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 February 22, 2008 12:40 PM