January 31, 2008

1/31: Can't Buy Me Love

Conservative bloggers are ripping John McCain for several of the statements he made during last night's CNN/Politico/Los Angeles Times debate. Many bloggers are criticizing the AZ senator for claiming (dishonestly, in their view) that Mitt Romney supported a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Other bloggers are criticizing McCain for his statement about the subprime mortgage crisis, when he said, "There's some greedy people on Wall Street that perhaps need to be punished." Finally, several bloggers are criticizing McCain for his proposed solutions to global warming. Jim Geraghty's reaction to McCain's debate performance typified that of many conservative bloggers:

"[McCain's] energy level was down, he chuckled at his own jokes when no one else was, he seemed a little nastier than warranted to Romney, he left (mild) criticism of his record unaddressed, and we saw little sign that he's ready to reach out to skeptical conservatives."

In a more positive development for McCain, his campaign has indicated that the AZ senator plans to attend this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (more commonly known as "CPAC") on Feb. 7-9. If McCain does very well on Feb. 5th, CPAC will provide him with an excellent forum to reach out to conservatives and (possibly) get some of them behind him. But he has a big mountain to climb. Mary Katharine Ham describes McCain's opportunity and challenge:

"When CPAC rolls around, Feb. 5 will have told us much more about the state of the presidential race. If [McCain]'s coming out of the tsunami a winner, he'll have to use the CPAC pulpit to preach some serious conservative conversion. Or, at least communicate that his disdain for border security and tax cuts have decreased dramatically, and his 'Maverick' sensibilities won't turn him into the best friend of a Democratic Congress...Maybe he can make some inroads this year. We shall see. He's gonna have to do something to help conservatives trust him on anything other than the war."

DEBATE MCCAIN: Weak Sauce

Most conservative bloggers were not impressed by McCain's performance last night:

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "John McCain won over few if any conservatives tonight, and his display of bad temper and his rambling filibuster of his wrongful 'timetables' attack on Romney from last weekend may even have lost him some moderates."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "This struck me as McCain's worst performance of the campaign. He seemed -- understandably -- exhausted. He kept pushing some untruths about Romney's position on Iraq. He seemed vague and unfocused on the economy. He was also more aggressive in swiping at Romney who was more civil and more engaging than I have seen so far."

Many conservative bloggers criticized McCain for what they considered his unfair attack on Romney's commitment to the surge:

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "[McCain] made a very poor showing in trying to falsely stretch a Romney quote from April into an endorsement of a withdrawal. That's not only ridiculous, it's blatantly a smear."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "With any luck, few Americans tuned in to tonight's Republican debate. Those who did saw our likely nominee at his worst. McCain not only persisted in his dishonest claim that Mitt Romney supported a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, he used one evasion after another to try to make it stick."

Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Although McCain's military service provides some insulation against reaction to his low blows against Romney, it is not even clear to me that they have enhanced his candidacy in any way. On the contary, given his own record on the point in issue regarding support for the surge, I am struck by the lack of necessity for McCain's tactics, as well as by their revelation of the least attractive qualities of his otherwise sterling character. McCain's low blows seem to me to betray his hatred of Romney more than his poltical skill. I doubt they are the mark of a great politician, and I doubt that he will hate his Democratic rival as much as he hates Romney."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "It was odd that McCain didn't act like a frontrunner. I know why he was stubborn on 'timetable' but besides it being dishonest, it just wasn't necessary. He could make the point that he thinks Romney is inexperienced another way -- you know, with straight talk."

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "[McCain is] fair in taking Romney to task for not taking a position on the surge sooner, but he's not fair in using the 'timetables' quote against him, and that little bit of overreach dominated the conversation. Instead of asserting his own expertise and the fact that he was right three years ago, McCain went for a defense of an obviously wrong attack on Romney, thus weakening the very strong argument for himself. Silly and unnecessarily antagonistic. 'Weak sauce,' as the kids say."

Conservative bloggers also criticized McCain for making the following statement on the subprime mortgage crisis:

"I think that we've got to return to the principle that you don't lend money that can't pay it back. I think that there's some greedy people on Wall Street that perhaps need to be punished."

Michelle Malkin: "Not a word about the greedy homeowners and their brokers who pitched in. Is this the Democrat or GOP debate? I thought John Edwards dropped on. Turns out he's on stage at the Reagan Library!"

NRO's Mark Steyn: "[McCain's] line about 'some greedy people on Wall Street who need to be punished'...reveals, I think, one of the most unpleasant aspects of McCain. For a so-called 'maverick', he's very comfortable with the application of Big Government power, and the assumption of Big Government virtue. Undoubtedly there are 'greedy people on Wall Street'. Why should he and his chums be the ones who decide whether they need to be 'punished'?"

Glenn Reynolds: "I heard a typically sad-toned NPR story on subprimes tonight, and despite their best efforts to evoke the Joads it was a story of people who 'used their houses like ATMs,' taking out home equity loan after home equity loan when they started with a subprime mortgage, only to wind up owing far more than their houses were worth and unable to make the payments. Boo hoo. Shouldn't there be a price for being an idiot? And -- despite not being on Wall Street -- a greedy idiot? Why does McCain want to bail these people out? Why does he want to put Wall Street people in jail?"

DEBATE ROMNEY: Where's The Outrage?!?

Conservative bloggers thought that Romney gave a solid performance but didn't do enough to dethrone McCain:

Michelle Malkin: "Romney is doing fine, but there's no aggression, no fight in him. He seems resigned and subdued. I think he is too nice and too fundamentally decent to dethrone McCain."

Jim Geraghty: "Mitt Romney had all the reason in the world to explain to every Republican primary voter across the country that the good of the party required them to support him over McCain. I don't think he did it. I think he was too genteel, too refined, too lightly pleasant. If McCain is the disaster for the party that his detractors claim, we needed to hear why tonight. I can't see how somebody can watch this and say, 'Romney really took it to McCain tonight.'"

Mary Katharine Ham: "Romney, I thought, was very good but still not electric enough to electrify people. He should have laid into Johnny Mac pretty hard a few good times and he would have had the base-conservative masses at his feet. He looked very sharp tonight, sounded very good on economic issues -- entitlements and the follies of 'cap-and-trade' particularly. But still, missing a bit of something."

NRO's Mark Hemingway: "I think I can say that Romney was the clear winner in the debate. He showed an admirable fighting spirit, though it's probably too little too late."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "I don't think Romney accomplished enough to change the dynamics of the race."

AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "While I don't think it will matter a great deal, I think Romney won this debate in a walk...[He] held his own, and he hit McCain on his record without seeming rude. Now, Romney needed more than a win, and I agree with Phil: I doubt that this debate changed the dynamics of the race."

Hugh Hewitt: "Romney's third conscutive strong performance in a debate will almost certainly lead to a rise day-to-day over the next six days in key states, but whether he rises fast or far enough depends primarily on the [Mike] Huckabee voters' recognition that continued allegiance to the Huck spells a McCain nomination and all that means for the next nine months."

MCCAIN: Time To Enter The Meat-Grinder

Several conservative bloggers are discussing the news that McCain plans to attend this year's CPAC:

NRO's Stanley Kurtz: "McCain has got to address his problem with conservatives. It's a must. That means enduring booing, if he must, and pushing through it with a genuinely reconciling speech. In the end, it would help McCain far more than it would hurt him to endure such a test. The image of McCain dealing with the boos, remaining gracious (which would also help with the temper accusations), and making genuine gestures to conservatives would be powerful. But I see no reason to wait till CPAC, and every reason for McCain to make major public efforts at reconciliation before then. Speed would help, and would also perhaps ease the way at CPAC."

Mark Hemingway adds: "Whatever happens at CPAC, it needs to be part of a broader outreach to the elements of the conservative base that distrust McCain. McCain doesn't need to kow-tow to anybody, but a little respect and humility towards his conservative critics would go a long way."

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru thinks McCain has other things to worry about: "If he's the nominee, I actually don't think repairing relations with conservatives is going to be his biggest problem. His biggest problem is going to be the one that Romney has identified over the last few weeks -- he doesn't seem to care about economics enough to have developed and internalized a compelling message on it, and he isn't a particularly credible messenger either. He may have a weakness on domestic policy as a whole."

Meanwhile, Jim Geraghty thinks some of the conservative criticism of McCain is too strong: "McCain's conservative rating from the American Conservative Union in 2006 was 65 (bleh) but his lifetime record is 82.3 at the end of that year...I'll also note that when McCain takes a position to the left of his party or to the conservative base, it's not on quiet, little-noticed issues. Campaign finance reform. The Gang of 14. The immigration deal. The Bush tax cuts...But year after year, there's been a lot of pro-life votes, a lot of defense spending bills, welfare reform efforts, the Republican Revolution of the mid-1990s, voting to impeach Clinton on both counts, Supreme Court justices, etc. As discussion of Republican primary choices has gotten more heated, I think the terms 'liberal', 'not conservative' and 'not as conservative as I would like' have become synonyms, and that shouldn't be the case."

DEM FIELD: Vewy Intewesting...

Several liberal bloggers are commenting on the latest Gallup tracking poll, which shows Barack Obama closing the gap with Hillary Clinton to just 6 points nationally:

TPM's Josh Marshall: "You've probably seen the Gallup poll out today that shows a mere 6 points separating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama nationwide. More striking to me than the number though is the trendline...Ten days ago, Hillary had a 20 point margin. Then starting about a week ago, Barack's been edging up and she's been edging down a little less than a point a day. What's striking to me about this is the continuing volatility even after Obama's break out in Iowa. Usually the underdog/insurgent candidate (which Obama mainly is, but not so much on the money side) has a big run up in support after an early win. But once you have that, what's the next boffo news story that drives up your numbers again? Particularly after you've fallen back? You need some major development to reshuffle the deck. And it seemed to happen around the 20th of the month."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Notice that Obama had closed the gap to just 4 points after winning in Iowa but Clinton returned to her national double digit dominance after the surprise result in New Hampshire. Marshall notes that Obama's new surge began on January 20th, which, oddly enough, was the day after Clinton won the popular vote in Nevada. Could it be that the dirty tricks message the Obama team injected into the narrative post-Nevada got through?...Moving forward it will be fascinating to see how John Edwards's absence from the race impacts these results."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer notes that a new Rasmussen poll shows Obama coming on strong in CA: "It's important to note that a whole lot of Californians have already voted, so late breaking trends in the state could end up being less pronounced in terms of actual results. Note, for instance, that in Florida, which also has early voting, Obama actually beat Hillary Clinton 53 percent to 47 percent among those deciding in the last month who to vote for but nevertheless lost overall 50 percent to 33 percent. Nevertheless, most signs are pointing to serious movement by Obama in California (and in Massachusetts, as well, where he's now polling within 6 points). Whether it will be enough to overcome Clinton's advantage, which is compounded by her success at shoring up early support, remains to be seen."

TAPPED's Tom Schaller: "I'm not sure how much these polls mean, but Barack Obama is now leading Hillary Clinton in Georgia and Colorado, states he never led her before this month and, in Colorado's case, this week. Ditto for Connecticut, where as of today he is now tied with Clinton. And in Arizona, he's cut her earlier lead of about 20 points in half. Other states -- including big, critical states like California, Massachusetts and New Jersey -- seem to be holding steady for Clinton, and Alabama is trending toward her...And then there is the wildcard of the Edwards' supporters. I mean, who really knows what the hell is going to happen on Tuesday? Boy, this is getting really, really interesting."

Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks Edwards' withdrawal from the race benefits HRC: "In trying to determine if Edwards supporters will break more for Clinton or Obama, there are two main factors to consider: momentum and demographics. First, which candidate currently has the momentum in the campaign? When a candidate drops out of a campaign, his or her supporters tend to break for the candidate with the most momentum at that time. In this case, that appears to be Obama, given that he has gained on Clinton for five consecutive days in the Gallup national tracking poll...Then again, looking the information from the five exit polls (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and Florida) Obama might have needed Edwards to stay close on February 5th. Edwards performed well among whites and voters aged 40-65, both of which are demographics that favor Clinton...Combine these two factors, and it is difficult to say for certain where Edwards supporters will turn nationwide. My instincts tell me that Obama faces a much more difficult campaign now, since he could have pointed to the combined totals of his delegates and Edwards delegates as a means of staying in the campaign longer."

Open Left's Mike Lux agrees that Obama is facing big obstacles: "If I were running the Obama campaign, I would be a little worried. The fact that Hillary still won [FL] easily after four days in a row of strong, positive publicity for Obama because of the combination of the SC win and the Kennedy endorsements is not such a good sign for Obama in terms of this nationwide primary. It's a sign of how big a hill they still have to overcome to try to make up what is clearly a natural advantage for the Clintons...Obama is running a far more effective campaign than they were a few days back. They got knocked off their stride by Clinton tactics, and Obama was looking defensive. But he is now running a very strong campaign. The question is, can that strong campaign, going toe-to-toe with another strong campaign, overcome the natural Clinton lead, and win? And Edwards not being around to split the white vote in the South and Midwest isn't going to help."

OBAMA: Drawing Distinctions

Liberal bloggers are noting that Obama sharpened his critique of HRC's foreign policy views in a speech in Denver yesterday, during which the IL senator said:

"It's time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq; who agreed with him by voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like; and who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed.

We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that's exactly what I will do. Talking tough and tallying up your years in Washington is no substitute for judgment, and courage, and clear plans. It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One -- you have to be right from Day One."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "We know that Hillary Clinton's strategy for running against John McCain is to play up what she has in common with him -- experience, especially on national security matters -- so, it makes sense that Barack Obama would take the opposite tack, playing up his differences from McCain, returning to the meme that judgment trumps experience."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias likes what he hears: "That's more like it...Obviously, Obama, too, would have some problems against John McCain who'll argue that he's too green. But the basic spirit here seems correct to me. You want to argue that discontentment with the fruits of Bush's policies should cause you to vote against John McCain, and the best argument you can make to that effect is that Bush and McCain have very similar records. But to make that argument, you need to be able to step a couple of paces back from your opponent and really wind up and throw a solid punch."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis is surprised by Obama's attack: "Wow. I'm a bit surprised by the tenor of the attack, and by the attack at all...It's possible that the Obama folks are reacting to exit polls from South Carolina and Florida that showed more Dem voters thought Hillary was being too nasty than thought he was being too nasty. Though, it's not clear that the appropriate lesson from the polls is to get nastier. But, Obama may have read this as an opening. Also, this could be a reaction to Hillary campaigning in Florida the past few days -- and that's exactly what she did -- in violation of the agreement that all the candidates accepted that no one would camapign in Florida...That's pretty ballsy, and duplicitous, and this may be Obama's retaliation."

AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay has a different take: "Obama is using Hillary's language -- the very language she used against him. He kept talking about 'Day One.' That was a trademark term of Hillary's stump speech. Obama has turned it on her, which is actually somewhat masterful...I don't see what Obama did as all that negative. To me, he went on the offense -- trying to throw the Clinton campaign off their game. We keep hearing that Obama needs to show Democrats that he can play to win, that he can take on the Republican machine in the general election. I think that's what he's showing us. I really don't see it as negative and mean or 'blistering.' I mean come on, if Barack wanted to get ugly about the 90s, there is plenty to throw out there. But that's not what the Obama did."

Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Kennedy praises Obama in a Daily Kos diary: "As someone who entered the Senate at the age of 30, I want to reiterate what I said on Monday. Barack Obama has more than enough experience to handle the job. What counts in our leadership is not the length of years in Washington, but the reach of our vision, the strength of our beliefs, and that rare quality of mind and spirit that can call forth the best in our country and our people...Even rarer -- and more powerful -- is the movement of inspired Americans powering the Obama campaign. This is proof to me that an Obama presidency will be a transformational moment for our country. I've endorsed a leader not only with tremendous intelligence and skill, but a leader who has the extraordinary ability to move our country past the politics of fear and personal destruction and make Americans want to be part of something bigger than themselves."

OBAMA II: Ruling The Interwebs

While Obama trails HRC in most national polls, it's a different story online:

The Nation's Ari Melber is impressed by Obama's online popularity: "Obama's videos keep breaking campaign records -- his rebuttal to the State of the Union drew over 700,000 views in two days -- and some people are uploading their own grassroots videos on his behalf. A new site, YouBama.com, invites people to join a 'citizen generated campaign' to advance Obama's candidacy...Since its launch this week, with a plug from the hot blog TechCrunch, YouBama has drawn 22,000 visitors. That's solid for a new, unfunded site, though it won't catch Obama's YouTube channel anytime soon. That portal has drawn over 11 million views -- about ten times that of Hillary Clinton -- and it is the most viewed channel across YouTube this week...Of course, Obama's online popularity says little about how most people will vote, as I've noted before. But it does reflect a sizable public appetite for hearing directly from the candidates about substance -- rather than the punditry, strategy and polls that dominate campaign media coverage."

In another example of Obama's online popularity, a 14-year-old DailyKos blogger from Minnesota, Populista, has organized a netroots-wide fundraising drive for Obama that has already raised $25,000 for his campaign (h/t, psericks)

Open Left's Matt Stoller notes that Obama leads HRC 76%-11% in the first post-Edwards Daily Kos straw poll: "It's entirely unclear who the Edwards voters are going to turn to, but we do know that Clinton picked up no activist support in the blogosphere. Obama has fully consolidated the netroots, from last month when there was a split with Edwards."

Meanwhile, Melber also notes that MoveOn may host a virtual primary today: "MoveOn.org, the powerhouse grassroots organization that showered Democrats with more donations in the midterms than almost any other liberal PAC, is asking its members whether to host a virtual vote on Thursday to endorse Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for President. Spurred by John Edwards's withdrawal from the race on Wednesday, MoveOn surveyed a sample of its members to gauge endorsement interest, according to a source with knowledge of the group's operations. Then MoveOn set a deadline of 11 am Thursday for members to back a virtual endorsement vote. If a majority support the idea, virtual balloting will run overnight, open only the group's 3.2 million activists, and an endorsement could be announced by Friday...if MoveOn does manage to unite 'as a progressive community around one of these candidates,' as Executive Director Eli Pariser explains in a new e-mail, its activists could play a pivotal role in this race. There are over a million and half MoveOn voters in Super Tuesday states."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Not-So-Straight Talk

Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias joins conservative bloggers in criticizing McCain's attack on Romney at last night's debate, in which McCain argued that Romney supported a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq:

"One interesting thing about politics is that you might think that when a politician develops a reputation for honesty, the way Saint John of Arizona has, that from that day forward he needs to be super-scrupulous about telling the truth. Otherwise, voters who might dismiss a small fib from a 'regular' politician will suddenly be outraged. In truth, the reverse is the case. Thus, Mac was not only Back last night, but appears to have made his patently false accusation that Mitt Romney favored a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq the centerpiece of his argument at last night's debate. Shocking stuff. McCain's made this claim before, everyone who's looked at it concluded that it wasn't true, and so McCain...just did it again in a higher-profile forum.

Naturally, Jonathan Martin's Politico article on the subject was given the headline 'Romney falls into McCain trap on Iraq' rather than, say, 'McCain Lies His Ass Off.'"

LEST WE FORGET: SkyNet T-800 Model To Endorse McCain

Jim Geraghty predicts what CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will say when he endorses McCain:

"I am endorsing Jan McCain because in tooo-tousand, he vas defeated. He vas knocked down like a little girly man! But he said, 'I'll be back!' And now he is back! He cannot be terminated! He is the running man! He does not offer any True Lies!"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:52 PM

January 30, 2008

1/30: Irreconcilable Differences?

To say that many conservative bloggers are upset about John McCain's FL victory would be an understatement. Mark Steyn called McCain's victory "a big win for illegal-immigration amnesty, remorseless socialization of health care, and big-government solutions to global warming." Michelle Malkin described McCain as "openly and historically hostile to the Republican base" and suggested that she may not support him if he becomes the GOP nominee. Patrick Ruffini described McCain's nomination as a "demoralizing prospect" that would represent "retreating and simply becoming more like the left."

That said, a significant number of conservative bloggers are defending McCain, emphasizing the AZ senator's strong record on national defense and the importance of electing a Republican president. While many conservative bloggers will likely rally behind Mitt Romney during the six days before Feb. 5, we think that most of them will ultimately support McCain if he becomes the nominee, particularly if McCain makes a real attempt to repair his relationship with the base. A good start would be to attend this year's Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 7-9, as Ed Morrissey has recommended.

MCCAIN: Lightning Rod

Malkin: "The declaration that [McCain] is the 'conservative leader who can unite the party' is yet another smack in the face to those who have watched him reach out and slap conservatives time and again -- and then run to the warm, gooey embrace of the liberal media. Is it too much to ask to nominate a Republican candidate who is not as openly and historically hostile to the Republican base as CNN and (McCain's endorsers at) The New York Times are?...Conservatives have core concerns about McCain's trustworthiness, adherence to conservative ideology, and commitment to sovereignty that can't easily be brushed off with glib answers about being the 'straight talk' candidate...At the moment, I'm with Rush [Limbaugh]: 'I can see possibly not supporting a Republican nominee.'"

NRO's Michael Graham: "It is over. Finished. In November, we'll be sending out our most liberal, least trustworthy candidate vs. to take on Hillary Clinton -- perhaps not more liberal than Barack Obama, but certainly far less trustworthy. And the worst part for the Right is that McCain will have won the nomination while ignoring, insulting and, as of this weekend, shamelessly lying about conservatives and conservatism. You think he supported amnesty six months ago? You think he was squishy on tax cuts and judicial nominees before? Wait until he has the power to anger every conservative in America, and feel good about it. Every day, he dreams of a world filled with happy Democrats and insulted Republicans. And he is, thanks to Florida, the presidential nominee of the Republican party. And on that note, I'm off to climb into a bottle of Bushmill's. It's going to be a LONG nine months."

Ruffini: "Despite the outcome in Florida, Republicans across the nation should spend the next week thinking long and hard about the demoralizing prospect of a McCain nomination. There has been a fair amount of discussion of flip-flopping in this race. Well, McCain has changed a few of his positions too. He changed away from conservatism. In the 1980s and early 1990s, he was a solidly credentialed member of the Reagan-Goldwater coalition who was right in line with the people of Arizona. In the late 1990s, when he saw that he could get better press for his dark horse Presidential aspirations as a 'maverick,' he changed. McCain could fairly point out that he stood on 'principle.' But it is equally fair to point out that those principles aren't ours."

RedState's haystack still plans to vote for McCain if he is the GOP nominee: "As a Conservative first, and a Republican if it suits me...I accept that I must support whomever is NOT a Democrat in November. While it may appear to be John McCain, in the end...all that will matter is that I vote for one who is NOT a Democrat. I get it. There's always 2012...and until then, LOCAL elections will mean EVERYTHING. In the mean time...Rome burns..."

Not every conservative blogger was distraught over McCain's victory, however:

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein urges conservative bloggers to tone down their attacks on McCain: "Some conservatives will simply never be able to support McCain, and I understand that. But I would urge those who support the war and consider the threat of Islamic terrorism to be the greatest challenge of our time, to consider the big picture, recognize that McCain does deserve some credit for the courage and perseverence he's shown, and at least temper some of the hostility."

Power Line's John Hinderaker doesn't think nominating McCain would be a disaster: "Paul [Mirengoff] wrote a long time ago about the 'stature gap' between the Republican Presidential candidates and the Democrats. I think we're seeing that, in the eyes of most Americans, the real stature gap is between McCain and the rest of the field. Americans generally choose the person, not his policies. That's frustrating to many of us, but history suggests that it's usually wise."

RedState's Erick Erickson: "Tonight was not a failure of conservatism, but a triumph of military voters who have made their home in the Republican Party because we are the party of a strong national defense. In both South Carolina and Florida, they won it for McCain. In the grand coalition of the GOP, we've talked about social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. We've all ignored the military voters, except John McCain. And he won them big. His message resonated. And the man still has an +80% conservative rating. I shed no tears."

NRO's Jim Geraghty agrees with Erickson: "McCain had the strongest credentials on national security in the field, and that's still the driving issue in Republican primaries -- not by a wide margin, but by enough. Romney could offer as many national security proposals as he wanted -- double Guantanamo, etc. -- but in the end, his biography didn't offer enough opportunities to say, 'this guy knows how to fight in a dangerous world.' Running the first post-9/11 Olympics was nice, metaphorically flipping the bird to the Iranians when they wanted a state police escort -- all of this is nice, but none of this competes with a man who begins his campaign video with North Vietnamese propaganda footage of the candidate tersely giving his name to an interrogator."

To no one's surprise, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan is pleased by McCain's win: "A McCain nomination means one thing for sure. The era of legal, authorized torture in America is coming to a close. This is a critical moment. And it is more than fitting that a man who endured torture at the hands of America's enemies should now be picked to restore American honor after the disgrace of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin offers an explanation for McCain's success: "It may simply be that the Republican electorate (or at least enough of it to select a nominee) may not be as ideologically pure as the conservative pundits might prefer. Perhaps many Republican voters really do think global warming should be addressed. It could be that lots of Republican voters like tax cuts but want them accompanied by good old-fashioned budget cuts. It may be that when they're not in the throes of an impassioned immigration debate, many Republican voters wouldn't mind eventually legalizing millions of immigrants, so long as the border is sealed first. And frankly, G.O.P. primary voters simply may find Mr. McCain's heretical support for campaign finance reform a lot less significant than personal character traits like honesty, courage and persistence."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins thinks the GOP will be experiencing "agony" over the next few months: "The howls of anguish are understandably going to be loud and long amongst conservatives and I expect at least a few weeks of venting, outrage, and raw fury mixed with largely ignored pleas for Republican party unity before the decision making really starts. At that point some conservatives will enthusiastically support McCain because he's the Republican nominee, many others will reluctantly, sullenly support McCain because they at least think he's better than a Democrat, and more than a few conservatives will decide to sit the election out."

Townhall's Matt Lewis also makes a prediction:

"My guess is that tonight's victory for McCain will lead to two opposite results...

1. Many conservatives who have hesitated to support McCain will now (all of a sudden) decide to endorse him. Some big-money Republicans who have been hedging their bets will now start writing checks to McCain. This is vitally important for McCain.
2. Many conservatives who have long-hated McCain will actually increase their attacks on him. Look for outside groups to begin running anti-McCain ads. Look for many prominent talk show hosts to put on the full-court press and promise that McCain's election will lead to Armageddon, or something...
Ultimately, it is now up to John McCain to find a way to extend an olive branch to movement conservatives who, over the years, have had legitimate reasons to be suspicious of him."

MCCAIN II: The View From The Left

Liberal bloggers have long considered McCain the GOP's most formidable general election candidate and were rooting for Romney to win FL. However, now that McCain appears to be in a very strong position, liberal bloggers are trying to look on the bright side:

Open Left's Chris Bowers:

"With his victory in Florida tonight, it is very, very hard to see a way that McCain does not win the Republican nomination for President now. I had been cheering for Romney, largely because McCain is tied with Clinton and Obama, while right now Romney loses to Obama by 17.0%, and Clinton by 12.4%...However, there are many reasons to believe that while Romney would have been an easier Republican opponent, the difference between him and McCain was nowhere near the 12-17% mark in current polls. In truth, the difference between McCain and Romnry is more like 5-7%, at best, and here is why:

• Romney is still a relative unknown: While John McCain's name ID is 100%, Mitt Romney's is much lower. Between 4-10% of Romney polling deficit on McCain is derived entirely from being lesser known. [...]


• Conservative media elites will thrash McCain. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk with thrash McCain for months on end, encouraging conservatives to either sit at home or support a third-party. [...]


• Money. McCain will simply be unable to raise as much money as Romney could raise, mainly owing to their differences in personal fortune. [...]


• McCain only has Iraq. McCain simply cannot engage in a substantive debate on anything except Iraq...When people get a whiff of McCain's hawk stances on Iraq, they will crumble. When they realize he can't debate things like the mortgage crisis (which, btw, Clinton is actually very, very good on, both in terms of policy and rhetoric), they will crumble further. A Republican running on foreign policy right now is a doomed campaign.


• McCain is soft. McCain's upward 'surge' in favorables is only two months old, and largely a result of him emerging as the hero, Republican frontrunner...his numbers have dropped and risen thirty points in either direction in just one year. That means the public has an extremely soft and vague view of McCain, something that will disappear during a general election. [...]


• Beating McCain is better than beating Romney: If McCain becomes the nominee, it is only because Republicans think he can win, not because they actually like him. As such, as long as we can pull it off, defeating McCain is actually preferable to defeating Romney. If we beat McCain, then not only did we beat Republicans, but we beat Republicans who sold out in order to try and beat us. Crushing a patsy placeholder like Romney is one thing, but crushing Republicans and conservatives who hated their nominee, but chose him because they thought he could win, is way, way, better. [...]

TPM's Josh Marshall: "There are some small saving graces. First is the mini-GOP civil war as the right-wing establishment elites go after McCain with attack ads like this one being rolled out now by David Bossie's Citizens United. Then there's the spate of seizures from folks like Rush Limbaugh as they either go insane or try to eat their words and cozy up to McCain. Then we'll have McCain trying to suck up to the Rush types. So it's not all a loss."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum finds McCain less "offensive" than his GOP rivals: "I realize that this is going to sound painfully patronizing, but seriously, I want to congratulate the rank-and-file voters of the Republican Party for their performance so far. Obviously I'm not planning to vote for any of the Republican candidates myself, but some are worse than others: [Rudy] Giuliani is a creepy one-note screwball; [Mike] Huckabee is ignorant and proud of it; [Fred] Thompson was a coma-inducing joke; and [Tom] Tancredo, [Duncan] Hunter, and [Ron] Paul were just vanity candidates. The two who are left, McCain and Romney, are by far the least offensive of the whole field. So: congratulations GOP. Considering what you had to work with, not a bad effort."

ROMNEY: Conservatives Turn Their Lonely Eyes To You...

NRO's Mark Steyn thinks Romney is in deep trouble: "This is a tough night for the Romney campaign. Fred's withdrawal should have benefited them more than McCain. If Huck stays in, there's no prospect of southern victories for Mitt on Super Tuesday. And, if Huck and/or Rudy pull out, their votes on balance are likely to break for McCain."

John Hawkins agrees: "McCain's victory last night combined with the announcement that Rudy is going to drop out and endorse him is really, really bad news for Romney. McCain already had a lead in the national polls and several of the big Super Tuesday states...McCain is going to be difficult to stop at this point, even with talk radio and the blogosphere bombing him non-stop from now until Super Tuesday."

Matt Lewis considers Romney's options: "There's no doubt that Mitt Romney's large personal fortune -- combined with the fact that some conservatives will never embrace John McCain -- means that Mitt Romney could afford to stay in the race long after Tsunami Tuesday. But two questions come to mind...(1.) Would this shrewd business man, who has already spent well-over 20 million dollars of his own money, continue spending money on what could be a losing cause? Smart businessmen don't throw away money. (2.) Would Mitt Romney want to be blamed for a Republican loss in the General Election? Fair or not, if he prolongs the race too long, that's what some people would say..."

Long-time Romney supporter Hugh Hewitt finds the silver lining: "The combination of his win in Florida and Rudy's expected endorsement make John McCain the front-runner, but not the nominee. The exit polls that show Romney winning by significant margins among conservative and very conservative voters set up next Tuesday's races as the moment when the GOP will chose to stop the Arizona maverick or concede that it is his turn. The shadow of the '96 [Bob] Dole campaign will fall on McCain now, and the prospect of an Obama-McCain fall campaign will be the key consideration for Huckabee voters over the next seven days. Huck's voters are conservative or very conservative, and if they stay with Huck because they like him better than Romney, they hand the nomination to McCain. If an ABM Treaty emerges -- anybody but McCain -- the smoke will clear a week from now on a delegate hunt that will continue through the Pennsylvania primary in late April, seven contests in May, and the June 3rd elections in New Mexico and South Dakota."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey explains how Romney can win: "Romney has a better national organization and more resources to run in 21 states simultaneously. He can negate some of the momentum and make this a delegate chase, and could very possibly come out of next week with a delegate lead. It won't be easy, especially since the McCain win in Florida will only bolster McCain's lead in the coastal states. If the race really does come down to McCain and Romney, then Romney could also benefit from conservative disaffection with McCain. In the GOP, there exists a very real resistance to McCain, and that could find itself focusing on Romney as the anti-McCain. It's not the most positive phenomenon, but Romney may find it essential for a national victory."

Campaign Standard's William Kristol thinks Romney needs to act quickly: "What could change the situation? It's hard to believe paid advertising across 22 states (even if Romney's willing to splurge) could fundamentally change the dynamic. There could always be some sort of scandal, revelation, or gaffe, or course -- though that would be far more likely if there were a new, suddenly-emerged frontrunner, than with the most veteran and best-known candidate in the field. So the most likely game-changer, if there were to be one, would be tonight's debate. It's likely to be Romney's last direct shot at McCain. If Romney were to land a really telling blow, it could shape the narrative for the rest of this week. If not, if this debate follows the course of almost all its predecessors and has no decisive moment, then all attention turns to Clinton-Obama, and McCain should have a pretty clear path."

Meanwhile, long-time Giuliani supporter Patrick Ruffini endorses Romney: "With Mayor Giuliani now all but out of the race, I have no qualms about supporting his fellow chief executive Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination...Mitt Romney is a better candidate than he lets on. His business acumen has hardly been explored in this campaign, at least not early enough. He is, as they say in Boston, wicked smart. Of all the candidates running, it is hardest to see the colossal managerial failures of Katrina happening under his watch. His plan wasn't perfect, but I like the fact that he's a Republican who's tackled the health care issue. He can communicate about matters of war and peace, and his instincts are sound. He could position himself as a clean break on the economy. Attributes he had to soft sell in the primary campaign would provide attractive contrasts to Hillary Clinton in a general election. And in Presidential elections, Governors beat Senators. Romney is our last chance of getting that historically winning combination."

GIULIANI: What Goes Up Must Come Down

Matt Lewis explains Giuliani's collapse: "Rudy could have campaigned hard -- and done reasonably well -- in states like New Hampshire and Michigan. Granted, he may not have won either state, but he would have been relevant and respectable. The trick would have been to campaign hard in those states in order to keep his name and face in front of the public eye -- while simultaneously letting it be known that he was planning on winning in Florida and on Super Tuesday. Granted, it would have taken some finesse to pull off -- but it could have been done. But Rudy's team was afraid that if he tried hard but lost, he would shatter the facade of his own inevitability. So he sought to avoid losing by not fully competing...In this regard, he was cursed by his early front-runner status. He conducted his campaign very much like a football team who has a big lead, starts to play conservative, and ends up losing."

NRO's Rich Lowry thinks Giuliani helped McCain: "McCain was very lucky in the candidate he had to compete with for the same pool of voters. Rudy pulled out of the early states, leaving them to McCain. Rudy's descent in NH tracked McCain's resurgence there almost exactly. By the time it came to the crucial state of Florida, Rudy faded as well, handing crucial voters to McCain. The Arizona senator was always the main threat to Rudy, but Rudy never engaged him -- as if he respected him too much to fight him (by the end, Rudy may have been protecting his reputation in what he knew would be his soon-to-be post-presidential candidate career). Then, another benefit to McCain: Rudy changed the big Northeastern Feb. 5 states to winner-take-all, likely handing huge numbers of delegates to McCain. Why shouldn't Rudy endorse McCain? It'd be his final favor."

CLINTON: In It To Win It (And Spin It)

Liberal bloggers disagree about whether HRC's FL spin was effective:

Josh Marshall doesn't think HRC will get much of a bounce from her FL "victory": "The big question tonight was how the press would play Hillary Clinton's 'win' in Florida, or how successfully she could spin the result to count as a landslide victory on a par with Obama's big win in South Carolina...Just in terms of managing the news cycle I think what the Clinton folks would have been looking for are two things -- big pictures of Hillary smiling, preferably above the fold, thus suggesting victory and some mention of her margin. But I don't see either anywhere. Perhaps the print front pages will play this differently. But on balance I suspect they didn't get as much juice out of this as they wanted or expected."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat disagrees with Marshall: "First, Hillary Clinton was on television last night. Barack Obama was not. Hillary Clinton got to have her stump speech covered then did interviews where she got to restate the rationale of her campaign. She changed the subject from South Carolina and the Kennedys and got the story to be about her. Second, the hostility of the Media towards her was again manifested in petty ways. This always has a backlash favorable to the Clintons. Josh [Marshall] is a Big Media blogger so he seems blinded to this. And indeed, he is very hostile to the Clintons now so, in a way, he is part of that effect...The bottom line is this -- the headlines about the Democratic race were changed last night. No South Carolina. No Ted Kennedy. No Jesse Jackson. Heck, no Bill Clinton. And that was the most important goal for the Clinton campaign last night. The Clinton campaign's Florida gambit worked."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias is not impressed by HRC's win: "As expected, the Florida non-primary goes to Hillary Clinton. I congratulate her on her prize of zero delegates. Good luck to HRC with her lame spin."

Ezra Klein: "Hillary Clinton easily wins a fake primary with no delegates, pretends otherwise."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "The Democratic race doesn't matter, or count. Florida lost its delegates to the Democratic convention for violating DNC rules about when it could hold its primary. All the candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida as a result, but now Hillary is trying to get the delegates reinstated because she's winning. Imagine if she succeeds and those delegates are enough to push her over the top. Florida would again steal the election. And I suspect all hell would break loose."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos' DHinMI sees ominous signs for HRC: "Only Hillary Clinton did any events in the state, and she didn't run an actual campaign operation like she has in the contested states...That 50% of voters came out to vote for candidates who refused to campaign in their state and say the state's delegates should not be sat at the convention, and that a majority of the voters under 64 voted for someone other than Clinton are statistics that probably don't give the Clinton campaign a ton of confidence going in to Super Tuesday."

In contrast, MyDD's Todd Beeton thinks the Clinton campaign "outplayed" Obama's campaign: "This morning the Obama campaign held a conference call with David Plouffe and John Kerry to push back against the Clinton campaign's insistence that Florida should count. Their frame of Clinton's Florida gambit of traveling to Florida to celebrate her expected win as though it's an election that counts in any technical way, is to accuse her of politics as usual...I have to agree with WaPo's Gene Robinson who offered a reality check when he suggested that what essentially happened is that the Clinton campaign outplayed the Obama campaign on this one. In other words, it's just smart politics to try to mitigate the 2 really bad news days she's had...The holier than thou attitude the Obama campaign is pushing, and the media is buying, is getting a little sickening."

CLINTON II: A Surge Of Applause

Several liberal bloggers are annoyed that HRC stood and applauded after President George W. Bush boasted about the success of the Iraq troop surge during his State of the Union address. As The Hill's Alexander Bolton reports:

"Clinton and Obama's divergent views on the troop surge in Iraq, however, were plainly visible.

When Bush proclaimed, 'Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt,' Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated. The president's line divided most of the Democratic audience, with nearly half standing to applaud and the other half sitting in stony silence."

Matthew Yglesias, who's been one of the liberal blogosphere's leading critics of HRC's foreign policy views, says simply: "And there you have it."

Mark Kleiman, who also prefers Obama to HRC, says sarcastically: "Tell me again that Obama and Clinton now have the same position on the war in Iraq. I didn't hear you clearly the first time."

Chris Bowers is unhappy with HRC's behavior:

"The most consistent criticism of Obama online has focused upon his rhetorical posture in relation to Republicans and conservatives: conciliatory language of unity, the use of right wing talking points on health care and social security, positing left-wing DFH strawmen (70's style, anti-military love-in was my favorite), triangulation that blames ideologues and partisans on both sides for polarization, etc. However, here is an instance where the roles are starkly reversed, as Hillary Clinton literally stands up and applauds George W. Bush for his troop surge, while Obama remains seated.

There are not many ways to interpret Clinton's remarks except as applause for the escalation she ostensibly opposed. Even if she was applauding 'the troops,' that would imply that the Democrats who did not stand up were somehow against the troops, which is the most vicious right-wing talking point of all. This is should also be a stark reminder of the difference between Clinton and Obama on supporting and not regretting / opposing the war in the first place, on Clinton's general hawkishness, on ending the causes of wars like Iraq, and even on the continued presence of a residual American military presence in Iraq. If Clinton applauds the escalation, then why should I have any confidence that she will keep only a small residual presence in Iraq? This is a terrible move by Clinton, one that makes me feel as though more than five years have passed since the AUMF and nothing has changed, and that she is portraying her foreign policy views dishonestly during the campaign.

I think there are very clear differences between Obama and Clinton on this nexus of policy, rhetorical, and administrative issues. In the final analysis, it is why I definitely prefer Obama to Clinton in this campaign."

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "I'm sort of leaning towards Obama at this point, considering that Clinton actually applauded at Bush's discussion of the surge in Iraq. Bleh. It's as if the last candidate who opens their mouth sends me running towards their opponent (way to go John Edwards media strategy!). I'm thoroughly aggravated by the village's embrace of Obama, or more accurately the savaging of the Clinton's for both gender and class reasons, but this can no longer overcome her positioning on Iraq and it does overcome his slightly more conservative positioning on health care and the economy."

Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "A reduction in violence to 2003 levels was not the goal of the surge. Political reconciliation was. BushCo doesn't need our help in rewriting history. And we sure as hell shouldn't be applauding a failed policy that has taken the lives of 937 more Americans and who knows how many Iraqis just so Bush could pass the buck to the next President."

Kevin Drum, who's generally been an Obama skeptic, doesn't think HRC's applause makes her more hawkish than Obama: "Yes, Obama opposed the war, and he opposed it for good reasons. He deserves a lot of credit for that. At the same time, taking a position when you're watching from the sidelines is a lot different from taking a position when you're in office and have to pay attention to the political winds more closely. So how has Obama done on that score? Let's be honest: since he entered the Senate, Obama has hardly been a leader of the antiwar caucus. In fact, his opposition to the war has been pretty muted and his voting record has been nearly identical to Hillary Clinton's...I don't mean this as a huge criticism of Obama. Electoral realities are electoral realities. But it does lead me to be generally unimpressed with cost-free symbolism like declining to clap for the surge. The real question is, what will he do once he's in office and he has to make good on his symbolism? Based on his track record over the past couple of years, my guess is that his real-world policy on Iraq would be about the same as Hillary's."

Meanwhile, several liberal bloggers see Alan Dershowitz's and Paul Berman's endorsements of HRC as additional evidence of the NY senator's hawkishness:

The Nation's Ari Berman: "Dershowitz has devoted his life in recent years to discrediting the careers and reputations of critics of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, slavishly defending Israel against any and all comers, no matter the validity of their point. Berman (no relation) was the intellectual architect behind the liberal hawks case for war in Iraq, which he described as a 'Lincolnian war, a war for the liberation of others'...These are the types of endorsements one wishes the candidate would decline. Unless, of course, she agrees with them."

Yglesias: "Paul 'al-Qaeda is totalitarian so we should fight it by invading Iraq' Berman wants Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee. So does Alan 'everyone who disagrees with me is an anti-Semite' Dershowitz. And of course she's already secured the support of Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon."

EDWARDS: And Then There Were Two...

Liberal bloggers are discussing Edwards' upcoming withdrawal from the race:

Matthew Yglesias: "It took me a long time to warm to John Edwards, and by the time I did it was almost over. But I think it was his presence in the race and his campaign that really set the tone for the whole thing, and he deserves an enormous amount of credit for any good things that may come in the next administration."

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "His departure is a sad moment, not least because Edwards' policies on health care, inequality, education, and so much more have framed this race, setting the progressive standard for his better-funded, media darling competitors. Hillary Clinton began her run imagining Edwards as her chief rival, and therein lay so much of his power: He alone had the ability, early in the primary, to define what it meant to challenge Clinton from the left."

Matt Stoller: "Edwards did have some effect on this race. He pushed and prodded a bit and injected some economic populism into the election, and he was helpful in a variety of fights we undertook, such as the Fox News fight and the FISA dispute. While he did run slightly to the left of the other candidates, my sense is that his presence as a progressive champion was overstated because he could never convincingly explain why he had shifted from his track record as a fairly moderate Senator to a harder edged candidate. That said, I'm glad he was in this, he did some good, and I hope he lands a spot in the next administration somewhere."

Ezra Klein praises Edwards' online supporters: "No other candidate came close to having the whip-smart, searingly eloquent, ferociously committed online advocates that Edwards amassed...If you are too judge a man by his friends, you should judge a candidate by his backers, and in that measure, Edwards was truly fortunate."

Meanwhile, Stoller thinks Edwards' exit helps HRC: "I think this is bad for Obama, but I guess we'll see where his vote goes. Edwards is more likely to endorse Obama than Clinton, so of course there's that."

Open Left's Paul Rosenberg agrees: "Dropping out now, just a week before Super-Duper Tuesday strikes me as really strange...It undercuts any possibility of playing a powerbroker role. It undercuts all the organizing that's gone into those states. And it hands a clear advantage to Clinton, in the estimates that Chris [Bowers] has been doing...So the only sense that I can make out of it, is that it is a deliberate gift to Clinton, with Edwards thinking it is more effective not to endorse her explicitly -- which doesn't say a lot for his sense of his own influence over his own supporters."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Luck Of The Irish

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"Much of what's happened to make McCain the presumptive nominee has been luck, pure and simple. He was lucky, to begin with, that George W. Bush lacked an heir apparent -- no Jeb [Bush], no Condi [Rice], no Dick Cheney -- who could unite the movement establishment against him. He was lucky that Mitt Romney was a Mormon. He was lucky that Fred Thompson, a candidate who might have succeeded in rallying both social and economic conservatives against his various heresies, was out-campaigned by Mike Huckabee, whose appeal was ultimately too sectarian to make him a threat. He was lucky that Rudy Giuliani ran an inutterably lousy campaign. (More on this anon.) He was lucky that Mike Huckabee won Iowa; lucky that the media basically treated that win as a McCain victory (though obviously his skill in cultivating the press made a big difference, in that case and many others); lucky, as David Freddoso suggests, that Huckabee decided to campaign in New Hampshire and (taking my foolish advice) Michigan instead of going straight to South Carolina; lucky that Giuliani decided not to campaign in New Hampshire after Christmas; and lucky, finally, that Fred Thompson decided to go all in against Huckabee in South Carolina, thus delivering McCain the Palmetto State and with it Florida. And he was lucky, above all, that his strongest challenger was a guy that almost nobody liked -- not the media, not his fellow candidates, and not enough of the voters, in the end. [...]

Now if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, then we'll know that Providence wants McCain in the White House."

LEST WE FORGET: Congress To Raise Alpacas To Aid Struggling Economy

The Onion:

"Members of Congress assured Americans that they have a definitive plan for reviving the slumping economy when they unveiled on Monday a bold new fiscal stimulus package that calls for the purchase of a pair of alpacas.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said the proposal, which is expected to solve the sub-prime mortgage crisis, boost consumer confidence, and pump much-needed liquid capital into the market, will be put into motion as soon as the first issue of Alpaca World magazine arrives and Congress has a chance to go through the catalog and select the perfect mating pair.

'We're confident that breeding alpacas will jump-start the economy and lift this nation out of debt once we get the start-up money,' said McConnell, who insists the exotic livestock require very little maintenance and are of a gentler temperament than their cousin the llama. 'All you need is a fertile male and a female in heat, and nature takes it course. Before you know it, the money is rolling in and there's alpacas everywhere.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:55 PM

January 29, 2008

1/29: The Maverick And His Enemies

The polls indicate a toss-up between John McCain and Mitt Romney in FL. As of press time, few bloggers have ventured to make predictions. However, most of them concede that a FL victory will make McCain very tough to beat, considering his leads in big 2/5 states such as New York and California.

While McCain may be on the cusp of conslidating his position as the GOP frontrunner, conservative bloggers continue to have substantial problems with the AZ senator. Righty bloggers are in an uproar over John Fund's Wall Street Journal op-ed, which alleges that McCain said he might not nominate a judge like Samuel Alito because Alito "wore his conservatism on his sleeve." Although McCain quickly denied having made such a statement, the controversy only reminded conservative bloggers why they don't trust McCain. NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez writes:

"[McCain] may wind up being the nominee. But that's not a given. And while there is still a contest in the GOP, the interview process needs to continue. Because I don't think conservatives are in the mood to settle -- I think they want a viable conservative, who doesn't mind if, say, Samuel Alito is one. And while I have no idea, I wouldn't be shocked if people stay home in November if the GOP nominee is someone who's more comfortable with Joe Lieberman's politics (God bless him) than Rush Limbaugh's."

GOP FIELD: Momentum Vs. Organization

Campaign Standard's Stephen F. Hayes thinks the McCain-Romney battle will come down to momentum vs. organization: "McCain seems to have momentum. All day Monday, reporters and campaign advisers whispered about the latest tracking poll numbers -- some of them done by the campaigns, others private. The figure discussed most today was a private poll that had McCain up by four points heading into tomorrow, a quick reversal of fortunes since the same poll reportedly had him down two points late last week, before he won the endorsement of Florida Governor Charlie Crist. The Crist endorsement, and that of Senator Mel Martinez one day earlier, gave the McCain campaign a generous helping of 'earned media' -- i.e. news coverage -- over the weekend and Monday. He could need the help to compensate for a relative lack of organization here...Romney early on won the support of many key supporters of former Governor Jeb Bush, and several people knowledgeable about Florida politics believe that he has a strong advantage on organization. Romney has dominated the airwaves here, too, as he has in other states."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey, who endorsed Romney yesterday, predicts a win for his favored candidate: "My prediction is that the race will break towards Romney. He has the organizational advantage and can do GOTV, as he proved in the caucus states (except Iowa, where [Mike] Huckabee's populism trumped Romney's organization). I'm not sure I see late-breaking Rudy [Giuliani] and Huckabee voters favoring McCain; both, I think, would break more to the right than to the center. I'll predict a 33-30 win for Mitt Romney -- but I wouldn't be too surprised to see that reversed for McCain as well.

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin thinks McCain can sew up the nomination by winning FL: "Should McCain's post-[Charlie] Crist endorsement momentum result in a Florida win, there is every reason to believe he will hold his leads in the big three February 5 states of New York, New Jersey, and California [...] and do quite well in the remainder. Retail politicking is out, obviously; what remains is paid and free media. Part of that is the national media coverage of the 'frontrunner' in national polling, which will create something of a bandwagon effect for McCain. An added factor in his favor: even if Rudy remains in the race, he is not likely to hold his share of the voters in February 5 states, which may benefit McCain in Missouri, Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois and Minnesota. What if Mitt Romney pulls out a win? I think we have a wild coast-to-coast fight. McCain will still hold the advantage in the states in which he currently leads, but Romney, with fresh momentum and lots and lots of money for paid ads, will have a very good shot at consolidating conservative support. In short, all bets are off at that point [...] Bottom line: I don't see how McCain can be stopped if he wins tomorrow."

Townhall's Matt Lewis agrees with Rubin that McCain is well-positioned for Super Tuesday: "Assuming Rudy Giuliani does not win Florida [today], the winner-take-all 'delegate rich' Republican primaries in New York (101), New Jersey (52), and Connecticut seem to favor John McCain...Arizona (53), McCain's home state, is also winner-take-all contest...Assuming he's still in the reace, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee will probably favor Mike Huckabee, thus depriving Mitt Romney of wins in those states."

Meanwhile, The Atlantic's Ross Douthat thinks Romney must win FL: "It seems to me increasingly implausible to imagine Mitt Romney winning the Republican nomination if he loses to John McCain in Florida tomorrow. With Rudy and Huckabee fading, the chances of a grinding, three or four-way delegate war that goes all the way to the convention are fading as well, which means that it'll be down to Romney and McCain (with Huckabee playing spoiler in some southern states) as soon as Floridians finish voting. And if you look at the polls in the upcoming states, Romney's trailing McCain all across the map, from California to New Jersey to Pennsylvania to Missouri to Alabama. Some of these deficits are surmountable, but not if McCain heads into February 5th with the wind at his back. Like Obama going into South Carolina, Romney needs a game-changer tomorrow night -- and the numbers, for what little they're worth, aren't trending in an encouraging direction."

MCCAIN: Harshly Judged

The conservative blogosphere is buzzing about John Fund's Wall Street Journal op-ed, in which Fund writes: "[McCain] would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.'"

Yesterday, NRO's Byron York asked McCain about the op-ed, and the AZ senator strongly denied Fund's allegations:

"'Let me just look you in the eye,' McCain told me. 'I've said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I've said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed.' [...]

I asked whether McCain had ever drawn any distinction between Roberts and Alito. 'No, no, of course not,' McCain said.

I asked about the 'wore his conservatism on his sleeve' line. 'I'm proud of people who wear their conservatism on their sleeves, because they have to have a clear record of strict adherence to the Constitution,' McCain told me."

Kathryn Jean Lopez notes that Fund stands by his reporting:

"John Fund was on Mark Levin's show and said that he stands by his story, that he had multiple sources. John emphasized to Mark that his sources told him that McCain said that he might not appoint an Alito, not that he would not. But, again, sticks by the story.

This, of course, is important since it is one thing to vote the right way, it is another thing to know what you're dealing with in a president who will be nominating the justices."

RedState's Leon H. Wolf explains why McCain's alleged statement is so irritating to conservatives: "After the acrimonious fight over [Harriet] Miers, and the equally acrimonious confirmation fight over Alito, it is safe to say that the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court is regarded by many voting conservatives as the most significant conservative victory of the last three or four years. If John McCain had repudiated the decision to nominate Alito because he was visibly conservative, he would have intentionally planted a dynamite charge in the weakest portion of his own base -- conservatives who had recently talked themselves into rolling the dice on his judicial nominations -- and detonated the charge. It would have shown an absolute deafness towards the central concern of the voters McCain is trying hardest at this moment to court."

Wolf continues: "If Fund does in fact come forward with sources who can substantiate this conversation, I think this remark finishes John McCain in the long run. It is a perfect soundbite made for commericals, and as I said, it hits McCain where he is most vulnerable with conservatives. Further, for him to have made such a remark with a crucial Florida primary right around the corner would speak to the fact that even with a zillion advisers constantly around him, he really just does not understand the issues that are of importance to conservatives, and he is not willing to meet us on our terms. You all know that I'm a Romney guy, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt. I'm still willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt on what was said, but if Fund turns out to have been right, I will have great difficulty supporting him even in the general, for whatever that is worth."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If you look at McCain's statements yesterday, you'll notice he and his campaign are careful to not come out and say, 'Fund and/or his sources are damn liars.' This is a stunningly damaging quote, with little detail on where and when it was said, stuck in the middle of a story about how McCain can warm his relationship with the right, coming the day before the primary that could make McCain the clear frontrunner and the guy in the driver's seat for Super Tuesday. If Fund's quote is wrong, isn't there a strange lack of outrage from McCain?"

Stephen F. Hayes thinks this story is bogus: "In the days before the potentially decisive Florida primary, someone (we don't know who) claimed to have heard McCain (we don't know where) say that he was concerned about Alito's conservatism (we don't know when). I understand the conservative objections to John McCain and I'm sympathetic to many of them, including his willing participation in the so-called Gang of 14. But this is scurrilous."

NRO's Andy McCarthy continues to distrust McCain on judicial nominations:

"I hope Sen. McCain's explanation to conservatives about his remarks on Justice Alito will include an explanation of (a) why he allowed the Gang of 14 deal to kill the nominations of several conservative judges, (b) why he and Sen. [Lindsay] Graham blocked Pentagon General Counsel Jim Haynes from even getting a vote; and (c) how he came to believe the 'advice' part of the Constitution's 'advice and consent' clause requires a president to consult with the Senate before nominating judges -- an assertion made by members in the Gang of 14 in the announcement of their deal.

Just as significantly, I hope he is asked to explain -- though no one seems too anxious to press him on this point -- (e) whether he agrees that the conservative justices he claims he will appoint to the Supreme Court are virtually certain to invalidate the McCain/Kennedy campaign finance reform law (as Justices [Antonin] Scalia, [Clarence] Thomas, Alito, [Anthony] Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts have voted to do), and (f), since liberal justices are much more likely to support McCain/Feingold (as Justices [John Paul] Stevens, [David] Souter, [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg, and [Stephen] Breyer have consistently done), what he thinks is more important, campaign finance reform or conservative justices?"

NRO's Mark Hemingway asks McCain one of McCarthy's questions during a blogger conference call: "In the wake of McCain's alleged Alito comments earlier today, the Arizona Senator held a conference call to address the issue. I took the opportunity to ask him about whether he's concerned about conservative justices opposing McCain-Feingold, as per what Andy observed earlier today. This isn't an exact quote, I'm paraphrasing his answer a bit but he said, 'I'll trust their judgment. There are decisions to be made on the Supreme Court that are far more important than my particular legislative biases. I want them to strictly interpret the Constitution.'"

McCarthy's concerns are not assuaged: "Mark (H), the Senator says he wants judges to 'strictly interpret the Constitution.' Fine...but isn't the following a fair follow up question: If you believe judges must 'strictly interpret the Constitution,' is there any reason why the two other branches should not strictly interpret the Constitution? [...] If McCain is so devoted to a strict interpretation of the Constitution (by which I assume he means an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but perhaps not), can he explain by what strict interpretation of the First Amendment [...] McCain/Feingold is constitutional? Any straight talk appreciated."

OBAMA: Pass Him The Butter, Cuz He's On A Roll!

Open Left's Mike Lux: "So, Barack Obama's had a pretty damn good few days here. The size of the SC victory was big enough to get the traditional media pundits to switch from an 'Obama's on the defensive' narrative to a 'Clinton tactics backfiring' narrative. The Caroline [Kennedy] and Teddy [Kennedy] endorsements are being played very big, and add to the sense of building momentum...Now the question is whether Obama can capitalize. The Kennedy endorsement could help him with Hispanics, the swing liberals Matt and others have discussed here, and older Democrats -- all groups Obama desperately needs to move numbers in. Obama needs to focus on voter groups, because if he doesn't do better than he's been doing in those demographics, his wins will be limited to Illinois and the South. Above all, though, he needs to stay away from the defensive elitism that has at times characterized his performance since Iowa, and get back to the 'who will provide genuine change' frame that he won Iowa with. If he can do that, he will come from behind in CA and elsewhere, and come out of February 5th with a big victory."

Open Left's Chris Bowers examines Obama's SC momentum: "Both Rasmussen and Gallup have their first partially post-South Carolina national tracking polls today (about one-quarter and one-third post-South Carolina, respectively). Between the two polls, Obama has closed an 11% national gap to 9.5%. A crude estimate from these numbers suggests that once all of the data is post-South Carolina, Obama has cut a 9-11% national deficit roughly in half. This should be enough to keep him viable after Super Tuesday, but he will still be behind in delegates unless he can catch up a little further."

The Nation's Ari Melber notices some evidence of Obama's online popularity: "Barack Obama's South Carolina victory speech skyrocketed to the top of YouTube on Monday, shooting past new footage of a topless Britney Spears and netting over 323,000 views so far."

TAPPED's Sam Boyd finds this interesting: "The biggest evidence of Obama's success I've seen yet: video of Obama's victory speech is more popular on YouTube than video of Britney Spears topless. Really. On the one hand, it's kinda sad that's surprising, on the other hand it's still awesome."

Meanwhile, Ezra Klein urges Obama supporters to remain realistic: "It's worth remembering, even amid the bounce and the hype, that the math is still tough for Obama, and Hillary is still favored."

OBAMA II: That Ol' Camelot Magic

Sen. Ted Kennedy elaborates on his endorsement of Obama in a Huffington Post diary:

"Earlier today I endorsed Barack Obama for president, and I couldn't be more excited for the Democratic Party, the nation -- and the world.

Barack inspires me -- it's that simple. In the words of President Kennedy:

'The world is changing. The old ways will not do... It is time for a new generation of leadership.'

In Barack, I see that next generation of American leadership: a figure who can transcend the divisions in this country that my family and I have fought so hard to tear down. [...]

Looking out from the stage today, I realized just how powerful his campaign has become. It's a movement for change -- and one that I'm proud to be a part of."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias thinks Kennedy's endorsement is significant: "Ted Kennedy is just a great liberal leader. He's the guy you wish every senator with a safe seat would be. A guy who doesn't just vote the right way, but who's willing to give voice to unseasonable opinions...The man's not above criticism by any means. But I do think the theory that Hillary Clinton is the real candidate of commitment to progressive politics is put seriously to the test by Kennedy's judgment. His own commitment is, I think, above reproach. And he's been in a position to see Bill and Hillary Clinton and their gaggle of hangers-on for twenty years now all from a veteran perspective. Maybe he's just been blinded by the right-wing smear machine [or] something?"

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "I just watched Ted Kennedy's endorsement speech of Barack Obama from TAP's warm conference room, after Ezra [Klein] and I -- along with about 100 other journalists -- were turned away from the Obama rally's press entrance after waiting an hour outside in the cold...A few reporters had brought along their children -- on a school day no less! -- to participate in what actually felt (not to gush or anything) like a truly symbolic, historic event: The highest profile members of the Kennedy family turning out to name Obama as the successor to their brother's brand of transcendent Democratic politics."

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "As I've noted more than once, I'm generally skeptical about whether high-profile endorsements translate to actual votes...But my hunch is, putting aside logic, polls, and charts, there are a whole lot of Dems who, on just a gut level, are willing to take Ted Kennedy's word for it."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "The value of an endorsement is, of course, difficult to quantify, but we all know what having Ted Kennedy on the ground campaigning for Al Gore and John Kerry did for their respective primary campaigns and it looks like Teddy will be traveling on Obama's behalf as well...No accident that they would choose [AZ, NM, and CA] for Kennedy to stump for Obama as they have more in common than that they all vote on February 5th, namely their significant hispanic populations. This voting bloc is one of Hillary Clinton strongest bases of support (her 64%-26% win over Obama among this group in Nevada is widely considered responsible for her win there) and eating into that is a must for Obama if he hopes to win any of these three states. So, how is Ted Kennedy uniquely qualified to be able to swing this base to Obama? As Chuck Todd put it on MSNBC earlier today (I'm paraphrasing,) you go into the homes of Central Valley (CA) Latinos and you'll see two portraits on the wall: one of the Pope and the other of JFK."

Meanwhile, TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat, who's been one of Obama's harshest critics, explains why he prefers Obama to HRC: "Since I rail against Obama's unity schtick all the time and find he and Hillary pretty much the same on the issues, it is fair to ask why I tepidly support him. Why not Hillary, who clearly has experience fighting the GOP. Here's why. Obama has more political talent than Hillary. The upside for Obama is clearly higher. If he can learn to fight partisan battles, he can be the best politician we have ever seen...The Media HATES the Clintons. Obama is a Media Darling. There is a real chance that Obama will recieve the most favorable Media treatment a Democrat has gotten since John F. Kennedy. And this is why I support Obama. Because it provides a possibility that Obama CAN get some of his agenda done with some adjustments to his political style. Obama will have a chance to succeed as President. I am not sure Hillary will get that same chance. It is not fair. But it seems true to me."

CLINTON: Hangin' On To Latinos?

Mike Lux offers HRC some advice: "If I were running the Clinton campaign, I'd be doing town hall format events rather than rallies in every state she flies into. The Clinton campaign gets off track when the focus goes off Hillary's hard work, digging into the issues that matter for regular people's personas, and into the media freefire zone the campaigns have been into lately. While they succeeded in getting Obama off his game for a while, they also got off theirs, and reminded people of what they don't like about the Clintons. I would also, were I in the Clinton campaign, focus like a laser beam on Hispanic voters. Obama is behind, and needs to make up ground in multiple demographics, but Hillary just needs to hold one big one to win most of the biggest states on February 5th, and that is Hispanics."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "As I see it, Clinton is still the significant favorite in California. She has a lot of important support within the state, particularly from leading Hispanic politicians like Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and groups like the United Farm Workers (which was founded by Cesar Chavez), which seemingly puts her in a strong position to rely on the coalition that served her so well in the neighboring state of Nevada, namely women and Hispanics. With this in mind, it's little wonder why the repeated theme in Obama's post South Carolina victory speech was 'Yes We Can' -- roughly si se puede in Spanish, or the rallying call of Chavez decades ago -- and that Obama yesterday trotted out the endorsement of Los Angeles Congressman Xavier Becerra, the highest ranking Hispanic in the House. I would not be surprised to see Ted Kennedy in California over the next week likewise trying to peel of Hispanic support from Clinton to Obama. That said, Clinton does have a double-digit lead still about a week before election day, and one-fifth of California Democrats expected to vote in the Democratic primary have already sent in their ballots, according to Gallup. So I wouldn't put money on Obama to overtake Clinton in California just yet."

Meanwhile, Harvard law prof. Alan Dershowitz endorses HRC in The New Republic: "I favor the nomination of a centrist Democrat, one who is capable of attracting independents, moderates, and the growing number of anti-Bush Republicans. Hillary Clinton understands this and has not pandered to the extreme left of her party. She understands that this small but vocal faction helps to buoy candidates but then often helps to sink them in the general election...Clinton is a progressive on social issues, a realist on foreign policy, a pragmatist on the economy -- in other words, a centrist Democrat. I hope she becomes our next president."

In slightly more negative news for HRC, The Huffington Post's Al Giordano claims that she doesn't have the Hispanic vote locked up: "What was thought, just two days ago, to be a demographic vote locked up for Clinton may now be in play. And with important national Hispanic-American leaders like Cecilia Munoz now questioning Clinton's record, and the Kennedy organization highlighting Obama's leadership in the immigration reform battle as, in the words of one Kennedy associate 'a politically touchy subject the other presidential candidates avoided,' the competition for Latino votes is now very much on again."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Grubby Cheese Fries

NRO's Rich Lowry offers his take on the Dem race:

"[Hillary] entered the primary race a dubious general-election candidate, and she seems weaker now, with her overreliance on Bill and his nasty shots at Obama. In between his fits, Clinton must wonder how he managed, after a career of courting blacks, to get himself on the wrong side of a racial dispute in the Democratic party.

Obama promises a purer liberalism, without scandal and acrimony, and, on top of it all, electability. Why wouldn't Democrats jump at this deal? Because Obama isn't yet enough like the Bill Clinton of 1992. The blessing of Ted and Caroline Kennedy gives Obama even more of the aura of Camelot, a remote and shining liberal idealism. But Obama needs less of the haute cuisine of Olympian inspiration and more of the grubby cheese fries of Bill Clinton's emotional connection to economically distressed voters. Bill felt their pain, and -- a wonk at heart -- smothered them with proposals to revive the economy.

Hillary doesn't have the bond that Bill had with down-market voters, but she's been able to win them over with a workmanlike focus on the details of policy important to them. If she holds on to working-class whites, Latinos, and women, she can still derail Obama and keep the party from embracing his alluring new deal."

LEST WE FORGET: The State Of The Race

The Miami Herald's Dave Barry breaks it down:

"For those of you who plan to vote Tuesday, here's a quick overview of the political situation:The Republican race

-- It's still wide open. Mitt 'Mitt' Romney holds a slight edge in delegates, plus a heifer he got for winning Wyoming. Right behind him are John McCain, Chuck Norris and the late Ronald Reagan. Bringing up the rear is Rudy, who needs a win and has been frantically courting Florida voters. He's mowing your lawn right now.The Democratic race

-- It's down to Obama vs. Clinton, and it's getting nasty. They hate each other, with the kind of passionate hatred that you see only between two people who hold essentially the same positions on everything. [John] Edwards is still running, but at this point they don't even bother to put a microphone on him for the debates. He just waves his arms to indicate how he's going to take on the big corporations.

So that's the situation, Floridians. On Tuesday, it's your turn to stand up and be counted, unless of course you're a Democrat. But whatever you are, you should get out there and vote, even if you have no earthly idea what or whom you're voting for, or why, because that's what democracy is all about.

Also, Rudy, if you're reading this: My hedge needs trimming."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:13 PM

January 28, 2008

1/28: Expanding The Pool

Like the rest of the political world, liberal bloggers were surprised by the Barack Obama's 28-point margin of victory over Hillary Clinton in the SC primary. However, what impressed them most was Obama's success in turning out thousands of new voters. After being shut out of the White House for eight years, liberal bloggers just want to win, which is why so many of them find HRC's hardball campaign tactics appealing rather than off-putting. However, this same desire to win makes liberal bloggers intrigued by Obama's ability to bring new people into the process. Ezra Klein sums up the feelings of many liberal bloggers when he writes:

"[This win] restores the central argument for Obama's candidacy: His ability to pull in new voters, to overwhelm the apathy that generally cools turnout, to forge new coalitions. Obama's rationale -- that I will form a new majority -- really benefits from concrete examples of him forming a new majority. A 30-point win in South Carolina is one of those examples."

We've also noticed a trend in the blogosphere: as we near Super Tuesday, bloggers on the left and right are taking a growing interest in the other party's nominating contest. Many conservative bloggers seem to feel that Obama would be a more formidable opponent than HRC, and at least one conservative blogger is openly rooting for HRC to win the Dem nod. Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, appear to be most nervous about facing John McCain in the general election.

OBAMA: Yes, We Can!

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "The fact that big turnout seems to have powered Obama to his big win strikes me as perhaps more significant than his margin of victory as such. Obama's message of 'bringing people together' to create 'change' is often castigated by his critics as a 'kumbaya schtick' but it looks like something very different whenever he can deliver on promises to mobilize new people and bring them into the process. At the end of the day, politicians respond to facts on the ground. A presidential candidate who can change the facts on the ground by bringing new people into the process can carry a lot of supporters on his coattails. A president who can organize people at the grassroots in support of his agenda could get amazing things done."

Atrios: "As in Iowa, Obama pulled off the feat of actually getting a lot of people to the polls. It's a bit weird to judge a candidate by the success of his campaign. I mean, obviously, in some sense that's how all candidates are judged, but part of Obama's spiel is that he's so awesome that he'll get lots and lots of people to come out to vote for him. The press is overplaying the race and gender stuff, with a little help from the campaigns themselves of course, though that isn't to say there's nothing there. But I agree with Digby that it's the younger people that provide the more interesting story."

Digby: "One of the big successes of the Obama campaign...is the successful courting of the ever elusive youth vote, which has been touted as the promised land so often that older cynics like me are prone to dismiss it out of hand. But it seems to be real this time and it has to do with the inspirational style and generational identification with the candidate but also the technology the campaign is using to reach their potential voters."

Meanwhile, Tom Hayden pens "an endorsement of the movement Barack Obama leads": "I have been devastated by too many tragedies and betrayals over the past 40 years to ever again deposit so much hope in any single individual, no matter how charismatic or brilliant. But today I see across the generational divide the spirit, excitement, energy and creativity of a new generation bidding to displace the old ways. Obama's moment is their moment, and I pray that they succeed without the sufferings and betrayals my generation went through. There really is no comparison between the Obama generation and those who would come to power with Hillary Clinton, and I suspect she knows it. The people she would take into her administration may have been reformers and idealists in their youth, but they seem to seek now a return to their establishment positions of power...We are in a precious moment where caution must yield to courage. It is better to fail at the quest for greatness than to accept our planet's future as only a reliving of the past. So I endorse the movement that Barack Obama has inspired and will support his candidacy in the inevitable storms ahead."

However, Open Left's Matt Stoller still has major doubts about Obama: "What worries me is that [Obama's] message of post-partisan unity will be smashed immediately when the Republicans decide they disagree with him, and the press gets bored and turns. For now, Matthew Yglesias, K-Lo at NRO's the Corner, Andrew Sullivan, and Josh Marshall are all effusively praising Obama. There's something of a DC-New York Ivy pundit crush on Obama that I'm seeing all over the place. The Village is happy as a clam to see Hillary and Bill [Clinton] go down. And be aware that the Village doesn't like us and wants us to shut up and stop bothering them about silly things like civil rights and the Consti-whatever it's called. And oh yeah, Iraq. So as you are seeing the primary play out, note that Obama's coalition is resting on what is potentially a very fragile foundation. I find Obama's organizing capacity remarkable and wonderful for all sorts of reasons, and I'll have more on that soon. But keep in mind that the weird alliance between the pro-Obama netroots, the DC Villagers and media, the right-wing establishment, business leaders, social justice activists, and black elites is temporary. These varying interests only intersect on one thing, and that is taking down the Clinton's."

OBAMA II: The Kennedy Seal Of Approval

Liberal bloggers are also discussing the significance of Sen. Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama:

Matthew Yglesias: "One assumes that the iconic figure of American liberalism can help Obama convince people that he doesn't have shrines to David Broder and Ronald Reagan in his basement."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "One would have to imagine that receiving robust support from the Kennedy clan, and Ted Kennedy in particular, could help open up some important liberal establishment support for Obama at a time when a late infusion of cash and progressive support could still make a major difference ahead of February 5. Kennedy's support could also help sway some superdelegates to the Obama camp. This doesn't upend everything. But it certainly is a big pick up for Obama."

Ezra Klein: "One interesting sidenote of Kennedy's endorsement -- which we saw with [John] Kerry's endorsement, and [Claire] McCaskill's endorsement...and so on -- is that for all you hear of the power and memory of the Clinton machine, most of these politicians don't seem afraid of it at all. Obama isn't even the frontrunner, and they're endorsing at the most critical, contentious, controversial time, the sort of moment when Clinton would beg them to keep quiet, offer them anything in exchange for support or even neutrality. The Clinton machine like so many machines, is more myth than fact. Bill Clinton can get a lot of media coverage, and the operatives around them know how to run a campaign, but there's nothing particularly fearsome or unassailable about their orgaization."

MyDD's Todd Beeton wonders if Kennedy's endorsement will make Obama more competitive in MA: "So far, Obama enjoys the support of the state's Governor Deval Patrick, Congressman William Delahunt and, as of tomorrow officially, both senators (not to mention, with Caroline's support, the appearance of the endorsement of the Kennedy family although [Robert F. Kennedy], Jr. has endorsed Hillary.) This is a huge base of institutional support for Obama in a state where, on paper anyway, he really shouldn't be competitive...Clearly, this is one of the states Hillary Clinton was counting on not having to compete in. Something tells me it may not be as easy as she'd thought, although a friend of mine familiar with Massachusetts insists the state's demographics still favor Clinton."

OBAMA III: Ya'll Don't Wanna See Me

As we first observed on 1/23, conservative bloggers seem to believe that Obama would be harder to beat than HRC:

NRO's Peter Wehner: "[Obama] is one of the most remarkable political talents in our lifetime...If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, Republicans have a great deal to fear. He has tremendous break-out potential...He is impossible to dislike. And when you see Obama and Clinton together, or back to back, is there any doubt who is the more impressive person -- or the more formidable political figure?"

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Listening to [Obama's] inspirational, rallying speech tonight it's clear and obvious that if he's the nominee, he will be tough to beat."

Campaign Standard's Richelieu: "If you actually look at the results, the Clinton race spin is humbug. Obama has done well in white states; winning Iowa, coming close in New Hampshire; and winning the white rural areas of Nevada. Plus he obviously does well with African Americans; a group the Clinton campaign was spinning as 'divided' by Obama just months ago. The candidate with the more limited demographic appeal is clearly Hillary Clinton, who so far has proven herself a rock star only to the Virginia Slims-'n'-menopause set and their sensible-shoe-wearing sisters in the upper middle classes. The big question isn't Obama's race. What smart Democrats looking for a winner should be asking themselves is how a candidate with as limited appeal as Hillary Clinton could ever beat McCain or [Mitt] Romney in a general election."

NRO's Mark Steyn: "[Obama would] be tough for any Republican candidate, but, if Michael Graham's right, the Clinton machine will take care of the problem."

RedState's Erick Erickson announces that he is rooting for HRC to win the Dem primary: "Does this post say I'm voting for Mrs. Bill Clinton? No. But I'm a free market guy. I'd like to hedge my bets. We're more viable against her and she potentially destroys the Democratic Party from within. So get on board now! Start talking up Obama like the right really likes him. Make the lefties turn and run en masse toward Hillary."

CLINTON: Till The Landslide Brought Me Down...

Several liberal bloggers attribute Obama's enormous margin of victory to voters' distaste for the Clintons' aggressive campaign tactics:

Matthew Yglesias: "Team Clinton has consistently, and rightly, maintained that they're within their rights to be tough on Obama. And so they are -- politics is a contact sport. But that doesn't mean that maximum viciousness is actually a good idea. You want to be seen as likable, fair, judicious, etc. and over the past few weeks the Clinton campaign has been making its candidate look like something other than the mature, experienced, sober-minded choice."

Todd Beeton: "Obama's speech [makes] clear how the Clintons' tactics this week really may have backfired on them: they played into the need for what Barack Obama offers, this sort of 'new kind of politics' that until this week, was an amorphous concept...Hillary Clinton managed to seal the image of herself as the poster child for business-as-usual politics and played perfectly into Obama's hand."

The Huffington Post's Marc Cooper: "[There's] no question that as much as Slick Willie boosted Hill's campaign in New Hampshire and Nevada, he went a mound of dung too far in South Carolina. His shameful rampage against Obama...started ticking off not only the political and media elites, but it also set off a ground-level backlash that directly contributed to Saturday's lopsided results. The more Bill barked, the greater the number of voters who started reaching for the pepper spray."

The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports that Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) "all but credited the wide-margin of victory to a backlash against the injection of race in the primary by Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign." Stein writes:

"'I'm not surprised at that at all,' Clyburn said, when asked about Obama's big win. 'Because I really believe that in the last 48 hours the voters recoiled. They decided to reject the racial animus they seemed to be developing and I'm so pleased.'

Clyburn, who did not endorse a candidate, did not name names. But the implication was fairly obvious. Earlier in the week, Clyburn expressed a sense of disappointment with the Clinton campaign's tactics and urged Bill Clinton to 'chill' with the race-based politicking. And in an interview with the Huffington Post, the congressman suggested that the former president's aggressive campaigning could be damaging his long-term reputation."

Meanwhile, The Nation's Ari Melber thinks the Clintons are deliberately employing a racial strategy: "An AP article after the victory reiterated the claim by Clinton strategists that Obama has been branded 'the black candidate' -- a supposedly negative development that 'could hurt him' as the campaign continues. This 'black candidate' strategy was advanced by a 'top adviser' to Clinton in another article this weekend, concluding that recent attacks have 'marginalize[d] Obama as "The Black Candidate."' And one more top adviser to Hillary, former President Bill Clinton, flatly claimed that Obama is 'getting votes' because of his race, leaving Hillary with no chance to win South Carolina. The strategy turns on the unstated premise that Hillary will get votes for her race, too, and a lot more of them are available on Super Tuesday. Pundits