February 29, 2008

2/29: The Counterattack

We observed yesterday that liberal bloggers are circling their wagons around Barack Obama in order to push back against what they perceive to be GOP smears. However, we should note that the netroots aren't just playing defense; they're also going on offense against John McCain. First, liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of hypocrisy for attacking Obama over his prior statements about public financing when McCain himself is having problems with the FEC. Second, liberal bloggers are slamming McCain for declaring that he was "very proud" to receive the endorsement of TX pastor John Hagee, who has repeatedly bashed the Catholic Church. Liberal bloggers are accusing the media of having a double standard when it comes to controversial endorsements, noting that Obama has repeatedly been asked to distance himself from Louis Farrakhan's endorsement.

Overshadowed by all of this Obama-McCain skirmishing is Hillary Clinton, who's still fighting hard in TX and OH. Will HRC pull out some big wins on 3/4 and force GOPers to start paying attention to her?

CLINTON: Testing Out McCain's Themes?

Conservative bloggers love HRC's ominous new TV ad, in which the narrator intones, "It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world...Who do you want answering the phone?" Righty bloggers think McCain will be able to make this same anti-Obama argument to even greater effect in the general election:

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Hillary Clinton's newest ad is the latest in the tradition of LBJ's 'Daisy' ad and Ronald Reagan's 'Bear in the Woods' spot. The problem is that the answer to the question it poses is...John McCain. After all, are Hillary's national security credentials and expertise that much greater than Barack Obama's?"

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "It is awfully nice of Hillary to test out John McCain's key theme against Obama. Too bad it's only running in Texas; McCain could use the 'Obama's not ready to be commander in chief' message spread through Ohio, too."

Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "It's an excellent point to make against Obama during the primary. Thanks Hillary for framing the issue perfectly for John McCain."

OBAMA: You Can't Please Everyone...

Although most liberal bloggers prefer Obama to HRC, a few dispute the notion that Obama is a true progressive:

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "I don't trust or like the 'change' meme. It's not really change, it's amporphous and vague. Obama has two core groups supporting him on his merits and message: African Americans and youth...[His] other core group is white males who hate Hillary. They aren't voting for Obama in my opinion, they are voting against Hillary. My beef with Obama is he is not the progressive the media is making him out to be. Nor will he really be an agent of change."

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Don't tell me [Obama] is the next Russ Feingold or Paul Wellstone. [...] Will he be a hundred times better than [George W.] Bush? Absolutely. Will be ninety times better than McCain? Oh yeah. Is better than Hillary Clinton? I don't know, but I'm willing to take that chance at this point. What I just can't swallow is hearing, on a reasonably frequent basis, Obama reinforce conservative talking points, falsehoods and stereotypes in one ear, and that Obama is a progressive savior in the other ear."

OBAMA II: The Challenge And The Opportunity

Several liberal bloggers are discussing the unique aspects of an Obama-McCain general election match-up:

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "It's been pretty widely observed that Barack Obama's relatively brief career in elective office hasn't actually included any tough races against Democrats. Less noted, but also true, is that John McCain's rather long career in electoral politics hasn't included any tough races either. Like Obama, McCain's toughest fights have come in primaries -- specifically his successful 1982 congressional primary, his unsuccessful 2000 primary, and his successful 2008 primary. In part as a consequence of these realities, and in part as a consequence of the particular dynamics of the 2008 primaries, very few people have heard McCain criticized from the left or heard Obama criticized from the right. That's an unusual situation, and it means that public perceptions of both men could prove quite fragile and prone to shifting once the battle is joined in earnest."

Bowers agrees with Yglesias: "I have to wonder if the ability of both McCain and Obama to win over significant defectors from their respective parties is largely due to this lack of serious general election challenges. They can sound bi-partisan because no one from the other party has ever really gone after them, at least yet, anyway. When they match up against each other in a general election, surrogates from both sides will blast away with partisan attacks, no matter how conciliatory Obama and McCain might or might not be to each other. As such, it could be that their respective appeal to independents and partisans from the other side is entirely temporary and bound to disappear before long. In a fluid campaign, which Obama vs. McCain absolutely will be, a huge upper hand will go to the candidate who can lock down his partisan base the fastest."

MCCAIN: A Double Standard?

Liberal bloggers are angry that McCain can say that he's "very proud" to have the endorsement of controversial TX pastor John Hagee, whereas Obama was pressured to distance himself from Louis Farrakhan's endorsement:

Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Why is Louis Farrakhan deemed by our political establishment to be so radioactive as to not be fit for good company -- black candidates are required to repudiate his support even when they haven't sought it and denounce his views even when they've never advocated anything close to those views -- but John Hagee is a perfectly acceptable figure whom mainstream GOP politicians are free to court without any consequences or media objections?"

TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "Hagee's comments about world affairs can make Farrakhan seem pedestrian at times: He eagerly awaits the Armageddon, considers the Catholic Church to be the Anti-Christ, and has said that Jews brought their own persecution upon themselves. [...] So here's the question: Will the same media outlets who have hammered Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan's uninvited endorsement now ask John McCain to denounce and reject the support of John Hagee, which was actually sought and publicly accepted?"

Firedoglake's David Neiwert: "Just how far out on the fringe is Hagee? He's so deeply enmeshed in the Apocalypse Now! contingent that even other right-wing xenophobes are calling him out -- specifically, Catholic League president Bill Donohue, who earlier today blasted McCain for embracing Hagee's endorsement."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "This episode does point to the difficult tightrope McCain has to walk between sending signals to the right to assure them he's one of them and not alienating independents who are suspicious of the right, especially the religious variety. Luckily for McCain, it's a balancing act that's made easier by the extraordinary continued kid gloves with which the media handles him and the double standard they have for Democrats and Republicans. I'd love to see Barack Obama call John McCain out on this, maybe then the media will cover it."

MCCAIN II: What Happened To Reform?

Leading netroots bloggers are criticizing Democracy 21, a non-profit organization that promotes campaign finance reform, for pressuring Obama to use the public financing system while (in the netroots' view) giving McCain a free pass:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Democracy 21 had no trouble interpreting Barack Obama's statement -- 'If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election' -- to mean that he was opting into the public financing system for the general election. They sit around and parse this stuff all day, set themselves up as judge and jury about what the law is and how it should be interpreted. And now they want to shrug their shoulders because it's their good buddy John McCain and say that because there's no quarum at the FEC, he can do whatever the hell he wants? If that's the case they just ought to shut their doors now, because they've just admitted they're completely useless and serve no purpose whatsoever other than to needle people when it's of no consequence."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "The 'reformer' groups betrayed their idiocy during their efforts to regulate blogs, and now confirm that early prognosis by putting pressure on Obama's law-adhering behavior while continuing to ignore McCain's blatant lawbreaking. The Common Causes and Democracy 21s and Public Citizens like to rail about 'compromised' politicians, but they're proving in vivid color that they, themselves, are not immune to being compromised. And having invested too much in John McCain this past decade, they are incapable of calling him for his breaking the laws they supposedly champion."

This dust-up between liberal bloggers and Democracy 21 comes days after a similar dust-up between liberal bloggers and Common Cause, a non-profit organization "committed to honest, open and accountable government":

• Earlier this week, Open Left's Matt Stoller blasted Common Cause for not denouncing McCain's efforts to circumvent campaign finance law: "If you want to point to one single rationale for Common Cause's existence, it's the removal of the improper influence of money from the political system. So that group's failure to do anything about McCain's open lawbreaking around public financing is a symbolic measure of just how badly this group has failed."
• Common Cause Comm. Dir. Mary Boyle responded angrily: "After reading your rant about what you describe as Common Cause's 'remarkable legacy of failure,' my first reaction is to suggest that you might want to talk to your doctor about upping your meds. Most of your post seems to reflect a basic disagreement over whether Common Cause should be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, or of the progressive movement, or of the lefty blogosphere."

MCCAIN III: Reachin' Out To The Rightroots

McCain held another conference call with conservative bloggers yesterday:

The American Mind's Sean Hackbarth: "When he wins the nomination McCain will continue the campaign activities that have got him here. There will be more townhalls and continued media access to his campaign bus. He again invited webloggers to join him. A question came up about being more aggressive towards the Democratic nominee. McCain said he would engage in 'respectful debate' while highlighting 'stark contrasts.'"

Jim Geraghty quotes McCain's response to a question about contrasting himself with Obama: "I will portray stark differences in our positions. By the way, I would not count senator Clinton out. Anybody who has counted the Clintons out in the past has seen otherwise. If it is Senator Obama, I will be expressing my experience, background and knowledge. We'll be arguing higher lower taxes vs. higher taxes, bigger government vs. smaller government, a government run health care system or a system based on consumer choice. He said he would sit down, without conditions, with Raul Castro. People know Raul Castro was the executioner. He's the bad guy. I will discuss my qualifications but I will not talk down his qualifications."

Geraghty also reports: "[McCain] used an old joke to sign off, but it still makes me chuckle: 'Thank you bloggers. If we don't have another one of these calls in a week, please complain to my incompetent staff, which is made up mostly of folks we got through a prison work-release program.'"

Meanwhile, Frank J is annoyed that he wasn't invited to participate in the conference call: "I thought Fred Thompson established you're supposed to invite me to these things. I'm like Helen Thomas: I may be an idiot, but it's tradition to include me."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Better Late Than Never?

Slate's Mickey Kaus:

"Should later primaries count more than early primaries? If Hillary wins Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, that's what she's going to claim. It's not a bogus argument. Voters in late primaries have more information than voters in early primaries. Superdelegates should be able to take note. That's different from arguing that Hillary should be able to pull strings and get superdelegates even if she keeps losing."

LEST WE FORGET: Advice For Job Seekers

Radar's Todd Levin, Jason Roeder, Mike Sacks, and Ted Travelstead list "100 Things Not To Say In A Job Interview." Here are a few of the highlights:

• "Sorry I'm late. I could have sworn you said 'San Francisco.'"
• "Where I come from, that kind of question will get you shot."
• "I don't like to brag about competitive offers -- let's just say I've had some interest from a company that rhymes with Flurger Cling."
• "Funny, everyone who reads my résumé always homes right in on the manslaughter."
• "Why, yes, it is a fake beard."
• "What has two thumbs and totally loves commodities trading? This guy!"
• "I'm just looking to make one last big score before I get out of the game. And I'd love to do that right here at Applebee's."
• "That would be an anklet tracking device, as stipulated by the conditions of my parole."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:56 PM

February 28, 2008

2/28: Standing By Their Man

Following conservative talk show host Bill Cunningham's controversial speech at a John McCain rally (in which he used Barack Obama's middle name, "Hussein," three times) and an inflammatory TN GOP press release entitled "Anti-Semites For Obama," liberal bloggers are circling their wagons around the IL senator. Firedoglake's Attaturk accuses the GOP of playing the "race card," while Josh Marshall writes:

"Hopefully, everyone can now see the McCain strategy for running against Barack Obama. Yes, we have some general points on taxes, culture wars and McCain as war hero who can protect us in ways that flash-in-the-pan pretty boy Barack Obama can't. But that's not the core. The core is to drill a handful of key adjectives into the public mind about Barack Obama: Muslim, anti-American, BLACK, terrorist, Arab."

The controversies over Cunningham's remarks and the TN GOP press release come days after a 2/24 AP article with the subtitle, "No Flag Pin, No Hand Over His Heart: Is [Obama] Exposed?" This article infuriated the netroots and led the bloggers at Firedoglake to launch a letter-writing campaign to protest the AP's "smearing" of Obama. It appears that we are already in full general election mode, even though Hillary Clinton is still very much in the race (as some bloggers have pointed out).

DEM FIELD: It Ain't Over Till It's Over

Although Markos Moulitsas has predicted a double-digit win for Obama in TX, other liberal bloggers aren't so sure:

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "The narrative that's developed as a result is that the quirks of the Texas system as well as Obama's superior ground game make an Obama win virtually a certainty, but what if Clinton has stanched the bleeding? A new Public Strategies tracking poll suggests that may very well be the case...Despite all the talk of Obama's eating into Clinton's base, this poll finds Hillary Clinton holding her own among her strongest bases of support...A 3-point lead for Clinton, albeit within the margin of error, is her best poll result out of the state in a week, and it's as good a time as any to remind folks that this thing ain't over."

TPM's Greg Sargent also thinks TX is "anybody's ball game": "The last four public polls show [Obama and HRC] tied or show each winning, always within a margin of five points...One-third of the Texas vote is caucuses, which have historically favored Obama, and the Hillary camp says that its success will depend largely on turnout, particularly among women. Hillary's Texas campaign has made a huge push for early voting...Ultimately, given the state's complex demographics and tortured primary/caucuses process, neither side dares predict the outcome next week."

OBAMA: Here Comes The Sludge

Liberal bloggers are arguing that one of the GOP's strategies for defeating Obama will be to portray him as a Muslim:

TPM's Josh Marshall: "A good deal has been made out of John McCain's repudiation of talk radio yakmeister Bill Cunningham, who led off for McCain at one of his rallies with the full run of Obama sludge. [...] [But] don't insult your intelligence or mine by pretending that John McCain's plan for this race doesn't rely on hundreds of Cunninghams -- large and small -- across the country, and the RNC and all the GOP third party groups, to be peddling this stuff nonstop for the next eight months because it's the only way John McCain have a real shot at contesting this race."

Attaturk: "There are a few themes developing that should be called out now for what they are. First, the racist junk that right-wing radio, blogs, and conservative interest groups are going to throw out. [...] And while this is happening, John McCain will just talk about how terrible this stuff is but he can't stop it; and the media tut tuts it 24/7. And yet FoxNews and Howie Kurtz will keep having these same people on their shows and in their columns and treat them like the respectible contributor to the public discourse they believe them to be."

AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The Republicans are already getting really dirty. What else have they got going for them? [...] McCain can't distance himself from that strategy. It is his strategy. And, Mark Halperin from Time Magazine already gave tacit approval to a race baiting strategy (despite his claim it was analysis, not advice)"

Atrios: "As we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a humanitarian mission in Islamic Iraq (or a Mission To Kill The Terrorists, depending on which day it is), the [GOP] and its surrogates are going to spend all their time smearing Barrack Saddam Hussein Osama Obama as a closet Muslim (very bad) who is doubly bad because he is intolerant of other religions like Judaism."

OBAMA II: The Netroots Get His Back

Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith urges readers to continue participating in Firedoglake's letter-writing campaign to protest the AP's "smearing" of Obama: "To date -- you have sent over 11,800 letters to newspapers all across the country, including well over 1,000 letters each to the NYTimes, the WaPo, USAToday, the LATimes and the WSJ -- and even more letters to local newspapers in every single state. All in the last two days. You guys rock! Successful pushback means we need to cover every base, not just the prominant ones, so we are asking you for a little more help today. If you haven't yet written letters -- especially if you live in OH, PA, FL, NM, CO...pretty much any swing state -- please write one to your local newspapers today."

Todd Beeton: "As we've learned time and again, the librul media is terribly fond of doing the right-wing message machine's dirty work when it comes to defining our candidates for president. Al Gore was the serial exaggerator and John Kerry was the flip-flopper, so when the right-wing smears against Barack Obama began to paint him as unpatriotic, The AP's Nedra Pickler was happy to oblige by running an article whose third paragraph literally begins 'conservative consultants say...' and goes on to quote disgraced right-wing smear merchant Roger Stone as an expert. [...] What the right-wing message machine and its enablers in the media didn't count on this time was that now there's a left-wing message machine, the rock to their scissors."

OBAMA III: Drawing A Line In The Sand

Several liberal bloggers are discussing the recent Obama-McCain dust-up over Iraq:

Open Left's Chris Bowers wants Obama to take a stronger position on residual forces: "Obama's promises to keep residual forces in Iraq [have] a net result of pre-blurring the Iraq issue even for Republicans like McCain who refuse to even say they want to end the war. Not only do residual forces give McCain further amminition on why we should stay in Iraq, but it also gives more credence to the argument that Democrats don't really want to end the war. It might be too late for Obama to promise no residual troops at this point, but as the campaign moves forward he is going to have to do a much better job of differentiating his position on Iraq, and his rational behind that position, from McCain's."

Todd Beeton is worried about the experience gap between Obama and McCain: "Obama's strategy against McCain will, of course, be not only to tie McCain to [George W.] Bush but also to use the argument he's used against Clinton, making experience actually a dirty word and making the case that judgment is more important than Washington experience...The problem for Obama is that over the next few months, McCain can distance himself from Bush but Obama can't gain the experience. The problem for McCain, of course, is that this country deeply hates this war."

OBAMA IV: The Rightroots Ain't Scared

Conservative bloggers appear to be feeling increasingly confident that McCain can defeat Obama:

RedState's Ben Domenech: "Obama comes equipped with many innate gifts that make him the most appealing and pop culturally significant Democratic candidate since John F. Kennedy...[He also] presents not just an inherently flawed candidacy, but a kamikaze leftist candidate, whose out-of-step views will not last the duration of a general election without full exposure, and whose mawkish storytelling can't carry him to the White House without some serious good fortune."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "I've long argued that John McCain will have an easier time taking on Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton has. This is not to say it will be a cake walk. However, the difference is that McCain will have a much easier time drawing a sharper contrast. [...] It remains to be seen whether or not the American public will be willing to overlook Obama's liberal positions. Right now, though, it's clear most people don't even know about them. And Hillary sure isn't going to make an issue out of them. Obama looks great today, but is this his abogee?"

Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "If Obama's supporters are embarrassed or humiliated by the man's name, that's an issue that they should work through. Maybe they could try sensitivity training? Personally, I like to call Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama every so often solely because liberals freak out about it so much. [...] If John McCain's middle name was, let's say, Arafat, is there anybody, I mean anybody, who doesn't think liberals would be calling him John Arafat McCain all day long?"

IN MEMORIAM: William F. Buckley

Righty bloggers are paying tribute to the conservative intellectual who died yesterday at the age of 82:

• National Review's Editors: "When Buckley started National Review -- in 1955, at the age of 29 -- it was not at all obvious that anti-Communists, traditionalists, constitutionalists, and enthusiasts for free markets would all be able to take shelter under the same tent. Nor was it obvious that all of these groups, even gathered together, would be able to prevail over what seemed at the time to be an inexorable collectivist tide. When Buckley wrote that the magazine would 'stand athwart history yelling, "Stop!"' his point was to challenge the idea that history, with a capital H, pointed left. Mounting that challenge was the first step toward changing history's direction. Which would come in due course."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "I don't think there is anyone who combined accomplishments of this order with such widespread, genuine and deep affection across the center-right except for Ronald Reagan, who owed much to Buckley, which means we all do."
• NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "I believe that he really was indispensable in creating modern conservatism -- something that answered that name may have existed without him, and perhaps been just as strong as a political movement, but it would not have taken the form it did. (In particular, it might not have been oriented toward the free market and limited government.)"
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Anyone who is a conservative -- especially a conservative writer (or even blogger) -- owes tremendous a debt of gratitude to William F. Buckley. He made it cool to be a conservative, and in the modern age, he made it possible to be both an intellectual -- and a conservative."
• Michelle Malkin: "I picked up my first issue of NR in college through the conservative student journalism samizdata. Reading the magazine in public was an act of defiance. Embracing the ideas within was an act of heresy."
• Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "Before Townhall.com. Before the blogs. Before [Barry] Goldwater and Reagan. Before [Rush] Limbaugh and [Sean] Hannity, there was Buckley."
• Commentary's John Podhoretz: "From the first to the last, [Buckley] had an intellectually transcendent purpose from which he never deviated: The explication of, defense of, and advancement of, traditional mores and traditional beliefs, and a concomitant commitment to the notion that social experiments are very dangerous things indeed. He was, ever and always, a serious man in an increasingly unserious time."
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "He helped many understand more deeply that left-liberalism is a profoundly unsatisfying account of human nature and human history. He helped remind us that communism was as evil as socialism was mistaken."

Several liberal bloggers are arguing that Buckley differed from today's conservative pundits:

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "But in both style and substance, the Limbaugh-[Ann] Coulter-[William] Kristol-National Review-led conservative movement of today bears little resemblance to what Buckley spent most of his adult life developing and creating. Modern conservative polemicists continue to use Buckley as a symbolic prop behind which they march -- and that exploitation will intensify by many magnitudes now that he has passed away -- yet, as Buckley himself increasingly recognized, today's conservatives repudiate and violate much of what Buckley stood for and believed."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "There is a qualitative difference between Bill Buckley and the conservatives of today. I know he had shitty political opinions and the reason I do is because he told me so. Buckley openly embraced racist, McCarthyesque views that he not only acknowledged but defended...[His] honesty, even in the defense of an ideology you might not embrace, was a whole lot easier to deal with than the intellectual hairballs being coughed up by the right today."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: When Red Becomes Blue And Blue Becomes Red

Chris Bowers thinks an Obama-McCain match-up could redraw the U.S. electoral map:

"This year, both likely nominees relied more heavily on independents, cross-over voters, and a sort of 'anti-establishment' coalition within their own parties to earn the nomination. Almost inevitably, these new primary coalitions are thus far resulting in a more fluid, less stable general election than we saw in either 2000 or 2004. [...] There is little precedent to know how the electorate will react to these candidates individually, and even less when they are matched up against one another. The widely varying national polls are a sign of this instability. [...]

We could see some new swing states, and very different red vs. blue divides in 2008 than we have seen in recent elections. [...] Assuming he is the nominee, maybe Obama can win Kansas and Virginia, and maybe he can lose Oregon and Massachusetts. This election could significantly realign the longstanding political divisions in this country, and while that creates uncertainty, it is also a reason to be excited. Instability always provides moments of tremendous political opportunity."

LEST WE FORGET: Some Satire From TPM

Josh Marshall wants answers:

"Can we ignore Sen. Obama's silence about Muammar Kaddafi?

We know that Louis Farrakhan has said positive things about Barack Obama. And he's not the only one. This is the same Louis Farrakhan who has travelled to Libya to meet with and say positive things about Kaddafi, who has long-standing ties to terrorism. And that's not all. The former pastor at Obama's church, Jeremiah Wright, has not only said positive things about Farrakhan. In the 1980s, he went on a trip with Farrakhan to...you guessed it, Libya, to meet with Kaddafi.

With all of Obama's ties to Kaddafi and all Kaddafi's ties to terrorism, not to mention a lot of Muslims and Arabs and blacks, how much longer can Obama stay silent on his relationship to Kaddafi? Does he support Kaddafi? Has he met with him? Will he denounce Kaddafi, notwithstanding that nuclear deal we have with him now?

These questions won't go away.

And I don't think even denouncing is going to be enough. He'll have to reject."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:49 PM

February 27, 2008

2/27: On Top Of His Game

As was the case last week, liberal bloggers thought that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both gave solid performances at last night's debate. That said, most bloggers felt that Obama won the debate because he successfully deflected most of HRC's attacks. Bloggers thought that HRC failed to land any meaningful blows and that her attempt at humor (in which she referenced a recent "Saturday Night Live" skit) didn't go over too well. However, the netroots saved most of their criticism for NBC's Tim Russert, who they felt did a terrible job as debate moderator. Bloggers were particularly incensed by Russert's repeated questions to Obama about Rev. Louis Farrakhan. Josh Marshall described Russert's questions as "a nationwide, televised, MSM version of one of those noxious Obama smear emails."

DEM DEBATE: Ain't No Love For Russert In The Netroots

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "This is a disgrace of a debate...I HATE Tim Russert. I HATE NBC."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Tim Russert's letting Dick Cheney write his questions for him ('What would happen if we withdrew from Iraq and the terrorists took over? Does Louis Farrakhan control you? What will the Jews think?')"

Digby: "From tax returns to Farrakhan to footage shown by 'mistake' to the endless, trivial, gotcha bullshit, this debate spectacle tonight was a classic demonstration of what people really hate about politics...The problem is Tim Russert and all his petty, shallow acolytes who spend all their time reading Drudge and breathlessly reporting every tabloid tidbit and sexy rumor and seeking out minor inconsistencies from years past in lieu of doing any real work."

TPM's Josh Marshall: "It was borderline to bring up the issue of Farrakhan at all. But perhaps since it's getting some media play you bring it up just for the record, for Obama to address. That's not what Russert did. He launches into it, gets into a parsing issue over word choices, then tries to find reasons to read into the record some of Farrakhan's vilest quotes after Obama has just said he denounces all of them. Then he launches into a bizarre series of logical fallacies that had Obama needing to assure Jews that he didn't believe that Farrakhan 'epitomizes greatness'. As a Jew and perhaps more importantly simply as a sentient being I found it disgusting. It was a nationwide, televised, MSM version of one of those noxious Obama smear emails."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Seriously, though, can someone please put a sock in Tim Russert? I didn't even see the entire exchange, but his badgering of Obama on the Louis Farrakhan issue was pretty wretched. It was maybe legitimate to bring it up in the first place, but to keep at it well after Obama had made his position crystal clear was beyond the pale."

DEBATE OBAMA: Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger

Most liberal bloggers felt that Obama delivered a winning performance:

Daily Kos' MissLaura: "[I] think Obama took this one on the merits, in part because he carried in the energy and confidence of someone who's on an electoral roll."

AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "In my view, the win goes to Obama. A clean win. And a win that sets him on the road to the nomination. We'll know next week at this time."

Daily Kos' Scout Finch: "No doubt [Obama] came off looking better tonight."

DEBATE CLINTON: No Game-Changing Moments

For the second straight debate, liberal bloggers felt that HRC gave a solid performance but didn't do enough to damage Obama:

Joe Sudbay: "There was no knock-out punch. And, Hillary Clinton needed one, badly. [...] [She] was good...had a few rough moments. The Saturday Night Live line was pathetic."

The Huffington Post's Marc Cooper: "You'd think that Clinton could leave the national political stage with some larger, meaningful gesture. But, unfortunately, the only memorable line that she spoke tonight was a poorly constructed joke, surely written by a staffer."

Kevin Drum: "I thought Clinton did about as well as she could have on the attack front, but it just wasn't enough. Obama seemed the better, more grounded debater tonight."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "[HRC] certainly appeared to be the very image of the fighter she says she is, [I'm] not sure it helped her though."

DEBATE CLINTON II: Not A Classy Move

Several bloggers were annoyed when HRC accused Obama of not doing enough to distance himself from Farrakhan:

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "That Hillary Clinton would stoop to making insinuations about Barack Obama being anti-Semitic or not sufficiently denouncing anti-Semites is really beyond the pale to me, just totally unacceptable. There can be attacks in this primary, and the candidates can disagree on issues. But I am just shocked that Clinton would stoop so low to make such insinuations. I am somewhat appalled, both as a Democrat and a Jewish American."

MissLaura: "Clinton followed Russert's attempt at a bullshit anti-semitism issue with Farrakhan's support of Obama with an even more bullshit moment in which she jumped on him for only denouncing rather than rejecting, and he agree[d] to do both while pointing out the silly vagueness of the distinction."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "The way Russert handled the Louis Farrakhan issue was, I thought, pretty egregious but about what I expect from him. Clinton's classless handling of the aftermath was also about what I expect from her at this point."

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt, on the other hand, thought HRC was right to criticize Obama: "Big Tent Democrat thought Hillary should have praised Obama when she had a chance to respond to his answer about whether he would reject [Louis] Farrakhan's support and endorsement. I didn't think she needed to do that. I thought [Obama] was trying to have it both ways -- not alienating his Jewish supporters or Farrakhan's."

CLINTON: Nearing The End?

Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks "the end is nigh": "Clinton's Texas situation is growing dire, and her lead in Ohio is also slipping. At this point, I would now be stunned if Obama failed further increase his pledged delegate lead between now and March 11th...It won't be long before [Obama] leads even when superdelegates, Florida and Michigan are included, even while receiving zero delegates from Michigan. Clinton's slim hopes now rest on perfect storm of Ohio, Pennsylvania, the credentials committee, and stopping the flow of superdelegates to Obama. But even in all of those areas, Obama continues to slowly gain ground."

Jonathan Singer: "Faced with the situation in which Clinton needs to win the remaining contests with about 60 percent or more of the vote from here on out in order to take a lead among the pledged delegates, even a narrow victory in Ohio (particularly if coupled with a loss in Texas) might not be enough for her to realistically stay in the race."

CLINTON II: Media Matters

Several liberal bloggers are discussing the Clinton camp's recent criticism of the news media:

TPM's Greg Sargent: "[I'm] generally sympathetic to the notion that the press treats Hillary unfairly on a regular basis...The question, though, is this: Do these sorts of attacks on the media from the Hillary campaign itself work to Hillary's advantage in the context of the campaign?...Such complaints, whatever their validity, run the risk of making Hillaryland look frustrated and in search of a scapegoat, something that spooks supporters and donors."

Big Tent Democrat: "Does the Clinton campaign's pointing out this truth help? My thought is this -- it can't hurt."

Atrios has a more nuanced view: "It's certainly true that the media, in a lot of ways, isn't exactly kind to the Clintons. Though I have to say that it's also the case that their bizarre obsession with the Clintons has helped her keep the campaign going. While there's a degree of cheering on of her downfall from many quarters, I also think that if the tables were turned and Obama was seen as the presumptive loser by a similar margin they'd be treating him like they treat [Mike] Huckabee now, as a peripheral figure."

On a related note, Daily Kos' DHinMI criticizes HRC for "courting" the conservative media: "If there's anyone alive who would not trust the vast right wing conspiracy, one would think it would be the person who coined the term, Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, the Clinton team, especially Bill Clinton, have courted the conservative media since beginning of her first term in the Senate. [...] If Hillary Clinton fails to win the nomination -- and right now just about every indication and trend is that she won't -- one of the most fascinating subjects for the campaign autopsy will be why the campaign wasted so much time courting the conservative press, and why they were so naïve that they thought the conservatives wouldn't turn on her like they always do."

OBAMA: He's A Contender

Most conservative bloggers think that Obama gave a strong debate performance last night and that he will be a formidable general election opponent:

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Obama was cool, confident, comfortable in his own skin and looked like a winner. I take no joy in writing that because I would much rather have John McCain face Hillary Clinton in the general election; it would be a far easier campaign for McCain to win, after all. [...] Republicans will be in for an epic battle."

Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Watching the Democratic debate last night, I thought to myself: I would buy a used car from Barack Obama. He is smart, disarming, adroit, and likable. [...] For John McCain to prevail against Obama, McCain will have to deploy an intellectual rigor in exposing Obama that he has yet to display on the campaign trail."

NRO's Rich Lowry: "[Obama] was in command, his stature enhanced by his standing in the race and by Hillary's ineffectual attacks. It was entirely possible to imagine him on a stage with John McCain, and more than holding his own."

NRO's Stephen Spruiell: "Have you ever seen a candidate extract himself from such a maddeningly stupid argument so adroitly? [Obama] read viewers' minds -- we were all thinking, 'What's the difference between "denounce" and "reject?"' -- and made Hillary look silly for trying to create a distinction. It's this seemingly effortless ability to rise above the tedious semantics of American politics that makes Obama so difficult to attack. Even if you play better than him, he's better at mocking the game. McCain's got his work cut out for him."

OBAMA II: When Denouncing And Rejecting Ain't Enough...

Some conservative bloggers who watched last night's Dem debate don't think Obama adequately addressed Farrakhan's endorsement:

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Barack Obama's pastor has praised Louis Farrakhan, traveled with him to meet Moammar Gadhafi and Farrakhan has praised Obama as 'the hope of all the world.' Soccer moms in suburbia are big fans of the Nation of Islam, right? Obama offer[ed] an answer that seems to be hedging a bit -- denouncing Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments, but never quite saying what Obama thinks of the man himself."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Obama did struggle, however, with 'the Jewish question.' He failed to explain his allegiance to a pastor who has honored Louis Farrakhan. Indeed, Clinton had to goad him into a fairly half-hearted rejection of 'Minister Farrakhan's' support. Obama's initial position was much weaker; he said that if someone thinks he's a good guy, that's okay with him."

Surprisingly, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, a longtime Obama booster, agrees: "Does Obama understand that saying he has consistently denounced [Farrakhan] is not the same as simply saying, 'I denounce him'? A weak response -- reminiscent of [Michael] Dukakis...[This was] his worst moment in any debate since this campaign started. I'm astounded he couldn't be more forceful. His inability to say by himself, unprompted, that Farrakhan's support repels him and he rejects it outright really unsettles me."

OBAMA III: Hit Him On What He Says, Not On What He Doesn't Say

Many conservative bloggers are praising Stephen F. Hayes' Wall Street Journal op-ed about Obama:

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Stephen Hayes raises a key point about Barack Obama: rhetoric really does get you far in presidential politics and Obama has enough substance to get by. Attacking his overzealous rhetoric was a sensible but ultimately losing tactic for Hillary Clinton, who could not easily quibble with Obama on actual policy positions and was trying to win on 'experience.' However, the best argument for John McCain in the general election is not that there is nothing in all the rhetorical haze (although I think it entirely appropriate to point out that a cult of personality is not exactly in the best tradition of American democracy); it's that what is there is wrongheaded and downright dangerous."

Hot Air's Allahpundit: "The experience contrast will serve McCain better than Her Majesty, but hammering [Obama] for being a lightweight with a knack for prose won't work since it makes it that much easier for Obama to prove his heft by showing command of the details. It's a stupid line of attack anyway: If you want to motivate the base and capitalize on Maverick's appeal to the middle, you don't argue that Obama has no ideas, you argue that he has lots of ideas, all of them quite dogmatically liberal. McCain is the real centrist, much to the chagrin of most conservatives."

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I agree with [Hayes]. Barack Obama is a very able man and a formidable opponent. Conservatives complain about Obama's vagueness mostly because they want to expose the dedicated liberal lurking behind Obama's moderate demeanor. In truth, though, Obama's liberalism is no secret...[His] appeal lies, in part, in his ability to make liberalism seem palatable. Unlike Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, he is generally not shrill or hectoring. He comes across as calm and reasonable. In this, he really does resemble Ronald Reagan...[That said], Reagan was devoted to conservatism, which is essentially true, while Obama is devoted to liberalism, which is essentially false. This means that Obama's policies, no matter how smoothly he may advocate them, will never be as successful as Reagan's."

MCCAIN: Vice President Palin?

Several conservative bloggers are discussing the prospect of McCain choosing popular AK Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate:

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Palin would make an interesting choice. She would be the first woman on a major party ticket since Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, assuming Hillary Clinton fails to win the Democratic nomination. Palin could be the first Alaskan on a major-party ticket as well. She's young and popular in the party, and her pro-life credentials are beyond dispute. She also has a history of demanding better ethics in politics, resigning a position on a state board because of ethical lapses by fellow Republicans. However, Palin has a few drawbacks as well. She's younger than Barack Obama and has held the governor's office for less time than he's been in the Senate (2006, versus 2004 for Obama)...She [also] has not yet been tested in any kind of major-media election process."

Daily Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "[Palin]'s only been in office for a year, her state only has three electoral votes, which McCain is almost guaranteed to get despite his stubborn refusal to consider drilling in ANWR, and before her election to governor the highest office she'd held was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Still, Palin's got pizazz."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "The GOP could do a LOT worse [than Palin]."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama's Most Impressive Diplomatic Triumph

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait explains:

"On Sunday, Barack Obama spoke about Israel in Cleveland. [TNR Editor] Marty [Peretz], who of course is a very strong Israel hawk, read the remarks and declared himself satisfied. Matthew Yglesias, who is seized with intense disdain for Israel hawks in general and Marty in particular, also read the remarks and declared himself satisfied.

Maybe he really can bring America together."

LEST WE FORGET: Bush Vows To Make It Up To Country Somehow

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- Amid allegations that his thoughtless and insensitive decisions have damaged his relationship with the nation, President George W. Bush vowed Monday that he would, starting now, 'make everything better.'

'This time I'm serious,' Bush said. 'I am ready to make a fresh start if we can just put the past behind us. I promise.'

An estimated 35 million citizens listened to the president's televized remarks while silently crying behind locked bathroom doors.

Though Bush told all Americans they owed it to him to give him one more chance, he admitted that there was no excuse for his mishandling of national affairs.

'Things have just been so crazy at work lately,' he said."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:02 PM

February 26, 2008

2/26: Poll Position

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the latest polls for the 3/4 primary states: OH, TX, RI, and VT. It appears that Hillary Clinton has a big lead in RI and a smaller (but still substantial) lead in OH, while Barack Obama has a big lead in VT and (maybe) a slight lead in TX. If HRC loses TX but wins OH, will that be enough to keep her in the race until PA (where she currently has a double-digit lead)? Liberal bloggers seem to be divided on this question. Perhaps HRC can change the narrative at tonight's debate in Cleveland?

Meanwhile, many netroots bloggers are already treating Obama as the prospective Dem nominee. Markos Moulitsas was impressed by the Obama camp's "forceful" response to the Drudge photo controversy, which Moulitsas thinks "bodes well for the campaign ahead." Furthermore, Jane Hamsher has launched a letter-writing campaign to protest the AP's alleged "smearing" of Obama (which we documented yesterday). We've said it before and we'll say it again: should Obama win the Dem nod, the netroots will play an invaluable role in defending him against attacks (just as the rightroots will for John McCain).

DEM FIELD: Polls, Polls, Polls

Most of the recent OH polls (ARG, Quinnipiac, U of Cincinnati, Public Policy Polling) show HRC leading Obama by a comfortable margin, and most bloggers expect the NY senator to win the state:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "If the election were tomorrow, I'd guess a +5-7 point Clinton victory...Sure, Obama is gaining, but Clinton is also holding her support. And given she's around the 50 percent mark, Obama can't win unless 1) she starts weakening, or 2) Obama's turnout operation is better than Clinton's."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "So far Obama has not rebuilt his Wisconsin coalition [in OH]. While 11 points is closer than 21, Obama's inroads are not in Clinton's coaliton, as it was in Wisconsin. Clinton looks poised to win Ohio pretty comfortably."

The latest polls show a tight race in TX. CNN/Opinion Research, Rasmussen, and SurveyUSA all have HRC and Obama separated by less than 5 points, while ARG has Obama ahead by 8. Most bloggers give Obama the edge:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Texas is very close, but Obama will almost certainly win the delegate count there because 1/3 of the delegates are determined via caucus and because Clinton tends to be strongest in four-delegate districts that are very difficult to score a 3-1 edge."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "I would probably give Obama an advantage in Texas at this point -- even if a slight one -- primarily as a result of this clearly upward trend, but also because the apportionment of delegates across the state seems to potentially benefit Obama relative to Clinton and the additional caucuses held immediately following the closing of the polls in the state."
• Moulitsas: "I say [Obama would] win by 15 if the election was tomorrow. These polls are completely failing to capture the breath and depth of Obama's ground game and the excitement he is generating. But if nothing else, they're capturing the obvious movement in Obama's direction."

Most bloggers believe that HRC will win RI, as the latest ARG and Rasmussen polls show her leading Obama by 12 and 15 points, respectively:

• Moulitsas: "[Rasmussen] seems to confirm the significant Clinton lead. In fact, if I had to bet, I'd bet that Rhode Island is the state that stops Obama's winning streak."
• Bowers: "Clinton appears to have decent leads in Ohio and Rhode Island, the former of which is slowly shrinking while the latter remains stable."

The latest Rasmussen poll has Obama leading HRC by 24 points in VT:

• Bowers: "Obama is way ahead in Vermont, and will score an easy victory there."

CLINTON: What If...?

Moulitsas thinks HRC should drop out if she loses TX: "If the election was tomorrow, I'd expect big Obama wins in Texas and Vermont, a big Clinton win in Rhode Island, and a narrow Clinton win in Ohio. Enough to keep her in the race? Hardly, especially given what will be worsening money problems and a prohibitive deficit in delegates and the popular vote. But who knows."

Big Tent Democrat agrees: "I am of the view that if Clinton loses Texas (I assume an Ohio victory), she should suspend her campaign. And of course she CAN win in Texas. But let's assume for the sake of argument, she does not. What then? [...] She will likely be significantly behind in the pledged delegate and popular vote counts. Because of this, it seems to me her chances for the nomination become slim to none. She would have lost the important narrative she could argue to super delegates, that Obama has not shown an ability to win contested big states and that a slim lead among pledged delegates and a virtual tie in the popular vote signals a tie."

Bowers disagrees: "Will Ohio and Rhode Island be enough for Clinton to keep going? There actually is no precedent for a candidate with over 1,000 delegates dropping out before the convention, so I would not be so sure. As long as she leads in Pennsylvania polls and any delegate count, if I was on her campaign staff I would advise her to keep going. However, financial realities and a desire to maintain a strong, post-election position within the Democratic Party might dictate otherwise."

CLINTON II: Too Hot?

Some liberal bloggers are unhappy about HRC's increasingly harsh attacks on Obama:

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Going positive, discussing ideas, isn't getting [Hillary] anywhere. So, it's now time for the kitchen sink. The thing is, all Obama has to do is duck and the nomination is his. And Hillary will spend the next week destroying 7 years of successful hard work getting people to like her again. She's only 60 years old, she has another shot at this, is this the way she wants to go out?"

The Huffington Post's Andrew Gumbel: "Clearly, Hillary is in mega-negative mode because she can think of no other way to keep fighting as her presidential aspirations evaporate before her eyes...The greatest damage Hillary is doing to herself is coming across as just another self-interested candidate willing to do and say anything to stay in the race. Her likeability has always been a weak spot. The more she lays into Obama, the more she risks coming out of this campaign not just defeated, but actively loathed."

TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "So much for Obama and Clinton skipping arm in arm into the sunset as people seemed to expect after the last debate. Today Clinton gave what was billed as a major foreign policy speech, but in fact was just her standard arguments with unusually direct attacks at Obama. Clinton also was viciously sarcastic about Obama yesterday, suggesting that he wanted to 'waive a magic wand' and have 'special interests disappear.' Of course, that would make him a naive simpleton which somehow doesn't quite seem plausible to me. Or maybe he's just a terrorist."

CLINTON III: Live By The Drudge, Die By The Drudge

Several liberal bloggers are accusing the Clinton camp of circulating a photo of Obama dressed as a Somali Elder:

TPM's Josh Marshall: "You've probably already seen that blaring headline on [Matt] Drudge's site, alleging that Clinton staffers have been circulating a 2006 photo of Obama in the garb of a Somali village elder with a turban...We spent the better part of the morning trying to get some comment from the Clinton campaign. For the first hour or more we couldn't get anything. Then we got this statement in which the Clinton camp says Obama should be 'ashamed' at saying the picture is 'divisive,' without addressing one way or another what they're accused of doing...Put it all together and the Clinton camp would appear to be unwilling to make even the most perfunctory denial that they are or were circulating this photo around. We held up on this because we never want to take Drudge as a fact witness for anything. But I think the Clinton camp's statement speaks for itself."

Big Tent Democrat: "I think Josh [Marshall] is right here. And shame on the Clinton camp for pushing this photo out there."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Drudge's piece is ambiguous -- who distributed the picture? who did it go to? -- but the Clinton campaign, given a chance to deny the charge, rather loudly declined to do so. So apparently they not only sent the picture around, but then issued a statement slamming Obama for complaining about it. Points for chutzpah, I guess, but not much else."

TPMCafe's M.J. Rosenberg: "Cynical as I am, I am still amazed that someone in the Clinton campaign not only circulated a photo of Obama in Muslim garb but that the campaign argues that there is nothing wrong with it...Sickening. The Clinton campaign needs to get a grip."

CLINTON IV: You Actually Listen To Drudge?

Other liberal bloggers believe that people are foolish to take Drudge's allegations seriously:

Markos Moulitsas: "Now I don't know when we started taking anything Drudge says at face value, but that hysteria could use a little calming down. In fact, I tend to believe the Clinton campaign when it claims that there hasn't been a campaign decision to push the, er, accusations."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "It's a sad day when any Democratic candidate [has] to deny any report on Drudge, lest they be called guilty without any proof...Drudge is a pox on the house of Democrats. It is a rightwing crap site that spews rumors designed to tear democrats down and divide us. I don't read it, link to it, or believe anything from that site."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "[This] whole thing was likely trumped up out of little or nothing by Matt Drudge to drive traffic."

OBAMA: You Come At The King, You Best Not Miss

Moulitsas is impressed by the Obama camp's response to the Drudge photo: "As I said a few days ago, I want to see how Obama responds to ridiculous attacks, and whether this was a Republican dirty trick or the work of a free lancing Clinton campaign operative is irrelevant. Obama's campaign has responded forcefully and with little hesitation. That bodes well for the campaign ahead."

Meanwhile, Salon's Glenn Greenwald is impressed by Obama's response to attacks on his patriotism (which we documented yesterday): "[Obama]'s not scurrying around slapping flags all over himself or belting out the National Anthem, nor is he apologizing for not wearing lapels, nor is he defensively trying to prove that -- just like his Republican accusers -- he, too, is a patriot, honestly. He's not on the defensive at all. Instead, he's swatting away these slurs with the dismissive contempt they deserve, and then eagerly and aggressively engaging the debate on offense because he's confident, rather than insecure, about his position."

Still, Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher has launched a letter-writing campaign to protest the AP's alleged "smearing" of Obama: "It was pretty much world-record speed with which the smears against Barack Obama's patriotism alley-ooped from the right wing attack machine into the pages of legitimate media, neatly laundered into the AP by Nedra Pickler. It then quickly leapfrogged onto CNN where a poll inquired as to whether Obama had sufficient patriotism to be president...As Glenn Greenwald notes, Obama's response was superb, but the fact remains that he should not be subject to these kinds of open smears in the first [place]...So we've set up a page where you can plug in your zip code and automatically send an email to the papers in your area who syndicate the AP and let them know this is beneath what you expect their coverage to be."

Crooks and Liars' John Amato urges his readers to follow Hamsher's lead: "Go over and send a letter here. We can't put up with these ridiculous right wing hack attacks by our media against Democratic candidates."

OBAMA II: Rising Negatives?

Many conservative bloggers are excited about a recent Rasmussen poll showing Obama with significantly higher unfavorable ratings than McCain:

Daily Standard's Brian Faughnan: "52 percent of the electorate is either committed to Obama or can be swayed to back him. For McCain, that number is a whopping 63 percent! In other words, Barack Obama -- the fresh and exciting embodiment of a new and bipartisan approach to politics -- is almost as polarizing as Hillary Clinton. It's John McCain who has a strong base of support and a great opportunity to bring a broad swath of undecided Americans to back him."

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "So far, at least, it is McCain, not Obama, who shows the potential to unite Americans across a broad ideological spectrum."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "This data looks somewhat different than the media portrayals of a huge national movement coalescing behind Obama. It may be more likely that the activists have turned out in force for Obama, and that the enthusiasm we see now will remain limited to that subset on the Left."

Meanwhile, Right Wing News' John Hawkins wants to raise Obama's negatives even further by launching a "Googlebombing" campaign:

"After getting some suggestions yesterday, I put together a list of links to push based on a combination of how damaging they are to Obama and the size of the source they come from, which will hopefully make it easier to move them up the search rankings. [...] If the election turns out to be as close as it was in 2000 and 2004, Googlebombs could, if they work, conceivably peel off enough votes to not just make a difference [...]

• Guess whose mentor is a Communist? Obama, that's who!
• Why isn't Obama patriotic enough to hold his hand over his heart for the Star Spangled banner?
• What has Obama got against flag pins?
• Obama wants to give away 845 billion dollars of your money to ungrateful Third World countries.
• Who loves to hang around with terrorists? Obama, that's who!
[...]"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama Vs. The Mac

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin predicts how Obama might go after McCain in the general election:

"There seem to be three possibilities. First, [Obama] will describe how horrible the [George W.] Bush years have been. There is always a segment of the population who will nod approvingly when told things are bad and getting worse. However, you cannot do this for long without sounding like a depressing scold. Moreover, with Bush not running it has limited utility...Second, [Obama] will talk about leaving Iraq. Or will he? If military and political progress continue, does his insistence that everything is just a mess begin to look as out of touch with reality as he is accusing the Bush administration of being? At some point it may be better to say as little as possible. Third, he can talk about all the things he wants to do. However...he does not have much that is not out of the liberal playbook and that rarely wins elections.

So, we are back to taking shots at McCain -- on age, on lobbyists, on anything he thinks plausible. Those who are expecting a high minded campaign may be sorely disappointed."

LEST WE FORGET: Press Is Mad That Obama Won't Pay Attention To Them

Wonkette's Sara K. Smith reacts to the new Politico article entitled, "Obama Stiffs, Stifles National Press":

"The 'love affair' between the national press and Barack Obama has taken a turn for the darkly dysfunctional. It appears that America's handsome Savior Prince has been a bit distant lately. He's been putting off a weird vibe and not texting them back. Was it something the press said? Is it possible Barry was just using the press for all the free hand jobs?

All signs point to yes! Of course, this is always how it plays out. The candidate talks to the press until they have made him popular and then he clams up, unless he is John McCain, in which case he will still hang out with reporters on his bus and tell the same jokes over and over again like a senile uncle, which he is."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:55 PM

February 25, 2008

2/25: You Ain't Crashing This Party

Liberal bloggers reacted to Ralph Nader's announcement that he will launch a third-party presidential bid with a mixture of anger, sadness, and contempt. A few bloggers are worried that Nader will siphon votes away from Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, but most bloggers doubt that the aging consumer advocate will pose much of a threat. One thing is clear, however: as much as the netroots criticize Congressional Dems for capitulating on issues such as Iraq and warrantless surveillance, they still believe that the Dem party is the best (and perhaps the only) vehicle for progressive change.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers continue to try out their attacks on Obama, calling him a "former cokehead," "Mr. Pals-around-with-terrorists," "the most liberal candidate since George McGovern." Should Obama win the Dem nod, it is likely that we will see variations of these attacks in the coming months.

DEM FIELD: Go Home, Ralph

Many liberal bloggers are annoyed that consumer advocate Ralph Nader plans to run for president as a third-party candidate:

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Nader had better not be permitted in any presidential debate. He is not a real candidate, his support went from meager to pitiful the past two times he ran for president...What has Nader been doing the past four years? You haven't heard about a lot of consumer advocacy from Nader once he decided to be the herpes of presidential candidates. Talk about resting on your laurels. Nader handed us George Bush in 2000, and quite possibly George Bush in 2004, and now he has the nerve to complain about the Bush administration?"

Daily Kos' DHinMI: "Nader also says little about what he would do as President, revealing that he has no expectation of winning...He's painted a picture of himself in as a martyr, but he refuses to see that his saintliness will result not in his sacrifice but in the sacrifice of the legislative and consumer protections he's achieved, the ideals he claims to embody and protect, and the people on whose behalf he claims to act."

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "What [Nader] did in his career was remarkable, and yet, now on TV he's taking no responsibility for his lies during 2000. Watching him on TV, it's clear he hates the Democrats and just won't recognize that it's a different Democratic Party, one that is much more movement-based, than it is when he ran in 2000. Nader is part of the TV cult of personality model of politics, similar to Dennis Kucinich, and he sounds kind of pathetic."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias reacts to Nader's announcement with sarcasm: "After all, there's not a dime's worth of a difference between a candidate promising tax cuts, pushing more health risk onto individuals, a re-invigoration of George Bush's campaign to dominate the world through military force, and an industry-friendly approach to environmental issues and his rival who's promising substantial socialization of medical risk, a 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions, and end to the war in Iraq (and to the mindset that led to war!), universal preschool, etc...basically it's just the same two corporate clones running on virtually identical platforms. Thank God for Ralph Nader."

DEM FIELD II: Bring It On, Ralph

Other liberal bloggers aren't nearly as upset about the prospect of Nader entering the race:

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "The fact is our candidates can be better on issues such as healthcare and Israel so I don't mind Nader there to try to push them a bit further to better; and to those who fear that Obama or Clinton would be too librul (!) maybe Nader will serve as a reality check, evidence that Obama and Clinton's views are more mainstream than the Republican Party and John McCain would have them believe. But Nader's right on one thing, that if we can't beat the Republican this year, we might as well pack it up and go home, so I say bring it on, Ralph. Our candidate will wipe the floor with John McCain with or without Nader in this race."

Atrios is blasé: "Ralph. Who cares? .38% in 2004. I could get .38%."

The Huffington Post's Marc Cooper: "What does Nader expect this time around? He has no funding, no party structure behind him, and no rational way of explaining of what he could possibly accomplish. More disturbing, he has no visible constituency. The overwhelming bulk of what might be called the Nader Vote has been swept into the vortex of the Obama campaign."

DEM FIELD III: Should Blue Majority Endorse?

Open Left's Chris Bowers makes an announcement: "Tonight, we at Blue Majority are asking our readers on Daily Kos, Open Left, and Swing State Project a simple question: should we endorse in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign tomorrow, or should we wait until the nominee is certain?...While we were always going to place the presumptive Democratic nominee on the Blue Majority page as soon as s/he emerged, over the next month several new candidates will be placed on the Blue Majority page in anticipation of the March 31st fundraising deadline. With the overwhelming majority of progressive, grassroots, electoral energy current focused on the presidential nomination campaign, we believe that the newly added candidates will receive vastly more support if there is a presidential candidate on the Blue Majority page. And yes, you know which candidate we are talking about."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "No one thinks Obama really needs whatever amount of money we'd raise on his behalf in the next couple of weeks. This is really about looking for some coattails for the congressional candidates on our fundraising list. Regardless who our presidential nominee is, he or she will need a Congress full of more and better Democrats. We can do our part to make that happen...Still, this is controversial move, obviously, so we're putting it to a vote, and it will take a 2/3rds super majority of our communities to pull the trigger."

OBAMA: The 50-State Strategy

Several liberal bloggers are impressed by Obama's extensive GOTV operation, and are excited about what this could mean in November:

Atrios: "Various people have written in about their experiences with the Obama campaign in various capacities -- attending events, volunteering, being contacted at home, being a precinct captain, etc... -- and it does sound like the campaign has made extraordinary use of organizing. People who attend events are contacted, internet tools allow quality organizing and phonebanking from home, etc."

Markos Moulitsas: "Hillary Clinton's campaign was always a swing-state 50+1 percent affair. She'd win in November, but by once again ignoring most of the country in favor of an elite few 'purple' states. Watching Obama build his incredible ground operation across the country, I can't help but hope that this newly built infrastructure stays in place through November. We must build long term, in every state, toward a solid future progressive majority. We can help downticket races, even in states where our presidential nominee won't likely win. And we need to run up the popular vote...The media thought Bush's 3 percent victory in 2004 was a 'mandate'. Let's mobilize Democrats from show them what a real mandate looks like. Let's aim for a double-digit 55-45 popular vote victory or better, with increased Democratic majorities in the House and Senate."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat disagrees with Moulitsas: "For all the talk of 50 state strategies, this general election will be won or lost in the same states as in 2000 and 2004 -- Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania...It is great that Obama has energized Dems in Utah, Idaho and Alabama, but that is not going to be where he will be fighting in a general election. Which is why it would be nice if Obama could demonstrate an ability to win a big contested state like Ohio or Pennsylvania in the primaries. This is still where Presidential elections are won or lost."

OBAMA II: Swift-Boating 2.0

The netroots are slamming a 2/24 AP article entitled, "Obama May Face Grilling On Patriotism: No Flag Pin, No Hand Over His Heart: Is He Exposed?" Liberal bloggers believe that this article -- which was written by a reporter (Nedra Pickler) who has angered the netroots before -- is biased. The netroots are also furious that CNN displayed a poll on its homepage with the question, "Does Barack Obama show the proper patriotism for someone who wants to be president of the United States?"

TPM's Josh Marshall: "That's how it works. [It] starts at right-swing smear sites and hoax emails. Then the AP's Nedra Pickler, who specializes in scooping up this slop and laundering it into the mainstream press, writes it up for the AP that runs across the country. And then [CNN] picks it up and makes it a regular part of the campaign conversation."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Some attention-seeking right-wing talk radio host on Fox News labels Obama a 'domestic insurgent' and the Fox host suggests Obama is unpatriotic. Pickler writes it all down, gets some confirming quotes from GOP operatives, and then files a 'news article' based on it. And now MSNBC, on its front page, is heralding the vital question: 'Is he exposed?' For all the attention the dubious NYT story about McCain received, those tactics, and far worse, are par for the course in how 'reporters' like Pickler demonize Democratic candidates in every national election. That a Democratic candidate is accused of being an unpatriotic subversive Terrorist by Fox News and the Roger Stone's of the world isn't exactly 'news.'"

John Aravosis: "What is this, the McCarthy era? AP is now willing to write any crap, so long as it's a Republican saying it about a Democrat? AP knows damn well that Obama doesn't hate America. This isn't a he-said-she-said. It's a case where AP is genuflecting to the Republicans and regurgitating their crap in a way Pickler and her fellow reporters wouldn't dare do if the victim were Republican. Has Pickler ever written a story about John McCain being insane? Being senile? Somehow I doubt it."

Firedoglake's Attaturk: "After spending the 1980s trying to coopt the flag and getting us into a disastrous war by implying those opposing it are traitors, the right-wing machine is going even further, by questioning a Democratic Presidential Candidate's patriotism. And the media, starting with Nedra Pickler, the 'launderer' of right wing talking points at the Associated Press, is picking up on the wurlitzer right on cue."

OBAMA III: Are You Experienced?

Liberal bloggers are debating the effectiveness of HRC's attacks on Obama's experience (or lack thereof). Several liberal bloggers think this is a foolish (and potentially self-defeating) line of attack:

Scott Lemieux: "Arguments for Clinton proceeding from her allegedly greater experience have always been unpersuasive, precisely because if Clinton's rather marginal and contestable experiential advantages over Obama should be decisive any of the other major Democratic candidates would be unquestionably preferable to either. (And, even worse, the same would be true of McCain in the general.)"

Matthew Yglesias: "If you win a primary on an 'experience' argument, then you'd damn well better be more experienced than your general election opponent. McCain would make an experience argument against either opponent, so it's much better to be the opponent with a record of statements aimed at rebutting such arguments (I don't think the American people judge your qualification based on duration of service in a broken Washington system...) than to be the opponent who's been making the argument that voters need to stick with the more seasoned Washington hand."

Other bloggers think Obama's lack of experience is a significant issue:

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "The problem with Obama isn't that he's less experienced than Hillary, but that he's inexperienced, full stop. And again, like it or not, John McCain will certainly use that as an argument in the general election campaign in a way he couldn't against Hillary. Sure, he's got 25 years to her 15, but that doesn't matter. Beyond a certain point voters aren't interested in who's got more experience, and 15 years is well beyond that point. If McCain tried to paint Hillary as inexperienced, it would be a waste of breath. Nobody would buy it."

Big Tent Democrat: "Whether fair or not, whether ultimately effective or not, if Barack Obama is the nominee, John McCain will call him inexperienced. That it has had limited effectiveness for Hillary Clinton does not mean it will not work for McCain."

OBAMA IV: Opening Salvos

Righty bloggers continue to prep their anti-Obama arguments:

Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Mr. 'Pals around with terrorists' doesn't wear a flag pin, doesn't put his hand over his heart for the national anthem, Mr. 'My wife isn't proud of her country' -- isn't patriotic enough to be President."

RedState's Erick Erickson: "A week from tomorrow, Texas will either prolong the bloody battle for the Democratic nomination or give the nomination to a self-admitted former cokehead...Let's presume, if we will, that Texas goes for Barack Hussein Obama, a name that is not quite poll tested and mother approved...We will remind people that Obama admitted using cocaine...The Democrats, God bless 'em, are about to hand us the prototypical liberal boogeyman as their nominee...Obama thinks he can repackage [liberalism] in new rhetoric and move it to the left of Hillary. He cannot. I relish the fight against the man who has no problem with porn shops across the street from elementary schools and terrorist leaders in the White House."

Jennifer Rubin: "After his victory last week in Wisconsin and again at the Austin debate, Obama revealed himself to be the most liberal candidate since George McGovern. He is not thrilled with building a border fence. He wants to meet with Raul Castro. He will raise taxes and spend a boatload of money on new programs. He will exit Iraq pronto and spend that money on domestic programs. He opposes any restriction on partial birth abortion and thinks the District of Columbia's total handgun ban is a 'common sense' regulation...There is a reason why Obama gained Ted Kennedy's endorsement: He is the perfect messenger for an agenda Kennedy has been waiting 40 years to enact."

NRO's David Freddoso: "Even if it is pathetic for Obama to 'borrow' Deval Patrick's empty speeches, Republicans should be cautious about relying too much on his lack of substance to win this year's election. Voters are often willing to overlook a lack of substance, as Patrick and many others have demonstrated by winning their elections...Obama's bigger weaknesses are his inexperience and his propensity to say meaningful but stupid and dangerous things -- not his failure to say anything meaningful."

CLINTON: You Can Run, You Can Hide, But You Can't Escape My NAFTA

Liberal bloggers had mixed reactions to HRC's harsh words about two Obama mailers that (among other things) accused the NY senator of supporting NAFTA:

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Hillary defends her NAFTA record?!? This is just getting weird...She's not running against Obama anymore -- she's essentially running against Bill [Clinton]. I mean, I really don't know how you utter the 'It took a Clinton to clean up after a Bush' line in one breath, and then in the next admit that he fucked up the job."

David Sirota: "However you feel about NAFTA -- and if you are a typical American, polls show you likely do not like it -- Clinton now trying to lie and say she never really supported NAFTA is an absolute insult. It further suggests that on really important economic issues, she's more than happy to lie about provable facts when it suits her political needs."

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt has a different take: "Hillary can't afford to let Obama mislead Ohioans about her position on NAFTA -- as in Wisconsin, it will be a big deal there. I'm glad to see her fighting back hard on this one."

MCCAIN: Here's Your Campaign Finance Reform

Liberal bloggers are slamming McCain for his campaign's problems with the Federal Election Commission:

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "This is an issue of integrity -- and John McCain's lack of it. What the DNC is asking the FEC to do is fairly simple: Require McCain's campaign to abide by the legally binding contract it created with the federal government to enjoy the benefits of the public financing system -- benefits his campaign has already used -- in return for abiding by the program's spending limits."

DHinMI: "Since he entered the federal matching funds program, John McCain is now essentially at the spending limit, and is legally prohibited from spending any more money until September. To spend more money would be to break federal law. That law, by the way, is sometimes named after its Senate sponsors: McCain-Feingold."

MCCAIN II: Nothing To See Here...

Conservative bloggers are concerned -- but not too concerned -- about McCain's problems with the FEC:

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein thinks the issue will eventually be resolved: "In all likelihood, [ex-FEC chairman Brad] Smith argued, McCain will either eventually be cleared, or, in the worst case, asked to pay a small fine way down the road. So in the end this is more a PR issue, insofar as the father of campaign finance reform will be portrayed as somebody who is using his clever lawyers to game the system, which is what he railed about for years."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Further complicating matters for the likely Republican nominee will be the instincts of conservatives, who may feel some hidden glee at watching McCain getting stuck in a Byzantine, over-regulated campaign finance system he helped create."

MCCAIN III: Veep Troubles?

NRO's Byron York: "Yesterday I talked to two of the top contenders for the John McCain VP slot: Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. We covered a lot of issues, and what emerged was a dilemma for McCain: If he selects a running mate whose conservative credentials are beyond dispute, he'll be choosing a candidate who likely disagrees with him on some issues of great importance to the Republican base. On immigration, both Pawlenty and Sanford didn't hesitate to say McCain had it wrong in the McCain-Kennedy bill."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey doesn't think this will be a problem: "Pawlenty and Sanford both give gentle but firm opposition to McCain's efforts on both [issues] in this interview [with York] -- which normally would signal a presidential nominee to avoid them as running mates. However, in this instance both men could make excellent emissaries to the conservative wing of the party. They can lay out the thinking conservative's case for enthusiasm in McCain better than anyone else, and at the same time lay out their own cases for higher public office in the post-McCain phase. It promises a means to influence in the next administration and grooming more palatable conservatives for the future."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Keep Dreaming, Bloomberg

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"As someone who regularly scoffs at Michael Bloomberg's third-party ambitions, and regularly suggests that Ron Paul ought to consider an independent bid (a suggestion that seems to have fallen on deaf ears), I don't know I missed this poll (via John Derbyshire) from a couple weeks ago, which showed Paul outpolling Bloomberg in the event they both mounted third-party candidacies. (In the increasingly likely event of a McCain-Obama race, the poll has Paul getting 11 percent of the vote, and Bloomberg only five.) Now obviously neither man is going to run, and just as obviously Bloomberg would have vastly more money to spend than Paul in the event that they both did, which would presumably boost his numbers at least slightly higher than this. But the poll is still a telling indicator of where third-party energy tends to come from -- i.e., not from Bloomberg-style center-leftism."

LEST WE FORGET: The Most Exclusive Club

Wonkette's Sara K. Smith:

"Unless Mike Huckabee gets the miracle he and his supporters have been praying for, one thing is certain: the next president will be a sitting senator. And, if current voting trends continue to favor Barack Obama, one other thing is certain: the next president will be part of a small, elite, and decadent club of weirdos who can't use regular scissors.

We refer, of course, to left-handed people.

Both Barack Hussein Obama and elderly war hero John McCain are left-handed, and as such are members of America's last openly discriminated-against minorities. Hillary Clinton is right-handed, and thus doomed never to be president: a strange and disproportionate percentage of recent presidents have been southpaws, including her husband, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:09 PM

February 22, 2008

2/22: No Debate About It

The general consensus in the liberal blogosphere is that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both did well during last night's debate in Austin. Although bloggers were impressed by HRC's final answer, most believe that she failed to land any significant blows on Obama, who continues to cut into HRC's leads in TX and OH. Perhaps HRC will hit Obama harder (and hope for a game-changing moment) at the 2/26 debate in Cleveland.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are convinced that the controversial New York Times article about John McCain's relationship with a female lobbyist has done more damage to the Times' reputation than it has to McCain's. The alleged "hit job" by the hated Times has effectively united conservative bloggers behind the very senator whom they've spent years criticizing. Perhaps more importantly, the story -- and the enormous backlash it provoked -- may inoculate McCain against future negative coverage from MSM journalists. All in all, McCain can't be too unhappy about the way things have turned out.

DEM FIELD: The State Of The Race

Daily Kos' DHinMI thinks HRC is finished and should bow out gracefully: "Obama is the nominee. Will Clinton scorch the earth or be a leader?...[She] cannot win both Texas and Ohio, certainly not by the huge margins she'd need in order to make up significant ground. The race is over...Hillary Clinton has a chance to be as great a Senator as Lyndon Johnson or Robert Wagner. Let's hope she ignores Mark Penn, runs a dignified and positive campaign for the next twelve days, and then becomes Barack Obama's greatest ally."

Open Left's Chris Bowers doesn't think the race is over yet: "Clinton still leads in what has become an extremely important state [TX], but that lead has been significantly narrowed. Everyone know that if Clinton loses both Ohio and Texas, that the campaign will be over. Even Bill Clinton is saying this. Also, everyone also knows that if Clinton wins both Ohio and Texas, she will continue on to Pennsylvania. My question is, what happens if Obama and Clinton split Ohio and Texas? Also, what happens if Clinton wins the Texas primary, but comes in second in delegates because of the caucus?"

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas thinks Obama's ground game will help him win TX: "There's a reason Obama is outperforming the polls and even my most optimistic vote predictions -- his volunteer-driven ground game is blowing whatever meager operation Clinton has completely out of the water. The numbers are moving dramatically in Obama's direction right now. He's going to win Texas, and win it comfortably. Here's the thing -- if the Texas election were today, Obama would likely win it by 10 points, regardless what the polls say. His ground operation is that good."

DEBATE CLINTON: Good, But Good Enough?

Most liberal bloggers felt that HRC gave an excellent performance at last night's debate but didn't do enough to stop Obama's momentum:

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "If [HRC] was still the front-runner, this would have counted as a clear Clinton win -- Obama had some good moments, but her ability to rattle off policy details on the fly really comes through whereas Obama needs to pause to think. But she's not the front-runner anymore, and it's hard to see anything she did to make up lost ground."

AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Clinton needed more. Her campaign made a very big deal about the debates -- as if she would dominate. She didn't get the boost we were led to believe she needed."

MyDD's Glenn Smith: "Nothing happened that will change whatever is going to happen anyway in the March 4 primary. Everyone assumed Clinton would try to knock Obama down a peg, throw him off his game, do something that would generate at least a fews days worth of news. There wasn't even one day worth of news generated [by the debate]. In that sense, Obama succeeded at his task. Clinton didn't."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat feels differently: "I thought Hillary whupped him good."

DEBATE CLINTON II: Finishing Strong

Many liberal bloggers thought that HRC's final answer was very effective:

Daily Kos' Scout Finch: "While I think that Barack Obama generally won the debate tonight, there is no doubt that Hillary's final response was her strongest of the night."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Hillary Clinton scored some points tonight both on healthcare and on her readiness to lead but man that last response I think is the story of the night."

Tom Hayden: "I thought Clinton excelled with her wrap up, which led to a standing ovation...Her performance might re-ignite her campaign, but also could be a memorable farewell, a dignity in defeat, for which she will be well remembered and honored."

Glenn Smith thinks the audience members were applauding both candidates, not just HRC: "Some pundits (I saw it primarily on MSNBC) have pointed to Hillary's 'magic moment' in her last debate answer last night and to the standing ovation she received. But I was there. The standing ovation was for both candidates. In fact, a CNN stage manager was waving his arms for the audience to stand, signaling the debate was over. It had nothing to do with what Hillary had said. The audience thought the debate was over."

DEBATE CLINTON III: Who's The Plagiarist Now?

Several liberal bloggers noticed that HRC echoed one of John Edwards' lines from an earlier debate when she said that the candidates onstage would be "fine":

Moulitsas: "See how silly this plagiarism thing is?...Glass houses and all. This plagiarism thing is officially dead...Worst. Political. Attack. Ever."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Hillary plagiarized her moving closing statement. I guess that's another negative attack that's backfired."

Liberal bloggers also noticed that HRC also echoed one of Bill Clinton's lines from his '92 campaign when she talked about taking "hits":

VichyDems's Thersites D. Scott: "Is it terrible that Clinton borrowed Edwards' words, or Bill [Clinton]'s...? Not really. But neither was Obama's use of a line that a friend of his offered to let him use. The issue is that Clinton tried to smear Obama with a discredited and essentially irrelevant plagiarism accusation while doing the same thing herself at least twice in the same debate. Clinton's 'primary' sin isn't plagiarism; it's it's hypocrisy, dishonesty, and disingenuity."

TPM's Josh Marshall: "The pivot of Hillary's powerful concluding remarks came from Bill Clinton's 92 campaign...Just to be 100% clear, there's nothing in the least wrong with this. And it's a great line. But I think it shows the silliness of the 'plagiarism' charges based on a few borrowed lines. Politicians borrow good lines and catch-phrases. Happens all the time. There's nothing wrong with it."

Big Tent Democrat accuses Marshall of bias: "In their fierce defense of Barack Obama, his partisans sometimes go to great lengths to demonstrate, ironically, that he is just another politician. Josh Marshall does so with this silly plagiarism stuff, in pseudo attacking Hilary Clinton for using a line similar to something Bill Clinton said in 1992."

DEBATE OBAMA: Most Improved

Most liberal bloggers felt that Obama did well enough to maintain his frontrunner status:

Josh Marshall: "Obama has clearly improved as a debater and seemed to embody the frontrunner mantle. All of this points basically to a tie. And in the context of where this campaign is, a tie is a win for Obama because he's winning."

Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Obama didn't make any mistakes and did a good job deflecting Hillary's (few) attempts to really engage 1-on-1...I score it a narrow win for Obama, who settled down after a slightly nervous start."

The Huffington Post's RJ Eskow: "Obama accomplished something extremely important [last night]: He presented himself as a convincing president and commander-in-chief. That was the last thing he needed to do to 'close the deal' with a number of voters, and he succeeded."

MCCAIN: What Does Not Kill Me, Makes Me Stronger

Most conservative bloggers think that the controversy over the New York Times story is actually helping the AZ senator:

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "The New York Times may have done the impossible for the John McCain campaign and for Republicans in general. As predicted yesterday when their strange and threadbare allegations hit print, the attack united conservatives behind McCain...And what exactly does that do for the Times' credibility for the rest of this electoral cycle? They can't run anything on McCain now without it being seen in the context of what the Times itself calls a 'war' between the Times and McCain. [NYT exec. editor Bill] Keller and company declared war on McCain yesterday, and it fired a bazooka of effluvium as its opening salvo. They've marginalized themselves for the next nine months."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "The obvious benefit this little story could give John McCain is that it might make conservatives like McCain more. After all, being attacked by the New York Times (read: elite liberal media) is a badge of honor for a Republican. But the other thing it could do is make him immune to future scandals. When the 'Rathergate' allegations about [George W.] Bush's forged memos turned out to be bogus, it not only undermined the specific documents -- it actually negated all the stories about Bush's Air National Guard Service. The point is; if this thinly sourced story is proven to be false, it might actually make McCain somewhat bullet-proof."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin has an interesting take: "Who says McCain's coziness with the media didn't pay off? Aside from the fact he literally is raising money on the Times, the vast majority of the mainstream media, not to mention both liberal and conservative bloggers, took his side or at least were highly critical of the Times. Isn't that the opposite of what the talk show hosts are saying (i.e. it never pays to cultivate the media)? I doubt any other Republican would have been as effective or adept at beating back a potentially very damaging story in less than 24 hours...One of the other GOP contenders -- you know, the mayor -- certainly was not."

MCCAIN II: Rightosphere Temperature Check

Right Wing News' John Hawkins emailed 59 conservative bloggers a list of questions about McCain. Here are a few of the questions, with responses:

Do you intend to vote for John McCain in November?
Yes - 75%
No - 25%

Do you consider John McCain to be a conservative?
Yes - 34%
No - 66%

Do you trust John McCain to appoint Supreme Court Justices like Roberts and Alito?
Yes - 55%
No - 45%

Do you believe John McCain will do a good job of handling the war in Iraq?
Yes - 95%
No - 5%

Do you think John McCain will win in November if his opponent is Hillary Clinton?
Yes - 86%
No - 14%

Do you think John McCain will win in November if his opponent is Barack Obama?
Yes - 42%
No - 58%

MCCAIN III: It's Not About Sex!

Several liberal bloggers want the media to focus less on the salacious aspects of the NYT story and more on what the story implies about McCain's lobbyist connections:

Chris Bowers: "I wish the focus of the story had been more on the corruption angle than the sex angle. Spending a lot of time with a telecom lobbyist, and then acting in favor of the firm of that lobbyist, is pretty damning stuff, especially for someone so 'ethical' like McCain. I worry that charge could be lost because of the innuendo about an affair that was not entirely substantiated."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "I've been watching cable news all morning and one of the things that strikes me is that they don't seem to grasp what the McCain/Iseman story is about. If this was just about Botox McCain getting lucky with some skinny lobbyist the campaign would probably be delighted to have it in the headlines to combat the 'he's too old' meme that's gathering steam. It's not. It's about his relationship with a telecom lobbyist who boasted about her ability to professionally influence him in business situations, and whose lobbying interests McCain has taken clear action to help. It undermines all his 'straight talk' crap about not taking money from lobbyists, which is why the campaign staff took action to keep her away from McCain."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, in contrast, doesn't think the lobbying aspect of the story is particularly interesting: "If McCain didn't have an affair, there's no story. If he did, then let's hear the evidence. The rest of the story about the Paxson lobbying is mildly interesting, but we all know perfectly well that no one really cares about it."

MCCAIN IV: Don't Throw Stones If You Live In A Glass House

Several liberal bloggers think McCain is in no position to go after Obama on the issue of campaign financing:

Josh Marshall: "McCain is insisting Obama honor his 'pledge' to opt in to the public financing system if his Republican opponent (McCain) agrees to do the same...Back in August McCain opted into the public financing system for the primaries...Since he now wants to raise and spend as much as possible before the end of the summer, earlier this month he did actually opt back out. The FEC, the outfit that enforces the campaign finance laws, says McCain's not allowed to opt out. But whatever, he opted out anyway. Explain to me how this guy gets out of the gate attacking anyone else about honoring pledges tied to the campaign finance system."

Daily Kos' Adam B links to Marshall's post and sarcastically asks, "Would you sign a pledge with [McCain]?"

Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "McCain tried to be tric