Lieberman, it may actually help her with the netroots, if not the Democratic base itself."
GIULIANI: On The Brink?
Patrick Ruffini thinks Giuliani is in serious trouble: "As stunning as the Huckster's rise and McCain's slow comeback has been Rudy's collapse nationally and in the states he needed to maintain plausibility for February 5th...The likability-minded conservatives who kept Rudy at improbable highs for so long are finally jumping ship...Rudy can still win, in the sense that this race is so crazy open right now that anyone can win. This is not his political obituary. But things have pretty seriously slipped away from him in the last three weeks, and unlike Hillary he has no margin for error and never did. His down arrows need to flip to up arrows -- and fast."
NRO's Jim Geraghty follows up Ruffini's post with his own thoughts: "Giuliani may be running a post-9/11 campaign at a moment when the voters and media have decided to inaugurate the post-post-9/11 world...Maybe Giuliani has to remind the Republican electorate that foreign policy crises are a near-certainty for the next president."
The Atlantic's Ross Douthat thinks the early state expectations for Giuliani have increased: "The smart thinking when the Giuliani campaign unveiled its Florida strategy was that Rudy needed a strong-but-sneaky second-place in at least one of the early states, if not more than one, to have any chance at taking the nomination. At this point I'd go further: No matter who wins Iowa, Huck or Romney, Rudy needs to finish ahead of Mitt in New Hampshire -- either by coming in second to McCain or winning outright -- or else he's going to drop completely off the map before Florida rolls around. The combination of the Huckabee surge and the 'Mormon speech' media blitz has made this feel more and more like a two-man race, and Rudy has to shake up that dynamic somehow."
NRO's Mark Steyn: "Rudy's decision to be a 1-800-CANDIDATE, unrooted in any of the early voting states but looking to his national numbers to sweep him through to Florida, looks increasingly foolish."
DEM FIELD: Fixing The System
Atrios sums up the netroots' view of the Dem race:
Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.
Atrios also offers a warning to the future Dem nominee: "Whoever does become the Democratic nominee had better plan to win the general election. If they screw it up, they will become the most hated political figure in Democratic circles for years, like Mike Dukakis only 1000x times worse. If you can't manage beat one of these clowns in the wake of Mr. 24%'s reign of error..."
Meanwhile, Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks Obama is currently the Dem frontrunner: "With Clinton only leading in one of the four polls in the current Iowa averages, and with Clinton slightly closer to Edwards than Obama in the those same Iowa averages, Obama moves back in front in the overall campaign. With only 2.4% separating the top two contenders in New Hampshire, I simply don't see anyway that Iowa won't be decisive in the results of the nation's first primary. Momentum would have to cease to function in the nomination campaign altogether for Iowa to not determine New Hampshire's results. And if back to back victories in Iowa and New Hampshire aren't enough to put Obama over the top nationally, I'll eat my hat."
CLINTON: The "Register" Has Spoken
Numerous liberal bloggers analyzed the significance of the Des Moines Register's endorsement of HRC.
Matt Stoller: "I expected an Obama endorsement, but this isn't really a huge surprise. What does not really thrill me is the reasoning involved. If policy proposals don't matter, and the register was just looking for someone with a long resume to take over the job, Bill Richardson comfortably surpasses any other candidate in the field, including Clinton, and yet he isn't even mentioned in the article."
MyDD's Jonathan Singer thinks the newspaper's endorsement is significant: "This seems to be a big deal to me. Similar to the endorsement Clinton received from Iowa Democratic Congressman Leonard Boswell, the Register endorsement could help stem the meme that Clinton's support is lagging in the Hawkeye state, a meme that is not only hurting her there but also could potentially hurt her nationwide as the veneer of invincibility can no doubt be helpful in a campaign (even if that veneer also comes with downsides like excessively high expectations)...there seems to be a very strong possibility that this endorsement will, at the least, help Clinton regain some of the momentum she had clearly lost in this key early state."
Ezra Klein agrees: "The Des Moines Register endorsed Hillary Clinton today, which seems potentially important. My sense is that it's less so for the actual vote implications -- the high-profile endorsement of a well-known frontrunner is less meaningful than the high profile endorsement of an overlooked also-ran -- than that it gives her a bit of momentum back after a tough week against Obama."
MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, on the other hand, does not consider the endorsement significant: "Newspapers are dead, and their endorsements don't mean squat. The whole 'John Edwards got 2nd because of the DMR endorsement in '04' was a revisionist attempt by the media to explain why they were so misled into reporting that [Howard] Dean would win Iowa (think [David] Yepsen), when it was really just that they were terrible predictors who had no clue how to look at momentum or read polls, plenty of which was to be found that pointed to Edwards doing well before the DMR endorsement -- which meant very little at the time. All that said, the counter by Obama's team in getting the Globe endorsement out just before the DMR for Clinton happened, was great political coverage that equalized the storyline."
Armstrong also offers some more general thoughts about endorsements: "To date, Wes Clark's endorsement of Clinton is the overall most important one in my mind, simply because [he] went to bat and looks the role of VP candidate in waiting. The Leonard Boswell &Bruce Braley endorsements of Clinton and Edwards seem pretty important, but largely inconsequential. Really, the two endorsements that swamp all others are from John Kerry and Al Gore. Either of those would get a lot of notice -- who knows, maybe they'd help persuade someone too."
CLINTON II: The Heat Is (Officially) On
With less than 3 weeks to go before the IA caucuses, the netroots are increasingly going after HRC:
The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias is disturbed by ex-U.N. Amb. (and current HRC advisor) Richard Holbrooke's description of HRC as "more assertive and willing to use force than her husband": "This kind of thing is why I think we can do better than President Hillary Clinton. I mean, if those were just the words of some guy you could discount them, but he's one of her top people."
Markos Moulitsas is also disturbed: "She's more likely to bomb countries than Bill [Clinton] was? Where do I sign up??? Actually, her Iran vote made this clear, and is the main reason she is unacceptable as our nominee."
Matt Stoller explains why he has problems with HRC: "One, she is just like Bush on foreign policy...Two, Clinton tends to surround herself with lobbyists and wealthy special interests. I have noted this in the telecom realm, and I think it could bite her, but it's true in all areas of policy...Three, the Clinton's have, how to put it, real character issues. I haven't written this before, because I don't believe in going after family members unless they make themselves an issue, but Chelsea Clinton, despite the opportunity to do anything she wants, chose to be a hedge fund manager. What does that say about the Clinton family commitment to public service?"
The Huffington Post's Paul Jenkins rips the Clintons: "Why We Wish The Clintons Would Just Go Away: "Because they surround themselves with people like Mark Penn and James Carville ([Karl] Rove-like figures, just dumber and more duplicitous than Karl), and rather than making the Clintons look pure by contrast, they make them look even sleazier...Because they lie more often than they tell the truth, and we can't take it anymore...Because they live on another planet, one where attacking a candidate's kindergarten record is appropriate and useful preparation for a general election...Because the Clintons are angry that America doesn't just roll over and elect her president the way New York rolled over and elected her senator..."
Liberal bloggers are also defending Obama against Bill Clinton's criticisms of the Illinois senator on Charlie Rose. Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell summarizes the ex-President's criticisms:
"Later [Clinton] said that his friends in the Republican party had indicated that they felt his wife would be the strongest candidate, partly because she had already been 'vetted' -- another subtle slap at Obama. [...]
He also hit back at the charge that experienced politicians had helped get us into the Iraq war, saying that this was 'like saying that because 100 percent of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery I'll get a chef or a plumber to do it.' [...]"
Markos Moulitsas: "So why does Bill think Hillary would be better than Obama? Because his Republican friends told him so. So Bill is now Hillary's attack dog. Classy."
Matt Stoller: "There's so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to start. The notion that his Republican friends, who are of course political elites, should matter, and that he has Republican elite friends from whom he accepts electoral advice, is weird. And the idea that voting for the war is some mark of expertise is just horrible. More to the point, Bill Clinton lied to all of us, and he will do it again. In 2006, he promised to endorse Ned Lamont, and then on Larry King he said that it didn't matter if Lieberman or Lamont won since the Democrats would control the Senate either way. It does matter, as we're seeing today, doesn't it?"
Matthew Yglesias: "This is pretty aggravating. Hillary Clinton was elected to the United States Senate in 2000, before which she'd never held elective office. Barack Obama was elected to Illinois Senate in 1996, and to the United States Senate in 2004. It's true that Obama doesn't have a ton of experience in elective office compared to Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd or Joe Biden, but there's a perfectly reasonable case to be made that he has more experience than Hillary Clinton does. Meanwhile, this line on the war seems like a pretty pathetic dodge. Nobody's actually suggesting that because many members of congress voted the wrong way on the war we should elect a television commentator instead...If Clinton's going to run on her alleged greater experience, surely it's fair to point to the content of that experience and ask whether or not it's all good experience."
CLINTON III: How 'Bout Dem Negatives?
Matt Stoller notes that HRC is less popular today than she was during the 1990s: "There are two possible explanations for this. One, the right-wing smear machine is more effective today than it ever was, or two, Clinton has created more problems for herself than she had in the 1990s. I suspect that both explanations are true, but it really doesn't matter when thinking about who is a good candidate. A chunk of voters who liked her have decided they don't like her as she is running for President. While Edwards and Obama have seen their disapprovals rise, neither has had their favorabilities drop. Basically Republicans are getting to know them, and as they do they decide they disapprove of them. This is natural; Republican voters disapprove of Democrats. It is different with Clinton; she is turning off voters who previously liked her in the late 1990s and even earlier this year."
Ezra Klein, on the other hand, isn't sure that HRC's negatives will necessarily hurt her: "Hillary Clinton's detractors like to argue that she can't win because her negatives are hard rather than soft -- meaning that people have already made up their minds about her and are not movable on the subject. But history suggests that opinions are rarely set in stone...Sadly, there's no real way to predict whether attitudes toward Hillary Clinton will harden, lift or sink. The conclusion of most of the pollsters I spoke to was that she was both the Democrats' safest candidate -- in the sense that her campaign was the least likely to implode, make foolish missteps or be rocked by unexpected revelations -- and simultaneously the least likely to preside over a transformative election or enter office with a massive mandate."
The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum agrees with Klein: "How will Obama look after nine months on the receiving end of the right-wing slime machine? A big part of his appeal to Democrats depends on whether you think he'll come out of the other end of the campaign with the same high negatives as Hillary or whether he'll manage to stay five or ten points below her. My guess: if Obama gets the nomination, his negatives will never quite reach Hillary's level, but by November they'll only be three or four points lower. Personally, I doubt that that will make a difference. Either one of them has what it takes to win."
EDWARDS: Too Harsh For The DMR
In its endorsement of HRC, the Des Moines Register took a shot at Edwards:
"Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the 'positive, optimistic' campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."
Several liberal bloggers are pushing back against the Register's criticism of Edwards:
Chris Bowers: "I see. Musn't upset the powers that be. I guess positive, optimistic rhetoric actually means making those in charge feel comfortable. At least that has been made plain now. The failure to challenge the status quo is actually what has always bothered me about newspaper endorsements."
The Nation's John Nichols: "Edwards was dismissed this time because, apparently, he has gotten too serious about addressing the fundamental challenges facing the nation...now that Edwards is not just delivering vague speeches about 'two Americas' but actually addressing the role that corporate power plays in fostering economic and social inequity, he's too 'harsh' for the Register."
Ezra Klein is more sympathetic to the Register's criticism: "On some level, that's actually a fair critique. Edwards has offered strident demands for change without articulating a theory of how you create change. 'Taking back power' from corporate interests and greed sounds really great, but it's not clear how he means to do it...After all, as Edwards himself says, they're not going to give it up willingly. And while strengthening unions and creating social democracy would be great, you still need Congressional assent -- and that's where corporate interests concentrate their political power. So it's all a bit vague."
That said, Klein thinks that Edwards' populism is authentic: "I hear a lot of folks arguing that this 'new' Edwards is somehow inauthentic, that his moderate record in the Senate represented the 'real' him while all of this is simple pandering. I think it's quite the opposite...whatever else Edwards is -- a panderer, a political neophyte, a smooth-talking lawyer, someone with nice hair -- his life path has amounted to an intensive course in anti-corporate populism, and that this rhetoric and approach actually fits much better with his history than does his record from the couple of years he spent in the Senate."
OBAMA: Who Needs Paul Krugman When You Have Frank Rich?
New York Times columnist Frank Rich's latest pro-Obama editorial, in which he praises "the inclusiveness preached by Obama-Oprah," has generated some talk among the netroots:
Jerome Armstrong: "There are many that say 'Obama doesn't pander' but that claim rings hollow whenever you hear Obama, as he gets close to any sort of faith/religious/evangelical event. Obama wouldn't give the secular warriors the time of the day, and you'll never hear Obama call out the fundamentalists, like Howard Dean did in 2003, for all the problems they've created in this country. Which is fine, it seems to be a part of his 'brand' that he's cultivated to overcome accusations that he's too liberal. Obama is similar to Tim Kaine in this regard. Kaine had a record that was much more liberal than [Mark] Warner, but was able to shed Republican attacks through use of his faith."
Daily Kos diarist PLS: "The country [has] had a belly full of the Lee Atwater/Rove style of politics, the politics of 'fear and smear' which arguably reached it's nadir under the Bush administration. That isn't what America is all about, at least the America we were all raised to believe in. Obama calls us back to 'the better angels of our nature's', and thus is the perfect anti-Bush candidate out there. Frank Rich is right, a vote for Obama is 'a Vote for faith in America itself'."
DODD: Netroots Champion
Today, Chris Dodd will lead a filibuster on the floor of the Senate to stop passage of a bill granting retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who participated in the Bush Admin.'s warrantless wiretapping program. The netroots are praising Dodd for his efforts and asking why HRC and Obama aren't demonstrating similar leadership on this issue.
Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Go Dodd."
Crooks and Liars' Nicole Belle: "Senator Dodd? Thank you, thank you, thank you."
Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Where are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during all of this? Having previously issued statements promising to support Dodd's filibuster (statements issued to placate the brewing anger over their silence on this issue), they are evidently too busy running around Iowa giving speeches boasting about what Great Leaders they are and therefore have been far too busy to do anything to take a stand for the rule of law or to impose accounability on the years-long lawbreaking by our government and their telecommuncations partners...Imagine the prominence this issue would have received and the heightened prospects for derailing amnesty which would have accrued had Obama and/or Clinton devoted the slightest 'leadership' to these efforts."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Next Generation?
Rich Lowry theorizes:
"Even if Obama and Huckabee don't win their nomination fights, they represent a changing of the guard in African-American (from Sharpton/Jackson-style leadership) and evangelical politics (from Falwell/Roberston-style leadership). They will be leaders for years to come and will be less hard-edged and vested in the disputes of the past than their predecessors. They will have cross-over appeal (Obama, among whites; Huckabee, among the media -- unless he actually wins the nomination). And they are both are winsome guys. You don't have to be a fan of their presidential candidacies -- I emphatically am not -- to acknowledge that this changing of the guard is a most welcome development."
LEST WE FORGET: Marathon of Mirth
Slate reprints John Dickerson's 2005 piece on White House Christmas parties:
"During the holidays, the president is a virtual prisoner in the White House. He and his wife will perform this grueling act of cheer at 26 holiday parties between Dec. 4 and Dec. 20. There's one for the diplomatic corps, members of Congress, the Secret Service, and top military brass. Invites also go out to political donors and allies across the country. The last evening is reserved for the White House staff -- the plumbers, electricians, cooks, and butlers who hang the president's towels when he leaves them on the bed and polish his floor. For most of that period, the Bushes will have 'two-a-days,' hosting one party from 4 to 6 p.m. and a second from 7 to 9. [...]
The 9,500 guests will consume roughly the same menu of ham, turkey, lamb, cheeses, and gnocchi from an enormous candlelit table in the State Dining Room. The first lady's office reports that when the last guest collects his coat, 30,000 Christmas cookies, 10,000 petit fours, 1,100 truffles, and 2,100 pounds of sweet potatoes will have disappeared. [...]
The parties run with the precision and efficiency of a military parade, while making an effort to have you feel like you're the only guest invited for the night. Smiling, uniformed military personnel appear at every turn, directing you to the coat check or staircase or bend in the hallway. They're glowing and you almost forget that they'd pin you like a bug if you tried to scramble upstairs to the residence."
Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 17, 2007 12:53 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
