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 and writers were quick to conclude that the Clintons' strategy backfired on Saturday night. But it has not even been tested yet. The state with the largest black primary electorate was not the target -- it was the weapon...It's the kind of divisive, cynical politics that could make one oppose Hillary Clinton -- even if you're not backing the 'black candidate.'"

CLINTON II: Has Bubba Jumped The Shark?

Liberal bloggers are harshly criticizing Bill Clinton for comparing Obama's SC victory to Jesse Jackson's victories in 1984 and 1988:

Matthew Yglesias: "After all this time being told by the Clinton campaign that Barack Obama is some kind of closet Reagan-worshipping right-winger, it's a bit confusing to be told that he's the second coming of Jesse Jackson, too."

Josh Marshall: "Bill damaged himself badly with this comment and to some degree also his wife's candidacy. And there's simply nothing to be gained by [Obama] getting into it with him. Bill's doing plenty on his own to hurt himself."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "I've thought most of the criticisms of the Clintons' campaign, including the role played by Bill, have been overblown...But the last few days have changed my view on those matters substantially. The Clintons' strategy has become increasingly trashy, even ugly, and yesterday's remarks by Bill Clinton -- in which he pointedly compared Obama's candidacy to Jesse Jackson's and thus implicitly (though clearly) dismissed South Carolina as a state where the 'black candidate' wins, followed up by the Clinton campaign's anonymous branding of Obama as 'the black candidate' -- reeked of desperation."

The Huffington Post's R.J. Eskow: "Bill Clinton's comments equating Obama to Jesse Jackson -- while another, unnamed 'Clinton advisor' was saying this victory makes Obama 'the black candidate' -- is as overt a pitch to racial stereotyping as any Democrat has made in many years."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "I'm actually a bit surprised that the black community isn't doing more to put a stop to this. Had any campaign baited gays like this, it would be a very public World War III -- and it wouldn't happen twice."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Enough's enough. I don't like dog whistle racial appeals when Republicans do it, and I don't like it when Bill Clinton does it. (And unlike Hillary's MLK/LBJ remark, which was idiotically mischaracterized, don't even try to pretend that this was an innocent remark. We're not children here.) Yes, Obama has to be able to handle this kind of sewage, and yes, this will almost certainly be forgiven and forgotten among Democrats by November. But it's not November yet, is it? My primary is a week from Tuesday, and I'm not feeling very disposed to reward this kind of behavior. At this point, it's looking a lot more likely that I'm going to vote for Obama."

Mark Kleiman: "Isn't it amazing how [Bill Clinton] has blown a career's worth of goodwill in three short weeks? It's not as if I can't sympathize; if my sister were running for office her campaign folks would have to put me in a straitjacket. But he has really and truly screwed the pooch. Of course it's not clear how this will play out with the mass of (non-black) Democratic voters. But I think the high-attention voters are likely to be peeling away rather quickly about now."

In a separate post, Marshall elaborates on his concerns about Bill Clinton's behavior: "I think Bill's actions have greatly diminished [Hillary]. He has put her back under his shadow where she hasn't been for years...He's dominating the race. And that makes her look like a weaker figure -- something that will not wear well in the general election. And this campaign really suggests this is going to be some sort of co-presidency. When Hillary's getting knocked around by the folks on the Hill is Bill going to go Larry King to knock her enemies around?...The presidency is a singular job. It should stay that way. And it's precisely because I'm looking forward to supporting her if she is the nominee that I hate seeing her being overshadowed by her spouse and having her husband bigfoot the process which diminishes her and makes me think her presidency could be a 4 year soap opera where Bill won't shut up and let her have a shot at doing the job."

CLINTON III: Moving The Goalposts?

Several liberal bloggers are unhappy with the HRC campaign's efforts to reinstate MI's and FL's delegates:

Josh Marshall: "The Clinton camp really needs to be shut down on this new gambit of theirs to muscle the party and the other candidates into seating the Michigan and Florida delegate slates. And let me be very clear about what I mean. It was very debatable decision whether the DNC should have punished Florida and Michigan with the loss of their delegates slates because they broke the rules the party had set down for scheduling their primaries...But that was the decision -- one that each of the candidates at least implicitly agreed to...You don't change the rules in midstream to favor one candidate or another. This is no more than a replay, with different factual particulars, of the attempt to outlaw the at-large caucuses in Nevada after the Culinary Union endorsement made it appear they would help Barack Obama."

Ezra Klein: "As Josh says, there was a period for debate on all this. And the Clinton campaign could have stood and debated it. If they had, if they had said we don't believe this a wise move and we will not abide by it, then the other campaigns would have also competed in those states, and the DNC would, in all likelihood, have backed down. But the Clinton campaign didn't object to the DNC's decision. They said they would abide by it and refrain from campaigning."

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Wow. This just, well, shows a complete disregard for the agreed-upon rules of the primary process."

Klein also thinks the Clinton campaign's decision could have negative consequences: "This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart...If this pushes [HRC] over the edge, the Obama camp, and their supporters, really will feel that she stole her victory. They didn't contest those states because they weren't going to count, not because they were so committed to the DNC's procedural arguments that they were willing to sacrifice dozens of delegates to support it. It's as hard as hardball gets, and the end could be unimaginably acrimonious. Imagine if African-American voters feel the rules were changed to prevent Obama's victory, if young voters feel the delegate counts were shifted to block their candidate."

GOP FIELD: A Two-Man Race?

Power Line's John Hinderaker thinks the GOP race is now between McCain and Romney: "Every indication is that Rudy Giuliani is sinking like a stone in Florida. Barring a miracle, he'll finish either a bit above or a bit below Mike Huckabee...If Florida is between McCain and Romney, then the nomination race is between McCain and Romney...Barring a surprise in Florida, Republican primary voters and caucus-goers on mega-Tuesday will face a stark but classic political choice: do they go with Romney, whose views across a broad range of issues are more palatable to conservatives and whose economic expertise may be badly needed, or with McCain, who seems pretty clearly more likely to prevent the Clintons from re-inhabiting the White House? It's not an easy choice."

Richelieu: "McCain may have a conservative problem, but Romney has an independent problem. The question is whether Romney's ability to shift and attract independents in a general election is greater to or equal than McCain's ability to hold a majority of conservative voters in a general. That's a tough question to answer. We do know that Romney is able to change messages with ease in order to cater to different constituencies, however."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin thinks McCain could survive a loss in FL: "Despite pledges he would continue on, it is hard to see how Rudy, whose numbers are already dropping in February 5 states, would remain viable after a Florida loss. For Romney, a loss here would leave Michigan as his only win in a contested state and deprive him of a needed boost going into February 5, where he must take on both McCain and Huckabee, who remains a threat in Red states . Things would look grim. But, just as he soldiered on after New Hampshire and Iowa, he would have no reason to give up. (Romney said just that today.) McCain, who now is building leads in California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York, could survive a close loss in Florida. However, the last thing he wants is to do is revive criticisms that he cannot win in a closed primary and set up a coast-to-coast battle with an opponent who has seemingly unlimited funds. So, on balance, Rudy is the only one who must win, Romney needs it very badly and McCain would sure prefer not to lose."

MCCAIN: For Crist's Sake

Most conservative bloggers believe that FL Gov. Charlie Crist's endorsement of McCain is great news for the AZ senator:

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "This is very, very big. Gov. Crist has amazingly high approval ratings. His approval numbers are somewhere near like in the 70s...We've still got a few days to go, but I have to believe the endorsement of Sen. Martinez -- and now the Governor of Florida -- give McCain tremendous momentum going into Tuesday."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "The Florida primary has been truly too close to call until now, but I've got to believe it has just swung in McCain's favor."

NRO's David Freddoso: "The Crist endorsement isn't about conservatives. It's about Giuliani supporters who are watching their guy drown and thinking of jumping ship. McCain is the other guy they are still considering. This is why the endorsement is hugely important."

Michelle Malkin is not impressed by the endorsement: "Say hello to another soft-on-illegal immigration Republican joining the bandwagon for the Democrats' favorite Republican. Crist supported the Teddy Kennedy/McCain/Mel Martinez shamnesty. Crist also supported driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Birds of a feather..."

Meanwhile, several conservative bloggers think McCain would have trouble if he were to run against Obama:

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The GOP will have to understand that sending an aging John McCain and a divided base to do battle with a brand new, post-partisan Obama would probably lead to a far worse result than the '96 blowout which featured another GOP Beltway insider and war hero. The idea of three debates between Senators McCain and Obama is not a hopeful one for conservatives ho understand the stakes for the country."

NRO's Mark Levin: "As I watched Obama's speech, I tried to imagine an Obama-McCain match-up. And I think McCain would get his clock cleaned, despite early polls and predictions to the contrary. McCain cannot unite conservatives (due largely to years of hostility toward them, regardless of endorsements) and he will not win over enough Democrats and Independents from Obama to make win."

MCCAIN II: Not-So-Straight Talk?

Most (but not all) conservative bloggers are siding with Romney in the back-and-forth instigated by McCain's claim that Romney used to support "a timetable for withdrawal" from Iraq. Notably, The New York Times calls McCain's charge "misleading."

NRO's Rich Lowry: "As I've said before, McCain deserves a large part of the credit for the surge...But that doesn't justify the rank dishonesty of his attack on Romney over the weekend. It's so shamelessly unfair, it's the kind of thing you'd expect of Bill Clinton attacking Barack Obama. Clearly, McCain wants to change the topic from the economy. And since he's suffering from his 'straight-talk' about his relative lack of knowledge of and interest in the economy, he's trying to compensate with the opposite of straight talk -- blatant distortions -- about Romney's record."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I concur with Rich's take in the Corner that McCain's lashing out at Romney -- charging he supported withdrawal, a bridge too far in characterizing Romney's cautious words from a year ago -- was an attempt to change the topic from the economy."

Paul Mirengoff: "[McCain] relies on a statement which cannot fairly be construed as advocating withdrawal. This is the conclusion of virtually everyone who has looked at the issue, except for some of McCain's supporters. McCain, in short, has smeared Romney...What we are now getting from McCain is less than straight talk."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "This is a fundamentally dishonest attack. One of the reasons why some Republicans who have opposed McCain over issues like the BCRA and immigration have tried to keep a civil tongue in discussing McCain is because of the respect he has earned as a stalwart on the war. He deserves that respect; he has been an indispensable voice for the effort and has the right to hold himself up as that. However, he should be showing that respect to others who have supported the war and the troops."

Hugh Hewitt: "The Arizona maverick's attempt to distort Romney's Iraq position will backfire...The attempt to smear Romney as a defeatist in the mold of the Democrats is not the sort of tactic that will endear McCain to the Republican base he is attempting to court, even as McCain struggles to overcome the renewed focus on the McCain-Kennedy immigration fiasco."

NRO's Byron York doesn't think it's quite so clean-cut: "I know the sentiments here in the Corner about the McCain-Romney tussle over Iraqi timetables. But I have to say that, looking at what Romney said last April, I think McCain has a point...Reading [the transcript], I think it's fair to conclude that Romney was saying he was in favor of Bush and [Nouri al-] Maliki setting a secret timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal."

Matt Lewis agrees with York: "This is really a nuanced issue...both sides probably have some good points to make on the topic. Are the McCain people trying to make this a bigger issue than it probably is? You bet! Are the Romney people over-doing their maudlin act in portraying this as a 'below-the-belt' attack? Of course! But does McCain have, at least, a legitimate point that is worth debating? Yes he does..."

ROMNEY: The Captain Jumps On Board

Ed Morrissey, otherwise known as "Captain Ed," endorses Romney: "Romney is not a perfect candidate. We don't have any perfect candidates. In fact, I could still support Rudy, McCain, or Mike Huckabee without reservation in a general election against either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. I think, though, that Romney has the most staying power, the better argument, and the best resume of the remaining Republican candidates. I will enthusiastically caucus for Mitt Romney on February 5th."

To no one's surprise, Hugh Hewitt approves: "I suspect Ed's analysis and decision is being replicated among Republicans across the country who are now obliged to get down off the fence and vote."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Message To Right-Wing Obamaphiles

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat thinks conservatives need to think twice about supporting Obama:

"'You'd vote for Barack Obama, wouldn't you?' [Marc] Ambinder demands of me in the latest edition of The Table. The answer is no, but as I've said before, I have the same sentiments about him -- respect, admiration, interest in what he has to say -- that many conservatives seem to feel, which makes me instinctively prefer the notion of an Obama Presidency to the idea of having Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office. But as I've also said before, these sentiments coexist with an awareness that an Obama Presidency might be much, much worse from a conservative point of view than a Clinton Restoration -- not only in the very long term, with Obama playing a liberal Reagan to a larger leftward shift in American politics, but in the world of short-term politics as well.

What do I have in mind? Well, possibilities like this, for instance. I know conservatives weren't great admirers of Bill Clinton's AG choices either, but the prospect of Attorney General John Edwards is exactly the sort of thing that ought to make right-wing Obamaphiles think twice."

LEST WE FORGET: Hillary Sends Bill on Campaign Trip to Antarctica

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has sent her husband, former President Bill Clinton, on a 'special campaign trip' to Antarctica that could last 'six or seven months,' Clinton aides confirmed today.

'From here on in, Bill is going to be our man in Antarctica,' said top Clinton strategist Mark Penn. 'We have sent him down there with enough food and firewood to last until the Democratic convention this summer.'

The unexpected change in the former president's itinerary happened just hours after Mrs. Clinton's drubbing in the South Carolina primary, causing some party insiders to wonder if Mr. Clinton's mission to Antarctica represented something of a demotion.

The decision to dispatch Mr. Clinton to the South Pole also raised eyebrows because the continent of Antarctica does not participate in the so-called 'Super Tuesday' primaries on February 5 and sends no delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

Mr. Penn attempted to tamp down all such speculation, telling reporters, 'This race isn't about votes or delegates, it's about land mass, frozen tundra and penguins.' [...]"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:11 PM

January 25, 2008

1/25: It's Good To Be On Top

Most conservative bloggers found last night's MSNBC GOP debate a yawner. The general consensus is that Mitt Romney and John McCain gave excellent performances that solidified their strong positions in FL, while Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee didn't do enough to distinguish themselves. Conservative bloggers gave particularly positive reviews to Romney, who they felt benefited from the debate's focus on economic policy.

Conservative bloggers are directing a lot of their fire today at McCain, who had the misfortune of being endorsed by one of conservatives' favorite punching bags, The New York Times. NRO's Jim Geraghty writes:

"I'm really curious -- do the editors of the New York Times know how much damage they did John McCain by endorsing him?...McCain would be well served by declaring, 'Those surrender-now defeatists on the editorial board can take their endorsement and cram it.'"

Across the political spectrum, liberal bloggers continue to analyze Bill Clinton's role in Hillary Clinton's campaign, and more generally, the Clintons' attacks on Barack Obama. As we observed yesterday, some bloggers are turned off by the Clintons' attacks, while others don't have a problem with them. With the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby tracking poll showing Obama's lead shrinking in SC, could the Dem race be over a lot sooner than many people thought?

GOP FIELD: Boca Raton Love Fest

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "It appears to me the primary outcome of tonight's debate is that Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee have failed to do what they needed to do to catch up to the two front-runners in Florida...it now seems that we are really looking at a two-man race between John McCain and Mitt Romney."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "If McCain's goal was to make no errors, defend his tax cutting record and appeal more magnanimous and jovial than he is often made out to be, he succeeded. By the same token, if Romney wanted to appear competent, confident and economically astute, he passed with flying colors. As engaging and delightful as Rudy can be, I don't think he shook up the race. In that sense Romney and McCain were winners. As for Huckabee, somewhere between the inheritance joke and the highway project I was reassured that he won't be president."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Isn't it odd that the Democratic candidates, who disagree about virtually nothing, attack each other without mercy; meanwhile, the leading Republican candidates, who disagree about such key issues as abortion, immigration, tax policy, and engagement with Iran, have nothing but warm things to say about one another? Even during the segment when the candidates got to ask questions of the opponent of their choice, we saw mostly softballs. Romney asked Giuliani what he thinks about China; McCain gave Huckabee a chance to pitch a national sales tax. I guess each candidate must be reasonably comfortable with his standing because no one attempted anything that would shake things up. Perhaps, at the margin, Romney wanted to prop up Rudy as a competitor of McCain's, while McCain wanted to help Huck at Mitt's expense."

DEBATE ROMNEY: Prime Minister, Back To Finish My Business Up

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "The winner of the debate was Mitt Romney. He looked presidential, poised, and factually prepared. In a debate that spent the first two-thirds with everyone doing well, Romney not only broke out on his own in the last stanza, he successfully parried some strange attacks from Tim Russert as well."

Matt Lewis: "If one had to assign a winner tonight, Mitt Romney would probably get the nod. Unlike prior debates where Romney was ganged-up on, Romney didn't come under attack tonight -- in fact, nobody really came under attack tonight. The topics also seem to have benefitted Romney more than the other candidates. The debate focused more on the economy than it did on any other topic, and I think he is more adept at talking about this topic than is his primary opponent, John McCain. He also did a good job of going after the Clintons -- something that McCain should have actually done more of."

RedState's Alexham: "There weren't many fireworks between our candidates last night, but one did stand out in a big way: Mitt Romney. He was good. Very good. Indeed, for the first time I thought to myself: 'You know, this guy is pretty damn impressive [...]' And his line about Bill Clinton 'in the White House with nothing to do' was nothing short of priceless."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If you were an apolitical Floridian, and you just tuned in tonight, I think you were probably impressed by Romney. It was his most unflappable performance in a while, and a large chunk of the time was on the economy, probably his best issue. He parried Russert's questions on his finances and his faith well. He stepped on a few opportunities for some good one-liners, but that was never his strong suit."

DEBATE MCCAIN: Finishing Strong

Ed Morrissey: "John McCain did a good job as well. He showed flashes of humor and charm, as well as toughness and determination. He did well on the war questions, but his repetitive pillorying of Donald Rumsfeld has gotten old, a crutch that he uses far too often. He falsely claimed that a majority of Republicans worry about global warming, which shows him to be a little out of touch with the base in a very obvious way."

AmSpec Blog's Wlady: "I must say that McCain was in top form; to my mind, his best performance so far (though I haven't seen them all); fully alert and in easy command of much detail, and of course quite funny."

Michelle Malkin: "McCain managed not to snarl or curse at anyone. He won because he got away without having to answer a single question about immigration."

DEBATE GIULIANI: Too Little, Too Late

Ed Morrissey: "Rudy Giuliani needed a big win in this debate and didn't get it. However, he did do a fine job, showing a little more personal engagement in this event. He looked very cool and confident and probably gave the most robust answers to the questions asked. He only had one weak moment, when asked to justify his Florida strategy, but recovered quickly. Unfortunately, he had no game-changing moments, and he sorely needs one."

Michelle Malkin: "Rudy lost because he failed to demonstrate the magnetic, head-turning charisma of a front-runner. He had the hang-dog, laid-back presence of a guy on his way out."

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "Rudy didn't do what he needed to do to distinguish himself."

Matt Lewis: "Rudy Giuliani perhaps had the most to lose -- and did. He absolutely had to score a knockout tonight; he didn't come close. I'm surprised that Rudy would allow this debate to start and finish without taking a gamble and forcing some drama. His back is literally against the wall, but he acted as if he acted as if it was still September of '07."

Paul Mirengoff had a slightly different take: "Was there a winner? If so, I'd say it was Giuliani, at least for those who sat through the entire 90 minutes. Near the end, Rudy managed to (1) get in a few shots at Castro, (2) hit back at over-the-top criticism from the New York Times, and (3) receive a testimonial from John McCain (himself usually the source of praise from other candidates). However, I doubt that Rudy had a good enough night to turn things around, assuming he's in the kind of trouble some say he is."

DEBATE HUCKABEE: A Non-Factor

Ed Morrissey: "Mike Huckabee didn't do badly, but he didn't do well, either. His joke about the Romney inheritance fell flat, and he was mostly a non-factor throughout the debate. At the end, his natural connection to the audience came through, but on a question that really has much less draw (religion) than the pundits credit."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "[Huckabee] was pretty invisible tonight, other than a few one-liners and his wet kiss to Keynesian economics."

MCCAIN: The Worst Kind Of Endorsement To Have

For conservative bloggers, the New York Times' endorsement of McCain only confirms their distrust of the AZ senator:

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The Times' editorial board -- the most reliably anti-conservative, anti-defense, anti-life, anti-originalism, anti-growth opinion machine in the major U.S. media -- loves John McCain and expects that if he is the nominee the Arizona maverick will govern in ways acceptable to them, especially on global warming and immigration. They know their man. Does the GOP?"

Michelle Malkin: "John McCain: Endorsed by the classified secrets-disclosing, troop-smearing, war-sabotaging, botched military reporting, abortion propaganda-perpetuating, unethical reporter-protecting, stock-plunging New York Times."

RedState's Erick Erickson: "Senator McCain sees himself as the soliders' best friend in Congress. He tells us he worked tirelessly to repudiate the Rumsfeld legacy and win the war. He tells us he can lead us and keep us safe. The major national newspaper that has done more than any other to undermine all of that then endorses him. Senator McCain should publicly repudiate the endorsement of the New York Times, lest one think he actually appreciates the endorsement of the jihadists' best American friend."

CBN's David Brody sums up the practical impact of the endorsement: "McCain being endorsed by The New York Times is like Hillary being endorsed by The Sean Hannity Radio Show. All this endorsement does is give McCain's opponents more ammunition to make the case that he's not a conservative on ALL the issues."

On a more positive note for McCain, RedState's Hunter Baker endorses him: "Why am I supporting the guy who has been a maverick in the Senate and who is actively opposed by people I admire? I'll tell you why. John McCain is the right president for an America still fighting the war on terror...John McCain is pro-life enough, pro-small government enough, and a foe of pork. Add in his acceptability on those issues with his obvious quality as a leader for a nation waging war on terror, and you've got the best candidate in the field. (And by the way, it doesn't hurt that the press just spent the last seven years making McCain out to be Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.) I'm voting McCain."

Meanwhile, Right Wing News' John Hawkins sees good news and bad news for McCain: "Romney is currently being helped by the fact that a large chunk of the Fredheads seem to be gravitating over to him and by the relentless assault that the conservative media is aiming at McCain. On the other hand, ominously, if Rudy loses Florida, he's done and you have to think that the lion's share of his supporters will start to move over to McCain."

DEM FIELD: Edwards & Clinton Surging In SC?

MyDD's Todd Beeton sees major movement in SC: "The latest Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby tracking poll shows a still tightening race with John Edwards moving to within 4 points of Hillary Clinton in South Carolina, an upward trend we've seen play out consistently since his stellar debate performance on Monday night...But while the Edwards surge is impressive, hidden within these three-day rolling averages may be the real story once the votes are counted Saturday night: a potential New Hampshire-like late surge of voters coming home to Clinton."

Open Left's Chris Bowers doesn't think the winner of SC will derive much momentum from the victory: "The entire notion of momentum is predicated on the idea that a small, but not insignificant, number of voters in Super Tuesday states will factor the South Carolina results into their decision making process. That just didn't seem to happen after Nevada, probably because there just isn't as much build-up to, and post-election coverage of, states that follow Iowa and New Hampshire...The best way to receive momentum is to make sure that a lot of people watch you win. Given the comparatively smaller build-up to the South Carolina caucuses, and given that not many people will be watching South Carolina returns late on a Saturday evening, I just don't think that there is much momentum to be had here. There will probably be more than last week, since there won't be any Republican results to share the headlines, but it still probably won't amount to much."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "The Obama campaign has done a remarkably poor job playing the expectations game, spinning the media (or at least allowing the media to get spun) into believing that Obama was a surefire winner in New Hampshire and Nevada, making relatively narrow losses (and even a seeming win in the delegate count out of Nevada) look like much more significant losses. And it looks like they're doing it again in South Carolina, offering their candidate somewhat of a lose-lose situation (or decreasing his potential upside) by talking about a victory before it has even occurred...Why the Obama campaign is helping the Clinton campaign lower expectations in South Carolina -- particularly after that strategy proved to be an abject failure in the wake of the last two nominating contests -- is beyond me. And it's not as if the Clinton team isn't already working overtime to lower expectations for Clinton so that if she loses it isn't a big deal but if she wins it is. Hillary Clinton has spent a good deal of time outside of the Palmetto state this week, a key facet of the campaign's efforts to lower expectations in the state (even as Bill Clinton has campaigned ferociously in her place)...were I part of the Obama leadership team, I'd be saying the following (which I, even as a relatively detached observer believe): South Carolina is not over."

CLINTON: It's All About The "W"

Yesterday we quoted Ezra Klein's defense of HRC's bare-knuckled campaign tactics:

"The sort of attacks [HRC]'s levying -- misrepresenting Obama's payroll tax plan, or exaggerating his comments about [Ronald] Reagan -- are pretty much par for the course...And the overarching theme of [Paul] Waldman's column -- that Clinton is 'running like a Republican' -- almost pushes me to her side on the issue. The winner of the Democratic primary, after all, will have to run against a Republican."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias agrees with Klein: "Paul Waldman says Hillary Clinton is going after Barack Obama just like a Republican would -- without a lot of honesty or conscience. Frankly, I don't have a big problem with that. As Ezra Klein says, 'The winner of the Democratic primary, after all, will have to run against a Republican.' Indeed, the thing that's given me the most doubts about Obama thus far has been the campaign's tendency to whine ineffectually about Clinton campaign gambits. Dishonest attacks are part of the game and the only way for a candidate to protect himself against them is to turn them into jujitsu."

Obsidian Wings' hilzoy disagrees: "I think it's beyond argument that the Clinton campaign has lied about Obama's positions and record...I will, of course, support her over any of the Republicans in the race...But the idea that I should find her willingness to lie about her opponents to be a plus is pretty baffling to me. Maybe the idea is this: as Ezra says, the winner of the Democratic primary will have to run against a Republican. Republicans use revolting smear tactics. Therefore, we have to be willing to use them too. If we aren't, we'll get nailed. This sounds like it makes sense, but it doesn't...The fact that the Republicans will, in all likelihood, turn some weapon on us does not mean that we need to be willing to turn that weapon on them if we want to win. What we need is to be able to defend against that weapon, and (preferably) turn the fact that the other side uses it to our advantage. That's a different matter entirely."

In a later post, hilzoy elaborates: "Lying in an election is basically a way of saying: we know how you ought to vote, and if we can't get you to vote that way by presenting you with facts and arguments, or even with truthful but emotionally shaded appeals, then we will get you to vote our way by telling you things that are not true. It's hard to see what could be more profoundly disrespectful of people's right to decide for themselves whom to vote for...But it also undermines democracy by placing intolerable burdens on citizens...when candidates tell the kinds of lies that the Clintons have been telling, they place citizens in a position in which the only way to know what is going on is to become political junkies. Being merely informed is not enough: you have to be the sort of person who actually remembers the article from 2004 that Bill Clinton was referring to when he said that Obama had changed his position on the war, and so forth."

CLINTON II: The Two-Headed Monster

Liberal bloggers continue to analyze Bill Clinton's role in HRC's campaign:

The Nation's Ari Melber sees a pattern in Bill's outbursts: "Bill Clinton has a negative outburst a few days before each state race in the Democratic primary. There was 'roll the dice' before Iowa, and 'fairy tale' in New Hampshire. A few days before Nevada voted, he aggressively confronted a reporter on camera, and just pulled the same stunt on a CNN reporter in South Carolina. Each time, the media fixates on the spectacle, dutifully debating whether he is too angry or too misleading. But as Clinton knows, it doesn't even matter what people say, as long as they are talking about him and his latest attacks on Barack Obama. Like clockwork, these supposed outbursts give airtime to attacks while pulling attention away from Obama in the crucial, closing days of each primary."

Meanwhile, ex-Clinton Labor Sec. Robert Reich slams his old boss: "I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton's ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife's campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party. While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it's not fair -- indeed, it's demeaning -- for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama's anti-war position is a 'fairy tale') or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it."

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) thinks that the ex-President may be damaging his reputation. The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports:

"[Clyburn] would not, as a member of the Obama campaign has, go so far as to compare Clinton's actions to that of Lee Atwater, the famed Republican dirty trickster. But he did allow the idea that the former president had sullied his image within Democratic circles.

'I think that may be true,' said Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives. 'I mean, he is speaking out this way, taking hits on Obama. A lot of times these things happen. What you say may hurt the other guy but it also may hurt you.'"

OBAMA: Winning The Spin War, Losing The Primary?

TPM's Greg Sargent thinks Obama is winning the spin war over who's the greater victim: "One of the central struggles between the Obama and Hillary campaigns right now is this: Which of the two can successfully persuade voters that he or she is the fair-fighter being victimized by the other's out-of-control aggression? Which of the two can persuade voters that his or her opponent is using a steady stream of vicious, old-style attack politics to prevent history from being made? Right now -- if media coverage, pundit opinion, and insider chatter among Dems is any guide -- it's hard not to conclude that Obama is winning this particular spin war handily. At risk of overgeneralizing, much media coverage and commentary right now appears to be hewing closer to the Obama campaign's chosen narrative, which is roughly that the Clinton machine is using every gutter tactic at its disposal to halt the triumph of new politics and the making of history."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan doesn't think this helps Obama: "I think the spin war itself is a distraction from Obama's core message -- of unifying change -- and distracting from that is central to the Clintons' strategy. It seems to me that Obama needs to focus back on the case for his own candidacy, in particular, providing explicit concrete policy detail in his public presentation."

David Corn also doesn't think the anti-Clinton backlash will matter: "There's not that much time between now and Supersaturated Tuesday on February 5. It's hard to see a full-scale Democratic rebellion against the Clintons emerging. Meanwhile, all this sniping is keeping Obama pinned down. That is, it's working for the Clintons. Their calculation is obvious: the heat is worth the gain."

Meanwhile, in his interview with The Huffington Post's Stein, Rep. Clyburn denies that Obama is the "black" candidate:

"'There are more white people supporting Obama than there are black,' [Clyburn] said, with a charge of emotion. 'Now that's a fact. Just look at the numbers. Look at New Hampshire. How many white votes and how many black votes did he get in New Hampshire? How many white votes and how many black votes did he get in Iowa? Now add that to the black votes in South Carolina. There are more white people supporting Obama than there are black people. Now that's a fact.'

The populations of both Iowa, where Obama won, and New Hampshire, where he finished a close second, are both overwhelming white. Moreover, Clyburn added:

'Look at endorsements here in South Carolina...John Matthews, Robert Ford, Darrell Jackson, three black state senators. They are supporting Hillary Clinton. I haven't seen a single black state senator come out for Obama. So is she the black candidate?'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: How To Improve The Debates

NRO's Jonah Goldberg posts the following email from a reader:

"Dear Jonah,
One reader asked last night, 'can we ever, please, PLEASE get just ONE debate moderated by actual CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS???' This reader asks: Why doesn't NRO host a debate? That would be a sight to behold."

Matthew Yglesias likes this suggestion:

"That sounds like a good idea to me. Especially given the enormous quantity of debates that both fields are enduring this cycle, why can't we have more experimentation with the formats? In particular, it really does seem likely to me that a panel of smart conservative ideologues would produce a debate that's more useful to Republican primary voters than would Tim Russert or Wolf Blitzer being a pain in the ass. And, of course, vice versa as well. Katrina vanden Heuvel and Harold Meyerson know the questions actual Democrats would like to see the Democratic candidates answer. If that experiment worked well, you might even consider mixing things up -- let Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru grill the Democrats and see what happens. Certainly it's not as if the CNN and MSNBC teams have covered themselves in so much glory this cycle that I'm sitting here thinking if only Russert could moderate seventy debates next year instead of only fifty!"

LEST WE FORGET: Sneaky, Sneaky

McSweeney's' Neil Reynolds lists "The Oldest Tricks In The Book":

• Tap neighbor on left shoulder. When he turns to look, club his wife and drag her to your cave.
• Kill mammoth. Crawl into mammoth carcass. When saber-toothed tiger comes to feast, explode from mammoth with spear.
• Trek to volcano with bundle of sticks. Plunge sticks into molten rock. Retread your path by night, being careful to keep torch burning. Arrive at dwelling. Claim discovery of fire.
• Tell wife you go to hunt. Instead, sneak off and watch sunset.
• Trap child in deep recess of cave where he cannot escape. Perform elaborate shadow play on cave walls. Expose him to truth when he is old enough to hunt mammoth.
• Kill mammoth. Crawl into mammoth carcass. When neighbor comes to feast, explode from mammoth with cake.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:51 PM

January 24, 2008

1/24: A House Divided

As we observed 1/22, liberal bloggers are divided about Hillary Clinton's bare-knuckled campaign tactics. Many bloggers have been put off by the Clinton campaign's attacks on Barack Obama, which they describe as "dishonest," "shameless," and "Rovian." Paul Waldman uses particularly strong words in condemning HRC's tactics:

"[HRC]'s campaign has begun to appear more and more as though it's being run by Karl Rove or Lee Atwater. Pick your tired metaphor -- take-no-prisoners, brass knuckles, no-holds-barred, playing for keeps -- however you describe it, the Clinton campaign is not only not going easy on Obama, they're doing so in awfully familiar ways...Clinton hasn't yet reached GOP levels of underhandedness. But on the simple question of honestly characterizing their opponent, the Clintons are giving any Republican campaign in memory a run for its money."

Other liberal bloggers, however, think that the Clintons' attacks on Obama are an inevitable part of politics. Moreover, they are worried by Obama's seeming inability to effectively deflect these attacks. Ezra Klein writes:

"On the one hand, Hillary Clinton is running a bare-knuckled, often unfair campaign, and pundits should mention that. On the other, the sort of attacks she's levying -- misrepresenting Obama's payroll tax plan, or exaggerating his comments about [Ronald] Reagan -- are pretty much par for the course...And, so far, it looks to me like Clinton is getting the better of this one: Obama and his folks are spending a lot of time clarifying statements and categorizing attacks as unfair, while Clinton keeps throwing more punches and controlling the conversation...This is what folks feared with Obama: That he'd be too high-minded to stand up to the smear machine. And distasteful as some of Clinton's hits are, they're nothing compared to what he'll face as the nominee."

For some liberal bloggers, it's not whether you win or lose; it's how you play the game. But for others, after eight years of George W. Bush, winning is everything. And so far, it appears that HRC is doing a better job at winning.

DEM FIELD: State By State

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong analyzes the upcoming primaries and caucuses: "I'll predict that Clinton pretty well wraps it up on Feb 5th, but lets suppose she doesn't, then what's the most reasonable best-case 'threshold' scenario for Obama to continue competitively after Feb 5th? In that case, on the 5th, IL, AL, and GA should be in his column. Clinton views TN as a battleground, and established a campaign office there this week, and there too. MO, with the help of [Claire] McCaskill; CO, since it's a caucus; SD, with the help of [Tom] Daschle and since its a caucus. Maybe that's about it, which would make 7 states for Obama, and Clinton would take the remaining 15 states. If Obama could do that, he'd probably have lost the delegate race on Feb 5th by a pretty large margin, but he'd be able to go on fairly easily. If Obama takes 4 or less states on Feb 5th, it's pretty much over, but lets stick with 7 for the narrative. Then the rest of Feb looks much better for Obama. LA, and a caucus in WA, are both contests that Obama could win on the 9th; and a sweep of MD, VA, and DC on the 12th would also be feasible. Those wouldn't be enough delegates make-up for all the other losses that are assumed above, but the 'win' narrative would be pretty strong heading into WI on the 19th for Obama. Anyway, that's how I could see Feb playing out, if it continues to be competitive past Feb 5th."

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Obama appears headed to a clear victory in South Carolina...One wonders what size of victory, if any, can allow him to close the gap in California (where he trails by 12%) and nationally (where he trails by about 8%). I suppose that depends on how much he wins by, how much that victory in covered in the press on Sunday and Monday, and about the tone of the coverage. An 8% deficit is not enormous, and even a 4% bump could carry him to victory in as many as ten states on Super Tuesday (Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and North Dakota). So, while Obama doesn't need much from South Carolina to stay in the game after Super Tuesday, he does need something of a boost."

Meanwhile, MyDD's Todd Beeton notes that John Edwards is surging in SC: "Yesterday I asked if Edwards could catch Clinton in South Carolina. According to Zogby's Wednesday polling (out of a three-day rolling average), he already has...So what does this mean for Saturday? Well, the expectations are already set that anything less than a double digit win for Obama would be a disappointment, a result that is more likely today than it was yesterday. Also, since Edwards had been virtually written off as an also-ran after his distant third place finish in Nevada, if he comes within single digits of Clinton, you have to think that would be a big boost for him going in to February 5th, certainly a shot in the arm, whether he can capitalize on it is yet to be determined. And then there's the question of what impact Clinton's return to the state today and events all day tomorrow, the eve of the primary, will have on late breaking voters. Zogby finds that a full 20% of African-American voters are undecided."

DEM FIELD II: Filibustering FISA

The netroots are pressuring HRC and Obama to return to the Senate and support Sen. Chris Dodd in his filibuster of the FISA reauthorization bill:

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Look, Senators. It's not like nobody cares -- polling shows that voters overwhelmingly oppose immunity for telecom companies (PDF)...Your actions last time this came up were really unimpressive. Senator Obama gave a supporting statement but did one of his patented vote skips, and Senator Clinton just ignored the entire episode. Considering that you, Senator Clinton, are the number one Senate recipient of telecom donations, the fact that you have been a day late and a dollar short on this issue does not augur well for your claims at Yearly Kos that you will not be influenced by your campaign contributors. When Chris Dodd goes forward with his filibuster (and he will), you'll probably have 30-60 hours to get back to DC. That gives you plenty of time. Events get cancelled all the time -- there is no excuse not to be in Washington DC for this event, and to do so is to avoid leadership."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "It would be nice to see one or both of them showing a little leadership on this."

Mark Kleiman thinks Obama could especially benefit from joining Dodd's filibuster: "What would happen if Barack Obama announced Saturday night, or even tomorrow, that he was going to fly directly from his South Carolina victory celebration back to DC to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Dodd against executive-branch lawlessness? (Obama, like Clinton, is already on record supporting Dodd against the Cheney-Reid axis.) Yes, that would take him off the campaign trail for a while. But I bet he could get more, and more favorable, free media from the Senate floor than he could from the tarmac somewhere in California. And it would leave HRC with the option of joining him -- making Obama look like the leader and HRC the follower -- or remaining on the campaign trail herself, dramatically illustrating the difference between patriotic leadership and raw ambition."

CLINTON: Too Rovian?

Several liberal bloggers are criticizing the Clinton campaign for what they perceive as its unfair attacks on Obama:

The American Prospect's Paul Waldman: "[HRC]'s campaign has begun to appear more and more as though it's being run by Karl Rove or Lee Atwater. Pick your tired metaphor -- take-no-prisoners, brass knuckles, no-holds-barred, playing for keeps -- however you describe it, the Clinton campaign is not only not going easy on Obama, they're doing so in awfully familiar ways. So many of the ingredients of a typical GOP campaign are there, in addition to fear. We have the efforts to make it harder for the opponent's voters to get to the polls (the Nevada lawsuit seeking to shut down at-large caucus sites in Las Vegas, to which the Clinton campaign gave its tacit support). We have, depending on how you interpret the events of the last couple of weeks, the exploitation of racial divisions and suspicions (including multiple Clinton surrogates criticizing Obama for his admitted teenage drug use). And most of all, we have an utterly shameless dishonesty."

The Washington Monthly's Art Levine: "Hillary Clinton has launched a new attack ad claiming Sen. Barack Obama supports the worst proposals of the GOP because he referred to Republicans as having run as the 'party of ideas.' To Clinton's critics, this seems to be another tactic borrowing heavily from the Karl Rove-style gameplan, including alleged election-day dirty tricks and previous distortions of his record that emerged during this week's debates and the attacks by former President Bill Clinton...Hillary's shrewdly playing to the Democratic party's base that despises Reagan. But it's also possible that many in the party could become increasingly appalled at the Clintons' questionable hardball tactics."

The Nation's Ari Berman: "The Clintons say Barack Obama is flip-flopping on single-payer healthcare. He supported such a plan in 2003, they say, and opposes it now. They've released this video, splicing clips of Obama in '03 with footage of Obama at Monday's debate, as proof. Time for a reality check. Once again, Clinton is attacking Obama for a position that she herself holds -- and in doing so, is twisting Obama's words and fudging the context...It's perfectly legitimate to argue, as The Nation and others have, that single-payer is the only path to real universal healthcare and elected politicians should do everything in their power to push for it. But if any Democrat is at fault for making single-payer a politically radioactive issue, it's Hillary Clinton. Back in '93 labor unions and healthcare experts urged the Clintons to adopt single-payer as the backbone of her healthcare plan. They refused, opting instead for a 1,000 page 'managed care' plan, meant to appease the private sector, that was doomed to fail. Fifteen years later we're still debating universal healthcare, and the Clintons are still spinning defeat as victory."

TPMCafe's M.J. Rosenberg: "I didn't think that there was a way Democrats could fail to win the Presidency in 2008. But I underestimated us...virtually the entire campaign against [Obama] has been smear and innuendo with a racial subtext. It better stop, but I expect it won't. It won't stop because after Iowa it was decided that Obama could not be defeated fair and square. So fair and square went out the window. The result? A Republican victory especially if McCain is the nominee and pledges to serve only one term."

MyDD's psericks: "A number of commentators noted again today the peculiar way the Clintons have criticized rivals this campaign cycle. Instead of defending their weaknesses, they either claim amnesia (on the Telecommunications Act at YearlyKos, on those funny charts of [Ross] Perot's on NAFTA, etc) or, more often and more tellingly, the case made is that 'they're just like us'...[HRC's] position that you're not really against the war if you have ever voted to fund the troops is almost funny -- funny because it says what exactly about her own work in the Senate and her years of approving funding after approving the war resolution that brought this country into Iraq? (It's worth noting on the side that a number of the two dozen Senate Democrats who opposed the Iraq war resolution later voted for funding resolutions once troops were deployed, Dick Durbin for example.) This is apparently a 'clever' way of derailing criticism of her own staunch support of the war by deflecting attention away from it."

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "For many of us who closely watch the politics of reproductive health, it's been upsetting to see the issue become a wedge in this primary. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have 100 percent pro-choice voting records. But for months now, Clinton has been attacking Obama for seven 'present' votes he cast in the Illinois State Senate on legislation that would have rolled back reproductive rights. The state's Planned Parenthood says it encouraged Obama to vote 'present' -- over his own objections -- in order to preserve a pro-choice seat in the legislature. But that explanation hasn't stopped the Clinton campaign from hammering the 'Obama is wobbly on choice' message home with a New Hampshire mailer, multiple press releases, and a conference call with journalists."

Ezra Klein doesn't think the Clinton campaign's attacks have crossed the line: "On the one hand, Hillary Clinton is running a bare-knuckled, often unfair campaign, and pundits should mention that. On the other, the sort of attacks she's levying -- misrepresenting Obama's payroll tax plan, or exaggerating his comments about Reagan -- are pretty much par for the course. We're not hitting some sort of new low in politics, here...And, so far, it looks to me like Clinton is getting the better of this one: Obama and his folks are spending a lot of time clarifying statements and categorizing attacks as unfair, while Clinton keeps throwing more punches and controlling the conversation. While I can name a half-dozen open attacks Clinton has on Obama right now, I'm not really sure what line his campaign is taking against Clinton. This is what folks feared with Obama: That he'd be too high-minded to stand up to the smear machine. And distasteful as some of Clinton's hits are, they're nothing compared to what he'll face as the nominee."

OBAMA: Everybody's Talkin'

Chris Bowers explains why the leading netroots bloggers don't support Obama: "The main reason why many progressive bloggers didn't jump on the Obama bandwagon, or at least why we haven't done much for Obama apart from providing moral support that is generally lacking in activism, is that he hasn't used his time in the Senate to prove his progressive leadership on issues like Iraq and FISA. Had he done so, I have no doubt that his blogosphere support would have turned into something more tangible, like defending him against attacks such as these or generating positive free media buzz on his behalf. For my part, I still hope that Obama wins the nomination, but I'm not excited enough about it to do more than just say I am supporting him, and to sign petitions to help him get on the ballot in Pennsylvania. We want to see progressive leadership in the Senate, and we haven't found that from either Clinton or Obama. Until that happens, we may have preferences, but they are generally intellectual preferences rather than activist ones."

Kevin Drum thinks Obama is hurt by the fact that few people get to see him give speeches: "After every Democratic debate I always get one or two emails from people asking me if Barack Obama was off his game. The answer is usually no. It's just the way he is. In debates he has a tendency to stutter and stammer a bit and his answers usually aren't as sharp as they could be. After the last email I got along these lines it occurred to me just how unlucky this is for Obama...[he] is frequently outstanding at giving speeches to large crowds. And that's a great skill for a president to have. Unfortunately, very few people, especially outside the early primary states, get to see Obama giving a speech. He's also really good in small groups, and again, that's a great skill for a president to have since presidents are constantly meeting legislators, foreign leaders, and various interest group brokers in small groups to try to hash out deals. Unfortunately, again, very few people ever get to see Obama in this setting. And then there are the debates. This is a completely artificial format, one that presidents never engage in, so having slightly mediocre debate skills really doesn't mean a thing. But it's the one format where millions of people see him."

Ari Melber disagrees with Drum: "Barack Obama delivered a riveting speech about America's moral crisis this weekend, calling for a united movement to overcome the nation's moral deficit and mounting economic inequality...While cable news shows gorge on campaign sparring, Obama's uplifting speech is absolutely dominating YouTube. The 34-minute address from Ebenezer Baptist Church is currently the fourth most viewed video in the world on YouTube, trailing two Britney Spears clips. Not only is that unusual traffic for a long political address -- people also like it. On Tuesday, viewers voted it the second most 'favorited' video in the world...But it's not only remarkable that so many viewers are choosing a long, serious speech over the political theatrics that dominate typical news. This kind of YouTube speech is also distinct because it enables voters to appraise a candidate directly, without any filters. News coverage is larded with polls and meta-analysis, while top bloggers increasingly talk strategy. Even the debates are often clogged with moderator framing and false premises. So despite our proliferating media, it's hard for most voters to hear directly from the candidates who would be president, unless you move to Iowa...But it looks like when the speech is available and the candidate is inspiring, people still want to listen."

Meanwhile, AMERICAblog's Chris Ryan is impressed by Obama's interview with Jack Welch on CNBC: "It's an interesting exchange to watch because Welch, who has financially supported countless Republican presidential candidates including Bush II twice, responds well to Obama. Others on the program who are also obvious Republicans are also responding positively towards Obama. For me it's very interesting to see such a warm response to a Democrat because after the interview, they go on to bash Hillary and Edwards...Obama was very good in the exchange and impressed me with his response to why Welch and business people should vote for him."

GOP FIELD: It's Not Enough To Have Ideas

Since Fred Thompson was generally considered the most conservative of the leading GOP candidates, his exit from the GOP race has caused some angst in conservative quarters. Several conservative bloggers are claiming that Thompson failed to catch fire because of his personality, not his ideas:

RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "With the failure of the Fred Thompson campaign, there has been predictable and understandable wailing and gnashing of teeth in conservative quarters about the state of the GOP and what this all means for the future of conservative ideas. Fred ran as a full-scale, across-the-board movement conservative, and he went nowhere...Conservatives are asking: has our party abandoned us? Have GOP voters rejected our ideas? No, it has not, and they have not...we have been asked to choose among men, not ideas. While our choices certainly reflect our view of the ideas each man champions, it is deeply mistaken to read the choice of one man over another as the final and definitive statement of what ideas we truly support...ideas don't run for president. People do."

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini agrees: "People don't vote for issues, they vote for the most compelling people. The wrong issue positions passionately felt beat the right ones rationally argued any day of the week. This is how an uneven, single-issue candidate like [Mike] Huckabee could steal Thompson's thunder so readily though Thompson was inarguably the better all-around conservative...Thompson's message was more about covering all the bases rather than maxing out on the one or two issues that made him different from everyone else running."

MCCAIN: Vulnerable On The Right

National Review's Editors explain how John McCain can mollify conservatives: "McCain will never win over all conservatives, even if he gets the nomination. But he can reassure conservatives if he pledges to name a conservative running mate and identifies respected conservative legal figures to whom he will turn when nominating judges. He can promise to approach immigration reform piecemeal rather than comprehensively. He should say that strong evidence that the illegal-immigrant population is shrinking will have to arrive before he legalizes any large segment of that population. And he can acknowledge that scientific advances have weakened the case for federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey thinks McCain should attend CPAC: "McCain has created much of the bad blood with conservative pundits and activists, and he hasn't tried hard to soothe the ruffled feathers over the years...At some point, though, McCain will need this base if he wants to win the election. Since he wants its support, that will require McCain to make the first moves towards reconciling the coalition to his banner. That will have to include some acknowledgment of his role in the contretemps, as well as a legitimate and respectful debate over the differences. Rudy Giuliani provided the model for this in his campaign statements on differences over abortion, in which Rudy very respectfully maintained his own policy stand while respecting the differences with the base. McCain may well win the nomination without the conservative base, but he won't win the general election with those activists sitting on the sidelines. The time to start entering into a dialogue is now. A visit to CPAC could go a long way towards mending fences and doing some listening."

However, many conservative bloggers remain adamantly opposed to McCain:

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "What kind of Supreme Court justices would John McCain appoint if he was elected president? They would certainly be better than those Hillary would appoint, which is why I will support Senator McCain should he manage to use the MSM to get the GOP nomination. But there is no reason to believe that McCain nominees would be originalists. John McCain's heart isn't with the originalist movement. It cannot be. The Gang of 14, McCain-Feingold, and McCain-Kennedy can be read no other way...If [the GOP] nominates John McCain, it sends into the fall a very weak candidate trying to rally a sullen base. If on the chance he wins -- an unlikely event as he is increasingly understood to be another Bob Dole when it comes to campaigning -- no one should be heard to complain if his SCOTUS nominees come from the 'center' as he seeks consensus and a second term."

NRO's Mark Krikorian: "We all know John McCain is terrible on immigration. For years he held America's sovereignty and security hostage to amnesty and increased immigration, and his newfound support for 'enforcement first' is so insubstantial and transparently insincere that it insults our intelligence...But his support for de facto open borders is merely one manifestation of a larger problem -- John McCain is a multiculturalist...Take bilingual education. McCain has been an enthusiastic proponent of this divisive and discredited program for years...It's true that McCain has taken liberal stances on other issues -- greenhouse emissions, free speech, judges -- and those are all bad. But they don't strike at the coherence of the American nation."

Meanwhile, Townhall's Matt Lewis describes McCain's likely strategy at tonight's GOP debate: "While everyone knows Mitt Romney wants tonight's debate to be about which candidate is best on the economy, John McCain's message is evolving. He will attempt to neutralize the economy issue, and will, of course, continue to talk up his security credentials -- but the big change in McCain's message will be that he begin stressing he is the Republican who can win a General election. In short, McCain wants voters to decide based on the question: Which Republican can beat Hillary (McCain knows that polling shows he wins on that issue). This was confirmed to me last night by a McCain spokesperson."

HUCKABEE: Endorsed By Duncan Hunter?

Conservative bloggers are stunned by Duncan Hunter's endorsement of Huckabee:

Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Mr. Border Fence is backing a guy who accused opponents of Bush's immigration plan of nativism?...The man who wants his foreign policy driven by the golden rule is the man to tame the Chinese dragon? Am I hallucinating?...What's even odder is that Hunter's often touted as a SecDef in the next Republican administration. Endorsing McCain, the frontrunner, would have helped him in that regard and given Maverick a boost with conservatives. Instead he throws his endorsement away on someone who'll be done by February 6th. I guess he just likes the guy."

Michelle Malkin:

"Maybe Huck promised him a Cabinet position. Nothing else makes sense...

Let's review:

Duncan Hunter -- Keep Guantanamo Bay open
Mike Huckabee -- Close Gitmo

Duncan Hunter -- Staunch border security advocate
Mike Huckabee -- Open-borders ethno-panderer"

NRO's Byron York: "The endorsement of Huckabee just doesn't seem to fit, given Hunter's national-security orientation, concern about China, all that. I thought it seemed so odd that, when I got the email a few minutes ago, I called Hunter's spokesman to make sure it was right. It's not huge news -- Hunter got all of 1,048 votes in the South Carolina -- but a number of conservatives who paid close attention to the race liked Hunter, and they usually weren't the sort to support Huckabee."

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "As the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Hunter is a foreign policy expert and definitely a hawk. While it is a little hard to pin down Huckabee's national security views, he is clearly in a different category. Yet to Hunter, Huckabee's social conservatism apparently trumped everything else...I don't mean to sound critical of Hunter; he can back whomever he likes. I merely offer his support for Huckabee as further evidence that at present, there is really no such thing as Republican orthodoxy. Also, consistent with a suggestion that Paul made yesterday, conservatives for whom the social issues are of lesser importance may underestimate how significant they are to many of our fellow Republicans."

AmSpec Blog's John Tabin is one of the only bloggers who isn't shocked: "I'm not all that surprised...it's always been clear the Hunter -- who has opposed free trade agreements, rails against outsourcing, etc. -- has a populist streak that gives him some common ground with the Huckster."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama '12?

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat wonders what will happen to Obama if he loses:

"Given the campaign he's run and the kind of fervor he's generated, I think he's better-positioned for a future run at the Presidency than any failed primary candidate since Ronald Reagan (that name again!) after he lost to [Gerald] Ford 1976.

Think about it this way: If Hillary loses the general election, Obama presumably becomes the media's go-to-Democrat, and thus the face of the party, in a McCain or Romney Administration, and he would be far and away the front-runner, I would imagine, for the nomination in 2012. If Hillary wins, on the other hand, he'll be in a position not unlike John McCain vis-a-vis George W. Bush after 2000, except he'll be younger, more charismatic, and possessed of a much larger and more devoted core of supporters in his own party than McCain has ever enjoyed in the GOP. Which is to say, he'll be able to play the above-the-fray, trans-partisan figure whose support President Hillary needs but can't take for granted -- the role McCain played for much of the Bush Administration -- without having to do nearly so much of the base-shoring-up spadework McCain's been forced to attempt in his quest to win the '08 nomination. If Hillary's first term is a disaster, one can almost imagine Obama attempting to challenge her for the nomination in 2012; more plausibly, though, if her administration runs for two relatively successful terms, he'll be ideally positioned to run Sarkozy-style in 2016 as the candidate of continuity and change, without any of the baggage that a Vice President [Evan] Bayh or [Jim] Webb or [Bill] Richardson will doubtless pick up over two terms in Clintonland.

All of this assumes that a Clinton-Obama ticket for this fall is out of the question. I tend to think it is, for a variety of reasons; not least among them is the fact that even if Hillary offered him the Veep's slot, Obama might well have a better chance of being President in the long run if he turned it down."

LEST WE FORGET: God Would Have Mercy, John McCain Won't!

NRO's Jim Geraghty:

"Team McCain gathers the mentions of his name in the Democratic debate, some speculation from pundits (including Bob Novak) that the Democrats find McCain the toughest general election opponent, and puts together a nifty little web ad entitled, 'The Democrats' Worst Nightmare.'

A subtle Rambo reference, as the fourth movie comes out?"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:15 PM

January 23, 2008

1/23: Turning Up The Heat

As the Dem and GOP primaries have progressed, two frontrunners have emerged (Hillary Clinton and John McCain) who are disliked by a considerable number of people in the blogosphere. On the Dem side, the heated battle between HRC and Barack Obama has been accompanied by an equally heated battle between supporters of both candidates in the comment threads. These "flame wars" have become so intense that prominent liberal blogger Digby has decided to temporarily disable the comment threads on her blog. Chris Bowers thinks these disagreements are an inevitable consequence of "some really nasty divisions in this country." He also writes:

"It will tone down once the primary is over, but no matter who wins it will be a long healing process as supporters struggle with lingering feelings of voter suppression, corporate blackouts, racism, sexism, and other charges the campaigns have made themselves."

In the conservative blogosphere, the criticism of Mike Huckabee has diminished now that the ex-governor looks less viable, while the attacks on McCain have noticeably increased. Ed Morrissey thinks bloggers and commenters need to tone down their attacks:

"In my opinion, the tone of this primary has strayed unnecessarily into negative attacks on valuable members of our own team. Instead of focusing on positive aspects of a favored candidate, too often our advocates have opted to seize on any criticism of others and make that their main message."

We share Bowers' view that once the primaries are over, there will almost certainly be lingering feelings of bitterness among the online supporters of certain candidates. But will it stop these people from uniting behind their party's nominee?

GOP FIELD: McCain Wins, Conservatives Lose?

Two recent columns -- one by Townhall's Michael Medved and the other by The New York Times' David Brooks -- have sparked a lively debate in the conservative blogosphere. Medved and Brooks take similar positions in their columns: Medved sees McCain and Huckabee's 1-2 finish in the SC primary as a repudiation of conservative talk radio (which has attacked both candidates for months), while Brooks sees it as a repudiation of conservative leaders more generally.

Medved:

"The big loser in South Carolina was, in fact, talk radio: a medium that has unmistakably collapsed in terms of impact, influence and credibility because of its hysterical and one-dimensional involvement in the GOP nomination fight. For more than a month, the leading conservative talkers in the country have broadcast identical messages in an effort to demonize Mike Huckabee and John McCain...Well, the two alleged 'liberals,' McCain and Huckabee, just swept a total of 63% of the Republican vote in deeply conservative South Carolina...South Carolina demonstrates the utter ineffectiveness of concerted efforts by the conservative media elite to derail the campaigns of two popular candidates."

Brooks:

"Many professional conservatives do not regard Mike Huckabee or John McCain as true conservatives...Some of the contributors to The National Review's highly influential blog, The Corner, look to Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney to save the conservative movement. Their hatred of McCain is so strong, it's earned its own name: McCain Derangement Syndrome. Yet a funny thing has happened this primary season. Conservative voters have not followed their conservative leaders. Conservative voters are much more diverse than the image you'd get from conservative officialdom."

NRO's Mark Levin pushes back against Brooks' claims: "I strongly oppose McCain's nomination, but I don't hate him. And I had not heard this phrase 'McCain Derangement Syndrome' until Brooks dropped it into his column...Brooks wants to redefine conservatism, but he's not going to. He has written about a McCain-Lieberman Third Party ticket for a few years now...His position doesn't stray much from the neo-conservative position, in which foreign policy rules supreme, and limited government is of little concern. So, he has to fill that gap, and he does so with a poorly conceived and increasingly frustrated insistence that we all join him in breathing life back into a kind of Nixon-Ford domestic agenda -- i.e., a muck of compromises and government expansion that surrenders the ideological playing field to the Left."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Brooks bristles with contempt for conservative intellectuals who read less than 'pure' conservatives out of the movement. I think I understand where he's coming from. It is incorrect in my view to claim that, on balance, McCain and Huckabee are liberals. At worst, they are moderates who lean to the right. But conservatives certainly aren't out-of-line to the extent that they criticize McCain or Huckabee for specific non-conservative positions they take on major issues. To borrow Brooks' terms, it may be misguided for conservatives to 'expel' McCain and Huckabee, but it's not necessarily inappropriate to 'find them wanting.'"

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey thinks Medved has a point: "In my opinion, the tone of this primary has strayed unnecessarily into negative attacks on valuable members of our own team. Instead of focusing on positive aspects of a favored candidate, too often our advocates have opted to seize on any criticism of others and make that their main message. That's not just true in talk radio, but also in the blogosphere. It has led to what I call Ultimatum Politics -- where people start to demand that either their specific candidate gets nominated or they refuse to participate in the general election. That results from overcranked partisanship clouding mature judgment. In a general election, voters have to make a choice, and as Ronald Reagan warned, it's better to support a candidate with whom one agrees on 70% of the issues rather than allow a 30% candidate to prevail instead."

MCCAIN: Still Not Convincing The Right

Michelle Malkin rips McCain for his record on illegal immigration: "After spearheading a disastrous, security-undermining illegal alien amnesty bill last year with Teddy Kennedy, 'straight-talking' GOP Sen. John McCain claims he has seen the light. In TV appearances, he vows to put immigration enforcement first...But how can McCain cure citizens' distrust when his own credibility on the issue remains fatally damaged?...Not all of us have forgotten how the short-fused Arizona senator cursed good-faith opponents in his own party ('F**k you!' and 'Chickensh*t' were the choice words he had for Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn during a spat over enforcement provisions). Not all of us have forgotten that he voted against barring felons from receiving amnesty benefits under his plan. Not all of us have forgotten the underhanded, debate-sabotaging manner in which McCain/Kennedy/[Lindsay] Graham/Harry Reid conspired to ram their package down voters' throats."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins analyzes McCain:

"Strengths: He's fiscally conservative, a hawk, and has a strong pro-life voting record. He's also the candidate who currently has the best head-to-head numbers against Obama and Clinton by far.

Weaknesses: Beyond the issues above, McCain is basically a Democrat who seems to take perverse enjoyment in picking fights with conservatives. For this reason, he is richly despised by a lot of people on the Right and having him as the nominee would cause conservatives to become despondent. He's also pro-amnesty, didn't support the Bush tax cuts, and is undependable on judges -- and just about everything else -- despite his protests to the contrary."

MCCAIN II: Causing Consternation Among Dems

Liberal bloggers are anxious -- and somewhat conflicted -- about the prospect of facing McCain in the general election:

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Just yesterday I heard of yet another Democrat who has said he would consider voting for McCain, something I've heard over and over from moderate Democrats and independents...This support McCain has among the broad political middle points to the larger reason I'd prefer a Romney nomination...The real problem I see in McCain is that, setting aside his embrace of the surge and his desire to keep troops in Iraq for hundreds of years, he's actually quite sane on several issues that Democrats have a unique opportunity to claim as their own, among them fighting global warming, instituting comprehensive and compassionate immigration reform, opposing torture and closing Guantanamo Bay. Now, McCain's positions on these issues are problematic for him among conservatives, leading Rush Limbaugh to claim a McCain nomination would 'ruin the party,' but the fact is McCain would blur some of the distinctions that I feel it's imperative for us to be able to draw with the Republicans in November."

Ezra Klein: "I'm deeply conflicted about McCain's rise. On one level, it would be a boon for the GOP to nominate an actual adult. McCain has his problems -- and many of them are severe -- but he's not a reckless nut like [Rudy] Giuliani, and he's not a political knave like Huckabee, and checked by a Democratic Congress, there's the possibility that some decent, if incremental, legislation would be created and passed. On the other hand, he's still the most electable vessel for deeply unsound views on profoundly important matters, and it would be better to have sound views on important matters."

THOMPSON: So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Fred's likely exit will cause a little navel-gazing around the blogosphere. The enthusiasm Fred generated didn't get matched by the energy output of the campaign itself, and many puzzled over this fact. While Thompson advocates argued that we should support the candidate who rejected the media-driven, hoop-jumping campaign that most politicians use, voters expected to see more of Thompson's desire and demonstrate that he had the energy to run the country. Bloggers either missed this desire or mistakenly discounted it as a factor even among media-resistant conservatives -- who voted in greater numbers for John McCain and Mike Huckabee than Fred in South Carolina."

Jennifer Rubin: "I think Thompson and his meek withdrawal from the race carry several lessons. First, being president and running for president take more than saying the 'right' things. There are personal attributes -- drive, determination, leadership and organizational skills that matter. The presidency is not the same (though some of us wish differently) as being a thoughtful pundit. It is an executive and leadership position. Second, campaigns tell us something about how people will perform in office. Are they steadfast and brave or lazy or groveling? Pay attention because adults rarely change their basic personality and character."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "I too am disappointed by Fred Thompson's departure from the race, as he was my favorite of the top-tier candidates...Unfortunately, the campaign overpromised in those summer days and underdelivered when Thompson finally declared his candidacy. Candidate Thompson didn't show signs of what made people support him in the first place until too many Republicans had concluded he was no longer viable. He might have had problems in the general election in any event if he didn't do the hard work of connecting the conservative principles he articulated so well to new policies that adress the problems of 2008...If Mitt Romney can't prosper with Thompson out of the race, there are no conditions under which he could win the nomination."

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Thompson was the only candidate in the GOP race who consistently advocated a small-government, free market, federalist message and his departure leaves a hole in the race for the GOP nomination...I suppose that there are things to learn from this episode in American Presidential history. We learn that getting in the race for the Presidency early is now an imperative. We learn that untraditional campaigns fail. And we learn that however much a candidate is ambitious for his ideas, it won't matter to the electorate unless he is also ambitious for himself or herself."

RedState's Erick Erickson: "I spoke with one of Fred's advisors a little while ago...My understanding is that with no strong clearly conservative person in the race, he saw no point in endorsing. But, this is not the end of Thompson. I'm told we'll be hearing much more from him in a few days. His mother is recovering from an illness and he is with her. But, I suspect he'll be engaging in forums around the country to talk about conservatism and make sure we hold the other candidates to some consistency -- no more talking populist in Michigan, Mitt Romney."

Erickson, who lives in GA, plans to vote for Thompson anyway: "I intend to show up on February 5th at my local polling location and cast my vote for Fred Thompson."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Even were he to endorse McCain, I've got to think that Fred's departure from the race hurts McCain, and helps Huckabee and Romney, going forward...Had he departed a week ago, Huckabee would have won South Carolina."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Reading my e-mail and listening to Bill Bennett's show this morning, Fredheads seem to be going Romney."

ROMNEY: You Can't Please Everybody

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt continues to make the case for Romney: "The troubles roiling the international equity markets underscore Romney's vast experience with the economy and growth issues while reminding Florida voters that John McCain's 24 years in the U.S. Senate produces almost nothing in the way of experience with markets and global financial tides and stresses."

Meanwhile, John Hawkins continues to make the case against Romney: "He is a 'promise anything to anybody to get elected' flip-flopper who really can't be trusted once he's in office. An unknown percentage of evangelical Christians won't vote for him because he's a member of what they consider to be a heretical, Christian cult. Moreover, although conservatives don't loathe him, he inspires very little enthusiasm and his head-to-head poll numbers against Obama and Clinton are just terrible. Romney turns states that Huckabee and McCain win by 20 points into toss-ups and seems highly unlikely to win a general election."

DEM FIELD: Emotions Run High

As the HRC-Obama rivalry becomes increasingly heated, so does the rivalry between the online supporters of those candidates:

Daily Kos diarist thereisnospoon reflects the views of many in the netroots rank-and-file in his strong opposition to HRC: "The last thing we need is another Republican President. But the next to last thing we need is another Democratic president in the mould of Bill Clinton. Our principles as progressives should lead us to reject DLC politics, centrism, dirty tricks, cheating, scandalous royalistic behavior, swing-state strategies, baby-step incremental changes, and 'whatever it takes to win' ideologies. Our desire to crash the gate and change such behavior should make us fight like crazy to keep our Party from becoming associated with such things ever again...This notion that we have 'three great candidates' is false. We have two great candidates. The third is a candidate we may have to choke down our throats when push comes to shove -- but any progressive worth their salt should be doing everything in their power to prevent that terrible choice from needing to be made."

Daily Kos diarist grimc thinks the netroots should, and will, support HRC if she becomes the Dem nominee: "I just wanted to say goodbye to all the people who are currently sure they're not voting for Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee -- or even worse, voting for McCain...Don't get me wrong, I'm not telling anybody to leave. It'd be great if you stuck around. But it's logical to assume that anybody who is so dedicated to their principles that they won't vote for Clinton won't possibly be able to stick around a place that's going to be working so hard to get her elected...I mean, if Clinton's the nominee, this place is going to be pretty much 24/7 Let'sHelpHillaryWin.com. After all, the FAQ does say: 'It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory.'...You probably won't want to be associated with any site that promotes evil. So, no hard feelings. Bye. Good luck with your non-vote. Or vote for McCain."

Digby explains her decision to disable the comment threads on her blog: "I turned off my comments to cool the rhetoric a little...A lot of criticism has come my way recently because I won't 'endorse' anyone and this has led to people making assumptions about my position. But the truth really is that I am not invested in any of the candidates. They are nearly identical in terms of policy, all have political gifts and bring something to the table and I find none of the various electability arguments particularly persuasive. Indeed, I believe that the fact they are so similar in all the important ways is one of the reasons everyone is at each other's throats on this --- since there's no daylight on policy everyone is having to argue their case based on their own emotional connection to the candidate or what the candidate symbolizes, which often devolves into ugly invective. It really does become personal under those circumstances. You can see the result of this in the candidates' own debate last night. They weren't really fighting over anything important because they don't actually disagree about anything important. But they had to fight. It's an election. Somebody's got to win."

Digby also defends herself against accusations that she's biased in favor of HRC: "I've been closely following the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton in the press --- I always monitor the media narratives and this one was indisputably powerful and instructive...And I've also been critical of some of Obama's post-partisan rhetoric because I just disagree with it as a matter of strategic principle, even as I understand why he is doing it. Those two things seem to have led readers to believe that I am a biased, possibly paid, closet Clinton shill, which is what turned the comment section into a war zone."

Open Left's Chris Bowers also comments on the nastiness of the Dem primary campaign: "Supporters are following the leads of the campaigns themselves, and the result is that the diversity of American opinion, tone, and micro-spheres are brushing up against each other in particularly nasty ways. It will tone down once the primary is over, but no matter who wins it will be a long healing process as supporters struggle with lingering feelings of voter suppression, corporate blackouts, racism, sexism, and other charges the campaigns have made themselves. Such feelings were unavoidable no matter how the primary went down, but both the national media and the campaigns themselves have functionally presented a form of negative leadership that is accentuating these unavoidable problems...One thing I will say, however, is that no matter what some pundits and politicians think, the internet and the blogosphere are not the causes of this situation. What the internet has done is pull back the curtain on the myth of a congenial, bi-partisan, post-identity politics America. That was always a myth created by elite political and media types who operate in a privileged world of very narrow demographics that is wholly unreflective of the broader nation. What we are seeing now is very normal for our country."

DEM FIELD II: Who's Gonna Take The Lead On FISA?

The netroots are once again pressing the three Dem frontrunners to take a stand against the Senate FISA reauthorization bill, which grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the Bush admin spy on U.S. citizens without warrants.

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher wants John Edwards to lead the fight against the FISA bill: "John Edwards should challenge his rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to go back to Washington, DC and fight against retroactive immunity for the telecoms...Such an action would illustrate [Edwards'] genuine commitment to change and fighting vested interests in Washington, and hopefully it will channel that intense anti-immunity passion toward his campaign. He won't be able to participate in the filibuster himself, but by offering to leave the campaign trail and go back to DC with Clinton and Obama he'll be able to show leadership in challenging all Democrats to put thoughts of personal gain aside and join together in the fight to save the constitution. Without the help of the presidential candidates, we are doomed to lose this fight. And all their calls for change will ring hollow if they allow George Bush to railroad this bill through a supine Democratic-controlled Senate because of their absence."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald seconds Hamsher's call: "It will be increasingly difficult to listen to Edwards, Obama and Clinton tout their supreme leadership attributes and their commitment to 'changing the way Washington works' if they choose to sit by, more or less mute, and allow such a blatant and corrupt evisceration of the rule of law -- and such a vast and permanent expansion of the limitless surveillance state -- to occur without a fight. Any one of them, or all three, has a unique opportunity to actually demonstrate with actions, rather than pretty speeches, their commitment to the principles they claim to espouse."

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Who cares who wins the primary? Bush is about to get his number one priority through Congress, a move that could be stopped by Edwards, Obama, or Clinton, especially the latter two. This is the move to implement retroactive immunity for telecom companies who spy on Americans and violate core constitutional principles. All that is required to fight this is for Clinton or Obama to put the glare of the Presidential spotlight in the Senate. To, you know, lead. All three campaigns are well-aware of this fight, and at least Clinton and Obama have been completely unresponsive. South Carolina is probably locked up for Obama, and since the fight now is over swing liberals and the campaign is about to move national, this would be a smart political move. You get more national attention by confronting Bush in DC in a dramatic filibuster than you do with bland paid media."

Open Left's Paul Rosenberg: "If there's anything at all that a Democratic primary should be good for, it's stopping the Senate from shredding the Constitution."

OBAMA: Where's The Partisanship?

Liberal bloggers continue to disagree with Obama's post-partisan approach:

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Those that do argue that this country is clamoring for a new politics that gets beyond the divisions of red and blue America might point to Barack Obama's incredible fundraising success and the excitement he's generated as proof that this post-partisan message is exactly what America is looking for; on the contrary, I would point to his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada as proof it's exactly what Democrats are NOT looking for (winning Democrats is the immediate goal here after all.) Calling the Republican Party 'the party of ideas' and running an ad that runs away from his own party identification are of a piece and, if Obama does lose the nomination, this sort of messaging will largely be to blame. I don't begrudge Obama's unity message, I think it's inspiring and has genuinely excited people outside of the two party system, but I reject the idea that it must be done without stating plainly, as he did in the debate last night, what we all know to be true: one party is right and one party is wrong and it is our ideas that not only are right for America but are the ideas that voters are clamoring for. Wouldn't it be nice if his unity message simultaneously communicated this fact, maybe then he wouldn't be doing such a good job of losing the liberal vote, and, so it would seem, the nomination, to Hillary Clinton."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I lean toward the Hillary approach because I think the Obama approach only works when there's already a real groundswell of support for significant change (as in the 30s, 60s, and 80s, for example) -- and as much as I hate to say it, I just don't see that at the moment. I know the pundit class talks endlessly about the public's hunger for change and its disgust with the politics of polarization, but aside from a nearly unanimous desire to get rid of George Bush it seems to me that the basic partisan divisions we've had for the past three decades are mostly still there."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "I've written what I think is wrong with Obama's approach too many times to count while also explaining why I think IF he comes to adopt a more partisan approach he is in the best position to get a progressive agenda fowarded."

OBAMA II: Changing The Game

We've observed that liberal bloggers seem to believe that McCain would be the most formidable GOP nominee. On the other side of the political spectrum, conservative bloggers seem to believe that Obama would be the most formidable Dem nominee:

NRO's Byron York: "I went to Barack Obama's rally [in Columbia SC] on Sunday night, with a Republican friend who had never seen the Illinois senator in action before. Watching the crowd of more than 3,000 fill up the convention center, watching the people send up waves of energy to Obama, and watching him play off that energy in a speech that was one of the best political performances anyone has seen this year, my Republican friend said, simply, 'Oh, s--t.' He recalled the scene from Jaws, in which the small seaside town's sheriff realizes how big the shark he's tracking truly is, and says, 'We're gonna need a bigger boat'...Running against the man on stage at the convention center would be a hard, hard campaign, requiring a very big boat."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "Every Republican watching [the CNN/CBC debate] must be thinking 'Wow, I'm glad Hillary cried in NH.' Obama is, for all his inexperience and lack of realism in foreign policy, a far more compelling candidate. When he says he could get a 60% share of the electorate for the Democrats I believe him. You go, girl!"

Meanwhile, CBN's David Brody interviewed Obama in SC:

Brody: "Will Hillary be a drag for down-ticket races as a presidential candidate?"

Obama: "I think there is no doubt that she has higher negatives than any of the remaining democratic candidates. That's just a fact and there are some who will not vote for her. If you look at the results in Nevada, for example, she eked out the popular vote victory over me, but I ended up winning more delegates because she got almost all of her votes from Clark County, Las Vegas and some of the traditional democratic areas. We got votes there, but we also got votes in northern Nevada and rural conservative regions of the state that traditionally don't vote Democratic, but were excited about my campaign.

I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is can she get the people who voted for me? And I think that describes sort of one of the choices that people have, just a practical choice, as they move forward."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Petraeus 2012?

The American Prospect's Spencer Ackerman thinks so:

"[David] Petraeus can basically write his next round of orders. But wherever he goes, his next important campaign probably won't be on any battlefield. It'll be political. For the past year, the GOP has laid the groundwork to enlist Petraeus as its standard-bearer in the fairly likely event that the party loses in November to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. You read it here first. Plant your lawn signs now. Petraeus 2012: Surging to the White House."

Ezra Klein is dubious:

"It's not merely that I don't think it's likely to happen (his moment is now, not four years from now), but I don't think it's likely to succeed. Petraeus isn't [Dwight] Eisenhower. He's a popular war general of a basically small war. People like him, but unless they write for The Weekly Standard, they don't have much invested in him. So he won't get a pass by virtue of our psychological dependence on his presence (as Eisenhower did). Moreover, unlike Ike, he'd have to drop into the modern campaign, a grueling, seemingly endless, process. What happens the first time he's grilled about health care? About ethanol? About global warming? About taxes? About his wife, his kids, some stuff he said 20 years ago? If we've learned nothing else over the past 12 months, it's that the endless campaign takes the sheen off even the most gleaming candidates. America's Mayor is polling fourth in Florida and its District Attorney just dropped out of the race. The frontrunners are the two who could best be described as career politicians. It's what the process selects for."

LEST WE FORGET: 2007 -- A Great Year For Movies

TAPPED's Scott Lemieux:

"Maybe I'm forgetting something, but relative to the quality of films this year I would be surprised if this isn't the best selection of best picture nominees of my lifetime. Granted, it's marred by [Julian] Schnabel relegated to a Best Director nomination while Atonement takes Diving Bell's rightful place in what I assume (although I haven't seen Atonement yet, so maybe even it's good) to be the Middlebrow Doorstop spot (although having only one is pretty amazing in itself.) Still, There Will Be Blood and No Country are both excellent-to-exceptional films, Juno very good, and while the enjoyable Michael Clayton is overmatched in this heat (and I would have preferred Lumet/Before the Devil) it's certainly better than most recent Best Picture winners (Crash, Shakespeare in Love, Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, American Beauty, ugh.) It's an unusually strong collection of pictures. I wonder how it happened?"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:36 PM

January 22, 2008

1/22: There Will Be Blood

The sharp, hostile tone that characterized the first half of last night's Dem debate, which was sponsored by CNN and the Congressional Black Caucus, surprised a lot of bloggers. As one would expect, conservative bloggers were positively gleeful at the prospect of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tearing each other apart. Liberal bloggers, while initially taken aback by HRC and Obama's sniping, ultimately ended up declaring the debate a success. Most of them found the major exchanges substantive and enlightening, and the general consensus was that John Edwards shined. More than a few bloggers were turned off by HRC's attacks on Obama, which they perceived as "tendentious" and (on one occasion) "factually false." However, most bloggers concede that her attacks were effective and that Obama needs to learn how to defend himself better.

DEM FIELD: As Nasty As They Wanna Be

Many prominent liberal bloggers enjoyed the debate in spite of (or perhaps because of) its heated tone:

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I thought it was a great debate. I think Clinton and Edwards got the best of Obama but he proved he can fight. Also all 3 were Fighting DEMOCRATS tonight."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "I have to say I enjoyed this debate quite a bit. After the first half snipe fest, the candidates sat down and conversed. Obama seemed much more at ease at that point and was actually quite gracious and funny about being on the receiving end of the Clinton/Edwards tag team. But most importantly, I felt like we were finally getting to enjoy the benefits of having a woman and an African American as frontrunners in the race. Perhaps it was because the field has now narrowed to three, but a lot more time seemed to be devoted to discussing the subjects of equality, equal pay and social justice as core Democratic values by candidates who were speaking from the heart, from experience. I was actually quite proud of them all."

TPM's Greg Sargent: "As ugly as this primary has been at times, the bottom line is that Hillary and Obama, and Edwards perhaps to a slightly lesser extent, are formidable and impressive figures who have the potential to be important historical figures, and Dems are lucky to have this array of choices before them."

DEBATE CLINTON: Pants On Fire

The Washington Note's Steve Clemons was impressed by HRC's wonkiness: "Hillary Clinton performed with an authority, presence in that huge hall, and mastery of detail that was just second to none...She had numbers and details flowing forth as if they were as natural as could be."

Several liberal bloggers were put off by HRC's factually incorrect charge that Obama said that he "really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Wow, brutal outright lie from Hillary. Obama said he 'liked' the ideas of the Republicans? Nice spin, but an outright lie. Obama said the Republicans have had all the ideas the past few decades and that it was time that the Democrats started promoting big ideas. It is a flat out lie to say that Obama said he liked the GOP ideas or that they were good ideas. Flat out lie."

The Nation's Ari Melber: "Accused of inaccuracy, Sen. Clinton hit back with inaccuracy, claiming that Obama said he 'really liked' President Reagan's ideas. In fact, Obama actually said Reagan helped establish the GOP as 'the party of ideas,' which Obama was quick to stress in a rebuttal."

TPM's Josh Marshall: "I still think Hillary is just intentionally misrepresenting what Obama said about Reagan. It makes me cringe. As much I like her, it makes me cringe...I find myself refinding my positive feelings for Hillary, my gut level support, when she talks about herself as a fighter, about her never giving up, being there today and tomorrow. And then she launches into these attacks and she starts to lose me."

Obsidian Wings' publius: "Both of these attacks -- i.e., Reagan and the 'present' voting -- are clearly factually false. And everyone who pays attention to the news knows it. And Clinton knows it too. Obama's invocation of Reagan had nothing to do with praising Republican ideas, and the 'present' thing has already been debunked too...Attacks like these are demonstrably false to the 'super-informed,' but the Clinton campaign doesn't care. They just want the message of 'Obama Hearts Reagan' in the minds of people who are too busy to read multiple national newspapers and dozens of blogs. All that said, maybe this is a feature not a bug. If you've become even more cynical than me about what it takes to beat a Republican, then maybe this practice is a virtue. and perhaps you're right. But I'm still naively in the 'expect more' stage. So I don't like it."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias is similarly conflicted about HRC. He reproduces a statement from one of his commenters and says that it "sums up [his] feelings about the debate":

"It's really strange...each time Hillary really goes for the jugular (fairly or unfairly), I am repulsed. And then 30 seconds later, I realize that that's the whole rationale for her candidacy! She (and Bill [Clinton]) will simply do whatever it takes to win. And she's really whip smart, and was quicker than Obama in this debate. I think it will come down to whoever the media spins as the 'winner' of the early flare-up -- otherwise, another draw."

Yglesias: "It's an uncomfortable truth, but there you have it -- the very tendentiousness of some of her attacks on Barack Obama is sort of the point. Those of us who remember Florida 2000 from the butterfly ballot to the 'bourgeois riot' to the rigged Supreme Court ruling appreciate that the other side plays to win and there's no real honor in letting the country fall under a spell of catastrophic malgovernance. But still, if voters are considering being persuaded by the merits of Clinton's arguments about Obama and the war, or about the 'present' votes or whatever else, they ought to be aware that this is all basically bogus. What's more, I think it's worth pointing out that Clinton seems to have gotten herself firmly into 'flip-flop' territory on the war at this point; hawk was bad, substantively and politically, but this may be worse."

DEBATE OBAMA: Not Built For Brawling

Josh Marshall has concerns about Obama's ability to defend himself: "One observation stands out to me from this debate. Hillary can be relentless and like a sledgehammer delivering tendentious but probably effective attacks. But whatever you think of those attacks, Obama isn't very good at defending himself. And that's hard for me to ignore when thinking of him as a general election candidate. In most of these cases -- such as the Reagan issue -- I think Obama's remarks have been unobjectionable but ambiguous and certainly susceptible to both misunderstanding and intentional misrepresentation. And if you're going to talk like that -- nuance, as we used to say -- be able to defend it when people play with your words. And I don't see it."

Big Tent Democrat, in contrast, thought Obama did a decent job of defending himself: "While I think Obama has been taking the worst of it for the last half hour, Obama's performance actually give[s] me much more confidence in his abilities going forward. He has stood and fought. He is facing easily two of the best debaters we have seen in politics in the last 15 years. And he is not getting completely destroyed. Obama will wipe the floor with any Republican. 'Course Hillary and Edwards could wipe it a little better."

Big Tent Democrat's co-blogger, Jeralyn Merritt, disagrees: "I thought it was one of Barack Obama's worst debate performances, from his launching attacks on Hillary (transcript here) to his stuttering and his hostile, dismissive yet arrogant demeanor."

Matthew Yglesias continues to prefer Obama to HRC on foreign policy matters: "[I'm] glad to see Barack Obama taking HRC on on her claim that her record of backing catastrophic invasions of Iraq makes her uniquely qualified to battle Republicans on national security issues."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "Obama did great, but he's a cool character, with a wry sense of humor. He's not made for brawling. And sometimes, you've got to brawl in politics. Stylistically, he's a one-off. I like that about him."

DEBATE EDWARDS: The Last Shall Be First?

Most liberal bloggers felt that Edwards had an excellent debate performance:

The Huffington Post's R.J. Eskow: "Edwards had the best night of his campaign tonight. He had the advantage of not being in anyone else's sights, but it was more than that: He kept the discussion on higher ground. His rhetoric was inspired."

Ari Melber: "While Clinton and Obama exchanged their personal barbs, John Edwards broke through with the best arguments of the night. Edwards tweaked both his opponents for making the debate about political squabbling instead of public policy. Returning to his populist economic platform -- especially salient as Americans ponder a recession -- he reminded voters that he was the only candidate to outline a comprehensive plan to end poverty, and the first to introduce a national economic stimulus proposal."

MyDD's MassEyesandEars: "Edwards reminded me why I support him and, indeed, why I spend time involved with politics at all. It's not because of horse race intricacies or keeping score on political pot shots...Throughout the debate, Edwards was the candidate bringing the discussion back to people's real concerns and the real fight that needs to be waged in this country."

CLINTON: Live By The Bubba, Die By The Bubba

In an interview with TPM's Greg Sargent, HRC advisor Howard Wolfson claimed that Obama's assertion that Bill Clinton is fibbing about his campaign is a "right wing talking point." Wolfson's claim annoyed liberal bloggers, many of whom are uncomfortable with Bill Clinton's large role in HRC's campaign.

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "I don't particularly care if Bill Clinton chooses to step out of his elder statesman role, but this is very annoying...Bill Clinton claimed that Obama didn't oppose the war. He also claimed that he himself did. Both of these things are not true."

Stoller continues: "You might not like Bill participating so heavily in politics after his Presidency, but it's not like this is new. Bill Clinton lied about the Iraq war election between Lamont-Lieberman in Connecticut in 2006, when he promised to endorse the winner of the primary and then on Larry King after Lamont's victory said that it didn't matter whether Lieberman or Lamont won because both are good Democrats. These kinds of games are not new to Bill Clinton, and you shouldn't expect him to back off until he's forced to do so. He's been Hillary's attack dog for a long time now. Wolfson and company like to throw out the right-wing talking point argument all the time, and it's tiresome and in this case, untrue."

Matthew Yglesias: "According to Howard Wolfson, pointing out that Bill Clinton is lying is a 'right-wing talking point' and thus all good liberals have a duty to grant Clinton a blanket license to fib. So when Clinton said he opposed the Iraq War, that must have been true, because I'm a liberal. And when Clinton said Barack Obama didn't oppose the Iraq War, that must have been true too, because I'm a liberal. Look, obviously Bill's in an odd position because we've never had an ex-president's wife run for president before. But if he wants to be treated as an elder statesman figure for fellow progressives, he needs to act like one. If he wants to be Hillary Clinton's attack dog in a primary campaign, then he's going to be treated as one. Certainly he's not above criticism."

Ezra Klein: "For awhile, I was sympathetic to Bill Clinton's involvement in the primary...But the overwhelming deployment of Clinton into the primary as an attack dog, as a bad cop, as a figure large enough to engage Obama in the mud of the primary while Hillary Clinton floats above the fray, is unsettling. Bill Clinton is a former president, one of only two living Democrats to have held that office. He is -- or was -- a unifying figure, and he's trashing that...It's not that I don't understand, and on some level admire, Clinton's ferocious advocacy for his wife. But he's got to balance that with his responsibility to the rest of us. Over the past seven years, Clinton has largely checked his criticisms of Bush and bit his tongue in order to retain his role as a statesman. Throwing that restraint out the window in a Democratic primary will do enormous damage to his reputation."

The Huffington Post's Marc Cooper: "The ex-president has been rolled out as campaign attack dog to bark, bite, snap and tear away at Obama in a way that Hillary -- as candidate -- cannot and will not. Hillary can't have it both ways. You can't deploy the clout of your husband the ex-president in the middle of your campaign and then not take responsibility for every word he utters, every action he undertakes. Right down to his shameful direct intervention in a crucial polling place in last Saturday's Nevada caucuses."

Meanwhile, Chris Bowers gives HRC a 90% chance of capturing the Dem nod and explains how she can do so: "Win South Carolina on Saturday, and it is all over. Failing that, the first thing she must do is make sure she wins California, since it is her only must-win on February 5th. Assuming she does that, then she needs to hold Obama's win totals and delegate totals down as low as possible on February 5th. If Clinton can hold Obama to six or fewer wins on Super Tuesday, and if she can amass a pledged delegate advantage of 200 or more, then she will finish Obama off on February 5th."

OBAMA: Too High-Brow?

Open Left's Mike Lux: "Obama and the Obama campaign continue to perplex me. Floating along on their lofty post-partisan hopefulness, they give you the impression that they are too noble to do what it takes to win. This whole Reagan thing was Obama acting like an above-it-all professor of history, analyzing things from the mountain top without thinking about the effect that the Reagan presidency actually had on people, or what his effect his words might have on the Democratic primary electorate. The reason Obama lost New Hampshire and Nevada is that he is floating so high above the nasty world of partisanship and politics that regular voters, especially the blue collar voters who actually face the gritty realities of the real world, are rejecting him. Obama was perfectly positioned to go on and win this thing after Iowa, not because of momentum but because he was convincing voters that he would actually change their lives. But this high brow crap is killing him."

That said, Lux thinks Obama still has a chance: "I would caution everybody rushing to say Clinton's got it. She's clearly and firmly re-established her front-runner status, but what happens over the course of campaigns every day really does matter. Momentum doesn't matter very much at this point, and if Obama runs a smarter campaign than he's run so far, or if Hillary makes even a modest sized slip, Obama still has a chance."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong offers his explanation for why Obama is losing: "I believe that the reason why Obama lost Nevada is because of his unqualified adoration of Ronald Reagan while he was pandering before a rightwing editorial board in Las Vegas...Obama's praise of Reagan has been played again and again, with the egging on of both the Edwards and the Clintons (2 on 1 again), bloggers and more...because no one who is a real progressive will agree with a positive frame of Reagan. Period."

Matt Stoller thinks Obama helped himself when he said that he disliked Reagan's policies during last night's debate: "This is a step forward. Obama doesn't like ideology, so to hear him rebut claims about Reagan by appealing to it is something of a shift. He probably gets that the Reagan stuff has cost him."

Meanwhile, The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias defends Obama against New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's latest attacks on the IL senator: "I think this is getting a bit silly. In his column, Paul Krugman seems to suggest that the main reason the Clinton administration failed to bring about major progressive change in the 1990s is that they didn't talk enough smack about Ronald Reagan. And now on the blog we learn that Clinton is clearly the more progressive alternative to Obama because here's one quote of Clinton saying something lefty sounding and here's one quote which Krugman insists on willfully misconstruing. Whatever happened to the Krugman who used to urge journalists to worry less about what rhetorical style politicians adopt and more looking at their policies?...I wish Krugman would at least acknowledge that there are foreign policy issues facing the country and some of us think they're important. I don't think 'that Candidate B [i.e, Hillary Clinton], despite the progressive talk, is just Bush the third' but at times she's shown a disturbing amount of common ground with Bush's foreign policy views."

However, Yglesias wishes that Obama would start defending himself more effectively: "That said, I'll freely grant that I'm getting a bit tired of defending Obama and his campaign. Stuff like this from Krugman clearly hurts them, but the easiest way to deflect claims that Obama is the more conservative choice would be for Obama to say so himself in a clear and direct way. Given that Clinton is very much running as her husband's wife, it should hardly be impossible to make the case that establishing continuity with the moderate Clinton administration is the moderate choice."

Meanwhile, Chris Bowers gives Obama a 10% chance of capturing the Dem nod and explains how he can do so: "Obama faces a must-win in South Carolina on Saturday. Assuming he pulls that off, he can immediately even up the nomination on February 5th by winning California. A win there would be a huge momentum boost heading into a very favorable schedule for him the rest of February. However, if he wins South Carolina, but loses California, then he needs to take as many delegates and states as possible in order to survive for the favorable February schedule...Obama must appear viable according to the media dominated rules of our nominating process in order to keep going after February 5th. The only way to do that is to win a bunch of states, probably seven at a minimum."

EDWARDS: Who Says He Needs To Drop Out?

Josh Marshall thinks Edwards is under no obligation to drop out: "Seriously, why should John Edwards drop out of the race? I think his chances of winning the nomination at this point are quite slim. And I could understand if he wanted to drop out. But is there some reason he should? Is he under some obligation?...His campaign has had an effect on this race out of proportion to his poll support in as much as he's forced the two other leading candidates to grapple with issues they would not have otherwise. And in this race specifically, there is at least a chance we could come into the convention with neither candidate having a majority of the delegates, in which case he might play the kingmaker. Not likely, but not impossible."

Atrios agrees: "I can come up with arguments for why Edwards should drop out, but those arguments require some sort of goal. I want him out to help Obama! I want him out to help Clinton! I want him out because I'm tired of looking at his face! Or, maybe even I want him out because that way it'll be more likely he'll get a position in the Cabinet! But increasingly it seems that John Edwards should drop out...because, well, he just should that's all! Um, why? The honorable thing? WTF?"

Chris Bowers: "[Edwards] can't win, but [he] can still be a factor...[he] can hang in the campaign, and still be positioned to take about 100-200 delegates to the convention. While a longshot, it is possible that amount of delegates could prove decisive, making Edwards the kingmaker in the event of an Obama vs. Clinton brokered convention. Also, even if he doesn't go all the way to the convention, by staying in the campaign, he improves Obama's chances in South Carolina and several February 5th states.

GOP FIELD: Where Do We Go Now?

Glenn Reynolds summarizes the state of the GOP race: "Lots of people -- even Tom Delay -- are saying they'll stay home if the wrong guy gets nominated. Even Rush Limbaugh is saying he might not support the nominee. Well, I've already said I'd vote for Hillary over [Mike] Huckabee, but I'm not a Republican so that's not as newsworthy. But the GOP folks seem pretty unhappy...[Fred] Thompson's good on policy, and I like him, but he's run a lousy campaign so far. Still, Thompson aside you're left with four Republicans of the less-than-conservative variety: [John] McCain (good on the war, but what about immigration, campaign finance, etc.), Rudy (abortion, gun control, etc.), [Mitt] Romney (abortion, gun control, etc.) and Huckabee ('I'm from the government and I'm here to help!'). So you can see why people are unhappy."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff offers his take on the state of the GOP:

"In South Carolina, as in Iowa and New Hampshire, the real loser in the Republican primary was mainstream conservatism. That's because, once again, candidates who take conservative positions across the board (essentially Romney and Thompson) came up well short compared to maverick candidates (McCain and Huckabee) who reject portions of the traditional conservative agenda. [...]

Though Romney and Thompson have their flaws as candidates, the relative failure so far of across-the-board conservative candidates requires more of an explanation than that. There are basically two possibilities. First, it may be that voters who embrace a given set of conservative beliefs no longer agree with the other sets of belief that have made up the conservative coalition. For example, it may that evangelical social conservatives as a group no longer believe in tax cuts or an aggressive, proactive approach to the war on terror. [...]

The alternative explanation is that, although a critical mass of Republicans is still conservative across the board, each faction within the coalition places a greater premium on adherence to its position than on adherence to traditional conservatism across the board. In this account, Huckabee's supporters back him not because they agree with his Carteresque foreign policy pronouncements or like his record of raising taxes in Arkansas, but because his purity on social issues trumps any flaws on other issues. [...]

Selecting between these two competing hypothesis is of major significance. If the first explanation -- rejection by one part of the coalition of the views of other parts -- holds water, then the Reagan coalition (to speak loosely) really is dead. But under the second explanation -- that Republicans are putting a premium on their pet issues -- we're simply witnesses normal behavior for a party that's been in power for a while. In this scenario, the coalition is still alive and capable of being patched-up. [...]"

NRO's Lisa Schiffren prepares for the worst: "I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. And I don't intend to start anytime soon. I even voted for Bob Dole, though that required holding my nose...If the GOP ticket is McCain-Lieberman, I will, again, not vote. I just wouldn't want to participate in the ruin of the GOP, or the governing mess to come...If either McCain or Romney gets the nomination, as unfortunately seems likely, he must choose the single most conservative running mate he can find, who is sane and articulate. Or else Obama becomes President, with a lot of crossover GOP votes."

Michelle Malkin isn't ready to declare McCain the nominee: "Here are two things the liberal media desperately want to be true: (1) John McCain's inevitable GOP presidential victory. (2) Rush Limbaugh's demise. Wrong on both counts, as usual...Conservatives have never let the MSM choose who speaks for them and who represents them. It's no time to let them do so now."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey isn't ready either: "John McCain has won two significant primaries in the early contests, New Hampshire and South Carolina. However, both allowed for crossover voting from non-Republicans, and in both cases, McCain's margin of victory came from those voters. In Michigan, Mitt Romney won despite the crossover votes. Florida, however, only allows registered Republicans to vote in the primary. Can John McCain win a closed primary?"

ROMNEY: Mr. Fix-It?

Townhall's Matt Lewis thinks the growing focus on the economy will benefit Romney in FL: "Under normal circumstances, I would say that John McCain has the advantage in Florida. But but today's economic news is sure to have an impact on the upcoming Primary. This hurts McCain who -- though advised by fiscal conservatives like Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, and Tom Coburn -- admits the economy is not his bailiwick. McCain is far better off talking about the surge than about the economy. Mitt Romney probably benefits from the economy overtaking security as the top issue. He is a turn-around expert who helped turn around struggling companies for Bain Capital, and also turned around the Winter Olympics. And there is no doubt that he was comfortable talking about the economy in Michigan a few weeks ago."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin thinks [Rudy] Giuliani will benefit as well: "I agree that Romney has an opening in Florida. However, I'm not sure the current economic problems don't equally benefit Rudy. Club for Growth send out an email blast calling for permanent economic measures such as indexing capital gains in lieu of short term stimulus plans. They end with this: 'The Club for Growth commends Mayor Giuliani for including this proposal in his tax-cutting plan and encourages all candidates to make it part of their economic stimulus plans.' Expect to hear a lot more comparisons between Rudy's record and what both McCain and Rudy will contend is Romney's less than impressive record in bringing Massachusetts back from the 2001 recession."

GIULIANI: Time To Attack The Mac

Commentary's John Podhoretz is not surprised that Giuliani has begun hitting McCain in FL: "The logic of the McCain and Giuliani candidacies has always pretty much been the same -- a strong leader in the War on Terror who is able to secure the votes of independents. But with Giuliani's political life on the line, he has no choice but to try to uncouple McCain's recent converts from the Arizona Republican and send them back Rudy's way. And McCain will have no choice but to respond -- and given the aggressive tone of the Giuliani hit this morning, McCain will surely give as good as he got. Thus do political friendships collide with political reality."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti: "Speaking anecdotally, I can say that during the last 48 hours the Giuliani campaign's attacks on McCain have been on par with, if not more intense, than Romney's. Yet one lesson of the GOP primary campaign so far is that attacking one's opponent seldom works. And what will happen if Fred Thompson decides not to compete in Florida? Will his voters go to Giuliani, Romney, or McCain?...There's the sense that as the field narrows, more conservative Republicans will rally to the anti-McCain alternative. But that may be wishful thinking on the part of those who are dead-set against McCain's nomination."

Lisa Schiffren sees little hope for Giuliani: "Rudy's strategy is looking particularly dark and dumb right this minute. There is still a chance that he will come up with creditable numbers on Super Tuesday, and on February 5th...Though, why Romney or McCain would defer to him at this point, even if he does pretty well, is beyond me...So, being a pessimist by nature I think he blew it (and will be delighted to be proved wrong). His strategy clearly relied too much on somewhat evanescent national numbers, and the kind of talk that strategists love of odds and percentages, but which does not relate much to the real impulses of real voters on the ground at a particular moment."

NRO's Jim Geraghty thinks Giuliani could survive a close second-place finish in FL: "If Giuliani loses, say, 30 percent to 31 percent to McCain, he's viable. Yes, I realize some recent polls have him down in his Feb. 5 trifecta -- New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, but I think that's a short-lived McCain bump. By winning South Carolina, McCain is ensured another week of his flaws being described by Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, etc...Also note that in the final days before each contest, the undecideds have tended to shift to the top two candidates. We'll probably see the same phenomenon in Florida -- a fairly close fight between numbers one and two, and three, four and five pretty far behind them."

THOMPSON: Closing Time?

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham discusses Thompson's expected withdrawal from the race: "I really like the guy. I like his policies. I like the fact that there was enough enthusiasm back during the summer for him to really fill a vacuum. It just never happened, and I've always felt he wasn't all the way in. Of course, I rather think a guy who's not as keen on being president/running for president might be the best kind of conservative president...So, does Fred want to be veep? That's an 8 year (maybe even 4-year) path to the presumptive nomination if, say, McCain named him a running mate. In that case, he would need to stay in 'til Florida to split Huck's vote again."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Putting The Debate In Context

After watching last night's fiesty debate, The New Republic's Noam Scheiber wonders how the rest of the Dem primary will play out:

"I understand why it was important for Obama to show some backbone tonight after the intense Clinton assault of late. And, if that was the goal, he clearly accomplished it. Having said that, I suspect the Clintons would be delighted to turn this race into an endless game of tit-for-tat. [...]

The question I have after tonight is: Which half of the debate is likely to define the rest of the campaign? If it's the first half, that could mean trouble for Obama. If, on the other hand, the first half was just a one-off demonstration of mettle -- and maybe a warning shot to the Clintons -- I think it was probably helpful, even necessary. Moreover, if the second half was an indication that Obama can easily revert to his seductive high-mindedness even after sticking a shiv in Hillary's gut, that could bode pretty well for him. We shall see."

LEST WE FORGET: The Value Of Perspective

The Atlantic's James Fallows describes his feelings upon returning to the U.S. after his latest trip to China:

"I've had this reaction on each of my previous return trips to America over the last 18 months: the abundance! The affluence! The choice!

I walked into a high-end Whole Foods grocery store in Washington this morning -- and after a few minutes, had to walk out again.

The burnished fruits and vegetables. The forty varieties of bread. The souvenir-looking cuts of meat. The wines and cheeses. (The beers!!) Emotionally it was too much. I realized that my wife and I spend a significant amount of time each day in China thinking about how to get stuff -- food, clothes, supplies. I know that America is on the verge of disastrous recession and that China is the dynamic power of tomorrow, etc etc. But, my lord, life can be good here. (And where are the men pulling carts full of coal or scrap paper down the street, as if they were human beasts of burden?)

By tomorrow I won't notice any more."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:53 PM

January 21, 2008

1/21: And The Beat Goes On

John McCain's SC victory makes him the (fragile) frontrunner in the eyes of many conservative bloggers. That said, many bloggers believe that McCain can only win in a divided field (as was the case in SC), and they doubt his ability to beat a conservative candidate in a two-person race. Patrick Ruffini summarizes the views of many righty bloggers when he writes:

"The trouble for McCain is although he has probably secured the moderate berth in the finals (sorry, Rudy), he hasn't made many inroads with the base and his vote still looks decidedly unlike what that of a GOP nominee should look like. To say that conservative South Carolinians somehow embraced McCain is to ignore the fact that McCain lost conservatives, pro-lifers, and Evangelicals, and eeked it out against the most divided field to date."

Can McCain put together a strong GOP coalition and rise above 32-33% in national polls? Only time will tell. But conservative bloggers are certainly skeptical.

On the Dem side, liberal bloggers are debating the causes of Hillary Clinton's NV caucus victory over Barack Obama. Chris Bowers thinks HRC won because of "superior labor organizing," while Big Tent Democrat attributes HRC's victory to "Democrats, women and Latinos." Matt Stoller thinks HRC won because Obama alienated liberal voters when he compared himself to Ronald Reagan. The latter explanation certainly fits into the overall netroots' critique of Obama -- which Jerome Armstrong summarizes here:

"[Obama's] whole strategy, make or break, revolves around getting into the general with appeal to moderate Republicans and right-leaning Independents intact. I've said all along that it's the calculation which is going to keep him from getting the nomination, but the strategy is a sealed deal at this point, and we'll know the outcome within a few weeks."

DEM FIELD: Breaking Down Hillary's Win

Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks HRC won NV "on superior labor organizing": "Clinton pulled out a narrow victory in Nevada of about 5%. Obama won everywhere outside of Clark county, and so he could have won the whole thing if the Strip precincts and union vote in Clark county had gone his way. However, the insider scoop is that AFSCME out organized the culinary workers on The Strip, and generally made the difference for Clinton across the county (UNITE-HERE apparently has little in the way of political staff). To put it one way, Obama might have had more unions, but Clinton's unions just did better...In a very real way, the results are emblematic of the divide in the Democratic Party. The NEA tacitly supported Clinton, and AFSCME is now pretty much the flagship union of the AFL-CIO, at least in terms of political organizing. By contrast, SEIU and UNITE-HERE, both of which endorsed Obama in Nevada, are key unions in Change to Win. Old labor beat new labor, just as older Dems beat newer Dems."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat disagrees: "While Chris Bowers reaches for a union based explanation of Hillary's win in Nevada, the entrance polls clearly tell a different story -- it was Democrats, women and Latinos who gave Hillary the win."

TPM's Greg Sargent thinks the entrance poll results reveal "sharp divisions" among Dems: "If you look at the entrance polls of the Nevada Dem caucuses today, it's striking how starkly the vote is breaking down along racial, ethnic and generational lines. Among Latinos, Hillary is beating Obama, 64%-24%. But among blacks, Obama dramatically increased his lead over Hillary from earlier in the contest, beating her 79%-16%. Meanwhile, Hillary beat back what appeared to be a stiff challenge from Obama for the female vote, beating him 52%-35%. And the vote broke down sharply along generational lines, too. Hillary beat Obama handily among both the 45-59 and the 60 and older set, while Obama won by sizable margins among voters aged 18-44."

The racial and gender divisions suggested by the entrance polls seem to be confirmed by bloggers who actually attended the caucus:

MyDD's desmoulins: "What most surprised me was the heavy Latino turnout for Clinton and the very low turnout of Latino voters for Obama."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "It was hard not to notice that the dueling factions were divided by more than just candidate preference; the culinary workers that were rallying for Obama were mostly African-American and mostly men and those that rallied for Clinton were mostly hispanic and mostly women."

Unsurprisingly, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan blames the Clinton campaign for creating this racial divide: "Fascinating data from Nevada: just as Hispanics went overwhelmingly -- 64-24 -- for Clinton, blacks went more overwhelmingly -- 80-16 -- for Obama. I'd say this is a vindication of the Clintons' racial polarization strategy: force Obama to be the 'black' candidate and rely on some white and Latino discomfort to build up their own vote margins. Not a good strategy for the South, but great for the West and California. The Clintons have done the math."

Daily Kos' mcjoan strongly disputes the notion that Dems are divided: "To answer the idiotic Andrea Mitchell and Howard Fineman who are doing their damnedest to spin this contest as either a war of the races -- Hispanic vs. African American -- or a looming civil war among the Democrats, just shut up. These were committed Democrats (and new Demcorats), all getting along remarkably well (posters at Daily Kos could take a lesson from them, ahem) and showing up in record numbers to prove how committed they are to taking their country back."

Digby agrees with mcjoan: "The press portray[s] any 'division' as an ugly battle between old vs young, male vs female, black vs white. I really hope people don't fall for it. There's no reason to believe that's what's happening. There is a much simpler explanation: Democrats aren't voting against candidates because they don't like women or blacks or young or old. They are voting for them because they are women or blacks or old or young. It's not the same thing at all. The candidates are nearly indistinguishable on policy. On what basis are we supposed to make the choice? Flip a coin?"

Meanwhile, several bloggers who attended the NV caucus are accusing HRC supporters of engaging in voter suppression tactics:

In a diary that received nearly 1500 comments, Daily Kos diarist (and Obama supporter) thereisnospoon writes: "I'm reporting in from one of the Obama field offices in Clark County, NV. My girlfriend and I just came back from being the precinct captains at our caucus, and the scene here is ugly. Everyone is reporting election irregularities on the part of the Hillary campaign. There is widespread cheating and voter suppression going on all over Clark County -- and it's obviously coming in from the top down. Whether it made enough of a difference to swing the election is another question -- but there is no question that Hillary was running a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred campaign in which all of her surrogates were instructed to cheat in every way possible."

Todd Beeton: "I'm reading a lot about accusations of voting irregularities and voter suppression tactics at various caucus locations on the part of the Clinton campaign. I saw no evidence of it at The Wynn, nor did my contacts I've spoken to at a North LV caucus site or at the Mirage, but my friend thereisnospoon catalogs the accusations, including his own first hand observations, over at dailyKos, and it's very disturbing if true...Depending on how big this story gets, the mere accusations could taint Clinton's win going into South Carolina."

Several bloggers think these accusations are overblown:

Digby: "My take on all of this is that there were a lot of sharp elbows thrown. Supporters of each candidate were very assertive and trying to do their best. The Hillary precinct captains may have been a little more prepared and a little more experienced for this kind of hardball politics...Is that suppression? I can't say that it is, really. I'd be more concerned by the Barack Hussein Obama robocall, if I were the Obama people."

Matt Stoller: "I don't buy the claims of the Obama campaign that there was voter suppression going on, and I do think that the Culinary workers were pressuring their members to vote for Obama. Unfortunately for them, AFSCME just flat out beat them at their own game."

Big Tent Democrat: "[This] story won't last a freaking hour except in the wild imaginations of some bloggers."

DEM FIELD: ...Or Did Obama Win?

Several liberal bloggers were confused by the fact that Obama appeared to have won 13 DNC delegates (versus 12 for HRC), even though HRC won the popular vote:

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Barack Obama won Nevada. Did Hillary Clinton win more state delegates? Yes. However, Barack Obama will send more delegates to the Democratic national convention than Hillary Clinton. And that, really, is all these primaries and caucuses are about: sending more delegates to the Democratic national convention."

In a later post, Bowers expands on his view: "I've learned two things today. First, the Democratic presidential nomination system is not particularly democratic, since the system of delegate selection is different than the concept of one person one vote. Second, I have learned that the national media is not actually covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign. If the media was covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, then they would have projected Barack Obama as the winner of the Nevada caucuses, projected New Hampshire as a tie between Clinton and Obama, and declared that Clinton finished second in Iowa. That is, after all, what actually happened in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, which is based on delegates, not popular votes from states. Instead of covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, the media is instead covering who wins the popular vote of individual states. While what the media is covering is interesting and closer to the concept of one person, one vote, it isn't the Democratic presidential nomination campaign."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum doesn't share Bowers' view: "Give it up, folks. Hillary won, and trying to pretend otherwise just makes you look dumb. Nobody's buying it."

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Supporters of Barack Obama continue to spin the 13-12 delegate count story as if it proves he won in Nevada. Their sour grapes attitude is so unbecoming...Hillary Clinton won 51% of the vote in Nevada and Obama won 45%. Neither one received a single Nevada delegate to the national convention in Denver. A screwy system? To be sure. But that's no reason to misrepresent the impact."

Moulitsas: "In practical and political terms, Hillary wins. She gets the little checkmark next to her name in the results. Losing the delegate count is inside-baseball. But the delegate thing -- assuming it holds up and confirmed -- is worth a psychological boost to Obama and his supporters."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Everyone knows, I'm all for the delegate battle, and now that Obama's campaign is too, I'm all giddy. but saying 'Barack Obama Wins Delegate Battle in Nevada' really shows a lack of understanding in how the delegate process works...All of these delegates in Nevada, today, in 'the first determining step' are 'soft' pledges. There's nothing concrete happening yet in the delegate selection of Nevada, it just started today. We'll check back April 19th, to see how it really goes down in Nevada on the state convention, and even before that, in the county conventions on Feb 24th; but to claim a 'delegate win' today is just meaningless."

OBAMA: Losing Liberals?

Matt Stoller thinks Obama lost NV because he alienated liberal voters when he compared himself to Reagan: "We have been fighting Ronald Reagan's psychologically diseased followers and predecessors since, well, since they called themselves the Confederacy and fought for slavery. And we will keep fighting them if we are to retain a republic. That's why the self-identified very liberal Democrats swung away from Obama and took Nevada from him. Because he very self-consciously explained that he is not part of that fight, and they want a leader who is."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Matt Stoller observes Barack Obama bleeding support among self-identified liberals. I doubt one can really attribute Obama's problems in this regard specifically to his remarks about Ronald Reagan, but the overall tendency has been for Obama to find himself positioned to HRC's right which isn't where you want to be in a primary."

Along the same vein, Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas thinks Obama's lack of partisanship will likely be his undoing:

"Who is running with the most progressive rhetoric? [John] Edwards, first. Then Clinton. And then Obama, who is still trying to be a palatable general election candidate rather than close the deal in the primary. So riddle me this -- in a Democratic primary, where will many Edwards supporters go? Don't assume it'll be Obama if they're looking for the strongest Democratic voice in the race.

Obama's path to the nomination at this point runs through Democratic voters. And ultimately, while my absentee ballot will be mailed out Monday with his name checked off, I'm pessimistic that he can win. He has shown no proclivity for speaking in unambiguous progressive tones, and it could cost him the election. [...]

I never dismissed [Jerome Armstrong's] theories that Obama's fundamental weakness -- his refusal to run as a Democrat in a Democratic primary -- would ultimately prove his undoing. Of course it's not too late, and much can and will happen. Jerome may yet be wrong. But his core argument was never wrong, and subsequent contests have proven that."

Open Left's Paul Rosenberg also criticizes Obama: "Regardless of his intentions, Obama has been doing a pretty good job of splitting the left for some time now. Secular humanists, peace activists, Boomers, gays, all have had their turns feeling particularly spurned, while his version of triangulation has many even more nervous than the Clinton version made them. Many think he's got the perscription exactly backwards -- Democrats don't suffer from being too much like the always-combatative Republicans, but from being too wimpy, too reluctant to stand up and fight for what they believe. And many think that now's not the time to reach out with a hand of friendship, just when they're sinking like a stone."

Digby: "I agree with Obama that this is a potentially game changing election like 1980. And I am open to the idea that he's the guy to do it. He's young, he's brilliant, he's a fresh face with immense political skills. What I don't get is why he keeps using conservative phrases and adopting hot button conservative issues like social security when it's so unnecessary. If the people are there, then why keep using this tired old crap to appeal to the middle? I understand that he doesn't want to run as a traditional liberal and that's fine. I don't think he should. But people also don't need that stale stuff about love-ins and 'entrepreneurship' or 'fixing social security' or dissing 'trial lawyers' or they'd vote for Rudy McRomney. They want something new. Give it to them. If he wants to change the trajectory as Reagan did then he should take a page from his political strategy instead of his rhetoric, stop praising him and bury conservatism instead."

In slightly better news for Obama, the IL senator wins his first Daily Kos straw poll. Moulitsas: "So this is interesting. Edwards loses five points, which is pretty natural as people see him as less viable. There's also Richardson single point of support. So the pot is six percent of the vote being reassigned. Four percent of it goes to Hillary, and only two to Obama. I wouldn't have expected that. Obama now leads the field, and will likely do so from here on out. The netroots in general is more anti-establishment than anything else, so Hillary is at a gross disadvantage on that front. But Obama's lead is more a function of Edwards' deflation, and a significant chunk of Edwards supporters than any real spike in his support. And Hillary was the big (percentage-wise) gainer."

In addition, Obama is earning praise from several liberal bloggers for his MLK speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church:

Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "The contrast between this speech and Obama's recent comments on Ronald Reagan and Republican 'ideas' is striking...The unity Obama is calling for does not sound like DLC centrism; it's more like a precursor to struggle, not only against our own weaker instincts but against powerful beliefs, institutions and interests. You can read it as class struggle, even ideological struggle."

The Washington Note's Steve Clemons: "I don't like politicians speaking in churches...But all that said, Obama's lines here are impressive, and brave -- basically tough love for members of the African-American community...If I heard more commentary like that from pols -- that took risks at the pulpit and did less pandering -- I might revise a bit of my objection to this sort of politicking. But kudos to Barack Obama for surprising a devout secularist today."

Matthew Yglesias: "Barack Obama's MLK speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church is extremely good. It should remind Obama fans of what they like best about him. For campaign purposes, though, I think nobody's ever doubted that he's a great orator. The difficulty is that he hasn't established a policy argument on his behalf that people find compelling. With little differentiation between the candidates in terms of issues, things are breaking down on demographic lines and women outnumber men, old people outnumber young people, nonblacks outnumber blacks, and working-class people outnumber college graduates among the target audience on the primaries."

OBAMA II: Markos Gets His Back

On Thursday we reported that prominent netroots bloggers were joining HRC and Edwards in criticizing Obama for comparing himself to Reagan. On Friday, the Clintons criticized Obama for another statement he made during the interview, in which the IL senator said:

"I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

Bill Clinton said:

"[Hillary's] principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas."

Markos Moulitsas: "Huh. I didn't see the part where Obama said the GOP's ideas were 'all the good' ones. In fact, Obama isn't saying anything that couldn't come straight out of Crashing the Gate -- that the GOP build a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that used its think tanks to create ideas, a media machine to sell those ideas, and a modernized campaign operation to win elections on those ideas. Yes, the GOP was the party of ideas. They were crappy ideas. But they were 'ideas'. That's not controversial, so I'm not sure why the Clinton campaign is making such a big deal out of it. Especially 'welfare reform' Bill Clinton."

In a separate post, Moulitsas notes that HRC once told the Salmon Press editorial board that she admired Reagan's communication skills. Moulitsas: "The hypocrisy of the Hillary campaign is almost overwhelming, trying to score cheap political points from the exact same things she's been obviously telling editorial boards herself."

Moulitsas' Crashing the Gate co-author, Jerome Armstrong, thinks Obama is pandering to conservatives: "Obama was meeting the editorial board of a rightwing newspaper...He wanted their friggen endorsement and worked to get it by pandering a bit by saying things they wanted to hear. That's what he was there for, as he says very plainly, TO GET THEIR VOTE...But lets all admit that for Obama, while running to be the Democratic nominee, his calling the Republican Party 'the party of ideas' was really dumb. Heck, I would never write that without some sort of qualification that the ideas sucked (as CTG did). But obviously, Obama couldn't say that in this context, as he was pandering for a few Republican votes. So he skipped over that messy part to keep the wingnuts happy. He got the endorsement, but he gave a lot of ammo up in doing so -- not a smart move at this point in path of the DEMOCRATIC nomination for President. Anyway, it's not something all that new from Obama. Their whole strategy, make or break, revolves around getting into the general with appeal to moderate Republicans and right-leaning Independents intact. I've said all along that it's the calculation which is going to keep him from getting the nomination, but the strategy is a sealed deal at this point, and we'll know the outcome within a few weeks."

CLINTON: Bloggers Mess With Bill

TPM's Josh Marshall is concerned by Bill Clinton's attacks on Obama: "I don't expect Bill Clinton, who's not a shrinking violet, to be neutral in his own wife's nomination campaign. But I have to admit that the intensity of Bill Clinton's attacks on Barack Obama really makes me uncomfortable. I know there are a lot of Democratic party insiders, mostly older than I am, who don't like it either. But I wonder if there's not some generational aspect to it for people my age. I was in my early 20s in 1992. And really throughout the 90s you couldn't be a bigger Clinton guy than I was. So it's hard to see that history (and it's quite some history) leveraged to muscle this campaign."

Meanwhile, Markos Moulitsas pushes back against another Bill Clinton statement: "Bill Clinton personally witnesses voter suppression. Yup. People are suppressing voters right in the face of the former President of the United States. Either that, or he's full of shit as he tries to bolster his wife's presidential bid."

Digby: "There WAS a real-world impact to the lawsuit brought by Clinton allies to shut down the Strip caucuses, and particularly Bill Clinton's comments that those employees' votes would 'count five times as much' as regular Nevadans. This is a complete and utter falsehood, but coming from a former President, it had weight. Apparently that soundbite was played over and over on Las Vegas TV and radio. There were statements from the teacher's union that the lawsuit was designed to protect voter rights, when the impact would have only been to shut down the Strip caucuses and prevent people from participating...And on the ground, people got that message, and the Culinary Workers union were absolutely painted as the caricature of 'powerful union bosses' trying to steal the vote. So Hillary's success in Clark County must be attributed to that in part."

Daily Kos diarist kid oakland: "Bill Clinton is a Democratic ex-President who should, if he is for anything, support the right of citizens to go to the polls and caucus regardless of who they are likely to support...In supporting a last-minute lawsuit to suppress the vote of working people in Las Vegas, to go back on a long-standing agreement made within the Nevada Democratic Party, Bill Clinton opened our party up to any and every last minute voter suppression tactic and lawsuit undertaken by the GOP in 2008. And yeah, after our experiences as a party in 2000 and 2004, that's unforgivable."

GOP FIELD: On To Florida!

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "The scenario I laid out yesterday came to pass in South Carolina, with John McCain emerging victorious against a conservative field divided three ways, a field that was two parts [Mike] Huckabee, one part [Fred] Thompson, and one part [Mitt] Romney...We are beginning to see the real dividing lines of this campaign. It's the battle of the moderates (McCain), metro conservatives (Romney), and rural conservatives (Huckabee). Stripped of all other hangers-on (Fred, and increasingly, Rudy [Giuliani]), nationwide this divide seems to work out to about 40-40-20, or 35-40-25. Conservatives ought to be winning this battle, but Huckabee's lock on the rural vote (just 16% of the vote in Charleston County, btw) will prevent any kind of clear two-man race before February 5th. Every day that Huckabee's nice guy act is allowed to continue is a gift to John McCain -- and he knows it."

Many conservative bloggers are already looking ahead to Florida:

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Voters in Florida are in for the most interesting 10 day campaign in recent political history. It is an elimination round in which at least one and possibly two of the would-be nominees will be sent to the sidelines...What is said and done by the candidates over the next few days will decide Florida and nothing else. Even as they focus on this confused picture, the issues dominating the debate are changing rapidly to elevate the economy over immigration and the war. That has to favor Romney, and McCain is still burdened by the antipathy of many Reagan conservatives."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin thinks the issues in FL favor Giuliani and McCain, not Romney: "The [FL] playing field is tipped in McCain and Rudy's favor on issues -- the economy and defense -- and away from a key issue Romney has tried to use against these two -- immigration. (Romney also will be squeezed by Huckabee in the search for social conservative votes.) Huckabee will have a shot at the state only because he has a base of value voters in the Panhandle and the I-4 corridor. Without Thompson nipping at Huckabee's heels he might secure 25% or so of the electorate. All that said, McCain will get a bump from SC and his poll numbers will rise, fueling his claims of inevitability and electability. He'll be the favorite and the target. Rudy will have to knock him down to size to stay in the race. Thursday's debate should be very interesting."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "I'd guess that Rudy wins Florida. It's tailor-made for him, with plenty of Northeastern retirees and an active Cuban-American base that wants to see hard-nosed policy rather than moderation. If that happens, we can forget clarification, and Super Tuesday becomes a delegate hunt, pure and simple, with everyone viable and a brokered convention more and more likely. If McCain wins Florida, it turns into a two-man race, with Romney becoming the improbable conservative standard-bearer."

MCCAIN: The Shaky Frontrunner?

Right Wing News'John Hawkins thinks McCain is now the leader of the pack: "At this point, John McCain is definitely the front runner. He captured conservative South Carolina and pre-South Carolina, he had a small but significant polling edge in Florida. He also had a significant lead in the national polling, and a lead in large Super Tuesday states like California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. At this point, McCain is probably the only candidate who could come in 3rd place or lower in Florida and still have a good chance to pull out the nomination. Is McCain still stoppable? Yes, but he has a better chance to capture the nomination than the rest of the field combined at this point."

NRO's Mark Steyn agrees with Hawkins: "You would have to think McCain is on course to be the nominee. He's won the two traditionally determinative primaries and he's the senior candidate in a party that rewards seniority. It's also clear that Huck can't get beyond his base, and Fred is the insurgent who never insurges, and Mitt is a dogged but weak campaigner whose tactical judgments seem to be self-defeating [...], and Rudy's 'strategy' has been to take a national lead and then see it wither to single digits in every state that schedules an actual vote in hopes that it will nevertheless decline sufficiently slowly to enable him to eke out a narrow victory in Florida."

NRO's John Hood disagrees: "There is no frontrunner here. Romney and McCain have won multiple contests and will be competing through and past Super Duper Tuesday. Thompson is out. Huckabee and Giuliani each still have a slim shot, fading quickly (indeed, within the next 10 days). Once the field narrows, winning a third of the vote won't cut it anymore. Don't be impatient -- this is far from over. "

RedState's Erick Erickson is not happy about McCain's victory: "I'm so damned frustrated with Thompson and Romney. *Neither* of the conservative candidates in the race has been able to close the deal. Romney has spent millions of his own money and Thompson had conservative support handed to him on a silver platter. Look at both of them -- 3rd and 4th in *the* state where conservatives should be controlling the board."

NRO's Mark Levin also has major doubts about McCain: "The problem for McCain is his record (which some of his supporters want us to downplay, or to limit to certain issues most important to them, or claim what matters is that he can beat the Democrat, or whatever). That's not going to work right now. Even if this website were to close down tonight and never reappear, McCain's positions on some major issues simply won't go down with a lot of conservatives...It is hard to see how some of these candidates can draw the movement together, especially McCain, has spent a decade undermining major parts of it."

Patrick Ruffini explains McCain's challenge going forward: "The trouble for McCain is although he has probably secured the moderate berth in the finals (sorry, Rudy), he hasn't made many inroads with the base and his vote still looks decidedly unlike what that of a GOP nominee should look like. To say that conservative South Carolinians somehow embraced McCain is to ignore the fact that McCain lost conservatives, pro-lifers, and Evangelicals, and eeked it out against the most divided field to date. With Romney's suburban base secure, for McCain to start racking up victory margins in the 40s -- which he'll need as candidates fade or drop out -- he'd need to add votes from the Christian conservative base -- from supporters of walking wounded like Huck and Fred. Because of their candidates' personal animosities towards Romney, that is a distinct possibility that such an alliance could be forged -- but it would be an alliance of opposites -- of pro-life and pro-choice, of liberal and conservative, of secular and evangelical. I don't know if conservatives are going to overlook that fact."

NRO's Jim Geraghty sees a similar challenge for McCain: "For what it's worth, McCain has led every national poll of Republicans in January except one at the beginning of the month...That has to be a good sign going into Super Duper Tuesday. The one potential flaw for McCain is that he's topping out at about 32-33 percent. If one or more candidates get knocked out after Florida's results, does McCain lead a three or four man race the way he's leading a five-man race?"

MCCAIN II: Putting The Fear Into Liberal Bloggers

Several liberal bloggers are growing increasingly worried about the prospect of facing McCain in the general election, as they consider him the GOP's most formidable candidate:

Chris Bowers wants to figure out a way to defeat McCain in the GOP primary: "According to general election trial heats, John McCain appears to be the only Republican who would not be a massive underdog against either Clinton or Obama...defeating John McCain means defeating Joe Lieberman and the Lieber-punditry by proxy...Given this, what I want to do is start thinking of ways to defeat John McCain in the Republican primary. Apart from our established techniques of search engine optimization (Googlebombing) and urging progressive independents and Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney in open primaries, what else can we do to defeat John McCain? I'm open to all ideas."

The American Prospect's Paul Starr: "[McCain] remains by far his party's best bet for holding onto the White House. The Republican field has been so preoccupied with appealing to the party's hard-core base that it seemed that the eventual winner would have little appeal to the independent voters who can swing a general election. Even McCain started out by embracing the evangelical Christians he had once denounced. But as his seemingly dead campaign has been reborn, his initial efforts to pander to the religious right have been forgotten, and he is once again happily running as a 'maverick.' Though his nomination is hardly guaranteed, the Arizona senator would provide the GOP with a powerful mix of continuity and change -- continuity with the Bush administration on Iraq at a moment when the conventional wisdom is that the 'surge' is succeeding, and a sense of change and freshness from McCain's past deviations from conservative orthodoxy."

THOMPSON: Should He Stay Or Should He Go?

Erick Erickson wants Thompson to stay in the race:

"There are a lot of us who have found Fred to be our candidate because he is the consistent conservative in the race.

Huckabee is economically populist.

John McCain's major legislative efforts are named McCain-Feingold, McCain-Edwards-Kennedy, McCain-Kennedy, and McCain-Lieberman. Notice a pattern?

Mitt Romney's problem is not his flips, but his flops and his, of late, tax the rich to help the poor rhetoric.

Rudy Giuliani dresses up like a drag queen and wants taxpayer funded abortions.

So doggoneit, stay in the race, Fred. You did better in South Carolina than Rudy or Romney. Your debate performances of late have been fantastic. The crowds are growing at your forums. The money is coming in.

Stay in Fred. Some of us have no where else to go and a lot of us want at least one conservative to talk common sense."

NRO's Jim Geraghty doesn't think Thompson needs to drop out: "There's no reason for Fred Thompson to leave the race. He's apparently put more effort into Louisiana than the other candidates (they vote Tuesday), and there's a bunch of deep red states he can fight in on Super Duper Tuesday, including his home state of Tennessee. If there were a clear frontrunner, and this thing was all over, I could see it. But if he really finds some of his other rivals as not-conservatives who are unacceptable to carry the Republican mantle, why not stay in this thing until the end, collect as many delegates as he can, and at the very least, throw them to the one he finds most acceptable at the GOP convention?"

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez disagrees: "This is the end. [Thompson]'s lead an honorable and conservative campaign. But it's probably about over."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff also thinks it's time for Thompson to go: "Frankly, and I say this with regret, it's difficult to see the case for him remaining in the race."

NRO's Lisa Schiffren: "I think [Thompson] should drop out because I don't really see what he has to gain by staying in. It will only keep muddying the contest between the three leaders. Any smart Republican president will give him a serious job in the next administration."

Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "How soon will [Thompson] get out? Who will he endorse? Will his supporters follow him into another camp? With nine days before Florida, there's plenty of time for this race to shift direction a time or two."

John Hawkins thinks Thompson might stay in the race in order to help McCain: "Normally, a candidate would help out another candidate in this situation by dropping out and endorsing him. But, given that Fred's supporters are mostly hard core conservatives and very unlikely to vote for McCain whether Fred endorses him or not, Fred can help his friend John McCain more by just staying in the race through Super Tuesday and peeling off some conservatives who would probably be inclined to vote for anyone but McCain."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Maha Rushie Speaks

Rush Limbaugh:

"I know that there are a lot of you out there that think McCain, because you look at these national polls, think McCain can beat Hillary, and beating Hillary, that's first and foremost, that's gotta happen. At this point, given the way things are shaping up, that's not a priority to me. Conservatism is the priority, and if what we do to beat Hillary destroys conservatism, what the hell. I'd just as soon have conservatism survive and go four years of abomination with Hillary or Obama, and then, you know, take it back."

LEST WE FORGET: The Words Of Dr. King

In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday, we present the following passage from Dr. King's 1963 "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" (h/t Matthew Yglesias):

"Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides-and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:21 PM

January 18, 2008

1/18: The Saga Continues

Tomorrow is a big day in the presidential race, with a GOP primary in SC and Dem & GOP caucuses in NV. At the time of this writing, few bloggers have made predictions about who's going to win tomorrow -- although most believe that Mitt Romney should easily win the barely-contested NV GOP caucus. Fred Thompson's online supporters are talking excitedly about his momentum in SC, but will it be enough to push him into the top two when John McCain and Mike Huckabee are far ahead in most of the recent polls? Meanwhile, several bloggers are already speculating about the looming showdown in FL, where Rudy Giuliani will make his last stand. With 10 long days separating the GOP primaries in SC and FL, there will certainly be a lot of horserace chatter in the conservative blogosphere.

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are noting that Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama in three NV polls. Will the Culinary Workers be enough to carry Obama to victory? At this point, no one knows. MyDD's Jonathan Singer writes:

"Don't write Nevada off as a sure win for Obama...There is very much still a race on our hands in the Silver State, one that we don't know how will turn out at this point and won't until the results come piling in Saturday afternoon."

GOP FIELD: Where's The Mo?

NRO's Rich Lowry: "The Republican race has seemed momentum-less because there hasn't yet been a winner of consecutive contests. But momentum is real. If you look at McCain's national numbers, they shot up to the upper 20's or low 30's after his win in New Hampshire. In the past, I've discounted national polls, but we're almost reaching the point where they will be significant. If McCain wins South Carolina and Florida, he will have at least his current 10-point lead in the national polls and probably more. That will matter when a week after Florida 21 states hold their contests, and no one will have the time to camp out in any one of them. A candidate's national standing will then be very important."

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "Amidst the chaos that is the GOP race right now, it's interesting to see one pattern repeating itself over and over again: candidates with single-state strategies beating candidates with multiple-state strategies. Huckabee emphasized Iowa over New Hampshire and he won. Romney was the only one to play in Wyoming and he won. McCain emphasized New Hampshire over Iowa and he won. Romney emphasized Michigan over South Carolina and he won...Are early state voters such zealous guardians of their local prerogatives that 60-80% of support a candidate would have otherwise gotten simply peels away once the candidate leaves? Does local earned media matter that much? Or do voters just gravitate towards the two top horses in any horserace -- regardless of what national polls or other states may say?"

MCCAIN: The Luck Of The Irish

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff speculates about why McCain is doing so well in a conservative state like SC: "It seems to me that McCain is riding quite a bit of luck. First, until very recently his opponents hadn't pointed out to voters McCain's main deviations from conservatism. Second, and this is a related point, Mitt Romney decided that Michigan, not South Carolina, was the place to revive his fortunes. Not only is Romney willing to go after McCain, but he also had the endorsement of South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint. His decision to 'go dark' in South Carolina probably helped McCain. Third, Giuliani's decison not to compete in South Carolina means the 'moderate' vote won't be split to any meaningful degree. Finally, McCain doesn't need a big number to win the South Carolina primary...[his] stature coupled with the support of the state's political establishment might well be enough to get him to 33 percent...Subtract out 12 percent support for Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani combined, and you have three South Carolina-friendly candidates -- two running as traditional conservatives plus one very strong social conservative -- vying for the remaining 55 percent of the vote. That formula would very likely translate into a win for McCain."

Linking to The Weekly Standard's Adam White and Kevin White's defense of McCain's membership in the bipartisan "Gang of 14", Townhall's Hugh Hewitt slams McCain: "The Gang of 14 got the GOP nothing. It cost the party much. It cost many fine people their seats on the bench and a lot of their dignity. And the seven senators led by John McCain betrayed promises made by the GOP as a whole, and undermined the widespread originalist understanding of the Constitution in the bargain. I am glad White and White have chosen this moment to remind Republicans across the country about John McCain's Gang of 14. There's a reason why Senator McCain never brings it up when asked to discuss his qualifications for the presidency. It is on the list with the votes against the Bush tax cuts, the McCain-Kennedy immigration 'reform,' McCain-Feingold, ANWR and many other things. The Gang of 14 is short hand for why John McCain should not be the nominee of the GOP."

HUCKABEE: A Brief Respite From Huckabashing

On Wednesday, we noted that Huckabee took a lot of heat from angry Cornerites for his remarks about the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In what is probably a first, Hugh Hewitt (!) comes to Huckabee's defense: "Huck called for amendments to the Constitution to protect life and traditional marriage. These are mainstream, conservative positions. He is not a 'reconstructionist' Christian, as even a casual glance at his decade of governing in Arkansas shows...Disagree with Huck on economics, but his positions on life and marriage are mainstream GOP positions, repeatedly endorsed at the ballot box across the country."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins still has some problems with Huckabee: "I'm of the opinion that Huckabee is more conservative and electable than people give him credit for, but he relies too heavily on religious rhetoric, has been mistake prone, has an incredibly unorganized campaign, and has allowed an adversarial relationship to develop with the conservative media."

ROMNEY: Playing Possum In SC?

Campaign Standard's Richelieu analyzes the significance of Romney's decision to skip SC and focus on NV: "It's an understandable move, but a risky one that may prove to be a big strategic mistake in the overall race. First, it means Romney must now win Nevada. He is favored there -- he's well organized and southern Nevada has a large LDS population -- but you never know for sure in a caucus. Second, by pulling back in South Carolina, it is likely a chunk of the regular Republicans who make up Romney's vote will move to John McCain, potentially helping McCain defeat the bigger SC threat of Mike Huckabee. Since McCain is Romney's most serious rival for the nomination, a McCain win in South Carolina is bad news for Romney in the big picture. One can argue that a strategy of playing hard in South Carolina up to the end and trying to pull McCain down into second place to a victorious Huckabee would have been a better Romney move. That would weaken McCain going into Florida. Now, if McCain wins South Carolina, he'll build new momentum quickly. While a Nevada caucus win allows Romney to claim an offsetting victory on Saturday, it'll be seen as small potatoes compared with South Carolina. Finally, the Romney decision to pull back in South Carolina could result in Romney dropping to fourth place and being edged out by Fred Thompson. Such a weak Romney result in South Carolina would stoke media speculation that Romney cannot attract votes in the South. That's a toxic label no GOP candidate wants."

NRO's Byron York doesn't think Romney is completely skipping SC: "I think Romney's re-positioning himself on South Carolina leaves out a bit of the story. He may be downplaying his chances here, but he has worked the state very hard for a long time -- and he still is...I spoke last night to Richard Quinn, who is McCain's chief strategist in South Carolina. 'I think Romey's playing possum,' Quinn told me. 'He has spent more money on TV, radio, mail, phone, staff, and consultants by at least ten to one than any other candidate running for president. He only went black on TV for about three days. This is all spin for them to say they're not playing in South Carolina.' Quinn might be exaggerating a bit, but if he is, it's not by much."

Meanwhile, John Hawkins thinks Romney is a general election loser: "Romney [is] a flip-flopper who essentially just tells people whatever they want to hear. He's also almost certain to lose in a general election. We're talking about a guy who turns states that Huckabee and McCain win by 20 points into toss-ups."

THOMPSON: Back Against The Wall

David Limbaugh urges conservatives to rally behind Thompson: "This primary season, relatively speaking, has just begun. But Fred is now up against the wall. How can we expect him to have done much better than he has to date with everyone prattling on about the overwhelming odds against him?...Supporters have asked Fred to step up, and he has -- he has shone brilliantly in the last month, setting himself head and shoulders above the pack in many cases. Now it's time for conservative voters to step up and quit placing artificial limitations on Fred, and on themselves. Fred has answered the conservatives' call. Shouldn't we answer his?"

Meanwhile, RedState's Erick Erickson thinks Thompson has momentum in SC: "From the ground it seems objectively clear that Fred Thompson has momentum. While still third or fourth in polling, he is trending up enough that the national media has taken notice and has started paying more attention to him...It may very well be too late. But with Romney ceding the field and Huckabee going down, it may be possible. One thing that is clear -- conservatives are making up their mind and as they do, Thompson is going up."

NRO's Peter Robinson agrees: "Fred needs to win or place. Can he do it? Romney has pulled out of South Carolina altogether, the situation remains fluid, all the polls show Fred trending sharply upward, Fred's ads will remain on the air until Saturday, and the emails I've received from folks who've been to Thompson's campaign events all agree that Fred's on fire. In other words, Fred can do it. He can indeed."

NRO's Jim Geraghty rains on the Fredheads' parade: "There's a danger in race-watching of mistaking what's happening for what you want to see. So I want to warn the Fredheads, who I've got some deep reserves of sympathy for...some polls show your guy with some momentum, some don't. I'd love to report, as Peter Robinson offers, that 'all the polls show Fred trending sharply upward.' But when you look at all the polls, you see that some do, some show a modest increase, and some show little change."

GIULIANI: Rooting For Huckabee?

Several bloggers are already looking ahead to the big showdown in FL:

CBN's David Brody: "There's no doubt that the Giuliani campaign would much rather see Huckabee win South Carolina than McCain. McCain can compete on the electability issue and has a moderate streak just like Giuliani. The question is will Giuliani go after McCain and if so, on what exactly? Giuliani has his skeletons too. It's a risky strategy. As we like to say in politics, the situation is 'fluid'."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "I think Rudy is going to have a tough fight [in FL] but so will everyone else...Let's say McCain gets a solid (4-7 pt) win [in SC] with Huckabee in second. What happens then? McCain will get a bump going into Florida where he leads in the RCP average by 2.9 pts now...However, unlike the last few stops, he will also have to contend with the another candidate who appeals to moderate voters, stresses the importance of terrorism and who has a firm base of support -- Rudy. Coupled with Rudy's intensified push on taxes it will be a tough race. Huckabee, even if he comes in second, has not declared SC a 'must win' and will continue on in Florida, appealing to social conservatives...Now if McCain is upset what happens then? (After the all night Rudy campaign party ends, I mean.) Rudy will have himself ideally positioned to consolidate the moderate, national security, fiscal conservative voters. The others will scramble over the remainders but in this case perhaps Thompson stays in, hopeful that the shift from a chaotic race to an utterly chaotic race will leave room for him."

Meanwhile, John Hawkins still doesn't trust Giuliani: "Rudy is pro-amnesty, pro-abortion, and generally has more in common with pro-war Democrats like Christopher Hitchens and Joe Lieberman than he does with conservatives."

DEM FIELD: Yay For Democracy

Most liberal bloggers are pleased that a federal judge ruled in favor of allowing at-large Dem precincts on the Las Vegas Strip:

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Thanks to all of those who supported the at-large precincts in this case. This is a victory over voter suppression. To tell you the truth, I don't even know if it will help Obama, since there doesn't appear to be any difference in who union members and non-union members support so far in the primaries. I'm just glad more people will take part in the process, and a crass, last-minute attempt to shut them out failed after the plan had already been public for nine months."

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Well, despite what our esteemed former President believes, the Las Vegas at-large caucus sites for workers unable to get home in time have been declared legal...I'm all for measures that make it easier for people to caucus. Ideally, I believe they should be applied evenly, so that workers in many industries have the opportunity to caucus close to their job sites. That isn't the case in Nevada, but in my book, increased voter participation is always a good thing."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "The Clinton team's nominal complaint that this procedure still makes it very difficult for other shift workers to vote is accurate, but of course their proposed remedy of making it harder for casino workers to vote is no remedy at all. Caucuses are, in general, an abomination but working to make them even less democratic doesn't help anything."

OBAMA: Facing A Roadblock In Nevada?

Last week, Jonathan Singer observed that Obama needs to be careful about managing expectations in NV:

"Although receiving the endorsements of both the Culinary Workers union and SEIU within Nevada greatly increased Barack Obama's chances of winning the state's caucuses next week those endorsements also presented him with the significant challenge of raised expectations...Before the big union endorsements, Obama was sitting quite nicely in the expectations game in Nevada, trailing by a wide margin, so even a loss by less than 20 points (and certainly less than 10 points) would have beaten expectations (at least of the existing polling). Now, at least according to [Chuck] Todd and [Marc] Ambinder (even if I disagree slightly), it seems that the Beltway is now expecting a win from Obama in Nevada, and anything less would represent a failure to meet expectations."

Now, with a new Mason-Dixon poll showing HRC leading Obama by 9 and a new Zogby poll showing HRC leading Obama by 5, Singer's warning is looking increasingly prescient.

In more positive news for Obama, Singer links to a new Rasmussen poll showing Obama gaining on HRC in CA: "We're still a long way off from the California primary, and a lot can happen between now and February 5th (like Nevada and South Carolina, for instance, and at least one or two more debates). That said, a lot of California voters like myself have their ballots in hand now, and with perhaps half of all primary voters sending in their ballots before super duper Tuesday, voter sentiments today do in fact matter. This poll, which was in the field just a single day (Monday) and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, could be an outlier. Clinton's lead in the other three polls taken in California this month have shown her lead to be 12, 15 and 16 points, much higher than her 5-point lead per Rasmussen (which is within the poll's margin of error). That said, if there is in fact a tightening in California, it might be an harder for Clinton to put away the race on February 5."

OBAMA II: The Ultimate Rorschach Test

Back in December, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum described the Dem primary as a kind of "Rorschach test" in which people "project their own desires and fears onto the top three candidates, often in completely contradictory ways." Obama's comparison of himself and Ronald Reagan, which we discussed yesterday, provides a perfect example of this phenomenon. Open Left's Matt Stoller, who generally views Obama with suspicion, interprets Obama's words as evidence that Obama "admires Reagan" and "agrees with Reagan's basic frame that the 1960s and 1970s were full of 'excesses' [like] feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement." Matthew Yglesias, on the other hand, is more inclined to view Obama positively, and he thinks that Obama was "pretty unambiguously claiming that much as Reagan was a friendly, popular face of a much more conservative governing agenda than the country had seen before, [Obama] thinks he can be the friendly, popular face of a much more liberal governing agenda than the country has seen before."

Today we find additional examples of liberal bloggers interpreting Obama's words about Reagan in completely different ways. On the one hand, Stoller's Open Left co-blogger, Paul Rosenberg, writes:

"When Obama praised Reagan, he was...simply echoing the conventional wisdom of the elites who have tried to change America's direction, who have tried to deny the will of the people, and misrepresented America to itself. This reflects the larger fear that I have about Obama, that what he offers us is, quite simply, 'An Echo, Not A Choice.'"

On the other hand, The American Prospect's Ezra Klein writes:

"What [Obama]'s saying is that Reagan effectively understood the ideological currents in the country and used that mastery of public opinion to drive popular sentiment. In other words, he admires Reagan for shifting the center. When he says that 'Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not,' he's articulating a fundamentally different idea of the presidency than Clinton is -- more inspirational than managerial, as concerned with the prevailing ideological atmosphere as with the specifics of contemporary legislative initiatives."

We find it interesting that the more journalistic "wonkosphere" bloggers (such as Yglesias and Klein) are more inclined to view Obama favorably, whereas the more activist "netroots" bloggers (such as Stoller and Rosenberg) are more inclined to view Obama unfavorably. Perhaps it is not surprising that the netroots -- with their message of unabashed partisanship -- are turned off by Obama's post-partisan rhetoric, whereas other liberal bloggers find it less offensive.

Meanwhile, The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports that several former Reagan officials (as well as the ex-President's son) "see a bit of their former boss in Obama":

Ron Reagan Jr.: "If I understand what [Obama] was saying I can't entirely disagree with it. They both came along at times when society was on the cusp of change and they are both agents of change. As far as Barack Obama being a similar agent of change, that remains to be seen. But what I do see him saying is that we are in a historical moment right now like the 60s and 80s. And I think he's right. We are overdue for a cultural shift."

Ex-Asst Defense Sec. Lawrence Korb: "Ronald Reagan was an inspirational leader who also was a uniter. There was never any vindictive stuff to the other side. In 1983, when you had the commission to fix Social Security, which basically gave us 20 more years with the program, after it was over Reagan would not campaign against any [Democrat] who supported that. And the harshest thing he said against [Walter] Mondale was that he was too young. There was never any of this vindictiveness...I think Obama is trying to get us back to that pleasantness."

Ex-speechwriter Peter Robinson: "I do believe Obama is right in looking back at the election of 1980 and saying that was a historical inflection point. Of course there is a certain amount of self-flattery involved in that statement, but he might be right. I do think Ronald Reagan would have found Barack Obama appealing."

OBAMA III: Tackling The Causes Of War?

Open Left's Chris Bowers explains why he prefers Obama to HRC: "Last month, I wrote a piece listing seven key policy areas that would tackle the causes of the Iraq war, and prevent future disasters of the same type. Despite Obama's weakness on health care and continuing habit of reinforcing right-wing narratives, it now seems to me that he has a clear advantage over Clinton when it comes to tackling the causes of war...Further, that Obama opposed the war from the beginning, while Clinton has not only refused to admit a mistake and her advisers boast of her hawkishness, matters quite a bit, too. Also, I admit that I simply have a cultural preference for Obama, probably because I fall into the most of the demographic groups where he performs well. So, if at any point this becomes a two person campaign, I will support Obama over Clinton. Right now, I still prefer John Edwards...However, if [Edwards] finishes third in Nevada, I will probably begin rethinking my preferences."

Meanwhile, Kevin Drum thinks that Obama and HRC have similar positions on withdrawing troops from Iraq: "Although Obama has been consistent in opposing the invasion, he and Hillary have taken pretty similar positions on withdrawal since then...over the past few months what few disagreements they had have been sanded down even more. I have a very hard time really seeing any daylight between them at this point."

EDWARDS: Russ Ain't A Fan

Last Friday, many liberal bloggers were surprised when '06 CT SEN nominee (and netroots hero) Ned Lamont endorsed Obama. Today, liberal bloggers are once again surprised -- this time because progressive hero Sen. Russ Feingold harshly criticized his former colleague John Edwards in an interview with the Appleton Post-Crescent. Feingold said:

"The [candidate] that is the most problematic is Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war...He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Listening to the rhetoric and proposals of the leading Democratic candidates, one comes to the conclusion (or at least I do) that John Edwards is running both the most populist and progressive campaign. But Russ Feingold, perhaps the Senate's leading progressive and a man that a lot of folks would have liked to have seen run this time, comes to a clearly different conclusion about Edwards...That's some pretty blistering stuff -- and from someone with a lot of credibility, someone, perhaps even more importantly, who is not making an endorsement in the race. And, frankly, it's kind of hard to argue with what Feingold has to say. That doesn't necessarily mean that Edwards is running a disingenuous campaign or that, as President, he would not lead in a very progressive way. Nevertheless, when someone with Feingold's standing and comes out with such blunt and strong language -- and backs it up with real tangible facts, in this case in the form of votes on the Senate floor -- it's worth paying heed."

Matt Stoller: "Russ Feingold absolutely destroys John Edwards in this interview...I think it's relevant and shows why Edwards has always had trouble gaining traction. It's not just a media blackout."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is The Media's Influence Waning?

Slate's Mickey Kaus makes an interesting observation:

"If McCain loses in 'make-or-break,' 'single elimination' South Carolina on Saturday, will he be forced to drop out? Probably not. For one thing, he has too many supporters in the press. They can't quit him! For another, as First Read suggests, the press may have lost its ability to hound a candidate out of the race -- a long-term consequence of Hillary's bolt-from-the-blue victory in New Hampshire. It's not just that the candidates themselves see less reason to drop out after the press has pronounced them dead, though that's probably true. (The press pronounced Hillary dead, and look what happened.) It's that one of the important mechanisms of hounding-out -- increasingly negative coverage that turns off your funders and embarrasses you with constituents back home -- may have broken down. That would be because the press itself has lost confidence in its ability to declare a candidate 'over,' and funders would be less likely to believe the press if it did...I predict that even Edwards, if he loses in both Nevada and South Carolina, will continue to get respectful MSM treatment..."

LEST WE FORGET: I Know Where You Can Stick That Flagpole

Wonkette's Greg Wasserstrom:

"Mike 'Former Arkansas Governor' Huckabee had his pander on lock in South Carolina today, promising swift rectal justice to those who take issue with the Palmetto State's fondness for the Confederate flag. 'In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do,' Huckles said, trying to win over a room of leather-clad GOP bondage fetishists. The Stars and Bars, of course, is a litmus test for many South Carolinians, in much the same way that many other nationally irrelevant issues are litmus tests for other retarded voters in places that aren't South Carolina."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:48 PM

January 17, 2008

1/17: Where Did Our Love Go?

When Hillary Clinton took a beating in the liberal blogosphere this past weekend, we found ourselves wondering whether the netroots were beginning to favor Barack Obama in what is increasingly looking like a two-person race. But in the past 24 hours, normalcy was restored. Obama's comparison of himself and Ronald Reagan infuriated netroots bloggers such as Matt Stoller, who already had doubts about Obama's progressivism and who dislike his statements about reaching out to independents and Republicans. Obama's words, and the strong backlash they provoked in the liberal blogosphere, provide a perfect example of the utter disharmony between Obama's message of unity and the netroots' message of unabashed partisanship. Should Obama win the Dem nomination, he will have a lot of work to do in repairing his relationship with the netroots.

DEM FIELD: Where It Stands Today

Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks NV is going to be pivotal: "Clinton's leads in Florida and nationally mean that she moves very, very close to the nomination if she wins in Nevada. Obama is only down by about 9-10% nationally, which means that winning in both Nevada and South Carolina will make for a very close campaign on Super Tuesday. [John] Edwards needs a Nevada win in order to achieve a breakthrough. As such, Nevada now seems to be just as important as Iowa and New Hampshire were earlier in the month."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer is surprised by a new Strategic Vision poll showing Obama gaining on HRC in FL: "Though I'm still under the impression that Clinton has an edge in Florida, if Obama can muster together a win in South Carolina, and perhaps also a win in a couple days in Nevada, leading up to the contest in Florida, there's a real chance that he would be able to win the primary there (even if it does not immediately yield delegates). In such an instance, the nearly national primary a week later would presumably be that much more in play. However if polling overestimates Obama's support in Florida -- or at least underestimates Clinton's base of support in the state, as it seemed to do in New Hampshire -- and Obama fails to meet (perhaps) excessively high expectations in the state, momentum might be going in the wrong direction for him (even if only moderately so) heading into super duper Tuesday."

OBAMA: Digging Himself Deeper

During an interview with officials from the Reno Gazette-Journal, Obama expressed his view that 2008 is a watershed year in American politics, just like 1980:

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was: we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

TPM's Greg Sargent analyzes Obama's argument: "This is interesting -- Obama is turning up the volume of his argument with what he terms Clinton style 'incremental' change, arguing that Ronald Reagan fundamentally changed the direction of America in a way Bill Clinton didn't...Some will find Obama's words about Reagan overly kind...Obama is also making an argument about the readiness of the electorate for change, comparing today's desire for a new direction with the electorate's mood in 1980. In this context, Obama is presenting himself as a potentially transformational figure in opposition to Hillary [Clinton], who, Obama has been arguing, is unequipped to tap into the public's mood due to her coming of age in the sixties and her involvement in the political battles of the 1990s. Juxtaposing Reagan and Bill Clinton in this way, however, decidedly takes his argument to a whole new level."

The Huffington Post's Sam Stein: "Which elections does Obama see as analogous to 2008? And with which presidents does he share personal similarities? That would be John Kennedy in 1960 (hardly surprising) and Ronald Reagan in 1980 (more daring). But not, it should be noted, Bill Clinton in 1992."

As Sargent predicted, leading netroots bloggers strongly disputed Obama's description of Reagan:

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "There are many reason progressives should admire Ronald Reagan, politically speaking. He realigned the country around his vision, he brought into power a new movement that created conservative change, and he was an extremely skilled politician. But that is not why Obama admires Reagan. Obama admires Reagan because he agrees with Reagan's basic frame that the 1960s and 1970s were full of 'excesses' and that government had grown large and unaccountable. Those excesses, of course, were feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement...if you think, as Obama does, that Reagan's rise to power was premised on a sunny optimism in contrast to an out of control government and a society rife with liberal excess, then you don't understand the conservative movement. Reagan tapped into greed and fear and tribalism, and those are powerful forces. Ignoring that isn't going to make them go away."

Many of Obama's supporters at Open Left defended their candidate in the comments following Stoller's post:

BooMan: "I'm no fan of Reagan, but, Matt, you're taking this ridiculously far. You're discounting the opinion of by far the greater half of America that remembers Reagan as a flawed but affable leader that had more successes than failures. Those people may be ignoring or ignorant of a lot of history, but their impressions don't count for nothing. Reagan did bring optimism, he did rebuild American morale (at least for the middle and up classes), and he did in some sense represent his times and the electorate of his times. You can't just rewrite history and turn the man into nothing more than an ogre. Yes, he was an ogre. But he was more than that."

Mimikatz: "Reagan was a disaster in many ways, particularly for the lower middle class and poor, minorities etc. However, he was immensely popular, something many Liberals simply cannot accept, nor can they accept that many people were turned off by the excesses of the counter culture (which was way more fun for those of us who were in it) and by what they perceived as Liberals' pampering the undeserving. Trying to understand why that was, irrespective of how he feels about Reagan's policies, shows that Obama has a sense of what it takes to bring people onto your side so that you can make a transformation in another direction. Jimmy Carter had many good policies, but couldn't mobilize people behind them...He bummed people out. Reagan did have the qualities Obama cites. But that doesn't mean that Obama approves of his policies or his ideology. He just sees him as a skilled communicator that one can learn from."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias also defends Obama: "Barack Obama tosses off a vague comparison between himself and Ronald Regan and Matt Stoller gets really pissed. I don't really get it. Obama is pretty unambiguously claiming that much as Reagan was a friendly, popular face of a much more conservative governing agenda than the country had seen before, he thinks he can be the friendly, popular face of a much more liberal governing agenda than the country has seen before. Obama thinks -- as do a lot of people -- that the country may be primed for big change in 2008 the way it was in 1980 and that he's the kind of person who can sell the country on that sort of big change. He may be wrong, either in his assessment of the times or in his assessment of himself, but those are exactly the sort of claims you want to see a leader make on behalf of itself."

However, most prominent liberal bloggers agree with Stoller:

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "No, Ronald Reagan didn't appeal to people's optimism, he appealed to their petty, small minded bigotry and selfishness. Jimmy Carter told people to tighten their energy belts and act for the good of the country; Ronald Reagan told them they could guzzle gas with impunity and do whatever the hell they wanted. He kicked off his 1980 campaign talking about 'state's rights' in Philadelphia, Mississippi -- the site of the murder of three civil rights workers in 1964's Freedom Summer...There's enough hagiography of Reagan on the right, I don't think Democrats really need to go there."

Digby: "I get that Obama is signaling that he sees this election as a game changing election like 1980. And he may very well be right about that. I hope so. But it's disconcerting to hear him casually recount these Republican arguments without a clear disclaimer, as if it's a matter of fact not opinion. People may have believed in 1980 that the 'excesses' of the 1960's and the 1970's were the cause of all their problems and that government had 'grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating' but that doesn't make it true. Republican propaganda conveniently offered up all kinds of scapegoats for the fact that the US was reeling from Vietnam, Watergate, a terrible oil shock --- and a lousy economy as a result of all those things. An awful lot of the 'excesses' Reagan spoke of in carefully coded speech had to do with civil rights and more urgently at the time, integration, specifically busing, which was one of the hot buttons that drove the 'Reagan Democrats' outside the south to the Republicans."

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "Obama simply misunderstands how Reagan achieved that transformational change -- to the detriment of the country I must add -- he ran a partisan, ideological divisive campaign that excoriated Democratic values and trumpeted GOP values. He also race baited. Obama is running a post-partisan, nonideological campaign that is bereft of defenses of Democratic values and ideas. He is running an anti-Reagan campaign. His argument is simply ahistorical. It is precisely BECAUSE he refuses to try and make this a transformational campaign, a campaign to fight for Dem values, to persuade the country that the Dems are right, that his campaign is a promise unfulfilled. In short, Obama STILL does not get it."

In a later post, Stoller summarizes his view of Reagan: "Reagan was a psychotic man who nearly blew up the world and used paranoia and fear to change our culture and government in horrible ways. He also wasn't particularly popular, though as a politician, he's worth admiring for his raw political skill. Conservative ideology is based on greed and fear. There's no such thing as a good conservative leader, period. It is a fundamentally bankrupt, corrupt, and fraudulent ideology, and there is nothing laudable about people like Reagan who tap into the worst of America."

GOP FIELD: Wide Open Like This Year's BCS

Campaign Standard's Richelieu sets the expectations for SC: "SC will narrow the field; pity the poor candidate who finishes third there and winds up in the political electric chair. If [John] McCain drops to third, he'll be labeled president of New Hampshire, but little else. If [Mitt] Romney finishes third, his impressive Michigan win will be tossed off as a home-state fluke and he'll be labeled a northeasterner who cannot sell in the South. If [Mike] Huckabee finishes third in a state tailor made for him, any chance he has of actually winning the nomination will over."

Richelieu also sets the expectations for FL: "The Florida race will be about the top two finishers in SC racing to Tampa Bay to finish the fight, with the wounded third place finisher limping behind them. Like second tier super-heroes, each candidate has a special power that could be helpful in Florida but is not enough on its own to guarantee success. Romney has money; he can afford Florida's vital but expensive television markets. Huckabee has communication skills and a nature appeal to Florida's many social values voters. McCain has veterans, a bump in the latest polling and the close friendship of Florida governor Charlie Crist. Then there is Rudy Giuliani, lying in wait in Florida where he has attempted to a build a fortress in a state he has called must-win for his campaign...South Carolina will narrow things -- and Florida may well finish them."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "It has been a really bizarre primary season. We have five candidates in contention. Three of them, Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani, aren't well liked by conservatives. Then there's Mitt Romney, who is considered to be more conservative than the other three candidates, but probably can't win a general election. Last but not least, the most conservative guy in the batch, a guy who has done very well in the debates, who is probably the only candidate in the group who could excite conservatives in 2008, is running in 4th place in South Carolina, the state that's supposed to carry conservatives on its back."

NRO's Byron York issues a warning to conservatives: "Between now and the Florida primary on January 29, we might see a major shift in the Republican race: the campaign could slip completely out of the realm of national-security conservatives. National security pretty much dominated the debates leading up to primary season, but now, if Romney's success in Michigan prompts more and more candidate attention to economic issues, the campaign will take on a new, decidedly post-war-on-terror feel. And if that happens, it will probably go in directions that few conservatives are happy with. When candidates start talking about easing voters' pain, there's no telling what they will promise -- Romney's $20 billion check to the auto industry might be just the beginning."

ROMNEY: Should He Start Saying "Y'all"?

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin thinks Romney might have trouble in SC: "[Romney's] constituency is squeezed and perhaps nonexistent in the South. Huckabee and [Fred] Thompson have the social conservatives and McCain the military and moderates. There are just not enough people left over for him. Now if Thompson or Huckabee drop out his prospects may change but otherwise it is hard to see how he would do any better in other southern states including ones on the February 5 calendar (Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Arkansas). I don't think a Republican can win the nomination let alone the presidency without the South. But again, the stars may realign if others drop out or fade."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti agrees: "It's anyone's guess as to who will win in South Carolina, but Romney does face an interesting challenge. He was able to make strong gut appeals to Michigan Republicans on the basis of his personal history in the state, his 'optimism,' and his business acumen. The appeals worked, and Romney won. The question facing Romney is how he can make the same connection with voters in South Carolina and Florida. My guess is his organization pulls him to a win in Nevada, like it did in Wyoming. But in a southern primary state where he hasn't yet made an impact, and where McCain and Huckabee each have advantages with certain constituencies (veterans and values voters, respectively), what's Romney's argument? This press release suggests he will try to continue to ride the economic issue to victory. We'll find out Saturday whether or not it works."

MCCAIN: The Free Ride Is Over

NRO's Rich Lowry: "I've pointed out/complained that McCain had been getting almost a free ride from his rivals with the exception of Romney. But talk radio, led by Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, really stepped into the breach. McCain's record has been taking a battering and it now might be beginning to tell. We'll know more when we see how he fares among conservatives in South Carolina."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt takes McCain to task for the following statement, which the AZ senator made during a blogger conference call:

"As far as ANWR is concerned, I don't want to drill in the Grand Canyon, and I don't want to drill in the Everglades. This is one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world."

Hewitt: "So every Republican who supports exploration in ANWR is the same as a despoiler of the Everglades and the Grand Canyon? Now you know why so many Republicans refuse to support the McCain candidacy. It isn't enough for the Arizona maverick to be an environmentalist, he has to condemn all Republicans, Independents and Democrats who disagree with him on the need to explore ANWR as enemies of the most beautiful places in America."

Michelle Malkin is disgusted by a picture of McCain campaigning with Lindsay Graham in SC: "Shamnesty birds of a feather flock together. In case you needed to be reminded of the arrogant, debate-suppressing, open-borders pandering, grass-roots-trashing shenanigans of the Shamnesty Brothers, here are John McCain and his best friend from South Carolina on the campaign trail today. Sear it into your memories."

Like Malkin, John Hawkins is not a fan of McCain: "If John McCain is the Republican Party's nominee, we will essentially have two Democrats running for the presidency."

Nevertheless, Hawkins thinks McCain has a good shot at the nomination: "If McCain loses SC and Nevada, his momentum may be stopped for good since the conservative press is finally turning their attention to him. On the other hand, victories in those states would help him a great deal and if Rudy loses Florida and drops out, it would help McCain immensely because they draw from the same pool of moderate voters...Additionally, the mainstream media is pushing hard for McCain and at the moment, McCain is putting up far better head-to-head numbers against the Democrats than any of the other Republican candidates. That's a big advantage for him and it gives him a little bit of an edge over the rest of the field."

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru thinks McCain would be a strong general election candidate: "A lot of McCain's critics have been arguing that he won't motivate the base and thus can't win in November. Whether he can win over enough conservatives to win the primaries is an open question. But I think he would be in pretty good shape in the fall. No question, some conservatives would sit out the election. But the senator has very high favorability ratings among Republicans. And I think it is safer for him to dissent on a great many issues that conservatives care a little bit about than on a few about which they care intensely. With the great exception of immigration, McCain's heterodoxies are not issues that conservatives tend to vote on. They're not going to leave a Republican nominee over global warming or campaign-finance reform. The question then becomes how many conservatives would stay home out of disgust at his position on immigration. I haven't seen any data that make me think the answer to that question is 'a lot of them.'"

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein isn't so sure: "[Ponnuru]'s probably right, but at the same time, I'm not sure that it would take a lot of conservatives to abandon the party on immigration in order to cause problems for the GOP candidate. The question is not only how many, but where such disgruntled conservatives are located...if even a small percentage of immigration hawks in Western swing states such as New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado defect to a third party or stay home, it could be enough to change the outcome of a close election, as Nader's showing in Florida did in 2000."

Meanwhile, Romney supporter Sen. Jim DeMint issues a statement in response to Sen. Tom Coburn's endorsement of McCain:

"Illegal immigration and tax relief may not be big issues in Oklahoma, but they are here. Thankfully the people of South Carolina will decide for themselves who will stop illegal immigration and rebuild our economy."

RedState's AcademicElephant: "This is getting to be something of a game of inside-the-senate baseball, but the Coburn-DeMint split is a pretty strong indicator to me that we're still far from a 'consensus' candidate."

HUCKABEE: He's Not Fooling Michelle

Michelle Malkin still doesn't trust Huckabee when it comes to illegal immigration: "He's an open borders drag queen, and he's piling on the make-up and jewels again to disguise his pro-illegal immigration record in time for the South Carolina primary. The Washington Times reports that he has signed a NumbersUSA pledge to oppose any new shamnesty measures and reduce illegal immigration through attrition. I don't believe Mike Huckabee...Past actions speak louder than election-year words."

Meanwhile, NRO's Jim Geraghty wonders if Huckabee is just a regional candidate: "Why did Mike Huckabee get only 16 percent in Michigan?...I realize Michigan isn't tailor-made for Huckabee, but it's got some evangelicals, plenty of gun owners and hunters, plenty of homeschoolers...this wasn't exactly arid territory for Huck the way New Hampshire was. And he finished pretty much where he did in the Granite State. Now, Huckabee's still sitting in good shape in South Carolina, and he's spent more time there. But I think the question he faces -- and that all of the candidates face, at this point -- is can he win outside his own comfort zone? Can a Southerner place pretty well in a northern state? Can a guy from the Northeast like Romney or Giuliani win someplace out west or in the south? (Romney winning a modestly-contested Wyoming is nice but not quite a dramatic example.) Do these guys, who have been able to pitch themselves as just right for the hotly-contested state du jour, have the ability to win on a broad basis on Super Duper Tuesday?"

GIULIANI: How's His Strategy Looking?

Townhall's Matt Lewis thinks Giuliani is in good shape: "I've been a critic of Rudy's strategy, but the truth is, he really is well-positioned to win a large number of states -- especially if he wins Florida."

John Hawkins agrees that FL is do or die for Giuliani: "Is Rudy done? No. In fact, if he does win Florida, you could see his national numbers surge again and he could conceivably make his whole strategy work exactly as he planned it out. After all, the conservative press has been mercilessly flogging Huckabee for a month and McCain for about a week. So, since Rudy is the middle-of-the-road candidate who has managed to escape criticism, he may benefit from that. However, Florida is a must win state for Rudy. He has bombed in all the previous states and has bet his entire campaign on winning Florida. Given that he has put so much on the line in that state and that his national numbers have dropped so much, Florida is a victory-or-death state for Rudy's campaign."

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat: "Yes, Rudy still has an outside chance in Florida, and yes, so long as he has a chance there he has a chance at the nomination, and yes, the divisions in the field are part of what's keeping him alive. But he isn't ahead in Florida, despite having campaigned exclusively there for weeks, and in every single state where any non-Rudy candidate has campaigned in any significant way, his support hasn't just fallen off, it's absolutely cratered. Until he demonstrates the ability to break this pattern, and poll above ten percent in a race that's actually contested, his chances at the nomination have to be judged slimmer than any of the three men who've actually won one of those gold medals Mitt Romney's always talking about."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Analyzing McCain's Base

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait has a theory:

"One seeming paradox of the Republican race is that voters who most strongly oppose the war in Iraq have been voting for the candidate, John McCain, who's most strongly identified with supporting it. Lots of commentators find this anamolous. [...]

But I don't think it's strange at all. McCain attracts Democrats, Independents, and Republicans with weak partisan attachments. Those are the voters least likely to support the war. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, attracts orthodox partisan Republicans, who also happen to support the war.

Now, is it strange that so many people would be voting on the basis of partisanship rather than the war, which is a huge issue? Not really. I think many voters' position on the war -- certainly most Republican voters -- is a function of their partisanship. They support the war because they support George W. Bush. So of course they're voting on the basis of partisan attachment rather than war policy."

LEST WE FORGET: It's Good To Be In South Carolina

The New Republic's Eve Fairbanks reports:

"Already tired of Hardee's, I stopped to grab lunch today at the Rosewood Market Organic Restaurant in Columbia. Crunchy yuppies are the same everywhere on earth: The Drew's All Natural dressing, the Newman's Own products, the lavender soap, the bulk quinoa. The one difference showed up on the store's magazine rack. There was Outside, Yoga Journal, all the standard fare, including Psychology Today, whose cover featured a pseudo -- 'naked' couple -- with nipples and everything else scandalous cleverly covered up, of course, along the lines of Britney's pose for Bazaar. But even so, on every issue in the store, somebody had lovingly stuck yellow post-it notes over the woman's bust and crotch."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:51 PM

January 16, 2008

1/16: Another Day, Another Winner

The netroots were happy to see Mitt Romney win Michigan's GOP primary, which they contend prevents John McCain from consolidating frontrunner status. They also thought that all three Dem candidates did well during the MSNBC debate in Las Vegas. MyDD's Todd Beeton summarizes the general post-debate reaction in the liberal blogosphere: "No clear winner here and I suspect we won't be talking about this debate being pivotal once the [NV caucus] results come in on Saturday."

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are trying to get a handle on what has become the most topsy-turvy presidential primary in recent memory. Now that the first three states (sorry, Wyoming) have produced three different winners, many conservative bloggers are openly speculating about the possibility of a brokered convention. One thing that conservative bloggers seem to agree on: at this point in the race, everyone is still in it. That may change after this Saturday, when SC voters go to the polls.

GOP FIELD: Chaos Descends

CBN's David Brody: "Folks, if you know who's going to win this nomination you are dreamin'. Three states. Three separate winners."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "What does [Romney's win] mean? 1) There is no such thing as momentum. Three states, three winners. (Sorry Wyoming). 2) [Mike] Huckabee has yet to show he can be successful beyond his core base of religious right voters. 3) No one is out. 4) Voters may want to hear more about the economy and less about what 90% of the GOP primary debate has been about up until now. 5) SC might finally eliminate someone ([Fred] Thompson or Huckabee) but is unlikely to 'decide' it. and 6) It goes to show -- if you wait long enough, all your friends (and opponents) show up in Florida."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Two truths came out of Mitt Romney's big win in Michigan last night. First, Romney can win a hotly-contested state, proving his organizational strength when New Hampshire and Iowa had suggested otherwise. And second, Rudy Giuliani's view that the early states would not matter has largely been vindicated...no one -- no one -- is dead in this race."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Who is the Republican front-runner now? There is none...Giuliani and Thompson haven't won anywhere, and neither is doing all that well in national polling any more. But Giuliani, though not the front-runner, is in better shape tonight as a result of McCain's loss. In the only two primaries to date, Huckabee has failed to clear 10 percent among non-evangelical voters. In the only two primaries to date, McCain has failed to obtain a plurality among Republican voters. In three contests that figure, collectively, to be more favorable for Mitt Romney than any other set, Romney was only able to win one. The next two big races -- South Carolina and Florida -- are in less hospitable territory than New Hampshire and Michigan. Nor does Romney seem especially well-positioned for super Tuesday, Feburary 5."

Several conservative bloggers think a brokered GOP convention is a distinct possibility:

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "A brokered convention keeps looking more likely. Let's say Thompson or Huckabee takes South Carolina and Rudy takes Florida. Suddenly you have a situation on Feb. 5 where Rudy can win the winner-take-all states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut; Thompson or Huckabee takes the South; Romney wins Massachusetts and Utah; McCain wins Arizona and the rest of the states get divided up. Perhaps, at this point, Romney is hoping for a brokered convention. The more cerebral, Beltway logic that prompted the National Review to endorse him -- that he is the best one to preserve the Reagan coalition -- may resonate more among delegates to the convention than among actual voters."

Rubin: "I agree...a brokered convention is a real possibility. These theories usually never work out because SOMEONE has to gain momentum and then everyone else drops out. Not this time."

NRO's Mark Levin: "I never thought a president would be impeached in my lifetime, but [Bill] Clinton was (and should have been). I never thought a president would be elected again without winning the popular vote, but Bush was (and legitimately so). I never thought the continental United States could be struck as it was on September 11, 2001. I have to say -- at least at this point -- that I don't believe it is impossible for the Republican nomination to be settled at the convention. I'm not saying it will, but it can't be completely ruled out."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt, unsurprisingly, thinks Romney is now the frontrunner: "Mitt Romney has now re-established himself as the candidate to beat over the very long campaign."

Michelle Malkin, meanwhile, hasn't found her candidate yet: "I need a man. A man who can say 'No.' A man who rejects Big Nanny government. A man who thinks being president doesn't mean playing Santa Claus. A man who won't panic in the face of economic pain. A man who won't succumb to media-driven sob stories. A man who can look voters, the media, and the Chicken Littles in Congress in the eye and say the three words no one wants to hear in Washington: Suck. It. Up."

GOP FIELD II: No Love For Johnny Mac And Huck

As we've noted before, McCain and Huckabee appear to be the odd men out in both conservative talk radio and the conservative blogosphere:

On his radio show yesterday, Rush Limbaugh issued a warning about McCain and Huckabee: "If either of these two guys get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party, it's going to change it forever, be the end of it. A lot of people aren't going to vote. You watch."

Hugh Hewitt agrees: "As Rush said this morning: A McCain or Huckabee nomination would be a disaster for the GOP because they are not Reagan conservatives. Republicans are now voting in large numbers, and they are voting for the Reagan conservative. There is no reason to believe that John McCain will be able to recapture his New Hampshire moment or Huck his Iowa surprise."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins also thinks a McCain candidacy would be a disaster: "Win or lose, the GOP would pay an enormous price for running a man like John McCain. In fact, having him as nominee would make this into a lose/lose election for conservatives and arguing that we would lose less with John McCain than a Democrat isn't exactly an attractive argument to make to Republicans and Independents in 2008."

ROMNEY: I'm Not A Businessman; I'm A Business, Man!

Most conservative bloggers think Romney won because his economic message resonated with MI voters:

Campaign Standard's Fred Barnes: "Romney defeated John McCain because the economy is emerging as the overriding issue in the 2008 presidential race, and Romney's message on the subject is stronger than McCain's. And Romney is far more comfortable and persuasive in talking about the economy."

NRO's David Frum: "As has been pointed out often today, Michigan faces some of the worst economic troubles in the nation. Romney addressed those problems in a more sustained and detailed way than his main Republican challengers in the state (Huckabee, McCain)."

Ed Morrissey: "Beyond the de rigeur anti-Washington, anti-Establishment nonsense, Romney won by operating from a more optimistic mode than John McCain -- and not just on jobs. McCain came into Michigan thinking that the state would listen to 'straight talk' about how some jobs would not return, about how global warming threatened everyone, and he turned out to be wrong. Romney talked about creating economic conditions that could bring back the jobs and managed not to talk about how the auto industry would have to absorb more government mandates to keep the sky from falling. That made the difference for Michigan."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Mitt Romney is a much better candidate when he talks about business and the economy, and doesn't try to out-conservative everybody. I never bought his conservative schtick, because I don't think he bought it. But when it comes to turning things around, such as an economy, Mitt Romney -- the CEO -- is a strong candidate, indeed."

NRO's Rich Lowry: "This has proved that Mitt doesn't have a 'glass jaw,' and the political adversity has provided the opportunity for him to find a theme -- fighting for the American economy and for jobs. He now has to broaden out the pitch that worked with Michiganders and make it more genuinely national. But the good news is that his campaign is revitalized, with an advantage on the issue of the economy that is probably going to be even more important in weeks ahead."

The Power Line bloggers think Romney needs to emphasize both his business expertise and his social conservatism:

Paul Mirengoff: "For months, there have been rumors of a split within the Romney camp: should he campaign as the savvy businessman/technocrat who can fix the mess in Washington or as a social conservative and the biggest enemy of illegal immigration. Tonight can be viewed as vindication of the former view. However, I've always thought that, as an outsider in the race running against better known candidates, Romney needs to campaign in both ways, with the emphasis shifting from state to state. As the race moves to the South, it will be interesting to see whether Romney continues to ride the fix-it man horse or tilts back towards the other mount."

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Romney needs to show passion, and the topic where passion works best for him is the economy...I don't think Romney needs to do an about-face on the social issues. If he emphasizes his expertise in applying free-market solutions to economic problems, with strong national defense in a close second place, and if he couches whatever comments he makes on the social issues in terms of the only sphere where the President actually impacts them -- the appointment of judges -- he should be able to achieve a subtle shift in the way he presents himself to voters."

Meanwhile, The Atlantic's Ross Douthat gives Romney his due: "Yes, he's a native son, for whatever that's worth. But winning Michigan after two consecutive tough defeats, in the teeth of a press corps that adores John McCain and despises him, and in a state that gave McCain an easy win over George W. Bush in 2000, suggests an impressive resilience -- both in the man and in his campaign -- that will serve him well in what looks like a long hard slog to the convention."

MCAIN: Apparently They Didn't Want Straight Talk

Matt Lewis diagnoses McCain's second-place finish: "I think John McCain's 'straight talk' about jobs not coming back to Michigan has proven to be unwise. Exit polls showed voters cared a lot more about the economy than they did about the terror, the war, etc. Mitt Romney gave Michigan voters optimism and hope; McCain didn't. That was probably the fundamental difference between the two candidates."

NRO's Jim Manzi takes a similar view: "It doesn't seem so shocking that Mitt Romney has apparently won the Michigan Republican primary. Michigan has the one of highest unemployment rates in the U.S., and he put forward a plan to help the state's leading industry. Whatever you think of its merits, it has to more appealing to voters than McCain's approach of 'kinda sucks to be you, but hopefully you'll feel better knowing that you're being sacrificed for the greater good of helping me to feel like I've made a statement about global warming.'"

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "We begin to see what mainline conservative opposition to McCain can look like in later primaries...In two states in a row, John McCain underperformed 2000 -- when he was eventually drubbed by 20 points nationally...as in New Hampshire, McCain did not attain blowout margins among independents and Democrats and their share of the vote plummeted. McCain is no longer the insurgent, but the putative frontrunner and mischief makers from the other side have little incentive to cross over to support him. This cushion that kept him alive in 2000 is no longer there for him in 2008. Though there are some indications he's making up for it in Republican support, that trend was more apparent in New Hampshire than Michigan."

Lewis also makes an interesting observation: "As a candidate, John McCain makes a lousy front-runner, but a very good under-dog. Isn't that sort of a Catch-22???"

HUCKABEE: Loved By Evangelicals, Hated By Cornerites

Huckabee is taking heat from conservative bloggers for his closing statement to MI voters, in which he argued for the need of a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman:

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."

NRO's Lisa Schiffren: "Does Huckabee's God believe in borders? What is God's monetary policy? Is Jesus a capitalist? How much economic disparity will he tolerate? Wouldn't God want us all to have health care? Nice shoes? What about rendering unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, and unto God that which is God's? Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation of church and state. He is the best advertisement ever for the ACLU. Even if you share his ultimate views on the definition of marriage, or the desirability of abortion on demand."

NRO's Andy McCarthy: "Huckabee is made to order for the Left: his rhetoric embodies their heretofore lunatic indictment that we're no better that what we're fighting against. Let's 'amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards'? Who needs to spin when the script speaks for itself? Where has Huck been for the last seven years? Does he not get that our enemies -- the people who want to end our way of life -- believe they are simply imposing God's standards?"

Meanwhile, NRO's Mark Steyn thinks Huckabee's campaign is in trouble: "Huck seems very two weeks ago now. It's obvious he has a base, but he can't build on it."

GIULIANI: Smiling In The Sunshine State?

Ed Morrissey thinks Giuliani's big-state strategy might pay off after all: "Giuliani had gambled that the crowded field and the convoluted schedule made the first, proportional states mostly irrelevant. He figured that no one could build momentum before Super Tuesday, and that it made more sense to focus on the first major winner-take-all state and the 22 Super Tuesday contests instead. And what has happened? No one has won more than a single contested primary or caucus, and the delegates have been spread out across several candidates. If Rudy wins Florida, he gets 57 delegates and vaults into the lead, just as over 20 states head to the primaries and caucuses of Super Tuesday. California and New York have 274 delegates between them, and Rudy is the favorite to win both winner-take-all states, and will win others as well."

Jennifer Rubin agrees: "[SC] could potentially eliminate figuratively or literally either Huckabee or Thompson (or both if McCain wins) but it won't decide the winner. Rudy seems to be in the right place after all."

AmSpec Blog's James G. Poulos disagrees: "Yes, except does anyone really give a damn about Rudy Giuliani anymore? The great weakness in his wait-for-it strategy was that if all the other guys, by choice or necessity, wound up waiting for it too, his essential superfluity would come roaring back into glaring focus. This is exactly what's happening. Outside of Rudy's campaign, whose needs and desires are disappointed by the other guys yet satisfied by Rudy?"

DEBATE CLINTON: Solid, As Usual

Todd Beeton: "[Hillary] Clinton was projecting tough, knowledgeable competence rather than trying to charm us and got some nice digs in at the Republicans along the way. She also made some, I think, effective appeals to hispanic voters. She also benefitted from being aggressive with the poorly enforced time constraints, which [John] Edwards and [Barack] Obama probably should have done more of."

Arianna Huffington: "By focusing on Bush, Clinton was acting like she was already moving on to the type of argument she would be making in the general election. And she reinforced this when she pivoted away from her Democratic opponents and pointed out how all the Republican presidential contenders had aligned themselves with the president on Iraq...Clinton remained on her game for most of the night."

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Obama was likeable and well-intentioned. He just isn't ready in my opinion. He may be one day, but we need someone who is ready now. Hillary impressed tonight as being that person."

Josh Marshall has a slightly different take: "Even Keith Olbermann seemed to agree that Hillary had somehow dominated the debate and treated the other candidates as they were already defeated opponents. I thought she did fine. Don't get me wrong. But that's completely not the debate I saw."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias agrees with Marshall: "Like Josh Marshall, I was a bit confused by MSNBC's rush to proclaim Hillary Clinton the winner. What I think she did was turn in a front-runner's performance. But that's only a win if she's really the front-runner and I don't think that's clear at all."

DEBATE OBAMA: Getting Better All The Time

Todd Beeton: "Obama I thought shined during the second half of the debate, showing the charm he exudes on the stump that is often missing from his debate performances. He spoke particularly eloquently about how he would help minority communities as president and Clinton knew it, which is why she jumped in after he answered."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "While I think Clinton won in the traditional debating criteria, Barack Obama did something bigger tonight -- he really reached out on behalf of the Democratic Party and went the extra yard to put the race brouhaha to bed."

DEBATE EDWARDS: It Takes A Real Man To Admit He Was Wrong

Todd Beeton: "Edwards's strongest moment was when he was drawing distinctions on Iraq. Overall I think he did a good job of projecting himself as the candidate with the clearest views on issues, which can be refreshing when both Clinton and Obama start getting nuanced. Edwards was hurt, however, by twice having to say he regretted votes as Senator."

Chris Bowers thinks differently: "One thing I noticed is that Edwards said, at least three times, that he had changed his mind since many of his earlier Senate votes from 1999-2002. Will that work for voters? Personally, I found it refreshing for a candidate to admit he was wrong in the past, and that the more progressive ideas were right. I guess that is because it is what I have been waiting for many Democrats to say for a long time now."

Ezra Klein: "Edwards seemed unusually subdued. He didn't really have 'a moment.' I think he's better at the standing format, where there's more room for fiery speeches, than the discussion format, where calmer disquisitions on policy do a bit more to elevate your performance."

DEM FIELD: The Laws Of Physics Reassert Themselves

Although HRC suffered a setback in Iowa, there appears to be a growing consensus among liberal bloggers that it's her nomination to lose:

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas links to a string of SurveyUSA polls showing HRC leading in FL, CA, OK, and NY and writes: "It's hard to see a path to the nomination for Obama without California on February 5. Hillary has some pretty comfortable leads in many of the other states that day. He better close that gap or he'll be in a world of hurt that Tuesday night. Obama has got to hope that a strong showing in South Carolina gives him some momentum, while hoping everyone ignores Florida since it has been stripped of its delegates like Michigan for moving up in front of February 5."

Todd Beeton: "Because Obama and Clinton each won the first two contests, momentum has been neutralized as a factor in subsequent states, making on the ground campaigning all the more important. Obama does far better in places where he's able to spend a good amount of time and go up on the air. Where he's not able to campaign, such as in Michigan, Clinton has a built-in advantage. This is what makes Obama's prospects in Florida (where he is prohibited from campaigning) and on February 5th (where he will have to split his time and resources) such an uphill climb. His best (only?) hope is to re-inject momentum into the calculus with wins in Nevada and South Carolina moving into Florida and the February 5th states...it's unclear, even with these two wins, whether Obama can overcome Clinton for what's starting to look like Clinton's nomination to lose, but it's beginning to look like it's the only shot he has."

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "While [NV] isn't a must-win for Obama, it is pretty close to one given that Clinton has re-established a double-digit lead nationally and that Clinton may be creeping up on him in South Carolina. For Edwards, it probably is a must win if he hopes to be more than kingmaker. If Edwards did win, it would be a huge shock, bigger than Clinton in New Hampshire, and change the campaign. Clinton, of course, moves to the brink of victory if she takes Nevada."

In a separate post, Bowers writes: "Basically, barring a surprise Obama win in California, there doesn't seem to be a way to knock Clinton out before the convention at this point. Obama, by contrast, need to rally in Nevada and South Carolina, secure the strong Super Tuesday scenario outlined above, nearly run the table from February 9th through February 19th, and then secure either Ohio or Texas to have a real shot. It is by no means impossible, in fact I think the first three parts of the scenario all have more than a 50% shot (for maybe a 15-20% chance overall, not including March 4th), but the odds still favor Clinton."

CLINTON: Losing The Black Vote?

Liberal bloggers are debating whether the MI exit polls, which indicate that a majority of African-Americans cast their votes for "uncommitted", spell trouble for HRC:

TPM's Josh Marshall: "According to the Fox exit polls, in the Democratic primary tonight, Clinton took 25% of the African-American vote and 'uncommitted' is getting 69% of the African-American vote. Now remember, Hillary is [the] only major candidate on the ballot...There's too much screwy about the Democratic primary in Michigan tonight to draw too much from this; but it is suggestive."

Chris Bowers: "If [Obama] can trounce Clinton among African-Americans without even being on the ballot, it seems that Obama has solidified African-Americans behind him nationwide. If, as Matt suggested yesterday, he can secure the white liberal vote, that would be a winning coalition in the Democratic primary nationwide...Liberals and Latinos are now the swing voters that will determine the Democratic nominee."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Chris Bowers frames these results as a win for Barack Obama, and I can't say that I think he's too far off. If African-Americans in Michigan are overwhelmingly willing to vote for a non-candidate over Clinton -- particularly at a significantly higher rate than White voters -- it's not beyond the realm of imagination that they will have trouble voting at a much higher rate for Obama than for Clinton. While a lot of folks within the Beltway establishment may have chalked up the kerfuffle over past week and a half between the two leading candidates over issues of race as a win for Clinton, at least in the short term it looks like the fracas is having a seriously deleterious effect of Clinton's support among African-Americans."

Digby doesn't think the exit polls mean anything: "Michigan means nothing, good or bad, for Democrats. The people who came out to vote uncommitted were very likely people with very strong feelings about Clinton. The people who came out to vote for Clinton were also very likely people who had very strong feelings about her. SHE WAS THE ONLY ONE OF THE TOP THREE ON THE FRIGGING BALLOT! For all we know, if there had been a real campaign, Edwards would have won. (I suspect he would have...) Some of the uncommitteds even said they'd have voted for Clinton!"

On a somewhat related note, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s former advisor Clarence B. Jones writes a diary on the Huffington Post in which he criticizes the Clinton campaign's attacks on Obama: "Good faith questions about qualifications and experience are always appropriate about a candidate who seeks the nomination of his party to be president. However, gratuitous attacks against Obama or sarcastic paternalism dismissing his 'qualifications' to be President of the United States are offensive and carry a tinge of 'we know what's best for you' racism...The Clinton presidential campaign's apparent blind ambition for power runs the risk of destroying Clinton's reservoir of earned political integrity and affection among black people."

OBAMA: Bloggers Get His Back

The Washington Post's Richard Cohen is taking heat from liberal bloggers for yesterday's column, "Obama's Farrakhan Test." In the column, Cohen notes that the minister of Obama's church, Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., has two daughters who serve as publisher and editor of Trumpet Newsmagazine, which last year hailed Louis Farrakhan as a great man. Cohen writes that Farrakhan "epitomizes racism" and wants to know "Where is [Obama's] sense of outrage?"

TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "Clinton may have laid off Obama, but Richard Cohen picks up the slack with this nasty, racist, and thoroughly contemptible column linking Obama to Louis Farrakhan via Obama's pastor's daughter."

Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "There is no doubt that Louis Farrahkan has a history of making hateful, anti-Semitic remarks. But Barack Obama is not an associate of Mr. Farrakhan, nor has he ever advocated his views, so for Richard Cohen to attempt to connect the two men in the voter's minds is nothing short of equating Obama with every vicious, racial stereotype out there that is used to generate fear and hatred."

The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins: "Displaying the same sort of reasoning that made 'Six Degrees Of Kevin Bacon' such a popular concept for six, even seven, minutes back in the late 1990s, here's how Cohen arrives at the standpoint that Obama has a 'Farrakhan test' to take. Obama worships at the Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. That church's minister, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., also publishes a magazine. That magazine gave Louis Farrakhan an award once. So, ergo, Barack Obama totally hates the Jews."

Author Michael Chabon, also writing in the Huffington Post: "Writing in his regular column for the Washington Post today, Richard Cohen sought to frighten me and every other Jew in America into believing that Barack Obama at worst supports, and at best tacitly approves of, the vile ideology and racialist libels that Louis Farrakhan has variously promulgated over the course of a long and serpentine career....[Cohen] resorts to employing the time-honored strategies (smear and guilt-by-association) and tactics (a false appearance of reasonableness, assumption of unproven conclusions, selective reference to facts not in evidence) employed by the very demagogues and masters of hate whom he is presumably trying to combat."

TPM's Greg Sargent: "It's surprising that Cohen dragged his paper down to this level, particularly in light of the big controversy over WaPo's piece front-paging the Obama Muslim smears without declaring them false. On second thought, maybe it isn't surprising at all."

Matthew Yglesias thinks these bloggers are overreacting: "Cohen's just being a mildly cynical columnist who doesn't want Obama to win the election...it's not as if if Cohen had kept his mouth shut this whole thing was going to go unnoticed and unaddressed for the next ten months. It's political common sense to have your surrogates attack Obama on these grounds and it's common sense for Obama's campaign to have had a perfectly good response up his sleeve."

EDWARDS: The Man And His Message

Open Left's Mike Lux critiques Edwards' message: "I have been thinking a lot about the failure of Edwards' message in this campaign...Edwards' message was one of pure, undistilled anger at the big corporations who are dominating our country's politics: he was angry at those corporations, and he was going to 'fight them,' 'beat them and beat them and beat them some more,' and 'stand up to them.' That message certainly resonates with me, and probably does with most of the OpenLeft.com community. And there is no doubt that Democratic primary voters, and voters in general, are angry at the special interest elites. But it didn't lift Edwards past 19% among first choices [in Iowa]. I think the problem has been that the anger is the only thing that voters were hearing. The lesson of the Edwards failure to me is that anger alone is not enough: that we have to combine the righteous anger we feel with telling people about the new ideas we have."

MyDD's David Mizner, a passionate Edwards supporter, disagrees: "Why did Edwards 'only' finish second in Iowa? Mike Lux -- a Hillary admirer who predicted that Edwards would fade and maybe finish below [Bill] Richardson -- has an answer: he was too angry!...Please read Lux's entire post and tell me if there's any way to conclude that he's not an establishment hack. And think about this post next time the MSM depicts a populist as angry."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Two For The Price Of One?

Campaign Standard's Jonathan V. Last:

"One of the most interesting post-Iowa developments in the Clinton campaign has been watching Bill Clinton take on the traditional role of running mate/hatchet man...

Bill Clinton began taking after Obama in New Hampshire, claiming that the senator had gotten a free ride from the press and that his opposition to Iraq was a fairy tale. After Clinton surrogate Robert Johnson made reference to Obama's drug use this past Sunday, Bill Clinton was rolled out again, this time onto an African-American talk-radio program to defend Johnson's remarks. In the course of his defense, he then attacked the Obama campaign for doing 'overtly racist' opposition research on his wife.

Last night, the former president was on the offensive again in Sparks, Nevada, where he said that Obama was somehow the 'establishment' candidate who could only deliver the 'feeling of change.'

Whatever Hillary Clinton's merits, that doesn't fit with any rational assessment of the election. But having a spouse do much of the heavy-lifting when it comes time to thumping an opponent really is a genuine change in our politics."

LEST WE FORGET: Poor Dennis

The Onion describes a typical day on the campaign trail with Dennis Kucinich:

• 6:45-7:00 a.m.: Unbuckle self from underside of the Straight Talk Express bus
• 7:45-7:50 a.m.: Gaze sympathetically at fly being shooed away from stack of syrup-slathered waffles
• Noon-12:15 p.m.: Break down in tears in truck-stop bathroom, pull self together
• 3:00-3:30 p.m.: Stand in cornfield whispering policy to scarecrow
• 5:15-8:30 p.m.: Drive around South Carolina looking for vegan-friendly restaurant
• 8:45-9:15 p.m.: Pick John Edwards' brain
• 10:30-10:45 p.m.: Drop everything and call campaign headquarters to see if Leno, Letterman, O'Brien, Stewart, or Colbert called

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:50 PM

January 15, 2008

1/15: Can Dems Make Michigan Matter?

It's primary day in Michigan, and the consequences, of course, will be far more momentous for the GOP candidates than for the Dems. With the DNC having stripped the state of its delegates and made the Dem primary virtually meaningless, liberal bloggers like Markos Moulitsas are openly rooting for Mitt Romney to win so that John McCain doesn't consolidate his position as the GOP frontrunner. Moulitsas writes:

"If Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in. And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us."

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are closely watching the race to see if it brings McCain one step closer to the nomination or delivers him a major setback. McCain continues to take incoming fire from a lot of corners (no pun intended) of the conservative blogosphere. While McCain hasn't absorbed quite the level of criticism that Mike Huckabee has, we still wonder how conservative bloggers will react if McCain wins MI and strengthens his grip on the GOP nod.

GOP FIELD: After Last Week, No One Making Predictions

Conservative bloggers are busy discussing the political implications of a McCain victory in MI vs. a Romney victory in MI:

NRO's Mark Hemingway describes the state of the race in MI: "Nobody seems to know anything about what the outcome will be. Just a few days ago polls of the state had McCain up by as much as six, and now Romney is up by about as much. After the fiasco in New Hampshire, no one seems willing to bet the farm on any poll, but there is the sense that Romney has gained some real traction in the state...Then there's the issue of turnout -- there are no reliable turnout models for this election. McCain has been favored largely on the expectation that large numbers of independents and Democrats would turn out to vote for him, since the state has open primaries and because the only major candidate in the Democratic primary is Hillary Clinton...As in prior contests, Romney has more money and a better organization in the state. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, with close polls, Romney's well-funded get-out-the-vote efforts were feared, but they fizzled. While the McCain campaign is certainly hoping lightning will strike three times, but the Romney campaign might have learned something by now from their mistakes. If Romney's GOTV effort is successful and turnout is low, Romney might be looking good."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti describes the potential impact of a Romney win in MI: "Say a combination of a strong showing among Republicans and -- bizarrely -- Democrats influenced by Daily Kos helps Romney win Michigan. The Republican campaign would alter dramatically once again, and chances are by the time that South Carolina and Nevada vote this Saturday Romney would be the national poll leader. Romney would have two gold medals and two silvers. He also would have to spring for a trophy shelf where he could put all the medals he's been collecting. And a split result -- different winners in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan -- would muddy the Republican waters even more, no doubt resulting in a zillion 'Whither the GOP?' newspaper stories and magazine covers."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff describes the potential impact of a McCain win in MI: "A victory [in MI] would make [McCain] the clear front-runner. All other candidates would then have a new incentive to attack him -- the fear that he might coast to the nomination. And South Carolina Republicans, among the most conservative in the country, would have to decide whether to stall McCain's momentum and keep the race wide open. To do so, they would need to unite behind one man. [Fred] Thompson's mini-surge gives him hope that he might be the right man in the right place at the right time."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "If Romney wins, expect McCain to argue Romney just played on home state sympathies and his father's name...If McCain wins, expect Romney to contend it wasn't the GOP voters who decided it but those dastardly Independents and Democrats. How dare they turn out to vote for a Republican! (Well, except in a general election.) If Huckabee wins, everyone will say 'What?!' and then panic that South Carolina could crown Huckabee the nominee."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "A win among Republicans in Michigan today will give Romney a boost, and a loss for McCain overall would be a big blow to the Arizona maverick who is widely disliked among GOP rank-and-file. If McCain can't win in Michigan with Democrats and Independents voting, he should pack up the campaign tent."

NRO's Rich Lowry: "A few weeks ago I said that Romney's campaign was on a knife's edge between the nomination and oblivion. The wonderful -- and scary -- thing for McCain is that his campaign is now in exactly the same spot. Two wins this week and he'll be far-and-away the frontrunner; two losses and his campaign might head toward the abyss."

GOP FIELD II: The Netroots Love Mitt

Many leading liberal bloggers are on board with Markos Moulitsas' "Mitt for Michigan" campaign:

TPM's Josh Marshall: "I don't usually speak out on behalf of particular candidates. But tomorrow is Mitt Romney's rendezvous with destiny in Michigan. So I'd like to encourage all TPM Readers, tomorrow morning, to take a moment of silence to send positive thoughts to Mitt Romney and his Michigan field organization or positive karmic energy by whatever means you're most capable of using. Otherwise, it could be the end of the line for Mitt's march on the White House."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "If Romney can stay alive in Michigan and Rudy takes Florida, the GOP nomination process will be a mess. The GOP convention is in September, which gives the candidate who tacks far enough to the right to win the nod about two months to recover for the general. Very tough to do. Remember if you're in Michigan -- vote Romney!"

Moulitsas: "If we help Romney win Michigan, not only does it damage the most popular Republican's short-term chances, but it also gives the least popular Republican a tainted victory. The end result? More clusterfuckery!"

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias actually prefers Romney to the other GOP candidates: "The constant throughout Romney's career is a cautious, paint-by-numbers approach. He's running as a conservative right now, and that means that if he wins he'll govern as a conservative -- no use hoping for him to morph back into the moderate he was in 1994 or 2002. But that said, it seems very unlikely that he'd roll the dice on some hair-brained scheme if elected. He might do major harm, but I think it's relatively unlikely."

NRO's Jim Geraghty thinks Moulitsas' plan -- if it succeeds -- will only embarrass the MI Dem party: "Democrats have a lot of reasons to vote in their own primary; if significant numbers cross over to play mischief in the Republican one, state organizers of the early primary will have a considerable amount of egg on their faces."

MCCAIN: The Mac Is Under Attack

NRO's Mark Levin continues to unload on McCain: "[McCain's] attack on one industry after another...is harmful to all trade -- especially his McCain-Lieberman bill. His opposition to the Bush tax cuts was harmful as well...McCain's position on health care, which would rob 'Big Pharm' of the value of their patents and promote the importation of drugs from Canada and elsewhere, would have little effect on health care costs and create dislocations in the market...And I haven't even dealt with amnesty for illegal aliens -- the legal, economic, and moral bankruptcy of the McCain-Kennedy position."

NRO's Mark Krikorian doesn't trust McCain on immigration: "McCain claims to have heard the voice of the people, and now ostensibly supports enforcing the border before implementing an amnesty (though I haven't heard him support any other prerequisites, like a functioning, universal work-verification system, 100% deportation of criminals upon completion of their sentences, withholding federal funds from cities defying federal immigration law, etc). Well, not only do immigration hawks not believe his transparently insincere claims to support enforcement, but his allies don't believe him either."

Meanwhile, Rich Lowry is amazed by McCain's rise to the top of the GOP field: "Democrats hit 'pause' on [Barack] Obama in New Hampshire; will Republicans do the same to McCain? Or will he sweep to a commanding position for the nomination in the space of about a week and a half of voting (from NH to Michigan to SC)? It's amazing that he could be so close to the nomination without anyone ever bringing up in the debates or in an ad how he bitterly stomped off from his party after losing to Bush in 2000 and basically joined forces with Senate Democrats for a couple of years. Is this so uninteresting to Republican voters that it doesn't even deserve to be raised by another candidate?"

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey thinks McCain should attend CPAC this year: "I attended CPAC last year (and I will again this year), and we widely criticized John McCain for skipping it. Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Sam Brownback all made time for the biggest collection of grass-roots conservative organizers in 2007. [McCain] could have buried a few hatchets with a one-day bungee visit, but instead pointedly shrugged off the conservative base. That may loom a little large as a bitter memory among the activists who gathered there. He could, of course, drop by this year's CPAC, but it comes after the Super Tuesday primary on February 5th. It could help him rally the base if he manages to win the nomination."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins -- who is no fan of McCain -- notes that McCain outperforms his GOP rivals in head-to-head matchups with the Dem frontrunners: "Although I'm certainly not a fan of John McCain, in the interests of fairness, I do think I should point out that his head-to-head polling numbers vs. Obama and in particular, against Hillary, are really good...at the moment, McCain looks to be several orders of magnitude stronger than the other Republican candidates."

ROMNEY: Going For Gold

Romney's former driver Dean Barnett -- who used to blog at Townhall and who now writes for The Weekly Standard -- defends Romney (while harshly criticizing his campaign strategy) in The New York Times:

"I often marvel at how the public perception of Mr. Romney differs so radically from the man I know. The blame for this lies in the campaign he has run.

Early in the presidential race, Mr. Romney perceived a tactical advantage in becoming the campaign's social conservative. Religious conservatives and other Republicans with socially conservative views found the two early front-runners, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, unacceptable. As someone who shares the beliefs of social conservatives, Mr. Romney saw an opportunity that he could exploit. He made social issues the heart of his candidacy. [...]

Voters perceived the cynicism of a campaign that tried to exploit wedge issues rather than focus on the issues that in truth most interested the candidate. They sensed phoniness. As a consequence, many have grown to feel that Mitt Romney can't be trusted. This lack of trust is now the dominant and perhaps insurmountable obstacle that the Romney campaign faces. [...]

I hope Mr. Romney does well enough in Michigan today that he gets the opportunity to introduce the public to the real Mitt Romney. He is a wonderful and gifted guy. It would be nice if he and his campaign allowed the voters in on that secret."

Townhall's Matt Lewis thinks GOP voter insecurity could benefit Romney in MI: "Granted, this is me playing psychologist, but I think there's a good chance Republican voters are so unhappy and insecure with their choices, they will vote to keep any one candidate from wrapping up the nomination. Mind you, I have no proof of any of this. But it seems to me to be much easier to give a candidate a chance at the nomination (as Iowa and New Hampshire have done for Huckabee and McCain, respectively) than it is to ratify that decision (as McCain is hoping Michigan will do)...As such, voters who are experiencing anxiety will have an easier time pulling the lever for Romney. Voting for Romney only means he stays in the game. But voting for McCain means he has a strong chance of winning the nomination."

RedState's Erick Erickson predicts a win for Romney in MI: "As polls open in Michigan, I'm going to go on and call it. I say Mitt Romney wins Michigan today, which is going to make him extremely competitive going into Super Tuesday. I predict that, not only will he relaunch his campaign, but it'll be themed as 'unleashing the real Mitt Romney.' There'll be a purge of consultants, etc. I take this as anticipating my prediction. Whether the voters really buy it is going to be interesting to watch. BTW, I think a Romney victory today is going to impact John McCain in South Carolina and given an opening for Huckabee and Thompson."

Jim Geraghty has some inside information: "I spoke to my Romney guy. They're not making any predictions, but they feel pretty good about tomorrow. Perhaps the most interesting nugget was the revelation that Team Romney has the potential for a significant margin among those who vote by absentee ballot...He paints the polls as putting his man up among Republicans, running about even among independents, but 'getting creamed' among Democrats who may cross over and vote in the GOP primary."

HUCKABEE: Too Edwardsian?

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez reproduces a Huckabee quote from one of the ex-governor's campaign stops in MI:

"'For those of us for whom summer is not a verb, for those of us who didn't go to fancy boarding schools on the east coast, for those of us who didn't grow up with a silver spoon, who were lucky to have a spoon -- ask those folks and they'll tell you the economy is not doing well for them,' says Huckabee."

Lopez is not pleased: "Governor, I didn't have silver spoons or boarding schools or a verb summer, but I know enough to thank God for the job creators, the natural economic stimulators, capitalism. Is this the Republican primary or a John Edwards rally?"

GIULIANI: Hoping For A Fractured Field

Rich Lowry analyzes Giuliani's strategy:

"We now know two things: 1) No, [Rudy's] national lead wouldn't hold up under the stress of poor showings in the early states. McCain's national surge shows how the best way to boost your national numbers is to win early states; 2) His lead in Florida wouldn't hold up under the stress of those losses either. He is now slightly behind McCain in the RCP average there. But there's one thing we don't know: 3) Will the field stay fractured in precisely the way Rudy needs to try to make a comeback? It won't if McCain wins tomorrow and wins South Carolina. It will if Romney wins tomorrow and if Fred or Huckabee wins South Carolina.

Finally, a lot of people have been awfully hard on Rudy's strategy, but remember: he tried in some of the early states, and especially in New Hampshire and it just didn't work for him. This was the only strategy that was left. As the only option, it's the best option."

THOMPSON: Taking Off In SC?

NRO's Peter Robinson thinks Thompson has momentum in SC: "All eyes are naturally enough on the Michigan primary [today] -- all eyes, that is, except mine, Jonathan Adler's, and those belonging to readers of this happy Corner who have been wondering, along with Jonathan and me, when the polls down in South Carolina would finally begin to move in Fred Thompson's direction. Now, Rasmussen reports, they have. Fred ain't dead. Lately, as the South Carolina debate demonstrated to all the world, he ain't even drowsy."

DEM FIELD: Nevada Polls Should Be Taken With a Large Grain of Salt

Many liberal bloggers don't trust the new Reno Gazette-Journal poll of likely NV caucus-goers:

Markos Moulitsas: "How the heck do you poll 'likely caucus goers' in a state that has never had a presidential caucus this early? It's the reason why other polling outfits have stayed clear. NH was tough enough to poll. An Edwards victory here could be rejuvenating, but his problem here is still money. He doesn't have the funds to capitalize on any momentum in the big, expensive, February 5th states. I'll eat crow if I blow this call, but I'm not too worried that my vegetarianism is in any danger."

MyDD's desmoulins: "I'm still very skeptical that anyone knows who will turnout Saturday so horse-race polling is not really worth the effort...Still, this confirms to me that a) Obama has gotten a big media hit out of the endorsements, which may or may not translate into votes on Saturday (more on turnout in a future posting) and b) Edwards still enjoys a high degree of support, though how well that will translate into delegates given the shoestring budget is hard to predict."

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "I think the results of the Research 2000 poll (O 32%, C 30%, E 27%) that came out today is even more significant than first thought. While Mason-Dixon showed a close campaign in Nevada well before Iowa (Clinton only led 34%--26% in their most recent poll), the previous Research 2000 poll from mid-November has shown Clinton ahead 45%-20%-12%. While there is good reason to doubt all primary polling after New Hampshire, and good reason to doubt a new frontier like the Nevada caucus in particular, it now seems likely to me that Obama is ahead in Nevada."

However, Bowers still thinks HRC is the frontrunner for the nomination: "An Edwards Nevada win would be a shocker that would really shake the campaign up. An Obama Nevada win would probably lead to a comfortable South Carolina win, making the national campaign a dead heat entering Super Tuesday. Basically, keeping the campaigns close requires the next four states to each take the frontrunners, Clinton and McCain, down a couple of pegs."

Meanwhile, MyDD's Jerome Armstrong notes that HRC has a 16-point lead in the new LA Times/CNN/Politico poll of CA LVs: "Clinton's lead is pretty strong; coupled with an expected Florida pick-up, where Clinton is polling ahead of Obama by 21% (52-31-9), it makes South Carolina pivotal for Obama to re-gain momentum. Edwards needs a miracle on the LV strip to happen."

CLINTON: Inquiring Minds Want To Know

Liberal bloggers are debating whether or not the Clinton campaign deliberately forced a conversation about race:

Ezra Klein thinks so:

"I think there's now enough evidence to glean the outline of the strategy. In just the last month or two, you've had Clinton's New Hampshire co-chair, Bill Shaheen, bring up Obama's drug use (a highly racially charged subject, of course), and you've had BET Founder Bob Johnson allude to the same...it's hard to imagine this many sophisticated, liberal political operators making this many mistakes, of this type. Not saying it's impossible, merely hard to imagine. And so it's worth wondering if there's not a coordinated strategy among the Clintons to force a conversation over race. Not a conversation that will be harmful to Obama -- the Clintons have, after all, had to spend a fair amount of time apologizing, and clarifying -- but a conversation that will be harmful to his message. If Obama has to spend a lot of time talking about race, it's hard for him to be the post-racial candidate. If he has to spend a lot of time on divisive topics, it's hard for him to make an appeal for unity. And if he gets thrown off message at this point in the campaign, it will be exceedingly hard for him to blunt Clinton's momentum. And, whether it's a coordinated strategy on the part of the Clintons or not, it's definitely what's happening."

Matthew Yglesias agrees: "[HRC's] campaign's strategy seems to be to taunt Obama and his supporters into calling her and her campaign a bunch of racists, and then because [white] people outnumber [black] people she wins an election that's all about race. It's cynical as hell, and I don't want to be a part of it. Now Bill Clinton's on the radio whining that Obama called Hillary a racist when Obama never did any such thing. Nor will I call her one, it's a red herring that Clinton's people have injected into the campaign instead of trying to make a stronger affirmative case for their candidate."

Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "There is no doubt now that the Clinton campaign has decided to make a major campaign issue of Obama's decades-old personal behavior...first you had Billy Shaheen basically calling Obama a drug dealer. Then Mark Penn sleazily dropping the c-word on 'Hardball.' Now Johnson. This is obviously not a series of accidents. This is the strategy. Here's the irony: by making Obama's personal life a campaign issue, the Clintons are giving aid and comfort to the Richard Mellon Scaifes of the world, who for years have played the same dirty game. And in doing so, Bill and Hillary are spitting right in the face of those of us who defended them against those tactics. Every Democrat who has for 16 years insisted that personal behavior has no place in political debate is now made a fool. Unforgivable."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "For the most part, it strikes me that each of the individual offenses has been blown out of proportion...But as I told my correspondent on Saturday, 'it's unquestionably a helluva coincidence that they all popped up at once.' And that was before Sunday's odious (and non-disavowed) attack from BET Founder Robert Johnson...All I can say is: from where I sit this looks both deliberate and revolting. Another few days of comments like the ones we've seen over the past week and my mind will be firmly made up about who to vote for. And it won't be Hillary."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis is simultaneously disgusted and impressed by what he perceives as the cleverness of the Clintons' strategy: "While I'm divided on Hillary's harsh tactics against Obama in the primaries, that kind of take-no-prisoners politics is exactly what we need, and often lack, in the general election. I'm just not sure I like to see it done against fellow Democrats. Take the recent spate of subtle, many would say racially-tinged, knocks the Clinton camp has been throwing at Obama...The way the Clinton campaign has framed these issues, and the debate surrounding them, if Obama engages in a tit-for-tat with Hillary, all he will do is remind people that he's black (by saying 'no my campaign is NOT about race' Obama is still talking about race while saying he's not), and he'll be reminding people, or educating them for the first time, that he dallied with drugs as a kid (e.g., 'Hillary should stop the personal attacks about my youthful drug use') -- it's simply impossible to respond to Clinton's attacks, and denials, without further the discussion about the very topics Obama doesn't want us to talk about."

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen doesn't know whether the racially-charged comments are part of a coordinated campaign strategy or not: "Are comments with racial subtexts harmless incidents that are being blown out of proportion, or are they part of a deliberate, divisive campaign strategy? Are the incidents that have drawn attention random, unrelated data points, or part of a calculated strategy?...In the big picture, there certainly are a lot of these incidents, but whether it's part of a pattern or not is, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder. I'd just add this: the sooner we get past this, the sooner it will be for the candidates, the campaigns, and the party."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat agrees with Benen: "Whether there was any intentional campaign work on the issue of race by the Obama and Clinton camps in the past few days, it is clear that any further skirmishing on this issue is counterproductive to both [sic] and to the Democratic Party. If there was strategy behind the efforts of anyone, it behooves them -- and US -- as Democrats, to leave this ugly interlude behind us. The evidence for the claiming of race exploitation as a deliberate campaign strategy by either Clinton and/or Obama is sketchy at best. We can never know for sure if one or either did this. And sheer speculation by them and us is not helpful to either candidacy and to the Democratic Party."

Chris Bowers doesn't see a deliberate strategy on the part of the Clinton campaign: "Functionally, I agree that the result of this exchange is a win for the Clinton campaign...However, I just don't see some sort of group decision-making process behind the varied comments by Shaheen, Cuomo, Johnson, both Clintons, or the Nevada NEA. Not only do I seriously doubt these people all got together and discussed strategy on this matter, but no campaign is so powerful and well-organized as to not only have a wide array of surrogates on message, but to have them so perfectly on message that even a series of off-hand remarks actually fit into some greater message plan. Further, as far as trying to pin this on the Obama campaign and refusing to apologize for any remarks, that just seems like classic Clinton behavior more than anything else, since they generally refuse to apologize for anything at all. In other words, I'll go with Josh Marshall's second option, 'that the Clinton campaign is extraordinarily unlucky and continually finds its surrogates stumbling on to racially-charged or denigrating language when discussing Obama.'"

Meanwhile, Jane Hamsher wants unity: "I frankly don't see how we win the next election without both Clinton and Obama on the ticket in some order. If the antagonism we see online is any evidence, coming together again as a party without it is going to be awfully difficult...It certainly would be an unbeatable and historic combination, ushering in an era where we can hopefully begin to talk about these things. And after the damage that their mutual mud slinging contest has done to any kind of future coalition, the onus may be on them to suck it up for the good of the country."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why McCain's Winning

Patrick Ruffini analyzes McCain's surge in national polls:

"Why this dramatic movement? Because McCain has won, and in politics, you win by winning not retreating. Winning or exceeding expectations in primaries is seen as a proxy for victory in the fall. This is why [John] Kerry was seen as the most 'electable' when Edwards was in point of fact the most electable. Ditto for Bush-McCain in '00.

McCain is now aggregating two-thirds to three-quarters of the McCain-Rudy bloc, inverting polling from most of the year. Either's path to the nomination was always going to mean disqualifying the other. McCain is doing it. [...]

McCain is sitting pretty right now because the 'conservative alternative' represents maybe half the movement. This is not a diss on social conservatives taking their place as leaders in the party. In fact, the Huck strategy is working out better than the Rudy strategy of trying to do it just with economic conservatives. Never before has there been a clearer need for a candidate authentically conservative on both social and economic issues. The trouble is that we don't have a candidate like that who satisfies the 'who can win' (in the primary) requirement right now.

What would it take for McCain to lose this lead? A lot more than it would have taken a week ago. Team Romney has taken solace in a series of Michigan polls showing them ahead. The problem is that Michigan will not inspire the wall-to-wall coverage of IA/NH, so there's not as big a bounce to be had. Knocking McCain back down to earth would probably take a series of disappointing second or thirds in Michigan, in South Carolina, and in Florida. And even then, it will be at the hands of different winners, so it's not clear who get momentum at his expense."

LEST WE FORGET: The Politics of Sex

In case you missed it, Playboy magazine conducted a nationwide survey on the "politics of sex." Political Wire's Taegan Goddard lists some of the key findings:

• More people under 40 have sex at least once a week than vote for president once every four years.
• 25% of all Republicans and 35% of all Democrats have had more than 10 sexual partners in their lifetime -- a higher percentage than vote in congressional and local elections.
• 55% of Republicans have sex at least once a week, compared with just 43% of Democrats.
• 14% of Thompson supporters and 12% of Obama supporters claim to have sex "almost every day." Just 5% of Clinton and Giuliani supporters have sex that frequently.
• 58% of respondents think Bill Clinton was the sexiest president of the past 40 years; Ronald Reagan is second, with 22%.
• 38% say Richard Nixon was the least sexy; Bill Clinton is second, with 18%.
• 23% of all Republicans and 24 percent of all Democrats would "definitely" or "probably" say yes to a one-night stand in the Oval Office with a president they found physically and sexually attractive.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:57 PM

January 14, 2008

1/14: It's Gettin' Hot In Herre

To say that Hillary Clinton had a rough weekend in the liberal blogosphere would be an understatement. First, the Clintons' argument that Barack Obama has not consistently opposed the Iraq War -- which Bill Clinton made on Al Sharpton's radio show and which HRC made on Meet The Press -- did not gain any traction in the liberal blogosphere. If anything, it spurred a backlash among liberal bloggers -- several of whom defended Obama, but most of whom took the opportunity to criticize the Clintons' own record on Iraq. Liberal bloggers were also disappointed and angered by news that the Nevada Teachers' Union (whose top members are backing HRC) filed a lawsuit that could make it harder for the (ostensibly) pro-Obama culinary union workers to participate in the NV caucus. Several bloggers called on the Clinton campaign to disavow the lawsuit, which they view as a blatant attempt to disenfranchise voters.

However, the strongest backlash came when BET founder Bob Johnson raised the specter of Obama's past drug use while campaigning with HRC in SC. Johnson's comments drew widespread condemnation from liberal bloggers -- just as Billy Shaheen's and Bob Kerrey's comments did last month.

Some Democrats are worrying that the increasingly nasty Clinton-Obama battle -- with its distinct racial and gender undertones -- will cause lasting damage to whichever candidate emerges as the nominee. Will these acrimonious divisions manifest themselves in the liberal blogosphere? Or will the netroots enthusiastically unite behind the Dem nominee, as Chris Bowers predicted?

CLINTON: Race Matters

Racial tensions continued to roil the Dem race this weekend, as the Clinton campaign denied allegations that it was using a race-baiting strategy against Obama and accused Obama of fueling the controversy. The acrimonious back-and-forth reaching a head when BET founder Bob Johnson (who was campaigning alongside HRC in SC) said:

"And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood -- and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book -- when they have been involved."

Johnson's words surprised and disappointed liberal bloggers:

TPM's Josh Marshall: "We seem to be at the point where there are now two credible possibilities. One is that the Clinton campaign is intentionally pursuing a strategy of using surrogates to hit Obama with racially-charged language or with charges that while not directly tied to race nonetheless play to stereotypes about black men. The other possibility is that the Clinton campaign is extraordinarily unlucky and continually finds its surrogates stumbling on to racially-charged or denigrating language when discussing Obama. Bob Johnson's claim that he wasn't referring to Obama's admitted youthful drug use is too silly to even repeat. Indeed, the logic of his remarks make no sense if he was referring to Obama's time as a community organizer...The pretty obvious aim of Johnson remark was to push an image of Obama as some sort of street hustler."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Either the Clinton campaign thinks Hillary Clinton can continue to distance herself from pathetic dog whistle attacks on Obama by her surrogates, or her surrogates really are severely lacking in message discipline. Whichever is the case, neither speaks terribly highly of the Clinton campaign."

Blue Hampshire's Dean Barker: "I'm really losing my patience with Hillary Clinton. And I've decided to stop calling the pattern of low-ball attacks as coming from 'Team Clinton.' The campaign buck stops with the candidate...I'm ashamed to be a Democrat right now. And no, once we have a nominee, that does not guarantee that we'll all come together and say 'bygones.' A depressed and unenthusiastic base will guarantee President [John] McCain."

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "This is really ridiculous...Andrew Cuomo said that Obama can't 'suck and jive' at a press conference, Bob Kerrey made a Madrassa smear, Billy Shaheen brought up Obama's cocaine use , and a Clinton Iowa county coordinator forwarded right-wing hate emails about Obama being a Muslim. Does that make Clinton a racist? No. Does it mean that at least some of her generational cohorts carry around with them prejudice? Yes. It's not even possible to dispute this."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Bill Shaheen quite rightly payed the price for implying Obama was a drug dealer...Laundering arguments you don't want to make yourself through surrogates and hoping you don't have to take responsibility for them should not be an option available to candidates this time around."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "I hate to be constantly harping on Hillary because I'll be happy regardless of who gets the nomination on our side (and I still harbor concerns about how well Obama will fight back against the GOP machine in the general election). But. I have a hard time watching the Clinton folks beat the crap out of Obama with personal attacks, then deny it...I'm really astounded that the Clinton people are interested in dredging up dirty laundry about Obama because there's an awful lot of dirty laundry to go around, some of it fresh."

The New Republic's Noam Scheiber: "On Friday I said that, if you were cynical, you could argue that the Clintons have an interest in polarizing the nomination fight along racial lines -- the idea being that, even if it hurts them in the short-term (with African Americans in South Carolina), Obama can't win if he becomes the 'black candidate,' which is what racial polarization accomplishes. Well, I no longer think you have to be cynical to make that argument. This is just despicable stuff."

Meanwhile, Open Left's Chris Bowers is disgusted that the Dem primary has degenerated into a battle of identity politics: "The problem I face is that it now seems to me that Clinton is positioned for victory in the Democratic primary because, as it is presently constructed, the identity politics coalitions within the Democratic primary electorate favor her. She has women, older voters, and lower income voters who are not African-American. Even though I had assumed otherwise, right now, it seems like that coalition can win a national Democratic primary against a coalition of African-Americans, young voters, seculars, and high education voters. As someone who falls primarily within the latter coalition, I admit it doesn't feel good when the identity politics are stacked against you."

Stoller takes a similar view: "If the contest is ideological, Obama wins. If it is based on ethnicity and gender, Clinton has a bigger coalition. The exit polling in New Hampshire on Iraq war is clear proof that substantive distinctions on major issues isn't how the electorate in the traditional coalition blocks are making decisions. Those who want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq went for Clinton, while those who want to keep troops in Iraq or to bring them home gradually went for Obama (or to a lesser extent, [John] Edwards). Not only has Clinton not paid for her vote on Iraq and her generally hawkish posture, but Democrats actually think she is the most liberal on Iraq. This is precisely the opposite of what elites like Matthew Yglesias believe. This misinformation also clearly breaks Obama's ideologically victorious Iowa coalition into pieces Clinton can pick off."

CLINTON II: Maybe Not The Best Subject To Bring Up...

This weekend, the Clintons sought to undermine Obama's claim that he had always opposed the Iraq War. First, Bill Clinton made the argument on Al Sharpton's radio show, and then HRC made the argument on Meet The Press. Most liberal bloggers are either siding with Obama or using the opportunity to criticize the Clintons for their own words and actions regarding Iraq.

TPM's Greg Sargent defends Obama: "Bill pointed out that [in 2004], Obama said that he could not say how he would have voted on the war had he been in the Senate himself in the run-up to the invasion. Bill has repeatedly pointed to this quote to cast doubt on Obama's anti-war bona fides, and it's become part of the conversation of Campaign 2008. Obama defended himself against this criticism a few days ago, recalling that at the time he didn't want to criticize the war votes of John Kerry and John Edwards in the middle of the 2004 presidential campaign...As it happens, Obama is right...clearly, Obama was pointing to the fact that he wasn't in the Senate at the time as a way of tactfully avoiding criticizing his party's presidential and vice-presidential nominees. It's perfectly clear that Obama was in fact against the war at the time. His position then -- as now -- was that the case for war had not been made and that the invasion wasn't justified."

Matt Stoller agrees with Sargent: "Bill Clinton has repeatedly questioned whether Obama was against the war at the time of the war vote, despite obvious evidence that he was."

Jane Hamsher: "I hope nobody lets Clinton get away with the war argument she made on MTP this morning...Is she really trying to say that she and Obama have identical voting records on the war, but it was okay for her to vote for funding because she supported it and he didn't? Because I really can't figure out any other way to read that."

Ezra Klein: "On one level, [HRC's claim] is true. Barack Obama did not step into the Senate and seek leadership in the anti-war movement...But on another, it's deeply misleading. It's a 'Meet the Press' attack. The issue isn't the issue -- about which Obama was correct -- it's his consistency on the issue. Barack Obama was right on Iraq, and Hillary Clinton was wrong. Obama could have made a couple more speeches, but there really wasn't much he could do to divert the course of the war as a lone Senator. By contrast, there was very much Hillary Clinton, and her husband, could have done to divert the war -- and all it would have taken was exactly what Obama did."

Chris Bowers: "Hillary Clinton has been fundamentally dishonest about Iraq with Democrats during virtually this entire campaign, both by repeatedly claiming that she didn't vote for the war in late 2002 and then claiming for a long time that she would end the war even though her Iraq plans will leave thousands, even tens of thousands, of troops in Iraq...however, it seemingly has not resonated much with the Democratic electorate, because identity is all that matters in the electorate, too. Clinton still leads nationwide."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I think it's valid to say that other considerations might outweigh this one, but I have to say that it really rankles that the Clintons seem unwilling to even acknowledge what happened -- that there was a debate [about Iraq] and they took one side of it, and other politicians took the other side -- and take responsibility for it."

CLINTON III: Battle of the Unions

Following the Nevada Culinary Workers' Union endorsement of Obama, the Nevada Teachers' Union (whose top members are backing HRC) filed a lawsuit that could make it harder for culinary union workers to participate in the NV caucus. Liberal bloggers reacted to the lawsuit with anger and dismay.

Matt Stoller: "It is really disgusting to see anyone try to disenfranchise anyone else, but for a Democratic-leaning union to do so in a primary against hotel and casino workers on socioeconomic grounds is particularly revolting. I hope the Clinton campaign works to help defeat this lawsuit, because no Democrat should stand for this kind of bullshit. Right now, the Clinton campaign appears noncommittal on the lawsuit. Disenfranchising Democrats has been a long-standing tactic of many conservative organizations and Republican campaigns. If we don't fight against it when it happens in our own party, our efforts to prevent it in general elections become all the weaker. Shame, shame on the NEA, and cheers to anyone who meaningfully fights against this lawsuit."

Daily Kos' MissLaura: "It's really sad to see one union going after another, but that's what's happening...whatever the legitimacy of their concerns, the timing is shameful."

MyDD's desmoulins: "[This] does not reflect well on the state, the Democratic party, or the Clinton campaign."

Steve Benen: "This is very disappointing. We're Democrats -- don't we want to make it easier for people (especially union members and minorities) to vote? Indeed, the closer one looks at this, the worse it appears."

AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "We've come to expect Republicans to use various tactics to prevent voters from participating in the electoral process. But, in Nevada, it's pro-Democratic groups that are trying to stop voters from participating...There is an ugliness brewing in the Democratic campaign that's not good. Disenfranchisement should never, ever be part of any campaign operation."

Reno and Its Discontents' Myrna the Minx: "Not only is all of this making the Nevada Caucus like about as ridiculous as many in Iowa and New Hampshire speculated it would when Nevada's caucus was announced last year, it's making the Clinton campaign look exceedingly heavy handed and petty whether they are actually behind the law suit or not."

OBAMA: Why All The Endorsements?

In the past week, a string of politicians (Sen. Tim Johnson, Sen. Ben Nelson, Sen. Claire McCaskill, Sen. John Kerry, Rep. George Miller, and AZ Gov. Janet Napolitano) endorsed Obama. The number and timing of these endorsements have surprised several liberal bloggers:

Josh Marshall: "This string of endorsements Obama has picked up since his narrow defeat in New Hampshire four days ago is, I believe, a major story that has not gotten the attention it deserves...You don't hit a big time politician like Hillary Clinton when she's down unless you're really against her and you're fairly confident she's not getting back up. After winning in New Hampshire, albeit narrowly and after the clobbering in Iowa, there's been a sense that Clinton may be back on track to consolidating her frontrunner status and perhaps following a modified version of the standard script in which the anointed frontrunner gets a scare in the early states before mopping up the competition as the race goes national. But these [politicians] clearly don't want that to happen. In fact, they're sticking their necks pretty far out to help make it not happen. And their endorsements, coming right now, tell me they have some confidence it won't."

Matthew Yglesias: "Hillary Clinton still obviously has the overall endorsements leader, as the establishment candidate is bound to, but the recent high-profile endorsements have all tilted Obama's way. I have to say that I don't totally understand why that is. You would have thought this would have come after Iowa as people try to jump on the apparently victorious bandwagon. It's true that Obama's odds look better than they did in, say, November but I think you'd have to say that Clinton is the favorite to win so Obama's endorses are taking risks and politicians aren't normally big risk takers."

Matt Stoller: "Why are risk-averse red state and swing state politicians getting on the Obama bandwagon if Clinton is the one perceived as having the strong advantage right now? There are many possible reasons, and I can't figure it out."

Obsidian Wings' publius has a theory: "My take is that these endorsements stem not so much from love for Obama, but from a perceived political need to distance themselves from Clinton in their home states. Admittedly, Clinton (both Clintons) have been unfairly tarred and maligned over the years. Thus, much of the animosity towards the Clintons is undeserved. But it's there. The truth is that Clinton will be a drag to Dem candidates in purple to red areas. She will be on the ticket everywhere because the GOP will put her front and center...even if it's unfair, Clinton will be a political liability in these states, as evidenced by these endorsements."

MCCAIN: A Conservative Nightmare?

With the latest CNN/Opinion Research national poll showing McCain surging, conservative bloggers are ratcheting up their attacks on the AZ senator:

Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "McCain supports amnesty for illegal aliens, was behind the Gang of 14, is a gun grabber, opposed the Bush tax cuts, ran roughshod over the Constitution with McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, opposes a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, was rumored to be considering switching parties multiple times, talked with John Kerry about being his Vice-President, lines up with the global warming alarmists, wants to close Gitmo, wants to coddle captured terrorists -- you can go on and on with this...In other words, we're talking about a man who could fairly be called a Rockefeller Republican, a Country Club Republican, a RINO, or just a toweringly arrogant, out of touch D.C. insider who seems to assume that any position he takes is right solely because he happens to hold it. However, what John McCain cannot fairly be called is a conservative."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "A GOP vote for McCain is a vote for a shattered base and a desultory campaign in the fall. It is a vote for lecture after lecture on global warming, campaign finance reform, and the bridge to nowhere. It is a vote for an old warrior way past his prime and the prospect of three debates against Barack Obama in which the age and energy gap goes unremarked upon while devastatingly obvious."

NRO's Mark Levin: "There's a reason some of John McCain's conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks. The McCain domestic record is a disaster."

NRO's Mark Steyn: "John McCain demonizes Big Pharma -- i.e., the private pharmaceutical companies that create, develop, and manufacture the drugs that all these socialized health-care systems in every corner of the planet are utterly dependent on. He voted for Sarbanes-Oxley, a quintessential congressional overreaction (to Enron) that buries American companies in wasteful paperwork and hands huge advantages to stock exchanges in London, Hong Kong, and elsewhere...McCain is also gung ho for all the most economically disruptive Big Government solutions to 'climate change'...McCain has an almost Edwardsian contempt for capitalism, for the people whose wit and innovation generate the revenue that pay for your average small-state senator's retinue of staffers worthy of a Persian Gulf emir."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "John McCain has been stalwart on the surge in Iraq. We owe him for that -- he was the D.C. leader articulating what the White House often didn't. But as important as it was and is, the surge isn't the sum-total of U.S. defense policy...Neither is the surge policy the sum-total of John McCain...when considering settling on a Republican nominee, conservatives need to consider the sum-total of a candidate. And when you look through John McCain's record -- and policies he advocates/leads on to this day -- there's plenty to disagree with."

Meanwhile, Townhall's Patrick Ruffini calls McCain "a tax-loving, free speech-crushing, amnesty-awarding, big government Republican nominee."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff reacts to Hugh Hewitt's interview with ex-Sen. Rick Santorum, in which Santorum excoriates McCain: "Santorum, whose conservative credentials are beyond question, makes a strong case against McCain on a number of issues near-and-dear to mainstream conservatives, and I have little doubt that a President McCain would infuriate such conservatives on more than rare occasions...Santorum complains that the MSM is building up McCain. That is true and it may even help account for his popularity. It's also likely that, if McCain becomes the Republican nominee, substantial elements of the MSM will turn on him. But McCain is a national hero whose political independence is beyond dispute (it's that independence that annoys Santorum and, to a lesser extent, me). The MSM may be able to chip at the edges of McCain's image, but lacks the ability, in my view, to tarnish it significantly. This will be particularly true as long as events in Iraq continue to validiate McCain on the surge."

THOMPSON: Making His Last Stand

Fred Thompson's strong debate performance on Thursday night has heartened his online supporters:

John Hawkins: "Fred Thompson has it all. He has conservative cred. He has experience. He can communicate. He gives journalists the respect they deserve. But there's more. A president has to have a certain je ne sais quoi. Fred has it. He's middle American. He has the slight lilt. He comes across as real. He's likable. Guys can imagine going out for a beer with him. Girls dig him."

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "In a day and age when we are facing exceedingly difficult challenges, having the smartest man in town armed with the smartest belief system in history is a winning combination. I have said it before. I shall say it again: Fred Thompson for President."

ROMNEY: Dead Man Walking?

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein thinks Mitt Romneymust win MI tomorrow, but he doesn't know if that will be enough to save the ex-governor's campaign: "From the beginning of the year, Romney has always lagged badly in national polls, in national likeability surveys, and in terms of national name recognition. Therefore, the strategy for winning the nomination was always to run the table in the early states, and use the momentum and earned media to surpass his rivals nationally on Feb. 5. I don't see how a win in Michigan will be enough to make up for his disadvantages over other candidates nationwide."

RedState's Erick Erickson explains his distaste for Romney: "Any position you can think of today held by Mitt Romney probably has a related sound bite of Mitt Romney saying exactly the opposite within the past five years. I am willing to suspend belief and believe that Mitt Romney's conversion to conservatism was sincere and not politically expedient. He did, after all, run as a Republican in Massachusetts and he won (of course it was as a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, anti-Bush tax cut, indifferent to Reagan New England Republican). Nonetheless, I have a hard time seeing why we should hand the reins over to a new convert to conservatism. He has not yet had time in the wilderness through good and bad to make sure he has necessary fidelity to our core beliefs. I have deep concerns that when it becomes politically expedient for him to do so, he will sell us all down the river."

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin is not sympathetic to reports that Romney choked up while talking about his late father: "Look, I hate to sound harsh, but we live in a time of war. If the Democrats want to nominate a 9/10-era candidate whose eyes leak like a faucet whenever push comes to shove, fine. But Republicans do not need an Oprah in a three-piece suit."

HUCKABEE: Your Daily Dose of Huckabashing

Mark Steyn: "In a [Mike] Huckabee administration, nothing is certain but hope and taxes."

Mark Levin: "Huckabee continues to use his faith as a weapon against those who question not his faith, but his political populism -- much of which he shares with secular progressives. And he is clearly hoping to stir up resentment among Evangelical Christians against the other elements of the conservative movement and Republican Party as a way of encouraging them to vote in the caucuses and primaries. This is a tactic right out of Saul Alinsky's playbook...This is why I find Mike Huckabee's tactics and candidacy so deplorable."

NRO's Jim Geraghty may disagree with some of Huckabee's views, but he still wants the charismatic ex-governor in the GOP: "I have my gripes with Huckabee, but when this show is over, I don't want him to wrap up his tent and go home. The man's a fighter, a communicator, and a silver-tongued persuader -- skills the Republican Party doesn't exactly have a surplus of these days."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: More Than A Snowball's Chance?

NRO's John J. Miller thinks tomorrow's weather forecast in MI could benefit Romney:

"It's supposed to snow all over Michigan tomorrow. Not a major storm -- just accumulations of a couple of inches. But it may be good for Romney: He's doing better among people who already have sent in absentee ballots than among late deciders, who may be breaking for McCain. Also, his stronghold is the metro Detroit area; in Grand Rapids and other outstate areas, where the weather often is more severe and the areas more rural, McCain and Huckabee do well. Finally, Michigan has an open primary, meaning that McCain could benefit from Democrats who cross over -- but in crummy weather, only the most motivated Democrats will turn out. In 1990, bad weather helped elect John Engler as governor -- he was an upset winner, and almost certainly benefited from a low turnout."

LEST WE FORGET: Dating The Enemy

Radar's Neel Shah writes:

"'Which candidate's daughter recently went on a date with an ardent Ron Paul supporter?' wonders gossip Ben Widdicombe today. 'The date became all about him trying to convince her about Paul,' laughs a friend. 'Finally she said, "You know my dad's running for president. You're not going to change my mind!"'

Well, let's see: 25-year-old Sarah Huckabee is working her fingers to the bone as a field director for her dad, and doesn't seem to have time for frivolous extracurriculars. Chelsea Clinton is taken. So is Harvard Law student and former Vanity Fair intern Cate Edwards (she dates a Republican, but still). Which leaves Meghan McCain, the leggy, bloggy, eyeliner-overdosing blonde daughter of surprise New Hampshire victor John McCain.

The 23-year-old Columbia grad has publicly called Barack Obama 'cute', so she's clearly not above flirting with the enemy. She's also open about her love life! 'Everybody Googles everybody when they go on a date with them,' McCain has said. At least she knew what she was getting into."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:11 PM

January 11, 2008

1/11: Fred Roars Back To Life

Fred Thompson is the talk of the conservative blogosphere today thanks to his strong performance at last night's Fox News debate. Bloggers are calling Thompson's performance "powerful," "commanding," and "effective." They also love the fact that he repeatedly slammed Mike Huckabee -- who, as we've noted on multiple occasions -- is widely distrusted in the conservative blogosphere. NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez has bittersweet feelings about Thompson's performance: "Okay, where has this Fred Thompson been for the last year?...This is the man who people wanted to draft. This is the conservative guy conservatives are attracted to."

That said, many conservative bloggers are questioning why Thompson chose to direct most of his fire at Huckabee instead of his other SC rival, John McCain. Several bloggers think that by cutting into Huckabee's support among conservatives in SC, Thompson is only clearing McCain's path to the nomination. NRO's Rich Lowry writes:

"Fred can eat into Huck's support in SC, but can he beat McCain? Does he want to? Or to put it more precisely, does he want to do the things necessary to do it? I wonder. All of this is lining up beautifully for McCain, and [last night's debate] is just another indication of that."

THOMPSON: Better Late Than Never?

Conservative bloggers loved Thompson's debate performance:

RedState's Erick Erickson: "Fred Thompson owned this debate. He owned it. He dominated."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Who put the vitamins in Fred Thompson's oatmeal? We have waited for Thompson to show up on the campaign trail, and tonight he finally did. He had energy, focus, a command of detail, and a willingness to finally engage with the other candidates on the stage. He took almost everyone else aback, and seized momentum that he only occasionally relinquished."

Campaign Standard's Stephen F. Hayes: "Clear winner? Fred Thompson. He was commanding, funny, articulate. His rat-a-tat-tat answer deconstructing Mike Huckabee's record was incredibly e