On Thursday the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced it was launching "an Independence Day ad and grassroots campaign" that will begin Monday and run through the week. Television and radio ads will air in 14 targeted Republican Congressional districts, attacking GOP members over military pay and veterans benefits. According to the DCCC web site, the campaign will also include 2 million emails and 50,000 phone calls.

Here's a list of the Republicans being targeted with radio ads (click here for a sample): Robin Hayes (NC-8), Joe Knollenberg (MI-9), Jon Porter (NV-3), Jim Walsh (NY-25), Don Young (AK-AL), Shelly Moore Capito (WV-2), and Sam Graves (MO-6).

The list of those being targeted with televisions ads are: Marilyn Musgrave (CO-4), Mike Ferguson (NJ-7), Phil English (PA-3), Thelma Drake (VA-2), and Mark Kirk (IL-10).

Among those on the list, the targeting of Kirk is particularly ironic and, one could argue, dishonest. Yes, Kirk represents a fairly liberal district on the Northshore that is upset about the war in Iraq. And yes, Kirk got more of a race from Dan Seals last November than he initially expected, prevailing 53-47. Seals announced last week he's signed up to take another run at Kirk in '08, and the DCCC is doing its part to keep Kirk as soft and fat of a target as possible.

But, while I think Kirk can be attacked fairly for supporting the President's policy in Iraq - even though he voted against the surge and was one of the eleven Republicans who went to the White House in May and told the President he'd better get his act together on the war or else - to attack Kirk as being indifferent or neglectful of US troops or veterans benefits is simply laughable.

First, start with the man's bio:

Congressman Kirk is a Naval Reserve intelligence officer who served during conflicts with Iraq, Haiti, and Bosnia. He served four tours at sea and three in Panama. The U.S. Navy named Kirk 'Intelligence Officer of the Year' in 1999 for his combat service in Kosovo. Kirk flew on missions over Iraq and continues to serve one weekend a month in the Pentagon. Kirk is the only member of Congress to serve stateside during Operation Iraqi Freedom and was an air crewman over Iraq during Operation Northern Watch.

Furthermore, one of Kirk's signal achievements was his successful battle to save the VA Hospital in North Chicago, a fact he proudly advertised in the last election:

Needless to say, Kirk and the GOP aren't taking this attack lying down. Tolbert Chisum, head of the New Trier Republican Organization, fired off a statement saying, "It is ironic that the Democrat Party would take a partisan shot at Congressman Kirk, a Navy combat veteran and drilling reservist, when their own candidate, Dan Seals never served and does not live in the district."

Kirk's spokesperson issued a statement letting it be known that "Congressman Kirk just voted for the largest increase in funding for veterans health care (H.R. 2642, June 15, 2007, roll call no.498, $3.8 billion above the President’s budget) and will break ground on the new $100 million 10th District Navy/VA hospital next week."

As I said, Kirk is vulnerable over his initial support for the war, but trying to attack him as neglecting US soldiers and veterans is exceedingly dishonest - and doing it over the Fourth of July holiday only makes it that much more shameful.

Here's the new CBS News poll on 2008. For some reason, CBS News has been polling only the top three candidates on each side along with a "someone else" category. In their latest poll, they add Fred Thompson to the mix:

Republicans (without Thompson)
Giuliani 42 (+6 vs. last poll in May)
McCain 26 (+4)
Romney 8 (-7)
Someone Else 19 (-2)

Republicans (with Thompson)
Giuliani 34
Thompson 22
McCain 21
Romney 6
Someone else 7

Favorable Ratings (among Republican primary voters only)
Giuliani 52/12 (+40)
Thompson 33/3 (+30)
McCain 35/19 (+16)
Romney 24/11 (+13)

Does Candidate Share Your Values? Yes/No (among Republican primary voters only)
Thompson 44/8 (+36)
McCain 56/24 (+32)
Romney 38/15 (+23)
Giuliani 49/31 (+18)

Twenty-eight percent of Republican primary voters say McCain compromises "too much" with Democrats.

On the Democratic side, Clinton maintains a strong lead:

Democrats
Clinton 48 (+2 vs. last poll in May)
Obama 24 (nc)
Edwards 11 (-3)

Favorable Ratings (among Democratic primary voters only)
Clinton 67/18 (+49)
Obama 54/14 (+40)
Edwards 50/11 (+39)
Gore 55/20 (+35)
Richardson 7/11 (-4)

When expanded to include all registered voters, the favorable ratings look like this:

Obama 40/22 (+18)
Edwards 33/27 (+6)
Clinton 45/40 (+5)
Richardson 7/10 (-3)
Gore 34/40 (-6)

Some videos over on The RCP Vlog.

Warren Buffett with Hillary Clinton

A Conversation with Judge Robert H. Bork

Washington Post Podcast with John McIntyre

Unity08's Bailey on Colbert Report

Thompson Responds to Attacks on Lobbying Career

Yesterday, I began my critique of John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira's "Back to the Future: The Reemergence of the Emerging Democratic Majority." I indicated that Judis and Teixeira made at least four inferential errors in their article, and I outlined two of them. First, they fail to give a compelling reason to accept - in lieu of subsequent election returns - why 2006 should be understood as a realignment. Second, they engage in special pleading to explain previous elections that are inconsistent with their thesis.

Today, I shall complete my critique by outlining the third and fourth errors I see in their work.

(more...)

CBS News has an interesting report by Lara Logan, embedded with US troops working to clear Baquba (Video | Text). IraqSlogger has pictures, and MFNI has more on the effort here.

The Taipei Times reports Al Gore canceled a scheduled appearance to talk about global warming in Taiwan and the person who invited him "received an e-mail from the Harry Walker Agency, which has the exclusive right to arrange Gore's speeches, saying that Gore had canceled all his scheduled events in the next six months." (Hat tip: The Corner)

UPDATE: A spokesperson for Al Gore told Raw Story the item about Gore clearing his schedule is false, saying Gore is "heavily booked with work and engagements through the Fall," adding, "His position on 2008 has not changed."

If Hillary Clinton is basking in the glow of the universally rave reviews from last night's debate, this new national survey from Mason-Dixon should bring her back to earth.

The poll doesn't provide any horse race numbers, but it does look at the favorability and electability of the current field of candidates, both of which present major issues for Clinton. First, the favorable ratings:

Favorable/Unfavorable Ratings
Giuliani: 43/17 (+26)
Obama: 36 /21 (+15)
Thompson: 25/12 (+13)
McCain: 33/28 (+5)
Edwards: 32/28 (+4)
Romney: 24/20 (+4)
Richardson: 19/15 (+4)
Huckabee: 16 /12 (+4)
Bloomberg: 20/18 (+2)
Biden: 21/20 (+1)
Clinton: 39/42 (-3)

In addition to being the only candidate registering a negative net fav/unfav rating, Clinton also finished last among those who recognized a candidate's name but had a "neutral" opinion of them (neither favorable nor unfavorable). Only 19% had a neutral opinion of Clinton, while Obama topped the neutral category with 41%. Giuliani & McCain tied for 2nd at 38%.

On the question of electability, Mason-Dixon phrased the question this way:

I am going to read that list of names again. This time, I want you to assume that person is the 2008 presidential nominee of their political party. Please tell me if, today, you would or would not consider voting for them as the next President of the United States.

"Would" means that you would at least consider voting for that candidate depending upon circumstances, while "Would not" means that you would not vote for them under any circumstances.

The results were as follows:

Would/Would Not
Giuliani 64/36 (+28)
Thompson 62/38 (+24)
Bloomberg 61/39 (+22)
Obama 60/40 (+20)
Edwards 59/41 (+18)
McCain 58/42 (+16)
Biden 57/43 (+14)
Richardson 57/43 (+14)
Huckabee 56/44 (+12)
Romney 54/46 (+8)
Clinton 48/52 (-4)

Again, Hillary finishes last - this time by a mile.

The results from the Mason-Dixon poll help bring a bit of perspective back to both the national polls and to the recent general election match-ups which show Clinton moving into a small lead over Giuliani and maintaining a bit larger lead over Fred Thompson.

I think most observers agree 2008 is shaping up to be a favorable political climate for the Democrats. But as the Mason-Dixon poll shows, Hillary is saddled with such high negatives and such fixed public perceptions that have hardened over the course of nearly two decades in the national spotlight, she has very limited upside no matter how hard the political winds blow in her party's favor.

Are Democrats really going to put their best opportunity to win the White House in recent memory in the hands of woman who more than half the country says they won't vote for? And if the answer is "no," at what point in the race will that decision begin to manifest itself in the polls with, most likely, the ascension of Barack Obama?

Illinois State Senator Kirk Dillard's phone is ringing off the hook these days, and not in a good way. Mr. Dilliard is a Republican, and until April he was the chairman of the DuPage County GOP, one of the party's strongest political organizations in the state. That's why many were surprised to see Mr. Dillard featured prominently in a new television ad praising Senator Barack Obama.

"Sen. Obama worked on some of the deepest issues we had and was successful in a bipartisan way," Mr. Dillard says in the ad, which began airing in Iowa this week. "Republican legislators respected Sen. Obama. His negotiation skills and an ability to understand both sides would serve the country very well."

Mr. Dillard's friendship with Mr. Obama is well known, but some Illinois Republicans are questioning whether Mr. Dillard went too far in taking such a prominent role promoting Mr. Obama's candidacy.

Frank Watson, the Republican leader in the Illinois state Senate, says Mr. Dillard "is a leader in the Republican Party, and I think maybe that's a step beyond where he should have gone." Others have been less kind, calling Mr. Dillard's appearance in the Obama ad a ploy for publicity and "a disgrace." Former Republican Senate President James "Pate" Philip summed up his feelings about Mr. Dillard's actions this way: "To say I was disappointed in him would be an understatement."

Mr. Dillard doesn't understand what all the fuss is about, nor does he appear to appreciate the criticism, blaming the flurry of calls to his office on "ultra-right committeemen" and "agitators out there who spanked these guys into a frenzy."

Mr. Dillard says he remains a "Republican stalwart" who is backing Arizona Senator John McCain for President. But in language reminiscent of the kind that has often gotten the original Maverick into trouble with his party, Mr. Dillard told the Chicago Tribune: "My caucus should thank me for the last 48 hours of media attention, whether they realize it or not."

Last night's Democratic debate on PBS may not have been watched by many voters but it was by journalists who used it to contrast Hillary Clinton with Barack Obama.

The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut and Dan Balz report the "contenders aggressively sought to outmuscle one another on the topics of race and poverty and derided yesterday's Supreme Court decision banning most affirmative action in public schools." The forum "seemed to be a guaranteed fit" for Obama, but the audience also embraced the other Democrats, including Clinton. The Post's Chris Cillizza writes that for Clinton, the debate was "all about experience," mentioning her Senate work on domestic issues. Obama "focused on his vision for the country, repeatedly seeking to broaden the question asked of him and demonstrate his willingness and ability to change the parameters of the political debate."

The Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Mitchell echoed the Clinton-Obama contrast, writing that Obama found himself "fading" last night while Clinton spoke with greater confidence on race issues and even brought much of the audience to its feet when she said, "If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outrage -- outcry in this country" (view here).

"Score one for Hillary Clinton," writes the Des Moines Register's David Yepsen. Clinton was "crisp, cogent and methodical in her answers," a terse communication style she'll need as president for television appearances. The performance was "so good it should help her cement her lead in polls of the race nationally," and help her break away from Obama in Iowa and try to "overtake John Edwards."

Standing out is Time's Mark Halperin who gave Obama an A- for his performance. He was "poised, clear, and confident -- perfectly comfortable in front of an audience of prominent black Americans. With national security playing a far smaller role than in past debates, he seemed less worried about being caught off guard or overwhelmed. Occasionally added some crowd-pleasing zest to his usual low-key, intellectual style." His grade for Clinton? Also an A-.

On the Republican side, Fred Thompson visited New Hampshire yesterday as part of his unofficial presidential campaign. That campaign could draw an FEC complaint, writes The Hill's Sam Youngman, as it could become apparent Thompson used June to "campaigning rather than wrestling with the decision to run." The law defining the difference between "testing the waters" (fundraising, travel and polling) and campaigning is vague.

The Politco's Mike Allen reports that "veteran Republicans say they have quietly raised millions of dollars for a pair of nonprofit organizations that will launch this fall with the ambitious aim of providing a conservative counterweight to the liberal MoveOn.org." Those in the know said the unnamed organizations hope to eclipse the budget of MoveOn and will focus on "generational issues that cannot be solved in any single election cycle" including the War on Terror.

In Congressional news, the DSCC and a "ramped-up draft movement are upping the pressure on former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) to enter the race against vulnerable Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) as she pulls far ahead in polling," The Hill's Youngman reports. Meanwhile, Sununu voted to end debate and effectively terminate the immigration bill yesterday, while fellow Granite State Senator Judd Gregg voted against cloture. Sununu said he favors bills on border security, improving the visa program and ensuring employers hire legal workers.

Last but not least: Florida Republicans may be losing their grip on Hispanic voters, writes the St. Petersburg Times' Adam Smith. The largely Hispanic, reliably Republican Miami-Dade district voted 36 percent for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in 2002 and then 53 percent voted for the candidate's wife for state CFO in 2006. The Hispanic population itself is changing: in 2000 Cuban-Americans were 75 percent of the population and are now about 40 percent.

Get these and today's other election stories at RCP's Politics and Elections page.

Some videos over on The RCP Vlog.

Rahmbo Takes on Cheney

McConnell On The Fairness Doctrine

Kerry On The Fairness Doctrine

Charlie Rose: A Conversation with Nancy Pelosi

Pat Robertson Reviews Rudy