December 19, 2007

12/19: Iowa Surprise 2.0

Throughout the year, the media devoted so much attention to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that John Edwards often seemed to get overlooked. But now there are signs that the political winds might be blowing in the ex-senator's direction. His Newsweek cover story, his solid performance in the Des Moines Register debate, and David Yepsen's recent column all contribute to the impression that Edwards has momentum in Iowa. Furthermore, Obama's recent criticism of Edwards' senate record suggests that the Obama campaign views Edwards as a threat. Edwards has long been the netroots' favorite candidate, and his online supporters are working hard to support their guy. Will Edwards surprise the political world (again) by repeating his strong '04 finish in Iowa?

EDWARDS: The Ultimate Closer?

MyDD's desmoinesdem: "When Bill Clinton tells Charlie Rose that Edwards may win Iowa, and Obama criticizes Edwards by name at a campaign stop in Iowa, I suspect that their internal polling is showing a surge for Edwards...Edwards is peaking at the right time, just before Iowans get together with their friends and relatives during the holidays. He gave a great performance at the Des Moines Register's debate last week, and his television commercials speak to activist Democrats' desire for a candidate who will fight for our values. I have been saying all year that Edwards would start to pull away as undecided voters made up their minds. Although the race is still tight, I think Edwards is in a great position to shock the political establishment on January 3."

MyDD's david mizner: "It wasn't supposed to be this way, with Edwards still in the thick of the race. Clinton and Obama had planned to out-spend and out-celebrity him into oblivion...But it's clear now that Edwards will be a serious threat to the end. So Clinton and Obama have to try to tap into his support, which, by most accounts, is increasing."

Obsidian Wings' publius: "Posts like this reinforce my growing view that Edwards is in a much stronger position in Iowa than the polls show. Specifically, Edwards benefits from the 15% threshold in a couple of ways: (1) he's the most popular 'second' choice; (2) his rural organization makes it less likely that he'll come in under 15% in many precincts."

Reflecting Obama supporters' concerns about Edwards, Daily Kos diarist (and Obama supporter) Geekesque argues that Edwards can't beat HRC: "The bottom line is that if it's Edwards vs. Clinton in the end, Clinton will run him over with resources, appeal to African-Americans, a political machine that has been built up over two decades, and overwhelming advantages in support going in...Edwards is a distant, distant, distant third in the non-Iowa Early States. He's behind both Clinton and Obama by double digits in New Hampshire, more than twenty points in South Carolina, and by more than thirty points in Nevada. Even with a not-so-surprising win in Iowa, it's very, very, very difficult to see him turning that into a win in New Hampshire, a state that does not match up well with his populist themes, and which shrugged its shoulders at his momentum coming out of Iowa in 2004 to the tune of 12%."

Daily Kos diarist (and Edwards supporter) McSnatherson fires back: "John Edwards effing well CAN beat Hillary...Money has a strictly limited value, whatever K Street might like you to believe, and momentum counts for a hell of a lot more. And as noted, John Edwards is excellently poised to take that momentum...if Edwards wins Iowa, I'd be quite surprised if he doesn't pick up SC (the state where he was born, incidentally) and Nevada as well. New Hampshire I'll concede is iffier, if only because I know less about it."

Meanwhile, the latest InsiderAdvantage Iowa poll -- which shows Edwards with 30%, HRC with 26%, and Obama with 24% -- is adding to the excitement of Edwards' online supporters:

Daily Kos diarist jsamuel: "This poll gives credence to what people have already seen happening in Iowa since the Des Moines Register Debate."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "If you want to take all your stock from one poll, that the pundits are not blowing smoke when they talk about the Edwards being the 'sleeper' in Iowa."

Open Left's Chris Bowers supports Edwards, but he thinks this poll might be an outlier: "Why is this survey more favorable to Edwards? It could be because of an Edwards surge, but it could also be the result of the poll projecting that only one in eight caucus goers will be under the age of 45. Not only is that wildly inconsistent with 2004 entrance survey results for Iowa which indicated one in three caucus goers were under the page of 45, but it is also certain to drag down Obama's numbers given that he has consistently performed well among younger voters."

Jerome Armstrong: "Polling in Iowa is bizarre...For me, I'll wait for Zogby's last poll to bank on, especially in regard to second choices -- where he nailed it in '04."

OBAMA: With Compliments Like These...

The backlash to ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey's controversial comments about Obama continues in the liberal blogosphere:

TPMCafe's M.J. Rosenberg: "It was an intentional effort to remind Iowans and New Hampsherites that Obama is not really 'one of us.' Think about it. All [Kerrey] had to do was to say how cool it is that we have a candidate like Barack Obama, who is African-American, grew up in Indonesia, whatever...But why use a middle name Obama never uses. A middle name that appears only a right-wing websites as a slur...All of a sudden, the race tightens and suddenly Obama's race is an issue. Who woulda thunk it? I guess America has not gotten as far as I thought it had."

TAPPED's Tom Schaller: "Try to imagine that, say, operatives close to Barack Obama campaign, or some major politician who has endorsed him, took a cue from former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey and went on television making allegations about Clinton's sexuality, adding insincerely that, of course, if those allegations were true, they might actually be an asset to Sen. Clinton, given the importance of gay issues in America today. What would happen? Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson's head would explode so violently it would need to be surgically re-attached to his shoulders. And rightly so. It would be wildly inappropriate, something worthy of a conservative front group. But Team Clinton is doing it because, well, when everything is at stake anything goes."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I was just barely willing to give [Kerrey] the benefit of the doubt about his 'Obama's Muslim father' remarks -- largely because I think he's substantively right about this -- but his 'secular madrassa' comment simply can't be spun as sincere even if you're bending over backward to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he really thinks he's helping Hillary with the nonsense, he's sadly mistaken."

Meanwhile, TAPPED's Sam Boyd thinks Kerrey's controversial remarks actually help Obama: "Barack Obama must be thanking his lucky stars for Bob Kerrey who referred to Obama's education in a 'secular madrassa' (which is makes about as much sense as secular seminary) yesterday. It continues the theme of nasty attacks against him and makes him that much more the victim."

OBAMA II: Winning The Hearts Of Documentarians Everywhere

Blue Hampshire's Dean Barker thinks it's a big deal that filmmaker (and NH resident) Ken Burns has endorsed Obama : "A Ken Burns endorsement in New Hampshire is big news; Senator Obama should count himself as lucky to have it. But the even bigger story riding on top of this is why the Walpole documentarian decided to speak out. He says we need 'a leader who calls upon on each and every one of us to heed the better angels of our nature and not -- and not -- our basest fears.' Clearly this is a reference to the Senator Clinton's terrible, awful, not very good last week, courtesy of Billy Shaheen."

Meanwhile, Sam Boyd wonders: "Can a nine-part documentary about Obama's life be far behind?"

CLINTON: Smart As A Whip

Edwards and Obama may be more popular among the Kossacks, but HRC still attracts considerable support from prominent liberal bloggers:

Steve Clemons thinks HRC compares favorably to Obama: "I am convinced of something about Hillary Clinton's commitment to use every lever and every aspect of government machinery to push her legislative and policy work that I'm disappointed to say that I can't find as strongly in Barack Obama's profile. My concern has to do with the fact that as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations' Subcommittee on Europe, Obama has held zero hearings...while I want Hillary Clinton to get more creative (and Nixonian, in the good sense) in looking at foreign policy deal-making through a different lens, particularly on Israel/Palestine matters and Cuba...I want to commend the fact that she does work every aspect of the legislative machinery and knows these policy issues well."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum is also leaning toward HRC: "Hillary is smart and well-briefed, she is level-headed, and the evidence suggests that over the past seven years she's gotten pretty good at working with Republicans to get things done in the Senate. I like those qualities and would like to see them in a Democratic president, so I'm happy to project them onto her. Conversely, anybody who thinks that Obama or anyone else is going to overcome the influence of big corporations via sneakiness and stealth is living in a dreamworld. It may be possible to do a deal with conservatives and their lobbyists on various issues, but they aren't going to be conned and they aren't going to be fooled. Unfortunately, I have a deep fear that maybe Obama really does believe he can do that."

HUCKABEE: The Backlash To The Anti-Huckabee Backlash

The bloggers at NRO's The Corner are defending themselves against charges that they dislike Mike Huckabee because he's an evangelical Christian:

NRO's Jonah Goldberg posts an email from a reader, who writes:

"I recall a good number of 'how Rudy can reach out to social conservatives' columns on NRO and elsewhere. Why aren't there any 'how Huck can connect with fiscal conservatives' columns being written? Well, the obvious answer is that Jon Chait is right, and the GOP leadership and conservative chattering classes are using social conservatives. Consequently, they would be ok with Rudy, but ill at ease with Huck. But, if (as I think you've argued) Chait is wrong, then the NRO folks ought to start with the carrots."

Goldberg responds: "This sounds sort of good at first, but ultimately I don't buy it. One point I would make is that the timing is different. Huckabee was a nobody in the race for most of the last year and social conservatives had other candidates they were more comfortable with for a bunch of reasons. This surge comes awfully late in the game and most people have committed themselves one way or another and it's asking a lot of declared supporters [of other candidates] to start writing passionate appeals to another on how he can win. Indeed, it is not the job of Huckabee opponents to write articles on how he can reach out to fiscal conservatives. It's the job of Huckabee supporters who are otherwise dismayed by his sketchy views on economics (or whatever) to coax him toward more traditionally conservative -- and therefore more unifying -- position. Most of the articles this reader has in mind were written by [Rudy] Giuliani supporters or by fence-sitters who wanted to move him to the right."

NRO's Rich Lowry: "One of the things that amazes me is that pro-Huck e-mailers will say we just don't want an evangelical to lead the party and be president. As if they never heard of the famously evangelical George W. Bush, standard bearer of the GOP and President of the United States."

NRO's Jonathan Adler: "I am probably one of Huckabee's more strident critics here on the Corner, but let me stress that it is not because he is an evangelical, nor is it because I support another candidate (Fred Thompson). I happily support evangelical candidates (or candidates of whatever religion) who espouse sound policy views. My inital complaint about Huckabee was that there was nothing particularly conservative about him other than his views on a handful of social issues...Neither his record nor his rhetoric suggested that he believed in limited government, economic liberty, federalism or personal responsibility."

NRO's Victor Davis Hanson also denies the charge that conservative intellectuals are being unfair to Huckabee: "I [have] been reading some of the reactions to the negative appraisal of NRO writers to Huckabee's Foreign Affairs essay -- the gist of it being he was unfairly ganged up on by supposed neo-cons and other purported East-Coast elites. Maybe, but I wrote my worries over his piece from a farm in Selma, California without reading much of anything by anyone else. I don't have anything against Huckabee and think he must be pretty savvy and sophisticated to have come so far without a lot of money, media connections, or endorsements...But his essay in Foreign Affairs is flawed, poorly written, terribly argued, and self-contradictory -- and since we don't know much about his ideas on foreign policy, it was a bad start."

Meanwhile, a number of conservative bloggers are criticizing Huckabee for making his faith such an explicit part of his campaign:

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I think that no matter how politically and tonally brilliant is Huckabee's 'Christmas' ad, it is a horribly cynical use of Christianity for overtly political purposes. Pretending to offer an escape from politics, it is instead purely and entirely political ad, deliberately designed to use Christianity to gain votes."

NRO's David Freddoso: "I do wish he'd stop swinging his cross around (figuratively!) quite so liberally when his goal is to win an election. If Huckabee is a good Christian, I'm happy for him. I want to be a good Christian, too. That doesn't mean I can turn a blind eye to his tax-increases or support of a national smoking ban."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "The constant religious references have the potential to be more detrimental to [Huckabee] at this point than helpful because they've been so overdone that they're coming across as exploitive...Huckabee would be wise to spend less time making religious references and more time trying to appeal to voters on foreign policy, immigration, and on issues of fiscal conservatism. If Huckabee wants to seal the deal in a race this competitive, he is going to have to expand his appeal and address the concerns people have about his electability in a general election, about his being too soft, and about his being a nannystater. At the moment, he doesn't seem to be making a lot headway on that front."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "It seems to me that the larger problem is one of evangelical identity politics -- a certain number of evangelicals starting to view themselves as an identity/interest group rather than voters with concerns about particular issues. It was on display during the Harriet Miers debacle, when supporters of her nomination used her faith as a reason conservatives should trust her. It's a helpful trend for Mike Huckabee, but less so for evangelicals and their conservative allies."

THOMPSON: Killing Terrorists, Protecting Borders, Punching Hippies

John Hawkins posts a homemade Fred Thompson campaign ad, "Kill, Protect, Punch" and writes: "If Fred wants to win the election, all he has to do is put this in constant rotation in Iowa and his victory would be guaranteed...or he would actually drop into last place. One or the other."

RedState's Mark Kilmer: "Well, here's the Fred Thompson campaign commercial for which we've all been waiting. The music is pretty bad, otherwise it would be ideal. And there's still time for Fred to use this gem."

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham links to the video and writes: "Fred's been doing some seriously cool stuff to endear himself to conservatives. First, it was the anti-hand-raising revolution staged against Carolyn Washburn of the Des Moines Register. Well played. Then there was the tough-guy 'you want a piece of me?' apologies post. After that, Allah pointed out a devilishly clever answer on the dopey AP survey question: '"What's your most treasured keepsake?" Fred: "Trophy wife"'...Fred's having fun with this and razzing the media at the same time. It's what conservatives wanted to see from the candidate from the beginning -- the wise cracking and the confident charm of a performer coupled with solid conservatism and the assist of some star power to win a general election."

Townhall's Matt Lewis thinks the tide is changing for Thompson: "One thing is clear: Anyone watching Iowa had better not write Fred Thompson off just yet..."

In that vein, Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey discusses the possible implications of first- or second-place finish in Iowa for Thompson: "A Fred surge will force some recalculation, none of it pleasant for any of the candidates. If Fred can manage a late surge that pushes him into first or second in Iowa, he could gain some significant traction for South Carolina especially. If he pushes Mitt Romney into a third-place finish in Iowa, that would seriously damage Mitt's momentum and could provide an opening for John McCain in New Hampshire. That helps Rudy in Florida, but only if Huckabee doesn't take up the slack."

Meanwhile, RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh endorses Thompson: "I want a candidate who espouses small government, federalism, free markets, free trade, a brave and unabashed message of capitalism and consequential, weighty and creative solutions to the many foreign policy and national security dilemmas facing the United States. That's why I am supporting Fred Thompson for President."

In more negative Thompson-blogging, NRO's Rich Lowry thinks Thompson needs to make a move in IA, fast: "I was talking to a Fred guy a week or so ago who said the Thompson campaign is divided about whether a Huck victory in Iowa helps or hurts them. I'd have to say that it helps in that it keeps Romney from running the table early and therefore it keeps the race alive. But it clearly hurts in that Huck steals Fred's folksy Southern mo-jo. Huckabee is already leading in what was supposed to be Fred's must-win state of South Carolina (tied with Romney in the latest Rasmussen poll, with a double digit lead over Fred). If Huck actually wins Iowa, doesn't he get even more of a bump over Fred in South Carolina? Huck might lose some momentum in New Hampshire, but Fred is going to lose even more. So how is Fred going to make a strong third or even a second in Iowa work for him, as long as Huckabee wins there? Fred better come up the middle in Iowa very fast and far."

Ed Morrissey agrees: "One thing's for sure: if we don't see a Fred surge in Iowa, he's probably out."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Reassessing The Caucus System

Ezra Klein thinks the planned Iowa entrance poll is a bad idea:

"It seems to me that the plans for an 'Iowa entrance poll' -- like an exit poll, but tracking how Iowans intend to caucus, rather than how they actually did caucus -- has the possibility to totally destroy the caucuses. Imagine if the networks spend the night reporting that a plurality of Iowans decided to vote for Barack Obama. They report the win, there's much talk of what it means, everyone gets all excited. Then, Bill Richardson fails to make the 15% threshhold for viability and releases his caucusgoers to Clinton. Meanwhile, John Edwards, who's been amassing support in the disproportionately influential rural counties -- 25 caucusgoers in a small precinct have the same influence as 2,500 in a big one -- sees his strategy achieve terrific results. So Clinton comes in first, Edwards second, and Obama ends up in third -- even though a plurality meant to vote for him.

That will, for one thing, blunt the impact of Clinton's win. But won't it also trigger a wholesale reassessment of whether this caucus system makes any sense at all?"

LEST WE FORGET: Harry Potter Fans Unhappy With Time's Choice

Wonkette's Jim Newell is not happy that Time selected Vladimir Putin as its 2007 Person of the Year:

"Time's editors continued their annual assault on reason this morning by selecting Russian frienemy Vladimir Putin as its Person of the Year. Impossible to relate the lameness of this selection; It's doubtful more than 17% of Time's readership know who Putin is. And what was so special about him this year? He had awkward dealings with the US and might be leaving power soon? Yeah, that's what we call 'any year.' Why no [J.K.] Rowling? I mean she only wrote about THE BATTLE OF HOGWARTS AND MAGICAL GOBLINS AND...YOU KNOW...COOL SHIT LIKE THAT. No biggie, though."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 19, 2007 12:51 PM