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."