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 February 20, 2008 12:43 PM