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 February 12, 2008 12:52 PM