February 25, 2008

2/25: You Ain't Crashing This Party

Liberal bloggers reacted to Ralph Nader's announcement that he will launch a third-party presidential bid with a mixture of anger, sadness, and contempt. A few bloggers are worried that Nader will siphon votes away from Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, but most bloggers doubt that the aging consumer advocate will pose much of a threat. One thing is clear, however: as much as the netroots criticize Congressional Dems for capitulating on issues such as Iraq and warrantless surveillance, they still believe that the Dem party is the best (and perhaps the only) vehicle for progressive change.

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers continue to try out their attacks on Obama, calling him a "former cokehead," "Mr. Pals-around-with-terrorists," "the most liberal candidate since George McGovern." Should Obama win the Dem nod, it is likely that we will see variations of these attacks in the coming months.

DEM FIELD: Go Home, Ralph

Many liberal bloggers are annoyed that consumer advocate Ralph Nader plans to run for president as a third-party candidate:

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Nader had better not be permitted in any presidential debate. He is not a real candidate, his support went from meager to pitiful the past two times he ran for president...What has Nader been doing the past four years? You haven't heard about a lot of consumer advocacy from Nader once he decided to be the herpes of presidential candidates. Talk about resting on your laurels. Nader handed us George Bush in 2000, and quite possibly George Bush in 2004, and now he has the nerve to complain about the Bush administration?"

Daily Kos' DHinMI: "Nader also says little about what he would do as President, revealing that he has no expectation of winning...He's painted a picture of himself in as a martyr, but he refuses to see that his saintliness will result not in his sacrifice but in the sacrifice of the legislative and consumer protections he's achieved, the ideals he claims to embody and protect, and the people on whose behalf he claims to act."

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "What [Nader] did in his career was remarkable, and yet, now on TV he's taking no responsibility for his lies during 2000. Watching him on TV, it's clear he hates the Democrats and just won't recognize that it's a different Democratic Party, one that is much more movement-based, than it is when he ran in 2000. Nader is part of the TV cult of personality model of politics, similar to Dennis Kucinich, and he sounds kind of pathetic."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias reacts to Nader's announcement with sarcasm: "After all, there's not a dime's worth of a difference between a candidate promising tax cuts, pushing more health risk onto individuals, a re-invigoration of George Bush's campaign to dominate the world through military force, and an industry-friendly approach to environmental issues and his rival who's promising substantial socialization of medical risk, a 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions, and end to the war in Iraq (and to the mindset that led to war!), universal preschool, etc...basically it's just the same two corporate clones running on virtually identical platforms. Thank God for Ralph Nader."

DEM FIELD II: Bring It On, Ralph

Other liberal bloggers aren't nearly as upset about the prospect of Nader entering the race:

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "The fact is our candidates can be better on issues such as healthcare and Israel so I don't mind Nader there to try to push them a bit further to better; and to those who fear that Obama or Clinton would be too librul (!) maybe Nader will serve as a reality check, evidence that Obama and Clinton's views are more mainstream than the Republican Party and John McCain would have them believe. But Nader's right on one thing, that if we can't beat the Republican this year, we might as well pack it up and go home, so I say bring it on, Ralph. Our candidate will wipe the floor with John McCain with or without Nader in this race."

Atrios is blasé: "Ralph. Who cares? .38% in 2004. I could get .38%."

The Huffington Post's Marc Cooper: "What does Nader expect this time around? He has no funding, no party structure behind him, and no rational way of explaining of what he could possibly accomplish. More disturbing, he has no visible constituency. The overwhelming bulk of what might be called the Nader Vote has been swept into the vortex of the Obama campaign."

DEM FIELD III: Should Blue Majority Endorse?

Open Left's Chris Bowers makes an announcement: "Tonight, we at Blue Majority are asking our readers on Daily Kos, Open Left, and Swing State Project a simple question: should we endorse in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign tomorrow, or should we wait until the nominee is certain?...While we were always going to place the presumptive Democratic nominee on the Blue Majority page as soon as s/he emerged, over the next month several new candidates will be placed on the Blue Majority page in anticipation of the March 31st fundraising deadline. With the overwhelming majority of progressive, grassroots, electoral energy current focused on the presidential nomination campaign, we believe that the newly added candidates will receive vastly more support if there is a presidential candidate on the Blue Majority page. And yes, you know which candidate we are talking about."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "No one thinks Obama really needs whatever amount of money we'd raise on his behalf in the next couple of weeks. This is really about looking for some coattails for the congressional candidates on our fundraising list. Regardless who our presidential nominee is, he or she will need a Congress full of more and better Democrats. We can do our part to make that happen...Still, this is controversial move, obviously, so we're putting it to a vote, and it will take a 2/3rds super majority of our communities to pull the trigger."

OBAMA: The 50-State Strategy

Several liberal bloggers are impressed by Obama's extensive GOTV operation, and are excited about what this could mean in November:

Atrios: "Various people have written in about their experiences with the Obama campaign in various capacities -- attending events, volunteering, being contacted at home, being a precinct captain, etc... -- and it does sound like the campaign has made extraordinary use of organizing. People who attend events are contacted, internet tools allow quality organizing and phonebanking from home, etc."

Markos Moulitsas: "Hillary Clinton's campaign was always a swing-state 50+1 percent affair. She'd win in November, but by once again ignoring most of the country in favor of an elite few 'purple' states. Watching Obama build his incredible ground operation across the country, I can't help but hope that this newly built infrastructure stays in place through November. We must build long term, in every state, toward a solid future progressive majority. We can help downticket races, even in states where our presidential nominee won't likely win. And we need to run up the popular vote...The media thought Bush's 3 percent victory in 2004 was a 'mandate'. Let's mobilize Democrats from show them what a real mandate looks like. Let's aim for a double-digit 55-45 popular vote victory or better, with increased Democratic majorities in the House and Senate."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat disagrees with Moulitsas: "For all the talk of 50 state strategies, this general election will be won or lost in the same states as in 2000 and 2004 -- Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania...It is great that Obama has energized Dems in Utah, Idaho and Alabama, but that is not going to be where he will be fighting in a general election. Which is why it would be nice if Obama could demonstrate an ability to win a big contested state like Ohio or Pennsylvania in the primaries. This is still where Presidential elections are won or lost."

OBAMA II: Swift-Boating 2.0

The netroots are slamming a 2/24 AP article entitled, "Obama May Face Grilling On Patriotism: No Flag Pin, No Hand Over His Heart: Is He Exposed?" Liberal bloggers believe that this article -- which was written by a reporter (Nedra Pickler) who has angered the netroots before -- is biased. The netroots are also furious that CNN displayed a poll on its homepage with the question, "Does Barack Obama show the proper patriotism for someone who wants to be president of the United States?"

TPM's Josh Marshall: "That's how it works. [It] starts at right-swing smear sites and hoax emails. Then the AP's Nedra Pickler, who specializes in scooping up this slop and laundering it into the mainstream press, writes it up for the AP that runs across the country. And then [CNN] picks it up and makes it a regular part of the campaign conversation."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Some attention-seeking right-wing talk radio host on Fox News labels Obama a 'domestic insurgent' and the Fox host suggests Obama is unpatriotic. Pickler writes it all down, gets some confirming quotes from GOP operatives, and then files a 'news article' based on it. And now MSNBC, on its front page, is heralding the vital question: 'Is he exposed?' For all the attention the dubious NYT story about McCain received, those tactics, and far worse, are par for the course in how 'reporters' like Pickler demonize Democratic candidates in every national election. That a Democratic candidate is accused of being an unpatriotic subversive Terrorist by Fox News and the Roger Stone's of the world isn't exactly 'news.'"

John Aravosis: "What is this, the McCarthy era? AP is now willing to write any crap, so long as it's a Republican saying it about a Democrat? AP knows damn well that Obama doesn't hate America. This isn't a he-said-she-said. It's a case where AP is genuflecting to the Republicans and regurgitating their crap in a way Pickler and her fellow reporters wouldn't dare do if the victim were Republican. Has Pickler ever written a story about John McCain being insane? Being senile? Somehow I doubt it."

Firedoglake's Attaturk: "After spending the 1980s trying to coopt the flag and getting us into a disastrous war by implying those opposing it are traitors, the right-wing machine is going even further, by questioning a Democratic Presidential Candidate's patriotism. And the media, starting with Nedra Pickler, the 'launderer' of right wing talking points at the Associated Press, is picking up on the wurlitzer right on cue."

OBAMA III: Are You Experienced?

Liberal bloggers are debating the effectiveness of HRC's attacks on Obama's experience (or lack thereof). Several liberal bloggers think this is a foolish (and potentially self-defeating) line of attack:

Scott Lemieux: "Arguments for Clinton proceeding from her allegedly greater experience have always been unpersuasive, precisely because if Clinton's rather marginal and contestable experiential advantages over Obama should be decisive any of the other major Democratic candidates would be unquestionably preferable to either. (And, even worse, the same would be true of McCain in the general.)"

Matthew Yglesias: "If you win a primary on an 'experience' argument, then you'd damn well better be more experienced than your general election opponent. McCain would make an experience argument against either opponent, so it's much better to be the opponent with a record of statements aimed at rebutting such arguments (I don't think the American people judge your qualification based on duration of service in a broken Washington system...) than to be the opponent who's been making the argument that voters need to stick with the more seasoned Washington hand."

Other bloggers think Obama's lack of experience is a significant issue:

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "The problem with Obama isn't that he's less experienced than Hillary, but that he's inexperienced, full stop. And again, like it or not, John McCain will certainly use that as an argument in the general election campaign in a way he couldn't against Hillary. Sure, he's got 25 years to her 15, but that doesn't matter. Beyond a certain point voters aren't interested in who's got more experience, and 15 years is well beyond that point. If McCain tried to paint Hillary as inexperienced, it would be a waste of breath. Nobody would buy it."

Big Tent Democrat: "Whether fair or not, whether ultimately effective or not, if Barack Obama is the nominee, John McCain will call him inexperienced. That it has had limited effectiveness for Hillary Clinton does not mean it will not work for McCain."

OBAMA IV: Opening Salvos

Righty bloggers continue to prep their anti-Obama arguments:

Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Mr. 'Pals around with terrorists' doesn't wear a flag pin, doesn't put his hand over his heart for the national anthem, Mr. 'My wife isn't proud of her country' -- isn't patriotic enough to be President."

RedState's Erick Erickson: "A week from tomorrow, Texas will either prolong the bloody battle for the Democratic nomination or give the nomination to a self-admitted former cokehead...Let's presume, if we will, that Texas goes for Barack Hussein Obama, a name that is not quite poll tested and mother approved...We will remind people that Obama admitted using cocaine...The Democrats, God bless 'em, are about to hand us the prototypical liberal boogeyman as their nominee...Obama thinks he can repackage [liberalism] in new rhetoric and move it to the left of Hillary. He cannot. I relish the fight against the man who has no problem with porn shops across the street from elementary schools and terrorist leaders in the White House."

Jennifer Rubin: "After his victory last week in Wisconsin and again at the Austin debate, Obama revealed himself to be the most liberal candidate since George McGovern. He is not thrilled with building a border fence. He wants to meet with Raul Castro. He will raise taxes and spend a boatload of money on new programs. He will exit Iraq pronto and spend that money on domestic programs. He opposes any restriction on partial birth abortion and thinks the District of Columbia's total handgun ban is a 'common sense' regulation...There is a reason why Obama gained Ted Kennedy's endorsement: He is the perfect messenger for an agenda Kennedy has been waiting 40 years to enact."

NRO's David Freddoso: "Even if it is pathetic for Obama to 'borrow' Deval Patrick's empty speeches, Republicans should be cautious about relying too much on his lack of substance to win this year's election. Voters are often willing to overlook a lack of substance, as Patrick and many others have demonstrated by winning their elections...Obama's bigger weaknesses are his inexperience and his propensity to say meaningful but stupid and dangerous things -- not his failure to say anything meaningful."

CLINTON: You Can Run, You Can Hide, But You Can't Escape My NAFTA

Liberal bloggers had mixed reactions to HRC's harsh words about two Obama mailers that (among other things) accused the NY senator of supporting NAFTA:

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Hillary defends her NAFTA record?!? This is just getting weird...She's not running against Obama anymore -- she's essentially running against Bill [Clinton]. I mean, I really don't know how you utter the 'It took a Clinton to clean up after a Bush' line in one breath, and then in the next admit that he fucked up the job."

David Sirota: "However you feel about NAFTA -- and if you are a typical American, polls show you likely do not like it -- Clinton now trying to lie and say she never really supported NAFTA is an absolute insult. It further suggests that on really important economic issues, she's more than happy to lie about provable facts when it suits her political needs."

TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt has a different take: "Hillary can't afford to let Obama mislead Ohioans about her position on NAFTA -- as in Wisconsin, it will be a big deal there. I'm glad to see her fighting back hard on this one."

MCCAIN: Here's Your Campaign Finance Reform

Liberal bloggers are slamming McCain for his campaign's problems with the Federal Election Commission:

MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "This is an issue of integrity -- and John McCain's lack of it. What the DNC is asking the FEC to do is fairly simple: Require McCain's campaign to abide by the legally binding contract it created with the federal government to enjoy the benefits of the public financing system -- benefits his campaign has already used -- in return for abiding by the program's spending limits."

DHinMI: "Since he entered the federal matching funds program, John McCain is now essentially at the spending limit, and is legally prohibited from spending any more money until September. To spend more money would be to break federal law. That law, by the way, is sometimes named after its Senate sponsors: McCain-Feingold."

MCCAIN II: Nothing To See Here...

Conservative bloggers are concerned -- but not too concerned -- about McCain's problems with the FEC:

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein thinks the issue will eventually be resolved: "In all likelihood, [ex-FEC chairman Brad] Smith argued, McCain will either eventually be cleared, or, in the worst case, asked to pay a small fine way down the road. So in the end this is more a PR issue, insofar as the father of campaign finance reform will be portrayed as somebody who is using his clever lawyers to game the system, which is what he railed about for years."

NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Further complicating matters for the likely Republican nominee will be the instincts of conservatives, who may feel some hidden glee at watching McCain getting stuck in a Byzantine, over-regulated campaign finance system he helped create."

MCCAIN III: Veep Troubles?

NRO's Byron York: "Yesterday I talked to two of the top contenders for the John McCain VP slot: Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. We covered a lot of issues, and what emerged was a dilemma for McCain: If he selects a running mate whose conservative credentials are beyond dispute, he'll be choosing a candidate who likely disagrees with him on some issues of great importance to the Republican base. On immigration, both Pawlenty and Sanford didn't hesitate to say McCain had it wrong in the McCain-Kennedy bill."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey doesn't think this will be a problem: "Pawlenty and Sanford both give gentle but firm opposition to McCain's efforts on both [issues] in this interview [with York] -- which normally would signal a presidential nominee to avoid them as running mates. However, in this instance both men could make excellent emissaries to the conservative wing of the party. They can lay out the thinking conservative's case for enthusiasm in McCain better than anyone else, and at the same time lay out their own cases for higher public office in the post-McCain phase. It promises a means to influence in the next administration and grooming more palatable conservatives for the future."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Keep Dreaming, Bloomberg

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"As someone who regularly scoffs at Michael Bloomberg's third-party ambitions, and regularly suggests that Ron Paul ought to consider an independent bid (a suggestion that seems to have fallen on deaf ears), I don't know I missed this poll (via John Derbyshire) from a couple weeks ago, which showed Paul outpolling Bloomberg in the event they both mounted third-party candidacies. (In the increasingly likely event of a McCain-Obama race, the poll has Paul getting 11 percent of the vote, and Bloomberg only five.) Now obviously neither man is going to run, and just as obviously Bloomberg would have vastly more money to spend than Paul in the event that they both did, which would presumably boost his numbers at least slightly higher than this. But the poll is still a telling indicator of where third-party energy tends to come from -- i.e., not from Bloomberg-style center-leftism."

LEST WE FORGET: The Most Exclusive Club

Wonkette's Sara K. Smith:

"Unless Mike Huckabee gets the miracle he and his supporters have been praying for, one thing is certain: the next president will be a sitting senator. And, if current voting trends continue to favor Barack Obama, one other thing is certain: the next president will be part of a small, elite, and decadent club of weirdos who can't use regular scissors.

We refer, of course, to left-handed people.

Both Barack Hussein Obama and elderly war hero John McCain are left-handed, and as such are members of America's last openly discriminated-against minorities. Hillary Clinton is right-handed, and thus doomed never to be president: a strange and disproportionate percentage of recent presidents have been southpaws, including her husband, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at February 25, 2008 01:09 PM