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 tricky about this: he didn't use the matching funds he had qualified for as collateral, but he did use the fact that he could qualify for them at any time...Whether or not this violates the law -- a law McCain authored -- I have no idea, but it is certainly an attempt to wriggle out of its requirements, and it ought to put paid, once and for all, to the idea of McCain as a straight-talking man of principle."

Conservative blogger John Hawkins feels little sympathy for McCain: "How's this for irony? Here's a guy who helped put together an anti-First Amendment campaign finance reform law that greatly harmed the Republican Party, and now, that very same law may put him in a position where he will have less money to spend between now and September than his most likely opponent can raise in a single month."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Sign o' the Times

Ezra Klein:

"Rather predictably, the McCain campaign is responding to the New York Times story on his possible affair with an all-out attack on the New York Times. If I were him I'd do the same thing. But it's worth pointing out here that the Times isn't getting any balance points from the right for having hired Bill Kristol, the world's biggest McCain-booster, onto their op-ed page a couple months ago. Indeed, Bill Kristol's magazine, The Weekly Standard, is part of the anti-Times chorus. When Kristol's next column comes out, I imagine he, too, will be part of the anti-Times chorus. And rightly so. He hates the Times and everything it stands for, except insofar as it stands for paying him money and publishing his articles.

Hiring a banal writer and an unimaginative ideologue like Kristol might have made some sense if his presence really would have legitimized the paper's reporting in the eyes of conservatives, but it's done nothing of the kind. Conservatives still hate The Times, and now, every Monday, the Times op-ed page features a poorly written, basically hackish column from Kristol. It's lose-lose."

LEST WE FORGET: It's Not What You Say, It's How You Say It

NRO's Michael Graham analyzes the Dem candidates:

"Barack Obama does make people feel good, which is remarkable given that he spends so much time talking about how bad things are. We're going broke, we're losing a war to a third world country, we're all working three jobs and still can't afford our meds, our souls are sick, etc., etc.

It's an amazing dichotomy. Hillary Clinton right now could announce she's handing out $100 bills and people would yawn. Barack could then announce he's taking the 100 bucks away, and people in the crowd would faint with excitement."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:40 PM

February 21, 2008

2/21: The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend

The big topic in the blogosphere is the controversial New York Times article about John McCain's allegedly improper relationship with a female lobbyist. Conservative bloggers are unanimously condemning the story, calling it a "hit job" and a "smear." Few righty bloggers think the article will do any lasting damage to McCain's candidacy; on the contrary, many think that it will actually inspire the GOP base to rally behind the AZ senator. McCain's cozy relationship with the press has been one of the many reasons that conservatives don't trust him. Now that the much-maligned NYT has published a critical piece about McCain (after endorsing him in January), conservative bloggers are rushing to the senator's defense.

MCCAIN: Smeared!

Most conservative bloggers are defending McCain against what they perceive to be a "smear" by the New York Times:

RedState's Erick Erickson: "If you ever wanted to know who the New York Times thinks is the enemy, look no further than their hit job on John McCain today. They wouldn't do something this dirty to Osama Bin Laden."

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The Times is a mouthpiece for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, nothing more. Its smear of McCain -- not the last, to be sure -- is entirely consistent with the editorial policies it has maintained for many years."

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "This story is trash...It is a disservice to both McCain and to the country for the Times to print this nothingburger of a story."

The Daily Standard's Richelieu: "Now that the matter of staff being worried about the perception of improper appearances between candidates and snazzy women is enough to spark a front page New York Times story, will the Times be soon publishing an exhaustive 11-part series on former President Bill Clinton? Just wondering..."

On the other hand, some conservative bloggers feel little sympathy for McCain:

Michelle Malkin calls it "karma": "If you lie down with MSM dogs, you wake up with stories like this."

NRO's Andy McCarthy: "Senator McCain appears to have been smeared by the Times. I'm sorry that happened, but if indignation is the order of the day, count me out...The Senator's reaction says it all: he's 'disappointed in the New York Times.' Of course, we can only be disappointed by those from whom we expect better. McCain expects better from the Times because he's accustomed to getting it, and he's accustomed to getting it because he's been very good about holding up his end of the bargain -- especially when it comes to demagoguing the Right."

MCCAIN II: We're All On The Same Side Now

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Will this hurt McCain? Not at all. First, this is even older than the smear job the Times did on Rudy Giuliani last year. Second, they don't have a single named source for this story. Third, the Times left out numerous examples where McCain acted against the interests of [Vicki] Iseman and her clients. The effect is likely going to produce more support for McCain among the GOP base, especially given the egregious and salacious nature of the controversy."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "[There is a] possibility that the story will perversely help McCain with certain elements in the conservative base that have long complained McCain has been too cozy with liberal media. (Many conservative pundits, of course, heaped scorn on McCain when the very same Times endorsed him.) If mutual antagonism toward the New York Times and the prospect of an ultra-liberal opponent can't bring McCain and the conservative base together, I suppose nothing will."

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "What's the quickest way to rally conservatives 'round McCain? A sandbagging from the NYT of just this skeezy a nature."

CBN's David Brody: "My hunch is that for the most part, this story does nothing to radically change McCain's relationship with Evangelicals. I mean, what? All of a sudden Evangelicals won't vote for him because of this, or now vote for [Barack] Obama or [Hillary] Clinton? I don't see it."

MCCAIN III: The View From The Left

Several liberal bloggers think the article will do serious damage to McCain's candidacy:

Daily Kos' Scout Finch: "It seems that poor judgement is a theme in John McCain's life. This story is bad for him from so many angles.....I'm not sure if McCain survives this one. Speculation about an affair is one thing, but an intimate relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist? Not smart. Not smart at all."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Whether there's a smoking gun as to the affair or not, seems to me the story alone could do some serious damage to a candidate who has benefited from the sense in the media and among independent voters that his principles and ethics are unimpeachable."

AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "This is a story that will probably 'have legs.' It is about ethics, it is about adultery (an issue the religious right claims to take seriously), and let's not forget that John McCain left his first wife, after she was seriously injured, so he could be with his second wife, 17 years his junior."

MCCAIN IV: Where's The Evidence?

Other liberal bloggers are critical, to varying degrees, of the story itself:

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "The Times story is a bit odd and innuendo-y, hinting at a sexual relationship between McCain and Iseman but they clearly don't have the goods...Certainly it'd be a bit rich of McCain to get outraged that anyone would even suggest that he might engage in sexual improprieties. After all, it's well known that he repeatedly cheated on his first wife Carol, of a number of years, with a variety of women, before eventually dumping her for a much-younger heiress whose family fortune was able to help finance his political career. That's well known, I should say, except to the electorate, who would probably find that this sort of behavior detracts from McCain's 'character' appeal."

TPM's Josh Marshall: "At the moment it seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it's had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was. Still, if the Times sources are to be believed, the staff thought [McCain] was having an affair with Iseman and when confronted about it he in so many words conceded that he was (much of course hangs on 'behaving inappropriately' but then, doesn't it always?) and promised to shape up. And whatever the personal relationship it was a stem wound about a lobbying branch."

Ezra Klein wants to see more evidence: "If the New York Times has evidence that John McCain conducted an affair with a lobbyist, then they should come out and say so. To try and imply it primarily by reporting the concerns of members of McCain's staff and halfhearted denials from his allies is confusing for the reader and bad for the paper."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat thinks this article never should have been published: "This is irresponsible, even despicable 'journalism.' Anonymous sources say THEY feared there was a romantic relationship 8 years ago? Suppose for a second, this is relevant, how could you possibly run this with just that? A responsible news organization would not."

CLINTON: Stop Talking, Start Winning

Several liberal bloggers think the Clinton campaign should stop talking about superdelegates and focus on winning primaries:

TAPPED's Mark Schmitt: "Clinton [can] sharpen her message, change her tone, and win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania by sizable margins. If she did that, she would win the nomination. But she is not going to win it by somehow convincing the press that she's going to win it by superdelegates or some other means."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "The Clinton campaign must remain relentlessly positive and substantive. In addition, the Clinton campaign MUST drop all discussion of super delegates, pledged delegates, Florida, Michigan and all the rest. That discussion must wait until after Clinton has won some recent primaries. Stow the inside baseball discussion."

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "The constant invitations to yet more conference calls with Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson explaining something else that doesn't matter are depressing. It's feeling very much over, and though I respect Senator Clinton a great deal, she is losing esteem with every day her campaign fumbles around and unmasks itself as a conservative corporate clumsy operation."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas writes HRC's obituary: "The rejection of Hillary Clinton has been absolute...[Her] campaign is now effectively dead...I'll call it right now -- baring a major gaffe or disaster, Obama will win both Texas and Ohio and that will be that."

CLINTON II: A 527 To The Rescue?

Several liberal bloggers are unhappy about the new 527 group that plans to help HRC defeat Obama by spending $10M on TV ads and direct mail:

Joe Sudbay: "Clinton's supporters are absolutely obsessed with driving up Obama's negatives. You get the sense that they cannot believe that Obama's campaign is making them work for what they rightly deserve. Now, instead of picking out their White House office furniture, they're forced to raise large amounts of money to tear down the Democratic front-runner. After all these years in power, the Clintons clearly have rich, rich friends who can chip in $100,000 on their behalf. To contrast, Obama's campaign hit an unprecedented landmark today: over 500,000 contributors. Clinton's campaign couldn't come close to that -- so she needs her wealthy friends to bail her out."

The Huffington Post's RJ Eskow: "Should [HRC] somehow prevail this way, it will certainly give John McCain a great way to make the case that he's a more 'honest politician' who's more likely to 'change Washington.' After all, he's opposed 527s since McCain/Feingold."

Daily Kos' Adam B thinks this 527 might be illegal: "Let's be clear: when a 527 forms for the express purpose of electing or defeating a particular federal candidate, and engages in public advocacy towards such ends -- as opposed to discussing issues -- it is breaking the law. Period. [...] A group that forms on the eve of primary elections, advertises only in the immediate primary election states, and has no track record whatsoever of any kind of 'issue advocacy' outside such context...well, it's damn hard in those circumstances to claim you're not in it for the purpose of influencing the elections."

CLINTON III: Speaking Of Drawing Contrasts...

Liberal bloggers are unhappy about the fiery speech given by Tom Buffenbarger, president of the machinists' union, who introduced HRC at a 2/19 OH rally by blasting both Obama and his supporters:

"But it was Obama supporters for whom Buffenbarger saved his most vitriolic contempt, and he proved that the Democratic Party's coalition is nothing if not fragile. Channeling Howard Beale from the movie 'Network,' he yelled into the microphone, 'Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter.'"

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "That might be a bit offensive if it wasn't so hysterically overwrought with pathetic conservative stereotypes."

Open Left's Mike Lux: "Tom, and my friends in the Clinton campaign, I don't think this kind of rhetoric helps your cause. God knows there is nothing wrong with a little old-fashioned working-class populism, as I have advocated many times in my day. But I don't see how it adds any working-class voters to the Clinton cause, and it has great potential to drive your numbers down among what some of us call creative-class voters (those who work in universities, the arts, media, high-tech and in small businesses like architecture, engineering and law firms), many of whom are still wavering as to whom to vote for. Here's the other thing: to cause such divisiveness now between creative-class liberals and blue-collar workers really, really screws us come the general election: we need both kinds of folks to win this election."

Matthew Yglesias: "I'm looking forward to Paul Krugman's condemnation of this. More generally, one thing Hillary Clinton's supporters need to consider at this moment is the extent to which she and John McCain are reading from the same sheet of talking points. If you genuinely believe in your heart that Obama is too green to be president, and that the person with more Beltway experience belongs in the White House, then by all means keep saying that stuff but if you would prefer Obama over McCain if Clinton can't get the nomination then you do need to consider what the impact of having high-profile Democrats going on record claiming that the likely Democratic nominee can't do the job is going to be. That's a different kind of thing than hitting him on his health care plan, or pointing to his sometimes off-base environmental record in the Senate."

OBAMA: The Backlash To The Backlash

Several liberal bloggers are pushing back against the increasingly negative media coverage of Obama:

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "I have to shake my head at the rather transparent timing with which the DC media hacks seem to have trained their sights on Barack Obama. Howard Kurtz this weekend was tut-tutting at his fellow journalists and their glowing coverage of Obama, urging them to be more critical. It was a clarion call to the jackals, one of the many signals this week that we've entered the second phase of the build-up/tear down process that the Beltway Bores so cynically love to engage in, where yesterday's darling now becomes today's object of mockery and derision...Things that never bothered them before -- well, just seem to get in their craw now. Because after all, Obama is no longer running against John Edwards and that haircut, or the shrill Hillary Clinton. Obama's now running against St. John McVain, He Who Must Be Annointed."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Up until now, Obama has received relatively sympathetic treatment from the two-headed right-wing/media monster because he's been the anti-Hillary, and hatred for her resulted in affection (or at least restraint) towards him. Once he's no longer the anti-Hillary, but instead becomes the only thing standing between John McCain/GOP power and the White House, he's going to be the target of all of that bile and much, much more. As the Right begins to believe that he very well might be the enemy this Fall, and they thus pressure the media to begin its attacks, this week one got a small glimpse -- a tiny fraction -- of what is to come."

Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith: "The media pundit pile-on regarding Barack Obama has begun in earnest the last couple of days, as his campaign has picked up steam by winning two more contests in WI and HI...We have known it was coming, the love affair with a Democrat never lasts, but the crush on McVain apparently lasts for-evah. Are substance and policy issues something to be questioned? Absolutely, for every candidate. Is it being done in an even-handed way? Nope. Not even close. Again."

Digby: "It was only a matter of time before the media began to trivialize Obama and his campaign as a bunch of latte sipping left-wing hippie elites. That's the 30 year conservative rap on liberals and it's been fully internalized by the MSM and a whole lot of Americans, even some Democrats. When you start to hear the pundits talking about 'beer track/wine track' this isn't far behind."

OBAMA II: The Labor Candidate

Several liberal bloggers are discussing Obama's recent endorsements by the Teamsters and Boilermakers unions:

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "With the pro-Clinton, anti-Obama 527 organization cooked up by Clinton supporters already beginning to run ads in their $10 million plus effort, these labor endorsements -- particularly from the Teamsters -- comes at a good time for Obama. [...] Obama is beginning to make inroads in the labor community (he won labor households in Wisconsin by a 53 percent to 43 percent margin), and bringing more unions to his side won't likely slow that trend ahead of Ohio, which also has a large labor contingent."

Daily Kos' MissLaura: "Further union support could materially help [Obama] lock things up with a strong performance in Ohio, which is more than 14% unionized. And even the cynical view that this is bandwagon-jumping reveals the widespread belief that Obama will be the nominee."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Now Or Never?

NRO's Jim Geraghty thinks HRC will "fight on until the last dog dies":

"If you're a Democrat who has been spending your life to be president, this is it. This is your cycle. Since election night 2006, Democrats have been convinced one of their own will be taking the oath of office next January. If politics is cyclical, the GOP will be due for a rebound, or at least better years, in two to four years.

If Hillary quits now, then four years from now she will be either trying to get the nomination again to take on an incumbent McCain or McCain's vice president, or challenging an incumbent President Obama. That task would be at least as difficult as the obstacles Ted Kennedy had against Jimmy Carter in 1980. And it would be much tougher and uglier task than she faces now in dealing with superdelegates or Michigan and Florida.

There is no long-term game. Either she's the party's nominee this year, or she won't ever be."

LEST WE FORGET: 46 Years Young

The American Scene's Alan Jacobs:

"The very best thing about the Obama campaign? Easy: That a guy only two years younger than me is continually referred to as 'youthful.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:52 PM

February 20, 2008

2/20: Out-Flank, Out-Rank

With the GOP primary race all but resolved, conservative bloggers are chattering about Barack Obama's perceived weaknesses in the general election, such as his relative inexperience and his liberal voting record. They are also continuing to savage Michelle Obama for her comments about being proud of her country "for the first time in [her] adult lifetime." Conservative bloggers view this statement as deeply unpatriotic and are using it to paint the Obamas as out of touch with "regular Americans." Now that Obama must spend the next few weeks (or more) fighting a two-front war against Hillary Clinton and John McCain, GOPers have an excellent opportunity to begin "branding" the IL senator. To a lot of righty bloggers, McCain's chances are looking better by the day.

OBAMA: I'm In Ur Base, Stealin' Ur Voters

Liberal bloggers noted that Obama made major inroads among women and white working-class voters in WI:

Daily Kos' Meteor Blades: "The story of the night? Senator Clinton's bare win of the women's vote in Wisconsin (51%-49%), which marks a significant and portentous shift toward Obama."

TPM's David Kurtz: "The electorate isn't remaining static. It's moving, and the exit polls suggest it's moving toward Obama. Last week, Obama made gains among white voters and women in Virginia and Maryland. Today, the exit polls show him eroding [HRC's] core constituencies further: he almost won among women and won among middle-aged voters, among lower-income voters, and among union households."

The Nation's Ari Melber: "The results showed Obama consolidating a remarkably broad coalition of voters. He won every age group under 65, every income level and both union and non-union households. Obama won among whites and blacks, married and unmarried voters and among both college-educated voters and people without degrees."

OBAMA II: Why You Wanna Playa Hate On Me?

Unsurprisingly, Obama's netroots critics disliked his victory speech:

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "[Obama] sounds like a televangical preacher."

The Left Coaster's Steve Soto: "If tonight is any guide, Democrats will be getting a nominee who runs just as often against them as Republicans. They will be getting a nominee who shows little stomach for holding the Republican Party in general and John McCain particularly accountable for what they have done to this country. [Obama's] campaign seemingly has an easier time carving up a female Democratic opponent than they do a Republican standard-bearer who represents Bush's third term, and who questions Obama's fitness for office."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Here [Obama] goes sending some dog whistle right-wing talking points to those red state Democrats in Texas: 'I believe in the free market. I know Texans believe in entrepreneurship. [...]' I mean, I get that he's framing an essentially progressive value, that government should have a role in improving people's lives, just using right-wing talking points, but why is he so intent on changing right-wing foreign policy conventional wisdom yet so content to buy into right-wing frames on domestic policy, from taxes to Social Security to healthcare and now government [...]?"

Taylor Marsh: "Evidently, Democrats in 2008 don't care about action, they prefer speeches, promises, and fairy tales."

Daily Kos' georgia10, on the other hand, thought Obama's speech was effective: "This is a very different speech. Obama appears to be more emotional, and the audience is clearly connecting to the content (no surprise there). Compare his speech to McCain's. Tonight, Obama clearly brings a sense of urgency, and breathes that sense of urgency into his words. McCain's speech? The only urgency in McCain's speech was the urgent need to stay in Iraq for another 100 years."

OBAMA III: Come Back When You're Older

Now that Obama is the clear Dem frontrunner, conservative bloggers are slamming him for his lack of experience:

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Just because the experience vs. novice contrast hasn't been working for Clinton, it doesn't mean that it will definitely fail for McCain. The reason is that, from the very start, it was laughable for Clinton to claim that she was ready to lead from day one. As has been pointed out, her so-called 35 years of experience was largely a myth...With McCain, there is actually a true contrast. Here's a man with decades of experience in the Senate, who has been deeply involved in national security matters, with a military background, who can much more credibly argue that he's ready to lead by day one."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Democrats may believe that because Obama is besting Hillary, he can withstand anything McCain will throw at him. But a lot of lines of attack that are available for John McCain that just wouldn't work for Hillary Clinton. For starters, she's tried to go after him on experience, but she's got all of four more years in the Senate than he does...John McCain can [also] point out that Barack Obama has been rated the most liberal lawmaker in the U.S. Senate by National Journal. Hillary Clinton can't."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "[Obama] has been in the Senate a grand total of three years, one of which he's spent running for President. He has no record of even attempting to bring any of the themes on which he's running now to the Senate for consideration as actual legislative product. Why didn't he act when he had the chance?...[McCain] hasn't just sat around talking about change; he's actually accomplished it, sometimes in directions that angered Republicans then and now. McCain can cast himself as the real agent of change and bipartisanship, while Obama just poses as such for an election without once taking any real risks."

That said, NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez still prefers HRC as the Dem nominee: "Of the two Democrats running, I trust [HRC] more to maybe not get us killed...I [also] think she's easier to beat. Hey, if this third-year senator can do it..."

OBAMA IV: It's Oppo Time!

Conservative bloggers are also discussing other ways to attack Obama:

NRO's Lisa Schiffren suspects Obama's parents were Communists: "Obama and I are roughly the same age. I grew up in liberal circles in New York City -- [where] all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics...Time for some investigative journalism about the Obama family's background, now that his chances of being president have increased so much."

NRO's Andrew Stuttaford thinks investigating Obama's background is a bad idea: "Good grief, Lisa, I'm no fan of Obama, but I really think that 'investigating' the senator's background in the manner you suggest will be thoroughly counterproductive...Now, as it happens, I do think that Obama is a man whose political leanings are some considerable way to the left of what is generally understood. The best, and most convincing, way to establish that fact, however, is by examining his more recent record and what he stands for now, not by rooting around in his, and his family's, past."

Philip Klein doesn't think there's much dirt on Obama: "You'd think that if there was some dark secret in Obama's past, that the Clinton oppo research team would have found it, and if they found it, they would have used it by now. So, whatever one may say about Obama's liberalism, empty rhetoric, or blossoming Messiah complex, there's every reason to believe that he is the generally honest and decent guy he appears to be."

OBAMA V: It's Open Season On Her...And You

Conservative bloggers are also continuing to hammer Michelle Obama for her 2/18 comments:

Michelle Malkin: "Unlike Michelle Obama, I can't keep track of the number of times I've been proud -- really proud -- of my country since I was born and privileged to live in it...I believe it was Michael Kinsley who quipped that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. In this case, it's what happens when an elite Democrat politician's wife says what a significant portion of the party's base really believes to be the truth: That America is more a source of shame than pride."

Ed Morrissey: "How can one live as an adult and not take great pride in [America's] accomplishments? One has to start from a perspective that sees America as a malevolent force, a viewpoint typical of the hard Left. No matter what good America does, they see the nation as shameful because of its lack of perfection. And they want to gain power so that they can impose the solutions for these perceived imperfections in a top-down, autocratic manner."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "[This is] a fight in which the Democrats almost always lose (because it shows they are out-of-touch with most patriotic Americans)."

CLINTON: What Now?

Most liberal bloggers believe that HRC must win both TX and OH (not to mention PA) by solid margins:

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Texas and Ohio are now the mother of all firewalls. If Hillary doesn't notch up solid wins there, it's all over."

TPM's Josh Marshall: "Clinton's hope to even come close among pledged delegates rests on big wins in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. But the trends in support among key demographic groups give very little reason to think those outcomes are likely."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "It looks pretty hopeless [for HRC]. I appreciate her fight, but I don't know how [Obama] doesn't have it sewn up after tonight."

Digby: "Perhaps she'll go on to Pennsylvania if the math is close, but if Texas and Ohio are like tonight, I doubt it. She has a senate seat and he's got a legacy to protect. Contrary to people's imaginations lately, Bill [Clinton] and Hillary Clinton aren't actually soulless zombies committed to destroying everything in their wake."

Atrios disagrees with Digby: "I don't think this will be over on March 4th..."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias defies CW by continuing to predict that HRC will win the nomination: "There are two weeks between now and the crucial Texas/Ohio matchups. During that period, all signs point to John McCain focusing his fire on Obama rather than Mike Huckabee or Clinton. Consequently, Obama's real and potential general election vulnerabilities are going to be front-and-center in the minds of Democrats, whereas Clinton's equally real potential vulnerabilities will be invisible. Fundamentally, meanwhile, many people -- especially including Democrats and not by any means excluding African-Americans -- deep down can't really imagine that the black guy could also be the electable guy."

CLINTON II: Whoops!

Several liberal bloggers are criticizing the Clinton campaign for failing to file a full slate of convention delegates for PA's 4/22 primary:

Yglesias: "Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell ordered a special extension of the deadline to help Hillary Clinton have the time she needed to put together a full slate of delegates for the state, but despite that she still fell short by about ten people. Marc Ambindercalls it 'more evidence that the Clinton campaign simply did not envision a delegate hunt until it was much too late.' But why didn't they plan for this?...One would think an entire campaign full of veteran political professionals might have noticed what was happening."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "How can Clinton be ready to 'lead on day one', when she can't even take care of business during the primaries?...Rendell changed the rules mid-game to try and help out his candidate, and Clinton's campaign still couldn't pull of the simple task. Maybe she thought those districts didn't matter like 2/3rds of the rest of the country? Obama's 'inexperienced' campaign, however, what with their pretty plagiarized words, didn't seem to have a problem."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "More evidence of the incompetence of the Clinton campaign...How could this possibly have happened? And make no mistake, this reflects on the candidate, Hillary Clinton."

Atrios: "[This is] not exactly confidence building."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Politics Of Branding

Now that conservatives have begun branding Obama, Open Left's Matt Stoller is thinking about how liberals can brand McCain:

"Everyone I've spoken with believes that the holy grail of branding seems to be associating McCain strongly with [George W.] Bush. I've heard 'George Bush with medals', and 'a continuation of Bush's policies', and he's obviously quite weak on economics. [...]

Voters are quite resistant to the Bush-McCain link, though, since [McCain] is often criticized by Republicans. They think well of him on Iraq and national security, having been exposed to only a small amount of information on who he is and what he thinks. They are shocked by the 100 years in Iraq comment, though when he explains that it's just like our presence in Korea there's more tolerance. A backdoor way to frame McCain as a Bush-like candidate is to portray him as old, part of the politics of the past, and angry. He's quite vulnerable on his temper and age, and women in particular revolt against his treatment of his first wife (whom he left for a younger wealthy woman after she got into an accident).

McCain is definitely open to attack on the economy, and voters are quite willing to believe he is going to continue the Bush economic legacy of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. So old, angry, addicted to war, and part of the past seems to be the consensus narrative on McCain."

LEST WE FORGET: Area Dad Will Only Watch Things In HD

From The Onion:

"SHELTON, CT -- According to family members, ever since area father Gerry DiCenzo purchased a 52-inch HD LCD television last month, he has refused to watch any program not broadcast in high-definition. 'Every time I walk into the room, he's like, "Michael, sit down, you have to look at this picture," but it's always something crappy, like golf or bowling or something,' said son Michael, 14, who noted that his father will often flip back and forth between CBS's high-definition station and its regular station to illustrate the difference, acting physically disgusted when the picture is not in HD. 'He always watches Happy Feet on HBO and says, "Look how clear the pixels are -- you can see the individual feathers on the penguins!" I don't even think he knows what the plot of the movie is.' DiCenzo, who now also only rents movies on Blu-Ray, proudly noted that Spider-Man 3 star Tobey Maguire 'has a bunch of moles on his face that you can't see in regular-def.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:43 PM

February 19, 2008

2/19: Copycat!

The big topic in the blogosphere is the Hillary Clinton camp's accusation that Barack Obama committed "plagiarism" during a 2/16 speech. Most (but not all) liberal bloggers think this is a bogus charge that reflects the Clinton camp's increasing desperation. But will the attack -- and the considerable media attention it has received -- make a difference in today's contests in WI and HI?

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers continue to rally behind John McCain. We predicted on 2/14 that "by disseminating damaging critiques of the Dem nominee's words and record, righty bloggers will prove to be a valuable weapon for McCain." If the uproar in the conservative blogosphere over Michelle Obama's recent comments is any indication, that process has already begun.

CLINTON: I'm Not A Biter, I'm A Writer For Myself And Others

Most liberal bloggers were dismissive of the Clinton camp's "plagiarism" accusation:

TPM's David Kurtz: "Obviously, this isn't plagiarism. But like the flip-flop line of attack Hillary is pressing on Obama's public financing pledge, the attack speaks to her campaign's effort to undermine the very thing that has been the centerpiece of Obama's candidacy: his authenticity...The attacks are intended to bring down Obama's positives, to knock him off his pedestal. But it's hard to see how they raise Hillary's. Her argument, boiled down, is: 'He's no better than me.' (Or perhaps, less charitably, 'He's just as bad as me.') Judged as political rhetoric, it strikes me as equally ineffective as her earlier charge that Obama was 'raising false hopes.'"

TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "This is dumbest controversy since Clinton accused Obama of having a messy desk."

The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "This really is a desperate attack...Seriously, is this what Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn have been reduced to? Senator Clinton, if you really want to win this thing, you need to fire these guys."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "My memory is hazy. Was the [Howard] Dean campaign as pathetic during its 'implosion' stage as the Clinton campaign has behaved the last week or two? I'm trying to figure out if this is normal behavior for a desperate campaign or if the Clintons are reaching new heights of idiocy...How long before we have a YouTube of Hillary 'plagiarizing' words and phrases from other places? I say 36 hours."

Several bloggers accused HRC of hypocrisy, noting that she, too, has borrowed phrases from other politicians:

The New Republic's Noam Scheiber: "I find it a little strange that the Clinton campaign would be pushing this allegation. As I noted back in November, you can't listen to a Clinton speech without hearing multiple riffs she's filched from other candidates."

The Nation's Ari Melber: "Since it's considered so clever to project a candidate's weakness onto an opponent, it's really no surprise that the Clinton Campaign is now attacking Obama on trumped up allegations of sounding like another politician...If anything, she should be under pressure for mimicking both Obama and McCain, but instead, a dramatic conference call spurred reporters to press Obama on the issue. But it's precisely times like these when Obama's talk about transcending petty politics makes the most sense."

CLINTON II: Gotta Love It, 'Cause I Expose The Facade

Pro-Clinton bloggers had a different take on the plagiarism controversy:

Taylor Marsh: "Obama's played his supporters for suckers. They bought into the hope hype, sucking up this stuff with a straw, only to find out Obama's not an original, he's a knock off, of a governor, no less. Siphoning off of a winning campaign to try to win the presidency with a formula...Barack Obama isn't an original. He's the first 21st century L. Ron Hubbard of politics, Elmer Gantry, name your huckster. 'I have a dream' just became 'I have a con.'"

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "I've been suggesting we ignore Obama's scripted speeches for months. This is just more evidence of that proposition to me."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong thinks Obama strategist David Axelrod "got sloppy" with his speech-writing: "It seems much more likely that David Axelrod, who is the message guru behind both campaigns, got sloppy with the text he wrote for Obama. Pat Cadell, when he got sloppy while working for Joe Biden, blamed it on his sub-conscious remembrance. Axelrod has been re-working the same playbook he's done for Obama and [MA Gov. Deval] Patrick in a number of races over this decade, including Obama's from '04, and which Patrick borrowed from at times. [...] Sounds like a good marketing scheme has been sold one too many times...but is this really plagiarism? Nah, just words."

CLINTON III: Dissing Red-State Dems

Liberal bloggers are once again criticizing the Clinton camp for downplaying the importance of states where Obama won. Joel Ferguson, the co-chairman of HRC's MI campaign, provoked the criticism by saying:

"Superdelegates are not second-class delegates. The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic."

Moulitsas: "What is it with Clinton's people and their utter disdain for a 50-state strategy? And do they not realize that there are other races on the ballot, and that having the party's standard bearer trash red states publicly isn't going to do any favors to congressional, statewide, and local-level Democrats busting their asses to move their states in a progressive direction?...If this was an isolated quote, it wouldn't be a big deal. But it's clear that from Bill [Clinton], to Hillary, to Mark Penn, and on down, the campaign has made clear to its surrogates that this line of attack isn't just tolerated, it's encouraged."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Apparently Hillary Clinton's campaign can't get through a day without picking out some new set of states that don't count."

Atrios: "I don't mind politicians engaging in a bit of politics, what annoys me is either ludicrously bad politics or rhetoric which reinforces right wing bullshit about our side. Is dismissing the voters and caucusgoers a good way to woo the superdelegates of those states?"

OBAMA: Opening Salvos

Conservative bloggers are piling onto Michelle Obama for a statement she made on 2/18, when she said:

"[Hope] is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment."

Hot Air's Bryan Preston: "Only her husband's run for president has made her proud of America? That's extremely narcissistic and self-centered...I certainly don't want such a vain pessimist as First Lady."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "The arrogance, ingratitude, and knee-jerk anti-Americanism of [her] remark are self-evident...It's comforting to know that America can vindicate itself in Ms. Obama's eyes by electing Barack president. But it's unlikely that even her new-found pride in America, and whatever pride her husband might muster, would be sufficient to cause Mr. Obama seriously to defend its sovereignty."

Commentary's John Podhoretz: "[Her statement] suggests, first, that the pseudo-messianic nature of the Obama candidacy is very much a part of the way the Obamas themselves are feeling about it these days...Second, it suggests the Obama campaign really does have its roots in New Class leftism, according to which patriotism is not only the last refuge of a scoundrel, but the first refuge as well -- that America is not fundamentally good but flawed, but rather fundamentally flawed and only occasionally good. There's something for John McCain to work with here."

NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "Michelle Obama is a loose cannon, and I fear that her latest is not her last. I would have thought that two Ivy-League degrees, a joint income of about a million dollars, exclusive private schools for the kids, and a nice home in the suburbs were not so bad and might suggest that hope had made a comeback well before Barack's presidential run."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Michelle Obama has a habit of going much too far in promoting what is becoming a personality cult."

MCCAIN: He May Be A Maverick, But He's Our Maverick

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini thinks conservatives should "let McCain be McCain": "I fought as hard as anyone to get us a different nominee. But now that it's McCain, can't we at least get the benefit of his unique maverick-style approach to campaigning instead of the uninspiring Bob Dole 'unite the party' routine we've got right now? My problem with McCain was never with his free-wheeling maverick style. In fact, I'm in awe of how he uses to bring people around to unpopular positions. The problem was that I wished he'd spent more times pushing positions unpopular with Democrats. But those times he has agreed with us, such as the war, he has turned out to be the best advocate we could have. By flashing his trademark pugnacity and humor, by deploying his straight talk on behalf of red meat conservative issues, he can go a long way towards amping up the enthusiasm level of grassroots conservatives."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt continues to promote McCain on national security grounds: "John McCain has been preparing his whole life to be Commander-in-Chief in wartime, and his reading continues to be the sort one expects of a C-in-C in waiting. I don't think any serious conservative can compare Senator McCain to either Senator Clinton or Senator Barack and say the war would be in better hands with either of the Democrats. In fact, any supporter of victory has to shudder at the prospect of turning the American military over to either of those two as this conflict rages."

Michelle Malkin, on the other hand, isn't ready to get on board the Straight Talk Express just yet: "John McCain is incapable of disagreeing with strict immigration enforcement activists without lambasting their character, honesty, and integrity. We're 'nativists' and Jim Crow-style racists who should just 'f**k' off. He couldn't help sneering at former GOP rival Mitt Romney's business experience as dishonorable and greedy. And his personal vindictiveness toward GOP Hill staffers who have opposed his positions is well-known."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why Obama Is Jay-Z and Hillary Is Cam'ron

Adam Leon explains:

"Hillary Clinton's plagiarism ploy brings to mind the classic beef between rappers Cam'ron and Jay-Z. In 2006, Cam'ron released several dis tracks aimed at his former labelmate, the generally unimpeachable Jay-Z. [...]

One of the songs Cam dropped was 'Swagger Jacker,' a seven-and-a-half-minute epic sonic collage sampling instances where Jay-Z 'plagiarized' from other rappers. The parallels to Hillary's YouTube dis video are undeniable. Both Hillary and Cam'ron, unable to gain the respect or popularity of their rival, resort to calling their opponent a plagiarist. The arguments are thin at best, although at least Cam included multiple examples. As Noam Scheiber (No'am?) pointed out, almost all politicians bite each others' rhymes, and Senator Clinton is in no way a stranger to the practice. [...]

Jay-Z came out the victor in the beef, in part because he reacted with no more than a shrug, refusing to release a response song directly aimed at his foe. Jay was able to position himself as above such childish and desperate mud-slinging, a strategy Senator Obama seems to have successfully, um, borrowed."

LEST WE FORGET: U.S. Politics 101

The Onion has a helpful glossary of commonly used political terms (h/t Patrick Appel). Here are some of our favorites:

• ballot: An object recording a voter's decision that is frequently counted toward an election's outcome.
• debate: A contest to see which candidate can answer the fewest questions.
• election worker: A male or female at least 70 years of age.
• electoral college: A process by which the number of states in the Union is narrowed down to the most important seven or eight.
• hope: An intangible object within every American that is destroyed every four years in November.
• likability: The degree to which each candidate is able to hide the extent to which he or she is full of shit.
• Rock The Vote: Something that is, apparently, still happening.
• voter apathy: The reason most American politicians are able to achieve and maintain office.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:49 PM

February 15, 2008

2/15: Delegate Wars

The debate over superdelegates is growing increasingly heated. On one side are MoveOn (which has endorsed Barack Obama), Democracy For America (the grassroots political organization founded by Howard Dean), and the Superdelegate Transparency Project (which is being promoted by bloggers such as Chris Bowers). These groups seek to pressure the superdelegates into supporting the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates. On the other side are bloggers such as Todd Beeton and Jerome Armstrong, who think these online campaigns are merely a thinly veiled attempt to secure the nomination for Obama.

Several bloggers -- including Josh Marshall and Markos Moulitsas -- think superdelegates will ultimately support the pledged delegate winner, making this whole debate irrelevant. But if neither Hillary Clinton nor Obama emerges as the clear pledged delegate leader, what then?

DEM FIELD: On The Road To Oblivion?

TPM's Greg Sargent reports that MoveOn is entering the battle over superdelegates: "In a sign that the spin wars over the super-delegates are starting to heat up in a big way, MoveOn has just jumped into the fight, sending out a mass email asking supporters to sign a petition urging super-delegates to back whoever wins the popular vote...A MoveOn spokesperson says that the criterion the supers should use to determine the will of the people is whoever is ahead in pledged delegates at the end of the day."

MyDD's Todd Beeton thinks MoveOn's motives are less than pure: "Let's be serious, no one really thinks these two groups would be launching these campaigns if Hillary Clinton were currently ahead in pledged delegates, do they? These are clearly proxy Obama campaigns at work, which is fine, certainly DFA and MoveOn are entitled to do so, it's just the self-righteous tone they use that I find somewhat offensive and, frankly, manipulative...If DFA and MoveOn were really concerned with superdelegates' representing the 'will of the people' they'd actually be urging elected officials to pledge to vote for the candidate who wins his or her state or district."

Open Left's Chris Bowers explains his views on the matter: "I don't really blame the Clinton campaign for implying that the popular vote does not matter as long as it is close, and that they consider all delegates equal no matter how those delegates were elected to the convention...I imagine that any campaign in their situation would say or do exactly the same thing...Still, I still feel it is imperative that democratic values, no matter how imperfectly those values are represented by the staggered primary and caucus process, be upheld in this campaign. This is not only for the sake of the values themselves, but also for the sake of keeping the party from suffering a generational body blow to its image and activist corps."

Bowers continues: "If, in the days and weeks after March 4th, the margin of democratic imperfection in the system is still greater than the margin between Obama and Clinton, then that is the bitter and unfortunate reality we all face. At that point, there simply will not be victory in this campaign for either side without making successful arguments to enough super delegates that they should vote one way because it is the right thing to do, and that they better vote one way or else...If you are willing to engage that fight, for starters, you can add your name to the petitions currently being circulated by Democracy for America and MoveOn.org. This might not be a crisis situation yet, but it is good to start working to make sure that it never becomes one. Give the super delegates the push they need."

David Sirota is less charitable toward the Clinton camp: "Looks like Hillary Clinton's campaign machine is getting its superdelegates (aka party insiders) to start softening up the public for a potential trampling of democracy that may mark the Democratic National Convention. This morning we have two superdelegates from different parts of the country landing headlines in their local papers saying they are fully prepared to ignore voters and trample democracy -- as long as that lets them help Clinton potentially steal the Democratic nomination...To sign a petition demanding superdelegates respect democracy, go here. And make sure to check out the Superdelegate Transparency Project here."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "What's most interesting to me about this whole affair...is that the Clintonistas would even suggest the use of super delegates to subvert the will of the Democratic Party electorate. It betrays a lack of confidence in their candidate's electoral viability, even with a calendar that will become far more favorable to her in March, while seemingly confirming every right-wing charge that the Clintons place winning above all else, including principle."

DEM FIELD II: This Is Not 'Nam. This Is Bowling. There Are Rules.

Sirota believes that the FL and MI delegations should not be seated: "Clinton partisans will counter that we should count the Florida and Michigan delegates because they were supposedly 'disenfranchised.' What a joke. The candidates agreed not to campaign there, and agreed that the delegates would not be seated. Now, of course, the Clinton partisans want those delegates to count, even though they were banana republic-style elections -- no campaigning, and in the case of Michigan, not even anyone other than Clinton on the ballot. Puh-leeze."

Ezra Klein is also annoyed by the Clinton camp's FL and MI spin: "To make one more point on the Clinton campaign's promise to try and re-seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, it's getting a bit annoying to watch them discover brand new principles as soon as they become politically useful...I never, not once, heard anyone in the Clinton campaign denigrate the representative nature of caucuses when it look like they might win Iowa...Similarly, when the DNC decided to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegations, I never, not once, heard the Clinton campaign stand up stop the whole thing from happening. They stayed silent, and even assented to the DNC's decision...Sure, it's politics, Clinton is angling for advantage, if a bit cynically. But that judgment is not where the conversation stops: If it's cynical, risky politics that brings a lighted match and a can of gas near the Democratic coalition, it should be named as such, and its consequences understood."

Open Left's Mike Lux thinks a "backroom deal" is needed to resolve this issue: "On the one hand, not to seat delegations from Michigan and Florida would be wrong morally, because it would disenfranchise voters who have no fault in the matter...On the other hand, we had rules set up that the candidates agreed to and were in support of and signed off on that said that the Michigan and Florida primaries would not count in terms of delegates. When you have rules that are agreed to and signed off on, and then it's to one candidate's advantage that those rules be broken, you shouldn't just throw the rules out...So we have to come up with a solution to this problem...What needs to happen is that Howard Dean needs to bring some people into this process who are neutral parties, have them sit down with the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties, have representatives from the campaign so that their point of view is known, but he needs to put together a deal to solve this problem."

Digby wants FL and MI to hold new primaries: "In a campaign that looks like it's going to cost a billion dollars, I think the money can be found to hold new primaries in both states. Since neither of the candidates campaigned in the first round neither should complain. It's not cheap, but it's doable. Chris Bowers...suggests that the Florida delegates should be seated as is and offers some solid reasons as to why that makes sense. But since legitimacy is a problem with this whole thing and I've heard talk of 'marching in the streets all the way to Denver' I think we can assume that seating those delegates in a way that would tip the results is a non-starter. So, I'm for a new election...It would be the most legitimate tie breaker possible and would probably offer the winner a real mandate. It would certainly be better than having a bunch of fat cats make the decision."

CLINTON: Your State Is Insignificant

The Clinton campaign is taking criticism from liberal bloggers for a statement made by Chief Strategist Mark Penn, who told reporters:

"Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama."

Atrios: "The dismissal of the voters of dozens of states and relegating them to insignificant status is the kind of thing which can come back and bite you in the ass. I'm sure in late August, the people of Colorado will appreciate their insignificant status even more."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "An awful lot of us live in the states that Penn has just flagged as insignificant. It kind of rankles."

Moulitsas: "Really, has there ever been a more idiotic line of spin in the history of politics, the suggestion that because Obama didn't win a Democratic primary in California or New York, that those two solid Democratic states are suddenly out of reach for him in November? With that logic, it's obvious Clinton has no chance in Illinois, since she got crushed there! But worse than that, how is Clinton expected to win some of those important states that 'don't matter', like Colorado, Missouri, Washington, Minnesota, Virginia, Maryland, Maine, Delaware, Iowa, and Connecticut? Well, not insulting them as meaningless, for one."

TPM's Josh Marshall: "The last couple days have shown very clearly I think that Clinton could do nothing better for her campaign than to throttle this clown and let her get down to the business of making a case to voters for her candidacy...Now you have Penn successively saying caucus wins don't really count, small state wins don't really count, medium state wins don't really count, states with large African-American populations don't really count, all building up to yesterday's gem: 'Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.'"

CLINTON II: Your Caucus Is Also Insignificant

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing Bill Clinton for downplaying the importance of caucuses when he said:

"The caucuses aren't good for [Hillary]. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don't really need a president but feel like they need a change."

Moulitsas: "What is it with the Clintons and their efforts to insult any state or person who didn't support Hillary? I sort of expect that sort of thing from any campaign's most rabid supporters, but this stuff is coming from the candidate herself, from her husband, the former president of the United States, and the campaign's top leadership. How much more insulting can they get?...Even in many primary states, low income voters still supported Obama over Clinton, like Virginia (62-36), Louisiana (58-36), and Missouri (51-46) to name just three. I wish they'd stop it and simply admit the real reason for their caucus problem -- they didn't organize and run a national campaign so they're having trouble winning states without strong Democratic machines to do the heavy lifting for them."

Daily Kos diarist scotslass: "I'm sorry, but what did you say? Those 'upper income' service union workers in Nevada don't need a president? Those thousands of caucus-goers who turned out to vote for YOU didn't need a president?"

OBAMA: On, Wisconsin!

Bowers thinks Wisconsin is a "must-win" for Obama: "It is pretty safe to say that Obama is still well behind in Ohio, and that he probably has no way to make up the ground there unless he wins Wisconsin. With Obama only holding a narrow lead in Wisconsin, it is entirely conceivable that Clinton pulls out a victory there. If Clinton were to win Wisconsin, momentum could reverse on a dime, or at least stop altogether. At that point, it is hard to see how Obama catches up in Ohio...If Clinton wins Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Wisconsin, then Obama's pledged delegate lead probably drops to double-digits heading into the six-week interval, with Pennsylvania, super delegates, and fights over Michigan and Florida looming...Without a victory in Wisconsin, there might not be any way for Obama to seal the campaign before Pennsylvania, and possibly even June or ever."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer notes that the latest Rasmussen poll has Obama and HRC separated by a mere 4 points in WI: "This is the second straight poll showing Barack Obama's lead in Wisconsin within the margin of error. The Pollster.com average out of the state has the margin between Obama and Clinton at less than 5 points. It sure seems, as Rasmussen says in its lede, that this is a tight race."

On a related note, Lux warns the Obama campaign not to get cocky: "My old friend David Plouffe was in the paper today saying Obama has this thing wrapped up in terms of pledged delegates; that there is hardly any chance at all at losing the pledged delegate count. My advice to my old friends in the Obama campaign is please, please do not get overconfident, do not project overconfidence, do not act like you won this thing...The dynamics are in your favor. You have the ability to build a lead in delegates that the Superdelegates are not going to change, and would not have the guts to change if they wanted to, but you can still blow it...The way you blow it is by getting dreamy and taking your eye off the ball the way you did after Iowa. You thought you had it won after Iowa too. You didn't, and you haven't now."

OBAMA II: A Tipping Point?

Several liberal bloggers are discussing Rep. John Lewis's apparent decision to cast his superdelegate vote for Obama, even though he endorsed HRC last fall:

Josh Marshall: "The willingness of a high-profile politician not simply to endorse one candidate but to switch from one to another (at least in terms of who he believes he'll vote for as a super delegate) is a powerful sign that a tipping point is at hand. But the most immediate and significant import is Lewis's signal that whatever the basis of his original endorsement he is unwilling to join Clinton in carving a path to the nomination through the heart of the Democratic party."

TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "It looks like the Hillary campaign probably can't count on the super-delegates to save them, should they lose out in the elected delegate race. So if it becomes clear that Obama ends up with an insurmountable lead -- or Hillary, for that matter -- there could be a strong message from super-delegates that the loser has to concede defeat and close up shop."

Matthew Yglesias: "This kind of thing is probably a leading indicator of what I expect will be a looming collapse in her superdelegate lead if she doesn't start making a quick recovery in the ranks of pledged delegates (something I think she may well do; I don't really understand the atmosphere of writing her off that seems to be in the air in DC this week)."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat doesn't like Lewis's rationale for voting for Obama: "If Lewis and others limited the comments to respecting the wishes of their constituents, that would have been fine. But now we hear of Obama's historic candidacy as the reason for the switch. Translation -- it is because Obama is an African-American. This is an invitation for divisiveness."

MCCAIN: More Conservative Than You Think?

Several conservative bloggers now view McCain's fiscal record more favorably after reading Kevin Stach's Wall Street Journal op-ed, in which Stach praises McCain's "25-year record of supporting pro-growth tax cuts":

NRO's Peter Robinson: "Performing a close examination of McCain's record ever since McCain first took the oath as a member of the House of Representatives all the way back in 1983, Stach finds that McCain has proven a reliable, even ardent, tax-cutter. McCain's 2001 vote against the Bush tax cuts, in other words, amounts to an anomaly, not part of a pattern -- and even that looks at least slightly better than it might otherwise seem when understood in context."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "McCain actually did vote for the 2001 tax cut -- in its original version, which included a mandatory cap on discretionary spending. That got removed and the bill got porked up, in a demonstration of what the next five years would hold for budgeting in the GOP controlled Congress. McCain felt betrayed and voted against it in protest. For fiscal conservatives, this track record looks better than one might expect. In fact, it looks considerably more Reaganesque than the track record of McCain's fellow Republicans over the same period of time, including some darlings of the conservative movement."

On a related note, RedState's Directors endorse McCain: "We will speak up when we disagree with John McCain on issues. But at the end of the day, RedState supports John McCain for President of the United States. For the next nine months we intend to vigorously fight for his election and to defeat the Democrats. Some of you will, for matters of personal conscience, feel you cannot meaningfully support John McCain. Some of you may even refuse to vote for him, as others have. While we understand this decision for many of you, we strongly disagree with this rationale. As hard as it may be to accept at this moment, we would remind you that voting is not an act that is about you -- or how it makes you feel. It is about doing what is best for the future of America."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins thinks McCain still has work to do: "Most conservatives will come around and vote for McCain, but millions won't. Conservative turnout will, in the end, partially come down to whether McCain is willing to make some gestures to show conservatives that his heart is in the right place. So far, McCain has done almost nothing in that area beyond showing up at CPAC."

MCCAIN II: Pulling A Bob Dole?

Conservative bloggers are discussing rumors that McCain will resign his Senate seat in order to focus on running for President:

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh thinks this is a bad idea: "Governor [Janet] Napolitano is obliged to choose a Republican in the event that McCain abandons his seat, but she can choose any Republican she wants. Which means that she will choose the one most likely to lose the next election. It would be a lousy idea to have McCain abandon his seat during his Presidential race. It serves no purpose whatsoever. Here's hoping that this is just a bad rumor."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein agrees: "As exciting as the possibility of having a Sen. John Shadegg is, I think it would be a huge mistake for McCain to abandon his seat. Though it may free up time to run for president, it would reinforce the age issue by communicating the impression that he's a man in the twilight of his career. Expecially if he's up against Barack Obama, the last thing he needs is a series of headlines with the words, 'MCCAIN RETIRES' in them...McCain would be much better off keeping the seat so he could communicate that he is still young and vigorous, in spite of his age."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "In a perfect world, McCain would be elected president, and Republicans would retain his seat. Either way, the prospects of replacing McCain with a Senator John Shadegg or a Senator Jeff Flake, would probably be welcome news to many conservatives."

ROMNEY: Gracious In Defeat

Conservative bloggers were pleased that Mitt Romney endorsed his former rival McCain:

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Romney casts himself in a good light with this move, proving that his personal feelings will not stand in the way of making the decision that's in both his and the nation's interest."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "If you believe Senators Obama and Clinton, they fundamentally fail to understand the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq or the contours of the menace in Iran. Neither appears to grasp the jihadist threat. Senator McCain does. Because Mitt Romney cares deeply about the safety and security of the country, he was certain to endorse Senator McCain. That he did so quickly is a testament to the starkness of the choice facing America, McCain's complete commitment to victory, and Romney's understanding of the stakes."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "On one level, Romney is making good on his pledge to unite the GOP and prevent the Democrats from taking the White House in perilous times. However, he is also amplifying the contrast between himself (high-minded GOP loyalist) with the man who may be his competition in 2012 or 2016, Mike Huckabee. Huckabee seems bent on pursuing his quixotic campaign, perhaps to build a political base or perhaps to enhance his speaking fees."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: '04 vs. '08

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti makes a comparison:

"Looks like the 2008 issue matrix is shaping up to be...rather similar to the 2004 issue matrix. If this speech and this statement are any indication, John McCain plans a general election campaign highlighting the contrasts between him and the Democratic nominee on national security and the economy.

It seems to me, however, that there are two differences between this election and the last. One is John McCain, and the other is Barack Obama. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, the presidential candidates in both parties will be likable (and well-liked) political figures with proven abilities to broaden their party's base of support. That wasn't exactly the case in 2004, if you recall.

Another potential difference between the two elections is that public opinion polls seem to indicate that, on a variety of issues (every issue except abortion and guns, from what I can tell), the political center has shifted left. If that had been the case in 2004, George W. Bush would not have won reelection. But it is 2008, and John McCain understands, and knows how to win, the political center, wherever it falls on the ideological spectrum. Which means no particular outcome is certain. And no issue is off the table."

LEST WE FORGET: A Few Good Pitchers

NRO's Jonah Goldberg passes along a spoof of Roger Clemens' congressional testimony:

Clemens: You want answers?
Congressman: I think I'm entitled to them.
Clemens: You want answers?
Congressman: I want the truth!
Clemens: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has baseballs. And those balls have to be hit by men with bats. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Congressman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for steroids and you curse HGH. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that HGH, while illegal, probably sells tickets. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, sells tickets...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that mound. You need me on that mound. We use words like fastall, slider, splitfinger...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent playing a sport. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and falls asleep to the Sportscenter clips I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a bat and dig in. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
Congressman: Did you order the HGH?
Clemens: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.
Congressman: Did you order the HGH?
Clemens: You're goddamn right I did!!

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:28 PM

February 14, 2008

2/14: Getting Mac's Back

John McCain's 2/13 conference call with conservative bloggers got positive reviews. He emphasized his conservative views on intelligence-gathering, spending, and Iraq; discussed his differences with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton; and promised to continue communicating with bloggers during the months ahead. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are toning down their attacks on the AZ senator and stepping up their attacks on Obama and HRC.

McCain's problems with the GOP base have been well documented. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that most conservative bloggers will have the senator's back during the general election. By disseminating damaging critiques of the Dem nominee's words and record, righty bloggers will prove to be a valuable weapon for McCain (just as they were for George W. Bush in '04).

MCCAIN: Chattin' With The Rightroots

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "John McCain had a blogger call this morning...How did [he] do? Very well, I think. He had a strong, consistently conservative message across a range of issues -- Iraq, spending, government regulation, detainee trials, FISA, etc. Whether this message, from this messenger, will energize conservatives remains to be seen, but it's hard to imagine that, after hearing it month after month in the context of a campaign against Obama or Clinton, many conservatives will be so indifferent as to stay home on election day."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Responding to an earlier comment about continuing to do the blogger calls, even now that he's the presumptive nominee, [McCain said,] 'I'll never forget you guys were the only ones who would listen to me. You think I'm going to bail on you now?'"

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "I asked [McCain] about Barack Obama's votes on Iraq and on FISA and his endorsement by MoveOn.org and what that said about his readiness to be commander in chief. He declined to say that Obama lacked the judgment to be president but said Obama was wrong on troop withdrawal, the ability of the Iraqi government to function and on the surge, saying 'we'll all be responsible for our record.' (He also reminded everyone that the same MoveOn.org which endorsed Obama had run the 'General Betray-us' ad)."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "[McCain] declined to speculate on VP picks, saying, it would be 'disrespectful to Governor [Mike] Huckabee' to get into a discussion about a running-mate. In a response to my question, he wouldn't rule-in, or rule-out, either Tom Coburn or Mark Sanford."

MCCAIN II: Looking Toward November

Although they've harshly criticized McCain in the past, conservative bloggers are increasingly defending the soon-to-be GOP nominee while hitting the Dem candidates. Some bloggers are emphasizing the foreign policy differences between McCain and the Dems:

NRO's Andy McCarthy: "Yesterday, Sen. McCain did the right thing and voted in favor of the Senate bill overhauling FISA and preserving our ability to collect intelligence against the enemy...Sen. Obama voted against it...Hillary Clinton was even worse. She didn't show up to vote...This was a simply disgraceful performance. It shows about as starkly as it can be shown that, when it comes to contest for who understands the threat we are facing and who is most fit to be trusted with responsibility for protecting American lives, there is no comparison here: McCain is so head-and-shoulders above Obama and Clinton it's hard to quantify."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Senator Obama's vote against some key provisions of the FISA renewal bill and his opposition to it overall as well as his skipping the final vote was a defining moment for him...A vote for Obama in November will indeed bring about change: The U.S. will go from hunter to hunted, will go from the offense that has been part of the Bush Administration's policy since 9/11 back to the Clintonian fecklessness that dithered as the enemy nested and metastasized."

Other bloggers are emphasizing the differences between McCain and the Dems on pork-barrel spending:

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "In one corner, we have John McCain, who has not requested an earmark for years and who has vowed to veto any bill as President which contains them. In the other corner, still fighting between themselves, we have Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who have combined for over $430 million in earmarks just in the last session. Who says there isn't a distinction to be made in November?"

RedState's Dan McLaughlin doesn't think this line of attack will work against Obama: "Now, we know the basics of what John McCain needs to do to beat Hillary Clinton, which is mostly based on (1) reminding voters that she is Hillary Clinton and (2) letting voters get prolonged exposure to watching and listening to Hillary Clinton. But Barack Obama, if he manages to keep his back free of Clinton shivs long enough to secure the nomination, will be a more challenging nut to crack; he has far lower built-in negatives and is surrounded by a protective heat shield of worshipful press coverage...One specific issue that I think needs not to be overplayed in a campaign against Obama [is] pork-barrel spending and earmarks...'Process' issues can grease a candidate's good press but they don't win elections; the big things do, the things that go to people's basic hopes, fears, needs and values."

MCCAIN III: In The Netroots' Sites

Now that McCain has the GOP nomination all but locked up, liberal bloggers are beginning to direct their fire at the AZ senator. Liberal bloggers (and Andrew Sullivan) are accusing McCain of hypocrisy for voting against a Senate bill that banned waterboarding and other controversial interrogation tactics:

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "It seems John McCain just voted against a bill that would have banned waterboarding. Straight talk you can use!"

Atrios: "Saint John McCain decides he likes torture after all."

Think Progress's Satyam Khanna: "A former prisoner of war, [McCain] has spoken strongly in favor of implementing the Army Field Manual standard. When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding...John McCain: He was against waterboarding before he was for it."

Crooks and Liars' Logan Murphy: "The Senate voted today to ban the CIA from using torture on suspected terrorists and the most famous POW in the Senate voted against the bill. The Maverick is now most assuredly dead and the betrayal is complete...Tell me again how this no jobs, more wars, pro-torture, pro-Bush tax cuts, anti-choice, pro-surge Republican is going to draw Independents and Democrats to his side this fall?"

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "I'm heartbroken. Torture is illegal and immoral whether it is conducted by the military or the CIA. That was McCain's original position. It appears it is no longer."

DEM FIELD: Great Expectations

Several bloggers think that the contests in WI and HI could be tighter than expected:

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "I don't know what the expectations are for Clinton, going into Wisconsin and Hawaii, but they've gotta be pretty low. Believe it or not, there could be an opening for Clinton in both states. Or at least exceed those low expectations...I looked at the WI demographics, and talked with operatives from the state, and it's not a slam dunk for Obama...[Hawaii has] a make-up of 80 percent Asian-descent voters, whom have been the strongest Clinton backers to date; it's a closed caucus only open to registered Democrats, and from what I've read, its a machine-politics state. The machine is backing Clinton. Maybe that's not enough, but it might be."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer notes that the latest Strategic Vision (R) poll of WI LVs has Obama edging HRC 45-41%: "It looks like the race in Wisconsin might be tighter than some otherwise might have expected."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas doesn't think WI and HI will be close: "[Obama]'s got some serious momentum at his back. I always thought Wisconsin would be a double-digit Obama victory, and the poll numbers are finally headed in that direction. Even if you buy the notion that Obama is running a 48-state strategy, that sure beats Clinton's 2-state 'Giuliani' strategy. She'll lose both Hawaii and Wisconsin, and probably by 20+ margins."

DEM FIELD II: Bowers Is Watching You, Superdelegates

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Today I am pleased to announce the launch of the Superdelegate Transparency Project on Congresspedia and SourceWatch...Until a single leader in the popular vote and pledged delegate count emerges at the end of the primary and caucus season, superdelegates should not make a firm commitment to vote for any candidate at the convention other than the popular choice of their constituents...This project and these values seek to inject much needed transparency and democracy into the Democratic presidential nomination process. Together, with a group effort, we can find out which super delegates are pledging to uphold the popular will of their constituents, and which super delegates are seeking to cancel out the will of their constituents."

Matthew Yglesias feels differently: "I don't think I buy the argument that the Democratic Party's superdelegates have some kind of categorical ethical obligation to obey the dictates of the pledged delegate count...The superdelegates have both an opportunity and an obligation to take seriously their obligation to do the best thing for the party and the country. But part of taking that obligation seriously is recognizing that an extremely drawn-out primary campaign that's ultimately decided by superdelegate wrangling probably doesn't serve the best interests of the party and the country. If, on the morning of March 5, Hillary Clinton did poorly enough the previous day that she's facing a choice between dropping out of the race and pursuing a strategy that involves two months of vicious campaigning and integrally requires her to secure the support of the superdelegates, then I think it would make sense for the superdelegates [to] tell her campaign that it's not going to happen, and they're going to endorse Obama and seal the nomination for him...But if the delegate count genuinely just stays super-narrow, that's another matter, and I don't see it as intrinsically illegitimate for the SDs to put Clinton over the top if Obama's beating her by a half-dozen pledged delegates or something."

OBAMA: Riding The Wave

The Huffington Post's Tom Hayden: "Little can be said about the brilliance of [Obama's] campaign so far. He now is slightly ahead of Clinton in the delegate count, and eight percentage points ahead of McCain in the best polling data (six points more than Clinton)."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum also thinks Obama is in good shape: "Obama has shown a very strong ability to make up ground on Hillary if he's got time and money to devote to a state (even in the big states he lost on Super Tuesday, he did about 10 points better than polls had shown a few weeks earlier), and he now has that. He gets to concentrate on Wisconsin for a few days, and then has two full weeks to work on Texas and Ohio, followed by another few weeks to concentrate on Pennsylvania. And if Josh Green is to be believed, Hillary's campaign burned through money at such a fantastic clip earlier this year that even with her current fundraising going well she's still way behind Obama...Is there any question that Obama is now the frontrunner?"

Daily Kos' DHinMI: "From here onward it's likely that Obama will outspend Clinton. He's taking in twice as much money, and he's getting glorious press coverage. She still starts out ahead in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania (her other 'must win' state). But Obama will probably outspend her, maybe by a lot, and as the campaign comes to their state, they will start seeing coverage on their local news of Obama events in their state and maybe even their local metro area, and they will begin to receive direct voter contact in the form of mail, phone calls, and possibly door-to-door canvassing."

CLINTON: Narrowing The Playing Field?

Many netroots bloggers are criticizing the Clinton campaign for failing to seriously contest many of the smaller states:

Open Left's Mike Lux: "I don't understand exactly what's going on with the Clinton campaign, but they really seem dysfunctional...I don't understand not contesting these primaries more strongly and I don't understand exactly what they're doing in their campaign."

MyDD's psericks: "It was not a lack of funds that led the Clinton campaign to ignore rural areas, to write off multiple states. Rather, the Clinton campaign seemed oddly unprepared, clinging to a misjudgment, counting on national poll numbers, unwilling to run the expansive grassroots national campaign that the Obama campaign had been preparing for for months. By the time Super Tuesday was over, it was clear that the Clinton campaign had done little to build organizations in the subsequent primaries and could do little to contest them. [On Tuesday] alone, they fell an additional fifty delegates behind. Ignoring states you think you will lose only means that you lose them more badly -- instead of trying to even up the delegate count."

Daily Kos' Delaware Dem: "[The Clintons ran] a national campaign that focused entirely on large populations and big states. They were completely prepared to reject the 50 state strategy in its entirety, almost, I think, to prove Howard Dean and his progeny wrong. Hillary Clinton wanted to win this race the Clinton way...So it is not odd that the Clinton campaign was unprepared on the local level in small states to garner as many delegates as they could."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: McCain Aiding Clinton?

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait theorizes:

"I noted yesterday that it's odd McCain would be attacking Obama for lacking specifics, when McCain is far vaguer and more ill-informed than Obama. It's even odder that McCain's campaign is jumping into the question of which Democrat came out with which stimulus plan first. I expected McCain to go after Obama, I just thought it would be on grounds of being a liberal liberal liberal peacenik.

Could the answer be that...McCain's goal is not to hurt Obama in the general election but to hurt him in the primary? Every poll now shows Obama performing better than Clinton against McCain. On average, he does five and a half points better than her, which is a very significant margin.

So it's quite likely that the reason that McCain is amplifying Clinton's attacks on McCain, rather than make attacks that would fit his general election audience, is that they're targetted to the primary. If McCain attacks Obama for wanting to withdraw from Iraq, that helps Obama in the primary. If he attacks him for lacking domestic policy prposals, it helps Clinton. I suspect McCain is trying to pick his opponent here, the way Richard Nixon tried to sink Ed Muskie's primary campaign in 1972, but without the illegality."

LEST WE FORGET: Clinton Secures Endorsement From The Dead

ABC News reports:

"[Hillary Clinton] told a crowd today she can hear the voices of two strong Texas women who have died -- former Texas Governor Ann Richards and former Texas Rep. Barbara Jordan -- urging her to go on.

'I can hear their voices saying, "You keep going! You give the people a real choice about the future!"' Clinton said."

Wonkette's Sara K. Smith:

"Speaking to an audience in Texas yesterday, Senator Hillary Clinton disclosed that she had finally nailed down the support of two very influential Texans who together might tip the balance in her favor on March 4. These high-profile political leaders from the Lone Star State made tremendous inroads for women in their many years of service to state and country. And now they're dead!"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:52 PM

February 13, 2008

2/13: A New Frontrunner?

Liberal bloggers were impressed by Barack Obama's substantial margins of victory in VA, MD, and DC, and many now consider him the favorite to win the Dem nod. However, it remains to be seen whether Obama can duplicate his success in attracting Latinos and non-college graduates in OH and TX. A new SurveyUSA poll showing Hillary Clinton leading Obama 56-39% in OH has reminded many bloggers that the Dem contest is far from over.

The GOP contest, on the other hand, is all but over. Conservative bloggers are now spending less time discussing how John McCain can placate his base and are instead focusing on how McCain can defeat Obama or HRC. Many righty bloggers want McCain to ignore Mike Huckabee and start aggressively defining his future Dem opponent, as the AZ senator did during his victory speech last night. In many ways, the general election has already begun.

DEM FIELD: Dealing With Delegates

Open Left's Chris Bowers repeats his call for Dem superdelegates to support the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates: "As a party that carriers the banner of democracy, we need to uphold those values in our own party. Super delegates should respect the will of primary voters and caucus goers."

TPM's Josh Marshall takes a more nuanced view: "[Superdelegates] are divided roughly evenly between elected officials and members of the Democratic National Committee...To me it seems like there's at least much more of a rationale for the officeholders to be super delegates, though the rationale might not be sufficient in any case. Basically, if you're a national Democratic officeholder, you've been elected by (mostly) Democrats at a very high level, often many times...and you also have the real world experience to know what it takes to run and win as a Democrat in your state...I think it would be very questionable if the Supers as a whole decided the nomination against a clear (and 'clear' is important here) majority of the pledged delegates. But I can see the rationale for having officeholders like these in the mix as a leavening."

Bowers also thinks that FL's delegates should count: "When the DNC credentials committee takes authority over the matter in mid-June, they should, at that time, approve Florida's delegation as determined by the results of the January 29th primary (and then, at that time, those delegates should be included in the running delegate totals). There is no compelling reason to void the results of Florida's primary that does not also apply to the primaries and caucuses of dozens of other states nationwide...The DNC's punishment has achieved its goal, as Florida has been denied a major role in the horserace to date."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong thinks both FL's and MI's delegates should count: "[Rabid] supporters may claim that I am saying Florida and Michigan should be counted because I'm a paid shill for Clinton...It has nothing to do with Clinton, and everything to do with the principle."

OBAMA: Running Up The Scoreboard

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Most of the political world expected Barack Obama to have a good day yesterday, when Democrats in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia went to the polls. But it's fair to say that few expected him to do this well."

AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The margin of Obama's victories tonight in D.C., Maryland and especially Virginia are nothing short of astonishing. He won across demographics. And, he beat expectations -- even the very high expectations that were being set over the past couple of days. Today, it looks like Democrats are coalescing around their new front runner. Let's keep this in perspective. Just a couple months ago, no one was predicting this outcome. Barack Obama went up against the Clinton machine, and their aura of invincibility. Yet, he keeps winning."

Daily Kos' Devilstower: "Barack Obama didn't just beat Hillary in Virginia. He didn't just get more votes than John McCain. In 'red' Virginia, Obama got 142,000 more votes than all the Republicans put together...He kicked butt, took names, and did it with both hands tied behind his back."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat, in contrast, wasn't impressed by Obama's victories: "Obama has yet to prove he can win some of the key states' primaries, states Dems need in a general election...He has lost every contested big state primary except his home state -- California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey particularly. And yes, he lost Florida's vote. Winning one of Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania seems a fair test for Obama's chances in a general election. I believe it is the last barrier to cross. Can Obama do it?"

Meanwhile, The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca thinks Obama will win the Dem nod: "I hate making predictions, but if all things remain normal -- no gaffes, no scandals, no major world events -- the only way Senator Clinton can lock this nomination is if she either, 1) negotiates behind the scenes for more superdelegates, or 2) doesn't quit and takes the fight to the convention."

OBAMA II: Where's The Partisanship?

While the netroots have generally coalesced behind Obama, several prominent liberal bloggers worry that the IL senator isn't sufficiently partisan:

Open Left's Matt Stoller reveals that he grudgingly voted for Obama in the DC primary: "I'm voting for Obama even though I have serious reservations. I can't vote for Clinton because she voted for the war and doesn't think it was a mistake."

Jerome Armstrong explains why he voted for HRC over Obama: "What compelled me to vote for Clinton was looking at someone that seemed practical about the battle we have on our hands and looking ready to engage in the fight -- I'd rather be part of the fight than be told to stay on the sidelines because I'm too partisan (I like my tent democrats just as wide as they are big). Clinton's not my first choice, but Obama's approach seems more suited to when we are cleaning up after the battle; of the two, Clinton's got a closer resonance with what progressives need now as a President."

Big Tent Democrat still doesn't trust Obama: "Tim Russert says 20% of [VA] voters were Independent and 8% were Republicans who crossed over to vote in the primary. More than 70% of these voters went for Obama -- The cross-over candidate [...] Russert says Obama will tout this as a sign of his electability in November, that he can win Republicans and Independents. I take it as another sign he's a compromiser and not a fighter for a progressive agenda."

HRC endorsee/ex-Amb. Joe Wilson makes a similar critique of Obama in The Huffington Post: "Contrary to the myth of [Obama's] campaign, 2008 is not the year for transcendental transformation. The task for the next administration will be to repair the damage done by eight years of radical rule...Obama's overtures to Republicans, or 'Obamacans' as the Senator calls them, is a substitute for true national unity based on a substantive program. His marginal appeals have marginally helped him in caucuses in Republican states that Democrats won't win in the general election. But his vapid rhetoric will not withstand the winds of November. His efforts will be correctly seen by the Republican leadership as a sign of weakness to be exploited."

CLINTON: Carry Me Ohio

Several liberal bloggers are discussing the new SurveyUSA poll of OH LVs, which shows HRC leading Obama 56-39%:

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I think it's fair to say that this represents Obama's low watermark and it's Clinton's job to keep the margin as close to these numbers as she possibly can. As only 2% of voters self-identify as undecided, it looks as though the poll pushed leaners, which I think is good news for Clinton. In other words: most people (69%) say they've already made up their minds and of those Clinton holds a strong lead (59%-39%) and a lot of the voters Obama would be targeting in the coming weeks are already telling pollsters they prefer him."

TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "There's no telling what happens in the next few weeks as the campaign truly hits Ohio in earnest. But Hillary definitely seems to be starting from a good position. Now she just has to maintain or even extend it."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Considering the convincing nature of Clinton's wins in states like Arizona, Oklahoma, and California I think you need to assume she'll win [Ohio] until we see some kind of poll offering clear evidence to the contrary. Obama's put together a string of impressive wins, but it's still the case that in the Democratic Party women outnumber men, whites outnumber blacks, working class people outnumber college educated professionals, and senior citizens outnumber under-thirties. Under the circumstances, Clinton continues to be in a strong position."

MCCAIN: Ready To Rumble

Just as McCain began looking ahead to the general election during his victory speech last night, so are conservative bloggers:

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Now, McCain can focus on the larger tasks ahead of him -- putting together an expanded organization, mending fences with conservatives, and developing his campaign themes for the general election. If that means losing the occasional race to Huckabee (assuming Huck persists), so be it."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Expect to hear McCain repeatedly dismiss Obama's platitudes on 'hope' and get him into a debate on specific policies. Obama will lose that fight, but if he doesn't engage McCain, he'll look like an empty suit. McCain has a lot more time to focus on Obama than the reverse, and he can do some damage to Obama's momentum among independents while Obama tries to finish off Hillary Clinton."

Meanwhile, Townhall's Matt Lewis offers McCain some advice: "I've written about this in the past, but as Barack Obama emerges as the likely Democratic nominee, I think it's even more important than ever to make sure John McCain doesn't lose his 'maverick' brand, as he prepares for the General Election. It's important to note that McCain's maverick status doesn't stem from his ideology, it comes from his style (in many ways, this is the same phenomenon that makes Obama popular). So I am not advocating that McCain become more liberal in order to become more popular. What I am saying, however, is that it is vital McCain remain 'authentic.' To be perceived as pandering -- to anyone -- would be lethal for him, because it destroys his brand."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin agrees: "McCain, no doubt, would have preferred a huge margin of victory [in VA]. Some will contend this is proof positive of something -- his weakness in the South or with conservatives or with people who listen to talk radio. But realistically he is on track to win the nomination and should not take the bait, redesign his persona and run hard right. If he did, he would lose his 'straight talk' image and do damage to his general election prospects."

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer has a slightly different take: "The analysts say that McCain has a problem because the more he changes his positions to placate conservatives, the more he costs himself among independents; and vice versa. They miss the point. What McCain needs to do is less to move rightward on issues (although that would be nice) than to make amends in TONE and RESPECT to conservatives."

HUCKABEE: Overstaying His Welcome?

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh thinks it's time for Huckabee to go: "Huckabee's insistence on remaining in the race increasingly looks like a joke. I haven't minded having him in thus far because if he serves as a punching bag for McCain every week and allows the latter to bask in electoral glory and valuable free media, he will actually be doing McCain something of a service. But Huckabee seems bound and determined to try to prolong the Republican Presidential race. This, by all accounts, is making the McCain people mad and will interfere with party unity. One wonders what Huckabee will get out of this, save enmity."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "It's a free country, and Huckabee can stay in as long as he likes. But I suspect the question, 'what's the point?' is going to get steadily louder in the coming weeks..."

Jennifer Rubin doesn't mind Huckabee's persistence: "So long as McCain racks up healthy wins, ignores the exit polls (and the wrongheaded commentary which flows from it) and begins, as he did last night, to formulate a general-election message, there seems to be little harm done in waiting several more weeks for Huckabee formally to leave the race."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "I think a larger motivation [for Huckabee] is to establish himself as an undisputed leader of the populist, socially conservative wing of the party. There is an opening and he can fill it at relatively little cost to McCain, who is getting closer to clinching anyway. Huckabee hasn't really gone negative against McCain but he has established himself as a spokesman for Republicans the other candidates haven't reached and professional conservatives don't understand."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama, Sui Generis

Chris Bowers thinks Obama's political coalition is utterly unique:

"The identity coalition Obama has put together appears to be unique to him, and probably cannot be replicated by other candidates in future presidential primaries. The diverse group of supporters listed in the second paragraph of this article includes both working class African-Americans and creative class whites, both LieberDems and the very liberal, both online activists and establishment media pundits from the Village, both new voters and highly engaged grassroots activists. It is a pretty odd grouping, and not particularly stable under anyone who does not exude Obama's particular characteristics: new enough and with the sort of rhetoric to still be a bit of an empty vessel for both centrists and progressives, a background that appeals to both African-Americans and creative class whites, relative youth, and an opponent against whom progressives, conservatives, and establishment media types (but not establishment political types) are willing to organize."

LEST WE FORGET: Stop F---ing With The Crust!

The Onion's Amelie Gillette adds "pizza innovations" to her list of "Things That Still Exist, But Shouldn't":

"Pizza Hut has a new 'Crunchy Cheesy Crust Pizza' (aka 'The Redundant Pizza'), which means that Dominos is surely only a few short months away from debuting their new 'Pizza-y Pizza-Crust Pizza.' You would think that pizza chains would have it pretty easy: making a simple dish with just enough room for individual, signature variations in terms of sauce and cheese and toppings. But instead, they're always pointlessly fiddling with the crust.

I'm sure someone (Papa John's?) is hard at work right now on a Confetti Crust Pizza (a braided crust stuffed with flakes of edible gold and garlic that burst into your mouth when you bite into it)."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:59 PM

February 12, 2008

2/12: The Battle Of The Potomac

It's primary day in VA, MD, and DC, and most liberal bloggers expect Barack Obama to defeat Hillary Clinton in all three contests. Several bloggers are mocking HRC's efforts to downplay the importance of states and caucuses where she loses. Will Obama be able to meet his high expectations in VA, MD, and DC? And if he does, will HRC be able to downplay eight consecutive losses?

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are mocking Obama's TX volunteers for displaying a Cuban flag featuring Che Guevara's face in their Houston office. Does this mini-controversy -- and the considerable attention it has received on conservative blogs -- mean that righty bloggers now consider Obama the Dem frontrunner? Throughout 2007, these bloggers directed most of their fire at the Clintons. When it appeared that HRC was in deep trouble after Obama's IA win, conservative bloggers rejoiced at the prospect of the Clintons' demise, and many of them openly rooted for Obama. But now that Obama appears to be in a strong position to win the Dem nod, is he about to become a much bigger target of conservative bloggers? We think so.

CLINTON: Spinning Her Wheels

HRC's attempts to downplay the importance of this past weekend's contests has prompted derision from several liberal bloggers. CNN's Peter Hamby reports:

"[HRC] told reporters who had gathered to watch her tour a General Motors plant here that 'everybody knew, you all knew, what the likely outcome of these recent contests were.'

'These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand.' [...]

Noting that 'my husband never did well in caucus states either,' Clinton argued that caucuses are 'primarily dominated by activists' and that 'they don't represent the electorate, we know that.'"

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Hillary says 'Democratic activists' and black voters don't matter. No word on whether Latinos and women don't matter as well, but I'm guessing since they're voting blocs that actually favor Hillary, they're probably okay."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "It's worth noting that there was a time -- a time called '2007' -- when Clinton was expecting to hold her own among African-Americans. Not necessarily win the black vote, but do well enough to get by...For Clinton, that kind of performance among African-Americans now seems out of reach, but it wasn't ever thus. Similarly, the idea that caucuses are unfairly disadvantaging the establishment candidate would have struck most people as very odd before the voting began. The truth seems to be that Clinton simply spent more money on consultants and less on organizers, and a paucity of organizers can hurt you badly in a caucus."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "One of the hilarious side-effects of every Obama victory is the spin from Clinton quarters and its surrogates and supporters explaining why said victories 'don't matter'."

TPM's Josh Marshall, on the other hand, sides with HRC in her critique of caucuses: "I tend to agree with the Hillary camp that party caucuses are kind of bogus. They tend to cut out folks without a lot of time and/or enthusiasm. What you get is a more politically engaged, wealthier, more time-on-their-hands type of crowd...The real issue to me is that they're not how we run actual elections in this country -- which is to say, actual elections, where people go to a polling station and cast a vote rather than chilling with a bunch of people in a room in civic-ing it up. So winning caucuses doesn't give me a huge amount of confidence in the ability to win elections."

CLINTON II: Texas, Ohio...Ohio, Texas

Today's New York Times article about HRC's need to win both Ohio and Texas has generated some discussion among liberal bloggers:

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat thinks it's "obvious" that HRC must win both OH and TX: "Honestly, folks get paid to 'report' this stuff? How about something interesting, like what happens if Clinton DOES win Ohio and Texas? What will that mean for Obama? What will he have to do in the face of more big state losses? Obviously Ohio and Texas will be do or die for Clinton. But if Obama loses them he gets put on the spot it seems to me. Does Obama then have to win Pennsylvania?"

Yglesias isn't sure that winning OH and TX will be enough: "Texas and Ohio combined have just a bit fewer delegates than do the Obama Weekend Sweep States plus the Potomac Primary states, so it's not clear that even a Texas and Ohio win would put [HRC] over the top."

Daily Kos' DHinMI: "[HRC] could win both Texas and Ohio. My guess is if the vote was held today, she'd win both comfortably. But the pattern through most of the contests has been Clinton losing huge leads the closer it is to the election, and either winning with more modest wins that the polls suggested some weeks out, or seeing her lead vanish and Obama taking the state. If he does manage to sweep the contests tomorrow and nest Tuesday, he will have two weeks to concentrate almost exclusively on the March 4th states (which also include Vermont and Rhode Island). This will be the real test of whether more time in front of the voters gives Obama enough power to overcome Clinton's relative strength with Latinos and working-class White voters."

OBAMA: General Election Strategery

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong doesn't understand Obama's general election strategy: "I'm not talking about the national polls either, but how does Barack Obama put together a winning electoral advantage over John McCain? I have heard Clinton's [strategy] many times, and it's been played out in the Democratic nomination battle. She'll take an unprecedented high level of women and Latino majorities into winning all (or nearly all) the states that John Kerry (and/or Al Gore) won, and add in: Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Florida. Maybe there are some other states, but if we just add those 42 electoral votes to the Democratic column, Clinton would win."

Moulitsas responds: "My good friend and partner Jerome Armstrong makes a tired 'electability' argument over at his joint. Jerome is too smart to not know the answer. It's easy: Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, Arkansas, Virginia, Ohio, and Nevada. That's 76 electoral votes, already past the 42 sure-things that Jerome thinks Hillary gets (and really, Florida?)...Obama would [also] help close the margin in a lot of Red states, forcing cash-strapped Republicans to play defense across something closer to a 50-state strategy than the inevitable 18-state strategy we'll see out of Clinton. Heck, you're seeing it in this primary, with Obama running in every state, while Clinton brags about sitting out the various states (in an attempt to minimize his victories in places like Louisiana and Washington). She increases the battlefield over 2004, no doubt, but not as wide as Obama does through sheer appeal to independents and even some Republicans."

Meanwhile, Moulitsas thinks Obama is now the favorite to win the Dem nod: "Now with McCain in seeming firm control of his nomination, and with independents able to choose which ballot to cast, there is no impetus for them to go GOP while they have a clear Democratic favorite. This becomes a huge advantage for Obama...I've always expected Obama to win this thing, from before Obama jumped in (even though my rationale for that belief has evolved over the past year). I'm now extra convinced that he'll pull it off."

OBAMA II: Krugman Strikes Again

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's latest op-ed -- in which he alleges that "most of the venom" in the Dem race comes from Obama supporters and that the Obama campaign is "close to becoming a cult of personality" -- has generated a lot of discussion among liberal bloggers:

Big Tent Democrat agrees with Krugman: "I always envisioned the progressive blogs and the progressive base as the Left flank of the Democratic Party, holding both our pols AND the Media accountable. The blogs have certainly held Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on issues, and I applaud them for that. But the blogs generally have not held Barack Obama's feet to the fire...Paul Krugman understands this and has spoken faithfully to his views on the issues and to basic fairness."

Other bloggers disagree with Krugman:

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Krugman didn't offer any specific examples of Obama supporters' 'venom,' but the criticism itself strikes me as a little unfair. If Obama isn't playing dirty, and his campaign isn't playing dirty, why take on overly-enthusiastic fans?...My suspicion is that Krugman sees the volume of nasty emails and comment-section contributions from the truly unhinged, and thinks, 'Wow, this sure is a venomous primary.' And if nasty emails and comment-section contributions were representative of our public discourse, I'd be the first to agree with the observation. Fortunately, I don't think that's the case."

Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I have no doubt that most of the venom that Krugman sees comes from Obama supporters. He has, after all, been on an anti-Obama tear for several months now. But he is an economist, and economists should know enough about basic social science techniques to be able to ask: am I working from a genuinely random sample? In the case of, say, Krugman's email, the answer would have to be: no."

The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins: "Over the weekend, at his eponymous blog at The Atlantic, Matthew Yglesias warned of 'the anti-Obama backlash brewing in the press' that was poised to hit 'full stride.' I remember wondering how that was going to take shape. It should have occurred to me: Paul Krugman was going to manufacture it!...Krugman makes a lot of bold claims [in this column], and then fails to substantiate every single one of them."

OBAMA III: Hasta La Victoria Siempre

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama's Texas volunteers for displaying a Cuban flag featuring Che Guevara's face in their Houston office:

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Does Obama know his Houston supporters honor a terrorist in his campaign office? I'm sure he doesn't. However, it would behoove him to ensure that the flag gets taken down and that he renounces any affinity for Che and the Fidel Castro regime."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Barack & Che: So happy together in the Lone Star State?"

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I prefer campaign offices with flags that are, you know, American."

Little Green Footballs' Charles Johnson: "When you actively pander to and encourage the radical leftist elements of your party, as the Democrats have been determinedly doing for the past eight years, you're going to end up with embarrassing scenes like this."

Balloon Juice's John Cole thinks this mini-controversy means Obama is now the Dem frontrunner: "I would take this as a sign that the GOP now feels threatened by Obama."

MCCAIN: Closing Time?

Several conservative bloggers who reside in Potomac Primary states are voting for McCain today:

NRO's John J. Miller: "For GOP primary voters on Feb. 12, the choice is between McCain and Mike Huckabee. I prefer McCain for the following reasons: He's better on the war, he's better on government spending, he's better on trade, and he has a better chance to win in November. On pro-life issues, he hasn't been a strong leader but his voting record is rock solid -- more than good enough. On judges, he may have joined the 'Gang of 14' but he also voted for Robert Bork and he has promised to appoint judges in the mold of [John] Roberts and [Samuel] Alito. He has his flaws, and we all know what they are. Right now, however, he is the most conservative electable candidate, and he has my support."

Jim Geraghty: "Virginia's primary was today, and I voted for...John McCain. [...] I've got gripes with McCain on campaign finance reform, on immigration, on cap and trade. But he's rock-solid on the war on terror; he may be remembered as the man who saved the Bush administration's Iraq policy...Only Tom Coburn fights pork as tenaciously, and McCain remembers that conservatives are supposed to fight for cuts in spending as well as taxes. He's got a pretty solid pro-life record, and I think he'll appoint the right judges and justices -- the ghost of Harriet Miers will hang over many Republican administrations."

That said, Geraghty thinks McCain might have turnout problems going forward: "It's one of the ironies of campaign momentum that Team McCain may have an easier time getting out the vote before they had their Super Tuesday success than afterwards...[Today]'s Potomac primaries (Virginia, Maryland and Washington D.C.) will be a more significant measuring stick. The problem for the McCain effort is that Huckabee's supporters will show up, Ron Paul's voters will show up, and disgruntled conservatives who find McCain unacceptable will probably show up to vote against him. McCain's supporters may show up...or they may conclude that the race is over, and that their man doesn't need their vote."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin agrees: "[McCain's] margin of victory [in the 2/12 states] may not be as impressive as the polling numbers, since it becomes increasingly difficult to turn out voters when the media and voters recognize that the race is essentially sewn up."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Huckabee's Endgame

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat theorizes:

"Jennifer Rubin argues that Huck's campaign for attention can only hurt his future ambitions, but I'm not so sure. The whole 'the more people see of Huck, the less they'll like him' thesis has been bandied about by conservative pundits for months now without being borne out in the polls. Huckabee is clearly hoping that his one-on-one moment with McCain will help establish him as a force within the GOP going forward, whether it boosts his cachet as a potential VP pick, or simply helps him to consolidate his position as the spokesman for the populist, religious-conservative wing of the party...I don't think this is an unreasonable calculation. Particularly since if McCain were to pick him as his veep, it would be on the assumption that Huck could help turn out the right-wing base -- and every vote he gets from here to the convention is an exhibit for the theory that he's actually more in touch with the conservative grassroots than, say, Rush Limbaugh."

LEST WE FORGET: The Real Contest

Jezebel is excited about the new season of VH1's Flavor of Love:

"Flavor of Love 3 premiered last night, and if you thought that the series -- an elimination-based dating show in which the 'winner' gets to 'kick it' with Flava Flav -- was offensive before, well, you ain't seen nothing yet. In [one scene], Flav nicknames a pair of twins 'Thing 1' and 'Thing 2' after his favorite characters in The Cat in the Hat, then sits down with two other women, who argue over who can make the best fried chicken. Despite this, this season is shaping up to be the funniest (and weirdest, given one contestant's fixation on 'reproducing', i.e., bearing Flav's baby) of the series."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:52 PM

February 11, 2008

2/11: Watching The Scoreboard

With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at rough parity in the delegate race, the big topic in the liberal blogosphere is superdelegates. Several liberal bloggers -- such as Chris Bowers -- are horrified by the possibility that superdelegates could decide the Dem nominee. Others -- most notably Kevin Drum -- don't find this scenario nearly as disturbing. If this primary race lasts all the way to the convention, will superdelegates prove kingmakers? And if so, how will the more passionate supporters of the losing candidate -- especially those in the blogosphere -- react?

DEM FIELD: Superdelegates Gone Wild

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis doesn't like superdelegates: "Again, why do these people even get a vote? Oh that's right, they were created to steal the election in case the party thought your choice was stupid."

Open Left's Chris Bowers threatens to leave the Dem party if superdelegates decide the nominee: "In the absence of any legal dictation of how [superdelegates] should vote, I will hold them to the principles that make me a Democrat: as the democratic institution through which internal disputes of the American center-left are resolved. If the Democratic Party fails to respect those principles, and their 'super' delegates nominate someone for POTUS other than the person who received the most support during Democratic primaries and caucuses, then I fail to see any reason to continue participating in the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party is not a democratic institution, then to hell with the Democratic Party."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum doesn't understand why Bowers is so upset: "I don't quite get this. The very existence of superdelegates assumes that they'll vote their own consciences, not merely parrot the results of the primaries. After all, why even have them if that's all they do?"

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias takes a middle ground view: "I think Chris is right to think it'd be a pretty bitter pill to swallow if that's how things shake out, but the controlling principle here is that 'the rules are the rules.' The superdelegates business, which seems to favor Clinton, is just the flipside of things like the Michigan/Florida exclusion or the weird rules that let Obama win Nevada even while Clinton had many more votes -- there's a lot of oddness in the nominating system and there's no point of plucking out any particular feature and slamming it as unfair as the process unfolds."

Digby doesn't think superdelegates will end up deciding the nominee anyway: "While I am certainly sympathetic to the notion that the elite fat cats shouldn't decide for us, I think somebody needs to set forth some detailed criteria about how they should go about determining a more democratic way to decide this thing if there is a tie...Personally, I don't think we'll have a tie much longer. It's hard to see how either candidate can unify the country if they can't demonstrate that they can unify the Democratic Party. Something has to break and I suspect voters will be the ones to do it."

DEM FIELD II: Let There Be Blood!

Several liberal bloggers dispute the notion that a long primary season is bad for Dems:

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "I don't understand people fretting about this primary season extending much longer into the year. With each state that votes, new Democrats are energized and engaged. The people of each primary state get a good look at our candidates. And no matter what you might see on some website message boards, the fact is that Obama and Clinton haven't really gone that negative on each other...Let the country forget that [John] McCain is the Republican nominee. I want the national spotlight on our candidates."

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Given that there is record turnout and organization on the Democratic side, I'm not as worried that Democratic party division is a bad thing. In fact, I think it's a very good thing, as the number of donors and activists is exploding, and nothing gets you ready for a contested election like...a contested election. There will be bad blood for a long time over this nomination, but that's going to be relatively confined to insiders since the candidates don't actually disagree on any major policy ideas."

OBAMA: Didn't I Blow Your Mind This Time?

Several liberal bloggers are surprised by Obama's strength in caucuses:

Kevin Drum: "I'm a little puzzled about Obama's consistent success in caucuses, which usually seems to get chalked up to his background in community organizing. Somehow, though, that doesn't really seem like a persuasive explanation. After all, I'm sure Hillary Clinton's team knows perfectly well how to organize in a caucus state. And yet Obama has won every caucus state but one, most of them by wide margins. Does anybody have a good explanation for this?"

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "[There are] two big questions regarding this race that I haven't heard satisfactory answers for -- a) why does Obama do so well in all these white midwestern states, and b) why does he do so well in caucuses? I mean, it isn't even close."

Other liberal bloggers think the media is discounting Obama's victories:

Matthew Yglesias: "Back in October 2007, Clinton was beating Obama in Maine by a hilarious 47 to 10 margin, but it seems he's carried the state today, once again by a large margin. My understanding, though, is that this doesn't really count because it's a small state, much as Utah doesn't count because there aren't many Democrats there, DC doesn't count because there are too many black people, Washington doesn't count because it's a caucus, Illinois doesn't count because Obama represents it in the Senate even though Hillary was born there, Hawaii won't count because Obama was born there."

Markos Moulitsas: "As the Clinton campaign tries to spin away Obama's crushing victories [on Saturday], people shouldn't forget that not too long ago, these were all solid Clinton states."

CLINTON: Still The Favorite

Although Obama has momentum, many liberal bloggers expect HRC to triumph in the end:

Matthew Yglesias: "I think Hillary Clinton's going to win this thing. I think the college educated men who dominate punditland have spent a lot of time missing the fact that there actually are enthusiastic Clinton fans out there -- they're just mostly working class women and thus mostly not in the room when this CW gets hashed out. On top of that, I think Clinton's succeeded in managing the expectations savvily. If she wins anywhere at all between now and March 4, that counts as a win for her, then Ohio is mildly favorable ground for her and Texas is extremely favorable ground. That, I think, will seal it for her as the anti-Obama backlash brewing in the press hits full stride."

Kevin Drum: "Matt predicts that Hillary will win the Democratic nomination. That's still my guess too -- though barely, of course. My reasoning is super simplistic: with Super Tuesday over and both candidates essentially tied, the rest of the primary season will be one long stretch of trench warfare. And there's no one better at trench warfare than the Clintons."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "A lot of my theories of this election will be facing their moments of truth in the next month. I will lay them out here now...Hillary runs better than Obama in contested big state primaries [such as] Texas and Ohio on March 4th. As a result, Clinton is still the favorite for the nomination."

EDWARDS: Who's Gonna Win His Primary?

Following Mark Halperin's report that John Edwards met privately with HRC last week and will meet with Obama this week, liberal bloggers are speculating about which candidate Edwards will endorse:

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Certainly Clinton has been running on 'fighting for the voiceless' -- as the Edwards aide describes Edwards's number one criterion for whom to endorse -- since well before Iowa, and one would think Edwards's working class supporters would welcome a Clinton endorsement, although Edwards's educated 'wine track' supporters I suspect would tend to disagree...The value of [Edwards's] official stamp of approval would likely be more about delivering the candidate of choice a huge news day as well as, presumably, a passionate surrogate to campaign on his or her behalf, both of which at this point would clearly benefit Clinton the most."

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Who will Edwards endorse if anyone? He seemed more aligned with Obama when he was in the campaign, but that was mostly on lobbyists. On poverty and health care, which were his main issues, I think Hillary is closer to him. What could each offer John Edwards if elected to sweeten the pot? I doubt he wants to be Attorney General -- maybe Hillary can offer to let him be in charge of tweaking and getting universal health care through Congress. A health care czar?"

MCCAIN: All Aboard The Straight Talk Express

RedState's Neil Stevens urges conservatives to support McCain: "The only choice for conservatives in November is Senator John McCain. Having been beaten twice in the Senate, he is on board with enforcement-first illegal immigration policy. He strongly opposes letting taxes go up when President [George] Bush's tax relief expires. He's in favor of winning the War on Terror, even though he disagrees with some of us on specific issues like interrogation techniques...He'll get my vote without regrets, and I hope other conservatives will join me."

Michelle Malkin resists the pressure to close ranks behind McCain: "As expected, Fred Thompson has endorsed his friend John McCain. He's telling conservatives to fall in line. President Bush is also singing the 'close ranks' tune. Sorry, I'm not ready yet to submit just yet. Endorsements are all well and good, but personnel is policy. And McCain has done nothing to disassociate himself from anti-conservative, pro-border obliterationists. Less talk. More action."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins looks on the bright side of McCain's ascendancy: "As bad the GOP has it on the presidential front, the Democrats have it even worse. They have a completely unqualified, unaccomplished empty suit duking it out with an underqualified, weeping willow who hasn't accomplished a single thing on her own, without her husband's help, in her entire adult life."

MCCAIN II: Who Wants A Piece Of The Mac?

With McCain all but certain to win the GOP nod, conservative bloggers are talking about which Dem candidate would be easier for McCain to beat:

Townhall's Matt Lewis thinks HRC would be the weaker foe: "I believe McCain can beat Hillary Clinton for two reasons: (1). Conservatives, no matter what they say today, will come out to defeat Hillary, and (2). McCain will pick up enough moderate/conservative Dems and Independents to win. Barack Obama, on the other hand, would be tougher to defeat. A McCain/Obama race would essentially come down to who can define what the election is about. If it's about experience, McCain would win; if it's about change, Obama wins."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey agrees: "[Obama] beats [HRC] among independents by 18 points. That's the danger for Democrats in choosing Hillary. The independents will decide the election, as they almost always do, and the Republicans have already all but nominated the candidate who appeals to them most. If the Democrats select Hillary -- especially with a superdelegate Deus ex machina process that reverses an Obama lead among pledged delegates -- they can kiss that demographic goodbye. Not only would that give McCain and the Republicans a tremendous boost towards holding the White House, it could have implications for the Congressional race as well."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "It's pretty clear that a Hillary Clinton nomination would make things a lot easier for McCain, both because she would instantly unite the Republican Party, and also because he'd be much more formidable among independents...With Barack Obama as the nominee, things get trickier for McCain. Though conservatives won't want to see Obama as president, he won't generate the kind of visceral disgust that Clinton would, and thus anti-McCain conservatives would be much more likely to sit things out. Also, Obama is much more appealing to independents...Either Americans will see Obama as too green, or McCain as too old. At the end of the day, one man will win the argument and a huge block of independents will swing in one direction or another, translating into an electoral rout."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin thinks HRC may be stronger than Obama: "First, we vote, of course, by the electoral college...Yes, [Obama] has run well in red states, but no one seriously believes that he will beat John McCain in Nebraska. At least for now, Clinton polls better among Hispanics and would therefore have a better shot at states which actually are in play, such as Florida and New Mexico...Second, there is something to be said for Clinton's argument that she will not be blown off the stage by McCain. Watching Obama's campaign speech in Alexandria yesterday on CSPAN, I was struck how little there is still there...Third, his ranking by the National Journal as the most liberal Senator reveals a basic truth: for all of the 'bringing together' and 'reaching out' rhetoric he remains an unblemished and uncompromising liberal."

HUCKABEE: Let The Huck Have His Day

Most conservative bloggers don't have a problem with Mike Huckabee's decision to stay in the GOP race:

NRO's Byron York: "The bottom line for the moment is that there is little reason for Huckabee to get out of the race. As long as he is winning here and there, and as long as he is not conducting a negative campaign and being viewed as a detriment to the race -- don't look for any hard-hitting attacks on John McCain -- there's no reason he has to pull out."

Ed Morrissey: "The contest between McCain and Huckabee has remained highly collegial, and there is no reason to believe that it will deteriorate at this point. While it might distract from the effort at unity by the McCain camp for a couple of more weeks, it represents no threat to McCain's eventual ascension."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "[Huckabee's] ability to compete with McCain, and indeed to defeat him in a number of states, represents an embarrassing reminder of the Senator's limited popularity with conservatives. But that's no reason why Huckabee should withdraw. Unlike, say, John Edwards, Huckabee is the darling of sizeable faction of his party and this status has propelled him to victory on a number of occasions...With every victory, Huckabee enhances his claim as a major force within the party and, perhaps, his claim as a credible candidate for vice president."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is Hillary Momentum-Proof?

The New Republic's Noam Scheiber wonders:

"The conventional wisdom is that if, as now appears possible, Obama runs the table in February, his momentum could make him pretty formidable in Texas and (especially) Ohio, which the Clinton campaign considers its firewalls. That's certainly the way these things normally work. But I'm not sure it'll be true of this primary season. The strange thing about Hillary is that while voters don't necessarily want her to win, they don't seem to want her to lose, either. Every time it looks like she might do that -- New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, during her post-Super Tuesday financial crunch -- voters have rallied to her side. I wonder if we'll see a similar story on March 4 or before if it starts to look like Obama's running away with this thing.

Needless to say, voters' complex psychological relationships to Hillary makes her extremely difficult to run against..."

LEST WE FORGET: Battle Of The C-Listers

Radar's Megan Carpentier compares Obama and HRC based on their endorsements from celebrities "you haven't heard of":

"Who cares that Scarlett Johansson supports Obama and Jack Nicholson thinks the Hills are alive? It's all about the random people you have to IMDB to figure out who they are! Obama's supported by Kelly Hu, Kerry Washington, Tate Donovan, Kal Penn, Enrique Marciano, and Amber Valletta. Hillary's got, um, Amber Tamblyn, Christine Lahti, Mary Steenburgen and, Goddammit, Bradley Whitford.

Advantage: Hillary's got Josh. Enough said."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

February 08, 2008

2/8: McCain In The Lion's Den

John McCain's speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was received positively by most conservative bloggers. They appeciated McCain's candid recognition of his (many) differences with the GOP base. And, while they still have deep misgivings about McCain, they are pleased that he has begun the process of reaching out to conservatives.

That said, they still feel that McCain has spent the past eight years deliberately alienating them, and many were quick to point out that it will take more than a single speech to mend their relationship. A quick visit to Michelle Malkin's site, Hot Air, or The Corner makes it clear that the wounds caused by McCain's role in last summer's immigration debate are still fresh. The AZ senator will have to continue to work at shoring up the GOP base (and pick a conservative running mate!) before he can even begin thinking about the general election.

MCCAIN: Well Done, Senator

Most conservative bloggers believe that McCain gave an excellent speech at CPAC:

RedState's Erick Erickson: "That was the best speech John McCain has given this election season. He won't calm everyone nor resolve all issues. He alluded to that. But the speech was good...Conservatives may not have gotten the whole loaf of bread they wanted, but they know where McCain stands, and he's willing to fight on grounds the Democrats would abdicate to the socialists within and terrorists without."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "That was an excellent speech. McCain genuinely reached out to conservatives in a heartfelt manner."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "[McCain's speech] was a strong appeal to conservatives' strongest suit -- their deep patriotism and their admiration of his sacrifices and service...November's vote will be a referendum on whether to pursue victory or accept retreat in the war. Senator McCain has Governor [Mitt] Romney's support in that campaign, and he should have the support of all conservatives as well."

NRO's Stanley Kurtz: "I thought McCain did an excellent job, and notwithstanding what seemed like a faction of pre-planned booers at the start, he won over most of the crowd. Will all this be enough to unite the party? It's too early to say. But everyone seemed to agree that McCain's speech today was the right way to start."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "In reality, McCain is not as bad as some conservatives made him out to be when it looked like his nomination might be avoided, and he's not as good as other conservative will make him out to be now that his nomination is inevitable. The bottom line is that McCain made the right move by reaching out to conservatives through this speech, and the conservative audience made the right move by reacting well to this overture. This sort of grown-up behavior on both sides will be essential if the election of a leftist Democrat is to be avoided."

MCCAIN II: Talk Is Cheap

Other conservative bloggers are not ready to embrace McCain just yet:

Michelle Malkin: "I respect [McCain's] decision to stand in the lion's den, and I agreed with much of the speech. I found myself nodding as he touted his opposition to ethanol subsidies, national catastrophic insurance, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. But I don't for a minute buy his claim that he 'respects the opposition' of his staunchest opponents, especially the anti-amnesty crowd. These are folks he has cursed and likened to Bull Connor-style bigots. He has done nothing to rid his campaign staff and finance board of the most extreme open-borders zealots. I said he needed to do more than mouth the Right platitudes. Still waiting."

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "The man made a good speech. And on substance, it offered strong arguments for conservatives to support him. It doesn't change the fact that he is, charitably speaking, a jerk...There is STILL no sense from him that he regrets his own actions, or that he has ever transgressed. Look, disagreement on some issues is fine, if done respectfully. Disagreement while shoving a shiv in our ribs is another thing. McCain is famous for the shiv. And he seems not to regret it in the least."

AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "I can respect conservatives who go down the checklist of issues and find John McCain preferable to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. That's a perfectly fine reason to vote for him rather than a liberal Democrat in the general election. But the fact that 'Mac Changed Minds' is less a reflection of his underwhelming, patronizing speech -- Reagan, blah blah, Burke, blah blah, did I mention Reagan? -- than their desire to be convinced now that he is the certain nominee...Why do we have to delude ourselves that the lesser evil is anything other than that? Conservatism is indeed the realm of ideas, not just electoral politics. Let's allow 2008 to sort itself out and get on with the task of reinvigorating conservative policy ideas for the next few decades. The next president, whoever he or she is, will not be of much help in that area. Neither will we if we ignore ideas and instead focus entirely on elections."

MCCAIN III: Veepstakes

Several conservative bloggers are already speculating about whom McCain should pick as his running mate:

Campaign Standard's Stephen F. Hayes thinks Mike Huckabee would be a poor choice: "The last thing McCain needs to do at this point -- or in July, when these discussions are more appropriate -- is willingly acquire liberal baggage. And despite Huckabee's embrace of the Fair Tax, which has its virtues, he is a class-warfare liberal on economic policy. More troublesome, however, is his naivete on national security and foreign policy, well documented here and elsewhere."

Campaign Standard's Fred Barnes likes Jeb Bush: "Too bad [Jeb]'s not available. Jeb perfectly meets the specifications of what McCain, or any Republican presidential nominee, needs in a running mate. He's had a splendidly successful political career. He's not only a favorite of economic conservatives, he's also highly regarded by social and foreign policy conservatives as well. And he's likeable and experienced. What more could McCain want? Maybe a policy wonk to offset his lack of depth on domestic issues? Jeb qualifies on that count, too."

ROMNEY: Exit Stage Right

Most conservative bloggers are praising Romney for what they consider his gracious exit:

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "I think Mitt Romney did an honorable thing today. By stepping aside, he sacrificed his personal glory for the good of the movement, the good of the party, and the good of the country."

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Staying in would forestall a national McCain and we must defeat the defeatists; [Romney] did the honorable thing and is a winner for it."

Quin Hillyer: "Mitt Romney just suspended his campaign with extraordinary class, with a superb speech and a call to unite to oppose violent jihad. Good for him. God bless him."

Hugh Hewitt: "Governor Romney is an incredibly gifted man -- intelligent in the way very few people are, charismatic, and blessed with an amiable openness and determined, strong character...Had the conservative movement more quickly recognized these qualities, the coming together around Romney that has occurred in the last few weeks would have assured him the nomination and, I think, the White House. But it didn't, and now the task is to assure that Senator McCain succeeds President Bush for the very reasons Mitt Romney outlined today."

Other bloggers are discussing how Romney's campaign fell short:

RedState's Leon H. Wolf: "The basic problems with Romney's campaign were twofold. First, Romney's campaign apparently felt the need to always portray Romney as the perfect candidate for whatever audience he was in front of...Second, the Romney campaign failed to realize that in a primary, you need to run a campaign in such a way as to leave the door open for the possibility that the supporters of other candidates might want to support your guy once those other candidates leave the race. Romney's campaign appeared relentlessly negative to supporters of the other candidates, so that as a result, when the other candidates dropped out, personal bad feelings kept Romney from picking their supporters up in significant numbers."

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini:

"CPAC rewards the candidate whose words (today at least) most closely match the clearly defined worldview of its audience. Much the same is true of the predominantly economic and national security conservatives in the blogosphere and on talk radio.

What Romney didn't account for is that it would take more than being a CPAC, or Agenda Conservative to win the nomination. Country Music Conservatives -- and frankly, most voters outside the Beltway swamp -- don't listen to your words; they listen to your tone of voice as you're delivering those words. Do you get angry when you should? What's your sense of humor like? For social conservatives, are you grounded in faith? And ultimately, are you the real deal? [...]

It all boils down to Agenda Conservatives being nowhere near a majority of the party. Yes, John McCain was a weak frontrunner, but Mitt Romney was a weak challenger, and enough conservatives chose character and authenticity over issues to make the difference. Let's face it: in this primary, blogs and talk radio were an echo chamber. What was happening in the electorate (identity-minded Christian voters choosing Huck; loosely affiliated conservatives choosing McCain) was unthinkable to Agenda Conservatives."

DEM FIELD: It's A Bird, It's A Plane, It's...Superdelegates!

Many progressive bloggers are discussing the possibility that superdelegates and/or the MI and FL delegates will determine the Dem nominee:

David Sirota: "There's a lot of legitimate concern out there about so-called superdelegates deciding who receives the Democratic presidential nomination...So how do we prevent the Democratic nomination from becoming a smoky backroom deal?...The best we can hope for is pressure on existing superdelegates to simply represent how their states voted."

TAPPED's Scott Lemieux: "I agree with Ezra [Klein] that it would be unfortunate for the nomination to come down to superdelegates, and I would hope that the norm among many superdelegates would be to support a clear winner...As Publius says, trying to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates should be -- in absence of a fair election with known stakes being held in those states -- considered the nuclear option, one that would tear the party apart. There's an important distinction between maximizing your advantages within the existing rules and retroactively changing the rules when they don't work in your favor."

Atrios: "My basic take is that MI and FL delegates shouldn't be seated, though if they want a do over with another caucus or primary that'd be fine. As for the superdelegates...well, I guess I'll be a bit annoyed if they swing this one way or another, but not that annoyed. I'm annoyed by the system. There are just too many superdelegates relative to the total. But that is the system."

Open Left's Chris Bowers is angered by what he considers the Clinton camp's hypocrisy: "There is no way that Clinton's nearly a 2-1 lead in super delegates should be considered legitimate given how close the popular vote has been. For the Clinton campaign, respecting democracy is the thing to do when it favors the Clinton campaign, while respecting the rules of the DNC is the thing to if democracy doesn't produce the right outcome. On the one hand, the Clinton campaign is arguing they should be considered ahead because of super delegates, but on the other hand arguing that Michigan and Florida primary results should be respected because that is the democratic thing to do. You just can't have it both ways."

CLINTON: I Get Money, Money I Got

Many liberal bloggers are impressed by the Clinton camp's recent surge in online fundraising:

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "What is remarkable about the last 48 hours is the haul by the Hillary Clinton campaign of around $7 million from 45,000 online donors or so. These are suburban women who probably haven't been part of the culture of online giving, and who for some reason have started to contribute...What happened now, though, is that the Clinton campaign just tapped out of its [Terry] McAuliffe big dollar donors, and Clinton was forced to rely on her real base -- the women who love her. And unwittingly, with her showing in the Super Tuesday states and her $5 million donation to her own campaign, she asked them for support in a way she never had. And they responded."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "The Clinton campaign has to be breathing a sigh of relief. This kind of online fundraising has never been a Clinton campaign focus so this was semi-uncharted waters for them...There is deeper and more committed grassroots support for Hillary Clinton than many of us, probably including the Clinton campaign, realized. Clearly Obama has the fundraising edge, but if these trends hold, it is not THE decisive edge."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "The overall fundraising number also represents a fairly masterful management of expectations on the Clinton campaign's part. On February 6th the campaign released the surprising information that Clinton had loaned herself $5M in January, which had a dual effect: it made Clinton seem weak, which then motivated her base to pony up. And with a $3M goal for 72 hours, the bar was set rather low so that reaching that amount in 1 day instead of 3 was a sign of unexpected strength, exactly the good news Clinton needed to stem any Obama momentum."

CLINTON II: Don't Look For Sympathy Here

Several liberal bloggers are unsympathetic to HRC's challenge to Obama to join her in five one-on-one debates:

Big Tent Democrat thinks Obama would be "crazy" to accept HRC's challenge: "Given Hillary Clinton's money woes, Barack Obama would be crazy to agree to once a week debates with Hillary Clinton. He is coldly and remorselessly pressing his money advantage by NOT debating her. I would think less of him if he did agree to debate once a week...Obama is a pol, doing what is best for his campaign. As he should. Being a pol is what he is supposed to do."

Meanwhile, Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher is angry with HRC for agreeing to debate on Fox News: "Under normal circumstances, the online community would probably be calling for [Obama] to accept the debate challenge, to keep the Democratic message before the public, and decry the reliance on carefully sculpted advertising content where the advantage went to the person with the most money. But that disappeared the minute Fox News entered the picture. The very same people who would have been trying to level the playing field and push for open debate are simply not going to advocate for a situation where Fox News becomes empowered with arbiter status to a new audience of people who are just tuning into the political conversation. And Clinton undermines her message to these people -- that the right wing noise machine is something to be fought, not accommodated -- when she shows a willingness to offer them that authority."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: This Could Get Messy

Chris Bowers thinks there are three ways in which the Dem primary could end:

• "If Obama wins non-Michigan and Florida pledged delegates by more than 100, then he will win the nomination. From that point, he will be able to dictate the rules of the convention via the credentials committee, and win.
• If Clinton wins non-Michigan and Florida pledged delegates even by 1, then she will win the nomination. From that point, she will be able to seal the deal via super delegates and the credentials committee.
• If, after the primaries and caucuses finish on June 7th, the pledged delegate totals are somewhere in between those two ranges, then we will probably have a brokered convention. Or, at least, there will be some sort of brokered pre-convention, involving the credentials committee and negotiations with Howard Dean."

LEST WE FORGET: Phoenix Goes Diesel

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias does not understand why the Suns traded Shawn Marion for Shaquille O'Neal:

"Shawn Marion is not only better, cheaper, and younger than Shaq, but he logs more minutes per game. Indeed, he plays more minutes per game than anyone else on the Phoenix roster. So expect to see more Brian Skinner and Boris Diaw in the future. The (rare) defenses of this trade, meanwhile, don't seem to grasp that just because Phoenix was relatively unlikely to win a championship pre-trade hardly justifies doing a deal that makes the team worse...Maybe if Phoenix hadn't sold those draft picks they could have struck gold. Anything but this."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:46 PM

February 07, 2008

2/7: Cash Rules Everything Around Me

After it was revealed that Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million, the Barack Obama campaign responded with a fundraising push of its own. Since the polls closed on 2/5, the Obama campaign has raised over $7 million online, while the HRC campaign has raised $4 million. Many liberal bloggers are discussing the significance of these fundraising numbers. Will the Obama camp -- aided by MoveOn -- outraise and outspend the HRC camp in the coming weeks? Or will the Clintons manage to keep pace by gathering donations from small donors, as it has done during the past 36 hours?

DEM FIELD: The Road To Denver

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "There are only two paths to the Democratic nomination now. One path, for Clinton, is based on her maintaining a tie or a narrow lead among pledged delegates, thus allowing her to seal the deal through a rules and bylaws engine that focuses on superdelegates and the Michigan / Florida delegate seating process. The other path, for Obama, is based on him taking a narrow pledged delegate lead, and then slowly building that lead through a string of victories that will eventually make Clinton's super delegate lead a democratic farce, and her Michigan / Florida claims irrelevant."

Open Left's Mike Lux: "Going forward, Obama has the edge in money and in the next few states, both organizationally and demographically...[HRC]'s got to dig in somewhere between now and March 4 (OH and TX), because one loss after another is really going to hurt her. So look for her to really make a stand in Virginia and to find another state someplace where she can really dig in. On the Obama side, they have to figure out a Hispanic strategy. With Texas looming on the horizon, they are going to get murdered in that very big state if they don't figure this out fast...Also, the Clinton campaign has targeted the hell out of white women voters and has done a great job turning them out. The Obama campaign will never win them, but has got to figure out how to improve that percentage."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas thinks Obama is now the front-runner: "Clinton came nowhere near what she needed to do [on Super Tuesday] to build a strong delegate lead (and super delegates can change their mind, they're not locked in). Obama needed to survive, and he did more than that -- he outright won the night. Now his job is to finish off Clinton. If he can rack up a full month of 20%+ victories the rest of this month, he does just that. People accused me of playing the expectations game before Super Tuesday by lowering the bar to Obama. Hogwash, I'm calling them as I see them. And that last [sentence] is proof -- do you think the Obama spin is that he needs to sweep the rest of the month by 20% margins to knock Clinton out? Obviously not. But if Obama does that, Clinton's money will dry up and the momentum toward the March contests will create an Obama tsunami."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat, on the other hand, thinks Obama has no chance to win the nomination: "What [Super Tuesday] revealed is no amount of spin, mo, Media and endorsements can get Obama over the hump in big heterogenuous states...The dynamics of this race are now set in stone. No amount of Media and Mo and Kennedys can get Obama over the hump. He can not win women, Latinos, older voters and lower income non-African Americans. The Obama coalition is simply not enough...The bottom line is nothing has changed from Nevada. Obama can not break through. He will not be the Presidential nominee. He will be the Vice Presidential nominee."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher also thinks Obama is in trouble: "The Obama campaign won every media cycle in the days before Super Tuesday largely based on the Kennedy endorsements, and despite this he took a 14 point drubbing in Massachusetts. The boost he was supposed to get among Latinos based on the Teddy factor never materialized. If I was the Obama campaign I'd be scratching my head this morning going 'what do we do for an encore?'"

DEM FIELD II: Dolla Dolla Bill, Ya'll

Many liberal bloggers are discussing the Obama camp's fundraising prowess and the pressure it is putting on the HRC camp:

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "The Obama campaign has now raised north of $5.7 million -- and rising -- since polls closed last night. That's just a stunning number...Hillary Clinton was able to keep up last year with a flow of $2,300 checks, as well as a solid transfer from her Senate reelection campaign account. However, with a sizable majority of donors already maxed out (see Adam Boninhere , here, here and here), it's becoming increasingly (though nevertheless surprisingly) clear that relying predominantly on big dollar donors to go up against another campaign that enjoys the support of both big dollar donors and also hundreds of thousands of smaller dollar donors (don't think that that John Kerry endorsement didn't do anything) may force a candidate to turn not only to one $5 million loan but another potential subsequent loan as well."

MyDD's psericks: "Progressive, creative-class, web-based organizations like MoveOn, with its three-million-strong email list, as well as communities like DailyKos, are now starting to fall in behind [Obama's] candidacy --- most likely a crucial element behind his fundraising surge [last night]...Could this be the beginning of a fundamental change in the way elections work? The moment when a candidate used the internet to launch him farther than any candidate has before, to actually break past the strongest candidate the establishment has to offer?"

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum speculates about why Obama is raising more money than HRC: "Hillary Clinton obviously has plenty of ability to raise money from big donors, but as we all know from endless regurgitation of exit poll results, her supporters tend to be older, lower income, less educated, and more likely to be working class. On a mass basis, (a) they just don't have as much money as Obama's supporters and (b) they don't hang out on the internet a lot. Obama's fans, conversely, are heavily made up of white collar, college educated folks who might not be accustomed to writing $2,300 checks but are perfectly able to comfortably write a few $200 checks here and there -- and aren't rattled at the idea of filling out a donation page on a website to do it. Hillary's plant workers and Social Security recipients, not so much."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong thinks both Obama and HRC will have sufficient funds in the coming weeks: "So Obama's raised 2:1 over the last 24 hours, against Clinton. If they continue on like this for a few more days, Obama will have $15M to Clintons $7.5M more to spend...the point is, there is more than enough money being raised by both sides that its not really a significant advantage, especially at the Presidential level -- you need enough money but having a ton more cannot alone win it. Ask Ron Paul."

MCCAIN: Everybody Get Together, Try To Love One Another

Several conservative bloggers are urging John McCain's critics to dial down their attacks on the AZ senator:

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I've long been dismayed by the fury of many conservatives' attacks on John McCain. I understand why McCain is not some conservatives' first choice for the nomination, but the ongoing effort to read him out of the conservative movement has gone way too far. To assert, as some have, that there is 'really' no difference between McCain (average [Americans for Democratic Action] rating from 2002 through 2006 of 23%) and Hillary Clinton (average ADA rating over the same period of 96%) is the kind of never-mind-the-facts shrillness that we expect from the Left, not from our fellow conservatives."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "The case that McCain is as bad as Hillary Clinton is untenable, and the case for 'staying home' this November is almost as weak."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "John McCain isn't a perfect conservative -- we can all agree on that. However, whether it's government spending, the surge, or the right to life -- there is no doubt that John McCain would be dramatically better than either Democrat. Granted, the folks who argue that the conservative movement would be better off if Hillary wins, have a point...[but] I believe the stakes are too high to take this gamble. The long-term damage to the country that a Hillary Clinton presidency could bring is simply too severe."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey urges conservatives to meet McCain halfway: "The conservative wing of the Republican Party is one of several factions within a big tent. Within that movement exists sub-factions as well...Factions that refuse to cooperate in a coalition wind up marginalized and pushing the coalition in the opposite direction. If McCain wins the nomination without conservatives, he will push towards the center in the general election. Win or lose, the conservatives will have no influence on public policy either way, and will not be trusted as coalition partners for a long, long time afterwards."

MCCAIN II: Support McCain? Over My Dead Body!

Other conservative bloggers are still not willing to support McCain (at least not yet), and are urging their readers to instead concentrate on electing other conservative candidates in '08:

Dan Riehl: "One cannot one day be pointing out how bad an individual has been, and is, for conservatism in America, then turn on a dime to suggest the GOP is more important than our principles. Not if one wants to retain their credibility and integrity...While acknowledging there is an election in November, serious conservatives would be better served positioning the movement to jump back in the battle after November, so that we can help to elect more conservative members to the legislature -- and of course vote the under card this Fall. I could never pull the lever for a top ticket containing the name McCain, or [Mike] Huckabee, should they prevail."

Michelle Malkin: "Sen. John McCain's campaign resurrection and Super Tuesday victory leave a diverse group on the Right -- from the libertarian Club for Growth to First Amendment defenders to immigration enforcement proponents -- dispirited. But the failure to nominate a true Republican unifier does not spell ideological defeat...Some on the Right advise their readers and listeners to vote Democrat or sit home. My advice is exactly the opposite: Get off the couch and walk the walk for conservative candidates and officeholders who need all the help they can get defending free markets, free minds, and secure borders -- no matter who takes the White House in November."

NRO's Mark Krikorian suggests a conservative third-party candidate: "Most people who, like me, can't bring themselves to vote for Amnesty John will just stay home. Unless...they have someone else to vote for. A third-party candidate for president may be essential for limiting the damage to Republicans in Congress. For instance, the Libertarian and Constitution parties, which are on the ballot in almost all states, could agree on a joint anti-McCain ticket...Such a ticket could conceivably get 1 or 2 percent of the vote, and some of those voters would otherwise have stayed home, potentially spelling the difference between congressional Republicans getting creamed like 1974 and merely suffering small losses."

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer writes an open letter to McCain: "[Your] differences with the conservative movement, in terms of issues, have been well publicized. But honest differences are acceptable. What is not acceptable is your habit of lashing out at the right, questioning the motives of conservatives who disagree with you, accusing them of corruption or of other nefarious intent...[Today], you make a big speech at CPAC -- a gathering you shunned last year, snubbed your nose at, and then insulted by trying to hold a reception at the same hotel at the same time -- and you hope to convince conservatives that you are one of us and that we ought to support you...I supported you eight years ago. It will require far, far more than one good speech, though, for me to applaud you again."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Failed Strategies

The Wall Street Journal's Michael Barone:

"What I find most striking about this nominating season is that every candidate's strategy has failed. Yes, each party will still nominate someone. If one rule of a zero-sum game is that all players but one must lose, another rule is that one must win. But not because his or her original strategy worked."

LEST WE FORGET: Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz on why he's leaving John Kerry for Barack Obama:

"My biggest mistake was, in 2004, I supported John Kerry -- which was not a mistake, I'm proud of supporting John Kerry, but the mistake I made was that I gave John Kerry my email address. As a result, like many John Kerry supporters, I still receive emails periodically from JohnKerry.com. And I sort of feel like John Kerry is like a bad ex. [...]

I just feel like there ought to be some way to tell John Kerry to stop emailing me without hurting his feelings. Like if I could say 'It's me, not you.' You know there's nothing wrong with him, it's just that I've moved on, and I'm looking for something different now and I'm sort of having an existential crisis. I still have feelings for him, it's just they're not the feelings I used to have. I have more of those feelings for Barack Obama. [...]

[Kerry's] apparently moved on to Barack Obama too because he's endorsed him. But then I'm thinking, is he just stalking me? Because he knows I'm with Barack, so now he's with Barack? I don't know. It's weird. It's just weird."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:10 PM

February 06, 2008

2/6: The Morning After

Like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's own spin-masters, liberal bloggers are interpreting yesterday's Super Tuesday election results in starkly different ways. Several bloggers, including Markos Moulitsas, think that Obama had a great night because he won 13 states and kept the overall delegate race close. Other bloggers think that HRC was the real winner because she won CA and held onto her Northeast strongholds such as NJ and MA. More and more bloggers are speculating about a brokered convention in which superdelegates (as well as MI and FL's delegates) determine the Dem nominee.

Conservative bloggers are slowly reconciling themselves to the fact that John McCain will probably be the GOP nominee. McCain's speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on 2/7 is going to be a key moment in his campaign, and many conservative bloggers will be in attendance. Will McCain successfully assuage their concerns about his record on judicial nominations and taxes? Johnny Mac will never be able to win over all conservatives, but if can win over some, it will be a significant victory.

DEM FIELD: A Good Night For Obama?

Liberal bloggers differ sharply as to whether Obama or HRC had the better night. Several bloggers think Obama came out on top:

Moulitsas: "Huge night for Obama...[He] has, at this point, won 11 states, of 22 in play. Worst-case scenario, he's already won half. If he picks up Alaska, which I suspect he will, he wins the battle of the states...California is looking like it might head SUSA's way, so that'll be good news for Hillary. But the rest of the night is bleak. She didn't exceed expectations anywhere. She lost states she led big in just a few weeks ago. She's hurting for money. The calendar up ahead is tailor made for Obama. The momentum is there."

AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "It is hard for me to see this as anything but a big night for Barack Obama...Obama won 13 states to Clinton's 8 victories (New Mexico is still to be decided). Obama will probably end up winning a few more delegates tonight than Hillary...Worse for Hillary, Obama has the momentum, and has for some time. Stretching out the calendar only helps Obama. He has been steadily catching up to Hillary in state after state, poll after poll -- that's why so many of today's states were actually in play tonight, when most weren't just a couple weeks ago. He has more money than Hillary. And after tonight, even more money will pour into the Obama campaign...Today, I think the tide turned against [HRC]. She was supposed to win today, the nomination was supposed to be hers. She didn't, and it isn't. It was a much better day to be Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton."

Open Left's Chris Bowers: "I can say with about 90% certainty that Obama will still be ahead in pledged delegates heading into Saturday...This is exactly what Obama needed, since without a pledged delegate lead he might have been in some trouble...Instead, for the first time since New Hampshire, Obama now has a clear path to the nomination. The Clinton campaign is going to talk a lot of super delegates and a lot of Florida and Michigan, but right now Obama has the edge of pledged delegates, resources, and momentum generating activists. If he can sweep Beltway Tuesday, avoid a surprise in Wisconsin on February 19th, and then win both Ohio and Texas, he will be the nominee."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "If you factor out the more exuberant Zogby-fueled dreams of the weekend, Obama did quite well relative to his baseline of a week ago. The February 5 landscape favored Clinton, and Obama managed to not lose any of 'his' states while poaching Connecticut and narrowly grabbing contested Missouri. Clinton won, but most indications are that she won't have won nearly enough delegates to put this thing out of reach. Now the landscape gets much more favorable for Obama."

DEM FIELD II: ...Or A Bad Night For Obama?

Other bloggers think Obama failed to meet expectations:

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Hillary Clinton appears to have won a substantial victory in California capping off a very bad night for Barack Obama. The three most highly contested states on Super Tuesday were Massachusetts, New Jersey and California. Obama was blown out in each of them. Some bloggers and the Obama Network (NBC) will try to spin this away...[but] I think Hillary Clinton stopped Barack Obama for good tonight. I know a lot of bloggers and the Media will go on and on about delegate counts but the point is Obama had his fair shot and he did not deliver today. I do not think he will have another one."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Expectations can be a bitch. The recent polls showing Obama moving up (especially in Clinton country i.e. CA & NJ) plus those early exit polls today certainly created some expectations for tonight that simply weren't met, which is fairly ridiculous considering how many states Barack Obama won and the fact that he's actually likely to win more Super Tuesday delegates than Clinton. But the psychological element of what constitutes a win and momentum is very real...the headlines stating that Clinton and Obama 'Trade Victories,' and that the race is 'Not Settled' are telling and indeed represent a non-victory victory for Hillary Clinton; as New Hampshire before it, tonight was the equivalent of hitting a reset button."

TPM's Josh Marshall: "If you look at this from the vantage point of two weeks ago, it's a huge win for Obama, since he was trailing in states across the country by a very big margin. From the vantage point of the last couple days, however, it's much less clear. The hype of his momentum just got a bit out ahead of what he was able to pull off. And in that sense there's very mild echo of New Hampshire, though the Clinton campaign is silly to claim some sort of comeback. There were a handful of states which, had [Obama] won two or more of them, would have taken him from a delegate tie to a decisive win that would have been Clinton seriously on the defensive. But it didn't happen."

OBAMA: The Choice Of The Liberal Intelligentsia

Progressive bloggers and journalists continue to coalesce around Obama:

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Obama is the riskier bet -- but he also presents what appears to me to be the greatest potential for upside. Fundamentally, that's what I'm hoping to see. I'm hoping for that win that approaches 55 percent, with 260+ seats in the House and close to 60 seats in the Senate. And to me, the best opportunity to achieve the type of real change that we need today is to have a massive win that brings not only new voters to the Democratic Party but also old voters new to the Democratic Party (i.e. Independents and even Republicans who have voted in the past, but just not for the Democrats)...I [also] think it's time for there to be a generational change in the leadership of this country. The baby boomers have had their two decades at the helm of power...Perhaps it's time to see a new generation that isn't hung up on Vietnam and other related issues come to the fore and lead this country."

The Nation's Katha Pollitt: "When Obama won Iowa, I was surprised that I was glad. Much as I would love to pull the lever for a woman president -- a pro-choice Democratic woman president, that is -- I realized at that moment how deeply unthrilled I was by the prospect of a grim vote-by-vote fight for the 50 percent+1 majority in a campaign that would rehearse all the old, (yes, mostly bogus or exaggerated) scandals and maybe turn up some new ones too...[Obama]'s a natural politician who connects with people as Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, just doesn't, and appeals to the better angels of their nature. He sparks an enthusiasm in people -- independents, the young, the previously disengaged. An Obama victory could have big positive repercussions for progressive politics."

The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman prefers Obama to HRC on foreign policy grounds: "McCain, a war hero, has national-security bona fides that few candidates possess. He will be able to inhabit the space Clinton has carved out for herself over the past two years: sober critic and skeptic of Bush. However, he'll also be able to pounce on her inconsistency and vacillation, if Thursday's debate is any indication, in a replay of the 'flip-flopper' charge that doomed Kerry four years ago. Unlike Obama, Clinton will have no way of pivoting to a broader indictment of the militarism that McCain cheerfully espouses."

Ezra Klein comments on this growing "elite consensus for Obama": "Some of those endorsements were expected. Some were not. But I really didn't foresee this unanimity. A couple months ago, Hillary Clinton had far more traction among this group, and Obama hadn't come anywhere near assuaging concerns abut his candidacy. I think three things turned the tide decisively against Clinton: The first was her post-Iowa campaign, where Bill Clinton was comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson and an endless procession of hacks were being paraded out to deliver their jabs...The second was that Obama simply got more specific, particularly on foreign policy...And the third force was simply that his victories in Iowa and South Carolina made it look like his movement might be real."

CLINTON: Friends Don't Let Friends Debate On Fox News

The netroots are angry and disappointed that HRC has accepted a debate on the Fox News Channel:

Moulitsas: "Apparently having realized they've lost the netroots and not giving a damn anymore, the Hillary campaign has decided they want to legitimize the right-wing propagandists on Fox News after all...Obama should say 'no way' to the smear mongers on Fox. It's incomprehensible that Clinton would seek to legitimize the Republican Party's chief propaganda arm."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Fox is not a news outlet, it's an openly partisan opinion factory and the Democrats should not be legitimizing them (and allowing them to recruit Democratic viewers to propagandize to) by doing this."

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Glad you made it clear, Senator. I was debating whether to vote on Tuesday, mostly because I don't trust Obama and I think that your female supporters have been attacked and undermined by the media and the political establishment since you got into the race. Now that it's pretty clear you think nothing of the fact that your supporters have been consistently attacked by the right-wing for years, I will proudly cast my vote against you and for Barack Obama next Tuesday. Of course, that is unless Obama accepts the debate. I hope he doesn't. Seriously, Senator Clinton, this is just pathetic."

CLINTON II: Gimme Some Blog Love

Not all progressive elites favor Obama; HRC is racking up some prominent blogger endorsements of her own:

Taylor Marsh: "Hillary Clinton embodies every fight I've ever waged. Every battle I've ever engaged. She is the embodiment of hope for all women, as well as anyone looking for a better life, a fairer break, young, old, poor and poorer. She's got the passion and she's got plans to make them happen."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "There are two distinct reasons Hillary Clinton has inspired my vote over Barack Obama. First is that I know she will be a partisan warrior. I'm not ready to give up the fight that they started but that we've been waging over the past several years [...] While I have no doubt that Barack Obama is a committed Democrat and wants Democrats all over the country to win, I'm disturbed at times by his reluctance to state proudly that he is a Democrat; he has a real opportunity to rebrand the party but he almost perpetuates the idea that it's a dirty word. The second reason is that I actually believe Hillary Clinton is prepared to take full advantage of the progressive moment we find ourselves in to set a challenging domestic agenda that will not only, as she puts it, 'clean up after this Bush,' but will also set us on a track for a longterm progressive majority."

Daily Kos' brownsox: "I am voting for Hillary Clinton simply because I believe she'd be the best president. [...] I'm confident in her ability to be an effective administrator for the country. I have been deeply impressed by her knowledge, her intelligence, her attention to detail, her preparation, and her diligence. And I am excited about the prospect of her bringing these attributes to the Presidency. [...] I like Barack Obama. [...] But while I hope for a historic change via an Obama presidency, I am more certain of what we're going to get with a Clinton presidency...enough so that I cast my vote for her. If I had a clearer vision of what an Obama presidency would look like, in what fashion he would actually govern, I might well be supporting him. But I don't."

MCCAIN: You Can't Stop What's Coming

Most conservative bloggers believe that McCain is all but certain to win the GOP nod:

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Super Tuesday has made John McCain the presumptive Republican nominee."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "It's hard to see a scenario in which the next nominee of the Republican party is not John McCain."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "McCain told the Phoenix crowd that he had to 'get used to the idea that we are the Republican front-runner' campaign. The Republican Party will have to get used to it as well. McCain hasn't been welcomed by its activists and its punditry, but its voters have welcomed him -- and done so overwhelmingly."

MCCAIN II: Vote The Party, Not The Person

Hugh Hewitt, who's probably been Mitt Romney's strongest supporter in the conservative blogosphere, urges conservatives to support McCain if he becomes the GOP nominee: "Romney and [Mike] Huckabee ought to begin to note Senator McCain's lead and urge their followers to recognize that if they cannot come back they and their followers will have to come in and join the party's eventual nominee...Putting Humpty Dumpty together again cannot wait for St. Paul. Each of the three need to strike some common chords again and again, beginning with why the GOP needs to retain the White House, regardless of who its nominee is. There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68...These aren't the years to wish a pox on your primary opponents' heads beyond June."

Geraghty praises Hewitt for making this statement: "Hugh is a party man, and a conservative, and a guy who keeps his eye on the long term. (Like him, I never buy into arguments that you win later by losing now.) It's been fun to giggle at how Hugh can find the silver lining to every dark cloud over the Romney campaign, but we ought to salute him for noting the big picture and saying that he'll vote for the more conservative choice in the general election, no matter how strong his passions in the primary."

NRO's Mark Levin feels differently: "To say, from one's computer keyboard, that the [Ronald] Reagan coalition should unify behind McCain to prevent the specter of a Clinton or Obama presidency is, I believe, wishful thinking...Moreover, Republican voters won't buy it. McCain is sitting on a one-legged stool, having broken the two other legs. I think one important focus of Reagan conservatives should be to do all they can to protect as many Republican seats in the House as possible. There needs to be at least one elected part of our government that might be in a position to stem what could be a very unpleasant four years."

MCCAIN III: Time For Some Relationship Mending

Many conservative bloggers are talking about McCain's upcoming speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC):

Ed Morrissey: "With John McCain rolling up some large delegate totals, his upcoming visit to CPAC tomorrow will be a critical point in his campaign...McCain has to start negotiating for support in part on the terms of conservatives. He will likely do so on judicial nominations, pork-barrel spending, and budget reductions. We can also expect to hear reminders that McCain has been pro-life during his entire career, and while he might not support Constitutional amendments favored by the pro-life activists, he isn't going to roll back the work done by the movement over the last twenty-five years."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "The CPAC speech will tell us a lot about McCain. If it's a stump speech about him being a 'foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution,' we will know that is perfunctory pablum and that he didn't care enough to write something new. In that case, it is likely to assume he didn't want to give the speech, was probably talked into it by his staff, and isn't willing to humble himself by really trying. But if McCain looks us in the eye, acknowledge problems, but promises...promises...he will make conservatives proud on issues ranging from Life, to Judges, to taxes. Then, he has a chance."

Campaign Standard's Stephen F. Hayes provides some insider information: "Conservatives expecting a bouquet of roses from John McCain in the coming days will be disappointed...In discussions with several McCain advisers today, they say they expect him to acknowledge forthrightly some of the differences he has had with conservatives, perhaps with some humor...But the bulk of the speech will be John McCain reminding conservatives of the many issues on which he has been a conservative...McCain will not pander. His advisers think any attempt to do so will undercut his 'straight talk' reputation among independents and many Republicans. What's more, they say, McCain doesn't pander well and would reject any suggestion that he do so."

ROMNEY: Dead Man Walking

RedState's Adam C: "Overall, Romney seemed to hit a ceiling of support based on his coalition. His chance of winning the nomination is negligible."

Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "All the talk of a rally around Romney is looking like just that -- talk."

Matt Lewis: "Despite the strong support of the conservative chattering classes, Mitt Romney has proven he can win his home states of Michigan and Massachusetts. And Utah. He has also won some states that weren't highly-contested, like Nevada and Maine. Oh yeah, he won North Dakota, too...I may be wrong, but I can't think of an instance where has ever won a hotly-contested state where he did not have a natural advantage."

NRO's John Derbyshire: "Mitt is obviously a decent man and a worthy candidate, but there's no escaping the fact that he's failed to raise the metabolic rate of many GOP voters."

HUCKABEE: Guess Who's Bizzack?

Matt Lewis thinks Huckabee ought to be taken more seriously after winning five states on 2/5: "I understand why conservative writers aren't rallying around Huckabee, seeing as how he's a fiscal liberal, and all. But why does he get so little respect as a viable candidate?...He won more states than Romney tonight, but no matter how well he does, I don't know anyone who thinks he has a chance...But I think it's at least worth considering the possibility that it could become a two-man race between Huckabee and McCain."

Campaign Standard's Richelieu disagrees: "Despite all the media excitement, the Happy Huck is having what Wall Street's dark humor calls a dead cat bounce. (You drop a dead cat off a ten story building and it will bounce down the street looking alive when it is in fact quite dead.) Huck will not be the nominee."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: GOP Gloom

NRO's Mark Steyn is worried about the GOP's chances in November:

"The real story of the night, when you look at their rallies and their turn-out numbers, is that the Dems have two strong candidates either of whom could lead a united party to victory. Forget the gaseous platitudes: in Dem terms, their choice on Super Duper Tuesday was deciding which candidate was Super Duper and which was merely Super. Over on the GOP side, it was a choice between Weak & Divisive or Weaker & Unacceptable. Doesn't bode well for November."

LEST WE FORGET: World Leaders Gather To Roast Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

From The Onion:

"In what observers are calling an unprecedented opportunity for the international community to express its grievances against Iran's controversial leader, dozens of world leaders and key U.N. delegates gathered Saturday to roast Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. [...]

Roastmaster and former U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan kicked off the evening by welcoming President Ahmadinejad to 'what [was] sure to be the first and last time Mahmoud would ever be surrounded by 72 virgins.'

'Ladies and gentlemen, and Tony Blair, we stand here in the presence of one of the most vicious and destructive forces in the world today -- but enough about Bea Arthur,' said Annan, gesturing with a tumbler of Makers Mark across the long white tables of chuckling diplomats to the former Golden Girls star. 'Some people here tonight will tell you that Mahmoud refuses to engage in diplomatic talks, that he is the most ruthless stonewaller who has ever lived. Well, those people have obviously never met my first wife.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:16 PM

February 05, 2008

2/5: Super Scenarios

Most liberal bloggers believe that Hillary Clinton will win more states and more delegates today than Barack Obama. However, they also predict that Obama's recent surge will keep things close and that tonight's results are unlikely to be decisive. Consequently, several liberal bloggers are already discussing the possibility that superdelegates will determine the Dem nominee -- a scenario that Chris Bowers calls "a complete disaster." If today's results do indeed prove indecisive, superdelegates will almost certainly become a major topic of conversation in the liberal blogosphere during the upcoming weeks.

On the GOP side, most conservative bloggers expect John McCain to do very well today, but they don't think that he'll be able to deliver a knockout blow to Mitt Romney if the latter wins CA. Many conservative bloggers are trying to come to grips with the prospect of McCain as the GOP nominee. While some conservative bloggers have deep reservations about supporting McCain in the general election, most of them have indicated that they will suck it up and vote for the maverick in order to prevent HRC or Obama from winning the White House. That said, as long as Romney is still alive and kicking, most conservative bloggers will continue to rally behind the ex-governor.

DEM FIELD: The Pressure's On...Hillary?

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas thinks Obama just needs to "survive": "For Obama, his task for Tuesday is simply to survive. He needs to finish within 200 delegates of Clinton to keep it close, because the rest of the month is tailor made for Obama...Hillary's task is to defeat Obama decisively on Tuesday. If she can't manage that, then her plan B is to survive February to fight in March...If she does, then they both have to survive the mini-Super Tuesday on March 4th. If they do, this thing goes to Pennsylvania. Or to North Carolina. Or to the convention."

Open Left's Matt Stoller thinks the pressure is actually on HRC, not Obama: "Clinton raised $10M in January, not a small amount. But Obama raised $32M, with a good amount of that coming in over the internet from small dollar donors. He can and will continue to raise money from these people. If Obama does well on Super Tuesday, he will set himself up for a delegate lead later in the month because of a slew of favorable states, and he will end up drying up Clinton's money. Clinton donors gave because they saw her as inevitable, but if she doesn't take the majority of delegates on Tuesday it's going to be tough to close what is clearly a widening money gap."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer agrees: "If [HRC] is able put Obama away by taking a significant delegate lead tomorrow -- one that couldn't be whittled away during the subsequent February nominating contests, which seem to generally favor Obama -- she might be able to end the nomination battle a lot sooner than many currently believe. However, I believe that Markos is totally spot on when he writes today that if Clinton is unable to bank enough delegates tomorrow she could find herself in some long-term difficulties because of a possibly massive fundraising disadvantage."

DEM FIELD II: She'll Win, But By How Much?

Chris Bowers makes a prediction: "Currently, by multiplying the average polling margin by the number of delegates in each state, I arrive at an estimate of Clinton 889 delegates, Obama 799 pledged delegates earned from Super Tuesday itself. However, in virtually every state, more recent polls show better results for Obama, which should improve his standing almost across the board. At this point, a 90-delegate victory for Clinton on Super Tuesday is probably her best-case scenario, and the margin should [be] less than 50 delegates in either direction. A narrow Obama victory on Super Tuesday is even within his reach now."

Singer makes a similar prediction: "If I had to venture a guess, it would be that Clinton would come out on top in the delegate race out of [today], by somewhere in the range of 50 to 100 delegates of those pledged [today]. This would give her an overall lead in the delegate race, which she currently trails by 15 to Obama. While I wouldn't be shocked to see her lead on February 6 smaller than that, I would be quite surprised if Obama were able to maintain his pledged delegate lead or even extend it."

Meanwhile, Moulitsas chastises Obama supporters for their "irrational exuberance": "Clinton is going to win the day. The key is to limit her margin of victory and keep it close enough for Obama to catch up later in the month and into March and April. If Obama supporters build themselves up to the point they actually think they can win [today] (by citing bogus polls by Zogby, for example, and cherry picking the best of the other polls), then anything but a victory will be a demoralizing letdown. This isn't about lowering expectations. It's about the reality of the situation. Obama has been slowly building up, and has had to overcome huge advantages enjoyed by the Clintons."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong considers HRC the overwhelming favorite to win the Dem nod: "A lead of 60 more delegates going to Clinton [today] would put her lead overall at about 150 delegates...With less than 1600 more delegates to be selected by states after [2/5], and assuming the rest of the superdelegates break even, that translates into Obama having to win the rest of the state delegates by a 55-45 percent margin to overtake Clinton's 150 delegate lead. That's probably doable but tough to do too; especially when it's going to be state by state from here on out. I'm actually surprised that the bar has been lowered to a mere 100 seat delegate advantage for a winner to be declared among the pundits. That seems very achievable for Clinton [today]; all that really seems to have to happen is for [John] Zogby to be wrong again."

DEM FIELD III: You Call This A Democracy?

Several liberal bloggers are worried about the growing possibility that superdelegates will decide the Dem nomination:

Bowers: "It can no longer be avoided: super delegates will determine the Democratic Presidential nominee this year...The largest possible pledged delegate margin Clinton can have after Super Tuesday is 937 to 862...That leaves Clinton 1,088 pledged delegates from clinching the nomination, with only 1,428 pledged delegates remaining. Thus, in order to win the nomination without the aid of super delegates, in her best-case scenario after Super Tuesday, Clinton would need to win 76.2% of all remaining pledged delegates. Given our proportional delegate system, there is simply no way that is going to happen unless Obama drops out...My instincts tell me this is a complete disaster, since it will shine light on complicated bylaws and the questionable democratic nature of the delegate selection process instead of on voters."

Atrios: "I don't really have the problem with the existence of superdelegates, I just think that the Democrats have way too many of them. The primary system is already a bit of a farce, a kind of fake vote. With the timing issues, the caucuses, the various methods of allocating delegates, etc...it's hardly a pure exercise in democracy. The inclusion of some superdelegates on top of that system isn't particularly problematic. But since they're almost 20% of the total delegate count, I think that if they were to tip the balance there'd be a pretty big backlash. Candidate supporters give a lot of time and money to their chosen candidate, and they'll rightly be a bit annoyed to discover how much power the superdelegates wield. If they constituted 5% or so of the delegates this would be less of an issue."

OBAMA: More Blogger Endorsements

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum switches his support from HRC to Obama: "I've got some good reasons and some bad reasons for changing my mind. The good reasons include (a) the ugliness coming out of the Clinton camp over the past couple of weeks, which has turned me off, (b) a growing sense that Obama's steadiness running his campaign under fire is a good sign of what he'd be like as president, and (c) some of the red state endorsements Obama has gotten recently, which speak well for his potential to produce strong coattails in November...I still don't know whether Obama is likely to be the Democratic Ronald Reagan (my hope) or the next Democratic Jimmy Carter (my fear), but I like his temperament, I like his judgment, I like his foreign policy, I like his obvious ability to inspire, and I think he's more likely to be RR than JC. I guess I'm willing to roll the dice."

Obsidian Wings' hilzoy endorses Obama: "I sometimes wonder why, exactly, people go on saying all this stuff about Obama lacking substance...part of it might be the assumption that idealism is necessarily woolly and misty-eyed and all about singing Kumbaya, while realism is necessarily cynical and disillusioned. I have never believed this. There are certainly hard-bitten, cynical people who don't think particularly clearly about the world (Dick Cheney leaps to mind.) More to the point, I can't see any reason why there shouldn't also be people who are both genuinely idealistic and hardheaded at the same time. I suspect Obama is one of them. I do not for a moment imagine that he is perfect. (Cough, clean coal technology, cough cough.) But I do think that he's one of the best candidates I can remember, and that's good enough for me."

The Huffington Post's RJ Eskow also endorses Obama: "Movements matter. New generations deserve the chance to be inspired. And we all deserve the chance to see the gifted and idealistic among them drawn into public service. Barack Obama will make that happen. And his outreach to Republicans and independents is brilliant. He's shown no sign of compromising his principles to be inclusive. On the contrary: inclusivity is one of his principles...I don't know what will happen in December, but I'm voting for the ticket that will draw a new generation into politics. Someone like me isn't like to change anybody's mind, and no doubt whoever gets nominated will sometimes disappoint me and others. But for whatever it's worth, I'm voting for Barack Obama."

MCCAIN: Dividing The Right

Michelle Malkin continues to hit McCain over his immigration record: "The McCain campaign continues to perpetuate its Big Lie in the run-up to Super Tuesday. And thanks to MSM enablers and open-borders Republicans rooting for a McCain win, voters are swallowing the Big Lie. The Big Lie is that McCain can be trusted on immigration and border security...You want straight talk? McCain's tongue says he's 'listened and learned.' But his heart is with La Raza, the militantly ethnocentric, anti-immigration enforcement Hispanic lobbying group that honored him in 1999 and whose annual conference he keynoted in 2004."

NRO's John O'Sullivan explains why conservatives might not support McCain in the general election: "Are there to be two multiculturalist open-borders parties or one? If McCain's election were to make the GOP fundamentally similar to the Democrats on immigration, bilingualism, racial preferences, and all the National Question issues, that would be a resounding historical defeat for conservatives. The willingness of a President McCain to cooperate with the Democrats would give such issues as an immigration amnesty a better chance of passage than under a President Hillary or Obama even against strong GOP resistance in Congress. Opponents of such policies, despite enjoying majority support among the voters, would find themselves politically marginalized."

NRO's Mark Steyn also feels unsure about voting for McCain in November: "Right now, the two-party system seems to have decayed into a one-and-a-half-party system, with McCain largely in agreement with the Dems on immigration, pharmaceutical companies, global warming and much else. A President McCain will get media bouquets for his bipartisanship in supporting the Democrat domestic agenda...One could make the case that the war, rather than being the sole overwhelming reason for electing McCain, is actually a compelling reason, given their convergence on domestic issues, why you might as well stick Hill in there. I don't think Mrs Clinton will be so eager to lose the thing once it's on her watch."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin pushes back against the anti-McCain forces: "There is very little pro-Romney rhetoric being voiced by the McCain foes, perhaps an indication as to why McCain has been able to build a 20 point lead in national polls. It is hard to beat someone with simply a 'not him' argument, no matter how loudly one argues...There will eventually be a winner and a general election. If McCain does prevail and win the nomination, even some of the harshest critics will reverse course and support the GOP nominee they excoriated. Others will sulk, perhaps denying needed votes in a close general election."

Meanwhile, AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein explains how conservatives should treat McCain if he wins the GOP nod: "McCain always argues that people may not always agree with him, but he'll always put principle ahead of politics and fight like hell for whatever he believes is best for our country. Conservatives should take their cue from him. That is, when he is taking a position they agree with him on -- such as opposing pork barrel spending or pursuing victory in Iraq -- they should rally around him, but when he is pushing policies they abhor, they should oppose him fiercely and put principle ahead of loyalty to the leader of a political party."

ROMNEY: Don't Write Him Off Yet

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey thinks Romney will survive Super Tuesday: "[McCain] will win New York, New Jersey, and Arizona, but I think Missouri will be a tougher road to hoe. Romney may well take a majority in California, too. I think McCain gets a plurality of the delegates, perhaps as high as 50%. Romney will take 40%, and [Mike] Huckabee will get 10%, all from the South. That still puts McCain in good position to win the nomination, but Romney won't get eliminated tonight -- and he will have some momentum as the conservatives continue to rally around him."

Power Line's John Hinderaker also sees hope for Romney: "After [today], 45% of Republican delegates will remain to be chosen. The press is fond of 'momentum,' and on Wednesday will likely decree that the momentum all lies with McCain's campaign. But Republican primary voters and caucus-goers are much less impressed with momentum. Many Republicans would like to see a more conservative nominee than John McCain, and they aren't going to give up easily. With Mitt Romney now the only realistic alternative, he will find a substantial core of support as long as he stays in the race."

Several conservative bloggers are discussing Romney's late surge in CA:

NRO's Byron York: "If Romney were to win California, he and his supporters would surely interpret it as a sign that the conservative movement is finally -- at the '11th hour and the 59th minute' as one Romney adviser told me -- organizing to stop McCain. If Romney, on the basis of a good showing in California, stays in the race, then the anti-McCain movement, led by talk radio and conservative activists, will have more time to work...For the anti-McCain forces, California is everything."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Romney's campaign has gone straight on McCain on the immigration issue in California...The Golden State, for the first time in years, will have a huge say in the nomination for both the Dems and the GOP. If Romney can win in the home of Reagan, he will have a great chance at leading the party of Reagan in the fall, regardless of how the Rockefeller Republicans vote in NY."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If California comes together for Romney in the final 48 hours, it will be a remarkable story of two last second back-from-the-grave moments in his campaign. Losing Michigan would have been an effective nail in the coffin, and much of last week looked gloomy for Romney. Maybe the post-Super-Tuesday race will be a marathon on both sides..."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A (Spin) War Mitt Can't Win

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat thinks Romney is already doomed:

"Romney is probably already toast, no matter what happens today. In the absolute best-case scenario for his campaign, he'll win California going away and several other close states (Missouri, Georgia, etc) into the bargain. Given the state of the race just a week ago, this would be a remarkable turnaround. But for Romney to have any hope of pulling the inside straight he needs to win the nomination, he'll need the press to report it that way, to cast him as the 'comeback kid' even though McCain will still have won more states and delegates, both today and overall. And the media, as you may have noticed from time to time in this election cycle, likes McCain an awful lot more than it likes Romney. Which means that if there's a spin war to be won tomorrow, don't put your money on Mitt."

LEST WE FORGET: If Nick Cannon Thinks We Can...

The new celebrity-studded Obama music video, "Yes We Can," has already received over 1.2 million views on YouTube, but The Onion's Amelie Gillette is not impressed:

"I'm sure that Wil.i.am intended for this video to inspire thoughts like, 'Wow. Yes we can,' and 'Change is possible.' But instead it inspired thoughts like, 'Is that Claire's boyfriend who died on Six Feet Under?' 'The guy from October Road can play guitar?' 'Why is Nick Cannon always everywhere?' 'Whatever happened to a simple round of "Kumbaya?"', and 'Can you stop trilling for five seconds so I can hear what Obama's trying to say?'

Still, it's good to see that Scarlett Johansson can act like a real singer. She has those big headphones on her ears and everything."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:00 PM

February 04, 2008

2/4: The Day Before The Storm

Conservative bloggers, who are desperately rallying behind Mitt Romney, have been heartened by news that the gap between Romney and John McCain in CA is shrinking. While most righty bloggers believe that McCain will probably win the GOP nod, few are willing to concede victory to the Maverick just yet. Meanwhile, righty bloggers are pushing back against the media narrative that McCain's ascendancy reflects the waning popularity of conservatism. In their view, McCain owes his success to a rather unique set of circumstances (Mike Huckabee's surprising IA win; Rudy Giuliani's collapse; Romney's ongoing authenticity problem; etc.) rather than voter discontent with conservative ideals. Meanwhile, most liberal bloggers still expect Hillary Clinton to win more 2/5 delegates than Barack Obama, but Obama's late surge has certainly made things interesting.

DEM FIELD: Down To The Wire

Open Left's Chris Bowers thinks the pressure is on Obama: "The margin of error for Obama on Super Tuesday is surprisingly narrow. As most commenters have noted, Obama is aiming for a draw on Super Tuesday, which would be adequate given that Clinton is still viewed as the frontrunner (thus Obama would beat expectations), that the February schedule is very favorable to Obama (thus he could build momentum), and that his enormous small donor base would give him a large fundraising advantage in a drawn out campaign (thus he could build a resource advantage heading into March and beyond). However, while a 'draw' means about 9-12 states and 820-850 delegates, Clinton can actually deal what is more or less a knockout blow if she wins 950 delegates or more."

Several liberal bloggers are discussing the tightening race in CA:

Ezra Klein: "It's worth noting that tons of California voting is done by mail, and that was all conducted before the recent Obama surge. So HRC has a pretty serious advantage there."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Remember, Californians vote heavily by mail, and absentees were mailed out to people two weeks ago or so. So there are a fair amount of [John] Edwards and [Dennis] Kucinich votes already in the can. Still, the number of undecided is large. If Obama can maintain his late surge, he may still squeeze out the narrow win."

OBAMA: Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not

We observed on 2/1 that liberal bloggers appear to be coalescing behind Obama, as evidenced by the latest Daily Kos straw poll, in which Obama leads HRC 76-11%. However, we would be remiss in not pointing out that Obama still has a number of fierce critics at websites such as The Left Coaster, TalkLeft, MyDD, and TaylorMarsh.com. Many of the front-page diarists at these websites disagree fundamentally with Obama's message, and they are unlikely to support him anytime soon. Obama remains a Rorschach test for progressive bloggers, who assign to him whatever beliefs (good or bad) they think he holds.

MyDD's Todd Beeton thinks the progressive blogosphere has been "taken in" by Obama: "It's hard not to conclude that so too has the progressive blogosphere been taken in, as they have to a large degree annointed the less progressive and the less overtly partisan candidate as their own, thus giving up two fights that once were central to the movement's raison d'etre. What's been quite amusing in the wake of the embrace of Obama by the wine-track progressives is to watch them bend over backwards to justify things Obama says or does, from his was-it-or-wasn't-it praise of Ronald Reagan to his less than progressive policy positions on several issues."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat also has major problems with Obama, but he has a slightly different take than Beeton: "I do not question that Obama is a progressive and will WANT progressive policies. My leap of faith is based on believing Obama will adjust his political style and tactics and become much more of a contrast candidate and a Fighting Dem. I think his last debate performance was evidence of that change in style. Unfortunately, too many of his supporters, like Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano right now on CNN, still play the kumbaya game in stumping for him. They need to stop."

In contrast, Daily Kos' DHinMI thinks Obama is "a solid liberal" who deliberately avoids sounding partisan in order to appeal to voters: "I realize Obama appeals to independents as a 'post-partisan.' I'm a partisan, and as I've argued before, because the Republican party has become so radical, we can't wait for bipartisan solutions. But I've seen little in Obama's record or his rhetoric to suggest that in substance he's not a solid liberal. I find it hard to believe that he spent all those years representing an overwhelmingly Democratic legislative district, made up of African-Americans and highly educated and engaged liberal intellectuals, as some kind of moderate Manchurian Candidate, just waiting to become president so his Broderesque centrism could fully bloom. Furthermore, I think it's a virtue that he's become a bit of a Rorschach candidate, with people imbuing him with whatever of their beliefs they think he holds. If people thinking he's 'post-partisan' (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) helps him be a progressive president, get us out of Iraq and pass a good national health care plan and fix our economy, that's fine with me."

Chris Bowers, who has harshly criticized Obama in the past, considers Obama a "people-powered" candidate in spite of the fact that his rhetoric differs from that of the netroots: "Let's see here: a campaign that uses extensive internet organizing, huge campaign rallies, heavy youth and creative class support, a record breaking number of small donors, a fulfilled promise of record turnout, and combination of [Howard] Dean and [Wesley] Clark voters to force the best possible candidate the Democratic establishment could offer down to the wire? Correct me if I am wrong, but in terms of structure, that seems to be exactly what the emergence of the progressive blogosphere suggested could happen in a Democratic Presidential primary in 2004. Just because the campaign in question was not, seemingly, single-handedly plucked from relative obscurity by a few prominent bloggers does not mean the Obama campaign is not using the exact same energy and exact same new, political trajectory that the blogosphere was riding back in 2003-2004."

Bowers concludes: "The political zeitgeist that the progressive blogosphere first seized upon five or six years ago was released into the population at large and came back, unexpectedly, as the Barack Obama campaign. That energy certainly didn't turn out with the same rhetorical approach it started with, but otherwise it is nearly structurally identical. In other words, the whole people-powered thing turned out exactly the way we planned it would, only that it sounds a little different."

Open Left's Matt Stoller thinks Bowers' description of Obama's progressive coalition "is true, but insufficient": "Obama's coalition [also] includes DC journalists and the Clinton-hating establishment. When Dan Gerstein, Chris Matthews, Bill Bennett, and Joe Scarborough -- to pick four at random -- are incessantly praising Obama and bashing Clinton, it's worth noting because it's quite possible, even probable, that Obama will be just as polarizing as Clinton very soon after winning the nomination."

GOP FIELD: The Showdown On The Right

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "...In the end, most of the voters will make their decision based on their own logic, as they usually do. However, there will be one part of the showdown that may not survive, and that is the affinity of the conservative [talk radio] hosts for the Republican Party as an entity for conservative values. For that, High Noon has been a long time coming, and a McCain win may have some activists feeling very forsaken."

Campaign Standard's Richelieu: "Lots of talk in the media about McCain vs. The Mighty Wombats of Talk Radio. Ask President Tancredo about that one. The talkers can raise an issue to prominence, they can entertain, but they do not really deliver actual votes. Sorry Rush."

Meanwhile, Townhall's Patrick Ruffini is already looking beyond 2/5: "Should the Republican race go on, I'd expect McCain to have an advantage in the next wave of 2/12 primaries because of his moderate/Washington credentials. The next big stops would be delegate-rich Texas and Ohio on March 4th. By this point, Huckabee will probably have thrown in with McCain, testing what a one-on-one conservative vs. moderate race looks like in the most Republican large state of all, Texas. Here, Romney is not hobbled as he is in other Southern states, because his base, metro conservatives, is huge in Texas. Suburban Houston and Dallas is probably relatively hospitable territory for him. In Ohio, Romney would have a chance to reprise his economic success from Michigan."

ROMNEY: Conservatives Rally To The Cause

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff explains why he will vote for Romney: "On some of the most important issues of our time -- political speech, immigration, judicial nominations, taxation, and now climate change -- McCain has been more comfortable with liberal or centrist positions than with conservative Republican ones. Let's not deceive ourselves into believing that this will change if McCain gains the highest office in the land...So I end up favoring Romney. I suspect that many more Republicans favor McCain and, having taken this long to make up my mind, I certainly respect that point of view. And, while I'm fairly concerned about what a McCain presidency would look like, I intend to vote for McCain if he's the Republican nominee."

RedState's Brad Smith urges conservative bloggers to rally behind Romney: "I basically think John McCain will be at best a mediocre president, and be bad for conservatism and the Republican Party. I think he is a demogogue, I don't think he is too bright, and I don't think he has the temperment we want in a position of such power. I urge those who agree, or don't like McCain for other reasons, to make one more stab at preventing him from being our nominee -- give to Romney; urge friends to vote for Romney; go to www.mittromney.com and sign up to make calls for Romney this weekend."

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin thinks Romney can still win: "If Romney takes Utah (36) and Montana (25) and wins in California (largest Super Tuesday state), Georgia (third-largest Super Tuesday state), Missouri (fifth-largest), Massachusetts, and a smattering of small states (e.g., Tennessee, Montana, Alabama), he could still be in contention. It ain't over."

Hugh Hewitt still has hope for his candidate: "If the swing towards Romney in California continues, he will emerge from Tuesday's contest in a solid second place with a new narrative and a renewed debate about the race -- can Romney surpass McCain in Ohio and Texas in March? The rapidly fading Huck would simply disappear, as he is doing in many places where the obvious has already registered: A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain."

ROMNEY II: It's Not The Message; It's The Messenger

Several conservative bloggers are arguing that McCain's ascendancy is indicative of his rivals' flaws, not the waning popularity of conservative ideas.

NRO's Michael Graham: "John McCain didn't win this nomination. Everyone else lost it. Mitt Romney had every chance -- and then some -- to win this nomination. He campaigned hard, and with lots of money, in every key primary state. And in every key state where his father never served as governor, he lost. He came, he saw (and was seen), and he got 31% of the vote. He wasn't defeated by McCain. He's just a mediocre candidate."

Townhall's Matt Lewis agrees: "The idea that John McCain's recent success means the conservative movement is weakened is, I think, a wrong interpretation. I blame the candidates for failing to lock up our support -- not conservative voters for failing to rally around weak candidates."

NRO's Mark Steyn: "This problem is entirely of Romney's making. He needed a Mister-Moderator-I'm-paying-for-this-microphone moment, and every time McCain offered him one, with some contemptuous snarl in his direction, Mitt would put on his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger expression and say prissily that he wasn't going to descend to personal attacks. It's never good to play to your caricature, and Mitt's caricature...is that he's an insipid technocrat Ken doll propped up by a lavishly funded campaign."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Missed Opportunity?

Patrick Ruffini laments the fact that conservative bloggers took their eyes off the real target:

"For a long time, I was like most conservatives. I didn't think John McCain could win. As soon as that assessment changed mid- to late-December, my blogging honed in on McCain. At the time, most of the 'sphere remained obsessed with taking out the niche candidacy of Mike Huckabee. Of the big conservative pundits, I think only Hugh Hewitt and Mark Levin focused on McCain over Huckabee -- and even then, there was a fair amount of Huckabashing.

Six weeks later, here we are, with the hated Mike Huckabee with the same shot he had months ago (little to none), but fighting a desperate rearguard action against McCain with less than a week to execute. Sorry folks, but it's probably too little too late."

LEST WE FORGET: The Tracks Of Her Tears

Wonkette's Jim Newell comments on the news that HRC teared up this morning in CT:

"With Super Tuesday coming tomorrow, and polls showing Hillary Clinton in a dead heat with Barack Obama in states like, let's see...Connecticut...it seemed like a good opportunity to CRY again. Not that this has anything to do with anything, but Hillary Clinton did cry in New Haven today while discussing children's health care, one of the various things that she cares about. We're ashamed at Hillary for this: If she had planned it around mid-afternoon, it might be a fresher topic for the evening news cycle."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 12:58 PM

February 01, 2008

2/1: Obamamentum!

The overwhelming consensus in the liberal blogosphere is that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both shined during last night's CNN/Politico/Los Angeles Times debate. Most bloggers felt that Hillary was stronger during the discussion of healthcare policy, while Obama was stronger during the discussion of Iraq. However, liberal bloggers are pleased with both candidates, and it's clear that they will strongly support the Dem nominee, whether it's HRC or Obama.

That said, it appears that a majority of online progressives prefer Obama to HRC. John Edwards' withdrawal from the race has prompted a surge in online support for Obama, whose support grew by 35% in the latest Daily Kos straw poll (he now leads HRC 76-11%). The powerful liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org endorsed Obama today and will mobilize its GOTV operation on behalf of the IL senator. Will progressive bloggers and MoveOn activists provide Obama with the support he needs to make a strong showing on 2/5? We'll know the answer very soon.

DEM DEBATE: Everybody Wins!

Liberal bloggers were impressed by both candidates' debate performances:

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "After watching tonight's debate, I can honestly say that I'd be pleased with either Hillary or Obama as our candidate. It has been years since there's been an election in which I really liked our candidate, let alone liked both of the last two standing."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "It's going to sound lame, but I kind of think that both candidates basically did what they needed to tonight, particularly in the sense that neither had a major stumble that could have adversely affected their momentum going into February 5."

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Both did a great job. I think it was Obama's best debate yet. Hillary did well and was really up on the issues."

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I thought Clinton was stronger on discussion of healthcare policy, which dominated the first hour, while Obama was stronger on Iraq, which dominated the second."

DEBATE OBAMA: Getting Better All The Time

Most liberal bloggers thought that Obama benefited from the lengthy discussion on Iraq:

Arianna Huffington: "The most engaging part of the debate had to be the extended, sometimes contentious, exchange over Iraq. It was the most effective sequence for Obama, and the most important for the country -- bringing Iraq off the backburner and placing it front and center...Obama powerfully restated what is one of the essential themes of his campaign, that while it's important to be ready to lead from Day One, Clinton's mantra, it's even more important to be right on Day One."

TPM's Josh Marshall "In the context of the race, I think this [debate] helped Obama because it put the two of them on the same level, the same stature level. As I've said before, Obama in general has not been a good debater. But this was a good one for him...I guess on points I'd give this to Obama because of the exchanges on Iraq, but it was a very close call."

DEBATE CLINTON: Competence Personified

Most liberal bloggers thought that HRC gave an excellent performance:

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I think what Clinton did for herself was halt some of Obama's perceived momentum, restore confidence in her candidacy, even as on paper she's still favored on February 5th, there's been a creeping sense that Obama is catching her at just the right time and coming up fast."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Obama scored some good points regarding his debating skills and on Iraq. But Hillary significantly improved her likeability quotient. In politics generally, but especially in this race, I think it is clear that Hillary's advance last night is the more significant one. A good night for both. A more productive night for Hillary Clinton."

Ezra Klein: "I was struck...by how much I prefer Hillary Clinton to the Hillary Clinton Campaign, or the Hillary Clinton Campaign as represented by Bill Clinton."

That said, several bloggers thought that HRC struggled in explaining her Iraq vote:

Steve Benen: "Clinton still seems awkward talking about her 2002 vote. She doesn't want to admit a mistake, but she also doesn't want to stand by her previous position. It leaves her in a tough spot, politically and rhetorically."

TAPPED's Harold Meyerson: "The more [HRC] argued that she had interpreted the October 2002 vote to authorize the war as a vote to authorize inspections, the more deeply ridiculous she became. At the time, the common understanding of the vote was that it authorized war."

DEM FIELD: The MoveOn Primary

The Nation's Ari Melber: "It's on. MoveOn's endorsement primary began Thursday, as hundreds of thousands of activists are expected to cast virtual ballots deciding whether the netroots group will formally back Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama...The actual primary requires a supermajority of 66%."

Open Left's Matt Stoller makes a prediction: "I think it's likely that Moveon members will go for Obama, simply because Hillary Clinton has failed to account for her Iraq vote and has failed to lead on any progressive issue in the Senate. Obama has a tribal pull on Moveon members, both generationally and culturally, but this could have been offset by an ideological argument from Clinton, one she didn't make. If Moveon goes for Obama, Clinton will be reaping her own harvest."

That said, Stoller doesn't think MoveOn should endorse Obama: "Moveon's support, and frankly, our support of the Democratic leadership is misplaced. Those people in Congress are not on our side, and it's foolish to believe that the next President, who will come from that failed Democratic insider culture, will be on our side. So endorsing a candidate like Obama is dangerous, and it's important to endorse carefully based on progressive values in whatever ads and field campaign happens, and to long-term pull power away from the imperial Presidency."

Open Left's Chris Bowers agrees with Stoller: "Two weeks ago I presented my case for why I prefer Obama to Clinton...However, as a member of MoveOn.org for about seven years now, I voted for Hillary Clinton in their presidential endorsement vote. Why? Not because I think MoveOn.org should endorse Hillary Clinton, but because I don't think they should endorse Barack Obama. Obama skipped the vote to chastise MoveOn.org a few months ago, while Clinton showed up and voted against chastising them. No thank you sir, I don't want another. What kind of message would it send if Obama can skip a vote like this, and still be endorsed by MoveOn.org over a candidate who voted no? Certainly not the sort of message I want to send about the netroots and new progressive infrastructure. If you betray our institutions, don't expect our institutional support during primaries. Allegiance needs to flow both ways in order for an alliance to be functional."

UPDATE: At 11:43 AM, Melber reports that MoveOn will endorse Obama: "Obama led the final tally 70.4% to 29.6%, clearing the supermajority required for the endorsement. MoveOn, which has never endorsed a presidential candidate before, boasts that it has 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states. The group has over half a million members in California alone -- roughly one out of ten primary voters in Tuesday's largest state...Organizers said they would 'immediately' begin mobilizing on behalf of Obama, with volunteer turnout programs and phone-banking MoveOn members in targeted states."

OBAMA: Bloggers Jump On The Bandwagon

Now that Edwards is out of the race, progressive bloggers appear to be coalescing behind Obama:

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Jon Chait and Harold Meyerson both nail down what, to me, is the fundamental political case for Obama -- that to pick Hillary Clinton would be to reconcile ourselves to playing between the 49 yard lines at a time when it looks feasible to open the game up and throw downfield...[Bill Clinton] governed well and proved to a country that had come to doubt it that Democrats could be trusted to run the federal government. But is 2008 the hour of Mark Penn? I don't see it."

The Nation's Christopher Hayes makes a similar argument in his endorsement of Obama: "Which of the two Democratic candidates is more likely to bring to fruition a new progressive majority? I believe, passionately and deeply, if occasionally waveringly, that it's Barack Obama...Given a certain ceiling on Clinton's appeal (due largely to years of unhinged attacks from the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'), her campaign seems well prepared to run a 50 percent + 1 campaign, a rerun of 2004 but with a state or two switching columns: Florida, maybe, or Ohio. Obama is aiming for something bigger: a landmark sea-change election, with the kind of high favorability and approval ratings that can drive an agenda forward. Why should we think he can do it? The short answer is that Obama is simply one of the most talented and appealing politicians in recent memory. Perhaps the most."

The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca urges progressive bloggers to unite behind Obama: "This primary campaign has been distilled down to what amounts to Joe Lieberman versus Ned Lamont. It's now about a competition between a new and inspirational paradigm -- a watershed movement inside the Democratic Party, not to mention a total redrawing the electoral map and an advancing of Howard Dean's 50-state strategy -- versus the shifty, triangulating DLC crap-on-a-stick approach to politics that has, more often than not, made us embarrassed to be Democrats...Somewhere along the line, it became de rigueur among some of the top-shelf progressive bloggers to remain neutral. I understand exactly why they did, but now that it's a two person race, there's no reason why the progressive blogosphere shouldn't get down to endorsing a candidate. And while the endorsements could easily be for either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton, they ought to be, by-in-large, endorsements that are consistent with the blogosphere's past activism against Democrats like Joe Lieberman, party machines like the DLC, and political stunts that reek of the current Bush Republican regime."

Meanwhile, Big Tent Democrat, who's been a longtime Obama critic, mourns the fact that the netroots prefer Obama to HRC: "With John Edwards out, there is nothing holding back the tide now. The Left blogs will go all out for Obama and will go after Hillary hard. With the exception of a few isolated pockets, the Big Blogs, the wonk blogs, Big Media blogs, all of them, are all pro-Obama now. A poor Clinton supporter will be hard pressed to find a port in this storm, or even a place where Hillary gets half of a fair shake. But don't sweat it too much Hillary supporters, this too shall pass one way or another. Either Hillary takes control on 2/5 or Obama gets the leg up. And it is likely that the nomination will be decided next week. Either way, the Left blogs will stop hating the Clintons again next week after the 2/5 primaries."

OBAMA II: The Most Liberal Senator? That's News To The Netroots

Knowing how Republicans used National Journal's vote rankings against John Kerry in 2004, liberal bloggers are very critical of the latest edition, which declares Obama "the most liberal senator in 2007."

The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins: "Barack Obama -- you know, the huge [Ronald] Reagan fan! -- is the undisputed number one liberal in the world...What does it all mean? Frankly, not much more than the National Journal finding 'liberals' to be scary! The whole endeavor is a twisted skein of fuzzy math and ever shifting standards."

Ezra Klein: "These ratings, of course, are a bit skewed in presidential years, as candidates on the trail only come back for high profile votes, and if you're running as a liberal, you cast the lefty vote on all those issues. During [Obama's] first two years in the Senate, he ranked 16th and 10th."

Steve Benen: "It's worth noting how very flawed the methodology is. Indeed, it was misleading in 2004, and it's equally misleading now. Taking a closer look at this year's results, Obama and Joe Biden were both considered more liberal than Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders. This, alone, should make one wonder about the reliability of the rankings."

Brian Beutler: "I think progressive commentators everywhere really ought to avoid burning a lot of pixels ruminating about who this helps and hurts electorally, and instead should call bullshit on the rankings themselves...National Journal relies [...] on a weird system by which a senator who takes the 'liberal' position 95 times out of 100 is somehow less liberal than his colleague who takes the liberal position 48 times out of 50...this is philistinism masquerading as social science -- it's the U.S. News College Guide of Washington politics."

Chris Bowers is actually somewhat pleased by the news: "I think the National Journal results are a hopeful sign that progressive and liberal pressure had a positive impact on how Clinton and Obama both voted in 2007. Primary campaigns are one of the few instances where we can leverage pressure, and just like in 2003 it seems to have worked. Their rankings make me feel a bit better about both Clinton and Obama, and a bit better about preferring Obama to Clinton."

MCCAIN: The Blogger Beatdown Continues

Michelle Malkin: "So, Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed John McCain. He extolled McCain for 'reach[ing] across the political aisle to get things done'...To which I say: When did it become the Republican Party's top priority to 'get things done?' 'Get things done' is mindless liberal code for passing legislation and expanding government. And as McCain's ample legislative record demonstrates, 'reaching across the political aisle' never entails pulling opponents to the right. It always entails selling out the right."

NRO's Mark Levin: "I fear a McCain candidacy. He would be an exceedingly poor choice as the Republican nominee for president...if conservatives don't act now to stop McCain, he will become the Republican nominee and he will lose the general election. He is simply flawed on too many levels. He is a Republican Hillary Clinton in many ways."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt announces that conservative talk radio hosts will spend the next few days hammering McCain: "Conservatives care about judges in ways Senator McCain simply does not, and that message is going to be broadcast again and again this week, and weekend, as well Senator McCain's record on the First Amendment, tax cuts, ANWR, and of course illegal immigration...Expect the talkers, led by Rush [Limbaugh] but seconded by [Laura] Ingraham, [Bill] Bennett, [Dennis] Prager, [Glenn] Beck, [Sean] Hannity, Levin and me to spend the next few days putting down a marker: McCain is a very weak general election candidate, and if he was to win, would not govern as a conservative in any significant way."

That said, Hewitt will still support McCain if he wins the GOP nod: "If Ann Coulter declares again that she'd campaign for Hillary at CPAC, she will be booed and rightly so. Not only did her grandstanding on Hannity & Colmes divert attention from the real issue before conservatives -- the need to abandon the idea of voting for [Mike] Huckabee or [Ron] Paul and rally to [Mitt] Romney -- she further fractures an already deeply divided GOP. I have no doubt that most of the anti-McCain voices and voters will throw in with him if he is the nominee, but he doesn't have to be the nominee...I'll sign up for McCain if he is the nominee, but it will be with the same sort of sense of gloom that pervaded the [Bob] Dole campaign in 1996."

Meanwhile, Hot Air's Allahpundit explains how McCain can earn his support: "[McCain] can make this happen, all he has to do is (a) fire Juan Hernandez, (b) stop equivocating about his amnesty bill, and (c) demonstrate a commitment to border enforcement beyond 'my bill is dead.' Show us that you get it and want it, and that you're committed to not 'getting things done' on this front if the 'things' the Democratic Congress has in mind mean amnesty. Hillary-hatred has bought you a new line of credit, Maverick. But woe unto him who has to contend with Obama..."

MCCAIN II: C'Mon, He's Not That Bad

Several conservative bloggers are pushing back against the anti-McCain explosion:

NRO's Jonah Goldberg chastises his fellow Cornerites for piling on McCain: "I disagree with the overwhelming impression that supporting McCain is some kind of lunacy...McCain wouldn't be my first pick. Then again, none of the candidates were really my first pick. But I think the notion that, variously, conservatism, the country or the party are doomed if he's the nominee or the president is pretty absurd. And I find such claims odd coming from some people who've insisted for a couple years now that the war on terror is the #1 overriding issue of this campaign."

RedState's absentee also defends McCain: "[McCain] is conservative, as in he is more conservative than he is not conservative...When someone claims that John McCain is a liberal, they impugn my character, not to mention insult my intelligence."

RedState's Mark Kilmer: "To be sure, John McCain is not consistently conservative on every issue; in fact, he's remembered by many conservatives for the issues on which he is somewhat wacky. But that being said, he is certainly more conservative than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and quite possibly he remains more conservative than Mitt Romney...John McCain will be our nominee, and there are certain indicators which lead me to believe that Ronald Reagan would want Republicans to back the Republican. Let's do it, okay? If it's going to be Hillary Clinton, it is personal."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "For all of his flaws, and there are many of them, John McCain is far to the right of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Those of us on the Right tend to downplay that, because a betrayal by someone on our own side stings much more sharply than one from a Democrat, but it is something conservatives should be willing to admit. It's also worth noting that these claims that McCain will destroy the conservative movement are unlikely to be true or alternately, if they are, then the conservative movement is probably too fragile to last any way...if John McCain is the nominee, you should think very hard about holding your nose and voting for the viable candidate who would do the most good for our country."

ROMNEY: Calling All Conservatives!

Many conservative bloggers are rallying behind Romney in a last-ditch effort to stop McCain from winning the nomination:

Hot Air's Bryan Preston: "We need to stay in the house that Reagan built. I think it's do or die time for conservatives. Either we rally to Romney or we reconcile ourselves to McCain and all that that means. It's one or the other."

Hugh Hewitt: "Conservatives now face a very clear choice: McCain or Romney. A vote for Huckabee or Paul is a vote for McCain."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's Not Personal; It's Business

While defending McCain, Jonah Goldberg makes an interesting point:

"I think both the GOP and the conservative movement could benefit from a slightly more adversarial relationship. George W. Bush moved the party leftward and/or damaged the image of the GOP in many respects precisely because he was given the benefit of the doubt by conservatives who saw him as 'one of us.' It's not obvious to me that having a more transactional relationship with a Republican president would be altogether bad for the country, the party or the conservative movement."

LEST WE FORGET: "We Must All Do Our Part To Preserve This Climate Of Fear"

From The Onion:

"The last six years have been a golden age of American apprehension and mistrust. Thanks to the events of Sept. 11, 2001, all of America was united, standing shoulder to shoulder in sheer, unrelenting fear. But tragically, that atmosphere of panic and confusion has begun to fade, and without another terrible attack to bond us as a nation, we are dangerously close to entering a post-post-9/11 era.

We cannot allow that to happen.

We must all do whatever we can to preserve America by refocusing our priorities back on the contemplation of lethal threats -- invisible nightmarish forces plotting to destroy us in a number of horrific ways. It is only through the vigilance and determination of every patriot that we can maintain the sense of total dread vital to the prolonged existence of a thriving, quivering America.

Our country deserves no less than every citizen living in apprehension."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at 01:23 PM

Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.