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 February 1, 2008 01:23 PM