December 18, 2007

12/18: Loaded Language

Liberal bloggers are up in arms over ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey's recent statements about Barack Obama, in which he used provocative language while ostensibly complimenting the Illinois senator:

"I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims and I think that experience is a big deal."

Whether or not Kerrey made these statements in good faith, he made the mistake of echoing the language that certain right-wing pundits use to describe Obama -- an unforgivable offense in the eyes of the netroots. Several bloggers are already calling on Hillary Clinton to denounce Kerrey's comments. Coupled with Bill Clinton's recent statements about George H.W. Bush helping HRC, are HRC's surrogates hurting her campaign more than they're helping it?

OBAMA: Damned With Faint Praise...

Liberal bloggers reacted angrily to Kerrey's statements about Obama:

Atrios: "Bob Kerrey blows the racist dogwhistle."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Get it? Kerrey isn't repeating slurs that have been used, non-stop, by GOP operatives (and Hillary's own staff) knocking Obama for having the middle name of one of the most hated men in America and for having family members who are Muslim. Oh no. Kerrey is complimenting Obama, and is simply repeating racist anti-Muslim slurs against Obama in an effort to praise him. Kerrey comes not to bury Obama, but to praise him...Look, I get that politics is hardball. And trust me, I want people like Hillary and her team working on behalf of the Democratic candidate because they're the only people in the party who know how to fight like Republicans...But still, something about this being used against a fellow Democrat doesn't feel like hardball politics. It feels slimy. Am I wrong about this?"

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "In a perfect world, one without bigotry, it would be a good thing to stress Obama's multicultural background for an important job as president. So the sentiment, on its face, isn't a negative one. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in one where 'muslim' is synonymous with 'terrorist'. And Obama's 'experience' with his Muslim family ended when he was two, so I'm not quite sure how that's supposed to be relevant to anything. So back to the original question -- was Kerrey expressing honest praise for Obama, or was he engaging in insidious dogwhistle politics? I'll leave it up to you guys to decide, but do note that context might be important: He made these comments while endorsing Hillary Clinton."

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "The people generally most likely to refer to 'Barack Hussein Obama' are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and most of the right-wing blogs. And yet, there was Kerrey using it, ostensibly as an accolade...I don't have reason to doubt Kerrey, necessarily, and I don't want to get to a point in which every innocent comment is scrutinized for some kind of hidden agenda-driven meaning. But there's a context here, and I still think the Clinton campaign needs to be careful about pushing the envelope."

Daily Kos diarist Junglered1: "'Obama. Muslim. Obama. Hussein.' Effectively, that's what Hillary Clinton supporter, former Sen. Bob Kerrey was saying today...This is what you can expect from Hillary Clinton for the rest of the election and if for some reason, she wins, the rest of her tenure in office."

Kerrey continued to discuss Obama during an appearance on the Situation Room with John King:

"There is a smear campaign going on, and people acting as if he's a 'Islamic Manchurian candidate' and I feel it's actually a substantial strength. He is a Christian, both he and his family, are Christians, they've chosen Christianity...I've watched the blogs try to say that you can't trust [Obama] because he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa. I feel quite opposite. I think it's a tremendous strength whether he's in the United States Senate or whether he's in the White House."

Think Progress: "Note to Kerrey: Barack Obama never attended a 'secular madrassa' -- an inherently contradictory term because a madrassa is, by definition, a religiously-based school. The claim that Obama attended a madrassa didn't come from blogs, but rather from right-wing outlets."

Matthew Yglesias: "It's hard to express how odious I find Bob Kerrey...he's now following up on his 'Barack Hussein Obama' remarks by alleging that Obama attended a 'secular madrassa' whatever that's supposed to mean. The Obama campaign's been pretty successful at painting Team Hillary as unduly nasty and, frankly, the stuff they were dishing out previously was child's play compared to this BS."

John Aravosis: "Kerrey isn't just trying to slur Obama and make Americans wonder whether Obama has terrorist ties -- I mean, using the phrase 'Islamic Manchurian Candidate'? -- but it's also incredibly racist. Kerrey is race-baiting Muslims, American-Muslims, implying that Obama is one of them, and we all know that no one good wants to be one of them, nudge nudge wink wink...Kerrey is doing the dirty work of the Clinton campaign, or he's a rogue agent spreading racism in their name. Either way, the Clinton campaign needs to stop this, now."

The Nation's Ari Melber: "While campaigning on behalf of Hillary Clinton this week, former Senator Bob Kerrey became the fourth Clinton supporter this month to raise a false smear against Barack Obama...Kerrey has assiduously wrapped the smears in complimentary language, yet that approach may also suggest how deliberately he is pushing each message...Clinton should disown Kerrey's comments immediately. Given the stakes in this election and the costs of (even a perception) of lying character assasination in Iowa, I think both the Clinton and Obama campaigns would be better off without Kerrey's 'complimentary' smears."

OBAMA II: Mess With The Krugman, You'll Get The Horns

The New York Times' Paul Krugman, perhaps still angry from his recent dust-up with the Obama campaign, rips Obama in his latest column: "Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world. Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate."

Krugman's critique of Obama -- which mirrors Atrios' recent critique of Obama -- was warmly received by Obama's netroots critics:

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Clinton and Obama both think that you can sit down and negotiate with these people, that they are reasonable and data-driven and deal in good faith. But they are not. They operate from a calculus of raw power, and evidence doesn't matter to them...Without a leader willing to fight, the President will be swallowed up into a vast complex of decisions he just has to make, all of which are somehow strangely conservative, coincidentally. Of all the candidates, only [John] Edwards is running a race on this dynamic."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Now we've got a battle between Obama and Edwards over whether corporate drug & Pharma lobbyists should be invited to the table (Obama), or battled (Edwards), to enact healthcare reform...There is a solid frontal attack now that is working against Obama on both the political and the policy side. That is, he's not battle-tested for the general election against Republicans, and that he's not ready to battle for progressive reforms as President. The political side of the frame had been gaining a foothold over the past two weeks, and now we see the policy side gain a foothold, surprisingly, by Obama defending having the lobbyist groups at his table. The way it's framed, Edwards wins this battle easily."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias acknowledges that Obama's campaign provoked Krugman's wrath, but he thinks that Krugman is being unfair: "Barack Obama reaps the harvest of his campaign's idiotic decision to start releasing oppo research on Paul Krugman as the latter unloads on Obama, slamming him as 'the anti-change candidate'...Krugman's spot-on in his argument that what the Des Moines Register sees as the problem with John Edwards is, in fact, what's good about Edwards. But I think he's let his taste for revenge (understandable! I'd be really pissed if I were in his position, too) undermine his perspective on the objective realities. As John Edwards himself has said the most dramatic contrast between his vision of sweeping change comes from Hillary Clinton, not Obama...Similarly, it's objectively true that the next president's ability to bring about big-picture change in American domestic policy will be limited by his or her ability to secure Republican votes for his or her agenda. I wish that this wasn't the way that American political institutions work, but it is. I like Edwards' rhetoric about taking down a corrupt power structure a lot more than I like Obama's kumbaya talk, but any president will face the same institutional set-up and the real limits it imposes."

TAPPED's Scott Lemieux also thinks Krugman is being too hard on Obama: "I agree with Matt that 1) it was stupid of Obama's campaign to pick a fight with Paul Krugman, but 2) Krugman's point is very misguided. I don't think that Obama's rhetoric about transcending old politics tells us much about how he'll actually govern. Bush in 2000, after all, didn't campaign as a 50%+1 conservative who would increase party polarization in Congress, but that's what he did. Obama's using this kind of rhetoric because 1) it's effective, and 2) he's very good at it. What actually matters, however, is the substance of his policies and record, and on that count he's clearly superior to Clinton."

Ezra Klein addresses the distinction that Krugman and Atrios see between Obama and Edwards: "Obama, as far as I can tell, is hoping that his immense personal charisma and persuasive capabilities will help him gather the stakeholders and power players in a room, dazzle them with smart restatements of their positions, and then elicit agreement on his priorities. That doesn't seem terribly likely to me, but it's at least a plan...I can't figure out what the Edwards plan is. How do you fight like hell to change the power balance in the system? What's the pressure point? The vulnerability? I've heard some suggest campaign finance reform, but that has to pass Congress, first, and Congress is where the system exhibits its most profound rot...This is actually what worries me about Edwards. I'm not convinced his calls for change are connected to an actionable theory of change."

CLINTON: There He Goes Again...

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Bill Clinton's recent claim that HRC will send George H.W. Bush on an around-the-world mission after she becomes President:

TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "Bill Clinton might have just done it again -- saying something in the home stretch that will cause Hillary's campaign a whole lot of trouble...do Democratic activists really want to hear that someone named George Bush will be recruited to assist in Hillary's foreign policy?"

Firedoglake's Attaturk: "First, I'm sure Bush pere will happily go around the world to publicly acknowledge his namesake is a 'gargantuan tool'. Second, I'm equally confident the Democratic voting base is delighted at the prospect of a Bush Family rehabilitation tour (i.e. Oligarchies have to stick together). Third, I'm sure Hillary Clinton appreciates Bill making it look like the latter is calling the policy shots."

Daily Kos diarist bobdevo: "Has Bill Clinton gone totally nuts?"

DODD: Man of the Hour

Opponents of the new wiretap bill won a temporary victory yesterday as Chris Dodd's filibuster of a measure granting retroactive immunity to telecom companies forced Senate maj. leader Harry Reid to pull the bill from the floor. Liberal bloggers, who had pushed Dodd to take this stand, praised the CT senator for his leadership:

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Chris Dodd showed tremendous leadership. He stood by his principles and wouldn't back down, even in the face of opposition from members of his own party who were in the tank for the telecos and the Bush Administration. Well played, Senator Dodd."

Daily Kos' mcjoan: "From what I've heard from Senate offices, the volume of constituent calls on this issue was huge...It made a difference...thank you Senator Dodd."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "I should underscore that the idea for Dodd's hold originated with blogs and was prompted by blog readers urging Dodd to announce one (which he did within hours). That has had a genuine, direct impact on this process...Chris Dodd took a principled stand today, sacrificing his presidential campaign and alienating his long-time colleagues to do so, and he won. He demonstrated what 'leadership' is in action, rather than 'rhetoric.' Acts of that kind on our national political stage are rare indeed."

Digby: "While the 'Lieberman for Lieberman' senator from Connecticut may have spent the day preening all over the television shilling for war and Republicans, the Democratic senator from Connecticut, Chris Dodd, was acting like a patriot."

The Left Coaster's Turkana: "The leadership Senator Dodd has shown deserves our support for him to be president."

MCCAIN: Getting A Second Look?

With the media buzzing about John McCain's recent endorsements from Joe Lieberman, The Boston Globe, and The Des Moines Register, conservative bloggers are devoting more attention to McCain's candidacy:

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "I've been noticing among conservative acquaintances, a reconsideration of McCain going on that none of them would have considered this summer...My friends don't dislike [Mitt] Romney but he's failed to convince them he's sincere about his policy conversions or that he can win in a general. They dislike [Mike] Huckabee on fiscal policy and think he'd be a dangerous economic liberal squish and class warrior in the White House. The Fred campaign, which many were hoping would rescue them their doldrums this summer, failed to spark (although things have been looking more lively for him lately). And, the latest Rudy scandal (Judy and the NYPD) seems to have solidified doubts they were willing to overlook about America's Mayor in the face of the Hillary juggernaut. Who's left? An experienced senator who's potent in a general election if he can get past the primary, and who's great on the war and good on spending...if [McCain's] being reconsidered among some of my staunchly conservative friends predisposed to actively dislike him, he's got a damn sight more voters reconsidering him in Maverick-friendly New Hampshire in these crucial couple of weeks."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti: "Lieberman's endorsement of McCain adds to the emergingstoryline of the Arizona senator's resurgence in New Hampshire. It probably won't make McCain any new friends on the right, but those voters who dislike McCain because of his conservative heresies on certain issues aren't going to vote for him anyway. Surely the New Hampshire independents who want to change the way Washington works -- the same folks who helped McCain score his upset win in 2000 -- will look positively on this endorsement, however."

CBN's David Brody: "John McCain has had a real good run. Endorsements by The Des Moines Register and The Boston Globe over the weekend and the Manchester Union Leader are important. But what may be even more important is the narrative that is beginning to form. That narrative is that while Romney, [Rudy] Giuliani, [Fred] Thompson and Huckabee duke it out, McCain continues to stay above the fray...that he's become the elder statesman and the voice of reason on the war. Combine that with this idea out there that McCain may be the one to bring both political parties together and maybe it will be John McCain who becomes the 2008 version of 'The Comeback Kid'."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez still prefers Romney: "I admire Senator McCain and have even, like others here, flirted with the idea of him as the Republican nominee. But he's not the most viable conservative in the race -- I doubt the Boston Globe and Des Moines Register would have endorsed him if he were. Romney is."

NRO's Mark Levin has irreconcilable differences with McCain: "John McCain has been weak on homeland security, joining with numerous liberal Democrats to argue for closing Guantanamo Bay, applying the Geneva Conventions to unlawful enemy combatants, extending certain constitutional rights to detainees, limiting tried and true interrogation techniques, and conferring amnesty on illegal aliens...He aggressively opposed the Bush tax cuts, even after they were scaled back...His role in McCain-Feingold goes well beyond merely voting for it (he was its primary crusader). He organized the Gang of 14, which I contended at the time and still believe effectively killed Republican efforts to kill the Democrat filibustering of judicial nominees...I think there's a bit of cult of personality associated with McCain's backers. He's unquestionably a war hero and a man of great courage. But he is wrong on so much that I have trouble understanding how the Manchester Union Leader can not only back him, but will now campaign for him."

HUCKABEE: A Christmas Story

Huckabee's new Christmas-themed ad is generating a lot of positive buzz in the conservative blogosphere:

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Huckabee dons a sweater, and comes across as warm and likable and says he empathizes with voters who are sick of hearing political ads...It's a nice way of communicating an above the fray image, and subtly suggesting that voters should tune out the negative attacks that are being directed at him, especially in Iowa. He also reinforces his shared values with the base of voters who he is trying to appeal to."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I don't think it's any big secret that I've got my gripes with Mike Huckbee, but his latest ad, going up tomorrow in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant...It's soft, warm, and pleasant. In fact, no matter how the presidential campaign turns out, I'd watch a Mike Huckabee Christmas Special. Everybody's been wondering how the campaigns can work and spread their message through the holidays without seeming Grinchy. This is one way that I think will work."

NRO's Rich Lowry: "The more I think about it, that Huckabee ad may be the most subtly brilliant wedge ad ever...it's bound to kick up a fuss, but in the ensuing fuss, Republican caucus-goers are going to side with Huckabee at least 80-20. So Huckabee is teeing up a controversy that's bound to benefit him, at the same time he can plausibly say, 'I didn't mean to kick up any controversy -- I was just wishing people Merry Christmas.' You can almost hear him saying it already. You've got to give him credit -- he's nothing if not very shrewd."

David Brody: "The ad comes across as warm and sincere. I mean he had the whole Christmas theme going on: the red sweater, the 'birth of Christ' line, a Christmas tree, and the music in the background...what we're seeing here is that Mike Huckabee seems to be doing exactly the opposite of what Romney is doing. Romney is going negative by pointing out Huckabee's record. Huckabee won't do a negative ad. at least not yet. The campaign tells me that going negative is ultimately going to hurt Romney. Will Huckabee's ad strategy work?"

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "The former governor got a jump on the non-political political advertisement rush, and he'll get the credit for improving the tone for the holidays...Huckabee needs to keep using the personality push in Iowa, because it seems to have worked in generating the surge he's gotten in the Hawkeye State. It will emphasize his warmth and his easy, one-of-us appeal."

NRO's Mark Steyn: "This 'Merry Christmas' thing is ingenious. In essence, it's playing the secular media off against his GOP rivals in order to solidify his base. I'm no Huckabee fan but, like Peter, I think he's been amazingly nimble and very sophisticated -- as a campaigner, I hasten to add: the policy's another matter."

HUCKABEE II: Worse Than A Democrat?

While conservative bloggers are impressed by Huckabee's campaign ads, some of them will not vote for him under any circumstances:

Ace of Spades: "If Huckabee gets the nomination, I'm voting Democratic. It's not just an idle threat; I just won't vote for him and in fact won't even vote third party or stay home. I'll vote for the Democratic candidate, even Hillary. I won't be a party to selling out everything the party is supposed to stand for to a liberal ideology. If we're going to have eight years of liberal rule, I'd rather the Democratic Party be governing, so at least they can take the blame."

Dan Riehl: "[Huckabee] is slick but doesn't even look competent. And if Republican primary voters are that stupid, they deserve to lose next Fall. To pass over McCain, Thompson, Romney and Giuliani ONLY because someone's slick and a Jesus Freak, which makes him your average televangelist -- forget it. I will hold my nose and either vote for the Democrat because I prefer to know what I'm getting, even if I'm getting screwed, or a Third Party conservative if one comes up. I am done voting for Republicans who don't represent what I believe in, low taxes and small government."

Glenn Reynolds: "Honestly, I think I'd vote for Edwards over Huckabee, though I'd feel dirty the next morning...Basically, I believe that both would have similar socialist/populist programs, but that Republicans would combine against Edwards' programs, producing useful gridlock. On the other hand, Dems would be only too happy to go along with Huckabee's programs, and too many Republicans might do so too, out of party loyalty...Plus, the more I watch him operation, the more Clintonian his campaign seems. Edwards', on the other hand, is just inept, which suggests that he wouldn't be very scary in office. And both would probably be equally Carteresque in foreign policy."

ROMNEY: Stronger Than You Think?

Soren Dayton thinks Mormon voters will give Romney a big boost in the IA caucuses: "Assuming that, under normal circumstances, Mormons participate in higher numbers, perhaps 20% would normally participate in the caucus, (just a guess) that would mean 2,800 votes. Romney will be beating that by at least 2.5x. That means that Romney will be increasing the universe of caucus-goers by approximately 4,200 people...The bottom line is that Mitt Romney will win a caucus that looks close. Romney starts with 5-7% of the vote. Any attempt to play down Romney's chances in Iowa is just a game, the expectations game."

Jim Geraghty is skeptical: "Don't Mormon Iowans have every bit as much chance to show up in a poll as anybody else? It's not like running a phone bank to reach out to the Amish. And if Romney's sliding in the polls beforehand, doesn't that suggest that even with this base of hard-core, definately-will-show-up supporters, he's still in more trouble than he was a month ago or six weeks ago?"

Meanwhile, Townhall's Matt Lewis characterizes the IA race as "organization vs. insurgency": "I can't help but believe Romney's team is dramatically more sophisticated [than Huckabee's]. The question then is whether or not a well-run organization designed to drag every last Romney supporter to the polls will always out-perform an organic group of supporters who aren't as well organized, but are true-believers who may be more inspired."

ROMNEY II: So Many Tears

Romney's recent public displays of emotion aren't generating much sympathy from conservative bloggers:

Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "How many times is Mitt Romney going to cry in public? Moreover, why is he blubbering so much now? Did some focus group conclude that he needs to come across more like a girlish metrosexual? Is he having an emotional breakdown? Is the poor dear just too much of a sensitive soul to be President?...Whimpering like a little wussy in public doesn't exactly engender confidence that Romney has what it takes to be President of the United States."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "Romney is finding coverage rougher and is pulling a page from the playbook of the Clinton (Bill's and now Hillary's) -- getting misty eyed. (I'd get misty eyed too if I spent $8M, or whatever the total is up to now, to find myself trailing Huckabee and hearing footsteps from Thompson.)"

PAUL: Another Blogger Endorsement!

After endorsing Barack Obama in the Dem race, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan joins NRO's John Derbyshire in endorsing Ron Paul in the GOP race: "The Paulites' enthusiasm for liberty, their unapologetic defense of core conservative principles, their awareness that in the new millennium, these principles of small government, self-reliance, cultural pluralism, and a humble foreign policy are more necessary than ever -- no lover of liberty can stand by and not join them. He's the real thing in a world of fakes and frauds. And in a primary campaign where the very future of conservatism is at stake, that cannot be ignored. In fact, it demands support. Go Ron Paul!"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: How Should Ron Paul Spend His Money?

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat has an idea:

"Here's what he should do: Invest heavily in New Hampshire and Iowa, as he's already doing, and see if his support in those states rises high enough to promise him a meaningful role in the GOP nominating process (and some delegates to take to the convention). If it does, great. But if he can't break 7 percent in a libertarian-friendly state like New Hampshire, I think he should strongly consider bowing out of the GOP race early, before too many 'sore loser' provisions kick in, and pouring the rest of his money -- and all the enthusiasm he's generated -- into a third-party run as a Libertarian. The Giuliani-Clinton race that would have provided the ideal ground for such a bid looks less and less likely, but even in an Obama-Romney race (or any of the other permutations) Paul would still have more than enough oxygen for a national campaign. He's not going to have a better chance to take his message to the big stage, and if he isn't going to be a significant force in the GOP primary campaign, there's no good reason to have the Ron Paul Revolution die in mid-summer when it can last deep into the fall."

LEST WE FORGET: Sometimes It's Best To Dress Down

Jezebel sees a case of hypocrisy:

"Note to all you socialists out there: Best not criticize capitalism on television while wearing a Gucci and Louis Vuitton outfit. Case in point: Venezualan Minister of the Interior Pedro Carreno, who did just that and was then left speechless when a reporter called him out on it. Best of all, the event was captured on camera. Touche!"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 18, 2007 12:57 PM