February 26, 2008

2/26: Poll Position

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the latest polls for the 3/4 primary states: OH, TX, RI, and VT. It appears that Hillary Clinton has a big lead in RI and a smaller (but still substantial) lead in OH, while Barack Obama has a big lead in VT and (maybe) a slight lead in TX. If HRC loses TX but wins OH, will that be enough to keep her in the race until PA (where she currently has a double-digit lead)? Liberal bloggers seem to be divided on this question. Perhaps HRC can change the narrative at tonight's debate in Cleveland?

Meanwhile, many netroots bloggers are already treating Obama as the prospective Dem nominee. Markos Moulitsas was impressed by the Obama camp's "forceful" response to the Drudge photo controversy, which Moulitsas thinks "bodes well for the campaign ahead." Furthermore, Jane Hamsher has launched a letter-writing campaign to protest the AP's alleged "smearing" of Obama (which we documented yesterday). We've said it before and we'll say it again: should Obama win the Dem nod, the netroots will play an invaluable role in defending him against attacks (just as the rightroots will for John McCain).

DEM FIELD: Polls, Polls, Polls

Most of the recent OH polls (ARG, Quinnipiac, U of Cincinnati, Public Policy Polling) show HRC leading Obama by a comfortable margin, and most bloggers expect the NY senator to win the state:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "If the election were tomorrow, I'd guess a +5-7 point Clinton victory...Sure, Obama is gaining, but Clinton is also holding her support. And given she's around the 50 percent mark, Obama can't win unless 1) she starts weakening, or 2) Obama's turnout operation is better than Clinton's."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "So far Obama has not rebuilt his Wisconsin coalition [in OH]. While 11 points is closer than 21, Obama's inroads are not in Clinton's coaliton, as it was in Wisconsin. Clinton looks poised to win Ohio pretty comfortably."

The latest polls show a tight race in TX. CNN/Opinion Research, Rasmussen, and SurveyUSA all have HRC and Obama separated by less than 5 points, while ARG has Obama ahead by 8. Most bloggers give Obama the edge:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Texas is very close, but Obama will almost certainly win the delegate count there because 1/3 of the delegates are determined via caucus and because Clinton tends to be strongest in four-delegate districts that are very difficult to score a 3-1 edge."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "I would probably give Obama an advantage in Texas at this point -- even if a slight one -- primarily as a result of this clearly upward trend, but also because the apportionment of delegates across the state seems to potentially benefit Obama relative to Clinton and the additional caucuses held immediately following the closing of the polls in the state."
• Moulitsas: "I say [Obama would] win by 15 if the election was tomorrow. These polls are completely failing to capture the breath and depth of Obama's ground game and the excitement he is generating. But if nothing else, they're capturing the obvious movement in Obama's direction."

Most bloggers believe that HRC will win RI, as the latest ARG and Rasmussen polls show her leading Obama by 12 and 15 points, respectively:

• Moulitsas: "[Rasmussen] seems to confirm the significant Clinton lead. In fact, if I had to bet, I'd bet that Rhode Island is the state that stops Obama's winning streak."
• Bowers: "Clinton appears to have decent leads in Ohio and Rhode Island, the former of which is slowly shrinking while the latter remains stable."

The latest Rasmussen poll has Obama leading HRC by 24 points in VT:

• Bowers: "Obama is way ahead in Vermont, and will score an easy victory there."

CLINTON: What If...?

Moulitsas thinks HRC should drop out if she loses TX: "If the election was tomorrow, I'd expect big Obama wins in Texas and Vermont, a big Clinton win in Rhode Island, and a narrow Clinton win in Ohio. Enough to keep her in the race? Hardly, especially given what will be worsening money problems and a prohibitive deficit in delegates and the popular vote. But who knows."

Big Tent Democrat agrees: "I am of the view that if Clinton loses Texas (I assume an Ohio victory), she should suspend her campaign. And of course she CAN win in Texas. But let's assume for the sake of argument, she does not. What then? [...] She will likely be significantly behind in the pledged delegate and popular vote counts. Because of this, it seems to me her chances for the nomination become slim to none. She would have lost the important narrative she could argue to super delegates, that Obama has not shown an ability to win contested big states and that a slim lead among pledged delegates and a virtual tie in the popular vote signals a tie."

Bowers disagrees: "Will Ohio and Rhode Island be enough for Clinton to keep going? There actually is no precedent for a candidate with over 1,000 delegates dropping out before the convention, so I would not be so sure. As long as she leads in Pennsylvania polls and any delegate count, if I was on her campaign staff I would advise her to keep going. However, financial realities and a desire to maintain a strong, post-election position within the Democratic Party might dictate otherwise."

CLINTON II: Too Hot?

Some liberal bloggers are unhappy about HRC's increasingly harsh attacks on Obama:

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Going positive, discussing ideas, isn't getting [Hillary] anywhere. So, it's now time for the kitchen sink. The thing is, all Obama has to do is duck and the nomination is his. And Hillary will spend the next week destroying 7 years of successful hard work getting people to like her again. She's only 60 years old, she has another shot at this, is this the way she wants to go out?"

The Huffington Post's Andrew Gumbel: "Clearly, Hillary is in mega-negative mode because she can think of no other way to keep fighting as her presidential aspirations evaporate before her eyes...The greatest damage Hillary is doing to herself is coming across as just another self-interested candidate willing to do and say anything to stay in the race. Her likeability has always been a weak spot. The more she lays into Obama, the more she risks coming out of this campaign not just defeated, but actively loathed."

TAPPED's Sam Boyd: "So much for Obama and Clinton skipping arm in arm into the sunset as people seemed to expect after the last debate. Today Clinton gave what was billed as a major foreign policy speech, but in fact was just her standard arguments with unusually direct attacks at Obama. Clinton also was viciously sarcastic about Obama yesterday, suggesting that he wanted to 'waive a magic wand' and have 'special interests disappear.' Of course, that would make him a naive simpleton which somehow doesn't quite seem plausible to me. Or maybe he's just a terrorist."

CLINTON III: Live By The Drudge, Die By The Drudge

Several liberal bloggers are accusing the Clinton camp of circulating a photo of Obama dressed as a Somali Elder:

TPM's Josh Marshall: "You've probably already seen that blaring headline on [Matt] Drudge's site, alleging that Clinton staffers have been circulating a 2006 photo of Obama in the garb of a Somali village elder with a turban...We spent the better part of the morning trying to get some comment from the Clinton campaign. For the first hour or more we couldn't get anything. Then we got this statement in which the Clinton camp says Obama should be 'ashamed' at saying the picture is 'divisive,' without addressing one way or another what they're accused of doing...Put it all together and the Clinton camp would appear to be unwilling to make even the most perfunctory denial that they are or were circulating this photo around. We held up on this because we never want to take Drudge as a fact witness for anything. But I think the Clinton camp's statement speaks for itself."

Big Tent Democrat: "I think Josh [Marshall] is right here. And shame on the Clinton camp for pushing this photo out there."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Drudge's piece is ambiguous -- who distributed the picture? who did it go to? -- but the Clinton campaign, given a chance to deny the charge, rather loudly declined to do so. So apparently they not only sent the picture around, but then issued a statement slamming Obama for complaining about it. Points for chutzpah, I guess, but not much else."

TPMCafe's M.J. Rosenberg: "Cynical as I am, I am still amazed that someone in the Clinton campaign not only circulated a photo of Obama in Muslim garb but that the campaign argues that there is nothing wrong with it...Sickening. The Clinton campaign needs to get a grip."

CLINTON IV: You Actually Listen To Drudge?

Other liberal bloggers believe that people are foolish to take Drudge's allegations seriously:

Markos Moulitsas: "Now I don't know when we started taking anything Drudge says at face value, but that hysteria could use a little calming down. In fact, I tend to believe the Clinton campaign when it claims that there hasn't been a campaign decision to push the, er, accusations."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "It's a sad day when any Democratic candidate [has] to deny any report on Drudge, lest they be called guilty without any proof...Drudge is a pox on the house of Democrats. It is a rightwing crap site that spews rumors designed to tear democrats down and divide us. I don't read it, link to it, or believe anything from that site."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "[This] whole thing was likely trumped up out of little or nothing by Matt Drudge to drive traffic."

OBAMA: You Come At The King, You Best Not Miss

Moulitsas is impressed by the Obama camp's response to the Drudge photo: "As I said a few days ago, I want to see how Obama responds to ridiculous attacks, and whether this was a Republican dirty trick or the work of a free lancing Clinton campaign operative is irrelevant. Obama's campaign has responded forcefully and with little hesitation. That bodes well for the campaign ahead."

Meanwhile, Salon's Glenn Greenwald is impressed by Obama's response to attacks on his patriotism (which we documented yesterday): "[Obama]'s not scurrying around slapping flags all over himself or belting out the National Anthem, nor is he apologizing for not wearing lapels, nor is he defensively trying to prove that -- just like his Republican accusers -- he, too, is a patriot, honestly. He's not on the defensive at all. Instead, he's swatting away these slurs with the dismissive contempt they deserve, and then eagerly and aggressively engaging the debate on offense because he's confident, rather than insecure, about his position."

Still, Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher has launched a letter-writing campaign to protest the AP's alleged "smearing" of Obama: "It was pretty much world-record speed with which the smears against Barack Obama's patriotism alley-ooped from the right wing attack machine into the pages of legitimate media, neatly laundered into the AP by Nedra Pickler. It then quickly leapfrogged onto CNN where a poll inquired as to whether Obama had sufficient patriotism to be president...As Glenn Greenwald notes, Obama's response was superb, but the fact remains that he should not be subject to these kinds of open smears in the first [place]...So we've set up a page where you can plug in your zip code and automatically send an email to the papers in your area who syndicate the AP and let them know this is beneath what you expect their coverage to be."

Crooks and Liars' John Amato urges his readers to follow Hamsher's lead: "Go over and send a letter here. We can't put up with these ridiculous right wing hack attacks by our media against Democratic candidates."

OBAMA II: Rising Negatives?

Many conservative bloggers are excited about a recent Rasmussen poll showing Obama with significantly higher unfavorable ratings than McCain:

Daily Standard's Brian Faughnan: "52 percent of the electorate is either committed to Obama or can be swayed to back him. For McCain, that number is a whopping 63 percent! In other words, Barack Obama -- the fresh and exciting embodiment of a new and bipartisan approach to politics -- is almost as polarizing as Hillary Clinton. It's John McCain who has a strong base of support and a great opportunity to bring a broad swath of undecided Americans to back him."

Power Line's John Hinderaker: "So far, at least, it is McCain, not Obama, who shows the potential to unite Americans across a broad ideological spectrum."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "This data looks somewhat different than the media portrayals of a huge national movement coalescing behind Obama. It may be more likely that the activists have turned out in force for Obama, and that the enthusiasm we see now will remain limited to that subset on the Left."

Meanwhile, Right Wing News' John Hawkins wants to raise Obama's negatives even further by launching a "Googlebombing" campaign:

"After getting some suggestions yesterday, I put together a list of links to push based on a combination of how damaging they are to Obama and the size of the source they come from, which will hopefully make it easier to move them up the search rankings. [...] If the election turns out to be as close as it was in 2000 and 2004, Googlebombs could, if they work, conceivably peel off enough votes to not just make a difference [...]

• Guess whose mentor is a Communist? Obama, that's who!
• Why isn't Obama patriotic enough to hold his hand over his heart for the Star Spangled banner?
• What has Obama got against flag pins?
• Obama wants to give away 845 billion dollars of your money to ungrateful Third World countries.
• Who loves to hang around with terrorists? Obama, that's who!
[...]"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Obama Vs. The Mac

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin predicts how Obama might go after McCain in the general election:

"There seem to be three possibilities. First, [Obama] will describe how horrible the [George W.] Bush years have been. There is always a segment of the population who will nod approvingly when told things are bad and getting worse. However, you cannot do this for long without sounding like a depressing scold. Moreover, with Bush not running it has limited utility...Second, [Obama] will talk about leaving Iraq. Or will he? If military and political progress continue, does his insistence that everything is just a mess begin to look as out of touch with reality as he is accusing the Bush administration of being? At some point it may be better to say as little as possible. Third, he can talk about all the things he wants to do. However...he does not have much that is not out of the liberal playbook and that rarely wins elections.

So, we are back to taking shots at McCain -- on age, on lobbyists, on anything he thinks plausible. Those who are expecting a high minded campaign may be sorely disappointed."

LEST WE FORGET: Press Is Mad That Obama Won't Pay Attention To Them

Wonkette's Sara K. Smith reacts to the new Politico article entitled, "Obama Stiffs, Stifles National Press":

"The 'love affair' between the national press and Barack Obama has taken a turn for the darkly dysfunctional. It appears that America's handsome Savior Prince has been a bit distant lately. He's been putting off a weird vibe and not texting them back. Was it something the press said? Is it possible Barry was just using the press for all the free hand jobs?

All signs point to yes! Of course, this is always how it plays out. The candidate talks to the press until they have made him popular and then he clams up, unless he is John McCain, in which case he will still hang out with reporters on his bus and tell the same jokes over and over again like a senile uncle, which he is."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at February 26, 2008 12:55 PM