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 February 21, 2008 12:52 PM