Kos at it again--this time in Washington Post

[Dr Ron]

From the Democratic Daily--see original post for links:

Hillary Clinton’s chances at the 2008 nomination, while still far from certain this far out, jumped tremendously today. Kos has an opinion article in the Washington Post on his perceptions of Hillary’s problems. Considering Kos’s track record, Hillary is probably celebrating tonight.

There’s no doubt this is the same Kos we see at the blog. He still has not gotten over fact that Kerry beat his guy (whose flaws he remains totally oblivious about) and tries to bash Hillary with a rather weak comparison to Kerry, even if it means resorting to repeating GOP talking points. It is a shame that when Kos criticizes Hillary for her moves to the middle he fails to acknowledge that it is Kerry who warned about compromising liberal principles in contrast to other Democrats after the 2004 election. Kos remains so blinded by his long-standing vendetta against Kerry that he fails to realize that it is Kerry who is leading the opposition to the war.

Kos notes that “pollster Mark Penn, a brilliant numbers guy, has counseled the Hillary team to ignore the party’s netroots activists as ‘irrelevant.’” If Daily Kos really represents the netroots, then this sounds like good advice considering that ” in late March, the Daily Kos’s bimonthly presidential straw poll delivered bleak results for Clinton, with just 2 percent of respondents making her their top choice for 2008.” Interpretation of polls has been one of Kos’s many weak points. Recall how during the 2004 race, despite later admitting lack of knowledge of fundamentals such as the margin of error, Kos misreported polls to suggest an inevitable Kerry victory, setting Kerry up for post-election criticism for losing an election they falsely claimed was his to win.

[ginnyinWI]

1. more on the oped and Markos from Firedoglake

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/06/great-editorial-in-the-washington-post/ (worth going there, if only for the hilarious pic)

Hillary Clinton has always perceived the empowerment of the grassroots as a threat. If her expensive consultants are telling her to ignore these new realities (and obviously receiving a sympathetic ear) it was kind of Markos to point it out to her but quite possible unnecessary; I believe everyone is entitled to the best advice money can buy.

[Dr Ron]

2. Don't agree with their take

"If this is the Washington Post’s idea for a liberal blogger, I think it is an excellent choice."

No way.

[beachmom]

3. The fact that Andrew Sullivan liked this op-ed piece is a bad sign

He wants John McCain as prez, and he quoted the part that knocks Hillary Clinton AND John Kerry in one full swoop. How convenient.

Kos isn't even on our side at all. He has been getting quotes in newspapers all the time criticizing Democrats -- how, exactly, is that going to help us gain seats in '06? It's not. The time for constructive criticism is during off years. Not right before such an important time that Dems have unity.

[jillan]

4. Andrew Sullivan is a repug that hates *

This could be a problem, that the people in that group-
the I am a repug but hate bsh group

may go for McCain.

Me thinks Kerry will whoop McCain's behind if it comes down to those two.

My fantasy? Kerry says to McCain "Here we have the real flip-flopper".

[_dynamicdems]

5. I'd love to see that as a grudge match, but I'm afraid that the media

would be a problem. Also, I think JK might go too easy on McCain. I'd hope not, but the are still friends. Yeah, I know...with friends like that... Personally, I think McCain is the lowest of the low. He's not only for sale: he's cheap.

[jenndar]

6. The media already is a problem

where those two are concerned.

[_dynamicdems]

7. Yup. It is disgusting. What do they see in that creep?

I imagine John Kerry sees McCain's service to his country and respects him for that because he was in that war and can imagine what McCain went through. But what DOES the media see in this man. He's got the character of a worm. Sure he served his country and I respect that, but the man today is a louse.

[Island Blue]

12. Duke Cunningham also served his country -

Remind me again how that "hero" thing is workin' out for him these days. I'm with you DD, I fail to see what the media sees in McCain. IMO there is just nothing appealing about the man. I don't think he'll last very long in the Republican primaries, even with media backing. Once he looses his temper in public, I think they'll turn on him. (Of course I could be wrong.)

[_dynamicdems]

14. I pray you are not wrong. McCain scares the bejesus out of me. n/t

[karynnj]

11. Although, if you think about it

The media doesn't like the same old story. Though they love the epitat "flip/flop", their favorite stories are those where things swing 180 degrees. (hey, even the Bible has these types of lines - where the winners become losers or visa versa.)

McCain has gotten the best treatment possible - and that could lead to people wanting to push conventional reasoning. In his case, it would be to challange the myths - as Krugman did. The media can get bored quickly deifying McCain.

We are now seeing a surge of articles rehabilitaing Gore. Now, Gore is not officially running and the signals are strong he won't. The other problem is that in Gore's case, he didn't ever excite people to pick him as President. (I think he tried in both 1984 and 1988.) In 2000, he really was the "it's his turn" candidate, especially as he had stood behind Clinton through impeachment. The media was cruel, but some of it was real.

2008 will be contested and I really doubt Gore wants to go through the slings and arrows of campaigning again - and, if it is Clinton people pushing it to push him in, only to rally behind Clinton - it's cynical and beyond cruel.

Kerry, with little media or party support, had the easiest nomination win for an open seat since I started following politics (early 60s). I seriously can't remember an election where the front runner didn't change from Iowa on. Speaking of which, where were the MOMENTUM stories.

The negatives are already being challanged on the response to the SBVT. The "he conceded" stuff will likely be handled as he really had no choice. (Also, those who now think Edwards would have done differently may be stunned if Edwards is asked in the MSM)

Kerry in the last year has clearly been the most eloquent voice the Democrats have. The idealism that Kerry has always projected gives hope and optimism. There is something refreshing and "clean" about a 62 year old, who has gone through all Kerry has, still believing in the ideals of America.

The real question is whether media leaders will abandon neo-con ideas for a really inspiring story.

[beachmom]

13. Question: Did Kerry really not have Party support?

I still remember the now dreaded "The Economist" putting out a complimentary op-ed about Kerry before the primaries. Perhaps that was due to ABD, but I got the impression that Kerry WAS the frontrunner until his IWR vote and most likely getting cancer and not being well caused him to fall behind in early 2003.

Now before anyone jumps on me, I did not read blogs at that time. But I distinctly remember hearing it being said in MSMworld that Kerry was the guy to beat for the nomination. And then Dean was a big surprise. Kerry appeared to be dead (which was why Wes Clark entered the race), and then suddenly had a resurgence by firing his campaign manager and mortgaging his house, and so on. But I really thought the Party wanted him as the nomination (and I hadn't read Kos stuff back then).

Can someone explain what happened?

[karynnj]

16. At minimum, he had no support in the last half of 2003

It might be because he was anti-war when the DNC wasn't, then in mid 2003, Dean became THE anti-war candidate. (Initially both sides may have rejected him.) The IWR resolution vote was Oct 2002 and I think that it was Gore and later Lieberman who had support before that. The invisible primary thing in 2002 did pick Kerry though, so you may be right that early on his name came up - but he clearly didn't get a lot of support in the second half of 2003 when things got serious.

One of the MA people who followed him then might be far better informed.

[ginnyinWI]

17. Gore

I didn't know that he'd tried to run for prez twice before and didn't make it. Although at that time, the 80s, he was perhaps a bit young. In 2000, he really ran more as "Clinton pt.3 but faithful to wife", and not really as his own self, which I think is to be further to the left of Big Dawg.

This puts Kerry in an even better light, because you're right, he did sweep the primaries--blew everybody else away. I had a list on my fridge that spring clipped from the newspaper, and every week I'd write "Kerry", "Kerry", and "Kerry" next to each state down the list. And it wasn't only the base he appealed to--he did really well in the general election too. The Democrats who voted for him in the primaries were right on target. Who else of those original ten would have gotten that close?

I only see one of these two men clearly positioning himself to run again. Gore has aligned himself with MoveOn.org, gone on Saturday Night Live, and given speeches that are red meat to the base, but which were a little careless if he were thinking of running for president again.

[jillan]

9. I'll be in touch with you real soon

My brother is here visiting from Chicago.
He's a diehard dem, just like his sister BUT
he has said more than once that he likes McCain.

He is here for a family issue, so now is not the time for an education....
but as soon as he gets back home. I warned him, and thought about your McCain collection the whole time.

[beachmom]

10. But will the Republican base vote for McCain?

Sully is an insider pundit, whose viewpoints often do NOT coincide with rank and file Republicans across the country. I suppose McCain may run as "most electable"; but it all depends if there are enough right wingers ALSO running to divide the votes and allow McCain to get the nomination. The sad thing is that McCain is NOT a centrist, but many Independents think he is. I truly don't understand why there is a lovefest for him in the press. Especially after he rolled over on torture with that "But I can torture whenever I want" signing statement * attached to it. It just goes to show that with McCain, it's more important to LOOK good than to actually DO good.

[ginnyinWI]

15. Did you see him on Face the Nation?

He is doing his best to become a * clone! He seems to like warrantless spying, and he's very hawkish on Russia. Obviously is trying to get *'s base. Seems to be saying, "I'm Bush, but smarter and more fiscally conservative." Yuck.

[jillan]

18. No!

I watch FTN every Sun morning, but when I saw it was McCain, I turned off the tv.

I have more important things to do with my time than listen to my Seniormoment Senator.

[Dr Ron]

8. One good response

Here’s one of the better blog comments on Kos’s column:

http://www.democrats.com/markos-misunderestimates-hillary

I’m not saying I agree with everything, but there are some good points. For example:

Certainly Dean ran an impressive campaign, thanks to the incredible energy of the netroots. But why did Dean tank in Iowa? It wasn’t because of Kerry’s money - Dean had plenty. It was because the political culture of Iowa Democrats had nothing to do with the emerging progressive netroots in 2004.

Markos’ analysis hinges on his “insider-outsider” framework. It reflects and expresses the frustration of super-smart strategists like Markos and his allies outside the Beltway who have never had the chance to run a national campaign against the Republicans - but are certain they would win if they had that chance.

But Democratic voters in Iowa don’t divide the world into “inside” and “outside.” Why would they? Iowa voters have the luxury of actually meeting the candidates and discussing substantive issues with them. They don’t need to deal in categories and abstractions.

When the caucuses finally roll around, Iowans go through a highly-interactive communal process to choose their candidate. While some are driven by single issues or personal connections, the collective process usually results in the choice of the Democrat Iowans believe has the all-around qualities that will make him or her most attractive to the majority of American voters, non-Democrats included.

In 2004, they saw qualities of character in Kerry - including his military decorations in a war-year election - that they simply didn’t see in Howard Dean. Given a choice between “exciting new” and “strong old,” they chose the latter.

So how will this apply in 2008? If nothing radical happens between now and 2008, Hillary will enter Iowa as the frontrunner. Since her roots are in Illinois and Arkansas, she will have no problem connecting with Iowa Democrats. Even Markos admits, “In person, Clinton is one of the warmest politicians I’ve ever met,” so she will win votes everywhere she goes.