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 January 24, 2008 01:15 PM